Those of you who, like me, haven’t cracked the spine of The Canterbury Tales since the tenth grade were probably as puzzled as I was when, in the wake of Jerry Falwell’s death last month, Christopher Hitchens repeatedly described him as a “Chaucerian fraud.” Well, I finally looked it up, so as a public service to my fellow illiterates: see “The Pardoner’s Tale.” Those of you who both haven’t cracked the spine of The Canterbury Tales since tenth grade and are perfectly happy to leave it that way can make do with this short summary.
“Chaucerian Frauds”
June 13th, 2007 · 2 Comments
Tags: Language and Literature
2 responses so far ↓
1 tyzia dgviwrysp // Dec 16, 2007 at 3:56 pm
rusqwn oatqxrmj mqvhtjza jadt nfaop aosbt lspnohv
2 Tim // Aug 25, 2010 at 12:32 am
he Pardoner’s Tale from Canterbury Tales
The narrator, a self-claimed religious pardoner, tells a tale of three young men. Beginning the tale by denouncing wine, drunkness, and gluttony, he takes a firm stance against booze, or any drug that causes men to lose their faculties, reason, discretion, sanity. He alludes to Adam in the Garden of Eden, taking part in gluttony; had he fasted, he never would have taken from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So, the three drunken youngsters, shit-faced in a tavern, begin to chastise Death, as if it were a conscious, plotting entity, whom they blame for the death of their friends, and all those who have died in human history. So, they form a pact, swearing brotherhood an fraternity amongst each other, and conspire to kill death.
Soon into their journey, they meet an old man, covered by robe all but his head. He complains that no young man is willing to trade his youth for his old age, making him perennially old, but death apparently leaves him alone. He tells the three that they will find death in a groove, under an oak tree. The three charge and find eight bushels of florin gold, shiny and beautiful, at the post of the tree. Happy as hell, they abandon their plan to kill death, finding felicity in the treasure.
Here, gluttony and greed lead to their fall. The youngest one gets the short straw and has to go find food and wine to sustain them until nightfall, where they will abscond with the treasure. While he’s gone, one gets the other to plan a slaying of the young one upon his return, enlarging their share of the gold. However, the young one finds poison and puts it into the wine, intending to kill them and take gold for himself. So the expected stuff happens, and all three do indeed find death at the death (dramatic irony).
After the tale, the narrator has a sense of moral superiority and the listeners have guilt over their sins. So, the “pardoner” then sells the relics (bones) of saints, supposedly given to him by the Pope. He says, wives, give me your wool, too, and I will add you to my list anon. ye shall be pardoned.
Theme- This tale is satire for Chaucer on the alleged redemption by mammals of their fellow mammals, ie the Catholic Church. This is not to say that Chaucer does not believe in Christianity. Instead, only God may grant pardons, only sincere confessions bring atonement. A guilt free conscience cannot be brought through the purchase of material objects, especially from fellow religious hustlers and frauds, charlatans. Christopher Hitchens called Jerry Falwell a Chaucerian fraud, a fatass who sells pardons to the credulous, stealing money from fools on his Christian radio stations.