Thus Have I Quit the Millere
Dissecting the shocking content of The Reeve's Tale
Welcome back to the Word-Hoard. As I continue to progress through Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales I come across The Miller’s Tale and The Reeve’s Tale. Far cries from the chivalric romance of The Knight’s Tale that before them, these tales are lewd, vulgar, and gross. While it is for these reasons that I personally enjoyed The Knight’s Tale more, I recognized that The Miller’s Tale was meant to act as a humorous shift in tone, designed to parody the knight’s style of tale-telling and not meant to be taken as seriously. After finishing The Miller’s Tale, I began to read The Reeve’s Tale expecting the same style, and although the light-hearted tone is there in the beginning, I was shocked by the tale’s ending, which describes the rape of two women. Because I was so unprepared and put off guard by this, I felt it was important to analyze these scenes in order to make sense of them. I recognize that this is a very serious topic, so I will do my best to explain with as much tact and respect as possible, providing historical and narrative context to assist understanding. That being said, this post may be uncomfortable, and if anyone feels that I have made a mistake or come to the wrong conclusions, please don’t hesitate to correct me in the comments.
First, it’s important that we recognize the relationship between The Miller’s Tale and The Reeve’s Tale, as well as how the different levels of narrative come into play in the two stories. In The Miller’s Tale, a trick is played on one character, who is a carpenter, so that another man can sleep with his wife. Both the trick itself and his wife’s unfaithfulness would obviously embarrass and anger the carpenter. In The Reeve’s Prologue, the pilgrims laugh at the humorous story, yet:
Ne at his tale I saugh no man him greve
But it were only Osewold the Reeve:
Bycause he was of carpenteres craft
A litel ire is in his herte ylaft. (3859-3862)
So, the Reeve feels slighted because he’s a carpenter by trade, and feels that the Miller may be making fun of him specifically. Therefore, as he goes on to say, the entire goal of his story is to likewise make fun of the Miller. Since the carpenter of the Miller’s story was cheated on, the Reeve’s revenge shall take the same form by creating a miller character and having other characters sleep not just with his wife, but also his daughter.
The Reeve’s Tale is petty because of how similarly the description of his miller matches the description of the Miller from the General Prologue, but exaggerated. Both the poet and the Reeve describe their millers as grain thieves, but also, for one example, both were said to be good at wrestling. This miller is not a real person to the Reeve, he is only a character designed to make fun of Robin the Miller.
For a reader of The Canterbury Tales, all characters both in the stories and the framing device are equally fictitious, but to the pilgrims, they are real, and the characters of their stories are fake. I read about what happened to Simekin the miller’s wife and daughter and was shocked because to me they were just as real as any other character, and I wouldn’t want that to happen to a real person, but to the Reeve, they exist only in his mind, made up for a joke, and he can talk about this in a less serious way because, to him, it didn’t really happen.
Alright, you may say, so this is just a joke, but even still, this is not an appropriate subject to joke about. I would tend to agree, but we must remember that we are a modern audience reading a story written over 600 years ago, and what was and was not appropriate to joke about surely would have been different. This was also a time where girls would be married as soon as they had reached puberty, and women regardless of age often had no agency over any aspect of their marriage. Sex was clearly thought of and treated differently at this time - combine that with two men like the Miller and the Reeve (old, crass, with questionable levels of sobriety) telling stories, this outcome is not necessarily surprising.
But what if we look at The Reeve’s Tale without the context of its narrative framework? How should we interpret the actions of the miller’s daughter Malin? Some have argued that Malin has fallen in love with Alain since the next morning she calls him “deere lemman” (lover) and tells him the location of the stolen cake and flour. It may be that Malin loves Alain. It probably is true that Malin believes she loves Alain (remember, she has been sheltered by her parents). However, regardless of her emotions after the fact, it is undeniable that Malin had no chance to give her consent, making her the victim of rape. It should be clear then that Alain and John are the real villains of this story.
I like the idea of taking away the context of the narrative frame. There's a way in which the tales are enriched when we consider it with–thus in the opposite respect we must gain insight, as well. I think you're kind of right, partly because I am kind of partial to John. I thought he was silly and a little pathetic but not a threat. However, Alain–though kind of a champion against the Miller's cheating schemes–is really easily seen as a villain when we take away Oswald's narrative lenses.
I think you are pointing to something important about how we should read these tales; the key to getting the most out of them is by examining them from all possible routes, which includes taking it out of its habitat (framework) as though it were a specimen (tale) to be studied (read) on its own.
Thank you Jay c:
I enjoy that you point out that both the Miller and the Reeve seem to be making fun of one another within their stories. Initially, I was so shocked by the tales that I didn't really notice that aspect of things. I feel as though your analysis and andmother read through of the Reeve's dialogue has revealed more of the humorous aspect of things that Chaucer was likely trying to portray with the tales.