Subversive images of women in Medieval English literature : a selective reading
By Sheikh F. Shams
BRAC University Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2 (2008)
Abstract: It is commonly assumed that medieval society is hostile to women’s power. Women are continuously contained and constrained by the patriarchal norms of medieval Europe to strengthen the heroic ideals of masculinity, while maintaining the ideals of the domestic private sphere. This study shows that even within the domestic private sphere, women exert considerable amount of power to influence men’s actions. In fact, what we see are models of powerful women capable of damaging the heroic ideals of men. Hence there is a tendency to control women’s power. This essay explores how far this tendency to control is actually successful. If not then we are witnessing a tension between dominant Patriarchal ideology and the subversive images of women. The resistance that women characters in medieval literatures pose to the hegemonic ideology is a matter of particular interest of this paper. At the same time, the nature of their containment and appropriation is also something that this paper wishes to examine.
Introduction: In many instances of medieval English writing, we observe women characters that shatter our preconceived notion about the behaviour of medieval womanhood. For our pre-conceived notion is based on the conventional assumption attacked by Mary Erler and Maryanne Kowaleski’s edited work, Women and Power in the Middle Ages: “[m]edieval society with its wars, territorial struggles, and violence, seems particularly hostile to the exercise of female initiative and power”. But, in contrast what we see in these writings are women characters who instead of being passively confined to the domestic and private sphere, participate in adventures along with men, control men’s courtly behaviour, and even in extreme cases take arms when they need to retaliate. Even within the domestic private sphere, women exert considerable amount of power to influence men’s actions.
In a nutshell, what we see are models of powerful women capable of causing damage to the heroic ideals of men, as the heroic ideals require feminization and repression of women. Grace Armstrong in her essay “Women of Power: Chretien de Troyes’s Female Clerks” refers to the theological justification of women’s repression: “she is a powerful and dangerous foe of man; her sexuality must be firmly controlled if she is not to betray him or make him lose his soul”. This explains why “medieval society . . . seems particularly hostile to the exercise of female initiative and power”.
Consequently, there exists a tendency to control women’s power. The question that arises from this assumption is worth pursuing: how far is this tendency to control women’s power actually successful. If not, then what we are witnessing is reduced (castrated) masculinity; hence a subversion of heroic ideals, as masculinity is one of the important bases of heroic ideals. In other terms, how ‘manly’ are the men portrayed in these works? Do we see a complete undoing of heroic ideals, or a readjustment and negotiation? The answers to these questions—yes or no—will certainly lead us to a larger historical question: whether these women represent the actual historical womanhood of the time, which I wish to address in this paper. At the same time we need to recognize the importance of genre in creating these anomalous portrayals of women.
Introduction: Gregory the Great has loomed large over the study of early medieval England, especially the so-called ‘Age of the Bede’ where, amongst other things, the earliest known uita of the pope was authored, and the figure of Bede himself may hold claim to the title of his most fervent disciple. M.L.W. Laistner, in his 1935 inventory of Bede’s library, implied as much when he spoke of Bede’s ‘constant indebtedness to the pope’s writings’. Nearly thirty years later, Paul Meyvaert deemed the point self-evident when he devoted the entirety of his 1964 Jarrow Lecture to the subject of Bede and Gregory. Meyvaert’s inquiry remains the most thorough probing to date of the nature of Bede’s indebtedness to Gregory, making it a requisite starting point for further exploration of the topic. Much of his lecture focused on Bede’s use of the Liber pontificalis and the Libellus responsionum in crafting his account of the Gregorian mission, a topic I shall bypass in what follows. My interests lie rather in a set of questions Meyvaert addressed near the end of his lecture, having to do with the nature of Bede’s debt to Gregory ‘where his exegetical and theological opinions are concerned’. As far as I know, Meyvaert was the first to raise this issue seriously but was himself unable to resolve it, being hampered, as he lamented, by the lack at that time of ‘fully annotated editions of Bede’s works, especially of the Scriptural commentaries, listing all the known sources from which he borrowed, and therefore showing us in what sections Bede is most at his own’. Yet the want of proper resources did not stop him from wondering whether Gregory had influenced Bede ‘on some kind of “deeper level”‘ and, more boldly, from postulating that ‘[s]ome kind of spiritual affinity, not easily discernible, links them together in a subtle way’.
These are shrewd insights, and they are not easily improved upon even with the proper resources to hand. Nevertheless, having the critical editions of Bede’s exegetical works that Meyvaert longed for, we are better positioned to undertake a more searching examination of the impact of Gregory’s writings on them. The pages that follow attempt to take some additional steps towards assessing that impact. If Meyvaert was correct to observe that ‘from the beginning of his literary career the Jarrow monk was already well familiar with the pope’s works and was reading them with an attention to style as well as content’, then it remains a task for present and future scholarship to keep deepening our knowledge of Bede’s Gregorian inheritance. The conclusions offered here, it is hoped, will stimulate others to refine and build upon them. I shall first address the issue of determining how much and in what manner Bede’s commentaries borrow from the writings of Gregory, before turning in the second half of this article to a discussion of the long-term effects of this reliance, especially in terms of Meyvaert’s suggestive postulation of a ’spiritual affinity’.







