Feminism

The Ever-Revolving Debate: is the Wife of Bath a Proto-Feminist Character or Anti-Feminist Caricature?

The tricky thing about feminist interpretation is that feminism comes from a large body of modern rhetoric and theory that simply did not exist in the Middle Ages. Because of this, feminism can only be applied to the Wife of Bath retrospectively. That being said, here are some of the ways that feminist theorists help inform our modern readings:

Feminist theorist Judith Butler addresses large issues of feminism and the subversion of identity in Gender Trouble and narrows this down much further in the subsection titled “Bodily Inscriptions, Performative Subversions.” Butler aims to tackle the idea of the “cultural notion of cultural values [as] the figure of history as a relentless writing instrument, and the body as the medium which must be destroyed and transfigured in order for ‘culture’ to emerge.”¹ She uses theorists Foucault and Kafka in conjunction with one another to argue that the concept of identity can be found within the body and how a person presents themselves. Using examples from Mary Douglas’ Purity and Danger, she exemplifies the ways in which not only the body but also, “the surface, the skin, is systemically signified by taboos and anticipated transgressions,” to argue that the female body is politicized.²

Butler’s focus on the body and the ways in which people can be categorized requires that she put the female body into context with another type of body that has been normalized: the male body. Normalized by society, the male body does not fall under any criticism or scrutiny when it comes to being a sexual being. For there to be something not normal one would have to first identify that which is normal. Butler makes the following claim when addressing the ways in which the body is used a means for subjection: “Within the metaphorics of this notion [an inscription on the body] of cultural values is the figure of history as a relentless writing instrument, and the body as the medium which must be destroyed and transfigured in order for “culture” to emerge.” ³ She allows these texts to guide her ideas of how the standard notions of the body have to destroyed in order for their to be any real change in these perception of female bodies.

This manifests in the Wife of Bath, or Alisoun, in how she places herself in place of authority through her experience with marriages. ⁴In each of her marriages she found the ways to gain power from her husband that resulted in an exchange or lack of exchange in sex.⁵For this to happen, Alisoun found strength in the aspects of her womanhood that were tied to the “culture” of her femininity as being a sexual being. Although it was common for men to have been remarried plenty of times, for women there was more of a sexist view placed on their identities. For a woman to be remarried as many times as Alisoun, it meant to her society that there must be something wrong with her, but also that she must be having a lot of sex which was frowned upon as well.

Butler connects the writings of Young and Kristeva in relation to her understanding of sexism:

“Young’s appropriation of Kristeva shows how the operation of repulsion can consolidate ‘identities’ founded on the institution of the ‘Other’ or a set of Others through exclusion and domination.”⁶ This reference to otherness derives from the conversation revolving the “abject” which is deemed as the outside of the norm.⁷

Formulating an understanding of this concept is important because of the way that this other can be perceived by society. This provides a better understanding of the way that the Wife of Bath would be criticized for not fitting into the norms of society. In the same way that the confining societal notions about female promiscuity are placed on Alisoun’s body, the body is used to “compel bodies to signify the prohibitive law as their very essence, style, and necessity” which Butler quotes from Focault.⁸

In this text Foucault refers to prisoners navigating their imprisoning space, but in a lot of ways, the Wife of Bath is a prison of her own device; she is a prisoner of her marital status, sexual desires, social status, religion, gender, appearance, and moreover, her own body.

In relation to religion, Butler uses Foucault’s terms for the Christian soul: “the soul is not imprisoned by or within the body, as some Christian imagery would suggest, but ‘the soul is the prison of the body.’” ⁹

Butler connects these concepts and delivers this message through her description of the body and otherness as well as her address of those bodies that are classified in ways that place them on the outside of common perceptions.

In this way, Butler contributes to our understanding of how the Wife of Bath would have been received by her contemporary audience

Feminist theorist Toril Moi aims to deconstruct the text of other theorists, such as Judith Butler, and expand on the concepts of sex and gender using the complexities of intersectionality of the female body, gender, and sex.

In What is a Woman? And Other Essays, Moi argues that a significant amount of post-structuralist theorists defeat the purpose of their own missions and instead create another issue that she refers to as having no “connection with bodies, sex, or gender.”¹⁰

Regarding the Wife of Bath, the importance of Moi’s text stems from the intersectionality of womanhood and the sexualization of the female body. Although the Wife of Bath does not directly deal with sexual violence, she does address it in the rape that is central to the plot of her tale.¹¹ The sexual violence here is overlooked and remedied by the knight’s quest for the answer to the Queen’s question of what women truly want. ¹² The Wife of Bath also faces sexist violence within her fifth marriage.¹³

In “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue,” there is no separation between gender and sex; the two concepts are always interconnected. When there is mention of her husbands, there is always mention of the sex as well as what it means for her as a woman. In her address toward clerks, she highlights this concept of unfair perceptions of women in clerical language.¹⁴

Moi addresses claims of a “sexed human being made up of the sum of sex plus gender,” and states that if this were the case then it would lead to the view of these concepts being a “deconstructable pair” when they are connected and essential when elaborating on the experience of human beings and fictional characters alike.¹⁵

In this text, there is a passionate and personal connection towards womanhood and the essence of being able to live in that identity as freely as possible in ways that the Wife of Bath does. Alisoun expresses her sexuality through her multiple marriages while living within the confines of society’s expectations for her as a woman. She is expected to be married if she is having sex, so she gets married and searches for as much power in that as possible.

In her marriages with her older husbands, she finds her identity through money and sex and her younger husbands she finds it through love and sex; nonetheless, it all ties back to sex.

In regard to the reduction of the importance of intersectionality in woman’s identity, Moi writes: “All forms of sexual reductionism implicitly deny that a woman is concrete, embodied human being (of a certain age, nationality, race, class, and with a wholly unique store of experiences) and not just a human being sexed in a particular way.”¹⁶

It is important to note that the various identities that the Wife of Bath possesses are just as important as her being a woman.

Through all of this, Moi contributes to our understanding of the Wife of Bath in her argument that the only way to resolve the reduction of females (fictional or not) is to thoroughly analyze every facet of the text for what it is, rather than jumping to conclusions, to conclude with a more holistic view. Looking at all facets of the Wife of Bath, it is essential to understand how her intersectional perspective informs the sexually violent story she tells. Her perspective adds to the authority that she holds as a woman who finds power in her sexuality.

A Proto-Feminist Character

One of the reasons the Wife of Bath fits the bill for an empowered sort of feminist is the way she seems to use patriarchal discourse to expose the ways that conventional power structures were oppressive to women. One of the things the Wife mentions multiple times in her prologue is “glossing.” In simple terms, glossing is just interpretation. The glossing that the Wife of Bath refers to is scriptural glossing that was dominated my male interpretation, leading to conventional scriptural readings that repress femininity and bodily pleasure.¹⁷

In her prologue, she questions certain conventional anti-body, anti-female readings of scripture, such as:

the number of times a woman can be married
- She uses the common idea that it is “better to marry than to burn“¹⁸ to justify her multiple marriages, stating that God intended for humans to go forth and multiply¹⁹, so she might as well use the institution of marriage to do so without sin.²⁰
the championing of virginity
- She questions where God commanded virginity²¹, using the argument that it is actually men who counsel women to be virgins.²² She does acknowledge, however, that Christ bade for perfect humans to follow in his image. To this, the Wife admits she is not perfect and definitely not a virgin.
  - She uses two metaphors to argue that there is value even in imperfection. The first is that not every vessel in a man’s house can be made of gold, but that even wooden vessels are useful.²³ The second is the comparison of virginity to bread made of pure wheat, whereas the imperfection of non-virginity is compared to barley bread; she argues that though barely bread is not ideal, it has still refreshed many men in history.²⁴
the proper use of human genitalia
- She rejects the clerical arguments that human genitals, or “instruments” were made only for purgation of urine, telling the genders apart, and procreation, arguing instead that God would not have given humans the gift of sexual pleasure if he did not intend for humans to use their instruments as such.²⁵

The logic that she uses here is actually flawed and slippery because she embodies the same rhetorical framework used by slippery male readings of scripture.²⁶In her prologue, the Wife draws parallels between masculine interpretations of scripture, affectionate flattery, and marital deceit, ultimately associating the very practice of masculine scriptural interpretation with duplicitous carnal desire.²⁷ She does this by using the same rhetorical framework to justify her independent, female desires as male readings of scripture use to justify male desire.

Another way the Wife of Bath subverts patriarchal discourse is through the use of economic language.

In her prologue, she says that men think they must try out a wife, like a sort of test drive, the way people make sure that household wares and livestock are checked for quality before they are paid for.²⁸ In this metaphor, the Wife exposes patriarchal discourse that compares women to paid for commodities. She even goes so far as to say the only reason she should try to please a husband is for her own “profit“²⁹

The Wife uses this same reasoning for using her sexuality as a bargaining chip with her husbands, stating: “for al is for to selle!“³⁰

In this way, the Wife occupies the very arguments that are her oppressors and uses them for her own gain.

It is impossible to know what Chaucer truly intended for the Wife of Bath’s character to mean; we can only ever argue for either side through textual evidence. Due to the lack of “feminist” framework in the Middle Ages, we can be certain that he didn’t imagine her exactly as a feminist, but the arguments that the Wife of Bath presents regarding the place of women in society seems to indicate that Chaucer was aware, and perhaps even wary of, the inequalities faced by the female gender. Even if he did intend for the Wife of Bath to be a caricature to be ridiculed, modern feminist readings into the Wife of Bath may still be valuable contributions to the existing feminist discourse.

The Wife of Bath’s questions of interpretation explores the way that individuals bring their own thoughts into their readings,³¹ which is relevant to our own attempts at reading The Canterbury Tales through a modern lens of interpretation.

Because of this, it is somewhat hopeful that a medieval character can be read retrospectively as feminist because that in itself indicates that modern readings are more concerned with women’s rights.

_{(For more on how the Wife of Bath can be read as both a proto-feminist character and an anti-feminist caricature, see Women on Top)}

¹_{Butler, Gender Trouble. 130.}
²_{Butler, Gender Trouble. 131.}
³_{Butler, Gender Trouble. 130.}
⁴_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue,” III.1-3.}
⁵_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue,” III.202-4/408-11.}
⁶_{Butler, Gender Trouble. 133.}
⁷_{Butler, Gender Trouble. 134}
⁸_{Butler, Gender Trouble. 135.}
⁹_{Butler, Gender Trouble. 135.}
¹⁰_{Moi, What is a Woman? 31.}
¹¹_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Tale.” III.1888.}
¹²_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Tale.” III.904-5.}
¹³_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III. 795.}
¹⁴_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III. 689-696.}
¹⁵_{Moi, What is a Woman? 135.}
¹⁶_{Moi, What is a Woman? 135.}
¹⁷_{Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics. 121.}
¹⁸_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.51-52.}
¹⁹_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.28.}
²⁰_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.33-34.}
²¹_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.62.}
²²_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.66-67.}
²³_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.90-100.}
²⁴_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.143-46}
²⁵_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.119-134.}
²⁶_{Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics. 124.}
²⁷_{Knapp, Social Contest. 115.}
²⁸_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.285-290.}
²⁹_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.214.}
³⁰_{Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” III.414.}
³¹_{Laskaya, Chaucer’s Approach to Gender. 183.}

References:

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale.” Edited by Jill Mann, Penguin Books Ltd, 2005.

Dinshaw, Carolyn. Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.

Knapp, Peggy. Chaucer and the Social Contest. New York and London: Routledge. 1990.

Laskaya, Anne. Chaucer’s Approach to Gender in the Canterbury Tales. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1995.

Moi, Toril. What is a Woman? And Other Essays. Oxford: University Press, 1999.