We have all heard the first two parts of the tale in which comes from our, virtuous, respected Knight. While I have no desire or purpose to ravage our Knight’s reputation, I cannot help but to address my friends when an attempt of pith before us actually is the devil’s messenger- sent to misguide us down a ravaging path.
As an Oxford student of Philosophy, I have long studied the subject of logic, and am therefore trained to detect fallacies and inconsistencies. I regret to admit that of this tale insofar, I have something to point out.
We all now know of Acrite and Palamon’s undesirable journey down the mucus-filled river of what we call “love”. One of the stops towards the end of this river finds our two gentlemen in a physical battle over their subject of infatuation, all because they cannot both marry her. To this, I ask, why not?
It was Acrite himself, who remarked earlier that love is a natural, humanist impervious phenomenon that cannot be peturbed, even against a substantial concept as law. Acrite used this very argument to rebut Palamon of his declaration of broken contract. It was apparently agreed upon that if either of these two men fell in love, the other would not interfere, but help the other on his quest. Palamon remarked that because he fell in love with Emelye first, Acrite is rescinding his word to hold this agreement. Can it not be argued that this happening began the whole conflict?
If love is such a force which can overturn verbal contracts- those of which keep our society from teetering off of its communal foundation, why is not also such a force as to puncture another human-construct- the disposition of marriage between the social union of two people?
What we have here, my comrades, is a case of man-made laws turning against themselves. One law could be said to begin the conflict, just as one law progresses it.