Chaucer's "The Clerk's Tale": Tyranny Vs. The Common People

Within her essay “Tyranny and Commune Profit in the Clerk’s Tale,” Carol Falvo Heffernan argues that within Chaucer’s Clerk’s Tale the character of the marquis, Walter, stands as a representation of tyranny while the character of Griselda represents the common people, or commune. She argues that due to Chaucer’s knowledge of the political theory of kingship, and perhaps his own personal opinions about the present monarchy, he intentionally portrays these two opposing political forces within the tale. Moreover, it is through each individual depiction that both roles are made clearer because they often act as foils against one another. Heffernan’s argument is clear and concise. It is easy to agree with her thesis that Walter and Griselda are representations of the two opposing political forces. Nevertheless, she fails to draw decisive conclusions from her statements. It is not difficult to see Walter and his actions as tyrannical, while viewing Griselda as a representation of the common people in opposition to the monarchy of the marquis. However, one cannot help but desire more conclusions from her essay. She proves that these characters are these opposing representations, but fails to tell the reader why this is significant.

Heffernan brings up several points in order to support the notion that Walter and Griselda exemplify these political forces. As she states, “Walter’s lordship over the land is established as part of a long tradition of dominion,” he is one of many in a long succession of monarchical marquises (332). He has many obedient vassals “ay redy to his honed,” that is, ever ready to do his bidding (line 66). And while he is described as being loved by his people, he is simultaneously depicted as being feared (line 69). His people are required to love him. Moreover, as Heffernan points out, the region where Walter rules is linked by Chaucer as a place in Italy where tyranny abounds; therefore it is not surprising for there to be some tyranny within Walter’s monarchy. Heffernan also brings up the point that “political theorists frequently accused tyrants of pursuing personal delight instead of the common good” (333). This is something that Walter is guilty of when he chooses not to marry, preferring rather to pursue his own personal delights, such as hawking and hunting. He is more concerned for himself than for his subjects. However, Heffernan fails to give Walter much credit when he agrees to marry at the behest of his subjects. They come to him, begging that he may take a wife so they are not left without a king, and he agrees to do so. He is willing to adhere to his subjects will, even if it is not his own. Moreover, Heffernan begrudges Walter for wanting to retain his right to choose who he marries, when in reality, it is a privilege anyone would desire. Nevertheless, this oversight on the part of Heffernan does not change the fact that Walter does fulfill the role of a tyrant. While he may adhere to his people’s request, it is more out of an obligation to fulfill his role as lord, than a desire to do what is right.

The essay moves on to point out that “in the domestic sphere, Walter is as much a tyrant as he is in his public role of lord. He demands abject obedience from his wife” (334). Griselda is terrified of the marquis, “quakynge for drede” when he asks her to marry him (line 358). And she agrees almost instantaneously to do so, stating that she is undeserving of him, but will never disobey. Then, after they are married, when he questions her womanhood, Walter proceeds to put Griselda through a number of torturous tests. Time and again she proves her unfaltering loyalty, even when her children are being taken away from her and, supposedly, slain, but Walter is

unrelenting, carrying on his tests over a span of twelve years. In spite of everything, Griselda is ever obedient, often stating such things as “ye mowe save or spille/ Youre owne thing: werketh after youre wille,” subsequently giving all power to her husband, because the children are his to do with as he wishes (line 503-4). Her children are brutally stolen from her, and she is banished from the castle, but she does not shed a tear, and shows no emotion but mild mannered contentment. This is exactly the response that Walter desires. However, he goes even further, and makes Griselda prepare the castle for the arrival of its supposed new queen, her daughter. Even the clerk himself continually interrupts his narrative to question the marquis’ actions.

Particularly interesting is the fact that Heffernan trumps Walter’s tyranny to “his own sick will” (335). She makes the argument that Walter’s power is what corrupted him, making him monstrous, he “himself [is] a captive” of his own, monarchical power. By having so much control, he has been poisoned, and turned away from what is humane and right. By bringing up this point, Heffernan alters the one-sided negative view of Walter she had previously been painting, and causes one to question whether or not she ought to have created sympathy for the representation of tyranny. Nevertheless, Heffernan points out that what is important “are the political ramifications of the problem of the imprisoned will” (335). It is Walter’s actions as a result of his corruption that represent his tyranny.

Heffernan goes on to discuss Griselda as a representation of ideal womanhood. It is this ideality which “enables Griselda to transform Walter’s nature” (335). By the end of the tale, Walter yields his persistent testing of Griselda, returning her children and reinstating her as his wife, and the ruler of his people beside him. It is Griselda’s patience and obedience, says Heffernan, which eventually turns Walter from his tyranny. Because Griselda is of the common people, coming from a very poor, low-class home, her “nature [is able to reach] into the commonweal” (336). This is the primary political lesson, states Heffernan. Griselda is “a simple peasant heroine” and the Clerk’s Tale shows how this role of the common person has the ability to transform a tyrannical ruler into a better, more benevolent leader (336). Moreover, Griselda as the representative of the common people shows their power via her power. If she is able to rise from poverty and become a kind and effective ruler, than this speaks volumes of the potential that all common people, perhaps, possess. Within the tale, the clerk states, in regard to Griselda, that “The commune profit koude she redresse./ Ther nas discord, rancor, ne hevynesse/ In al that land, that she ne koude apese,/ And wisely brynge hem alle in reste and ese” (lines 431-434). When Griselda goes to the palace, she is a great ruler, surpassing the marquis himself. However, Griselda’s ability to ultimately soften Walter’s demeanor does not reverse his role as tyrant. This is because it is only through her passive, unbending obedience that it is achieved. Only through her uncomplaining suffering is a change in Walter made possible, and while Griselda’s quiet influence on the marquis does empower the common people, it does nothing to change the fact that she does represent the commune in opposition to tyranny.

Next, Heffernan discusses the envoy at the end of the clerk’s tale. Within this, the clerk reverses much of what his tale says, stating instead that women ought to take on the role displayed by Walter, “and let the husband play the role of the long-suffering Griselda” (337). This reversal of the sexes shows an interesting sympathy on the part of Chaucer. However, Heffernan’s inclusion of this segment does not seem to coincide with her main argument of tyranny and commune as represented by Walter and Griselda. Moreover, she quickly glosses passed it without drawing any relevant conclusions.

Nevertheless, Heffernan gets back on track when she begins to list the three ways, demonstrated within the tale, in which the common people may deal with a tyrannical monarch. The tale shows that “those who make up the commune are not… powerless to achieve reform,” and the first example of this can be seen through the character of Griselda (338). Through her obedience, she manages to free Walter “from the tyranny of his own will” by acknowledging the power he possesses over her and his people (338). By enduring the afflictions of his cruelty, Griselda prevents the possibility of resistance inflaming him to even greater tyranny. Therefore, through passivity, the marquis himself remains more passive. The second method of dealing with a tyrant is demonstrated through the commune, who take a more active approach to the situation. The common people do not allow Walter “to neglect his responsibilities,” therefore choosing a spokesman to make a request for the common good, i.e. that he should marry (338). The people play into the fact that the marquis possesses an obligation to his role as lord. As Heffernan states

Even sovereignty requires that a lord bow his neck to “yoke,” and his subjects feel… obligated to make the point. The marquis responds as one who stands corrected and accepts the validity of the collective complaint…After Walter’s marriage, these same people, unlike Griselda, object to the strange disappearance of her two offspring, and… their former love turns to hate. (339)

The common people question Walter because they have the power to do so. It is through this power that they are able to temper his despotism. The third way of dealing with tyranny, states Heffernan, is through blind, unquestioned obedience, but an obedience that is different from that of Griselda’s. This compliance is more dangerous to the common people because it allows suffering to continue unquestioned. The sergeant, Walter’s henchman, is a perfect example of this. While Griselda’s virtue allures the marquis “like a charm by which bad must inevitably turn good,” the sergeant’s full compliance “with the will of the tyrant is pure evil” (339). This blind allegiance only leads to a destruction of the individual’s safety and well-being. These three possible ways of dealing with a tyrant are very reasonable; the points that Heffernan makes regarding each are sensible and easy to follow. These are certainly three methods of coping with the marquis, which are exhibited within the Clerk’s Tale. However, Heffernan once again fails to draw conclusions upon her argument. True, these are methods for dealing with tyranny, but so what? What exactly does this have to do with Walter’s role as tyrant and Griselda’s role as the common people? The points which Heffernan brings up are logical in that they still pertain to the relationship between the common people and their tyrannical leader, because they demonstrate varying relationships between the two. However, Heffernan herself does nothing to tell us this. Instead, she quickly wraps up her essay with a short concluding paragraph stating that there are continuing complexities between the roles of Walter and Griselda as husband and wife. Until this point, Heffernan does not discuss this relationship between the two of them, and rather than providing conclusions to the arguments she has been making, she briefly mentions a new aspect of the situation, that “they remain characters with intensely engaging human natures” (340). While this is an interesting addition to her essay, it leaves one feeling unsatisfied with her argument.

It is difficult not to agree with Heffernan’s claim that Walter represents many characteristics of a tyrant and Griselda, aspects of the common man. Throughout the tale there are varying examples in which this is exemplified. Heffernan makes many excellent points to back up her claim. However, one is left wanting more from her essay. There are no “therefore” claims or conclusions at the end to tie all arguments together. And at times, it seems as if she has included information that is irrelevant to the point she is trying to make. While Heffernan crafted a concise and clear essay, it is insufficient in its claims, and is lacking reasoning behind the arguments that she makes.