"He knew the tavernes wel in every toun
And everich hostiler and tappestere
Bet than a lazar or a beggestere;
For unto swich a worthy man as he
Acorded nat, as by his facultee,
To have with sike lazars aqueyntaunce.
It is nat honest, it may nat avaunce,
For to deelen with no swich poraille,
But al with riche and selleres of vitaille.
And over al, ther as profit sholde arise,
Curteis he was and lowely of servyse.
Ther nas no man nowher so vertuous.
He was the beste beggere in his hous" (lines 240 - 252)

Here, in the Canterbury Tales, Chaucer is describing the Friar, who is sadly lacking in the charity and piety department. Are we surprised? We really shouldn't be at this point.

See, friars are members of the clergy who were supposed to live according to a strict set of rules. They usually took vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity—absolutely no hanky panky for them, Shmoopers. But they were supposed to go out into the world and preach to people.

And because they took vows of poverty, they begged for a living. Which some people don't consider very righteous. But that's just what friars did. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Apparently Beggars Can Be Choosers

Why is it such a big deal that the Friar likes to hang out in taverns? Why should we care that he's chummy with innkeepers and barmaids ("hostiler[s] and tappestere[s]"), instead of lepers or women beggars ("lazar[s]" and "beggestere[s]")? Remember what friars are supposed to do: circulate among the common folk to preach. To bring spiritual comfort to them.

Chaucer's friar doesn't give a fig about the poor and sick. His whole attitude is basically, "What's in it for me?" Which is essentially the least friar-like attitude one can have.

The Friar of our passage sees "profit" in associating with the "riche and selleres of vitaille" (sellers of food). There goes that vow of poverty. Certainly, friars are not supposed to be concerned with making a quick buck. And they're are supposed to live a frugal life; the last things they should be worrying about are fine foods and beer.

To make matters worse, this friar also thinks pretty highly of himself: "swich a worthy man as he." Worthy. Right.

In short, the Friar is a total hypocrite. He's not even making a pretense of living a truly friar-ly lifestyle. So his character is one example of how Chaucer loves to critique the rampant corruption of the medieval Church.

You go, boy.

Chaucerian Irony

Despite his many, many faults, Chaucer the narrator maintains that the Friar is "[c]urteis" and "lowely of servyse." That assessment really doesn't square with the snotty attitude the Friar exhibits. And despite what the Friar has told Chaucer about his dealings, Chaucer still informs us that "nas no man nowher so vertuous" (there was no man anywhere so virtuous) as the Friar.

Plus, the Friar is the best beggar ever. Sure—begging all the way to the bank.

So, what in the world is going on here? Is Chaucer the narrator just not so quick on the uptake? Does he fall for the Friar's games? Why does he seem to not understand that the Friar is a contemptible character who exhibits the worst sort of hypocrisy?

Because seeming like he doesn't understand the Friar's idiocy is actually the best way of getting his point across, Shmoopers. Chaucer's critique of the Church's corruption is ever more powerful by virtue of the ironic distance he builds between the narrator's voice and his own (his authorial voice).

By using a fictional version of himself as his mouthpiece, Chaucer the author is able to emphasize his disdain for the Church's hypocrisy all the more. Nicely played, Chaucer. Hats off to you.