macintosh.world | Log In | Register

Today | News | Books | Recipes
Notes | QuickTake | Wiki | Browse
Maps | Reference | Reddit | YouTube
Chat | Games | About

Search Books

Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History

Book

Open Original Text

the tales
should relate to women famous in love-stories, and began by writing the
tale of Cleopatra, which is specially mentioned in B. 566 (and A. 542)[16].
The idea then occurred to him of writing a preface or Prologue, which would
afford him the double opportunity of justifying and explaining his design,
and of expressing his gratitude for his attainment of greater leisure.
Having done this, he was not wholly satisfied with it; he thought the
expression of gratitude did not come out with sufficient clearness, at
least with regard to the person to whom he owed the greatest debt. So he at
once set about to amend and alter it; the first draught, of which he had no
reason to be ashamed, being at the same time preserved. And we may be sure
that the revision was made almost immediately; he was not the man to take
up a piece of work again after the first excitement of it had passed
away[17]. On the contrary, he used to form larger plans than he could well
execute, and leave them unfinished when he grew tired of them. I therefore
propose to assign the conjectural date of the spring of 1385 to both forms
of the Prologue; and I suppose that Chaucer went on with one tale of the
series after another during the summer and latter part of the same year
till he grew tired of the task, and at last gave it up in the middle of a
sentence. An expression of doubt as to the completion of the task already
appears in l. 2457.

ยง 3. COMPARISON OF THE TWO FORMS OF THE PROLOGUE. A detailed comparison of
the two forms of the Prologue would extend to a great length. I merely
point out some of the more remarkable variations.

The first _distinct_ note of difference that calls for notice is at line A.
89 (B. 108), p. 72, where the line--

 'When passed was almost the month of May'

is altered to--

 'And this was now the firste morwe of May.'

This is clearly done for the sake of greater definiteness, and because of
the association of the 1st of May with certain national customs expressive
of rejoicing. It is emphasized by the statements in B. 114 as to the exact
position of the sun (see note to the line). In like manner the vague
expression about 'the Ioly tyme of May' in A. 36 is exchanged for the more
exact--'whan that the month of May Is comen'; B. 36. In the B-text, the
date is definitely fixed; in ll. 36-63 we learn what he _usually_ did on
the recurrence of the May-season; in ll. 103-124, we have his (supposed)
actual rising at the dawn of May-day; then the manner in which he spent
that day (ll. 179-185); and lastly, the arrival of night, his return home,
his falling asleep, and his dream (ll. 197-210). He awakes on the morning
of May 2, and sets to work at once (ll. 578, 579).

Another notable variation is on p. 71. On arriving at line A. 70, he puts
aside A. 71-80 for the present, to be introduced later on (p. 77); and
writes the new and important passage contained in B. 83-96 (p. 71). The
lady whom he here addresses as being his 'very light,' one whom his heart
dreads, whom he obeys as a harp obeys the hand of the player, who is his
guide, his 'lady sovereign,' and his 'earthly god,' cannot be mistaken. The
reference is obviously to his sovereign lady the queen; and the expression
'earthly god' is made clear by the declaration (in B. 387) that kings are
as demi-gods in this present world.

In A., the Proem or true Introduction ends at l. 88, and is more marked
than in B., wherein it ends at l. 102.

The passage in A. contained in ll. 127-138 (pp. 75, 76) is corrupt and
imperfect in the MS. The sole existing copy of it was evidently made from a
MS. that had been more or less defaced; I have had to restore it as I best
could. The B-text has here been altered and revised, though the variations
are neither extensive nor important; but the passage is immediately
followed by about 30 new lines, in which Mercy is said to be a greater
power than Right, or strict Justice, especially when Right is overcome
'through innocence and ruled curtesye'; the application of which expression
is obvious.

In B. 183-187 we have the etymology of _daisy_, the declaration that 'she
is the empress of flowers,' and a prayer for her prosperity, i.e. for the
prosperity of the queen.

In A. 103 (p. 73), the poet falls asleep and dreams. In his dream, he sees
a lark (A. 141, p. 79) who introduces the God of Love. In the B-text, the
dream is postponed till B. 210 (p. 79), and the lark is left out, as being
unnecessary. This is a clear improvement.

An important change is made in the 'Balade' at pp. 83, 84. The refrain is
altered from 'Alceste is here' to 'My lady cometh.' The reason is twofold.
The poet wishes to suppress the name of Alcestis for the present, in order
to introduce it as a surprise towards the end (B. 518)[18]; and secondly,
the words 'My lady cometh' are used as being _directly_ applicable to the
queen, instead of being only applicable through the medium of allegory.
Indeed, Chaucer takes good care to say so; for he inserts a passage to that
effect (B. 271-5); where we may remember, by the way, that _free_ means
'bounteous' in Middle-English. We have a few additional lines of the same
sort in B. 296-299.

On the other hand, Chaucer suppressed the long and interesting passage in
A. 258-264, 267-287, 289-312, for no very obvious reason. But for the
existence of MS. C., it would have been wholly lost to us, and the recovery
of it is a clear gain. Most interesting of all is the allusion to Chaucer's
sixty books of his own, all full of love-stories and personages known to
history, in which, for every bad woman, mention was duly made of a hundred
good ones (A. 273-277, p. 88)[19]. Important also is his mention of some of
his authors, such as Valerius, Livy, Claudian, Jerome, Ovid, and Vincent of
Beauvais.

If, as we have seen, Alcestis in this Prologue really meant the queen, it
should follow that the God of Love really meant the king. This is made
clear in B. 373-408, especially in the comparison between a just king (such
as Richard, of course) and the tyrants of Lombardy. In fact, in A. 360-364,
Chaucer said a little too much about the duty of a king to hear the
complaints and petitions of the people, and he very wisely omitted it in
revision. In A. 355, he used the unlucky word 'wilfulhed' as an attribute
of a Lombard tyrant; but as it was not wholly inapplicable to the king of
England, he quietly suppressed it. But the comparison of the king to a
lion, and of himself to a fly, was in excellent taste; so no alteration was
needed here (p. 94).

In his enumeration of his former works (B. 417-430), he left out one work
which he had previously mentioned (A. 414, 415, p. 96). This work is now
lost[20], and was probably omitted as being a mere translation, and of no
great account. Perhaps the poet's good sense told him that the original was
a miserable production, as it must certainly be allowed to be, if we employ
the word _miserable_ with its literal meaning (see p. 307).

At pp. 103, 104, some lines are al

Previous Next