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)onThe Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle identifies 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?
1. Cite some variations in the Loathly Lady fable across the three tales in your Reader.
ReplyDeleteThe descriptions of the loathly lady change in each version. Chaucer describes the degree of her ugliness but leaves the detail to the reader's imagination by simply saying of her, "...no man can imagine and uglier creature." (line 1000)
Hahn's version spends a full 15 lines describing her hideousness using details such as, "Her teeth hung out of her lips" and "her breasts would have been a load for a horse."
Steelye Span spends 7 lines describing the loathly lady in "King Henry." He mixes specific and general descriptors saying, "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."
Each author used their own creative license to recreate the loathly lady in a way that worked for their story. I'm just suprised Chaucer, who wrote the longest piece, spent the least amount of time describing the central character.
Chaucer, Hahn and Span's versions included other differences as well. The lady offers a slightly different deal to slightly different people and gets slightly different reactions from them.
In Chaucer's telling the loathly lady offers Sir Gawain (a knight in King Arthur's court) knowledge that will save his life in return for a favor, which turns out to be his hand in marriage. Gawain begs to be let out of the deal but goes along with it. In the end he tells her she can "wear the pants in the relationship" and she rewards him by turning herself into a sexy young trophy wife.
Hahn's version is a little shorter and to the point. The loathly lady holds king Arthur's life in ransom unless he marries the innocent Gawain to her. Gawain volunteers enthusiastically, and as far as we know all he gets in return is Arthur's thanks. I guess the moral of that story is not to trust authority.
Span's version uses King Henry instead of King Arthur and Gawain. King Henry is living the high life of a king when the loathly lady enters his court and demands all his favorite things, which he reluctantly gives to her. He even goes to bed with her without any kind of threat. Then the next morning she turns into a beautiful, grateful young woman.
Ha! I like the way you've described the beautiful young woman in your last line as grateful!
DeleteI agree, it is kinda interesting that chaucer spends the least amount of time discussing the loathly lady's appearance.
Delete2. 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.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Chaucer might not be considered a feminist by today’s standards, there are some examples which may be interpreted as feminist views, in Chaucer’s time. The first one would be the fact that in the knights was condemned to death for raping the maiden “”For which wrong was such clamor And such demand for justice unto king Arthur That this knight was condemned to be dead, By course of law…” In Chaucer’s time, a highborn knight such as the one in the story would not be put to death for such a crime and could perhaps be interpreted as social commentary by Chaucer.
Another example would be that in the story, the knight is saved by Ladies of the court and then given to the queen, to pass judgement on him. “Except that the Queen and other ladies as well so long prayed the king for grace Until 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.” This is almost like a preview to the conclusion of the story, showing the power of women over their husband, but also power in society, as they impact on the fate of this high born knight.
The most obvious example in the text would be the conclusion where the knight gives in to the hag, giving her power over him “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.” This line could be interpreted; perhaps that Chaucer thought that women held power in society, through control of their husbands.
Although the most apparent example would be the last verse, where the character telling the story, a woman, chastises men “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; “ The fact that Chaucer is a man and has written this in a woman’s voice, compounds the evidence that he may have been a feminist, as especially in his time, writing as such as was unusual.
Personally I think that Chaucer probably was a feminist for his time. Although he has passages which chastise women, for example unable to keep secrets “But nonetheless, she thought that she would die if she should hide a secret so long;”, the text has strong examples of feminist undertones, the strongest indicator, being written in a female voice.
ugh, sorry about the formatting.
Delete6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
ReplyDeleteRevard (1997) uses examples from Abraham Cowley’s Pindarics (a looser version of Pindaric ode which is an irregularly rhymed ode with an unpredictable length of line and stanza which suggests the style and manner of Pindar’s original odes but does not reproduce it entirely) and also other writers from the English Renaissance to employ connections between language, sex and power.
Cowley uses Pindarics to question a woman’s ability to be a poet, whether he does this subtly or in a much more ostentatious manner Revard ‘illustrate(s) the difficulty that a male poet has in praising a woman who is neither a mistress nor a patron nor a sovereignty, but is, rather, a so called peer in the poetic profession” although, it appears that this inability to praise others in said profession, is not gender specific. Perhaps this is a male dominance power play in action, as even to fellow males, Cowley will ‘focus on the person, rather than on the work’. All complementary poems to men look at ‘the artist, the writer, the scientist first, then at the man’.
Cowley’s inability to impart admiration, or even acceptance of fellow Pindaric writers who are female (namely Katherine Phillips), is well documented by Revard. It is noted that in some respects, there is no competition between a male and a female. Cowley muses upon this thought in his anacreontic “Beauty” saying
Who can, alas, their strength express,
Arm’d, when they themselves undress,
Cap-a-pe with Nakedness.
This shows that in a challenge of love, woman are at an advantage due to their beauty, but this victory is not something that can be recreated in a professional sense. Cowley continuously ‘compliments…Phillips’s beauty and the virtues of her sex to evaluate the quality and substance of her poetry’ and will make reference to the qualities that ‘most properly characterize a woman: above all, beauty and virtue first and then wit—female wit’.
Another writer of Pindarics was Aphra Behn, who studied under Cowley. Instead of her sex being the target, she ‘knows how to use the so-called advantages of her sex’ whether it be to ‘warmly encourage’ a failing playwright or to address someone she idolizes, Behn manipulates language to guise her true intentions through her sexuality. Something that awarded her well in the end as through manipulation of language, she was able to compose a poem that ‘was read by her time as gracious praise, not as a female’s protest (for woman’s rights)’.
The relationships evident in poetry throughout the Renaissance period, seems to be influenced heavily on the dichotomy between males and females. Whether it be a power play or the language of sex gender was a standing issue as to who deserved what credit and how they were able to reach their audiences.
This has to be done in 2 parts:
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.
The Wife of Bath's Tale starts with a lengthy prologue which has the character of Alisoun reflecting on the five marriages she has had, and the cunning she has employed, and has been employed on her, to establish power in a relationship. This then leads into the Tale, Chaucer's spin on the 'loathly lady' fable, about a "lusty bachelor" who learns about the ways of female sovereignty.
The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some to be a precursor for early feminst thought, and, indeed, the bachelor of this tale has his fate decided by two very wily women.
The bachelor of this tale's woe begins when he sleeps with a woman without her consent. There is a "clamour" for justice at the court of King Arthur, but instead of being sentenced to death, which is required by law, the King gives sovereignty to his Queen (an early example of this recurring theme) to decide his fate, as she and other women of the court begged for the bachelor's life.
The Queen tells the knight that he is to be killed, unless he can find out "what thing it is that women desire most" within a year and a day. He searches far and wide over the year for the answer, with such varied theories as riches, honour or clothes, but he could find no unity in any answer. Downhearted, he finally stumbles upon an old hag, who agrees to tell him the secret of what women most desire, in exchange for his promise that he will do the first thing she requires of him. Thus, as he goes before the court, his life is saved, with the answer "women wish to have sovereignty as well over her husband as her love, and to have mastery over him."
The old lady then asks to Queen to ensure justice is done by the knight fulfilling his promise to her; by taking her as his wife. The knight is required to do so. On their wedding night, saddened, he expresses his disgust over her old age, low birth and looks to her. She argues based on biblical teaching and teaching in other literature the benefits of being old, unattractive, and low-born; faithfulness, humility and claiming true nobility from God. She lays before him a choice: to both have her faithful and true to him all her life, in her current state, or to have her beautiful and young, with no guarantee of her marital faithfulness. The knight decides to place the choice in her hands, and she, pleased by her sovereignty over him, transforms to become both beautiful and faithful to him.
I find it...disquieting that Chaucer is labeled a feminist for representing women as strong characters who can "wear the pants" in a relationship. That might have been radical in the time and place Chaucer lived, but what he's advocating amounts to equality. Yes, women have an upperhand over men in The Canterbury Tales, but that's how relationships work sometimes. Sometimes you're on top. Sometimes you're on bottom. So I would agree that Chaucer was radical, but I think people who call him a feminist are being a bit dramatic...not that there's anything wrong with being a feminist.
DeletePART TWO:
ReplyDeleteI understand why Chaucer may be considered to be a feminist. Of all the stories in The Canterbury Tales, three are written from a female perspective, and it is quite extraordinary that a male writer, writing in the 14th century, is at all writing from a female perspective, particularly emphasising female dominance in marital relationships. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent to this discourse of female-male relations, at least until the advent of the 19th century novel.
However, I'm not so sure the Tale is as much an intentionally feminine discourse, or a political commentary, as advice woven into a moral tale. The narrator reveals her cunning to achieve female soveriegnity in her own prologue and the choice of story, but never seems to make a moral judgment on whether it is definitively right or wrong. Indeed, some of the exploits from her own life sound downright immoral. The Tale simply seems to advise that this arrangement of female sovereignty brings the most happiness to a married couple, as a wife may please her husband by obeying him and being faithful, and a husband may please his wife by giving her decision-making authority. This shows knowledge (or at least, assumed knowledge) of the deep-held desires of both men and women.
The knight only reaches fulfilment, and receives what he desires, by submitting to his wife, as a by-product of her great wisdom in moral matters. The result of this is "And thus they lived in perfect joy to the end of their lives." Therefore, to me, this story seems like advice woven into a fable directed at young men headed into marriage; submit to your wife, and she will give you what you desire.
The female characters of this story, including the narrator, the Queen and the Old Hag herself, possess cunning, self-awareness and wisdom in this story. This tale seems like advice to younger men on the nature of women, and how to please them in marriage, while receiving what they ultimately desire too.
6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
ReplyDelete