UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, LAHORE

M.A ENGLISH

SUBJECT: POETRY 14TH TO 17TH CENTURY

WASEEM ABBAS

1ST SEMESTER OF ENGLISH

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LITERATURE

ASSIGNMENT FOR THE CHARACTER ANALYSIS

Summary of the Prologue

Tabard inn before he recommences his journey to Canterbury. That evening, a group of

people arrive at the inn, all of whom are also going to Canterbury to receive the blessing of

“the holy blissful martyr,” St. Thomas a Becket. Calling themselves “pilgrims” because of

their destination, they accept the Narrator into their company. The Narrator describes his

newfound travelling companions.

Two more tales on the journey back. The person who tells the best story will

be rewarded with a sumptuous dinner paid for by the other members of the party. The

Host decides to accompany the pilgrims to Canterbury and serve as the judge of the tales.

The Host at the inn, Harry Bailey, suggests that, to make the trip to Canterbury pass more

pleasantly, each member of the party tell two tales on the journey to Canterbury and serve

as the judge of the tales.

General Prologue The Monk.

past-time is hunting, and to this end he keeps gorgeous horses and greyhounds. This part

of the Monk’s portrait foreshadows the interaction between the Monk and the Host after

the Tale of Melibee.

The Monk seems to love the good life outside his cell. Besides riding horses

and hunting hares, he loves feasting and is given to finery. He also has many dainty horses

and well-bred greyhounds “as swifte as fowel”. Not a trace of the monastic life is visible in

this man given to lavishness. Furthermore, there is a visible sexual element in the curious

love-knotte, gold-wrought pin he wears.

According to Douglas Wurtle if there is one virtue he lacks the most, it is

this: obedience. His thought, actions and lifestyle demonstrate the lack of utter lack of

obedience. We are told that he finds the rules of Saint Maure and Saint Benedict “somdel

streit”. Interestingly, the most popular legend connected tovthe two monks is a lesson on

the very quality of obedience. The story goes that the absolute obedience of St Maure to

Saint Benedict once helped him miraculously save a downing man and Saint Benedict

attributed the miracle to the obedience of his disciple. By alluding to this particular duo of

saints in his introduction of the monk, Chaucer seems to highlight this quality of obedience

which is conspicuous through its absence.

The Monk also rejects the teaching of the Augustinian order which focuses

on the importance of penance and physical suffering. This disobedience is coupled with

outright rejection of dogmas that do not sync with his lifestyle. He doesn’t believe the claim

that “Hunters ben nat holy man” nor does he agree to the dictum that a monk negligent

towards his vocation and out of his cell is like a fish outside water.
 The concern about the loss of respect towards the clergy (as seen in John

Gowler’s ‘On Monks ‘ Mirrors of Men) seems to be well founded as the clergy is shown to

be massively riddled with corruption and deceit. The General Prologue is replete with the

criticism of the clergy. Barring the Parson, invariably all the members of the clergy

ranging from the Summoner to the Pardoner are subject of Chaucer’s satire. Though the

monk is included in this critique, the criticism directed against him seems to be of a

different kind: that of being a misfit in the monastic order. He values materialistic life over

a monastic one and seems to be a hedonist. However, unlike other members of the clergy,

neither does he pretend to profess something that he is not, nor does he abuse his office by

harming the laity. Neither is he deceitful like the Pardoner, nor malevolent like the Friar.

The Monk is at least honest enough not to hide under the pretence of

religiosity and bold enough to think and behave in a manner that is strongly anti-dogmatic.

True, he isn’t true to his religious office but he is at least true to himself and this honesty

elevates his apparent disobedience to a plane of personal rebellion. Now, whether Chaucer

encourages the form of rebellion or undercuts the actions of the monk through his semi-

ironic tone in which he describes the monk is a subject of another debate.

The Monk’s Tale has a recurring theme of tragedy. The Monk defines

tragedy as the fall of someone from high station to misery. He is warming people to not

blindly trust in prosperity because it can always change.

The Monk Themes

 Anti-Catholicism.
 Pride.

 Men and Women.

 Surface and Substance.

 First Impressions and True Colors.

 The Supernatural.

 Sexual Desire.

General Prologue The Friar.

“The General Prologue: The Friar by Geoffrey Chaucer Critical analysis. Chaucer

depicted the corruption and degradation of the medieval Catholic Church where the

agents of the Church were indulged in immoral activities and uses their position to gain

money and wealth.

The Friar Character Analysis.

There was a Friar among the pilgrims proceeding to Canterbury in Geoffrey

Chaucer’s Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. He was a gay and merry fellow. He was

licensed to beg within a certain specific area. But there was nobody in the four orders

of beggars so expert in begging by using gallant phrases and elegant speech. He had

arranged marriage of several young women at his own cost (probably after seducing

them earlier). He was a noble pillar of his order and was quite popular and intimate

with the rich land-owners of his region as well as the wealthy ladies there. The Friar

had a special license from the Pope and as such had greater authority than an ordinary
priest to her confessions of graver sins. He heard confessions pleasantly and granted

pardons to those who gave him costly gifts. He was rather lenient in pronouncing

absolution as he believed that anyone who gave enough money to a poor order was

certainly sincere and penitent. According to him, many people are so hard-hearted that

though truly remorseful and penitent they cannot weep. Such people may, therefore,

instead of prayers and shedding tears might get absolution by making payments to the

poor Friar.

This Friar’s hood was always filled with knives and pins to be presented to

the beautiful women. This Friar could sing and play fiddle very well. He was a

champion balled-singer and could easily win all the prizes in any music-competition.

Another distinction with the person was that he had a lily-white neck. But he was a very

strong man and got all the prizes in fights. He knew all the innkeepers and bar-maids

in every town better than the lepers and beggars because it was not proper that a man

of his ability and quality should mix with the lowly and miserable lepers. He was aware

that nothing good can come of dealings with such lowly people and it was therefore,

better to keep in touch with the rich merchants and others. His services were always

polite where there was a possibility of profit. Nowhere one could fine such capable man.

Chaucer describes his as the best beggar of his batch. Even if a widow were

extremely poor he would recite holy words in such a pleasant voice that she would be

practically forced to part with some money before he left. This Friar’s extra income was

thus much higher than his regular salary. He could move about wantonly like a puppy

on the days of arbitration when he would arbitrate and help in resolving disputes ( for a

small fee).
 On such occasions, he did not appear like a poor cloister in tattered clothes

but would dress up as a person of importance or Pope with a double worsted he lisped a

little in his speech in a playful like the stars on frosty night. The name of this worthy

man was Huber.

The representation of this Friar by Chaucer indicates the corruption that

had taken root among the mendicant order of his time. The lifestyle of the Friar, his

money-minded-ness, his association with the rich and wealthy men and women of his

time and neglect of the poor and the suffering are all indications of the degeneration

that had crept into the church and its clergy. The poet draws this character with such

vividness and ironic touches and it seems as if, the reader saw him before his eyes.

Haurice hussey, a critic, however, feels that Chaucer was highly biased and

unjustly critical against friars. His treatment of them does no justice to their excellence

in the pulpit, their value to the society as teachers or the subtlety of their minds. But

despite this view of Hussey, it is undeniable that Chaucer’s Friar is worldly,

promiscuous and cunning quite in contrast to the expectations of its founder St. Francis

who prescribed humility, service, love and frugal lifestyle to the order.

Though no specific model for his character could be identified by the

scholars Chaucer could be identified by the scholars Chaucer must have had such a

person wandering before him, enjoying all the pleasures of life and exploiting both the

poor and the rich without even a bit of scruple.

Theme of The Friar’s Tale

indulges his greed by extorting money from those he catches, letting them go if they will

pay him what he asks. The theme of the tale is the close interconnection between greed

and the devil.