Stacia Sanders
ENG 421 - Kiernan
Report 2
2 April 2002
There actually doesn't seem to be much information on these two manuscripts outside of Manly and Rickert's cataloguing. This is probably because Royal 17 D.xv is considered to be a very mixed up version of manuscript order which Manly and Rickert decide is the "result of accident" (M-R, v2: 488) . Royal 18 C.ii may have been pushed aside for more interesting manuscripts even though it is the earliest d group manuscript that contains all of the characteristic spurious links (M-R, v1: 487). Whatever the case, researchers do not seem very interested in these two manuscripts.
Royal 17 D.xv (Ry1)
Ry1 contains a rather mutilated version of the Canterbury Tales, along with some political papers and poetry (M-R, v1:476)
Manly and Rickert place two possible sets of handwriting, one of who they believe worked for John Shirley based on similar handwriting in Py, Hl2, Arundel 59, and a few other Canterbury Tales MSS. The work is very professional, and contains very little correction. (M-R, v1: 477) It was compiled between 1450 and 1470 (M-R, v2:48).
Although Royal 17 D.xv is superficially a D manuscript, Manly and Rickert call it a "conglomeration of tales" due to its odd order and the links and connections between tales (M-R, v1: 478-479). "Both scribes and rubricators were troubled by the lack of connection and became confused as to the divisions within tales" (M-R, v1: 480)
The order of Royal 17 D.xv led Manly and Rickert to conclude that it was a manuscript of "varied textual affiliations . . . in part the result of accident" (M-R, v2: 488)
The order of Ry1 is as follows from Chart V: Type d, Pure and Distorted, from Manly and Rickert's second volume:
Group A
1) General Prologue
2) Knight's Tale
3) Knight-Miller Link
4) Miller's Tale
5) Miller-Reeve Link
6) Reeve's Tale
7) Reeve-Cook Link
8) Cook's Tale
The General Prologue of Royal 17 D.xv is incomplete due to mutilation (M-R, v2: 78)
The Knight's Tale was derived from a manuscript in the b group, so here the Ry1 departs from it's superficial d affiliation (M-R, v2: 104).
Group X
1) Cook's Tale of Gamelyn
The Cook's Tale of Gamelyn is inserted after the Cook's Tale without a link. Perhaps the scribe who wrote the Royal 17 D.xv thought that Chaucer had meant to break off the Cook's Tale so that the Cook could start his tale of Gamelyn.
Group B1
1) Man of Law's Headlink
2) Man of Law's Tale
3) Man of Law's Endlink
The Man of Law's Endlink in Ry1 includes one of the questionable substitutions of a pilgrim. The pilgrim who interrupts the Parson is sometimes identified as either the squire, the summoner, or the shipman in one manuscript (Benson: 10). The Royal 17 D.xv identifies this interruption as the Summoner's.
Group Fa
1) Merchant Endlink-Squire Headlink
2) Squire's Tale
3) Squire-Merchant Link
The Merchant's Endlink is reworded in Royal 17 D.xv and combined with the Man of Law's Endlink and the Squire's Headlink to form a transition between the Man of Law's Tale and the Squire's Tale. In the Royal 17 D.xv, the Squire comes directly after the Man of Law, and before the marriage group, instead of breaking up the marriage group between the Merchant and the Franklin, as in the Riverside manuscript.
Group Eb
1) Merchant's Tale
This manuscript begins the "marriage group" with the pessimistic anti-marriage Merchant and ends with the Franklin's Tale.
Group D
1) Wife of Bath's Tale
2) Wife of Bath-Friar Link
3) Friar's Tale
4) Friar-Summoner Link
5) Summoner's Tale
Group Ea
1) Clerk Link
2) Clerk's Tale
A link is missing here; there is no link connecting the Clerk's Tale to the Franklin.
Group Fb
1) Franklin's Tale
Group G
1) Second Nun's Tale
2) Second Nun-Canon's Yeoman Link
3) Canon's Yeoman's Tale
Group C
1) 14 line Canon's Yeoman-Physician Link
2) Physician's Tale
3) Physician-Pardoner Link
4) Pardoner's Tale
The fourteen line Canon's Yeoman-Physician Link is considered a spurious or non-authorial prologue (Bowers: 46-50). It was most likely copied from the Royal 18 C.ii manuscript, which is considered the oldest version with all four spurious links. The Physician-Pardoner Link found in the Royal manuscripts is considered to be the earliest version (M-R, v4: 78).
Group B2
1) Shipman's Tale
2) Shipman-Prioress Link
3) Prioress-Thopas Link
4) Chaucer's Tale of Sir Thopas
5) Thopas-Melibeus Link
6) Chaucer's Tale of Melibeus
7) Melibeus-Monk Link
8) Monk's Tale
9) Monk-Nun's Priest Link
10) Nun's Priest's Tale
This manuscript takes the Melibeus-Monk Link and the Monk's Tale from a "much corrected rough draft," which I am sure, Manly and Rickert think of as corrupt (M-R, v4: 217). Ry1 also contains the Nun's Priest's Epilogue, which is not included in all manuscripts (M-R, v4: 257).
Group H
1) Manciple's Prologue
2) Manciple's Tale
Group I
1) Parson's Prologue
2) Parson's Tale
Royal 18 C.ii (Ry2)
The Royal 18 C.ii contains the Canterbury Tales, and a listing of the Tales (M-R, v1: 485). It was compiled between 1420 and 1450 (M-R, v2: 48).
This manuscript is written in two very clear, professional hands with few corrections (M-R, v1: 486)
Ry2 is actually the head of it own small group according to Manly and Rickert. Ld2 (Laud 739) was apparently taken from Royal 18 C.ii, with some very unusual proof. Two misplaced leaves, turned backwards, in Royal 18 C.ii were copied verbatim into Laud 739.
Royal 18 C.ii is important because it is the earliest d group manuscript with all of the spurious links that are characteristic to the group (M-R, v1: 487). John M. Bowers defines these four spurious links in Royal 18 C.ii as "non-authorial prologues" (Bowers: 41). Bowers gives Ry2 "best text status" of the four manuscripts that contain all of the spurious links. He believes that the spurious links in the other three were copied from Royal 18 C.ii.
The order of Royal 18 C.ii is as follows from Manly and Rickert's second volume, "Chart V: Type d, Pure and Distorted":
Group A
1) General Prologue
2) Knight's Tale
3) Knight-Miller Link
4) Miller's Tale
5) Miller-Reeve Link
6) Reeve's Tale
7) Reeve-Cook Link
8) Cook's Tale
9) Two line Cook-Gamelyn Link
Group X
1) Cook's Tale of Gamelyn
With both the Cook's Tale and the Cook's Tale of Gamelyn, a reader might assume that a scribe decided to link the two, making it appear that the Cook either became bored with the one tale and started another or some other pilgrim interrupted and he changed his story.
Group B1
1) Gamelyn-Man of Law Link
2) Man of Law's Tale
3) Man of Law's Endlink reading "squyer"
With the Squire's Tale following the Man of Law's Tale, the reader can more clearly see the joke about Canacee and her incestuous relationships being played out. The Riverside Chaucer places the squire after the marriage group, which allows the reader to forget that the Man of Law actually mentioned the tale of Canacee with disdain, and the Squire is cut off before he can begin the story of Canacee and her incestuous relationship.
Group Fa
1) Squire's Tale
2) Squire-Franklin Link reading "marchaunt"
The Squire-Franklin link was originally lacking and inserted later by a different scribe (M-R, v4: 29).
Group Eb
1) Merchant's Tale
2) Sixteen line Merchant-Wife of Bath Link
The sixteen line Merchant-Wife of Bath Link is one of Bowers' four non-authorial links (Bowers: 46-50). Placing the Merchant at the beginning of the marriage group puts the most pessimistic view first, possibly changing the dynamic of the thematic group. It also puts the Clerk, who argues for a husband's dominance, very near the end, thus making it more memorable. Perhaps a scribe decided to rearrange and link the two tales independently.
Group D
1) Wife of Bath's Tale
2) Wife of Bath-Friar Link
3) Friar's Tale
4) Friar-Summoner Link
5) Summoner's Tale
6) Genuine lines of Summoner's Tale end at line 2158, four line ending added
An ancestor of Ry2 lacked Group D, and scribes filled in later when the material was available (M-R, v1: 487). This ancestor may account for the lack of over a thousand lines of the Summoner's Tale. In any case, I do not see that four lines can make up for what was never inserted.
Group Ea
1) Link to Clerk's Tale
2) Clerk's Tale
3) seven line Clerk Endlink
4) Short form of Merchant's Endlink
The Wife of Bath's Stanza and the Envoy are removed or omitted from the Clerk's Tale (M-R, v2: 243). The seven line Clerk Endlink, the shortened form of the Merchant's Endlink, and the seven line Franklin Headlink are here combined by the scribe and revised to form a transition between the Clerk's Tale and the Franklin's Tale. This is another of Bower's non-authorial prologues.
Group Fb
1) Seven line Franklin Headlink
2) Franklin's Tale
Group G
1) Second Nun's TaleAnother of the non-authorial prologues which Bowers studied, the fourteen line Canon's Yeoman-Physician link is used in many manuscripts in which the Canon's Yeoman's Tale comes before the Physician's Tale.
Group C
1) Physician's Tale
2) Physician-Pardoner Link
3) Pardoner's Tale
4) Twelve line Pardoner-Shipman Link
The Physician-Pardoner link contained in Royal 18 C.ii is one of the earliest and shortest versions of the link written by Chaucer (M-R, v2: 325). The Pardoner-Shipman Link is the last of the four spurious links that Bowers mentions in his study of Royal 18 C.ii.
Group B2
1) Shipman's Tale
2) Shipman-Prioress Link
3) Prioress's Tale
4) Prioress-Thopas Link
5) Chaucer's Tale of Sir Thopas
6) Thopas-Melibeus Link LACKING
7) Chaucer's Tale of Melibeus LACKING
8) Melibeus-Monk Link
9) Monk's Tale
10) Monk-Nun's Priest Link
11) Nun's Priest's Tale
According to Manly and Rickert, there is a "large omission" in Ry2 in the Thopas-Melibeus Link and in Chaucer's Tale of Melibeus due to a "defective ancestor" (M-R, v4: 148). They also mention that the Melibeus-Monk Link and Monk's Tale are taken from a much better copy (M-R, v4: 217).
Group H
1) Manciple's Prologue MISSING
2) Manciple's Tale
Group I
1) Parson's Prologue
2) Parson's Tale
3) Retraction
The Royal 18 C.ii was owned by Philip Chetwynd, a retainer at court who was related to several dukes, duchesses, and an earl. The collection of tales circulated until it became part of John, Lord Lumley's library. As a great collector, his library was bought upon his death by King James in 1609. It became a part of the Royal Library, which, in 1735, was passed on to the British Museum. The quality of the homes and the care that was given by each of its owners is responsible for the good condition that the Royal 18 C.ii is in today. (M-R, v1: 493)
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.
Bowers, John M. The Canterbury Tales: Fifteenth Century Continuations and Additions, "Spurious Link: BL Royal 18 C.ii." Kalamazoo, Michigan. 1992.
Benson, Larry D. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd Edition. Houghton-Mifflin Comany, Boston. 1987.