“The Canterbury Tales” resembles Bocacco’s Decameron, with the significant difference that, unlike the latter, the class, class, and property composition of the storytellers has unusually varied twenty-nine pilgrim heroes from all walks of life. They spend their time on the road telling stories, and each one is unlike the previous one, with every imprint of the narrator’s personality. In Chaucer’s Miller’s tale, an interesting character to analyze is a carpenter named John. Against the background of the other characters in the work, who have obvious tendencies toward perfidy, he is a relatively positive character. Nevertheless, as is typical of the fairy tale genre in general, and especially of Chaucer’s narrative, each character has negative manifestations for which punishment eventually ensues.
Miller tells the story of how a trusting carpenter, after marrying a young girl, began to fear treachery on the part of the latter. Nevertheless, he was often enough deceived by his wife. She conducted numerous intrigues with young Nicholas and allowed herself to be courted by other men. All of these episodes went unnoticed by her husband, and this is the act of the naĂŻve carpenter, for which there would later be retribution (Chaucer, 2017). The author and the narrator accuse the protagonist of being too trusting, which ultimately leads to unpleasant consequences for him. A kind of punishment towards this character is the eventual adultery on the part of his wife, as well as the physical trauma received by the carpenters in the final part of the story.
It is important to note that John is emblematic of the degree of naivety that is devastating even for people with positive qualities. The carpenter, though he shared Christian values, could not understand the substitution on the part of Nicholas. He fell victim to a deception wrapped in the form of divine providence. The young man invented a story according to which a massive disaster was to occur, and he, the carpenter, and his wife needed to save themselves by shackling themselves in barrels and setting out to sea (Chaucer, 2017). The protagonist believed the story without a second thought, and subsequently, taking advantage of the carpenter’s levity, Nicholas went to his wife. The reader can trace in this tale two reasons why the relatively positive character was punished.
The carpenter displayed naivety on two levels, including worldly and Christian. In terms of his relationship with his wife, the man was inconsiderate and did not pay proper attention to the young girl’s surroundings. At the same time, the hero has shown unacceptable naivety in allowing himself to believe a lie based on Christian teaching (Chaucer, 2017). The fact that the man is guilty from two perspectives is reflected in the double punishment that awaited him thereafter. First, on a spiritual level, he experienced his wife’s infidelity, and then, on a physical level, he was injured by falling to the ground and breaking his leg.
Whether this story could have been a cautionary tale for the carpenter remains an open question, but the humorous tone of the story gives a hint that the characters remain incorrigible. Thus, Miller’s story draws a fine line between gullible religious orthodoxy and the humor of joking about other people. Part of the story is told by Miller as a classic humorous tale of a man who is tricked into believing a flood is coming, but it is not really comical at all, because the man ends up badly hurt, and his wife ends up in bed with another man.
Reference
Chaucer, G. (2017). The Miller’s tale. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.