Sara Walls
The Wife of Bath is a controversial character, perhaps the most controversial out of Geoffrey Chaucer’s pilgrim pantheon. Her fiercely radical ideology inherently falls outside the proposed, socially acceptable, established mode of thought, pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable within medieval society. This rejection of social norms is especially remarkable considering the Wife’s social status and gender. Through Mary Wolf’s dissertation, We Accept You, One of Us?: Punk Rock Community and Individualism in an Uncertain Era, 1974-1985, we come to understand that the difficultly-defined punk ethos is closely tied in philosophy to other progressive movements that empowered women and centered their experiences. Punk’s philosophical ties to second-wave feminism set the tone for how these same traits are expressed within the Wife’s character. Her intentional nose-thumbing and wicked parody of popular romantic tropes within her Tale boarder on the anarchic and mirror the rebellious qualities of punk, utilizing these irreverent qualities to maintain her position as a powerful married woman within medieval society. In The Canterbury Tales (1387-1400), the Wife of Bath subverts medieval expectations of married women by being individualistic and candid, by embracing non-conformity, and by holding a determined cynicism of societal authority. These antiestablishment qualities, tenants of the punk movement of the late twentieth century, characterize her as ultimately a feminist, proto-punk icon for the Middle Ages.
To understand The Wife, or Alisoun (or Alice as critics and scholars often call her), through the lens of punk she must be established as a feminist character. Wolf notes, “we must recognize that women in the subculture built upon not only important female predecessors in popular music but also social developments like second-wave feminism” (259). It is often argued that Alisoun is a feminist character in her own right, so the connection between feminism and punk is not a difficult one to make. Punk is “in many ways…an ‘anti’ movement: anti-hippie, anti-corporate establishment, anti-suburban middle class” (Wolf 11). This “anti” philosophy is therefore not hard to apply to Alisoun’s own divergent “anti’s”: anti-patriarchy, anti-perfection, anti-sexual suppression. Evidence of Alisoun’s ties to feminism are obvious, or at least ties to an argument of female empowerment, a goal of second-wave feminism. Specific to the music scene in the late twentienth century, punk worked to liberate and empower women within the scene, similar to how Alisoun worked to liberate and empower herself: “[T]he substratum of Alice’s argumentation is the morally revolutionary concept of sexual equality. She argues from equality in ‘debitum’ to equality in grace (in the ‘gentillesse’ passage), to equality in power, to equality in happiness” (Long 275). In fact, the arguments within her prologue are theorized to be “built up from a vast medieval repertoire of anti-feminist literature and debate” (Kolve and Olson 387). Some contemporary thinkers of the Middle Ages and before considered women to be preoccupied with vain, earthly matters, and they accused women of being jealous and shrew-like in such pursuits. One such thinker is Theophrastus (c. 371-287 BCE) in his Golden Book on Marriage, a text which vilified women and argued against the institution of marriage. Theophrastus categorized them as thoroughly vexing creatures who exist to torment the likes of men, making for a severe review of women altogether. (The work was, perhaps, actually written by St. Jerome in his treatise Against Jovinian [c. 393 CE], wherein Golden Book on Marriage was first published.) St. Jerome’s Against Jovinian is mentioned and discussed within the Wife’s prologue, which Alisoun categorizes as a “book of wikked wyves” (l. 685). The Wife goes on to critique the work, stating that “By God, if wommen hadde writen stories, / As clerkes han withinne hir oratories, / They wolde han writen of men more wikkednesse” (ll. 693-95). She orates a scathing review of St. Jerome’s work, reducing him to a clerk and dismissing his ideas as nothing more than baseless wickedness. The ideas presented by St. Jerome are directly addressed within her prologue, making the prologue an anti-patriarchy response to the abject misogyny displayed. This fierce reaction by Chaucer for Alisoun solidifies her as a feminist, or at least a pro-woman, anti-misogynist character. This characterization is additionally reinforced by the traditionalist reaction to her and Chaucer’s ideas by modern critics. Walter Long cites critic David Reid, in his commentary on Alisoun’s radical behaviors and ideas:
The last main idea held in common by traditionalists is that the Wife, in her “ludicrous” attempt to subvert the “natural” order, is immoral. Reid asserts this with a vengeance. Citing a “post-Coleridgean” “Romantic transvaluation of all values, by which cupidity becomes the root of all morality” through “the eternal feminine,” [Reid] claims that it is only by means of this perspective that the Wife’s immorality can be excused. But, he says, such a viewpoint “must be indeed hermetic” to find any “redeeming” virtues in the Wife. He argues that such a perspective is either extravagant irony, which holds that she is a special, irreducibly individual case, a “scandal,” except in her own terms, or it is “somehow crooked,” and should be dismissed. He dismisses it, suggesting that “Chaucer meant her for a bad lot” (275).
Reid’s reaction to Alisoun’s counter-culture ideas not only reduces her character to nothing more than an amoral simpleton, completely erasing her incredibly sharp intelligence; but to categorize Alisoun as “immoral” for subverting the “natural” order is to de-legitimize the entire female gender. Further, to define the “natural” order in such a way is to legitimize a male supremacy over women as a whole, a dangerous and archaic ideology. However, traditionalist reaction to Alisoun as radical and unnatural defines her character as being anti-traditionalist and therefore pro-feminist. Establishing Alisoun as a feminist allows us to contextualize her within the framework of twentieth-century punks. Utilizing ideology from progressive pro-woman movements, women in punk continues to subvert the traditional ideal much as Alisoun does within her prologue.
Alisoun’s individuality is shown in her personality and actions, which sometimes border on the selfish and self-obsessed. Similarly, focus on the self is key to the identity of those in the punk movement. Wolf states, “Generally punks can agree to the loose notion that ‘punk is an attitude/ individuality is the key.’ It was a yearning to be different, to distance oneself from the mainstream mass of society” (1). She explains that the punk ethos begins at the personal, revolving around what the singular participant does for the community and how they can challenge the mainstream through their individual action. The individuality Wolf mentions is evident within Alisoun’s behavior, especially when compared to the attitudes of women within the punk movement, who often “adopted outrageous stances that challenged traditional feminine roles” (259). One of the major ways we see this “[challenge of] traditional feminine roles” in Chaucer’s Wife is through her disregard of society’s judgement.
When we are first introduced to Alisoun in “The General Prologue” of The Canterbury Tales, a picture of a woman free of shame and self-consciousness is conjured from Chaucer’s description. She is described as: well-dressed, amply skilled— but not a tradeswoman—well-travelled, wealthy, proud, and ready for a good time. Alisoun appears to the reader almost larger than life and in deep contrast to the quiet and pious women in the pilgrim’s company. The two characteristics that stand out most strongly from her description are her deep pride and her love of “companye” (ll. 461). Chaucer describes her performative generosity in church:
In al the parisshe wyf ne was ther noon
That to the offering bifore hir sholde goon;
And if ther dide, certeyn so wrooth was she,
That she was out of alle charitee (ll. 449-52).[1]
Here it is described how angry she becomes if another wife within her parish went before her to the offering during church services. Here Alisoun’s pride eclipses her desire to conform to social norms, a selfish example of her individuality. The second characteristic is her love of “companye” (l. 461) Within the text Chaucer describes her as bold, fair, and red faced (l. 454); he continues describing her married life:
Housbondes at chirche dore she hadde five,
Withouten other companye in youthe—
But therof nedeth nat to speke as nouthe— […]
In felawschipe wel coude she laugh and carpe.
Of remedyes of love she knew per chaunce,
For she coude of that art the olde daunce (ll. 460-62; 474-76)
From this description the reader learns more about her past and some of her more salacious behaviors, specifically, the double-entendre of the word “daunce.” The proximity of the word coupled with the line above, “in felawshipe wel coude she laugh and carpe,” carries the obvious, surface-level meaning of an actual dance amongst people, in “fellowship” (“Interlinear,” “General”). But a more sexual double-meaning exists. When Chaucer writes, “Of remedyes of love she knew…” and follows with the mention of “that art the olde daunce,” a more sexual connotation arises. A few lines before Chaucer describes her as a married woman and curiously mentions, “Withouten [Not to mention] other companye in youthe” followed by an aside to the reader translated to “But there is no need to speak of that right now” (“Interlinear,” “General”). This mention of “companye” by Chaucer is an allusion to extramarital affairs, or at the very least romantic dalliances in her youth, and, as Paul Olson notes, female sexual desire was heavily suppressed and deemed sinful (99). Embracing her sexuality and pride goes against the accepted behaviors of the time, which adds another aspect to her individuality.
The Wife continues to display her unapologetic individualism through the treatment of her husbands. Within her prologue she continuously regales her dominant experiences and preaches the need for women to hold “sovereyntee” (l. 1038), over men, specifically within marriage:
An housbonde I wol have, I wol nat lette,
Which shal be bothe my dettour and my thral,
And have his tribulacioun withal
Upon his flessh, whyl that I am his wyf.
I have the power duringe al my lyf
Upon his propre body, and noght he. (ll. 154-159)
Alisoun’s dominance, emphasized by her words “an housbonde…shal be bothe my dettour and my thral [slave],” demonstrates a power imbalance, which is evident not only in her decision making, as she proclaims with her argument for “sovereyntee,” but financial matters as well. Dolores Palomo posits that “Medieval Christianity extol[s] the virtue of virginity while the social order forced upon women the necessity of marriage,” which causes “an increasingly money-conscious society [transforming] marriage into commercial arrangement at the expense of sexual and emotional values” (305). Alisoun displays “shrewish” behavior toward her husbands by “feign[ing] satisfaction and abandon[ing] her search for sexual fulfillment. [She] triumphs in marital bickering, gossiping, skittering after social diversion, grasping for money and luxuries” (Palomo 307). The connection between general martial dissatisfaction and the abuse of her martial privileges are certainly evident. These kind of selfish acts, or at least selfish (perhaps even sinful) by medieval standards, indicate Alisoun’s dismissal of medieval social ethics and creates a character that is far more interested in assuming power within her relationships than following contemporary moral and ethical codes. The focus upon her own success rather than the socially-prescribed, traditional need to be an obedient wife exemplifies how individual she truly is.
A third aspect of Alisoun’s individuality is her clear independence. Abandonment of the fear of unescorted travel plays an important role for women within punk. Wolf notes that “In addition to being scene-makers, women in punk asserted their power and broke new ground by claiming street culture for themselves. Both literally and figuratively, the ‘street’ traditionally has been seen as male terrain…urban streets [were seen] as grimy, dangerous, and debasing,” similar to the reputation of roads in medieval Europe (282-83). Wolf continues, “In [the] dominant mainstream take, women should be sheltered from the life of the street. And good girls certainly did not seek out street culture. In contrast, punk women embraced street life, actively inserting themselves into it” (283). This independence of punk women to embrace the street, or road, and travel without an escort parallels Alison’s own independence to move freely throughout the continent. In “The General Prologue,” the Wife is described as travelling all over Europe:
And thryes hadde she been at Jerusalem.
She hadde passed many a straunge streem:
At Rome she hadde been, and at Boloigne,
In Galice at Seint Jame, and at Coloinge;
She coude muchel of wandringe by the weye. (ll. 463-67)
Despite travelling to Canterbury within a group, the Wife travels alone, without a personal companion or husband. Additionally, Chaucer’s distinct mention of her knowledge “of wanderinge by the weye” implies she not only travels internationally alone, but also seems to take her time and has worthy experience in “wandering.” Women often avoided roads, as they were dangerous. Highway men or ruffians often preyed upon travelers, robbing, raping, and usually murdering them. As a singular woman Alisoun would make an easy target. The implication that she travels all these places unaccompanied is evident to her independence (and bravery), as she trusts herself to stay safe and avoid such dangers rather than relying upon the added security of a man to escort her. These three attributes showcase Alisoun’s individualism. She “fights to be a human self,” Palomo states, and “we cannot decide whether [Chaucer] has created a bad example of intemperate womanhood or a woman admirable in herself affirmation against the constrictions of medieval society” (317). This observation typifies the same argument held about women in the early punk; embracing individuality moves the Wife of Bath outside of society.
In addition to valuing her individuality, Alisoun is extraordinarily candid, almost scandalously so. Candor also was highly valued and encouraged within the punk movement: “[Y]oung people could be sincerely genuine in expressing their emotions” (Wolf 5). Such emotional outbursts would exemplify the culture, from angry, explosive musical acts, to being politically vocal, or projecting contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism. Alisoun certainly embraces this aspect; her entire prologue is a verbal manifesto on the rights of wives and a detailed recounting of her risqué adventures in marriage. The candor displayed by Alisoun is often translated by critics as example of “her bawdy and raucous character” (Pugh 115), not, as Long would write, an example of Alice, the “master rhetorician,” and Alice, the “wys woman.” He goes on to state, “the Wife displays extraordinary argumentative ability, exemplified in her[…] marriage ‘debitum’ […], in her drawing of fine distinctions (as between apostolic precept and counsel), and in her sarcasm (for example, against friars)” (273). Long’s statements are demonstrated in her prologue, most predominantly when she discusses her husbands. Alisoun says,
How pitously a-night I made hem swinke,
And by my fey, I tolde of it no stor.
They had me yeven hir lond and hir tresoor;
Me neded nat do lenger diligence
To winne hir love, or doon hem reverence. (ll. 202-06)
Openly mocking her husbands, Alisoun confesses to a group of strangers, predominantly men, that she took their “lond [land] and…tersoor [wealth].” Her use of the word “swinke” in connection to “a-night” also lends a sexual connotation. The implication she seduced her husbands out of house and home would have been revolting to her companions. She continues by detailing the abuses she made against her husbands, “I governed hem so wel after my lawe / […] I chidde hem spitously” (ll. 219; 23). This excerpt typifies her treatment of her spouses, or how she “maintained the upper hand” within their unions (Palomo 306).
The candor within her speech intensifies as she openly discusses her sexual appetites. Throughout her prologue the reader gathers a very clear picture of how the Wife sees her own sexual prowess and how she embodies her sexuality, eventually “proclaiming her natural lustiness and announcing her disdain for status in choosing a mate. Short or tall, black or white, poor or wealthy, of low rank or high –no matter to her as long as she is pleased” (Palomo 309). Her attitude, however, changes with the entrance of her last, or rather most recent, husband, Jankyn, of whom she professes to the pilgrims:
God lete his soule nevere come in helle!
And yet was he to me the moste shrewe.
That fele I on my ribbes al by rewe,
And evere shal unto myn ending day.
But in our bed he was so fresh and gay. (ll. 504-08)
Regardless of her love for her fifth husband, these innuendo-laden expressions and outright confessions press the boundaries of social norms. Relating the intimate details of her love life, regarding Jankyn’s “shrewe”-like behavior within their union, creates an uncomfortable mix of confession, conflict, and reminiscence. Diametrically opposite behaviors, care and violence, showcase how she “exploits to the hilt the masculine fear of female sexuality” by speaking so openly about it (Long 276). Where some critics use these statements to attack her “immoral” character, others reference “her long speech…as another example of her aggressive self-defensiveness. When thwarted, she hits back with whatever is handy” (Palomo 306). Palomo suggests a picture of a wild creature pushed into a corner by the atrocities of the patriarchal society rather than a tight-fisted shrew, but however Alisoun’s words are politicized, the truth of her words can only be characterized as outspoken and indeed candid. Such frankness fits well into the expressive qualification Wolf puts forth regarding the punk movement: Alisoun is indeed “sincerely genuine in expressing [her] emotions” and unabashedly speaking her mind regardless of the content or her audience (5).
Alisoun’s brazen individualism and bright candor forms a strong base for another characteristic, her drastic opposition to social conformity. This notion in particular was very important to the punks, as “the [punk] ethos grew out of a deep sense of boredom with mainstream popular culture. The subculture celebrated effort and sincerity over professionalism and polish; it called for people to do it now rather than wait to be able do it perfectly” (Wolf 4). The deviation from conformity is most evident in Alisoun’s rejection of medieval religious perfection. Donald Howard addresses how the Wife “attempts to undermine the medieval idea of perfection.” He finds:
“Perfection” was, in short, a relative term. […] Accordingly, in the various means by which perfection could be cultivated—poverty, virginity, prayer, and so on—there were degrees or grades.
This principle of grades underlies the medieval attitude toward marriage. There were three grades of chastity—marriage, widowhood, and virginity; these were said to produce various rates of return […]. In this way the Pauline view that it is better to marry than to burn (I Cor. 7:9) was developed into a system where marriage was an allowable and righteous state but less meritorious than widowhood or virginity. […] And on such grounds Augustine had written that, although remarriage was not condemned, it was more desirable for a widow not to remarry. (225)
Alisoun does not follow this doctrine of perfection but instead rejects it, continuing to re-marry for her own gain and seeming to play a game of moral mathematics to justify her “imperfection.” She calls into question the logic of needing to strive for virginity:
For hadde God commanded maydenhede,
Thanne hadde he dampned wedding with the dede.
And certes, if ther were no seed y-sowe,
Virginitee, thane wherof sholde it growe? […]
But this word is nat take of every wight,
But ther as God list give it of his might. […]
Al nis but conseil to virginitee (ll. 69-72; 77-78; 82)
Her reaction to popular doctrine about this subject is a clear deviation from the social norm, calling out these teachings with her statement, “Al nis but conseil to viginitee”, which translates to, “All is nothing but advice to adopt virginity” (“Interlinear,” “Wife”), as virginity propaganda. Questioning religious doctrine, and socially accepted truths about how to achieve “perfection” or rather holiness and godliness, further supports her opposition to these kinds of social rules.
Alisoun’s blatant snubbing of medieval social order is shown also in her way of dress. Within “The General Prologue” we see her dressed in defiance of her social class, and the appropriation of clothing is similarly central to the “punk sensibility.” Wolf describes the phenomenon as a “love affair with pastiche” (5). Drawing from postmodern ideas, punks parodied various aspects of high and lowbrow culture to “Frankenstein” their image. Alisoun exhibits the same kind of parodying in her own dress; Chaucer describes her as wearing:
Hir covercheifs ful fyne were of ground;
I dorste swere they weyeden ten pound
That on a Sonday weren upon hir heed.
Hir hosen weren of fyn scarlet reed,
Ful streite y-tyed, and shoos ful moiste and newe. (ll. 453-57)
Chaucer’s description of her garments adds important context to Alisoun’s character. During the Middle Ages social class ruled society, and garments were an expression of someone’s class and occupation. Often, garments, such a veils and wimples of fine cloth, and clothing dyes directly indicated a person’s status. Alisoun is here described as wearing clothing of an upper-class lady (“fyne…covercheifs” and “reed…hosen”), even someone of royal importance or belonging to the nobility at that time (Piponnier and Mane 71). Although wealthy, the Wife is not, of course, nobility. Chaucer describes her as a (talented) seamstress along with her position of “wyf.” Her lack of breeding and manners would also be a clear indication of her social status. The pastiche of clothing and behavior is overt, as she appears in the costume of the elite but displays manners of someone of far less repute. The image also is quite scandalous, and it aligns Chaucer’s character even more with the socially deviant image of punk when we consider that Alisoun’s manner of dress is in fact breaking the law. Sumptuary laws prohibiting English subjects from dressing outside of their own social class were first passed by Edward III under his reign (1312-1377), ten years before Chaucer began writing The Canterbury Tales (Piponnier and Mane 83).
Alisoun’s mockery of the law and those outside of her social class indicates her determined cynicism toward societal authority. For punks, their expression was “often tinged with irony because – especially in early punk – they did not believe that society would change for the better. […] Punk rock was one of the many ways in which Americans reconfigured community as they lost faith in authority figures, including politicians, the church, and their elders” (Wolf 5, 8). This “lost faith” is evident within Alisoun’s prologue, especially in reference to the church and her elders; she spends much of her prologue challenging their authority within society. She first takes issue with “the notion that virginity, being a higher state than marriage, should be held up as an ideal of conduct” (Howard 224), and puts forth the argument,
By expres worde? I pray you, telleth me.
Or where commanded he viginitee? […]
Men may conseille a womman to been oon,
But conseilling is no comandement. (61-62, 66-67)
Bringing the reader and pilgrim’s attention to this religious and social disconnect highlights her cynicism and lack of faith by arguing that “advice is no commandment” (“Interlinear,” “Wife”); it is a reminder to her audience that “the highest counsel of perfection is virginity but…not everyone is expected to follow it” (Howard 224). Alisoun’s reminder questions the rather unequal standards for men and women within medieval society, where men are not held to the standard of virginity. (Whether this standard originates from the ‘sins of eve’ argument or a convenient advantage exploited by the socially powerful, the patriarchy, is yet to be addressed). This inconsistency regarding the standards of virginity appears in the Wife’s thoughts surrounding marriage. She addresses the problem of marriage within the Bible, the same doctrine which bade her cling to perfection, using the story of Cana of Galilee and the Samaritan and King Solomon’s wives:
But that I axe, why that the fifthe man
Was noon housbond to the Samaritan?
How manye might she have in marriage? […]
Lo, here the wyse king, daun Salomon;
I trowe he hadde wyves mo than oon.
As wolde God it leveful were unto me
To be refresshed half so ofte as he! (ll. 21-23; 35-38)
Alisoun’s examination of the Bible and how and when it’s used to police social behavior stems from an intelligent reading of the original text, which demonstrates Alisoun’s independence of thought. This facet of her character has often been overlooked: “Most critics […] privilege the ‘wys woman’ aspect of Alice’s persona over the ‘rhetorician.’ That is, they subsume her rational argumentative side under her supposed avaricious nature. In doing so, they” align themselves with the “traditional patriarchal” line of thought (Long 273).
An unconventional but timely way the Wife subverts societal expectations is her appropriation of confession. The concept of “confessional” is a part of “The sacrament of confession [that] serves the Church and its representatives as a technique of power and control, but it also serves the individuals who confess” (Root 254). Alisoun takes and misuses the “authority” of the church by using the pilgrims as her priest. “In her case, it is a question of an unauthorized use of authorities and of manipulating sacramental confession to her own needs, taking it outside the ‘way’ of salvation and into the marketplace” (Root 254). This kind of selfish confessional is seen in her prologue as she challenges the authority of the church in its knowledge and teachings, as well as flaunts her subversion of her husbands. Jerry Root continues, stating, “her confession is both an appropriation of the word and a lesson in interpretation. She voluntarily, indeed, strategically, reveals her ‘privetee’ as a way to control and manipulate the conditions of representation” (255). In this selfish co-option, a well-established mode of communication and repentance is truly turned on its head. The Wife of Bath’s misappropriation of confessional practice is further evidence to her more radical and antiestablishment character. She completely disregards the authority of the church, who at that time held supreme power over many aspects of life. Considering these actions, and the “breaking [of] ‘traditional boundaries’ of her society, Alice [proves to be an] Dionysian iconoclast, a ‘muraloclast’ (one who tears down walls). Yet at the same time that she is destroying, she is beginning to build, in Apollonian fashion, a new moral paradigm” (Long 275). This radical embodiment of traits perfectly frames Alisoun’s iconoclastic and anti-patriarchal characteristics as fitting into the punk mold.
While Alisoun’s “equalitarian idea is a scandal… that does not necessarily make it immoral” (Long). This view of Alisoun as “equalitarian moral revolutionary accomplishes a unification of the text which cannot be accomplished from within the framework of the conservative, or patriarchal, critical tradition.” (Long 282), which is plainly evident from Reid’s traditionalist commentary. Alisoun’s radical “muraloclastic” perspective aligns with that of women within punk, fully embodying the philosophical ideologies behind the culture as put forth by Mary Wolf. Through defying social norms, relentlessly questioning authority, taking back power within her relationships and parodying the upper classes; she is a chaotic powerhouse willing to break rules and utilize whatever tools she has at her disposal to achieve her goals. Fierce cunning and bold bravado typify the punk spirit, truly categorizing her as an icon for the Middle Ages.
Works Cited
“The General Prologue.” “Interlinear,” https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/teachslf/gp-par.htm.
Howard, Donald R. “The Conclusion of the Marriage Group Chaucer and the Human Condition.” Modern Philology, vol. 57, no. 4, 1960, pp. 223–232. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/435365.
“Interlinear Translations of Some of The Canterbury Tales.” The Geoffrey Chaucer Page. Harvard University, 8 Apr. 2008, sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/teachslf/tr-index.htm.
Kolve, V. A., and Glending Olson, editors. The Canterbury Tales: Seventeen Tales and the General Prologue: by Geoffrey Chaucer. Norton Critical Edition, 3rd ed., Norton, 2018.
Long, Walter C. “The Wife as Moral Revolutionary.” The Chaucer Review, vol. 20, no. 4, 1986, pp. 273–284. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25093965.
McTaggart, Anne. “What Women Want? Mimesis and Gender in Chaucer’s ‘Wife of Bath’s Prologue’ and ‘Tale.’” Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture, vol. 19, 2012, pp. 41–67. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41925333.
Olson, Paul A. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Meaning of Court Marriage.” ELH, vol. 24, no. 2, 1957, pp. 95–119. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2871824.
Palomo, Dolores. “The Fate of the Wife of Bath’s ‘Bad Husbands.’” The Chaucer Review, vol. 9, no. 4, 1975, pp. 303–319. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25093320.
Pugh, Tison. “Queering Genres, Battering Males: The Wife of Bath’s Narrative Violence.”
Journal of Narrative Theory, vol. 33, no. 2, 2003, pp. 115–142. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30225785.
Piponnier Françoise, and Perrine Mane. Dress in the Middle Ages. Yale UP, 1997.
Root, Jerry. “‘Space to Speke’: The Wife of Bath and the Discourse of Confession.” The Chaucer Review, vol. 28, no. 3, 1994, pp. 252–274. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25095848.
Turrini, Joseph M. “‘Well I Don’t Care About History’: Oral History and the Making of Collective Memory in Punk Rock.” Notes, vol. 70, no. 1, 2013, pp. 59–77., www.jstor.org/stable/43672697.
“The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale.” “Interlinear,” https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/teachslf/wbt-par.htm.
Wolf, Mary Montgomery. We Accept You, One of Us?: Punk Rock, Community, and Individualism In an Uncertain Era, 1974-1985. 2008. https://doi.org/10.17615/e26e-6m88.
Works Consulted
Blogging, P.I.S., and P.I.S. Blogging. “Common Punk Rock Ideologies and Philosophies.” Punx In Solidarity, 15 Sept. 2013, punxinsolidarity.com/2013/11/02/common-punk-rock-ideologies-and-philosophies/.
Brunne, Robert de. Handlyng Synne. Edited by Idelle Sullens, Binghampton, 1986.
Dunn, Kevin C. “Never Mind the Bollocks: The Punk Rock Politics of Global Communication.”
Review of International Studies, vol. 34, 2008, pp. 193–210. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20542757.
Hannerz, Erik. Performing Punk. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
Harding, Vanessa. “Families in Later Medieval London: Sex, Marriage and Mortality.” Medieval Londoners: Essays to Mark the Eightieth Birthday of Caroline M. Barron, edited by Elizabeth A. New and Christian Steer, U of London P, 2019, pp. 18–26. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc16qcm.10.
Merryfield, Stephanie C. “Chaucer’s Most Nimble Feat: Reproof of Anti-Feminist Theology in The Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” IU South Bend Undergraduate Research Journal 12 (2012): 14-16,https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/iusburj/article/view/19651/25735.
Oberembt, Kenneth J. “Chaucer’s Anti-Misogynist Wife of Bath.” The Chaucer Review, vol. 10, no. 4, 1976, pp. 287–302. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25093359.
Reid, David S. “Crocodilian Humor: A Discussion of Chaucer’s Wife of Bath.” The Chaucer Review, vol. 4, no. 2, 1969, pp. 73–89. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25093113. Accessed 27 Nov. 2020.
Ribeiro, Aileen. Dress and Morality. Berg Publishers, 2006.
The Slits. Cut, Ridge Farm Studios, 1979.
Thomas, Susanne Sara. “The Problem of Defining ‘Sovereynetee’ in the ‘Wife of Bath’s Tale.’”
The Chaucer Review, vol. 41, no. 1, 2006, pp. 87–97. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25094342.
Trevelyan, George Macaulay. Illustrated English Social History, vol. 1. Longmans, Green, 1949.
Walker, David. “The Punk Art of Failure: The Mekons and Ideology.” Scalar: Alliance for Networking Visual Culture, 2 Nov. 2015, https://scalar.usc.edu/works/the-punk-art-of-failure/index.
Zhang, Lu. “The Wife of Bath: Feminist or Antifeminist?” The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology, vol. 1, no. 10, 31 Dec. 2019, pp. 77–81., doi: 10.25236/FSST.2019.011007.
[1] It is important to note that Chaucer’s “chairitee” and charity for the use of this essay hold different meanings. “Chairitee” for Chaucer’s purpose translates as outward love, most directly “Love for her neighbor” (“Interlinear,” “General”), whereas the modern use of charity as utilized within this essay is defined, in the Oxford English Dictionary, as “without any specially Christian associations: Love, kindness, affection, natural affection: now esp. with some notion of generous or spontaneous goodness” (2. a.) or “as manifested in action: spec. alms-giving” (4. b.).