Q-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ???

A-1 The Wife of Bath s Tale features a character that seemed to resemble a liberative figure and more of a feminist. But in Chaucer s time, feminism was thought to be a bnormal and the pilgrims reacted negatively towards her for it, but The Wife of B ath had no qualms about displaying herself as she really was. She was not ashame d of the fact she had been married five times, and was about to marry again. She hid nothing. The prologue of this tale showed that the pilgrim did not revere the Wife of Bat h as an upstanding woman, nor did she desire to be seen as one. Almost as soon a s she began speaking in the prologue, she explained that she had gone through fi ve husbands, and she was on the look out for a sixth. She also conceded that she married for money: " I ll tell the truth. Those husbands I had, three of them were good and two of them bad. The three I call good were rich and old. They could inde ed with difficulty hold the articles that bound them all to me; (No doubt my smi le) " (Bath 263). She even went to the point of saying that she didn t value her hus bands love. Then again, why should she? She received what she wanted money, control , and anything that she desired, they provided. The Wife of Bath attested that a ll women needed to be the controlling factors in marriage. That is how she belie ved she would gain their husbands money. She claimed that if women can t marry for money, they must marry for sex, for those are the only two things that really ma tter. Women must have control of their husbands, according to the Wife, and she is proud of the fact that she governed her husbands. If she had to put them in t heir place, she would make her husbands feel guilty, even if they had nothing to feel guilty for. The Wife boasted of her bogus accusations, showing how she got the better of her husbands by taking the offensive. She prided herself on havin g the skill of vigor and complaining to gain mastery over her husbands. She wou ld even trade sexual favors for gifts from them. She would conclude this by sat isfying her husband's desire: love Yet he felt flattered in his heart because, he t hought it showed how fond of him I was. (Bath 267). It was all a game to her. How much of a dichotomy was it that the Wife was not even beautiful? "'...I was forty then, to tell the truth. But still I always had a coltish tooth. Yes I'm gap tooth, it suits me well...(Bath 274) '" The Wife when describing herself sa ys she was old and ugly. Her bright clothes and detailed "coverchiefs" are pret entious rather than graceful. Her hat is as broad as a small shield. Her clothe s are of good quality "fine scarlet reed" and her shoes are "moist and new." Th e effect is perhaps to advertise herself and her wealth. The Wife of Bath also made it known that she was not solo on this philosophy. She also believed that w omen, if they know what s good for them, could lie twice as well as men can and th at all women basically behave the way she does. She was not only physically ugly, but she did not treat her husbands with respec t or dignity either. She would beat her husbands, if she felt the need arise. I f she in turn would get beaten, she would gain some love for her husbands. In fa ct her fifth husband, Johnny, routinely beat her, and she loved and respected hi m most of all, He struck me, still can ache, along my row of ribs but I think I loved him best, I ll tell no lie. (Bath 272). If that wasn t enough, the Wife also clai med that women take advantage of their husbands and victimize them. And that it is better to marry an ugly women rather than a beautiful one, because if she has a pretty face, old traitor, you say she s game for any fornicator. (Bath 265). In conclusion, the wife wanted what every woman wants in a relationship; POWER. The Wife of Bath came across as a very erroneous woman. So how would she fair in

today s society? There are plenty of women out there who marry for money. Some o f them like to publicize it, while others do not. There is one caveat that woul d make The Wife of Bath not as successful today the law. Most men who do come fro m money, or have earned their own wealth, watch it closely. There are protector s out there, and contracts such as a pre-nuptial agreement. But The Wife played it well as she would wait until the husband would die. In that case, she would gain his wealth. But in my opinion, I have a hard time thinking that a man woul d stick around with an ugly hag that liked to beat him and never revered his lov e. She desired few simple pleasures in life. She mirrored images of herself, throug h the tale, which in some way reflected the person whom she portrayed in the Tal e. The Wife of Bath desired a certain life being more powerful than her man, her s pouse, and her lover, whichever he may be. In a relationship, she wished to be t he dominant of the two. She was in control and decided all of the matters in t he relationship. She wanted to be given from her partner, the power to make the decisions and the choices and not have it taken away from her. The Wife of Bath felt that all women act the way she acted, and if they did not, then they shoul d. The Wife of Bath did not hide her evil ways behind a faade of wholesomeness; w hereas she just let it all hang out. It seemed that she wanted all women to beha ve in the same manner as she. She had no qualms about displaying herself as she really was. She was not ashamed of the fact she was married five times and about t o marry again. She hid nothing .so it must be that true power is what women want t he most At the end of the Tale, she said herself, And I pray Jesus to cut short th e lives of those who'll not be governed by their wives.

The Wife of Bath s Prologue presents a perspective on auctoritee, or authority, that challenges that offered by the other, mostly male pilgrims tales. Critics debat e whether or not the Wife of Bath finds success in embodying an antithetical per sona to the anti-feminist doctrines widely espoused in Chaucer s era and thus in c hallenging the anti-feminism of the other pilgrims. Yet, given Chaucer s avoidanc e of moral absolutism, reading the Wife of Bath s character at face value cannot f ully answer such a question. Instead, critics have compared the precursors to T he Canterbury Tales along with social and religious principles of the era agains t the tales themselves to glean further meaning from the tales, if not possibly to suggest Chaucer s own perspective on the social and religious issues surroundin g them. The Wife of Bath s Prologue particularly renders this procedure both inst ructive and fascinating because the Wife of Bath acts as interpreter to texts of her era, just as Chaucer often modified preexisting tales to incorporate into h is own work. The opening of the Wife of Bath s Prologue, in fact, marks the whole as a dis course on authority and experience; in essence, who wields the power and respons ibility of interpretation. Much analysis of the Wife of Bath s Prologue has divid ed this analysis along gender lines: male reading versus female reading of texts . Indeed, the issue of male versus female interpretations rests at the core of Carolyn Dinshaw s analysis of the Wife of Bath s Prologue in her book Chaucer s Sexual Poetics. While examining the feminist implications of the Wife of Bath s interpr etations in the Prologue, however, Dinshaw does not consider the more immediate implication of the Wife of Bath s textual interpretation, for the textual passages at the center of the Wife of Bath s Prologue include not only secondary antifemin ist sources but also, and foremost, the Bible, the primary source of authority i tself. Because the Wife of Bath interprets the Bible herself, she takes on a ro le usually reserved for clerical figures and in turn adopts their interpretive t echniques. Her occupation of this role and application of clerical interpretive techniques, however, results in unorthodox interpretations that run counter to the views held by the usual clerical authorities: the authors of the antifeminis t sources whose ideas she rejects. The Wife of Bath s Prologue thus can be seen n ot only as a challenge to anti-feminism but also to clericalism. Through her ma nipulation of interpretation and resultant unsettling interpretations of the Bib le, the Wife of Bath not only argues against traditional doctrine but also quest ions the notion of authority as a whole. The middle of the Wife of Bath s challenge to authority provides a blueprint of her interpretive strategies. The Wife of Bath uses Biblical passages to supp ort her primary argument that successive marriages are permissible. Although he r interpretation of the Bible seems self-serving it foreshadows her later desire f or maistrye over her husbands what is compelling about her selection is not the pass ages and direct interpretations themselves but their response to previous anti-f eminist interpretations. In fact, the core of the Wife of Bath s argument for mar riage consists of a revision of anti-feminist arguments. Much of her Biblical r eferences stem not only from the original verses but also St. Jerome s Adversus Jo vinianum, as Robert Longsworth points out in his analysis of the Prologue s Biblic al references (374-375). One of the Wife of Bath s main revisions to St. Jerome c oncerns the first part of her argument for marriage: that virginity is an ideal rather than a commandment. She supports this claim with the following paraphras e from St. Paul: He seith that to be wedded is no synne; / Bet is to be wedded th

an to brynne (WB 51-52). In the same chapter of Paul, however, is the observatio n that it is good for a man not to touch a woman (Paul 7:1), which St. Jerome used as the basis of his argument for virginity (Longsworth 381). Thus, just as St. Jerome picked and chose certain extracts to lead to one conclusion, the Wife of Bath selects others to lead in the opposite direction. This process of delibe rate selection and revision characterizes the Wife of Bath s treatment of Biblical passages throughout the first part of the Prologue. As she illuminates alterna te readings of a single text, she calls into question long-standing interpretati ons. At the same time, however, her manipulation casts into doubt her own argum ents. By incorporating untrustworthy techniques into her arguments, she inheren tly taints them, even as she illuminates the problems of others arguments. The first Biblical reference that the Wife of Bath incorporates into her pr ologue is not actually her own. Although her literacy level may play a role in this reliance upon interpretation rather than actual text, her decision to begin with Biblical interpretation immediately after her discussion of experience and authority calls attention to the arbitrariness of interpretation. Her first re ference exposes the flawed logic of one interpreter: But me was toold, certeyn, n at longe agoon is, / That sith that Crist ne wente nevere but onis / To weddyng, in the Cane of Galilee, / That by the same ensample taughte he me / That I ne s holde wedded be but ones (9-13). First, the transition into this reference expos es its anecdotal nature; someone unknown, for the Wife of Bath does not specify the source, gives her this interpretation. This anonymity sheds doubt upon its credibility, for it pales in supposed authority to statements prefaced by phrase s such as God bad us (28). Apart from the source s anonymity, the reference itself does not contain persuasive logic. The conclusion that one should only marry on ce does not account for the leap from Jesus wedding attendance to one s wedding par ticipation, even accounting for a figurative reading of the passage (in which Je sus actions represent mankind s proper actions). The central problem of the Wife of Bath s cited interpretation hinges upon it s distortion of the actual text, which the Wife of Bath later exploits herself t o demonstrate the lack of authority in interpretation. Robert Longsworth s analys is of the prescription upon marriage highlights this prominent fault of interpre tation. He notes several problems with the argument for single marriage, includ ing social and legal principles of the period, which permitted successive marria ges, the possibility of other marriages Jesus attended that are not recorded in the Bible, and the purpose of the Biblical passage in question, which goes on to describe one of Jesus miracles, not to prescribe marriage laws (374). Of these observations, most compelling is the last one, that the Biblical passage in ques tion, in which Jesus incidentally attends a wedding, does not expound upon marri age prescriptions but describes Jesus miracle of turning water into wine. To use this passage to prescribe a set number of marriages thus grossly misrepresents it by applying figurative interpretation to secondary details. The Wife of Bath s own first Biblical interpretation, of the meeting of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at a well, copies this technique of misrepresentation. As does the unnamed source in the passage immediately preceding hers, she focus es exclusively upon the detail of marriage: What that he mente thereby, I kan nat seyn; But that I axe, why that the fifthe man Was noon housbonde to the Samaritan? How many myghte she have in mariage? Yet herde I never tellen in myn age Upon this nombre diffinicioun. (20-25) The account of Jesus encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well, like the pre viously referenced Biblical passage, does not prescribe a specific number of mar riages; rather, it illustrates Jesus ability to prophecy as well as to lead the S

amaritan woman, once her sin is exposed, to redemption. Yet, like the unknown s ource of the previous interpretation, the Wife of Bath only inquires about the n umber of husbands the Samaritan woman had. Two lines of the passage indicate th e Wife of Bath s recognition of her mimicry and the distortion it lends to the pas sage. After she paraphrases Jesus words, she comments, What that he mente thereby , I kan nat seyn (20). Although seemingly ignorant of the meaning of Jesus words, she nonetheless implies that a deeper understanding lies beneath the surface. This deeper understanding relates to Jesus ability to prophecy and to detect sin, but the Wife of Bath ignores this meaning and moves on to illustrate her point: t he arbitrariness of marriage proscriptions. The last two lines of the passage, Y et herde I never tellen in myn age / Upon this nombre diffinicioun (24-25), illus trate this arbitrariness. That no one has determined the exact number of the Sa maritan woman s husbands illustrates its minor role in the message of the narrativ e. The Wife of Bath s own observation, then, exposes her distortion of the passag e. Furthermore, it demonstrates the problem of extracting marriage proscription s from the passage, for no exact number is given. Thus, like her previous inter preter, the Wife of Bath commits a fallacy of interpretation by trying to read i rrelevant Biblical passages as marriage tracts, but she demonstrates an awarenes s of this arbitrariness, thereby mocking her predecessor. After exposing the problems of others interpretations through the distortion of selected Biblical passages underlying meaning, however, the Wife of Bath goes on to commit the same fallacies in her arbitrary selection of texts. In fact, she does so immediately after she illustrates the problem of interpretation in t he story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Unlike the previous distortions of B iblical passages, however, this interpretation relies upon a wholly textual base : God bad us for to wexe and multiplye; That gentil text kan I wel understonde (28 -29). The Wife of Bath uses this solitary verse to justify her multiple marriag es, for she understands marriage to be the source of generation (rather than out -of-wedlock births, which actually renders her argument slightly more sympatheti c). She conveniently ignores the source of the verse and fails to provide conte xt; in fact, just as past Biblical references have fallen outside the topical sc ope of marriage, so does this verse from Genesis. But while the past references involve misrepresentations through figurative liberties, the Wife of Bath misre presents through omission. Despite their submission to the same interpretive fallacies that plague the ir predecessors, the Wife of Bath s omissions ultimately legitimize her feminist, pro-marriage arguments as potentially tenable alongside long-standing anti-femin ist, virginity tracts. This effect results most notably in her discussion of th e marriage debt. While the original verses of St. Paul described the marriage d ebt as a mutual obligation for both husbands and wives, the Wife of Bath elimina tes this mutuality: I have the power durynge al my lyf / Upon his proper body, an d noght he. Right thus the Apostel tolde it unto me, / And bad oure housbondes for to love us weel (158-161). The Wife of Bath achieves this one-sided portraya l of the marriage debt through partial omission of the verse, 1 Corinthians 7:4, which states that the wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife (King Jame s Version, emphasis added). Her omission thus attributes more power over the bo dy to the wife than originally specified. This misinterpretation, however, stan ds in contrast to the many tracts that deny women control of their bodies, let a lone the power to gain pleasure from them. The Wife of Bath s entire character ma rks an exception to this anti-feminist paradigm, for she, unlike the female char acters of previous tales (notably Emelye of the Knight s Tale and Constance of the Man of Law s Tale), exerts control over her married fate as well as her physical body, refusing to resign herself to chauvinism (as does Emelye in the knights uns anctioned battle to win her) or masochism (as does Constance in her sequence of trials without complaint). Thus, as past tales have altered the equilibrium of St. Paul s writings in men s favor, the Wife of Bath has shifted it once more in wom en s favor. Again, as in other instances of misinterpretation, the Wife of Bath d

emonstrates her knowledge of the tricks of conventional authority and uses them to undermine their trustworthiness. Another of the Wife of Bath s misinterpretations, though a seeming logical no n sequitur, actually supports her central position on marriage and virginity thr ough its clever manipulation of previous interpretive techniques. After she dec lares her satisfaction and pleasure in being a married non-virgin, the Wife of B ath uses the story of one of Jesus miracles to justify her point of view: Lat hem [virgins] be breed of pured whete-seed, / And lat us wyves hoten barly-breed; An d yet with barly-breed, Mark telle kan, / Oure Lord Jhesu refresshed many a man ( 143-146). This passage, as with previous examples, has no immediate relevance t o the ideas of marriage and virginity; only excessively liberal interpretation s eems to link the passage and ideas. The Wife of Bath s decision to portray wives as barly-breed, in particular, places doubt upon the credibility of her conclusion , for such a characterization seems arbitrarily chosen for the sole purpose of m atching the barly-breed Jesus serves to the crowd of five thousand in Mark. Her p ortrayal, however, proves a useful metaphor. Her bread analogy places women in two groups, the pured whete-seed virgins and the barly-breed wives. Though one type of bread may seem appealing to a consumer over the other, the Wife of Bath posi tions both types as equally nourishing. The reference to Jesus miracle reinforce s this idea through the observation that with barly-breed / Oure Lord Jhesu refres hed many a man. The suitability of the barley bread as sustenance transfers to t he notion of wives as godly women. Although virginity, like white bread, remain s the ideal, wifehood, like barley bread, is an acceptable alternative, accordin g to both the Wife of Bath s argument and analogy. Far from aimlessly incorporati ng random verses into her argument, the Wife of Bath uses figurative interpretat ion to complement her textual support for her argument. The Wife of Bath s privileging of figurative interpretation, however, stands contrary to her earlier rejection of figurative readings in her mockery of her f irst cited Biblical passage. This tension results from the fact that no text ca n escape interpretation. Lesley Lawton acknowledges this condition in her ironi c observations that the Wife, a sceptic about glossators, was herself the subject of glossators and that everything the Wife leaves out is systematic reinserted an d thus her definitions become subject anew to masculine redefinition (163, 164). As a character composed of text, the Wife of Bath inevitably faces interpretati on, as both Lawton as well as Dinshaw in Chaucer s Sexual Poetics recognize. Just as the Wife of Bath revises previous religious treatises and reveals their trap pings, the reader, equipped with standard Biblical knowledge, can identify the W ife of Bath s own textual manipulations. But, the Wife of Bath engages in her own interpretations long before such secondary oversight even takes place. She ref erences Biblical passages not by quoting them directly but by either paraphrasin g them or citing others interpretations. Both types of incorporation involve pre liminary interpretations. Others interpretations already include a degree of bia s, which is compounded by the Wife of Bath s own, and even her paraphrases contain the assumption of accuracy as a prelude to her arguments. The Wife of Bath s cha llenge to authority thus serves as an overall critique of authority, for the rea ding of the Prologue compounds interpretation upon interpretation, muddying the reliability of each argument as it stacks upon another. While the Wife of Bath reveals the problem of St. Jerome s argument, the reader and the glossator reveal the problem of hers. Alcuin Blamires exploration of Lollardy in the Wife of Bath s Prologue sheds l ight upon this compounded challenge to authority. Blamires prefaces his analysi s by acknowledging several qualities of the Wife of Bath that undermine her as a Lollard. Nonetheless, he presents several observations that link her to Lollar dy, including her adherence to direct Biblical text. This insistence is signale d by her use of the word expres (Blamires 226). Although Blamires concentrates up on the similarity between expres in the Prologue and its appearance in Lollard tex ts, even more significant are the contexts in which both early instances of expre

s appear in the Prologue. The first instance occurs in her faulty reference to G enesis to support sexual activity: Men may devyne and glosen, up and doun, / But wel I woot, expres, withoute lye, / God bad us for to wexe and multiplye (WB 26-2 8). Even though she pulls her Biblical reference out of context, she insists up on the expres, or clear, nature of the text. Her distortion of the text, however, proves that her argument is not expres after all. Ironically, the Wife of Bath a ccounts for this circumstance herself in the observation that men may devyne and glosen, up and doun. Although she presents this line in contrast to her own argu ments, ultimately it includes her own Biblical interpretation. The second insta nce of expres reveals this nature of the Wife of Bath s arguments. In it, she quest ions challenges to marriage: Wher can ye seye, in any manere age, / That hye God defended mariage / By expres word? (59-61). She finds support for her argument n ot by the presence of a statement confirming her position but by the absence of one opposing her position. Her argument thus contains a logical flaw, for it as sumes that not to forbid a behavior implies its acceptance. While on the surfac e, the Wife of Bath insists upon the expres urgings of the Bible, she proceeds wit h her arguments despite not having expres support but an ambiguous absence. Her i nterpretation of that absence, not the explicit wording of an existent statement , provides the basis for what follows. Thus, she engages in the glosing of omissi ons despite her Lollard-like opposition to glosing, demonstrating the inability to escape interpretation. At the end of the Wife of Bath s challenge to authority through Biblical inte rpretation, the beginning of her prologue actually provides the best means of es tablishing her position in relation to authority. The first three lines of the Wife of Bath s Prologue pit the entities of experience and auctoritee against one anot her: Experience, though noon auctoritee / Were in this world, is right ynogh for me / To speke of wo that is in mariage" (WB 1-3). This opening statement indica tes the Wife of Bath s preference for experience over authority, for she asserts t hat experience is right ynogh for her to expound upon her tale. Furthermore, the Wife of Bath denounces outright the existence of true authority: though noon auct oritee / Were in this world (1-2). By doing so, she positions herself as one giv ing a mere opinion on the wo that is in marriage, using experience to support her claim rather than feigned authority. This disclaimer in turn introduces mistrus t of those who claim authority, thereby contrasting in their arrogance with the Wife of Bath s acknowledged humility. Although the Wife of Bath goes on to underm ine this acknowledgment by trying to impose her radical views upon Biblical text , this opening illustrates the impossibility of absolute authority. It thus ser ves as a prelude to the subsequent layering of interpretations, which as it prov es one argument insufficient, opens itself to further scrutiny. As the Wife of Bath successfully challenges the arguments of anti-feminist clerics, she undermines her own arguments by using similar manipulative techniqu es of interpreting the Bible. She thus fails to convert her audience fully to h er point of view. The Wife of Bath s Prologue thus serves not as a treatise for o r against feminism or any of the views expressed by the Wife of Bath but as an a lternative to the more conservative philosophies outlined by the previous tales. Although the Prologue, through its layering of interpretations, contains a str ong argument against the absolutism of clerical authority, this position only co mplements Chaucer s avoidance of overall didactics. By revealing the complication s of authority of interpretation, the Wife of Bath s Prologue makes itself availab le to multiple interpretations, as do the rest of Chaucer s seemingly moralistic t ales. Ultimately, the Prologue, in line with Chaucer s other works, complicates t he effort to determine the socio-political leanings of its underlying voice, den ying any claims to contextual authority of its interpreters.