In the article Rape and Justice in the Wife of Bath’s Tale the author talks about pastourelles and the back and forth dialogue between man and woman. What does the lack of dialogue from the rape victim in the Wife’s tale imply about the way rape was viewed during this time?
Medieval Feminism
ENGL 361 and WGST 322 | Spring 2020 | Dr. Myra Seaman
The lack of dialogue, or focus on the woman at all for that matter, demonstrates a medieval imbalance of power across gender lines. The only part of the story that places the woman in control discusses how she did “all she could do” to prevent the assault (line 887). Every other surrounding sentence places the man in control as “He saw the maiden” and “he took away her maidenhood” (lines 886-888). The active voice (with the male as the subject) reiterates the controlling and forceful nature of the knight. As a result, this not only emphasizes the victimization of the woman but also focuses on the voice of the perpetrator over the voice of the woman who is never fully avenged the violation of her body. Therefore the act of sexual assault in the poem and society’s lack of sympathy for her pain serve to silence the woman’s part of this narrative.
I think the lack of dialogue from the victim-survivor indicates that there’s some sort of reason that she doesn’t come forward to deal justice on her rapist. Perhaps it’s some kind of societal shame for having lost her maidenhead, not of course, her fault, but still, there’s harm in being an unmarried non-virgin in medieval society.
I don’t think we can say that her lack of presence in the narrative has to do with the want of the society to deal the knight justice. The poem acknowledges that the knight should have lost his head for this crime. The Queen (we can assume this is Guinevere since King Arthur is on the throne?) demands that the knight take twelve months to find out what women most desire, and pledge to “surrender [his] body” in court when those months are over.
We might conclude that r*pe was a crime whose aftermath centered more on the perpetrator than the victim, as any effort to console or compensate the girl is offscreen or nonexistent.
However, I think the narrative is more focused on teaching the knight a lesson, especially considering the context and speaker here: the Wife of Bath. It makes sense that her tale would police male behavior, condemning a rapist and rewarding the man who gives power to his wife.
I had to censor the word r*pe, otherwise it wouldn’t let me post
I think the lack of dialogue doesn’t necessarily reflect how r*pe was viewed during that time, but rather how Chaucer may have viewed it. Harris tells us that Chaucer himself was accused of r*pe, saying “It is possible that Chaucer assaulted Chaumpaigne and paid her an out-of-court settlement, leading her to release him from criminal culpability.” Her essay further supports that the way r*pe is described in the “Wife of Bath’s Tale” by explaining “In addition to its overt emphasis on the legal language of sexual violence, the Tale points to Chaucer’s involvement in the Chaumpaigne case by encouraging readers to empathize with its rapist-protagonist, highlighting his sorrowful sighs and displeasure…” She emphasizes that sexual assault was taken seriously by the courts because of the regular convictions so I would argue that Chaucer’s lack of inclusion of the victim speaks more to him than the values of the time.
I think that the lack of dialogue given to the victim of r*pe in the Wife of Bath’s tale further silences victims of r*ape and induces a shame factor onto the victim and other victims as well. There is no platform that is given to the victim in this tale that allows her to have any type of agency. By not giving her any dialogue it takes away her autonomy and forces her into this stigma of personal and societal shame. Victim blaming is a very real issue that has persisted throughout all time. By not giving her a voice, it gives readers a hint about the ‘shame’ and ‘guilt’ that she might be feeling due to the despicable act that was done to her and the way that r*pe and victims of r*pe were viewed. Obviously, this was in no way her fault, but by not giving her a voice it is hard to not acknowledge the shame that society puts on victims of r*ape. She is given no lines to speak on her experience, in fact the only experience we get about the whole criminal act is the r*pits. I find this disgusting because quite frankly I don’t want to hear about how much a r*pits struggle after they have done the act.
The societal attitudes towards r/ape in medieval times seem not too different from today. Financial settlements were the most likely outcome, and conviction was low. However, as shown in Wife of Bath’s tale, harsh punishments such as beheading could be employed. But Chaucer makes the decision not to utilize this harsh punishment, and instead take the path of redemption for the knight; I agree with my other classmates in that this seems to reflect Chaucer’s view more than society’s.
Considering the fact that Chaucer may have been a perpetrator of sexual assault himself, of course he would encourage the view that r/apists have themselves suffered and should be redeemed, not to mention having a happy marriage with a woman who obeys their every beck and call. To those of us who are unsympathetic to r/apists, however, this seems horrifying. Why should they have a right to a woman who obeys them in everything? How is that justice, rather than terrifying?
This story is of course all about the knight and how he can redeem himself. The r/ape victim is simply a plot device, and while her trauma is not in itself trivialized, her personhood and experience certainly is.
I also agree that the shortage of dialogue doesn’t necessarily reveal how r*pe was portrayed during that period but displayed how Chaucer may have perceived r*pe. Although, many would imply that the silence could be a sign of no justice being taken place and that all the power and control still lies within the perpetrator. By us only getting to hear the voice and “rehabilitation” of the man within the story instead of hearing the women’s voice about the violation of her body, it can seem that there was a lack of sympathy and understanding. Although, Like Rachel, I, too, believe that it was about teaching the knight a lesson and possibly focusing on the perpetrator to be able to try and compensate for the victim’s assault.
Like my other classmates, I think the Wife of Bath’s Tale indicates more about its author than its social context, specifically considering Chaucer’s background. However, what concerns me is what Chaucer’s lack of dialogue communicated to his readers. Chaucer’s works have been read and respected by many people. I bet most of his readers had no idea that he had a personal connection to r*pe, so they did not have the insight to recognize his personal biases. Instead, they likely took him as a figure of authority and imagined that this was the “right” way for rapists to be punished. It is interesting that my peers were so against the way the knight was handled. I do not necessarily support the way justice was enacted in this example, but the reason we have prisons and the death sentence is to make people regret their actions. The knight may have communicated his genuine regret when he gave his wife autonomy (the language may be different, so we could have not recognized that this was his meaning). I am not arguing that he repented, but he may have, which would suggest regret and active behavior to make up for his actions. Couldn’t that be seen as a good thing?
Get d4 gold and items from https://www.ssegold.com/diablo4-gold
Rolling bearings are more common than plain bearings because they offer lower friction and longer service life. However, plain bearings are less expensive and easier to manufacture. https://www.tradebearings.com/pillow-block-bearings-catalogue.html