Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Canterbury tales analysis
The general prologue to the Canterbury tales analysis
The Canterbury tales analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Canterbury tales analysis
Chaucer's The Franklin's Tale from the Canterbury Tales
The Franklin’s Tale, one of the many stories comprising the Canterbury Tales, is one of Chaucer’s most celebrated and most contradictory works. This tale set in medieval Brittany narrates the uncanny marriage of the knight Arveragus and his lady Dorigen. This unlikely union was based on mutual trust, love and truthfulness and knew neither the rule of the lady that was typical of courtly love, nor the domination by the husband that was expected of a traditional marriage. In the controversial scene that will be discussed here, Arveragus orders Dorigen to give herself to a man to whom she had made the reckless promise of giving her love if he could accomplish an impossible deed. Critics have argued back and forth for centuries on the topic of knowing whether this scene (and the tale’s outcome) showed the validity of the marriage agreement or, on the contrary, its total utopia. Indeed, how should Arveragus’ reaction be interpreted? Does he stay true to his marriage vow by sending his wife to a forced adultery? And what does it say about the couples’ values and the validity of their engagement? In my opinion, Arveragus violated the marriage agreement because he valued trouthe to others and knightly honor before trouthe to his wife and to his own promise. His actions were motivated not by the mutual promise the loving couple had made to each other but by the desire to save the couple’s honor in the face of society and to abide by the principle of trouthe, not truthfulness.
In order to answer the question of whether Arveragus violates his marriage vows by ordering his wife to Aurelius, one must first carefully analyze said vows and determine exactly what kind of marr...
... middle of paper ...
...2.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Franklin’s Tale”. The Canterbury Tales. Pages 337-358.
Flake, Timothy H. “Love, Trouthe, and the Happy Ending of the Franklin’s Tale”. English Studies. 1996, 3. Pages 209-226.
Kaske R.E. “Chaucer’s Marriage Group”. Chaucer the Love Poet. Edited by Jerome Mitchell and William Provost. University of Georgia Press, 1973.
Lawler, Traugott. “Delicacy vs. Truth”. New Readings of Chaucer’s Poetry. Edited by Robert G. Benson and Susan J. Ridyard. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2003.
Schwartz, Debora B. “Backgrounds to Romance: Courtly Love”. Medieval Literature class. California Polytechnic State University, March 2001.
http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513/courtly/courtly.htm
Severs, J. Burke. “The Tales of Romance”. Companion to Chaucer Studies. Edited by Beryl Rowland. Toronto: New York University Press, 1968. Pages 229-246.
Boardman, Phillip C. "Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1343-1400)." Enduring Legacies: Ancient and Medieval Cultures. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Custom Pub., 2000. 430-54. Print.
Nelson, Marie. "Biheste is Dette: Marriage promises in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales." 2001. Dept. of English, Wentworth University. 15 July 2003 <http://www.wentworth.edu/nelson/chaucer>
Mandell, Jerome. Geoffrey Chaucer : building the fragments of the Canterbury tales. N.J. : Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1992.
Forbes, Shannon. "'To Alisoun Now Wol I Tellen Al My Love-Longing': Chaucer's Treatment of the Courtly Love Discourse in the Miller's Tale." Women's Studies 36.1 (2007): 1-14. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 May 2013
In “The Franklin’s Tale,” Averagus and Dorigen get married and the vow to always respect each other and the other’s words and actions. Shortly after getting married he is gone to England for two years, and while he is away his wife weeps, fasts, and laments his absence. Dorigen sits on the shore looking at bare rocks that are near by and during this time she becomes fear...
In his Canterbury Tales, Chaucer fully explicates the cultural standard known as courtesy through satire. In the fourteenth century, courtesy embodied sophistication and an education in English international culture. The legends of chivalric knights, conversing in the language of courtly love, matured during this later medieval period. Chaucer himself matured in the King's Court, as is revealed in his cultural status, but he also retained an anecdotal humor about courtesy. One must only peruse his Tales to discern these sentiments, for Chaucer’s view of courtesy can seem shocking and, all together, obscene at times, it’s the similarity of the differences that make Chaucer’s tales superior. An example of this can be seen through Nicholas’ attempt at “courting” Alison versus Arcita and Palamon’s endeavors at courting Emily. Nicholas' anxious and lewd behavior, in conjunction with his explicit sexual connotation, demonstrates Chaucer’s more farcical side; where as, the manner in which Arcita and Palamon court Emily can seem more satirical. In the Miller's Tale, Chaucer juxtaposes courtly love with animalistic lust, while in the Knight’s tale, the subject of chivalry is held with much higher regard, and used as a florid, glorious attribute. These numerous references provide the reader with a remarkably rich image of the culture and class structure of late fourteenth century England.
Toswell, M.J. "Chaucer's Pardoner, Chaucer's World, Chaucer's Style: Three Approaches to Medieval Literature." College Literature 28.3 (2001): 155. Literature Resource Center. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.
Medieval and Renaissance literature develops the concepts of love and marriage and records the evolution of the relation between them. In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Christian love clashes with courtly love, as men and women grapple with such issues as which partner should rule in marriage, the proper, acceptable role of sex in marriage, and the importance of love as a basis for a successful marriage. Works by earlier writers portray the medieval literary notion of courtly love, the sexual attraction between a chivalric knight and his lady, often the knight's lord's wife. The woman, who generally held mastery in these relationships based on physical desire and consummation, dictated the terms of the knight's duties and obligations, much like a feudal lord over a vassal. This microcosm of romance between man and woman was anchored by the macrocosm of the bonds among men and their fealty to their lord. The dominance of women and fealty to the leader in courtly love contrasts with the dominance ...
The Wife of Bath Prologue and Tale. Geoffery Chaucer. The Middle Ages, Volume 1A. Eds. Christopher Baswell and Anne Howland Schotter. The Longman Anthology of British Literature. Fourth ed. Gen.eds David Damrosch, and Kevin J. H. Dettmar. New York: Pearson-Longman, 2010. 375-408. Print.
Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, demonstrate many different attitudes and perceptions towards marriage. Some of these ideas are very traditional, such as that illustrated in the Franklin’s Tale. On the other hand, other tales present a liberal view, such as the marriages portrayed in the Miller’s and The Wife of Bath’s tales. While several of these tales are rather comical, they do indeed depict the attitudes towards marriage at that time in history. D.W. Robertson, Jr. calls marriage "the solution to the problem of love, the force which directs the will which is in turn the source of moral action" (Robertson, 88). "Marriage in Chaucer’s time meant a union between spirit and flesh and was thus part of the marriage between Christ and the Church" (Bennett, 113). The Canterbury Tales show many abuses of this sacred bond, as will be discussed below.
The structure Geoffrey Chaucer chose for his masterpiece, The Canterbury Tales, of utilizing a melange of narrative voices to tell separate tales allows him to explore and comment on subjects in a multitude of ways. Because of this structure of separate tales, the reader must regard as extremely significant when tales structurally overlap, for while the reader may find it difficult to render an accurate interpretation through one tale, comparing tales enables him to lessen the ambiguity of Chaucer’s meaning. The Clerk’s Tale and The Merchant’s Tale both take on the institution of marriage, but comment on it in entirely different manner, but both contain an indictment of patriarchal narcissism and conceit.
Hansen, Elaine. Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. 188-207.
Mitchell, J. Allan. (2005). Chaucer's Clerk's Tale and the Question of Ethical Monstrosity. Studies in Philology. Chapel Hill: Winter 2005. Vol.102, Iss. 1; pg. 1, 26 pgs
“The Wife of Bath’s Tale” is written in an entertaining and adventurous spirit, but serves a higher purpose by illustrating the century’s view of courtly love. Hundreds, if not thousands, of other pieces of literature written in the same century prevail to commemorate the coupling of breathtaking princesses with lionhearted knights after going through unimaginable adventures, but only a slight few examine the viability of such courtly love and the related dilemmas that always succeed. “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” shows that women desire most their husband’s love, Overall, “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” shows that the meaning of true love does not stay consistent, whether between singular or separate communities and remains timeless as the depictions of love from this 14th century tale still hold true today.
Two of the greatest masters of British literature, Shakespeare and Chaucer, tended to look to the classics when searching for inspiration. A lesser-known example of this lies in an ancient tale from Greece about two star-crossed lovers. There are many variations on the names of these lovers, but for the purpose of solidarity, they shall henceforth be referred to as “Troilus and Criseyde” for Chaucer and “Troilus and Cressida” for Shakespeare. Chaucer’s “Troilus and Criseyde” offers up a classic tale of love that is doomed, whereas Shakespeare’s “Troilus and Cressida” is not only tragic but also biting in its judgment and representation of characters. This difference may be due to the differences in time periods for the two authors, or their own personal dispositions, but there can be no denying the many deviations from Chaucer’s work that Shakespeare employs. Shakespeare’s work, by making the characters and situations more relatable, builds upon Chaucer’s original work, rather than improving it or shattering it.