The Pardoner is the epitome of hypocrisy. We don't get a better definition of a hypocrite than his characterization of himself as "preaching against what I practice." The Pardoner attacks greed in his sermons to make his audience give up their gold to him to repent from their greed. Even so, he argues that despite his own questionable morals, he can still preach a good sermon that inspires repentance.
This taps into a debate that was current at the time over whether or not a sermonizer had to practice what he preached to be effective. The debate was really about hypocrisy and its effects on the hypocrite's speech. The Pardoner clearly believes that his own lifestyle has nothing whatsoever to do with the effectiveness of his sermons, offering as evidence the souls he causes to "twynne," or turn, from sin despite his total indifference about it.
We never get to see how most pilgrims respond to his sermon, except for the host, who threatens to cut off the Pardoner's "relics" and feed them to the pigs. We guess he wasn't convinced by the sermon.
Some people wonder why Chaucer painted so many of his religious figures in the Canterbury Tales as hypocrites. Was it just satire? Chaucer was a devout Catholic himself, so he probably hoped that these depictions might result in some change in the more questionable practices of the Church.
Questions About Hypocrisy
- Why does the Pardoner admit to all his vices, knowing it will show him as a total hypocrite?
- Do you think his hypocrisy makes his sermon ineffective?
- Don't all effective speakers manipulate their audience's emotions to some extent, as the Pardoner does?
- What was Chaucer trying to accomplish by having his Pardoner demonstrate his sermons to the pilgrims?
Chew on This
Medieval Catholics were strong believers and might buy the relics and pardons even knowing the Pardoner was a hypocrite. They would take advantage of every opportunity for repentance, even a false one.
By admitting his own hypocrisy, the Pardoner cancels out its effects.