Alisoun, or the Wife of Bath, from Geoffrey Chaucer’s highly acclaimed and historical masterpiece, “The Canterbury Tales,” does not entirely demonstrate feministic beliefs, though her character feigns that she is indeed a feminist, and thus, puts up a facade. Through the Wife’s speech, it is evident that she likes to think she is a trailblazer of sorts, who is pioneering new, innovative ways for women to live at the time (the 14th century), when in actuality, she paradoxically results in merely succumbing to the social norms and reinforcing them.
The Wife being a victim of the anti-feministic beliefs of the time period may be more subtle at times than her slight advocacy for women, however, if you were to delve deep into the text instances where she is denying gender equality and social change are rather simple to detect. In essence, though the Wife of Bath may expose the misogyny of the 14th century, the conclusion can be drawn that she remains trapped in it, despite her awareness of it; and though she puts up a facade of someone who is driven to tear down patriarchy she can be perceived as someone who is comparable to the average woman of the time: someone who agrees that women are emotional, while men are the rational beings and therefore, she yields to the pressures of the male-dominated society and can effortlessly be depicted as a medieval wife.
Though it may appear that the Wife of Bath makes some earnest attempts to advocate for the newfound notion of women’s sovereignty in a marriage, she still falls back on the idea that is old as time itself, which is chivalry. She is a very astute and aware character, yet she is contradictory as well in that her tale possesses underlying antifeminist satire and romance, “that gender sets limits on personal capability and social power...develops conventions about feminine abilities, women’s special knowledge in affairs of the heart and hearth, and the ways women exercise their capacity in those affairs.” (Crane, 21.) Moreover, in regards to chivalry, “ideologies inform genres more directly than do economic and social conditions, and they can mediate for us between a literary text and its historical movement. Romances, for example, shape ideals of chivalry and courtesy into narratives about how to interpret and assess those ideals.” (Crane, 20.)
By the same token, there is quite a hefty dose of romance and antifeminist satire intertwined into Alisoun’s tale. In essence, she is a woman who can talk the talk but is unable to walk the walk. She preaches that she is an autonomous, dominant, strong-willed woman, though in reality, she “has no existence independent of her words.” (Crane, 20.) Try as she might, she fails to conceive groundbreaking social ideals for the time period; she does not pave a new way for women, and is not an icon for gender equality by any means. She essentially remains stuck in the rut of the social and religious convictions of the 14th century and due to her contradictions, her arguments, though she means well, are far from convincing.
Additionally, there is no doubt that gender and sovereignty are significant issues to the Wife, given that she addresses them frequently throughout the duration of her speech. “She revels in the attractions of power and argues that her active desire for it justified by the benefits she wins from it and the peace and happiness that yielding to it will bring to men. Yet her vaunted abilities as a “wys wyf” are precisely those the satirists condemn, while her happy endings are patently illusory.” (Crane, 20.) The Wife’s illogical manner in which she goes about constructing her argument, in addition to the much befuddlement that arises from her contradictions makes her speech rather ineffective. In short, a select few of the ideas she attempts to expand on may be good, in theory, however she nothing more than comic relief. “(The Wife) inverts accepted morality, or a sinful one who denies Christian teaching, and therefore she cannot argue cogently. But whether or not she is comical or morally wrong, she is of substantial interest from other perspectives.” (Crane, 20.)
The Wife also proves to be vexatious in her confusion when she further invalidates her statements by arguing that men should feel compelled to lend a hand to the more fragile and irrational women of the world. She delves into such subjects as gender and power in the same manner “as they are formulated in antifeminist satire.” (Crane, 21.) Moreover, “her own origin in the very texts she disputes forces her to shadowbox with herself, receiving almost as many blows as she delivers. However...Alisoun attempts to parry satiric convictions---by celebrating the less-than-perfect life rather than accepting admonishments to perfection, by claiming that the rational male should yield reasonably to the less rational female.” (Crane 21.)
In a similar vein, she clearly alludes to that women’s hunger for sovereignty cannot be justified, which also entirely defeats the purpose of her assertion. And though her shift to romance in her speech may appear to be a strategic, pro-feministic move, it is simply mind-boggling when she proceeds to launch into an antifeminist response to women’s sovereignty.
On a different note, Alisoun further invalidates her arguments as she further proves that her pro-women’s sovereignty mindset that she flaunts is her bluffing, yet again. “Women are maidens or spouses or widows; they tempt, bear children, and so on. This formulation of social identity obviously makes women’s significane dependent on their relations to men, providing little jurisdiction for Alison’s claims to supremacy.” (Crane, 22.) Moreover, the fact that the Wife makes cloth for a living is an extremely inconsequential detail of her life, and is not formally mentioned or expanded on by her; it is a very trivial aspect in her life; it is almost not worth mentioning whatsoever. The prime thing in her life that is of any importance is her going through man after man and taking from them as much as she can acquire. If you were to put a contemporary label upon the Wife, one would say that she is a gold-digger, a bimbo, or a floozy, to name a few.
She puts up a front of an independent woman, yet it is easy to see right through it given that in actuality she is far from independent. She is a male-dependent, unstable woman who makes earnest attempts, (though trying a bit too hard to be outlandish) to defy society’s expectations, yet in the end, she falls prey to them, just like everyone else.
There is something called estates literature which is essentially an examination of society by groups based on class, occupation, and so forth. The character of the Wife of Bath has been erected from estates literature, as well as satire and all of this is a far cry away from the romance that she interlocks in her story. “Alison’s “Venerien” femaleness is more firmly rooted, as Jill Mann has shown, in her estate than in her horoscope. Estates literature distinguishes not only among ways of life but also between men and women.” (Crane, 22.) In this aspect, there is a separate estate for only women that is divided up “according to professions or work in the world: women are maidens or spouses or widows; they tempt, bear children, and so on.” (Crane, 22.) This evidently makes women’s importance and place in society dependent on their associations with the men of their society, “providing little justification for Alison’s claims to supremacy.” (Crane, 22.)
Try as she might, the Wife falls short at going against the grain of society and forming her own social ideals. Though she is indeed a strong-minded woman, she fails at being truly autonomous and the front she puts up in not believable, given that in the end she succumbs to the patriarchal notions of her time period. “The strong presence of antifeminist and estates ideology in the Wife’s portrait and prologue renders her claim to sovereignty intensely problematic, and a wider context of women’s voices demonstrates her isolation even from her own fictive sex.” (Crane, 22.)
Furthermore, the Wife of Bath does try to pioneer pro-women and gender equality ideas that are very newfangled to the time, yet she can’t help but get swept into the whirlwind of antifeminist assertions, and all of her arguments resort back to her misogynistic beliefs. She utilizes her romance style of writing and arguing, which does indeed accentuate feministic beliefs. Yet paradoxically, she does this with an subconscious anti-feministic undertone. “The Wife is incapable of sustaining the romance mode; she cannot help slipping back into the antifeminist attitudes from which she herself was drawn.” (Crane, 23.) In terms of the Wife’s contradictions again, they always have a tendency of eliciting much confusion and elusiveness. For instance, she never does offer her own definition for sovereignty and what exactly she personally means by that, and where she was going with that argument. Furthermore, “she instructs her old husbands, and Jankyn fulfills her desire in acceding, “Myn owene trewe wyf/Do as thee lust the terme of al thy lyf.” Nonetheless, the Wife...undermines her demand for trust and respect by asserting and demonstrating that women are untrustworthy.” (Crane, 25.)
In essence, due to the Wife of Bath, or Alisoun’s bewildering contradictions she not only sounds exceptionally inarticulate, but also proves to harbor incredibly anti-feministic beliefs that she discreetly weaves into her tale. Though it is evident that she has some awareness when it comes to gender inequality and her intentions are admirable and good in theory, the fact remains that the Wife’s mind will always be clouded with the “women are emotional, men are rational” train of thought, given the social and cultural norms of the 14th century time period. The Wife of Bath is truly a woman of complexities, comedy as well as a balance of intellect and naivete. She recognizes that misogyny exists, which is more than anyone can say for most women of that time period, and realizes there is something a little off about it. However, despite this, she remains trapped in its hullaballoo and yields to the social conventions of the time. All in all, in spite of her valiant efforts, the Wife’s diatribe is still one that is riddled with misogynistic beliefs that are clearly embedded in her mind. She is a women who has married multiple times and has failed to be self-sufficient, and even this alone proves that she embodies anti-feminist traditions. She is truly a medieval wife of the time who can’t help but remain a victim of the patriarchal time period in which she lived.
No comments:
Post a Comment