Rocco D’Ambrosca: 11/01/2005
The Canterbury Tales prologue is mostly a collection of character descriptions by Chaucer. There is a description and profile of each character that appears in the Canterbury Tales so that we can get a better understanding of them. My peers mostly did a good job summarizing their character’s description. Also, from these descriptions I can see Chaucer’s values, impression of the church, and his overall tone within the Prologue.
Many of my peers did a very good job summarizing and describing their characters. The descriptions written by my peers were well written paraphrased summaries of each pilgrim’s physical appearance and personality. A simple example of one of these well written character summaries is Adan Awan’s description of the Squire. He follows closely with the books description of the Squire without repeating word for word. Instead, he takes what was written in the book and simplifies it and translates it into an easier to understand description. Another good example of a well written character description is William Burnham’s description of the Narrator. Bill’s description of the narrator is particularly good because of the fact that he had little to work with as of information from the book. He had to use what he could to elaborate on his own to describe what he believed the narrator to be like. I think he did a very good job filling in the gaps that the book left and created a good overall description of the narrator.
I think that Chaucer has very strong moral values. The Chaucer likes the values of courage, honesty, bravery, generosity, selflessness, and just about any other good moral value. I can tell that these are his values based on his descriptions of the pilgrims. The characters that exhibit these characteristics he loves and those that do the opposite he despises. There are many that Chaucer hates and despises for their lack of these moral values or their clear rejection of any moral code. But, there are also many that Chaucer loves because of their actions and moral personalities. Two of Chaucer’s favorite characters are the Squire and the Knight. Both of these characters exhibit the values of courage, honesty, bravery, and selflessness. They put the needs of the people and the kingdom first and that is why Chaucer loves them. Another character that Chaucer likes is the Franklin. The Franklin is a man of great wealth but is also a man of great generosity, always making sure to share his wealth with others.
Chaucer does not have a very positive view of the church. Chaucer loathes just about every church official because of their great greed and immorality. The Monk was probably viewed by Chaucer as a thief and very selfish. The Monk owned many horses, was very fat, and was always well dressed in the best clothes. The Friar was just as bad as the Monk. The Friar was easily bribed and would take advantage of anyone, sucking them dry like a vampire. The worst of all the religious officials would have to be the Pardoner and the Summoner. They rode together on their journey back from Rome. The Pardoner sold many false relics, such as a pillow case Virgin Mary kerchief, or a sail claimed to be Peter’s, that he would sell to try and swindle any poor person he came across. The Pardoner was the riches of the ecclesiasts and made fools of the priest and noblemen. The Summoner was also very immoral taking brides very readily, even if it were only wine for him to get drunk with.
In conclusion, my peers did an overall good job of describing the characters; Chaucer likes the values of courage, honesty, bravery, generosity, selflessness, and just about any other good moral value, and his view of the church is very negative. Chaucer’s overall tone throughout the prologue is calm and collective; only getting excited when he is really passionate about something. He sits back as an observer and gives us his straight opinion on each pilgrim. Although he gives his opinion, this opinion is strongly based on facts.
RoccoJoe.com 