Sam Malley

Dr. Sarah Dangelantonio

EN 203.01

10/6/17

Chaucer Comparative

The art of storytelling is a crucial element of the universal experience we share as

humans. Geoffrey Chaucer captures this communal act in action in his famous Canterbury Tales.

In his tale, a ragtag band of pilgrims, each unique in disposition, class, and manner, share a

myriad of stories on their journey from London to Canterbury. Two of the most well-known of

these tales are that of the Knight and of the Miller. By playing off of the Knights tale told prior,

the Miller is able to show the ridiculousness of the noble ideals upheld in the Knights tale

when he places them in front of a backdrop of peasant life. The contrast between these two tales,

by means of their genre, structure, and moral, provides irony that is comedic to The Canterbury

Tales, while also serving as a subtle critique of the pompous frills that adorned the nobility of

Chaucers time.

The Knights Tale falls under the genre of chivalric romance, which generally presents

the story of a knight who falls in courtly love with a maiden and fights for her love by proving

himself to be heroic. In the Knights Tale, two knights and best friends, Palamon and Arcite fall

in love with the beautiful Princess Emelye from their cells in prison. In realizing his friend has

fallen for the maiden as well, Palamon emphasizes the concept of courtly love that is so crucial

to this genre, stating To love my lady, whom I love and serve, and ever shall until death cut my

hearts nerve (Chaucer 50). After years of competition over the ladys heart and destroying their
bond of friendship, they decide to settle their feud once and for all by means of a duel. They both

fight valiantly (a very crucial aspect of chivalrous knights), but ultimately the divine intervention

of Saturn leads to Palamons triumph and Arcites death. This even further demonstrates the

heroic qualities of this protagonist because he clearly is in the favor of the gods for them to

intervene. The tale ends with marriage and the reassurance of a bright future for the knight and

his courtly love, which enforces the moral value of this construct.

In contrast, the Millers Tale is classified as a fabliau, a comic tale that generates is

comedy through sexual and scatological humor. Allisoun falls in mutual lust with a scholar,

Nicholas, who is boarding in the house of Allisoun and her husband John (a stupid carpenter who

is far older than his young bride), while a vain church assistant named Absolon falls madly in

(unrequited) love with Allisoun. This love triangle completely excludes Allisouns husband and

destroys the chance for the two suitors to valiantly battle for the maidens heart, as Allisoun has

no interest in Absolon. Rather than having a duel to the death for her hand, Nicholas sleeps with

Allisoun, Allisoun tricks Absolon to kiss her naked arse (119), then Absolon get his revenge

by branding Nicholas with a white-hot poker in the middle of the rump (121). The morality

that Is promoted by the Knights Tale is reduced to cuckoldry, lust, and potty humor by the

Millers depraved cast of characters. The morals gained form this tale are not noble, but rather

sre common sense for the common man; an older man is in for trouble if he is to marry a younger

bride, and revenge is a consequence of depravity.

The Miller chooses to go after the Knight strategically (albeit drunk). This order creates

an ironic humor, as the tale of the Knight is disgraced by the musing of a drunken, sloppy

commoner. The Knights story, having been the first one to be told, sets a precedent for tales of

grand nobility and heroism, which is then immediately destroyed by the Miller. This comedic
shift lightens the tone, and makes the Canterbury Tales up to common folk. The Knights clear

annoyance helps to further define his character as someone who is strictly noble, and the

Millers crass and vulgar attitude paints a picture of the common man of the era.
 Works Cited

Chaucer, Geoffrey, and Nevill Coghill. The Canterbury Tales. London ; New York: Penguin

Books, 2003.