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?
Q.2 The Wife of Baths Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteThe position of power which women hold in Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale does strike me as particularly upper-handed, for which England in the Middle Ages might have seen as more of an absurd unreality. The story goes that a knight hastily wrongs an innocent virgin woman, and a trial for him is held by women where he is challenged to find out what it is women most desire, and lo and behold it is, yes, a woman who gives him back his life with the key to the female enigma. In fact Chaucer’s telling of the loathly lady motif contains scarcely any real positive male content at all. However, despite this strongly devoted focus on the female psyche over men, it seems too simple to argue that Chaucer was writing from a feminist’s point of view.
As Susan Carter puts it, calling Chaucer a feminist is an anachronism in itself. Instead Carter suggests that "If Chaucer is not actually endorsing the strident voice he gives to the Wife, he is certainly making a play with textuality, with subjectivity, and with the construction of ideas about sexuality". (The Chaucer Reiview,2003). The female role in Chaucer's text doesn't necessarily exude feminism, but much more of a humour. When the 'lusty bachelor' of King Arthurs house wrongs his maiden victim, Chaucer writes that "this knight was condemned to be dead, By course of law, and should have lost his head" (lines 891-892) however the knight is instead handed down into the will of the Queen, almost as if he be a play-thing for her amusement. Let’s not forget “The queen thanks the king with all her might,” (line 899). This doesn't strike me as particularly feminist. The knights life which is surrendered into the will of the Queen, is portrayed as almost equal a punishment to losing his head by axe! This is where Chaucer kind of parodies the idea of the power of women over men. It seems perhaps laughable for the king and yet torturous for the knight to be faced with the complexities of dealing with the females, which says something about the actual sovereignty women had over men at the time.
I feel like rather than portraying women as know all goddesses acting as equals to men, Chaucer highlights the stereotypical and humorous idea that women are a puzzle to men. A sort of ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’ archetype.
Of the same loathly lady motif in ‘The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle’, Hahn. T (1995) described the transformation of hag into a beautiful woman as symbolic. Not only does Ragnelle turn from ugly hag to beautiful lady, but also “from an enigmatic threat to a fulfilled woman. Her double role – both Beauty and the Beast – endows her with a deep ambiguity and revulsion, fatal danger and life giving knowledge; such worrisome duplicity often attaches itself to women (and to femininity generally) in popular romance, and throughout western culture.” (pg.18)
If men were to take any counsel from reading ‘The Wife of Baths Tale’, it may just serve as a humorous reminder to them of the many moods and motives that females stereo-typically possess. Which as Chaucer shows proves to be an entertaining theme to play with.
A well balanced answer.
Delete'Chaucer highlights the stereotypical and humorous idea that women are a puzzle to men. A sort of ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’ archetype.' Very true. And there is an element of parody in Chaucer's portrayal of women in the tale.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Mike I can't seem to put up my first answer to this page? Can I just email it through to you? I can't be bothered writing it up again to be honest. Cheers
ReplyDelete1. Cite 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 Wife of Bath's Tale
Geoffrey Chaucer
The Queen deciding whether the Knight should be condemned to death or not or whether she should give him a task to do all because of the knight’s actions to try to seduce a maiden to have sex with him .
(P.65)
He seeks every women to know the answer but the problem is everyone who he asks this too gives him a different answer so they are never agreeing on the answer he seeks. (p. 66-67)
The knight wanting to know what the answer of what woman desire is by meeting the ugly lady who is his mother. So she tell the knight what he needs to know.
(p 67-69)
King Arthur having two donkey ears connected to his head and the wife wanting to be ugly to be with her husband. Also that she tell no one of his ugliness.
, (p. 67-68)
The knight is in bed with his new wife and talks with his old wife. The new wife tells the knight he has saved his life
,(p 69)
The knight has a final decision to make which is to choose whether he wants his wife beautiful or ugly which the wife ends up choosing for him.
,(p.72)
The knight returns to the village he was in a year and a day before. The knight gives the queen his answer.(p 68)
The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle Modern version.
King Arthur meets the ugly lady after he rides a horse out a gate.
(p.73)
The ugly ladies conditions to be ugly are these yellow teeth, her breasts very large and back curved in a “u” shape,( p 73)
The ugly lady asks King Arthur if she can marry knight Gawain or he loses his head or I can save your life. I might not be able to persuade Gawain to marry you,(p 74.)
King Arthur rides to where Sir Gawain is and tells him his predicament and decides to marry her straight away. He just needs to know a few more details like when precisely are they going to marry each other. Gawain saves his life and her name is Dame Ragnelle. Arthur asks the ugly lady what her name is,(p 75-76)
The wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle.
Original version
King Arthur rode to Inglewood to get some good news from the ugly lady.
,(p.77)
He sees this ugly lady who has big teeth and hair all matted on her head also her mouth is
,(p.77)
She was sitting on a horse covered with gold and precious stones waiting to tell King Arthur something.
p.77)
She wants to give Arthur some advice that might save his life if he chooses correctly.
p.77)
Then she tells Arthur what she wants him to do to save his life and if you do not choose correctly you lose your head, (p.77)
Why is my life in your ugly hands lady,(p 77)
Now you must grant me a Knight to marry or lose your head or live make your choice now King Arthur, (p.78)
King Arthur is telling the ugly lady that he will now go and find Gawain to him the news that he has to marry this ugly looking lady,( P.78)
King Arthur tells Gawain the pickle means an awkward situation a person is in to notify him that he needs to marry this person to keep him alive or he’s dead. (pickle. n.d.)
(p.78)
Sir Gawain accepts that he needs to marry this ugly lady to be his future wife to save King Arthur’s life.
(p 79)
Reference list
Chaucer.G,(2006). Geoffrey Chaucer Interlinear translations of the Canterbury tales. Retrieved from http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/index.html
Hahn.T,(1995.a). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales,(Ed.).M. Michigan: USA. Medieval Institute Publications
Hahn.T,(1995.b). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales,(Ed.).M. Michigan: USA. Medieval Institute Publications
pickle. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 27, 2015, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pickle
Very well referenced, Kirsten. It would help if you had explained some of your comparisons.
DeleteThe explanations of my comparisons are these that in all three tales the knight the loathly lady and king are always repeating the same actions and the same conversations.
DeleteAbout the references I had put it into another page on my word document so sorry there is such a big gap between my blog and the references.
ReplyDeleteHahn's (1995) essay on The Wedding of Sir and Dame Ragnelle identifies the motif of the loathly lady but argues it has a different purpose other than asserting the feminine. What does he think the function of the story is?
ReplyDeleteHahn (1995) argues that the purpose of the loathly lady is to act as a paradox," her double role both as beauty and the beast endows her with a deep ambiguity," (p.18). The loathly lady is both repulsive and attractive and dangerous yet caring. The author states, perhaps somewhat chauvinistically that this paradox or 'duplicity' is often to be found in women(p.19). Going on from this statement the author begins to argue that the true purpose of the loathly lady fabula is to portray what women truly desire. All throughout the text reference is made to 'whate wemen love best' (line 91) and 'whate wemen desyran most' (line 406). Hahn (1995) remarks that these phrases are oddly similar to Freud's famous question; Was will das Weib (What does woman want)? However Hahn's (1995) analysis becomes confused when he himself causes paradox with his comment on interest serving. Hahn's argues that the narrative unfolds with the heroine (Ragnelle) clearly serving the interests the male society. However I tend to hold the belief that she would only ever do the Men's bidding to further her interests, my argument is simple; consider your first girlfriend. Furthermore, and Hahn(1995) admits this too, Ragnelle actually holds the poem together(p.19). She is the thread to which all other characters are linked. She is actually the main character. Perhaps Hahn (1995) was arguing that in this world it is the woman who actually the power holders, and perhaps that it the motif of the loathly lady.
References:
Hahn, T.(Ed). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications
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?
ReplyDeleteThere are many reasons why a reader of Chaucer, and his Wife of Bath Tales, may believe that he is some sort of feminist. The story is based around sovereignty, particularly for women. Now in this case the loathly lady is given complete sovereignty over her husband, "then I have gotten mastery of you." The knight decides that it is best to let his wife decide how to be. So a reader of Chaucer may see this as a form of feminism of Chaucer's behalf.
However for me I believe that Chaucer was quite the opposite of a feminist. First bear in mind that the loathly lady fabula originated in Ireland. Second we must take into account the time period of Chaucer's work, we're talking middle English so around the 14th century. It's important to note that during this time Ireland had what some might describe as liberal attitudes and laws concerning women. They could hold court, divorce, and own land. Now to the Englishmen's eyes this was considered to be outrageous. Ok so we have some background. And lastly we must remember that Chaucer's Wife of Bath tales are a humorous account. Bearing all this is mind it is reasonably plain to see that Chaucer was merely mocking his Irish counterparts for their liberal attitudes toward Woman.
However this is possibly not enough to unequivocally say that this was the true purpose of Chaucer. A counter argument could be simply be laid by stating that whilst humour was present throughout The Wife of Bath Tales, there were clear and serious undertones to the humour. Those serious undertones simply being that women are subjected to their Men's desires and needs all too often, and it should be the other way round or at least more in the middle.
I think that Chaucer chose to highlight the ridiculousness of it all. He believed that in no point of time that women should have sovereignty over their husbands. That is why he chose to create a comedy out of the situation.
I think I am slightly dubious of both sides of the feminist argument of the wife’s of bath tale. Just as you have pointed out the origins of the story would lead most to believe that it was in fact a piece of satire, one that emphasised the lack of respect men had for women and dances around the idea that’s women sovereignty played little importance in medieval society. However, after analysing an important theme of the tale – the idea of justice and rehabilitation. I think there are some ideas in the story that although they may have been intended to have a parody affect, do to some extents promote the feminist opinion as a valid one. The main avenues in which this is explored is definitely that the wife of bath depicts this idealistic world in which women’s desires take precedence over all else. She also suggests that in obeying women and their desires there is a wider sense of togetherness in society – as they have the ability to stray from violence and instead see mercy which in turn has the ability to ‘reform’ criminals.
DeleteThe 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 shows features of Feminism throughout the text. There are many examples of pro-feminist views throughout the text. However in the Shmoop Editorial Team (2008) states “after the loathly lady transforms into a beautiful young woman, she seems to lose some of her chutzpah, becoming a wife who's obedient to her husband in everything.” This would argue that Chaucer was not a feminist because of the way the story is narrated. The loathly lady starts off by having the high authority by tricking him into marrying her in which he begs her to let him go and have mercy on him. However, instead of making Sir Gawain her slave, she decides having a life of a loving wife and yields to her husband. Her husband is an example of the Male-controlled society; he was to be executed for raping a maiden at the beginning of the story, but instead he found love with a woman who ended up being very beautiful and obedient.
The pro-feminist approach has a different insight on why the loathly lady does what she does. The following quote from The Wife of Bath’s Tale shows the knight Sir Gawain at the Queen’s (not the King’s) mercy and it is she who decides his fate. “But that the queene and other ladyes mo so longe preyeden the kyng of grace til he his lyf hym graunted in the place and yaf hym to the queene, al at hir wille,” (Critical Reader, Wife of Bath’s Tale)
This helps to strengthen the position of Women over the Males in the story. Another example that points towards Chaucer’s possible Feministic views is the way that the loathly lady agrees to help Sir Gawain, but he would need to do everything that she asks him to do. In agreement Sir Gawain is then tricked into be married to her and then begs for mercy. Therefore, showing the authority that the ‘UNGODLY CREATURE’ – woman had over him defeating the patriarchal status that Shmoop editorial team (2008) suggested that was only present in the story.
My personal opinion of the story is that I am persuaded to believed that Chaucer was a feminist because there were some evidence in which women had been presented to have authority over patriarchal society, though I am certain that it is debatable whether or not Chaucer was a feminist or not.
Cite some variations in the Loathly Lady fabula across the three tales in the reader. Focus on the conditions by which the lady is either beautiful or ugly and the actions of the knight/king/”hero”
ReplyDeleteI will be honest and admit that despite the Arthurian tales having many similar aspects to my favourite show of all time; the game of thrones, it is a mythology that I found considerably hard to understand. Although things such as Merlin’s role in Arthurs life, The Knights of the Round Table, the adultery of Guinevere and Lancelot and of course the tale of Sir Gawain and the green knight gave me some background understanding of the characters in the loathly lady fables. These along side the sophistication of Susan carters writing and other scholar’s work was a lot of back round for me to ingest.
So I would appreciate correction where needed as I personally struggled with breaking down the stories, in the sense that I couldn’t differentiate those tales that had parody undertones and those that didn’t. This is my interpretation of the differences in the fables and I will try to the best of my ability to explain how I came to these conclusions so I don’t sound completely daft. Variations to be discussed: theme, actions of the knight and actions of the king.
One of the first differences I noticed between the fables was the life lesson each story offered. More so the morals one story presented which the others did not. We see the ‘beauty and the beast’ type theme across all three texts. This is of course, because both Knight Gawain and King Arthur are viewed as desirable because of their acrostic power. While the hag is described, as far from that “A fouler wight ther may no sevyse” and thus why the theme is present. Funnily enough, this theme 600 years down the line is still prominent in modern day stories such as Shrek.
This brings me to the theme I want to discuss, as I too found it interesting that it is something that continues to be debated today. In the bath of wives’ tale, I think there is a strong theme of justice and to some extent rehabilitation. The wife of bath is initially introduced as a figure of control, one that takes the case from her husband and strays from normal punishment and devises a plan. Instead he is set a mission to find what a woman truly desires and this brings forth the idea that the knight may actually find rehabilitation on his journey. As the story goes the loathly lady secures his liberty, and he is to give himself to her for payment. However something that is perhaps overlooked is the justice he is actually served when the knight is forced to unwillingly give up his body in order to save his life, just as the madden that he had raped, was forced to do for him. Although he is never truly forced to do so as the transformation happens before they consummate the marriage. The idea is still there, as is the theme that he is rewarded because of his rehabilitation. This of course has parallels with what we still face in todays society; to what extent can criminals really be rehabilitated? The argument is ongoing. However one thing I was certainly questioning was if perhaps Chaucer was a bigger believer in the idea himself or perhaps I should just stick to the idea his work was satire and call it quits.
One of the major differences in the story is of course the role of the knight. If we were applying the theory that jack has clearly put forward; the idea that the Irish created this particular tale in a parody form to simply take the mickey out of their Arthurian mythology. (Fairly comical that even now this rivalry between the English and Irish is still strong) It would be obvious why the knight doesn’t set a very good impression.
ReplyDeleteFirstly lets discuss the idea he is portrayed as a character that goes against all of his stereotypical characteristics, of being noble and serving the king and the round table. Instead of upholding these exemplary attributes he is overcome with lust and rapes a woman, when ironically he is meant to protect them. As the story progresses he further displays qualities showing he is not a very good knight by moaning and trying to avoid having to marry the loathly lady when he finds out that is the price for his life, despite having promising her anything.
Although it is said he is reformed at the end of the story, overall I think he is created as an unlikable character to increase the irony and humour of the story. Perhaps the attack of kings Arthur’s men/ those who served him was slightly subtler and a way to avoid criticism – uneducated probably wouldn’t have been intelligent enough to pick up on these digs.
In the story of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, Sir Gawain is portrayed in a much more positive light. As the story goes, King Arthur is confronted in the Inglewood forest and is told he too needs to find out what woman most desire. The loathly lady also helps him and in return for his answer he has to ask Sir Gawain if he will marry her. The difference in the actions of the knight is that he does portray the ideal qualities in which they are known for. He sacrifices his pride in order to save his king, as serving him is his priority. The way in which he composes himself is a lot different to that of the character in the wife of bath.
Why? I think this is perhaps because the parody undertones are perhaps more directly focused at King Arthur himself, having to rely on others to save his life, and do the ‘dirty work’ which kings were often known for and Sir Gawain is a representation of this.
Hahn argues in his essay that The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle is not a feminist piece, but rather about how wild aspects of human nature and the environment. He says that, “At the heart of Ragnelle lies the question of how the unknown, the marvelous, or the threatening is brought into line with legitimate, normative, idealized chivalric society.” Arguments he makes to this point are mostly centered around the role of Ragenlle. Ragnelle is a representation of low class and wildness. According to Hahn, her tales “make clear that her repulsiveness is a function of her low estate and not simply a wild monstrosity.” Her role in the story is to connect all the other main characters together in oaths and bloodties. “By passing among these male characters, she becomes the nexus that ties them together and makes possible the fraternal and hierarchic bonds of chivalric solidarity.” It’s like the ultimate example of failing the Bechdel test. Not only does she not really have anything to do with other women, she also serves as a tool to further the story of men. As a further argument in opposition to the feminist theory, Hahn examines Ragnelle’s duality. “Her double role - both Beauty and the Beast - endows her with a deep ambiguity, enmeshing both attraction and revulsion, fatal danger and life-giving knowledge; such worrisome duplicity often attaches itself to women (and to femininity generally) in popular romance, and throughout Western culture.” This mystical and unreal of women is huge part of Western media. Women are either the hags, the trophies, the temptress, or goddess helper. Even the hero's journey describes women as temptresses and prizes. The wedding story is not a feminist piece according to Hahn. I’d argue it’s rather a reassertion of women as tools for the lives of men.
ReplyDeleteHahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications
Conceits
ReplyDeleteIn Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, a conceit is a long extended metaphor that the poem is centered around. Usually in those kinds of sonnets the metaphor has something to do with warfare, religion, or sex -- with the inclusion of money doesn’t almost everything?So far, I have to say that John Dunne’s the Flea is the most atrocious example. He equates sex to a flea biting him and his love interest. He say that “in this flea, our two bloods mingled bee,” so therefore “This flea is you and I, and this / Our mariage bed, and mariage temple is.” Basically, because a flea can bite them both and mix their blood, they can have sex and not be ashamed. In my opinion it really does not matter who you have a sexual relationship with as long as everyone is a consenting adult, but damn that is a horrible wooing poem and no one should have fallen for that guy on the grounds of that poem.