Summary and Analysis of The Summoner's Tale (The Canterbury Tales) Prologue to the Summoner's Tale: The Summoner was enraged by the tale that the Friar told. He claims in response to the Friar that friars and fiends are one and the same. He tells that a friar once was brought to hell by an angel and remarked that he saw no friars there. However, Satan lifted his tail and thousands of friars came out from his ass and swarmed around hell. Analysis The Summoner becomes insane with anger upon hearing the Friar's Tale, which, although it was told with great vitriol against summoners, had a measured manner and refrained from personal attacks. Where the Friar was intensely contemptuous yet civil, the Summoner becomes a brutish and ill-tempered barbarian. Rather than combating the image that Friar's Tale had given of his profession, the Summoner confirms the worst about the low qualities of his kind. The Summoner's Tale: A friar went to preach and beg in a marshy region of Yorkshire called Holderness. In his sermons he begged for donations for the church and afterward he begged for charity from the local residents. He went to the house of Thomas, a local resident who normally indulged him, and found him ill. The friar speaks of the sermon he gave and essentially orders a meal from Thomas's wife. She tells the friar that her child died not more than two weeks before. The friar claimed that he had a revelation that her child had died and entered heaven. He claims that his fellow friars had a similar vision, for they are more privy to God's messages than laymen, who live richly on earth, as compared to richly spiritually. He speaks about how, among the clergy, only friars remain impoverished and thus close to God, and tells Thomas that his illness persists because he has given so little to the church. When Thomas remarks that his wife is angry, the friar launches into a tirade about the ill effects of ire in men of high degree. He tells the tale of an angry king who sentenced a knight to death because he returned without his partner and automatically assumed that he had murdered him. When a third knight lead the condemned knight to his death, they found the knight that he had supposedly murdered. When the third knight returned to the king to have the sentenced reversed, the king sentenced all three to death: the first because he had originally declared it so, the second because he was the cause of the first's death, and the third because he did not obey the king.
After years of loneliness and misery, Marcher realizes what he had been oblivious to and, ultimately, everything he had lost, most importantly, the love he had lost. “This horror of waking—this was knowledge, knowledge under the breath of which the very tears in his eyes seemed to freeze” (1177). He could have escaped his fate of nothingness and loneliness, “The escape would have been to love her; then, then he would have lived” (1176). Marcher’s punishment for being so selfish and self-absorbed was that “he had been the man of his time, the man, to whom nothing on earth was to have happened” (1176). This was the story of a man whose ego was the “beast” in the “jungle” of
Friar, to satirize the idea of charity and show that they are using charity for
to the church to confess or seek help, so the Friar was the person who
Fundamentalism can be widely defined as the utmost strict obedience towards distinct religious policies and guidelines which is usually understood as a reaction against Modernist Theology. It is also known to be associated with a forceful attack on outside threats to their own religious culture and beliefs. (George M. Marsden. 1980.) Fundamentalism first began as a movement in the United States in the late 19th century, early 20th century. It originally started within American Protestantism as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Soon after it spread to other religions generating quite a large following, including some fallen away Catholics. The term fundamentalism derives a religious affiliation in coherence to a set of very complex beliefs. Fundamentalists argued that many modern theologians had misinterpreted certain doctrines and stressed the infallibility of the bible. They selectively choose what they are against and what they accept in modern culture. What started out as a refined organisation quickly grew and spread throughout the use of media, press and academia. Nowadays there not only exists Protestant Fundamentalists but Islamic Fundamentalists, Buddhist Fundamentalists, Hindu Fundamentalists and many more from various religions and creeds.
The jury in a trial is selected to examine certain facts and determine truth based only upon the evidence presented to them in court. It is assumed that the jurors will judge fairly and without any personal bias. In spite of this assumption people will be people and in some cases, logic and emotion will collide. An excellent example that shows precisely what I’m talking about is in the movie Twelve Angry Men. Twelve men who initially are strangers to each other have the fate of a young boy resting in the palm of their hands. In the beginning everyone is convinced he is guilty except one who has one reasonable doubt in his mind. The single man on his own was able to convince each of them by using logic to examine the testimony of each witness. After a few hours of reasoning the jurors were eventually won over allowing the facts to overcome their personal issues. During the arguments in the jury room the issues of race, age, social class, personal experience and stereo types are discussed a number of times. I presume it is because those are the personal issues that people have and sometimes that is what they base their judgment on. When you are in a jury you have the responsibility of setting all of that aside. Through the reasoning of the not-guilty voters the guilty voters are slowly realizing that despite their passed and personal reasons they have to take into consideration the more important actual events that occurred. Part of the problem the jurors are...
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
Frances W. Kaye suggests that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is an essential milestone in American literature. This powerful novel is structured around slavery and racism. Removing those elements from the novel serves to change the story itself thereby eliminating its effect. The novel wouldn’t be the novel that it is (1 of 21). Frances W. Kaye discusses the continuing significance of Huckleberry Finn, it emphasizes that the book marks over racism in the white society. She tells the reader that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is beautiful, cruel and is indecisive. The novel is the bondage of two people and their fight for someone’s freedom. She points out that readers must read carefully because this was written his Twain’s time and the language was different. She tells us that “nigger” was meant for black people back then so she has quoted us what Huck said in the novel “Good gracious! Anybody hurt?” “No’m. Killed a nigger”. “Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt. (Chapter 32)1 Frances W. Kaye tells us that if Twain opinion of slavery ends up being surprising, she believes that Twain opinion o...
Why aren’t jurors, the people who can potentially decide whether a person lives or dies, properly trained in the field of law? Despite the conviction that the United States judicial system is impartial and unblemished, juries thwart this assumption from becoming an actuality, thus making courts inadequate to generate a proper verdict. A fair trial entails unbiased and erudite jurors that establish an adjudication based solely on evidence, yet run of the mill citizens can have predisposed prejudices forged upon the grounds of race. Moreover, with the germination of many technological advancements, biases are conceived from illicit research conducted by jurors in the deliberation room, which perpetuates the notion that trials are becoming
How do we know that every time we go into the courtroom for a crime that we have committed we are going to receive a fair trial? How are we supposed to know that each person in there will not already have an opinion? Over the years there have been many different court cases that were decided on what color you were. An example of this is, a white man was a juror in a black man’s case where he killed his wife and his kids, he said that since the man was black he wanted to give him the death penalty. Is this the type of person you would want in your jurors, already having an opinion before you even begin? This is constantly happening all over the United States in court rooms. No matter what happens though people will always have an opinion no matter what. There is no way to change that. What we can change though is having people on the jury that understand what you have been through. This is one of the biggest problems when it comes to court rooms. We need to make sure everyone is given a fair trial, no matter what the circumstance are, and what the ruling could be.
The jury system is a good thing in the United States.In the United States there are many civil and criminal cases that happen every year. Back in 2010, there was about 361,323 actual cases filed, and about 20,000 bench and jury trials.( Doc A) The jury system is a good thing because about ⅓ of the bench cases, the actual defendant was convicted. Also in the jury trials, more than 85 percent of the criminals were convicted. Although these are good statistics, there are a lot of situations where innocent people were convicted of crimes where the didn’t do anything, and there are moments where the actual jury members are bias. So the jury system is a good thing but there are
Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization established in Peshawar, Pakistan, between 1988 or 1989 by Osama bin laden and his teacher Abullah Yusuf Azzam. Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist network that considered the top terrorist threat to the United States. Al Qaeda is seeking to get rid of all westerns from Muslims territory and replace their own Islamic regime. They are a group of people who work to gather to plan act of terrorism against Muslim and non Muslim especially United State. Al Qaeda believes that they are fighting a holy war against enemy of their religion. People from many countries have joined this group including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Britain. This paper is going to present a brief historical background of Al Qaeda that how it emerged with their ideology, view, believe, and goals they have and also it presents the Activities which this group has been done before and after the very massive attack they had in US in September 11, 2001 and the international responses to this act of violence. Finally this paper will end up with comparing this Organization (Al Qaeda) with Reverend Mike Bray the Christian terrorist.
History is often constructed from stories that were passed down by word of mouth and those that were put to record. When stories are shared by word of mouth the human mind has the ability to exaggerate the truth and the lines between fact and fiction can become blurred. Most of this exaggeration comes from the human nature to try and manipulate the truth to benefit oneself. The Strange Story of Thomas of Elderfield is a perfect example of what verbal passing of a story can do. I will first give a short synopsis of the story, then I will explain why this story was of great enough significance to document and finally I will explain what a person of the time would most likely take from this tale.
Summary and Analysis of The Nun's Priest's Tale (The Canterbury Tales) Prologue to the Nun's Priest's Tale: The Knight interrupts the Monk's Tale, for as a man who has reached a certain estate, he does not like to hear tales of a man's fall from grace. He would rather hear of men who rise in esteem and status. The Host refuses to allow the Monk to continue, instead telling the Nun's Priest to tell his tale. The Nun's Priest's Tale: The Nun's Priest tells a tale of an old woman who had a small farm in which she kept animals, including a rooster named Chanticleer who was peerless in his crowing. Chanticleer had seven hens as his companions, the most honored of which was Pertelote.
The monk receives some scathing sarcasm in Chaucer’s judgment of his new world ways and the garments he wears “With fur of grey, the finest in the land; Also, to fasten hood beneath his chin, He had of good wrought gold a curious pin: A love-knot in the larger end there was.” (194-197, Chaucer). The Friar is described as being full of gossip and willing to accept money to absolve sins, quite the opposite of what a servant of God should be like. Chaucer further describes the friar as being a frequenter of bars and intimate in his knowledge of bar maids and nobles alike. The friar seems to be the character that Chaucer dislikes the most, he describes him as everything he should not be based on his profession. The Pardoner as well seems to draw special attention from Chaucer who describes him as a man selling falsities in the hopes of turning a profit “But with these relics, when he came upon Some simple parson, then this paragon In that one day more money stood to gain Than the poor dupe in two months could attain.” (703-706, Chaucer). Chaucer’s description of the pardoner paints the image of a somewhat “sleazy” individual “This pardoner had hair as yellow as wax, But lank it hung as does a strike of flax; In wisps hung down such locks as he 'd on head, And with them he his shoulders overspread; But thin they dropped, and stringy, one by one.” (677-681,
They are getting paid to sit there but we don’t know if they even are pay attention. In doc E, cartoon 1 it shows a picture of a jury and it shows what they all are thinking and the majority was thinking abou the trail but a handful were not thinking about it. Then they go back to vote and just say something because they didn’t even pay attention to the trail the whole time. They just sit there at act like they are listening. Why have them there and pay them if you don’t know if they are paying attention? Seems like a waste of money, time, and space. Also in doc D it shows what people think abou the trail and their opinions, one jury member is Angela and her only quote was “i can’t believe it, i’m shocked, oh my god. I can’t believe it.” this makes her seem like she wasn’t even paying that much attention because they other all have a lot to say about it and what they