5 Alexis Carter – The Root of All Evil and Chaucer’s Pardoner
This paper is the final project completed for English L306 – Middle English Literature. It examines two opposing interpretations that can be made of the Pardoner’s character in The Canterbury Tales. Alexis is a Muncie, IN native currently living in College Station, TX. She is a senior year undergrad in the Technical and Professional Writing program. This paper is the final project I completed for English L306 – Middle English Literature. It examines two opposing interpretations that can be made of the Pardoner’s character in The Canterbury Tales. Professor Alisa Clapp-Itnyre notes, “ I am nominating another one of Alexis’s excellent papers! As I read the final version, I was impressed with the thesis/argument, that Chaucer’s Pardoner does not have two dual natures, as much as there are two fairly dualistic interpretations of him, using two critics with opposing interpretations. A pleasure to read this paper!”
The Root of All Evil and Chaucer’s Pardoner
The Canterbury Tales is a timeless work that has been interpreted countless times throughout the years. Each of the pilgrims presented by Chaucer can be interpreted in several ways using different criteria as the basis for interpretation. By basing the setting of the story around a religious pilgrimage, Chaucer creates an environment where the pilgrims feel comfortable and, perhaps, obligated to confess their sins as a way to cleanse their souls before they enter Canterbury. Chaucer expertly uses the varying personalities, perspectives, and ideologies of the time to create characters who are relatable while also revealing some of the less socially acceptable aspects of basic human nature. Even in the modern age, Chaucer’s pilgrims remain relatable on a basic human level. The acts of adultery, deceit, greed, misogyny, and religious persecution depicted in the work express the darker inner characteristics and desires that humans often experience but must repress due to social pressure.
Chaucer’s bold expression of the duality of human nature is obvious in many of the pilgrims like the Wife of Bath’s feminine personality and love of men on the surface and her intense inner desire to hold power on the same level as the men in society. The dual nature of the final pilgrim in the line, the Pardoner, is a little more difficult to grasp because, on the surface, he does not appear to have any hidden altruistic motivations or any deeper hidden secrets than those to which he readily admits. Using close explication of the Pardoner’s introduction, prologue, and tale, this paper will reveal the dual nature of the Pardoner through the lens of two opposing interpretations of him.
In addition to the duality of human nature, each of the pilgrims in Chaucer’s work represents ideals held by society during the Middle Ages. The Wife of Bath, the Merchant, and the Franklin all represent the importance and significance of marriage to both men and women at the time. The Wife of Bath, for example, represents the repression of women and their desire to be treated as equals to the men with whom they lived. The Merchant and the Franklin represent two sides of the same coin in regard to the importance of love and equality in marriage.
The Prioress and the Pardoner are both religious figures and represent the authority held by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. The fact that neither of these characters is depicted in a completely positive light is perhaps an indication of Chaucer’s opinion of the Church’s pervasive presence in everyday society. The Prioress is described as an educated, well-mannered, kind, and devout nun but is later revealed to be a hateful anti-Semite. Each of these pilgrims displays a dual nature of conflicting ideals, making them seem more human and relatable to the reader. The Pardoner is no exception to this rule, but the duality of his nature is somewhat more difficult to elucidate.
In the article “From The Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale” Helen Cooper suggests that the Pardoner’s unsavory character traits are a purposeful device used to show the other pilgrims what they may become if they succumb to temptation – specifically the temptation of greed. From the beginning, the Pardoner is completely open and almost proud of the fact that he only cares about the profit potential of the congregations he sermonizes. He does not attempt to hide the fact that he is driven solely by greed, regardless of the personal cost to others. Cooper suggests that the Pardoner’s motive in his openness is to make an example of himself, not only through his sermons but also by his behavior, of what the other pilgrims might become if they succumb to the sin of avarice. He also preaches to the pilgrims about gluttony while he gets drunk at a tavern, using his behavior again as an example of the consequences of not heeding his warning. Using Cooper’s suggestion of the Pardoner’s underlying altruistic intentions as a filter through which to view his actions helps to elucidate the duality of his nature. He is despicable, yet his intentions are honorable.
The Pardoner may also be viewed, solely, as an incredibly deceitful character. In his article “The Final Irony of the Pardoner’s Tale” Edmund Reiss suggests that the Pardoner is hiding a much darker secret than the simple love of gold because, unlike the other pilgrims, “no one is able to see the full meaning of what he says” (263). The idea that he’s being extremely open about one character flaw suggests that perhaps he’s trying to hide something much more heinous. In much the same way as a magician employs the use of distraction to lead the audience’s eyes away from the truth of the trick, the Pardoner also may be using his overt rejection of the principles he preaches about to distract the other pilgrims from something more shameful. The fact that the Pardoner seemingly lays all his sins bare for the judgment of the other pilgrims, and then proceeds to preach about the evil nature and the tragic consequences of those sins makes him a hypocrite, but it does not answer the question of why he would tell them these things to begin with. Reiss suggests that the reason is perhaps because the Pardoner is Chaucer’s representation of the true root of all evil whose intent is to profit from, confuse, and corrupt his audiences. Regardless of the Pardoner’s recognition of Christian truth and principle, he purposely abuses this truth, “committing the sin of presumption” which is considered an “irremissible sin against the Holy Spirit” thus becoming the embodiment of evil, and the moral of his own story (263). By this interpretation, his supposed honesty is just another form of deceit that he uses to manipulate his audience.
The introductory physical description of the Pardoner is the first indication of his deceitful nature and the first hint that is given of the duality of his persona. The narrator describes him as having “glaring” eyes, stringy hair, and a young face that would never be able to grow a beard, leading the narrator to the conclusion that he must be a eunuch (Chaucer, line 684). The fact that he appears younger than his age is one of the first indicators that the Pardoner is a deceitful character. It is possible that he intentionally keeps himself in this physical state to create a perception of his innocence and therefore trustworthiness, which he can then use to manipulate his audiences. The description of his eyes as “glaring” suggests that he is quite shrewd and judgmental of others, and perhaps that he is angry despite his jovial outward demeanor. Another physical indicator of his nature is his voice. Although his natural voice is “as small as a goat” he yells quite a bit, though only to those he is attempting to deceive such as women, to subvert the idea that he is a eunuch, and parishioners to whom he sings “merrily and loud” in an effort to swindle them out of their money (688, 714). The comparison to a goat could be a reference to Baphomet, a goat-like deity whom the Turks called upon during the First Crusade and was later deemed a heretical symbol (Bauer). The comparison is indicative of the evil nature lurking under the surface of the Pardoner’s merriment. This opposition between the innocence of his appearance and the deviousness of his actions is the first insight that the reader is given into the true nature of the Pardoner. Even his physical appearance can be considered a form of deceit because he is neither young nor innocent. The final indication of the Pardoner’s duality seen in the introduction is his description as “a noble ecclesiast” suggesting that he does believe his teachings to be the truth, despite his behavior (708). This trait paints the Pardoner as a hypocrite, a label that will carry on throughout the rest of his prologue and tale. Still, when viewed from a different perspective, it indicates something deeper than hypocrisy alone.
The fact that the Pardoner actively practices the sins against which he warns others is his own twisted way of exemplifying what he preaches. By viewing the Pardoner through this lens, he is shown to be a completely honest, if unsavory, character. Cooper sums up the Pardoner’s approach to his profession by stating, “It is at once an image of how one should not live, and how he himself does” (605). He exemplifies his own warning in a completely honest way, and perhaps because of this, is unashamed to try and peddle his admittedly false relics to the rest of the pilgrims after he’s finished telling his tale. If they are still willing to buy the relics after being told that they’re fake, the Pardoner is absolved of any guilt. Though his honesty lends credence to the notion that he is, at his core, motivated by a genuine belief in Christian principles and an altruistic desire to better the population, his selfishness and greed seem to overshadow his more palatable qualities.
A different interpretation of the Pardoner is that he is the root of all evil. In his prologue, he states that his sermons always deal with the same topic “Greed is the root of all evil” (Chaucer, line 426). He also states, “I spit out my venom under hue / of holiness to seem holy and true” (421-422). He later describes himself as “vicious” (459). The use of alliteration in the words “venom” and vicious” is suggestive of the poison of a deadly animal, and the repetition of “holy” and “holiness” reinforces the stark opposition between good and evil. The fact that he uses all of these words to describe himself gives a clear indication of the dual nature of his personality as both poisonous and holy. The rhyming between the words “hue” and “true” suggests that while he is telling the truth about himself, it is not the whole truth. He admits to being deceitful but is not elaborating any further. Combining these ideas brings about the concept of the Devil disguised as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, tempting Eve with the fruit. He tells her truths about herself and makes himself seem honest and trustworthy as a ploy to get her to commit the original sin. By Christian standards, this is the ultimate deception and the point at which evil was born in the world. The Pardoner further suggests this idea with his tale, in which he describes the tragic fate of three young men who have allowed themselves to be ruled by greed and succumb to the temptation of wealth despite the warnings of a wise, yet impoverished, old man (a probable representation of God). The implication is that greed is the evilest entity imaginable and will lead to premature death, however, the Pardoner is consumed with greed and yet he lives. This suggests that despite his religious status, he is pure evil and therefore able to defy the consequences of his actions. When viewed through this lens, none of his motivations are altruistic at all, and his supposed concern is merely a ruse to disguise his truly evil nature.
Although he is one of the more difficult characters to analyze, the Pardoner does appear to follow the idea that each pilgrim exemplifies the duality of human nature depending on the lens through which they are analyzed. He is both honest and deceitful, and while he is not ashamed of his actions, he delights in shaming others for theirs to make a profit. The diametric opposition of the Pardoner’s character is that he is evil wrapped in holy garments, and though he is likely the pilgrim most in need of it, he has no desire to be pardoned for his sins. He justifies his way of life by using himself as an example of the kind of behaviors from which others should seek to be pardoned, yet he, himself has no remorse. He is truthful but only if the truths he tells are profitable.
References
Bauer, Pat. “Baphomet.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 6 Nov. 2023, www.britannica.com/topic/Baphomet.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales: Seventeen Tales and the General Prologue: Authoritative Text, Sources and Backgrounds, Criticism. Edited by V. A. Kolve and Glending Olson, W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.
Reiss, Edmund. “The Final Irony of the Pardoner’s Tale.” College English, vol. 25, no. 4, 1964, pp. 260–66. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/373572.