The Humor of the Pardoner

In my research for my final paper, one topic which has come up is the discussion of the humors, and where certain characters fall.  In Elspeth Whitney’s article “What’s wrong with the Pardoner? Complexion Theory, the Phlegmatic Man, and Effeminancy” she discusses the different ways that the complexions (a way to incorporate the humors into a physical set of traits in humans) can indicate what character traits a person might have. These traits are based entirely on the looks of the person, something we’ve discussed throughout the semester in the descriptions of each of the travelers.  According to Whitney, “masculinity and a “hot” complexion were linked with moderation, self-control, and self-discipline, while “cold,” feminized complexions were thought to produce incontinence, excess, deceitfulness, cowardice, and negligence” (361). Therefore, because of some of our pilgrim’s appearance, we can tell that some are more “hot” than “cold,” which, to Whitney, means that there are assumptions concerning the personality we can make concerning each pilgrim based upon the superficial.

            Fire is the long-standing element of men, and therefore has the more masculine qualities.  Water is tied with the cold, and is therefore feminine.  So, for the humors, Sanguine and Choleric natures are more heated, whereas Phlegmatic and Melancholy run more coldly. To further this idea, Whitney feels that men with no beards are more on the cold side of things, and thus more feminine, which is part of her argument concerning the phlegmatic nature of the Pardoner.  Perhaps, then, the outspoken nature of the Wife of Bath might make her more “hot” and masculine, and able to not follow the typical “colder” and more acceptable roles of women of the time? What about the Reeve? Would he be considered Choleric?

            Additionally, Whitney explains that this complexion theory is also important in conjunction to the different vices which afflict men. “The cold complexions of melancholy and phlegm promoted the heaviness of envy in the first instance, gluttony and sloth in the second” (Whitney, 385). Therefore, for the Pardoner, she feels that there is slothfulness inherently in his person as his body is too lazy to even produce facial hair.  Granted, this is not exactly his fault, unless he is shaving, but the idea is an interesting one.  If you continue this concept with the possibility that slothfulness in the clergy of this time showed a lack of involvement in aiding the world in addition to a negligence to religious duties. This seems as if it encapsulates our Pardoner well! What do you think?