Fact and Fiction, was Re: [Sca-cooks] Rotten meat and spices...

[Laura C. Minnick]

At 05:02 AM 4/15/2005, you wrote:
>Do not literary sources ,by need, be taken with a grain of salt?
>
>Young Dodger from Oliver Twist is hardly a proper representation of 
>Victorian England as a whole.
>
>It is usually the extremes of society that are written.  Why write down 
>what everyone knows?

Well, yes and no. I certainly would not say 'usually'.

Literature is not created in a vacuum- it is a reflection of the culture in 
which it is created. Actually more so in the Middle Ages than in more 
recent (including Dickensian/Victorian ) times, as the purpose of writing, 
fiction in particular, was as much oriented towards the didactic than as 
entertainment. What you are reading may reflect ideals more than reality- 
but the ideals have to come from somewhere.

Take the Wife of Bath for an example- Alison of Bath's marital adventures 
may approach tabloid extremes, but they only have effect for the reader if 
they are familiar. Alison's series of husbands reflect the realities of 
marriage case law (I've read some doozies, I'll tell you- our tabloids have 
nothing on some of the legal records for 14th-15th c England!), though 
those individual tales may be condensed into one character rather than 
many. Marrying a young daughter to a much older man was a matter of 
manipulation of estates and fortunes (as was most of medieval marriage 
practice), and the concept of an older widow choosing a husband for her own 
desires is also familiar. Alison captures the imagination and attention of 
the reader because of her familiarity.

Her Tale, of Gawain and the Loathy Lady, stretches the boundaries of the 
imagination into clearly ficticious (as opposed to social reflection) 
territory. And yet there are familiar parts there. Gawain, who in most of 
the Arthurian tales is a decent, if a bit randy, knight. But Chaucer 
portrays him as a rapist, who seems to be sorry mostly that he got caught. 
Did that meet with nods of recognition from the audience? You betcha. His 
adventures in the Tale are fiction, but his character is compelling.

Aside from the storylines though, the portraits and descriptions of 
characters are often and rightfully mined for evidence of common culture. 
Dress is one example. Laura Hodges has written entire books on the costume 
elements in Chaucer's work and their cultural reflection. The Knight's 
'bismotered gipoun' (filthy gambeson) is a way of evoking the image of a 
'working knight', who got the mud and rust stains the hard way. His image 
describes a veteran of many mercenary campaigns, and could well be one of 
the men who went to fight in Spain with the Black Prince. Alison of Bath, 
from the visual description of her veils and hat to her red stockings, is 
the neighbor woman familiar to the reader, a bit brash perhaps, but 
generally good-hearted- familiar enough so that we are not shocked at her 
domestic violence.

Does this mean that we take these literary descriptions... literally? Nope. 
But can we use them as examples of their contemporary culture. There would 
have been no point, for instance, in describing the specifics of a widow's 
circumstances and possessions if they had not been effective in setting the 
scene for the story to follow. No less so, than say, beginning a story with 
"Call me Ishmael..."

Literature and history are interconnected and each inform the understanding 
of the other. If we dismiss one, we lose the full meaning of the other.

'Lainie
___________________________________________________________________________
O it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it 
like a giant--Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II