Why do you think Chaucer included Justinus and Placebo? What does the latter's debate contribute

Why do you think Chaucer included Justinus and Placebo? What does the latter’s debate contribute to the overall Tale?

A number of factors come together to distance the reader from the characters in the tale, not least the complicated and ambiguous series of lenses through which they are viewed. They are all types or allegories to lesser or greater degrees. Justinus and Placebo are examples are personification allegories, representing the abstract properties of good and bad advice. This is drawn from court satire and contemporary advice literature in which the recipient, usually a prince, is told how to choose good counsellors and to avoid flatters whose motive is the advancement of their own careers. This element in the tale may have some topical resonance for Chaucer’s original audience as the King at the time, Richard II, notoriously surrounded himself with self-seeking young favourites against the advice of the elder statesmen at court.

The background behind these constructs can be best seen by examining the extracts in which the characters appear. Both characters are introduced (line 257-306) where they are offering advice about marriage which eventually turns into a debate between Justinus (Latin for the ‘Just man’ or ‘just one’) and Placebo (Latin for "I will please"). Placebo tells him that he showed the Wisdom of Solomon in seeking advice. Placebo has been at court all his life and, despite his unworthiness, has made progress in his career by never disagreeing with his social superiors. This debate introduces the major points of debate drawn in throughout the tale: whether marriage, especially in old age, is a risk or a benefit, and what is the true purpose of marriage.

Both Justinus and Placebo take their arguments from popular proverbial wisdom and learned authority. However, the passage indicates and there is a great deal of conflicting advice available, which in the ends just offers confusion. Placebo and Justinus represent not only the two sides of the debate on marriage, but also two kinds of friendly advice. Placebo specifically offers flattery, expressing the view that wise men should not presume to advise their elders and social superiors if they want to get on in life. Both Placebo and Justinus act as the Good and Evil Angels and allegorise the two ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

However, the Merchant’s reference line 280 to ‘a court-man’ also meaning flatter refers to him not being an adviser but a sycophant, presents a very cynical and critical view of courtiers. Line 285, “Yet hadde I nevere with noon of debaat.” Translated, as “I have never been disagreed with any of them” is a perfect summary of the sycophant’s profession. The speaker becomes repetitive and is falling over himself to prove agreeable as the perfect reflexion of January’s own thoughts.

January then turns to Justinus for advice, Line 311, “Senek, amonges othere wordes wise, Seith that a man oghte him right wel advise/ To whom he yeveth his lond or catel.“ Here Placebo cities Seneca, a Roman playwright who discusses this in Beneficiis I and he reminds him that he must be careful with his goods and even more careful with his body. Justinus, however, appears to hold views based on personal experience which are similar to those of the Merchant narrator, ideas which are not simply individual opinions but drawn from contemporary anti-feminist literature.

However, even when Januarie tells his friends of his decision to get married and asks their opinions, he doesn’t really listen to them unless they suit him. Placebo has such an opinion, or rather, lack of one, since he is simply agreeing with January. But when Justinus offers his opinion, January discards his advice and goes to marry May anyway.

Once January has come to his decision, Justinus feels that it his place to put marriage ‘as heaven on earth’ in perspective. Justinus tells January that it is extremely unlikely that marriage will prevent him from achieving heaven. He introduces the debate between earthy and heavenly bliss and purgatory mocking. Line 457-8: translated as ‘Don’t despair think on this fact: perhaps she may prove your purgatory’ reveals Justinus’ candid replacement for the image of paradis preferred by January himself. It was universally believed that the soul might go through a period of punishment in the afterlife to atone for sins on earth. Dante, whose Poetry Chaucer knew well, visited both Purgatory and Paradise after his first visionary trip to the Inferno.

Line: 462-9 Justinus puts January in his place. He states, as January’s fear had implied, the medieval view that even within bonds of matrimony too great emphasis upon the carnal element is displeasing to God. This reveals Justinus an allegorical figure represents truth-telling, shares views and experience of marriage as well as a certain abruptness of manner, which coincide with those of the Merchant narrator. Justinus can therefore be described as the Merchant’s surrogate in the tale. Furthermore, Justinus’ refusal to refer to learned authorities to support his argument, in order to save time, dramatises a certain exasperation with the futility of trying to convince a deluded character like January.

With all this in mind, what do the two constructs add to the tale? Primarily they both add to the marriage debate. However, while both Placebo and January can cite literary references to back up their claims for their respective positions, only Placebo has the weight of experience to support his claims against marriage. The debate between January and Placebo is a relatively dry collection of classical and biblical anecdotes, but it serves to frame the comic sex farce to come as a more serious look at marriage.