Proceedings of The National Conference
On Undergraduate Research (NCUR) 2012
Weber State University, Ogden Utah
March 29 – 31, 2012
"I Wol Yow Nat Deceyve":
The Pardoner's Virtuous Path in The Canterbury Tales
Lindsay Stephens
English Department
Black Hills State University
1200 University Street
Spearfish, SD 57799 USA
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein
Abstract
The Pardoner of Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales is usually perceived as terrible and morally bankrupt. As
a result, he is often categorized as an evil and one-dimensional character. In fact, a dim view of the Pardoner is
common among scholars. However, this convenient dismissal of the Pardoner is dissatisfying and does not, for
example, address the enigma of the Pardoner's honesty with the other pilgrims. The conventional interpretation also
fails to address the layers of paradox surrounding the Pardoner's insistence upon preaching against avarice, despite
his own admission that gaining wealth is his sole focus in life. Therefore, another interpretation is called for.
The Pardoner is, after all, a ruined human being. He is a eunuch, and this unfortunate condition results in the
Pardoner's perpetual devastation and isolation. He inhabits that peculiar state which demands that a human being
must function in daily life regardless of the extreme desperation coloring his every move. Therefore, the Pardoner is
in terrible emotional straits. In fact, he is so isolated that his mental landscape is a place where the ethics governing
humankind no longer apply. Here, in his misfit world of one, the Pardoner is forced to create his own code of ethics
so that he may function. Therefore, the Pardoner of The Canterbury Tales is a virtuous being. First, the Pardoner
believes that greed, if practiced correctly, is not the root of all evil. Next, despite his claim that he doesn't care about
his audience, the Pardoner hopes to rescue people with his artful sermons. Also, the Pardoner believes that
hopefulness must be maintained in the face of adversity and extreme isolation. Finally, the Pardoner does know that
truth, when it is called for, is indeed valuable. This paper explores the virtues of the Pardoner, using textual evidence
from The Canterbury Tales, as well as secondary support from Oscar Wilde, Plato, Carolyn Dinshaw, Arthur W.
Hoffman, and Frank V. Cespedes, among others.
Keywords: Pardoner, Chaucer, Greed
1. Introduction
At first blush, the Pardoner of Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales appears to be a terrible, morally bankrupt
person. This dim view of the Pardoner is common. For example, in the essay "Chaucer the Pilgrim," scholar E.
Talbot Donaldson calls the Pardoner a "rascal" and goes on to say that "except in Church, every one can see through
him at a glance."1 This charge, however, is somewhat light. The eminent Chaucerian expert George Lyman
Kittredge goes further, calling the Pardoner "an abandoned wretch" [who is] "the one lost soul among the
Canterbury Pilgrims."2 After all, the Pardoner's crimes are staggeringly awful. He passes off a jar of swine bones as
holy relics to the unwary. He also sells fake pardons to sinners and keeps the money. Worst of all, he is a hypocrite.
He preaches against avarice in his sermons, yet he is unbelievably greedy. Yet despite his many faults, dismissing
the Pardoner as merely corrupt is convenient and dissatisfying. Such a dismissal relegates certain aspects of the
Pardoner to a dustbin reserved for the enigmatic and the unexplainable. If the Pardoner were completely corrupt, his
honesty about his dishonesty makes no sense. In addition, such an interpretation demands that the layers of paradox
surrounding the Pardoner's insistence upon preaching against avarice must remain unexplained.
Luckily, another way of interpreting the Pardoner's character does exist. In this alternative interpretation, he falls
far short of simply being dismissed as a purely evil human being. It must be said that he is so damaged and so
completely beyond the garden-variety corruption of his religious colleagues that the Pardoner occupies his own
moral sphere. The Pardoner is, after all, a ruined human being. This sorry state can primarily be traced to his
unfortunate anatomy: the Pardoner has no testicles. Caught between genders, he is a tortured, medieval eunuch.
Needless to say, his condition results in relentless ridicule. In the "General Prologue," the narrator slyly suggests that
the Pardoner "were a gelding or a mare."3 The narrator is suggesting that the Pardoner is either castrated—which is
the case—or a woman. This constant teasing results in the Pardoner's perpetual devastation. For example, the
Pardoner is so upset that he cannot speak when the Host alludes to the fact that he is a eunuch after the Pardoner
finishes telling his brash tale. The Pardoner "answered nat a word; / so wrooth he was, no word ne wolde he seye."4
Translated in Modern English, these lines mean that the Pardoner is so angry that he cannot speak. He is
embarrassed, of course, but the subtext is that his anger does not come from simply having his secret revealed.
Instead, the Pardoner is furious because he has been living for years with bitterness and anger over his lack of
testicles, and the Host has cruelly reminded him that he can never be normal. This reminder compounds the
Pardoner's isolation. Scholar Arthur W. Hoffman notes the impact the Pardoner's disfigurement incurs on his mental
state in the essay "Chaucer's Prologue to Pilgrimage: The Two Voices." Hoffman writes that "the song of the
Summoner and Pardoner is a superb dramatic irony acknowledging the full extent of their need and loss, the love of
God which they ought to strive for, the love they desperately need."5 Hoffman points out that the Pardoner is in
terrible emotional straits. The Pardoner has entered that peculiar state which demands that a human being must
function in daily life regardless of the extreme desperation coloring his every move. As a result, the Pardoner's
mental landscape is a place where the rules governing humankind no longer apply. Here, in his misfit world of one,
the Pardoner alters society’s code of ethics so that he may navigate the stormy seas of existence. Therefore, the
Pardoner of Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales is not evil. He is, within his own moral framework, a virtuous being.
2. The Pardoner's Moral Framework
The Pardoner believes that vices must have boundaries, and that greed—if practiced correctly—is not the root of all
evil. Avarice can be a root of evil but does not need to be the taproot of evil. The difference lies in intention. He
knows that his own avarice is not a healthy behavior but since his avarice leads to his personal comfort and not the
corruption of others, it is acceptable. The Pardoner compares his own faults to other, more corrupt members of his
profession. He explains that "For certes, many a predicacioun / Comth ofte tyme of yvel entencioun: / Some for
plesaunce of folk and flaterye, / to be avaunced by ypocrise, / And som for veyne glorie, and som for hate."6
Translated in Modern English, this passage means that plenty of other people give sermons with evil intentions.
Some of his colleagues give sermons as entertainment or for promotions, while others do it for fame or to fan the
flames of hatred. The Pardoner makes a strong case that greed is indeed preferable to other motivations for the
dramatic speechifying practiced by men (and women) of the church. The Pardoner's avarice is not good, but it a
lesser moral crime than the transgressions committed by the competition.
Furthermore, his defense of his own avarice serves the isolated Pardoner well—and may even assuage the psychic
pain of his testicle-free existence. But this moral only works for the Pardoner because of his extreme isolation. The
general public cannot be trusted to make such a distinction. That is why the Pardoner insists upon preaching against
greed. And he is successful in his endeavor. The Pardoner notes that his audiences do not embrace avarice by the
time he is finished with them. The Pardoner tells the pilgrims that "But though myself be gilty in that sinne, / Yet
can I maken other folk to twynne / From avaryce and sore to repente."7 In Modern English, these lines mean that the
Pardoner freely admits that he is greedy. Yet he thinks he can prevent other people from following this ruinous path.
After all, the Pardoner knows that the general public's avarice, if left unchecked, could metastasize into something
beyond the bounds of satisfying their own personal comfort and therefore inflict great harm upon society.
In fact, the Pardoner's prevention of the general public's avarice connects directly to another of his virtues, which
is to (grudgingly) save people from themselves with his artful sermons. Despite his claim that he doesn't care what
happens to his audience, the Pardoner is doing good work. In fact, although the messenger is damaged and tainted,
his message remains pure and does encourage his audience to live better lives. One of the Pardoner's methods of
doing so includes intentionally shaming members of his audience who have committed adultery. The Pardoner
issues his audience the warning that "Swich folk shul have no power ne no grace / To offren to my reliks in this
1078
place."8 In Modern English, this statement means that the Pardoner is telling people that he can absolve them of
small sins and so they should come forward, but he is unable to absolve them of the truly terrible sins. This crafty
disclaimer has the comical effect of sending people scrambling forward in an effort to prove their innocence, of
course, but it also serves another purpose. The Pardoner's statement reminds the sinners that what they have done is
absolutely reprehensible. The Pardoner's words have the power to steer the adulterers toward introspection and
perhaps guide them toward a larger realization.
Moreover, the Pardoner's audiences are positively riveted by the dramatic delivery style of his sermons, which
makes the sermons extremely effective. He cares enough to be good at what he does, and delights in exercising his
talents. This care shown by the Pardoner suggests that he cannot be evil. Scholar Frank V. Cespedes attempts to
shed light on the paradox of the Pardoner's delivery style and purported ill will in his essay "Chaucer's Pardoner and
Preaching." Cespedes notes that "In a discriminating defense of the Pardoner, Edmund Reiss also finds thematically
important the quality of the Pardoner's speech; but Reiss wants to defend the thesis that 'Because good words and
works come from the Pardoner, one may, in fact, question whether he is really evil.' Reiss cites Matthew 12:33—
'For by the fruit the tree is known'—to support his contention that since the Pardoner's words are good, so is the
Pardoner, whose rejection by the pilgrims, in Reiss's view, is the 'final irony' of the tale."9 It is clear that the
Pardoner, by exercising his powerful oratory skills, wants very much for his listeners to be moved—and
motivated—by his sermons. This explanation sheds new light onto the problem of a terrible person telling a moral
tale, which is raised by Paul Strohm in his work Social Chaucer. Strohm points out that "the dilemma is posed in the
Pardoner's contention that a 'vicious man' can nevertheless tell a 'moral tale'—a dilemma that, as we have seen,
creates discomfort for the pilgrim audience and for subsequent audiences as well."10 But the dilemma is completely
erased when the viciousness of the Pardoner is diluted. Therefore, with the viciousness of the Pardoner reduced,
readers of The Canterbury Tales and the pilgrims themselves will have to find their discomfort elsewhere.
Yet another virtue the Pardoner upholds is that hopefulness must be maintained in the face of adversity and
extreme isolation. He reveals himself to be very tenacious in this regard. What appears to be greed is actually a
metaphor for his constant, hopeful search for wholeness. For example, the Pardoner's selling of fake relics is directly
tied to his unwavering hope that he can become an accepted member of humanity rather than remain an outcast.
Scholar Carolyn Dinshaw notes this phenomenon in her essay "Eunuch Hermeneutics." Dinshaw writes that "even
though the Pardoner knows that his relics, documents, [and] words are defective substitutes—they are fakes, and he
tells us so—he holds on to the belief that they can make him whole, part of the body of pilgrims, and of the larger
body of Christians."11 The fake relics generate revenue, which in turn feeds his cycle of avarice. The Pardoner
doesn't seem to realize that his endeavors are a lost cause, but the fact remains that his hope is unshakeable. His
tenacity is admirable. Also, it must be noted that given his obvious defects, the Pardoner could easily have assumed
a mute, misanthropic state and not have told a tale at all. Instead, he makes a valiant attempt to contribute to the
community of pilgrims. He must be commended for remaining hopeful and trying to assimilate into their microsociety.
Finally, the Pardoner values honesty, despite the fact that his work demands dishonesty. This may seem
contradictory, since dishonesty is the foundation of his relic-selling routine. However, it must be noted that
dishonesty is a necessary part of the routine. His sermons are, after all, an act. It could be argued that all actors are
liars, since their vocation entails imitating life. Plato would certainly include actors in his list of reviled imitators,
alongside poets and painters, in his Republic. Plato would "place him by the side of the painter [. . .] inasmuch as his
creations have an inferior degree of truth."12 The Pardoner, then, is simply part of a great tradition. His lying about
the relics is necessary to his vocation, which, given his obvious talent for public speaking, falls into the category of
art. This need for lying in art is perhaps best expressed by Oscar Wilde in "The Decay of Lying." In this spoof of a
Platonic dialogue, Wilde's character Vivian vehemently defends lying by saying that "lying and poetry are arts—
arts, as Plato saw, not unconnected with each other—and they require the most careful study, the most disinterested
devotion."13 The Pardoner, since he is a master of his craft, recognizes the power of lying and employs it relentlessly
during his sermons. However, the Pardoner does recognize the value of truth—and he knows that there is an
appropriate time and place for it. For example, he unabashedly tells the pilgrims the truth about his occupation. As
the Pardoner explains,"I stond lyk a clerk in my pulpet, / And whan the lewed people is doun y-set, / I preche, so as
ye han herd before, / And telle a hundred false japes more."14 Translated into Modern English, the Pardoner is
confessing to the pilgrims that when he preaches, he stands in the pulpit like a priest and tells a hundred lies. As he
does this, his stupid listeners believe every word he says. He is admitting to the pilgrims that he puts on an act for
his crowds of listeners. The deeds he confesses are absolutely abhorrent, of course, but it must be pointed out that
the Pardoner is telling the truth to the pilgrims in this passage.
Ironically, despite his boast of telling a hundred lies, the foundation of the Pardoner's work is truth. Honesty is a
core element in his sermons about avarice. He knows all too well about the pitfalls of greed. The Pardoner explains
1079
to the pilgrims that he only preaches about greed and never strays away onto an unfamiliar subject. He tells them
that "But shortly myn entente I wol devyse: / I preche of no thing but for coveityse. / Therfore my theme is yet, and
evere was, / Radix malorum est cupiditas. / Thus can I preche again that same vyce / Which that I use, and that is
avarice."15 The Pardoner's statement, translated into Modern English, explains to the pilgrims that the sole theme of
his sermons is that greed is the root of all evil. Moreover, as a greedy person, he understands all too well the pitfalls
of avarice and is therefore qualified to issue such grave warnings to his audience. The Pardoner is telling the
pilgrims that he elects to stay on familiar ground so that his sermons will be more effective and have the potential—
and potency—to save his listeners. He is adhering to the truth by refusing to talk about subjects he does not know.
He wants to maintain credibility as a speaker. He is establishing what Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee call
invented ethos in their exhaustive tome Ancient Rhetorics. Crowley and Hawhee explain that "to seem wellinformed is especially important when the audience is relatively well-informed themselves about the issue at hand.
In this case, the rhetor must quickly assure them that he knows what he is talking about. He may do so by using
language that suggests he is an insider, by sharing an anecdote that indicates he has experience or knowledge in a
particular area, or by describing his qualifications"16 The Pardoner is honest with his audience about his vast
experience with avarice. By holding himself up as a bad example, he hopes to help his audience make better
decisions than he.
3. Conclusion
The Pardoner will always remain an enigmatic character. Chaucer has infused him with layers of paradox and
shrouded him in mystery, while making him appear so terrible that he occasionally appears to be positively comical.
Yet the Pardoner is so complex that the standard interpretation is insufficient because of the loose threads left
dangling from it. Another viewpoint is certainly called for, and the alternative conclusion that the Pardoner is a
virtuous being is absolutely valid. In fact, the evidence pointing to such a conclusion is staggering. Because of his
psychic isolation, the Pardoner lives by a unique set of virtues. He maintains that greed is just fine if practiced
discriminately. Also, his art of sermonizing must be practiced since it has the power to change lives. Next, the
Pardoner believes that hopefulness must be maintained despite terrible odds. And lastly, he believes that truth is
valuable and should be used in his personal life. The virtues he lives by clearly show that the Pardoner is not
completely evil. Instead, he is simply another damaged being in a defective body, attempting to exist in harmony
with unsympathetic, perfectly-functioning people.
4. Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein for his masterful lectures on The Canterbury Tales. He reiterated time
and again that the Pardoner is completely evil, which led me to wonder if this is truly the case. I took his
interpretation of the Pardoner as something of a dare. I would also like to thank Dr. Amy Fuqua for her vital
comments at the eleventh hour, and Dr. Courtney Huse Wika, Dr. Holly Boomer, Dr. Christine Shearer-Cremean,
and Dr. David Cremean for their wise counsel. I would also like to thank my esteemed colleague, Samantha YengerCremean, for bothering to giggle at me in the BHSU Writing Center as I attempted the daunting pronunciations of
Middle English (and most likely failed).
5. Notes
1. E. Talbot Donaldson, "Chaucer the Pilgrim," in The Canterbury Tales: Fifteen Tales and the General Prologue,
eds. V.A. Kolve and Glending Olson. (New York: Norton, 2005), 508.
2. George Lyman Kittredge, Chaucer and His Poetry (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1915), quoted in
Steven Kruger, "Claiming the Pardoner," in The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, ed.
David Richter (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007), 1695.
3. Geoffrey Chaucer, "The General Prologue," in Kolve and Olson, The Canterbury Tales, line 691.
4. ------. "Pardoner’s Tale," in Kolve and Olson, The Canterbury Tales, lines 956-57.
5. Arthur W. Hoffman, "Chaucer's Prologue to Pilgrimage: The Two Voices," in Kolve and Olson, The
Canterbury Tales, 500.
1080
6. Chaucer, "Pardoner’s Prologue," in Kolve and Olson, The Canterbury Tales, lines 407-11.
7. Ibid., 429-31.
8. Ibid., 383-84.
9. Frank V. Cespedes, "Chaucer's Pardoner and Preaching," ELH 44, no 1 (1977): 10,
http://www.jstor.org/stable.2872523.
10. Paul Strohm, "Social Chaucer: A Mixed Commonwealth of Style" in Kolve and Olson, The Canterbury Tales,
561.
11. Carolyn Dinshaw, "Eunuch Hermeneutics," in Kolve and Olson, The Canterbury Tales, 568.
12. Plato,"Republic," in Richter, The Critical Tradition, 36.
13. Oscar Wilde, "The Decay of Lying," in Richter, The Critical Tradition, 480.
14. "Pardoner’s Prologue," 391-94.
15. Ibid., 423-28.
16. Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee, Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students (New York: Pearson,
2009), 203.
6. Bibliography
1. Cespedes, Frank V. "Chaucer's Pardoner and Preaching." ELH 44, no. 1 (1977): 1-18.
http://www.jstor.org/stable.2872523.
2. Crowley, Sharon and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. New York: Pearson, 2009.
3. Dinshaw, Carolyn. "Eunuch Hermeneutics." In Kolve and Olson, The Canterbury Tales, 566-585.
4. Donaldson, E. Talbot. "Chaucer the Pilgrim." In Kolve and Olson, The Canterbury Tales, 503-11.
5. Hoffman, Arthur W. "Chaucer's Prologue to Pilgrimage: The Two Voices." In Kolve and Olson, The
Canterbury Tales, 492-503.
6. Kolve, V.A. and Glending Olson, ed. The Canterbury Tales: Fifteen Tales and the General Prologue. By
Geoffrey Chaucer. New York: Norton, 2005.
7. Kittredge, George Lyman. Chaucer and His Poetry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1915. Quoted in
Steven Kruger, "Claiming the Pardoner." In Richter, The Critical Tradition, 1691-1706.
8. Plato. "Republic." In Richter, The Critical Tradition, 30-38.
9. Richter, David, ed. The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin's, 2007.
10. Strohm, Paul. "Social Chaucer: A Mixed Commonwealth of Style." In Kolve and Olson, The Canterbury
Tales, 556-566.
11. Wilde, Oscar. "The Decay of Lying." In Richter, The Critical Tradition, 478-496.
1081