From Riding the Black Ram: Law, Literature, and Gender by Susan Heinzelman

Chapter One: “Termes Queinte of Lawe” and Quaint Fantasies of Literature” Chaucer’s Man of Law and the Wife of Bath

This was an article that I didn’t end up using for my shorter paper, but one that I’ll likely use for my longer paper. In addition to the Wyf of Bath’s Tale, Heinzelman also talks about the Man of Law’s Tale as it relates to written auctoritee, lineage, and power. She notes that the Man of Law understands the tale of Constance to be authoritative because of it’s “association with antiquity” (6). It is written in the style of an oral narrative, reminiscent of stories told in the era before the printing press. It’s also in the style of a chivalric romance, an easily recognizable genre. 

Heinzelman argues, in part, that the Man of Law “fashions a nomos: a Christian romance, a tale of constancy, that asserts the immutability of Christian faith” (6). Part of what I’d like to address in my longer paper is this referencing of the “immutability” of Christian doctine as a way to render it unchangeable, nonnegotiable. Authors of narratives that appeal to Christian doctrine are, in a sense, tacking their stories onto a canonical source that, in the Christian tradition, is an immutable authority. I think this gives a helpful context to what the Wyf is doing in some of her Biblical references. Trouble is, she’s altering them, interpreting them incorrectly, and using them to support actions/thoughts the Bible doesn’t advocate. Is Chaucer highlighting the ability for readers to interpret texts? Does that highlight the patriarchal interpretation of the Bible in a critical way? Is Chaucer making fun of the Wyf and her poor interpretations?