Chaucer is pretty well known in the English subject and Canterbury Tales is one of the most popular collection of stories. Though most are too inappropriate to read for high school students and you’re only able to really read only two of the tales he had wrote, there is a strong meaning behind the two. Chaucer is trying to point out all the negative things to the people of his time that certain things are doing, like the church, how men are superior to women, or class and nobility issues. Though this isn’t much of an issue nowadays, back in Chaucer’s time, these were pretty big issues to address and it was brave of him to point these problems out to everyone whether or not they liked it. Both The Pardoner's Tale and The Wife of Bath’s Tale
…show more content…
He pointed out how the priest of the church would use people and take their money because they were gullible at the time and would pretty much believe everything. The pardoner clearly pointed out how he would trick people into giving him their money and how he would take their sins away for however much money and knowing that they were pretty poor on top of it. Just like the pardoner said in the prologue, “And never do an honest job of work” he clearly is pointing out how he is only tricking the people and acting like everything they do is a sin just to get money out of them. Chaucer was basically point out how some people of the church are dishonest and cannot be trusted with certain things because all they want is money from the people who attend the …show more content…
This is still a bit of an issue nowadays but back then, it was worse, a worse. If a family was poor, they were automatically treated like crap and disrespected but if a family was rich, everyone treated them with respect. Chaucer didn’t agree with this because he thought everyone should be treated equally rich or poor, no one should be treated less because of the amount of money they have. If there was a “chain” that showed the different levels, knights/royal families were at the top of the chain, then it would be middle class and men, and at the very bottom it would be women and poor families. Basically in the end everyone was human and everyone deserved to be treated the same and have the same rights as others
He pointed out how the priest of the church would use people and take their money because they were gullible at the time and would pretty much believe everything. The pardoner clearly pointed out how he would trick people into giving him their money and how he would take their sins away for however much money and knowing that they were pretty poor on top of it. Just like the pardoner said in the prologue, “And never do an honest job of work” he clearly is pointing out how he is only tricking the people and acting like everything they do is a sin just to get money out of them. Chaucer was basically point out how some people of the church are dishonest and cannot be trusted with certain things because all they want is money from the people who attend the …show more content…
This is still a bit of an issue nowadays but back then, it was worse, a worse. If a family was poor, they were automatically treated like crap and disrespected but if a family was rich, everyone treated them with respect. Chaucer didn’t agree with this because he thought everyone should be treated equally rich or poor, no one should be treated less because of the amount of money they have. If there was a “chain” that showed the different levels, knights/royal families were at the top of the chain, then it would be middle class and men, and at the very bottom it would be women and poor families. Basically in the end everyone was human and everyone deserved to be treated the same and have the same rights as others