The Ill-famed Wife Of Bath Essay, Research Paper

The Ill-famed Wife of Bath

Upon a first reading of the Wife of Bath? s Prologue, it? s hard non to experience the demand to chuck her on the shoulder and state? 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 surely hold contradicted the oppressive imposts of Chaucer? s clip. But on closer review, it would look that the Prologue could be considered a medium for an anti-feminist message, under the gloss of a apparently feminist outside. She confesses her intervention of her hubbies and her inclination to? swere and lyen, ? and this self-incrimination invokes a feeling that the Wife is an inordinately attractive character by sharing her feminine mistakes with us, good-humouredly. At the same clip, her robust energy and her statements against anti-feminists ; her remarks about clerks being unable to make? Venus werkes? and taking it out on? sely wyf ( s ) ? in print, are carried further in the Tale, where the stoping arguably serves as a flood tide, summarizing many of the Wife? s subjects.

In her Prologue, her statements in favor of matrimony show a hearty common sense, but they are fishy? while it is true that matrimony peoples the Earth and replenishes bing stocks of? virginitee, ? her ain matrimonies do non look to hold produced any progeny, and while it may be? wager [ ? ] to be wedded than to brinne, ? her matrimonies, despite her claim that? in wyfhood I wol use myn instrument, ? do non look to hold prevented her from? lout a-caterwaw [ ing ] ? and by determination 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 matrimony was, harmonizing to her, supposed to forestall.

From the history she gives of her matrimonies, it becomes progressively obvious that matrimony for her is non rather so good as one might believe? the lone benefit the hubbies get, in exchange for their? purgatorie, ? is that of her? bele chose? ( which, it must be pointed out, they? with the possible exclusion of Jankin, who satisfied her better than? bacon? ? have to portion with other? good felawes? ) , but it is deserving detecting that she ne’er speaks of the sexual act as giving the male spouse pleasance ( except with respect to? daun Salomon? ? but she identifies with him instead than his married womans: ? As wolde God it were leveful unto me/ To be refresshed half so ofte as he! ? ) ? on the reverse, she speaks of the hubby? s? dette? to his married woman, of? How pitously a-night I made hem swinke! ? and of? his tribulacion withal/ Upon his flessh. ? Besides, while she claims Biblical support for her positions on matrimony, the support that she cites is handily edited to accommodate her intents ( for illustration, Solomon did hold 700 married womans and 300 courtesans? but his appetencies led to his turning off from God ; and the matrimonial relationship specified in the Bible is a mutual one instead than the nonreversible one she speaks of, tilted in favor of the married woman? she handily ignores that while? Apostel [ ? ] / [ ? ] bad oure housbondes for to love us weel, ? he besides exhorts adult females to love their hubbies ) , and she elsewhere ignores the Bible when it proves hard to? glose? in her favor ( as in her dismissal of its order to dress? in wont maad with chastitee and dishonor? ) . Furthermore, her behavior is a presentation of all the anti-feminist accusals that she ( falsely ) claims her husband/s of levelling at her ( the ultimate sarcasm, since she is turn outing the truth of these very accusals at the really clip when she is doing them up ) . She does dress gaily ( californium. Her stockings? of fyn vermilion reed? ) ? and likely for the same grounds that she goes? walkinge out by dark? , it is dubious that she? abides? in? chastitee, ? she is oblique and fallacious ( doing up the accusals in order to pre-empt any on the portion of the husband/s ) , she is froward ( ? we wol ben at oure big? ) and she is arguably like? bareyne lond? and? Wilde fyr? ( she has no kids, and has? consumed? five hubbies ) .

To see the Wife of Bath? s Prologue as being simply an anti-feminist vehicle would be to disregard the frequent ambiguity that is displayed in the Prologue as the Wife charms her manner through her shameless and yet queerly winning confession ( it should be noted that she is before described as holding been? a worthy womman al hir unrecorded? in the General Prologue, despite her five? housbondes? and the cognition that the storyteller has of her? oother compaignye in young person, ? though he refrains from lucubrating in his good-natured discretion ) ; and it would hold to be done at the cost of disregarding the extraordinary energy that Chaucer endows the Wife of Bath with.

It is true that the Wife of Bath? s sentiments about adult females 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 adult females, ? Greet prees at market maketh deere ware, / And to recognize peep is holde at litel crowbar? ; her ain behavior besides follows the exact form as predicted by? Theofraste. ? However, the difference is that she takes pride in her mistakes ( eg. ? Deceite, weping, whirling God hathe yive/ To wommen kindely? ; and married womans who are able to lead on their hubbies ( ? Bere him on honde that the cow is wood? ) are, by her definition, ? Wyoming married womans? ) and that her audaciousness is subversively attractive, non least because of her cheerful energy ( ? jolitee? ) and conspirational tone ( e.g. her addressing of them as? Lordinges? and her fra

nkness with respect to her gender ) ? she cleverly nowadayss herself in such a mode that her audience ( pilgrims or readers ) is manipulated into express joying with her, whether at her overreaching her hubbies or at her accomplishment in obtaining? maistrie, ? and therefore less inclined to go through moral opinion ; her acknowledging to these mistakes is in itself altready rather agreeable, non least in contrast to the lip service of, for illustration, the Pardoner, who takes a high moral tone while trying to overcharge the pilgrims into purchasing fake relics. Besides, her entreaty to common sense and to? see? as opposed to? auctoritee? ( reinforced by the homely imagination? e.g. that of the? strain of pure whete-seed? and? barely-breed? and her comparing of herself to? an hors? that? koude bite and whinne? ? and her jutting image as a simple ( ? sely? ) , practical, straightforward? wyf? ) , while possibly non ever justifiable when one looks closer, is however highly agreeable ; and her claims are non all irrational? as in her inquiry as to the map of the? thinges smale? in the universe of the? clerks? who advocate? virginitee? ? a inquiry to which? auctoritee? has merely no reply. As such, the Wife of Bath? s Prologue is instead a superb character survey of an person instead than an obvious anti-feminist subject in camouflage.

It is besides hard to deny that the Wife of Bath? s Prologue is robust. With its unstoppable verve, strong linguistic communication ( ? queynte? etc. ) and homely, vigorous vocabulary ( e.g. the mentions to? barley-brede? and mice ) , it is the Wife? s personality? surely an highly robust one? that dominates. There is a certain bold energy to the whole of the Prologue, whether because of the strength with which the Wife presents her statements against the anti-feminists or because of her dramatic presentation of the methods with which she richly gave her husbands the? wo that is in mariage. ?

In contrast, the Tale ( or the Wife as talker of the Tale ) is arguably missing in this energy. Its really opening, with its Arthurian/fairy-tale mentions, sets the general tone? quasi-courtly, learned, phantasy instead than the crude world presented in the Prologue with such rebellious attraction by the Wife ( e.g. ? dronken as a mous? , ? lout a-caterwawed? ) . Elegant and learned? even a small academic ( ? redeth eek Senek, and redeth eek Boece? every bit good as the mentions to Dante ) ? there is, relatively, a deficiency of the energy that animated her in the Prologue. Furthermore, given what the reader has understood of the Wife in the Prologue, it would non be unreasonable to believe of the Tale as an anticlimax. The Tale she tells, on first glimpse at least, is far from being similar with her personality ( an interesting thing to observe is that the original narrative assigned by Chaucer to the Wife was the Shipman? s Tale, a much racier, earthier fabliau ) . After the energy and attraction with which she has presented her? immorality? ( challenging/ignoring Biblical instruction? as in her holding five hubbies, likely criminal conversation ( ? al myn walkinge out at nighte? and her inability to decline her? chambre of Venus? to a? good felawe? ) , doubtful glossing of Biblical texts ( as in her mention to Solomon ) , have oning all right apparels alternatively of? wont maad with chastitee and dishonor? ) , the Loathly Lady? s learned discourse on? gentillesse? ( i.e. aristocracy of spirit ) and virtuousness may look as boringly moralistic as she made the support for? virginitee? and? continency? ( i.e. married celibacy ) seem in her Prologue.

However on closer examination, the Tale bears hints of the energy and even raciness that the Wife infuses her Prologue with. The Tale may get down, surely, with the air of an Arthurian love affair, but before long her anti-clerical inclinations and disfavor of the Friar ( who antecedently interrupted her ) prompts a brash pigeon berry at the latter, with its mentions to the? limitours? who act as? incub [ two ] ? i.e. prosecuting in animal dealingss. The Tale is besides non without some homely touches? californium. the curtain-lecture on the advantages of poorness and? gentillesse, ? show that the Wife is concerned with issues other than the flesh.

The narrative of Midas trades with the recognition of anti-feminist accusals, the accent on adult females? s love of? maistrie, ? and the accent on the domination of adult females ( the knight? s instance is transferred to a legal power presided over by ladies, and it is besides a adult female who tells him the reply ) . These subjects are dealt by the Wife in the same manner as in the Prologue. Above all, the fairy-tale stoping is predictable and anti-climatic, but so there is a sudden jar to the world of the Wife? s desiring? housbondes meeke, yonge, and fressh abedde? and her energetically humourous blasphemies upon? olde and angry nigardes of dispense? remembering her Prologue ( ? maugree thine hankering, ? for illustration ) .

While the Tale is a little anticlimax after the Prologue, it however reinforces the Wife? s thoughts of female? maistrie, ? and surely this is obvious by the terminal. The stoping arguably serves as its flood tide, summarizing the Wife? s subjects that adult females should hold the? maistrie, ? that she wants a changeless supply of immature virile hubbies and that matrimony can be happy if a hubby foremost resigns authorization to his married woman ( californium. her stoping the Prologue with the kindness she showed to Jankin and their apparent felicity ) .

To reason, the Wife of Bath is so portrayed to be a dynamic adult female, who through her interesting conversation pigments a image of a strong-minded female who recognises her mistakes, but however is certain of what she desires.