The Miller’s Tale returns a bit of lost agency to the women we have been introduced to thus far in the Canterbury Tales. As soon as the Tale begins, the reader is able to see the blatant similarities between the Miller and the Knight’s stories. Alisoun is described as having the same virginal qualities as Emelye; the word “whyt” (3236) is repeated three times when describing her dainty appearance, giving the reader a clear image of her innocence. The Miller’s Tale differs from the Knight’s, however, and quickly reveals itself as a separate take on the love triangle between Arcite, Palamon, and Emelye. While Emelye never develops beyond an object to be conquered, Alisoun takes it upon herself to act out against the men who make the mistake of seeing her as little more than a prize.
Chaucer deliberately chooses to end the Miller’s Tale with Alisoun unscathed. It interests me that she is able to punish the carpenter, Nicholas, and Absolon while only getting her hands slightly dirty in the process. After she “putte hir hole” (3732) out the window, a sort of domino effect ensues that allows her to watch as her suitors carry out her punishments for her. Seeking “quyte” (3746), or revenge, after he “kiste hir naked erse” (3734), Absolon subsequently delivers Nicholas’ punishment by poking him in the behind with a fire poker; Absolon’s attack on Nicholas causes the student to shout for “water” (3815), which signals the carpenter to dive from the roof of his home, an act that convinces the town of his insanity.
Alisoun’s ability to watch from afar as her suitors are punished gives her a sort of power that we have yet to see in the Canterbury Tales. Chaucer’s decision to conclude the Miller’s Tale with her on top is a victory for both Alisoun and Emelye, and provides the reader with insight into the author’s possible feelings about gender inequality.
After reading The Wife of Bath’s Prologue, what struck me most is perhaps her relationship to the women in the first two tales we’ve read. So far, the two women characters we’ve seen have been very similar. In the Knight’s Tale, Emelye is the object of affection, courted by two suitors, and after one is injured, the other is declared the “winner,” and she ends up with him. In The Miller’s Tale, Alison is again the object of desire for two suitors. But instead of playing a totally subservient role lacking in agency, Alison seems to be much more able to stand on her own as a character and make life difficult for her suitors.
These female characters are interesting to keep in mind when contrasted with The Wife of Bath whom we’ve just been introduced to. Although Alison was definitely a stronger character than that of Emelye, we see a whole new role for the woman in this tale. She is not an object of affection (so far), but instead a controlling, sometimes vile woman. She is not being used for her sexuality, but instead is using her sexuality for her own gain. This is a sharp departure even from the Alison character, so I’m wondering whether The Wife of Bath will come out on top at the conclusion of the tale. We have only seen men embarrassed by women in jest; even the jokes played on Absolon in the Miller’s Tale can’t be taken too seriously. But here the tone has totally shifted, leading me to believe that The Wife of Bath should be taken a bit more seriously.
The role of religion also has me questioning her purpose in the tales. She misuses several biblical references in her prologue and is not at all shy about disagreeing with some of the teachings of Christianity. This reminds me a lot of the ending of The Miller’s Tale, when Nicholas and Alison were able to get their entire town to believe the carpenter was crazy for thinking the biblical flood was imminent. The trend of stepping away from the Church’s teachings perhaps, or at least lending a critical eye towards the Bible, definitely seems to be forming.
The Wife of Bath is an especially fascinating character when compared with Alison (and Emily) from the Miller’s and Knight’s tales, respectively. Each of the three women characters have different types of agency (and sometimes none at all) in their lives and sexual choices. Emily, silent throughout most of the Knight’s Tale, places her viriginity in the hands of someone else: Diana, the goddess of chastity. Emily tells Diana that, “my mayedenhede thou kepe and wel conservve,/And whyl I live a mayde, I wol thee serve” (2329-2333). In the one place in which Emily has a voice, in which she has the ability to actively desire (even if her desire is for virginity) she chooses instead to continue to “serve,” a choice of verb that keeps her within a specific place within society. Alison, in comparison, seems to have more agency. Although Nicolas physically assaults her, she is able to say no, and “Nicholas gan mercy for to crye” (3288). The language of “mercy” is associated with language of lordship. In that moment, Alison does have power. But by the end of the story, her agency is taken away. The tale ends “thus sweyved was this carpenteres wyf” (2850). There is no sense that Alison has chosen to be “sweyved.” She becomes passive in this construction, an object that is “sweyved.” This passive verb choice is more powerful in the face of the language that the Wife of Bath uses. She explicitly says that, “I have the power during al my lyf/upon his propre body” (158-159). “I have the power,” she says. What is more active than that. Though the Wife of Bath is an intensely sexual character, she chooses to own and use her sexuality rather than letter other people define or control it. And in her sexual self awareness, she may be freer than any of the characters (even the male one, one could argue) who so far we have read.
I agree with Jerrica in that the most notable part of this story is how modern the Wife of Bath seems. It is revolutionary for Chaucer to have her speak at all, much less about her own power and sexuality.
She is obviously meant to be a caricature of a lusty woman, yet Chaucer has us understand that we are not to discount her. To me, she seems more of a tool of satire than an object of satire. At the beginning, she points out the hypocrisy of religion, in that it reveres virginal women, yet many of the men in the Bible had many wives. She also points out that women are criticized for however they are- poor, rich, beautiful, ugly (p. 107-108). It is almost shocking to me that Chaucer is more forward thinking in certain respects about women than many people today.
Her fifth husband’s misogynist book is, to me, a symbol of the hypocrisy of the way society treated women. Her comment “Who peyntede the leoun, tel me, who?” (p. 188) serves perfectly to throw in relief the tales of the Knight and Miller. In these stories, women cause all strife and are thoroughly two-dimensional. Yet, when we get to hear a woman speak, we find out that she is complex and insightful.
In class I would love to discuss the scene of the domestic brawl over the book.
Very good– I also agree that the fifth husband seems a key to some of the complexities of this prologue–the fact that he beats her and taunts her with his anti-feminist “book of wicked wives” seems to indicate Chaucer’s awareness of the oppressive situation of women–esp. if we consider that she was married off to her first husband at the age of 12…
The Wife of Bath, the first vivid and extensive portrait we have of a female character we have thus far in the Canterbury Tales, makes quite an impression upon her entrance. She places herself squarely at the center of attention–her Prologue is roughly twice as long as her tale, after all–and from her discourse it becomes clear that she conceives of herself as the central body in her universe. Granted, the length of the Knight’s tale, along with the heavy-handedness the Miller employs in commandeering the floor to tell his own, points to a degree of self-indulgence in both characters. But in neither case do they give extensive biographical details or take great pains to justify their hedonistic lifestyles. Chaucer intended for the Wife of Bath to stand apart from the previous pilgrims, and describes her in such a way that we cannot help but take note.
Moreover, we readers find ourselves inclined to compare her to the two major female character’s we’ve already seen: Emilye and Alisoun. And we should–the Wife of Bath not only provides extensive commentary on the inner workings of her various marriages but also does so from the first person. Her words resound as a sorely needed female voice with tangible weight and considerable agency. What Chaucer himself thought of her as a woman, and one clearly important enough to earn such a powerful role, is a discussion I look forward to having. In what ways does she fit the mold? In what ways does she break it? Is her lifestyle ultimately justified, despite her shaky logic? Or do her various arguments, although independently true, not stick together cohesively enough to support her overarching claims?
Nevertheless, we would be doing ourselves and Chaucer a great shame if we should narrow our examination exclusively to her womanhood. She is not just the first female pilgrim with such a commanding voice, but really the first character of any sort in the entire book to speak about oneself at such length. What causes her to usurp control of the conversation and break from the precedent in the way she does? Why is does Chaucer choose to make her the most “real” and immanent character thus far (as many others have mentioned in their posts). Even further, she introduces the first real theological arguments that we see in Canterbury Tales, albeit sometimes dubious ones. What is Chaucer trying to tell us about the way faith was viewed in that time? Why does she insist so repeatedly on the distinction between rules and recommendations? Finally, we shouldn’t forget that, through her monologue, we find ourselves one degree closer to Chaucer than we do in the tales themselves. Why does he choose to tell us a story in this context, when he quite easily could have embedded similar morals within a traditional tale? Ultimately, the Wife of Bath bursts onto the stage as a wholly new and unanticipated character in a number of ways; we would be remiss not to examine all of them.
Excellent questions! I hope we can follow up on most of these today–I certainly agree that the wife’s focus on her own experience of marriage and her own biography sets her apart from the others–whose point of view comes through in the material of the tales but not in the prologues; I also agree that the organization of this portrait is complex–she is attractive and energetic in some ways, but her presentation aligns her with a long _anti-feminist- tradition in others…
It seems almost inconceivable that almost 700 years ago, the Wife of Bath is discussing freely her views on a issue that we are still talking about today. In her Prologue, she discusses God, and asks, on line 62, “Where comanded he virginitee? … Men may conseille a womman to been oon/But conseilling is no commandment”. Today, women are still shamed for losing their virginity while men are praised for it. Immediately in this Prologue, we are struck by views that may be, in some more conservative parts of the US, incredibly radical.
This also puts her in stark contrast with the previous two tales we read. “The Knight’s Tale” talks in many lines about Emelye’s purity and how she begs to still keep it. As for “The Miller’s Tale”, Alisoun’s sexual freedom takes place in a tale already proclaimed to be dirty and somewhat topsy-turvy in terms of morals. Here, we see the Wife of Bath proclaiming that virginity is not required for God’s love, and saying it in quite a frank and honest way.
One of the things I am wondering about is the contribution of the Pardoner when she is speaking. Though the description of the Pardoner in the general prologue had him as kind of a sketchy character, I see a deliberate choice here of having someone who literally cleanses people of their sins agreeing with a woman who, by traditional definitions, has sinned so much.
Very good–yes, the Wife shows us how much has stayed the same in the last few hundred years, especially as regards sexual politics…I also think the interventions of the androgynous Pardoner are interesting–he gives her the status of “noble prechour,” too, which suggests a transgressive role, since women were not allowed to preach…
In the General Prologue, the Wife of Bath is described, “Of clooth-making she hadde swiche an haunt, She passed hem of Ypres and of Gaunt” (447-8). After reading the “Wife of Bath Prologue and Tale”, it is evident that her excellent ability in weaving, mirrors her ability to continue to re-create and manufacture beauty in her life marriage after marriage. As probably the most complex character we have seen thus far in Canterbury Tales, her power doesn’t only come from simply her experience with five marriages, but from her ability to manipulate her husbands through her sexuality and a combination of lies and games. Additionally, not only do these provide her with personal freedom, but also allow her to harden her character while continuing to flourish financially. However, as the majority of the Prologue makes her character seem pretty much horrible, it is in her fifth marriage that we finally begin to see an emotional character that has also been softened by her experiences. She is unable to enact the same sovereignty she had in her other marriages because her fifth marriage is rooting in love not power. We begin to see her self-conscious awareness of her older age and vulnerability to her love for Jankin come to the forefront of the narrative. Despite the Knight’s Tale and Miller’s Tale being rooting in either the idealistic form of courtly love, or the fabliau version, the Wife of Bath’s Tale depicts a more realistic version of how love, marriage, and sexuality effects both men and women in different ways. Additionally, having a woman, even though simply known as a “wife”, be this powerful character reflects upon Chaucer’s progressive work in this time period.
Excellent! Your reading of the wife is very astute–especially concerning the shift from her self-presentation as wife in her first three marriages to her portrayal of her fifth marriage=-to the man she apparently really “loves.” It is interesting to think about why she is drawn to the man who is violent and abusive, both physically and mentally…
For a woman who has had five different husbands, not to mention the other “companye in youthe,” (pg. 14, line 461) and knowing the “remedyes of love” (pg. 14, line 475), I was very surprised that the Wife of Bath referenced God and the Bible so much. She uses the Bible, specifically Salomon – who had 700 wives and 300 concubines – Abraham, and Jacob, to defend the fact that she has had so many husbands.
In her Prologue, she says that she, not her future husband, will have power over his body. Clearly she has more agency, sexual agency in particular, than any of the other female characters that have been introduced in The Canterbury Tales as of yet.
Initially I was surprised that King Arthur deferred the Knight’s judgment to his wife. However, as it became clear that the thing all women want is dominion over their husbands, I became that much more impressed by King Arthur’s actions. The Wife of Bath makes King Arthur the ideal husband. This made me think of the often repeated saying, “Behind every great man, is a great woman.”
The tale’s ending speaks volumes about the Wife of Bath’s message. The Knight does not want to fulfill his promise and marry the old hag, even offering her all of his material possessions instead of the body. The old hag doesn’t relent, however, and the two are married. The Knight is miserable throughout the entire process, though. Eventually, the old hag tells the Knight he can either have her be loyal, and ugly, or beautiful and untrustworthy. The Knight replies by saying that she can choose whichever she likes. By offering her sovereignty, he is rewarded. She becomes beautiful and loyal and they live happily ever after. The Wife of Bath’s message is that if men are deferential to their wives, everyone will come out better for it.
The question about the role of the bible is a good one–she is referred to as a “noble” prechour,” too–and overall the impression one gets is that she is offering a kind of sermon here–though one that runs on very unconventional lines. Her use (and misuse) of the Bible sets her up as a kind of commentator (glossator) on the bible, and pits her against the male readers who were so powerful–esp. St Jerome.
The Wife of Bath seems to be a rather bold woman for the time. She makes it apparent that throughout her relationships with her multiple husbands, she has maintained dominance. The Wife of Bath goes on to share her own interpretations on sexuality that are referenced in the Bible. The Wife address the common belief that God expects woman to remain virgins (60-70). Saint Paul, according to The Wife, only recommends to maintain their virginity if they choose. While living a life of purity has carried on great religious and spiritual significance, The Wife debunks any possible expectation woman have associated with virginity. The Wife goes to the length of comparing herself to prophets such as Abraham and Jacob who had multiple spouses. Not only does this comparison seem rather daring for the times, but even in modern society to compare yourself to an extension related or associated with the divine seems to be a taboo. This is a defiantly not an act Emily or Alison would consider. Is The Wife of Bath able to break social norms and expectations because of her agency?
Good! The wife’s use of the bible is very important, and shows her selectively reading passages, just as her great antagonist St Jerome does…the same passages, in some cases. I like the final question about agency–and we will follow that up in class!
Maybe’s it’s the result of having encountered only static, relatively undeveloped female characters so far in The Canterbury Tales, but I found the characterization of the Wife of Bath quite intriguing. At first she seems just what we would expect of a woman who is on her fifth husband—brash, sexually unabashed, somewhat crude and blasphemous (for the time, at least: I can see her use of the polygamy of biblical figures like Abraham and Jacob as validation for her many marriages as somewhat feather-ruffling). She doesn’t paint a very positive picture of women in general. And yet, strangely enough, it seems the Wife of Bath is less a caricature than any of the figures we have seen before: the Knight is long-winded, apparently supercilious with a heavy focus on the courtly values associated with his own occupation, the miller is little but a crude drunk, but in the Wife of Bath’s prologue we get hints about her personality, her experiences, and—gasp—her feelings, which, even if the depiction is ultimately a negative one, at least it is thorough. Why would Chaucer spend such a long time describing a sinful woman if he could write her off quickly as a simple harlot?
I could probably speak at length about the many ways in which the Wife of Bath’s characterization is different from and perhaps more complete than those of the other figures in the story, but for the purpose of this post I wanted to mention the conclusion of her story: the relationship with her latest husband—ostensibly the only husband she married for love, and the one she found most difficult to control. The Wife, who exercised sexual and personal manipulation throughout four of her marriages to what sounds like great success, cannot quite manage Jankin the same way she did her previous husbands. He shames her by comparing her to women from a book about the worst women in history, beats her so severely she goes deaf and yet the proud Wife of Bath still cries out “Er I be deed, yet wol I kisse thee.”
The idea that this woman who was early on depicted as immoral and vulgar, in keeping with the idea that non-virgins are harlots, is given a chance to speak of her own love and her own abuse in a text that otherwise seems to ignore any aspect of womanhood besides beauty and virginity fascinates me, and I’d love to hear other interpretations of her prologue.
very good! the portrait of Alisoun as sexually brash etc. does give her a kind of vitality and apparently a kind of agency certainly lacking in Emelye; she does fit a certain kind of anti-feminist stereotype, and the question is what Chaucer is doing with those elements here…
The Wife of Bath’s Prologue is all about power and certainly criticizes the ideals of courtly love and marriage about which we’ve talked in relation to the tales of the Knight and the Miller. For the majority of her Prologue, the Wife goes on describing how she was able to control four of her five husbands by her sexuality. Clearly, the Wife seems to exhibit more agency than any of the other female characters we’ve encountered thus far, and yet, at least to me, she seems to be the worst of all. She takes pleasure in forcing her husbands to suffer, and basically uses them to acquire land and wealth. I feel as though Chaucer created an extreme character in the Wife to attempt to balance the flawed but less cruel male characters like the Knight, Theseus, the Miller, etc. They all have major issues in their character, but at the very least come across as well-intentioned. The Wife, meanwhile, is shameless about her extortion of her husbands.
Another theme that the Wife touches on and that relates back to the Knight’s Tale is the sentiment that we want what we can’t have. This is emphasized in the Prologue when the Wife says, “We wommen han, if that I shal nat lye, In this matere a queynte fantasye: Wayte what thing we may nat lightly have, Thereafter wol we crye al day and crave. Forbede us thing, and that desyren we (lines 515-519).” We have already discussed this idea, but it is interesting to consider how, if at all, this desire changes from a female perspective. The Wife calls this desire a “queynte fantasye”, mean an “odd fancy”, but that fancy is in fact consistent among men and women.
Good observations–the key question here is whether that negative aspect of the wife’s character (her tyranny over her old husbands, for instance) is intended to present her as an anti-feminist stereotype–the nagging, unfaithful wife, or whether Chaucer is using these familiar elements to critique that stereotype…
In the Miller’s Tale, Chaucer introduces a different type of female character. Alisoun, who I believe ends up being the opposite of Emelye, is given more of a a voice and a presence in this tale. In the beginning of the tale Alisoun seems to be very similar to Emelye in the way that she is claimed by men in her life, Alisoun by her husband the carpenter and Emelye her brother and then Palamon. However, they differ as the tale goes on and Alisoun starts exemplifying more agency towards sexual behavior. At the end of the tale we see that she gave in to her sexual desire for Nicholas and also plays mind games with Absolon and his courtly love for her. This grasp of sexuality that we see Alisoun take hold of in her life brings up the question whether it was a growing urgency inside of her or whether it was always in her and it was just a matter of time before she was going to let it out. On the one hand, since Alisoun is just 18 years old, one could make the claim that she learned through her first few years of experience what she wanted sexually, emotionally and what was going to fulfill her then got the guts to act on it. But not he other hand, we could also give credit to Alisoun and argue that she had it in her the entire time and was simply using her innocence to persuade the pawns that were going to be used in her game of chess.
It is fairly clear that the Miller’s Tale is meant to parody the Knight’s Tale in a number of ways – from its formulation as a love triangle, to the forbidden nature of the men’s love, to the eventual result of the object of affection ending up with one of the two potential lovers, and the other having an unhappy ending. These parallels are certainly worth exploring, but the similarity I want to focus on is a little more symbolic, and therefore quite powerful as a weapon of parody. Both tales depict activity involving windows, and the nature of this activity informs the message of the stories.
In the Knight’s Tale, the barred window of Arcite and Palamon’s cell is a physical barrier between them and Emily. The windows are a physical representation of courtly love, where the women is unattainable (in this case physically, but in most cases because of her marriage to the lord). Her separation from them creates the distant longing that drives the story story. However, the tale never allows the cousins to interact with Emily through the window, or cross through it. Only much later do they come into contact with Emily.
In the Miller’s Tale, however, windows are less forbidding, and the barrier between inside and outside is permeable. The window is where Absolon tries to woo Alison (l. 3695), and Alison opens it to perform her prank (l. 3727-3734), substituting her backside for her lips. This comic scene suggests an odd interaction between the people on opposite sides of the windows, particularly in the context of the preceding Knight’s Tale. When Absolon, the lover from afar, tries to cross the barrier, the results are disastrous. This is not far from the result of Palamon and Arcite’s transgression of the boundaries of courtly love, although the result is far direr in the Knight’s Tale.
The Miller makes a mockery of the Knight’s serious and didactic tale, by portraying the star-crossed lover from afar as somewhat of a buffoon, yet the tale oddly affirms one part of the value of courtly love – the need for the courtly lover to maintain his distance. The tale ends with the idea that Absolon should not have gone after Alison, who is the unattainable woman due to her relationship with Nicholas. This is strangely not that far from the ending of the Knight’s Tale, where one of the courtly lovers ends up dead. Windows play a key role in portraying both the similarities and difference between the two stories.
A brief note on the description of Alison: During the description on pages 74-75 the Miller compares her, or at least a part of her, to a weasel, a tree, a sheep, a swallow, a kid, a calf, a colt, a primrose, a cuckooflower, and a colt again. I suppose there could be an element of perceiving her as a natural and pure woman, but there are also overtones of animalization and objectification that are rather alarming, particularly in a story where she actually has a relatively greater amount of agency when compared to Emily in the previous story.
Excellent!! You have gone straight to the heart of the central function of the Miller’s tale==to parody the Knight’s tale–and also found a wonderful focused way to consider the differences (and similarities) of the tales. The window is indeed an intriguing object in both…
The Miller’s tale provides an obvious comparison to the Knight’s tale on the basis of class. The Miller blatantly disrupts social order when he volunteers to tell his tale right after the Knight and this disruption does not go unnoticed; the Host even states, “Som bettre man shal telle us first another [tale],” explicitly attempting to uphold the social hierarchy within his competition. (3130) Additionally, the class hieracrhy is embodied when the Reve disgusted and offended by the content of the story and interrupts the Miller once he begins to tell the background of his tale. The Knight, however, got to tell his entire tale with no interruptions, implying that the social rank of a pilgrim not only determines their order in the competition but also whether they are even entitled to respected and uninterrupted speech. Despite the repeated descriptions of the Miller as a drunk, the Miller demonstrates impressive storytelling abilities with engaging imagery and plot. There are even similarities between the Miller and the narrator within this tale. The Miller apologizes for being drunk at the end of his prologue and warns that, “if that I misspeke or seye, wyte it the ale of Southwerk, I yow preye,” thus demonstrating some concern for the accuracy of his tale. (3139-3140) On the next page, the narrator makes a similar plea to his audience, “therfore every gentil wight I preye, for Goddes love, demeth nat that I seye of evel entente, but I moot reherce hir tales alle, be they better or werse,” demonstrating a similar self consciousness of how he tells the following tale and not wanting to be judged by his listeners. (3171-3174) The plot of the Miller’s tale even parallels that of the Knight’s tale, they are both effectively stories about multiple men pursuing the love of one woman. However, the Miller arguable gives his characters more dimensions than the Knight did (John and Nicholas were much more distinguishable than Palamon and Arcite), thus debatably making him a more effective storyteller.
very good–excellent points about the class struggle here, and I do agree that despite the similarities between the tales there are significant differences–I might argue especially in the portrayal of Alisoun/Emelye!
In “The Miller’s Tale,” I would like to analyze the character of Absolon and how he represents a mockery of courtly love. The passage from lines 3312-3382 features a lengthy description of Absolon and an explanation for his strong (yet hopeless) desire for Alisoun. The Miller paints him as a romantic figure: “Crul was his heer, and as the gold it shoon” (3314) and “in twenty manere coude he trippe and daunce” (3328). The Miller uses an animal metaphor, as he does in other places, to describe Absolon’s approach towards Alisoun: “if she had ben a mous, / And he a cat, he wolde hire hente anon” (3345-7).
We come to view Absolon as a desperate lover, which does not necessarily surprise the reader based on his profession of a parish clerk. He sings in the streets at night, never wants to go to bed, and fantasizes about Alisoun in a non-sexual way that embodies courtly love. His character relates much closer to those of Arcite and Palamoun than it does Nicholas, who represents much more of a lowbrow, sexually explicit type of lover. However, it is the way that the Miller flips this dynamic to make a mockery of Absolon that converts this sub-story from silly comic relief to meaningful social commentary about class and ideology. In turn, this provides a response to “The Knight’s Tale” from the opposite side of the spectrum. As we witness later in the Miller’s story, all that Absolon gains from his incessant efforts is a kiss to Alisoun’s buttocks and a fart in his face from Nicholas. Clearly, the Miller does not associate himself with the romanticized, higher-class concept of courtly love. By depicting Absolon in this way, the Miller responds to the Knight’s positive portrayal of courtly love by making a mockery of it. While funny, this social commentary exposes a divide between class ideologies as they relate to love and courtship.
Excellent! You have pinpointed exactly the key issues to emerge in this sudden juxtaposition of the Knight’s and Miller’s tale–a juxtaposition that appears accidental but in fact shows a detailed purpose of “quiting”–or taking revenge on. Absolon is the perfect figure to focus on–all the trappings of a courtly lover, but utterly ridiculed…
Given our prior conversations about Emelye- her lack of agency, the failure of the virtue of chastity- I expected to find a similar portrayal of females in The Miller’s Tale. I found some aspects of the portrayal of Alison’s femininity unsurprising. For example, the narrator describes her as a “popelote,” or a plaything, and compares her complexion to gold coins, equating a woman to a commodity, or a signal of a man’s wealth. In addition, Alison’s body is depicted as “weasel-like,” even though it is Nicholas who is “sleigh and ful privee;” in other words, a sneaky and scheming person, and more “weasel-y” than the woman, if you ask me. These descriptions of Alison are told from a man’s perspective, which I think offers telling insight into the general perception of women during this period.
We can see, too, the ways in which Nicholas’ actions -and Absolon’s, for that matter- are eerily reminiscent of a rape narrative, another theme uncovered in The Knight’s Tale. For example, Absolon tells of a dream in which he is at a feast, again painting Alison’s sexuality as a thing to be consumed, like food or money.
But is Alison a weak female character? Does she fully adhere to this idea that women are there to be taken advantage of? That they are scheming and useable? Or does she carry more agency than Emelye? Later in the story, we see her blatantly reject Absolon, stating “As help me God, it wol not be ‘com pa me.’” I viewed this as a stark break from Chaucer’s earlier portrayals of the female; here, Alison takes willful control of her own sexuality, even though she did not seem to have the same control earlier, with Nicholas.
My question for others is: Do you see Alison as an independent and three-dimensional character, one who has agency over her own femininity? Or does she too have no control over the events that shape her life?
This is an excellent question, and might make the basis for a good paper–how real is Alisoun’s agency? Does it matter that her agency is all expressed in terms of sex? What do you make of the aggression of Nicholas’s initial “courtship” of her? very good!
The Miller’s Tale escalated rather quickly in comparison to the Knight’s Tale. The Miller’s Tale is not broken into parts. The lack of structure may comment on the Miller’s lifestyle directly. Unlike like a Knight who has a strict code of chivalry to live by the Miller has absolutely no need for order or structure to dictate his life.
The description of Alisoun is intended to be extremely sensual. Her body is compared to a thin and small “wesele” (3234). “Upon her lendes,” the area of sexual organs that is associated with the source of provocative pleasure, is a small dainty apron that is as white as milk (3235-3237). Not only is there a focus on obvious sexual attributes of Alisoun, but also the Narrator almost intends to tease his audience with an overly sexualized character. The small tight white apron seems to be right out of a sexual fantasy. The white color could be an ironic representation of purity. Even though it is assumed Alisoun is not a virgin, the white purity adds on to the sexual fantasy and works perfectly with her young age.
Alisoun is completely objectified throughout the text, threw the eyes of the Narrator. All men in the Tale expect or want some form of sexual relationship from Alisoun. Some aspects of the Tale delightfully surprised me. I appreciate Alisoun’s rebuttal to Absolon’s kiss. Ultimately all the men at the end of the Tale undergo some sort of misfortune yet Alisoun remains relatively unharmed. I do recognize that Alisoun could potentially be to blame for the misfortune of her suitors, however they are capable of acting on there own and should take responsibility for there actions.
Excellent observations–I agree entirely with your sense of Alisoun as highly sexualized through the Miller’s description (contrast the description of Emelye), and that she is viewed as sexual object throughout; however, do you think she shows more agency in her choices than Emelye?
March 2, 2015 at 7:11 pm
The Miller’s Tale returns a bit of lost agency to the women we have been introduced to thus far in the Canterbury Tales. As soon as the Tale begins, the reader is able to see the blatant similarities between the Miller and the Knight’s stories. Alisoun is described as having the same virginal qualities as Emelye; the word “whyt” (3236) is repeated three times when describing her dainty appearance, giving the reader a clear image of her innocence. The Miller’s Tale differs from the Knight’s, however, and quickly reveals itself as a separate take on the love triangle between Arcite, Palamon, and Emelye. While Emelye never develops beyond an object to be conquered, Alisoun takes it upon herself to act out against the men who make the mistake of seeing her as little more than a prize.
Chaucer deliberately chooses to end the Miller’s Tale with Alisoun unscathed. It interests me that she is able to punish the carpenter, Nicholas, and Absolon while only getting her hands slightly dirty in the process. After she “putte hir hole” (3732) out the window, a sort of domino effect ensues that allows her to watch as her suitors carry out her punishments for her. Seeking “quyte” (3746), or revenge, after he “kiste hir naked erse” (3734), Absolon subsequently delivers Nicholas’ punishment by poking him in the behind with a fire poker; Absolon’s attack on Nicholas causes the student to shout for “water” (3815), which signals the carpenter to dive from the roof of his home, an act that convinces the town of his insanity.
Alisoun’s ability to watch from afar as her suitors are punished gives her a sort of power that we have yet to see in the Canterbury Tales. Chaucer’s decision to conclude the Miller’s Tale with her on top is a victory for both Alisoun and Emelye, and provides the reader with insight into the author’s possible feelings about gender inequality.
February 26, 2015 at 11:30 am
After reading The Wife of Bath’s Prologue, what struck me most is perhaps her relationship to the women in the first two tales we’ve read. So far, the two women characters we’ve seen have been very similar. In the Knight’s Tale, Emelye is the object of affection, courted by two suitors, and after one is injured, the other is declared the “winner,” and she ends up with him. In The Miller’s Tale, Alison is again the object of desire for two suitors. But instead of playing a totally subservient role lacking in agency, Alison seems to be much more able to stand on her own as a character and make life difficult for her suitors.
These female characters are interesting to keep in mind when contrasted with The Wife of Bath whom we’ve just been introduced to. Although Alison was definitely a stronger character than that of Emelye, we see a whole new role for the woman in this tale. She is not an object of affection (so far), but instead a controlling, sometimes vile woman. She is not being used for her sexuality, but instead is using her sexuality for her own gain. This is a sharp departure even from the Alison character, so I’m wondering whether The Wife of Bath will come out on top at the conclusion of the tale. We have only seen men embarrassed by women in jest; even the jokes played on Absolon in the Miller’s Tale can’t be taken too seriously. But here the tone has totally shifted, leading me to believe that The Wife of Bath should be taken a bit more seriously.
The role of religion also has me questioning her purpose in the tales. She misuses several biblical references in her prologue and is not at all shy about disagreeing with some of the teachings of Christianity. This reminds me a lot of the ending of The Miller’s Tale, when Nicholas and Alison were able to get their entire town to believe the carpenter was crazy for thinking the biblical flood was imminent. The trend of stepping away from the Church’s teachings perhaps, or at least lending a critical eye towards the Bible, definitely seems to be forming.
February 26, 2015 at 8:27 am
The Wife of Bath is an especially fascinating character when compared with Alison (and Emily) from the Miller’s and Knight’s tales, respectively. Each of the three women characters have different types of agency (and sometimes none at all) in their lives and sexual choices. Emily, silent throughout most of the Knight’s Tale, places her viriginity in the hands of someone else: Diana, the goddess of chastity. Emily tells Diana that, “my mayedenhede thou kepe and wel conservve,/And whyl I live a mayde, I wol thee serve” (2329-2333). In the one place in which Emily has a voice, in which she has the ability to actively desire (even if her desire is for virginity) she chooses instead to continue to “serve,” a choice of verb that keeps her within a specific place within society. Alison, in comparison, seems to have more agency. Although Nicolas physically assaults her, she is able to say no, and “Nicholas gan mercy for to crye” (3288). The language of “mercy” is associated with language of lordship. In that moment, Alison does have power. But by the end of the story, her agency is taken away. The tale ends “thus sweyved was this carpenteres wyf” (2850). There is no sense that Alison has chosen to be “sweyved.” She becomes passive in this construction, an object that is “sweyved.” This passive verb choice is more powerful in the face of the language that the Wife of Bath uses. She explicitly says that, “I have the power during al my lyf/upon his propre body” (158-159). “I have the power,” she says. What is more active than that. Though the Wife of Bath is an intensely sexual character, she chooses to own and use her sexuality rather than letter other people define or control it. And in her sexual self awareness, she may be freer than any of the characters (even the male one, one could argue) who so far we have read.
February 26, 2015 at 1:00 am
I agree with Jerrica in that the most notable part of this story is how modern the Wife of Bath seems. It is revolutionary for Chaucer to have her speak at all, much less about her own power and sexuality.
She is obviously meant to be a caricature of a lusty woman, yet Chaucer has us understand that we are not to discount her. To me, she seems more of a tool of satire than an object of satire. At the beginning, she points out the hypocrisy of religion, in that it reveres virginal women, yet many of the men in the Bible had many wives. She also points out that women are criticized for however they are- poor, rich, beautiful, ugly (p. 107-108). It is almost shocking to me that Chaucer is more forward thinking in certain respects about women than many people today.
Her fifth husband’s misogynist book is, to me, a symbol of the hypocrisy of the way society treated women. Her comment “Who peyntede the leoun, tel me, who?” (p. 188) serves perfectly to throw in relief the tales of the Knight and Miller. In these stories, women cause all strife and are thoroughly two-dimensional. Yet, when we get to hear a woman speak, we find out that she is complex and insightful.
In class I would love to discuss the scene of the domestic brawl over the book.
February 26, 2015 at 8:20 am
Very good– I also agree that the fifth husband seems a key to some of the complexities of this prologue–the fact that he beats her and taunts her with his anti-feminist “book of wicked wives” seems to indicate Chaucer’s awareness of the oppressive situation of women–esp. if we consider that she was married off to her first husband at the age of 12…
February 26, 2015 at 12:38 am
The Wife of Bath, the first vivid and extensive portrait we have of a female character we have thus far in the Canterbury Tales, makes quite an impression upon her entrance. She places herself squarely at the center of attention–her Prologue is roughly twice as long as her tale, after all–and from her discourse it becomes clear that she conceives of herself as the central body in her universe. Granted, the length of the Knight’s tale, along with the heavy-handedness the Miller employs in commandeering the floor to tell his own, points to a degree of self-indulgence in both characters. But in neither case do they give extensive biographical details or take great pains to justify their hedonistic lifestyles. Chaucer intended for the Wife of Bath to stand apart from the previous pilgrims, and describes her in such a way that we cannot help but take note.
Moreover, we readers find ourselves inclined to compare her to the two major female character’s we’ve already seen: Emilye and Alisoun. And we should–the Wife of Bath not only provides extensive commentary on the inner workings of her various marriages but also does so from the first person. Her words resound as a sorely needed female voice with tangible weight and considerable agency. What Chaucer himself thought of her as a woman, and one clearly important enough to earn such a powerful role, is a discussion I look forward to having. In what ways does she fit the mold? In what ways does she break it? Is her lifestyle ultimately justified, despite her shaky logic? Or do her various arguments, although independently true, not stick together cohesively enough to support her overarching claims?
Nevertheless, we would be doing ourselves and Chaucer a great shame if we should narrow our examination exclusively to her womanhood. She is not just the first female pilgrim with such a commanding voice, but really the first character of any sort in the entire book to speak about oneself at such length. What causes her to usurp control of the conversation and break from the precedent in the way she does? Why is does Chaucer choose to make her the most “real” and immanent character thus far (as many others have mentioned in their posts). Even further, she introduces the first real theological arguments that we see in Canterbury Tales, albeit sometimes dubious ones. What is Chaucer trying to tell us about the way faith was viewed in that time? Why does she insist so repeatedly on the distinction between rules and recommendations? Finally, we shouldn’t forget that, through her monologue, we find ourselves one degree closer to Chaucer than we do in the tales themselves. Why does he choose to tell us a story in this context, when he quite easily could have embedded similar morals within a traditional tale? Ultimately, the Wife of Bath bursts onto the stage as a wholly new and unanticipated character in a number of ways; we would be remiss not to examine all of them.
February 26, 2015 at 8:19 am
Excellent questions! I hope we can follow up on most of these today–I certainly agree that the wife’s focus on her own experience of marriage and her own biography sets her apart from the others–whose point of view comes through in the material of the tales but not in the prologues; I also agree that the organization of this portrait is complex–she is attractive and energetic in some ways, but her presentation aligns her with a long _anti-feminist- tradition in others…
February 26, 2015 at 12:26 am
It seems almost inconceivable that almost 700 years ago, the Wife of Bath is discussing freely her views on a issue that we are still talking about today. In her Prologue, she discusses God, and asks, on line 62, “Where comanded he virginitee? … Men may conseille a womman to been oon/But conseilling is no commandment”. Today, women are still shamed for losing their virginity while men are praised for it. Immediately in this Prologue, we are struck by views that may be, in some more conservative parts of the US, incredibly radical.
This also puts her in stark contrast with the previous two tales we read. “The Knight’s Tale” talks in many lines about Emelye’s purity and how she begs to still keep it. As for “The Miller’s Tale”, Alisoun’s sexual freedom takes place in a tale already proclaimed to be dirty and somewhat topsy-turvy in terms of morals. Here, we see the Wife of Bath proclaiming that virginity is not required for God’s love, and saying it in quite a frank and honest way.
One of the things I am wondering about is the contribution of the Pardoner when she is speaking. Though the description of the Pardoner in the general prologue had him as kind of a sketchy character, I see a deliberate choice here of having someone who literally cleanses people of their sins agreeing with a woman who, by traditional definitions, has sinned so much.
February 26, 2015 at 8:15 am
Very good–yes, the Wife shows us how much has stayed the same in the last few hundred years, especially as regards sexual politics…I also think the interventions of the androgynous Pardoner are interesting–he gives her the status of “noble prechour,” too, which suggests a transgressive role, since women were not allowed to preach…
February 25, 2015 at 10:59 pm
In the General Prologue, the Wife of Bath is described, “Of clooth-making she hadde swiche an haunt, She passed hem of Ypres and of Gaunt” (447-8). After reading the “Wife of Bath Prologue and Tale”, it is evident that her excellent ability in weaving, mirrors her ability to continue to re-create and manufacture beauty in her life marriage after marriage. As probably the most complex character we have seen thus far in Canterbury Tales, her power doesn’t only come from simply her experience with five marriages, but from her ability to manipulate her husbands through her sexuality and a combination of lies and games. Additionally, not only do these provide her with personal freedom, but also allow her to harden her character while continuing to flourish financially. However, as the majority of the Prologue makes her character seem pretty much horrible, it is in her fifth marriage that we finally begin to see an emotional character that has also been softened by her experiences. She is unable to enact the same sovereignty she had in her other marriages because her fifth marriage is rooting in love not power. We begin to see her self-conscious awareness of her older age and vulnerability to her love for Jankin come to the forefront of the narrative. Despite the Knight’s Tale and Miller’s Tale being rooting in either the idealistic form of courtly love, or the fabliau version, the Wife of Bath’s Tale depicts a more realistic version of how love, marriage, and sexuality effects both men and women in different ways. Additionally, having a woman, even though simply known as a “wife”, be this powerful character reflects upon Chaucer’s progressive work in this time period.
February 26, 2015 at 8:13 am
Excellent! Your reading of the wife is very astute–especially concerning the shift from her self-presentation as wife in her first three marriages to her portrayal of her fifth marriage=-to the man she apparently really “loves.” It is interesting to think about why she is drawn to the man who is violent and abusive, both physically and mentally…
February 25, 2015 at 10:45 pm
For a woman who has had five different husbands, not to mention the other “companye in youthe,” (pg. 14, line 461) and knowing the “remedyes of love” (pg. 14, line 475), I was very surprised that the Wife of Bath referenced God and the Bible so much. She uses the Bible, specifically Salomon – who had 700 wives and 300 concubines – Abraham, and Jacob, to defend the fact that she has had so many husbands.
In her Prologue, she says that she, not her future husband, will have power over his body. Clearly she has more agency, sexual agency in particular, than any of the other female characters that have been introduced in The Canterbury Tales as of yet.
Initially I was surprised that King Arthur deferred the Knight’s judgment to his wife. However, as it became clear that the thing all women want is dominion over their husbands, I became that much more impressed by King Arthur’s actions. The Wife of Bath makes King Arthur the ideal husband. This made me think of the often repeated saying, “Behind every great man, is a great woman.”
The tale’s ending speaks volumes about the Wife of Bath’s message. The Knight does not want to fulfill his promise and marry the old hag, even offering her all of his material possessions instead of the body. The old hag doesn’t relent, however, and the two are married. The Knight is miserable throughout the entire process, though. Eventually, the old hag tells the Knight he can either have her be loyal, and ugly, or beautiful and untrustworthy. The Knight replies by saying that she can choose whichever she likes. By offering her sovereignty, he is rewarded. She becomes beautiful and loyal and they live happily ever after. The Wife of Bath’s message is that if men are deferential to their wives, everyone will come out better for it.
February 26, 2015 at 8:10 am
The question about the role of the bible is a good one–she is referred to as a “noble” prechour,” too–and overall the impression one gets is that she is offering a kind of sermon here–though one that runs on very unconventional lines. Her use (and misuse) of the Bible sets her up as a kind of commentator (glossator) on the bible, and pits her against the male readers who were so powerful–esp. St Jerome.
February 25, 2015 at 9:00 pm
The Wife of Bath seems to be a rather bold woman for the time. She makes it apparent that throughout her relationships with her multiple husbands, she has maintained dominance. The Wife of Bath goes on to share her own interpretations on sexuality that are referenced in the Bible. The Wife address the common belief that God expects woman to remain virgins (60-70). Saint Paul, according to The Wife, only recommends to maintain their virginity if they choose. While living a life of purity has carried on great religious and spiritual significance, The Wife debunks any possible expectation woman have associated with virginity. The Wife goes to the length of comparing herself to prophets such as Abraham and Jacob who had multiple spouses. Not only does this comparison seem rather daring for the times, but even in modern society to compare yourself to an extension related or associated with the divine seems to be a taboo. This is a defiantly not an act Emily or Alison would consider. Is The Wife of Bath able to break social norms and expectations because of her agency?
February 26, 2015 at 8:08 am
Good! The wife’s use of the bible is very important, and shows her selectively reading passages, just as her great antagonist St Jerome does…the same passages, in some cases. I like the final question about agency–and we will follow that up in class!
February 25, 2015 at 8:01 pm
Maybe’s it’s the result of having encountered only static, relatively undeveloped female characters so far in The Canterbury Tales, but I found the characterization of the Wife of Bath quite intriguing. At first she seems just what we would expect of a woman who is on her fifth husband—brash, sexually unabashed, somewhat crude and blasphemous (for the time, at least: I can see her use of the polygamy of biblical figures like Abraham and Jacob as validation for her many marriages as somewhat feather-ruffling). She doesn’t paint a very positive picture of women in general. And yet, strangely enough, it seems the Wife of Bath is less a caricature than any of the figures we have seen before: the Knight is long-winded, apparently supercilious with a heavy focus on the courtly values associated with his own occupation, the miller is little but a crude drunk, but in the Wife of Bath’s prologue we get hints about her personality, her experiences, and—gasp—her feelings, which, even if the depiction is ultimately a negative one, at least it is thorough. Why would Chaucer spend such a long time describing a sinful woman if he could write her off quickly as a simple harlot?
I could probably speak at length about the many ways in which the Wife of Bath’s characterization is different from and perhaps more complete than those of the other figures in the story, but for the purpose of this post I wanted to mention the conclusion of her story: the relationship with her latest husband—ostensibly the only husband she married for love, and the one she found most difficult to control. The Wife, who exercised sexual and personal manipulation throughout four of her marriages to what sounds like great success, cannot quite manage Jankin the same way she did her previous husbands. He shames her by comparing her to women from a book about the worst women in history, beats her so severely she goes deaf and yet the proud Wife of Bath still cries out “Er I be deed, yet wol I kisse thee.”
The idea that this woman who was early on depicted as immoral and vulgar, in keeping with the idea that non-virgins are harlots, is given a chance to speak of her own love and her own abuse in a text that otherwise seems to ignore any aspect of womanhood besides beauty and virginity fascinates me, and I’d love to hear other interpretations of her prologue.
February 26, 2015 at 8:07 am
very good! the portrait of Alisoun as sexually brash etc. does give her a kind of vitality and apparently a kind of agency certainly lacking in Emelye; she does fit a certain kind of anti-feminist stereotype, and the question is what Chaucer is doing with those elements here…
February 25, 2015 at 5:15 pm
The Wife of Bath’s Prologue is all about power and certainly criticizes the ideals of courtly love and marriage about which we’ve talked in relation to the tales of the Knight and the Miller. For the majority of her Prologue, the Wife goes on describing how she was able to control four of her five husbands by her sexuality. Clearly, the Wife seems to exhibit more agency than any of the other female characters we’ve encountered thus far, and yet, at least to me, she seems to be the worst of all. She takes pleasure in forcing her husbands to suffer, and basically uses them to acquire land and wealth. I feel as though Chaucer created an extreme character in the Wife to attempt to balance the flawed but less cruel male characters like the Knight, Theseus, the Miller, etc. They all have major issues in their character, but at the very least come across as well-intentioned. The Wife, meanwhile, is shameless about her extortion of her husbands.
Another theme that the Wife touches on and that relates back to the Knight’s Tale is the sentiment that we want what we can’t have. This is emphasized in the Prologue when the Wife says, “We wommen han, if that I shal nat lye, In this matere a queynte fantasye: Wayte what thing we may nat lightly have, Thereafter wol we crye al day and crave. Forbede us thing, and that desyren we (lines 515-519).” We have already discussed this idea, but it is interesting to consider how, if at all, this desire changes from a female perspective. The Wife calls this desire a “queynte fantasye”, mean an “odd fancy”, but that fancy is in fact consistent among men and women.
February 26, 2015 at 8:05 am
Good observations–the key question here is whether that negative aspect of the wife’s character (her tyranny over her old husbands, for instance) is intended to present her as an anti-feminist stereotype–the nagging, unfaithful wife, or whether Chaucer is using these familiar elements to critique that stereotype…
February 24, 2015 at 1:30 pm
In the Miller’s Tale, Chaucer introduces a different type of female character. Alisoun, who I believe ends up being the opposite of Emelye, is given more of a a voice and a presence in this tale. In the beginning of the tale Alisoun seems to be very similar to Emelye in the way that she is claimed by men in her life, Alisoun by her husband the carpenter and Emelye her brother and then Palamon. However, they differ as the tale goes on and Alisoun starts exemplifying more agency towards sexual behavior. At the end of the tale we see that she gave in to her sexual desire for Nicholas and also plays mind games with Absolon and his courtly love for her. This grasp of sexuality that we see Alisoun take hold of in her life brings up the question whether it was a growing urgency inside of her or whether it was always in her and it was just a matter of time before she was going to let it out. On the one hand, since Alisoun is just 18 years old, one could make the claim that she learned through her first few years of experience what she wanted sexually, emotionally and what was going to fulfill her then got the guts to act on it. But not he other hand, we could also give credit to Alisoun and argue that she had it in her the entire time and was simply using her innocence to persuade the pawns that were going to be used in her game of chess.
February 23, 2015 at 11:13 pm
It is fairly clear that the Miller’s Tale is meant to parody the Knight’s Tale in a number of ways – from its formulation as a love triangle, to the forbidden nature of the men’s love, to the eventual result of the object of affection ending up with one of the two potential lovers, and the other having an unhappy ending. These parallels are certainly worth exploring, but the similarity I want to focus on is a little more symbolic, and therefore quite powerful as a weapon of parody. Both tales depict activity involving windows, and the nature of this activity informs the message of the stories.
In the Knight’s Tale, the barred window of Arcite and Palamon’s cell is a physical barrier between them and Emily. The windows are a physical representation of courtly love, where the women is unattainable (in this case physically, but in most cases because of her marriage to the lord). Her separation from them creates the distant longing that drives the story story. However, the tale never allows the cousins to interact with Emily through the window, or cross through it. Only much later do they come into contact with Emily.
In the Miller’s Tale, however, windows are less forbidding, and the barrier between inside and outside is permeable. The window is where Absolon tries to woo Alison (l. 3695), and Alison opens it to perform her prank (l. 3727-3734), substituting her backside for her lips. This comic scene suggests an odd interaction between the people on opposite sides of the windows, particularly in the context of the preceding Knight’s Tale. When Absolon, the lover from afar, tries to cross the barrier, the results are disastrous. This is not far from the result of Palamon and Arcite’s transgression of the boundaries of courtly love, although the result is far direr in the Knight’s Tale.
The Miller makes a mockery of the Knight’s serious and didactic tale, by portraying the star-crossed lover from afar as somewhat of a buffoon, yet the tale oddly affirms one part of the value of courtly love – the need for the courtly lover to maintain his distance. The tale ends with the idea that Absolon should not have gone after Alison, who is the unattainable woman due to her relationship with Nicholas. This is strangely not that far from the ending of the Knight’s Tale, where one of the courtly lovers ends up dead. Windows play a key role in portraying both the similarities and difference between the two stories.
A brief note on the description of Alison: During the description on pages 74-75 the Miller compares her, or at least a part of her, to a weasel, a tree, a sheep, a swallow, a kid, a calf, a colt, a primrose, a cuckooflower, and a colt again. I suppose there could be an element of perceiving her as a natural and pure woman, but there are also overtones of animalization and objectification that are rather alarming, particularly in a story where she actually has a relatively greater amount of agency when compared to Emily in the previous story.
February 24, 2015 at 8:38 am
Excellent!! You have gone straight to the heart of the central function of the Miller’s tale==to parody the Knight’s tale–and also found a wonderful focused way to consider the differences (and similarities) of the tales. The window is indeed an intriguing object in both…
February 23, 2015 at 10:47 pm
The Miller’s tale provides an obvious comparison to the Knight’s tale on the basis of class. The Miller blatantly disrupts social order when he volunteers to tell his tale right after the Knight and this disruption does not go unnoticed; the Host even states, “Som bettre man shal telle us first another [tale],” explicitly attempting to uphold the social hierarchy within his competition. (3130) Additionally, the class hieracrhy is embodied when the Reve disgusted and offended by the content of the story and interrupts the Miller once he begins to tell the background of his tale. The Knight, however, got to tell his entire tale with no interruptions, implying that the social rank of a pilgrim not only determines their order in the competition but also whether they are even entitled to respected and uninterrupted speech. Despite the repeated descriptions of the Miller as a drunk, the Miller demonstrates impressive storytelling abilities with engaging imagery and plot. There are even similarities between the Miller and the narrator within this tale. The Miller apologizes for being drunk at the end of his prologue and warns that, “if that I misspeke or seye, wyte it the ale of Southwerk, I yow preye,” thus demonstrating some concern for the accuracy of his tale. (3139-3140) On the next page, the narrator makes a similar plea to his audience, “therfore every gentil wight I preye, for Goddes love, demeth nat that I seye of evel entente, but I moot reherce hir tales alle, be they better or werse,” demonstrating a similar self consciousness of how he tells the following tale and not wanting to be judged by his listeners. (3171-3174) The plot of the Miller’s tale even parallels that of the Knight’s tale, they are both effectively stories about multiple men pursuing the love of one woman. However, the Miller arguable gives his characters more dimensions than the Knight did (John and Nicholas were much more distinguishable than Palamon and Arcite), thus debatably making him a more effective storyteller.
February 24, 2015 at 8:40 am
very good–excellent points about the class struggle here, and I do agree that despite the similarities between the tales there are significant differences–I might argue especially in the portrayal of Alisoun/Emelye!
February 23, 2015 at 10:01 pm
In “The Miller’s Tale,” I would like to analyze the character of Absolon and how he represents a mockery of courtly love. The passage from lines 3312-3382 features a lengthy description of Absolon and an explanation for his strong (yet hopeless) desire for Alisoun. The Miller paints him as a romantic figure: “Crul was his heer, and as the gold it shoon” (3314) and “in twenty manere coude he trippe and daunce” (3328). The Miller uses an animal metaphor, as he does in other places, to describe Absolon’s approach towards Alisoun: “if she had ben a mous, / And he a cat, he wolde hire hente anon” (3345-7).
We come to view Absolon as a desperate lover, which does not necessarily surprise the reader based on his profession of a parish clerk. He sings in the streets at night, never wants to go to bed, and fantasizes about Alisoun in a non-sexual way that embodies courtly love. His character relates much closer to those of Arcite and Palamoun than it does Nicholas, who represents much more of a lowbrow, sexually explicit type of lover. However, it is the way that the Miller flips this dynamic to make a mockery of Absolon that converts this sub-story from silly comic relief to meaningful social commentary about class and ideology. In turn, this provides a response to “The Knight’s Tale” from the opposite side of the spectrum. As we witness later in the Miller’s story, all that Absolon gains from his incessant efforts is a kiss to Alisoun’s buttocks and a fart in his face from Nicholas. Clearly, the Miller does not associate himself with the romanticized, higher-class concept of courtly love. By depicting Absolon in this way, the Miller responds to the Knight’s positive portrayal of courtly love by making a mockery of it. While funny, this social commentary exposes a divide between class ideologies as they relate to love and courtship.
February 24, 2015 at 8:41 am
Excellent! You have pinpointed exactly the key issues to emerge in this sudden juxtaposition of the Knight’s and Miller’s tale–a juxtaposition that appears accidental but in fact shows a detailed purpose of “quiting”–or taking revenge on. Absolon is the perfect figure to focus on–all the trappings of a courtly lover, but utterly ridiculed…
February 23, 2015 at 9:39 pm
Given our prior conversations about Emelye- her lack of agency, the failure of the virtue of chastity- I expected to find a similar portrayal of females in The Miller’s Tale. I found some aspects of the portrayal of Alison’s femininity unsurprising. For example, the narrator describes her as a “popelote,” or a plaything, and compares her complexion to gold coins, equating a woman to a commodity, or a signal of a man’s wealth. In addition, Alison’s body is depicted as “weasel-like,” even though it is Nicholas who is “sleigh and ful privee;” in other words, a sneaky and scheming person, and more “weasel-y” than the woman, if you ask me. These descriptions of Alison are told from a man’s perspective, which I think offers telling insight into the general perception of women during this period.
We can see, too, the ways in which Nicholas’ actions -and Absolon’s, for that matter- are eerily reminiscent of a rape narrative, another theme uncovered in The Knight’s Tale. For example, Absolon tells of a dream in which he is at a feast, again painting Alison’s sexuality as a thing to be consumed, like food or money.
But is Alison a weak female character? Does she fully adhere to this idea that women are there to be taken advantage of? That they are scheming and useable? Or does she carry more agency than Emelye? Later in the story, we see her blatantly reject Absolon, stating “As help me God, it wol not be ‘com pa me.’” I viewed this as a stark break from Chaucer’s earlier portrayals of the female; here, Alison takes willful control of her own sexuality, even though she did not seem to have the same control earlier, with Nicholas.
My question for others is: Do you see Alison as an independent and three-dimensional character, one who has agency over her own femininity? Or does she too have no control over the events that shape her life?
February 24, 2015 at 8:42 am
This is an excellent question, and might make the basis for a good paper–how real is Alisoun’s agency? Does it matter that her agency is all expressed in terms of sex? What do you make of the aggression of Nicholas’s initial “courtship” of her? very good!
February 23, 2015 at 6:09 pm
The Miller’s Tale escalated rather quickly in comparison to the Knight’s Tale. The Miller’s Tale is not broken into parts. The lack of structure may comment on the Miller’s lifestyle directly. Unlike like a Knight who has a strict code of chivalry to live by the Miller has absolutely no need for order or structure to dictate his life.
The description of Alisoun is intended to be extremely sensual. Her body is compared to a thin and small “wesele” (3234). “Upon her lendes,” the area of sexual organs that is associated with the source of provocative pleasure, is a small dainty apron that is as white as milk (3235-3237). Not only is there a focus on obvious sexual attributes of Alisoun, but also the Narrator almost intends to tease his audience with an overly sexualized character. The small tight white apron seems to be right out of a sexual fantasy. The white color could be an ironic representation of purity. Even though it is assumed Alisoun is not a virgin, the white purity adds on to the sexual fantasy and works perfectly with her young age.
Alisoun is completely objectified throughout the text, threw the eyes of the Narrator. All men in the Tale expect or want some form of sexual relationship from Alisoun. Some aspects of the Tale delightfully surprised me. I appreciate Alisoun’s rebuttal to Absolon’s kiss. Ultimately all the men at the end of the Tale undergo some sort of misfortune yet Alisoun remains relatively unharmed. I do recognize that Alisoun could potentially be to blame for the misfortune of her suitors, however they are capable of acting on there own and should take responsibility for there actions.
February 24, 2015 at 8:46 am
Excellent observations–I agree entirely with your sense of Alisoun as highly sexualized through the Miller’s description (contrast the description of Emelye), and that she is viewed as sexual object throughout; however, do you think she shows more agency in her choices than Emelye?