Change: Comparing 'The Merchant's Tale' to 'A Doll's House' (My A-Level literature essay)

Change is a necessary aspect of human development. From beginning to end, our lives are marked by shifts in perspective which enable us to grow as people and gain a better understanding of the world and those around us. Both Ibsen’s 1879 Well-Made Play, A Doll's House and Chaucer’s 1400 fabliau, The Merchant’s Tale, demonstrate how resistance to change inevitably leads to the disintegration of relationships and self-development as characters ignore major personal flaws in favour of remaining close-minded. In this way, the works serve as a criticism for readers/audiences of the time to reflect on how they themselves potentially resist change, by prompting them to engage with the works directly. This is accomplished through satire, contrast, deception, and responses to societal norms at the time of writing.

Similarly, Chaucer’s use of the fabliau genre of poetry allows him to parody the prevalent sexism of medieval society through its trope of allowing oppressed characters to triumph over adversity. Just like in A Doll’s House, May seeks change and finds freedom (in this case through promiscuity), while January remains complacent, thus damaging his relationship with his wife in the process. The narrative’s depiction of May shifting from frost-damaged flower to sadistic jezebel, as described by the Merchant, causes the reader to experience tonal whiplash and call into question the Merchant’s ability to tell stories, thus doubting his unpleasant depiction of her as she rebels against society’s belief that she must remain submissive to her husband. Mealy writes, “Chaucer [...] encourages us to view her as certainly more a victim than the Merchant would like. [I]s this shrewish persona an understandable response to the unpalatable marital conditions she finds herself in?” Indeed, the fabliau genre often derived humour from subverting conventional morality, so how better to utilise this than to challenge the Christocentric archetype of the chaste woman? Benson writes, “The fabliau, in short, is delightfully subversive-- a light-hearted thumbing of the nose at the dictates of religion.”  Similar to how Ibsen used melodrama with the intent to dismantle it, Chaucer wrote The Merchant’s Tale as a fabliau to satirise rigid societal expectations.

The running theme of deception in both texts seeks to represent certain resistances to change. Januarie deceives himself, believing himself to be young (“I feele me nowhere hoor but on myn heed”) and capable of anything (“I feele my lymes stark and suffisaunt to do al that a man bilongeth to”), indicating a rejection of the physical changes of old age. Similarly, Torvald deceives himself in his assertion that his relationship with his wife is absolutely perfect, based solely on its fitting in with Victorian ideals. The facades are inscrutably challenged by both texts’ endings, which shatter the illusions set up in the preceding events.

In Chaucer’s case this is done to represent January’s blindness (both a metaphor for his stubborn ignorance and a device to further exaggerate his age) as the leading cause of his cuckoldry, which extends as an attack on the person he believes himself to be, the perennial with limbs as green “as laurer thurgh the yeer is for to seen”, who he ultimately revives by returning to (a now self-imposed) blindness, choosing to ignore May’s infidelity to secure (in his now-deceived eyes) a legitimate heir. Bathard-Smith writes, “In only 33 lines, May wins back her cuckolded husband’s confidence and he is glad again”, thus, like flipping a switch, he descends back into delusion to shield his ego.

Inverse to Torvald’s perceived ‘perfect’ family are Mrs Linde and Krogstad, who serve as the direct antithesis to the 19th century cult of domesticity, and thus by extension, the Helmers. Mrs Linde is a woman who leaves her domestic sphere to find work and thus become a provider for her fatherless children, forcing Krogstad out of his public sphere in the process. By switching their expected roles, Ibsen draws focus to the way stringent adherence to social conventions limits happiness. Certainly, “it is Torvald who is left to languish [...] at the end of the play [Hathaway]” while Krogstad and Mrs Linde leave with an optimistic future ahead of them, Krogstad announcing “I’ve never been so happy in my life before!”, a direct reference to Nora’s assertion that “[it’s so] wonderful to be alive and happy” in scene 1. This polar relationship between the two couples undercuts the theme of change in the play. Krogstad has a genuine change of heart, becoming much more sympathetic, while Torvald, under the mask of the benevolent husband, is revealed to have always been petty and vindictive. Hathaway writes, “It is highly ironic that it is he who constantly uses metaphors of masking and acting in his language: ‘how he must wear a mask’ and ‘stop being theatrical.’” 

Chaucer, like Ibsen, also uses contrast to emphasise the differences between characters. Most obvious is the juxtaposition between the youthful symbol of spring, May, and her “hoor” husband, January, who only masquerades as eternally “grene.” However, Damyan also serves as an obverse to character dynamics in the poem. With a name derived from the Bulgarian Дамян, which means ‘to subdue’, his presence as the antagonist to January’s senex amans represents change in itself. As a younger and better-suited lover to May, he takes his position as a more open-minded figure. Where January physically restrains May and ravishes her with little consideration for her personhood, Damyan is on more equal footing with May: their relationship is as rooted in verbal communication as it is physical, and with a smaller age gap it is implied they would develop alongside one another, unlike January who only weighs May down. As Mealy puts it, “in Chaucer’s view, winter should give way, graciously, to spring”. Thus, with more agreeable power dynamics, Damyan’s relationship with May demonstrates the importance of allowing for change to happen, for the old to allow the youth to flourish.

Both January and Torvald appear to end the play remaining stubbornly blind and with fleeting hope. Torvald’s hopeful murmurings of “the miracle of miracles?” are seemingly extinguished as soon as they are aroused with the final sound of the play: a slamming door. Likewise, the pear tree fiasco serves to forever sever the dynamic between May and January. In his reluctance to change, he has prevented himself from maintaining a monogamous relationship with his wife ever again. However, an alternative interpretation sees the dubious endings of both texts leading to an eventual epiphany. Indeed, “the miracle of miracles?” being structured as a question positions Torvald as open to receiving new information where he previously refused to listen. Similarly, Chaucer ends the poem as January “kisseth hire and clippeth hire ful ofte, and on hire wombe he stroketh hire ful softe,” a more considerate approach compared to his previously described “coltissh” behaviour. Thus, both works leave the reader to understand character development (or lack thereof) differently, leaving both Ibsen and Chaucer’s messages open to interpretation. 

Overall, Ibsen and Chaucer use a variety of techniques, from satire to contrast to present change and development as a necessary facet of emotional maturity, resistance to which in the form of ignorance puts individuals at risk of stagnation which can lead to them neglecting the needs of those around them, and in the long-term, themselves.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

Practice essay that took like 7 hours lol.