Rigby, S.H. “The Wife of Bath, Christine de Pizan and the Medieval Case for Women.” The Chaucer Review 35.2 (2001): 133-165

S.H. Rigby introduces two perspectives for reading Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale. One comes from the New Historicist point of view in which it is believed Chaucer intends for the reader to take the Wife’s defense of women seriously. “She is thus presented as a perceptive critic of misogynist orthodoxy who beats male scholars at their own game and creates her own authoritative position from which to speak in defense of her sex and to convince us of her views” (Rigby 133). The other point of view to approaching the Wife of Bath’s Tale comes from perspectives ranging from patristic to feminists, who believe that the Wife does not give acknowledgment to medieval stereotypes of women, rather she exemplifies the stereotype. Ultimately, Rigby brings the debate down to the problem as to who is actually speaking in the prologue of the Wife of Bath’s Tale. “Is it certain that Alisoun is the mouthpiece for Chaucer’s own views, or is there a gap between the Wife’s discourse and Chaucer’s own voice, one which allows us to see irony at work in her prolonged confession?” (Rigby 134). It is hard to come to an agreement on this question because a resolution among disagreement of critics seems to be a far off idea. Christine de Pizan put it best when she said, “You understand the book in one way, and I, quite the opposite. I don’t know why we are debating these questions so fully, for I do not believe that we will ne able to change each other’s opinion” ( Rigby 135).

Rigby approaches this argument by referring to the work of Christine, a feminist writer, which is suitable to the Wife of Bath’s Tale because of it’s rejection of misogyny, or mistreatment of women. Christine’s defense of women provides a standard as to how to judge the Wife’s behavior and further how to determine the seriousness of how to apprehend Alisoun’s attack on clerical misogyny. Rigby argues that the deviation of opinion between the Wife’s behavior and the behavior recommended to women by Christine becomes apparent in seven areas: “in her desire for first place at the church offering, in her motives for going on pilgrimage and for attending other religious occasions, in her manner of dress, in her attitudes to sex and marriage, as a widow and in her use of language” (Rigby 139).

The general prologue to the Wife of Bath’s Tale addresses the first two of the seven areas of behavior Christine addresses. The Wife is viewed as a sinful person by Christine because when attending church (a place free of sin) the Wife insists on being first in the offering, which shows her sin of pride. Second, the Wife goes on pilgrimages, vigils, sermons, weddings and procession but gives no other reason to go on them except that she wants other people to admire her fine dress. It was a common belief in medieval times that pilgrimages were a way of disguising illicit affairs on the part of women. Christine urges the acceptance of going on pilgrimages and other related trips, but these should be done “devoutly and humbly” (Rigby 140).According to Christine, the Wife is acting out of sin and wickedness, but Rigby tries to take less serious stance on the Wife’s actions in this instance.

Christine also looks at the description of the Wife’s manner of dress. Her overly elaborate style of showing off her status is “evidence that we are supposed to see her both as ‘conspicuously overdressed,’ a failing for which women were frequently castigated by medieval writers, and as morally wayward” (Rigby 140). Christine refers back to the sin of pride exemplified in the Wife’s need to be first in church offerings and offers a policy of moderation to women for style of dress.

Next, Christine depicts the Wife’s attitude towards marriage, sex and her position as a widow. The Wife has been married five times since she was 12 years old and also openly admits to have affairs. The Wife does not view sex as being a mortal sin when done outside of wedlock or for a reason other than for pro-creation, as something she will do as often as she pleases. Christine pits this against the idea that chastity is the main virtue of women. The Wife seems to be concerned with getting what she pleases and getting pleasure out of it. Before her fourth husband even passed away she had already lined up a fifth husband. The Wife marries him only a month after her fourth husband passes, showing very little respect or sympathy towards him.

Lastly, Christine addresses the language of the Wife. “Her chiding of her husbands, the sophistry with which she defends the superiority of women in marriage, and the frankness with which she refers to her sexual organs, to her skill in lying, her ability to trick her husbands into excusing themselves for offences which they had never committed and her love of gossip with her friends” (Rigby 147). Woman, from a misogynist point of view, are incapable of keeping a secret and therefore can not be trusted. The Wife exploits her husbands secrets, causing him to feel embarrassment and regret for having shared them with her. Christine urges women to have “controlled speech and subtle eloquence” (Rigby 148), which will help them maintain the sweet, calm and composed manner of a lady.

In conclusion, Rigby argues that the problem with the Wife of Bath’s Tale is how we tend to read it with a sympathetic view towards the Wife, which causes us to neglect the gap that exists between her behavior and that expected of the estate of women by medieval moralists. “We thus read the Wife’s defense of women literally rather than ironically, seeing her as a witty debunker of clerical misogyny rather than as a debunker who is herself being wittily debunked” (Rigby 151).

I don’t take the same stance as Christine does in her depiction of the Wife’s behavior. I don’t believe Chaucer to be a feminist, so I don’t think it is appropriate to read the Wife of Bath’s Tale from that perspective. I do think Rigby did a nice job of looking at Christine’s interpretation of the text and how a less serious reading of the tale could both be done. My favorite point of the article is when Rigby gives an alternative to the two point of views taken in reading the Wife’s tale, which is to remain indifferent to the opposing sides. Rigby stays close to the structure of Christine’s feminist reading of the Wife’s tale and does not offer much opinion of her own, so it is hard to determine where she stands on the argument. However, I think the article does give a good example on how a text can be interpreted.