Editted vs. Non-editted Chaucer

     Although this is a couple weeks after we finished reading The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, there is something that I would like to bring attention to. While reading the "Wife of Bath's Prologue," there were many more vulgar statements there that I had not read when I read this book in high school my senior year. I had no idea how much the Wife of Bath used sex or the withholding of sex to get what she wanted from her husbands (and the older ones in particular). That was not mentioned in the version of the tales that I read in high school whatsoever, but should it have been?
     There are many reasons why editors make older pieces of literature more "kid-friendly." One reason would be so that children should be sheltered from the vulgarity of "adult living." Sex, drugs, and alcohol are too risqué of subjects to be discussed in classrooms. But isn't that the point of classes especially at a high school--to be exposed in a safe setting to temptations that will present later in life?
     I am currently interning at a high school with a teacher that has both seniors and freshmen. There is an astounding difference between the two age groups with both physical as well as intellectual maturity. It is understandable that the freshmen are not reading to controversial of pieces, but my mentor challenges the seniors by giving them essays on controversial topics. The point of teaching English is not simply to give students a broader range of vocabulary and read some cool books, but to use pieces of literature to make them think, debate, and decide upon real life issues such as drugs, sex, and alcohol. Because of this, it is my opinion that when it comes to taking British Literature in one's senior year of high school, there should not be an edited version. If Chaucer wanted the tone of the piece to be less vulgar, he would have written it that way. What are your thoughts? Should the vulgarity of Chaucer's tales be saved until a college literature course or should it be exposed to one in high school?

Golden Book of Marriage and Utopia

Hey guys!

So, I'd like to make a connection here between the Wife of Bath’s prologue and part of Book II of Utopia, something that occurred to me while reading the latter. I’m not necessarily sure of what conclusion I can draw from all of this so I hope someone else can help me!

Also, psa I’m in both Dr. MB’s Chaucer and Brit Lit class and we discussed the Wife of Bath at the exact same time so I hope I’m not mixing up what we covered in each class. If so uh…at least you’ll have some new information!

So, while covering the Wife of Bath, we discussed the book that Jenkin read to her that she eventually ripped pages out of. The book is called “The Book of Wicked Wives” and the section I’m going to be looking at is one we read in class and it at the back of our book on page 358. It is from the section written by Theophrastus, Golden Book of Marriage.
It reads: “Moreover there is no choice in the matter of a wife: one has to take whatever comes along. If she’s nagging, stupid, ugly, proud, smelly—whatever fault she has, we find out after marriage. Now a horse, an ass, a cow, a dog, the cheapest of slaves, clothes, kettles, a wooden chair, a cup, a clay pot—all these are tested first, and then purchased. Only a wife is not put on display—in case her faults are discovered before we take her.”

Ignoring the obvious, horrifying misogyny in this section (I know, it pains me to ignore it and not rant about it), I’d like to point out that there is a connection with Utopia.

In Book II of Utopia, we are being told all of the different ways that the society works in Utopia. This “perfect” land has a distinctive ritual that the men and women go through before marrying; one which several people objected to in class. We see this on page 72.

More is repeating Raphael’s explanation of Utopia and is talking about marriage. “Whether she is a widow or a virgin, the woman is shown naked to the suitor by the responsible and respectable matron; and similarly, some respectable man presents the suitor naked to the woman…When men go to buy a colt, where they are risking only a little money, they are so suspicious that, though the beast is almost bare, they won’t close the deal until the saddle and blanket have been taken off, lest there be a hidden sore underneath. Yet in the choice of a mate, which may cause either delight or disgust for the rest of their lives, people are completely careless. They leave all the rest of her body completely covered up with clothes and estimate the attractiveness of a woman from a mere handsbreadth of her person, the face, which is all they can see. And so they marry, running the risk of bitter discord, if something in either’s person should offend the other.”

So what does this tell us? Well, for one, both Theophrastus and More (the author) or Raphael (the speaker) are comparing women and wives to livestock. Both writings are speaking of marriage as a transaction wherein a woman is bought and is constantly trying to trick men into a bad exchange.

However, More (the writer) does decide that in this Utopia, both women and men are exposed completely before they are married. While only the women is described as being likely to trick the man into “buying” her, the men are also exposed. Is More saying that this could happen with men tricking women into marriage as well? When he gives the example of going to buy a horse, he compares this to marrying a woman and this led me to believe he thought the same thing that Theophrastus did, but perhaps he is thinking this of both genders.

Is More being influenced by Theophrastus? Has he read Golden Book of Marriage? Has he read Chaucer and is he drawing this idea from him? Or was this an idea that a lot of men had at this time period?

I’m really not sure what to make of this connection. Does anyone else have any ideas?

Men are wicked and still have happy endings

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?

Lysistrata and the Wife of Bath

So there is this Greek play called Lysistrata, written about 400 BC by Aristophanes. The play is about a strong female character, named Lysistrata who is so upset by the Peloponnesian War she tries to find a way for the women of Greece to end the war since the men seem unable. And what do men love more than anything else??? SEX, of course. Lysistrata convinces the Greek women to withhold sex from their husbands until the war has ended. This is a comedy, so of course hilarity ensues. The one thing Lysistrata fails to realize is that women crave and need sex just as bad as their husbands.

This play has been critically thought of as a feminist war, a first of its kind for that time period, since like Chaucer’s era women were things and not really people to have any kind of influence.  

So is Aristophanes just making fun of woman? Is Chaucer just making fun of women with his tale of the Wife of Bath? Are these authors’ pioneers of women’s rights by writing about strong, influential, and smart female characters?

Personally, I feel both authors wrote their respective strong willed female characters to amp up the hilarity of their writings. Unintentionally, I feel they also pioneered feminist thoughts. I’m sure educated females heard about these characters and realized the strength women can have, even when all she has is her body.  

Lysistrata: http://www.lysistrataunleashed.com/LysistrataSilhouette2sm.jpg

Wife of Bath: http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/wife.gif

Strong Females in the Middle Ages

Alright, not that any of you are surprised, but I am still on my Wife of Bath kick. I kinda got the idea for this blog after reading Jordan's blog, so hat's off to Jordan for getting my ball rolling!

Anyways, I wanted to talk about the struggles of writing a strong female character. It really is a difficult thing to find, even in this day and age. But just imagine how hard it would've been to write one in Chaucer's time! I mean, in Beowulf the women weren't even mentioned on the family tree. It was as if they were just some weird machine that once  man inserted his "seed" (I hate using the proper term for it) into it, then heirs or other little machines popped out. I cringe even just thinking about that.

Maybe Chaucer was sitting down at his little writing desk and thinking "You know what'll blow the pants off these guys; if I were to write the WOMAN in charge instead of the man. Yeah, that'll be super cool and edgy." or maybe he even actually viewed women as people (shocker, I know). But, whatever the reason, the Wife of Bath was born!

Now, since strong female characters were completely unheard of at the time, Chaucer had to write his character using what was common for that age. Yeah, that means the Wife has to bascially use sex as a weapon, but even modern women do that. She also has to deal with a bit of domestic abuse (it's wrong, wrong, WRONG), but so does the women Tyler Perry often portrays in his films and they come out strong on the other side....for the most part.

Maybe Chaucer was trying to be the Miley Cyrus of the Middle Ages and maybe he was trying to help his male readers see women as people, rather than creepy baby making machines (personally, I prefer the second option....I mean can you imagine a red-lipped, twerking, Chaucer just licking everything that is within a one foot radius of him? Gross.).

All I'm trying to say is that a) Strong female characters were difficult to write back then,  b) I really needed to write a blog, but was having issues coming up with a suitable topic so I just wrote down a bunch of thoughts that came into my head about something I read, and c) I wanted people to enjoy this meme I found that is clearly the Wife of Bath and Jankin and not any comic book characters.

The Wife of Awesomeness

I really enjoyed "The Wife of Bath's Prologue" simply because I find her character impressive. I love that she is able to use her sex appeal along with her mind to make men do what she wants them to. She does manipulate them, but I say kudos to her. Usually when someone takes advantage of their looks or mind, they lack the other. However, the Wife of Bath manages to use both to get what she wants. Sure, she uses her body more than her mind, but it is still in use. You have to be clever in order to do and say some of the things she does.
The leverage she has over men is evident when the pardoner says to her, "Telle forth youre tale, spareth for no man/And teche us yonge men of youre praktike" (Chaucer, 106, 186-187). The pardoner knows that the Wife of Bath has a way with men, and he wants to know all of her tricks because he wants to be prepared when he gets married. However, this implies that all women are as manipulative as the Wife of Bath is. During this time period, it is very unlikely that there are a lot of women as domineering as she is.

quoteshub.org 

The way her character is with men is what makes me like her so much. I think she uses her sex appeal as a way to be on a level playing field with the men. At this time, women had very little influence in anything, and I think she uses sex as a way to be in control of something.
Some people in class said that they do not like her character because they have a hard time looking at her from the time period the tale is set. I, however, enjoy her no matter what the time period is. I understand that women have more power in modern society and there are so many ways to get what you want without using your body, but in the end she still has results. If her body is what she has to use it, why not take advantage of it? She was not cheating on her husbands, all of her sexual activity involved the men she married.
I hate that there is a double standard regarding the Wife of Bath in modern society and men in modern society. Most people would look down on her today because of that fact that she has had so many husbands and her current one is twenty years younger than her. However, if her character were a man, things would most likely be different. Men tend to get praised for being with multiple women -- especially if those women are younger than they are.
The only problem I have with her character is that she stayed with Jankin when he beat. I understand that during the time period, men were allowed by law to beat their wives, but her character seems so head-strong that I thought she would find a way to leave him. The one part I did enjoy regarding this was when she hit him back. She explains that she rips his book and makes him fall in the fire, and after he hits her, she "hitte him on the cheke" (Chaucer, 120, 808). Yes, he does hit her, but she fights back and I appreciate that very much.

What a Girl Wants, According to Chaucer

Ok, here I am shamelessly writing about the Wife of Bath again, but after today's discussion in class can you really blame me?

Throughout our discussion of whether or not Chaucer meant for the Wife of Bath to be feared by men and admired by women, I couldn't help, but think about if Chaucer actually meant to portray what women really wanted out of a relationship.

Let's consider the facts, the Wife of Bath was married five times, but she only really loved her most recent husband, Jankin. Jankin was really the only man to ever stand up against the Wife of Bath's tyranny, even for just a brief moment through some pretty intense domestic violence. In addition to rising up against her, he also makes her see that he's cool with her doing whatever, just as long as she doesn't forget about him in the process.

"He yaf me al the brydel in myn hond,
To han the governance of hous and lond,
And of his tonge and of his hond also;
And whan that I hadde geten unto me,
By maistrie, al the soveraynetee..."

(Lines 813-818, The Canterbury Tales)

This passage in particular makes me think that the Wife of Bath and Jankin had a very radically progressive relationship. And by radically progressive, I mean basically modern by today's standards. I don't know about you guys, but in my house my mom and dad basically do whatever (as long as it's legal and not going against their marriage vows), but when it comes down to it, my mother has the final say.

That's just point one.

Point two is that their marriage actually seems to improve after this dispute. I mean, she even states:

"After that day we hadden never debaat.
God help me so, I was to him as kinde
As any wyf from Denmark unto Inde,
And also trewe, and so was he to me.
I prey to God that sit in magestee,
So blesse his soule for his mercy dere!"

(Lines 819-827, The Canterbury Tales)

After they have their dispute, the Wife of Bath is basically given control over everything that is rightfully hers, while Jankins is just along for the ride. I think this speaks to so many women, and even men on a certain standpoint, because who doesn't want a relationship where everything is equal? Isn't that the point of even being in one?

Anyways, I love the Wife of Bath and see no flaw in her; minus her tolerance with domestic violence: NOT COOL! But for the time this was written, I suppose that was pretty normal. Anyways, I feel weird for not having any fun pictures or videos, so here's a picture of Betty White; who I can totally see as playing the Wife of Bath if they ever made The Canterbury Tales  into a movie.

Ok, I simply couldn't resist

As the title of this blog states, I honestly could not resist being the first to post something about my favorite character in all of the Canterbury Tales: The Wife of Bath.

Here she is, ladies and gentlemen! The beautiful Wife of Bath in all of her audacious and provocative beauty! Tremble all who behold her gap tooth of ultimate seduction!

Ok, so the Wife of Bath is probably the funniest characters of the series. I mean, come on. All the Miller has for him is his drunken stupidity. Take the bottle away from him and he's got nothing! The Wife of Bath's quick wit and constant flirtatious innuendos are constant and everlasting. Like, it has been how long since the tale has been written and her mannerisms are STILL hysterical and for all the same reasons, too! How's that for good writing? Eat it, Shakespeare!

Anyways, if you are doubting me, why don't you just read one of the first things she says on pg.102 (approximately line 28):

"God bad us for to wexe and multiplye:
   That gentil text can I wel understonde."

For all of you who haven't read this part yet, she is basically saying "God told us to increase and multiply. That's a nice bit of scripture I can understand well."

Oh, and if that didn't tickle your funny bones, check this: SHE NEVER SAYS SHE HAS ANY KIDS!! LIKE EVER!! GOOGLE IT!!

So, that's it for me for now since I'm presenting on this, along with my dear friend Brittney, in a few days. I just really wanted you all to get hyped for the Wife of Bath ahead of time.