Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:01:16.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Franklin's Tale: Chaucer or the Critics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2020

Gertrude M. White
Gertrude M. White*
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Franklin's Tale, which has caused much disagreement among critics of Chaucer, may best be understood in the light of Chaucer's own writings, particularly The Merchant's Tale and three short lyrics, “Truth,” “Gentilesse,” and “Lak of Stedfastnesse.” The relationship between the characters and events of the two Tales dramatizes a moral ideal that operates throughout The Canterbury Tales and is given explicit expression in the lyrics. It may be summed up as “gentilesse,” which consists, in the Knight's words, of “Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisie.” In a variety of contexts, this standard operates throughout Chaucer's writings. An understanding of it puts The Franklin's Tale into clear perspective, identifies its true theme, answers its critics, accounts for its apparent absurdities, inconsistencies, and contradictions, and reveals its suitability to its teller.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , May 1974 , pp. 454 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Note 1 in page 462 “Chaucer's Discussion of Marriage,” Modern Philology, 9(1911–12), 435–67.

Note 2 in page 462 See esp. Phyllis Hodgson, ed., Chaucer. The Franklin's Tale (London: Univ. of London, Athlone Press, 1960), p. 32; Paul G. Ruggiers, “The Franklin's Tale,” The Art of the Canterbury Tales (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1965), pp. 226–37.

Note 3 in page 462 Roland Blenner-Hassett, “Autobiographical Aspects of Chaucer's Franklin,” Speculum, 28 (1953), 791–800.

Note 4 in page 462 R. M. Lumiansky, “The Character and Performance of Chaucer's Franklin,” University of Toronto Quarterly, 20 (1951), 344–56. This general viewpoint is reflected from different angles in the studies listed separately in nn. 5–7.

Note 5 in page 462 D. W. Robertson, Jr., A Preface to Chaucer. Studies in Medieval Perspective (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1962), pp. 470–72.

Note 6 in page 462 Alan T. Gaylord, “The Promises in ‘The Franklin's Tale,‘ ” English Literary History, 31 (1964), 332.

Note 7 in page 462 Chauncey Wood, “Of Time and Tide in ‘The Franklin's Tale,‘ ” Philological Quarterly, 45 (1966), 702.

Note 8 in page 462 See esp. the following articles: C. Hugh Holman, “Courtly Love in the Merchant's and Franklin's Tales,” in Chaucer: Modern Essays in Criticism, ed. Edward Wagenknecht (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1959), pp. 240–50; Paul Edward Gray, “Synthesis and the Double Standard in 'The Franklin's Tale,' ” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 7 (1965–66), 213–24; Lindsay A. Mann, “ 'Gentilesse' and 'The Franklin's Tale,' ” Studies in Philology, 63 (1966), 10–29; Robert B. Burlin, “The Art of Chaucer's Franklin,” Neophilologus, 51 (1967), 55–73; Gerhard Joseph, “ 'The Franklin's Tale' : Chaucer's Theodicy,” Chaucer Review, 1 (1966), 20–32; Edwin B. Benjamin, “The Concept of Order in 'The Franklin's Tale,'” Philological Quarterly, 38 (1959), 119–24; A. M. Kearney, “Truth and Illusion in 'The Franklin's Tale,' ” Essays in Criticism, 19 (1969), 245–53.

Note 9 in page 462 See esp. Benjamin, Ruggiers, Holman, and Mann.

Note 10 in page 462 All line references to the text of The Canterbury Tales are taken from The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. F. N. Robinson, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton, 1957).

Note 11 in page 462 Charles A. Owen, Jr., “The Crucial Passages in Five of ‘The Canterbury Tales’ : A Study in Irony and Symbol,” in Chaucer: Modern Essays in Criticism, p. 253.

Note 12 in page 462 “Dorigen's Complaint,” Modern Philology, 45 (1947–48), 42.

Note 13 in page 462 E. T. Donaldson, “Commentary on ‘The Franklin's Tale,‘ ” Chaucer's Poetry (New York: Ronald Press, 1958), p. 925. Also Joseph, p. 29.

Note 14 in page 462 Gertrude M. White, “Hoolynesse or Dotage: The Merchant's January,” Philological Quarterly, 44 (1965), 397–404.