Today | News | Books | Recipes Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History BookLOGUE. This Prologue connects Melibeus with the Monkes Tale. It contains a contribution to the exhibition of the Host's true character. In B 3116, we are told that the pilgrims are drawing near to Rochester. The Host then calls upon the Monk for a Tale, who replies that he can easily relate the Life of Saint Edward, but they would probably prefer to hear a few Tragedies about the downfall of some illustrious persons. ยง 48. THE MONKES TALE. Judged by the rhythm, this Tale might belong to the early period. The subject-matter shews, however, that is was probably written at different times, part of it at an early period, and part at the period of revision. It can hardly be called, in strictness, a tale at all, but consists of a whole series of them, and has all the appearance of having been originally an independent work, which Chaucer had at one time begun, but, in his accustomed manner, had left a little less than half finished. It is formed on the model of Boccaccio's book De Casibus Virorum Illustrium, the title of which is actually retained in the rubric printed at p. 244 of vol. iv. The manner in which the poet contrives to assign this string of tragedies to the monk is highly ingenious. The Host expects to hear rather a merry and lively story from the jovial and corpulent Monk, and rallies him upon his sleek appearance; but the Monk, taking all in patience, volunteers either the Life of Saint Edward the Confessor or else a few of his 'hundred' tragedies; and then, fearful of interruption, proceeds to define the word Tragedy, and to start off before any of the pilgrims have had time to offer any opinion upon the matter. He also offers an apology for not telling all his stories in strictly chronological order. This apology is the real key to the whole matter. We may well believe that, whilst the collection of tragedies was still an independent work, the arrangement was strictly chronological, or was intended to have been made such when the work was completed. Such was the usual formula; and accordingly the author begins, in the most approved fashion, with Lucifer, and then duly proceeds to Adam and all the rest. But as, in the course of composition, he would naturally first write such lives as most pleased him, and by no means succeeding in writing anything like a complete collection--for out of the 'hundred' that existed 'in his cell'[115] he produced only seventeen in all--it clearly became his simplest plan to give specimens only, and to abandon the chronological arrangement as no longer necessary. Yet it is worth remarking that the tragedies are more clearly in chronological order than may at first sight appear. If they be compared with such a book as Peter Comestor's Historia Scholastica, we shall see this the better. Peter Comestor takes the Bible as the foundation of his history, noticing secular history as he goes on. We thus find a mention of Hercules in the time of Jephthah, judge of Israel. Strictly, then, Hercules should precede Samson; but as they come so near together, the scriptural character takes precedence. Again, the tragedies of Antiochus and Alexander both belong, in this way, to the first book of Maccabees, and therefore come next after the tragedy of Holofernes, which belongs to the book of Judith. Here, again, Alexander should, in strictness, precede Antiochus, but this consideration is overridden by the fitness of coupling Antiochus with Holofernes, and Alexander with Caesar. Allowing, then, that Samson may precede Hercules, and that Antiochus may precede Alexander, we may divide the whole series into six groups, as follows:--(_a_) Lucifer, Adam, Samson, Hercules, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar; (_e_)[116] Zenobia; (_f_)[117] Pedro of Spain, Pedro of Cyprus, Barnabo, Ugolino; (_d_) Nero; (_c_) Holofernes, Antiochus, Alexander, Caesar; and (_b_) Croesus. This grouping is far more suggestive than might be expected, for it throws some additional light upon the matter, if duly considered. In the first place, group (_f_) consists wholly of what have been called 'modern instances,' as referring to matters that happened in Chaucer's own time, instead of containing examples from ancient history; three of the four are remarkably short, and all four only make up eleven stanzas. One of them, the tragedy of Barnabo, contains the latest allusion in the whole of the Canterbury Tales, as it has reference to the year 1385, the probable date of the Prologue to the Legend of Good Women. The difference in style between the tragedy of Ugolino and such a tragedy as that of Samson or Hercules, must strike the most careless reader; and it is easy to see that this group (_f_) was an afterthought, being a piece added at the period of revision. So much we can tell from internal evidence, but the fact is curiously corroborated by evidence that is external. For of course, if the poet added a few tragedies as an afterthought, he would naturally add them _at the end_; and it is accordingly a fact that in several good MSS., including the Ellesmere, the Hengwrt, and the Cambridge MSS., this group is placed _at the end_, after the tragedy of Croesus. But Chaucer's apology for want of order left him free to insert them where he pleased; and he was accordingly pleased to put them in the order in which they appear in the present edition, which follows the arrangement of the Harleian, Corpus, Petworth, and Lansdowne MSS. That this removal of group (_f_) from the end to an earlier place is in accordance with the author's latest intention, is proved by observing that the tragedy of Croesus must come last: (1) because it repeats, in the last stanza, the monk's previous definition of tragedy, a repetition of which the Knight does not approve, and takes occasion to say so (B 3961); and (2) because the Host also quotes from this last stanza, and ridicules the expression about Fortune 'covering things with a cloud'; see B 3956, 3972. But we may, with patience, learn a few things more from the grouping of the tragedies. Putting aside group (_f_) as an addition at the time of revision, we may note that group (_e_) follows (_a_), for the simple reason that the story of Zenobia is in Boccaccio, whom Chaucer was imitating. We then have only groups (_d_), (_c_), and (_b_) to consider, and we notice at once that Chaucer has purposely somewhat mixed up these; for, if we merely transpose (_d_) and (_c_), we bring the tragedy of Nero next that of Croesus, and immediately preceding it. That is the original order of things, since the stories of Nero and Croesus are both taken from the Romaunt of the Rose, where they appear together, and Nero preceded Croesus in Chaucer's work as a matter of course, because his story preceded that of Croesus in the original. We have thus the pleasure of seeing Chaucer actually at work; he begins with Boccaccio and the Vulgate version of the Bible, drawing upon his recollections[118] of Boethius for the story of Hercules; he next takes a leaf or two from the Romaunt |