The one thing that I find the most perplexing about this entire story is primarily Chaucer’s language in regards to his characters. Certainly, the story seems to be a worship of the Christian God in literature, with Constance being a vessel for His divine power, and making all who are either pagan or Muslim out to be conniving demons while glorifying this subjective vessel. However, his descriptions of her appear to be so extreme, as well as his descriptions towards those that cause her so much grief, that it seems like he is actually being satirical. The character of Constance is such a parody of what Christian women are supposed to be that it actually appears to offer a sort of commentary on the world in which Constance lives. However, who is truly the most important dramatized character in the entirety of the story is Christianity itself. In each and every opportunity that is available to him, Chaucer makes the “Christian” God the hero of the story, saving Constance from every possible enemy through different instances of divine intervention, striking men down and leading her to safe harbors. He also manages to have Constance convert every single person who is kind to her or falls in love with her, and anyone who even thinks wrongly of her little religious invasion is brutally ended in one way or another because they are connected with Satan (which, in an unrelated note, is a marvelous scapegoat to avoid taking personal responsibility for one’s actions). It essentially seems to be such a hyped up piece of propaganda that it makes the reader wary of the content that they are reading, as well as the actual power of Christianity really is. People don’t even think twice in this story before they convert, they just hop in the baptismal waters and drown their senses into this form of blind faith, as well as allowing themselves to be held captive by Constance’s beauty and “religious purity”. In a lot of ways, it acts, at least to a modern pair of eyes, to mock Christianity’s effect on their followers, and present such a bright pair of rose-colored glasses, that it makes the intelligent reader abruptly aware of the color they are seeing.
What struck me most while reading Chaucer’s Man of Law’s Tale was the role of the female characters, and how they contribute to the overall idea’s held about their respective religions. Constance represents the ideal Christian woman who displays unwavering faith throughout the story despite all the overwhelmingly negative circumstances in which she finds herself. God saves her from slaughter, provides her with food when she is starving and she remains a faithful servant to him. She is young, and constantly portrayed as virtuous and giving having no negative traits in terms of physical appearance, or personality traits. On the other hand, we have the Sultan’s mother who clearly is older and not regarded as beautiful. Like Constance, she is also extremely loyal to her religion, but rather than being passive and quietly faithful, she murders an entire group of recently converted Christians, including her son in the name of Islam, depicting devout members as radical and innately violent.This is especially shocking and disturbing because she is a woman, who are commonly thought of as nurturing and passive creatures.
On a semi-related note, to the contemporary female, I have to say that though the sultan's mother displays psychotic behaviors,they too are somewhat admirable in that rather than being a victim and having no control over her circumstances, she takes some agency over herself and her circumstances in the name of what she believes in.
What struck me as interesting was the irony of Constance being portrayed as silent and submissive, when in modern times that is the Western misconception that the majority of what Muslim women are like. Additionally, the exaggeration of religious women such as the Sultan's mother being the equivalent of extremists relates back to the Western misconception that Muslims use their religion as a means to carry out violent acts against non-believers.
Both of these misconceptions are addressed in "Who Speaks for Islam?". There is this "...idea that Muslim women need to be liberated from their backward ways to the enlightened ways of Europe, with casting off the veil as the first step." (p. 109) When in fact the reality is that the majority of Muslim women don't believe that "...adopting western values will help their progress with Muslim countries." (p. 110) The plight of women in other Muslim countries isn't representative of what all Muslim women are going through.
When the Sultan's mother viciously murders the Catholics, it can be related to the Western idea of what a jihad is. In reality, jihad means "to strive or struggle"; it is not associated with acts of violence against non-believers. In fact, "...from the earliest times, it was forbidden in Islam to kill noncombatants as well as women and children and monks and rabbis, who were given the promise of immunity unless they took part in the fighting." (p.18)
So why were these women portrayed the way the were? I believe it was the glorification of Christianity at this time that led Chaucer to utilize women to represent religion. Women at this time are supposed to be innocent and passive, so the audience wouldn't be phased by the complete exaggeration and false perceptions the tale creates.
In Chapter 4 titled “What Do Women Want?,” the widely held perceptions among Americans that Muslim women are oppressed and need “rescuing”, were challenged—as I will admit I too knew very little about the facts surrounding the issue. In the West, Muslim women are often portrayed as submissive, domestic, and often seen as being treated unjustly by their male counterparts. I came to realize my “image” of these women was due largely in part to images reinforced by and circulated throughout the media and press, time and time again. The veil for example, has always made women in the U.S. a little uncomfortable—we feel we are right to pity them, as we assume they are one of the many women “oppressively forced” to wear such coverings—thereby elevating ourselves to a status of that which is perceived as superior in direct contrast to that of the Muslim world. However, what is in itself quite ironic that I never really gave all that much consideration to before was that if we flip the perspectives around, Muslim women interpret Western women’s perceived lack of modesty and often times indecent style of dress as something to be pitied—and within modern Western culture today this is so entirely spot on. We feel sorry for them because of a covering they wear entirely of their own choosing but do we ever give a thought to how Western women ought to be pitied because of how sexually objectified most Western women allow themselves to be—thereby exploiting themselves in an effort to succumb to societal “standards” that tell us what we must do and be in order to be desired as a woman? My guess is no, and the first example that comes to mind is (and I apologize in advance) Miley Cyrus’s performance at the VMA’s which perfectly exemplifies what is so wrong with pop culture within the Western sphere, as young women are often portrayed as nothing more than sex objects. Where did she get this notion that in order to be taken seriously as a “mature” female pop singer her sexuality had to be put on display and her self-respect thrown out the window? It is everywhere within Western culture—and it is just one of many examples of why we really have no business telling women of another culture that they are oppressed and/or need rescuing—let’s take a good look in the mirror at ourselves first. If we want to help Muslim women we need to stop focusing on trivial matters like the veil or abortion rights and more so on issues pertaining to economic development and political reform, rather than dictating what we think their priorities should be.
Though I agree with a lot of what you are saying, I think it is important to be wary of reaffirming the East/West binary through feminism. In the article "The Challenge of Defining Muslim Feminism", Erika L. Sánchez discusses how Muslim feminism is based on a spectrum- just like "Western" feminism. I think it is easy to group all "Western" feminists together and all Muslim feminists together, while in fact there is a huge gradation among both groups. However, I think the point you brought up about oppression within the "Western" patriarchy very important - there is a lot of liberation in choosing to veil, which often gets overlooked and misinterpreted as oppression. It is important "Western" feminists to be observant and avoid a sort of "feminist imperialism" when regarding Muslim women. Instead of placing "Western" feminism onto Muslim women, it is crucial to view Muslim feminism in its own right, and work to protect it, rather than change it.
I think we are focusing so much on the constructs of the West versus the East and not realizing how much the East has adopted ideas from the west and vice versa. Indeed, the west may view the veil as a way to suppress women in Muslim cultures- but those women may see it as a way they are being pure and true to God and to honor him. Additionally, I think it is important to note that not all women who are Muslim wear a veil. In fact, in some practices of Islam, the women get the choice. We are generalizing the idea that all Muslim women are forced to wear a veil which in fact is not true. Just like there are orthodox Jews and Christians- there are some sects of Islam that take traditions more seriously than others. Women, Men, and Children in some Muslim areas wear western clothes. In fact, you can look up pictures where the two intermix- where the children are wearing veils AND western clothes! The text, Who Speaks for Islam, indicates the admiration of the East towards the West in how it states that Muslims look favorably upon the United States. I think the issue is on the West- for thinking so highly of themselves that they cannot accept the traditions and customs of a different culture. As for religion, Muslims are not in constant conflict with Christians. In fact, in some countries in the East, there are churches and temples side by side! This shows that the two religions can co-exist and collaborate. Richard Covington's online article, Rediscovering Arabic Science, supports my claims as it discusses how scientists (in the 13th century) "worked without religious constraints...with Nestorian Christians, Jews and Muslims collaborating in relative harmony." This shows how the different religions disregarded their differences in the pursuit of knowledge. In class we discussed how the West "stole" the ideas and theories of science from the Arabics. Perhaps we are looking at this “theft” wrong. I see it as one way in which the West was influenced by the East. The West saw the theories of the East and liked them so much they adopted them. The knowledge in the world is shared- if it was kept to one place everyone would know a little bit of something, but not enough to do anything.
I found the last point that Audrey made to be extremely important and I wanted to expand upon it a little bit more. Audrey said, “If we want to help Muslim women we need to stop focusing on trivial matters like the veil or abortion rights and more so on issues pertaining to economic development and political reform, rather than dictating what we think their priorities should be.” I’m still really unsure about the idea of the word “help” when referring to the way in which westerners want to become involved in Muslim women’s affairs. First of all, I can’t help but think about the huge grey area that exists between cultural relativism and paternalism within the realm of aiding Muslim women in their “desire” to gain equal rights (desire in quotes because many Muslim women are content with the way things are). What sort of things should be left alone and which things can’t be ignored? The first issue that comes to mind is female circumcision. This archaic and painful process that many women must endure against their will seems worthy of attention, but is it the place of sympathetic westerners to impede on these cultural practices if Muslim women don’t want us to? After all, their primary interests lie in things such as economic reform and unemployment issues. Muslim women should not be told what they want or should want, and westerners (f their help is wanted) should act as supporters and enablers, not paternalistic figures. Ultimately, Muslim women should be the agents of their own goals and desires. I also began to think about sustainability. Similar to Brad Pitt’s failed project of building homes in New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina, it is widely known that the configuration of a project implemented in a community unfamiliar to the “architects” must respect the unique values of that specific community and include the members of such community. Any person can claim to be an advocate for the rights of Muslim women, but if his or her work comes in the form of western theoretical frameworks, “helping” starts to look like imperialism, and it does nobody any good. If westerners want to support Muslim women in the east in their push for more rights, I find it interesting (and completely valid) that the most logical and respectful way to go about this would be to first and foremost maintain consistency with the word of God in the Quran and the context of the particular culture. In other words, it is important to work through preexisting Islamic infrastructure in order to reach a specific goal. A prime example of this is cited in the chapter of Who Speaks for Islam titled “What do Women Want.” The author tells of how Asifa Quraishi, a women’s rights advocate handles the parts of Sharia law that are unjust according to the Quran (for example, Pakistan’s rape laws). He says, “Through her Islamic critique, using the Quran and prophetic tradition, Quraishi argues that the laws actually violate Sharia and should be repealed for this reason” (116).
What I always find most fascinating about the individual stories within The Canterbury Tales is the distinct narrative of each piece. After reading other stories of The Canterbury Tales in other English classes, what I’ve learned is to analyze and interpret the intention of each narrator. In some cases, the narrator’s intention is to swindle money from his listeners, while in others, the narrator might intend to win the host’s contest of telling the grandest tale. This was my first time reading this particular tale, so I was sure to pay attention to indicators of the narrator’s intention. I gathered significant information about the Sergeant-at-Law’s intention from the introduction of his story. First of all, the Sergeant-at-Law’s name has inherent indicators of order and honor, as an official who represents the law. Before beginning his narrative, the Sergeant-at-Law also argues that all of the best stories have already been told, so he plans to tell his tale as simply as he can. This declaration led me to believe that the Sergeant-at-Law would tell his story earnestly and honestly, without the intention of winning the host’s contest (which could have led him to exaggerate the details of his story). With this notion in my mind, I found the repeated cases of Christian and/or Western bias that much more intriguing. Constance represented the unwavering faith of Christians, while the Sultan of Syria and his followers represented the supposedly unstable faith of Muslims. Christianity’s representations of honor and “Constance,” juxtaposed with Islam’s representations of weak and flimsy faith helped me to further understand the mindset of Christians during this time period. Some Christians of the time who represented Islam harshly and negatively in their tales did not always do so maliciously, but simply out of legitimate belief that Christianity was naturally the superior religion.
What struck me about the readings for this week was the way in which Chaucer managed to maintain the standard western prejudice against Islamic culture despite the fact that he also gives a realistic, and sometimes even laudatory, image of Muslim civilization in his writing. The tale of the man of law is undoubtedly biased against Islam (with its depiction of them as fickle in their faith or simply vindictive murderers without compunction). However, at points he also shows that he has a view of Muslim society as it actually is, interjecting legitimate portrayals of Islamic belief amongst the man of law’s more narrow view (the man of law calls Islam pagan and rife with idolatry, but Chaucer showcases his awareness of Islam’s actual tenets through the Sultaness’ dialogue). Chaucer also has his lengthy treatise on the astrolabe to lend insight into his view of Islam. He clearly sees the astrolabe as an important piece of technology, otherwise he would not devote so much time to explaining it to his son, and is doubtless aware of the device’s origins in the Muslim world. This mindset, combined with the moments in the man of law’s tale Chaucer displays actual knowledge of Islam presents a question: if Chaucer is fully aware, even respectful, of Islamic culture, why is the man of law’s tale so biased against it? The choice to cast Islam in a bad light in the tale of the man of law calls attention to how prevalent the idea of the east as an “other” to be demonized and vilified was and still is in the world. The most likely explanation is that Chaucer felt he had to maintain the commonly held perspective in his work for it to be accepted in society, and thereby failed to help break the western misconception of Islam, instead serving to further it. That people who are aware of Islamic culture, particularly prolific writers like Chaucer, can still be complicit in spreading the common image of the eastern other speaks to the immensity of the problem of Orientalism and the seemingly indomitable nature of western bias.
I agree that it was very interesting the way Chaucer managed to maintain the prejudices against Islam despite how he obviously was knowledgeable about the customs of Muslims. I think it is important to keep in mind who Chaucer was writing for. On page 94 he describes the Bible as “a British book inscribed with the Gospels”, making an obvious appeal to his fellow Britons. It is also interesting to take British literary history into account up until this point.
Britain has always been a country with a deeply engrained sense of nationalism and religious pride. This nationalism has always been drawn from binaries—the good Britons versus the evil Other. We see this when Geoffrey of Monmouth fabricateed a history in his “History of the Kings of Britain” in 1136. Geoffrey chronicles a fantasy he claims to be true about how Britain was established and waged war against evil forces like giants and dragons. He even writes about battles with savage Saracens (Muslims), where the British heroes slay them or chase them out of their lands. From very early on Muslims and non-western cultures fell into the category of monstrous and evil Other. King Horn, another British medieval text that preludes Canterbury Tales also depicts “Saracens” as savage murderers because they murdered Horn’s family and stole his kingdom for no apparent reason, but to conquer and kill.
Because of early misrepresentations of Islam and stories the church would propagate from the crusades, the medieval British public was always predisposed to view Muslims as amoral savages. It is unfortunate that even someone who was educated about Islam, like Chaucer clearly was, would continue to feed into the stereotype established in order to appease his audience and uphold the society’s binary standards.
What really stuck out to me in the Man of Law Tale, by Chaucer were the amount of references the narrator makes to miracles and people mentioned in common biblical stories. Chaucer purposely does this when Constance is in trouble. For example, after the Syrians force Constance into exile the narrator immediately starts bringing up the stories of Jonah and David. The narrator goes on to say “Yet, as she was not slain at the banquet, who saved her from drowning in the waves? Who saved Jonah in the fish’s maw till he was spouted up at Nineveh?” (91) The narrator telling this story goes on to show that the same God who saved Jonah and David is the same God who saved Constance. By bringing this up when discussing Constance, it shows to audience how important Constance is and how she was chosen by God to survive. When the narrator describes the Syrians in this tale, the only image they get is negative. Sultan’s mother is described as an evil snake. The narrator says, “…and the dishonor done to his daughter by the snake in the grass-in other words that damnable wicked sultaness …” (99). The Syrians are not given the positive image. By giving Constance, this godly and heroic image only adds to the narrator’s favoritism towards the Christians.
What I found most fascinating with Chaucer’s tale is how not only Christianity is put on a pedestal, but more surprisingly, Britain as well. This was made obvious in the reading many times. For example, when the character of the Knight is told to swear upon the book, the narrator specifies on what kind of Bible it is: “A British book inscribed with the Gospels was brought.” (94). This is a perfect example of one of the reasons why there is such a heavy line drawn between the “west” and the “east”. According to the narrator, not only do you have to be a Christian in order to be basically “worth something” , but British also. In specifying where the book has physically come from, this assumes that all people and things that are not British are not as good. Therefore, not only do Christians trump Muslims in religion in the opinion of the narrator, but they’re also “better” because of where they come from!
Again, this reiterates what Edward Said says about orientalism. In specifying that people and objects that are British are better than others, this is helping to create an “other” to the east that differs from the “normalcy” of the west (Britain). Examples like this make it impossible not to focus on the “difference” between Constance and the Christians in Rome, and the “pagan” characters in Syria.
That was something I also noticed, that the Syrians (even though they were willing to convert) were not depicted as anywhere near as civilized or worthy of being saved as the converts in North Umberland. I, however, attributed this to the politics of race. This perfect, chaste, faithful white woman goes around trying to convert various societies--but only the other white people she converts are ultimately able to carry on these new religious traditions and have their safe, Christian civilization. These devout white christians are, in the end, always successful because God is on their side. Not so with the Syrian converts. Where the evil plot to get rid of Constance (much less violent on the part of the English mother-in-law) is eventually righted when the King finds his wife among the Romans, the evil plot to get rid of Constance on the part of the evil Sultaness results in a lot of dead bodies and Constance lost at sea with no real hope of being saved, having only survived the slaughter by the grace of God. The white, English converts are able to establish a solid Christian civilization; the Arab, Syrian converts all get killed.
"This is a perfect example of one of the reasons why there is such a heavy line drawn between the “west” and the “east”. According to the narrator, not only do you have to be a Christian in order to be basically “worth something” , but British also. In specifying where the book has physically come from, this assumes that all people and things that are not British are not as good. Therefore, not only do Christians trump Muslims in religion in the opinion of the narrator, but they’re also “better” because of where they come from!" ~
I like where you're going with this. There's a lot of power at play when two groups are described so distinctly and so oppositely, and when those distinctions are being made by those with influence.
We know that the normalization and promotion of Western culture across the world began with imperialism. While holding eastern lands under their control, "the West" emphasized the greatness of their own culture to the point that many formerly imperialized peoples still reflect aspects of those western cultures. *(Perhaps certain Eastern cultures still subliminally accept that western ideal as a type of cultural hegemony. When i was in London, it seemed like every person working a service position was an Indian with a British accent. Of course, maybe they're really just people trying to "get by." Take that how you will, I'm only theorizing.)
When I think about the effects of imperialism and colonization, it feels very similar to the way White slave owners in the United States used to promote the white's superiority as if it were the natural order of things. It's a mind-game. Denying blacks the right of heritage by replacing their ancient tribal names with their own white last names worked to diminish the slave's concept of his or herself as an individual black person. Much in the same way, the West has effectively white-washed (pun un-intended) the influence of the Islamic world, even though they contributed to almost every aspect of science and culture that the West takes credit for.
That's why classes like this are important, and i hope they exist in other colleges. The impending generation deserves to be informed of the true origin of the world we've inherited.
In “Who Speaks for Islam?” one section in particular sticks out to me. On page six it is written that, “Majorities of both men and women in predominately Muslim countries want to see Islamic principles, Sharia, as a source of legislation. Those respondents have much in common with the majority of Americans who wish to see the Bible as a source of legislation.” This has never been more accurate than in today’s culture, especially in the United States. So many people in America cite the Bible as a reason why there should not be gay marriage, or that women should not have abortions, etc. They are going by what their religion says, and yet, we are not supposed to be a country where religion and law go hand in hand. Isn’t there supposed to be a separation of Church and State? However, in “Middle Eastern” countries the people who want to use the Quran as a source of lawmaking are thought to be crazy by many of the same Americans who want the Bible to play a bigger part in what laws we should and should not have. It is so contradictory, and it honestly baffles me so much. This also relates in a way to “The Canterbury Tales.” It is obvious to the narrator that all Christian lands are loving, caring, and charitable. The Bible and scripture in Rome (and then in Northumbria) govern the lands as the most authoritative power. In Northumbria, when the one man tries to frame Constance nobody even has to worry about giving him OR her a proper trial, since God takes it into his own hands and smites the liar right on the spot! But Syria, ruled under Muslim authority, is an evil, violent place that does not even take its own religion seriously. The Christian Roman Emperor, with God on his side bestowing His blessing on the Emperor, has to send his forces over there to deliver out a sentence because they are so “lawless” and “corrupt.” It is very fascinating seeing how the idea of religion basically governing the masses can be played out in stories, and in today’s politics.
I cannot agree with you more. The obvious hypocrisy of not only the Christian religion, but our Western values as well are undeniably relevant in world culture today. This "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that is so prevalent America specifically is the source of contention in nearly all political conflicts. I say culture as opposed to religion because I believe the cyclical nature of the influence of one on the other cannot be distinguished. Our culture says that the bible is good, safe. While (again) the notion of orientalism says that the "other" is the exact dichotomy- evil, dangerous. The media in particular exemplifies these sentiments, almost in the view point that there can only be one "good guy" in the world. If you are not us, then you are not right. I think this is seen not only in the instance of the public opinion of the Bible playing an active role in our legislation but the mentality of Americans on the topic of casualties. Upwards of 80% of Americans believe that civilian causalities can be justified, while around 40% of Middle Eastern peoples hold the same view. I ask Americans then- Who is the violent religion? Who has the violent culture?
Honestly, I was thinking about this a lot in class today. Many progressive and secular thinkers of our generation in America feel either threatened by, or critical of, domestic religious extremists. Those who hold firmly to their traditional beliefs, such as those who oppose gay rights and abortion, are often called out by angry teens and young adults who have developed to be more understanding and accepting. Now the reasoning behind this clear liberal shift is a much more complex issue, and it would suffice to say that most children end up being more progressive and liberal than their parents, but the point I’m trying to make is that these same kids are incredibly receptive to hearing the truth about Islam. At the same time, religious advocates in America will oftentimes bash the “East” and propagate stereotypes: fostering ignorance and hate. It is interesting to consider that all religious folks aren’t on the same side facing off against less religious youth culture. In fact, the secular youth movement is very much on the “Middle Eastern” side. Personally, I would never ask for a religious text to influence the political sphere. It seems invasive to those who don’t subscribe to such beliefs. Now imagine trying to shoehorn some theoretical Christian-American Law into foreign territory in some misguided attempt to “share democracy” ? It sounds ridiculous because it is.
Many of the previous posts are very interesting, especially the ones that challenge Chaucer's perspective and whether or not he truly meant to take on a Christian bias when writing the story "The Sergeant at Law's Tale." However, the perspective of the narrator does give valuable insight into the commonly held Western worldview of the time. Within the story, the Sultan's privy council claim that they realize "the difference between the faiths of the two countries," and that "no Christian prince" would let his daughter marry a Muslim" (86). But interestingly enough, the story frequently points to the similarities between the two religions. On page 88, the Sultan's mother expresses her "vow to Almighty God," claiming that Islam would only bring "suffering and bondage...and after that to be dragged own to hell." Furthermore, other similarities are more between Christianity and the way Christians view Islam rather than Islam itself. For example, the privy council talk of "magic and conjuration," (86) but there are many Christian references to astrology and the power of the stars. In the story, though there are multiple comments on God's power and his role in the real world, these side notes on "the stars" would sound like idolatry for many modern day Christians. On page 86, the same page where the Muslims in the council are portrayed as heathens who derive their power from black magic rather than God, the narrator states that "in the stars, clearer than glass, is written each man's death, could men but read it." This certainly takes away power from God's will, implying that some other force in nature predetermines the fate of a man. Constance symbolizes the "perfect" Christian woman - and this is clear with all her associations to God and holiness - but what is a perfect Christian woman? On page 85, she is described as beautiful, humble, young, virtuous, courteous, and holy. But can a Muslim woman not possess such qualities? It would seem not, as the only legitimate Muslim woman character in the story is an evil-hearted murderer. This truly paints a picture of the Orient as viewed by the West, that not only are all Christians inherently good, but that Islam and goodness are mutually exclusive concepts. It is this dualistic mentality, prevalent throughout most of "The Sergeant at Law's Tale," that would likely prevent Christian readers of the time period from detecting any similarity between the two religions.
I would like to discuss your idea of the black magic as opposed to viewing the stars in context with our class discussion today. My question is whether or not Chaucer knew what he was doing when he wrote such a terrible portrait of Islam. Clearly, Chaucer creates a disparity between the religions by making the Christian characters victims and the Muslims all wrongdoers. Yet this example shows that he is aware of their similarities. Perhaps Chaucer was exactly aware that he was misrepresenting a culture. In fact, given the evidence that he was fluent in three languages and was an expert at astrology and astronomy it would be impossible to defend the notion that he was ignorant of Islam. Chaucer knew that he was degrading an honest, intelligent civilization but continued with it for the benefit of Christianity. He wanted to diminish the threat of Muslim expansion by degrading their superiority.
The question I have about this that didn't come up in class is what extent the sabotage of Muslim image was an intentional, personal act. If Chaucer did intentionally misrepresent Muslims, which seems to be the case, I am curious whether or not he would have had some kind of indirect pressure from the Catholic church, or whether he did so under his own initiative.
While it is not exactly surprising to see how Chaucer treats the women in “The Sergeant at Law’s Tale,” it is interesting to see that he places even a woman higher than the non-Christian heathens. It is important to understand the hierarchy Chaucer seems to outline in the tale with British Christian males at the top, followed by good Christian women, then heathen males and lastly heathen women. Using this hierarchy it is not hard to glimpse the feelings Christians, in particular the British, had towards those who did not share their culture. It is most interesting to compare Constance and the Sultaness because of how radically different in personality they are, yet how they are also very similar. If the reader looks at Constance they see a devout Christian woman, where as a reader who looks at the Sultaness sees a devout Muslim woman. This is where the similarities end between the women and where the bias of the times can be seen. Constance is described as beautiful, innocent, good and virtuous where the Sultaness is described as vile, treacherous, malignant and serpent-like. Throughout the story Constance is seen as a victim of her circumstances or an innocent bystander as the world falls apart around her; in contrast the Sultaness is willful and has faithful followers do her violent bidding. The main female characters are not only meant to portray the differences between Christianity and Islam, with Christianity being the more favorable, but also what constitutes the ideal women. Constance is obviously the more favorable of the two, going along with the wants of the men who control her life and being a submissive wife and daughter. The Sultaness is the embodiment of what a man of the times would have been most fearful of, an independent and strong willed woman who had no man to rule her life. This all being said, “The Sergeant at Law’s Tale” goes much further than defining the wrongs of being anything other than a British Christian. It underlines what Chaucer, and most people of his time, thought to be proper for a woman. It is even more interesting to see that the Muslim woman was strong and free with the Christian woman being submissive when in today’s society, many believe “easterners” to be oppressive and chauvinistic.
I like how you have analysed the role of women in Chaucer's tale. I think you have pointed out some valid ideas that are definitively portrayed in the tale. I would like to take what you have said one step further. Since this class is based around the theory of post-colonial literature laid out by Edward Said, I would like to focus my point on how this portrayal of women, specifically in the light of religion, has fueled the Orientalist viewpoints of later writers. You can clearly see that Chaucer was writing from the perspective of a white, British, wealthy, Christian. His position in the world being more towards a Western perspective than an Eastern perspective has affected his portrayal of other cultures in quite a negative way. I would have to imagine that, like you said, Chaucer's point of view was also the point of view of much of his society. I think that Chaucer effectively clumps Muslims and pagans together into the exotic category. He creates a binary between Christians and everyone who isn't a Christian. The Canterbury Tales elaborates on many perspectives as Akman told us in class, but I think as a whole it does not do much to break down stereotypes or to elaborate on the true nature of a culture that is not his own. He is merely refracting what he has heard about other cultures into his own perspective, which creates intense binaries, such as Constance and the Sultanness. Apparently he allowed his imagination to wander and didn't quite distinguish the differences between Muslims and pagans; whether intentional or not, this indistinguishable nature of his text creates perspectives of both pagans and Muslims that I am sure most pagans and Muslims would not agree with.
My focus of study in reading the Man of Law’s Tale in conjunction with Chaucer’s Astrolabe Treatise and “Rediscovering Arabic Science” was the role that astronomy and astrology played in Chaucer’s works of literature. I know that in class we established that the fields of astronomy and astrology were not separate pursuits but rather coupled under one field of study, which presents itself in Man of Law’s Tale. The idea that the fates of man are somehow predestined according to the constellations seems at odds with the inherent glorification of Christian values and God’s omnipotence presented throughout the rest of the Tale. It also caught me as ironic that the Tale is entirely dismissive of Islam as a major world religion while at the same time failing to realize Islam’s profound influence on the study of astronomy. As it can be surmised by the existence of Chaucer’s Astrolabe Treatise, English scholarship ran parallel to the interests of the Islamic empire in the 14th century, albeit that the motivation behind the pursuits differed somewhat. From an English perspective, the study of the stars was about a gaining insight into the future, whereas Muslim scholarship was a venture taken for a variety of reasons that had less to do with the occult so much as it was for following religious orders.
Someone who wanted to wrongly harm Christianity, say, a Muslim cleric in a besieged city in 1300, could totally twist this story to claim that Christianity teaches faith beyond question to gain the favor of a powerful magic spirit, one that can physically intervene in dangerous situations and kill one’s enemies. That would be completely wrong, cruel and misrepresentational, but it is the same move that Christian clerics made with even less “evidence.” Thinking about this has helped me understand just how easy it is to make completely inaccurate generalizations about entire cultures based on isolated individuals associated with the target demographic. It is the move insidiously made in this very text, by virtue of its only ambassadors for Islam being clearly unvirtuous and continually referring to Muslims as “heathens.” If it is weird pagan spirit magic Chaucer was interested in, he would have been more suspicious of God physically smiting the eyes out of the lying knight, and heathens spontaneously converting in the radiance of a divine woman. Such supernatural stories are not at the core of Christian moral stories but an ambitious Muslim could no doubt cite Chaucer, one of the most circulated and highly praised Christian writers of all time, as an example of how pagan Christianity is. The grounds on which Christian clergy have historically condemned Islam of being pagan, or worshipping idols, or believing that their prophet is a god, are so loosely based on actual Islam that the “evidence” against the Christianity presented in Chaucer is actually far better.
Chaucer's Man of Law Tale has a number of racial and cultural issues that can be raised about it, but an issue that may be less immediately apparent is its treatment of women. Throughout the tale a reoccurring theme can be observed: women have no free will. By this I mean that Constance appears to only be a vehicle for what men want her to do and, above that, what God wants her to do, and the two conniving women in Syria and Scotland were both vehicles for what their twisted faith demanded of them. Men appear to have more agency, but this seems to lead good Christian men to be less good and corrupt pagan and Muslim men to be less evil. The overall structure appears to be that the will of God drives Christians to be good whereas the other false faiths drive their followers to commit evil and, since women are objects without any real free will, this leads Christian women to be very good and pagan or Muslim women to be very evil.
I am unsure what is more emphasized: that one must be Christian to be good or that one must obey the Christian God to be good. The structure of the story, as has been said in other posts, places even Christian women above pagan or Muslim men and, indeed, even above converted men. Men obviously have agency and free will in these texts, but it almost seems as though this agency only has the potential to lead men to sin. If that is the case, it would make sense that Constance is treated as such a good figure because not only is she a woman who therefore has a propensity for obedience and submissiveness but also she is a Christian which means she is completely obeying the Lord. My rough interpretation is that while this text treats women as objects with no free will which is very negative in the feminist eyes of a modern reader, this lack of agency may have been seen as a virtue at the time -- at least to the narrator -- because it left women less able to err from the ways of God which is ironic considering Christians place the blame for original sin on women to begin with.
I definitely noticed the roles that women played in the Man of Law's Tale as well. None of the female characters were portrayed in a net positive way. Either they were meek, gentle, and basically helpless, or they were cruel, brooding and evil. There is no middle ground. Although Constance displays some admirable traits (such as her gentle disposition and devotion), these traits are expressed in such an extreme fashion that they become somewhat of a fault. She seems to be unable to act or think for herself or in her own interest. She is consistently subservient to either the men of the story, or God. Hermengild, while less detailed as a character than Constance, is portrayed in a very similar light. She is a kind, good natured and pious woman who seems to be incapable of acting without an external influence. The Sultaness portrays flaws in the opposite direction of Constance and Hermengild. While Constance is gentle and devout to a fault, the Sultaness is very capable of thinking and acting for herself. In a more measured way, this could be taken as a positive trait. However, she is shown to use her will power and independence to commit cruel and brutal acts. This total lack of a middle ground in the female characters of the Man of Law's tale, while potentially accurate in some ways to the demeanor of women at the time it was written, is completely unrealistic when applied to modern society.
The one thing that I find the most perplexing about this entire story is primarily Chaucer’s language in regards to his characters. Certainly, the story seems to be a worship of the Christian God in literature, with Constance being a vessel for His divine power, and making all who are either pagan or Muslim out to be conniving demons while glorifying this subjective vessel. However, his descriptions of her appear to be so extreme, as well as his descriptions towards those that cause her so much grief, that it seems like he is actually being satirical. The character of Constance is such a parody of what Christian women are supposed to be that it actually appears to offer a sort of commentary on the world in which Constance lives. However, who is truly the most important dramatized character in the entirety of the story is Christianity itself. In each and every opportunity that is available to him, Chaucer makes the “Christian” God the hero of the story, saving Constance from every possible enemy through different instances of divine intervention, striking men down and leading her to safe harbors. He also manages to have Constance convert every single person who is kind to her or falls in love with her, and anyone who even thinks wrongly of her little religious invasion is brutally ended in one way or another because they are connected with Satan (which, in an unrelated note, is a marvelous scapegoat to avoid taking personal responsibility for one’s actions). It essentially seems to be such a hyped up piece of propaganda that it makes the reader wary of the content that they are reading, as well as the actual power of Christianity really is. People don’t even think twice in this story before they convert, they just hop in the baptismal waters and drown their senses into this form of blind faith, as well as allowing themselves to be held captive by Constance’s beauty and “religious purity”. In a lot of ways, it acts, at least to a modern pair of eyes, to mock Christianity’s effect on their followers, and present such a bright pair of rose-colored glasses, that it makes the intelligent reader abruptly aware of the color they are seeing.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me most while reading Chaucer’s Man of Law’s Tale was the role of the female characters, and how they contribute to the overall idea’s held about their respective religions. Constance represents the ideal Christian woman who displays unwavering faith throughout the story despite all the overwhelmingly negative circumstances in which she finds herself. God saves her from slaughter, provides her with food when she is starving and she remains a faithful servant to him. She is young, and constantly portrayed as virtuous and giving having no negative traits in terms of physical appearance, or personality traits. On the other hand, we have the Sultan’s mother who clearly is older and not regarded as beautiful. Like Constance, she is also extremely loyal to her religion, but rather than being passive and quietly faithful, she murders an entire group of recently converted Christians, including her son in the name of Islam, depicting devout members as radical and innately violent.This is especially shocking and disturbing because she is a woman, who are commonly thought of as nurturing and passive creatures.
ReplyDeleteOn a semi-related note, to the contemporary female, I have to say that though the sultan's mother displays psychotic behaviors,they too are somewhat admirable in that rather than being a victim and having no control over her circumstances, she takes some agency over herself and her circumstances in the name of what she believes in.
What struck me as interesting was the irony of Constance being portrayed as silent and submissive, when in modern times that is the Western misconception that the majority of what Muslim women are like. Additionally, the exaggeration of religious women such as the Sultan's mother being the equivalent of extremists relates back to the Western misconception that Muslims use their religion as a means to carry out violent acts against non-believers.
DeleteBoth of these misconceptions are addressed in "Who Speaks for Islam?". There is this "...idea that Muslim women need to be liberated from their backward ways to the enlightened ways of Europe, with casting off the veil as the first step." (p. 109) When in fact the reality is that the majority of Muslim women don't believe that "...adopting western values will help their progress with Muslim countries." (p. 110) The plight of women in other Muslim countries isn't representative of what all Muslim women are going through.
When the Sultan's mother viciously murders the Catholics, it can be related to the Western idea of what a jihad is. In reality, jihad means "to strive or struggle"; it is not associated with acts of violence against non-believers. In fact, "...from the earliest times, it was forbidden in Islam to kill noncombatants as well as women and children and monks and rabbis, who were given the promise of immunity unless they took part in the fighting." (p.18)
So why were these women portrayed the way the were? I believe it was the glorification of Christianity at this time that led Chaucer to utilize women to represent religion. Women at this time are supposed to be innocent and passive, so the audience wouldn't be phased by the complete exaggeration and false perceptions the tale creates.
In Chapter 4 titled “What Do Women Want?,” the widely held perceptions among Americans that Muslim women are oppressed and need “rescuing”, were challenged—as I will admit I too knew very little about the facts surrounding the issue. In the West, Muslim women are often portrayed as submissive, domestic, and often seen as being treated unjustly by their male counterparts. I came to realize my “image” of these women was due largely in part to images reinforced by and circulated throughout the media and press, time and time again. The veil for example, has always made women in the U.S. a little uncomfortable—we feel we are right to pity them, as we assume they are one of the many women “oppressively forced” to wear such coverings—thereby elevating ourselves to a status of that which is perceived as superior in direct contrast to that of the Muslim world. However, what is in itself quite ironic that I never really gave all that much consideration to before was that if we flip the perspectives around, Muslim women interpret Western women’s perceived lack of modesty and often times indecent style of dress as something to be pitied—and within modern Western culture today this is so entirely spot on. We feel sorry for them because of a covering they wear entirely of their own choosing but do we ever give a thought to how Western women ought to be pitied because of how sexually objectified most Western women allow themselves to be—thereby exploiting themselves in an effort to succumb to societal “standards” that tell us what we must do and be in order to be desired as a woman? My guess is no, and the first example that comes to mind is (and I apologize in advance) Miley Cyrus’s performance at the VMA’s which perfectly exemplifies what is so wrong with pop culture within the Western sphere, as young women are often portrayed as nothing more than sex objects. Where did she get this notion that in order to be taken seriously as a “mature” female pop singer her sexuality had to be put on display and her self-respect thrown out the window? It is everywhere within Western culture—and it is just one of many examples of why we really have no business telling women of another culture that they are oppressed and/or need rescuing—let’s take a good look in the mirror at ourselves first. If we want to help Muslim women we need to stop focusing on trivial matters like the veil or abortion rights and more so on issues pertaining to economic development and political reform, rather than dictating what we think their priorities should be.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with a lot of what you are saying, I think it is important to be wary of reaffirming the East/West binary through feminism. In the article "The Challenge of Defining Muslim Feminism", Erika L. Sánchez discusses how Muslim feminism is based on a spectrum- just like "Western" feminism. I think it is easy to group all "Western" feminists together and all Muslim feminists together, while in fact there is a huge gradation among both groups. However, I think the point you brought up about oppression within the "Western" patriarchy very important - there is a lot of liberation in choosing to veil, which often gets overlooked and misinterpreted as oppression. It is important "Western" feminists to be observant and avoid a sort of "feminist imperialism" when regarding Muslim women. Instead of placing "Western" feminism onto Muslim women, it is crucial to view Muslim feminism in its own right, and work to protect it, rather than change it.
DeleteI think we are focusing so much on the constructs of the West versus the East and not realizing how much the East has adopted ideas from the west and vice versa. Indeed, the west may view the veil as a way to suppress women in Muslim cultures- but those women may see it as a way they are being pure and true to God and to honor him. Additionally, I think it is important to note that not all women who are Muslim wear a veil. In fact, in some practices of Islam, the women get the choice. We are generalizing the idea that all Muslim women are forced to wear a veil which in fact is not true. Just like there are orthodox Jews and Christians- there are some sects of Islam that take traditions more seriously than others. Women, Men, and Children in some Muslim areas wear western clothes. In fact, you can look up pictures where the two intermix- where the children are wearing veils AND western clothes! The text, Who Speaks for Islam, indicates the admiration of the East towards the West in how it states that Muslims look favorably upon the United States. I think the issue is on the West- for thinking so highly of themselves that they cannot accept the traditions and customs of a different culture.
DeleteAs for religion, Muslims are not in constant conflict with Christians. In fact, in some countries in the East, there are churches and temples side by side! This shows that the two religions can co-exist and collaborate. Richard Covington's online article, Rediscovering Arabic Science, supports my claims as it discusses how scientists (in the 13th century) "worked without religious constraints...with Nestorian Christians, Jews and Muslims collaborating in relative harmony." This shows how the different religions disregarded their differences in the pursuit of knowledge. In class we discussed how the West "stole" the ideas and theories of science from the Arabics. Perhaps we are looking at this “theft” wrong. I see it as one way in which the West was influenced by the East. The West saw the theories of the East and liked them so much they adopted them. The knowledge in the world is shared- if it was kept to one place everyone would know a little bit of something, but not enough to do anything.
I found the last point that Audrey made to be extremely important and I wanted to expand upon it a little bit more. Audrey said, “If we want to help Muslim women we need to stop focusing on trivial matters like the veil or abortion rights and more so on issues pertaining to economic development and political reform, rather than dictating what we think their priorities should be.” I’m still really unsure about the idea of the word “help” when referring to the way in which westerners want to become involved in Muslim women’s affairs. First of all, I can’t help but think about the huge grey area that exists between cultural relativism and paternalism within the realm of aiding Muslim women in their “desire” to gain equal rights (desire in quotes because many Muslim women are content with the way things are). What sort of things should be left alone and which things can’t be ignored? The first issue that comes to mind is female circumcision. This archaic and painful process that many women must endure against their will seems worthy of attention, but is it the place of sympathetic westerners to impede on these cultural practices if Muslim women don’t want us to? After all, their primary interests lie in things such as economic reform and unemployment issues. Muslim women should not be told what they want or should want, and westerners (f their help is wanted) should act as supporters and enablers, not paternalistic figures. Ultimately, Muslim women should be the agents of their own goals and desires. I also began to think about sustainability. Similar to Brad Pitt’s failed project of building homes in New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina, it is widely known that the configuration of a project implemented in a community unfamiliar to the “architects” must respect the unique values of that specific community and include the members of such community. Any person can claim to be an advocate for the rights of Muslim women, but if his or her work comes in the form of western theoretical frameworks, “helping” starts to look like imperialism, and it does nobody any good. If westerners want to support Muslim women in the east in their push for more rights, I find it interesting (and completely valid) that the most logical and respectful way to go about this would be to first and foremost maintain consistency with the word of God in the Quran and the context of the particular culture. In other words, it is important to work through preexisting Islamic infrastructure in order to reach a specific goal. A prime example of this is cited in the chapter of Who Speaks for Islam titled “What do Women Want.” The author tells of how Asifa Quraishi, a women’s rights advocate handles the parts of Sharia law that are unjust according to the Quran (for example, Pakistan’s rape laws). He says, “Through her Islamic critique, using the Quran and prophetic tradition, Quraishi argues that the laws actually violate Sharia and should be repealed for this reason” (116).
DeleteWhat I always find most fascinating about the individual stories within The Canterbury Tales is the distinct narrative of each piece. After reading other stories of The Canterbury Tales in other English classes, what I’ve learned is to analyze and interpret the intention of each narrator. In some cases, the narrator’s intention is to swindle money from his listeners, while in others, the narrator might intend to win the host’s contest of telling the grandest tale. This was my first time reading this particular tale, so I was sure to pay attention to indicators of the narrator’s intention.
ReplyDeleteI gathered significant information about the Sergeant-at-Law’s intention from the introduction of his story. First of all, the Sergeant-at-Law’s name has inherent indicators of order and honor, as an official who represents the law. Before beginning his narrative, the Sergeant-at-Law also argues that all of the best stories have already been told, so he plans to tell his tale as simply as he can. This declaration led me to believe that the Sergeant-at-Law would tell his story earnestly and honestly, without the intention of winning the host’s contest (which could have led him to exaggerate the details of his story). With this notion in my mind, I found the repeated cases of Christian and/or Western bias that much more intriguing. Constance represented the unwavering faith of Christians, while the Sultan of Syria and his followers represented the supposedly unstable faith of Muslims. Christianity’s representations of honor and “Constance,” juxtaposed with Islam’s representations of weak and flimsy faith helped me to further understand the mindset of Christians during this time period. Some Christians of the time who represented Islam harshly and negatively in their tales did not always do so maliciously, but simply out of legitimate belief that Christianity was naturally the superior religion.
What struck me about the readings for this week was the way in which Chaucer managed to maintain the standard western prejudice against Islamic culture despite the fact that he also gives a realistic, and sometimes even laudatory, image of Muslim civilization in his writing. The tale of the man of law is undoubtedly biased against Islam (with its depiction of them as fickle in their faith or simply vindictive murderers without compunction). However, at points he also shows that he has a view of Muslim society as it actually is, interjecting legitimate portrayals of Islamic belief amongst the man of law’s more narrow view (the man of law calls Islam pagan and rife with idolatry, but Chaucer showcases his awareness of Islam’s actual tenets through the Sultaness’ dialogue). Chaucer also has his lengthy treatise on the astrolabe to lend insight into his view of Islam. He clearly sees the astrolabe as an important piece of technology, otherwise he would not devote so much time to explaining it to his son, and is doubtless aware of the device’s origins in the Muslim world. This mindset, combined with the moments in the man of law’s tale Chaucer displays actual knowledge of Islam presents a question: if Chaucer is fully aware, even respectful, of Islamic culture, why is the man of law’s tale so biased against it? The choice to cast Islam in a bad light in the tale of the man of law calls attention to how prevalent the idea of the east as an “other” to be demonized and vilified was and still is in the world. The most likely explanation is that Chaucer felt he had to maintain the commonly held perspective in his work for it to be accepted in society, and thereby failed to help break the western misconception of Islam, instead serving to further it. That people who are aware of Islamic culture, particularly prolific writers like Chaucer, can still be complicit in spreading the common image of the eastern other speaks to the immensity of the problem of Orientalism and the seemingly indomitable nature of western bias.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree that it was very interesting the way Chaucer managed to maintain the prejudices against Islam despite how he obviously was knowledgeable about the customs of Muslims. I think it is important to keep in mind who Chaucer was writing for. On page 94 he describes the Bible as “a British book inscribed with the Gospels”, making an obvious appeal to his fellow Britons. It is also interesting to take British literary history into account up until this point.
DeleteBritain has always been a country with a deeply engrained sense of nationalism and religious pride. This nationalism has always been drawn from binaries—the good Britons versus the evil Other. We see this when Geoffrey of Monmouth fabricateed a history in his “History of the Kings of Britain” in 1136. Geoffrey chronicles a fantasy he claims to be true about how Britain was established and waged war against evil forces like giants and dragons. He even writes about battles with savage Saracens (Muslims), where the British heroes slay them or chase them out of their lands. From very early on Muslims and non-western cultures fell into the category of monstrous and evil Other. King Horn, another British medieval text that preludes Canterbury Tales also depicts “Saracens” as savage murderers because they murdered Horn’s family and stole his kingdom for no apparent reason, but to conquer and kill.
Because of early misrepresentations of Islam and stories the church would propagate from the crusades, the medieval British public was always predisposed to view Muslims as amoral savages. It is unfortunate that even someone who was educated about Islam, like Chaucer clearly was, would continue to feed into the stereotype established in order to appease his audience and uphold the society’s binary standards.
What really stuck out to me in the Man of Law Tale, by Chaucer were the amount of references the narrator makes to miracles and people mentioned in common biblical stories. Chaucer purposely does this when Constance is in trouble. For example, after the Syrians force Constance into exile the narrator immediately starts bringing up the stories of Jonah and David. The narrator goes on to say “Yet, as she was not slain at the banquet, who saved her from drowning in the waves? Who saved Jonah in the fish’s maw till he was spouted up at Nineveh?” (91) The narrator telling this story goes on to show that the same God who saved Jonah and David is the same God who saved Constance. By bringing this up when discussing Constance, it shows to audience how important Constance is and how she was chosen by God to survive. When the narrator describes the Syrians in this tale, the only image they get is negative. Sultan’s mother is described as an evil snake. The narrator says, “…and the dishonor done to his daughter by the snake in the grass-in other words that damnable wicked sultaness …” (99). The Syrians are not given the positive image. By giving Constance, this godly and heroic image only adds to the narrator’s favoritism towards the Christians.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most fascinating with Chaucer’s tale is how not only Christianity is put on a pedestal, but more surprisingly, Britain as well. This was made obvious in the reading many times. For example, when the character of the Knight is told to swear upon the book, the narrator specifies on what kind of Bible it is: “A British book inscribed with the Gospels was brought.” (94). This is a perfect example of one of the reasons why there is such a heavy line drawn between the “west” and the “east”. According to the narrator, not only do you have to be a Christian in order to be basically “worth something” , but British also. In specifying where the book has physically come from, this assumes that all people and things that are not British are not as good. Therefore, not only do Christians trump Muslims in religion in the opinion of the narrator, but they’re also “better” because of where they come from!
ReplyDeleteAgain, this reiterates what Edward Said says about orientalism. In specifying that people and objects that are British are better than others, this is helping to create an “other” to the east that differs from the “normalcy” of the west (Britain). Examples like this make it impossible not to focus on the “difference” between Constance and the Christians in Rome, and the “pagan” characters in Syria.
That was something I also noticed, that the Syrians (even though they were willing to convert) were not depicted as anywhere near as civilized or worthy of being saved as the converts in North Umberland. I, however, attributed this to the politics of race. This perfect, chaste, faithful white woman goes around trying to convert various societies--but only the other white people she converts are ultimately able to carry on these new religious traditions and have their safe, Christian civilization. These devout white christians are, in the end, always successful because God is on their side. Not so with the Syrian converts. Where the evil plot to get rid of Constance (much less violent on the part of the English mother-in-law) is eventually righted when the King finds his wife among the Romans, the evil plot to get rid of Constance on the part of the evil Sultaness results in a lot of dead bodies and Constance lost at sea with no real hope of being saved, having only survived the slaughter by the grace of God. The white, English converts are able to establish a solid Christian civilization; the Arab, Syrian converts all get killed.
Delete"This is a perfect example of one of the reasons why there is such a heavy line drawn between the “west” and the “east”. According to the narrator, not only do you have to be a Christian in order to be basically “worth something” , but British also. In specifying where the book has physically come from, this assumes that all people and things that are not British are not as good. Therefore, not only do Christians trump Muslims in religion in the opinion of the narrator, but they’re also “better” because of where they come from!" ~
DeleteI like where you're going with this. There's a lot of power at play when two groups are described so distinctly and so oppositely, and when those distinctions are being made by those with influence.
We know that the normalization and promotion of Western culture across the world began with imperialism. While holding eastern lands under their control, "the West" emphasized the greatness of their own culture to the point that many formerly imperialized peoples still reflect aspects of those western cultures.
*(Perhaps certain Eastern cultures still subliminally accept that western ideal as a type of cultural hegemony. When i was in London, it seemed like every person working a service position was an Indian with a British accent. Of course, maybe they're really just people trying to "get by." Take that how you will, I'm only theorizing.)
When I think about the effects of imperialism and colonization, it feels very similar to the way White slave owners in the United States used to promote the white's superiority as if it were the natural order of things. It's a mind-game. Denying blacks the right of heritage by replacing their ancient tribal names with their own white last names worked to diminish the slave's concept of his or herself as an individual black person. Much in the same way, the West has effectively white-washed (pun un-intended) the influence of the Islamic world, even though they contributed to almost every aspect of science and culture that the West takes credit for.
That's why classes like this are important, and i hope they exist in other colleges. The impending generation deserves to be informed of the true origin of the world we've inherited.
In “Who Speaks for Islam?” one section in particular sticks out to me. On page six it is written that, “Majorities of both men and women in predominately Muslim countries want to see Islamic principles, Sharia, as a source of legislation. Those respondents have much in common with the majority of Americans who wish to see the Bible as a source of legislation.” This has never been more accurate than in today’s culture, especially in the United States. So many people in America cite the Bible as a reason why there should not be gay marriage, or that women should not have abortions, etc. They are going by what their religion says, and yet, we are not supposed to be a country where religion and law go hand in hand. Isn’t there supposed to be a separation of Church and State? However, in “Middle Eastern” countries the people who want to use the Quran as a source of lawmaking are thought to be crazy by many of the same Americans who want the Bible to play a bigger part in what laws we should and should not have. It is so contradictory, and it honestly baffles me so much.
ReplyDeleteThis also relates in a way to “The Canterbury Tales.” It is obvious to the narrator that all Christian lands are loving, caring, and charitable. The Bible and scripture in Rome (and then in Northumbria) govern the lands as the most authoritative power. In Northumbria, when the one man tries to frame Constance nobody even has to worry about giving him OR her a proper trial, since God takes it into his own hands and smites the liar right on the spot! But Syria, ruled under Muslim authority, is an evil, violent place that does not even take its own religion seriously. The Christian Roman Emperor, with God on his side bestowing His blessing on the Emperor, has to send his forces over there to deliver out a sentence because they are so “lawless” and “corrupt.” It is very fascinating seeing how the idea of religion basically governing the masses can be played out in stories, and in today’s politics.
I cannot agree with you more. The obvious hypocrisy of not only the Christian religion, but our Western values as well are undeniably relevant in world culture today. This "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that is so prevalent America specifically is the source of contention in nearly all political conflicts. I say culture as opposed to religion because I believe the cyclical nature of the influence of one on the other cannot be distinguished. Our culture says that the bible is good, safe. While (again) the notion of orientalism says that the "other" is the exact dichotomy- evil, dangerous. The media in particular exemplifies these sentiments, almost in the view point that there can only be one "good guy" in the world. If you are not us, then you are not right. I think this is seen not only in the instance of the public opinion of the Bible playing an active role in our legislation but the mentality of Americans on the topic of casualties. Upwards of 80% of Americans believe that civilian causalities can be justified, while around 40% of Middle Eastern peoples hold the same view. I ask Americans then- Who is the violent religion? Who has the violent culture?
DeleteHonestly, I was thinking about this a lot in class today. Many progressive and secular thinkers of our generation in America feel either threatened by, or critical of, domestic religious extremists. Those who hold firmly to their traditional beliefs, such as those who oppose gay rights and abortion, are often called out by angry teens and young adults who have developed to be more understanding and accepting. Now the reasoning behind this clear liberal shift is a much more complex issue, and it would suffice to say that most children end up being more progressive and liberal than their parents, but the point I’m trying to make is that these same kids are incredibly receptive to hearing the truth about Islam. At the same time, religious advocates in America will oftentimes bash the “East” and propagate stereotypes: fostering ignorance and hate. It is interesting to consider that all religious folks aren’t on the same side facing off against less religious youth culture. In fact, the secular youth movement is very much on the “Middle Eastern” side.
DeletePersonally, I would never ask for a religious text to influence the political sphere. It seems invasive to those who don’t subscribe to such beliefs. Now imagine trying to shoehorn some theoretical Christian-American Law into foreign territory in some misguided attempt to “share democracy” ? It sounds ridiculous because it is.
Many of the previous posts are very interesting, especially the ones that challenge Chaucer's perspective and whether or not he truly meant to take on a Christian bias when writing the story "The Sergeant at Law's Tale." However, the perspective of the narrator does give valuable insight into the commonly held Western worldview of the time. Within the story, the Sultan's privy council claim that they realize "the difference between the faiths of the two countries," and that "no Christian prince" would let his daughter marry a Muslim" (86). But interestingly enough, the story frequently points to the similarities between the two religions. On page 88, the Sultan's mother expresses her "vow to Almighty God," claiming that Islam would only bring "suffering and bondage...and after that to be dragged own to hell."
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, other similarities are more between Christianity and the way Christians view Islam rather than Islam itself. For example, the privy council talk of "magic and conjuration," (86) but there are many Christian references to astrology and the power of the stars. In the story, though there are multiple comments on God's power and his role in the real world, these side notes on "the stars" would sound like idolatry for many modern day Christians. On page 86, the same page where the Muslims in the council are portrayed as heathens who derive their power from black magic rather than God, the narrator states that "in the stars, clearer than glass, is written each man's death, could men but read it." This certainly takes away power from God's will, implying that some other force in nature predetermines the fate of a man.
Constance symbolizes the "perfect" Christian woman - and this is clear with all her associations to God and holiness - but what is a perfect Christian woman? On page 85, she is described as beautiful, humble, young, virtuous, courteous, and holy. But can a Muslim woman not possess such qualities? It would seem not, as the only legitimate Muslim woman character in the story is an evil-hearted murderer. This truly paints a picture of the Orient as viewed by the West, that not only are all Christians inherently good, but that Islam and goodness are mutually exclusive concepts. It is this dualistic mentality, prevalent throughout most of "The Sergeant at Law's Tale," that would likely prevent Christian readers of the time period from detecting any similarity between the two religions.
I would like to discuss your idea of the black magic as opposed to viewing the stars in context with our class discussion today. My question is whether or not Chaucer knew what he was doing when he wrote such a terrible portrait of Islam. Clearly, Chaucer creates a disparity between the religions by making the Christian characters victims and the Muslims all wrongdoers. Yet this example shows that he is aware of their similarities. Perhaps Chaucer was exactly aware that he was misrepresenting a culture. In fact, given the evidence that he was fluent in three languages and was an expert at astrology and astronomy it would be impossible to defend the notion that he was ignorant of Islam. Chaucer knew that he was degrading an honest, intelligent civilization but continued with it for the benefit of Christianity. He wanted to diminish the threat of Muslim expansion by degrading their superiority.
DeleteThe question I have about this that didn't come up in class is what extent the sabotage of Muslim image was an intentional, personal act. If Chaucer did intentionally misrepresent Muslims, which seems to be the case, I am curious whether or not he would have had some kind of indirect pressure from the Catholic church, or whether he did so under his own initiative.
DeleteWhile it is not exactly surprising to see how Chaucer treats the women in “The Sergeant at Law’s Tale,” it is interesting to see that he places even a woman higher than the non-Christian heathens. It is important to understand the hierarchy Chaucer seems to outline in the tale with British Christian males at the top, followed by good Christian women, then heathen males and lastly heathen women. Using this hierarchy it is not hard to glimpse the feelings Christians, in particular the British, had towards those who did not share their culture.
ReplyDeleteIt is most interesting to compare Constance and the Sultaness because of how radically different in personality they are, yet how they are also very similar. If the reader looks at Constance they see a devout Christian woman, where as a reader who looks at the Sultaness sees a devout Muslim woman. This is where the similarities end between the women and where the bias of the times can be seen. Constance is described as beautiful, innocent, good and virtuous where the Sultaness is described as vile, treacherous, malignant and serpent-like. Throughout the story Constance is seen as a victim of her circumstances or an innocent bystander as the world falls apart around her; in contrast the Sultaness is willful and has faithful followers do her violent bidding. The main female characters are not only meant to portray the differences between Christianity and Islam, with Christianity being the more favorable, but also what constitutes the ideal women. Constance is obviously the more favorable of the two, going along with the wants of the men who control her life and being a submissive wife and daughter. The Sultaness is the embodiment of what a man of the times would have been most fearful of, an independent and strong willed woman who had no man to rule her life.
This all being said, “The Sergeant at Law’s Tale” goes much further than defining the wrongs of being anything other than a British Christian. It underlines what Chaucer, and most people of his time, thought to be proper for a woman. It is even more interesting to see that the Muslim woman was strong and free with the Christian woman being submissive when in today’s society, many believe “easterners” to be oppressive and chauvinistic.
I like how you have analysed the role of women in Chaucer's tale. I think you have pointed out some valid ideas that are definitively portrayed in the tale. I would like to take what you have said one step further. Since this class is based around the theory of post-colonial literature laid out by Edward Said, I would like to focus my point on how this portrayal of women, specifically in the light of religion, has fueled the Orientalist viewpoints of later writers. You can clearly see that Chaucer was writing from the perspective of a white, British, wealthy, Christian. His position in the world being more towards a Western perspective than an Eastern perspective has affected his portrayal of other cultures in quite a negative way. I would have to imagine that, like you said, Chaucer's point of view was also the point of view of much of his society. I think that Chaucer effectively clumps Muslims and pagans together into the exotic category. He creates a binary between Christians and everyone who isn't a Christian. The Canterbury Tales elaborates on many perspectives as Akman told us in class, but I think as a whole it does not do much to break down stereotypes or to elaborate on the true nature of a culture that is not his own. He is merely refracting what he has heard about other cultures into his own perspective, which creates intense binaries, such as Constance and the Sultanness. Apparently he allowed his imagination to wander and didn't quite distinguish the differences between Muslims and pagans; whether intentional or not, this indistinguishable nature of his text creates perspectives of both pagans and Muslims that I am sure most pagans and Muslims would not agree with.
DeleteMy focus of study in reading the Man of Law’s Tale in conjunction with Chaucer’s Astrolabe Treatise and “Rediscovering Arabic Science” was the role that astronomy and astrology played in Chaucer’s works of literature. I know that in class we established that the fields of astronomy and astrology were not separate pursuits but rather coupled under one field of study, which presents itself in Man of Law’s Tale. The idea that the fates of man are somehow predestined according to the constellations seems at odds with the inherent glorification of Christian values and God’s omnipotence presented throughout the rest of the Tale. It also caught me as ironic that the Tale is entirely dismissive of Islam as a major world religion while at the same time failing to realize Islam’s profound influence on the study of astronomy.
ReplyDeleteAs it can be surmised by the existence of Chaucer’s Astrolabe Treatise, English scholarship ran parallel to the interests of the Islamic empire in the 14th century, albeit that the motivation behind the pursuits differed somewhat. From an English perspective, the study of the stars was about a gaining insight into the future, whereas Muslim scholarship was a venture taken for a variety of reasons that had less to do with the occult so much as it was for following religious orders.
Someone who wanted to wrongly harm Christianity, say, a Muslim cleric in a besieged city in 1300, could totally twist this story to claim that Christianity teaches faith beyond question to gain the favor of a powerful magic spirit, one that can physically intervene in dangerous situations and kill one’s enemies. That would be completely wrong, cruel and misrepresentational, but it is the same move that Christian clerics made with even less “evidence.” Thinking about this has helped me understand just how easy it is to make completely inaccurate generalizations about entire cultures based on isolated individuals associated with the target demographic. It is the move insidiously made in this very text, by virtue of its only ambassadors for Islam being clearly unvirtuous and continually referring to Muslims as “heathens.” If it is weird pagan spirit magic Chaucer was interested in, he would have been more suspicious of God physically smiting the eyes out of the lying knight, and heathens spontaneously converting in the radiance of a divine woman. Such supernatural stories are not at the core of Christian moral stories but an ambitious Muslim could no doubt cite Chaucer, one of the most circulated and highly praised Christian writers of all time, as an example of how pagan Christianity is. The grounds on which Christian clergy have historically condemned Islam of being pagan, or worshipping idols, or believing that their prophet is a god, are so loosely based on actual Islam that the “evidence” against the Christianity presented in Chaucer is actually far better.
ReplyDeleteChaucer's Man of Law Tale has a number of racial and cultural issues that can be raised about it, but an issue that may be less immediately apparent is its treatment of women. Throughout the tale a reoccurring theme can be observed: women have no free will. By this I mean that Constance appears to only be a vehicle for what men want her to do and, above that, what God wants her to do, and the two conniving women in Syria and Scotland were both vehicles for what their twisted faith demanded of them. Men appear to have more agency, but this seems to lead good Christian men to be less good and corrupt pagan and Muslim men to be less evil. The overall structure appears to be that the will of God drives Christians to be good whereas the other false faiths drive their followers to commit evil and, since women are objects without any real free will, this leads Christian women to be very good and pagan or Muslim women to be very evil.
ReplyDeleteI am unsure what is more emphasized: that one must be Christian to be good or that one must obey the Christian God to be good. The structure of the story, as has been said in other posts, places even Christian women above pagan or Muslim men and, indeed, even above converted men. Men obviously have agency and free will in these texts, but it almost seems as though this agency only has the potential to lead men to sin. If that is the case, it would make sense that Constance is treated as such a good figure because not only is she a woman who therefore has a propensity for obedience and submissiveness but also she is a Christian which means she is completely obeying the Lord. My rough interpretation is that while this text treats women as objects with no free will which is very negative in the feminist eyes of a modern reader, this lack of agency may have been seen as a virtue at the time -- at least to the narrator -- because it left women less able to err from the ways of God which is ironic considering Christians place the blame for original sin on women to begin with.
I definitely noticed the roles that women played in the Man of Law's Tale as well. None of the female characters were portrayed in a net positive way. Either they were meek, gentle, and basically helpless, or they were cruel, brooding and evil. There is no middle ground. Although Constance displays some admirable traits (such as her gentle disposition and devotion), these traits are expressed in such an extreme fashion that they become somewhat of a fault. She seems to be unable to act or think for herself or in her own interest. She is consistently subservient to either the men of the story, or God. Hermengild, while less detailed as a character than Constance, is portrayed in a very similar light. She is a kind, good natured and pious woman who seems to be incapable of acting without an external influence. The Sultaness portrays flaws in the opposite direction of Constance and Hermengild. While Constance is gentle and devout to a fault, the Sultaness is very capable of thinking and acting for herself. In a more measured way, this could be taken as a positive trait. However, she is shown to use her will power and independence to commit cruel and brutal acts. This total lack of a middle ground in the female characters of the Man of Law's tale, while potentially accurate in some ways to the demeanor of women at the time it was written, is completely unrealistic when applied to modern society.
Delete