Sovereignty and Humiliation

CLERK’S TALE Rags to riches* Three tests** Humiliation and triumph You win by losing everything Happily ever after * Diverges from usual versions because goes round twice: rags to riches to rags to riches **Diverges from usual versions: we expect these either to precede marriage (Pride and Prejudice) or to be the result of mistake by heroine (Cupid and Psyche). More closely follows “virgin martyr” type story (Margaret) but only works if you conflate the bad male (Olibrius) and the good male (Christ) in the person of Walter WIFE OF BATH’S TALE Sin and redemption* Penitential quest** Humiliation and surrender You win by losing everything Happily ever after * Diverges from usual versions because plot works itself out in purely martial/sexual terms with no apparent larger theme **Diverges from usual versions: particularly low offence and highly specific, non-martial quest

Rags to riches* Three tests** Humiliation and triumph You win by losing everything Happily ever after * Diverges from usual versions because goes round twice: rags to riches to rags to riches **Diverges from usual versions: we expect these either to precede marriage (Pride and Prejudice) or to be the result of mistake by heroine (Cupid and Psyche). More closely follows “virgin martyr” type story (Margaret) but only works if you conflate the bad male (Olibrius) and the good male (Christ) in the person of Walter Griselda is tested despite her excellence and the success of Walter’s marital plan: 395ff Her only possible fault is to give birth to a girl: 442ff Or is her mode of governing problematic? Griselda rules for “common profit” (431); she softens the edges of Walter’s absolutism. Perhaps this is why it has to be directed against her? In the tests, her growth as a public figure is stopped. She becomes instead a symbol of the static virtue of patience. She also loses credibility as a mother. The marriage, too, suffers: no more kids. The denouement tries to resolve things: Walter, Griselda, redeemed: 1051ff We’re given a happy ending: 1128ff We’re even told story is allegorical. This is about God and the soul: 1149ff But there’s a problem, a residue: 1163ff What does the Clerk’s “envoy” mean?

Sin and redemption* Penitential quest** Humiliation and surrender You win by losing everything Happily ever after * Diverges from usual versions because plot works itself out in purely martial/sexual terms with no apparent larger theme **Diverges from usual versions: particularly low offence and highly specific, non-martial quest The setting is idealized and long-ago: Arthur (1), the time of fairies (860) The facts of gender relations are not: rape (888) Absolute power is here invested in women, who temper justice with mercy (890ff; compare Knight’s Tale) Knight’s penitential quest is first step towards redemption He is obliged to listen to a plethora of accounts of what women desire (924ff, compare Prologue, 248ff) None reaches down to the heart of the matter (983f) This information is only accessible to our knight by magic and pledge (989ff, 1035ff) And its secret cost is the surrender of his sovereignty in marriage (1055, 1219ff) But surrender brings him triumph (129ff) It also gives him some control back. It apparently leads to mutuality (1255)

The Wife of Bath wants a marriage that works. She understands the problem as one of power, “sovereignty.” Masculine control, or some manifestations of masculine control, is a disaster. If this problem is fixed, others, it seems, resolve themselves. Ending of Prologue: play of sovereignty, violence, sex, and affection Dark backdrop: the masculinist worlds of the Miller, Reeve, and others At stake: is mutuality between the sexes possible? When an ideal of community (the ‘body of Christ’) meets social reality (classist, sexist), is there hope for that ideal? The Clerk, a celibate, seems to want to understand the dynamics of control and abjection within a marriage. He translates an experimental tale about a marital experiment in this area. The results shock him: he cannot accept his own tale. Clerk’s insistence his tale is a translation from Italy. His breakouts against tale. His confused ending. At stake: is mutuality between the sexes possible? Given the social realities within which moderns live, is sanctity possible? What relation exists between power and knowledge? What relation exists between human sovereign power (political, domestic, masculine) and our notions of divine power?

Gentility is rooted in the self, not in descent (1109ff). Poverty is a virtue, not a vice (1177ff) The association of “churls” with crudity and low behavior (e.g. the Miller) is problematic The social hierarchy of the pilgrimage itself is challenged, as much as the gender hierarchy But note that this is Walter’s view too: hence his choice of Griselda Note, too, that both tales end by reaffirming core values: the Loathly Lady becomes young and sexy and obedient; Walter and Griselda’s son inherits the kingdom, establishes a dynasty Note, too, that The Summoner’s Tale and The Friar’s Tale take us right back into the social hostility of the pilgrimage, as does the Merchant’s Tale Social/gender radicalism is contained by the context of both