William Shakespeare s The Crucible - 1294 Words

of them can attain being imprisoned and even when they do battle to determine who wins Emily’s hand that is ultimately left to fate as the gods intervene when Arcite initially wins the bout. They make no attempt, as romantic heroes, to romance the object of their affection. Furthermore, despite the Knight’s tale being a romance, its center is more on the competition between the two men as opposed to the relationship Emily would have with one of them. Chaucer devotes two pages to their argument on who deserves Emily more, Arcite who loves towards her is a â€Å"love as to a creature† or Palamon whose love Arcite mocks as an â€Å"affeccioun of hoolynesse †. It is this lack of agency and the different affections that Chaucer subverts in the Miller’s†¦show more content†¦His serenades disturb Emily’s sleep, his gifts are often unwanted, when he finally resorts to words he uses lines like â€Å"I moorne as dooth a lamb after the tete, † which bypass any romantic feelings. Nicholas on the other hand knows how to use his words, when he courts Alison â€Å"This nicholas gan mercy for to crye, And spak so faire, and profred him so faste, That she hir love hym graunted atte laste,† The word â€Å"faire† implies that he is using the language of romances to his advantage. The reader is told the Nicholas is a scholar and a well-read one at that. It wouldn’t be stretch to say that he then would use his knowledge of romantic tradition to successfully seduce. The odd parallel mentioned before has to do with how we map the characters. At face value we can say that Nicholas is Arcite’s counterpart and that Absolon is Palamon’s but that doesn’t match story wise as Nicholas is the one who wins Alison’s favor while Alcite dies and Palamon is the one who marries Emily but Absolon is farted on. Could this an attempt by Chaucer to comment on ineffectiveness of genuine romantic sensibilities? That only a simulacrum of romance referenced from texts is more applicable and successful. Next is a look of motifs that Chaucer made both tales share or manipulated to further prove a point. As I mentioned just earlier it is how both tales end that messes up character mapping and while I proposed that this was possibly meant as some