Bodies That Matter in the Court of Late Medieval England and in Chaucer's 'Miller's Tale.'

Abstract

In the fabliau world of Chaucer's Miller's Tale, private parts, furtive sexual encounters, and a so-called misdirected kiss constitute the order of the day. Indeed, critical discussions of the tale generally take for granted its elaborate concern for body parts and bodily activities, these being understood, if nothing else, as evidence of the tale's generic tethering.(1) Equally striking, however, though rarely commented upon, is the way in which the Miller's Tale elides the specificity of those very bodies that it sets quite prominently on display. A good example of this can be seen in the tale's representation of the Miller himself. The prologue to the Miller's Tale locates the Miller initially in terms of physical positioning, introducing him as someone who drunkenly cuts in front of the Monk, the figure whom Harry Bailly invites to tell the next tale (3120f.)(2) Speaking, moreover, in the mode of declamation and oration -- in Pilates voys (3124) to be exact -- the Miller assumes the identity of an actor, calling further attention to his physical, dramatic placement as a body on stage. The expression Pilates voys however, also points to the fact that voice, not body, ultimately constitutes the mainstay of the Miller's performance;(3) indeed, much of what the prologue reveals is the way in which the Miller himself -- his bodily presence, that is -- finally drops out of the picture. . . [I]f that I myspeke or seye, / Wyte it the ale of Southwark, I yow preye (3139-40). By shuffling the responsibility for his words onto the ale of Southwark, the Miller effectively locates his speech outside his own body. His theatrical delivery thereby turns into a situation of disembodied voice, a narrative instance that detracts from rather than calls attention to the Miller's own bodily location. Interestingly, this double act of self-inscription and self-erasure on the part of the Miller undergoes a repeat performance in the subsequent prologue representation of Chaucer the pilgrim. For just as the Miller pre-empts the speech of the Monk, so Chaucer the pilgrim cuts in on the Miller-Reeve exchange, thereby inserting himself into the narrative in a pre-emptory manner. His speech, moreover, like that of the Miller, provides the occasion for an act of self-effacement: what the pilgrim says pilgrim himself. The apologetic tone of his remarks (Blameth nat me ... 3181f.), his self presentation as a mere repeater of someone else's words (3172-75), and his effort (however sincere or ironic) to direct readers' attention away from the tale he is about to tell (3176-77) all work together to absent the pilgrimnarrator's body in the very midst of its textual inscription. Equally elusive in this respect is the representation of the body of Alisoun, the tale's central character.(4) Of the three character portraits given in the tale-Nicholas's, Absolon's, and Alisoun's -- hers is far the longest and most artistically accomplished, giving the impression of a vividly delineated character. Much like hende moreover, Alisoun herself also seems to be defined basic and seemingly unequivocal bodily attributes. Early on in the narrative Nicholas, we are told, grabs her by the queynt (3276), a gesture which for most critics could not be more tellingly graphic or more bodily definitive.(5) And yet, Alisoun is also the figure within the tale about whom much bodily information is noticeably withheld. In the space of her description, for example, elaborate emphasis is given to her clothes, but not at all the specific body underneath. Indeed, every time the specificity of Alisoun's body potentially comes into focus, the language of the description stops short of explicit reference and veers instead in the direction of metaphor: She was ful moore blisful on to see / Than is the pere-jonette tree (3246-47); She was a prymerole, a piggesnye ... (3268); Ful brighter was the shynyng of hir hewe / Than in the Tour the noble yforged newe (3255-56). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.