A Clerk’s Thoughts on our Knight’s Tale

My companions,

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.


1 thought on “A Clerk’s Thoughts on our Knight’s Tale

  1. As a Man of Law I am far too y-fetered with matters of felonye and morals to sit for long discussing such petty matters, and far too rational to rewe the (sadness) of two fools over some harlot. Cherls and idlers may find this suitable fodder for their hollwe minds, but mine mind be not so nyce and instead of ech and everich (law) that man or nature hath ever giveth. Ich kan deliver parfit recitation by rote, and kan sikerly also glose everich deel by its sentence. What use have I for waymentynge o’er tales of widows and Thesus and dueling brothers? I find no solace in this, and I counseil ech of you to occupye ye heed with more semely disports–special ye, dear Clerk.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s