Chaucer seems to be of the opinion that all women hate sex…
They went to bed, as reason was and right,From “The Man of Law’s Tale” in Neville Coghill’s translation of The Canterbury Tales. I guess this goes to show that the notion that sex is a dirty necessary evil has quite a pedigree from Augustine and the Patristics through Chaucer and right on up to our own time.
For wives, albeit very holy things,
Are bound to suffer patiently at night
Such necessary pleasures as the King’s,
Or others’ who have wedded them with rings.
Her holiness - well, she must do without it
Just for a little, and that’s all about it.
I never know whether to laugh or cry when I hear that strange opinion voiced yet again. Do you think they promoted the idea that women hate sex because by not enjoying it, they were somehow seen as more holy than men?
Comment by Alicia — February 9, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
You haven’t gotten to the Wife of Bath’s Tale yet, I guess? ;) Don’t necessarily impart to Chaucer the opinions of his tale-tellers. Of course, you’re right in that I’m sure many of his time did think that.
Are you enjoying Chaucer? I was surprised by how funny he was (and how risque!) when I read the Tales a couple of years ago.
Comment by Jandy — February 9, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Alicia,
Yea, I think that, in the case of Chaucer, or at least his Man of Law, there was a lot of Mariolatry already going on which led to viewing women as these sort of quasi-angelic, ethereal creatures that really simply wanted to pray and enjoy sublime feelings of tranquility in the presence of God. I think they thought of women as more holy, but had a one sided view of holy - mostly centering on quietude and submissiveness, and acts of charity and peace.
Comment by j s donathan — February 9, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Jandy,
No not there yet. I’m having to stay ahead of my students though, because some of the stuff is too vulgar for me to assign, especially considering the fundamentalist leanings of some of my students.
Yeah, I wondered about pointing out that Chaucer lets his characters speak for themselves, but he’s repeated this a number of times and through the mouths of some of the most noble storytellers so I suspect he agrees with it. I am enjoying them, and yes, he really is quite funny. I have to give Neville Coghill a lot of credit for a wonderful and readable translation.
Comment by j s donathan — February 9, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
What is being assumed by “sex” so far here, though? Do we have any reason to believe that these women were not “suffering” under the burden of perverted sexual practices?
I don’t think it’s safe to split opinions about sex as “old-time = sex is private, etc and therefore dirty/bad” and “now we realize that sex is a gift from God and therefore good.” Its entirely possible that sex can be a gift from God and yet still bad (take a quick scroll through the backwaters of the internet if you dare). It all depends on what we assume about the women, men, and prevailing opinions regarding sex how we are to interpret this passage.
Unfortunately, what can be safely interpreted from this is that (sadly) some women were, apparently, not enjoying sex as it was meant to be. The question is, “why not?”
Comment by Will K — February 11, 2008 @ 7:18 pm