Lysistrata and the Wife of Bath

So there is this Greek play called Lysistrata, written about 400 BC by Aristophanes. The play is about a strong female character, named Lysistrata who is so upset by the Peloponnesian War she tries to find a way for the women of Greece to end the war since the men seem unable. And what do men love more than anything else??? SEX, of course. Lysistrata convinces the Greek women to withhold sex from their husbands until the war has ended. This is a comedy, so of course hilarity ensues. The one thing Lysistrata fails to realize is that women crave and need sex just as bad as their husbands.

This play has been critically thought of as a feminist war, a first of its kind for that time period, since like Chaucer’s era women were things and not really people to have any kind of influence.  

So is Aristophanes just making fun of woman? Is Chaucer just making fun of women with his tale of the Wife of Bath? Are these authors’ pioneers of women’s rights by writing about strong, influential, and smart female characters?

Personally, I feel both authors wrote their respective strong willed female characters to amp up the hilarity of their writings. Unintentionally, I feel they also pioneered feminist thoughts. I’m sure educated females heard about these characters and realized the strength women can have, even when all she has is her body.  

Lysistrata: http://www.lysistrataunleashed.com/LysistrataSilhouette2sm.jpg

Wife of Bath: http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/wife.gif

Strong Females in the Middle Ages

Alright, not that any of you are surprised, but I am still on my Wife of Bath kick. I kinda got the idea for this blog after reading Jordan's blog, so hat's off to Jordan for getting my ball rolling!

Anyways, I wanted to talk about the struggles of writing a strong female character. It really is a difficult thing to find, even in this day and age. But just imagine how hard it would've been to write one in Chaucer's time! I mean, in Beowulf the women weren't even mentioned on the family tree. It was as if they were just some weird machine that once  man inserted his "seed" (I hate using the proper term for it) into it, then heirs or other little machines popped out. I cringe even just thinking about that.

Maybe Chaucer was sitting down at his little writing desk and thinking "You know what'll blow the pants off these guys; if I were to write the WOMAN in charge instead of the man. Yeah, that'll be super cool and edgy." or maybe he even actually viewed women as people (shocker, I know). But, whatever the reason, the Wife of Bath was born!

Now, since strong female characters were completely unheard of at the time, Chaucer had to write his character using what was common for that age. Yeah, that means the Wife has to bascially use sex as a weapon, but even modern women do that. She also has to deal with a bit of domestic abuse (it's wrong, wrong, WRONG), but so does the women Tyler Perry often portrays in his films and they come out strong on the other side....for the most part.

Maybe Chaucer was trying to be the Miley Cyrus of the Middle Ages and maybe he was trying to help his male readers see women as people, rather than creepy baby making machines (personally, I prefer the second option....I mean can you imagine a red-lipped, twerking, Chaucer just licking everything that is within a one foot radius of him? Gross.).

All I'm trying to say is that a) Strong female characters were difficult to write back then,  b) I really needed to write a blog, but was having issues coming up with a suitable topic so I just wrote down a bunch of thoughts that came into my head about something I read, and c) I wanted people to enjoy this meme I found that is clearly the Wife of Bath and Jankin and not any comic book characters.

The Wife of Awesomeness

I really enjoyed "The Wife of Bath's Prologue" simply because I find her character impressive. I love that she is able to use her sex appeal along with her mind to make men do what she wants them to. She does manipulate them, but I say kudos to her. Usually when someone takes advantage of their looks or mind, they lack the other. However, the Wife of Bath manages to use both to get what she wants. Sure, she uses her body more than her mind, but it is still in use. You have to be clever in order to do and say some of the things she does.
The leverage she has over men is evident when the pardoner says to her, "Telle forth youre tale, spareth for no man/And teche us yonge men of youre praktike" (Chaucer, 106, 186-187). The pardoner knows that the Wife of Bath has a way with men, and he wants to know all of her tricks because he wants to be prepared when he gets married. However, this implies that all women are as manipulative as the Wife of Bath is. During this time period, it is very unlikely that there are a lot of women as domineering as she is.

quoteshub.org 

The way her character is with men is what makes me like her so much. I think she uses her sex appeal as a way to be on a level playing field with the men. At this time, women had very little influence in anything, and I think she uses sex as a way to be in control of something.
Some people in class said that they do not like her character because they have a hard time looking at her from the time period the tale is set. I, however, enjoy her no matter what the time period is. I understand that women have more power in modern society and there are so many ways to get what you want without using your body, but in the end she still has results. If her body is what she has to use it, why not take advantage of it? She was not cheating on her husbands, all of her sexual activity involved the men she married.
I hate that there is a double standard regarding the Wife of Bath in modern society and men in modern society. Most people would look down on her today because of that fact that she has had so many husbands and her current one is twenty years younger than her. However, if her character were a man, things would most likely be different. Men tend to get praised for being with multiple women -- especially if those women are younger than they are.
The only problem I have with her character is that she stayed with Jankin when he beat. I understand that during the time period, men were allowed by law to beat their wives, but her character seems so head-strong that I thought she would find a way to leave him. The one part I did enjoy regarding this was when she hit him back. She explains that she rips his book and makes him fall in the fire, and after he hits her, she "hitte him on the cheke" (Chaucer, 120, 808). Yes, he does hit her, but she fights back and I appreciate that very much.

Absolon the Creepy Cat Man

People have posted about The Miller's Tale and Nicholas, but I wanted to write about Absolon. Am I the only one who thinks he is kind of crazy?
First of all, he fell in love with Alisoun at first sight. We all know this is in fairy tales, which makes sense because this story is fictional, but it is still crazy. I personally believe he just thinks she is really pretty and he longs to kiss her, or have sex with her...probably both. Chaucer writes that Absolon looked at the carpenter's wife and "thoughte a mery lyf" (77, 3344). How can he picture a happy life with her when he knows absolutely nothing about her but her looks?
The second thing that made me wary of Absolon were these two lines: "I dar wel seyn, if she had been a mous/And he a cat, he wolde hire hente anon" (77, 3346-47). If I'm not mistaken, cats catch mice in order to kill them. Sure, some cats like to catch mice so they can play with them, but that mostly ends with a happy cat playing with a dead mouse. This is the metaphor Chaucer came up with? Two things that do not like each other? Then again, if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Absolon is the cat and he really wants to be with Alisoun, the mouse. Cats love catching mice. Mice are terrified of cats, and Alisoun wants nothing to do with Absolon. However, this explanation just further proves that Absolon is creepy.

tvtropes.org 

 

I think that is an accurate depiction of what the cat version of Absolon would look like.

The third and final thing that made me question Absolon's sanity is when he burns Nicholas' butt. HE BURNS HIS ASS. Can we all take a moment to appreciate how much that would hurt? Yes, I know Alisoun tricked him into kissing "hir naked ers/Ful savourly" (85, 3734-35), but did he really have to resort to burning Nicholas' butt? Could he not just realize that Alisoun does not like him and move on? Or perhaps he could have punched Nicholas in the face. That would be preferable to burning him. I bet Nicholas is going to have fun sitting down for a while. Oh, Absolon. you crazy cat man, you.

www.pixton.com

 

Thinking about "The Miller's Tale"

I was re-reading "The Miller's Tale" because I wanted to, I don't know, try to understand it more? I guess I really just wanted to re-read it to decide if I really as appalled by it as I originally thought, since not a lot of other students were. I thought maybe I was missing something.

After re-reading it and with the help of the discussion we had in class, I realise that I wasn't so offended by the story as I was the character of Nicholas. His character just disgusted me, honestly. And perhaps I had the same issue with this as I did "The Wife of Bath" where I just couldn't get myself to read the story in the mindset of Chaucer's time period. Maybe then Nicholas could go around being disgusting and...a groper because women basically had no rights, but it's hard to read that as a 21st century woman where that's, well, harassment, I'm pretty sure. And the fact that Nicholas's actions and really cheesy pick-up lines are rewarded? That just doesn't really sit right with me. That coupled with Chaucer's nonchalant use of "Queynte" just kind of makes me want to shy away and groan in disgust, because personally I just really can't stand that word, especially the modern, derogatory use of it. Which of course brings up full circle to my inability to read this without my modern-day and 21-century bias.

I guess I didn't really have a problem with the parodied version of Noah's story because I mean, we have parodies of Bible stories everywhere these days (Including the story of Noah. Just look at Evan Almighty). And trying to visualise John just hanging out on a roof in a bathtub is pretty hilarious.

And sure, Nicholas deserved some form of punishment for, I don't know, grabbing vaginas and helping Alison commit adultery, and while his unfortunate meeting with a hot poker wasn't offensive, it's not like it was tasteful, either.

But let's be honest, who doesn't enjoy a good fart joke every once in awhile, even if it shows up in the form of a clerk's very strange fear?

The Wife of Bath in Today's Media

In ye olden middle English times, of course it would make sense for the Wife of Bath to manipulate her husbands with sex and a quick-silver tongue. As a woman of that time frame, those are the only tools at her disposal, and she makes use of them very, very well. It's almost terrifying to imagine what she might have been capable of our modern times.

It's here that I bring up a point that was made in class (by Jordan, if I remember correctly). The point was that, while the wife's method of getting what she wanted seems perfectly acceptable considering her limited resources, in today's society she'd simply be regarded as someone much less credible. Women these days have so many opportunities to draw upon, almost as much as men, so they have no reason to devolve into petty promiscuous activities in order to get what they want.

But isn't this kind of behavior something that we see in female characters a lot these days?

(taken from www.telegraph.co.uk)

The most obvious example that I can think of is Irene Adler from the BBC adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, and it just so happens that she shares a number of traits with the wife. She manipulates men with her body, to the point of even working as an S&M escort. She baffles Sherlock with seduction and blatantly uses both him and others in order to get what she needs. She has access to an innumerable amount of classified government secrets and possesses amazing intelligent as well.

Despite using many of the same tactics and holding a similar mindset to the wife (you know, excluding the whole line of husbands and acceptance of physical abuse thing), Irene is often regarded as an atypical strong female character, and certainly not a whore. 

It makes me wonder: if you were to take away the cultural acceptance of domestic abuse, would the wife's character be as positively regarded as a 'well-developed character' by our media standards set today? 

The Greek Pantheon in Medieval Christendom

I love Middle English. It is fun to read, tickles the ears and is novel to the tongue. (I can't help it!) Something that has stuck out to me while reading Chaucer is the liberal sprinkling of Greek mythology throughout this medieval text. Written during a time known for its intolerance of pagan religions, I found this fascinating and confusing. The Knight's tale features Greek gods, the main characters all praying to their respective patrons and being granted a sign. The wife of Bath refers to the gods nearly as frequently as she does  Christian saints and Christ. (She was clearly well read) and Chaucer was not the only author of the age to mingle Christianity with polytheism, Shakespeare was fond of lacing his work with the ancient conquerors as well. Furthermore, while earlier works such as Beowulf continue to spark lively debate about its inclusion of old pagan customs nary a word can be found disputing the inclusion of the Greek pantheon. My best guess is the influence of early Roman conquest combined with the continued use of Latin in the written word allowed for a kindness toward the religion that Christianity toppled. Also noted, is of the selected sections we have read, only those portrayed as somewhat learned and traveled, the knight and wife of Bath, reference mythology in their tales. It is notably absent in the Miller's tale. Hmmmmm.