The Wife of Bath's Tale and Purgatory

Hwaet! I am so glad I took Dante last semester! I am seeing things in Chaucer that I never saw before.
Today I wish to argue that The Wife of Bath's Tale fits very nicely with Dante's view, not only of 'contrapasso', where the punishment fits the crime (as Gilbert and Sullivan put it), but that for the knight in the tale, his punishment works towards his redemption, as happens in Purgatory.
The knight is shown grace twice- the first time is when Queen Guinevere and her ladies ask Arthur for mercy from the death penalty. I will get to the second in a moment.

The knight in the tale commits the horrible crime of rape. He approaches a damsel in distress-- one whom the knight should be protective of-- and when he cannot seduce her, he rapes her quite violently. It is anti-chivalry. As his punishment the knight must marry an old crone, one who is low-born and hideously ugly. It is a punishment to be in bed with her. This is an appropriate punishment for one who forced sex on another. The punishment fits the crime.

But after he hears a sermon about his hypocrisy (you think I'm low born and yet you did what you did to the maiden?), the knight proves that his punishment has redeemed him. The knight has changed, and as another gift of grace, he is rewarded with a beautiful and loving wife.

The Other Half

Here is a strange hypothesis. Reading through the Wife of Bath’s Prologue again gave me an idea; I’m not sure it’s a good one but here it is. One of the questions we discussed in class was whether the Wife of Bath was supposed to be sympathetic or not. Perhaps the question beneath that is: is the Wife (I’m going to call her that through the rest of this. It’s easier) presented as herald of positive change in women’s role or is she the model for women of what not to do and for men who not to marry? I’ll argue it’s neither. What if her presence on the pilgrimage and her extraordinarily long prologue are not comments on women’s behavior at all, but rather on men’s? Let me explain a little.

            The prologue opens in the middle of an apologetic discussion. The Wife is making a case for her situation and beliefs, pulling from the Bible and classical literature, yet it seems that these bits are given a rather lose interpretation or are half quoted.  Not being an expert on Ptolemy, I’ll stick to the arguments she relies on the Bible for. I could probably go on and on about almost every reference she makes to the Bible but I want to focus on a particular passage that caught my eye. Speaking of her husband (I don’t know which one particularly), the Wife pulls out a pair of ideas one from Corinthians and the other from Ephesians:

I have the power during al my lif

Upon his proper body, and nat he.

Right thus th’ Apostle tolde it unto me,

And bad oure housbonds for to love us wel;

Al this sentice me liketh everydel.’ (159-162).

It is interesting that she ends the statement with “Al this sentice me liketh everydel.” She is implying that she has considered the whole statement and likes every bit of it. According to her she this is a solid basis for her argument. That however is literally half the story. I think it is safe to assume that many if not most of her audience would be familiar with the passages she is referring to. I can’t read Latin and nor do I have the Bible in middle English (which of course she probably didn’t have either) but here are the passages from the New King James Version which I think is close enough for my purposes:

1 Corinthians 7:4 “The wife does not have authority over her body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

Ephesians 5:22,25 “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and game himself for her.”

The Wife of Bath has pulled exactly half of these passages for her argument, which is what she wanted and nothing more. Her argument is based on what she wants her argument to be. From there she can find support for it because she wants it to be there. I could go on about this but I wondered: how often was the other half, and just the other half, used in medieval society? I’m no expert but what I remember from class discussions and a little of my own digging was that the women was very nearly the property of her husband in medieval society. No doubt our society emphasis the negatives disproportionately with the reality but there is also no doubt (correct me if I’m wrong Dr. M-B) that Medieval English law favored the man more than the women in most regards.

            Sorry I’ve been going on for a while now, don’t worry I’m almost done. Right before we learn that the Wife’s arguments (at least in this instance) are based on only what she wanted she uses what I thought rather severe words to describe the position of her husband to her; “Which shal be bothe my dettour and my thral” (155). Once I got past the strength of these descriptions (he shall be her debtor and slave) I realized a similarity with something Custaunce said in The Man of Law’s Tale. She said, “Wommen are born to thralldom and penaunce” (Man of Law’s Tale 286). The similarity is striking. Both contain “thrall” or “thralldom” and both contain ideas of debt or “penaunce,” which is paying for some wrong doing or debt.  It seems then that the Wife seeks to place men where men place women. All this to say that it seems that the Wife of Bath has been painted like this to point out the extreme lopsidedness that men assume with the same flawed logic. I think that as she repulses her audience they cannot but realize she has exactly the same basis for what she does as they do. The only difference is that she uses the other half of the whole.

            I apologize for making this so long. A applaud your patience for making it this far. Now you know why I only brought up part of it in class.

Pilgrimage

I was talking with Prof. MB about the WOB being sterile. She wrote back "Perhaps that is why she's so vocal about her sexuality - to make up for the perceived lack? That she is still on some level trying to conceive?" It got me thinking. I know men would try other partners when they couldn't conceive. That goes back to Sarai and Hagar at least. I know that the idea existed of women using alternate sources (other guys) when they couldn't conceive for their husbands. I think (but I don't have the book with me) that there is a nasty letter by Henry IV saying that Richard II's mom used that method to conceive Richard II.

I think the WOB is someone who jokes through her pain. Choosing not to conceive, and not being able to conceive, are very different emotionally. It always hurts to have choice taken away.

I think I remember Prof. MB asking why these people are on pilgrimage. I wonder if Alisoun's many pilgrimages may be to seek an end to her infertility. She isn't the type to talk about her pain if it is there. It could also be why she thinks so much about what constitutes a good woman.

The knight may be on pilgrimage because he is a "perfit gentil knight." But maybe he also has things he wanted to atone for, like being at Alexandria. The Reeve is grappling with old age, which could inspire a pilgrimage to ask God for healing, or to make things right before the end. I don't know about the others. While there are obvious things it would be good for them to ask forgiveness for, I'm not sure what actually motivates them.

I also wonder if their stories connect with their actual motivations.

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.