§ 22. An early play called 'Palamon and Arcite,' by Richard Edwards, was produced at Oxford in 1566 before Queen Elizabeth; and Henslowe mentions a play with the same name in 1594. Hence also the play of 'The Two Noble Kinsmen,' printed in 1634, with a title-page in which it was attributed to Shakespeare and Fletcher; see my edition, published for the Cambridge University Press in 1875. Dryden's fine poem of Palamon and Arcite is well known; we need not compare it with Chaucer's work very closely. Though inferior to the original, it has a certain excellence of its own. A modernisation of the Knightes Tale by Lord Thurlow appeared in 1822; concerning which nothing need be said. For further remarks on this Tale, consult Warton, History of Eng. Poetry, sect. xii, who, by the way, characterises the description of Lycurgus as being 'very great in the gothic style of painting'; where it is charitable to suppose that by 'gothic' he meant 'English,' but lacked the courage to use the word. And see Morley, Eng. Writers, v. 312; Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer; an essay by Dr. J. Koch, in Essays on Chaucer, p. 359 (Chaucer Society); and remarks by Ten Brink, in his Chaucer Studien, p. 62, and Geschichte der englischen Litteratur, book v.
We may observe that Chaucer has evidently assigned the first place to the Knightes Tale, as being, in his own opinion, the best. It was probably intended that the Knight, the most worshipful person in the company, should succeed in 'winning the supper.'
§ 23. The Miller's Prologue. The Knightes Tale ended, the Host calls upon the Monk to tell the second Tale; but the drunken Miller, notwithstanding the fact that he is perfectly aware of his condition, churlishly insists on telling a Tale to the grave discredit of a Carpenter. This announcement is resented, somewhat strangely, not by the Carpenter who is expressly named as being among the pilgrims (Prol. 361), but by the Reeve, who had learnt a carpenter's trade in his youth (Prol. 614). But remonstrance is vain, and the Miller proceeds. Chaucer is careful to advise those who object to a coarse story to 'turne over the leef; and he has good reason for giving the hint.
§ 24. The Milleres Tale. 'When,' says Tyrwhitt, 'the Knight has finished his Tale, the Host with great propriety calls upon the Monk, as the next in rank among the men, to tell the next Tale; but as it seems to have been the intention of Chaucer to avail himself of the variety of his characters, in order to distribute alternate successions of serious and comic, in nearly equal proportions, throughout his work, he has contrived that the Hostes arrangement shall be set aside by the intrusion of the drunken Miller, whose Tale is such as might be expected from his character and condition, a complete contrast to the Knightes.'
No early Tale resembling this has yet been pointed out. Nevertheless, it is not likely that the main details were of Chaucer's own invention, as clear traces of the same story have been found in Germany. This was pointed out by R. Köhler, of Weimar, in Anglia, vol. i. p. 38; who gives a summary of a very similar story occurring in a book entitled Nachtbüchlein, by Valentin Schumann, which appeared in 1559. At the beginning of the first Part of this work is a tale entitled: 'Ein andere Hystoria von einem Kauffmann der forcht sich vor dem Jüngsten Tage,' or the Tale of a Merchant who dreaded the advent of the Last Day.
The latter part of the story, about Absolon and Nicholas, occurs (says Köhler) in an Italian novel, viz. in novel no. 49 in the collection by Massuccio di Salerno, who flourished about 1470; see chap. viii. of Dunlop's Hist. of Fiction. It is also found, as he further tells us, in a carnival-play by Hanz Folz (in Keller, i. 330).
Another German version similar to that in the Nachtbüchlein, is found in a modern collection entitled 'Sagen, Märchen, und Lieder der Herzogtümer Schleswig-Holstein und Lauenburg,' Kiel, 1845, p. 589 (Anglia, i. 186).
A third German version occurs in a book of the 17th century, entitled 'Lyrum Larum, seu Nugae Venales Ioco Seriae'; see Anglia, ii. 135.
Some have imagined a resemblance between this Tale and one in Boccaccio's Decamerone, Day 3, Nov. 4; but it is a very remote one, so that the reference is practically worthless.
Chaucer's story reappears in an English imitation of it, very briefly told in prose, in a book entitled 'The Life and Death of the merry Deuill of Edmonton, with the pleasaunt prancks of Smug the Smith, &c. By T[homas] B[rewer]. Printed by T. P. for F. Faulkner; 1631.' The chapter is headed: 'How Smug was reuenged upon a Barber (his riuall) that made him kisse his tayle.' The story is reprinted in full by L. Proescholdt, of Homburg, in Anglia, vii. 117.
Lounsbury, in his Studies of Chaucer, iii. 89, mentions a worthless book by Richard Braithwaite, dated 1665, called 'A Comment upon the Two Tales of our ancient, renowned, and ever-living poet, Sir Jeffray Chaucer, Knight.' The 'Two Tales' are those of the Miller and the Wife of Bath. From the same work (iii. 188) we learn that Samuel Cobb published a modernised version of the Tale in 1712, which adheres rather closely to the original, but is of no value.
§ 25. The Reeve's Prologue. Oswold, the Reeve, being by trade a carpenter, is somewhat offended by the Miller's discourse; and, after a little moral talk, which the Host speedily cuts short, undertakes to tell a similar Tale to the discredit of a miller; and certainly succeeds in requiting him in kind. Chaucer's former hint, to turn over the leaf (A 3183), may be applied to this Tale also. But no such hint is given.
§ 26. The Reves Tale. This story resembles one which occurs in Boccaccio's Decamerone, Day 9, Nov. 6; but this only proves that both are derived from a common source[99]. A closer resemblance to Chaucer's story, as pointed out by Mr. T. Wright, occurs in a French Fabliau found in MS. Berne, no. 354, fol. 164, back. It was first printed in Wright's Anecdota Litteraria, p. 15, and is reprinted in Originals and Analogues, p. 93 (Chaucer Society). We find in it very similar incidents. Two clerks take a sack of wheat to a mill to be ground. They throw down the sack on the mill-floor, and turn their mare loose in a meadow. One of them stays to watch the sack, whilst the other seeks the miller, who is in a neighbouring wood. The first clerk grows tired of waiting, and goes after the other. Meanwhile, the miller returns, and secretes the sack. The clerks, returning, can find neither sack nor mare. At last they ask the miller to take them in for the night. The story proceeds nearly as in Chaucer; and, in the sequel, the clerks regain both wheat and mare, and take the wheat to be ground elsewhere. Perhaps it is needless to add that Chaucer's Tale is none the less original. His mode of telling it is such as to render it wholly his own.
Another story, of a similar cast, occurs in another French Fabliau, by Jean de Boves, entitled De Gombert et des Deux Clers. It is printed in Méon's edition of Barbazan's Fabliaux et Contes, vol. iii. pp. 239-44, Paris, 1808; and is reprinted, from two MSS. in the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris (nos. 837, 2168), in Originals and Analogues, p. 87 (Chaucer Society). This story is less complete, as it omits all the former part, about taking the wheat to be ground. Two clerks seek lodging with a vilain, named Gombert; one of them falls in love with Gombert's wife, and the other, with his daughter. The rest of the story is much the same as before.
A later version occurs in a black-letter quarto volume printed by Wynkyn de Worde, entitled 'A mery Iest of the Mylner of Abyngton[100] with his Wyfe and his Doughter, and the two poore scholers of Cambridge'; reprinted in Hazlitt's Early Popular Poetry, iii. 98. I do not agree with Hazlitt's opinion that this story has 'little or nothing in common' with the Reves Tale; on the contrary, I should say that the author took his story from Chaucer, as is tolerably obvious from the mention of Cambridge, but took some pains to disguise its origin. Although he alters Trumpington to Abington, many particulars are closely copied, as, e.g. the precise manner in which the two clerks watch the grinding of the wheat, one from above, and one from below. I equally dissent from Hazlitt's other opinion, that, 'in an artistic and constructive point of view, the "Mylner of Abyngton" is superior to its predecessor.' The decisions of some critics are simply inexplicable.
In the Preface to Dyce's edition of Skelton, vol. i. p. lxvi., there is a 'Merie Tale' of Skelton, entitled 'How Master Skeltons miller deceyued hym manye times by playinge the theefe,' &c. It illustrates the tricks of millers, but the story is different.
Besides these, two German versions of the story occur in MSS., and there is a short Latin version of it in De Generibus Ebriosorum (1516). See an able discussion of the whole matter in an excellent article by H. Varnhagen, printed in Englische Studien, vol. ix. pp. 240-266. Varnhagen reprints the French Fabliau given in Wright's Anecdota Litteraria, but from another MS., of the 13th century, found at Berlin. He also reprints the Milner of Abington, with a better arrangement of the text, shewing its true metrical form. He then investigates the relationship to one another of all the various versions, exhibiting the result in a table printed at p. 266.
As to the connexion between Chaucer's Tale and the French Fabliau in the Berne MS., Varnhagen points out some interesting resemblances, such as the following:—
Diu povre clerc furent jadis.—1.
Than were ther yonge povre clerkes two.—A 4002.
Né d'une vile et d'un pais.—2.
Of o toun were they born.—A 4014.
Il a son conpaignon bouté.—190.
He poked Iohn.—A 4169.
Qant il oït lo coc chanter.—257.
Til that the thridde cok bigan to singe.—A 4233.
Tantost prant lo clerc par la gole.—288.
And by the throte-bolle he caughte Alayn.—A 4273.
§ 27. The Cook's Prologue. The Cook heartily approves of the Reves Tale, and informs the company that his name is Hogge (Hodge) of Ware; at the same time volunteering a story. The Host approves the offer—
'Now telle on, Roger; loke that it be good'—
but accuses him of cheating his customers. The Cook replies good-humouredly, calling the Host by his name, 'Herry Bailly,' and suggests that he knows a tale not much to the credit of 'an hostileer.' However, he will not tell that tale now.
§ 28. The Cokes Tale. This Tale, as found in all the MSS., is a mere fragment, extending to only 58 lines; and this portion is insufficient to shew the form which the Tale was meant to take. The portrait of Perkin Revelour, the idle apprentice, is, however, clearly drawn.
It would seem as if this fragment was meant to be suppressed; for, in the Manciple's Prologue, the Host calls upon the Cook to tell a tale, even if it be worthless; but the Manciple intercedes, and the Host excuses him, because he is so helplessly drunk (H 13, 29). This seems to presuppose that the Cook had told no tale as yet; for, by this time, Chaucer had arrived at his modified plan, which required only one Tale from each pilgrim on the outward journey (§ 14); and the Manciple is called upon to tell his own Tale instead, as he had hitherto told none.
§ 29. The Tale of Gamelyn. This Tale is, of course, not Chaucer's, and is never found in MSS. of the A-type (see Pref. to vol. iv). Perhaps we may hence infer that MSS. of that type represent the text of the Tales as it stood before Chaucer's death; whereas, after that event, 'Gamelyn' was inserted amongst them by scribes or friends who found it amongst the writings which he had left behind him. We cannot doubt that, if Chaucer had rewritten this Tale, he would have placed it in the mouth of the Yeman. As, however, it happens to have been inserted immediately after the Cook's Tale, a late hand, in the Harl. MS. 7334, has scribbled above it—'The Cokes Tale of Gamelyn'; whence the blunder arose of connecting it with the Cook.
As the Tale is found in several of the MSS., I have printed it in the Appendix to vol. iv., pp. 645-667, in smaller type. The text is mainly from MS. Harl. 7334, collated with Harl. Cp., Ln., Pt., Rl., and Sl.; see footnote on p. 645 of vol. iv., and the description of the MSS. in the Introduction to that volume.
The Tale is evidently of some antiquity, and may be dated, approximately, about 1340. One line which occurs in it twice over (see ll. 277, 764) is quoted, almost exactly, from l. 475 of a Poem on the Evil Times of Edward II., as printed by Mr. Wright for the Camden Society in 1839, the probable date of which is about 1320.
The dialect is more northern than that of the Canterbury Tales, and resembles that of Lincolnshire. The proportion of French words is much smaller: see, e. g., ll. 5-7, 9-13, 16, 20-30, in which no French words occur. The proportion of Scandinavian words is larger; we may notice serk (Lowl. Sc. sark) in l. 259, skeet, quickly, in l. 187, which do not occur in Chaucer. The very name of Gamelyn is of Scandinavian origin, answering to a form Gamel-īn, from the Norse word for 'old,' as seen in Icel. gamall, Swed. gammal, Dan. gammel. It is perhaps the original of Gandeleyn, which occurs in a ballad entitled 'Robyn and Gandeleyn,' belonging to the cycle of the Robin Hood ballads (cf. p. 381). The exploits of Gamelyn remind us somewhat of those of Havelok; in particular, the marvellous way in which Gamelyn lays about him, at one time with a 'pestle' (l. 128) and at another with a 'cart-staff' (l. 500), recalls Havelok's feat in killing twenty men with the bar of a door; see the Lay of Havelok the Dane, ed. Skeat, ll. 1794-1859. On the whole, we may fairly connect this Tale with the neighbourhood of Sherwood Forest, to which so many of the Robin Hood ballads belong; and its considerable antiquity gives it a peculiar interest.
§ 30. The story evidently belongs to that highly popular class in which it is the youngest of three brothers who is the successful hero[101]. I should be inclined to believe that the Tale is not wholly due to the invention of its author, but is derived, like the Lay of Havelok, from some Anglo-French original; whilst there are, at the same time, some traces (as in that poem) of Scandinavian influence. The name Sir Johan of Boundes is French; since Boundes is the pl. of bound, from the Old French bonne, a limit; the equivalent English phrase for 'of Boundes' would be 'of the Marches.' The name of his second son is Otes (l. 727) or Ote (l. 731), which is the nom. case of the F. Otoun, from the Lat. Othonem, accusative of Otho (cf. G. Otto). Otoun is the name of a French knight who was vanquished by Sir Guy of Warwick.
§ 31. Some of the rimes in this poem are imperfect, as wit, bet, 111; whilst gat-e, scap-e, 575, form a mere assonance. We also find mere repetitions, such as now, now, 93; thee, thee, 399; another, other, 445. The rime thare, yare, 793, is certainly Northern. So also ying, king, 887; yet, at l. 169, we find tonge, yonge, shewing that the author was not very particular.
The metre is not easy to follow, being very variable; it resembles that of such popular nursery rimes as 'Sing a song of sixpence,' wherein two consecutive accents, as in 'And snápped óff her nose,' excite no surprise or difficulty. Each verse is divided into two parts by a metrical pause, denoted in this edition by a raised full stop (·). Each part is of variable length, and may be considered separately. In the former part the chief varieties conform to the following types, where 'A' denotes an accented syllable, and 'b' an unaccented one.
(1) A b A b A b; as in l. 12:—
Hów his chíldren shóld-e.
So also ll. 15, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 49.
(2) b A b A b A; as in l. 71:—
He toók intó his hónd.
So also ll. 88, 93, 105, 143, 200, 287.
(3) b A b A b A b; as in l. 2:—
And yé schull' héer' a tálking.
So also ll. 9, 17, 19, 27, 29, 32, 42, 61, 64.
The above half-lines contain three accents; but four accents occur also, chiefly in the following types.
(4) A b A b A b A; as in l. 120:—
Gámelýn was wár anón.
So also ll. 123, 135, 139, 252, 280, 282, 306. Also ll. 199, 207, where Good-e marks the vocative case.
(5) A b A b A b A b; as in l. 34:—
Bót' of bál-e gód may sénd-e.
So also ll. 118, 336.
(6) b A b A b A b A; as in l. 6:—
The éldest wás a móche schréw'.
So also ll. 55 (neyh-e-bours having three syllables), 62, 80, 94, 96, 99, 100, 107, 109, 125, 136, 153.
(7) b A b A b A b A b; as in ll. 31, 58:—
And séyd-e, sír', for góddes lóv-e.
That wás my fádres héritág-e.
Most of the further variations are caused by the slurring of a slight syllable which is practically superfluous; or, on the other hand, by the omission of an unaccented syllable where we should expect to hear one. The former of these processes is simple and common. Thus, in l. 18, we have:—
To hélp-e délen his lóndes,
where the two syllables italicised are run together, and the line is really 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.