Among the Pilgrims in Geoffrey Chaucer
Content
Among the Pilgrims in Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales The Wife of Bath is one of the most amusing and memorable. In her prologue she boasts of how she has had five husbands, over whom she has gained dominance, and the tale she tells, as well as the arguments she puts forward in her prologue, serve to reinforce in principle what she has achieved in practice.
The Wife of Bath's Prologue
Chaucer had a remarkable gift, particularly considering the literary norms of the age in which he was writing, for creating life-like characters. When we read The Wife of Bath's Prologue we are given the impression of being spoken to by a real person. The Wife has a forceful personality with her own idiosyncrasies and prejudices, and the length of her prologue is in itself an indication of her egocentricity and love of gossip. Her prologue is a frank autobiographical confession, with which she entertains the other pilgrims on the journey to Canterbury, the actual arguments she puts forward being secondary to the revelation of her opinions and personal experience. If we look to her narrative for clear and logical reasoning we will be disappointed; we can, however, admire the skill with which she attempts to persuade the listeners with her own individual and forceful style of argument. The other pilgrims will be impressed by her as an entertaining orator, even if not as a philosopher, moralist, or theologian. We, and they, are also impressed by her frankness and honesty (at least, on this pilgrimage, even if not in her private life) and by the audacity and forthrightness of her character. Her constant theme, along with that of marriage, is experience - the actual experience of living - as opposed to how any authorities might deem that we 'ought' to live. Experience, though noon auctoritee Were in this world, is right ynogh for me To speke of wo that is in mariage (1-3)* Some of her arguments, however, could be said to be valid as well as entertaining. The first two subjects she deals with are the right to marry more than once, and the right to have sexual relationships purely for pleasure. On these points she is arguing against the medieval Catholic church which proclaimed that one should not marry more than once, that the sexual act should be reserved only for the production of children in marriage, and that it was praiseworthy to remain a virgin. The Wife argues on the Church's own ground, that of biblical interpretation, and her arguments seem valid. On marriage: I woot wel Abraham was an hooly man, And Jacob eek, as ferforth as I kan; And ech of hem hadde wives mo than two, And many another holy man also. Wher can ye seye, in any manere age, That hye God defended mariage By express word? I pray yow telleth me. (55-61)
And on virginity: Or where comanded he virginitee? I woot as wel as ye, it is no drede, Th'apostel, whan he speketh of maidenhede, He seyde that precept therof hadde he noon. Men may conseille a womman to been oon, But conseilling is no comandement. He putte it in oure owene juggement. (62-8) But, reasonable as her points may be, it is not the arguments in themselves which impress us but the fact that she is cheerfully and without guilt living what many would have called a life of sin, while confidently proclaiming that she knows more about what should and should not be done in life than one of the most powerful authorities in the land. We may see her as living life according to her personal philosophy, or as living according to her whims then devising her philosophy as justification. Either way, she gains the admiration generally accorded to people who have the courage to make their own decisions and live according to them, rather than submissively accepting the edicts of an authority. Many of her arguments, however, are unconvincing, and distort the truth. For instance, she refers to St. Paul to the Corinthians: I have the power duringe al my lyf Upon his propre body, and noght he. Right thus the Apostel tolde it unto me; (158-60) This is supposedly an argument to support her claim: An housbonde I wol have, I wol nat lette, Which shal be bothe my dettour and my thral, (154-5) The reference is not inaccurate, but it has been deliberately distorted to suit her purpose - she neglects to say that the husband has equal rights over her body. Later in her prologue she presents two incompatible arguments side by side. First: Thou sholdest seye, 'Wyf, go wher thee liste; Taak youre disport, I wol nat leve no talis. I knowe yow for a trewe wyf, dame Alis'. (318-20) Then, a few lines later: He is to greet a nigard that wolde werne A man to lighte a candle at his lanterne; He shal have never the lasse light, pardee. (333-5) Having argued that her husband should trust her to be faithful, she now argues that her husband should not resent her having casual relations with other men.
If it were not for the good-humoured audacity with which she puts forward these arguments we would dismiss them, and her, as ridiculous. She has the persuasive art of a salesman, and even uses the imagery and diction of selling when talking about her 'wares' and about her attitude to and in marriage. Winne whoso may, for al is for to selle (414) She makes use of several rhetorical techniques to put her points forcibly. In addition to manipulating authoritative texts, as illustrated above, she often puts forward the husband's supposed arguments against her in order to demolish them on her own terms. The points she accuses the husband of making were standard complaints against women taken from a text on marriage by the Greek philosopher Theophrastus (370-285 BC), which was a frequently-used source of material for mediaeval satires on women. She argues, for example: Thou seist to me it is a greet meschief To wedde a povre womman, for costage; And if that she be riche, of heigh parage, Thanne seistow that it is a tormentrie To soffre hire pride and hire malencolie. (248-52) She also accuses him of having said all this while drunk, thus making it impossible for the husband to deny it. Thou comest hoom as dronken as a mous, And prechest on thy bench, with ivel preef! (246-7) Another rhetorical technique she uses is to involve the audience in the argument, with phrases such as: Wher can ye seye . . . (59) . . . I pray yow, telleth me. (61) Telle me also . . . (115) . . . say ye no? (123) The implication of such phrases is that if no one can disagree, she must be right. She also wins agreement by implicitly flattering those who agree. For example: A wys womman wol bisie hire evere in oon (209) Ye wise wives, that kan understonde. (225) This knoweth every womman that is wys. (524) These asides imply that any woman who agrees with her must be wise, and thus, implicitly, any who disagree must be foolish. Another example of her manipulative flattery is:
Oon of us two moste bowen, doutelees; And sith a man is moore resonable Than womman is, ye moste been suffrable. (440-2) By this argument the husband has a choice: either he submits to her, or his reason must be impaired. The Wife's rhetorical techniques, however unscrupulous, achieve the desired results. The listeners cannot put forward immediate counter-arguments, and if we imagine her in the dramatic situation of speaking to the husband, then by the time he will have realised the fallacy of her argument and thought up a response she will have put forward half a dozen more arguments. She compensates for her lack of integrity with cunning and speed, getting her way by exasperating her opponent. The Wife is far more than a comic caricature; she had depth, and her human sensitivity is revealed in a number of ways. If we were to think that she was unaware of her faults, and unable to examine and know herself, we would be far less impressed by her than is the case, but there is ample evidence to suggest that beneath her boisterous and bawdy exterior she is an intelligent responsible woman. In a passage showing that she has self-knowledge, she confesses to her own deceitfulness, and claims that her manipulative methods are part of a gift from God which all women share. For al swich wit is yeven us in oure birthe; Deceite, weping, spinning God hath yive To wommen kindly, whil that they may live. (400-2) If it were not for her capacity for detachment her account would be humourless and selfcondemning, but she knows what she is doing and takes responsibility for her actions. She knows that not everyone will look upon her attitudes and behaviour favourably: But Crist, that of perfeccion is welle . . . (107) ... Spak to hem that wolde live parfitly; And lordinges, by youre leve, that am nat I. (112-3) O Lord! the peyne I dide hem and the wo, Ful giltelees, by Goddes sweet pine! For as an hors I koude bite and whine. I koude pleyne, and yit was in the gilt! (384-7) We are reminded that she is only human and in the same mortal boat as the rest of us by the pathos of the following passage, in which she confronts the unwelcome fact of ageing with a characteristically spirited attitude: But, Lord Crist! whan that it remembreth me Upon my yowthe, and on my jolitee, It tikleth me aboute myn herte roote (469-71) ... But age, allas that al wole envenime,
Hath me biraft my beautee and my pith. Lat go, farewel; the devel go therwith! (474-6) Finally, if we still feel any tendency to condemn her, we must remember that she makes it clear that, at the time of speaking, her chief aim is to entertain: As taketh not agrief of that I seye; For myn entente is not but for to pleye. (191-2)
The Wife of Bath's Tale
The tale told by The Wife of Bath, although it has a more serious and moral tone than her prologue, is in many ways a continuation of her prologue, the story and the way in which it is told being dominated by her personality, attitudes, and beliefs. The most obvious connecting link between the prologue and tale is the common theme - the sovereignty of women in marriage. In her prologue The Wife describes how she has devoted much of her life to living up to her unshakeable decision: An housbonde I wol have, I wol nat lette, Which shal be bothe my dettour and my thral (154-5) She uses her tale to extend this idea from being a personal preference, and a maxim to be followed by 'every womman that is wys' (524) to a universal truth. The knight of her tale is set the task of finding: What thing is it that wommen moost desiren. (905) When he gives his answer to a supreme court of women, headed by the queen, there is no disagreement at all: Wommen desiren to have sovereinetee As wel over hir housbond as hir love, And for to been in maistrie him above. (1038-40) In al the court ne was ther wyf, ne maide, Ne widwe, that contraried that he saide, (1043-4) The fact that the knight's life is in the hands of the queen rather than the king is in itself a sign that the tale is a product of The Wife's imagination. King Arthur has condemned the knight to death, according to the law of the land, and yet in response to the pleas of the queen and other women, . . . yaf him to the queene, al at hir wille, To chese wheither she wolde him save or spille (897-8) Thus even The King of England is subject to his wife. The Wife uses her tale as a vehicle for her own views, and often she leaves the tale altogether and resumes the self-centred theme and colloquial style of her prologue. She lists all the
alternative answers the knight received to his question, the list including everything which, in her prologue, she has shown that she demands from a marriage as well as 'sovereinetee'. Somme seyde wommen loven best richesse, Somme seyde honour, somme seyde jolinesse Somme riche array, somme seyden lust abedde, And oftetime to be widwe and wedde. (925-8) ... And somme seyen that we loven best For to be free, and do right as us lest, (935-6) Her inclusion of herself with 'we', and the unusual inclusion of 'oftetime to be widwe and wedde' make it clear that this is The Wife's own interpolation, beyond the requirements of the tale. Digressions are a characteristic of both the prologue and the tale. At one point in her prologue she says, Now wol I speken of my fourthe housbonde (452) She immediately launches into a digression about her youth, then about thirty lines later tries to return to her original subject: Now wol I tellen of my fourthe housbonde (480) She loses track of her theme again, but finally returns to it with: But now, sire, lat me se, what I shal seyn? A ha! by God, I have my tale ageyn. (585-6) The same colloquial discursive style carries through to her tale. At one point The Wife abandons the tale of the knight to tell us Ovid's tale of Midas and his asses ears. This digression is in support of her statement: Pardee, we wommen konne no thing hele (950) (By God, we women can conceal nothing) which is in itself a digression from the tale. The fact that The Wife relates Ovid's tale inaccurately is also in keeping with the prologue, in which she makes a misleading reference to St. Paul's pronouncements on the mutual rights of partners in marriage. We know from the prologue that she has gained most of her 'learning' via her fifth husband, Jankin, a former Oxford clerk. In view of Jankin's enthusiasm for antifeminist literature it is likely that he had distorted Ovid's tale in relating it to his wife, by making Midas's wife the traitor instead of his barber. The Wife digresses from her tale after the first half dozen or so lines to air her views on another subject close to her heart, 'limitours and othere hooly freres' (866). Her grievances against the church are many. The church's solemn repressive attitude towards sex, and most
other forms of enjoyment, conflict strongly with her robust hedonism. In the prologue she exclaims Allas, allas, that evere love was sinne! (614) The church was also responsible for the dissemination of anti-feminist literature and attitudes, and here The Wife, an arch-feminist, is in direct conflict. For trusteth wel, it is an impossible That any clerk wol speke good of wives, (688-9) Also, in the dramatic context The Friar has just made a rude comment about the length of her prologue, and with this comment she is rebuking him. If we turn to the character of the Loathly Lady of The Wife's tale, we find some differences between her and The Wife, and some similarities. The main characteristic they have in common is the wish to dominate their husbands. There is also a marked similarity in their tactics for achieving this goal. Both make their husbands suffer, and both use the persuasive techniques of argument. Both also draw upon authorities in support of their arguments; The Wife from The Bible, Ovid, and many others, and The Loathly Lady from Dante and Seneca. The plight of The Wife's first three husbands, of whom she says, As help me God, I laughe whan I thinke How pitously a-night I made hem swinke! (201-2) is not much better than that of the knight, who, on his wedding night, He walweth and he turneth to and fro. His olde wyf lay smilinge everemo, (1085-6) Just as, in the prologue, The Wife puts up the husband's assumed complaints against her, putting him in the wrong, and knocking his arguments down one by one, so the Loathly Lady puts up the knight's objections. Thou art so loothly, and so oold also, And therto comen of so lough a kinde (1100-1) She adds the fault of being poor, not even mentioned by the knight, and by pseudo-logic presents the faults as virtues. Both women succeed in gaining the submission of their partners for the same reason - the husbands are so frustrated and exasperated that they give in to get some peace. No amount of logical argument from the Loathly Lady could really allay the knight's feeling of revulsion for an ugly old woman. The chief difference in the approach of the two wives is that whereas The Wife argues almost entirely on personal grounds, The Loathly Lady argues to a large extent on the more objective and moralistic grounds of living up to the claim of 'Nobility', the true source of which was a much discussed subject in the middle ages. On one level we can assume that Chaucer has introduced this theme for the edification of his audience, but it is also likely that The Wife has
included this serious subject into her relatively light-hearted prologue and tale in order to comply with The Host's original request in The General Prologue for, Tales of best sentence and moost solaas (800) In her prologue The Wife demonstrates herself to be an intelligent woman, and good at dissembling. At the funeral of her fourth husband, for example, she acts the part of the grieving widow, so she would undoubtedly be able to act out the serious tone necessary for the Loathly Lady's 'Nobility' argument. Putting herself in the role of The Loathly Lady also serves The Wife's purpose of championing the cause of women, in that to subjugate a knight and prove him to be ignoble would be a greater achievement than the real life subjugation of her first three elderly, feeble, husbands, and it is achieved by a more acceptable means than her childish deceitful attack on Jankin. In this way, and in the final transformation of The Loathly Lady into a beautiful young woman, the tale can be seen as a wish-fulfilment on the part of The Wife. Thus The Wife's tale is more than appropriate to the prologue; it is essential that we know the character of The Wife through her prologue before we can fully make sense of the tale. If we were to read the tale without having read the prologue we might ask such questions as: Why is a seemingly courtly tale starting off with rape? Why so many digressions? Why the attack on 'limitours'? Why is Arthur's court ruled by women? Especially odd would seem the sudden change of tone and strong language in the final lines: . . . Jhesu Crist us sende Housbondes meeke, yonge, and fressh abedde, And grace t'overbide hem that we wedde; And eek I praye Jhesu shorte hir lives That wol nat be governed by hir wives; And olde and angry nigards of dispence, God sende hem soone verray pestilence! (1258-64) But, knowing The Wife of Bath, these things come as no surprise at all.
Character Analysis
In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Chaucer opens with a description of twenty-nine people who are going on a pilgrimage. Each person has a distinct personality that we can recognize from the way people behave today. He purposely makes The Wife of Bath stand out more compared to the other characters. In Chaucer¶s ³General Prologue,´ the Wife of Bath is intentionally described in an explicit way to provoke a shocking response. Her clothes, physical features and references to her past are purposely discussed by Ch aucer causing the reader to wonder how well she fits the rules imposed by Christian authorities regarding womanly behavior. Women were categorized as
saints or sinners by their actions according to Christian tradition. There were two women who represented the sinner or the saint. Eve caused the downfall of all men ³ supposedly´ whereas the Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ, symbolized purity. The Wife of Bath is a headstrong bold woman of her time. She shows off her Sunday clothes with evident pride, wearing ten pounds of cloth, woven by herself under her hat.Her clothing symbolizes to the reader that she is not timid or shy and also shows off her expertise as a weaver.. Chaucer discusses his words to describe the Wife quite distinctly. His descriptions of her facial and bodily features are sexually suggestive. The features that Chaucer pays attention to describing Alison should be noticed. In the ³General Prologue,´ Chaucer's description involves her physical appearance describing her clothes, legs, feet, hi ps, and most importantly her gap-tooth, which during that time (according to The Wife), symbolized sensuality and lust. He discusses how she is a talented weaver and devoted Christian who goes on pilgrimages often. This may make the reader believe that she is a religious woman, but the reader later sees that the Wife's reason to go on these pilgrimages is not due to religion. She feels that every place should be seen; this has nothing to due with religion. She may also be dedicated traveller, a medieval tou rist who likes to sight see. She is a very self-confident woman who thinks highly of herself and her skills as a cloth maker. The ironic part is when Chaucer adds that she has a gap between her teeth. During the fourteenth century, having a gap between the teeth was symbolic of a sensual nature. She is more interested in love than anything that has do with homemaking. He also emphasizes that she had ³Housbondes at chirche dore she hadde five´ (Norton 92), which meant that she has been married five times. She is also described as knowing all the " remedies of love" (Norton 92), since she is so experienced with men. One other important element in the portrayal of the Wife is that she is deaf in one ear. In both ³The Wife of Bath¶s Prologue´ and ³Tale,´ the Wife of Bath discusses marriage, virginity, and most importantly the question of sovereignty. In the ³Wife of Bath's Tale,´ Alison is suggesting control that women should have. She is a strong-willed and dominant woman who herself gets what she wants when she wants it. She cannot accept defeat no matter what the cost. She feels that this is the way things should be and men should obey her. She should not be controlled or told what to do by others, especially by a man. She displays a very sick and power -thirsty attitude when she says, ³In wifhood wol I use myn instrument as freely as my Makere hath it sent. If I be dangerous, God yive me sorwe: myn housbonder shal it han both eve and morwe whan that him list come forth and pay his dette. An housbonde wol I have, I wol nat lette, which shal be bother my dettour and mt thral, and have his tribulacion withal upon his flesh whil that I am his wif´ (Norton 120). She is boldly saying that she wants to use her "instrument" or body as a weapon and that she owns her husband, who owes her. Since she is his wife she feels he should bow to
her. Even this modern day, Alison¶s attitude disgusts me. I, as a woman, no matter how bad men are, would claim that a man should be a woman¶s slave. The Wife of Bath believes that experience is the greatest authority, and since she has been married five times, she certainly considers herself an authority on the. It is ironic to see the even though is not religious but, she uses the Bible as justification to pardon her behavior. The Wife discusses her lives with her five husbands. She also discusses about how she had control over four of her husbands saying ³I governed hem so wel after my lawe, (Norton 122) which indicates that she governed them according to her law or her way. Later on, she says ³For God it woot, I chidde hem spitously (Norton122). She claims that she is doing this for a God. She is a woman in thirst of attention, not only sexually, but as a person as well. It upsets her when her fifth husband, a clerk, is more interested in books than he was in her. When she does not establish supremacy over her fifth husband it seems to excite her because she seems to like challenges. While he is reading a collection of stories about how bad women are she snatches the book and rips some pages out. This instantly heats up her husband, and he hits her. This is how she becomes deaf. She pretends to be dead trying to make him feel guilty. Her concern here is not to make him understand what he has dones is wrong, but to use her helplessness as away of achieving power and authority over him, which she ultimatley gains. Alison is not a woman who cares about changing the world for the benefit of other women who are subordinate to men. She is not a feminist fighting for the rights of all women. She claims to know what pleasures men because she is experienced. She believes in giving men what they desire, which is sexual pleasure from her. This proves that she is not fighting for liberation of women. This is definitely a non-feministic view. She is using sex to manipulate men just as men do to women because she openly is saying that she will give herself to the man. She definatley stands for sexual freedom. Giving in to the man's desire goes against feministic beliefs. Alison has a choice of not givin g in to the man, but she decides to let the man attain his sexual pleasure for his desire not hers because she has experienced sex before and she knows how much men enjoy it. This quotation obviously goes against feminist beliefs, confusing the reader. At first the reader might think that she is trying to win women freedom and liberation. She herself says that women are the cause of men's suffering. Her reasons are selfish filled with greed of sex and control on all men. I cannot in any sense relate to a person like her because she is an extremely selfish, power-hungry, and immoral woman. Her whole character focuses on her craving for sex and her urge to give men pleasures through sex. Even in a modern society today, no person will feel her actions are justified.
The Wife of Bath's Prologue
Chaucer had a remarkable gift, particularly considering the literary norms of the age in which he was writing, for creating life-like characters. When we read The Wife of Bath's Prologue we are given the impression of being spoken to by a real person. The Wife has a forceful personality with her own idiosyncrasies and prejudices, and the length of her prologue is in itself an indication of her egocentricity and love of gossip. Her prologue is a frank autobiographical confession, with which she entertains the other pilgrims on the journey to Canterbury, the actual arguments she puts forward being secondary to the revelation of her opinions and personal experience. If we look to her narrative for clear and logical reasoning we will be disappointed; we can, however, admire the skill with which she attempts to persuade the listeners with her own individual and forceful style of argument. The other pilgrims will be impressed by her as an entertaining orator, even if not as a philosopher, moralist, or theologian. We, and they, are also impressed by her frankness and honesty (at least, on this pilgrimage, even if not in her private life) and by the audacity and forthrightness of her character. Her constant theme, along with that of marriage, is experience - the actual experience of living - as opposed to how any authorities might deem that we 'ought' to live. Experience, though noon auctoritee Were in this world, is right ynogh for me To speke of wo that is in mariage (1-3)* Some of her arguments, however, could be said to be valid as well as entertaining. The first two subjects she deals with are the right to marry more than once, and the right to have sexual relationships purely for pleasure. On these points she is arguing against the medieval Catholic church which proclaimed that one should not marry more than once, that the sexual act should be reserved only for the production of children in marriage, and that it was praiseworthy to remain a virgin. The Wife argues on the Church's own ground, that of biblical interpretation, and her arguments seem valid. On marriage: I woot wel Abraham was an hooly man, And Jacob eek, as ferforth as I kan; And ech of hem hadde wives mo than two, And many another holy man also. Wher can ye seye, in any manere age, That hye God defended mariage By express word? I pray yow telleth me. (55-61)
And on virginity: Or where comanded he virginitee? I woot as wel as ye, it is no drede, Th'apostel, whan he speketh of maidenhede, He seyde that precept therof hadde he noon. Men may conseille a womman to been oon, But conseilling is no comandement. He putte it in oure owene juggement. (62-8) But, reasonable as her points may be, it is not the arguments in themselves which impress us but the fact that she is cheerfully and without guilt living what many would have called a life of sin, while confidently proclaiming that she knows more about what should and should not be done in life than one of the most powerful authorities in the land. We may see her as living life according to her personal philosophy, or as living according to her whims then devising her philosophy as justification. Either way, she gains the admiration generally accorded to people who have the courage to make their own decisions and live according to them, rather than submissively accepting the edicts of an authority. Many of her arguments, however, are unconvincing, and distort the truth. For instance, she refers to St. Paul to the Corinthians: I have the power duringe al my lyf Upon his propre body, and noght he. Right thus the Apostel tolde it unto me; (158-60) This is supposedly an argument to support her claim: An housbonde I wol have, I wol nat lette, Which shal be bothe my dettour and my thral, (154-5) The reference is not inaccurate, but it has been deliberately distorted to suit her purpose - she neglects to say that the husband has equal rights over her body. Later in her prologue she presents two incompatible arguments side by side. First: Thou sholdest seye, 'Wyf, go wher thee liste; Taak youre disport, I wol nat leve no talis. I knowe yow for a trewe wyf, dame Alis'. (318-20) Then, a few lines later: He is to greet a nigard that wolde werne A man to lighte a candle at his lanterne; He shal have never the lasse light, pardee. (333-5) Having argued that her husband should trust her to be faithful, she now argues that her husband should not resent her having casual relations with other men.
If it were not for the good-humoured audacity with which she puts forward these arguments we would dismiss them, and her, as ridiculous. She has the persuasive art of a salesman, and even uses the imagery and diction of selling when talking about her 'wares' and about her attitude to and in marriage. Winne whoso may, for al is for to selle (414) She makes use of several rhetorical techniques to put her points forcibly. In addition to manipulating authoritative texts, as illustrated above, she often puts forward the husband's supposed arguments against her in order to demolish them on her own terms. The points she accuses the husband of making were standard complaints against women taken from a text on marriage by the Greek philosopher Theophrastus (370-285 BC), which was a frequently-used source of material for mediaeval satires on women. She argues, for example: Thou seist to me it is a greet meschief To wedde a povre womman, for costage; And if that she be riche, of heigh parage, Thanne seistow that it is a tormentrie To soffre hire pride and hire malencolie. (248-52) She also accuses him of having said all this while drunk, thus making it impossible for the husband to deny it. Thou comest hoom as dronken as a mous, And prechest on thy bench, with ivel preef! (246-7) Another rhetorical technique she uses is to involve the audience in the argument, with phrases such as: Wher can ye seye . . . (59) . . . I pray yow, telleth me. (61) Telle me also . . . (115) . . . say ye no? (123) The implication of such phrases is that if no one can disagree, she must be right. She also wins agreement by implicitly flattering those who agree. For example: A wys womman wol bisie hire evere in oon (209) Ye wise wives, that kan understonde. (225) This knoweth every womman that is wys. (524) These asides imply that any woman who agrees with her must be wise, and thus, implicitly, any who disagree must be foolish. Another example of her manipulative flattery is:
Oon of us two moste bowen, doutelees; And sith a man is moore resonable Than womman is, ye moste been suffrable. (440-2) By this argument the husband has a choice: either he submits to her, or his reason must be impaired. The Wife's rhetorical techniques, however unscrupulous, achieve the desired results. The listeners cannot put forward immediate counter-arguments, and if we imagine her in the dramatic situation of speaking to the husband, then by the time he will have realised the fallacy of her argument and thought up a response she will have put forward half a dozen more arguments. She compensates for her lack of integrity with cunning and speed, getting her way by exasperating her opponent. The Wife is far more than a comic caricature; she had depth, and her human sensitivity is revealed in a number of ways. If we were to think that she was unaware of her faults, and unable to examine and know herself, we would be far less impressed by her than is the case, but there is ample evidence to suggest that beneath her boisterous and bawdy exterior she is an intelligent responsible woman. In a passage showing that she has self-knowledge, she confesses to her own deceitfulness, and claims that her manipulative methods are part of a gift from God which all women share. For al swich wit is yeven us in oure birthe; Deceite, weping, spinning God hath yive To wommen kindly, whil that they may live. (400-2) If it were not for her capacity for detachment her account would be humourless and selfcondemning, but she knows what she is doing and takes responsibility for her actions. She knows that not everyone will look upon her attitudes and behaviour favourably: But Crist, that of perfeccion is welle . . . (107) ... Spak to hem that wolde live parfitly; And lordinges, by youre leve, that am nat I. (112-3) O Lord! the peyne I dide hem and the wo, Ful giltelees, by Goddes sweet pine! For as an hors I koude bite and whine. I koude pleyne, and yit was in the gilt! (384-7) We are reminded that she is only human and in the same mortal boat as the rest of us by the pathos of the following passage, in which she confronts the unwelcome fact of ageing with a characteristically spirited attitude: But, Lord Crist! whan that it remembreth me Upon my yowthe, and on my jolitee, It tikleth me aboute myn herte roote (469-71) ... But age, allas that al wole envenime,
Hath me biraft my beautee and my pith. Lat go, farewel; the devel go therwith! (474-6) Finally, if we still feel any tendency to condemn her, we must remember that she makes it clear that, at the time of speaking, her chief aim is to entertain: As taketh not agrief of that I seye; For myn entente is not but for to pleye. (191-2)
The Wife of Bath's Tale
The tale told by The Wife of Bath, although it has a more serious and moral tone than her prologue, is in many ways a continuation of her prologue, the story and the way in which it is told being dominated by her personality, attitudes, and beliefs. The most obvious connecting link between the prologue and tale is the common theme - the sovereignty of women in marriage. In her prologue The Wife describes how she has devoted much of her life to living up to her unshakeable decision: An housbonde I wol have, I wol nat lette, Which shal be bothe my dettour and my thral (154-5) She uses her tale to extend this idea from being a personal preference, and a maxim to be followed by 'every womman that is wys' (524) to a universal truth. The knight of her tale is set the task of finding: What thing is it that wommen moost desiren. (905) When he gives his answer to a supreme court of women, headed by the queen, there is no disagreement at all: Wommen desiren to have sovereinetee As wel over hir housbond as hir love, And for to been in maistrie him above. (1038-40) In al the court ne was ther wyf, ne maide, Ne widwe, that contraried that he saide, (1043-4) The fact that the knight's life is in the hands of the queen rather than the king is in itself a sign that the tale is a product of The Wife's imagination. King Arthur has condemned the knight to death, according to the law of the land, and yet in response to the pleas of the queen and other women, . . . yaf him to the queene, al at hir wille, To chese wheither she wolde him save or spille (897-8) Thus even The King of England is subject to his wife. The Wife uses her tale as a vehicle for her own views, and often she leaves the tale altogether and resumes the self-centred theme and colloquial style of her prologue. She lists all the
alternative answers the knight received to his question, the list including everything which, in her prologue, she has shown that she demands from a marriage as well as 'sovereinetee'. Somme seyde wommen loven best richesse, Somme seyde honour, somme seyde jolinesse Somme riche array, somme seyden lust abedde, And oftetime to be widwe and wedde. (925-8) ... And somme seyen that we loven best For to be free, and do right as us lest, (935-6) Her inclusion of herself with 'we', and the unusual inclusion of 'oftetime to be widwe and wedde' make it clear that this is The Wife's own interpolation, beyond the requirements of the tale. Digressions are a characteristic of both the prologue and the tale. At one point in her prologue she says, Now wol I speken of my fourthe housbonde (452) She immediately launches into a digression about her youth, then about thirty lines later tries to return to her original subject: Now wol I tellen of my fourthe housbonde (480) She loses track of her theme again, but finally returns to it with: But now, sire, lat me se, what I shal seyn? A ha! by God, I have my tale ageyn. (585-6) The same colloquial discursive style carries through to her tale. At one point The Wife abandons the tale of the knight to tell us Ovid's tale of Midas and his asses ears. This digression is in support of her statement: Pardee, we wommen konne no thing hele (950) (By God, we women can conceal nothing) which is in itself a digression from the tale. The fact that The Wife relates Ovid's tale inaccurately is also in keeping with the prologue, in which she makes a misleading reference to St. Paul's pronouncements on the mutual rights of partners in marriage. We know from the prologue that she has gained most of her 'learning' via her fifth husband, Jankin, a former Oxford clerk. In view of Jankin's enthusiasm for antifeminist literature it is likely that he had distorted Ovid's tale in relating it to his wife, by making Midas's wife the traitor instead of his barber. The Wife digresses from her tale after the first half dozen or so lines to air her views on another subject close to her heart, 'limitours and othere hooly freres' (866). Her grievances against the church are many. The church's solemn repressive attitude towards sex, and most
other forms of enjoyment, conflict strongly with her robust hedonism. In the prologue she exclaims Allas, allas, that evere love was sinne! (614) The church was also responsible for the dissemination of anti-feminist literature and attitudes, and here The Wife, an arch-feminist, is in direct conflict. For trusteth wel, it is an impossible That any clerk wol speke good of wives, (688-9) Also, in the dramatic context The Friar has just made a rude comment about the length of her prologue, and with this comment she is rebuking him. If we turn to the character of the Loathly Lady of The Wife's tale, we find some differences between her and The Wife, and some similarities. The main characteristic they have in common is the wish to dominate their husbands. There is also a marked similarity in their tactics for achieving this goal. Both make their husbands suffer, and both use the persuasive techniques of argument. Both also draw upon authorities in support of their arguments; The Wife from The Bible, Ovid, and many others, and The Loathly Lady from Dante and Seneca. The plight of The Wife's first three husbands, of whom she says, As help me God, I laughe whan I thinke How pitously a-night I made hem swinke! (201-2) is not much better than that of the knight, who, on his wedding night, He walweth and he turneth to and fro. His olde wyf lay smilinge everemo, (1085-6) Just as, in the prologue, The Wife puts up the husband's assumed complaints against her, putting him in the wrong, and knocking his arguments down one by one, so the Loathly Lady puts up the knight's objections. Thou art so loothly, and so oold also, And therto comen of so lough a kinde (1100-1) She adds the fault of being poor, not even mentioned by the knight, and by pseudo-logic presents the faults as virtues. Both women succeed in gaining the submission of their partners for the same reason - the husbands are so frustrated and exasperated that they give in to get some peace. No amount of logical argument from the Loathly Lady could really allay the knight's feeling of revulsion for an ugly old woman. The chief difference in the approach of the two wives is that whereas The Wife argues almost entirely on personal grounds, The Loathly Lady argues to a large extent on the more objective and moralistic grounds of living up to the claim of 'Nobility', the true source of which was a much discussed subject in the middle ages. On one level we can assume that Chaucer has introduced this theme for the edification of his audience, but it is also likely that The Wife has
included this serious subject into her relatively light-hearted prologue and tale in order to comply with The Host's original request in The General Prologue for, Tales of best sentence and moost solaas (800) In her prologue The Wife demonstrates herself to be an intelligent woman, and good at dissembling. At the funeral of her fourth husband, for example, she acts the part of the grieving widow, so she would undoubtedly be able to act out the serious tone necessary for the Loathly Lady's 'Nobility' argument. Putting herself in the role of The Loathly Lady also serves The Wife's purpose of championing the cause of women, in that to subjugate a knight and prove him to be ignoble would be a greater achievement than the real life subjugation of her first three elderly, feeble, husbands, and it is achieved by a more acceptable means than her childish deceitful attack on Jankin. In this way, and in the final transformation of The Loathly Lady into a beautiful young woman, the tale can be seen as a wish-fulfilment on the part of The Wife. Thus The Wife's tale is more than appropriate to the prologue; it is essential that we know the character of The Wife through her prologue before we can fully make sense of the tale. If we were to read the tale without having read the prologue we might ask such questions as: Why is a seemingly courtly tale starting off with rape? Why so many digressions? Why the attack on 'limitours'? Why is Arthur's court ruled by women? Especially odd would seem the sudden change of tone and strong language in the final lines: . . . Jhesu Crist us sende Housbondes meeke, yonge, and fressh abedde, And grace t'overbide hem that we wedde; And eek I praye Jhesu shorte hir lives That wol nat be governed by hir wives; And olde and angry nigards of dispence, God sende hem soone verray pestilence! (1258-64) But, knowing The Wife of Bath, these things come as no surprise at all.
Character Analysis
In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Chaucer opens with a description of twenty-nine people who are going on a pilgrimage. Each person has a distinct personality that we can recognize from the way people behave today. He purposely makes The Wife of Bath stand out more compared to the other characters. In Chaucer¶s ³General Prologue,´ the Wife of Bath is intentionally described in an explicit way to provoke a shocking response. Her clothes, physical features and references to her past are purposely discussed by Ch aucer causing the reader to wonder how well she fits the rules imposed by Christian authorities regarding womanly behavior. Women were categorized as
saints or sinners by their actions according to Christian tradition. There were two women who represented the sinner or the saint. Eve caused the downfall of all men ³ supposedly´ whereas the Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ, symbolized purity. The Wife of Bath is a headstrong bold woman of her time. She shows off her Sunday clothes with evident pride, wearing ten pounds of cloth, woven by herself under her hat.Her clothing symbolizes to the reader that she is not timid or shy and also shows off her expertise as a weaver.. Chaucer discusses his words to describe the Wife quite distinctly. His descriptions of her facial and bodily features are sexually suggestive. The features that Chaucer pays attention to describing Alison should be noticed. In the ³General Prologue,´ Chaucer's description involves her physical appearance describing her clothes, legs, feet, hi ps, and most importantly her gap-tooth, which during that time (according to The Wife), symbolized sensuality and lust. He discusses how she is a talented weaver and devoted Christian who goes on pilgrimages often. This may make the reader believe that she is a religious woman, but the reader later sees that the Wife's reason to go on these pilgrimages is not due to religion. She feels that every place should be seen; this has nothing to due with religion. She may also be dedicated traveller, a medieval tou rist who likes to sight see. She is a very self-confident woman who thinks highly of herself and her skills as a cloth maker. The ironic part is when Chaucer adds that she has a gap between her teeth. During the fourteenth century, having a gap between the teeth was symbolic of a sensual nature. She is more interested in love than anything that has do with homemaking. He also emphasizes that she had ³Housbondes at chirche dore she hadde five´ (Norton 92), which meant that she has been married five times. She is also described as knowing all the " remedies of love" (Norton 92), since she is so experienced with men. One other important element in the portrayal of the Wife is that she is deaf in one ear. In both ³The Wife of Bath¶s Prologue´ and ³Tale,´ the Wife of Bath discusses marriage, virginity, and most importantly the question of sovereignty. In the ³Wife of Bath's Tale,´ Alison is suggesting control that women should have. She is a strong-willed and dominant woman who herself gets what she wants when she wants it. She cannot accept defeat no matter what the cost. She feels that this is the way things should be and men should obey her. She should not be controlled or told what to do by others, especially by a man. She displays a very sick and power -thirsty attitude when she says, ³In wifhood wol I use myn instrument as freely as my Makere hath it sent. If I be dangerous, God yive me sorwe: myn housbonder shal it han both eve and morwe whan that him list come forth and pay his dette. An housbonde wol I have, I wol nat lette, which shal be bother my dettour and mt thral, and have his tribulacion withal upon his flesh whil that I am his wif´ (Norton 120). She is boldly saying that she wants to use her "instrument" or body as a weapon and that she owns her husband, who owes her. Since she is his wife she feels he should bow to
her. Even this modern day, Alison¶s attitude disgusts me. I, as a woman, no matter how bad men are, would claim that a man should be a woman¶s slave. The Wife of Bath believes that experience is the greatest authority, and since she has been married five times, she certainly considers herself an authority on the. It is ironic to see the even though is not religious but, she uses the Bible as justification to pardon her behavior. The Wife discusses her lives with her five husbands. She also discusses about how she had control over four of her husbands saying ³I governed hem so wel after my lawe, (Norton 122) which indicates that she governed them according to her law or her way. Later on, she says ³For God it woot, I chidde hem spitously (Norton122). She claims that she is doing this for a God. She is a woman in thirst of attention, not only sexually, but as a person as well. It upsets her when her fifth husband, a clerk, is more interested in books than he was in her. When she does not establish supremacy over her fifth husband it seems to excite her because she seems to like challenges. While he is reading a collection of stories about how bad women are she snatches the book and rips some pages out. This instantly heats up her husband, and he hits her. This is how she becomes deaf. She pretends to be dead trying to make him feel guilty. Her concern here is not to make him understand what he has dones is wrong, but to use her helplessness as away of achieving power and authority over him, which she ultimatley gains. Alison is not a woman who cares about changing the world for the benefit of other women who are subordinate to men. She is not a feminist fighting for the rights of all women. She claims to know what pleasures men because she is experienced. She believes in giving men what they desire, which is sexual pleasure from her. This proves that she is not fighting for liberation of women. This is definitely a non-feministic view. She is using sex to manipulate men just as men do to women because she openly is saying that she will give herself to the man. She definatley stands for sexual freedom. Giving in to the man's desire goes against feministic beliefs. Alison has a choice of not givin g in to the man, but she decides to let the man attain his sexual pleasure for his desire not hers because she has experienced sex before and she knows how much men enjoy it. This quotation obviously goes against feminist beliefs, confusing the reader. At first the reader might think that she is trying to win women freedom and liberation. She herself says that women are the cause of men's suffering. Her reasons are selfish filled with greed of sex and control on all men. I cannot in any sense relate to a person like her because she is an extremely selfish, power-hungry, and immoral woman. Her whole character focuses on her craving for sex and her urge to give men pleasures through sex. Even in a modern society today, no person will feel her actions are justified.
