Today | News | Books | Recipes Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History Book5, p. 137. I subjoin a very brief outline of it. A Priest, dwelling near Antwerp, a wise man and a rich, falls ill, and is about to die. He sends for his dean and his friends, to dispose of his property. Two Jacobin friars come to visit him and to beg. The Priest explains that all his property is settled. The friars insist on the merit of giving to them above all others, and are very importunate. At last, to quiet them, he tells them he will leave them a jewel for which he would not take a thousand marks; and their Prior must come next day, to learn where the jewel is kept. Next day, five of the friars again visit the Priest, but leave the Prior at home. The Priest says he will only reveal the secret in the presence of the Sheriffs and the Mayor, who are duly sent for. On their arrival, the Priest explains all about the cupidity and importunity of the two friars, and how, in order to get rid of them, he promised to give them something which he valued very much. He then reveals the secret, that the jewel is his own bladder; and the Jacobins retire crest-fallen. In the same volume of Fabliaux ou Contes, p. 184, M. Legrand d'Aussy says that a somewhat similar story used to be told of the poet Jean de Meun, who, it was said, left to the Jacobin friars some heavy coffers of treasure, which were not to be opened till they had duly said a mass for the repose of his soul. Of course the coffers were filled with pieces of slate. It is interesting to notice how Chaucer localises the story. He transfers the scene from Antwerp to Holderness, just as, in the Reves Tale, he boldly transfers it to Trumpington. The friar satirised in the Tale is clearly an Englishman, and the whole is rendered definite and vivid. In 1733, a Mr. Grosvenor wrote a sort of imitation of the Somnours Tale, under the title of The Whimsical Legacy, as a contribution to Eustace Budgell's periodical entitled The Bee. It is only a third of the length of the original. It was reprinted by Ogle, in his Canterbury Tales Modernized, in 1741. The poet Gay wrote another poor imitation, entitled An Answer to the Sompner's Prologue in Chaucer, printed anonymously in Lintot's Miscellany, entitled Poems on Several Occasions (1717), p. 147. See Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer, iii. 125, 190, 192. GROUP E. § 63. THE CLERK'S PROLOGUE. This begins a new Group of Tales. There is nothing to connect this Prologue with any of the rest of the Tales. It usually follows the Somnours Tale, as in most MSS. and in the early editions. The Prologue, in the usual riming couplets, is evidently later than the Tale, and was supplied at the time of revision. It contains an interesting allusion to Petrarch, whose death took place in July, 1374; see remarks upon the Tale itself below. The latter part of the Prologue describes briefly the contents of the Latin Proem prefixed to Petrarch's tale. § 64. THE CLERKES TALE. Of this tale, the main part is a rather close translation from Petrarch's De obedientia et fide uxoriâ Mythologia, as explained in the Notes; and it must be added that Petrarch had it from Boccaccio. It is the very last tale--the tenth tale of the tenth day--in the Decamerone, written shortly after the year 1348. Whether Boccaccio invented it or not can hardly be determined; for an expression of Petrarch, to the effect that he had heard it 'many years' (multos annos) before 1373, is not at all decisive on this point, as he may easily have _heard_ it twenty years before then, even though he had never before _read_ the Decamerone, as he himself asserts. There has been some unnecessary mystification about the matter. Tyrwhitt wonders why Chaucer should have owned an obligation to Petrarch rather than to Boccaccio; but a very cursory examination shews the now undoubted fact, that Chaucer follows Petrarch almost word for word in many passages, though Petrarch by no means closely follows Boccaccio. In fact, ll. 41-55 settle the matter. The date of Petrarch's version, though a little uncertain, seems to have been 1373; and Chaucer himself tells us that he met Petrarch at Padua[134]. We may therefore readily adopt Dr. Furnivall's suggestion, that 'during his Italian embassy in 1373, Chaucer may have met Petrarch.' Only let us suppose for a moment that Chaucer himself knew best, that he is not intentionally and unnecessarily inventing his statements, and all difficulty vanishes. We know that Chaucer was absent from England on the king's business, visiting Florence and Genoa, from December 1, 1372, till some time before November 22, 1373. We know that Petrarch's letter to Boccaccio, really forming a preface to the tale of Griselda, and therefore written shortly _after_ he had made his version of it, is dated in some copies June 8, 1373, though in other copies no date appears. And we know that Petrarch, on his own shewing, was so pleased with the story of Griselda that he learnt it by heart as well as he could, _for the express purpose of repeating it to friends_, before the idea of turning it into Latin occurred to him. Whence we may conclude that Chaucer and Petrarch met at Padua early in 1373; that Petrarch told Chaucer the story by word of mouth, either in Italian or French[135]; and that Chaucer shortly after obtained a copy of Petrarch's Latin version, which he kept constantly before him whilst making his own translation[136]. At this rate, the main part of the Clerk's Tale was probably written in 1373 or early in 1374[137], and required but little revision to make it suitable for one of the tales of the Canterbury series. The test of metre likewise suggests that it was probably one of his early works. The closeness of the translation also proves the same point. Chaucer, in his revised version, adds the Prologue, containing an allusion to Petrarch's death (which took place in 1374), and eulogises the great Italian writer according to his desert. At the end of the translation, which terminates with l. 1162, he adds two new stanzas, and the Envoy. The lateness of this (undramatic) addition is proved at once by the whole tone of it, and, in particular, by the mention of the Wife of Bath in l. 1170. The Envoy is a marvel of rhythm, since, though it consists of thirty-six lines, it contains but three rime-endings, viz. _-ence_, _-aille_, and _-inde_. Besides this addition, there is yet one more, in the middle of the tale, viz. the two stanzas in ll. 995-1008, as pointed out in the Notes; they are conspicuous for their excellence. The story of Griselda, as told by Boccaccio, together with Petrarch's Latin version of it, and the letter of Petrarch to Boccaccio concerning it, are all reprinted in the 'Originals and Analogues of some of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales,' Part II, published for the Chaucer Society, and dated (in advance) 1875. Were any additional proof needed that Chaucer had Petrarch's version before him, it is supplied by the fact that numerous quotations from that version are actually written in the margins of the pages o |