Canterbury 2 Essay, Research Paper

In Chaucer s Canterbury Tales there are twenty-nine plus one characters. Out of the twenty-nine plus one characters two will be compared and contrasted. The Friar and the Miller have some similarities and at the same time some differences. The Friar and the Miller show a few similarities in Canterbury Tales. They are both very strong and able to head butt things without a problem. The Friar was, strong enough to butt a bruiser down (94). The Miller was, Broad, knotty, and short-shouldered (109) he would boast he could heave any door off hinge and post, or take a run and break it with his head (101). The Friar and the Miller both played musical instruments in Canterbury Tales. The both of them also had a way of cheating people out of their money The are also a few differences the Friar and the Miller show. The Friar, for instance, was part of the church; the Miller was not. Also, the Friar has a name, Hubert. The Miller does not have a name. The instrument the Friar plays isn t the same as the Miller. The Friar, played the hurdy-gurdy, (95) and also the harp. The Miller, He liked to play his bagpipes (101) Even though they had ways of cheating people out of their money they had different ways of doing it. . The Friar would hear confessions from the wealthy for a good price and, The Friar was also the finest beggar of his hatch (95). The Miller had, A thumb of gold, by God, to gauge an oat (101)! The Miller would press down on the weighing scale to make the oat weight more. Therefore making the oat cost more. In Canterbury Tales there are twenty-nine plus one characters. Out of the twenty-nine plus one characters, the Friar and the Miller are compared and contrasted. Out of this comparison and contrasting the outcome showed how the Friar and the Miller are alike and somewhat different. Even though they do some of the same things like cheat innocent people out of their money, they do it in different ways which make them have differences.Geoffrey Chaucer portrayed a cross section of medieval society though The Canterbury Tales. “The Prologue” or foreword of this work serves as an introduction to each of the thirty one characters involved in the tales. Two of these characters are the K

ght and the Squire, who share a father and son relation. These individuals depart on a religious pilgrimage to a cathedral in Canterbury. The Squire, opposed to the Knight, goes for a vacation instead of religious purposes. His intent is not as genuin

and pure as his father’s. Though the Knight and the Squire are from the same feudal class and vocation, they differ in the fact that the Knight represents how society should have been; and the Squire depicts an accurate portrayal of how it actually was.

Chivalry, heroism, and modesty delineate the Knight, whose upright standards and principles illustrate a true gentleman; these characteristics are not evident in the Squire. Even though the Knight has won many wars, he is careful not to brag about his

ctories. The most recurrent point in the description of the Knight is the abundance and importance of his conquests; however, the Squire’s battles are barely mentioned. While the entirety of the Squire’s battles are summed up in two lines (”he had se

some service with the cavalry / In Flanders and Artois and Picardy”), the list of the Knight’s battles dominates his description (Chaucer 120). The Squire’s battles are not fought in the interest of his chivalry. On the other hand, the Knight is disti

uished and chivalrous because of his unconditional devotion. Chaucer admired the valiant and noble Knight above the overbearing Squire.

Regarding clothing and appearance, the humble Knight chooses to wear a plain armor and tunic while the Squire frivolously indulges in excesses. The Squire is an extremely vain individual, taking pains to improve his appearance. His superfluous appare

is clean and bright and his hair has “locks as curly as if they had been pressed”(120). This greed for wealth and beauty definitely does not abide by the code of chivalry and is unnecessary for his knighthood. The Knight, more concerned with gallantry

never partakes in such nonsense. He is by far the most chivalrous and heroic.

The Knight’s motivation is based on chivalry and religion, contrasting to the Squire who merely wants to impress the ladies. The Squire wastes time and energy that could be channeled more towards his knightly duties. The real motivation of the Squires not based on chivalry, rather it is the appearance of chivalry he wishes to display. Chaucer stated that the Knight, “from the day on which he first began / To ride abroad, had followed chivalry”(119). The Knight is utterly sincere and whole-hearted

n his pursuits. Unfortunately, the reasons for becoming a cavalier are self-seeking and egotistical in the Squire’s case opposed to the selfless Knight.

Despite the fact that the Knight and the Squire share the same class and occupation, the Knight represents the perfect society while the Squire portrays the society of that time. The Knight is an image that all true knights struggle to be, practicing

e chivalrous qualities such as dedication, humility, and honesty. The true and complete knight is unknown. The Squire, on the other hand, is pretentious, shallow, and devious. This is a reflection of not only knights but people of that time.

Chaucer as not merely comparing two knights and depicting virtues of chivalry, but in a grander sense was revealing the corruption of humanity by comparing the difference between the reality of the human race and the ideal of perfection.