Chaucer: Religious or Not Religious?

Is it possible for you to give your own picture as religious or non-religious simultaneously? If our answer is NO, I would like to bring Geoffrey Chaucer in the picture. A detailed reading of his “wife of bath” would give you the answer, I suppose.

            History says that Chaucer was a religious man and he was very loyal to the church and to the civil leaders. This paper is an attempt to see the reality hidden behind. In order to understand the religious background of Chaucer, we have to have a glance at the social status of women during his time. Women were viewed – legally, morally and spiritually- as extensions of men in their lives, dependent upon a father or a kinsman as protector or legally identified to their husbands.

            Having seen the position of women as a member of the society, let us look at the position of women from the point of view of the church. On the one side women were images of the Virgin Mary the mother, the intercessor and nurturer. The term used by Angel Gabriel to greet Mary in the gospels Ave Gratia Plena (Hail Full of Grace) is used o summarize this position. At the same time the church taught women were descendents of Eve (Eve) and the instruments of temptation and sin. They were carnal, not spiritual, thus women were instruments of man’s damnation.

            Here comes Chaucer with the plan of the “Canterbury Tales”. He is in a difficulty. He is a known religious person, but from the innermost being some thing pushes him for something else. Does he represent the Ave side or Eve side? The Canterbury Tales tells us that Chaucer chooses the Eve and in doing so creates the first round character in English Literature- the Wife of Bath. From the shell of religious spirit comes out the real Chaucer with the plan of acting out of the box, may be placing legs on two different boats. But he was clever enough to please the church and the clergy cop that he was never opposed. He had to keep a limit in his writing, so that at a glance everything becomes religious and fully religious and related to the gospel values.

Another important factor is the character of the Wife of Bath. Cana character like the wife of bath be created by a spirited religious person? We would get a perfect model for the Wife of Bath in the Bible. The gospel of John chapter 4 gives us the picture of a Samaritan woman (see the attachment). The Samaritan woman is seen arguing with Jesus regarding drawing of the water from the well of Jacob. Similarly the Wife of Bath is depicted as some one who argues with the existing system in her own way. The Samaritan woman had five husbands, so also the Wife of Bath. Both these women lost their husbands to death. And the sixth one with whom the Samaritan woman lives is not her husband!!! The Wife of Bath too had many lovers since her younger days. So, both of them were suspected for their way of life specially related with sexuality.

The difference between the Samaritan woman and the Wife of Bath bring about the real spirit of being religious or non-religious. The Bible gives the picture of a transformed woman who accepts Jesus’s words and deeds. She attracts many others to the real faith. So it gives a positive approach altogether, which can be considered as religious, as every religion aims at the transformation of human beings. It shows a promise of conversion from the way she was walking. And the Wife of Bath interestingly does not show any sign of repentance and she remains the same old self. So, speaking from a moral point of view, Chaucer brings out not the best in some one, but the darker sides of human beings, which is purely non-religious, at least in its outlooks.

Making a conclusion will be a very difficult process. From the facts mentioned above, we cannot classify Chaucer as a religious or non-religious. As far as the points mentioned here, I would like to believe that Chaucer had no other way but to act like a religious person, under pressure by circumstances. Chaucer is simply great that he could reflect so many sides of a complex moral picture without forcing a decision upon us. In fact, Chaucer trusts the reader to evaluate the conduct he portrays and make our own judgments. We would end up saying that Chaucer had two faces, one of a pure religious and the other of a hidden but dominant non-religious. (please see the attachment, Gospel of John 4)

- A report by Vipin Baby Vayalil

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN, CHAPTER 4

4:3 [Jesus] left Judea and started back to Galilee. 4:4 But he had to go through Samaria. 4:5 So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 4:6 Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon.  4:7 A Samaritan woman came to draw water, 4: 7b and Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink." 4:8 (His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) 4:9 The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) 4:10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." 4:11 The woman said to him, "Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 4:12 Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?" 4:13 Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 4:14 but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life." 4:15 The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water." 4:16 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come back." 4:17 The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; 4:18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!" 4:19 The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet.  4:20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem." 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 4:23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." 4:25 The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming" (who is called Christ). "When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us."  4:26 Jesus said to her, "I am he, the one who is speaking to you." 4:27 Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, "What do you want?" or, "Why are you speaking with her?" 4:28 Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, 4:29 "Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?" 4:30 They left the city and were on their way to him. . . .  4:39 Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I have ever done." 4:40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. 4:41 And many more believed because of his word. 4:42 They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world."

Reconstructing/Deconstructing Shakespearean Sonnets

     A feature of many of the Shakespeare’s sonnets is the amount of tension inherent in them because of the way in which passion is suppressed, controlled by and within the conventions of the sonnet form itself. In love poetry in general, and sonnets particularly, the Dionysian impulses of creation, sometimes of lust and desire are controlled by the medium through which it is expressed and represented. Shakespeare consciously took advantage of this very tradition, and exploited its various possibilities, and sometimes in an ambiguous manner, which further provided the degree of the depth to these sonnets which leaves room for a variety of interpretations.

     One way in which the tension can be made more apparent is by rewriting or deconstructing the Shakespearean text in order to foreground certain connotations that may have been attenuated because of the observance of the convention. While the Shakespearean sonnet itself is original in its stanza form and the way it seeks resolution in the final rhyming couplet, for the rest, the poem might simply be considered as a re-working of the common places. However this also provides a clue which ought to allow a further revision of the text in order to discover further possibilities for the interpretation in a poem which lends itself to purpose.

     The poetic form and the very convention in the sonnet bring about a transformation of passion and sexuality making the ‘summer indeed more temperate.’ It is traditionally accepted Shakespeare’s sonnet sequence can be divided into three sections, the first section expresses the devotion and admiration of the poetic voice (often associated with the Shakespeare himself) towards an anonymous young man (this would include sonnet 18), this is followed by a sequence addressed to the dark lady towards whom the poet is attracted and finally there are the sonnets which deal with the young man’s attraction towards that same lady.

     By doing this, it becomes more apparent that the language of love and devotion used here to address a member of the same sex is traditionally how we would expect a man to address a woman, which further adds to the tension implicit in the poem. Of course Shakespeare’s sonnet s are full of classical allusions, proverbial expressions, and stock situations, he is clearly subject to the traditions of the courtly love as practiced by Petrarch, although we might suggest that rather than a continuation of the same themes and concepts, his sonnets can be seen as a response to this tradition.

     An idealized concept of woman which usually inspires this kind of poetry is substituted here by his admiration for a man , the theme of unrequited love and how earthly love can elevate the human soul are also implicit, although in spite of the idealization of the fair youth , it is the effects of time, nature that tend to be given grater em0phasis with the result that Shakespeare ‘s sonnets tend to question to these petrarchan concepts, and the petrarchan analogy is not made use of readily but in a doubting mode or tone “ shall I compare thee”. The implicit connotations of the following lines are full of allusions to youth , beauty , possession (desire) and possible loss and  eternal summer might mean continuing passion which will not fade, possession of that ‘fair thou owes’t, might refer to the very sexual act.

     Although sonnet’s including this one, often ring with “passion and sincerity” they also playfully engage themselves in incidental sexual – verbal trivia. There are juxtapositions in the sonnets which give rise to ambiguity, more lovely is modified and might be seen as in opposition to temperate, which originates a paradox, when great beauty is described at once as temporary and moderate and this in turn is linked to the way in which summer’s day and temperate are also set up in opposition, allowing the possibilities for interpretation. We can also find the contrast between rough wind’s and darling buds (the vicissitudes of nature that threaten incipient beauty or strong emotion might threaten beauty or innocence) the hot eye of heaven shines suggests excessive passion but is counter-pointed in the anti-thesis as “often in his gold complexion dimmed” , which suggest the waning of ardor or excitement or even if beauty which in turn up with fair and decline which also hint at the passing nature of the beauty.

     Since this particular sonnet expresses the devotion and admiration of the poetic voice (often associated with Shakespeare itself), so some scholars often opine that there is a speculation that Shakespeare was a homosexual, but Brian crews mentions that the poet is working within clearly marked traditions, and his disclosure is conventional, and the apparent sincerity only covers up an underlying playfulness which stretches those conventions by playing them to a different use.

 

- Photos by Feba Philip

The Pied Piper of Hamelin by Robert Browning.

Here is an excerpt from Robert Browning's 'The Pied Piper of Hamelin.' The link leads to the complete poem.

Rats! 

They fought the dogs and killed the cats, 

And bit the babies in the cradles, 

And ate the cheeses out of the vats, 

And licked the soup from the cooks' own ladles, 

Split open the kegs of salted sprats, 

Made nests inside men's Sunday hats, 

And even spoiled the women's chats, 

By drowning their speaking 

With shrieking and squeaking 

In fifty different sharps and flats.

A Disney rendition of the 'Pied Piper of Hamelin'

"Can We Trust the Wife of Bath?"

A summary on the article by David Parker as put by Namrata Ramaprasad.

Over the last forty years, critics have debated profusely on whether Chaucer’s characters in the Canterbury Tales are portrayed as individuals we in the modern era may relate to those in the novels published now, or simply as icons that were designed to cater to the fourteenth century readers. It is true that readers have responded quite differently to the characters of literature and compared them to those in their lives. But if the theory of iconization is to be believed, then the characters of the tales cannot be regarded as individuals. The fourteenth century readers must have made a distinction between the portrayal of Alisoun of Bath and the people they encountered in society.

The easiest way to try and bridge the gap of the distinction is to study the lives of the fourteenth century readers as they were in the era of aristocrats, saints, kings and such. To them, illustrated facts we more understandable if explained through an experience of an individual, which can be classified as an older version of a biography. In the introduction of his poem, The Bruce, John Barbour talks about the art of biography, which is quite acceptable, as he announces his intention of telling a “suthfast story”.

The poem has a homelitic value to the reader, but he believes in it only if he thinks it to be of use to him in his experiences. The difference between a modern and a fourteenth century biography is that the latter explained the moral consequences and implications of it to human behaviour, but did not separate the psychology from the ethical value. The writers and biographers of that age used a character of moral interest, but did not detach it from human experience, thus confusing the modern readers to believe that that characters were not individuals, but icons.

The fact is that the fourteenth century readers understood the characters differently, when they were encountered in life or in literature. While the twenty first century focuses on the individualistic perspective of the characters, the fourteenth century focuses on the likeness. If an experience is available for them to relate to, they would consider the individuals approach.

It is safe to say that a reconstruction of the iconographical theory can help in the justification that the characters that Chaucer molded by mentioning their name, age, sex, appearance, history, etc were maybe meant to be dissociated with the people encountered in daily life in that age, thus making them an icon of sorts, not individuals.

The pilgrims in the Canterbury Tales are probably to be taken as individuals, though some as The Knight, The Parson, etc are less individualised. This is because they were to some degree, idealised, which meant that they emulated some moral value which greatly suppressed individualism but in that age, people did live up to their ideals. Chaucer, if only in his irony, did possess some kind of poetic apprehension to the individual personality. The ironies were little when it came to the pilgrims, but were definitely present. For example, in the General Prologue:

But, for to speken of hire conscience,

She was so charitable and so pitous

She wolde wepe, if that she saugh a mous

Kaught in a trappe, if it were dead or bledde,

Of smale houndes hadde she that she fedde

With rosted flessh, or milk and wastel-breed

But soore wepte she if oon of hem were deed,

Or if men smoot it with a yerde smerte,

And al was conscience and tendre herte.

The irony and the generosity is seen simultaneously as the reader must make judgements of the Prioress who had a love for animals, which was a misdirection of Christian charity and also against the icon theory, see her complexity as an individual.

The wife of bath was a character whose individuality was not easy to explain. She had a sense of living life large and that wasn’t evident in her speech or her behaviour. Critics like Walter Clyde Curry’s analysis’ suggests that her behaviour may be explained as Chaucer’s way of only sticking to moral and psychological types of characters or that he truly wanted to explain the behaviour and character of the individual.

Another critic, Charles A. Owen Jr. points out that even though the Wife of Bath professed female sovereignty in marriages, the heroine of the tale dint follow her example, and the wife itself is doubted of having exercised “maisterie” over her fifth husband if the following lines are to be believed.:

After that day we hadden never debaat.

God helpe me so, I was to hym as kynde

As any wyf from Denmark  unto Ynde,

And also trewe, and so was he to me.

Whether the Wife could be considered an individual is debated upon, but Chaucer did give the readers a glimpse into her inner, personal life. David Parker feels that the Wife of Bath cannot be trusted completely as there is a wide range of contrasts in two passages of the Wife of Bath’s Prologue:

But atte laste, with muchel care and two,

We fille accorded by us selven two,

He yaf me al the bridel in myn hond,

To han the governance of hous and lond,

And of his tonge and of his hond also;

And made hym brenne his book anon right tho.

And whan that hadde geten unto me,

By maistriem al the soveraynetee,

And that he seyde, “myn owene trewe wyf,

Do as thee lust the terme of al they lyf;

Keep thyn honour, and keep eek myn estaat”-

After that day we hadden never debaat.

God helpe me so, I was to hym as kynde

As any wyf from Denmark  unto Ynde,

And also trewe, and so was he to me.

This passage, three hundred lines earlier, gives a different perspective:

Now of my fifthe housbonde wol I telle.

God lete his soule nevere come in helle!

And yet as he to me the mooste shrewe;

That feele I on my ribbes al by rewe,

And evere shal unto myn ending day.

But in oure bed he was so fressh and gay,

And therewithal so well kounde he me glose,

Whan that he wolde han my bele chose,

He koude wynne again my love anon.

I trowe I loved hym best, for that

he was of his love dangerous to me.

We wommen han, if that I shal nat lye,

In this matere a queynte fantasye;

Wayte what thyng we may nat lightly have,

Thereafter wol we crie al day and crave.

Forbade us thyng, and that desiren we;

Preesse on us faste, and thanne wol we fle.

With daunger oute we al oure chaffare;

Greet prees at market maketh deere ware,

And to greet cheep is holde al litel prys;

This knoweth every womman that is wys.

In the two passages, the first gives an account of the cherished moments with her fifth husband, where she mentions that she loved him the most, being contradictory of the fact that in the second passage, she says that her time with him was that of hell. The Wife seems to have wanted the best of both worlds, suggesting that she was both in command as well as obedient.

The former passage gives us a gist of how she felt that a husband only needed to give in to his wife’s commands to make a marriage work. The latter, showing that she did not remember being in command, rather remembers being beaten profusely and then won over by a round of love making. The passage suggests that her assumption of “maistrie” was untrue, or the facts seemed to have been clouded with doubt. Perhaps it was because she wasn’t as free as she believed, or the terms weren’t agreeable at that time.

From what she mentions of her former marriages and the “daunger” she encountered, she contradicts her statement of “maistrie”, showing she had little but contempt for Jankyn. This “daunger”  was something the woman inflicted upon others, and vice versa. There is enough evidence that the Wife should have been frustrated in achieving “maistrie” as taking the advice she gave others, this would harm a good marriage.

If we are to accept the Wife of Bath as a character, it would be one that cannot be trusted. Chaucer shows her as a character who cherishes the fantasies of her own life, as they please her and they shock others. But she is sadly caught up in her own words, as she makes contradictory statements about her past. In this aftermath, we are shown a part of her inner, more personal life.

If we decide not to accept her as a character, then it questions the fourteenth century readers outlook again of having a distinction between the icons and the people of daily life, that they would refuse to create a human identity for her, which would create a riot.

Another problem is that with the Wife’s inconsistencies, the least that can be asked is for the reader to portray her to be consistent with her austerity, according to the iconographical theory, comparing her with her era’s paintings, where the body would be turned one way and the head another, showing that her illustration would be quite limited.

If she is to be considered an individual, then it is given that Chaucer was only depicting her as other fourteenth century scholars would.

The unusual notion is that the Wife of Bath, like other characters, was able to survive as a distinct individual into the twenty-first century, where the difficulties of the recognition have drastically reduced. It was Chaucer’s talent that he was able to create such a character who was not in harmony, but in conflict with it self. Her traits may be unfamiliar to the modern reader, but it abstractness is certainly recognizable. Hats off to Chaucer, as he molded her character, with such precision, into conditions that are timeless.

Looking Through the Words to See.

A sketch of the Wife of Bath by Nitika Tanzone

Chaucer's Wife of Bath's "foot-mantle" and "hipes large"

This is a report written by Priyanka Chakraborty on an article by Peter G. Beidler of Lehigh University, published by State Penn University in the year 2000.

     The Wife of Bath known for her gap teeth, her wimple, her hat, her five husbands, her deafness, her over-riding skirt, and her large hips. Alisoun's "hipes large" has piqued Chaucerian readers and scholars. The "hipes large" seem to indicate an imposing and commanding lady both in size and presence to not only browbeat her older husbands but also hold out marital battles with the younger ones.
     Peter.G.Beidler challenges that "foot-mantle" is not a skirt or a protective outer skirt. He also challenges that Alisoun did not have large hips. He goes on to say that old English translators and  editors generally translate "foot-mantle" as an "outer protective skirt", "apron like over-skirt", 'an outer skirt to protect the gown as she rode along" or simply an "apron".
     Modern English translators and editors have glossed "foot-mantle" as a "saddle-blanket", "rug", "protective skirt", or  "plain skirt". Some translators have kept the word "mantle" assuming the modern readers will know what it is. If a modern reader looks up the word "mantle' in a dictionary, they maybe lured into thinking that it is some sort of cape or a cloak. In most of the cases, translators translate the word "mantle" and silently delete the prefix "foot" which is suggestive of the modern world's failure to understand what a "foot-mantle" is.
     Due to such translations, which is considered faulty and ambiguous by Peter.G.Beidler, the rarity of the term is hampered. The first and last recorded use of the word was done by Chaucer and the word was not in use for the next hundred years. He suggests that "foot-mantle" is what the words suggests it is. It is probably an one piece garment like a loose pair of leggings, worn to provide warmth to the lower extremities, protection for shoes from dirt and horse excreta, a regular part of horseback travel on the unpaved roads of Medieval
era. The prefix "foot" suggests that the garment is pulled over feet and legs rather than pulled down over. The "foot-mantle" must have been held by a belt or a suspender of some sort.
     Such a "foot-mantle" would have been necessary even for a woman of minimal modesty such as the Wife of Bath, wearing skirts while riding astride. The description of Alisoun in the General Prologue tells us that she was dressed elegantly for her pilgrimage. She must have wanted to protect her clothes especially her "hosen...of fyn scarlet reed" and her shoes "ful moyste and newe".
     There is a portrait known as the Ellesmere portrait, which was composed within ten years of Chaucer's death and it says with rare precision what a "foot-mantle" is. It is shown as a blue garment pulled over Alisoun's feet and were loosely around her hips with spurs either attached to it or to be fitted afterwards. The Ellesmere portrait cannot be considered as an accurate reflection the General Prologue but it can be considered as a pictorial gloss of the word "foot-mantle".
     Peter.G.Beidler says that there is such remarkable unanimity in the phrase "large hipes" that no editors have glossed it. In translations the word the word "large" has been translated as "ample'', "broad", "enormous". He says that instead of the adjective "large" it is the adverb "largely" or more accurately "loosely'. Going by that theory, the Wife of Bath does not wear a "foot-mantle" about her large hips but wears a "foot-mantle" pulled up loosely around her hips.
     Middle English adverbs could be formed by adding an "e" in which case the adjective and the adverb would be identical. Even though both the old and modern English translators have glossed "large" as an adjective but also shown clearly that it can be used as an adverb i.e. ''amply", "abundantly". Chaucer has used the word as an adjective in Diomede's "tonge large" and Urn's Preist "large breest". Chaucer undeniably does that  but he also uses "large" as an adverb.
                               

Everich a word, if it be in his charge

Al speke he never so rudeliche and large

     The word "large" has been used as an adverb modifying the word "speke" meaning freely or without restraint. The reason 'large" being an adverb has been ignored because in modern English  it is generally used as an adjective, so the fact that in middle English it can be a different part of speech, has been ignored.It may also be noted that Chaucer has been constrained to write in iambic couplets so the words which are implied has been left.

Upon an amblere esily she sat 

Ywympled wel, and on on head (she wore) an hat.

As brood as is a bokeler on a targe;   

(She wore) A foot-mantle about her hipes large,       

And on hir feet (she wore) a paire of spores sharpe.   

     It is only fair to imagine that a "foot-mantle" worn "largely" about her hips, her dress must have been pushed up around her hips inside the upper part of the "foot-mantle". So the largeness about her hips can be caused by bunched up dresses and not by the breadth themselves. Chaucer also knows hoe to tell his audience  of that a woman has large hips. Malyne of the Reeve's Tale has 'buttocks brode" and the White in Book of Duchess has hips of  "good brede".He hastens to say that such description by Chaucer are merely indicative of the lady's beauty and attractiveness. In neither of these cases does he describe the hips as "large" but as "brode".
     It must also be noted that Chaucer is only describing her clothing and not her body. He tells us about her wimple, hat, spur, but does not seem interested in her physical body and tells us only about her face because that is the only part the fellow traveller's can see. Her bold, fair, red face, gap teeth is all that is told about her body, so why out of blue would Chaucer talk about her hips when he could not even see them. It is also unusual that Chaucer would only describe her hips and no other part below her face. Reading "large'' as an adverb and describing her "foot-mantle" draped loosely around her hips would keep the focus on what Chaucer can see, her clothes.
     Certain medical research has been conducted on Alisoun's "obesity and her "massive girth" and some researchers like Catherine.S.Cox in 1993 said that Wife of  Bath is of male construct, eating and drinking too much and is quite fitting to describe as "hipes large" as having excessive flesh or girth and fails to describe any limit or boundary. The only evidence of her over-eating may or may not be "hipes large' but Chaucer does not give us those particular constructions.
     If so many interpretations arise from "large" being and adjective then maybe it should not be questioned any further. It is tempting to suggest that Chaucer has been deliberately ambiguous leaving it to the reader's imagination. But in his preference Peter.G.Beidler thinks that it is a pair of leggings pulled over "largely'' or "loosely" about her hips.
     If "large' is described as an adjective, then it indicates her physical stature.Generally imagined to be a big, strong woman capable of defending herself in the rough and tumble arenas of pilgrimage, business, marriage. Then the fact that she was subjected to domestic abuse by her former husband Jankyns cannot be ignored . She comments on her pain as "ribbes al by rewe" and "beten for a book". Perhaps she is not a weighty woman but someone who is small and vulnerable. We can also empathize with her for being the maiden of her own tale whose maidenhood was taken away by verray force by an impulsive knight.


     Here are the links to the Ellesmere portrait which shows with fair accuracy what a "foot-mantle" is and the JStor article mentioned above.

60 seconds!

Romeo and Juliet in 60 seconds