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
The chronology of the “Monkes Tale” has been often discussed, and there are widely divergent views regarding its composition. Skeat and others have suggested that it was an independent work of Chaucer's, written early as the beginning of a collection after the form of the De Casibus. More recently, Professor Robinson has suggested that Chaucer's model was the Roman de la Rose, which provided not only the source for some of the stories but the connecting link of the Fortune Moral as well. If Chaucer did use the Roman de la Rose, the “Monkes Tale” may very well have been written early, at a time, indeed, when the French influence on Chaucer was still strong. For this reason and others, Professors Robinson and Kittredge regard the poem as an early composition. On the other hand, Professor Tatlock has argued that the poem was written expressly for the Canterbury Tales and at a time when this project was already well under way.
1 I wish to express my gratitude to Professors Cirot, of the University of Bordeaux, and Oliver Towles, of New York University, for answering my inquiries regarding Spanish and French literature, respectively. My chief indebtedness is to Professor Carleton Brown, whose assistance throughout this investigation and especially in the study of manuscripts has been most generous. Other detailed obligations are expressed in their proper places.
2 Skeat, Complete Works … (Oxford, 1900), iii, 427 f.
3 Robinson, Complete Works … (Camb. ed., 1933), p. 14; and Kittredge, Date of Chaucer's Troilus … (Chaucer Soc., 1909), p. 46.
4 The Dev. and Chron. … (Chaucer Soc., 1907), pp. 164–172.
5 See Skeat, Oxf. Chaucer, v, 240–241; and Robinson's note, p. 856.
6 Op. cit., pp. 44–46.
7 Bo1, Bw, Cp, En2, Fi, Gl, Ha2, Ha4, Ht, Ii, La, Lo Ld1, Mc, Mg, Mm, Nl, Ph2, Ph3, Pw, Ra1, Ry1, Ry2, Sl1, Sl2, Tc1, and To2.
8 Ad1, Ad3, Ch, Cn, Dd, D8, El, En1, En3, Gg, Hg, Ln, Ma, Py, and Se.—These data were garnered from Sir William McCormick's The Manuscripts of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (Oxford, 1933).
9 P. 853. Professor Robinson also suggests another means for accounting for the arrangement; but since this explanation “involves a complicated series of assumptions …,” he prefers “ to regard the order with Crœsus at the end as the one intended by Chaucer at the outset.”
10 Ad1, Ad3, Bo1, Bw, Ch, Cn, Dd, Ds, El, En2, En3, En3, Fi, Ha2, Ha4, Ht, La, Lc, Ld1, Ln, Mg, Mm, Nl, Ph2, Ph3, Ry1, Ry2, Sl1, and To.
11 Cp, Hg, Ii, Ma, Mc, Pw, Py, Se, Sl2, and To1.
12 The manuscripts in question are Hg, Ma, Py, and Se. Manly in the introduction to his edition lists Ma as Class I, Py as IIa, and both Hg and Se as Very Irregular.
13 For these six MSS, I give in parantheses Manly's classification, as follows: Cp (IIb), Ii(IIc), Mc(IIa), Pw(IIc), Sl2(IIb), and Tc1(IIa).
14 Nineteen MSS are represented in this second stage: Bo1(IIa), Bw(IIc), En2(IIc), Fi(IIc), Has(IIc), Ha3(IIc for this portion), Ht(IIc), La(IIb), Lc(IIa), La1 (Very Irregular), Mg(IIc), Mm(IIc), Nl(IIa), Ph4(IIa for this portion), Ph3(IIc), Ry1(IIc), Ry2(IIc), Sl1(IIc), and To (Very Irregular).—Two MSS, Gl and Ra, lack the prologue, but have the Modern Instances in the middle.
15 There are ten MSS to show the third stage: Ad1(I), Ad3(I), Ch (Very Irregular), Cn(I), Dd(I), Ds(I), Ei(I), En1(I), En3(I), Ln(IIa).
16 El, Gg, Dd, Ds, En1, Ad1, En3, Ma, Cn.—Brusendorff, The Chaucer Tradition (Oxford, 1925), p. 492, n. 2, would have these tragedies at the end as Chaucer's own arrangement.—In discussing the “Nun's Priest's Prologue,” Miss Hammond (Bibliography, pp. 242–243; cf. Robinson's note, p. 857) suggests that the first intention was to have the Host make the interruption (in l. 2767 four MSS, Ad1, En3, Tc2, Cx1, read Hoste and Knyght); but that Chaucer then perceived he would have the Host, not only interrupting before the Melibee, but here as well; and that, to avoid this repetition, he substituted the Knight, and added, the Crœsus passage. But the interruption in the case of the Host could hardly be considered monotonous repetition, since his speech occurs at the end of Sir Thopas, which is separated from the “ Nun's Priest's Prologue” by both the tale of Melibee and that of the Monk. Moreover, the statement (B 3998): “Thanne spak oure Hoost with rude speche and boold” would seem to introduce him for the first time as speaker in this short prologue.
17 Pedro of Spain was murdered in 1369, shortly after the battle of Monteil (Alfred Morel-Fatio, “La Donation du Duché de Molina à Bertrand du Guesclin,” Bibl. de l'École des Chartes, lx (1899), 147). Pierre of Cyprus was assassinated in January, 1369. See N. Jorga, Philippe de Mézières (Paris, 1896), p. 390, n. 5.
18 B23565.
19 Notably, Froissart, Chroniques de J. Froissart, ed. S. Luce, (Paris, 1888), viii, and Deschamps, Œuvres Compl. de E. Deschamps, ed. Marquis de Saint-Hilaire-(Paris, 1880), ii, 327–328; iii, 1882, 100. For this second reference, I am indebted to the kindness of Professor Carleton Brown.
Edward Storer, Peter the Cruel (New York, 1911), p. 204, states that Villani and Machaut also severely criticized Don Pedro. Alfred Morel-Fatio, Bibl. de l'École des Chartes, lx (1899) 151, n. 2, has pointed out that in the Cancionero de Baena (no. 304) Pedro is made the subject of a vicious rhyme. And George Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature (New York, 1849), p. 182, n. 15, found several Spanish ballads denouncing Don Pedro for his murder of Leonor de Guzman as well as for his cruelty in imprisoning Queen Blanche.
All these literary detractions were of course not without a basis in fact. For example, in the case of Queen Blanche, just referred to, the actions of the King appear thoroughly reprehensible; because at the time Pedro married Blanche he was still enamored of Maria di Padilla. Indeed, H. D. Sedgwick, The Black Prince (Indianapolis, 1932), p. 205, states that for this reason Pedro deserted Blanche on the Wednesday following their marriage on Monday. The case, however, appears even worse, for Blanche wrote the Pope she was deserted on the very day of the wedding (George Daumet's Innocent VI et Blanche de Bourbon, rev. by L. Mirot, Bibl. de L'École des Chartes, lx, [1899], 654–655). The French, as a matter of fact, suspected Pedro of having murdered Blanche in 1361 (Prosper Merimée, Hist. de don Pedre, roi de Castille [Paris, 1865], p. 265; E. Lavisse, Hist. de France, pt. i, ed. A. Coville [1902], p. 178; H. D. Sedgwick, Spain, A Short History [Boston, 1925], p. 99). It was just such unprincipled actions as these that won for Don Pedro the name of the Cruel (T. Morgan, Jour. Engl. Arch. Ass., xlvii [1891], 177).
On the fairness of the contemporary accounts, see Ticknor, op. cit., p. 183, n. 17; J. B. Sitges, Las Mujeres del rey don Pedro I de Castille (1910), p. 53; and C. E. Chapman, History of Spain (New York, 1918), p. 116.
20 The first volume of Ayala's Crónicas de los Reyes de Castilla (Madrid, 1779) is concerned with the reign of Don Pedro. For an explanation of Ayala's attitude, see Tickner (i, 176–178) and R. Altamira y Crevea, Historia de España y de la Civilización Española (Barcelona, 1929), pp. 10–12.
21 Skeat, Oxford Chaucer, vi, 238.
22 Edward Storer, Peter the Cruel (New York, 1911), pp. 309–310.
23 Ibid. Cf. J. Leslie Hotson, “The Tale of Melibeus and John of Gaunt,” SP, xviii (1921), 432.
24 J. R. Moreton Macdonald, A History of France (London, 1915), i, 254–255.—At an earlier period, the relations between England and Spain were more friendly. In fact, Edward III, who had once congratulated Alphonso XI on the conquest of Algezir (J. M. Manly, Trans. and Proc. of the Am. Phil. Ass., xxxviii [1907], 92), planned a marriage between Princess Joan and Don Pedro; but the project was abruptly terminated in 1348 when the English princess succumbed to the Black Death on the way to Castille (T. F. Tout, Political History of England [New York, 1905], iii, 370). Later, in 1362, Edward III, in order to insure his hold on Aquitaine, concluded with Pedro an alliance offensive and defensive (J. R. Green, Hist. of the English People, p. 100).
25 Oxford Chaucer, v, 238.
26 J. J. Furnivall, “A Chaucer Difficulty Cleared Up,” Notes & Queries, 4 S, viii (1871), 449–450.
27 See G. L. Kittredge, “Chaucer and Froissart,” Engl. Stud., xxvi (1899), 321–336.
28 R. D. French, A Chaucer Handbook (New York, 1929), pp. 88, 129.
29 The first edition of Ayala's chronicle was printed at Seville, October 8, 1495 (A. Paulau y Dulcet, Manual del Librero Hispano-Americano [Barcelona, 1926], iv, 261). For this reference, I have to thank Professor E. Herman Hespelt, of New York University.
30 On Chaucer's relation to d'Angle, see the present writer's account in Three Chaucer Studies (Oxford, 1932), pt. ii, pp. 28 ff., 34–39; and in MLN, xxviii (1933), 510–511.
31 In the Rimado de Palacio. My attention was first drawn to this in reading George Tickner's Hist. of Sp. Lit., i, 100. See also D. Marcelino Menendez y Pelayo, Antología de Poetas Liricos Castellanos (Madrid, 1918), iv, p. xii.
The poem may be consulted in the following editions: A. F. Kuersteiner's Poesia del canciller Pero Lopez de Ayala, Hispanic Society of America, New York, 1920; Bibliotheca hispanica, vols. 21–22, also Biblioteca de autores espanoles (Madrid, 1864), lvii, 425–476. For these references, I am indebted to the kindess of Mr. J. R. Spell, of the Univ. of Texas.
One manuscript states Ayala was imprisoned in “Inglaterra,” but the others report Gascony as the place. See Wm. J. Entwistle's essay in Spain, A Companion to Spanish Studies, ed. E. Allison Peers, New York, 1929), p. 112.
32 Ayala was released when Enrico succeeded to the throne after the death of Pedro I. See Ticknor, Hist. of Sp. Lit., i, 178–179.
33 The date of March 23 for the murder of Don Pedro as given by Skeat, Robinson, and others appears to be inexact. R. Amador de los Rios (“Los Restos Mortales del Rey don Pedro de Castilla,” Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, x [1904], 113) states in this connection that: “ Aunque ni acuerdo en que la fecha existe, parece, la alevosa muerte de don Pedro acaecio en la noche del 22 al 23 de Marzo de 1369. …”
34 Sir Guichard, in fact, is reported by the Herald (The Life of the Black Prince, ed. M. K. Pope and E. C. Lodge [Oxford, 1910]) as one of “les hautez officers du trenoble Prince”:
Primerment Iohn Chaundos fust Conestable
Et apres sa mort le Captawe sanz fable
Mons Guichard dangle fut Mareschall (4197–99).
36 Et la fut bons Guicharz d'Angle, Qui ne se tenoit pas en l'angle;
Avoecques li ot ses deux filz
Et d'autres chevaliers de pris,
Qui bien fesoient lour devoir (3239–43).
36 The title of Marshal of Aquitaine was given to Sir Guichard as reward for his loyalty and fidelity to the English cause. R. Delachenal, Histoire de Charles V (Paris, 1928), iv, 21.
37 F. N. Robinson, The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (Cambridge edition, 1933), pp. 855–856.
38 Chaucer (in B2 3573–80) alludes to du Guesclin by referring to the heraldric emblems on his coat of mail; to de Mauny by punning on his name in the phrase “wikked nest” (OF. mau ni; i.e., MnF. mal nid). Brusendorff (The Chaucer Tradition [Oxford, 1925], p. 489) has suggested that Chaucer drew upon a ballade on du Guesclin attributed to Deschamps in writing his description of Bertrand's coat of arms.
39 Chroniques de J. Froissart, ed. S. Luce (Paris, 1888), viii, pp. 38–42, 295–299. Ayala mentions (Crónicas de los Reyes de Costilla, ii, 12 ff.) Guichard d'Angle by name as one of the prisoners captured at Rochelle.
40 Chronique des Quatre Prémiers Valois, ed. S. Luce (Paris, 1862), p. 235.
41 R. Delachenal, Histoire de Charles V (Paris, 1928), iv, 416.
42 The substance of the foregoing paragraph is drawn from G. F. Beltz, Memorials of the Order of the Garter (London, 1841), pp. 184–186.
43 Chroniques de J. Froissart, ed. S. Luce (Paris, 1888), viii, 116.
44 Du Guesclin and his nephew Oliver de Mauny, it appears, had received from Enrico certain lands in Spain as reward for their services. The estate of Soria in Castille du Guesclin surrendered for the Earl of Pembroke; Mauny, his estate of Agreda for Sir Guichard and other Englishmen captured at Rochelle. Beltz (pp. 186–187) explains another phase of the transaction as follows: “It happened that a rich French knight, the sire de Roye, a prisoner in England, had an only daughter whom Oliver de Mauni desired to espouse.” But Beltz appears incorrect in representing Oliver as the suitor, for it is established by other evidence that the knight was Alain de Mauny (Chron. de J. Froissart, ed. luce, viii, xcviii, note 4).—Beltz gives 1374 as the date of the prisoners' release; the time was in the early months of 1375 (Paul Guérin, Archives Historiques du Poitou, xix [1888], 173, n. 2).
45 The facts made use of in the foregoing paragraph are drawn from G. F. Beltz, Memorials of the Order of the Garter (London, 1841), pp. 184–186.
46 Chroniques de J. Froissart, ed. Luce, viii, 166.
47 The French chronicler (vii, 50) recounts the story as follows:“Tantost apriès messe et boire, li rois dan Piètres monta à cheval, et li contes Sanses ses frères et li mestres de Caletrave et tout cil qui si homme estaient devenu, et li doi mareschal messires Guiçars d'Angle et messire Estievenes de Cousentonne et bien cinq cens hommes d'armes, et se partirent, de l'ost et dou prince et chevaucierent viers Burghes.”
48 Beltz, op. cit., pp. 184–186. Don Pedro had repaired to Bordeaux to enlist the services of the Black Prince. He came, however, with promises rather than with gold. But despite this, and the hesitancy among the Gascons in the Prince's council, Don Pedro prevailed upon the Black Prince to undertake the campaign. At length, in February, 1367, the English Prince, whose coffers were now replenished with gold from Navarre and whose forces had been augmented by divisions under John of Gaunt, crossed the Pyrenees. T. Morgan, Jour. British Arch. Ass., xlvii (1891), 178–182; A. E. Prince, English Hist. Rev., xlvi (1931), 353–371; and Walter of Peterborough's poem, “Prince Edward's Expedition into Spain …,” Political Poems and Songs (Rolls series, 1859), i, 97–122.
49 B23568.
50 R. Morris, Chaucer: Prologue, Knightes Tale, &c. (Clarendon Press Series, 1903), p. vii, note C.
51 N. Jorga, Philippe de Mézières (Paris, 1896), p. 184.
52 Beltz, Mem. of the Order of the Garter, p. 184.
53 J. L. Lowes, PMLA, xix (1904), 594, notes 4–6.
54 N. Jorga, op. cit., p. 179. Sir Richard's colleague was Gautier de Mauny, whose name is not to be confused with that of the French family. Gautier's last name is variously spelled; he is referred to in a royal letter as“nostre cher et foial Wauter de Manny” (B. Wilkinson, Eng. Hist. Rev., xlii [1927], 250).
55 This was first noted, so far as I know, by Professor Lowes: “Chaucer's statement of the case in the Monk's Tale is curiously at variance with what seem to be the facts” (PMLA, xix [1904], 597 f., note 2).
56 My attention was first called to this in reading L. de Mas-Latrie's “Guillaume de Machaut et La Prise d'Alexandrie,” Bibl. de l'École des Chartes, xxxvii (1876), 445–463. Machaut received the story from Gautiers de Conflans, a knight of Champagne: “Vesci sa parole & son dit, // Si comme Gautiers le me dit” (La Prise d'Alexandrie [ed. Mas-Latrie, Geneva, 1877], vv. 8285–86).
57 In one instance, without the sanction of high court, Pierre assumed the right to pass judgment against a knight; and in another he exerted private authority in condemning a poor vassal to prison and exile. See L. de Mas-Latrie, Bibl. de l'École des Chartes xxxvii (1876), 445–465.
58 Machaut mentions in La Prise d'Alexandrie (ed. Mas-Latrie, pp. 268–269) Jacques d'Ibelin, Sire d'Arsur, Jean de Gaurelles, and Henry de Giblet as the murderers. The name of Pierre de Mimars is added in Chronographia Regum Francorum (ed. R. Moranville, Paris, 1893), ii, 304.—Henry de Giblet, Marie's father, seems to have been drawn into the conspiracy as a result of King Pierre's animosity toward his family; the dissension arose over the following ridiculous matter: “Le 8 janvier 1369, Henry de Giblet chassait avec deux beaux lévriers turcomans qu'il avait donnés à son fils Jacques, quand le jeune comte de Tripoli, fils du roi Pierre, voyant passer ces chiens en lut envie et les fit demander au fils du vicomte, qui les lui refusa en accompagnant son refus de paroles blessantes pour le prince et la famille royale. Le roi, informé de cet événement, fit demander les chiens à Henry de Giblet, qui, prenant le parti de son fils, ne voulut pas les lui remettre. Le roi fit prendre les lévriers, et il en résulta un incident à la suite duquel le roi enlevait à Henry de Giblet la charge de vicomte de Nicrosie et l'envoyait à Baphe, pendant qu'il faisait mettre auz fers Jacques de Giblet, son fils, et l'obligeat à travailler aux fossés de la tour Marguerite. Marie de Giblet, fille d'Henry et sœur de Jacques, alors veuve de Jean de Verny, fut obligée de se réfugier au monastère de Notre-Dame de Tortose, pour echapper au roi qui voulait la remarier à un tailleur, serf de Raymond de Rabin, nommé Caras; sans égard pour l'asile, le roi l'en fit arracher et mettre à la torture.” See E. Rey, “Les seigneurs de Giblet,” Revue de L'Orient Latin, iii (1895), 420. In attempting to force Marie, a lady of the nobility, to marry a serf, Pierre was obviously opposing the feudal code. Compare the story by Saxo Grammaticus (The Danish History …, trans. Oliver Elton [1905], ii, 374–380) of Helga's (Ingeld's sister) attachment to a low-born goldsmith and of the wrathful vengeance of Starcad.
59 B23584–85.
60 VV. 8756–57.
61 The meaning of the passage is clear from the following longer quotation concerning the assassination of Pierre:
Devant son lit sont arresté Faus garson, traitre, parjur.
De mal faire tuit apresté. Qui vous fait entrer en ma chambre?“
Li sires d'Absur la courrine, Et li respondi sans attendre:
Qui de soie estoit riche & fine, “Je ne sui mauvais ne traites,
Tira, pour le roy mieux veoir, Mais tel estes vous, com vous dites;
Et pour son cop mieux asseoir. Dont vous morrez, sans nul respit,
Et si tost comli roys le vit, De mes mains.“ Et en ce despit
De son lit gisant li dist: Lors en son lit fus [?sus] li coury
“Estes vous la, sires d'Absur, Et ij. cos ou iij. le fery … vv. 8686–703.
62 B23586.
63 As translated from L. de Mas-Latrie, Bibl. de l'École des Charles, xxxvii (1876), 461–462.
64 N. Jorga, op. cit., p. 390, n. 5.
65 V. 8636.
66 B2 3586.
67 Kittredge, PMLA, xx (1905), 1–24.
68 PMLA, xix (1904), 593 ff.
69 L. de Mas-Latrie, editor of La Prise d'Alexandrie (Geneva, 1877), p. viii; and V. Chichmaref, G. de Machaut, Poésies Lyriques (Paris, 1909), i, p. lxvii.
70 Skeat, Oxford Chaucer, vi, 241. Tatlock (Dev. and Chron. of Chaucer's Works, pp. 164–165 and notes) points out that Chaucer “quotes Dante also in the account of Nero; and [that] the Italian influence is also plain in the form of the names which he gives to Zenobia's sons.”
71 Three Chaucer Studies (Oxford, 1932), pt. ii, p. 36.
72 The Date of Chaucer's Troilus and Other Chaucer Matters (Chaucer Society, 1990), p. 46.