First of all I am extremely grumpy because I just typed out a long post thinking I was signed in, just to find out I wasn't. Always awesome! So, I lost everything I had said and do not plan on re stating all of it.
So, I wanted to talk about how in class today we discussed that Chaucer uses his characters to discuss what role a person is supposed to play in society and what role they actually play. I think he uses the knight and the squire to show both ends if this ad well as the parson and the monk, respectively.
The knight is an example, wether you like him or not, of what a knight should be. He is worthy in a positive connotation of the word, noble, and good at what he is supposed to do. Where as the squire is described as a pretty boy, mostly there for show and seems to be about himself and cocky even though he is inexperienced.
The monk clearly corresponds to the squire in this manner, because he is the epitome of what a monk should not be. His vow of poverty is obviously not taken to heart as seen by his extravagant attire and jewelry and his lack of desire to study or work. His counterpart, the parson, is an example of everything a religious follower and leader should be. He puts his people first and shows his commitment in addition to literally practicing what he preaches.
Additionally, I think the maunciple shows this sort of expectation and execution differentiation without even needing a counter character to support him. He brings up the idea of wit vs wisdom, and shows that even though society expects him to be knowledgable and learned, he does his job better by getting by on his wit. This contrast of expectation vs reality and the success the maunciple seems to have by living on the opposite side of expectations makes me wonder where Chaucer is going with the other characters. Does he have some sort of awesome useful purpose for the monk and squire to prove the reader's initial judgements wrong? I think it will be interesting to find out.
Just for the sake of playing the devil's advocate, I would like to suggest that perhaps the issue is not that the squire doesn't take the principles of knighthood to heart or that the monk doesn't take his vows seriously. I suggest that the root of the problem is that these men are not where they are supposed to be. The monk's personality and temperament are uniquely unsuited to a life of self-denial, and while the squire may just be young and crazy, it may be that he would flourish in a different calling. In a society where children left home to learn a trade at seven, it is inevitable that some would end up stuck in a trade that does not agree with their abilities or personality. I wonder if perhaps Chaucer was pointing out that society doesn't always know what's best for us. True, there are roles that must be fulfilled if society is going to operate smoothly, but I sure didn't know what I wanted to do with my life when I was seven.
ReplyDeleteI can see where you and Beth are coming from. I think it is safe to say that everyone agrees the monk is probably the worst monk in the history of monks. He loves food and expensive things and pretty much goes against everything monks believe in. But maybe he is just in the wrong place. By Chaucer's description of him, I'm sure he'd love to be a king - then he could eat all the swan he wanted. Maybe he's just going against the lifestyle of monks because he really hates it. But then, why doesn't he just get a new "profession"? His whole section really made me wonder why he would continue to be a part of something he has no desire to be a part of. He doesn't even adhere to their lifestyle, so why is he still called a monk?
ReplyDelete