¹ H. G. Richardson, “Year Books and Plea Rolls as Sources of Historical Information,” Roy. Hist. Soc. Trans., Ser. 4, v (1922), 28–70; J. M. Manly, Some New Light on Chaucer (New York, 1926), pp. 235–252.

² Marie P. Hamilton, “The Clerical Status of Chaucer's Alchemist,” Speculum, xvi (January 1941), 103–108.

³ See J. W. Spargo in Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, ed. W. F. Bryan and Germaine Dempster (Chicago, 1941), pp. 685 ff.; J. Livingstone Lowes, “The Dragon and his Brother,” MLN, xxviii (November 1913), 229; S. Foster Damon, “Chaucer and Alchemy,” PMLA, xxxix (December 1924), 782–788; J. Ruska, “Chaucer und das Buch Senior,” Anglia, lxi (January 1937), 136–137; Edgar Hill Duncan, “The Yeoman's Canon's ‘Silver Citrinacioun’,” MP, xxxvii (February 1940), 241–262; same author, “Chaucer and ‘Arnold of the Newe Toun’, ” MLN, lvii (January 1942), 31–33; Pauline Aiken, “Vincent of Beauvais and Chaucer's Knowledge of Alchemy,” SP, xli (July 1944), 371–389.

⁴ See Pauli Franklin Baum, “The Canon's Yeoman's Tale,” MLN, xl (March 1925), 152–154; J. M. Manly, op. cit., pp. 246–247.

⁵ See G. L. Kittredge, “The Canon's Yeoman's Prologue and Tale,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit., xxx (1910), 87–95; R. M. Lumiansky, Of Sondry Folk (Austin, Texas, 1955), pp. 227–235.

⁶ In the works already cited.

⁷ The Alchemist in Life, Literature and Art (London, 1947), pp. 29–35.

⁸ Op. cit., p. 236.

⁹ Op. cit., pp. 89–90.

¹⁰ C.T. G 599–614, 617–626. All Chaucer references and citations are taken from The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. F. N. Robinson, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass., 1957).

¹¹ The Compound of Alchymie, in Elias Ashmole's Theatrvm Chemicvm Britannicum (London, 1652), p. 156.

¹² The Ordinall of Alchimy, ibid. pp. 34–35.

¹³ The Alchemist in Life ..., pp. 30–31.

¹⁴ Printed in J. J. Manget, Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa, 2 vols. (Geneva, 1702), i, 512–513.

¹⁵ Its editor says of it: “Eine Flut von lose aneinandergereihten biblischen und alchemistischen Zitaten ergießt sich in ungebrochenem Flusse.” M.-L. von Franz, ed., Aurora Consurgens, 1957, p. 132. This is Vol. m of C. G. Jung, Mysterium Coniunctionis, 3 vols. (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1955–57).

¹⁶ “Filii igitur doctrinae perquirite, & hoc excellentissimum Dei donum Vobis solis servatum invenietis. Filii insipientes nequitiae, & malevolae pravitatis immensae ab hac scientia fugite, quia nobis [vobis?] est inimica & adversa, & vos in miseriam paupertatis constituet, quoniam vobis penitus hoc Dei donum, a divine prudentiae est occultum judicio, et denegatum omnino.” Book iv, Ch. xii; Manget, 1, 553.

¹⁷ Ibid., ii, 30. The sages include Hermes, Pythagoras, and Plato; the mysteries include the Incarnation and Virgin Birth.

¹⁸ Ashmole, p. 33. Bonus of Ferrara quotes Morienus as saying that God gave the magistery to his sages or saints whose souls he placed in his paradise. (Manget, ii, 30.)

¹⁹ See (Sister) Virginia Heines, trans. Libellus de Alchimia ascribed to Albertus Magnus (Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif., 1958), p. 12.

²⁰ So Ripley, in Ashmole, p. 160.

²¹ Theoria, Ch. vi; Manget, i, 714.

²² Ashmole, p. 14; for an account of the known examples of masters and pupils in England, see F. Sherwood Taylor, The Alchemists (New York, 1949), pp. 130 ff.

²³ Op. cit.

²⁴ G 1448 ff; cf. also: “Nec aliquis eorum [i.e. previous writers on alchemy] declara vit hoc, & attribuerunt illud Deo glorioso, ut inspiraret illud cui vellet, & prohibeatur a quo vellet ... Et dicit filius Hamuel: Laudate Dominum ... quod dignatur ei tribuere, & inspiravit ei conjunctionem huius rei occultae.” Zetzner, Theatrum Chemicum, v (1660), 227. Also: “Commissa est enim vobis haec scientia ut subveniatis fratribus vestris, & pauperibus, & Deus retribuet vobis quod bene agitis.” Ibid. p. 231. The passage quoted by Chaucer appears on p. 224.

²⁵ For the interesting suggestion of a possible connection between the Philosophers' Stone and the grail legend, especially in Wolfram, see Jung, op. cit., ii, 19, 24.

²⁶ The Alchemist in Life ..., pp. 31–32, 35.

²⁷ Sherwood Taylor, The Alchemists, pp. 102–104. Moreover, even a Master was not entirely indispensable; Bonus of Ferrara allows the possibility of direct inspiration (Manget, ii, 26); and the second master of the 16th century, Thomas Charnock, had had the secret revealed to him (Sherwood Taylor, p. 130).

²⁸ In his Rosarius Philosophorum, ibid., i, 667; quoted by Norton in Ashmole, p. 46.

²⁹ The Canon is clearly in charge in the incident described; only he “tempers” the metals (G 901). Even here the Yeoman feels bound to make a grudging acknowledgement of his ability.

³⁰ In Ch. v of the Rosarius the writer says that three things necessary for the art are riches, wisdom, and books (Manget, i, 668). In the Libellus (trans. Virginia Heines) we have: “Hence this art is of no value to paupers, because one must have enough for expenses for at least two years” (p. 6; see also pp. 13–14 for a prohibition against having patrons to supply money).

³¹ Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “borrowing and not repaying.” Having a patron does not seem to have been always regarded in the same light as borrowing. Norton, in his Ch. vi, describes the qualities to look for in a patron, and conversely Ripley ends his long Ch. v with advice to a patron on what to look for in a clerk who claimed alchemical knowledge. Perhaps an understood agreement with a patron was one thing; an occasional few pounds for lead or acid, on the other hand, borrowed from neighbors, or a load of charcoal taken on credit and quickly forgotten—this was quite another.

³² G 737–748; 862–891. The Yeoman's reference to villains who delight in causing others to lose as they themselves have lost (742–747) need not refer to the Canon; the Yeoman seems to be thinking of himself: “Lat every man be war by me for evere!” (737).

³³ Op. cit., p. 108.

³⁴ An interesting parallel may be drawn with the Pardoner's Tale, which has a Prologue, two parts (the sermon and the tale of the three rioters), and a conclusion, the quarrel with the Host. In the conclusion of the Canon's Yeoman, we receive for the first time information about the holiness and secrecy of the art which casts a light back on to the Canon's character; similarly the Pardoner's attempt to get money from the pilgrims and his quarrel with the Host afford us fresh light on his character as revealed in the Prologue to his Tale. The Pardoner is a complete swindler, but even so the brutality of the Host's rejection of him seems to gain Chaucer's sympathy, for he has the Knight reconcile the two and restore the Pardoner, as it were, to the company of the pilgrims. Perhaps Chaucer did not wish to break up his band. Social misfits are not always so fortunate as the Pardoner, and the far less reprehensible Canon is driven out. To show such a misfortune, Chaucer has brought in a stranger, and the original company is not disrupted.