Humor in Social Critique on Sexual Morality in The Heptameron - Book Report/Review Example

 Marguerite of Navarre (1492-1549) wrote The Heptameron, a collection of 72 short stories originally written in French. She created ten story tellers to narrate her tales over a period of eight days. The tales provided comic relief, laughter and witty reprieve while commenting upon the sexual morality, or moral quality of her characters. Navarre used humor to construct and comment upon the different comical, moral situations that perplex humans when they get involved in situations that compromise their sexual moralities. The thesis is based upon the premise that humor was used as a form of social critique on moral sexuality in these moral stories. In First Day, Story One, humor can be found in the way the wife of St. Aignan juggled her husband, the Bishop of Sées and Du Mesnil as her lovers. Navarre used the woman’s servant to show the serving lady’s critique on her mistress’ sexual morality when she wrote; ‘The good woman felt sorry for him (Du Mesnil). There he was, a good-looking, well-bred young man, so much in love, and so badly treated in return!’ (Navarre 72). It could be noted that Navarre did not directly criticize the seemingly lack of sexual morality in her characters. The servant was her mouthpiece to point out the fact that Du Mesnil had no moral sexuality in pursuing her mistress. He was described as ‘good-looking’ and decidedly capable of finding suitable, eligible love interests. Since he chose to indulge in a married woman, he was partly responsible for the treatment he received when he had no access to his married lover. Du Mesnil had been made the comic fool by his persistent trust in the woman. He fell into her trap and was slain by St. Aignan’s servants. It was funny how the wronged and weak brought destruction upon themselves. Navarre used a combination of dialogue and narrative to show showed how gullible Du Mesnil was; ‘Off he went, never dreaming that she was planning to trap him, while she took his servant back to her house and gave him some supper.’ (Navarre 73). It was not a surprise that the woman who lacked sexual morality was also lacking in moral scruples. The weak St. Aignan made a fool of himself when we read that he showed off his pretended valor when; ‘he thrust his dagger a dozen or so times into the body of the man on whom he would never have dared lay a finger had he been alive.’ (Navarre 74). St. Aignan made a comical figure with his false bravery. It was a critique on the weak huaband who could not comment nor do anything on his wife’s moral sexuality while his Du Mesnil was alive. It was comical how events did not turn out the way the characters planned them. St. Aignan planned to get rid of his wife. Navarre’s narration said that he made a wax doll to cast a spell of ill will on her because he felt that; ‘It was she who was at the bottom of all this trouble, and he was quite certain she would never renounce her wicked ways.’ (Navarre 77). He had no sexual morality because he did not want to preserve the sexual relations that bond him to his wife. The same could be said about the woman. She wanted to rid herself of the restriction that imposed sexual morality on her so she devised her own measures to save her skin while condemning her husband. Although she did get past criminal jurisdiction for her wickedness, she did not enjoy a good life thereafter. At the end of the story, Navarre revealed that the story teller was Simontaut, whose objective was to chastise women who lacked sexual morality. Navarre incorporated the critique on sexual morality in the form of a witty exchange amongst her story tellers, Simontaut, Parlamente and Oisille. Since this story was a moral condemnation of a woman’s marital infidelity, Navarre had set the stage for the next story teller, Oisille, who said she was compelled to tell a story to contrast with this and redeem the virtues of good women with good sexual morality. (Navarre 71-78). Although Navarre used humor liberally, her intention was to criticize the follies of improper behaviors of women and men who did not exercise good sexual morality. Humor had been used sparingly in the second story. It contrasted with the first story in having the moral lesson mentioned directly, straight from Oisille, the story teller’s mouth; ‘For women of more wanton ways the sight of such respect being paid to her body made them resolve to amend their lives.’ (Navarre 81). Here, Navarre did not make fun of the un-named good woman martyr, which showed that she used her humor sparingly to laugh at the debauchery of impious women who lacked good sexual morality. Story Three had a humorous account of what happened when a cheated, unnamed nobleman husband took revenge on his sexually immoral wife and her equally guilty lover, an unnamed King. This nobleman seduced the Queen and maintained a secret love affair with his Queen. They justified their transgression into improper sexual morality by reasoning that their respective spouses started it off by behaving without sexual morality. Navarre included a humorous comment in this situation by writing; ‘And so it was, one might say, that together they enacted a Vengeance, having found the Passion too much to bear.’ (Navarre 87). This was a classic example of vengeance. It was also funny how Navarre justified this comic deception when she wrote that the man ‘reckoned his horns were surely as good as the King’s crown.’ (Navarre 88). Navarre meant to point out that social status was not a hindrance when men like the King and the unnamed nobleman took liberties with their sexual moralities. There was humor in the way the King and the married noblewoman had the joke of infidelity played on themselves. The same measure that they wrought upon others had been returned to them. The two pairs of cheating spouses; the King and the married noblewoman, and her nobleman husband and the Queen, gave comic relief to the seriousness of the situation. Was the nobleman justified in seeking redress for his wrong? Queen Navarre did not write directly to pass moral judgment upon a King, even though it was a tale in her book. There was humor in the way the nobleman hinted to the King that he knew about his King’s affair with his wife. He said to his King; ‘“If the King doesn’t tell his secrets to his subjects, then there’s no reason why his subjects should tell their secrets to the King. And so far as the horns are concerned, you should bear in mind that they don’t always stick up and push their wearers’ hats off. Sometimes they’re so soft that you can wear a hat on top of them, without being troubled by them, and even without knowing they’re there at all!”’ (Navarre 88).What is even more amusing is that the King chose to continue his affair with this nobleman’s wife. Navarre wrote; ‘This amicable arrangement permitted the continuation of their amours for many years to come, until at length old age brought them to order.’ (Navarre 88). Navarre wrote this to show the comic foolishness of the King. He risked his reputation, credibility, respect and put everything on the line for a woman who he could not possess for all the wealth of his kingdom. At the end of each story, Navarre used the convention of having her story teller and listeners exchange humorous, witty commentaries to reinforce the moral lessons learnt from the tale. Sometimes, the story teller injected his own morals into the tale. Navarre wrote that; ‘During this exchange one of the ladies had started to laugh. She knew that the lady who had just taken Saffredent’s words to be aimed at her was not in fact so much the object of his affections that he would put up with cuckoldry, disgrace or injury of any kind for her sake.’ (Navarre 89). Navarre reinforced the importance of good sexual morality by creating this affirmation from Saffredent regarding this issue of the sanctity of sexual relations between spouses. Navarre used her story tellers to convey to readers that these stories were not all fictional. She used Ennasuite to warn that she would tell Story Four without mentioning real names because she did not want to offend the close relatives of the subjects in the story. (Navarre 89). Navarre has again reminded us that although the stories are humorous and entertaining, their content and social critiques on bad sexual morality should be taken seriously. In Story Ten, Navarre used humor to describe how a stubborn, jilted love became a tragedy for many characters. The foolish Amador loved Florida, a young girl, whose high birthright put her out of his reach. There was tragic humor in the way Amador deceived himself. He had himself to blame because he did not practice good sexual morality by persisting to woo a girl whom he knew could never be his wife. Navarre explained his comic stupidity and sexual immorality when she wrote; ‘Noble Love, through the power that is its own, and for no other cause, had entered Amador’s breast and now held out to him the promise of a happy end, and the means of attaining it.’ (Navarre 123). It may seem like an absurd comedy when Amador refused to accept Florida’s rejection; ‘But no one in the world had a more valiant heart than he, and, instead of sinking into despair, he began to seek new ways of seeing Florida again, and winning her. (Navarre 144). Finally, after an entire adult lifetime of wooing his favorite love, Amador despaired of his failure and committed suicide. This was a touching, tragic one-sided love story. Navarre showed that it was comical how there were so many levels of deceptions with Amador and Florida because the characters could not do as they wished as they were shackled by social conventions and decorum. This story also reads like a comedy of mismatches in love, complicated by Amador’s and Florida’s questionable sexual moralities. Parlamente, the story teller, and her audience held a humorous post-mortem discussion on Amador and Florida. Navarre used these discussions to convey caution against passing frivolous comment upon the moral inclinations of these characters. She has let their fictional characters speak for themselves. She deliberately cut short the narrator Parlamente and her listeners by not confirming any judgment and made her prose sojourn to another day of story telling. The eloquent Navarre could have been at a loss for words when she was confronted with tragic irony of unrequited love. It was funny while Amador was alive but when it got to the part that he committed suicide because of Florida’s rejection, the humor had ebbed. This showed that Navarre exercised tact and consideration while incorporating humor in her writing when the situation called for it. She would rather let the readers draw their own conclusions sometimes. Navarre included humor by writing complicated, intriguing plots with many twists and turns. She wrote her fiction with the intention of making them social commentaries on the importance of sexual morality. Her work is still relevant today as the human psyche never changes. Moral education via reading humorous stories would be a more acceptable mode and medium than direct moral indoctrination on sexual morality. Navarre had chosen her mode and medium of presentation well. She had used humor successfully as a form of social critique on sexual morality and her success is shown in the way her work has survived the test of time. Works Cited. de Navarre, Marguerite. The Heptameron (Penguin Classics). England: Penguin Books, 2004. Read More