He was nat plae as a forpined goost. A fat swan loved he best of any roost. This implies that he has tried all the roast not just a swan, which of course was the most expensive roast of all. All these things would have cost money, money that should have been given to the church, however Chaucer leaves the source of the Monk’s money ambiguous. Chaucer uses sarcasm to satirise the Monk’s views, when the Monk is trying to defend his critical views of Saint Maur and Saint Benet, Chaucer says; “And I seyde his opinion was good” This is an obviously sarcastic remark as to critisies these two saint would have been blasphemy. This use of sarcasm is a lot less brutal than when he is satirising the Pardoner, he does not say that the Monk is morally wrong, but that he is not suited to his job.
In the Pardoner’s prologue Chaucer’s satire is directed at the morals of the Pardoner, unlike the Monk who was only lightly and subtly satirised, Chaucer savagely and openly criticises the entire soul and body of the Pardoner. This is because the Pardoner is effecting the destination of peoples souls. “Bretful of pardoun, comen from Rome al hoot. This says that he has pardons from the from rome, but it is obvious that he has never been to Rome, as Chaucer latter explains, “He seyde he hadde a gobet of the seil That Seint Peter hadde, whan that he wente Upon the see, til jhesu Christ him hente.”
If he were a pardoner authorised to sell people indulgences, with the education, the real Pardons signed by the Pope and the morals to actually save peoples souls like a proper pardoners where supposed to, he would not need the fake relics, to try and prove himself to the public. To make people really despise the Pardoner Chaucer, when describing the pardoner physically and emotionally he uses what to us, is a normal way of abusing someone, he ridicules the Pardoners sexuality, “No Berd hadde he, ne never sholde have; As smothe it was as it were late shave. I trowe he were a gleding or a mare.” This implies that the Pardoner is either a eunuch of a female, in the middle ages this would have been as insulting as it is today. He also questions the Pardoner’s masculinity, as one of the definitions of a male is the ability to grow facial hair. In addition to his curly Flaxen hair and voice it is clear that he scorns the Pardoner.
It is obvious that he feels anger at the actions of the Pardoner, as Chaucer criticises the Pardoner so directly and in such an unsubtle manner, by emphasising his dubious sexuality and his immoral actions. This is in contrast to the Monk who is never directly criticised as a person just at his poor choice in job. Both the Monk and the Pardoner are satirised, but after reading the Monk’s prologue you only feel that he needs a little telling off, whereas the Pardoner should be severely punished for sending so many people to hell.
This is what make the Pardoner so despicable. Chaucer’s sarcasm is shown by calling the pardoner ” gentil” this is similar to the Monk when he says “to been an abbot able” Both of these are ridiculs suggestions as the description after this he describes them both as being either poor at their job or morally devoid. In conclusion the actions and priorites are the only part of the Monk that are saterised, but the Pardoner is saterised for his whole way of life. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that out of the four pilgrims who work for the church only the Parson is praised for his work, this could be Chaucer’s way of saying that he think the churches method of selecting workers is flawed.