The Canterbury Tales
October 23, 2008 by louisegeddes
Post your character analysis here (before next Tuesday’s class, please!). Think about how the author builds on our assumption about social roles to undermine the portrait we are given by the narrator. For example:
Prioress/Nun
The nun is not really very “nunly.” She’s more concerned with ettiquiette and looking courtly than spritiual issues. She worries about her pets excessively – she’s the kind of girl who would have a Louis Vuitton bag for her annoying, yappy dog (who would have a name like Mr. Woofley, or something silly). She’s the epitome of the distinction between the woman and her office – she’s supposed to be humble, plain and simple, but she’s exaggerated, overly-dainty and frivolous. Instead of having a rosary or cross on her dress, she has a “love conquers all” brooch. She’s the type that probably believes that “Sex and the City” is real life.
Moreover, she’s not quite the courtly lady that she pretends to be. The narrator specifically tells us that her French is London French – she’s never been to Paris, although I’m sure she’d be quite happy if people thought she was. She’s “not undergrown” – quite big, and with a “well formed nose.” I think that this is the author’s way of saying that she is not pretty. Her name is not Sister X, but Madame Eglantine; ridiculous and frivolous, like she is, and in no way indicative of her status as a nun.
This is how she would like to look …..
And this is how she probably looks….
The author portrays the Summoner as a hideous drunk, that’s willing to give up his concubine for a quart of wine. In addition, the author illuminates the Summoner as a mean looking man that has leprosy which no salve or ointment can cure. Furthermore, because of his hideous appearance, when he graces his presence around little kids, they feared him. The author also portrayed him as some who has a breath disorder, because of his love for garlic, onions leeks. However, even though he seems to have a mean image, he’s also portrayed as kind hearted man, because he allows a “good fellow for a quart of wine the whole year round enjoy his concubine” (now that’s a good fellow). The Summoner is deemed as a person that has power from “high or low places” because he is able to punish the archdeacon in his purse if he feels threaten. In addition he has control over little children throughout the district or churches under the jurisdiction of the Bishop. The modern character who represents the Summoner is the devil.
-The Miller-
The way the miller is portrayed in the description contained nothing but negatives and even when you think its something good, it really isn’t. The narrator begins by calling him “as tough a yokel as you care to meet” which (as defined by wikipedia) is someone who is an unsophisticated country person and obviously no one would care to meet a yokel. He goes on to give a physical description noting that the miller was relatively big and brawny but clarifies that as big as he is, the miller is simply a “lump of sins.” We also get the idea that even though he may be a strong guy, his mind is probably no where as close, where he would probably break a door open with his head rather then with his arms. The miller is basically not a good looking fellow who walks around telling dirty jokes and blowing his bag pipes, but there is definitely no sense of hate coming from the narrator because as bad as the miller may seem this “clown” lightens up the mood. I can picture him as somewhat of drunk who goes around making people laugh because of his stupidity and dirty joke telling. An image that comes to my head when reading this description is Gimli from The Lord of the Rings.
-Henry Pan / Sebastian Bucko
The Phony Physician
The narrator praises the Physician as astute and says that the man is one of a kind. He understands all illnesses and maladies and is a “perfect medico, for sure” (Chaucer 411). Once he uncovers the cause for the ailment, the steadfast and responsible doctor has a cure and drugs at the ready. The narrator calls it “a game of mutual aid, with each one winning” (Chaucer 415), and also draws attention to the Physician’s credentials by name-dropping well-known medical authorities such as Aesculapius and Hippocrates. In addition, he charges a reasonable fee for his services and is not a materialistic person for he is “far from careless of expense” (Chaucer 429).
However, Chaucer contradicts the narrator’s rose-colored description of the Physician. The author reveals that the Physician is actually a quack because his treatments are based off of astrology, charms, and magic. The Physician is dismissed as a fraud for the alignment of the planets has little to do with medicine. Chaucer exposes the doctor’s incompetence concerning cures for patients by saying, “Their partnership was hardly just beginning” (Chaucer 416). The fee he charges is “rich in nourishment” (Chaucer 424), which implies that it may not be so reasonable after all. The fare could be moderate from the Physician’s point of view, but can actually be pretty hefty from his patients’ view. He is also shown to have expensive taste because Chaucer dons him with bold red and blue taffeta clothing. In addition, the doctor is insincere because he gives “little heed to Holy Writ” (Chaucer 426) and yet is part of a religious journey. He is basically medieval England’s equivalent of Dr. Phil who is a TV self-help professional often mocked for counseling people on weight, despite his own weight issues, and his overly thick Southern accent. In fact, many self-help doctors are criticized for doing little except asking questions like, “And how did that make you feel?”
-Bonny Lin and Connie Cheng
The Friar
A friar is a man of religion. He often helps others who have sinned repent for their actions. Our narrator describes our friar, Hubert, as a man that no other can match in gallantry. He receives many gifts from women for helping them repent, he knows many barmaids and taverns having visited them often on his crusades, and he is modestly dressed in a dull cloak. But if you look at everything that is said and look beyond the words you’ll see what the author was trying to tell you.
The friar’s world seems to revolve around money. He helps everyone “repent” as long as they give him a large sum of money. No man can match his gallantry because he does not have any, he is nothing but a common beggar. He takes more than he needs from widows, to pay for his “begging grounds”. He is also a bit of a sweet talker. Able to woo women into marrying men that they might not have had an inclination to marry before. That is, as long as the men have the money to pay for his services. And the little gifts he receives from women you can call them a post coital souvenir, similar to modern day man’s swiping of female negligee after a one night stand. He is the modern day equivalent of a dirty cop. Taking any form of payment be it money or sex and with that you can repent for anything.
-Antonia Chen, Alyssa D Souza, and Tarika Williams
The pardoner of Rouncivalle is portrayed as a creepy, greasing looking con-artist who sells “holy pig bones”. His appearance is not so pleasing to look at. The color of his hair is as “yellow as wax” and the way his hair is described shows that he does not comb his hair, which gives him a dirty look. Although he is beardless and has smooth cheeks, this does not add any cleanliness to him. Instead it makes him look oily and greasy to his face. “His eyes glittered like a hare” tells us that in his eyes, all he sees is money and is very sneaky like a hare. When he “sharpens his tongue”, this shows that he is a smooth talker in deceiving and tricking people although he might sound like a “goat’s bleat”. He might be considered smart in a way because he is able to make more money in a single day than in two months of a parson. Everything about this pardoner is fake including the “Veronica” he stitches on to his cap. He has his ways in getting what he wants by creating holy lies. In modern time, the pardoner would be seen as a salesman with slicked back, gelled hair trying to sell products by letting his clients hear what they want to hear and adding in dishonest details.
– Tamara Chen, Doreen Chin
Contrary to how the narrator portrays the other characters in The Canterbury Tales, the narrator depicts the Knight as a true “knight in shining armor”. The narrator does not undermine the Knight, but instead holds him to the highest of standards.
He begins by associating the characteristics of a knight, the code of chivalry, to this Knight, who he refers to as an “excellent man”. This Knight seems invincible and perfect in many ways. He has fought in many great battles such as Lithuania and Prussia, something no other Christian knight has done so according to the narrator. He battles for the faith and for the code of chivalry. These of which are the most important responsibilities of a knight. In addition, the narrator associated another characteristic to the Knight, humbleness. The narrator states, “He rode a good horse, but his gear was plain,” (Chaucer 71). Simply put, the Knight is modest and performs the duties that are presented to him without questioning the reason. The Knight does as he is told. Furthermore, the narrator depicts the Knight’s valor. “His tunic was still spattered by the rust” (Chaucer 73). Here, the narrator is implying that the Knight is soldier, not a puppet. He is a man who is always in battle, a reason for which his clothes are still of rust. Someone of similar attributes as this Knight could be Colin Powell. Powell is a man of stature and humbleness. In addition, just like the Knight, Colin Powell serves his country with loyalty and honor.
– Ilir and Alou
In Henry Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, we, the readers, are introduced to the character of the Clerk. The word “clerk” is derived from the old English word “clergyman,” which is defined as “a Parrish officer, being a layman who leads in reading the responses of the Episcopal Church service, and otherwise assist in it.”
This Clerk in The Canterbury Tales is described as a wonderful man who has devoted his life to the calling of God. As such, I think he has a lot in common with, and reminds me of. Jesus Christ, the son of God. Chaucer shows the Clerk as having of knowledge of religion by stating, “He was rich in holy thoughts and work.” He goes on to describe the Clerk as someone “who meant Christ’s gospel faithfully to preach and truly his parishioners to teach.” In addition, the Clerk faced the many of the trials that Jesus did, such as having his faith was tested, but, like Jesus, he never doubted his belief and never gave up. Chaucer wrote, “many times tested by adversity and always patient.” The Clerk also sacrificed for his people (“he would rather spread his offerings about to his poor flock, or spend his property.”) He was not consumed by greed in that he was happy sharing with his people, which was a big problem for the Church, (“To him little meant sufficient.”) because of all the corruption and people leaving the Church. To me, there are two qualities that really stand out and validated the comparison to Jesus. The first is when the narrator says “he [the Clerk] was a model his flock could understand, for first he did and afterwards he taught.” And the second is, “by good example and just words to turn sinners to heaven was his whole concern.” The Clerk never lost sight of what his mission was here on earth, which was to get people to repent and accept God as their savior.
I believe that Chaucer deliberately made the Clerk resemble Jesus to restore the faith of people in the Church and in religion. Although it was a tough time for the Church, since it was full of corruption: “run to London, happiest of goals, to sing paid masses in St. Paul’s for Souls.” Chaucer, through the character of the Clerk, thought that people must not lose their faith, and tried to show them that there was still hope, that even priest had to be tested, and not to succumb to greed or else they would be punished. The Clerk’s message was clear: the only important thing was to worship God.
The Merchant
The author is telling us that this is not a very common businessman, but instead he is very flamboyant when it comes to his appearance. For instance, he uses clothing of mixed colors which grab people’s attention. Most business men use a certain type of clothing that distinguishes them, but this man is not that concerned with that etiquette. He also wears “a beaver hat” and possesses “a forked beard.” But even though he looks quite different than other people in his field, he is very serious when it comes to making business. He trades cleverly and he is very responsible, because according to the author, there was no “man who could have told he was in debt.”
A merchant like this can be the spotlight among business people for his looks; this one is, and a very mysterious one at the same time, because the author never learned what his name was.
We believe that the author is telling us that we should not solely judge people by their looks because they may be something completely different to what they seem to be. A student may seem to be a geek, but he may not be doing well at school, or a secretary may seem to be naturally friendly in the workplace, but once she takes the train in Grand Central, she may not be that smiley.
By Dennis Moran and Hailee Concepcion
The Squire is the son of the Knight. The narrator describes the Squire has a young suave man in his early twenties. The Squire is basically portrayed as a handsome man, who is seen as a man of love that will eventually become a great knight. The narrator tells us “his hair curled as if taken from a press” (Chaucer 78). We are giving a sense of perfection with the meticulousness of the Squire’s hair and how nice and clean it is. This is a way to see the Squire, for who he truly is, because the depiction of the Squire’s hair is the exact opposite of his father’s rustic tunic. The Squire, in reality, is the son of a war hero, who will never amount to what his father was. This statement can be reinforced by their differences in their motives. The Squire fights “To stand the better in his lady’s graces.” (Chaucer 86) while his father “Fought for the faith” (Chaucer 62).
Throughout this passage Chaucer gives us raw facts about his physical appearance, his motives for being a squire, and his hobbies. While the narrator gives us these facts, he/she also tries to add a “but” in there. For example, “In stature he was of a moderate height/ but powerful and wonderfully quick” (Chaucer 80). The narrator’s uses of rebuttals are many in this passage. He/she tells us the facts and then quickly gives us his opinion which he/she probably thinks overrides the raw facts. We see this when the narrator says “He was a lover and would become a knight” (Chaucer 79). Once again, the depiction shows how the Squire is and then offers a brighter future via the favoritism of the narrator.
The narrator clearly favors the Squire, almost as much as his father, the Knight. Although we are told one thing the narrator also shoves another more dominating idea to us, hoping we take the bait. It is like someone handing you a $2 rookie baseball card and saying it could be worth one million dollars in fifty years. Whether or not that may be true, the fact still states that it is still a $2 baseball card. The same goes with the Squire; although the narrator offers a more stellar version of the “Squire soon to be Knight”, the facts still says that he is a lover boy.