Chaucer's Franklin

Fort Hays State University FHSU Scholars Repository

Master's Theses Graduate School

Spring 1961

Dale M. Anderson Fort Hays Kansas State College

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses

Part of the English Language and Literature Commons

Recommended Citation Anderson, Dale M., "Chaucer's Franklin" (1961). Master's Theses. 692. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses/692

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of FHSU Scholars Repository. to 't .#;. l ' (_ i (! J. • ((_; 1 -'-.,

C l..} LC i U} t ,O~ B

r .;

•, l

) J I i h Lo t ilr f I" .-•i JT~J 1ml

L erer:t n t e I' . 1 to lv

t l t n l J ,lph .. Cl or tt,ellin , ;1;. r- lt n t - .o . :.cl

(;O

l.v oult C

i C , l d Ehe r.i ,ht \f\;:}~ t ,J(; 1 n:lo

11. i

T .J.. . l 1

1. • 11 H I. ·~ 3 3t n a.: L i,l ----'r · \-:_ln } · · n h

to s

Y, itCCG•,tul t' .e ,oi, 1,:,1, 11 n t "' tro· lo to e t t t i.r,c u nt ,l i 1 H to 3lr~,I y 1' l1U •

l l :i '\ [ l n l :,.c

om re

t ,;...t ; t,

·c e>ted for

cla f' ran;

t in r.:uik f ,, ,, fr· klir!, i '0 uf

ll u J ·m t,e l >H e OJ. t lis t, lC .. is,

I •!l:J oted fr I!l John .,se etl-

} 0 I 0:t" q ctt I th·t i,,. lP of c ,

ar iceF f ·t , ".e ·c 1 •t f1 1 lin"' . f · f 'ic: i I llt t r for t . f t.

t C ,._

CO i_. 1 cl i O 1 t t e l( l. n by

< t,

1 c:b t c..:.._a:.;.· ,1 G"

1 > I of

s . 'l C

.t ~-..., t - ruu·aencu

·r · to

le()

h.-.n cc ' . s f; t f • it on l>lc

< ' t l n• 11

0 vern r1t C, ic , n f rt t t d t

t i,

( 1 J.,. ~ -, 2 J. 3

S I .e r &1.,i :c

t ·ml

b Of i· t 1) -

• (1 p 1

f cot, n .1

' l

ave

ri , r hei· !1;,11

;l]_ UlC

fl ho1 lL .~}t to · or.:. i.rw

ind f oe cJ

• J. t s

he rtlt )(). r -

,;,] t, i '_t, 1 1( -

0 l' 0 tl e cntr.,1 (.; ( t.. " • 5 · o n •ed to :, r,·.0 ·ct : , <,f • , o r:..c~nt, 1 r·o t ,r.,

!:.>(

een

Ue no' i ,· on

1 Dh' l

iOini, 1 i c1i' t f ll~ T) t! i it,h

i k Jl h thy

...: • L: te t t .. i::; tic ----.t.i. C .. 1rt,,,,u ),3/ in

n i e 2/1,

( ' ' I ,)l' t 'Ill'~ IO t

i·ull 1~ro.1ld, J'iIH: • n ·<·, 19;..i2 • OW.L : , I J Ti l. :i fl{, • , ' t t. C T,· l f

t in i •

:1 < 0

) 1

s l.

1 •

, ,> ·, cat.

n , I .I

.n---·- ..· ,.·,

10. ~( . l, r, t'ltiy, , l • --·' ( , . 12 ~ - , l i1 ' 0 n n o ,

v_(·-

t I 1' .

13i i.d. 7

u icm ·t t

ti. C ,. e;

lo;)

; ,.t · l l,;U ..D

C ell

u 0.,

C. , cl IL, C .. (.

t l 1C ,l ··rr. o l'

, IO' l'~ ~;eon t ·t .1. 0l :l :J . tbt , 1 . .,_J. ./.. .. - r t cc , e's s t ' s not fd :.i u · ,, CJ i ..; :.. pu 1f,il le OJ r, )f v l, c0r' s 'l : ne e o n ry ·nt er. . If

{ ' :; l bi •·o ., 6 r o .J. ,

lt i •

. o • ~ ., 1 6 w. l . o e orou hl-, 0 le l

0 .19

t on-~

e . 2

() C

19_1 .. __ d •

21. ,, ·) C l. L • J ' • ._ 3 j •• ., . et, .-W2;, > . tl-. '\Jr · K, i. ' 'r t 1,1' ...

i ,er•t d Lo u • •· ot,h..r"' ,..... tr· , :...uc h {i' t - r , i ; ot~er bu0

'•.t.' Jir, k i

: , • 1,

' .l, t t a

l th

, b "I.- ii J•.' ter t lTP,

, vi.

1 t 1 R · • I • , , (

·.t Lny ,

,.l t ~o e, 1· P ,e l,r, vmd ris, 19L6)., 23 • it. ,) . 2r..3, /.1 .

lt, • l' V . 0

In th

· cu• Ee! int c l]u,.1. 1 c u:1.pt

25 .. J. •Jl • Ac1.. rdLnc o ri•l .. d(n , r l h .iJidorr·c he~ lcen ur>a' ·i L.r

erou ' t bbow i' aat fourtec nth century fra. l..:..ns wo L > t.l ,. ;ent1 , even tl o t1 t.t e orilp.nul ortl for 1 ar .Lin t. , •rt, vi ,pl.;, 11 free · 1 . 11

Lowoen c: ~ys that tl..111].y ;,1 .Robl11• on r,J in L/reer 1en L wi tf J I\, lti t·e-

CD.UCO of C \ i erc:e he 1,J!: 0 nc to ~;ubc· b.l t,' at.c the ra.: klin 1 < po:..iti n ,"' be.i.n Lhat of l '.0 ontr:·. I I H u1aLle to r.:.nd pr.i. •ci.I".f ovlc,ence of it, 'ut, ;ru:· tel_.__, ' D -:.Lut _'\10.1.i s Clw:.!cor, Geo_· e: 'n s on, ar- a f rnnl-::1.:.n .:. 1 'L 10 ~~f'vCd1~. ccnt..1J~ , ·er!, 1 Le \J,.. ozic -f the

esi (;5 pl'Oc l C.

tr..e al u ,en • Ce_ l lcrnvet, LLlt-. c• .:.ctioui.ll'..1.t: .... to ~i.flU c;leal'e uv.:. C,tt;C c.1s to Urn 11.e · i'1C of }t<; te>l'rt 11 frar..klin . 11

T e first observati1>ll L~.· t :.; .ou be .,1a<.Je it: t ha -L Li fe ·, case& U,e • 01 d i nn:i ca m) a reer.•" 1 u.S dist.ti 11h,hod f1 , ,. vill· ln wt doe" r1<1t here . at:" • .y furt .~' s-1L C [' on r t L ,or' franklin , in 'Llie >l'rnnpt ariur l'fil'v luru1 ,Jilli r . ''liL-ertinus" '

11 or lib rti o 1 ,ich , ln ihi t: ird c~efL1.LLla, ·1c::a.11s or,e fr c frn1 self-

. -1 28 res t rllUlL . '1early u., ....,.JI·C UD(.) of t. .. or d .:. ::.; f v ..t •

2 8-~. ~r~er 1 ::, :>., \ v Ile .:..~tc ,.,- c ,:, Hill' ' (SprL ;;.:..01 ·: G. · C. fle r riam Lo . , .1.S:,)l) ,-;: 12

,Ja ·oldi, ·itten in 1..,oJ, e ·c L ! k' ec

f ' c er -

t.Jl'

t ey o, • 30

efcr

o hl t <."I. <.:l Sf'

hls so:; f 'ic·e.t~ ·l · r i.n ,,t t

• f'.i t U •. r)~' li t e C l

'1'}1

t .··-- n of Tl

1eJ· , e GUT1 t . l'i.l u:.liS--1l e ;.

29 rr. ~le c . ~ - ; -- -·-"'•, .i:Jl11. • . C - 1 >, • 34 . '

JO 1 (.>' cl..,. , . 26 ;, 5.

3li I. . lJ

i f l h~j_

i1 .port ce •cure it

• L ,ny 1 • , e, t ,_ r, n · 1 cli idualt

ord_. n· J ,n re .:.n .

16 ,. "' r ..... [l (1

,·tin1:2. di. r.o fr

'->n t t, 1Cli i~ 0 lO 0.

f . ,. ure. ovi ! ~- l:L- • t is ,cen th, t

• i. t y occ .iy ·e. 11 .l:lJ.1,l.O 1H • JS

32 ·8r~u J, op. 1it. , l , 1 ;6 ( ~:. 0c?·. 99), L'} i er

33 :r·oul , ~ - cit.

3 e fo

J5r:e,, • 1,·.., -, . ~· -, • 266 1 ,, ,f t j_J•tc ,Il , ·t o ot, .

er ... ld

n l t)L Lr cl""" .., .

1 pu n. :.11 ... t ,er·-.,i i • s 10 , ote 0 t lirt..., •t'

ill C 1 lb •rL o ulou 1::~-1,e1 , JO

·n J., , . l· t l iI C CO ~r S,JJ < ,

a Jel ~te

.l.f

v , • cl .:l • , ,i 0

o oft

31 ·er Oi 1 , 1 · ,tr · c l , 1 ( 11" [1 er. · ) , 1, hl, · 1-· 22 . . , , 1.., .• c· L. e c. e

r ('Ollt, I' Of f. C ,c'OT ·rj_ ,int ,

, ic

• • l ' .

~t e-

Il( t

loc. 13

39 e10 1 , ,9__ . .£.::._ . , • 2 , , •

) . ( . l 4 et en the "t· .

[, 1.. • l! l. C .a.U.1..

, f. ft~h.

C n·1 1 .nr •·

ld at t) : uu, ~)~111. '.1.0

t :,n

lo•• l • ltJ

1· ..... in

Lli.b' < •

• J • • r , l..1. , 1 7 ( 1• o

loc . c · t . ; • J.. • r· • • 1 ,6 - 1 . ( l.u.; r . f), IT , l }~ . lr

t , ,0 , bt, fe l, 1 l' II 1 e ~to ot u. t tl' If- ti.on lt5

n, 00 of

r, 1

la ch

n I . . • 6:

L 4, ,, E£• P • o .

, 2E• --· , l

l l l t:~:- t..;l., •, ·_c_1

ud l iJ cl;•fs .

i f <' '

0 t • r_i l Il t

J. .~l Ir, kl. n d

p l t;! ,

t thcr l' • J o ell .:..1

1 cun ~: le r.e 0.

,.•ro of t1li:; 1: · L• tl ,·c1y kli

,.. ,:B t

C t ·t.

..., be ~- i'. iJ Ii.tr' 1·e·

.i. t' vO • l ll• l

49~. 5o~.

52- 1. • 5r7, .!vlL l~· '--' r·o---- :; i.L .,f ; t, of t·iu

!_,,.. C Q 1 •• 1 ·1 °·

A ru. ,

'l >l ,

h iJ

t lei , t 1. to

( 20

Tl.er .is C C frt1· , ,ut e

i J.'

a,ou btJc, e it ,S

_.f. ~- ,u I lr 01 hu

il , ,it < n l x : t.

i'"' :, c • aakeri.. . 1-

ht.: w t 1 , • rtue to a

IC l

i.:'fl .. 1 _.J ~ . ; 21

' it: <>re 'llL C - l'O u . t C i I •fl

... ::;t :: to l'OC. ,, r

( 4. L T ·1 - _gr..l .,;~ th

u ,

?'E,(

1·tlu·t , C

·,u 1ce . .. (J 11t') ..b

,t;.; l"' tn > 0 }' t, tl e .

, l"' i -

I • 11 ... ,O~-• 6 tl.,v ,,, · ,ultAll u co

;, 0 , . cit, . , 1 . 2u9 .

•) ,. 9, 7 ). · e 1r · 11, l· ( lp. l , 22

0 i

t ir pr) rL er

point• o h·

J f, l k

•r hen 01 e: h 0 0 i, t, cl rlv C- :i.t ht,s :· l

I ,pL · th t l~ ~re t • . e1 uli e ."l.J. e~· .. t

, .££• •i . , 'J • 0 7 •

1 . Chr" , 1%'' .J .

63· 01 ul ' , 1 e . _ t:. . 6 2 in .li l,ti & ill ) J - 0 t ir, n,;int , L r ., t e ... _1... .

io_ in

t l.;i ,; , • t,

11 10 · t,

s .i :... i c ·

H Ul,n 'itn j

t ro

t.e

!.-er e , t

0 rn ,hr1 7.e i • i...1 l •.

, 1 c.;.' t .

6 ~ . "d -, • 3 , ·, ,., r o , \)') . ~t_. ' • 26 . ... 0 t e r: r-,kli ·'c om u se , lE.) .., t ll 1 L ic ,1

r ..I.• t# ) .

1 lee f

<' •, t7,e~ , d1.n

a. If

l' I

ct. _£ I c..nor, _ 8 ,

· t. aw,

u u to i11 3 I 2 \i t.'.. h .en J aw

11 e 'i.1 t 'l' s

, 1l e chl V' n t 0t V'J o.., ( ll :..·o.L m, ,o

70 l , .. I (1372) . .t r •<·< !'(, ,c, ' 1 Pi 0 \, '

. 0

:.J 0

;_ v

't! !l "

t, t 0

l d , J . : i. t . • c f 2. ; ,1 oniclP , ,l1 . 1r; :· r . m. J.l, 30.

0 2 ,

t.ln"L (, H ,cer ' c• l· T ~.{·• l,U'Jk ; va rl,c ,o ,,hi.,, o d

·nc , li f, ,lf I ..<' c n re,. '

'1 ccr, f

' I

al , ec · '· t, t

n .i.ke IC ;l' !:Hlv t <;;J.. C l ,ie~ i l p : J' i .. nt. If 1 f.., t., ,1'-,,, . II

,... 0 1 I G t re ~· of

co l" 1 u . :.. E: < ,_ ,1..:t~

l( ·• c.: • .L~l C ,2..1.

.i. 2lJ.; r ( 2), (• . l · • 20 t.11 th. t t u H l cc;.r-t, ~ _:__ _ •U l ' 01 JI U ; 1 v 1' s o t:e.L l,t untl .1ed

C • 01 '.1.; e

1. in lll! i- t l rm:·, ,.,

, 'rnnk .:1.n .:i. < rlf:., , .irthc.:l' ,j_ $ thit )·' ll Jv~•. t..:.on it li.:, t: l' SaJ ' ,

II ntry ,- iro, f xtl" <.; v_;_ !) d

,,r ,t 1e l, •.- e:., t,1 "' , .() ·cco

t <- lO cro 1·

....,l'.'; ,_ ) J t- in C ... r.-, - 0 - Le

7, 16 t· L• ; c . V • j . I .

"3 , < p . . - . ~~-, 11 . ?.rL . ; ~\. . . ' .. \J ,, / ri2 ; 01' ,,.J . 7v) .

(9 0( . C . 2?

C O fl t,} L ' C

J.. nk l a G·~ .. ,

·en .,, I c, ._, c i.t . :r · n ( 01 t le-

en) n e 0! fi ,Jf t, • h9 j If• 'ho.,,

t l ., , L is I? ff. C •

,. I.' ..1 of

c·al l • t

'.l(; 'D fr , t :re,._ 01. J ••

. 01 en'.., \I t• r~ r. :, u '·• [!'\,. ) ,

)ye..!' fe ( o. ,

'•3 ibi • 3

•; l C 1, W, ._

IC ~,; v[ o .Ji

av;,

t •t I per i~1 in C iJ(' L (,,L

odcrn 1i .. l,o ·., s h, · 1~ o ,! •n , . 1- ~· to ef inl!

6, .. t 1. • 3 t1 tr,, it reci ;I • u I o'\..e

n· t a .... '"U., l u L 0 t ri rn

i to ,n V :_•V ..::., Oll.l'S

1.,}.ei l . .JV(H, i.n

c...,

f ll

,( .

, l E_ . t: • t .

n. D•, p . , 76 . J2

t ,n t

.,C .o

,n n ' t) t 1e

1 t

i1ol er of c

0 t t, iC

' : ) ,1 1,1 l

of •·ect 't I• \.; ul _e :.:. t ti Ut t, -6 in u:...

C" 1· ve '-1' ote . Lo

I 11.,• l~ JE Jr ;;v~....:v 1-1·.., .(!I l:! l' cnt.'.l

[n ar m : 1 i v ,,v· ~-" ux , s ell a<· · l val •r., , 1.d

. ,. t 1 l cs a1e 0)ti .n <' cir ·.n · ··,:,e o -y • 1.Tl , i' i -~>1,,I t e,

92 .. . l. •

93.1 b..1. • ,Ii. . " . ~•, • cff• )3 a ,ilit, · f l"C > 1• -' lov ·

h t il

/. z .

t ]. . C

1• t v

' la ,el , l O vI" ll

. cri th l l' ' H ;;- r 1·0

, ,

ls . A,

e ·t 0 ,t

} C , 1 il

9S. l.

( .- f. b·' ,1 •

9[~. . d 'i !_l:._· ; ... cu . i'urni vul ' ) • Jm •• 3

e C ln a, CE:: ' E, C

'icto ·. • t r , , :

l,itel .... v e .

-r..,o 1 ;J o: I er 1 .-

) r- n •

:-.c un

l nc

kl.:. 1 • ~, : V 0

Heu· e

99 Cl'l 1 , __E. . £.:_. , • 2 I • l 35 i t C

CO ..., , iJ t . 0 ' .., f n ho r c .1. e ,,.Lr

. J2

3!..: _• ., IO ,,11 ere bCnl.. , \'le, C; 1 C

oul;t t cfo11''-· , \ ( ;,

0 e.L 1 i pos ·ti.on i J b JCiet.J .

I I . _.., i• e ~)

• t< .. e .. , I\ l D

d' 'f l [l\, H u ..

-~•·ii' 01 ., " H t, ive J i ;.e .. n i' ;. • , o 1 r.,

1, s .

m It. it·t :ri cl I '\, !< t ;·Vf! pe to

t L, •alH ci.Jtl l i·l.' et.1 .. c.:r· :... ,1... J"' ,.,. ue i l'c.l 1 t et (.: V er f

ot isr.1 i. • i, In ·.1.in, but

n it t e 1t . Li ht r: t,o l'

O' t () o_ ,l. f)~: ,.} e . f IJ r 1 LI '- J l ~' 3

'i 2 volt, . iv mi

e: J. l 0 . (" . ) . ._,!_°', 19!)7.

:xf

.n .c

'.L .. L

I •

i fr• A. 3 fr C' :i. r • ·of s

. ,i.11: lj

')l, m:

II l! V

-111.,

. 'Li. t,11

C • ll 1.i..f,t<. 1)22-.--- 4 vn·o

·ot ~;, -~01' .,:

, i.:.;i Lu 1 don:

1 .

.' X o• tn ,t · •

i..)r· .

C t 0

l~v" lv CL' "t, f L

0 CHAUCEH I ' F tJ.Ir

being

thesis resentea ~o the uraduate Facu ty

of the Fort Heys an as "tate C lle6 e in ~:

.t'artial Fulfillment 01' the Requirements tor

the Degree of l·.aster of Arts

M. Dale Anderson , D. S . L.

lJebraska Christian Collec;e

Date~ /t;/!J/ ACK~ O\JUDGE ITS

I wish to thank my graduate committee for their personal interest and valuable guidance in the preparation of this work.

I would like to give special aclmowledgement to Doctors Hoberta

Stout 3Ild Halph V. Coder for their patient counselling, assistance in research and the contribution of many hours of their time w uch

has helped irrneasureably in the com_poEition o:.· this thesis.

It would be next to i,1ipo< si';Jle to forget the encouragement ,; and confidence that rrzy- devoteJ ~ife has placed in me durir1c; tius ,:( time and she rightfully deserves the greatest acknowledgement of

all. TADLE OF cmm.:ll'i'S

DIVI IO .1-i.GE

REFACE i

I. THE l\.IG N Ul '1'.ft F KLIN 1

II. HIST ii.IC.AL fil.F~_t

III . CHAUCfilt 15 FRAIJKLI 24

CONCLUSION 36 BIBLICGR HY 37 1 FACE

The origin and social po ition oi' Chaucer 1 s Franklin has long been a subject of controversy. Scholars have been in disagreenent us to how the Franklin fits into the society of his tines . Chaucerian s tudents have examined sources lookine; for ini'ormation about him in his day, but most of them have accepted the findings of others and have not deliberately taken the trouble to examine priu1ary sources to substantiate their present views and to find additional material which would contribute

to fL11dings already made . ., Only a few men have dared to venture into historical fact to exam-

I ine documents, records and contemporary works , in addition to Chaucer s

own works , to find answers adequ2.te enough to change the entire picture

of the Franklin' s position.

I have examined both prir1ary anc.1 secondary materials and have

amassed :rm.1ch evidence to establish a point that has been variously

accepted for over a hundred years .

As I have explained on page five oi this thesis, gentry is the

class ranking next below the nobility. JUnont, the gentry, a squire is

immediately below a knight in rank and a franklin, also of the gentry

class , follows further down the line . On page twenty one of this thesis,

I have quoted from John Russell 1 s of Nurture , which is A. uook of eti-

quette , that a squire I s ta.tile may honor sergeants of law, 1 ate mayors

of London, masters of chancery, preachers, residencers and persons that

are agreeable , apprentices of law , merchants and fr anklins o ii

I had a great deal of difficulty finding the right material for t his thesis . }1aterial on the subject of the Franklin seerred to be very l imit ed in Forsyth Library, but I was able to find source materials from books obtained by the inter- library loan which were listed in books con- taining secondary source material. Nr . Marc Campbell has been exceptionally helpful in obtaining books for me through the inter- library loan and the Forsyth Library staff have been helpful in assisting me with checking materials out and in. In addition to this, Mr. Gene Mullen has been especially helpful and cordial and has given the finest of service~ I • THE OH.I I OF THE F LANKLI r

Men of all sorts, descriptions and positions were noticed by

Geoffrey Chaucer in the fourteenth century. He shows great understandirg by describing nia.ey types of characters and varieties of people as they are portrayed carrying on various activities in the Canterbury Tales .

They pursued their livelihoods and subsisted upon their earnings, however great or meager they might have been. One of these remarkable characters was the Franklin.

Needless to say, the times were difficult in an English economy that was barelY beginning to rise out of the feudal state . England was nruch slower than other countries to emerge from the old economic system of Europe into a new one that allowed for a freer type of government .

The Hanseatic League in Germany had been trading throughout the North

Atlantic and Baltic states for more than two- hundred years . The league had even established itself in England near London on the Thames and 1 possessed a great iron yard with shipping • The merchant class arose from among continental European nations ani trade upon the seas became the excite~nt that sparked the rise in economy throughout Europe. Bx- change travel by sea became prominent and men of all nations launched to foreign shores imbibing new custor,tS, cultures and languages. Literary records show that men took note of learning, writings and literatures of many nations •

1James estfall Thompson, Economic And Social History of Europe in the Later Middle Ages (1300-1530) ( ew York: Frederick Ungar Pub- lishing Co ., 1960), PP • l4b .7. 2

It was during this time that Geoffrey Chaucer lived and broadened his knowledge. His grandfather, Robert Chaucer, had been collector of customs on wines from Acquitaine, having been a wine merchant with a sizeable fortune and some standing in the King 's Court. Geoffrey's father, John Chaucer, had attended Edward III in Flanders in 1338, and in 1348 he was appointed to collect the custom on cloths in certain ports and also became deputy to the King 's Butler in outhampton.

Certainly, the f'am:il.y had made a humble beginning in public service to . 2 the king which Geoffrey Chaucer unhesi tatingl.y continued.

Chaucer's superior knowledge can no doubt be attributed to many facts. Not only had he been able to travel through England on pilgrim- ages such as that of the Canterbury Pilgrims in which he became acquainted with English people of maey followings, but also during his period of government service, which began before 1366, he travelled back and forth to Europe as the King I s envoy. This he did for nearly ten years during which time he became well-acquainted with foreign languages and traditions. He had also come in contact with what was pr ob ably the lar- gest private library available at that time f or in his descript i on of the Clerk in the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales he accounts for: Twenty bookes clad in blak or reed, f Aristotle and his philosophie.3

2 F. N. Robinson (ed.), The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957J,pp.xxiii, xxiv.

J.b.d.?:...2:_·, p. 20 • 3 No doubt Chaucer had acquired knowledge out of every available

source and it must be said that his own peculiar interest and native

ability were modulated into his works, which are most important and representative of his time. These have exceeded the works of his con- temporaries, some of which were: John Gower , v illiam Langland, Ralph Strode and other of his native countrymen, not to mention John Barbour

of Scotland, Leroy de la March of France, and others.

Through Chaucer 's many contributions to English literature and poetry, many characters stand out. From the Canterbury Tales, which was probably among the last of his great works, we may choose a char- acter whose identity and real position has long been poorly understood.

Part of this misunderstanding is due to scholarly oversight and part to scholars' acceptance of the merit and work of another scholar who have taken his supposition as final authority, rather than tracing the meaning of the word to original sources. The fault is also due in part to an authority who was misled en route to an original source.~ dence, we find that the position of Chaucer's Franklin has in this century been a matter of dispute. It is nzy- intention, in this thesis, to attempt to establish the true position of the Franklin; to show that in the fourteenth century he is proved by title and position to be a wealtcy landowner of the gentry class.5

4r have in reference the definition i- or franklin in the ew ~ - lish Dictionary, H.J. Tod 1 s oversight in defining the word and Pro- fessor R. K. Root's acceptance of the definition as given by these references. I have dealt with all of these in a later paragraph. 51,JUriel Bowden, f: Commentary the General Prologue to the Can- terbury Tales ( ew York: The Hae ri.llan Company, 1948), p. 173. 4 We need t o see the true picture of the fourteenth century

Fr anklin. Scholars since the turn of the century, somehow or other, have not been able to identify the beginning, the classification, or the position of the Franklin. Apparently the word was referred to and used more in certain localities rather than throughout the whole ~nglish kingdom, but there is good evidence that kings and magistrates were familiar with the name because it is recorded many times upon government 6 documents. It is also recorded in other places of importance which I shall point out in affirming that the Franklins were a class of people in high ( social position in English history, especially during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries .

It cannot be said that Franklins were a class of people that rose in any particular period or time and it is not exactly known how they obtained their position and wealth,7 but it is known that they were existent as early as 1200 A. D. A record of this is found in the Rotuli

Chartarum 43/1 in which is said,

Unam carrucatam terrae apud Hamerwich cum villanis et franchelano, and in line 82/1, Omnia feuda mili tum et franccolanorwn I.Jui tenent de eodem monasterio. B

6John Matthews Ianly, Some fow Light_£!! Chaucer ( ew York: Henry Holt and Company, 1926), p . 16.S, 66°: 7Gordon Hall uerould, Chaucerian :... ssays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 34. 8Henry Bradley, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles Vol. IV . F and G. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press-;-1901), P• 513. 5 Ther e is early knowledge , then, of the Franklins. It is certain t hat the name denotes a title of a class of people who are freeholders of t he l andowning class .9 This much is definite, but in its second definition it goes on to say that the Franklin was also one ranking next 10 below the gentry.

hen defining gentry, the Oxford Universal English Dictionary~

His torical Princioles asserts the meaning to be:

1. Rank by birth (usu. high birth) . b . The quality or rank of' a gentleman (arch) 1447 . c . Good breeding. 2. People of gentle birth and breeding; the class to which they belong; now specific the class immediately below the nobility 1585 .11

1 ordsworth says of it, "Grave !:>entry of estate and name . 1112 It can be seen through this definition that the gentl"IJ were just below the nobility in rank and that they were people of high distinction on the English social scale.

Apparently these definitions have merit and are backed wi. th factual evidence of some sort, but because I am in disagreement wi. th the latter definition of franklin, that of, 11 ranking next below the 1entry, 11 I shall aspire to prove the statement to be false and further prove that the Franklin was of the gentr-3 class.

In the first anaJysis, the Oxford English Dictionary was originally published as! New English Dictionary~ Historical Principles . The

90nions, C. T. (ed. ) , Oxford Universal English Dictionary Historical Princihles Vol. IV. (Oxford: Doubleday, Doran & Conpany, Inc., 1937), p . 7 7.

10.l. b.d1 •

11Bradley, .9£ • cit., p . 786 .

12.1 b.d1 • 6 idea originated in a resolution of the Philogical Society, and was passed on in 1857, at the suggestion of Archbishop Trench when he was

Dean of estminster. However , for several years the work was not under- taken. In 1879, the council for the Philological Society, due to the production of excellent specimens by the edi or, James A. rl . Nurray, began the preparation of the diction2ry.

The aim of the dictionary was to furnish an adequate account of the meaning, origin and history of English words now in general use , or known to have been in use at any time during the last seven-hundred (. years. This would include the words used even before 1200 A. D.

It endeavors (1) to show, with regard to each individual word, when, how, in what shape, and with what signification, it became English; what development of form and meaning it ha.s since received; which of its uses have, in the course of time, becoroo ob - solete, and which still survive; what new uses have since arisen, by what processes, and when: (2) to illustrate these facts by a series of quotations ranging from the f irst known occurance of the word to the latest, or down to the present da;y; th3 word being thus made to exhibit its own history and meaning: and (3) to treat the etymology of each word strictly on the b&is of historical fact, and in accordance with the materir 7 s and results of modern Philological Science.13

The aim and purpose of the dictionary has now been established and we can understand the methods and intentions of recovering the meaning of words used in the last seven-hundred years. \ e can feel fairly certain that derivations are correct. However, it is nzy- convic- tion that sufficient evidence was not given by the~ English Dictionary to factually establish the Franklin as "ranking next below the gentry • 11 7 l will present primary evidence to show that the lirnnklin belon, to the gentry class .

It mu t be rem rnbered that the x.ford chol did not begin to record these word'"' and thejr rnearn.ng unt · 1 the ye 1879. r'urthermore it must be pointed out that there was an event which took place long before th actual compilation of the dictionary that, may have a definite bearing upon the dictionary ' s wrong definition oi the Franklin.

In 1810, H. J. Todd quoted an elaborate note from WaLerhous I s

Commentary on ir John l•'ort scue I Do Laudibus Lee;um Angliae, which only .c· 11 tended11 to show that franklins did not clone to the gentry . 1L To d undoubtedly p rforrnad an injustice by not beinc able to roconcllo Lltis with the fact that Chaucer ' s Franklin w· 11 at se 3ion.s , 1115 ince by a 16 statute of Edward Irr, which he ciLcd, justi o were sei6 ncur.s, and that he was 11 ofte tyme knight of the hire, 11 17 and ince uy ano t.her 18 statute members of parliament were "chevaliers et ser jantz d s 1 ntz vaues du pai s. 11 l''rom this evid ce it is clear-Ly een that odd was left in doubt a to the gentility of the Fr anklln . After a re-examination of Fortescue ' s remarks we realize that it is 11ot. he but lds commentator who is re pan iblc for lowerine t status of Chaucer' sanguine country gentleman. lI Todd would have tudied Lhe material

14 'ordon Hall Gerould, 11 1'he ocial Status of Chaucer ' Franklin. 11 Pu lications of the Modern Languoge Assoc· ation of America Vol. Ll. (Menasha, Jisconsin : George l3anta l'uhli hi.n~ Company, 1 '1 26), p . 262 .

l5Robinson, lee. cit. 16 Gerould , lac . cit., 34 l!:dw . Cap . 1.

17nobinson, loc. cit. 18 Gerould, loc. cit., L6 Edw . I 8 more thoroughly , he w:)Uld not have left his readers in doubt . This is

a grave error that has led many Chaucerian scholars to conclude that franklins were of less importance than they really were •19

We cannot be sure that the late Henry Bradley consulted Todd ue- f ore passing the definition of "franklin" in the Ne\1 English Dictionary,

but he may have been influenced tJy it . Certainly the example quotation,

"ranking next below the 6entry, 11 is a disputable clause for the reason that nobody has ever ranked. franklins anong the nobility and therefore 20 the clause is open to serious challenge. r: Gerould points out in his research that Professor R. K. Root

accepted Bradley I s definition without question arri based it upon an interpretation of Chaucer I s Franklin that was novel and ingenious rather than sound, which view ap p arently would mislead scholars seeking for truths concerning Franklins . Professor Root wrote:

The Franklin has much in common with the better type of the 11 self- made man . 11 He has at his disposal all that money can buy, and he has held office in his own country; but he i uncomfortably conscious of a certain lack of 11 gentilitv , 11 -- betrayed by his fondness for the words 11 gentil11 and "gc ntilesse," -- and of the full education which would adorn his prosperous estate . • • • Conscious that, wi --.:. h all that he has acquired and attained, he can never be quite t:t-E complete ge!1tlerian, he would fain be the father of a gentleman; but his hopes are d is- appointed by the u;ifortunate vulgar proclivities of his son and heir . 21

19 ibid.

20ibid.

21ibid., p . 263; R. K. Root, he Poetry of Chaucer, 1 906 (Rev. ed. 1922), pp . 271- 2. 9

.Perhaps il Pro1essor Root had not known the clause ror which

Bradl ey stands responsible, "ranking next below the gentry, 11 he would

not have questioned the probability that Chaucer ' s Frcnklin was of the

11 gentil" class .

Although Professor Root ' s book was admirable, it tended to lead

others astray, such as 'l'odd and Bradley have done and apparently Kitt- redge, in another book on Chaucer ' s Poetry, accepts his view when he

says , 11 The Franklin is a wealthy man, ambitious to found a family . 1122

The statement is not elaborated upon or defended, which makes it a . (' significant fact that j_n less than a decade, as it seems , a weak

supported explanation had acquired fictitious value .

Gerould points out that farton was right when he said that the

Franklin was 11 a country gentleman, 11 and further said that his 11 estate

consisted in free land. 112 3 ~hat is further known about the franklins

is that they had a high position in society arrl there1ore must be

studied from the point where we 1·1nd them.

The word franklin has been used in literature, as has been 24 previously mentioned, rrom 1200 A. D. in the Rotuli Chartarum, to

at least 1843 A. D. where it is used in Igtton' s Last Bar . IV . V, and

it ..,ays ,

22George Igman Kittredge , Chaucer and His Poetry (CaJ11bridge: Harvard University Press, 1946) , p. 204 .

23Gerould, .2E• cit., pp . 263, 4o 24 . Bradley, loc . __g!. 10

2 His dress was -i:. hat of a substantial franklin . 5

In addition to these, there are ruany other writings between the dates mentioned which include the name franklin. These will be

discussed in the following chapter.

(: ' .(

25.~-b .d TIIL Fti.A., G.D

According to :Muriel Bowden, much evidence has been amassed by

Gerould to show that fourteenth century franklins were of the gentry, even though the original word for franklin n:e ant i 1ply II a freerna1 . 11

.l::iowden says that Manly arrl Robinson are in agreement with Gerould because of the evidence he has found to substantiate the Franklin's position as being that of the i:;entry. I was unable to find primary evidence of it, but I anly tells us that Thomas Chaucer, Geoffrey's son, was a franklin in the fifteenth century, yet 11 he ims one of the 112 6 wealthiest and 1:10 t powerful persons in England.

Sesides producine Gerould ' s evidence for the Franklin's position,

I will also offer ad itional evidence which will help to substantiate the argument . Gerould leaves U1e dictionaries to fir d clearer evidence

as to the meaning of the term "franklin. 11

The first observation that should be made is that in a 1ew

case the word indicates a freeman as distir:guished from a villain tut doe riot here make any further suggestion of rank. In the year 1440 1127 the word franklin, in the omptuarium Parvulorum was term.ed"libertinus

or libertine which, in its tlird definiticn , ans "one free from self-

res t rain. t • 28 early the same use of the ward is found in tre Vi ta

26 Bowden, ~ - cit., p . 179 .

27 Bradley, loc. cit.; Gerould, ~ . cit ., p . 26L. .

28webster 1 s lew Collegiate J'ctionary ( pringfield: G. & C. Merriam Co ., 19 51) , p. 484. 12

Haroldi, written in 1300 , where we find that the wounded king was carried

off the battlefield, 11 a duobus ut fertur mediocribus viris quos franca- lanos sive agricolas vocant agnitus . 1129 \•ith the above evidence, there is little doubt that the authors regarded franklins as low creatures.

Gerould says that Latzner in his Sprachproben and the ed.i tors of the New

English Dictionary were probably justified upon the basis of these two

instances in giving 11 freeman11 as one mea11irlb of 11 franklin, 11 but that

they would be unjustified in passing this off as the primary definition.3°

I have found maey other illustrations about the Frcmk1.in that refer

to hir.i as a member of the landholding class, and, when examined closely,

to a class of very good social position. The context, at least, makes

this so su1ficiently clear in most instances that we can no longer doubt

the fitness of calling the Frank.Lin a gentleman. Gerould says that even

in the thirteenth century the franklin was the equivalent of a country

squire in modern ngland.31

Three of the earliest references to the word hav~ been found in

charters . The first of these is from the year 1166, dur ing the reign

of Henry II . In a grant to Cernal Abbey we find the words:

Super dominiu.m ecclesiae sunt feoda triurn militum et diruid.ii cum tenura Francolensium in villa Cernae . uis4ue autem

29Bradley, loc. cit.; Gerould, loc . cit.; Ed. W. de G. Birch, 1885, P• 34. JOGerould, EE.• cit., pp . 264, 5.

3libid. 13 istorum debet 1·acere wardam ad praeceptum vestrum apud Castellwn de Corfe uno mense per annum . 32

It is not known how many franklins there were for their number is not mentioned, but they certainly must have been men of importance because it was their duty to guard Corfe Castle. Gerould says of them:

Their wealth would depend upon their number, the aggregate of their holdings being to the aruount of three and a half knights ' fees , unless -- as is possible -- they had holdings from other overlords than the abbey . 33

At any rate, these franklins must have been individuals wh:i had possessions out of the ordinary and who were considered to be free men .

Two other references from pre- Chaucerian times are from Charter

Rolls given to conventional establishments during the reign of John, already referred to in Chapter I of t11is thesis.34 Gerould says of the first quotation, that the Franklin of this period could not have been a very wealthy person since his estate was only between 160 and

180 acres, but at the same time he could mre villa.ins as laborers and could have done quite well. But in the second quotation, an interesting di covery is made when it is perceived that knights ani franklins are mentioned in the sa.rre phrase as holding from the monastery, and app arently on the same terms . The only slight difference between them is one of titul2.r rank, rather than of tenure. From this evidence it is seen that 35 they occupy really the same positions.

32Gerould, .21?.• cit., p . 265; Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hull, 1896 (Rolls Ser. 99) , 1, 212 . (.Juoted in75e Cange from the Liber niger Scaecarii, concerning which see Hall's introauction.

33Gerould, loc . cit.

34see page four f or quotations .

35Gerould, .21?. • cit., p . 266 . 14 During the thirteenth century, it is interesting to note that

Le Fraunkeleyn was used as a surname, and for persons who had inher- itances and holdings of land which shows that any people in this category had a very solid and brilliant s ocial position. 36 Gerould states that this is some of the be8t evidence he has for establishing an assured position of the class.

At this point we will cite some references by versifiers who wrote at the end of the thirteenth century an:i in the fourteenth. The first one that we will consider is t he shadowy Hobert of Gloucester, who in his account of King Lear warned parents against giving up their land to their children. rlobert say-s:

Vor wel may a simple frankelein • in miseise him so bringe. Of lute lond wanne ber biuel . such cas of an kinge . 37

He is called "simple franklin, 11 but in contrast to a king, it is as if one should set off a member of the squirearchy against the king.

Another writing, the Cursor ·:lundi , gives us an example in another

'flay . The author tells about the conversation of Jacob wi J,1 Pharaoh, who s ays of the magnificent Joseph:

36ibid. ; See, for example, the Calendar of Patent~ and Cal- endar of Close Rolls, as well as the Excerpta Rotulis Firu.um in Turri Londinensi, edo C. noberts , 1836, which cover the years 1216- 1272 . The use of settled surnames f or people above the lower classes is a phenom- enon of' earlier date than is sometimes supposed. 37 Gerould, loc. cit. . ; Hetrical Chronicle, ed. W. A. right, 1887 (Rolls Ser. 86) , l~l, lines 821- 822 . Dated 1290- lJOO . ; Bradley, loc . cit. 15

Fir.Jt ne was here als our thain But now es he f or ai franckelain. 38

While considering the honors held by Joseph at this time, it would seem that Pharaoh was meant to imply more uy his an tithesis than the mere contrast of freedom with serfdori.. Gerould warns not to press this point too hard since here it J.S certain that the author needed a rhyme, but J.t must be remembered that the couplet could never have been written if early in the fourteenth centu.r'J franklins were considered to belong to the lower orders . 39

icholas Trivet evidently recognizes no wide ·ulf between a knight arrl a franklin either for he makes no test of it when in his

Anglo- orman Chroniques he writes that :

Thomas Brotherton (filius R. Edouardi I) apres le mort son pere esposa la fille de un Fraunclein appelle Alice .JiO

It does not matter if historians affirm that the Earl of 1~orfolk's father-in- law was Sir Thomas Hales of Harwich, or that Trivet's statement is openly absurd in one particular , oecause Thomas of Brotherton was not born untJ.l 1300, and his father died in 1307. The point is that a contemporary chronicler could confuse a !might ,nth a franklin after this manner anJ a. parently no vast difference was recognized

38Bradley, loc. cit.; Gerould, loc . cit.; Cursor ·.b.mdi , dated 1300- 1325, ed. R. horris,1874-1893 (~ETS), lines 5373- ~

39aerould, El?.• cit., p . 266,7.

40ibid., p . 'J..6,7, . 16 bet ween the two .41

Robert Mannyng uses the word twice and even couples franklins with squires. This was an exact equation in the fifteenth century.

Co nan sends t o Dianot for his daughter Ursula,

And gentil da.reysels vngyuen, Bat able to mennes companye were bryuen, Squyers doghtres , & frankeleyns , To gyue hem t o knyghtes & to swayns. 42

The only difficulty here is to find the meaning that 1r . Mannyng can have attached to 11 swayns, 11 but his second example is more revealing than the first . In regard to the Statute of Hortmain, in the second part of his Chronicle, he penned: as mad an ober statut, bat non erle no baroun, No ober lord stoute, ne fraunkeleyn of toun, Tille holy kirke salle gyue tenenement, rent no lond. 43

The corresponding lines in Pierre de Langtoft ' s Chronicle , which was

Robert ' s source, run as follows: Est fet l ' estatut, ke counte, ne baroun, e seygnur de terre, parmi la regioun, Face a seinte Eglise offrand ne doun De terre ne teneirent, si P?1' cunge noun Du rays e de son consayl.44

41.b.d]. l. •

42ibid.; The Stor~ of Enfand, ed. F. J . Furnwall, 1887 (Rolls Ser. 87) , 1, 230 , lines %-b5 8. Dated 1338.

43Geroul d, l oc . cit. ; Ed . as by Pierre de Langtoft by • Hearne , 172S , p . 239 . This part of Robert's work is not in Furnivall' s edition. It was based on Pierre de Langtoft, which explains Hearne ' s error of ascription. ; Bradley, loc . cit .

44a-erould, loc . cit.; d. T• . right . 1860-1868 (iolls Ser. 47) , II , 174 . 17

Robert, no doubt, felt that 11 lorde s toute 11 was not a sufficient trans- lation 1·or 11 seygnur de terre" and so added "fraunkeleyn of toun. 1145

Certainly to show their high social position, J . Russell in his

Book of Nurture, in line 1071, shows that:

1archaundes & Franklonz worshipfulle & honorable may be set serrely at a squyers table .46

It must be said that squires, unquestionably, were country gentleum and next to knights in rank. The~ were the landed proprietors am were often the principle lando-wners in a village or district. 47 It is no wonder that

11 Herchants and Franklins 11 were honored at the Squire's table, for they belonged to the gentry class too.

From the Roy Rede I·ie ( arb. ) of 1528, line 100 says:

One or two ryche francklyngis Occupyinge a dozen mens J.yvyngis . 48

This writing shows that franklins were wealthy and held large estates which also produces eviaence that they had possessions like others of the gentry class .

From 1590, Spenser's Fairy ~een sa;rs in line I . X. 6:

45Gerould, loc . cit. ; This phrase is illustrated by a writ analyzed in CalendMofinquisitions ·liscellaneous , ed. H. C. laxwell Lyte, 1916, 1I, 56, No . 233 . In this writ, dated 1 Sept. 9 Edward II (1315), Thomas de Polington is described as "lord 01' the whole town of Polington. 11 "Townll was doubtless used in the sense familiar to all ew Englanders .

46Bradley, loc . cit.

47Bradley, .2E. • cit., p . 786.

48Bradley, 2£• cit., P • 543. 18

Entred in, a spatiou s court they see •• \•Jhere them doe s meet e a francklin faire and free . 49

Spenser here recognizes two qualities in the franklin to whom he refers , that of his str iking appearance , he was evidently well dressed, which showed somewhat of his wealth, and he was a freeman. These are two good qualities of men belonging to the gentry class .

In Rushaws Histor ical Collection 0 1· 1659, it says i n line I , 17:

Francklines , and rich Farrrers , Esquires, to p r ecede them,t would yield your majesty also a great sum of money in present . ::,O

The wri ter recognized the gr eat wealth of these men and suggested to the king not to overlook the possibilities founu within their means .

It is in Noufet and Bennett's Health Improv. (1655 ) , published in

1746, that line 340 mentions :

The Franklin 1 s Bread of England i s counted nest nouris hing . 51

The Franklin was not only free uut through the years had actually improved upon ri.s bread, making it most nourishing .

Another refer ence to franklins is made in 1659 by Howell in his

Lexicon where he s ays , "Proverbs mey be called the truest Franklins or

Freeholders of a countrey. 11 52 This may De his wa:y of sayin that Franklins were sone of t he most intelligent people who lived in England. It is certain that they were independent and in :rey- opinion their freedom caused them to be some of 'nr;land I s finest citizens and wer e a ule to make great contributions to tre English economy.

491.. b1. . d •

50.1. b1..d •

5l ibid.

521.-b"d 1. • 19

By 1577, Holingshed in his Chronicles hints at the lavishness of the Franklin's table when he says in line 31/1:

To purchase tbe name of a sumptuous i'rankelen or a gooa viander. 53

Not only is there a hint at sumptuousness , but there is also a suggestion that people in the right position working upward on the Lnglish ~ocial

Scale could purchase or obtain a name of high rank.

In Somerville I s OL'icious Eessenger of 1727, he says of our subject in line 72:

1 o Franklin carving of a chine at Christide, ever looked so f ine.54

Again, this is another couplet that denotes the luxuries of the Franklin, of his table, his hou ehold and his dress .

'he word tranklin is used t iree times in illiam Langland 1 s Piers

Plowman, a writing contemporary to Chaucer 1 s works. :fn the 1'irst example, the Dreamer, in the guise of an idle London priest, is conversing With

Reason. In an obvious ironic strain he -Lalks about the privileges and advantage of the clergy, the first among them being idlene:=:s . He goes on to say:

For shol no clerk be crouned. bate yf he ycome were Of franklens a1rl free men • and o~ lolke yweddede . 0ondmen and bastardes • and beggers children, Thuse by- loneeth to labour. and lordes kyn to seruen Bothe god and good men . as here degree askcth. 55

53ibid.

54ibid.

551'Vil.Liam Langland, Piers lm1111an and ichard the Redeless (Ox.ford: The University Press, 1954) , p . 120. 20

There 1.s a definite contrast here between tJond and free , DUt the entire implication is that i'ranklins are gentlefolk. In the econd instance of Piers Plowman , althou...;h no sat.isf actory c.:onclusions can oe dravm according to Gerould , yet 1.t should Le noted that wit is discoursing about the contrariety of "•Jestmlnster Law , " becau ·e it visits the sins of the 1'atl1ers upon l,he children. If a householder· • er1.shed on the 6 gallows , thou6 h he were a franklin, his son lost the inheritance. 5

The passus says:

For thauh the fader be a i'rankelayne • ar10. ior a felon be han1:;ed.z. Tne heritage that the air should haue • ys at tl e kyn5es wille .5 f

The third case is even more conclu ive as to the writer ' s estimate of 1,he social posi tion of franklins . Consc.ience is the peakers . He

says that esus was knif ht, kin1~ , and con ueror becau e he had the virtue to make a conque t for the right . anelanct ays

To make lordes of lactdes • 0 1 londe that he wynneth And fre rren l'oule t hralles • that folweth nouzt his la, e • The Iuwes , that were gentil- men • Icsu t he 1. dispised , uothe his lore and hls lawe • now ar thei lowe che1 lis . As wyde as the wurlde is • wonyeth there none ut vnder tritmt a11d taillage • as tykes and cherles • .And tho that becurne Lrysten • by conseille of t he bapt · ste , Aren i'rankeleynes, fre men • thorw 1·u1lyne; the.t th i tuke, And gentel- men with Iesu • 1·or Iesus was y1ulled, .SB And vppon Caluarye on crosse . crouned kynge oi' Iewes .

According to the B redactor of iers PlowJ'l'Jan , which was not disputed by the C redactor, franklins were not only rreemen, out gentlemen as ell.

.56n . Chadwick, Social Life the Days of iers Plowman (Cru1bridge : The University 'ress, 1922), p . 4~

op . cit., C, Pass . xi , 240- 241 , p . 279 •

.58ibid. ; B. Pas_, . xix, 32 - 41. In C, ass xxii, 32- Lil , pp . 552 , 3. 21

This one passage alone would be sufticient evidence to refute the idea that they ranked "next below the gentry . 11 The fine but very significant phrase 11 gentlemen with Iesu11 is used to i1-lustrate the meaning of 11 free- man11 and there by the fallihili ty of systems to recover the original meaning of word is seen as it was used and placed in the .1.mglish

Dictionary. 59

l·.ir . Gerould points out that detailed and precise evi ence of another kind has been round from the first half of the 1•ifteenth century concerning the position of franklins . Oddly enough, 1 t comes 1·rom a source, which according to him, "coul d not be bettered - - a book of etiq_uette . 11 John Russell, who wrote the Book of Nurture , was compelled to put his m:rnd on questions of precedence. He shows mens estates who were 11 equal with a knight , " as sitting three or 1our to a mess at meal- time . He lists tr.em as follows :

bbot and prior 11 sons mitre, 11 dean, arch- deacon, .,aster of Rolls , under justices, barons oJ the king ' s Exchequer, provincial of a religious order, doctor of divinity, doctor of 11 both : .ws , 11 pro- thonotary, pope's collector, and mayor of the staple . At a squire ' s table, sitting 1·our to a .uess, come sergeanls of law, late r.1ayors of Lone.on, masters of chancery, a1-l 11 precl1ers, residencers , and persons that ar 6raable , 11 apprentices oi' law, .,er chants, and franklins . 60

Gerould admits that this list may seem 11 shghtly ·ihirnsical11 lJut continues

59Gerould, ££• cit., P• 269 .

60ibid., pp . 269 , 70. ; The Babees ook, ed. F . J . Furnwall, 1868 (~E1'532}, PP • 188 , 89 . 22 to give good arguuent in i-avor ot Franklin' s gentility saying that their position could have been defended b Joh tlussell. Gerould rurther points out that merchants of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had a higher s oc:i al e tate than they did in later times , but at this time they ranked with the gentry. 61

I mentioned Sir ohn Fortescue 1s !amous work De Laudibus Legum

Anelial earlier an I would no like to take a quotation 1'rom it . vhen he composed this work between 1468 and 1471, he -..irote:

Regio eciaru illa i ta .cespersa refertaque est possessorious ter:ra- rum et agrorum, quod in ea villula tom parva reperiri non pote1 it in qua non est miles , armiger, vel paterfamilias quaLis iuidem frankeleyn vu.lgariter noncupatur . maous ditatus possesdoniuus; necnon libere tenentes ahi, et valetti plurimi suis patrimoniis sufficientes ad faciendum juratum in r'orma prenotata. 62

This was trar.slated in 1775 and reprinted in Amos ' edition as follows:

Lngland is so tlLi.. ck spread and fi.Lled with rich and landed men , tliat there is scarce a small village in ubich you may not find a knight , and esquire, or sore substantial householder, commonly called, a Frankleyne; all men of consideraule est&tes: there are others who are called Freeholders , and many yeoman of estates sufficient to make a substantial Jury, within the debcription before observed. 63

~-when Fortescue comments on 1,he wealth of some of the 11 valetti, 11 he

clearly classifies franklin with lmights and esquires rather than 61.i with the "libere tenentes alii. 11 Gerould concludes that Fortescue ' s

61Gerould, ~ • cit., P• 270 .

62ibid.; Cap . Ed . S. B. Chriroos , 1942, p . 68 .

63Gerould, l oc . cit.

64l.b.d l • 23 inclinations are in agreement with those of John 1lussell, and from this point of view it , a.,v be determined that franklins were of the gentry. III. Cl-U1.UC.c.. 1 & i:u-uJ' LI r

ow, we will get a closer look at Chaucer I s Franklin. Chaucer gives us certain clues as to the Franklin's position in the Canter ur-1

Tales . He was in the company of a nsergeant of the Lawe. 11 He was wealthy and lived generously on his land. He was 11 lord and sire11 at

"sessions, 11 which means the.t he sat importantly as justice in petty sessions . He had been a sheriff. He had often been "Knight of the shire," representing his county in parliament. He had been a 11 contour, 11 probably auditing the accounts of the sheriff. He was a 11 vavasour 11 and there had been none "worthier. 116.5 The Franklin calls himself a "burel man 11 and says that he never slept on Parnassus, learned Cicero, or

acquainted himself with the colors of rhetoric,66 which according to

Gerould, are half-humorous deprecations of an individual who made no pretence of clerkly lore, thoueh he showed sufficient learning in his 6- tale . f It seems to me that each point mentioned here has significant

value and when understood together gives adequate confirmation of the

Franklin' s position as a member or the gentry class .

The Franklin was going to Canterbury to visit the St. Thomas

Shrine with a group of pilgrims . He was in the company of a Sergeant

of the Law whose learning and success is equally emphasized with that

65Robinson, loc . cit.

66!..2:.-·b"d., p . 134, 5.

67Gerould, ~ • cit., p . 264 . 25 of the Franklin. According to John Russell, the two men were oi' the same social rank and had associations in public and private business which, no doubt, let to their acquaintance and friendship .

Gerould reminds us that the l· an of Law had often sat as justice of assizes, "by patente, and by plein connnissioun, 1168 here the Franklin would have been in attendence both as an important landholder and as a 11 countour, 11 not to r.iention the litigation in which men of any sub- stance seem almost continuously to have been engaLeu dUl'irlb the fourteenth and f ifteenth centuries . Chaucer uoes not use 11 countour11 in the exact sense that John Selden does 1.n his Titles of Honor, when he wrote: 11 For a countour was , if I am not deceived, a sergeant at law, known also then ey oath names . 1169 It is certain that the Frruiklin, in understanding business, also had some knowledge of the law. From this point of view we can observe that 11 sergeant 11 was apparently used to designate propertied gentlemen who were not knights as r.ell as lawyers .

Edward III made a statute in 1372 which reads that neither men of law

"pursuant busoignes en la Court le Hoi , 11 nor sheriffs during their terms of office , shall be returned to parliament as knights of shires . 11 ..es voit le Roi, que chivalers et serjantz des meuly vaues du paies soient ~a retornez. 111

68Gerould, .9£ · cit., p . 271. ; The me aning of these ternIB is Jell illustrated by a reference to s heriffs in tatutes of the .n.ealm, 28 .l:..dw . III, cap. 9 (13.54): 11 viscontes de diverses contees, par vertue des com- missions et briefs generals . 11

69Gerould, loc . cit.; orks, 1726, III, 1027. Selden uotes the Mirror of Justices-cnchez le seigneur Coke en l ' epist. du 9. livre"): 11 11 Countors sont ser ·eants, sachans la ley del royal.m.

70Gerould, loc . cit.; Statuteo 01· t1e 1£ealm, 46 Edw . III (1372) . 26

There is also a similar account recorded in Pierre de Langtoft 's

Chronicle . A detachment of men in a mi.Li tary expedition to Glas cony are designated: Barouns e vavasours de gentil lynage , Chu.valers et serjauns of lur cosinage, ~11 Gens ape sanz noumbre de more et boscage .

Gerould points out that these sergeants may certainly be equated With ~2 fr anklins • 1 ir John Fortescue has reminded us , as was before mentioned, that

Chaucer's Franklin was not exceptional.ly wealthy, and neither was he a poor man , but was like a great number of gentlemen ,.t10 did not have titles but had great possessions . The idea that peers and lmights were

the only important landlords in the complex world of feudal tenure , is a

serious mis take . From the Calendars of n uisi tions in behalf of the

reigns of Edward III and Richard II, we are impressed by the sizeable

holdings 01' men who were neither noblemen nor knights . Gerould reports

that some of the wealthy commoners had land "scattered over several

counties . 117 3 The Inquisitions confirm very conclusively the wealth and

the importance of men oelow the estate of knights . Gerould reminds us

71Gerould, ~ . cit. , p . 2 72 . ; Langtoft 1 s Chronicle , ed. T. ,Jright, 1866-1868 (Rolls Ser . @ . II , 230.

72aerould, loc . cit. 73ibid. ; See the case of John Giffard: VII, nos . 78, 180; IX, no 686 . Thissarne Giffard may possibly be referred to elsewhere without specific designation. 27 that Chaucer ' s Friar took advantage of this, who mu.st have l oved good cheer, and made himself beloved and familiar ,

Yith frankeleyns over al in his contree. 74

Chaucer, to further exemplify the Franklin's wealth, along with his hospi tal.ity, mentions that the food and drink in his house was immense .

In the fourteenth and fifteenth certuries, the landed gentry were i'airly prosperous and there i s now no doubt of it, and, according to

Thomas Fuller, the country gentle an has been well- to- do even into the nineteenth century. • lier says:

And here under favour I conceive, that if a strict inquiry should be made after the ancient gentry of ~ngland, , ost of tnem would be found amongst such middle- sized persons as are above two hundred, and beneath a thousand pounds of annual revenue •••• ·en of great estates, in natj_onal broils , have smarted deeply for their visible engagements , to the ruin of their families , whereof we have t oo many sad experiments , whilst such persons who are moderately mounted above the level of common people into a competency, above want an:i beneath envy, have , by God ' s blessing on their frugality, continued longest in their condi tions, entertaining all alterations in the state with tre less destructive change unto themselves . 75

·en like these were often chosen to represent their ::aunties in parliairent.. Chaucer I s Franklin had been in parliament 11 f ul ofte tyme . 11

An examination of the lists of indi victuals summoned au.ring tne reigns of idward III, .rlichard II, and Henry IV shows that a knight of the shire was by no means always a knight in degree, even if it is true that he commonly held that rank. .en were selected from the counties by rank

74Gerould , loc . cit.; Canterbury ~ales , line 1 , 216 .

7SGerould, .s:2 · cit., p . 273 .; ,wrthies of bnsland (1662) , ed. P. A. 1utt all, 1840, 1~3- 28 and estate and certain ones were more prone than others to select untitled men , out the honor was to a great e:i...-tent reserved for knights . The rank- lin had been in parliari1ent many tir,1es and tnis evidence shows that he as

a prominent leader in his shire . He could not have been elected if he

had not been a gentleman because it was against the law to elect a com- moner. It ~as also against the custom to send a lesser person to estminster ano t 1is is affirmed in a statute of' 1372, which, as I have

already quoted, says, 11 1·1es voit le oi, ue chivalers et serja..-ritz des meuly vanes du paies soient retornez . 11 76 There is a more concise law in the fifteenth centur/ that provides knights of shires,

soient notablez Chivalers des mesmez Counteez pour lez queux ils serront issint esluz, ou autrernent tielx notablez squires gentils hornez del Nativite de:z mesmez les Counteez cornme soient ablez destre tiel Chivaler queen la degree de vadlet & desouth. 77

Chaucer's Fr anklin hcrl been a sheriff, ana this further means

that he was a man of high position in his county. Thomas Fuller says,

11 the principal gent:r.r in every shire, of most ancient extractions and 78 Dest estates, were deputed for that place . Bowden records that the

Franklin had been a sheriff and was 11 an aciministrative officer 01· the

crown, ranking next in the shire to the Lord Lieutenant, ana a pleader

in court . 1179 Trevelyan says of it, 11 This officer (a sheriff was

76 Gerould, loc . cit.; Statutes of the Realm, 46 .wdw . III. 77.b'd~' 23 Hen . VI , cap . 14 . 78Gerould, ~ • cit., P• 274 . ; Ed. G. oodbine, 1922; or T. Twiss , 1878 (Ro.Lls Ser. 70) .

79Bowden, loc . cit. 29 chosen by the crmm from among the 6entry of the district, and was the link between r'Jestminster and the countryside . 11 80 He further says,

He (the sheriff) had once carried on almost ru.l the king's business in the shire, and though many of his powers had since been delegated to the Justices of the Peace or to the King ' s Judges on circuit, he sti.Ll remained the most i mpor- tant local officer . ~l

It is certain that men of high position and of social rank (gentlemen) could only serve in the office of a sheriff. The man also had to have the ability to go along with the rank in order to succeed in his 2 office.§

0neri1'fs -..sere selected with great care as Sir John Fortescue records . He declares that on the day after a.Ll Souls a large group of specified "high officars of the crown'' meet in the Exchequer,

Ubi hii omnes communi assensu nominant de quolibet comitatu tres rnilites vel arrnigeros, quos inter ceteros ejusdem comitatus i psi opinantur rnclioris esse deposicionis et fame et ad officium vicecomitis illi,us melius dispositos, ex quibus rex unum tantum eligit . t53

I In the final explication of Chaucer I s an.alysis of t a Franklin s

11 social position, he says that nowhere was there 11 such a worthy vavasour.

To explain the meaning 01' vavasour, Gerould quotes from three of John

Selden I s observations . In the first observation,

80George Nacaul~ Trevelyan, En~land in the Age of vycliffe (New York: Longmans, Green and Co . , 192 ), p .~7-. - -- -

8l•b"dl. l. •

82Gerould , loc . cit. 83.b.d~ - 30

The u s e and continuance of the narre of a vavasour was such, that from the .: ormans, until the time of Henry IV , *t was a name lmown; but feudal only, not at all honorary. 1:14

The second one seys:

And the Author of Fleta (lib. i , cap 5, S4): sub reeibus sunt comites & barones , duces , milites , magnates , vavasores, & alii subditi ut liberi & servi, ui omnes aetatem xii annorum ad minus habentes ferre tenentur regi fidelitatis sacramentum. 85

The third one explains,

Nor for the nature of a vavasour; though we perhaps nay soon miss in giving an exact definition of hin, yet it is plain that he was ever beneath a baron. And it seems he was in the more ancient times only a tenant b - knight I s service, that either held of a mesne lord, and not imraeaiately of the kini, or at least of the king as of an honor or 1 annor, and not in chief, both of which excluded hir1 fror.i the dignity of a baron by tenure . 86

elden is just when he says of Chaucer I s caLlinb t 1e Franklin a

vavasour:

It is likely that he gave him is title as the oest, and above what he had before cormuended him for . Neither would he have put it as an addition of worth to a s beriff iQ- a countour , unless it had been of special note and honor. '

Selden, in his conclusion, shows wisdom in assuming that 11 we 8t3 perhaps may soon miss in giving an exact definition" of a vavasour .

Gerould says that modern historians have also been at a loss to define

84-b'd~ -, p . 275. 85ibid. 86.b . d ]. ]. . 87.b.d ]. ]. .

88.b.d]. l. • 31 t he term with precision . In behalf of this problem he quotes F .

11 Maitland who says, ~ atever else we may think of these vavassores, they are not barons and probably they are not immediate tenents of the king . 11 89 He also quotes 1·rom Pallock and •,ai tland' s HJ.story of

~nglish Law in wlnch this unsatisfactory· statement occurs: 11 ,either the theory that the vavassor must needs be a vassal I s vassal, nor the derivation of his name from vassi vassorwn can be regarded as cert2.in. 1190 In ~ngland the word is rare . Even thou6h the word was rare , it was still recognized and used.

Henry de Bracton, whom we have rnentioned earlier in reference to sheriffs, certainl," was not in doubt as to tne position of vavasours in the thirteenth century, even though his description of them leaves us still desiring a fuller meaning. He says:

Item in temporalibus imperatores, rege , et principes in his quae pertinent ad regnu, et sub eis duces, comites et carones, magnates sive vavasores, et m.ilites, et etiam liberi et villani, et d.iversae potestates sub rege constitutar ••.• Sunt et alii potentes sub rege, qui barones dicuntur, hoc e~t roour belli. Sunt etiam alii qui dicuntur vavasores , v ·ri magnar chgnitatis . avasor enim nihil milius dici poter it quam vas sortitun and valetudinem. Sunt etiam sub re ~e w.ilitiam exercendam electi, et supradictis r.nlitent . 9i

.:iracton lists vavasours after oarons JU.t be1ore knights anci inplies that t here is a kind of distinction as if barons and vavasours represented social t,rades , while knights were functionaries in war .

89, ·o·ct • 3:_2:_. ' Domesday Book and Beyond, 1897, p . b7.

90 eroula, loc . cit.

91Gerould , 2.£. c · t., p . 27 t). 32

A vavasour wa.s evidently smaller than a baron but an individual of the same type . This is supported by Bracton 1 s remarks when he is discussing rights ol dower . Hes s:

bed quod dicitur ae baronia non est observandum in vavassoria vel aliis nu.noribus foectis quam baronia, quia caput non habent sicut baronia. 92

Knighthood was in another category. To bracton the two positions were not equal and from the thirteenth century to the twentieth it wou.Lci be impossible to establish the social value of each one . The in~ortant point here is on Bracton's evidence, that the vavasour was a landholder of considerable Dnport2nce. Bracton does not discuss the nature of his tenure, which may mean that the distinction between cl1ief tenents

and sub - tenants did not appear as important to t-he medieval lawyer as it

does to the modern historian. Upon al. l occasions the vavasour was a

magnate and person of dignity. 93

Several writers other than Chaucer have 2.l80 used the term. llierre

de Langtoft used the word at least three times in his Chronicle the first

of which I have quoted on page twenty six. In this extraction it is

clearly seen that barons and vavasou.rs we r e f rom the 11 gentil lineage . 11 94

In the second quotation, barons and vavasours, as well as chivalers and

squires are mentioned as being in the same category. In t his instcmce ,

92 l· o·d1. •

931..b.d J. •

94~-,.b.d P• 277. 33 a military force was again in question. King J:Jd ard sent to relieve

Dunbar:

e counte Garenne , of tut son poer, Le counte de w,arwyk , et Hllr;e le Despenser; Barouns et vavassours , chuvaler, esquyeE .::iurays et ~orays , i alaynt de oon quer . /5

he third quotation is self- explanatory:

A cele mesavenue estaient tuez 6 Vavassours curtoys de gentil parentez . 9

It is certain that de Langtoft. held vavasours to be gentle1,1en. ,,e rrru.st remember also that ne died in 130717 and so expressed his riews just previous to Chaucer's time, which would De 1rom about 1340 to

1400.

A few decades later, Robert I1a.nnyng of Dru1me used the word in describing King Arthur's allocation of lands after his conquests on the

European Continent. He said:

He gaf also sire Beduer, Bot of fe his boteler, He gaf hym 1.n le all \JOrmandie, .tli t t oenne _. t was c ald l'leus trie, Boloyne he gaf to sire Holdyn, And uayne to Borel his cosyn; He gaf giftes of honurs , 8 landes & rentes , to vauasours . 9

This passage evidently has little to contri ute, but it does not

contradict Langtoft' s usae;e 01 the word.

95~. b.d - '-}b.l. o·ctl. •

971.bid. 9Sibid.; The Story of J:mgland, ed. Furnivall, p . 384 . Geroul d quotes a line rrom the English Sir Ferurnbras , written

1.n Chaucer ' s century, and seerris upon "irst exaTJU.nation to be contra-

dictory . It reads: 9 Li tel prowesse for me it were w1.v a vauasour 1'or to melle . r.;

This implies , at first glance, to mean a person of low estate but Ferum-

br as is talking foolishly, only momentarily, to the gre at Oliver. Ger-

oul d points out that Oliver is a braggert and he would have it under-

ctood that dukes and earls are the only oroper antagonists for so great

a warrior . Apparently there is nothing here to upset the belief that a

vavasour was a person of high social r2r1k . l UO

Grun.den, in the 1.ntroduction to his Britain of 1617 , gives an

1 account of n 6 land s social orders . He says: Vavasores , sive Valvasores , proxi.rmlm post Barones locum olim tenuerunt , quos a Valvis Iurid1.c1. deducunt. ,ranci, sum in Italia rerum potirentur, Valvasores illos dixerunt, qui a Duce , l archione , Cmnite , a.ut Capitaneo plebem, plebisve partem acceperant. Rara haec ruit apud nos dignitas, & siqua fuit , jam paulatim desiit . Nobiles inores sunt E uites 101 aurati, Arrr~geri , qui vul6 o Generosi , et Gentlemen dicuntur . 11 11 Certainly from this evidence there can be no doubt 'that vavasour

11 in medieval .l:.nglish usage is in harmoey w1. th 11 franklin and 'there 1.s no

a.istinguishrr:ent . Chaucer I s Franklin was a vavasour and it is to be

believed that all franklins were vavasours . The words appear to be

99 Gerould, ~ • c1.t., p . 278 . 100-b~·d - 101.b.d~ - 35 interchangeable and indicate a general social condition rather than titles . They are rare to a;_:,pear in documents and Gerould feels the reason is that the~r were not very explicit and he goes on to say that anyone who could be called by these names held a very honorable status in the kingdom.102 Gerould concludes by saying that "Chaucer ' s

Franklin was a member of that class of landed gentry which was already old in the fourteenth century and which has never felt the lack of any higher title than gentleman, though from it have come, first and last, most of the men who have made England great. ul03

102 . ibid. 103-o·d~ - CONCLUSION

From all of the evidence herein presented, we cc::n conclude beyond any doubt that the Franklin, to ,· l1om Chaucer referred, was of the gentry class , possessed great wealth, and held an important position in society .

I have tried to s 10w that it is easy for scholars to make mistakes if they rely too heavily upon aicti onaries and other secondary source materials in 1,heir research. ..'he possibili t:.~ of finding new and different evidence from prim.'.ll'y sources shoul.d never be overlooked. I

have tried to present as 1,ru.ch evidence as possible aoout the origin of

the .rranklin and have illustrated his position Ji. th a nu: uer of accounts

to give sufficient evidence that he was a wealthy landowner of the gentry

class. There have been many historical references that have helped to

establish the Franklin 1 ::, iaentity and I am especially indebted to

Gerould 1 s findings for they have helped immeasurably to SL.vtle the

argument as to whether the Franklin was of the gentry class.

Chaucer has not only shown his vast knowledge of the Franklin,

but he has also given us one of the clearest pictures of a gentleuan

and his relationship to society in the fourteenth century. In the

light of ttis 1nvestir;at1.on, it would be hare. to find a uetter example

of a true gentleman in all of literature . BIBLIOGRAPHY 38 BIBLIOGH.APHY

A. P i.IHARY SC llliC •"

Langland, illiamo Piers the Plovnnan and 1.ichard the .tledeless . 2 vols . xford: The Universityress, 19~

Robinson, F . N. (ed. ) . The \,orks of Geoffrey Chaucer . Cambridge~ The Riverside Press, 19sr:- -- -

Skeat, ,alter • (ed. ) . The Complete i~orks of Geoffrey Chaucer . Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1~04 . -- -

atlock, John S . P . and ercy i1ac -.aye . l'he Comolete oetical orks of Geoi·frey Chaucer . l ew York: T e 1:acU. .Llan Coripany, 1936.

illoughby, E . F . The Prolo6ue to the Canterbury Tales . l ew or.: : Maynard, Merrill, & Co ., 1881.

B. .l!.CU JJ.AhY OUr.C •'

Baum, Paull F . Chaucer: A Critic al Appreciation. Durham: Dul,e University Press , 1958:

boissonnade, P . Life and ork in ·"edieval Europe o New Yorb Alfred A. Knopf , 1927.

Bowden, Nuriel o A Commentary the General rolo&ue to the Canterbury Tales . ew York: The h.acHillan Company, 1948 .

Bradley, Henry . ! ~nglish Dictionary~ Historical ~rinciples . Vol. IV . F and G. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1901.

Chadwick, D. Social Life in the of !)iers Plowman. Ca.mbridge : The University Press, 1922 .

Coghill, Nevill. Geoffrey Chaucer. ew York: Longmans , Green & Company , 1956.

Curtler, • H. R. Short Iistory of English Agriculture . UX1.'ord: The Clarendon ress, 1909.

Dempster, Germaine and J . S . P . Tatlock. 11 The Fran.klin' s Tale . 11 Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Can er·oury Tales . Chicago: Tne Universit of Chicago Press , 1941 . 39

French, Robert Dudley. A Chaucer Handbook. ! ew Yer,:: F . b . Crofts & Company , 1935 .

Gerould, Gordon tlall . Cnaucerian Essays . Princeton: Priuceton University ress , 1952 .

Gerould, Gordon Hall. 11 The bocial Status of Chaucer 1s ran :lin. 11 ublications of the .odern Language sociation of 11.ierica. vol. 41. I·.i.enasha;- isconsin: George Banta Publishinb Comparu-, 1926.

Gras, ·orman Scott Lrien. il.storv 01' Agriculture in LuropS and America. ew York: F . b . Crofts & Co ., Puolis ers , 192 .

Jusserand, J . J . f! Literary History of tne 1nclish eople. London: Ernest Benn Lirrri.ted, 1931.

Jusserand, J . J . ~nglish 1 ayi'aring Life in the ci..ddle ~ , ( IVth Century) . lfow York: G. P . Putnam1 s ~ons , 1931.

Kittredge, George cyman . Chaucer an:i His Poetr y . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946 .

Lumians1:<:y , R. Of Sandry Folk. Austin: University of ~exas Press , 19,S.

Luzzattc, Jack and Loy ~brehead (eds . ) . The lew .Ai-nerican College Thesaurusin Dictionary Form. 1\Jew York: 'i'he 1 ew Ar erican Library of \,orld Literature , Inc ., 1960 .

Hal one, Kemp . Chapters on Ghaucer . naltimore: he John Hopkins Press , 19.51.

1 11 Manly, John 1 . (ed. ) . 11 i'he Franklin 1 s Ta.le anti the '1'seide and Filocolo . iv odern hilol~. vol. 15 . Chic%o: l'he University of Chicago Press , 1918 .

r,.anly , John .atthews . ::iorne .ew Light on Chaucer. ,ew Yor.c: Henr.r Holt and Company, 1926:' - -

~Kechnie , Jean L. (ed. ) . ,Jebster 1 s Twentiet__!} Century Dictionary of 'l'he English Language: UnarJridged . 2 vols . Cleveland: The wrld Publishing Company , 1959 .

Neilson, 'illiam Allan ;md AShley .~0r2.ce Thorndike. ! History of bil9lish Literature o New York: 'l'he .'JRc~rl.llan Company , 1922 . 40

Onions , C. T. (ed. ) . Oxford Universal .1:,nglish :.Jictionarv on Historical rincioles . Oxford Uni ver ity Press: Doubleoay , Do;'arl C011pa.ny , Inc ., 1937 .

Prothero, Rowland E. 'nElish Farming: Pa.st and resent. Longmans , Green and Go ., 1912 .

Speirs, John. Chaucer The~• London: Faber and Faber, 1940.

Tatlock, John S. P . The Scene of The Franklin's Tale Visited. London: hegan Paul, Trencii';-~r & Co ., Ltd., 1914-.-

Tho::npson, James v estfall. ~conomic an::l Social History of ti rope in Later Middle Ages (1300-15J0j . i.~ew York: Frederick Unghl' Puulishirg eo:-;--1960 .

Trevelyan, George Hacaulay . ~nt;land in the Age of .. ycliffe . l ew York: Longmans, Green and Co ., 1925 . - -- -

' Jagenkecht, E.dward . (ed. ) . Chaucer: i1oclern Essays in Criticism. Jew York: Qy..ford University Press , 1959 .

webster's 1ew Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: G. & C. Lerriam Co ., 1951, ~84. . PiWD:i:X 42

AP ENDIX

Footnotes .

80ne Garrucatos near Hamroerwich with serfs anc.. franklins,

Ail fiefs (feudal ho.Ldings) of soldiers and frank.Lins who hold thern troro the same monastery.

32Above the domain of the church are the 1iefs of three soldiers and half- holdings with tenure of i'ranklins in the hamlet 01' Cerna. How- ever, each of t ose must stand 1:,t1ard at your order around Corrt Lastle one month per year.

40Thomas Brotherton (Son of R. Edward I) after the death of his fat er married the daughter of a Franklin named .Alice .

42And gentle damsels ungiven being able tor men's company were brought squires daughters and Franklins to give them to knights and to swains .

431m over statute (ruling) was passed that no earl or baron, No overlord strong, nor franklin of town, &hall rent any land, ti.1le holy church shall give holding (approve the transaction) . 44 The statute was made that no count , nor baron, nor holder : land, about that region should rent any offering or gift of land to holy church except by the sealed narre of the King and his Council.

70Bu t let the King see, that knights and serge ants of middle class ot the country be returned.

71Barons & vavasours 01 ~entil lineage, Chevaliers (knights) and sergeants of their relation, Peoples of the la..'1d without number tro , moor & thicket.

771et there be notable Knights from the same Counties for which they will be citizens , or else such noble squires, gentlernen by birth from the s arne Counties as nay be aole by power of ri Jht to be a Knight in the position of valet and servant . 43 tn. -'\\!hen all these by corrrrnon consent named from whatever county three sol diers or amoassadors , whom among the others of that sa.i, e county they considere to be superior in fact ana report, and better s~ited to the office of tnat viscount , from whom the king chooses only one .

85 Under Kings are counts and barons , dukes , soldiers, magnates , vassals, and other subordinates as freemen ~nd serfs , who all having attained the age of twelve years at least are held to oear oath of fidelity to the King .

1 9 Likewise at tL.ies emperors , kin6s and princes in 1:, 1ese areas which belong to the kingdom, and under these dukes, counts , and barons , magnates or vassa1s, and soldiers, and also freedmen and serfs, and various magistrates establis.t1ed under the king . . • • There are also other magistrates under the king who are ca.1.Led barons -- this is the strength of war . There are even others who are cal.Led vassals men of great dignity. For a vassal wi.11 be able to be said no better than a chosen vessel. There are also under the king soldiers , of course chosen to train the mi.Litia, and they carry on war, as said &boYeo

O? - -.dut what i s s aid about the barony is not to be observed in vassalage or in other lesser feudal hol dings than the oarony.

9Scount Garenne of ail his peers, Count of Warwi.ch, and Hugh the Dispenser; Larons & vassals , !might, squire Southerners & Northerners , went there willingly.

96At this encounter were killed courteous vassals of gentle parentage . l01vassals or Valvasores formerly held the position ne:x-t after Barons , whom they led dovm from the Doors of the Judgement Hall. The Franks , when they took possession 01· affairs in Italy, called those men Vasrals who had received from a duke , marquis , a Count , or a Captain a t own or part of a town. This was a rare oner ariwnG us , and if any such existed, it has now vanished little by little. Lesser nobility are the Colden Knights ( having gilcied s~u.elds) , ill'rnrbearers, ho are called gentlemen or in the cor:imon speech, Generosi.