May 30th, 2010
Chaucer’s Pardoner: A Villain or a Moral Teacher?
According to Melvin Storm, the associations between pardoners with pilgrimages and pilgrimages and shrines with indulgences started in the later medieval church (Storm 810). For the later medieval pilgrims, in contrast with the earlier medieval pilgrims who made their pilgrimages “for the glorification of God”, undertook their pilgrimages for the sake of the “remission of temporal punishment for sin” (Storm 810). This shift in the attitude drew pilgrims away from the true portraiture of Christian pilgrims, as Geary quotes Heinz Lowe “lifelong wanderers whose only goal was to extend their liminality until the end of their journey on earth” (Geary 163). Consequently, instead of traveling to great Christian sites (i.e. Bethlehem and Jerusalem), pilgrims traveled to local sites seeking miracles or those “living links with divine power” (Geary 165). The misrepresentation of the concept of pilgrimages caused the emergence of the association of pardoners with relics, pardons and indulgences in late medieval England. Tracing back the starting point of both the concept of indulgences and relics, the emergence of the profession of pardoners and the association of pardoners with indulgences and relics can help in understanding the role of the Pardoner in the Canterbury Tales.
The way Chaucer uses his depiction of the Pardoner in his Prologue to support his overall objectives of his Tales, or, as Melvin Storm puts it, “the pardoner as a means of focusing the broad threat at a single, crucial point” (Storm 810), is the question that I will explore in this paper. I argue that the Pardoner‟s role in the pilgrimage is more significant than it seems. In fact, he occupies a significant “structural and thematic position” in the Tales (Storm 810). The reason behind Chaucer‟s emphasis on the Pardoner‟s function as a “fraudulent substitute” surpasses the Pardoner‟s threat to the whole concept of pilgrimage (Storm 811). In fact, it has a deep psychological reflection and explanation of the human nature.
In his Prologue, the Pardoner reveals his tricks to the pilgrims and offers them his relics even though he does point out that they are fake relics. To understand the significance and the objective of the pardoner‟s self-revelation, we need to look at his Prologue more closely. Moreover, I need to study the form and the technique of the Pardoner‟s sermon carefully, in order to figure out how he succeeded in communicating his message to the pilgrims. Finally, I will need to explore the nature of the moral lesson he wanted to teach the pilgrims and the means through which he approaches it. In light of the analysis of his character, I will reassess the categorization of the Pardoner‟s Prologue as confessional and the traditional view of the Pardoner as a villain.
To understand the role of the Pardoner in Chaucer‟s tales, it is important to study the tradition of indulgences in the Medieval Catholic history: how it started and how it changed throughout the centuries. According to the Roman Catholic catechism, an indulgence is defined as “a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven”, and Christians can receive this remission only
through “Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies which authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints” (Swanson 8).
According to the definition, sinners will be punished for their sins. However, those sinners still can reduce that punishment and receive salvation if they are discharged by the church, which is the only authority in that matter. The Church was not only concerned with providing sinners with the remission of indulgences, but it also urged them to “works of devotion, penance and charity” (Swanson 8). In contrast, Christians during Chaucer‟s time viewed indulgences simply as “a specific and quantified relaxation of penance and purgatorial pains” (Swanson 8). The contexts in which the word was used are surprisingly limited to refer to “relief of souls” rather than the broader meaning it had in the Pre-Reformation period (Swanson 9). In fact, people in that time did not distinguish between indulgences and the “other spiritual benefits in offer” and thus used the concept to mean both „pardon‟ and „brotherhood‟ correspondingly (Swanson 11).
Swanson claims that the start of using the word „indulgence‟ is unknown and suggests that the word „pardon‟, “in the Latin form of „venia‟ ”, is the one that was used during the 13th century (Swanson 10). Nevertheless, the concept of indulgences as “relaxations” of repentance offered by an official representative of the Catholic Church was present even though the word was not officially used. The emergence of the concept of indulgences started earlier to the appearance of the word, during the late 11th century (Swanson 10). In fact, it did accompany the Christian crusades as a reward to those who died for the sake of the Christian faith. In 1095 during the first crusade, Urban II promised those who joined his army what seemed like “plenary indulgences” or if we may call it „crusade indulgence‟ (Swanson 10). Thus, Urban asserted the papacy‟s right to issue and provide those kinds of grants, which became more widespread by the late medieval time. (Swanson 10). Moreover, the concept of purgatory played a central role in the “growth of the theology of indulgences” (Minnis 312).
Paul Needham intermingles the matter of indulgences with the significance of the invention of printing in the birth of both Book-printing and job-printing in the 15th century (Needham 28). Looking at original survived indulgences, Needham asserts, “Indulgences were intended to be sold” and he attributes this affirmation to the blanks spaces left for the name of the purchaser and the date of the sale (Needham 28). In addition, according to the Catholic doctrine, indulgences compensate for the penalties that sinners must pay for their sins whether in this life or in purgatory (Needham 29). This fact explains why people had a strong desire to pay the penalties for their own sins in this life to reduce their time in purgatory.
Thus, during the early Middle Ages popes “presupposed in the sinner a sincere repentance”, before indulgences became a matter of commerce and were sold and distributed in the late middle ages (Needham 29). Nevertheless, selling and executing copies of indulgences contributed to transmitting them to the papers of a family or a church that from their side restored them in public archives (Needham 31). Another advantage of granting indulgences was raising funds for some religious and social entities such as hospitals and guilds. As a way to attract substantial donations, hospitals and churches offered the donors in return “a gift of alms” by granting an indulgence (Needham 39). In that sense, indulgences helped in assuring some community services such as constructing or repairing churches, funding schools and hospitals and maintenance of roads and bridges (Minnis 313-314). In fact, some scholars such as Paul F. Palmer claim that indulgences are the reasons behind many of the social gains, which we attribute to European civilization (Minnis 314).
The concept of relics plays a big role in the characterization of Chaucer‟s pardoner since he gives his relics a big space in the Pardoner‟s Prologue (Malo 1). When the production of martyrs and heroic men ended by the early fifth century, the holy men in the following centuries were the friends of God who lived „heroic‟ lives ,not those who died “heroic deaths” (Geary 201). Christians started to go to those men to ask for assistance and those offered them “veneration” in various forms ,e.g. pilgrimages, vigils, prayers, symbolical offerings (candles or votive offerings of wax or wood) and material offerings (property or money) (Geary 202). In the 12th century, official churchmen did not decide who those holy men were but rather “an enthusiastic following” did (Geary 202). Since the bodies of saints were the most preferred medium through which God used them, relics became “the saints, continuing to live among men” (Geary 202). Therefore, relics were the primary means of human contact with the divine (Geary 168). Nevertheless, relics of saints had no value in themselves. In fact, they gained their value from the specific beliefs about them. In addition, they did not have a practical use, “they weren‟t even decorative” (Geary 200).
The Pardoner‟s profession in the medieval society started with the popularity of indulgences in Pre-Reformation England. According to Storm, pardoners carried both relics and indulgences, which served as substitutes for Christians for the “benefits of pilgrimage” and the visiting of shrines (Storm 811). When it was impossible , due to illness and other serious reasons, for some penitents to visit the shrines to get indulgences, they wrote letters to the Pope and sometimes to bishops and they wrote them letters back as „pardons‟ (Storm 811). Actually, even common people in that time considered indulgences as Storm quoting Herbert Thurston “much good as the recital of long prayers” or the undertaking of pilgrimage to a distant shrine (Storm 811). This popularity of indulgences stimulated the market and generated mechanisms to exploit them. In other words, there was a need to the rise of pardoners who contributed widely in distributing and aspiring indulgences.
Nevertheless, indulgences by conceptions of church law were not necessarily associated with money (Minnis 314) .In fact, indulgences were not sold out but “freely granted” and some of them served as “ inducements to prayer or pilgrimage” (Minnis 314). Defending the immaterial purpose behind the concept of indulgences, some scholars argue that it is not accurate to “speak of “buying” a pardon” because what the recipient pays is a donation to some charitable cause (Minnis 314). Moreover, the recipient should show that he is worthy of granting the pardon “through sincere and full participation in the sacrament of penance” (Minnis 314). Therefore, it is unfair to focus on the „reductive‟ view of indulgences as a “business model” and ignore the true purpose of them, which is merely spiritual.
In Chaucer‟s Canterbury Tales, the Pardoner is depicted in the Prologue as a real threat to the pilgrimage because he is able to have the pilgrims believe that “the relics he peddles can substitute for the sacred objects at Canterbury and that his pardons can provide the same advantages as the true indulgences promised by the shrine” (Storm 810).Therefore, the Pardoner is a threat to the pilgrims in two different ways “realistically as well symbolically” by persuading them that they have reached “an equivalent goal” (Storm 810). In one sense, he is a threat as a corrupter who fools the pilgrims and drives them away from the divine goal of their pilgrimage. In another sense, his indulgences are a threat in its indirect rivalry with the indulgences offered by the shrine. The Pardoner‟s greatest danger is „moral‟, which is, according to Storm, the greatest danger for „religious pilgrims‟. Storm refers to what Evan Carton considers the moral danger which is, as he thinks, centralized in how the pilgrims would be “distracted by the persons they met and the adventures they had along the way” (Storm 810).
Interestingly the Pardoner proclaims his intention behind his sermon from the very beginning; “I preche nothyng but for coveitise” (Chaucer 424).The Pardoner is smart enough to know that the pilgrims will not purchase his indulgences and his relics if he tells them that he is tricking them. Nevertheless, the Pardoner reveals himself to the pilgrims anyway. The big question to be resolved here is; why does the “the clever, intelligent Pardoner attempt to foist his relics off on an audience that already knows them to be fraudulent?” (Kamowski 2).It is illogical to assume that a pardoner, as a church representative, does not think about what he is preaching to people and how he is preaching to them, “I moot thynke / upon som honest thyng while that I drynke” (Chaucer 327-328) . Some critics might argue that the Pardoner‟s self-revelation was unintended and was due to him being drunk since he asked for wine before telling his tale. In response, I argue that even when the Pardoner asked for wine before he told his tale, he mentioned that he was thirsty which seemed as a conditional reason for wanting to drink wine. Furthermore, it is possible that drinking wine in that time was meant to fulfill thirst because drinking wine does not necessarily indicate getting drunk, a vice that the Pardoner preaches against. In addition, there was no reference, whether in his Prologue or in his tale, to the Pardoner drinking other than the one time he mentioned (Taitt 112).The Pardoner declares his intention in order to free the minds of the pilgrims from the suspicion of his intention. Moreover, he does so in order to avoid being “accused of attempting to hide his behavior or nature from his audience” (Taitt 112). In other words, he, interestingly, tries to be authentic about his in-authenticity.
The form of the Pardoner‟s sermon plays a big role in his success in communicating his moral lesson. It emphasizes the irony of using “analogous institutional and psychological inversions” by Christian preachers, which turn the Christian doctrines according to Hoerner‟s quotation of Max Weber, to “church bureaucracy” and the genuine sermons to simple “rote” (Hoerner 69). Clearly, the Pardoner uses a special technique in giving his sermon. Actually, Hoerner, referring to Patterson‟s expression, explains this technique as the Pardoner‟s reliance on “the language of penance” (Hoerner 70). Other literary tools he uses are exegetical structures, moral codes and allegory. In response to what Patterson considers the Pardoner‟s “abuse” of those tools which turn “souls into instruments of his greedy will” (Hoerner 70), I argue that his usage of those tools is an emphasis on the Pardoner‟s eloquent skillfulness to fool people even if he just had told them that he is fraudulent. In fact, the Pardoner refers to the irrational power churchmen have over people and the abuse of their authority, which they made equivalent to the divine authority. Pardoners made themselves an authority by, “a mixing of the concupiscent with the sacred”, instead of cleansing people‟s “longing for the created” (Hoerner 81). The Pardoner refers to the power he has to release people from their sins, a power that he gains from papal authority and that enables him to represent it:
And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame,
He wol come up and offer a Goddes name,
And I assoille him by the auctoritee
Which that by bulle ygraunted was to me.‟ (Chaucer 385-388)
Considering all of these facts in addition to the Pardoner‟s realization that the pilgrims did “delight with self-revealing tales” (Hoerner 91), I argue that the Pardoner used that “language of penance” intentionally. However, he does not do so in order to abuse the pilgrims, because no abuser can succeed to accomplish his abuse when he declares his intentions. Rather, it seems that the Pardoner had a moment of “anguished insight about the nature of power he was mocking” (Taitt 113), the power of promising hope of salvation to pilgrims whom he makes aware of their sinfulness. In fact, he uses that technique in order to create “an intimacy that draws the Pardoner out and establishes expectations of a confessional mode” (Hoerner 76). This “intimacy” and authenticity is what enables the Pardoner‟s tale to influence his fellow pilgrims, which can be sensed from the moment of silence that occurs when he is done with his storytelling. Seeing that influence, the Pardoner decides to break the silence and offers the pilgrims his relics, in order to bring them back to reality (Taitt 114). By doing so, the Pardoner tries to get the pilgrims to see their failure in distinguishing between „art‟, his performance, and „reality‟, his offer of relics (Taitt 114). In fact, performing that act, the Pardoner is trying to set an embodied example of the charismatic „power‟ he is mocking. The Pardoner acts his scene incredibly skillfully but at the same time, he wants the pilgrims to realize that it was an act, so that they leave theater to reality.
The reality that the Pardoner represents is the reality of paradoxes and contradictory meanings where nothing is what it looks like. The Pardoner claims that his only concern is economical gain while he does not show any sign of wealth or luxurious life. A wealthy person would not need to wander around to get some francs here and there. The economical gain the Pardoner mentions turns actually to be his contribution to the spiritual growth of the pilgrims, an intangible gain. Even though the Pardoner declares that he is sinful for cupidity while preaching the pilgrims against it, he still succeeds in communicating the moral danger of falling into that vice. Moreover, the Pardoner‟s seemingly materialistic motivation was used for achieving a spiritual purpose to illustrate the paradoxical reality. Human‟s judgment of right or wrong, good or bad and moral or immoral cannot be accurate because paradoxes emerge from each other and one gives birth to the other. The good intention of the pilgrim‟s pilgrimage was transformed into a bad intention, seeking a substitution action of the travel to Canterbury. Furthermore, the greedy immoral Pardoner was generous in teaching the pilgrims a moral lesson. In fact, he was, in a way or another, moral in demonstrating immorality to pilgrims, just as an actor who acts the role of a villain skillfully to enable his audience to see the harm of being that way and thus draws them away of it.
The fact that the Pardoner‟s cupidity leads the pilgrims to see their cupidity of taking indulgences as a substitute of the real objective of their pilgrimage, is the demonstrative act of the possibility of humans falling into sin even if they have good intentions in the first hand. The pilgrims find themselves considering offering to the Pardoner‟s relics, which they know are false, and moved by a story a corrupt Pardoner tells, who drives them away from their pilgrimage intentions. In fact, the Pardoner intends to make the pilgrims unaware and unable to “distinguish between good and bad, true and false, real and illusory” within themselves and their beliefs (Pearsall 362). This state of confusion swinging between those paradoxes is what the Pardoner wants them to experience in order to demonstrate the complexity of human nature, which consists of paradoxical extremes.
To reassess the traditional view of the Pardoner as a villain, I refer to the historical fact that a pardoner‟s profession was not associated with abuse of relics because it was “uncommon to his profession” (Kamowski 3). Moreover, even the portraiture of the Pardoner carrying false relics was “unusual (Storm 811).Therefore; I conclude that the Pardoner‟s abuse was an act, which was meant to contribute to “the target of Chaucer‟s satire” which was not the “quaestors” (Kamowski 3). In fact, the reason behind the “flagrancy” of the Pardoner‟s relics was not “the Pardoner‟s alone” (Kamowski 3). The Pardoner‟s “cavalier honesty” about his fake relics was intended to raise questions about the pilgrim‟s faith and skepticism and the motivation of their pilgrimage (Kamowski 2). The Pardoner attempts to “capitalize on the pilgrims‟ skepticism about relics as much as he hopes to exploit their faith in pilgrimage” in order to communicate the paradoxical nature of human motivations and psyche (Kamowski 2). He gets them to see that their seemingly „skepticism about relics‟ is easily transformed into faith in them, and their seemingly „faith in pilgrimage‟ is easily transformed into skepticism about it. The awareness of their skepticism is dramatically painful and ironic at the same time since they are on pilgrimage and supposed to show “an act of faith precisely contrary to that skepticism” (Kamowski 6).
By giving them an “exaggeratedly diabolical view of himself” (Pearsall 306), the Pardoner not only succeeds in “diverting the intentions of those he influences”. Indeed, the Pardoner unveils himself to enable the pilgrims to unveil themselves “so that they will realize how foolish they have been” in being moved by his performance even though he tells them that it is a performance (Pearsall 360) . Even though claiming to be immoral, the Pardoner teaches the pilgrims a moral lesson: that the likability to commit sins is ingrained in human nature, and cupidity does not necessarily emerge because of bad intentions. In fact, cupidity and generosity are two faces of the same coin.
Thus kan I preache again that same vice
Which that I use, and that is avarice.
But though myself be gilty in that synne,
Yet kan I maken oother folk to twynne
From avarice and soore to repente (Chaucer 427-431)
The Pardoner points out that the fact that he is sinful of cupidity does not indicate that he cannot teach the pilgrims a moral lesson. In fact, being greedy does not necessarily mean that he cannot drive them away of greed. By personifying a vice that is severely harmful, the Pardoner draws them away of it, a technique that seems more effective than directly preaching against it. In that sense, the Pardoner‟s Prologue is not really a confession, but rather a transformational and psychological enlightenment. It is a deep insight to human nature and the Pardoner is a true contributor to the spiritual growth of the pilgrims and their understanding of their complex psyche. Indeed, the Pardoner unveils his mask in order to show pilgrims how self-deceived they are in their judgment of themselves as more moral than he is.
This awareness of our ignorance of the human nature and the difficulty of categorizing its motives is what Chaucer attempts to comment on through the characterization of his Pardoner. Through his depiction of the Pardoner, Chaucer celebrates the humane dimension of human beings. In fact, Chaucer sheds light on the compassion he has towards each human being which ,according to Trevor Whittock ,enables him to see “a wonderful crooked beauty” in each of them (Taitt 114). Chaucer gives us an embodied example of tolerance and acceptance of our weaknesses and our sins. Representing the human side of each of us, Chaucer according to Taitt‟s quotation of Trevor Whittock, “rejoices in God‟s creatures” and thus considers the Pardoner “part of the glory of Creation” (Taitt 114).
Works Cited
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales Ed.Larry D.Benson . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
Geary, Patrick J. Living Within the Dead in the Middle Ages. Ithaca and London: Cornell Univeristy Press, 1994.
Hoerner, Fred. "Church Office, Routine, and Self-Exile in Chaucer's Pardoner ." Studies in the Age of Chaucer (1994): 69-98.
J.Fletcher, Alan. "The Preaching of the Pardoner." Heffernan, Editor Thomas J. Studies in the Age of Chaucer . Knoxville : The New Chaucer Society , 1989. 15-35.
Kamowski, William. "Coillons, Relics,Skeptcism and Faith on Chaucer's Road to Canterbury: An Observation on the Pardoners and the Hosts Confortation." English Language Notes v.28 (4) JUN 1991: 1-8.
Malo, Robyn. "The Pardoner's Relics ( And Why They Matter The Most)." The Chaucer Review No.1 Vol.43 2008.
Minnis, Alastair. "Reclaiming the Pardoners ." Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33:2 Spring 2003: 311-334.
Needham, Paul. The Printer & the Pardoner . Washington : Library of Congress , 1986.
Pearsall, Derek. "Chaucer's Pardoner : The Death of a Salesman ." The Chaucer Review no.4 v.17 1983: 358-364.
Storm, Melvin. "The Pardoner's Invitation : Quaestors Bag or Becket's Shrine ." Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. v.97 (5) 1982: 810-818.
Swanson, R.N. Indulgences in Late Medieval England. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Taitt, P.S. "Harry Bailly and The Pardoner's Relics ." Studia neophilologica v.41 1969: 112-114.
Wenzel, Siegfried. "Chaucer's Pardoner and His Relics." J.Heffernan, Editor Thomas. Studies in the Age of Chaucer . Knoxville : The New Chaucer Society , 1989. 37-41.
