Compare and Contrast how Aristophanes depicts Essay Example for Free

Look into how Aristophanes delineates Essay Aristophanes and Euripides were writers in Athens during the Peloponnesian War. They had totally different composing styles. Euripides was the more seasoned and he composed Greek Tragedy and Comedy. He was one of the three significant disaster essayists of the time, the others were Aeschylus a Scophocles. Euripides presented new techniques for taking care of the customary fantasies, for instance he utilized authenticity in his topic and was keen on the manner in which ladies thought and how they acted. This is appeared in his plays Hippolytus and The Trojan Women. Aristophanes composed comedies in which creative circumstances and brilliant language were average. His sonnets were principally worried about circumstance which was topical around then. He mocked government officials and researchers and spoofed his kindred artists. He utilized political and social dream a lot as in the womens sex strike in Lysistrata. Aristophanes composed two satires which highlighted the heartbreaking artist Euripides. These were The Poet and the Women and the Frogs. Euripides passed on before Aristophanes composed the Frogs thus he had the option to make the spoof more noteworthy. Aristophenes composed The Poet and the Women while Euripides was as yet alive and a regarded and renowned creator. Aristophanes couldn't avoid ridiculing him in his play. He depicted him as a man who was ungainly and in dread for his life, This day is to choose whether Euripides is to live incredible. (Page 102). This was on the grounds that Euripides was being compromised by the ladies of Athens who needed to kill him since his plays demonstrated the most noticeably awful side of ladies, the ladies are getting together at the Thesmorporia today and theyre going to sentence me to death for defaming them (Page 106). Euripides realized that the Thesmophoria, a strict celebration for ladies, would happen soon and he needed to send a covert operative to discover how the ladies were plotting his passing. Euripides, with the assistance of his companion Agathon, along these lines, convinced his older relative Mnesilochus to spruce up a lady, loan me a dress and a headband for my companion here? You cannot imagine that you dont have such things (Page 108), and go to the function. Mnesilochus was found by the ladies who caught him and took steps to consume him as they trusted him to be a covert agent for Euripides. Mnesilochis recollecting that one of Euripides plays communicated something specific A stunt out of one of his own plays, The Palamedes. Chap composed a message on an oarblade (Page 125). Euripides acted the hero as a character out of that play indicating mental fortitude he didn't have, Thou lookst like Menelaos. (Page 133). In The Frogs, Euripides has been dead for quite a while and is depicted as manipulative and avaricious, in addition, Euripides will be readier to slip away with me, hes a substantially more dangerous client (Page 159). The storyline is about the God of Wine, Dionysus, who goes to the black market to discover an artist who will expand Athenian assurance and lead them to triumph in the Peloponnesian War. After first counseling the legend, Hercules, to discover an approach to Hades You could go by means of Rope and Gibbet: that is a snappy way, on the off chance that you dont mind staying nearby for a piece, in any case (page 160), he sets off with his hireling. He shows up in Hades just to discover that position of the best artist in Hades was in question, Oh, theres incredible goings on among the dead nowadays, extraordinary goings on. Common war, you may call it (Page 185). Aeschylus the more established Athenian writer, who composed at any rate 50 years before Aristophanes, was being tested by Euripides, Well at that point along comes Euripides and begin flaunting to all the fellers weve got down here cut-throats, robbers, murders, criminals, ordinary unpleasant part they are, (Page 185) Euripides had the help of the crooks, mavericks and the most noticeably awful men when all is said in done while Aeschylus had the sole help of Sophocles, hes communicated something specific: with this challenge going ahead, he says, hellfire hold on for third man if Aeschylus wins damnation simply go on as in the past, however in the event that Euripides wins damnation take him on himself.(Page 186). Sophocles was a companion of Aristophanes. Dionysus concluded that despite the fact that Euripides had more help, it was Aeschylus picked to reestablish Athens to its previous greatness, Well in my true inner being I have known cons tantly. No inquiry concerning it, the man for me is (Page 210). Euripides in The Poet and The Woman is very entertaining particularly when he is playing his own sad legends as they have courageous characteristics which he needs, other than steadfastness which he shows when he attempts to salvages Mnesilochus from his Scythian captor. Be that as it may, Euripides in The Frogs is progressively vile and can control the scoundrels and mavericks. He is along these lines depicted as an agitator, who were individuals who played on people groups fears to expand their own political force. Aristophanes portrays Euripides in these manners since I accept that Euripides and Aristophanes were not companions but rather graceful adversaries that regarded each other despite the fact that they didn't concur with every others kind of verse. A rendition of Ancient Greek expert civility. I likewise feel that the political and social circumstance at the time that Aristophanes was composing affected the manner by which he depicted him. Euripides in The Poet and The Woman is an impression of his Euripidess character, in actuality, however has been contorted to make the make the play diverting. His awkwardness and cowardliness have been misrepresented for this end. Euripides shows how fearful he is on the grounds that he sends Mnesilochus to the Thesmophoria and not himself. His awkwardness is appeared through his utilization of the Deux Ex Machina which he uses to make the farce of Perseus yet he cannot control it, He should be coming to spare me: he wouldnt have flown by just to sit back of day. (Page 136), and he flies to and fro. Be that as it may, Euripides demonstrates unwaveringness to his companions by endeavoring to safeguard Mnesilochus.

A Rose for Emily Essay -- A Rose For Emily, William Faulkner

1. Question no. 2 a lot of the pressure in Eugene O’ Neill’s Before Breakfast comes from the primary characters’ poor monetary conditions. The crowd starts to comprehend their circumstance when Mrs. Rowland says to her life partner â€Å"Hmm! I guess I should eat readyâ€not that there's anything a lot to get. Except if you have some cash? Silly question!† (section 10) Mrs. Rowland, the discouraged spouse of a destitute artist, spends the aggregate of the story grumbling about her husband’s treachery and uselessness. In the midst of her tirade, she shouts â€Å"I've a decent thought to return home, on the off chance that I wasn't too pleased to even think about letting them recognize what a disappointment you've beenâ€you, the mogul Rowland's just child, the Harvard graduate, the artist, the catch of the townâ€Huh!† (line 16) This statement alludes to the way that when she wedded Mr. Rowland, he seemed to have a promising future and w as thought of, as referenced over, the â€Å"catch of the town.† Her husband’s absence of both budgetary achievement and current work, combined with his unfaithfulness, are the elements that light her disappointment and, eventually, lead to the monolog that instigates Mr. Rowland’s self destruction. 2. Question no. 4 William Faulkner’s â€Å"A Rose for Emily† is introduced from the perspective of the main character’s neighbors and individual townspeople. The storyteller starts the story by depicting Emily as fairly a town exhibition; a puzzling loner luxuriating in isolation. The main depiction of Emily by the storyteller is â€Å"Alive, Miss Emily had been a custom, an obligation, a consideration; a kind of innate commitment upon the town†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (section 3) This charms the crowd with the possibility that Emily was not especially close to home with anybody inside the town and was viewed as mo... ...e unreasonable language to my wife.† (passage 6) This causes it to appear as though the storyteller is attempting to mitigate how horrendous his activities are which, thus, makes him untrustworthy. Bonus: Ancient Greek Drama advanced countless occasions inside its period. Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides added to and touched off a significant number of these commitments. Aeschylus’s plays considered a more prominent number of characters to be presented, which permitted strife to emerge inside the plot. This replaced past plays wherein characters talked distinctly to the ensemble. Sophocles affected Greek Drama by both making a job for a third character and bringing progressively complex characters into the plot. At last, Euripides developed making complex characters and furthermore presented characters that were beforehand new to Greek crowds, for example, female heroes.

Unity, Identity and Fellowship in Chaucers The Canterbury Tales

Unity, Identity and Fellowship in Chaucers The Canterbury Tales Unity, Identity and Fellowship in Chaucers The Canterbury Tales Unity, Identity and Fellowship in Chaucers The Canterbury Tales Academic Discipline: English Course Name: Chaucer Assignment Subject: Unity, Identity and Fellowship in Chaucers The Canterbury Tales Academic Level: Undergraduate Referencing Style: MLA Word Count: 2,110 In the opening of the General Prologue to “The Canterbury Tales,” Geoffrey Chaucer’s narrator (Geoffrey Chaucer) emphasizes the unity, fellowship and common identity of the pilgrims about to set forth on a journey to the shrine of Saint Thomas á Becket in Canterbury, southeast of London (A 23-26). This insistence on unity and wholeness is important because Chaucer’s text attempts to capture the entirety of medieval English society; the three estates â€" the nobility, the clergy and the commoners â€" are all represented, but the assumptions embedded within this (generally) fixed social hierarchy (spiritually, politically and in terms of gender assumptions) represented by the three estates is problematized as the text develops. In fact, the emphasis on companionship and a common identity revealed in the opening of the General Prologue serves as a counterpoint to the social tensions revealed through the interplay of the tales, their tellers, and the frame narrative. This paper will briefly illustrate how the frame narrative, the pilgrims, and their tales work to comment on the assumptions of unity, fellowship and common identity insisted upon by the narrator in the General Prologue. A brief explanation will also be given as to why the frame narrative structure employed by Chaucer in The Canterbury Tales is particularly well-suited to representing the whole of late fourteenth century English society. The frame narrative employed by Chaucer is, in the simplest sense, a story utilized to contextualize a series of smaller stories or tales. The story of the frame narrative is that twenty-nine pilgrims have met in the Tabard Inn in South London before heading off on their journey to the shrine of Saint Thomas á Becket in Canterbury (A 20-27). Their host at the tavern offers to provide the pilgrims with a game to kill time on the way to the shrine; he proposes that each of the pilgrims tell four tales, two on the way to the shrine, two on the way back (in actual fact, each pilgrim tells only one tale; the tales were condensed and the return journey was never written by Chaucer) (A 790-795). The host â€" who decides to act as the pilgrims’ guide on the journey â€" then states that the pilgrim whom he judges to have told the tales “. . . of best sentence and moost solaas” (A 798), will have supper at his tavern at the other pilgrim’s cost (A 799-800). The framing narrative, the refore, allows each pilgrim â€" each representing a member of English society â€" a chance to express themselves; to this end, the narrator makes an (apologetic) point of stating that he will recount the tales exactly as told by the pilgrims, regardless of how vulgar they might be (A 725-736). Thus, the framing narrative allows Chaucer to explore the character of each pilgrim, both through the tales they tell and through the commentary they provide to each other’s tales. Also, the framing narrative structure works to allow Chaucer to add or remove pilgrims as he sees fit (allowing for him to create a more all-encompassing portrait of medieval English society). If Chaucer thinks of a new pilgrim not mentioned in the General Prologue, he can simply have them ride up and join the rest of the pilgrims during the journey. The framing narrative works to reveal the societal tensions hidden beneath the veneer of unity presented in the opening of the General Prologue. These tensions are revealed in the apologetic stance taken by the narrator in regard to both the potential for vulgarity in the tales and his inability to present the tales in order of social rank (A 743-746) â€" a point which initially seems to become less relevant when the Knight (the highest-ranking pilgrim) wins the right to tell his tale first (A 835-846). The Knight, as the highest-ranking pilgrim (itself a problematic point, given that Christ was both poor and common â€" and given that Christianity is based on both humility and the universal equality of the human soul), decides to tell a romance â€" a “high” form of literature, befitting his position as a noble. Thus, even the literary style of the tale can be seen as commentary; this becomes especially clear when the (drunken) Miller reacts negatively against the content of “Th e Knight’s Tale.” The Miller’s interjection is important for a number of reasons. The Miller disrupts the social hierarchy â€" the Host, upon the completion of “The Knight’s Tale,” asks the Monk (an attempt to respect social hierarchy; the monk is a member of the clergy) to match “The Knight’s Tale” with one of his own (A 3118-3119) â€" and will not be silenced, even threatening to leave the journey if he is not allowed to speak (another instance wherein the interplay of the frame narrative and the tales facilitate the dialogue and reveal the social tensions between the characters) (A 3132-3133). “The Miller’s Tale” â€" his vision of what really constitutes courtly love â€" is told in the form of a fablieaux, a “low” form of literature befitting his common status. Thus, the Miller’s interjection, facilitated by the frame narrative structure linking the tales, also serves to present a stylistic juxtaposition between high and low forms of literature; the dialogue between the characters is mirrored in the dialogue between literary styles. The stylistic juxtaposition, combined with the characters (their social rank and gender), combined with the frame narrative which allows this interplay to take place, presents a more complete and realistic picture (both socially and artistically) of the “wholeness” of medieval England, while simultaneously undercutting the notions of “unity” and “fellowship” posited by the narrator in the General Prologue. It is through the contrivance of the frame narrative (the idea that a member from each societal rank and vocation wo uld gather together and travel on a pilgrimage is contrived in that it is highly unlikely that this would happen in reality) that these characters are allowed to engage directly with one another. The Miller, a commoner, is here given an opportunity to challenge a member of the aristocracy; the Miller’s refusal to respect the social hierarchy â€" the Host wants to find “Som better man” (A 3130) than Miller to match “The Knight’s Tale” â€" illustrates in a microcosmic fashion, the societal tensions then at play in late fourteenth century England at large; there was a major peasant’s revolt in England in1381 (Britannia Web site: History: Docs: Peasant n. pag). “The Miller’s Tale” also contrasts with “The Knight’s Tale” in terms of content. “The Miller’s Tale” â€" stylistically low â€" interprets love as something physical, while “The Knight’s Tale” â€" stylistically high â€" interprets love as something remote. “The Miller’s Tale” is very sensual â€" the characters of Nicholas and Absalom are motivated by lust (though they do eventually “fall in love”); Nicholas’ pursuit of Alison is further complicated by the fact that she is married to a carpenter named John. When Nicholas finally wins her over, they make love in her husband’s bed (A 3651-3656). “The Miller’s Tale” is meant to be funny, contemporary and populated with realistic characters (a fablieaux). It therefore, presents a stark contrast to “The Knight’s Tale,” which is set in a distant past, concerns morality and virtue and involves aristocratic characters (a romance). In “The Knight’s Tale,” the two young knights fall in lov e with a young woman from afar â€" first with her beauty (A 1098-1100; A 1114-1115) and then with her virtue; unlike “The Miller’s tale,” “The Knight’s Tale” lacks any sense of physicality or sensuality in the nature of love â€" it is highly formalized. The two knights spend years loving Emily from a distance (in this case because they are locked in prison), they have no idea who she is, only that they love her (based on her beauty) and that they will fight each other to the death to have her (A 1592-1621). The content of the two tales, therefore, engage in a kind of dialogue with one another. Both knights in “The Knight’s Tale” objectify Emily; even the Gods tell her that she must wed one of the two young knights, though she wishes to remain a virgin (A 2348-2352). In “The Miller’s Tale” the reader is given an example of what can happen when a man marries a woman as an object. John is old and his wife Alison is only eighteen (A 3223-3227). John is characteri zed as viewing himself as a cuckold and as having fallen into a snare (A 3226; A 3231). John’s humiliation in the tale illustrates the consequences of a marriage devoid of physical attraction; Alison and John are married because he is wealthy â€" he does not love her as a person; he “heeld hire narwe in cage” (A 3224) â€" and he values Alison as an object to be coveted. Here again, in the dialogue between the tales, their tellers and the frame narrative, is an example of how certain ideals (courtly love, chivalry) are undercut in the text. The interplay between the Miller and the Host (and the narrator) in the prologue to his tale (the frame narrative), serves to contextualize “The Miller’s Tale” as a response to the “ideals” both stylistic and social, articulated in “The Knight’s Tale.” The narrator also acts as commentator on the dialogue between the characters and the content of their tales. The narrator’s commentary is not objective, however, and because of this it exposes some of the inconsistent or illogical assumptions embedded within the societal structure (the estate system; chivalry etc…). For example, in the General Prologue, the narrator comments that the Knight is a “worthy man” (A 43) and is also “meeke as is a mayde” (A 69). Yet, the narrator also catalogues every battle the “verray parfit, gentil knyght” (A 73) has taken part in â€" many of which paint the Knight in a less than favourable light. The narrator notes that the Knight has worked as a mercenary in wars between two Islamic powers (A 64-66) and took part in the slaughter of the Christian population of Alexandria (A 51). Yet, the narrator never comments negatively about these facts and continues to insist upon the “gentleness” and “meekness” of a knight that has killed more than fifteen human beings for money (A 61). The absence of a negative judgment by the narrator acts as an implicit commentary on the “ideals” surrounding knightly behaviour â€" honour, truth, freedom, chivalry (A 46) â€" and the realities of it; it also informs the reader about the character of the narrator himself. The juxtaposition of the narrator’s commentary with the reality implied by the facts of the Knight’s endeavours illustrates the superficiality of the General Prologue’s “unity” and “fellowship”; it also illustrates how the frame narrative (which gives the narrator his rationale for commenting on the Knight) works to challenge idealized societal assumptions obliquely. The narrator’s commentary on the Miller also reveals a lack of objectivity; he states that the Miller “tolde his cherles tale in his manere” (A 3169) and both apologizes for the ensuing tale and tells the reader that they should “Turne over the leef and chese another tale” (A 3177) if they want to read about morality and holiness. At the very least, the apologizing by the narrator reveals a tension between himself and the Miller (not present with the Knight) that undercuts the assumptions of unity and fellowship posited in the General Prologue. While the Miller is self-admittedly drunk, the narrat or’s attempt to dissuade the reader from reading the Miller’s tale â€" both via his negative characterization of the Miller and his tale, and through his stating that there are other tales focusing on virtue and holiness later in the text (implying these are worthier of reading) â€" can be interpreted as an active attempt to impose order on the Miller by encouraging readers to avoid his tale, and thereby silencing him. The frame narrative therefore, in linking the tales and their tellers together, allows for the characters to interact with one another, so that the tales do not simply inform us about who the characters are, but also about how they feel about one another. The tales, the frame, the characters and the narrator, all work together to present a world of conflicting views, hypocrisy and resentment, where fixed assumptions about etiquette, morality and social standing are all coming under increasing pressure. The overall structure of The Canterbury Tales allows for competing viewpoints to be expressed by members of the various estates and professions of society â€" even the narrator becomes involved in this process. These often-conflictual perspectives challenge the notion of unity and wholeness insisted upon in the General Prologue. Work Cited: Chaucer, G. “The Canterbury Tales.” Chaucer to Spenser: An Anthology, edited by Derek Pearsol, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 1999,79-164. Unity, Identity and Fellowship in Chaucers The Canterbury Tales Unity, Identity and Fellowship in Chaucers The Canterbury Tales Unity, Identity and Fellowship in Chaucers The Canterbury Tales Academic Discipline: English Course Name: Chaucer Assignment Subject: Unity, Identity and Fellowship in Chaucers The Canterbury Tales Academic Level: Undergraduate Referencing Style: MLA Word Count: 2,110 In the opening of the General Prologue to “The Canterbury Tales,” Geoffrey Chaucer’s narrator (Geoffrey Chaucer) emphasizes the unity, fellowship and common identity of the pilgrims about to set forth on a journey to the shrine of Saint Thomas á Becket in Canterbury, southeast of London (A 23-26). This insistence on unity and wholeness is important because Chaucer’s text attempts to capture the entirety of medieval English society; the three estates â€" the nobility, the clergy and the commoners â€" are all represented, but the assumptions embedded within this (generally) fixed social hierarchy (spiritually, politically and in terms of gender assumptions) represented by the three estates is problematized as the text develops. In fact, the emphasis on companionship and a common identity revealed in the opening of the General Prologue serves as a counterpoint to the social tensions revealed through the interplay of the tales, their tellers, and the frame narrative. This paper will briefly illustrate how the frame narrative, the pilgrims, and their tales work to comment on the assumptions of unity, fellowship and common identity insisted upon by the narrator in the General Prologue. A brief explanation will also be given as to why the frame narrative structure employed by Chaucer in The Canterbury Tales is particularly well-suited to representing the whole of late fourteenth century English society. The frame narrative employed by Chaucer is, in the simplest sense, a story utilized to contextualize a series of smaller stories or tales. The story of the frame narrative is that twenty-nine pilgrims have met in the Tabard Inn in South London before heading off on their journey to the shrine of Saint Thomas á Becket in Canterbury (A 20-27). Their host at the tavern offers to provide the pilgrims with a game to kill time on the way to the shrine; he proposes that each of the pilgrims tell four tales, two on the way to the shrine, two on the way back (in actual fact, each pilgrim tells only one tale; the tales were condensed and the return journey was never written by Chaucer) (A 790-795). The host â€" who decides to act as the pilgrims’ guide on the journey â€" then states that the pilgrim whom he judges to have told the tales “. . . of best sentence and moost solaas” (A 798), will have supper at his tavern at the other pilgrim’s cost (A 799-800). The framing narrative, the refore, allows each pilgrim â€" each representing a member of English society â€" a chance to express themselves; to this end, the narrator makes an (apologetic) point of stating that he will recount the tales exactly as told by the pilgrims, regardless of how vulgar they might be (A 725-736). Thus, the framing narrative allows Chaucer to explore the character of each pilgrim, both through the tales they tell and through the commentary they provide to each other’s tales. Also, the framing narrative structure works to allow Chaucer to add or remove pilgrims as he sees fit (allowing for him to create a more all-encompassing portrait of medieval English society). If Chaucer thinks of a new pilgrim not mentioned in the General Prologue, he can simply have them ride up and join the rest of the pilgrims during the journey. The framing narrative works to reveal the societal tensions hidden beneath the veneer of unity presented in the opening of the General Prologue. These tensions are revealed in the apologetic stance taken by the narrator in regard to both the potential for vulgarity in the tales and his inability to present the tales in order of social rank (A 743-746) â€" a point which initially seems to become less relevant when the Knight (the highest-ranking pilgrim) wins the right to tell his tale first (A 835-846). The Knight, as the highest-ranking pilgrim (itself a problematic point, given that Christ was both poor and common â€" and given that Christianity is based on both humility and the universal equality of the human soul), decides to tell a romance â€" a “high” form of literature, befitting his position as a noble. Thus, even the literary style of the tale can be seen as commentary; this becomes especially clear when the (drunken) Miller reacts negatively against the content of “Th e Knight’s Tale.” The Miller’s interjection is important for a number of reasons. The Miller disrupts the social hierarchy â€" the Host, upon the completion of “The Knight’s Tale,” asks the Monk (an attempt to respect social hierarchy; the monk is a member of the clergy) to match “The Knight’s Tale” with one of his own (A 3118-3119) â€" and will not be silenced, even threatening to leave the journey if he is not allowed to speak (another instance wherein the interplay of the frame narrative and the tales facilitate the dialogue and reveal the social tensions between the characters) (A 3132-3133). “The Miller’s Tale” â€" his vision of what really constitutes courtly love â€" is told in the form of a fablieaux, a “low” form of literature befitting his common status. Thus, the Miller’s interjection, facilitated by the frame narrative structure linking the tales, also serves to present a stylistic juxtaposition between high and low forms of literature; the dialogue between the characters is mirrored in the dialogue between literary styles. The stylistic juxtaposition, combined with the characters (their social rank and gender), combined with the frame narrative which allows this interplay to take place, presents a more complete and realistic picture (both socially and artistically) of the “wholeness” of medieval England, while simultaneously undercutting the notions of “unity” and “fellowship” posited by the narrator in the General Prologue. It is through the contrivance of the frame narrative (the idea that a member from each societal rank and vocation wo uld gather together and travel on a pilgrimage is contrived in that it is highly unlikely that this would happen in reality) that these characters are allowed to engage directly with one another. The Miller, a commoner, is here given an opportunity to challenge a member of the aristocracy; the Miller’s refusal to respect the social hierarchy â€" the Host wants to find “Som better man” (A 3130) than Miller to match “The Knight’s Tale” â€" illustrates in a microcosmic fashion, the societal tensions then at play in late fourteenth century England at large; there was a major peasant’s revolt in England in1381 (Britannia Web site: History: Docs: Peasant n. pag). “The Miller’s Tale” also contrasts with “The Knight’s Tale” in terms of content. “The Miller’s Tale” â€" stylistically low â€" interprets love as something physical, while “The Knight’s Tale” â€" stylistically high â€" interprets love as something remote. “The Miller’s Tale” is very sensual â€" the characters of Nicholas and Absalom are motivated by lust (though they do eventually “fall in love”); Nicholas’ pursuit of Alison is further complicated by the fact that she is married to a carpenter named John. When Nicholas finally wins her over, they make love in her husband’s bed (A 3651-3656). “The Miller’s Tale” is meant to be funny, contemporary and populated with realistic characters (a fablieaux). It therefore, presents a stark contrast to “The Knight’s Tale,” which is set in a distant past, concerns morality and virtue and involves aristocratic characters (a romance). In “The Knight’s Tale,” the two young knights fall in lov e with a young woman from afar â€" first with her beauty (A 1098-1100; A 1114-1115) and then with her virtue; unlike “The Miller’s tale,” “The Knight’s Tale” lacks any sense of physicality or sensuality in the nature of love â€" it is highly formalized. The two knights spend years loving Emily from a distance (in this case because they are locked in prison), they have no idea who she is, only that they love her (based on her beauty) and that they will fight each other to the death to have her (A 1592-1621). The content of the two tales, therefore, engage in a kind of dialogue with one another. Both knights in “The Knight’s Tale” objectify Emily; even the Gods tell her that she must wed one of the two young knights, though she wishes to remain a virgin (A 2348-2352). In “The Miller’s Tale” the reader is given an example of what can happen when a man marries a woman as an object. John is old and his wife Alison is only eighteen (A 3223-3227). John is characteri zed as viewing himself as a cuckold and as having fallen into a snare (A 3226; A 3231). John’s humiliation in the tale illustrates the consequences of a marriage devoid of physical attraction; Alison and John are married because he is wealthy â€" he does not love her as a person; he “heeld hire narwe in cage” (A 3224) â€" and he values Alison as an object to be coveted. Here again, in the dialogue between the tales, their tellers and the frame narrative, is an example of how certain ideals (courtly love, chivalry) are undercut in the text. The interplay between the Miller and the Host (and the narrator) in the prologue to his tale (the frame narrative), serves to contextualize “The Miller’s Tale” as a response to the “ideals” both stylistic and social, articulated in “The Knight’s Tale.” The narrator also acts as commentator on the dialogue between the characters and the content of their tales. The narrator’s commentary is not objective, however, and because of this it exposes some of the inconsistent or illogical assumptions embedded within the societal structure (the estate system; chivalry etc…). For example, in the General Prologue, the narrator comments that the Knight is a “worthy man” (A 43) and is also “meeke as is a mayde” (A 69). Yet, the narrator also catalogues every battle the “verray parfit, gentil knyght” (A 73) has taken part in â€" many of which paint the Knight in a less than favourable light. The narrator notes that the Knight has worked as a mercenary in wars between two Islamic powers (A 64-66) and took part in the slaughter of the Christian population of Alexandria (A 51). Yet, the narrator never comments negatively about these facts and continues to insist upon the “gentleness” and “meekness” of a knight that has killed more than fifteen human beings for money (A 61). The absence of a negative judgment by the narrator acts as an implicit commentary on the “ideals” surrounding knightly behaviour â€" honour, truth, freedom, chivalry (A 46) â€" and the realities of it; it also informs the reader about the character of the narrator himself. The juxtaposition of the narrator’s commentary with the reality implied by the facts of the Knight’s endeavours illustrates the superficiality of the General Prologue’s “unity” and “fellowship”; it also illustrates how the frame narrative (which gives the narrator his rationale for commenting on the Knight) works to challenge idealized societal assumptions obliquely. The narrator’s commentary on the Miller also reveals a lack of objectivity; he states that the Miller “tolde his cherles tale in his manere” (A 3169) and both apologizes for the ensuing tale and tells the reader that they should “Turne over the leef and chese another tale” (A 3177) if they want to read about morality and holiness. At the very least, the apologizing by the narrator reveals a tension between himself and the Miller (not present with the Knight) that undercuts the assumptions of unity and fellowship posited in the General Prologue. While the Miller is self-admittedly drunk, the narrat or’s attempt to dissuade the reader from reading the Miller’s tale â€" both via his negative characterization of the Miller and his tale, and through his stating that there are other tales focusing on virtue and holiness later in the text (implying these are worthier of reading) â€" can be interpreted as an active attempt to impose order on the Miller by encouraging readers to avoid his tale, and thereby silencing him. The frame narrative therefore, in linking the tales and their tellers together, allows for the characters to interact with one another, so that the tales do not simply inform us about who the characters are, but also about how they feel about one another. The tales, the frame, the characters and the narrator, all work together to present a world of conflicting views, hypocrisy and resentment, where fixed assumptions about etiquette, morality and social standing are all coming under increasing pressure. The overall structure of The Canterbury Tales allows for competing viewpoints to be expressed by members of the various estates and professions of society â€" even the narrator becomes involved in this process. These often-conflictual perspectives challenge the notion of unity and wholeness insisted upon in the General Prologue. Work Cited: Chaucer, G. “The Canterbury Tales.” Chaucer to Spenser: An Anthology, edited by Derek Pearsol, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 1999,79-164.