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