Heather E. Crider
Medieval Pulp Fiction –
Audience and the
exemplum in The Pardoner’s Tale
The Pardoner’s Tale is one of Chaucer’s
many experiments with genre in The
Canterbury Tales. In the work, identification
and interpretation of the Tale’s
exemplum are complicated. These issues
arise because the Pardoner describes his greed and corruption before he
delivers a sermon that includes a lengthy exemplum warning against the vice of
avariciousness. Additionally, the
interpretation of the Pardoner’s discourse varies based on the audience whom he
addresses. His primary audience, pilgrims
of The Canterbury Tales, is privy to
his corruption, while his secondary audience, a church congregation, is unaware
of his greed and of the contempt in which he holds them. The Pardoner claims that his sermons are successes
because of their ability to incite repentance in audiences. This claim from an admittedly flawed man is
not the only support, however, for the assertion of the strength of the exemplum,
because the Pardoner provides an organized, eloquent, and convincing performance
to demonstrate his skill. Though the
exemplum for church audiences is unambiguous, the exemplum for the pilgrim
audience is difficult even to locate.
The intended exemplum for the pilgrims could be the sermon, excepting
the introductory comments. This
situation would demand that the Pardoner is serious in his delivery of the
sermon and expects repentance from the pilgrims. The revelation of the Pardoner’s corruption
in the Prologue presents problems for this interpretation because of the
contradictions between the Pardoner’s character and his message. Secondly, the exemplum for the pilgrims could
be the broader tale of the corrupt Pardoner himself whose greed is exposed and
whose sermon is rejected in this situation. This interpretation is complicated because
the Pardoner fails in this situation, but his corruption is
not exposed to a broad audience, so it does not seem that he has
received true punishment for his greed.
In the end, it does seem that the Pardoner is an evil man who can
deliver a potent sermon, and this contradiction inhibits the effectiveness of
his character as an exemplary figure.
Location of an exemplum for the pilgrims is difficult because the intentions
of the Pardoner, as well as those of Chaucer, are shrouded
behind the Pardoner’s combination of sin and skill and behind his unexplained
reaction to the Host’s rebuff. Since
intentions are so masked in this Tale, it is helpful to consider various possibilities for the
exemplum directed toward the pilgrims. Though the intended message is not clear, it seems that with both
suggested possibilities the Pardoner fails to provide an effective, therefore
morally clear, exemplum for the pilgrims. However, the same moral ambiguity that limits
the Pardoner’s efficacy with the pilgrims makes Chaucer’s work in The Pardoner’s Tale provocative and
memorable because of the issues these moral complications raise about audience,
the exemplum, and interactions between the two.
In the case
of the church audience, unlike the pilgrim audience, the reader does not have
the benefit of seeing the congregation’s reaction to the sermon. Therefore, the Pardoner’s efficacy for his
typical church audience must be evaluated in terms of
his history with such audiences. Two
sources provide information about the success of the Pardoner with his typical
audience. The Pardoner’s claims of
proficiency as a preacher, though not necessarily definitive on the issue
because of his admittedly deceptive nature, are helpful because they do provide
some possible background into his history with church audiences. The claims gain some credibility when they are considered along with the sermon he delivers, the second
piece of evidence to suggest his skill as a preacher. An examination of the sermon itself for
organizational and structural unity and appropriate style can help determine
whether the message can work for a typical church audience. This church audience would not be aware of
any of the confessional comments made to the pilgrims during the prologue, and
therefore, the sermon itself has a stronger chance for success as an exemplary
message for this audience. The
Pardoner’s sermon, exclusive of the Prologue and his interaction with the host
at the end of the tale, functions as a moral tale for his typical church
audience.
First, the Pardoner measures his
success in preaching by the amount of money he acquires from people who wish to
buy a pardon for their sins. Though this
standard is not the most socially
acceptable measure of quality preaching, it does follow logically that
effective preaching should lead to repentance and repentant sinners may seek to
offer the Pardoner money to assuage their guilt. Therefore, a Pardoner who is skilled in the
art of delivering sermons and exempla could possibly receive many offerings for
penance. The Pardoner attests to his own
skill as a preacher, based on his definition of success, when he proclaims the
money he has gained in his trade. He boasts,
“By this gaude have I wonne, yeer by yeer, / An hundred mark sith I was
pardoner” (76-77). The Pardoner claims
that he makes money because his sermons show people the error of their ways and
make them want to repent. His word on
this matter is somewhat helpful because it suggests at least one standard, the
purchase of relics or pardons, by which the efficacy of a sermon could be
measured. However, since the Pardoner is
a flawed character, his definition of a successful exemplum is unconcerned with
moral effects he may have upon his listeners.
Since he focuses on his own material gain, he uses some methods to
persuade his audience that are not based upon moral
instruction. For example, he briefly
discusses prompting churchgoers to give him an offering by announcing that any
people who have committed a sin so horrible that they wish not to ask for
forgiveness can remain in their seats (65-74).
This type of social pressure could prompt people who are not penitent to
buy a pardon because of social pressure.
Therefore, the Pardoner’s monetary standard of a successful sermon is
applicable in the discussion of a clear moral exemplum only in the sense that
it is likely that at least some churchgoers buy relics and pardons because the
feel penitent and not because they feel pressured. Still, the Pardoner’s sermon itself proves a
more solid source for evaluating the Pardoner’s skill.
The style
of the Pardoner’s sermon makes it compelling, while the organization makes it comprehensible. Critics point to the general denunciation of
various vices at the beginning of the sermon as evidence of the Pardoner’s
rhetorical skill. “The condemnation of
gluttony and gambling and swearing is all that it ought to be: eloquent / … convincing … moving … [and]
sincere” (Elliott 23-24). The Pardoner’s
language is descriptive without being overly erudite and persuasive without
being overly forceful. The Pardoner
creates vivid images that illustrate the foulness of sin. When he speaks against gluttony, he describes
the stomach, “O wombe! O bely! O stinking cod, /
Fulfild of donge and of corrupcioun!” (221-222). This
disturbing depiction produces disgust of the sin that would create such
vileness. The Pardoner also conveys what
Elliott calls a “sense of urgency” in his sermon (25). Use of apostrophe, including the frequent use
of “O!,” and
the use of hyperbole, as in the suggestion that people tear apart the
physical body of Christ when they use false oaths, suggest the immediacy of the
need for repentance. Overall, the
Pardoner’s language emphasizes the vileness of sin and necessity of repentance.
Not only is
the Pardoner’s sermon stylistically successful, but it is also easy to follow
because of its organizational structure.
Cooper notes, “As benefits an oral delivery, its stages are clearly
announced” (267). As the Pardoner
catalogues several dangerous vices, such as gluttony, gambling, and blasphemy,
then moves into the exemplum of the three rioters, he notes each change in
subject clearly. For example, he announces, “Now wol
I yow defenden hasardrye”
and he states directly, “Now wol I speke of othes
false and grete” (277, 316). The divisions make his sermon easy to follow. This point is critical in the success of a
sermon, because unless a preacher relies only on scare tactics and social
pressure, a congregation that does not comprehend its potential guilt cannot be expected to repent.
Not only is the Pardoner’s sermon masterfully delivered, but it also
presents content that is both captivating and convincing. The exemplum of the three rioters who kill
one another because of their greed is “a powerful moral tale against avarice”
(Cooper 268). The tale is briskly paced
and engaging, and the Pardoner does not spend time characterizing the three
rioters. Instead, “the rioters are
‘exemplary’ characters: the point of their appearance in a sermon is to warn
the congregation off similar vices. They
are accordingly never given individual names” (Cooper 270). Since the focus of the exemplum is shifted away from the characters, the focus of the
audience may rest more fully on the action, and therefore the hazards of sin,
presented in the tale.
The basic
exemplum, the tale of the three rioters, is remarkably direct with regard to
the issue of greed. The tale begins with
three men who join one another with a set purpose, but who are distracted by wealth. In the presence of possible riches, they plot
against one another viciously in the hopes of taking a larger share of the
wealth for themselves. They carry out
their treacherous plans to kill one another, so not only do they lose the money
that they could have had, but they pay the ultimate
price and give up their lives because of their greed. This sequence of events leaves not room for
questioning the message of the exemplum on avariciousness. The tale illustrates that greed leads to loss
and death. Compared to other exempla,
the topic of the Pardoner’s sermon is clear, focused, and unambiguous. For example, some exempla such as the tale of
the dancers of Colbek from Manning’s Handling Sin
provide contradicting messages to the audience so that it is difficult to
unravel the moral purpose of the tale.
Though The Pardoner’s Tale as a whole presents some issues of ambiguity,
the exemplum of the three rioters is direct, and therefore effective, on the
topic of greed. The only point of
complication within the exemplum is the issue of the old man and the exemplum’s
possible message on death.
Some
critics suggest that the message of the exemplum, then, is twofold. Elliott argues that the rioters’ tale functions
as an exemplum against greed, “but its significance extends further: the
contrast between the three young villains rushing headlong to perdition and the
old man seeking peace for his weary bones serves as a profound comment on human
life” (29). The old man’s role in the
tale seems to serve as a contrast with the ignorance and arrogance of the young
men who vow to hunt down and kill death.
The old man accepts death, and yearns for death, while he young men
disrespect both death and the old man. The
audience can immediately recognize the impossibility of the rioters’ vow that
they “wol sleen this false traytour Deeth” (386). The old man serves to highlight the
unattainable goal, and to remind the audience of the lack of control humans
have over death. Though the message on
death is not quite as clear as the moral against greed, the audience is nonetheless invited into the tale to witness disrespect
for death and judge the possible message on that disrespect. Regardless of the point that the exemplum
makes on death, message against the dangers of greed remains clear. The discussion of death could serve as a
second moral for the exemplum, as Elliott suggests, or it could be a slight
complication to the overall presentation of the greed theme. Nonetheless, the idea that avariciousness
leads to treachery and death remains the strongest focus of the exemplum, and
the clarity of this argument does not seem to be
significantly hampered by the introduction of the issue of death.
Considering
the benefits of the Pardoner’s oratory style and the powerful content of the
exemplary message, the assumption that this sermon would prove effective for
the Pardoner’s church audience seems reasonable. The sermon is well organized, passionately
delivered, and easy to understand, so it should serve to encourage the audience
to repent. However, this same solidly
successful message becomes confusing and even offensive when considered from
the perspective of the pilgrim audience.
Before the
efficacy of the exemplum for the pilgrims can be explored,
the issue of locating the exemplum must be addressed. In the case of the pilgrims, it is not clear
whether the sermon is a serious message with moral implications, or whether the
Pardoner himself serves as an exemplum because of his greed. As mentioned previously, the intentionality
of both the Pardoner and of Chaucer are hidden by the
contradictions in the Pardoner’s flawed character and his preaching skill and
by the Pardoner’s cryptic reaction to the Host’s angry speech at the end of the
Tale.
Since establishing the exemplum is complicated, it is helpful to
consider both of the suggested possibilities that the Pardoner may intend for
the pilgrim audience.
For example, the Pardoner’s
seeming sincerity during his actual sermon could indicate that he
intends the pilgrims to take his message seriously. However, at the conclusion of his sermon, he
first seems to dismiss the entire message as only an example of his preaching
when he concludes with, “And, lo, sires, thus I preche” (602). This comment would seem to prove that the
Pardoner gives the sermon only to show the pilgrims his skill and not to give
them moral instruction, but he immediately contradicts this idea when he begins
to offer the pilgrims relics and pardons, as if they were his penitent church
congregation. The situation becomes even
more muddled after the Host’s violent rebuff when the Pardoner becomes so angry
that “no word ne wolde he seye” (644).
The Pardoner’s enraged silence suggests that he takes deep offense to
the Host’s words. However, it is not
clear whether the Pardoner is insulted because the moral message of his exemplary sermon is rejected or whether he is wounded only
because his pride in his ability to preach and win offerings is denied. The Pardoner’s intent with his sermon is further shrouded by his unexplained reaction to the Host.
If he intends the message seriously,
then the sermon serves as the exemplum for the pilgrims. However, if he is only exhibiting his
proclaimed skill, the greedy Pardoner who is so rudely remonstrated at the end
of the tale is the true exemplum. In
either situation, no matter what the intended exemplum, the tale fails to
convey a clear moral message to the pilgrims.
If the sermon itself is intended as the exemplum for the pilgrims, the Pardoner
will define the tale as successful if the pilgrims are willing to buy relics
and pardons from him. The Pardoner does
make the offer of relics and pardons to his pilgrim audience. Cooper argues that with the offer of the
relics to the pilgrims, “he is trying to get back into that fiction of
sincerity, to reach an audience who will serve his overriding desire for
acquisition” (267). His attempt is a
gross failure, and the Host’s harsh reaction to the offer of relics illustrates
the contrast between the reception of the sermon from the church congregation
and the pilgrim audience. The Pardoner’s
opening confessions of greed dictate the failure of the exemplary sermon.
If the Pardoner intends the sermon
as an exemplary tale for the pilgrims, it fails because of the contradictions
in the Pardoner’s character and his message.
He is corrupt with greed, but he preaches against this vice. The tone of the sermon, though seemingly
sincere and impassioned without the foreknowledge provided by the prologue,
becomes shocking when presented just after his admissions of guilt. “The effect of this sudden switch from
confession to pretence is overwhelming” (Elliott 24). Not only in the sudden shift in tone jolting,
but the expectation that the pilgrims will take the exemplum to heart and
regard the Pardoner seriously enough to purchase relics and pardons from him
seems insulting.
The Pardoner gives the pilgrims too
much information about his avariciousness for his tale to have a clear moral
message for its audience. For example,
in his prologue, he speaks condescendingly of his church audience and explains
how he gives them false relics. He
boasts, “Y-crammed ful of cloutes and of bones – / Reliks been they, as wenen
they echoon” (35-36). After a direct
admission of the falseness of the relics and of his trickery, his offer to sell
relics and pardons at the end of the tale seems blatantly insulting to the
intelligence of the pilgrims. He makes
derisive comments about the gullibility of his church audience, explains how he
tricks them, and then offers the pilgrims the chance to join their ranks. If the sermon itself is
intended as the exemplum for the pilgrims, then it fails because of the
Pardoner’s greed. The contradiction
between the Pardoner’s character and his message is simply too great, and it
spoils the effectiveness of the sermon for the pilgrims. Though the sermon’s exemplary efficacy is ruined by the Pardoner’s avariciousness, the Pardoner
himself could still serve as an exemplary figure because of his corruption and
his failure with the pilgrims.
Some critics argue that an audience
may find it more palatable to interpret the Pardoner’s character as a negative
exemplum rather than as a talented, but corrupt, minister. If the Pardoner is a teacher of greed, whose
evil is exposed to the extent that he can no longer
continue his trickery, and who is rejected and humiliated by the pilgrim party,
then his character could function as a successful exemplum. Elizabeth Allen suggests the possibility that
the Pardoner “could be interpreted as a clear negative exemplum, a teacher of
sin” (99). In this argument, she
illustrates that some audiences may try to fit the Pardoner into the mold of a
negative exemplum in order to relive the tension created by the contradiction
between the Pardoner’s greed and his message against this particular vice. These audiences may see the Pardoner as a man
who teaches his audiences sin and is finally rejected by an audience because of
his corruption. However, the Pardoner
does not function neatly to illustrate a clear moral message.
If the Pardoner himself is supposed
to serve as a negative exemplum, then the audience
should be able to recognize the sin he commits and see his punishment for that
sin, so that they may turn away from that sin.
The Pardoner exposes his own vice during the prologue, and the Host’s
rejection of the Pardoner could be identified as the
punishment for this vice. The pilgrims
refuse to accept his sermon and he is scorned for his
greed. However, the supposition that the
Pardoner’s character serves as a negative exemplum has a fatal flaw: his success as a preacher. Though the Host does berate the Pardoner, and
the Pardoner is so affected by this insult that he
cannot even speak, the fact remains that the Pardoner fails only for this
specific audience. He fails with the
pilgrims because he gives them too much information about his
avariciousness. He is unable to produce
the desired results in this audience, but the evidence suggest
that his skill remains. As previously
discussed, the Pardoner’s sermon alone, with the exception of introductory
comments and the concluding incident, is a success. It is carefully crafted
and therefore will enable him to sell his relics and pardons to church
congregations that are less informed than the pilgrims are. The failure of the Pardoner’s character as an
exemplum, then, is partially based on the fact that he
does not seem to experience a final failure.
The Host’s rebuff, while biting and insulting, seems only a minor
setback. If the Pardoner were shamed in
front of a wider audience, or if his credibility were somehow
removed from many of his church audiences, then the failure would seem
more serious. The Pardoner himself
remarks on the second issue that impairs the function of the
his character as an exemplary figure.
He states, “But though myself be gilty in that sinne, / Yet can I maken other folk twinne / From avarice, and sore
to repente” (116-119). The problem is
that though the Pardoner is corrupt, he can influence others to repent. Even though he is a man of seriously flawed
morals, he can influence some people to turn away from their sin. In short, he can move on from the pilgrims
and continue to profit even though he is greedy and his corrupt gain can
actually lead to pious growth in some people.
These contradictions hamper his function as a negative exemplary figure.
The issues of audience and the success of the exemplum in The Pardoner’s Tale are intertwined. For the church congregation, the exemplum is comprehensible and compelling. Though the Pardoner is greedy, he proves with the body of his sermon that he can deliver an effective exemplary sermon. However, the relation between the audience and the exemplum becomes more complicated when the pilgrim audience is considered. The Pardoner seems to make a mistake by revealing his avariciousness to the pilgrims. His corruption makes it impossible for them to accept his sermon against greed, so the sermon itself fails for the pilgrims. Additionally, the Pardoner himself cannot serve as an exemplary figure for the pilgrims, since he has demonstrates his masterful skill and attests to his success in fooling other audiences. The Pardoner’s varying success illustrates the interplay between speaker, audience, and exemplary message. Though the Pardoner only delivers one sermon, it can have dramatically different meanings and effects based on the audience in which it is received.
Finally, the broadest audience, Chaucer’s audience, sees the tale as a whole, including the pilgrims’ reaction to the Pardoner’s sermon. From this perspective, it is not a clear moral message of the exemplum which serves as the standard for success. Chaucer steps outside the standards of the exemplum in the Tale and experiments with the genre. The contradictions and complications that disenable the Pardoner’s efficacy with the pilgrims add depth to Chaucer’s work. It is because of these ambiguities in meaning that the Tale raises issues on the effects of a speaker’s morality on his message and on the effects of an audience’s previous knowledge on its perception of a current message. The complexities of the Tale make it a powerful comment on the interactions between exemplum and audience.
Works Cited
Allen,
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Pardoner’s Tale. The
Chaucer. Larry D. Benson, ed.
Cooper, Helen.
Press, 1989.
Elliott, Ralph W. The Pardoner’s
Sermon and Its Exemplum. The Pardoner’s
Tale: A
Collection of Critical Essays. Dewey R. Faulkner, ed.