animals—a weasel, colt, kid, calf, mouse, etc. She is
described only externally, even more of a “fl at” character
than the men, and also has the fewest lines to speak.
Moreover, she is treated rather brutally by all the men:
Her husband is mentally cruel, if not physically; Nicho-
las grabs her by the genitals; Absolon intends to burn
her behind with a hot poker. To all of them, she is
merely an object and a sexual plaything. Finally, queer
and gender critics have begun examining the intercon-
nected relationships among the men in the Tale. In par-
ticular, the scene between Absolon and Nicholas reveals
an underlying homoeroticism, between the kissing of
the “nether eye” and the thrusting of the red-hot poker,
itself borrowed from Gerveys the Smith, a “freend so
dere” to Absolon he would lend the clerk anything.
These recent avenues of criticism have provided insight
not only into “The Miller’s Tale” itself, but also into the
fabliau genre, particularly as it is rendered into MIDDLE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
FURTHER READING
Laskaya, Anne. Chaucer’s Approaches to Gender in The Can-
terbury Tales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995.
Schweitzer, Edward C. “The Misdirected Kiss and the
Lover’s Malady in Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale.” In Chaucer in
the Eighties, edited by Julian N. Wasserman and Robert
J. Blanch, 223–233. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University
Press, 1986.
“MINE OWN JOHN POINS” SIR THOMAS
WYATT (1536–1537) This poem is one of three
epistolary SATIREs—satirical poems written as letters—
attributed to SIR THOMAS WYATT. It is addressed to John
Poynz (Poins), a fellow courtier and friendly corre-
spondent from Gloucestershire. The poem is a rough
translation of Luigi Alamanni’s (1495–1556) “Tenth
Satire,” and follows the Italian poem in several particu-
lars though it also focuses more specifi cally on Wyatt’s
own de facto house arrest on his family’s estate during
- It is a long answer to the implied question of
why he is absent from the court—why he “draws”
homeward rather than following the “press of courts”
(ll. 2–3). He fi rst assures Poins that it is not a matter of
contempt for royal power and infl uence, though he
does reserve for himself a deeper-piercing judgment
than to blindly adore the great and powerful as the
more common sort might (ll. 7–13).
As the poem proceeds, Wyatt is willing to admit that
he would like preferment and honor as much as the
next person; however, he is not willing to part with his
honesty to do so (ll. 17–18). Here the satire reaches a
fuller voice by repeating the motif of what he “cannot”
do. Each behavior enumerated, each brand of dishon-
esty and injustice, helps him do the work of the satirist
by exposing the vices of a court that by its nature looks
magnifi cent. First, he cannot fl atter; he cannot offer
praise to those who deserve censure (ll. 19–21). Sec-
ond, he cannot honor those whose lives are given over
to vice—“Venus” representing lust and “Bacchus” rep-
resenting drunkenness—even if he hurts himself by
his refusal (ll. 22–24). Third, he cannot “crouch” to
“worship” those who prey on the innocent like wolves
among lambs—those who abuse their political and
economic power (ll. 25–27). After this inventory of
sins, the poet proceeds to qualify his earlier complaints
by reaffi rming his commitment to hold to honesty even
at great personal cost (ll. 28–30). He continues with
this theme of honesty and forthrightness, emphasizing
that he cannot use “wiles” or “deceit” for his own
advancement (ll. 31–33) and that he cannot use injus-
tice for personal gain (ll. 34–36).
What follows is more satirical protest in a like vein,
but this time the specifi cs are enumerated in much
quicker succession. They still focus on the poet’s obli-
gation to hold to truth, emphasizing that he cannot
pretend that vice is virtue, and that he will not live
thrall to the whims of another, no matter how power-
ful (ll. 37–55). This is the central assertion in the poem,
and it is crucial: The fact that he “cannot learn the way”
to do the things he condemns frames his moral stance
as involuntary and natural rather than as the outgrowth
of misanthropy or pride. More examples follow, show-
ing how he will not cloak vice with the “nearest virtue”
(l. 61)—drunkenness as good fellowship, duplicity as
eloquence, and so forth. The complaint rises to a cre-
scendo with his refusal to grant the right of “tyranny”
to the prince, reiterating yet again the phrase “I can-
not” (l. 76).
The remainder of the poem provides the contrast, a
declaration of independence from courtly life and a276 “MINE OWN JOHN POINS”