Three drinking buddies stumble upon a fortune and perish in
their greed, the moral of the story being Radix malorum
est cupiditas, or “Greed is the root of all evil” (ll. 46, 138). This
is the Pardoner’s tale (ll. 175ff.) in a nutshell. The friends’ drunken swagger,
their arrogant lack of respect for Death, the sad stupidity of their sordid
downfall—these make for an entertaining, comical story. But the real interest of
PT, as with all the Canterbury Tales, lies in the manner in which and the question of by
whom the story is told. In other words, the character of the narrator and the
mechanics of his narrative are integral aspects of the tale and thus crucial to
our understanding its meaning.
His tale is an example of the Pardoner’s stock-in-trade: preaching against the evils of greed, gluttony, and lechery. And yet it is riddled with ironies—humorous indications that the Pardoner is himself guilty of the sins against which he preaches.
For example, he rages against the sin of gluttony with apparent sincerity (216-49). In the lines that follow, however, disgust at human bodily functions is countered by the Pardoner’s fascination with medieval cuisine (250-58). As if momentarily daydreaming, he then briefly resumes his condemnation of gluttony (259-60) before going on to deal with drunkenness (261ff.)!
Examine this and other passages to identify and comment upon additional examples of this apparent hypocrisy—moments where the Pardoner reveals himself to be guilty of the same sins he condemns. Be specific.
Having preached his sermon, the Pardoner finally moves on to
his exemplum, the tale proper. What is the story’s
significance other than its obvious support of the moral point—that radix malorum est cupiditas (i.e. “greed is
the root of all evil”)?
The three “riotours” are guilty of all the sins the Pardoner has condemned; and, of course, the wages of sin is death. But in what other ways is the tale related to the Pardoner?
The immediate presence of a corpse and the personified figure of Death are striking. In contrast to the Pardoner’s hilarious, if pathetic, self-parody, the tale establishes from the outset a very different mood, largely through the boy’s warning (382-96). How does the boy’s admonition differ from the Pardoner’s preaching? Is this just more of the same, the Pardoner using the boy and the rioters as representation of the preacher and his audience, the company of pilgrims? Or is there something more? And what about the rioter’s bold and haughty response (404-13)? Of whom does this remind us, and why?
Assuming the Pardoner is not merely a hypocrite, how might we describe his character?
After telling his tale, the Pardoner resumes his old tricks, as if the company of pilgrims that have been listening all the while were his congregation of dupes, willing (he thinks?) to hand over their money to be absolved of their sins (616-57). How might we explain the Pardoner here—his assuming the preacher’s role, even though he has already revealed to his audience that he is a charlatan?
Finally, what are we to make of the conclusion (658-80)? What effect does the Host’s intervention have on the Pardoner? And how does it affect us, the audience of Canterbury pilgrims whose attention to this point has been focused on the Pardoner and his tale?