Below is the assignment that I administered to you in class on Thursday.
Due this coming Tuesday, October 23 by class-time is a full, well-developed (at least five paragraph) essay in which you elaborate upon what you have already written in class.
If you can access and sign into the blog, please publish online.
If you cannot, then please hand in a typed essay (Times New Roman, 12 pt. font, double-spaced).
Please follow the MLA style of documentation that I have modeled for you in my assignment.
Peace,
BRobPeachFSC
Br. Rob Peach, FSC
ENG 141.Sections 04, 05
18.X.2007
Journal, re: The
In his satirical[1] The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer takes us with twenty-nine random peeps for a little dialogical[2] trip to the shrine of the unfortunately assassinated Thomas a Becket.[3] While the initial motive of these “cats” is to touch the shrine of the martyr-saint, they are challenged to tell some tall tales by the host of Tabard Inn—the place of rest before they begin this “divinely inspired” pilgrimage to an area outside of
The
For instance, consider the monk’s character (cf. ii 169-211). He is truly a man of great hypocrisy—a type of irony. For a man who is supposed to be living simply and humbly, the monk flaunts an outfit with “sleeves…garnished at the hand / with fine gray fur, the finest in the land, / and on his hood, to fasten it at his chin / He had a wrought-gold cunningly fashioned pin; Into a lover’s’ knot it seemed to pass” (ii 197-201). Such a display suggests contradiction; what he practices is not the austere way of monastic, cloistered living, but “the modern world’s more spacious way” (ii 180). And so it is by way of such subtle observations that Chaucer’s narrator pinpoints a truth of the human condition called, hypocrisy.
[1] Adjective, exposing human folly to ridicule
[2] Adjective, of or pertaining to dialogue
[3] In case you didn’t know, Becket was commissioned by King Henry II in the 1160’s CE to rock the diocese of
[4] Adjective, of or pertaining to idiosyncrasy: a characteristic, habit, mannerism, or the like, that is peculiar to an individual.
[5] Adjective, of, pertaining to, or of the nature of logical argumentation; noun, the art or practice of logical discussion as employed in investigating the truth of a theory or opinion.
[6] Noun, plural: “ies” a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.; (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
9 comments:
Timothy Brashear
Bro Rob Peach
Brit Lit
Canterbury tales essay
10/22/07
It is through such characterization that Chaucer enters into a subtle dialectic with the world, displaying through character and dialogue truths about human condition…
The Knight is a man of great humbleness. You would think one who “often sat at a table in the chair/ Of honor, above all nations” (ii 52-53) would dress like a king or someone of high status. But the humble knight “was not gaily dressed” (ii 76). Even though he had many great achievements in battle he was humble and did not flaunt.
The Squire, son of the knight, “was of moderate length, / With wonderful agility and strength. / He’d seen some service with the cavalry” (ii 85-87). He appeared to be great like his dad and modest as well. But “He was embroidered like a meadow bright/ And full of the freshest flowers, red and white. / Singing he was, or fluting all day,” (ii 91-93) This is almost the opposite of his father, a modest man. The Knights’ son flaunted all his talent and his achievements while his father was modest about the great things he had done.
The Merchant claimed to be an expert on currency and exchange. He was a man of “motley dress, high on his horse he sat, / Upon his head a Flemish beaver hat” (ii 281-282) and “He told of his opinions and pursuits/ In solemn tones, and how he never lost.”(284-285). with someone so opinionated you would never believe he could possibly be in debt or anything. But “This esteemable merchant so had set/ His wits to work, none knew he was in debt,” (ii 289-290). He made a great show to cover up who he truly was.
Dave Kocinski
Bro. Rob Peach
Eng 141.04
Canterbury Tales Essay
Due 10/23/07
It is through such characterization that Chaucer enters into a subtle dialectic with the world, displaying through character and dialogue truths about human condition. The son, the "fine young Squire"(ii 81), is described as if he was a perfect and noble young man. He is also hopeful to win a woman's grace. The irony of the Squire is that he is a servant. As it says, "Courteous he was, lowly and serviceable/ And carved to serve his father at the table"(ii 101-102).
The Yeoman is with the Squire at his side. He is meant to fight, and ride a horse to find those who are doing evil. He always carries around a sword, bow and arrow, dirks, and a baldric. The irony about the Yeoman is that he wears a medal of St. Christopher on his chest. Killing is against God, no matter what.
There is also a Merchant wearing a sort of dress and has a forked beard. He claims to have never lost a battle or argument. As it says, "He told of his opinions and pursuits/ In solemn tones, and how he never lost" (ii 284-285). The irony of the Merchant is that he is a rather kind person, when usually, merchants are usually decieving and stubborn.
The Franklin was very sanguine and cheerful. He is happy about everything he does. He is a wealthy landowner. The irony of the Franklin is that wealthy people are usually greedy, but this wealthy man is very welcoming and kind.
Bill McLean
Bro. Rob Peach
Eng 141/04
October 22, 2007
It is through such indirect characterization that Chaucer enters into a subtle dialectic with the world, displaying through character and dialogue truths about the human condition.
In The Canterbury Tales the Nun is a representative of a perfect person. She is depicted as having no problems what so ever. When eating “she would wipe her upper lip so clean/That not a trace of grease as to be seen” (ii 136-38). She never makes a mistake. When in reality if you hold yourself to that high of a standard all the time it is not a good thing. If you are human you will make mistakes. It is a fact of life. If you walk around trying to be perfect when you make a mistake, it will crush you. You can always learn something from your mistakes.
The Knight represents the modest side of people. He is a very brave soldier of his time and has been in many of the crusades. He had “Truth, honor, generousness and courtesy” (ii 46). The knight is a member of the upper class yet he does not act that way. He does not flaunt his money or his social status. His son, on the other hand, is always showing off his status by what he wears, says, and does.
The Friar is a thief. He accepts bribes from people and is always conning people out of their money. He abuses his spiritual duties for his own profit. He gave easy penance so he could make more money, “He was an easy man of penance-giving/Where he could hope to make a decent living” (ii 229-30). He was supposed to be begging for his money instead of wrongfully accepting it from people.
The monk is a representative of a hypocrite. His vows as a monk were to live simply, yet he walks around and flaunts all that he has. His robe was described as “his sleeves were garnished at the hand/With fine gray fur, the finest in the land/And on his hood, to fasten at his chin/He had a wrought-gold cunningly fashioned pin” (ii 197-200).
Of the many characters of the Canterbury Tales, most of them have some representation of the human condition. Chaucer uses many different literary techniques to bring out the qualities that these characters possess and shows us how things aren’t always as they appear.
Sean Dietz
ENG. 141 Section 4
October 23, 2007
The Canterbury Tales
It is through such characterization that Chaucer enters into a subtle dialectic with the world, displaying through character and dialogue truths about the human condition. The Merchant is described as an “expert at currency exchange” (ii 288). He was never in debt and always dressed shabbily. The irony of the Merchant was still a student at Oxford though: “An Oxford Cleric, still a student though / One who had taken logic long ago” (ii 295-296). He was still very smart.
The Friar was a jolly little fellow. His speech was very well-tuned and also had a gallant phrase when he spoke. He was the mellowest out of the Four Orders of friars. Everyone loved the friar: “he had a special license from the Pope” (ii 224). The irony of the Friar is that his dignity was way too high for a person who was so kind.
There was also one of the finest monks around. He always went hunting for a sport. He was a very manly man so that he could be a monk of his kind. The irony of the monk is that he was “a good man to horse / hunting a hare or riding at a fence” (ii 193, 195). He was also one of the nicest monks around.
The very nice Nun was a prioress. She always sang a very nice service. She was a very entertaining Nun. The irony of the Nun was “for courtliness she had a special zest” (ii 136). It is odd that a very nice Nun had enthusiasm when she was involved in court.
Kevin Bojarski
Bro. Rob Peach
Eng. 141.04
Canterbury Tales Essay
10/22/07
It is through such indirect characterization that Chaucer enters into a subtle dialectic with the world, displaying through character and dialogue truths about the human condition.
In The Canterbury tales the friar is suppose to be a man of poverty and begging. He has taken a vow of poverty and is suppose to live as simple a life as one could imagine. He was very well liked friar, but not for the right reasons. First off, during a confession, he would give an easy penance in exchange for some gift or bribe. “He was an easy man in penance-giving/Where he could hope to make an honest living” (ii227-2280). In a religious vocation where helping the needy is essential, the friar didn’t make much of an attempt to do so. In the poem it states that he knew the local taverns and barmaids very well, but didn’t pay much attention at all to the lepers and beggars. He knew the lowly couldn’t help him in the same way as the tavern owners and innkeepers, so he paid them no mind. The friar in the tale shows how people associate with those that can help them, and not necessarily the ones that need the helping.
The next character to take aim at in the poem is the Franklin. He is a man that is overly ambitious in showing off what he has. He was in love with food and other worldly pleasures, and wanted to let everyone in the whole county know it. He was a happy man who “made his household free to all the county” (ii350). This happiness, though, is overshadowed by his boastfulness, and that is what is ironic about the Franklin in The Canterbury Tales.
Another seemingly odd character that shows up is the Manciple. He is a lowly man in status, responsible for catering duties at a college. Though not regarded very highly in society, he possesses more knowledge and wisdom then most of the educated men that he caters to. The Manciple is meant to demonstrate how in life, you can’t learn everything from a book in school. He is a prime example of the phrase “Don’t judge a book by its cover.”
All and all, The Canterbury Tales shows a few pros, and many cons, in the human condition. Chaucer attacks all of his character descriptions with some sort of ironic theme to show that people aren’t always what they seem.
Taylor Maglin
Bro. Rob Peach
Eng 141.04
Canterbury Tales Essay
Due 10/23/07
The prologue of the Canterbury tales really gives good backgrounds to all its characters. These characters however are exaggerated and falsified. It is through such indirect characterization that Chaucer enters into a subtle dialectic with the world, displaying through character and dialogue truths about the human condition.
The First character is the nun. She is perceived as a perfect person who never makes any mistakes. She always has to be doing the right thing at all times. This in fact is a burden, it shows that being perfect doesn’t make you fell any better, cause she still isn’t happy with herself.
The second character is the monk. He only cares about his image and himself. He wears expensive jewelry as well as high price clothing. He goes completely against what a real monks lifestyle would be.
The third character is the Knight. To me he is the only “real” character in the prologue. He achieves many great things and is high in social status. However he still remains humble. His lifestyle is worth boasting for, but the knight stays true.
There are many more examples of the human condition in the prologue. The irony is never ending. But without the irony and the human condition this story would not be the same.
Zachary Polk
Bro. Rob Peach
ENG 141. Section 04
10/23/07
Journal, re: The Canterbury Tales
It is through such indirect characterization the Chaucer enters into a subtle dialectic with the world, displaying through character and dialogue truths about the human condition. In the Canterbury Tales Chaucer speaks of a Merchant, “He was an expert at currency exchange./ This estimable Merchant so had set/ His wits to work, none knew he was in debt” (ii288-290). This statement contradicts the fact that Merchants were considered middle to upper class people in wealth. Chaucer’s statement says the Merchant is in debt.
There was a Monk, who Chaucer explained was “one of the finest sort/Who rode the country; hunting was his sport” (ii169-170). The statement is a contradiction in itself. Saying that he was the finest of sort and the hunting was his sport. Monks of the Middle Ages lived in monasteries, which demanded that they devote their lives to “work and prayer.” The Monk Chaucer speaks of devotes his life to hunting.
Chaucer also speaks of a Friar. In Chaucer’s writing the Friar has taken to accepting bribes. This is ironic since the Friar is known to being nice to everyone. Including, administering the sacraments to people in his town.
There was also a Nun, who Chaucer said, “For courtliness she had a special zest,/ And she would wipe her upper lip so clean/ That not a trace of grease was to be seen/ Upon the cup when she had drunk; to eat,/ She reached a hand sedately for the meat” (ii136-140). This act of perfect ness is very ironic to the real world. No one in the real world was perfect besides, Jesus. Everybody makes mistakes in the world.
In Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales: The Prologue, he describes many characters on the voyage. All of which have some kind of contradiction to the truths of human condition. This contradiction creates a unique style of writing for Chaucer, irony.
Dante Odorisio
Br. Rob Peach
ENG 141.04
October 23, 2007
The Canterbury Tales: Investigating the Human Condition
In The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer takes the reader on a journey through medieval English society. This picaresque, or mock epic, reveals the emotional continuity between members of medieval society despite the period’s rigid social stratification. In his prologue to The Tales, Chaucer first introduces the various characters that accompany him on his pilgrimage to cathedral in Canterbury. This prologue offers the accounts of some twenty-nine members of English society, who have nothing in common besides their humanity nature. Chaucer says: “But nonetheless, while I have time and space,/ Before my story takes a further pace,/ It seems a reasonable thing to say/ What there condition was, the full array/ Of each of them, as it appeared to me/ According to profession and degree” (ii 35-40). These characters are precisely chosen by Chaucer to represent the various levels of medieval English society from knight to plowman. Chaucer then plays out the contradictions of medieval society through his use of caricature and satire. It is through such indirect characterization that Chaucer enters into a subtle dialectic with the world, displaying through character and dialogue truths about the human condition. This truth is the hypocrisy of man despite status, wealth, and power. We will examine humanity’s hypocrisy by looking at the individual ironies of characters from the text.
The first three characters we encounter come from the noble class of knights: a knight, a young squire (the knights son), and a yeomen (the squire’s servant). Chaucer’s caricature of the knight depicts him as being virtually perfect: “There was a Knight, a most distinguished man,/ Who from the day on which he first began/ To ride abroad had followed chivalry,/ Truth, honor, generousness and courtesy.” (ii 43-46). Not only does Chaucer give a long list of the knights exploits, but also, he purports that this courageous warrior is without pride: “And though so much distinguished, he was wise/ And in his bearing modest as a maid./ He never yet a boorish thing had said/ In all his life to any, come what might;/ He was a true, a perfect gentle-knight” (ii 70-74). This caricature points out a social irony of the day that is the virtual deification of knights. In all three accounts: knight, squire, and yeomen, the most obvious flaws of the warrior class are without mention. This ironic characterization directly shows that people of the day held fighting men in too high of a regard, and indirectly shows that knights and the like are not necessarily brave nor are they especially humble. This sort of insight is an analysis of the workings of the contemporary society, or social commentary. Within the first three caricatures, we already begin to see Chaucer’s take on human nature through the social lens of his day. With this, dialectical answers about the human condition also surface. One such truth, or answer, is that people tend to have views of others that are misinformed and hypocritical because their expectations are simply and repeatedly not being met in real life. In other words, the prospect of finding a knight so flawless in merit and character in Chaucer’s day was very rare.
The next and largest class that Chaucer takes on is the church. This stratum is at the foundation of Chaucer’s search for social truth because the church is a “large tent”, meaning that it encompasses many people each with their own smaller social distinctions, and because the church is a platform for moral and social commentary itself—revealing the hypocrisy in this sort of body would make Chaucer’s satire even more cogent. Because there are many members of the church construct that Chaucer goes into detail about, we will look at a selection of these characters small enough to manage for the sake of critical thinking but also large enough to sustain the development of our argument. The three caricatures from this group that we will examine are the monk, friar, and papal pardoner. Traditionally monks are regarded as rather quiet scholarly figures, busily studying over scriptural and theological texts at the cloister, and hopefully obeying the majority of rules and precedents. However, Chaucer’s account of the monk indirectly shows that even these men of god were subject to self-ironies and hypocrisy—as it is their human nature. Chaucer’s monk is the antithesis of what people of the time thought him to be, that is scholarly, disciplined, and obedient: “He let go by the things of yesterday/ And took the modern world’s more spacious way./ He did not rate text at a plucked hen/ Which says that hunters are not holy men/ And that a monk uncloistered is a mere/ Fish out of water, flapping on the pier,/ That is to say that a monk out of cloister was not worth an oyster;/ And I agreed and said his views were sound;/ Was he to study till his head went round/ Poring over books in cloisters? Must he toil/ As Austin bade and till the very soil?/ Was he to leave the world upon the shelf?/ Let Austin have his labor to himself” (ii 179-192). Another clergymen account by Chaucer is that of the friar. The friar is not only accepting payment for confessions but essentially dedicating himself to acquiring more and more wealth: “Highly beloved and intimate was he/ With Country folk [wealthy landowners]” (ii 219-220). Chaucer is particularly poignant in his scathing satirical critique of these sorts of clergymen in ii 248-251: “It was not fitting with the dignity/ Of his position, dealing with a scum/ Of wretched lepers; nothing good can come/ Of dealings with the slum-and-gutter dwellers”. Lastly, on our list of Chaucer’s clergy accounts is that of the papal pardoner. This is one of the more humorous caricatures in that a man who is supposed to be pardoning the laity is journeying with the summoner, who serves summons to church courts: “He [the summoner] and a gentle Pardoner rode together” (i 689). All three of these accounts show that the human condition transcends all including the status of church official.
Amongst the more common people in Chaucer’s prologue, the same is true: hypocrisy is rampant. In the case of the student, the pursuit of learning in his life has rather consumed him. He is anti-social and only concerned with his personal academic pursuits. This sort of caricature is also viable in our times as someone who lives to work, meaning that his life is consumed by one pursuit and without any balance. Another caricature is that of the miller, who is a brutish figure. Chaucer pokes fun at this sort of person by indirectly comparing him to an animal: “His beard, like any sow or fox, was read” (i 568). The literary gifts that Chaucer gives to us are his powerful voice for satire and the clarity of his social commentary.
It is through his dialectical with us, the reader, that he conveys his message. Chaucer is proficient when it comes to planting subtleties and inferences throughout the reading. His modus operandi of social commentary using a picaresque is funny, scathing, and informative all at once. Despite the fact that Chaucer’s work is some six-hundred plus years old, his wit and powerful dialectic voice will continue to serve as prime examples of the potential power of satire in social commentary for years to come. Interestingly enough, we can still apply many of the lessons learned in the prologue to our own society today.
Mike Nuttle
Br. Rob Peach
ENG 141.04
October 23, 2007
Human Truths Revealed Through “The Canterbury Tales”
In Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales”, Chaucer pokes fun at society by chronicling the pilgrimages of twenty-nine voyagers on their pilgrimage to the grave of Thomas A Becket. By taking the role of an omniscient third-person narrator, Chaucer allows himself to expose the hypocrisies, flaws, and truths of the human condition through ingenious and logical means.
Take, for example, The Knight. He is the stereotypical chivalrous hero in shining amour who “…had followed chivalrous truth, honor, generousness, and courtesy./ He had done well in his sovereigns’ war/ and ridden into battle, no man more,/ As well in Christian and heathen places,/ and ever honored for his noble graces.” (ii 45-50). A man this would obviously be the ideal knight.
Another good example of Chaucer’s generalizations is The Nun. She is the archetypal sanctimonious do-gooder. She is described as being as close to perfection as humanly possible. “…She could carry a morsel up and keep/ the smallest drop from falling on her breast, / for courtliness she had a special zest, / and she would wipe her upper lip so clean/ that not a trace of grease was to be seen/ upon the cup when she had drunk;” (ii 134-139). By placing a character such as this in his play, Chaucer is ridiculing all those who set such ridiculously high standards for themselves, who, in the end, are usually let down.
One final example is that of The Friar. The Friar is described as corrupt, self-centered, money-hungry, and unusually wealthy. This man would claim all the best begging spots and receive more than his fair share of affluence. He was selfish and only cared about himself; “He was an easy man in Penance-giving/ where he could hope to earn a decent living” (ii 227-228). This character mocks all those who are corrupt; anyone who stands on a pedestal looking down on others while doing crooked business.
It is through these and twenty-six other characters that Chaucer reveals the human truths. By oversimplifying groups of people, Chaucer can take a magnified, extreme case of what is happening in reality, in order to show common human trends. We all have some attribute of each of the twenty-nine characters presented in the prologue and, therefore, can all learn valuable lessons from “The Canterbury Tales”.
Post a Comment