Long before the enlightened women of the 1960s eagerly removed their bras, in an age where anti-feminist and misogynistic attitudes prevailed, there lived Geoffrey Chaucer. Whether Chaucer was truly a feminist who lived long before his time, or whether he simply conveyed an alternative, unpopular point of view, is irrelevant. Her portrayal of the Wife of Bath in The Canterbury Tales is a compelling study of medieval feminism. Ostentatious, domineering, deceitful, and selfish, the Wife, or Alisoun, systematically challenges the idea that women should be subservient to their masterful husbands. As a seemingly radical feminist, the Wife discards even moderate feminist ideals that hold both sexes in equal regard, and instead dwells in a utopian existence where women rule their castrated husbands. But she doesn't stop there. The Wife resents any form of traditional authority and weaves her tale so eloquently, if somewhat disjointedly, that the listener is forced to believe that the Wife is as pristine as fresh snow. In reality, it is a mud-stained road slush at best, and never quite achieves the "maitrye" it so desires. For all her flaws, the Wife is certainly an astute student of human behavior, and is quite content, as long as she believes that women have sovereignty over their male counterparts. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay It is important to note that the term “feminism” as we know it did not exist during the time period when Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales. Today we take it for granted that a feminist is a person who believes that males and females are created equal and therefore deserve to be treated equally. This was not the case in 14th century England. Women had very few social rights, and there were no organized movements to increase women's civil liberties. So when we describe Chaucer or the Wife of Bath as feminist, we simply mean that he or she recognized that power inequalities existed and that men did not necessarily have the right to control women's daily activities. Although some may argue that the Wife of Bath, or Alisoun, wants to completely discredit all authority figures, Mary Carruthers, in her article, "The Wife of Bath and the Painting of Lions," argues that "Alisoun does not deny authority when the authority is true… He insists, however, that the authority realizes the realities of experience” (209). Carruthers makes an interesting point, but it's difficult to validate, as The Wife of Bath never reveals to the reader a source of expert authority that she respects, other than herself, of course. The authority he fights against belongs almost exclusively to male philosophers and poets. To “undermine the tyranny of authority, the Wife of Bath feels the need to claim a certain kind of authority herself, establishing her experiential credentials at the beginning of her speech” (Gottfried, 208). She claims that the experience, even though we are in this world, is right enough for me to talk about what marriage is (1-3). Since she has been married five times since the age of twelve, the Wife of Bath certainly has more practical knowledge of that particular institution than so-called authorities, such as the apostle Paul. To defend his many marriages, he rightly argues that Paul himself advised people to remain chaste, but to marry if their lustful passion became unbearable. However, what it fails to recognize is that this advice only gives people license to marry, notto mate freely with all kinds of men, whether "short, or long, or black, or white" (624). That the Wife of Bath is an astute Bible scholar is undeniable; it is also obvious that he possesses the mental agility to twist the Scriptures to best suit his needs. For example, he compares the multiple marriages of Lameth (Lamech), Abraham, Jacob, and King Solomon to his specific situation. Conveniently, he does not mention the fact that all of these men lived before the birth of Christ, in a time when different biblical guidelines applied. Alisoun, however, also presents some very logical arguments. It is true that the belief of many male authority figures that Christ's presence at only one registered marriage was indicative that people should marry only once was a gross misinterpretation of the Scriptures. It is also true that if every person were destined to remain a virgin, the world would be deprived of human life in a very short time. Although she herself has a tendency to misinterpret scripture, pointing out the misinterpretations of others, the Wife of Bath deliberately challenges the notion of a passive, uneducated woman. As stated previously, Alisoun's perceived authority comes directly from her experience. He has discovered, through years of experience, that the only way to achieve sovereignty is through economic independence. One of Carruther's strongest arguments is: As Alisoun knows from experience, the true fruits of marriage are described neither in Jerome nor in books of behavior but are set in the marriage bed. Her important spoils for her are neither children nor sensual gratification but independence. Is marriage the key to survival, and is this what Alisoun seeks and finds? The root of marital "maistrye" is economic control... The logic is clear: sovereignty is the power of the purse (214). The Wife of Bath, therefore, seeks sovereignty through a combination of experience and independent wealth. The only reason she is freer than other women is that she is not beholden to anyone. We know from the general prologue that she is a skilled weaver, one of the most lucrative occupations in England at the time. Normally, her husband would be in control of all the money she earns, but, because she is a widow, she is allowed to own independent wealth. For Alisoun, this, combined with her worldly experience, grants her the right to claim authority. For the Wife of Bath, authority is of paramount importance. In each of her marriages, Alisoun gains sovereignty over her husbands through a sordid succession of lies and deceit. She counter-complains about her husbands' complaints against her and even invents false accusations to counter those made against her. He proudly states that I pleynated first, so was our werre ystynt. They were full of joy to excuse hem blyveOf thing of which they never agilte hir lyve.Of wenches wolde I beren hem on honde, Whan that for syk unnethes myghte the stonde (390 -394). Ironically, Alisoun bases his accusations on the very actions he is guilty of. Invariably her husbands respond with all the vigor of helpless field mice; they agree and humbly bow to his authority. Alisoun's most difficult challenge is her fourth husband, which is why she holds him in such low regard. Even after his death she has little respect for him, and considers "that it would be precious to bury him" (500), although she certainly has the means to do so. The Wife's three previous husbands are much older than her, and she sees them as geriatric retards as they cater to her every whim. The fourth husband is more suitable for her. He is younger than the others and often visits his lovers. His refusal to do itlording over infuriates Alisoun. In retaliation, she aggressively flirts with another man, with whom she denies any involvement, but marries shortly after Number Four's death. The Wife of Bath assumes that she has finally triumphed over her husband's authority, but much of her story betrays this feeling. Alisoun's narrative begins to fall apart in the description of her fifth marriage, to a clerk named Jankyn. Alisoun's first four husbands are quite wealthy, and it is for this reason alone that she marries them. Jankyn, however, is a student, and as a result is not rich. For the first time, the Wife of Bath is interested in someone for reasons other than financial gain. Independently wealthy, Alisoun is physically attracted to Jankyn, and "thought he had a pair / Of legs and feet so clean and faire / That al myn herte I yaf unto his hohold" (l. 597-599). Precisely at this point the Wife of Bath begins to lose her sovereignty. Before this juncture, Alisoun had never given her heart, or anything else, to a man. He does not fully realize the consequences of falling in love. In every relationship, the partner who loves the most is in a vulnerable position. Of course, Alisoun finds herself in that helpless position in her relationship with Jankyn. Jankyn seems aloof to her at best, and bitter and hateful at worst, but Alisoun still loves him and cherishes his memory, even though he hit her so hard her ribs still hurt. Although she claims that she eventually succeeded in taming Jankyn, and he began to treat her "like kynde / like any wyf from Denmark to Ynde" (823-824), some say that this perception is a complete invention of Alisoun's. .Towards the end of her prologue, Alisoun tells the story of her last fight with Jankyn. Jankyn read aloud from his book "Wikked wyves", which infuriates Alisoun. She retaliates by tearing three pages out of the book and hitting him on the head. Jankyn responds by hitting her in the ear, causing her to go deaf. Alisoun scolds her husband: Oh! you killed me quickly, false thief.?...And for my land you killed me so quickly? Er, I'm an act, yet I'll kiss you (800-802). This is all perfectly clear and entirely plausible. What follows, however, is not. Soon after, Alisoun breaks into a new paragraph and Jankyn undergoes an abrupt character change. It is from this moment on that DJ Wurtele believes Alisoun is lying. In his article, Chaucer's Wife of Bath and the Problem of the Fifth Husband, he argues that it is precisely at this point that the wife could move from fact to fiction... For now, Jankyn's mischievous nature is seen to suddenly change. hit. According to Alisoun's story, he begs forgiveness for having struck her and vows never to do so again... Everything corresponds closely to the fairy-tale ending of the exemplum of the Repugnant Lady that Alisoun... offers to the pilgrims as a variation of the same theme of the sovereignty of wife (119). That Alisoun is changing the ending of her relationship story with Jankyn to fit her specific worldview is very likely. He may even believe that the ending he played actually happened. He wants sovereignty so badly that if he can't get it, he alters reality in his mind so that he can get it. According to Wurtele, Alisoun is ultimately frustrated in her quest for sovereignty. Some people are more forgiving of Alisoun's apparent contradictions. She admits that she must fight for control over two of her husbands, and this revelation alone makes Anne Laskaya respect her. In her book, Chaucer's Approach to Gender in the Canterbury Tales, Laskaya states that "For the wife, an accurate portrayal of marriage includes an account of power injustices and power strugglesthat she knows exist within marriage, rather than some kind of stereotypical gender hierarchy" (181). In other words, Alisoun is not simply a power dealer. She simply refuses to subscribe to the ideal of a husband-dominant relationship -submissive wife. Realistically, this situation does not exist. The balance of power constantly shifts from one spouse to the other. Peggy Knapp seems to support many of Laskaya's feelings , but simply desires some kind of self-definition and justification. She sees the hateful woman in Alisoun's tale as a form of herself, and neither personality is out to "capture" men. Knapp says this about Alisoun's tale: "embedded deep in this story is the idea that men must learn from women... The loathsome lady manages to have a husband with whom she shares both authority and experience" (49). Knapp and Laskaya believe that Alisoun is willing to compromise in her relationships, but what they both fail to recognize is that while Alisoun admits that she sometimes doesn't have complete control over her relationships, and while the obnoxious lady ends up obeying her husband in "everything", Alisoun is completely unhappy when she is not in power. , and never chooses to give up even a small part of its sovereignty if it can prevent it in any way. While it appears that Laskaya is only partially right in the above argument, she highlights the significance of Alisoun's deafness - people simply see her damaged hearing as some sort of "war wound" resulting from her abusive relationship, Laskaya sees it as something more . She sees the Wife's deafness as a sort of shield, or weapon, for "If she is fighting against evil." speech of a patriarchal culture, what better defense than the inability to feel? If Alysoun cannot hear the terrible and oft-repeated voice of antifeminism in her culture, neither can she be easily persuaded of its 'truth'" (182). Alisoun's deafness, then, becomes a sign of her resistance to the culture misogynistic in which she lives. She is no longer bound by verbal definitions of what she should be and is free to interpret her life as she chooses. Others believe that Alisoun has little, if any, freedom. seems like a clear statement of the female dominance thesis…there is a good deal of attenuation in this position" (109) Alisoun still loves and obeys Jankyn after their horrible fight, and even Arthur's queen has to beg her husband to spare the life of the rapist knight. At the end of his story, "the obedience of the wife and the happiness of the couple are emphasized" (Griffith, 111). Alisoun may want to believe that she has achieved sovereignty, but in reality, the only sovereignty she has is what men have allowed her to possess. Alisoun not only doesn't have the sovereignty she claims to have, she's not even that sure of it. the morality of her actions as she claims to be. In her prologue, the Wife of Bath proudly boasts of all the tricks she has played on her lovers, and encourages others to do the same: drink hemWrong upon smooth;Half so boldly can no manSwere and lyen, like a kan woman (224-228).She sees nothing wrong with lying to her husbands and intentionally tormenting them, as long as she eventually reaches a position of authority. Martin Pushvel questions the sincerity of his outward confidence. If she feels justified in her actions against her husbands, she should not be offended when Jankyn reads her "Book of Wicked Wives." Surely 23(2) (1988): 117-127.