Weeks 4-6
Please use the comments section to answer questions. Do not try to answer all questions. Try to keep up an average of one per week, with time for a few comments on the ideas of others.
2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
3.Hahn's essay (see critical reader)on The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelleidentifies the motif of the loathly lady, but arguesit has a different purpose than asserting the feminine. What does he think the function of the story is?
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
5. Discuss what you think is the most striking or outrageous example.
6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
QUESTION 2.
ReplyDeleteThe Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
Throughout reading The Wife of Baths Tale, I sensed an element of feminist attitude by the author. Nicholson (2013) describes feminism as the support, encouragement and advancement of the right of women in regards to equality of the sexes. This text possesses some equality of the sexes; this was because it seemed like the female characters had some sort of power and persuasion over the King. For example, “By utter force, he took away her maindenhead…By course of law and should have lost his head…Except that the queen and other ladies as well so long prayed the King for grace until he granted him his life right there …”. Here, the King ends up sparing the man’s life after he committed rape, a crime which is punishable by decapitation. The King spared his life because the “queen and other ladies” prayed and begged for him to spare the man’s life. From this extract, it is possible to say that the women had a strong influence over the decision of the King, and, despite the King having the highest authority, he listened to the queen and her women and granted the man his life. This supports the idea that Chaucer may have been a feminist as it is evident that the women had a ‘say’ in the King’s decision. If Chaucer was not a feminist, then this ‘power’ of the queen and her women would not have existed in the story.
To further support this idea, the line where Chaucer writes “…and gave him to the queen, all at her will, to choose whether she would him save or put to death.” indicates the delegation of power from the King to the queen as she is then the one who gets to decide whether or not the man will live or die, a decision usually made by those of supreme authority which are usually men in a majority of texts and old films. This touches on the statement from Nicholson (2013) where he says feminism is related to equality of the sexes as a decision that is usually seen to be made by a man, is given to the a female (the queen) in this text by Chaucer “…the queen herself sitting as a justice…”
It is rather easy to see why critics might find that Chaucer is a feminist through the examples given above, Chaucer somewhat gives women some sort of ‘power’ in this text, the kind of power that is not commonly given to women in such old ages. Additionally, in line 1038 and 1039: “Women desire to have sovereignty As well over her husband as her love, And to be in mastery above him”. I personally believe this to be one of the messages in the text, a message which the author incorporated as an aspect of his text purposely in favour of women. I believe that Chaucer wanted to show the readers that despite time and circumstance, women have always wanted some form of sovereignty over their husbands, or men in general. To this day women want sovereignty over men. This portrays that women have an innate sense of wanting power and to feel like they have some sort of control, this is something that the reader portrays quite willingly and this is why I think critics perceive Chaucer as a feminist.
References:
Chaucer, G. The Wife of Baths Tale. Retrieved from: AUT Online.
Nicholson, L. (Ed.). (2013). Feminism/postmodernism. Routledge.
Good answer, but it is possible that Chaucer was mocking women's aspirations by giving them voice, and exaggerating them. Modern feminists don't want mastery, but equality. Men would have laughed at the thoughts expressed by the woman here.
DeleteThe argument regarding Chaucer’s view on feminism is a complex one and requires a complex answer. One can argue that Chaucer is taken the side of women as he provides the women with ‘positive’ roles in The Wife of Bath’s Tale. For example, the Queen has sovereignty as the King allows her to decide the fate of the Knight. Also, because he ‘ugly woman’ possesses the answer to the question which the Queen has asked the Knight “what is it that women want the most”. The men are somewhat shown as flawed, the most obvious example is of the Knight who rapes the woman in the beginning of the story. This shows men in a ‘bad light’ by committing such a foul act on a female. Instead of typical stories where the man/knight is the ‘hero’, it is the wife of bath who is the hero in this story as it is her wisdom and knowledge which led her to know the answer to the Queen’s question regarding what women want the most. Thus, the Knight’s life was saved. But, this is somewhat mocking women’s ‘aspirations’ as simply knowing the answer to something (having a voice) does not empower someone to a great extent. I believe that if the wife of bath, in this story, was to demand equality and power then she would have been greatly dismissed, probably by the King.
DeleteAccording to Michael Carosone in his article ‘Geoffrey Chaucer: Feminist or Not?’ he makes a very intriguing statement: “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” condemns a rape of a young woman by a knight so effectively. In her tale, at the end, the Wife of Bath is making clear that the knight must submit to the authority of a woman”. I found this a very interesting perspective regarding Chaucer’s perspective while writing the story. He writes the story in such a way that Knight’s fate simply lies in the answer to the Queen’s question. Chaucer excludes any real punishment making it look like the rape of the woman was dismissed and he gets to live his life happily ever after with a beautiful, youthful woman (after the old/ugly woman transitions). Where is the justice for the woman who was raped? Perhaps this is not a reflection of Chaucer’s perspective on the crime, but maybe he was writing in a way that resembled the context of the story the most. This obviously does not make him a feminist 100% as the justice for the raped woman was ‘forgotten about’. The woman remains an object in the eyes of the Knight. I personally believe that Chaucer was not a ‘feminist’ but he did believe that woman should be somewhat equal to man. I believe that he supported equality more than just feminism itself. For example, The King putting the Queen in the position regarding what to do with the Knight. Though I believe justice was not done, there was still some ‘introduction to equality’ in this story. Modern day feminists seek equality and do not simply focus on sovereignty over men, so I think that this story is more of a reflection of Chaucer’s perspective on equality rather than feminism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOUESTION 4.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
“Conceits” is a term defined, by Abrahams (1993), as being poetic metaphores intertwined into a verse in a complex and detailed manner, conceits are often used to express and assert satire, puns and deeper meanings within a poem; conceits are also used to display the poet’s own cunning with words. An example of this is demonstrated in line 1 and 2 of Shakespear’s text (Sonnet XVIII): (1)“Shall I compare thee to a summers day? (2) Thou art more lovely and more temperate”. Here, Shakespear is using conceits in order to express the way he feels and how he perceives a particlar woman. Through his use of conceits, it is evident that Shakespear is attempting to compare the women’s beauty and presence to that of summer, this is a complex way of simply saying that the woman possesses such natural beauty and that he is infatuated by her. Shakespear then goes on to compare this woman to characteristics or aspects of summer. Overall, it is evident in this extract that conceits are used in this sonnet to compare the ‘beloved’ to summer, and how beauty is eternal.
References:
Abrams, M.H. (1993). The Norton Anthopology of English Literature, 6th ed. New York: W.W. Norton and company.
Shakespeare, Sonnet XVII
Well answered. A conceit may be extended to a whole poem
DeleteCite some variations in the Loathly Lady fabula across the three tales in your Reader. Focus on the conditions by which the lady is either beautiful or ugly, and the actions of the knight/king/"hero"...
ReplyDeleteThe Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle: (Modern English Version).
ReplyDeleteIn this text, there is a lot of emphasis in regards to how ‘ugly’ the woman (Ragnelle) is. “There he met with a lady. She was the ugliest creature that a man ever saw” (Hahn, 1995, p.10). Following this, a more vivid description of Ragnelle arises and by reading this description in the text, the reader/s are able to picture some sort of hideous, grotesque-looking woman “Her face was red, her nose running...her teeth all yellow…her teeth hung out of her lips…her neck was long and also thick, her hair clotted in heap… To recite the foulness of that lady there is no tongue fit” (Hahn, 1995, p.10). This extract implies that the woman was so unattractive that nobody would be able to articulate her appearance.
King Arthur then asked her “What do you want with me, lady?” Ragnelle then asked for the King to “grant” her a Knight (Sir Gawain) to marry. King Arthur’s reaction/action towards Ragnelle’s request seems as if he thought that a woman like Ragnelle has no chance of marrying a knight, due to her ugly appearance. He reacted with no confidence what so ever. The King was not confident that Gawain would agree to marry such an ugly woman “Heavens…I cannot promise you I will order Sir Gawain to wed. That all depends on him…For he will hate saying no, I’ve never seen such an ugly woman anywhere on this Earth…”(Hahn, 1995, p.10). Again, you can see the emphasis of King Arthur’s perception regarding Rangnelle’s ugly appearance. The King’s reaction towards the ugly woman, and the situation in which he was in, is a reflection of the King’s horrible personality as he judged the woman based on her appearance. Had he not been judgmental, he would have seen past her appearance and might have found that Ragnelle had a good heart and was fit to marry the Knight (Sir Gawain).
As opposed to King Arthur’s reaction, Sir Gawain (a Knight) seemed as if he is not at all bothered by Raganelle’s ugliness, despite the way King Arthur described her to Sir Gawain “Gawain, I met the foulest lady today, certainly the worst I’ve ever seen…” (Hahn, 1995, p.13). In fact, Sir Gawain seemed delighted that the King had asked him for a favour, this action showed the Knight’s upmost honour for his King, this action also portrayed the Knight’s character to be that of a loving and selfless kind , as seen in Sir Gawain’s dialogue with King Arthur: “Is that all, I shall wed her again and again…even if she were as foul as Beelzebub…Otherwise I wouldn’t be your friend. You are my honoured King…Though she be the foulest person that ever has been on this Earth, For you I will not hesitate.” (Hahn, 1995, p.13).
To sum up, the contrasting reactions of King Arthur and Sir Gawain, towards the ‘ugly’ woman, Ragnelle, made me think abut the idea of standards i.e. the ‘ideal woman’. The actions of King Arthur portrayed rejection, disgust and a lack of sympathy or confidence towards Ragnelle, all simply based on her appearance. He said that she would not be fit to marry a Knight, which shows arrogant and judgmental behavior of the King in this story. Despite the context of this text and the time it was written in, I think it is possible to say that the way King Arthur reacted towards Ragnelle is consistent to the behavior of some men today, as this behavior towards the ‘hiddeous’ female is seen in movies and various T.V shows and is hidden behind a comedic plot/story line but it’s intention is to give a message that people shouldn’t judge people (particularly women) simply by the way they look as what is on the inside (personality) might be extraordinary, so much so, that they will be fit to marry a knight, or a prince or a King as seen in modern movies. The way the Knight reacted is usually seen as somewhat a ‘hero’ as he saves the ‘ugly’ woman from being alone for the rest of her life. It is usually seen in a lot of modern stories, whether it be movies or books, that once the initial appearance of the male/female is overlooked, something more beautiful is revealed and that is the heart and personality, which is something that looks and beauty will never surpass.
ReplyDeleteReference:
Hahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawainand Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.
______________________________________________________________
The Wife of baths Tale:
In this story, the Knight, who is a “lusty bachelor” rapes a woman: “By utter force, he took away her maidenhead.” (Chaucer, l. 888). Despite her ugliness: “Should ever be so foully degraded!” (Chaucer, l. 1069) he is made to wed her by necessity: “he must by necessity wed her”. (Chaucer, l. 1071). “There can no man imagine an uglier creature” (Chaucer, l. 999). Here, the woman’s appearance is again being referred to as ‘ugly’, just like Ragnelle’s in The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, which changes the way she is treated by the man in the story.
The Knight surrenders to the woman and ‘grants’ her control/sovereignty over him “I put me in your wise governance” (Chaucer, l. 1231). As a result of the knight surrendering to the “…ugly, and old, and poor” woman, (Chaucer, l. 1063), she transforms into a beautiful young woman. She became the complete opposite of her “loathsome, and so old also” self (Chaucer, l. 1100). The knight appeared to be very satisfied with the way his wife looked after her transformation “…she so was beautiful, and so young…for joy he clasped her in his two arms. His heart bathed in a bath of bliss. A thousand times in a row he did her kiss…” (Chaucer, l. 1251, 1252). Here, it is evident that the Knight did not hesitate to put his hands on his “beautiful” wife and he did not hesitate to kiss her “a thousand times in a row”. This emphasizes on the idea that beautiful women get treated better in some way.
Reference:
ReplyDeleteChaucer, Geoffrey (c.1390). The Wife of Bath.
Sorry I had to post it in separate parts it wouldn't let me post in full for some reason.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKing Henry
ReplyDeleteLike the previous two texts, this text involves a very ugly woman. “Her middle you could not span, each frightened huntsman fled the hall… Her teeth were like the tether stakes…and nothing less she seemed to be than a fiend that comes form hell”. (Steeleye Span, 1972, ‘King Henry’). The woman being described also appears to be quite monstrous, “For she's eaten up both skin and bone, left nothing but hide and hair…She’s eaten them up both skin and bone, left nothing but feathers bare”. (Steeleye Span, 1972). Also, like the previous texts, the woman wants to wed the man in the story “…take me for your bride”. Previous to her asking to be taken as a bride, the woman demands the King to take his clothes off “Take off your clothes now King Henry and lie down by my side”. It is possible to say that the woman is trying to persuade the King into marriage through the use of seduction. Finally, the woman then transforms into a beautiful woman “when the night was gone and the day was come…The fairest lady that ever was seen lay between him and the wall” (Steeleye Span, 1972). This is consistent with the previous stories that I have discussed (Wife of Bath’s Tale and The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle), where an ugly woman turns into a beautiful young lady after the surrender of the man who she is pursuing.
The actions of the King in this story was very similar to that of the King/Knight in Wife of Bath’s Tale and The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, where the man has no desire to be involved with, let alone married to such an unattractive woman. In this text, the King did not hesitate so much to "lie down" by the woman's side, despite her ugly appearance. This is almost similar to The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, where the Knight, Sir Gawain, did not hesitate to marry Ragnelle.
It is possible that all three of these stories send a message,to put it in simple terms, I believe the message is to avoid judging a woman/man based on their appearance as his/her heart and intentions are of more value and beauty. These stories influence and are the basis for other stories such as the Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, Princess Diaries and the list goes on.
References:
Steeleye Span (1972). King Henry. In Below the Salt. US: Shanchie.
Well surveyed, Sanaria. Perhaps the idea of transformation lies behind the loathly lady motif - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. there's a male equivalent in Beauty and Beast and Frog Prince stories. the beauty and goodness within...
DeleteQUESTION 2.
ReplyDeleteThe Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
The text “The wife of Bath’s Tales” is a story written in the days of King Arthur and is about a young, lusty knight who comes across a beautiful young maiden one day. Overcome by lust and his sense of his own power, he rapes her. The court is scandalized by the crime and decrees that the knight should be put to death by decapitation (beheading). The knight was given a chance to live and was sent on a quest for 12 months and a day to find the answer to what every women do desires the most and if he fails he will die. Upon reading the story, I felt that the author might be indeed a feminist. A feminist, is someone who supports feminism or the equal rights between sexes. Nicholson (2013) describes feminism as the support, encouragement and advancement of the right of women in regards to equality of the sexes. In the text, it is clear that the women involve has a say to the issue. They have power to speak and influenced King Arthur’s decision and punishment for the lusty Knight. King Arthur’s statement “By utter force, he took away her maidenhead…By course of law and should have lost his head…Except that the queen and other ladies as well so long prayed the King for grace until he granted him his life right there …”. In the olden days, Women “says” and thoughts does not count for anything unless they are from a noble family or something well trusted by the king, and that was in the days of King utter (according to the legends I have read In the past), but perhaps it changed when Arthur became king and married a maid servant. The king’s decision was voided and ended up sparing the knights life despite the crime he committed otherwise his head would have been chopped off. This is considered as a miracle because if a knight committed such crime in their days it is a shame to the king also, but he was saved because of the Queen and the other ladies prayer for grace. This supports that Chaucer may have been a feminist certainly because if he is not. Then maybe King Arthur wouldn’t listen to the queen and the others because of the shame this knight have done to his honour.
In addition, from the part in the text that state “…he granted him his life right there and gave him to the queen, all at her will, to choose whether she would him save or put to death. “King Arthur who’s most powerful and have the authority over all Camelot gave in to Queen Guinevere and the ladies prayer. He let them decide the fate of the knight which means that he trust them and accounts their thoughts.
In conclusion, because Chaucer have given many examples of women being equal to men it is to assume for us or the critics to say he is a feminist. There are many more examples the can tell us and maybe prove that Chaucer is feminist. One more strong statement was when the elderly woman who married the lusty knight wanted power over her husband. This is also a symbol of feminism by Chaucer “Women desire to have sovereignty As well over her husband as her love, And to be in mastery above him”. Feminism or giving the ladies an equal rights is not such a bad idea after all. They are also a part of the community we live in so why not use their ideas also for future references.
Reference list.
• Chaucer, G. The Wife of Baths Tale. Retrieved from: AUT Online.
• Nicholson, L. (Ed.). (2013). Feminism/postmodernism. Routledge.
A fair answer. However, it does not take into account the counter-argument, that Chaucer was mocking women's aspirations.
DeleteQUESTION 2.
ReplyDeleteThe Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
The text “The wife of Bath’s Tales” is a story written in the days of King Arthur and is about a young, lusty knight who comes across a beautiful young maiden one day. Overcome by lust and his sense of his own power, he rapes her. The court is scandalized by the crime and decrees that the knight should be put to death by decapitation (beheading). The knight was given a chance to live and was sent on a quest for 12 months and a day to find the answer to what every women do desires the most and if he fails he will die. Upon reading the story, I felt that the author might be indeed a feminist. A feminist, is someone who supports feminism or the equal rights between sexes. Nicholson (2013) describes feminism as the support, encouragement and advancement of the right of women in regards to equality of the sexes. In the text, it is clear that the women involve has a say to the issue. They have power to speak and influenced King Arthur’s decision and punishment for the lusty Knight. King Arthur’s statement “By utter force, he took away her maidenhead…By course of law and should have lost his head…Except that the queen and other ladies as well so long prayed the King for grace until he granted him his life right there …”. In the olden days, Women “says” and thoughts does not count for anything unless they are from a noble family or something well trusted by the king, and that was in the days of King utter (according to the legends I have read In the past), but perhaps it changed when Arthur became king and married a maid servant. The king’s decision was voided and ended up sparing the knights life despite the crime he committed otherwise his head would have been chopped off. This is considered as a miracle because if a knight committed such crime in their days it is a shame to the king also, but he was saved because of the Queen and the other ladies prayer for grace. This supports that Chaucer may have been a feminist certainly because if he is not. Then maybe King Arthur wouldn’t listen to the queen and the others because of the shame this knight have done to his honour.
In addition, from the part in the text that state “…he granted him his life right there and gave him to the queen, all at her will, to choose whether she would him save or put to death. “King Arthur who’s most powerful and have the authority over all Camelot gave in to Queen Guinevere and the ladies prayer. He let them decide the fate of the knight which means that he trust them and accounts their thoughts.
In conclusion, because Chaucer have given many examples of women being equal to men it is to assume for us or the critics to say he is a feminist. There are many more examples the can tell us and maybe prove that Chaucer is feminist. One more strong statement was when the elderly woman who married the lusty knight wanted power over her husband. This is also a symbol of feminism by Chaucer “Women desire to have sovereignty As well over her husband as her love, And to be in mastery above him”. Feminism or giving the ladies an equal rights is not such a bad idea after all. They are also a part of the community we live in so why not use their ideas also for future references.
Reference list.
• Chaucer, G. The Wife of Baths Tale. Retrieved from: AUT Online.
• Nicholson, L. (Ed.). (2013). Feminism/postmodernism. Routledge.
Please note, references are footnoted and APA referenced at the bottom of the answer, to carry on in the same style as previous answers
ReplyDelete2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
Part One:
There are many instances within the Wife of Bath’s tale that may suggest Chaucer held feministic views. First and foremost is the use of a female story-teller, impersonated by Chaucer to share a tale to a party of men [1]. This female storyteller is not shy in expressing her distaste to the male dominated society she lives in, as well as openly sharing that she uses sex to get what she wants [2] . In the medieval times, women were not portrayed to hold and express such radical views, especially to a group of men. Therefore, many critics argue that even just the use of a female narrator with strong, opposing views to the social norms she lives within, suggests that Chaucer was a feminist [1]. These views of the Wife are not the only radical aspects of this tale. The tale the Wife shares also portrays something new of the time, as it illustrates a world where men do not understand women, and are not made to fulfill the desires of them, as much as women are pressured to do for men. This is all laid out through the Wife’s appropriation of a traditional tale of the Loathly Lady[1]. Rather than continuing with the traditional story of a King who in order to prove his legitimacy, must agree to marry or sleep with a hideous hag, who will then to the King’s surprise, turn into a beautiful Maiden, known as the Maiden of Sovereignty- the Wife of Bath removes some aspects of this traditional story, and implements a more feministic tone[1]. Firstly, in the Wife’s version there is no noble, brave King, but rather a Knight who rapes a maiden, “He saw a maiden walking before him...despite all she could, by utter force he took away her maidenhead” [3]. This results in the Knight being brought to King Arthur’s court. But rather than following the norms of that time, King Arthur gives the power over this criminal to his Queen and her council of curious women[1]. This re-write portrays to the audience that perhaps this is the sort of world the Wife of Bath has imagined, even giving this fantasy light in his works implies that Chaucer, if not the Wife is feminist [1]. The Queen explains that he can either be executed right there, or he may take a year to travel and ask women what it is that they desire most [3]. In a years time, if he addresses her and her council of women with the correct answer, his life will be spared. If not, he will face death. It is important to note here that although the Queen’s request may seem strange, what is underlying this part of the story is the Wife’s belief that men are not taught/pressured into learning the desires of women, and then adhering to these[1]. Unlike women, who are/were pressured to keep up with the needs of men, and ensure they were always fulfilling those needs. The quest the knight takes is symbolic to the journey every women took/takes to understand the needs and wants of men[2].
Q2. Continued....
ReplyDeleteOnce the Knight correctly answers the question and it is agreed by the female court to be correct, the Hag reveals that in order for the Knight to receive the correct answer, he had to swear that the next thing the Hag asked of him, he would oblige to [1]. She continues to explain that the thing she wants now as repayment for her teachings, is for the Knight to marry and sleep with her [3]. Again, this tale highlights a situation when a woman has power over a man. In the end, the Hag does not just transform into a beautiful lady who then fulfills the desires of her new husband, but she gets what she wants also- mastery and sovereignty, as well as sex and and a husband [4]. These wants link with the Wife’s radical views expressed in her monologue. Finally, in addition to all these points, the fact that in the Wife’s tale the Queen holds power, also showcases a feministic stance, because as mentioned it has been analysed that the Wife’s tale is a re-write of a traditional male-dominated story, as well as her desired re-write of her male-dominated reality that was the medieval times [1].
Reviewing these points, I can see why many critics would believe that Chaucer was a feminist. I believe that it could also be argued that Chaucer is using the Wife of Bath to highlight the strict gender roles of that time [1]. Although there are elements of feministic tones, there are details within this text that only exude theories of gender roles. As Susan Carter analyses, the hag transforming into a beautiful maiden when she gets her way suggests that the Hag is in fact a motif within the story used to symbolise gender liberation [1]. Gender liberation also stems through other situations in the tale. Namely when the queen commands the Knight to ask and listen to every women he encounters about what they want [3]. This symbolises giving women a voice yes, but a lot of the responses he hears, and most importantly the Hag’s response that women want sovereignty and mastery over their husbands is more about gender liberation[1]. If it was merely about feminism and equality of sexes, it could be argued that the Hag could have then shared that women want to be equal to their husbands [4]. Moreover, like Nicole Smith argues, the Wife and therefore Chaucer cannot be true feminists as the wife herself embodies negative stereotypes of deceit and arrogance and expresses in her monologue that she uses sex to get her way [4]. If he were feminist, and attempting to write the first feminist character and text, as Smith suggests he would have worked at making the Wife likeable and easy to empathise with[4]. Smith argues that this suggests that although she is fighting back at men about the suppression of women, the reason for this does not stem any deeper than for personal profit and sexual liberation and manipulation [4]. Additionally, as Carter highlights, the Wife explains that women are either rescued or raped and her reply to this social condition is to re-write the reality she lives in by allowing the hag to manipulate and reeducate the Knight, rather than teaching him how to value women as equals [1]. If the tale involved more than just the Knight marrying and sleeping with a shapeshifting beautiful women who “obeyed him in everything that might do him pleasure or enjoyment” (page )and emphasised more the horror and consequences of his actions in raping a young maiden, perhaps this text would have exuded more feministic views [1]
Q2, Continued....
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Carter [1] and Smith [4] that this tale written by Chaucer is designed to express limiting gender roles and the want of women to break these moulds, but I do not take the same stance as Smith in saying that this therefore means that the elements of feminism are indeed intended to be read as something else. Primarily because the Hag does express that she can amend the sadness the knight feels towards her and her looks, if he treats her well “Now, sir, I could amend all this, if I pleased, providing that you might behave well towards me” [3]. This further expresses her power over him, but it also levels the playing field in a way. By the knight treating her well, he may learn the value of respecting women. This idea is further expressed as the Hag continues to engage in a monologue explaining that noble men are not noble due to ancestors deeds entirely, but by noble acts[3]. After her monologue the Hag proposes two options to the knight, he can either leave her as a hag but she will love him and be the best wife ever, or he can have her fair and beautiful without any guarantee of making him happy [3]. The knight after listening to this speech has a change of heart by expressing his respect for her, and commits the noble act of allowing the Hag to choose her faith “My lady and my love, and wife so dear, I put me in your wise governance choose yourself which may be most pleasure and most honour to you and me also. I do not care which of the two for as it pleases you, is enough for me”[3]. This is in turn proves to the Hag that she does have sovereignty and freedom of actions[1]. She then gets him to kiss her, and thus transforms into a beautiful maiden [3]. It needs to be noted that the hag chooses to reeducate the knight, and express her opinion rather than just asking him to kiss her and transforming into the maiden [2]. If she did the latter, then certainly it would prove that she is entirely after gender liberation, but the fact that she only transforms after the knight learns how to respect her for who she is portrays that this is indeed about equality between the sexes.
[1] Carter, S. (2003). Coupling the beastly bride and the hunter hunted: What lies behind Chaucer's Wife Of Bath's Tale. The Chaucer Review, 329-345.
[2] Leicester, H. (1984). Of a fire in the dark: public and private feminism in the Wife of Bath’s Tale. Women's Studies, 157-178.
[3] Chaucer, G., & Wright, D. (1998). The Canterbury Tales. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4] Smith, N. (2011). Feminist Analysis of the Prologue for the Wife of Bath (Canterbury Tales). Retrieved May 15, 2015, from http://www.articlemyriad.com/feminist-analysis-prologue-wife-bath/2/
Excellent work, Amy-Claire. A very thorough answer well centered on the text.
DeleteQuestion One – cite some variations in the Loathly Lady fabula across the three tales from your Reader. Focus on the conditions by which the lady is either beautiful or ugly, and the actions of the knight/king/”hero”…
ReplyDeleteIn the text Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, the story follows King Arthur on his return journey home when he meets a terribly ugly woman. There is a large amount of emphasis on how ugly she truly is – “she was the ugliest creature | that a man ever saw”, “to recite the foulness of that lady | there is no tongue fit | she had ugliness to spare” (Hahn, 1995). There is a very vivid description of exactly how ugly the lady was, describing every feature of her in an extreme and foul manner, so the audience is exactly aware of how unsightly she is. However the line “yet she sat upon a gaily fitted horse | with gold and many a precious stone” (Hahn, 1995) shows the audience that her ugliness is not the only thing about her that is noteworthy. The theme of this text is that it does not matter how ugly one is, if one has a good heart and true intentions, then their appearance does not matter. This line could be a metaphor for the lady’s personality – though she is ugly, she is also beautiful, as shown by the riches upon the horse on which she rides. The lady – Dame Ragnelle – tells King Arthur that she can save his life if she is allowed to marry one of his knights, Sir Gawain.
Arthur at first is unsure about this: “woe is me | that I should cause Gawain to marry you | for he will hate saying no | I’ve never seen such an ugly woman”, he eventually decides to go and tell Gawain of his predicament. In the end, Gawain has no hesitations about marrying Dame Ragnelle, despite the colourful description that Arthur gives him, going so far as to say, “I shall wed her and wed her again | even if she be a fiend | even if she were as foul as Beelzebub” (Hahn, 1995). It shows that Gawain’s loyalty to Arthur is far more important to him than the ugliness of the woman he is to marry, and even states that he does not mind her being as ugly as a demon/the devil, as evidenced by “Beelzebub”. Gawain continues on to say that “though she be the foulest person | that has ever ben seen on earth | for you I will not hesitate”. This shows true loyalty and love on the part of Sir Gawain, and also partially shows the reason perhaps that Dame Ragnelle wishes to marry him – as Arthur immediately began to speak of her ugliness, Gawain does not mind it if he can save the life of his king, and shows that he perhaps is much more compassionate than his fellow knights.
Dame Ragnelle is described as the ugliest woman on the earth, yet Gawain will marry her willingly to save the life of King Arthur. This is contrasted greatly in the following two texts, The Wife of Bath’s Tale and King Henry.
In The Wife of Bath’s Tale, it is clear almost immediately to the audience that the knight in the story is not as compassionate as Sir Gawain, as the knight’s first action is to rape a young girl on his way home: “by utter force he took her maidenhead” and it is seen as such a great offense he is brought back to court where “by course of law, and should have lost his head” (Chaucer, c.1390). Decapitation is considered to be the normal punishment for an act such as rape, but the Queen gives him a choice to save his life, and says that if he can return after a year and a day to tell him what it is that all women desire most, he will not be killed. He sets off and on the last day of his allotted year, he meets the ‘loathly lady’ who agrees to tell him his answer if he will promise to do one favour for her. He agrees, and when he goes back to the court, tells them that women desire sovereignty over their husbands more than anything else.
continued from above...
ReplyDeleteNone of the women in the court can disagree, and his life is spared, but the loathly lady approaches and says that his favour to her is that he must marry her. Due to the fact that she is so ugly, the knight refuses to do so, and complains that he cannot marry one such as ugly as her – “my love? | nay, my damnation! | alas that any of my family | should ever be so foully degraded” (Chaucer, c.1390). Although it is already established through the knight’s act of rape that he isn’t a good person, he quite literally refuses to marry the woman who saved his life just because of the fact that she is ugly, and she mentions that later on – “I am she who has saved your life”. He replies that “thou art so loathsome, and so old also | and moreover descended from such lowborn lineage | that little wonder is though I toss and twist about” (Chaucer, c.1390). As knights were generally born of noble birth, it is inconceivable to him to marry someone so ugly, old and lowborn as she is. However, he does go through with the act of marrying her, however reluctantly, which shows a contrast to the actions of Sir Gawain, who did not care how ugly Dame Ragnelle was, he was completely willing to marry her to save Arthur’s life. The knight of Bath does not even want to marry the woman even though she’s saved his own life, showing a rather selfish and shallow personality. However, he does end up marrying her, and gives up his sovereignty to her, and in return she turns into a beautiful woman, so lovely that he kisses her “a thousand time in a row” and “she was so beautiful, and so young more | for joy he clasped her in his two arms | his heart bathed in a bath of bliss” (Chaucer, c.1390). This shows the shallowness of the knight – that even though she is the same ugly woman, because she is beautiful on the outside, she is suddenly the perfect wife that he has always wanted. Sir Gawain married Dame Ragnelle even though there was no promise that she would ever be beautiful, and the knight of Bath marries the loathly lady reluctantly but falls in love with her after she becomes beautiful, showing a very selfish and shallow personality.
continued from above...
ReplyDeleteIn the tale of King Henry, yet another ugly, loathly lady is seen, and along with being unsightly she is frightening as well. “Each frightened huntsman fled the hall | and left the king alone” (Steeleye Span, 1972), this shows that the men are not as loyal to their king as perhaps Sir Gawain was. The woman is described in great detail as being horribly ugly: “her head hit the roof-tree of the house | her middle you could not span… | …her teeth were like the tether stakes | her nose like club or mell | and nothing less she seemed to be | than a fiend that comes from hell (Steeleye Span, 1972).” However despite her ugliness that frightened his men off, and perhaps out of his own fear, King Henry does everything she asks of him – she asks for food and so he kills his horse, hunting greyhounds and goshawks though “it made his heart full sore (Steeleye Span, 1972).” He then brings her wine in the hide of his horse, before she asks him to make her a soft bed and then lie down with her in it. He is horrified at the thought – “Oh god forbid, says King Henry | that ever the like betide | that ever a fiend from hell | should stretch down by my side (Steeleye Span, 1972)”, but he sleeps with her anyway. In the morning when the sun shone through the windows, she is suddenly transformed into “the fairest lady that ever was seen”, most likely as a reward for his kind behaviour to her, as she then says “I’ve met with many a gentle knight | that gave me such a fill | but never before with a courteous knight | that gave me all my will (Steeleye Span, 1972).” Although it implies, along with the Wife of Bath’s Tale, that men are shallow and only desire a beautiful woman to be their wife, in this tale her beauty seems to be more a reward for King Henry of being so gracious to her when everyone has run away at the sight of her, wherein in the Wife of Bath’s Tale, the loathly lady turns beautiful only once her husband gives up sovereignty to her, because she wishes to be beautiful to torment him.
All of these tales are operating with the moral that it doesn’t matter what’s on the outside, it’s what is on the inside that is important – this can be seen in modern texts such as Beauty and the Beast and the Frog Prince. It tells the audience that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that one should look past the exterior and see the beauty and goodness within.
References:
Chaucer, Geoffrey (c. 1390). The Wife of Bath.
Hahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.
Steeleye Span (1972). King Henry. Below the Salt. US: Shanchie.
Question 2 – The Wife of Bath’s Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
ReplyDeleteThe Wife of Bath’s Tale is different from most sovereignty tales due to the fact that the main ‘hero’ of the tale is not a king, or a man about to be king, but about a simple knight. The story begins when the knight is returning home and sees a young girl whom he rapes – “by utter force he took away her maidenhood (Chaucer, c.1390)” and his subsequent punishment. The knight is not a brave, noble man as the hero usually is, such as Sir Gawain from the tale of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, but he is simply a rapist. It can be argued that Chaucer intended for this text to be a feminist text through many literary devices and plot points in the text. Firstly, the fact that the knight is to be punished so severely for his crimes – in the tale, the crime of raping a woman is punishable by death, specifically a beheading. In modern times such as today, rape as an offence is only reported 32% of the time, and of those reports, only 7% will lead to an arrest and only 2% will see the offender go to prison (Rainn, 2009). It is rare to see such a severe punishment for an act such as rape, which in modern society is generally considered by police to be not so terrible a crime, if the statistics say anything. After the knight is brought to court, the king hands the case over to the queen, which is another demonstration of possible feminism – although the king would usually hold ultimate authority, he hands over an usual amount of power over to a woman. “Give him to the queen, all at her will, to choose whether she would save him or put him to death (Chaucer, c.1390).” The queen then gives him a choice – he can either be beheaded, or he will have a year and a day to go out and ask women what they desire above all else, and if his answer is correct on his return, she will set him free.
This punishment by the queen can be perceived to be rather random, but I believe it has a much deeper meaning. When the knight raped the young girl, he clearly did not take into account her feelings on the matter, and simply saw her as a sexual object, otherwise he would not have had to use “utter force” to have sex with her. The queen’s punishment seems to be that upon his talking to so many women in a year, and learning what they desire, he would learn about what women want and will respect them, while also learning what women don’t want – such as rape. He will learn to understand women rather than just taking what he wants from them. Along the way he meets an ugly old hag, the ‘loathly lady’, or the Wife, who says that she will tell him the answer he is looking for if he will oblige to one favour for her. He accepts, and goes back to the court with his answer, which is that “women desire to have sovereignty, as well over her husband as her love, and to be in mastery above him (Chaucer, c.1390)”. None of the women in the room can disagree with that, and so she is set free.
Many analyses of this text have stated that this is a feminist statement, but I do not believe so. It is very possible that Chaucer was mocking women’s aspirations to be equal, by amplifying their voices and then exaggerating their claims, therefore creating a sort of misogynistic humour surrounding the knight’s answer. Feminism can be defined as the social, political and economic equality of the sexes (Merriam-Webster, 2015), and modern feminists do not want sovereignty or superiority over men, but simply equality.
Continued from above...
ReplyDeleteAs we have existed, and still exist, in a patriarchal society where men have superiority and privilege over women, this reversal in Chaucer’s text could be perceived as laughable. This can also be seen in the last lines of the text, where Chaucer (c.1390) says “and Jesus Christ us send | husbands meek, young and vigorous in bed | and grace to outlive them whom we wed | and also I pray Jesus shorten their lives | that will not be governed by their wives | and old and angry misers in spending | god send them soon the very pestilence!” This is a very strong example of sarcasm in the text – laughing at women and empathizing with men, saying that it is better to die young than live with a wife who has equal or more power over them.
Further on in the text, the hag tells the knight that the favour he owes her is her hand in marriage, and though he is disgusted at the thought, the knight marries her anyway. In the Canterbury Tales prologue, it can clearly be seen that the Wife equates money, sex and marriage as entirely equal, and that they are all interlinked (Paperstarter, 2012). The Wife tells the knight – now her husband – that she will either remain old and ugly yet humble and true for him, or that she will transform herself into a young and fair woman who would be desired by all men. He replies with, “I put me in your wise governance | choose yourself which may be most pleasure | and most honor to you and me also | I do not care which of the two | for as it pleases you, is enough for me (Chaucer, c.1390).” This shows the knight giving up mastery and sovereignty over their relationship – exactly as the Wife had told him earlier that all women desired. She chooses to become young and beautiful, and along with becoming incredibly attractive, she also gets what she has wanted all along – beauty, longevity, mastery over men, and sex.
Carter (2003) argues that the Wife of Bath’s Tale is about overcoming gender roles and gender liberation – where men are superior over women who in turn are supposed to educate themselves on what men want and then submit themselves to those whims, the roles are reversed, and therefore women are liberated. However Smith (2011) argues that if the Wife was to be a feminist character, she would not embrace negative attitudes such as arrogance, deceit and seduction to get what she wants, and would instead be portrayed as a character that could be empathized with by the audience. In making the Wife such an unlikeable, cunning character, the audience immediately dislikes her, therefore perpetuating the stereotype that men must have control over women, because if they do not then they will become ambitious, cruel and use sex for their own pleasure and mastery over men.
Continued from above...
ReplyDeleteAlthough some of the elements of the text can be seen as feminist, it seems to me that Chaucer was instead doing the opposite – exaggerating the claims of women who want equality and turning the piece into a parody of feminism, wherein it seems preposterous and evil for women to want equal rights, where instead women want superiority and mastery over men. It seems more likely that Chaucer created the text to make fun of women, and even though the act of rape was seen as punishable by death, which is admittedly quite a feminist perspective, in the end there were no consequences for the knight, as he does not have to apologize or make it up to the woman whom he assaulted, and although he has to marry an ugly hag, she becomes beautiful for him, and it indeed is almost like a reward, even though she gains mastery over him.
References:
Carter, S. (2003). Coupling the beastly bride and the hunter hunted: What lies behind Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale. The Chaucer Review, p. 329-345.
Chaucer, G. (c.1390). The Canterbury Tales. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merriam-Webster. (2015). Definition of Feminism. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
Paperstarter. (2012). The Canterbury Tales Thesis Statements and Important Quotes. Retrieved from http://www.paperstarter.com/canterburytales.htm
Rainn. (2009). Reporting Rates. Retrieved from https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
Smith, N. (2011). Feminist Analysis of the Prologue for the Wife of Bath (Canterbury Tales). Retrieved from http://www.articlemyriad.com/feminist-analysis-prologue-wife-bath/2/
Excellent analysis Renee,
DeleteI do agree, there were no consequences for the knigt as he lives happily ever after with a beautiful woman. Its almost as if the misfortune of the raped woman worked in the favour of the knight. Not only did her get to keep his life, he also got to marry a woman who turned beautiful AND he also learned something along the way, he learned that women want sovereignty and all that sort of nonsense. This indicated to me that Chaucer was not a feminist as he did not punish the knight in the story, which seems like it was done on purpose to 'piss off' feminists. so your claim about the story being a pardoy is plausable. However, if he were to write such a story today, I think that there would be a lot of outrage and anger towards Chaucer for letting the knight get away with rape and rewarding him with knowledge and a beautiful wife in the end.
He is still able to have sex with his youthful, beautiful wife which should not even be allowed after what he did to the poor innocent girl in the beginning of the story. His right to have sex should have been taken away from him, I think he should have been put in prison or exectued or even castrated in the story for comitting rape. If I were to re-write the ending, I would have made it so that he is only granted a few more days of living and forced to be wed & have sex with the hag. Then, she should have decided his punishment. This would have probably been a more prominent feminist approach to the story.
Question 4 (&5?)
ReplyDeleteAccording to its definition:
“In literature, a conceit is an extended metaphor with a complex logic that governs a poetic passage or entire poem. By juxtaposing, usurping, and manipulating images and ideas in surprising ways, a conceit invites the reader into a more sophisticated understanding of an object of comparison.”
In basic terms – because the definition is far too wordy for me – It is a way to compare two things that would not normally be compared, as shown in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18 ‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?’ Now, because Shakespeare has had such a huge effect on today’s culture and literature, it doesn’t seem too far-fetched to compare a beautiful woman to a bright summer’s day.
“If they be two, they are two so As stiff
Twin compasses are two;
Thy soul, the fix’d foot, makes no show
To move, but doth, if th’ other do.
And though it in the center sit,
Yet, when the other far doth roam,
It leans, and hearkens after it,
And grows erect, as that comes home.”
Donne, J. (1611)
This example I find quite striking. Donne compares both his and his beloved’s souls with a drafting compass. Her soul, the fixed point, and his the pencil end. The hinge where they join is described as being the connection between the two lovers. This unusual comparison is the perfect example of a conceit, as we would not normally think to compare the two.
Abrams, M.H. (1993) notes that ‘The conceits of John Donne are said to “leap continually in a restless orbit from the personal to the cosmic and back again”’. From reading 'The Flea', I can understand this statement. At first, the piece seems to be a love letter of sorts to a lady suitor, but when you look deeper it is clear that Donne is arguing a point. Using the flea, he tries to argue that if a flea bit them both, that could be considered as being married, the flea being the couple’s ‘marriage bed’ and ‘marriage temple’. Not only does Donne create layers in this piece, but incorporating a conceit that blankets these layers creates a piece that gives something new every time you read it.
References
Defenition retrieved June 10 2015, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceit
Donne, J. 1611. A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning
Abrams, M. H. (1993). The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., p. 1081
ReplyDeleteIn the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define conceits?
Conceits has been defined as “ a figure of speech in which two vastly different objects are likened together with the help of similes and metaphors” we can clearly see an example of this in Edmund Spenser (1522-1599), ‘Ice And Fire’
“My love is like to ice, and I to fire”
"Conceit develops a comparison which is exceedingly unlikely but is none the less, intellectually imaginative”
Where the comparisons lies between ice and fire. Both are expressions of love from the author but sigh different meanings ice being an unwelcoming or unwanted kind. Fire being the over enthusiastic and desirable affection from one.
In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets conceits are driven lines that broadcast beautiful descriptions of feelings, objects and or people.
References
Definition retrieved (June 12, 2015), http://literarydevices.net/conceit/
Spencer, ‘Ice and Fire’, Sonnet LIII