The Miller's Tale and <i>Decameron</i> 3.4

Abstract

Whether a source or an analogue,1 Decameron 3.4 has much to tell us about how Chaucer constructed The Miller's Tale, and yet establishing which it is may help us to perceive more clearly what he hoped to accomplish with the second story of the Canterbury Tales. Both sources and analogues can sharpen our understanding of a work, sources by revealing what an author has chosen to retain and omit, and analogues by indicating how others have handled similar material, although sources almost always make these points more forcefully and, of course, clarifying source rela tionships is useful in itself since this information can contribute to other literary-historical discussions. Within studies of the Canterbury Tales, how ever, the distinction between sources and analogues has become blurred, with analogues often considered second-best sources.2 This blurring is due mainly to Chaucer's way of composing,3 which usually entails working