Geoffrey Chaucer is known as the father of English poetry. His Canterbury Tales, though written in verse, can be seen as a collection of stories. There is drama in it, there are all the ingredients of a novel, and it is a fine collection of social criticisms. He gathers about thirty-two pilgrims on their way to the Canterbury Shrine and makes them tell two stories each on their way up and down. Though he could not succeed in getting all the tales, whatever has come from the pilgrims is sufficient enough to reflect the social life of the people of the fourteenth century, particularly their beliefs and manners. Miller’s story is such a one. A critical analysis of the tale is the focus of this paper.
Miller’s tale is presented as a parody of the tale told by the Knight. The Knight’s attempt to project himself as noble and idealistic through his tale finds a contrast in Miller’s tale, which is down to earth. The subject matter of his story is the common man’s view of sex, his practical approach to sex. Morality has no place in it. The Knight, on the other hand, projects an ideal and sublime love. This enables Miller to introduce common characters without any hypocrisy or snobbery. John, an old man marries a young woman of eighteen, named Alison. An Oxford-educated young man, named Nicholas, and a parish clerk, named Absalom, woo her. Miller says that “This clerk was called the clever Nicholas” (Tale). These young men differ very much in their attitude to love. Nicholas is practical, and he makes a plan to sleep with her. Absalom, on the other hand, pays attention to his dress, songs, and gifts to woo her. Miller says that “In twenty manners could he trip and dance” (Tale). Absalom is content with a quick kiss delivered through her window.
The story takes a turn when Nicholas weaves a plot to trap Alison’s husband, John. He wants to sleep with her at least for one night for which she agrees: “My husband is so full of jealousy, / Unless you will await me secretly” (Tales). The word “secretly”, and the secret parts, are used in the poem in their social and biblical context. Bishop observes, “The Tale’s confused orifices-backsides taken for mouths-parody the Bible story’s concern with the unseen and seen, and Augustine’s understanding of the Bible story as an allegory of the means and limits of human knowledge” (Louise). Nicholas tells John that the second flood is very close, and to save his wife he must prepare two tubs on the roof, to be ready to float on the water and save them. The poor old man obeys with all his religious honesty. Nicholas, after ensuring that the husband is sleeping soundly on the roof, comes down to share Alison’s bed. The other lover, as usual, hovers around her room singing, and when he comes to kiss her through the window, he gets the taste of her arse and not her lips. To ease out his revenge, he comes back with a hot poker, but it is Nicholas’s buttocks that get the burns. The people gathered, after hearing his cries, are told that John is mad.
The tale is full of humor and irony. It looks obscene without being obscene. The game of making the husband’s cuckold is as old as human love. Chaucer brings out various aspects of social life through this story. The fault in John is that he married a very young woman. Miller tries to remind his listeners that a certain amount of suitability in age, looks, and manners is essential to make the married life a success. Aware of the youth and beauty of his wife, the husband tries to possess his wife completely. Jealousy creeps in. Another valuable message emerging from the story is that it is never possible to keep complete control of an individual, be it one’s wife. Yet another important warning is that one should know that in love sex has the upper hand. Mere platonic love cannot satisfy a woman. When the female is on the lookout, it is obvious that people like Nicholas and Absalom will hover around, seeking an opportunity. The narrator rejects Absalom’s approach and punishes Nicholas after rewarding what he desired. John has little sympathy.
Chaucer very skillfully depicts the social tension he observed in his society. The Monk wanted to tell his tale to alter the Knight’s tale. The host also wanted to give him a chance, to be the “better” man. The Miller does not allow that. He is drunk and a tale from him, thinks the host, will only be bawdy and uninteresting. However, Miller, with his humorous tale, proves that he is next to none in his society. He also borrows some parts of the Knight’s tale with slight modifications.
Some words in the tale reflect certain social life of the people of the time. Lambdin picks up the word “gnof” and he explains that “Perhaps it is reasonable to suggest that the word implies “cuckold” and is used as a foreshadowing device” (Lambdin). The words used by Miller match the social status and manners of the characters. In the art of characterization, Chaucer is superb. As Hudson observed, Chaucer’s “characters are individualized, yet their thoroughly typical quality gives unique value to Chaucer’s picture of men and manners in the England of his time” (Hudson, 23).
“The Miller’s Tale” makes The Canterbury Tales more interesting with its rustic touch and simplicity. All the four characters in Miller’s tale are with flesh and blood; they are individuals. The use of irony and humor imparts great pleasure to the tale. Chaucer’s narrative skills helped many writers to develop their style. He is certainly the Father of English Literature.
References
Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Miller’s Tale”. Web.
Hudson, W. H. An Outline History of English Literature. New Delhi: A.I.T.B.S Publisher, 2006.
Lambdin, R. T. “Chaucer’s The Miller’s Tale” The Explicator, 1989, 47, 3.
Louise, M Bishop. “”Of Goddes pryvetee nor of his wyF”: Confusion of Orifices in Chaucer’s Miller Tale”, Texas Studies in Literature and Language. Austin: 2002.Vol. 44, Iss. 3; pg. 231, 16 pgs. Web.