Lead question (freewrite): Who do you think of today when you think of religious "fakes"? What are their characteristics? What strengths allow them to hoodwink people? How do they become exposed?
(Recent movie about a Southern preacher)

 The Pardonner's prologue is modeled on the literary confession (like the WBT) found in RR. Exact pinning down of genre is difficult. He says that he is giving us a sermon and his tale contains a brilliant exemplum framed by a fablieau-type situation. The Prologue + Tale contains 3-4 parts of the six parts of a formal sermon:
the theme (line 46); protheme or introduction (lacking); dilation on the text (lacking); exemplum or illustratory anecdote (175-615); peoration or application (616-627); closing formula (maybe 628-630).
Recent critics agree it uses the elements and techniques of the sermon, but argue that it doesn't have its structure. Some say it lacks the spiritual insight found in the Parson's Tale.

 The sins denounced by the tale are the "tavern sins": false oaths, gambling, and gluttony.

 The Pardonner's exemplum has been characterized by one critic as a "matchless short story"; it involves 3 rioters and has analogues in Buddhist, Persian, and other Oriental texts, Aftican tales, and even Hollywood. Most versions in MA include the quest for death motif, the rioters' scorn for the old man, and the rats mentioned in buying the poison (Faulkner's "Rose for Emily.")
Chaucer is unique in setting the story in Flanders, mentioning the plague, and some aspects of the old man's character. Critics ID the old man with the Wandering Jew, Elde, the messenger of death; a personification of death, or even a realistic character. Chaucer's analogues associate him with Christ or a hermit-philosopher, but many modern critics warn against too narrow an interpretation.

 Short debate for tomorrow: Is the old man good or evil; does he represent God's mercy or His justice; is he Fallen Man or a devil? Some see him as deliberately ambiguous, embodying the Pardonnner's own contradictions.

 The Main critical problems revolve around the Pardonner's character and motive. Why does he reveal so much of himself?
1. Some critics think the tale is in a tavern and the Pardonner is drunk which would explain his extraordinary degree of self-revelation. What might the critics use as evidence that the tale is told in a tavern?
2. Some critics argue that there is no evidence for drunkenness and that his confession is too excessive to believe--he's indulging in self-parody or an elaborate "put-on" or just trying to entertain, or he is looking for approval, acceptance or compassion. What supports the lack of drunkenness theory? (He isn't accused by the others of being drunk.)
3. Some critics see him as the ultimate example of Chaucer's handing of human psychology and others attack this position. One sees him as an exemplification of the Augustinian theory of sin. Some believe he is a eunuch.
4. To many critics he is the personification of evil or vice, but some see that, in his total lack of hypocrisy, he is morally superior to the other pilgrims.

 Critics attempt in various ways to explain his motives for trying to sell the Host fake relics. He does it with "agonized sincerity" or as a gross insult or elaborate joke, he does it with forgetfullness, as a cynical attempt to reduce the pilgrimage to nonsense. One sees it as an extravagant gamble motivated by the unconscious desire to lose.

 The Host's reaction is read in different ways: an angry reaction to a personal attack; disgust at the Pardonner's effrontery; an expression of the average reader's (or listener's) feelings toward the Pardonner.

 Seven Deadly Sins: Pride, Covetousness, envy, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth. Do these appear in the tale?