The Wife of Bath: A Symbol of Corruption?

The Wife of Bath is not the traditional bride or wife, but is one of the more engaging characters of the Canterbury Tales. It is the controversy of her speech that makes her an interesting female character as evident in her habit of using the Bible to justify her marital beliefs and practices.  Early on she mentions that "God bad us for to wexe and multiplye," therefore she is in line with God's command, for marriage leads to reproduction; therefore, multiple marriages might equate many children (28). The Wife also goes on to say that a man as holy as Abraham could not be in the wrong by having multiple wives; therefore, she is not (55). In Genesis, Abraham is said to have children with Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah and possibly more. There is some debate as to whether or not he was married to Hagar, but did have multiple wives.

An interesting connection to this comical justification of her lifestyle is church corruption of the Middle Ages. The Wife uses biblical knowledge while the Church used biblical authority to justify actions that are or may not have been in line with biblical principles. From the presentation on politics we learned of the opportunities for people to rise in the social structure of the Middle Ages due to the Plague. Many clergy were also lost to the Plague meaning that those less able or deserving rose in the ranks of the churches. One example of the corruption that arose from this shift in clergy was the practice of pilgrimages. The Church promised people forgiveness of sins through participation in a pilgrimage to a holy site, such as the pilgrimage the characters of the Canterbury Tales are on. 

Click here to learn a bit about the corruption of the Church.

The Believability of Chaucer's Stories

While reading The Man of Law's Tale this week a few thoughts kept occurring to me, all of which centered on believability. In noticing how much more I liked this tale as opposed to the previous ones we have read, and exploring the reasons as to why this was the case, I kept coming back to the act of story telling. Stories can have such depth and power but their ability to influence or inform individuals is entirely dependent upon how one chooses to interpret what is being said.

Taking this into consideration, I then pose these questions: How much of what Chaucer says do we believe? How fictional are his tales - do we believe some, all or none of what he says? Why may we tend believe some parts more than others? More importantly though, do we even need to believe him - or should we simply accept his tales with good faith? 

I ask these questions because as I was reading the story of Custance I was having trouble making sense of my surprising and genuine interest in the tale. I say surprising because when I read the previous tales – especially the Reeve’s - I had to constantly remind myself to keep on reading. I needed to forcefully place myself in the mindset of Chaucer and his companions for it wasn’t something that came naturally to me. In other words, I was too aware of the fact that I was a 21^st century college senior from Maryland while I was reading, and this inhibited me from truly immersing myself in the narrative or it’s meaning.

Overall, speaking specifically about the Reeve’s tale, I found that I was having trouble getting beyond my disbelief, and that that was what was keeping me from truly understanding or enjoying Chaucer’s story. The Reeve’s tale felt much too forced for me, and because of this I simply didn’t believe it. My disbelief is also what prevented me from enjoying the tale. As I began to think further, however, I came to the conclusion that maybe this was just what Chaucer had intended.

After thinking about how much I enjoyed the Man of Law’s tale, and comparing the reasons as to why with all of the reasons why I did not like the Reeve’s, I began to notice similarities between the two stories in terms of their message of spirituality. I began to wonder if Chaucer didn’t intentionally play with the level of believability in his two stories specifically to highlight the ways in which individuals should/should not act. I’m planning on exploring this idea further – so my thoughts are not entirely complete just yet - but as of now it seems as though Chaucer could have most definitely been relying on his reader’s believability in his tales (or the lack there of) to highlight the right/wrong choices one should make in their everyday lives.

To briefly explain, in the Reeve’s tale, as we discussed in class, no character really comes out on top. Each individual we meet is flawed in some way, and as readers there isn’t really one particular that person that we’re pulling for. After reading the Man of Law’s tale, I began to believe that this was an intentional choice. It could be that by making the Reeve’s tale so hard to enjoy and believe, that Chaucer was trying to show us something – to tell us that if we seek revenge, deceit and trickery only to advance our own selfish ambitions, then we’re never going to win in the end. 

If we compare this idea to the Man of Law’s tale, and examine the treacherous life of Custance, although it appears as if aligning herself with God’s will brings her only strife and tragedy, in the end Custance is rewarded with a (somewhat) happy conclusion to her tale. Furthermore, given her devout actions and unfailing faith, even if we interpret Custance as having been cheated by her husband’s early death, there is enough textual evidence to remind us that she has the promise of eternal life to look forward to, she will undoubtedly gain salvation – a great deal more than can be said for the characters in the Reeve’s tale.

Overall, I believe that there is most certainly a connection between the Reeve and the Man of Law’s tales, and that this connection is directly linked by how much believability Chaucer allowed his readers to have when experiencing his two stories. By making one tale easier to believe and relate to than the other, we as readers are being directed towards an underlying message of spiritual morality. The Man of Law’s tale was so enjoyable to read that I personally felt much more apt to take what was being told not so much as a literal story but rather as a tale with a greater spiritual message.

Because I believed the Man of Law’s tale, and took what was being said with a grain of salt, I not only enjoyed the story more than the previous tales we had read but I was also able to pick out its significance of and meaning a lot easier. I’m curious to know if anyone else had a similar experience, as, like I said, I'm planning on exploring this idea further and would love to hear other opinions! :) 

Please watch this for a lingering giggle-

Here is a video of the song I just posted the lyrics of (of which I just posted...)
I believe the character is Morgan Le Fay, who is special to my heart, for that is the part I played in Camelot my senior year of high school : )

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_H9yGF36Rc

"I've married many men-- a ton of them..."

I am sending this one out for the wife of bath. This song is from the Broadway musical A Connecticut Yankee, lyrics by Lorenz Hart, music by Richard Rodgers. This is one of the funniest songs I have ever heard.

I've been married and married,
And often I've sighed,
I'm never a bridesmaid,
I'm always the bride.
I never divorced them-
I hadn't the heart.
Yet remember these sweet words
"Till death do us part."
REFRAIN 1
I married many men,
A ton of them,
And yet I was untrue to none of them
because I bumped off ev'ry one of them
to keep my love alive
Sir Paul was a frail;
he looked a wreck to me.
At night he was a horse's neck to me
So I performed an appendectomy
To keep my love alive.
Sir Thomas had insomnia
he couldn't sleep at night.
I bought a little arsenic
he's sleeping now all right.
Sir Philip played the harp;
I cussed the thing.
I crowned with his harp
to bust the thing.
And now he plays where harps are
just the thing,
To keep my love alive,
To keep my love alive.
REFRAIN 2
I thought Sir George had possibilities,
but his flirtations made me ill at ease,
and when I'm ill at ease
I kill at ease
To keep my love alive.
Sir Charles came from a sanatorium
and yelled for drinks in my emporium
I mixed one drink
He's in memorium
To keep my love alive.
Sir Francis was a singing bird
A nightingale. That's why
I tossed him off my balcony
To see if he could fly
Sir Athelstane indulged in fratricide;
He killed his dad and that was patricide
One night I stabbed him at my mattress side
To keep my love alive,
To keep my love alive.

The Ultimate Damsel....

     So far in reading The Canterbury Tales, I have found that “The Man of Law’s Tale” has been my favorite. This is probably a result of Custaunce, who has been the only character in all the stories that I have really liked as a result of her situation and character.

    Custaunce strikes me as the ultimate damsel in distress. This is because of the way that she seems to be constantly sent off from her home, then to the “Sowden of Surrye” (ln 177), and then to “Nothumberlond” (ln 578); nothing seems permanent or stable for her. She is face with one tragic circumstance after another, and only gets to have a somewhat, short lived happy ending.

     Custaunce is a likeable because she is a reliable victim. During all the hardships and struggle she faces, I find myself as a reader hopeful for her, and that is because of her character. Even though she is shipped off or struggles, she shows an inner bravery and devotion to her faith, which makes her a strong person despite her position as a woman. When she says,

                        “But Crist, that starf for oure redempcioun,

                        So yeve me grace his hestes to fulfille.

                        I, wrecche woman, no fors thogh I spille.

                        Wommen are born to thralldom and penaunce,

                        And to been under mannes governaunce”(lines 283-287),

I believe her character is represented. In this statement, Custaunce has demonstrated her devotion to "God’s plan", as well as trying to be strong given her situation, while acknowledging her place as a woman. She is a victim of her position and station, but remains strong in her faith, even though she has little control in her own life, and lives by the choices made for her.

Mother-in-Law

This one is dedicated to Custaunce!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sclhVBsZiGo

Mother-in-Law, 1961!

Vengeance versus Custaunce

What happens when you are in a rudderless boat? 

But shortly, from the castel on a night

The lords steward – God yeve him meschaunce! –

A theef that hadde reneyed our creunce,

Cam into ship alone and seide he sholde

Hir lemman be, wherso she wolde or nolde.

Wo was this wrecched woman tho bigon;

Hir child cride, and she cride pitously.

But blissful Marye help hire right anon;

For with hir strogeling wel and mightily

The theef fil overbord al sodeinly,

And in the see he dreinte for vengeaunce.

And thus has Crist unwemmed kept Custaunce.

“The Man of Law’s Tale” (913-924)

What originally attracted me to this passage was a note about it on p. 874 that said that Chaucer was unique in having Custaunce successfully fight back and save herself. I wondered why he differed from Trivet and Gower.

My first thoughts were to compare her to the other women we’ve met. Custaunce is the opposite of Alisoun—I believe she’s meant to be.  Emelye, like Custaunce, marries whoever she is told to marry. However, we don’t see Emelye after she leaves Diane’s care. Custaunce is now a mother. Unlike the mother in “The Reeve’s Tale”, Custaunce fights back to protect herself and her child. I particularly notice the fighting of the miller’s wife in “The Reeve’s Tale.” The miller’s wife actually hurts her husband, where Custaunce saves herself.

I also think about boats and water. You could say there are three rudderless boats in “The Miller’s Tale.” But while Alisoun, Nicholas, and John all say they are trusting to God’s guidance, Alisoun and Nicholas are lying, and John fails by falling asleep. I think there are also some echoes in “The Reeve’s Tale.” The characters may not be lost at sea, but it is so dark they cannot see where they are. For some reason the cradle makes me think of a rudderless boat as well. There are so many stories of babies being put to sea in cradles, boxes, etc. But unlike the miller’s wife, who doesn’t know where she is and just follows the cradle, Custaunce may be lost at sea but she knows who and where she is in terms of the boat and her values.

I find it harder to catch the wordplay Chaucer uses. However, these are the things I think I notice. There are three words emphasizing speed, “shortly,” “right anon,” and “sodeinly.” I also think the phrase “wolde or nolde” adds to the sense of speed. There is some use of alliteration. “Creance” connects with “cam” emphasizing that the thief who is coming has renounced his faith. “Wo was this wrecched woman” goes together to musically connect the words and emphasize Custaunce’s unhappy state. The repetition of “cride” in the next line highlights the unhappiness and leads the reader to expect helplessness (a helpless woman crying). It also is a line that forces the reader to take a noticeable pause after the first “cride.” This contrasts well with the iambic beat of the next line. The ending words of the last two lines, “vengeaunce” and “Custaunce” are what this story is all about. I am assuming “custaunce” means “constance” (which I can’t verify by MED, OED, or our book). “The Knight’s Tale” is about, among other things, constancy and what happens when constancy in keeping oaths is broken. All the tales since then have been tellers trying to get vengeance on the previous speaker. Now the man of law is bringing the listeners away from vengeance back to the appreciation of virtues. Go figure, a lawyer speaking for virtue.

WORKS CITED

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. Ed. Jill Mann. London: Penguin, 2005. Print.

OED Online. September 2013. Oxford University Press. 23 September 2013

Words, words, words...

One of the privileges of my job is that I get to spend so much time revisiting the texts and issues that I care about.

I think I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that every time I teach a text, even if I have taught it multiple times before, I always go back and reread it. And I always discover something new!

I have now taught "The Miller's Tale" twice in as many weeks. I'll be honest, I was surprised today by how many students in my British Lit class struggled to find the humor in this story because they were put off by its offensive content.

I want to be clear that what I am IN NO WAY questioning the validity of their reading experience. Chaucer, after all, anticipated this reaction. He expected folks to be perturbed by his language and his subject matter, and with good reason.

But what I have discovered in my most recent readings of this tale is more about today's world than Chaucer's. I am reminded of the ways that our society encourages self-censorship (despite simultaneously encouraging self-promotion) and discourages healthy discomfort - the kind of discomfort that makes us question who we are and why we live the way that we do.

Words have power - some more obviously so than others. Certain words elicit a strong reaction, and many of them appear in this tale (Queynte. Pisse. Toute.) But we shouldn't shy away from that power and refuse to use those words (well, obviously there are times and places). Rather, we should consider why those words have that power. Why do they make us uncomfortable? And we must remember that those words don't have power over us, but are instead within our own power to catalog our world.

The Miller, either because his drunkenness has lowered his inhibitions or because it's just the kind of "cherl" he is, certainly is unafraid of using those words. Are we going to let ourselves be bested by him? I say no. Because his words are a sign of his willingness to tell it like it is: the world isn't a courtly romance. Emelye isn't necessarily thrilled with the giant tournament to determine her fate. People may commend a "noble tale," but they also can (and should!) enjoy a hearty laugh at a fart joke - especially one as well-wrought and intricately told as this one.

http://houseoffame.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-can-hath-cheezburger.html

Good Women?

A line in “The Miller’s Prologue” got me thinking of Chaucer’s The Legend of Good Women. Robin, the miller, has announced the story he’s going to tell. Osewold, the reeve and a carpenter, is offended and tells the miller he shouldn’t defame husbands and wives. Robin tells Osewold not to take it personally. One of the things Robin says is, “Ther been ful good wives many oon,/And evere a thousand goode ayeins oon bade” (3154-3155). Robin goes on to say he has a wife too, but doesn’t assume himself a cuckold. In The Legend of Good Women, Chaucer, like the miller, is in trouble for defaming women. Only Chaucer is in trouble with the god of love. The god of love calls Chaucer his enemy for writing so many bad things about love and women. Chaucer defends himself by saying:

But truly I wende, as in this cas,
Naught have agilt, ne doon to love trespas.
Forwhy a trewe man, with-outen drede,
Hath not to parten with a theves dede;
Ne a trewe lover oghte me nat blame,
Thogh that I speke a fals lover som shame.(Balade, 462-467)

These two excuses seem very similar to me.

There are a couple of other things that make me wonder if Chaucer was thinking of The Legend of Good Women while writing about the miller. The very first line of the balade is “Hyd, Absolon, thy gilte tresses clere;/ Ester, ley thou thy meknesse al a-doun” (249-250). We all know how it is going to end for Absolon and his gilt tresses. Chaucer continues to tell men to hide and women to come forward. When Alceste is defending Chaucer, she points out that not all his writing about women is bad, and she uses the story of Palamon and Arcite as one of the good examples (Balade, 420-421).

So does this change my understanding of The Canterbury Tales? Both the wife of Bath and the god of love agree that one of the most offensive items is The Romance of the Rose which Chaucer partly translated. Or in the god of love’s words:

Thou hast translated the Romaunce of the Rose,
That is an heresye ageyns my lawe,
And makest wyse folk fro me withdrawe. (Balade, 329-331)

Maybe as stories about women continue to go downhill with the reeve and the cook, the host functions like the god of love, redirecting Chaucer’s tales. “The Man of Law’s Tale” and “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” certainly redeem women in diverse ways. Alceste asks the god of love to have mercy on Chaucer. At the end, Alceste will tell Chaucer that his restitution is to spend most of every year of his life writing about good women. Is this like a knight spending a year learning what women want? Perhaps with some of his Canterbury tales, Chaucer is still paying restitution.


Works Cited:
Chaucer, Geoffrey. "The Miller's Prologue." The Canterbury Tales. Ed. Jill Mann. London: Penguin, 2005. 114-17. Print.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. "The Legend of Good Women “Balade." OMACL: The Legend of Good Women. Ed. Douglas B. Killings. Online Medieval and Classical Library, Nov. 1996. Web. 23 Sept. 2013. <http://omacl.org/GoodWomen/>.

Monsters-in-Law

Yasmine makes a good point in her post regarding medieval women. We have seen many different types of women, each illustrating different aspects of women and how they are perceived in the Middle Ages.

What is most interesting with "The Man of Law's Tale" are the women and how they compare to women we have seen thus far.

The main character, Custance, is the ideal medieval woman. She desires to be pure and good, but she knows that she has a duty, and she exercises this duty twice: she is to obey the man "in charge of her" so to speak. She marries the Sultan according to the command of her father even though she does not want to. Then, once in England, she obey the wishes of her husband (or so she thinks) and leaves with the child. Custance is another Emelye: everything a woman should be.

However, we also have examples of women who choose to be the exact opposite. Her first mother-in-law plots to murder the Sultan and everyone at the feast and take control of the country. She succeeds and sets Custance in a rudderless boat, leaving Custance at the whim of fate. Custance's second mother-in-law tricks the king and Custance. The mother-in-law's purpose is strictly trickery in this case; she plays no other role. Both of the mothers-in-law have more in common with Alisoun from "The Miller's Tale" or the mother and daughter from "The Reeve's Tale."

This brings to mind the Ave/Eva concept. Custance is the ideal woman doing her duty or duties based on her subordination to man. She also resigns herself to the will of God. She trusts that God has a plan for her, and she is willing to turn over all control to Him. On the other hand, the mothers-in-law are the root of all evil in this tale. They are guilty of conspiracy and trickery, and one is guilty of murder. There are several parallels here to Eve and the serpent. Trickery is the work of Satan according to Christian thought, and Eve is guilty of original sin.

It is interesting how women take on more complex roles at leasts in "The Man of Law's Tale." Is it an accident that as we are moving along we see more complex development of female characters that not only have characteristics of their own but somehow encompass characteristics of all the women who have come in the tales previous?