Questions for
Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales:
The Knight’s Tale, Parts One-Two (23-48)
As before, answer TWO of the following in a developed
paragraph…
1. Why do you think the Knight tells a story of “modern”
knights and chivalry in ancient Greece?
Why might someone use the past to tell of the present? How does one setting help reinforce the other?
2. At the end of Book One, Chaucer asks his audience: “Now
all you lovers, let me pose the question:/Who’s worse off, Arcita or Palamon?”
(35). Which of the two do you feel suffers more for love of Emily? In some ways, this is a very serious philosophical question, since each lover has his own unique 'hell' away from the beloved. Yet how might this also be satirical/ironic in intent?
3. Examine Thesus’s response to the lovers on Page 46: is
this a mockery of the knights' love or a defense of it? How might this be a commentary on the love story itself?
4. Discuss the manner of the Knight's narration/storytelling. How does he tell the story and what mannerisms does he seem to have? Where do we see his own personality/perspective coloring the narrative? You might consider passages such as in Part I, page 26 (my edition), "But to describe it would take all too long"...
Anna Talkington
ReplyDelete1. It seems that he is imposing his culture onto the culture of the past. If someone uses the past to tell of the present it distances the reader from critiquing the story because they will think, “maybe I don’t really know what went on back then because I wasn't there”. Also, the past filled with chivalry and knights reinforces that “things have always been this way”, that knights have always fought for the ladies. It would suggest that the knight has the “right” or traditional culture and customs because it was that way even that far back. The present is reinforced in this sense too in that it would only make sense that things are the way they are now because of the evidence of similar customs in the past.
2. I feel that Thesus is mocking the lovers. He says, “Now isn’t that the very height of folly? What bigger fool than he who is in love?” He points out that it’s not logical that the men would profess their love for Emily when she has no reason to love either of them back. The fact that neither of the men have any substantial reason to be in love with Emily (other than her beauty) leads me to believe that this isn't truly a love story. I don’t think it is meant to be read as a love story, but rather a satire of what loves/desire does to man.
My 2nd comment is in response to question 3, not question 2. My bad.
DeleteAnna
Great responses: setting it in Greece is a way to wear a mask and not simply preach his moral. It's a very old school way to tell a story, and not unlike Beowulf in many respects. I think Chaucer has fun writing a 'new' work which showcases such an 'old' format. Thus, we have to look for allegory and metaphor just as we would in Beowulf.
Delete1. The Knight wanted his story to be relatable; I believe this is why the story mixes between ancient Greece and modern times. A fiery love triangle makes for an ageless tale, so I can’t see that it was too important for his story to be true to the era in which it was told, nor the era in which he was telling it in. The saying “history repeats itself” is overused, but nevertheless true. Both ancient Greece and the England of this time valued chivalry, so that made it easy for these two worlds to collide for the Knight.
ReplyDelete2. At this point in the tale, it’s really hard for me to say who has it worse. If I had to pick my personal poison, I’d rather have been in the shoes of Palamon. I’m sure most would say Palamon actually has it worse, because he’s forced to see Emily every day, yet he can’t be with her. Maybe Arcita could move on and find another love, while Palamon is stuck in this eternal hell of a cell. But if both men truly love her and want no other woman, at least Palamon can gaze upon her beauty daily, and at this point the future for both men seems certain. Although, I feel like the Knight wants us to feel like Palamon has it worse and I think the irony of that is Palamon ends up marrying Emily.
Yes, the story is more relatable but also more allegorical; if he set it in his time, we might miss the metaphorical connections. Greece is like a fairy-tale land at this point; it suggests that everything might stand for something else. So even a story about two lovers can't be taken at face value.
DeleteElyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: I personally believe that Arcita is much worse off than Palamon at this point. At least Palamon is still able to see the woman he loves every day, even if he is behind bars! Arcita is free to go (almost) wherever he pleases, but he will never be happy because he is far from his heart's desire. Chaucer pityingly describes both of their plights. But there is the slightest mockery in his tone, behind the sympathy and the sorrowful words. It is as if he is telling the story of two children with a mutual crush, and though he understands that it's painful for them, he still knows that they will have much bigger problems later in life...and he's hiding a smirk.
Question 4: The Knight is the storyteller and nothing else - he is not actually IN the story, but is very much an onlooker. He gives us an aerial view, but does not drag us down into the action. This is different from the Prologue, where Chaucer seems to be trying to draw us in until we are among the characters. The Knight frequently interrupts himself with statements such as "I'll not get in the way of anyone" and "It is my intention to be brief." This puts us, the readers, right back into the group listening to him speak beside the campfire. But as soon as he begins his narrative again, we return to our place in the library or dorm room, simply reading a story in a book.
Great responses: this is very much a oral story, one in the old tradition, and the Knight constantly reminds us of this (comically, at times). And yes, he's being very satirical in telling us this story at all, which probably isn't his usual fare...he gets more excited when describing battles and tournaments than lovers.
DeleteKelsey Tiger
ReplyDelete2. I think Palamon suffers more. He is stuck in a prison cell where the only chance to see Emily was from within. Although Arcita is forbidden to be found on Theseus’ land which means he won’t be able to see Emily, he found a way to be close to her. I think in general Arcita suffered a worse “hell” considering he was confined to his cell and there was no chance for him to find love ever, whereas Arcita was free to go as he pleases and if he can’t love or see Emily, he at least had the chance to find love elsewhere.
4. I think the Knight’s narration/storytelling is pretty much to the point. He doesn’t waste time with minute details or long drawn out information. For instance he says, “Bitter and long the strife between the two, which, had I leisure, I’d depict for you; but to the point…”, he also says, “but that’s a tale I have no wish to tell.” I feel like he stays on course with his narration and doesn’t stray far off course or throw in details to confuse or sidetrack the reader. He tells the story almost in a blunt way, basically portraying the story as it really was.
Good responses: the Knight wants to be a succinct storyteller, but he's from an epic tradition, and like Beowulf, relishes all the digressions that modern stories leave out. He's of a bygone age, with older values...and doesn't sympathize with the world of his son.
DeleteAshley Bean
ReplyDelete2. Neither one of them is truly suffering as they like to think they are. It's like when a child falls down and gets a scrape, yet they make it out to be like they broke their arm. These men love Emily's beauty, sure, but how do they know anything beyond that? It's easy to fall in love with beauty when you're locked away for life. But, if I had to say who suffered more, I believe it would be Palamon, because she is the only beauty he will probably ever see. At least Arcita can travel, and he should easily find new (real) love. Palamon has no choice. I believe the entire story is pure satire, or even just a simple comedy.
3. I think it's a little of both. He thinks these men are being ridiculous to proclaim their love to a women they have never met, yet maybe he's inspired by how far they have and will go. He gave them a goal and reward to see just how far they will go, and probably for his own personal enjoyment.
Good responses: I think the question is moot, since the Knight clearly isn't interested in either of their sufferings. What is tragic is how quickly they abandon their brotherhood and fail even to fulfill the duties of chivalric love. Thesus clearly illustrates this, as you point out.
DeleteDeryk Ronk
ReplyDelete2.) In this particular situation I believe that Poloman has it worse. Although both situations are bad, Poloman is in prison at this point, with no chance of escape. Arcita, although banned from his love, can be free to roam about, and possibly find love again. Arcita can at least participate in something to keep his mind more preoccupied.
3.) At first I believe that he is angered by two men, who are held to higher standards, fighting in such a way. However, once Poloman confesses and they explain what is going on, he seems to lighten up and possibly even shows empathy. He sort of turns it into a little game for him to watch. .
Good, but try to be a bit more specific: where do we see the empathy here? What is Theseus' purpose in the poem? Why might he embody the Knight's ideas? Or Chaucer's?
Delete2. I believe Palamon has more dreadful fate. He is bound up in prison, and as if that wasn't miserable enough he is a prisoner of love for Emily as well. Furthermore, Palamon laid eyes on her first. So his pangs are three way: his helpless love, his inprisonment, and feeling of betrayal by his cousin.
ReplyDeleteThe traces of satire in this story spring from the one telling it. I found it ironic that this question was merely hypothetical, and Arcita was able to see Emily soon after this question was posed.
4. He is always alluding that he has far deeper knowledge concerning this story but just doesn't have time to go into it. Although, he finds time to drag this story out telling one of the longest tales in Canterbury Tales. He seems to think of himself as a master story teller and doubts someone can top this tale!
Right, it is ironic; the Knight really isn't interested in romance per se, but how romance can be used to satirize what he feels are unbecoming qualities in a knight. The sheer length of this story underlines its importance (in the Knight's mind) and also how difficult it is for the Knight to simply state his point. He's of the old school, epic poetry, with a touch of Anglo-Saxon sensibility.
Delete2. I think that Palamon suffers more because he is still in prison and is also forced to plainly see how he would like his life to be every single day.
ReplyDeleteArcita doesn’t really have the chance to go after the “woman he loves” without breaking rules and risking his life, but he at least has the chance to live. Of course it isn’t really the life he wants to live, but he still has the opportunity to move on.
To me, and I also think this is how the Knight telling the story sees it, this story isn’t realistic because it’s such an exaggerated love at first sight and not something that is really believable in the way we view love today.
4. The Knight tells the story very scatterbrained. He jumps from story to story and never fully makes a point because he suddenly stops because he doesn’t have time to tell that story. An example of this is when he says, “But that’s a tale I have no wish to tell.” Even though he constantly does this and it makes the story harder to read, I think it shows who he is as a person. He has traveled all over and seen a lot of things. It shows that he is really a knight and it kind of verifies the description in the general prologue.
Yes, he has trouble sticking to one story, which makes him such an endearing--and perhaps tiresome--character. But beneath is all is a keen mind and a satirist, and I don't think he cares much for either "knight" in the story.
Delete-Tarra Ward
ReplyDelete2. I believe the one who suffers more in this situation is Palamon. Even though he does get to see her everyday, he actually has to look at her everyday and he's locked away in prison. I would think the saying "out of sight, out of mind" could play a role here. Neither of them obviously know her or her personality, they just know what she looks like. Arcita is free, he has the ability to roam freely and have the chance to look for real love but he is so involved in Emily. When the knight says, "he feels death itself pierce his heart right through" "he weeps, he wails, he laments pitifully." This is all a bit dramatic and comical to me which is how I believe the knight is wanting us to see their situation.
4. As we discussed in class today, the knight likes to tell instead of show. He is very scatter brained in his story telling. I believe this is to show us how serious he takes the topic of love, not very seriously of course. He tells the story in this way to let us know that he isn't serious about the story he is telling. He is only telling this story as a lesson to his son.
Great responses; while Palamon might suffer more in some sense, I think the Knight is unimpressed with both. They're both missing the point of chivalry and honor, in his opinion. A woman should inspire a knight to great deeds--not foul, dishonorable ones like theirs.
Delete-Rocky Moore
ReplyDelete2. Though this is a philosophical question that is posed, it a complete mockery of both of them and that idea of courtly love that we talked about in class today. They're both fools who continue to go back and forth with one another in regards to a problem they both know won't go away. Neither one of them is going to be with her and the author knows this and pokes so much fun at them both. It is like the author is giggling to himself as he has the Knight tell the Tale about the two. Instead of one of them deciding to be the bigger man and saying 'you know what, this is not worth all the drama here' as one possibly would say if they were wise enough. It is like when you have a younger brother and he always wants what you want or wants to be where you are when you were younger. instead of being a big brother about the situation and letting the younger one have all the fun, these two choose the latter which is fighting one another instead of being a true Knight, which is the irony here. If they are to possess the quality that many lack in true chivalry then they both would have ceased to 'fall in love at first sight' no matter who saw the girl first. This part really made me laugh when reading it and I thought how funny it was that things like this of human nature still go on today. The author was definitely making fun of them both.
3. Thesus's response is a complete mockery of the two. It is not like he is making a joke about the idea of falling in love itself, it is more like he is calling these two fools for even engaging in the type of behavior they are displaying. He says on page 48 (in the different book) 'And, knowing that I am their mortal foe, And that their lives are in my hands also-- In spite of all this, Love none the less brings Both of them here with open eyes, to die! Now isn't that the very height of folly? What bigger fool than he who is in love?'... then continues on a few lines later even funnier, 'But just you wait, here's the best joke of all: The cause of all their horseplay, this young lady, Has no more reason to thank them than I; And of these fiery goings-on knows no more, God save us, than a cuckoo or March hare.' This whole speech is making fun of them, saying ultimately that Fate doesn't always just favor men in love but that they will end up in tragedy regardless. Satire is an obvious common theme in this story so far and how crazy to think that 600 years later we still mock the same things.
Yes, it's utterly universal, but also comical since those not in love usually see the mockery implicit in such "love." Great close reading of Theseus' speech to support this.
DeleteQuestion 1. I feel like the knight was doing that for a multitude of reasons. To begin with, it sounds more intelligent. It makes him seem more worldly and cultured, like he has been to these "exotic" places that no one else in the group has, and is familiar with their stories and customs. It almost felt like he was trying to brag or make himself sound more important than he actually is. I also felt that it was a traditional thing. As we discussed in class, a lot of people at that time looked to Greece as an example of what society should be. He made the story, or attempted to at least, more appealing by setting it in such an "idyllic" setting.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 4. I understand that it was done intentionally, but his storytelling methods are awful. The knight rambles, and then suddenly decides to skip details. Which would be fine, except he makes sure to inform the audience that he is skipping the details, which basically completely destroys the point in skipping over the details to begin with. It makes it seem like either he has a very pointed message in his story, perhaps to his son as we discussed in class, so he doesn't care about the details that do not directly pertain to this message, or he is just an absolutely awful story teller. Which would make sense, too. At least one in every group like this has to be bad. Not everyone is good at telling stories. I certainly know that I am not.
Good responses--he is a rambler, and though he has great language, he is constantly fighting himself. He should just give in to his impulses! Greece is also the pagan world, and that might be important for the message of a Christian knight.
DeleteDevin Martinez
ReplyDelete1.)I think the knight tells his story set in ancient Greece for different reasons. One reason might to give him a sense of prestige as he tells his story from one of the many places he has traveled. Another reason might be to be capture the attention of everyone even more as Greece is often looked at as a place of enlightenment and stature. By combining modern characters in an ancient world the audience can find the knights more relatable and therefore able to learn a lesson from them.
2.) Regarding which has it worse, I believe Paloman has it much worse. He is stuck in actual prison while Arcita has his freedom. Granted, Arcita is banned from the kingdom and may never Emily either, but at least he has his freedom and could potentially see another girl who captures his eye in the same way. No Aricta never acknowledges this and still very much longs to be within reach of Emily, however Paloman would be lucky to see the light of day. Yet alone a new and even more beautiful woman. The satirical intent of the question as to who has it worse lies in the characters perspective themselves. They have no both become prisoner to their own love.
Great responses--this tale is something of a lesson, both in the Knight's eyes and Chaucer's.
ReplyDelete