Chaucer Term Paper Research Paper GEOFFREY Essay
Chaucer Term Paper Essay, Research Paper
HIS JOURNEY OF THE CANTERBURY TALES
Thesis: The Knight, Squire, Prioress, The Monk and the Friar are defined by their scenes in Geoffrey Chaucer? s & # 8220 ; Prologue & # 8221 ; to The Canterbury Tales.
1. Portnoy says in his article in the Chaucer Review that & # 8220 ; The General Prologue is like a mirror reflecting the persons visual aspect which so defines the character of that person. & # 8221 ; ( 281 )
2. Scanlon backs up Portnoy in his article from Speculum by stating & # 8220 ; ? Characters descriptions someway emerge necessarily from the original purposes of Chaucer? s text or reflect its enduring value. & # 8221 ; ( 128 )
3. Russell comments in his book Chaucer & A ; the Trivium: The Mindsong of the Canterbury Narratives:
There is something that seems natural and about ineluctable in the construction of the single portrayals in the General Prologue: How else could you depict the characters without go throughing judgement on them? ( 62 )
The Knight is defined by his scenes.
1. Andrew says in The Canterbury Narratives: The General Prologue:
The Knight is described as holding no name, no household place, no manor house, and no lands. Furthermore, his compulsion with foreign service indicates a deficiency of feudal ties and bears all the Markss of a calling of a landless knight, without household or ownerships in England. ( 80 )
2. Andrew says & # 8220 ; The Knight is described as an elderly veteran warrior, with whom the austere worlds of life have sobered down much of his early romance. & # 8221 ; ( 43 )
3. The Knight fought in his crowned head? s wars in both Christian and pagan topographic points, which shows he is a sanctum and honest adult male by he followed his male monarch? s bids, and he fought for spiritual intents.
4. Roggiers reiterates that statement in his book The Art of the Canterbury Tales by stating & # 8220 ; The Knights Tale is Chaucer? s ain established pole of idea, philosophico-chivalric and spiritual, connoting the ideals by which the community lives and prospers. & # 8221 ; ( 10 )
5. The Knight ne’er said anything loutish, demoing he was a wise adult male.
6. He possessed all right Equus caballuss, demoing he was looked upon as a great adult male because me must hold been given the Equus caballuss for something good he did, because he couldn? T afford them usually.
7. He wore a fustian adventitia, stained and dark with smudges where his armour had left a grade, demoing he was a really simple adult male non worried about his visual aspect.
8. After he finished functioning in wars, he came place to make his pilgrim’s journey and render thanks, demoing he was spiritual and a difficult worker.
The Squire is defined by his scenes.
1. The Squire had fantastic legerity and strength exposing how he was prepared and fit to be a warrior and has gallant qualities.
2. The Squire? s shirt was embroidered like a hayfield, bright and full of fresh flowers, ruddy and white, exemplifying he was concerned with his visual aspect and acquiring a lover.
3. He was singing and fluting all twenty-four hours, ever joyful and seeking to run into a lady.
4. He knew how to sit on a Equus caballus and drive ; he could declaim vocals and verse forms ; he could joust and dance, pull, and write, demoing he was about unflawed.
5. Andrew says in The Canterbury Narratives: The General Prologue & # 8220 ; The Squire is like the Knight with the source or possibly greater flawlessness accomplishment, as he blends literature and the humanistic disciplines with his warlike studies. & # 8221 ; ( 43 )
6. Andrew goes even farther by stating & # 8220 ; The Squire is described as a immature, loving, enthusiastic, poetical, romantic, and an complete aspirer for military honours. & # 8221 ; ( 43 )
7. The Squire wanted to function his male parent, exemplifying he was a loyal individual.
The Prioress is defined by her scenes.
1. Frendell says & # 8220 ; The gap description of the Prioress reveals a strong connexion between visual aspect and the Prioress? s intentions. & # 8221 ; ( Chaucer Review, 185 ) .
2. Hussey besides backs up that statement by stating in his book An Introduction to Chaucer & # 8220 ;
The Prioress? s portraiture of deficiency of spiritual dedication reflects her immorality.” ( 126 )
3. The Prioress had really good manners, for illustration, no morsel fell from her lips, and she ne’er dipped her fingers in the sauce excessively deep, demoing she was brought up in a rich household.
4. She fed her small Canis familiariss with roasted flesh, milk, and all right white staff of life, demoing she still had the best in life and was non populating in poorness like a nun should.
5. The Prioress wore a coral bangle on her arm, had a rosary that gaudies were colored in green, and a gold brooch which said & # 8220 ; Amor Vincit Omnia & # 8221 ; , picturing a nun who still had many valuable ownerships.
6. The Prioress traveled with another nun and three priests, demoing she was respected.
The Monk is defined by his scenes.
1. Blake says & # 8220 ; The monastic was depicted as an hideous and superficial adult male exemplifying his inability to follow the guidelines of his profession, & # 8221 ; in his article & # 8220 ; Chaucer? s Text and the Web of Words & # 8221 ; . ( 226 )
2. The Monk had many mincing Equus caballuss in his stable, stating he wasn? T as dedicated to populating as a monastic as he should be.
3. The Monk ignored all the traditional regulations of being a monastic and made his ain regulations, which says he was non every bit spiritual as he appeared.
4. The Monk was a huntsman, demoing he didn? t head violent death, and huntsmans were known for non being spiritual work forces.
5. Monks were supposed to prosecute in manual labour, but he said that St. Augustine could make his labour himself, stating he wasn? t a dedicated monastic.
6. The Monk had the best greyhounds there were, demoing he ne’er gave up all ownerships to go a monastic.
7. The Monk was a fat adult male, demoing that he spoiled himself with nutrient and he was a gourmand.
The Friar is defined by his scenes.
1. The Friar charged for matrimonies, force outing everybody for what they were deserving, although he should hold married people for a batch less, therefore, doing him greedy.
2. The Friar would give people a repentance for their wickednesss for a fee, demoing his greed.
3. The Friar kept a tippet stuffed with pins, and pocket knifes to give to girls, demoing he was lecherous.
4. The Friar American ginseng and played the hurdy-gurdy, and knew the tap houses good in every town, demoing he was a reasonably and fun adult male.
5. The Friar wouldn? T go around the lazars, mendicants, and & # 8220 ; draft, & # 8221 ; because it was non suiting with the self-respect of his place ; he would merely be around the rich and victual-sellers, demoing he was a stuck up adult male.
6. The Friar arbitrated differences for a little fee, demoing he was non dedicated to his occupation and he would non assist anyone out without a fee.
Decision: The Knight, Squire, Prioress, Monk, and the Friar are defined by their scenes in Geoffrey Chaucer? s & # 8220 ; Prologue & # 8221 ; to The Canterbury Tales.
Andrew, Malcolm. The Canterbury Narratives: The General Prologue. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1993.
Blake, Norman. & # 8220 ; Chaucer? s Text and the Web of Words. & # 8221 ; New Perspectives in Chaucer Criticism. Ed. Donald M. Rose. Norman: Pilgrim Books Inc, 1980.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. & # 8220 ; & # 8221 ; Prologue & # 8221 ; to The Canterbury Tales. & # 8221 ; England in Literature. Eds. John Pfordrester, et.al. Inglewood Cliffs: Foresman, 1972.
Fredell, Joel. & # 8220 ; Late Gothic Portrayal: The Prioress and Philippa. & # 8221 ; Chaucer Review, 23 ( May 10, 1989 ) :181-191.
Hussey, Maurice. An Introduction to Chaucer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Portnoy, Phyllis. & # 8220 ; Beyond the Gothic Cathederal: Post Modern Reflections in the & # 8220 ; Canterbury Tales & # 8221 ; . & # 8221 ; Chaucer Review, 28 ( May 31, 1994 ) :279-292.
Roggiers, Paul G. The Art of the Canterbury Tales. Milwaukee: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1965.
Russell, J. Stephen. Chaucer & A ; the Trivium: The Mindsong of the Canterbury Tales. Miami: University Press of Florida, 1998.
Scanlon, Larry. & # 8220 ; A Variorum Edition of the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, 2: The Canterbury Narratives: The General Prologue & # 8221 ; Speculum, 72 ( January 1997 ) :127-129