We were asked if "The Wife of Bath's Tale" was depicts the wickedness of men, and I think it does. However, I think the tale doesn't show women in the best light, either.
The tale starts with a knight raping a woman. I think that is proof enough as to why this tale describes the wickedness of men. Chaucer writes that "By verray force he rafte hire maydenheed" (122, 888). He's a knight for crying out loud! Shouldn't it be easy for him to find a wife that is willing to have sex with him? Does he really have to go out and rape women because he is so overcome by their beauty? He should be locked up. But does that happen? No. King Arthur's wife decides to give him a chance to redeem himself. How one redeems themself from rape is beyond me, but here we are. I think this is a very poor decision. She's a woman; shouldn't she of all people be angered by the knight's actions? Instead of agreeing with King Arthur's decision to behead the knight, she lets him go across the country. This just gives him ample opportunity to rape more women. Which he doesn't, but he very well could have. I think that option should not have been given to him, and that is why I enjoyed the prologue more than the tale itself.
Unfortunately for the lucky rapist knight, all the women he talks to tell him different things they want. Some want money, some want nice clothes, and others want to be pleasured sexually. Is it just me, or does that seem like a good opportunity to have consensual sex instead of raping unsuspected women?
When he finally does find the right answer, he gets to keep his head. But alas! He is forced to marry a hideous woman because she saved his life by telling him what the queen wanted to hear. However, the rapist knight's luck has not run out because the ugly old woman turns into a beautiful young lady. Justice has been served.
Personally, I just do not understand this tale. Sure, the knight tells his wife, "I put me in youre wyse governance" (130, 1231), which what all women want, but is that really enough to pardon him from rape? I probably just can't get behind this tale because times are so different today. However, I think at the very least he should have been stuck with an ugly wife. Why does he get a happy ending when the woman he raped has to live with that forever?
I agree that the knight should not have had a happy ending. Times were certainly different back then, but that doesn't stop me from being annoyed by the fact that this man raped a woman and pretty much got away with. If the queen had to take pity on him, she should have just kept him locked away for the rest of his life, rather than set him free to live a long happy life.
ReplyDeleteI almost think that Chaucer chose his crime specifically because it was against women to show women in a better light. While men would have instantly retaliated, the queen wants something more- transformation. Because of her actions combined with the mercy of his wife he is a changed man. This shows what Chaucer felt women brought to the table, mercy and equality. Had the queen said "off with his head" the message would have been do what you want, don't get caught. By reforming the knight she has created a living lesson.
ReplyDeleteI am in complete agreement with you on this subject. I think the knight was a despicable, awful human being who didn't deserve half of what he got. Sure he had to walk all over the country side but there were no repercussions for his actions. King Arthur is always depicted as a wise and benevolent ruler who valued chivalry so where was chivalry when this knight raped a girl? He got away with committing one of the most vile crimes around just because Queen Gwen batted her eyelashes and told him to go ask women some questions? What is with that? I find the whole thing incredibly angering.
ReplyDeleteI looked into this subject in great detail in my essay, actually. I felt the same way you guys do, outraged and in disbelief. But I did my best to approach it from a logical standpoint.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I noticed was that the knight is a member of King Arthur's court. This means he probably spends a lot of time in the castle (or wherever they all hung out and drank beer) and that the queen and the ladies of the court must have known him. Seems to me that Queen Guenevere was a pretty wise woman (of course she made a mistake of her own later, but we won't get into that) and that she wouldn't have stuck her neck out, metaphorically, for this knight, if she didn't see something in him that was worth redeeming. Not to mention, all the ladies there were clamoring to the king to give the queen the power to sentence him.
Of course, it's entirely possible she thought he was just a good-looking guy and wanted him spared because of that. But somehow, I don't think so. I think she saw a young, foolish man who made a stupid, selfish decision. I think she saw potential for greatness in him.
Taylor, I love your ideas in this blog!! Your right, the knight should not have been given the opportunity to be free. He should have been condemned for raping the women. He was offered no type of consequences for his actions! As for the queen, I didn't look at it from your perspective but in a way she was a little wrong, The queen didn't say anything about the knight raping the women, as if this was okay! You've mentioned some very good point Taylor!
ReplyDeleteObviously I will not argue that the Knight's fate is deservedly brought upon himself by his reprehensible treatment of the maiden. Rape simply cannot by justified and there should be repercussions. So know that I am in no way defending the Knight or his actions. I hold him in disdain just as you and most of us women do. But I believe there is more to the mission he was given by the Queen.
ReplyDeleteBy sending the Knight out to determine what a woman most wants, the Queen, I would argue, discreetly does several things. For one thing, it forces the knight to view women as being more human - - - beings with thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc. In the patriarchal environment of this time, that was something women were not given credit for having. They were objectified as property, as reproductive tools and means of pleasure for their male counterparts. By sending the Knight out to determine what makes a woman "tick" so to speak, the knight is forced to reckon with the essence of humanity in existence in a woman, because he clearly has not done so up to this point - which is clearly displayed by his raping the maiden, thereby lowering and degrading her to a status of something for him to "use."
In addition, it opens up an opportunity for him to attempt to reprieve himself. Death is closure. In death, one cannot learn a lesson. While the victim might feel they have attained a status of vengeance for the harm done to them, the wrongdoer does not get to make amends or become a better person. Therefore, I would argue that, in fact, the Knight was graced with the resources to transcend and become a better human being.
While, we might all agree he does not deserve a beautiful wife, I believe that the transformed old hag illustrates self-sacrificing marital love - a love that the Knight needs to experience and learn to exhibit for others. By raping a woman, the Knight exhibits a selfish lust that seeks self-fulfillment and pleasure, which is inherently the opposite sentiments that are essential to marriage as it is meant to be. Therefore, by the Knight's handing over the decision of her appearance to his spouse, he is empowering her as a woman. He has come to realize her humanity and values her sense of self-worth. Furthermore, by her transforming herself into the kind of woman he desires, she is demonstrating a love that he can learn to emulate - the lesson that the story begs for him to learn.
Obviously I will not argue that the Knight's fate is deservedly brought upon himself by his reprehensible treatment of the maiden. Rape simply cannot by justified and there should be repercussions. So know that I am in no way defending the Knight or his actions. I hold him in disdain just as you and most of us women do. But I believe there is more to the mission he was given by the Queen.
ReplyDeleteBy sending the Knight out to determine what a woman most wants, the Queen, I would argue, discreetly does several things. For one thing, it forces the knight to view women as being more human - - - beings with thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc. In the patriarchal environment of this time, that was something women were not given credit for having. They were objectified as property, as reproductive tools and means of pleasure for their male counterparts. By sending the Knight out to determine what makes a woman "tick" so to speak, the knight is forced to reckon with the essence of humanity in existence in a woman, because he clearly has not done so up to this point - which is clearly displayed by his raping the maiden, thereby lowering and degrading her to a status of something for him to "use."
In addition, it opens up an opportunity for him to attempt to reprieve himself. Death is closure. In death, one cannot learn a lesson. While the victim might feel they have attained a status of vengeance for the harm done to them, the wrongdoer does not get to make amends or become a better person. Therefore, I would argue that, in fact, the Knight was graced with the resources to transcend and become a better human being.
While, we might all agree he does not deserve a beautiful wife, I believe that the transformed old hag illustrates self-sacrificing marital love - a love that the Knight needs to experience and learn to exhibit for others. By raping a woman, the Knight exhibits a selfish lust that seeks self-fulfillment and pleasure, which is inherently the opposite sentiments that are essential to marriage as it is meant to be. Therefore, by the Knight's handing over the decision of her appearance to his spouse, he is empowering her as a woman. He has come to realize her humanity and values her sense of self-worth. Furthermore, by her transforming herself into the kind of woman he desires, she is demonstrating a love that he can learn to emulate - the lesson that the story begs for him to learn.
I hate the knight. I have tried to look at is point of redemption when he gave himself to his wife, but I cannot like him. I think you term "lucky rapist" is pretty accurate. However, I do like the queen's punishment for him. I think her punishment would be insulting to him. He is forced to travel around and ask women about what they hope and wish for. She forces him into listening and seeing them as people with dreams. She doesn't excuse him for his crime; she prolongs his punishment. Maybe she also thought he would never find the answer because as the text showed, most women wanted different things.
ReplyDelete