NOTE: The story that precedes this one, “The Knight’s Tale,” is a very long and somewhat long-winded tale about two ‘knights’ in ancient Greece who are taken captive and both of whom fall in love with the same woman (Emily) through a window in their prison cell. Though friends, Arcita and Palamon each become dire foes over this love, and vow to fight to the death over her. One escapes, while the other is pardoned, and both wind up fighting an elaborate duel to win her affections (no one asks Emily who she wants). Arcita defeats Palamon, but at the last second, his horse is spooked and throws him to the ground, where he breaks his neck. So Palamon gets Emily, though she makes it clear she doesn’t want either one…but that’s not an option, so she marries Palamon. What makes this story so interesting is how the Knight tells it, with long digressions and asides which often derail his story. However, the Miller finds the story boring and offensive, and tells his story in order to mock what he feels is a pretentious tale about chivalric love. He would probably feel much the same about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight!
Answer TWO of the following...
Q1: Why do you think the Miller responds to the Knight’s tale by saying “I know a noble tale I could tell you/With which right now I'll pay back the Knight's tale”? Why might a low-class listener (who to be fair, is also quite drunk) find fault in a story like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which is similar in many respects to “The Knight’s Tale”? What might he misunderstand, or simply be annoyed/offended by?
Q2: Discuss the role of Alison in “The Miller’s Tale”: is she a typically powerless woman seduced and controlled by men, or is she the actual ‘hero’ of the tale? How does the Miller—or Chaucer—want us to ‘read’ Alison, particularly in light of the Wife in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Is she another faithless ‘daughter of Eve’?
Q3: Chaucer makes an elaborate apology for this tale, writing “For the love of God, judge not what I say/as my own rude intent; I must rehearse/All of their tales, the better and the worse/Or else, my matter falsify and lose” (94). Why do you think Chaucer includes such a bawdy, low-humor tale in his collection since he could have easily cleaned it up? Do you think low comedy and sexual humor has a place in literature? Did they have different standards in the 14th century, or is Chaucer merely part of an old tradition we still take part in today?
Q4: How are the portraits of Nicholas and Absolon similar to the portraits of the gentry and the clergy that we find in “The General Prologue”? Who is each one of them most like, and how much satire do we find in their portraits? Are we supposed to root for either of them? Or are they simply subjects of mockery?
No comments:
Post a Comment