Chaucer continues with this imagery of the Monk’s supposed allegiance to the (scrupulous) Church being lacking. Chaucer tells us that this monk is the owner of a fine horse and when he is riding passers-by can hear the chapel bells and the bells on the horse’s ‘bridel’ equally loudly, yet the Monk is infatuated with his hunting and is oblivious to the ‘chapel belle’ which calls him to prayer.
Chaucer proceeds to condemn the Monk for his disdainful negligence to his duty. However the Monk attempts to defend himself, saying that the ‘reule of Seint Maure and Seint Beneit’ is outdated and overly austere. This monk instead believed in leaving the traditional Benedictine Rule behind and disregarding the bible (‘He yaf nat of that text a pulled hen’ – line 177). The Monk, who I trying to justify his actions is in fact hypocritical, saying that ‘a monk out of his cloistre’ is not like a ‘fissh that is waterlees’; the irony being that that is exactly what this neglectful monk resembles, he is directly contradicting the idea of monastic life.
Chaucer himself appears to support the Monk’s view, though one can see that this is merely a charade, ironically shielding his view. Chaucer does in fact make a joke at the Monk’s expense, whilst he seems to give a supportive audience to the Monk’s perspective. Chaucer ironically continues the Monk’s farcical justification, using a rhetorical question to ask why the Monk should have to ‘studie and make himselven wood (mad)’, or slave away in the ‘cloistre’ labour all day as Augustine did. Then Chaucer says that if this is the case, then ‘How shal the world be served?’ this could be the Monk asking what a state the world would be in if this was all monks did; “how could the monks effectively serve the world from the ‘cloistre’?” On the other hand it could be Chaucer asking what a condition the world would be in if all monks took the Monk’s perspective. The striking fact is that the Monk appears to completely miss the point of living a life in an isolated monastery, where rather than serving ‘the world’ he can in fact perform his true duty, serving God.
The Monk says ‘Let Austin have his swink to him reserved!’ asking for Augustine to do his own work, his justification for his abandonment of monastic life. The hunting imagery returns as we hear of the Monk’s ‘Greyhoundes’, clearly a sign of wealth and once more a defiance of his monastic vows. However this time we also hear of the Monk’s sexual interests; in hunting hare (‘priking’) the Monk is hunting an animal renowned for its extremely prolific breeding. This is an image of sexual indulgence and hints once more at the fact that perhaps the Monk is not only decadent, fairly affluent and negligent to the Church, but he is also not chaste.
Chaucer continues his criticism of the Monk as the portrait goes on, saying that the Monk is obsessed with hunting and that he wouldn’t give it up for anything in the world (‘for no cost wolde he spare’ – line 192). Chaucer explains how he can see the Monk’s clothing, the sleeves trimmed with fur, this is also coupled with a ‘love-knotte’ of gold, a medallion, hanging beneath his chin. Firstly these two things suggest that the Monk is anything but living a life of poverty. Secondly the fur-trimmed cloak is entirely contradictory to the Rule of Saint Benedict and so the monk is once more showing his lack of loyalty to the Church. Lastly, the expensive, ornate love token pendant that hangs around his neck is both extravagant and also suggests once more that the Monk is not obeying his monastic vows.
Chaucer goes on to show how well nourished the Monk was, is round, healthy face and then Chaucer uses irony as he describes the Monk’s face as though it ‘hadde been enoint’, commenting on both the shiny, well-fed face and also the fact that it appeared to have been anointed in holy oil. This could also be Chaucer acknowledging the joie de vivre and cheerfulness of the Monk who is earlier described as a ‘manly man’.
This man was not ‘pale as a forpined goost’; rather his favourite roast meal was ‘a fat swan’ (expensive food, another sign of lack of obedience to ‘poverty’). Chaucer brings the portrait to a close by describing the Monk’s horse as being ‘broun’, a sign of good health, this encapsulates the entire portrait as being both a mark of prosperity, but the horse is also in good health like his owner, this summarizes the whole immorality and negligence of duty.
The second character is the Friar; whom, like the Monk does Chaucer attack for his misuse of power, his manipulation of the vulnerable and his sexual promiscuity. Chaucer opens the portrait by getting to the point, saying that the Friar was ‘wantowne and a merie’, automatically targeting the disordered behaviour and frivolous nature of the Friar. Chaucer attacks him, saying that there is no friar in any of the four religious orders that can speak in such an obsequious nature (‘so muchel of daliaunce and fair langage’ – line 211).
Chaucer immediately exposes the Friars sexual promiscuity, depicting how he used to exploit young girls, by seducing them and then paying them off in marriage. This is immediately followed by the Friar being described as being ‘Unto his ordre he was a noble post’ this is Chaucer ironically saying that in being an honoured member, the order itself must be deeply rooted in this sexual promiscuity. Also Chaucer’s use of the word ‘noble’, which is used frequently throughout The General Prologue, is for ironic effect, making the Friar appear at first honourable and initially shrouding his immorality from the reader.
This friar keeps company with ‘frankleyns’ and, showing his corruption and his
