2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
3.Hahn's essay (see critical reader)onThe Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle identifies the motif of the loathly lady, but arguesit has a different purpose than asserting the feminine. What does he think the function of the story is?
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
5. Discuss what you think is the most striking or outrageous example.
6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
I agree that Chaucer may have been a feminist and from my perspective we can see one of examples from the part of the story 'The Wife of Bath's Tale' where "And gave him to the queen, all at her will, To choose whether she would him save or put to death." And again, the queen gave the knight a quest and that was a kind of question 'what women most desire'. Then he came up with the answer "Women desire to have sovereignty As well over her husband as her love, And to be in mastery above him." These evidences are all sort of related to women and this is why I agree with that Chaucer might have been a feminist.
ReplyDeleteAt the outset, it seems as though Chaucer is a feminist as argued by Sigmund Eisner (1957, p. 45), he suggests that the work of Chaucer portrayed males as ‘lustful’ and immoral with the following phrases:
Delete“Of which mayde anon, maugree hir heed,
By verray force, he rafte hire maydenhed” (Chaucer, 1987, pp. III (D) 887-888)
Furthermore, Eisner explicitly states that the queen bequeathed the final sentence over-ruling the King’s original death sentence (Eisner, 1957, pp. 46-47). The chief proof, according to Eisner, is the fact that none of stories in ‘The Canterbury Tales’ contains even a single male “hero”, and that all of the stories, specially ‘The Wife of Bath’, were centred predominantly around female characters (Eisner, 1957, pp. 12,64).
Whilst the wife of Bath attempts to flaunt her sexuality in the story as a manoeuvre to gain domination over men, in reality, the story demonstrates that women “aspire” to gain domination or reign sovereign over their male counterparts, which indicates that they did not have control from the start. It was indeed a failed shot at feminism.
Likewise, when the knight bestowed the decision of whether the old woman should change or remain old, she chose to be beautiful and in her own words, “unfaithful”, which is ultimately an antifeminist belief.
Verdict: I believe there is no feminism in Chaucers poem and he is not a feminist at all.
Q2.
DeleteI agree and I believe that there is no feminism in Chaucers poem.
I think Chaucer disguises as being a feminist in The Wife of Bath Tale.
A feminist is a woman who believes that women should have the same rights as men. The Wife of Bath’s Tale has a lot of opposing elements.
Feminists are believed to be portrayed as strong-minded, strong-willed, and outspoken. Feminists want equal opportunity as men and do not need to manipulate people or exploit men to achieve their goal.
However, if you take a deeper look into the text, it shows that Chaucer was not at all one. One message that the story seems to convey is that men are noble. Even though the knight raped a woman, he still promised to marry the hag and kept his word. On the contrary, women have to deceive, manipulate, and be cunning to get what they want. In easier terms they took the easier route to equality.
Additionally, the woman had the choice whether she wanted to be beautiful or to be faithful. In the end, the hag changes into a beautiful young wife. It was a victory, because she got what she wanted. However, technically the knight gave her the choice. “My lady and my love, and wife so dear, I put me in your wise governance; Choose yourself which may be most pleasure And most honor to you and me also (1228-1233).” The knight granted her what she desired, to choose for herself. If the knight truly respected her he would have answered, “You’re beautiful just the way you are.” The woman does not have freedom, but is a prisoner to the knight. A knight is faithful and that’s one of their greatest attributes. The women would have been respected more if she would of have chosen faithfulness. Nonetheless, the main focus is on beauty which is seen as vain, but then she lived to serve his every desire.
It says that women want sovereignty, but what I think women want is respect. The end isn’t all that great for women, and Wife of Bath has no feminist qualities. The story ends where the rapist knight lives happily ever after, getting the beautiful and faithful lady. The knight was supposed to get his just desserts, marrying the old hag. In the end he got what he wanted and more. This is not an empowering step for women.
Source:
http://csis.pace.edu/grendel/projf983a/charac.htm
In medieval literature, 'the loathly lady' functions as a literature device and the theme was often used in tales. The motif generally represents a story about loathly lady with a symbol of the sovereignty of the land. In 'The Wife of Bath's Tale', however, I think its meaning of the motif 'the loathly lady' was slightly changed to 'maistrie' (mastery over a man), that is, a tale about a loathly lady with a sovereignty of a man. The tale involves a knight with a quest to answer the question 'what do women most desire'. At the end of the tale where the lady let the knight to choose whether his bride is to be ugly yet faithful or beautiful yet false, faced with two equally unpleasant alternatives, the knight tells her to choose as she desires which I think is the correct answer. In doing so, he passes his test and the loathly lady turns to become a happy young and beautiful woman. It seems to be a happy ending.
ReplyDeleteIn The Wife of Baths Tale version the ‘ugly woman’ asks King Arthur of his needs in the initial encounter. This is followed by King Arthur’s plead that reads ‘’certainly I am as good as dead unless I can say what thing it is that women most desire. If you could teach me, I would repay you.” King Arthur of course is in a life or death situation in which he was asked by the queen to report to her once he has found ‘the thing that women most desire.’
ReplyDeleteThis is heavily more complex compared to the watered down alternate version in the modern English text ‘King Arthur meets a really ugly woman’. The King of course seems relentless to take on the advice of the woman in The wife of Baths tale version, although in both he is faced with death. In the modern english version the ugly woman is portayed as a curse to vanity, almost taking the role of the villain by using manipulative tactics. We are objectified to her cunningness in the line that reads “Let me marry Sir Gaiwan. Think now, sir king. For it must be so, or you are dead. Hurry. Tell me. Or lose you head.”
That is contrasted in The Wife of baths Tale version in which the queen utters "Now where you say that I am ugly and old, Than do not fear to be a cuckold; For filth and old age, as I may prosper, Are great guardians of chastity. But nonetheless, since I know your delight, I shall fulfill your worldly appetite.” The King is very hesitant and only does so to save his own ass. We see reversed roles spanning across all of the texts and that’s the distinction in the characters.
Revard (1997) argued about language, sex, power, and transgression.
ReplyDeleteThis is from the time when women gazed at the world with wider eyes and had already started thinking outside the box. The first questions that they were trying to answer, as everyone, were ‘Why are we here?’, 'Is it just to serve husbands and be good homemakers?'
It is safe to assume that these were the times that the philosophy of modern feminism had been established, as women had begun to realise that they were more than a piece of meat, whose materialistic value depended upon the packaging. This is exactly what Revard (1997) was trying to convey, that women can be equal to men if men just took different attitude towards women.
It was because of men’s attitudes and opinions towards women, which actually made their art substandard in their eyes; as witnessed from the fact that Katherine Philips being the excellent poet of Pindarics was still receiving praises for her beauty rather than her wits from Cowley and other poets.
It, indeed, was brave of the likes of Philips to embark on a road that not many women have dared to cross in the fear that they would offend or even lose their cocoon which were their men. A journey that would enable them not to be “judged as a woman first and a poet second” (Revard, 1997)
Hahn's essay onThe Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle identifies the motif of the loathly lady, but arguesit has a different purpose than asserting the feminine. What does he think the function of the story is?
ReplyDeleteThe Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle or “King Arthur Meets a Really Ugly woman” as we read as the modern english version, is one of many manifestations of the Loathly Lady Fabula. In Susan Carter's analysis of Chaucer's “The Wife of Bath's Tale” she argues that Chaucer was a feminist because of the way that he has manipulated the tale, contrasting the loathly lady's apperance with the power she gains over the situation and indeed, by the way that the situation of the Knight is governed by the women of King Arthurs court with minimal male input. In Chaucer's tale, seemingly, the women have all the power and the loathly lady serves as a teacher for how men should learn to respect and obey them and their desires.
Hahn's essay on “Dame Ragnelle” persues a slightly different conclusion regarding the fabula. Albeit, the works follow a slightly different tale- in “The wife of Bath's tale” the knight is being punished for his misogynistic behaviour and it is he, who must learn the lesson that is at stake. In Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, King Arthur's life is at stake and Sir Gawain must be the hero and sacrifice himself for the preservation of the court. At heart though, they are both essentially about an ugly hag with important information or abilities who has certain fleshy desires that must be met by a hero's complience in order for the tale to meet a beautiful ending (in more ways than one) (Hahn, T. (Ed.), 1995.)
Hahn argues that the key idea behind Ragnelle is the question of “how the unknown, the marvellous or the threatening, is brought into line..” with the court. The unknown is represented by Dame Ragnelle who plays the feminine role of both “beauty and the Beast” and the court is predictably male (Hahn, T.(Ed.). 1995.)
Dame Ragnelle is an outsider to the court, in every way. She has foul habits and manners and is awful to look at. By the end of the poem, she has transformed and she posesses the beauty, mannaers and deference that she was lacking to begin with. “What brands Dame Ragnelle as a hag, is in the terms defined by the central question of the poem, a form of desire or lack- a lack of beauty, manners, deference; what certifies her as a lady at the end is her posession of these qualities and of Sir Gawain”
Sir Gawain must conquer her to bring everythign into line and in do so, protect the court and his king. She is “beauty and the beast” and is allowed an ambiguious duplicity and feminine characteristics and installs in her male counterparts, a fear of her feminine mystery. Contrasting to Carter's view that the feminine triumphs in 'Wife of Bath's Tale” Hahn stipulates that she is in fact a tool that “ties them together and makes possible the fraternal and heirerachic bonds of chivalric solidarity”... (1995) He goes on to say that, the romance orders the events so that civilty and courtesy prevales in the public sphere and the challenge of the wild and unkionown is tackled and answered within the safe confines of the bedroom at the conclusion.
Carter, S. Coupling the Beastly Bride and the Hunter Hunted: What lies behind Cahucer's Wife of Baths Tale. In the Chaucer Review, vol. 37, No. 4, 2003.
Hahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.