After reading through some of the lyrics I came across common themes. The first few lyrics were mostly about nature, song, women, and religion. The nature lyrics often drew metaphors to women through relation to bird songs and floral beauty. This is important in understanding how nature is always related to women, hence, mother nature, though I am not sure where this came about exactly. Others drew the connection between women and religion, more specifically the Virgin Mary. I believe there was some Catholic influence within some of the lyrics because Catholics pray to God through the Virgin Mary and the lyric “Now skrinketh rose and lily-flour” illustrates this. A lot of the early lyrics also reference spring, and in a religious context this represents rebirth and new beginnings, symbolic of resurrection.

Another thing I noticed, as I got closer to the fifteenth century the content was easier to read and comprehend. This reflects how the language was altered over time little by little. I find it interesting because while I was reading I didn’t know if had gotten better at reading OE or if the language was just more familiar/modern, then I realized the change in century as I continued reading and recognized the language shift.

I found the lyrics to be fun to read, though they are still a little difficult to fully understand for me. What was most interesting for me was reading them chronologically and watching the language slowly evolve between the early 13th century lyrics like Sumer is icumen in to the 16th century lyric A god and yet a man. Each lyric became a little easier to read as it developed into the English we speak today. The inflections are very prominent in the earlier lyrics, though we can see how they start to fall away. Around the 13th century many inflections like -e/n, -e/th, and -es were commonly used. These are continually used until the -en starts to become just an -e and finally is dropped altogether around the 16th century. With the loss of these abundant inflections, the lyrics were easier to read and understand. Though the early lyrics were fun to figure out since reading them almost felt like solving a puzzle, trying to find the word hidden under all the inflections of Middle English.

Of all creatures women be best is a fun read for those of you who enjoy the bouquet of your misogyny to be a bit more … subtle and condescending. The key for the poem seems to be the Latin phrase “Cuins contrarium verum est,” glossed as “The opposite of this is true,” which follows the title of the poem. While the text goes out of its way to address specific charges against women, namely that ladies are prone to gossip and enjoy spending their man’s earnings irresponsibly, it does so in a tongue-in-cheek way that instead reinforces the power of those stereotypes.

Obviously you have to grade things like bigotry on a curve. Given the fact that societal attitudes have shifted so drastically since the era these poems cover, it would be unfair to expect the author of the poem to adhere to our particular contemporary worldview. With that being said, one aspect that intrigued me about the poem was actually the introduction to the section on lyrics, which observes that many of these poets were likely members of the clergy. The possibility that “Of all creatures…” was written by a man of the cloth is interesting to consider given that celibacy was of course the norm for the clergy (at least in the lower rungs of the Church), and so the misogyny of the text is of a piece with Church orthodoxy. Just as the poet’s continued harping on how women are not [insert litany of awful things here] draws attention to the fact that the poet is instead insinuating exactly that, I wonder whether the lady-bashing of the text overcompensates for the difficulty of a priest or monk choosing the celibate life? It is a lot easier to avoid the temptation of settling down if all women are terrible she-beasts, after all. Did anyone else have any other reactions to the poem?

I thought these lyrics were great to read at the beginning of the semester, as they offered us a brief but still enjoyable immersion into Middle English. Though the topics of the lyrics ranged from the death of Jesus to chanting for beer, the lyric that stood out most to me was Betwene Mersh and Averil (250). Maybe it is because I am particularly fond of early British literature, but this lyric reminded me so much of the lamenting love sonnets of Sir Thomas Wyatt during the Tudor reign, and to go further back, to the sonnets of Petrarch in Italy. I was shocked by the similarities in the mindset of the speaker – incredibly in love with a women that (I presume) does not return his affections, and willing to suffer and long for her through poetry rather than attempt any sort of emotional journey of getting over her. Also, like Wyatt and Petrarch, these love poems seemingly focus on the beloved, but are actually much more focused on the feelings and woes of the speaker – making him the true subject! For example, the speaker laments, “Bote he me wolle to hire take, / For to ben hire owen make, / Longe to liven ichulle forsake, / and feye fallen adoun” (250-251). The dramatic woes are lovely and give me deja vu, even though this was written before the poetry I am used to reading. Having studied Wyatt and Petrarch at length, these similarities were striking to me. Especially because Petrarch was writing during the Italian Renaissance, which came right after the Medieval Period – perhaps he was inspired by lyrics like these when writing his love sonnets? All art is theft, after all!

Of all of our readings, I found Chaucer’s Gentilesse the most interesting. Although I thoroughly enjoyed the earthly love lyrics, and found the religious lyrics, especially the conversation between Jesus and Mary in Stond well, moder, under Rode, I liked Gentilesse the most. The “fader of gentilesse” and “the firse fader in magestee” can be interpreted as Jesus or God, however, when I first read it I interpreted it to literally mean an ancestor. On second look, I interpreted the poem to be praising God, appreciating Jesus’  virtue, and reflecting on the lack of virtue in the upper class or powerful leaders of society. The first stanza initiates the idea that true virtue is not something you are born into, it is something you achieve by the way you act. In other words, the powerful are not necessarily virtuous just because they are bishops, kings, or emperors. Chaucer states you must hold virtues and get rid of vices like Jesus did. The poem points out that although riches may be passed down (to men with vices), no man can pass down his virtue.  This reflects a flaw in society, possibly pointing to the corruptness of the rich and powerful, stating that they may have titles and crowns but they may not be virtuous. It could be considered a critique of the powerful by pointing out their flaws, one being a lack of faith and virtue, and expressing a need for the powerful to also be virtuous.

First of all, it was fun to read these lyrics. The rhythm and strange syllables and unfamiliarity made even the more somber or religious topics much more lighthearted and enjoyable. Aside from causing ear-to-ear grins, the secular lyrics appealed to me far more than the religious lyrics. Reading through the secular lyrics gave me this feeling of ‘hey they weren’t much different than we are in 2015.’ I loved a child of this countree deals with the age old problem of mixed signals. And we see in Bring us in good ale that men have been interested in nothing except for beer since as far back as the 15th century. Probably earlier, actually. I have a gentile cock had me giggling like a grade-school kid and I still have not stopped singing “Sumer is incumen in/ Sing, cucu, nu. Sing, cucu.”

While questions of God and sin and virtue are all well and good, the secular lyrics felt like a medieval edition of ‘Stars– they’re just like us!’ from Us Weekly.

Marie de France’s Yonec is a tale that feels like many tales  Hinting at Rapunzel, familiar chivalry tales, and Oedipus, The tale is heavy on the imaginary and religious.  I think that this gives it a feeling of tradition with imagery and imagination as well.  It does not feel like a love story, nor a tragedy. It is simply creepy.

As I was reading this story I was also watching American Horror Story.  I could not help but see the similarities in some of the peripheral aspects to the story such as the obsessions by the lord, the spits intended to kill the knight, the extreme and intricate instructions on how to avoid or keep fate in your favor.  I read of how the maiden falls and follows the knight down to a place where he spins a yarn about swords and rings, I tend to see the strangeness that reminds me of the show I am watching.  Instead of a straightforward tale, Marie de France spins a web of interesting bits and pieces of a story of simple love.  I think that this means that the medieval feelings may have been ones that wanted to be satisfied with various reasons for things.  I also think that there were many imaginative elements to each part of the story and these moments were creative, gory, unexpected, typical, and all made up this one story.

I was intrigued by the function or use of God and faith in this work. The first place I noticed this was when the speaker was describing the beautiful woman’s plight. Her physical appearance was mentioned, as was her emotional and mental struggle. It wasn’t just the isolation that was ruining her, however. It was also the fact that she couldn’t attend Mass or carry out God’s will. She was spiritually denied as well as physically, emotionally, and socially. Because of this, she cried out to God, praying that he would send her some relief in the form of excitement or adventure. Soon after, she meets Muldumarec. The woman is attracted to him, but doesn’t accept his advances until he proves that he’s a Christian as well. She seems to take his appearance as some kind of answer to prayer. God has sent him to her to alleviate her suffering. I guess my question is “would God ordain adultery by sending another man to her?” I mean, she seemed well-educated in the ways of the scripture and adultery is definitely on the “do not commit” list. Using an answer to prayer just seemed, to me, to be a strange plot device, especially for this situation and time period. Is that kind of the point, though?  To what end?

The wife of the king in the poem of Yonec begins an affair with another knight during a time when this action was one of the gravest sins.  Yet, the story develops to praise this action.  The maidens husband locked her away in a tower, which is a great injustice, but she still enters into an affair sanctioned by God.  As she prays to God the knight appears to rescue the wife.  Not only does this affair begin but the bastard offspring eventually kills the maiden’s husband.  The series of events of this poem contains Christian elements; however, there are remnants of pagan culture as well.  The wife being unfaithful, the magical hawk, and revenge are all indications of a past culture that may still be lingering.

Throughout most of the lai, the lord’s cruel treatment of his lady fosters sympathy for her in the reader. She is presented as the unhappy victim of his unfounded and immoral jealousy and imprisoned in a tower with a guard. Once she meets the knight her will to live is revived through her love for him, and upon his injury her worry for his life instills in her the courage to leave the tower. After she returns with the tokens given to her by the knight, the role of victim shifts from the lady to the lord who had long imprisoned her. He treats her and the knight’s son with kindness, raising him as his own. Once Yonec hears the tale of his father’s death he kills the man who has played the role of father his whole life without hesitation. As one of the footnote’s establishes this reveals a warped familial relationship between the lady and Yonec, who must kill his father figure without question on behalf of his mother’s sorrow. Therefore none of the characters in this lai present the typical hero, all are significantly morally flawed.