Wife Of Bath Characters Essay, Research Paper

Upon a first reading of the Wife of Bath?s Prologue, it?s hard not to feel

the need to pat her on the shoulder and say ?Go-girl!? There?s no denying

the impact that Feminism has had on our Millennium-revved society, and the Wife

of Bath?s character would certainly have contradicted the oppressive customs

of Chaucer?s time. But on closer inspection, it would seem that the Prologue

could be considered a medium for an anti-feminist message, under the semblance

of a seemingly feminist exterior. She confesses her treatment of her husbands

and her tendency to ?swere and lyen,? and this self-incrimination invokes a

feeling that the Wife is an extraordinarily attractive character by sharing her

feminine faults with us, good-humouredly. At the same time, her robust energy

and her arguments against anti-feminists; her comments about clerks being unable

to do ?Venus werkes? and taking it out on ?sely wyf(s)? in print, are

carried further in the Tale, where the ending arguably serves as a climax,

summarising many of the Wife?s themes. In her Prologue, her arguments in

favour of marriage show a hearty common sense, but they are suspect ? while it

is true that marriage peoples the earth and replenishes existing stocks of ?virginitee,?

her own marriages do not seem to have produced any offspring, and while it may

be ?bet [?] to be wedded than to brinne,? her marriages, despite her claim

that ?in wyfhood I wol use myn instrument,? do not seem to have prevented

her from ?goon a-caterwaw[ing]? and by decision engaging in fornication

(?I ne loved nevere by no discrecioun/But evere folwede myn appetit,/Al were

he short, or long, or blak, or whit?), which is after all what marriage was,

according to her, supposed to prevent. From the account she gives of her

marriages, it becomes increasingly obvious that marriage for her is not quite so

beneficial as one might think ? the only benefit the husbands get, in exchange

for their ?purgatorie,? is that of her ?bele chose? (which, it must be

pointed out, they ? with the possible exception of Jankin, who satisfied her

better than ?bacon? ? have to share with other ?good felawes?), but it

is worth observing that she never speaks of the sexual act as giving the male

partner pleasure (except with regard to ?daun Salomon? ? but she

identifies with him rather than his wives: ?As wolde God it were leveful unto

me/ To be refresshed half so ofte as he!?) ? on the contrary, she speaks of

the husband?s ?dette? to his wife, of ?How pitously a-night I made hem

swinke!? and of ?his tribulacion withal/ Upon his flessh.? Also, while she

claims Biblical support for her views on marriage, the support that she cites is

conveniently edited to suit her purposes (for example, Solomon did have 700

wives and 300 concubines ? but his appetites led to his turning away from God;

and the marital relationship specified in the Bible is a reciprocal one rather

than the one-sided one she speaks of, tilted in favour of the wife ? she

conveniently ignores that while ?Apostel [?]/[?] bad oure housbondes for

to love us weel,? he also exhorts women to love their husbands), and she

elsewhere ignores the Bible when it proves difficult to ?glose? in her

favour (as in her dismissal of its order to dress ?in habit maad with

chastitee and shame?). Moreover, her behaviour is a demonstration of all the

anti-feminist accusations that she (falsely) claims her husband/s of levelling

at her (the ultimate irony, since she is proving the truth of these very

accusations at the very time when she is making them up). She does dress gaily

(cf. Her stockings ?of fyn scarlet reed?) ? and probably for the same

reasons that she goes ?walkinge out by night?, it is doubtful that she

?abides? in ?chastitee,? she is devious and deceitful (making up the

accusations in order to pre-empt any on the part of the husband/s), she is

self-willed (?we wol ben at oure large?) and she is arguably like ?bareyne

lond? and ?wilde fyr? (she has no children, and has ?consumed? five

husbands). To see the Wife of Bath?s Prologue as being merely an anti-feminist

vehicle would be to ignore the frequent ambiguity that is displayed in the

Prologue as the Wife charms her way through her shameless and yet strangely

winning confession (it should be noted that she is earlier described as having

been ?a worthy womman al hir live? in the General Prologue, despite her five

?housbondes? and the knowledge that the narrator has of her ?oother

compaignye in youth,? though he refrains from elaborating in his good-natured

discretion); and it would have to be done at the cost of ignoring the

extraordinary vigour that Chaucer endows the Wife of Bath with. It is true that

the Wife of Bath?s opinions about women are suspiciously similar to those of

the anti-feminists. She claims that ?half so boldely kan ther no other man/

Swere and lyen, as a womman kan,? and that for women, ?Greet prees at market

maketh deere ware,/ And to greet cheep is holde at litel prys?; her own

behaviour also follows the exact pattern as predicted by ?Theofraste.?

However, the difference is that she takes pride in her faults (eg. ?Deceite,

weping, spinning God hathe yive/ To wommen kindely?; and wives who are able to

deceive their husbands (?Bere him on honde that the cow is wood?) are, by

her definition, ?wys wives?) and that her audacity is subversively

attractive, not least because of her cheerful energy (?jolitee?) and

conspirational tone (e.g. her addressing of them as ?Lordinges? and her

frankness with regard to her sexuality) ? she cleverly presents herself in

such a manner that her audience (pilgrims or readers) is manipulated into

laughing with her, whether at her outwitting her husbands or at her skill in

obtaining ?maistrie,? and thus less inclined to pass moral judgement; her

admitting to these faults is in itself altready quite agreeable, not least in

contrast to the hypocrisy of, for example, the Pardoner, who takes a high moral

tone while attempting to fleece the pilgrims into buying bogus relics. Also, her

appeal to common sense and to ?experience? as opposed to ?auctoritee?

(reinforced by the homely imagery ? e.g. that of the ?breed of pure whete-seed?

and ?barely-breed? and her comparison of herself to ?an hors? that

?koude bite and whinne? ? and her projected image as a simple (?sely?),

practical, straightforward ?wyf?), while perhaps not always justifiable when

one looks closer, is nevertheless extremely agreeable; and her claims are not

all irrational ? as in her question as to the function of the ?thinges smale?

in the world of the ?clerks? who advocate ?virginitee? ? a question to

which ?auctoritee? has simply no answer. As such, the Wife of Bath?s

Prologue is rather a brilliant character study of an individual rather than an

obvious anti-feminist theme in disguise. It is also difficult to deny that the

Wife of Bath?s Prologue is robust. With its unstoppable vitality, strong

language (?queynte? etc.) and homely, vigorous vocabulary (e.g. the

references to ?barley-brede? and mice), it is the Wife?s personality ?

certainly an extremely robust one ? that dominates. There is a certain bold

energy to the whole of the Prologue, whether because of the forcefulness with

which the Wife presents her arguments against the anti-feminists or because of

her dramatic presentation of the methods with which she amply gave her husbands

the ?wo that is in mariage.? In contrast, the Tale (or the Wife as speaker

of the Tale) is arguably lacking in this energy. Its very opening, with its

Arthurian/fairy-tale references, sets the general tone ? quasi-courtly,

learned, fantasy rather than the earthy reality presented in the Prologue with

such rebellious attractiveness by the Wife (e.g. ?dronken as a mous?,

?goon a-caterwawed?). Elegant and learned ? even a little pedantic (?redeth

eek Senek, and redeth eek Boece? as well as the references to Dante) ? there

is, comparatively, a lack of the energy that animated her in the Prologue.

Moreover, given what the reader has understood of the Wife in the Prologue, it

would not be unreasonable to think of the Tale as an anticlimax. The Tale she

tells, on first glance at least, is far from being similar with her personality

(an interesting thing to note is that the original story assigned by Chaucer to

the Wife was the Shipman?s Tale, a much racier, earthier fabliau). After the

energy and attractiveness with which she has presented her ?immorality?

(challenging/ignoring Biblical teaching ? as in her having five husbands,

probable adultery (?al myn walkinge out at nighte? and her inability to

refuse her ?chambre of Venus? to a ?good felawe?), dubious glossing of

Biblical texts (as in her reference to Solomon), wearing fine clothes instead of

?habit maad with chastitee and shame?), the Loathly Lady?s learned

discourse on ?gentillesse? (i.e. nobility of spirit) and virtue may seem as

tediously moralistic as she made the support for ? virginitee? and

?continence? (i.e. married chastity) seem in her Prologue. However on closer

scrutiny, the Tale bears traces of the energy and even raciness that the Wife

infuses her Prologue with. The Tale may begin, certainly, with the air of an

Arthurian romance, but before long her anti-clerical tendencies and dislike of

the Friar (who previously interrupted her) prompts a cheeky poke at the latter,

with its references to the ?limitours? who act as ?incub[ii]? i.e.

engaging in carnal relations. The Tale is also not without some homely touches

? cf. the curtain-lecture on the advantages of poverty and ?gentillesse,?

show that the Wife is concerned with issues other than the flesh. The story of

Midas deals with the acknowledgement of anti-feminist accusations, the emphasis

on women?s love of ?maistrie,? and the emphasis on the supremacy of women

(the knight?s case is transferred to a jurisdiction presided over by ladies,

and it is also a woman who tells him the answer). These themes are dealt by the

Wife in the same way as in the Prologue. Above all, the fairy-tale ending is

predictable and anti-climatic, but then there is a sudden jolt to the reality of

the Wife?s wanting ?housbondes meeke, yonge, and fressh abedde? and her

energetically humorous blasphemies upon ?olde and angry nigardes of

dispense? recalling her Prologue (?maugree thine yen,? for example). While

the Tale is a slight anticlimax after the Prologue, it nevertheless reinforces

the Wife?s ideas of female ?maistrie,? and certainly this is obvious by

the end. The ending arguably serves as its climax, summarising the Wife?s

themes that women should have the ?maistrie,? that she wants a constant

supply of young virile husbands and that marriage can be happy if a husband

first resigns authority to his wife (cf. her ending the Prologue with the

kindness she showed to Jankin and their ostensible happiness). To conclude, the

Wife of Bath is indeed portrayed to be a dynamic woman, who through her

interesting conversation paints a picture of a strong-willed female who

recognises her faults, but nevertheless is certain of what she desires.