1. 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"...
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?
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?
Hi team I’m going to try as start us off on question Two
ReplyDeleteQuestion two :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.
For me this story was hard at first but after reading it last night it got easier and inspired me to write during breakfast and to me Chaucer was without a doubt a Feminist. There are great examples of why. In our modern world Feminism is about equality and freedom to be what that particular person wants to be and to have equal power or at lest get the man to know what the woman is going through. In the Wife of Bath’s Tale this is also the case such as noted in the text “for to be free and do right as us lest (936)”(Chaucer, 1390) that women of the time wanted freedom as well. This point is also evident with the old woman who saves the life of the knight in return for the favour. As the old lady instructs the knight to say the phrase “wommen desiren to have sovereynetee”(1038) (Chaucer, 1390). Which in this time period many women are considered property of men. Both “sovereynetee" and “to be free” in my mind is what was at that time perceived as feminism or feministic desires and is what women may have wanted back then to one degree to another.
Another very feministic want in my view that we have in the modern world, is the desire to turn the table on men to show them what its like on the other side. If only to make them aware of the imbalance so a compromise can be effectively established. Switching the roles let men be on the other end of the stick and through that experience value what women go though. I our times its the man looking after the kids and with works the job. But in this story the old woman has a much more realistic example of role reversal in this historic time period. The knight promised to fulfil the “the first thing that I would ask of him”(1052)(Chaucer, 1390) and that was to be wed. this is a strong reversal we always see or her of the story of the old man marrying the young woman but this is switched and Chaurcer knows this and plays on this with the section of text “ Husbands meek, young, and vigorous in bed(1259)(Chaucer, 1390) and grace to outlive them whom we wed(1260)”(Chaucer, 1390) this statement back in this historical perspective should be wife meek, young and vigorous in bed” there are many more examples but to what I see Chaucer is a Feminist maybe even the first in English literature. It was such a new concept the best word was to describe what would be come Feminism is sovereignty. To me it makes sense, sovereignty is about authority over ones self and property with the right of self-control or self-rule. The idea of feminism is to have the rights of man which back in the Historical period the text is the man was sovereign ruler of his world and property which included the wife but the wife wants those rights, so to me there is a similarity.
So what do you guys think Chaucer is Feminist? Do you agree with my examples or is the more…?
Cheers Nick :)
Great start Nick... I can already sense there is going to be a great deal of debate over this topic.
DeleteI think you've raised some good points, however I interpret the text as taking it one step further - past freedom, and into power. Based on the following from 'The Wife of Bath's Tale':
"Women desire to have sovereignty / As well over her husband as her love, / And to be in mastery above him. / This is your greatest desire, though you kill me. / Do as you please; I am here subject to your will." (1038-1042, p.5)
The knight has learnt her greatest desire (and possibly that of all women, if one were to assume) which is to have sovereignty over her husband, and be his master. Sovereignty is much bigger than just 'freedom', it is supreme authority.
Although, it could also be said the knight is simply telling her what she wants to hear, as she has his life in her hands.
DeleteThats very interesting Rose, I've always believed freedom to be responsibility of ones self and stuff no mater what they are, and I interoperate that to be just like sovereignty. your right this topics is going to keep us busy.
DeleteCheers :)
Hey Man
DeleteI agree, with you saying that "Both “sovereynetee" and “to be free” in my mind is what was at that time perceived as feminism or feministic desires" - and take it a step further by saying that it will be a form of radical feminism at the time.
Radical feminism is defined as "a perspective within feminism that focuses on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women."
So its easy to see why this is radical, based on the premise that "sovereynetee" means to rule.
I don't necessarily believe that Chaucer was a feminist because he doesn't explicitly show support for this, but more alludes to the idea. "And some say that we love best /
ReplyDeleteTo be free and do just as we please / And that no man reprove us for our vices / But say that we are wise and not at all silly" these lines are examples of Chaucer alluding to some ideals of feminist themes. I don't think I could go as far as to say Chaucer was a feminist because that would be like saying a crime author supports murder just because they write about it.
However, since I'm pointing out really strong opinions, I guess, to some degree, Chaucer did possess feminist qualities through the writing. But not to the extent of today's ideals of feminism.
Please let me know what everyone thinks!
cool stuff, you could be right I think maybe Chaucer was taking the mickey out of the subject. By switching the roles as a comedy instead of a serous story. This comedy was to be used entertain others as we ride along the country side trying to keep entertained back in the old days. So you many be right but as we are in the 21st century we can reinterpret anything in a new light though new genres so through that perspective Chaucer who was not a feminist is now a feminist in modern eyes....Maybe...what do you think..?
DeleteCheers Nick
I like the idea of Chaucer being a feminist, but if he were to be "taking the mickey" out of this tale, then I would frown upon him. Especially because writing about such feminist ideals during his time would be ground-breaking since females were obviously disregarded and had excessively less rights than in the 21st century!
Deletebut wouldn't that be the trick, if stories are the main way of entertaining people then we want to shock and awe just like in the modern world. So such as big role reversal would create quite the gossip and interest in his works. But its all about interpretation. Another factor to make it so different and could be interpreted as a feminist story is the narration is done by a women. In a male dominated time most stories are being narrated by men so they are the kings and women are put down. so with this change of the women being the narrator we are turning heads back then and modern people could miss-interpret that as a feminist act....? Maybe?
DeleteExcellent debate going here. What does everyone think about the ideas of Susan Carter with regard Chaucer? is Carter right? Read and find out!
DeleteSusan Carter had a lot of information and ideas about what Chaucer wrote and things I didn't even click on to such as how the Knight was hunting and then acting as a sexual predator during the rape (Carter, 2003) taking away his power and gory as a knight and turned him into an animal almost. An animal that had to be lured by a trap by the Old Hag using the forest and the circle of dancing maidens to "ensnare the knight" (Carter, 2003). It Created a strong role reversal where the knight was hunted by the Old Hag but we notice she dosnt rape him she gives him a choose showing the power of female sovereignty could be better (also it shows women could play a role differently to mens way of playing it) and could be an option for him to follow. the choose of not forcing can lead to a better outcome for all and there are rewards in sex if the female is given sovereignty and once he steps out of " structure of role play" (Carter, 2003) there is joy for all. This and many other examples in Carters text shows us that roles can be dropped and we can as different parties learn lesson form the other and instead of a forceful act of rape like the Knight did instead he learns if he drops the roles and shows sovereignty to the old hag the act of sex between two mutual parties becomes special for both in the bed scene in the story. So Carter is for the dropping of roles and that people can share like hats each representing a different role. This is what I can see so far. From reading the text But I had admit there was some registry language in there that really got me thinking and confused.
DeleteWhat do you guys think?
Reference
Carter, S. (2003). Coupling The Beastly bride and The Hunter Hunted: What lies Behind in Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Tale.
In The Chaucer Review, Vol. 37, No. 4. 2003.
Hi Nick!!!
DeleteI’ve final read the article by Carter (2003) and it took me sometime for the language was so difficult for ESL students. I too noticed what you, Rose and Shell have been taking about. However, I have noticed that Carter states “..the motif itself contains the moral that fulfillment lies in the collapse of gender roles and the acceptance of ambivalence (p.93).” It seems to be pointing to gender roles being dissolved or a desire to be dissolved, and through that it can appear to be feminist. Chaucer through Carters explanation uses a lot of role reversal such as the old lady. As Carter (2003) notes in the historical setting of the story, women that the knights or lords go for are beautiful and weak “objects with the limited option of being either rescued or raped (p. 86).” Conversely, the old lady is ugly, not helpless but wise to be “allowing the hag to oppress and reeducate the errant knight” (Carter, 2003, p.86).
The knight role is changed as well. He is usually the hero who expects to do no wrong things. But in this story, he seems to be weak and does a horrific behavior. His character is opposite to the knight role should be or suppose to be. Thus, both characters are switched from their usual roles in this time frames story of the Wife of Bath’s Tale. At this point, I learn a new lesson, I think from a woman perspective as the hero and the man new perspective as the maiden to be saved. Could show that we can all do different roles and learn many new things to be better. I wonder if people in this time frame are trapped in certain roles and thus stuck in a certain way of thinking. Hence, Chaucer is trying to make them think “out of the box”.
Cheers!
References
Carter, S. (2003). Coupling the beastly and the hunter hunted: what lies behind Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale. The Chaucer Review, 37(4), 81-97.
I should have read Carter's review in the first place as there are many points she's made that I definitely agree with and that I couldn't articulate properly such as "if Chaucer is not actually
Deleteendorsing the strident voice he gives to the Wife, he is certainly making play with textuality, with subjectivity, and with the construction of ideas about sexuality" (Carter, 2003, p. 81). This was exactly what I was trying to point out in that Chaucer wasn't exactly a feminist ("endorsing the [Wife of Bath's] voice") but he was instead highlighting really strong ideas about gender roles.
Hay guys, Mew I agree with you and Carter its about removal of roles and switching the people in the roles and seeing what happens or could happen in relation to Chaucer's view and I think what Chaucer see as funny or makes people think. As Carter notes Chaucer creates comedy he wants to do and dose it through the narrator such as " Of the pilgrims she is closet to Chaucer. Lie her creator, she criticises through comedy.."(Charter, 2013). So I think the whole role reversal is to create a joke like at this how funny it could be if we were like this what a strange world. So to me from this evidence and what has been said I think now Chaucer is not a feminist he was trying to be funny using role reversal or role removal but was it meant to be funny ha ha or was it funny make you think of other possibilities could be in life that we could try I'm not certain we see in Carters text that " the motif itself contains the moral that fulfilment lies in the collapse of gender roles....that's is why Chaucer gives it to his wife" Carter (2003). So it looks like he's for role collapse so he's trying to hide that message or make it easy to swallow in a funny story....but would others back in history get the point maybe his wife do but would they we see feminists take the point to a different meaning thus miss interpreting it so did the people in the past have the same miss interpretation ? I wonder......
DeleteCheers Nick :)
I must agree with both Nick and Mew. It feels as though Chaucer was writing about gender role reversal in his narrative, not as a way to subtly support feminist rights, but to actually show how ludicrous it would be to have females obtain positions that are ranked socially higher than men in Chaucer's time. I think that perspective would make more sense than the view of Chaucer actually being a proto-feminist.
DeleteWhat does everyone else feel?
ah proto-feminist I think so but if were are dissolving or removing the roles would that apply? a world of equality of equal choose and roles that can be swapped with ease is that proto-feminist or could we call it freedom or could it be he's after a state of Equilibrium think of it the church and government are supper male dominated and there is a big imbalance of power could he see the roles being dissolved as a way to bring back a sense of equilibrium to a world which is leaving the feminist side of the spiritual and wisdom which is overly dominated by male form of spirituality and wisdom ? maybe
DeleteGood strong comment from Nick to start. but is Nick right? Shell B, you have good point to make, and could make the case stronger.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the main points in opposition to Nick's case.
Nick, there are dangers in being able to 'reinterpret anything' in that we can read present attitudes into the past, where the context was different, and so misunderstand something because we are seeing it through a 21st century lens. remember: context determines meaning.
True but what direction should the reader take, should we try to understand the story as it is with our modern view and understandings or do we have to view and understand the story from the period it was written. Or do we have a choice when reading for fun or reading in academic perspective or both? Feminists may have hijacked the story for their own purposes to increase awareness of feminism we see movies hijacking stories like Thor if we know the past and the past interpretation can we still have the right to reinterpret the story in modern views and genres to benefit us in modern entertainment or views? just wondering ?
DeleteTo some extent we can only interpret from our own perspective/understanding as we have no way of knowing what it was actually like back then... we can only draw conclusions and informed opinions based on whatever information we do have, through research from academic experts.
DeleteI think we need to try to understand the significance of the work to the time at which it was written. Any work of art will reflect the culture that produced it. That doesn't mean to say we can't simply enjoy a modern movie like Thor even if it is a hijack. The film will reflect our culture!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh yes, I totally agree with that. I didn't mean to imply we should ignore the culture of when it was written entirely - I only mean that we do not have a magic looking glass to see what it was actually like back then, so we have to make educated guesses based on the information we do have available.
DeleteAs you said in the lesson just now Mike, we should read the primary and secondary texts first before firming up our own informed opinions... which is why I am still on the fence about this feminist question. I can see where Paul was coming from in Monday's lecture, and in all honesty I think that theory is more likely than that of Chaucer being a proto-feminist, although I am still deciphering Carter (2003) and it appears there is legitimate evidence to suggest feminism is present, especially role reversal/liberation from role restrictions (p. 1), as Nick and others have already mentioned.
If feminist themes are present in Chaucer's 'The Wife of Bath's Tale' then it is indeed an "anachronism" (Carter, 2003, p. 1).
This comment has been removed by the author.
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.
ReplyDeleteHaving discussed the text in class before actually reading it, I went in to it with somewhat of an opinion already formed. The discussions in class before I had attempted to read the text lead me to believe that Chaucer was almost definitely using feminist ideals for comedic effect. However, as I began reading the first little bit of the text I started to feel that it would be far too difficult to determine whether or not Chaucer was indeed a feminist given our lack of social context. Sure, we know to an extent how people and society generally operated in Chaucer's time, but I thought there were just too many vast possibilities as to what his actual intentions were that the only way you'd ever know is if you asked Chaucer himself. One possibility is that he didn't even care or notice that he had painted women in such a light. He could very well have been a feminist, but that doesn't necessarily have to be represented in all his writings.
Upon finishing the text, however, I found myself unequivocally agreeing with the majority of the class, and disagreeing with many critics, in that Chaucer was not necessarily a feminist but was instead using stereotypical personality traits in women characters for comedic effect. The point, I believe, is to say that it's hilarious that a women would ever be in "mastery above him."
At line 950 when Chaucer mentions "...women can hide nothing." was when it switched in my brain from being a possibly feminist text to a comedic one. Up until that point I had taken note of lines 897/898 in which the King gives the Queen the power to choose the fate of a man who had been condemned to death by law which is a pretty large overhanding of power as well as undermining justice. I had first read these lines in a 'girl power', feminist tone, however I now believe it was intended to be extremely funny due to the ridiculous notion that a man, not to mention a King, would hand over his duties to his wife.
I believe one of the clearest and most convincing examples of comedy is present in lines 961-982, as the woman finds herself so uncomfortable and on edge with her husband's secret that she is driven to going off alone down to the swamp to tell the water her secret. That is how bad she needs to tell somebody, that she is satisfied with just getting the words out of her mouth, directed at an inanimate object which is a stereotypical female trait.
One of the final and most obvious signs that Chaucer is not a feminist and is in fact using female stereotypes for comedy is in lines 1037-1040 when the ugly lady tells the knight that a woman's greatest desire is "...to have sovereignty... and to be in mastery above him."
Very interesting Max great to see you have a lot to say I was wondering what do you think of the last three paragraphs of Carters (2003) work would that change you mind like it did for me ? I'm very interested to see what you think...
DeleteCheers :)
References
Carter, S. (2003). Coupling the beastly and the hunter hunted: what lies behind Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale. The Chaucer Review, 37(4), 81-97
Hey Nicholas (just Nick?),
DeleteYeah Carter definitely makes it a challenge to disagree with her! It was one of those moments where the most obvious answer seems to be right under your nose.
One thing I found really interesting was the quote from Priscilla Martin, in the Carter article, which states that the Wife of Bath is, of all the characters, actually the most like the author Chaucer.
For me the fact that he may have based a woman character on himself, for the times especially, gives the gender-role undertones of the story a really interesting twist.
Cheers :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi guys!
ReplyDelete3). Hahn's essay (see critical reader) on The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle identifies the motif of the loathly lady, but argues it has a different purpose than asserting the feminine. What does he think the function of the story is?
After I read the full translation from Breeden (n.d.) and read Hahn’s article, I would say Hahn (1995) potentially points out the “chivalrous stereotype” that Sir Gawain plays towards Ragnelle, an ugly hag. Despite having a wedding under his loyalty condition as a king knight, he still treats and respects her as a bride like one line of stanza shows
Sir Gawain said, “I will do more than kiss, I swear to God!” That means he can kiss and give his compliance in bed with the ugliest woman or a beast. He also doesn’t reveal himself as a selfish guy, but rather allowing Ragnelle to choose what day or night she wants to be beautiful. He gives her a power without controlling her to make a decision. Thus, this shows Gawain is a respectful and loyal person to all, including the future wife that was chosen for him under the marriage agreement with Arthurs’ circumstance. Even though under the oath to God, he obtains respect to her and the obligation he makes to her and to God. Through this he gives her the choice to be what she wants to be.
“Choose what you think best, happy lady. The choice I put in your hand. Do as you want, as you choose.”
I think these are attributes that readers wish or want heroes or knights to have, the ideals of respectfulness for all. Through the acts of making the right choice is kingship and he is rewarded with the transformation of the ugly hag to a beautiful lady. This is what Gawain experienced and the moral could be, be good even if there is no reward. But there could be a reward.
Hahn (1995) identifies a romantic conventional plot between Ragnelle and Gawain. However, I think a key point of the story is creation and the seeing through of oaths and promises. As you can see, Gawain argues to Arthurs’ request and saving his life. His act fulfils the oath of marriage to Ragnelle. This commitment I notice is one of loyalty to the promise to Arthur, and the promise of marriage to Ragnelle which means all the responsibilities of a husband to Ragnelle. This is not an act of love but of loyalty. It shows that the oath and the promise are key to being a good knight and they are more important than love. I wonder if there was an issue of lords or knights not fulfilling their oaths and promises and end up being bad guys. This story shows how the normal people want good knights or lords. Like how we want to see our leaders to be good and fulfill their oaths and promises to us no mater what.
References
Breeden, D. (n.d.). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and dame Ragnell. Retrieved
April 2, 2014, from http://www.lone-star.net/mall/literature/gawain.htm
Hahn, T.(Ed.)(1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir
Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kallamazoo, Michigan: Medieval
Institute Publications.
Great stuff Mew, I like what you have written, the events with Ragnelle help to show the power and strength of the chivalric world. As we see Hahns text Ragnelle creates the situation where Arthur and Gawain need to support each other and they do though the commitments and oaths they have made as members of Chivalric society (1995). Though those bonds Gawain saves Arthur. Its those same bonds of Chivalry that Gawain remains loyal to the oaths of marriage and are used by Rangelle to her advantage (Hahns, 1995) and the evidence that you have also point out Mew. This deep loyalty shows maybe even a level of love between Gawain and Arthur. Its interesting what we have seen this story is different to Wife of Bath’s Tale. We see that the female character Ragnelle is helping to show us the power of Chivalry and not so much of femininity. Its more about how if we stay true to our promises and beliefs even in the face of the unknown monster we will be rewarded.
ReplyDeleteI wonder Dose the hidden powers of women help keep men inline with their oaths and loyalties to each other? As a Husband I think my wife is a powerful force for me to maintain my oaths I wonder with Rangnelle as Gawain's wife and the reward of her becoming a beautiful woman will enhance Gawain's commitment to Chivalry. Just a thought, Mew are there stories like this in Thailand?
References
Hahn, T.(Ed.)(1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kallamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.
I must agree with the view of Hanh's essay as centering around the concept of chivalry and also, extended upon that, how important loyalty is. In today's times, chivalry is such a treasured, yet sometimes forgotten, practice. Of course, in medieval times, chivalry was what identified the "ideal knight". In this story, Gawain virtually epitomises the chivalrous knight. He upholds his vows as a knight by being (exceptionally) loyal to his King Arthur, and later on to his wife, Dame Ragnell.
DeleteMew pointed out, "I wonder if there was an issue of lords or knights not fulfilling their oaths and promises and end up being bad guys" - I personally believe that not upholding an oath or vow in medieval times would bring great shame and ruin a knight's (or any man's) reputation.
Throughout the entire story which I've also read from Breeden (n.d.), Gawain consistently talks about and executes his deep loyalty for Arthur. One example that greatly stood out to me was when Gawain volunteered himself to marry Dame Ragnell without even hearing Arthur's request (which was for Gawain to marry Ragnell anyway). This shows how deep Gawain's loyalty and love for his king is. Also when Arthur says "I am at the point of killing myself, for I would be better off dead" and Gawain immediately replies "No, that must not be. I would rather be dead myself" (Hanh, 1995). Actually, some people might even question how deep Gawain's love is for Arthur. Throughout the story Gawain continuously gives off these vibes of definitely more-than-platonic feelings for Arthur. However, this can be easily disputed when we see his interactions later on with Dame Ragnell. Maybe this story was showing how important loyalty is to the point where it can be equal to marital love (i.e., Gawain's knighthood in contrast with Gawain's marriage).
References
Breeden, D. (n.d.). The wedding of sir Gawain and dame Ragnell. Retrieved
April 9, 2014, from http://www.lone-star.net/mall/literature/gawain.htm
Hahn, T.(Ed.)(1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir
Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kallamazoo, Michigan: Medieval
Institute Publications.
Again, high quality debate here, improving as it is informed by your reading of other texts. A broader question here is, to what extent do we believe that 'context determines meaning' or, put another way, 'history is meaning' – how do we juggle that against claims of universality in any work of literature or art. Are there 'universal' messages in art, and is Chaucer therefore able to somehow transcend his historical period?
ReplyDeleteHi Nick!
ReplyDeleteI think it is very different angles. Due to having different historical and sociocultural background, Thai’s Tale seems to be reflected on our traditions in terms of inequality between two genders. What I means is that men are the most who hold the power and needs less helps from women, whereas women are put in the inferior position and need supports from men. Thus, men perhaps are the gender that uses power and force controlling over the women as a result of cultural bonding situation.
In addition, loyalty is very important to form an honorable man toward their King, country, family and themselves, so that bring men to the level of respectful from the society. They will choose to die instead of dishonor on their oaths. Thus, the men protagonist characteristic will act as a strong knight like Sir Gawain, but for the loyalty not the pressure of female hidden power who wants to take the advantage.
Cheers!
This has been an interesting debate to read amongst the group. And it will be too hard for me reply to all the posts and then I was wondering where to add my comment into the blog and so I just thought I shall add it at the end.
ReplyDeleteQuestion two: 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 name of the wife is “Alisoun, but she is better known as “The Wife of Bath.” (Carosone, 2014.) which I had no idea and I am not sure it was mentioned in the tale but I also found this tale to be long, I thought it would be shorter than what it was.
There are so many thoughts going round in my head and I am finding it ever so hard to articulate and write it all down into words and sentences that will make sense to everyone. My point of view changed several times and it seems to be ever changing and evolving every time I read something new which is quite a bother as I need to write it all down but I feel as though it might not make sense to you all so I shall try and use all the readings too.
Nick, Shell, Mew, Rose and Max bring up good points but for me to name them all would be a lot. But I shall add in their comments where I see fit.
So from the start I did think that Chaucer was a feminist just as Nick put it “to me Chaucer was without a doubt a Feminist” (para. 1.) just because of the way he wrote this tale and how I interpreted it after the 1st reading and also all the debate going on in class. Then Rose adds about women wanting power “I interpret the text as taking it one step further - past freedom, and into power.”(para. 2.) Which added more to my thinking that Chaucer is a feminist by giving the Queen this power so then I read the 1st post by Shell “I don't necessarily believe that Chaucer was a feminist because he doesn't explicitly show support for this.”(para. 1.) which then changes my mind and makes me read the text again to see her point of view then also Mike adds for everyone to read the critic by Susan Carter which opens up another door.
Then I decide to do a wider search on the Wife of Baths tale and Chaucer as a person and a writer and also find critics who talk about what they think about The Wife of Baths tale as Susan Carter and found out that many people believe that Chaucer is not a feminist too. Then after reading their critics I changed my point of view and believe there was a hidden message behind his writing such as, when one 1st reads his tale and thinks that Chaucer is a feminist but then you really have to read it more than once as things you did not notice on the 1st glance you notice it on the 2nd, 3rd time you read it and then you can start to see that Chaucer was just using the destabilization or gender roles in order to catch people’s attention on this tale and it was very successful “The Wife of Bath is one of Chaucer’s most enduring characters, and rightly, one of the most famous of any of the Canterbury pilgrims” (GradeSaver, 2008.) as he got people to react to his tale and in his days it would be very controversial writing a tale like this. So I think it was more so to captivate the people’s attention. And get them involved in the tale.
I also did the extra readings outside the primary text using the secondary texts as our lecturers said, and also seeing the different point of views change as people read into the cretic by Carter and her view about Geoffrey Chaucer born “(c.1343-1400)” (Jokinen, 1996.). and he was only 57 years old. Then I read people writing down how their point of view has changed too, well not everyone, Shell was on the right track but needed more support from secondary text to be adamant that Chaucer was not a feminist.
Do I think Chaucer is a feminist NO! So that is me straight to the point.
ReplyDeleteBut the point I want to get at is what really annoys me and that no one has covered thus far, is that the story about the knight raping the girl? “The rapist not only saves his life but is also rewarded by the promise of that impossible being, an unfailingly beautiful, faithful, and obedient wife; the hag who gave him the answer, who had all the power, gives it up, and transforms herself into a Constance or Griselda” (Hansen, 1992.) So I do not understand how this story could be seen as Chaucer being a feminist when if you read the whole story you can see that from the start to the end the knight gets away with raping the girl? He gets married to an old hag who turns into the most beautiful faithful woman he could possibly think of. So he gets away with rape and lives happily ever after. No wonder a lot of critics think that Chaucer was not a feminist. “The rape, so inappropriate for a true hero, signals that Chaucer’s tale is more interested in gender power imbalance than in the qualities that make a good king.”(Cater, pg. 86)
But there are some signs that do lead on people to think that Chaucer is a feminist. There are elements that show women with power like in the Youtube video the wife of baths tale animated “Arthur gave him over to Guinevere, she should choose whether to save his blood or spill it.” (1:53-2:00.). And also the night that the knight and his wife are in bed he relinquishes his power to her “then have I gotten mastery of you,” she said, “since I may choose and govern as I please?” “Yes, certainly, wife,” he said, “I consider it best.” So now the wife has power over everything. So this can been seen that the women has the power but it is still a trick as he may have given his power to his wife but she in turn gives him exactly what he wants in return. So this can fool people thinking that Chaucer is a feminist.
At this point I focused on the significance of the water-lily and the girl. Watching the video to also proved that Chaucer was not a feminist. In the video the water-lily has some representation as you see the girl a virgin getting raped and holding on to the water-lily (1:44-46.) she picks from the river and with water-lilies they can represent “since this blossom represents chastity and purity of the heart and soul.” (Alphonse, 2011.) so then again in the court she is holding onto a withered water-lily (2:28.) to indicate that her innocence and purity have been taken away from her and then towards the end of the video when the knight has to marry the old hag you see the woman holding the water-lily again and watch it blossom (5:00-5:05.) in her hands as to show that she is finally at peace with what happened to her just because the night got married to an old hag, that just shows how The Wife of Baths Tale that Chaucer wrote was interpreted and shows he was not a feminist. This is about the girl raped by the knight and going unpunished for his crime or being punished to marry an old hug. How does this depict someone who is a feminist when the bad guy gets away? I went out on a random and watch the video as to show the significance of what I thought the story was about and I am more into visuals to help back up my findings, not sure if you all agree but like I said it is all in my head and I and I am just trying to articulate it all.
Geoffrey Chaucer was but just a writer wanting to write in my opinion, that’s what writers do, write for people to read and gain interest in their work, without readers there is no point in writing. But by writing this tale he had achieved so much fame.
Well not sure how you guys will interpret this but these are some of the point in my crazy mind. Sorry it is a late post and sorry it looks like my post has a lot of words but if I break it up into small parts it is not as much as my good mate Nick has written.
Cheers guy, Tamiana
“BELIEVE IT”
Hi Tamiana,
DeleteI agree with you while reading this the first time I thought that Chaucer is a feminine. I like how his story was evolved around the women but after reading it a few times I too stated to change my mind about him being a feminine.
I mean like you have mentioned above, that it seemed as if he is giving the women the advantage but reading further its almost as if he's making a mockery of women (you guy may disagree but this is my opinion) From the beginning the night has been given a choice. What I mean by this is at first he gets away with rape like you have mentioned and then he is given a chance to correct his mistake by asking around what is woman most desire.
Not only that at the end yes he did not have the chance to choose he was getting married to, but by the end of the day he got what he wanted at the end.
He got away with raping a innocent woman
Got given a chance to live,
and he ended up with a beautiful woman.
So you can see at the end the knight is the one that had the upper hand through out the whole tale.
Hi Tamiana,
DeleteGreat work sorry for not writing back sooner but the extra projects out side of uni are killing my time. Just one thing at the beginning you wrote the following "So I do not understand how this story could be seen as Chaucer being a feminist when if you read the whole story you can see that from the start to the end the knight gets away with raping the girl?" It got me thinking, could this be a way of Chaucer saying that even the knights who do rape and evil things in the name of England during this Historical period which was during the 100 year war with France. Can still be forgiven for what they have done. For they are Knights who conducted service for the land and their way of life is hard and difficult and we must forgive them.Thus perhaps the female side of our lives has that power to do so...?
Just a thought
Great stuff brother :)
Cheers Nick
Hi Nick,
DeleteThat’s cool bro, I totally understand what you mean about having other projects to do, so much work but only 24 hours in a day to fit it all in.
But wow that is interesting about the Knights, I had no idea about the war, very insightful thanks.
But then if that happened than would it not contradict what Knight stands for? "(in Europe in the Middle Ages) a man, usually of noble birth, who after an apprenticeship as page and squire was raised to honourable military rank and bound to chivalrous conduct." (Dictionary, n.d.) Or "a man upon whom the nonhereditary dignity of knighthood is conferred by a sovereign because of personal merit or for services rendered to the country." (Dictionary, n.d.) So then people just would not expect a Knight to do rape, crimes or any sort of evil. If they did then they are disobeying the order of the King who makes him a Knight, as a Knight stands for justice and so if they commit acts of crime they should be sentenced to death or striped of their title. So then a Knight would be no different than a peasant apart from that he would carry around a sword.
Cheers Nick for your post
Tamiana
"BELIEVE IT"
knight. (n.d.). The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knight
References:
ReplyDeleteAlphonse, M. (2011.). What does a Water Lily Symbolize?. Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-does-a-water-lily-symbolize.html
Carosone, M. (n.d.). Geoffrey Chaucer: Feminist Or Not?. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/657084/Geoffrey_Chaucer_Feminist_Or_Not
Carter, S. (2003.) Coupling the Beastly Bride and the Hunter Hunted: What lies behind Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale. Retrieved from The Chaucer Review.
Hansen, T. E. (1992.). Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender. Retrieved from http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft2s2004t2&brand=ucpress
Jekinen, A. (1996). Anthology of English Literature. Retrieved from http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/chaucer.htm
Msfostersenglishvids. (2012, November 15). The Wife of Bath’s Tale-animated.[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3cvOm7qStk
William, R. Chainani, S. ed. "The Canterbury Tales Study Guide : Summary and Analysis of The Wife of Bath's Tale". Retrieved from: http://www.gradesaver.com/the-canterbury-tales/study-guide/section7/ GradeSaver, 30 November 2008 Web. 10 April 2014.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi guys,
ReplyDeleteSorry my post is in 3 parts as I didn't know that the posts can only be a maximum of 4096 characters. Now I know and I hope you guys know now too.
Well that's my opinion up now.
Cheers Tamiana
"BELIEVE IT"
Question:
ReplyDeleteWhat does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
Elizabeth Tudor’s sudden rise to the English throne in 1558 challenged and disrupted notions of gender roles at that time (Preedy, 2009), she had become Elizabeth I. Early modern England was a patriarchal society of which the monarch’s control of the kingdom was compared to a father’s control of his household (Shuger, 1997). Despite her being teleported into a ‘man’s world, Elizabeth I exploited her physical femininity as a political tool, choosing to not marry and portraying herself as being an ‘unobtainable lady’. She was familiar with Elizabethans, which were inspired by the Petrachan sonnet tradition, which addressed an idealized sexually unavailable mistress, and encouraged her courtiers to compete for political favour by courting her in the language of love. For example, the ideological implications of this ‘eroticized politics’ can be perceived in verses of poets such as George Gascoigne, where courtly love poetry had reversed standard general roles, with the man becoming his beloved’s “servant” (Preedy, 2009). This instigated the paradigm shift of contemporary society and set the foundation needed for women’s ascension into a higher value within society.
Fast-forward a century and we witness texts such as “Triumphs of Female Wit” which defended the right of women to pursue learning and compose poetry (Revard, 1997). There was also, however, protests from male poets arguing against female rights. In 1656, Abraham Cowley invented a genre known as Pindaric ode, which is described as a poem in the manner of Pindar -being elaborately complex, rich in metaphor and intensely emotive language (Britannica, 2014). Aphra Behn, a leading poetess at the time was also a leading Pindarist and in the poem by a Mr H, the author denies Aphra Bhen (supposedly) the right to utilize the Pindarist genre in her works. Revard (1997) states that it is not rare for poets at that time to be arguing against women poets. This prompts one to believe that - with the rise of confidence of women poets in that era, has also been the rise in literary contest between the genders.
“We allow'd You Beauty, and we did submit
To all the Tyrannies of it;
Ah! Cruel Sex, will you depose us too in Wit?
Orinda does in that too raign,
Does Man behind her in Proud Triumph draw,
And Cancel great Apollo's Salick Law. “(1:1-6)
In this first ode by Cowley, whilst the two contests may appear to be a compliment; Revard states that it “limits the woman that it seems to praise, linking her wit to her beauty and confining her to a sphere where she is judged as a woman first and a poet second.”
With this in mind, we draw the conclusion that even after 53 years of Elizabeths I’s death, women poets are still judged on their contextually stereotypical physical beauty as opposed to the essence of their discourse.
“Haters gonna hate.”
References
Britannica. (2014, 04 09). Pindaric Ode. Retrieved 04 09, 2014, from Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/460888/Pindaric-ode
Preedy, C. K. (2009). "I Am No Woman, I" : Gender, sexuality, and Power in Elizabethan Erotic Verse. E-pisteme , 02 (02), 46 - 57.
Revard, S. (1997). Katherine Philips, Aphra Behn, and the Female Pindaric in Representing Women in Renaissance England. Columbia: University of Missouri Press , 123-133.
Shuger, D. K. (1997). Habits of thought in the English renaissance. Toronto: Buffalo.
Traub, V. (1992). Desire and Anxiety. London: Routledge.
6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
ReplyDeleteFrom the outset of Revard's article, there is already mention of the fact that women can't, or shouldn't be allowed to be poets. Already there is a clear correlation between language, power, and sex as "Mr H" heavily implys that poetry is something that is to be left to the men - even going so far as to single-out a specific form of a poetry that should especially not be undertaken by any woman. Revard notes that this is not uncommon for the era which already goes to show that certain men of the Renaissance period used (or tried to use) language as a means of emphasising their power over the opposite sex.
Even complimenting female poets couldn't be done without some form of backhanded put-down. The fact that "Mr. F" had to even raise certain questions in his poem indicates the difficulty men had accepting and praising a women as a poetic peer. For example, if a man were to contest with a woman in poetic performance and he were to lose, this would not only signify his loss at the time but also his lack of dominance in other areas. This is an excellent example of the correlation between, sex, language, power and transgression during the Renaissance period. Further to that, that is exactly what the 'Female Wit' poem argues:
"For should we understand as much as they,
They fear their Empire might decay.
For they know Women heretofore
Gain'd Victories, and envied Laurels wore:
And now they fear we'll once again
Ambitious be to reign
And to invade the Dominions of the Brain."
As Revard states, it is not a question of whether or not a man could like or admire a female's poetry, but would a man consider another woman his equal as a poet?
The relationship between, language, sex, power, and transgression during the Renaissance period is made clear throughout Revard's entire article. It would seem that Men used to use language and poetry as a way to undermine Women and dominate the literary world, and therefore the academic world. This would reinforce and emphasise male dominance in other areas of society as well such as sex and power. Transgression and popularity of the female poet during the English Renaissance served as a kind of reality-check for men who thought this way, and allowed, eventually, for women to be witty and poetic - even more so than some men - which I imagine would have been quite a blow for certain proud, strong men.