Weeks 4-6
Please use the comments section to answer questions. Do not try to answer all questions. Try to keep up an average of one per week, with time for a few comments on the ideas of others.
2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
3.Hahn's essay (see critical reader)on The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelleidentifies the motif of the loathly lady, but arguesit has a different purpose than asserting the feminine. What does he think the function of the story is?
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
5. Discuss what you think is the most striking or outrageous example.
6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
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"...
ReplyDeleteIn the Loathly lady in a fabula it was a very interesting story and was often shown as a witch, is an ugly lady with forces of nature at her disposal. There are 3 variations; Chaucers’ The Wife of Bath’s Tale, Hahns The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle and finally, In Steeleye Spans song that dictates the action of man towards the appearance of an ugly woman. All three variations had the motif of the hag trying to tempt man to fulfil her desires.
In Chaucer’s version after Gawain was punished for violating a lady’s maidenhead and had helped from the hag, she requested his hand in marriage. He could not accept the hag since he beseeched her “For God’s love, choose a new request! Take all my goods and let my body go” cementing his denial of an ugly lady as his wife. When his wife questioned why he was sad, he declare how she trouble him so by her ugliness for the rest of his life in which she return that statement by transforming to a beautiful maiden, warning him of the dangers of insanity that might corrupt him.
In Hahn’s version, it is only when King Arthur’s safety was threatened by Dame Ragnell that Gawain wed her. He consulted with Gawain on this ultimatum. Here, Gawain was more accepting. He was very loyal to his King and will lay his life for the king even his fate was to wed the dame “I will wed her at the time you set. I pray you worry no more. Though she be the foulest person that ever has seen on the earth for you I will not hesitate.” The proclamation portrayed him much more in a positive tone; he is a hero compared to his dastardly self in the first text. What came after was not mentioned.
In the last text illustrated King Henry who had a heart of gold, diligently did everything in his power to provide the ugly woman what she needs even though the hag scared away his henchmen and hurt his heart as emphasized by the hag “I’ve met with many a gentle knight that gave me such a fill, but never before a courteous knight that gave me all my will.” His greatest reward comes in the form of a fair lady transformed from the hag.
Moreover, the three differences justified the stereotype towards female and tried to defeat the changes in social standings of gender in Arthurian times.
References:
• Chaucer, Geoffrey (c.1390). The Wife of Bath.
• Hahn, T. (Ed). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications
• Steeleye Span (1972). King Henry. In Below the Sale. US:Shanachie.
Good answer, well referenced. Perhaps the idea of transformation lies behind the loathly lady motif - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There's a male equivalent in Beauty and Beast and Frog Prince stories. The beauty and goodness within...
DeleteIts interesting how these (love) tales work. A loathly lady to be fair is not something that will interest men in our time now. However I think and according to that this was punishment to the knights or men. King Arthur was forced to marry a "hag" as punishment for his crime in which he committed to another lady. The ugliness of the loathly ladies was a result of a curse that only could be broken by a knight or by a Heros action.
DeleteI agree with you in terms of stereotyping, without having to look or judge a person by their appearances but more so their standards or what they live by.
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
ReplyDeleteBy way of Jen and Nat consume, conceits can be clarified by way of the key factual subject of the text. Expressed, as Abrams (1993) says, ‘deeper meanings within the poem and to display the poet’s own cunning with words’. Uncertainty one looks at the word ‘conceit’ itself I can find that synonyms include ‘vanity’, ‘pride’, ‘superiority’ and ‘arrogance’.
When looks at Marvell’s To His Coy Mistress, there is no hesitation conceit in a literary context within the poem. Nevertheless, the poet displays a level of superiority and authority over the subject (the woman who he is addressing). Marvell’s employ of vivid and romantic metaphor clarifies to the woman that at the same time as it is splendid for her to want to hold onto her maidenhood and honour, if she waits too long she will turn old and ugly and will die a virgin. He then goes onto say that they should ‘sport us while we may’ (line 37).
A somewhat unromantic seduction is written by Dunne in The Flea. In this text – as in Marvell’s – Dunne efforts to encourage the lady to sleep with him. And, as Marvell’s subject, she doubts a loss of honour. However, the conceited speaker of the poem goes on to say ‘Just so much honor, when thou yeeld’st to mee,’. I find it conceited of a man, when in a time where one’s virginity was so extremely required after, to say mostly say that though we are not married, should you sleep with me you shall not be in shame.
Though, if we look at Sonnet XVIII, the conceit is used – as Jen said – to show Shakespeare’s great knowledge of language and wording. And, as Kirsty looks at, he employs a contrast of summer and a woman’s beauty. Yet, it is only after one looks at the poem in deepness do we see the typically Metaphysical conceit of flexibility in that not even decease shall downfall this woman’s beauty whereas nature shall falloff.
Well, I can feel there is extra than one way to define and apply the term ‘conceits’ inside the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets.
ReplyDelete1.Cite some variations in the Loathly Lady fabula across the three tales in your Reader. Focus on the conditions by which the lady is either beautiful or ugly, and the actions of the knight/king/"hero"...
There are three tales in the Critical Reader - "The Wife of Bath's Tale", "King Arthur Meets a Really Ugly Woman", and "King Henry".
Within these tales, there is a woman in it and they are all depicted as a "loathly lady". The loathly ladies are all hideous and ugly and generally described as a monster.
In "The Wife of Bath's Tale", the loathly lady follows this motif.
"There can no man imagine an uglier creature." (Line 999)
Her condition in the tale as a loathly lady is so that the knight can change and accept the consequences of his own actions.
"By utter force, he took away her maidenhead" (Line 888)
The knight raped a woman and punishment for this crime was execution. However, the queen decides to spare his life on one condition, if he can find the answer to "What thing it is that woman most desire". (Line 905)
The loathly lady in the tale was the one who held the answer but in order for the knight to know, he had to submit to her and wed her. He agrees and tells the queen the answer, and his life is spared.
He is in woe because she is so ugly and does not want to lay in bed with her. However, she changes his mind by presenting him with two choices - "To have me ugly and old until I die, and be to you a true, humble wife, and never displease you in all my life. Or else you will have me young and fair, and take your chances of the crowd that shall be at your house because of me, or in some other place, as it may well be." (Line 1220-1226)
The knight comes to a realisation and changes, he prefers a wife who will never leave him. As he changes so too does the loathly lady.
"And when the knight saw truly all this, that she so was beautiful, and so young moreover, for joy he clasped her in his two arms." (Line 1250-1252)
The loathly lady changes from an old, ugly hag into a beautiful woman when the knight accepts her as his wife
Hi guys, I cannot post the whole lot up for question 1 so I will post up three separate sections only for question 1.
DeleteIn "King Arthur Meets a Really Ugly Woman", the loathly lady appears again.
ReplyDelete"She was the ugliest creature that a man ever saw." (Line 4-5)
From Line's 7 to 17, the loathly lady is described in disturbing detail.
"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." (Line 7-10)
The sheer detail of her appearance showed how ugly of a creature she really was.
"To recite the foulness of that lady there is no tongue fit. She had ugliness to spare." (Line 19-21)
No words could even describe her; this fits into the loathly lady motif perfectly.
The conditions of the loathly lady in this tale were to be wed to a knight (just as in The Wife of Bath's Tale) because she is the only person who could save King Arthur.
"For your life is in my hand. Only I can prevent your death." (Line 32-33)
"Let me marry Sir Gawain." (Line 60)
King Arthur is reluctant to agree at first but then he did not want to take any chances with death. He then confronts Sir Gawain about it (who is the knight she wishes to be wed with).
"Gawain, I met the foulest lady today; cretainly the worst I've ever seen. She told me she would save my life but first she wants to have a husband. Therefore, I moan. I am woebegone." (Line 110-114)
King Arthur probably expected Sir Gawain to object to the situation, yet he did not.
"Is that all? I shall we her and wed her again, even if she be a fiend." (Line 115-117)
This showed Sir Gawain's undying loyalty to his king. Gawain was chilvaric and a man of honour.
"Though she be the foulest person that ever has been seen on earth, for you I will not hesitate." (141-143)
Even though she could have been the most horrendous and ugliest creature in the world, he did not hesitate to marry her for the sake of King Arthur.
In "King Henry" the loathly lady also appears again. She is also described to be the ugliest woman you could ever imagine.
ReplyDelete"Her teeth were like the tether stakes, her nose like club or mell, and nothing less she seemed to be than a fiend that comes form hell." (Line 29-32)
Her condition in this was that King Henry submits to her every will. She keeps demanding meat, drink and also for King Henry to lay in bed with her.
"For she's eaten up both skin and bone left nothing but hide and hair." (Line 40-41)
"And she's drank it up all in one draught left never a drop therein." (Line 64-65)
She was a monster, with no manners and an appetite of a beast. She presents to King Henry another condition, for him to marry her. "Now swear, now swear you King Henry to take me for your bride." (line 76-77)
King Henry submitted to her needs however he could not bring himself to sleep with her.
"Oh God forbid, says King Henry, that ever the like betide, that ever a fiend that comes from hell should stretch down by my side." (Line 78-81)
There is no line that mentions he actually slept with her, but the text suggests he did for the loathly lady's condition to be met.
"When the night was gone and the day was come and the sun shone through the hall, the fairest lady that ever was seen lay between him and the wall." (Line 82-85)
Just as in "The Wife of Bath's Tale", she had transformed from a hag to beauty.
"But never before with a courteous knight that gave me all my will." (Line 88-89)
He had met her conditions of full submission which allowed her to transform. This loathly lady has a resemblance to the one in "The Wife of Bath's tale".
However, King Henry's actions are similar to Sir Gawain's. They are both seen as chilvaric and willing to cater to the loathly lady's needs no matter how ugly she was. In "The Wife of Bath's Tale” is different because the knight does not change his ways until the very end.
Well answered. See my comment above. The moral may be that we should not be deceived by appearances.
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 may think that Chaucer was a feminist because some of the characters demonstrated in the Wife of Bath’s Tale hold feminist ideals. For example, the Queen in the tale suggest that if the Knight whom is about to be executed can tell her what a woman most desires then he may keep his life.
“904 I grantee thee lyf, if thou kanst tellen me I grant thee life, if thou canst tell me
905 what thyng is it that wommen moost desiren. What thing it is that women most desire
906 Be war, and keep thy nekke-boon from iren! “ Beware, and keep thy neck-bone from iron”
The idea of letting a Knight live if he can figure out what women most desire may come across as feminism as what women most desire, according to Chaucer, is “to have sovereignty as well over her husband as her love, and to be in mastery above him.”
Moreover, I don’t agree that this makes Chaucer a feminist. The Knight is depicted raping a maiden, and eventually, after his ‘quest’, he isn’t executed. He also marries a woman who he believes to be beautiful, regardless of whether she is or not. This does not come across as feminism, however more so the opposite. I believe that if he was a feminist, the knight would have still been executed and would not have been set free.
I don't know too many feminists in favour of the death penalty, but you are right in the feeling we have that justice has not been done.
Delete4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define “conceits”?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the “Norton Anthology of English Literature defines the “conceits” of poetics as metaphors that are intricately woven into the verse, often used to convey satire, puns, or deeper meanings within a poem, and to display the poets own cunning with words.” (Abrams, 1993)
From my own understanding, conceits seem to be something like an extended metaphor. It is not similar to a singular metaphor which only runs through one or few lines of a poem/sonnet. Instead, it is a metaphor which is present throughout the whole text.
For instance, Shakespeare’s Sonnet XVIII (Sonnet 18), the conceit is comparing his friend to a summer’s day.
“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer’s lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,” (Line 1-5)
Shakespeare first describes the negative qualities of summer, how it is too short, rough winds, and too hot, and comparing it to his friend.
“And often is his gold complexion dimmed,
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature’s changing course untrimmed:” (Line 6-8)
Shakespeare then says that his friend’s beauty and youth eventually declines just as summer days do. His friend will age and grow old just as summer transitions into fall.
“But thy eternal summer shall not fade.
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st,
Nor shall death brag thou wander’st in his shade,” (Line 9-11)
Shakespeare then changes his conceit. He begins to express that his friend’s beauty will not be forgotten. This makes much more sense in the following lines.
“When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st,
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.” (Line 12-14)
He now speaks of “eternal lines”, which is the poem itself. He explains that as long as the poem is alive (where men can read), his friend will also be alive. Not in physical form but in memory and within this poem.
So in a sense, a summer day is never forgotten, especially when it is a memorable one.
Reference:
Abrams, M.H. (1993). The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc, p.1081.
Shakespeare, Sonnet XVIII
Question3: What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance
ReplyDelete“Almost impossible in this era to be gender blind” accoding to Revard (1997). In this era, Women’s remained limited and needed limited rights to be capable and to comprise poetry. They were similarly excluded and were not acceptable from writing and creating a specific poetic genre, an actual good example of this is the– Pindaric ode which was ‘for an all male preserve of pure poetry’. Female poets were at all periods observed and seen as a woman first and before a poet, even though Katherine Philips was a female prosperous poet in the subject of Pindaric genre nevertheless on highest of that this woman still confronted the partial action as a female poet ‘the acceptability of a woman tracking education and challenging in the area of poetry that had stayed almost completely male’ (p.123). Abraham Cowley, the discoverer of the Pindaric genre all time struggled and had problems to praise Katherine Philips’ who was his female peer in the poetic profession. The females were constantly and always seen as a woman and were admired for their loveliness/beauty and elegance in its place of their work. Nevertheless, on the other hand men were continuously praised for being an artist first. This admiration of feminine virtue over creativity is linked to the connection between language and power. Revard also recommends that if a male ‘man’ were to praise a female ‘woman’ at poetic level as an artist like he then it would indicate she would be competing on an equal level with him. Men were always observed as intelligently greater to women, no matter what literary mastermind a woman may have industrialised. This suggests a sexual contention between the genders as well as a literary dispute, showing the relationship in this era of sex vs. power.
Reference
Revard, S.P, (1997) Representing Women in Renaissance England. Columbia University: Missouri Press.
Yes, you have got Revard's ideas. Only in the Twentieth Century did this prejudice against female poets fade.
Delete1. 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 loathly lady is presented as a horrible woman in the tales presented in The wife's bath's tale'(Chaucer,1390) and 'The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell'(Hahn,1995). She looks like beast in one of the tales. E.g. “There can no man imagine an uglier creature” and “his wife looked so ugly” These lines are given in “The wife's bath tale. ”
In the tale of 'The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell’ following lines convey the similar meaning. E.g. “Her face was red, her nose running.
Her mouth wide, her teeth all yellow…Her teeth hung out of her lips,
Her cheeks were as broad as a women’s hips.” (P.10). He uses words such as wide, yellow, hung to develop an imagery of ugliness in the mind of the reader. Thus, Chaucer is exclusively focuses on the ugliness of the woman in both the tales.The character of knight in the 'The bath's tale' focuses on the ugliness of woman.
The character of knight in 'The bath's tale' also remains focused on ugly woman. In this story he refuses to marry her and shown as ready to give up his wealth. In 'The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell,” the King can be seen respecting the ugly woman. The main protagonist, of 'The wife's tale can be seen wanting to marry the ugly woman.
References
Chaucer,G. (c.1390)The Wife Of Bath. Critical Reader 2013
Hahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.
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?
ReplyDeleteChaucer’s “the Wife Baths Tale” does indicate that the author was supporter of the feminist ideas. Queen after exempting the knight of rape crime asks “what is the thing that most women desire?” This is a powerful statement to make symbolizing the women’s power. Men do not have any easy answers to this question. They are powerless and subject to command of women. There are some who may overcome the solution to the problem posed. Chaucer’s “the Wife Baths Tale” has an answer to the question: “Women desire to have sovereignty as well over her husband as her love, and to be in mastery above him" (p.68). This kind of liberal discourse may anger males who may be anti feminist. There are two characterizations in the book which point out that Chaucer was a feminist. First, the king decides to hand over the power to the queen. This illustrates the woman’s superior status in her relationship with the king. The queen clearly is more powerful than the king. Second, Chaucer’s hag presented in the story is more powerful than the knight. This old woman is ugly but she is a wise woman. Therefore, she could dominate the knight who is anxious and trying to please her. These two instances show that Chaucer believe in the equality men and women. Therefore, Chaucer can be called a feminist.
Reference
Chaucer. (c.1390) The Wife Of Bath. Critical Reader 2013
Some good ideas here. but there are some problems. How can the woman be superior to the King when her power is due to his permission? He grants her the power, so the power is still his to grant or not.
DeleteSecondly, feminists do not desire power over men, but equality before men. This is not suggested in the tale.
3.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?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Hahn, loathly lady is ugly not only in terms of beauty but also in her behavior. Hahn's essay of 'The wedding of sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle” points out that loathly lady has ugly manners. “How the unknown, the marvelous or the threatening, is brought into line...”, (Hahn, 1995). said Hahn. He says this in the context of the court room scene during which Dame Ragnelle appears as someone who is unfit to be in the company of royal men.
In the later part, Dame Ragnelle, the ugly looking woman changes into an attractive woman with exquisite manners. In this sequence, Sir Gawain can be seen trying to win over Dame Ragnelle for his King, Arthur. Gawain was loyal to him. There was nothing feminine in his attempt to win over an ugly man. He was following manners of aristocratic class which believed in deep and abiding respect for the king. However, the ugly woman wins using her power. The function of the story is to show that the sacrifice of Sir Gawain for the king makes the ugly women transform into an “appropriate” women.
Reference
Hahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications.
Well identified. It's clear you have read and understood the Hahn essay.
Delete' There was nothing feminine in his attempt to win over an ugly man.' This sentence is not clear.
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 Baths Tale provides an insight into the role of women in the Late Middle Ages and was probably of interest to Chaucer himself. “Some said women love riches best, some said women honour, some said gaiety, some rich clothing, some said lust in bed”.
In all tales, there is a woman in it who are all depicted as a “loathly lady”. The motif is that of a woman that appears unattractive (ugly, loathly) but undergoes a transformation as she gets approached by a man in spite of her unattractiveness, becoming extremely desirable.
Through all 3 tales, the loathly ladies are just what is described to be “loathly”. They are all hideous, ugly and at times to be described liken unto a monster.
In the Wife of Bath Tales, the loathly lady is described as such, “There can be no man imagine an uglier creature”. Her being in this situation is so that the Knight can change and accept the consequences of his own actions.
As we read “King Arthur meets a Really Ugly Woman” we notice the same characteristics who are the same as Chaucers, The loathly lady appears again. “She was the ugliest creature that a man ever saw. Again we read of more images depicting her in detail. “ Her face was red, her nose running, her mouth wide, her teeth all yellow”. Just as Chaucer again, the conditions of the loathly lady was to be wed to a kinight because she is the only person who could possibly save King Arthur.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteReferences:
Delete1. http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/index.html 01.01.06
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.
ReplyDeleteTo establish whether or not Chaucer may have been a feminist we need to first establish what a feminist is. According to Wikipedia, feminism is described to be a “range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish and achieve equal political social rights for women”.
Back during the time of Chaucer we can agree to say that womens rights were not distinct but we (I) believe that in this text women are equal to men (or so it says). King Arthur gets a death penalty for the crime that he committed as it says “And such demand for justice unto King Arthur That this Knight was condemned to be dead, by course of law, and should have lost his head.” This stanza speaks for itself. Rape back in this time was a serious offense just as it is now. King Arthur receives the death penalty for acting upon this crime without getting away with it because he was a man. In our modern time now, death penalties are not given for such crime as this.
The story of this (love) tale progresses to a point where he has no choice but to marry the hag. The punishment for his crime means he has taken a maidens body and he too has to defeat his body to someone he does not want.
Through this tale I think is the start of feminism where equality for both men and women are the same and that men will no longer get different or special treatment from women which I think paves the way to our time today where equality is everything.
References:
2. Extract: Hahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle.In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications