Gowther? I Hardly Know Her!

Honestly, this post is almost embarrassing to write. It certainly will be a significant deviation from my usual analysis - while I generally can't be swayed from Marxism, feminism, and/or post-structuralism (or similar analysis which posits itself within the radical left of the political spectrum), when reading, Sir Gowther I found my blog post practically writing itself through the thought of one of philosophy, psychology and literary theory's most hated and debated:

Get Siggy with it

The titular knight's character progression falls almost uncannily into the Freudian five stages of psychosexual development. These stages deal with the sexual impulses of the child, and how they relate to the id, ego, and superego in determining his behavior through his development. The first stage is the oral stage which deals primarily with the act of breast feeding. As young Gowther does it, he displays demonic intensity which causes several deaths. This serves to establish his exceptionally strong libido from the beginning of the text, and a major theme ultimately his his superego adopting religious moralism in an attempt to tame this impulse of the id.

The second stage, the anal stage, is deemed unimportant and skipped as the narrative advances from him at age 1 to age 15. The third stage is the phallic stage. 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BFS

Here, Gowther expresses his libido through his phallic falchion, which becomes symbolic of his ego, as it was a weapon "he could hold but no one else could bear." (140-141). His excessive use of it for violence expresses that his ego is presently dominated by the id, rather than having balance between the id and the superego. The primary motivation in this stage is the Oedipus complex, to kill his father and gain sexual possession of his mother. While this is not explicitly acted on, it is implicit in the duke dying, essentially from shame for his son's actions (154). The Oedipal element is also present in Gowther's interrogation of his mother to find his father's true identity; he is beset on killing the correct target of his psychosexual envy. The fact that he has failed to do so causes him to fixate in the phallic stage, and much of his motivation in the remainder of the story, even as he progresses through the remaining stages, is brought by his desire to absolve himself of the sins of his heritage, and in that way "defeat" his true father.

The fourth stage is the latency stage. In this stage, the sexual desires are inactive. This is where Gowther travels to Rome. This brings much of the development of his superego, of which the Pope is symbolic. Through the humiliation of having to eat the leftovers of dogs, he is immasculated and cut off from his libido.

The fifth and final stage is the genital stage. This is the stage at which Gowther has matured as an adult with healthy non-incestuous sexual drive. He demonstrates this as he fights as a knight for the emperor - he has learned, through the temperament of his religious superego, to use his phallic falchion towards good Christian causes and to protect his sexual interest (the Emperor's daughter). The daughter's salvation from death and the Pope's redeeming affirmation: "Of God you are the child. No longer fear the warlock wild, for vanquished now is he." (673-675) are final proof that Gowther, through the redemption of Christian superego, has "vanquished" his real father and can finally escape his phallic fixation and live as a well-adjusted adult.

This analysis is silly, Freud is silly and I hope to never again find myself writing it.

Chaucer: Still a Misogynist, but Funny this Time

The Miller's Tale was a hilarious read, one which I thoroughly enjoyed. I take a certain amount of pleasure out of the humiliation of men, particularly those insistent on pursuing unrequited romantic or sexual interest, and Absolon's scatological demise (when "Nicholas anon let fle a fart" (3806)) was particularly amusing to my taste.

Butts are indeed the highest form of comedy.

However, to take a darker tone, there was a particular note that troubled me, and one that seems to form somewhat of a pattern in Chaucer's work: the vindication of the rapist. I discussed this at some length in a previous blog post, discussing the Wife of Bath's Tale. In that post, I used the protagonist's ultimate escape from any consequences (and essentially, his benefit) from having committed the violent crime of rape that served as the main conflict and driving plot force of the tale as part of my argument that the text fails to stand up to a critical feminist analysis.

While not involving the same (assumed) intensity of the rape in the Wife's Tale, the Miller's Tale is also heavily driven by a man committing an act of sexual assault, when Nicholas grabbed Alisoun "by the queynte," (3276) without consent and to her protestations. Again, not only does he not receive any sort of punishment for doing so (except arguably the hot poker from Absolon), but he is rewarded with fulfillment of his sexual aims. This pattern is alarming and certainly indicative of underlying misogyny in Chaucer, even as he attempts to subvert tropes rooted in it.

Get it?? ...because it's ROOTED in it??? ...no? anyone?... I'll show myself out.

The obvious counter-argument here is that this tale is not to be taken literally or seriously, as it's parody. This calls to my mind an infamous interview in which Slovenian cultural critic Slavoj Zizek is praising the film Kung Fu Panda.

Zizek interprets Kung Fu Panda as being effective because it parodies an ideology while simultaneously endorsing it wholeheartedly. I believe the Miller's Tale is a Kung Fu Panda - while parodying misogynist tropes of the era, it also endorses and rewards misogynist exertion of power. This is doubly effective - those who support this subjugation will enjoy its endorsement, and those who oppose it will enjoy the subversion. Both will implicitly support the text's patriarchal ideology.

Thinking on a larger scale, I find intrigue in Chaucer's use of the Kung Fu Panda ideological tactic simply because it's one I most strongly associate with the liberalism of the Enlightenment to the present, as it is a tool often used to obscure the ideological nature of content that supports hegemony within this framework. I don't know enough about the history of the Kung Fu Panda to evidence this, but I suspect that, similarly to things I discussed in my previous blog post, Chaucer is anticipating ideological components of liberalism and capitalism in a way that leaves him seeming, ironically, very forward-thinking (in the sense of dialectical progression of history) despite his misogynist tendencies.

Chaucer's Feminism Fails, Falters, Falls Flat

As I initially read the Wife of Bath's Tale, I found myself pretty pleasantly surprised with its ideological content. The moral of the story seemed to have a little more depth of social analysis than just "respect women," as seems to be the case in a good many romances. Indeed, the protagonist ultimately learns to give women agency and authority over their own lives and decisions. Given the pervasive conceptualization of the medieval as being more intensely patriarchal than modern society, I was shocked, as Chaucer's ethics seemed in line with the Feminist movements of the 20th and 21st centuries. However, I ultimately found his feminism fell a little flat.

The language used at the story's conclusion is telling: the knight's bride asks "Thanne have I gete of yow maistrye...Sin I may chese and governe as me lest?" To which he replies "Ye, certes, wyf." (1236-1238) This attempts to serve as the "empowering" high point of the story; the woman establishes agency over herself and the knight learns to respect it. The contradiction lies in the action itself occurring in the lines - she's asking for permission. This act contradicts Chaucer's thesis: her asking permission shows an utter lack of power, as it implies the ability of the knight to say no - to deny her agency. Furthermore, it implies infantilization of the woman, as needing a guiding (masculine) authority over her life. Agency that requires permission is false agency, and Chaucer disguises this under the guise of granting her autonomy.

The knight thusly becomes the primary patriarch in the tale. The driving force of the narrative is his rape of a young maiden, an act which is presently and historically a very gendered crime, and an exertion and demonstration of power. The irony in this is that Chaucer, in his supposed feminism, never actually punishes the knight for his act. In fact, he ultimately ends up with a beautiful and loyal wife - he's ultimately better off than he began for having committed the act. The maiden is misogynistically thrust aside of the narrative. Ultimately, the only purpose of her being victim to such a horrible, traumatic experience is to help the knight learn to be a better person, which is unjustified - the good and bad are hardly equal here.

The primary woman of the story ends up serving a similar narrative purpose. She does it in such a severe way to foreshadow a modern literary trope - the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. This is a woman, often described as "quirky" or something similar, whose own motives end up being secondary to her helping a male protagonist become a better person - see: every John Green novel. Here, the "Pixie" aspect of the trope is taken literally: she is implied to be a fairy (Osborn, f.n. 18). This further reinforces her lack of agency by stripping her of humanity.

Ultimately, Chaucer serves an interesting role in that his proto-Feminist thought, while almost entirely upholding patriarchal structures, predicts several common tropes of modern liberal feminism - much of which didn't crop up until the revolutionary shift from feudalism to liberalism and capitalism was in full swing. I'll close with a quote, from someone I'm sure you're tired of hearing about:

Michel Fouc-oh, no, not again.

"Power is exercised rather than possessed; it is not the 'privilege', acquired or preserved, of the dominant class, but the overall effect of its strategic positions." (Discipline and Punish 26) Chaucer's downfall is the downfall of much of feminism - he fails to recognize that it's not enough for those in power to claim respect for the marginalized, because it does not change the effect of their position in structures of power or mystically grant 'agency' to the oppressed.

Chrétien de Tr-Oh, yes! & Michel Fouc-Oh, no!

“My most recent reading for fun was the first twenty pages of Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault, after which I gave up.” - Me, on the first day of class.

This class is taking on a strange cyclical nature for me - upon reading “The Knight of the Cart” I was instantly reminded of what little Foucault I had read. What served as a point of interest to me in particular was the punishment itself - the titular cart - which serves a peculiar analytical position when studied through the lens of Foucault’s explanation of history.

Strap yourselves in, this is gonna be dense.

Discipline and Punish studies the historical shift between feudal penal structures (which it argues to be public and focused on the body) and later capitalistic ones (which it argues to be more private and focused on the “soul”). The punishment of the cart was perplexing to me because it seemed to contradict Foucault’s thesis - while, like Foucault predicts, it was very public, its description in the text seems to indicate a greater focus on the soul, saying “Thus he [the condemned] had lost all honor.” With further thought, I realized something crucial about feudal society, which I believe is key to understanding several of the texts we’ve read thus far: the body and soul were not considered separate ontological entities, as we know them today, at the time. This punishment of the “soul” (through the emotion of shame) here has direct consequences, not just spiritually, but materially, through the system of honor in place at the time. Chrétien alludes to this: “From then on all courts refused him hearing”. The significance is difficult to understand through our modern capitalist lens, but at the time, this was a very severe material penalty, that had intense physical consequences to the body of the condemned - he would likely be doomed to a life of poverty and solitude, potentially ending in starvation or similar death. For the knight, labor in service of a court was the only option - its denial would lead to death. The punishment of the “soul” here is not coherently differentiable from the material punishment of the body.

Phew!

So ultimately, this long-winded mess has led to the conclusion that medieval ontologies lacked the distinction between body and soul as separate entities that modern constructions have. I am positive that this can be applied to other texts that we’ve read as an interesting perspective and mode of analysis. I, however, will draw upon my roots as a math major: “This is left as an exercise to the reader.”

On the subject of plagiarism, Dr. Heather Mitchell-Buck’s syllabus for Medieval Romance advises: “Not sure what constitutes plagiarism, or how to correctly cite your sources?... Ask me, ASAP.” (3)  Marie de France would have been wise to ask Mitchell-Buck’s advice “ASAP” when compiling these Lai. Bisclavret is, be it intentional or coincidental, plagiaristic of the most famous text in the Western World, the only one that most would have access to:

Much of this story is merely a retelling and reframing of the story of Samson and Delilah. The parallels are uncanny-the narrative of the man with some unusual power, pressured by his lover to reveal the secret behind it, only to find himself betrayed. His enemy, informed by his lover, manipulates or otherwise takes advantage of his power to destroy him (or, in this case, curse him to life as a werewolf). With the help of a higher authority of some sort, the man gets revenge and his enemy suffers. It’s important to take note of where these stories differ, however -

The happy ending is what separates Bisclavret from Samson and Delilah’s formula. While Samson finds himself dead, Bisclavret lives to see his revenge be exacted, and the exile of his ex and the knight. This is characteristic, as we discussed in class, as the genre of romance as a whole - the happy ending is crucial to justify the story.

It’s unlikely that Marie, as a literate aristocrat during a time of hegemonic Catholicism, was unfamiliar with the original story. The question then becomes, why? What about this specific story was appealing enough to the reader of the era that Marie thought the romantic play on it would be successful?

The answer apparent to me is one of self-insertion - using the self as a point of comparison for the text. This is a theme that I think will likely be pervasive through many of the texts we study; the role of female characters in the texts will be for the audience of the era to compare themselves and their actions and thus creating an “ideal” of femininity to perform. We touched on this in our class discussion of Lanval: the woman’s role in the story is not as a character in her own right, but as an ideal for the women reading to strive to perform, to be the idealization of beauty to be won by men.

Both the Biblical story and Bisclavret have the same “example” archetype of an evil, scheming woman. Unlike in Lanval, however, the woman here serves as an antithesis of the ideal - to be avoided at all costs. This would appeal to women reading doubly as a model of what not to do and as a point of direct comparison: they could look at the text and say “I am better than this woman,” and feel affirmed. The ultimate ideology at play here is more sinister, as it promotes women reaffirming themselves at the expense of other women and, given the woman’s ultimate drastic consequence, vaguely threatening. This also stands out to me as something that will pervade the texts we will read, as it remains common even in modern capitalist patriarchy (despite being an entirely different beast from feudal patriarchy).

For all her success at appealing to women and the genre of romance, Marie de France should’ve made like an honorable knight and signed the Hood Honor Pledge. Looks like she’ll be getting an