What Role Does Franklin Play In Society?
For as long as man have lived together, they have divided themselves: the strong from the weak, the rich from the poor, and in Medieval England, the gentle from the masses. Of course today, although there are still without a doubt class distinction and divisions, society has come a long way in a very short time. When Geoffrey Chaucer was writing his masterpiece, Canterbury Tales, societal oppression was the norm, and this inspired many of his character’s whom he created as stereotypes to criticize his world. If one was born poor he or she would be poor for eternity, but if one was born rich and noble, or gentle as it was called, one would live in the lap of luxury. While Chaucer does not directly identify the role that the Franklin plays in society, he does praise the Franklin’s gentle manner and breaking of class barriers. Although today's world views society in
…show more content…
Chaucer’s time as unfair and oppressive, at the time strict societal roles and an unfluid caste system were the norm. The United States of America was founded on the idea of equal opportunity and equality in the eyes of the law. Because of this, the impossibility of changing social classes and systemic oppression of medieval England may seem unreasonably harsh. Much like any society, the unfairness can be tied back to a small, extremely powerful upper class who believed that they were superior to the lower classes. Rosalyn Rossignol highlights the problem with the noble class when she states, ““The idea of gentilesse was problematic at the time when Chaucer was writing because members of the nobility were, simply by virtue of their own birth, considered to be ‘gentle’”(104). For many years this idea kept a middle class from emerging in England, but eventually in the late Medieval era, a powerful middle class full of merchants, guildsmen, and landowners finally arose. With the rise of a middle class in England also came the rise of the franklin.
First to understand the Chaucer’s characterization of his Franklin, one must understand the historical context.
Merriam-Webster defines a franklin as a medieval English landowner of free but not noble birth. However, unlike knights who also were granted land by a baron, the franklin according to Elizabeth Sembler, ““held their lands free of military and labor obligations to their respective lords”(135). Frankly, this is all scholars know for sure about the franklin class. Because of the lack of documentation there is almost nothing historians are able to agree upon when it comes to the exact role the franklin played in society (Sembler 135). The unsurety of the franklin even extends into where exactly the franklins fit into the pecking order of English society. Scholar Michael Johnston claims, ““Franklins in medieval England existed in an ambiguous relationship to gentility”(3). However, the ambiguity of the social position perfectly represents the unsurity of the franklin in medieval society as because of the strict castes no one even in the medieval era could pin exactly where the franklin
fell.
One of the most important texts when analyzing Chaucer’s Franklin is the general prologue. In Middle Ages and Medieval Europe, it was extremely common for people to be judged exclusively from their physical appearance. This idea is also reflected in the General Prologue of the Canterbury Tales. Chaucer begins his characterization of the Franklin stating, “White was his beard as is the white daisy./ Of sanguine temperament by every sign”(GP 332-33). Even today facial hair represents virility and maturity, not only this but the color white commonly represents purity and wholesomeness. The Franklin is also described as having a friendly demeanor. During the time of Chaucer, medical conditions and personality traits were traced back to four distinct humors: choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic, and sanguine. As mentioned above, the Franklin is mentioned as having a “sanguine temperament,” which “indicates a jovial and generous-minded personality, as well as good physical condition”(Rossignol 55). Chaucer in just two lines of physical description has already established that the Franklin is a man who not only is pure but even gives off an aura of generosity and kindness. However, Chaucer does not stop his praise here. Chaucer describes the Franklin’s household and generosity when he claims, “A householder, and that a great, was he;/ Saint Julian he was in his own country”(GP 339-40). Saint Julian is the patron saint of hospitality in the Catholic church, and although this comparison may be glanced over now, at the time this comparison would have carried immense weight as religion was often the most important and powerful force in people’s lives. Not only this, but generosity was also one of the ideals and pillars of the Chivalric Code, and sharing one’s own home is quite generous. Although Chaucer’s praise seems obvious, scholars are still not sure of the author’s motives.
Today many critics still view Chaucer’s characterization as a striking criticism of the new gentry. While most lines of the Franklin’s passage in the General Prologue seem to obviously be praise, there are four lines over which literary critics argue, and they are as follows: “Delightful living was the goal he'd won,/ [f]or he was Epicurus' very son,/ [t]hat held opinion that a full delight/ [w]as true felicity, perfect and right”(FGP 335-38). To truly understand this passage, first one must understand the connection to Epicurus. Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who is commonly believed to have preached that the only meaning in life was to find pleasure because, as he believed, life had no true meaning as there were no gods. Of course, this seems to go against everything the church in the medieval era believed. Because of this, Epicureanism was “viewed as hedonistic, misconstrued as gluttonous and foul, a philosophical disaster and seen by many as contradictory to Aristotelian 'moderation'”(de Young 10). Apologists of Chaucer’s Franklin state just the opposite arguing that ““Although he is labeled as an Epicurean...there is nothing negative or satirical about his portrait”(Rossignol 55). Though it is often overlooked or ignored, Epicurus claimed that pleasure and peace came from moderation. The Greek philosopher thought that the root of all pain was gluttony and avidly urged his followers to not fall into the cycle of greed and carnal pleasures. The attack on the Franklin based off of Chaucer’s General Prologue is based completely on misconceptions and misinterpretations.
The Franklin’s Tale, a story of love and redemption, only further proves that Chaucer respects the arising upper middle class. In his tale, the Franklin tells the tale of the beautiful maiden, Dorigen, and her admirer, the squire Averagus. However, Averagus’ love is in vain as Dorigen is already married to Aurelius, a very noble knight. In order to gain her love, Averagus proclaims that he will move every rock from the shore and Dorigen agrees to marry him if he does so as she believes it to be impossible. After the help of a lowly clerk who is skilled in the art of magic, Averagus is able to make it appear that the rocks are gone. He goes back to gain Dorigen’s love and she, unhappy plans to kill herself. Soon though, Averagus has a change of heart and decides to allow Dorigen to stay with her beloved husband. Obviously the story portrays a perfect marriage, but Chaucer also states, “So can a squire perform a noble act/ As well as can a knight, and that's a fact” (FT 1543-44). Of course this fits perfectly with the Franklin who, although it is argued, has proved his nobility, and much like Averagus and according to many scholars the Franklin’s “description accords well with the squierarchy of the time”(Johnston 15). Not only this but creating a character like Averagus who acts just as noble a knight “suggests that the Franklin’s gentilesse is not superficial but rather expresses an idealistic yearning towards perfection in a postlapsarian world”(Rossignol 105). However, the theme of gentility from manner goes even further. In the tale after Averagus does not gain the love of Dorigen, the clerk who helped the lovesick squire forgives Averagus of all of his debt saying, “For not a penny will I take from you/For all my craft or for my labor. Sire,/You've paid me well, I've all that I require./[a]nd that's enough, so farewell and good day!"(Chaucer 613-18). By inserting this into his tale, the Franklin is demonstrating that even the lower classes are able to act in a noble manner. The Franklin is simply trying to break down the unfairness and pretensions of medieval society, for much like today, 600 years ago he would have been harshly criticized for having social influence without not being born into a gentile family.
Once again, the Franklin’s actions do not come without harsh criticism. The main argument against the Franklin’s portrayal of himself in his tale is that “the Franklin’s praise [i]s self-serving, cynical evidence of his social-climbing efforts”(Rossignol 104). Chaucer critic Anthony Williams even states, “‘He [Chaucer’s Franklin] desires that from his fiction will emerge a view of reality in which natural aristocracy achieved through virtue is superior to legal aristocracy achieved through accident of birth. And this view of reality will, he believes, fulfill his personal ambition to be noble’”(qtd. in Sembler 141). These opinions are completely unfounded in the text. They are complete speculation. When one studies Chaucer’s life he or she will also discover that much like the Franklin, Chaucer was born into an upper class family without noble blood and rose into the nobility through marriage. Would Chaucer, an avid critic of medieval society, be so harsh to criticise someone so similar to himself? In all likelihood, the Franklin is not simply attempting to gain power through his manner and story, but acting as he think a nobleman should, which is showing hospitality, love, compassion, and forgiveness, none of which are bad things. The Franklin truly proves that change, for better or worse, is always going to be criticized.
It is very easy to view to view the world in a dualistic manner: honest or deceitful, good or bad, black or white. However, reality is much more complicated, and Chaucer’s Franklin is the perfect example of this. Many believe that it is common to criticise something because it is new or unknown, and in the case of the franklin class and the Franklin this is unfortunately true. Of course there are negative aspects of the Franklin but overall Chaucer’s portrayal is fair, honest, and flattering.
Chaucer’s time as unfair and oppressive, at the time strict societal roles and an unfluid caste system were the norm. The United States of America was founded on the idea of equal opportunity and equality in the eyes of the law. Because of this, the impossibility of changing social classes and systemic oppression of medieval England may seem unreasonably harsh. Much like any society, the unfairness can be tied back to a small, extremely powerful upper class who believed that they were superior to the lower classes. Rosalyn Rossignol highlights the problem with the noble class when she states, ““The idea of gentilesse was problematic at the time when Chaucer was writing because members of the nobility were, simply by virtue of their own birth, considered to be ‘gentle’”(104). For many years this idea kept a middle class from emerging in England, but eventually in the late Medieval era, a powerful middle class full of merchants, guildsmen, and landowners finally arose. With the rise of a middle class in England also came the rise of the franklin.
First to understand the Chaucer’s characterization of his Franklin, one must understand the historical context.
Merriam-Webster defines a franklin as a medieval English landowner of free but not noble birth. However, unlike knights who also were granted land by a baron, the franklin according to Elizabeth Sembler, ““held their lands free of military and labor obligations to their respective lords”(135). Frankly, this is all scholars know for sure about the franklin class. Because of the lack of documentation there is almost nothing historians are able to agree upon when it comes to the exact role the franklin played in society (Sembler 135). The unsurety of the franklin even extends into where exactly the franklins fit into the pecking order of English society. Scholar Michael Johnston claims, ““Franklins in medieval England existed in an ambiguous relationship to gentility”(3). However, the ambiguity of the social position perfectly represents the unsurity of the franklin in medieval society as because of the strict castes no one even in the medieval era could pin exactly where the franklin
fell.
One of the most important texts when analyzing Chaucer’s Franklin is the general prologue. In Middle Ages and Medieval Europe, it was extremely common for people to be judged exclusively from their physical appearance. This idea is also reflected in the General Prologue of the Canterbury Tales. Chaucer begins his characterization of the Franklin stating, “White was his beard as is the white daisy./ Of sanguine temperament by every sign”(GP 332-33). Even today facial hair represents virility and maturity, not only this but the color white commonly represents purity and wholesomeness. The Franklin is also described as having a friendly demeanor. During the time of Chaucer, medical conditions and personality traits were traced back to four distinct humors: choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic, and sanguine. As mentioned above, the Franklin is mentioned as having a “sanguine temperament,” which “indicates a jovial and generous-minded personality, as well as good physical condition”(Rossignol 55). Chaucer in just two lines of physical description has already established that the Franklin is a man who not only is pure but even gives off an aura of generosity and kindness. However, Chaucer does not stop his praise here. Chaucer describes the Franklin’s household and generosity when he claims, “A householder, and that a great, was he;/ Saint Julian he was in his own country”(GP 339-40). Saint Julian is the patron saint of hospitality in the Catholic church, and although this comparison may be glanced over now, at the time this comparison would have carried immense weight as religion was often the most important and powerful force in people’s lives. Not only this, but generosity was also one of the ideals and pillars of the Chivalric Code, and sharing one’s own home is quite generous. Although Chaucer’s praise seems obvious, scholars are still not sure of the author’s motives.
Today many critics still view Chaucer’s characterization as a striking criticism of the new gentry. While most lines of the Franklin’s passage in the General Prologue seem to obviously be praise, there are four lines over which literary critics argue, and they are as follows: “Delightful living was the goal he'd won,/ [f]or he was Epicurus' very son,/ [t]hat held opinion that a full delight/ [w]as true felicity, perfect and right”(FGP 335-38). To truly understand this passage, first one must understand the connection to Epicurus. Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who is commonly believed to have preached that the only meaning in life was to find pleasure because, as he believed, life had no true meaning as there were no gods. Of course, this seems to go against everything the church in the medieval era believed. Because of this, Epicureanism was “viewed as hedonistic, misconstrued as gluttonous and foul, a philosophical disaster and seen by many as contradictory to Aristotelian 'moderation'”(de Young 10). Apologists of Chaucer’s Franklin state just the opposite arguing that ““Although he is labeled as an Epicurean...there is nothing negative or satirical about his portrait”(Rossignol 55). Though it is often overlooked or ignored, Epicurus claimed that pleasure and peace came from moderation. The Greek philosopher thought that the root of all pain was gluttony and avidly urged his followers to not fall into the cycle of greed and carnal pleasures. The attack on the Franklin based off of Chaucer’s General Prologue is based completely on misconceptions and misinterpretations.
The Franklin’s Tale, a story of love and redemption, only further proves that Chaucer respects the arising upper middle class. In his tale, the Franklin tells the tale of the beautiful maiden, Dorigen, and her admirer, the squire Averagus. However, Averagus’ love is in vain as Dorigen is already married to Aurelius, a very noble knight. In order to gain her love, Averagus proclaims that he will move every rock from the shore and Dorigen agrees to marry him if he does so as she believes it to be impossible. After the help of a lowly clerk who is skilled in the art of magic, Averagus is able to make it appear that the rocks are gone. He goes back to gain Dorigen’s love and she, unhappy plans to kill herself. Soon though, Averagus has a change of heart and decides to allow Dorigen to stay with her beloved husband. Obviously the story portrays a perfect marriage, but Chaucer also states, “So can a squire perform a noble act/ As well as can a knight, and that's a fact” (FT 1543-44). Of course this fits perfectly with the Franklin who, although it is argued, has proved his nobility, and much like Averagus and according to many scholars the Franklin’s “description accords well with the squierarchy of the time”(Johnston 15). Not only this but creating a character like Averagus who acts just as noble a knight “suggests that the Franklin’s gentilesse is not superficial but rather expresses an idealistic yearning towards perfection in a postlapsarian world”(Rossignol 105). However, the theme of gentility from manner goes even further. In the tale after Averagus does not gain the love of Dorigen, the clerk who helped the lovesick squire forgives Averagus of all of his debt saying, “For not a penny will I take from you/For all my craft or for my labor. Sire,/You've paid me well, I've all that I require./[a]nd that's enough, so farewell and good day!"(Chaucer 613-18). By inserting this into his tale, the Franklin is demonstrating that even the lower classes are able to act in a noble manner. The Franklin is simply trying to break down the unfairness and pretensions of medieval society, for much like today, 600 years ago he would have been harshly criticized for having social influence without not being born into a gentile family.
Once again, the Franklin’s actions do not come without harsh criticism. The main argument against the Franklin’s portrayal of himself in his tale is that “the Franklin’s praise [i]s self-serving, cynical evidence of his social-climbing efforts”(Rossignol 104). Chaucer critic Anthony Williams even states, “‘He [Chaucer’s Franklin] desires that from his fiction will emerge a view of reality in which natural aristocracy achieved through virtue is superior to legal aristocracy achieved through accident of birth. And this view of reality will, he believes, fulfill his personal ambition to be noble’”(qtd. in Sembler 141). These opinions are completely unfounded in the text. They are complete speculation. When one studies Chaucer’s life he or she will also discover that much like the Franklin, Chaucer was born into an upper class family without noble blood and rose into the nobility through marriage. Would Chaucer, an avid critic of medieval society, be so harsh to criticise someone so similar to himself? In all likelihood, the Franklin is not simply attempting to gain power through his manner and story, but acting as he think a nobleman should, which is showing hospitality, love, compassion, and forgiveness, none of which are bad things. The Franklin truly proves that change, for better or worse, is always going to be criticized.
It is very easy to view to view the world in a dualistic manner: honest or deceitful, good or bad, black or white. However, reality is much more complicated, and Chaucer’s Franklin is the perfect example of this. Many believe that it is common to criticise something because it is new or unknown, and in the case of the franklin class and the Franklin this is unfortunately true. Of course there are negative aspects of the Franklin but overall Chaucer’s portrayal is fair, honest, and flattering.