No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
It has for a long time been generally agreed among Chaucerian scholars that the most serious defect of the Chaucer Society's arrangement of the Canterbury Tales is its placing of the Physician's Tale, Pardoner's prolog, and Pardoner's Tale, which constitute what is generally known as Group C, between the Nun's Priest's Tale and the Wife of Bath's prolog. This arrangement has absolutely no ms. authority, for no ms. is known to exist in which Group C either precedes Group D or follows Group B. Nor does Group C contain any references to time or place which make the Chaucer Society's arrangement a probable one. Indeed, the arrangement was adopted for no better reason than to make the tales of the third day not less than those of the second, a reason which we can only characterise as a trivial one.
1 Furnivall, Temporary Preface, p. 42; cf. ibid., pp. 24 ff.
2 Ibid., p. 25.
3 These mss. (indicated by means of Miss Hammond's abbreviations, Chaucer, pp. 163 ff.) are these: Adds. 5140; Adds. 35286; Egerton 2726; Harley 1758; Harley 7333; Harley 7334; Lansd. 851; Royal 17; Royal 18; Sloane 1685; Sloane 1686; Barlow; Bodl. 414; Bodl. 686; Laud 600; Laud 739; Rawl. poet. 149; Ch. Ch.; Corpus; New; Dd.; Gg.; Ii.; Del.; Dev.; Ellesmere; Hengwrt; Egerton 2863; Egerton 2864; Hodson-Ashb.; Hodson; Lichfield; Paris. The data concerning nearly all of these mss. are given by Miss Hammond, pp. 173 ff., for the most part from her own collations. The order of the tales in Hengwrt is not given by her but must be ascertained from Furnivall's Trial-Tables, Six-Text Print, Part I.
4 Tho the Hatton ms. places E1 between C and B2, and the Petworth ms. places the first part of B2 (Shipman and Prioress) before B1 with the rest of B2 after C, the presence in both of the spurious Pardoner-Shipman link shows that the present arrangement is not original but the result of displacement; for the data see Hammond, pp. 184, 200. Ms. Mm divides B2 into three fragments, one of them following C, but the presence of the spurious Pardoner-Shipman link and the numbers attached to the tales show that the original arrangement was CB2; for the data see Hammond, pp. 192, 188.
5 These mss. are Rawl. poet. 223, Trinity 49, Trinity 3, Trinity 15, Northumberland; for the data see Hammond, pp. 186, 189, 193, 199.
6 Hammond, p. 187. B1 and B2 are connected by means of the Man of Law's end-link, which is here converted into a Shipman's prolog. That the Selden ms. is not a trustworthy authority as to arrangement is the opinion of Hammond (Chaucer, p. 187), and it was also that of Skeat (Modern Language Review, v, pp. 430 ff.).
7 The separation of the Merchant's Tale from the Clerk's Tale must be the result of accidental displacement, for the linking of the two is complete in the text of the Selden ms., even tho the interposition of Group D breaks the continuity of Group E.
8 For the alternative hypothesis, that all existing mss. are derived from a single ms. which was not Chaucer's own and in which the tales were arranged in an order for which he was not responsible, we have not a particle of evidence, and the hypothesis is improbable in itself.
9 The order AB1 is found in the following 35 mss.: Adds. 5140: Adds. 35286; Egerton 2726; Harley 1758; Harley 7333; Harley 7334; Harley 7335; Lansd. 851; Royal 17; Royal 18; Sloane 1685; Sloane 1686; Barlow; Bodl. 414; Bodl. 686; Laud 739; Rawl. poet. 141; Rawl. poet. 149; Rawl. poet. 223; Corpus; New; Dd.; Gg.; Ii.; Trinity 3; Trinity 15; Dev.; Ellesmere; Egerton 2863; Hodson-Ashb.; Hodson; Egerton 2864; Lichfield; Northumberland; Paris. For the data concerning their arrangement see Hammond, pp. 173 ff. It is clear from the state of the links that this was also the order back of mss. Hatton and Petworth (see Hammond, pp. 184 and 200, and note 4 above); the numbers attached to the tales in MS. Mm show that this ms. also was derived from one having the order AB1 (see Hammond, p. 192). Mss. Laud 600, Ch. Ch., Del., Hengwrt, and Holkham do not have the order AB1, but place B1 elsewhere, always in some position which cannot possibly be correct and not the same in any two mss. See Hammond, pp. 185, 188, 195, 196, 198. Ms. Trinity 49 places B1 in still a different position, between the Pardoner's Tale and a fragment of B2 (see Hammond, p. 189), but the state of its links has never been ascertained and it is therefore not possible to say what may have been the arrangement of the ms. from which it was derived. MS. Selden and its arrangement have already been discussed.
10 Of the mss. which contain both groups, all but five have them in the order HI. These mss., Adds. 35286, Rawl. poet 223, Ch. Ch., Trinity 3, Hengwrt, have different arrangements, of which all must be wrong and none is found in more than one MS. For the data see Hammond, pp. 173, 186, 188, 193, and the Trial-Tables.
11 For the internal evidence see Kittredge's article, Chaucer's Discussion of Marriage, Modern Philology, ix, pp. 435 ff. The ms. evidence is too complex to be stated here. In general it may be said that all the mss. which have all of D E F either (1) present the groups as a solid block of text, arranged in the order in which I have named them; or (2) present all of the material of these groups as a solid block of Text, but with various misarrangements of the members of which the groups are composed; or (3) present as a solid block of text the great bulk of the material, but with various mismanagements of the members of the groups and with one member separated altogether from its fellows by the interposition of other sections of text. Of (1) an example is the Ellesmere ms., of (2) an example is Harley 7333, and of (3) an example is the Hatton ms. Two mss. Ch. Ch. and Hengwrt, break up D E F to a greater extent than mss. of the third class; for the arrangement of these see Hammond, p. 188 and the Trial-Tables. In mss. Adds. 35286, Harley 7335, and Laud 600 the arrangement of the text resembles that of the mss. of the first class but is not identical with it; see Hammond, pp. 173, 179, 185.
12 To place D E F between G and H would be against the clear evidence of the mss., for (except in ms. Selden) the only group which ever breaks the sequence G H is CB2.
13 For the data see Hammond, pp. 173 if. and the Trial-Tables.
14 The exact location of Bob-up-and-down has never been satisfactorily determined, but since Group G certainly precedes Group HI Bob-up-and-down must have been farther along the road to Canterbury than Boughton.
15 A 3906.
16 That is, assuming that we are justified in arranging the Canterbury Tales at all. Skeat in his later years was of the opinion that we are not, but that the sole duty of the editor with regard to the arrangement of the tales is to ascertain precisely the order in which Chaucer left them and print them in that order (The Eight-Text Edition of the Canterbury Tales, pp. 35 f.). He accordingly recommended to future editors the course of printing the tales in what is virtually the order of ms. Harley 7334 (Modern Language Review, v, p. 434). Scholars who do not share Skeat's belief that Harley 7334 “gives the best and latest authoritative arrangement of the tales” (The Eight-Text Edition of the Canterbury Tales, p. 35), might, if they wished to follow this principle, print the tales in the order in which they occur in some other MS. The principle, tho a perfectly defensible one on abstract grounds, would be difficult to apply in practice and its application could scarcely give any very valuable result. A better principle seems to me to be that which Tatlock states when he says that “if we can devise an arrangement without serious inconsistencies, we are justified in preferring it to a self-contradictory one, and in accepting it as coming near Chaucer's intention, even tho the one be the arrangement of no MS., and the other that of many” (The Barleian Manuscript 7334 and Revision of the Canterbury Tales, p. 26). The suggestion that B2 should be followed by C is not a new one, for Skeat (The Eight-Text Edition of the Canterbury Tales, p. 30) says, “If we are so regard evidence at all, there is no other place for it.” Compare also his recommendation in the Modern Language Review which is cited above. Tatlock says likewise (The Harleian Manuscript and Revision of the Canterbury Tales, p. 27) that us. Harley 7334 in putting C before B2 “could not easily be proved wrong.” It is interesting to note in this connection that Lawrence (Modern Philology, xi, p. 257) argues in favor of the sequence Nun's Priest-Wife of Bath, tho on grounds altogether independent of those set forth in the present paper.