Sexual Deception II

            On Saturday morning since I’d gone to bed an hour early the night before I couldn’t sleep past 4:00. 

            I got to work an hour early on my essay and finished typing up all my handwritten notes. 

            At 9:30 I got sleepy again and went top bed for about an hour. 

            When I got up I made a copy of my typed text, named it “First draft” and then began chopping the original file down from about sixteen pages to three.

            In the late morning I went to bed again for half an hour. I don’t know if I was tired or if this damned paper just has me depressed. I’ve never spent so much time on such a short essay. 

            I started making it look more like an essay over the rest of the day. I added some stuff about Roman mythology but there still seems to be something missing to meet the requirement of how form influences content. 

            I sliced the bottom from a loaf of roasted garlic bread and used it for pizza crust. I had the pizza with a beer and continued working for an hour or so. 

            I went to bed at around 22:30. 

            Here’s the essay so far: 

            I told my lies to lie between your matchless thighs – Leonard Cohen

            Sexual Deception in Edmund Spenser’s The Fairy Queen 

            Comparing two cases of sexual deception in Edmund Spenser’s The Fairy Queen we find that both result in harm to their victims. In one the malicious Archimago fools the Red Cross knight. In the other the deceiver is the naive female knight Britomart, while her victim is the lascivious Lady Malecasta. Red Cross is seduced by the dream of a wedding presided over by Roman gods. Malecasta’s passions are also tempted by pagan love when she sees Britomart as her Adonis. But it is Britomart’s refusal to reveal her gender to curb Malecasta’s imitation of Venus that causes the Lady harm. Both of these situations teach us that sexual deception is a dangerous tool. 

            In Book 1 Red Cross is made to dream of lustful play, but it is the pagan imagery of the illusion that seduces him. A mirage of Una is beside him in bed and telling him that Cupid has made her want to satisfy her desires. It seems to him that Venus has delivered a flower crowned by Flora to him while Love’s handmaids, the Graces are singing the Hymn to Hymen. This Christian knight imagines that he is not a Christian and believes that he has married Una in a pagan ceremony. If this idea were truly offensive to him he would perceive it as a nightmare while having it, but he does not. 

            In Book 3 Britomart travels while posing as a male knight but her deception does not result in harm until she encounters the Lady Malecasta. When Britomart reveals her beautiful face she is perceived by Malecasta as a desirable young man. Much like Venus is drawn to Adonis in the story on Malecasta’s tapestries, she becomes enamoured with Britomart. 

            It is said that for Malecasta love is coal for igniting a larger fire in the flesh. That she relinquishes the control of her body to her appetites so that like an unruly horse it tramples her honest name. Later the Lady begins to be called Malecasta as if her behaviour caused her name to be changed. But to be “Unchaste” as Malecasta’s name indicates is not in itself dishonest. Britomart’s chastity has led her to be more dishonesty than Malecasta. She is not only generous but also honest and certainly not deceptive. The Lady is lustful but not evil like Archimago. We are told that true love always inspires honour to perform generous deeds. But Malecasta shows herself to be generous and honest, which are honourable attributes. Her actions do less harm than Britomart’s sexual deception. 

            Britomart’s lack of protest is taken as an invitation. If she had made her objections clear then Malecasta would not have come to her bed. 

            Malecasta is said to have false eyes and yet she makes her sexual desires obvious and speaks honestly about them. But Britomart in pretending not to know her meaning is being deceptive and showing more falsity than Malecasta. There is a contradiction in saying that Malecasta is false even though she willingly conveys her meaning. The narrator means false in the sense of being morally wrong rather than being objectively untruthful. Her behaviour is not “ladylike” in the way that ladies are expected to behave in noble English society but there is nothing harmful or malicious about it.

            Britomart would not let herself know the meaning of Malecasta’s glances. She deceives herself by pretending not to know. “Would not” shows that she applies her will to not knowing. The Lady tries to compel Britomart to remove her armour. She declines because she needs it to continue her sexual deception and shun her true appearance. The lady again reveals her feelings while Britomart maintains deception. 

            Malecasta gently slides into bed and under the covers with Britomart. She is making herself available to Britomart by being there when she wakes. Since she had not rejected her declarations of desire at dinner it is reasonable for her to have assumed that Britomart was sexually interested in her.

            Britomart attacks because she feels her chastity is threatened. But is a woman a threat to her chastity? Britomart is angry with this lecherousness only after it had approached her in bed. But both she and Malecasta are mistaken. Britomart thought that a man had come into her bed while Malecasta thought she had come to a man’s bed. Would she have been as angry if she had known from the start that it was a woman? 

            It is Malecasta who is the victim here. She is threatened by the angry Britomart, is overwhelmed and faints. Is it the threat of attack or the fact that she discovers she had made advances on a woman?