I'm not sure if the author was anti-feminist or not but I do find it interesting that as soon as Silence becomes a "woman" she also looses her voice. For as much as Silence struggled with knowing she was actually a woman I find it intriguing that she never rebelled against the life she learned? Id that just another stereotypical aspect of medieval romances? That even though she was raised as a boy she still couldn't have a voice of her own because she was still just a girl. I think that makes the comment Rocio made about it being "textbook medieval stereotpe" is right on the money. As a "man" Silence was able to succeed and excel is all aspects of knighthood. But what if she wasn't raised as a boy but rather raised as a girl but taught to succeed and excel in knightly and chivalrous behavior too? Would the outcome of the story been different? How would it have changed? These are just some questions I was thinking about especially since I am trying to tackle the whole "Trivialization of Arthurian Women".
Just another thought because I have begun reading the other Gawain poems and I realized that women that are not trivialized all the time. But the are often only portrayed as either evil or pure and innocent. Never a strong, independent good woman. Though some may argue that Guinevere was those things, she is more often than not connected to her affair with Launcelot above all things. Morgan Le Fay is the evil sorceress bent on destroying Arthur. Yet she was once a good woman, a healer, but we never learn what turns her.
Just some things I was thinking about. I know when we get to Le Morte Darthur women become much more prominent in the quests of the individual knights and the Round Table as a whole so I was just hoping to get some questions out there first.
I think it's interesting that Erin mentions rebellion and lack thereof in Medieval Romances. I imagine that rebelling against the order of things in Medieval society could have been detrimental to the individual. These people relied on the family/the tribe/the kingdom in order to survive. And yet, on some level, by running off with the minstrels, Silence does rebel against the life she'd known; "she" shuns her valiant roots for a profession on the fringes of masculinity. Furthermore, in many ways Silence's disguise as a man *is* a rebellion against the norm (nature). I was almost surprised at the end of the poem that there *wasn't* some sort of punishment for her duplicity. She comes off as a totally innocent victim, when really she is living a lie. I'm not saying she *should've* been punished, but it just surprised me that she got off so easy -- of course, she was forced to emerge as a female in Medieval society which could be seen as sort of punishment in itself. And then, she had to marry King Eban, who she may or may not have been in love with. I'm deviating here, and I apologize that I cannot provide the exact quote and line number (I don't have the book with me at the moment), but there is a scene, I believe when Silence rejects Eupheme's advances for the second time, in which Silence says she has already given her heart to someone else. Who??!! Maybe I missed something, but I remember wondering if she was referring to the king or to god or to someone else entirely. Does the author ever reveal this?
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about Silence and its feminist or anti-feminist stance as well. I think the author of Silence is largely concerned with how society ('nurture') affects women's development. As a women disguised as a man, Silence matures into a good and talented person--she masters the minstrel arts, excels in knightly prowess, and we see evidence of her moral development as well when she is repulsed by the queen's duplicity. At the end of Silence, the king wants to marry her not because she is exceedingly beautiful (although is is that, too), but because she is a worthy companion. My point is this: As a man, Silence is given the opportunity for self-actualization and maturity, and her experiences mold her into a good person.
ReplyDeleteThe queen on the other hand, is a woman who has been forced to live the life Silence avoided by pretending to be a man. As we see, she is duplicitous and basically evil. She spends her time scheming and plotting against her husband. Compared to Silence, the queen's limited role (one in which it's normal for her husband is more concerned for his reputation than for her well being when he thinks she's been raped), does not help her mature or develop into a good or moral woman.
Perhaps then, when the narrator says that it's harder for women to be good and more natural for them to be evil, he's criticizing a culture that fails to cultivate moral woman. As the story dramatizes, there are really only two options for women in this society: rebellion by means of deceit and immoral behavior or a life of complacency and silence, as Silence accepts in the end.
Amanda, your last point is especially interesting given that, for much of the text, Silence manages to be deceitful according to contemporary norms (by living as a man culturally while a woman biologically) while not really being immoral in the way of the queen. Strictly speaking, Silence's actions are rebellious inasmuch as they are initially designed to circumvent the laws of the realm (though of course these actions are forced on Silence by her (sic) parents, who raise him (sic) as a boy without waiting for his/her input). Since those laws are presented as themselves unjust, however, Silence's gambit may best be seen as a kind of civil disobedience, which ultimately helps to overturn the unjust system of disinheriting women--at which point it is safe for women to live openly as women again. More or less!
ReplyDelete