I confess I only read The Marriage of the Monk (“Die Hochzeit des Mönchs”) because it was mentioned a few times in the general criticism on German novellas in the 19th century I’d been reading and it sounded like it would be a good fit for my exams at the end of next year. But, all things considered, there’ve been worse reasons I’ve read books. And worse books I’ve read for better reasons. For it actually turns out that The Marriage of the Monk was actually worth reading to begin with, even in the original German as I did. I thought I’d share a few of its interesting features here, since it’s impossible to find a translation online and hard enough in the real world too, and they aren’t worth being lost along with the novella.
The Frame Narrative
The story is made up of a frame narrative, the outer layer of which takes place in Verona, where a group of friends are gathered round the fire and telling stories. Their head is Cangrande della Scala, an Italian nobleman best known now for his patronage of the poet, Dante. He summons Dante from the back of the room and asks him to tell the group a story, and the story of The Marriage of the Monk is his choice. How does a monk get married? The title already contains the central tension – a monk is someone who has renounced worldly passions including love and marriage, so it is only by breaking one’s vows of chastity that such a man can return to the world. Dante details the consequences of this.
The Marriage of the Monk – Plot Summary
Dante’s tale begins with the sinking of marriage boat as it goes along a river in Padua. The husband and almost every male in his family is on board, in the chaos they all perish. Diana, the wife, is rescued by the monk, Astorre, who appears from one bank of the river just as from the other there comes the famed tyrant, Ezzelino III da Romano. It turns out that the monk is the last male heir of the groom’s family, and the old patriarch, on his deathbed, begs the monk to renounce his vows and return to the world, so that his accumulated worldly wealth will not be wasted. A Papal letter grants permission to return only if Astorre agrees to by his own free will, but he is against it. Only with pressure from the old man does he eventually relent and agree to marry his brother’s widow.
Obviously, love in those days counted for very little. A date is set for the exchange of rings, and the marriage itself. Astorre meets old friends and finds himself more than a little out of his depth in the world of cutthroat tyrants and backstabbing. But he successfully goes and buys a ring for his future wife, only to realise that he doesn’t know her finger size, so he gets two gold rings instead of the one. As he walks home he drops one of these rings, and this finds its way into the hands of a young girl, Antiope, who he had once met at the beheading of her father. Her mother, driven mad by the incident, declares that the monk must wish to marry her daughter, and decides that they must go to his parties to see him.
This happens, and a fight takes place between the three women of the story. As Astorre walks the young girl home, however, it becomes clear that he loves her instead of his betrothed. His friends are against it, especially since the widow’s brother is one of them. But eventually the widow relents, agreeing to give return the old ring to Antiope so that the monk no longer has any divided loyalties. But there is a condition. At the fancy dress party taking place that evening Antiope must come to the widow, Diana, herself and take the ring off, humiliating herself in front of high society. When she comes, however, Diana (who is dressed as her divine namesake) takes an arrow and kills Antiope. The monk, arriving too late to save her, tries to get revenge but is cut down. They die in each other’s arms.
That’s the plot, so now for the cool things about how The Marriage of the Monk is made.
Interpretation: Playing with Truth
Storytelling
Even if you didn’t get that Cangrande was a real figure, it’s hard not to have heard of Dante. Meyer uses real figures in all of his novellas, but we should immediately ask ourselves the question – Why? It is easy enough to answer why Ezzelino is included: he is a splash of local colour, tying the story down to a concrete place and time and thus adding to the verisimilitude of it just as namedropping a few landmarks helps in modern historical novels. But why use Dante and Cangrande?
I think, at least in part, it has to do with a sceptical attitude towards truth that runs through the whole of the story. When I imagine Dante, it’s as a grand poet, dressed in his magnificent red robes, as in the portrait. By having him be a slightly scrawny figure, uncomfortable in the world, Meyer undermines our idea of Dante, leaving our footing uncertain. The same is true of his story – this is a simple tale, hardly comparable in scale or scope to the Divine Comedy. As Dante himself says, “I am developing this story from an inscription on a tombstone”. Is this what Dante would tell? I think we are supposed to be left dissatisfied and questioning.
More importantly, there is the question of how Dante would tell a story. I don’t mean in tercets. The Marriage of the Monk does some other cool things that challenge our usual idea of stories and storytelling. For one, Dante often admits that he doesn’t know something or a concrete detail. He challenges his own authority as the teller by drawing the reader’s attention to the fact that his story is only one of many possible interpretations of the event. There are also regular interruptions from other characters in the frame narrative, either to challenge something that Dante said, or even just so that people can shuffle about by the fire. The cumulative effect, though, is to make us aware both that this is really just a story, and that it is being told in a way that is far from any Truth.
There are other contributing factors to this critique of truth. For one, Dante takes the names of the characters around the fire for the characters within the story. Naturally, Ezzelino retains his name, but there is a Germano in both the frame narrative of The Marriage of the Monk and in its main story. The same is true of the women. Though Dante freely admits “I leave your innermost feelings untouched, since I can’t see into them”, the use of names still strikes us as strange. It means that the characters within the story are obviously not entirely the people they are supposed to be, because when we imagine people their names are a big part of their identity. Once again, we’re only getting a half-truth as a story.
Dante also leaves out the moral at the end of the story, a key element of fireside tales. After finishing he just stands up and leaves. This is particularly jarring because he is otherwise a very chatty storyteller, regularly listening to the interruptions and giving his opinion on them. The ending, then, comes as a shock and leaves us alone to decide for ourselves why it is that the monk is punished. Is it just because he removed his cowl? Or because he went against society by abandoning the woman he was supposed to marry?
Authority and Truth, inside and outside of the narrative
This critique of truth, indicated by the various formal features of the narrative, now lets us look at the story in a new light as we try to answer the question of Astorre’s fate. The consciousness of authority’s weak support base in truth is now revealed. In part the story does this by regular use of doublings. To the sinking boat come from one side the monk, representing a pure and Christian world view, and from the other Ezzelino, representing a worldly and scheming world view. There are two women. Antiope is pure and loved while Diana is the daughter of a rich man and so has more worldly value. The two rings bought by Astorre convey a sense of his divided loyalty to both the world and the divine.
When Dante describes Antiope finding the ring, he draws attention to his own sceptical storytelling by asking the listeners why they would believe in the fantastic overturning of the boat, but would not believe that from Antiope’s perspective she was perfectly correct in taking the gold ring as a sign that Astorre loved her and wished to be married. Dante shows that the worldview where we build stories around coincidences often leads us down paths that can be fatal, as in Antiope and Astorre’s case. He seems to suggest that is dangerous to believe too much.
Conclusion
What then kills Astorre? I think it is his divided loyalty between too many different truths. He cannot decide whether to commit to love, or whether to commit to worldly power and his duty as a nobleman. As one of his friends says before the monk dies, “Go back to your cloister, Astorre – you never should have left it”. The man is right – by leaving his cloister Astorre has to make a choice about what truth he believes in, while so long as he stays inside he is safe with only his duty to God. The Marriage of the Monk thus becomes a cautionary tale about the danger of naivety in a world where truth no longer matters. In our own modern world, where considerable scepticism is necessary to survive the modern news landscape, it remains surprisingly relevant in its message. If you can read German, give it a go.