Brewer, Derek. An Introduction To Chaucer. Longman Group Limited, New York, 1984.

In his book An Introduction to Chaucer, Derek Brewer explores the life and work of Chaucer. From his schooling, family life and early work to his more famous text, The Canterbury Tales. Brewer analyzes Chaucer’s story and character development, his break down of formal patterns and his tendency to base characters on real people, to name a few. The development of the characters from Chaucer’s General Prologue, are referred to as static and brilliant, adding to what Brewer argues as the finest tale of all. “The characters…talk among themselves on the road between stories- and when people begin to talk in Chaucer we hear the very tones of living voices” (Brewer 166). Brewer leaves the reader with the question as to whether the character came before the creation of the story, or whether the story came before the creation of the character.

The story and character development of Chaucer’s prologue follows in a Gothic spirit. Chaucer used satire to gather serious subjects through the use of humor. This is similar to other writers of the Gothic style, such as Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron, however Chaucer goes further in his use of variety and how he develops the characters who tell the tales. “We may guess that his characters were first the product, so to speak, of the tales they were to tell. It is certain that Chaucer had some stories which were written before the Tales as a whole were conceived” (Brewer 165). Brewer argues that Chaucer created the characters before he wrote the tales, which accounts for the Tales tendency to take on a life of their own. Brewer refers to The Wife of Bath’s Tale, whose narrator is believed to originally be the narrator for another story, The Shipman’s Tale. “The change is apparent because the present Shipman’s Tale, although unquestionably attributed to him according to the manuscripts, is written for a woman to tell. It belongs to the period of the Tales, and could only fit the Wife of Bath” (Brewer 165). If the Wife of Bath was initially meant to tell The Shipman’s Tale, then it can be said that The Wife of Bath’s Tale is hers, in other words it is a result of the creation of her character.

Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales also differ in their structure and development through his use of irregular patterns or irregular descriptions of his characters. Brewer argues that this works in Chaucer’s favor because medieval literature is full of descriptions and portraits which do follow a regular pattern. The most obvious one is the description of the woman. All heroines of medieval literature follow the same type of description, “golden hair, dark eyebrows, teeth like pearls, slender shoulders, small breasts, broad hips etc.” (Brewer 169). Chaucer created the descriptions of his characters with this portrait in mind, however he used it as a guide of how not to describe his leading ladies. Although not all of his ladies strayed from this description (i.e. Criseyde), Chaucer stuck to avoiding this systematic portrait. “…And part of the pleasure of the vivid arbitrariness of the sequence of details derives from our underlying sense of the scheme which is broken. It is refreshing to see inconsequential ‘reality’, the apparently accidental event, break down pre-formulated rigid patterns, codes, ideals” (Brewer 169). An example of this is seen in the description of the Hag in The Wife of Bath’s Tale, described as “a poor, filthy and hideous old woman” (Brewer 207).

Chaucer describes his characters with great detail, and to add another layer of amusement to his work, some argue that his characters are based off of real people. “Some portraits were certainly based on real people in real life, thus adding another layer of implication, a further dimension of interest and at least for the earliest readers, amusement” (Brewer 174). An example of a character who was possibly created on the basis of a real person is The Merchant. “The Merchant may possible be meant to suggest a well-known merchant and money-lender named Gilbert Maghfield, from whom Chaucer and several other courtiers are known to have borrowed money, and who went bankrupt” (Brewer 174). Chaucer may have used people he encountered in real life situations to create complex characters . Either way, the existence of real life people in his characters add to the liveliness and social framework of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, more specifically the interaction of the characters from The General Prologue.

Brewer offers no clear introduction of conclusion to his book, rather he begins and ends with the start and death of Chaucer. The context of his book were very helpful in reading Chaucer, however in one chapter he focuses more on summarizing the Tales rather than offering substantial literary arguments about or against it. Brewer does lay a heavy emphasis on the character. He discusses how the characters were possibly developed or created and her proposes the idea that the character may have in fact come before the creations of the Tale. I think this holds to be a valid argument because the Tales are very elaborate and seem to be an exact conclusion of the character telling the story.

Brewer also discusses Chaucer’s stray from typical medieval literature structure, more specifically the description of the leading lady. I do think Brewer is moving in the right direction with his argument. Chaucer may not have just focused on the description of the ladies in his stray from the norm, but his character relationships as well. The ideal of marriage is almost shattered in some of the Tales because of some characters lack of respect for marriage as an institution. Also, feminine dominance is an idea evident in Chaucer’s Tales, for example the Wife of Bath’s Tale. The male figure or the knight is domineered by feminine power twice, once by the queen who takes on his punishment and once by the Hag who dominates him sexually and forces him into a marriage with her.

Brewer also touches upon the idea that Chaucer’s characters were based off of real people he encountered in his everyday life. This is not one I can argue for or against for, the people Brewer references existed but their connection the Chaucer’s characters could only be determined by people living in that social context. Brewer did not offer enough background information or arguments to back up his thinking in this situation. I do think that if Chaucer did use real people to develop his characters, it would have added to the amusement of his satirical Tales.

Carter, Susan. “Coupling the Beastly Bride and the Hunter Hunted: What Lies Behind Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale.” The Chaucer Review 37.4 (2003): 329-345.

Susan Carter’s article entitled, “Coupling the Beastly Bride and the Hunter Hunted: What Lies Behind Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale“, explores gender, more specifically that a central theme of the Wife’s Tale is it’s “liberation from gender role restriction” (Carter 329). The hag is described as a very unattractive person, with green teeth and thick ankles. She therefore uses trickery and magic to lure in the knight and offers him help so he may keep his life. Ultimately, she becomes dominant to the male sexually as well as mentally. Carter designed her article around three main point: heterosexual relationships, the feminization of King Arthur’s court and the female power.

In relation to heterosexual exchange, Carter examines the control of power, through desire, pleasure and frustration. The hag, naturally, represents the female presence in the text where the knight stands to represent male domination. The knight is in trouble with King Arthur’s court because he committed rape and is now facing punishment. The court hands the punishment over to the queen, who tells the knight if he can answer her question correctly he will not face death. The queen asks him what women want and is given one year to come up with the correct answer. The knight goes in search of this answer, and on his journey comes across the hag. She lures her to him with the illusion of beautiful ladies dancing on a lawn in the forest. She appears and offers him the correct answer if he will in turn do whatever she asks him to do. The knight agrees and thus gives up his male domination, giving the hag the upper hand. “When the knight surrenders to female ‘maistrye’, he surrenders not to the romanticized woman projected by male desire, but to the woman conceived in the pessimistic terms of anti-feminism” (Carter 332). The hag offers the knight what he needs so that she can make him do whatever she wants, giving her dominance and power over him. She uses illusion to lure him to her and ultimately uses him for her own pleasure.

In her depiction of the Wife’s tale, Carter also touches upon the feminization of King Arthur’s court. The knight is a member of the court and the tale begins with his rape of a woman. King Arthur’s court is known throughout the kingdom as “an elite military system of justice” (Carter 334) and even though the knight is a member of the court he still must be punished. The queen requests the punishment be given to her, and Arthur concedes. “Although Arthur is named and Guinevere is not, and although his household loses the ‘lusty bacheler’ into the countryside, it is women who people the Arthurian court interior” (Carter 334). This is brought up again when the knight returns to the queen with his answer to her riddle. The final judges of the knights response are women, putting the fate of his life in their hands, thus giving them complete control. “For the purpose of this tale, the court is represented by what women want…As well as creating a sense of authentic feminine subjectivity in the Wife’s assessment of the Arthurian court, her regendering is sympathetic to the Sovranty Hag’s ultimate jurisdiction over the male court” (Carter 335).

The main theme of Carter’s article is the gender role reversal and the switch of power over to the female. The scene in the forest where the knight and the hag first meet each other is a fine example of this. The knight is lured to the hag by the illusion of dancing ladies, who he hopes to seek wisdom and an answer to his riddle. The illusion is then shattered when the hag appears before him. The hag sets up a temptation for the wandering knight. “Yet the dancing ladies prefigure the hag, and would seem to be her chosen representation of herself: a roadside attraction designed to ensnare the knight. It works” (Carter 336). The hag becomes the hunter and the knight the hunted, thus giving the female power.

In conclusion, Carter addresses the end of the tale, where the male is finally rewarded. The hag has him where she wants him and offers him a question as to how he wishes her to appear on the outside, The knight’s response, that the choice should be up to her, shows how well the dominance of the female presence worked. “The closure of the Wife of Bath’s Tale, in consistency with other loathly lady tales, shows that female control rewards the male once he is willing to step outside the stricture of role play” (Carter 345). The hag’s domineering role and the knight’s submissive role lead each of them to getting what they want or being rewarded. However, the female dominance throughout the Wife’s tale is uncommon for medieval literature.

I agree with the concept of Carter’s article. Although she confused me at some points with the examples she tied into the theme, her depiction of the Wife of Bath’s Tale was accurate. The shift of power is an obvious theme of the tale and Carter lays out examples from the text in an organized manner. Carter’s argument is backed up with appropriate examples from the text which gives her argument more credibility.

Smith, Warren. “Dorigen’s Lament and the Resolution of the Franklin’s Tale.” The Chaucer Review 36.4 (2004): 374-390

Warren Smith begins his article, “Dorigen’s Lament and the Resolution of the Franklin’s Tale“, by addressing the relation of Dorigen’s lament and an argument from Jerome’s Against Jovinian. Jerome’s first book of Against Jovinian depicts a variety of Biblical stories justifying his argument that chastity is the preferred choice of men and women in the Bible. Her lament offers or causes the character to react to and offer a implicit imply to the difference between virginity and marital relationships of pagan or pre-Christian wives. Smith argues that through the character of Dorigen, Chaucer takes a clear steer away from Jeromes’ position on marriage and virginity. “Chaucer focuses on the pagan exempla of the later chapters, in accordance with the occasional pagan or pre-Christian assumptions of the tale…This inconsistency is a clear example of irony or humor, but those who dismiss the Lament as a long-winded rhetorical exercise miss its more serious point, which becomes evident only in close comparison with its course” (Smith 375).Dorigen takes the rhetoric used in Jerome’s Against Jovinian and uses it in a more humane manner, paying closer attention to the distinction of right and wrong.

Smith begins with a rundown of Dorigen’s lament. She makes a rash promise to a man (Aurelius). Her husband, Averagus, has been away pertaining to his knightly duties and she wants him to return home. Dorigen asks Aurelius to remove the black rocks on the coast so he can safely return to her and in return will give Aurelius her undying love and affection. Upon Averagus’ return, Dorigen is in a situation in which she must maintain her promise to Aurelius while remaining true to her husband. She is faced with the decision as to whether or not suicide is a justifiable resolution to breaking her promise to Aurelius or shaming herself by committing adultery with him. Chaucer forces Dorigen to turn to examples of the virtue of a true pagan woman. “…In this instance, not so much mocking the examples as transforming them, giving them a lesson and a moral tone sympathetic to the women and disapproving of the violence of the men, human reactions for which one looks in vain in Jerome” (Smith 379).

Dorigen is now caught in a dilemma, which boils down to her facing Jerome’s choice between a loss of chastity or a loss of life. Dorigen refers to twenty-two examples. The first eleven are examples of women whose suicide is deplored because it resulted from the cruelty of their male oppressors, citing the story of the Thirty Tyrants and the story of the men of Messene. The last eleven examples are taken from Jerome, and surprisingly enough praise women for their outstanding love of their partners.

“As was the case with the changes Chaucer made from Bocaccio in describing Dorigen’s unselfish desire for removal of the rocks, so does he transform the tone of Dorigen’s complaint to make her consistently sympathetic with the suffering women of the examples and contemptuous of the violent men, thus reassuring us that her final decision about her fate will rest on a compassionate and morally upright basis” (Smith 384).

Smith concludes in stating that the use of Jerome’s Against Jovinian is necessary for the resolving of Dorigen’s dilemma. “Dorigen, forced to settle a moral dilemma which seems to present her with an impossible choice, turns to a document on the nature of female virtue which for all it’s buffoonery is unyielding and pitiless to the point of fanaticism on the subject of chastity” (Smith 386). Dorigen turns to a text that exemplifies chastity as the virtue of all women. Smith ends his argument by stating that Jerome’s “chamber of horrors” helps Dorigen to solve the moral dilemma she finds herself in towards the end of the Franklin’s Tale. Dorigen finds herself in a similar situation as the women in the examples she references in her lament.”In short, Dorigen’s Lament reveals her struggling toward a resolution of her dilemma which will keep her from suicide and preserve both her ‘trothe’ and her fidelity to her husband” (Smith 386).

I think the structure of Smith’s article, referencing Jerome’s Against Jovinian, works in successfully depicting Dorigen’s lament. However, I am not sure how Dorigen’s lament precisely pinpoints the difference between right and wrong. It seems that her decisions, although unselfish, leave her in a situation where here ultimate decision is wrong.

Smith also references that the examples Dorigen references in her lament help her to maintain truth and be true to her husband. Dorigen was not true to her husband. While he was away maintaining his knightly worth in order to remain worthy of his marriage to someone of higher birth, she was gaining the attentions she lacked from other men. She even goes as far as to promise her love to another man, although it was in regards to bringing her husband back, she still made the promise. Dorigen may not realize the importance of his hard work in maintaining his status, but it the same kind of work that got her to notice him and return his love in the first place.

Davis, Craig. “A Perfect Marriage on the Rocks.” The Chaucer Review 37.2 (2002): 129-144

Craig Davis explores the unusual attraction and marriage of the noble knight and his wife (of higher social status) in Chaucer’s The Franklin’s Tale. Davis begins by examining Chaucer’s real life marriage to Phillipa, the daughter of Sir Payne de Ruet, who was of a higher social birth then Chaucer. The Franklin’s Tale mirrors this marriage through the relationship of Arveragus and Dorigen. Arveragus, a noble knight, must work hard to gain the attention and admiration of Dorigen, which takes a lot of time and consideration on her part because of his lower social status. However, his hard work on Arveragus’ part is seen as the hard work of true love and thus their relationship of humble and noble birth is validated. Davis lays emphasis on the characters difference in social status and how this challenges their marriage.

Davis first approaches this argument through the idea of unequal marriage. Chaucer shows how the relationship of a strategic marriage might be experienced in an emotional manner. Arveragus has to work hard to win the recognition of a woman who enjoys these luxuries simply because of her higher status of birth. As seen through the eyes of the Franklin, the love for Dorigen from Arveragus is true and interest free, in other words he is not motivated by any social opportunities. “That investment is depicted as spontaneous and interest free, as motivated not by calculation of future benefit, but by true love” (Davis 132). Arveragus has had to do many things in order for his love to be taken seriously by Dorigen. He has had to upgrade his own social status through demonstrating his effectiveness as a knight and also has to convince Dorigen that he will not challenge her “inborn superiority” (Davis 132) by taking on the role of the dominant husband. Dorigen only begins to consider taking Arveragus as a male suitor once this public display of worth is established.

Davis now looks at the idea of mutual obedience, which is possible in the marriage of Arveragus and Dorigen because the male is inferior to the wife. “It is this structural social inferiority of the husband that makes possible the balance between competing systems of dominance and subordination celebrated in the Franklin’s’s sermon, a chiastic tension between the roles of ruling lady and submissive lover, of the husband who is head of the wife” (Rigby 133). This creates a delicate balance of power, where the partners are equal in their relationship while still holding onto their own individuality. Davis also explores the idea of mutual obedience through the couples relationship to other people or to society. The Franklin depicts this relationship to society as being very crucial to how well the private relationship of the marriage will work. However, a relationship that relies on this type of public acceptance leaves itself open to vulnerability. “…One of which is a shift in perception of the relative status of the partners through time, a widening of the social distance between them after the retirement of the subordinate husband from the knightly endeavors through which he first elevated his public worth and won his lady’s consideration” (Davis 133).

Next, Davis explores what happens to the marriage of Averagus and Dorigen when conventional responsibility sets in. Averagus is of lower birth than his wife Dorigen and therefore must maintain his achieved status which attracted Dorigen to him in the first place. Averagus leaves to “reconfirm his knightly worthiness” (Davis 135) and Dorigen, who is supposed to wait patiently for his arrival, begins seeking attention from other male suitors. Their seems to be a reversal of roles happening here, according to Davis, “It is as if the Franklin deliberately weakens his lady’s character, just as he has strengthened his knight’s, in order to bring their desperate social identities into a more interesting and dramatic tension’ (Davis 135).

In concluding his article, Davis reads Chaucer’s Franklin’s Tale as an example that marriage, even what appear to be perfect marriages, can be filled with emotional fraught and deliberate considerations of “advantage and liability in social status, wealth or political alliance (Davis 138). Davis uses the marriage relationship in the Franklin’s Tale to exemplify the importance of mutual obedience and how to survive when two people start to lose sight of this idea. “Happiness in love requires not only the commitment to mutuality, but also some considerable forbearance for the various kinds of human weakness that inevitably cause one to fall short of the ideal” (Davis 138).

Davis’ article does a good job of depicting the difficulties found in a marriage where one partner is of higher birth than the other. He references the Franklin’s Tale, a prime example of this type of relationship, and structures his article based on three ideals vital to a successful marriage. Mutual obedience is an idea that carries through into our modern status on marriage. Coming from a time period where a woman’s main role in marriage was to obey and serve her husband, to a time where husband and wife take on equal responsibility, I think mutual obedience still holds true. The use of the Franklin’s Tale is a perfect example for this ideal because Dorigen is genetically superior to Averagus to begin with, but he maintains his duty as a man by becoming head of the house. The other half of mutual obedience in marriage pertains to the relationship of the married couple to the society in which they live in. Franklin places a heavy importance on this idea, being able to maintain the reputation of dominating husband and submissive wife. I think this statement is very true, the idea of people being concerned with how they appear to other people and where they fit in society, however I do not think it should be considered in determining the worth and happiness of a marriage.

Rigby, S.H. “The Wife of Bath, Christine de Pizan and the Medieval Case for Women.” The Chaucer Review 35.2 (2001): 133-165

S.H. Rigby introduces two perspectives for reading Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale. One comes from the New Historicist point of view in which it is believed Chaucer intends for the reader to take the Wife’s defense of women seriously. “She is thus presented as a perceptive critic of misogynist orthodoxy who beats male scholars at their own game and creates her own authoritative position from which to speak in defense of her sex and to convince us of her views” (Rigby 133). The other point of view to approaching the Wife of Bath’s Tale comes from perspectives ranging from patristic to feminists, who believe that the Wife does not give acknowledgment to medieval stereotypes of women, rather she exemplifies the stereotype. Ultimately, Rigby brings the debate down to the problem as to who is actually speaking in the prologue of the Wife of Bath’s Tale. “Is it certain that Alisoun is the mouthpiece for Chaucer’s own views, or is there a gap between the Wife’s discourse and Chaucer’s own voice, one which allows us to see irony at work in her prolonged confession?” (Rigby 134). It is hard to come to an agreement on this question because a resolution among disagreement of critics seems to be a far off idea. Christine de Pizan put it best when she said, “You understand the book in one way, and I, quite the opposite. I don’t know why we are debating these questions so fully, for I do not believe that we will ne able to change each other’s opinion” ( Rigby 135).

Rigby approaches this argument by referring to the work of Christine, a feminist writer, which is suitable to the Wife of Bath’s Tale because of it’s rejection of misogyny, or mistreatment of women. Christine’s defense of women provides a standard as to how to judge the Wife’s behavior and further how to determine the seriousness of how to apprehend Alisoun’s attack on clerical misogyny. Rigby argues that the deviation of opinion between the Wife’s behavior and the behavior recommended to women by Christine becomes apparent in seven areas: “in her desire for first place at the church offering, in her motives for going on pilgrimage and for attending other religious occasions, in her manner of dress, in her attitudes to sex and marriage, as a widow and in her use of language” (Rigby 139).

The general prologue to the Wife of Bath’s Tale addresses the first two of the seven areas of behavior Christine addresses. The Wife is viewed as a sinful person by Christine because when attending church (a place free of sin) the Wife insists on being first in the offering, which shows her sin of pride. Second, the Wife goes on pilgrimages, vigils, sermons, weddings and procession but gives no other reason to go on them except that she wants other people to admire her fine dress. It was a common belief in medieval times that pilgrimages were a way of disguising illicit affairs on the part of women. Christine urges the acceptance of going on pilgrimages and other related trips, but these should be done “devoutly and humbly” (Rigby 140).According to Christine, the Wife is acting out of sin and wickedness, but Rigby tries to take less serious stance on the Wife’s actions in this instance.

Christine also looks at the description of the Wife’s manner of dress. Her overly elaborate style of showing off her status is “evidence that we are supposed to see her both as ‘conspicuously overdressed,’ a failing for which women were frequently castigated by medieval writers, and as morally wayward” (Rigby 140). Christine refers back to the sin of pride exemplified in the Wife’s need to be first in church offerings and offers a policy of moderation to women for style of dress.

Next, Christine depicts the Wife’s attitude towards marriage, sex and her position as a widow. The Wife has been married five times since she was 12 years old and also openly admits to have affairs. The Wife does not view sex as being a mortal sin when done outside of wedlock or for a reason other than for pro-creation, as something she will do as often as she pleases. Christine pits this against the idea that chastity is the main virtue of women. The Wife seems to be concerned with getting what she pleases and getting pleasure out of it. Before her fourth husband even passed away she had already lined up a fifth husband. The Wife marries him only a month after her fourth husband passes, showing very little respect or sympathy towards him.

Lastly, Christine addresses the language of the Wife. “Her chiding of her husbands, the sophistry with which she defends the superiority of women in marriage, and the frankness with which she refers to her sexual organs, to her skill in lying, her ability to trick her husbands into excusing themselves for offences which they had never committed and her love of gossip with her friends” (Rigby 147). Woman, from a misogynist point of view, are incapable of keeping a secret and therefore can not be trusted. The Wife exploits her husbands secrets, causing him to feel embarrassment and regret for having shared them with her. Christine urges women to have “controlled speech and subtle eloquence” (Rigby 148), which will help them maintain the sweet, calm and composed manner of a lady.

In conclusion, Rigby argues that the problem with the Wife of Bath’s Tale is how we tend to read it with a sympathetic view towards the Wife, which causes us to neglect the gap that exists between her behavior and that expected of the estate of women by medieval moralists. “We thus read the Wife’s defense of women literally rather than ironically, seeing her as a witty debunker of clerical misogyny rather than as a debunker who is herself being wittily debunked” (Rigby 151).

I don’t take the same stance as Christine does in her depiction of the Wife’s behavior. I don’t believe Chaucer to be a feminist, so I don’t think it is appropriate to read the Wife of Bath’s Tale from that perspective. I do think Rigby did a nice job of looking at Christine’s interpretation of the text and how a less serious reading of the tale could both be done. My favorite point of the article is when Rigby gives an alternative to the two point of views taken in reading the Wife’s tale, which is to remain indifferent to the opposing sides. Rigby stays close to the structure of Christine’s feminist reading of the Wife’s tale and does not offer much opinion of her own, so it is hard to determine where she stands on the argument. However, I think the article does give a good example on how a text can be interpreted.