More handpicked essays just for you.
The canterbury tales characters essay
The prologue to the canterbury tales summary characters
The prologue to the canterbury tales summary characters
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In today’s age, many consider classic literature dull, boring, and useless. However, it is enlightening to analyze the parallels between modern individuals and the timeless characters of the written word. Take, for example, Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. In this story, many unique characters are introduced as the plot develops. One such individual, referred to by Chaucer as the Pardoner, is fully revealed in “The Pardoner’s Tale,” a short piece of writing rooted within the larger story. Throughout “The Pardoner’s Tale,” the Pardoner is portrayed as a man of avarice and sin; however, he is a high-ranking figure who sells “salvation” in the Catholic Church. It is this irony that portrays the Pardoner in a negative light and allows readers to associate him with others who hold similar qualities. Corrupt politicians of modern times, such as former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, can be compared to the Pardoner because they are also dastard, manipulative, and greedy. While in office, Blagojevich was nearly exclusively concerned with his own agenda, akin to the Pardoner; at the same time, distinctions between the two can be seen upon …show more content…
a closer examination. Although closely alike in terms of goals and qualities, the Pardoner and Blagojevich differ greatly in their professions and the execution of their objectives. Essentially, the Pardoner and Blagojevich are two peas in a pod because of the similarities they share. Perhaps the most defining correlation between the two is their lust for money. In 2005, Blagojevich received a large sum of money for hiring a friend’s wife onto Illinois’ Department of Natural Resources, despite the fact that this woman failed the entrance exam (“Rod Blagojevich Biography”). As a result of this self-indulgence, Blagojevich is in the same boat as the Pardoner, who aims only to benefit himself: I mean to have money, wool and cheese and wheat Though it were given me by the poorest lad Or the poorest village widow, though she had A string of starving children, all agape. No, let me drink the liquor of the grape And keep a jolly wench in every town! (Chaucer 26-31) Simply put, the Pardoner’s avaricious nature knows no bounds; he will do anything for material items. Following this example, it is easy to notice another similarity between these two individuals: the Pardoner and Blagojevich get their power from the people. Without people to sell pardons to, the Pardoner has no profession, no money, and no power. Likewise, Blagojevich attained office by the consent of the general public; without the initial support of these people, an accomplishment such as this could have never occurred and Blagojevich would have never had the power to affect the law. With that being said, Blagojevich did influence policies while in office, which raises another similarity between the two. Both individuals had to retain a resolute, compelling voice in order to achieve their individual agendas. The Pardoner has to be outspokenly confident and persuasive to convince others that his products cleanse sins from the body. Similarly, Blagojevich had to maintain a charismatic facade in order to be re-elected in 2006, despite an ongoing scandal between a fundraiser of his and the extortion of business money (“Rod Blagojevich Biography”). When viewing the Pardoner and Blagojevich in this manner, similarities can be plainly observed in their goals, source of power, and speaking abilities. While alike in many ways, the Pardoner and Blagojevich do differ in both their professions and the execution of their objectives. First, they come from distinct, contrasting backgrounds. Whereas the Pardoner is a man of rank in the Catholic Church, Blagojevich was a common lawmaker within a form of government. A second contrasting quality between the Pardoner and Blagojevich can be observed by analyzing how they go about practicing their heinous hobbies.
While the Pardoner practices his greed by lying to others about the effectiveness of his pardons, Blagojevich practiced his greed by manipulating and taking advantage of people. For example, Blagojevich once usurped his own father-in-law, Chicago Alderman Richard Mell: “The argument came in 2005, after Blagojevich shut down a landfill site owned by a distant cousin of his wife, Patricia. It was later revealed that Mell had acted as an advisor to the cousin on the matter and, in a public feud, Mell accused Blagojevich of ‘using’ him to get ahead” (“Rod Blagojevich Biography”). Though the Pardoner and Blagojevich are after the same thing, the process used to achieve their goals
varies. Lastly, the urge to hide true intentions differs between the Pardoner and Blagojevich. While Blagojevich did have an issue with revealing his genuine intentions, the Pardoner has no qualms about revealing his true qualities to others. This fact can be easily observed when the Pardoner introduces his story in “The Pardoner’s Tale:” But let me briefly make my purpose plain; I preach for nothing but for greed of gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . And thus I preach against the very vice I make my living out of--avarice. (Chaucer 2-6) The Pardoner simply does not care that others know how he really is. Blagojevich, on the other hand, deeply cared how he appeared to others. When he was arrested for attempting to sell President Obama’s vacant Senate seat, Blagojevich blatantly denied the charges (Etter). Differences in profession, means of accomplishing deeds, and opinion of public image come to light when properly analyzing the Pardoner and Rod Blagojevich. In essence, the Pardoner and Blagojevich are two halves of corruption. Their motivations, source of power, and speaking ability help them retain the same shape, but they hold completely different professions, go about their jobs in varying ways, and have different beliefs about public image. While the halves are similar because they make up the same idea, they differ in that they are separate from one another. The analogy fits a concept that is difficult to describe. Simply, it is the concept of being uniquely the same; it is a concept that can be applied to two unlikely individuals across fantasy itself.
The Canterbury Tales, written by Geoffrey Chaucer, is an older book containing a entertaining storytelling contest between a group of pilgrims on a pilgrimage. The pilgrims, on their pilgrimage, venture from London to Canterbury to visit the shrine of Saint Thomas á Becket. During their pilgrimage, the Host introduces the idea of a storytelling contest. He claims the trip to the shrine of Saint Thomas á Becket will be boring to travel in silence. The Host lays out the plan of each pilgrim telling two tales on the way to Canterbury and two tales on the way back from their adventure. Upon their return, the winner, decided by the Host for the most entertaining and meaningful tale, will receive a meal paid by the rest of the pilgrims. At his own cost, the Host guides the group of pilgrims, while the pilgrims pay for their adventure. To decide who starts the contest off, the members draw straws. The admired Knight is up first.
In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Chaucer the author and Chaucer the pilgrim are both quick to make distinctions between characters and point out shortcomings. Though Chaucer the pilgrim is meeting the group for the first time, his characterizations go beyond simple physical descriptions. Using just twenty-one lines in the General Prologue, the author presents the character of the Miller and offers descriptions that foreshadow the sardonic tone of his tale and the mischievous nature of his protagonist.
Throughout literature, relationships can often be found between the author of a story and the story that he writes. In Geoffrey Chaucer's frame story, Canterbury Tales, many of the characters make this idea evident with the tales that they tell. A distinct relationship can be made between the character of the Pardoner and the tale that he tells.
Looking back through many historical time periods, people are able to observe the fact that women were generally discriminated against and oppressed in almost any society. However, these periods also came with women that defied the stereotype of their sex. They spoke out against this discrimination with a great amount of intelligence and strength with almost no fear of the harsh consequences that could be laid out by the men of their time. During the Medieval era, religion played a major role in the shaping of this pessimistic viewpoint about women. The common belief of the patriarchal-based society was that women were direct descendants of Eve from The Bible; therefore, they were responsible for the fall of mankind. All of Eve’s characteristics from the biblical story were believed to be the same traits of medieval women. Of course, this did not come without argument. Two medieval women worked to defy the female stereotype, the first being the fictional character called The Wife of Bath from Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. The second woman, named Margery Kempe, was a real human being with the first English autobiography written about her called The Book of Margery Kempe. In these two texts, The Wife of Bath and Margery Kempe choose to act uniquely compared to other Christians in the medieval time period because of the way religion is interpreted by them. As a result, the women view themselves as having power and qualities that normal women of their society did not.
In the Prologue of the tale, the Pardoner clearly admits that he preaches for nothing but for the greed of gain. His sermons revolve around the biblical idea that “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Timothy 6:10). Ironically, however, the Pardoner condemns the very same vice that he lives by, as he proclaims “avarice is the theme that I employ in all my sermons, to make the people free in giving pennies—especially to me”. Thus, covetousness is both the substance of his sermons as well as the mechanism upon which he thrives. He clearly states that repentance is not the central aim of his preaching, by mentioning “my mind is fixed on what I stand to win and not upon correcting sin”. Rather, his foremost intention is to acquire as many shillings as he can in exchange for his meaningless pardons. In this regard, one can argue that although the Pardoner is evil, he is not a dissembler. His psychology is clearly not guided by hypocrisy because he does not conceal his intentions under false pretences.
Money is a very important attribute to have, but worrying about it too much could maybe get you killed. In the canterbury tales there are two tales. One of them is the pardoner's tale and the other is the wife of bath's tale. I believe that the pardoner's tale is the better tale. (Geoffrey Chaucer) author of (The Canterbury Tales). In the Canterbury Tales the narrator goes on a pilgrimage and for entertainment he has the people he went on the pilgrimage with tell him tales. And he would reward whoever told him the best tale. The pardoner's tale is about three friends who let greed and money get to their heads which end up killing their friendships and themselves. The wife of bath's tale is about a knight who let's lust get to his head instead of loving someone for who they are. Although both tales are great tales and give a great moral lesson, The pardoner's tale is the better tale of the two because of its ability to teach a lesson while still creating a great story.
A pardoner is a person that could relieve someone from their sins. In the case of the Pardoners Tale, the Pardoner expects money for relieving sinners from their sins and for telling a story. The pardoner in this tale is hypocritical, his scare tactics prove this. He says that greed over things like money is an evil thing, and his audience should give him large amounts of money so he can pardon them from their sins.
There are seven deadly sins that, once committed, diminish the prospect of eternal life and happiness in heaven. They are referred to as deadly because each sin is closely linked to another, leading to other greater sins. The seven deadly sins are pride, envy, anger, sloth, gluttony, avarice, and lechery. Geoffrey Chaucer's masterpiece, The Canterbury Tales, provided an excellent story about the deadly sins. Focusing mainly on the sins of pride, gluttony and greed, the characters found in The Canterbury Tales, particularly The Pardoner's Tale, were so overwhelmed by their earthly desires and ambitions that they failed to see the effects of their sinful actions, therefore depriving themselves of salvation.
There are many similarities between William Shakespeare’s Othello and Geoffrey Chaucer’s Pardoner, out of his collection of tales entitled The Canterbury Tales. The stories can be compared to each other in different ways. The two most prominent themes in the stories are found in love and deception. The two themes are centered on the idea that tricking someone into trust will gain a person their own desires. The antagonists in both Othello and “The Pardoner’s Tale” are men that have one objective and they use any means necessary to accomplish their selfish and personal pursuit. The stories of both Othello and The Miller’s tale have a trifecta of characters that keep the stories in motion; the similarities between the two stories have very parallel plot structure. They both contain a power struggle, regardless if it is for personal gain between two men over one woman, in relation to how this woman can grant them their desires, or whether it is for the pursuit to get away with their villainous ply for material possessions. Whether it is love, power, or sex. Geoffrey Chaucer’s Pardoner, from The Canterbury Tales, and William Shakespeare’s Iago, from Othello, are both good examples of misleading and deceptive characters. These two literary figures techniques of manipulation are acutely effective on the other characters in Chaucer’s and Shakespeare’s works.
myself be a full vicious man, A moral tale yet I you telle kan.’ The
Retribution is essential to a balanced humanity, acting as an offset for immoral deeds. Although retribution remains a necessary part of existence, it can be circumvented through penance, as exemplified in The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. Upon entering the process of penance, the sinner must take the initial step and feel repentance for their immoral actions. However, without contrition, avoidance of punishment can only be achieved through a display cunning maneuvering, which then acts as redemption. Validated by the Miller's, Pardoner's, and Friar's Tales, retribution is administered to all sinners devoid of contrition, unless he possesses an unparalleled canniness.
Chaucer’s book The Canterbury Tales presents a frame story written at the end of the 14th century. It narrates the story of a group of pilgrims who participate in a story-telling contest that they made up to entertain each other while they travel to the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket at Canterbury Cathedral. Because of this, some of the tales become particularly attractive for they are written within a frame of parody which, as a style that mocks genre, is usually achieved by the deliberate exaggeration of some aspects of it for comic effect. Chaucer uses parody to highlight some aspects of the medieval society that presented in an exaggerated manner, not only do they amuse the readers, but also makes them reflect on them. He uses the individual parody of each tale to create a satirical book in which the behaviours of its characters paint an ironic and critical portrait of the English society at that time. Thus, the tales turn satirical, ironic, earthy, bawdy, and comical. When analysing the Knight’s and the Miller’s tale, one can realise how Chaucer mocks the courtly love convention, and other social codes of behaviour typical of the medieval times.
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.
Would “The Miller’s Tale” and “The Reeve’s Tale” hold first place over “The Man of Law’s Tale”? The author, Geoffrey Chaucer, was born circa 1340 on an exact date that is unknown. He wrote many great pieces of work prior to his passing, with the famous Canterbury Tales being written between 1387 and 1400. The Canterbury Tales were written as a frame story, including a multitude of short stories contributing to its plot. Unfortunately, Chaucer passed away in October of 1400 before he had the opportunity to finish the tales. The tales that he wrote were for a storytelling contest on the characters’ way to Canterbury. To win this contest, one’s tale had to be morally sound and entertaining. Between The Miller and The Reeve vs. The Man of Law, “The Man of Law’s Tale” would win, because his story was morally sound as well as entertaining, whereas both “The Miller’s Tale” and “The Reeve’s Tale” lacked good, pure morality, though they were comedic.
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.