Comparing The Friar And The Parson In The Canterbury Tales
Seeing is Believing
Since medieval times people have been manipulating other people using religion. In the Canterbury Tales, the author describes a Friar and a Parson who on the outside it is likely to assume have very similar morals. When the story continues, the reader discovers how corrupt the Friar truly is. It becomes obvious the Friar is only interested in the money, while the Parson works honestly for his religion.
Chaucer describes two religious characters, but one of them turns out to be a hypocrite. Chaucer emphasises this because it is a common thing that happens. People try to use things for their own selfish gain. The Friar is only concerned for himself and uses religion in order to get what he wants. The Parson really believes in his work and wants to make a difference and help people.
The Friar …show more content…
He knows his duties very well and takes them seriously “a holy-minded man of good renown… yet he was rich in holy thought and work” (487-489). He is well known for doing his job. The Parson is a“ noble example to his sheep” (506). He does his own work and nothing but the best, he lives by his work and expected nothing less. Chaucer said, “ I think there never was a better priest” (534). The Parson clearly takes his religion seriously. He never turns anyone away and is a prime example of everything taught.
In conclusion, Chaucer describes two religious people reading through The Canterbury Tales it becomes evident that things are not always just as they seem. The Friar is supposedly someone who would help people and is very religious or so they say, but he is only in it for a selfish gain. The Parson is completely opposite; he did not do it for personal reason, but because that was what he believes in. Chaucer was just someone who could see that not everyone is all that they say they are or, even does things for the right reasons, but the truth will still
Since medieval times people have been manipulating other people using religion. In the Canterbury Tales, the author describes a Friar and a Parson who on the outside it is likely to assume have very similar morals. When the story continues, the reader discovers how corrupt the Friar truly is. It becomes obvious the Friar is only interested in the money, while the Parson works honestly for his religion.
Chaucer describes two religious characters, but one of them turns out to be a hypocrite. Chaucer emphasises this because it is a common thing that happens. People try to use things for their own selfish gain. The Friar is only concerned for himself and uses religion in order to get what he wants. The Parson really believes in his work and wants to make a difference and help people.
The Friar …show more content…
He knows his duties very well and takes them seriously “a holy-minded man of good renown… yet he was rich in holy thought and work” (487-489). He is well known for doing his job. The Parson is a“ noble example to his sheep” (506). He does his own work and nothing but the best, he lives by his work and expected nothing less. Chaucer said, “ I think there never was a better priest” (534). The Parson clearly takes his religion seriously. He never turns anyone away and is a prime example of everything taught.
In conclusion, Chaucer describes two religious people reading through The Canterbury Tales it becomes evident that things are not always just as they seem. The Friar is supposedly someone who would help people and is very religious or so they say, but he is only in it for a selfish gain. The Parson is completely opposite; he did not do it for personal reason, but because that was what he believes in. Chaucer was just someone who could see that not everyone is all that they say they are or, even does things for the right reasons, but the truth will still