 | ||
| A 15c German sculpture, of St Catherine's martyrdom (unrelated story, except for the beheaded virgin) |
Chaucer’s “Physician’s Tale.” Please “comment” on this post in answer to one of them (or, if you’d like, to respond to something else you found particularly fascinating in the story). Your comment should be at least 200 words long and should include a direct quote from the tale. For full credit, your response should be posted by 9 pm on Sunday night.
Don’t panic if your comment doesn’t instantly appear. Currently comments are “moderated,” so I’ll approve your comment and then it should show up shortly.
1) A central question in interpreting the “Physician’s Tale” lies in deciding whether the killing of Virginia is a legitimate or illegitimate act of violence. A prerequisite for answering that question is deciding how the “legitimacy” of violence should be determined in the narrative. Like most interpretive questions worth answering, there is textual evidence on both sides, both for the propriety and impropriety of Virginia’s death. In your response, make an argument as to whether Virginius’s killing of his daughter is presented by the narrative as moral or immoral. Be sure to use evidence from the text to support your position.
2) In lines 240-1, at the highpoint of the story’s pathos and just before her death, Virginia makes an allusion to Jeptha’s daughter. To interpret the significance of this allusion, read the biblical story of Jeptha (Judges 11). How does this narrative intertext reflect and comment upon the relationship between Virginius and Virginia? What does it illuminate or bring into focus? What might it affect our interpretation of the “Physician’s Tale”?
3) The “Physician’s Tale” has a reputation for being unsatisfying to modern readers, not least because its individual parts are difficult to resolve into a coherent whole. Choose one incongruous or anomalous passage and give an account of how it should be interpreted in the context of the tale as a whole.
By the way, make sure to include your name in your post. Otherwise, if you're not signed in, I won't be able to tell who you are!
ReplyDeleteMorgan Chalfant
ReplyDeleteIn relief of the speaker’s description of Virginia, “This mayde, of which I wol this tale expresse,/ So kepte hirself hir neded no maistresse” (105-6), the following passage seems incongruous:
“And ye maistresses, in youre olde lyf,/ That lordes doghtres han in governaunce,/ Ne taketh of my wordes no displesaunce./ Thenketh that ye been set in governynges/ Of lordes doghtres oonly for two thynges:/ Outher for ye han kept youre honestee,/ Or elles ye han fall in freletee,/ And knowen wel ynough the olde daunce,/ And han forsaken fully swich meschaunce/ For everemo; therefore, for Cristes sake,/ To teche hem vertu looke that ye ne slake” (72-82)
The above passage seems particularly out of place because Virginia is not in need of such a maid to look after her. So, the statement of the passage of lines 72-82 is not qualified by Virginia’s characterization because she is not characterized as in need of a maid. Yet, because she is independently virtuous, Virginia chooses to die a virgin by her father’s hand instead of becoming shamed and corrupt by the hand of Apius. The inclusion of the passage spanning lines 72-82 enforces the need for daughters to value virtue, whether they are taught to do so by a maid or not, and therefore inexplicitly demonstrates the narrator’s approval of Virginia’s death because the death preserves her virtue.
I wonder if we could more broadly say that the entire discussion of the values of governesses seems out of place, given the absence of a governess in the story itself. The narrator does indeed describe Virginia as a girl so virtuous that she "neded no maistresse," but it also makes a pretty strong case for just having one around. The story is notably parched for female voices - although Virginius "a doghter hadde by his wyf" (5), and the text address "ye maistresses" (72), neither a wife nor a mistress appears in the story to object to the treatment of Virginia as a token of honor, rather than a person. Nature is characterized as female (11, 32, 34), the only maternal presence of any note. Sure, feminist thought wouldn't have had a proper vocabulary by Chaucer's time, but it seems that femininity ties into natural beauty (note Virginia's lengthy physical description as formed by nature, 10-38) and thence into natural, rather than learned, virtue (she has no mistress to teach her but still knows proper conduct, 39-65).
DeleteBy contrast, Apius is a patriarchal figure - a judge - who represents traditions of book learning and constructed authority. Even Virginius himself is ambivalently described. He is "fulfild of honour and of worthynesse" (3), but at this stage, "honour" was more of a social value than an intrinsic one - it clearly isn't honorable to behead a twelve-year-old girl to prevent another man from having her. I'm sure the events of the tale have precedent in parts of history, but I'm further willing to read the tale as Chaucer arguing for virtue as bred rather than learned, something bestowed by nature rather than earned or proved by acquired titles like "knight" or "justice." Ultimately, that learned virtue seems to fall to shambles in the face of simple, everyday lust.
Matt Richey
ReplyDeleteIn Judges 11, Jephthah, recently appointed leader of the Israelite armies, vows that, should he succeed in defeating the Ammonites, he will sacrifice, upon his return home, “whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me” (Judg 11.31). After his victory, though, he returns home only to be greeted by his daughter, whom he decides to sacrifice so as to honor his rash vow (Judg 11.34-40). Virginia, the sacrificial victim of the Physician’s Tale, invokes the story of Jephthah and his daughter in l. 240-241: “For, pardee, Jepte yaf his doghter grace/ For to compleyne, er he hir slow, allas!” The allusion’s context is a plea for time in which Virginia might lament her fate, a discursive attempt at taking ownership of a situation dominated by a seemingly omnipotent father, Virginius, and other masculine potentates. The reference illuminates the relative cruelty of Virginius, who, unlike Jephthah, does not allow his daughter even a period of mourning in which she might exercise her autonomy; see Judges 11.38: “He said, ‘Go!’ and he sent her away for two months. She and her companions went and mourned her virginity in the mountains.” The response of Virginius to Virginia’s pleas is elided, but we must assume, based on the laments and repeated swooning of the daughter (ll. 245, 253), that he remains committed to his purpose. Virginia’s allusion illustrates that she is aware of a precedent in which the father figure exhibits a far more compassionate demeanor than that of Virginius. She becomes, as a result, less of a willing victim and more of a desperate antagonist, trapped in a situation that she imagines to be against God’s will and more accurately characterized as “youre [Virginius’] wyl, a Goddes name!” (l. 250).
Christine Bertoglio
ReplyDeleteWhile the allusion to Jephtha’s daughter may be seen as a suggestion that Virginius’ killing of his daughter is rash and avoidable, the overall picture presented by “The Physician’s Tale” is one of a moral, legitimate killing. The tale begins by describing Virginius as “Fulfild of honour and of worthynesse” (3). Similarly, Virginia is “As wel in goost as body chast” (43) and “so prudent and so bountevous” (110). Virginius’ choice to kill her, while terrible and horrifying to him, is presented as a means of preserving her virtue and chastity and to prevent her from becoming a victim of sin. As an honorable knight, Virginius would naturally want to preserve his daughter’s honor. While Virginia is initially so terrified that she swoons, she rouses to exclaim, “‘Blissed be God that I shal dye a mayde! / Yif me my deeth, er that I have a shame’” (248-9). In this speech, Virginia recognizes that her death will keep her virtuous before God and will prevent sin from causing a greater downfall. Virginius’ motive is therefore just, as Virginia, a prudent and good maiden, recognizes.
Their contemporaries seem to agree. The people, who hasten to punish Apius and Claudius, do not punish Virginius for his actions and actually concede to Virginius’ wish that Claudius be exiled rather than hanged. Since Virginius is not censured for killing his daughter and does not seem to lose his public standing or good reputation, the implication is that the people condone his actions. The obvious question, of course, is why these people who hasten to oppose Apius’ order to hang Virginius did not intervene in Apius’ decision about Virginia or why Apius did not seek their assistance in opposing Apius and Claudius. This is perhaps the clearest parallel to Jephtha; Virginius decided rapidly how to handle the situation without investigating possible alternatives. Since Apius was clearly determined to have Virginia by whatever means necessary, perhaps Virginius acted quickly because he feared Apius’ treachery were he to publicly oppose him. Regardless, Virginius ensured that his daughter died with her chastity intact. Because of this, Virginia is an embodiment of the tale’s concluding moral; she forsook sin before it could forsake her (286).
Sean Hackel
ReplyDeleteThe killing of Virginia may be difficult to reconcile from a parental perspective. When Virginius returns home he calls his daughter “And with a face deed as asshen colde, / Upon hir humble face he gan biholde, / With fadres pitee stikynge thurgh his herte,” (209-211). Virginius is clearly distraught by the “deeth of shame” circumstance he must present to her. Confronted with the emotional Virginius and the seemingly absurd proposal he has for his daughter, the killing of Virginia appears to have no justification. However, the Tale does not solely read about a “father” and “daughter.”
Virginius addresses Virginia as “Doghter,” provoking sentiments of pity and grief over such an unfair circumstance. But he immediately remarks “Virginia, by thy name” (213). "Virginia" is "Virgin." We are to look beneath their roles as “human” father and daughter and focus on what they represent. The first 115 lines of the Tale are all dedicated to just how chaste and full of good Virginia is; the daughter of Virginius, a noble knight. What we have are the archetypes of the Knight and the Maiden as decedents of Virginity. The knight fought in honor of his name, Virgin, and his daughter embodied all that a Virgin was. Virginity defined their existence so when Appius, with the help of the sinister Claudius, threatened to shame Virginia there truly was no other choice but death. If Appius was to succeed in taking Virginia and “to make hire with hir body synne” she would effectively no longer be Virginia (138). Virginia had to physically die if her status of virginity was to be tainted. If virginity is taken, one is no longer a virgin. So the violence apparent in the Tale is a result of the personification of Virginity and the Lechery that tries to consume it. Killing Virginia was the only way to ensure the survival of her virginity
The Virginia’s purity and Appius’ corruption are at such odds with each other throughout “The Physician’s Tale” that the decision to preserve her honor (and ulitmately the family’s) makes it Virginius’ action a legitimate act of violence. The narrator’s tone emphasizes how the father reacts to the judge’s corruption and weighs his options because his daughter must be given away by force and afterwards she must live with an evil husband (204-206). The whole region adores her rare characteristics and her father also treasures her, admitting his love for his daughter by underlining that his actions are for her benefit (225). Chaucer describes how opposite Virginia is from Appius’ corruption, writing about how she is chaste in body in soul (43). Details of her tenderness weave through the narrative, making the reader sympathetic, “She bother hir armes layde/ Aboute his nekke, as she was wont to do” (232-233). Chaucer conveys the emotional connection between them with Virginia’s speech as she accepts her fate,“Blissed be God that I shal dye a myde!/ Yif me my deeth, er that I have a shame;/ Dooth with youre child youre wyl, a Goddes name!” (243-245). In the end, by preserving her purity that Greece’s best sculptors couldn’t even replicate (16), Virginius saves her from shame and later liberates the town from an unjust judge. Because she still dies with her purity intact and indirectly helps her town, Virginia’s death is a legitimate act of violence.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the speaker in the Physician's Tale frames Virginius' filicide as a morally justified act. However, because of the occasionaly confused, contradictory quality of the tale it is difficult to determine how worthy the speaker is as an assessor of virtue. It is certain that Virginia is an embodiment of virtue and maidenhood and that Appius is a sinful corrupter. The judge's ruling can be seen as an agent of this corruption as it binds Virginia to Appius. The moral crux of the tale obviously hinges on Virginius's decision to take his daughter's life. Although she likens his act to that of Japetha, she eventually assents to her own death, saying, "Blissed be God that I shal dye a mayde!" (247) While this serves as a simple justification for her father's action, it is possible that she too has been swept up by the cause of preserving honor and has been misled into accepting her own death. If she is dead, then who does it serve that her virtue has been preserved? Virginius' act as much meant to defend against the sin of other men (the judge and Appius) as it is to preserve Virginia's virtue. We can see how Virginia's beauty and virtue affect the Judge: "As she cam forby ther as this juge stood./Anon his herte chaunged and his mood, so was he caught with beautee of this mayde/ And to himself ful pryvely he sayde/ "This mayde shal be myn, for any man!"/ Anon the feend into his herte ran, And taughte hym sodeynly that he be slyghte/ The maiden to his purpose wynne myghte." (125-132) In preserving Virginia's virtue, Virginius thwarts the purpose of the Judge as well as Appius. This defense against the will of sin and evil is ultimately what justifies his action.
DeleteDonald Chang: The Physician’s Tale is a warning to stay away from sin, “Fosaketh synne, er synne yow forsake” (line 286). The judge Apius and his servant Claudius are sinners, of course; however, Virginius is a more complicated case. He is forced to kill his daughter, but the action itself is not presented as immoral. First of all, his daughter is objectified in the opening, a piece of art created by Nature, admittedly a beautiful piece of work, but a piece of work nonetheless, Nature can make another, “I, Nature, thus kan I forme and peynte a creature, whan that me list” (line 11-3). Then, his daughter recalls the biblical tale of Jepte, who sacrificed his own daughter to God. Now this story has been argued over, some believing that Jepte’s sacrifice went against God’s will, but the fact that Virginius sacrifices his own daughter, “For love, and nat for hate”, places his actions in a virtuous light (line 224). His name itself, Virginius, means purity, chastity, cleanliness; his actions could not be considered sullied with sin. And finally, the narrator claims the greatest sin, “tresons sovereyn pestilence” is when one “bitrayseth innocence” (line 91-2). That statement could be taken to describe Virginius’ actions, in taking her virgin life, but he slew her in order to preserve her chastity.
ReplyDeleteSin is definitely a huge theme in "The Physician's Tale". With Virginius's actions I saw parallels between the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Bible, only with the obvious difference that Virginius follows through with his action and takes his daughter's life. The story was extremely striking, as I initially thought Virginius was extremely foolish for taking his daughter's life to save her from a life with the lascivious judge. However, issues of honor arose. Virginius is described at the start as "fulfild of honour and worthynesse, and strong of freends." (3-4). As a knight he blatantly lives his life along the lines of an intense chivalric code. Sin is something he grapples with all the time. With the objectification of his daughter, his honor is put to the test. The main message I gathered from the tale was one may have to go to great lengths in order to combat sin, even if that means making a huge sacrifice.
DeletePersonally, I am confused as to why more scholarship is not devoted to this tale. It is a tale which takes no prisoners, and the Host "catches a cardynacle" (heart attack) afterward, and it's not hard to see why. It is violent and uncompromising, and not a fable at all.
Adam Parshall:
DeleteApologies for the lateness. Personally, I believe this is an incredibly strange tale and I am more than mildly glad that it was so short. In terms of the "legitimacy" of the death of Virginia, I believe discerning this comes down to a question of honor in this time period. From Chaucer's description of the Knight in the General Prologue, and from his description of Virginius here, it is safe to assume that he holds the "caste" of knights in very high regard. Therefore, Virginia, as the daughter of such a distinguished knight, would also be held in high regard, as evidenced by the Physician's description of her as well: "As wel in goost as body chast was she, For which she floured in virginitee With alle humylitee and abstinence, With alle attemperaunce and pacience, With mesure eek of beryng and array."(43-47, the entire description of Virginia goes from 30-71) In this respect then, since the virtue/honor/etc. of knights and their offspring are held in the highest regard, then, in Chaucer's eyes, and, perhaps, the eyes of others listening to this tale, it would be better and more noble for one to die, rather than to be victimized and humiliated by Appius and his cronies. The implication behind Appius' attempt to take Virginia for his own is that he would have raped her, a violent crime in and of itself. By her father killing her, he saved her from that humiliation. I believe that simply in the context of this tale and the time in which Chuacer was writing, this would legitimize the actions of Virginius. The want to preserve the chastity of Virginia, and leave her as a "perfect" individual without having her tainted by a victimizing crime, drove Chaucer to paint her death in a "moral" light. Personally, I think he could have written in a different outcome (perhaps Virginius heroically kills Appius, Claudius, and all the rest involved).
Reem Aboukhater
ReplyDeleteThis response attempts to answer the question as to whether the killing of Virginia is moral or immoral. I would like to posit that it was a moral killing, for the primary reason in which the notion of being a noble person is portrayed within the narrative. The opening lines of the tale read that the knight Virgnius was “Fulfld of honour and of worthyness” (line three). We can find evidence of Virgnius’ honor by looking at the nature of his daughter’s character and her depiction as a chaste and modest woman who preserves her virginity, avoids alcohol, and even escapes scenes in which folly may prevail. Thus, by killing Virginia, her father preserves her honor because were he to let her live and come under the command of the judge, then her honor would be compromised and her purity tarnished. The fact that her father killed her meant that he protected her and that she was able to die as the pure person she lived as, and not as one tainted and profaned. There are several references in the narrative to the Lord’s power and that He is the final judge (in contrast to the judge in the story who is a false judge). Virginia’s murder enables her to die as a pure person and thus be judged fondly by the Lord after her death.
Clare Higgins
DeleteI would have to agree with Reem as to the morality of the Virginius' killing. At first, after completing the tale, I couldn't fathom the legitimacy of his actions. I, of course, was thinking with a modern mind, which was exactly the problem. After reading these posts, I realize that at this time, it was in fact a purely moral act in the most moral sense possible. At this time, the very social constructions of morality and honor were quite different than what many of us respect today. For one, the strong and powerful were more revered and respected among the people, and Virginius displays this strength throughout the whole tale. The quote Reem mentioned is the first example, also followed by "And wolde have preeved it as sholde a knyght" (line193) and "whan this worthy knyght Virginius". As knights were respected in this time period, the constant repetition of "knight" and other words like "worthy," further prove his honor and morality. Of course, strength is still respected today, but not to the degree where we'd glorify a man who murdered his daughter to save her purity. Secondly, chastity and purity in women was certainly a constant concern. Today (in our culture at least), we don't stress the importance of this purity on our women with such urgency. Virginius' killing of his daughter was simply to save her soul--a reason that he truly believed in at the time. Blind and utter faith at this time period also differs than it does today. God was the supreme power, and his rules were set in stone. The people feared their God and their primary concerns and duties in their lifetime were meant to please him in hopes of being accepted into Heaven at their judgement. In Virginius' Medieval mind, this was his only option. The reason for life, for these individuals, was to prove their worthiness for the ultimate goal--heaven, so if Virginius' motives were merely meant to protect his daughter's soul without malice, then wouldn't that be considered the most moral of acts at this time?
Regarding the legitimacy or the illegitimacy of the violence committed against Virginia, her death at the hand of her father must be taken in context with the period and the audience to which Chaucer directed his work. As well, it must be recognized that this tale is drawn from the ancient Roman tradition: it is from this same tale that Shakespeare will draw his inspiration for Titus Andronicus, in which the title character kills his daughter after she has been raped and violently assaulted. Lavinia's death in Shakespeare and Virginia's death in Chaucer stem from the same issue of a woman's, and thus a family's, honor. A young woman was the representative of her family's honor: on her slender shoulders rested the reputation upon which a family could build themselves. As Virginius cries, "Ther been two weyes, outher deeth or shame, that tho most suffre; allas, that i was bore!" (lines 213-214) It is a situation of a rock and a hard place: which one would be a worse fate? For Virginius the choice is obvious: "Take thou thy deeth, for this is my sentence. For love, and nat for hate, thou most be deed."(lines 224-225) It is better for her to die an honorable virgin than to live her life sullied and shamed. Virginia herself recognizes this and submits herself to the judgment of her father. Her demise rings of a Christian martyrdom, for hagiography is scattered with tales of young women who died virgins for their faith, an element again that would have been familiar to Chaucer's audience. In this context, then, Virginia's death must be seen as a legitimate and moral act of violence, even if it appears illegitimate and horrifies our modern sensibilities.
ReplyDeleteIt does not surprise me that "The Physician's Tale" is considered rather unsatisfying for modern readers. It is a rapid tale that spends very little time hashing out characters and immediately gets into the murder of Virginia and the eventual exile of the King. Because the plot moves so quickly, it becomes rather difficult to follow thee story, especially in the beginning when the narrator digresses from the tale and instead laments on the acts of governesses within Chaucer's society. "And ye maistresses, in youre olde lyf,
DeleteThat lordes doghtres han in governaunce,
Ne taketh of my wordes no displesaunce;
Thenketh that ye been set in governynges
Of lordes doghtres, oonly for two thynges;"
It is so disjointed from the rest of the tale and doesn't seem to make much sense in a modern day context. The narrator discusses how thieves were known to steal venison and how a traitor is traitor, regardless of motive or ideals. This strange break from the action (only to be immediately thrown back into the swift-moving plot) is a main problem for contemporary readers.
The legitimacy of violence in the narrative appears to be imbedded within the law since a knight’s daughter can s easily be condemned to be the slave of another man.
ReplyDeleteThe killing of Virginia is undoubtedly a legitimate act of violence and this fact immediately becomes clear through Virginius’ actions upon returning home with the verdict, accompanied by his mournful claims: “For nevere thou deservedest wherfore/ To dyen with a swerd or with a knyf.” Considering that he must now, by means of trickery, condemn his own daughter to a life of lechery, it would be safe to assume that he isn’t thinking rationally. In his mind he has already committed to taking his daughter’s life but through his own words “O deere doghter, endere of my lyf” it’s his own life which no longer has meaning, significance, or purpose. However, any human being with a life they are charged to protect or guide, whether the child is theirs by blood or not, is going to act in the best interest of their young. As a father, Virginius believes he’s doing what would be best for her and if Virginia didn’t trust in him, would she not have argued? Instead, “bothe hir armes layde/ Aboute his nekke, as she was wont to do.”