"The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale": A Story of Excess
Nancy Strahan
English literature owes a great debt to the work of Chaucer. During a time when Latin and Greek were considered the languages of power and prestige, Chaucer chose to write in the language of his people, English. In doing so, Chaucer allowed English to move from the common man’s tongue to the pages of great literature still revered today. However, his actions gave us much more than the beginnings of English poetry. Through his tales we gain small insights into the daily workings of life and its components. Chaucer’s writings tend to focus on the hot topics of the Middle Ages, such as biases, gender roles, and corruption of authorities, like the church and crown. His characters, particularly within the The Canterbury Tales, represent every type of person, from a knight, to a pardoner, to a wife. These characters are key in understanding Chaucer’s presentation and critiques of life in the Middle Ages. One such character is the Wife of Bath, a female pilgrim who bucks against the common role of a woman during her time. The Wife of Bath is a particularly difficult character to present because scholars disagree on the way in which Chaucer intended her to be read. This is primarily because her character can be interpreted as either anti or pro feminist, each side with strong evidence to support their claim. Although the wife of bath is argued as a feminist character, because of her ability to operate within systems dominated by men, such as religion, marriage, and discourse, I argue that the reoccurring element of excess constructs the idea that women lack control and, given any amount of power, would eventually want all of it. This construct implies Chaucer intended to say power will always be either in man’s or women’s hands and consequently could never be shared. Therefore, the element of excess reveals that “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” is an antifeminist narrative.
The first system that the Wife of Bath seems to excel in is speech. That is to say that her prologue, in and of itself, can be viewed from these polar points. On the feminist side, the Wife’s ability to present herself for several hundred words can be seen as a positive. She is, in a way, showing that women are capable of public speaking and advocating for themselves. However, the length of her prologue is not just slightly longer than the other pilgrims, it is nearly three times the length. The Pardoner speaks for three pages, the Miller for only two, and even the “General Prologue,” ringing in at 18 pages, comes up short of the Wife’s staggering 19 pages. This could be an example of Chaucer playing on the Middle Age concept of the scold. Scolding relates closely to the modern-day idea of a nagging woman (Dr. Emmerichs, “The Wife of Bath”). When this element of the text is viewed with the above model in mind, coupled with the interruption of the Pardoner, suggesting the Wife to hurry her tale along, “‘Dame, I wolde praye you if youre wil it were… Telle forth youre tale; spareth for no man,’” it is clear that Chaucer is painting the wife as a woman drunk, not just on mead, but on the spotlight and attention of the pilgrims (286). With this realization, the wife’s ability to hold her own in public discourse is altered to a lust for attention that drags on page after page.
One particularly impressive system the Wife of Bath shows agency in is religion. During the Middle Ages religion, specifically the Bible, was not only withheld from women, any reading of the Bible was only permitted to male church members, such as clergymen and pardoners (Dr. Emmerichs, “The Wife of Bath”). This aspect of religion complicates the implications behind the Wife’s use of the Bible. On one hand, she is shown to not only have Biblical knowledge, but also the ability to use that knowledge to support her arguments regarding multiple marriages and the enjoyment of sex. However, her extensive use of the Bible arguably indicates that she has personal access to the good book. This assumption is supported by her misquotations of the scripture as she defends her stance on virginity, “And lat us wives hote barly breed-/ And yit with barly breed, Mark telle can, / Oure Lord Jesu refresshed many a man” (286). In her assault on man’s valuing of virginity, the Wife mistakes the word of John for that of Mark (286). It is only a few lines later that the Pardoner interrupts her speech to point out that she is dangerously close to preaching. “‘Now dame,’ quod he, ‘by God and by Saint John, / Ye been a noble prechour in this cas’” (286). The Pardoner’s interruption is an indicator that the Wife has gone too far and used her platform that of the story contest, to the point of abuse. Also, his reference to Saint John highlights the error that she has made in the scripture. While biblical knowledge could be seen as a positive trait, the fact that the Wife’s knowledge seems to be personally gained, coupled with the overuse of it, and the component of error, suggests that women are incapable of biblical responsibility and that if they are given access to the Bible, they would abuse that power by misreading it and preaching that misinterpretation to others.
One of the actions that the Wife of Bath defends with Biblical evidence is that of marriage. In fact, the Wife’s prologue begins with her statement that she should be listened to because of how much experience she has in marriage. “Experience, though noon auctoritee/ Were in this world, is right ynough for me/ To speke of wo that is in mariage/… Housbondes as chirche dore I have had five” (282). According to Dr. Emmerichs’ lecture on Middle Age customs, marriage practices allowed men to remarry if they were widowed, but women were not given the same option (Dr. Emmerichs, “The Wife of Bath”). This often left female widows with little prospects after the death of a spouse. The Wife’s ability to endure the loss of a husband by taking a new one could be seen as practical and persevering. Chaucer certainly could have been trying to highlight the injustices between men and women through the circumstances of the Wife of Bath. However, this interpretation would have to overlook two key factors: excess and attitude. The Wife is not cast as a woman who remarries once or even twice in order to survive after the loss of a beloved husband. This type of rhetoric, that of creating sympathy, would have been effective if Chaucer was advocating sexual equality. Instead the Wife openly admits she purposely marries older men in hopes that they would soon die. “I shal saye sooth: tho housbondes that I hadde/… The three men were goode, and riche, and olde;” (287). It is clear from the text that the Wife does not marry for love or out of need, but to gain money and property. She proudly states, “But sith I hadde hem hoolly in myn hand, / And sith that they hadde yiven me al hir land… But it were for my profit and myn ese” (287). It seems more likely that Chaucer is painting the Wife as an original gold digger who, having gained the riches of her first aged husband, has tasted the power of marrying for money and cannot get enough.
Although a strong anti-feminist argument, based on the factor of excess, can be formed and supported from “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue” alone, the tale is essential in understanding that power is the object in question. When the two parts of the story are put together, the message is clear; women will handle power, specifically power over men, in the same manner as the Wife of Bath handles power in marriage, voice, finance, sex, and religion, i.e. liken of abuse. However, this connection is dependent on moral of the tale. In the tale a knight is sent on a mission of redemption after he rapes a woman. In order to avoid losing his life, the queen requires the knight answer one question, “What thing it is that women most desiren” (302). Throughout the tale many answers are speculated, such as freedom and love, but in the end the knight learns that it is complete submission from men that women desire most. “‘My lady and my love, and wif so dere, / I putte me in youre wise governaunce: / Cheseth yourself which may be most plesaunce” (309). It is only after the knight completely surrenders his will into the hands of his, then ugly, wife that he is given the answer and spared from punishment. The moral of the tale is summed up in the Wife’s final words to the pilgrims, “Housbondes meeke, Yonge, and fresshe abedde… And eek I praye Jesu shorte hir lives/ that nought wol be governed by hir wives, / and olde and angry nigardes of dispence/ God sende hem soone a verray pestilence!” (310). The Wife stays true to character by closing her tale with a prayer that men would be good young husbands that submit themselves to their wives. Because, as the tale points out, that is the only way to lead a happy life. While a new aged reading of this moral reads more like a relationship built on mutual respect, the Middle Age audience would have seen this as a direct contradiction to the way a marriage should be, namely ran by the man. By having the knight completely surrender his power to the woman, Chaucer is suggesting that women want to reverse the sex roles of the institution. This would indicate that women did not simply want power over themselves, but over their men as well.
There is a reason that the phrase “Too much of a good thing” has been heard across generations and languages. We know a pie that is too sweet can make us sick, that being too innocent can lead to nativity, and that too much money can cause greed. The danger of excess is common knowledge but can often be overlooked when the traits in question are fundamentally good. This is especially alluring when analyzing a possibly feminist text. We want to hear echoes of today’s equality movements in literature of the past. The Wife of Bath is one such alluring character. Indeed, her ability to show agency within the male-dominated systems of commerce, religion, marriage, and even sex, are admirable. Yet, when scholars approach this text without expectations or hopes of feminist qualities, the negative aspect of excess and the female desire for power reveals the writing on the wall. The same dark disturbing words found in many paper rooms; women are to be feared and power is to be kept from them at all costs.
Works Cited
“The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 9th ed., A. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 2012, pp. 282-310. The Middle Ages.
Emmerichs, Sharon. “The Wife of Bath” Survey of Medieval Literature. Survey of Medieval Literature, 26, Oct. 2017, Anchorage, University of Alaska Anchorage.
Greenblatt, Stephen, editor. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 9th ed., A, New York, NY, W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.
The first system that the Wife of Bath seems to excel in is speech. That is to say that her prologue, in and of itself, can be viewed from these polar points. On the feminist side, the Wife’s ability to present herself for several hundred words can be seen as a positive. She is, in a way, showing that women are capable of public speaking and advocating for themselves. However, the length of her prologue is not just slightly longer than the other pilgrims, it is nearly three times the length. The Pardoner speaks for three pages, the Miller for only two, and even the “General Prologue,” ringing in at 18 pages, comes up short of the Wife’s staggering 19 pages. This could be an example of Chaucer playing on the Middle Age concept of the scold. Scolding relates closely to the modern-day idea of a nagging woman (Dr. Emmerichs, “The Wife of Bath”). When this element of the text is viewed with the above model in mind, coupled with the interruption of the Pardoner, suggesting the Wife to hurry her tale along, “‘Dame, I wolde praye you if youre wil it were… Telle forth youre tale; spareth for no man,’” it is clear that Chaucer is painting the wife as a woman drunk, not just on mead, but on the spotlight and attention of the pilgrims (286). With this realization, the wife’s ability to hold her own in public discourse is altered to a lust for attention that drags on page after page.
One particularly impressive system the Wife of Bath shows agency in is religion. During the Middle Ages religion, specifically the Bible, was not only withheld from women, any reading of the Bible was only permitted to male church members, such as clergymen and pardoners (Dr. Emmerichs, “The Wife of Bath”). This aspect of religion complicates the implications behind the Wife’s use of the Bible. On one hand, she is shown to not only have Biblical knowledge, but also the ability to use that knowledge to support her arguments regarding multiple marriages and the enjoyment of sex. However, her extensive use of the Bible arguably indicates that she has personal access to the good book. This assumption is supported by her misquotations of the scripture as she defends her stance on virginity, “And lat us wives hote barly breed-/ And yit with barly breed, Mark telle can, / Oure Lord Jesu refresshed many a man” (286). In her assault on man’s valuing of virginity, the Wife mistakes the word of John for that of Mark (286). It is only a few lines later that the Pardoner interrupts her speech to point out that she is dangerously close to preaching. “‘Now dame,’ quod he, ‘by God and by Saint John, / Ye been a noble prechour in this cas’” (286). The Pardoner’s interruption is an indicator that the Wife has gone too far and used her platform that of the story contest, to the point of abuse. Also, his reference to Saint John highlights the error that she has made in the scripture. While biblical knowledge could be seen as a positive trait, the fact that the Wife’s knowledge seems to be personally gained, coupled with the overuse of it, and the component of error, suggests that women are incapable of biblical responsibility and that if they are given access to the Bible, they would abuse that power by misreading it and preaching that misinterpretation to others.
One of the actions that the Wife of Bath defends with Biblical evidence is that of marriage. In fact, the Wife’s prologue begins with her statement that she should be listened to because of how much experience she has in marriage. “Experience, though noon auctoritee/ Were in this world, is right ynough for me/ To speke of wo that is in mariage/… Housbondes as chirche dore I have had five” (282). According to Dr. Emmerichs’ lecture on Middle Age customs, marriage practices allowed men to remarry if they were widowed, but women were not given the same option (Dr. Emmerichs, “The Wife of Bath”). This often left female widows with little prospects after the death of a spouse. The Wife’s ability to endure the loss of a husband by taking a new one could be seen as practical and persevering. Chaucer certainly could have been trying to highlight the injustices between men and women through the circumstances of the Wife of Bath. However, this interpretation would have to overlook two key factors: excess and attitude. The Wife is not cast as a woman who remarries once or even twice in order to survive after the loss of a beloved husband. This type of rhetoric, that of creating sympathy, would have been effective if Chaucer was advocating sexual equality. Instead the Wife openly admits she purposely marries older men in hopes that they would soon die. “I shal saye sooth: tho housbondes that I hadde/… The three men were goode, and riche, and olde;” (287). It is clear from the text that the Wife does not marry for love or out of need, but to gain money and property. She proudly states, “But sith I hadde hem hoolly in myn hand, / And sith that they hadde yiven me al hir land… But it were for my profit and myn ese” (287). It seems more likely that Chaucer is painting the Wife as an original gold digger who, having gained the riches of her first aged husband, has tasted the power of marrying for money and cannot get enough.
Although a strong anti-feminist argument, based on the factor of excess, can be formed and supported from “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue” alone, the tale is essential in understanding that power is the object in question. When the two parts of the story are put together, the message is clear; women will handle power, specifically power over men, in the same manner as the Wife of Bath handles power in marriage, voice, finance, sex, and religion, i.e. liken of abuse. However, this connection is dependent on moral of the tale. In the tale a knight is sent on a mission of redemption after he rapes a woman. In order to avoid losing his life, the queen requires the knight answer one question, “What thing it is that women most desiren” (302). Throughout the tale many answers are speculated, such as freedom and love, but in the end the knight learns that it is complete submission from men that women desire most. “‘My lady and my love, and wif so dere, / I putte me in youre wise governaunce: / Cheseth yourself which may be most plesaunce” (309). It is only after the knight completely surrenders his will into the hands of his, then ugly, wife that he is given the answer and spared from punishment. The moral of the tale is summed up in the Wife’s final words to the pilgrims, “Housbondes meeke, Yonge, and fresshe abedde… And eek I praye Jesu shorte hir lives/ that nought wol be governed by hir wives, / and olde and angry nigardes of dispence/ God sende hem soone a verray pestilence!” (310). The Wife stays true to character by closing her tale with a prayer that men would be good young husbands that submit themselves to their wives. Because, as the tale points out, that is the only way to lead a happy life. While a new aged reading of this moral reads more like a relationship built on mutual respect, the Middle Age audience would have seen this as a direct contradiction to the way a marriage should be, namely ran by the man. By having the knight completely surrender his power to the woman, Chaucer is suggesting that women want to reverse the sex roles of the institution. This would indicate that women did not simply want power over themselves, but over their men as well.
There is a reason that the phrase “Too much of a good thing” has been heard across generations and languages. We know a pie that is too sweet can make us sick, that being too innocent can lead to nativity, and that too much money can cause greed. The danger of excess is common knowledge but can often be overlooked when the traits in question are fundamentally good. This is especially alluring when analyzing a possibly feminist text. We want to hear echoes of today’s equality movements in literature of the past. The Wife of Bath is one such alluring character. Indeed, her ability to show agency within the male-dominated systems of commerce, religion, marriage, and even sex, are admirable. Yet, when scholars approach this text without expectations or hopes of feminist qualities, the negative aspect of excess and the female desire for power reveals the writing on the wall. The same dark disturbing words found in many paper rooms; women are to be feared and power is to be kept from them at all costs.
Works Cited
“The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 9th ed., A. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 2012, pp. 282-310. The Middle Ages.
Emmerichs, Sharon. “The Wife of Bath” Survey of Medieval Literature. Survey of Medieval Literature, 26, Oct. 2017, Anchorage, University of Alaska Anchorage.
Greenblatt, Stephen, editor. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 9th ed., A, New York, NY, W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.
Nancy Strahan is pursuing a Baccalaureate of English.
This piece was selected by Professor Sharon Emmerichs.