For Wednesday: “The Knight’s Tale” Parts I and II
Answer TWO of the following:
Q1: Though the Knight is telling this story to the entire
group, in some ways he has a very specific audience in mind: his son, the
Squire. Why might we suspect that this story is really for him? How might this
also help explain why tells a story of “long, long ago” instead of a modern
tale of knights and battles? Consider, too, the difference between the Knight
and the Squire in the General Prologue.
Q2: At the end of Part One, the Knight poses the question:
“Now all you lovers, let me pose the question:/Who’s worse off, Arcita or
Palamon?” Are we supposed to side with one of the lovers? Does one suffer a
worse “hell” than the other? Or does this question have satiric undertones?
(again, you might consider the audience)
Q3: Examine Theseus’ response to the lovers at the end of
Part II: is this a mockery of the knight’s love or a defense of it? How might
this be a commentary on the love story itself?
Q4: What kind of storyteller is the Knight? Remember that
the narrator claims that “To tell a tale told by another man/You must repeat it
as nearly as you can.” How does his storytelling differ from the narrator’s?
What does he do well—or ill? Are we supposed to marvel at his rhetoric or find
it somewhat lacking? In other words, does he strike us as a clumsy or a crafty
poet?
#2
ReplyDeleteI do not think that we are supposed to side with either of the lovers. There seems to be a message behind his story since his story is directed to his son. His son was a lover and dreamed of finding the one girl. It's really interesting to see the love story the Knight tells. I think they both suffer the same but in their minds their suffering is worse than the other. As far as the "satire" of this story, I'd have to discuss it in class Wednesday to really know!
#4
I think the Knight's way of telling the story is really adventurous. Some parts are easier to read. The Prologue was a little hard. I think since the Knight relates to war and being a knight, that is how his story went! The narrator was always rhyming and he was a little elegant, even though it was written in Old English. The Knight was a little simpler and easier on the brain. His story was full of bravery, love, and heroism. I think if he wanted to be a poet, maybe clumsy.
Good responses: we'll have to see if you find the later parts of the poem as easy to read as the beginning, especially when he starts describing all the funeral of Arcita!
DeleteQuestion 2 A: The knight's open ended question to the reader, "who's worse off?" When Arcita and Palamon are faced with different circumstances regarding the separation from Emily, their true love, only acts as a device to grasp the reader into the story further, nothing more. The story being told has been presented in a light manner – The Knight's Tale is completely satirical – and the Knight is only asking this question to further pull the audience in, to include them, not to invoke deep thought. It is not to be pondered upon and debated. If we were to actually pause and debate, no one could truly answer this question and be completely correct and it would take away from the quick rhythm of the story.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3 A: At the end of Part 2, Theseus's response to the lovers is a mockery. He sets them up with a ridiclous task and although the tale is told as if the King is granting them an empowering freedom with a heroic task, it is clear to the reader after the ridiclous task is presented that the King does not intend for them to accomplish it. In no way would a king cross upon two knight's, who completely deceived him, fighting and grant them an easy pardon back to their well established homes due to the sole response of crying females. He of course set them up with an impossible task just to mock them and it even further enforced the satirical tone when they were described as being overjoyed!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGreat responses: and while not all of the tale if satirical (I think he means Theseus to be the bearer of great wisdom), he certainly makes the story a little preposterous, as well as some of the more bathetic speeches of his heroes. The story is very cliched and improbable, and we have to wonder whether he intended it this way to poke fun at his son, or he really couldn't think up a better tale.
Delete2. At first I would have to say that in my mind, I honestly figured that there was a side to actually be on; however, after reading some of the previous comments, I think maybe the question is posed for the simple sake of asking it. To this time, one of the biggest idea that stories consisted of was that of “forbidden love.” Knowing what we do about the different walks on life these individuals traveling together have, this question poses as a way to connect these individuals to his story, being that some of them have had to go without things they wanted in a given time. Readers also don’t know how his audience responded to his tale yet, but being that it was about two knights, they may have thought he was giving them some insight on his life in some way; rather they thought of knights as people who had it rough or love stricken puppies. Both situations are quite upsetting, rather seeing the love of your love every day and not being able to grace her presence or never seeing your love.
ReplyDelete4. The knight differs from the narrator in that his writing isn’t constantly smooth, as also said by fellow commentaries by classmates. He will be going very smooth, and then it seems as though he gets so into what is occurring within the story that he throws fancy grammatical wording out the window and explodes as a little child telling a story about a life changing event. This, depending on how one looks at it, could either make his story not as valued or it could be just the case that his excitement makes him the Morgan Freeman of his time; to each their own. I think this tale reflects a knight’s struggle to maintain their vows and also gives us a glimpse into the factors that drive them. Overall, I think his tale is quite engaging and entertaining to keep the audience eager to see what happens next.
Great responses; I would love to see him played by Morgan Freeman, who could indeed bring a little sting to his satirical tale of chivalry. I'll try to hear him in my head the next time I read. :)
DeleteQ1. I feel like this also goes in hand with my response to question 3, which I had written before I did this one. I feel like the Knight is telling this story with his son in mind because of the constant allusions to courtly-love, but with the references to older Knightly codes of honor. I believe that the Knight is telling this story as a “long, long ago” story because it is his way of preaching the old ways to his son. To dip my toes into Q4 just a tiny bit, he also tells this story with random interjections of where he seems to get a little wound up in his message and he has to pull himself back into telling the story because it seems like he is lecturing his son. Like with the part on page 33, “A noble duke, whose name was Perotheus, / Who’d been a friend of the Duke Theseus /… / there was no man on earth whom he loved so— / And Theseus loved him just as tenderly, / So great was their love, ancient writers say, / That when one of them came at last to die, / His friend went down and looked for him in hell. / But that’s a tale I have no wish to tell”. He begins to tell the story of Theseus’ relationship of brotherhood with Perotheus that is like that of the Anglo-Saxon times, but then is immediately like “nope, don’t have time for that right now. I have to get back to this story of two brothers who betray each other”, which is similar to how Beowulf’s narrator would tell the story.
ReplyDeleteQ3. I think Theseus’ response was purely in mockery. I would find it hard to believe that a man whose wife was a “spoil of war” (according to the explanatory notes on page 486) would be so understanding and open to the idea of fighting for “true love”. Which, going back to Beowulf, this reflects true to the older Anglo-Saxon way of being a Knight/King because, as we discussed, women were often used as “peace-weavers” to keep two clans from completely destroying one or the other. Theseus points out that these men don’t even really know Emily and that it is foolish for two brothers to fight over one woman to the death by betraying one another. But, I think this part of the Knight’s tale also shines a light on the Knight’s own thinking and hypocrisy, because while his tale mocks the courtly-love ideas of his son’s generation, it also shows the flaws in the Knight’s generation of “chivalry”. While it IS foolish for two men to break their vows to protect each other for a woman they do not know personally, it is equally foolish to use women as a way to solve these wars between “brothers”/nations, which in a religious sense means more than just your Knightly brothers. I feel like this is Chaucer’s way of pointing out the dangers that can come with over-romanticizing the older days, while also showing that the older days did not exactly treat women the same way that they do now. It’s also particularly interesting to see that Theseus didn’t seem to care about letting these two men fight until one was the victor, until he had the women bowing at his feet and begging for their lives and he seems to be reluctantly going along with it in almost a “Fine, whatever” kind of way. At first it seemed like Theseus was going to honor the Palamon’s request to let them both die at his sword (p.46), so that neither would have to fight over Emily anymore.
Yes, clearly the Knight is trying to tell a story of old values and honor within his satirical tale, and the setting (ancient Greece) is a way of establishing that, much as the Beowulf poet set his tale long before Christianity--though still introduced Christianity into the story. But at the same time, as you point out, the old days can't be romanticized too much, which I think the Knight fears his son is doing, fighting for all the wrong reasons. He's very skeptical of chivalric love since he's seen real down and dirty combat all over the world.
Delete2. While reading, I didn’t find myself being able to feel more sympathy for one than the other. Both men are in a different predicaments but the same hell. Despite the story being told as having had happened a long time ago, this may be a reflection of their modern knight and his pursuit of courtly-love. Both Arcita and Palamon long for the very same woman, and the fact that neither of them initially can acquire her hand seems to be what drives them. Palamon saw and loved Emily first, so maybe Arcita didn’t even want to love her until he saw that his cousin had fallen for her, perhaps causing some jealousy. The knights needed something to fight for. Being in prison, they can’t fight and don’t have much reason to. Now that Emily is in the picture, they have a purpose – someone to fight for. Fighting for a woman you can’t have is the same idea of courtly-love, and this is what drives the men to fight. This may be the satirical premise as the knight who is telling the story to, as it seems, his son might be trying to rid him of his love-obsessed, passionate cravings and have him focus on the true purpose of being a knight, which is being noble and strong for your nation first rather than for a lost cause in the form of a woman.
ReplyDelete3. At first, Theseus is totally fine with offing both lovers until the women plead with him to spare them. Theseus’ plan B is to have them continue fighting one another, but this time with full armies, for the victor to claim Emily as his wife as Theseus says, “This is the only outcome I’ll permit: / One of you must be killed or made captive.” Why? Does someone really have to die or be made captive? Why can’t Theseus simply choose one man to marry Emily and banish the other? I haven’t read Part 3 of The Kight’s Tale, but it may be that Theseus has the hope that both of the lovers might be killed in battle. If they fight one-on-one, one is sure to survive. With the implementation of full armies, it isn’t impossible for both of men to either die or be taken captive. If it does turn out this way in Part 3, it would be a testament to the idea of love, especially courtly-love, being a means of self-destruction – a testament the story-teller may want his son to subscribe to. But again, I haven’t read Part 3 so I have no way of knowing for sure as of yet.
Yes, the goal of chivalric love is to fight for the love of a woman, but as the Knight realizes, this woman has to KNOW about you and give you the honor. That they're fighting over a woman who doesn't know who they are is not quite doing it correctly, and their behavior is dishonorable to boot. HIs point being that love is a bad mistress to serve and it ultimately destroys both men, even if one of them "wins."
Delete2- When this question was first posed, I immediately decided that Palamon is worse off. But upon a little more thought, I decided that the question was of a rhetorical nature. This realization does not stop me from sticking to my belief that Arcite is better off. I would rather be free and alone that in constant misery but with a companion. This question seems to be assuming that Arcite will never find love again, which in my opinion is improbable; people find love all the time nowadays.
ReplyDelete4- The Knight seems to be an adequate story teller, however, his way of speaking does not feel as attention grabbing as I would imagine a knight's to be. I also am surprised that the Knight isn't telling romantic (in the literary sense), suspense filled tales about his own chivalrous adventures. Instead he is telling a tale about Thebans that sounds more akin to a Greek myth. His story has a complex feel that I would expect to come from a scholarly poet, but simple language that seems in line with what a knight would use.
Ha, it's a fun question, since you could get into a real philosophical debate over it, though I think the Knight (and Theseus) find it a moot point. They're both betraying the brotherhood of knights and even making a mockery of chivalric love itself. So don't try too hard to solve the equation!
Delete1. We know that his son is a lover. He's also a little more on the artistic side than his father, thus giving the two a significant difference since his dad lives and breathes war and battle. I saw this as a story set back "long, long ago", because two cousins, (brothers, basically) fought each other over a girl that they've both seen, but neither of them had met before. They were willing to die for a girl that didn't know they existed, so their battling wasn't even for her. It was for them, and their own selfish reasons.
ReplyDelete2. I thought it was really funny that he tried to compare the two, like one was living a worse hell than the other. However, we decipher that the narrator is making the point that it is even. They are both living their own hell. One can see Emily every day, but can't leave his prison. The other has his freedom, but can't return to the kingdom to see Emily. The point the knight is trying to make, is that love does nothing but tear family apart. Although this appears to be a love story, it's a story about family turning on family for love.
Yes, clearly the 'lover' in question is his son, and he's telling him the kind of story he loves to tell (or to hear) himself. I think the question is posed to him and the Knight thinks he will actually try to answer it! But of course, there's no right answer but many wrong ones. Indeed, the question itself is 'wrong' since it's not the right way to approach their dilemma. But maybe the Squire will see this by the end of the tale (probably not).
DeleteQuestion 2: I believe the question has a satire undertone, just as we discussed in class. Although the story is supposedly directed to an audience consisting of multiple diverse individuals, the Knight is actually directing the tale to his son the Squire, which we noted was a chivalric lover. The Knight is wanting the Squire to see how ridiculous his love obsession is and how the only possible outcome from is “hell.” There is no right or wrong answer to the Knights question. In all actuality is not even a question, I believe it is more of a callout.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 4: I believe the Knight is a clumsy poet. He says “To tell a tale told by another man/You must repeat it as nearly as you can.” However, the Knight executes this very poorly. He talks of not having enough time to go into depth about a certain detail, yet he does just that. I believe the Knight is a rambler. He also repeats the story as if he is trying to recall the events out loud to himself. He’s remembering/thinking out loud rather than storyteller.
Yes, the Knight is an amazing 'bad' storyteller: he can't keep to the story, and even though he means to teach his son a lesson, he gets caught up in the more technical details of his story--and once knights enter the picture, he loses it! He has to describe them all, arms and armor, everything. It's an amazing feat of Chaucer's to make someone tell a story so gloriously badly and yet make it all sound so good, and still make the Knight's character emerge at the same time. The more you read it the more amazed you are--it's a real tour de force!
Delete