In The Wife of Bath’s prologue, the narrator says: “By God, if wommen hadde writen stories/ As clerkes han within hir oratories/ They wolde han write of men moore wikkednesse/ Than al the mark of Adam may redresse” (235). The suggestion in this passage is that a female narrator would reverse the sentiments of misogynist literature. And yet, the prologue, which is ostensibly created by a woman, perpetuates many of the misogynist stereotypes. For instance, she says that “half so boldely kan ther no man/ Sweren and lien as a womman kan” (219). She also claims that “deceit, weping, spinning, God hath yeve/ To wommen kindely, whil they may live” (225). And she writes “Namely abedde hadden they meschaunce/ Ther wolde I chide and do hem no plesaunce/ I wolde no lenger in the bed abide/ If that I felte his arm over my side/ Til he hadde maad his raunceon unto me” (225). Furthermore, she says: “I loved nevere by no discrecion/ But evere folwed I min appetit” (233). Does the Wife of Bath thus confirm that the male accusations are based on truths? Does she suggest that the attitudes toward women in patriarchal society are so ingrained in the culture as to make it impossible for women to envision themselves in another light? Or should her misogynist comments simply not be taken seriously?
I completely agree that the Wife of Bath's prologue is a very problematic portrait of the typical women (or wife). In reading her prologue, I kept wondering what was her reason for going on this pilgrimage in the first place: she certainly doesn't seem to be the most God fearing woman-- in fact, she doesn't seem that pious at all (I will elaborate on this topic in my response). Her fifth husband, Jankin, quotes a "proverbe of Ecclesiaste" (651) from the Bible to her, which says that "Whoso... / ...suffreth his wif to go seken halwes, / Is worthy to ben hanged on the galwes!" (655-8). And yet quite obviously, she ignores both her husband's request as well as the Bible's, as evidenced by the fact that she is, in fact, present at the pilgrimage. She even gives reason for her husband to be suspicious of her pilgrimages, by admitting that while her fourth "housbonde was at Londoun al that Lente; I had the bettre leiser for to pleye, / And for to se, and eek for to be seye / Of lusty folk" (550-3). And where did she go to "pleye" and "se" and "to be seye"? "To vigilies and to processions, / To prechying eek, and to thise pilgrimages" (555-7). And it was on one of these "religious" journeys that she met her fifth husband and forsook her fourth for him. Not only does she give perfect evidence of her lascivious behavior, provoking her husband's jealousy, but she even uses what should be a spiritual journey to commit adultery.
ReplyDeleteSorry. Just realized that in the first sentence, it should read "woman," not "women." It won't let me edit it for some reason!
ReplyDeleteI am not as sure as she is demeaning herself and by extension women as much as she is pointing out a clear double standard with regards to the treatment of men and women. She beings noting a number of examples of men with multiple wives, "Lo heere the wise kyng, daun Solomon; / I trowe he hadde wyves mo than oon." (l. 35) Then she goes on to give a series of analogies to explain her sexual behavior and her reasoning behind her actions. Her tale seems to confirm this for ultimately, beyond "richesse," "jolynesse" and "lust abedde" women want "soverynetee". The Wife of Baathe's reasoning and adherence to her own moral code adheres to this.
ReplyDelete