Introduction
Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, written in the late 14th century, remains a cornerstone of Middle English literature, offering a vivid depiction of medieval society through its diverse cast of pilgrims. Among these, the Wife of Bath stands out as a particularly provocative figure whose Prologue and Tale provide a rich vein of social commentary. This essay explores the extent to which the Wife of Bath’s Prologue offers substantial social criticism, with a specific focus on the institution of marriage. Through an analysis of her personal narrative, her views on gender dynamics, and her critique of clerical authority, it will be argued that the Wife of Bath serves as a vehicle for Chaucer to challenge prevailing norms of marriage and power in medieval society. While her voice is undoubtedly bold, the essay will also consider the limitations of her critique, reflecting on whether her individualism undermines a broader societal challenge. Ultimately, this discussion aims to illuminate how the Wife of Bath’s Prologue functions as both a personal manifesto and a subversive commentary on marriage.
The Wife of Bath’s Personal Narrative as Social Critique
The Wife of Bath’s Prologue is, at its core, an autobiographical account of her five marriages, through which she exposes the complexities and inequalities embedded in the institution of marriage. From the outset, she boldly asserts her authority derived from personal experience, declaring, “Experience, though noon auctoritee / Were in this world, is right ynogh for me” (Chaucer, 2008, p. 117). This rejection of traditional textual authority in favour of lived experience is itself a critique of a society that prioritised male-dominated ecclesiastical and scholarly perspectives over women’s voices. Her candid discussion of marital struggles—particularly her manipulation of her husbands for financial and personal gain—challenges the idealised notion of marriage as a sacred, harmonious union. Instead, she presents it as a transactional arrangement often marked by power struggles. For instance, her account of using accusations of infidelity to control her husbands reveals the limited agency women possessed within marriage, necessitating subversive tactics to assert influence (Benson, 1987).
Moreover, her unabashed attitude towards sexuality and remarriage directly confronts the medieval expectation of female chastity and submission. By celebrating her multiple marriages and refusing to mourn her husbands’ deaths, she defies the Church’s teachings on widowhood and purity. As Rigby (2000) argues, the Wife of Bath’s character embodies a proto-feminist stance, critiquing the restrictive norms that confined women to passive roles within marriage. However, her critique is somewhat tempered by her focus on personal empowerment rather than systemic change, which raises questions about the depth of her social criticism. Nevertheless, her narrative undeniably forces readers to reconsider the lived realities of marriage beyond its idealised depiction in medieval doctrine.
Gender Dynamics and Power in Marriage
A central element of the social criticism in the Wife of Bath’s Prologue is her exploration of gender dynamics and the struggle for “maistrie” (mastery) within marriage. She openly admits to seeking dominance over her husbands, a desire that subverts the patriarchal expectation of male authority. Her assertion that “I have the power durynge al my lyf / Upon his propre body, and noght he” (Chaucer, 2008, p. 121) inverts traditional gender roles, highlighting the potential for women to wield power within the domestic sphere. This inversion, while humorous in tone, carries a serious critique of the unequal power structures embedded in marriage. Indeed, her insistence on control over her own body challenges the medieval legal and religious doctrine that a wife’s body belonged to her husband (Carruthers, 1979).
Furthermore, her relationship with her fifth husband, Jankyn, provides a nuanced examination of gendered power. Initially, Jankyn asserts dominance through physical violence and intellectual superiority, reading misogynistic texts to belittle her. However, the Wife’s eventual triumph—culminating in her burning his book and gaining mastery—symbolises a rejection of patriarchal oppression. As Dinshaw (1989) notes, this episode critiques not only marital violence but also the cultural texts that perpetuate women’s subordination. Arguably, Chaucer uses the Wife’s story to expose the tensions inherent in a society that both idealises marriage and sanctions male dominance within it. While her victory over Jankyn is personal rather than systemic, it nonetheless underscores the potential for resistance against gendered inequalities, offering a critique that resonates with modern readers.
Criticism of Clerical Authority and Marriage
Another substantial strand of social criticism in the Prologue is the Wife of Bath’s challenge to clerical authority, particularly concerning teachings on marriage and sexuality. The medieval Church promoted celibacy as the ideal state and viewed marriage as a lesser, often sinful, necessity for procreation. The Wife, however, vociferously rejects this view, arguing that God intended humans to “wexe and multiplye” and that her sexual desires are natural (Chaucer, 2008, p. 118). Her appropriation of biblical references to defend her multiple marriages is a direct affront to the clergy’s monopoly on scriptural interpretation. By reinterpreting religious texts to suit her own narrative, she exposes the hypocrisy and rigidity of ecclesiastical teachings on marriage.
Additionally, her mockery of clerical misogyny—evident in her reference to Jankyn’s book of “wikked wyves”—critiques the Church’s role in perpetuating negative stereotypes of women (Chaucer, 2008, p. 125). Scholars such as Rigby (2000) suggest that Chaucer uses the Wife to parody the clerical tradition of antifeminist satire, thereby questioning the moral authority of the Church over personal matters like marriage. However, it must be acknowledged that her criticism is limited by her lack of engagement with broader institutional reform. Her focus remains on individual defiance rather than a call for societal transformation, which somewhat dilutes the radical potential of her commentary. Nevertheless, her questioning of clerical control over marriage remains a significant element of social critique within the Prologue.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Wife of Bath’s Prologue offers substantial social criticism with respect to marriage, articulated through her personal narrative, her interrogation of gender dynamics, and her challenge to clerical authority. Her autobiographical account reveals the transactional and often oppressive nature of marriage, while her pursuit of “maistrie” subverts traditional gender roles, exposing the power imbalances inherent in medieval unions. Furthermore, her rejection of ecclesiastical teachings on sexuality and marriage constitutes a bold critique of the Church’s influence over personal lives. However, the limitations of her criticism must be recognised; her focus on individual agency rather than systemic change suggests a narrower scope than a fully radical critique might encompass. Despite this, the Wife of Bath remains a powerful vehicle for Chaucer’s commentary on the social and cultural constraints of marriage in the Middle Ages. This exploration not only highlights the tensions within medieval society but also invites reflection on how personal narratives can illuminate broader societal flaws. Ultimately, the Prologue’s enduring relevance lies in its ability to provoke discussion about power, gender, and authority within the institution of marriage, both in Chaucer’s time and beyond.
References
- Benson, L. D. (Ed.) (1987) *The Riverside Chaucer*. 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin.
- Carruthers, M. (1979) ‘The Wife of Bath and the Painting of Lions’, *PMLA*, 94(2), pp. 209-222.
- Chaucer, G. (2008) *The Canterbury Tales*. Edited by J. Mann. Penguin Classics.
- Dinshaw, C. (1989) *Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics*. University of Wisconsin Press.
- Rigby, S. H. (2000) ‘The Wife of Bath, Christine de Pizan, and the Medieval Case for Women’, *The Chaucer Review*, 35(2), pp. 133-165.
