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,'