Stephen Tippett
ENG 421 - Kiernan
26 February 2002
It is believed that no original Chaucerian manuscripts survive of his epic poem The Canterbury Tales. The earliest known manuscript is the Hengwrt manuscript, copied from an unknown source in the first decade of the 15th century. For the next 100 years a series of hand-written manuscripts appeared, some being descended from the Hengwrt or Ellesmere manuscripts, and some being descended from other unknown copies of the poem. This paper is concerned with the Lansdowne 851 manuscript and the Cambridge University Library Ii.iii.26 manuscript. A description of these manuscripts, their ancestry and category, and the text of these two manuscripts will be examined with respect to each other and our current version of The Canterbury Tales.
The Lansdowne 851 manuscript is the older of the two, it being copied between 1410 and 1420 (M&R 1 304). It was copied by one scribe, in ink, in a dark brown almost black hand with uneven text on some pages (M&R 1 304). One peculiarity to the text is the letters e,f,r,s,t have a light downward curl if they are the final letters in a word (M&R 1 304). The Lansdowne manuscript is ornately decorated, which has helped to sustain its position as an important Canterbury Tales manuscript. The text uses decorative initials, which are often elaborated into pictures or ornamental forms, at the beginning and end of the tales (M&R 1 304). Headings to the individual tales are in rubric, and for the most part regular with the exception of the WBT and one page in the Summoner's Tale, it being headed as the pardoner (M&R 1 304). In addition to these mistakes in the headers, we see in the Lansdowne manuscript insertions of omitted lines and corrections of phrases or words by someone other than the scribe. For example, in the prologue to the parsons tale "by lettre" is corrected to "be my lettre" (M&R 2 43). The dialect of the Lansdowne combines Northern and Western dialects, most likely placing the scribe in Cheshire or South Lancashire (M&R 1 306). Some features of Lansdowne's spelling are the substitution of, h for gh, k for c, sc for sh, scl for sl (M&R 1 306). Also consonant doubling is more frequent than usual where vowel doubling is less frequent (M&R 1 306). The Lansdowne manuscript received its name from the Marques of Lansdowne, William Petty, in 1771 and was in his collection until the British Museum bought it in 1807 (M&R 1 307-308). It is believed that the original owner of Lansdowne was Anthony Brydges, baron of Chandros who was related through marriage to the owner of the Cp manuscript. These two manuscripts were probably copied in the same shop by scribes and illuminators working in a similar manner (MR v.1 304-308).
The Cambridge Ii.iii.26 manuscript was copied between 1430-1450, putting it into middle period of Canterbury Tales manuscripts (M&R 1 295). Its scribe used a stiff, formal hand, varying the size of the writing throughout the text, and possibly received corrections by a different scribe (M&R 1 295). The ink used is mostly dark brown, but it becomes gradually lighter as tale progresses (M&R 1 295). The first 66 lines of the General Prologue are missing, the first folio beginning with line 67 or the Prologue (M&R 1 295). This is believed to be due to the exemplar the manuscript was copied from also lacking these lines. Folio 78 is also missing, but it is believed that the page was lost after the manuscript was copied (M&R 1 295-296). The manuscript contains an additional text "Bona carta gloriose passionis domini nostri Jesu Christi", written in different hand, at the end of the original tale (M&R 1 295). The work of the original scribe is believed to be final, no editing, due to several blank lines where the scribe thought a line of text was missing (M&R 1 296-297). Some of these spaces are filled, correctly or incorrectly, where others are left blank (M&R 1 296). Decoration is in the form of headings of tales and pages, names of individual Pilgrims, and glosses in rubric (M&R 1 296). Capitals are enlarged and painted blue with red pen-work (M&R 1 296). The dialect of the manuscript is East Midland with some Northern dialect features in the copy (M&R 1 297). Spelling in the manuscript is uniform with frequent ck for kk and v for the u consonant, and infrequent s for c, c for s, and k for c (M&R 1 297). Vowel doubling is infrequent where consonant doubling is more common (M&R 1 297). Aside from missing the first 66 lines of the Prologue, other peculiarities can be found in the manuscript. Folio 161b contains a scribbled quotation from "Chaucer's Prophesy" (M&R 1 297). Also on folio 204b, 84 lines are missing, probably from a missing leaf in the manuscript the text was copied from (M&R 1 297). Again, in the Monk-Nun's Priest link lines 3461-3480 come after line 3481 which follows line 3460 (M&R 1 298). This is thought to be because the exemplar was a shortened version of the Canterbury Tales, and when the scribe inserted the missing lines he put them in the wrong place (MR v.1)
The 58 relatively complete manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales are ordered into 4 constant groups along with a number less complete, more imperfect or irregular sub-groups (M&R 2 62). Each group contains manuscripts that are similar textually and in order of tales. Lansdowne 851 is in group c along with two other manuscripts. Cambridge Ii.iii.26 is in group d. Lansdowne's exemplar is unknown but no other manuscripts have a common exemplar with Lansdowne except for those in group c (M&R 2 62). Group c was the first attempt by a scribe to arrange the tales in their original order. The result was a incorrect linking of the Cooks tale with Gamelyn, a tale not written by Chaucer, and the Squire's tale being moved next to the Man of Law's Endlink, a fragment Furnivall claims is actually the Shipman's prologue (Furnivall 20). Also, the exemplar that the Lansdowne scribe used lacked all the headlinks to the Clerks tale, the Merchant's tale, the Squire's tale, and the Franklin's tale (M&R 1 Chart IV).
Cambridge Ii.iii.26's ancestry is more confused than Lansdowne. No single exemplar can be discovered for the entire manuscript, but the arrangement of group c and the exemplar of group c were used in addition to other manuscript texts (M&R 2 41-43). Group d adds the Merchant-Squire link and the Squire-Franklin link, wrongly used as the Squire-Merchant link, to the group c arrangement (M&R 1 Chart IV). The Cambridge manuscript is odd in that although it belongs to group d, it shares many similarities in text in individual tales with group b (M&R v2 42-43). This is explained because the scribe of the ancestor of group d used an assortment of other manuscripts, mostly manuscripts belonging to group b. In most tales, Manly and Rickert classify Ii.iii.26 in group b*. Group b* is group b with the addition of textually related manuscripts of other groups. For example, in the General Prologue Ii.iii.26 is grouped in b* because they share a common ancestor for the tale and are textually similar (M&R v2 79). Likewise Lansdowne, from group c, is combined with several manuscripts from group d to form group cd* (M&R v2 42-43). This works because the scribe of the ancestor of group d used group c and group c's ancestor in compiling his work.
Aside from textual similarities and differences The Canterbury Tales is classified into groups based on order and arrangement of tales. Lansdowne contains 48 separate tales or fragments of tales where Ii.iii.26 has 50 (M&R v1 Chart IV). The two texts are the same until after the Cook's tale where Ii.iii.26 has a two line Cook-Gamelyn link and Lansdowne has a unique four line link, where the scribe adds in an assertion that if he wished he could finish the unfinished Cook and Squire's tales (M&R v1 Chart IV). The two manuscripts continue in unison until after the Squire's tale. Ii.iii.26 has a Squire-Franklin link, which is used as the Squire-Merchant link (v1 Chart IV). After the Merchant's tale Ii has the Merchant's headlink, then the Merchant's end-link and 8 lines of the Squire's short prologue, which acts as the Merchant-Franklin link and precedes, wrongly, the Franklin's tale (Furnivall 48). In Lansdowne, after the Squire's tale, there is a 12 line Squire-Wife of Bath link followed by a headlink, followed by the Wife of Bath's tale (v1 Chart IV). If you were to take out the fragments in Ii.iii.26 after the Squire's tale, down too and including the Franklin's tale, and replace them with those fragments in Lansdowne just before mentioned, starting after the Squire's tale and including the Wife of Bath, and then put the removed Ii.iii.26 fragments in the order they are later seen in Lansdowne, then you would have two manuscripts of identical order. The point of this hypothetical exercise is to show how similar the two manuscripts are in order and relation. Although they would be in the same order, still the manuscripts have textual differences. For example, Ii.iii.26 has a 14 line Canon's Yeoman-Physician link where Lansdowne has a 16 line link (v1 Chart IV), where in Ii.iii.26 the Pardoner-Shipman link is 4 lines where Lansdowne has a 6 line link (MR v1 Chart IV).
The Riverside Chaucer follows Lansdowne and Cambridge in some aspects and differs in others. If I do not mention anything about a prologue or epilogue to a tale assume the text and the manuscripts agree. The General Prologue, Knight's tale, Miller's tale, Reeve's tale, and Cook's tale, all from group a, start off the text in unison with the manuscripts. After the Cook's tale the headlink to Gamelyn and the Tale of Gamelyn are omitted because it is now believed that Chaucer did not write Gamelyn. Following the Cook is the Man of Law from group b1. After the Man of Law, Riverside has the Wife of Bath, and following the Wife of Bath, the Friar, Summoner, Clerk, and Merchant, all from group d. This order follows Lansdowne except for the Squire's tale, and its link with the Wife of Bath, being moved from its position in front of the Wife of Bath. The differences in II.iii.26 and Lansdowne in this section of The Canterbury Tales have already been discussed. After the Merchant, Riverside inserts the Squire's tale, and its headlink, and the Franklin's tale, and its headlink, from group f. Both these headlinks are in Ii.iii.26 but not Lansdowne. The Second Nun's tale and the Canon's Yeoman tale are omitted by Riverside, and the Physician's tale and the Pardoner's tale follow from group c. Riverside then has the Shipman's tale, with the Pardoner-Shipman link omitted, Prioress, Sir Thopas, Melibee, Monk, and Nun's Priest, including an epilogue to Nun's Priest, all from group b2. After this, Riverside incorporates the previously omitted Second Nun and the Canon's Yeoman from group g. Following this is the Manciple's tale from group h, the Parson's tale from group I, and the retraction ending the Canterbury Tales (Riverside Chaucer).
In conclusion, the Riverside text differs greatly from Ii.iii.26 but not so much from Lansdowne. Lansdowne is a much more authoritative text than Ii.iii.26, and so this similarity is not to be wondered at. II.iii.26 is nearly universally accepted to be a bad text. References to Ii.iii.26 are only used to show its inferiority to other manuscript versions. Rarely is it quoted as being representative of a group or representative of a text in a specific tale. Lansdowne is older, its ancestry is less confused, and its scribe made a truer copy. Resulting from this, Lansdowne, although not one of the best examples, is often quoted from and reference too in discussions of group c or passages from a specific tale.
Benson, Larry. The Riverside Chaucer. Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston. 1987.
Furnivall, Frederick. Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in Parallel Columns. Trubner & Co; London. 1967; pp. 17-43.
Manly, John. Edith Rickert. The Text of the Canterbury Tales. University of Chicago Press. V. 1. 1940.
Manly, John. Edith Rickert. The Text of the Canterbury Tales. University of Chicago Press. VII. 1967.
By "original Chaucerian manuscripts" do you mean contemporary with Chaucer (some scholars how believe that Hengwrt might be contemporary, late 14th century)? Or do you mean autographs? Aren't all of the surviving MSS original?
By "our current version" you mean the Riverside?
You do a good job of explain a complex situation. I think, for this exercise at least, it would be instructive to reject characterizations like "bad" or "inferior" text, and try to understand the differences, rather than merge them into a desired norm.