For the last couple of days as we've delved into the saucy satire of "The Prologue," one unifying concept has been lurking underneath it all: the inherent evil or good in human nature. Indeed, this concept is present in literature throughout the ages (we will encounter it time and again in each piece we study this year) and has been pondered by philosophers at length.
The following excerpt elucidates this idea further and appeared in an article in The New York Times on June 24, 2012:
Are human beings intrinsically good but corruptible by the forces of evil, or the reverse, innately sinful yet redeemable by the forces of good? Are we built to pledge our lives to a group, even to the risk of death, or the opposite, built to place ourselves and our families above all else? Scientific evidence, a good part of it accumulated during the past 20 years, suggests that we are all of these things simultaneously. Each of us is inherently complicated. We are all genetic chimeras, at once saints and sinners - not because humanity has failed to reach some foreordained religious or ideological ideal - but because of the way our species originated across millions of years of biological evolution.
~Edward O. Wilson
Bringing it back to Saucy Chaucey now: given the way we've seen Chaucer portray his characters in "The Prologue," do you think he would agree with the modern perspective of human nature as Edward O. Wilson describes it? Or would Chaucer be content to see humans as either good or evil, with no "gray areas" in between? Use evidence from the text to support your perspective!
I look forward to reading your responses. Since this response requires more time and effort, you have until 8pm on FRIDAY to submit your well-written comment! :)
I think that based on Chaucer portrayal of the characters within the Prologue, he would not agree with the New York Times’ article. Basically, Chaucer doesn’t portray his characters as artfully complex. At least from his description of the knight, he makes the knight pure. There’s no flaws, the knight has committed no sins. So when analyzing the Times’ article, the key words have to be “humans are intrinsically complicated”. So the quote basically talks about how humans are neither pure nor malicious. Humans a maintain a balance of both and that is what makes up who we are. Yet through Chaucer’s description of the knight, we can only assume that the knight is not a complex man. He is instead a devout, simple, pure man. On the contrary, Chaucher’s description of the yeoman also plays right into this idea of author purpose. The Yeoman is nothing but an envious servant who presents himself like a knight. He is sinful, not pure, and he isn’t complex. A combination of pure and sin is nonexistent in this description. Further, while the use of the term “genetic chimeras” is excellent, I feel like Chaucer would disagree with throughout Canterbury Tales, Chaucer makes his character seem sinful or virtuous. While I’ve only read through four of the stories, I feel like Chaucer, while somewhat “low-key” makes his characters pretty straightforward. Either they’re sinful or they’re virtuous. That’s the key reasons why I believe that Chaucer would vehemently disagree with Wilson. While it might have stemmed from beliefs at the time, Chaucer believes that somebody can only be good or bad. There’s no middle ground.
ReplyDeleteBased upon the ways that we have seen Chaucer portray his characters in the Canterbury Tales, I believe that he would have been pleased to view humans as good or evil. In the late medieval times, citizens were often characterized and judged depending on their outward appearance. In the ruthless society that Chaucer existed in, there was no “in between” or “gray area”. One had to be self-conscious about everything, from eye color to the gaps between one’s brows. With that being said, I have come to the realization that the culture during Chaucer’s time portrayed each individual with either all negative traits or all positive traits. Up until recently, there has been no gray area of humans. We witnessed this during the civil rights era in the 1950’s and 1960’s, when a person of color was immediately oust from society. But now in the 21st century, people are beginning to conclude that it is not necessary for citizens to be put into a box based on a single factor or characteristic. Writers like Edward O. Wilson scientifically prove that humans are intricate beings composed of many characteristics simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Chaucer would have come to the conclusion that all people are good or evil based on the way he characterizes his persona. He begins his writings with the knight, a noble, humble, and gracious person. Chaucer even goes as far as saying that “he was a true, a perfect gentle-knight (74)”. Chaucer makes sure to carefully portray this character as a role model, with no faults or condemnations. He follows the description of the knight with the knight’s son, who happens to be a squire. This “squire” is described as “a lover and cadet, a lad of fire (82)”. Chaucer insures that the first impression of this man is not a good one. He imposes the idea that the squire is a lover first, and a cadet second. This man is not doing his services for the purpose of others. The author explicates that the squire “…had done valiantly in little space, of time, in hope to win his lady’s grace (90)”. Chaucer then proceeds to continue describing the squire as “fresh”, “red and white”, and “lowly”. Unlike his father, Chaucer does not mince words with this young fellow. He does not mind throwing shade at all of his faults. In this way, one could say that Chaucer has already imposed the ideology that one is either good or evil.
On the basis of these characterizations, one may conclude that Chaucer did not see any gray area. Furthermore, I believe that Chaucer may have shifted his perspective if he had seen scientific evidence and observations that are easily accessible to us today. But in his time, society was fixed on putting people in a box based upon looks, traits, or emotions. This is on full display as he is formulating each character, precisely telling the readers about each trait and quirk that one possesses. He minces no words and ensures that the audience has the correct first impression based upon his honest descriptions.
I think Chaucer would agree with the natures that Wilson seems to convey. I believe Chaucer thinks each character that is deemed needing of a satirical put down is still honorable in some way. In Chaucer’s descriptions of characters in the prologue, we see many mockable characters. So far we’ve only seen six characters, but five of them are bad, and only one is good. Chaucer also only has four characters deemed good, and the rest are considered bad. However, in the description of the five “saucy” characters already described, most have some form of goodness in them. It may be a lot, and it may be microscopic, but Chaucer seems to find some good in these people. When Chaucer creates the image of the Yeomen, we find read of how envious he is of the knight, and how spoiled and flamboyant he is with equipment and his achievements. This made me strongly dislike his repulsive character. However in one line, the Yeomen is explained to know “the whole woodcraft up and down” (112). The line can be read into another part of the Yeoman's innate horribleness, yet it seems to mean he’s good at what he does, that Chaucer could easily have left out. Chaucer could have said that the Yeomen was cocky, with no skills at all, however he didn’t. Chaucer intentionally adds that the Yeomen is in fact good at what he does. The next character seemingly bad is the squire. He was depicted as a lusty child, very zealous in his efforts to court females, following in the shadow of his honorable father, the Knight. I read into him as a bad character. Until the last two lines. It states that the squire is “courteous… lowly and serviceable, and carved to serve his father at the table” (101-102). Chaucer could easily remove that couplet of a description, however deliberately adds this line. Chaucer satirical mocks many characters to represent a big picture in real life, but still finds some good within each and every character. The squire is basically explained to be an unpredictable child, but is finding his way with the end. It seems that he does have goodness within him, and he has an inner struggle to find what is right for him, which is better than being solely bad. In the second line of the passage Wilson writes, it is about the struggle between a group to die for, or between yourself and family. The squire is clearly in that “grey area”, between courting ladies for pleasure and pride, or to remain humble by his father’s side and be prideful in serving others. This proves the point that Chaucer would rather have people living in the “grey area” than the world be just good, and just bad.
ReplyDeleteChaucer by writing The Canterbury Tales criticizes the different classes, leaving no social class unscathed from his critical eye. He does this in order to bring attention to the corruption that exists in each position, but specifically the clergy. Therefore I believe that Chaucer would agree with the modern perspective of human nature that Edward O. Wilson describes. By calling to attention these corruptions he calls to attention the natural flaws in human beings. His descriptions of the nun in the Tales shows that she may not be a very “pious” nun or live the way a nun ought to. But by stating that “her veil was gathered in a seemly way” and she wore a “set of beads, the gaudies tricked in green, whence hung a golden brooch of brightest sheen, on which there first was graven a crowned A, and lower Amor vincit omnia”(line 163-166). But he does not describe her a downright evil person with 100% dubious morality. He also states “As for her sympathies and tender feelings she was so charitably solicitous she used to weep if she but saw a mouse”(line 146-148). Although this sensitivity should be directed towards people, it does not necessarily mean that the nun is a bad person, it merely shows that she does have sympathy it is just misplaced. Here Chaucer demonstrates that this nun’s character does portray some “grey area” if you will, but only because her profession calls her to led a different lifestyle. Another reason why I think Chaucer would agree with our modern perspective of human nature is through the squire. He writes that the squire “with wonderful agility and strength had seen some service with the cavalry…and had done valiantly”(line 86-89). Chaucer demonstrates he squires fighting heart but then writes that “of time, in hope to win his lady’s grace” and “he loved so hotly that till dawn grew pale he slept as little as a nightingale”(line 99-100). Here he shoes that although the squire is valiant, he likes to sleep around and does most of his deeds for favor from the ladies. Chaucer’s two examples of characters with some “grey area” demonstrates that he does think that people are not incoherently evil or good, but they can posses a little bit of both. His characters may be trying to do the right thing but are clouded with some different objectives than what their position may hold them accountable to. This leads the reader to believe that if given a choice, Chaucer would agree with the modern perspective of human nature versus the perspective that humans are either good or evil.
ReplyDeleteThe views of Chaucer and Edward O. Wilson on human nature are two completely contrasting perspectives. Chaucer sees humans as either good or evil and not containing a combination of both. A big factor that comes into play on Chaucer’s opinions on these concepts is the time period in which he lived in. In the Medieval Era, religion was the most influential it has ever been. One of the religious beliefs during this time was the 7 deadly sins and the opposite of these were the 7 cardinal virtues. Chaucer, as seen in his early descriptions of the voyagers, describes either all of a person’s sins or all of a person’s virtues. For example, when Chaucer is describing the knight, he goes on and on about the amazing characteristics of the knight and how he contains almost all the virtues and none of the sins. However, when comparing this to the knight’s son, the squire, Chaucer details all of the squire’s faults and sins in which he lives by and almost none of the virtues that his father possesses. When Edward O. Wilson states, “We are all … saints and sinners - not because humanity has failed to reach some foreordained religious or ideological ideal - but because of the way our species originated across millions of years of biological evolution”, this goes against the religious aspect of what Chaucer and his era have stood by. Saying that people can be both saints and sinners is contradictory to the church and all the beliefs that the people of this extremely religious time period stood for.
ReplyDeleteIn respect to Edward O. Wilson’s point of view on the subject of human nature, he holds a more modern opinion on the matter. The time period in which Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales was at the cusp of the Renaissance. Going into the Renaissance, people began to think more innovatively and develop new ways to effectively create better methods of figuring out concepts. Throughout the history of this world, science and the technology that came with it gave birth to the modern world as we know it today. This development of the modern world also gave another depiction of human nature. “Scientific evidence, a good part of it accumulated during the past 20 years, suggests that we are all of these things simultaneously. Each of us is inherently complicated”, as stated by Edward O. Wilson. Chaucer, who believes in a more religious version of human nature, compared to Wilson, who believes in a more modern and scientific version of the concept, have very different views. According to Chaucer, one cannot be born good and evil since it is not justifiable due to the beliefs of religion back in the Medieval Era. With Wilson, he believes in a combination of both worlds. He believes in the theory of people having both certain sins and certain virtues, each with their own set of characteristics. Unless human nature can be proven to be measured, the perspectives of Chaucer and Wilson are still shown to be concepts to be debated against.
Given the way Chaucer has portrayed his characters so far, I believe he would agree with Edward O. Wilson’s philosophy. Even though all the characters have not had any interaction beyond their initial descriptions, it is already evident that they are complex characters. The squire, for instance, is a great example of a character who is supposedly one of the “bad” characters. He is very lusty and promiscuous and seems to exploit his status for the favor of women. Still, by description, he seems to genuinely want to serve his father. There is no mention of any apparent disrespect on the squire’s part. Additionally, the squire is only twenty years old, so the sins he possesses can definitely, at least partially, be attributed to his young age and immaturity. So, at least by his description thus far, the squire is not an inherently evil person. He is certainly not as virtuous and admirable as his father, but he is by no means a terrible person. Thus, he is, as Edward O. Wilson describes it, “inherently complicated”. He is not strictly good or strictly evil, instead residing in a neutral grey area that exists because of the complex nature of humans and moral integrity. A show that I recently watched, The Good Place, does a superb job of capturing the complicated nature of humanity and its ethical philosophy. One of the characters is a moral ethics and philosophy professor. He wisely says, “Killing is one of the most famous moral no-no's”. Indeed, murder is horrible and murdering someone is a clear indicator of evil. Still, is someone like the squire, who technically does commit one of the seven deadly sins, to be lumped in together with murderers in the “evil” category? The answer should be no. Like Wilson says, we humans are all a haphazard symphony of both good and evil traits. One cannot be strictly one or the other because of the complexity of both moral integrity and the thought processes behind it.
ReplyDeleteI think Chaucer would agree with the modern perspective because in his text he may ridicule someone, but he also says what makes them good people as well. Chaucer is tearing apart the nun and how unholy and un-nun like she is and then suddenly changes it to how she is generous towards dogs. While she is nice for this, it also tells the reader that she is more generous to dogs and would rather spend her nice white meat feeding dogs instead of helping others and feeding people. This is a perfect example of how even in someone like a nun, Chaucer finds a way to expose them while also low-key telling readers, this nun is not your ordinary nun. On line 150 and 151 he says, “And she had little dogs she would be feeding, With roasted flesh, or milk, or fine white bread (150, 151)”. This may look as a virtue to a normal person, and it is, but it is also telling you some of her character and how she cares less for humans then dogs. This uncertainty of her character is the “grey-area” that the modern depiction tells us of. This grey-area is also depicted in one of our earliest characters, the shire. Even though the squire is loyal to his dad and treats him well at times, he is flashy and instead of being productive is instead a lover and tries to impress the ladies. This character tells us readers, even though he may have his lows, he may also have upholding times and is not an “evil” person at all times. He is not always evil and this shown on lines 101 and 102, “Courteous he was, lowly and serviceable, And carved to serve his father at the table (101, 102)”. After Chaucer has shown his sins, he purposely ends with his virtues so that we know his is not all terrible and has his own grey-areas.
ReplyDeleteHolden Sanderson, Period 2
Saucy Chaucer’s Opinions on Humanity
ReplyDeleteChaucer’s “The Prologue,” focuses on the good and evil aspects of the people who accompany him on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. The people described in Chaucer’s “The Prologue,” each depict a social class or group of people who were abundant during the cusp of the Renaissance. The good and evil qualities of people are categorized as sins and virtues. Edward O. Wilson takes this idea of good and evil people to a new level by studying these qualities through a biological viewpoint. Thus, Wilson describes humans as being simultaneously good and willing to sacrifice themselves for others, as well as evil and selfish.
I believe that Chaucer would strongly disagree with Wilson’s modern viewpoints on human nature for numerous reasons. Throughout “The Prologue,” Chaucer describes various characters as either very sinful or exceptional good. This clear way of depicting a character as either good or evil directly contradicts Wilson’s regarding of human nature as a combination of good and evil. Chaucer describes the Friar, “But only with the rich and victual sellers. But anywhere a profit might accrue” (252-253). This quotation is describing how the Friar associates himself only with the rich in the case that he may receive sexual favors from women. These actions depict the Friar’s sin of lust. Through statements like the excerpt above, Chaucer depicts the Friar’s sins of lust, vanity, and envy. However, he does not include any virtues to emphasize how the Friar cannot be good due to the sinful actions he has committed. Thus, this contends that Chaucer does not believe one can be internally good and evil simultaneously. In addition, Chaucer would disagree with Wilson’s opinion merely due to Wilson’s ideology implying that a sinful person is also a good a person. Christians believe that if one has a committed a severe sin, then they are an evil person unless they seek forgiveness in a major way. Therefore, since Chaucer was on a pilgrimage to Canterbury, it is safe to assume that he would have disagreed with Wilsons philosophy of sinful people concurrently being good. Finally, Wilson bases his ideology on biological evolution, which would have been considered heresy during Chaucer’s time. Hence, Chaucer would have never agreed with Wilson’s conclusions since Chaucer was personally religious. In conclusion, a combination of the factors displayed above would have led Chaucer to strongly disagree with Wilson’s views on humanity.
Geoffrey Chaucer, a man incredibly involved with the social structure of his time, became familiar with many different types of individuals through his travels. He learned in those travels that humans often present themselves to people as either inherently good or evil, but much lies behind the surface of a person's conscience. In "The Canterbury Tales", Chaucer does just that: he presents the majority of individuals he portrays with their "black and white" qualities, while their "gray areas" can be uncovered from the text upon deeper analysis. One character who exemplifies this is the squire: at first he seems a man preoccupied with pleasing his father, which stresses him out so much that he spends plenty of his time resting by fluting and such. However, the character's portrait is painted to show he is full of lust, pride, and sloth. The whole of his supposedly diligent and ardent fighting for his father the squire has used to appeal to women, or for "his lady's grace". He spends much of his time and energy working on his appearance, indicated by the curls he wears that look incredibly pressed and his short, red gown with long and wide sleeves. The squire usually lolls around during the day with women, playing the flute and whatnot. The gown he wears is red and white, juxtaposing his aggressiveness and passion with his purity. This insinuates that the squire is in a turning point in his life, stuck between a decision to either become a virtuous or a sinful knight, and that he is on the verge of choosing the wrong path. However, the squire truly is kind and generous to the knight, proving that he has respect for his father. The essence of Chaucer's characters are like the knight's: his sins or virtues are exploited upon, and they can be analysed so deeply through every line. Not only that, but they are shown to have either virtue or sins in addition to their traits that are blatant. This is how Chaucer envisions people; he met so many of them that he uncovered human nature and found that first impressions so often vary from true character.
ReplyDeleteHumans have endless layers to them. Humanity makes us all individuals- not just in how we look but how we act. No two people will ever be exactly the same, and I find beauty in that. We all want different things. While personally I never like to be stuck in a routine for too long; many people love to have structure to their lives. I will never understand that. No one can or will ever understand humanity as a whole. It is too complex. Then again, I am saying this as a human. Let’s say an alien from Mars came to Earth. Their eyes are opened up to literally a whole new world for the first time. They would see the ocean, and the animals. And then they would see the humans. They would see how we have built over everything beautiful for our own benefit. To them, we are just another animal. We are no different than polar bears or elephants, and yet we are destroying everything around us. Objectively, humanity looks quite simple. We destroy things for our benefit- we do what we want.
ReplyDeleteIn Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales he introduces us to characters based off of humans that he has met in real life. He tells us mostly about what he considers their flaws. The nun wears a golden brooch and is envious of the nobility. The squire is living his best life; not having a care in the world. The yeoman presents himself with great class. The people that Chaucer has met along the way in life all have stereotypes surrounding their titles. When he heard “friar” he thought of a pious man who is in the first estate. When Chaucer heard “knight” he thought of a brave and faithful man in the second estate. Although all of these titles are true, they do not have any real meaning to them. A person can have a thousand connotations surrounding their name, but that doesn’t take away their true identity of being just a person.
We all started off on this Earth as just people. People. That was it. We ate, we slept, and we saw the world; no strings attached. Laws were nonexistent. There was no telling right from wrong. There’s this quote that I had written down in Mrs. Logan’s class last year. It read “Find ecstasy in life; the mere sense of living is joy enough.” I imagine that living at the beginning of life would be like that. The mere sense of living would be joy enough. You wouldn’t need to get into a good college or have kids or attend to your religion to be happy. You could do whatever you want, and it wouldn’t matter to anyone. Wow. Imagine that.
From what I have read of “The Prologue” so far, Chaucer believes that humans are either good or evil, with no grey areas in between. He uses satire to criticize people for not exactly fitting the archetype of the certain group that they are in. He is not only criticizing them, but by using satire, he is making fun of them for having individuality. The monk can not change his love for hunting. That is just the way he is. Yet, the moment he does the thing he loves, he is being criticized for not being the “perfect human being”. To contrast the “savage” monk, Chaucer uses the example of this great and brave night to show what the ideal human should be like. Well, guess what Chaucey? People are not perfect. That doesn’t make any sense. The word does not have any real meaning. In fact, perfect should not even be a word.
We started off as just people. Over time, people have been placed into social groups that determine how they should act and live. As a result, humanity is slowly being lost.
I believe Chaucer would have a more traditional, one-way view about evil versus good. For instance, the way Chaucer describes the knight as a holy figure with only virtues and no sins depicts his biased view for certain characters. Chaucer portrays the knight as a character with the passion to help others around him, go on holy crusades for his country, and pilgrimage a journey in the name of God. The knight is seen as one who is humbler than a maid and kinder than a priest. Within the description of the knight, there were no subtle hints or clues insinuating any form of ulterior motive. However, when describing the friar, the narrative is completely reversed. The friar is shown as a lustful man accompanied with many other negative attributes. Of the friar’s questionable behaviors, his greed, sloth, and unfaithfulness are just a few that he shows. Chaucer carefully weaves in minute details about the friar which allow the readers to glean his true behavior. An example would be the line in which the friar is noted to give pocket knives and pins to pretty girls. With respect to the pocket knives, this small word shows the friar’s willingness to threaten or blackmail in order to obtain his goal, sex. Later in the passage, this despicable man is known to accompany the rich and neglect the poor. While this action may be common for the second estate or royalty, for a first estate member, such as the friar, it is ironic and extremely absurd. The friar’s decisions and actions are the complete antithesis to the message of the church and God. Tying back into the original question, Chaucer would never agree with Wilson’s statement. These two drastic examples of Chaucers’ characters show the contrast between good and evil in which Chaucer is trying to communicate. The friar and the knight completely juxtapose each other to represent the general sins and virtues of society. Moreover, their differentiating descriptions prove that Chaucer has strong feelings for affinity to a certain side. While some characters’ sins are not as severe as others, Chaucer never truly describes or elaborates on someone who is both good and evil. In the brief few lines he writes about a secondary nun, it can be inferred she is somewhat mediocre. However, Chaucer’s refusal to extenuate of her situation and circumstance shows that Chaucer cares very little about the “gray zone” characters.
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing how Chaucer describes the characters, one can assume that he would agree with the ideas of Wilson to some extent. Chaucer points out the traits of characters with a great focus on either the positive or the negatives, but he does recognize that a person can have both. It is made evident that Chaucer knows a person can be good and bad at the same time throughout the characterization of a few characters in “The Prologue”. So far, one of the best examples would be the yeoman. The yeoman is zealous, but it leads to excessive pride. The yeoman is very dedicated to his hunting, but he is so dedicated that he ends up showing off. This character is a good example of being somewhat neutral due to these two characteristics. By having the yeoman showcase a deadly sin and a cardinal virtue simultaneously, it shows that Chaucer acknowledges that an individual can be good and evil. While the yeoman is still primarily “evil” because of the other sins he possesses, he is still capable of exhibiting some sort of neutral position in human nature.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of Chaucer’s recognition of a possible “gray area” it shows that his perspective on human nature may be similar to Wilson’s. In the given excerpt, Wilson says that humans are able to not be inherently good or evil most likely because human nature is made up of multiple factors, like choosing to act good or evil. This idea connects to Chaucer’s portrayal of characters because he too exemplifies that a person can act good or bad. Throughout “The Prologue” most characters are clearly made to be either virtuous or sinful, so one would think that Chaucer believes in a person as only being one or the other. This is contradicted by the characterization of a character like the yeoman, a character that has both aspects.
I think Chaucer's opinion on human nature does agree with Edward O. Wilson's perspective of being simultaneously good and sinful. Although Chaucer points out the hypocrisy in human society and highlights the sinful nature of man, he also does underline the good parts as well.
ReplyDeleteChaucer describes the Squire, or the Knight's son, to be sinful. He observes him be very greedy, prideful, and lusty; all different types of sin. Reading through the passage, everything Chaucer points out all the bad parts of the Squire, yet in the very end, there's a small change in the mood. Lines 101 and 102 reads,
"Courteous he was, lowly and serviceable,
And carved to serve his father at the table."
Although Chaucer describes the Squire to be a sinner, he also shows how he has some virtue as well. This proves how Chaucer sees the not just the bad but also the good. Thus, he believes that people can improve and posses the virtues as well.
Additionally, the fact that he wrote this work of literature infers that he believes in humanity and its potential. He wrote this to communicate the hypocrisy in human society, and encourage all of us to not be like that. He tells us a message about being sinful and how wrong it is to not have integrity. However, readers must keep in mind that Chaucer intentionally utilizes irony and sarcasm to write this work of literature. He wants the readers to identify and fix the sinful things humans do. Thus, he is showing the readers that he believes that people can change and be better. He is encouraging us to improve our ways. It shows how Chaucer is reassuring readers that humans are not born sinful, but a mix of both the light and dark. Therefore, he points out that humanity can improve by emphasizing the good parts instead of the sinful parts.
I believe Chaucer personally agrees with Wilson’s modern perspective of human nature. He believes that men are capable to be complex creatures capable of being good and evil at any given time. People can be good but pulled to the evil side in times of weakness. They may lose control and be pulled into the idea of worldly success and pleasure. Chaucer shows this through the description of the Squire. The Squire’s positive qualities include being courteous, lowly, serviceable, and valiant. These are all qualities possessed only by the best and most worthy. The squire does have his flaws though. He is quick tempered, vain, and lustfull. He performs his duties only to grab the attention and satisfaction of the ladies around him. His becomes pulled to the evil side because of his need for worldly pleasure and success.
ReplyDeleteChaucer may also believe that there are only two ends of the spectrum, good and evil. As an author trying to prove a point and attract the attention of the readers, Chaucer would describe some of his characters as purely good or purely evil with no gray areas in between. Without a gray area, Chaucer’s description of the characters can be clearly perceived without any questions. This ensures that the reader knows the exact explanation of the nature of the characters and their moral views. The reader knows the exact way Chaucer intended the personalities to be viewed. An example of a good character is the Knight. The knight is described as nothing less than loyal, modest, zealous, and chivalrous. There is no gray space for the reader to question the Knight’s moral integrity. On the other side of the spectrum, the Monk is an example of a character who is evil. He is described as nothing more than slothful in duties, glutinous, envious, and aggressive. There is no question on whether the Monk is any better than evil.
In the epilogue in The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer portrays a wide spectrum of characters ranging from those with little moral integrity to those who live only to help others. The evident goodness in people is displayed through characters like the Knight. The Knight is a good man. He is humble and fights for all the righteous deeds he can. He does not display any of the seven sins one can show and he is a true gentleman. On the contrary, Chaucer writes about the Knight’s polar opposite, his son. His son, the Squire, is a lusty young man only interested in impressing the ladies as he dresses proudly and does things only for show.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Chaucer thinks that people aren’t born completely good or evil. This is evident when he talks about characters that display many sinful traits. Occasionally, he adds a sentence, contradicting the negative things he just said about the character. Throughout the Squire’s thorough description, Chaucer speaks about the Squire’s pride in his looks and his lusty actions. It almost seems to the reader as if there is nothing good to say about the Squire’s characteristics. Towards the end, Chaucer suddenly adds that the Squire is courteous, serviceable, and always at his father’s side; this doesn’t add up with his previous description of him having excessive pride. It seems like Chaucer knows that this man is still maturing, he isn’t evidently good or evil yet. I think Chaucer believes that everyone can be good; they just have to get their moral compass on the right track when their poles are mixed up
Chaucer would most certainly be content to see humans as either good or evil, with no "gray areas" in between. Most of his characters show us the corruption in morals or values present in human nature and society. For example, the Friar from the Prologue is shown to have no moral boundaries as does as he pleases. He has impregnated many women, and got them married off to prevent social embarrassment. We have many people in our world just like him. However, there are people not like him such as the Oxford Cleric who is by far the most pure or good character so far. He hasn't committed any sinful or disgusting acts so far. I believe Chaucer can see some humans as purely bad or purely good. There isn't any "gray areas" anywhere in Prologue. Many of the characters have defined characteristics that make them sinful or virtuous. All the First Estate people seem to be part of the Church, teaching their corrupt values on the way. They should teach the love of God, and follow religious scripture. However, they don't and seek to exploit faith to better their own lives. The Friar isn't a beggar, but a pretty wealthy individual. He has earned this wealth through fees for confessions, which isn't right. The Oxford Cleric on the other hand, isn't manipulative as the Friar, but on the naive side. He is generous for what he has, and try to pay back those who have funded his education.
ReplyDeleteChaucer would not agree with the modern perspective of human nature as Edward O. Wilson describes it, because Chaucer believes people are either good or bad by extenuating these points in the text. Chaucer ridicules the good and bad in people to make the reader have one clear image of the person's personality in the novel. Edward O. Wilson has explained how a bad person could be corrupted by good to make them less evil, and vice versa, with the good being corrupted by the bad. With this in mind people get the idea that people are not all evil and or all good, but a little bit of both.
ReplyDeleteChaucer only sees that people are either good or bad. This is shown through his prologue in the novel, The Canterbury Tales. Chaucer describes the knight as good through his wording. In lines 45 and 46 Chaucer clearly states with no stutter, that the knight is “chivalry, truth, honor, generousness, and courtesy.’’ We can also depict his virtues of kindness, humility, and faithfulness. Line 71 we see the knights ability to be as “modest as a maid,” showing the knight’s ability to be kind to all. Chaucer also shows the knight’s humility in line 76, “but he was not gaily dresses.” This shows the reader that the knight is not prideful but in fact shows humility by not wearing and showing extravagant clothing. Finally, we see Chaucer explain the knight’s faithfulness through line 80. This line shows the knight going through a pilgrimage and rendering thanks. This shows the knight’s faithfulness buy having him go through his beliefs in life and rendering thanks for his opportunities. As the reader sees the good knight, Chaucer also shows the reader bad characters, one of which is the nun. Chaucer uses specific diction to describe the nun. Some of the nun’s sins include being prideful and having misplaced zeal. The nun is very prideful, and Chaucer shows this through many lines. Line 157 mentions her lips being red. This shows the reader that she is clearly wearing lipstick and cares what others think of her appearance. Nuns are usually simplistic, not flashy. When the nun wears lipstick it draws attention to her rather than her blending in with the rest of the nuns. The nun also has misplaced zeal. A nuns’ first focus should always be God, but as the reader sees in line 166 this is false for the nun. Line 166 explains how the nun wears a necklace around her neck saying “love conquers all.” The nun puts love above God, rather than God above love. Nowhere in these descriptions does the knight and nun show any crossing over of good or bad.
Chaucer clearly demonstrates his perspective on only seeing one of these traits in people, good or bad. Chaucer would not agree with Edward O. Wilson’s modern perspective of human nature because it allows people to see the good and bad in individuals, and their ability to change.
believe Chaucer would disagree with Edward O. Wilson. Edward O. Wilson states that humans are complicated and that we aren’t neither saints nor sinner. Edward O. Wilson states that humanity can not be ideal or perfect because of the way we have evolved.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Chaucer does not agree with these ideas. All of Chaucer’s character in the prologue so far are either extremely good or extremely bad. The knight is only pure character so far. He is perfect and incorruptibleI according to the way Chaucer describes him. In his description there are no flaws and is almost angelic because he is described so perfectly.
All the other characters, especially the nun, the monk, and the friar, have sinful characteristics and morals. None of the characters do what they are suppose to. Three of the characters are suppose to be holy people but they are corrupted and extremely sinful. Some of the characters Chaucer describes are not as evil as others but they do not have any good characteristics either.
I think that Chaucer wouldn’t agree with Edward O. Wilson’s ideas. All the his characters are one sided, are only good or evil. None of his characters show signs of being a combination of good and evil.
Victoria Oginski
Chaucer would disagree with Edward O. Wilson how humans can have both virtues and sins. In the prologue of Canterbury Tales, all of the characters are either pure and humble or prideful and greedy. As of now, there aren’t any characters who have both sins and virtues. For example, the knight is described as a humble, generous person who is “modest as a maid” and has no sins at all. However, the rest of the characters such as the monk don’t have any genuine virtues and have sins. The monk is zealous, but in a sinful way so he does not have any true goodness in him. Characters in Canterbury Tales only have either sins or virtues, while Edward O. Wilson believes that every human has both goodness and evil in within them. Chaucer would in fact not agree with him because in his writing, characters who have a balance of both sins and virtues.
ReplyDelete- Nanako Tanisaka
In "The Prologue" of The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer describes the people that will go on a holy pilgrimage. These characters are diverse and Chaucer seems to favor some over others. However, he doesn't condemn any character for their nature, believing they are all complicated and inherently both good and bad.
ReplyDeleteChaucer, like Wilson, thinks people are naturally mixed with both good and evil. Not one person is all good nor all bad. For example, The Squire is The Knight's son. He is chivalrous and noble like his father. "Courteous he was lowly and serviceable." However, he is also young and vain. He is lustful with a woman which affects his decision making. "Of time, in hope to win his lady's grace." The merchant is also a man of mixed qualities. He has a forked beard and is well dressed with a fur hat and flashy boots. He wants to appear like a successful businessman. He is in a rising middle class and is trying to make money. Unfortunately we discover he is hiding the fact that he is in debt. "None knew he was in debt." The Oxford Cleric is also a combination of good and bad. While he is generous with his actions and is knowledge seeking, he is also foolish for only spending his money on books when he needs food and clothing. "Whatever money from his friends he took, He spent on learning or another book."
These characters in Canterbury Tales are full individuals with good and bad qualities. Many of them have recreated themselves and their roles in the community. Chaucer uses these characters to satirize society and its values. Even though at face value, it appears characters are portrayed one dimensionally as either good or evil, upon deeper analysis, most of the characters are quite complex.
I believe that Chaucer would not agree the modern perspective of human nature as Edward O. Wilson describes this. Rather he would be content to see humans as either good or evil, with no “gray areas” in between. Chaucer hints at the sins and virtues of the character in the prologue and it makes you question the credibility of the character and their position in society. For example, Chaucer describes the merchant “with a forking beard”(Chaucer 280). From this it can be interpreted that he metaphorically has two faces or personalities. Most characters in the prologue are described by their sins rather than their accomplishments and virtues.For example, the squire,yeoman, the first nun, the monk, friar and the merchant all receive a bad reputation from Chaucer. They are also oddly described in comparison to others in their social class with similar duties. The only one described by their virtues and accomplishments is the knight. He also humors their ignorance and goes along with it, encouraging them to keep making a fool of themselves. For example Chaucer states “And I agreed and said his views were sound”(187). He is just going along with the monks living style and his disobedience to the rules. This goes to show that Chaucer mainly only sees the negative in people. This is also evident because none of the character have good and bad traits or accomplishments listed, unless it is for the wrong reason.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of good and evil has been around since the beginning of time. Many philosophers and great thinkers have thought about whether all humans are either “good” or “evil”. These different philosophers have come up with many different ideas, some of which we see as ideas of the past, which are not true. In this article from the New York Times, Wilson starts by asking whether humans start off as evil, looking to redeem themselves by being good, or starting off as good and being corrupted by evil. Wilson then goes on to say that we are all very complicated, but in the end we are all a mixture of these things. He also continues to say that we are like this primarily because of our evolution and ancestors.
ReplyDeleteNow in the prologue of Canterbury Tales, Chaucer writes a brief description of each pilgrim, describing how they look, what they do, and how they act. Most importantly, by writing these descriptions, Chaucer is telling the reader his own opinions of each character through his use of diction. For example in line 101, Chaucer describes the squire as, “courteous he was, lowly and serviceable.” This is an example of Chaucer stating how he sees the squire overall, which also allows the reader to determine whether or not Chaucer is being sarcastic or not. The whole reason Chaucer even wrote these descriptions was to be satirical, and point out the flaws of such characters. By doing so, he is pointing out their sins and virtues, or their good and evil.
Chaucer points out the good, for example the knight, and the evil (the friar), without any inbetween. Chaucer starts his character descriptions with something nice, or seemingly nice, about the character. When he describes the knight he talks about his virtues, proving that he sees the knight as “good.” Then, as he continues, Chaucer begins to make remarks about the sins of each character. When talking about the monk for example Chaucer states, “he liked a fat swan best, and roasted whole (line 210).” This exemplifies how Chaucer sees the monk as envious, and a glut, therefore showing his sins.
While reading each description, one can almost immediately tell whether Chaucer thinks that character is good or evil. Unlike what Wilson believes, Chaucer never explains how a character might be evil but trying to get rid of that evilness. In all parts of this prologue so far, each character is almost categorized into good or evil, based on how many times Chaucer mentions their sins or virtues. Overall, I believe that at the time when Chaucer wrote this novel, in the 1300s most people thought people were either good or evil. You could either go to heaven or hell, with no inbetween. I am sure this general way of thinking influenced Chaucer, causing him to use such morals in this novel. Who knows, maybe if Chaucer lived in a more recent time period, he would have agreed with Wilson, and thought about good and evil with a more modern view. However, this was not the case, and Chaucer did live in a time of either good or bad, proving that he was content with categorizing his characters only within these two parameters.
I think if Chaucer were able to see our world today I think he would be more inclined to give people the overall benefit of the doubt. This is because in Chaucer's day a person would only meet a couple people in their lifetime's and as a knight he met way more people than average. Because of that it was easier to put people into simple category's because of limited experience. However, today we can meet thousands of people in our lifetimes giving us the capability to see lots of people's perspectives. With this knowledge it is much harder for very set categories to be made about people. For example, when Chaucer was describing the squire he described him pretty one sided and said how he was just a pretty bad squire. But there could be some background to the squire which caused him to be like that, this would be under Wilson’s view. But you can't blame Chaucer for thinking like this because of the way society was back then. So, in a way given Chaucer's time I do think he would be content with giving people a good or bad title. Furthermore, if he were to live in our time I'm sure over time his opinions would change because of the massive difference in culture.
ReplyDeleteGiven Chaucer’s portrayal of the characters in “The Prologue”, I believe that he would neither believe that humans are inherently good or evil, nor would he would agree with the modern perspective of human nature. I think that Chaucer would have a more simple mindset than the modern perspective, he would say that while humans are not solely good or evil, they do have an inclination to be more of one or the other, and this inclination is based off of the society around them. Some characters that Chaucer describes do seem to be all good or all evil, such as the knight. Chaucer describes the knight as faithful and distinguished, and does not mention any flaws that the knight may have. As readers we know that Chaucer makes very astute observations, so for a character to not have any flaws in his description seems to convey that the knight may not actually have any major faults. However, most of Chaucer’s other characters, such as the squire, seem to have a mix of good and bad traits. Chaucer describes the squire as lusty and vain, but also says, “courteous he was, lowly and serviceable, and carved to serve his father at the table”. In mentioning this, Chaucer shows that he does believe people are not simply good or evil, but rather can be a mix of the two. But, in his observations of other characters, it is made evident he believes that while people are not entirely good or entirely evil, some people can be more evil than others. Chaucer shows this in his description of the nun, friar, and monk. While reading the observations of the clergy members, Chaucer’s sarcasm and use of verbal irony becomes even more apparent. It becomes clear that these members of the first estate are people who Chaucer considers “more evil” in comparison to the characters like the squire. Chaucer’s ideas are further emphasized when readers consider how these members of the clergy should be acting, and see the stark contrast between the expected image of these characters compared to how Chaucer depicts them. These clergy members seem to have more sin than the ordinary second and third estate characters, which seems to be the opposite of how it should be. However, Chaucer includes these scathing characterizations for all of the clergy members, which seems to imply that he believes these sins are less individual, but more general, applying to the medieval church as a whole. In his descriptions of these characters, Chaucer is implying that as humans, we are neither instrinsically good or evil, but rather are shaped into a reflection of the society around us. Chaucer is pointing out the corruption of medieval society, and explaining that these characters are only reflecting what they see around them. Although these clergy members might have not been the best people originally, none of them are evil solely because they were born that way. They were shaped into who they are by the society and way of living around them. In depicting his characters in this way, Chaucer is explicating his perspective on human nature. I believe that Chaucer would say that while no one is purely good or evil, we are also not born with an equal balance of both; our moral integrity is influenced more by society than anything else.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Yeh
The modern day philosopher Edward O.Wilson views human nature as a simultaneous, complex integration of both sides of the “good-evil” spectrum. He expresses that humanity itself is complicated, and the complexity of human nature is resulted from millions of years of revolution. Everyone has both virtuous and sinful characteristics in which the difference between a “good” person and an “evil” person is based on which type of traits he or she has more. People often changes and react differently under various situations, so it is difficult to truly distinguish “good” and “evil” because of its intricate nature. Chaucer, on the other hand, indicates a different point of view.
ReplyDeleteIn the prologue of Canterbury Tales, Chaucer portrays the varied characteristics of the pilgrims. Through vivid descriptions of their appearances and habits, he informs the readers about the virtuous or sinful traits of the characters. Notice I used the conjunction “or” instead of “and”, the reason is that Chaucer illustrates the human nature through the descriptions of the pilgrims in the prologue very distinctively. Each character has a distinguishing category of “good” and “evil” with certain virtues and sins. The knight, for example, is described as kind, humble, and faithful as he returned from a battle immediately to join the pilgrimage. On the contrary, the Squire that is described right after is portrayed as slothful, envious, and vain through a more sarcastic tone. Both characters are illustrated with distinctive traits, and there are no “mix shades of both” described in between the good-evil spectrum. Thus, Chaucer is more likely to believe human nature as a dichotomy of morality and immorality, and disagree with the modern perspective interpreted by Edward O.Wilson.
One specific example from the Prologue of Canterbury Tales is Chaucer’s description of the friar, Hubert. The “honorable” deeds of the friar in which Chaucer encounters are way beyond detrimental. His vanity, greed, and lust are expressed utterly through Chaucer’s illustration of the character. The friar, who should be helping the poverty, is instead extracting more money from them through inhumane and immoral ways. The human nature in this case is egregious as there’re no other moral or virtuous senses in the friar’s mind. He is categorized on the “evil” side of Chaucer’s morality spectrum. Moreover, there’re no other noble traits expressed in the detailed, lengthy description of the friar, which again emphasizes the abominable humanity of this character. In Chaucer’s mind, there’re only two distinguishing aspect of human nature: good and evil. Thus, the pilgrims described in the prologue all have explicit characteristics on both ends but none in between of the spectrum.
In our society majority believe in the idea that our thought and actions are neither good nor bad when we first come into this world. We as people believe in nothing until we are influenced by others and our surroundings to think in a certain way. From Chaucer's Prologue, I do not think he would agree with the idea that there is such thing as a grey area in the human mind. He portrays each character with certain traits that give the reader the idea that there either bad or good, no in between. For example, the knight and the scholar are both virtuous and don’t seem to have any sinful signs such as greed or pride. The only contradictory idea from each person is there role, such as a nun. We think a nun would like to help other human beings and love god, but he portrays her as someone who is envious or a little aggressive and even describes her as wearing a necklace that says love conquers all in French. He assigns certain roles for each character and gives each being a description like the friar which Chaucer writes” He’d fixed up many a marriage, giving each of his young women what he could afford her.” From that sentence it’s easy to understand that he is a con-man and is very greedy. A Friar is meant to help others but instead the one Chaucer writes about is obviously lacks moral integrity, especially when Chaucer writes” His neck was whiter than a lily-flower.’’ Every part of his writing style and even the amount that he writes gives hidden meaning to the character that he is writing about. For example, the Oxford Cleric has such a short description which signifies that the character isn’t that important and is just sort of out there. Even with such a short description, Chaucer gives readers a full understanding of who the person is and what they do.’’ Whatever money from his friends he took he spent on learning or another book.’’ With the characters that we have read so far, we have not seen a character that is sort of in that grey area and that we are not sure if there bad or good. Writing in general has become more widespread and open to the ideas of there not just being a good or a bad person. However, Chaucer’s book the Canterbury tales is one of the most significant books in human history and has paved a path for other writers.
ReplyDeleteIn Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Chaucer paints his characters through direct description, specifically by chronicling the character’s physiognomy and his or her deeds. Chaucer’s candid, yet satirical descriptions of the characters allows the reader to explicitly see Chaucer’s opinion of that person and his or her social group. On the spectrum of good to evil, most characters seem to sway towards the less honorable side, although Chaucer often presents information for the same character that causes the needle to hover, perhaps roam slightly towards the better side. In this, Chaucer displays his recognition of the agglomeration of both good and evil within human beings, similar to the opinion of Edward O. Wilson’s modern perspective of human nature. Wilson, much like Chaucer, believes that humans are “inherently complicated,” and “at once saints and sinners.” This view of human nature allows Chaucer to illustrate the hypocrisy of a social group, while recognizing that most humans are not simply innately evil.
ReplyDeleteWhile describing the Squire, Chaucer primarily focuses on his sins of vanity and lust. The Squire clearly cares about his appearance and makes an effort to look sleek and often flashy, wearing a short gown with “long and wide” (line 95) sleeves, and curly hair so perfect it gave the impression of being pressed. These aspects of his appearance show that the Squire is willing to spend substantial time on himself and his own pride. In addition, Chaucer also describes the Squire, a man of weaker moral integrity, as “a lad of fire” (line 82). He “loved so hotly” (line 99) that he barely slept at night, obviously explicating the Squire’s lust and licentiousness. However, Chaucer subtly highlights the Squire’s time in battle, even showing that he “had done valiantly in little space.” (line 89) In addition, the Squire, “lowly and serviceable,” (line 101) respects and honors his father. These honorable attributes convey the amalgamated nature of the Squire; he possesses both sins and virtues, a clear constituent contributing to why Chaucer may agree with Wilson’s modern view of human nature.
Chaucer later characterizes a Yeoman by focusing on his envy for those in a higher class as well as his vanity. The Yeoman desperately wishes to be in the Second Estate, that of nobility, as evident in his attire, especially his “coat and hood of green.” (line 105) The color green in itself signifies envy, and his “shield and sword” (line 114) distinctly demonstrate the Yeoman’s wish to be nobility, as a mere hunter like himself would never need such extravagant and heavy protection. The Yeoman is so filled with envy that he even attempts to act and dress like a noble. In addition, the Yeoman desperately wants attention and struts around with “peacock-feathered arrows” (line 106) and wearing a “shining silver” (line 118) medal. These objects demonstrate his pride, especially as flashy items like these are particularly impractical for a hunter; normally a hunter would blend in with nature and camouflage himself in order to catch game. Despite the Yeoman’s envy and vanity, he excels at his occupation. He “knew the whole of woodcraft up and down” (line 112) and “was a proper forester.” (line 121) The Yeoman possesses knowledge and expertise in woodcraft, which he executes well. Chaucer’s two conflicting depictions of the Squire and the Yeoman show that Chaucer’s perspective of human nature covers a spectrum; Chaucer believes humans can be both good and bad, both honorable and evil, both respectable and dishonest, with variant qualities Wilson would similarly recognize.
JJ Abele
Edward O. Wilson in his New York Times article posits: it is human evolutionary nature for everyone to be both a saint and a sinner. He argues that the human condition is to be dual - it is hardcoded into our DNA. The prologue of Canterbury Tales summarises the characters in their fullest detail. Chaucer portrays each character indirectly and with the cruel knife of satire. In his description it is clear that some are intrinsically good and some, less so. The former is exemplified in the Knight, and the latter in the greedy Friar. However, Chaucer's view is not necessarily binary - the Squire is not the finest bastion of God-fearing chivalry - yet despite his sins he shows zeil for success, even spending, “somtyme in chyvachie In Flaundres, in Artoys, and Pycardie.”
ReplyDeleteChaucer can see people as being morally gray - some have virtues to complement their sins, but he does not view people as having the duality of character which Edward O. Wilson suggests. As seen in the prologue, it is easy to put Chaucer's creations into neat boxes based on their sins - if they have responsibility, do they perform it well? This is not the point of view of Edward O. Wilson as he sees one's ethical conduct as a genetic certainty and wouldn’t make the same classifications Chaucer makes. The modern and medieval stance on a human virtue, while sharing some similarities, are in essence vastly different and wouldn’t lead to the same conclusions.
-Connor
Geoffrey Chaucer devotes a generous 878 lines of prologue to describe the many folks of varying social classes that he, as a narrator, encounters in a hostel. In these lines he portrays unflattering qualities and sins in people who have professions that were considered very distinguished at the time. However, Chaucer also makes sure to include characters who exhibit traits that are good-natured and honorable. As Wilson states in The New York Times article, “[Humans] are all genetic chimeras, at once saints and sinners – not because humanity has failed to reach some foreordained religious or ideological ideal – but because of the way our species originated across millions of years of biological evolution.” While Chaucer is certainly not preaching the teachings of Darwin or human evolution (which would be impossible because these concepts did not exist at his time), one could argue that Chaucer agrees with the complexity and ambiguity of human nature through his writing in The Canterbury Tales.
ReplyDeleteThe characters introduced in the prologue are unique and come from all walks of life. It is stated in the first 25 lines that they meet in the hostel during their pilgrimages to Canterbury in order to visit the shrine of St. Becket. This shows that despite their immense differences they are all drawn to the desire of seeking comfort in holiness. However, Chaucer’s satirical language makes it difficult to see whether or not he believes all humans are born to be either “good” or “evil”. Perhaps the best character to analyze that would reflect both virtuous and sinful traits would be the squire. The squire is probably the youngest among the group of characters gathered in the hostel, and therefore he is the least experienced and most naïve to the true endeavor that is life. He is even described as only a mere “lad”. His father, the knight, is among the most honorable men in the bunch and has had the time to learn from his wrongdoings to reach his fullest potential. The squire is too young to have been corrupted into being evil and too childish to grasp his father’s wisdom. The traits he displays are unfiltered. Chaucer does incorporate irony when narrating the squire’s “good” traits but a few lines are not to be ignored. This includes the final two lines of the squire’s passage: “Courteous he was, lowly and serviceable, and carved to serve his father at the table” (101-102). For all the pride he had shown in previous lines, this excerpt reveals a rather modest nature. It reflects just how obedient the squire is to his father. As jovial and lusty he may be, the squire knows how to act depending on the time and place; when he is next to his father, he behaves as no more than a loyal son. An even better example: “He’s seen some service with the cavalry in Flanders and Artois and Picardy and had done valiantly in little space” (87-89). This line can be interpreted to imply that the squire is prideful but it can also show that he is zealous. This double meaning to the line displays the duality of man and that humans are not definitively good or evil.
Everything in life is on a scale. God gave us the gift of free will, nut with this gift came a price to pay. Humans have the capability of great good and great evil. Our actions place us on this scale. Some people are more good; others make an active choice to be evil. The majority of society is comprised of people who fit in the grey area.
ReplyDeleteThere are many aspects that explain why humans act the way they do. A person’s personality and actions are influenced by learned behaviors from their environment, genetics, their emotional state, how their brain processes information, and the world around them. All these tie into a person.
Human beings are born without evil. It is the exposure to their environment and certain events in an individual’s life that corrupt. This influence leads to the seven deadly sins such as: pride, envy, gluttony, lust, wrath, greed, and sloth. Sins and virtues is one of the main topics in The Canterbury Tales. Chaucer pints out the hypocrisy in the Catholic Church and the flaws in Medieval society through the twenty-nine pilgrim characters he describes. Out of the twenty- nine pilgrims only four are good characters.
I believe Chaucer would not agree with Edward O. Wilson’s statement. Chaucer characterizes the pilgrims with satire because behind all the humor he wants to point out the corruption. Chaucer does make his characters polar to each other. His characters are either saints or sinners. There is no in between for Chaucer’s writing.
I believe that Chaucer would disagree with the statements said by Edward O. Wilson in his response. Humans are not born to be good, or bad, rather that the humans themselves cause them to be that way. People aren’t destined to have certain traits, they have these traits as a result of society, or their actions and Chaucer is trying to expose this, through Canterbury Tales. For example, in Canterbury Tales, Chaucer describes a Friar, who are born into the 1st estate, and are typically supposed to be kind, generous, and give back to the community. Though as we read his descriptions, we can tell that this typical meaning for a Friar, is the exact opposite of what Hubert, the friar is described as. On line 256, it states “He was the finest beggar of the batch (256)”, and again on lines 235-238, “One should give silver for a poor Friar’s care. He kept his tippet stuffed with pins for curls, and pocket knives, to give to pretty ladies (235-238).” This not only shows that this “kindful and generous” Friar is not only begging to people, who normally are supposed to beg for him (meaning he is greedy), he also threatens girls to giving him silver. All in all, he is a very bad person. Though according to Edward’s claim, this Friar should be a good person because Friar’s are supposed to be. Chaucer recognizes this and tries to expose the society for this wrong-doing, by writing out all the flaws to this friar in hopes of waking up society and improving it. That is why I believe Chaucer disagrees with Edward O. Wilson’s paragraph of the modern perspective of human nature.
ReplyDeleteEdward O. Wilson describes the human race as being a mixture of both sins and virtues at once. He disapproves of many philosophers thoughts that humans are either born sinful but can be changed by good forces or that people are born good and corrupted by evil. In the prologue of chaucer's manuscript he describes each of the characters in a way that highlights each individuals sins or virtues. Notice the use of the word or. From the descriptions we have read so far there has been very little talk of both sides of the spectrum in one analysis of a traveler in chaucer's group. Most of the characters are either described as being very virtuous like the knight who is recounted as being humble and kind, or as being very sinful like the friar who is portrayed as being lustful, proud, and slothful. This way the chaucer contrasts the two poles of the moral spectrum leads me to believe that chaucer does not see this gray area in between good and evil like Willson does, instead he sees them as two completely different personalities with little to no overlapping in the middle. Although from what we have read so far we are unable to decipher if chaucer believes good can be turned evil or if evil can be turned good, but I am pessimistic that as the story fleshes out we will be able to get a wider view on the subject matter. I would be quite interested to see what my response to this same prompt would after complete the entire reading assignment.
ReplyDeleteEwan Macfarlane
Chaucer writes in detail of the moral corruption of individuals. Such description of the characters in these Canterbury Tales, ultimately comments on the overwhelming societal conflict at the cusp of the Renaissance. One could say this is a piece of satire, for Chaucer, with an intended lack of subtlety, hints at the sins and virtues of these pilgrims traveling to Canterbury. He illustrates the contradictory priorities that the sinful individuals have, an example being a Nun, whose love is not only being spread for God. Rather than depicting these sinners through confrontational passages shaming them, Chaucer indirectly does so through sarcastic and belittling diction that becomes apparent to the reader. This only exemplifies his belief in humanity being far from virtuous, and elaborates on the relatively inevitable sins that seem to quietly occur in even the holiest of people at this time. The four respectful characters, two of which we have come to learn about already, exhibit the noble characteristics of an honorable person, to which Chaucer chooses to highlight.
ReplyDeleteWhile some of the characters, such as the Squire, are described to be lusty and lacking of true licentiousness, there is some gray area of goodness. Most characters are perceived to be sinful, however Chaucer doesn’t write them with malicious intent, but simply mocks their attempt at a wholesome life when their reality is simply contrasting to that idea. Chaucer defines these characters to be virtuous versus sinful, and while there may be some combination of both personalities as mentioned previously, the majority of the content in this prologue examines how these pilgrims morally differentiate from each other. This text provides a clear analytical perspective on how Chaucer sees the world. These individuals are merely literary reflections of societal members, and express Chaucer’s opposition to the moral integrity of this era’s current society, specifically the Clergy’s dominance in social graces despite such hypocrisy. In this way, Chaucer sees humanity as good versus evil, which conflicts Edward Wilson’s point of view. Edward states that “we are all genetic chimeras, at once saints and sinners- not because humanity has failed to reach some foreordained religious or ideological ideal- but because of the way our species originated across millions of years of biological evolution.” This captures how he envisions society to be a significant blend of both good and bad, something that doesn’t place us in a morally unjust position because there is no higher standard to live by that is determining what is right versus what is wrong. We are both right and wrong all of the time in our actions. This is simply a part of our nature.
However, Chaucer seems to emphasize the faults among the wrongful people. He expresses this need for change, this need to get back on track virtuously, because people with these overwhelming sins, can’t overcompensate for it. He shows this through his constant insult to the sinful characters, and the praise-like speech he uses to describe those who are honorable. With the character’s actions written, the words on the page describing him or her change connotatively as well. Overall, this seems to suggest that Chaucer would not agree with Edward’s perspective.
Throughout time, ideas, thoughts, and opinions have more expressed more and more, causing a diversity in every individual in the modern world. However, during the time period in which Chaucer lived in, the people in society were unable to share these ideas and would be looked down upon from society. The church ridiculed anyone who did not follow the commands and rules of the church, even if they did not follow God’s laws or beliefs. Chaucer was aware of the corruption of the church and realized many clergy members and other members of society were not to be trusted and lived a two-faced life. Because of this, Chaucer would not agree with the fact that you are still accepted as a “good and innocent” person if they sin and would overall see someone as completely good or entirely evil.
ReplyDeleteIf Chaucer were able to see today’s views of our society, he would disagree with the views of sins and virtues. Because of the freedom to believe in whatever religion or ideas people in society would like, these would create major differences with the times of Chaucer who had stricter laws and if not followed, would bring disrespect to the individual. The readers can tell Chaucer’s views through the prologue to his famous unfinished writing, “Canterbury Tales”. As Chaucer introduces and describes each of the pilgrims, it is noticed that in describing each character, they are either described mostly with their sins or just their virtues. One example of this is the description of some of the clergy members, including the friar, the monk, and the nun. During this time, the clergy most of the time took advantage of the lower estates, so many people in the society, like Chaucer had mostly bad opinions of them. If any pilgrim had a sin, nothing was spoke about them in a positive way and was based off that sin and additional sins. One the characters opposite of this is the knight who is only describe with his virtues. This may be because of Chaucer previous experience of being a knight, being in a lower estate than the clergy, in addition to the knight’s good nature and personality. Chaucer that because society was extremely corrupted (especially clergy), many people were out of place and not in the right estate meant for them. He realized all were guilty of something and no one was innocent and pure. This differentiates from the modern society, where everyone is much more accepting, unless it includes crimes, etc. People in the community now are able to express their uniqueness and individuality because of the freedom given to them to do so.
Are we born inherently good or evil or rather the environment which we live in shape our characteristics and flaws? Modern day society believes that our character is a combination of both ideas. While people are born with innate biological factors and genetic inheritance that influence their behavior, the environmental situation which they live and grow in play a part in their behavioral traits. Chaucer reveals his stance on this topic as he describes the characters in his stories, The Canterbury Tales. In the Prologue of The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer introduces 29 characters embarking on a journey to Saint Thomas Becket’s shrine in Canterbury. The characters presented by Chaucer are from various backgrounds and display varying personalities, sins, and virtues. While Chaucer describes capable and truthful characters, such as the Knight, the predominance of immoral and corrupt characters show the criticism Chaucer has towards the catholic church and the medieval society. Characters, such as the Friar, display sinful characteristics that are abnormal for their supposed roles and jobs. Chaucer’s negative outlook of the nature of man exhibit the viewpoint that man is inherently born either good or evil. Chaucer created these characters in the image of the members of the clergy who act immorally against the standards of their job. The Friar in the Prologue demonstrates this contrast as Chaucer portrays him as an immoral being who manipulates the poor, despite his job to aid the homeless and less fortunate. This outward perspective of humanity frames the basis of the idea of human nature being sinful. In comparison, the characters of the Knight and Student Scholar show characteristics of humility and kindness that compliment their “good” nature. Chaucer sees human beings to be either good or evil and no in-between “gray areas” as seen through the contrasting characters of The Canterbury Tales.
ReplyDeleteInitially, it would seem that Chaucer sees each character to be “evil” in one way or another with no room for positive attributes. However, the way he describes the Knight is completely positive, and indicates no negative qualities could ever exist alongside this character. After looking at the seven characters that have already been discussed, I can infer that Chaucer agrees with the article in the sense that all “human beings are intrinsically good by corruptible by the forces of evil”. By the way each character is described, it would appear that six out of seven of the characters showcase numerous sins, however, some do portray virtues that lead me to believe that Chaucer sees that the outcome of an individual is based on their environment and inherited ideas. Each character in the prologue is aware of their duties in society and aware of their rank. They are also aware of the ranks of other characters. The knight is shown to be “a true, a perfect gentle-knight (74)” depicting that he is happy with his position and aspires to be the best that he can at his position. The Yeoman, Nun, and Monk all parade the usual attributes of the societal class they would hope to be a part of. The way Chaucer describes these three characters shows the deep jealousy each possesses. The idea of envy in human nature is one that I believe to be a learned trait that is based upon the environment of each individual and how they were brought up to view the world. The descriptions of these three characters alone lead the reader to believe they are of a differing social class than what is actually true. This desire to be different has to be a trait learned from a young age by current members of one’s life and the surroundings they are brought up in. Because of the time period, each character has little choice on where they will land in society, however they still know the glories of higher positions and in knowing this one can choose to either aspire to be something they are not and to “counterfeit a courtly kind of grace” (143) or, like the knight, be the best at the job you are put into. The message of corruption in society during the time of The Canterbury Tales would not be translated as well if Chaucer simply describes each character as evil, sinful human beings or perfect and only good. The message is far better conveyed through the witty descriptions of what each character longs to be or how and why each character acts the opposite of how they should. The Squire, Friar, and Merchant all possess sinful personal ideas, each ranging in severity. This counteracts the idea once again the there is no “grey space” between good and evil. The Squire deciding not to follow in his father’s footsteps and enjoy fooling around in the dark hours, cannot be compared to the sinful and incomprehensible acts of the Merchant. The idea that there are only the two extremes, good and evil, and each person fits only into one of these extremes is, in my opinion, not what Chaucer was trying to portray. He was trying to show the faults of each character and how evil and defiant nature can go hand in hand with simply wanting to be different than how you are or experimenting with new things. And while characters like the Merchant could fit this “evil” extreme in some sense, saying that his actions are the equivalent to the actions of the Squire would not be just. To conclude, the different descriptions given for each character do depict some sinful nature in six of the seven individuals we have seen so far, but these ideas have likely been learned or desired because of an outside force, and not because of a fault in the human design.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the prologue, Chaucer provides crucial information about the characters in the tale. By noticing that there are only four virtuous pilgrims out of twenty-nine, one may assume that Chaucer wrote this story to highlight the flaws in these sinful characters. However, he does leave space for possible changes in the lifestyle by these people. For example, though he described the squire are principally sinful, he does say as an afterthought that he was obedient and respectful of his father. Therefore, even when describing sins of various characters, Chaucer still believes in the presence of good alongside with evil. Another example of such figures is the nun, while we may think of the nun as disserving humanity by feeding animals people's food, Chaucer highlights that then nun still has the potential of kindness, even if it's towards the improper species.
ReplyDeleteAlso considering that Chaucer wrote this tale to promote change in society, it is evident that despite the flaws in his world, he still believes in the possibility of change. Moreover, by noticing that the descriptions of more sinful characters are longer than those of less sinful ones, Chaucer's belief in society is highlighted. This is evident as a person who believed in the inherent evil present in people would seek to describe the evil in a brief manner. Moreover, his use of verbal irony emphasizes that he wasn't imposing his ideas on anyone, but rather allowing people to reason things for themselves.
Lastly, we may notice that most characters are envious of something. Rather than slothfulness, or gluttony envy is more of an acquired feeling, which hints to the idea that there may have been an external influence leading to the developments of these characters. Thus there seems to be an overlap between Chaucer and Edward O. Wilson's beliefs towards society. As seen in Brave New World, corruption was inevitable, and Chaucer realized this idea too. However, with his belief in the co-existence of good and evil in humanity, he sought to reduce this corruption, and purify people of their sins.
I believe Chaucer would agree with the fact that people can be both good and evil. Not many things in life as a whole can be plain black and white, such as the characters in Canterbury Tales. Even though he focuses heavily on the true bad and the true good people in the Canterbury tales, I think he agrees with Wilson in the fact that people can be a mix of both. I think Chaucer realizes people can be a mix of the two personality traits, not 50-50 good and bad, and not 100% either. I notice he ups the ante on the extreme bad traits and good traits of the characters such as the knight and the nun in the prologue of the novel, but I think he only does this for dramatic effect and to get a more powerful message across. As an author, I think he wants his characters to show one sole intention rather than a mix of both. Although as a person I think he truly does understand people have the ability to be a blend of both, no matter how unbalanced they can be.
ReplyDeleteWe have met quite a few characters in the prologue so far and I feel most have been black or white in that Chaucer defines them as good or bad. In the prologue I could only think of the nun who isn’t necessarily a bad person, but she is defined in the “bad” category. Of people that are in the “grey” category or neither good or bad the nun fits in here. I feel she fits because she is not necessarily a “good” nun because she neglects her duties. This consists of catering to to animals instead of the poor, not living a simple and modest life, longing to be part of the nobility, and living the lavish lifestyle that they do.Another character I could think of who would fall into the grey category as we see it would be the squire. Although I believe that people don’t have to be generally good or bad I think Chaucer believes in the black and white analogy. The squire is at a crossroads in his life where he is deciding to follow his dad a fill the big shoes of being a successful life with honesty or to map out his own way with doubtful moral integrity. As to my thoughts about Chaucer and his opinion I feel that he makes a point for us to notice either the really good things that the characters are doing and the really bad things. From what I have read so far Chaucer hasn’t written about a character that is neither doing something bad nor good. The reason why I the nun and squire could be “grey” is because Chaucer writes them as being bad. The squire has the potential to be good the squire could be if he could choose to turn around. The reason why Chaucer wouldn’t agree with Wilson is that Chaucer chooses to highlight the certain behaviors of the characters and doesn’t write about their general personalities. Chaucer who is living in the fourteenth century where people are judged on their appearances and clothing are generally defined as either having dubious moral integrity by the color of their necks and the shapes of their brows. People are separated into categories and the lines are not blurred. Chaucer I think agrees with societies opinion on the sorting of humanity and viewing them through a rose colored glass of either good or bad.
ReplyDeleteAnnika D