Is garrulous but honest a fair description of the Wife of Bath in

her Prologue or do you think that Chaucer shows her revealing

more than she intends?
Although there is a structure behind the seemingly rant-like Prologue, Chaucer ultimately shows
the Wife as revealing more than she herself intends. Through the revelations, Chaucer expresses
his own opinions and uses them as a source of irony. The Wife is seen through this technique to be
more than the boisterous two dimensional character she promotes, but rather a more vulnerable,
insecure character who aims to seeks appreciation, love and attention from the people she so
adamantly scorns in her Prologue.
Chaucer allows the subtext of the Wife of Baths Prologue to be the vector for his voice. The
detailed over-sharing serves as a tool for him to elicit the responses he wants from the audience.
The content/story of the prologue is involved in making the Wife seem like a realistic character, but
it is always the feeling of her revealing more than her words that causes conflict in the audience in
how to categorise the Wife. Through her contradictions, honest but wol nat kep me chaast,
Chaucer argues that whatever gender, real people are contradictory. He uses the words of the Wife
to criticise the church, through having her use biblical exegesis incorrectly, but then implies that the
church itself uses this tactic. The warm manner of the Wife, sometimes overly welcome, is
manipulated to contrast to the unforgiving and cold nature of the Medieval Church. Chaucer seems
to both criticize and advocate for women through the prologue, which furthers his central idea that
individuals are complex, and a singular method of judgement cannot be applied to all.
The over disclosing nature of the prologue also serves as a primary source for irony. As a medieval
text, audiences would be well aware of the stereotypes of women as loud, nagging and illogical. In
the wifes prologue, she seems to argue against the female stereotype by rejecting the frailness
expected in a woman of that time, and instead adopting her own auctoritee. Although we get a
feeling the Wife goes out of her way to appear this way, her desires of wanting to be replenned as
often as any man speak otherwise of a break from the female stereotype. She refers to Jankin both
as the blessed on and the one whos brokened myn heart and whos blow shell feel forever. Her
verbosity and her apparent pride in nagging her hosbondes for cloths and freedom also
emphasise just how neatly she fits into the female stereotype. The fact that she remains oblivious
to this emphasises the idea that women are supposed to be unintelligent and emotional. The
audience wouldve found this comedic as well as slightly repulsive, as the irony begins to expose a
glaring flaw of the wife her hypocrisy.
Chaucer may have also added this element of the ridiculous to the Wife of Bath in order to not
alienate his traditional audience, and to appeal to the male audience. His use of over revelation,
consequently exposing the wifes hypocrisy, not only makes the Wife and her messages more
easily accepted, but it conveys his overarching message that people cannot be reduced to
stereotypes. Although the wife claims to be honest and claims to rely purely on auctoritee, the
audience can blatantly see she does neither. The confusion escalates as we are exposed to her
tender feelings for Jankin after we interpret he has hurt her, although we had been privy just prior
to her complaining facetiously she was like a singed cat because her husband had not bought her
clothes. It is up to us to judge the wife as we would any other person. Chaucer deliberately
includes these excessive divulgences to generate confusion and contradiction, while carefully
refraining from imparting any judgement himself in the text.
On the level of the Wife herself, her habit of over providing details and information serves to
weaken the brazen, fearless picture she attempts to build for herself. We can see that although she
takes pains to paint herself as uncaring of what society thinks of her, she craves appreciation.
The wifes casual and intimate references to Christian figures emphasises her need for attention
(through her attempt to shock) and power (attempted closeness to powerful figures). The wife uses
biblical exegesis to support her arguments, but only succeeds in shocking the audience. She had

the audacity to refer to King Solomon as daun Salomon, and speaks as if she personally knew
him, I trowe he hadde wives mo than oon. She even begins to comment on his sex life,
exclaiming she wished to be refresshed as ofte as he! . This and her self professed alignment to
rich or Oxenford men, as well as her thries hadde she been to Jerusalem reinforces the wifes
lust for attention and power/social status.
The Wife also tries to emphasise her interpretation of marriage as a financial transaction, but
through her Prologue a sense of insecurity and a need for love shines through. We cannot only
take her stories at face value. Chaucer injects several incidences of of emotion that are seemingly
irrelevant in the stories she tells. In telling of Jankin, the wife laments who wolde suppose the wo
that in my here wos, a seemingly redundant and oddly placed piece of information as she goes on
to gloat about how she has Jankins bridel in myn honde. Chaucer makes the Wife,
unconsciously, reveal more than she intends in order for us to be awareness of her less confident
side. The Wifes excessive assertions that she only married for riches and always kept her
hosbondes on honde reveal that she is not in fact self assured, but unsure and hesitant in the
patriarchal Middle Ages. The fact that she has married 5 times, and herself professed she is
barley bread (a wife, rather than a virgin) and wol persevere in being a wife shows she does to
some level enjoy company, and being married. Chaucer presents the Wife as someone who
attempts to act in a masculine manner, but unwittingly commits all of the fallacies of a woman. Not
only does this result in comedy, but it could potentially reveal the difficulties of being a successful
woman in the Middle Ages. Through the sensitive side of the wife, the reader can see how women
are sometimes ridiculed for being either stereotypically masculine or feminine.
Ultimately, the above attributes clearly shows the Wife to be someone who craves attention. From
the shining spurs on her boots, to her signature blood red clothes and ample hips, the wife revels
in being seen. She even stylises herself to a cat who, with a beautiful coat, would show it off all
day and nigt. It seems that she is willing to bear societys judgements, just as long as she can be
seen as a striking individual. This is reinforced by how she, after telling a somewhat plausible story
would add in a detail that is not concurrent with her retelling previously. The wife sensationalises
her stories, by changing from a leaf to three leafes torn out of Jankins book. Is this because she
is upset? A more cynical view is that she is exaggerating to gain sympathy and attention. Her
verbosity itself is an attribute to her craving the attention of the other pilgrims. The contrast
between how she treats the Friar and the Pardoner shows she is prone to flattery. The Wife is
dismissive of the Friars lough as he teases that it was a long preamble of a tale. However, her
reception of the Pardoner is warmer, willing to share her auctoritee- not least because she was
delighted in his respect of her, calling her a noble prechour in this case.
The slight discomfort audience members may feel towards the Wife of Bath from her proffering too
much information is not merely to show the Wife is garrulous but honest. Through her ramblings
Chaucer injects his own ideas, manipulates how the audience views the Wife, and creates,
simultaneously, humour and distaste for her. Through this Chaucer emphasises his idea that
people cannot be reduced to stereotypes, but that each individual is complex and neither totally
good nor bad, whether they be woman or man.