Angela Burke
ENG 421 - Kiernan
27 February 2002
Additional Manuscripts that have included varies tales of Chaucer’s along with several other literary works have been spread out over the years to provide not only a sense of perplexity to Chaucer’s particular work, but also a sense of adventure. Ad1 is one of the earliest manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales; therefore, failing on the attempt to recover a copy of this early version of Chaucer’s work, I had to rely on reference sources to suggest what and how the tale differs from the rest. Ad2 also provided its own unique challenges. This manuscript seem to have more information but lacked substance on most of the tales. According to the Index of Catalogue of Addition to the British Museum 1854-1857, Ad2 lists the order of its tales; however, the characteristics of this version are left imperfect. Therefore, when researching these two manuscripts the irony of their existences and the complexity of its versions lead the reader to believe that The Canterbury Tales will ever remain a work in progress.
What remains a mystery concerning Ad1 is its existence. The British Library seemed to be its main location; however, when accessing its database there were no searches found for such a topic as of February 27, 2002. Nonetheless, when my partner and I searched Sunday February 4, 2002 there were a list of references, but they were not available to the public. The search always came up “page not found.” The only other explanation for the difficult search to recover a copy of this early manuscript could be that the British Library has deemed it for private showings.
One difference between Ad1 and The Riverside Chaucer version is the “The Knight’s Tale.” “The Knight’s Tale” is missing lines 969-1099 in Ad1 (Manly and Rickert 3: 38). The Riverside Chaucer provides these lines in this tale to give a history to the piece before the actual story is told. This could suggest to the reader that Ad1 goes right into the main story without giving any background information on the reasons why it is even taken place.
This manuscript differs in subtle ways from The Riverside Chaucer. Ad1 does not contain an epilogue to the “Man of Law’s Tale.” I found this interesting because it is ironic. I think this goes with Chaucer’s decision on listing the tales. Here he has a tale of conditional love told by someone who believes in the stars. In some ways the “Man of Law’s Tale” could be a prologue for the rest of the tales if the ego of the storyteller did not come into play. Leaving the Epilogue out of Ad1 may been a genius move on the scribe because this part of the tale only shows the temper of those involved, which are the Man of Law and the Parson.
Ad1 provides a brief look into the Host’s personality that is set apart from “The Man of Law’s Tale.” The Riverside Chaucer includes the Host’s personality within the Introduction of “The Man of Law’s Tale” (Manly and Rickert 3: 184–187). This difference allows Ad1 to provide the Host with his own unique character. The assumption that could be drawn is the author of The Riverside Chaucer did not want any breaks between the Groups. He wanted to continue with the story without providing any special attention to the Host.
Another slight difference between Ad1 and The Riverside Chaucer comes from “The Squire’s Tale.” Ad1 deletes some of line 105 that states, “be that.” The complete line in The Riverside Chaucer is “Al be that I kan nat sown his stile” (105). The deletion of these two words suggests that Ad1 provides a more aggressive and affirming tone to the character of the Squire.
The strangest difference in the research comes from “The Shipman’s Tale.” The Riverside Chaucer provides its own unique version of this tale. The tale separates the original lines that allow for a more rhythmic flow to the story. Since I do not have the original manuscript to Ad1, I can only assume that some of the original story may have lost its meaning by concentrating so much on the style of the piece instead of the content.
Ad1 differs from The Riverside Chaucer in many ways; however, Ad2 provides its own unique order to provide contradictions for the order and also its meaning. This manuscript comes across as an entirely different book because of its order and lack of content. The British Library’s website, http://molcat.bl.uk/msscat/HITS0001.ASP?Vpath=d!\dataload\msscat\html\Ad2 is imperfect--imperfect because it is or not complete remains debatable. Compared to The Riverside Chaucer this manuscript is far from completion. Ad2 lacks several of the tales that are provided in The Riverside Chaucer such as “The Reeve’s Tale” and “The Cook’s Tale.” However, there are several tales that are added like the “Doctor of Physic” and “Pardoner.” This list also tells what page each folio, which is page in this manuscript. For example, “The Miller’s Tale” is located on folio 24; “The Man of Law’s Tale” is located on folio 31; and “The Shipman’s Tale” is located on folio 80.
The order of the manuscript starts out with the Knight, Miller, but then it skips to the Man of Law, Sompnour, Doctor of Physics, Pardoner, Clerk, Shipman, Priores, Tale of Melibeus, and Vellum. There is an *b in front of “The Man of Law’s Tale.” This symbol suggests that some of the manuscripts are missing. This leads to another conclusion that the absence of hierarchy in the first fragment of tales and the suppose Christianity or genre of the other parts provides a different aspect to The Canterbury Tales.
The General Prologue and the beginning of “The Knight’s Tale” are missing in Ad2 (Manly and Rickert 3:1, 38). The Riverside Chaucer provides a background and a personality of the Knight that is deleted in Ad2. Ad2 starts with the line says, “Now trewely, hou soore that me smerte,” as found in The Riverside Chaucer (1394). Lines 1525-1583 are also missing from Ad2. This allows for the manuscript to give a more masculine version of “The Knight’s Tale” because these lines show in The Riverside Chaucer how much two men fell in love with one woman (Manly and Rickert 3: 66-68).
This denial of vulnerability also happens in Ad2 with the deletion of lines 1707-1828 in “The Knight’s Tale.” These lines offer forgiveness between friends and the nobility of a final act of honor (Manly and Rickert 3: 72-78). The final deletion of “The Knight’s Tale” in Ad2 comes from lines 1953-2010 that tells of the ambiguity and the guilt of the horrible deed that has been done for the sake of love (Manly and Rickert 3: 82-84).
Ad2 also deleted some of “The Miller’s Tale” in lines 3487-3851. These lines in The Riverside Chaucer show how men can be led astray by beauty and intrigue. Ad2 also deleted “The Reeve’s Tale.” The tale proved to be similar to “The Miller’s Tale.” This leads to “no evidence of Chaucerian revision, and there are no shifts in affiliation” (Manly and Rickert 3: 157). “The Cook’s Tale” is also non-existent in Ad2 because it provides the same theme of the vulnerability of men.
Nonetheless, it is the absence of a fierce and bold woman that leads to several conclusions on why Ad2 and The Riverside Chaucer differ in style; one being the period this manuscript was developed. The fierce and bold woman stood out in Chaucer’s time, so this may be a reason why “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” was not placed in Ad2. There is also the absence of the Summoner and the Friar. This could be because of the interchanging of words these characters have with the Wife of Bath.
The other interesting difference between The Riverside Chaucer and Ad2 is the spelling of each tale. Ad2 spells “Tale of Melibaeus;” however, The Riverside Chaucer has “The Tale of Melibee.” The only reason why this could be is because of the century lapse between manuscripts. Melibaeus is more Old English than Melibee. Another major difference in spelling comes from the Sompnour in the Ad2, and the Summoner in The Riverside Chaucer.
Another reason for the existence of The Canterbury Tales is “Seven Deadly Sins” (Manly and Rickert 5:56). If one looks at this reasoning close enough there is a possibility this is true. “The Knight’s Tale” consists of murder, lust, and temptation. “The Miller’s Tale” consists of gluttony and adultery. Another theory for the order of the manuscripts comes from “independent editing” from prose. (Manly and Rickert 5: 97). Because this was done, this allowed for the scribe’s interpretation to be more involved in the stories.
Ad1 and Ad2 “do not have a classification” (Manly and Rickert 5:24). The reason why they do not have a classification is because they do not coincide with another manuscript. The pairing of manuscripts actually starts with Ad3. Later on Ad2 became paired with BW because they had enough similarities in common. The reason why there could be no partner for Ad1 is because of its age. This is one of the oldest manuscripts in existence, or at least I think, that allows another version of The Canterbury Tales to be told.
There is a theory suggesting Chaucer’s tales are split up into sections that have nothing to do with one specific genre; instead, the fragments exist because of their personalities. For example the first fragment has to do with “Social order and Individual Freedom,” the second one deals with “The Christian Categories”; the third one deals with “The Value of Earthy Experience” (Rogers 29, 47, and 51).
The lack or right about of text within these manuscripts will always provide a sense of mystery, because of its intriguing birth.
British Museum. Index of Catalogue of Addition to the British Museum. Oxford: England. 1854-1857
British Library. Online Electronic Sources. http://molcat.bl.uk/msscat/HITS0001.ASP?Vpath=d!\dataload\msscat\html\ (24 February 2002) 1 p.
Gale Group. Biography.com. 27 February 2002. http://search.biography.com/print_record.pl?id=1868 (27 February 2001) 5 pp.
Manly, John & Rickert, Edith. The Text of the Canterbury Tales Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. Vol. III., IV., V. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1986.
Rogers, William E. Upon the Ways: The Structure of the Canterbury Tales. Oxford Press: England, 1996.
The reason you were unable to find Additional Manuscript "5410" is that you were looking under the wrong number -- it's 5140, NOT 5410.
The BL catalogue description of Ad2 is: "25,718. THE Canterbury Tales of Geoffrey Chaucer. Imperfect; containing portions only of tales of, the Knight, f. 1 ; Miller, f. 24 b;
Man of Law, f. 31; Sompnour, f. 41; Doctor of Physic, f. 48;
Pardoner, f. 52 b; Clerk, f. 64; Shipman, f. 80; Priores, f. 82;
Tale of Melibæus f. 84. Vellum; xvth cent. Octavo."
You should go back an study the information in Manly and Rickert. Look at their charts, and reinvestigate what they are saying about the Seven Deadly Sins.