The story of the three little bastards, four if you count the pardoner himself.

Gluttony and drunkenness are one in the same in the Pardoner’s tale. Gluttony as a general rule pertains to excess, such as excess drinking, over eating, indulgence in money, or the excessive discussion of gluttony itself which finally leads to this conclusion: “Allas! a foul thing is it, by my feith,/ To seye this word, and fouler is the dede” (62-63.) I’m not even willing to call this irony; this is simple hypocrisy.

I actually can’t stand this man, but I also can’t stand those who are dumb enough to succumb to him and what he says. Granted, maybe people are so devout and will do anything to get into Heavem because they rely so much on their faith, and that’s great and all. But come on. The most devout person should know better than anybody that you don’t buy your way in, you confess your sins and do better next time with actual effort to truly be better. The pardoner says in his tale “Now kepe yow fro the whyte and fro the rede,/ And namely fro the whyte wyn of Lepe,/ That is to selle in Fish-strete or in Chepe” (100-103), namely, I’m saying stay away because drunk is bad, but because I don’t practice what I preach, you want to get drunk and have a good time? Go to this place. And what do they do? They go to this place. And what happens? They die. And surely, they’re not going to Heaven for the sins they've all just committed.

The three brothers seek out to kill death which is ironic in comparison to the Harry Potter tale in which the three brothers seek to outsmart death. When they come upon the old man, the most annoying awful brother essentially asks why he’s still alive if he’s so old, to which the old man replies with what I take as satire and his purpose in the story. His reply to the boy is very theatrical, like “oh I’m so old and beat up that not even Death wants me, so I’m just hanging around in my old stupor waiting to see if God ever changes his mind and wants to take my old, gross, pale self.” The boys seek Death who the old man tells them is under the tree up the “croked way” (299). The old man left the crooked path, escaping death by virtuous decisions, and has lived to be the age he is. The young boys who grew up endlessly sinning continue up this crooked path straight towards death.

Deception and Tall Tales

I find it ironic that the three drunks go looking for death and find "him" when they least expect it. I'm unsure. The Pardoner warns his listeners that excess of alcohol "doon[s] the devel sacrifyse...by superfluitee abominable/" (469-471). As we all know, being in a drunken state obscures our thinking, and caused us to make some pretty bad decisions. An example is when the Pardoner describes the "dronkon Loth unkindely lay by his doughters two, unwittingly; so dronke he was, he instead what he wroghte/" (485-487). As we can see from this passage, drinking beyond one's capacity clouts our judgement and we are no longer ourselves--- and can't be distinguished between "a man that is out of his minde and a man that is dronkelewe" (494-495). He also says that gluttony is "cursedness...o cause first of oure confusioun!/" (498-499). He is saying that gluttony is the stem of our problems. Not knowing when to stop is the reason Jesus had to come down from heaven and rescue us because Adam and Eva ruined it all. Adam and Eve created the original sin: gluttony.

The Pardoner goes on to describe the three bandits, as I call them, because they seek to steel the treasure from under the tree at night. The treasure doesn't belong to them, but they feel it is theirs for the taking and devise a plan to take it. I definitely see symmetry to the Bible where Adam and Eve visit the tree of knowledge and eat the forbidden fruit. The bandits are not meant to touch the treasure, and they're foolishly looking for a man called Deeth who has slain their friends. I also find it interesting that they are gluttons of wine, which is derived from grapes---a fruit that is excess in the form of alcohol is forbidden by God.

The point I was making earlier is that this glutton for alcohol prohibits the group from seeing things clearly and all each of them can see is a path to make himself richer. They all plot to kill each other to take the treasure and Deeth, who has killed their friends. I find it funny that they've broken every single commandment, maybe except for coveting their neighbor's wife. The failure of all of their drunken plans to escape unscathed with the treasure proves that we should not do any thinking when we're drunk. They cannot even tell that they are knocking on death's doorstep by going on a hunt looking for "him"and stealing something that doesn't belong to them. By the end of the story, they all die and find exactly what they were looking for---Deeth. He crept upton them in the night, like a true thief, which they weren't able to do because they're drunk.

I also find the old man interesting. I've given it thought and I can't come up with a reason an old man is used in the story other than an example of vanity, which isn't a commandment, but is scorned upon in the Christin community. The old man has to live a feeble and miserable life because no one wants to switch places with him. Who wants to be old and ugly? NO ONE. Another theory I had is that he's the devil. The devil is deceitful and relishes in the downfall of man. Just as the snake lured Eve to the tree, the old man lead them exactly to the oak tree where they all died and will face eternal damnation for their sin. Or maybe he's God. A lot of people picture him as this old White guy with White hair, and that's what he seems to look like. That's all I could come up with... :/

"Liar Liar Pants on Fire"

Which is worse: being a liar or not sticking to your morals? Are they the same thing? Arguably, The Pardoner and The Wife of Bath are not the best role models, but I don’t think that makes them bad people. As we discussed in class, the difference between lying and fiction is hard to identify, but it seems that lying has a worse connotation and is therefore thought as something terrible. This being said, I have started to compare The Pardoner and The Wife of Bath and where their truths lie.

            The Pardoner openly admitted to being a cheat and conning people of their money, but I don’t think admitting his wrongs necessarily make him a better person. However, the Wife of Bath claims that what I may consider to be her “wrong choices” are actually what God has sent her in this world to do, so she is not taking any responsibility for her action. In this way I respect The Pardoner a bit more. Yes, he is still a cheat, still tricking people after he tells them he will trick them, but at least he admits that. As I learned in my 9^th grade physics class, the first step to solving any problem is admitting you have one (I always volunteered to state that I had a problem). This being said, the Pardoner is already on the right path by admitting his wrongs while The Wife of Bath does not take full responsibility for her actions.

            Does a lack of taking responsibility for her actions make the Wife of Bath a liar? The argument could go either way, but I think that she is a liar. The Wife of Bath very well may have had some sort of “vision” from God in which He told her that she was put on this earth to marry and have lots of sex to have children, but it seems a lot more likely to me that she was just a lust seeking woman who wanted to sleep with lots of men so she told everyone that God told her to do so. After all, who would question God?

            In regards to The Pardoner, although he is admitting his wrongs by still continuing to lie and cheat everyone, I am not his biggest fan. As we learned in our class activity last week, some people are very good liars. This being said, even if the Pardoner said he would change his ways, after all the lies he has told, I’m not sure whether or not I could trust him.

How do you know you've been robbed?

I've heard it said that the only true crime is stealing.  Stealing an object, a life, or even time.  Once the crime has been committed we think that the robbed man has less.  But what if the robbed man believes himself the thief?  Thus both parties believe themselves the thief and the other the victim.  And believe they have gained more and are happier in their lives.

The Pardoner in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales makes his living by preaching a sermon and then selling hoax relics that the buyer believes will atone for his sins.  The Pardoner does so with the full intent to make money, and is not interested in matters of the church or the welfare of the population.  However, his general listeners believe that he is looking out for their wellbeing.  Thus, they are glad to exchange their modest allowances to an object that they believe secures there place in heaven.  The Pardoner on the other end, is happy to give away these random objects that he has found in order to gain more wealth.  While the reader can see the Pardoner's unjust actions, his listeners do not, and will never be any wiser to these actions. 

The Pardoner is particular, preaches on the evils of greed.  However, his boasting proves to us that he is proud of his own greed.  But does he see himself as evil?  What truly is The Pardoner's goal?  To make money?  Or does he simply enjoy "being smarter" than his listeners.  The idea that he can use only his words to persuade someone into giving him everything for - as he sees it - nothing in return.  However, there truly is no victim to his "master plan" and thus he must monologue to the other pilgrims will intoxicated.  In order to feel that he has accomplished anything, he needs someone to acknowledge his "mastermind" work.  He needs others approval (or disapproval) of his actions in order to feel he has done anything at all.

I Couldn't Not Talk About Harry Potter the One Time It's Appropriate in College...

For starters, learning that J.K. Rowling was inspired by the Pardoner’s Tale made the Canterbury Tales extremely more exciting. Even though I couldn't wait to sit and read the tale, I was exceedingly distracted during the whole text. But, it had its benefits because my distractions had their benefits because I was thorough in analyzing the texts… just, focusing on Harry Potter at least fifty percent of the time.

            Though the two tales (Tale of Three Bothers and Pardoners Tale) are very different, it is easy to see what they have in common. Both themes show the consequences of living in excess. The Pardoner’s Tale possess this excess in terms of gluttony, drunkenness, gambling, and swearing. In The Tale of Three Brothers, Rowling keeps with the idea of excess but focuses on the greedy men who fashion a bridge to avoid their deaths and their insistence to trick Death out of taking them. These men have a greedy sense about them, in such a way that they think they are better, or possibly able to outsmart, Death and the concept of death itself.

            The Pardoner premises his tale by announcing that his theme is “Radix malorum est Cupiditas” (ll. 334). The text defines this as Avarice, or the love of money—essentially, greed—is the root of all evil. By trying to best on another, the characters of the Pardoners Tale  who find gold underneath the tree—presumably placed there by Death—ultimately cause their own demise which is similar to the Tale of Three Brothers who try to best Death by being granted tools which cause them to live forever. Neither set of characters are able to best Death, though, seeing as those in both tales meet Death on their own terms or on his.

            I found interest in the way the story is told in the film adaptation of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, when Hermione is speaking of the first brother who killed the wizard who he has quarreled with before. The brother brags about how invincible he is because of the power which the Elder Wand gives him. The movie emphasizes the word “drunk” when speaking of how he was intoxicated with power and boasted to those around him. Because drunkenness is a major theme in the tale, I found it interesting that the producers of the film saw it necessary to have put emphasis on this word. Perhaps, it is close listening… instead of close reading? I am not sure. But, I could go on forever about how cool I found all these common themes…

An Unnecessary Evil and a Challenge to Authority

Disclaimer: Dealing with religion is always difficult, the following is in no way, shape, or form intended to offend anyone and/ or their religious beliefs. That being said, read away!

Canterbury Tales is not the first poem to deal with morality and it certainly is not the last. Morality is a characteristic of being human and even if the sense of morality is subconscious it is still there. In his tale the Pardoner discusses greed, using the example of three rioters. The moral of his tale is that greed leads to death. The Pardoner tells the listeners of his tale that “if any of yow wol of devociun/Offren and han myn absolucioun,/ Cometh forth anon, and kneleth heer adoun,/ And mekely receyveth my pardon” (ll.923-926 ). The Pardoner does not change he makes money by lying to people and then he goes on the issue a warning to his pilgrimage mates and offer to free them of their sins (for a price), which yes forgiving people of their sins for money, is what a pardoner does but he irks me all the same. The whole issue of penances leaves me flabbergasted the idea that the Catholic Church makes money off of the mistakes that people make, it does not seem right to me. However, I know from my study of medieval history that this was a commonly accepted idea and practice. It is no wonder that Chaucer included a pardoner in his book of tales.

In my opinion the idea that the Pardoner is corrupt brings up an interesting point.  The Catholic Church, especially this practice of selling penances was not principally challenged prior to Martin Luther, at least as far as I know. The Catholic Church had a lot of power; after all, it was the religion of Britain. Yet, Chaucer openly questions the practice of penances in the form of the corrupt Pardoner. This may just be my opinion but I believe that he actually does more than question the Catholic Church, I believe that he is using the Pardoner and his tale to outright criticize the church and if not the whole church than at least the specific practice of selling penance. I believe Chaucer was trying to make a statement of some kind with the character and tale of the Pardoner. Thoughts anyone?