Dave Tagatac English III Dec. 1. 2000 Canterbury Tales Essay # 1 In Geoffrey Chaucer’s Prologue to The Canterbury Tales. there was a Friar to attach to the party going to Canterbury. Hubert. as he was called. embodied the traits from which mendicants were expected to maintain their distance. Chaucer is successful in utilizing this white-necked mendicant to convey to the readers mind corruptness. wealth. greed. and lechery. all hypocritical and immoral features for a adult male of the church to possess. Although he is a gay adult male. full of joy and “wantonness” . these are mere irrelevances when measuring Hubert’s value of character as a mendicant.
Throughout Chaucer’s description of the Friar in the Prologue. Hubert’s corruptness is apparent. Probably the Friar’s greatest immorality is suggested early in his description and mentioned several times more. When Hubert would get married a twosome. he would give each “Of his immature adult females what he could afford her. ” The sexual intension of this statement is enforced by the fact that “He kept his tippet stuffed with pins for coil. / And pocket-knives. to give to pretty misss. ” Other grounds of corruptness. although non every bit condemnable as the rebelliousness of celibacy. includes Hubert’s failure to befriend the “lepers. mendicants. and that crew. ” to whom mendicants were intended to be nighest. The storyteller explains that their deficiency of money makes their friendly relationship merely a waste of the Friar’s clip.
A mendicant is supposed to be hapless. merely taking what they need to last. and giving the remainder to those impoverished psyches who need it. Hubert. on the other manus. was rather affluent. I have ne’er known the drinking of intoxicant to be a necessity of life. and yet this mendicant “knew the tap houses really good in every town / And every host and barmaid excessively. ” The storyteller even provinces outright that “his income came / To more than he laid out. ” Yet another immaterial ownership for a mendicant was the excessive frock Hubert wore. as contrasted with the shreds mendicants were expected to wear. All of these things demonstrate how the Friar. even when obtaining more than he expected. gave really small to the hapless. and kept much for himself.
This feeling is continued ” even augmented ” upon scrutiny of Hubert’s greed. “Highly beloved and confidant was he / With Country common people within his
boundary. ” As mentioned above. he associated non with the hapless. “But merely with the rich and victual-sellers. ” Anyone from whom a net income was possible was inherently the Friar’s friend. This greed is incontestable in visible radiation of a concluding piece of grounds. That is that Hubert would really pay other mendicants non to implore in his territory. Again. these are actions to be frowned upon in any adult male. allow entirely a sacredly attached one.
Finally. Hubert can be shown to be a leach. hanging around those from whom he can acquire money. and depending on them to back up his deluxe life style. Although he had no permission to hear confession. this was one manner for him to do money. and he did non waver to use it. He even targeted those who weren’t so affluent in a ceaseless pursuit for pecuniary addition: “though a widow mightn’t have a shoe / “¦ / He got her farthing from her merely the same. ” When people of his territory had a difference. the lecherous Friar was at that place. Hubert could be found taking advantage of any chance he could happen to do money candidly. or venally.
The Friar was good liked. and had a fantastic vocalizing voice. but his parts to society ended here. He. through his actions. has shown grounds of corruptness. immoral luxury. greed to increase this wealth. and a awful wont of leaching off others. He was considered a adult male of the church. but he was far from the piousness the rubric “friar” conveys.