Understory 2020

The Protofeminist Perspective of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Wife of Bath

The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale is one of the most well-known stories in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales and perhaps one of the most debated. Unlike the other narratives in this collection, the Wife’s prologue is more than double the length of her tale and is used as not only an autobiographical account of her life, but an argumentative justification for her lifestyle. The focus of Chaucer’s critique in this tale is a point of contention; it is the question of whether the Wife is to be despised for her open sexuality or if Chaucer is offering a criticism of the societal limitations placed on women during his lifetime. Regardless of Chaucer’s original intent, the Wife of Bath was and continues to be a protofeminist figure in English literature. She argues against the sexist double standards of her time and through her tale she expresses her desire for power in marriage. Her characterization as amorous and vulgar is overshadowed by her scathing rebuttals to the medieval views that were used to vilify and control women. In its own way, her portrayal acts as an example of how independent women can be framed as immoral and wanton when they choose to act outside of oppressive social and gender norms.

Chaucer’s description of Alyson (the Wife of Bath) serves as an example of how a woman’s appearance can be used to invalidate and dismiss them while also attempting to ruin their reputations. In the General Prologue of The Canterbury Tales, Alyson is described thus; “Hir hosen weren of fin scarlet reed...Housbandes at chirch dore she hadde five withoutenother compaignye in youthe... Gat-toothed was she, smoothly for to saye” (“General Prologue” 272). Her description of being gap-toothed and wearing red are traits associated with amorousness and sexuality, while the mention of her five husbands and the implication that she has had sexual relationships outside of marriage are used to affirm her characterization and inform the reader that this character is morally wanting. The use of her appearance to imply an inherently sexual and therefore sinful nature according to medieval social norms, is an example of how women were and continue to be disparaged simply because they are born female. This kind of language also illustrates how these labels are used to discredit and dismiss Alyson’s attempts to voice her grievances with the gender roles of her time.

Her arguments and defense of her lifestyle are well constructed, and she cleverly cites the same source that so often in her time period was used as a justification for misogyny: The Bible. For example, when Alyson defends her five previous marriages, she makes reference to well- known biblical figures, stating; 

God bad us for to wexe and multiplye: that gentil text can I well understonde...but of no mombre mencion made he-of bigamy or octogamye: Why sholde men thane speak of it vilainye? Lo, here the wise king daun Salomon: I towe he hadde wives many oon...I woot wel Abraham was a holy man, And Jacob eek...and eech of hem hadde wives mo than two (“Wife of Bath” 301, 302).

She argues that her marriages are no less sanctified than the marriages of the male figures she refers to, because the bible does on explicitly forbid successive marriages. This directly counters the attitude in her time period regarding remarriage; according to catholic doctrine women were only allowed to be married once (Emmerichs). Through her own knowledge of biblical teachings, however, Alyson is able to reveal the shortcomings and double standard behind the social and religious stigma of a woman’s choice to remarry. Therefore, it can also be implied that her choice to remarry cannot be held against her character as sinful or immoral by men who decry her.

Similarly, she also uses the same tactic to argue against the social and religious ideal of virginity in women as an avenue to criticize her moral character and her choice to marry more than once. She points out that virginity was never a commandment of god saying; “Where can ye saye in any manere age that hye God defended marriage by expres word? I praye you telleth me. Or where commanded he virginitee” (“Wife of Bath” 302)? She also points out the impracticality of the ideal of virginity by stating, 

For hadde God comanded maidenhede, Thanne he hadde dampned wedding with the deede... The dart is set up for virginitee cache whoso may, who renneth best lat see but this word is nought take of every wight” (“Wife of Bath” 320).

She asserts that to expect virginity of all women contradicts the stated purpose of marriage according to god and the Catholic church, which was procreation. In this way the Wife of Bath challenges the implication that sexual intercourse taints a woman’s spiritual value and therefore reasons that it is in fact an act of obedience and piety to god since he demanded for procreation and created man and woman with genitalia for that purpose (“Wife of Bath” 303).

Also in her prologue, Alyson goes on to expose the hypocritical double standards that are placed on women of her time period by using her previous husbands’ treatment of her as an example. She calls attention to the fact that women are criticized regardless of their actions or circumstances saying, 

Thou saist to me, it is a greet mischief to wedde a poore woman for costage. And if that she be riche, of heigh parage, Thanne saistou that it is a tormentye to suffer hir pride and hir malencolye” (“Wife of Bath” 306).

She shows how wealth or lack thereof is used as an excuse to disparage women. A woman is found at fault if she is poor because she is a burden, but she is also blamed if she is wealthy because a man must suffer her pride. She continues saying, 
if she be fair...thou saist that every holour wol hir have: she may no while in chastitee abide that is assailed upon eech side...And if she be foul, thou saist that she every man that she may see for as a spaniel she wol on him lepe til that she finde som man hire chepe” (“Wife of Bath” 306).
She expresses how men use women’s appearance to again discredit them; if a woman is beautiful, she will be chased by other men, if she is ugly, she will be so desperate for attention she will throw herself at them like a dog. In pointing out these double standards, Alyson illustrates the way women are irrespectively condemned no matter their individual circumstances and held to an impossible standard. She takes this a step farther by saying, 

thou liknest eek wommanes love to helle, to bareine land ther water may nat dwelle; thou liknest it also to wilde fir...to consumen every thing that brent wol be...right so a wif destroyeth hir housbande- this known they that been wives bound” (“Wife of Bath” 307).

She brings attention to the way women and wives are demonized, often in the extreme by men despite the fact that men voluntarily marry them. At the root of this vilification toward her and other women is the overexaggerated value placed on them as sexual beings. As Alyson illustrates, she is constantly sexualized by men and then punished and criticized for being sexual.

Her unapologetic regard of her sexuality is another example of her protofeminism, but within the context of the time period, this aspect of her character also conforms to misogynistic gender stereotypes about women as inherently sexual and promiscuous. Alyson is open about enjoying and demanding intercourse from her previous husbands saying, 

In wifhood wol I use myn instrument as freely as my Makere hath sent...Myn housbonde shal it han bothe eve and morwe, Whan that his list come forth and paye his dette...How pitously anight I made hem swinkem (“Wife of Bath” 304, 305).

She freely expresses how much she enjoys having sex and is unashamed of it because, according to her argument, her body was made by god for that purpose. She continues by stating; 
An housbonde wol I have, I wol nat lette,which shal be bothe my detour and my thral... I have the power during al my life upon his proper body, and nat he... Al this sentence me liketh everydeel (“Wife of Bath” 304). 
Not only does she openly enjoy sexual pleasure, but she also recognizes that sex is one of the only aspects of marriage in which she has power and in most everything else she is expected to be subservient. She further emphasizes her desire for authority within the institution of marriage through her recount of her relationship with her fifth husband and again through her tale (“Wife of Bath” 318, 323). Her explicitness about her sexuality fits into the period typical preconceptions that categorize women as promiscuous and amorous. However, she is trapped in a Catch 22 of sorts; the only way she knows she has any power is by using her sexuality, but when she uses that power it is held against her to delegitimize not only her arguments against such criticism, but also the other aspects of her identity beyond her sexuality, namely her spiritual purity.

Chaucer’s underlying aim regarding the characterization of The Wife of Bath is immaterial in regard to the protofemisnist nature of her polemic narrative. If Chaucer’s purpose was to criticize misogynistic attitudes toward women, he succeeded in creating a character with strong and logical protofeminist arguments. However, the way he chose to portray her using the same stereotypes his character condemns, at least partially undermines his own contentions, which could be then interpreted by a medieval audience as a satirical take on the ramblings of an immoral woman. If in fact, Chaucer did intend The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale to reaffirm medieval attitudes of women, that depiction also serves to further reinforces his character’s claims about how women are unjustly criticized. The Wife of Bath, although created by Chaucer, is a powerful figure whose protofeminist sentiments can be interpreted independently from the sentiments of the author who created her.

Works Cited
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The General Prologue. Third ed., Princeton Univ. Press, 1995.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale. Third ed., Princeton Univ. Press, 1995.
Emmerichs, Sharon “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale.” English A390A, 28 October 2019, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Lecture.

__________________________________
MADELINE KELLY is a sophomore pursuing a Baccalaureate degree in English. This piece was selected by Professor Sharon Emmerichs.

This page has paths: