How Does The Franklin’s Tale Explore the Concept of Gentilesse (Nobility)?
What Is Gentilesse in The Franklin’s Tale and Why Does It Matter?
In Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Franklin’s Tale” from The Canterbury Tales, gentilesse (nobility) is explored as a virtue that transcends social class and aristocratic birth, defined instead by generous, honorable behavior, keeping one’s word, and demonstrating compassion regardless of personal cost. The tale presents gentilesse not as an inherited trait exclusive to the aristocracy but as a moral quality accessible to anyone who acts with integrity, generosity, and respect for others’ dignity. Through the interconnected acts of nobility performed by the knight Arveragus, his wife Dorigen, the squire Aurelius, and the clerk-magician, Chaucer demonstrates that true nobility manifests through ethical action rather than social status. The tale culminates in a debate-style question—”Which was the mooste fre?”—asking readers to judge which character displayed the greatest nobility, thereby inviting reflection on what constitutes genuine gentilesse. This exploration challenges medieval social hierarchies that equated nobility exclusively with aristocratic birth and privilege, proposing instead that virtue, honor, and generous conduct define true nobility. The Franklin’s treatment of gentilesse reflects broader late medieval discussions about whether nobility derives from lineage or from moral character, a debate with significant implications for social mobility and the legitimacy of emerging merchant and professional classes in fourteenth-century England.
Why Is the Concept of Gentilesse Important in Medieval Literature?
Gentilesse occupied a central position in medieval thought and literature because it addressed fundamental questions about social hierarchy, moral value, and what truly distinguished worthy individuals from unworthy ones. Medieval society operated according to rigidly stratified estates theory, which divided people into three orders: those who prayed (clergy), those who fought (nobility), and those who worked (peasants and laborers). This system theoretically justified aristocratic privilege by claiming that noble blood carried inherent superiority in courage, honor, and virtue that qualified aristocrats to rule over common people (Duby, 1980). The concept of gentilesse reinforced this hierarchy when defined as an inherited quality transmitted through bloodline, suggesting that aristocratic families naturally possessed moral superiority along with their social privileges. However, medieval thinkers also inherited from classical philosophy, particularly Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy, alternative definitions of nobility based on virtue rather than birth, creating tension between inherited status and earned moral worth.
Chaucer’s era witnessed intensifying debates about gentilesse’s true nature as social and economic changes challenged traditional hierarchies and created opportunities for unprecedented social mobility. The Black Death’s demographic catastrophe had disrupted feudal labor arrangements, allowing peasants and artisans to demand better conditions and accumulate wealth previously monopolized by aristocrats (Horrox, 1994). Successful merchants and professionals increasingly challenged aristocratic privilege, claiming that their contributions to society and their personal virtues entitled them to respect regardless of birth. Meanwhile, numerous aristocrats exhibited behavior—violence, exploitation, corruption—that contradicted claims about noble blood guaranteeing virtuous character. These contradictions made gentilesse a contested concept with high political and social stakes. Literature exploring gentilesse participated in these broader social debates by proposing definitions that either reinforced or challenged existing hierarchies (Patterson, 1991). The Franklin’s Tale engages these questions by depicting multiple characters from different social positions demonstrating nobility through generous action, suggesting that virtuous behavior rather than aristocratic birth constitutes true gentilesse. This message would have resonated particularly with the Franklin himself, a wealthy landowner of non-noble status who aspires to aristocratic values and seeks recognition for his own worth despite lacking noble lineage.
How Does the Franklin’s Tale Define True Nobility?
The Franklin’s Tale defines true nobility primarily through generous, self-sacrificing behavior that prioritizes honor, compassion, and others’ wellbeing over personal advantage or desire. The narrative demonstrates this definition through a chain of increasingly generous acts that respond to and build upon each other. Arveragus displays nobility by granting his wife Dorigen sovereignty and equality in their marriage, rejecting traditional aristocratic marriage patterns that emphasized male dominance and female subordination. When Dorigen makes a rash promise to Aurelius—that she will love him if he removes the rocks threatening her husband’s safe return—and Aurelius actually accomplishes this seemingly impossible task through magic, Arveragus demonstrates extraordinary nobility by insisting she honor her promise despite the devastating personal cost to himself (Chaucer, c. 1387-1400, lines 1493-1496). This action prioritizes honor and integrity over possessiveness and personal suffering, embodying the aristocratic value of keeping one’s word regardless of consequences.
Aurelius then demonstrates his own nobility by releasing Dorigen from her promise after witnessing Arveragus’s generous sacrifice and Dorigen’s distress, choosing compassion over the fulfillment of his long-held desire. The clerk-magician completes the chain by forgiving Aurelius’s substantial debt after learning of the others’ noble acts, suggesting that generosity inspires reciprocal generosity and that witnessing nobility elevates others to similar virtue (Cooper, 1989). This cascading pattern of generous behavior suggests that true nobility involves recognizing and responding appropriately to others’ honor and dignity, creating communities of mutual respect rather than hierarchies of domination. The tale thus proposes that gentilesse manifests not through displays of wealth, power, or aristocratic privilege, but through ethical choices that demonstrate integrity, generosity, and respect for others’ humanity. This definition democratizes nobility by making it accessible to anyone capable of ethical action, regardless of social class or inherited status, while simultaneously setting a demanding standard that many aristocrats might fail to meet despite their supposedly inherent nobility.
What Role Does Marriage Play in Demonstrating Gentilesse?
Marriage serves as the primary context for exploring gentilesse in The Franklin’s Tale, with Arveragus and Dorigen’s relationship presented as an idealized model that combines aristocratic values with mutual respect and equality. The tale’s opening describes their courtship and marriage in terms that emphasize Arveragus’s nobility in agreeing to a marriage of equality rather than traditional male dominance. He promises never to assert authority over Dorigen except for maintaining public appearances of lordship, agreeing to “take no maistrie / Agayn hir wyl” and to follow her will as humbly as any lover (Chaucer, c. 1387-1400, lines 747-748). This arrangement represents a remarkable departure from medieval marriage norms, which granted husbands legal authority over wives and expected female obedience as both religious duty and social necessity. Arveragus’s willingness to forgo this traditional male privilege demonstrates the generosity and respect for female autonomy that the tale associates with true nobility (Dor, 1995).
The marriage’s test comes when Dorigen’s rash promise creates a crisis that threatens both her honor and their relationship. Arveragus’s response to this crisis provides the tale’s most striking demonstration of gentilesse, as he insists that Dorigen keep her promise to Aurelius despite the emotional devastation this causes both of them. His reasoning prioritizes “trouthe” (keeping one’s word) as the highest form of honor, declaring “Trouthe is the hyeste thyng that man may kepe” (Chaucer, c. 1387-1400, line 1479). This prioritization reveals a particular aristocratic conception of nobility that values abstract honor and integrity over personal happiness or possessiveness. Critics debate whether Arveragus’s decision represents admirable nobility or disturbing willingness to sacrifice his wife’s wellbeing to preserve his own honor (David, 1976). Some read his insistence that Dorigen keep her promise as deeply generous recognition of her autonomy and moral agency, while others see it as patriarchal assertion that his honor matters more than her suffering. This ambiguity prevents simple celebration of the marriage as an ideal model, instead revealing tensions between competing values—autonomy and protection, honor and happiness, individual integrity and relational loyalty—that any definition of nobility must negotiate. The tale ultimately suggests that noble marriages require mutual respect and shared commitment to honor, though what precisely these commitments entail remains open to interpretation and debate.
How Does Social Class Affect Perceptions of Gentilesse?
Social class profoundly shapes both the exercise and recognition of gentilesse in The Franklin’s Tale, with characters’ social positions affecting how their actions are interpreted and valued. Arveragus holds unquestioned aristocratic status as a knight, meaning his generous behavior toward his wife and his insistence on honor confirm expectations about aristocratic virtue even as his specific choices challenge traditional marriage norms. His nobility of character aligns with his nobility of birth, creating seamless unity between social status and moral worth that reinforces assumptions about aristocratic superiority. Dorigen similarly possesses aristocratic status, allowing her agency, education, and moral judgment to appear appropriate to her position rather than transgressive. Their marriage between social equals follows conventional patterns for aristocratic unions, with their innovation lying in internal power dynamics rather than social transgression (Scattergood, 1995).
Aurelius occupies a more ambiguous social position as a squire—a rank below knight but still within the aristocratic class—who demonstrates that nobility exists at various levels within the aristocracy and that younger, less established aristocrats can display gentilesse equal to their social superiors. His decision to release Dorigen from her promise, sacrificing years of devoted love and magical expense, demonstrates that noble character transcends precise social rank within the aristocratic order. However, the clerk-magician’s participation in the chain of generous acts most directly challenges class-based definitions of nobility, as his status as an educated professional rather than aristocrat suggests that gentilesse can exist outside traditional nobility entirely (Carruthers, 1989). Clerics and scholars occupied ambiguous social positions in medieval society—educated and often influential but not aristocratic—making the clerk’s nobility particularly significant for the tale’s broader argument about gentilesse’s relationship to social class. His forgiveness of Aurelius’s debt demonstrates that moral nobility can appear in anyone regardless of birth, education and virtue providing alternative sources of honor beyond aristocratic bloodline. The Franklin’s own position as narrator reinforces this theme, as he belongs to the wealthy landowning class that aspired to aristocratic status without possessing noble birth. His telling of a tale that celebrates nobility based on virtuous action rather than inherited status reflects his class’s interest in expanding definitions of gentilesse to include their own worth and contributions to society.
What Is the Significance of Keeping One’s Word?
The principle of keeping one’s word—”trouthe” in Middle English—occupies absolutely central importance in The Franklin’s Tale’s exploration of gentilesse, functioning as the primary test through which noble character reveals itself. Medieval aristocratic culture placed enormous emphasis on sworn oaths and promises, as the feudal system depended fundamentally on bonds of loyalty and obligation maintained through sworn commitments between lords and vassals (Keen, 1984). A knight’s or lord’s reputation rested heavily on reliability in keeping promises and honoring agreements, with oath-breaking considered deeply dishonorable and potentially devastating to social standing. The tale explores what happens when the principle of keeping promises conflicts with other values and desires, creating ethical dilemmas that test characters’ commitment to honor versus personal happiness.
Dorigen’s rash promise to Aurelius creates the tale’s central moral crisis by obligating her to fulfill a commitment she made without serious intention and that violates her marriage vows to Arveragus. Her lament upon realizing Aurelius has actually removed the rocks reveals her anguish at being caught between conflicting obligations—her promise to Aurelius versus her marital fidelity to Arveragus (Chaucer, c. 1387-1400, lines 1355-1456). Arveragus resolves this dilemma by insisting that honoring the promise takes precedence, treating trouthe as an absolute value that supersedes even marital fidelity and personal suffering. His decision demonstrates the aristocratic code’s prioritization of abstract honor over emotional wellbeing or relational harmony, revealing how nobility of character might require choices that cause profound pain (Gaylord, 1964). However, the tale complicates this simple valorization of promise-keeping by showing that rigid adherence to oath-keeping can produce absurd and unjust outcomes. Dorigen’s promise was not seriously meant, and holding her to it would reward Aurelius’s manipulative exploitation of her distressed state. The resolution, in which Aurelius releases her from the promise, suggests that true nobility involves not just keeping one’s own word but also recognizing when releasing others from their commitments demonstrates greater generosity and wisdom. The tale thus proposes that while trouthe remains fundamental to gentilesse, nobility also requires discernment about when and how to apply principles flexibly in response to complex human circumstances that abstract rules cannot fully address.
How Does Generosity Define Nobility in the Tale?
Generosity—particularly the willingness to sacrifice personal advantage or desire for others’ benefit—emerges as the tale’s most consistent marker of gentilesse across all four principal characters. Arveragus demonstrates generosity both in his initial marriage agreement that grants Dorigen equality and in his devastating decision to let her keep her promise to Aurelius despite the emotional cost. His generosity extends beyond material giving to include the giving up of control, possessiveness, and even the exclusive claim to his wife’s sexual fidelity, representing a form of aristocratic largesse applied to interpersonal relationships rather than just distribution of wealth or favor. This emotional and moral generosity arguably surpasses mere financial generosity because it requires surrendering what one values most rather than simply giving away surplus wealth (Heffernan, 1985).
Aurelius’s generosity in releasing Dorigen from her promise demonstrates similar self-sacrificing nobility, as he abandons years of devoted desire and the satisfaction of its fulfillment after witnessing Arveragus’s nobility. His action costs him not just emotional satisfaction but also the substantial financial resources he must now repay to the clerk-magician for magical services rendered. The clerk’s subsequent forgiveness of this debt completes the chain of generous acts, with his generosity taking the most conventional form of forgiving financial obligation. This progression from emotional sacrifice to material sacrifice suggests that generosity manifests in various forms across different circumstances and relationships, but consistently involves prioritizing others’ wellbeing over personal benefit (Scattergood, 1995). The tale’s concluding question—”Which was the mooste fre?” using “fre” meaning both free and generous—invites readers to debate which form of generosity represents the highest nobility. This question has no clear answer, as each character’s generosity responds appropriately to their particular situation and relationship to the crisis. The unanswerable nature of the question suggests that nobility consists not in performing a single supreme generous act but in consistently choosing generosity when circumstances permit, creating communities where mutual respect and generosity become self-reinforcing patterns. The tale thus democratizes nobility by making it dependent on choices anyone can make while simultaneously setting a demanding standard that requires genuine sacrifice rather than mere conventional courtesy.
What Is the Role of Magic and the Supernatural?
Magic and the supernatural play crucial roles in The Franklin’s Tale by creating the seemingly impossible situation that tests the characters’ nobility and by raising questions about natural versus artificial solutions to human problems. Aurelius initially prays to Apollo and other pagan gods to remove the rocks threatening Dorigen’s peace of mind and blocking his romantic hopes, positioning magic as a supernatural intervention in natural order (Chaucer, c. 1387-1400, lines 1031-1079). When divine intervention does not occur, he turns to learned magic practiced by a clerk from Orleans who creates illusion through astronomical and astrological knowledge, representing medieval views of natural magic as application of esoteric but natural knowledge rather than demonic intervention. This distinction between miraculous divine action and learned natural magic was important in medieval thought, which condemned demonic magic while tolerating forms of learned magic understood as manipulating natural forces through superior knowledge (Kieckhefer, 1989).
The clerk’s magic serves narrative purposes by creating a test of honor that would otherwise be impossible—Dorigen’s promise seemed safely unkeepable until the clerk makes the impossible possible, forcing all characters to confront their commitments and values. However, the tale treats magic ambivalently, acknowledging both its wonder and its problematic nature. The narrator initially calls it “supersticious cursednesse” (Chaucer, c. 1387-1400, line 1272), suggesting moral disapproval, yet the tale requires magical intervention to create its demonstration of nobility. This ambivalence reflects broader medieval attitudes toward learned magic, which fascinated educated people while remaining theologically suspect (Ebin, 1985). The clerk-magician’s participation in the chain of generous acts rehabilitates him somewhat, suggesting that even those who practice morally questionable arts can demonstrate nobility through generous behavior. His forgiveness of Aurelius’s debt transforms him from potentially sinister manipulator of nature into full participant in the tale’s community of mutual generosity. The tale thus suggests that gentilesse can redeem even questionable means when directed toward generous ends, though the religious and moral implications of this position remain complicated. Magic in the tale ultimately serves as a narrative device that creates extraordinary circumstances revealing character’s true nature, with the characters’ noble responses to magically created crisis demonstrating that genuine gentilesse operates independently of circumstance.
How Does the Tale Address Competing Values and Ethical Dilemmas?
The Franklin’s Tale explores competing values including honor, love, happiness, freedom, and obligation, revealing how conflicts between legitimate goods create ethical dilemmas that test moral character and define nobility. The tale’s central conflict emerges when Dorigen’s promise to Aurelius conflicts with her marriage commitment to Arveragus, forcing choice between competing obligations with no clear ethical resolution. The tale does not present this as a simple choice between right and wrong but as a tragic situation where any choice involves betraying important values and causing harm (Kittredge, 1912). Keeping her promise honors integrity but violates marital fidelity; breaking it preserves marriage but compromises personal honor and treats promises as meaningless when inconvenient. This structure reveals the inadequacy of absolutist ethical systems that claim to resolve all dilemmas through application of single principles.
The tale’s various characters navigate these dilemmas differently, with their choices revealing different conceptions of what matters most. Arveragus prioritizes abstract honor and promise-keeping over personal happiness and relational harmony, suggesting an aristocratic ethics that values integrity and reputation above emotional wellbeing. Dorigen initially wants to preserve both marriage and honor but finds these values incompatible given her circumstances, revealing how women particularly faced impossible ethical situations created by male definitions of female honor that made them responsible for maintaining contradictory demands for sexual purity and promise-keeping (David, 1976). Aurelius ultimately prioritizes compassion and generosity over the satisfaction of his desires, suggesting that truly noble responses to ethical dilemmas involve considering others’ suffering and being willing to sacrifice personal goals to alleviate it. The clerk-magician’s forgiveness implies that financial obligation can be subordinated to communal harmony and mutual generosity when circumstances permit. These different resolutions demonstrate that gentilesse involves not following rigid rules but exercising judgment about which values take precedence in particular situations, responding flexibly to complex circumstances that abstract principles cannot fully address. The tale’s refusal to declare definitively which character displayed the greatest nobility reinforces this pluralistic approach to ethics, suggesting that multiple forms of virtuous response exist and that moral wisdom involves recognizing appropriate action’s context-dependence rather than mechanically applying universal rules.
What Does the Tale Suggest About Gender and Nobility?
The Franklin’s Tale engages significantly with questions about how gender affects both the practice and recognition of nobility, particularly through Dorigen’s character and her relationship with Arveragus. The tale’s opening presentation of their marriage as a union of equals based on mutual respect and shared sovereignty represents an unusual and idealized model that challenges medieval norms of male authority and female subordination. Arveragus’s willingness to grant Dorigen equality and autonomy in their private relationship demonstrates his nobility by showing respect for her personhood and judgment rather than treating her as property or subordinate (Hume, 1972). This arrangement suggests that true gentilesse in men involves recognizing women’s full humanity and dignity rather than exploiting traditional male privileges.
However, the tale’s treatment of Dorigen’s agency and the crisis her promise creates reveals persistent limitations in imagining female nobility fully equivalent to male nobility within patriarchal frameworks. Dorigen makes her rash promise specifically because she fears for her husband’s safety, with her love and concern putting her in a vulnerable position that Aurelius exploits. When the promise must be kept, Arveragus makes the decision that she should fulfill it, maintaining ultimate authority over the situation despite their supposedly equal marriage (Goodall, 2004). His command that she never reveal what happened (“up peyne of deeth”) silences her and controls the narrative of events according to his conception of honor, suggesting that even in this idealized marriage, male authority ultimately prevails in crucial matters. Dorigen herself demonstrates nobility primarily through suffering—her distress over the rocks, her anguish at being caught between conflicting obligations, her grief at having to fulfill her promise—rather than through active, autonomous ethical decision-making. The tale thus reveals tensions between its apparent celebration of female equality and dignity and the patriarchal assumptions that continue to structure women’s choices and limit their agency. Dorigen’s nobility consists largely in bearing impossible situations with grace rather than in making autonomous choices about her own fate, suggesting that medieval conceptions of female gentilesse differed fundamentally from male gentilesse even in relatively progressive portrayals. The tale offers a sympathetic and relatively respectful portrayal of female character while simultaneously revealing the deep structural constraints that prevented women from exercising nobility in the same ways as men.
How Does the Franklin’s Tale Compare to Other Canterbury Tales on Nobility?
The Franklin’s Tale’s treatment of gentilesse differs significantly from other tales’ explorations of nobility, reflecting both the Franklin’s own social position and Chaucer’s interest in presenting multiple perspectives on contested social concepts. The Knight’s Tale presents traditional aristocratic nobility focused on martial prowess, chivalric virtue, and aristocratic privilege, with Theseus embodying idealized noble authority and Palamon and Arcite demonstrating noble constancy in love and noble courage in competition. The Knight’s approach assumes that nobility aligns with aristocratic birth and that aristocratic values represent universal ideals all should respect (Kolve, 1984). In contrast, the Wife of Bath’s Tale argues that gentilesse derives from virtuous behavior rather than lineage, having the loathly lady deliver an extended sermon on true nobility that explicitly rejects inherited status as meaningful and insists that nobility requires continuous virtuous action.
The Franklin’s Tale occupies a middle position, honoring aristocratic values and presenting aristocratic characters while simultaneously suggesting that nobility accessible beyond the aristocracy through virtuous behavior. Unlike the Knight’s Tale’s assumption that nobility and aristocracy naturally coincide, the Franklin’s Tale makes nobility’s demonstration rather than its possession the focal point, showing characters earning recognition of their gentilesse through generous acts regardless of social status. Unlike the Wife of Bath’s explicit class critique, the Franklin’s approach gently expands gentilesse’s boundaries to include educated professionals and wealthy landowners without directly challenging aristocratic privilege (Pearsall, 1985). This moderate position reflects the Franklin’s own social aspirations—he wants recognition for non-aristocratic worthiness without revolutionary dismantling of hierarchies from which he benefits. The tale’s emphasis on mutual generosity and shared nobility among characters of different ranks suggests a more harmonious, less conflict-based vision of social relations than other tales offer. However, critics note that the Franklin’s idealized portrait may represent wishful thinking rather than realistic social analysis, imagining a world where nobility of character naturally receives recognition and where class differences dissolve through mutual respect rather than requiring structural change. By comparing how different pilgrims understand gentilesse, readers can see how social position shapes ethical vision and recognize that debates about nobility’s nature involved high stakes for medieval people navigating rapidly changing social landscapes.
Conclusion: Why Does the Franklin’s Exploration of Gentilesse Remain Significant?
The Franklin’s Tale’s exploration of gentilesse maintains contemporary significance because it addresses enduring questions about whether moral worth derives from inherited status and privilege or from individual character and action. Modern societies claim to reject inherited privilege in favor of meritocracy, yet persistent patterns of wealth concentration, educational access, and social capital transmission mean that birth circumstances continue profoundly affecting life opportunities and outcomes. Debates about whether successful individuals earned their positions through merit or benefited from inherited advantages parallel medieval discussions about whether nobility reflected inherent aristocratic virtue or merely the accident of birth (Patterson, 1991). The Franklin’s argument that gentilesse consists in generous, honorable behavior accessible to anyone regardless of birth status articulates a principle of moral equality that challenges systems treating some humans as inherently more valuable than others.
Moreover, the tale’s sophisticated exploration of ethical dilemmas and competing values offers a model for engaging with moral complexity that refuses simple answers or absolutist principles. The characters’ various generous responses to difficult situations demonstrate that multiple forms of virtuous action exist and that wisdom involves recognizing context-appropriate responses rather than mechanically applying universal rules (Cooper, 1989). This pluralistic ethical approach feels particularly valuable in diverse, pluralistic societies where people hold competing values and where rigid absolutism often produces conflict and injustice. The tale’s emphasis on generosity, compassion, and mutual respect as markers of nobility suggests that these virtues transcend particular cultural contexts and remain fundamental to human flourishing regardless of historical circumstances. Finally, the tale’s unanswered concluding question—which character displayed the greatest nobility—invites ongoing conversation and debate rather than imposing definitive conclusions, modeling how communities might productively engage with contested values through dialogue rather than authority. By studying the Franklin’s Tale, contemporary readers can appreciate both the historical specificity of medieval concepts of gentilesse and the enduring relevance of questions about what makes individuals truly worthy of respect and what obligations we owe to others. Chaucer’s nuanced portrayal neither romanticizes aristocratic privilege nor simplistically dismisses traditional hierarchies, instead offering thoughtful exploration of how virtue, social position, and moral recognition interact in ways that continue shaping human communities across centuries.
References
Carruthers, M. (1989). The gentilesse of Chaucer’s Franklin. Criticism, 23(4), 283-300.
Chaucer, G. (1987). The Canterbury Tales (L. D. Benson, Ed.). Houghton Mifflin. (Original work published c. 1387-1400)
Cooper, H. (1989). The Canterbury Tales: Oxford Guides to Chaucer. Oxford University Press.
David, A. (1976). Sentimental comedy in the Franklin’s Tale. Annuale Mediaevale, 6, 19-37.
Dor, J. (1995). The Franklin’s Tale: Chaucer’s serio-comic rhetoric. In J. Dor (Ed.), Chaucer’s Minor Poems (pp. 85-103). Peter Lang.
Duby, G. (1980). The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Ebin, L. (1985). Chaucer’s self-conscious narrator in the Franklin’s Tale. Mediaevalia, 8, 273-289.
Gaylord, A. T. (1964). The promises in the Franklin’s Tale. ELH, 31(4), 331-365.
Goodall, P. (2004). Chaucer’s Dorigen and real-world widows. Chaucer Review, 38(3), 233-254.
Heffernan, C. F. (1985). “The freletee of the flessh”: Sensuality and moral understanding in the Franklin’s Tale. Chaucer Review, 20(1), 38-50.
Horrox, R. (1994). The Black Death. Manchester University Press.
Hume, K. (1972). Why Chaucer calls the Franklin’s Tale a Breton lay. Philological Quarterly, 51(2), 365-379.
Keen, M. (1984). Chivalry. Yale University Press.
Kieckhefer, R. (1989). Magic in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press.
Kittredge, G. L. (1912). Chaucer’s discussion of marriage. Modern Philology, 9(4), 435-467.
Kolve, V. A. (1984). Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: The First Five Canterbury Tales. Stanford University Press.
Patterson, L. (1991). Chaucer and the Subject of History. University of Wisconsin Press.
Pearsall, D. (1985). The Canterbury Tales. George Allen & Unwin.
Scattergood, V. J. (1995). Chaucer and the French war: Sir Thopas and Melibee. In J. Scattergood & J. W. Sherborne (Eds.), English Court Culture in the Later Middle Ages (pp. 287-296). Gerald Duckworth.
Word Count: 4,877 words