Tag Archives: manuscripts

A New Order

Dark_Pink_Butterfly

So this is the first draft of a proposal. It is not yet edited, but I should have it done and submitted in the next week. Any feedback is welcome.

Any scholar working with the Canterbury Tales will immediately be faced with the question of tale ordering as proposed by the different extant manuscripts –  a topic which has only gained more prominence since the appearance of the Manly-Rickert 1940 volumes that greatly facilitated textual comparisons. Theories on tale orderings abound, and while true authorial intent remains unknown, and perhaps unknowable, some theories appear to be better than others. This paper will argue that while each existing witness manuscript provides a piece of the puzzle, there is yet another order that appears nowhere within the manuscripts and has not been adequately addressed, but when regarded in terms of paleographic and contextual evidence deserves closer examination and consideration. Specifically, this paper proposes a rearrangement of what are currently considered Fragments VI and VII. The argument is twofold, first providing an explanation of how the Shipman’s Tale has made its way towards the end of the tale ordering, while simultaneously justifying its connection to the other five tales within its fragment (despite its exclusion from numerous manuscripts).  Once the Shipman’s Tale is established, it will be shown that fragment it belongs to can be neatly divided into two when following a logical narrative path, while moving the second trio in this segment closer to the Franklin’s Tale in Fragment V since I believe the latter of this threesome was inserted within the Fragment II for lack of a better place to put it, and based on cursory evidence made to fit, despite clues that connect it to Fragment V.

In conclusion, the newly proposed tale ordering is as follows:

Fragments 1-5 (as depicted in Ellesmere and most other authoritative manuscripts) ending with the Franklin’s Tale

Fragment VII(second trio) – Prioresse-Thopas-Melibee

Fragment VI- Physician-Pardoner

Fragment VII(first trio) – Shipman-Monk-Nun’s Priest

 

Digitized Manuscript Access

hengwrt

This isn’t really a post… I am just frustrated.

A few weeks ago the Wales National Library, Aberystwth made the Hengwrt manuscript available online in digitized form. Of course it was pretty amazing, however, even years before being so generous with this treasure they made the digitized version of the Hengwrt accessible for a small fee via CD-Rom. And I have to say, the CD-Rom version is better in that it allows close zooming, has a comparative text of the Ellesmere, and best of all allows for searching. The online version is not very conducive to scholarship, and unless you know what you are looking for it could take quite some time to find. But still, seeing it in this new format was pretty exciting while I sat there squinting at my screen as if I had never seen the images before.

In 1995 the Ellesmere Facsimile project took place where the manuscript was unbound, most meticulously photographed, and images were produced on various mediums, after which the manuscript was rebound and placed back on display. The restoration project was highly publicized and caused quite the stir at my undergrad institution for years to come (it probably still does). It even came with a companion piece of it that I have now used as a starting point on several occasions.

IMG_1911

However, a large part of the things I am working on now have less to do with the Hengwrt, or any well known manuscripts for that matter,  and while I cannot negate that the Hengwrt, along with the Ellesmere, are invaluable to most research of the Canterbury Tales, their importance a lot of the time relies on using the early witnesses as comparisons for the more obscure ones. Which is why access to the lesser known manuscripts is incredibly important, and it is very frustrating when it doesn’t exist. Especially when there are pictures of random pages of certain manuscripts floating around. Why not all of it?

To access some of these if you happen to attend a school that doesn’t have a medieval department (yes, such things exist) is nearly impossible, and then you are left to pretty much fend for yourself however you may. Self determination is great, but lack of resources will stump research far more quickly than laziness. Right now I am relying on what other people have said about a few of the manuscripts I need, which is useful, but some of the questions I have remain unanswered since what I am looking at, others have not done in the same way (otherwise what would be the point?).

Alright, I feel better now… And I suppose I did this to myself so I shouldn’t get too upset…

P.S. In the event anyone wants to know why I am making such a fuss, well, after having completed my Gamelyn piece, I began expanding it. So now I am looking at it not just in terms of Beowulf which I believe to be the original influence/intention for Gamelyn, but broadening the context to include the later chanson de geste tradition, and specifically looking at the Song of Roland. Which, I guess doesn’t at all explain why I am making such a fuss… short story made longer than needed, I am missing things.

 

Gamelyn

 

Canterbury_Tales

It is done. For what it is worth, here is the abstract, keeping in mind that I am *terrible* at abstracts where I have to turn 8000 words into 500… or basically any abstracts for that matter…

The Tale of Gamelyn is the black sheep of the Canterbury Tales. Few have spent more time on it past dubbing it “un-Chaucerian” and making various arguments against its authorship. Here I wish to assert not only Gamelyn’s authorship, but its origin and correct place within the tale order of the Canterbury Tales.

Some Chaucer scholarship has so deeply seeped into tradition it has become irrevocable truth among medievalists, and unfortunately the idea that Gamelyn was an addendum to the Canterbury Tales and not penned by Chaucer has suffered such a fate. However, when looking at three of the major strands of arguments against Gamelyn’s authenticity certain fallacies become immediately apparent.

To better understand why Gamelyn is a part of Chaucer’s oeuvre and intended for the Canterbury Tales, it is important not only to look at the text in light of narrative, but to perform the proper and necessary codicological and paleographic research of the twenty-five extant witness manuscripts that include the tale. And most importantly, its absence from other manuscripts must be considered, especially among those thought to be authoritative and part of the “early manuscript” category, despite phylogenetic analyses that attest to the similarities between the exemplars used.

Yet it is also the tale’s narrative originality that casts doubt among critics as to Chaucer’s authorship. The majority of his works were either adaptations of previous narratives, or had clearly transparent points of influence. Gamelyn cannot be placed anywhere prior to its existence within the Canterbury Tales. Nevertheless, when regarding Gamelyn as un-Chaucerian based only upon its utter uniqueness, the underlying assumption is that Chaucer was incapable of creating original work – a theory which the corpus of works unquestionably credited to him disproves. However, while there was in fact no other similar tale, what I would like to point out is that despite its original narrative it is actually just another example of appropriation and recycling of old ideas (in a most ingenious way).

Through point by point plot comparisons and parallels in language, I will explore how Gamelyn is Chaucer’s version of Beowulf. Once this is outlined, the question still remains as to where within the Canterbury Tales it belongs, and which of the pilgrims is the best candidate for having told it.

In every manuscript where the tale may be found it is placed after the unfinished Cook’s Tale, having lead scholars to believe that it was to be told by the Cook in lieu of his initial tale, much like Chaucer the pilgrim tells two tales after having abandoned the first one (Thopas). Evidence among the manuscripts, including several where the tale is not found, corroborates this hypothesis. However, by careful analysis of all the pilgrims who could have been the tellers of this tale, and through a process of elimination, I will propose the Yeoman (not to be confused with the Canon’s Yeoman) as Gamelyn’s teller.

In short, this paper will probe Gamelyn from myriad perspectives to better understand its place and origin within the Chaucer tradition.