Talk:The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale is part of WikiProject King Arthur, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary on the talk page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Middle Ages Portal The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Minor edits of the prose, added and corrected plot details. DigitalMedievalist 22:00, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa

---

Significance compared to other pilgrims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.147.33 (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antifeminism?

"Chaucer was taking inspiration from a significant amount of antifeminist literature around at the time but it is far from clear whether he is copying these sentiments or slyly lampooning them."

I'm mildly bemused by this - can medieval literature really be described as "antifeminist" before the existence of a definable "feminist" viewpoint? It seems anachronistic at best, and patent silliness at worst... perhaps "misogynistic" would be more correct? Shimgray | talk | 16:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in a manner of speaking. "Antifemnist" is the current term in the criticism, and refers to a tradition of clerical misogyny. Notcarlos 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a similar reaction to Shimgray's upon first encountering the term. In any case, I think the current phrasing, which states that "it is critical to understand" that the tale was working within the tradition of antifeminism, is too strong.

This is a modern critical interpretation; while to me it appears more defensible than, say, a 19th-century critical opinion, it is nevertheless merely an interpretation. It should be qualified and attributed to modern critics. --Saforrest 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All interpretations -- our own and others -- are "merely" interpretations! The "antifeminist" moniker dates in fact to the 1950's, hardly the age of Gloria Steinem. What it designates is a vein of early medieval thought which took as its given that women were lesser beings than men -- many of which, with and without irony -- are among the Wife's sources (e.g Adversus Jovinianum). Clevelander96 03:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This section on "antifeminism" is, at best, sloppy scholarship. First of all, it seems to reduce a complex mediaeval culture, with many layers of gender ideology, to a simple dichotomy in which "misogynist" men "oppress" women. While such terms may be helpful political devices, they have limited use in cultural and literary studies of the mediaeval period, in which mediaeval men and women understood themselves, the world, and their place in it as radically different than we do today. If we want to call them "antifeminists," well, fine then, but it does not seem to accomplish much. The real problem here is the language of this section: i.e., "It is crucial to understand." According to whom? Modern literary discourse takes no such absolutist position, and, frankly, this is an argument (not-so) cleverly disguised as an exposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.184.26 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the discussion of the role of the antifeminist sourcetexts and traditions could and should be more nuanced. I would emphasize, however, that the role of an encyclopedia is not to evaluate critical interpretations of a work, but rather to describe them in neutral terms. The term "antifeminist" has been common parlance among Chaucerians for fifty years and more, and should be used here for that reason, whether or not the article's contributors think it's ideal (but of course if one can offer an external, sourced critique of the term by a Chaucer scholar, then that certainly could and should also be represented). As for "is crucial to understand," I feel that this statement is an accurate one; many times in the twenty years I've taught Chaucer, I find that students are unaware that when the Wife of Bath makes what seem blatantly misgynistic remarks that she is drawing from, quoting from in fact, a pre-existing tradition, and attribute these remarks to her individually. This is an error, as much as it would be if, unfamiliar with Paul's letters to the Corinthians, we attributed the "better to marry than to burn" remark to the Wife herself. In this sense, the source is "crucial" -- or let's just say "important," since no knowing this fact could lead to significant misunderstanding. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All 'interpretations' are merely 'interpretations,' but this is Wikipedia, which needs sources. When you don't have sources, this sort of terrible, terrible analysis occurs. The entire first half of the paragraph on how the Wife of Bath is antifeminist is shamefully incorrect. Oh, wait! It backs itself up by saying "...it is quite obvious that Alisoun is an embodiment of antifeminist beliefs." Nevermind, then!

But seriously, this is flagrantly incorrect. Anyone, please: observe the evidence it uses. Why in hell would her marrying five men make her an antifeminist? Or her misusing biblical quotations? I think the writer of this article has a skewed view of feminism-- it seems he thinks feminism is only Amazon Feminism or some even more extreme kind, where a woman must feel superior to men and never marry. This is absurd and incorrect. I am changing it soon, but for now I have no time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopac (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The claims in this section are more than amply sourced; I have converted the parenthetical references to end-notes to highlight this. At the same time, parts of this section are rather clumsily worded, such that they seem to be making extreme and contradictory statements; I have done my best to nuance these so that they accurately represent the sourced material. This section should reflect current thought and knowledge in this field. Clevelander96 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange phrasing in "Themes" section

First off, this reads like someone's research or an early 20^th-century introduction lifted from somewhere. If it's not cited or ref'd, it needs to be rewritten.

Second, what's up with "Throughout the Catholic Middle Ages"? Was there a "protestant" Middle Ages of which I'm not aware? Granted, not every culture sees 400-1500 as a "middle ages," but wouldn't "European Middle Ages" make more sense? If no-one disagrees, I'm going to fix it (eventually). Notcarlos 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)