Chaucer's Programmed Thinkers?

     Sitting in class this afternoon as we discussed the potential lessons to be learned from “The Miller's Tale,” I began to ponder what in the world could be gathered from such a vulgar tale where all the characters were horrid role models. All I could visualize were four characters that exemplified precisely how not to live your life!  But then I realized perhaps (amidst his other many messages I'm sure are discretely placed within the lines of the text :) Chaucer was hinting at the value and great need for each and every individual to think for his or herself rather than blindly going with the grain or accepting authority without placing value and import in the realization of one's autonomy.

    For example, through Alison we see a female character who is clearly stifled by a patriarchal household – one that is headed by a jealous and constrictive husband who never allows her to do what she wants and one that never enables her to be her own person. As a little side note, in all fairness, her much older husband has some justifications for being jealous and concerned about her faithfulness. His very young and beautiful wife is flirty and being actively pursued by other men despite her marital status. But even still, Alison’s husband acts as a dictator of sorts that squelches out any possibility of Alison’s being her own person and thinking for herself in any way until. . .

     Nicholas gives her a reason to rebel.  I'm sure many of us have heard stories about overly sheltered children who go a bit wild when they are finally given a little taste of “freedom.”  I feel like Alison is a Middle Age example of such a case.  To a large extent, Alison is likely drawn to Nicholas for his autonomy, his freedom and his ability to be a “thinker.”  Nicholas is a scholar, who though accomplishes/attains what he wants in a self-serving manner, he still achieves his goal: Alison – how? through his scholarly allowance & accepted ability to think for himself.

     Even as Alison rebels against her husband's inhibitions, she never achieves “her own mind,” rather it is Nicholas who plays her. She falls into his clasp and is further drug along my patriarchy, essentially being used for her body – because no, I do not believe that Nicholas loved her, but rather lusted after her and she's just being played the fool like her husband.  But that is just my take on things and a whole separate argument, so I digress.

     Carpenter John, in his staunch religiousness, seems a bit brainwashed.  His fear of knowledge, as illustrated by his prejudice against Nicholas for his studies, is a scary thing because it means he avoids - you guessed it – thinking for himself! Furthermore, the fact that he is so gullible that he falls for Nicholas' ridiculous scheme is frightening as it makes him appear as though he is programmed to live solely by what he is told, rather than what he “researches” or finds to be true for himself. In my opinion, he is no better off in a lot of ways than Alison herself.

     Freedom is in one's own autonomy. And with that autonomy comes discerning our own truths about the world and who we are - then making our own decisions accordingly. It is our own right, one that should neither be denied or failed to be “tapped into.”  In the end, whether or not this little life lesson was deliberately placed within the realms of this text by Chaucer, I think that it is a tenable moral of the story that we can all consider as we think about the fundamental themes in the workings of this piece. 

323east.com