In the last few weeks I've really
struggled to find a topic I felt strongly about. Yeah, I think the
Wife of Bath is interesting, but honestly, she's really said it all
already. I didn't feel like I had anything to add. It wasn't until
I read her story that I found myself with something to say.
I was already familiar with the story
she told. I don't remember reading it, but I must have, most likely
when I was a lot younger. I'm pretty sure that in the version I read
the same woman who was raped at the beginning is the one the knight
ends up marrying. The story Chaucer tells us doesn't specify, but it
seems to me like the sort of thing he'd mention. “And whan the
knight saugh verraily al this, / That she so fair was and so yong
thereto” (1250-1251), “oh, and she was the same woman he wanted
so badly in the beginning of the story,” Chaucer never said.
So what happened to her? Obviously,
she got justice, of a sort at least. We never know if the queen's
solution was acceptable to her or if she would rather have seen his
head roll. Sadly, this is a prime example of the unconscious and
unintentional sexism rampant throughout many cultures and eras; she
showed up, got raped, and that was all the storyteller needed from
her. Of course, perhaps she preferred to fade into obscurity.
However, life had to have been hard for
her after this. Obviously, the stories of King Arthur's court, as
well as his idealized system of laws and governance, are either a
fictional tale or a highly romanticized and exaggerated story, so we
don't know what protections might have existed for her. However,
there are still areas of the world today where a woman who has been
raped will be charged with adultery. Even if she was protected, as
seems likely under Arthur's fair laws, she had to have suffered some
ostracization. Human nature is consistent enough that you know
someone would have blamed the victim.
I think that, as a young woman, clearly
unmarried since she was a “mayde,” this event would have been an
impediment to finding a good marriage. Really, since the knight got
away with his life, I really think the least he could have done would
be to give her a rich dowry to offset the damage he did. He was
certainly happy to offer all his worldly possessions to the old woman
to avoid marrying her.
The blame here could be placed on the
knight, persisting in his selfishness, but it could also be placed on
whoever originally told this story. I'd love to know what you
think.
I had so much trouble reading this story because of the fact that she was just a plot device. She was used to get the plot rolling, and then we never hear from her again. I would love to have heard what happened to her after this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you brought to light the affects that the Knight's actions may well have had on the maid he raped. It is something I too have considered and thought about a lot, wondering what ever became of her and whether she was stigmatized as a result and how that affected her future. Somehow, I wish Chaucer had clearly enlightened us on this topic. If she is truly never again mentioned in the text, I would feel the tale left an issue untended. I feel compelled to argue otherwise though - that she is indeed mentioned later on in the text and in fact playing a pivotal role in the Knight's salvation.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you brought up the fact that she is used as a plot device - used to place the Knight in a precarious position and then never to be mentioned again. It indeed seems that way at first glance. I actually wrote my paper on this topic where I argued that there are actually passages in the tale that allude to the old, ugly woman being a transformation of the maid that has been dishonored. As telling of the patriarchy running rampant at the time it would be for the maid to be used and then "discarded" from the story, I think that would only be too much of a simplification of the genius that is Chaucerian narratives.