The Pardoner: Topics of Sexuality and Queerness
Placing the Pardoner in The Canterbury Tales and Queer History
Sexual Deviancy
The Pardoner publicly and proudly subverts medieval sexual norms. For example, in “The General Prologue,” he refuses to wear a hood because it would cover his long hair: “But hood, for jolitee, wered he noon,/ For it was trussed up in his walet.”[1] Lacking a beard and a deep voice, the Pardoner appears more androgynous than masculine. In his article “Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer’s ‘Pardoner’s Tale,’” Steven Kruger attributes the Pardoner’s feminine appearance to queerness. [2] Additionally, the Pardoner excludes women from his life, has unstable friendships with men, and is surprisingly well-versed in fashion trends. [3]
Reactions to medieval sexual deviancy, including homosexual acts as well as premarital sex or any deviations from traditions of marriage, masculinity and femininity, increased as the Church gained power. [4] According to the Church’s laws about sexual misconduct, the Pardoner is an example of sexual deviancy. The Pardoner’s feminine appearance and homoerotic actions towards the Host are not the only instances of social defiance; his interjection during “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue,” “‘Yet hadde I levere wedde no wyf to-yeere,’” shows resistance to the heteronormative institution of marriage. [5] The Pardoner’s behavior contradicts sexual norms, and, as a result, he is an ‘other’ in the Church. Not that this is a shock from a pardoner who proclaims, “I preche of no thyng but for coveityse.”[6] What can sinners learn from sinful clergymen?
The “Other”
The Pardoner does not fulfill the duties of a pardoner; at least, not with integrity. He uses a Latin phrase, “Radix malorum est Cupiditas,” to preach that greed is the root of all evil, but openly boasts about his own avarice. [7] His hypocrisy, in addition to his flamboyant appearance, ‘others’ him within the Church. Nida Surber connects the Pardoner’s greed and queerness, proposing that avarice is not just apparent in material greed but in overindulgent actions, such as enjoying his homosexual relations ‘too much.’[8] Because the Pardoner is already an ‘other’ within the Church for his same-sex desire, there is no need to restrain himself from other sinful acts, like stealing from the poor or drinking to excess.
The Pardoner defies categorization, rejecting the traditional boxes of masculine and feminine, which also makes him an ‘other’ in medieval society and the pilgrimage. Glenn Burger argues that the Pardoner brings fluidity to the fixed binaries of masculinity versus femininity and activeness versus passivity, which is best exemplified in the kiss he shares with the Host. [9] Although the Pardoner is likely impotent, “I trowe he were a geldyng or a mare,” he retains authority over the Host who otherwise leads the tales.[10] By upsetting the power structure between himself and the Host, the Pardoner challenges the homosexual stereotype of submissiveness and combats the limitations of such strict identities. The Pardoner’s behavior may suggest bisexuality instead of exclusive homosexuality, making him an ‘other’ even in a queer sense.
Before their reconciliation, the Host reacts poorly to the Pardoner’s homoerotic command to kiss the relics between his legs. The Pardoner becomes so angry he is unable to speak (for once): “This Pardoner answerde nat a word;/ So wrooth he was, no word ne wolde he seye.” [11] Despite his ‘otherness’ in medieval society, Kruger credits the construction of a contemporary “angry homosexual” trope in part to the Pardoner’s character. [12] Still, the “angry homosexual” stereotype is a modern form of ‘othering’ and dismissing queer people, so the Pardoner’s ‘other’ status extends to today.
Homoeroticism
The kissing scene between the Host and the Pardoner, not overlooking the Knight’s involvement, is an example of medieval male homoeroticism, which differs from modern interpretations of same-sex intimacy. Affection between men was accepted as platonic and not questioned for homosexual subtext. In the fourteenth century, there was no construct of homosexuality as a sexuality, only deviant same-sex behaviors. Richard Zeikowitz does not confine eroticism to solely sexual possibilities, valuing embraces more than direct genital contact, in his article “Articulating Premodern Male Homoeroticism.”[13] Correspondingly, the Pardoner’s interactions with men are not explicitly sexual in The Canterbury Tales, but, as with the Host, he invites and participates in male-male intimacy while avoiding contact with women: “‘Com forth, sire Hoost, and offre first anon,/And thou shalt kisse the relikes everychon,/Ye, for a grote! Unbokele anon thy purs.’”[14]
Following this innuendo, the Host exclaims that he wishes he could hold the Pardoner’s testicles in his hand, cut them off, and help the castrated man carry them around. [15] Although he threatens the Pardoner out of pure rage, the Host reveals the level of intimate contact he is willing to have with another man’s body. This is an indirect homoerotic action itself, particularly with the Host’s awareness of the Pardoner’s sexually ambiguous appearance. The language Chaucer chooses for their argument is also flirtatious, the Host declaring, “‘I wol no lenger pleye/ With thee, ne with noon oother angry man.’”[16] Pleye, or play, possesses a sexual connotation which is only enhanced by the Knight’s mediation; he suggests they kiss and resuming playing together. This moment of male homoeroticism reveals an entire queer subset of pilgrims in The Canterbury Tales, who are “united in a group within another group.”[18]
Queer Brotherhood
The Pardoner is clearly a unique pilgrim in both self-awareness and behavior. As a result, his character may appear isolated from his peers who have not been ‘othered’ for deviating from medieval social norms. However, there are queer readings to be had of other pilgrims who engage with the Pardoner, such as the Host. During “The Pardoner’s Prologue,” the Pardoner defends an unnamed brotherhood he is in: “In prechyng, so that he shal nat asterte/ To been defamed falsly, if that he/ Hath trespased to my bretheren or to me.”[19] Nida Surber argues that, in this passage, the Pardoner “warns…that any attempt would be unflattering to homosexuals is going to be fought back severely with rebukes and sermons.”[20] His unconventional appearance and expertise in public speaking make him responsible to support other queer men. Their solidarity becomes a brotherhood, and, in enduring brotherhood, Kruger argues that gay men should claim the Pardoner for the re-writing of a queer literary canon today.[21]
[1] Chaucer, “The General Prologue,” The Canterbury Tales, fragment I, lines 680-1.
[2] Kruger, Steven F. “Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer’s ‘Pardoner’s Tale.’” Exemplaria 6.1 (1994): 131-4.
[3] Kruger, “Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer’s ‘Pardoner’s Tale,’” 132.
[4] Brundage, James A. “Playing by the Rules: Sexual Behavior and Legal Norms in Medieval Europe.” Desire and Discipline: Sex and Sexuality in the Premodern West (1996): 34.
[5] Chaucer. “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue,” III.168.
[6] Chaucer, “The Pardoner’s Prologue,” VI.424.
[7] Chaucer, “The Pardoner’s Prologue,” VI.334.
[8] Surber, Nida. “The Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale.” The Fierce Parade: Chaucer and the Encryption of Homosexuality in the Canterbury Tales (2010): 113.
[9] Burger, Glenn. “Kissing the Pardoner.” PMLA 107.5 (1992): 1144, 1152.
[10] Chaucer, “The General Prologue,” I.691.
[11] Chaucer, “The Pardoner’s Tale,” VI.956-7.
[12] Kruger, “Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer’s ‘Pardoner’s Tale,’” 117-9.
[13] Zeikowitz, Richard E. “Articulating Premodern Male Homoeroticism.” Homoeroticism and Chivalry: Discourses of Male Same-Sex Desire in the Fourteenth Century (2003): 3.
[14] Chaucer, “The Pardoner’s Tale,” VI.943-5.
[15] Chaucer, “The Pardoner’s Tale,” VI.952-4.
[16] Chaucer, “The Pardoner’s Tale,” VI.958-9.
[17] Chaucer, “The Pardoner’s Tale,” VI.965-8.
[18] Surber, “The Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale,” 113.
[19] Chaucer, “The Pardoner’s Prologue,” VI.414-6.
[20] Surber, “The Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale,” 112.
[21] Kruger, “Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer’s ‘Pardoner’s Tale,’” 137-8.
Defending the Pardoner’s Femininity
Gendered Sexuality
Gender is associated with a social inclination that branches off into two directions: masculine and feminine. These directions are, more often than not, culture-specific. Men within medieval literature, for example, often fall and swoon as a result of their strong emotions, which, systematically, is immediately associated with femininity. This feminine trait is celebrated and seen as a positive addition to fourteenth-century courtly romances, particularly in knight-like and other heroic figures. However, this trait is only celebrated in heterosexual men. The Pardoner, for example, is at the constant center of debates focused on his potential queer identity. Why is this double standard not met with the same openness as, say, the men in “The Knight’s Tale”? Why is it that when we see men fall at the feet of love in other tales, we do not immediately discredit their masculinity, let alone their heterosexuality?
Labels
In the Middle Ages, men were immediately assumed to be more dominant over women. A man’s masculinity was categorized on account of his ability and desires to control those around him, his physical strength, his courage and bravery, and his desire for sex. Ruth Mazo Karras, in her article “Sex, Money, and Prostitution in Medieval English Culture,” addresses issues of gendered hierarchy in the fourteenth century. [1] This hierarchy establishes heterosexual white men as the dominant figures of society (mirroring both the fourteenth century as well as in the twenty-first century). [2] Karras also writes that women in the fourteenth century who possessed sexual behaviors that did not conform to the rest of society were seen as greater shocks than men who also did not conform. [3] This was, in part, due to society’s defining of women on the basis of their sexuality, which was, and still is, much more common than how a society defines men. Ironically, this is exactly how Chaucer shapes the Pardoner.
In the Pardoner’s case, he is characterized and developed in ways that are far different from the other pilgrims. Where some characters are described by their wealth and intelligence, the Pardoner is described by his lack of masculinity and effeminacy. Alcuin Blamires, in his chapter “Sexuality,” translates Chaucer’s description of the Pardoner by describing “his beardlessness, his long yellow locks, and thin goatlike voice; he is ‘a geldying or a mare’… a castrated mare, maybe even a hermaphrodite… [and a] homosexual who takes the ‘female’ (the mare’s) role.” [4] Blamires draws from Chaucer’s portrait of the Pardoner and focuses on, arguably, one of the most masculine-determining aspects of a man: his voice.
Chaucer writes that the Pardoner’s “vois he hadde [is] as small as hath a goot.” [5] Comparing the way he sounds to that of an animal with a notoriously recognizable sound invokes this tone of mockery. Other descriptions such as his “heer as yellow as wex” as well as “al of the newe jet” (his great fashion) seem to counteract this negativity he is described with. [6][7] But then if we look at these descriptions from a different angle, we can see that perhaps Chaucer is indeed mocking the Pardoner yet again.
It is socially known that when complimenting a woman’s appearance it is typically appropriate to start with her hair and work down, and that is exactly what Chaucer does with the Pardoner in “The General Prologue.” It is insulting for Chaucer to describe the Pardoner’s voice as “goat sounding,” but he further degrades him by presenting these details in the same order that one would describe a woman. This mockery of the Pardoner brings to light, yet again, the idea that he is being degraded for his femininity.
Woman vs. Man
The Pardoner needs to be viewed differently from how readers perceive other characters like the Wife of Bath. The Wife is, how modern readers would categorize her, heterosexual, meaning she enjoys sex with the opposite gender. Socially, that was acceptable, even if it was shocking that she “mingled” so often with different suitors. The Pardoner does not have that same luxury. The Wife is able to exude and exploit her inner femininity to the point that it overcomes the masculinity of the men that she sleeps with. However, the Pardoner has to shy away from his inner femininity and replace it with the façade of masculinity. This invisible wall the Pardoner is forced to construct creates a false reality in his character in order to fit the mold that his fourteenth-century society tells him to fit into.
Perhaps the ways in which Andrew Taylor examines sexuality, and the ways that people react with their own sexuality, is what truly defines someone’s own sexual identity. Andrew Taylor, in his “Reading the Dirty Bits,” prefaces his piece with a response by E. Talbot Donaldson to May from Chaucer’s “The Merchant’s Tale” in order to introduce this idea of “seductive writing.” [9] May is represented according to a common set of beauties possessed by women. She is characterized by “Hir fresshe beautee… hir armes longe and… hir wise governaunce.” [10] Taylor goes on to point out that these generalizations are not special to one person, as they are qualities of “hundreds of others.” [11] Donaldson agrees to disagree, and believes that these general qualities that apply to many are what make May indisputably beautiful. Donaldson professes that May “becomes not only the embodiment of pretty young girls in the Spring, but a proof that the Spring of pretty young girls is a permanent thing.” [12] Taylor is quick to point out the seduction in Donaldson’s diction, associating these desires with heterosexual lust and as a means for justifying a male’s own heterosexual identity.
A man in the fourteenth century that would read a description of Chaucer’s May and receive some form of arousal that could be considered heterosexual. But then again, what Taylor fails to reference is the potential for bisexuality, not only in men, but in women as well. Who is to say whether or not women found May’s description equally as arousing as the way some men did? This dive into potential queer interpretations helps to explore how the Pardoner may have felt in the Middle Ages. If people then were ashamed to express their sexuality on the grounds of religious hindrance, who is to say the Pardoner did not feel the same way for expressing the even greater sin of homosexuality?
Life and Death
Chaucer parallels his initial sketch of the Pardoner in “The General Prologue,” which details the Pardoner’s lack of a fully masculine physique, with the potential theme of death in both his Prologue and Tale:
- The Pardoner’s body, as a result of his queerness, will never produce offspring, and he succumbs to the comparison of a ‘gelding’ and a ‘mare.'[13]
- His scheming practices deny Christian’s their faith and thus ultimately deprive faithful people of the potential for eternal life.
This parallel places the effeminate Pardoner and the hyper-masculine Host on two pedestals, as Chaucer illustrates a range of attitudes towards masculinity and femininity. Chaucer highlights the masculine traits of the Pardoner with his worst traits – his scheming thirst for money – while, in contrast, exaggerating his feminine traits by describing him with insulting words.
Back to Our First Question
To answer our question at the very beginning – why we have this double standard that says if a heterosexual man is feminine, it means he is sensitive and good, but if a queer man is feminine he is merely fitting a stereotype – the Pardoner is queer. And because he is queer, he is immediately placed inside this closed-off bubble that says, “You are a gay man, so you are feminine.” As modern readers, we know that one’s sexual identity has no impact on one’s character, nor does it define them. In the case of the Pardoner, Chaucer does define him by his sexuality, making him more effeminate than the other pilgrims and by constructing his character in ways that are lesser than his peers.
[1] Karras, Ruth Mazo. “Sex, Money, and Prostitution in Medieval English Culture,” Historians on Chaucer: The ‘General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales(2014).202.
[2] Karras. “Sex, Money, and Prostitution in Medieval English Culture.” 211.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Blamires, Alcuin. “Sexuality,” Chaucer: An Oxford Guide(2005). 219.
[5] Chaucer, “The General Prologue,” The Canterbury Tales, fragment I, lines 682-87.
[6] Chaucer, “The General Prologue,” I. 682.
[7] Blamires, Alcuin. “Sexuality,” Chaucer: An Oxford Guide(2005). 219.
[8] Taylor, Andrew.“Reading the Dirty Bits.” Desire and Discipline: Sex and Sexuality in the Pre-Modern West (1996). 280-95.
[9] Taylor, Andrew. “Reading the Dirty Bits.” 280.
[10] Chaucer, “The Merchant’s Tale,” IV. 1601-3.
[11] Taylor, Andrew. “Reading the Dirty Bits.” 281.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Chaucer, “The General Prologue,” I. 691.
