The Squire's tale ends two lines into its third
section, and following this abrupt termination is the "wordes of the
Frankeleyn to the Squier." The
Franklin praises the young Squire's attempt at a courtly romance and says that
he wishes his own son was more like the Squire.
This is followed by the "wordes of the Hoost to the
Frankeleyn." Many critics believe
that the words of the Franklin to the Squire are intended as an interruption of
the tale that threatens to go on far too long.
However, I believe the words of the Franklin to the Squire were not
meant to be an interruption at all.
There are four main reasons why I believe the passage was not meant to
be an interruption:
one, the
Franklin's admiration of gentillesse would have made him
reluctant to interrupt
the Squire; two, the passage ends two lines into the third section when the
logical place for an interruption would be at the end of the second section
(Clark, 160-161); three, the passage is similar to that of the Host to Chaucer
after his Tale of Melibee- which was an end comment, not an interruption ; and
four, the structure and tone of the passage does not seem to be that of an
interruption.
In praising the Squire, the Franklin mentions
how he is impressed with his "gentilly" (674) or
"gentillesse" (694). If we are
to believe what the Franklin is saying, that he admires his gentillesse and
that he wishes his son "myghte lerne gentillesse aright" (694), we
should also assume the Franklin would try and also show gentillesse. In fact, from the General Prologue we know
that the Franklin was a member of Parliament and a feudal landholder (Clark
161). Both were positions in higher
society in which he would be familiar with gentility and also be expected to
follow it. However, interrupting someone
in the middle of his speech would be something a person with gentillesse would
be hesitant to do. The arguments that
the Franklin's actions were rescuing the Squire from an "awkward
predicament" (Specht 154) in which his tale was threatening to go on far
too long point out that in such a scenario the Franklin's actions would be a
"masterpiece of tact" (Spearing, 7).
I would argue with this theory for two reasons. First of all, the Squire gives no indication
he wishes to be "rescued." In
his tale at the end of telling of Canace and the magic ring, he proceeds to say
he will tell how the other three gifts affected the lives of other
characters. Clearly the Squire could
have cut his story short then if he had been so inclined. Therefore I do not think it is fair to claim
the Franklin was "rescuing" the Squire. Secondly, if the Franklin were indeed
interrupting the Squire to end his story, he could have apologized for
interrupting. Obviously the Squire has
not completed his tale, he has just announced he has three more parts and is
two lines into the telling of the next section.
For the Franklin to begin speaking at this point he would clearly be
interrupting the Squire. To preserve
gentillesse it would be necessary for him to apologize for the break in. One or two lines saying he was sorry to
interrupt but that he just had to tell the Squire how impressed with the tale
would be all that was needed to show gentillesse.
Some critics claim that the Franklin is
"pretending that the Squire has finished" (Peterson, 66-67), in order
to stop him as kindly as possible. I do
not believe this scenario since the Squire is obviously not finished, as I have
stated reasons supporting this earlier, and therefore the Franklin would not be
fooling anyone in trying to act as if the Squire was finished. In addition to that, the Host would also have
to catch on to what the Franklin was doing and go along with pretending the
Squire was done. If we look at some of
the other comments made by the Host in the Canterbury Tales we see that he is
not the quickest to catch onto what the moral of some of the tales are, and I
think it would be safe to say that assuming he would catch on to what the
Franklin was trying to do would be stretching things.
If we look at where the Franklin's words to the
Squire begin we see that it is two lines into the third section. A more logical position for an interruption
would be before the Squire begins a whole new section, like at the end of the
second section. In my discussion of the
Franklin's gentillesse we have already seen that the Squire does not show any
indication he plans on stopping until he has covered all the gifts to
Cambuskan. An attempt to stop the Squire
before he has completed his tale would be more "gentil" if it were to
come at a break in the tale as opposed to mid-sentence. Also, the passage would fit better at the end
of the tale than any point in the middle.
If the Squire's Tale was completed and we assume that the Franklin's
words still followed it, we see it would still make sense. In fact it would make more sense because
there would be no need to speculate as what the Franklin was doing. He would obviously be giving praise for a tale
he admired, not rescuing anyone or pretending a tale was over. It even follows the form of another passage
that praises a tale after it is finished.
Specifically looking at the Host's passage at
the end of the Tale of Melibee we see that it is similar to that of the
Franklin's to the Squire. The Host tells
Chaucer that he wishes his wife was more like Dame Prudence, a character in the
Tale of Melibee; and the Franklin wishes his son was more like the Squire. Both also praise the tale which they
follow. If the Squire's Tale were
finished it would be a long tale of at least 3000 lines (Peterson 70). The Tale of Melibee, although not as long as
what the Squire's Tale would probably be if finished, is a long tale in
comparison to the other pilgrims' tales; but it is not interrupted. It is followed by the Host's comments which follow
a similar structure to that of the Franklin's.
Such similarities support my thesis that the words to the Franklin to
the Squire were not meant to be an interruption. In fact, the two passages are titled in a
similar manner, "Heere folwen the wordes of the Frankeleyn to the
Squire," and "The murye wordes of the Hoost to the Monk." Suggesting they are the same type of passage,
which would mean that the Franklin's passage was meant to come at the
completion of the Squire's Tale, like the Host's comes at the end of the Tale
of Melibee.
Neither the Host nor the Franklin sound like
they are interrupting anything either, but it is still assumed, usually, that
the Franklin is interrupting the Squire.
If we look at other interruptions in the Canterbury Tales we can
classify them into two categories (Seaman, 15).
The first would be outbursts which are in "immediate response to an
insult or slight" (Seaman, 15).
After such an interruption bickering often arises. Examples of such would be the exchanges between
the Friar and the Summoner or the Reeve when the drunk Miller announces he will
tell a tale about a carpenter. Like both
of the above examples, these interruptions usually occur in the prologues, but
the Summoner and Friar's spill over into the early part of their tales.
The second type of interruption are not
outbursts. The occur when a figure of
authority stops a tale. This is usually
the Host, like when he interrupts the Tale of Sir Thopas. Another example of this type of interruption
is when the Knight interrupts the Monk's Tale.
Both the Host and the Knight are speaking from a position of
authority. Their words have the purpose
and effect of stopping the particular tale.
If we are to consider the Franklin's words an interruption, it would
have to fall into this second category because the Franklin has not been
insulted or has anything to be offended over.
However, the Franklin's words to the Squire
have none of the features that are characteristic of this type of
interruption. There is no ambiguity when
the Host and Knight make their interruptions.
They are obviously interrupting a tale in progress. Also, both of these interruptions are titled
as such in the text: "Heere the
Hoost stynteth Chaucer of his Tale of Thopas," and "Heere stynteth
the Knyght the Monk of his tale."
The Host and the Knight begin their interruptions by giving reasons as
to why they are stopping the tale, something the Franklin does not do. The Host tells Chaucer that his tale is
making his ears ache, and the Knight states that a little heaviness is all
right, but he has heard enough.
In both the Host's and the Knight's
interruptions they use similar language (Seaman 16). It also indicates that they are halting a
tale. From the Host's interruption we
have "'Namoore of this, for Goddes dignitee,' / Quod oure Hooste"
(919-20); and from the Knight's, "'Hoo!' quod the Knyght, 'good sire,
namoore of this!'" (2767). The Host
again uses a similarly constructed phrase in backing up the Knight's
interruption, "'Sire Monk, namoore of this, so God yow blesse!'"
(2788). The form of these phrases in the
interruptions is a convention Chaucer seems to have liked. He also uses it in the Knight's Tale when Theseus comes across Palamon and
Arcitite fighting in the grove (Seaman, 16).
He yells, "'Hoo!/ Namoore, up peyne of lesynge of youre
heed!'" (1706-7); Theseus uses something similar again when stopping the
tournament. In both of these situations
Theseus is stopping the action from a position of authority, too. There are however no such phrases present in
the "wordes of the Frankeleyn to the Squier," nor does the Franklin
give any reasons for interrupting.
Another consideration when looking at the
structure of the Franklin's words to the Squire is the deviation of the
"etiquette of discourse and conduct in the Canterbury Tales" (Seaman,
16). For the Franklin to interrupt the
Squire without stating his reasons would be an unprecedented breach of power. We might even assume such action would cause
the Host to be outraged, something he does not seem to be in his words to the
Franklin. He does not make any comment
or reference at all about an interruption being made when he speaks to the
Franklin. In other instances he
admonishes pilgrims for interrupting, as he does with the interruptions made by
the Miller, the Reeve, the Friar, or the Summoner. Nor does he support the action of
interrupting as he does with the Knight's interruption of the Monk's Tale.
Evidence from the manuscripts of the Canterbury
Tales provides further support that the Franklin does not interrupt the
Squire. The scribes must not have
thought the "wordes of the Frankeleyn to the Squier" was a courtly
interruption suitable to the character of the Franklin. Over twenty manuscripts of the Canterbury
Tales the passage to link the Squires Tale to the Merchant's Tale, with the
name of "Merchant" replacing that of "Franklin" (Manly,
298). Of the eight most reliable
manuscripts, the Squire-Franklin link is lacking in the Corpus Christi and
Lansdowne, "missing through loss of leaves in three" (Manly, 298),
Cambridge Dd, Cambridge Gg, and Harley 7334.
It joins the Squire's Tale to the Merchant's Tale in Hengwrt and
Petworth, and joins the Squire's Tale to the Franklin's Take in only the
Ellesmere (Manly, 299). And, in none of
the Canterbury Tales manuscripts is the passage introduced with such a phrase
as "Heere stynteth the Frankeleyn the Squier of his Tale."
The interpretation of the Squire's Tale would
only change drastically if the Franklin's words were accepted as not being an
interruption in that it would no longer be considered intentionally
incomplete. If we assume the words of
the Franklin were meant to be an end comment, it would mean the Squire's Tale
must have to be thought of as another
incomplete or unfinished tale. However,
how the Squire stops is similar to how Chaucer stops his Tale of Sir Thopas, in
mid-sentence. If we are to believe this
is intentional in the Squire's Tale like in the Tale of Sir Thopas, then it
means we are missing the necessary interruption. Therefore there are two possibilities of what
the Franklin's passage was meant to be if we accept it is not an
interruption. It could have been written
by Chaucer as an end comment in anticipation of finishing the Squire's Tale, or
it is a comment that was meant to come after an interruption by someone else.
I believe there is enough evidence to
contradict the idea that the passage is intended to be an interruption. Its placement, its tone and structure, the
Franklin's character, and its similarities to the Host's end comments to the
Tale of Melibee all support this idea.
Likewise evidence from the early manuscripts show that it was never
overwhelmingly considered an interruption.
The tendency to try to make the Canterbury Tales more complete or a
better impression of unity would make one try to present the words of the
Franklin to the Squire as an interruption.
But, we know that it is an unfinished work and there are loose ends in
it. It therefore would be a likely possibility
that the passage is just one more loose end.
Works Cited
Clark, John
W. "Does the Franklin Interrupt the
Squire?" Chaucer Review 7
(1972):
160-61
Peterson, Joyce
E. "The Finished Fragment: A Reassessment of the Squire's
Tale."
Chaucer Review 5 (1970): 62-74
Seaman, David
M. "The Wordes of the Frankeleyn to
the Squier: An
Interruption?" English Language Notes 24 (1986): 12-18
Spearing, A.
C. The Franklin's Prologue and
Tale. London, 1966
Specht,
Henrik. Chaucer's Franklin in the
Canterbury Tales: The Social and
Literary Background of a Chaucerian
Character. Copenhagen, 1981
Manly, John M.
and Rickert, Edith. The Text of the
Canterbury Tales, Studied
on the Basis of all Known Manuscripts. Chicago, 1940
No comments:
Post a Comment