Religious Ambiguities:
The Discourse Created By Religion in Male/Female Relationships
One can argue that historically, women have been oppressed by the socio-status of woman portrayed by The Bible, or even by writers such as those previously named. However, does it not say in The Bible,
“Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”(English Standard Version, Pet. 3:7).
Although in verse, it says the woman is a weaker vessel, it does not mean that it is less in value. For what it intends to say, is that the construct of male is physically stronger, usually, then of a female. Which is why the verse says to “honor” the woman, and understand them. Which brings me to my point on men… that over the course of history from antediluvian time’s to Anglo-Saxon literary works, it proves that men, in fact actually make the effort to try and understand woman, and documented it through literature; leading to the demise of men in process. Woman, I, with utmost respect and difficulty, I formulate as a whole in order to conceded my point, have been acknowledged and honored in history. There is solid documentation of this, as well. For in ancient Egypt, the first woman empress was Cleopatra, who lived and died, 30 B.C.
A very prime example, also conceding my point that men in fact honor woman, and in essence, are taken advantage of by woman; writer of the poem Lanval, written in Anglo-Norman by female writer Marie De France, writes of her protagonist Lanval, a knight from King Arthur’s Court, saying to the antagonist, Queen Guinevere,
“Lanval, I have shown you much honor,
I have cherished you, and loved you.
You may have all my love;
Just tell me your desire.
I promise you my affection.
You should be very happy with me”
She throughout the poem seems to seduce him and yearn for his love, however due to his chivalrous beliefs and loyalty to “The King”, denies her and in turn is accused of “having no interest in woman”. The interpretation of this is, is that she essentially accuses his as a homosexual. Queen Guinevere was a very beautiful woman and basically, could have any man she desires. Later, Lanval then responds to her saying…
“My lady…Let me be!
I have no desire to love you.
I’ve served the King a long time;
I don’t want to betray my faith to him
Never, for you or for your love,
Will I do anything to harm my lord”
Queen Guinevere, being the beautiful queen that she was, felt rejected and thus accuses him, and because he rejects her, she says, “he has no interest in woman”. However, because Lanval was in fact, faithful, she accuses him and tarnishes his reputation.
Moving forward in time to the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, in the travel-literature work titled “The Canterbury Tales”, in “The Millers Prologue”, Nicholas, a neighborhood guy who falls in love with a married young woman named Allison, conquers her love. Nicholas studied astronomy, a subject that was against the rules of “The Clergy” at the time, convinces her out of whit, to leave in the night, with him. From the tale, I quote “A good man was there of religioun/479 and was a poore person of a town/480 but riche he was of holy thought and work/481”(p.255) The quote essentially is depicting what a good man is ought to be like, but Allison still goes on and betrays her husband, with a person who was deemed unholy by society. The fools in the given circumstance, is her husband who she betrays and also the incense-swinger, who kisses her bare arse. However, Geoffrey Chaucer in the work is putting unto the spotlight, religion and Catholicism, and says, “for if a priest be foul on whom do we trust/503 no wonder is a lewd man to ruste/504”.(p.255)
Chaucer, in essence is questioning that if, a person that is immoral, whether it be man or woman tells The Bible and its scripture, they could deceive anyone to do as they please. In this case Allison, through Biblical Literature deceived her husband.
Another example of a woman , aware of her power over a man, is in the situation between Cordelia and her father, King Lear. In the story King Lear by William Shakespeare, she is asked to do a simple thing, not only to her father but “The King”, and that is profess her love to as his daughter. My argument is that she misinterprets the command from her father, rather then her king, and rebels, saying
Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave/91
my heart into my mouth. I love your majesty/92
According to my bond, nor more nor less/93.(p.1257)
The damage here, is immediately after she says “according to my bond, nor more nor less” she could have simply ended it there, however Cordelia does not. She then responds to him, basically talking back and after she throws him off by her remark, he says “so young and so untendered/107”. As in saying “so young and immature”, she then bickers back “so young and so true/108”. If she were alone with her father the gravity of the situation would not have been as severe, however they were not the only ones present, in fact both, sisters and sister’s husbands were there listening and basically interpreted her remarks as disrespect and rebelliousness. The whole plot later unfolds, leading to the King Lear’s death due to this very moment. One can argue that she was being sincere, however in times of royalty and with respects to the king and her father, she could have just agreed and thus sparred both of their lives.
Further along, in the prolific poem by John Milton, titled Paradise Lost, Milton writes about the first disobedience known to man. Referring to the moment when Satan tempted “Eve” to eat from the tree of the forbidden fruit of knowledge and evil. She then eats, and offers it to her mate, Adam. This moment is known historically and lives in infamy due to the specific instructions from God, not to eat it. However she disregards the instructions and in essence, became known as the first disobedience to mankind. Milton writes “
The infernal Serpent; he it was, whose guile
Stirred up with envy and revenge, deceived
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out of heaven with all his host
The point I am making, is that Adam who remained faithful to his word to God, paid the price for Eve. In fact God uses Adam, to make Eve. Milton writes of the very moment in time where God uses Adam’s left to create Eve, “The Mother of Mankind” stating…
Who stooping opened my left side, and took
From thence, a rib, with cordial spirits warm,
And lifeblood streaming flesh; wide as the wound,
But suddenly, with flesh filled u and healed
In essence Milton, clearly depicts through his work that God made Eve through Adam, however due to the betrayal of Eve, they both are banished from The Garden of Eden.
In concession to the concept of woman through literature deeming themselves an altruistic victim, and men in frenzies trying to accommodate and understand a woman: has concluded in the downfall of man. We had in The Canterbury Tales, where Allison betrays her husband. In Marie De Frances writing, Lanval: where Lanval’s reputation is tarnished due to the woman’s egomaniacal act, after being rejected. And finally in Paradise Lost, where Milton writes of how the woman was so perfectly created, however she deceived Adam, betrayed God, and in essence allows for them both to be banished from The Garden of Eden. To concede these points, I will conclude with a quote from the travel literature novel by writer, Jonathon Swift. Where he talks about the remarks made by the queen that led to different acts of desperation from Gulliver’s Travels she asked “are all so cowardly where you are from…”(2548)