Question of the Week (9/25/09)
Using evidence from the text, what philosophical "moral" does the Reeve draw from his own tale?
Great Quotes
If you plan on being anything less than you are capable of being, you will probably be unhappy all the days of your life. Abraham Maslow
In these two tales love is treated very differently. One way is that in the knight's tale love is a very romanticized, idealistic type of love, where at the end everything turns out well "He's tenderly beloved of Emily and serves her with a gentle constancy, and never a jealous word between them spoken or other sorrow in a love unbroken." (pg. 86). In the millers tale on the other hand, the love between Nicholas and Alison is much more aggressive, and realistic ("Then held her haunches hard and gave a cry 'O love me all at once or I shall die!'" (pg.91). The miller's tale doesn't end so hapilly. The love that Palamon and Arcite feel for Emily in the Knight's tale is much deeper, more poetic "The fairness of that lady I see roaming in the garden yonder to and fro is all the cause, and I cried out my woe. Woman or Goddess, which? I cannot say. I guess she may be Venus- well she may!" (pg 32). The love in the miller's tale is more based on sexual desires "... she then would sleep with Nicholas all night, for such was his desire and hers as well..." (pg. 94). The two stories didn't treat love completely differently though, because in the Knight's tale as well as in the Miller's tale Palamon, Arcite and Nicholas all first fell in love with the woman's beauty (although they were different types of beauty).
ReplyDeleteThe Reeve gives a fairly exhaustive summary of the moral of his story in one of the last lines, "Do evil and be done by as you did (pg 119)." In this poem, the Miller is "a thief as well of corn and meal (pg 109)." Because of his behavior, two Clerics John and Alan go to the Miller's mill, and eventually end up beating the Miller and taking the product of the mill without paying for it, among other things. The Reeve draws a connection between the Miller's bad behavior and the bad outcome of the poem for the Miller, in an illustration of the ethic of reciprocity.
ReplyDeleteMs. Piro, since you changed the question, does the post I had already written count?
ReplyDeleteThe Reeve's tale illustrates a common theme throughout the ages and different cultures: treat others the way you want to be treated, what goes around commes around. The Reeve makes no doubt that the miller is evil. He says "He was a theif of corn and meal"(P.109) and that he Simpkin would murder anyone who looked at his wife disrespectfully. The miller thinks "the more they try to do me on the deal...the more I mean to steal" (p.112) As the Reeve says "Do evil and be done by as you did" (p.119.Since the miller was and evil thief he ends up being beaten, his victims sleep with his wife and daughter and the wheat he stole is stolen back. The Reeve tries to relate this lesson back to normal life. Though you probably won't have such a dire situation happen to you, if you do something bad you can expect something bad to happen to you.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aaron:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aaron in that, the story talks about how bad behavior will lead to a bad outcome. This is definitely illustrated by the Reeve's quote you gave. There is another component of the story though which mirrors the story line. The Reeve was offended by the Miller's tale because he himself was a carpenter. He then "pays back" the bad deed with a story degrading the Miller's profession. He is displaying the moral of the story just by telling it. What goes around comes around.
The moral that the Reeve draws from is tale is that what goes around comes around, so if you do bad things, then bad things will happen to you. Evidence of this is given on page 119, as the Reeve says he heard this proverb when he was younger: "Do evil and be done by as you did". In the story, the miller is a deceitful man who steals the corn he is supposed to be grinding, so the two church boys, John and Alan, pay him back by sleeping with his wife and daughter and stealing back the corn he stole from him. Also, he gets beaten by his wife, who in the darkness, mistakes him for Alan. The miller gets what he deserves in the end, thus proving the Reeve's moral.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nick:
I agree with what you said about the Reeve "paying back" the miller for shaming a carpenter in his story by telling a story about a vile and stupid miller. In a way, the telling of this story is subtly proving the moral of the story, for the miller gets what he deserves for making fun of carpenters by being the butt of the Reeve's story.
The moral that the Reeve draws from his tale is that what goes around, comes around. In his story, their is a vile miller who steals the corn he is supposed to be grinding. He gets what he deserves when two church boys, John and Alan, sleep with his wife and daughter and steal back the corn. Also, he gets beaten by his wife, who in the darkness, mistakes him for Alan. On page 119, the Reeve tells of a proverb which sums up his story: "Do evil and be done by as you did".
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nick:
I agree with you in saying that the Reeve told this story to pay back the Miller for shaming a carpenter (the Reeve's profession) in his tale by making fun of an evil miller in his. In a way, the Reeve is proving the moral of his tale by doing this, because the miller gets what he deserves for making fun of carpenters by being the butt of the Reeve's story.
The basic moral behind the Reeve's tale is to treat others like you would like to be treated. The miller was "a theif as well of corn and meal/ and sly at that, his habit was to steal." (page 9) Here Chaucer sets the miller up as a bad guy. Not only does the miller still but towards his wife "No one who passed was bold enough to try/ a bit of fun with her or wink an eye/ Unles indeed he wanted Sim the Swagger/ to murder him with cutlass, knife or dagger." (page 109) After the miller, who lives near a college, has stolen corn and meal, two students decided they are going to get back at him using his wife and daughter. The last couple lines of the tale are "do evil and be done by as you did/ tricksters will get a tricking" The idea of karma is very clear in this tale, if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you.
ReplyDeleteIn response to everyone:
ReplyDeleteWe are all saying the same thing here, whichever way you want to phrase it. If you do something bad, something bad will happen to you, what goes around comes around, treat others like you would like to be treated - it's all the same.
But my one question for everyone is: if Chaucer is trying to show us not to be bad, because bad things will happen to us, why does he have the two students get back at the miller? Didn't they do something bad as well?
Here is Clark's response:
ReplyDeleteThe Reeve's tale is an explication of how millers and the people that associate with them are morally corrupt people. The Reeve is almost telling a story to himself, for he is so angry at the miller for making carpenters look like fools. In return, describing a miller as a jerk satisfies the reeve. As he says on page 119, "Tricksters will get a tricking."
I also think that the Reeve is deeply religious, and he feels that the miller's story is an insult to God. He makes several hints of this such as on page 108, "And it's God's truth that I am going to tell.." The two clerics John and Alan are apparently students of the bible, as is said on page 110. This might be the reason that the Reeve favored them in the end.
I agree with Nick and Aaron, that the miller's bad behavior lead to things going badly for him, and this idea ties into how the Reeve felt the Miller insulted God. It is true that the story brings in the moral that if you treat someone badly, people will treat you badly and no one will like you. The miller ended up having a pretty bad ending, seeing as he got beaten up and all. However, that was in part because the reeve was so pissed off at the miller in the first place.
The moral that the Reeve draws from his tale is clearly stated on page 119, "Do evil and be done by as you did". This proverb, essentially saying that karma's a bitch, fits the Reeve's story very nicely. The miller was a thief and a liar, and through his own awful actions, ends up in a worse situation than he could have imagined. Not only did Alan and John steal back what was stolen from them, they also got further revenge with the miller's wife and daughter. The moral of this story is definitely what goes around comes around.
ReplyDeleteIn response to megan's quesion:
ReplyDeleteIf the moral of this story were to fit perfectly, the miller probably should have had something bad happen to him on his own accord or due to bad luck. Even though John and Alan were his "karma", I still don't think that what they did will trigger a bad reaction for them as well. They were taking back what was taken from them. The whole wife/daughter thing was over the line, but other than that, I don't think that what they did was all that bad. Obviously two wrongs don't make a right, but there's a reason that "do evil and be done by as you did" is the moral.
In response to clark:
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the Reeve probably felt that the Miller's tale was disrespectful to God. Even though the Reeve's tale was vulgar, there were many more religious aspects to it. Also, the Miller's tale made every character look bad, unlike the Reeve's tale which only chose one character to make fun of.
I honestly think that the Reeve’s story was simply him being vindictive. The reeve’s personality is more well developed since he is so dissimilar when compared to the miller (just like how the miller personality is aided by him being compared to the knight, considering that their personalities tend to be on focused on a small handful of particular traits). As stated before, however, the only real moral that can be taken from this story is that what goes around comes around, which is something the Reeve himself states quite clearly the end with his mini-rant on how ‘cheaters shall (themselves) cheated be’ and ‘an evil end to an evil man’.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Megan's question:
ReplyDeleteI think that even though the students did do something very bad, they somehow had the "right" to do it, because they had already been harmed by the miller. Also, I believe that what they did wasn't as bad as what the miller had been doing for his whole life, to everyone. I think the main difference between what the miller's wrong doings and John and Alan's wrong doings was that the miller was a deeply sly and mean person, who instinctively hurt people, whereas John and Alan knew that what they were doing was wrong, but they did it for a specific reason, because it was the right thing for them to do. They weren't inherently bad people, looking for ways to do wrong.
I think that the Reeve definitely was offended by the Millers story and wanted to tell a story about a Miller who got completely owned by some kids as a type of payback. I also think that the Reeve was kind of embarrassed that the Miller was able to tell even a somewhat successful story while he was drunk as could be. The entire point of his story is payback and thats also the entire reason why he chose to tell this particular tale.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Megan's question about why did John and Adam do something bad if they were just trying to punish the Millers bad deeds, I think that they didnt really do anything other than get back at him (not exactly continue the bad deed trait). And I also think that the Reeve needed a good story just to rub in the Millers face and this one happened to be the most appropriate in his mind
ReplyDeleteAt this point I think that most people have answered the question, but I'll be redundant. The Reeve's tale conveys a very strong moral which is rather bluntly stated - he says that the Miller is "a theif of corn and meal" (P.109). By the end of the story, it is rather clear that the moral of the story is "do unto others as you would have them do to you." The Miller is clearly portrayed as an evil man, and the moral is shown by the poor outcome for the Miller. Another moral could be that if you take something, you need to reciprocate.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone has said the same thing already, but I think it's quite obvious that the Reeve is a much more religious man than the miller. He conveys in a not very subtle manner that he disapproves of the miller's story. The moral of his story is basically, what goes around comes around. If you cheat people and treat them poorly, you will in return be cheated. He is a completely different person from the miller.
ReplyDeleteIn response to everyone: I think we're all saying the same thing, and it's true. He's basically expressing his disapproval for the miller's story and the moral of this story is that what goes around, comes around.
In response to Harini,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the one of the Reeve's objectives in his tale was to rebuke the Miller. I wonder if he was also trying to demonstrate the moral of his story with his choice of story: The Miller told a disrespectful story to the Reeve, and in turn the Reeve told a story insulting to the Miller.
The miller is clearly a bad man who deserves to be punished for stealing and taking advantage of his customers, but our protagonists, the two students aren't exactly innocent doves either. They effectively rape the Millers wife and daughter in the night, "For John went deep and thrust away like mad, It was a jolly life for either lad" (p. 116). This does not seem to me to be a fair trade for their pains. Some of their meal was siphoned off, so they decide to rape the Miller's family...
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the two boys get away without a care seems to contradict the stories supposed moral.
In response to Megan's Question:
ReplyDeleteYes they certainly did do something malicious, and it is contradictory that they should be able to get away with their misdeeds when the Miller was so severely punished for his, but I think the Reeve's point here was to insult the real Miller from the pilgrimage, not to tell a story that necessarily made sense morally.
I think the moral that the Reeve draws from the tail is what goes around comes around. He explains throughout the tale that the miller is a begger, a thief, and an all around bad man. He explains that the miller doesnt hesitate to steal a mans dinner or money. The miller also lets John and Alans horse loose which causes and entire day of hard work trying to get the horse back. When they finally retreve the horse, they need a place to stay for the night so they ask the miller to help them out. The miller offers them a room in his own house, for a hefty sum of money. During the night the boys give in to their desires and take advantage of the millers daughter and her wife. After the eventful night the boys quickly depart and the miller is left with a house full of sorrow. In conclusion the millers bad ways lead to the defiling of his wife and daughter.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Scott
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the moral of the story is "do unto others as you would have them do to you" You make a good point because the Miller is always on the giving end, he is always the giver or misfortune and bad deeds. However he is rarely on the receiving ends of bad deeds, but when his fortunes turn and he is treated badly, he doesn't like it one bit. This is when I realized that the the phrase "do unto others as you would have them do to you" makes complete sense, because his mis deeds have fianlly come around to nip him in the bud.
The phrase, “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”, is what I'm reminded of upon reading the Reeve's tale. The wrong that the Miller commits is that he is “a thief as well of corn and meal.” Though seeminglingly a harsh repercussion, the expected punishment, in the mind of Reeve and others of the time, was the brutes (John and Alan) beating the Miller up as well as taking advantage of his family under the Miller's roof. The moral of the story is summed up at the end with the quote “Do evil and be done by as you did (pg 119).”
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Meghans question, I think at the time any “bad” deeds were subject to punishment. I disagree with Gaia's feeling that what John and Alan did was nearly not as bad as what the Miller had been continually doing. Actually, to be frank what John and Alan did makes me sick. I think being a woman in the 21st century I have more issue with this than people reading this story centuries ago. It bothers me because the Miller's daughter and wife are toyed with as they are his property, just an outburst of reading reaction.
at this point, this is all pretty repetative, but the moral that the Reeve draws from his own tale is "Do evil and be done by as you did". (p 119) which is the same as saying, like Harini sais, what goes around comes around. This is shown in that the miller is a theif in the Reeve's story, as well as a genarelly all around bad person, and so, in the end the two clerks sleep with both his daughter AND his wife, and he is punished for his bad deeds. This idea of what goes around comes around also paraells what is happening between the real miller and reeve on the pilgrimage: the miller told a story that reflected a carpenter badly, so the carpenter told a story that reflected the Reeve badly.
ReplyDeletein response to megan's question:
ReplyDeleteI think they are diregarding the "two wrongs don't make a right" saying, and assuming that as long as the person who is having wrong done them is bad, then it's okay. If bad people could just get away with doing bad things then what would stop them from doing them? But also, it might be assumed now that because the clerks have done wrong, they will punished for their wrong doings as well. And maybe the Miller's wife as well because she was unfaithful to her husband.