Marriage in Chaucer’s time – how it was defined, created, and who could get married – was significantly different from what it is today. Chaucer clearly knew the canon law of marriage, promulgated through preaching and enforced via the church courts. It was incredibly easy to get married (even, perhaps, unintentionally), through words or deeds, such as exchanging rings like Troilus and Criseyde, or having sex while engaged. However, divorce, in the modern sense of voluntarily ending a valid marriage, did not exist. Joan of Kent’s marriage history illustrates how a clandestine marriage, although strictly prohibited, would still be held up in court and could overturn a subsequent, properly publicised, marriage. Second marriages, to the dismay of the Wife of Bath, were regarded as lesser, as their religious symbolism was flawed. The Church wanted exogamy (marrying outside the wider kinship group) but the main concern for many people was maintaining and increasing their social status.

What is ‘heresy’? One answer would be, ‘that which orthodoxy condemns as such’; though we may also wish to consider when conscious dissent invites such a condemnation. The main ‘heresy’ in late medieval England was that usually termed Lollardy, understood to be inspired by the radical theological thought of John Wyclif (1328-1384), which among other things emphasised the overwhelmingly importance of Scripture, and of lay access to Scripture, through vernacular translation. Orthodox repression of heresy began in the late fourteenth century and developed in various ways in the fifteenth. There are small traces of these much wider battles in Chaucer’s oeuvre, but it would be very hard to say quite how he saw them. We might instead see the fluidity of attitude toward aspects of religion in Chaucer as a sign of his times. ‘Dissent’ can encompass more than that which is solidly decried as heresy, and ‘orthodoxy’ can turn out to be more than one mode of religious thought and expression.