Throughout this article, I will be comparing, analyzing, translating (interpreting) and evaluating Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Franklin Tale”, The Canterbury Tales. I will be going through and using tools from the different ‘schools of literary criticism’ such as: biographical; comparative; ethical; expressive; historical; impressionistic or aesthetic; mimetic; pragmatic; psychological; Social; textual and theoretical criticism to achieve the objective of this article.

The setting for the tale was located mainly in Brittany (formerly Armorica, France – south of the English Channel). However, Orleans and other French cities were mentioned, as well as Great Britain (as in the British Isles).

The language used in the story was mainly French. Latin was used by an English scholar who introduced Aurelius’s brother to the master magician / secretary of Orleans. It could be assumed that English was also used (as in Middle English) due to the Arveragus (knight) expedition to Great Britain and the presence of the English Clerk.

The clothes, of course, were like what was used in those days of Chaucer’s day. The knight would wear armor, while typical clothing would consist of what was worn in Chaucer’s time.

The setting for the story occurred mainly during the spring (lines 901 – 909) –

“So in one day, right in the morning,

To a gardine that was his bisyde,

In which they had maad hir ordinaunce

From vitaille and from another purveiaunce,

They tease and have fun all day.

And this was on the sixth of May,

That May had painted with her soft Shoures

This garden full of leves and floures “;

-Therefore, the weather was sunny and temperate as it would be during spring in a temperate geographical location such as Western Europe, particularly, in the south of France.

The events of this story progressed over a period of two years, while Aurelius was literally ill (brought on by love sickness) (lines 1101 – 1103) –

“In languor and furyus torment

Two years and more lay Aurelyus,

Er whatever foot he myghte in erthe gon; “

until the end of the story. There was no spectacular event (wait for the illusion), per se, the tale was rather focused on ‘marriages and promises’ that involved the main characters in an abstract, circumstantial and literal way.

The atmosphere of the story was very culminating. For example, “Miller’s Tale” is very funny; the “Tale of the knights” is very serious, and so on. The “Franklin Tale” is a more moralistic tale that is somewhat similar to the plot of moral plays that used to be common after Chaucer’s time. At the beginning of the story, he began with a cheerful disposition (see my first date). During his climax, the mood turned dark and gray (see my second date), and then at the end, he became serene (with a sigh of relief) shrouded in morality.

The style of the story was gentle, graceful, and innocent, in contrast to the mood of the “Miller’s tale.” The latter was a parody (in an obscene and “Jerry Springer Showesque” way) of the “Gentlemen’s Tale” that was noble and romantic.

Like the style, the form and structure of the story is very conducive to the message of the story. For example, the story is about integrity, honesty, and honor. It was also borrowed from the “Knight’s Tale” and the “Squire’s Tale,” of whom, ironically, Franklin admires and emulates. (He wanted to be like the Knight while wishing his son to be like the Squire, a part of his ambition to become ennobled, ironically, Chaucer took the same path to nobility in his life.) In short, the form and structure of the story act as a conduit that carries the water (the message) to a climactic end.

In the story, we were able to perceive the images / style. We are able to see, hear, touch, taste and smell what the actions and environment of the character are. In other words, it appeals to our visual (the beautiful gardens), auditory, olfactory, tactile and taste senses. Furthermore, the images are kinetic (in their movement) and synaesthetic (the Squire’s lust and the black rocks on the shore).

The style, of course, is maintained thanks to the attitudes and tone of voice of the main characters: Arveragus (Knight); Dorigen (Knight’s wife); Aurelius (Squire) and his brother, and the Clerk (wizard). These characters cannot be divided evenly in the traditional protagonist / antagonist form. For example, in “Tale of the Knights” Palamon was the protagonist while Arcita was the antagonist, as well as, in “Miller’s Tale”, Nicholas was the protagonist while Absolon was the antagonist. In turn, the main characters turned out to be extremely noble and gentle at the end of “Franklin’s Tale” for their noble deeds. (Lines 1620-1625) –

“Lordynges, this question, thanne, wol I ask you now,

What was the mooste fre, as yow thinks?

Now he tells me, uh, you’re moving on.

I kan namoore; my story has come to an end “.

The characters then developed into the plot of the story as follows. Arveragus made a pact with his new wife, Dorigen, that their marriage will be like a courtship in which he will continue to meet her needs, just as a suitor serves his future beauty. He did not want to have dominion over her (which differs from “Clerk’s Tale” – husband’s dominance and “Wife of Bath’s Tale” – wife’s dominance) but rather to be mutual friends as long as they could share their most intimate secrets with each other. Subsequently, Arveragus went to Britain to reap his chivalric glory in the world. Dorigen, alone, went to a dance during the spring (which goes against the morals of those days, in the sense that a married woman should not be at any public outing without her spouse, especially at a dance) where she danced with a lustful squire who wanted to have sex with her. In response, choosing not to be rude or disconcerting (which is common practice among ladies of her class), she tried to sidestep his advances by promising him the chance to copulate with her if she could get some rocks off the shores of Brittany. In his mind, the task seemed impossible. In unbridled lust, Aurelius suffered his carnal predicament for more than two years until his brother came to his aid by presenting him with a wizard who could make his wish come true with the help of an astrological illusion. In turn, he promised the magician a fortune. The magician performed the act. To Dorigen’s dismay and surprise, the insurmountable task was accomplished. In honor, he realized that he could not dishonor his promise to Aurelius. Trembling, she turned to Arveragus (who refutes the idea of ​​an equal partnership in a relationship because, now, the husband is the one being decisive and thus perpetrating the cliché: “help the damsel in distress”) in search of of help. With dignity, he told her that he had to keep his promise. However, she must be discreet so as not to betray her unorthodox marriage arrangement with her peers (society).

Then, after many atrocious mental torture, he surrendered to Aurelius, who was figuratively drooling from his mouth like a wolverine unleashed at a banquet. Finally, she told him about her husband’s knowledge and response. The squire was so moved by her story that he sent her home still ‘an extramarital virgin’. Oh, by the way, Aurelius realized that he still had that small fortune to pay the wizard for his arcane services. Rather than “make a disappearing act,” he decided to bargain nobly with the magician over payouts (the Squire wasn’t exactly worth a fortune). In the form of a domino effect, the magician realizing what happened throughout that strange sequence of “goodness is contagious like the bubonic plague in the medieval European countryside”, knocked him off the figurative hook. Like in a fairy tale, everyone (well, the married couple) lived happily ever after.

During the plot, we were able to witness various forms of conflict such as: man vs. man; man vs. nature; man vs. supernatural; man vs. the same; man vs. deities, and man vs. society. In the first conflict, we witnessed Dorigen vs. Aurelius. In the second, the magician amazingly manipulates nature to create an illusion with the help of astrological means. In the third, Dorigen’s recollections of stories recounting how the Vestal Virgins of old sacrificed their lives to honor their virginity and their gods and goddesses as she stormy struggled with herself and her predicament on how to get out of the promise without breaking it. promise with the landowner or break her marriage vow (abstain from adultery) with her husband. Fourth, the unorthodox interpretation of the marriage of Knight vs. social vision of how a marriage should be: patriarchal in nature (no si ni pero …).

From the conflicts and the plot we could extract the theme of this story that deals with gentleness and nobility of spirit. Throughout the conflicts and trials, the main characters proved to be worthy and noble, which is supported by the last stanza of the story that posed a question “who is the best of all?” Of which, I responded to the Knight because he risked more for his unconditional love and trust in the author and for living in a society so unconventional that it does not correspond to his status in his society.

The point of view of the poem is omniscient. In addition, it has three folds. In other words, the Franklin, Chaucer the narrator, and Chaucer the author all played a role in shaping the story. First, Franklin tells the story to represent his idealism of kindness and courtesy (even false nobility). (The importance of this point of view to the tale is described, somewhat ironically, in the portrait in Franklin’s “General Prologue”). Chaucer, the narrator, pointed out the connection between the story in regards to the Knight and Squire stories (whom he admired); his retaliation towards the host who treated him harshly, and the middle ground of his story took between the stories of the clerk and bath’s wife regarding marriage and the male-female relationship. Chaucer the poet basically conveyed his own personal beliefs (in my opinion) in marriage that reflected the Franklin story that was in conflict with Chaucer society in his day. (I was once informed to my high school advanced English class, by Mr. Lambert, a Cambridge University alumnus and a native Briton, that Chaucer was fined for beating a friar during his lifetime). As I argued, Franklin’s life somewhat resembled that of Chaucer, the poet, because of the path of life that Chaucer took to become a false noble during his lifetime, rather than being born into the nobility through the “ traditional route of the blue blood ”.

I didn’t find where Chaucer borrowed this story. In fact, I fervently believe that this story was an inspiration from Chaucer’s own imagination and beliefs.

Regarding the tale, modern readers (of the late 90s) would see this story as more appropriate to Chaucer’s time (14th century) than ours, where we are shaped by obscene talk shows (Jerry Springer) and soap operas, instead of, works of morality and religious entertainments of the time of Chaucer.

Personally, I am very much in love with this story. I appreciate the nobility of the characters and their themes. The Tale was superbly written and related by Franklin; Chaucer the narrator and Chaucer the poet.