Sin, Death, Satan, Oh my!

So, the second part of Book II was well, interesting… Particularly how Sin is Satan’s daughter, but also the mother of his son. And then their son, Death, rapes his mother and she conceives the dog-like beasts that reside in her womb. Before reading the footnote, Sin’s conception immediately reminded me of Athena popping out of the head of Zeus. Athena is the goddess of wisdom, and is thus, an extension of her father’s mind. So it seems fitting that Sin was created by the evil thoughts that permeated Satan’s mind before he got kicked out of Heaven. This is one dark, messed up situation if you ask me. But I guess it makes sense considering incest is a sin, and I guess, Death is the ultimate outcome of Sin? But death is a natural human condition, so I am not exactly sure what to make of it.

I’ve been reading Dante’s Divine Comedy in my World Lit class and a lot of Inferno is meant to be a perversion of Christian ideals, and Milton is doing the same thing. The father, son/grandson, mother relationship seems to be a demented version of the Holy Trinity. Boy, is humanity doomed. Somehow that feeling resonates…..

Double, double toil and trouble

First off, what could be more appropriate than reading about witches a week before Halloween? Now, Shakespeare was definitely a fan of incorporating supernatural elements into his plays, but for some reason, the witches and the presence of Hecate in act three of Macbeth, seem a little odd to me. It could be because they are in the context of a tragedy and we typically do not associate these kinds of gimmicky devices in that type of genre, right? Supernatural forces are also at play in Hamlet, but yet, the ghost does not come off as gimmicky (sorry, can’t think of another word to use.) There is a believable component to him. One thing that makes the witches seem kind of silly is their language. They speak in rhymes, which I always have a hard time taking seriously.

  

“Double, double toil and trouble.” How does this line not take you back to your childhood? I did not even know that line was from Macbeth, which I thought was pretty cool, but somehow it got turned into a children’s Halloween movie.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I love the incorporation of the supernatural elements. It is much more entertaining than a very dry tragedy, but I still take the play slightly less serious when the witches come into play. In spite of it, Macbeth definitely take the witches and their apparitions very seriously. In fact, their prophesies are what cause his murderous, downward spiral in the first place. So what exactly is the intended reaction of the audience supposed to be? Am I the only one who feels that the presence of the witches makes the play slightly less serious? Or is what is supposed to be the tragedy, that something like the words of a witch, are what prompts such tragic events to unfold?

Another blog about Bath....

So it seems like we are all captivated by the the Wife of Bath. The description of her in the general prologue had me thinking that she was just a humble, church going woman who dressed well. But at line 460 when the narrator describes her as having had five husbands and “other companye in youthe” (461), I started having flashbacks of the squire and how he “so hote he lovede that by nightertale / he sleep namore than dooth a nightingale” (97-98).  Yet the Wife of Bath has gone on several pilgrimages to Jerusalem and other “a straunge streem” (14) that her lifestyle seems to contradict her religious values.

Jump to her prologue, the contradiction is on full display. She lies and deceits and uses her sexual prowess to manipulate men, namely her five husbands, into getting what she wants. And yet, she uses biblical references to defend her choices: “I woot wel Abraham was an holy man, / and Jacob…ech of hem hadde wyves mo than two” (55-57). I found the Wife of Bath to be incredibly complex and deliciously enticing and exciting! She is bold and shameless, yet we do get a glimpse of a softer, more sensitive side when she describes how she loved her fifth husband in spite of the “daungerous” nature of his love (514).

I picture Wife of Bath as an Elizabeth Taylor-esque seductress who shamelessly uses her sexuality as a means of power.

The Wife of Bath challenges all these longstanding, patriarchal /religious views of marriage and the “proper” role of a woman. Yet, I question Chaucer’s intent here. Is he praising her or satirizing her? The friar’s laugh at the end of her prologue seems to point to the ridiculous nature of her tale, and how this behavior was almost comical because of its outrageousness, which is the exact opposite of what a woman “should” be.