09.29.06
Reflective Essay #1
My reflective essay, in all its glory:
Completing the reading on schedule has been a bit of a struggle, but so far I’ve been managing. I usually don’t have a text completely read until the Friday of the week in which we discuss it. Occasionally this hinders my understanding of class lecture. Hearing class discussion on plot events that I haven’t yet digested on my own alters my perception when I am reading. In some ways it biases me, preventing me from coming to new conclusions on my own. But at other times I am able to use the ideas discussed in class as springboards; they make me aware of elements in a text I wouldn’t otherwise have discovered. I hope to better manage my reading time for the remainder of the semester; this will allow me to more actively absorb lecture material.
Before we discussed “The Knight’s Tale” in class I read a few scholarly articles on Chaucer. Having a familiarity with some of the scholarly criticism on the text made class lecture more meaningful for me, because I was able to compare and contrast the theories found in these articles with ideas expressed in class. Therefore, one of my goals is to read scholarly literature on texts as we discuss them. This will also help me narrow down topics for my research portfolio.
Although we’ve only been using the blog system for a few weeks, it has been useful for me. Reading other people’s ideas is one of the most successful ways for me to generate and sort out my own ideas.
For me the most difficult aspect of reading medieval literature is its lack of psychological depth in terms of characterization. I haven’t had much prior experience with literature written before the eighteenth-century, and I’ve become very accustomed to critically analyzing texts in terms of character psychology. Because this isn’t as prevalent in medieval literature it is difficult for me to figure out how to approach the text. This is becoming easier as I am getting more and more exposure to medieval literature. It is also easier because we are now moving into Chaucer.
One interesting characteristic of medieval literature is the contradiction inherent in the notion of a Christian, chivalric hero. The pull between the notion of a hero as a man who violently fights and kills in the Greek epic tradition on one hand, and Christian ideals on the other, creates an absorbing tension. This conflict is apparent in all of the texts we have read, particularly “Gawain and the Green Knight.” I am looking forward to reading Chaucer over the next few weeks and exploring the end of the chivalric tradition.
My favorite medieval author to date is Marie de France. She stands out as the only female author we have read. Her lays were unique in their female perspective, including events important to the lives of women, such as marriage and childbirth.
I have begun the process of gathering articles for my research portfolio. I hope to find authors who will represent a diverse assortment of perspectives and critical approaches. However, I am most interested in critical articles that deal with gender, as this is one of my preferred topics and one I have the most experience with. One article I have found deals with gender in “Bisclavret;” “Woman-hating in Marie de France’s Bisclavret” by Paul Cremer, from the Romantic Review. In this article Cremer places “Bisclavret” in the context of woman-hating. It attracted me because I believe that, while his argument has some merit, Cremer himself uses gender bias to validate it. In addition, he fails to maintain his argument in the context of Marie’s other lays.
09.25.06
The Construction of Gender and Power in Marie de France’s Le Deus Amanz (Practical Criticism #1)
A good deal of this is a repitition of my previous post, but nevertheless here is the most recent version:
The nature of gender roles in medieval society dictated that men were to be active and women were to be passive in every aspect of a relationship. In courtly romances it is meant to be either humorous or disconcerting when a woman performs an active role. In Les Deus Amanz, Marie de France inverts this tradition. Throughout the lay she employs diction and figurative language as mechanisms to condemn the artificial construction of spiritual and sexual power in medieval gender relations.
The dialogue of the king’s daughter in lines 82-120 is particularly rich in figures and significant word meaning. When her lover requests that she elope with him, the maiden refuses him; “Beloved, I know it is impossible for you to carry me, for you are not strong enough. (83). Marie manipulates the word carry,” drawing on several related meanings for both literal and rhetorical effects. When the maiden advises her lover that “it is impossible for you to carry me,” she is literally signifying his physical inability to bear her up the side of the mountain. However, she also uses the word metaphorically in order to signify a figurative concept; the spiritual and moral responsibility of a couple to support and care for one another under the dictates of Christianized romantic love. This understanding of the word is enhanced when the reader recognizes the “mountain” that the lovers must climb not as a physical entity, but as a symbolic representation of the spiritual trials that the couple must overcome through faith in one another. Therefore the damsel’s statement has a symbolic meaning that, when decoded, indicates that she does not believe her lover will be able to spiritually care for her. For this reason he must take the potion and endure the trial of the mountain in order to prove his ability to “carry” his lover before she will consent to leave her father.
In addition, Marie uses the word to foreshadow the failure of the young man at his trial and the ultimate death of the two lovers. In a specific usage, the verb “to carry” indicates the act of “bearing a corpse to burial” (OED). Ironically, of all the functions of the verb, this is the only one that the young man fulfills; he carries his beloved to her death.
The maiden’s dialogue operates in close conjunction with lines 143-219 (in which the young man’s failure to carry his lover to the mountain top results in the two lovers’ death) to reveal the consequences of artificially constructed gender-based power structures. The king’s daughter recognizes that her lover will not be able to bear her up the mountain by himself, and so she assumes an active role in attempting to assist him; “the damsel made ready, fasting and refraining from eating in order to lose weight, for she wished to help her beloved” (84). Her physical actions are an external indication of her faith and willingness to engage in a spiritual partnership. Her lover, however, refuses to accept the maiden as anything other than a passive participant in the relationship, a literal “dead weight” on his back. He insists on possessing the only active role, refusing any assistance from the maiden; “The girl repeatedly begged him: ‘my love, drink your potion.’ Yet he would take no heed of her, and carried her onward in great pain (84). The young man is not able to relinquish his desire to yield singular power over the maiden. He must carry her without aid in order to reinforce a patriarchal reality in which men are active and women are passive, both spiritually and sexually. The fact that the young man physically carries the maiden’s body, the essence of her sexuality, reveals that he desires to be sexually dominant. This unwillingness to engage in a relationship based on spiritual and physical equality becomes his tragic flaw. According to the dictates of courtly romance he possesses every quality necessary for success in a Christian romantic hero, for he is both “noble and fair” (82.) If he had he been able to recognize his lover as an active equal, then the couple would have reached the top of the mountain and fulfilled the test of their faith. As result of his failure to do so, both he and his lover perish.
Marie also portrays the male dominated medieval power structure through the conflict between the tyrannical king and the young man over who will possess the maiden. This conflict is a result of patriarchal proprietary views towards women. The king claims ownership of his daughter and refuses to relinquish that ownership to another man. Marie indicates that this almost incestuous possession of a daughter is not necessarily considered socially acceptable; “many people reproached him for this, and even his own people blamed him (82.) Despite social norms, however, the king is able to maintain control of his daughter by asserting his patriarchal right to provide her (or not) with a husband of his choosing. In one sense, the word “father” can apply to any man who has control over a woman’s life, be he her biological father or her husband. Therefore if the maiden were to elope with her lover she would simply be trading one father for another. Her father and her lover vie for the maiden as if she were a possession, objectifying her and attempting to rob her of personal agency. The maiden endeavors to claim agency for herself, but the norms of society and her lover’s adherence to patriarchal realities prevent her from doing so.
Through the events, figures and language of Les Deus Amanz, Marie de France contends that men and women should wield equal power in relationships. Indeed, this is the only way in which they can successfully overcome the spiritual and physical trials of life.
09.17.06
Word Meaning, Figurative Language and Gender in “Les Deus Amanz”
I will probably use some combination of these ideas for my critical reading:
Throughout the lay of Les Deus Amanz, Marie de France consistently employs word choice and figurative language as mechanisms to both explore gender issues and ironically foreshadow future events.
The dialogue of the king’s daughter in lines 84-120 is particularly rich in figurative language and significant word meaning. When the count’s son requests that his lover elope with him, she refuses despite her love of him; “Beloved, I know it is impossible for you to carry me, for you are not strong enough. But if I went away with you, my father would be sad and distressed and his life would be an endless torment” (83.)
In this passage Marie manipulates the word “carry,” drawing on several related meanings for both literal and rhetorical effects. When the daughter tells her lover that “it is impossible for you to carry me,” she is literally signifying his physical inability to bear her up the side of the mountain. However, her conception of “carrying” also encompasses a figurative notion; the spiritual and moral responsibility of a couple to support and care for one another under the dictates of Christianized love. In the patriarchal medieval society this responsibility was largely considered to belong to the husband, who was responsible for his wife’s moral well-being. This understanding of the word “carry” is enhanced when the reader recognizes the mountain that the lovers must climb not as a physical entity, but as a symbolic representation of the spiritual trials that the couple must overcome through faith in one another. Therefore the damsel’s statement has a symbolic meaning (though it is unclear whether or not she is consciously aware of this second meaning) that, when decoded, indicates that she doesn’t believe her lover will be able to spiritually fulfill her. For this reason the count’s son must take the potion and go through a trial in order to prove his ability to “carry” his lover before she will consent to leave her father, a trial that he ultimately fails.
In addition, Marie uses the word to foreshadow the death of the two lovers. In a specific usage, the verb “to carry” indicates the act of “bearing a corpse to burial” (OED).
Ironically, of all the functions of the verb, this is the only one that the young man fulfills; he carries his beloved to her death.
I believe that in this lay, Marie de France is negatively commenting on medieval gender relations. The main problem faced by the two lovers is a result of patriarchal proprietary views towards women. The king claims ownership of his daughter and refuses to relinquish that ownership to another man. Marie indicates that this almost incestuous possession of a daughter is not necessarily considered socially acceptable; “many people reproached him for this, and even his own people blamed him (82.) Despite social norms, however, the king is able to maintain control of his daughter by asserting his patriarchal right to provide her (or not) with a husband of his choosing.
The main didacticism of the lay, however, is found in the young man’s failure to carry his lover to the top of the mountain. He does not recognize that the love he shares with the king’s daughter must be a spiritual partnership, but instead attempts to bear all responsibility himself.
The king’s daughter recognizes that her lover will not be able to bear her up the mountain by himself, and so she takes an active role in attempting to assist him; “the damsel made ready, fasting and refraining from eating in order to lose weight, for she wished to help her beloved” (84.) Her physical actions are an external indication of her faith and willingness to engage in a spiritual partnership. Her lover, however, is unwilling to accept the damsel as anything other than a passive participant in the relationship, a literal “dead weight” on his back. He insists on being the only active player, refusing any assistance; “The girl repeatedly begged him: ‘my love, drink your potion.’ Yet he would take no heed of her, and carried her onward in great pain.” (84.) Marie makes it clear that, had he been able to recognize his relationship as a spiritual partnership and accept his lover as an active equal in that partnership, then the couple would have reached the top of the mountain, fulfilled the test of their faith and been permitted to marry. But because the man can not release his patriarchal desire to be the only active participant, both he and his lover die.
Therefore, Marie de France argues that men and women should be equal partners in a relationship. This is a lesson that Erec too must learn in Chretien de Troyes’ Erec and Enide.
09.15.06
Altering Physical Appearance in “Bisclavret”
As we have discussed in class lecture, in Medieval literature a character’s physical appearance denotes their internal morality and worth.
In the lay of Bisclavret, external aspects not only indicate intrinsic value, but also alter to mirror shifts in a character’s moral state. In this way physiognomy works almost as a moral mood ring.
This is true in the case of Bisclavret’s wife. At the beginning of the lay she is described as “a woman who is worthy and attractive in appearance.” Because she is comely the reader is to assume that she is also virtuous; meaning, of course, that she is a dutiful wife.
After she has betrayed her husband and turned to her second lover, her moral state has deteriorated, and so her physical attractiveness must deteriorate as well. There must be an outward indication of her inward depravity. This is accomplished when Bisclavret tears off her nose. It is notable that it is the lady’s husband who destroys her physical beauty. Perhaps Marie de France is commenting on the reality that, in the courtly tradition, it is men who both diagnose feminine morality and punish lapses from it.
Also of interest is the fact that Bisclavret’s wife’s female descendents inherit her physical deformity; “many of the women in the family, I tell you truly, were born without noses and lived noseless.” The connection between external and internal implies that these women also inherited the moral depravity of their ancestor.
