Preaching and Storytelling in the Pardoner’s Tale
by Veronica Nargi
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales revolves around one of the oldests forms of
communication: oral storytelling. The oral tradition of storytelling plays a crucial role in
interpreting these tales and the tellers of the tales, especially in The Pardoner’s Tale. For
most members of the party, the art of telling a story is unnecessary in their social roles,
although for some, like the Man of Law or the Wife of Bath, they depend on a confident
command on words. However, for the Pardoner, his mastery of words and the art to spin a
story is absolutely central to his livelihood. His technique of storytelling uses folk motifs and
multiple allusions to biblical and historical figures in order to showcase his skill. He also
employs a chiasmatic structure popular in oral literature because of its effectiveness in
lasting for many repetitions. By being the self-proclaimed best in the craft of storytelling, the
Pardoner boasts of his skill by delivering a flawless exemplum on avarice by medieval
religious standards, while simultaneously denouncing his personal motivations. The
Pardoner’s sermonic structure of his tale is in accordance with the emerging trends of the
forma praedicandi, a new belief at the time that sermons should follow a certain structure
and have a certain set of guidelines. He uses his mastery of this rhetoric and mixes it with
folk elements in order to relate to his audience so that they might be more inclined to give
him money. He is somewhat more humble than the other members of the pilgrimage in the
sense that he is aware of his vices and admits them freely, which is one of the elements that
allows him to perform his job efficiently. Even though he is successful in his profession, he is
unable to obtain the good favors of the Host, suggesting a flaw in his approach. It is
important to analyze the structure and ordering of the Pardoner’s Tale, including the personal
profile of the Pardoner gives of himself in his prologue and the added folk elements that
make the Pardoner’s Tale and his trade effective on both the masses and the individual.
Despite the Pardoner’s straightforward structure of the tale and apparent intentions,
many scholars still doubt the integrity of the tale as a sermon. There are some, like Coolidge
O. Chapman, who recognize the Pardoner’s Tale solely as a medieval sermon and highlight
his devotion to the ars praedicandi. Yet, there are others like Susan Gallick, who claim that
the Pardoner’s Tale is not a sermon, but a joke and a con job gone terribly wrong (Gallick).
Robert P. Merrix makes another argument that the Pardoner’s Tale cannot even really be
considered a medieval sermon at all. He states that the Pardoner does not follow the
guidelines of the ars praedicandi close enough be considered biblical (Merrix). Traditionally,
the Pardoner’s Tale has always been considered a sermon in the most rudimentary sense,
but in more recent years, the classification of the Pardoner’s Tale as a sermon has been
questioned. All of these scholars make valid points, however, many neglect the importance
of the exemplum in conjunction with the rest of the tale and prologue. Many write off the
exemplum portion as being a parable which serves to support the theme of the sermon, but
the exemplum is the most crucial part of the Pardoner’s presentation in relation to his
audience. It is important to analyze not only the subject matter that is being preached in
accordance to the guidelines of the forma praedicandi, but also to analyze the character of
the Pardoner and his motivations because it will reveal that the Pardoner is less of a
preacher and more of a kind of anathematic bard in the guise of a religious figure.
To start, we must establish what preaching actually is and where it comes from. First
of all, there is a distinction between preaching and teaching. The word “to preach” comes
from the Latin word praedicare meaning “to proclaim” or to make something known.
Whereas “to teach” , in the Christian sense, is imparting knowledge to those who already
accept what you are teaching as truth. James J. Murphy refers to teaching as an “exposition
to doctrine” and preaching as an “exhortation to action”. Christ is the primary example of the
need to incorporate both teaching and preaching into ministry. In the Bible, Christ tells his
disciples to “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (ESV, Mark
16:15). Teaching, on the other hand, is a form of discipleship to people who believe in the
truth of the Bible. Over time, preaching evolved to fit more of the definition of teaching and it
became more of a reinforcement of the teachings of the Bible rather than the proclamation of
truths to ignorant peoples. Christ’s sermons are very popular because he relies primarily on
the use of logos; he is able to pull evidence from scripture to support his claims which
creates a credible argument for those who believe in the legitimacy of the scripture. At the
time, Aristotelian arguments were primarily based on nonapodeictic proofs, which means
arguments were based on probable reasoning, using pathos and ethos (Murphy). That is not
to say that this form of rhetoric is not as credible, instead it simply uses a different form of
logic to reach the conclusion. In any case, Murphy also cites a rhetorical fault in both types
of rhetoric, stating that “their maximum expectation is the creation of the probability”
(Murphy). No matter what type of rhetoric the Pardoner attempts to use, the effectiveness of
his argument remains in the hands of how much legitimacy his audience gives him. By
highlighting the hypocrisy of his own character and the argument of his tale, he has
weakened his credibility in eyes of his audience. The pilgrims might all be Godfearing
Christians who can see the merit in his sermon, but he has destroyed his reputation as a
preacher in their eyes, making his words hypocritical and untrustworthy.
Next, we must test the Pardoner on his qualifications of being a preacher. Thomas
Waleys, an early fourteenth-century theologian, devotes an entire chapter in his handbook
De modo compendi semones, that sets very strict lessons on qualities a preacher should
strive to embody. While the Pardoner, violates the tenets of many of these lessons, the
clearest trespass encroaches on the very first lesson where Waleys says that “one who
would preach should be completely free from the stain of the mortal sin” (Waleys). Even
though no mortal man is free from sin, Waleys believes that “it is unacceptable that the
preacher be of lower and more degraded life than the people.” Waleys list includes a total of
twelve lessons, but Robert of Basevorn, the creator of the forma praedicandi only cites three
things that are necessary qualities for a preacher to have, “the first is purity of life, the
second is competent knowledge (at least explicit knowledge of the articles of Faith, the Ten
Commandments, and the distinction between sin and non-sin), and the third is the authority
given by the church.” (Robert of Basevorn, Murphy). Although Robert of Basevorn goes into
more details on the qualities of a good preacher, by this simple definition, the Pardoner
meets two out of three of those tenets; he boasts in his knowledge by citing Timothy chapter
six, “Radix malorum est Cupiditas” (VI.334) and his limited knowledge of Latin, the language
of the religious and learned, he uses “to saffron with my predicacioun” (VI.345). The
Pardoner also has the proper authority given by the Church and he claims that he has the
authority to absolve a man from “which by the papal bull was granted to me” (VI.388).The
Pardoner, from the General Prologue, is described as having a deceitful duality. He is
described as having hair that is yellow like wax, which gives off an unpleasant image, but is
then the passage goes on to depict the hair as “smothe it heeng as dooth a strike of flex”
(I.676). He is a man, but he is described as having effeminate qualities like his long, unbound
hair, his lack of facial hair and his small voice. He admits freely that he is a sinner and seems
to take pride in it, but at the same time he makes the point that he does the Lord’s work. The
Pardoner raises the question of if in the end, if the Lord’s work is done, then why does it
matter what the motives were behind it? This duality that the Pardoner possesses makes it
hard for his audience to trust the Pardoner as a preacher and to accept his words as truth.
By the Pardoner’s own confession and in accordance to the qualities of a good preachers
should possess, the Pardoner does not quite qualify as a good preacher, but he is not a bad
preacher either.
Next, the Pardoner’s classification and deliverance of his sermon needs to be
examined. Merrix determined that because the Pardoner does not follow all of the tenets of a
medieval sermon that it should therefore not be considered a medieval sermon. However,
the Pardoner’s Tale does contain many of the structural elements of a medieval sermon that
it would be negligent not to say that Chaucer was modeling the Pardoner’s Tale in that
framework. Merrix simplifies the basic elements of a medieval sermon as “(1) theme, (2)
protheme, (3) introduction to the theme, (4) the division of the theme, (5) the subdivision of
the theme, and (6) the discussion” (Merrix). Merrix admits that there are very few sermons
that were written during this time that actually followed this structure exactly. The fact
remains that the ars praedicandi was only beginning to be established. Handbooks on how
to construct a sermon were only just beginning to surface in the fourteenth century. Saint
Augustine had insisted on the teaching of rhetoric (particularly Ciceronian rhetoric) so that
preachers could learn to accurate express themselves. He wanted it to be modeled after
Roman education in which learning rhetoric was a requirement (Murphy). As aforementioned,
although there were certainly many handbooks and styles to what a sermon would should
look like, there is no canon structure to a medieval sermon. The practice of thematic
preaching was only starting to emerge in the fourteenth century, and it is important to note
that thematic preaching and missionary preaching become two different things (Kennedy).
Robert of Basevorn’s forma praedicandi simply has too many ornaments that make
up a sermon. The Pardoner does, however, incorporate many of these ornaments into his
tale. Firstly, he pronounces the overall theme of his tale in the prologue, which is Timothy,
chapter six, “Greed is the root of all evil.” He then goes on to explain the tricks of his trade
and the swindles he has pulled on his congregation. He reveals his motives and takes no
shame in them when he says, “Thus kan I preche agayn that same vice / Which that I use,
and that is avarice” (VI.427-428). This portion serves as the protheme and the antetheme
because the Pardoner is explaining his motives behind preaching this theme. He preaches
about the dangers of greed because greed plays a central role in his life. The Pardoner then
introduces the main characters of his exemplum, the three rioters gambling in the tavern.
Almost immediately after his introduction of his character, the Pardoner launches into the
divisions and subdivisions of his theme. He divides his themes into drunkenness, gluttony,
gambling, and blasphemy. He subdivides gambling into causing men to commit
“Forsweryng, ire, falsnesse, homycide” (VI. 657). He reinforces the gravity of these sins and
makes references to biblical and non-biblical figures like Sampson, Lot, Atilla, Lemuel, Herod
the Great, Adam, and Seneca, and the sins that they committed, while offsetting them with
the words of holy leaders like Christ, Jeremiah, and Paul. He then pulls all of these themes
and subthemes into his analysis which comes in the form of the exemplum.
In the exemplum, the rioters live a life which is consumed with drunkenness, gluttony,
gambling, and blasphemy. Through the Bible’s proof, if greed is the root of all evil and evil
takes the form of sin, then these sins that the rioters commit are brought on by greed. The
Bible asserts that the “wages of sin is death” (ESV, Romans 6:23) so the price for their sins,
which originate from their greed, is their deaths that they meet at the end of the exemplum.
The Pardoner’s exemplum serves as both the amplification ornament in Robert’s forma
praedicandi, and as the convolution ornament in the Pardoner’s Tale. The amplification
ornament serves to reinforce and verify the divisions or subdivisions. Robert cites different
methods in which this can be accomplished, but notes that “this method is very artistic”
(Roberts of Basevorn, Murphy). The Pardoner’s artistry in constructing a story is certainly
apparent in his exemplum. It is even a safe assumption to say that if the Pardoner had told
his tale alone, without the self-defamation of his character in his prologue, he might have
gained a more positive response from his audience, a response he was more familiar with
from his own congregation.
Yet, as predicted by the Pardoner’s own confession of avarice, his greed overcomes
him. The final scene of his exemplum is abrupt, ending in the question, “What nedeth it to
sermone of it moore?” (VI.879). Death comes quickly to the rioters through their own malice,
without drawing much attention. The Pardoner’s transition into his conclusion is sloppy and
rushed, with a brief summary of the divisions of subdivisions, “O traytours homycide, O
wikkednesse! / O glotonye, luxurie, and hasardrye! / Thou blasphemour of Crist with vileynye
And othes grete, of usage and of pride!” (VI. 896-899). The Pardoner then builds up to his
sales pitch, telling his audience that if they have committed any of these crimes, his “hooly
pardoun may yow alle warice, / So that ye offre nobles or sterlynges” (VI.906-907). Gallick
describes this move to trying to sell pardons to his audience, particularly the Host, as part of
the joke he was trying to make. In the beginning of the prologue, the pilgrims first asked him
to tell a funny story, but then they wanted him to tell a moral story, so in his mind, he was
telling a funny story in the form a moral story, but his audience was the butt of the joke and
the Pardoner was the only one who found amusement in the joke (Gallick). The Pardoner’s
mistake was thinking that he could reveal the nature of his character, the duality of his
intentions versus his words, and still receive respect, or in his case, money. The Pardoner
did not try to sell absolution through his relics at the end tale because he was trying to tell a
joke, but because he was genuinely blinded by his greed; he truly believed it would work. If
he did not believe this, he would not have been so offended and angered by the Host’s
rebuttal to his offer of trading his relics for absolution. Robert states that “the sermon must
end as it began. The more the end is like the beginning, so much the more elegantly does it
end” (Roberts of Basevorn, Murphy). By this definition, the Pardoner’s sermon does end the
way it began, with greed. However, in this case, the Pardoner began with telling of his greed
and ended with showing his greed.
Even though the Pardoner’s Tale is an obvious homage to sermonic theory, the
legitimacy of the tale being a sermon and the Pardoner being a preacher is still held in
question. In the same spirit of duality that the Pardoner maintains throughout his own
character, and in his prologue and tale, an argument can be made that the Pardoner is both
a preacher and a bard. Celtics bards were preachers of poetry and masters of the oral
tradition; instead of practicing the ars praedicandi they practiced the ars poetriae. They sang
their songs for money and support from the patrons and they were called upon to entertain;
their songs and poems were often based off of local legends and folklore (Harvilhati). In his
prologue, the Pardoner proclaims very clearly that “I preche nothyng but for coveitise”
(VI.433). Doing the Lord’s work stems only from his goals of obtaining wealth and worldly
pleasures, much like a bard’s main goal is to maintain his livelihood through his art. The
Pardoner claims a nomadic nature, like that of a bard, saying “For I wol preche and begge in
songry landes; / I wol nat do no labour with myne handes” (VI.443-444). He is a man of
words and he trades his stories for money and comfort. The Pardoner’s exemplum uses
many folk motifs such as, death personified, the Wandering Jew, the extraordinary threefold
death, and the treasure trove. The Pardoner observes says he tells his congregations “Of
olde stories longe tyme agoon / For lewed peple loven tales of olde / Swiche thynges kan
they wel reporte and holde” (VI.436-438). He tells folk tales with familiar folk motifs to the
common people because that is what they relate to most. They don’t want to hear Latin or
complex theologies, they want to hear a story and a simple grant of absolution. Just for
another silver penny, the Pardoner will “preche so as ye han herd bifoore / And telle an
hundred false japes moore” (VI.392-394). The Pardoner preys upon the ignorance and
simplistic mindset of his audience because he knows how to satiate their desires, which will
in turn, satiate his desires.
To the audience of the pilgrimage, he views them as no different. They ask for a tale
and storytelling is his true profession. However, by the fourteenth century, being a bard was
an archaic profession based on mysticism and paganism. The Pardoner is not a preacher,
but rather a reincarnation of a bard in the guise of a religious figure. His sermons are
imperfect because they were never meant to be sermons; their main focus was always the
exemplum, the story of the sermon. This doesn’t make the Pardoner’s Tale any less
legitimate as a sermon either. The Bible warns of men like the Pardoner and says “For such
men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.”
(ESV, 2 Corinthians 11:13), but when Paul is asked to comment on the false apostles and he
says:
Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter
do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former
proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my
imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth,
Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. (ESV, Philippians 1:15-18).
The only crime that the Pardoner commits is his own sin, which is greed. Leading people to
repentance and preaching Godly sermons under false pretenses is not his crime, but it is the
sin for which he is punished. In the end, it is his own greed and pride in his own sin in the
eyes of his audience that causes his downfall.
Works Cited
Robert P. Merrix. “Sermon Structure in the Pardoner's ‘Tale’”. The Chaucer Review, Vol. 17,
No. 3 (Winter, 1983), 235-249
Coolidge Otis Chapman. “Chaucer on Preachers and Preaching”. PMLA, Vol. 44, No. 1
(Mar., 1929), 178-185.
Susan Gallick. “A Look at Chaucer and His Preachers”. Speculum, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jul., 1975),
456-476.
James Jerome Murphy. "The Art of Preaching." Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of
Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley: U of California, 1981.
269-End. E-book.
George A Kennedy. "Late Medieval Preaching." Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and
Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern times. (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina, 1980),
190-94. Print.
Fleming, John V., William Randolph Robins, and Robert W. Epstein. "How (Not) to Preach:
Appendix, Thomas Waleys, 'On the Quality of the Preacher': Chapter 1 of On the Method for
Composing Sermons, Trans. Martin Camargo." Sacred and Profane in Chaucer and Late
Medieval Literature: Essays in Honour of John V. Fleming. (Toronto: U of Toronto, 2010),
164-76. Print.
Lauri Harvilahti. "Bard." Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art.
Ed. Charlie T. McCormick and Kim Kennedy White. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO, 2011. 196-200. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 5 May 2014.
.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version, Containing the Old and New Testaments.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011. Print.
Chaucer, Geoffrey, Robert Boenig, and Andrew Taylor. The Canterbury Tales. Peterborough,
Ont.: Broadview, 2012. Print.