Review Essay #4 (Edited)
McGregor, Francine. “What of Dorigen? Agency and Ambivalence in the Franklin’s Tale.” The Chaucer Review 31.4 (1997): 365-377. Frances McGregor offers an analysis of Dorigen’s agency in “The Franklin’s Tale.” McGregor examines how Dorigen attempts to use social institutions to create her agency, and how others use those same institutions against her. The essay is one voice in the ongoing conversation about Dorigen and “The Franklin’s Tale.” I found some of the analysis about Dorigen’s motives compelling, but other aspects were inadequate. McGregor argues that Dorigen tries to construct her agency within the society that denies it, as she clings to her status as a true wife. Averagus promises an equal marriage in action, with his sovereignty only maintained for public reasons. However, Dorigen acknowledges that he does have total sovereignty in her promise to him that she will be a “humble trewe wyf” (McGregor 371). As McGregor explains the situation:Dorigen’s vows can be read in the same way as her pledging to be a real wife, subject to the hierarchy of husband over wife. Where he [Averagus] says she will retain the ‘name of soveraynetee’ but not the practice, she sees beyond him, recognizing the sovereignty his vow implies, making it visible, and accepting it. (McGregor 372) Dorigen understands that for their marriage to function under their social system, she must maintain the conventional hierarchy. McGregor argues that Dorigen attempts to assert her own destiny by embracing her subordinate position to her husband. When Aurelius propositions her, Dorigen refers to her status as the wife and property of another man in her efforts to dissuade him (McGregor 374). By creating her refusal in terms of her subordinate position to Averagus, Dorigen seeks to assert her own wishes as being the wishes of Averagus (McGregor 375). Since a good woman cannot disobey her husband, Dorigen protects herself by using Averagus’s presumed wishes as a shield. She continues this practice in her so-called “rash promise” to Aurelius, connecting her potential infidelity with the disappearance of the coastal rocks. McGregor says that Dorigen “expresses her own desire, complete devotion to Averagus, in the most stable medium she can find – again, the rocks off the coast of
Brittany” (McGregor 375). Dorigen wants to exercise her own agency, and she understands that she must do is within the limits of her social context as a woman.However, when Aurelius interprets her promise literally, and not in the way Dorigen intended, he takes away her agency. By constructing her words as an honest promise, Aurelius alters the situation (McGregor 375). Averagus agrees with Aurelius’s interpretation, and insists that Dorigen keep her word. Dorigen intended her promise to reflect her refusal as the will of Averagus, and so when Averagus reinterprets the promise, her protection is removed (McGregor 375). Averagus declares that for Dorigen to be true, she must go to Aurelius despite her distaste. Society does not even allow Dorigen “the agency of relinquishing agency to the project of wifehood” (McGregor 377). Dorigen’s attempt to use her subservience to her husband as protection backfires.As I read McGregor’s essay, I found her assertion about how Dorigen tries to create agency interesting. Agency is usually conceived as an active and direct behavior, and not the more passive and subtle behavior that McGregor ascribes to Dorigen. McGregor seeks to create a more active Dorigen that remains in the context of the disempowered world of medieval women. I accepted that Dorigen ties her identity in with being Averagus’s wife, but am unsure if the more intuitive Dorigen of McGregor exists. One of the most difficult points in reconciling an intelligent Dorigen with the tale is her lament on endangered women, which McGregor does acknowledge as problematic. However, her attempts to refute more frivolous interpretations of Dorigen, such as that the lament is a comic device, are weak here (McGregor 376). McGregor argues Dorigen uses her list to understand feminine agency and action, but the conclusions are unclear. In another article on Dorigen, “Half as she were mad: Dorigen in the Male World of The Franklin’s Tale” by Mary Bowman, I noted a similar issue. I find it difficult to reconcile a serious interpretation of Dorigen with her overwrought lament. McGregor’s essay briefly discusses why Aurelius and Averagus take Dorigen’s agency away. Mention is made of how the two men reject Dorigen’s intent for their own personal desires (McGregor 377). However it is a very brief treatment on the men’s reasons, as the essay focuses more on Dorigen’s agency and not the men’s. I thought this lack most unfortunate in the case of Averagus, as he would presumably perceive Dorigen’s fidelity to him a key part of her being a true wife. McGregor refers to Averagus’s focus on the literal meaning of words and therefore the weight he places on Dorigen’s words to Aurelius as the cause, but does not delve very deep. Another essay I read on the subject, by Mary Bowman, served to illuminate the masculine motives to a great degree, with more explanation of Averagus’s behavior and its relation to knightly ideals. However, McGregor’s essay offers a much more detailed examination of Dorigen’s motives than Bowman’s did. This reveals how different essays on the same subject can demonstrate varying aspects of the argument. McGregor and Bowman discuss very similar topics, but the focus of their arguments differ, enabling a reader like myself to study how each argument relates and builds on the other. “What of Dorigen? Agency and Ambivalence in the Franklin’s Tale” seeks to explain Dorigen’s behavior. McGregor constructs Dorigen’s behavior in the context of the social constraints, and how a woman could try to use them to her advantage. The essay makes a good case, but has a weakness in attempting to understand Dorigen’s lament. I found the article valuable in expanding my understanding of “The Franklin’s Tale.”
