of the type no. 3.
It is the other process, viz. the omission of an expected syllable, which
jars so disagreeably on the modern ear; though common (as was said) in
nursery rimes. Thus, in l. 23:--
On his déth-bédd-e.
In l. 41:--
Tho léet-e théy the kníght lý-en.
In l. 68:--
And déyd-e whán tým-e cóm.
These are of the types A b A A b (cf. no. 1); b A b A b A A b (cf. no. 7);
and b A b A A b A (cf. no. 6); and were no doubt considered sufficiently
good. The lilt of the verse carried the reciter along.
The latter half-verse is usually of types (1), (2), or (3), with three
accents. Examples of (1) occur in 3, 16, 17, 20, 41, 50; of (2), in 1, 7,
8, 26, 32; of (3), in 10, 18, 19, 28, 39. But some occur of a still shorter
type, viz. A b A b A; as in--ón his fáir-e fél, 76; so also in 79, 107,
109, 128. When an unaccented syllable is dropped, we even find such lines
as--sýk thér he láy, 11 (A A b A); sýk thát he láy, 21 (the same); whán he
góod cówd-e, 48 (A b A A b); he láy stóon-stíll-e, 67 (b A A A b); and the
like. Whether the number of accents in the second half-line was ever
diminished to _two_, may be doubted. Rather we may suppose that, in
reciting the lines slowly but emphatically, a fictitious additional accent
was placed upon the _italicised_ syllables in such half-lines as--by
sé-ÿnt[102] _Mar_-týn, 53; wálk-_yng-e_ thár-e, 89; be bét-_en_ anón, 115;
and árt _so_ yíng, 148; a rám _and_ a ríng, 172; to wénd-e _ther_-tó, 173.
This slippery matter I leave to the reader's discretion.
§ 32. An excellent critical examination of the Tale of Gamelyn, by E.
Lindner, appeared in the Englische Studien, ed. E. Kölbing, vol. ii. pp.
94, 321 (1878). He made, however, the unlucky mistake of confusing MS.
Harl. 1758 with MS. Harl. 7334, not being aware that there are _two_ copies
of the poem in the Harleian collection; thus unfortunately missing the
readings of MS. Harl. 7334, which is much the best copy, and would have
solved some at least of his difficulties. Nevertheless, his article is
highly useful, and I must refer the reader to it for further information. I
here briefly note a few of his results.
He remarks that Gamelyn was first composed for recitation; observe the
frequent use of _litheth_, i.e. 'listen ye,' at the beginning of each
section of the lay; see ll. 1, 169, 289, 341, 551, 769; cf. l. 615. For a
comparison of Gamelyn with Lodge's novel called 'Euphues golden Legacie'
(see § 34), he refers us to Delius' edition of Shakespeare, ii. 347 (1872).
At p. 101, he gives a complete Rime-index to the whole poem, and at p. 107
notices some false rimes. The rimes (he says) are chiefly of the most
ordinary character, and the poem is very inartificial; see, e.g., ll.
135-8, 261-270, 315-8, 529-534, 649-652, 729-732, 811-4; &c. The author
constantly repeats himself; note the repetition of _sore_, 10, 11; _for to
dele_, 42, 43; ll. 72, 73; 85-6, compared with 97-8; _al that my fader me
biquath_, 99, 157, 160, 360; 120-1; 149, 150, compared with 151-4; 190-1,
&c. Short expressions or 'tags' occur over and over again; as _ther he
lay_, 11, 21, 25, 33, 50, 52, 66; _Cristes curs mot he have_, 106, 114,
116, 818; _by Cristes ore_, 139, 159, 231, 323; _he began to goon_, 126,
220, 236, 498; _evel mot ye thee_, 131, 363, 448, 720; cf. 379, 413, 517;
_whyl he was on lyve_, 20, 58, 157, 225, 228. There are frequent examples
of alliteration, as _litheth and lesteneth_, 1; _bote of bale_, 32, 34;
_stondeth alle stille_, 55; _stoon-stille_, 67, &c.; more examples can
easily be found. We also find repetitions of ideas, the latter part of the
verse merely reproducing the former, as in 107, 174, 217, 221, 381, 699,
732. At p. 324, is an analysis of some of the looser rimes. At p. 328, is
an analysis of the grammatical forms and of the varieties of spelling. At
p. 113, Lindner is inclined to connect the story with the time of Fulke
Fitz Warin, i.e. with the time of King John[103]; see Ten Brink, Early Eng.
Literature (English version), p. 149. At p. 321, he says that the
description of Gamelyn's brother's house, with its hall-door (461), outer
gate (286), postern-gate (589), bower (405), &c., suits the description of
an Anglo-Norman manor-house of the thirteenth[104] century; see T. Wright,
A History of English Culture, London, 1874. The father of the hero was
evidently a Norman knight; cf. l. 108.
§ 33. Little need be said of previous editions of the Tale of Gamelyn. It
was first printed, in a worthless text, with capricious alterations, by
Urry, in 1721[105]. But in 1847, Mr. T. Wright printed it for the Percy
Society, from the best text, viz. that in MS. Harl. 7334; yet he, somewhat
carelessly, omitted three lines (563, 601, 602). This was reprinted in
Bell's Chaucer, with the omission of the same three lines. In Morris's
Chaucer, the three missing lines are restored; but in some other places,
the edition follows Mr. Wright's text rather than the MS. Dr. Furnivall's
Six-text edition contains the text of six _other_ MSS.; he purposely
omitted MS. Harl. 7334, on the ground that it was already in type; whence
Lindner's very natural mistake. I have thus had the great advantage of
collating the readings of MS. Harl. 7334 with those of six other MSS., to
the improvement of the text as a whole. All the copies go back to _one_
original; the second best copy is in the Corpus MS., from which the
Lansdowne MS. does not greatly vary. The other MSS. give inferior readings,
the Sloane MS. being the worst. For further particulars, I refer the reader
to the Notes in vol. v.; and to the somewhat fuller account in my separate
edition of the Tale of Gamelyn, published at Oxford in 1884.
§ 34. Long before the Tale of Gamelyn first appeared in print, a MS. copy
was consulted by Thomas Lodge, who founded upon it part of a prose story,
which was afterwards printed at London in 1592 with the title: 'Euphues
golden Legacie, found after his death in his Cell at Silexedra, bequeathed
to Philavtus Sonnes, nvrsed vp with their Father in England.' Of this novel
there is a convenient reprint in Shakespeare's Library, ed. W. C. Hazlitt,
vol. ii. An analysis of this story, comparing it with 'Gamelyn,' is given
in my separate edition already referred to; and copious extracts from it
are given by Mr. W. Aldis Wright in his Introduction to his edition of As
you Like It. The result is interesting; for it is abundantly clear that
this play of Shakespeare's is founded upon Lodge's novel, and that Lodge's
novel is a re-cast of the Tale of Gamelyn.
I must not omit to add that I am under considerable obligation to an
excellent article on Gamelyn by Prof. Zupitza, which appeared in the
Jahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, vol. xxi. p. 69 (Weimar,
1886).
GROUP B.
§ 35. THE WORDS OF THE HOST TO THE COMPANY. Group A terminates abruptly,
and is wholly unconnected with all that follows. Group B introduces us to a
new Fragment, longer and more complete than any other in the Series. The
Man of Lawe, the Shipman, the Prioresse, the Poet himself, the Monk, and
the Nun's Priest, follow each other in unbroken succession; the only hitch
being in the connexion between the Man of Lawe and the Shipman, which is
explained in its due place. The Group is incomplete, rather at the
beginning than at the end; see above.
The opening passage (B 1-98) is of considerable importance, as it contains
the line (l. 5) which gives the date, viz. April 18, of one of the days of
the pilgrimage, and the statement, that on that day the sun's altitude was
45 degrees at 10 A.M. (B 12-14); and further, because it gives a list of
the Tales which Chaucer meant to include in his Legend of Good Women, in
order to complete it, though this, after all, was left undone. These points
are discussed in the Notes to B 3 and B 61, which see. In ll. 78 and 81, it
has usually been supposed (and probably with justice) that Chaucer is
referring to Gower's Confessio Amantis, inasmuch as Gower actually gives
the stories of Canacee and Apollonius. As this is a point of some
difficulty (for it cannot be settled without carefully considering the
dates at which Chaucer's Man of Lawes Tale and Gower's long poem were,
respectively, written), it is again considered below, in the remarks upon
the Tale itself.
The reference (in B 61) to the Legend of Good Women shews that these
'Wordes of the Host' were written after 1385, but before the idea of
continuing the Legend had been definitely abandoned, as, in course of time,
was certainly the case. This will suit very well with the supposed date of
1387, which, from other considerations, is probably the correct one; see §
3, above, p. 374.
The reference in l. 96--'I speke in prose'--looks, at the first glance, as
if Chaucer had originally intended to assign a prose Tale to the Man of
Lawe; and indeed, the Tale of Melibeus would have suited him well enough,
for Albertano of Brescia, its real author, was actually bred up to the law.
As it stands, I take it to mean that _speke_ is here used in a technical
sense--i.e. I am accustomed, in the law-courts, to speak in prose[106],
whereas riming is Chaucer's business; if then, I tell a tale in my ordinary
manner, it will, as compared with _his_ manner, seem like 'baked haws' as
compared with excellent fare. We may even suppose it to be feigned that the
Man of Lawe did really, _at the time_, relate the story in prose, on the
understanding that Chaucer might versify it afterwards: 'lat him rymes
make,' i.e. let him make verse of it. This is a natural interpretation to
put upon the matter; moreover, it left Chaucer free, after all, to tell the
story after _his own_ fashion, and even to insert, as we shall soon see, a
portion of one of his own early translations into various parts both of the
Prologue and of the Tale.
We may also observe the great skill with which Chaucer evades the
difficulty of assigning to the Man of Law a Tale which is not particularly
suited for him. The speaker says below (B 131) that it is not a tale of his
own, but was 'taught' him by 'a marchaunt.' Accordingly, in B 135, we learn
that the Tale came originally from some Syrian 'chapmen,' who learnt it
when sojourning in Rome (148). It thus becomes, as it were, a merchant's
Tale.
The apostrophe addressed to Poverty, in ll. 99-121 (really taken from one
of Chaucer's own poems, as shewn in § 36), is by no means out of place; for
it leads up to the mention of the 'rich merchants' in l. 122, who toil to
avoid it. And it is to one of these that the Tale is supposed to be due.
§ 36. THE MAN OF LAW'S PROLOGUE. This Prologue has a peculiar and special
interest, from the fact that, in the first three stanzas and part of the
fourth (as well as in some stanzas of the Tale), the poet has preserved for
us a portion of one of his early works. In ll. 414-5 of the older Prologue
to the Legend of Good Women, Chaucer tells us that he not only translated
Boece in prose, but also (the piece called) 'Of the Wreched Engendring of
Mankinde, As man may in Pope Innocent y-finde'; i.e. the treatise by
Innocent, afterwards Pope Innocent III., entitled De Contemptu Mundi sive
de Miseria Conditionis Humanae. In the present passage (B 99-111), we have
a portion of this same treatise in a verse form, as becomes evident upon
comparison. This interesting discovery was first made by Prof. Lounsbury,
and announced in the 'Nation' (an American journal) for July, 1889; and
soon after (quite independently, as I have reason to know, and as Prof.
Lounsbury very properly acknowledges) by Dr. E. Köppel, in an article
contributed to the 'Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und
Litteraturen,' vol. 84, (1890), p. 405. See Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer,
ii. 333. Neither does the present passage exhaust this source; for there
are yet four more stanzas inserted in the Tale itself, which really belong
to the same treatise. These passages being all of high interest, owing to
the peculiar use made of them by Chaucer, the original Latin is here given.
(_a_) B 99-121. The original is from De Cont. Mundi, lib. 1. cap. 16.
'Pauperes enim premuntur inedia, cruciantur aerumna, fame, siti, frigore,
nuditate: uilescunt, tabescunt, spernuntur, et confunduntur. O miserabilis
mendicantis condicio; et si petit, pudore confunditur; et si non petit,
egestate consumitur, sed ut mendicet, necessitate compellitur.
(106) Deum causatur iniquum, quod non recte diuidat; proximum criminatur
malignum, quod non plene subueniat. Indignatur, murmurat, imprecatur.
(113) Aduerte super hoc sententiam Sapientis: Melius est, inquit, mori quam
indigere [Ecclus. xl. 28]. Etiam proximo suo pauper odiosus erit [Prov.
xiv. 20]. Omnes dies pauperis mali, [Prov. xv. 15]--
(120) fratres hominis pauperis oderunt eum. Insuper et amici procul
recesserunt ab eo' [Prov. xix. 7.]
(_b_) B 421-427. From De Cont. Mundi, lib. i. cap. 23; headed De Inopinato
Dolore. 'Semper enim mundanae laetitiae tristitia repentina succedit. Et
quod incipit a gaudio, desinit in moerore. Mundana quippe felicitas multis
amaritudinibus est respersa. Nouerat hoc qui dixerat: Risus dolore
miscebitur, et extrema gaudii luctus occupat [Prov. xiv. 13].... Attende
salubre consilium: In die bonorum, non immemor sis malorum' [cf. Eccles.
vii. 14; xi. 8].
(_c_) B 771-7. From De Cont. Mundi, lib. ii. c. 19; De Ebrietate. 'Quid
turpius ebrioso? cui fetor in ore, tremor in corpore, qui promittit multa,
promit occulta, cui mens alienatur, facies transformatur? Nullum enim
secretum ubi regnat ebrietas' [Prov. xxxi. 4; in the Vulgate].
(_d_) B 925-931. From De Cont. Mundi, lib. ii. c. 21. 'O extrema libidinis
turpitudo, quae non solum mentem effeminat, sed etiam corpus eneruat; non
solum maculat animam, sed foedat personam.'
(_e_) B 1134-1141. From De Cont. Mundi, lib. i. c. 22; De Breui Laetitia
Hominis. 'A mane usque ad uesperam mutabitur tempus [Ecclus. xviii. 26]....
Quis unquam uel unicum diem totum duxit in sua delectatione iucundum, quem
in aliqua parte diei reatus conscientiae, uel impetus irae, uel motus
concupiscentiae non turbauerit? Quem liuor inuidiae uel ardor auaritiae,
uel tumor superbiae non uexauerit? Quem aliqua iactura, uel offensa, uel
passio non commouerit?'
It thus becomes evident that this Prologue is closely related to the
inserted stanzas in B 421-7, 771-7, 925-31, and 1135-41. All of these
insertions are, in fact, digressions, and have nothing to do with the
story. I conclude that the Prologue and the four inserted stanzas were
placed where they now are at the time of the revision of what was once an
independent tale, written at an earlier period, viz. before 1385, and
probably about 1380. The poem 'Of the Wrecched Engendring of Mankinde' was
in existence still earlier. Observe further, that lines 131-3 may be taken
to mean, in plain English, that 'I, the poet, should be in want of a Tale
to insert here, and should have to write one for the occasion, only I
happen, by good fortune, to have one by me which will do very well.' Thus
the obliging 'Merchant' who 'taught' Chaucer the Man of Lawes Tale was his
industrious younger self. The word 'Merchant' clearly refers to the chapmen
or merchants mentioned in B 135, 148, 153, who are supposed to have picked
up the story, as has been already said (§ 35).
§ 37. THE MAN OF LAWES TALE. The Words of the Host and the Prologue
together contain 133 lines, so that the Tale itself begins with l. 134. We
can easily see, from the style and by the metrical form, that this Tale is
a piece of Chaucer's early workmanship, and was revised for insertion among
the Tales, with the addition of a Prologue and four stanzas[107], about
1387.
Tyrwhitt has drawn attention to the fact that a story, closely agreeing
with the Man of Lawes Tale, is found in Gower's Confessio Amantis, Book II
(ed. Pauli, i. 179-213). The expression 'som men wolde seyn,' in ll. 1009
and 1086, led him to suppose that Chaucer took the story from Gower; but
this expression can be otherwise explained (see notes to the lines)[108],
and the borrowing seems to have been the other way, as will appear if the
question be handled with the necessary care.
Before comparing Chaucer's Tale with Gower's, it is first of all necessary
to observe that, for the most part, they drew their materials from a common
source; a fact which has been completely proved by Lücke[109], who clearly
shews that each of the poets preserves details which the other omits. Their
common original is found in the Life of Constance, as narrated in the
Anglo-Norman Chronicle of Nicholas Trivet, written about A.D. 1334. Mr.
Thomas Wright, in his edition of the Canterbury Tales, pointed out that
Trivet's Chronicle contains the original of the story as told by Gower.
That it also contains the original of the story as told by Chaucer is
evident from the publications of the Chaucer Society. Trivet's version of
the story was edited for that Society by Mr. Brock in 1872, with an English
translation, and a careful line-by-line analysis of it, shewing clearly the
exact extent to which Chaucer followed his original. The name of the
publication is 'Originals and Analogues of some of Chaucer's Canterbury
Tales,' published for the Chaucer Society; Part I, 1872; Part II, 1875. To
this I am indebted for much of the information here given[110]. It appears
that Nicholas Trivet was an English Dominican friar, who died some time
after 1334. A short account of him in Latin, with a list of works ascribed
to him, is to be found in Quetif and Echard's Scriptores Ordinis
Praedicatorum[111], tom. i. pp. 561-565; and a notice in English of his
life and some of his works, in the Preface to T. Hog's edition of Trivet's
Annales. Mr. Brock notices eighteen of his works, amongst which it will
suffice to mention here (_a_) his Annales ab origine mundi ad Christum
(Royal MS. 13 B. xvi, &c.); (_b_) his Annales sex Regum Angliae, qui a
comitibus Andegavensibus [counts of Anjou] originem traxerunt (Arundel MSS.
46 and 220, Harl. MSS. 29 and 4322, &c.); and (_c_) his Anglo-Norman
Chronicle, quite a distinct work from the Latin Annales (MS. Arundel 56,
&c.). Of the last there are numerous copies, MS. Arundel 56 being one of
the best, and therefore selected to be printed from for the Chaucer
Society. The heading runs thus:--'Ci comence les Cronicles qe Frere Nichol
Trivet escript a dame Marie, la fille moun seignour le Roi Edward, le fitz
Henri'; shewing that it was written for the princess Mary, daughter of
Edward I, born in 1278, who became a nun at Amesbury in 1285. The story of
Constance begins on leaf 45, back. Gower follows Trivet rather closely,
with but few omissions, and only one addition of any importance, about
thirty lines long. 'Chaucer tells the same story as Trivet, but tells it in
his own language, and in much shorter compass. He omits little or nothing
of importance, and alters only the details.... Chaucer's additions are
many; of the 1029 lines of which the Tale consists, about 350 are Chaucer's
additions. The passages are these:--ll. 190-203; 270-287; 295-315; 330-343;
351-71; 400-10; 421-7; 449-62; 470-504; 631-58; 701-14; 771-84; 811-9;
825-68; 925-45; 1037-43; 1052-78; 1132-41' (Brock).
As to these additions, I have already shewn (in § 36) the origin of ll.
421-7, 771-7, 925-31, and 1135-1141. It is worth notice that the following
passages have also very much the appearance of being added, by way of
commentary, at the time of revision; viz. 190-203, 295-315, 358-371,
449-462, 631-658, 701-714, 827-868. They form no essential part of the
story, whilst, at the same time, some of them are of high excellence.
Tyrwhitt pointed out that much the same story is to be found in the Lay of
Emarè (MS. Cotton, Calig. A. ii, fol. 69), printed by Ritson in the second
volume of his Metrical Romances. He observes: 'The chief differences are,
that Emarè is originally exposed in a boat for refusing to comply with the
desires of the Emperour her father; that she is driven on the coast of
_Galys_, or Wales, and married to the King of that country. The
contrivances of the step-mother, and the consequences of them, are the same
in both stories.' In the Romance of Sir Eglamour (Thornton Romances, ed.
Halliwell, p. 154), the heroine is sent to sea in a ship by herself.
Mr. Thomas Wright further observes: 'The treachery of King Ælla's mother
enters into the French Romance of the Chevalier au Cigne, and into the
still more ancient Anglo-Saxon romance of King Offa, preserved in a Latin
form by Matthew Paris. It is also found in the Italian collection, said to
have been composed in 1378, under the title of Il Pecorone di Ser Giovanni
Fiorentino (an imitation of the Decameron), gior. x. no. 1. The treason of
the Knight who murders Hermengilde is an incident in the French Roman de la
Violette, and in the English metrical romance of Le Bone Florence of Rome
(printed in Ritson's collection); and is found in the English Gesta
Romanorum, c. 69 (ed. Madden)[112], joined, in the latter place, with
Constance's adventure with the steward. It is also found in Vincent of
Beauvais[113], and other writers.' The tale in the Gesta Romanorum is
called 'Merelaus the Emperor' (MS. Harl. 7333, leaf 201), and is printed in
the Originals and Analogues (Chaucer Society), Part I, pp. 57-70. Mr.
Furnivall adds--'This tale was versified by Occleve, who called Merelaus
"Gerelaus;" and Warton quotes Occleve's lines describing how the "the
feendly man" stabs the Earl's child, and then puts the bloody knife into
the sleeping Empress's hand--
For men shoulde have noon othir deeming
But she had gilty ben of this murdring.'
See Warton, Hist. Eng. Poetry, ed. 1871, i. 296.
See the whole story in Hoccleve's Works, ed. Furnivall, p. 140. In the
Originals and Analogues, Part I. pp. 71-84, is also printed an extract from
Matthew Paris, Vita Offae Primi, ed. Wats, 1684, pp. 965-968, containing
the story of 'King Offa's intercepted Letters and banished Queen.'
Some account of Ser Giovanni is given in Dunlop's History of Fiction, 3rd
ed. 1845, p. 247. He was a Florentine notary, who began his Tales in 1378,
at a village in the neighbourhood of Forli. His work is called Il Pecorone,
i.e. the Dunce, 'a title which the author assumed, as some Italian
academicians styled themselves Insensati, Stolidi, &c., appellations in
which there was not always so much irony as they imagined.' The first tale
of the tenth Day is thus analysed by Dunlop: 'Story of the Princess Denise
of France, who, to avoid a disagreeable marriage with an old German prince,
escapes in disguise to England, and is there received in a convent. The
king, passing that way, falls in love with and espouses her. Afterwards,
while he was engaged in a war in Scotland, his wife brings forth twins; but
the queen-mother sends to acquaint her son that his spouse had given birth
to two monsters. In place of his majesty's answer, ordering them to be
nevertheless brought up with the utmost care, she substitutes a mandate for
their destruction, and also for that of the queen. The person to whom the
execution of this command is entrusted, allows the queen to depart with her
twins to Genoa. At the end of some years she discovers her husband at Rome,
on his way to a crusade; she there presents him with his children, and is
brought back with them in triumph to England.' Dunlop points out the
likeness of this story to those told by Chaucer and Gower, mentions the Lay
of Emarè, and adds: 'it is the subject, too, of a very old French romance,
published in 4to without date, entitled Le Roman de la Belle Helene de
Constantinople. There, as in Emarè, the heroine escapes to England to avoid
a marriage, &c. At length she is ordered to be burnt, but is saved by the
Duke of Gloster's niece kindly offering to personate her on that occasion.'
The story appears again in a collection of tales by Straparola, in the
fourth tale of the first night; but Straparola merely borrowed it from Ser
Giovanni. See Dunlop, Hist. Fiction, 3rd ed. p. 268.
A very similar story is told in the Roman de la Manekine, by Philippe de
Reimes, edited by F. Michel for the Bannatyne Club in 1840. For a brief
analysis of this story, see Bibliographia Britannica Literaria
(Anglo-Norman Period); by T. Wright, p. 344.
Ten Brink bids us observe the strong Christian element in the original
story. Constance herself is almost a personification of the Christian
Church, afflicted and persecuted, but at last victorious.
It occurs to me that Shakespeare, in delineating Imogen, did not forget
Chaucer's portrait of Constance.
§ 38. We must now compare Gower's version of this Tale with Chaucer's,
which at once raises the question as to priority of composition; and there
can be little doubt that, as a matter of fact, Chaucer's story was written
_first_. We must first of all notice that _both_ stories really existed in
two editions; and it is precisely this fact that makes caution necessary.
Most likely, Chaucer first wrote his story about 1380 or even earlier, and
revised it about 1387. But meanwhile Gower had been busy with his Confessio
Amantis, which was certainly written _before_ 1386, and seems to have been
in hand in 1382-5; see Dr. Pauli's preface to Gower, pp. xxviii, xxxii. It
was revised, as Gower himself tells us, in the sixteenth year of king
Richard II., i.e. in 1392-3. From this the order of things readily appears,
and may conveniently be tabulated as follows:--
(_a_) Chaucer's first edition; ab. 1380.
(_b_) Gower's first edition; ab. 1382-5.
(_c_) Chaucer's second edition; ab. 1387.
(_d_) Gower's second edition; ab. 1393.
We can hence understand what happened. After Chaucer had written his story,
he doubtless lent Gower, then his particular friend, a copy. Gower took
advantage of the occasion to introduce some expressions which certainly
give the impression that he copied them; for several of these verbal
resemblances occur in places where there was little or nothing in the
original to suggest the phrases which he actually used. Lücke (in Anglia,
xiv. 183) gives twenty-seven examples of this, and draws what is, in my
opinion, the erroneous conclusion, that it was Chaucer who copied Gower;
which seems like suggesting that Tennyson was capable of borrowing from
Martin Tupper.
We may readily understand that, if Chaucer observed this use of his work,
it could not have given him much pleasure; and perhaps we may here see some
reason for the seemingly undue asperity with which, in his revised edition,
he refers to Gower's performance; see B 77-89, and the notes. On the other
side Gower, who in his first edition, just near the end, had introduced a
complimentary allusion to Chaucer, may well have thought fit to suppress
that passage in his revised copy, from which it is certainly absent. This
seems to me to be the simplest solution of the facts as they stand.
I here take occasion to give my proposed explanation of Gower's reference
to Chaucer in his first edition, where he puts _into the mouth of the
goddess Venus_ the following words (ed. Pauli, iii. 374):--
'And grete wel Chaucer, whan ye mete,
As _my_ disciple and _my_ poete.
For, _in the floures of his youthe_,
In sondry wyse, as he wel couthe,
Of ditees and of songes glade,
The which he _for my sake_ made,
The lond fulfild is overal;
Wherof to him in special
Above al other I am most holde.
Forthy now, in his dayes olde,
Thou shalt him telle this message,
That he, upon his later age,
To sette an ende of al his werke,
As he, which is _myn owne clerke_,
Do make _his testament of love_,
As thou hast do thy shrifte above,
So that _my court it may recorde_.'
These lines are followed by a laudation of King Richard, which Gower
afterwards conscientiously suppressed. The course of events had shewn him
that such praise was unfitting.
I take it that these lines were written in 1385, at the very time when the
author learnt that his friend Chaucer was at work upon a new poem which he
meant to be a great work, viz. the Legend of Good Women. This poem Venus
might well claim as being written by her own clerk, as a testament of love,
containing legacies of bright examples set by Love's martyrs; and, just as
Gower wrote his own poem as a 'shrift,' Chaucer was writing his as a
'penance' (Leg. Good Women, 491) at the command of Cupid (437, 548), a
command which was given _at his court_ (352). We can readily understand how
Venus could speak of Cupid's court as being her own court; it makes no
practical difference.
It remains to shew (with Lücke) that Chaucer and Gower both knew Trivet,
and that Gower's language sometimes resembles Chaucer's rather than
Trivet's.
The former proposition is soon settled. Where Trivet says, 'et ferri tiel
coup en le haterel le feloun' (p. 23, l. 30), Chaucer has, 'A hand him
smoot upon the nekke-bon' (669); but Gower omits to mention the
'nekke-bone,' which translates _haterel_. This shews that Chaucer used
Trivet's text. On the other hand, Gower mentions Knaresburgh (i. 191),
which he found in Trivet, whilst Chaucer says nothing about it; see note to
B 729.
As to the instances in which one poet has copied the other, whilst at the
same time Trivet does not suggest the phraseology which they employ, Lücke
gives twenty-seven examples in Anglia, xiv. 183. Some of these are rather
far-fetched and doubtful, and not many of them are very clear; but their
cumulative evidence sufficiently proves the fact. I shall only adduce the
clearer cases.
'Ch.' means Chaucer, and 'G.' is Gower. I correct Pauli's spelling.
Ch. B 430:--
Ben al to-hewe and stiked _at the bord_.
G. i. 182, l. 29:--
_Endlong the bord_ as they be set
Trivet merely says that they killed all the Christians.
Ch. B 436:--
That of the _conseil_ of the sowdan woot.
G. 182, l. 25:--
And alle tho, that hadden be...
Of _counseil_ to the mariage.
Trivet merely says--the other converts to the faith.
Ch. B 438 (not in Trivet):--
And Custance han they _take anon_, foot-hoot.
G. 183, l. 15:--
This olde fend, this Sarazin
Let _take anon_ this Constantin.
Ch. B 439:--
And in _a shippe al sterelees_, god woot.
G. 183, l. 19:--
_A_ naked _ship, withoute stere_.
This instance is the more remarkable because Trivet says, 'saunz sigle et
sauntz neuiroun,' i.e. without sail or oar, without any mention of the
_stere_ or rudder. Ch. B 535 (not in Trivet):--
But _Hermengild lovede hir right as hir lyf_.
G. 184, l. 29:--
Dame _Hermegild ...
... liche her owne lyf
Constance loveth_.
This, at any rate, is a clear case.
Ch. B 562:--
Dame _Hermengild, yif me my sighte agayn_.
G. 185, ll. 13, 15:--
O _Hermegilde ... yif me my sighte_.
Trivet's expression is different, viz. 'Hermegild, ... I pray thee to make
the sign of the rood on my blind eyes.'
Ch. B 599:--
Al _softely is to the bed y-go_.
G. 187, l. 18:--
And _to the bed he stalketh stille_.
Trivet does not refer to this _motion towards_ the bed; he merely says that
Constance and Hermegild were both in the same bed.
Ch. B 620:--
Berth hir on hand that she _hath doon this thing_.
G. 188, l. 15:--
Saith that Custance hath _don this dede_.
Trivet puts it differently--'he heaped the death hugely on the maid.'
Ch. B 685:--
_The king, and many another in that place_,
Converted was.
G. 190, l. 7:--
_The king, with many another mo_,
He cristned.
It is remarkable that Trivet says that king Alle caused _himself_ to be
baptized; there is not a word about _others_.
Ch. B 721, 2:--
She halt _hir chambre_, abyding Cristes wille.
The _tyme is come_, a knave-child she ber.
G. 191, ll. 1-3:--
_The tyme_ set of kinde _is come_,
This lady hath _her chambre_ nome,
And of a sone bore fulle, &c.
A clear case; Trivet uses no such expressions.
Ch. B 759:--
But of his owene bond _he wroot ageyn_.
G. 193, l. 3:--
_He wroot ayein._
Here the French text has 'rescrit,' wrote back.
Ch. B 799:--
But _in the same ship as he hir fond_.
G. 194, l. 11:--
That ye _the same ship_ vitaille,
_In which that she took arrivaille_.
A remarkable case; for Trivet makes it a new ship--'vne neef.'
Ch. B 825:--
_kneling on the stronde_ (not in Trivet).
G. 195, l. 7:--
_Knelend upon her bare knee._
Ch. B 916:--
_Com into ship._
G. 196, l. 28:--
_cam to ship._
Trivet uses the expression 'descendi,' i.e. came down.
Ch. B 1045:--
_Goth Alla, for to seen this_ wonder chaunce.
G. 207, l. 23:--
_To see this_ Custe _goth the king_.
Trivet has it differently.
Ch. B 1093:--
The emperour hath graunted gentilly.
G. 209, l. 19:--
This lord hath graunted his requeste.
Taken altogether, these appropriations by Gower, though not in themselves
very marked, must have been annoying to his brother-poet.
It is worth while to notice that, in the three cases of the Wyf of Bathes
Tale, the Phisiciens Tale, and the Maunciples Tale, Chaucer and Gower again
tell the same stories; and though Chaucer wrote at a later date, he
certainly has not copied.
§ 39. THE SHIPMAN'S PROLOGUE. This Prologue is assigned to the Shipman in
MS. Arch. Seld. only; see the footnote to B 1179. MS. Harl. 3774 assigns it
to the Sompnour; whilst very many MSS. assign it to the Squire. The three
chief MSS. (E., Hn., Cm.) omit it altogether; from which we may perhaps
infer that it was a very late addition to the set of Tales.
In order to exhibit the variations of the MSS. more clearly, Dr. Furnivall
has printed this Prologue from no less than twenty-two MSS., with the
result that only one, viz. MS. Arch. Seld. above, rightly assigns it to the
Shipman and, at the same time, places it after the Man of Lawes Tale. Three
of the MSS., viz. Harl. 7334, Rawl. Misc. 1133, and Royal 17 D. XV, assign
it to the Sompnour, but they are all clearly wrong, because,
notwithstanding this mention of the Sompnour, the Tale that follows is
assigned, in the first, to the Wyf of Bathe, and, in the others, to the
Squire! Eighteen of the MSS. assign this Prologue to the Squire, and insert
his Tale after it. We may hence conclude that, in some early copies, a
displacement of the Tales occurred at this point.
But it is easy to see that MS. Arch. Seld., the sole authority for the
present arrangement, is here quite right[114]. The latter part of the
Prologue (B 1178-90) is quite unsuited to the character of the Squire, but
in keeping with that of the Shipman. Further, the Squire has a Prologue of
his own, though it is incomplete in the sense that there is no indication
whom the Squire is to follow (F 1-8). But the clearest proof that the
author's _latest_ intention was to place both the Shipman's Prologue and
Tale precisely _here_, and nowhere else, appears from the following facts.
First, we see, as above, that it is clearly a Shipman's Prologue, and
therefore precedes the Shipman's Tale; whilst there is an obvious allusion
in it to the Man of Lawes Tale as being the one which it must needs follow.
The former of these points was seen by Tyrwhitt long ago; and he
accordingly assigned this Prologue to the Shipman. The latter point was
made by Mr. Henry Bradshaw, who conclusively shewed that no other
arrangement would suit, by pointing to the author's own words. Thus, in B
46, the Man of Lawe says--'I can right now _no thrifty tale_ seyn,' and is
inclined to be apologetic; but, after the tale is told, the Host is well
pleased, and consoles him in express terms in the words--'This _was a
thrifty tale_ for the nones.' And, to put the matter beyond dispute, turns
to the Persone, with the words--'I see wel that _ye lerned men in lore_,'
meaning the Persone and the Man of Lawe. In most MSS., the Shipman's Tale
follows the Pardoner's; which involves the difficulty of making the Host
call the Pardoner 'a lerned man in lore.' The proof that this is the very
last title the Host would have bestowed on the Pardoner, is given in C
942-968, where the Host's contempt of the Pardoner is expressed in the
strongest terms which he could command; and his capabilities of expression
were considerable. Few happier hits have been made than the convincing
argument which we are glad to owe to Mr. Bradshaw, whose knowledge of
Chaucer's text was believed by many scholars to be without parallel.
But the story of the Shipman's Prologue is not yet ended. Many scribes
perceived how ill suited this Prologue was for following the Pardoner's
Tale, or the Cook's Tale, or the Tale of Gamelyn, which were the places it
was sometimes made to occupy. In order to remedy this apparent defect, a
_spurious_ Shipman's Prologue was concocted, consisting of but twelve
lines. This is the Prologue given in the black-letter editions, which, in
order to make the true Shipman's Prologue do duty for a Squire's Prologue,
actually resorted to the arbitrary process of suppressing the true Squire's
Prologue altogether! I here give this spurious Prologue, but in true
Chaucerian spelling, in order to shew more clearly how ill some of the
lines scan. I follow mainly the Petworth MS., denoted by 'Pt.'; and give
all the variations worth mentioning that occur in the other eight MSS.,
viz. Roy. (Royal 18 C ii), Sl. (Sloane 1685), B. (Barlow 20), H. (Hatton
1), M. (Camb. Univ. Lib. Mm. 2. 5), R. (Rawl. Poet. 149), L. (Laud 739),
and I. (Camb. Univ. Lib. li. 3. 26).
SPURIOUS SHIPMAN'S PROLOGUE.
'Now freendes,' seide our Host so dere,
'How lyketh yow by Iohn the Pardonere?
For he hath unbokeled wel the male;
He hath us told right a thrifty tale,
As touching of misgovernaunce. 5
I prey to God, yeve him good chaunce,
As ye han herd of thise ryotoures three.
Now, gentil Mariner, hertely I preye thee,
Tel us a good tale, and that right anon.'
'It shal be doon, by God and by Seint Iohn,' 10
Seide this Mariner, 'as wel as ever I can':
And right anon his tale he bigan. 12
1. Now] Sl. How. 2. H. L. J. _om._ the. 4. Roy. B. H. told; _rest_ tolde
(!). 5. of] H. of his; I. his. 6. good] Sl. H. M. goode; B. right goode. 7.
B. riatoures; H. M. R. Sl. riatours; L. ryotours; Pt. reto_ur_ues (!). 8.
Roy. H. M. R. B. L. hertly; I. nowe hertely; Sl. _om._ Pt. preye; _rest_
pray (prey). 9. Pt. Roy. R. I. good; _rest_ gode (goode). 12. And] R. _om._
As to these lines, I will merely make the following remarks. Line 1 is too
short by a whole foot; and so is l. 5. Lines 8 and 11 are somewhat too
long. Line 4 will scan well, if we substitute _told-e_ for _told_, as some
of the MSS. do; but, unfortunately, _told-e_ is here an impossible form.
Line 3 is imitated from A 3115; and l. 10 from B 1019. In l. 7, we must
suppress _of_, in order to make the line run well; only this destroys the
sense. It is not easy to imitate Chaucer's language for twelve lines
together, especially when sense has to be regarded. Moreover, the way in
which l. 7 is made to depend on l. 6 is extremely awkward.
In the true Prologue, the Shipman gives due notice that he is going to tell
a 'merry,' i.e. a licentious story; which he proceeds to do.
§ 40. THE SHIPMANNES TALE. A similar Tale occurs in Boccaccio's Decamerone,
Day 8, Nov. 1. The scene is laid in Milan; the husband is a rich merchant
named Guasparruol Cagastraccio; and his wife's name is Ambruogia. The
gallant is Gulfardo, a German, and not a priest. The sum borrowed is 200
florins; which Gulfardo restores to the wife in the presence of a witness,
so that she is obliged to admit its repayment. The place to which the
merchant goes, on a business errand, is Genoa.
It is not at all likely that Chaucer took this from the Decamerone, which
he seems never to have read. He probably found it in some French _fabliau_,
and treated the story, as usual, so as to make it all his own. In B 1404,
we find the French phrase '_Qui la?_' The scene is laid near Paris, and
France is specially mentioned in B 1306, 1341, 1384. The merchant's
business calls him away to Bruges (1448).
There is a curious difficulty in the opening lines of this Tale. The use of
the words _us_ (B 1202, 1209), _we_ (1204), and _our_ (1208), certainly
shew that, in the first instance, this Tale was meant to be told by a
woman; and, obviously, by the Wyf of Bathe in particular (cf. D 337-356).
When Chaucer changed his mind, he forgot to make here the necessary
corrections.
'The same fable ... is repeated by La Fontaine (Contes, ii. 9), in his
usual forcible and witty way; but neither Boccaccio nor La Fontaine can vie
with Chaucer's art.'--Ten Brink.
§ 41. THE PRIORESS'S PROLOGUE. This Prologue requires no explanation. The
responsibility passes from the Shipman to the Prioress with perfect ease.
§ 42. THE PRIORESSES TALE. The real Prologue to this Tale is contained in B
1637-1642. What is called, in MSS. E. and Hn., the Prologue is, more
strictly, a Proem; and the Tale itself is, more strictly, a Legend, or (as
the author calls it) a 'song'; B 1677. The Legend, although in stanzas, is
told with practised skill, and probably belongs to the later period. The
Proem resembles that to the Life of Seint Cecile, and contains a similar
invocation to the Virgin. The third stanza reminds us of one in the A. B.
C., viz. that beginning with M. We may note the introduction of the words
'quod she' (1644), and the line 'To telle a storie I wol do my labour'
(1653).
The Tale itself is taken from a source similar to that of the Legend of
Alphonsus of Lincoln, a story reprinted by the Chaucer Society from the
Fortalitium Fidei; Lugdun. 1500, fol. ccviii. In another edition, printed
in 1485, the Legend of Alphonsus is said to have been composed in 1459, and
it is stated to be the work of a Minorite friar, whose name, according to
Hain and others, was Alphonsus a Spina. The story is, that a widow residing
in Lincoln has a son named Alphonsus, ten years of age, who goes daily to
school, singing 'Alma Redemptoris' as he passes through the street where
the Jews dwell. One day the Jews seize him, cut out his tongue, tear out
his heart, and throw his body into a filthy pit. But the Virgin appears to
him, gives him a precious stone in place of a tongue, and enables him to
sing 'Alma Redemptoris' for four days. His mother seeks and finds him, and
he is borne to the cathedral, still singing. The bishop celebrates mass;
the boy reveals the secret, resigns the precious stone to the bishop, gives
up the ghost, and is buried in a marble tomb. A similar legend is narrated
concerning Hugh of Lincoln; see note to B 1874.
In Originals and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, pt. iii. (Chaucer
Soc. 1876), is the story of the Paris Beggar-boy murdered by a Jew, printed
from the Vernon MS., leaf 123, back. It is well told, and has some
remarkable points of agreement with the Prioresses Tale. It clearly
identifies the hymn Alma Redemptoris Mater as agreeing with the _second_
anthem mentioned in the Note to B 1708, which is partly translated as
follows:--
'Godus Moder, mylde and clene,
Heuene [gh]ate and sterre of se,
Saue þi peple from synne and we' [_woe_].
The same publication contains a similar story, in French verse, of a boy
killed by a Jew for singing 'Gaude Maria'; from MS. Harl. 4401. The author
was Gautier de Poincy.
Tyrwhitt's account of the Prioresses Tale is as follows: 'The transition
from the Tale of the Shipman to that of the Prioresse is happily managed. I
have not been able to discover from what Legende of the Miracles of Our
Lady the Prioresses Tale is taken. From the scene being laid in Asia, it
should seem, that this was one of the oldest of the many stories which have
been propagated, at different times, to excite or justify several merciless
persecutions of the Jews, upon the charge of murthering Christian children.
The story of Hugh of Lincoln, which is mentioned in the last stanza, is
placed by Matthew Paris under the year 1255. In the first four months of
the Acta Sanctorum by Bollandus, I find the following names of children
canonized, as having been murthered by Jews: xxv Mart. _Willielmus
Norvicensis_, 1144; _Richardus, Parisiis_, 1179; xvii Apr. _Rudolphus,
Bernae_, 1287; _Wernerus, Wesaliae_, anno eodem; _Albertus, Poloniae_,
1598. I suppose the remaining eight months would furnish at least as many
more. See a Scottish Ballad (Percy's Reliques of Ancient Poetry, i. 32)
upon one of these supposed murthers. The editor [Percy] has very
ingeniously conjectured that "Mirryland" in verse 1 is a corruption of
"Milan." Perhaps the real occasion of the Ballad may have been what is said
to have happened at _Trent_, in 1475, to a boy called _Simon_. The Cardinal
Hadrian, about fifty years after, mentioning the Rocks of Trent, adds--"quo
Iudaei _ob Simonis caedem_ ne aspirare quidem audent;" Praef. ad librum de
Serm. Lat. The change of the name in the Song, from Simon to Hugh, is
natural enough in _this_ country, where similar stories of Hugh of Norwich
and Hugh of Lincoln had been long current.'
The Ballad alluded to is called 'The Jew's Daughter' by Percy, and is to
the effect that a boy named Hugh was enticed to play and then stabbed by a
Jew's daughter, who threw him into a draw-well. His mother, Lady Helen,
finds him by hearing his voice.
For 'Hugh of Norwich,' as mentioned by Tyrwhitt, we should read 'William of
Norwich.' His story is given in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, under the date
1137, on which Prof. Earle remarks--'St. William seems to have retained his
celebrity down to the time of the reformation, at least in Norfolk. In
Loddon church, which is advanced perpendicular of about 1500, there is a
painting of his crucifixion on a panel of the rood-screen, still in fair
preservation.' A wood engraving of this picture is given on the same page
(A.S. Chron., ed. Earle, p. 371). As to the cruel treatment of the Jews,
see the note on 'The Jews in England' in Annals of England, p. 162.
I may add that the story of Hugh of Lincoln, and a picture of the martyrdom
of Simon at Trent, are given in an excellent chapter in Manners, Customs,
and Dress, during the Middle Ages, by P. Lacroix, pp. 434-455.
A modernised version of the Prioresses Tale will be found among
Wordsworth's Poems. It can hardly be said to be satisfactory; and the
language of the original is, for the most part, so simple that the attempt
to modernise it was a needless task. The old idea, that the attempt to read
Chaucer in the original requires almost superhuman ability, will, I hope,
soon be a thing of the past. As a matter of fact, his language is easier
than that of Homer or Vergil; and Englishmen are already ceasing to be
overpowered by a dread of learning facts that concern their own language.
§ 43. PROLOGUE TO SIR THOPAS. This passage, like the Prologues in rimed
couplets, evidently belongs to the late period; we recognise here some of
the author's best work. Notice, in particular, his description of himself.
§ 44. SIR THOPAS. Judging by the rhythm-test, this might be of early
workmanship; but judging by the language, it is late. Like the exceptional
Tale last discussed, it probably belongs to the late period, although not
written in rimed couplets. Tyrwhitt's estimate of it is judicious and
correct. He says--'The Rime of Sir Thopas was clearly intended to ridicule
the "palpable gross" fictions of the common Rimers of that age, and still
more, perhaps, the meanness of their language and versification. It is full
of phrases taken from Isumbras, Li Beaus Desconus, and other Romances in
the same style, which are still extant.... For the more complete
reprobation of this species of Riming, even _the Host_, who is not to be
suspected of too refined a taste, is made to cry out against it, and to cut
short Sire Thopas in the midst of his adventures. Chaucer has nothing to
say for his Rime, but that "it is the best he can" (B 2118), and readily
consents to tell another Tale; but having just laughed so freely at the bad
poetry of his time, he might think it, perhaps, too invidious to exhibit a
specimen of better in his own person, and therefore his other Tale is in
prose, a mere translation from Le Livre de Melibee et de dame Prudence, of
which several copies are still preserved in MS. [See p. 426]. It is in
truth, as he calls it, "a moral tale vertuous," and was probably much
esteemed in its time; but in this age of levity, I doubt some readers will
be apt to regret that he did not rather give us the remainder of Sire
Thopas.'
Sir Thopas is admittedly a burlesque, and several of the passages imitated
are quoted in the Notes; but I cannot quite resist the suspicion that
Chaucer may himself, in his youth, have tried his hand at such
romance-writing in all seriousness, but lived to have a good-humoured laugh
even in some degree at his own expense; and he seems as if endeavouring to
make his readers feel that they could wish there was somewhat more of it.
Yet we cannot but allow that to
'Praise _syr Topas_ for a noble tale,
And scorne the story that the Knight told'
is much the same as to
'say that Pan
Passeth Appollo in musike manifold,'
as Sir Thomas Wiat has remarked in his second satire. It may be added that
the usual metrical laws are not quite strictly observed in this Tale.
A dissertation on Sir Thopas by C. J. Bennewitz, of Magdeburg, appeared at
Halle, 1879, with some useful notes; and a still fuller and more elaborate
article, by Prof. E. Kölbing, will be found in the Englische Studien, xi.
495. In the latter especially, a large number of parallel passages are
pointed out, some of which will be found in the Notes. Chaucer has seized
the characteristics of the Romance-writers so well, that it would be an
endless task to exhibit all his imitations. Some of the peculiarities of
our old minstrels are well noted by Bennewitz. For example, they usually
begin by requesting the company to listen (B 1902, 2083). They revel in
similes (B 1915-7, 1920). They often divide their poems into cantos, each
of which was called 'a fit' (B 2078). Sometimes they give us lists of
heroes, as at the beginning of Richard Coer de Lion (B 2088- 2090); and a
description of the particular hero of the romance (B 1914). They are very
fond of hideous giants (B 1997), and of fairies (B 1978, 1992); and, of
course, the heroes are continually riding up and down in quest of some
adventure (B 1988). Of course, we expect occasional mention of the singing
of birds (B 1956); of the springing of herbs (B 1950); and of instruments
of music (B 2005). The knight's steed is often over-ridden (B 1965); and
the knight himself must be consumed by love-longing (B 1975).
It is delightful to observe how Chaucer contrives, often by a mere word, to
give the story a ludicrous turn, as in 1919--'He hadde a semely nose.' The
hero's face is not, as usual, as white 'as a lyly,' but as white 'as
payndemayn,' i.e. the finest bread (1915). His complexion was like 'scarlet
in grain,' i.e. it would not wash out (1917). Among the wild beasts of the
forest are both 'bukke and hare' (1946). Among the growing herbs he
enumerates nutmeg 'to putte in ale' (1953); and so on. The most curious
example of this kind of humour appears in the behaviour of the knight when
attacked by the giant; he quietly makes his escape, on the plea that he
will return next day; and this evasion of present battle is attributed to
God's grace, and to his own 'fair beringe' (2022). It is needless to give
further instances.
Prof. Kölbing bids us observe the varieties in the metre; it would seem
that Chaucer deliberately intended to exhibit the most characteristic forms
of the romantic stanza; for in five cases his examples are unique. The
varieties are eight in all. Examples of these variable stanzas are as
follows. (1) Stanzas with the rimes _aabccb_ (2017). (2) Rimes _aabaab_
(1914). (3) Rimes _aabaab_, _ccbccb_, i.e. two stanzas with the same middle
and final rimes (1902-13). (4) A stanza with the rimes _aab_[gamma]_bbg_,
where [gamma] denotes a line with but _one_ accent, riming with the line
denoted by _g_ (1980). (5) A stanza of ten lines, _aabccb_[gamma]_ddg_
(2071). (6) A stanza of 10 lines, _aabaab_[gamma]_ccg_ (1997). (7) A stanza
of 10 lines, _aabaab_[gamma]_aag_ (1987). (8) A stanza of ten lines,
_aabccb_[gamma]_ccg_ (2007). The use of short lines, with but _one_ accent,
as in 1983, is of frequent occurrence in romances; for examples, see Sir
Gawayne and the Grene Knight, ed. Morris; Sir Tristrem, ed. McNeill
(Scottish Text Soc.); The Pistill of Susan, in Scottish Allit. Poems, ed.
Amours (id.); and cf. York Plays, ed. Miss T. Smith, p. 359, &c. In Sir
Beves of Hamptoun, ed. Kölbing, we find a stanza with the rimes _aabccb_,
followed by one with the rimes _aabaab_ (ll. 55-60, 61-66).
§ 45. PROLOGUE TO MELIBEUS. When the Host suddenly cuts short the Tale of
Sir Thopas, Chaucer takes refuge in prose. The Tale of Melibeus is one
which we should now deem portentously dull; but his hearers were, we must
suppose, highly interested in listening to the various arguments used by
Melibeus and his wife Prudence as to their proper course of action. Indeed,
the Host highly approves of it, and thinks it would have tended to his own
wife's edification. Chaucer also, for his part, undertakes the Tale as a
solemn task, begging pardon beforehand for any variation he may make from
the true and exact version (B 2131).
§ 46. THE TALE OF MELIBEUS. This prose story is merely a translation, and
not always an exact one, of a French treatise entitled Le Livre de Melibee
et de dame Prudence, of which there are two MS. copies in the British
Museum, viz. MSS. Royal 19 C. vii, and 19 C. xi. Tyrwhitt also tells us
that Dufresnoy, in his Bibliothèque des Romans, ii. 248, mentions two
copies in verse, in the Bibliothèque Seguier. Le Livre de Melibee is
likewise not an original work, but an adaptation, with some omissions and
alterations, probably made by Jean de Meun, of a treatise in Latin, viz.
the Liber Consolationis et Consilii of Albertano of Brescia. This work was
admirably edited for the Chaucer Society in 1873 by Thor Sundby, who took
much pains to trace out the originals of the numerous quotations with which
the work abounds; and I am much indebted to him for my Notes. (We are
bidden to observe that there also exists a second version in French prose,
by an anonymous author, of a much more literal character, which is still
unprinted.) Jean de Meun's version was first printed, separately, at the
end of the fifteenth century; again, in 1504, together with the French
translation of the Solatium Ludi Scachorum by Jacques de Cessoles; and
lastly, it appears in the Ménagier de Paris, an early work on domestic
economy which has been lately published by the Société des Bibliophiles
Français. Chaucer's version is from Jean de Meun. Of course, the Latin
original is the ultimate authority in difficult or corrupt passages; on
which account it is often cited in the Notes. I have there given some
curious examples of mistranslation or corruption of the text.
Albertano, born about 1192, was a judge at Brescia in Lombardy (not far
west of the Lago di Garda), and died soon after 1250. He is an author of
some importance to the Chaucer-student, as the poet refers to no less than
three of his works. These are: (1) Liber Consolationis et Consilii (as
above), completed in May, 1246; (2) De Arte Loquendi et Tacendi, cited in
the Notes to the Maunciples Tale; and (3) De Amore et Dilectione Dei,
written in 1238, cited in the Notes to the Marchantes Tale.
§ 47. THE MONK'S PROLOGUE. This Prologue connects Melibeus with the Monkes
Tale. It contains a contribution to the exhibition of the Host's true
character. In B 3116, we are told that the pilgrims are drawing near to
Rochester. The Host then calls upon the Monk for a Tale, who replies that
he can easily relate the Life of Saint Edward, but they would probably
prefer to hear a few Tragedies about the downfall of some illustrious
persons.
§ 48. THE MONKES TALE. Judged by the rhythm, this Tale might belong to the
early period. The subject-matter shews, however, that is was probably
written at different times, part of it at an early period, and part at the
period of revision. It can hardly be called, in strictness, a tale at all,
but consists of a whole series of them, and has all the appearance of
having been originally an independent work, which Chaucer had at one time
begun, but, in his accustomed manner, had left a little less than half
finished. It is formed on the model of Boccaccio's book De Casibus Virorum
Illustrium, the title of which is actually retained in the rubric printed
at p. 244 of vol. iv. The manner in which the poet contrives to assign this
string of tragedies to the monk is highly ingenious. The Host expects to
hear rather a merry and lively story from the jovial and corpulent Monk,
and rallies him upon his sleek appearance; but the Monk, taking all in
patience, volunteers either the Life of Saint Edward the Confessor or else
a few of his 'hundred' tragedies; and then, fearful of interruption,
proceeds to define the word Tragedy, and to start off before any of the
pilgrims have had time to offer any opinion upon the matter. He also offers
an apology for not telling all his stories in strictly chronological order.
This apology is the real key to the whole matter. We may well believe that,
whilst the collection of tragedies was still an independent work, the
arrangement was strictly chronological, or was intended to have been made
such when the work was completed. Such was the usual formula; and
accordingly the author begins, in the most approved fashion, with Lucifer,
and then duly proceeds to Adam and all the rest. But as, in the course of
composition, he would naturally first write such lives as most pleased him,
and by no means succeeding in writing anything like a complete
collection--for out of the 'hundred' that existed 'in his cell'[115] he
produced only seventeen in all--it clearly became his simplest plan to give
specimens only, and to abandon the chronological arrangement as no longer
necessary. Yet it is worth remarking that the tragedies are more clearly in
chronological order than may at first sight appear. If they be compared
with such a book as Peter Comestor's Historia Scholastica, we shall see
this the better. Peter Comestor takes the Bible as the foundation of his
history, noticing secular history as he goes on. We thus find a mention of
Hercules in the time of Jephthah, judge of Israel. Strictly, then, Hercules
should precede Samson; but as they come so near together, the scriptural
character takes precedence. Again, the tragedies of Antiochus and Alexander
both belong, in this way, to the first book of Maccabees, and therefore
come next after the tragedy of Holofernes, which belongs to the book of
Judith. Here, again, Alexander should, in strictness, precede Antiochus,
but this consideration is overridden by the fitness of coupling Antiochus
with Holofernes, and Alexander with Caesar. Allowing, then, that Samson may
precede Hercules, and that Antiochus may precede Alexander, we may divide
the whole series into six groups, as follows:--(_a_) Lucifer, Adam, Samson,
Hercules, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar; (_e_)[116] Zenobia; (_f_)[117] Pedro
of Spain, Pedro of Cyprus, Barnabo, Ugolino; (_d_) Nero; (_c_) Holofernes,
Antiochus, Alexander, Caesar; and (_b_) Croesus. This grouping is far more
suggestive than might be expected, for it throws some additional light upon
the matter, if duly considered. In the first place, group (_f_) consists
wholly of what have been called 'modern instances,' as referring to matters
that happened in Chaucer's own time, instead of containing examples from
ancient history; three of the four are remarkably short, and all four only
make up eleven stanzas. One of them, the tragedy of Barnabo, contains the
latest allusion in the whole of the Canterbury Tales, as it has reference
to the year 1385, the probable date of the Prologue to the Legend of Good
Women. The difference in style between the tragedy of Ugolino and such a
tragedy as that of Samson or Hercules, must strike the most careless
reader; and it is easy to see that this group (_f_) was an afterthought,
being a piece added at the period of revision. So much we can tell from
internal evidence, but the fact is curiously corroborated by evidence that
is external. For of course, if the poet added a few tragedies as an
afterthought, he would naturally add them _at the end_; and it is
accordingly a fact that in several good MSS., including the Ellesmere, the
Hengwrt, and the Cambridge MSS., this group is placed _at the end_, after
the tragedy of Croesus. But Chaucer's apology for want of order left him
free to insert them where he pleased; and he was accordingly pleased to put
them in the order in which they appear in the present edition, which
follows the arrangement of the Harleian, Corpus, Petworth, and Lansdowne
MSS. That this removal of group (_f_) from the end to an earlier place is
in accordance with the author's latest intention, is proved by observing
that the tragedy of Croesus must come last: (1) because it repeats, in the
last stanza, the monk's previous definition of tragedy, a repetition of
which the Knight does not approve, and takes occasion to say so (B 3961);
and (2) because the Host also quotes from this last stanza, and ridicules
the expression about Fortune 'covering things with a cloud'; see B 3956,
3972.
But we may, with patience, learn a few things more from the grouping of the
tragedies. Putting aside group (_f_) as an addition at the time of
revision, we may note that group (_e_) follows (_a_), for the simple reason
that the story of Zenobia is in Boccaccio, whom Chaucer was imitating. We
then have only groups (_d_), (_c_), and (_b_) to consider, and we notice at
once that Chaucer has purposely somewhat mixed up these; for, if we merely
transpose (_d_) and (_c_), we bring the tragedy of Nero next that of
Croesus, and immediately preceding it. That is the original order of
things, since the stories of Nero and Croesus are both taken from the
Romaunt of the Rose, where they appear together, and Nero preceded Croesus
in Chaucer's work as a matter of course, because his story preceded that of
Croesus in the original. We have thus the pleasure of seeing Chaucer
actually at work; he begins with Boccaccio and the Vulgate version of the
Bible, drawing upon his recollections[118] of Boethius for the story of
Hercules; he next takes a leaf or two from the Romaunt of the Rose; the
story of Alexander, suggested (see B 3845) by the book of Maccabees, leads
him on to write the tragedy of Caesar; then he tires of his work, and
breaks off. Returning to it for the purpose of filling up his great work,
he adds a few 'modern instances'; mixes up the order of tales; writes an
apology for their want of order; humorously assigns them to the Monk, from
whom the Host had expected something widely different; and makes the Knight
cut him short when the right moment comes. The pilgrims had heard enough
about tragedies, and began to want something more cheerful.
The great collection of tragedies which Chaucer may have originally
contemplated, in imitation of Boccaccio, was fully carried out by his
successor Lydgate, one of whose best works is the 'Falls of Princes.' This
poem, written in Chaucer's favourite seven-line stanza, was not, however,
taken from Boccaccio _directly_, but through the version of a Frenchman
named Laurent de Premierfait, an ecclesiastic of the diocese of Troyes; see
Morley's Eng. Writers, vi. 112, and the excellent dissertation by Dr.
Köppel entitled 'Laurents de Premierfait und John Lydgates Bearbeitungen
von Boccaccios De Casibus Virorum Illustrium'; München, 1885. Lydgate's
poem long continued in favour, and in its turn suggested the famous series
of tragedies by Sackville, Baldwin, and others, known by the name of the
Mirror for Magistrates; see Morley's First Sketch of Eng. Lit., pp.
335-337. The most interesting point in Lydgate's version is his recognition
of Chaucer's Monkes Tale in the following stanza of his prologue:--
'My mayster Chaucer[119] with his fressh commedies
Is dede, allas, cheif poete of Bretayne,
That sumtyme made full pitous tragidies;
The "fall of princes" he dide also compleyne,
As he that was of makynge souereyne;
Whom all this londe of right[e] ought preferre,
Sith of oure langage he was the lode-sterre.'
There is a poem entitled the Fall of Princis in the Percy Folio MS., ed.
Hales and Furnivall, iii. 168; but it is of no great merit.
The original sources of the various Tragedies are sufficiently indicated in
the Notes.
The metre employed is of some interest. It exhibits the simplest form of
stanza employed by Chaucer, with the rimes arranged in the order _a b a b b
c b c_, and was probably the first French metre which he ever used. It
occurs in his A B C, though the original of that poem is in short lines. A
good example of it, _in French_, will be found in a ballad by Eustache
Deschamps, written on the death of Machault in 1377; see Tarbe's edition,
p. 30. Hence Spenser probably derived his famous stanza, by appending to it
an Alexandrine line.
In this Tale, there are two clear examples of lines in which the first foot
consists of a single syllable. These are:--
Al | forbrúsëd, bóth-e bákk' and syd-e (3804):
Wheth | er só he wóok or éllës slépt-e (3809).
And probably l. 3535 is of the same character (see note).
§ 49. THE PROLOGUE OF THE NONNE PRESTES TALE. This excellent Prologue,
which links the Monkes Tale with that of the Nonne Preest, needs no
comment. It is in Chaucer's best manner, like the Tale itself; both clearly
belong to the period of the formation of the Tales into a series. It shews,
moreover, that Chaucer's later taste had taught him to reprobate a style of
writing which he, doubtless, at one time admired. See Lounsbury, Studies in
Chaucer, iii. 334.
§ 50. THE NONNE PREESTES TALE. This is the best specimen of our author's
humour. An early version of the Tale occurs in a short fable by Marie de
France, afterwards amplified in the old French Roman du Renart. The fable
by Marie de France consists of thirty-eight short lines, and is printed in
Dr. Furnivall's Originals and Analogues (Chaucer Society), p. 116, from MS.
Harl. 978, leaf 56 (formerly 76). The corresponding portion of Le Roman de
Rénart, as edited by Méon in 1826, vol. i. p. 49, is also printed in the
same, p. 117; it comprises 454 lines (ll. 1267-1720), and contains the
account of the cock's dream about a strange beast, and other particulars of
which Chaucer makes some use. Professor Ten Brink shews that Marie's fable
closely resembles one found in a Latin collection of Æsopian fables in a
MS. at Göttingen, which he quotes in full (id. p. 114), and refers us for
it to Oesterley, 'Romulus,' Berlin, 1870, p. 108.
A translation of Marie's fable, by myself, was printed in 'The Academy,'
July 23, 1887 (p. 56); and is here reprinted for the purpose of comparison
with Chaucer's story.
THE COCK AND THE FOX.
A Cock our story tells of, who
High on a dunghill stood and crew.
A Fox, attracted, straight drew nigh,
And spake soft words of flattery.
'Dear Sir!' said he, 'your look's divine;
I never saw a bird so fine!
I never heard a voice so clear
Except your father's--ah! poor dear!
His voice rang clearly, loudly--but
Most clearly, when his eyes were shut!'
'The same with me!' the Cock replies,
And flaps his wings, and shuts his eyes.
Each note rings clearer than the last--
The Fox starts up, and holds him fast;
Towards the wood he hies apace.
But as he crossed an open space,
The shepherds spy him; off they fly;
The dogs give chase with hue and cry.
The Fox still holds the Cock, though fear
Suggests his case is growing queer.--
'Tush!' cries the Cock, 'cry out, to grieve 'em,
"The cock is mine! I'll never leave him!"'
The Fox attempts, in scorn, to shout,
And opes his mouth; the Cock slips out,
And, in a trice, has gained a tree.
Too late the Fox begins to see
How well the Cock his game has play'd;
For once his tricks have been repaid.
In angry language, uncontrolled,
He 'gins to curse the mouth that's bold
To speak, when it should silent be.
'Well,' says the Cock, 'the same with me;
I curse the eyes that go to sleep
Just when they ought sharp watch to keep
Lest evil to their lord befall.'
Thus fools contrariously do all:
They chatter when they should be dumb,
And, when they _ought_ to speak, are mum.
Dryden's version of this Tale, entitled The Cock and the Fox, must be
familiar to all readers.
In Reliquiae Antiquae, ed. Halliwell and Wright, ii. 272, a humorous fable,
entitled the Vox [Fox] and the Wolf, is printed from MS. Digby, 86. The
first sixty-four lines give an account of a hungry fox, who breaks into a
farm-yard and has a parley with a cock who had 'flowen on hey.' The fox
tries to persuade the cock to come down from his lofty position:--
'Quath the wox, "Sire chauntecler,
Thou fle adoun, and com me ner."'
But in this case, the cock knows better, and tells the fox to go away; and
Reynard retires in disgust.
Such 'animal stories' are, of course, of great antiquity. See the remarks
in Jacobs' edition of Caxton's 'Fables of Aesop,' vol. i. 253. Caxton's
fable 'Of the foxe and of the cocke' is the third fable in Book V. A
similar story, entitled 'A Fox and a Divining Cock,' occurs in the Fables
of Æsop, by Sir Roger L'Estrange. It is needless to pursue the subject.
§ 51. EPILOGUE TO THE NONNE PREESTES TALE. These characteristic lines are
obviously genuine, but are only extant in three MSS. (footnote to vol. iv.
p. 289). The use of the word 'another' in the last line shews that they
were composed with the view of being used as a Prologue to some Tale, but
that the author had not, at the moment, decided what Tale was to come next.
This point was, after all, never settled; and hence there is nothing to
shew what was to follow. This brings us, of necessity, to the conclusion of
Group B.
In the old black-letter editions, which _retain_ this Epilogue, it is
followed by the Manciple's Prologue. But this cannot be right, for there (H
5) the Host does not address 'another,' but the whole company. One of the
three MSS. which retain this Epilogue (Addit. 5140) reads 'the Nunne'
instead of 'another,' because the next Tale in the MS. is that of the
Second Nun. This also is unsuitable, for the Host does not introduce that
Tale at all.
Tyrwhitt introduces a row of asterisks after this Epilogue, to shew that
there is no connexion with the following Tale.
GROUP C.
§ 52. THE SPURIOUS PROLOGUE TO THE PHISICIENS TALE. This Tale has _no_
genuine Prologue, and some MSS., including E., do not contain one. In MS.
Dd. is the rubric: 'Here endeth the Frankeleins Tale, and biginneth the
Phisiciens Tale _without a Prologe_.' In the best MSS., it follows the
Frankeleins Tale; and such is, in my belief, its proper position. This
arrangement was arbitrarily altered by Dr. Furnivall, in order, I suppose,
to emphasize the fact that the relative order of the Groups may be altered
at pleasure; but this might have been understood without forcible
dislocation; and I think that no good has been effected by it. I have been
obliged to follow suit, but I wish to make a note that the right order of
the Groups is A, B, D, E, F, C, G, H, I.
On the supposition that the Phisicien follows the Frankeleyn, Tyrwhitt
inserted here a short Prologue of six lines, merely to fill up the gap,
without accepting it as genuine. These six lines he found in _one_ MS.
only, viz. in MS. Harl. 7735; and I have reprinted them from his edition in
the foot-note to vol. iv. p. 289.
In most MSS. the original position of the Tales has been altered, so as to
make the Phisicien follow the Chanouns Yeman; and this is the arrangement
in the black-letter editions. Two spurious Prologues have been written to
connect these Tales; both being very bad. One of these appears in the black
letter editions; and I here give it, from the edition of 1532.
Whan this yeman his tale ended had
Of this false chanon, which was so bad,
Our Hoste gan say, 'truely and certayne,
This preest was begyled, sothe for to sayne,
He wenyng for to be a phylosopher, 5
Tyl he right no golde lefte in his cofer.
And sothly, this preest had a lither[120] iape;
This cursed chanon put in his hoode an ape.
But al this passe I ouer as now.
Sir Doctour of Phisyke, yet I pray you, 10
Tel vs a tale of some honest matere.'
'It shal be done, if that ye wol it here,'
Sayd this Doctour, and his tale bygan anon:
'Now good men (quod he) herkeneth euerychon.'
It will be seen that lines 7-9 are imitated from B 1629, 1630, and 1633;
and lines 9-14 coincide, very nearly, with the spurious Prologue of six
lines which I have already discussed.
The other Prologue is still worse; Mr. Wright has printed it, in a note,
from the Lansdowne MS., and I here reproduce it.
'Now trewly,' quod oure Oste, 'this is a prati tale;
For litel merveile it is that thou lokest so pale,
Sethen thou hast medeled with so mony thinges;
With bloweinge att the cole to melte bothe brochez and ringes,
And other many Iewels, dar I undertake, 5
And that thi lorde couthe us tel, if we might him overtake.
But lat him go a devel waye, the compaigny is never the wers;
And al suche fals harlotes, I sette not be hem a kers.
But latt pas overe nowe al thes subtilitees,
And sume worthi man tel us summe veritees; 10
As ye, worschipful Maister of Phisike,
Tellith us somme tale that is a cronyke,
That we may of yowe leren sum witte.'
Quod the Maister of Phisik, 'a tale that I finde writte
In [a] cronyke passed of olde tyme; 15
Herkeneth, for I wil tel it yow in rime.'
These lines are instructive, as shewing that we must not accept lines as
genuine merely because they occur in a MS. of some authority. And this
circumstance should warn us against the folly of accepting the genuineness
of such a poem as the 'Court of Love,' merely on the authority of the
edition of 1561, which is a third reprint of the edition by Thynne, with
arbitrary additions.
§ 53. THE PHISICIENS TALE. This is the well-known story of Virginia, which
Chaucer tells, as usual, in his own way. Although he appeals to Livy as his
author, he really follows the account in Le Roman de la Rose, ll. 5613-82;
which contains all the particulars which he introduces, except such as are
of his own invention. It is interesting to compare ll. 3-120 of this Tale,
which are practically Chaucer's own, with ll. 255-76, where he follows Jean
de Meun rather closely. In order to illustrate this, I give the whole
passage of the French text, from Méon's edition, lines 5613-82; t. ii. p.
74:--
Comment Virginius plaida
Devant Apius, qui jugea
Que sa fille, à tout bien taillée,
Fust tost à Claudius baillée.
Ne fist bien Apius à pendre,
Qui fist à son serjant emprendre
Par faus tesmoings, fauce querele 5615
Contre Virgine la pucele,
Qui fu fille Virginius,
Si cum dist Titus Livius[121]
Qui bien set le cas raconter,
Por ce qu'il ne pooit donter 5620
La pucele, qui n'avoit cure
Ne di li, ne de sa luxure.
Li ribaus[122] dist en audience:
'Sire juges[123], donnes sentence
Por moi, car la pucele est moie; 5625
Por ma serve la proveroie
Contre tous ceus qui sunt en vie:
Car où qu'ele ait été norrie,
De mon ostel me fu emblée
Dès-lors par poi qu'ele fu née, 5630
Et baillie à Virginius.
Si vous requier, sire Apius,
Que vous me délivrés ma serve,
Car il est drois qu'ele me serve,
Non pas celi qui l'a norrie: 5635
Et se Virginius le nie,
Tout ce sui-ge prest de prover,
Car bons tesmoings en puis trover.'
Ainsinc parloit li faus traïstre
Qui du faus juge[124] estoit menistre[125]; 5640
Et cum li plais ainsinc alast,
Ains[126] que Virginius parlast,
Qui tout estoit prest de respondre
Por ses aversaires confondre,
Juga par hastive sentence 5645
Apius que, sans atendence,
Fust la pucele au serf renduë.
Et[127] quant la chose a entenduë,
Li bons prodons devant nommés,
Bons chevaliers, bien renommés, 5650
C'est assavoir Virginius,
Qui bien voit que vers Apius
Ne puet pas sa fille deffendre,
Ains li convient par force rendre,
Et son cors livrer à hontage, 5655
Si change honte por damage
Par merveilleus apensement,
Se Titus-Livius ne ment.
Comment après la jugement
Virginius hastivement
A sa fille le chief couppa,
Dont de la mort point n'échappa;
Et mieulx ainsi le voulut faire
Que la livrer à pute affaire;
Puis le chief presenta au juge
Qui en escheut en grant déluge.
Car[128] il par amors, sans haine,
A sa belle fille Virgine 5660
Tantost a la teste copée,
Et puis au juge présentée
Devant tous en plain consistoire;
Et li juges, selonc l'estoire,
Le commanda tastost à prendre 5665
Por li mener ocir ou pendre.
Mès ne l'occit ne ne pendi,
Car li pueples le deffendi
Qui fu tous de pitié méus
Si tost cum li fais fu séus; 5670
Puis fu por ceste mesprison
Apius mis en la prison,
Et là s'occist hastivement
Ains le jor de son jugement;
Et Claudius li chalangieres 5675
Jugiés fu à mort comme lieres,
Se ne l'en éust respitié
Virginius par sa pitié,
Qui tant volt li pueple proier,
Qu'en essil le fist envoier, 5680
Et tuit cil condampnés moururent
Qui tesmoingz de la cause furent.
We thus see that the remark 'as seith the storie,' in C 258, simply
translates the French--'selonc l'estoire.' It is to be regretted that
Chaucer was unacquainted with Livy's version; see Lounsbury, Studies in
Chaucer, ii. 283. Gower (ed. Pauli, iii. 264) tells the same story; but I
find no points of close resemblance, and many of divergence.
§ 54. WORDS OF THE HOST TO THE PHISICIEN AND THE PARDONER. These 'Words'
connect the Phisiciens Tale with that of the Pardoner. There are some
curious variations in the copies, which suggest that some alterations were
here made by the author. The chief variations are the following.
C 289. E. Hn. fals cherl and; Cp. Pt. Ln. Hl. cursed theef.
C 290. E. Hn. Cp. Pt. sham(e)ful; Ln. Hl. schendful.
C 291, 2. E. Hn. Pt. _wholly vary from_ Cp. Ln. Hl.; see footnote in vol.
iv. p. 299.
C 297-8. E. Hn. Pt. _omit these lines._
C 299, 300. Hl. (_and others_) _omit these lines._
I suppose that lines C 297-8, omitted in E. Hn., are a later (genuine)
insertion. And perhaps the readings _cursed theef_ and _schendful_ are also
corrections. But I follow MS. E. as the best guide, inserting 297-8 (as in
the Six-text edition), that they may not be lost.
§ 55. PROLOGUE OF THE PARDONERS TALE. This is really a preamble; and the
Tale itself has a long digression from the main subject. The portrait of
the Pardoner, as here painted by himself, is historically valuable and
minutely accurate; see the paper on 'Chaucer's Pardoner and the Pope's
Pardoners,' by Dr. J. J. Jusserand, in Essays on Chaucer, p. 423 (Chaucer
Society). The descriptions by Chaucer, Langland, Heywood (who plagiarises
Chaucer mercilessly), and Sir David Lyndsay are, in this essay, supported
by extracts from a papal letter by Boniface IX, written in 1390; by
statements made by Richard d'Angerville, bp. of Durham, given in the
Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense, iii. 325 (Rolls Series); and by extracts
from Wilkins, Concilia, ii. 747, iii. 84, 131, 365. There is nothing to
shew that the picture is unfair or overdrawn.
It may well be compared with one of the Tales in Boccaccio's Decamerone,
Day 6, Nov. 10, which is given in full in a cheap reprint of selections
from this work, edited by Prof. H. Morley, according to an English version
made in the time of James I. There is nothing to shew that Chaucer had read
this story; and, as has often been remarked above, he seems to have been
unacquainted with the Decamerone. Some account of this Tale, with remarks,
is given in Dunlop's History of Fiction, chap. vii. The hero of it is a
certain friar Cipolla (i.e. Onion), whose account of himself is amusing.
'He gave a long account (says Dunlop) of his travels as far as India, and
told how on his return he had visited the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who had
shewn him innumerable relics; among others, a lock of the hair of the
seraph that appeared to St. Francis, a paring of the cherub's nail, a few
of the rays of the blessed star that guided the Magi in the east, the
jaw-bone of Lazarus,' &c. He adds: 'This tale of Boccaccio drew down the
censure of the Council of Trent, and is the one which gave the greatest
umbrage to the church. The author has been defended by his commentators, on
the ground that he did not intend to censure the respectable orders of
friars, but to expose those wandering mendicants who supported themselves
by imposing on the credulity of the people; that he did not mean to
ridicule the sacred relics of the church, but those which were believed so
in consequence of the fraud and artifice of monks.' But it must have been
hard to draw this line. In the note to C 349, I have drawn attention to
Heywood's close plagiarism from Chaucer, in the passage from the Four P.'s,
printed in the note to l. 701 of Morris's edition of Chaucer's Prologue;
also to Sir David Lyndsay's Satyre of the Three Estates, ll. 2037-2121.
§ 56. THE PARDONERES TALE. A considerable part of this Tale is taken up
with a digression; the Tale itself is told simply and well, occupying ll.
463-484, 661-894. Mr. Wright remarks: 'This beautiful moral story appears
to have been taken from a Fabliau, now lost, but of which the mere outline
is preserved [as first noted by Tyrwhitt] in the Cento Novelle Antiche,
Nov. lxxxii, as well as the story itself by Chaucer.' Dunlop, in his
History of Fiction, p. 203, says: 'It is evident from the title of the
Cento Novelle _Antiche_, that it was not a new and original production, but
a compilation of stories already current in the world. The collection was
made towards the end of the thirteenth century, and was formed from
episodes in Romances of chivalry; the Fabliaux of the French Trouveurs; the
ancient chronicles of Italy; recent incidents; or jests and repartees
current by oral tradition. That the stories derived from these sources were
compiled by different authors, is evident from the great variety of style;
but who those authors were, is still a problem in the literary annals of
Italy.' The story is not exactly the same in all the editions of the Cento
Novelle; and two different forms of it have been printed by Dr. Furnivall,
in his Originals and Analogues (Chaucer Soc.), Pt. ii. pp. 131-133. Of
these, the former is from the edition of 1525, with the title Le Ciento
Novelle Antike, where it appears as Nov. lxxxiii. It is very brief, and to
this effect. As Christ was walking with His disciples through a wild
country, they suddenly espied some bright golden piastres, and said, 'Let
us take some of these for our use.' But Christ reproved them, warning them
that they would soon see the fatal effects of avarice. Soon after, two men
found the gold; and one of them went to fetch a mule to carry it off,
whilst the other remained to guard it. On his return with the mule, the
former offered to his companion two loaves which he had bought for him. The
latter refused at the moment, and shortly afterwards took an opportunity of
stabbing the other as he chanced to be stooping down. He then took the two
loaves, gave one to the mule, and ate the other himself. The loaves were
poisoned; and man and mule fell dead. Then our Lord, passing by once more,
pointed out to His disciples the three dead bodies.
The other version is from the edition of 1572, entitled Libro di Novelle,
et di bel Parlar Gentile; where it is Nov. lxxxii. This is much more like
Chaucer's story, and is occasionally quoted in the Notes as the 'Italian
text.' Dr. Furnivall's analysis of the story is as follows:--
'A hermit lying down in a cave, sees there much gold. At once he runs away,
and meets three robbers. They see no one chasing the hermit, and ask him
what he is running away from. "Death, which is chasing me." "Where is he?
shew him us." "Come with me, and I will." The hermit takes them to the
cave, and shews them Death--the gold. They laugh at him, and make great
joy, and say, "The hermit is a fool." Then the three robbers consult as to
what they shall do. The second proposes that one shall go to the town, buy
bread and wine and all things needful; but the crafty Devil puts into the
heart of the robber who goes to the town, that he shall feed himself,
poison his mates, and then have all the treasure, and be the richest man in
that country. Meantime, the other robbers plot to murder their mate as soon
as he comes back with the bread and wine, and then share the treasure.
Their mate returns from the city, and they murder him at once. Then they
eat the food he has brought, and both fall dead. Thus doth our Lord God
requite traitors. The robbers found death. The wise man fled, and left the
gold free.'
As the original is not long, I here reprint it, for the reader's
convenience:--
'Qui conta d'uno Romito che andando per un luogo foresto trouo molto grande
Tesoro.
'Andando vn giorno vn Romito per vn luogo foresto: si trouò vna grandissima
grotta, laquale era molo celata, et ritirandosi verso là per riposarsi,
pero che era assai affaticato; come e' giunse alla grotta si la vide in
certo luogo molto tralucere, impercio che vi hauea molto oro: e si tosto
come il conobbe, incontanente si partio, et comincio a correre per lo
deserto, quanto e' ne potea andare. Correndo cosi questo Romito s'intoppo
in tre grandi scherani, liquali stauano in quella foresta per rubare chi
unque vi passaua. Ne gia mai si erano accorti, che questo oro vi fosse. Hor
vedendo costoro, che nascosti si stauano, fuggir cosi questo huomo, non
hauendo persona dietro che 'l cacciasse, alquanto hebbero temenza, ma pur
se li pararono dinanzi per sapere perche fuggíua, che di cio molto sí
marauígliauano. Ed elli rispose et disse: "Fratelli miei, io fuggo la
morte, che mi vien dietro cacciando mi." Que' non vedendo ne huomo, ne
bestia, che il cacciasse, dissero: "Mostraci chi ti caccia: et menaci cola
one ella è." Allhora il Romito disse loro, "venite meco, et mostrerollaui,"
pregandoli tutta via che non andassero ad essa, impercio che elli per se la
fuggia. Ed eglino volendola trouare, per vedere come fosse fatta, nol
domandouano di altro. Il Romito vedendo che non potea piu, et hauendo paura
di loro, gli condusse alla grotta, onde egli s'era partito, e disse loro,
"Qui è la morte, che mi cacciaua," et mostra loro l'oro che u' era, ed
eglino il conobbero incontanente, et molto si cominciarano a rallegrare, et
a fare insieme grande sollazzo. Allhora accommiatarono questo buono huomo;
et egli sen'ando per i fatti suoi: et quelli cominciarono a dire tra loro,
come elli era semplice persona. Rimasero questi scherani tutti e tre
insieme, a guardare questo hauere, e incominciarono a ragionare quello che
voleano fare. L'uno rispuose et disse: "A me pare, da che Dio ci ha dato
cosi alta ventura, che noi non ci partiamo di qui, insino a tanto che noi
non ne portiamo tutto questo hauere." Et l'altro disse: "non facciamo cosi;
l' vno di noi ne tolga alquanto, et vada alla cittade et vendalo, et rechi
del pane et del vino, et di quello che ci bisogna, e di cio s'ingegni il
meglio che puote: faccia egli, pur com' elli ci fornisca." A questo
s'accordarono tutti e tre insieme. Il Demonio ch'è ingegnoso, e reo
d'ordinare di fare quanto male e puote, mise in cuori a costui che andaua
alla citta per lo fornimento, "da ch'io sarò nella cittade" (dicea fra se
medesimo) "io voglio mangiare et bere quanto mi bisogna, et poi fornirmi di
certe cose delle quali io ho mestiere hora al presente: et poi auuelenero
quello che io porto a miei compagni: si che, da ch elli saranno morti
amendue, si saro io poi Signore di tutto quello hauere, et secondo che mi
pare egli è tanto, che io saio poi il piu ricco huomo di tutto questo paese
da parte d'hauere:" et come li venne in pensiero, cosi fece. Prese viuanda
per se quanta gli bisogno, et poi tutta l'altra auuelenoe, e cosi la porto
a que suoi compagni. Intanto ch'ando alla cittade secondo che detto hauemo:
se elli pensoe et ordinoe male per uccidere li suoi compagni, accio che
ogni cosa li rimanesse: quelli pensaro di lui non meglio ch'elli di loro,
et dissero tra loro: "Si tosto come questo nostro compagno tornera col pane
et col vino, et con l'altre cose che ci bisognano, si l'uccideremo, et poi
mangeremo quanto uorremo, e sara poi tra noi due tutto questo grande
hauere. Et come meno parti ne saremo, tanto n'haueremo maggior parte
ciascuno di noi." Hor viene quelli, che era ito alla cittade a comperare le
cose che bisognaua loro. Tornato a suoi compagni incontanente che 'l
videro, gli furono addosso con le lancie et con le coltella, et l'uccisero.
Da che l'hebbero morto, mangiarono di quello che egli hauea recato: et si
tosto come furono satolli, amendue caddero morti: et cosi morirono tutti e
tre: che l' vno vccise l'altro si come vdito hauete, et non hebbe l'hauere:
et cosi paga Domenedio li traditori, che egli andarono caendo la morte, et
in questo modo la trouarono, et si come ellino n'erano degni. Et il saggio
sauiamente la fuggio, e l'oro rimase libero come di prima.'
Dr. Furnivall has also reprinted Novella xlii. from the Novellae of
Morlinus, ed. Naples, 1520 (reprinted at Paris in 1799); corrected by the
Paris edition of Morlinus' Works, 1855. The story is very brief, being as
follows:--
'De illis qui, in Tiberi reperto thesauro, ad inuicem conspirantes, ueneno
et ferro periere.
'Magus magico susurro in Tiberi delitere thesaurum, quadam in cauea
spirituum reuelatione cognouit: quo reperto, cum magnum siclorum cumulum
aspiceret, communi uoto pars sociorum proximum oppidum seu castellum,
epulas aliasque res comparaturi, accedunt: ceteri uero copiosum interea
ignem instruunt, thesaurumque custodiunt. Dumque in castellum conuenissent,
radice malorum cupiditate affecti, ut consocios thesauri parte priuarent,
diro ueneno illos interimere statuerunt: cum dicto, in caupona epulantes,
ebrii ac uino sepulti, aliquatenus moram fecere. In Tiberi expectantes
atque esurientes, consocios de mora incussabant: Iouemque adiurauerunt,
repedantes ex oppido atque castello et uita et thesauri parte priuare.
Sicque ad inuicem conspirantes, non multo post adueniunt ex pago illi,
uinarios utres, pullos, pisces, aliaque tucetosi saporis pulmentaria atque
prelectum hircum ferentes. Quibus obuiam dederunt ieiuni, illosque omnes
morti imparatos incautosque insecauere atque crudeli strage perdiderunt.
Pone sumptis cibariis diro ueneno tabefactis, insigni iocunditate gnauiter
cuncta ministrare incipiunt; alter uerrit, alter sternit, pars coquit,
atque tuceta concinnat. Pone omnibus scitule appositis, ac mensa largiter
instructa edere ceperunt, omniaque ingurgitauerunt. Commodum ex eis mensa
erectis erant (_sic_) quod, morte preuenti, cum sociis uitam fato
reddentes, sub elemento mortui et sepulti remansere.
'Nouella indicat: nec esse de malo cogitandum: nam quod quis seminat,
metit.'
It has lately been discovered that this striking story is unquestionably of
Asiatic origin. Numerous analogous stories have been collected and printed
for the Chaucer Society by Mr. W. A. Clouston. At pp. 417-436 of these
'Originals and Analogues' is printed a Buddhist original of great
antiquity, together with varying versions in several languages, viz.
Persian, Arabic, Kashmiri, and Tibetan. Versions also occur in French,
Italian, German, and Portuguese.
The Buddhist story is one entitled 'Vedabbha Játaka,' being the 48th story
in Fausböll's edition of the Páli text of the Játaka-book. Mr. Clouston
says (p. 418): 'The first to point out the identity of the Pardoner's Tale
with one of those Buddhist "Birth"-stories was the Rev. Dr. Richard Morris,
in the Contemporary Review, May, 1881, vol. xxxix. p. 738, and afterwards
two other scholars each made the same discovery independently: Mr. H. T.
Francis, in The Academy, Dec. 22, 1883, and Prof. C. H. Tawney, in the
Journal of Philology, 1883, vol. xii. pp. 203-8. The Bishop of Colombo, in
the Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1884,
published translations of the first 50 Játakas, the 48th of which, as
already stated, is the Vedabbha Játaka.' Mr. Clouston then gives a complete
translation of this Játaka, from which I extract, for comparison, a few
sentences:--
'But those two men [two robbers] deftly carried off that wealth, and hid it
in a thicket near a village, and one remained guarding it, sword in hand,
while the other took some rice and went off to the village to get it
cooked. Truly this passion of avarice is the root of destruction[129], for
the one who was guarding the wealth said to himself: "When my fellow
returns, this wealth will have to be divided into two portions, so I had
better kill him with a sword-cut as soon as he arrives." So he made ready
his sword, and remained watching for his return. The other said to himself:
"This wealth will have to be divided into two portions so I had better put
poison in the rice, and give it to my fellow to eat and so kill him, and
take all the wealth for myself." Accordingly as soon as the rice was
cooked, he ate all he wanted, and put poison in the rest, and set out with
it in his hand. No sooner had he put the rice down than the other cut him
in two with his sword and threw his body into a tangled thicket. Then he
ate the rice, and fell dead on the spot.'
The Persian Version follows, from a poem in the 'Book of Calamities,' made
in the twelfth century by Ferídu-'d-Dín 'Attár, a celebrated philosopher
and poet. In this version, as in Chaucer, there are _three_ men; one of
them goes to the town to buy bread, some of which he eats, and poisons the
rest. The other two slay him on his return, eat the poisoned bread, and
perish.
Of the Arabic versions, one occurs in the Breslau edition of the Book of
the Thousand and One Nights (Burton's Supplementary Nights, vol. i p.250).
The Kashmírí version is given in Mr. Knowles' Dictionary of Kashmírí
Proverbs and Sayings, Bombay, 1885, p. 45. Here there are four men, two of
whom conspire against the other two, and slay them with axes; but
afterwards eat the poisoned bread which the latter couple had prepared for
them.
I must refer the reader to Mr. Clouston's essay for further particulars.
I must not omit to notice here the instances in which Chaucer has borrowed
some of his moral reflexions from the treatise De Contemptu Mundi, by Pope
Innocent, which has already been discussed above; see § 36. Dr. E. Köppel
has noticed the following, in the Archiv für das Studium der neueren
Sprachen, ed. L. Herrig, vol. 84, p. 411.
C 483, 4. 'Propterea dicit apostolus: Nolite inebriari vino, in quo est
luxuria:' lib. ii. cap. 19.
C 505-7; 491. 'Gula paradisum clausit; decollauit Baptistam:' lib. ii. cap.
18.
C 513-6; 521-3. 'Inde non salus et sanitas, sed morbus et mors. Audi super
hoc sententiam Sapientis: "Noli auidus esse in omni epulatione, et non te
effundas super omnem escam. In multis enim escis erit infirmitas; et
propter crapulam multi perierunt." "Esca uentri, et uenter escis; Deus
autem et hunc et hanc destruet":' lib. ii. cap. 17.
C 517-520[130]. 'Nunc autem gulosis non sufficiunt fructus arborum, non
genera leguminum, non radices herbarum, non pisces maris, non bestiae
terrae, non aues coeli.' ... 'Tam breuis est gulae uoluptas, ut spatio loci
uix sit quatuor digitorum,' &c.: lib. ii. cap. 17.
C 534-6. 'Quanto sunt delicatoria cibaria, tanto foetidiora sunt stercora.
Turpius egerit, qui turpiter ingerit, superius et inferius horribilem
flatum exprimens, et abominabilem sonum emittens:' lib. ii. cap. 18.
C 537-546. 'Quaeruntur pigmenta, comparantur aromata ... quae studiose
coquuntur arte coquorum.... Alius contundit et colat, alius confundit et
conficit, substantiam conuertit in accidens ... ut fastidium reuocet
appetitum, ad irritandum gulam:' lib. ii. cap. 17.
C 551-2; 560-1. 'Quid turpius ebrioso? cui fetor in ore ... cui facies
transformatur? "Nullum enim secretum, ubi regnat ebrietas":' lib. ii. cap.
19. Cf. Man of Lawes Tale, B 771-2, 776-7. See above, p. 408.
All these passages are probably versified from Chaucer's lost prose
translation of Innocent's treatise. Observe that all the passages quoted
lie close together, viz. in lib. ii. capp. 17-19.
A modernized version of the Pardoner's Tale was brought out by the Rev. Wm.
Lipscomb, in 1792; and another version, made with some spirit, but far
inferior to the original, will be found among Leigh Hunt's Poems, with the
title 'Death and the Ruffians.'
GROUP D.
§ 57. THE WIFE OF BATH'S PROLOGUE. In some MSS., as in E. and Cm., this
Prologue follows the Man of Lawes Tale, but without any connecting link. In
others, as in Pt. and in the black-letter editions, it follows the
Marchants Tale; and rarely, as in Cp. and Ln., it follows the Squieres
Tale; but in no case are there any _genuine_ lines to link it with what
precedes. Two spurious prologues are, however, found. The former occurs in
MS. Royal 18 C. II., and in MSS. Laud 739 and Barlow 20 (in the Bodleian
Library). Tyrwhitt prints it from the first of these, 'to justify himself
for not inserting them in the text'; as follows:--
Oure oost gan tho to loke[n] up anon:
'Gode men,' quod he, 'herkeneth everichone;
As evere mote I drynke wyn or ale,
This Marchaunt hath itold a mery tale,
Howe Ianuarie hadde a lither Iape; 5
His wyf put in his hood an ape.
But hereoff I wil leve off as now.
Dame Wyf of Bathe,' quod he, 'I pray[e] you,
Telle us a tale now nexte after this.'
'Sir Oost,' quod she, 'so god my soule blis, 10
As I fully therto wil consente;
And also it is myn hole entente
To done yow alle disporte as that I can.
But holde me excused: I am a woman.
I can not reherse as these clerkes kunne.' 15
And right anon she hath hir tale bygunne.
Experience, &c.
Here ll. 5 and 6 are imitated from B 1629 and 1630.
The Lansdowne MS. subjoins eight spurious lines at the end of the Squieres
Tale, and prefixes to the Wife's Tale the four lines that follow:--
Than shortly ansewarde the wife of Bathe,
And swore a wonder grete hathe,
'Be goddes bones, I wil tel next;
I will nouht glose, bot saye the text.'
Here _hathe_ (for _aath_) means 'oath,' and is a purely Northern form.
As to the Prologue itself, Wright remarks:--'The Wife of Bath's Prologue
may be considered as a separate Tale, and belongs to a class of which there
are several examples among the literature of the middle ages. One of the
latest is "The twa Maryit Wemen and the Wedo" [Widow], of William Dunbar.
The popular literature of what is commonly looked upon as the age of
chivalry shews us that the female character was then estimated at the
lowest possible rate.'
Tyrwhitt's remarks on this Prologue are excellent. 'The extraordinary
length of it, as well as the vein of pleasantry that runs through it, is
very suitable to the character of the speaker. The greatest part must have
been of Chaucer's own invention, though we may plainly see that he had been
reading the popular invectives against marriage and women in general; such
as the Roman de la Rose; Valerius ad Rufinum de non ducenda uxore; and
particularly, Hieronymus contra Iouinianum.' Of the last of these he
says:--'The holy Father, by way of recommending celibacy, has exerted all
his learning and eloquence (and he certainly was not deficient in either)
to collect together and aggravate whatever he coud find to the prejudice of
the female sex. Among other things he has inserted his own translation
(probably) of a long extract from what he calls "Liber aureolus Theophrasti
de nuptiis."
'Next to him in order of time was the treatise entitled Epistola Valerii ad
Rufinum de non ducenda uxore (MS. Reg. 12 D. III). It has been printed, for
the similarity of its sentiments, I suppose, among the works of St. Jerome,
though it is evidently of a much later date. Tanner (from Wood's MS. Coll)
attributes it to Walter Map (Bib. Brit., v. MAP). I should not believe it
to be older; as John of Salisbury, who has treated of the same subject in
his Polycraticus, lib. viii. cap. 11, does not appear to have seen it.
'To these two books Jean de Meun has been obliged for some of his severest
strokes in his Roman de la Rose; and Chaucer has transfused the
quintessence of all the three works, upon the subject of Matrimony, into
his Wife of Bathes Prologue and Merchant's Tale[131].'
Dr. Köppel has shewn that, in _one_ passage (D 278), there is a trace of a
quotation from Pope Innocent's treatise De Contemptu Mundi, lib. i. c. 18.
This passage introduces the word 'smoke,' which is not in the wording of
Prov. xxvii. 15, the ultimate authority for the quotation. Similarly, when
Innocent cites the same text, he introduces the word _fumus_.
§ 58. THE TALE OF THE WYF OF BATHE. The various Tales analogous to this
have been discussed by Mr. W. A. Clouston, in the 'Originals and Analogues'
published by the Chaucer Society in 1887, p. 483. Mr. Clouston calls the
Tales of this class 'The Knight and the Loathly Lady.' He begins by
observing that 'Gower anticipated the Wife of Bath's characteristic Tale by
a few years[132] in his Confessio Amantis, but there seems no good reason
to suppose Chaucer to have borrowed from his friend, the two versions
differing so very considerably in details; and it is probable that both
poets drew their materials independently from a French source, or sources.'
He then quotes Gower's tale, from MS. Harl. 3869; cf. Pauli's edition, i.
89-104. Here the hero is named Florent and is supposed to be the
nephew[133] of the emperor Claudius. Florent has slain one Branchus, whose
grandmother plots a plan of revenge. She sends for Florent, offering him a
full pardon if he can answer a certain question; but if he fails, he must
forfeit his life. To this he agrees, and is allowed a term of days for the
solution of the question. The question is--'What do all women most desire?'
After much vain enquiry, Florent finds a loathly old woman, who tells him
that she can save him from death; but if she does this, he must marry her;
and to this he desperately consents. She tells him that women desire
sovereignty, and to have all their will. The answer is correct; his life is
saved, and he must perform his promise. He weds her, and is at last
persuaded that he ought to kiss her; whereupon she is transformed into a
young girl, of eighteen years of age. She explains that she had been
bewitched, and his courtesy had broken the charm.
A similar story is the subject of the 'Weddynge of Syr Gawen and Dame
Ragnell,' printed by Sir F. Madden in his 'Syr Gawayne,' from MS. Rawlinson
C. 86. The outline of it is given by Prof. Child in his English and
Scottish Ballads, Boston (U. S.), 1884, Part ii., pp. 289, 290, and is
reprinted by Mr. Clouston. In this story, it is King Arthur who, to save
his life, undertakes to solve, within a twelvemonth, the question--'What do
women love most?' Soon after, Arthur tells his adventure to Sir Gawain, who
is willing to help him. Gawain meets a hideous hag who offers to tell him
the answer on the usual terms; her name is Dame Ragnell. Gawain learns the
answer, imparts it to Arthur, and kisses Dame Ragnell, who is transformed
into the fairest creature he had ever seen.
This is the story on which is founded the ballad of the Marriage of Sir
Gawaine, a fragmentary piece printed in the Percy Folio MS., ed. Hales and
Furnivall, i. 103.
Another version, perhaps older than either of the foregoing, is the Border
Ballad of King Henrie, printed by Scott in his Minstrelsy of the Scottish
Border. William Tytler's version of this ballad was adapted by Lewis for
his Tales of Wonder, with the new title of 'Courteous King Jamie'; vol. ii.
453. Mr. Clouston adds:--'A similar ballad, "Of a Knight and a Fair
Virgin," is found in Johnson's Crown Garland of Golden Roses, printed about
1600. And Voltaire has followed Chaucer in his tale Ce qui plaît aux Dames.
'Scott, in his prefatory note to the ballad of King Henrie, after referring
to its resemblance to the Marriage of Sir Gawaine and the Wife of Bath's
Tale, cites what he considers as "the original" [viz. an Icelandic version]
from Torfeus (Hrolffi Krakii Hist., Hafn. 1715, p. 49).'
Another Icelandic version is given by Clouston (from Prof. Child), in the
form of an abstract.
Another version follows, from the Gaelic, taken from the story of The
Daughter of King Under-Waves; given in Campbell's Popular Tales of the West
Highlands, iii. 403.
A similar notion occurs in Mandeville's Travels, ed. Halliwell, chap. iv.
pp. 23-26. His story is to the effect that in the Isle of Lango is to be
found the daughter of Ypocras (Hippocrates), who has been transformed into
a loathsome Dragon, a hundred fathoms long. 'But whan a Knyghte comethe,
that is so hardy to kisse hire, he schalle not dye: but he schalle turne
the Damysele in-to hire righte Forme and kyndely Schapp; and he schal be
Lord of alle the Contreyes and Iles aboveseyd.' It is disappointing to find
that no one ever performed the task; so that, in fact, the lady remains a
dragon to the present day.
Mr. Clouston adds a Turkish Analogue from a story-book entitled Phantasms
from the Presence of God, written in 1796-7, by 'Ali 'Aziz Efendi, the
Cretan; and refers to similar ideas found in Sanskrit stories. He concludes
by saying:--'Legends similar to the tale of the Knight and the Loathly Lady
seem to be of universal currency and of very ancient date. Have we not all
listened to them in the nursery, and been especially charmed with the tale
of the Frog-Prince? And there are several parallels to it among the nations
of South Africa.' He appends two Kaffir analogues from Theal's Kaffir
Folk-Lore.
The Wife of Bath's Tale has been retold by Dryden, in a way peculiarly his
own. If compared with the original, it suffers sadly by the comparison. The
poet Gay wrote a comedy called The Wife of Bath, which appeared in 1713. A
later edition, 'revised and altered by the author,' appeared in 1730.
§ 59. THE FRIAR'S PROLOGUE. This is closely linked with the preceding tale,
and is chiefly remarkable for the Friar's outburst against the Somnour,
which shews such rancour that even the Host interferes. As Tyrwhitt here
notes--'The Regular Clergy, and particularly the Mendicant Friars, affected
a total exemption from all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, except that of the
Pope, which made them exceedingly obnoxious to the Bishops, and of course
to all the inferior orders of the national hierarchy.'
§ 60. THE FRERES TALE. Warton, in his History of Eng. Poetry (ed. Hazlitt,
i. 302), after speaking of the collection of stories in the Gesta
Romanorum, tells us that 'rather before the year 1480, a Latin volume was
printed in Germany, written by John Herolt, a Dominican friar of Basle,
better known by the adopted and humble appellation of Discipulus, and who
flourished about the year 1418.' The first part of this work consists of
sermons. The second part is 'a Promptuary or ample repository of examples
for composing sermons,' and contains 'a variety of little histories.' Among
these is one analogous to Chaucer's Freres Tale.
The Latin story was first printed by Mr. T. Wright in the Archæologia, vol.
xxxii., and again in Originals and Analogues, Chaucer Soc., 1872, p. 105,
from MS. Cotton, Cleop. D. 8, leaf 110; and is as follows:--
NARRATIO DE QUODAM SENESCALLO SCELEROSO.
Erat uir quidam Senescallus et placitator, pauperum calumpniator, et
bonorum huiusmodi spoliator. Qui die quadam forum iudiciale causa
contencionis faciende et lucrandi adiuit. Cui quidam obuiauit in itinere
dicens ei: 'Quo uadis, et quid habes officii?' Respondit primus: 'Uado
lucrari.' Et ait secundus: 'Ego tui similis sum. Eamus simul.' Primo
consenciente, dixit secundus ei: 'Quid est lucrum tuum?' Et ille:
'emolumentum pauperum, quamdiu aliquid habent, ut per lites, contenciones
et uexationes, siue iuste siue iniuste. Modo dixi tibi lucrum meum, unde
est. Die mihi, queso, unde est et tuum?' Respondit secundus dicens:
'Quicquid sub maledictione traditur diabolo, computo mihi pro lucro.' Risit
primus, et derisit secundum, non intelligens quod esset diabolus.
Paulo post cum transirent per ciuitatem, audierunt quemdam pauperem
maledicere cuidam uitulo quem duxit ad uendendum, quia indirecte ibat. Item
audierunt consimilem de muliere fustigante puerum suum. Tunc ait primus ad
secundum: 'Ecce potes lucrari, si uis. Tolle puerum et uitulum.' Respondit
secundus: 'Non possum, quia non maledicunt ex corde.'
Cum uero paululum processissent, pauperes euntes versus iudicium, uidentes
illium Senescallum, ceperunt omnes unanimiter maledictiones in ipsum
ingerere. Et dixit secundus ad primum: 'Audis quid isti dicunt?' 'Audio,'
inquit, 'sed nichil ad me.' Et dixit secundus: 'Isti maledicunt ex corde,
et te tradunt diabolo; et ideo meus eris.' Qui statim ipsum arripiens, cum
eo disparuit.
A similar story is printed in a Selection of Latin Stories, edited by Mr.
T. Wright for the Percy Society, vol. viii. p. 70. It is entitled 'De
Aduocato et Diabolo,' and was taken from the printed Promptuarium
Exemplorum, compiled in the early part of the fifteenth century. It is
reprinted in the Originals and Analogues, p. 106, and I here quote Dr.
Furnivall's abstract of it.
'A grasping lawyer, out to gather prey, met the Devil in the form of a man,
and could not get quit of him. A poor man, angry with his perverse pig,
said: "Devil take you!" But as he did not say it from his heart, the Devil
could not take the pig; nor could he a child, to which its mother said:
"Devil take you!" When, however, some townsmen saw the lawyer coming, they
all cried out: "May the Devil take you!" And, as they did it from the
bottom of their hearts, the Devil carried the lawyer off; as his man bore
witness.'
This Tale furnishes an admirable example of Chaucer's method; the mere
outline of the story is little altered, but his mode of telling gives it a
new spirit, and quiet touches of humour are abundant throughout.
A modernised version of this Tale, by Jeremiah Markland, was included in
Ogle's 'Canterbury Tales of Chaucer modernized by several hands,' published
by Tonson in 1741. Another such version, by Leigh Hunt, was included in
Horne's 'Poems of Geoffrey Chaucer Modernized,' published in 1841. See
Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, iii. 190, 217, 223.
§ 61. THE SOMNOUR'S PROLOGUE. The Freres Tale rouses the Somnour almost to
fury; and he begins by retorting that Friars have a peculiar knowledge of
hell, for obvious reasons; and emphasises his statement by a brief story,
which was probably a current popular joke. He then proceeds with his Tale.
§ 62. THE SOMNOURS TALE. The analogous French story was first pointed out
by M. Sandras, in his Étude sur Chaucer, 1859, p. 237. It is entitled Li
Dis de la Vescie a Prestre, the Story of the Priest's Bladder, and was
written by Jakes de Basiu, or Baisieux. It is printed in a collection
entitled Fabliaux ou Contes, Fables et Romans du xii^e et du xiii^e Siècle,
par Legrand D'Aussy; 1829; vol. iv. p. 18 of the Appendix. An analysis of
the story, in modern French, is given at p. 177 of the same.
The _Dis_ is reprinted among the Originals and Analogues, Chaucer Society,
1875, p. 137. I subjoin a very brief outline of it.
A Priest, dwelling near Antwerp, a wise man and a rich, falls ill, and is
about to die. He sends for his dean and his friends, to dispose of his
property. Two Jacobin friars come to visit him and to beg. The Priest
explains that all his property is settled. The friars insist on the merit
of giving to them above all others, and are very importunate. At last, to
quiet them, he tells them he will leave them a jewel for which he would not
take a thousand marks; and their Prior must come next day, to learn where
the jewel is kept.
Next day, five of the friars again visit the Priest, but leave the Prior at
home. The Priest says he will only reveal the secret in the presence of the
Sheriffs and the Mayor, who are duly sent for. On their arrival, the Priest
explains all about the cupidity and importunity of the two friars, and how,
in order to get rid of them, he promised to give them something which he
valued very much. He then reveals the secret, that the jewel is his own
bladder; and the Jacobins retire crest-fallen.
In the same volume of Fabliaux ou Contes, p. 184, M. Legrand d'Aussy says
that a somewhat similar story used to be told of the poet Jean de Meun,
who, it was said, left to the Jacobin friars some heavy coffers of
treasure, which were not to be opened till they had duly said a mass for
the repose of his soul. Of course the coffers were filled with pieces of
slate.
It is interesting to notice how Chaucer localises the story. He transfers
the scene from Antwerp to Holderness, just as, in the Reves Tale, he boldly
transfers it to Trumpington. The friar satirised in the Tale is clearly an
Englishman, and the whole is rendered definite and vivid.
In 1733, a Mr. Grosvenor wrote a sort of imitation of the Somnours Tale,
under the title of The Whimsical Legacy, as a contribution to Eustace
Budgell's periodical entitled The Bee. It is only a third of the length of
the original. It was reprinted by Ogle, in his Canterbury Tales Modernized,
in 1741. The poet Gay wrote another poor imitation, entitled An Answer to
the Sompner's Prologue in Chaucer, printed anonymously in Lintot's
Miscellany, entitled Poems on Several Occasions (1717), p. 147. See
Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer, iii. 125, 190, 192.
GROUP E.
§ 63. THE CLERK'S PROLOGUE. This begins a new Group of Tales. There is
nothing to connect this Prologue with any of the rest of the Tales. It
usually follows the Somnours Tale, as in most MSS. and in the early
editions.
The Prologue, in the usual riming couplets, is evidently later than the
Tale, and was supplied at the time of revision. It contains an interesting
allusion to Petrarch, whose death took place in July, 1374; see remarks
upon the Tale itself below. The latter part of the Prologue describes
briefly the contents of the Latin Proem prefixed to Petrarch's tale.
§ 64. THE CLERKES TALE. Of this tale, the main part is a rather close
translation from Petrarch's De obedientia et fide uxoriâ Mythologia, as
explained in the Notes; and it must be added that Petrarch had it from
Boccaccio. It is the very last tale--the tenth tale of the tenth day--in
the Decamerone, written shortly after the year 1348. Whether Boccaccio
invented it or not can hardly be determined; for an expression of Petrarch,
to the effect that he had heard it 'many years' (multos annos) before 1373,
is not at all decisive on this point, as he may easily have _heard_ it
twenty years before then, even though he had never before _read_ the
Decamerone, as he himself asserts. There has been some unnecessary
mystification about the matter. Tyrwhitt wonders why Chaucer should have
owned an obligation to Petrarch rather than to Boccaccio; but a very
cursory examination shews the now undoubted fact, that Chaucer follows
Petrarch almost word for word in many passages, though Petrarch by no means
closely follows Boccaccio. In fact, ll. 41-55 settle the matter. The date
of Petrarch's version, though a little uncertain, seems to have been 1373;
and Chaucer himself tells us that he met Petrarch at Padua[134]. We may
therefore readily adopt Dr. Furnivall's suggestion, that 'during his
Italian embassy in 1373, Chaucer may have met Petrarch.' Only let us
suppose for a moment that Chaucer himself knew best, that he is not
intentionally and unnecessarily inventing his statements, and all
difficulty vanishes. We know that Chaucer was absent from England on the
king's business, visiting Florence and Genoa, from December 1, 1372, till
some time before November 22, 1373. We know that Petrarch's letter to
Boccaccio, really forming a preface to the tale of Griselda, and therefore
written shortly _after_ he had made his version of it, is dated in some
copies June 8, 1373, though in other copies no date appears. And we know
that Petrarch, on his own shewing, was so pleased with the story of
Griselda that he learnt it by heart as well as he could, _for the express
purpose of repeating it to friends_, before the idea of turning it into
Latin occurred to him. Whence we may conclude that Chaucer and Petrarch met
at Padua early in 1373; that Petrarch told Chaucer the story by word of
mouth, either in Italian or French[135]; and that Chaucer shortly after
obtained a copy of Petrarch's Latin version, which he kept constantly
before him whilst making his own translation[136]. At this rate, the main
part of the Clerk's Tale was probably written in 1373 or early in
1374[137], and required but little revision to make it suitable for one of
the tales of the Canterbury series. The test of metre likewise suggests
that it was probably one of his early works. The closeness of the
translation also proves the same point. Chaucer, in his revised version,
adds the Prologue, containing an allusion to Petrarch's death (which took
place in 1374), and eulogises the great Italian writer according to his
desert. At the end of the translation, which terminates with l. 1162, he
adds two new stanzas, and the Envoy. The lateness of this (undramatic)
addition is proved at once by the whole tone of it, and, in particular, by
the mention of the Wife of Bath in l. 1170. The Envoy is a marvel of
rhythm, since, though it consists of thirty-six lines, it contains but
three rime-endings, viz. _-ence_, _-aille_, and _-inde_. Besides this
addition, there is yet one more, in the middle of the tale, viz. the two
stanzas in ll. 995-1008, as pointed out in the Notes; they are conspicuous
for their excellence.
The story of Griselda, as told by Boccaccio, together with Petrarch's Latin
version of it, and the letter of Petrarch to Boccaccio concerning it, are
all reprinted in the 'Originals and Analogues of some of Chaucer's
Canterbury Tales,' Part II, published for the Chaucer Society, and dated
(in advance) 1875. Were any additional proof needed that Chaucer had
Petrarch's version before him, it is supplied by the fact that numerous
quotations from that version are actually written in the margins of the
pages of the Ellesmere and Hengwrt MSS., each in its proper place. All the
passages that are made clearer by a comparison with the Latin text are duly
considered in the Notes. Speaking of the story of Griselda, Warton remarks
that it 'soon became so popular in France, that the comedians of Paris
represented a mystery in French verse, entitled Le mystere de Griselidis
Marquis[e] de Saluces, in the year 1393. Before, or in the same year, the
French prose version in Le Ménagier de Paris was composed, and there is an
entirely different version in the Imperial library. Lydgate, almost
Chaucer's contemporary, in his poem entitled the Temple of Glass, among the
celebrated lovers painted on the walls of the Temple, mentions Dido, Medea
and Jason, Penelope, Alcestis, _Patient Griselda_[138], Belle Isoulde and
Sir Tristram, Pyramus and Thisbe, Theseus, Lucretia, Canace, Palamon, and
Emilia.' Elsewhere Warton remarks (Hist. Eng. Poetry, ed. Hazlitt, iv. 229,
note 3) that 'the affecting story of _Patient Grisild_ seems to have long
kept up its celebrity. In the books of the Stationers, in 1565, Owen Rogers
has a licence to print "a Ballat intituled the Songe of Pacyent Gressell
vnto hyr make" [husband]; Registr. A. fol. 132, b. Two ballads are entered
in 1565, "to the tune of pacyente Gressell"; ibid. fol. 135, a. In the same
year T. Colwell has licence to print The History of meke and pacyent
Gresell; ibid. fol. 139, a. Instances occur much lower.' See also Hazlitt's
Handbook of Early English Literature.
In Originals and Analogues, published by the Chaucer Society, 1887, p. 527,
there is an article by Mr. Clouston giving an abstract of an Early French
version of this story which was printed in Le Grand's Fabliaux ou Contes,
du XIII^e et du XIIII^e siècle, ed. 1781, tome ii. 232-252. Mr. Clouston
draws the conclusion that both the Latin version in Petrarch and the
Italian version in Boccaccio were taken from a common source closely
resembling this Early French _fabliau_. 'The differences,' he observes,
'between the French and Latin versions are few and immaterial. As Petrarch
plainly states that he was familiar with the tale long before he had read
it in the Decameron, we may, I think, safely conclude that he knew it from
a _fabliau_, which was probably also the source of Boccaccio's novel.'
Similar tales are not common in Asiatic literature; but 'in the earlier
literature of India,' says Mr. Clouston, 'before it could be affected by
baleful Muslim notions regarding women, there occur several notable tales
of faithful, virtuous, obedient wives.' One is the tale of a queen, as
given in the Kathá Sárit Ságara (Tawney's translation, vol. i. p. 355); see
the abstract by Mr. Clouston. Another faithful wife appears in Sitá, the
spouse of Ráma, in the great Hindú epic, the Rámayana; and again, in
Damayanti, wife of Nala, in the beautiful episode called the Tale of Nala,
in the great poem entitled the Mahábhárata.
Two English versions of the Tale of Griselda are printed in vol. iii. of
the Percy Society's publications. One is in prose, dated 1610, and is said
to have been 'written first in French'; the other, in ballad form, is said
to be 'translated out of Italian.'
There is a ballad called 'Patient Grissell,' in the Percy Folio MS., ed.
Hales and Furnivall, iii. 421; and there is one by Thomas Deloney in
Professor Child's English and Scottish Ballads, vol. iv. Professor Child
remarks that 'two plays upon the subject are known to have been written,
one of which (by Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton) has been printed by the
Shakespeare Society, while the other, an older production of the close of
Henry VIII's reign, is lost.' Pepys refers to the 'puppet-play' of Patient
Grizell in his Diary, Aug. 30, 1667. Butler, in his Hudibras (pt. i. c. 2.
772), couples Grizel with Job.
In Italy the story is so common that it is still often acted in marionette
theatres; it is to be had, moreover, in common chap-books, and a series of
cheap pictures representing various scenes in it may often be seen
decorating cottage-walls. (Notes and Queries, 5th S. i. 105, 255). The same
thing was done in England.
We in the country do not scorn
Our walls with ballads to adorn
Of patient Grissel and the Lord of Lorn.'
Ritson's Ancient Songs, i. xcviii.
Several scenes of the tale are well exhibited in an excellent picture by
Pinturicchio, in the National Gallery (London).
For remarks upon the conduct of the tale and the character of the heroine,
see Prof. Hales's criticisms in the Percy Folio MS., iii. 421, and in
Originals and Analogues of Chaucer, Part II, pp. 173-176. There are also a
few good remarks on it in Canterbury Tales from Chaucer, by J. Saunders,
ed. 1889, p. 308, where the author points out that, as the Marquis was
Griselda's feudal lord, she could but say 'yes' when asked to marry him,
the asking being a mere form; and that the spirit of chivalry appears in
her devotion of herself to his every wish.
§ 65. THE MERCHANT'S PROLOGUE. It seems to have been Chaucer's first
intention to end the Clerkes Tale at l. 1163. He then began writing a new
Prologue, but only finished one stanza of it. This stanza is given in the
footnote at p. 424 of vol. iv.[139] He then changed his mind, rejected this
stanza, and wrote (instead of it) the late addition to the Clerkes Tale
given on pp. 424-5, lines 1163-1212. The last line (l. 1212) ends
with--'care, and wepe, and wringe, and waille.' Then, with reference to
this line, he makes the Merchant's Prologue begin with the words '_Weping_,
and _wayling, care_,' &c. In this way, the Clerkes Tale and that of the
Marchant are indissolubly connected, as in the Ellesmere MS. and most
others. There is, however, one set of MSS. which _disconnects_ these Tales,
as explained in the Introduction to vol. iv. p. xxiii. This is the set
there marked D. Unfortunately, Thynne followed a MS. of this class, in
which the worst arrangement of the Tales occurs. Hence in all the
black-letter editions, the Tales are sadly out of order, and the Clerkes
Tale is wrongly followed by that of the Frankeleyn. This causes a breaking
up of Group F as well as of Group E, the Squieres Tale being followed by
that of the Marchant, as noted in § 69 below.
The close connexion between this Prologue and the preceding Tale is further
seen in the whole tenor of ll. 1213-39; note particularly the express
mention of _Grisildis_ in l. 1224.
In consequence of their dislocation of the order of the Tales, the
black-letter editions substitute the word _Marchant_ for _Frankeleyn_ in F
675 and 696, and even alter the ending of F 699, viz. 'quod the
frankeleyn,' into 'quod the marchant certeyn,' a forced alteration which is
obviously spurious. They then place F 673-708 before E 1213; which is an
extremely clumsy arrangement. Tyrwhitt put this matter right in his
edition, being here guided by the authority of the majority of the MSS.
§ 66. THE MARCHANTES TALE. This Tale is certainly a late addition. Dr.
Köppel has shewn[140] that several lines in this Tale are imitated from
Albertano of Brescia, so that it becomes clear that the Tale of Melibeus
(which is little else than a translation from that author) had already been
written before the Marchantes Tale was begun. This easily appears by
comparing the following passages: (_a_) E 1362-1374 with B 2287-91, where
Jacob, Judith, Abigail, and Hester are mentioned, in both passages, in the
same order: (_b_) E 1483-6 with B 2193: (_c_) E 2246-8 with B 2247, and E
2250 with B 2249: (_d_) E 2277-81 and 2286-90 with B 2266-70: (_e_) E 2365
with B 2167. Moreover, in two instances at least, Chaucer follows the Latin
text of Albertano even where there is no corresponding passage in the Tale
of Melibeus. Thus, in E 1373, there is mention of _Mardochee_; but he is
not named in B 2291. However, the Latin text has: 'Simili modo et Hester
Iudaeos per suum bonum consilium simul cum _Mardochaeo_, in regno Assueri
regis, sublimauit'; cap. v. (ed. T. Sundby, p. 17). Again, the lines E
1375-6 do not appear after B 2298 (their proper place), but only occur in
the Latin text: 'Quartam uero rationem ad hoc inducit Seneca, commendans
super omnia benignas coniuges; ait enim: Sicut nihil est superius benigna
coniuge, ita nihil est crudelius infesta muliere'; (p. 18).
Dr. Köppel has further pointed out, in the same article, that Chaucer has
also introduced into this Tale some quotations from another work by
Albertano, entitled Liber de amore et dilectione Dei; for examples, see the
Notes. Moreover, this Tale also exhibits quotations from Boethius, as, e.g.
in E 2021-2, for which see Boethius, bk. iii. pr. 2. 55; and, in one
passage, E 1582, we find a reminiscence both of Boethius, bk. v. met. 4. 8,
and of Troilus, i. 365. But, beyond all this, there is the somewhat
extraordinary reference to the Wife of Bath's Prologue in E 1685, where we
are told that she had already discussed the question of marriage 'in litel
space.' This shews at once, past all doubt, that the Marchantes Tale was
not only written later than Melibeus, Boethius, and Troilus; but even later
than the highly mature performance written in the Wife's name, as the
result of her wide experience.
The Tale practically consists of three parts. The first part (E 1245-1688)
is a discourse upon marriage, somewhat in the style of the Wife of Bath's
Prologue, but treating it from a more favourable point of view, with the
addition of some hints from Albertano of Brescia. The second part describes
the wedding of January and May, and the love-languor of Damian (E
1689-2056). The third part describes how January became blind, and the
means whereby he was restored to sight (E 2057-2418). The last part has
several analogues, and is, in fact, founded on a story once widely current.
For a full account of this story, see Originals and Analogues, Chaucer
Society, pp. 177 and 341. Chaucer probably took the outline of his story
from some French or Latin source. Tyrwhitt says:--'The scene of the
Marchantes Tale is laid in Italy, but none of the names, except Damian and
Justin, seem to be Italian, but rather made at pleasure; so that I doubt
whether the story be really of Italian growth. The adventure of _the
Pear-tree_ I find in a small collection of Latin fables, written by one
Adolphus, in elegiac verses of his fashion, in the year 1315. The same
story is inserted among the Fables of Alphonse, printed by Caxton in
English, with those of Æsop, Avian, and Pogge, without date; but I do not
find it in the original Latin of Alphonsus (MS. Bibl. Reg. 10 B xii), or in
any of the French translations of his work that I have examined.'
Five 'Pear-tree' stories are printed in the Originals and Analogues. The
first is the fable of Adolphus, above mentioned. It is the first fable in
Adolphi Fabulae, printed in Polycarpi Leyseri Historia Poetarum et Poematum
Medii Ævi: Halae Magdelburgiae, 1721, p. 2008. It consists of thirty-six
elegiac lines, and tells how a blind man's wife ascended a pear-tree in
which her lover was hidden; whereupon the blind man's sight was suddenly
restored, and she explains that the cure was due to her contrivance.
Another very similar story occurs in an Appendix to the Latin editions of
Æsop's Fables printed in the fifteenth century, and was reprinted by Wright
in his 'Latin Stories,' for the Percy Society, 1842, p. 78. This is the
same story, or nearly so, as the fable of Alphonsus which Tyrwhitt failed
to find, and is written in prose. The English version (as Tyrwhitt says)
was printed by Caxton in 1483, in The Book of the subtyl hystoryes and
Fables of Esope[141], at leaf 132. The title runs, 'The xii fable is of a
blynd man and of hys wyf.'
A third Latin 'Pear-tree' story occurs in the Comoedia Lydiae, by Matthieu
de Vendôme, and was printed from a MS. at Vienna, in Anecdota Poetica, &c.:
Poésies Inédites du moyen áge; par Edélestand du Méril; 1854, p. 370. This
is in seventy-two elegiac lines, and gives names to the personages
mentioned. The husband and wife are Duke Decius and Lydia; her lover is
Pyrrhus, and her maid is Lusca. Hence it is evidently the source of the
similar story in Boccaccio's Decamerone, Day 7, Nov. 9, in which the
husband and wife are Nicostratus and Lydia, and the lover is Pyrrhus, as
before. In this third version of the story the husband is not blind, but
the pear-tree is supposed to be enchanted, and to cause false illusions to
appear.
In the same Originals and Analogues, at p. 343, Mr. Clouston has collected
several Asiatic stories of a similar character, including one in the
Bahár-i Dánush, or Spring of Knowledge; a Turkish Version in the romance of
The Forty Vazírs, about an enchanted tree which is supposed to cause
illusions; and an Arabian Version found in the Breslau printed text of the
Arabian Nights, ed. Habicht and Fleischer, and printed in English in Tales
from the Arabic, by John Payne (London, printed for the Villon Society,
1884), vol. i. p. 270. Of a similar type is the story of The Officious
Father-in-Law, occurring in the Persian Sindibád Náma (second tale of the
Fifth Vazír), in the Túti Náma (eighth night, story of the Fifth Vazír),
and in the Sanskrit Suka Saptati (fifteenth night). A similar story to that
in the Bahár-i Dánush is current in Ceylon; and a translation of it is
given in the Orientalist, vol. ii. (1885), p. 148, reprinted by Mr.
Clouston. Other examples are added, which, however, bear but a remote
resemblance to the Tale in Chaucer.
I may add that I find a French variant of the story in the Poésies de Marie
de France, ed. Roquefort, Paris, 1820; 2 vols. It is the fortieth Fable in
that work, and is headed, 'Dou vileins qui vit un autre Hom od sa femme.'
But this version omits the husband's blindness and the pear-tree, and
merely says that a thing is not necessarily true because you _see_ it. In
conclusion, Mr. Clouston says:--'The model of both Boccaccio's and
Chaucer's tales seems to have been the version found in the Comoedia
Lydiae, or one similar to it. The story may perhaps exist in some of the
great medieval monkish collections of sermons, or of _exempla_ designed for
the use of preachers, such as the Sermones of Jacques de Vitry; the Liber
de Donis of Étienne de Bourbon; the Promptuarium Exemplorum of John Herolt;
the Summa Praedicantium of John Bromyard. In the absence of any Eastern
version representing the cuckolded husband as being blind and having his
sight miraculously restored to discover himself dishonoured, we must
conclude that this form of the story is of European invention. It is
needless to add that Chaucer's tale of January and May is incomparably the
best-told of all the versions, whether Asiatic or European.'
One peculiarity of this Tale requires further notice, viz. the mention of
Pluto. As to this, Tyrwhitt well remarks--'The machinery of the Faeries,
which Chaucer has used so happily, was probably added by himself; and
indeed I cannot help thinking, that his _Pluto_ and _Proserpina_ were the
true progenitors of _Oberon_ and _Titania_.... In the rest of his Faery
system, Shakespeare seems to have followed the popular superstitions of his
own time.'