In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales there is a pilgrim whose predominant character trait seems to be hypocrisy itself: the Pardoner, who wallows in sin and, at the same time, he violently preaches to the masses precisely against his immoral behavior. Indeed, the difficult task of understanding the Pardoner's intentions is further complicated by the interaction between the different audiences subject to his preaching. The pilgrims to whom his speech in the Tales is addressed, aware of the duplicity of the Pardoner's thoughts and behaviors, digest his words completely differently than the "ignorant" masses for whom the speech was constructed and very often preformed. Unraveling the layers of meaning within the Pardoner's speech requires that we are simultaneously aware of how the speech is received by both parties, as well as understanding the tension between truth and deception that also encompasses the Pardoner's stated motivations and desires. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay From the Pilgrims' perspective, the Pardoner is a hypocrite par excellence, using his skill as an orator to drain the masses of what little wealth they have. However, the extreme, ruthless and seemingly indefensible position held by the Pardoner suggests that there is more at stake here than a simple criticism of the greed and hypocrisy of the clergy. One cannot read the Pardoner's tale without recognizing that the masses are in fact being pushed toward spiritual reform despite the Pardoner's everyday behavior, and also recognizing the way in which his confessional style seems strangely to support his moral and spiritual argument . By closely examining the rhetorical strategies that the Pardoner employs in his speech, we can see that the Pardoner, by separating spiritual faith from personal responsibility, has himself become an unlikely but nevertheless very effective tool for spreading morality. exemplifies the ultimate divergence between religious belief and personal responsibility to uphold religious values. “For though I am a thoroughly vicious man, / A moral story I can tell,” he tells his companions, asserting that his role as a teacher is not usurped by his transgressive behavior (171–72). The divergence between his beliefs and behavior is further illustrated in some of the first words we receive from the Pardoner, spoken in response to the Host's request for a lecture on morality. ""Granute, yes, "said he, "but I debate thinking / Upon some honest thing while I drink, "" replies the Pardoner (39-40). This line is spoken with the phrase "honest thing" and the word "drink" conspicuously close to each other, our first clue that in breaking down the idea of ​​living life according to one's own principles, the Pardoner intends using, for example, his enjoyment of drinking to actually support his preaching. Indeed, the Pardoner provides us with clues to understanding the mechanism of this tactic: "Thus I can practice again that same vice / Which I use, and that is avarice" (139-40). In this simple statement, the Forgiver goes a little further by saying that his preaching can go forward despite his behavior, suggesting that he is actually exploiting his own greed to be a better salesman of spiritual reform. The Forgiver is able to exploit his greed in various ways, many of which are freely accessible to the attentive reader. Above all, he is aware that by offering products and services whose consumption is equated with progress on a spiritual level, his successfinancial depends on the spiritual success of the other. masses at which he preaches. This awareness translates into efforts that we know are dishonest due to the behaviors he confesses to pilgrims, but which are nevertheless effective in spreading spirituality. As he explains to the pilgrims, "in Latin speke a wordes littlee, / To saffron with my predicacioun, / And to iron the hem to the devocioun" (56-57). Without knowing that the Pardoner's goal is simply to dry up his audience, one might independently assume from these lines that the use of Latin in his speeches is a rhetorical strategy that is both intelligent and admirable, since it stimulates masses to religious devotion must clearly be seen as a positive outcome of his speech, regardless of the Pardoner's "true" speech. intentions. Knowing that the financial reward the Pardoner reaps is intimately tied to his ability to move the masses toward spiritual reform, we can see that another strategy the Pardoner employs is to empower his audience toward that mass end in both ways general ones related to their lack of social and political authority, and in more specific ways that help them facilitate spiritual improvement on their own. A clear example of the first strategy is the way the Pardoner focuses on the transgressions of the rich and powerful. When preaching about the sins of King Herod, for example, the Pardoner subtly places partial responsibility for Herod's moral transgression on his wealth. “When he of winning was sated with his expenses, / Right at his own table, he did his best / To kill the Baptist John, full of gilteless,” explains the Pardoner (201-3). The only context provided here for Herod's transgression is that he was full at his banquet, a criticism of excess aimed specifically at the rich. This rhetorical strategy allows the audience to more clearly identify with the Forgiver on a societal level, however false the reality, and turns the purchase of his religious possessions into an act of solidarity that is independently admirable. -esteem of the humble masses through criticism of the powerful, also promotes ideas that suggest that the masses hold subtle power over their leaders. Discussing the errors of gambling, for example, he explains: "If a prince uses the hasardrye... / ... He is, as per commune opinioun, / Yholde the lasse in reputacioun" (311-14). In this seemingly throwaway statement, the Pardoner subtly suggests to the audience that by taking a stand on the importance of spiritual reform, the masses can exercise power simply by judging the spirituality of the powerful. Therefore, purchasing the religious services offered by the Pardoner becomes to some extent a worthy political act inspired by the Pardoner's empowerment, a clear example of how the Pardoner's strategy of linking one's financial success with the results of the reform spirituality of the masses can constitute a mutual agreement of beneficial disposition. Having linked his own financial rewards to his audience's ability to embrace spiritual reform, the Pardoner also gives to his audience by empowering them to gain spiritual knowledge independently. A good example of this strategy is how the Pardoner intentionally structures his lesson around a story so that the feeble-minded are better able to digest and repeat his message. “For dissolute people who love ancient stories ---/ Swiche things can be brought back and preserved,” he explains (149-50). By using the word “reporte,” the Pardoner suggests that the delivery of his message will continue beyond his sales pitch. Taken alone, however, the ideathat the Pardoner gives individuals the power to take control of their spiritual reform is yet another positive outcome of his overall strategy. The spiritual benefits become even more evident when one considers the advice the Pardoner gives in explaining the morality of those heroic figures involved in biblical miracles: "all the soverein actes... / Were doon in abstinence and prayer: / See the Bible and then you can read it" (286-90). The advice to look to an outside source, the Bible, for spiritual answers is quite revealing in terms of the Forgiver's intentions. The Pardoner claims to be uninterested in whatever spiritual reform may follow the reception of his speeches, but does nothing to stop this process. In fact, he empowers farmers to progress spiritually by suggesting they consult the Bible in addition to purchasing his goods. This approach to the Pardoner's speech, suggesting that his financial success is intimately tied to the moral and spiritual benefits his audience receives, is useful in addressing arguments that argue that his apparent hypocrisy is simply an example of corruption in the clergy. The Pardoner, for example, is ruthless in describing his indifference to the fate of the masses, a fact that calls into question how we are to understand his moral and spiritual purpose as a character. This indifference often becomes almost cruel when the Pardoner describes the depths of his greed. "I would like money, wool, cheese and milk," he tells the pilgrims, "Al if it were yiven... of the poorest widow in a village ---/ Al sholde hir children sterve for caremine" (160-63 ) However, in our approach we understand that the Pardoner makes this shocking comment in the context of his endless pursuit of wealth, which is based on breaking down the spiritual assumptions of his audience, in this case his fellow pilgrims, into accepting spiritual reform through the purchase of its services. The Pardoner does not simply mock or profess simple superiority over the masses; instead, he marginalizes them with cruelty, forcing the pilgrims around him to question whether their spiritual beliefs divorced from practice could lead them to such cruelty without the kind of active spiritual reform the Pardoner markets. A further clue to the Pardoner's "true" intentions is the awkward transition he makes between his wild speech and his offering of relics and pardons. In a very short period of time, the Pardoner goes from "O traitours homicide, O wikkednesse!" (608) to “But sire, oo word I forget in my tale: / I have preferences and forgiveness in my male” (631-32). This abrupt change makes it clear to the reader, though perhaps not to the Host, that the Pardoner is deliberately trying to shake the spiritually apathetic minds of the pilgrims into moral reform and thus the purchase of his services. Furthermore, the indifference that the Pardoner professes towards the lives of those to whom he preaches becomes the intellectual equivalent of the mechanism of showing indifference towards actual moral practice. Both distinctions ultimately aid the Forgiver in his mutually beneficial agreement to acquire wealth by spreading spirituality. This position is stated from the beginning, as the Pardoner states his intentions in indisputable terms: "myn entente is nat but to winne, / And no thing for correccion of sinne" (115-16). The Pardoner here is clearly aware that his actions influence the moral behavior of the public, but denies any higher purpose for his evangelism. Again, approaching the statement by understanding that the Forgiver simply wants money from his companions, we can see the.