ENG 202 1
“I nam nat precius”:An Analysis of the Statement of the Wife of Bath Through Character and Context
The Canterbury Talesare a collection of tales writtenand circulated by Geoffrey Chaucer
between 1387-1400, one of which includes the Wife of Bath’s prologue. In the Broadview publication
edition of this text,The Canterbury Tales: A Selection(published in 2012), the wordpreciusis used once
in line 148, where the Wife of Bath, after comparing virgins to “wyves” (144) such as her, states: “In
swich estaat as God hath cleped us/ I wol persevere; I nam nat precius” (147-148). In this particularversion,
editors Robert Boenig and Andrew Taylor define the wordpreciusasfastidiousin its footnotes. However,
this definition contradicts the context of the usage of the word, namely the characteristics of
‘fastidiousness’ that the Wife of Bath demonstrates throughout the prologue, where she demonstrates her
ability as an exegete. Thus, the footnote indirectly discredits this ability by implying that the Wife of
Bath’s exegesis of the Bible—that remarriage and lack of chastity are not condemnable by scripture—is
“not fastidious”, and instead deriving from its opposite: inaccuracy and inattentiveness. Instead, this essay
will provide evidence that the word’s definition is instead of entry 1a) of the Middle English Dictionary:
“Valuable, precious; of great worth, costly; also, rare” (preciǒus(e, 1(a)) rather than “having exacting
standards or paying meticulous attention to detail” (OED, fastidious, 3.a.).
Theresa Tinkle, in her chapter of Volume 32 of the publication “Studies in the Age of Chaucer,”
titled “The Wife of Bath's Marginal Authority,” investigates various glossed manuscripts to argue that “a
scribal consensus emerges in the fifteenth century” where “most of the biblical glosses endorse the Wife’s
authority as an exegete” (72), thus supporting the idea of the Wife of Bath as a reliable biblical expert.
The Wife of Bath, throughout the prologue as well as her tale, is characterised as a well-read individual,
which is demonstrated by the wide range and number of allusions she provides.1 The particular allusions
that the Wife of Bath uses as proof towards her exegesis are not only those that support her claim, but also
those that others have told her in refutation of it, and it is the Wife of Bath’s “meticulous attention to
1
Consisting of both biblical and not: the Cana of Galilee (11), the story of the Samaritan (15-19), Salomon (35-36),
Lamech (54), Abraham (55), Jacob (56), Paul (52, 64-74, 79), the Almagest of Ptolemy (183), and more.
, 2
detail” that lends her the ability to use both to support her exegesis. That is, the Wife of Bath
demonstrates the lack of “expres word” in scripture by which “God forbad marriage” (60-61), thus
disproving the refutation, whilst providing proof (which is comparatively more detailed) towards her own
interpretation, proving it as more reliable as its evidence is less ambiguous. Thus, the lack of accurate and
precise condemnation of remarriage is her main argument.
After challenging the company to tell her the “expres word” “that hye God defended mariage
[and]. . . comanded he virginitee” (59-62), as “Men may devyne and glosen, up and doun” (26). She
narrates the story of where “Jhesus, God and man/ Spak in repreeve of the Samaritan” (15-16) stating that
her current, fifth partner was not her husband, the Wife of Bath addresses the fact that there is no direct
mention to the reason why it is so, as well as the exact number of husbands a wife may have, which could
only then be accepted as proof. Thus, the wife of Bath presents and applies an “exacting standard” (OED,
fastidious, 3.a.), towards what can be accepted as evidence and what cannot. The Wife of Bath then
provides various examples of virtuous biblical figures that had multiple wives (including Solomon (35),
Abraham (55), Jacob (56)), and the words of the Apostle St. Paul: “Bet is to be wedded than to brynne”
(52) and a direct quote: “God bad us for to wexe and multiplye;” (28), providing proof that passes the
“exacting standard” and contrasting these proofs to the ambiguity of biblical stories commonly used
against remarriage.
Further, the Wife of Bath’s general authority and influence as an exegete as asserted by Tinkle can
also proved diegetically, where the Pardoner, after listening to the Wife of Bath’s speech, calls her a
“noble prechour” (165), as well as deciding that he would not want to marry after being told that wives
are to have power over their husbands bodies (158-159). Thus, the footnote of editors Boenig and Taylor
incorrectly discredits the proficiencies of the Wife of Bath as an exegete who forms and supports her
assertions through both “meticulous attention to detail” and “exacting standards” (OED, fastidious, 3.a.).
Instead, the proposed definition of the wordpreciusas “valuable, precious; of great worth, costly;
also, rare” (preciǒus(e, 1(a)) is more contextually befitting. After stating that she is “nat precius” (148),
the Wife of Bath goes on to proclaim that she will not be chaste, and “use myn instrument/ As frely as my
“I nam nat precius”:An Analysis of the Statement of the Wife of Bath Through Character and Context
The Canterbury Talesare a collection of tales writtenand circulated by Geoffrey Chaucer
between 1387-1400, one of which includes the Wife of Bath’s prologue. In the Broadview publication
edition of this text,The Canterbury Tales: A Selection(published in 2012), the wordpreciusis used once
in line 148, where the Wife of Bath, after comparing virgins to “wyves” (144) such as her, states: “In
swich estaat as God hath cleped us/ I wol persevere; I nam nat precius” (147-148). In this particularversion,
editors Robert Boenig and Andrew Taylor define the wordpreciusasfastidiousin its footnotes. However,
this definition contradicts the context of the usage of the word, namely the characteristics of
‘fastidiousness’ that the Wife of Bath demonstrates throughout the prologue, where she demonstrates her
ability as an exegete. Thus, the footnote indirectly discredits this ability by implying that the Wife of
Bath’s exegesis of the Bible—that remarriage and lack of chastity are not condemnable by scripture—is
“not fastidious”, and instead deriving from its opposite: inaccuracy and inattentiveness. Instead, this essay
will provide evidence that the word’s definition is instead of entry 1a) of the Middle English Dictionary:
“Valuable, precious; of great worth, costly; also, rare” (preciǒus(e, 1(a)) rather than “having exacting
standards or paying meticulous attention to detail” (OED, fastidious, 3.a.).
Theresa Tinkle, in her chapter of Volume 32 of the publication “Studies in the Age of Chaucer,”
titled “The Wife of Bath's Marginal Authority,” investigates various glossed manuscripts to argue that “a
scribal consensus emerges in the fifteenth century” where “most of the biblical glosses endorse the Wife’s
authority as an exegete” (72), thus supporting the idea of the Wife of Bath as a reliable biblical expert.
The Wife of Bath, throughout the prologue as well as her tale, is characterised as a well-read individual,
which is demonstrated by the wide range and number of allusions she provides.1 The particular allusions
that the Wife of Bath uses as proof towards her exegesis are not only those that support her claim, but also
those that others have told her in refutation of it, and it is the Wife of Bath’s “meticulous attention to
1
Consisting of both biblical and not: the Cana of Galilee (11), the story of the Samaritan (15-19), Salomon (35-36),
Lamech (54), Abraham (55), Jacob (56), Paul (52, 64-74, 79), the Almagest of Ptolemy (183), and more.
, 2
detail” that lends her the ability to use both to support her exegesis. That is, the Wife of Bath
demonstrates the lack of “expres word” in scripture by which “God forbad marriage” (60-61), thus
disproving the refutation, whilst providing proof (which is comparatively more detailed) towards her own
interpretation, proving it as more reliable as its evidence is less ambiguous. Thus, the lack of accurate and
precise condemnation of remarriage is her main argument.
After challenging the company to tell her the “expres word” “that hye God defended mariage
[and]. . . comanded he virginitee” (59-62), as “Men may devyne and glosen, up and doun” (26). She
narrates the story of where “Jhesus, God and man/ Spak in repreeve of the Samaritan” (15-16) stating that
her current, fifth partner was not her husband, the Wife of Bath addresses the fact that there is no direct
mention to the reason why it is so, as well as the exact number of husbands a wife may have, which could
only then be accepted as proof. Thus, the wife of Bath presents and applies an “exacting standard” (OED,
fastidious, 3.a.), towards what can be accepted as evidence and what cannot. The Wife of Bath then
provides various examples of virtuous biblical figures that had multiple wives (including Solomon (35),
Abraham (55), Jacob (56)), and the words of the Apostle St. Paul: “Bet is to be wedded than to brynne”
(52) and a direct quote: “God bad us for to wexe and multiplye;” (28), providing proof that passes the
“exacting standard” and contrasting these proofs to the ambiguity of biblical stories commonly used
against remarriage.
Further, the Wife of Bath’s general authority and influence as an exegete as asserted by Tinkle can
also proved diegetically, where the Pardoner, after listening to the Wife of Bath’s speech, calls her a
“noble prechour” (165), as well as deciding that he would not want to marry after being told that wives
are to have power over their husbands bodies (158-159). Thus, the footnote of editors Boenig and Taylor
incorrectly discredits the proficiencies of the Wife of Bath as an exegete who forms and supports her
assertions through both “meticulous attention to detail” and “exacting standards” (OED, fastidious, 3.a.).
Instead, the proposed definition of the wordpreciusas “valuable, precious; of great worth, costly;
also, rare” (preciǒus(e, 1(a)) is more contextually befitting. After stating that she is “nat precius” (148),
the Wife of Bath goes on to proclaim that she will not be chaste, and “use myn instrument/ As frely as my
