I have just finished reading Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and I have to say that the aspect of this story that struck me most was from approximately lines 139 to 160. Constance is about to be taken away and forced to marry a man against her will when she says:
"I, wretched woman, thought I die, 'tis nil.
Women are born to slave and to repent,
And to be subject to man's government."
These lines are basically saying that if a man were to die, someone might notice. But because of the fact that she is a woman, her life is virtually out of her control. Whether she wants to do something or not, it makes no difference. She is under the complete control of the men in her life and what they want her to do.
I'm fairly sure that one main reason that I picked up on this was that I am taking a Women's Studies class this semester. I had just finished my homework for that class before beginning the reading for this class, and I definitely had feminism on my mind.
So, after reading that section, I continued on with the story, expecting to see more examples of women being held at the mercy of men. However, when I got to around lines 196-236, I was slightly surprised. The Sultan's mother is speaking throughout most of these lines. She has the full attention of all of her council (mostly men, I'm assuming), and makes them vow to follow her. She is very upset with the fact that her son is marrying a Christian and says that if they choose to follow her (instead of her son), they will be saved. To my surprise, these men actually agree with her and follow her lead in trying to sabotage the marriage.
After giving it some thought, I realized the reason I was most surprised by the two contrasting ways in which women were treated. When we look to the Middle East today, we see women completely covered from head to toe. These women are mistreated and given limited rights day in, day out. It is therefore common for Americans to assume that since this is how the women there are treated now that this is the way it has always been. On the other hand, America (a predominately Christian nation), provides women with virtually all of the same rights as men.
Given my preconseptions dealing with how women are treated today, I was surprised to see the roles switched in Canterbury Tales. Constance, a Christian woman, was actually the one being persucuted. The Sultan's mother had the full attention of the male council and was actually had orders being followed by them.
I definitely found the power (or lack thereof) that women had hundreds of year ago to be very interesting. Where and when did this shift in power take place? Why are women presently regarded as a lower life-form in the Middle East? I'm sure that if my knowledge of Middle Eastern culture was better, I would know the answer to these questions. However, I am ashamed to admit that I know virtually NOTHING about the present situation over there, let alone the history of how it came to be. I am therefore looking forward to this class and all I might learn from it. As we move through history, I have no doubt that all of my questions will be answered.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
5 comments:
I noticed the lack of respect Constance held for herself and her sex as well, but I took it no father than that. Most of what I know of those times and that era of the Christian culture dictates that females were very much a lower class, and as such they were treated no better than possessions of first their fathers and then their husbands.
Eve was the betrayer, and she seduced the innocent Adam, and therefore females were raised with the idea that they were lesser beings, evil even, for they are the ones that ruined paradise.
I think the subject of the representation of women in these passages is very interesting; I am intrigued by the way you compare Constance and her would-be mother-in-law. I wonder how the evilness of the mother-in-law plays into the fact that she has power with men?
You have a good understanding of Canterbury Tales and the imagery that takes place.
Women's rights did not exist in Christianity or Islam at the time and in some cases do not exist today either. The Decameron also shows this as Torello's wife says "but reflecting that, as women have but small minds..." I think here again the text shows that at the time women are viewed in a lesser standing than men.
Chaucer definitely makes so very "women-demeaning" comments, not just in the stories but out side of them too. I picked up a copy of the Canterbury Tales from the library (so I wouldn't have to print it), and in the front it had an "introduction to the ladies". After reading it (I was curious what it said) I had to show it to my finance. There was one line that really got me, "I must, at times, be reminded of how very pitiful you all are...". The gist of the introduction was, "I know you are all very timid and weak of heart and cant deal with things like the plague, but don't worry, this book isn't about the plague." I thought it was kinda funny, that wouldn't be taken as well in today's society.
Post a Comment