"Can We Trust the Wife of Bath?"

A summary on the article by David Parker as put by Namrata Ramaprasad.

Over the last forty years, critics have debated profusely on whether Chaucer’s characters in the Canterbury Tales are portrayed as individuals we in the modern era may relate to those in the novels published now, or simply as icons that were designed to cater to the fourteenth century readers. It is true that readers have responded quite differently to the characters of literature and compared them to those in their lives. But if the theory of iconization is to be believed, then the characters of the tales cannot be regarded as individuals. The fourteenth century readers must have made a distinction between the portrayal of Alisoun of Bath and the people they encountered in society.

The easiest way to try and bridge the gap of the distinction is to study the lives of the fourteenth century readers as they were in the era of aristocrats, saints, kings and such. To them, illustrated facts we more understandable if explained through an experience of an individual, which can be classified as an older version of a biography. In the introduction of his poem, The Bruce, John Barbour talks about the art of biography, which is quite acceptable, as he announces his intention of telling a “suthfast story”.

The poem has a homelitic value to the reader, but he believes in it only if he thinks it to be of use to him in his experiences. The difference between a modern and a fourteenth century biography is that the latter explained the moral consequences and implications of it to human behaviour, but did not separate the psychology from the ethical value. The writers and biographers of that age used a character of moral interest, but did not detach it from human experience, thus confusing the modern readers to believe that that characters were not individuals, but icons.

The fact is that the fourteenth century readers understood the characters differently, when they were encountered in life or in literature. While the twenty first century focuses on the individualistic perspective of the characters, the fourteenth century focuses on the likeness. If an experience is available for them to relate to, they would consider the individuals approach.

It is safe to say that a reconstruction of the iconographical theory can help in the justification that the characters that Chaucer molded by mentioning their name, age, sex, appearance, history, etc were maybe meant to be dissociated with the people encountered in daily life in that age, thus making them an icon of sorts, not individuals.

The pilgrims in the Canterbury Tales are probably to be taken as individuals, though some as The Knight, The Parson, etc are less individualised. This is because they were to some degree, idealised, which meant that they emulated some moral value which greatly suppressed individualism but in that age, people did live up to their ideals. Chaucer, if only in his irony, did possess some kind of poetic apprehension to the individual personality. The ironies were little when it came to the pilgrims, but were definitely present. For example, in the General Prologue:

But, for to speken of hire conscience,

She was so charitable and so pitous

She wolde wepe, if that she saugh a mous

Kaught in a trappe, if it were dead or bledde,

Of smale houndes hadde she that she fedde

With rosted flessh, or milk and wastel-breed

But soore wepte she if oon of hem were deed,

Or if men smoot it with a yerde smerte,

And al was conscience and tendre herte.

The irony and the generosity is seen simultaneously as the reader must make judgements of the Prioress who had a love for animals, which was a misdirection of Christian charity and also against the icon theory, see her complexity as an individual.

The wife of bath was a character whose individuality was not easy to explain. She had a sense of living life large and that wasn’t evident in her speech or her behaviour. Critics like Walter Clyde Curry’s analysis’ suggests that her behaviour may be explained as Chaucer’s way of only sticking to moral and psychological types of characters or that he truly wanted to explain the behaviour and character of the individual.

Another critic, Charles A. Owen Jr. points out that even though the Wife of Bath professed female sovereignty in marriages, the heroine of the tale dint follow her example, and the wife itself is doubted of having exercised “maisterie” over her fifth husband if the following lines are to be believed.:

After that day we hadden never debaat.

God helpe me so, I was to hym as kynde

As any wyf from Denmark  unto Ynde,

And also trewe, and so was he to me.

Whether the Wife could be considered an individual is debated upon, but Chaucer did give the readers a glimpse into her inner, personal life. David Parker feels that the Wife of Bath cannot be trusted completely as there is a wide range of contrasts in two passages of the Wife of Bath’s Prologue:

But atte laste, with muchel care and two,

We fille accorded by us selven two,

He yaf me al the bridel in myn hond,

To han the governance of hous and lond,

And of his tonge and of his hond also;

And made hym brenne his book anon right tho.

And whan that hadde geten unto me,

By maistriem al the soveraynetee,

And that he seyde, “myn owene trewe wyf,

Do as thee lust the terme of al they lyf;

Keep thyn honour, and keep eek myn estaat”-

After that day we hadden never debaat.

God helpe me so, I was to hym as kynde

As any wyf from Denmark  unto Ynde,

And also trewe, and so was he to me.

This passage, three hundred lines earlier, gives a different perspective:

Now of my fifthe housbonde wol I telle.

God lete his soule nevere come in helle!

And yet as he to me the mooste shrewe;

That feele I on my ribbes al by rewe,

And evere shal unto myn ending day.

But in oure bed he was so fressh and gay,

And therewithal so well kounde he me glose,

Whan that he wolde han my bele chose,

He koude wynne again my love anon.

I trowe I loved hym best, for that

he was of his love dangerous to me.

We wommen han, if that I shal nat lye,

In this matere a queynte fantasye;

Wayte what thyng we may nat lightly have,

Thereafter wol we crie al day and crave.

Forbade us thyng, and that desiren we;

Preesse on us faste, and thanne wol we fle.

With daunger oute we al oure chaffare;

Greet prees at market maketh deere ware,

And to greet cheep is holde al litel prys;

This knoweth every womman that is wys.

In the two passages, the first gives an account of the cherished moments with her fifth husband, where she mentions that she loved him the most, being contradictory of the fact that in the second passage, she says that her time with him was that of hell. The Wife seems to have wanted the best of both worlds, suggesting that she was both in command as well as obedient.

The former passage gives us a gist of how she felt that a husband only needed to give in to his wife’s commands to make a marriage work. The latter, showing that she did not remember being in command, rather remembers being beaten profusely and then won over by a round of love making. The passage suggests that her assumption of “maistrie” was untrue, or the facts seemed to have been clouded with doubt. Perhaps it was because she wasn’t as free as she believed, or the terms weren’t agreeable at that time.

From what she mentions of her former marriages and the “daunger” she encountered, she contradicts her statement of “maistrie”, showing she had little but contempt for Jankyn. This “daunger”  was something the woman inflicted upon others, and vice versa. There is enough evidence that the Wife should have been frustrated in achieving “maistrie” as taking the advice she gave others, this would harm a good marriage.

If we are to accept the Wife of Bath as a character, it would be one that cannot be trusted. Chaucer shows her as a character who cherishes the fantasies of her own life, as they please her and they shock others. But she is sadly caught up in her own words, as she makes contradictory statements about her past. In this aftermath, we are shown a part of her inner, more personal life.

If we decide not to accept her as a character, then it questions the fourteenth century readers outlook again of having a distinction between the icons and the people of daily life, that they would refuse to create a human identity for her, which would create a riot.

Another problem is that with the Wife’s inconsistencies, the least that can be asked is for the reader to portray her to be consistent with her austerity, according to the iconographical theory, comparing her with her era’s paintings, where the body would be turned one way and the head another, showing that her illustration would be quite limited.

If she is to be considered an individual, then it is given that Chaucer was only depicting her as other fourteenth century scholars would.

The unusual notion is that the Wife of Bath, like other characters, was able to survive as a distinct individual into the twenty-first century, where the difficulties of the recognition have drastically reduced. It was Chaucer’s talent that he was able to create such a character who was not in harmony, but in conflict with it self. Her traits may be unfamiliar to the modern reader, but it abstractness is certainly recognizable. Hats off to Chaucer, as he molded her character, with such precision, into conditions that are timeless.