The Canterbury Tales: The Clerk's Tale Passivity Quotes

Here, the tale portrays the poor as entirely passive in the matter of their own sustenance. Sure, they labor for it, but it's the earth that gives it to them—and the earth, like their lord, can take it away. The relationship between the earth and the poor is kind of like the relationship we'll see between Walter and Grisilde.

Grisilde kneels, which is an outward show of passivity. It's matched by her attitude here: she's waiting to hear what her lord's will is. She's ready to do whatever she is asked to do. Does she have a choice? Could she say no to Walter? What do you think would happen if she did? Would she be punished? Would Janicula be punished with her?

So Walter had said that we was going to ask Grisilde to marry him, but here he is basically telling her that she's going to accept his proposal. What's the point of even asking, dude? He's definitely not imagining even the possibility that she (or her father) might not want to accept.

Grisilde passively submits to Walter's women here. The verb "dispoilen" can also be used to refer to rape. Well, that's cheery. The fact that Grisilde then has to put on the clothing Walter has supplied is symbolic of the way a husband supposedly "covered" his wife both legally and financially in the medieval period, so that once married she would be legally considered a dame couvade (covered lady).

Grisilde places herself and her child in a position of ultimate passivity by portraying both of them as Walter's possessions. She's basically saying that she's just an object, a piece on a chessboard to be moved around as Walter wills. Of course, legally, that's pretty much what she was. How different do you think the situation would have been for other wives during this period?

By calling Grisilde a lamb, the narrator draws on the phrase "like a lamb to the slaughter," thus emphasizing the imposed helplessness of Grisilde's position. Or is it imposed? After all, Grisilde is the one who has chosen to be passive.

Grisilde's claim to have left her will with her old clothing only confirms the passivity she has demonstrated up to this point. But her comparison between dressing and submitting to a ruler is a little deceptive: is it really as easy to "put on" someone else's will as it is to put on a new dress?

With his "God be thanked, al fil for the beste," the narrator foreshadows the happy ending of his tale. But this also calls some attention to the danger of absolute obedience. What if the person you're obeying doesn't intend to make everything turn out "for the beste"? How can you know, either way?

Here the narrator seems cool with the idea that wives should be obedient, but later he's all about how "importable," or insufferable, it would be if wives actually behaved like Grisilde. So, which is it? It's a classic example of the narrative inconsistency of the "Clerk's Tale," and of the Canterbury Tales in general. Chaucer likes to tease us and get us going so that we think for ourselves.

Actually, Fortune didn't cause the adversity Grisilde submits to (at least not directly, as far as we can tell); Walter did. Walter is an all-powerful, dominating force in the tale, which lends support to an interpretation of him as a God-figure here.