James E. Hicks

    Coolidge Chapman, George Kittredge, and Nancy Owen devote considerable attention to the Pardoner's Tale as a sermon. Chapman comments upon Chaucer's "knowledge of medieval rhetoric" and notes the traditional homiletic divisions of the Pardoner's Tale: namely, a statement of the theme in Latin, a prayer in the vulgar tongue, a prelocution or protheme, an exemplum, and recapitulation ("The Pardoner's Tale" 506-09).1 Kittredge also observes the sermonic construction of the Pardoner's Tale. In Chaucer and his Poetry he writes that "the whole tale ... is one of the Pardoner's sermons, consisting of text ..., brief introduction, illustrative anecdote ..., and application" (21). Owen explains the entire homiletic structure of the Pardoner's Tale when she identifies its theme, protheme, restatement of theme, introduction of theme, process, exemplum, conclusion, and benediction (542-48).

    Like Chapman, Kittredge, and Owen, Gordon Gerould understands the Pardoner's Tale as a sermon; but unlike those critics who appreciate the sermonic structure of the Pardoner's Tale, Gerould depreciates it. In Chaucerian Essays he contends that the Pardoner's presentation is "drunken buffoonery" (67). Gerould rests his contention on the Pardoner's apparent intoxication, thus arguing that the Pardoner delivers a disorderly sermon (66-67). Gerould fails to grasp the ideas that the appearance of a lack of structure is the sermon's structure and that the shapelessness of the Pardoner's sermon reflects the Pardoner's own shapelessness

    Unlike Gerould, who ignores Chaucerian irony, Toole and Kellogg recognize Chaucer's employment of inversion in the Pardoner's Tale.2 Toole detects "inversion motifs" on Christ and the crucifixion as "inversions of the Christian concepts of brotherhood and of the Holy Trinity" (41). Kellogg thinks that the Pardoner's irony stems from "the humor of inversion," a suitable expression for a mind "inverted" by sin (472). Since the Pardoner inverts the sermon from its proper nature, Kellogg finds that Augustinian "order is turned upside down" in the Pardoner's Tale (472).

    Chaucer expresses an awareness of inversion's dreadful consequences. Like Augustine, Chaucer realizes that 'whan man synneth, al this ordre or ordinaunce is turned up-so-doun" (ParsT 260). Consciously developing an inversion motif in the Pardoner's Tale, Chaucer ironically inverts three major precepts of Augustinian rhetoric as expressed in Book IV of De doctrina Christiana. When Chaucer inverts Augustinian rhetoric, he emphasizes the Pardoner's depravity and turns the time-honored homiletic order upside down. In the Pardoner's Prologue and Tale Chaucer inverts Augustine's insistence that the preacher must pray before he delivers a sermon, Augustine's prescription to the homilist on his actio or his voice and gestures, and Augustine's emphasis that the homilist must charitably teach right and correct wrong by providing Christian instruction to his faithful congregation.3

    Since divine assistance always accompanies

... Making ready to speak before the people ..., he should pray that God may place a good speech in his mouth. For if Queen Esther prayed ... concerning the temporal welfare of her people, that God would place "a well ordered speech" in her mouth, how much more ought he to pray for such a reward who labors in word and teaching for the eternal salvation of men? (4.30.63)

Augustine realizes that the Christian instructor must pray to God before receiving the homiletic gift from the Holy Spirit, because "every worthwhile gift, every genuine benefit comes from above, descending from. the Father of the heavenly luminaries who cannot change and who is never shadowed over" (Jas. 1:17).4

    In contrast to Augustine's Christian instructor who seeks divine inspiration before his sermon, Chaucer's Pardoner fails to meditate upon spiritual matters before his homily. Since he drinks before he delivers his sermon, the Pardoner inverts Augustine's insistence that the homilist should pray to God for assistance. As Harry Bailly requests, the Pardoner pauses to

    After the Pardoner slakes his physical appetites, perhaps even mocking the Eucharist and inverting the order of holy Mass, he commences his sermon: "Now have I dronke a draughte of corny ale.... / A moral tale yet I yow telle kan...." (Pardr 456-60). Unlike the Miller who is obviously drunk, the Pardoner gives no indication that he is overcome by drink.5 If, as Gerould asserts, the Pardoner is drunk, he successfully conceals his intoxication.

    In fact, the Pardoner is not drunk. Since the Pardoner declares that he 'wol drynke licour of the vyne" (PardT 452), Gerould understands that the Pardoner drinks before he rehearses his tale; nevertheless, Gerould mistakenly assumes that the Pardoner's drinking is the same as the Pardoner's being drunk. As the result of this false assumption, Gerould erroneously reasons that the Pardoner is drunk (Chaucerian Essays 61-70). Gerould ignores the Pardoner's inversion of an Augustinian prescription which requires that the homilist pray for God's help before delivering a sermon.

    In Book IV of De doctrina Christiana Augustine offers advice on the Christian

    Unlike Augustine's Christian teacher who exercises dignity, restraint, and moderation when he delivers his homily, Chaucer's Pardoner inverts Augustine's precautions on actio in his sermon. He speaks in an unpleasant, irritating voice and displays unnecessary, distracting gestures when he presents his moral tale; thus, he inverts Augustine's standards of homiletic decorum. The Pardoner boasts that, when he preaches, his voice rings his sermon "out as round as gooth a belle" (PardT 331); however, he overestimates his sermonic prowess because

    The Pardoner not only inverts Augustine's recommendations on dignity, restraint, and moderation as contained in Book IV of De doctrina Christiana, but he also violates a precaution expressed in a contemporary homiletic handbook which cautions the preacher to "conduct himself and speak with as great gravity as he should have in speaking of Christ in His presence, and that of princes and king...." (Late Medieval Tractate 86). Contrary to the precept cited in a contemporary sermonic tract, contrary to Augustine's precaution to avoid excess, the Pardoner stubbornly believes that when he preaches, his performing tongue and exaggerated gestures enhance his sermonic presentation. He graphically describes his actio to the Canterbury pilgrims:

Thanne peyne I me to strecche forthe the nekke,

And est and west upon the peple I bekke,

As dooth a dowve sittynge on a berne.

Myne handes and my tonge goon so yerne

That it is a joye to se my bisynesse. (PardT 395-99)

Like Demosthenes who reportedly stated that delivery is the most important part of rhetoric, the Pardoner thinks that his intense delivery contributes to the success of his preaching; yet he never realizes that his inordinate actio actually disrupts his concentration when he preaches a sermon. Like most preachers, the Pardoner memorizes his sermons. He remarks that "for I kan al by rote that I telle" (PardT 332).

    Despite the evidence which Chapman, Kittredge, and Owen offer in support of the homiletic construction in the Pardoner's Tale, Gerould asserts that the Pardoner follows "no plan" or no "satisfactory formal arrangement" (Chaucerian Essays 67). Blaming the Pardoner's intoxication for the sermon's lack of order, Gerould contends that the Pardoner "rambles from topic to topic," drops his theme, confesses his own wickedness, and drifts into various denunciations of sin (Chaucerian Essays 66-67). Without any concrete evidence whatsoever, Gerould concludes that the Pardoner is drunk. Since all too often drunks talk incoherently, forget what they say, inappropriately expose their human frailty, and chide others for their weaknesses, Gerould illogically reasons that the Pardoner's discreditable sermon is the result of inebriation. Gerould perceives that the Pardoner's Tale is "no illustration of medieval sermonizing" (Chaucerian Essays 67), but Gerould argues from the wrong premise: he fails to grasp that the Pardoner delivers a disorderly sermon because he inverts Augustine's advice on the preacher's actio and becomes confused in the frenzy of his exaggerated delivery without divine inspiration to guide him. Gerould never considers that the Pardoner exhibits homiletic confusion through his inversion of Augustinian rhetoric.

    Augustine proposes in Book IV of De

... The teacher of the Divine Scripture, the defender of right faith and the enemy of error, should both teach the good and extirpate the evil. He should conciliate those who are opposed, arouse those who are remiss, and teach those ignorant of his subject.... (4.4.6)

Thus, Augustine underscores the necessity of instruction for the Christian homilist when he delivers his sermon.

    Unlike Augustine's Christian instructor who is morally obligated to teach, Chaucer's Pardoner explicitly states that his purpose is not to teach right and to correct wrong but avariciously to gather worldly riches. He proudly proclaims: "For myn entente is nat but for to wynne, / And nothyng for the correccioun of synne" (PardT 403-404). He becomes a caricature of cupidity instead of an ideal Christian instructor. Since the Pardoner neglects to teach right or to correct wrong, he necessarily fails as a homilist. While he provides ample artistic proofs Biblical allusions, references to well-known pagans, and vivid examples of swearing the Pardoner falls

    By any homiletic standard, the Pardoner is a preacher to shun. Unlike Augustine's homilist who is good and faithful, Chaucer's Pardoner is a manipulator and a fraud because "with feyned flaterye and japes, / He made the person and the peple his apes" (GP 705-06). The Pardoner readily admits his homiletic deception to the Canterbury pilgrims when he proclaims:

I stonde lyk a clerk in my pulpet,

And whan the lewed peple is doun yset,

I preche so as ye han herd befoore,

And telle an hundred false japes moore. (PardT 391-94)

Not only is the Pardoner a liar, contemptuous of the reverent laity, but he is also a malicious dissimulator; he practices evil which he disguises with seemingly holy but empty words. The Pardoner confesses that "thus spitte I out my venym under hewe / Of hoolynesse, to semen hooly and trewe" (PardT 421-22). As Gerould describes the Pardoner, he "is a creature of unexampled effrontery', (Chaucerian Essays 66); as Harry Bailly describes him, he is an "angry man" (PardT 959). The Pardoner is an avaricious deviant, a vicious mountebank, a grotesque preacher of cupidity; because he inverts Augustinian homiletic standards, he corrupts the sermon's purpose.

    As a homilist, the godless, confused, and dissimulating Pardoner remains steadfast in his intentions toward the Canterbury pilgrims. He announces that he intends to deliver a sample of his art:

Lordynges ... in chirches whan I preche,

I peyne me to han an hauteyn speche....

My theme is alwey oon, and evere was--

Radix malorum est Cupiditas. (PardT 329-34)

Like Augustine's Christian instructor, Chaucer's Pardoner states his scriptural theme the love of money is the root of all evils.8 Stating the theme in Latin, the Pardoner selects a suitable topic (De doctrina Christiana 4.6.9 and 4.15.32); yet he divulges that he preaches only to satisfy his own cupidity rather than to illuminate God's truth as contained in Holy Scripture:

I preche of no thyng but for coveityse,

Therefore my theme is yet, and evere was,

Radix malorum est Cupiditas.

Thus kan I preche agayn that same vice

Which that I use, and that is avarice....

I preche nothyng but for coveitise. (PardT 424-33)

As Kellogg points out but as Gerould rejects, the Pardoner inverts the homily from "its proper nature" and preaches "a sermon against avarice ..., gluttony, and lechery ... [which] becomes a sermon in financial support of them...." (472). Instead of seeking to teach right or to correct wrong, the Pardoner sermonizes for his own worldly profit. When he

    Borrowing from Cicero, Augustine affirms in Book IV of De doctrina Christiana that the purpose of a homily is to teach, to persuade, and to please (De Oratore 2.27.115, 2.28.121, and 2.77.310). "Of the three," writes Augustine, "that which is given first place, ... the necessity of teaching, resides in the things which we have to say...." (4.12.27). Augustine believes in truth or a conversion to truth instead of rhetorical eloquence because the homilist should use eloquence "for the purposes of delight rather than persuasion" (4.23.52). Augustine states that a homily which solely endeavors to please becomes a sermon which neglects to instruct or to persuade and that the usefulness of delight is simply to retain the congregation's attention (4.13.29). He recognizes that a sermon should impart pleasure because God's truth is pleasing in itself, but he stresses that instruction must be the preacher's intention. Augustine thinks that if a preacher desires only to delight his flock, then all he elicits from his faithful congregation is an affirmative acknowledgment of pleasure. Augustine discusses this homiletic problem at length:

How do these [instruction and delight] help a man who ... confesses the truth and praises the eloquence but does not give his assent, on account of ... the speaker [who] ... pays

Since instructive truth or a persuasion to truth is the homilist's ultimate purpose, Augustine cautions that pleasure must not be exercised for its own sake (4.25.55).

    In contrast to Augustine's attitude towards sermonic pleasure, the Pardoner inverts the primary instructive and persuasive concerns of ecclesiastical rhetoric and proposes to deliver a homily which pleases the Canterbury pilgrims. Refusing to teach right or to correct wrong, neglecting to offer Christian instruction, never seeking a conversion to divine truth, the Pardoner attempts to satisfy the pilgrims' desire for pleasure. He understands that "youre likyng is that I shal telle a tale" (PardT 455). At the conclusion of the sermon, the Pardoner confirms Augustine's explanation of homiletic pleasure because no pilgrim throws off "hasardrye," swearing, gluttony, avarice, or pride, and the pilgrims' response becomes merely an acknowledgment of vice's destructive nature.

    Augustine suggests in Book IV of De doctrina Christiana that the ecclesiastical orator is "a good man speaking wisely" and qualifies this classical ideal by adding "according to the rule of piety and faith" (3.4). Augustine then cautions the faithful against those preachers, like Chaucer's Pardoner, who speak eloquently but unwisely: "... the one to guard against is the man whose eloquence is no more than an abundant flow of empty words" (4.5.7). Augustine realizes that wisdom, not eloquence, benefits the congregation, but he acknowledges that they frequently mistake eloquence for wisdom (4.5.7). Augustine concludes Book IV of De doctrina Christiana with a description of the ideal Christian instructor who preaches the Gospel, teaches his congregation, and provides a virtuous example for his flock: "... let him so order his life that he not only prepares a reward for himself, but also so that he offers an example to others, and his way of living may be ... an eloquent speech" (29.61).9

    Unlike Augustine's ideal Christian teacher,

I wol have moneie, wolle, chese, and whete,

Al were it yeven of the povereste page,

Or of the povereste wydwe in a village,

Al sholde hir children sterve for famyne.

Nay, I wol drynke licour of the vyne,

And have a joly wenche in every toun. (PardT 448-53)

The Pardoner loses his soul in the barren shapelessness of mortal sin and dies a spiritual death.

    The Pardoner inverts Augustinian rhetorical ideals to gratify his base desires, thereby corrupting his soul and the homiletic practice. Whereas Augustine's Christian teacher utters a profound expression of faith from his heart's

Augustine, Saint Aurelius. On Christian Doctrine. Tr. D. W. Robertson, Jr. Indianapolis: Bobbs, 1958.

Baldwin, Charles Sears. Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic to 1400. 1928; rpt. Gloucester, MA: Smith, 1959.

Biblia Sacra: Vulgatae Editionis Iuxta PP. Clementis VIII Decretum. Ed. Gianfranco Nolli. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955.

Capgrave, John. The Life of St. Norbert. Ed. Cyril Lawrence Smetana, O.S.A. Toronto: Pontifical Institute, 1977.

Chatmmn, Coolidge O. "Chaucer on Preachers and Preaching." PMLA 44 (1929): 178-85.

---. "The Pardoner's Tale: A Medieval Sermon." Modern Language Notes 41 (1926): 506-09.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Ed. F. N. Robinson. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton, 1957.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De Oratore. Ed. and tr. E. W. Sutton and Horace Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 348. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1942.

Gerould, Gordon Hall. Chaucerian Essays. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1952.

Kellogg, Alfred L. "An Augustinian Interpretation of Chaucer's Pardoner." Speculum 26 (1951): 465-81.

Kittredge, George Lyman. Chaucer and his Poetry. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1927.

Langland, William. Piers Plowman: An Edition of the C-Text. Ed. Derek Pearsall. Berkeley: U of California P, 1978.

Late Medieval Tractate on Preaching. Tr. Harry Caplan. Studies in Rhetoric and Public Speaking in Honor of James F. Winans. New York: n.p., 1926.

Manly, John Matthews. "Chaucer and the Rhetoricians." The Proceedings of the British Academy 12 (1926): 95-113.

Murphy, James J. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley: U of California P, 1974.

Oberembt, Kenneth J. "Chaucer's Anti-Misogynist Wife of Bath." Chaucer Review 10 (1976): 287-301.

Owen, Nancy H. "The Pardoner's Introduction, Prologue, and Tale: Sermon and Fabliau." Journal of English and Germanic Philology 66 (1967): 541-49.

Owst, G. R. Preaching in Medieval England. 1926; rpt. New York: Russell, 1965.

Payne, Robert O. "Chaucer's Realization of Himself as Rhetor." Medieval Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Medieval Rhetoric. Ed. James J. Murphy. Berkeley: U of California P, 1978, 270-87.

The New American Bible. Saint Joseph Ed. New York: Catholic Book, 1970.

Toole, William B. "Chaucer's Christian Irony: The Relationship of Character and Action in The Pardoner's Tale." Chaucer Review 3 (1968): 37-43.

Wycliffe, John. Selected English Works of John Wycliffe. Ed. T. Arnold. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1869-71. vol. 3.

Western Illinois University