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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment