Emare's Fantasy -Elizabeth

This was an oddly too happy story for me...although I'm not entirely sure why. I've exposed myself to killer levels of cheesy goodness and still loved it, but this story just seemed extra fake to me.

 If I look at it in terms of the lessons of goodness and morals she displays, I can see how it has some merit as a popular story. But to me, she was just too calm with meeting her death at sea, for taking her innocent newborn son with her the second time, and for reading such a horrible letter from her beloved husband. Not to mention this overly fantasy, embroidery robe which (for some reason) was always sent with her out to sea. The emperor's first reaction to denial from his daughter is death, and yet, that same day he breaks down into tears over regret for what he's done? I'm sorry, but if  you're that temperamental as a parent, and that impulsive as a King, how on earth did he gain his great reputation in the first place?

And although I did enjoy the fact she met, fell in love, and married a good man after her first ordeal at sea, I couldn't help but be surprised to see the King leave his pregnant wife to go to war for several years. I don't know if King's actually put themselves in harms-way every war in real life, but I would think that once they took up the crown they were kept in a place of safety, especially until the confirmation of a living heir was confirmed. Then there's the fact this parent didn't seem to mind at all missing the birth of his son, or his first steps, first word...etc. It said the war lasted for years, but she would've given birth in less than one.

...there are just too many pieces that don't add up, which I think is why I disliked the happy ending. It didn't make any sense how they got there, and was so entirely fantasy I couldn't take satisfaction in it all working out.

The class discussion the other day was interesting though, and answered a couple holes I saw in the plot. I was surprised to discover that the word "Egare" actually meant "Outcast," and found this new name clever because of it. I originally thought she changed it for a simpler transition, since it's only a one letter difference.

I think the story would have been improved had she lost something with each trip across the sea: like her trust in family, maybe some of the beauty in her robe, a toe freezing off from the cold sea...her son being ill for a bit from being exposed to such cold weather while so young, or maybe just her living in great poverty with her son for those first 7 years. Him learning the hardships and work moral of this status, but still remaining courteous, and she who pulls through each trial (but not without sacrifice) to finally be reunited with them all in the end.

A List of Questions...

Reading the Miller’s tale was…interesting. Also confusing, due to the middle English. I’ll be honest, I skimmed the middle English from the previous stories due to the time-crunch I’ve been struggling with lately, but this story definitely had some confusing points either way. I’m still a little unsure if the carpenter’s student, the clerk, and Nicholas are the same person (all mentioned near the beginning of story, somewhere before line 3220). I’m also confused as to who was this jealous-person of Alison (carpenters wife) mentioned line 3224 (was it the carpenter or Nicholas?).

 I don’t know exactly what Chaucer was talking about with the church scene in lines 3306-3338, but I did recognize it’s main purpose was to introduce the priest-assistant Absolon. A person who many of my questions are about. At line 3350, it seems Absolon won’t take offerings from…wives in-general due to his love for Alison? But I don’t know if that’s correct, or if it is, why. I’m also confused to his motives throughout the whole story…it seems she denies him the first time (or he realizes he’s chances suck) around line 3387 (pg78) after he sneaks under their (carpenter/Alison) bedroom window and sings his love for her with her husband THERE. Then later, he sneaks under their window again (this time when he thinks husband is away) believing that he WILL kiss her. Why?? Hasn’t she already denied him? What makes him think she would do this? Then after she tells him she loves another (second time?), he realizes he’s kissed her arse, and says he’s done with her (line 3757)…he comes back AGAIN with his mother’s gold ring to try and get another kiss (promising ring in return). What??? Why? Not only is she a MARRIED woman, but she also says she loves another and has mistreated/tricked him. I don’t understand Absolon much at all…he’s supposed to be a godly/church person too. Wouldn’t he be looked down upon in the church for stealing/pursuing/loving a married woman of another man?

Then I’m confused as to the plan that Nicholas and Alison create to trick the carpenter. I understand that Nicholas stayed in his room alone until John (carpenter) forced his way in, thinking that he’s gone mad from his astrology. I also understand that he tells in (in private/secret) about his prophecy about a Noah’s-Ark type flood coming on Monday. But what exactly does he say to do to keep them three safe? It was something about hanging tubs (dough kneading troughs specifically) from the ceilings so the servants wouldn’t see (for the purpose of floating  in flood)…then something about taking an axe and cutting a hole in the garden wall…? The lines I’m referring to are 3569-3572, if someone would like to try and explain. Is line 3632 trying to say the carpenter sent the servants to London (with excuse for his business trip in his place) to keep them safe from flood? Then I’m completely confused as to the order of events and/or what actually happens in lines 3816-3825…

I have more questions, but if these could be answered (to any degree) that would be really helpful for my comprehension of this story. Overall though, I did find the story entertaining. I just wish they got to the point a little more often. Some of the descriptions in the plot seemed unnecessarily long.

Reflections of Desire -Elizabeth Cavin

I feel like the role of gossip, slander, and insults is kind of self evident in this story. It is there to move the plot along by motivating action from the characters. On the second topic question, it is curious as to why there is so much misery in these stories…my only guess is that it is there to emphasize and establish what are more “proper” reactions for real-life events, like how one should feel at death of their spouse, when someone challenges you/a friends honor, or when one makes a mistake. Although, I guess it could also just be a reflection of the story-makers personal misery n real-life expressed into a creative outlet. When one makes another feel bad die to another’s misery (reader feels character misery/ character feels character misery/some cases…reader feels bad for author) often sympathy is established, making them more emotionally involved with the story.

Reading up to page 296…I was surprised by how much I learned on a woman’s place in this type of society, and I can not help but be a little disgusted by it. Not only do women not seem to think for themselves, but they are complacent to forming to the standard by which men believe them capable (which is not much). When the widow just decides that it is ok to marry her husband’s murderer, right after Sir Yvain claims her mood will eventually change and they should be lovers just because he desires her (pg 274), I could not help but think: WTF?? He even admits that his love comes from only his eyes, which desire her physical beauty (pg 281).

How could one go from self-destructive harm during grief to joyful agreement in a few (if not a single) night? This woman betrays her own feelings, albeit for a pretty decent reason, but then she goes as far as to convince herself she “loves” this murderer? (Around pg 276) All in the same time frame? The book says she was eager for the marriage, and that nothing would have stopped her from doings so (even if her people did not approve). Not for protection, it points out, but to fulfill her own desires. Either this woman’s feelings for the previous man were as shallow as can be (and she’s a drama queen), or the beliefs of the time were backing her into a corner in which brainwashing herself was the only way to happiness. Also, the claim that all women get mad when given good advice really touched a nerve with me (pg 276).

Then there was this quote on page 286:

                “And while these two were becoming acquainted, the others were flirting. There were about ninety other ladies, and each one was beautiful and charming, noble, intelligent, prudent, and wise, ladies of noble birth and high lineage. And so men were able to amuse themselves by conversing with them, looking at them, and sitting besides them, as well as kissing and caressing them. At least that much pleasure was theirs.”

…I felt sick to my stomach after reading that. It basically listed all that a woman was worth (in that time period), then went on to point out such physical actions by men (looking at them, touching them, kissing them) were simply for the men’s amusement, and worse yet, the woman were ok with it. For some reason I thought a woman’s virginity, at least before her first marriage, was really valuable, and things like kissing and caressing someone you did not plan to court was considered wrong...But I guess instead, I was wrong.

Then I have some random questions, just from the whole reading so far:

• Ø  Why, when Sir Yvain is lead into the palace after dealing the fatal blow to the other knight, does the young maiden help the MURDERER of her lord to hide? -pg 269
• Ø  Is there some sort of belief that when dead wounds bleed, the killer is near? Why are the people in such a commotion over bleeding wounds on the dead knight? -pg 271
• Ø  So, is that a thing? That love is not allowed to exist from the woman if the man lacks honor? -pg 287

Love or Lust? -Elizabeth

I feel like I need to clarify something, before I begin this one...when I think of a modern-day pursuit of "love", I think of a pursuit for the combination of a mind (personality/knowledge), heart (emotionally), and/or body (appearance) that pleases us...all at the same time. And for the body part of that equation, that could be either/both a sexual approval or one of simple approval of beauty.  If what one is feeling for another does not include all three, then it is most likely something else, like admiration or reliance. The mind and heart take a relatively long time of study before one could decide if they truly enjoy each/both of them. The body...not so much. There's a reason "love at first sight" became such a popular notion, the part of love that relies on sight is easily discovered.

When I think of medieval love though, all I ever really see when it describes "loving" someone is that the two are visually pleasing to each other (are beautiful or lust-worthy). There really isn't any time spent on getting to know the other person's interests, beliefs, or often even their background (like social status and wealth, which seem very important to medieval people) before a declaration of love is made, let alone a marriage for love.

So I can't help but be a little confused after hearing people mention in class how scenes, that I thought objectified or restricted Enide, were instead interpreted as romantic, and that Erec and Enide were in "love". I mean I can see that they actually like being in each other's company and sought out to marry the other, but I still feel like the reasons are too vain to actually be called "love".  They love to have sex together, to stare upon one another's beauty (there's several pages dedicated to this fact...), but beyond that and protecting each other's safety/reputation I don't see how they actually care for one another. Enide (or at least her family) wanted to be queen/of high social standing when married. Erec wanted the fairest in the land. Yes they both gained something from being together, they were both supposed equals "in courtesy, beauty, and nobility" (pg 20), but that doesn't mean that automatically they so deeply cared for every aspect of the other's being (heart & mind) that they "loved" one another; That they really trusted each other, or could support the other emotionally when needed. They may value one another at the moment, they may even be good friends (similar ideals/goals are common among friends)...with benefits. I think it's way to soon for them to proclaim such a deep desire and understanding for each other though.

I have some questions from the reading though I'd like to mention. If anyone can help me answer these, please comment below! I added what page the information/thought occurred on for help.

• Pg 23 - Why did the King declare his love and faithfulness to Enide after the "white stag" kiss? Isn't that loyalty supposed to be to his queen or overall kingdom, if anyone, since he's the King?
• Pg 18/24 - Why did Erec promise Enide's father two castles after they agreed upon the marriage? I can understand the giving of wealth...but the change in location and lodging (far from original home)? 
• Pg 17 - Who in the world is Tristan and Morholt? What battle on the Isle of Saint Samson?
• Pg 27 - is "maiden" another word for "virgin" or for "young unmarried girl"?
• Pg 9 - If Erec is the son of a King...why is he a knight, risking his life? I would think he'd be protected from harm as the rightful heir, and be trained (to some degree) on how to run a kingdom rather than how to fight and die. 

Trapped in the Cage of a Woman -Elizabeth

For the stories of Bisclavret and Lanvel, I feel like the symbolism in them is crucial…for otherwise, the story would be less interesting or satisfying (although even with the symbolism it’s not super abundant either of these). In both of these, the woman who is first in love with the man of the story ultimately determines both of their fates. But the difference is that when each was confronted with an admission of sudden (unwanted) truth, one woman chose to follow her fear and disgust, betraying and condemning her man, while the other chose to forgive, saving the life of her man. While the symbolism added meaningful enjoyment, the actions are what defined what was remembered.

No matter what previous story I look at though, no matter how the woman acted (good & loyal or source of betrayal), it appears the overall lesson these stories teach is that the man should always be listened too, followed, and believed in no matter what…or else horrible consequences of trial and sacrifice will occur. Le Fresne, the living icon for kindness and honesty, never once shamed or went against her lover despite what pain this probably caused her; from losing her virginity to him (despite her oath to the church), to what his marrying another made her feel. Because of which, she was eventually rewarded with the finding of her parents and the opportunity to marry her lover.

But the wife in Bisclavret, who arguably acted from a rational fear and acted to save her lifestyle, future legacy, her reputation, and thus broke her husband’s trust, ended up horribly disfigured and shamed. The story gives the impression had she chose to do nothing, despite her fear and her husband’s potential for evil/harm, she might have had a much happier ending. Had this been in a modern setting with an abusive husband (source of fear), a woman would be expected and helped enabled to leave him. But in medieval romances, it seems no matter what the case may be, a woman cannot decide to leave her legal partner.

Even the horny queen, who felt wounded at Lanvel’s declaration of love for another, was careful to keep her attempted actions a secret from her husband (though she never committed the actual affair) and not betray his trust/will, just saw her will for Lanvel to be taken to court done, never personally received any punishment. Although some could argue the penalty for her attempt at betrayal was being shown up/shamed by another more beautiful woman, but that’s a debatably mild punishment. When compared to the wife who did have an affair (in Equitan) even though she didn’t appear to want to do it yet was still killed for it, this difference in action (whether the fact the action is known or not is a debatable factor as well) and faith to their husband is what decided the woman’s fate.

While I personally really appreciate a good, happy conclusion, I also noticed the justice in these types of stories are either way too harsh, or way too lenient. Thus, I often find myself rarely ever satisfied with these endings…Which is odd, for I never considered proper justice a factor in what a story needs to be satisfactory. This overly influenced sense of justice does help emphasize the presence of each described “moral”, but I think it takes away a lot more from the enjoyment of the actual story (which is needed, for it to be remembered and possibly passed down) as a modern reader. The fact this sway in power and control is what made these stories so popular then, since it doesn’t do much for me now other than reflect on such an imbalance of morals, trust, love, and power, is a peculiar thought. I'm glad that philosophies on such things have changed as much as they have over the years.

Foolish Expectations? Or Something Else? -Elizabeth

Some of the rules from Capellanus’ Art of Courtly Love really surprised me. At least they did, before I was made aware it had been a satirical reading. For example the concept that a born-blind man can never love is simply absurd. Love is not something that relies purely on sight, for it is an emotion that is also created through interactions, trust, and understanding.

The rules “he who is not jealous cannot love” and “real jealousy always increases the feeling of love” are ridiculous to me due to the fact distrust, fear, and being overly possessive (often the sources of jealousy) can prevent communication and are well known factors of what can end a relationship. It’s a shame that so many people, for so long, took these ideas seriously. For ideas like these could do so much harm emotionally, or worse, if taken as facts.

I interpreted what courtly love was by comparing it to modern fictional love, through a few common elements: through their goals, target people, social acceptance levels, and women-rights of the time. For example, some of the goals for the creation of courtly love was to entertain, teach younger men proper social etiquette, and provide women with a small feeling of power/status during an age where women were powerless and often looked down upon.

The targets of courtly love were often portrayed as (upper-class) married women and young men (knights), for the idea of love within marriage was an odd, if not deplored, notion due to their current religious beliefs. Courtly love itself encouraged men to desire, respect, and protect women rather than just sexually pursue/interact with them. In other words, it shifted some power from the male lover to the female beloved.

Compared to modern fictional love, these elements vary quite a bit in some areas. While it is similar in the fact some of the goals are to entertain and set social standards (to a degree), what is different is the status/rights of the female audience and how they’re influenced. In terms of the woman-rights of the female audience, woman have become closer than ever, if not are already, to being on equal standing with men, and as a result do not focus as much on a need for higher status/power in modern fictional romances. Instead, they crave more the emotional fulfillment, the desire, the lust, the passion from stories, which they often cannot find in real life (similar to what the male position in courtly love offered, but with more accepted sexual relations).

Modern fictional love has more equal treatment and expectations between the sexes, unlike courtly love, which was just beginning to close the gap. The targets for this modern love are practically anyone and anything, with the general exception of incestuous relations, because the social acceptance of ‘love’ (both in the church and public) has increased greatly since the origins of courtly love. Along with greater acceptance, love within marriages became not only socially okay, but desired and sought for too. This modern shift in genre transformed the conception of courtly love, one of purely mental desire and service, to a form of love that needs both an emotional and physical connection to be content.

I wonder though, was this shift in fictional ‘love’ types mainly the result of a change in audience over the years? Or did the created shift in fiction (starting with courtly love) actually succeed in changing the beliefs/expectations of its audience, over time eventually snowballing into this current version of modern fictional love?