Weeks 3 - 6
Week 4-6
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 Ragnelle identifies the motif of the loathly lady, but arguably it 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?
Just a quick tip to anyone who struggles to read through The Wife of Bath's Tale, you can find it on spotify. The one read by Peggy Ashcroft is quite enjoyable. Make sure you listen to "The tale" and not the "Prologue" though.
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 of some other source.
ReplyDeleteIn Chaucer’s The Wife of Bath’s Tale (1386, 2000), there are multiple scenes and instances in the story which may possibly suggest that Chaucer was a feminist. Critics such as Susan Carter pointed out that women in this story have more power than their male counterparts, and that Chaucer’s story essentially reverses the character’s gender restrictions. For example, Carter commented on Chaucer’s unique use of the loathly lady motif, where the whole idea of a loathly lady is used to destabilize gender - the man would meet the loathly lady in the forest, which is portrayed as a ‘feminine’ aspect to the tale, so it gives the idea of the “hunter hunted” (2003, pg 330). Additionally, she stated that there is an “unequal power balance between the hag who can change shape and the knight who remains nameless” which further emphasizes the knight not having any control over the situation whatsoever (2003, pg 335). Carter’s interpretations of Chaucer’s tale being a feminist piece is actually reasonable, especially since Chaucer himself had described scenes in his tale which can be clearly viewed as feminist. For example, the jury/ court featured in the tale is made up of women who accompany and advise the Queen, so, in that scene alone, Chaucer is portraying women in a position of power. Also, the fact that the knight is condemned to death as a result of raping a woman (“By utter force, he took away her maidenhead… And such demand for justice… that this knight was condemned to be dead.” [Chaucher, 1386, 2000]) can also be seen as feminist. Rape victims historically do not get justice, so the fact that Chaucer portrayed a victim getting justice can be seen as extremely pro-women. Thus, it is reasonable as to why Carter has a belief that Chaucer was a feminist.
However, while critics may hold that view, I personally believe that Chaucer was not a feminist per se; though The Wife of Bath’s Tale can be interpreted as a feminist piece, looking back on the context in which Chaucer wrote this tale may prove otherwise. It could be argued that Chaucer was creating a parody of the loathly lady motif. This motif originated from Irish folklore and in the 14th century, Irish women actually had better property and political rights when compared to women in Chaucer’s Great Britain. So, it can be reasonably assumed that Chaucer was ridiculing the Irish for giving women more rights in a period where women were not supposed to have so much freedom. Therefore, The Wife of Bath’s Tale can be interpreted as a satire piece aimed towards the Irish rather than a feminist piece. Furthermore, feminism is a more modern-day movement that began in the late 19th and early 20th century when women's right’s protests became more coordinated and conscious (Rampton, 2019). So, it could be argued that feminism was a concept which was not even around in Chaucer’s time. Additionally, feminism is usually defined as people who “... believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.” (Adichie, 2014, pg 47). So, while Chaucer definitely did portray women in a different light, his portrayal did not necessarily portray the values of feminism correctly. Therefore, while I do prefer the more feminist interpretation of the tale, I disagree with the notion that Chaucer himself was an actual feminist (or even sympathetic to women).
References:
1) Adichie, C. N. (2014). We Should All Be Feminists. London: Fourth Estate.
2) Carter, S. (2003). Coupling the Beastly Bride and the Hunter Hunted: What Lies Behind Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale. The Chaucer Review, 37(4), 329-345.
3) Chaucer, G. (1386, 2000) The Wife of Bath’s Tale. (Harvard University, Trans.). Harvard University Online.
4) Rampton, M. (2019, November 21). Four Waves of Feminism. Retrieved Mach 25, 2020, from
https://www.pacificu.edu/magazine/four-waves-feminism
This is some good work ! very detailed and explanatory especially backed up with your resources
DeleteI totally agree with you Shradha! I would much prefer to think that Chaucer was a feminist, rather than someone making fun of the Irish. I think that sneaky satires like this are one of the reasons that the world has remained so misogynistic for so long!
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 Fabula is mostly likely of Celtic origin as it is found as an Irish myth in which a king must face the test before he is able to claim sovereignty over the land, it was also a common part of the Fabula in the middle ages. Fabula in narratorly refers to the basic events which take place in a tale that can be retold in a multitude of ways across history. Typically, the loathly lady Fabula sees the Goddess sovereignty appearing before a man as a hideous hag who wishes to either marry or sleep with the man, whether he be a king, knight, or hero. The man is at first unwilling but if he accepts her wish she transforms into a beautiful woman and becomes his wife or companion as well as his proof of legitimacy for his rule. Chaucer’s The Wife of Bath and The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle are the most famous medieval versions of the tale and they showcase the variations in the loathly lady Fabula as the conditions by which the lady is beautiful and ugly are different across the tales. The actions that are taken by the man also change depending on the tale.
In The Wife of Bath, the knight describes the lady as a creature whose ugliness could not be matched “He saw no creature that bore life, -- Save on the green he saw sitting a woman -- There can no man imagine an uglier creature.” (Chaucer, c.1390). Here the knight is asked to take part in a pledge which he agrees to and takes her hand in marriage, and at the end when she asks him to kiss her, she transforms into a beautiful woman who is said to “obeyed him in everything that might do him pleasure or enjoyment.” (Chaucer, c.1390). In The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle as it is quite bluntly put, King Arthur meets a really ugly woman, he rides into Inglewood where he meets the lady and the text goes into excessive detail to describe just how ugly and repulsive she is. “She was the ugliest creature that a man ever saw. King Arthur surely marveled. 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.” (Hahn, 1995). The lady tells King Arthur that he must grant her a knight to wed otherwise he will die. Sir Gawain agrees to help King Arthur by marrying her. This instance of the loathly lady is interesting because it does not result in the lady becoming beautiful due to the good actions of the man, nothing happens to king Arthur or the lady and he is not punished in any way because Sir Gawain chooses to marry her. It is possible that trust and friendship is the lesson that King Arthur is meant to learn here, as Sir Gawain states “I would wed here, I swear by the cross. Otherwise, I wouldn't be your friend. You are my honored king and have done me good many times.” (Hahn, 1995). Another variation on the loathly lady Fabula is in Steeleye Span’s King Henry featured on his 1972 album, Below the Salt. In it, a lady comes to King Henry and demands he get her some meat, some drink and a bed. “Her head hit the roof-tree of the house, Her middle you could not span, Each frightened huntsman fled the hall And left the king alone, 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 from hell.” (Steeleye Span, 1972). Here she is described almost as if she was a monster or demon. Much like in The Wife of Bath, King Henry fulfills all the lady’s demands and at the end when she asks him to sleep with her the next morning, expectedly, she has transformed into a fair lady. This is a classic example of the man being rewarded with a beautiful bride for helping the loathly lady.
Continued.
DeleteThe loathly lady can almost be a role reversal of the beauty and the beast, or princess and the frog Fabula where instead of the beast turning into a prince through the woman’s kiss or love. Instead, the woman is the ugly one in this situation and the man through accepting her makes her beautiful but also obtains a reward alongside giving him some position of power.
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 Salt. US: Shanachie.
I liked how you made the comparison to Beauty and the Beast and the Princess and the Frog. I never thought about this and looking back on the three tales I think I like them a little more than I did originally.
DeleteWow, Dylan what a great blog, i chose the same question as you and feel you have did a great job at giving a deeper understanding and comparison. I love the addition you made with the reversal role of beauty and the beast or the princess and the frog. Its a more unique and insightful idea when comprehending the tales of the Loathly Lady. Do you think think the theme could also relate to Shrek? The Woman is ugly and beastly at night and fair princess by day. She has to marry and find true love to be able to stay beautiful and in the end she is beautiful the way she wants to be. I think if I analysed the three poems in relation to Shrek there might be quite a few references i could make. After reading your blog post this idea popped int my head, Thanks for the good read!
DeleteThe Language of Seduction
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"
In, The Wife of Bath’s Tale, a character is introduced as a “lusty bachelor” who rapes a young woman and is at first sentenced to death by King Arthur for his crimes. However, his fate is instead placed in the hands of the Queen and she tells him that if he can find an answer to a question then she will spare his life. “What thing it is that women most desire.” (905) During his quest to find the answer he encounters a woman that is introduced as an ugly creature, “There can no man imagine an uglier creature.” (999) Despite this, he asks for the woman’s help in finding the answer to his question and promises to reward her if she does. “If you could teach me, I would well repay you.”
The loathly lady agrees and together they return to the Queen after she has whispered the answer in the Knight’s ear which he repeated to the court, "Women desire to have sovereignty as well over her husband as her love and to be in mastery above him.” With all the women in court agreeing to this answer, the loathly lady stands and demands her reward of the knight be his hand in marriage. “take me as thy wife, for well thou know that I have saved thy life.” (1055). Her age and appearance are brought up again in this manner when the Knight describes how no one in his family has ever been degraded as such to marry such an ugly woman. “So woeful was he, his wife looked so ugly.” (1082) and “Thou art so loathsome, and so old” (1100).
(continued)
DeleteThe loathly lady offers to amend this to the Knight, asking him to choose if she be old, ugly and loyal or beautiful, fair and unfaithful. "Choose now one of these two things: To have me ugly and old until I die, and be to you a true, humble wife. 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.” (1219-1226) So ugly is his wife that the knight considers painfully before finally telling her that he will be happy with whatever she chooses. “I do not care which of the two, for as it pleases you, is enough for me." (1234). In saying so it is revealed that he has taken the answer to the original question to heart, knowing that all that his wife desires most is to have her own sovereignty and freedom of choice. For his answer he is rewarded as the loathly lady transforms herself into a beautiful maiden and who will be faithful to him as well. “For, by my troth, I will be to you. This is to say, yes, both fair and good.” (1240).
A second depiction of the loathly lady can be found in the Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell, however within this tale her ugliness is described in lengthy and vivid 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. Her teeth hung out of her lips; her cheeks were as broad as a woman’s hips. Her back was as curved as a lute. Her neck was long and also thick. Her hair clotted in a heap. In the shoulders she was a yard across. Her breasts would have been a load for a horse. Like a barrel was she made. To recite the foulness of that lady, there is no tongue. She had ugliness to spare. (Hahn, 1995).
The entire description helps the reader or the listener to the tale understand just how ugly Dame Ragnell is where The Wife of Bath’s Tale leaves much up to the reader’s imagination, this depiction ensures that the audience understands just how abhorrent Dame Ragnell is, further allowing them to sympathise with King Arthur and Sir Gawain who is asked to marry her or risk the death of his King. Sir Gawain agrees without hesitation, declaring that if he didn’t then he would not be the King’s friend and would be a coward. “I would wed here, I swear by the cross. Otherwise, I wouldn't be your friend.” (Hahn, 1995).
(continued pt. 2)
DeleteUpon the night of their wedding it is revealed by Dame Ragnell, who appears as a beautiful woman now that she has been wedded by a Knight, that a spell had been cast on her to make her appear as a hag. She gives Gawain the choice of her being beautiful during the day when they are surrounded by others, or at night when they are in the privacy of their own company. Gawain tells her that it is her choice and that he would be pleased with either. “Do as you want, as you choose. Untie me when you will, for I am bound. I give the decision to you.” (Hahn, 1995). Similarly to the Wife of Bath’s Tale, as Sir Gawain gives sovereignty and freedom of choice to his wife, he is rewarded with a wife both beautiful and faithful to him.
A third rendition of the loathly lady is seen in Steeleye Span’s King Henry. The woman appears to King Henry after a long and tiresome hunt of a wild buck while Henry and his men have returned to their hall to celebrate. Like in the Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell, the woman is described in vivid detail.
Her head hit the roof-tree of the house, her middle you could not span, each frightened huntsman fled the hall and left the king alone. 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 from hell.
She proceeds to demand that King Henry feed her the meat of the buck he had worked so hard to hunt but goes further and demands that he kill his own Grey hounds, his goshawks and to pour him what remained of his drink. Furthermore, she demands that he make her a bed, take off his clothes and take her as his wife. While reluctant, King Henry does all that she asks of him and come daybreak the loathly woman is transformed into the fairest lady he had ever seen. “The fairest lady that ever was seen, lay between him and the wall” (Steeleye Span, 1972). Once more, the man is rewarded for his chivalry and his willingness to bestow sovereignty upon their wives despite their ugliness with the reveal that their bride is beautiful and devoted. “I've met with many a gentle knight that gave me such a fill, but never before with a courteous knight, that gave me all my will.” (1972).
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 Salt. US: Shanachie
To His Coy Mistress
ReplyDelete4. 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.
In context with the Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, the use of ‘conceit’ is essentially metaphorical language that compares two things to each other. These two things can be wildly different from each other but can illustrate the point that the poet is attempting to make. Indeed, the Literature Glossary (n.d) defines conceit as “a kind of metaphor that compares two very unlike things in a surprising and clever way. Often, conceits are extended metaphors that dominate an entire passage or poem.” Conceit is used all the time in poetry to provide meaning through comparison.
In the case of Andrew Marvell’s (1621-1678) posthumously published poem To His Coy Mistress, conceit is used to quite a heavy extent. In the poem, the narrator is attempting to entice his love interest, who is an unnamed virgin. Essentially, he is trying to create a sense of urgency by saying that they do not have enough time to waste through her shyness or coyness. In the poem, Marvell uses conceit quite a few times to make a point. In the first part of the poem, the narrator compares his love to a vegetable in nature. Marvell (n.d.) writes:
“My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow;”
This use of conceit is interesting because a vegetable is the last thing you would equate with love, although it gets the point across nicely enough. Not only that, he is comparing his love (that grows like a vegetable) to a vast empire. Here, we know that it is immense for him.
Later on, the narrator is attempting to usher his mistress to a decision to hurry up and join him. He uses time as an example, using metaphysical conceit to make his point clear. Marvell compares time to a chariot that is drawing near. Marvell (n.d.) writes:
“But at my back I always hear
Time's wingèd chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.”
Here, Marvell is comparing time moving forward to a physical entity such as a winged chariot. Marvell is saying something to the effect of ‘we don’t have a lot of time, it is catching up with us and we won’t live forever.’ Eternity is also mentioned, which is related to time. Eternity is compared to a desert. Like the vast empire previously described, the time they may or may not spend together is likened to something vast. It is a vast desert, eternity itself. This is what is in store for them, so Marvell is saying ‘time is catching up with us and eternity is inevitable, you could spend it alone or with me.’
Another example of conceit I find outrageous comes later on, when Marvell compares their possible union to that of a wild bird. Marvell writes:
“Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,”
Here, the narrator is saying they could be like these birds who live by instinct. Andrew Spacey (2020) summarises this much better on Owlcation, writing “The instinct drives birds of prey, why not us.” This is what Marvell is putting across through using animal imagery.
These examples are only a few that show how Marvell used conceit to compare two unlikely things to another in order to persuade his reader and possibly the titular coy mistress.
References:
Literature Glossary. (n.d.). Conceit. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from
https://www.shmoop.com/literature-glossary/conceit.html
Poets.org. (n.d.) To His Coy Mistress. Retrieved May 7, 2020, from
https://poets.org/poem/his-coy-mistress
Spacey, A. (2020). Analysis of Poem "To His Coy Mistress" by Andrew Marvell. Retrieved May 7, 2020, from
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Analysis-of-Poem-To-His-Coy-Mistress-by-Andrew-Marvell
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAndrew. Prior
ReplyDeleteLit and Desire wk. 4
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
(https://literarydevices.net/conceit/) “Conceit develops a comparison which is exceedingly unlikely but is, nonetheless, intellectually imaginative. A comparison turns into a conceit when the writer tries to make us admit a similarity between two things of whose unlikeness, we are strongly conscious”
The time of the 15th - 17th. Century show the style of Conceits, center on the idea of describing love gain, losing love. And proves love to move beyond physical and mental to achieve transgression erotic of love poetry.
A strong emotion carried by author Katherine Philips ‘Song’, groups life with disease “Tis true our life is but a long disease” (Philips, ‘Song’) grouping life with disease into a reciprocal relationship revels extreme confession of living in confine away from excitement to never fathom risk, and uncertainty in life’s daily obscurities and the ultimate objective of loving life.
“It costs us dearer than it can repay” (Philips, ‘Song’) To die in reality, the extreme penalty of murdering creates the depiction of love to go beyond physical, and into reckless state of dire emotions .“It is so hard to die” (Philips, ‘Song’) presented at the core of ‘Song’ the topic of death allies in representing the misfortune life ensues.
Philips states “Our hopes are crossed, or els the object lost” (Philips, ‘Song’) the contrast made by Phillips to be profound in the darkness of eternal rest. Evokes the strong sense of loss from self and complete anguish towards the ideas of love. Controversial towards the long overbearing theme that love is above all necessary to live, detailed in Shakespeare (1564-1616) Sonnet XVIII, a comparison of his love to a summer day -points out she is actually fairer and more external creates a love beyond ordinary and into exceptional heights of love is like Natures wonders that God created compares her to the sun giving her God like presence in the presence of love and the process of love burdens on your emotions and actions.
Phillips describes love is a ticket to your deathbed. “Tis true...life is long disease”, it is so hard to die, yet such a task to live (Philips, Song). The irony in the statements. Revels conceits to provide a manifesto platform where the author enlists strong use of ingenious and effective metaphors and bipolar comparison of life and the bleak surrounding of morbid living by continuing the dire love and death theme. Philips ‘Song’ provides strong example of the use of rhetoric and profound detail of realism towards the misfortunes of love and that pain is comparable to death a unlikely contrast in mainstream ideology Philips captures the essence of conceits towards the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets to create emotive responses from the reader in wanting to see beyond reality and explore the grand illusion that Conceits create.
References
Literary Devices, Definition, and examples of Literary Terms. Conceit. https://literarydevices.net/conceit/
Philips, Kathrine. Song.
Shakespeare, William. Sonnet XVIII
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
ReplyDeleteI can see Chaucer may have feminist and anti-feminist. In the Wife of Bath's Tale, some people may believe that Chaucer may have been feminist. As a reader, I think this story is use to mock fun at women. Some people found this story is feminism because she is independent, it is shown in the story that:" She thought that she would die if she should hide a secret so long", and "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." (Chaucer, 1400)
That may be the answer to the question the knight has been given a year and one day. She shows herself and desires to sovereign over him. Also, the stories show that the women want to have an equal to their husband, partners. In the beginning, when the knight did wrong things:" by utter force, he took away her maidenhead."(Chaucer, 1400). I see this story is very different from any other stories I used to read. Where they choose a simple knight and a rapist, he is not brave or noble at all. The queen saves him from losing his head on the condition that he needs to find out that "what thing it is that women most desire." (Chaucer, 1400) I think the queen wants him to understand what women need to be treated, not things for a man to use women as their needs. He meets an ugly, old hag, and she will tell him the answer if he marries her in Bath's Tale. In the story, he doesn't want to marry her because of her ugly. He marries her to save his life. I can see in many ways the knight is very selfish. It is shown when she said that: "why behave you thus with me this first night? You act like a man who had lost his wit. What is my offence?" (Chaucer, 1400).
Chaucer endorses that women should have more rights and equality with the man. In his stories, an ugly hag wants to marry to the knight who rapes a maid, and she asks to have sovereignty over him. I feel sarcasm somehow when I read this, it is shown "he is not noble, be he duke or earl, For churlish sinful deeds make a churl", and he does not receive any punishment at all at the end of the story.
It is more sarcasm at the end of the story; it is shown: "Husbands meek, young, and vigorous in bed, and grace to outlive them whom we wed… An old and angry miser in spending, God send them soon the very pestilence!". "And when the knight saw truly all this, that she so was beautiful, and so young moreover", I don't think this was feminism when an ugly hag becomes a beautiful wife. This story conflicts between giving equality to women and men in the time where women in a misogynistic society. Equilibrium between man and women is vital in society to prove that women are equal to man and need to be respected.
Reference:
Chaucer, G. (1400).The wife of bath's tale.
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
ReplyDeleteIn relation to Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, conceits can be defined as a linguistic tool used subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) convey the poet's thought's and feelings by comparing/contrasting two unlikely/unrelated things in order to create a new meaning through connotation.
This is seen through many sonnets throughout those eras, such as Andrew Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress". Passages such as "My vegetable love should grow" and "youthful hue, Sits on thy skin like morning dew" (Marvell, 1621-1678). Marvell uses odd conceits of comparing the growth of vegetables with his growth of love for his mistress and personifying his mistress' youthful hue to that of morning dew in order to try and seduce and bed her.
Another poet of this era that utilised sonnets in a different way was Shakespeare in "Sonnet CXXX". "If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head" and "I grant I never saw a goddess go, My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:"(Shakespeare, 1564-1616). This conceits of using the imagery of black wires relating to his mistress' hair and comparing his mistress' goddessless walking to a goddess' graceful walk all serve to call out the other poets of this era on their fallacies and hyperboly when describing their mistresses. The use of these conceits were used also to humanise Shakespeare's mistress, that she was a regular human being, yet he still loved her immensely, flaws and all.
References
Marvell, A. (1621-1678). To His Coy Mistress
Shakespeare, W. (1564-1616). Sonnet CXXX
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking of conceit in terms of poetry, it is an extended metaphor that compares two things that are not similar in nature, and joins it in a clever way. A conceit is usually the whole poem or a passage. In the following poems, the extended metaphor used is between youth, sex and death. A poem that explores the concept of conceit is 'To his coy mistress' by Andrew Marvell written in 1681. Set in the Elizabethan and Jacobean era, the poem compares having intimate relations with a young woman who is in her prime, to her being dead lying in a coffin, with worms inside her taking her virginity to really drive in the fact that she might regret not having had sex with the poet. The poem really took a turn from a seemingly sweet anticipation between young lovers to be together for the first time and then drastically made a switch to the man insinuating that the woman is shy and being coy about sex and that 'time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near' to say 'hurry up'. I felt that pretty much he was saying to her 'if you are shy, you will die...' or 'hesitate and you will regret'. I found this poem to be a really interesting take on love poetry. Usually when you think about love poetry it's really romantic and considerate. This really wasn't. But perhaps for its time, this was more appropriate?
While researching further, I found another poem called "To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time" by Robert Herrick which was published in 1648. Both poems were published in the 17th century and had a similar concept of making the most of your prime. In "To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time" the title is a dead giveaway of the theme of the poem. The poem takes the idea of youth and addresses virgins directly to emphasize having sex while you are young as opposed to waiting. It compares life and more pointedly, your sensuality to flowers like rosebuds and sunflowers that will blossom today (or in your youth) but wilt (when you're old). This can also reflect in the last lines of the poem 'For having lost but once your prime, You may forever tarry.' Both poems have a similar set up where the narrator is trying to convince the other person to enjoy being in the prime of their life and also stating that if they don't have sexual experiences they will be ruined in a sense. To further compare there is also the famous poem by John Donne called 'The Flea' published in 1633. The first 4 lines of this poem are:
Continued...
'Mark but this flea, and mark in this,
ReplyDeleteHow little that which thou deniest me is;
It sucked me first, and now sucks thee,
And in this flea our two bloods mingled be;'
In this poem, the idea to seize the day or seize their prime is focused by using an example of a flea as a metaphor for two people 'this flea is you and I'. As similar to the other two, the poet is again writing about persuading his companion to have an intimate relationship and get physical. He says it's not shameful to have sex before marriage and that waiting is almost like death. All these poems are expressed differently but are ultimately leaving the readers with the thought that make the most of your life, your youth, the present and don't wait as you never know in the future. You might have regrets. A common link I found in all three poems was the idea of carpe diem or seize the day. While all the poems felt quite twisted as they compared sex and their partners being only desirable in their youth, it also said that later on when you're old or die, it won't be the same. You will not hold as much value later in life (in a sexual context) and will look back and regret not making the most of your youthfulness. If someone said that to their partner in today's day and age they would probably get slapped in the face, but in the 17th century, this extended comparison could be perceived as being romantic or persuasive and lead to the younger people following the poets advice. The use of conceit in all three poems was used quite dramatically but effectively to highlight making the most of your life and not having any 'what if's' by comparing youth, sex and death.
References:
Conceit. (n.d.). Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/learn/glossary-terms/conceit
Donne, J. (1633). The flea by John Donne. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46467/the-flea
Herrick, R. (1648). To the Virgins, to make much of time by Robert Herrick. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46546/to-the-virgins-to-make-much-of-time
Marvell, A. (1681). To his coy mistress by Andrew Marvell. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44688/to-his-coy-mistress
Q: 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.
ReplyDeleteThe Wife of Bath’s Tale is one of the twenty-four stories in ‘The Canterbury Tales’, a collection of stories written by Geoffrey Chaucer. The tale is set in the time of King Arthur and concerns a knight who is accused of rape. He is told by Queen Guinevere that his life shall be spared if, within one year, he can discover what women most desire. One year passes quickly, and as he is heading back dejectedly, he suddenly encounters an ugly old woman who promises to provide him with the answer that will save his life, but only if he agrees to do the first thing she asks of him. The answer the knight supplies- what women most desire is to have sovereignty over men- is accepted by the King Arthur’s court, after which the old woman then demands that the knight marry her. She asks him if he would rather wish her ugly yet good and faithful, or young and fair but unfaithful. The knight insists that the choice must be hers, and because he provides the woman with what she most desires (the authority to decide for herself) her youth and beauty is restored, and the two live happily ever after.
The Wife of Bath is the narrator in Chaucer’s tale, and she is commonly identified as a feminist, but some believe that she instead depicts a negative image of women as judged by her time period.
In the prologue to the tale, the Wife of Bath shares information about her life and the experiences she has had. She portrays herself as a sexually experienced woman. Having had five husbands, she has had enough experience to be an expert. She does not see anything wrong with a woman having more than one sexual partner. To her, sex is a positive experience. She enjoys it and is not ashamed of it - at the time, such a thing would be considered a violation of the mediaeval view that saw sex as something that was justified only for procreation, and not for pleasure. The Wife of Bath also denies the belief that women should be submissive to men. She asserts that there should be equality in marriage and describes how she was able to have control in her marriages through her wit.
Hints of feminism and antifeminism can be found in both the prologue to the tale and the tale itself.
Antifeminism in the Wife of Bath’s Tale:
DeleteThe rape of the young maiden has an antifeminist tone to it. After the occurrence, she completely disappears from the story and does not reappear. The knight escapes his punishment and at the end is rewarded with a beautiful young wife. She is obedient and good to him, and this can seem to imply that the male has the authority still. The fact that the knight gets a satisfactory ending, and the maiden doesn’t appear again, hints at antifeminism.
Antifeminism in the prologue:
The Wife of Bath gains control in her marriages through her sexual attributes. The power she holds over her husbands is her sexuality. Her sexual exploits can be interpreted as a negative, stereotypical portrayal of women.
Feminism in the Wife of Bath’s Tale:
The knight’s fate, after he has been sentenced to be beheaded, is decided by a woman (Queen Guinevere). King Arthur submits to Guinevere’s rule, and the ladies of the court serve as justices instead of men. The women who depict the fate of the knight are portrayed as powerful and in charge.
The knight is redeemed by a woman. He submits to the authority of women, and near the end of the tale, lets the old woman decide for him.
Feminism in the prologue:
The Wife of Bath is portrayed as a strong woman. She is shameless when expressing her views and opinions. Her actions against the male-dominated medieval society are rebellious and reflect her courageousness.
To conclude, I would not say that Chaucer was a feminist. However, he has presented a feministic view of women through the narrator of The Wife of Bath. Feminism and antifeminism can both be found in the tale, and I would not say that one manages to rule over the other.
References:
Elodie (2018). Is the Wife of Bath Feminist? Sparknotes Blog Books. Retrieved
from https://www.sparknotes.com/blog/is-the-wife-of-bath-feminist/
The Canterbury Tales. Retrieved from
https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/canterbury/section8/
The Wife of Bath’s Tale. Retrieved from
https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/canterbury/section10/
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“Feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.” (Burkett & Brunell, 2020).
I don’t think Chaucer was a feminist, this belief is strengthened after a lecture with Paul.
Read from a modern-day viewpoint I agree that there are elements in the story that can be considered feminist and elements of empowering women.
Some of the feminist elements in the story is shown in the way the queen convinces the king to give her power over the knight’s faith. “And gave him to the queen, all at her will, to choose whether she would him save or put to death.” The king listens to the words of his wife, and to me this could indicate that he respects her word and that they are equal in power. It could also mean that he was amused by the situation and wanted to see what would happen. If you assume that he looked at his wife as an equal, then that fits with the “political equality of the sexes” in Burkett and Brunell’s definition of feminism. (Burkett & Brunell, 2020).
The queen says she will save the knights life if he can tell her what women desire the most.
I think her demand is a way to punish and teach him how he should treat women (considering he starts the story with raping a young girl).
The story goes on and the knight searches far and wide for the answer until he meets a really old and ugly lady. “Save on the green he saw sitting a woman – there can no man imagine an uglier creature.” (lines 998 and 999). Although she is ugly, he seeks her wisdom, which she shares with him in exchange for a favour. “Pledge me thy word here in my hand, she said, the next thing that I require of thee, thou shall do it if it lies in thy power.” He agrees and she tells him what women desire the most.
When he stands before the queen, he says that the thing all women desire is to be in charge of their own life and do as they please. The queen agrees, his life is saved, and the ugly woman demands his hand in marriage. He made a promise, they get married and he’s miserable.
The story ends with her turning into a beautiful, young woman and they are both happy. Both of them get what they desire the most (although I feel like she in some way tricks him into giving her what she wants) and they reach an equal ground. I feel like the last part about Jesus makes the story extremely awkward, especially the part where he writes about Jesus sending young men who are vigorous in bed.
There are parts in the story reminds me of the Norwegian folk tale about Kvitebjørn Kong Valemon (White-Bear-King-Valemon), where a young girl is given to a talking bear (a beast). She lives with him and after making a big mistake, and rescuing him from an evil Queen, they get married. At the end of the story the bear turns into a beautiful prince. Before she gets to the “happily ever after” she has to travel across the country in search for someone who can give her the answer to where King Valemon is. The story also reminds me of other Norwegian folk tales where the hero encounters foul looking old hags or trolls. This makes me think that The Wife of Bath's Tale is more like a fairy-tale/folk lore and meant to entertain and teach the listener a lesson more than a feminist, equality tale.
Encyclopædia Britannica, (2020, March 5). Feminism. Burkett &Brunell.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-Bear-King-Valemon
In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define “conceits”, and discuss what you think is the most striking example.
ReplyDeleteMetaphors or comparisons are one of the most used techniques in poetry writing. This is especially true for sonnets, the original love poems. What better way to express yourself, your experiences and your feelings to people who are not you, than to equate them to something they have seen or felt before, “Shall i compare thee to a summer's day?” (Shakespeare, 1609) for example. Furthermore, there is a sub-genre of metaphors, often used in sonnets, common in the Elizabethan and Jacobean era, that depicted comparisons so extravagant (usually comparing two things entirely dissimilar) and extreme in their declarations, that they gained their own name. They are referred to as “conceits” and are a staple of writers such as William Shakespeare and Andrew Marvell. In simple terms a conceit is “A kind of metaphor that compares two very unlike things in a surprising and clever way.” (Language Glossary n.d)
I see conceits as a fun and vivid form of storytelling. Especially in the context of love poems, which the sonnets of this era are. You can imagine how flattering it must have been to be the people these poems were inspired by. However, I sometimes feel that the large overstatements that are supposed to be romantic and admiring can on occasion come off as unattainable and slightly contrived. How can one person truly live up to those incredible things? At least that is how I believe I would feel if one of these poems were about me. There is one poem, however, that subverts this formula and it is the one that I personally feel is the most striking and romantic, with its clever use of conceits, even if at first glance it may not seem very complimentary.
The poem is Shakespeare’s “Sonnet CXXX” (1609). Infamous for lines such as “My mistresses eyes are nothing like the sun”. As a first line of a love poem it might seem slightly mystifying, and it is. The sonnet going on to do nothing but list all of the wonderful things she does not live up to. Many times it practically insults her and compares her to so many things the writer deems more lovely and agreeable. “And in some perfumes is there more delight. Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks” is not exactly a very nice thing to say to anyone, nor is it something you should probably say about a person you claim to love. But that is the interesting thing about it. The poem seems to almost reject the entire concept of conceits, uses the formula to turn it on its head and make fun of it. This is an interesting take coming from Shakespeare himself, a master of the form. The word play is fun and the poem itself is entertaining, but that is not why it is my favorite.
I personally find this contrary poem to be the most romantic for its last few lines, and how they contextualise the entire sonnet. “I grant I never saw a goddess go. My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground. And yet by heaven, I think my love as rare. As any she belied with false compare.” She is no Goddess, she is human, and that is more than enough. In this sonnet Shakespeare does not use his conceits to pander to his lady's vanity or create an idealised paragon of a woman for his readers. He instead uses clever word play and conceits to create a genuinely flattering picture of his beloved under a guise of something that at first glance may not seem so favorable. This may be an unusual opinion, but of all the Elizabethan or Jacobean sonnets this is the one that I would personally most like to be the inspiration of. Maybe it is not the most honeyed picture of a person, but neither is life. I would want to be with someone who really knew me for me, loved me just the way I was and still saw that as something worthwhile enough to write a love poem about. Even as my voice sometimes is not as pleasing to the ear as music can be.
Continued -
DeleteTo conclude, these reasons are why I find this particular sonnet and its conceits to be the most striking. It is completely at odds with the others of its time, even compared to Shakespeare's own works. However, in my opinion, it is the most compelling and successful sonnet of its caliber when you consider that it is supposed to be a love poem. Furthermore, it does all this with clever wordplay and unusual insight into what people truly want out of a partner.
Reference list-
Literature Glossary. (n.d.). Conceit.
https://www.shmoop.com/literature-glossary/conceit.html
Shakespeare, W. (1609) Sonnet XVIII
Shakespeare, W. (1609) Sonnet CXXX
Shannon-rose - I completely agree with you! The more achievable aesthetic comparisons are much more likely to work! The more outrageous comparisons would probably get an eye-roll at most!
Delete4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
ReplyDeleteWhat is Conceit?!
Furthered modern definition:
: favorable opinion especially
: an excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue
(J.E. Luebering, Conceit: a FIgure of Speech, 2020)
The language of Renaissance literature in terms, the language of poets where conceits reigned in at the apex of high literature.
During the era of Queen Elizabeth’s reign (1558-1604) and the subsequent reign of James I (Jacobean) Elizabethan/Jacobean poets attributed to the time the body of works written of the times.
What is the idea of a conceit here advanced, defined in textualism and comparison of Elizabethan and Jacobean Poetry?
In terms of usage as a literary device, a conceit is used an extended metaphor that compares two very dissimilar things. (J.E. Luebering, 2020)
To define Conceit can be posted into consideration under several domains of possible concepts: i.e. there are different modes of expressing conceits. In terminologies of conceit here are two main types of textual that differ in Elizabethan and Jacobean poetry.
For Elizabethan poetry, we have the concept of the “Petrarchan” conceit. A reference to a style of Iambic pentameter created by the 14th century Patriarch became cliched in some of his later Elizabethan imitators” I (djinni, 2009)
Further, we can advance the concept of “Petrarchan” conceitedness – Petrarchan conceit: “conceit is a cross between a metaphor or a simile.” (J.E. Luebering, 2020)
Through a hyperbolic comparison between a beautiful woman to some physical object.” (Examples of Conceit iin Literature, 2020).
PART 1.
ReplyDeleteOur reader provides us with three texts telling of stories from the Middle Ages which make use of the ‘Loathly Lady’ fabula. ‘Fabula’, in it’s use here, means a type of story, usually a traditional one (Merriam-Webster, 2020.), and in the case of the ‘Loathly Lady’, the story is one in which a woman who outwardly appears ‘hideous’ appears to a man and makes a deal with him, usually for him to wed her in exchange for her saving his life. Should the man accept, the ‘loathly lady’ then sheds her hideous form and reveals herself to be overwhelmingly beautiful and desirable.
Although all three of these texts follow the same ‘fabula’ of the loathly lady tale, they all have key differences in both the figure of the ‘loathly lady’ herself and the ‘hero’ of the text. ‘King Henry’ is the shortest and most simplistic of the three. Henry himself goes through little change or development as a character, with the ‘loathly lady’ acting to test him rather than change him. The aspects he is being ‘tested’ on are established in the first stanza of the ballad: ‘A store of gold, and open heart, / And full of charity; /’ (Steeleye Span, 1972.) and Henry proves himself to have these qualities through showing his wealth - being able to provide the lady with as much food and drink as she desires, even at the cost of his own animals - his heart - providing for her and sleeping with her in spite of her appearance - all of which make up his charity - giving the the lady whatever she pleases. The lady herself then praises Henry for having provided as a king should in the final stanza, ‘I've met with many a gentle knight / That gave me such a fill, / But never before with a courteous knight / That gave me all my will /’. (Steeleye Span, 1972.)
Contrasting with this, while both main characters in ‘The Wife of Bath’s Tale’ and ‘The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle’ face the test of giving sovereignty to women, these tests also act as penance or punishment for bad behavior (or to compare with how King Henry was judged, qualities unfitting of a king or knight). King Arthur, as punishment for not only losing land but also intruding on and taking from it, must then give up something of his own to pay for it - his trustworthy knight, Sir Gawain. Although Gawain agrees to marry the loathly lady without hesitation, it’s clear in the text that the idea of having to ask Gawain to marry her to save himself pains Arthur: upon meeting with Gawain, who asks him how his search went, he declares, ‘"Foresooth," said the king, "never as badly. / Alas! I am at the point of killing myself, / For I would be better off dead."’ (Hahn, T. 1995.) In this, we also see King Arthur’s ‘king’-ly qualities proven as they were with King Henry, as Gawain’s willingness to do anything to serve his king prove him to be a strong leader.
PART 2.
Delete‘The Wife of Bath’s Tale’ has what is the most striking penance for the main character of all the three texts, and this comes in the form of completely reversing the power roles played by the main character of the knight and the women in the text. The text opens with the crime of the knight for which he must pay for - the rape of a young woman, the ultimate and most heinous act of power over a woman: ‘He saw a maiden walking before him, / Of which maiden straightway, despite all she could do, / By utter force, he took away her maidenhead;’. (Chaucer, G. c.1390.) In order to save his life, the knight is then forced to make a deal with the loathly lady (giving power to her), learn that what women desire most is sovereignty (the power to make their own decisions), and then as the finale must give over sovereignty and choice over her own body to his new wife, the loathly lady. This final act of giving over power to the woman is made overwhelmingly clear, with the knight himself saying she has mastery over him, ‘ "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."’ (Chaucer, G. c.1390.) As an added detail, the leader in charge of the knight’s punishment is not in fact the King, but his wife, the Queen - ‘And gave him to the Queen, all at her will, / to choose whether she would save or put him to death’ (Chaucer, G. c.1390.) - another example of the reversal of power roles. For a man once bold enough to commit rape, this reversal of power acts as the ultimate penance. It could be argued that, as we see King Henry prove his worth as a king through his charity and King Arthur prove his worth through the unwavering loyalty of his men, that we see the knight redeem himself through following through on his promise to the loathly lady and proving he had learned the lesson of what women want (their independence), but the text certainly seems more occupied with the idea of turning the tables on it’s questionable hero (who is far more questionable as a hero than Henry or Arthur, who are clearly written from the start as heroes) than proving him to be of king material.
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
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Fabula. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 8, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fabula
Steeleye Span (1972). King Henry. In Below the Salt. US: Shanachie
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete6. what does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English renaissance?
ReplyDeleteIn 1997, Revard wrote an article about women in renaissance England, more specifically female poets. In his article he focuses especially on male poets’ view of female poets. There was actually, despite the impression most people may have, several female poets that were excelling in their field. The ones mentioned in Revard’s article are Aphra Behn and Katherine Philips. Both of them have been praised for being talented poets. However, what Revard argues in his article, is that men’s view on the female poets is coloured by their view on women in general.
It is made clear in this article that the male poets of the English renaissance, when commenting on their female colleagues, are inclined to almost always comment more on them as women than as writers. One can with that in mind question if the male poets actually saw these women as equals. Revard references to the poet Abraham Cowley, who actually wrote two Pindarics directed to Katherine Philips in 1668. Even though these two Pindarics without a doubt is praising Philips, there is still an obvious difference in how he addresses Philips, compared to how he would have written his male peers.
The general pattern when Cowley wrote about Philips, was that he wrote about her as a woman first, and poet second. He would comment on her qualities as a woman, such as her beauty and virtue, instead of commenting on her competence and skills as a writer. He even claimed that women have a natural advantage over men in their sex, and that wit was the male poets only advantage. Those ideas and thoughts naturally comment on the view Cowley had on the female sex, and one could argue that when he describe these qualities of women as an advantage, even female poets, he is in a way justifying the objectification and oppression of women. Also, by doing that he is seemingly empowering women, however, looking closer one can see that the real power belongs to men.
Revard also points out how male poets would argue against female writers, that they naturally only were meant to create be reproducing. They claim that women’s creative energy was intended for making and raising children. It can be interpreted that they are saying that female writers and creators are going against the natural order. Basically, they would be accusing these women of using their creativity in the wrong place, and in that way threaten the natural energy they have for childbearing.
Revard is creating a clear image of the language, sex, power and transgression in the English renaissance by showing us how female poets were perceived by their fellow poets. And though it is not shocking that women were not seen as equals, it is surprising to see the ones who apparently were supporting their female peers, actually binds them by the social norms, and using their sex as an argument for their inferiority.
In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"? Discuss what you think is the most striking or outrageous example.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of conceits has changed over time. Nowadays, conceit generally can be defined as a favourable opinion of oneself (Merriam-Webster). However, in Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets it is generally used as an extended metaphor; Baldick (2015) defines conceit as “an unusually elaborate metaphor or simile that is developed ingeniously”. However, the definition of conceits, and the distinction between an elaborate and regular metaphor in relation to this time period has been argued differently by many critics (Alden, 1917). From his analysis of other critics, Alden (1917) defines a conceit as:
the elaboration of a verbal or an imaginative figure, or the substitution of a logical for an imaginative figure, or the substitution of a logical for an imaginative figure, with so considerable a use of an intellectual process as to take precedence, at least for the moment, of the normal poetic process (p. 137).
Sonnets tend to use conceits to make grand, unrealistic comparisons of their love interests’ beauty. Shakespeare’s earlier work, for example Sonnet XVIII, uses the conceit of the comparison of a woman to a summer’s day. This sonnet includes the lines “Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate” and “But thy eternal summer shall not fade”. Therefore, perhaps implying that his love interest is immune to nature’s aging and changing process.
Shakespeare’s sonnets were written in Elizabethan England, which was going through the Renaissance period, where classical learning, such as science and philosophy were being rediscovered. Conceits, such as the unrealistic comparison of a woman to a seasonal day, appear to be related to the syncretism of the Christian concept of an eternal afterlife in heaven and Neoplatonism in which reality as we know it is simply a reflection of a super celestial spiritual sphere, both of which were popular at the time.
In contrast, in sonnet CXXX, Shakespeare appears to use the popular (and perhaps over-done) conceits of other sonnets of the time to create a satire. Shakespeare takes objects to which females are usually compared to, such as lips being as red as coral, and states “Coral is far more red, than her lips red”. Rather than using the common metaphorical flattery used in sonnets, which was popular at the time, Shakespeare instead asserts that the opposite is true. The most striking example of this is “And in some perfumes is there more delight Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.” which one may take offence to under usual circumstances. However, the concluding points flip the narrative as he proclaims his love “And yet by heaven, I think my love as rare; As any she belied with false compare”. This gesture perhaps may be even more persuasive as it is more realistic and believable.
References
Alden, R. (1917). The Lyrical Conceit of the Elizabethans. Studies in Philology, 14(2), 129–152. www.jstor.org/stable/4171705
Baldick, C. (2015). Conceit. In M. Dobson, S. Wells, W. Sharpe, & E. Sullivan (Eds.), The Oxford companion to Shakespeare (2nd ed). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780198708735.013.0680
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Conceit. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 08, 2020, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceit
A really interesting read, great work!
Delete
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.
It is easy enough to interpret The Wife of Bath’s tale as a proto-feminist text and it features many, but I would contend that this is a somewhat overly optimistic interpretation of the story and at the very least it has not. First taking into account that they are part of the Canterbury Tales, a series of stories that are not an entirely serious affair and mix low-brow humour with. The Wife of Bath’s Tale as a variation of the Loathly Lady fabula reads almost as a parody or comedic interpretation interested in playing with gender norms. It is unknown where Chaucer first encountered the motif but the original tales come from Irish folklore, a culture, time and place in which women were given more rights. As such The Wife of Bath’s Tale can be interpreted be seen as a satirical put-down of these ideas, but this post will focus more on the text itself rather than historical circumstances surrounding it (I will be honest be honest, it is because I missed the first lecture).
While acknowledging that Chaucer is likely not using the Wife as a mouthpiece for his own ideas the main thrust of Carter’s essay is that “The motif central to the Wife’s tale (that a shapeshifting hag becomes beautiful once she gets her own way)” is essentially about “liberation from gender role restriction” (Carter, 2003, p. 329), and she outlines the different ways this is manifested through the Wife’s radical speeches underlining the hypocrisy of how women and men are treated and how the Wife reclaims her body and sovereignty. While in various versions of the story the court represents patriarchal power and the forest feminine it is the Queen who is given the right to deal with the Knight and decide how he is dealt with, effectively feminizing the court in the symbolic framework of the story. Carter does not say outright that it is a feminist text but concludes that “the motif itself contains the moral that fulfilment lies in the collapse of gender roles and the acceptance of ambivalence.” (Carter, 2003, p. 341) I believe this is an overly optimistic interpretation although not entirely untrue, but the narrative contains several problematic ideas as well. As such I want to offer a more immediate and visceral reading of the text, as well as counter points.
The first is that the loathly lady motif, while transformative and powerful within the limited context and scope of this story, is also reminiscent of the old misogynist argument that women are either docile and compliant or promiscuous, conniving villains, to be tamed or – as The Wife of Bath seems to imply – placated. In this way The Wife of Bath’s tale somewhat foreshadows much of feminist literature for the coming centuries. For instance Jane Eyre, another text considered feminist or proto-feminist by many people albeit from a much later time in history, features a secondary “madwoman in the attic”, the previous wife of Mr. Rochester who is restricted to being a Gothic spectre that Jane occasionally encounters and never has a spoken word of dialogue. Wide Sargasso Sea is essentially revisionist fanfiction for Jane Eyre which gives this “madwoman” a voice, and we see how in Mr. Rochester’s eyes she transforms from a beautiful wife into an insane, deceitful seductress once he is aware of her mother’s mental illness. He begins emotionally abusing her and uses her supposed mental infirmity to undermine her rights and dehumanize her (including a refusal to call her by her real name) and finally as justification to keep her locked up in a room until she goes insane, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. In this way that The Wife of Bath’s Tale is also playing into these deeply ingrained patriarchal myths, and is not particularly invested in challenging them as much as poking at them. Reading the text by itself it seems Chaucer was less concerned with highlighting or correcting social injustice as he was in upending gender and social norms for the purposes of entertainment, or at least to explore these ideas without having to make a committed, decided stance.
DeleteCarter also argues that the Knight giving up power is a form liberation for him too. Beidler (1998, as cited by Carter, 2003, p. 340) calls attention to the fact that “the patriarchy has through the years also done much damage to men by limiting the roles men acceptably play” but The Wife of Bath’s Tale does not require the Knight to go through any meaningful recompense for his crimes or to step much beyond a few choice words, and simply reassumes his place of patriarchal power once he does. As a reader I do not want to see him redeemed or rewarded as much as punished, to be told he is now a worthy man when his gestures are meaningless and his redemption is not a personal quest but one thrust upon him. He is dumb enough that he could never have figured out the riddle on his own, and is stunned at every point the woman makes toward him and is not even smart or moral enough to reflect on regret his crime. The narrative tells him he does not have to. While I believe the story is not meant to be taken too seriously and some allowance can be made in its logic, and my values may be different from the original intended audience, this seems too obvious to ignore.
Another surprisingly cruel circumstance of the story is that the woman who is raped never receives any justice and is never mentioned beyond her victimization, essentially reducing her to a plot device. I recognize it is too much to expect a fully fleshed character in what is ultimately a very simple tale of a few lines, but the fact that she can be written off so easily suggests that she and the crimes committed against her were not as important as the redemption of a rapist. The second is that the Wife is essentially taking advantage of the hypocrisies of the system and using it to her advantage rather than attempting to fix it in any meaningful way, but this is simply another version of emotional manipulation and blackmail in order to convince him to have sex with her. It works within a humorous context which is largely free of morality (at least, depending on a person’s taste) and as a criticism of power in gender politics as a whole, but it cannot be seriously suggested as a solution under any brand of feminism that advocates for equality.
DeleteThe final and perhaps most damning is that the knight only has to make a small, verbal modification to his behaviour in order to receive the reward of a beautiful wife, and the man who began the tale by raping an innocent woman is somehow in a better place at the end of the story than he was in the beginning. The Wife’s sovereignty was won by blackmail, and her reward for helping him escape execution (and in addition to this preventing the woman who was raped from receiving any sort of closure, so no form of solidarity is found in this tale either) is marriage to a rapist and an idiot. Carter (2003, p. 340) argues that “the hag’s quasi-divine power negates her total surrender to her man when she is having fun with him” but I am not convinced of this. To me the tale seems more concerned with acting as a morality play for men in how to placate their women and get what they want out of them than actually advancing any feminist agenda.
In conclusion, while The Wife of Bath’s Tale contains several ideas that were precursors of feminist texts to come and I can understand why it is seen as a proto-feminist text I do not think it represents the values of feminist ideology.
References
Carter, S. (2003). Coupling the beastly bride and the hunter hunted: What lies behind Chaucer’s wife of Bath’s tale. The Chaucer Review, 37(4), 329-345.
Chaucer, G. (1386, 2000) The wife of bath’s tale. (Harvard University, Trans.). Harvard University Online.
Rhys, J., & Brontë, C. J. E. (1992). Wide Sargasso Sea. Norton.
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
ReplyDeleteIn the context of Elizabeth and Jacobean sonnets, a poetic conceit is an extended metaphor which is a comparison of two things that are opposing in nature, and combines them in an intellectual manner. The metaphor is often quite surprising and unexpected and its delights are more intellectual than sensual. Conceits often come to the reader as a surprise, yet their understanding of the poem becomes far more complex due to the unusual juxtapositions presented. As indicated by the Lit charts (n.d) “A conceit is a fanciful metaphor, especially a highly elaborate or extended metaphor in which an unlikely, far-fetched, or strained comparison is made between two things.”
With reference to Shakespeare Sonnet CXXX ‘ My Mistress’ Eyes are nothing like the Sun’,
conceit is the recurring language feature used throughout the poem. Shakespeare makes unorthodox comparisons when comparing his mistress, as a proclamation of his incomparable love. He reverses the typical Petrarchan love sequence conventions and replaces it with a series of skillful jokes that in essence was a mockery of the cliche metaphors that were overused after the creation of petrarchan conceits in the 14th and 15th century.
In Epithalamion by Edmund Spenser, he writes “Her cheeks like apples which the sun hath rudded”. Shakespeare negates this way of appreciating a Woman based on her sheer looks and states the truth.
He writes in Sonnet CXXX:
“My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.”
“If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.”
A comparison of black wires to his mistress’ hair is made as well as stating his mistress treads as opposed to gracefully walking shows the extremely unusual conceits being used instead of typical comparisons seen in renaissance writing like Epithalamion. The writer reveals his full intent- he emphasises that conceits are not needed nor are they a true depiction of love as Women do not need rosy cheeks or hair like silk in order to be beautiful. What matters is finding the beauty in the imperfections of Women. It is deceiving to create a perfect representation of Women which can never be, as they are but human. To hide imperfections under a cloak of desirable traits is misleading to oneself. Shakespeare goes on to say “My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground. And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare As any she belied with false compare”. He refutes the prototypical conceits and claims his conceits represent the true depiction of love. Out of all the Elizabeth and Jacobean sonnets, Shakespeare Sonnet CXXX is the most clear-sighted. The clever choice of conceits although not sugar coated, perfectly capture the essence of valuing imperfections in order to wholeheartedly love your other half. Something modern day society needs to re-consider,instead of trying to find someone who possesses perfection, and whose smile beams just as the sun after a decade of rain; which as Shakespeare would say- is almost non-existent. (Continued)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete5. Discuss what you think is the most striking or outrageous example.
DeleteTo His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell is another piece of literature in which the narrator uses conceit quite extensively. Marvell writes :
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow;”
It seems unusual to compare his love to a vegetable which is essentially within dirt, attached to the lowest point of life. However, Marvell could be suggesting that he intends for his love with his mistress to grow gradually but firmly just as a vegetable, that is rooted to the ground. Ironically so, there is a sexual connotation presented which suggests that Marvell intends to take his time admiring the physical beauty of his mistress which is ripe just as that of a vegetable. Yet he convinces his coy mistress that he is genuine as he intends for the bond between them to grow vehemently. ‘..and more slow’; proposing that loving another takes time.His love would grow vaster than empires which reveals his intentions of making love with his mistress perhaps more than once.
Personally, I think this is the most outrageous yet intellectual example of conceit in the poem, as comparing your love to a vegetable is the last thing anyone in this generation would do. It completely throws the reader off. Marvels' clever use of conceit is sensualising to say the least and an inspiration also, as it showed the depth of thinking and thought processes the writer went through to convince and, entice his coy mistress.
Perhaps such compliments would be considered as highly underrated in present time and, very unlikely for one to come across from their lover.
References:
Literature Glossary. (n.d.). Conceit. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from
https://www.shmoop.com/literature-glossary/conceit.html
Marvell, A. (1621-1678). To His Coy Mistress
Shakespeare, W. (1564-1616). Sonnet CXXX
Poets.org. (n.d.) To His Coy Mistress. Retrieved May 11, 2020, from
https://poets.org/poem/his-coy-mistress
Spacey, A. (2020). Analysis of Poem "To His Coy Mistress" by Andrew Marvell. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Analysis-of-Poem-To-His-Coy-Mistress-by-Andrew-Marvell
My vegetable love should grow
DeleteVaster than empires, and more slow;”
Samaah, what an interesting interpretation it really made me think about the above example. It is quite absurd to compare love as a vegetable in this day and age that I do agree haha. I did some research after reading your post and Marvell intended to mean, I don't find the word vegetable very romantic in anyway but with the meaning and intentions behind the lines I kind of understand why he choose to use this unique comparison.
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"...
ReplyDeleteGoing into reading the texts I couldn't have anticipated just how similar these three stories would end up being. The question implies that the Loathly Lady and the hero have two points in particular where variations can be found, but in truth that's where I find the least amount of obvious differences.
Firstly, The Loathly Lady. In each of the three stories, the protagonists/kings/lords/whatevers are each presented with problems that have life threatening potential. Both The Woman from The Wife of bath’s tale and Dame Ragnelle being the only people that can save their respective ‘Hero’. Meanwhile in Steeleye Span, ‘King Henry’, The ‘Loathly Lady’ is the very thing that threatens King Henry’s life, revealing this when she says “I've met with many a gentle knight That gave me such a fill,” which at least in my interpretation, means she ate them. Another aspect of the ‘Ladies’ that had my attention was that they display seemingly paranormal attributes. The Wife of bath’s tale lady or ‘Bath Lady’ as I’m going to call her henceforth attracts the Knight by seemingly creating the illusion of there being a dance, this implies not only that Bath Lady was able to create this illusion, but also that she already knew what it was The Knight desired, Bath Lady displays this ability a second time when she mentions The Queen and the rest of the woman in the court, despite The Knight not mentioning either of these things prior. The Woman from Steeleye Span on the other hand is literally referred to as a “Grisly Ghost” who haunts The Hall. Dame Ragnelle on other hand, albeit her weird knowledge of whatever it is that’s going on with Arthur and her being “sat upon a gaily outfitted horse, With gold and many a precious stone.” is certainly suspicious, it's not nearly as eye raising as the other two Ladies. Another slight difference that is similar to the one I just outlined is that, while Bath Lady and Dame Ragnelle both seem to be human, that due to them being given the title of Ladies. The Ghost from King Henry is well… A Ghost. The last difference I want to outline is that each of the three ladies have vastly different statuses. Bath Lady is, as The Knight points out “descended from such low born lineage”. Dame Ragnelle on the other hand comes of, at least to me, as someone who is wealthy and of noble birth, considering the “gold and many a precious stone” as well as the fact that she is “Riding so well.”, which could either mean that she is riding competently or that she is riding in luxuriously, which either way proves my point. She is also very well spoken, then again so is Bath Lady so maybe that’s the wrong tree to bark up. The Ghost is well… You get it.
The other primary aspect of the Loathly Lady Fabula, at least that which is outlined by the question is that of the Heroes of the stories, The Knight, Arthur, and Henry respectively. The first difference is the one that I think is the clearest to see. Arthur comes off as a morally good person, as he would rather die than force a friend to do something that would save his life, saying “I cannot promise you I will order Sir Gawain to wed. That all depends on him.” Henry on the other hand stays in the hall when the rest of his people flee in terror from the ghost, something that would be seen as noble and virtuous. With those two in mind, it shows just how much of a far cry The Knight is to the two kings. Straight off the bat, The Knight decides to sexually assault a maiden, and when he is forced to marry the Bath Lady, he is easily the whiniest of the three heroes. The next difference is the ultimatum of sorts. The Knight ultimately is given the choice between marrying the Bath Lady or death. Henry has to do everything that the Witch demands of him or he will be eaten by her, even if Henry is not necessarily aware of that choice, it is still a choice nonetheless. Arthur on the other hand isn’t the one who is presented with the ultimatum, it is actually Sir Gawain who is faced with choosing between marrying Dame Ragnelle or letting Arthur die. In addition to this, while The Knight and Henry are both the subjects to their respective ladies desires, Arthur is not, that honor once again goes to Sir Gawain. Lastly Arthur/Gawain and Henry are in the predicaments that they are due to circumstances out of their control. The Knight on the other hand only has himself to blame. Afterall, he gets himself landed in court by forcing himself onto the maiden, and he’s forced to accept the Bath Lady’s deal only after failing his task after attempting to achieve it for a year.
DeleteHahn, T. (Ed.). (1995). The Wedding of Sir Gawain
and Dame Ragnelle.In Sir Gawain: Eleven Romances and
Tales. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/index.html 01.01.06
Steeleye Span, from Below the Salt, 1972
Questions: In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define “conceits"?
ReplyDeleteDiscuss what you think is the most striking or outrageous example.
In literary terms, conceits are metaphors that are woven into the verse to portray satirical or deeper meaning within poems, and are often a way for a poet to show of their clever use of words. (Abrams, M.H p.1081) The poets of Elizabethan and Jacobean times were concerned not only with the seduction and romance in their poetry but also displaying their cleverness for words. In Andrew Marvell’s To His Coy Mistress the conceits are used to persuade the ‘mistress’ to engage in sexual activity with the poet. We can assume the two are not married with the description of the woman as ‘coy’, she would not need to be shy or modest if they were married as there would be nothing wrong with engaging in sexual activity with one you are married to. However, back in the era of the poet it would be expected for a woman to be modest and turn down this invitation, regardless of whether she is interested or not. As described by Halli (2001, p.57) the mistresses’ coyness is her only means of protecting what seventeenth-century society defined as her moral and economic value, which is her virginity. The poem is split into 3 main stanzas in which the persuasion occurs. In the first section Marvell describes how if he and his lover had literally all the time in the world then they should never consummate their love. ‘Had we but world enough, and time, this coyness lady, were no crime’ opens up the stanza, he expresses that her coyness would be fair if they had more time to be in love. Marvel continues to hyperbolise how he would worship and love her for all eternity if they had the time, saying “my vegetable love should grow vaster than empire, and more slow”, here the conceit of a vegetable as his love for her emphasises how slow they could be in exploring their love. It is a clear example of a conceit as it is an odd metaphor for love, but it conveys the deeper meaning of a long lasting and continuously growing love, especially since a vegetable could never grow anywhere neat the size of an empire. This reinforces the idea of his love for her being so grand and so large it defies the realms of possibility.
The second stanza is the opposite of the first, instead Marvell seems to be rushed, and emphasises how short life is. Starting off the stanza with “but at my back I always hear time’s winged chariot hurrying near” and straight away there is a sense of urgency, like time is constantly catching up to them. Line 27/28 of the poem push this point forward even more as “then worms shall try that long preserv’d virginity”. It is not a pretty image, but it gets the point across. The point being that if Marvell’s lover continues to be coy and shy they will never get to the love making and before they know it she will be dead, and the only thing to take her virginity will be the worms. The last stanza’s meaning has been debated some by scholars, but the general interpretation shows it as an invitation to sexual delights, “now let us sport while we play” on line 37 is an invitation to make love. Halli (2001) describes how in lines 38-40 “And now like am’rous birds of prey, rather at once out time devour, than languish in his slow-chapp’d power.” Marvell is saying to the woman that they should forget the idea of living a long life, as it was once believed that sexual activity shorted ones lifespan, and they should engage in as much love making as they like. The conceit used here is the comparison of love making to a bird of prey. Sexual activity is romanticised and considered to be fluffy and soft, whereas a bird of prey is quick and aggressive, and acts on instinct. This again is referencing the idea of them running out of time, and how they should act on their instincts and just go for it. Marvell’s poem may have been romantic and persuasive in the time it was written, but having a modern view makes the poem seem rushed and desperate. And I have a hard time believing something of the like would be successful in this day and age.
DeleteReferences:
Abrams, M.H. (1993). The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 6th ed. New York:W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., p.1081.
Halli, R.W. (2001). The Persuasion of the Coy Mistress in the Philological Quarterly, Wntr 2001 v80 i1 p57 (14)
6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power, and transgression in the English Renaissance?
ReplyDeleteRevard’s viewpoint on the relationships between the language of seduction found during the period of the English Renaissance is a set of complex symbols of misogynistic and symbolic of vaunted male privilege.
His literary discussion begins with his within "Katherine Philips, Aphra Behn, and the Female Pindaric in Representing Women in Renaissance England”
Puts several interesting arguments and purports several viewpoints on language, sex, power, and transgression found in the english renaissance
Firstly, He suggests that there is a place in society for female poets. However, admits that there is a crippling difficulty to assign male poets in laudation in the renaissance without a misogynistic relationship with the female poets on whole.
“Poetry illustrate the difficulty that a male poet has in praising a woman who is neither a mistress nor a patron nor a sovereign” (S.P, 1997)
Further Revard collects a viewpoint on the gender and sex of the individual in renaissance literature is more significant than her actual merit and the viewpoint professed where he discusses the difference between sex in poetry and professed wit.
“A man's view of a "learned" woman almost always involves a man's view of women in general, and assessment of her literary achievement cannot take place without considering the acceptability of her competing "equally" in the domain of poetic performance. “ (S.P, 1997)
Further down the academic essay, Revard argues that perhaps during the English renaissance men and women were not considered equal with the pronounced apparition of male privilege prominent on the pedestal when asking Katherine Philips was considered by Abraham Cowley by jean Loiseau -
“But did he truly regard her, as both his poems say, as his equal as a poet? (S.P, 1997)”
Further, into the dialogue, we can see that Crowley’s Pindarics ( a term borrowed to imply imitation of vast the Greek poet Pindar c. 518 – 438 BC) where the gender is more pronounced over the merit of the poem/poetry itself and exposition of the interplay of power and sex.
Delete“Cowley's Pindarics begin by looking at the woman first. The issue of sex becomes so important a motif that the assessment of Philips as a poet takes second place.” (S.P, 1997)
This suggests that Revard sees Crowley in less than a perfect light.
The transgression of the conceitedness of Abraham Cowley’s position from these instances is plain.
Alter he enunciates with the subtle nuances of indeed a veiled insult where Crowley declares that a woman is only available to win against men in poetry through “virtue” giving no indication of merit or cleverness.
“Virtue is the highest thing that any woman poet--indeed any woman--can aspire to.” (S.P, 1997)
Another is introduced here to further the powerplay of male gender viewpoints in English renaissance is inserted here:
Thomas Flatman sums Philips up in the last line of his Pindaric:
Delete“The best way for a man to deal with a woman competitor in poetry as in life is to deify her--and so remove her from the competition” (S.P, 1997)
Which relegates the renaissance women poets (in the eyes of male poets of the age) being relegated to only achieving virtue in life, giving no regard to the wit of the poems)
Furthermore, he creates a distinction of male and female poets of gender instead of the power of with on page 23
“Any question of comparative talent or achievement or of admitting women poets into competition with men Cowley simply bypasses. When he allows men into the competition, he couples wit with virtue. Virtue once more serves to assure Orinda the prize in this poem as in the last: "Orinda does our boasting Sex out-do, / Not in Wit only, but Virtue too" (4:8-9). Cowley has so manipulated the terms of the contest that while seeming to award the highest poetic laurels to Philips, he has done no more than concede that she is the best of the female poets” (S.P, 1997)
Through this, we discover the relationship between the male and female poets of the English during the English renaissance. Perhaps we can learn from these lessons and apply to our current society so we do not make mistakes embarrassingly prominent of the mid to late 1700’s.
DeleteBibliography
S.P, R. (1997). "Katherine Philips, Aphra Behn, and the. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
[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 Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle along with Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale are examples of Arthurian literature where the motif of the loathly lady is present. On the surface both are similar in that their general premise revolves around men concerned with learning what women desire, and that they rely on a loathly lady for answers to this question.
An area where Chaucer and Sir Gawain differ though is in relation to their protagonists. In Chaucer, its unnamed knight was a “lusty bachelor” (Chaucer, 2008), who caused outcry due to the crime of raping a young woman. Whereas the titular knight of the latter is shown to be the chivalric hero mentioned in Hahn (1995). Who when told of King Arthur’s dilemma and request simply responds “is that all?” (Hahn, 1995).
Both texts have these knights marry their loathly lady, which requires them to consummate the marriage. Whilst the unnamed knight is almost reluctant to pay the deed owed to his loathly lady, Gawain on the other hand does so willingly in a manner that would be expected of a husband for the time period. This is however done not out of love but out of loyalty to his king.
The appearance of the loathly lady in both poems is the result of magical or supernatural circumstances. In Gawain’s case it is revealed that Ragnelle’s loathly appearance is the result of a curse cast upon her. One that can only break once she is appointed the wife of a knight as noble as Gawain. Whereas the woman in Chaucer is more ambiguous in nature – but whose home in the woods suggests something special about her. As forests in the middle ages were known as places of recreation and mystery (Hahn, 1995).
Another area in which these texts share similarities is in how they choose to resolve the issue of the loathly lady’s appearance. In both poems, the knights are presented with a choice relating to the physical appearance of their loathly lady. For the unnamed knight, he must choose between having a faithful wife that retains her loathly appearance. Or the option of her young and beautiful, but with the pitfall of having to worry about debauchery (Chaucer, 2008). In Gawain’s case though, he must choose between having a wife whose appearance is beautiful during one half of the day and loathly the other (Hahn, 1995). In the end though, they forgo both options presented and allow their wives to decide for themselves. Effectively granting them the sovereignty which they learned woman desired most. A far cry for the unnamed knight who began his tale as the despicable lusty bachelor.
This idea of granting the loathly lady sovereignty of her body would be revisited in the early 2000s with the release of DreamWorks Studios’ first two Shrek films. In which we see a princess in a similar predicament to Dame Ragnelle. However, while that princess chose to subvert expectations and remain in her loathly, ogre form. Ragnelle and the woman in Chaucer’s tale do the opposite, choosing to reward their husbands with a permanent beautiful state.
References
DeleteChaucher, G. (2008, April 8). Chaucer: The wife of bath's prologue and tale -- An interlinear translation. HUIT Sites Hosting. https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/teachslf/wbt-par.htm
Hahn, T. (1995). The wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. In Sir Gawain: Eleven romances and tales. Western Michigan University Medieval.
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.
ReplyDeletePredicting the intent of what someone has written can be a very tricky feat, as we have no way to substantiate our claims as in Chaucer’s case he has been dead for centuries. However, we are able to use our lens and take from the story what we can and should apply it to our lives. The Wife of Bath's Tale is an interesting character as she embodies the exact opposite the ideal woman was back then( and still in some part of the world today). She doesn’t have children, she believes that a husband and wife should have equal rights in their marriage saying things like “obey each other”, she even had multiple sex partners, and is very sex-positive, which was and still is looked down upon.
The story is set in “ Olde England”, around the time of King Arthur, and follows a knight that has raped a woman, assuming she was a peasant, but to his dismay, she was nobility. So the Queen sentences him to death unless he can tell her what a woman desires the most within 10 days. Already we see that the female characters have a lot of power here, the knight assaulted someone in a higher class, the punishment was given out by the Queen, even the punishment was something only a woman would know. I believe that his task of finding “what women truly desire”, is a joke, as its a simple answer, to solve it all you need to do is ask. I think Chaucer was trying to say that, men need to start asking how their wives, sisters, friends feel instead of assuming or not caring.
The knight then finds a hideous woman who says she will tell him the secret, but only if he marries her, and he complies. She then tells him that women desire to control their husbands. He is then told that he has a choice, he can give her the power to control him, and, in turn, she will be beautiful, or he retains his control but she remains ugly. The knight gives her the choice, and the ugly woman becomes beautiful but also gives the knight the power in their relationship. We can interpret this in two ways, on one hand, the knight relinquishes his power to a woman, giving her autonomy over her body and future, but on the other hand, she gives the power right back after becoming beautiful.
We must remember the time period the story was set and written in. The collective norms of both societies have changed except for how women are treated, and that is clear as to how some aspects of the story are still relevant and applicable. Chaucer may have been trying to go against the grain of his peers and try to support women and their strife through this work. But a quick google search shows that maybe even he had the same antiquated ideas and opinions. So what we can do is separate the art from the artist, see the good in this piece of art, and try to appreciate it for what it is meant to represent to us, and try to take away some meaning from it to better ourselves with it. Yes, the story has strong female characters, and in the story two of the women hold the power over a knight, so it could be considered a feminist text, but the woman also gives up her power to be beautiful and have a husband, so it’s open for interpretation.
In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnet, how can we define “conceit”
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnet, how can we define “conceit”
DeleteA conceit is a literary term that compares two opposite things, and the conceit is usually elaborate spanning the entire poem/ sonnet. They rose into prominence in the 14th and 15th century, they were used in the Patriarch sonnets which are love poems and compared the people they loved to beautiful things found in the world/nature. In the critical reader, we have many examples that use these conceits, they all follow the basic formula of professing their love to a beautiful girl, and comparing her features to similar beautiful things.
An example of this can be seen in the first lines of the sonnet, “Ice and Fire”, by Edmund Spencer, there it states, “My love is like to ice, and I to fire”, already we see a conceit, He compares their love to be hot and cold. When looked upon further this line is truly sort of sad, as he is professing his burning passion, his love for her, and he’s also saying she is cold/ distant and doesn’t share his feelings toward him. This is shown throughout his sonnet as well, we can see in lines 5 and 6, where he says, “Or how comes it that my exceeding heat/ Is not allayed by her heart-frozen cold”, showing that his passion for her, the burning desire he has for her will not smothered or reduced by her disinterest. When viewing poetry we must look for any literary devices that may change the meaning of the poem, as viewing them in this new lens will give us the reader a better understanding of what the poet was trying to relay through the work.
A conceit could also be thought of as an extended metaphor, this can be seen in “Ice and fire”, as the theme of ice representing the woman being disinterested and cold, and fire representing the man loving the woman with a fiery passion is continued throughout the entire poem. By using a conceit it allows the author to embed an idea into the poem or sonnet, making it much more interesting to read.
I find the sonnets written by Shakespeare to be very funny, as they take the other Patriarch sonnets do and flip it on its head. In “Sonnet CXXX” Shakespeare says, “My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun/ Coral is far more red, than her lips red”. Instead of building up a woman’s beauty and making her feel beautiful in order to court her, Shakespeare brakes them down almost criticizing their beauty. Not only does he make fun of these cheesy sonnets about professing love to a woman, but he also makes fun of the women, showing people that they aren’t some other species that should be put on a pedestal and praised constantly. He does this all the while leading up to the most heartfelt conceit, saying that his love is the “most rare”. Shakespeare shows that love shouldn’t just be about outer beauty, but its how you feel about each other that matters. I find it almost uncanny that humor is the same be it from the 15th century or the 21st century, because we still, make fun of songs we hate by changing words from it to completely alter its meaning, and people still make fun of beautiful people like celebrities on social media to remind others not to put anyone up on a pedestal. Humans are the same no matter what time period.
Questions:
DeleteThe 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.
In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnet, how can we define “conceit”
Btw its me Sayeem Shariff
DeleteWomen are mystical and take a considerable part of the Western media. Even a hero's journal describes women as temptresses and like a prize. The wedding story is neither feminine nor anti-feminism for me. It is more like a reassertion of women as tools for a men's life.
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.
ReplyDeleteThe Wife of Bath’s Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer was a feminist, I believe that he did and did not actively support feminism or female empowerment through this specific text. The king’s ongoing mental battle about “what a woman most desires” is the portion of the text that strongly shows my 50/50 point of view on Chaucer’s possible feminist agenda. Feminism is a social movement that fights for the economic, political, and social rights for a female. Feminism does not place women above men, but it does place women equal to men. (Caprino, 2017) When the king states “women desire to have sovereignty, as well over her husband as her love, and to be in mastery above him” (Chaucer, 1390), he is placing women above men, which is not a feminist point of view and does not prove the authors beliefs on the matter. However, when the king was told that some women most desire “to be free and do just as we please, and that no man may reprove us for our vices, but say that we are wise and not at all silly” (Chaucer, 1390) that was Chaucer writing and practicing feminist ideologies. After analyzing the tale, I have come to the conclusion that the Wife of Bath’s Tale does not clearly show readers Chaucer’s beliefs on women’s rights and/or empowerment.
References:
Caprino, K. (2017, March 9). What Is Feminism, And Why Do So Many Women And Men Hate It? Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2017/03/08/what-is-feminism-and-why-do-so-many-women-and-men-hate-it/#dced5127e8e6
Chaucer, Geoffrey (c.1390). The Wife of Bath.
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.
ReplyDeleteThe Chaucer's tale ‘The wife of bath’ tales (1386) Was one of the many stories in the ‘Canterbury tales’ Written by Geoffery Chaucer. It tells the tale of a Knight getting a second chance after being sentanced to be be-headded by a female court after raping a young woman, he was told “I Grant thee life, if thou can’t tell me what thing women desire. Beware and keep thy neck-bone from iron!”
There are pieces in Chaucers text that indicate he is a feminist and show female empowerment which would suggest he could possibly be in fact a feminist the knight finds the answer to be women “desire to have soeverentiy as well as her husband as her love” indicating feminist views. Other feminism portrayed in the tale is how the wife is a strong women who voices her views and opinions without the fear of others the wife of bath is considered a feminist. In the prologue and the tale the wife shares personal information about her sex life and is considered a sexually experienced woman after having 5 husbands and is proud and confident about her sexual past. The Wife of bath also believes that women shouldn't be submissive to men and believes in equality in marriage.These are all feministic views from the Wife of bath. Which has brought the debate on whether or not Chaucer was a feminist.
A reason to believe Chaucer was not a feminist was the fact that the women who was raped by the knight was never talked about again while the Knight got a “fairytale” ending and got to live without any consequences. The Knight was shown to have no remorse and was portrayed in a positive light and was rewarded by the end of the tale with a beautiful wife while the woman who was raped was never spoken about and never got the justice she should have received.
this showing a antifeminist view in the tale because a feministic view would likely end in the Knight getting punished and the victim getting some sort of justice which leads me to believe Chaucer was in fact not a feminist. Another point for what I believe to show how Chaucer was anti feminism was when the knight was saved by the ugly woman as described he “painfully sighs” at the thought of marrying her after she helped spear his life would bring “disgrace to his family” however when she becomes beautiful he falls in love with her and is beyond happy to be with her. This showed non feminism ways as he was only concerned about how she looked instead of the person she was which would indicate Chaucer to only be concerned on how women present themselves.
The ending of the wives baths tale does not show justice at work, rather than the knight being punished for raping a young woman the knights sentence for being be-headded is revoked and he is given a happy ever after ending, while the young woman who was raped was given no justice and was shown to get no happy ending in the tale.
Both feminist and antifemnist views are shown throughout the prologue and tale however in my opinion there was more evidence to support Chaucer to not be a feminist.
Lewis,J(June 28, 2019). Is the wife bath a feminist character?. Retrieved from
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-wife-of-bath-feminist-character-3529685
Elodie(2018). Is the wife of bath Feminist? Sparknotes Blog. Retrieved
https://www.sparknotes.com/blog/is-the-wife-of-bath-feminist/
Lipton,E(2019).Contracts,activist feminism, and the wife of bath tales. Retrieved
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/chaucerrev.54.3.0335?seq=1
Q1. 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"...
ReplyDeleteThere are three tales of the Loathly Lady that give variations of which the Lady is beautiful or ugly. Throughout all three stories the Lady is explained to have an ugly appearance.
The Wife of Bath by Geoffrey Chaucer, in this story a knight forcefully takes a maiden and rapes her and therefore he was “condemned to be dead”. However, the king showed grace and therefore the Queen said to the knight “I grant thee life, if thou canst tell me what thing it is that women most desire.” The knight set out his one-year quest to find the answer to the Queens question and meets the Loathly Lady. “He saw no creature that bore life, -- Save on the green he saw sitting a woman -- There can no man imagine an uglier creature.” The Loathly Lady will tell the knight the correct answer in exchange for marriage. He goes to the queen and tells the queen that "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.” The Loathly Lady repeats the promise the two had made and he reluctantly weds her and says “Thou art so loathsome, and so old also, and moreover descended from such low born lineage, that little wonder is though I toss and twist about.” The Loathly Lady askes the knight if he would rather “ 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.” The knight then gives up on trying to revoke or ruin the marriage and tells the Loathly Lady that it is her choice to be which she pleasures the most. She gains mastery over him and turns into a beautiful young woman obeying hum in everything of pleasure and enjoyment.
King Arthur Meets a Really Ugly Woman by Hahn, in this tale of the Loathly Lady King Arthur meets a lady who “was the ugliest creature that a man ever saw.” The tale goes to explain in detail of how repulsive and ugly she is, talking about all her outer appearance features. “Her mouth wide, her teeth all yellow….. To recite the foulness of that lady There is no tongue fit.” The Loathly Lady tells the King that she knows all his secrets and that without her help and something in return he will lose his head. The Loathly Lady continues and tells the king that he must grant her a Sir Gawain a knight to wed and in return she will save his life. The king meets with Sir Gawain and tells him he “met the foulest lady” and of his distress of dying yet the knight replies “I shall wed her and wed her again, even if she be a fiend… Otherwise I wouldn’t be your friend. You are my honoured king and have done me good many times. Therefore, I hesitate not to save your life, my lord. It is my duty.”
DeleteSteeleye Span’s King Henry, in the third variation of the Loathly Lady Fabula. King Henry is a man with an open heart and full of charity. King Henry went to a haunted hall where “Each frightened huntsman fled the hall And left the king alone, 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.” The Loathly Lady asked him for meat, more meat and more meat telling him to kill his horse, grey hounds and goshawks. Then she demanded drinks a bed and for King Henry to take his clothes off, lay naked beside her and take her as his bride. “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.” However, King Henry fulfills all of the Loathly Ladys demands and
“then the night as gone and the day was come and the sun shone through the hall, the fairest lady that was ever seen lay between him and the wall.” In this tale the Loathly Lady was described as somewhat of a demon that was terrifying but The she transformed into a fair maiden after King Henry had met her demands and therefore he was rewarded.
These three variations of the tale of The Loathly Lady all started with hideous descriptions of unattractive ugly woman appearances and how men had to overcome, marry or sleep with the ugly woman to be rewarded to save someone’s life, or their own. This made the characters seem heroic and courageous when in reality it is the men who are egocentric, judgmental and greedy. There are slight differences to the stories and the woman are all judged by their so called foul appearance that it results in the further detail and disgust by the men in the tales.
Personal Comments:
These tales were so interesting and fun to anaylse, they have so much depth in meaning and the comparison between the variations made it insightful. I was able to grasp an understanding and form my own insight of what the stories messages were and It made me think about what the authors were thinking about when they produced the tales. Don’t judge a book by its cover was one of the first things that popped into my head while reading these tales, and it definitely relates to today’s day and age as well, where the perception of beauty is still something that affects both men and woman in our society.
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 Salt. US: Shanachie.
In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"? Discuss what you think is the most striking or outrageous example.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of conceits has changed over time. Nowadays, conceit generally can be defined as a favourable opinion of oneself (Merriam-Webster). However, in Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets it is generally used as an extended metaphor; Baldick (2015) defines conceit as “an unusually elaborate metaphor or simile that is developed ingeniously”. However, the definition of conceits, and the distinction between an elaborate and regular metaphor in relation to this time period has been argued differently by many critics (Alden, 1917). From his analysis of other critics, Alden (1917) defines a conceit as:
the elaboration of a verbal or an imaginative figure, or the substitution of a logical for an imaginative figure, or the substitution of a logical for an imaginative figure, with so considerable a use of an intellectual process as to take precedence, at least for the moment, of the normal poetic process (p. 137).
Sonnets tend to use conceits to make grand, unrealistic comparisons of their love interests’ beauty. Shakespeare’s earlier work, for example Sonnet XVIII, uses the conceit of the comparison of a woman to a summer’s day. This sonnet includes the lines “Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate” and “But thy eternal summer shall not fade”. Therefore, perhaps implying that his love interest is immune to nature’s aging and changing process.
Shakespeare’s sonnets were written in Elizabethan England, which was going through the Renaissance period, where classical learning, such as science and philosophy were being rediscovered. Conceits, such as the unrealistic comparison of a woman to a seasonal day, appear to be related to the syncretism of the Christian concept of an eternal afterlife in heaven and Neoplatonism in which reality as we know it is simply a reflection of a super celestial spiritual sphere, both of which were popular at the time (M. Johnson, personal communication, May 1, 2020; P. Mountfort, personal communication, May 1, 2020).
In contrast, in sonnet CXXX, Shakespeare appears to use the popular (and perhaps over-done) conceits of other sonnets of the time to create a satire. Shakespeare takes objects to which females are usually compared to, such as lips being as red as coral, and states “Coral is far more red, than her lips red”. Rather than using the common metaphorical flattery used in sonnets, which was popular at the time, Shakespeare instead asserts that the opposite is true. The most striking example of this is “And in some perfumes is there more delight Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.” which one may take offence to under usual circumstances. However, the concluding points flip the narrative as he proclaims his love “And yet by heaven, I think my love as rare; As any she belied with false compare”. This gesture perhaps may be even more persuasive as it is more realistic and believable (M. Johnson, personal communication, May 1, 2020; P. Mountfort, personal communication, May 1, 2020).
References
Alden, R. (1917). The lyrical conceit of the Elizabethans. Studies in Philology, 14(2), 129–152. www.jstor.org/stable/4171705
Baldick, C. (2015). Conceit. In M. Dobson, S. Wells, W. Sharpe, & E. Sullivan (Eds.), The Oxford companion to Shakespeare (2nd ed). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780198708735.013.0680
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Conceit. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 08, 2020, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceit
Shakespeare, W. (n.d.). Sonnet CXXX
Shakespeare, W. (1564-1616). Sonnet XVIII.