Attractive Virtue?

Is Custaunce someone who encompasses the seven virtues, thus she is seen as desirable because she is the embodiment of the most positive attributes of Christianity?

The seven virtues are generally thought to be Prudence, Constancy, Justice, Temperance, Faith, Hope and Love.  The first four were considered the natural virtues, and were lauded from much earlier by Greek Philosophers as things which makes a person great. Being even tempered and balanced, being consistent in your dealings with the world, making smart decisions, and acting in a fair and just manner were explained as the best way to live a moral life.  The final three, as seen in 1 Corinthians 13, are the three cardinal virtues—Faith, Hope and Love/Charity, each offering different ways to interact and integrate faith into anyone’s life.  As James Kennan wrote in his article “Proposing Cardinal Virtues,” that “Philosophers and theologians have recognized that being virtuous is more than having a particular habit of acting, e.g. generosity. Rather, it means having a fundamental set of related virtues that enable a person to live and act morally well.”

This makes me think that perhaps Custance is someone who shows different examples of these traits, and thus is attractive to others, because she does what St. Francis of Assisi encouraged by preaching the gospel to all nations, and if necessary, use words.  While we don’t see active interaction by Custance in most of the Man of Law’s tale, are these seven traits the things which make her so desirable to others and make her the best woman in the story?

Do you see these trait in her?  Do they make her attractive or desirable? What do you think?

Keenan, James F. "Proposing Cardinal Virtues." Theological Studies 56.4 (1995): 709-729. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

The Other Half

Here is a strange hypothesis. Reading through the Wife of Bath’s Prologue again gave me an idea; I’m not sure it’s a good one but here it is. One of the questions we discussed in class was whether the Wife of Bath was supposed to be sympathetic or not. Perhaps the question beneath that is: is the Wife (I’m going to call her that through the rest of this. It’s easier) presented as herald of positive change in women’s role or is she the model for women of what not to do and for men who not to marry? I’ll argue it’s neither. What if her presence on the pilgrimage and her extraordinarily long prologue are not comments on women’s behavior at all, but rather on men’s? Let me explain a little.

            The prologue opens in the middle of an apologetic discussion. The Wife is making a case for her situation and beliefs, pulling from the Bible and classical literature, yet it seems that these bits are given a rather lose interpretation or are half quoted.  Not being an expert on Ptolemy, I’ll stick to the arguments she relies on the Bible for. I could probably go on and on about almost every reference she makes to the Bible but I want to focus on a particular passage that caught my eye. Speaking of her husband (I don’t know which one particularly), the Wife pulls out a pair of ideas one from Corinthians and the other from Ephesians:

I have the power during al my lif

Upon his proper body, and nat he.

Right thus th’ Apostle tolde it unto me,

And bad oure housbonds for to love us wel;

Al this sentice me liketh everydel.’ (159-162).

It is interesting that she ends the statement with “Al this sentice me liketh everydel.” She is implying that she has considered the whole statement and likes every bit of it. According to her she this is a solid basis for her argument. That however is literally half the story. I think it is safe to assume that many if not most of her audience would be familiar with the passages she is referring to. I can’t read Latin and nor do I have the Bible in middle English (which of course she probably didn’t have either) but here are the passages from the New King James Version which I think is close enough for my purposes:

1 Corinthians 7:4 “The wife does not have authority over her body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

Ephesians 5:22,25 “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and game himself for her.”

The Wife of Bath has pulled exactly half of these passages for her argument, which is what she wanted and nothing more. Her argument is based on what she wants her argument to be. From there she can find support for it because she wants it to be there. I could go on about this but I wondered: how often was the other half, and just the other half, used in medieval society? I’m no expert but what I remember from class discussions and a little of my own digging was that the women was very nearly the property of her husband in medieval society. No doubt our society emphasis the negatives disproportionately with the reality but there is also no doubt (correct me if I’m wrong Dr. M-B) that Medieval English law favored the man more than the women in most regards.

            Sorry I’ve been going on for a while now, don’t worry I’m almost done. Right before we learn that the Wife’s arguments (at least in this instance) are based on only what she wanted she uses what I thought rather severe words to describe the position of her husband to her; “Which shal be bothe my dettour and my thral” (155). Once I got past the strength of these descriptions (he shall be her debtor and slave) I realized a similarity with something Custaunce said in The Man of Law’s Tale. She said, “Wommen are born to thralldom and penaunce” (Man of Law’s Tale 286). The similarity is striking. Both contain “thrall” or “thralldom” and both contain ideas of debt or “penaunce,” which is paying for some wrong doing or debt.  It seems then that the Wife seeks to place men where men place women. All this to say that it seems that the Wife of Bath has been painted like this to point out the extreme lopsidedness that men assume with the same flawed logic. I think that as she repulses her audience they cannot but realize she has exactly the same basis for what she does as they do. The only difference is that she uses the other half of the whole.

            I apologize for making this so long. A applaud your patience for making it this far. Now you know why I only brought up part of it in class.

The Believability of Chaucer's Stories

While reading The Man of Law's Tale this week a few thoughts kept occurring to me, all of which centered on believability. In noticing how much more I liked this tale as opposed to the previous ones we have read, and exploring the reasons as to why this was the case, I kept coming back to the act of story telling. Stories can have such depth and power but their ability to influence or inform individuals is entirely dependent upon how one chooses to interpret what is being said.

Taking this into consideration, I then pose these questions: How much of what Chaucer says do we believe? How fictional are his tales - do we believe some, all or none of what he says? Why may we tend believe some parts more than others? More importantly though, do we even need to believe him - or should we simply accept his tales with good faith? 

I ask these questions because as I was reading the story of Custance I was having trouble making sense of my surprising and genuine interest in the tale. I say surprising because when I read the previous tales – especially the Reeve’s - I had to constantly remind myself to keep on reading. I needed to forcefully place myself in the mindset of Chaucer and his companions for it wasn’t something that came naturally to me. In other words, I was too aware of the fact that I was a 21^st century college senior from Maryland while I was reading, and this inhibited me from truly immersing myself in the narrative or it’s meaning.

Overall, speaking specifically about the Reeve’s tale, I found that I was having trouble getting beyond my disbelief, and that that was what was keeping me from truly understanding or enjoying Chaucer’s story. The Reeve’s tale felt much too forced for me, and because of this I simply didn’t believe it. My disbelief is also what prevented me from enjoying the tale. As I began to think further, however, I came to the conclusion that maybe this was just what Chaucer had intended.

After thinking about how much I enjoyed the Man of Law’s tale, and comparing the reasons as to why with all of the reasons why I did not like the Reeve’s, I began to notice similarities between the two stories in terms of their message of spirituality. I began to wonder if Chaucer didn’t intentionally play with the level of believability in his two stories specifically to highlight the ways in which individuals should/should not act. I’m planning on exploring this idea further – so my thoughts are not entirely complete just yet - but as of now it seems as though Chaucer could have most definitely been relying on his reader’s believability in his tales (or the lack there of) to highlight the right/wrong choices one should make in their everyday lives.

To briefly explain, in the Reeve’s tale, as we discussed in class, no character really comes out on top. Each individual we meet is flawed in some way, and as readers there isn’t really one particular that person that we’re pulling for. After reading the Man of Law’s tale, I began to believe that this was an intentional choice. It could be that by making the Reeve’s tale so hard to enjoy and believe, that Chaucer was trying to show us something – to tell us that if we seek revenge, deceit and trickery only to advance our own selfish ambitions, then we’re never going to win in the end. 

If we compare this idea to the Man of Law’s tale, and examine the treacherous life of Custance, although it appears as if aligning herself with God’s will brings her only strife and tragedy, in the end Custance is rewarded with a (somewhat) happy conclusion to her tale. Furthermore, given her devout actions and unfailing faith, even if we interpret Custance as having been cheated by her husband’s early death, there is enough textual evidence to remind us that she has the promise of eternal life to look forward to, she will undoubtedly gain salvation – a great deal more than can be said for the characters in the Reeve’s tale.

Overall, I believe that there is most certainly a connection between the Reeve and the Man of Law’s tales, and that this connection is directly linked by how much believability Chaucer allowed his readers to have when experiencing his two stories. By making one tale easier to believe and relate to than the other, we as readers are being directed towards an underlying message of spiritual morality. The Man of Law’s tale was so enjoyable to read that I personally felt much more apt to take what was being told not so much as a literal story but rather as a tale with a greater spiritual message.

Because I believed the Man of Law’s tale, and took what was being said with a grain of salt, I not only enjoyed the story more than the previous tales we had read but I was also able to pick out its significance of and meaning a lot easier. I’m curious to know if anyone else had a similar experience, as, like I said, I'm planning on exploring this idea further and would love to hear other opinions! :) 

Vengeance versus Custaunce

What happens when you are in a rudderless boat? 

But shortly, from the castel on a night

The lords steward – God yeve him meschaunce! –

A theef that hadde reneyed our creunce,

Cam into ship alone and seide he sholde

Hir lemman be, wherso she wolde or nolde.

Wo was this wrecched woman tho bigon;

Hir child cride, and she cride pitously.

But blissful Marye help hire right anon;

For with hir strogeling wel and mightily

The theef fil overbord al sodeinly,

And in the see he dreinte for vengeaunce.

And thus has Crist unwemmed kept Custaunce.

“The Man of Law’s Tale” (913-924)

What originally attracted me to this passage was a note about it on p. 874 that said that Chaucer was unique in having Custaunce successfully fight back and save herself. I wondered why he differed from Trivet and Gower.

My first thoughts were to compare her to the other women we’ve met. Custaunce is the opposite of Alisoun—I believe she’s meant to be.  Emelye, like Custaunce, marries whoever she is told to marry. However, we don’t see Emelye after she leaves Diane’s care. Custaunce is now a mother. Unlike the mother in “The Reeve’s Tale”, Custaunce fights back to protect herself and her child. I particularly notice the fighting of the miller’s wife in “The Reeve’s Tale.” The miller’s wife actually hurts her husband, where Custaunce saves herself.

I also think about boats and water. You could say there are three rudderless boats in “The Miller’s Tale.” But while Alisoun, Nicholas, and John all say they are trusting to God’s guidance, Alisoun and Nicholas are lying, and John fails by falling asleep. I think there are also some echoes in “The Reeve’s Tale.” The characters may not be lost at sea, but it is so dark they cannot see where they are. For some reason the cradle makes me think of a rudderless boat as well. There are so many stories of babies being put to sea in cradles, boxes, etc. But unlike the miller’s wife, who doesn’t know where she is and just follows the cradle, Custaunce may be lost at sea but she knows who and where she is in terms of the boat and her values.

I find it harder to catch the wordplay Chaucer uses. However, these are the things I think I notice. There are three words emphasizing speed, “shortly,” “right anon,” and “sodeinly.” I also think the phrase “wolde or nolde” adds to the sense of speed. There is some use of alliteration. “Creance” connects with “cam” emphasizing that the thief who is coming has renounced his faith. “Wo was this wrecched woman” goes together to musically connect the words and emphasize Custaunce’s unhappy state. The repetition of “cride” in the next line highlights the unhappiness and leads the reader to expect helplessness (a helpless woman crying). It also is a line that forces the reader to take a noticeable pause after the first “cride.” This contrasts well with the iambic beat of the next line. The ending words of the last two lines, “vengeaunce” and “Custaunce” are what this story is all about. I am assuming “custaunce” means “constance” (which I can’t verify by MED, OED, or our book). “The Knight’s Tale” is about, among other things, constancy and what happens when constancy in keeping oaths is broken. All the tales since then have been tellers trying to get vengeance on the previous speaker. Now the man of law is bringing the listeners away from vengeance back to the appreciation of virtues. Go figure, a lawyer speaking for virtue.

WORKS CITED

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. Ed. Jill Mann. London: Penguin, 2005. Print.

OED Online. September 2013. Oxford University Press. 23 September 2013

Monsters-in-Law

Yasmine makes a good point in her post regarding medieval women. We have seen many different types of women, each illustrating different aspects of women and how they are perceived in the Middle Ages.

What is most interesting with "The Man of Law's Tale" are the women and how they compare to women we have seen thus far.

The main character, Custance, is the ideal medieval woman. She desires to be pure and good, but she knows that she has a duty, and she exercises this duty twice: she is to obey the man "in charge of her" so to speak. She marries the Sultan according to the command of her father even though she does not want to. Then, once in England, she obey the wishes of her husband (or so she thinks) and leaves with the child. Custance is another Emelye: everything a woman should be.

However, we also have examples of women who choose to be the exact opposite. Her first mother-in-law plots to murder the Sultan and everyone at the feast and take control of the country. She succeeds and sets Custance in a rudderless boat, leaving Custance at the whim of fate. Custance's second mother-in-law tricks the king and Custance. The mother-in-law's purpose is strictly trickery in this case; she plays no other role. Both of the mothers-in-law have more in common with Alisoun from "The Miller's Tale" or the mother and daughter from "The Reeve's Tale."

This brings to mind the Ave/Eva concept. Custance is the ideal woman doing her duty or duties based on her subordination to man. She also resigns herself to the will of God. She trusts that God has a plan for her, and she is willing to turn over all control to Him. On the other hand, the mothers-in-law are the root of all evil in this tale. They are guilty of conspiracy and trickery, and one is guilty of murder. There are several parallels here to Eve and the serpent. Trickery is the work of Satan according to Christian thought, and Eve is guilty of original sin.

It is interesting how women take on more complex roles at leasts in "The Man of Law's Tale." Is it an accident that as we are moving along we see more complex development of female characters that not only have characteristics of their own but somehow encompass characteristics of all the women who have come in the tales previous?