What is Truly Evil?

Gowther started out a "wild" child.  This continued to a point of what I would consider barbaric.  However, we (as a society) acknowledge that barbarians were still human.  When reading this, however, I was inclined to think of him as more of an Anti-Christ, half-demon figure.  But are their any real differences between the historical barbarians and Gowther?  The historical barbarians ransacked villages, looted, and, for the most part, just took what they wanted by force.  Gowther ransacked villages, looted, and, for the most part, just took what he wanted by force (including a knightly prefix of "Sir").

However, though a ruthless and savage figure at first, he learns of his dark origins and seeks redemption.  Now I wish to pause here for moment and consider a few things.  Should "Sir" Gowther continued on his dark, savage path and let us assume that is how he meets his end (perhaps he lives to be of a much older age and during one of his raids, his body fails to move how he wishes it to), would barbarians/vikings view this differently than the catholic pope of the tale would?  My answer is "yes."  The pope would have acknowledged his soul as being one of the damned and in no way would he find happiness in the afterlife.  However, vikings believed that there was no greater honor than to die in battle while holding onto one's weapon during their last breath... and, if I recall correctly, if one managed to do so, paradise was all but guaranteed.  However, seeing as the story follows religious values, it took a Catholic turn when he sought redemption for his sins and background.  In this manner, is he not more humane than vikings/barbarians?  I cannot help but ponder, what is truly evil?  Let me put this another way... what would I get if I were to ask for something that had the following two items in common: 'Son of Satan' and 'Savage'?  Most likely one would supply me with the answer "The Anti-Christ!"

However, in all religious texts, the Anti-Christ seeks power, followers, and never turns to seek redemption.  Gowther does the opposite.  Once he learns he is the spawn of Satan, he does not seek gaining unholy power and becoming the evil ruler of prophecy, but rather chooses to do good and make a new name for himself.  Now, one last thing left me curious... what will happen if he and his king's daughter (Gowther's lover) were to have a child?  I do not believe in any of the stories of Merlin (who is also the spawn of Satan), there are any of him having a child.  Merlin had magic and Gowther was unnaturally "wild"... but what would the child of a spawn of Satan be like?

Where is the Similarity?

When reading Sir Orfeo, I could not help but notice a lack of similarity between it and Orpheus and Eurydice.  In Sir Orfeo, his love/wife is alive, but dead inside.  Whereas, in Orpheus and Eurydice, Eurydice is dead, but alive inside (that she is able and willing to follow her husband).  That is but one difference between the two.  Having long ago been acquainted with the tale of Orpheus and Eurydice and having nothing more than little segments of it in memory, this tale was enough to re-jog the tale to memory.  However, why did I need to know of the tale before or while reading it? I guess I can see where the inspiration for the tale came from that way... but need I really know that?

Confusion aside, continuing on.  One (the tale of Orpheus and Eurydice) was a tragedy, the current reading (the tale of Sir Orfeo) ends on a much more happy note.  In one the love is lost and in the other the love is reacquired and rekindled.

The ending, where the king reappeared in "disguise" and made himself known by a skill in which he could do best (in this case his music playing), made me think of nothing but Odysseus from The Odyssey.  He had numerous suitors that wished to claim his wife, but in order to do so, they had to string his bow and, with it, shoot an arrow very accurately.  None of the suitors were capable of accomplishing this task... but along came Odysseus, disguised as an old man (in our current story Sir Orfeo is disguised as a ragged minstrel) strung his bow and, with it, not only did he shoot the very accurate shot correctly, but also slaughtered all the suitors who had been ransacking his household.  Unfortunately (at least from my messed up point of view), Sir Orfeo had no one to slay, as once his identity was discovered, he and his wife were warmly welcomed back and reseated upon the throne.

I end my post with this question:  As I saw a lot more similarities (at least in regards with how the story ended) to The Odyssey, why did we not need to have a background of it as well?

"She turned me into a newt... I got better"

Clearly, plain and simple, she is a witch!

First Reason:

                She appears in an isolated forest clearing that would seem quite out of the way.  Did she just magically teleport there or something?  He arrived there by horse, but it said nowhere in the text that she had any horse.  Second, what does she eat?  Nowhere in the text does it mention dead animal carcasses surrounding the forest clearing.

Second Reason:

                Her first appearance is in place of the disappearance of twenty-four dancing virgins.  So are twenty-four dancing virgins a metaphor for the youth that she, being the witch that she is, has left?

Third Reason:

                She turns from the world’s ugliest old hag into a beautiful fair maiden in one day’s time.  How is this even possible?  Clearly, because she is a witch it was possible!

Fourth Reason:

                But what is the nature of a witch but to be wise and full of trickery.  Seeing the knight on the way home to face his punishment, what better victim could one find.  Using his desperation to her advantage, she provides him with his answer but at an unset price (does that not sound like a witch, to have one owe her favors, but never owe others favors herself).  Later, when she comes to collect on the promise set, she asks that of him that would irk any young man in his place the most.  She, most likely, enjoyed watching him squirm and lament once her will was stated.

I think after these four reasons, my assessment that she is indeed a witch is backed.  Now, is she a wise witch?  I am going to say, “Yes!”  The fact that she is pressing the knight to marry someone as hideous as she is bad enough, but he has no proof to claim she is a witch.  By the time that he does have proof, in which to try her as a witch, he has fallen in love with her (especially with her body now being that of a young maiden).  She played her cards right and things went exactly as she probably intended.  She gained the very power over her husband that all woman wished for, but needed no magic to do so.  With that, I back my claim that she is indeed wise and with her reacquired youth, she is, indeed, a witch!

Who knew Mean Girls, Britney and the Wife of Bath could relate somehow?

We have started reading the “Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” by Geoffrey Chaucer and I have to say that it is a doozey. I have actually read this story twice before, once with Dr. MB and another time in high school. Luckily, because of this, the Middle English did not scare me as much as it did the first time. But a word to the wise- the notes and translations on the side of the page help immensely! But anyways, back to the Wife of Bath. What is everyone’s opinion of her? I confess that my opinion of her has changed after having read the story several times now. My first impression was to thrust the story aside because the ease with which the Wife flouted her escapades and manipulations over the men in her life made me sick. However, I have begun to wonder if she was not just a product of her time period? Like we have been saying in class, women had little to no power in medieval times. Maybe the Wife of Bath’s prologue and her life’s accomplishments are just an over exaggeration of what she really wants in life- power. The Wife has had five husbands- not too farfetched a fate in this day and age to be honest. She said that she has had three good husbands and two bad. (197) What I found most saddening about this prologue was the story about the one husband that she married for love. His name was Janekyn and he was her fifth husband (303). How cruel it must be, (though she was twice his age) to love someone and marry them for love and then to find that love to be imperfect.

 

But I digress, there is so much to say about the Wife’s actual tale, and I still cannot tell you whether I like it or not. I suppose I am relieved that the knight in question actually learned that what women want most is a choice, a chance for equality. However, do I believe he deserved redemption for his crimes in the beginning of the story?

 

 

Absolutely not. I really just do not believe that he, at the end of the story, deserved to have a wife that was both beautiful and good. I mean…he raped a young maiden for the love of Pete! Perhaps some of my group members could share their opinions on this? Does this knight deserve his rewards at the end of the story? OR am I missing the point completely…maybe it is about the woman? Maybe she chooses to be beautiful and good, not for him, but for herself?

Am I still dreaming?

Throughout the reading, all I kept thinking of was two quotes from the movie Inception (see images below). 

 

We start the story with a great gathering of King Arthur and his many subjects at a glorious gathering planned by a guy named Kay.  Now for the dream parts… a knight suddenly confronts Arthur gloating how he has a bunch of Arthur’s subjects and ‘nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah’ he isn’t giving them back, as he leaves he further challenges Arthur implying ‘Your queen too, I want her as well [crude cough]. Send your best man (does not need to be the one from your wedding) with the queen, we fight, and I win and [perverted tongue action and sounds] the queen is now mine and on the off chance your man wins [whimsically spoken], you get your people back. [Thinks for a brief moment] Yea, that’s a great bargain for you, one for many should you win… Bye!’  And he leaves.  So we start at a great gathering… how did we get here again?  Then some unknown knight makes a challenge and one of your best men want to leave… if this is not strange, I am not sure what is.  Continuing on, the Kay-guy, with Queen in tow, ventures after the strange knight.  Arthur and his men pack up and chase after Kay who is chasing after the knight.  Enough with summing up the sequence of events at this point and getting more to why all of this is a dream (based on my two pictures’ quotes):

1)      Kay is not mentioned or included in the story once his horse is spotted for at least another 20 pages.

2)      Sir Gawain gets ahead of everyone else who is also trying to follow Kay and are also dropped from the story without proper explanation for quite some time.

3)      Sir Gawain, on his pursuit comes across a knight who has a over-worked and soon to be dead horse and without inquiring any details or further information (about the knights’ circumstances or Gawain’s own quest or anything), just gives the knight one of his horses.

4)      The horse is dead moments later and Gawain follows the ‘Cart of Shame’ (the human version of a dog’s ‘Cone of Shame’) which the knight chose to travel in and, again, does not inquire into what happened.  I mean the knight’s injured and sweaty, his horse died, your horse that you lent him died, and you’re neither injured nor sweaty… ask some questions about what happened!!

By the point that the knight’s ‘outstanding’ bed catches fire and a blade just barely cuts him, I gave up in trying to understand why all these things were happening and just came to the conclusion, ‘it’s all a dream!  Nothing is real!’  Correct me if I am wrong, but is not the whole story one strange occurrence after another?  If it is all a dream, who is the dreamer?  The narrator saying that they were asked to compose the story for someone they had feelings for, or someone dreaming of the narrator that exists in the story that the narrator is proposing? 

 

Confused?... Feel like Dr. Mario (above) put you on some trippy drug?  Well, you aren't alone!  Yet, at the same time, some of best memories have occurred from moments like in the story, where my friends and I acted and did things in the spur of the moment, making decision after decision with no fore-thought.  Whether the story is a reality of spurs or a dream, I leave up to you to make your own opinion… but I am going with dream!

Love Requires How Much Wealth!?

Love Requires How Much Wealth!?

By Tyler Martin

 

In The Art of Courtly Love, it is hinted that a couple’s love cannot survive without some monetary involvement.  I find this both true and false and would like to use one of the readings, Lanbal, to help to elaborate this paradox.  In today’s society, money is used in an established system that it can be exchanged for goods and services.  For example, these goods, when looking in terms of a relationship standpoint, may include such things as gifts and gestures.  On Valentine’s Day, it is quite common to give some variety of sweets (such as chocolates), flowers of some sort (often chosen by either its beauty or what it represents), and/or a love letter/card (to put words to the symbolic gesture of love that is given).  However, the systematic concept of money is nothing modern.  Even in the texts that we have read so far, references are made towards wealth and value; which, thus, brings me to take my first side on the issue of whether monetary value is indeed a requirement for a relationship.  At the start of Lanbal, Lanbal is assessed to be in a troubled monetary situation, as he distributed his prior wealth to charities and the like prior to the King’s great gathering of all his vassals.  Here, the King provides tokens of gratitude to all the vassal’s but Lanbal.  With this, I will continue under the assumption that the saying ‘not a cent to his name’ applies to Lanbal.  Despite the fact that this is Lanbal’s predicament, Lanbal is seeked out and acknowledged by a suitor that does not look at his value in wealth, but his value of heart.  Thus, with ‘not a cent to his name’, Lanbal finds mutual love.  Thus, money is not needed for love to exist.

                However… though Lanbal is without any monetary value, his new love is not indicated to be poor in the slightest; rather, she is presented being quite wealthy.  Furthermore, she provides both he and his men with great attire and allows him to use her wealth (towards charities, etc.).  Thus money gets a foothold in their relationship.

                But this too is not a correct claim either; Lanbal gains greater respect and more acknowledgement, but to him all he needs is his love.  I presume the feeling is mutual, that Lanbal’s lover would be fine with wanting nothing more but Lanbal at her side.  The wealth that Lanbal had used towards charities and others had occurred before they had even meet and the wealth used towards these actions of good nature solely helped to demonstrate his respectable nature (he did not do it to be attractive or to gain attention… rather he did it because it felt right).

                However, when his lover provided him means that made him stand out more to others, he caught the Queen’s eye.  He remained faithful to both his lover and King, but in doing so, got himself in trouble by making the Queen upset.  All it took, in the end, was his lover’s presence to set him free and cleared him of all charges… but this too is not the case.  Her outclassing of wealth by appearance, made her viewed to be someone of equal standing to the King.  Had she been anything less and the King’s council may well have sentenced Lanbal as guilty and put him to death.  Only through her appearance, influenced through wealth, was Lanbal acquitted of his charges.  From this standpoint, monetary value is a necessity for love to exist.

                I rest my case on this matter with stating that monetary wealth and/or one’s wealth as a person are a requirement for love to exist.  Had Lanbal’s lover been simply a serf… she may still have seen his value from his generous nature and fallen in love with it/him and, perhaps, he would still have fallen in love with her, he would have not have been presented with better clothing and stood out to catch the Queen’s eye, and their livelihood may have been a constant struggle to just get by, but they would have had love without some variety of wealth as a requirement.  In this case, she would still fall in love with his person (one’s wealth as a person) and he would fall in love with her beauty and the way she carries herself (perhaps).  But without changing the story, monetary wealth provided Lanbal’s lover to better her loves’ looks (perhaps, so that others could see on the outside the value she saw in him on the inside, but could never have him… *Personal note: this seems to be a common theme amongst we as humans, we build up each other’s worth in order to build up our own worth (“I am friends with…“[Perhaps, Tim Allen] “and I expect you to respect me more based on this”)), which, in turn, created lust in another (the Queen), which, in turn, then required monetary wealth to better pronounce her own appearance in order to free him.  In a sense, once monetary wealth enters a relationship of love, it then becomes a requirement.  Keeping the readings as they are, Bisclavret provides a great counter-example of personal wealth as a requirement and with monetary wealth not being required.

                In Bisclavret, once Bisclavret’s wife learned that he was a werewolf, he lost all value to her as a person.  This resulted in her leaving (accepted the summons of another suitor), betraying (gave out his secret and used it against him), and cheating him (married and, eventually, had children with her new love).  Through doing this, she lost all value to him as well (because she was unfaithful in secret-keeping and in love) and thus their relationship did not last.

                To finish this blog post off, I direct this question to you, the reader of this post, as a means of connecting back to modern times:  I claim that monetary wealth (regardless of how much) and/or the wealth that one lover sees in the other as a person (is a)/are requirement(s) throughout a lasting, loving relationship… based on your personal experiences, am I wrong?