The Wife Of Bath's Prologue And Tale Comparison
Love is an everchanging concept. Throughout the years, the classification of it constantly goes through various changes, and the exact meaning of it is never truly defined as one definite definition. The most accurate method of describing love is examining the countless ways it can be represented. For each person, a new meaning takes hold of the very sought-after emotion. It is through the use of literary works that the concept of love has been able to somewhat receive a label. However, the meaning still begs to be disputed due to the differences and similarities seen within the works. This can be seen when one compares two works from two different time periods. With the various representations of love shown through Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The
…show more content…
Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” from his infamous Canterbury Tales from the Medieval Period and Eliza Haywood’s “Fantomina” from the Eighteenth Century, love is shown to come about through various shapes and forms. “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and “Fantomina” are both similar in the fact that both works disregard the rules set upon courtship and dole out fairly mild reprimands that come from unlawful love with the main differential aspect being found in the way the female characters express their love.
To begin, Chaucer’s “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and Haywood’s “Fantomina” both share a comparative quality about love due to their disregard of courtship norms. Both works demonstrate throughout the text the various ways that the characters go against the rules and stipulations that are set upon courtship. As seen in “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue”, the Wife is presented as having had a multitude of husbands. For a woman of the Medieval Time, the most common practice for a woman of her status was to marry within her social class. This, though, is blatantly ignored when the wife states “I took no kepe, so that he liked me, /How poore he was ne eek of what degree” (Chaucer Page 283 Lines 625-626). It is within these lines that the reader is given the knowledge of how the Wife marries not for the man’s rank but merely for his love and passion for her. By stating this, the Wife boldly goes against the norms that were set upon marriages at this time. It is when one looks at Haywood’s “Fantomina” with this boldness in mind that the connection between the two begins to blossom. Such as the Wife marries for her own wants and not other’s standards, Fantomina, too, defies the limitations set upon her to gain what she loves. Fantomina’s love, as seen by the tremendous effort she us into each of her personas, goes against the social norms of her society. Just like how the Wife disregards how she is expected to go about gaining love, Fantomina follows her passions and not the limitations that she has been dealt in order to love. When her greatest want is “to feel the strenuous pressures of his eager arms”, the reader can see that her actions are lust provoked just as the Wife’s are (Haywood 1039). While the typical pattern of courtship for Fantomina would have been done with greater care and poise, she defies her boundaries and makes her own decisions in the way she communicates with the opposite sex. It is in this way that “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and “Fantomina” are comparable due to their brashness in going against the sacred ways of courtship and allowing love to decide their fate.
Next, the work from the Medieval Period, Chaucer’s “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale”, and the work from the Eighteenth Century, Haywood’s “Fantomina”, hold a likeness in the way that the characters are not truly chastised for their unrequited love. While it is also indicated in the Wife’s prologue, it can be shown through her story the way the Wife feels of love and the way it should be dealt with in certain situations such as when it is abused. For example, when the knight “by verray force birafte hire maidenhead” the reader is shown the misuse of love (Chaucer 287.924). Due to this action being forbidden during the Medieval Period, the knight is reprimanded for this unlawful love. However, the punishment for such an action comes to an unclimactic conclusion when the knight’s hideous wife undergoes a transformation into a beautiful woman, as it is shown when the texts states “That she so fair was and so yong therto” (Chaucer 292.1251). It is within this line that the reader is shown the overall lack of severity the “punishment” holds. When compared to “Fantomina” it is seen that the same such punishment occurs, but in a different manner. While the punishments somewhat contrasts, it can still be seen as a similarity in the way that the actions of the characters who try to love someone through force or trickery are not truly brought to justice. It is at the end of “Fantomina” when Beauplaisir is revealed to have undone Fantomina that his actions receive no penalizations. When Fantomina’s aunt states “I have nothing to request further of you”, Beauplaisir is instantaneously given a way out of the situation that he himself had helped create through various acts (Haywood 10480). While any other man in the Eighteenth Century would have been properly punished for undoing a lady, he is allowed a way out. Just like the knight in the Wife’s tale, no true punishment is done in order to recognize the true velocity of his wrongdoing. Both punishments stand in strong contrast to the true nature of disobeying society’s rules for both time periods.
Finally, Chaucer’s “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and Haywood’s “Fantomina” differ in the overall way love is expressed and sanctioned as.
While their similarities both had to do with the act of obtaining love no matter the limitations and not truly being chastised for the freedom of loving whomever they please, the works show a difference in how the author of each work presents the love each of their strong female characters feel. The Wife of Bath, for example, is shown as thinking of love from a more lustful and necessary point of view. This can be determined when she states “But wel I woot, expres, withoute lye,/God bad us for to wexe and multiplye” (Chaucer 273. 27-28). These lines, that roughly translate to the Wife’s belief that God wishes for her to love and, in turn, reproduce, express the way the Wife thinks of love. While it is her duty to marry, she does so with her own interests in mind, as it was previously shown earlier by her refusal to follow traditional courting mannerisms. In contrast, Haywood’s female character, Fantomina, exudes a love that goes beyond the aspect of lust and to a more obsessive level. While it can be presumed that her interactions with Beauplaisir had to do with a lustful approach from him, Fantomina shows throughout the work her need to love him that goes beyond lust. While the Wife happily goes through husbands, Fantomina remains infatuated by one man. Her love, or obsession, grows with each new persona she acquires in order to remain intimate with Beauplaisir. She even justifies her infatuation when the text states “she excused herself for what she had done” (Haywood 1038). This clear acknowledgment of her transgression and misbehavior towards Beauplaisir shows how her love has exceeded that of the Wife’s and demands to be
seen.
In conclusion, it is through close examination that the works of Geoffrey Chaucer and Eliza Haywood, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and “Fantomina”, bare similarities in courtship mannerisms and falsified love followed by unsuccessful reprimands along with the minor contrasting feature when it comes to the concept of love and how they convey the emotion. As it is seen with each text, the way a character perceives love and expresses it is everchanging. Love can be seen as the most desirable aspect in each of the characters lives and as a driving force for their actions. While the Wife marries over and over again with her perception of love switching from man to man, Fantomina loves recklessly and erotically one man. Their ferocity of passion towards what they perceive as love propels their storylines and makes comparing the two works that have been separated by a vast amount of years all the more alike and all the more inciteful in the ways of love.
Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” from his infamous Canterbury Tales from the Medieval Period and Eliza Haywood’s “Fantomina” from the Eighteenth Century, love is shown to come about through various shapes and forms. “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and “Fantomina” are both similar in the fact that both works disregard the rules set upon courtship and dole out fairly mild reprimands that come from unlawful love with the main differential aspect being found in the way the female characters express their love.
To begin, Chaucer’s “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and Haywood’s “Fantomina” both share a comparative quality about love due to their disregard of courtship norms. Both works demonstrate throughout the text the various ways that the characters go against the rules and stipulations that are set upon courtship. As seen in “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue”, the Wife is presented as having had a multitude of husbands. For a woman of the Medieval Time, the most common practice for a woman of her status was to marry within her social class. This, though, is blatantly ignored when the wife states “I took no kepe, so that he liked me, /How poore he was ne eek of what degree” (Chaucer Page 283 Lines 625-626). It is within these lines that the reader is given the knowledge of how the Wife marries not for the man’s rank but merely for his love and passion for her. By stating this, the Wife boldly goes against the norms that were set upon marriages at this time. It is when one looks at Haywood’s “Fantomina” with this boldness in mind that the connection between the two begins to blossom. Such as the Wife marries for her own wants and not other’s standards, Fantomina, too, defies the limitations set upon her to gain what she loves. Fantomina’s love, as seen by the tremendous effort she us into each of her personas, goes against the social norms of her society. Just like how the Wife disregards how she is expected to go about gaining love, Fantomina follows her passions and not the limitations that she has been dealt in order to love. When her greatest want is “to feel the strenuous pressures of his eager arms”, the reader can see that her actions are lust provoked just as the Wife’s are (Haywood 1039). While the typical pattern of courtship for Fantomina would have been done with greater care and poise, she defies her boundaries and makes her own decisions in the way she communicates with the opposite sex. It is in this way that “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and “Fantomina” are comparable due to their brashness in going against the sacred ways of courtship and allowing love to decide their fate.
Next, the work from the Medieval Period, Chaucer’s “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale”, and the work from the Eighteenth Century, Haywood’s “Fantomina”, hold a likeness in the way that the characters are not truly chastised for their unrequited love. While it is also indicated in the Wife’s prologue, it can be shown through her story the way the Wife feels of love and the way it should be dealt with in certain situations such as when it is abused. For example, when the knight “by verray force birafte hire maidenhead” the reader is shown the misuse of love (Chaucer 287.924). Due to this action being forbidden during the Medieval Period, the knight is reprimanded for this unlawful love. However, the punishment for such an action comes to an unclimactic conclusion when the knight’s hideous wife undergoes a transformation into a beautiful woman, as it is shown when the texts states “That she so fair was and so yong therto” (Chaucer 292.1251). It is within this line that the reader is shown the overall lack of severity the “punishment” holds. When compared to “Fantomina” it is seen that the same such punishment occurs, but in a different manner. While the punishments somewhat contrasts, it can still be seen as a similarity in the way that the actions of the characters who try to love someone through force or trickery are not truly brought to justice. It is at the end of “Fantomina” when Beauplaisir is revealed to have undone Fantomina that his actions receive no penalizations. When Fantomina’s aunt states “I have nothing to request further of you”, Beauplaisir is instantaneously given a way out of the situation that he himself had helped create through various acts (Haywood 10480). While any other man in the Eighteenth Century would have been properly punished for undoing a lady, he is allowed a way out. Just like the knight in the Wife’s tale, no true punishment is done in order to recognize the true velocity of his wrongdoing. Both punishments stand in strong contrast to the true nature of disobeying society’s rules for both time periods.
Finally, Chaucer’s “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and Haywood’s “Fantomina” differ in the overall way love is expressed and sanctioned as.
While their similarities both had to do with the act of obtaining love no matter the limitations and not truly being chastised for the freedom of loving whomever they please, the works show a difference in how the author of each work presents the love each of their strong female characters feel. The Wife of Bath, for example, is shown as thinking of love from a more lustful and necessary point of view. This can be determined when she states “But wel I woot, expres, withoute lye,/God bad us for to wexe and multiplye” (Chaucer 273. 27-28). These lines, that roughly translate to the Wife’s belief that God wishes for her to love and, in turn, reproduce, express the way the Wife thinks of love. While it is her duty to marry, she does so with her own interests in mind, as it was previously shown earlier by her refusal to follow traditional courting mannerisms. In contrast, Haywood’s female character, Fantomina, exudes a love that goes beyond the aspect of lust and to a more obsessive level. While it can be presumed that her interactions with Beauplaisir had to do with a lustful approach from him, Fantomina shows throughout the work her need to love him that goes beyond lust. While the Wife happily goes through husbands, Fantomina remains infatuated by one man. Her love, or obsession, grows with each new persona she acquires in order to remain intimate with Beauplaisir. She even justifies her infatuation when the text states “she excused herself for what she had done” (Haywood 1038). This clear acknowledgment of her transgression and misbehavior towards Beauplaisir shows how her love has exceeded that of the Wife’s and demands to be
seen.
In conclusion, it is through close examination that the works of Geoffrey Chaucer and Eliza Haywood, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” and “Fantomina”, bare similarities in courtship mannerisms and falsified love followed by unsuccessful reprimands along with the minor contrasting feature when it comes to the concept of love and how they convey the emotion. As it is seen with each text, the way a character perceives love and expresses it is everchanging. Love can be seen as the most desirable aspect in each of the characters lives and as a driving force for their actions. While the Wife marries over and over again with her perception of love switching from man to man, Fantomina loves recklessly and erotically one man. Their ferocity of passion towards what they perceive as love propels their storylines and makes comparing the two works that have been separated by a vast amount of years all the more alike and all the more inciteful in the ways of love.