Like the Prioress, the Monk is all sorts of things that, as a religious figure, he should probably not be — a hunter, overfed, expensively-dressed in fur and gold jewelry, and a cultivator of expensive habits. But the Monk is willing to admit that he doesn't live a traditional religious life of hard work, study, and fasting, claiming as his excuse that he is a modern man, disdainful of the old traditions.
So, out with the old fuddy-duddies like Augustine, who would have the monk slaving away over his books in a cloister, and in with the new — the new, in this case, being a comfortable life of sport, fine food and clothing, and amusements outside the monastery's walls. Of the Monk's physical appearance, we learn that he is fat, bald, and greasy, with eyes that roll in his head. In medieval physiognomy, the practice of drawing conclusions about someone's character from their physical appearance, rolling eyes like this might be a sign of impatience and lust for food and women.
This part of the Monk's portrait foreshadows the interaction between the Monk and the Host after the Tale of Melibee. But despite having negative qualities he was seen as the best and virtuous in others eyes.
I felt like he was being made of when they said he had a lisped and was poor scholar and then they end was like a compliment of admiration saying that his eyes are so bright and they twinkled as stars do on a frosty night. They both in my own opinion are church men but not the ideal church man of that time.
They were lusty for women who and had no intentions of being a good church going man. The idle man around that time should be helping the poor and treating women with respect. The friar was lusty and boastful for women and many while the monk loves his horses as much as his stomach.
Chaucer describes the Monk as a character who loves hunting and horses. Lines ask the reader why the Monk should be working. Frere, on the other hand collects money from people and lives of that. He is very popular with many people and lives a rich life. These two churchman are very different from each other and have different practices with the church.
Neither of them are really pure or innocent and I feel like there actions proved that. Frere is a flirt and very selfish. I was confused on how you can be a religious figure and yet have these corrupt qualities. How can you keep the money that is suppose to be given to the poor and yet still be called a religious figure?
Maybe when Chaucer was writing this he felt that the church was damaged and dishonest. In both the translation and the original reading, I found the tone to be extremely sarcastic, especially when describing the Friar. Chaucer talks about all his traits that are not ideal, but makes it sound like a good thing. He almost sounds like a crook rather than a clergyman. This is the same tactic he uses in describing, the Monk.
After all, everything he does, he does reluctantly. After reading, I am not sure whether these two characters were set out to challenge Christian views or to question them. Possibly, this could be going in the same direction as Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in the sense of teaching what to do by showing what not to do. While reading this I found it to be very ironic that the monk was actually very different from what I thought monks are supposed to be like. Monks are supposed to devote their lives to prayer but that is not how the monk in this story is.
All he mostly cared about was eating and hunting, he was basically fearless. Friar as described was not a very nice man at all. He was selfish and cruel and obviously did not care about the poor. He kept all the money that was given to him by others for the poor. Basically he was a corrupt religious figure. This is evident as Chaucer portrays the figures of the Monk and the Frere, or Friar.
As two predominant figures that have ties to religious beliefs, it is understandable to see why Chaucer would speak quite highly of these two beings. The speaker of the poem shows how the Monk seemed to be a masculine gentleman who took part in activities such as hunting and rode horses during his spare time. On the other hand, readers see the Frere in a less noble light.
Although the speaker of the poem still upholds some sort of decorum when discussing a religious figure, the speaker relates the Frere as someone who is more partial to being social and jovial — in conjunction with painting him as a man who is both holy and mortal, remarking that the Frere is still seen as a public figure. After a close reading of each of these characters, it is clear that both men are seen differently in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the speaker. As a literary device, irony is a contrast or incongruity between expectations for a situation and what is reality.
This can be a difference between the surface meaning of something that is said and the underlying meaning. It can also be a difference between what might be expected to happen and what actually occurs. The Canterbury Tales , written towards the end of the fourteenth century by Geoffrey Chaucer, is considered an estates satire because it effectively criticizes, even to the point of parody, the main social classes of the time.
In Canterbury Tales the Friar is just someone who was wooing women and using the money that was supposed to help the poor to buy more gifts for his wives and help himself. The Friar would go to inns and bars to pick up girls and spend his money instead of helping and living among the poor. Satire is a technique employed by writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or a society, by using humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule. It intends to improve humanity by criticizing its follies and foibles.
Chaucer's narrator has nothing very favorable to say about either the Monk or the Friar , thus has a poor attitude toward them, though he criticizes them for different reasons. The attitude conveyed toward the Monk is satirical, critical, and ironic. The author decides to include the prioress in the Canterbury tales to show that one thing the nun had that showed irony in her behavior, was her tender feelings. The author is sarcastic when he uses the example of her feelings for a mouse and that she was so charitable and full of pity.
How does Chaucer satirize the monk? Category: books and literature fiction. Chaucer has a low opinion of the monk , as he does most of the clergy.
Chaucer uses a subtle sarcasm to express his dislike. He describes the monk as liking to spend his time hunting and riding fine horses. He describes the monk as being finely dressed with fur-trimmed robes.
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. Now, whether Chaucer encourages this 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.
A Kolve and Glending Olson. Wurtele J. Lenaghan, R. Leicester, Jr, H.
0コメント