Please use the comments section below for your answers.
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?
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.
ReplyDelete‘The Wife of Bath’s Tale’ (Chaucer, n.d.), included in Geoffrey Chaucer’s ‘Canterbury Tales’, is a well-known middle age story that has become a site of discussion among academics. It is comprised of the Wife of Bath’s prologue and following that, the tale itself. For the purpose of this question, we will only be focusing on the tale.
At the core of the discussions relating to The Wife of Bath’s Tale, is feminism. Many critics have analysed the story and come to believe that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Susan Carter, a senior lecturer at Auckland University, is a strong believer in this. She states that “The wife’s tale is centrally about liberation from gender role restriction.” (Carter, 2003). Furthermore, she believes that the destabilisation of gender was Chaucer’s intention and on that basis, he was a feminist of his time (Carter, 2003). Her reasoning for this is as follows.
Firstly, she perceives the setting of the forest and the setting of the court as places of feminine power (Carter, 2003). In earlier versions of the loathly lady motif, there is usually a clear distinction between the two. The old hag is able to flourish within the forest, because it is outside of society’s perimeters (Carter, 2003). However, she usually cannot maintain power in the court setting, because the court is dominated by men and within society (Carter, 2003).
Chaucer however, as Susan explains it, destabilises the patriarchy of the court by granting the Queen and her maidens with the power to sentence the knight who has sinned (Carter, 2003). She believes that this transferral of masculine power is a clear example of Chaucer’s feminist beliefs (Carter, 2003). She then goes on with her analysis, paying attention to the way in which the old hag ensnares the knight. She uses the illusion of dancing naked woman to draw the knight into the depths of the forest and into her vicinity. According to Carter, this reverses the traditional law of loathly lady tales, by making the woman the hunter and the man the hunted (Carter, 2003).
Although I can appreciate Carter’s feminist analysis of this tale, I do not agree with. Firstly, it is useful to define what feminism actually is. According to Merriam-Webster, feminism is “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” (feminism, n.d.). I cannot see this definition within the text. I can see what Carter is describing, but not the feminist label that she attaches to it. At the core of this tale is sovereignty. The knight learns that what women desire the most is “sovereignty” (Chaucer, n.d.). However, sovereignty is defined as supreme power or authority (Dictionary.com, n.d.). The women in his story therefore desire ultimate power which completely destroys the idea of feminism, which is supposed to be an attempt at gender equality. It could therefore be argued that Chaucer is presenting an extreme matriarchal reality, not an equal one.
Good clear argument here, but get hooked on the technical definition of feminism. I like the term proto-feminist, or throw it out altogether and just talk about a sense of sympathy. Then other elements come into play, such as the radical move of writing his tale from a female point of view, and putting women at the centre of the action.
DeleteI completely understand what you mean by a 'proto-feminist' and agree that in those days, it was possible to be one; you could definitely sympathise with the hardships of women. However, in this case, I still don't believe Chaucer was trying to communicate any kind of sympathy towards women.
DeleteI do agree that it was very progressive of him to place the narrative in the mouth of a woman but I don't think he did it to empower women. In fact, I think he did it to further humiliate them. By giving them the narrative and disempowering them within that same narrative, he is showing that they condone their own subordinate position within society.
Furthermore, other critics have noted that the tale is in fact anti-feminist. At the core of this observation, is how the tale shows that women “can neither handle nor maintain power.” (Crump, 2015). This is exemplified in the hag’s decision to the ultimately please her husband, by giving him the decision for her to either be “ugly” and “humble” or “young” and unfaithful (Chaucer, n.d.). She then concludes with “Now choose yourself, whichever you please.” (Chaucer, n.d.). She essentially grants the man with the power to change her form and in this moment, the text becomes undoubtedly anti-feminist (Crump, 2015).
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think it is impossible to grant Chaucer with a feminist title, obviously because feminism did not exist as it now does in the 14th century and also because of the overtly anti-feminist themes. I think it’s also interesting to note that the women in the story were only made powerful by the men. The King gave her power to the Queen and the old hag took her power from the knight. If these women can only find empowerment through men, then how can this text ever be considered as feminist?
References:
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.
Chaucer, G. (n.d.). The Wife of Bath's Tale.
Crump, A. (2015). A HISTORY OF MISOGYNY: A FEMINIST ANALYSIS OF THE WIFE OF BATH’S TALE. Retrieved March 27, 2017, from http://www.academymonthly.com/essays/2015/10/27/a-history-of-misogyny-a-feminist-analysis-of-the-wife-of-baths-tale
feminism. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved March 27, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
sovereignty. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com unabridged. Retrieved March, 27, 2017, from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sovereignty
Yes, sovereignty was dispensed by the king for the limited purpose of the exercise. No real challenge to male authority.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHahn’s essay 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?
DeleteThe motif of the Loathly Lady has pervaded medieval romance literature, most notably with Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Wife of Bath’s Tale (n.d.). The plot has been retold in numerous different European stories, yet with same underlining premise: An unattractive lady, who, in exchange for helping a knight, behests of him a sexual favour, and is then transformed into a beautiful woman (Hahn, 1995).
A number of scholars have sought to define the motif’s purpose throughout its various iterations. Susan Carter (2003), for example, argues that its use in The Wife of Bath’s Tale (Chaucer, n.d.) illustrates the idea that female happiness is obtained through ‘sovereignty’: “She is authoritative; she controls the medium of language. Feminine, she commands the masculine…[she] confounds gender role restriction…her will must be done” (p. 340).
Conversely, the motif of the Loathly Lady, as observed by Hahn (1995), in The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle (Wedding), would seem to serve a different purpose.
Hahn (1995) begins by identifying the motif’s commonality and popularity in folktales, fairy tales and more ‘polished literature’, such as that of Geoffrey Chaucer’s and John Gower’s renditions. He notes there are differences, however, between the Old Irish version and the late medieval English versions. The former centred on rewarding the hero with ‘kingship, or political dominance’. While the latter set itself on exploiting the ‘domestic environment of personal love characteristic of romance’ (Hahn, 1995).
It is within this latter setting that Hahn (1995) believes Wedding’s true function lies. But, rather than asserting the feminine, Hahn (1995) claims that Wedding explores the ties of chivalry between the men of the story; Dame Ragnelle is merely the link between them. She “serves the interests of the male chivalric society…and makes possible the fraternal and hierarchical bonds of chivalric solidarity” (p. 99). The success of Gawain and Arthur are dependent on Dame Ragnelle’s mediation and peace-weaving (Hahn, 1995).
This post is continued below.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Hahn’s (1995) view, the central concern is how the unknown, or threatening, is brought into line with idealised chivalric society. At the core of that, is how a person should be judged. In this way, the ‘romance’ of the story is structured so that civility and courtesy prevail (Hahn, 1995).
ReplyDeleteIt begins with Sir Gromer, who, appearing out of the midst of the forest behaves in ways that affront ‘knightly protocols’ (Hahn, 1995). He threatens Arthur in the middle of a hunt – a formal and ceremonial ritual for aristocrats and noblemen (Hahn, 1995) – by approaching him in full armour, demanding the return of his confiscated land. Arthur is to return in one year’s time to deliver the answer to Sir Gromer’s question: “Shewe me…whate wemen love best in feld and town” (Hahn Ed., line 91, 1995). Once Arthur has sworn his oath, he is bound to abide by it. This initiates the first of many oaths between the men of the story. The text is abound with them – enforcing the notion of chivalry and retaining one’s honour by keeping their word (Hahn, 1995).
Out of loyalty, Gawain accompanies Arthur to help find the answer to Gromer’s question. Arthur then encounters Dame Ragnelle, who, in exchange for the answer, requires Gawain’s hand in marriage. Gawain’s compliance to Arthur is motivated out of fealty for his King (Hahn, 1995). Arthur, in keeping his oath with Sir Gromer, rides out to deliver the answer.
When Dame Ragnelle is brought to the aristocratic court she represents a threat to aristocratic norms due to her looks and manners; she is cast as a social outsider. It is her possession of these qualities by the end, along with a good man that fill her heart’s desire that certifies her as a beautiful lady; not looks alone (Hahn, 1995).
Later, in the bedroom, Gawain hands the decision over to Dame Ragnelle to choose how she wishes to be transformed. This selfless act is seen as a noble and chivalrous one, for which Gawain is renowned (Hahn, 1995). Gawain inadvertently breaks the spell of the loathly lady, by vesting her with the power to choose. In this context, sovereignty could be taken to mean a lady’s power of choice, rather than marital domination of one sex over the other. Dame Ragnelle is then transformed, and thus, the original threat of disruption posed by her to Arthur’s court is neutralised (Hahn, 1995).
In this sense, the tale works “to bring about what everyone wanted…with everyone established in her or his proper place…restoring customary mutuality and hierarchy” (Hahn, p. 99, 1995).
Though Hahn’s (1995) view of Wedding has not come without criticism. Bovaird-Abbo (2013) claims that Hahn’s (1995) observations of the loathly lady motif implies he treats it as a ‘simplified, inferior assessment in that it offers little discuss’ when compared to other versions. Alternatively, Carter (2001), would tend to agree with Hahn (1995) on this point on The Wedding; arguing it is one of the few loathly lady stories that ‘centre on the men of then story’.
It is clear from his essay, that Hahn's (1995) treatment of the Wedding asserts the men in the story, rather than the feminine. His sounds analysis and incorporation of direct references asserts the themes of honor and male chivalrous bonding.
References:
Bovaird-Abbo, K. (2013) “Alison's Antithesis in The wedding of sir Gawain." In Medieval Feminist Forum, 49(2): 29–69.
Carter, S. (2001). Willing shape-shifters: The loathly lady from Irish sovranty to Spenser’s Duessa. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11 (4), 406-417.
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, 37(4).
Chaucer, G. (n.d.). The Wife of Bath's Tale.
Hahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The wedding of sir Gawain and dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven romances and tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.
This is a very comprehensive answer. When reading ‘The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle’ (1995), I did feel as if the old woman was merely an additive to the men's story. That being said, I would have to agree with the rigidity of Hanh’s analysis. It is difficult to definitively conclude that Dame Ragnelle was an instrument to the success of men.
DeleteAs Carter (2003) discovered in Chaucer’s ‘The Wife of Bath’s Tale’ (Chaucer, n.d.), there are feminist elements to the Loathly Lady motif. For instance, the old woman manages to destabilise the patriarchy of the court (Carter, 2003). However, as I have already discussed, the likelihood of Chaucer being a feminist, or even a proto-feminist, is unlikely.
In the case of ‘The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle’ (1995), as Hanh discusses in his essay, it is also unlikely that the poet was feminist. However, I don’t think it is impossible. Just like Carter proved, feminism can be found within the Loathly Lady motif when looking through a certain lens. Just because neither ‘The Wife of Bath’s Tale’ and ‘The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle’, were intended to be feminist, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t feminist. If you disregard the context in which both pieces were written, as Carter believes, feminism can be found.
On this basis, I think it is useful to consider both the intentional and non-intentional instances of feminism, which is what Hanh (1995) failed to do.
References:
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, 37(4).
Chaucer, G. (n.d.). The Wife of Bath's Tale.
Hahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The wedding of sir Gawain and dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven romances and tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.
In response to your comment, Thorne:
DeleteHahn’s (1995) assertions may represent his subjective view, though they are not unqualified. When compared with other representations of the loathly lady, Wedding is more subdued in its advocacy of female sovereignty. Though Hahn (1995) does not say this outright, he certainly implies it by concentrating his discussion on the aspects of the story that centre on male bonding (as discussed above). Perhaps in this way, he negates the need for a feminist discussion.
Of course, as you mention, if one looks, one could find instances of feminism, as Carter (2003) has. But perhaps the real difference between the motifs in the two stories lies in the characterisation of their respective protagonists. In Bath’s Tale, the Knight commits a most dishonourable and immoral act. This is contrary to the values and virtues that earned him the title in the first place. By committing such an act, he sets himself up for the journey he embarks on. The events unfold in a way that make the story act as a moral lesson (Bovaird-Abbo, 2013). On the other hand, in Wedding, Gawain willing submits himself to the will of his King and Ragnelle. He exemplifies the virtues that made him a Knight, removing the need to assert sovereignty in the sense described by Carter (2003).
It is difficult to categorically state whether or not the authors were feminists, proto-feminists, or neither. I agree that the former seems unlikely. However, one could look at the differences in the texts as an attempt by the authors to change attitudes among English gentry towards woman (Bovaird-Abbo, 2013). Then again, they could just be mere entertainment.
References:
Bovaird-Abbo, K. (2013) “Alison's Antithesis in The wedding of sir Gawain." In Medieval Feminist Forum, 49(2): 29–69.
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, 37(4).
Hahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The wedding of sir Gawain and dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven romances and tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.
Hi David and Thorne,
DeleteWell discussed. I found 'Wedding' to be more sceptical of women, with an edge of sarcasm. Much more obviously ironic than 'Wife'.
2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why migh2. 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.
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey Chaucer is one of the most important literary figures of the Middle Ages. He is most famous for his work the Canterbury Tales which is often used as evidence that Chaucer was a sort of proto-feminist.
Chaucer’s work, which is a collection of stories, consists of characters from all classes of the time. Chaucer’s characters take part in a storytelling contest while going on the pilgrimage (Vural, 2012). Among them, the Wife of Bath is an outstanding woman who seems not to be a typical figure in the medieval times. The wife is an experienced female who has five husbands and demands her marital rights openly. Moreover, she compares herself with men who are superior in the society. While defending herself, she appears as a living example of anti-feminist tradition as she has all the qualities that a woman should not have according to the patriarchal discourse. On the one hand, the outspoken woman tries to justify her life with her open and forward speeches. On the other hand, she questions the general teaching of the church and the society. (Vural, 2012)
Three pilgrims who are women are actually given voice in the Tales: the Wife of Bath, the Prioress, and the Second Nun – at a time when women were still expected largely to be silent. A number of the tales narrated by men in the collection also feature female characters or ponderings about women. While the Wife of Bath ignores the authority, she defends her rights and even deconstructs the Christian doctrine. In her prologue and tale, she is able to triumph over discourses and portrays herself as a dominant figure.
Due to the fact that Chaucer’s work was intended to comment on the flawed social development and the destruction of his coveted ideals for European society (Green).
Critics have been trying to point out that the women narrators are more complex characters than the greater part of the men narrators are. While there are less women than men on the journey, they're portrayed, in any event on the journey, as having a sort of balance with each other. (Lewis, 2017)
In addition, in the stories described by male characters, women are not taunted as they were in a great part of the literature of the day. A few stories portray male behaviours towards women that are unsafe to ladies like knights and so on. The stories that portray a perfect of temperate ladies depict outlandish beliefs. It is fairly level, shortsighted and narcissistic types. A couple others, including no less than two of the three female storytellers, are distinctive. (Lewis, 2017)
Women in the Tales have traditional roles: they’re wives and mothers. But they are also persons with hopes and dreams, and criticisms of the limits placed upon them by society. They’re not feminists in the sense that they critique the limits on women in general and propose equality socially, economically or politically, or are in any way part of a larger movement for change. But they do express discomfort with the roles in which they are placed by conventions, and they want more than just a small adjustment in their own lives in the present. (Lewis, 2017)
Some people tend to translate characters (particularly one as dearest as The Wife of Bath’s Tale) in a way that suits. In any case, it is just absurd to expect that she is a feminist, or intended to speak to women's liberation since Chaucer planned her to fill in for instance of what women ought not do or be, in both a social and religious setting. She is not an appropriate, docile spouse, in fact, she "boasts, for instance, of her traditionally feminine powers to lie and deceive and manipulate men". The Wife of Bath is strange and out of time in both the Medieval Period and the approaching Renaissance era. Until the approach of genuine feminism, it is improbable that she would have ever been cherished and venerated to the degree she is today.
DeleteI think people misinterpret Chaucer as a feminist because of the way his writing represents for medieval woman. The way he wrote his poem using a female voice ( ‘we’ to express a woman being asked) and that woman wants to be acknowledged. I can see why people think he’s a feminist but I might agree on Chaucer being a feminist.
Reference.
Chaucer, G. & Nevill C. The Canterbury Tales. London: Penguin, 2003. Print.
Lewis, J. J. (2017) Geoffrey Chaucer: Early Feminist. Retrieved from:https://www.thoughtco.com/geoffrey-chaucer-early-feminist-3529684
Vural, K. (2012), A Feminist of the Medieval Times: Chaucer’s Wife of Bath in The Canterbury Tales. Retrieved from: http://www.medievalists.net/2012/08/a-feminist-of-the-medieval-times-chaucers-wife-of-bath-in-the-canterbury-tales/
Green, L. (n.d.), Pseudo-Feminism in The Canterbury Tales
. Retireved from: http://www.writersalon.com/literary_criticism/pseudo-feminism-in-the-canterbury-tales
Hi Geoffrey,
ReplyDeleteYou make some very good and valid points here, some of which I agree with. However, some paragraphs closely resembles links that I also read when researching the topic. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with paraphrasing, but it might be good practise to “quote” some sentences and credit the author - especially if it is their words and ideas.
That being said, I was interested in your mentioning that the Wife of Bath ‘deconstructs the Christian doctrine’. I was wondering in what way you feel she does this, and if there are any examples from the text to support this view? I could certainly see this from the prologue, where she is distastefully described. In this sense, she may be someone that affronts the normal Christian views of how a respectful woman is expected to behave.
In addition, you state that the women in the journey are portrayed as having a sort of balance with the men. Do you mean the women in Bath’s Tale, or in general in the Canterbury Tales?
I would disagree with you that Wife of Bath exhibits signs of an anti-feminist. An anti-feminist is someone who is opposed to feminism (advocacy of women’s rights and equality among the sexes). As you point out, she compares herself to men who are superior to her and is openly forward in demanding marital rights. These actions alone would indicate that she does not feel bound by the traditional subservient roles women played in Chaucer’s time. This would seem to indicate that she considers herself to be on equal footing with men, regardless of her (and their) position in society. This is the point Carter (2003) was making about her having command of the masculine: “She is authoritative…[and] confounds gender role restriction” (p. 340). By Wife of Bath challenging the normal constructs of the roles women and men played in medieval times, I believe Chaucer is subliminally challenging the reader to deconstruct their own perceptions of gender roles in society. He may not have necessarily been advocating a proto-feminist position, yet he certainly left it open for readers to reflect on society's expectations and attitudes towards gender roles and positioning.
References:
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, 37(4).