Kevin Swikert
ENG 421 - Kiernan
28 February 2002
The Helmingham [He] manuscript of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales consists of a core of vellum leaves, dating to the first quarter of the fifteenth century, surrounded by a number of paper quires added some fifty years later (Horobin, 457). The He manuscript is listed under the categorization, given to The Canterbury Tales Manuscripts by Manly and Rickert, as the b Group of manuscripts (Manly and Rickert, v.II Order of Tales Chart II). The b Group of manuscripts have, according to Horobin, such characteristics as the placement of the tales of the Squire and the Merchant between the Man of Law’s Endlink an the Wife of Bath’s Tale (Horobin, 457). The order of the Tales in the He manuscript, according to Manly and Rickerts appendices as the following: … Kt-L-Mi-L-Re-L-Ck L-ML-sq-Sq L-Me WB-L-Fr-L-Su L-Cl-b Fk Sn Ph-L-Pb Pr-L-Th-L-Mel-L-Mk-L-NP L-Mc L-Ps…. The General Prologue and Retraction appear to be missing due to the destruction or loss of the leaves containing those portions of the manuscript. The loss of these portions was most likely due to the mishandling and inadequate storage
The b Group of manuscripts are generally thought to the worst versions of The Canterbury Tales, containing ‘omissions and spurious line in abundance, as well as multitudinous corrupt readings.’ The He manuscript is universally considered, according to Boyd, to be the worst version of The Canterbury Tales (Boyd, 234). Boyd states that the He text ‘gives indication that someone wanted to rescue a damaged manuscript from destruction by having it recopied; simultaneously, the text was modernized (Boyd, 235).’ The result of which is a cut and revised edition of The Canterbury Tales. The He manuscript appears to have been an attempt by a general editor to produce a version of The Canterbury Tales intelligible to a general reader of the mid-fifteenth century. A reader of that period would have found Chaucer’s prosody a little remote because of the rapid changes in the English language caused by the Great Vowel Shift (Boyd, 235). The problem most modern readers of Chaucer have is overcoming that European form of pronouncing the vowels, in a decidedly non-English manner; apparent by the He manuscript was the fact that this was already causing the readers of Chaucer some difficulties only fifty to seventy years after the death of Chaucer himself.
As to the reading of the manuscript itself and effect the order has upon the audience. There has been little of note, but then it is all formed out of the reader’s own opinion. The He manuscript was scribed with only portions of the works of Chaucer available. Boyd argues that the scribe to the He manuscript had only the Hengwrt manuscript to use in producing his own version, for the He manuscript uses the shortened Nun’s Priest’s Prologue than appears in other manuscripts, including the Ellesmere manuscript (Boyd, 236). The He manuscript, and those of the other b Group manuscripts are interesting in that they place the Man of Law’s Tale and the Squires Tale before the Wife of Bath’s Tale, indeed in all of the b Group, as well as d Group, manuscripts the Merchants tale comes before the Wife of Bath’s Tale. The He manuscript is written to entertain a modern audience, modern of mid 1400’s, whereas the layout of the manuscript is not radical or different, following along the general lines of the majority of other manuscripts. The layout is similar to what has been taught in class, almost identical to this point, yet varies with the textbook, the Riverside Chaucer that apparently follows the exact layout of the Ellesmere manuscript.
The Hengwrt [Hg] manuscript was written somewhere around 400 to 410 (Seymour, 214). The Hg manuscript is one of the more controversial manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales as it is considered the oldest manuscript, the closest to Chaucer himself, indeed several Chaucerians, notably, Professor N. F. Blake, have argued that this manuscript was begun during the lifetime of Chaucer himself, or at least was made from the fragments of Chaucer’s own notes upon his death (Blake (1), 4). The lackadaisical, almost random way in which it appears to have been put together also lends itself to give credence that the Hg manuscript is the oldest. In any event, the general age and lasting reputation as the oldest manuscript has lent the Hg manuscript some notoriety.
The Hg manuscript appears to the audience of today with a different order of tales than the original order, discovered through the use of varying sets of ink and the quires notes that the scribe made on the manuscript itself. The present order looks something like this, according to Manly and Rickert: Pro-Kt-L-Mi-L-Re-L-Ck WB-L-Fr-L-Su L-Mk-L-NP L-Mc L-ML Sq-2-Me-L-4-Fk SN L-Cl-b Ph-L-Pd Sh-L-Pr-L-Th-L-Mel L-Ps… (Manly and Rickert, v.II Order of Tales, Chart III). The only real notable change of the present order from that of the original is the shift of the Monk’s Tale, the Nun’s Priest’s Tale and the Manciple’s Tale up from the end of the manuscript, just before the Parson’s Tale, to come before the Man of Law’s Tale. Why this was changed, remains a mystery. It appears that it was a mistake made much later in the life of the manuscript. The original version appears to have a link between the Tale of Melibee and the Monk’s Tale, that according to the Manly/Rickart chart linked both the tale of Melibee and the Monk’s Tale together (see end of document).
The Hg manuscript follows an order that almost no other manuscripts follow. The b Group of manuscripts, it is argued, used the Hg manuscript as the basis for it initial scribing, whereas most other manuscripts use the more complete, much nicer looking Ellesmere manuscript. Yet the b Group generally follows a strong differing order of tales than the Hg manuscript.
There has also been an ascertain that the Hg manuscript is not the jumbled collection of tales, as appearance apparently first lends one to think, but rather one can see another scribe’s handwriting behind that of the first. This second scribes work appears to be an editing, guiding hand giving the overall impression that the manuscript is actually an early attempt to produce an edition of The Canterbury Tales in an edited form. It is generally assumed that the same scribe, who scribed the Hg manuscript, would later scribe the Ellesmere manuscript.
The impression given by the Hg manuscript would make a much larger impression once the tales which appear to create the disturbance within the manuscript, the Monk’s Tale, Manciple’s Tale and the Merchant’s Tale, are read. As to reading the manuscript in a general relation to the others, there appears to be less order, in such ways as tales combined by themes and other common association, to the Hg manuscript. If the Clerk’s Tale and Merchant’s Tale do indeed take up the same themes that the Wife of Bath’s tale take up then they were not taken into consideration by the scribe or editor of the Hg manuscript, as the Clerk’s Tale is situated alone in between the Second Nun’s Tale and the Physicians tale and the Merchant’s tale in between the Squire’s Tale and the Franklin’s Tale, while the Wife of Bath’s Tale follows the Cook’s Tale.
The Squire’s Tale has been known to be read after the Man of Law’s Tale rather than the Wife of Bath’s Tale, yet in the Hg manuscript the Man of Law’s Tale comes after the Wife of Bath’s Tale in order but it does immediately precede the Squire’s Tale. A thematic reading of the Hg manuscript is very difficult at this stage in reading The Canterbury Tales; indeed, a thematic reading of any of the Manuscripts is difficult at this point. Yet some ideas may still be made. The Hg Manuscript, as far as current knowledge allows, appears to begin each section/group/fragment with a tale that appears to be based more on a tale a court of the nobility would enjoy, the Kinght’s Tale in Athens and Thebes, the Wife of Bath’s Tale in King Arthur’s Court, The Squire’s Tale at the court of Ghengis Khan, all far away, courtly idyllic settings with odd plot twists and descriptions. The tales then tend to proceed on to more common bawdy tales about village or the towns.
To this point in looking at the manuscripts only general assumption can be made about the trend in the manuscripts. So far it seems apparent that the Hengwrt manuscript is more ordered than it would appear that many of those that have considered it have given it credit.
Notes:
He: Kt-L-Mi-L-Re-L-Ck L-ML-sq-Sq L-Me WB-L-Fr-L-Su L-Cl-b Fk Sn Ph-L-Pb Pr-L-Th-L-Mel-L-Mk-L-NP L-Mc L-Ps…
Hg – Present order of Tales: Pro-Kt-L-Mi-L-Re-L-Ck WB-L-Fr-L-Su L-Mk-L-NP L-Mc L-ML Sq-2-Me-L-4-Fk SN L-Cl-b Ph-L-Pd Sh-L-Pr-L-Th-L-Mel L-Ps…
Hg – Original order of Tales: Pro-Kt-L-Mi-L-Re-L-Ck WB-L-Fr-L-Su L-ML Sq-2-Me-L-4-Fk SN L-Cl-b Ph-L-Pd Sh-L-Pr-L-Th-L-Mel-L-Mk-L-NP L-Mc L-Ps…
Symbols:
-L-: links to preceding and following taleWorks Cited
Blake(1), N.F. "The relationship between the Hengwrt and the Ellesmere Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales" Where?
Blake(2), N. F., The Textual Tradition of the Canterbury Tales. London: Arnold, 1985.
Boyd, Beverly. "The Infamous b-Text of 'The Canterbury Tales'." Manuscripta 34 (1990): 233-38.
Horobin, S.C.P. "The Scribe of the Helmingham and Northumberland Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales" Neophilologus 84: 457-456, 2000.
Manly, John Matthews. The Text of the Canterbury Tales, Studied on the Basis of all Known Manuscripts. 8 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940.
Seymour, M. C. "Hypothesis, Hyperbole, and the Hengwrt Manuscript of the Canterbury Tales." English Studies (1987), 214-219.
Tschann, Judith. "The Layout of Sir Thopas in the Ellesmere, Hengwrt, Cambridge Dd.4.24, and Cambridge Gg.4.27 Manuscripts." The Chaucer Review. 20 (1985) 1-10.
Your interesting paper is marred by many careless errors (e.g., was [Hg] really copied between 400-410?).