Chaucer’s Use of Adaptation in The Franklin’s Tale: A Comparative Look at Tenth Day, Fifth Story of Boccaccio’s Decameron and the Transitioning from Courtly Relationships to Courtly Marriage

Chaucer uses source texts within his tales in various ways. This paper will address the use of Boccaccio’s Decameron (Tenth Day, Fifth Story) in Chaucer’s Franklin’s Tale and how the main focuses in the Italian literature are changed to reflect Chaucer’s personal agenda. By looking at the main points within Italian literature and addressing the differences between the tales, a clear line will be established between the idea of “Medieval translation” and the theory of “adaptation.” Seeking to determine the classification of The Franklin’s Tale, as a translation or adaptation, the paper will first present Karen Elizabeth Gross’ four main components of Italian literature, found in her analysis titled “Chaucer’s Silent Italy.” These become relevant in examining the differences between the “Italian” school and “English” school of writing. They are as follows:
1.	A fascination with classical culture.
2.	The presence of a beatific lady whose nearly supernatural influence on the poet provides poetic inspiration as well as an ennobling love.
3.	An impulse to provide commentary on one’s own work, an authorial move that elevates one’s writings—at times even in the vulgar tongue—to a status close to that of scriptural and antique authority.
4.	A defense of poetry as the cloaking of truth beneath a pleasing veil of fiction that concomitantly makes theology the poetry of God.

In the Franklin’s tale, we see a modification of these main components. Where there is some mention of classical elements, Chaucer incorporates a different setting into his adaptation of the tale, which categorizes it as a “Breton Lais,” rather than presenting it as Boccaccio’s tale in the Decameron, which appears to exist out of time and space. The other three elements seem completely absent from the tale, with Chaucer distorting (or making a parody of) the ideas of “courtly” literature with his presentation of a relationship like that of Dorigen and Arveragus. Bocaccio presents a legitimate “marriage” relationship and a separate “courtly” interaction, and this is something that is lost in Chaucer’s work. Chaucer also refrains from leaving commentary about his text, making our interpretation of the Middle English work more ambiguous. He also doesn’t portray any real argument toward the last point either, leaving no written defense for his poetry, and actually writing a retraction to his whole piece at the end of the Canterbury tales.
 The elements of previous popular texts exist in Chaucer’s tale as direct reminders of past literary trends. Chaucer is referred to by Eustache Deschamps as the “great translator,” but is this text really a “translation,” based solely upon the inclusion of similar elements? How does one define the line between “translator” and “author” (Gross, 36)? With the discussion of the different relationships within Chaucer’s Franklin’s tale in comparison with Boccaccio’s tale within the Decameron, hopefully the line between the “transitioning of a text in one language to another” and the “creation of a new work, with different intentions and elements” will be clear and signify this tale as a clear adaptation of the source text.
Examining the differences in the established relationships in the two tales, there are three forms of attachment. First, there is the example of a “marriage” that holds true to the ideas of economic security and general medieval marital conventions, shown through Gilberto and Dianora (the characters in Boccaccio’s tale). Then, there is an extra-marital relationship (between Bocaccio’s Ansaldo and Dianora) rooted in “courtly tradition” and the established rules of the romance. And finally in Chaucer’s tale, there is a distortion of “courtly ideas” with their incorporation into the marriage of Arveragus and Dorigen.
In The Tale within the Decameron, there is not a clear explanation of the relationship between Gilberto and Dianora. This is an assumed marital relationship. The dynamics within their marriage do not become clear until the end of the tale whenever Gilberto orders Dianora to fulfill her promise to Ansaldo. The relationship that is emphasized in this tale is the courtly one between Ansaldo and Dianora. She is introduced as a “…beautiful and noble lady” and Boccaccio writes that “Messer Ansaldo loved Madonna Dianora passionately and did everything he could to be loved in return by her, often sending her numerous messages with this end in mind, [but] he labored in vain.” “Nevertheless he continued to love her and to implore her…” --This is a clear representation of courtly love, defined by Andreas Capellanus as a “certain inborn suffering.” Ansaldo learns through an intermediary character of Dianora’s promise to love him if he manages to do an impossible task. Andreas also explains that “Love gets its name (amor) from the word for hook (amus), which means “to capture” or ‘to be captured’.” This explanation is directly connected to this tale and the interaction between Ansaldo and Dianora. He wishes “to capture” her by fulfilling her request for a blooming garden in January.
After Ansaldo accomplishes Dianora’s request, Gilberto is the one to explain the workings of love. He tells her, “Words received by the heart through the ears have more power than many would believe, and almost everything becomes possible for lovers.” This is a common idea in courtly literature, which places women on a pedestal. Other references to the idea of courtly love exist within the tale as well. Andreas explains that, “A faithful lover ought to prefer love’s greatest pains to making demands which deprive his beloved of her modesty…” This explanation of what “decreases love” and is what saves Dianora from having to fulfill her promise to Ansaldo and allows her to keep her reputation intact. As Rule V of the Rules of Love explains, “That which a lover takes against the will of his beloved has no relish.” Therefore, Ansaldo’s “courtly” version of love is extinguished and the marital relationship remains intact between Gilberto and Dianora.
When comparing these interactions with those of the Franklin’s Tale in Chaucer’s work, we see an intermingling of elements from different traditions. The relationship between Dorigen and Arveragus tries to establish a difference in “appearance” and “reality” because of the inclusion of both “courtly” themes and conventional “marriage” traditions. Chaucer writes,
“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
Agayn hir wyl ne kithe hire jalousie
Bit 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.” (Chaucer, Ln 745-752)

Chaucer establishes Dorigen as a lady of higher class who insists on Arveragus completing many tasks to win her attentions. This insistence on “tasks” is a courtly based theme, seen in the story of Dianora and Ansaldo. The above passage also signifies the separation between Arveragus and Dorigen and the hierarchy that will supposedly exist in their private life together. Arveragus says that he will “take no maistrie” and hold no significant power over Dorigen in private, but “the name of soveraynetee” insists that in public, he should appear to have control over his relationship with his wife. This evaluation of power within their relationship is not established with Dianora and Gilberto in The Decameron. This marriage contract in The Franklin’s tale is not plausible, because of its mixing of courtly ideas (those of the romance) with ideas of marriage and sovereignty. This becomes apparent at the end of the tale when Averagus changes his interpretation of their marriage contract, and does exercise “maistrie” over Dorigen whenever he commands her to keep her promise to Aurelius.
	The major conflict within the tale comes from the emotional responses that Dorigen has to Arveragus’ leaving soon after they are married. As Helen Cooper explains, “… the love of Arveragus and Dorigen is firmly established… Dorigen’s desperate concern for her husband’s life is provided as a motive for her impossible demand of the removal of the rocks” (233). The desperation for the return of her husband isn’t portrayed as a need for his security, but as an emotional response to being separated from the one she loves. Therefore, the tale is “more focused on the wife’s love for her husband,” and “interested in emotional responses and morality” (234). The existence of a sincere sense of morality within a tale that incorporates themes of courtly love—which itself constitutes adultery, as it usually exists outside of marriage—exposes the complex combinations of these theories that Chaucer is using within his text, and as a modern reader, portrays more of the idea of marriage and “love” that we associate with our relationships.
In the Franklin’s tale, we see a modification of the four main components of Italian literature. This paper is mainly concerned with the representation of relationships in their various forms and the differences that become apparent from one tale to the next. From the evaluation of these “marital” and “courtly” relationships, we see that the changes within Chaucer’s Franklin’s Tale are significant to the interpretation of the text, and the shifts in structure, in essence, create a new story.  Although the Franklin’s tale shares plot points and structures with the tale in Boccaccio’s Decameron, Chaucer has indeed “adapted” theory and created a new hybrid relationship of courtly and marital themes for his tale.


Works Cited:
Andreas, and John Jay. Parry. The Art of Courtly Love. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. Print.
Boccaccio, Giovanni, Mark Musa, and Peter E. Bondanella. Giovanni Boccaccio's The Decameron. New York: W.W. Norton, 1977. Print.
Chaucer, Geoffrey, Robert Boenig, and Andrew Taylor. The Canterbury Tales. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2008. Print.
Cooper, Helen. Oxford Guides to Chaucer. Oxford [England: Clarendon, 1989. Print.
Gross, Karen E. "Chaucer's Silent Italy." Studies in Philology 109.1 (2012): 19-44. Print.