The Final Irony of the Pardoner's Tale
Edmund Reiss
College English, Vol. 25, No. 4. (Jan., 1964), pp. 260-266.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-0994%28196401%2925%3A4%3C260%3ATFIOTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
College English is currently published by National Council of Teachers of English.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/ncte.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
Fri Oct 5 15:17:34 2007
2 60
COLLEGE ENGLISH
paperback to achieve this record. Robert
de Graff had indeed learned "how to
\r in friends and influence people" u ith
his paperback bonanza.
As a result of the wartime paper shortage that obliged even De Graff to farm
out some of his xvork to other houses
( T h e Steinbeck Pocket Book carries a
Blakiston imprint), the trail-blazer of
the paperback revolution was able to
operate for nearly six vears M ithout sizeable opposition. Of surviving lines, only
the American Penguins and Pelicans
(transformed in 1918 into Signet and
l l e n t o r ) and the American Ne\{ s Company's Avon Books lvere introduced
during the lvar. T h e stories of the emergence of rival lines (especially Bantam
Books) after the war, of the creation
of paperback textbook series (beginninc
\vith the Crofts Classics and RinehaG
Reprints), of the introduction in 1953
of the "elite" paperbacks (beginning
with Doubledav's Anchor Books) lie
beyond the scope of this commemorative
essay. T h e "quarter book" is almost a
thing of the past, but the paperback
marches on to ever more surprising
triunlphs and apparently ever higher
prices. T h e revolution that has put readable editions of meritorious books on
sale in even the most remote communities o\ves much to Robert de Graff's
skillful management of his pioneering
zeries during its crucial first year. Because he outguessed the scoffers, w e
boast today not only "book departments" in grocery stores, but new bookstores devoted exclusively to the more
than twenty thousand titles now nvailable paperbound.
The Final Irony of the Pardoner's Tale 'CVHIII IHI' Pardoner's Tale is one of
the acl<no\vledged masterpieces found
\\ ithin the framen ork of the Canterbrwy Tilles, it and its teller have puzzled
generations of readers. Because the piece
shou s such an ambiguous combination
of honesty and viciousness, most of the
critical u ork done on the Tale has been
aimed at reconciling its various conflicting elements. Consequently, most \{ riters
Ilai c tried to euamine hy, in this rnonologuc in the form of a combination confession-sermon, the Pardoner first reveals
himself as charlatan and then at the end
strikes the pose of honest man of God.
Ednzcmd Reiss, associate professor of Elzglish
nnd co7npamtive literature at TVesterrz Resereje
Unicersity, l ~ a rrecently w i t t e n secernl articles
orz ~ h a u i e rand has cbwzpleted n book o n Sir
Thovlas itlalory, t o be published b y T w a y n e
Publishers.
From the beginning there has been no
critical agreement.
In his near-classic investigation of
the problem, George L\-man Kittredge
\\rites that "the cvnicil frankness of
the Pardoner is drimatically inevitable.
H e is simply forestalling the reflections
of his fellow--pilgri~ns.'I know I am a
rascal,' he savs in effect, 'and you know
it; '~ndI nisi1 to show you that I know
!ou k n o ~ {it!' Like ma& another of us
poor mortals, the Pardoner is n illing to
pas3 for a knave, but objects to being
taken for a fool. T o deceive mankind is
his business, but this time no deception
is possible, and he scorns the rdle of a futile hypocrite."' Such an interpretation
lCl~aztcerand His Poetry (Cambridge, AIass.,
1916), pp. 211-15.
F I N A L ZRONY OF T H E P A R D O N E R ' S T A L E
has the merit of u o r k i n g lvith the material at hand and trying to explain it.
X \ iexv of a different sort is represented b v G o r d o n Gerould in his essay,
"The \'icious Pardoner." Gerould begins his interpretation with the statement
that if Chaucer "had taken pains at one
o r tn.o points t o e ~ p l a i na little more
carefully," the difficulties of interpreting
the Pardoner's performance n ould have
been minimized. In Gerould's vie\\ the
Pardoner "is the drunkard \vhoni most
of us have met at one time o r another,
lvho ca11nl~- and son~etinies tearfully
tells a11 to a stranger casua11~- encountered. Only this drunkard is an actor of
talent and. is alvare of his gifts." Also,
says Gerould, "A man so depraved and
s o intent on getting for himself every
possible creature comfort n-ould not, unless his natural inhibitions xvere suspended, have stripped himself naked in
n i x e d cornDan\-.
H e lvould have been
1
. too canny for that. His loss of control,
and therefore his n-hole performance,
can be explained onl!- b y understanding
that he was tipsy, and tips\- to the point
of not caring lvhat he said and indeed
not being altogether conscious of it.""
In other nwrds, for Gerould, the am1)iguit~-in the Pardoner and his Tale is
a litcrarj- fault that needs to be explained
an-a\- rnther than IT-orked n.ith.
I?. C. Curry, representing a third
major 1-ien-, feels that the Pardoner has
tried for a master-stroke of deception.
B\- revealing the fraud lvhich he is accustomed t o practice upon his hearers,
t)v illustrating the manner in \vhich res d t s are obtained in his profession, the
Pardoner shon-s he is evidently proud
o f his slcill. Furthermore, " T o hi-pnotize
the Pilgrims into bu!.ing relics .after he
has declared their n-orthlessness and his
o n - n p e r f i d y , n-ould constitute the
cron-ning success of his career." Also,
summarizes Currl-, the Pardoner,
be'Charrreriiln Essirys (Princeton, 1952), pp. 55,
62, 67.
261
in0
a eunuch, is "an outcast from human
a.
society, isolated both physically and
morallv." T o satisfv his d e ~ r a < e d instincts'he thus preys'upon so:ietv.j This
idea is echoed b v R . A l . Lumiansky, xr ho
savs that the Pardoner, "barred from
normal satisfactions bi- a misfortune of
birth, finds his compensation in matching
\\its \tiill normal folk and coming off
best in the e n ~ o u n t e r . " ~
T h o u g h none of these views is deficient & interest, and though lve Inay
incline t o one or more of them. thev
nevertheless miss the major question df
n hat Chaucer is doing n.ith the Pardoner and his Tale. T h e views of such
e 1 u c i d a t o r s as Kittredge, Gerould,
Currv, and Lumianskl; take u p the
point of 1~hat in the Pardoner, seen as
a man alive in his oxvn right, causes him
to act the u a v he does; but none of the
viexvs is app$entlv concerned v i t h the
artistic function of the Pardoner and his
monolopue. T o call the confession "an
eYamp1;of Chaucer's heedless o r defiant
violation of dramatic propriet!-"j is n o
help, for n e still must get at the function of the violation itself; and n hile the
Pardoner is himself an artist of ords,
so is Chaucer. his creator. N o r does D.
S. Bren-er solve this second and more
i~nportantproblen) n hen he points out
that self-rel-elation of villains is a traditional device for both nledieval satirists and later dramatists.'' I t is little help
for us to 1;noxv that Iago, Richard 111,
and Cdmund the Bastard lil~enisereveal
themselves, for these characters are
speaking in the form of soliloquies
\\.hereas the Pardoner is delivering a draniatic monologue, a tale told to a group;
and to all indications, notwithstanding
U
'Chaz~cera77d the .LleJieval Sciences, 2nd ed.
(\-e\v York, 1960), pp. 67, 70.
' O f Sondry Folk, the Um.r)2atic Principle irz
the Canterbury Tales (Austin, Texas, 1955),
p.:203.
-1~ i e ~likewise
v
challenged by Kittredge, p.
211.
rCl?oztcer (London, 1953), p. 159.
262
COLLEGE ENGLISH
Gerould, the Pardoner is ~ v h o l l y con- -we may feel at times that \ve are not so
scious of lvhat he is doing. T o see this niuch being addressed as overhearingpoint \\-e have merely t o contrast the and the result is again irony.
self-revelation found in the Pardoner's
T o look at the Pardoner, on the other
Prologue and Tale with that in, say, hand, is t o see a Inan apparently wholly
the W i f e of Bath's performance.
conscious of ~ v h a he
t is saying and doing.
Though
one
may
feel
the need t o justify
As we listen to the Wife's rambling
his
performance
and
sav
with Gerould
~ v o r d s about love, marriage, and the
world, w e tend to find ourselves stand- that the man is drunk and unknonringly
ing apart from her and applving what revealing himself, the Pardoner \vould
she says back to her. ~ h o u g hw e may seem to be whollv candid. Whereas lvith
still be interested in her philosophy of the IVife of ~ a t hw e see in s ~ i t eof
marriage and the good life, she becbmes her, v i t h the Pardoner w e see kecause
f o r us less a guide and more the specific of him-\\ hat w e know is what he tells
h
object of our attention. Such a shift us. T h e implication then is that ~ i t the
Pardoner
there
is
n
o
dramatic
irony
of
is necessary before we can return t o
the
sort
found
in
the
\Vife
of
Baththe Wife's \\-ords and ideas and see the
disparitv between the speaker and thc n o difference bet\\ een ~ i - h a tthe charspeech. In other lvords, Chaucer's art acter says and ~ihat w e see. Commentain the performance of the W i f e of Bath tors on Chaucer are quick t o point out,
appears designed for us t o see more of honever, that ironv certainly does exthe W i f e and her ideas than xve did ist here-that the pardoner is a living
initially and Inore also than she intends. lie, that he is a hvpocrite committing
T h e result is that \re are finallv con- those sins he preaches against-but the
scious of a complexity and pafhos in Pardoner is conscious of these inconher character that is something other gruities. H e is fully aware of his hypocItnoxvs that covetousness is
than humorous. T h e unintentional self- nsy-he
revelation is even more effective when both the theme of his sermon and the
u7e recognize that the W i f e niav be basis of his life. W e might consequentl\~
delivering what for her is a stock speech. be tempted t o conclude that in h a v i n
In spite of all her efforts she still blun- the Inan consciouslv reveal his hypocders. In being an unconscious confession, risy, in showing hill1 make manifest the
ironv implicit \i ithin himself-that he is
the W i f e of Bath's Prologue and Taleregarded as a unit-may consequently a pardoner lvho is not nora ally fit t o
be seen as a classic example of the dra- pardon-Chaucer is taking ironv a\\ a?
matic ~nonologue,one where the effect from both the Pardoner and the situation in the CanterDzrry Taler. I t would
is certainly iron)-.
seen1
that b y having the Illan show what
Dramatic monologues of a similar
kind are found in the "confessions" of he is and that he k n o u s what he is, the
the Jlerchant and the Host \\hen, in \~rorl<gains in a shock effect 1)ut loses
apparently unguarded m o r n e n ts, t h e in dramatic ironv.
There is, nevertheless, a real dramacharacters reveal their personal lives and
troubles.' T h o u g h the Inen are talking tic ironv of another sort in the Parto an audience, the general effect is as doner's . T a l e and one that becomes
though they are muttering to themselvei apparent \\-hen w e realize that Chaucer
is not here duplicating the iron)- of t h e
Wife of Bath's performance. H a d Chau'E 1213 ff.; E 2119 ff.; and B 3079 ff. All cer wanted us i o see something in the
references to Chaucer are according t o T h e
JIJorks of Geoffrey Chnzrcer, ed. F . N. Robin- Pardoner unknown t o the man hin~self,
chances are he would have proceeded in
son, 2nd ed. (Boston, 1957).
F I N A L I R O N Y OF T H E P A R D O N E R ' S T A L E
the n a y he did n i t h the W i f e and
shov n an unintentional character revelation. W i t h the conscious and intentional c o n f e s s i o n of the P a r d o n e r ,
h o u ever, an additional dimension is
brought into the dramatic monologues
found in the Canterbz~ryTales.
Throughout his monologue, I suggest,
the Pardoner intends t o shou something
that is completlv misunderstood b y the
other Pilgrims. just as H a r r y ~ a i l l q and
,
apparently the other listeners a s lvell,
miss the satire of Chaucer's Tale of Sir
Thopas, so does the audience, again
shou n through their spokesman, H a r r y
Baillv, niiss the point of the Pardoner's
ale: T h e stated theme of his sermonand of the tale he tells-is "Radix malorurn est cupiditas," but besides this,
there is a theme in the Pardoner's address
t o the Pilgrims that in his o v n n ords is
But though ~llyself be gilty in that
synne,
Yet kan I maken oother folk to tn ynne
From avarice, and soore to repente.
(C 429-31)
And again:
For though myself be a ful vicious man,
X moral tale yet I yow telle kan.
(C 459-60)
In other words the Pardoner is explicitly telling the pilgrims that although
hi is a wretched, thieving hvpocrite, he
I<no\vs that his sermon is gobd and true,
that thev should note lvhat he says. not
n hat he- does. H e is being perfectiv candid about himself, his covetousness, and
the "hundred false japes" ( C 394) he
plays on his trusting congregation; but
at the same time he is also being candid
about holv he regards
his sermon itself.
a
Although in his mouth the homily is
certainly suspect, in itself it is good-and
this is what H a r r v Bailly et '11. fail t o
see. T h e dramatic ironv of the Pardoner's Prologue and ~ i l then
e
is not
that the Pardoner is revealing more than
he intends. but rather the converse-that
no one is able t o see the full meaning
263
of what he saw. Also. ~vhereasthe W i f e
of Bath reveils more than she intends.
the Pardoner intends t o reveal more than
he actually does-not because he is incapable of communicating, but because
the man himself makes his words a ario7.i unacceptable.
Granted that it is ironic for a pardoner to be a hypocrite, and further
that it is ironic for the sins the Pardoner preaches against in his sermong l u t t o n y , lechen., drunkenness, and
swearing-to be his olvn sins; but the
man states that they are his own sins.
H e is not denying that he likes to
drynke licour of the vyne,
And have a joly wenche in every toun.
(C 452-53)
H e is conscious of this irony and so
are both Pilgrims and readers.
Chaucer, holvever, takes this irony a
ster,
further. In the Pardoner he shows
I a Inan w h o is false in iust about everv
conceivable n a y , a m i n who, thou&
a eunuch, is described in terms of hare
(A. 684), goat ( A 688), and horse
(A 691), traditional symbols of lechery
and inner corruption. In an important
article Robert P. Miller has demonstrated clearlv and persuasivelv that the
Pardoner is t o be associated' ~ v i t hthe
false spiritual eunuch, the ezi~zzichzls71012
Tlei, n ho, not being able t o free himself
from the vetzis h07n0, the flesh and its
many lusts, is motivated b y cupidity,
self-love, and not b y charitv, Christian
love. In recognizing-the truth of Christianitv, but in deliberately abusing it, the
pardoner thus rnav be seen committing
the sin of presunlption, the irremissible
sin against the H o l y S ~ i r i t .xeverthe~
less, the Pardoner is capable of believing
in what he preaches. W h e n Aliller attempts to show that, like the false eunuch,
S"Chaucer's Pardoner, the Scriptural Eunuch,
and the Pardoner's Tale," Speculum, 30, (1955),
180-99. See also the brief b u t relevant comments in D. W. Robertson, Jr., A Preface to
Cbazrcer (Princeton, 1962), esp. p. 270.
COLLEGE ENGLISH
261
the Pardoner is "sterile in good works,
irnpotent t o produce spiritual f r ~ i t , "he
~
overlooks the fact that the nian does
tell a "moral tale" \vhich apparentlj- is
able to make his listeners "trvynne /
From avarice, and soorc to repente."
Certainlv the Pardoner's \i.av of life deserves dondemnation, but at the samc
time there is no denying that the man,
~vhateverhis motives, excels as a teacher.
His senlion is po\~.erfuland, if 1r.e ma!.
t~elievehim, usuallv rvell received. \\'bile
the good \i.ords lie speaks may not, because of his sinful state, help him
unless he repents (cf. Parson's Tale, I
231 ff.), the \i.ords are still good. Chaucer has put on the shc~ulders of the
Pardoner the sins of the nmrld in general and of the other Pilgrims in particular and has then had the man shon,
these sins in, as it \i.ere, a glaring light.
T h e result is not prettj- and the Pardoner is not pardoned bi- his fellon- sinners. H e is rejected, boidl\- and cruelly,
and, implicitljr, so are his sermon and
his \i.ords ;bout the salvation that
Christianitv can give to man.
Because.good words and n-orks come
from the Pardoner, one may, in fact,
question \i.hether he is reall\- evil. In
their reaction to the pardoner, the Piltrims overlook the Christian idea that
sjust
as a tree is known b v its fruit, so
n man is k n o ~ r - nb v his \virds (Alatthelr
xii. 33-37). This {-ien., that one's \r-ords
demonstrate one's nature, has been elnborated upon bv Biblical commentators,
such ns ~ a b a n Alaur,
.
n.ho follo~i-sthe
\i.ords of St. Jerome: "Si, inquit, dia11olus malus est, bonn opera facere non
potest; si autcm bona opera sunt, quae
facta cernitis, sequitur ut non sit diabolus
qui ea facit."'" Also, as is tersely remarked in the Glossa Ordinal-ia, "Si malus
est diabolus, non facit bona; si bona sunt,
-
",\Iiller, p. 18:. See also the 1ie\r
Ethel ("Chaucer's ll'orste Shreme:
er," ,l.ILQ, 20 [19591, 222-23), that
against truth," the Pardoner gives
sel."
of Garland
the Pardoni11 "urarring
"elil coun-
non sunt diaboli."" T o accept arid follow the Pardoner's good \i.ords does not
mean sanctioning the Pardoner's actions.
As Jesus directed concerning the Scribes
and Pharisees that taught the truth but
did not set good examples in their conduct. "Omnia ergo quaecunque diserint
vobis, servate, et facite: secundunl opera
vero eorum nolite facere: dicunt enim,
et non f a c i u n t . " ' O n e should note and
follon- n-hat the teacher saj-s not \i.hat
he does, for, in the \r-ords 6f St. Bruno
Astensis, "quod enim dicit, Dei est, quod
auteni agit, suum est."'TThough tlie
teacher maj- be hvpocritical, his \r.ords
mav still be good..
i s Alfred L. Kellogg recognized in
his Augustinian interpretation of the
Pardoner's spiritual degeneration, there
is no untamed cvil in the universe; rather
thcre is "onlv the n.ill of G o d fulfilling
itself cven in'the acts of the evil."" T h e
Canterbury Pilgrims, however, failing t o
realize this, condemn outright both the
Pardoner and ever\-thing associated n.ith
him. This is the final irony and the real
dramatic irony in the ~ a i d o n e r ' sTale.
T h e doctrine presented bv the Pardoner,
onlv one of many sinners: is rejected be"'"If, he says, the devil is bad, he is not able
to do good ~ v o r k s ;if, lionever, there are good
\vorks, \vhich you see hare been d o ~ i e ,it follo\r.s that it is not the devil \vho has done
tlien~.'' Cu?jr~tret2tarjrr?11in .Ilattbaezr.rrr, I\',
hligne, PL, C\'II, 930-31. See also St. Jerome,
PI-, XX\-I, 84.
""If the devil is cr-il, he does not do good; if
good \ror!is exist, they are not of tlie devil."
"Evangelium secu~idum.\latthaeun~,"PL, CXIV,
127; according to .\Iigne, this is by ll'alafrid
Strabo. See also St. Paschasius Radbcrtus, PI,,
CXX, 472-73; and St. Bruno Astensis, PL,
CLX\', 180.
""All, therefore, observe and do \\.hatever
they \rill say to you: but d o not act according
to their deeds: for they say and do not do."
.\Iatthe\v, XXIII. 3.
'""llThat indeed he says is of G o d ; ~ v l i a t
ho\r.erer h e does is of himself." Covzvleizraria
i n .tfnrrhflerrjjz, lv, PL, CLXV, 261. See also
St. Paschasius Radbertus, PL, C X S , 765.
""An Augustinian Interpretation of Chaucer's
Pardoner," S p ~ r z r l z r ~ ~26r , ( 1 95 I ) , 475.
F I N A L I R O N Y OF T H E P A R D O N E R ' S T A L E
cause of the man himself. I n fact, both
rnan and doctrine may be regarded as rejected before the h ale is even told. As
soon as H a r r v Baillv calls upon the Pardoncr for a tale, tlie ge~ltilspresent c r v
out,
Nay, lat hyni telle us of no ribaudye!
Telle us som moral thyng, that ~ v emay
leere
Som wit, and thanne \vol we gladly
heere.
( C 324-26)
T h e Pardoner obliges and tells the Pilgrims "som moral thyng," but the\- do
not "gladly heere" if. I t is only hen
u e reach the Parson's Tale, \\here the
teller of the Tale and the moral \t ords
are compatible that n e find the Pilgrims
accepting the sermon. T h e Parson is a
man rich "of hooly thoght and u e r k "
( A 479) and his good u o r k s precede
his preaching: "first he xvroghte, and afterward he taughte" ( A 497). Unlike the
Pardoner, a "shiten shepherden ( A
504), the Parson sets an example "B?his clennesse, h o v that his sheep sholde
Ivve" ( A 506). Nevertheless, \r hile the
parson is the better Christian and the
better pastor, his xvords are in themselves no hetter than those of the
Pardoner.
TVhile the Pardoner's Prologue and
Tale deepen our understanding of the
man himself, such re\elation is hardly
the end of the Tale's purpose, any more
than the performance of the TVife of
Bath is merely to make her, as a character, meaningful to us. Just as in her
xvords and through her, Chaucer anal\-zes the role of l o l e in the n o r l d , as
\\ell as its aberrations, so here in the
Pardoner and his sermon he seems t o be
implicitly questioning the relationship
between- evil, good, and innocence. T o
see this, Tve might first examine our
changing response t o the Pardoner. Just
as the comic TVife of Bath becomes a
comic-pathetic IVife, so the Pardoner
becomes somethine other than whollv
vicious. IVe stand apart from the man
V
265
throughout his antics and \t onder at and
are fascinated b y him. H e is also amusing to us in a repulsive \\ a?-, specificallv
in the General Prologue, \\ here Chaucer
s h o n s him riding "a1 of the newe jet"
( A 682) u i t h o u t a hat and u i t h his
thin hair hanging "by colpons oon and
oon" (-4 679), accohpanving the hideous Summoner in a love song. A t the
time it does not occur to us that such
a man can engage our s!-mpathies, but
this is preciselv \\ hat happens at the
conclusion of his Tale. H a r r v Bailly's
cruel words t o the Pardoner at the end
d o not amuse us, and for a moment at
least our sympathies \\ aver to\\ ard the
Pardoner, now appearing as pathetic as
the W i f e of Bath. H a r r v Baillv's \t is11
t o have the Pardoner's ~cozllo~isin hi\
hand ( C 952) brings t o our mind the
earlier \tords of Chaucer the narrator
that the Pardoner is "a geldvng or a
mare" (A 691), either castrated or a
natural eunuch. JVhether or not the
Host is conscious of the Pardoner's
physical state, his words emphasize that
the Pardoner is apart from the normal,
that it is impossible for him to be of
the n orld even though he might pathetically sing a love song ( A 672), say he
likes "a jolv n e n c h e in ever?- toun"
(C 453), and interrupt the IVife of Bath
t o sa\- he n a s "aboute t o n e d d e a n-vf"
( D (66).
*4lthough the sins of the Pardoner
serve to associate him n i t h the ezl~~zlchzls
71012 Dei and make him appear spirituallv impotent, his sexless condition, on
the other hand, gives the man an actual
physical innocence. N o matter \\hat he
sacs about himself and no matter how
bird he tries t o appear \\ orldlv, the
Pardoner really eaists apart from the
world. T o be sure, evil and fraud are
present in him, but the!- are blended
nit11 both good words-his sermon-and
innocence of a type traditionally associated u i t h those w h o are pure and above
the norldlv. T h e Pardoner ma?- even
be close t i \\hat Northrop Frye terms
266
COLLEGE ENGLISH
the incongruously ironic victim, the man
who does not deserve a11 that happens
to him, and who, through the attempts
to transfer guilt to him, has been given
"something of the dignitv of innocence."'j Like Christ, archetype of the
incongruously ironic victim, the Pardoner is shown being persecuted because he
contains within himself all the sins of the
world and specifically all the sins found
in his fellow Pilgrims. T h e Host's desire
to castrate the Pardoner mav be seen as
representing in itself a kind of crucifixion, one that is ironic because we
know the state in which the Pardoner
already is. T h e injustice present at the
end strikes us hard.
If we accept this interpretation, we
find easilv understandable the Pardoner's words in that much-quoted passage
just after his sermon when he apparently
speaks not to his imaginary audience
but to the Canterbury Pilgrims themselves:
And lo, sires, thus I preche.
A n d Jhesu Crist, that is oure soules leche,
So graunte y o w his pardoun t o receyve,
F o r that is best; 1 wol you; nat deceyve.
( C 915-18)
Though the tone of this passage may
seem somewhat wistful, Tve are being
rash to assume with Kittredge that under the spell of the storv he has told,
the Pardoner is stirred b; recollections
of the time when he preached for the
sake of Christ and suffers "a very par'"natomy
p. 42.
of Criticis??~(Princeton, 1957),
oxysni of agonized sin~erity."~"ather
than be an anomaly, the passage is just
another indication of the Pardoner's
emphasizing the worth of Christianity
at his own expense and is not at all
similar to those unintentional confessions
represented here bv the Wife of Bath's
Prologue and ale.
T o sum up, in the Pardoner Chaucer
is presenting not what Kittredge has
termed "the one lost soul among the
Canterburv Pilgrims."'.' not a ~vholly
evil man, but one in whom the evil has
been tempered, and to a degree negated,
by the innocence-that is, the separation
from the worldlv-found in the phvsical man, and b; the good words that
are in his serGon. Consequently, the
Pardoner is at the end of his Tale even
more of an ambiguous figure than he
xvas at its beginning. Both the phvsical
innocence and the good words are violently handled at the conclusion of the
~ a l i for
, they are misunderstood or unseen bv the Pardoner's listeners. All that
is noticed is the hypocritical man who,
by showing himself plain, has committed what may be regarded as a breach
of decorum. Nothing has been achieved
through the tale, no one understands,
and all xve are left with is the irony
that the Pardoner is the only unpardoned man of those who went on the
road to Canterburv.
-'Thtazlcer and His Poetry, p. 217. Cf. Ethel
(p. 224), who feels that the Pardoner's words
here are his "crowning impiety."
"Ibid., p. 180.
ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS
Abe Lincoln in Illinois will be presented o n N B C television, February 1, 7:309:00 p. m. EST. T h e sponsor, Hallmark Cards, u i l l distribute gratis 1,000 copies
of the Februury issue of Studies in the Mass Media, specially devoted t o the
play, t o college English teachers.