Blockchain Papers

Leah Otis-Cour

No single aspect of the Franklin's Tale has stirred more controversy than the larger issue of the fundamental nature of the work. Is the Franklin's Tale an ode to a marriage of true minds, a fabliau in romance clothing, or a work revealing how Chaucer, despite the best of intentions, failed to liberate himself from the ambient male chauvinism of the late Middle Ages? Although the first and most positive reading has been defended passionately by some—from George Kittredge a century ago, to Gerald Morgan and Jill Mann more recently—negative interpretations have dominated in the last decades, stoked by the fuel of gender issue analysis; the tale has been deemed an “insupportable fiction of prosperity,” and Arveragus accused of “pimping” his wife.1Relying on arguments drawn both from the historical context of the tale and from a critical analysis of Chaucer's use and modification of his sources, I affirm in this paper that the Franklin's Tale is indeed an encomium to the loving, “companionate marriage” of Dorigen and Arveragus.2 By sources (or analogues), I mean not only the Menedon question in Boccaccio's Filocolo, long recognized as the principal origin of the plot, and the Decameron version of that story, which Chaucer may possibly have known,3 but, in addition, a hitherto unrecognized inspiration, the Consaus d'amours, a thirteenth-century French art d'aimer (art of love) attributed to Richard de Fournival.4 An ecclesiastic whose oeuvre included both lyric and didactic works devoted to the love relationship, Richard is best known for his very popular Bestiaire d'amour.5 While no contemporary account links Chaucer to Richard, we know that the works of the latter were often preserved in manuscripts that also included the Roman de la Rose, which was well known, well used, and translated by Chaucer.6 Thus the manuscript tradition reinforces the hypothesis, based principally on textual evidence, that Chaucer knew the Consaus. It is from this text, I argue, that Chaucer has borrowed the fundamental dichotomies that underlie the tale: the contrast between the true lover (Arveragus) and the false lover (Aurelius), and that between franquise (in marriage) and dete (in adultery). It is through the use of these dichotomies that Chaucer has transformed the story from a casuistic jeu-parti (as in the Menedon question) or a fabliauesque narrative (as in the Decameron) into a veritable ode to married love lived “in blisse and in solas” (V 802), extolling “The joye, the ese, and the prosperitee/That is bitwixe an housbonde and his wyf” (V 804–5),7 the very qualities found in the true love relationship described by Richard de Fournival: “soulas, joie, confort, aaise et grant bien” (VI.12).But let us begin by exploring what the historical context can tell us about Dorigen and Arveragus's marriage agreement, from which all maistrie is excluded.8 The historical context is of course two-dimensional, for one must take into consideration not only the late medieval world that Chaucer and his audience knew, but also the pre-Christian “twilight world” in which the characters of the tale evolve.9 Distancing the story from the medieval present is indeed Chaucer's innovation, for the Boccaccian tales are set more or less in contemporary Italy. But Chaucer's two worlds are not hermetically sealed off. Although the tale deals with “hethen folk” (V 1293), many of the customs and values presented in it (such as chivalry) were perfectly compatible with the world of the medieval present.10 The same may be said of the marriage of Arveragus and Dorigen, which has often been deemed “implausible” or an “unattainable ideal,”11 possible only in such an imaginary past, as it was a “revolutionary” step and a relationship of a “radically different type” compared to late medieval marriages.12 David Aers has emphasized the distance between the “utopian aspirations” of the couple and the “orthodox” Christian emphasis on a strictly hierarchical marriage; the famous Pauline passage making the husband the head of the wife could hardly be qualified as an invitation to reciprocity!13Late medieval thinking on marriage was, however, far from monolithic, and many late medieval preachers and theologians preferred to discreetly elude the Pauline text in favor of an “equitable” exegesis of traditional biblical passages concerning marriage.14 Thus the creation of woman as narrated in Genesis was glossed as a model of parity: God created Eve from the rib of Adam precisely in order to advocate reciprocity, designating Eve as Adam's partner (socia) rather than his servant (ancilla), for had God intended her to be subservient, he would have created her from Adam's foot rather than his side.15 Much romance literature, too, from the thirteenth century onwards, extols the virtues of reciprocity in love and marriage.16 And most important of all, contemporary documents at the end of the Middle Ages—notarial records, journals, conjugal correspondence—show that a reciprocal relationship between spouses was indeed put into practice in daily life.17 So we can safely conclude that Arveragus and Dorigen's marriage agreement, far from constituting a naive pipe dream appropriate only to a twilight world, was indeed a model of conjugal relations familiar to Chaucer's readers/listeners, practiced as well as preached in the late medieval world.18 It is no insult to Chaucer to affirm that the views he presented were in fact quite commonplace. It is the marvelous way he treated them, not their supposedly revolutionary character, that attests to his creative imagination.Again, historical context can help to counter arguments that this “ideal marriage” was a hypocrisy from the start, with Arveragus's deepest desire being, according to some critics, to maintain the upper hand vis-à-vis is based principally on a of the passage of the tale concerning and that the of he have for of his passage to be as Arveragus's desire to his despite the fact that it has been that the to the in between Dorigen and in many medieval works the in which Richard de to a Dorigen is (V that Arveragus hardly her at this for his (V marriage can be as the to that of the this is a that could have in the past, and it was also one that and was in the late medieval world, not only in of the but also in marriage was indeed a of for the woman in question was an It was not for a to a to the and to her of of couple with the the husband to to a of and a in than the couple had the audience was well of this as was Chaucer in for he himself had such a and audience were too, of the of that could be at in a familiar in and in was that these were It is for this that Chaucer on the fact that the marriage in the Franklin's Tale is and that the couple be in Arveragus's with his he to his his (V in his that Arveragus has married Dorigen for her qualities and not for or that a with her could have between Arveragus and Dorigen may also the Chaucer has to the his on the (V Morgan has the of this as an in late medieval on of the only Arveragus to in his he take no and in (V Dorigen the but in her be wyf” (V By of that but what mean by Morgan it as a of but interpretations are was, all, a Christian for as well as for and not for It was, a in the of qualities in the and and in Dorigen's the of the of the in many medieval to be rather than to Dorigen is it Arveragus as a her or as a his or her that the marriage in the tale is a a in which of maistrie is The very of the Franklin's Tale is a not between an on the one hand and on the but between a marriage and an It is a that is in the contrast drawn between the two male the husband Arveragus and the lover contrast between the two characters is emphasized by Chaucer, it has been or by It is a contrast that to that described by Richard de in the between the true lover de and the false to be by many that Arveragus is the his wife to the despite Jill of the of the of the is based on a fundamental of the by the two male in the in no to with the but an of a of and (V in a of the same as Dorigen and to we have about his he is described as (V an attributed to the husband in the story of the tale that can indeed be in a described as and in the as to Arveragus not a of and the at the no of Arveragus's his of in the tale with (V The in the best and in the world and in all not only but (V and into of he is not to the characters in the Boccaccian but rather to the presented by Richard de Richard the woman to he his a his and with and et et of a is the not have in a is the very of the that Chaucer de on the Richard, is one not is at a for in the of his all his he his et he is of de Richard a relationship to the one in the Franklin's which the of the true is such a that he not his Richard in the as in the of the Franklin's Dorigen of this for his his and his The true lover how or to his of the love that his grant The de of the Consaus but of the in only one in the Franklin's that in which he to the of Dorigen's It is a of and from a is of (or rather compared to of by has been to Chaucer's and consideration of the historical context can help to this has often been that Arveragus his wife to to a of the that her to her an analysis of the text that this is not the The contrast with the text of the Menedon question in Boccaccio's is in the husband his the and and the wife on of the An emphasis on the of the husband is in the Chaucer had of the husband his and he Arveragus that Dorigen (V to which is in fact the of Dorigen's to the is Dorigen's analysis of the that her that only two are to her or Arveragus is the of Arveragus's is this would to from a desire on his to to the has created to of Dorigen, but in her and some of the for the is his to not of but of the conjugal he is her of of the for created such a of Dorigen's also has a in the have was to on the It is Arveragus's and of Dorigen's that with the to the reciprocal with Dorigen's his of and to the values by the however, issue a true to his the and he into he his wife to her with of (V a that has critical The fact that the the however, that it is a his with Arveragus's at the of his which he in this too, is the of such a in the Boccaccian the are not on the same as Arveragus and not the same The must have indeed for the wife would be as as the husband to such a Dorigen no to is to her is the historical context that can help us to the use of the of The are in fact a borrowed from contemporary documents and their and are to to Arveragus's revealing his at the in which the couple has found The what could on Dorigen, the were known, rather than he would to medieval was of the fact that in be by to be as in the of the in the or the with which was in the more the twilight world of the Franklin's the by could And less in late medieval than in was not in Chaucer's the husband was in the this is an that could have been the of could be both as for a wife or was a the to one of and the critical has not been to the possible by the couple in of some have Arveragus for maistrie in this have found not indeed in his (V his and his to to a has however, that Arveragus's is not of a but rather the of a in the of The the the of a for a from to Richard de in his Consaus such a on the of the true which he to his of and he at that he know that this is one of the most and that one can in de et et The of the all sources and of the has found no of such a in or didactic The true is in medieval passage of the Consaus to have been the of for Chaucer's of Arveragus's to the of Dorigen's in that has the but the is the is the to his love for Chaucer of the it into a of rather than the that such a is to the true to his have that Arveragus is a of a that Dorigen would have rather than a an husband to and a with the as has put as a and as a for her has on to an as well as for the I Dorigen from in his that the de accused a of his the to the for of the husband to the of which a the the the de and his is is that the husband was a a less with as was of Arveragus could have would be the in that was in had also a perfectly to of in order to his to his as the husband an into the Is it to such an the of and the of the than making Arveragus the us to the qualities of Dorigen's husband described by to and (V on the of Arveragus is all the more in that he is presented as a of rather than the of the is indeed the only of in which Arveragus is described as to The to for in and (V is that the is the (V may the that have been on and it can be as in the but an he is not a of (V the or we as in is often the very that the in medieval as Arveragus Dorigen with his a (V too, is the fact that the lover in the is a to the with of that Chaucer is not to to whose of a is not a he a it may be to his (V but it is principally to a of to in to that are to Arveragus's of the two the true a of and the false a to an more important contrast in the tale: that between reciprocity and on the one and on the The of Arveragus and Dorigen's marriage is has maistrie the and is (V this emphasis on the reciprocity, Chaucer is in with Richard de whose Consaus extols the same in this both are at with the many of the of the constituting intended for and by which to the Consaus is a work to a woman concerning The relationship is as from the of the woman as that of the passages with the in which and in love the in which and the and the for or the be or the Franklin's the Consaus extols reciprocity in the love in the Franklin's Tale is of in the of the marriage of Arveragus and Dorigen, but it is also in the in the and of Arveragus and The of the love is on both and in the same Dorigen, it is housbonde as (V and Arveragus Dorigen his (V The of Arveragus on of his to the (V that Dorigen on her way to the that reciprocity, is to the of the of Dorigen as the only to the her and Arveragus for to than his wife from her (V Arveragus's a of what would a the or through of his the Franklin's Chaucer the of reciprocity that is to Richard de Consaus d'amours, and he has created male to of the true and the false one however, Chaucer from The of the despite his fundamental from the love relationship as the of has the between love is love by de marriage de as Richard love which from and from of the de et de franquise de The first by love as to love as It is this contrast that Chaucer in the Franklin's Tale the contrast between conjugal and It is the marriage of Dorigen and Arveragus that is et de and the between Dorigen and that is de the relationship as it the of the conjugal that the of to to the of the according to the of have this to the by the woman to her for that “The woman is as a a of by the Christian his the Franklin's it is indeed Dorigen's that is at Dorigen the to the the husband that (V But Chaucer this in by the rather than the aspect of the Arveragus is to his Dorigen's in order to her to a well that her and her are Chaucer links the conjugal to the of reciprocity that the Franklin's the conjugal is indeed in the is not by the wife to the for the wife has her as as he has “The wife not of her but the and also the husband not of his but the the at hand been a concerning is no to that he would not have of reciprocal the conjugal not the maistrie of one the reciprocity of the conjugal however, been by most and by has the of that reciprocity, in the and to to the of their a for the husband to in and all that are not very far from a of I The at about it that this in no way of the were to have a a fact that was to be compatible with a was the that it had a at the end of the Middle to the husband for the of the he was to her which were and often or (as in many a marriage) he was of he for his as he had is a far from and are that contemporary at that to the for a or on the Roman concerning and and But it is a to that these a on the of Chaucer's for the of and was not only in concerning marriage; the same was in the world of literature, it was often to the between The by which this love relationship is is the and reciprocal by the of their and to one and are is the between the relationship is or (as is very often the many medieval of and is by the in a but the of marriage) not take the marriage is and So we that the of and of or to a of in as well as in and to the of and in the Franklin's Tale is not the conjugal but rather the that Dorigen has with is not by most Chaucer a familiar of of and at in and Roman knew that such an was not and for all or would a as a (V is to that at had in in a of the for the jeu-parti in his Chaucer to in the of the by the on which the was It has often been that Dorigen's the of her by love for her husband as to the for a in in the But it is to that the of the by her not for Arveragus long the The of the has one would that the had or in the fundamental of reciprocity, which no could be an The by Dorigen is what could be a a the very that at the of Arveragus and Dorigen's Arveragus and Dorigen in their world of are with the of the of on a to that of the of the of a are and must be is not a of for a in which and were to have been Chaucer the world was and was it is is for of some a positive of the found the of the of the to be Chaucer's audience through the of an that would have for in the medieval and recognized in the of it a of the with a was It is a to Chaucer's that he could begin with an casuistic and it into a of the of a to a marriage of reciprocal love and in the story is well to the of the however, it is precisely whose had in the the found the Chaucer rather than a such as Chaucer may well have to it was in his a for the of Roman a famous for emphasis and the of have that the was of Roman may indeed have been his for the as the very from the The in whose had found the of the was of (V that a with a in Roman And it is no that the of of is at in the and by to Dorigen from her of with the of the his of Dorigen through her more than at first Dorigen's relationship to her husband is one of reciprocity, her relationship to an lover in a relationship of as we have a at his by to Dorigen the that he is for the only is their her a himself to be the of to in her a of in his first of love to Dorigen, may or (V that the on her is to he I of (V her in her by to an he into the his of (V of such a was in the Consaus Richard the false that he must in order to a woman into a to a in order to into his but to be but are the to be and the as he were with his and the to be to thinking could the and he one in his and de et et la et a et et et et that this of is the on Dorigen's as an to the in order to her in her (V and a on It is on this contrast between a relationship and one based on that to he that I of but (V a of to Dorigen, is with the of the of It is his that the he is to on Dorigen is in a and (V to the husband and the to his to to of marriage as the Franklin's Tale a relationship as a of and marriage as a relationship of not only reciprocity but also or to how the tale extols that Dorigen has the to be and the marriage has been deemed a Chaucer the Dorigen the to be in with her The very of the husband a long of is an that Chaucer has the Boccaccian intended to the of may well have been by the Richard the woman to in love her must for a long of he the for some and must not et in the marriage not to the husband true to his for he no of on from his long No to been he was of he of it no from in Arveragus the of an Chaucer has created in the very of the of medieval the husband to his wife to for her in a as in de the and Chaucer's he was, and in The Franklin's Tale the of the in his and the as is presented as a in his wife is and it is more than a and at Dorigen's to to and it the of the marriage than Dorigen about of her Arveragus her as an to with the French would that he her as a de not an de that as a of into relations with both and and not as the of and her as an not by the relationship, he is the marriage which his her in favor of her to into a is fundamental the marriage of Dorigen and Arveragus can be described as et de rather than their marriage was by the of and a in this as in Chaucer and in by the the century and by and literature, marriage by of the recognized and as in a relationship It is that in the Franklin's Dorigen and Arveragus one of his is no of or a Arveragus's be a to their by the one on their to a marriage of and reciprocity, maistrie that their love may to It is this of and many the relationship and or a Arveragus and Dorigen are in a marriage a relationship et de of reciprocal (V It is this and that is as true The for this relationship Arveragus is in and in (V Dorigen is his wife (V can to be (V by her Arveragus his and his (V for Dorigen he is housbonde and love (V has to some to that are and But were not to Chaucer's as these were a of late medieval and late medieval reciprocity between married as is in the very of a work by Chaucer's contemporary true love relationship of reciprocity presented by Richard de in his Consaus is as we have de as well as is a to marriage at the end of the Middle been a the marriage to be as and constituting a to The in the Franklin's Tale it may be a Christian to be in a story from the the is at the end of the that the marriage of Arveragus and Dorigen, a relationship of reciprocity and Christian may be to in the (V an of the of a on the married the Menedon in the Filocolo, the Franklin's Tale with a was the (V But devoted of the Menedon passage to the question of was the most very of this casuistic the question and could mean or it It in a The that would to Dorigen from is not a true as we have his is a the of from his of a is for the in fact no on his of the as the latter Dorigen, in a Arveragus is but his as himself his her to his and with Dorigen, is in a more of the that in their relationship of reciprocal of and values that can be as compatible or Christian tale is worlds from the of de as by marriage maistrie and by intended to be is the for and It is the relationship, a that is than romance and and the desire of the lover are to the of and Chaucer, by Richard de and from his creative has transformed a casuistic jeu-parti into an of the of the Franklin's Tale is indeed a encomium to the loving, “companionate marriage” of reciprocity, not only as a of but Christian as a and Dorigen his blisse (V