Truth or Deceit?
The Pardoner’s Tale
This week’s reading consisted of both The Pardoner’s Tale and the morality play Mankind. I very much of these two preferred The Pardoner’s Tale as there appeared to me to be so much more to be drawn from not only the narrative element but the character of the Pardoner himself. There seem to be so many possibilities as to what aspects of him can be believed and what is fabrication or elaboration. The Pardoner calls himself a ‘noble ecclesiast’, not the only place in the Canterbury Tales where these words are used; the general prologue describes him in the very same way. How then is it that he is the character who many would describe as being the least noble? He also calls himself ‘ful viscious’ and so which are we to believe? Is there a direct purpose to these conflicting descriptions? We are left with the impression of somewhat of a con artist; he lets is know that though he is not himself without sin he can preach a sermon. Were he an ‘eccelsiast’ as he pronounced then such a statement would be of no necessity. These sermons in his use are a craft, the craft of telling stories with moral directions purposed to make the target come to a realisation of sorts.
What I found really intriguing about this tale is the dynamic created with the treatment of truth, and the intentions of the narrator when put in the context of the purpose of the journey: The Pilgrims become privy to the Pardoner’s sermonisng ability because they expressly ask for him to tell them ‘some moral thing’. This he does. The situation which unfolds is that of a man who is not himself moral, relating a tale with the object of inspiring morality in order to prove to a group of individuals on a religious journey that he is able to do so. He is confident in his ability to manipulate and the truth in this is displayed by the other pilgrims who do not interrupt, one can imagine a group quietly hanging on his words and flinching every time he gesticulates whilst emphasizing and dramatising. I think this holds great significance. It is actually quite unsettling to read with this explicit control in mind. One would assume that having heard the Pardoner sing his own praises in his prologue that the pilgrims would be rather sceptical and aware of any tricks he may use to acquire their belief and attention, and yet it seems to work on them immediately as he begins to speak. The result for the reader is a heightened uncertainty of what is the Pardoner’s flourishing and craft and what can be believed. At points it does seem as though the Pardoner forgets that he is telling a tale, and not actually behind the pulpit: Considering l.337:
… ‘in this church now’…
-A daring suggestion might even be that Chaucer is using the Pardoner’s various modes of character to parody the parish. As the Pardoner rifles through a list of various sins there us a feeling he may be following a characterization he knows to be effective. With further analysis this concurs with the Pardoner’s personal antithesis of who would be expected in the act of preaching. He is a stark self-confessed sinner.
A thought which does occur to me is that perhaps Chaucer is very delicately making a comment on the portrayal of truth. Possibly that this Pardoner is in some ways more truthful than the spotless image one’s mind conjures as standing before a church quite simply because he has nothing to hide. The Pardoner states not living by the values he preaches and so cannot be called a hypocrite. What then is he but completely truthful? And yet at the very same time Chaucer describes this man in the General Prologue as using ‘japes’ (tricks) to get his money. The Pardoner really is quite a fascinating character, My favourite of all the pilgrims whom I have read to this point.
Other readings this week included:
Peterson. J. E, ‘With Feigned Flattery’: The Pardoner as Vice’, within The Chaucer Review.
Duino. R, The Tortured Pardoner (1957) The English Journal
