Geoffrey Chaucer’s the Wife of Bath Essay

â€Å"The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale explore many aspects of patriarchy – and sometimes reveal surprising attitudes within the tale and prologue.† Discuss. Geoffrey Chaucer’s the Wife of Bath is a text which is interwoven with references to Patriarchy and unanticipated attitudes towards the social backdrop in which it was created. Written in a period where males dominated the hierarchy, Chaucer through the Wife portrays the reversal of traditional roles, and a sense of rebellion and feministic instincts which at the time appeared extraordinary: â€Å"His poetic sensibility, combined with an immense understanding about men and women, enabled him to survey the life about him with such imaginative insight and power.† (Bennet 74) Throughout the Canterbury Tales, Chaucer speaks with remarkable authority on a huge range of subjects. This is perhaps made possible by the assortment of characters from all areas of society which travel on the pilgrimage. Alisoun’s character is perhaps best encapsulated in the manner of her entrance to the Tales. Clothed in the finest garments, her â€Å"hosen weven of fyn scarlet need†, well-travelled and â€Å"carteyn so wroth†, the Wife: â€Å"Strides into the Canterbury Tales on a large horse, spurs jangling, and ready to assert herself in a company made up almost entirely of men†¦ She is a medieval housewife who is not just going to star in a story, she is going to tell it.† (Reading the Wife’s Prologue and Tale) A far cry from the meek and submissive maidens so often portrayed in classic literature and fables prior to this; the Wife is independent, liberated and outspoken. The Wifes’ relationship to the men in her life is often one of total domination and manipulation. She enjoys â€Å"maistyre† over her male counterparts: Unne the mught they the statut holde In which that they were bounden un to me Ye woot wel what I mean of this, pardee! As help me God, I laughe whan I thynke How piteously a- nyght I made hem swynke. The Wife governs many aspects of her husbands’ lives, and rules with special sovereignty in the bedroom. Her sexual powers are and obvious source of seduction and control over her lovers. Very much a humanistic text, the Canterbury Tales constantly remind the reader of the complexity of the human character. One example of this could be the Knight, the embodiment of â€Å"chivalrye, Trouthe and honour, freedom and curteisye† in the hierarchy of society at the time. At first he appears to fit the specification perfectly. The however subtle passing motion which slightly removes the Knight from this brave and righteous tradition is left with us when he is described as â€Å"meke as a mayde†. Chaucer understood the depth of personality in each individual, and that a stereotype is never applicable. His characters almost always only very nearly fit the stereotype, and leave us scope to remain unconvinced about the rest. This refusal to comply with what many would describe as the one dimensional and traditional Fairytale characters allows for the issues of patriarchy to be discusses liberally. Interestingly, even at points of text which reflect a relaxed and conversational tone, the Wife constantly feels the requirement to reemphasise and argue her point with references to astrology and biblical references. These biblical references however are often contorted to suit the Wife’s requirement in the argument. For example the term from Genesis 1:22,28 â€Å"Go forth and multiply† is used as an excuse for the remarriage of the wife. This control and knowledge of the Church’s text represent a disregard to Patriarchal structures at many levels. The male governed Church, with its male oriented texts and belief systems for the Wife especially represent the oppression of men. For Alisoun the structures of literature, religion and authority are connected in that they represent male dominance. The Wife of Bath however cannot be totally classified as a pro feminist character. At many levels her dishonest, manipulative nature reinforces the common negative conceptions of anti- feminism at the time. Hansen (cited in Beidler) claims that this anti-feminist discourse mentioned above is less of a product of archness towards patriarchal literature. â€Å"Instead she is trapped in a ‘prison house’ of anti-feminist discourse. She is unable to see that her tactics simply reinforce all the stereotypical Medival ideas about women as cruel, emotional, and sexually voracious. Chaucer therefore is seen as reinforcing antifeminist views rather than undermining them.† Alisoun provides a vessal through which thousands of years of antifeminist literature are regurgitated with a revised purpose and tone of archness. One example of this method comes in Alisoun’s first words to the group, a repeat of earlier rhetoric (Awkroyd): Expeience, though no autoritee, Were in this world, is right ynogh for me To speak of woe that is in marriage. Peter Awkroyd (2005) believes that Chaucer â€Å"uses much of the antifeminist literature of the period but, by placing it in the Wife’s capacious mouth, he lends it a new and ironic lease of life.† The Wife’s five marriages on the outset portray a sense of calculated systematic marrying for the advancement of wealth and power. However, it could be argued that Alison was more than simply a ruthless professional. There are arguments that the fourth, and especially the fifth husband Jenkin, captured her love and stood in more than equal stead with their spouse: â€Å"That al myn herte I yaf unto his hold/ He was, I trowe, a twenty winter oold, and I was fourty.† Although the true love described by Chaucer at first appears conformal to the description of traditional literature, as often the case in the Tales, there is a cause for disease. In this case the context in which the romance begins, the burial ceremony of husband number four, Alisoun covets the younger page boy and her future husband. In Jankin, Alisoun finds a man to which she is willing to submit. Cruel, abusive, manipulative this husband domineers the relationship, physically, emotionally and sexually. At this stage the once immovable opposition to patriarchy admits that he partner â€Å"so well koude he me glose†. Furthermore the Wife admits that it is this form of denial and subornation in a relationship which causes women to crave what they cannot have: â€Å"wait what†¦crave† The dictatorship of Jenkin is further developed by Minnis, who claims Jenkin: â€Å"read aloud to her (translating from his anthology of antifeminist texts – It could be said then that she has learned at home, from her husband – how acquiescent and submissive can one get?† (Minnis 249) The Wife of Bath’s Tale and Prologue, as a text which attempts to examine Patriarchy, the attitudes portrayed are purposely less definable. Often categorised as either a feminist or anti- feminist text, The Wife of Bath is a complex mixture between the two. Chaucer, as always does not provide specific or obvious attitudes to these hierarchies and relationships. Instead, like his characters he provides us with an insightful cross- section of the Patriarchal society in which he existed. Reference List Awkroyd, Peter. ‘The Tales of Canterbury.’ Chaucer. London: Vintage, 2005. 150 – 53. Beidler, Peter G. Geoffrey Chaucer: The Wife of Bath. New York: Bedford Books, 1996. Bennet, H.S. ‘Chaucer.’ Oxford History of English Literature: Chaucer and the Fifteenth Century. Ed. F.P Wilson and Bonamy Dobrà ©e. London: Oxford, 1947. 74 – 75. Minnis, Alastair. ‘Chapter 4 Gender as Fallibility.’ Fallible Authors: Chaucer’s Pardonerand Wife of Bath. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. 249. ‘Reading the Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale.’ York Notes Advanced: The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale. London: Longman, 1998. 3 – 10.