ipl-logo

Character Analysis: The Canterbury Tales

388 Words2 Pages

The Canterbury Tales The narrator of The Canterbury Tales characterizes several religious figures as deeply hypocritical. Three characters that are the most hypocritical are the pardoner, the monk, and the nun. The first character that is hypocritical is the pardoner. The pardoner is characterized as hypocritical because he tells a tale about greed being a horrible thing, but he is a greedy person warning other about the evils of being greedy. The pardoner states, “What! Do you think, as long as I can preach/ And get their silver for the things I teach./ (ln. 57-58). The pardoner is showing that he only cares about himself and is just trying to convince people to buy pardons. The pardoner ultimately wants the people to feel guilty about …show more content…

The monk is classified as hypocritical because he is the complete opposite of what he is supposed to be. The monk says, “Many a dainty horse he had in stable./ His bridle, when he rode, a man might hear/ (ln. 172-173). This shows that the monk is only concerned about is money and it also shows that he is not a quiet person like he should be. A monk is not supposed to care for money and is supposed to remain silent. However throughout The Canterbury Tales he proves to only care about money and he does not remain silent. The last character that is hypocritical is the nun. The nun is characterized as a hypocritical character because she also acts the complete opposite of what she should. The narrator states,”But she could carry a morsel up and keep/ The smallest drop from falling on her breast” (ln. 134-135). This shows how the nun tends to flirt with men and also wears clothes that are revealing. A nun is usually always wears clothes that cover their body and they are usually independent and aren’t looking for men. There are many characters that are revealed throughout The Canterbury Tales, but there are three character that stand out because of their hypocrisy. Those character are the pardoner, the monk, and the

Open Document