White 9
Chaucer on Marriage
Many of the tales in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales deal with marriage. In fact, marriage is such a strong theme in this book, that critics have given a section of The Canterbury Tales the title “The Marriage Group”. However, Chaucer’s view on marriage shifts from something that is good (such as in the “The Franklin’s Tale”) and something that is bad (such as in “The Merchant’s Tale”). Along with the tales of “The Marriage Group”, many of the other tales and even some works outside of The Canterbury Tales, deal with marriage and once again the sides of marriage that are offered could not be more different. Why does Chaucer give such differing views of marriage? Did he approve of marriage? Or did he despise it and seek to warn people away from it by telling his marriage horror tales?
The ideal love in Chaucer’s time was courtly love. The term “ideal” here means a form that was sought after, but thought unobtainable; much like the Christian idea of being like Christ. How can Christians hope to be like the Son of God? They can’t. It is a lofty ideal that (hopefully) presses us onward to be better people. Likewise, people during the Medieval period, held courtly love above all other loves. They created songs, poems, epics and art to portray this lofty ideal. The term “courtly love” here refers to a relationship in which one, rather noble, knight (another ideal in terms of the ideal man) pined after a beautiful, fair and chaste lady who had been locked away in a tower to keep her chastity and purity. The knight would often go to war for his lady, battling those who slandered her or threatened her or her purity. Very rarely was this courtly love ever consummated with anything more than a kiss. This was courtly love.
Hardly anyone followed it.
Like today, society was a degenerate lot of degenerate people. Sex and debauchery abounded. There were brothels and even clergy engaged in the sinful practices of the whorehouses. The idea of courtly love was a good idea for stories, but hardly ever did such things happen in real life.
Marriage in Medieval London “was primarily a transaction organized by males to serve economic and political ends with the women treated as a useful child-bearing appendage to the lands and the goods being exchanged” (Bernard O’Donoghue 247). Marriage was often just a way to unite two families or for a man to gain an inheritance. Very often, as noted by the quote above, the woman was little more than a piece of property acquired by the man in marriage. In fact, evidence gathered from medieval Church canon lawyers shows us that “mutual love between the spouses is notably absent” (O’Donoghue 247).
Which brings us to the Wife of Bath. This boisterous character in The Canterbury Tales, has often been heralded as Chaucer’s most feminist character. However, since the actual feminist school of criticism had not yet come to be, this is debated among some scholars. However, I will be looking at the Wife of Bath’s view of marriage. The wife is the exact opposite of the ideal woman of courtly love. In “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue”, the Wife of Bath states that she has been married five times at the Church’s door (6) and is now looking for her sixth husband (45). The Wife uses many different scriptures to defend her multiple marriages against the one that is most commonly used against her: the fact that Jesus only went to one marriage in his ministry and that means that men and women should only be married once (9-13). The Wife mentions such Biblical examples as King Solomon (35-39), Lamech (54), Abraham (55) and Isaac (56), all who had more than one wife and were all Biblical patriarchs, to defend herself of her multiple marriages. Besides the obvious counter-teaching to the Church that Chaucer is offering here, the Wife is saying quite a bit about marriage in Medieval London by stating the opposite.
As I said before, the feminist school of criticism had not yet come about during the time Chaucer was writing The Canterbury Tales, but the Wife of Bath has many of the qualities of a feminist character. In her Tale, the Wife of Bath tells of a knight who rapes a maiden and, as punishment, the knight must journey the world and find an answer to the riddle “what do women want most in this world?” The knight travels far and wide and finally finds his answer: sovereignty. “Wommen desiren to have soverynetee/As well over his housbond as hir love/And for to been in maistrie hym above” (1038-1040). As presented by the research above, the woman sovereign in a relationship, or in any element for that matter, was unheard of in Medieval London.
The Wife of Bath’s tale launches a conversation of tales that has come to be known as “The Marriage Group”, a title applied by the critic George Lyman Kittredge. The Marriage Group contains the tales of the Clerk, the Merchant and the Franklin.
After a lengthy interruption after The Wife of Bath’s Tale by the Friar and the Summoner, the Clerk resumes the discussion of marriage started by the Wife’s tale. The Clerk tells of a tale from the Italian poet Petrarch. The tale is about a hardworking peasant named Griselde who marries into the marquis of the town. The marquis of the town is encouraged by his subjects to marry, for he is not getting any younger and he has no heirs to fill his throne when he dies. After looking over the town, the marquis finds a woman of “vertuous beautee” (The Clerk’s Tale 211) and he claims that there was no one “faireste under sonne” (212). This beautiful woman is Griselde and the marquis marries her.
Not long after their marriage, Griselde bore a daughter (443). About the time the daughter was weaned from her mother’s breast (450), the marquis decided in his heart to tempt his wife and to see her sadness (452). So, the marquis feigned her daughter’s death and sent the child away to the “Erl of Panyk” (764). Griselde wept bitterly, but remained steadfast in her devotion to her husband and lord. Four years passed and Griselde gave birth to a son and the marquis “caughte yet another lest/ To tempte his wyf yet ofter, if he may” (619-620) and once again, the marquis pretended to have her child killed. Then, again, the marquis tested his wife by making Griselde to walk through the streets in nothing but her undergarments.
The final test the marquis decided to put his wife through was when he feigned a divorce and ordered that she prepare the wedding feast for his new wife and he. Griselde did this willingly and then the marquis decided to reveal his scheme to her. He praised her for her faith and fortitude and told her that no woman in all the lands and all the kingdoms would have withstood the tests as she did (1051-1056) and the he took her in his arms and kissed her (1057). The marquis returned Griselde’s children to her, now fully grown, and they all lived happily ever after.
It is disturbing that the Clerk prefaced this tale in The Clerk’s Prologue by saying that it would be a merry tale. This tale may have a happy ending, but the events through the story are horrific and terrifying. Today, no mother would want to endure such things and I don’t believe any man would want to put his wife through that. Of course, this story doesn’t come from today, it comes from a different point in time altogether.
This story, while it praises Griselde’s fortitude is a story about man’s sovereignty over his wife. So much is the power of the marquis that he can snatch his wife’s children from her and order her to prepare a feast for his new wife. This may seem appalling to modern day readers, but I would imagine that Chaucer’s contemporary readers would have less problems with it than we. This was the order of the world and of marriage. The man was the unquestioned head of the woman. The Clerk’s story of male sovereignty is juxtaposed to the Wife of Bath’s tale of woman sovereignty. We now have two tales of marriage that could not be more juxtaposed in their ideas of marriage. Which idea of marriage did Chaucer believe in?
In both of these tales, while one is held as sovereign over the other, both marriages end with a happily every after line. In “The Wife of Bath’s Tale”, the knight and the old woman live happily ever after once she changes her appearance to that of a young and beautiful maiden. Likewise, in “The Clerk’s Tale”, Griselde and the marquis live happily ever after once the marquis returns Griselde’s children to her and lets her in on his devious little trick. However, the next tale in “The Marriage Group” tales of a marriage that is not happy and will never be happy.
After hearing the Clerk’s Tale, the Merchant speaks of the difference between the patient, beautiful Griselde and his own shrewd wife that he has been married to for the past two months. The Merchant even says his wife is “the worste that may be” (1218). The Merchant goes on to tell of an old, decrepit knight named January who goes out and marries a young maiden named May. May was less than impressed by the old knight’s sexual efforts. Then, came Damyan, a squire of January who had languished with love for May (1867) and May began to take notice of the squire’s advances to her. One day, May wrote Damyen a letter “in which she graunteth hym hire verray grace” (1997). So, the two devised a way to meet and share their love. One day, January fell blind and had May tied to him so that she would always be present to him. When January brings May to his private garden, May pries that January allow her to climb into a tree to eat a pear. Once up in the tree, May has sex with Damyen. At that moment, January’s sight is restored and May assures him what he sees is just an effect of his blindness. In this completely dysfunctional and almost laughable representation of marriage, we can see many faults, but this is not Chaucer’s view of marriage either.
Skipping over “The Squire’s Tale”, we come to the final tale in “The Marriage Group”. The Franklin agrees to tell an ancient Briton lay. The tale is about a knight and his lady who loved each other dearly. In fact, the knight and lady agree that neither one should be over the other. “Ne sholde upon hym take no maistrie/Agayn hir wyl” (747-748). One day, the knight must leave for war and his lady begins to worry that the knight’s ship will crash against the vicious rocks along the Britain coast. One night, while she is at a garden, the lady (Aurelius) was approached by Dorigen, a squire who has loved her from afar from some time. Dorigen pleads with Aurelius for her to love him, but Aurelius, as a passing thought, says she would only love him if “ye remoeve alle the rokkes, stoon by stoon/That they ne lette ship ne boot to goon” (993-994). Aurelius then leaves the garden and Dorigen takes her passing comment seriously and sets about to find a way to make the rocks disappear.
With the help of a hire illusionist, Dorigen fulfills his promise to Aurelius and when Aurelius’ husband returns, she must fulfill her promise to Dorigen. Arveragus regretfully sends his wife away to fulfill her promise to Dorigen, keeping with his promise to not be her master. Dorigen is cut deep by the loyalty and honor of Arveragus and Aurelius and absolves Aurelius of her promise and she returns to her husband, a faithful woman.
And finally we find Chaucer’s ideal marriage. A marriage where there is no master, but the husband and wife are equal. Of course, Chaucer’s ideal marriage would not become fulfilled until much, much later. Even today there are unequal marriages. However, Chaucer wrote this tale as an example to contemporaries and to those that might happen upon his works later on. “The Franklin’s Tale” is Chaucer’s plead with society for equality in marriage.
Some critics claim that “the representation of marriage in Chaucer is often little more than a setting for the events of a story” (O’Donoghue 249). I, however, respectfully disagree. While Chaucer’s tales involving marriage usually encompass much wider themes and often themes that are considered to be “grander” than marriage, I do not believe Chaucer wrote so much on marriage just because he favored it as a backdrop to his stories. Why would Chaucer write four tales with four completely different views on marriage, three of which are obviously imperfect and one that is perfect. If you read “The Franklin’s Tale” notice how nothing bad happens to either Arvargus or Aurelius. There is no adultery. No one dies. The most horrific thing in their marriage is the fear that Arvargus’ ship may dash against the rock, an event that does not come to pass. Even when it comes time to fulfill her half-hearted promise to Dorigen, Aurelius is released from promise and she returns to her husband a faithful woman. Why is this? Why does nothing bad happen to Arvargus or Aurelius in their marriage? Chaucer means to make a point with this tale. He means to show that by having such a marriage as that of Arvargus and Aurelius, no ill fate will befall the married couple. Of course, those of us who are married and practice such a marriage with no hierarchy know that this is false. Trials and tribulations will arise and assail both you and your marriage. However, you must remember that we are in a time of ideals. Remember the ideal of courtly love that I mentioned at the beginning of this paper? Remember how it was something to be sought after, but never obtained. This is Chaucer’s ideal love. To say Chaucer was counter-cultural would be an understatement. He was always upsetting the boundaries and testing the ideals of his time. I believe ‘The Franklin’s Tale” was one such ideal that Chaucer sought to replace the ideal of courtly love with.
While it may be considered to be unobtainable, I believe Chaucer’s ideal of marriage should be something all married couples strive towards. Who knows? Maybe less bad things will befall us if we do indeed have such a faithful marriage as Arvargus and Aurelius.