Throughout The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer toys with the audiences expectations of social norms, gender performance, and class status. Queerness is also an underlying theme worth examining, especially when heteronormativity is enforced throughout the tale. In the midst of his overarching story, Chaucer portrays the link between masculinity and violence by using two queer characters, the Wife of Bath and the Pardoner. Neither characters embody the idyllic form of masculinity, rather their story unfolds in relation to their own gender performances. Therefore, Chaucer’s portrayal of masculine violence allows him both to capture the attention of the Middle English audience, while also allowing him to provide commentary on the unfortunate …show more content…
gender and class norms of society. The Pardoner, while a male character, is known for his lack of masculine qualities, both in appearance and sexuality. In the General Prologue of The Canterbury Tales, the Pardoner is described as: “No berd hadde he, ne nevere shodle have; / As smothe it was as it were late shave. / I trowe he were a geldyng or a mare.” (Riverside Lines 689-691 pg. 34). The Pardoner’s smooth beardless face shows that he is incapable of possessing the outward appearance of masculinity; the question whether he is a “geldyng” or a “mare” refers to his ambiguous sexuality. Chaucer the narrator hints that the company of pilgrims speculate the Pardoner is a eunuch, thus making him unable to have any heteronormative sexual encounters. However, the notion that the Pardoner is a homosexual is also a possibility, although his sexuality is never explicitly confirmed. Regardless of his actual sexual preference or capabilities, the non-gender normative characterization of the Pardoner displays him as a queer character among the pilgrims. The Pardoner’s lack of a masculine identity is further examined in Carolyn Dinshaw’s piece, “Eunuch Hermeneutics”. Dinshaw’s main argument is that the Pardoner choose his profession of selling false relics in order to fulfill a physical completeness that he lacks. According to Dinshaw, the Pardoner is a fragmented character because he is, in fact, a eunuch. Dinshaw takes a particular interest into the fight between the Pardoner and the Host after the Pardoner finishes his tale. The conflict arises when the Pardoner offers the Host the chance to buy one of his relics, even though he had just admitted to the group that his relics were fake. The Host becomes livid, and threatens to basically cut off the Pardoner’s, likely nonexistent, balls. Dinshaw takes the instance as a reaffirmation that the Pardoner is without his own masculinity, and thus must commit to the relic’s replacement of more naturally masculine qualities: “But the Pardoner’s scraps and chips of saints substitute for his lack of natural virility. As free-floating body parts, they are both reifications of his own fragmentariness and substitutes for his own lacking parts” (Dinshaw 573). By offering the Host one of his false relics which the Pardoner views as an extension of his masculinity, the Host may have perceived the moment as a sexual advance towards him. Therefore, the intense brutality of the Host’s response reveals how he views subversive sexualities, thus further “othering” the Pardoner. Hence, Dinshaw’s argument provides a great explanation for the apparent queerness of the Pardoner. The aforementioned incident between the Pardoner, Knight and Host after the Pardoner concludes his story is particularly interesting in how it relates to masculinity and violence. The Pardoner’s insult creates violent tension between the Pardoner and the Host. However, before any physical violence ensues, the Knight steps in the break up the fight: “But right anon the worthy Knight bigan, / Whan that he saugh that al the peple lough, / “Namoore of this, for it right ynough! / Sire Pardoner, be glad and myrie of cheere; / And ye, sire Hoost, that been to me so deere, / I prey yow that ye kisses the Pardoner.” (Riverside Lines 960-965 pg. 202). In this moment, the Knight inserts himself into a situation in order to demand the conclusion of the fight and peace between the two pilgrims. The image of the Knight as the restorer of peace is significant in several ways. First, the Knight is the highest ranking pilgrim of the company and deals with conflict “resolution” as a profession, making him the character who possesses the most masculine power. By stepping between the Host and the Pardoner, he is restoring not only the order of the group, but also showing his masculine dominance over the queerness of both the Pardoner and the situation. Although the Knight appears to be intervening without violence, the Knight is committing a sort of class violence afforded to him by his profession. It is no secret that the Knight’s job, which he excels at, is founded on and encourages committing deadly violence. Thus, while the Knight does not resort to physical blows, the threat of a very masculine kind of violence is quite present if the Host or Pardoner were to continue their transgression. As a result, the Knight also becomes a masculine figure in favor of stabilizing the heteronormativity of the social order inherent among the pilgrims. By making the Pardoner and Host kiss as a way to make up, the Knight is asserting his power to determine gender norms. The Knight actions proclaim that kissing between men is acceptable as long as it has been demanded by a high social authority as a means to resolve a brotherly conflict. Thus, rather than allowing potentially homoerotic behavior go unchecked, the Knight uses a possibility sexual act to reinforce gender norms. Conversely, the Wife of Bath attempts to embrace her own queerness, so her overt sexuality and noncompliance with feminine passiveness, to behave in a violently masculine manner in order to obtain her autonomy.
The Wife of Bath is quite frank about her enjoyment of sexual encounters and her ability to marry several men in order to gain their wealth. Ultimately, because the Wife of Bath expresses both masculine and female characteristics, she reveals herself as a queer character. In her prologue, the Wife of Bath proudly admits that out of her seven husbands, the last one, Jankyn, she loved the best. However, this husband was also both physically and mentally abusive: the Wife of Bath tells the pilgrims he would beat her and constantly read to her from a book about wicked wives. One night, while the husband was reading from the book, the Wife of Bath instigates a physical fight between the two, which was eventaully ended when the Wife tricks her husband into thinking he had killed her with one of his blows. She does this in order to get him close enough to bestow a great beating against him, exhibiting her own ability to perform violence against a masculine body. The altercation concludes with the husband conceding to cease reading from the book and beating the Wife, as long as she agrees to also be a dutiful spouse: “And that he seyde, ‘Myn owene trewe wfy, / Do as thee lust the terme of al thy lyf; / Keep thyn honour, and keep eek myn estaat’ - / After that day we hadden …show more content…
never debaat.” (Riverside Lines 819-822, pg. 116). Initially, it appears to the reader that the Wife of Bath was able to gain power and equality in her relationship with her husband by committing violence. However, the authority the Wife of Bath obtains is limited: in order to be given her independence and will, her husband had to give her the permission. Thus, while she does profit from mimicking masculinity, she is still without the sort of autonomy afforded the truly masculine characters such as the Knight. Despite making her a social outcast, the queerness of the Wife of Bath allows her some capacity to lead a life of her choosing.
Unlike the Pardoner, the Wife of Bath is celebrated for her actions, despite her queerness. For example, in the introductory material to The Riverside Chaucer, the Wife of Bath is revered for her unique qualities: “Moreover, though most of her characteristics can be traced in anti-feminine satire and she herself embodies almost all the faults traditionally imputed to women…her frankness, vigor, and good humor render her a zestful and engaging defender of life itself” (11). Accordingly, The Wife of Bath may not have been a typically feminine character, but that may be her greatest attribute. The Wife of Bath may still face the countless limitations imposed upon women in the Middle Ages; however, because of her promiscuity and manipulation of men, she is has been able to make her own fortune and acquire freedom to travel unaccompanied. Thus, when comparing her rich, though violent, character to the weaker Pardoner, Chaucer appears more sympathetic towards the queerness of the Wife of
Bath. Finally, by taking into account the violent encounters both characters find themselves in, Chaucer allows the Wife of Bath to assert her queerness, while the Pardoner is chastised for his own expression of gender non normativity. Although the Wife of Bath must still contend with the limitations placed upon her by her role as a woman, she is still able to gain some self-sufficiently and a sense of identity by absorbing typically masculine characteristics; whereas, the Pardoner may be self-reliant, his perception of his own identity is weak. Therefore, by concentrating on instances where the expression of violent masculine behavior was present, the limitations placed on queer characters during the Middle Ages become more evident; consequently, Chaucer exposes that masculine traits, no matter the body performing them, are unrivaled to feminine characteristics.
This might seem ironic coming from a man in this period, but it is not so ironic when one looks at the Canterbury Tales and acknowledges it as a fine work of parody. Chaucer attacks other traditions vigorously, a good example of which is his discussion of corruption in the church . His critical look at the standards for women which are especially enforced by the church add humor to the tale of the Wife of Bath while also making a political statement. Chaucer prepares the reader for the tale with his brief description of the wife in the Prologue. She is a skilled cloth-maker and devoted Christian pilgrim trips as well as several other shrines in different countries. The irony comes in when Chaucer adds that she is a gap-toothed woman in scarlet red leggings, who has been married five times. This description does not sum up with the image of a hard working, devoted Christian woman according to the doctrine of the church. Chaucer's physical description is important because it makes the Wife of Bath more acknowledged ; she reeks of feminine
The moral compass of mankind has always piqued the interest of authors. The Middle Ages was a time of immoral behavior, corrupt religious officials, and disregard of marital vows. Geoffrey Chaucer used The Canterbury Tales to explore his personal views of this dark time. In particular, he crafted “The Wife of Bath’s Tale,” “The Prioress’s Tale,” and “The Shipman’s Tale” to portray the tainted society, using women in all of them to bring forth his views. In The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer depicts women as immodest and conniving beings to suggest the moral corruption of the Middle Ages.
The Wife of Bath is portrayed as a strong-willed, alpha female. The Wife of Bath upholds the misogynistic ideas of Chaucer's time because she is a controlling, manipulative, know-it-all woman. Her personality and behavior both reflect the negative attributes that women were shamed for during that time. She is opinionated, dominate, and diabolical; all qualities that were not accepted easily in a woman. She defied the norm of that time.
Regularly characterized as monsters, women were ridiculed for being sexually unappeasable, lustful, and shrewish, and they were regarded with condescension by the church authorities. Similarly, people in the medieval era regarded multiple marriages as highly questionable, and it is for this reason that the Wife of Bath carefully examines the words of God as revealed in scripture (revealing her to be more than a simple-minded woman: a knowledge of religious texts proves she is definitely educated and well-read). She confesses that nowhere can she find a stricture against her having more than one marriage, and her five husbands are therefore her choice and hers only. “He seith to be wedded is no synne:/ Bet is to be wedded than to brynne”, she remarks humorously, drawing on the fact that by God’s permission, finding a partner through marriage is a pastime with little consequences, for it is better than engaging in sin and burning for it (50-53. 301). This begins her analysis of the bible and the often “sinful” breakdown of a sexual relationship between man and woman, and introduces her repetitive idea of the
The image of the woman in the Wife of Bath’s Prologue is depicted by Chaucer to be “barley wheat” in a town and civilization lusting for whole white wheat or virginity (Chaucer 1711). The woman has married many men and in doing so forgotten the true value of the Christian faith and now believes worldly influence can overpower the scriptures of the Bible, “can you show in plain words that Almighty God forbade us marriage? Or where did he command virginity?” (Chaucer 1709). Jackie Shead analyzes the prologue and states, “it begins by manipulating authoritative texts--a pre-emptive strike to justify the Wife's marital history and her single-minded pursuit of self-gratification” (Shead). The possibility of the Wife of B...
In Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, The Wife of Bath is a strong woman who loudly states her opinions about the antifeminist sentiments popular at the time. Chaucer, however, frequently discredits her arguments by making them unfounded and generally compromising her character. This brings into question Chaucer's political intent with the Wife of Bath. Is he supportive of her views, or is he making a mockery of woman who challenge the patriarchal society and its restriction and mistrust of women? The Wife's comedic character, frequent misquoting of authorities, marital infidelity, and her (as well as Chaucer's) own antifeminist sentiments weaken the argument that Chaucer supported of the Wife's opinions.
In The Canterbury Tales, written by Geoffrey Chaucer, the stereotypes and roles in society are reexamined and made new through the characters in the book. Chaucer discusses different stereotypes and separates his characters from the social norm by giving them highly ironic and/or unusual characteristics. Specifically, in the stories of The Wife of Bath and The Miller’s Tale, Chaucer examines stereotypes of women and men and attempts to define their basic wants and needs.
Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender. Los Angelos, CA: University of California Press, 1992. Print.
The Wife of Bath, with the energy of her vernacular and the voraciousness of her sexual appetite, is one of the most vividly developed characters of 'The Canterbury Tales'. At 856 lines her prologue, or 'preambulacioun' as the Summoner calls it, is the longest of any of the pilgrims, and matches the General Prologue but for a few lines. Evidently Chaucer is infatuated with Alisoun, as he plays satirically with both gender and class issues through the Wife's robust rhetoric. Scholars and students alike have continued this obsession with her, and as a consequence Chaucer's larger than life widow has been subject to centuries of scrutiny. Indeed, she is in the vast minority amongst the Canterbury bound pilgrims; apart from the in-vogue Prioress she is the only female - though she appears in no way daunted by the apparent inequality in numbers. It seems almost a crime to examine masculinity in her prologue and tale, but as I hope to show, there is much to learn both about the Wife and about Chaucer from this male presence.
As a man fascinated with the role of women during the 14th Century, or most commonly known as the Middle Ages, Chaucer makes conclusive evaluations and remarks concerning how women were viewed during this time period. Determined to show that women were not weak and humble because of the male dominance surrounding them, Chaucer sets out to prove that women were a powerful and strong-willed gender. In order to defend this argument, the following characters and their tales will be examined: Griselda from the Clerk's Tale, and the Wife of Bath, narrator to the Wife of Bath's Tale. Using the role of gender within the genres of the Canterbury Tales, exploring each woman's participation in the outcomes of their tales, and comparing and contrasting these two heroines, we will find out how Chaucer broke the mold on medievalist attitudes toward women.
One of the most interesting and widely interpreted characters in The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer is the Wife of Bath. She has had five different husbands and openly admits to marrying the majority of them for their money. The wife appears to be more outspoken and independent than most women of medieval times, and has therefore been thought to symbolize the cause of feminism; some even refer to her as the first actual feminist character in literature. Readers and scholars probably argue in favor of this idea because in The Canterbury Tales, she uniquely gives her own insight and opinions on how relations between men and women should be carried out. Also, the meaning of her tale is that virtually all women want to be granted control over themselves and their relationship with their husbands, which seems to convince people that the Wife of Bath should be viewed as some sort of revolutionary feminist of her time. This idea, however, is incorrect. The truth is that the Wife of Bath, or Alisoun, merely confirms negative stereotypes of women; she is deceitful, promiscuous, and clandestine. She does very little that is actually empowering or revolutionary for women, but instead tries to empower herself by using her body to gain control over her various husbands. The Wife of Bath is insecure, cynical towards men in general, and ultimately, a confirmation of misogynistic stereotypes of women.
The character of the Wife of Bath in Chaucer's The Wife of Bath's Prologue is a strong woman who knows what she wants from life. She is ahead of her time, seeing that women who portrayed themselves the way she does were not necessarily looked positively upon. In this sense, I believe that the Wife of Bath is a feminist. When I use the word feminist I do not mean bra-burning, men hating feminist. I mean a woman who is in touch with herself. She is her own genre when it comes to feminism. She is comfortable with her sexuality and what she wants from life. Through Chaucer, she is viewed as a promiscuous; however, she is actually in control of her sexual adventures.
The Wife of Bath is a complex character-she is different from the way she represents herself. Maybe not even what she herself thinks she is. On the surface, it seems as though she is a feminist, defending the rights and power of women over men. She also describes how she dominates her husband, playing on a fear that was common to men. From a point of view of a man during that time period, she seemed to illustrate all of the wrongs that men found in women. Such as a weak parody of what men, then saw as feminists. The Wife of Bath constantly emphasizes the negative implications of women throughout the ages. She describes women as greedy, controlling, and dishonest.
Chaucer, in his female pilgrimage thought of women as having an evil-like quality that they always tempt and take from men. They were depicted as untrustworthy, selfish and vain and often like caricatures not like real people at all. Through the faults of both men and women, Chaucer showed what is right and wrong and how one should live. Under the surface, however, lies a jaded look of women in the form that in his writings he seems to crate them as caricatures and show how they cause the downfall of men by sometimes appealing to their desires and other times their fears. Chaucer obviously had very opinionated views of the manners and behaviours of women and expressed it strongly in The Canterbury Tales. In his collection of tales, he portrayed two extremes in his prospect of women. The Wife of Bath represented the extravagant and lusty woman where as the Prioress represented the admirable and devoted followers of church. Chaucer delineated the two characters contrastingly in their appearances, general manners, education and most evidently in their behaviour towards men. Yet, in the midst of disparities, both tales left its readers with an unsolved enigma.
Women have the ability to get what they want, when they want it. Chaucer portrays the Wife of bath as the dominant person in her marriages. She looks at men as her trinkets to be used and played with. She moves from one man to another, always looking for more. The Wife of Bath is a control freak, wanting to have sex when she desires it and with whom she desires.