The Franklin's Fantasy
By Robert Levine
The Franklin's
Tale has generated a great variety of skew critical responses, many
of which result from an attempt to apologize rather than to account for apparent
inconsistencies in the poem. Schofield, for example, read the poem as
"...a simple story of an unusually happy marriage ... most of the
inconsistencies in his narrative are a result of his effort to make the
situation dramatic." Kittredge perpetuated the notion of the tale as
charming and genteel, although he did recognize a problem some later critics
have chosen to ignore: "The question is whether it (the tale) is
appropriate to this particular Franklin under these particular circumstances,
and at this particular juncture." Others have seen the poem as a working
out of "the Christian notion of perfection,'' as an "'isolated moment
when. the possibility of human goodness is proclaimed," and as
"Chaucer's subtle and delightful parable justifying the ways of God to
men." Reassuring piety, however, is not the tone Chaucer adopts in the
poem; Paul Baum seems closer to accounting for what happens in the poem when he
suggests that "...the Franklin's Tale is not to be taken quite seriously
as a representation of actual life … in fact, by turning it all into a game or
riddle at the end... he (Chaucer) may have hinted... that we regard the tale as
something, from the realm of higher nonsense."
A failure to respond sympathetically to the
nonsensical, or more precisely, the fantastic quality of the Franklin's Tale
causes Alan Gaylord to misdirect some very accurate observations when he
argues that the poem demonstrates how “... a whole tale can be turned back on
its teller to comment satirically on his character and the values he
represents." Gaylord's paper concentrates primarily on the absurd
inability of the characters in the poem to establish priorities for their
promises, and he reads each of the incidents with zealously legal precision,
ignoring the aspect of the poem which can best be described by Dorigen's words:
"It is agayne the proces of nature (1345)." Typical of Gaylord's
disapproval of what happens in the tale is his comment on Aurelius' expectation
that Dorigen will keep her rash promise: "This kind of fanatical
literalism cannot take "entente" or connotations into account at
all., nor can it observe degrees of earnestness nor discriminate between (sic)
various categories of vows and promises according to their intrinsic merit and
importance. This is a very special brand of gentilesse which the Franklin
is displaying and he obviously considers it heroic, even if the critical
reader may call it absurd." Presumably., however, the "critical reader",,
having read fairy‑tales to his children, Gawain and the Green Knight,
Sir Orfeo., and Sir Launfal (inter alia)‑with
his students, and perhaps some of his colleagues’ papers, is aware that a rash
promise is a convention of fairy‑tale and romance, and that the
convention is not necessarily a negative reflection upon the character and
intellectual abilities of the narrators of such stories, That Gaylord's
judgments proceed from a radical lack of sympathy for fantasy is very clearly
illustrated when he writes:"...the moral assumptions behind the behavior
of the characters in the Franklin's Tale diverge widely both from
twentieth‑century common sense and medieval ethical counsel. 8 This
observation is certainly an accurate description of the Franklin's moral
assumptions, which, however, do not proceed from a simple inability to
establish priorities for promises, as Gaylord would have it, but rather from
the nature of fantasy, and, more specifically, from the Franklin's desire to
idealize the behavior of the aristocracy. If we read the tale as an extended
fantasy about sex and power, in which the Epicurean Franklin idealized the
attitudes, behavior, and abilities of the class to which he aspires, most of
the narrative and rhetorical inconsistencies in the Franklin's Tale may be
resolved.
Such
a reading of the tale hardly requires a revolutionary approach to the Canterbury
Tales. The other tales in what has frequently been called the Marriage
Group may be read as fantasies about sex and power: Alice of Bath in her tale
articulates an elaborate wish‑fulfillment about beauty, time, and maistrey;
the Clerk's Tale functions as a male fantasy, in which Walter plays God
to Griselda's Job, establishing a neatly mythical sado-masochistic
relationship; a kind of negative fantasy, the Merchant's Tale is a male
nightmare on the theme of age and impotence.
Outside
the Marriage Group, the most striking example of a nightmare is the tale told
by the Pardoner, whose sensualism, unlike the Franklin's, is perverted, and
whose tale articulates an hysterical fear of the death of the body, the source
of all sensations. The rioters in his tale parody with an absurd literalness the
conventional Christian fear of death when they boast: "And we wol sleen
this false traytour Death," but they are also attempting to come to terms
(and quite literally "to grips") with the Pardoner's own greatest
fear. Contrasted with the rioters' naïve notions about death, the speech of the
old man who directs them to Death provides a precise vocabulary and imagery for
death in the context of a death‑in‑life nightmare:
Ne Deeth, allas: ne wol nat han my lyf .
Thus wâlke I., lyk a restelees kaityf,
And on the ground, which is my moodres
gate,,
I knokke with my,staff., bothe erly and
late=
And seye 'Leve mooder, leet me in:
Lo how I vanysshe., flesh, and blood, and
skyn.
Allasi whan shul my bones been at rest? °
Mooder, with yow wolde I chaunge my cheste
That in my chambre longe tyme hath beg
Ye‑‑;for an heyre clowt to
wrappe in me! (727‑3ó)
These lines are, I suggest, a projection of the desire of a decaying
sensualist to be free of that 4dying animal" his body. The identity of
the old man has been the subject of some critical speculation., and he has been
identified variously as the Wandering Jew.' as the personification of Death as
Old Age' and as vetus homo. In terms of the Pardoner's nightmare, the
old man has the additional function of serving as a projection of the Pardoner's
vision of his own future. when his flesh has lost its power.
Not every sensualist's fantasy is a nightmare, however, and Chaucer himself indulged in fantasies frequently:
Suche fantasies ben in myn hede.,
S o I not what is best to doo. (BD, 28‑29)
As
F.N. Robinson., no admirer of the genre of dream‑vision, compels himself
to admit: "English would be much poorer in the poetry of fancy if he
(Chaucer) had never practiced in that school and become one of its masters." 10 Chaucer's portrayal of
himself in the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales also shows a
playful awareness that he himself suffered from Franklin‑like tendencies
of the imagination; the narrator constantly falls into hyperbole in describing
his fellow pilgrims: "He was the beste beggere in his hour... So greet a
purchasour was nowher noon. was nowher swich a worthy vavasour."' Perhaps
Chaucer's sympathy for the Franklin was also felt by the illustrator of the
Ellesmere I3, who provided for the Franklin and his extravagant imagination an
unpretentious mount, in distinct contrast to the morally more suspect pilgrims,
whose aspirations were limited to merely material articulations. Chaucer's
attitude towards "Epicurus owene Sone" might be said to anticipate
the attitude Swift expresses in the Digression on Madness in the Tale of the
Tub:
…he that can with Epicurus content his
ideas with the films and images that fly off upon his senses from the
superficies of things, such a man, truly wise, creams off Nature, leaving the
sour and the dregs for philosophy and
reason to lap up.”
If we consider the poem to represent the
functioning of an extravagant, but not morally dangerous mind, much of the
critical discomfort that has been focused on the Franklin's Tale can be
relieved. The passage that has generated the most critical perplexity is
Dorigen's lament, partly because readers have too often ignored Kittredge's advice,
preferring to follow an axiom which James Sledd propounded in his examination
of the apparently random structure of the passage: "The most secure interpretation
(of the passage) would be logically independent of any theory concerning the marriage group., the
character of the Franklin..." Since the inconsistencies in the Franklin's
Tale stubbornly remain inconsistencies if we follow Mr. Sledd's
axiom, I suggest substituting a principle which Charles Muscatine has set forth
clearly, and defended at some length: "Each of the tales, by analogy and
contrast, takes meaning from others. The effect of the larger form, a structure
of juxtapositions and tensions, is to place and control the attitudes evoked
separately by its parts, to reveal their virtues and limitations in
context." Mr. Sledd's argument is based on what seems a patently false
axiom, and in addition resembles Mr. Gaylord's argument in its misunderstanding
of the genre. He finds it possible to speak of Dorigen as: "like the
heroine in a child's story,' and yet of the characters in the tale as
"recognizably human people."14 In a later article on the Clerk's
Tale, Mr. Sledd continues to demonstrate a central misunderstanding of the
nature of fantasy, preferring to pursue an investigation of the
"probability of the characters and action" in a grossly improbable
tale.
Perhaps
the most amusing result of considering the complaint without reference to the
character of the Franklin, or to the nature of the Marriage Group, is contained
in the following remarks of Germaine Dempster: ",...another clear fact to
be inferred from the order of the heroines is that Chaucer,, at least from exemplum
eight onwards, worked with a manuscript of Adversus Jovinianum open
on his desk. Nothing else would account for his producing an order so obviously
haphazard." Miss Dempster goes on to comment on "...the absence of
any planning of detail, previous ordering of material, or reordering after
writing," and finally suggests an economic motive for the random order: "Dorigen's twenty-two exempla all
come from the same source .... The cost and rarity of manuscripts may have very
largely contributed to the formation of such a
habit."17
Miss Dempster's suggestion, however, seems
far more appealing, and certainly has more apparent integrity, than the modish
combination of T.S. Eliot and Charles Muscatine which E. B. Benjamin makes to
reinforce his notion of the function of Dorigen's complaint: “H er long formal
complaint at this point is, I think, an attempt on Chaucer's part to find an
objective correlative for the state of chaos that now prevails." 18 nflationary
rhetoric, however, is no help in understanding what happens in Dorigen's
complaint. Instead I suggest, a brief consideration of what happens in the
source of the complaint's exemplar Jerome's Adversus Jovinianum,,
may help. As David Wiesen describes Jerome's techniques., they seem to
articulate a fantasy about sex and power far less idealized than that of the
Franklin, In his comments on Jerome's use of Theophrastus, Mr. Wiesen writes:
"...so anxious is Jerome to combat marriage and so filled is his mind with
rhetorical arguments derived from the misogynistic tradition that he has
ignored an important consideration ‑‑ that the satiric excerpt from
Theophrastus is not entirely suitable to his case, He wants to. show that for women
virginity is superior to marriage. But then why take the trouble to
ridicule women as a terrible burden to men. Obviously Jerome was so fond of
vivid, satiric exposures of women that he could not resist inserting
Theophrastus' description, even though it was not completely applicable to his
argument." Mr. Wiesen concludes: "The depth of Jerome's fear and the
hatred of marriage is based on the grotesque argument that the love of woman renders the virile mind
effeminate."20 Consequently., the
structure of Adversus Jovinianum reflects Jerome's conscious purpose of
writing propaganda as well as his conscious and unconscious fear of impotence.
Material, them which Jerome used to generate a sexual nightmare is borrowed by the Franklin to represent the interior thoughts of an extravagantly idealized lady. Although the result of such a process may be comics as it is in this passages we need not follow Mr. Gaylord in condemning the Franklin's strenuously paradoxical effort, Perhaps instead the rhetorical heroism involved in attempting to achieve the ultimate victory of the imaginations to make what is foul fair, to turn the abhorrent into the ideal, should be applauded.
Such
a reversal seems to have been Chaucer's intention in the tale which can and
often has been read as an antithetical response to the Merchant's Tale.
The resemblances between the two tales area as C. Hugh Holman has remarked. “
…almost too self evident to need enumeration. In each are three main
characters: a husband‑knights his wife and a squire who is the would‑be
lover of the wife: In each., the squire., wasting away for love of his lady
makes known his passionate desires; In each the husband is temporarily removed
from the scene .... In each a major crisis hinges on supernatural happenings
.... In each a garden plays an important part as the intended place of
rendezvous,... In each the wife is finally restored to her husband.” 21 The
central contrast between the two tales involves the potentially adulterous
relationships which remains ideal and unconsummated in the Franklin's Tale,
but which is consummated in the Merchant's Tale, partaking of abhorrent
sacrilegious and excremental overtones, If the Franklin in his attempt to
oppose the notion of sexuality as nightmare, felt the need to use adynata
of plot, character, and rhetoric, the critic who chooses to examine
"moral assumptions" or "probability of characters and
action" would seem to have gone considerably astray.
Perhaps
the most improbable of Dorigen's responses occurs just before her complaints
when Aurelius informs her that he has removed the rocks from the coast of
Brittany. Instead of submitting Aurelius' assertion to a testy by going to look
at the coasts she almost immediately breaks into her complaint. The reason for
her lack of interest in testing verbal assertions in the phenomenal world is, I
suggests that in the aristocratic worlds as the Franklin idealizes it,
everyone tells the truth, and to challenge anyone's word would be unthinkable.
As Arveragus says in the midst of his pains, “Trouthe is the hyeste thyng that
man may kepe (7.479)," Each of the four characters in the tale keeps his
word under the most difficult circumstances., not because of an inability to
establish priorities for promises but because the Franklin requires such
behavior, of the exquisitely impossible creatures of his imagination.
A n amusing illustration of the degree to which the Franklin's characters are able to overcome difficult circumstances occurs after Arveragus has directed his wife to fulfill her promise; the assignation between Aurelius and Dorigen takes place in a gardens in the middle of winter. Clearly the Franklin's imagination requires that the passions of aristocrats be sufficiently spiritual to transcend meteorological exigencies.
The
inconsistent or, more exactly, the improbable behavior of the characters in the
Franklin's Tale can be accounted for by considering the tale as a
product of the idealizing, Epicurean imagination of its teller. That Chaucer
was sympathetic to the Franklin's imaginative excesses seems likely when we
compare the Franklin's Tale to the Merchant’s Tale, when we
consider Chaucer's ironically indulgent attitude towards the hyperbolae of his
persona both in the Prologue and in the Tale of Sir Thopas, and when we
consider the kinds of fantasy Chaucer uses in the Marriage Group and in the Canterbury
Tales as a whole. A severely judgmental attitude towards the
Franklin such as Mr. Gaylord makes is clearly the result of overlooking the
central aspect of the poems articulated by Aurelius when he responds to the
task Dorigen sets for him:
"Madame." quad he, "this
were an inpossiblel"
Footnotes
1
W. H. Schofield, 4Chaucer's Franklin's
Tale,'4 PMIAs XVI (1901)
pp,
406., 448.
2
G. L. Kittredge., Chaucer's Discussion of
Marriagey'i MPG IX (1912)
p.
161.
3
Donald R. Howard “The Conclusion of the
Marriage Group,” MP., LVII (1960) p, ?‑33; Helen S. Corsas Chaucer,
Poet of Mirth and Morality, Notre Dames 1964, p, 181 Gerhard Joseph
"The Franklin's Tale: Chaucer's Theodicy,”
Chaucer Review,I (1966) p, 32. ‑
4
in
Chaucer, A Critical Appreciation Durham 1958 p. 132.
5
"'The
Promises in the Franklin’s Tale.' ELH, XXXI (19610: p, 334.
6
All
references to Chaucer are to F. N. Robinson's edition, Cambridge 1957
7
0p.
cit, P• 347.
8
Ibid. P• 356.
9
See
Robert P. Miller, “Chaucer's Pardoners the Scriptural Eunuchs and
the
Pardoner's Tale,” Speculum (1955) pp. 180‑199.
10
Op.
cit., p, 267,
11
See
Maurice Hussey, Chaucer's World A Pictorial Companion. Cambridge,
1968 p, 29.
12
“Dorigen's
Complaint,” MP CLV (1947), p, 36, n,3,
13
Chaucer
and the French
Tradition, Berkeley., 1957, p. 222.
Zlt
.
cit.'.Pp• 42s 44.
15
"The
Clerk's Tale: The Monsters and the Critics," MP, LI (1953‑54).,
p. 73.
16
4Chaucer
at Work on the Complaint in the Franklin's Tales"‑' MIN,
LII
(1937) p. 21.
17
Ibid o 3
PP. 22‑«2,'j.
18
.
"the
Concept of Order in the Franklin's Tale,' PQ.., XXXVTII (1959)
p. 122.
0
19
St, Jerome'
as a Satirist, Ithaca, 1964, pp. 157‑58.
20
Ibid,, p, 158,
21
C,
Hugh Holman,"Courtly Love in the Merchant's and Franklin's Tales,'k ELH,
XVIII (1951) ., g. 212,