Summer Perry
ENG 421 - Kiernan
Report 2
2 April 2002
Although different manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales may be lumped in the same group based on the general arrangement of the tales, they may, in fact, offer entirely different characteristics from one another. Two manuscripts in the general b group, Rawlinson Poetry 141 (Ra1) and Royal College of Physicians 388 (Py), vary greatly from each other. Beverly Boyd asserts that members of the b group “[contain] omissions and spurious lines in abundance, as well as multitudinous corrupt readings,” (234) and that the manuscripts of the b group were “supposedly copied by enchainment, that is, by successive copying” (235). While critics believe that these two manuscripts are of no textual authority, it is interesting to study them just to identify their unusual textual differences and peculiarities.
Ra1 contains the Canterbury Tales, but the manuscript is considered a defective and incomplete version because of the loss of many leaves (M-R 1:450). Scribed on heavy vellum in brown ink, it has explicits and incipits in rubric with blue paragraph marks and has two to three line initials in blue and red before tales and prologues (M-R 1:451). It dates from around 1450 to 1460 and is badly stained and crinkled, possibly from water damage (M-R 1:451). The early owners are not known for sure, but evidence suggests that they lived in the proximity of Shrewsbury, about ten miles west of Wellington (M-R 1:453). It was bought from Thomas Rawlinson around 1733 by his brother Dr. Richard Rawlinson, who later bequeathed it to the Bodliean Library (M-R 1:454).
Py contains a mutilated Canterbury Tales that ends with an incomplete Parson’s Tale (M-R 1:439). This manuscript on heavy paper dates around 1460 to 1480, is written in inks ranging from warm brown to purplish to light brown, and is clean except for a few wormholes and stains (M-R 1:441). The scribe that copied it also copied other manuscripts, including Royal 17 D.xv (Ry1) and the fragment Harley 2251 (Hl2), and took liberties to omit and invert many words and lines and to misplace passages, though some of this editing may have come from his exemplars (M-R 1:439-40). It has large initials in blue and red pen work and has a border decoration along the top and down the sides of the pages (M-R 1:440). Its earliest owner was probably Thomas Tamworth, a name that agrees with an auditor of the Exchequer; other probable owners, including Matthew Widmerpole, have been connected to London. Its last owner, Henry Pierrepoint, the first Marquis of Dorchester, bequeathed it with his library to the Royal College of Physicians in London around 1680 (M-R 1:446). There are many scribbles on the flyleaves, including a humorous quip that reads “Rychard Teeseworthe ys a knaue an a monke hedyd knaue and so shall he dye” and a rhyme that reads “Jane Lawrnce is my name and with my pen I wret this same…” (M-R 1:444).
As noted earlier, both manuscripts belong to the b group. The arrangement of Ra1 is an irregular and incomplete version of this group. The order is as follows: A (missing General Prologue, begins at line 2567 of Knight’s Tale and continues through Cook with a spurious four-line ending to Cook’s Tale), B1 (Man of Law with an endlink reading “squyer”), Fa (Squire), Ea (Clerk), B2abcde (Shipman through Monk), D (Wife of Bath through Summoner), B2f (Nun’s Priest), and H (Manciple ending at line 140) (M-R 1:451, 2:496). Manly and Rickert believe that parts Eb, Fb, C, and G were missing in Ra1’s ancestor and that it may have once contained, but over time lost, the General Prologue and parts of the Knight’s tale and Parson’s tale (1:450-1). Ra1 very closely agrees with Sir William S. McCormick’s Manuscript (Mc) in its West Midland features and is possibly copied from Mc, as Ra1 includes spurious lines where Mc has omissions (M-R 1:554).
The order of Py is of the b group as well, but it is more complete than Ra1. The pattern follows: A (Prologue through Clerk), B1 (Man of Law with an endlink reading “sompnour”), Fa (Squire with endlink reading “marchaunt”), Eb (Merchant), D (Wife of Bath through Summoner), Ea (Clerk with seven-line endlink), Fb (Franklin), G (Second Nun through Canon Yeoman with spurious fourteen-line link to Physician), C (Physician through Pardoner), B2 (Shipman through Nun’s Priest), H (Manciple), and I (Parson ending at line 1062) (M-R 1:439-41, 2:496). Manly and Rickert believe that Py has been derived from a manuscript similar to Hengwrt (Hg), although it is the most difficult of all manuscripts to place due to extensive alteration (1:441). They also assert that it is of no textual authority, but that it is an interesting example of scribal editing (1:441).
The two manuscripts have some unique features of dialect and spelling. Manly and Rickert believe that the scribe of Ra1, who used more of a West Midland dialect, was of a more southern locality than that of the scribe of its affiliate Mc (1:452). In Ra1, sheo, a form of the pronoun she (Middle English Dictionary) which is not found in Mc, is used early in the manuscript but drops out after the Squire’s Tale (M-R 1:451). Heo, a Midland and Southern form of the pronouns he or they (MED), which is rare in Canterbury Tales manuscripts, appears twice in Ra1 (M-R 1:451). It has no unusual spelling characteristics of note, but vowel doubling, found in many manuscripts, rarely occurs in this one (M-R 1:452). Py contains traces of both the West Midland and the widespread Northern dialects (M-R 1:442). Its most distinctive spelling feature is the frequent use of ie or i for the long close e, but Manly and Rickert attribute this to scribal habit, since the identical appears in Ry1, which was copied by the same scribe (1:441-2). Like Ra1, there is little vowel doubling in Py (M-R 1:442).
Each manuscript has its own textual peculiarities. A major textual difference in Ra1 is that it is one of eight manuscripts missing the General Prologue, and is additionally missing part of the Knight’s Tale. Manly and Rickert believe it is reasonable to assume that the missing parts were contained in the manuscript at one time but were lost (1:450). The effect on a reader’s understanding of the tales without the General Prologue is of great consequence. It is there that we are introduced to the interesting smattering of characters from Medieval middle-class life. Chaucer gives us a colorful description of the company, and readers can imagine each coming to life and having distinct traits. The audience is allowed to form their expectations of each pilgrim and of Chaucer himself. Also, the details of the contest to take place during the pilgrimage are given. Without the General Prologue, readers are left without this first impression and may be less connected to the characters telling the tales. They would not understand the interplay amid characters, nor the sense of competition or camaraderie apparent between some. They would not have previously formed expectations for the characters, which may cause them to miss the meaning or humor in a certain pilgrim’s tale. Overall, without the General Prologue, the reader’s understanding of the entire work would be effected.
Another textual peculiarity of Ra1 is the inclusion of four spurious lines after line 4422 of the Cook’s Tale. While other manuscripts contain spurious passages of varying length, ranging from two to twelve lines, this passage is distinctive only to Ra1 and Mc:
“And thus with horedom and bryberie
To geder thei vsed till thei hanged hye
For who so euel byeth shal make a sory sale
And thus I make an ende of my tale.” (M-R 5:437)
These lines were probably included to supply a more definite end to the otherwise seemingly abandoned story. This manuscript does not contain the decidedly un-Chaucerian Tale of Gamelyn, which was added in twenty-five manuscripts as a continuation of the tale (M-R 3:446-7). Other manuscripts, like the modern reading in the Riverside Chaucer, end the Cooks Tale abruptly; some, such as Py, end with “Of this Cookes tale makith Chauncer no more” (M-R 1:443). Ra1’s spurious addition signals a closure to the reader who does not have the Tale of Gamelyn or some other transitory explanation, and provides more of a changeover to the next tale, which, in this manuscript, is the Man of Law.
Py has its own textual peculiarities. A rather odd change in the reading occurs because Py has the Wife of Bath’s prologue in disorder. The line order follows: Lines 1 through 156, 429 through 450, 397 through 428, 451 through 478, 223 through 396, 157 through 222, and then 479 through 856 (M-R 1:443) This strange shuffling of lines may have been the scribe copying from an ancestor that had some uncertainty of the order, but it is impossible to guess why the ancestor would be disordered. Manly and Rickert suppose that the scribe of the ancestor might have written his first draft with varying numbers of lines on single sheets of paper which were somehow disarrayed (1:443). (I can just imagine a 15th-Century scribe copying the Wife of Bath’s prologue from loose sheets of paper, when all of a sudden a great gust of wind comes through his open window…) Regardless of the cause, and keeping in mind that this may have been the only text available to a certain audience, some of transitions between the jumbled sections of lines make sense, while others do not. For instance, the jump from line 156 to line 429 could be believable, since the Wife is talking about the idea of sex as a marriage “dette” (Riverside 107:153) and the disordered passage continues with an episode of her and her husband in bed. However, the transition from line 428 to line 451 does not make sense because the Wife refers to a conversation by stating the manner of “wordes hadde we on honde” (Riverside 111:451) when, in fact, there has been no conversation in the shuffled order. She then suddenly goes on to describe her fourth husband, which may have led audiences with only this manuscript at their disposal to forget the syntactical error. Overall, reading the Wife’s prologue in the disorderly arrangement as compared to a modern text, the incongruent subjects of thought and the errors in syntax are definitely noticeable.
Additionally, Py has a spurious link between the Canon’s Yeoman and the Physician which, oddly enough, is a characteristic of the d group (M-R 7:1). It is one of four manuscripts, including Bodley 414 (Bo1), Phillipps 8136 (Ph2), and Selden B.14 (Se), that is not in the d group but that has the entire fourteen-line link which reads:
“When that this yoman his tale endid hadde
Of this false Chanon wiche that was so bade
Oure [host] gan to sey truly and certeyn
This prest was begild sooth for to seyne
He wenyng for to be a Philosophir
Till he right no gold left in his cofir
And sothely this prest had a lithir iape
This cursed chanon put in his hood an ape
But alle this wille I passe ouer as nowe
Sir doctor of physic I prey you
Tell vs a tale of some honest matier
It shal be done if that ye wille it here
Seid this doctour and his tale began anon
Now good [men] coth he herkneth euerichon.” (M-R 7:3)
In the Riverside Chaucer, the Canon’s Yeoman has no epilogue and is followed by the Manciple. Additionally, the Physician has no prologue and follows the Franklin’s Tale. While the Physician’s Tale is placed after the Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale in many manuscripts, apparently no link in the form of epilogue or prologue existed, so this spurious passage was probably supplied to give a better transition from one tale to the other.
When compared to each other, Ra1 and Py both have different readings for the Man of Law endlink. In line 1179, Ra1 reads “squyer,” while Py reads “sompnour.” The reading of Ra1 makes some sense if logic leads us to believe that the introduction of the Squire’s character leads to the telling of his tale. Along this same line, however, the reading of Py does not make much sense because the next tale is not told by the Summoner and is, in fact, told by the Squire. As far as order, it seems coherent to put the Squire after the Man of Law, since the Man of Law’s prologue mentions “Canacee,/That loved hir owene brother synfully” (Riverside 88:78-9) and then the Squire proceeds to tell his soon-interrupted tale of Canacee. However, our modern text of the Riverside Chaucer seems to go against all of these expectations by using “shipman” on the basis of the Se manuscript then continuing on to the Wife of Bath. Chaucer’s original intent seems difficult to distinguish amid the confusion of the different pilgrims mentioned and the lack of agreement among manuscripts as to which tale should follow the Man of Law.
It is interesting to note that both manuscripts are missing the complete Parson’s Tale and both lack the Retraction. The omission of the Retraction is of significance to the meaning of closure in the tales. In it, Chaucer follows the tradition of the medieval palinode to retract not just the Canterbury Tales but his lifetime of literary works (Benson 22). Of the manuscripts that contain the Retraction, all place it after the Parson’s Tale, which calls for repentance. However, Py ends at line 1062 of the Parson’s Tale and Ra1 is missing it completely (M-R 1:450). Since both manuscripts are in the b group, perhaps their ancestor lacked a completed Parson’s Tale and Retraction, or perhaps wear over time caused the last pages of the manuscripts to be damaged or lost. Regardless of the cause of omission, the Retraction adds a sense of closure to the Tales, and without it, a reading audience of either manuscript may have had a feeling of being left “hanging.”
The irony is that Canterbury Tales is most arguably an incomplete work in and of itself, and that even modern readers may be left “hanging” at the end. If the pilgrims are supposed to tell four tales each, what are the other tales? Who tells the best tale and wins supper at the Tabard Inn? Is that really the point? By not having all the loose ends tied up neatly, Chaucer encourages his audience, from the Middle Ages to today, to think differently about the Canterbury Tales and their purpose, whether it be for entertainment or enlightenment. The different versions of manuscripts remind us that, while none may be considered perfect in the sense that they are the original, complete Chaucer version, all have been enjoyable and intriguing for many audiences and will remain so for many more.
Benson, Larry D., ed. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987.
Boyd, Beverly. "The Infamous b-Text of the Canterbury Tales." Manuscripta 34 (1990): 233-38.
Electronic Middle English Dictionary. Robert E. Lewis, et al. Dec. 2001. University of Michigan. 28 Mar. 2002. http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/m/med.
Manly, John M. and Edith Rickert, et al. The Text of the Canterbury Tales Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. 8 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940.