Get help now

Chaucer And Marie De France Research



  • Pages 8
  • Words 1914
  • Views 483
  • Can’t find relevant credible information

    Let our experts help you

    Get help now

    Chaucer And Marie De France Essay, Research Paper

    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


    Chaucer, Geoffrey The Canterbury Tales trans. Kent & A ; Constance Hieatt ;

    Bantam 1964 de France, Marie The Lais of Marie de France trans. Glyn Burgess

    & A ; Keith Busby ; Penguin 1986

    Chaucer And Marie De France Research. (2018, Jun 23). Retrieved from

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper