Chaucer And The Canterbury Tales English Literature Essay

Chaucer And The Canterbury Tales English Literature Essay In reading Geoffrey Chaucer’s most dramatic gallery of portraits in The General Prologue of his most renowned work, The Canterbury Tales, one understands why he is deemed the Father of the English Literary Canon. Chaucer, unlike no one of his time, set out to tell fresh and amusing tales simply to entertain fourteenth century England. The Canterbury Tales tells the tale of twenty-nine pilgrims who meet by chance at the Tabard Inn in Southwark right outside of London. These diverse, yet colorful pilgrims are on their way to visit the shrine of the martyr St. Thomas Becket at the Canterbury cathedral. At the urging of the innkeeper, then turned host they each agree to tell two tales each, one going to Canterbury and one returning. The Canterbury Tales is arranged like a framework, and are meant to the reveal the life of fourteenth century England through the embellished, but classic characters as well as glimpse into Chaucer’s own personal history. Chaucer was born in 13 40 a son of a wealthy London merchant. Like most well to do young boys, he became a page in a noble household. In Chaucer’s case, he became page to the Countess of Ulster, daughter-in-law of King Edward III. This is where Chaucer would have been educated in the values of the aristocratic culture of the time, including its literary tastes which were probably based on French models. While participating in the king’s military expedition against the French, he was captured and ransomed by the king. He became a squire in the king’s household, which required him to take diplomatic voyages abroad. These journeys brought him to Italy. Italy would have a strong influence on his later literary work as he was strongly influenced by Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio. He became Controller of the Customs of Hides, Skins and Wools in the port of London, which meant that he was a government official who worked with cloth importers. Chaucer’s experience overseeing imported c loths might be why he could describe his characters so precisely and vividly. After his return to London, he held numerous positions in government, including being a member of Parliament. So, we can see through looking at Chaucer’s history that he gained inspiration for his characters in The Canterbury Tales through his life and work experiences. Chaucer’s intense realism of his characters was virtually unknown to readers in the fourteenth century. He was able to bring people from many walks of life together in the General Prologue of The Canterbury Tales. The pilgrims represent a diverse cross section of fourteenth century English society, a portrait of the nation as a whole. Medieval social theory divided society into three broad classes, called â€Å"estates.† There was the military estate who ruled the clergy, who prayed, and the laity estate who worked. Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales is an estate satire, which means that it was a critical commentary on the members of each estate. The Knight and Squire represent the military estate. The clergy estate is represented by the Prioress, her Secretary Nun, Priest, the Monk, the Friar, and the Parson. The other characters, such as the Merchant and Skipper are members of the laity. Chaucer’s descriptions of the various characters and their social roles reveal the influence of the medieval genre of estates satire.

Critical Thinking English- A New Earth Chapters One to Ten Essay

Critical Thinking English- A New Earth Chapters One to Ten - Essay Example These emotions are therefore borne out of our reaction to things, and thus, these emotions can be evil. Nevertheless, from Tolle’s book and from this class, one learns that nonreaction is the more spiritual way and that it can be learned only through the view that change is inevitable. From Chapter 3, I particularly like: â€Å"Nonreaction is not weakness but strength. Another word for nonreaction is forgiveness. To forgive is to overlook, or rather to look through†¦the ego to the sanity that is in every human being as his or her essence† (Tolle 41). Oftentimes, when I react to my boyfriend’s comments or to how he behaves, I would normally react with tantrums. However, after that, I somehow realize that I have acted in a stupid way or that something was not right and that no matter how valid the emotion was, it did not seem to be helping the relationship. Afterwards, I would also feel selfish and thus apologize to my boyfriend for my reaction no matter how m uch I did not want to apologize. Before I became a part of this class and before I read Tolle, I thought long and hard about how to appropriately react to the many different hurts that I expect I would get from my boyfriend or from the relationship itself. Little did I know that the flaw was not in the method of reacting to the hurt or to the situation but it is in the whole concept of reaction itself. I believe people, especially I, would normally react to situations because they do not understand the spiritual principle about nonreaction. True strength, according to Tolle, is not reaction but nonreaction. Moreover, nonreaction happens in us when we see only the ego of another person and not his essence. When we begin to see the essence, we forgive almost automatically and we lose the natural tendency to react. In my case, I particularly like the quote from Tolle not because I follow it but because this is something I still have to go through. Ever since we were young, we were alwa ys told to react, and everything that we have learned is based on the idea of human emotion – that certain things can trigger specific emotions in a human being. Somehow, this concept indirectly also teaches us that we are at the mercy of our emotions, and that we cannot do anything except react. Our society has also taught us to react to political matters as well as anything else that happens in the world of fashion, in the news, and even in science and technology, where our emotions do not actually matter or where our emotions would somehow make us feel justified, recognized and vindicated. Our religions have also taught us the same feeling of being vindicated when we have proven others wrong and ourselves morally right and upright. This is true in my case. I feel the vindication whenever I shout at my boyfriend after he does something I did not particularly like. It is the time that I feel I am right, and I feel I am superior and lofty, and most of all – right. Neve rtheless, as long as we rely on our emotions to vindicate us, we will forever react to things around us and we will forever be subject to sorrow and suffering. The key therefore is change. If we are to experience strength from nonreaction, then we have to free ourselves from our emotions, and therefore we have to change. From Chapter 8, the line that appeals to me is: â€Å"Once you see and accept the transience of all things and the inevitability of change, you can enjoy the

Liability of Employers and Occupiers Case Study

Liability of Employers and Occupiers - Case Study Example To see how the law of tort applies and operates, this essay takes up three test cases brought against Sports Ltd., which owns and operates a sports and physical fitness complex. All three cases suggest that Sports Ltd. caused them harm by violating the tort of negligence, the biggest category of tort because it endangers many besides the chance victim and is considered both a public and private wrong. At first glance, Sports Ltd. may be guilty of negligence because management knew that its central heating system in the boiler room that scalded Sally in a bad way was defective and potentially dangerous but the establishment did nothing about it except warn its employees about the risk. This is the essence of the Occupier's Liability Act (OLA) in UK, a statutory tort that applies to health and safety regulations across the workplace (Honore, 1995). OLA provides that "any person such as a shop owner who admits people into his premises owes a minimum duty of care to protect these people's safety (Metaphysics Research Lab, 2003)." A closer look at this particular case, however, will show that Sally shares the blame for the accident that happened to her. The college girl gained entry to the sports complex through the backdoor, which leads into the boiler room, to avoid paying for a ticket at the regular entrance. In Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1988), Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd. (1985), and Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989), liability for the tort of negligence can only occur when the supposed damage can be reasonably foreseen. In other words, the defendant failed to do what a reasonable person would do in the situation presented (Green, 1960). On the scalding sustained by Sally, Sports Ltd. can defend itself against a tort claim by pointing out that its management could not have foreseen such an accident to happen to any guest. The establishment can invoke the principles of volenti non fit injuria (a willing victim cannot claim for damage), contributory negligence, and ex turpi cause non oritur (no right of action arises from a despicable cause), the three standard defenses against a tort claim (Fletcher, 1972). From the evidence, Sally is culpable on all three counts because she consented to the risk of damage by using an entrance that is off-limits to th e public, which action amounts to contributory negligence and "despicable" cause. The action is despicable in the sense that it is wrong and deprives Sports Ltd. of revenue generated from ticket sales. Case 2 - Ashraf In the case of Ashraf, Sports Ltd. can use the same line of defense. Like Sally, Ashraf virtually consented to the risk of damage to his person by insisting on using the corridor on his way to the gym notwithstanding a sign put up by the cleaning woman Maria that says: "Cleaning in Progress: Use Alternative Route." Ashraf as an exclusive member of the exercise club knew a side entrance that could be used as alternative route but he was in a hurry so he risked the corridor and was thus culpable of contributory negligence. The tort law, according to Hocking & Smith (1996), is all about dissecting all possibilities in a case to