In Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Pardoner’s Tale,” the Pardoner serves as a moral exemplum, in that he exemplifies vices such as avarice and drunkenness that every good Catholic should avoid. The Pardoner is surprisingly transparent about his faults however, as he outrightly embraces a love of wealth and alcohol that it uncharacteristic of the clergy; while corrupt, the Pardoner nonetheless appears as an exemplum of truth in addition to sin. That said, the Pardoner is a skilled preacher who uses language to persuasively advertise his false relics. Words thus become goods he sells to the public– objects that, like his relics, possess the potential for monetary gain. The Pardoner specifically personifies medieval rhetoric, or the use of poetic tropes …show more content…
such as metaphor and exemplum to elevate speech and sway his audience. This elevation occurs at the expense of truth and transparency however, as the Pardoner’s decorative words and rhetorical strategies veil his language with layers of symbolism and subjective interpretation. The Pardoner’s rhetoric therefore mirrors his relics; just as the relics pose as religious artifacts, his words possess the false promise of moral guidance. His use of biblical exempla for example present the Bible as a kind of linguistic relic that he compartmentalizes and dismembers. Moreover, his apostrophes to Christ’s bones or body parts fuse relics with figures of speech to further illustrate the falsity of rhetoric. Through comparing the symbolic nature of the Pardoner’s relics with the duplicity of his words, I will argue that Chaucer uses relics to parody the ways in which rhetoric often manipulates and divides words from their “entente” or signification. The Pardoner’s morally disingenuous exempla particularly liken his rhetoric to his deceptive relics. Exemplum however is the Pardoner’s favourite and most persuasive rhetorical device, as he states, “Than telle I hem ensamples many oon / Of olde stories longe tyme agoon, / For lewed peple loven tales olde” (Chaucer 435-37). In addition to the three rioters that he adapts from Thomas of Cantimpré’s “Exemplum 103,” he uses biblical characters such as Samson, Herod, and Adam to establish himself as a religious– and therefore moral– authority. In Poetria Nova, Geoffrey of Vinsauf testifies to the moral worth of proverbs and exempla, stating that an exemplum must “not sink to a purely specific relevance, but raise its head high to some general truth” (Vinsauf 22). That said, exemplum it is nonetheless a stylistic principle that primarily elevates one’s speech or writing. Although performance and truth are not mutually exclusive, truth is “nat [the Pardoner’s] principle entente: [He] preche[s] nothing but for coveityse” (Chaucer 430-433). While the rioters’ fates warn against gambling, drunkenness, and swearing, the Pardoner’s immoral intentions complicates the seemingly clear moral of his tale; no longer “cosin to the dede” (GP 741), his story lacks its corresponding “entente” and, as a result, its moral authority. The Pardoner’s exemplum in turn mirrors his relics– while the Pardoner claims that the relics will absolve or heal people, they, like the exemplum, are only performative. Chaucer thus uses this correlation to criticize rhetoric and illustrate how these rhetorical tropes such as exemplum only decorate lies rather than reveal truth. In addition to the rioters, the Pardoner’s biblical exempla also illustrate the correspondence between rhetoric and relics, as the way he compartmentalizes the Bible mirrors the way relics divide the body. Using Herod, Adam, and Lemuel to convey the dangers of gluttony and drunkenness, each exemplum offers itself as a microcosm of wisdom that fits into the Pardoner’s overall aphorism about greed– “Radix malorum est Cupiditas” (334). However, while the Pardoner’s familiarity with the Bible may establish him as a religious authority, his examples are excessive and reflect the absurdity of the Pardoner’s melodramatic sermonizing. Moreover, his exempla are taken out of their biblical context and thus lose much of their accuracy and evocative abilities. In describing Herod’s downfall for example, the Pardoner claims “Whan [Herod] of wyn was repleet at his feste, / Right at his owne table he yaf his heste / To sleen the Baptist John ful giltelees” (489-91). Here, the Pardoner reduces the very complex history between Herod and St. John the Baptist to a simple decision involving too much wine and food, falsely suggesting that Herod executed John the Baptist simply because he was too drunk or full. As with his other exempla, the Pardoner manipulates the Bible to bolster whatever version of the “truth” that will financially benefit him; Adam, John, and Herod become commodities that, like his relics, demonstrate false paths to righteousness. The Pardoner thus textually dismembers the Bible as a source of authority and his exempla become emblematic of his misleading rhetoric. The Bible in turn becomes a literary relic the Pardoner manipulates and sells back to the pilgrims. Chaucer therefore uses this textual dismemberment to highlight the inauthenticity of medieval rhetoric. However, the Pardoner’s overriding moral claim, “Avarice is the root of all evil” (1 Timothy 6:10), possibly serves as biblical mediator that unifies his exempla under a common theme or intention; while disparate and out of context, his examples nonetheless help direct his audience to an understanding of “general truth” about greed that Vinsauf advocates for.
The moral of “Radix malorum est Cupiditas,” is not necessarily transparent or unequivocally true however– instead, it is another rhetorical strategy that decorates rather than reveals. While the Pardoner introduces his aphorism as the moral foundation of his sermon and tale, he quickly undermines its ethical validity, stating a few lines later, “And in Latyn I speke a wordes fewe, / To saffron with my predicacioun, / And for to stire hem to devocioun” (Chaucer 344-46). Given Latin’s limited application amongst educated men and elite clergy, the Pardoner’s departure from the vernacular constructs a persona of both intellectual and religious authority; like many of his biblical exempla, “Radix malorum” is simply “saffron,” or decoration to make his words more appealing and authoritative. Nevertheless, as the Pardoner acknowledges his own lewdness and limited knowledge of Latin, his aphorism derives from a false sense of authority and lacks any claim to moral truth. His hypocrisy thus strips “Radix malorum” of its moral authority and converts it into a biblical relic that falsely promises religious guidance. The Pardoner’s Latin statement is therefore another rhetorical relic that strips his language of its transparency or
efficacy. The Pardoner’s commercialization of his preaching further equates his rhetoric with his relics. While the Pardoner’s various exempla and poetic tropes direct his audience towards his particular perspective, his rhetoric transcends persuasiveness; not only does the Pardoner force the pilgrims to share his viewpoint, he seeks to materially benefit from his carefully cultivated language. The Pardoner’s intention is therefore not simply to persuade, but to advertise. In his essay “Advertising, Rhetoric, and Literature: A Medieval Response to Contemporary Theory,” Andrew Cowell explores how Medieval preaching functioned as popular form of advertisement, claiming that clergy’s persuasive discourse uses “the illicit seduction of rhetoric” to appeal to “desire rather than truth” (Cowell 813). The Pardoner’s ability to incite desire is in turn vital to his commercial interests, as, in order to sell his relics, his rhetoric only has to induce the longing for salvation rather than actually offer it. Moreover, his rhetoric does need to conform to truth at all, but simply frame lies in ways his audience can accept as truths. In this regard, the Pardoner sells his words in the way he sells his relics. For example, the Pardoner constantly repeats “tak of my wordes kepe” or “Tak kepe eek what I telle” (Chaucer 352; 360), acting as if his words were physical objects or goods. He jeopardizes his ability to induce desire however the moment he reveals his deceitful entente– while he advertises his relics “As faire as any man in Engelond” (921), he has ultimately shattered the illusion of his rhetoric. The fact that the Pardoner still attempts to sell his words is itself a testament to “his belief in the power of language to produce fruit even from the base of corruption” (Baumlin 132). While the Pardoner may still hold stock in his words, Chaucer does not, as he uses the commercial similarities between the Pardoner’s relics and words to criticize the false nature of rhetoric. In addition to exempla, Chaucer also demonstrates how the Pardoner’s use of personification illustrates the connection between rhetoric and relics. As with his exempla, personification serves as another rhetorical trope that only serves to obscure his deceit. In Poetria Nova for example, Vinsauf lists personification as way to amplify one’s speech, or “to lengthen [one’s] route yet further” (Vinsauf 33). That said, as the rioters personify drunkenness, gambling, and swearing, personification seemingly fosters truth and transparency, in that it easily identifies those characters the audience should learn from or look to for moral guidance. The Old Man complicates the simplicity of personification however, as it’s unclear whether he represents Death, fate, or is simply an old man. (Bishop 15) Rather than offer moral guidance, the Old Man’s significance is therefore partially lost under layers of symbolism and figurative language. That said, given his focus on the body and separate body parts, the Old Man possibly personifies the Pardoner’s relics. As the Old Man states, ‘Leve moder, leet me in! Lo, how I vanish, flesh, and blood, and skin! Allas! Whan shul my bones been at reste? Moder, with yow wolde I chaunge my cheste [...] But yet to me she wol nat do that grace, For which ful pale and welked is my face. (Chaucer 731-38) Here, the image of the Old Man’s disintegrating body mirrors the way in which the church dismembers bodies for relics; questioning when his bones will be at rest, he highlights the barbarism of tearing apart the body for financial gain. Moreover, as his plea gives a voice to those whom the clergy has dismembered, the Old Man merges relics with language, using poetic devices such as the apostrophe to his mother, his rhetorical question, and disturbing blazon of his body to make his lament more evocative. The Old Man uses relics to put words and their meaning back together however, as his rhetoric genuinely and accurately testifies to useless cruelty of relics. The Old Man’s credible rhetoric in turn undermines the Pardoner’s attempt to sell his relics and draws attention to his deceitful language. The Old Man is thus Chaucer’s vehicle for rhetorical salvation– while he still illustrates the way in which language and relics double each other, his anti-relic attitude represents the potential for truth in language. The Pardoner’s apostrophes also merge rhetoric with relics to demonstrate the deceptiveness of language. In addition to exemplum and personification, apostrophe is also amongst the Pardoner’s favourite rhetorical tropes, as he uses them to an almost comical extent. Vinsauf is also particularly partial to apostrophe, stating, “Take delight in apostrophe; without it the feast would be ample enough, but with it the courses of an excellent cuisine are multiplied” (Vinsauf 27). Here, Vinsauf’s use of apostrophe as a means of amplification appears gluttonous– the very vice the Pardoner warns against. Vinsauf also ascribes a genuine sentimentality to apostrophe however, as many of his examples use apostrophe to convey one’s grief, anger, or love. (30-31) Nevertheless, while apostrophes possess the potential for genuine expression, the Pardoner uses them to construct his facade of righteousness, stating “O glotonye, ful of cursednesse! / O cause first of oure confusion! / O original of oure dampnacion” (Chaucer 497-99). His apostrophes often address the specific body parts he associates with each vice, as he laments, “O wombe! O bely! O stinking cod!” (534). Moreover, the Host begins “The Pardoner’s Tale” with an apostrophe to Christ’s body, stating “By corpus bones!” (314). Here, the Host merges apostrophe with relics, as his statement functions both as a figure of speech and as a statement to Christ’s literal bones. While the Pardoner forbids against taking the Lord’s name in vain, he nevertheless uses apostrophe to divide the body into relics he can sell. Furthermore, the figurative and literal applications of his apostrophes exemplify the way in which language and rhetoric in “The Pardoner’s Tale” is not transparent, but possess layers of symbolic meaning. As the Pardoner’s apostrophes simply decorate his speech, they thus illustrate how rhetoric often divides language from its meaning.
Throughout literature, relationships can often be found between the author of a story and the story that he writes. In Geoffrey Chaucer's frame story, Canterbury Tales, many of the characters make this idea evident with the tales that they tell. A distinct relationship can be made between the character of the Pardoner and the tale that he tells.
but. "Chaucer: The Pardoner's Tale." Washington State University - Pullman, Washington . N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2011. .
Pardoner's Manipulation of Audience The Pardoner has had a graduate education in the rhetoric of confession. I will be a Chaucer might intend it to be merely cutely ironic that this confessor confesses -- as in "isn't that a turning of the tables, la!" On the other hand, it may well be that the Pardoner is practicing his rhetorical prowess on the other pilgrims, and on us, with the extreme skill of a cynical and. perceptive man who's heard every villainy and mastered every. deception.
In Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, the Pardoners Prologue, we see the theme of hypocrisy throughout the play. The pardoner knows he is a con artist and liar and freely admits it in both word and action in his tales prologue. The pardoner begins with the tale itself. In his sermon he describes gluttony in detail, and defines it as not only overeating, but the intense pleasure of doing it. He also denounces wine with examples of drunkenness. He also discusses swearing and cursing and concludes with condemning gambling.However, we can see hypocrisy be4 the tale even begin.The pardoner before telling his tale stops off at an inn for food &bear .He also partakes in a bet , whoever tells the best story wins. The pardoner also insults the host, who just before asking the pardoner to speak has been cursing and using bear to mend his broken heart. Furthermore, he is also the owner of the tavern which encourages eating &drinking. We can also assume that the pardoner and the host r drunk.In addition, the pardoner offers his lisnters a chance to redeem themselves, not through relics by acknowledging what they did wrong.However,at the end of his tale is saying his relics are needed for redemption eventhough he knows they are fake. In conclusion we see how through the pardoner the theme of hypocrisy.
The Pardoner is the best representation of an allegorical character in “The Prologue” of Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. The Pardoner is the perfect personification of fraudulence. He shows this in three basic ways: his appearance, speech, and actions. If one just glances through the reading of the Pardoner than one will think that he is a good religious man, but if one look further into it than he will find the small double meanings that he is the exact opposite. Chaucer likes to use an allegorical style to add some comedy and sophistication to his writings.
The dominance of men in the Middle Ages is unethical, irrational, and dangerous; women are given few rights and the opportunity to earn rights is non-existent. The dictates to the dominance is formed by the internal combination of man’s personal desire and religious interference. In Geoffrey Chaucer’s, The Canterbury Tales, the combined perspectives’ on a haughty Pardoner and non-subservient wife is the stronghold of separation in moral roles. The moral roles between men and women are exemplified in the rankings of religious hierarchy for men are at the top and women towards the bottom. Even prestigious women, ones with noble connections, are subservient to men, but contradictorily have religious affiliations. The “Wife of Bath’s Tale” is a perfect example of defying man’s dominance and the “Pardoner’s Tale”, a problematic reasoning of why selfishness connects moreover to the manipulation. The frailties of religious reasoning however, will cause The Pardoner and the Wife of Bath to be separated from society’s morals.
The Pardoner does the opposite of that. When the Pardoner sells a pardon instead of giving the money to the church or donating it he keeps it for himself. This is totally against integrity and shows again why the Pardoner is not honest. Cheating is another word that is important with the word honesty because it is the opposite of it. To cheat someone is to wrong them with or without their knowledge. The Pardoner does this buy selling his so called “relics” when really they are just fake and he is just trying to get more money. As Chaucer (1476) himself said in the Pardoner’s prologue “he made the parson and the people his apes” (line 705). The Pardoner is a cheater and a scammer these are qualities that an honest person has, an example of an honest person is Abraham Lincoln, he was also sometimes referred to as “Honest Abe” or supposed honest
The pardoner was a proud man. While others were not as educated as he was, the pardoner spoke in Latin to show off his linguistic ability. His failure to practice what he preached made him a model of hypocrisy and deceit. The pardoner was such a bragger that he boasted of the sins that he had done. "I spit out my venom under the color of holiness, to seem holy and true"(page 343). The pardoner admitted to his astonishing behavior and confessed to his immorality. His shameless confession indicated that he was guilty of foolishness: I preach, as you have just heard, and tell a hundred other falsehoods...my intention is to win money, not at all to cast out sins (page 343).
We have all heard the common adage “Practice what you preach.” Another version of this sentiment can be found in the saying “You cannot just talk the talk; you must walk the walk.” In other words, it is commonly considered useless for one to talk about doing something or living a certain way if he does not actually live out those words. It is overall a sentiment that denounces hypocrisy. This idea is explored by Geoffrey Chaucer in his “Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale,” as well as the Introduction to the tale. Chaucer identifies a pardoner as his main character for the story and utilizes the situational and verbal irony found in the pardoner’s interactions and deplorable personality to demonstrate his belief in the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church during this time.
154, 956). This indicates two main points. Firstly, it speaks to the dangers of a conventional wisdom that is unwise in so far as it lacks the ability to sort out its own contradictions and to truly consider how the relationship between conventional laws and justice is a very complex relationship that needs to be articulated and sorted out for all its contradictions. Secondly, it points to the emergence of a discourse of hazardous individualism that emerges largely as a direct consequence of a collectivized political virtue that emphasizes the importance of restrain and justice, yet is unable to show the benefits the individual may incur from such virtues. Perhaps, this second point is made better evident towards the latter end of the interchange between the speeches. Consider, for example, how the unjust speech is able to promise those who follow its teachings positive and immediate pleasures, namely “boys, women, wine, relishes…” (p. 156, line 1001). Now consider how the just speech, speaking two lines before, simply celebrates the “ancient education” for the ways in which it “pitches [the singing of the sons] to the harmony of the fathers” and for “beating and trashing” those who seek to make any “modulations” (p. 154, lines 967-970). Finally, all the just speech is able to promise those
The monk receives some scathing sarcasm in Chaucer’s judgment of his new world ways and the garments he wears “With fur of grey, the finest in the land; Also, to fasten hood beneath his chin, He had of good wrought gold a curious pin: A love-knot in the larger end there was.” (194-197, Chaucer). The Friar is described as being full of gossip and willing to accept money to absolve sins, quite the opposite of what a servant of God should be like. Chaucer further describes the friar as being a frequenter of bars and intimate in his knowledge of bar maids and nobles alike. The friar seems to be the character that Chaucer dislikes the most, he describes him as everything he should not be based on his profession. The Pardoner as well seems to draw special attention from Chaucer who describes him as a man selling falsities in the hopes of turning a profit “But with these relics, when he came upon Some simple parson, then this paragon In that one day more money stood to gain Than the poor dupe in two months could attain.” (703-706, Chaucer). Chaucer’s description of the pardoner paints the image of a somewhat “sleazy” individual “This pardoner had hair as yellow as wax, But lank it hung as does a strike of flax; In wisps hung down such locks as he 'd on head, And with them he his shoulders overspread; But thin they dropped, and stringy, one by one.” (677-681,
The Canterbury Tales is a literary masterpiece in which the brilliant author Geoffrey Chaucer sought out to accomplish various goals. Chaucer wrote his tales during the late 1300’s. This puts him right at the beginning of the decline of the Middle Ages. Historically, we know that a middle class was just starting to take shape at this time, due to the emerging commerce industry. Chaucer was able to see the importance and future success of the middle class, and wrote his work with them in mind. Knowing that the middle class was not interested in lofty philosophical literature, Chaucer wrote his work as an extremely comical and entertaining piece that would be more interesting to his audience. Also, Chaucer tried to reach the middle class by writing The Canterbury Tales in English, the language of the middle class rather than French, the language of the educated upper class. The most impressive aspect of Chaucer’s writing is how he incorporated into his piece some of his own controversial views of society, but yet kept it very entertaining and light on the surface level. One of the most prevalent of these ideas was his view that certain aspects of the church had become corrupt. This idea sharply contrasted previous Middle Age thought, which excepted the church’s absolute power and goodness unquestionably. He used corrupt church officials in his tales to illustrate to his audience that certain aspects of the church needed to be reformed. The most intriguing of these characters was the Pardoner. Chaucer’s satirical account of the Pardoner is written in a very matter-of-fact manner that made it even more unsettling with his audience. Chaucer uses his straightforwardness regarding the hypocrisy of the Pardoner, suggestive physiognomy of the character, and an interesting scene at the conclusion of the Pardoner’s Tale to inculcate his views of the church to his audience. The way that Chaucer used these literary devices to subtly make his views known to an audience while hooking them with entertainment, shows that Chaucer was truly a literary genius.
Anthony Trollope’s “The Warden” is a classic piece of literature which depicts a very popular and interesting theme: “justice” and “injustice” aren’t always necessarily separate things. The preconceived notions of these two ideas that we have as individuals, do not present a clear and transparent definition of “justice” and “injustice”, as our own subjective beliefs have the potential to influence our opinion more than the truth itself. On top of this, actions taken in the name of justice don’t always result in the same. These ideas are very evident in Anthony Trollope’s “The Warden”, a story about a reverend who is accused of one of the most atrocious injustices; one he does not even consciously realize he is committing.
The Canterbury Tales is more than an amusing assortment of stories; it is an illustration of the society in which Geoffrey Chaucer lived. It portrays the culture and class system of the medieval ages in microcosm. Every strata of human life at the time were represented by the many characters whose tales are told. Each character’s basic human nature also plays a role in their stories, and each one has within them the strengths and weaknesses that make up all of humanity. Each character exemplifies their life and reputation through the stories they tell. The Pardoner uses his tale as a ploy to garner money. His tale embodies each deadly sin, and every reader can relate to his story and feel the guilt of his characters. The Wife of Bath’s tale expresses her own ideals in the way her character is given a second chance after committing a crime. The Franklin’s tale, because of its straightforwardness and honesty is a direct representation of the Franklin’s simple and joyful life. Each character tells a tale that is a suitable match to their personality. These characters’ tales represent prevalent themes of the middle ages, including greed, corruption of religious clergymen, violence, revenge, and social status. In Chaucer’s society, the traditional feudal system was losing its importance and the middle class began to emerge. The middle class characters within the Canterbury Tales, with their personal lives and interactions with members of differing social classes, gave an understanding of the growth of society, especially the rising middle class, during medieval times.
The Church is the first institution that Chaucer attacks using satire in The Canterbury Tales. Chaucer wants to attack the church’s hypocrisy. Chaucer decides to create the character of the pardoner to prove his point. Cawthorne conveys, “His Canterbury Tales collects together 24 narratives with a General Prologue and an epilogue or Retraction.” Chaucer describes the character before telling their tale. The Pardoner is a man who steals from the poor. Chaucer says on page 127 line 77, “For though I am a wholly vicious man don’t think I can’t tell moral tales.” The pardoner knows what he does is wrong, but he continues to do it anyway.