a thousand years of crooked teeth

His 20th sonnet seems relatively clear for the first few lines.  His subject, whoever she is, posesses the usual classic beauty and a gentle, honest heart as well as a brighter eye than any other that gilds “the object upon which it gazeth”.  However, the turn is confusing, even to the point I cannot be sure he’s speaking of the same subject.  Apparently he begins speaking of a man who in every form “steals men’s eyes” and women’s souls.  He then writes that “for a woman” was his new subject (or perhaps the old) created, until nature became infatuated as she made him/ her.  Here he seems to treat nature like a jealous interloper, blaming nature for stealing his subject from him.  Even though, he states, his love belongs to his subject, “it” doesn’t reciprocate, instead having been stolen by nature for women’s use.  It’s clear the author is frustrated, but he doesn’t make it clear what about.  Indeed something has been “stolen” from him, but he never exactly explains what that is.

Writing in a sea of anti-feminist literature it’s interesting that Chaucer gave the Wife of Bath such a strong voice and individual character.  She’s almost impossibly opposite of any feminine precept of the time, being in so much contradiction to everything that it’s almost difficult to find her core character.  A ruthless power-seeker, she never backs down unless actually given power, when she retreats into such obedience as to suffer a beating without a word.  Though she seems the least able candidate to give marital advice, she’s actually the best at it.  As a result she’s one of Chaucer’s most believable characters, especially in such a setting.  “Proper” ladies like the nun simply seem out of place among other characters like the miller, but a feminine counterpart to a heavy-handed drunken laborer makes the cast even more dynamic.  She also provides a brudge between the two social strata, being able on one hand to drink & talk like the men while simultaneously giving sage advice to the women.

Admittedly it would be difficult for those listening or reciting the tale of Beowulf to sit quietly until the end instead of taking to an iron shield and broadsword with which to slay a dragon or two of their own.  Written first as entertainment and second as a method of preserving and glorifying the past, the story presents an ironic warning against hero culture as well.  Beowulf, able to keep peace onyl through superhuman strength and character dies alone leaving behind a vacuum filled instantly by war.  Instead of the tale concluding by way of a peaceful resolve, attacks & wars erupt, negating any political good Beowulf may have done.  Even his own kingdom for which he purchased security and fortune with his life refuses his gifts, instead burying it alongside their king.  In case such a subtle precaution wasn’t enouh, the poet warns in line 3077 of what heroes leave behind when they travel to face their enemies, begging the question of what is more important.  Even if the hero triumphs, which Beowulf did, there is no guarantee of survival and upon death he leaves those he cares about most more vulnerable than before.