Around this same time, John Wycliffe, who had a mutual patron/protector with Chaucer in John of Gaunt, was writing against the abuses of the Church, including relics. But Chaucer is much more subtle, making the Pardoner himself say exactly what he was doing wrong - much harder for the prelates to condemn by papal bulls.
It is fascinating that in Chaucer, Wycliffe, and John of Gaunt, who, as Duke of Lancaster, third surviving son of Edward III, was one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in England at the time, we have bottleneck of influence that would shape the future of English government, religion, and culture. Wycliffe's reforming influence, although he was posthumously declared a heretic and the Lollards who followed his teaching were forced underground, would crop up again in William Tyndale, who like Wycliffe, decided to translate the Bible into English - Wycliffe's translation was into Middle English and made from the Latin Vulgate, rather than Greek and Hebrew, so it did not last, but his idea of an English Bible did. John of Gaunt was ancestor of the kingly houses of: Lancaster, through his son Henry Bolingbroke; York, through his daughter Joan Beaufort (N.B. Joan was Chaucer's niece, since his wife Philippa was the sister of Joan's mother Katherine); and Tudor, through his great granddaughter Margaret Beaufort. Chaucer, of course, was influential not only in writing literature in English, rather than French, which had been the courtly language in England since the Norman Conquest, but also in introducing to the English language the stories and forms of European literature - for example, he introduced iambic pentameter to English poetry, which would be William Shakespeare's preferred meter. Two hundred years later, the influence of William Tyndale, the Tudor monarchs Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, and William Shakespeare would produce a similar bottleneck.
Thank you for pointing out the precise nature of Chaucer’s cleverness here in exposing this abuse through the mouth of the Pardoner. Kind of like Nathan exposing David’s sin by telling him the parable of the lamb taken by the wealthy man.
This history is so interesting. I love the metaphor of the bottleneck. That is powerful and helpful. It’s an insightful way to see how this chapter of history worked out.
Jesus also used the parable of the Master of the Vineyard to similarly convict the religious leaders of his day (Matthew 21:33-46, Luke 20:9-19). Perhaps we should be telling parables during this bottleneck.
That is what I enjoy about the pardoner, he feels relaxed , he has some drinks and then he literally tells his listeners the techniques that he is going to use on them. Would the sophisticated medieval reader have suspected many of the relics sold at the time were fakes or would she or he have been deeply shocked by this story
I love your description of him, “relaxed, has some drinks...” 😹
So I don’t know offhand the timeline for when the jig was up regarding relics (one of the articles I linked in the footnotes gives some of that history) but from the text itself I think we can make some good inferences. Keeps bringing up the fact that he is swindling the masses, the poor. And he’s telling the story to a more elite group that includes nobility and the wealthy. He seems to assume his listeners will appreciate his tricks. But just wait until we get to the end of his tale! 🫢
It’s the fatal mistake at a party of having one too many cocktails and then assuming everyone feels the same way about the fake magic relic scam , then finding they don’t ...
Right?!?! This is an excellent point. I can think of some things like that I’ve heard. There are smaller examples, too, like telling off-color or racist jokes and expecting laughs.
Yes! I know people like this too! And I also know lovely people like the host in the tales who praises the physician for his interesting sad tale and then does his best to cheer everyone up
Hadn't heard that narcissist line before - gosh, insightful! It's exactly how the Pardoner comes across. Is the fact he's even more brazen about it Chaucer's way of highlighting the point? Making him an exaggerated example so that no-one fails to get it?
Even if not at the level of narcissism it's so easy in the pulpit to project onto others what is actually a challenge from the Lord to oneself ('Y'all should be more committed, d'ya hear...'). Something all preachers really need to be aware of (this is a note-to-self, after almost 30 years of ministry).
And your point about not simply confession but repentance too is a desperately-needed reminder, thank you for making it Karen.
I’m currently reading Two Lives of Charlemagne and the connection here to how the Monk of St. Gall is writing had me laughing out loud. Some of what you describe here seems to play out in his writing as well!
Loved your explanation, Karen. So despite his narcissistic intentions, the Pardoner gifts his audience with truth by his confession and his tale. God moves in mysterious ways.
Around this same time, John Wycliffe, who had a mutual patron/protector with Chaucer in John of Gaunt, was writing against the abuses of the Church, including relics. But Chaucer is much more subtle, making the Pardoner himself say exactly what he was doing wrong - much harder for the prelates to condemn by papal bulls.
It is fascinating that in Chaucer, Wycliffe, and John of Gaunt, who, as Duke of Lancaster, third surviving son of Edward III, was one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in England at the time, we have bottleneck of influence that would shape the future of English government, religion, and culture. Wycliffe's reforming influence, although he was posthumously declared a heretic and the Lollards who followed his teaching were forced underground, would crop up again in William Tyndale, who like Wycliffe, decided to translate the Bible into English - Wycliffe's translation was into Middle English and made from the Latin Vulgate, rather than Greek and Hebrew, so it did not last, but his idea of an English Bible did. John of Gaunt was ancestor of the kingly houses of: Lancaster, through his son Henry Bolingbroke; York, through his daughter Joan Beaufort (N.B. Joan was Chaucer's niece, since his wife Philippa was the sister of Joan's mother Katherine); and Tudor, through his great granddaughter Margaret Beaufort. Chaucer, of course, was influential not only in writing literature in English, rather than French, which had been the courtly language in England since the Norman Conquest, but also in introducing to the English language the stories and forms of European literature - for example, he introduced iambic pentameter to English poetry, which would be William Shakespeare's preferred meter. Two hundred years later, the influence of William Tyndale, the Tudor monarchs Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, and William Shakespeare would produce a similar bottleneck.
Thank you for pointing out the precise nature of Chaucer’s cleverness here in exposing this abuse through the mouth of the Pardoner. Kind of like Nathan exposing David’s sin by telling him the parable of the lamb taken by the wealthy man.
This history is so interesting. I love the metaphor of the bottleneck. That is powerful and helpful. It’s an insightful way to see how this chapter of history worked out.
Seems like we are in a bottleneck right now.
Jesus also used the parable of the Master of the Vineyard to similarly convict the religious leaders of his day (Matthew 21:33-46, Luke 20:9-19). Perhaps we should be telling parables during this bottleneck.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
That is what I enjoy about the pardoner, he feels relaxed , he has some drinks and then he literally tells his listeners the techniques that he is going to use on them. Would the sophisticated medieval reader have suspected many of the relics sold at the time were fakes or would she or he have been deeply shocked by this story
I love your description of him, “relaxed, has some drinks...” 😹
So I don’t know offhand the timeline for when the jig was up regarding relics (one of the articles I linked in the footnotes gives some of that history) but from the text itself I think we can make some good inferences. Keeps bringing up the fact that he is swindling the masses, the poor. And he’s telling the story to a more elite group that includes nobility and the wealthy. He seems to assume his listeners will appreciate his tricks. But just wait until we get to the end of his tale! 🫢
It’s the fatal mistake at a party of having one too many cocktails and then assuming everyone feels the same way about the fake magic relic scam , then finding they don’t ...
So awkward! 😅
Wait. I know people like this and I’m always shocked by some of the stories people feel comfortable sharing (on the topic of swindling) in church! 😳
Right?!?! This is an excellent point. I can think of some things like that I’ve heard. There are smaller examples, too, like telling off-color or racist jokes and expecting laughs.
Yes! I know people like this too! And I also know lovely people like the host in the tales who praises the physician for his interesting sad tale and then does his best to cheer everyone up
The host, Harry Bailey, will be back. Maybe . . . a bit less nice.
🤭
Hadn't heard that narcissist line before - gosh, insightful! It's exactly how the Pardoner comes across. Is the fact he's even more brazen about it Chaucer's way of highlighting the point? Making him an exaggerated example so that no-one fails to get it?
Even if not at the level of narcissism it's so easy in the pulpit to project onto others what is actually a challenge from the Lord to oneself ('Y'all should be more committed, d'ya hear...'). Something all preachers really need to be aware of (this is a note-to-self, after almost 30 years of ministry).
And your point about not simply confession but repentance too is a desperately-needed reminder, thank you for making it Karen.
Even someone as exaggerated and heinous as the Pardoner can teach us so much under Chaucer’s skillful hand.
That’s true, confession is often (certainly in my case ) ‘gossip about oneself’
!!!!
Wow. That is a great insight.
I’m currently reading Two Lives of Charlemagne and the connection here to how the Monk of St. Gall is writing had me laughing out loud. Some of what you describe here seems to play out in his writing as well!
I don’t know that book. Will check it out.
Loved your explanation, Karen. So despite his narcissistic intentions, the Pardoner gifts his audience with truth by his confession and his tale. God moves in mysterious ways.
Yes! Although I am not sure if he presents it as a gift as much as mere self-indulgence. Yet, it is still a confession regardless of his intentions.