Analysis of Medieval Literature - Essay Example

Hyeran Ko Medieval Literature Prof. Jonathan Martin 3-31-2008 "WOE-MAN WE-MEN" Marie de France, a poetess and a woman of substance, highlights the interaction of opposition and contrast in many of her lais or narrative poems. In all the poems, she reveals the role that women play in the lives of men, or at times the other way around. Though all the poems follow the theme of knighthood and chivalry, it is inevitable that the presence of women in these men's life would come out. But more than this, she showcased two strong contrasting nature in man that of good and evil, whether man or woman alike. This ambiguity produced ambivalence in Marie's characters. Most of Marie de France's works raised issues on feminism and chauvinism. The most striking similarities are to be found in the stories of Bisclavret and Lanval. If one were to choose which of these two stories took an ambivalent stand on the issue of the superior gender, it obviously was the story of Lanval, an allusion to Sir Launfal of the Arthurian legends. Being a narrative about the one of the Knights of the Round Table, the reader could not help but take the poem to a broader perspective, which further contributes to the point raised of the ambivalent nature of men and women alike. This is due to the fact that these tales had been widely read and studied through time and places alike. Although one would argue if this treatment should be called such. Marie de France, being a highly intelligent woman would have had a purpose for playing such contrast against each other, may be something nobler than making the woman play evil in a man's world. Instead of ambivalence, it could be more aptly called sensitivity or benevolence. Such so-called ambivalence would result to the readers being prodded to think critically or to reevalute the characters and at the same time their characterization and nature. The issue of ambivalence is quite pale in Bisclavret. Marie de France consistently played the men as good, while the wife was faithless. It could be said that the characters kept their virtues or their evilness up to the end. In this poem, one gender was shown as consistently good while the other was consistently bad. In this narrative, the men portrayed the good parts. They could be perceived as honorable and somehow pitiful throughout. On the other hand, the women are cast as antagonistic. Bisclavret was shown as an innocent and harmless victim and a very good friend to the king. Marie de France described him in the opening lines as "a handsome knight, an able man, and acted like, a noble man". He also revealed an amiable character since "both the King and his neighbors held him dear". If this was pointed out from start to finish, it could be concluded that the character has been consistently good. (Marie's Bisclavret 1) Bisclavret had been trusting and gullible against the wiles of his wife. He entrusted her with his most precious secret. That is, that he would change into a beast every time he goes to the wilderness and the most important thing of all ... his transformation could only be undone through his clothing. He was easily beguiled by his wife. The only time he showed a negative behavior against his wife, and then her lover was towards the end of the story. His attack was justifiable and reasonable and was born out of rage for having been wronged by the traitors. But then again, this could not be considered as an evil act since in the light of justice, his action was really justifiable. He was well loved not only by the king but by his household as well. The moment the garwolf saw the king in the forest, Bisclavret showed such gentle nature that he won the king over. Aside from the king, the people in the palace must have witnessed the same since they believed the beasts' ferocity towards his wife and her lover to be caused by a valid reason. The members of the household believed that Bisclavret "never had he acted this way to any man he'd seen, until this day. All those of the household insist there must be a reason he's doing this." (Marie's Bisclavret 3) Bisclavret's gentleness prevailed throughout the story, whether he was in the form of a man or beast. Aside from the knight, the king was also introduced as a good friend, whether Bisclavret was in the form of a man or beast. He was also a judicious leader. He did not only grant the beast friendship but he also gave him a home. When he was first a knight, the monarch has blessed him. When he was semi-permanently turned into a beast, the king provided him everything that he needed. He was beloved and was well-loved. Both of them never had their character tainted with a bad act. He was a firm and judicious leader. Though most of the time, such things were not literally mentioned, these could be easily deduced based on every line of the narrative. The wife, although she was introduced as a worthy and well-bred woman in the beginning never did act as she was described. She seized the opportunity to trick her husband and extract his secret. She was scheming and faithless. The moment she knew the reason for her husband's absence, she right away betrayed him. She immediately took a lover. Both she and her lover made sure that the knight would not be able to return to being human again. For this, she was punished. She was not shown to have been remorseful of the wrong things she did. There was not a trace of a reformation of character or a shift in character. NOW, Marie de France was more forgiving and gentle in her depiction of both male and female in the lay dedicated to Lanval, which further strengthened the ambivalence or ambiguity of character. This matter aside from being discussed in the poem could also be assumed based on the readers' prior knowledge of the characters alluded to in the story. King Arthur, Queen Guinevere, and the knights have been previously and many times discussed in other works. They have already gained reputations and had been subjects to a lot of discussions, criticism, and analyses. First, the poem provides the contrast between Arthur and Lanval, then Guinevere and the knight's fairy lover. Then, on the background, one gets a glimpse of the other equally celebrated Knights of the Round Table, Gawain and Lancelot and the others. Compared to the minor characters in Bisclavret, the knights could easily be identified with previous allusions. In the beginning, Arthur was described as the valiant and generous monarch to his people and to most of the knights, except to Lanval, who is said to have been envied by the people in the court. This is in itself is a sign of ambivalence. The poem shows the possibility of jealousy as the reason for this. Arthur was portrayed and could be viewed as a good king, firm and strong. But this strength of resolved did not work with his queen. He easily believed her stories and condemned Lanval. His outrage and hasty actions were shown in the events at the palace court. At other points in the story, especially on the latter part, it could be said that the gallant king lost his dignity and his sense of reason. King as he is, he did not play his part as a monarch. (Marie's Lanval 1, 5) King Arthur, who was supposedly the most upright of the occupants of the chairs in the Round Table, was shown as a husband who could easily be swayed by a woman and cuckolded by his wife. He was someone who is known to be wise and reasonable threw a senseless rage. The king who was supposed to be always on the right, along with his wife, the Queen, was proven wrong in the end. Most of the things that he did was opposed to what was expected and what was true in the beginning of the poem. LANVAL, in comparison to King Arthur, could be said to have been man enough and good enough in the narrative. He was described as brave and generous, someone of noble descent. He was most sincere and constant in the lay. All his lady's wishes he tried very hard to obey. He was true to his love and his words even when it was tested by none other than the queen and the king himself, even when so much of his life is at stake. This knight remained loyal to the king who continuously disregarded him. With so much respect, he never gave in to the advances of the queen. Even the Knights of the Round Table sided with him during the trial. They found him believable and honorable. Though they were fearful of the king, they defended the knight. The most evident proof of the contrast of character could be seen in these particular lines; LANVAL : Lanval was now the richest donor, Lanval ransomed all the prisoners, Lanval dressed jugglers and jongleurs, Lanval did all men every honor: To stranger and to citizen Lanval would gladly have given. (Marie's Lanval 4) KING ARTHUR: Women and land He shared out with generous hand To all but one who'd served. Lanval He forgot: no man helped his recall. (Marie's Lanval 1) Here is a man who never faltered in his principles as compared to the king who debased himself in a fit of his emotions. Lanval was never tempted or never wavered in his resolve to be the knight that he is. Now going to the ladies of the lay, Guinevere, being the queen would be initially perceived as regal and proper. But even in the Arthurian legend, she has gained a reputation for being faithless. In the Arthurian legends, she was associated with Lancelot. Now in Marie de France's lay, she was consort to Lanval. In these legends, she could be perceived as a not so typical ruler's wife who became unfaithful to their husbands just like Potiphar's wife. She makes advances at the faithful and loyal knight and professed her love. Now when she was rejected, she accused the knight of being gay. She ran off to her husband king and made such terrible accusations and lied at length. She was shameless and brass in her actions. There was really no mention of any good deed in the story. She was in complete contrast to Lanval's lover. (Marie's Lanval 7) Lanval even compared her to the lowest of chambermaid which could be viewed as an insult. For the chambermaid to be considered preferable than the queen is enough proof of her unpleasant reputation. And towards the end of the narrative, just like the king she was proven in the wrong. She lost her grace and lost her face. It was so unfortunate that this part of her character would be highlighted. Such portrayal of Guinevere was definitely in stark contrast to the high regard that the writer has for Lanval's lady. She was believed to have wealthy in her own right. She was established as a stable character even before the meeting with Lanval. She was giving and matured in her dealings. It must have appeared that she was the one who taught the knight to love and given him a sense of security and independence in his youth. She was always sure of herself and regal in her bearing. She did things in extremes just to show her faithfulness to her lover. Unlike Guinevere whose infidelity was flaunted throughout the story. When Lanval needed her most, she broke vows, and saved him even if this means revealing her identity to everyone. If the fairy lover was savior to Lanval, it was the Queen Guinevere who shamed King Arthur with everything that she did. Lanval's lover was enshrined in a pedestal because of her virtues while the queen was condemned for losing her dignity. She had acted most regally and was given homage even up to the last lines of the poem. Aside from the ambivalence of trait among the main characters, Marie's allusion to the other knights was also suggestive of the same principle, that everything comes in pairs, that contrast is needed in this world to provide meaning and define things. The knights are known to be gallant men but nevertheless have traits just like any ordinary men. They were always shown as men who are strong but having weaknesses as well. Just like the king, they also had their mistakes. They also have an ugly part to their nature. These arguments basically showed that it was Lanval which was most ambivalent in its treatment of not only of men but also of the women. Aside from this, The ambivalence is not only present between characters but, at times the ambiguities could also be seen in one single character. These make the lay attributed to Lanval of superior quality in its entirety especially on style and characterization than Bisclavret. Ambivalence is not only present between and among characters. Ambivalence could also be seen in a single or individual character. This is not just about ambivalence between two genders, between characters, but also ambivalence that could reside, that actually resides in a person ... that men or women, whether viewed as the stronger or weaker sex, could either be good and evil. It could also be stated that the conflict is not only external but internal as well, man versus himself, good versus evil. Then again, it must be added that aside from this ambivalent treatment Marie de France had been more open-minded and benevolent in her views in the story of Lanval especially if it could be proven that Lanval was written much later than Bisclavret. She could have given both men and women the benefit of the doubt and a fair play in the story of Lanval. Aside from these, the way Lanval was written with superior quality, thoughts and ideas. This must have paved the way to the purposive ambivalence or benevolence, whatever it could be called. Though she was viewed as highly critical of the elite or the aristocrats in her time, an intellectual writer such as Marie de France, like everyone else could have been motivated by a noble purpose to improve society to write all these things. It should also be pointed out that it is not only the characterization or how the characters were played against each other that proved this ambivalence but also the other elements of the narrative poem including the author's style and her point of view or it could be said, the point of view used in the poem. Works Cited Shoaf, Judith P. (translator). "BISCLAVRET by Marie de France" University of Florida Website.18 Mar 2008 Shoaf, Judith P. (translator). "LANVAL by Marie de France" University of Florida Website.18 Mar 2008 Read More