I think one effect of that passage is to make the current characters more "real" in comparison to the myth, moving from epic primordial time back to the "present," even if the present is 500 years ago.
Great close read! And a technique to keep in mind.
That’s a great point, David. Mantel’s present tense and the logistics of daily life make for a startlingly real contrast with the unreality of the pseudo-history.
Yes, I think that is certainly implied--the idea, as Chaucer’s Chaunticleer exclaims (and then mistranslates): “mulier est hominis confusio,” or “woman is man’s ruin.”
John,
I think one effect of that passage is to make the current characters more "real" in comparison to the myth, moving from epic primordial time back to the "present," even if the present is 500 years ago.
Great close read! And a technique to keep in mind.
Best,
David
That’s a great point, David. Mantel’s present tense and the logistics of daily life make for a startlingly real contrast with the unreality of the pseudo-history.
Is she hinting that much mythology is based around women’s role in man’s downfall (Eve, Pandora, […], Anne Boleyn etc.)
...and as you say, the misogynistic roots of that.
Yes, I think that is certainly implied--the idea, as Chaucer’s Chaunticleer exclaims (and then mistranslates): “mulier est hominis confusio,” or “woman is man’s ruin.”