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
Before we may hope to solve some of the problems which confront the student of Chaucer we must gain a clearer understanding of the relationship in which the extant mss. stand to the text written by the poet's own hand. In the hope of throwing some light upon this relationship it occurred to the present writer to apply to all the Chaucer mss. thus far printed a very obvious grammatical test by noting their usage in the case of the plural present indicative of the verb shullen. The use of this test first suggested itself as a result of my observation that in these forms there is a curious variation among different mss., and even in the same ms. in different portions of Chaucer's text. These reversals of usage in the same ms. are best illustrated in Camb. Gg. 4, 27, for this manuscript contains not only the Cant. Tales, but also Troilus, the Parl, of Foules, and the Legend of G. W. In the Parl, of F. one finds the plural of the present indicative written schul eight times and schal only once; in Troilus, on the other hand, there are no less than forty-one schal's as against eight schul's. Much the same ratio is found in the Legend, which has eleven schal's and only two schul's. Moreover, among the several tales of the Canterbury collection this manuscript shows marked difference of usage, swinging abruptly from six to two in favor of schal in the Man of Law's Tale to nine to one in favor of schul in the Wife of Bath's Tale, which immediately follows. Similar examples of reversal of usage in these forms might be cited in nearly all the printed mss. Such alternations between schal and schul on the part of the same scribe are evidently due to variations in the mss. from which he was copying. In other words, the responsibility for this variation in usage does not rest upon the scribes of the extant mss.,—though they may have added to the confusion already existing. It is clear, then, that this confusion between shul and shal must proceed, either from scribes intermediate between Chaucer and the extant copies or—from Chaucer himself.
page 8 note 1 Stafford ms., in the Tale of the Jew and Pagan, cut out of Fairfax.
page 10 note 1 Including line 400, where ms. corruptly reads “they” instead of “ye.”
page 10 note 2 Including line 590, where all other mss. correctly read “shuld.”
page 10 note 3 Occurs at line 635 in the spurious conclusion found only in this ms.
page 10 note 4 Ms. breaks off at line 365.
page 10 note 5 Ms. runs only to line 142.
page 11 note 1 “On the Text of Chaucer's Parlement of Foules,” Decennial Pubs. of Univ. of Chicago, First Series, Vol. vii, 1903, p. 8.
page 12 note 1 The following list of the cases in Troilus may be convenient for reference: 1122 (twice), 245; ii 92, 280, 1021, 1114, 1391; iii 171, 181, 564, 660, 661, 667, 771, 877, 884, 952, 1298, 1384; iv 112, 311, 406, 626, 688, 779, 787, 790, 794, 966, 1183, 1196, 1313, 1321, 1322, 1347, 1462, 1471, 1485, 1489, 1516; v 398, 478, 769, 791, 854, 893, 894, 900, 918, 998, 1544, 1545, 1640.
page 12 note 2 Including iv 1321 which wrongly reads, “schal ye.”
page 12 note 3 Written by two (contemporary) hands; the second begins at iii 231.
page 12 note 4 Including iii 660 which wrongly reads “ye shal.”
page 12 note 5 Including ii 1114 which wrongly reads “ he shal.”
page 13 note 1 I 122, 245; ii 280, 1391; iv 1347; v 791, 968, 1640.
page 13 note 2 Oxford Chaucer, ii, lxx.
page 14 note 1 Studies in Chaucer, i, 398.
page 15 note 1 In discussing the relation between the first hand of Harl. 3943 and Camb. Gg., in order to avoid complexity I have spoken as though these two scribes copied from the very same original. As a matter of fact there may have been intermediaries between this original and the two extant mss. The existence of such intermediaries, however, would not affect the inference which we are basing upon the peculiar relationship which these mss. exhibit.
page 16 note 1 This fact is in itself a strong indication that there were intermediaries between Gg. and the ms. which served as the common ancestor of Gg. and Harl. 3943. For the Cambridge scribe does not show a uniform tendency to prevert shul's into shal's, as is attested by his copy of the Parl. of F. and Group A of the Cant. Taies. where the “u” -forms appear in overwhelming majority.
page 16 note 2 See Tatlock, Development and Chronology of Chaucer's Works, p. 1.
page 17 note 1 The following is a list of the cases in the L. G. W.: 12, 281, 1088, 1386, 1618, 1710, 1927, 2003, 2627, 2661, 2689. Two additional cases appear in the revised Prologue (Camb. Gg.): 302, 364.
page 17 note 2 Ms. is very incomplete.
page 18 note 1 Chaucer Bibliog. Manual, p. 338.
page 20 note 1 Ms. defective.
page 21 note 1 Ms. incomplete.
page 22 note 1 Including line 678 where ms. wrongly reads “sche schal.”
page 22 note 2 Including G1105 where ms. wrongly reads “we schal.”
page 22 note 3 Including F1474 where ms. wrongly reads “sche schol.”
page 23 note 1 Ms. lacks A 505–1931.
page 23 note 2 Ms. breaks off at G 853.
page 24 note 1 Through defects in the text of the Wife's and the Franklin's Tales the Corpus ms. has lost four instances of the word. Counting all these as shot's, however, we should have a total of only 35.
page 24 note 2 On comparing Zupitza's print of the Pardoner's Prologue and Tale from the seven MSS. which make up the “Dd. group” one observes that the spelling shuln is peculiar to Dd. Since the other mss. of this group are not, in Zupitza's opinion, derivatives from Dd. it follows that shuln was not the spelling in the archetype of the group.
page 25 note 1 The most conspicuous example of this tendency on the part of the Lansdowne scribe is presented in the Tale of Gamelyn, where, the overwhelming proportion of shul‘s shown in Corp. Petw. and Harl. 7334, is actually converted by Lansd. into a majority of shal‘s (16 to 6).
page 26 note 1 Dialect use of “sal.”
page 26 note 2 “A” likewise in Sion Coll., Rawl. Poet., McCormick, Harl. 1239, Naples, Holkham, Longleat, and Phillipps 8299.
page 27 note 1 I am not forgetful of the fact that in four mss., viz., Camb. Gg., Ellesmere, Harl. 7334, and Camb. Dd., instead of a majority of shal's one finds the majority strongly on the side of shul. A possible explanation for this change will be suggested below.
page 27 note 2 The Evolution of the Canterbury Tales, Chaucer Soc., 1907, p. 17.
page 28 note 1 This Man of Law-Squire link (B 1163–1190) is found in no less than 21 mss., though not all of them use it to connect these two Tales. Seld. B. 14 makes it link to the Shipman, and Harl. 7334 follows it by the Wife of Bath, though with obvious confusion since the link itself (according to this ms.) introduces the Sompnour. The form shal is strongly supported by the mss. which contain this link, occurring in 15 of the 21, while shul appears in only 3. The remaining three substitute here a wholly different line.
page 29 note 1 Au exception to this statement should be noted in the case of Lansdowne, which makes havoc with the “u” -forms in Gamelyn, leaving only six of them against sixteen “a”-forms. This preference for “ a”-forms, however, characterizes the Lansdowne ms. throughout the whole of the Cant. Tales, as has already been remarked. Its treatment of Gamelyn, therefore, is in accord with the general usage of this scribe.