(Reschedule) For Friday: Chaucer, "The Nun's Priests' Tale"

NOTE: Since ECU is closed on Wednesday, I'll move everything on the syllabus back. That means we WILL have class on Friday and your Paper #1 will be due the following Monday. BUT we will have class on Monday...but there won't be any work. I'll just introduce some background on Shakespeare so you won't have extra work to compete with finishing your paper by around 5pm. I'll remind you of this in class on Friday, but remember, we DO have class on Friday, so take the weekend to finish your Paper #1. 

For Friday, read the next-to-last tale in our book, "The Nun's Priest's Tale," which is an animal fable about a rooster named Chanticleer and his wife, Pertelote. It is a very odd tale, since we don't know much about the narrator, except that he is a priest traveling with the Prioress from the Prologue (Madame Eglantyne). And like all animal fables (think Animal Farm), this is a satire of human life and behavior, as is evident from all the books Chanticleer and his wife read and throw at each other as they argue about the proper interpretation of dreams! Keep this in mind as you read, and look for moments of satire in the story--especially toward people in the audience. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why do you think Chaucer gave this story--one of his most elaborate, and fantastical--to a relatively anonymous narrator? In many ways, I would expect the Prioress herself to recite this one, or even the Wife of Bath. Why might his anonymity aid the reader (and the teller) more than someone we know much better from the Prologue? Does Chaucer use this to his advantage in the tale itself?

Q2: The quarrel between Chanticleer and his wife, Pertelote, is one of the few snapshots we get in medieval literature of a 'typical' husband and wife. How do their dialogue contrast with that of the Wife of Bath with her own husbands? Does Chanticleer offer his wife "sovereignty" over their household? Or does he seem to hold sway? Despite their animal natures, do you think this is a more realistic depiction of marriage than we see in, say, The Wife of Bath's Tale? 

Q3: The term "Bathos" (or "bathetic") means a rhetorical anticlimax, or in other words, something that tries to be pathetic (deeply emotional) and fails. Ironically, what we call "pathetic" today is really "bathetic." Most authors use bathos for ironic effect, to play up emotions that really fall short of reality. What scenes in this tale are highly bathetic and why? What makes them seem a bit absurd and are played for laughs, even though they are treated seriously by the narrator? Do you think the narrator is aware of this, or is Chaucer putting him up to it? 

Q4: The story behind all the narrative embellishments and classical citations is almost comically simple: a fox tricks a rooster into being caught, and the rooster, in turns, tricks the fox into letting him go. If we just had the plot to go by, the moral would be as basic as "don't talk to strangers," or something similar. But the narrator adds a Gawain-like element which blames women for Chanticleer's downfall. Do you think this story is meant as a reposte to the Wife of Bath? Is Pertelote a caricature of her, and women like her? Or is Chanticleer, like Gawain, the butt of the joke? 

For Monday: Chaucer, The Wife of Bath's Tale

Answer TWO of the questions for next time--and yes, this very short Tale has inspired five questions! There's just so much going on here...

Q1: Obviously, we can't read this Tale without the Prologue looming large in our sight. We read everything through the Wife's voice and opinions. And yet, how might we read this story differently without the Prologue? What if we didn't know the Wife was telling it, and assumed it was just a kind a fairy tale told by a man (as it really is)? What would change about the story and/or its intentions? Or would it remain roughly the same? 

Q2: Did you find it strange that the Wife of Bath is telling a story more similar to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight than The Miller’s Tale? Why do you think she chose to do this? Why might a story of chivalry misplaced, magic, and King Arthur suit her personality and interests? Does this go against the grain of the Prologue? Or develop its central themes? (Incidentally, scholars have evidence that this story was originally meant for someone else, and Chaucer gave it to the Wife in a later revision…)

Q3: The question posed to the Knight—“What thing it is that women most desire”—is somewhat ridiculous and of course utterly subjective; and yet, when the women of court hear his answer, all of them agree that it is utterly true. What do you make of this response? Does this answer flatter men or women the most? And do you think Chaucer believes it himself, or is this merely the work of the Wife?

Q4: At the very end of the story, instead of sleeping with the Old Woman as he promised, the Knight laments that "You are so loathy, and so old also,/And come from such low lineage, no doubt,/Small wonder that I wallow and writhe about” (166). How does this compare with Gawain’s own ‘failure’ before the Green Knight? Which one has failed chivalry worse? Or are they different sides of the same coin?

Q5: Does the ‘happy ending’ of the Tale simply a re-writing of the Wife’s own history with her fifth husband? Has she merely tricked him into an uneasy truce through her own lies and deceit? Or does the ending strike at something different—and more subversive—than even the Wife understands? (does Chaucer take over, in other words)?

For Friday: Chaucer, The Wife of Bath's Prologue

 

No questions for Monday, but please read "The Wife of Bath's Prologue" (not the Tale) for class. We'll have an in-class writing when you get there, and here are some ideas to think about as you read...

(remember, you don't have to answer these--they're just ideas to think about)

* How does Chaucer expand his portrait of the Wife of Bath from the General Prologue in her own Prologue? What does he add or embellish? Is he more satirical here? Or more reverent? How are we supposed to respond to her characterization?

* Do you think his audience would find her interpretation of Scripture shocking or even blasphemous? What about the church figures in the Canterbury pilgrimage?

* What are the Wife’s views about marriage, considering she’s been married five times (and is looking for a sixth)? Does she believe in love or wedded bliss? Or is she ruthlessly cynical like the Miller?

* Do you feel the Wife is a forward-looking depiction of a Medieval woman,  even somewhat proto-feminist? Or is she ultimately another caricature of an over-sexed harpy that likes to beat her husbands into submission? In other words, is she just a middle-aged Alison from “The Miller’s Tale”?

* How do some of her arguments remind you of Christine de Pisan's arguments defending women (from the handout I gave you)? Do you think Christine de Pisan would agree with the Wife despite her more secular--and sexual--perspective? 

For Wednesday: Chaucer, "The Miller's Prologue and Tale"

NOTE: The story that precedes this one, “The Knight’s Tale,” is a very long and somewhat long-winded tale about two ‘knights’ in ancient Greece who are taken captive and both of whom fall in love with the same woman (Emily) through a window in their prison cell. Though friends, Arcita and Palamon each become dire foes over this love, and vow to fight to the death over her. One escapes, while the other is pardoned, and both wind up fighting an elaborate duel to win her affections (no one asks Emily who she wants). Arcita defeats Palamon, but at the last second, his horse is spooked and throws him to the ground, where he breaks his neck. So Palamon gets Emily, though she makes it clear she doesn’t want either one…but that’s not an option, so she marries Palamon. What makes this story so interesting is how the Knight tells it, with long digressions and asides which often derail his story. However, the Miller finds the story boring and offensive, and tells his story in order to mock what he feels is a pretentious tale about chivalric love. He would probably feel much the same about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight!

Answer TWO of the following...

Q1: Why do you think the Miller responds to the Knight’s tale by saying “I know a noble tale I could tell you/With which right now I'll pay back the Knight's tale”? Why might a low-class listener (who to be fair, is also quite drunk) find fault in a story like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which is similar in many respects to “The Knight’s Tale”? What might he misunderstand, or simply be annoyed/offended by?

Q2: Discuss the role of Alison in “The Miller’s Tale”: is she a typically powerless woman seduced and controlled by men, or is she the actual ‘hero’ of the tale? How does the Miller—or Chaucer—want us to ‘read’ Alison, particularly in light of the Wife in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Is she another faithless ‘daughter of Eve’?

Q3: Chaucer makes an elaborate apology for this tale, writing “For the love of God, judge not what I say/as my own rude intent; I must rehearse/All of their tales, the better and the worse/Or else, my matter falsify and lose” (94). Why do you think Chaucer includes such a bawdy, low-humor tale in his collection since he could have easily cleaned it up? Do you think low comedy and sexual humor has a place in literature? Did they have different standards in the 14th century, or is Chaucer merely part of an old tradition we still take part in today? 

Q4: How are the portraits of Nicholas and Absolon similar to the portraits of the gentry and the clergy that we find in “The General Prologue”? Who is each one of them most like, and how much satire do we find in their portraits? Are we supposed to root for either of them? Or are they simply subjects of mockery?

For Monday: Chaucer, "The General Prologue" from The Canterbury Tales

For our next class, read "The General Prologue," which is the overall Preface to the entire work that follows. Here we meet all the people going on a pilgrimage to Canterbury to visit the shrine of Thomas of Beckett (who was assassinated by Henry II in 1170). Some of these pilgrims don't get stories of their own, though quite a few them do, and even Chaucer tells a story of his own (which is so bad the pilgrims interrupt him!). So enjoy this overview of the entire crew and Chaucer's sly comments about each one, some of which he likes more than others...

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Toward the end of the Prologue, the poet-narrator (Chaucer himself?) protests that "But first I pray you...that you not blame my own vulgarity...Whoever tells a tale after a man,/He must repeat, as closely as he can,/Every last word, if that is his duty,/Even if he has to speak quite rudely,/Or otherwise, he makes his tale untrue" (23). What do you make of this excuse, since these are all fictional pilgrims, and he is making up all the stories and language? Why is he hiding behind an excuse of truth, and how might this compare to the Gawain poet's claim that he is just telling the story as he heard it in town and in other books? 

Q2: Which pilgrim’s description did you find most appealing or interesting? How does Chaucer’s language create this character and help us ‘see’ him or her? What do you feel he wanted us to connect with or admire/dislike about the character?

Q3: Where in the Prologue do we see social criticism and/or outright satire of individual pilgrims? How might this connect to the belief of the ‘common’ English man/woman, particularly regarding topics such as the nobility, the Church, fashion, and manners?

Q4: Compare the style of narration of “The General Prologue” to that of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Both were written around the same time, though in very different parts of England; that said, Chaucer might have been aware of the Gawain poem, and vice versa. Do you think they have more in common, or are they very distinct works of art?

Handout for Friday's class (goes with Paper #1--see below)

THE DAUGHTERS OF EVE: Three Medieval Texts on Women & Marriage

“I’m a realist and when you’re a realist, you’re sexist. There’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist” (Andrew Tate, c. 2020’s).

Anonymous, Against Marrying (c.1222-50)

A married man’s a slave for sure,

His flesh and spirit pain endure—

Like ox from market homeward led

To work the plough until he’s dead.

Who take a wife accepts a yoke:

Not knowing pain, with pain he’ll choke.

Who takes a wife, himself is caught

And to eternal serfdom bought...

A woman will receive all males:

No prick against her lust prevails.

For who could fill his spouse’s spout?

Alone she wears the district out.

 Her lustful loins are never stilled:

By just one man she’s unfulfilled.

She’ll spread her legs to all the men

But, ever hungry, won’t say “When.”

 

Jehan Le Fèvre, The Lamentations of Mathelous (c. 1371-2)

“Many a war is begun by women and many a murder committed throughout the world; castles are burned and ransacked and the poor made destitute. As every man and woman knows, there isn’t one war in a thousand that isn’t started by a woman and her sowing of discord. She is the mother of all calamities; all evil and all madness stem from her. Her sting is more venomous than a snake’s; there isn’t anyone who has anything to do with her that doesn’t live to regret it...

Now you can see how foolhardy it is to take a wife...What is the point of your studying the matter? Don’t get married, have mistresses. If you are weak by nature, it will be safer for you to have a hundred of them rather than devote yourself to one; treat them as if they were no more important than a straw...Woman is a monstrous hermaphrodite, proving to be a chimera with horns and a tail bigger than a peacock or a pheasant’s. Thus she bears the marks of a monster, as this treatise informs you...their sex in no way prepares them to be virtuous or to do good, indeed they are predisposed to do the very opposite.”

Christine de Pizan, from The Letter of the God of Love, (1399)

And if anyone says that we ought to believe books written by reputable men of sound judgement, who never debased themselves by lying, yet demonstrated the wickedness of women, my response is that those men who wrote such things in their books, I have discovered, never sought to do anything but deceive women in their private lives; nor could they get enough of them; they wanted a different woman every day and couldn’t be faithful even to the most beautiful. How many did David have, or King Solomon?...

Now if such men had ladies or wives who refused to pander to their every whim or who concentrated their efforts on cheating them, what is so surprising about that? For there can be no doubt that, when a man plunges into such filth, he certainly does not seek out worthy ladies or virtuous modest women of good character; these women he neither knows nor has anything to do with. He wants only those who suit his purpose, and has a constant supply of tarts and whores on his arms…and then imagines he can successfully hide his shame by slandering them with complex arguments once he has grown old and is past it.

And if anyone tells me that books are full of women like these, my response is that women did not write these books nor include the material which attacks them and their morals. Those who plead their cause in the absence of an opponent can invent to their heart’s content, can pontificate without taking into account the opposite point of view and keep the best arguments for themselves, for aggressors are always quick to attack those who have no means of defense. But if women had written these books, I know full well the subject would have been handled differently. They know that they stand wrongfully accused, and that the cake has not been divided up equally, for the strongest take the lion’s share, and the one who does the sharing out keeps the biggest portion for himself.

God created woman in His noble image, and bestowed upon her wisdom and insight necessary to achieve salvation, and the gift of understanding…but as far as the deception is concerned, for which our mother Eve is blamed and which resulted in God’s harsh sentence, I can assure you that she never did deceive Adam, but innocently swallowed and believed the words of the devil, which she thought were sincere and true, and with this conviction she went on to tell her husband. There was therefore neither trickery nor deceit in this, for innocence devoid of all hidden malice should not be called deception.

Paper #1 Assignment

English 2643

Paper #1: Women Defamed and Defended

“You say that just as worms destroy a tree,

A wife destroys her husband, you have found;

This, they well know who to wives have been bound” (The Wife of Bath’s Prologue)

INTRO: The difficulty of reading older literature, particularly anything from the Middle Ages, is that we have so little documentary evidence from the authors themselves. Therefore, we often don’t know what their intentions were when writing works about women, chivalry, marriage, and questionable sexual relations. The majority of non-fiction writing from this period defames women, warning of the danger of these ‘daughters of Eve’ toward virtuous Englishmen. Yet literature is rarely just an instruction manual, and can be read subjectively, meaning it could not only justify a Medieval reader’s misogyny, but also attack it outright.

PROMPT: Based on the handout I gave you in class showing writers Defending and Defaming women, where would you place our two poets? Since both poets are writing stories that gravitate around the theme of women and chivalric behavior, are they satirizing the conventions towards women or the women themselves? Is Gawain yet another ‘emasculated’ alpha male? Is the Wife of Bath a parody of the ‘emancipated’ woman? Or are these works proto-feminist in their refusal to play to stereotypes?How can we find the clues within the writing itself?

REQUIREMENTS: Respond to at least ONE of the sources on the handout, and place that into conversation with BOTH of our books in class (Gawain and Chaucer). QUOTE from each one, and find passages that help you show the poets either agreeing, disagreeing, or expanding some of these views. The poets don’t have to agree with each other, either, since you might find that the Gawain poet is more (or less) enlightened than Chaucer. Also remember that the characters in the stories are not the poets, so how do you read the distinction? Does Chaucer agree with the Wife of Bath? Does the Gawain poet sympathize with Gawain’s diatribe in Fit IV?

Here is the Citation for the quotes in the handout:

Women Defamed and Women Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts. Ed. Alcun Blamires. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

 Page Limit: Optional, but at least more than 2 pages double spaced

Citation: Be sure to cite all quotations in your paper following MLA format

Due: Friday, February 21^st by 5pm [no class that day]

 

 

For Next Monday & Wednesday: Fits III and IV

Sorry I had to cancel class on Friday, but there was no way I could stumble through class with my cough. I'm optimistic that a weekend of rest will help. For Monday, we'll return to Fit III, and do an in-class writing over an important event in the story. Here are some things to look out for as you read:

* There are three hunts and three attempts for the Wife to seduce Gawain...do these events share allegorical connections? Look at some of the language of each, and the ideas of hunting, trapping, outwitting, and being crafty. 

* Why does the Wife accuse Gawain of not being Gawain? How has he failed her image of the great 'lover' from Arthurian romances?

* It seems strange that Gawain, a great knight, lounges behind in bed while the Lord goes hunting with his men, and almost gets killed fighting the boar. How does the poet present this: as what would have been expected of a great knight (or guest), or somewhat questionable behavior?

* Do you think Gawain trangresses his oath to the Lord by keepin the girdle? It makes sense that he doesn't give it back, since he needs it, and the Wife striclty asked him not to speak of it (and he's supposed to serve her, right?). And yet, is this a significant ethical lapse for Gawain? 

Since you might have already read Fit III, I'm going to post the questions for Wednesday and Fit IV below, but they're NOT due until Wednesday. 

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Fit IV

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why does the poem suddenly introduce Morgan le Fay at the end of the poem? Was she behind this all along, as the Green Knight claims? Or is this a sleight of hand on the author's part, to reinforce the allegory? (in other words, can we trust the Green Knight's explanation--that this was really a test of Guenevere, and not Gawain at all?). 

Q2: Most importantly, does Gawain 'fail' in his final test with the Green Knight? Is the flinching a sign of cowardice or dishonor? How does the Green Knight judge him? Does Gawain agree? 

Q3: What do you make of Gawain's long rant against women? Is this another ancient work that seeks to throw women under the bus for the sins of men? Is the Lord's wife merely another Eve/Guenevere, etc. who is responsible for the 'fall' of men? Or is Gawain, himself, missing the point? 

Q4: Why do Arthur and all the knights decide to adopt the girdle themselves? Is this a way to erase his dishonor? Are they making fun of him? Is the whole thing a satire on the author's part?

For Wednesday: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Fit II

SUMMARY OF FIT II: A year passes, and Gawain is nervously awaiting his departure. No one wants him to leave, but he knows he has to go. Not much else happens here, so note how the poet describes Gawain, Camelot, and the world he travels through. Gawain journeys for a long time and has many adventures, all of which are glossed over. He finally reaches a castle where a beautiful woman lives, the wife of a gracious lord. They put him up in fine style and the wife is clearly more than a little in love with him. The host says that they should play a game (uh-oh): that whatever one gets during the day, they have to give to the other at night. So the lord will go hunting and share with Gawain whatever he captures. But what will Gawain give him in return???

Answer TWO of the following as before: 

Q1: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is very conscious of nature: we always know what season it is, and the poem indulges in poetic descriptions of Gawain's travels. Why is this? What effect does this have on the poem, that it has a "place" rather than just a "setting"?

Q2: What do you make of the description of the pentangle on Gawain’s shield on page 22 (lines 620 onward)? Is this similar to the poet’s description of Camelot’s perfection in Fit I? Or is he setting up Gawain for a fall? How can we tell

Q3: Somewhat related to Q2, does Gawain seem to be an ideal, chivalric knight? Does he display proper values and humility (especially with the Lord's wife)? Is the poet using him as the paragon of knightly virtue, or do his actions belie his reputation?

Q4: Stanley Abrams, writing in A Glossary of Literary Terms, defines “allegory” as “a narrative fiction in which the agents and actions, and sometimes the setting as well, are contrived to make coherent sense on the “literal” or primary, level of signification, and at the same time to signify a second, correlated order of agents, concepts, and events.” Where might some aspect of Fit II fit this definition of allegory? In other words, where do we see the poet working on two levels with his plot?

For Monday: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Fitt 1

For our next class, read the first Fitt (basically, Chapter, or Part) of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Remember that this is a Narrative Poem, which means it tells a story, and can be read more or less like a traditional story, except that it is a poem, which means how the story is told is more important than what happens. So consider this as you read and answer the questions below.

SUMMARY OF FIT I (just in case you get lost): After a tiny introduction connecting ancient Rome to modern Britain, the poet brings us to Arthur's court at Camelot. There, they are having traditional New Year's feasts and games, and in the middle of this celebration, a strange Green Knight rides straight into the hall. He challenges the company to a game of his own, but no one takes him up on it, until Arthur, embarrassed, finally agrees to do it. But at the last minute, Gawain, his young nephew, volunteers. The game is simple: they take a chop at each other's heads, and whoever is left standing, wins. Gawain goes first and chops the Green Knight's head clean off. The Knight then picks up his head and says, "Congratulations! Now come find me in a year for your turn." 

Answer TWO of the following questions in a short paragraph—at least a few sentences, but feel free to write more if inspiration takes you. In general, be specific and don’t go for easy yes/no answers. I’m not looking for an answer here; I simply want you to think out loud and consider some of the ‘big’ ideas of the poem.

Q1: Camelot is the mythical ideal of chivalry, a kind of never-never land of knights and great heroes. Given this stereotype, does the poet basically run with this idea, or challenge it? Is it more ideal or realistic, from your reading? In other words, is Camelot all it’s cracked up to be?

Q2: Discuss the poem’s description of the Green Knight on pages 7-9 (or lines 130 to around 200): what is significant about these details? What does the poet want us to see and experience about his appearance? What does this remind you of, besides a very large and threatening knight on horseback?

Q3: According to the poem, why does the Green Knight come to challenge Arthur and his court? By barging in like this (and on a horse, no less), he’s breaking the laws of chivalry and being quite disrespectful. What would make him act so flagrantly toward the greatest king in the land?

Q4: How does this poem read (or sound) differently as a poem than a prose narrative? What details or stylistic quirks jump out at you? Why do you think the poem does this? And you might also ask, why does this work make more sense as a poem than a traditional story?

Welcome to the Course

Welcome to our Spring 2025 semester's version of British Literature to 1800! I e-mailed everyone the syllabus already, but let me know if you have any questions about the basic information. Here is the intro to the class I wrote on the syllabus, which I really feel is important to my approach to the class--finding the modern connections to these now-ancient works (though they often don't sound very ancient at all). 

This course explores the development of British/English literature from its origins in King Arthur and Courtly Love, to Shakespeare’s divine (and divinely obscene) poetry, and finally into the scandalous Eighteenth Century, where literature was beginning to reflect the emerging market of young readers, many of whom (like Austen) also became writers themselves. Despite the distance of time and geography, these works always strike me as shockingly modern, full of characters, conflicts, and conversations which might have tumbled off social media. If you think “hawk tuah” was invented in 2024, wait until you meet Chaucer’s Miller and Wife of Bath! And if you’ve ever watched a Romantic comedy, or are a fan of Bridgerton, you’re definitely indebted to Jane Austen. Everything old is new again in this course, and I look forward to exploring these timeless works with you in the beginning of 2025!

Be sure to get the books of this course, since you will need ALL of them, and yes, we're reading each one (though we won't read the entirety of The Canterbury Tales or all the plays in Sheridan's collection). If you're curious, you can scroll down and see some of the questions and assignments I gave in previous years, though none of them will be the same as I give this year. But this is basically what the blog will look like as we move through the semester.

Take care and see you on Wednesday!