Taylor-Servant and Lord: Lady and Wife - The "Franklin's Tale" and Traditions of Courtly Andconjugal Love

Servant and Lord / Lady and Wife: The "Franklin's Tale" and Traditions of Courtly and
Conjugal Love
Author(s): Mark N. Taylor
Source: The Chaucer Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1997), pp. 64-81
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25095998
Accessed: 16-12-2018 18:36 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25095998?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Chaucer Review
This content downloaded from 200.45.170.1 on Sun, 16 Dec 2018 18:36:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SERVANT AND LORD / LADY AND WIFE:
THE FRANKLIN'S TALE AND TRADITIONS
OF COURTLY AND CONJUGAL LOVE
by Mark N. Taylor
Among the critical controversies surrounding the Franklin's Tale, the

nature of the marriage of Arveragus and Dorigen has a prominent place.
In many respects, the weight of the marriage issue draws into its orbit the
tale's other critical problems?over the tale's place within a supposed
"marriage group" of tales, particularly its relation to the Merchant's Tale,1
over the nature of the tale's characters and narration,2 over the Franklin's
ability to apprehend "gentillesse,"3 over attempts to answer the question,
"who was mooste fre,"4 over questions of "trouthe" and illusion (Kearney,
Kee),5 and over gender issues (Bowman, Crane 1990, Luecke, Straus,
Wheeler),6 among other problems. This study will focus on the tale's
opening passage, which summarizes the marriage agreement between
Arveragus and Dorigen, for, as John Fyler notes, "Our response to this
opening passage has much to do with how we interpret the Franklin's Tale
as a whole."7
Past criticism directed toward the marriage agreement of Arveragus
and Dorigen has failed to arrive at a consensus,8 and one critic even finds
the passage on marriage without "functional value."9 Is the marriage an
extension of the heroes' infectious nobility of spirit, or does the overly
ideal or impractical marriage precipitate or exacerbate their dilemma?
Even within the two main critical positions there is no general agreement
as to what is right or wrong with the marriage arrangement. It may well be
that the peculiarities of the tale's narration may never allow for conclusive
answers and interpretive consensus. At the same time, the controversy
indicates the tale's richness, especially the richness of its complex literary
inheritance. Susan Crane sees Chaucer responding to "important literary
traditions" from a "subordinate position" in the Canterbury Tales.10 In
particular, the themes of love and marriage and their integration, as
treated by earlier poets of courtly literature, bear importantly on our
THE CHAUCER REVIEW, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1997.

Copyright ? 1997 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
MARK N. TAYLOR 65
understanding of Chaucer's treatment. Nonetheless, despite recent ad

vances in Chaucer scholarship via historicist and intertextual approaches,
this inheritance, I believe, has not yet been fully mined. Although many
older studies have been devoted to reading the tale in light of the French
courtly tradition, our current understanding of that tradition has con
siderably lessened their critical value. We know enough to discard the
old model of "courtly love" enunciated by Gaston Paris and C. S. Lewis,11
yet vestiges of that model have continued to obscure certain moral and
social imperatives promulgated in a cohesive body of courtly texts within
the tradition o? fin' amor: specifically, authors who champion marriage
rather than adultery, Christian faith rather than a "religion of love," and
an integrated erotic love rather than either cupiditas or caritas.
I propose that we approach the marriage of Arveragus and Dorigen
in the Franklin's Tale from the larger structure of the moral imperative
of fin amor. This is an imperative which grows out of poets' engagement
with their society. We may recall Lee Patterson's self-exhortation to "think
socially" about Chaucer. "In terms of scholarly practice, this has meant
locating each of his texts in relation to a discourse?a specific set of texts
and practices?that can make explicit the social meaning of his poetry."12
This study suggests that we may best understand the marriage enunciated
in the tale as proceeding from "a specific set of texts" comprising an
anti-adultery discourse, which reconfigures the adulterous ideal of love
through an integration of erotic love and Christian virtue, of which
marriage is the proper locus. We will now turn to this discourse before
returning to Chaucer's Franklin's Tale.
The texts of the anti-adultery tradition interact dialectically with other
courtly texts reflecting the more familiar model of adulterous love, which
was well served by older critical studies.13 The tradition of courtly love
literature is not static but dynamic, developing as a dialectic on the subject
of love. Yet love calls many other things to itself. Because courtly poets
so highly esteemed love in various forms, we often find it at the center
of questions of truth. The ultimate goal of the medieval discipline of
Dialectic is, as the late medieval writer, John Capgrave, put it, "Truthe fro
falsehed that teecheth he for to know" (1.372-75).14 That is, medievals
understood that Logic (and dialectic in particular) had an inherently
moral basis. The love poets who express a consistently serious regard
for truth and virtue in direct response to observed social and moral
realities are in the best position to establish the topoi from which the
dialectic is built. Other poets interested in pursuing rhetorical concerns
apart from (or at the expense of) moral truth will generally exploit the
dialectic by adopting the discourse of the moralist and divesting it of
moral signification, focusing instead on the play of conventions within
the model of adulterous love. In the shift from socially based moral
66 THE CHAUCER REVIEW
imperatives to the rhetorical play of literary conventions, poetic purpo

also shifts from the pursuit of extra-textual truth (either universal o
social), which is the goal of dialectic, to the pursuit of textual validity.
The poet speaking from a moral imperative?that is, with reference
to extra-textual truth in response to social concerns?is not expressly
a religious poet. The dialectic of courtly love cannot be apprehende
as a religious and secular dichotomy. Like the moralists who compose
religious verse, these courtly moralists also compose out of a medieva
Christian consensus, but they do not reject erotic love: thus love is em
powering, truth cannot coexist with infidelity, and the practice of lov
requires both a spiritually and socially ennobling experience for its v
idation. These moderate moralists, positioned at the intersection of the
medieval spiritual and the secular worlds, deliver a message more com
plex than those of either the wholly religious or wholly secular poets
Unlike the religious poets, these moralists have a stake in both the secul
and spiritual spheres?and perhaps a greater stake in the former. They
belong to the courtly world and have decided to make peace with the
poets of erotic love through reforming and renewing the tradition fro
within.
The medieval courtly tradition of presenting adulterous love as a se
rious vernacular literary subject begins?as far as we can know15?with
the first known troubadour, William IX Duke of Aquitaine, and extends
through later troubadours and trouv?res to the Middle French literature
of Chaucer's day. The anti-adultery tradition begins with the troubadour
Marcabru (fl. 1130-50), whose work appeared shortly after William IX's
death, and it extends through Chr?tien de Troyes to include English
texts such as The Owl and the Nightingale and Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight, as well as Chaucer. Marcabru established the basic elements of
the anti-adultery tradition's ideal love through his concept o? fin' amor
as a moral imperative: an erotic love which may legitimately be enjoyed,
that is, a single man may fall in love with and woo a single lady with
pain and humility, provided it leads to a relationship of mutually shared
love. Chr?tien, a quarter century later, added the proviso that, if their
love becomes reciprocal, it ought to lead to marriage. In contrast to the
old model, unrequited love is neither praised nor romanticized in this
tradition.
The reader who has approached the bewildering array of studies on
what older critics called "courtly love16?not to mention the many vari
eties of medieval love which the poets called fin ' amor?will have per
ceived that critical preconceptions about what fin ' amor means must
inevitably fail. It helps, however, to look briefly at how fin ' amor was first
conceived and follow its trajectory through the anti-adultery tradition. A
lyric by the troubadour Marcabru features the earliest datable appearance
MARK N. TAYLOR 67
of the term ("Al son desviat chantaire," circa 1140-43).17 Fin' amor "origi
nates" with Marcabru inasmuch as he is the first troubadour to 1 ) work out
a meaning for the term and 2) consistently employ it.18 Marcabru, in fact,
represents the starting point of the anti-adultery tradition, and his love
theory forms the foundation of later developments, both in establishing
the categories upon which the discourse would turn and in its "linguistic
architecture," to use Burnley's phrase.19 In Marcabru's lyric corpus fin'
amor differs from the usages of later troubadrous, French trouv?res, and
English poets,20 all of which are different again from critical studies
which employ the term as a generic designation.21 More importantly,
Marcabru's dichotomy o? fin' amor and fais' amor forms the basis for
the dialectic of love between those promoting and those opposed to the
literary ideal of love as an adulterous practice.
Marcabru's lyric, "Persavi-l tenc ses doptanssa," features his most explicit
discourse on the nature o? the fin' amor relationship. The nature o? fin'
amor becomes concrete in the actions of a loving couple:
Aitals pareills fai mostranssa,

S'en doas partz non camina
Pois bon' amors n'es vezina,
Ab dos d?sirs d'un' enveia.22
Marcabru's reference to going off in "two directions" probably refers

to inconstancy: having multiple lovers or taking a villainous lover?
practices which Marcabru absolutely condemns and which Chr?tien de
Troyes and Chaucer both echo. The "one longing" (un'enveia) and "two
desires) (dos d?sirs) bear some relation to Marcabru's concept of whole
and fragmented thinking.23 In terms of sexual relations, the fragmented
perspective is limited to the problem of carnal indulgence, which lacks
the wholeness to see beyond appetite. It forgets that humanity is spiritual
as well as bestial, as medievals understood the nature of humanity. At
the other extreme are the hermits of Marcabru's day preaching an in
cipient Catharism which sought to denigrate humanity's bestial nature.
Marcabru, true to his nature as well as the spirit of the age, never con
demns this gnostic extreme as he does the hedonistic, but neither does
he present it as a viable alternative at court. Rather, with an integrated
perspective, he suggest that both the spiritual and bestial natures, with
their antipodean pull on the soul, can coexist within a single longing (un'
enveia) : this is fin ' amor. It abides where a man and woman experience
mutual erotic passion (one of the "two desires") which is controlled by
the emotion of love guided by right reason or whole thinking (the second
desire). In this love relationship the passion fuels the will in the exercise of
virtue which expands from the personal into all aspects of secular society.
This is how, as later troubadours liked to claim, fin ' amor makes a lover
a better person. Without this exercise of virtue, fin' amor cannot abide
and fais ' amor is the inevitable result.
Marcabru further elucidates the nature of this single longing, describ
ing it as a "secure trust" (segurana fianssa, v. 29), a pledge of loyalty:
Segon dich, faich e semblanssa

Nais de veraia corina,
Car se promet e's plevina.24
While the indiscriminate love affair was one of the immoralities that
Marcabru opposed, he emphasizes the lover's emotional fidelity. Th
fidelity makes fin' amor "white, precious, true, and pure" (blanca cara
ver'e pura, v. 30). In a number of lyrics, Marcabru s fin' amor specifical
counters the adulterous relationship celebrated in William IX's lyrics.25
The difficulties of Dorigen's dilemma appear in sharper relief in this
light. There is an inextricable relation among truth in the heart, spoke
pledge, and action. Marcabru emphasizes the importance of love's pledge
to love's truth?precisely the point that Arveragus maintains. There is a
delicious paradox here (the amusement of which so many critics have
refused to appreciate): if Dorigen follows the ideal of fin' amor an
keeps her pledge she will become an adulteress and that will put he
in opposition to fin ' amor.
Truth is what gives fin ' amor the right and the power as sovereign i
the lover's heart:
Cab veri tat seignoreia,

E sa potestatz sobranssa
Sobre mouta creatura.26
Omnipotence figures as an important feature of fin ' amor. In another,

more trenchant, lyric, "Pus mos coratges s'eclarzis," Marcabru presents fin'
amor as a quasi-divine active force which chooses lovers (not vice-versa
and even exercises power over those it has not embraced:
Aicel qui Fin' amors cauzis

Viu letz, cortes, e sapiens,
E selh cui refuda, delis
E met a totz destruzemens;
Car qui Fin' amor vol blasmar
Elha-1 fai si en folh muzar
Que per art cuid' esser peritz.27
Fin' amor blesses its adherents and confounds its enemies. Marcabr
pr?sentera 'amor as an active force in the world wherever men and women
love one another with fidelity, ennobling both individuals and their
society while protecting them from immoral persons who threaten the
MARK N. TAYLOR 69
relationship. If this understanding of love lies behind the relationship of

Arveragus and Dorigen, then Arveragus's decision is based on his faith
in the power of that love centered in his relationship with his wife and
extending outward as an active force able to maintain itself in the face
of immorality. This does not mean that Arveragus knew what the final
outcome of his decision would be, as Kaske maintained.28 Arveragus had
faith in, not foreknowledge about, an act of moral courage. The difficulty
in maintaining that faith is evident as "he brast anon to wepe" (F 1480).
We must give Arveragus a measure of credit: in a daring move suggested
by the anti-adultery tradition he stuck to the principles of fin ' amor, took
a risk, and he won. Let me be careful to maintain I am not claiming
that Arveragus's decision, Dorigen's action, or Aurelius's response can
be explained away with reference to Marcabru's fin' amor. Rather, this
intertextual reference indicates that the amusing paradox noted above
is only apparent and not real, and we are not beholden to the narrator's
intrusive assurances that this is so (F 14939-98).
As Marcabrunian^m'araor is a reciprocal relationship based on mutual
constancy, it naturally suggests itself as the ideal erotic love upon which
Chr?tien de Troyes could base an ideal of conjugal love in his romances
to counter the prevalent celebration of adulterous love in the Tristan as
well as the grand chant courtois. In Clig?s, often described as an anti-Tristan,
Chr?tien attributes this^m' amor (which he calls boene amor, v. 2768) to
Clig?s and Fenice as well as Clig?s's parents, Alexandre and Soredamors.
Referring to the hearts of a loving couple, Chr?tier states,
Seul de tant se tientent a un
Que la volante de chascun
De l'un a l'autre s'an trespasse;
Si vuelent une chose a masse,
Et por tant c'une chose vuelent,
I a de tiex qui dire suelent
Que chascuns a le euer as deus.29
The heart (euer) is the seat of desire; when two lovers have the same
desire (volante), that is, a longing for the other one, then the two hearts
are united. This theory of love strongly recalls Marcabru's "dos d?sirs d'un
enveia," discussed above. Chr?tien here reveals his debt to Marcabru, his
presentation of conjugal love being clearly rooted in the anti-adultery
tradition. Unlike the fin' amor of the trouv?res and later French poets,
this love manifests itself only in a reciprocal relationship that culminates
in marriage.
Chr?tien is also an important precursor to Chaucer, offering both a
theory of love and a rhetorical strategy to promote the moral imperatives
of fin ' amor. His specific contribution to the anti-adultery tradition is the
promotion of marriage as the ideal locus of fin ' amor, which he explor
in three of his courtly romances. In his first extant romance, Erec etEnide
(ca. 1170), Chr?tien examines the ideal of marriage as the necessar
fulfillment of a love affair between eligible lovers. Chr?tien has his lovers
married after two thousand lines and devotes the final five thousand
the testing of their marriage.
This romance establishes certain topoi which are germane to the Fran
lin's Tale. For example, both narratives foreground the importance of
female constancy when the lady freely consents to marriage. Dorigen i
willing, at one point, to sacrifice her life for constancy ("yet have I leve
to lese / My lif than . . . knowe myselven fais" [F 1360-62]) because sh
consented to her marriage:
Sire, I wol be youre humble trewe wyf?
Have heer my trouthe?til that myn herte breste.
(F 758-59)
The question of constancy did not carry for Chaucer the social imme
diacy that it did for Chr?tien, who was writing in response to changes
in attitudes toward, and practices of, marriage in his social milieu. As
Eugene Vance points out, "Chr?tien was already testing and rejecting an
older concept of marriage based upon coercion or upon the external
right of a man to claim a woman, and was championing consent as the
only valid criterion of marriage."30 Chr?tien is not breaking new ground
here, however. John Brundage observes that the Fathers of the Church
had championed mutual consent long before, and even in Chretien's
day there were ecclesiastical reformers who "made it a cornerstone of
their program to reshape matrimonial institutions."31 Chr?tien is revo
lutionary, however, in extending this concern to courtly literature. In
Chretien's paradigm of love, men are forced to reconsider their view of
women. When women were coerced into marriage (and suddenly found
themselves regarded as a suspicious alien element in an established house
hold) , husbands could easily blame them for their inconstant nature?
how else to explain their recalcitrance? That view would no longer be
tenable. Because Dorigen freely consented to the marriage agreement
with Arveragus, as Barrie Ruth Straus points out, she "confounds any mas
culinist construction of'woman' as simply 'man's other'."32 The question
of female constancy in consensual marriage drives part of the narrative
progression o? Erec etEnide, and it helps to explain Erec's seemingly harsh
behavior toward Enide. This cultural background, whereby consensual
marriage began to be more accepted within the aristocracy, forms the
social underpinnings behind Chretien's achievement of uniting the^m'
amor of the anti-adultery tradition to a new ideal of love in which marriage
is central.
MARK N. TAYLOR 71
The odd behavior of Arveragus toward Dorigen after he learns of her

vow to Aurelius?behavior that leads to seemingly harsh treatment of
his wife?is echoed in Free et Enide. After his marriage, Erec completely
devotes himself to Enide only to learn from her of his new reputation
as a recreant in arms (w. 2502-3733) ; he realizes that he himself has
lost social viability. Indeed, he suffers from a form of social inconstancy.
Erec could effect a public return by falling back on the older husband
wife relationship and treat Enide as the wife fully submissive to his will,
not as his lady to be served. That, however, would be tantamount to
denying his love for her as well as her free consent. When Erec insists
that Enide accompany him in knightly errantry, he appears to exercise
lordship in earnest (although much of it is actually pretence). We could
see this as a rather extreme manifestation of the marriage arrangement
of the Franklin's Tale, where Jill Mann reads the relationship as "not
founded on equality, but on alternation in the exercise of power and
the surrender of power."34 In any case, Erec is testing the social viability
of a marriage founded upon mutual love. Such a marriage is proven
through the couple's triumph over antagonists who typify false love and
social evil.
Just as Arveragus and Dorigen can return to marital bliss only by
overcoming the obstacle presented by Aurelius's lust, so Erec and Enide's
journey to fin ' amor is effected in part by their active strife against those
whose private lust has overwhelmed their social obligations. Chr?tien in
troduces characters who typify false lovers and through them he contrasts
the nascent virtuous love of the protagonists with more socially irrespon
sible forms of amor. In both cases, he portrays false lovers as suffering an
inability to fulfill their private desires in a socially redeeming manner?
being led by appetite rather than reason. One such character whom Erec
and Enide encounter is Count Galoain (w. 3083-3626), who soon reveals
his treacherous desire to Enide, by threatening to kill Erec (w. 3316-21),
if she will not abandon him for the Count. In response, Enide displays a
quickness, coolness, and shrewdness of mind by countering Galoain's
treachery with a dissembling reply to stall him until she can inform
her husband of the danger (w. 3322-82). Whereas Dorigen counters
Aurelius "in pleye" (F 988), Enide baits the lust-consumed Galoain who,
like Aurelius, is not moved by direct refusal (w. 3296-3306). Dorigen's
attempts to counter the advances of Aurelius meet with disaster whereas
Enide's meet with some success. In each case the ideal of conjugal love
is threatened and in the end both wives "have bettre fortune" than it
appears they will.
The Count, for his part, is not so blind that he cannot realize the
evil of his behavior when faced with his own weakness (w. 3604-15),
and Chr?tien allows him to survive the wounds Erec inflicts upon him
(w. 3624-25). This has a parallel in the Franklin's Tale: Arveragus best
Arelius, not in arms but in virtuous behavior and, as a result, Aureliu
comes to terms with his own lust. Both Aurelius and Galoain, through t
husband's actions, come to repent of their "cherlysshe wrecchednesse
Chretien's treatment is more salient than subtle: Erec jousts with Galoa
and, after inflicting serious wounds, leaves him for dead. Chaucer ha
Aurelius reciprocate Arveragus's noble spirit:
Considerynge the beste on every syde,

That fro his lust yet were hym levere abyde
Than doon so heigh a cherlyssh wrecchednesse.
(F 1521-23)
This thematic parallel is important to understanding Aurelius's role in
the Franklin's Tale because he is usually read as a conventional courtly
lover.35 Although Aurelius is true to one dame and displays most of
Amant's requisite symptoms of love, he also resembles Galoain in that he
does not display the behavior o? a. fin amant nor does he attempt to gain
his lady's favor through chivalric renown?a prerequisite to achieving
mutuality in love. His worst failing as a courtly lover, however, lies in his
regard for Dorigen. He does not love her as even the adulterous Lancelot
loves Guinevere, for Lancelot never failed to follow his lady's intent. (Even
when Lancelot does misunderstand her intent, his misunderstanding is
in her favor.36) Aurelius, however, insists on Dorigen's words above all?
"God woot, ye seyde so" (F 1329)?to which he holds her to save his
"hertes lyf right now" (1332). He knows that Dorigen had no intention
of ever acquiescing to his plea, rocks or no?for she told him so: "Ne shal
I nevere been untrewe wif / In word ne werk" (984-85). Both Galoain
and Aurelius operate through threats, explicit or implied, which play on
the wives' fears for their husbands' safety. Galoain openly threatens to
kill Erec. Dorigen focuses upon Aurelius her fears for her husband's ship
wrecked by the rocks of the coast, whereby he turns "an inpossible" task
to his advantage. Aurelius's evil, in the face o? fin' amor, is certainly more
subtle than the Count's, yet its effect on Dorigen is similar to the Count's
upon Enide. Aurelius's behavior takes on, in Dorigen's complaint, "insis
tent images of rape, " as Mary Hamel notes.37 Thus Aurelius is not a courtly
lover at all but conforms to the type of false lover or tricheor condemned in
courtly lyrics and, like Count Galoain, defeated by the hero in romances.
In contrast to the actions of the false lovers, there is complete mutality
in the love relationships reflected in both Erec et Enide and Cages, as well
as in that of Arveragus and Dorigen:
Of his free wyl he swoor hire as a knyght

That nevere in al his lyf he, day ne nyght,
MARK N. TAYLOR 73
Ne sholde upon hym take no maistrie

Agayn hir wyl, ne kithe hire jalousie,
But hire obeye, and folwe hir syl in al,
As any lovere to his lady shal.
Heere may men seen an humble, wys accord;

Thus hath she take hir servant and hir lord?
Servant in love, and lord in mariage.
Thanne was he bothe in lordshipe and servage.
Servage? Nay, but in lordshipe above,
Sith he hath bothe his lady and his love;
His lady, certes, and his wyf also,
The which that lawe of love acordeth to.
(745-50, 791-98)
Chaucer is taking the conventional terms for lovers, lady and servant,
and investing them with new significance. Where the woman is treated
as the beloved and the man as the lover, each is subservient to the other,
leaving no place for "maistrie." The positions of power in the relationship
are balanced through mutual abdication. Although Erec served his wife
as a lover does his lady, when he realized that his love was corrupting, he
exercised the appearance of spousal sovereignty over Enide. Once that
imperfect love was reborn as fin' amor, he could return to the position of
lover without fear:
Cor vos aim plus qu'ainz mes ne fis,

et je resui certains et fis
que vos m'amez parfitemant.
Or voel estre d'or en avant,
ausi con j'estoie devant,
tot a vostre comandemant.38
Chr?tien approves of Erec's refusal to exercise what Jean de Meun calls

"mestrie" over his wife through his pledge of total service. Chr?tien makes
this even clearer in a passage in Clig?s, where, as scholars have noted,39
he expresses more or less the same ideal agreement as that between
Arveragus and Dorigen:
De s'amie a feite sa fame,40
Mes il I'apele amie et dame,
Que por ce ne pert ele mie,
Que il ne l'aint corne s'amie,
Et ele lui tot autressi,
Con l'an doit feire son ami.41
The close correspondence between these passages suggests tha

Chaucer, too, has positioned himself among the moderate moralists w
promulgate the anti-adultery tradition. But is he advancing the mor
imperative o? fin' amor} Chaucer's passage on marriage forms the nex
for a further correspondence, as scholars have often pointed out. Th
marriage arrangement, Hamel notes, "apparently resolves the problem
raised in the Roman de la Rose"42 where Jean de Meun's Amis express
scepticism that lovers could translate a love based on equality into a m
ital relationship, which is traditionally one of inequality. Amis holds t
lovers-turned-husbands inevitably become jealous, going from service
tyranny:
et se fet seigneur de sa fame,

qui ne redoit pas estre dame,
mes sa pareille et sa compaigne,
si con la loi les acompaigne,
et il redoit ses compainz estre
sanz soi fere seigneur ne mestre.43
This is only an excerpt from a long passage in the Roman de la Rose on the
theme of love-service, marriage, and jealousy (w. 9383-9442), where Jean
de Meun may, among other things, be criticising the viability of Chretien's
courtly ideal.44 Jean recognizes the existence of Chretien's ideal of con
jugal love, yet, not writing with the moral imperative o? fin' amor, he is
pessimistic that conjugal love is attainable or, if attained, reliable.45 The
love affair in the Rose, however, is not one of mutual affection but a
rarefied longing on the poet-lover's part: the lady must be unattainable
until she is finally seduced. Thus, any mutual fulfilment of desire?let
alone with one's wife?runs counter to the poet-lover's expressions of
love. Chaucer initially presents Dorigen and Arveragus as the conven
tional lady and servitor (F 729-40). Their mutual affection and marriage
are a legacy of Marcabru's fin' amor and Chretien's conjugal love. By
responding to Jean's criticism?the charge that Chretien's conjugal love
cannot preserve a union based on free consent, for jealousy and adultery
are likely to corrupt the relationship?Chaucer, I suggest, is advancing the
imperatives of the anti-adultery tradition. The tale's plot moves toward
the unidealistic portraits of marriage in the Rose. The protagonists appear
to be heading toward Amis's worst fears of adultery and jealousy. Chaucer
prevents this outcome, however, by explicitly introducing the Christian
virtues of truth and grace implicit in Marcabrunian^ra' amor. That Arver
agus's decision to keep faith with Aurelius runs counter to the wisdom
of the world indicates its spiritual roots. John Fyler observes, "If we mock
the outcome of the tale, we reveal our own excessive worldliness."46 The
married couple and the would-be adulterer, Aurelius, not only come to
MARK N. TAYLOR 75
a good end, they also come to understand the cost of keeping the heart
fre (which translates Jean 's franc, v. 9413).
The key to the marriage arrangement in the Franklin's Tale turns on
the repudiation of "maistrie" as the ruling feature of the relationship,
for "Love wol nat been constreyned by maistrye" (764). This clearly also
recalls the words of Jean de Meun's Amis:
Amor ne puet durer ne vivre,

s'el n'est en queur franc et d?livre.
(w. 9412-13)
(Love cannot survive nor thrive if it is not free and
active in the heart.)
In the unwinding of the plot, there is every opportunity for Arveragus to

take on "maistrie"?in fact, there is so much opportunity that some of the
tale's humor is evoked by his refusal to take that way out of the dilemma.
Instead, Arveragus remains steadfast to the ideal o? fin' amor, which allows
it to be worked out through the elements set in opposition to it.
Many readers will no doubt wish to point out Arveragus's severe exer
cise of "maistrie" in the following passage, where Arveragus wept:
And seyde, "I yow forbede, up peyne of deeth,

That nevere, whil thee lasteth lyf ne breeth,
To no wight telle thou this aventure?
As I may best, I wol my wo endure?
Ne make no contenance of hevynesse,
That folk of yow may demen harm or gesse."
(1481-86)
Alan Gaylord's response is typical of those who read the tale satirically: "It
is impossible to forgive Arveragus for this palpable breach of gentillesse."4*1
Gertrude White pointed out long ago, however, that Arveragus's whole
concern with keeping the affair quiet is for the benefit of his wife's
honor, not his own.48 Could he not have expressed this concern in a less
severe manner? No, and for two reasons. First, Arveragus is no longer
the seemingly inperturbable character he appeared when he replied, "Is
there oght elles, Dorigen, but this?" (1469). When he says, "I yow forbede,
up peyne of deeth," he is not speaking in a grave voice and shaking a stern
finger at Dorigen?which is, I believe, the unbidden image of the modern
reader may have when reading the line?he is weeping out loud.49
Second, in light of Chretien's romances, Arveragus's treatment of
Dorigen is no worse than Erec's of Enide. Erec commands Enide to
ride before him and forbids her to speak to him to warn him of danger
(w. 2730-33). Enide's own feeling of guilt contributes to her meek
submission as well, for she wrongly believes that Erec hates her (w. 275
56). Nonetheless, her love prompts her to speak out in warning and Ere
reproves her harshly for disobeying his command:
"Gui?" fet Erec, "qu'avez vos dit?

Or me prisiez vos trop petit!
Trop avez fet gran te hardemant."50
Nonetheless:
"Ceste foiz vos iert pardonee,

mes, s'autre foiz vos avenoit,
ja pardon? ne vos seroit."51
It happens three more times and each time Erec forgives her (w. 2968-72,
3527-34, 3725-29). No wonder he must continually break his own prom
ise that he will punish her. Thus Chr?tien reveals that Erec's "maistrie" is
not in earnest?although it conveys both a meaning and moral. By the
fourth time she speaks up, Erec's pretense is signalled by the narrator's
perfunctory treatment:
Ele li dit; il la menace,
mes n'a talan t que mal li face,
qu'il apar?oit et conuist bien
qu'ele l'ainme sor tote rien,
et il li, tant que plus ne puet.52
This passage ably sums up Arveragus's address to Dorigen. If, as already
suggested, Chaucer was directly familiar with Chretien's work, he may
have modelled the crisis between his heroes after that of Erec and Enide.53
In both this romance and the Franklin's Tale, action repairs the evil done
by words.
The authors within the anti-adultery tradition agree that that aspect
of courtly love practice which is adulterous or inconstant has no place
in Christian society. Chaucer nowhere celebrates adulterous or illicit
love. Chaucer's lovers must instead strive to maintain "trouthe," which
embraces both the courtly ideal of fidelity in loving {fin' amor) and the
Christian ideal of complete integrity of will that finally translates the
courtly ideal into spiritual reality. Where "trouthe" cannot be maintained,
the love will fail, as Troilus and Criseyde's affair exemplifies. The integra
tion o? fin' amor with truth expressed as an explicitly Christian virtue is
Chaucer's signal contribution to the anti-adultery tradition. Close on the
heels of the ideal of truth is the virtue of grace. In the courtly tradition,
grace (the troubadours' merce and the trouv?res' merci) is primarily a
matter of the dame's capricious fiat. Christian doctrine allows for a more
regular application of grace in human affairs through Christ's model of
MARK N. TAYLOR 77
forgiveness for fallen humanity. The quality of "franchesse" intersects

both courtly and Christian doctrine. The ideal courtly lover must be
generous. When Christians see others fail in their "trouthe"?"For in this
world, certain, ther no wight is / That he ne dooth or say sometye amys"
(779-80)?they must offer forgiveness and behave graciously towards
them. Both must be "fre." Thus the Franklin's famous moot question with
which he ends his tale?"Whiche was the mooste fre?" (1662)?points to
an ideal at once courtly and Christian.
Arveragus's difficult decision to "trouthe kepe" is in accord with
Chaucer's ballade, "Trouthe." The refrain line, "And trouthe thee shal
delivere, it is no drede," confidently states what Arveragus can only hope
for. The tale demonstrates that maintaining "trouthe" can be a costly
business, even with the corresponding virtue of "franchesse." If, in light
of post-modern sensibilities, we cannot know what Chaucer believed in,
we can at least identify the ideas current in the dialectic of love in which
Chaucer is engaged. Because Chaucer enters into that dialectic, he is
actively responding to the received traditions of courtly love literature,
adopting the ideal of the anti-adultery tradition and defending it against
the tradition of adulterous love.54
The University of Texas at Austin
1. All references to the works of Chaucer are to The Riverside Chaucer, ed. L. D. Benson,
3rd ed. (New York, 1987). Some of the more notable and recent criticism on the Franklin's
Tale (necessarily selective for this and the next five notes) include, for the study of the
"marriage group": G. L. Kittredge, "Chaucer's Discussion of Marriage," MP 9 (1912): 435
67; J. L. Hodge, "The Marriage Group: Precarious Equilibrium," English Studies 46 (1965):
289-300; G. M. White, 'The Franklin's Tale: Chaucer or the Critics," PMLA 89 (1974):
454-62.
2. A. T. Lee, " 'A Woman True and Fair': Chaucer's Portrayal of Dorigen in the Franklin's
Tale," ChauR 19 (1984): 169-78; J. M. Fyler, "Love and Degree in the Franklin's Tale,"
ChauR 21 (1987): 321-37; L. Charnes, "This Werk Unresonable': Narrative Frustration
and Generic Redistribution in Chaucer's Franklin's Tale" ChauR 23 (1989): 300-15; C. K.
Brown, " 'It Is True Art to Conceal Art': The Episodic Structure of Chaucer 'sFranklin 's Tale,"
ChauR 27 (1992): 162-85; E. E. Martin, "The Romance of Anxiety in Chaucer's Franklin's
Tale," in Voices in Translation: The Authority of "Olde Bookes" in Medieval Literature, ed. D. M.
Sinnreich-Levi and G. Sigal (New York, 1992), 117-36.
3. A. Gaylord, 'The Promises in The Franklin's Tale" ELH 31 (1964): 331-65; A. David,
"Sentimental Comedy in the Franklin's Tale," Annuale mediaevale 6 (1965): 19-27; R. Peck,
"Sovereignty and the Two Worlds of the Franklin's Tale" ChauR 1 (1967): 253-71; D. W
Robertson, Jr., "Chaucer's Franklin and His Tale," in Essays in Medieval Culture (Princeton,
1980), 273-90; H. Specht, Chaucer's Franklin in the "Canterbury Tales": The Social and Literary
Background of a Chaucerian Character (Copenhagen, 1981); M.J. Carruthers, 'The Gentilesse
of Chaucer's Franklin," Critidsm 23 ( 1981 ) : 283-300; N. Saul, "The Social Status of Chaucer's
Franklin: A Reconsideration," MM 52 (1983):10-26.
We do not know?and, with our current approaches to the problem, we cannot know?
whether the Franklin's understanding of "gentillesse" and "trouthe" is secure or erroneous.
Since Gaylord's article (1964), it seems to me, the tale has been read with far too much
dependence upon the character of the narrator (Peck's article is one of the most extreme
examples of this tendency). I cannot believe, however, that Chaucer meant the tale to be
read on a self-limiting level. Enough of the narrator's character may be deduced by what
we can learn about him through his telling of the tale: primarily a bourgeois fellow who
is not in complete control of his rhetoric, by which he attempts to recreate an aristocratic
perspective. It does not follow, however, that the story's ideal is flawed because the Franklin
is unable to perfectly articulate it. This does not alter Chaucer's priorities. He adopts an
attitude toward rhetoric in the House of Fame similar to the Franklin's (F 714-27): he asks
to be heard
Though som vers fayle in a sillable;
And that I do no diligence
To shewe craft, but o sentence.
(1098-1100)
Truth in theme is worth more effort that efficacy of expression. We must allow the pos
sibility that Chaucer has intentionally made the epicurean Franklin a somewhat ridiculous
fellow?-just as Chaucer makes himself out to be rather ridiculous. Nonetheless, Chaucer is
able to present a legitimate ideal, in spite of the Franklin's narrative foibles, just as Chaucer
does in his Tale ofMelibee despite his preceding bungling of the Tale of Sir Thopas.
4. While an answer is still sometimes implied in criticism, this type of study is no longer
common, but see: N. H. G. E. Veldhoen, " 'Whiche Was the Mooste Fre': Chaucer's Realistic
Humour and Insight into Human Nature, as Shown in The Frankeleyns Tale," in In Other
Words: Transcultural Studies in Philology, Translation, and Lexicology Presented to Hans Heinrich
Meier on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fiflh Birthday (Dordrecht, Holland, 1989), 107-16; D. Raybin,
" 'Wommen, of Kynde, Desiren Libertee': Rereading Dorigen, Rereading Marriage," ChauR
27 (1992): 65-86.
5. A. M. Kearny, 'Truth and Illusion in the Franklin's Tale," Essays in Criticism 19 (1969):
245-53; K. Kee, "Illusion and Reality in Chaucer's Franklin's Tale," English Studies in Canada
1 (1975): 1-12.
6. J. Luecke, "Dorigen: Marriage Model or Male Fantasy," JWSL 1 (1979): 107-21;
S. Crane, "The Franklin as Dorigen," ChauR 24 (1990): 236-52; B. R. Straus, "'Truth'
and 'Woman' in Chaucer's Franklin's Tale," Exemplaria 4 (1992): 135-68; M. R. Bowman,
"'Half as She Were Mad': Dorigen in the Male World of the Franklin's Tale," ChauR 27
(1993): 239-51; B. Wheeler, uTrouthe Without Consequences: Rhetoric and Gender in the
Franklin's Tale," in Feminea Medievalia I: Representations of the Feminine in the Middle Ages, ed.
B. Wheeler (Cambridge, 1993), 91-116.
7. "Love and Degree," 322 (see note 2 above).
8. Criticism concerned directly with the marriage includes: P. E. Gray, "Synthesis and the
Double Standard in the Franklin's Tale," TSLL 7 (1965): 213-24; R. P. Miller, 'The Epicurean
Homily on Marriage by Chaucer's Franklin," Mediaevalia 6 (1980): 151-86; R. Lane, 'The
Franklin's Tale: Of Marriage and Meaning," Portraits of Marriage in Literature, ed. A. C.
Hargrove and M. Magliocco (Macomb, 1984), 107-24; ?.Jacobs, 'The Marriage Contract
of the Franklin's Tale: The Remaking of Society," ChauR 20 (1985): 132-43; A. M. Lucas
and P. J. Lucas, 'The Presentation of Marriage and Love in Chaucer's Franklin's Tale," ES
72 (1991): 501-12.
9.J. T. Frazier, 'The Digression on Marriage in The Franklin's Tale," South Atlantic Bulletin
43 (1978): 75-85.
10. S. Crane, Gender and Romance in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (Princeton, 1994), 130.
11. G. Paris, "Lancelot du Lac, II. Le Conte de la Charrette," Romania 12 (1883): 459-534;
C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love (New York, 1958), 1-43.
12. L. Patterson, Chaucer and the Subject of History (Madison, 1991), 423.
13. I have analyzed the anti-adultery tradition and its dialectical relationship within
courtly literature at much greater length in my dissertation, Chaucer and the Dialectic of Love:
Transformations in the Literary Love Tradition since Marcabru, Diss. University of Texas, 1995
(Ann Arbor, UMI, 1995, Publication No. 9617359).
14. The Life of St. Kathrine of Alexandria, ed. C. Horstmann (London, 1893).
15. To say that the tradition begins with William IX is not to ignore the various influences
which scholars have proposed to explain the origin of "courtly love." Yet even if William was
MARK N. TAYLOR 79
influenced by, say, Arabic poetry or love theory, the tradition he represents is still distinct
from the Arabic.
16. These are neatly summarized and analyzed by R. Boase, The Origin and Meaning of
Courtly Love (Manchester, 1977).
17. All references to the lyrics of Marcabru are to Po?sies Completes du Troubadour Marcabru,
ed.J.-M.-L. Dejeanne (Toulouse, 1909).
18. To what extent Marcabru's fin ' amor is dependent upon Arabic love theory or the
scholastic Latin vocabulary for love is another question (see G. Bond, The Poetry of William
VII, Count of Poitiers, IX Duke of Aquitaine [New York, 1982], lxi-lxii).
19. J. D. Burnley, "Fine Amor: Its Meaning and Context," RES 31 (1980): 129-48.
20. For a survey of the variety of meanings given to fin' amor in medieval Proven?al,
French, English, and other literatures, see E. Reiss, "Fin'Amors: Its History and Meaning in
Medieval Literature," Medieval and Renaissance Studies 8 (1979): 71-99.
21. We are currently in danger of doing to "fin'amor" what earlier generations of scholars
have done to "courtly love": render it meaningless. It is too late to re-invest "courtly love"
with specific meaning or use it as anything other than a broad generic label. For fin' amor,
however, it is still possible to delineate a semantic range.
22. Lyric 37, w. 25-28: "Such a couple bears witness?if they do not go off in two directions
once noble love is their neighbor?of one longing within two desires."
23. The perspectives of whole and fragmented thinking have been identified and ex
plored by L. T. Topsfield, Troubadours and Love (Cambridge, Engl., 1975), 73.
24. Lyric 37, w. 37-39: "According to speech, action, and appearance, it is born of a true
heart, for it promises and is a pledge." For line 38, Dejeanne reads Es for Nais. I follow the
reading of MS N.
25. Marcabru certainly railed against the adultery he perceived taking place around
him. Moshe Lazar (Amors courtois et "fin'amors" dans la litt?rature du Xlle si?cle [Paris, 1964],
54) over-generalizes the meaning of fin ' amor in saying that "la fin ' amors adult?re est
une conception commune ? tous les troubadours sans exception" (his italics). On the question
of historical practices of adultery in the north and south of medieval France, John Benton's
helpful study generally suggests that the Provencals were less inclined to approve the act of
adultery than their northern neighbors ( "Clio and Venus: An Historical View of Medieval
Love," in The Meaning of Courtly Love, ed. F. X. Newman [Albany, 1968], 19-42).
26. Lyric 37, w. 34-36: "For (fin ' amor) rules with truth and its power is superior over
every creature."
27. Lyric 40, w. 8-14: "The one whom fin' amor chooses lives openly, courtly, and wisely,
and it confounds and puts to total disarray the one whom it rejects; fin ' amor makes him
who would blaspheme it so fondly bemused that it indeed makes him bring forth idleness."
28. R. E. Kaske, "Chaucer's Marriage Group," in Chaucer the Love Poet, ed.J. Mitchell and
W. Provost (Athens, Georgia, 1973), 45-65.
29. Clig?s, ed. A. Micha (Paris, 1957), w. 2793-99: "They (lovers) consider them to be
one only as the desire of each passes forth from one to the other; so they both desire one
thing together and, in so far as they desire one thing, there are those satisfied to say that
each one has the hearts of both."
30. Mervelous Signals: Poetics and Sign Theory in the Middle Ages (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1986),
126.
31. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1987), 187.
32. Straus, 147-48.
33. All references to Erec et Enide are to the edition of C. W. Carroll (New York, 1987).
34. Jill Mann, "Chaucerian Themes and Style in the Franklin's Tale" in Medieval Literature:
Chaucer and the Alliterative Tradition, ed. Boris Ford (Harmondsworth, 1982), 139.
35. Chretien's Lancelot is often taken as the model of the conventional courtly lover.
Yet, as several scholars have pointed out, Chretien's treatment is ironic, if not satiric.
36. For example, Lancelot has been rebuffed by the Queen and, not realizing that she
is having a joke at his expense (Lancelot, or the Knight of the Cart [Le Chevalier de la Cha?rete],
ed. W. W. Kibler [New York, 1984], v. 4205), takes her disdain to heart, yet behaves "in
the manner of a refined lover" (a menier de fin amant, v. 3962). Since Aurelius insists that
Dorigen keep her promise against her will, he doest nor prove himself to be a fin amant,
which Lancelot tries to be (and usually succeeds). Lancelot, although an adulterer, is led
by steadfast love. Aurelius, however, is driven not by love but by lust.
37. 'The Franklin's Tale and Chr?tien de Troyes," ChauR 17 (1983): 327.
38. Eric etEnide, w. 4875-80: "Now I love you more than I ever did, and I am once again
certain and convinced that you love me perfectly. Now from here on I want to be just as I
was previously: completely at your service."
39. In her comparative study of the Franklin's Tale and Chr?tien de Troyes's Clig?s, Mary
Hamel finds "at least one clear verbal correspondence, and the possibility of a second"
(316). The second correspondence, which was earlier noted by D. S. Brewer (cited in
Hamel, 316), includes the passage presently under discussion. The similarity between the
two works also extends beyond the thematic level to the stylistic: some of Chaucer's lines,
such as those quoted above, reflect the discursive style of Chr?tien. Although there are no
extensive verbal correspondences, one is suggestive: "Sith he hath both his lady and his love;
/ His lady, certes, and his wyf also" strongly recalls Chretien's "Des'amie a feite sa fame, / Car il
l'apele amie et dam" (see the following note). Hamel suggests that Chaucer could have been
directly familiar with Chretien's Clig?s (325-27). If so, he may have possibly known of his
other romances as well. For example, five MSS which contain all or part of Clig?s also include
Erec et Enide (Carroll, xxv-xxvi). The parallels addressed in this study between Erec et Enide
and the Franklin's Tale, while not strong enough individually to affirm first-hand knowledge,
may be added to the growing evidence that Chaucer was acquainted with Chretien's work.
There is one definite point of similarity between Erec etEnide and the Franklin's Tale: in both
the husbands overhear their wives weeping and this precipitates actions by the husbands
which appear unkind to the wives. In both cases there is never really any doubt about the
husbands' abiding love for their wives.
40. Micha's text reads, "De s amie a feit sa dame" (v. 6633). The scribe, Guiot, may have
erroneously substituted dame for fame, anticipating the next line. Yet it is also possible that
Chr?tien is exploring the dual meaning of the conventional dame as the lover's lady who
is also the wife of another. Pairs of homonyms that rhyme are rare but especially valued
when the same word reflects different meanings in each occurrence (rime equivoque). Most
examples to be found in Clig?s are composed of homonyms (for example, gent as "people"
and as "gentle" in w. 5483-84, ed. Micha), or else the same word is used in two different
grammatical functions (for example blasme as verb and noun in Clig?s, w. 553-54, ed.
Micha). The use of the same word with two different but related meanings is very rare
(for example, pleisance in Clig?s, w. 5139-40, ed. Micha). Chr?tien also uses the rhyme
fame/dame in Clig?s, w. 5179-80, ed Micha).
41. Clig?s, ed. W. Foerster (Halle/Salle, 1901), w. 6753-58; "He had made his beloved
his wife, but he called her beloved and lady, for she lost nothing by this since he loved her
as his beloved, and she also loved him in the way one should love her lover."
42. Hamel, 317.
43. Le Roman de la Rose, ed. F. Lecoy (Paris, 1974-1982), w. 9396-9401: "He (the jealous
husband) makes himself lord over his wife, who ought not remain his lady but his equal and
his companion, as the law goes with them, and he should remain her companion without
making himself her lord and master."
44. Chaucer's reference to the "lawe of love" may come directly from Amis's "loi" of
equality.
45. Jean's character of La Vielle (an important source for Chaucer's character of the
Wife of Bath) is even more cynical than Amis and encourages young wives to give their
husbands reason for jealousy (w. 13115-252). In the Man?ple's Tale, Chaucer presents a
marriage in negative terms similar to those of Amis.
46. "Love and Degree in the Franklin's Tale," ChauR 21 (1987): 333.
47. Gaylord, 344.
48. White, 459-60.
49. That readers commonly bristle with repugnance when they come across Arveragus's
"threat" probably says more about our own inability, when approaching medieval literature,
to unlearn the habitual responses formed in a culture radically different than Chaucer's.
Pearsall's recent article, a detailed study of Arveragus's address to Dorigen, finds it more
formal and less intimate here than elsewhere, which may also contribute to our negative
MARK N. TAYLOR 81
response ("The Franklin's Tale, Line 1469: Forms of Address in Chaucer," SAC 17 [1995]:
69-78).
50. Erec et Enide, w. 2816-18: " 'What?' Erec asked, 'what did you say? You hardly value
me at all! You have a lot of presumption."
51. Ibid., w. 2816-18: "This time you'll be forgiven, but if it happens to you again you'll
never be forgiven."
52. Ibid., w. 3725-29: "She speaks to him; he threatens her, but he doesn't want to do
her harm, since he perceives and knows well that she loves him above all else, and he her
as much as he can."
53. There is no question that medievals tended to treat the ideal love in Erec et Enide
seriously and not satirically. For example, in a straightforward love song, Chretien's younger
contemporary, the troubadour Raimbaut de Vaqueiras, compares his love for his lady thusly:
"Blandida, /servida / genses q'Erecs Enida": The Poems of The Troubadour Raimbaut de Vaqueiras
(The Hague, 1964), ed. J. Lindskill, lyric 15, w. 79-81; "I have wooed and served you better
than Erec did Enide."
54.1 would like to thank James Wimsatt and Elizabeth Scala, who read over drafts of this
paper. Their suggestions have made it better.

Taylor-Servant and Lord: Lady and Wife - The "Franklin's Tale" and Traditions of Courtly Andconjugal Love

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taylor-Servant and Lord: Lady and Wife - The "Franklin's Tale" and Traditions of Courtly Andconjugal Love

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Servant and Lord / Lady and Wife: The "Franklin's Tale" and Traditions of Courtly and

Among the critical controversies surrounding the Franklin's Tale, the

THE CHAUCER REVIEW, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1997.

understanding of Chaucer's treatment. Nonetheless, despite recent ad

imperatives to the rhetorical play of literary conventions, poetic purpo

Aitals pareills fai mostranssa,

Marcabru's reference to going off in "two directions" probably refers

Segon dich, faich e semblanssa

Cab veri tat seignoreia,

Omnipotence figures as an important feature of fin ' amor. In another,

Aicel qui Fin' amors cauzis

relationship. If this understanding of love lies behind the relationship of

The odd behavior of Arveragus toward Dorigen after he learns of her

Considerynge the beste on every syde,

Of his free wyl he swoor hire as a knyght

Ne sholde upon hym take no maistrie

Heere may men seen an humble, wys accord;

Cor vos aim plus qu'ainz mes ne fis,

Chr?tien approves of Erec's refusal to exercise what Jean de Meun calls

The close correspondence between these passages suggests tha

et se fet seigneur de sa fame,

Amor ne puet durer ne vivre,

In the unwinding of the plot, there is every opportunity for Arveragus to

And seyde, "I yow forbede, up peyne of deeth,

"Gui?" fet Erec, "qu'avez vos dit?

"Ceste foiz vos iert pardonee,

forgiveness for fallen humanity. The quality of "franchesse" intersects

The University of Texas at Austin

You might also like