In his The Miller ’ s Tale Chaucer presents a side of the courtly love tradition ne’er seen earlier. His characters are mean in-between category workers instead than elect aristocracy. There is an interesting comparing between the Miller ’ s characters and those in two of Marie de France ’ s lais that portion really near secret plan lines. Alternatively of being idealized Chaucer ’ s characters are farinaceous. Alternatively of being involved in “courtly love ” there is some grounds that the relationship between Alison and Nicholas is one of lecherousness.
Chaucer ’ s usage of the lower category makes the absurdness of what they are making base out. In the lais of Marie de France, Guigemare and Yonec, are built on the same original which is the same as Chaucer ’ s Miller ’ s tale utilizations. Marie ’ s lais can give supply a set of “land regulations ” for this original. The two lais portion several similar elements. They both contain the same three cardinal characters, who possesses cardinal similarities, the same beginning secret plan line and several of the same subjects.
The first character shared by the two lais is the narrative ’ s scoundrel, the aged hubby. He is a powerful Godhead who is much older than his married woman. Because he is witting of this fact, he worries invariably that his married woman will bewray him, so he locks her up. He is both the least and most of import figure in the narrative. He ’ s of import because without his presence and actions the narrative could ne’er take topographic point. But he has really small existent interaction with the other two more cardinal characters. The hubby in Yonec is ne’er described as meeting either his married woman or her lover. In Guigemare the hubby, married woman and Guigemare are merely together when the two lovers are discovered.
The figure of the beautiful, captive married woman is the 2nd cardinal character. She is the quintessential demoiselle in hurt, beautiful, baronial ( and with the exclusion of her one true love ) chaste. The 3rd character is the valorous lover who rescues the unhappy and captive demoiselle. In both Guigemare and Yonec this character is a knight, and like his lover, the demoiselle in hurt, he is the stereotyped “ knight in reflecting armour. ” He is described as being afflicted by love, and says he will decease without it. He will travel to any extent for his true love. As with characters both Guigemare and Yonec portion a similar secret plan line.
The immature married woman is locked up by her covetous hubby. Then by some charming means her lover is transported to her. After some protestation from the adult female, and some courtship from the knight, the two become lovers, until they are discovered and separated. After this point the two secret plans diverge. Besides cardinal to both narratives is the thought that these extra-marital personal businesss are non improper. In Guigemare, the lady ’ s amah says to the knight: The adult male who wishes to love my lady must maintain her invariably in his ideas and, if you remain faithful to each other, the love between you will be right and proper. ” ( pg. 49 )
Obviously fidelity is of import, but non forced fidelity. Love is more of import than matrimony in these lais. It ’ s besides of import to observe the celibacy of the lovers. There is no reference of contact between the captive married womans and their hubbies. In Yonec the Lord of Caerwent takes his married woman for the intent of kid bearing, but she is imprisoned for seven old ages before run intoing her lover and no kids are evidenced from the text. Guigemare has ne’er been in love before he meets his true love. This gives the love and actions between the braces seem even more pure, and besides makes it look to be less iniquitous.
Love is a powerful force in both these narratives. It is non merely the drive force behind the character ’ s actions, but it besides causes them physical affliction. Marie de France writes in Guigemare: But love had now pierced him to the quick and his bosom was greatly disturbed. For the lady wounded him so profoundly he had wholly forgotten his fatherland. . .The knight remained entirely, plaintive and downcast. He did non yet recognize the cause, but at least he knew that, if he were non cured by the lady his decease would be assured. ” ( pg. 48 )
To Guigemare at least love is the most of import thing there is. This consideration is even more dramatic by the fact that Guigemare either could non or would non fall in love while in his ain land. So those are the basic elements involved in the captive married woman ” original used by Marie. In The Miller ’ s Tale Chaucer uses same basic secret plan line, and similar characters. One of the largest differences between the Chaucer ’ s characters and Marie ’ s characters is their degree of wealth and their place in society. This causes them to be portrayed in a different mode than Marie ’ s rich, baronial characters.
The first of the three major characters is present mostly unchanged. He is non of class a male monarch or Godhead, but John the carpenter is evidently a adult male of at least some sum of wealth, evidenced by the fact that he has a house that is large plenty that he can lease suites from. He is besides more present than the covetous hubby of Marie. He does non lock his married woman up in a tower and remain far off from her. Unlike the hubbies in Marie ’ s lais he still has contact with his tungsten ife. The two slumber in the same bed ( as we see when Absalom tries to sing to Alison ) .
John ’ s degree of green-eyed monster is non every bit great as that of Marie ’ s hubbies. When he awakens to hear Absalom singing to his married woman he does nil. And as Absalom continues to seek to court John ’ s married woman off from him in his presence, he still does nil. The male monarch in Yonec kills his married woman ’ s lover, in Guigemare he at first efforts to make the same. He even allows a adult male, Nicholas, to be near to his married woman.
The lone adult male allowed close to Guigemare ’ s lover is a priest who had lost his lower members. ” Alison, Chaucer ’ s captive married woman, is less of the ideal than her opposite numbers in Marie. Surely she is beautiful. But her is beauty is somewhat flawed. She is graceful and slim like [ a ] weasel. ” By comparing her with a weasel Chaucer makes Alison seem to be soiled and untrusty. Morally the comparing between Alison and her opposite numbers in Marie is more confusing. Chaucer describes her as holding a “ wanton oculus. ” But her protestation seems to be more existent, and Nicholas seems to hold gone to farther lengths to do her his lover. When Nicholas professes his love to her Chaucer describes her reaction as such: [ She ] twisted her caput off hard/ and said, ‘ I won ’ t snog you, on my religion ; / why allow me be, ’ she said, ‘ let be, Nicholas, or I ’ ll call Aid! ” and alas! ” ( pg. 155 )
Alison seems rather adamantly opposed to going Nicholas ’ lover here, as opposed to the married woman in Yonec, who merely needs cogent evidence that her lover to be is Christian. Her refusals, and so Nicholas merely winning when he had pushed her so difficult ” sounds, at least to the modern reader, to be colza. But merely lines subsequently she swears a vow with Nicholas. The displacements made by the adult females in Marie are non about so drastic.
At no point in Guigemare or Yonec do you acquire the feeling that the adult females will garbage either of their lovers. Their protests are about merely for properness interest, the mediaeval version of playing difficult to acquire. But in Alison ’ s refusal there is no evident support for her actions shortly thenceforth. Possibly the ground for Alison ’ s switching actions is due to Chaucer ’ s image of adult females at the clip, as was argued against by Christine de Pisan.
The figure of the rescuing lover is divided into two parts by Chaucer. Pleasant Nicholas is the existent lover, but Absalom is the stereotype of the courtly lover. Aside from the fact that he really becomes her lover Nicholas portions really small with the knights of Marie de France. He is non particularly fine-looking, being described as looking as meek as a maiden. ” Besides unlike Guigemare surely he is non chaste, nor is this his first love. Chaucer writes: “ he knew all about secret love and enjoyable solaces. ” ( pg. 151 )
This makes the love between Alison and Nicholas seem to be less pure. Alternatively of Alison being the lone adult female for him, as is Guigemare ’ s lover, she may merely be another in a twine of many. Absalom, on the other manus, possesses many more of the qualities that one would anticipate that a lover in a narrative about courtly love would hold. He is described as being handsome, or at least good groomed. He involves himself in what could be described as courtly ” chases such as dance ( Chaucer says that he knew twenty different stairss ) and can play two instruments. His efforts at winning her love are more traditionally romantic. He sings under her window, sends her gifts and even money to seek to gain her love. Like Marie ’ s knights Absalom is afflicted ” by love. Alison causes him to remain awake at dark. But he is besides “ a small squeamish/ about flatus and prim in address. ” ( pg. 157 ) , non the most masculine of characters.
The Miller positions John ’ s matrimony to Alison as a error. He says: Peoples should get married harmonizing to their status, / for young person and age are frequently at odds. ” ( pg. 153 ) In sing what happens to the two lovers at the terminal of the narrative at that place is no indicant that Chaucer thought that what they were making was incorrect. It would look that if their actions where thought to be wrong so they would have been discovered, and some kind of bad luck would hold resulted ( to mention a more utmost instance, the Jews in the Prioresses Tale ) .
But alternatively, of being punished they get off with their matter. Absalom gets his retaliation on Nicholas with a hot fire hook, but John the carpenter seems to be the ultimate also-ran. Nicholas and Alison acquire off with their dark of passion, and he ’ s made to look like a sap in forepart of the whole vicinity. Class is the major difference between the characters of Chaucer the Miller ’ s Tale and Marie ’ s lais. Marie ’ s lovers are idealized, what each knight and lady should endeavor for.
Chaucer ’ s lovers are soiled, carnal like and strident. The Miller ’ s Tale is a lampoon of the courtly love tradition. But the fact that Chaucer uses the lower categories as his characters makes his narrative even more absurd. Alternatively of being wise they are foolish.
