Can We Trust the Wife of Bath?
Author(s): David Parker
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Chaucer Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall, 1969), pp. 90-98
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25093114 .
Accessed: 11/10/2012 13:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Chaucer Review.
http://www.jstor.org
CAN WE TRUST THE WIFE OF BATH?
byDavid Parker
One
the most
of
has
years
been
like
viduals,
sentative,
figures,
the most
in
human
"Alisoun
of
elaborate
iconographic
Bath
Jr.,
since
aim
the
The
to
designed
show
as repre
them
Chaucer's
methods,
to delineate
in a
character
which
manifest
may
and
More
action."1
thought
specifically,
a 'character'
sense
in the modern
is not
figure
forty
indi
as
iconographical
word
character
"The
of
speaking
is not
see
who
to abstractions
attention
call
those
past
characters
individuality.
at present.
respect
Robertson,
misleading,
sense
to
but
psychological
themselves
of
the
during
Chaucer's
and
novel,
devoid
D. W.
ization,"
says
. .somewhat
criticism
see
who
in a modern
characters
"is.
critics
those
iconographical
seems
to command
theory
in Chaucer
debates
lively
between
the manifold
he
at
argues,
an
but
all,
of
implications
an attitude."2
The
in T.
expressed
denunciations
most
founders
from
if the
distinction
that
belief
experience
to such a belief.
of
relationship
examine
bridges
differently
encountered
in
the
any
principles
there
gap
The
Chaucer
Press, University
their
between
as Robertson
literature
the
how
of
his
of
in
be
century did not understand
Jr., A Preface
Vol.
4, No.
Review,
Park and London.
to Chaucer
2.
(Princeton,
Published
by The
ones
their
this
is no
have
in
reader
be
way
reader
of Bath
felt
characters
is, of
as
theory,
the
entails
and
to hold
is difficult
such
re
always
literature,
suggests,
cannot
in any
It
biography,
It
the two.
between
the
fourteenth-century
of the Wife
fourteenth-century
literature
and
the
But
and
iconographical
acquaintance.
contemporary
might
the
experience
his
as
perplexing
the
in
criticism.
Shakespearean
but
from
and
literature,
encountered
that
freed
the nineteen-twenties,
single-mindedly,
that
readers
lives,
fourteenth-century
We must
believe
characters
held that the fourteenth
1. D. W. Robertson,
2. Ibid., p. 330.
in
individuals
living
determining
between
to
admitting
characters
is as fundamental
distinction
of
in
problem
individuals.
absolute
problems
too
followed
doubtless
in
in
as
up
if
solve,
it makes
his
way
Bradley's
is no
those
as
to
"personality"
in
methods
hostility
throw
characters
conceived
an
C.
to
somewhat
sponded
distinct
A
Eliot's
A.
revolutions
sought
There
exception.
made
S.
of
critical
was
such
supporting
interpretations
in critical
the
climate
change
by
scholarship
inhibitions
certain
the
about
in
life
it
is, which
as
course,
is
normally
the idea of biography
London,
1963),
Pennsylvania
to
p. 248.
State
University
as
DAVID PARKER 91
we
but
do,
tocrats,
and
kings
we
sentative,
can
are
illustrated
experience
In the
introduction
biography
accessible
the
poem
was
For
understand
to most
human
most
poem
modern
them
as
And
that
repre
the
truths
ex
the
of
part
aris
of
be
is
surely,
feeling,
some
relevance
to
is
biography
incomprehensible.
Barbour
of the art
John
speaks
would
find
When
acceptable.
beings
Bruce,
the Bruce's
intention
his
this
it has
biographers
Robert
1375,
announces
of
shown
it. Unless
The
in about
composed,
Barbour
memory.
living
as we
being
exalted.
to
felt
way
in most
feeling
through
how
striking
no matter
to his
in a way
biography
a
are
"lives"
fourteenth-century
are
in some
who
I believe,
individual,
essential
that most
figures
detect,
to
of
saints,
the more
an
of
perience
it is true
while
of
telling
was
death
"a
suthfast
a
still
story":
that men
storys
redys,
to thaim
the dedys
aulde
Representis
Of stalwart folk that lywyt ar,
as thai
Rycht
is indeed justified morally.
Such verisimilitude
thai
And,
certis,
That
in ther
war.
in presence
than
suld weill
tyme
war
hawe
wycht
pryss,
and wyss,
And led thar lyff in gret trawaill,
And oft in hard stour off bataill
Wan
And
richt
war
off chewalry,
price
off
woydyt
cowardy.
gret
(21-26)
Its
to
value
to
it
believes
the
is homiletic,
reader
some
have
a
but
to
relevance
fourteenth-century
a much
more
pronounced
displays
and
of human
consequences
implications
not
from
divorced
necessarily
"psychological"
a work
of any value.
Properly
speaking,
former
he was
when
psychology.
If the
morally
invented
he
see
his
doing
job
fourteenth-century
biographer
the
interesting,
fourteenth-century
his for much
the same
reasons,
this moral
3. John Barbour,
11.17-20.
interest
The
Bruce,
as
something
ed. Rev.
and
Walter
but
interest,
to
in
this moral
and
fourteenth-century
no distinction
between
chose
his
writer
and
no more
should
W.
Skeat
than
the
be detached
(Edinburgh,
the
the moral
rarely
is
is in
biographer,
ethics
and
because
subjects
of verse-fictions
that
The
that
interest
indeed
the
reader
him.
is
biography
interest
direct
behavior,
made
properly,
only
accessible
experiences
and modern
between
difference
if the
works
homily
were
they
or
chose
did
biographer
from human
London,
1894),
I,
92 CAN WE TRUST THE WIFE OF BATH?
The
experience.
to
presented
that
was
the modern
saw
century
is
about
argument
individual
and
in
characters
representative
literature has in fact got the problem out of focus. The difficulty
mediaeval
reader's
the
fourteenth
understood
century
is not
understanding
and characters
in literature
characters
that
in life
character
the
fourteenth
it
rather
differently;
it
wherever
differently,
encountered.
the
Where
twentieth
quite
all was
to the
brought
vidual
denominator,
for
standing
graceful
sense
of
fusion
and
rarely
from
proceed
some
evidence
only
is
characters
find
that
only
from
character
traits
explained,
but
is one
his
by
this
produce
achieves
that
a
makes
behavior
the
of
the
peculiar
peculiar
literature
sex,
as
own
that,
no more
their
supposes
elaborate
Freudian
so
reverse.
derive
at
to
imagination,
to believe
history,
that
icon
of
has
scholarship
than many
are not
people.
shown
general.
by reference
It is
a wider
was
was
could
be
novelists,
I
of
specifi
so on was
and
disposition
the reader
Chaucer
usually
to ideas
reading
that Chaucer's
twentieth-century
so much
intended
surely
in part,
in
question.
Chaucer's
explain
as individuals.
which
us,
is
least
in
justify,
ex
ab
measure
individual
particular
to
it is
fact
possible
are intended
that none
the
his
has
is nearly
always
from
their
There
the
the
It
theories.
in some
character
fails
of
comparing
that he
doesn't,
characters
as
proving
effort
of
characters
in
fictional
experience
as
aid
and moulds
appearance,
of an
elaboration
the
the
least
indi
interprets
is
by
character
of
station,
his
life,
of
at
profitable
anyone
character
literature
than
trjat
taken
of
it is
way
or
followed
in
for more
been
that
pilgrims
what
therefore,
strange,
dissociate
creation
process
the
The
experiences
or without
with
characters
about
fourteenth-century
cation
of name,
The
same
the
it requires
intended
with
character
conceptualized,
the writer's
that
has
ability
that
a moral
being
affected
to
rare,
I believe
then,
theory.
literature
in
encountered
that
explain
character
good
about
characters,
iconographical
to
possible
It
the
ideas
author's
very
of indi
literature.
Chaucer's
characters,
stracted
It is the
time.
and
at once
approaching
reformulate
periences
same
from
not
if
only
a later
play
the validity
a fact
individual,
to
reader
Everyman,
it. Far
asserting
by
is an
the
acceptable
individual.
now
the Many,
and humble,
passionate
the One
fatalism,
of
contrary
Everyman
at
of
In
vidual
the
individual
every
of mediaeval
riches
to
on
is not
accessible
Experience
to the
not by denying
tradition, works
but
experience,
common
experience
of a credible
sentience
in the mediaeval
but
was
such
individuals,
between
in individuals.
uninterested
being
but
demanded,
home
in affinities
interested
as
same
the
in the
of
uniqueness
individuals?which
is interested
century
was
fourteenth
the
to
supposed
in
interested
and
classified
and
as individuals
no
one
as,
say,
types.
of
the
Canterbury
Tales,
it
is my
contention,
are
all,
to
a
DAVID PARKER 93
be
taken
as
the
Parson,
Knight,
a mistake,
I feel,
be
would
to
degree,
the
varying
vidualized:
something
emulates
not
irreconcilable
a moral
ideal
to say
are
managed
in the
people
but
ization,
contrasts
and
Each
of realism.
species
of individuality,
the suppression
demands
a
creates
at
a
least
in order
fleetingly,
only
be
for justice
gratified.
ironies
Chaucer's
than
those
his
against
corresponding
that
in character
his
of
pilgrims
She
was
She
wolde
and
it is directed
than
delicate
a
as an individual,
in our
afforded
those
by
Chaucer's
from
passage
person
it is necessary
effective,
if
desire
and more
as his
just
the crudest
description
Prologue:
if that
wepe,
individual
of
for vengeance
Consider
to
of hire
speken
so charitable
and
for
But,
as
way
and we
craving
incipient
on an abstraction.
be revenged
are
more
usually
complex
pilgrims
to this sketch
of the crudest
sort,
can't
in the General
the Prioress
of
You
complex
characterization.
of
methods
not
among
pattern
the
that
are more
characters
comes
artifice
apprehension
to be
irony
poetic
For
irony.
in his
that the reader see the figure against whom
delicate
it
this
of the doubt by allowing
The
ideals.
Chaucer
way
possessed
I think,
is evident,
ality
to
live up
qualifying
in his own
but
correspondencies.
Chaucer
That
to
instance;
without
idealized,
indi
less
certainly
for
Plowman,
ought to give Chaucer and his age the benefit
some
are
Some
the
and
they
a
with
that
individuals.
conscience,
so
she
pitous
saugh
a mous
Kaught in a trappe, if it were deed or bledde.
Of smale houndes hadde she that she fedde
rosted
With
soore
But
al was
And
she
wepte
smoot
if men
Or
or milk
flessh,
and wastel-breed.
if oon
of hem
were
deed,
a
it with
smerte;
yerde
and tendre
herte.
conscience
(A 142-50)4
The
of
ambivalence
times.
The
on.
remarked
reader
than
Rather
is
to
virtues,
love
of
animals
is
to
the
Prioress
as
Among
the
all
4. The Works
respond
of Christian
sort
complex
the characters
of Geoffrey
made
of
good.
an
Chaucer,
of
indignant
both
judgments
and
charity,
The
reader
is
judgment
the
the
of
simply
individual,
been
has
passage
generosity
to
required
is a misdirection
this
and
being
animals
respond
exercise
in
judgment
balance
delicate
pointed
has
irony
with
out
less
the Prioress,
the
that
suggested:
or without
that, with
the
by
compelled
see her
complexity,
exact.
beings
it is the Wife
Tales,
to
human
Canterbury
ed. F. N. Robinson,
2nd
ed.
many
been
(Boston,
1957).
love
of
other
irony
and
of
Bath
to
to
CAN WE TRUST THE WIFE OF BATH?
94
whose
individuality
life about
abundant
is
least
her,
not
a
is
There
away.
easily
explained
in the contradictions
least evident
sense
of
in her
speech
the
in
of
splendid
analysis
astrological
nature
two
in
be
her
fluences
may
governing
contradictory
interpreted
ways.5
as evidence
was
see
it either
in the
that Chaucer
We may
interested
only
con
from
moral
and
types
resulting
particular
astrological
psychological
or as evidence
was
in
that
he
interested
character
the
junctions,
explaining
an inclination
to favor
and
of
individuals.
himself
behavior
admits
Curry
rests
the
"one
"Under
he
the latter view.
of
Chaucer's
under
says,
spell
pen,"
and
Walter
behavior.
the
illusion
female
that
demonstrated
sovereignty
of her
tale,
heroine
own
to
claim
in marriage,
who
obeys
After
he
we
day
Owen,
over
never
and
her
practice,
in
beliefs
professed
followed
by the
finally
she obeyed
in every
hym
or likyng"
"maistrie"
hadden
being."6
theory
Her
Jr.7
are not
out,
points
"And
husband:
doon hym plesance
having
these words:
that
human
complex
the Wife's
A.
her
exercised
after
doubted
between
Charles
by
/ That myghte
thyng
is a
of Bath
contradiction,
been
has
the Wife
that
Another
Curry's
Clyde
her
And
(D 1255-56).
fifth
her
to
is
husband
be
debaat.
God helpe me so, Iwas to hym as kynde
unto
As
from Denmark
any wyf
And
and so was
also
trewe,
Ynde,
to me.
he
(822-25)
her
of
If Curry's
interpretation
as no individual,
Owen's
it becomes
which
and
character,
dramatic
glimpse
evidence
in
sages
quoted
of the
for
atte
fille
of
she
of
laste,
acorded
a
character
personality
to
is conformable
complicated
I should
like
seeing
to a
at
degree
examine
a
to
individuality.
that
further
suggests
speech
complexities
it even
the reader
Chaucer
allows
appears,
deny
of
a
life.
is that the Wife of Bath is not fully to be trusted, and
is to be
this
Wife
by Owen,
resolution
But
We
the
her
which,
through
into her inner
chief contention
My
my
in
contradiction
further
to
absurd
the Wife's
suggests
found
Bath's
Prologue.
as
offers,
proof
the quarrel
between
with
by
muchel
us
selven
care
in
the
contradictions
In one
of
her
her
of
these,
between
ending
with
two
pas
the
lines
an account
of "maistrie,"
theory
fifth
husband
and herself:
and wo,
two.
Sciences
and the Mediaeval
5. Chaucer
pp. 91-118.
1926),
(New York,
6. Ibid., pp. 117-18.
A Study
in Five of The Canterbury
Tales:
7. "The Crucial
Passages
LII (1953),
294-311.
Symbol,"/?CI>,
in
Irony
and
DAVID PARKER 95
He yaf me al the bridel in myn hond,
To
han
of hous
the governance
and
lond,
And of his tonge, and of his hond also;
And made hym brenne his book anon right tho.
And
I hadde
that
whan
unto
geten
me,
al the
By maistrie,
soveraynetee,
trewe
owene
And
that he seyde,
"Myn
wyf,
as thee lust the terme
of al thy lyf;
Do
estaat"?
eek myn
and keep
Keep
thyn honour,
never
debaat.
that day we hadden
After
God
me
helpe
I was
so,
from
As
to
hym
unto
Denmark
any wyf
And
also trewe,
so was
and
as
kynde
Ynde,
to me.
he
(811-25)
But
another
three
passage,
hundred
lines
lete
God
And
yet
his
was
nevere
soule
to me
he
come
earlier,
tells
a different
story.
I telle.
Now of my fifthe housbonde wol
in helle!
the mooste
shrewe;
I on my
al by rewe,
ribbes
evere
shal unto myn
And
day.
endyng
so fressh
But
in oure bed he was
and gay,
so wel
he me
koude
And
therwithal
glose,
han my
that he wolde
bele chose,
Whan
feele
That
That
He
me bete
on every
he hadde
thogh
love anon.
koude
wynne
agayn my
bon,
I trowe I loved hym best, for that he
Was
of his
love
to me.
daungerous
if that
wommen
han,
In this matere
a
We
I shal
nat
lye,
queynte
fantasye;
we may
nat
what
have,
Wayte
thyng
lightly
crie al day and crave.
wol we
Therafter
us
Forbede
on
Preesse
With
Greet
daunger
thyng,
us faste,
oute
and
we
at market
prees
that
and
desiren
thanne
al oure
maketh
we;
wol
we
chaff
are;
deere
fie.
ware,
And
to greet cheep is holde at litel prys:
This
knoweth
every
womman
that
is wys.
(503-24)
It
ing
is difficult
the
earlier
to square
passage
these
is
to
two
assume
statements.
that
The
the Wife
usual
is
way
talking
of understand
about
the
time
CAN WE TRUST THE WIFE OF BATH?
96
before she had subdued Jankyn. If this is so it is odd that her most evidently
cherished recollections of the marriage should be of the period that, by her
own
was
account,
the
least
an
to
conclusion
delightful.
(the later in the text) is a carefully
I quoted
The first passage
the Wife
anecdote
It is dominated
truth of her theory of marriage.
a husband
that
point,
to be
happiness
in
this
earlier
on
automatically
and
This
her
in
is either
assume
that
was
she
in
both
our
disturbs
to fit
in
belief
either
that
of her fifth
thinking
him
she
round
passage
"maistrie"
for marital
she
marriage,
says.
to be trying to get the best of both
suggesting
the Wife's
begun
is not how
win
then
seems
of his wife
fifth
the
to prove her
and
command
its veracity.
The
so
has
remembers
in her
calculated
illustrating
by her wish
the will
happened
of
out,
pointed
even more,
that
of their
the happiest
suggesting
part
a
a
not
of peace
with
the
Wife
quarrel,
following
period
strictly
it is a spontaneous
the
Unlike
later passage,
aside,
following
marriage
in command.
she
to
submit
has
does
passage
was
before
to
only
is what
the Wife
passage,
as Owen
obedient,
This
in which
The way
worlds,
need
ensured.
intention
the
with
tells,
into
her
commanded
pet
Jankyn,
love-making.
the
that
suggests
or a considerable
untrue,
and occurring
husband,
What
theory.
but
she
spontaneously
he would
beat
how
her
by
fact
win
didn't
she
the
her
about
passage
of
distortion
she
sovereignty
the
assumption
facts. We
to have
claims
of
can
or
done,
that she did, and found it less agreeable than she had hoped.
From
what
we
"daunger,"
submissive
theory
we
oute
and
suffer,
may
sure
The
reason
other
marriages
she would
have
that
"daunger"
of masculine
in all
"Daunger"
chaffare"?and
which
they
may
from
had
little
she
her
but
she
a
sincerity,
a
technique
used
of
perversity
feeling
for
it, partly
expresses
convention
on
digression
contempt
is
a
no
but
addressing,
with
conflict
is in radical
is both
be
and
as
of
to doubt,
al oure
through
her
theory
forces
the
"maistrie."
of
daunger
of
be
is no
there
also,
says
Jankyn.
scandalize
to
doubt
she
her
by women?"With
from which
they
exploited:
we may
nat
what
have,
Wayte
thyng
lightly
wol we crie al day and crave.
Therafter
us
and that desiren
Forbede
we;
thyng,
on
Preesse
us
and
faste,
thanne
wol
we
fie.
The digression follows an explicit statement that she loved Jankyn best
because he exploited this perversity of feeling: "I trowe I loved hym best, for
that
he
Chaucer's
and
have
/ Was
art
Jankyn's,
been
happy
of
enlists
that
his
love
daungerous
the Wife
of Bath's
on
her
claim
she would
to
me."
side
will
to have
achieved
finally
have needed,
according
Those
whose
both
hope,
"maistrie"
to her
own
for
sympathy
her sake
is untrue.
analysis
To
of
the
DAVID PARKER 97
nature
Its
to be
of women,
achievement
litel
disappointing;
is sufficient
her
of her more
energy
atte
But
greet
Contrast
not
with
acorded
"maistrie."
at
is holde
cheep
by
care
lete
If we
his
of
is a character
as a woman
please
are
nevere
soule
the Wife
accept
she
that
who
her
fantasies
to
Not
and
its
of
as
veracity
the
. . .
I telle.
a character,
as
Bath
word
in fantasies
because
her
she
own
we
to be
about
her
enjoys
about
a
get
trusted.
own
her
of her
in the
the
inner
to
forced
shows
because
partly
with
but
them,
life,
In
past.
are
Chaucer
others
shocking
self-revelations
glimpse
as a
we
I believe
is not
accidental
she makes
reality
the Wife
. . .
in helle.
whose
partly
the
come
delights
and
exploded
by
statements
between
tions
in
passages
summing-up
this with,
God
they
which
the
and wo,
two.
selven
Now of my fifthe housbonde wol
admit
formality
confidence
two
the
of
of
reflections:
muchel
us
smug
so much
nearly
tones
contrasting
The
spontaneous
laste,
fille
We
the
frustrated.
luckily
excites
argument
in
evidence
so
she was
that
the
for
striving
"to
prys."
There
her
in her
frustrated
continually
have
been
would
contradic
tensions
between
life.
creates
some
character
peculiar
is first
of all the problem,
in
discussed
terms,
problems.
already
general
of
an
that
the
erect
reader
could
believing
fourteenth-century
impenetrable
barrier
between
his interpretations
of literary
and of living human
The
beings.
not
belief
that he did
do
this is of course
not
to
but
the
susceptible
proof,
sheer
accept
There
of believing
oddity
in
the
of
creation
text,
so
and
of
Bath
of
otherwise,
palpable
construct
graphical figure is that it be consistent
then we must
iconographical,
in
which
the bodies
paintings
another;
aeval
and
she must
be
seen
least
In depicting
rather
than
of
her
figures
as a
the Wife
reconciling
other
can
we
rather
point
the
like
one
the
choosing
in a
inconsistencies
of Bath as an individual,
and
early
their
limitations
the Wife
by
icono
If the Wife is
those
way
than
of an
ask
in its symbolic austerity.
treat
invitation
in the act
participate
is so great
that it is
inconsistencies,
The
of
illustration
quaint
art. Most
I think,
for whom
readers,
everything
is "in
would
hesitate
before
says
character,"
interpretation,
acter.
the
ignored
to
the Wife,
for
the Wife's
bungling.
he
readers,
twentieth-century
a human
identity
hitherto
noticed
it.
so few have
surprising
The
other
is
problem
explaining
to Chaucer's
them
down
putting
simply
diaeval
that
believing
to
of
me
feet
of medi
Bath
such
complex
does
a brutal
char
I have argued, Chaucer was
CAN WE TRUST THE WIFE OF BATH?
98
what
doing
only
is the way
she,
able individual
the
other
centuries
into the twentieth
is minimized.
in human
not
the Wife's
way
University
in harmony
personality
are mixed
he
they
that
greatness
to conditions
describe
characters,
he
is thus
that
are
of Malaya
but
Chaucer's
as
the
may
in conflict
be
with
unfamiliar
recognizes
instantly.
to penetrate
the
able
timeless.
to do. What
survives
century. The difficulty
sensibility
renaissance,
aware of human beings, he achieved
simply profoundly
of
we
consciousness
a character
Whether
tried
poets
fourteenth-century
a number
of Chaucer's
like
itself.
It
the
anticipated
or whether
over
shift
he was
this feat by creating
of
is a measure
ephemeral
recogniz
of recognition
Many
the modern
to
is unusual
as a
details
the
ingredients
the
but
reader,
of
of
Chaucer's
human
life