For Friday: Chaucer, "The Knight's Tale," Parts I and II

 

A 19th century depiction of The Knight's Tale 

"The Knight's Tale" is one of the longest tales in the book (so of course we're reading it!), but it's also one of the best. It captures the essence of what makes Chaucer so great, while also providing an interesting counterpoint on chivalric romance and the story of Gawain that we read last week. It would be fascinating to know if Chaucer had read that poem, and if it influenced him at all (or the reverse). As you read, remember that this is a poem with three narrators: CHAUCER is telling the story by pretending to be the POET-NARRATOR who is claiming to transcribe, word-for-word, the KNIGHT'S poem. So as you read, ask yourself who is really talking here: the poet, the pretend-poet, or the Knight himself? And where might we hear all three? 

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?