Today | News | Books | Recipes Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History Bookto his work called Brunetto Latinos levnet og skrifter (Life and Writings of Brunetto Latino), Copenhagen, 1869. See further in my Notes. GROUP I. § 76. THE PARSON'S PROLOGUE. Most copies place this after the Manciples Tale, and insert the word _maunciple_ in the first line. The black-letter edition of 1542 added the spurious Plowman's Tale _after_ the Parson's, i.e. at the end of all. But all the later editions in black-letter inserted this spurious Tale _before_ the Parson's, and hence the editors had to alter the word _maunciple_ (above) into _Plowman_; which they did. The Persones Tale was clearly meant to come last (I 47), and there is an allusion to the hour of 4 P. M. (I 5, and note). The Maunciples Tale well precedes it, because the Prologue to that Tale says they were approaching Canterbury (H 2, 3). But there is a great difficulty in the mention of the early morning (H 16); and this is why Group I has to be taken as a separate Fragment. The reading _Foure_, in l. 5, is explained and justified in the Notes. Some German commentators have endeavoured to discover the date of the Tales from lines 10, 11, by giving these lines a wholly gratuitous and impossible interpretation, as if they were meant to express that the moon's position was in Libra! But Chaucer says nothing of the sort; he is speaking of the moon's exaltation, and adds, parenthetically, 'I mean (to say) Libra.' Unluckily, he happens to go wrong; for Libra was the exaltation of Saturn: but this does not alter the fact, that _exaltation_ never denotes position, but was a common astrological term. It invariably refers to _a sign of the Zodiac_; and although Chaucer, for the moment, forgot to which planet Libra caused an exaltation or increase of strength, he really _did_ know the meaning of one of the commonest terms in all astrology. It is much to be regretted that theories should be founded on such gross misconceptions. § 77. THE PERSONES TALE. It is now known that this Tale is little else than an adaptation (with alterations, omissions, and additions, as usual with Chaucer) of a French treatise by Frère Lorens, entitled La Somme des Vices et des Vertus, written in 1279. The English work by Dan Michel of Northgate, usually known by the title of The Ayenbite of Inwyt, or Remorse of Conscience, is a much more literal and closer translation of the same treatise, and thus affords a good guide for comparison between Chaucer and the French original. The French treatise has never been printed, but exists in two MSS. in the British Museum[177], viz. Cleop. A v, and Royal 19 C ii. An excellent dissertation on this Tale, in which a close comparison with its original is duly made, was written in German by Dr. W. Eilers in 1882, and has been rendered more accessible to Chaucer students by an English translation made in 1884, and printed in Essays on Chaucer (Chaucer Soc.), p. 501. Of this Essay I have made much use in the Notes, to which I refer the reader for further information. It is clear that this Tale was once an independent Treatise (see § 104, in vol. iv. p. 644), which people could either 'herkne or rede'; and it was probably written before 1380, at much the same time as the Tale of Melibeus, which it somewhat resembles in style. It was obvious that, if this treatise was to be inserted among the Canterbury Tales, it could only be assigned to the Parson, who is made, accordingly, to warn the company that he dislikes rime, and can only tell them 'a mery tale in prose'; see I 46. The word _mery_ sometimes meant what we should now call 'interesting'; and it probably interested a much larger number of people in those days than it can possibly do at the present time. Our ancestors, at times, certainly inclined to serious discourses, such as the present age has no relish for. It is quite clear that a few paragraphs near the end (iv. 644, I 1084-90)--beginning with _and namely_, and ending with _my soule_--were inserted at a much later time, probably on one of the last occasions when the poet revised his work. This passage has sometimes been called his 'Retractation'; but this term is a bad one[178]. The phrase used is 'the whiche I revoke in my _retracciouns_,' i.e. among the things which I disclaim; and the word _revoke_, i.e. recall, means that he wishes to disclaim many of his works, as being deficient in such theological merit as would conduce to the salvation of his soul; a disclaimer which he at once follows up by thanking 'oure lord and his blisful moder and alle the seintes,' for such works as were of a moral and meritorious character. This I believe to be the real meaning, and to refer to the prevalent idea that many evil deeds and sayings could be out-balanced, even at the last moment, by an appeal to a few good actions; of which medieval literature affords us many examples. Perhaps it is fair to add that the poet had good cause to regret such Tales as those of the Miller, the Reeve, and the Merchant. In Essays on Chaucer, p. 227, is printed an Essay on this Tale by H. Simon, of Schmalkalden. The object of the Essay is to prove that Chaucer was a Wycliffite; and, filled with this idea (the truth of which I am not particularly careful either to deny or assert), the author endeavours to shew that the Persones Tale is full of interpolations made by some designing and fraudulent person. He even goes so far as to give us what he considers to be 'the original Tale' (p. 283). The French text tends to upset at least some portions of this superfluous theory, and Dr. Köppel has written an excellent article[179] to shew--what to a plain person needs but little proof--that the Persones Tale is to be considered as wholly genuine, inasmuch as a considerable number of conspicuous passages reappear, in a slightly modified form, in other parts of the Canterbury Tales. If we are to go through the Tales, picking out, and setting aside as spurious, every passage which does not please us, the result can only be unsatisfactory. Different readers will eliminate different phrases and opinions, and the residuum will be valueless. I see no reason why we may not be content with the Tales in the form presented by the best MSS. POSTSCRIPT. P. 395.--In a small book by Professor G. Stephens, entitled Förteckning öfver de fornämsta Brittiska och Fransyska Handskrifterna i Stockholm (Stockholm, 1847), at p. 20, is a description of a MS. which contains a copy of Palamon and Arcite in French verse, and was written early in the fifteenth century. It is remarkable that the metre is the same as that of the Knightes Tale; from which, perhaps, it was borrowed. In Anglia, XVI. 261, L. Fränkel, of Munich, reprints a Latin fable by Casparus Cropacius, which first appeared in 1581, in illustration of the Milleres Tale. This fable follows Chaucer closely in the principal details, but omits the humour of the original. I fail to see any merit in this form of the story, and therefore refrain from reproducing it. P. 423. See |