Criticisms of the Wife of Bath

   I had mixed feelings about the Wife of Bath. She undoubtedly made a stance for women's rights in the time period, proving that they were capable of having power. She had her husbands wrapped around her finger, working them to death. She guilted them into submitting control over to her through clever mind-games. While she states numerous stereotypes that men unjustly felt about women, she knowingly commits the terrible acts soon after pleading innocence to them. Perhaps through this she is meant to further the fear and convince men to give women little control over the household. Looking back from a modern perspective, it can be argued that she is justified in her actions, but during that time period, she would only have succeeded in confirming the stereotypes.

Wife of Bath

This prologue was very lengthy and the english gave me a slight headache but I was very interested and captivated by what this woman had to say.  This woman has had 5 husbands, and she was first married at the young age of 12.  I have a little brother who is 12 and I could never imagine him being married, heck he watches spongebob and can't keep a fish alive for more than a week!  Anyway, this woman seemed very cruel and a bit messed up in the head.  She would use the Bible and mix up the words to make herself seem sane.  Plus, she really only loved one of her husbands, the rest she would lie and take money from them.  She explains how she was very sexual, but would only have sex to get money which doesn't make much sense.  Out of the husbands that were "good" she describes them as being "gode, and riche, and olde" so it seemed that she went for men who were much older and who were wealthy and took advantage of them.  She accused one of her husbands of having an affair and he would give her what she wanted.   She took utter and total control of her husbands, as if they were her puppets, in order to get what she wanted from them.  My question would have to be, what caused her to be this way? Has she been like this her whole childhood, or did she just figure out how to push all of her husbands buttons?

Monstars: Wife of Bath Prologue

So I can say right off the bat that I’m already a huge fan of Alisoun or, a.k.a., the Wife of Bath.  She’s had five husbands all together. Even in our modern day culture saying you’ve had five husbands would be viewed as kind of extreme. And not only did she have a bunch of husbands, out of all five of them, she actually only loved one of them. The other four husbands she exploited strictly for money, land, or whatever else she wanted at the time. She’d even go so far as to sexually harass them or make up things that the husbands “supposedly” said while intoxicated. Basically, she harassed her husbands into submission, which was strongly frowned upon and even feared of, by men. The super ridiculous idea about all of this was that she started marrying and exploiting men at the young age of TWELVE. When I was twelve I was still watching Scooby-Doo cartoons and eating Lucky Charms. Plus women were often viewed as less important than men, so the fact that she had so much control over them is impressive and I personally think she overly enjoyed the power she held over them. In many lines when she’s describing her relationships with her husbands, she boasts openly about it and often had the next husband lined up by the time the last one died. I do have one question though; what lead her to become the way she is? I know a lot of it had to do with the influence of the Church, but there has to be another factor that helped shape her into the person she became.  

Wife of Bath

        I found the difference in tone the wife took in telling the story of her first three husbands as compared to her last two a very important technique chaucer used to reveal the character and give her more depth.  In talking of her first three marriages she takes a very proud, arrogant tone when speaking of using them, about tricking them and toying with them.  She seems to take no shame in it whatsoever, and even uses scripture to justify it.  But when she gets to her fourth husband she seems to finally be having emotional reactions to the memories she is recalling.  She becomes argumentative at times, and gets lost in her story.  And with the fifth husbands we finally see her in a truly vulnerable state.  She boasted that her prowess could get her any man, and she could not control the only one she loved.  She admits her age is beginning to wear on her.  The marriage ends in violence and a truce and after she is finished recanting the tale we see her lash out at the way women are treated in this society, giving different explanations for it.  I think it is here that we get to see the full range of this character.  From arrogance to sadness to defensiveness.

     My question is of whether or not we can believe this character in the way she speaks of what she has done.  Is she really proud and feeling no remorse?  It feels like a front, and a slow breakdown to the way she truly feels about her life as the story goes on.  Also, when the man she is confessing to talks of his own marriage, she essentially says "wait and she if I answer your question".  were any of his questions answered?

The Wife of Bath Prologue: Monstars

In The Prologue to The Wife of Bath, we see countless suggestions to Christ and Christianity. The Christian mode dominates the passage. The Wife of Bath seems to have no problem going against the Christian ways that her society abides by, "In the end, I got the better of them in every way, by trickery, or force, or some other thing." When I read this line the first thing that came to my mind was the idea of witchcraft that is commonly associated with Christianity around this time in England. But why? would she be telling these men about all of the trickery she has done to her five husbands? Growing up in a Catholic family and raised in the Catholic school system through high school, I could not help but think of this as the sacrament of Reconciliation, where one would recall their sins in front of a priest in order to be forgiven.
As I stated and roughly answered earlier, one of my questions is why is she telling these men of her trickery? Another that comes to mind is, who does she appear to be talking to while she is writing or reciting this?

Group #3, The Wife's Prologue

In the prologue to “The Wife of Bath’s Tale,” the wife speaks of her past five husbands nostalgically, ignoring criticism from others concerning the number of husbands by relating it to her knowledge of Jesus Christ. I believe these stories reflected her views of the changing role of women in relationships. She often mentioned the stories of the Bible, referring, for example, to the hundreds of wives of Solomon. Before telling the tale of the knight in Arthur’s court, she begins to transition into her own beliefs on women. She refers to her three “good” marriages like so because she felt she was in control of the relationship. She manipulated them into giving her what she wanted by using her age, looks, drinks, and sex. Contrastingly, the one man she was in love with beat her and did not treat her to gifts, resulting in a “bad” marriage. Her story of the knight also reveals her beliefs towards women in the relationship. The knight seeks the answer to “what do women want most,” and it is revealed that women want control over their lives and relationships. The story concludes with the old, ugly woman convincing (or manipulating, if you will) the young, handsome knight to stay with her and kiss her. She does so by simply promising faithfulness. This is an example of the woman taking control of the relationship. These examples lead me to conclude that the wife believes the role of women in the relationship has changed since Biblical times.

            I do not understand why the wife focuses so strongly on her fifth marriage. What is the significance of this? Also, are the multiple references to bread meant to symbolize something significant?

Group #2: Duty over Glory

For this post, I would like to explore Beowulf’s last battle, and why the fight with the Dragon is his last. I once learned that in another class, that the heor’s of the Anglo-Saxon time, did not go out seeking adventure, slaying monsters etc. for fame or glory, but rather because those hero’s (such as Beowulf) were the only ones that could. This meant that they also had the duty to do ”heroic” acts. This seems to be very much the case with Beowulf in the beginning when goes off to fight Grendel. For he is fighting for people other than his own, in a foreign land, not because he is seeking glory (for he has already proven himself amongst the Geats) but because he is the only one who can do this. There is also a reference to this in lines 1557-1562 during the fight with Grendel’s Mother. here Beowulf Finds the Giant Sword. It says that the sword is “…so huge and heavy that only Beowulf could wield it...” In the First two battles, we get this depiction of Beowulf as a selfless hero who does this for the sake of duty rather than pride. However, once we get to the battle with the Dragon, Beowulfs attitude has changed. In lines 2510-2513 it says that Beowulf was boastful and said he would “pursue this fight for the Glory of winning.” And continues on to say how he would rather not use a weapon, and doesn’t his men to fight with him. It seems that Beowulf, now and old man, who’s mead hall was destroyed by the Dragon, is no longer concerned about what his duty is. For his duty now as a king is to stay and run the mead hall, not go out and do battle. He is also not doing this fight because he is the only capable of it, for we see that he needs help killing the Dragon in the end. This could be the reason that Beowulf meets his end in this battle; because his is fighting for Pride and Glory rather than says his people. Also this could imply an over all moral message saying, fight battles for the sake of duty and not for Glory.” 1. Why do Dragons guard treasure in ancient myths? What is the significance? 2. I noticed that that there were not any references to God during the fight with the Dragon, where as there were quite a few earlier in the text. Specifically where Beowulf calls out to God giving and so forth. However in with Dragon, he never mentions God once. Why is this?

Second Blog

Through the poems progression one can see how in the three separate battles Beowulf, who originally embodied the ideal hero, begins to become weaker.

In the first battle with Grendel, Beowulf choses not to use any weapons, thus conducting a “fair” fight, which reinforces his sense of heroism and Christianity. However, after killing Grendel, the “hell-bride” appears and Beowulf is forced to battle another opponent. Feeling as though this battle will be slightly more difficult, Beowulf decides to utilize a weapon and armor in order to be victorious. Although this battle is more demanding and not as easy to win, Beowulf is able to kill Grendel’s mother and resurfaces with riches. By not following the rules associated with battle, Beowulf is beginning to drift from the rules of war at the time as well as the true heroic mode. In the final battle Beowulf has aged quite a bit and he goes to battle the dragon that has been wreaking havoc on his, and nearby, lands. Beowulf brings with him eleven soldiers to fight; however, only one of them stays by his side. Unlike in his youth, fewer man stand by and support Beowulf, thus he is killed by the dragon’s venom.

By the end of Beowulf’s life he has gone from a man supported by virtually everyone as a hero and a leader to a man that is weak and aided by few in his final battle.

Questions:

1.     Why do you think the ten soldiers abandoned their king?

2.     Do you think that Beowulf embodied the heroic mode throughout the entire poem?

            

Importance of Material Possessions in "Beowulf"

Within two small passages, it is known the importance placed upon material items in the time “Beowulf” was written.  In lines 2743 to 2751, Beowulf addresses Wiglaf to go and get the treasures that the dragon was hiding so that he may see them and know what he fought for and what he would leave behind with him as he perished. Beowulf states, “My going will be easier for having seen the treasure” (lines 2749-2750).

            I found it interesting that in such a time where glory and heroism were seen as the most important characteristics, that so would possessions. People in the 1500’s most likely felt that the man who won and owned the treasure was a man of power. Therefore Beowulf wanted to know what he would leave behind with him as he died in battle. Not only is he concerned about the people knowing he killed the dragon, but he is also (more) concerned about the treasures he will leave behind to the people of Geatland. 

Then as I read further, there is a line that states, “…that pile of rings he paid for at the end with his own life will go up with the flame…treasure no follower will wear in his memory…” (lines 3013-3016). Therefore this treasure that Beowulf was worried about seeing and knowing what he will leave behind will be burned with him; it did not even matter that he won the treasure because no one will see it or know the story behind it.  

These lines tell of the pride men had and how material things were what was most important, in Beowulf’s case anyways. But also to not worry about material possessions because it won’t matter in the end. The main act that the Geats will remember is the heroic acts he successfully completed.

Questions: Why did Wiglaf all of the sudden come to help? Do you think maybe he wanted some credit for helping Beowulf because he knew Beowulf would meet his demise there?

At the very end, the last word they used was “fame.” Do you think that was another issue that was important to the Geats, becoming remembered and famous?

Blog #2: The Role of the Thane

In class we have discussed, using Hrothgar, what makes a good king: strength, giving, not greedy, and forgiving.  We have also talked about what makes Beowulf a hero: fearlessness, strength, honor, and graciousness.  However, we haven’t really discussed what makes Beowulf such a good thane to his king.  Sure he is a hero, but heroism doesn’t necessarily mean he serves his king well.

                First off, Beowulf exemplifies the idea of a well serving thane by having some of the same characteristics that a great king has.  Much like a righteous king, Beowulf does not hoard his riches gained from his crusade against Grendel and his mother, but instead freely gives it all to his lord as a show of fealty to him.  This presents Beowulf both as a hero of great power, but also of great humility, knowing his limits but also not backing down from a fight.  Also, Beowulf is the epitome of a well serving thane due to his willingness to fight in the name and for the honor of not himself, but his lord.  Before his fight with Grendel and his mother, and when Beowulf returns to his lord’s lands, he states that all his actions are not to further his own fame, but to expand the greatness of his lord.

                What confuses me is that thanes are always supposed to serve they lord, but at what point does a thane decide to go against his lord?  For instance, if a lord is a bad lord, is it the right of the thanes to turn against and overthrow this lord?  I suppose what I’m asking is, do the thanes serve the lord or the kingdom?

Blog 2: Use of Kennings in "Beowulf"

            In Monday’s class, we discussed the literary term “kenning” and how it is used in Anglo-Saxon literature. I found that on page 89 of Beowulf this literary term is used frequently to describe the dragon. Kennings are used to describe monsters because the compounds stand out from regular descriptions and make the reader think about what the monster truly is.

            On page 89 of the poem, the dragon is referred to as a “hoard-guardian” in line 2293. This kenning is used because the dragon has been guarding the treasure of an unhappy man who left the gold to the earth. The dragon is also called a “ring-hoard” in line 2284, so basically the point is strongly made that the treasure means everything to the dragon and his life’s purpose is to guard the gold. To help the reader create a visual image of the dragon, it is also referred to as a “sky-winger” in line 2314 of the poem.

            Page 84 of Beowulf stood out to me because I noticed the author had also used kennings to describe Grendel and Grendel’s mother. Earlier in the poem, the kenning “death-dealer” was used to describe Grendel because he caused many fatalities in the mead-hall and Grendel’s mother was referred to as a “hell-bride.” I think that kennings are used to describe monsters like Grendel, Grendel’s mother, and the dragon because it makes the reading more interesting and gives a better description of the creatures. Also, kennings can be used as a new way to refer to the monster, instead of just calling the monster by name repeatedly.

Questions:

1.     Would you consider all hyphenated words in Beowulf to be kennings? For example do you think “guilt-ridden” (found on page 88, line 2225) is an example of a kenning?

2.     Did you think the use of kennings on page 89 made the reading more interesting?

3.     Why do you think the dragon caused so much turmoil over one missing goblet?