Practice Chaucer Q1ii (40 marks / 40 minutes)
A. “Beneath the surface of this entertaining and bawdy tale we find a serious
examination of obligation and loyalty.” Explore this view of The Merchant’s Prologue
and Tale.
In Chaucer’s bawdy blend of the Courtly Love and the Fablieau genres ‘The
Merchant'sMerhcant’s Tale’ written in the 1390s, there are various examinations of
obligation and loyalty. There are arguably more serious representations of this, such as a
wife’s obligation to her husband and vice versa, demonstrating romantic and marital
obligations. However, there are also seemingly unserious and satirical representations of
obligation and loyalty, such as Januarie’s ‘appetite’ for women, but also May and Damyan’s
lust (rather than love) affair.
Firstly, it could be argued that while this tale is bawdy and entertaining, there are serious
examinations of obligation and loyalty, such as that between a wife and a husband, and this
can best be encapsulated in the disturbing heroic couplet, ‘A man may do no sinne with his
wyf/ Ne hurte himseleven with his owene knyf’. The mercantile, but violent, imagery of a
knife could insinuate that there can be lasting pain (physical and emotional) arising from
marriage (an interpretation potentially emphasised by the poetic device of enjambment),
which may contextually link to the numerous anti-feminist and misogynistic literature
Chaucer may have been inspired by such as Eustace Deschamps ‘The Mirror of Marriage’ in
which women are described to be liars and cheats. Perhaps this metaphor may highlight
how a wife and husband's obligation to each other must not be broken, or if it is can only be
broken by the wife as a man cannot hurt his wife according to January, and perhaps the
Merchant by extension, fitting in with anti-feminist trends in literature at the time. A feminist
critic may find this extremely serious and misogynistic, however, a Middle Ages audience
may find this typical and entertaining. Furthermore, the representation of obligation and
loyalty as serious is implied through the potentially romantic biblical allusion to Solomon’s
songs, ‘Ris up, my wyf, my love, my lady free.’ The asyndetic listing of endearing
nomenclatures aided by the possessive determiner, ‘my’ may suggest that Januarie feels an
obligation to May as his wyf, and dotes on her accordingly, making a serious examination of
obligation. This interpretation may be more apt for a modern contemporary audience, as
these sweet nomenclatures and the arguably resolute end-stop may highlight Januarie’s love
and admiration for his wife. However, to a Middle Age, heavily Catholic audience that
Chaucer was writing for Januarie would seem foolish for the biblical intertextual reference as
the Song of Solomon was not intended to be read as sexual and was metaphorical, and a
Middle Ages audience would recognise this, viewing Januarie as foolish and even
blasphemous, alternatively to a more contemporary interpretation of this misinterpreted
biblical allusion. Furthermore, the possessive heroic couplet, ‘I may nat, certes, though I
sholde die, /Forbere to been out of you’re compaignye’ utilises the hyperbolic and
dysphemistic dynamic verb ‘die’, as well as caesura to possibly intensify the perceived
gravitas of the situation, to emphasise the importance of the obligation and loyalty between a
A. “Beneath the surface of this entertaining and bawdy tale we find a serious
examination of obligation and loyalty.” Explore this view of The Merchant’s Prologue
and Tale.
In Chaucer’s bawdy blend of the Courtly Love and the Fablieau genres ‘The
Merchant'sMerhcant’s Tale’ written in the 1390s, there are various examinations of
obligation and loyalty. There are arguably more serious representations of this, such as a
wife’s obligation to her husband and vice versa, demonstrating romantic and marital
obligations. However, there are also seemingly unserious and satirical representations of
obligation and loyalty, such as Januarie’s ‘appetite’ for women, but also May and Damyan’s
lust (rather than love) affair.
Firstly, it could be argued that while this tale is bawdy and entertaining, there are serious
examinations of obligation and loyalty, such as that between a wife and a husband, and this
can best be encapsulated in the disturbing heroic couplet, ‘A man may do no sinne with his
wyf/ Ne hurte himseleven with his owene knyf’. The mercantile, but violent, imagery of a
knife could insinuate that there can be lasting pain (physical and emotional) arising from
marriage (an interpretation potentially emphasised by the poetic device of enjambment),
which may contextually link to the numerous anti-feminist and misogynistic literature
Chaucer may have been inspired by such as Eustace Deschamps ‘The Mirror of Marriage’ in
which women are described to be liars and cheats. Perhaps this metaphor may highlight
how a wife and husband's obligation to each other must not be broken, or if it is can only be
broken by the wife as a man cannot hurt his wife according to January, and perhaps the
Merchant by extension, fitting in with anti-feminist trends in literature at the time. A feminist
critic may find this extremely serious and misogynistic, however, a Middle Ages audience
may find this typical and entertaining. Furthermore, the representation of obligation and
loyalty as serious is implied through the potentially romantic biblical allusion to Solomon’s
songs, ‘Ris up, my wyf, my love, my lady free.’ The asyndetic listing of endearing
nomenclatures aided by the possessive determiner, ‘my’ may suggest that Januarie feels an
obligation to May as his wyf, and dotes on her accordingly, making a serious examination of
obligation. This interpretation may be more apt for a modern contemporary audience, as
these sweet nomenclatures and the arguably resolute end-stop may highlight Januarie’s love
and admiration for his wife. However, to a Middle Age, heavily Catholic audience that
Chaucer was writing for Januarie would seem foolish for the biblical intertextual reference as
the Song of Solomon was not intended to be read as sexual and was metaphorical, and a
Middle Ages audience would recognise this, viewing Januarie as foolish and even
blasphemous, alternatively to a more contemporary interpretation of this misinterpreted
biblical allusion. Furthermore, the possessive heroic couplet, ‘I may nat, certes, though I
sholde die, /Forbere to been out of you’re compaignye’ utilises the hyperbolic and
dysphemistic dynamic verb ‘die’, as well as caesura to possibly intensify the perceived
gravitas of the situation, to emphasise the importance of the obligation and loyalty between a
