__________________________________________________________ Boccaccio’s Decameron as a Source for The Franklin’s Tale BY YEONG MIN KIM December 8, 2008
Even the most highly developed narratives of the Middle Ages, such as Italian author Boccaccio’s Decameron, show little of Geoffrey Chaucer’s rigorous stylistic and generic variation in The Canterbury Tales. Boasting an unprecedented scheme of a collection of tales within the framework of pilgrims on a pilgrimage, Chaucer’s impressive masterwork includes a normative array of all the literary forms current in the Middle Age that is unparalleled in any other collections of his time. Nonetheless, The Canterbury Tales was obviously drawn on many models of existing literary works, and some believe that the structure and theme of many of his tales is indebted to Boccaccio’s Decameron,1as well as many other sources: Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy appears in several tales, The Wife of Bath’s Tale is based upon The Tale of Florent in John Gower’s Confessio Amantis and also the Bible. For The Franklin’s Tale, the closest sources are two versions of a single story by Boccaccio.2 Although it is widely assumed that Boccaccio’s Decameron: Tenth Day, Fifth Tale is analogous to The Franklin’s Tale, Chaucer’s so called “reinterpretation”of the Decameron is radically different from Boccaccio’s work. These differences, however, underline Chaucer’s or the Franklin’s desire to promote notion of, and present an image of an ideal, blissful marriage that is based on true “love [that is] nat … constreyned by maistrye” (Chaucer, 764). The basic plotline of Boccaccio’s Decameron seems fairly similar to that of Chaucer’s The
1
Chaucer’s familiarity with/employment of Boccaccio’s text remains unproven. There exists no evidence that he had access to The Decameron or that he was directly inspired by the work while he was writing The Canterbury Tales. 2 The source for the Franklin's Tale is most likely a story told twice by Boccaccio, once in the Decameron and again in the Filocolo.
Franklin’s Tale. The story is set in the city of Udine, in a country called Friuli, where dwelt the fair and noble Lady Dianora and her wealthy gentleman husband Giliberto. Lady Dianora, irritated by the continual supplications of her love-struck admirer and noble baron Messer Ansaldo, decides to free herself of his unwanted attentions by posing him a task that she deems impossible for him to achieve: the creation of a garden as beautiful in January as in May. Messer Ansaldo consults with a necromancer and succeeds in creating the beautiful garden. Dianora is horrified at the news but is forced to reveal all to her husband, who orders her to keep her promise, out of fear for what Messer Ansaldo may be able to accomplish with the aid of the necromancer but also because he pities the deception which his wife intended to work on Messer Ansaldo's unrequited love. The generosity of Giliberto prompts Ansaldo to relinquish Dianora from her promise, which in turn inspires the necromancer to release Ansaldo from his bond. Chaucer’s The Franklin’s Tale follows a similar scenario that follows the effects of a rash promise given by a woman to a would-be lover. The Franklin’s Tale, however, is greatly expanded and revised to cater to the Franklin’s idea of a true “Breton Lai,”3 which is a short romantic tale that involves the theme of love and chivalry. The Franklin boldly states in the beginning of his prologue; Thise olde gentil britouns in hir dayes Of diverse aventures maden layes, Rymeyed in hir firste briton tonge; Whiche leyes with hir instrumentz songe, Or elles redden hem for hir plesaunce, And oon of hem have I in remembraunce, Which I shal seyn with good wyl as I kan (Chaucer, 709-715) Thus, near the beginning of his tale, the Franklin forthrightly includes a detailed portrait of the mutual love and respect between the heroine Dorigen and her husband Arveragus. Arveragus, the ever-chivalrous knight “loved and dide his payne to serve” his wife Dorigen- the perfect image of a conventional romance heroine, being “oon the faireste under sonne” (Chaucer, 734) and of “heigh kynrede” (Chaucer, 735)- in his beste wise” (Chaucer, 731-732). Under normal medieval circumstances, marriage would have 3
A Breton lai, also known as a narrative lay or simply a lay, is a form of medieval French and English romance literature. Lais are short (typically 600–1000 lines), rhymed tales of love and chivalry, often involving supernatural and fairy-world Celtic motifs.
demanded a relationship with a strict hierarchy of “lordshipe and servage” (Chaucer, 794). However, Arveragus pursues an alternative type of relationship that boldly abandons the power and “maistrie” (747) that men in his culture traditionally assumed in marriage: Of his free wyl he swoor hire as a knight That nevere in al his lyf he, day ne nyght, Ne sholde upon hym take no maistrie Sgayn hir wyl, ne kithe hire jalousie, But hire obeye, and folwe hir wyl in al, As any lovere to his lady shal, Save that the name of soveraynetee, That wolde he have for shame of his degree (745-752). This contrasts sharply with Boccaccio’s Decameron. As opposed to the Franklin’s Tale, where the mutual love between Arveragus and Dorigen is firmly established, the Decameron , which is significantly shorter in textual length, mentions no such groundbreaking display of affection and respect between Lady Dianora and her husband Giliberto. In fact, the Franklin further includes a textual interjection of his own that presents a detailed exposition of the qualities of an ideal marriage based on mutual love. The Franklin insists on the compatibility of such renunciation of “maistrie” with the notion of “compaignye” (763), “libertee” (768), “pacience” (773), “temperaunce” (785), and “sufferance” (788) – all of which are qualities necessary in a marriage that is governed under the “lawe of love” (798). The Franklin also stresses the importance of the idea of men “bothe in lordshipe and servage” (794) and husband and wife as “freendes” who “everych oother moot obeye” (762). These virtues and ideals are required to be taken seriously and are thus so taken across the whole range of the Franklin’s Tale. The Decameron, on the other hand, provides no such ideal nuptial agreement and foundations for Dianora’s and Giliberto’s marital relationship, and the relationships thus differ greatly. Giliberto’s initial reaction to Dianora’s pitiful confession concerning the disastrous consequence of her rash promise to Messer Ansaldo was of immediate wrath, although he later dismisses his anger and orders Dianora to “quit of [her] promise.” Dianora is unwilling to accept her husband’s “favour” and weeps her protests, “but Giliberto, for all the lady’s protestations, was minded that so it should be.” In contrast, Arveragus,
upon the patient hearing of Dorigen’s shameful revelation, “with glad chiere, in freendly wyse, answerde and seyde …- Is ther oght elles, dorigen, but this” (Chaucer, 1467-1469)? Arveragus thus acts with accordance to the spirit of “compaignye,” patiently listens to Dorigen, just as a friend would, and bids her to keep her pledge to the lusty Aurelius. Arveragus may have the right as her husband to order her to break the promise, but he has forgone “maistrye” in favor of mutual companionship and therefore generously gives up what he could rightfully claim as his. This display of comradely patience and understanding contrasts with Giliberto’s unmistakable dominance and “maistrye” in his marriage with Dianora and further accentuates Chaucer’s desire for a more idealistic and romantic interpretation of similar accounts. It is also interesting to note how the intentions behind the two husband’s generous “favours” differ: While Arveragus’ only concern is for the keeping of Dorigen’s “trouthe” (Chaucer, 1479), Giliberto, while not unconcerned for the keeping of Dianora’s “trouthe,” also expresses his “fear of the necromancer, whom Messer Ansaldo, shoudst [Dianora] play him false, might peradventure, cause to do [Dianora and himself] a mischief.” More importantly, the motives behind the two wives’ rash promises are what most effectively display Chaucer’s deeper concern for emphasizing the wholehearted love between Dorigen and Arveragus. While faithfully awaiting Arveragus’ safe return from England, Dorigen attempts to rid of the lovesick Aurelius’ pursuits and thus, “in pley,” (988) promises to “love [him] best of any man” (997) if “[he] remoeve all the rokkes, stoon by stoon that they ne lette ship ne boot to goon” (993-994). However, Dorigen’s rash promise has behind it yet another clear and sympathetic psychological motivation: her fears for Arveragus’ safety. In fact, she firmly states to Aurelius immediately before her joking promise, “Ne shal I nevere been untrewe wyf in word ne werk, as fer as I have wit; I wol been his to whom that I am knyt. Taak this for final answere as of me” (394-397). In Boccaccio’s Decameron, Lady Dianora poses Messer Ansaldo with the similarly impossible task of creating a “garden full of green grass and flowers and flowering trees, just as if it were May.” This preposition, when compared to that of Dorigen’s, lacks in any extreme display of love and concern for her husband; it was given solely in an attempt to thwart Messer Ansaldo’s lusty designs and free herself of his
unwanted advances. With The Franklin’s Tale, however, Dorigen’s desperate concern for her husband’s life is provided as the more significant motive for her impossible demand of the removal of the rocks. Thus, it seems that Chaucer’s plotting is, in fact, much tighter and much more focused on the true love and companionship between man and wife. On a subtler note, it is interesting to notice the theme of gardens being employed in both the Decameron and The Franklin’s Tale. Whereas the garden itself was the object of Dionora’s somewhat frivolous request in the Decameron, Chaucer’s account brings the element of the garden into an almost inappropriate backdrop for her and Aurelius’ fateful encounter. By situating herself in the blooming garden and directly speaking to the squire, unlike Dionara who communicated with Messer Ansaldo via a messenger, Dorigen set herself up in a position where she was more susceptible and conducive to unwanted advances or perhaps romantic opportunities. It is when Aurelius sees her alone in the garden, when he finds the courage to make his feelings known to Dorigen, knowing that her husband is away. Nonetheless, despite that fact that Dorigen, by placing herself in a garden setting that is conducive to love, violated the seclusion appropriate to women whose husbands are away, she shows surprising resistance to seduction and temptation, especially when considering the unbearable loneliness she must have experienced while she “moorneth, waketh, wayleth, fasteth, [and] pleyneth” (819) with longing for Arveragus’ presence. This display of Dorigen’s fierce loyalty and faithfulness to Arveragus, despite the seductive and tempting environment in which she was placed in, further demonstrates the Franklin’s idea of ideal love. In addition, the Franklin’s intent to delineate an ideal, blissful marital relationship in Chaucer’s The Franklin’s Tale, there was also a desire to communicate the idea of virtue, nobility, and “gentillesse” (Chaucer, 1524) being capable of residing persons of any gender, occupation, or social status. In Boccaccio’s Decameron, the generosity of Gilberto impelled Ansaldo to release Dianora from her rash promise, which in turn prompted the necromancer to relinquish Ansaldo from his bond. It is crucial to understand that the main characters in the Decameron consisted of Dianora, “a fair and noble lady [and] wife of a wealthy grandee,” Giliberto, “a very pleasant gentleman, and debonair,” and Messer Ansaldo, “a
great and noble baron, …a man of no little consequence, and whose fame for feats of arms and courtesy was spread far and wide,”- all of whom were roughly in the same socioeconomic class.
The Franklin’s
Tale, however, features characters of different rank and social class, and Arveragus- a “Knyght” (Chaucer, 730), Dorigen- a lady of
“heigh kynrede” (Chaucer, 735), and Aurelius- a
“rich” (Chaucer, 933)
“squier” (Chaucer, 926) are all capable of exhibiting “gentillesse.” Chaucer’s portrayal of difference in rank, therefore, successfully embodies The Franklin’s Tale’s excursus on gentil behavior and rank.