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?
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"...
ReplyDeleteThe wife of bath's tale (Chaucer) and The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell (Hahn) and how they both have similarities and differences within the two fables. Firstly, I would like to focus on the similarities in the conditions of the loathly lady portrayed in both stories. We see in both tales that the main character is a horrible looking woman.In some cases, almost beast like.
For example in 'The wife's bath tale' we hear of an ugly woman :
“There can no man imagine an uglier creature.” (999)
“For though I am ugly, and old, and poor,” (1063)
“his wife looked so ugly” (1082)
In the 'The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell:
“Her face was red, her nose running
Her mouth wide, her teeth all yellow.
Her eyes were bleary, as large as balls,
Her mouth just as large.
Her teeth hung out of her lips,
Her cheeks were as broad as a women’s hips.” (P.10).
Both describing an ugly woman. However I do find it interesting that Chaucer chooses to describe the woman as ugly and focusing on that word. Whereas when we look at Hahn's tale we are able to imagine who he is trying to describe. Descriptive words like wide, broad, hung, yellow and bleary to helps us imagine such unattractive women. Both tale's have the ugly woman as the main character however choose to describe her differently.
With the heroes/knights/kings in both tales, contrasting comparisons can be seen. We see in “The wife of Bath's tale” that the knight is very fixed on her ugliness and nothing else. He would rather give up all that he has in order to not marry the old poor woman. He is portrayed as a hugely selfish man. However in 'The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell’ ,The King is first seen meeting the ugly woman. He refuses to see her as he states "I moan. I am woebegone" (p.79). Yet he still proceeds in the asking of her name and telling her to have a good day. We get the impression of the kings role, doing his duties. We then meet the hero, an opposite of the knight in 'The wife's tale' as he says he will marry whomever to honour his king. This shows a selfless man as he is willing to give up his life (of happiness) for someone else.
Overall the two tales do have the same main characters, But very different heroes/knights/kings.
Chaucer,G. (c.1390)The Wife Of Bath. Critical Reader 2016
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 Jonah,
DeleteYou've done a great job of answering different points of the question and backing it up through phrases from the text, exploring the similarities of the women and the differences between the knights is also great. I think it would've been interesting to explore the ideas of why both the stories have these similarities and differences, such as why did they both show this same woman as ugly and undesirable? Perhaps at the time people only seeked looks and not personality/skill etc, and also with the differences of the knights/king in both stories, why was one of the regarded as a hero, what made the author decide to take that route for the story? Anyway great analysis!
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? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
ReplyDeleteThe wife of Baths tale has aspects of femininity. The story seems to centre around females and the affect they have on the main character, a male. First of all the story is set in King Arthur’s court, but his queen seems to be running things, along with her court ladies ‘And gave him to the queen, all at her will, To choose whether she would him save or put to death’ it also goes on to say ‘Very many a noble wife, and many a maid, And many a widow, because they are wise, The queen herself sitting as a justice’.
While the main character, a male ‘a lusty bachelor’ is searching for the answer to the Queens life or death question ‘What is it that women most desire’, by asking ladies all over the land. The answers seem to be in favour of what any women today would want today which is, to ‘love best, to be free and do just as we please’. Chaucer’s portrayal of the male character is also quite comedic, a mocking description ‘under his long hair, two ass’s ears, growing upon his head’ another dominant female, his wife, exposes this secret of his. In addition, the most important aspect of feminism seen in the story is the knight’s answer to the queen’s question. ‘Women desire to have sovereignty,as well over her husband as her love, And to be in mastery above him’.
Based on these findings alone I agree with the critics that believe Chaucer may have been a feminist. Feminists are all about female rights and an issue like rape is prominent in the feminist campaign for equal rights. Portrayed in the story, all the females band together to campaign against the knight for his barbaric act.
References:
Chaucer, G. The Wife of Baths Tale. Derived from AUTOnline.
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
ReplyDeleteBefore defining conceits in the context of analysing text; Conceits are an ingenious or fanciful comparison or metaphor. The use of conceits were a defining feature of Elizabethan poetry. These were developed in the 17th century by English lyricists, who desired a more intellectual discourse. Abrams (1993) defines conceits as 'metaphors that are intricately woven into the verse, often used to express satire, puns or deeper meaning.' John Dunne (The flea), Andrew Marvell (To his coy mistress) and even Shakespeare himself commonly used conceits in their poems.
A conceit can be seen in the first line of Spensers sonnet, “Ice and Fire”, which reads "my love is like to ice, and I to fire". The conceit here is that Spenser is using the opposing forces of ice and fire as a metaphor of his and his love's desire. If we break down the line and the metaphor we can see that when it comes to desire- the strong and passionate is generally related to heat and the colour red, so he is saying that his desire for this woman is like fire- strong and unyielding. On the opposite side he says that the woman is like ice, meaning she has no desire for him, because when someone expresses no interest or opposition that person is described as cold and distant.
When we look at poetry, or a text that use metaphors and other literary devices, we need to look at language itself and first think of what we know about language itself in order to deconstruct a text.
The simpler definition of conceit is that it is just an extended metaphor. A conceit can be introduced in the beginning of a sonnet and used throughout the rest of the poem. Going back to the "Fire and Ice" sonnet, that comparison of love and those elements start in the first line and run through the whole poem. All of the sonnets that are in the critical reader have some sort of metaphor or at least simile, so conceits are very common poetry and effective at projecting more meaning into something. As Kathleen Lea (1925) stated, "to conceive of a conceit the imagination must be in a partial state of excitement". With this we can think of metaphors as not only being another way of describing something but as an elevated view of that subject.
References:
Abrams, M.(1993). The Norton Anthology of English Literature/ New York: Norton and Company inc.
Alden, R. (1920). The lyrical conceits of the "metaphysical poets". Studies In Philology, 17(2). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4171771?seq=13.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Jonah, this was a really interesting read... especially when you explained the conceit of ice and fire in comparison to desire and love. It's rather poetic the way you've put it and certainly gives an image to appreciate and maybe for an audience to relate to as well. Great work!
Delete2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
ReplyDeleteCRITICS AND THEIR BELIEFS:
There’s a mixed view among critics on the Wife of Bath’s Tale on whether or not Chaucer was a feminist but it seems that there’s a prominent presence and argument behind the idea that he was. There are two aspects of the story I’ve read critics focus on: first is the Wife of Bath herself and second is the story told by her.
The Wife of Bath is, arguably, a clear feminist based on how she acts and what she speaks about. She’s honest and open even as she remains steadfast to the bible using King Soloman as her model for such behaviour in marriage; as she says, ‘Lo, here the wise king, dan Salomon; I believe he had wives more than one. As would God it were lawful unto me to be refreshed half so often as he! … Blessed be God that I have wedded five!’ She’s shameless in finding her own happiness, boisterous in the way she would move from husband to husband: ‘Welcome the sixth, whenever he shall appear. For truly, I will not keep myself chaste in everything.’ This indicates she won’t stop herself from pursuing her own pleasure and unions.
This portrayal is feministic, perhaps in the Middle Ages given the rigid idea of a woman’s place in the world compared to a man’s, in the way that she pays no mind to the expectations laid upon her by men or society. She goes against the meek idea of a wife and woman and boldly pursues what she wants in a show of independence and decision-making.
The tale told by the Wife of Bath focuses on a man that rapes a woman and, by the end of it, he learns what it is a woman desires most in the world and is married happily to a beautiful lady. Elaine Tuttle Hansen is one of the critics that views it as concerning that a knight who’s committed such an atrocity is, in the end, rewarded with a happy life. While the journey is important, the end result doesn’t seem satisfactory since the punishment doesn’t seem to quite fit the crime.
PERSONAL VIEW:
I personally think Chaucer may have had a specific view on what a feminist may act and be like but wasn’t necessarily a feminist himself. This is because of what happened in the tale. While there is a feminist presence, it doesn’t entirely feel as if the man who committed the crime didn’t quite get what he deserved. The story emphasises the importance of giving a woman or wife a choice but it seems tailored to the man learning a lesson instead of giving him the punishment he should’ve gotten. Maybe Chaucer has a different idea of representing feminism, if that was indeed the intention at all, but to have a man who raped a woman only have to learn a lesson in the end and get a gracious reward for doing so doesn’t seem like it would be justice to the woman who suffered in the first place.
REFERENCES:
Deletehttp://www.writersalon.com/literary_criticism/pseudo-feminism-in-the-canterbury-tales
http://www.academia.edu/657084/Geoffrey_Chaucer_Feminist_Or_Not
https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/teachslf/wbt-par.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqSOUU29c-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDnEDmFnz8o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3cvOm7qStk
Hey Erika,
DeleteThis is a very well thought out answer. Great to see you using references to back up your claim. Good use of quotes too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi erika, firstly I agree with you on the knight not really being punished, it seemed like he got to travel the 'world' for a year and then came home to a beautiful wife, when all he did was rape a woman. Maybe our idea of feminism was quite different to their idea from their time, I think it could be possible that the story is told in a feminist way; such as the story explores what women want, and I think that readers will agree with the knights answer about 'sovereignty and power over men' and so therefore it empowers women and puts them on a kind of pedestal. i've also been thinking, because the time it was set in, people weren't quite civilized back then as we are now, and men specifically most likely acted liked animals (like in the tale), so maybe Chaucer gave the knight who did a horrible deed a happy ending so that men (who also acted badly) would hear the tale and relate to it, therefore treating women more fair. Just i thought i had lol, great post!
Delete1. Cite some variation 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/”her”…
ReplyDeleteAcross the multiple ‘Wife of Bath Tale’ variations, the main characters including the Loathly Lady, the Knight and The King all have similarities and differences which are explored by Geoffrey Chaucer and Thomas Hahn.
In Chaucer’s ‘The Wife of Bath’ tale, the Loathly Lady is first physically described on line 999: ‘A fouler wight ther may no man devyse.’, she is the ugliest creature imaginable. However previous to this on lines 992 – 994, the knight sees something else before this foul physical appearance is shown:
992: Of ladyes foure and twenty, and yet mo;
993: Toward the whiche daunce he drow ful yerne,
994: In hope that som wysdom sholde he lerne.
The knight sees ‘four and twenty women’ dancing around on his way back, as he becomes curious to what’s going on they disappear and transform into the old hag. Finally, at the end the Loathly Lady’s transformation is concluded when the knight gives her power in the relationship at the end of the story on line 1251: “That she so was beautiful, and so young moreover”. This transition of the Loathly Lady is only through physical appearance and described from the knight’s point of view, however the Loathly Lady throughout the story has the same consistent personality and views.
In Hahn’s ‘II. King Arthur meets a really ugly woman’, there are obvious similarities and the same theme of physical appearance dominates the characteristics of the Loathly Lady; “Her face was red, her nose running, Her mouth wide, her teeth all yellow. Her eyes were bleary, as large as balls, Her mouth just as large. Her teeth hung out of her lips, Her cheeks were as broad as a woman's hips. He back was as curved as a lute. Her neck was long and also thick. Her hair clotted in a heap.” (Pg. 72). I think that during the time of this story’s release, around the 1380s – 1390s for the Wife of Bath tale’ and later on in 1995 for ‘The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle’, there seems to be a focus on physical appearance which maybe at the time for the Wife of Bath tale’ was the thing people most valued and searched for (desire and looks in a companion), which is still a valid theme leading all the way up to the 1990s.
I find the viewpoint (POV) in these texts equally as important which is through the men (the knight and King Arthur) and although the view of the woman (Loathly Lady) is the same, there is a great variation of the Knight and his actions in both tales.
In the Wife of Baths tale, The Knight is shamed and put on trial for raping a woman. In the wedding of Sir Gawain, the knight is a hero who throws his life down to marry the wicked woman to save King Arthur. Straight away the variation here shows that each story is on completely different sides of the spectrum. This viewpoint of Sir Gawain being the hero was done purposefully; ‘I shall wed her and wed her again, Even if she be a fiend. Even were she as foul as Beelzebub, I would wed here, I swear by the cross. Otherwise, I wouldn't be your friend. You are my honored king…’ (Pg. 75). The knight is seen doing his honourable duty to serve his king through any deed because he is commanded of it, this makes him seen as a hero and a role model who has the kings gratitude.
However, in the wife of baths tale, the opposite happens and the knight rapes and woman:
ReplyDelete888: By verray force, he rafte hire maydenhed
889 For which oppressioun was swich clamour
He is a criminal and sick person who has committed a horrific crime and is sent out on probation to pay for his crime through trying to answer a riddle. This knight however goes on a journey which we can see as a possible answer to celebrate woman altogher, and that they’re not just pets that want one thing, but instead delicate beings that have many wants and desires depending on their situations. All throughout the story he is seen as a coward, but the viewers are still watching to see if he finds an answer and survives his mission. This is possibly because he becomes the underdog fighting against the power, unlike in the other tale, where he is sucking up to the power. I think that in this variation, we are tricked because as he approaches the Loathly lady who appears hideous to him, we feel bad that he has to marry her, when in fact he didn’t deserve the loathly lady, yes his views towards women in general had changed at the end but at what cost? The taking of a woman’s maidenhood by force which people seem to forget by the end of the story and the rejection of a hag’s physical appearance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3cvOm7qStk
Hi Anthony,
DeleteI agree with your comments here, I feel as though as an audience we shouldn't be on the side of the knight in this story and we shouldn't forget what he has done to get himself into this position in the first place.
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.
ReplyDelete:
While I don't necessarily believe that Geoffrey Chaucer was a clear cut feminist, I do agree that he was at the very least dancing with ideas of feminism and a woman's role in the world beyond just a bride, mother, and maid. Chaucer does show through the text his ideals that women should be more than just glorified property, that they too have desires and should be allowed to express this themselves. This is expressed through the character of ‘The Wife’ as she “desires to bring men and women to a more balanced level of power.” (Blake, 1994)
However, my main issue with this point regarding Chaucer being a feminist is an excerpt from near the end of the text that states;
“For joy he clasped her in his two arms.
His heart bathed in a bath of bliss.
A thousand time in a row he did her kiss,
And she obeyed him in everything
That might do him pleasure or enjoyment.”
This section, in my opinion, overrides the notion that he may be a feminist. Chaucer spends the whole tale describing the efforts of the knight, who had previously raped a woman, attempting to redeem himself by discovering what it is that women want only to end the tale with the knight having a happy ending, finding a woman that obeys his every command. It is somewhat implied, at least under my impression, that this woman was happy to be in a marriage where she was obeying his commands. So there is a hint of she is doing this because she wants to, but overall I would disagree that this text is overtly feminist.
http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/jblake.htm
https://blackboard.aut.ac.nz/bbcswebdav/pid-4392329-dt-content-rid-6652318_4/institution/Papers/ENGL600/Publish/Desire_Critical%20Reader_2014.pdf
Hey Samuel, you present a great argument here about why Chaucer might not be a feminist and I agree with pretty much all of it. The verses that you present as an example at the end of the text also mostly depicts what the knight feels towards this entire thing and, while it may be from wholly his POV, there aren't a lot of hints as to how she's feeling. He's joyous but she seems wholly subservient to him in the end which is... questionable considering his deeds in the first place.
DeleteGreat answer though, you've made great points! :D
5. Discuss what you think is the most striking or outrageous example.
ReplyDelete:
To me personally, I find the most outrageous example is King Arthur Meets A Really Ugly Woman. While the overall story isn’t dissimilar to the other texts, this tale of King Arthur is incredibly blunt and I find the extended description of the hideous woman to be a standout amongst other texts. Other pieces such as The Wife of Bath’s Tale retain a formality of Old English in their modern day translation, but I find King Arthur to be so incredibly striking with it’s language and description of the hideous woman compared to the rest of the story. For instance when we read the lines;
“I will wed her at the time you set.
I pray you worry no more.
Though she be the foulest person
That ever has been seen on earth,
For you I will not hesitate.”
These lines have a flair of old england that you would come to expect when reading a text from this era, but what astounds me is the simplicity of the next lines;
“Her face was red, her nose running.
Her mouth wide, her teeth all yellow.
Her eyes were bleary, as large as balls,
Her mouth just as large.”
This style continues throughout the description, and I think this way of writing is used with intent. The writer is using simple, plain language to describe this woman, they are using no incredible metaphors, or intricate similes, just describing her blunt hideousness.
https://blackboard.aut.ac.nz/bbcswebdav/pid-4392329-dt-content-rid-6652318_4/institution/Papers/ENGL600/Publish/Desire_Critical%20Reader_2014.pdf
Hey Sam,
DeleteI also found it interesting that there was no poetic explanation to describe such a hideous woman. However, in its own sense I do feel it was a painful and disgusting encounter. Maybe poetic in its own sense. This type of language is not spoken in everyday language, so do I feel it has great descriptions despite what its talking about.