So in class recently we went over Chaucer's description of the monk on lines 165-207, and a lot of what we talked about was very interesting.
We basically went over in class how this particular monk was described by Chaucer as being this fat, loud-mouth, well-dressed, rich prick who lives like a lord and owns a lot of horses that he dresses up with bells and whistles and what-not as he parades around town.
What was confusing to me is how this guy could even be considered a monk if he isn't living like one.
It says on lines 184-192 that instead of living his life as "Austin bit," (Augustine bids) he chooses to hunt and live his life based on pleasure instead, eating swans and such. To me, according to the image in my head of a monk (and probably everyone else's in class), this guy just doesn't fit the description. To me, a monk is supposed to live a humble life in a monastery somewhere, praying and fasting all day or something.
It makes me wonder what Chaucer was trying to do in describing the monk this way. Was he trying to satirize the corruption of the church at the time? Or was he simply making this character out to be more complicated, a monk who refuses to live the life that has been set before him by the rigid guidelines of religion? Maybe a little of both?
I see what you are saying about the possibility of Chaucer "trying to satirize the corruption of the church at the time," but yesterday in class I was actually wondering if perhaps Chaucer was poking fun at the social convention in place back then where a family placed their child in an institution at a young age without them having a say in the matter - and then expecting them to be cut out for the lifestyle that it demands. Today, people discern and choose such a vocation, which seems more like a more effective and appropriate approach.
ReplyDeleteClearly the monk in this tale is not embracing the lifestyle that the monastery and the vows he must take offer. This is not to say that I like the monk, but I do in some ways feel sorry for him that he was forced into a difficult vocation to live out, one that takes a certain person to have the courage to adhere to.
I see what you are saying about the possibility of Chaucer "trying to satirize the corruption of the church at the time," but yesterday in class I was actually wondering if perhaps Chaucer was poking fun at the social convention in place back then where a family placed their child in an institution at a young age without them having a say in the matter - and then expecting them to be cut out for the lifestyle that it demands. Today, people discern and choose such a vocation, which seems more like a more effective and appropriate approach.
ReplyDeleteClearly the monk in this tale is not embracing the lifestyle that the monastery and the vows he must take offer. This is not to say that I like the monk, but I do in some ways feel sorry for him that he was forced into a difficult vocation to live out, one that takes a certain person to have the courage to adhere to.
Well, when I learned this piece in high school, I was taught that the Monk was written to satirize the corruption of the church at the time. However, as Dr. MB loves to say, basically everything I learned in high school is a bunch of malarky (I hope I'm spelling that right).
ReplyDeleteBut even now I can't shake that teaching from my mind. Also, I would like to think there's some crazy backstory behind the monk that we don't know about. Or maybe he's just a smart guy taking advantage of the system for his own personal gain. Either way, the guy seems kinda like a dick. And by kinda, I mean a lot.
ha! just remember that there is no such thing as a corrupt institution ... only corrupt individuals!
Delete