The Wife of Bath: the O.G. Feminist

The Wife of Bath is an interesting person, to say the least.  She has been married to five different men, wears extravagant things, and has a little bit of satire.  However, I believe her most dashing trademark is that she could possibly be the first feminist, if she meant it or not. 

            The first reason why I believe that she is the Original Feminist is the way she deals with an abusive husband.  Most people in our current society can agree that beating your wife is really not a good idea, well, unless you’re Ray Rice.  However, she was living in a time were popular reading consisted of telling men that no matter how your wife acts, good or bad, she will cause you hardship.  Better yet, she lived in a time period were there were no laws in place to protect anyone from spousal abuse. 

            So here is the Wife of Bath, listening to a misogynistic reading from her husband.  What does she do? She rips a page out of his book.  What does he do? Beats her till she is deaf in one ear. What does she do? SHE HAS HIM LEAN OVER SAYING SHE WANTS A KISS BEFORE SHE DIES AND THEN SMACKS HIM! Although the feminist movement doesn’t condom violence, that is a pretty gutsy move.   Her husband then tells her that she can now be the boss following that scene.  So, yeah, she may be beaten and deaf in one ear, but at least she got equality in the end. 

            Secondly, I believe that she is an original feminist because she fights for the right to equality.  In lines seventy-one onwards she discusses that she does not find it fair that women are held to such high standards about intercourse.  She brings up the question, “why can’t I have sex if all these men are not suppose to be virgins?” Which is a great question.  Why shouldn’t females have the same right to do what they please with their bodies?

            Then backtracking a little bit, in lines thirty one to thirty three she tries to go around the Bible, which is, once again, pretty gutsy for the fourteenth century.  Her theory is that if she is married, sex is free game with whom she wants.  And, yes, she acknowledges the fact that the Bible would prefer if she was just a virgin, but you can’t tell that Wife of Bath what to do.

            Finally, I think she tears down the gender binary once again with something as simple as riding horses.  In the text she is described as wearing spurs on her boots while riding.  Traditionally, women were never (until recently and that’s only in certain forms of Western style) known to wear spurs because it was considered an aggressive and “manly-man” construct.  The Wife of Bath did not care, she actually did not care so much, that she rode straddling the horse. 

            The Wife of Bath is the original Feminist, sorry Christine de Pizan. 

Canterbury's Perfect Archetypes

Chaucer starts his Canterbury tales with a depiction of every single character going on a pilgrimage.  Many of whom are not named, but are defined simply by the role they fulfill or their career.  Each character, while an individual, represents an archetype of their career, and Chaucer can play with who fulfills curtains roles, and how those roles should be completed.

Each character then acts and responds accordingly to how this archetype or stereotype is portrayed.  For instance, the Squire, who is shown as a happy fool (accurately stereotyped by the Major Arcana's Fool, down to the sleeves themselves) and thus is "perfect" in his role.  While not a perfect squire, he does represent a population of "lazy" squires who prefer to dream of saving princesses and singing songs than the actually work of becoming a knight.  While singing may be an unwanted pastime, the Squire is a very good musician and has a good singing voice, adding to his role of "perfection" within his archetype.  And each character, is more or less another form of "perfection" or "imperfection" as their standing in society, and the title of their job is seen.

Chaucer then is in control of who is "perfect" and who is the opposite of perfect.  The pious being pure, or greedy.  The Nobel being chivalrous or cowardly.

Archetypes are described as the storytellers toolbox.  Is Chaucer taking an easy rode by making each character a simple recreation of a role?  Or is this a witty inclusion of politics into his tale?  

The professional Knights, Squires, Parsoners, Summoners, and Wives?

It is inevitable that Chaucer bases inner quality upon outer appearance. You can tell what kind of person someone is by looking at them. He thoroughly examines this with each character in the general prologue and even more so in their personal prologues.

The knight and squire seem to be similar characters in terms of their duties and positive qualities. Both are honorable and upstanding, however the squire comes off quite dainty. Chaucer’s description is that of a typical modern day 20 some year old male: attractive with hair that I would probably be jealous of (you know what I’m talking about. Perfect natural curly locks free of heat damage.) He’s lusty, active, strong, multi-talented, and in search of landing a lady, but certainly in no rush to do so. So what does Chaucer think of him? To me, it seems that he believes him to be a good guy, but as said in class you wouldn’t want him to fight your battles given the choice of him or the knight.

I could sit here and discuss all of the character prologues but honestly, we all want to read and write about the wife of Bath. First of all it’s interesting that Chaucer deems her the wife instead of the cloth maker, which is her profession. Everyone else is termed by their title. I suppose because she’s been married five times, it fits to call her the wife. Chaucer observes her vain and bold appearance by noting her scarlet red stockings, her outrageous ten pound hat, in addition to her sexually stamped gap tooth. We obtain so much information about this woman in such a short introduction, it’s no wonder her tale is so lengthy. While Chaucer does acknowledge her sexual fluctuation and dominant personality, he never makes any notion that he dislikes it. Is it “look at this bold feminist powerful woman,” or is it “look how scary she is what is she doing?” As a 21^st century reader, it’s difficult to say what exactly Chaucer was thinking, but I can’t find any reason yet to believe that he doesn't respect her character or at the very least find her intriguing.

A Hearty and Honorable Host

Hey girls,

I actually read the wrong thing for today! I'm so sorry! Here's a response on the actual reading for today!

It seems to me that the pilgrims are narrating in the concluding section of the prologue.
the speak highly of a host that treats them royally. When they arrive, immediately he gives them the best food and wine around. He seems like a kind person who's motto is "mi casa es su casa."

He seems to just be a happy guy that enjoys the company of others and does his job well. I think that Chaucer meant for him to be portrayed as genuine and lively. Unlike many people we've read about in the prologue, the host is one of the few "good apples."

The host is modest and the pilgrims say you cannot find a man fairer than him in Cheapside, an eloquent and classy place in London. His character seems to outshine everything else.

He is wise, educated, and well-spoken, and funny. He seems like s true stand- up guy that they admire. I think this portrayal is used to show readers that it is important for a man to be smart, virtuous, funny, and kind. This man takes pride in his job and that was valued with the highest respect in this era. He is a good person in society because he does his job and he does it well.

And it won't let me keep typing but can I please hang out with the Wife of Bath?

     I don't know why, but for some reason The Canterbury Tales made so much more sense to me over the past week than the last time I read it. Maybe it's because I paid more attention, or care more, or simply have the first experience under my belt, what ever it is, I am very much okay with it.
     That being said I still haven't quite gotten a handle on Chaucer's tone. I can't always tell when he's being sarcastic or satirical from when he's being totally serious. There are sections when I'm pretty sure I know what's going on and I turn out to be correct and there are sections when I may as well be reading a different book.
     When we were reading the section on the Knight and the Squire I definitely saw the Squire as a no-good dandy, when others saw him as the picture of innocence. And I have no idea who is closer to the truth (even any of us even are close).
      The new readings (at least parts) are a little easier to tell. The Parson is the good guy, no questions  asked. It's easy to tell that Chaucer respects this guy (figment of Chaucer's own imagination though he may be). I didn't really pick up on any sass in his description, only heartfelt belief in his goodness and kindness. I may be totally missing the boat with this one (and wouldn't that be embarrassing) but that's where I stand with the Parson.
      The Wife of Bath is probably my favorite character thus far. I don't know if Chaucer is a huge fan of her or thinks she's a nut but I've always kind of liked the lady. She's not pretty, Chaucer makes that fairly clear, but she is wealthy. Which is almost more important. I don't know if he means to shame her while mentioning her five husbands (and other companions in her youth) but I've got nothing but respect for a lady who can talk five guys into marrying her. (Albeit some of them were probably in it for the money).

A General Prologue... or a Mean Girls esque Burn Book?

Opening Canterbury Tales, sitting down and beginning to truly read and understand it is a daunting task. That being said, I find that the most effective way for me to find an understanding as to what Chaucer is saying, I must work endlessly to picture these characters; I must give a voice to those without dialogue, and I must dress and give vanity-or lack their-of- based on the descriptions that Chaucer provides us as readers. With this imagery in my mind, I found that I could truly see what Chaucer felt of these people, or in the least how I felt in regards to what he felt necessary to mention about them. With this broad analysis of characters, though, one is bound to be at a loss for what the author is truly attempted to say of those he meets while beginning his travels, and I ran into this issue when reader of the Poor Parson of the town.

Frequently, it is seen in literature that those who can read and write are of high wealth and that this ability showed generous standings in society and defined them. The Poor Parson, though, was quite scholarly and perhaps insightful. I, myself, was inspired by his ways of thought and motivation for success. As the text says, “But he ne lefte nat, for reyn ne thunder, In siknesse nor in mischief to visite The ferreste in his parisshe, muche and lite, Upon his feet, and in his hand a staf” (Chaucer 14). Along with that, I also found the lines saying “That if gold ruste, what shal iren do. For if a preest be foul, on whom we truste, No wonder is a lewed man to ruste,” to be quite insightful (Chaucer 15).  Essentially, he was the epitome of a man who would do what he needed to do to survive, regardless to the disadvantages. In my eyes, this quality is admirable and I feel based on the way Chaucer characterizes and judges those in the story, he would agree. But, in the same breath, does Chaucer feel the Parson is weak, for he is reluctant to excommunicate those who do not pay their fines saying “Ful looth were hym to cursen for his tithes, But ather wolde he yeven, out of doute,” (Cnhaucer 14)? This is one of the many examples of times I wish I truly knew what Chaucer felt of these people, but I guess I can simply form my own opinions and hold those true throughout the rest of the tale. 

As an afterthought upon finishing this story, is Chaucer, or the narrator which he speaks for, the Regina George of the trip to Canterbury? The popular fellow persay? Quick to judge others, I wonder what those on the trip feel of him? If the General Blog is a metaphorical Mean Girls, or lads, Burn Book than what shame would be put towards the narrator?

My Realization of Our Uncivilized Society

            My biggest problem with the General Prologue in The Canterbury Tales is the fact that I can’t discern which characters are good, and which are painted in a bad light.  During last week’s discussion, my group found the interpretations between the knight and his son to be much different than some of the others in the class. (Whether that’s because it’s up to interpretation or I’m simply getting it wrong, I don’t know.) The general consensus was that the son’s excerpt was very satirical.  But how am I supposed to know that? Even when translated into Modern English, the tone is hard to understand.  I’m really starting to hold Chaucer in contempt for showing off his fancy schmancy writing skills, and not focusing on understanding what the heck he’s saying.  I like poetic things, but this seems a bit excessive. 

            What I’m confused about is the contrasting things we discussed in class.  One day, I think we discussed that a clean-cut, nice looking dude with shiny armor and nice-looking hair was considered a good thing—the guy could be recognized as a hero.  Then another day, a guy with a nicely groomed, forked beard, or a squire with nice hair and the ability to write songs is bad.  This is extremely confusing! Then I remembered that these two discussions occurred while we were discussing two different stories.  So maybe this presents the evolution from Old English times and Middle English times—which again brings me to the topic of heroism. 

            In Beowulf, the hero is dressed in shiny, extravagant armor, and he is loved by the people.  Of course, his accomplishments and reputations are also considered in his heroism, but a lot of emphasis is placed on his outer appearance—which is quite impressive.  This idea isn’t unlike today’s society, where we place emphasis on looks in, not heroes, but celebrities.  We see the opposite in The Canterbury Tales, though.  Their hero (in this case the knight) is humbly dressed, and shows that looks are not at the forefront of their judgments.  Like Beowulf, this knight has many proud accomplishments to display—yet, they look entirely different.  What’s funny to me is the fact that we think of these times as uncivilized now—but really, Chaucer and his counterparts had the right way of thinking.  So who’s really uncivilized? Beowulf  is one of the earliest works we have on record, while Chaucer wrote this a hundreds of years later.  So really, we’ve come full circle. 

What Does Chaucer Really Think?

            As I’ve continued reading the Prologue of “The Canterbury Tales,” I’ve realized that one of the hardest things to detect is Chaucer’s language, not in the terms of it being written in Middle English but in regards to his opinion of certain characters. It would be easy to say that Chaucer is sincere when talking about each character, but that simply is not true. Last week in class we broke into small groups and discussed whether or not we thought Chaucer liked the Squire and the Knight. As we went around the room my group members and I became aware that every other group had developed completely opposite opinions then we had. When we read about the Knight we thought Chaucer was speaking rather sarcastically and was not really a fan of the Knight but greatly respected the Squire. During that time period, people believed that your outwardly appearance reflected who you were as a person. This being said, we thought that although the Knight seemed to be a kind and worthy man, his messy appearance reflected that his life was rather unorganized and he did not take his job as seriously as he should. Also, when talking about the Squire, we saw his curly locks and very fashionable attire to correspond with his well-respected persona. This being said, we thought Chaucer was a fan of the Squire. After our class discussion last week with every group disagreeing with my group’s opinions, it is even harder to distinguish Chaucer’s sincerity or lack there of, when speaking of certain characters. How important is the outward appearance? Could Chaucer perhaps be mocking the Squire’s attire rather than complementing it? With these questions in mind, as I continue to read the book, are there any specific uses of language or signifiers that will help me to decide one way or another (whether Chaucer is sincere or sarcastic) or are there many possibilities for each character in regards to Chaucer’s opinion of him or her? After reading the prologue section about the Summoner, it is quite obvious that his appearance is strikingly different, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Chaucer can’t help but to dwell on his red fiery skin disease, but how important is that to the Summoner’s identity? I suppose it is up to my interpretation to determine this, but what if my opinion again is drastically different from those opinions of my classmates; is there a right answer?