Lines 236-239
“Allas! a foul thing is it, by my feith,
To seye this word, and fouler is the dede,
Whan man so drinketh of the whyte and rede,
That of his throte he maketh his privee,
Thurgh thilke cursed superfluitee.”
By saying (in my own words) that man turns his mouth into a toilet by drinking so much white and red wine does the Pardoner mean that the actual wine is so “unholy” that it metaphorical turns your mouth into a toilet? Or does he mean that by drinking so much wine you are likely to throw up, turning your mouth into a receptacle for the “stuff” that would have most likely gone into the toilet?
I think my second conclusion is far more thoughtful. However, because he is preaching about religion he probably means that wine directly corrupts whatever it touches.
Also, I understand the first four lines perfectly, but I only have a rough understanding of the last line. I know that “superfluitee” means overindulgence, which fits with the Pardoner’s whole gluttony theme here. But I’m not sure what “Thurgh thilke cursed” is supposed to mean.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Friar and the Parson
Instead of one character, I’ve chosen the two characters from The General Prologue of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales to discuss. I found the comparison Chaucer made between the Friar and the Parson particularly interesting in their contradictory roles. The Friar, while supposedly making a living by begging, is greedy and corrupt. Friars take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; however our Friar, Huberd, doesn’t heed these vows:
“He was an esy man to yeve penaunce,
Ther as he wiste to have a good pitaunce.”
Our narrator lets us know that Huberd tends to give forgiveness easily so that he can gain more tips. Also, the narrator hints that the Friar wasn’t chaste because he was well liked with many “worthy women” in his town and kept pins to give to young and pleasing wives. It is also made clear that he was well known in many a pub, and conversed with female beggars and lepers.
On the other hand, the described Parson later in the prologue was poor despite the revenue he received for his duty in his parish. What he lacked in riches he made up for in good thoughts and work. He is described as diligent, patient and, in contrast, reluctant to invoke excommunication in order to receive payment. He would even give up some of his pay to help out his fellow parishioners. His sums up his methodology with the following metaphor:
“That if gold ruste what shal iren do?”
If the priest the people are suppose to trust is bad, why wouldn’t an uneducated man be bad as well?
The comparison between the corrupt Friar and the honest Parson is a perfect example of the kind of unorthodox roles the characters in the Canterbury Tales take on. (291)
“He was an esy man to yeve penaunce,
Ther as he wiste to have a good pitaunce.”
Our narrator lets us know that Huberd tends to give forgiveness easily so that he can gain more tips. Also, the narrator hints that the Friar wasn’t chaste because he was well liked with many “worthy women” in his town and kept pins to give to young and pleasing wives. It is also made clear that he was well known in many a pub, and conversed with female beggars and lepers.
On the other hand, the described Parson later in the prologue was poor despite the revenue he received for his duty in his parish. What he lacked in riches he made up for in good thoughts and work. He is described as diligent, patient and, in contrast, reluctant to invoke excommunication in order to receive payment. He would even give up some of his pay to help out his fellow parishioners. His sums up his methodology with the following metaphor:
“That if gold ruste what shal iren do?”
If the priest the people are suppose to trust is bad, why wouldn’t an uneducated man be bad as well?
The comparison between the corrupt Friar and the honest Parson is a perfect example of the kind of unorthodox roles the characters in the Canterbury Tales take on. (291)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)