Weeks 4-6
Please use the comments section to answer questions. Do not try to answer all questions. Try to keep up an average of one per week, with time for a few comments on the ideas of others.
2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
3.Hahn's essay (see critical reader)on The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelleidentifies the motif of the loathly lady, but arguesit has a different purpose than asserting the feminine. What does he think the function of the story is?
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
5. Discuss what you think is the most striking or outrageous example.
6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
In order to claim either anyone, not just Chaucer, is a feminist we must first have a definition for feminism in general. In it's most general terms feminism is simply the desire for women and men to be true equals, with equal rights and treatment. I think it is impossible to argue that throughout history the two genders have never been equal. In some societies women have been the dominant sex while, more commonly its been men with all the power. Many advances have been made towards equality in recent history, however it hasn't actually been completely achieved with men still having more authority and getting paid more for the same work. Feminism and feminists are people (of both genders) who believe this idea should be reality.
ReplyDeleteIn 'The Wife of Bath's Tale' Chaucer has created a character in Alisoun that is an openly sexual woman and is unafraid to speak her mind. She has several husbands with her fifth being approximately half her age and compares this with king Solomon concerning the number of wives he had being hundreds. In this the character is highlighting a discrepancy in the perception, of the time, between men and women. However does this make Chaucer a feminist?
Critic Elaine Tuttle Hansen argues that he isn't. She claims that the character of Alisoun is 'a feminine monstrosity who is the product of the masculine imagination against which she ineffectively and only superficially rebels'. She also claims that Chaucer simply reproduces and reinforces male attitudes which are simply disguised by his writing talent for irony. One of her major points she uses to suggest that he isn't a feminist is in titling the story 'The Wife of Bath's Tale' and not Alisoun's Tale he strips the wife of a true identity.
An excellent answer to Susan's Carter's argument. Arguably, Chaucer was mocking female aspirations, not supporting them. In addition the power of Queen G in this situation is granted to her by the king, and we always have Chaucer himself, the male writer, pulling strings behind the scenes.
DeleteYou first paragraph is a bit vague. It's Patriarchy we are dealing with. Evidence for Matriarchal societies is sketchy.
No the flip side of the coin, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and English at New York University, Carolyn Dinshaw states that she believes Chaucer was an early feminist. In her novel 'Sexual Poetics' she claims that he was "unable to announce himself as such due to the misogyny of his time. Through the Wife of Bath he allows the readers and perhaps even forces them to "imagine feminine desire, feminist readings, and the reform of patriarchy".
ReplyDeleteBoth of these two have many strong arguments and back them up with examples from the texts. However in my opinion Hansen's argument has one serious flaw, she is looking at the text and placing it within the modern concept of feminism.
Feminism in the fourteenth and fifteenth century was extremely different than from what it has evolved into today simply because the difference in society made the concept of true equality for men and women something inconceivable. In that time there was a particular focus on sex and sexuality. Women writers would create characters who were unashamed and outspoken about it. Author Christine de Pizan was one such writer with her novel 'Le Livre de la Cite' being filled with famous women from history coming together in one city and freely speaking of these things.
If we place Chaucer's Wife of Bath into this context, there is really no doubt that the character fits within these parameters. She is used as a voice piece to demonstrate and explain women's desires and needs to the reader through the character of the ignorant knight.
It is for this reason that I believe that Chaucer was in fact a feminist. If you look back without placing the context within his time things get a little murky but when you do then the story fits within the ideals of feminism since in his time there was no vocabulary of feminism.
References:
Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. (1992). Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved April 14, 2015 from http://www.academia.edu/657084/Geoffrey_Chaucer_Feminist_Or_Not
Dinshaw, Carolyn. (1989). Chaucer's Sexual Poetics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Definition of Feminism. Retrieved 14 April, 2015 from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feminism
A problem here is that Feminism is a modern term describing a movement that really began in the mid Nineteenth Century. At best Chaucer is a proto-feminist.
DeleteI know I meant to add a quote from Dinshaw about how in his time there was no concept or vocabulary for feminism but I completely forgot to.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason some critics claim Chaucer as a feminist is that when the knight claimed that “Women desire to have sovereignty as well over her husband as her love, and to be in mastery above him (1038, 1039, 1040)”, the knight was free of sentence, and all women agree that this is the right answer to what women want most. Such descriptions implies that Chaucer might believe in women’s right in sovereignty, specifically, power over men. He might not believe that what women most want are “riches” (925), “honour” or “gaiety” (926), “clothing” or “lust in bed” (927); instead, women need to be “flattered and pleased” (930) by freedom and power.
Another reason I think some critics claim Chaucer as a feminist is the descriptions of conversation between the lady and the knight discussing whether to “have me ugly and old until die” (1220) and “be to you a true, humble wife” (1221) and “never displease you in all my life” (1222), or to “have me young and fair” (1223), and “take your chances of the crowd that shall be at your house because of me” (1224, 1225). The result is that the knight gave the right to choose to the lady saying that “I put me in your governance; choose yourself which may be most pleasure (1231, 1232)”. Such conversation also indicates that Chaucer might support women’s rights and sovereignty, and men need to obey women’s wills.
However, I think there are some descriptions which could indicate that Chaucer might not be a feminist. For instance, when choosing between being a young and fair wife and a true and humble wife, the lady chose “both fair and good” (1241). She prayed that “I may die insane unless I to you be as good and true as ever was wife” (1243, 1244”. This indicates Chaucer’s belief in women’s loyalty, trueness, and humbleness to men, rather a proof of Chaucer’s feminist.
Like with almost any literary text, interpretation is so vast and subjective that it is virtually impossible to definitively state the author's intention. This is particularly apparent in Chaucer's 'The Wife of Bath's Tale', because on the one hand you have feminists salivating at the idea that Chaucer saw fit to give the female characters the upper-hand, and yet on the other hand, it is quite feasible that he was doing this ironically... which not only strips him of his feminist title, but also makes him particularly wanky.
ReplyDeleteI won't lie, the first impression I had of the text was that Chaucer was advocating women and using humour as a method of making the text more relatable to an audience who may have otherwise seen this notion as foreign (and therefore rejected it). It wasn't until Paul came along and illuminated the fact that the entire text was a blatant satire intended to humiliate the Celts that it even occurred to me that Chaucer may have been ridiculing the idea of female sovereignty. (Thanks, Paul).
So - how do we know whether or not Chaucer was indeed a sexist pig, or a female sympathiser with feminist notions that were way ahead of his time?
Well, we can't really know, can we? But, in the fashion of a true literature worshipper, we can have fun dissecting the text and drawing our own conclusions, as many academics have already sought to do.
(this is just my first entry... to be continued...)
DeleteBecause I will be doing my formative assessment on the topic of Chaucer being a feminist, I will be veering in a different direction with this post... and mainly for the purpose of having a bit of fun, because I will be doing exhaustive research for my essay.
DeleteLet's forget about this whole ‘Chaucer a feminist?’ kerfuffle - and instead play with the idea that Chaucer was, in fact, a man hater. Perhaps his agenda in the writing of 'The Wife of Bath's Tale' was actually to illuminate the many failings of men? Can we really overlook his distasteful portrayal of a Knight - an archetype that is "primarily associated with chivalry, courtly romance, protection of the Princess, and going to battle only for honourable causes"?
Firstly, this “lusty bachelor” embarrasses and disobeys King Arthur, “of whom Britons speak great honour” – which is basically treason. (How truly mortifying.)
Secondly, he completely undermines his role as the ‘protector of the princess’ by defiling a young maiden. (I mean, come on fella, you’re meant to be the one defending her honour, not robbing her of it!)
Thirdly, he finds himself at the mercy of women (the Queen and the Loathly Lady). While I’m not overly phased by this, we need to consider how radical this would’ve been back then, because despite all notions of chivalry, men maintained complete dominance over women, and would not have taken kindly to a woman trying to call the shots.
Fourthly, he gets bested by a woman and ends up having to marry a hideous creature;
“My love? He said, “Nay, my damnation! Alas, that any of my family should ever be so foully degraded!”
(Now this one truly gets me… because I think it’s hilariously stupid that his family is not degraded by him being a rapist, but rather by him marrying an ugly woman.)
Finally, when his wife then gives him a choice; to have her ugly and faithful, or beautiful and unfaithful, he becomes completely submissive and lets her choose whichever she pleases, thus giving her mastery over him.
…Of course, you could counter argue that Chaucer then ended the tale with the Knight contentedly married to a beautiful lady who “obeyed him in everything that might do him pleasure or enjoyment” and you’d have a point. Can he really hate men if he affords them a happy ending despite all their failings?
Well, I think the final stanza answers that pretty succinctly:
“And thus they live unto their lives’ end
In perfect joy; and Jesus Christ us send
Husbands meek, young, and vigorous in bed,
And grace to outlive them who we wed;
And also I pray Jesus shorten their lives
That will not be governed by their wives;
And old and angry misers in spending,
God send them soon the very pestilence!”
Myss, C. (2010). Sacred Contracts. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from http://www.myss.com/library/contracts/three_archs.asp
4. In the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, how can we define "conceits"?
ReplyDeleteConceits, according to the Norton Anthology of English Literature, are defined as the “metaphors that are intricately woven into the verse, often used to express satire, puns, or deeper meanings within the poem, and to display the poet’s own cunning with words (p. 113).” However, in the context of Elizabethan and Jacobean sonnets, I think conceits are more in details using descriptive metaphor with various objects, plenty adjectives, or other descriptive words. Such kind of descriptive metaphors give readers more space to imagine. In other words, I think Elizabethan sonnets could be fully understood and correctly interpreted only when the reader participate and involve throughout the process of imaging. If the reader could not connect various individual imaginary metaphors, the sonnets might not be easily or completely understood.
Take some sonnets as examples. In the sonnet The Sick Rose, there are descriptions that require readers to imagine. For instance, what does a red rose represent? What does a worm entering the heart of the rose represent? And how about the “howling storm”? All these metaphors need readers to be involved in the complete process of imaging. Similarly, in the sonnet The Garden of Love, what do a garden and flowers represent? What is the symbol of a chapel? The tomb-stones? And also the “joys and desires”? Readers need to uncover the symbol through looking at these object as a whole, as connected. Only when readers put these object together, they might understand the metaphors. Another example is the sonnet Earth’s Answer, there are metaphors such as “grey despair”, “starry jealousy”, “the virgins of youth and morning bear”, “buds and blossoms”. All these need to be connected together to figure out what exactly they symbolise. As Hermans (2014) suggests, Elizabethan metaphor “may in fact be understood as dependent upon an audience for its completion (p. 397).”
The idea of Chaucer entertaining feminist ideas
ReplyDelete1026 Ful many a noble wyf, and many a mayde, Very many a noble wife, and many a maid,
1027 And many a wydwe, for that they been wise, And many a widow, because they are wise,
"a widow because they are wise" is a rather sarcastic comment. Considering the society of Chaucer's Anglia it is hard to imagine, that his (mostly male) audience would have been understanding it in any other way than "picking on" ladies improving their fortunes by putting their spouses to the grave conveniently early.
Fair comment, Balazs. Is this then Chaucer attacking women?
DeleteI agree with you too an extent but there is also the side saying this is not the case at all, maybe this is his feminist side saying women are better off with out males by there side to drag them down?
DeleteNot so much attacking as pointing out how his peers might have a slightly skewed concept of women. It is really hard to tell where exactly he stands on the isssues he raises, as the transgressing knight is getting a good tongue-lashing too:
Delete"That therefore you should be noble men,
Such arrogance is not worth a hen. "
6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
ReplyDeleteRegard (1997) makes several statements regarding the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance. First, he claims that women have advantages over men because of several female qualities such as “beauty, virtue and fecundity (p. 125)”. These female qualities are great weapons for women to use as natural advantages. Just as Cowley who protests that “women possess an unfair advantage over men merely because they are women; their sex along confers beauty, virtue and fecundity”. As can be seen, women do have advantages due to their beauty and gender. Second, Regard makes an argument that “it was apparently almost impossible in this era to be gender blind (p. 124)”. The fight between men and women poets, and the fight between men and women exactly exist. In the English Renaissance men have more opportunities to write and publish poems to show their arts of language use, while women don’t have as much chances as men to demonstrate to the public their talents in the use of language. One critical reason, as Mr. F argues, is that women in that era are not allowed to get any access to learning and writing. In this way, women are deprived of the right to learn, to write, and then to publish. Third, Revard argues that women in the English Renaissance could not play a role in poetry because their work could not be identified or examined by the poem itself, for instance, the language use throughout the poem; instead, it is often associated with female qualities such as beauty. Even if a female stands out in a poem contest, it might be interpreted as a victory in beauty or gender, rather than their arts and talents in writing poems.
Excellent comment, with a good grasp of the issues. Please provide and English name for yourself!
DeleteThe debate whether the Wife of Bath is a feminist narrative or not is a hot one it would seem. With opinions and issues with opinions on all sides. It is hard to know for certain, seeing as we cannot sit down and talk with Geoffrey Chaucer about what his intentions were in writing this poem, however several critics do make very convincing arguments for their particular positions.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, we have Susan Carter who in her article "Coupling the Beastly Bride and the Hunter hunted: What lies behind Chaucer's Wife of Bath's tale?" seems to champion Chaucer as an early feminist icon. She writes:
"Yet it is also common to find Chaucer attractive for his play with gender in the gap
between the book and the body, nowhere better demonstrated than in
the reconstitution of various misogynist diatribes into the charismatic Wife of Bath, who talks back defiantly to “auctoritee.” If Chaucer is not actually endorsing the strident voice he gives to the Wife, he is certainly making play with textuality, with subjectivity, and with the construction of ideas about sexuality."(Carter, 2003, p.81)
With quotes like this, one almost feels as if she is arguing that Chaucer was some kind of proto-advocate for not only feminism, but for the gender-fluid understanding we have today in regards to LBQTQ people and their biological make-up!
Carter also writes that Chaucer allows the hag in the tale (the wife of barth) to "...express radical ideas on gender theory and to tell a tale that demonstrates some of what she has theorized."(Carter, 2003, p81)
As much as I would like to champion this idea, that Chaucer was a visionary for his time and indeed for ours as well, other arguments in the opposite direction are arguably more persuasive.
A second pro-feminist, pro-chaucer critic (but one who seems to be much more rational in analyzing this story), Carolyn Dinshaw in her book "Sexual Poetics" suggests that the Wife of Bath’s Tale is a story specifically written to voice opposition towards the patriarchal narrative that shaped his time and society. She writes that through this: “Chaucer is able to reform and still participate in patriarchal discourse”(Dinshaw, 1989)
In her article “The Wife of Bath: Chaucer’s Inchoate Experiment in Feminist Hermeneutics,” Susan Hagen points out the "discrepancy of character that allows an apparently strong-willed female speaker to give a rude,aggressive, and insensitive male character (the knight/rapist) his heart’s desire."(Hagen) by which, of course, she is speaking about the very fact that the hero of the story - the knight who rapes a girl, essentially then gets off scotch free and marries a beautiful enchanted woman.
It's not quite victim blaming, but rewarding a rapist with a sexual beauty doesn't exactly scream feminist narrative.
Hagen continues: "While one might hold Chaucer responsible within his limitations, one ought not blame him for them. Even if his experiment in feminist hermeneutics is inchoate,he was thwarted by limitations that his critics are beginning to grow beyond only now, six hundred years later."(Hagen)
In this final quote, I find myself resting. I cannot see in the writing a feminist, only misogynistic ideals of beauty, coupled with the rewarding of a rapist (who I am absurdly supposed to identify with, since he is the hero of the story). However, I am willing to concede that Chaucer and his poem were a product of his time and society. Whether he was secretly a feminist, trying to covertly change things from behind enemy lines, I find highly doubtful, but I don't hold all the blame upon him, as he was only doing and operating within the cultural standards he was nurtured on.
DeleteReferences
Carter, S. (2003). Coupling the Beastly Bride and the Hunter Hunted: What Lies Behind Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Tale. The Chaucer Review, 37, 81. doi:10.1353/cr.2003.0010
Dinshaw, C. (1989). Chaucer's sexual poetics. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press.
Hagen, S. K. (n.d.). “The Wife of Bath: Chaucer’s Inchoate Experiment in Feminist Hermeneutics,”
Well thought out, Nick. I suspect that Chaucer gave the WOB such a strong voice in order to make a fool of her, or allow her to make a fool of herself by her 'outrageous' opinions.
DeleteWeather or not Chaucer was a feminist is obviously a very popular discussion. In the tale the Wife of Bath the main female character is a woman named Alisoun (the wife of bath) who is a strong confident woman she is openly sexual and honest with her morals and beliefs. Although some parts of her are like all other typical women from the middle ages, there are certain aspects of her character that make her very different, the fact that she is not ashamed of who she is, she doesn’t apologies and is very independent. There have been large debate surrounding this because certain critics believe that Chaucer has made Alisoun out to be this different woman because he was a feminist and was using Alisoun to show a different side of females for example H. Marshall Leicester sees Alisoun as a very early feminist. Another thing that makes it seem that there is a feminist theme through out the tale is the fact that the male characters seem to be effected by the women very strongly. For example “By utter force, he took away her maindenhead…By course of law and should have lost his head…Except that the queen and other ladies as well so long prayed the King for grace until he granted him his life right there …” Here the king spares a mans life even though he raped a woman and should have been killed because the ‘queen and other ladies’ begged and preyed for him to spare the mans life. I believe this shows that Chaucer may have been a feminist because it does show that the females had imput to the Kings decisions. Chaucer seems to give the women in the story a lot of power, if Chaucer wasn’t a feminist why would he bother to give the women characters the over all power in the tale?
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side though Susan Crane does not agree and believes that Ailsoun was always going to fail because instead of embracing her feminity she attempts to find equality by getting mans attention.
References:
http://www.enotes.com/topics/wife-baths-tale/critical-essays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wife_of_Bath's_Tale
Opinions well canvassed, Charlotte. Where do you stand on this issue?
Delete2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Chaucer was a feminist. Firstly, most of what he has written of what women desire seems shallow and trivial; riches, gaiety, rich clothing, lust in bed, to be flattered and pleased and so on. perhaps written with an underlying mocking tone.
Secondly, though the wife is a strong willed, fiery and independent character, she gives him the power to choose her fate and though he tells her to decide, in the end he wins and gains everything he desired and lusted for in a wife.
And when the knight saw truly all this,
That she so was beautiful, and so young moreover,
For joy he clasped her in his two arms.
His heart bathed in a bath of bliss.
A thousand time in a row he did her kiss,
Thirdly, the reference to the 'wife' in the title demotes her character to having secondary status. The critics who believe he was a feminist might have been swayed by the way the queen and her court and the knight's wife seem to hold the upper hand and the 'power' in the situation regarding the knight's fate. The men seem lacking in manly attributes such as being heroic: the knight, the friars and even the king (seeing he gave the queen power to decide the knight’s fate). As for the knight, there was nothing chivalrous about him and he escaped punishment for his crime with the exception of having to wed his beastly bride, (he may have pondered if death was the kinder option).
I say there was no joy nor feast at all;
There was nothing but heaviness and much sorrow.
For he wedded her in private in the morning,
And all day after hid himself like an owl,
So woeful was he, his wife looked so ugly
Lastly, though the knight committed a serious crime against a woman and was made to stand before the queen and her court of women, he was offered his life in return for the answer to a riddle of what woman desired most of all..
Mann (1991) believed that "Chaucer was deeply aware of the need for a male author, precisely because he was not female to situate himself in relation to stories about women." Women in those times were oppressed and needed someone to be a voice for them.
References:
Chaucer, Geoffrey (c.1390). The Wife of Bath.
Carter, S. (2003). Coupling The Beastly Bride And The Hunter Hunted: What Lies Behind in Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale. In The Chaucer Review, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2003.
Mann, Jill. Geoffrey, Chaucer. {Feminist Reading Series}. Atlantic Highlands; Humanities. 1991
6. What does Revard (1997) suggest about the relationship between language, sex, power and transgression in the English Renaissance?
ReplyDeleteRevard (1997) suggests that if a man was to lose in a poetic competition to a woman, it would somehow signify he was deemed less of a man and affect his power and status in regards to women, as women during the Renaissance period were not seen as equals and their poetic achievement was attributed to their beauty than their wit. Revard suggests that during the Renaissance period men felt threatened that their masculinity would be called into question if women were granted the same opportunities such as in the art of writing poetic verse and furthermore if they succeeded. Aphra Behn was revered as a poet-play-write during the 1680's. She followed in the footsteps of the leading Pindarist of the time, Abraham Cowley.
"It is not astonishing that a gentleman-poet of this era should argue against female rights, but it is rather astonishing that he should carry his argument even to the point of denying a specific verse form to females, claiming Pindaric ode and its poet (Pindar) for an all-male preserve of pure poetry." (p. 122).
Cowley aimed two of his 1668 Pindaric poems at Katherine Philips, whom he admired and raised the question regarding women learning and writing verse, considered a man's domain. Mr. F argued in favour of women being given equal advantages in learning. Though Cowley sang her praises, questions were raised whether Cowley accepted Philips as his equal.
"A man's view of a "learned" woman almost always involves a man's view of women in general, and assessment of her literary achievement cannot take place without considering the acceptability of her competing "equally" in the domain of poetic performance.” (p. 123).
Though Cowley and the Earls of Orrery and Roscommon and others praised Philips with commendatory poems. The issue of her sex preceded her poetic achievements. Cowley believed women's beauty to be an unfair advantage as men relied only on wit. He felt women should have been content with beauty and virtue and that their wit came second. During the Renaissance period, rivalry between male and female poets as well as rivalry between men and women was common.
"All these complimentary poems to men are extravagant; but all look at the artist, the writer, the scientist first, then at the man. But in his odes to Katherine Philips, he never lets us forget that we are looking at best at a most curious phenomenon--a woman who writes." (p. 125).
In the following poetic verse, Behn criticizes the nation and its educational system for not allowing women the right to an education. She raised the issue regarding women being excluded from universities. Her ode regarding this issue was not a feminine protest but a compliment to Creech, a scholar from Wadham College, Oxford. He in turn published her ode along with other commendatory poems in 1683.
"Till now, I curst my Birth, my Education, And more the scanted Customes of the Nation: Permitting not the Female Sex to tread, The Mighty Paths of Learned Heroes dead." (p. 129).
References:
Revard, S.P. (1997). Katherine Philips, Aphra Behn, and the Female Pindaric in Representing Women in Renaissance England, edited by Claude J. Summers and Ted-Larry Pebworth. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
2. The Wife of Bath's Tale is considered by some critics to indicate that Chaucer may have been a feminist. Why might they believe this? Do you agree? Remember to cite evidence from the text or some other source.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Chaucer may have been a feminist because he makes women dominant and because of the way he ends The Wife of Baths Tale.
When King Arthur has to deal with the 'lusty bachelor'(Harvard University, 2006) in his house he immediately condemns him to death after he rapes a woman. The 'queen and other ladies'(Harvard University, 2006) asked that the King spare his life, which he did, and handed him over to the Queen so that she could decide his fate. Right then, when the King hands over this man to his Queen, he is giving her the power and control which is unusual because typically if the King wanted to put a man to death he would. This shows the Chaucer believed that women have that kind of power, to allow a man to find his humanity and change even a Kings mind.
As punishment the Queen sends him on a quest to find what women want. Eventually, towards the end of his journey when has almost completely given up, he sees a group of women dancing and walks over in hopes that they could give him the answer. As he got closer to them they disappeared and there sat an extremely ugly woman. In exchange for the answer to his question he must promise something in return.
The response he has for the Queen is: "Women desire to have sovereignty
As well over her husband as her love,
And to be in mastery above him.
This is your greatest desire, though you kill me.
Do as you please; I am here subject to your will." (Harvard University, 2006)
This turns out to be the answer which makes it seem like Chaucer understood what women wanted at the time. Even sending him out with a question like 'what do women want?' makes me think that maybe he wrote this tale as a message to others about women and their power.
Now he has to keep his word to the woman who gave him the right answer to which she requests that he take her as his wife. Obviously he isn't too happy about this, because of how ugly she is, but she doesn't budge. After they get married he is miserable and she decides to give him the option if having her be either an old wife that is good and faithful to him or have a young, beautiful wife that would be unfaithful. He, however, gives in a asks her to decide and allows her to have 'mastery'(Harvard University, 2006) of him. When he does this she turns into the young woman and says she will
be both 'fair and good'(Harvard University, 2006)
The recognition of mastery over him is giving this woman what she wants and, now that she has this, she'll give him what he wants. Chaucer obviously believes that men shouldn't get everything they ask for and women shouldn't just cater to that. They deserve to have what they want too.
The most confirming part is the ending:
"And thus they live unto their lives' end
In perfect joy; and Jesus Christ us send
Husbands meek, young, and vigorous in bed,
And grace to outlive them whom we wed;
And also I pray Jesus shorten their lives
That will not be governed by their wives;
And old and angry misers in spending,
God send them soon the very pestilence!" (Harvard University, 2006)
This part kind of confirms Chaucer as a feminist for me. The fact that he wants women to have only the best of their husbands and the ones that wont listen to their wives should have their lives shortened shows he really is in full support of women.
Reference
Acknowledgement: the text of the interlinear translation is derived from Harvard University online: retrieved from
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/index.html 01.01.06