Review by cloboyle -- The Miller's Tale

[cloboyle]

[Following is a volunteer review of "The Miller's Tale" by Geoffrey Chaucer (Brian Lamont translator).]

---

3 out of 4 stars

---

Share This Review

---

Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Miller’s Tale,” is originally one of twenty-four stories presented in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. However, Brian Lamont’s Modern English translation presents the story in standalone form. In the Introduction, the origin of “The Miller’s Tale” is noted along with a brief explanation of how the stories in The Canterbury Tales are tied together.

Told from the drunken perspective of the narrator, aka the miller, “The Miller’s Tale” tells the tale of a jealous carpenter and his very young, beautiful wife. Afraid that her youth and innocence will lead her astray, the carpenter keeps Alison hidden from the world. Few have seen her with the exception of the scholar boarding above their house and the parish clerk. Both are love-struck by her beauty, her innocence, and her demeanor. However, a chance encounter with Nicholas, the scholar, and Alison not only breaks her marriage vows but also plots with her lover to deceive her husband. While they are successful, in a humorous turn of events, and with the unwitting assistance of the parish clerk, Absolon, the affair is discovered and Alison’s husband, the carpenter, is humiliated on many levels.

As with all stories comprising The Canterbury Tales, “The Miller’s Tale” is not without meaning or moral. One interpretation holds that the moral of the story is to marry both within your means and your age group to avoid conflict. In other words, had the much older carpenter not taken an eighteen-year-old bride, he would not have been so spectacularly humiliated, and his bride probably would not have strayed.

Lamont’s translation of Chaucer’s, “The Miller’s Tale,” is comprised of two primary sections preceded by a brief Introduction and the Prologue to the story. The first main section is a simple translation in story form broken into two-line stanzas, presumably for easier readability and rhyme scheme. The second section is the same translation presented in play format for performance purposes; Lamont’s presentation is straightforward but also spot-on in terms of stage performance. His modern translation of the original Middle English makes Chaucer’s work easy to read and as a result, accessible to a much larger readership. However, no matter how the work is translated or presented, both the language and the subject matter make it suitable for only mature audiences and casual readers/lovers of classic English/British literature.

As one who studied Chaucer in college and is an avid lover of classic literature, I appreciate Lamont’s translation for what it is: simple reading pleasure. I found his translation a pleasant change from the Middle English I studied in college and spent hours trying to explicate. His translation allows for simple, relaxed reading of Chaucer’s work and a relatively clear understanding of the story told with no need to reference other works or appendixes to figure out meaning. However, a word of caution for those who might seek to use this translation in a scholarly fashion: This IS NOT scholarly reading material, but it is a good starting point for those wishing to familiarize themselves with the work of Chaucer, or specifically, “The Miller’s Tale.”

For the reader unfamiliar with “The Miller’s Tale,” Lamont’s Modern English translation is only mildly lacking. For instance, the Introduction clearly states that the line structure and rhyme scheme are “creatively maintained” and that “any archaic works are clearly defined or have been replaced.” Fair enough. However, nowhere in the text have words been “clearly defined” or notated that they are defined elsewhere. Rather, it seems these words have simply been replaced without explanation. Additionally, by “creatively [maintaining]” the rhyme scheme, in some sections, the rhyme scheme itself has been compromised making for awkward line structure and reading.

Overall, the text is well-edited, easy to read, and very enjoyable. Brian Lamont’s translation of “The Miller’s Tale” is one that I would recommend as a get-acquainted text to someone unfamiliar with the work Chaucer. If you are someone looking for a way to adopt the tale for the stage, again, this translation is a good starting point. After careful consideration, I rate this book 3 out of 4 stars.

******
The Miller's Tale
View: on Bookshelves | on Amazon

[Bigwig1973]

I read The Canterbury Tales YEARS ago, and one thing I do remember is that it seemed harder to read than books like The Inferno, The Iliad, and The Odyssey. I could never really put my finger on why that was! I will probably want to check this one out! In your opinion, would you think it worthwhile for the people who revised this to also do the same for the other tales?

[cloboyle]

Hi! Good question. As a hardcore lover of old school, academic literature, I am against revisions such as this. However, I also understand that these types of texts and stories can be very difficult to understand because of their complexity, specifically historical context and use of literary devices. That being said, I am conflicted. As you can said, you read "The Miller's Tale" a long time ago and found it difficult to understand. However, these types of translations are offensive to most academics. However, I feel similar translations do present an opportunity for readers of all types to develop an interest and appreciation of these works and may encourage readers to find interest in texts they might have previously avoided. To answer your question more concisely, if well done, I am on board with similar translations, if they are well done, because they offer readers such as yourself an opportunity to understand and appreciate the story being told.