The Pardoner's Relics

When the Pardoner is described by Chaucer in the General Prologue of The Canterbury Tales, he is given forty-five lines. Seven of these lines are indicative of his singing, whom he is traveling with, and his personal history. Six are given to his role in the church. Fourteen are devoted to describing the physical appearance of the Pardoner, and lastly, a whopping eighteen lines describe the relics being sold by the Pardoner (Malo, 1). Such emphasis placed on the entrepreneurship of the Pardoner and his particular product cannot be accidental; Chaucer wants the reader to be aware of the value placed upon the relics by the Pardoner. According to Robin Malo of Pennsylvania State University, the purchase and displaying of relics was a lucrative business, even considered to be a “cultural phenomena,” (Malo, 84). But the idea of the relic itself is a complex one, with many subcategories. At the time of the Canterbury Pilgrimage, there existed relic cults, which were “widespread and difficult to monitor,” and were known to enact such abominations as assaulting those considered holy in order to obtain certain relics; the relics themselves were also equally difficult to monitor (Malo, 84). These relics were also divided into two categories of worth, which consisted of notable (whole) and non-notable (fragmented or falsified) relics, and it is the non-notable relics of which the Pardoner is a purveyor. These were not regarded by clergy or laity as having theological or spiritual worth or effectiveness, and so were viewed scathingly by many at the time as being trivializing of “the cult of saints,” (Malo, 85). Chaucer’s use of historical context in his portrayal of the Pardoner reveals him to be a member of a larger group-that of historical relic custodians, whose character is emphatically immoral-a character description interpreted by some as being meant to distract the Pardoner’s fellow pilgrims from his perceived homosexuality (a characteristic also rendered as emphatically immoral). Literary evidence, though, points more strongly in the direction of the Pardoner, not as a man attempting to deceive, but rather, as a cross-dressing woman compensating for that which she is lacking.

The idea that the Pardoner is a homosexual is a widespread one, derived from Chaucer’s description of him in the General Prologue as (to use modern English) “singing loudly,” having “hair as yellow as wax…[which was] smooth [and] hung as does a clump of flax…to make an attractive appearance.” He is also described as having “a voice as small as a goat…[like] a gelding or mare,” (Chaucer, 672-691). L.D. Benson’s translation of The Canterbury Tales as maintained through Harvard College transposes “gelding or mare” as “a eunuch or a homosexual.” While this was common and relatively correct usage at the time, this notion is one based primarily in secondary (physical) characteristics: the effeminate vanity displayed by the Pardoner in the way he wears his hair, his shining eyes, his high voice, and his lack of facial hair. According to Jeffrey Rayner Myers of Goucher College, these are more indicative of a “clearly ambiguous sexual status,” rather than that of a homosexual. Myers even postulates that Chaucer’s use of the word mare refers not to a homosexual, but to a female, stating, “There is no known instance in all of Middle English literature of the word mare being used in reference to a homosexual. Furthermore, Myers points out, “neither the Middle English Dictionary nor the Oxford English Dictionary provides any support for the word being used in connection with homosexuality…applied to human beings, ‘mare’ is usually a contemptuous term for a woman: ‘a slut,’” (Myers, 55-56). The use of the word mare, then, implies not that the Pardoner is a homosexual, but that he is a cross-dressing female, a condition more socially acceptable in the Middle Ages than homosexuality.

The idea of the Pardoner as a homosexual is also vested in an implied sexual relationship with his traveling partner, the Summoner, who is described by Chaucer as bearing a “stiff burdoun” to the Pardoner, but in the line immediately following, Chaucer states, “Was never trumpe of half so great a soun,” meaning simply that the Summoner sings a bass accompaniment to the Pardoner’s song (Chaucer, 672-73). Thusly, if there is any implication in the relationship of the traveling pair, it is that they are a couple of migratory criminals. According to Myers, the Summoner is “notoriously heterosexual, a womanizer who is said to know all the secrets of the women of his parish, which he uses to blackmail them into having sex,” (Myers, 56). Also, Chaucer himself describes the Summoner in the General Prologue as secretly knowing how to pull off a clever trick (Chaucer, 652). Furthermore, Myers cites C. David Benson as stating, “The fact that a man is obsessed with having sex with women and is unscrupulous in forcing women into sexual relationships hardly constituted proof of a tendency to engage in or even a willingness to accept homosexual relationships. In fact, the only evidence that is ever offered for the Summoner’s homosexuality is a supposed relationship with the male Pardoner. Unfortunately, the Pardoner’s homosexuality rests largely on a supposed homosexual relationship with the Summoner…this is a circular argument, [and] without other evidence, it cannot stand,” (Myers, 57). Accepting the idea, though, that the Pardoner is a cross-dressing woman, rather than a homosexual man, the undertones of a sexual relationship (of a heterosexual nature) between the Pardoner and Summoner become less heinous, especially if the Summoner is portrayed as a womanizer. The idea of the Pardoner as a woman also falls more into alignment with logic in the case of her interruption of the Wife of Bath, in the midst of a tangent against male sovereignty. This intrusion is quite arguably the reflection of agreement with the Wife of Bath’s feminist ideas in defense of her own sex, rather than a chauvinist outburst. Unfortunately, in the case of this potential alignment of interests, both are exuding the qualities they claim to so despise in the exploitative male population (Myers, 57-58).

So, if the Pardoner is indeed a cross-dressing woman, rather than a homosexual man, and the Summoner is her heterosexual partner, rather than the homosexual partner of the male Pardoner, what is the significance in her vending of false relics? Perhaps the answer lies precisely in her interruption of the Wife of Bath. In the case of a male Pardoner interrupting the Wife, a complex series of manipulations and deference occurs between the two players, in which the male Pardoner acknowledges the intelligence and wisdom of the Wife, deferring to her, and the Wife defers back by asking him for validation as an authority to speak on the subject of marriage. Peculiarly, as the Wife orates her prologue, the Pardoner says to her, “Ye been a noble prechour in this cas….Yet hadde I levere wedde no wyf to-yeere,” (Chaucer, 165-168), meaning that she has effectively used her rhetoric to convince him not to wed. This implies a prior willingness towards marriage, a concept unheard of in the homosexual community in the Middle Ages; a homosexual male Pardoner would not have been able to consummate a marriage besides. This statement, by a male Pardoner, could be construed as a clever diversion from his sexual condition, another con from the self-admitted swindler. However, in the case of a female Pardoner, the utterance makes a great deal more sense. The female Pardoner defers to the Wife of Bath, granting her authority on the subject of marriage, granting her the sovereignty she desires, but with intrinsic motivation. Chaucer places a specific emphasis on the relics offered by the Pardoner, false in nature as is her gender portrayal, stating in the Pardoner’s prologue, “I have relikes and pardoun in my male, as faire as any man in Engelond, which were me yeven by the popes hond. If any of yow wole, of devocion, offren and han myn absolucion, com forth anon, and kneleth heere adoun, and mekely receyveth my pardoun,” (Chaucer, 919-926). Chaucer uses the word “male,” which translates into “bag,” a clever allusion to the sex not granted to the female Pardoner by nature. The Pardoner delivers this rhetorical gem immediately after the Host criticizes the beautiful (to a fault) character in the tale told by the Physician; she herself hides her sex, pretending in turn in an almost blunderingly obvious fashion to be of the opposite gender persuasion. In her interruption of the Wife of Bath, the Pardoner seeks validation for her true gender, and in her testicular allusion, she seeks validation of her false gender. Even after her tale is finished, her gender deception continues, as she is insulted by Harry Bailly, and invites him to kiss her relics, almost inviting him to test the strength of her male façade. The Host wisely reiterates the incompleteness of the Pardoner, perhaps not realizing in what terms he speaks, but once the Knight imposes the Kiss of Peace on the arguing pair, the laughing crowd of pilgrims around them cares nothing for hating either the Pardoner or her sexual alignment.

Just as the relics used by Chaucer are categorized as being fragmented or non-fragmented, so too, is the character marketing them. The Pardoner is described as using rhetoric and avarice and contempt in a grand scheme for wealth through preaching, which becomes the primary focus of the Pardoner’s tale, which in turn becomes a metaphor for the position of each woman on the pilgrimage to Canterbury, and assumedly, all women of the time. In alignment with this metaphor, these female pilgrims must all in a sense deny their sex for material gain; even the Prioress, who wears the slogan “Amor Vincit Omnia” (not referring to love in the spiritual sense), has become a nun in spite of her fixation on physical assets. And according to Myers, the Pardoner’s tale “identifies death with material wealth, but it also identifies death with the outsider working against the group and the group working against the outsider, which leads to a kind of assured mutual destruction,” (Myers, 60). Chaucer builds into his tales through the Pardoner this central motif: “Radix Malorum est Cupiditas,” or, “The Root of all Evils is Desire.” Furthermore, the Pardoner alludes to the Liar’s Paradox, set forth by Epimenides of Crete, who stated, “All men from Crete are liars.” Underlying these two implications is the idea that the Pardoner as a homosexual male would have directed his contempt towards the pilgrims as a result of isolation and marginalization because of his sexual orientation, in an attempt to distract. The Pardoner as a cross-dressing female, however, both makes more logical and literal sense, while also evaporating the identity debate within the Pardoner’s tale and tying one of the most marginalized characters of the Canterbury Tales to the greater issues of gender and equality in relation to her fellow pilgrims.

Works Cited

Benson, L.D. http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/teachslf/pard-par.htm. “Chaucer: The Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale—An Interlinear Translation.” 21 March 2002.

Chaucer, Geoffrey, and Benson, L.D. The Riverside Chaucer. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.

Malo, Robyn. "The Pardoner’s Relics (And Why They Matter The Most)." Chaucer Review 43.1 (2008): 82-102. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.

Myers, Jeffrey Rayner. "Chaucer's Pardoner as Female Eunuch." Studia Neophilologica 72.1 (2000):54-62. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.