Author Geoffrey Chaucer describes in-depth several characters who intend to embark on a religious pilgrimage in his piece The Canterbury Tales. One of the prominently featured characters is the Friar. The Friar is certainly one of the most unorthodox characters in the piece who is the antithesis of the character qualities expected of a friar. Chaucer’s description and implications reveal that the Friar is an adulterous, cold-hearted individual with a disingenuous personality that is rooted in his self-absorbed nature.
Chaucer’s description of the Friar is quite extensive comparative to that of the other pilgrims he discusses, allowing the reader to develop a complete picture of him. Throughout the description, Chaucer reveals the Friar’s adulterous actions and seductive nature. At the beginning of the section Chaucer describes the Friar’s attempts to rectify the consequences of his promiscuity. He writes, “With him for gallantry; tongue was his wooing. Many a girl was married by his doing, And at his own cost it was often done” (Chaucer 67 lines 205-207). As a member of the clergy, the Friar has taken an oath of chastity and is therefore forbidden to marry or have children. Chaucer insinuates in these lines that the Friar was compelled to procure husbands for the women he had impregnated. Chaucer further wrote, “For pretty women he had no more than shrift. His cape was stuffed with many a little gift, As knives and pins and suchlike. He could sing A merry note, and pluck a tender string, And had no rival at all in balladry” (67 lines 227-231). Here the Friar’s lack of guilt regarding his lust and affairs is revealed as well as his seductive ability to entice women with gifts and captivate them with his talents. Yet although the...
... middle of paper ...
...s adultery to satisfy his physical desires. He demands compensation for granting absolution to satiate his greed for money. He is characterized by Chaucer as a man who would decisively reject his duty as a friar because doing so would require his time or money. Finally, he is revealed to be a man of duplicity because doing so can allow him to fully exploit his relationships for profit. All these actions the Friar takes to satisfy himself. He is depicted as the antithesis of a member of a clergy who has been entrusted with extending an arm of charity and love to the community. Rather than doing good the Friar chooses to feel good.
Works Cited
Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Canterbury Tales.” British Literature for Christian Schools. Greenville,
SC: Bob Jones UP, 1995. 59-81. Print.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984. Print.
Personalities come in all shapes and sizes, however, they often contrast with ones occupation or societal ranking. Geoffrey Chaucer shows readers this through The Canterbury Tales as he describes the lives and his views of each character. The Prioress, the Monk, and the Friar, all get on the narrators bad side as they try to portray themselves as someone they were not destined to be. An important aspect of medieval societal values is being true to ones ranking among others and these characters are the complete opposite of whom they truly are. Through these characters, Chaucer shows how these flaws can damage the way others perceive someone.
A friar of wisdom and great power is an abuser of the power he holds; a friar the citizenry turn to thinking he is there to be welcoming, but he is vain. Friar Lawrence has good intentions to help others yet his actions show that he is truly impulsive and naive. The Friar shows his, “lies, schemes, misleads, falsely sanctions, and performs funeral obsequies for a being he knows is not permanently dead--and, as we can tell, he has no the slightest twinge of conscience about all of this” (Mackenzie 1). He is also blamed for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet. He manipulates the characters to believe his actions are to help the star-crossed lovers be happy, however he has ulterior motives and uses his powers against the lovers. In William Shakespeare’s
The holy herbalist, Friar Laurence, is seen by the people of Verona as the most trustworthy and respectable individual of the city, and he means well but his decisions prove faulty. For instance, his first dire mistake is marrying Romeo and Juliet in sudden haste and in complete secrecy. “Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. But come, young waverer, come, go with me, in one respect I’ll thy assistant be; for this alliance may so prove, to turn your households’ rancor to pure love” (3.3. 88- 92). The Friar says this to Romeo to prove that he is willing to accept wedding the two, but only to end the turmoil between the Capulets and Montagues. As wise as this consideration may appear, the Friar did not account for the arranged marriage of Juliet to Par...
The Friar and the Parson, as described in the General Prologue of the Canterbury Tales, can be used to portray both the good and the bad sides of clergy. They make a stark contrast to each other, often even directly, with their characteristics as told by the narrator. From physical traits to their actions, these two pilgrims are almost exact opposites in certain ways. Their motivations for these actions describe the differences in the mind sets of the good holy man and the one who is less true to his orders, the Parson and the Friar respectively. Throughout their portraits, the descriptions of the two are set at odds, so as to highlight their contrariety.
meant much more. It included a love of G-d and doing the will of G-d as well as
The Friar thought that this marriage will end an ancient grudge of two prominent families, when it will only separate them even more. Friar Laurence was helping Capulet and Lady Capulet mourn over Tybalt’s death. Paris says, "With these times of woe afford no time to woo!" . If everything was thought about clearly and not rushed through then none of this would have happened and Romeo and Juliet would not have died such a tragic death. Another example of the Friar lying is by not telling Montague and Lady Montague of Romeo and Juliet’s elopement. This only made matters worse, and now both Romeo and Juliet are dead. The Friar made this marriage a huge mistake, and he could have stopped the whole thing right there and then by just saying no.
The monk receives some scathing sarcasm in Chaucer’s judgment of his new world ways and the garments he wears “With fur of grey, the finest in the land; Also, to fasten hood beneath his chin, He had of good wrought gold a curious pin: A love-knot in the larger end there was.” (194-197, Chaucer). The Friar is described as being full of gossip and willing to accept money to absolve sins, quite the opposite of what a servant of God should be like. Chaucer further describes the friar as being a frequenter of bars and intimate in his knowledge of bar maids and nobles alike. The friar seems to be the character that Chaucer dislikes the most, he describes him as everything he should not be based on his profession. The Pardoner as well seems to draw special attention from Chaucer who describes him as a man selling falsities in the hopes of turning a profit “But with these relics, when he came upon Some simple parson, then this paragon In that one day more money stood to gain Than the poor dupe in two months could attain.” (703-706, Chaucer). Chaucer’s description of the pardoner paints the image of a somewhat “sleazy” individual “This pardoner had hair as yellow as wax, But lank it hung as does a strike of flax; In wisps hung down such locks as he 'd on head, And with them he his shoulders overspread; But thin they dropped, and stringy, one by one.” (677-681,
The Canterbury Tales is a literary masterpiece in which the brilliant author Geoffrey Chaucer sought out to accomplish various goals. Chaucer wrote his tales during the late 1300’s. This puts him right at the beginning of the decline of the Middle Ages. Historically, we know that a middle class was just starting to take shape at this time, due to the emerging commerce industry. Chaucer was able to see the importance and future success of the middle class, and wrote his work with them in mind. Knowing that the middle class was not interested in lofty philosophical literature, Chaucer wrote his work as an extremely comical and entertaining piece that would be more interesting to his audience. Also, Chaucer tried to reach the middle class by writing The Canterbury Tales in English, the language of the middle class rather than French, the language of the educated upper class. The most impressive aspect of Chaucer’s writing is how he incorporated into his piece some of his own controversial views of society, but yet kept it very entertaining and light on the surface level. One of the most prevalent of these ideas was his view that certain aspects of the church had become corrupt. This idea sharply contrasted previous Middle Age thought, which excepted the church’s absolute power and goodness unquestionably. He used corrupt church officials in his tales to illustrate to his audience that certain aspects of the church needed to be reformed. The most intriguing of these characters was the Pardoner. Chaucer’s satirical account of the Pardoner is written in a very matter-of-fact manner that made it even more unsettling with his audience. Chaucer uses his straightforwardness regarding the hypocrisy of the Pardoner, suggestive physiognomy of the character, and an interesting scene at the conclusion of the Pardoner’s Tale to inculcate his views of the church to his audience. The way that Chaucer used these literary devices to subtly make his views known to an audience while hooking them with entertainment, shows that Chaucer was truly a literary genius.
The Canterbury Tales examines many important qualities of human nature. Chaucer purposely mocks the faults in his characters, and shows the hypocrisy and deceitfulness ...
The Friar was a member of the clergy. The clergy is a class made up of members of the church, so he was held to a higher standard. His life was supposed to be devoted to God and his works. He selfishly put his greed and plans before the expectations from the church. People expected him to be a humble and a Godly man, but he would make people pay for him to hear their confessions. “Therefore instead of weeping and of prayer one should give silver for a poor Friar’s care,” (page 103 lines 235-235). He could convince the last penny from a woman’s hand into his. He would tell her any lie to get money for “the church” (hims...
The Parson is an extremely humble, generous, and overall astounding person. He is not greedy in the slightest and gives to the poor as much as possible. Also, his conduct is impeccable and he is a role model for all parishioners. This description of the Parson is the complete opposite of the Friar’s true disposition and moral character. The Friar believes “Nothing good can come of commerce with such slum-and-gutter dwellers,/But only with the rich and victual-sellers” (250). The Friar only worked with the upper-class and believed “it was not fitting with the dignity of his position/[to deal] with a scum of wretched leper.” (248). One can assume from this statement that he must not be a man of God if he is so degrading of others. The Friar continually displays a particularly greedy and judgmental persona throughout the poem. As mentioned before, the Friar taking money from the poor also says a lot about his character. If he was sincerely a man of the church, he would not take from people who already live in poverty. He certainly does not follow God’s devout way of life. While the Parson gives to the poor, the Friar takes from them. Though the Friar’s behavior is looked down upon in the eyes of the church, the Parson “truly knew Christ’s gospel and would preach it/Devoutly to parishioners, and teach it,” which verifies that he truly is a religious and righteous man (491). This validates the theory that the Parson has a fine grasp on his morality while the Friar does not due to his dishonorable
Due to their roles in society, the Friar, the Monk and the Prioress all take vows to which none of them remain faithful. The Friar has a charming personality, which he uses to his own advantage to exploit the poor, get charity from the rich “Natural gifts like his were hard to match. / He was the finest beggar of his batch, / And, for his begging-district payed a rent… ” (249-251), and seduce women, th...
...eveals insecurities of him in the process while that itself tells us more about the popular culture in this time. Chaucer, along with many of the other pilgrims attempts to place themselves in a socially desirable or even superior position. With the Narrator having the responsibility of articulating the tales to us in a coherent fashion, he might feel pressure to present himself as all-knowing or superior to his companions rather than show us an honest and unbiased point of view. After all, he is telling the story; the Narrator can ultimately choose to tell us whatever he pleases. The Narrator plays the role of telling tales and providing the groundwork for this pilgrimage story, but since his ideas and opinions are designed in such a particular way; he indirectly tells us so much more about not only about the pilgrimage but of this time period’s culture as a whole.
An interesting aspect of the famous literary work, "The Canterbury Tales," is the contrast of realistic and exaggerated qualities that Chaucer entitles to each of his characters. When viewed more closely, one can determine whether each of the characters is convincing or questionable based on their personalities. This essay will analyze the characteristics and personalities of the Knight, Squire, Monk, Plowman, Miller, and Parson of Chaucer's tale.
It is a sad commentary on the clergy that, in the Middle Ages, this class that was responsible for morality was often the class most marked by corruption. Few works of the times satirically highlight this phenomenon as well as The Canterbury Tales, by Geoffrey Chaucer. Chaucer’s "General Prologue" introduces us to a cast of clergy, or "Second Estate" folk, who range in nature from pious to corrupt. The Friar seems to be an excellent example of the corrupt nature of many low-level clergymen of the times- while his activities were not heretical or heinous, his behavior is certainly not in accord with the selfless moral teachings he is supposed to espouse. According to the Narrator’s account, he is a snob, corrupted by greed, and acts in very un-Christian ways. It is clear that he is a man of low moral standards.