December 6, 2006
Research Portfolio (Take Two): Review # 5
Mann, Jill. Feminizing Chaucer. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2002. 194 Pages.
In her critical study, Jill Mann explores the works of Geoffrey Chaucer through the lens of modern feminist criticism. Her analysis encompasses several Chaucerian texts, and balances primarily on the assertion that Chaucer’s perception of morality is conspicuously feminine. Mann spreads her study over five chapters, each of which tackles a specific aspect of Chaucerian femininity. For example, one chapter focuses on antifeminism in Chaucer, while another discusses portrayals of betrayed (and betraying) women. Although her work deals primarily with women, Mann does not condemn the concept of “masculinity” to the realm of binary opposition. Rather, she stresses the necessity of understanding cultural notions of masculinity as a means of fully appreciating the significance of femininity. Therefore, the gendered title of her book does not preclude an examination of masculinity in Chaucer, but requires it.
Mann’s brief introduction places Chaucer within both a historical and literary context. Dominant medieval attitudes, she argues, served to polarize women as “Eves” or “Marys;” victims or shrews. Mann traces the origin of these paradoxical feminine roles to classical literature, specifically in Ovid’s Heroides and Jerome’s Against Jovinian. Further, she identifies these two texts as influential source material for Chaucer. Therefore, Chaucer is writing within a historical and literary tradition that simplistically represents women as “good” or “bad.” Mann contends that Chaucer does not attempt to break free of traditional representations and meanings associated with femininity. Instead, she argues that Chaucer normalizes women, depicting them as moral centers of gravity.
Mann weaves minor references to masculinity (as it relates to femininity) throughout her book. However, it is only in the final chapter, entitled “The Feminized Hero,” that she exclusively addresses the subject of Chaucerian masculinity. In this section, Mann approaches gender in terms of actions rather than biology; she isolates certain “feminine behaviors” and “masculine behaviors,” contending that Chaucer’s perception of an ideal male hero is a “feminized hero.”
Mann begins her analysis in this section by noting the quantitative discrepancy between male and female heroes in Chaucerian texts. This incongruity becomes particularly apparent in the Canterbury Tales, in which only female characters personify morality. Therefore, Mann first turns to Troilus and Criseyde to provide textual support for her thesis, as “it is only in Troilus that a single male consciousness becomes the central locus of poetic meaning” (129). The “poetic meaning” which Mann uncovers in Troilus and Criseyde is the transience of human pleasure. Continuing, Mann argues that Chaucer meticulously constructs Troilus as an admirable man, as the reader can only accept the “poetic meaning” of the poem if they understand that Troilus is a “true” hero who achieved “true” happiness. Chaucer achieves this benevolent portrayal of Troilus, Mann states, by bestowing Troilus with traditional feminine virtues. The most important and recognizable of these “feminine” qualities is Troilus’s characterization as passive victim. Through a feminized characterization, Mann aligns Troilus with Chaucer’s patiently suffering female heroes, such as Constance and Griselda. Mann maintains that, like Constance and Griselda, Troilus serves as a moral focal point. However, she is careful to disclaim the notion that Troiulus’ feminized behavior emasculates him, cataloguing several points in the text that portray his manly valor.
Mann presents further textual examples from The Canterbury Tales, the most notable of which comes from The Knight’s Tale. She presents Theseus, who is, like Troilus, a valorous fighter, as a feminized hero. Unlike Troilus, Theseus’s feminization generates from his pity rather than his passiveness. Mann provides several instances in the text of the tale in which Theseus submits to pity at the behest of women. For example, he takes pity on the procession of widows, and takes pity on Arcite and Palamon due to the tearful pleas of Emelye. Therefore, Mann maintains, Chaucer portrays ideal masculinity as a fusion of traditional masculine and feminine roles. His moral heroes are skilled in the traditional pursuits of manliness, most particularly fighting. However, they also possess distinctive qualities that traditionally fall under the label of “feminine.”
Jill Mann’s provides a thorough, feminist analysis of Chaucer, backing her arguments with ample textual support and connections to classical literature. However, the most remarkable aspect of her study is not her analysis of the feminine, but her willingness to engage with ideas of masculinity. Often, scholars analyzing literary texts based on gender tend to forget that the concept of gender encompasses both the masculine and the feminine. It is commendable that Mann, despite her deliberate fixation on the feminine, nevertheless attempts to reveal the connections between masculinity and femininity. Her final chapter on masculinity reads rather like an afterthought, but this is excusable because her study intentionally focuses on women.
Mann’s reading of femininity in Chaucer is slightly troubling. She presents Chaucer as revolutionary in his approach to women, arguing that he manipulates traditional female roles in order to present women as moral bearers of ideology. However, how can we view Chaucer as an innovator in his portrayal of women if he is embracing harmful gender stereotypes, even for the lofty purpose of ideology? The central female characters of The Canterbury Tales are deeply problematic; as Mann notes, suffering passivity is their primary characteristic. I would disagree that Chaucer manipulates ideals of feminine passivity in order to normalize a “feminine morality.” I believe that Chaucer instead employs passive female characters like Griselda and Constance in order to reveal the harmful effects of artificially constructed gender roles.
Similarly, Mann’s analysis of Troilus gives pause. She maintains that Chaucer makes Troilus admirable by bestowing him with feminine passivity. This theory hinges on the assumption that Chaucer intends for the reader to view Troilus in a favorable light, ignoring the possibilities for a satiric or ironic reading of Troilus’s character. Mann skillfully proves the ways in which Troilus is feminized, but I hesitate to accept to her assumption that he is a “hero.” Certainly, he provides the psychological core of the poem, but his narcissism eradicates any notion that he is a hero.
Feminizing Chaucer is a thorough, feminist evaluation of Chaucer. Mann’s argument provides continuity between several Chaucerian texts, but I disagree with her evaluation of Chaucer’s intentions.
Rebecca Harpine
University of Mary Washington
Rebecca's Courtly Blog 