“As much as May conforms to the anti-feminist stereotype of
the treacherous woman, Chaucer’s presentation of her also
invites our sympathy”
Certainly, May can be said to conform to the anti-feminist trope of a deceitful
women (she subverts medieval orthodoxy through a rejection of her husband’s
wishes), inviting sympathy from a modern feminist readership; perhaps,
sympathy is solicited due to the endemic medieval literary tradition of misogyny
to which The merchant tale subscribes, as exemplified by Bertrand H. Bronson’s view
of the tale as ‘another piece of anti-feminist japery’. Alternatively however, one could argue that a
medieval audience’s sympathy for May would be limited due to her sexual transgression, as Chaucer
capitalised on contemporary medieval fears of sexually autonomous women.
Moreover, Chaucer’s presentation of the sexually potent May could instead invite contempt for May
(rather than sympathy), due to the medieval male fear of cuckholding; her adulterous affair with
Damyan, reminiscent of the biblical legacy of treacherous women first established with Eve’s
temptation which was reinforced by prominent religious figures like St Jerome, would invite disdain
from Chaucer’s contemporaries. For example, the rhyming couplet of “laste” and “caste” in the line
where May discards Dayman’s evocative letter of courtly love as “she rente it al to cloutes atte laste
(tore it all to pieces at the last), and in the pryvee softely it caste (threw it)” connotes the deliberate
impact of her treachery-January’s emasculation where he is “woxen blind”-, inviting an
unsympathetic reprimand for May from a medieval audience. Furthermore, Chaucer’s presentation
of her could indeed invite sympathy, but for January instead of May, as certainly the voice of the
usually embittered Merchant seems sympathetic to January’s plight of being “biraft hym bothe his
yen (deprived of both eyes)” through an anaphora of histrionic apostrophising “O thou Fortune
unstable!”, “O brotil joye-brittle joy! O sweete venym queynte (deceitful)!” when his blind fate,
possibly due to May’s infidelity, is revealed ; May’s sexually lascivious nature may be undeserving of
sympathy for a medieval audience, due to the deliberate destructive impact on January who now,
exemplified through hyperbolic emotive language, “desireth he to dye” and “wepeth and he wayleth
pitously”. Perhaps this lack of sympathy towards the adulterous presentation of May who “assures
To love hym (Damian) best of any creature, Though he namoore hadde than his sherte” is influenced
by what Marion Wynne-Davies illuminates as “the moral dualism that prevailed in the medieval
Church’s image of women: ‘the cult of the Virgin Mary ran parallel with a powerful attack on female
sexuality.’ Arguably, the presentation of May as contrary to January’s idealised conception of
wifedom, connoted through rhetorical questioning ( “For who kan be so buxom (obedient)
as a wyf?) and internal rhyme( “She seith nat ones "nay," Do this," seith he; "Al
redy, sire," seith she”), invites an unsympathetic scornful attitude towards May
from a medieval audience. Her colloquial refusal to embody the revered
medieval values of chastity and attentive subservience, symbolised by the
sexually vulgar imagery of “and Sodeynly anon this Damyan Gan pullen up the
smok, and in he throng”, invites a lack of sympathy due to her status of
unconformity to what Wynne-Davies identifies as “the virgin Mary” ideal of
femininity in Chaucer’s time; a biblical conceit reinforced even in the popular
poems of La Roman de la Rose, which Chaucer used as a source for the
Merchant’s tale.
Alternatively however, it could equally be argued that though May being a treacherous woman could
invite an unsympathetic sense of reproach from a medieval audience, because of The Merchant’s
tale genre conventions conforming to bawdy fabliau -where sexual misdemeanours are ripe for
satire-, her promiscuous portrayal could invite a coarsely comical element (instead of sympathy) due
to the scatological humour. As Jane Barnard-Smith aptly puts forth, “The motif of deceitful woman is
the treacherous woman, Chaucer’s presentation of her also
invites our sympathy”
Certainly, May can be said to conform to the anti-feminist trope of a deceitful
women (she subverts medieval orthodoxy through a rejection of her husband’s
wishes), inviting sympathy from a modern feminist readership; perhaps,
sympathy is solicited due to the endemic medieval literary tradition of misogyny
to which The merchant tale subscribes, as exemplified by Bertrand H. Bronson’s view
of the tale as ‘another piece of anti-feminist japery’. Alternatively however, one could argue that a
medieval audience’s sympathy for May would be limited due to her sexual transgression, as Chaucer
capitalised on contemporary medieval fears of sexually autonomous women.
Moreover, Chaucer’s presentation of the sexually potent May could instead invite contempt for May
(rather than sympathy), due to the medieval male fear of cuckholding; her adulterous affair with
Damyan, reminiscent of the biblical legacy of treacherous women first established with Eve’s
temptation which was reinforced by prominent religious figures like St Jerome, would invite disdain
from Chaucer’s contemporaries. For example, the rhyming couplet of “laste” and “caste” in the line
where May discards Dayman’s evocative letter of courtly love as “she rente it al to cloutes atte laste
(tore it all to pieces at the last), and in the pryvee softely it caste (threw it)” connotes the deliberate
impact of her treachery-January’s emasculation where he is “woxen blind”-, inviting an
unsympathetic reprimand for May from a medieval audience. Furthermore, Chaucer’s presentation
of her could indeed invite sympathy, but for January instead of May, as certainly the voice of the
usually embittered Merchant seems sympathetic to January’s plight of being “biraft hym bothe his
yen (deprived of both eyes)” through an anaphora of histrionic apostrophising “O thou Fortune
unstable!”, “O brotil joye-brittle joy! O sweete venym queynte (deceitful)!” when his blind fate,
possibly due to May’s infidelity, is revealed ; May’s sexually lascivious nature may be undeserving of
sympathy for a medieval audience, due to the deliberate destructive impact on January who now,
exemplified through hyperbolic emotive language, “desireth he to dye” and “wepeth and he wayleth
pitously”. Perhaps this lack of sympathy towards the adulterous presentation of May who “assures
To love hym (Damian) best of any creature, Though he namoore hadde than his sherte” is influenced
by what Marion Wynne-Davies illuminates as “the moral dualism that prevailed in the medieval
Church’s image of women: ‘the cult of the Virgin Mary ran parallel with a powerful attack on female
sexuality.’ Arguably, the presentation of May as contrary to January’s idealised conception of
wifedom, connoted through rhetorical questioning ( “For who kan be so buxom (obedient)
as a wyf?) and internal rhyme( “She seith nat ones "nay," Do this," seith he; "Al
redy, sire," seith she”), invites an unsympathetic scornful attitude towards May
from a medieval audience. Her colloquial refusal to embody the revered
medieval values of chastity and attentive subservience, symbolised by the
sexually vulgar imagery of “and Sodeynly anon this Damyan Gan pullen up the
smok, and in he throng”, invites a lack of sympathy due to her status of
unconformity to what Wynne-Davies identifies as “the virgin Mary” ideal of
femininity in Chaucer’s time; a biblical conceit reinforced even in the popular
poems of La Roman de la Rose, which Chaucer used as a source for the
Merchant’s tale.
Alternatively however, it could equally be argued that though May being a treacherous woman could
invite an unsympathetic sense of reproach from a medieval audience, because of The Merchant’s
tale genre conventions conforming to bawdy fabliau -where sexual misdemeanours are ripe for
satire-, her promiscuous portrayal could invite a coarsely comical element (instead of sympathy) due
to the scatological humour. As Jane Barnard-Smith aptly puts forth, “The motif of deceitful woman is
