“Written by a Man: A Critical Analysis of Chaucer’s “Wife of Bath” Under the Female Lens”

Long has the female presence been holistically controlled by the hands of men; from the Christian Bible’s depiction of Eve as the first sinner, to the creation of the contemporary patriarchy as most know today, men have labeled themselves the dominant sex at the expense of women. No greater was this sense of masculine superiority than England during the Middle Ages, in which women experienced immense discrimination and societal restriction. Then—in the late 14th century—was the emergence of a middle class, and women found themselves face-to-face with tremendous historical turbulence and subsequent social upheaval.

It is in this state of social change that sets the stage for The Canterbury Tales, by Geoffrey Chaucer. The epic describes a fellowship’s pilgrimage from Southwark to Canterbury, with each Tale being recounted by each pilgrim during the journey. The distinct nature of each of these Tales provide major insight to each pilgrim’s estate, and no more obvious is this fact than in the Wife of Bath. Her Tale—advocating for the social elevation of women, especially in regards to romantic relationships—presents itself as progressive and proto-feminist. However, the fact that the Tale is spoken by the Wife of Bath alters its initial message; it undermines its originally liberal themes, instead becoming merely a man’s commentary of womanhood and early feminism. Chaucer—a man—presumes and talks over the words of actual women in speaking through the Wife of Bath. Indeed, his characterizations of the Wife of Bath, his generalizations of women, and his treatment towards sexual abuse and domestic violence during the “General Prologue”, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue”, and “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” assert a male rhetoric on the female experience, subverting the efficacy of the Tale’s initially feminist topics.

This issue is first seen in Chaucer’s characterization of the Wife of Bath herself, Alisoun. As a whole, she is portrayed as a strong-willed, bold woman, emphatically advocating for female autonomy when talking of her own marital experiences and through the later telling of her Tale. Despite this, in the “General Prologue” to The Canterbury Tales Chaucer reduces her character and introduces her as simply “a good Wife” (23). Through the Tales, Chaucer labels each pilgrim by their professions (e.g. a knight, a squire, a yeoman, etc.), but excludes the Wife of Bath from this pattern. She is merely deemed a “wife”, despite the fact that she is better known as a skilled clothmaker: “She had such a talent for making cloth / that she surpassed the weavers of Ypres and Ghent.” (Chaucer 23). In doing so, Chaucer permits her character to be defined by her relationship with men, rather than be properly depicted as her own, self-sustaining individual. While true that the bulk of her character does revolve around her marital experiences, and that perhaps there was some accuracy in calling her a “wife”, it still would have been more accurate to refer to her as a businesswoman, as she mainly saw marriage as an economic transaction: “...I made [my husbands] work at night... / They had given me their land and their treasure; / I no longer needed to be diligent / to win their love.” (Chaucer 191). As a result of labeling her in this way, it seems that Chaucer does not quite acknowledge the Wife of Bath as the authoritative figure in her own story, diminishing the weight of her character with a label that implies—during this time period—subservience. This can be further observed in her characterization of herself during “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue”. In outlining her ideal husband, she explains that she wants a husband “who shall be both [her] debtor and [her] slave”, and that she is to “have the power / over his own body, and not he” (Chaucer 189). It is clear that the Wife of Bath is made to satirize the traditionally dominant male persona and expose its faults, but it is the fact that proto-feminist ideas are portrayed here so extremely that detract from this satirization’s effectivity; the sheer polarity of her wording has more of a villainizing effect. The language of “debtor”, “slave”, and “power”, advocates for a kind of authoritarianism, and presents proto-feminism as extreme and totalitarian. It instills fear, rather than accurately portrays the early ideas surrounding women’s social elevation; they desired gender equality, not total gender superiority. Thus, though Chaucer intends to characterize the Wife of Bath in such a way as to drive forward early feminist discussions, he manages to discredit both her individual worth and her influence as a women’s advocate—having the effect of the opposite.

Furthermore, Chaucer makes generalizations of women in speaking as the Wife of Bath, of which are ultimately damaging. Through her, he specifically asserts that all women in fact act in such a way, not that women may act that way. In the “Wife of Bath’s Prologue”, the Wife of Bath states that “no man can perjure himself and lie / half so boldly as a woman can” (Chaucer 193) and that “a wise wife... / will convince her husband that the chough is mad, / and call as a witness her own maid, / who conspires with her...” (Chaucer 193). Here, women are depicted as innate liars, maliciously manipulating their husbands for their own gain. Needless to say, not all women are manipulative as the Wife of Bath (in actuality, Chaucer) describes, and this simply pushes forth the harmful rhetoric of women being “gold diggers” and having this sort of ulterior motive in their romantic relationships. Another generalization is made once the Wife of Bath notes: “We don’t love a man who carefully watches / where we go; we want to be at large.” (Chaucer 197). In this instance, the collective “we” pronoun is used to confirm that this desire to be “at large” is felt across the entire population of women. The phrase “at large” has been in use since the mid-1300s (slightly before the time The Canterbury Tales were being written), and the word “large” referred to liberation, specifically from imprisonment (Chambers 199). The Wife of Bath’s usage of “at large” indeed references the desire of women to be free of the restrictions put upon them by men, but the phrase itself has criminalistic connotations. Hence, beneath the surface of the Wife of Bath’s desire for women’s liberation lies Chaucer’s own biases in describing such an idea with this specific term. As a man, he may be subconsciously accustomed to viewing men as morally superior, and the use of this criminalistically connotated phrase evidences such. This is further perpetrated in the Wife of Bath’s statement that “God has given women by nature deceit, weeping, / and spinning...” (Chaucer 201). This statement maintains the innate deceitfulness and moral inferiority of women, especially in framing such traits as the only traits that God has directly bestowed upon them. It’s worth noting that as a woman, the Wife of Bath has the authority in this conversation to speak of her own womanhood and draw her own generalizations. But as a character of fiction, her dialogue is not her own; it is Chaucer’s. In this way, Chaucer asserts his own views on women (being from the perspective of a male) through her. Due to the perception of the reader that it is the Wife of Bath speaking, his views seem more concrete and based on reality, because they are construed as her views. These generalizations of women and the nature of their presentation as “fact,” then, detract from the proto-feminism that the Wife of Bath so apparently advocates for.

Most diminishing of women in Chaucer’s dealings with the Wife of Bath is his light treatment of sexual abuse and domestic violence. In both the Wife of Bath’s life and her Tale, such abuse is minimized, and the abusers remain virtually unscathed. This is first seen in the Wife of Bath’s view of her own abuse, saying that she “loved [her abusive husband] best because / he was so cool in his love” and that “whatever [women] cannot easily get / [they] will cry after and crave all day” (Chaucer 205). The Wife of Bath’s fifth husband was extremely neglectful and abusive, yet she claims that she still craved him, further affirming the following assertion that women desire mistreatment by their abusers. This welcomes the disturbing generalization that women consent to and enjoy abusive behavior, minimizing the actual damage done to victims of sexual abuse. The “Wife of Bath’s Tale” continues minimizing this fact, in considering how the knight, on trial for raping a young woman, is shown mercy if he can tell the Queen “‘what thing it is that women most desire’” (Chaucer 223). This rapist is given the chance to redeem himself,

despite permanently traumatizing the young woman and taking that which cannot be given back: her innocence. This fact calls into question why he is even given the chance for redemption; the very existence of this Tale is alarmingly reductive of women’s experiences with sexual violence, as the rapist is allowed to miraculously absolve himself of his crimes, whereas the victim is portrayed as a setback to his journey. The Tale is about the rapist’s redemption, not the victim’s experience. The ending of this Tale, too, detracts from the apparent “progressivity” of the Wife of Bath. The old hag that the knight is made to marry—as consequence of his crimes—instead becomes “both fair indeed and good”, who then “obey[s] him in everything / that might give him pleasure or joy” (Chaucer 239). The knight faces virtually no consequences: he is given his life and he is guaranteed a wonderful marriage with a loyal, beautiful wife. The old hag immediately forgives him, being more upset that he coveted a beautiful wife than the fact that he is a rapist. This ending implicitly idolizes the gentle treatment of rapists, despite them having abused their victims violently. The creation of this Tale as a whole takes away the rapist’s accountability and the victim’s validity, completely disregarding all that the Wife of Bath—a feminist—stands for.

In sum, while the concept of the Wife of Bath and her subsequent Tale may inspire feminist belief and advocate proto-feminist ideas on their surfaces, the ways in which Chaucer characterizes her, generalizes women as a whole, and treats victims of abuse speak otherwise. These attitudes may not be entirely intentional, but the manner in which he, as a man, speaks through a woman in order to reify such “facts” when he ultimately has no real experience nor authority on the subject does more harm than good. There is no way for him to truly know or even fathom the nuanced experiences of women under the patriarchy. In speaking over women in The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer thus allows patriarchal ideas and biases to persist, further harming the contemporary rhetoric of women and feminism.