Muhammed Eyüp Çakir FLE140 Spring 2022

FLE 140 ASSIGNMENT 1

           Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales and William Langland’s Piers Plowman are
astonishing works of literature that reflect the time and environment they are written in, which
is the Middle Ages. As for the “Prologue”, both works have similar and distinct aspects. They
masterfully depict the corruption and the greediness of the Church and the “Holy man” by
utilizing satire in their texts. However, how they employ satire is not identical. Moreover,
several of the pilgrims of Canterbury resemble the characters in the Piers Plowman, while
there are also utterly distinct characters that are non-existing in the latter. 
           The Monk in The Canterbury Tales  and the Pardoner from Piers Plowman are
strikingly similar characters, in my opinion. The most general similarity is that both care not
about their religious doctrines. Although they are clergymen, their desires and lifestyles do
not seem so. A monk is expected to study the sacred texts and do manual labor whilst staying
at a monastery, as Saint Augustine said (line 184-187). However, he disregards the doctrines
and goes hunting instead. On top of it, he is passionate about hunting, which is forbidden for a
Holy man of the Church, as written in line 178. A pardoner, on the other hand, is supposed to
absolve people who sinned for the sake of divine purposes, but the pardoner in Piers
Plowman  absolves people only for money, which is also forbidden. His and all the
clergymen’s purpose seems to be making even more money while deceiving poor people as
can be concluded by “Asked for license and leave to live in London, And sing Masses there
for simony, for silver is sweet.” Furthermore, both the monk and the pardoner are implied to
be fat, which indicates they eat more than they should, but clergymen are supposed to be
modest. Finally, these two characters give the impression that they chose their profession to
have an easier life not because they are devoted. They might have thought that the social
status of clergymen would benefit them in their lives.
           As for the character that is different from Piers Plowman’s characters, it is the parson.
The reason why the parson is distinct from all the characters in Langland’s “Prologue” is that
he is an exemplary and decent clergyman. In Piers Plowman, it is depicted that all members
of the Church are liars, deceivers, and covetous, as can be understood throughout the lines
between 46-86. However, the parson in The Canterbury Tales is nothing like them. As
Chaucer states, he lives in poverty, but his holy thoughts are rich. He is an educated
churchman who truthfully preaches the Gospel, unlike the characters in Piers Plowman, who
interpreted the Gospel for their own well-being (line 60-61). Moreover, he strongly believes
that a priest should be an example to common folk since he thinks the priest is a shepherd and
the folk is sheep that need to be led. He believes that if the churchmen are amiss, how can we
Muhammed Eyüp Çakir FLE140 Spring 2022

expect the folk to be religiously correct? (That if gold ruste, what shal iren do?) Like a
shepherd, he cares deeply about his parisshens, the folk he is to teach. Even though he can
take a better position that is more profitable and easier for him, he does not leave his
parisshens since he does not care about money, as can be understood by “He was a shepherde
and nought a mercenarye.” All these remarkable properties make the parson stand out from
the greedy clergymen of Langland’s “Prologue”. 
            Both works of literature reflect the medieval society and its problems satirically. They
draw attention to mostly the same subjects by employing satire. Those subjects are that the
clergy is not to be trusted and the Church is corrupted. Nevertheless, how Chaucer and
Langman use satire is distinct from each other, in that Langman takes a more direct and brave
approach. His way of satire seems as though he frankly writes down what he thinks without
thinking about the consequences. For example, straight-up calling the clergy liars, as can be
seen by “In every tale they told their tongues were tuned to lie…”. On the other hand,
Geoffrey Chaucer takes a wary approach in his use of satire, and he is mostly indirect. He is
cautious since he could be punished if he had openly written what he thought. He even utilizes
a line to save himself if he was to be punished “My wit is short, ye may wel
understonde.” This wary use of satire does not mean that it is dull or unimpressive; on the
contrary, I like this better than direct satire. The subtlety of Chaucer’s indirect satire makes it
more dramatic, in my opinion. Comprehending the reference without the author pointing at it
is more preferable and exciting for me. All in all, though I appreciate Langman’s use of satire,
Chaucer’s appeal more to me. 
           In conclusion, there are resembling characters in both works, while there are also ones
particular to The Canterbury Tales. The similar characters are the monk and the pardoner, and
the distinct character is the parson. Moreover, both texts criticize medieval society by deftly
using satire. Langman does this more directly and openly; however, Chaucer’s way of satire is
indirect and subtle, which I personally prefer.