104 The Canterbury Tales, II

At this point all of the household members proceed to praise th

'subtiltee I And heigh wit', which enabled h!m to speak as well as E::tllrl's
Ptolemy_ he was neither a fool nor a demomac. Are these layfolk su d or
. k .
be acting with genume or moc seriousness. <I "th h PPosect
n e1 er case, t e result.is thesa to
.
Friar John's intellectual pretens10ns, and blatant abuse of the autho . llle.
·di 1 f
learning brings, have _been subje~ted to ri cu e o an exact and appro
ntywh·
/ch
kind. Quite an educational experience. P late

Spiritual versus material economies: the Pardoner and

the Canon's Yeoman

'I trowe he were a geldyng or a mare' (GP 1.691): Chaucer the pilgrim l&
the Pardoner to a castrated horse or a mare. Furthermore, he asserts that e~s
individual is unable to grow a beard - the beard being a traditional cul this
marker of masculinity. Does this mean that the Pardoner is a homos~al
. . ally nuance d pomt,
(or, to make a more h1storic . a man who is disposedXUal
homosexual acts)? Or some kind of 'eunuch'? In Chaucer's day eunuchto
could cover several possible medical conditions, ranging from the absence d£
testicles (as with castrati) to undescended or abnormal ones. A man could look
feminoid for reasons other than those: he might have been born a 'woman!
man' because he was generated on the left side or in the middle of his mother{
womb, or (paradoxically enough) he could have become effeminate due to his
inordinate desire for women.
The complexity of Chaucer's presentation of the Pardoner extends far beyond
the matter of his problematic sexuality. As a depiction of a questor (a seeker
after alms, or fundraiser), this is the most sophisticated to have survived in
any medieval vernacular literature. The figure did not come to Chaucer ready-
made from estates satire. Rather he took many ofthe standard complaints about
pardoners and added to them materials relating to other types of ecclesiastical
hypocrisy and malpractice (including preaching for gain and the display of
false relics). The result is a composite character who is much more than the
sum of his parts and resists reduction to any of them.
Chaucer's Pardoner is not selling relics. Rather he is selling access to relics
and the spiritual power associated with them. More precisely, in exchange for a
donation, a client is allowed to venerate his relics, use them to effect a cure for
some disease of man or beast or petition for good fortune. Hence the references
to a healing potion made when the bone of a 'hooly Jewes sheep' is dipped i~ a
well, and to a glove with miraculous powers, which the Pardoner will pernut a
man to wear- all for a fee, of course (VI.350-76). That specially treated water
 Spiritual versus material economies
. 105
re the health of any cow, calf, sheep or ox· moreov 'f h ,
·uresto ld) h' lf d . , er, i t e good ,
wt d f the househo imse rmks it or dons that gl th . ' -man
bea o k] hal ul . 1· , ove, en his beestes
( . stoor [stoc s m tip 1e, as shall his crops. Farme 1 ft f'C •
dh1s d th . . d . rs e o ienngs at
afl
ineS and venerate eir pnze rehcs, hoping that the rel . w Id
evant samts
sbr them with good harvests and ensure that their animals t d h ou
less · s aye ealthy
b dwell. These practices are well documented historic 11 dh
and bre . d th a y, an ' owever
may have V1ewe em, hardly deserve our ridicule Th p d
cbaUCer . e ar oner
. loiting the fears of vulnerable and credulous people for his d
s eXF . . 'bl b . own en s.
only authentic re1ics can poss1 y nng them any benefits (according to the
1

revailing belie~.), and Chauc~r goes out of his way to emphasize that the
Pll ction described here consists of worthless fakes.
,oe This figure is almost certam ·1y a layman. A pardoner was basicall a
jilndfaiser, working for the maintenance of a hospital, church or catherral
or for some other good cause; there was no need for such tasks to be carried
out by ordained clergymen (although sometimes this did happen). Indeed,
manY pardoners were ordinary artisans, and some of them worked only part-
tiJlle, also pursuing other professions. We need not be surprised, then, that
Chaucer's character should tell the Wife of Bath that he is thinking of getting
married (111.166-8), a life choice that was canonically impossible for a priest,
deacon or sub-deacon;
. A 'pardon' or indulgence ·may be understood as the remission - or, more
precisely, the payment by others - of a sinner's debt of punishment for sins
already forgiven through the sacrament of penance, as administered by a priest,
wherein moral guilt was removed. That debt was paid out of the Church's vast
spiritual treasury, as filled by the innumerable merits of Christ and the saints.
To develop the treasury metaphor further, a credit from the inexhaustible
resources of the heavenly bank was transferred into the sinnees overdrawn
personal account, reducing the amount of debt he owed or (in the case of a
plenary or 'full' indulgence) eradicating it entirely. Without such assistance,
the sinner faced the prospect of a long and painful period of punishment
in purgatory to render him fit to enter heaven. An indulgence's remit did
not extend to hell, where the irredeemable would suffer for all eternity, or to
heaven, for the blessed had no need of them.
In their discussions of indulgences, medieval theologians addressed the
difficult relationship between the two economies, the material and the spiritual;
between the offering of money or earthly goods made by the penitent and the
spiritual benefits he received as part of this transaction - but not in direct
exchange, for no amount of payment could activate a pardon unless th~ si~ner
had made a sincerely contrite and full confession. They struggled to Justify a
practice that was beyond their control and pushed at the limits of their powers
 b ury Ta1es, JI
106 Th Canter 'd .h
e . they d1 come up wit Were oft
. . such exp 1 nations
. .asn was impossi'ble, an d en so
. ahzauon. d' a minauo . even some of th
of ration d h t accurate isse . nderstood them. This general conf-- . e
r ate t a d y m1su us1on
comp ic d people of the a buse at all levels - from supreme po1 .
best educate more open to a nt1ffs
de the system even
ma pardoners. larly made against those lowly pardoners
to low1Y 1 ·nts regu . , d • . are
t
The s andard comp. ho ai John de Grandisson s con emnation, in 13 , of
56
11 •nustrated by Bis P , 'ther friars nor clergy but often laymen
we 1 , ho are ne1 . f . . or
,. ious questors w . ts from the most grievous o sms, in a man
imp , Th bsolve c11en ,h . b . . ner
arried men. ey a . . likewise they ply t eir usmess m the office f
m d th irauthonty, . d h s Th o
that far excee s e h not authorize to preac . at descripti
Preaching,, even though t ey are11 The confidence wit . h h' h h
w ic e claims
on
th
, p cloner very we · . . e
fits Chaucerbs 1ar peop1e fr om sin , 'by the auctoritee .I Which that by bune
power to a so ve , (VI 387_8), is shocking. Later m the text he goes so
ygrau nted was to me b h'· 'heigh power,' he is · able to abso1ve h'is chents · s
c tO declare that, Y is . h' 0
iar as
cleanly and pure Yt a1 h t they shall enter heaven
. • without h mdrance d (Vl.913-s) ·
You are qmte . honoured, he assures his listeners, to . ave a par oner travelling
in your company whO can cater for all your • needs m·a terms of absolution,as
you n'de across the country and risk all kinds of acci ents. In. fact, questores
were on1y the 'announcers' of indulgences, tasked merely with publicizing
them to the populace. The spiritual power that pardons bore came from
their authorization by some pope or bishop; the lowly credentials of mere
pardoners were of no consequence. Furthermore, there is confusion here _ a
deliberate ploy, perhaps, on the Pardoner's part - between absolution in the
sense of remission of punishment thanks to an indulgence (the power deriving
from the pardon itself, certainly not from any pardoner) and that which is
obtained only through confession to an ordained clergyman (which Chaucer's
character apparently is not). The Pardoner is implying he has authority of a
kind reserved for priests alone. Moreover, the sheer amount of absolution he
offers his companions is breathtaking.
In respect of preaching also, the Pardoner has usurped an office to which he
has no legal right. 'I stonde lyk a clerk in my pulpet' (Vl .391, italics mine). The
point being, he is not an actual cleric, and hence an inappropriate occupant
of that pulpet. By virtue of their occupation, pardoners did not possess 'the
office of pr h' , Th · ·
. ~ac mg. ey were supposed to explain the origins and obJecttve
of• given mdulgence, the reasons for its issue. This activity could easily b<
regarded as or m· tak 1c . h t m
, . , '. is en or, or shade mto, 'preaching'; moreover, t e er
preaclung itself could be used in loose, colloquial senses. But that is inade-
qluahu, as an explanation of the way in which Chaucer's Pardoner is presented.
n 1s prologue h 1 · h . · the
e c aims t e nght and the wherewithal to preach 10
 Spiritual versus .
material econorn .
cessional and technical sense of th t . zes 107
r.• 11 pro 11 e erm· Ind d
[1JV of materials from medieval preach• ' ee , this text re d
Uage . . ing manual p· a s as a
c p rdoner pndes himself on being a prea h
0
s. 1rst and for
the a .hh . c er. Rene th . emost,
.rtent to whic e is trespassing on the t . e ere is no doubt f
the e)\.~ erntory trad. . o
the priest. itionally reserved
for'fh use of exempla (morally edifying stories) •
e . h' in sermons to th 1 .
.-n~ended m the preac ing manuals· the Pa d e a1tywas often
ec0l••l•• ' r oner sne · 1
d peple Ioven tales olde' (Vl.43 7). When h e~ing Yremarks that
Iewe ments and singles out individuals for cond e eng_ages in excessive bodily
move . emnation he is d .
what those texts warn against.. Furthermore , Chau cer d'1splays
' omg precisely
of issues relating to preachmg that had been debated in the some awareness
III 1277) for well over a century: can an immoral scales of clergye
(cf. · . man preach effect' 1
n preaching for financial reward ever be justified< It . ive Y, and
ca .. b d • was sometimes argu d
that fundraismg may e regar ed as an acceptable seco d . .
'd' h h · • n ary cons1derat1on m
reaching, provi 1ng t at t e spiritual well-being of his c . .
P . th h ' . ongregation remamed
aramount m e preac . er s mmd. The Pardoner inverts that c1assi'fication . by
P
declaring. that . making
. other, people turn away from greed and sore1y repent
is not his principal entente: I preche nothyng but for coveitise' (VI. 432_3). It
was also argued that a se~mon from a mercenary preacher was better than no
sermon at all, and preaching by an immoral man could be efficacious, especiall
if the congregation . was unaware ofh'is immorality.
. Chaucer has no truck withy
that evasion: ~he Par~oner makes his ethical shortcomings public knowledge
(at least on this occasio~). Therefore the brazen claim that, although he himself
is a 'ful vicious man', he can tell a 'moral tale' (VI.459--60), is presented in its
most challenging form.
In responding to that challenge, Chaucer's recent readers have often praised
the rhetorical force of this questor's tale of a quest for death, wherein three
revellers end up killing each other, as they fight over a material treasury, around
eight bushels in size, of'floryns [gold coins] ... faire and brighte' (VI.774). The
mysterious old man who directs them to their doom is a tantalizingly sinister
creation, all the more effective because Chaucer leaves him unexplained. Is this
Death himself or one of Death's agents? Or a version of the 'Wandering Jew'
or Cain-figure who wanders the earth in perpetual exile as punishment for his
sin, whether the denial of Christ or fratricide or some other grave crime? (Later
echoes of that type may be found in Coleridge's Ancient Mariner and Wagn~r's
Flying Dutchman.) In the Pardoner's narrative, the perils of greed (which
comprises gluttony) are vividly illustrated, this sin being identified as one of
thedistinctive 'sins of the mouth'· the others include drunkenness, lechery and
blasphemy ('gret sweryng' VI.631). ' Along with gambling, · these vices · are 5een
' · 'th' th 'develes
as aspects of 'sacrifise' to the devil, cursed forms of worship wi m e
 Tales, 11
The Canterbury
I~ 1
. th tavern. There a crue parody of th E

on the cross ('Oure hlisseJt C¼i

temple' (VI.470) th;:s1she:ers, by their swearing, break the ~Odllchatistic .
takes place, w~e:!n
a horrific replica
JJ'His sufferings
Furthermore, the elaborate d' hordes
VI 474).
ij~
b lll
[ apart , · h . is e o~
they totere tear d of delicate palates, w erem the origi 1 s lll.aq }
Cooks to sans. fy the gree . d 'b
d' ts are totally 1ost, 1s escn ed inter
na ap H ..
Peat vy
th · gre 1en Ills of %
and taste of e in 'd nt' (VI·539). Perhaps here we may det a tuth·Ce
1· to acct e · , ect ••lll
of'substaunce ~ tro"ersy of Chaucer s day, wherein John •\Ar an allu - g
h istIC con y • vvyclir 81oil
to the Bue ar . d the doctrine of transubstantiation the b . and 1.
h d quest1one , ehef •tis
followers a d d wi·ne become the very body and blood ofch that th
an ti e
sac~ame? ts (all that is accessible to the senses) remain unchan e st, While
therr accidend , treatment of tavern sins as devil worship n-. g d.
I the Par oner s ~i1ay be £
n . f his claim made near the end of the tale, that l.J
xplanat1on o '
ou d
.r1.arry B .11
:111/
is moost envo1u
ped in synne' (VI.942) and therefore should be th ailly
'd I I , th e first
.
venerate his re . lies If the inn is the eve es temp
. . . e, en as.an innke eper l:Ia to
. rt f devil's priest, enveloped m sin mdeed. Little wond try
1s some so O • er that h
should react So robustlv . ,, saying
. that the Pardoner. . 1s so.unscrupulous
. hew lllde
h him kiss his shit-stamed breeches, prom1smg this 1s the genuin li
0
ave I . th h' ere cof
some saint (VI.946ff.). Harry then exc aims at 1s companion should h
his coillons cut off,. ,.m stl,'de, of reIics o~ a re1·iquary :-- probably meaning ave 'in
the position occupied by rather than mstead of, given that the next l' ,
reference to enshrinement (albeit in a hog's turd) develops the idea ~s
0
Pardoner's parts as a relic: Op~ion is divi~ed as to whether the Host is an~
here, or rather revelling m a JOk~ that shifts ~round somewhat in the very
telling; the Pardoner's anger, which renders him speechless, is obvious. At
any rate, in seeking to understand the dynamic of this exchange, there is no
need to implicate homophobia, to impute to Harry contempt towards a man
he perceives as a homosexual and hence insults by calling his manhood in
question. Assuming for the moment that the Pardoner does possess a viable
version of testicles, the implication that they would make a fine relic could be
taken as a compliment; this is, after all, a man who has bragged about having
a girl in every town (VI.453). But if the Pardoner is, so to speak, all talk and
no action in that area, then he would hardly need Harry's help in carrying
an organ that one might imagine as diminutive. Either way, the joke could be
fundamentally heterosexist.
However one reacts to the ending of The Pardoner's Tale, it would be rash
nd
to fi in Chaucer's creation a Proto-Protestant attack on the issuing of iu<lil~-
gences .in general . il . . h
, or gomg on p gnmage to acquire t em.
The availab ity
lli g
st
of sub antial indulgences at Becket's shrine was a major reason for trave 1:s
there. Real-life Canterbury pilgrims believed that genuine pardons and re,
 Spiritual versus rn .
aterzal econorn .
. d them at the cathedral, and there 1- . ies 109
wa1te s no evide
a
d any qualms .about such activities· nee whatever th t h
a t ep
haCh ucer's satire of the Pardoner has m h . oet
.. .
a 1· . I h
of dup 1c1tous a c emists who in
uc m com
h mon with his b
r1uc1 501 h ' searc of th ' h" ro ust
err
C vrII.862) that as the power to turn base met e _P ilosophres stoon'
(retell d to possess more knowledge than th ey actuallyalshamto gold and s1.1ver,
f t giving them
111 o d. h
money to fund their unsuccessful
. .
~e, and dupe people
expenm
ner gree 1s t e maJor motivating force heh" d ents. As with the
pardo ' . m such fr d
would-be philosophers are not remotely int d. au ulent practice·
these h' ereste m stori ' ,
. heaven, ... where t ieves do .not break through ng up treasures
in h . , nor steal' (' h
. . , rt 6:20 ). They t emse1ves are the thieves (ind d h . m t e words of
1na • cc • f ee t ey live am h"
nothing they ouer is o any value. However alth h ong t 1eves),
an d . d , oug the Pard , .
utter fakes, his par ons may well be genuin 'fr oner s rehcs
are . b e, om Rome al h , (G
7), and offering a undant spiritual riches from th h oot P
I.68 h . C e eavenly treasury All
at the over- eating . anon
c h can offer is the false promise • of earthly rich ·
th
·s profusely sweating 1ore ead is . likened to a 'sti'llatone. , (VIII.576-81) es.a
I-Il . .
distillation vessel of the kind . . that will feature in the Yeoman ,s narrative, . and' a
arodic parallel to the boiling. cauldron . in which the miraculous1y sweat- free
P
Cecile was mar~e d (~s d escnbed m the previous tale; SNTVIII.lg-25 ).
The Canon is a passyng [outstanding] man' of 'heigh discrecioun'
(VIII.613-14) and the possessor of knowledge both dangerous and dark. At
least that is how he 1ikes to be thought of, and how the Yeoman first describes
him. The Canon is an ordained clergyman (whereas the Pardoner is not). His
identification as a regular (or Augustinian or 'Black') canon has generally been
accepted; he seems to have the same status as that held by the protagonist of the
second part of the tale, a canon possessed of even 'moo re subtiltee' (VIII. I 091)
and whose social position is made perfectly clear. On that assumption, the
Canon is a member of a community bound by the vows of chastity, poverty
and obedience.
So, then, what is Chaucer's character doing lurking in haunts and blind
alleys in some unsafe suburb, and why is he of'sluttish' (slovenly) appearance,
wearing a dirty and torn cassock (VIIL633-9)? Apparently he has deserted his
calling and is living in blatant violation of his vows. We need not leap to the
conclusion that the Canon is in hiding as the persecuted follower of a prohibited
craft. When church and authorities issued legislation to restrict the practice of
alchemy, they were seeking primarily to counter the threat of cou~terfeiti_ng,
the use of fake chemical compounds in the production of unauthorized coins; th
the art itself was not necessarily being condemned. No less a figure a~
th0mas Aquinas opined that if 'real gold were to be produced by alchemy, it
Would not be unlawful to sell it for the genuine article, for nothing prevents