Essay: The Knight’s Tale and the Miller’s Tale (no universal standard to judge love and marriage)

Dissecting love and marriage ideals is an impossible task because human actions in emotional situations do not follow any logic, something that has been proven consistently over time and across cultures and classes. It is also corroborated within Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, a tale of tales, that makes fun of the conventional beliefs about these relationships in the context of different social settings and values such as bravery, morality, infidelity, and street smartness. Through the substance of the plots, styles of their narrators and the gap between the cherished and real values in The Knight’s Tale, and the Miller’s Tale, Chaucer highlights that human behavior in romantic relationships can be crazy, unpredictable and influenced by one’s social class setting, and therefore model love or marriage is a pipedream.
Although on surface the love plot involving Arcite, Palamon and Emily in the Knight’s Tale follows the knightly customs “by the book”, a closer examination of the events reveals the silliness of what goes on. As an example, the two cousins who are related want to kill each other for Emily to whom neither of them have talked to. After Palamon escapes from prison, he challenges Arcite to a fight, “For I renounce the bond and its demand / Which you assert that I have made with you. / What, arrant fool, love’s free to choose and do, / And I will have her, spite of all your might!” ( ) It is ironic that Palamon, as a knight who to is expected to keep his word and follow principles, is willing to ‘renounce’ his vow of brotherhood to Arcite. As a free person he is unconstrained whom he loves and is willing to do whatever it takes to have Emily no matter how strong Arcite is. Even though one’s heart overrides one’s brain in love situations, the stupidity of this is that neither of them knows what Emily thinks. Isn’t exemplary love supposed to be a two-way relationship? Whom are they courting and quarreling about? An image, a symbol or a trophy that they’ve seen from a distance? What makes this even more bizarre is Emily doesn’t even want to get married. She prays to Goddess Diana, “Desire to be a virgin all my life, / Nor ever wish to be man’s love or wife. / … yet of thy company, / A maid, who loves the hunt and venery,”. Emily doesn’t like a man’s company and prefers hunting and doesn’t want to be anyone’s wife or bear children. This highlights the foolishness of what Arcite and Palamon were up to, even though they supposedly follow all the ideals of aristocratic class such as honor, bond and courtly love.
The style and setting of the love drama in the Knight’s Tale is definitely colored by the narrator, a knight, and his upbringing. A knight’s world revolves around “… chivalry, Truth, honour, freedom and all courtesy.” Given that a knight’s life is defined by resolving disputes by physical fights, it is no wonder that in his story Emily, the lady desired by her two suitors, was treated like a trophy to be won in a contest. In this world, woman is used as a gift to win peace and stability. Even though a woman doesn’t appear to have much say, she is wooed with flowery language as per knightly traditions, customs and code of conduct. As an example, Arcite describes his feelings to Palamon in prison, “And with a sigh he said then, piteously: / “The virgin beauty slays me suddenly / … / I am but dead; there is no more to say.”” ( ) Arcite is using dramatic language to say that he’ll die if the object of his love won’t take pity on him. Even though the story is influenced in its expression of love with flowery words and the tendency to resolve conflicts with fights, the plot and characters’ behavior does confirm the absurd and unpredictable nature of romances.
Unlike the flowery jargon and high minded principles used in the world of knights, the Miller’s Tale depicts romantic situations in vulgar and comical tones in the, making fun of the conventional “do’s and don’ts” in love and marriage. As an example, Alyson handling of her two suitors outside her marriage, is not only slapstick comedy material but also a middle class perspective of the upper class imposed view of love. When Nicolas woos Alison aggressively after her husband leaves for work, “That she her love did grant him at the last, / … / That she would be at his command, content,” ( ) She was so enamored by the street smart Nicholas that she was willing to be at his “command and content” even if it was at expense of cheating her husband. In contrast to falling for the physical advances of Nicholas, Alyson not only spurns the dignified wooing by the parish clerk Absalom, she does this so by tricking him to kiss her genitals. After that episode, “Teehee!” she laughed, and clapped the, window to; / And Absalom went forth a sorry pace.” ( ). Leaving aside the twists and turns of love situations, Alyson’s contrasting responses point to what is admired and scorned in a middle class setting. Alyson clearly values attributes such as street smartness, directness and physical advances of Nicholas. On the other hand, she makes a mockery of the upper class gentlemanly approaches of Absalom and humiliates him in the process. At the same time, Alyson’s infidelity disregards the accepted wisdom that a woman shouldn’t be unfaithful to her husband. Not only was she unfaithful, she willingly participated in deceiving her naive husband and making him a laughing stock of the village. When John fell down from the boat, he had a hard time being heard by the rest of the folks, “They said: “The man is crazy, my dear brother. / And everyone did laugh at all this strife. / … was the carpenter’s goodwife, / For all his watching and his jealousy;” Maybe Alyson’s infidelity was a revolt against her marriage with the much older carpenter and his extraordinary protective nature. Perhaps, she was married to the carpenter because he was rich, the practice of arranged marriage was common in the medieval middle class.
The middle-class perspective within the Miller’s Tale is a reflection of the narrator and his bias towards crude vulgarity and directness. In the Prologue, he proudly states that “A husband must not be inquisitive / Of God, nor of his wife, while she’s alive. / So long as he may find God’s plenty there, / …he need not greatly care.” Through these words, the narrator is expressing his view that men shouldn’t care about their wives’ affairs and at the same time invoking God to say that there are lots of other women around. Maybe the narrator has loose morals. Or, his middle-class upbringing conditions him to real world pragmatism, a world in which physical sex and infidelity are no big deals. Instant gratification instead of the high-minded principles is the name of the game. It’s also an environment that rewards street smartness folks like Nicholas who don’t have time for poetic words but go for the “land grab”. Either way, the narrator’s choice of words and substance of his tale, sets up a significant contrast with the style and plot of the Knight’s Tale.
Although the two tales, set in in different social contexts, are influenced by the style and language of their narrators, both the stories bring out that there is no universal standard one can use to judge human actions in love and marriage. The Knight’s Tale, despite its depictions in cherished standards of honor, bravery and courteousness, does boil love to essentially a competition instead of a two-way relationship. The Miller’s Tale, despite its vulgarity and crudeness, reflect the day to day happenings in love and marriage middle class, in stark contrast to the high minded impractical view of the aristocratic class. Both the stories do, however, confirm that human behavior in love and marriage can be moody, irrational and erratic. It is therefore foolish to make predictions about human behavior in matters where one’s heart rules the brain.