Tasha Harris
ENG 421 - Kiernan
Report 2
2 April 2002

Analysis of Pierpont Morgan Library M249 (Mg) and Mm ii.5, University Library, Cambridge (Mm)

"The watershed year for study of the text of the Tales, was 1940. With the appearance in this year of Manly and Rickert's monumental eight-volume text, editing the poem could never proceed on the same footing as before" (Benson 1119). Many of the eighty-two manuscripts that were scribed were mutilated at certain points in the Canterbury Tales and Manly and Rickert's research is all there is for many of these manuscripts. Pierpont Morgan Library M249 and Mm ii.5, University Library, Cambridge were two such manuscripts that were less concentrated on in studies of the Canterbury Tales.

The Riverside Chaucer edition varies greatly from these two particular manuscripts and shows why these manuscripts are given less prestige than other manuscripts. The Riverside Chaucer edition was considered the closest to the actual order of The Canterbury Tales and the fragments within The Riverside Chaucer were put in order as stated below:

Fragment I: General prologue, Knights Tale, Millers Prologue and Tale, Reeves Prologue and Tale, Cooks Prologue and Tale
Fragment II: Man of Laws Introduction, Prologue, Tale and Epilogue
Fragment III: Wife of Bath's prologue and Tale, Friars Prologue and Tale, Summoners Prologue and Tale
Fragment IV: Clerks Prologue and Tale, Merchants Prologue, Tale and Epilogue
Fragment V: Squires Introduction and Tale, Franklin's Prologue and Tale
Fragment VI: Physicians Tale, Pardoner's Introduction, Prologue and Tale
Fragment VII: Shipman's Tale, Prioress's Prologue and Tale, Prologue and Tale of Sir Thopas, Tale of Melibee, Monks Prologue and Tale, Nun Priest's Prologue, Tale and Epilogue
Fragment VIII: The Second Nun's Prologue and Tale, Canon's Yeoman's Prologue and Tale
Fragment IX: The Manciple's Prologue and Tale
Fragment X: The Parson's Prologue and Tale, Chaucer's Retraction

Pierpont Morgan Library M 249 has a slight difference in order compared to the riverside Chaucer. Of course the first Fragment remained the same with the General prologue, the Knights Tale, the Millers prologue and Tale, the Reeves prologue and Tale and the Cooks Prologue and Tale. The only difference between these two fragments is that in Pierpont Morgan Library M 249 it has added the controversial Tale of Gamelyn. "The Tale of Gamelyn survives in twenty-five early manuscripts, yet this is not a sign that it was popular. The poem was added to one version of The Canterbury Tales (known as the cd group of manuscripts) where it follows the unfinished Cook's Tale, often with a spurious link to make it his second tale." (Knight, Ohlghren 1). The addition of the tale of Gamelyn to these particular manuscripts is what has made them be considered a less reliable source than manuscripts who are members of group a or group b because Chaucer never wrote the Tale of Gamelyn.

Following the Tale of Gamelyn is Fragment II, which contains the Man of Laws introduction, prologue, Tale and epilogue, which is exactly the same as Riverside Chaucer. Differences between the two versions begin to show in Fragment III when in Pierpont Morgan Library M 249 the Friars Tale is substituted by the Franklins Tale. Not only does this manuscript substitute the Franklins Tale in Fragment III but Fragment III does not even come after Fragment II but also instead it comes after Fragment IV. Fragment IV contains the Squires Tale and the Merchants Tale whereas in Riverside Chaucer, Fragment IV consist of the Clerks Tale and the Merchants Tale.

The Clerks Tale comes after Fragment III and is in a group by itself. Fragment V has omitted the Squires Tale, whereas in Riverside Chaucer the Squires Tale comes before the Franklins Tale. Following Fragment V is Fragment VIII, which begins similar to Riverside Chaucer with the Second Nuns Priest Tale and Canon Yeoman's Tale, but Pierpont Morgan Library M 249 had decided to add Fragment VI and Fragment VII in the same grouping as the Second Nuns Priest Tale and Canon Yeoman's Tale. Following this group of Tales, everything remains the same, as Riverside Chaucer except for there is no retraction at the end of this manuscript.

"When we carefully review the contents of MSS., we see that after Chaucer had once began to put his Tales together, he wrote very little that was new" (Skeat 27). Pierpont Morgan Library M 249 cannot be considered a very accurate source of the Canterbury Tales because it has completely changed the order of the Tales and has made additions to the Canterbury Tales that were not there in the beginning. According to Manly and Rickert, "the MS has been badly used. The ink is very faded at times, and some of the pages are stained and worn" (373). Pierpont Morgan Library M 249 was obviously a very poorly written manuscript that followed a completely different order from what is considered the correct order for the Canterbury Tales.

Similar to Pierpont Morgan Library M 249, Mm ii.5 is also considered to be a very limited resource when it comes to studying the Canterbury Tales due to its inaccuracies. Like Pierpont Morgan Library M 249, Mm ii.5 also has a link of the Tale of Gamelyn following the Cooks Tale. Following Fragment I, Mm ii.5 decide to have part of Fragment VII follow the Tale of Gamelyn. They continue on to put another part of Fragment VII, the Monks Tale in a group by itself. Following Fragment VII is Fragment II, which includes part of Fragment IV and V with the Squires Tale being part of Fragment V and the Merchants Tale being part of Fragment IV. Fragment III follows Fragment IV and remains the same as in the Riverside Chaucer edition. After Fragment III, Mm ii.5 decides to put the Clerks Tale in a group by itself finishing up Fragment IV. The second half of Fragment V follows the Clerks Tale with the Franklins Tale. In Fragment VIII the order remains the same as Riverside Chaucer except Fragment VI is put on the end of Fragment VIII. Following Fragment VIII is the end of Fragment VII with the Tale of Sir Thopas and the Tale of Melibee. The last two fragments remain the same.

When the manuscripts, Pierpont Morgan Library M249 and Mm ii.5 make changes within the order of the tales it is assumed that they had to make changes in the wording in some of the epilogues and prologues of the tales. In Riverside Chaucer the Franklins Tale follows the Squires Tale, which is ostensibly the correct order due to the Host's statement at the end of the Squires Tale. In Pierpont Morgan Library M249 and Mm ii.5 the Merchants Tale follows the Squires Tale. By changing this order we can assume that the scribes for these manuscripts had to change the ending of the Squires Tale when the Host states:

It is obvious by the ending of the Squires Tale that the Franklin was meant to follow the Squires Tale. For both of these manuscripts to choose to have the Merchants Tale follow the Squires Tale is puzzling because it seems as if this order was one of the areas where it was obvious where the tales should be placed unless the ending was added when the Riverside Chaucer edition was written.

Another problem with where the order in which the Tales have been placed, is found unusual is in Mm ii.5 when the Tale of Sir Thopas and the Tale of Melibee follow the Pardoners Tale instead of the Prioresses Tale like in Riverside Chaucer. The prologue to the Tale of Sir Thopas does not fit as well when it follows the Pardoners Tale. In the beginning of the prologue the Host states:

In the prologue of the Tale of Sir Thopas the host begins by asking Chaucer to bring a more light hearted Tale to everybody because the Prioresses Tale was so depressing. Very few manuscripts take the Tale of Sir Thopas and the Tale of Melibee and put them out of order because it is usually know to be placed towards the end of the pilgrimage and right after the Prioresses Tale. In Riverside Chaucer the two Tales are placed right after the Prioresses Tale and they all link together via conversation between the Host and Chaucer.

The Canterbury Tales will always have an ostensible order to them because it has never been proven that Chaucer had made a set order for his Tales. " Many of the intended Tales were never written at all, even when the original estimate of four stories for each teller had certainly been reduced to one, which was a quarter of the original proposal" (27). Many critics argue that Tales such as the Tale of Gamelyn are additions that were not part of Chaucer's original Canterbury Tales and therefore should not be included in the order of Tales. In Pierpont Morgan Library M 249 and Mm ii.5 they have not only included the argumentable Tale of Gamelyn but they have also taken the ostensible order of Tales and put them in a chaotic order. According to Skeat, "Several MSS., have been neglected because they exhibit the Tales in an order which cannot be fitted into any scheme whatever. Some of these may have arisen from a contamination of types, the scribe making use of two or more copies as he could best come by them" (29).

Works Cited

Knight, Stephen and Ohlgren, Thomas H. http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/gamint.htm. Accessed on Mar. 30.

Benson, Larry D. The Riverside Chaucer. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston, 1987. xlv.

Manly & Rickert. The text of The Canterbury Tales VII. University of Chicago Press. 1940:494-95.

Manly & Rickert. The text of The Canterbury Tales I. University of Chicago Press. 1940:87-91.

Skeat, Rev. Walter W. The Evolution of the Canterbury Tales. London: 1907