In the end Silence appears to be rewarded for her loyalty. The king is actually fairly explicit in saying “Silence, know that you have saved yourself / by your loyal actions (6636-6637).” Loyalty thus is held in high virtue by the poem.
It is interesting that by remaining quiet Silence’s loyalty is displayed in contrast to the queen’s disloyalty. (Perhaps this suggests that silence itself can be revealing, as if silence is a nonverbal statement of sorts). When the poet discusses Queen Eufeme and her lover’s executions, her lover is referred to as the nun—even though in reality he is neither a nun nor even female. While this execution implies that both men and women are subject to loyalty and the consequences of disloyalty, the use of language (the reference to the man as “nun”) only seems to implicate and pass judgment women.
On the one hand, the praise of Silence and her loyalty seems to be positive for women. However, the poet outright says that doing the right thing comes unnaturally to women, making Silence a sort of anomaly. It is as if to say she is as brave valiant and loyal as a man, how bizarre.
The conclusion makes no straightforward judgment of men, rather men seem to be used as a comparison to the women. It is curious that while loyalty affects both women and men (the nun in this case) the men are left in the silence of the poet. The silence seems to suggest that men are inherently more loyal than women. This seems to be achieved through the indirect description of men (“a woman has less motivation” (6588)), by cues of being opposite of the women that the poet directly addresses. Therefore, silence again seems to make a statement.
I agree that the poet is often more explicitly critical of women in the poem, but I wonder how we should consider the treatment of the four rebellious counts, arguably some of the more disloyal characters in the story.
ReplyDeleteThe poet makes clear that their actions are wrong, saying: "But I want you to know that they were in the wrong / for the three counts and the count of Chester / wanted to usurp supreme power / from the king, who didn't care / to lose his rights illegitimately." (5406-5410). Still, the section that discusses the battle is largely free of those judgmental comments that Megan pointed out from other sections dealing with Eupheme. Could it be that because the counts' disloyalty is played out openly, upon the battlefield, rather than through lies, the poet feels it is somehow less treacherous?
I also agree that there isn't any direct criticism of men in Silence, but we can take positive descriptions of men to fill that role. Even if the poet is saying Silence "is as brave valiant and loyal as a man, how bizarre," - as Megan put it - he is saying that men are valiant and loyal. Can we take descriptions of individuals as judgments of the whole gender? In that way every description of Evan or Cador as just or wise can be a comment on men. Or can we only take comments about Silence being [insert advective here] as a man to fill that role? Where is the boundry of presumption when trying to figure out what Heldris means to say about men?
ReplyDelete