xiv. 183) gives twenty-seven examples of this, and draws what is, in my

opinion, the erroneous conclusion, that it was Chaucer who copied Gower; which seems like suggesting that Tennyson was capable of borrowing from Martin Tupper.

We may readily understand that, if Chaucer observed this use of his work, it could not have given him much pleasure; and perhaps we may here see some reason for the seemingly undue asperity with which, in his revised edition, he refers to Gower's performance; see B 77-89, and the notes. On the other side Gower, who in his first edition, just near the end, had introduced a complimentary allusion to Chaucer, may well have thought fit to suppress that passage in his revised copy, from which it is certainly absent. This seems to me to be the simplest solution of the facts as they stand.

I here take occasion to give my proposed explanation of Gower's reference to Chaucer in his first edition, where he puts _into the mouth of the goddess Venus_ the following words (ed. Pauli, iii. 374):--

'And grete wel Chaucer, whan ye mete, As _my_ disciple and _my_ poete. For, _in the floures of his youthe_, In sondry wyse, as he wel couthe, Of ditees and of songes glade, The which he _for my sake_ made, The lond fulfild is overal; Wherof to him in special Above al other I am most holde. Forthy now, in his dayes olde, Thou shalt him telle this message, That he, upon his later age, To sette an ende of al his werke, As he, which is _myn owne clerke_, Do make _his testament of love_, As thou hast do thy shrifte above, So that _my court it may recorde_.'

These lines are followed by a laudation of King Richard, which Gower afterwards conscientiously suppressed. The course of events had shewn him that such praise was unfitting.

I take it that these lines were written in 1385, at the very time when the author learnt that his friend Chaucer was at work upon a new poem which he meant to be a great work, viz. the Legend of Good Women. This poem Venus might well claim as being written by her own clerk, as a testament of love, containing legacies of bright examples set by Love's martyrs; and, just as Gower wrote his own poem as a 'shrift,' Chaucer was writing his as a 'penance' (Leg. Good Women, 491) at the command of Cupid (437, 548), a command which was given _at his court_ (352). We can readily understand how Venus could speak of Cupid's court as being her own court; it makes no practical difference.

It remains to shew (with Lücke) that Chaucer and Gower both knew Trivet, and that Gower's language sometimes resembles Chaucer's rather than Trivet's.

The former proposition is soon settled. Where Trivet says, 'et ferri tiel coup en le haterel le feloun' (p. 23, l. 30), Chaucer has, 'A hand him smoot upon the nekke-bon' (669); but Gower omits to mention the 'nekke-bone,' which translates _haterel_. This shews that Chaucer used Trivet's text. On the other hand, Gower mentions Knaresburgh (i. 191), which he found in Trivet, whilst Chaucer says nothing about it; see note to B 729.

As to the instances in which one poet has copied the other, whilst at the same time Trivet does not suggest the phraseology which they employ, Lücke gives twenty-seven examples in Anglia, xiv. 183. Some of these are rather far-fetched and doubtful, and not many of them are very clear; but their cumulative evidence sufficiently proves the fact. I shall only adduce the clearer cases.

'Ch.' means Chaucer, and 'G.' is Gower. I correct Pauli's spelling.

Ch. B 430:--

Ben al to-hewe and stiked _at the bord_.

G. i. 182, l. 29:--

_Endlong the bord_ as they be set

Trivet merely says that they killed all the Christians.

Ch. B 436:--

That of the _conseil_ of the sowdan woot.

G. 182, l. 25:--

And alle tho, that hadden be... Of _counseil_ to the mariage.

Trivet merely says--the other converts to the faith.

Ch. B 438 (not in Trivet):--

And Custance han they _take anon_, foot-hoot.

G. 183, l. 15:--

This olde fend, this Sarazin Let _take anon_ this Constantin.

Ch. B 439:--

And in _a shippe al sterelees_, god woot.

G. 183, l. 19:--

_A_ naked _ship, withoute stere_.

This instance is the more remarkable because Trivet says, 'saunz sigle et sauntz neuiroun,' i.e. without sail or oar, without any mention of the _stere_ or rudder. Ch. B 535 (not in Trivet):--

But _Hermengild lovede hir right as hir lyf_.

G. 184, l. 29:--

Dame _Hermegild ... ... liche her owne lyf Constance loveth_.

This, at any rate, is a clear case.

Ch. B 562:--

Dame _Hermengild, yif me my sighte agayn_.

G. 185, ll. 13, 15:--

O _Hermegilde ... yif me my sighte_.

Trivet's expression is different, viz. 'Hermegild, ... I pray thee to make the sign of the rood on my blind eyes.'

Ch. B 599:--

Al _softely is to the bed y-go_.

G. 187, l. 18:--

And _to the bed he stalketh stille_.

Trivet does not refer to this _motion towards_ the bed; he merely says that Constance and Hermegild were both in the same bed.

Ch. B 620:--

Berth hir on hand that she _hath doon this thing_.

G. 188, l. 15:--

Saith that Custance hath _don this dede_.

Trivet puts it differently--'he heaped the death hugely on the maid.'

Ch. B 685:--

_The king, and many another in that place_, Converted was.

G. 190, l. 7:--

_The king, with many another mo_, He cristned.

It is remarkable that Trivet says that king Alle caused _himself_ to be baptized; there is not a word about _others_.

Ch. B 721, 2:--

She halt _hir chambre_, abyding Cristes wille. The _tyme is come_, a knave-child she ber.

G. 191, ll. 1-3:--

_The tyme_ set of kinde _is come_, This lady hath _her chambre_ nome, And of a sone bore fulle, &c.

A clear case; Trivet uses no such expressions.

Ch. B 759:--

But of his owene bond _he wroot ageyn_.

G. 193, l. 3:--

_He wroot ayein._

Here the French text has 'rescrit,' wrote back.

Ch. B 799:--

But _in the same ship as he hir fond_.

G. 194, l. 11:--

That ye _the same ship_ vitaille, _In which that she took arrivaille_.

A remarkable case; for Trivet makes it a new ship--'vne neef.'

Ch. B 825:--

_kneling on the stronde_ (not in Trivet).

G. 195, l. 7:--

_Knelend upon her bare knee._

Ch. B 916:--

_Com into ship._

G. 196, l. 28:--

_cam to ship._

Trivet uses the expression 'descendi,' i.e. came down.

Ch. B 1045:--

_Goth Alla, for to seen this_ wonder chaunce.

G. 207, l. 23:--

_To see this_ Custe _goth the king_.

Trivet has it differently.

Ch. B 1093:--

The emperour hath graunted gentilly.

G. 209, l. 19:--

This lord hath graunted his requeste.

Taken altogether, these appropriations by Gower, though not in themselves very marked, must have been annoying to his brother-poet.

It is worth while to notice that, in the three cases of the Wyf of Bathes Tale, the Phisiciens Tale, and the Maunciples Tale, Chaucer and Gower again tell the same stories; and though Chaucer wrote at a later date, he certainly has not copied.

§ 39. THE SHIPMAN'S PROLOGUE. This Prologue is assigned to the Shipman in MS. Arch. Seld. only; see the footnote to B 1179. MS. Harl. 3774 assigns it to the Sompnour; whilst very many MSS. assign it to the Squire. The three chief MSS. (E., Hn., Cm.) omit it altogether; from which we may perhaps infer that it was a very late addition to the set of Tales.

In order to exhibit the variations of the MSS. more clearly, Dr. Furnivall has printed this Prologue from no less than twenty-two MSS., with the result that only one, viz. MS. Arch. Seld. above, rightly assigns it to the Shipman and, at the same time, places it after the Man of Lawes Tale. Three of the MSS., viz. Harl. 7334, Rawl. Misc. 1133, and Royal 17 D. XV, assign it to the Sompnour, but they are all clearly wrong, because, notwithstanding this mention of the Sompnour, the Tale that follows is assigned, in the first, to the Wyf of Bathe, and, in the others, to the Squire! Eighteen of the MSS. assign this Prologue to the Squire, and insert his Tale after it. We may hence conclude that, in some early copies, a displacement of the Tales occurred at this point.

But it is easy to see that MS. Arch. Seld., the sole authority for the present arrangement, is here quite right[114]. The latter part of the Prologue (B 1178-90) is quite unsuited to the character of the Squire, but in keeping with that of the Shipman. Further, the Squire has a Prologue of his own, though it is incomplete in the sense that there is no indication whom the Squire is to follow (F 1-8). But the clearest proof that the author's _latest_ intention was to place both the Shipman's Prologue and Tale precisely _here_, and nowhere else, appears from the following facts. First, we see, as above, that it is clearly a Shipman's Prologue, and therefore precedes the Shipman's Tale; whilst there is an obvious allusion in it to the Man of Lawes Tale as being the one which it must needs follow. The former of these points was seen by Tyrwhitt long ago; and he accordingly assigned this Prologue to the Shipman. The latter point was made by Mr. Henry Bradshaw, who conclusively shewed that no other arrangement would suit, by pointing to the author's own words. Thus, in B 46, the Man of Lawe says--'I can right now _no thrifty tale_ seyn,' and is inclined to be apologetic; but, after the tale is told, the Host is well pleased, and consoles him in express terms in the words--'This _was a thrifty tale_ for the nones.' And, to put the matter beyond dispute, turns to the Persone, with the words--'I see wel that _ye lerned men in lore_,' meaning the Persone and the Man of Lawe. In most MSS., the Shipman's Tale follows the Pardoner's; which involves the difficulty of making the Host call the Pardoner 'a lerned man in lore.' The proof that this is the very last title the Host would have bestowed on the Pardoner, is given in C 942-968, where the Host's contempt of the Pardoner is expressed in the strongest terms which he could command; and his capabilities of expression were considerable. Few happier hits have been made than the convincing argument which we are glad to owe to Mr. Bradshaw, whose knowledge of Chaucer's text was believed by many scholars to be without parallel.

But the story of the Shipman's Prologue is not yet ended. Many scribes perceived how ill suited this Prologue was for following the Pardoner's Tale, or the Cook's Tale, or the Tale of Gamelyn, which were the places it was sometimes made to occupy. In order to remedy this apparent defect, a _spurious_ Shipman's Prologue was concocted, consisting of but twelve lines. This is the Prologue given in the black-letter editions, which, in order to make the true Shipman's Prologue do duty for a Squire's Prologue, actually resorted to the arbitrary process of suppressing the true Squire's Prologue altogether! I here give this spurious Prologue, but in true Chaucerian spelling, in order to shew more clearly how ill some of the lines scan. I follow mainly the Petworth MS., denoted by 'Pt.'; and give all the variations worth mentioning that occur in the other eight MSS., viz. Roy. (Royal 18 C ii), Sl. (Sloane 1685), B. (Barlow 20), H. (Hatton 1), M. (Camb. Univ. Lib. Mm. 2. 5), R. (Rawl. Poet. 149), L. (Laud 739), and I. (Camb. Univ. Lib. li. 3. 26).

SPURIOUS SHIPMAN'S PROLOGUE.

'Now freendes,' seide our Host so dere, 'How lyketh yow by Iohn the Pardonere? For he hath unbokeled wel the male; He hath us told right a thrifty tale, As touching of misgovernaunce. 5 I prey to God, yeve him good chaunce, As ye han herd of thise ryotoures three. Now, gentil Mariner, hertely I preye thee, Tel us a good tale, and that right anon.' 'It shal be doon, by God and by Seint Iohn,' 10 Seide this Mariner, 'as wel as ever I can': And right anon his tale he bigan. 12

1. Now] Sl. How. 2. H. L. J. _om._ the. 4. Roy. B. H. told; _rest_ tolde (!). 5. of] H. of his; I. his. 6. good] Sl. H. M. goode; B. right goode. 7. B. riatoures; H. M. R. Sl. riatours; L. ryotours; Pt. reto_ur_ues (!). 8. Roy. H. M. R. B. L. hertly; I. nowe hertely; Sl. _om._ Pt. preye; _rest_ pray (prey). 9. Pt. Roy. R. I. good; _rest_ gode (goode). 12. And] R. _om._

As to these lines, I will merely make the following remarks. Line 1 is too short by a whole foot; and so is l. 5. Lines 8 and 11 are somewhat too long. Line 4 will scan well, if we substitute _told-e_ for _told_, as some of the MSS. do; but, unfortunately, _told-e_ is here an impossible form. Line 3 is imitated from A 3115; and l. 10 from B 1019. In l. 7, we must suppress _of_, in order to make the line run well; only this destroys the sense. It is not easy to imitate Chaucer's language for twelve lines together, especially when sense has to be regarded. Moreover, the way in which l. 7 is made to depend on l. 6 is extremely awkward.

In the true Prologue, the Shipman gives due notice that he is going to tell a 'merry,' i.e. a licentious story; which he proceeds to do.

§ 40. THE SHIPMANNES TALE. A similar Tale occurs in Boccaccio's Decamerone, Day 8, Nov. 1. The scene is laid in Milan; the husband is a rich merchant named Guasparruol Cagastraccio; and his wife's name is Ambruogia. The gallant is Gulfardo, a German, and not a priest. The sum borrowed is 200 florins; which Gulfardo restores to the wife in the presence of a witness, so that she is obliged to admit its repayment. The place to which the merchant goes, on a business errand, is Genoa.

It is not at all likely that Chaucer took this from the Decamerone, which he seems never to have read. He probably found it in some French _fabliau_, and treated the story, as usual, so as to make it all his own. In B 1404, we find the French phrase '_Qui la?_' The scene is laid near Paris, and France is specially mentioned in B 1306, 1341, 1384. The merchant's business calls him away to Bruges (1448).

There is a curious difficulty in the opening lines of this Tale. The use of the words _us_ (B 1202, 1209), _we_ (1204), and _our_ (1208), certainly shew that, in the first instance, this Tale was meant to be told by a woman; and, obviously, by the Wyf of Bathe in particular (cf. D 337-356). When Chaucer changed his mind, he forgot to make here the necessary corrections.

'The same fable ... is repeated by La Fontaine (Contes, ii. 9), in his usual forcible and witty way; but neither Boccaccio nor La Fontaine can vie with Chaucer's art.'--Ten Brink.

§ 41. THE PRIORESS'S PROLOGUE. This Prologue requires no explanation. The responsibility passes from the Shipman to the Prioress with perfect ease.

§ 42. THE PRIORESSES TALE. The real Prologue to this Tale is contained in B 1637-1642. What is called, in MSS. E. and Hn., the Prologue is, more strictly, a Proem; and the Tale itself is, more strictly, a Legend, or (as the author calls it) a 'song'; B 1677. The Legend, although in stanzas, is told with practised skill, and probably belongs to the later period. The Proem resembles that to the Life of Seint Cecile, and contains a similar invocation to the Virgin. The third stanza reminds us of one in the A. B. C., viz. that beginning with M. We may note the introduction of the words 'quod she' (1644), and the line 'To telle a storie I wol do my labour' (1653).

The Tale itself is taken from a source similar to that of the Legend of Alphonsus of Lincoln, a story reprinted by the Chaucer Society from the Fortalitium Fidei; Lugdun. 1500, fol. ccviii. In another edition, printed in 1485, the Legend of Alphonsus is said to have been composed in 1459, and it is stated to be the work of a Minorite friar, whose name, according to Hain and others, was Alphonsus a Spina. The story is, that a widow residing in Lincoln has a son named Alphonsus, ten years of age, who goes daily to school, singing 'Alma Redemptoris' as he passes through the street where the Jews dwell. One day the Jews seize him, cut out his tongue, tear out his heart, and throw his body into a filthy pit. But the Virgin appears to him, gives him a precious stone in place of a tongue, and enables him to sing 'Alma Redemptoris' for four days. His mother seeks and finds him, and he is borne to the cathedral, still singing. The bishop celebrates mass; the boy reveals the secret, resigns the precious stone to the bishop, gives up the ghost, and is buried in a marble tomb. A similar legend is narrated concerning Hugh of Lincoln; see note to B 1874.

In Originals and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, pt. iii. (Chaucer Soc. 1876), is the story of the Paris Beggar-boy murdered by a Jew, printed from the Vernon MS., leaf 123, back. It is well told, and has some remarkable points of agreement with the Prioresses Tale. It clearly identifies the hymn Alma Redemptoris Mater as agreeing with the _second_ anthem mentioned in the Note to B 1708, which is partly translated as follows:--

'Godus Moder, mylde and clene, Heuene [gh]ate and sterre of se, Saue þi peple from synne and we' [_woe_].

The same publication contains a similar story, in French verse, of a boy killed by a Jew for singing 'Gaude Maria'; from MS. Harl. 4401. The author was Gautier de Poincy.

Tyrwhitt's account of the Prioresses Tale is as follows: 'The transition from the Tale of the Shipman to that of the Prioresse is happily managed. I have not been able to discover from what Legende of the Miracles of Our Lady the Prioresses Tale is taken. From the scene being laid in Asia, it should seem, that this was one of the oldest of the many stories which have been propagated, at different times, to excite or justify several merciless persecutions of the Jews, upon the charge of murthering Christian children. The story of Hugh of Lincoln, which is mentioned in the last stanza, is placed by Matthew Paris under the year 1255. In the first four months of the Acta Sanctorum by Bollandus, I find the following names of children canonized, as having been murthered by Jews: xxv Mart. _Willielmus Norvicensis_, 1144; _Richardus, Parisiis_, 1179; xvii Apr. _Rudolphus, Bernae_, 1287; _Wernerus, Wesaliae_, anno eodem; _Albertus, Poloniae_, 1598. I suppose the remaining eight months would furnish at least as many more. See a Scottish Ballad (Percy's Reliques of Ancient Poetry, i. 32) upon one of these supposed murthers. The editor [Percy] has very ingeniously conjectured that "Mirryland" in verse 1 is a corruption of "Milan." Perhaps the real occasion of the Ballad may have been what is said to have happened at _Trent_, in 1475, to a boy called _Simon_. The Cardinal Hadrian, about fifty years after, mentioning the Rocks of Trent, adds--"quo Iudaei _ob Simonis caedem_ ne aspirare quidem audent;" Praef. ad librum de Serm. Lat. The change of the name in the Song, from Simon to Hugh, is natural enough in _this_ country, where similar stories of Hugh of Norwich and Hugh of Lincoln had been long current.'

The Ballad alluded to is called 'The Jew's Daughter' by Percy, and is to the effect that a boy named Hugh was enticed to play and then stabbed by a Jew's daughter, who threw him into a draw-well. His mother, Lady Helen, finds him by hearing his voice.

For 'Hugh of Norwich,' as mentioned by Tyrwhitt, we should read 'William of Norwich.' His story is given in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, under the date 1137, on which Prof. Earle remarks--'St. William seems to have retained his celebrity down to the time of the reformation, at least in Norfolk. In Loddon church, which is advanced perpendicular of about 1500, there is a painting of his crucifixion on a panel of the rood-screen, still in fair preservation.' A wood engraving of this picture is given on the same page (A.S. Chron., ed. Earle, p. 371). As to the cruel treatment of the Jews, see the note on 'The Jews in England' in Annals of England, p. 162.

I may add that the story of Hugh of Lincoln, and a picture of the martyrdom of Simon at Trent, are given in an excellent chapter in Manners, Customs, and Dress, during the Middle Ages, by P. Lacroix, pp. 434-455.

A modernised version of the Prioresses Tale will be found among Wordsworth's Poems. It can hardly be said to be satisfactory; and the language of the original is, for the most part, so simple that the attempt to modernise it was a needless task. The old idea, that the attempt to read Chaucer in the original requires almost superhuman ability, will, I hope, soon be a thing of the past. As a matter of fact, his language is easier than that of Homer or Vergil; and Englishmen are already ceasing to be overpowered by a dread of learning facts that concern their own language.

§ 43. PROLOGUE TO SIR THOPAS. This passage, like the Prologues in rimed couplets, evidently belongs to the late period; we recognise here some of the author's best work. Notice, in particular, his description of himself.

§ 44. SIR THOPAS. Judging by the rhythm-test, this might be of early workmanship; but judging by the language, it is late. Like the exceptional Tale last discussed, it probably belongs to the late period, although not written in rimed couplets. Tyrwhitt's estimate of it is judicious and correct. He says--'The Rime of Sir Thopas was clearly intended to ridicule the "palpable gross" fictions of the common Rimers of that age, and still more, perhaps, the meanness of their language and versification. It is full of phrases taken from Isumbras, Li Beaus Desconus, and other Romances in the same style, which are still extant.... For the more complete reprobation of this species of Riming, even _the Host_, who is not to be suspected of too refined a taste, is made to cry out against it, and to cut short Sire Thopas in the midst of his adventures. Chaucer has nothing to say for his Rime, but that "it is the best he can" (B 2118), and readily consents to tell another Tale; but having just laughed so freely at the bad poetry of his time, he might think it, perhaps, too invidious to exhibit a specimen of better in his own person, and therefore his other Tale is in prose, a mere translation from Le Livre de Melibee et de dame Prudence, of which several copies are still preserved in MS. [See p. 426]. It is in truth, as he calls it, "a moral tale vertuous," and was probably much esteemed in its time; but in this age of levity, I doubt some readers will be apt to regret that he did not rather give us the remainder of Sire Thopas.'

Sir Thopas is admittedly a burlesque, and several of the passages imitated are quoted in the Notes; but I cannot quite resist the suspicion that Chaucer may himself, in his youth, have tried his hand at such romance-writing in all seriousness, but lived to have a good-humoured laugh even in some degree at his own expense; and he seems as if endeavouring to make his readers feel that they could wish there was somewhat more of it. Yet we cannot but allow that to

'Praise _syr Topas_ for a noble tale, And scorne the story that the Knight told'

is much the same as to

'say that Pan Passeth Appollo in musike manifold,'

as Sir Thomas Wiat has remarked in his second satire. It may be added that the usual metrical laws are not quite strictly observed in this Tale.

A dissertation on Sir Thopas by C. J. Bennewitz, of Magdeburg, appeared at Halle, 1879, with some useful notes; and a still fuller and more elaborate article, by Prof. E. Kölbing, will be found in the Englische Studien, xi. 495. In the latter especially, a large number of parallel passages are pointed out, some of which will be found in the Notes. Chaucer has seized the characteristics of the Romance-writers so well, that it would be an endless task to exhibit all his imitations. Some of the peculiarities of our old minstrels are well noted by Bennewitz. For example, they usually begin by requesting the company to listen (B 1902, 2083). They revel in similes (B 1915-7, 1920). They often divide their poems into cantos, each of which was called 'a fit' (B 2078). Sometimes they give us lists of heroes, as at the beginning of Richard Coer de Lion (B 2088- 2090); and a description of the particular hero of the romance (B 1914). They are very fond of hideous giants (B 1997), and of fairies (B 1978, 1992); and, of course, the heroes are continually riding up and down in quest of some adventure (B 1988). Of course, we expect occasional mention of the singing of birds (B 1956); of the springing of herbs (B 1950); and of instruments of music (B 2005). The knight's steed is often over-ridden (B 1965); and the knight himself must be consumed by love-longing (B 1975).

It is delightful to observe how Chaucer contrives, often by a mere word, to give the story a ludicrous turn, as in 1919--'He hadde a semely nose.' The hero's face is not, as usual, as white 'as a lyly,' but as white 'as payndemayn,' i.e. the finest bread (1915). His complexion was like 'scarlet in grain,' i.e. it would not wash out (1917). Among the wild beasts of the forest are both 'bukke and hare' (1946). Among the growing herbs he enumerates nutmeg 'to putte in ale' (1953); and so on. The most curious example of this kind of humour appears in the behaviour of the knight when attacked by the giant; he quietly makes his escape, on the plea that he will return next day; and this evasion of present battle is attributed to God's grace, and to his own 'fair beringe' (2022). It is needless to give further instances.

Prof. Kölbing bids us observe the varieties in the metre; it would seem that Chaucer deliberately intended to exhibit the most characteristic forms of the romantic stanza; for in five cases his examples are unique. The varieties are eight in all. Examples of these variable stanzas are as follows. (1) Stanzas with the rimes _aabccb_ (2017). (2) Rimes _aabaab_ (1914). (3) Rimes _aabaab_, _ccbccb_, i.e. two stanzas with the same middle and final rimes (1902-13). (4) A stanza with the rimes _aab_[gamma]_bbg_, where [gamma] denotes a line with but _one_ accent, riming with the line denoted by _g_ (1980). (5) A stanza of ten lines, _aabccb_[gamma]_ddg_ (2071). (6) A stanza of 10 lines, _aabaab_[gamma]_ccg_ (1997). (7) A stanza of 10 lines, _aabaab_[gamma]_aag_ (1987). (8) A stanza of ten lines, _aabccb_[gamma]_ccg_ (2007). The use of short lines, with but _one_ accent, as in 1983, is of frequent occurrence in romances; for examples, see Sir Gawayne and the Grene Knight, ed. Morris; Sir Tristrem, ed. McNeill (Scottish Text Soc.); The Pistill of Susan, in Scottish Allit. Poems, ed. Amours (id.); and cf. York Plays, ed. Miss T. Smith, p. 359, &c. In Sir Beves of Hamptoun, ed. Kölbing, we find a stanza with the rimes _aabccb_, followed by one with the rimes _aabaab_ (ll. 55-60, 61-66).

§ 45. PROLOGUE TO MELIBEUS. When the Host suddenly cuts short the Tale of Sir Thopas, Chaucer takes refuge in prose. The Tale of Melibeus is one which we should now deem portentously dull; but his hearers were, we must suppose, highly interested in listening to the various arguments used by Melibeus and his wife Prudence as to their proper course of action. Indeed, the Host highly approves of it, and thinks it would have tended to his own wife's edification. Chaucer also, for his part, undertakes the Tale as a solemn task, begging pardon beforehand for any variation he may make from the true and exact version (B 2131).

§ 46. THE TALE OF MELIBEUS. This prose story is merely a translation, and not always an exact one, of a French treatise entitled Le Livre de Melibee et de dame Prudence, of which there are two MS. copies in the British Museum, viz. MSS. Royal 19 C. vii, and 19 C. xi. Tyrwhitt also tells us that Dufresnoy, in his Bibliothèque des Romans, ii. 248, mentions two copies in verse, in the Bibliothèque Seguier. Le Livre de Melibee is likewise not an original work, but an adaptation, with some omissions and alterations, probably made by Jean de Meun, of a treatise in Latin, viz. the Liber Consolationis et Consilii of Albertano of Brescia. This work was admirably edited for the Chaucer Society in 1873 by Thor Sundby, who took much pains to trace out the originals of the numerous quotations with which the work abounds; and I am much indebted to him for my Notes. (We are bidden to observe that there also exists a second version in French prose, by an anonymous author, of a much more literal character, which is still unprinted.) Jean de Meun's version was first printed, separately, at the end of the fifteenth century; again, in 1504, together with the French translation of the Solatium Ludi Scachorum by Jacques de Cessoles; and lastly, it appears in the Ménagier de Paris, an early work on domestic economy which has been lately published by the Société des Bibliophiles Français. Chaucer's version is from Jean de Meun. Of course, the Latin original is the ultimate authority in difficult or corrupt passages; on which account it is often cited in the Notes. I have there given some curious examples of mistranslation or corruption of the text.

Albertano, born about 1192, was a judge at Brescia in Lombardy (not far west of the Lago di Garda), and died soon after 1250. He is an author of some importance to the Chaucer-student, as the poet refers to no less than three of his works. These are: (1) Liber Consolationis et Consilii (as above), completed in May, 1246; (2) De Arte Loquendi et Tacendi, cited in the Notes to the Maunciples Tale; and (3) De Amore et Dilectione Dei, written in 1238, cited in the Notes to the Marchantes Tale.

§ 47. THE MONK'S PROLOGUE. This Prologue connects Melibeus with the Monkes Tale. It contains a contribution to the exhibition of the Host's true character. In B 3116, we are told that the pilgrims are drawing near to Rochester. The Host then calls upon the Monk for a Tale, who replies that he can easily relate the Life of Saint Edward, but they would probably prefer to hear a few Tragedies about the downfall of some illustrious persons.

§ 48. THE MONKES TALE. Judged by the rhythm, this Tale might belong to the early period. The subject-matter shews, however, that is was probably written at different times, part of it at an early period, and part at the period of revision. It can hardly be called, in strictness, a tale at all, but consists of a whole series of them, and has all the appearance of having been originally an independent work, which Chaucer had at one time begun, but, in his accustomed manner, had left a little less than half finished. It is formed on the model of Boccaccio's book De Casibus Virorum Illustrium, the title of which is actually retained in the rubric printed at p. 244 of vol. iv. The manner in which the poet contrives to assign this string of tragedies to the monk is highly ingenious. The Host expects to hear rather a merry and lively story from the jovial and corpulent Monk, and rallies him upon his sleek appearance; but the Monk, taking all in patience, volunteers either the Life of Saint Edward the Confessor or else a few of his 'hundred' tragedies; and then, fearful of interruption, proceeds to define the word Tragedy, and to start off before any of the pilgrims have had time to offer any opinion upon the matter. He also offers an apology for not telling all his stories in strictly chronological order. This apology is the real key to the whole matter. We may well believe that, whilst the collection of tragedies was still an independent work, the arrangement was strictly chronological, or was intended to have been made such when the work was completed. Such was the usual formula; and accordingly the author begins, in the most approved fashion, with Lucifer, and then duly proceeds to Adam and all the rest. But as, in the course of composition, he would naturally first write such lives as most pleased him, and by no means succeeding in writing anything like a complete collection--for out of the 'hundred' that existed 'in his cell'[115] he produced only seventeen in all--it clearly became his simplest plan to give specimens only, and to abandon the chronological arrangement as no longer necessary. Yet it is worth remarking that the tragedies are more clearly in chronological order than may at first sight appear. If they be compared with such a book as Peter Comestor's Historia Scholastica, we shall see this the better. Peter Comestor takes the Bible as the foundation of his history, noticing secular history as he goes on. We thus find a mention of Hercules in the time of Jephthah, judge of Israel. Strictly, then, Hercules should precede Samson; but as they come so near together, the scriptural character takes precedence. Again, the tragedies of Antiochus and Alexander both belong, in this way, to the first book of Maccabees, and therefore come next after the tragedy of Holofernes, which belongs to the book of Judith. Here, again, Alexander should, in strictness, precede Antiochus, but this consideration is overridden by the fitness of coupling Antiochus with Holofernes, and Alexander with Caesar. Allowing, then, that Samson may precede Hercules, and that Antiochus may precede Alexander, we may divide the whole series into six groups, as follows:--(_a_) Lucifer, Adam, Samson, Hercules, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar; (_e_)[116] Zenobia; (_f_)[117] Pedro of Spain, Pedro of Cyprus, Barnabo, Ugolino; (_d_) Nero; (_c_) Holofernes, Antiochus, Alexander, Caesar; and (_b_) Croesus. This grouping is far more suggestive than might be expected, for it throws some additional light upon the matter, if duly considered. In the first place, group (_f_) consists wholly of what have been called 'modern instances,' as referring to matters that happened in Chaucer's own time, instead of containing examples from ancient history; three of the four are remarkably short, and all four only make up eleven stanzas. One of them, the tragedy of Barnabo, contains the latest allusion in the whole of the Canterbury Tales, as it has reference to the year 1385, the probable date of the Prologue to the Legend of Good Women. The difference in style between the tragedy of Ugolino and such a tragedy as that of Samson or Hercules, must strike the most careless reader; and it is easy to see that this group (_f_) was an afterthought, being a piece added at the period of revision. So much we can tell from internal evidence, but the fact is curiously corroborated by evidence that is external. For of course, if the poet added a few tragedies as an afterthought, he would naturally add them _at the end_; and it is accordingly a fact that in several good MSS., including the Ellesmere, the Hengwrt, and the Cambridge MSS., this group is placed _at the end_, after the tragedy of Croesus. But Chaucer's apology for want of order left him free to insert them where he pleased; and he was accordingly pleased to put them in the order in which they appear in the present edition, which follows the arrangement of the Harleian, Corpus, Petworth, and Lansdowne MSS. That this removal of group (_f_) from the end to an earlier place is in accordance with the author's latest intention, is proved by observing that the tragedy of Croesus must come last: (1) because it repeats, in the last stanza, the monk's previous definition of tragedy, a repetition of which the Knight does not approve, and takes occasion to say so (B 3961); and (2) because the Host also quotes from this last stanza, and ridicules the expression about Fortune 'covering things with a cloud'; see B 3956, 3972.

But we may, with patience, learn a few things more from the grouping of the tragedies. Putting aside group (_f_) as an addition at the time of revision, we may note that group (_e_) follows (_a_), for the simple reason that the story of Zenobia is in Boccaccio, whom Chaucer was imitating. We then have only groups (_d_), (_c_), and (_b_) to consider, and we notice at once that Chaucer has purposely somewhat mixed up these; for, if we merely transpose (_d_) and (_c_), we bring the tragedy of Nero next that of Croesus, and immediately preceding it. That is the original order of things, since the stories of Nero and Croesus are both taken from the Romaunt of the Rose, where they appear together, and Nero preceded Croesus in Chaucer's work as a matter of course, because his story preceded that of Croesus in the original. We have thus the pleasure of seeing Chaucer actually at work; he begins with Boccaccio and the Vulgate version of the Bible, drawing upon his recollections[118] of Boethius for the story of Hercules; he next takes a leaf or two from the Romaunt of the Rose; the story of Alexander, suggested (see B 3845) by the book of Maccabees, leads him on to write the tragedy of Caesar; then he tires of his work, and breaks off. Returning to it for the purpose of filling up his great work, he adds a few 'modern instances'; mixes up the order of tales; writes an apology for their want of order; humorously assigns them to the Monk, from whom the Host had expected something widely different; and makes the Knight cut him short when the right moment comes. The pilgrims had heard enough about tragedies, and began to want something more cheerful.

The great collection of tragedies which Chaucer may have originally contemplated, in imitation of Boccaccio, was fully carried out by his successor Lydgate, one of whose best works is the 'Falls of Princes.' This poem, written in Chaucer's favourite seven-line stanza, was not, however, taken from Boccaccio _directly_, but through the version of a Frenchman named Laurent de Premierfait, an ecclesiastic of the diocese of Troyes; see Morley's Eng. Writers, vi. 112, and the excellent dissertation by Dr. Köppel entitled 'Laurents de Premierfait und John Lydgates Bearbeitungen von Boccaccios De Casibus Virorum Illustrium'; München, 1885. Lydgate's poem long continued in favour, and in its turn suggested the famous series of tragedies by Sackville, Baldwin, and others, known by the name of the Mirror for Magistrates; see Morley's First Sketch of Eng. Lit., pp. 335-337. The most interesting point in Lydgate's version is his recognition of Chaucer's Monkes Tale in the following stanza of his prologue:--

'My mayster Chaucer[119] with his fressh commedies Is dede, allas, cheif poete of Bretayne, That sumtyme made full pitous tragidies; The "fall of princes" he dide also compleyne, As he that was of makynge souereyne; Whom all this londe of right[e] ought preferre, Sith of oure langage he was the lode-sterre.'

There is a poem entitled the Fall of Princis in the Percy Folio MS., ed. Hales and Furnivall, iii. 168; but it is of no great merit.

The original sources of the various Tragedies are sufficiently indicated in the Notes.

The metre employed is of some interest. It exhibits the simplest form of stanza employed by Chaucer, with the rimes arranged in the order _a b a b b c b c_, and was probably the first French metre which he ever used. It occurs in his A B C, though the original of that poem is in short lines. A good example of it, _in French_, will be found in a ballad by Eustache Deschamps, written on the death of Machault in 1377; see Tarbe's edition, p. 30. Hence Spenser probably derived his famous stanza, by appending to it an Alexandrine line.

In this Tale, there are two clear examples of lines in which the first foot consists of a single syllable. These are:--

Al | forbrúsëd, bóth-e bákk' and syd-e (3804): Wheth | er só he wóok or éllës slépt-e (3809).

And probably l. 3535 is of the same character (see note).

§ 49. THE PROLOGUE OF THE NONNE PRESTES TALE. This excellent Prologue, which links the Monkes Tale with that of the Nonne Preest, needs no comment. It is in Chaucer's best manner, like the Tale itself; both clearly belong to the period of the formation of the Tales into a series. It shews, moreover, that Chaucer's later taste had taught him to reprobate a style of writing which he, doubtless, at one time admired. See Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer, iii. 334.

§ 50. THE NONNE PREESTES TALE. This is the best specimen of our author's humour. An early version of the Tale occurs in a short fable by Marie de France, afterwards amplified in the old French Roman du Renart. The fable by Marie de France consists of thirty-eight short lines, and is printed in Dr. Furnivall's Originals and Analogues (Chaucer Society), p. 116, from MS. Harl. 978, leaf 56 (formerly 76). The corresponding portion of Le Roman de Rénart, as edited by Méon in 1826, vol. i. p. 49, is also printed in the same, p. 117; it comprises 454 lines (ll. 1267-1720), and contains the account of the cock's dream about a strange beast, and other particulars of which Chaucer makes some use. Professor Ten Brink shews that Marie's fable closely resembles one found in a Latin collection of Æsopian fables in a MS. at Göttingen, which he quotes in full (id. p. 114), and refers us for it to Oesterley, 'Romulus,' Berlin, 1870, p. 108.

A translation of Marie's fable, by myself, was printed in 'The Academy,' July 23, 1887 (p. 56); and is here reprinted for the purpose of comparison with Chaucer's story.

THE COCK AND THE FOX.

A Cock our story tells of, who High on a dunghill stood and crew. A Fox, attracted, straight drew nigh, And spake soft words of flattery. 'Dear Sir!' said he, 'your look's divine; I never saw a bird so fine! I never heard a voice so clear Except your father's--ah! poor dear! His voice rang clearly, loudly--but Most clearly, when his eyes were shut!' 'The same with me!' the Cock replies, And flaps his wings, and shuts his eyes. Each note rings clearer than the last-- The Fox starts up, and holds him fast; Towards the wood he hies apace. But as he crossed an open space, The shepherds spy him; off they fly; The dogs give chase with hue and cry. The Fox still holds the Cock, though fear Suggests his case is growing queer.-- 'Tush!' cries the Cock, 'cry out, to grieve 'em, "The cock is mine! I'll never leave him!"' The Fox attempts, in scorn, to shout, And opes his mouth; the Cock slips out, And, in a trice, has gained a tree. Too late the Fox begins to see How well the Cock his game has play'd; For once his tricks have been repaid. In angry language, uncontrolled, He 'gins to curse the mouth that's bold To speak, when it should silent be. 'Well,' says the Cock, 'the same with me; I curse the eyes that go to sleep Just when they ought sharp watch to keep Lest evil to their lord befall.' Thus fools contrariously do all: They chatter when they should be dumb, And, when they _ought_ to speak, are mum.

Dryden's version of this Tale, entitled The Cock and the Fox, must be familiar to all readers.

In Reliquiae Antiquae, ed. Halliwell and Wright, ii. 272, a humorous fable, entitled the Vox [Fox] and the Wolf, is printed from MS. Digby, 86. The first sixty-four lines give an account of a hungry fox, who breaks into a farm-yard and has a parley with a cock who had 'flowen on hey.' The fox tries to persuade the cock to come down from his lofty position:--

'Quath the wox, "Sire chauntecler, Thou fle adoun, and com me ner."'

But in this case, the cock knows better, and tells the fox to go away; and Reynard retires in disgust.

Such 'animal stories' are, of course, of great antiquity. See the remarks in Jacobs' edition of Caxton's 'Fables of Aesop,' vol. i. 253. Caxton's fable 'Of the foxe and of the cocke' is the third fable in Book V. A similar story, entitled 'A Fox and a Divining Cock,' occurs in the Fables of Æsop, by Sir Roger L'Estrange. It is needless to pursue the subject.

§ 51. EPILOGUE TO THE NONNE PREESTES TALE. These characteristic lines are obviously genuine, but are only extant in three MSS. (footnote to vol. iv. p. 289). The use of the word 'another' in the last line shews that they were composed with the view of being used as a Prologue to some Tale, but that the author had not, at the moment, decided what Tale was to come next. This point was, after all, never settled; and hence there is nothing to shew what was to follow. This brings us, of necessity, to the conclusion of Group B.

In the old black-letter editions, which _retain_ this Epilogue, it is followed by the Manciple's Prologue. But this cannot be right, for there (H 5) the Host does not address 'another,' but the whole company. One of the three MSS. which retain this Epilogue (Addit. 5140) reads 'the Nunne' instead of 'another,' because the next Tale in the MS. is that of the Second Nun. This also is unsuitable, for the Host does not introduce that Tale at all.

Tyrwhitt introduces a row of asterisks after this Epilogue, to shew that there is no connexion with the following Tale.

GROUP C.

§ 52. THE SPURIOUS PROLOGUE TO THE PHISICIENS TALE. This Tale has _no_ genuine Prologue, and some MSS., including E., do not contain one. In MS. Dd. is the rubric: 'Here endeth the Frankeleins Tale, and biginneth the Phisiciens Tale _without a Prologe_.' In the best MSS., it follows the Frankeleins Tale; and such is, in my belief, its proper position. This arrangement was arbitrarily altered by Dr. Furnivall, in order, I suppose, to emphasize the fact that the relative order of the Groups may be altered at pleasure; but this might have been understood without forcible dislocation; and I think that no good has been effected by it. I have been obliged to follow suit, but I wish to make a note that the right order of the Groups is A, B, D, E, F, C, G, H, I.

On the supposition that the Phisicien follows the Frankeleyn, Tyrwhitt inserted here a short Prologue of six lines, merely to fill up the gap, without accepting it as genuine. These six lines he found in _one_ MS. only, viz. in MS. Harl. 7735; and I have reprinted them from his edition in the foot-note to vol. iv. p. 289.

In most MSS. the original position of the Tales has been altered, so as to make the Phisicien follow the Chanouns Yeman; and this is the arrangement in the black-letter editions. Two spurious Prologues have been written to connect these Tales; both being very bad. One of these appears in the black letter editions; and I here give it, from the edition of 1532.

Whan this yeman his tale ended had Of this false chanon, which was so bad, Our Hoste gan say, 'truely and certayne, This preest was begyled, sothe for to sayne, He wenyng for to be a phylosopher, 5 Tyl he right no golde lefte in his cofer. And sothly, this preest had a lither[120] iape; This cursed chanon put in his hoode an ape. But al this passe I ouer as now. Sir Doctour of Phisyke, yet I pray you, 10 Tel vs a tale of some honest matere.' 'It shal be done, if that ye wol it here,' Sayd this Doctour, and his tale bygan anon: 'Now good men (quod he) herkeneth euerychon.'

It will be seen that lines 7-9 are imitated from B 1629, 1630, and 1633; and lines 9-14 coincide, very nearly, with the spurious Prologue of six lines which I have already discussed.

The other Prologue is still worse; Mr. Wright has printed it, in a note, from the Lansdowne MS., and I here reproduce it.

'Now trewly,' quod oure Oste, 'this is a prati tale; For litel merveile it is that thou lokest so pale, Sethen thou hast medeled with so mony thinges; With bloweinge att the cole to melte bothe brochez and ringes, And other many Iewels, dar I undertake, 5 And that thi lorde couthe us tel, if we might him overtake. But lat him go a devel waye, the compaigny is never the wers; And al suche fals harlotes, I sette not be hem a kers. But latt pas overe nowe al thes subtilitees, And sume worthi man tel us summe veritees; 10 As ye, worschipful Maister of Phisike, Tellith us somme tale that is a cronyke, That we may of yowe leren sum witte.' Quod the Maister of Phisik, 'a tale that I finde writte In [a] cronyke passed of olde tyme; 15 Herkeneth, for I wil tel it yow in rime.'

These lines are instructive, as shewing that we must not accept lines as genuine merely because they occur in a MS. of some authority. And this circumstance should warn us against the folly of accepting the genuineness of such a poem as the 'Court of Love,' merely on the authority of the edition of 1561, which is a third reprint of the edition by Thynne, with arbitrary additions.

§ 53. THE PHISICIENS TALE. This is the well-known story of Virginia, which Chaucer tells, as usual, in his own way. Although he appeals to Livy as his author, he really follows the account in Le Roman de la Rose, ll. 5613-82; which contains all the particulars which he introduces, except such as are of his own invention. It is interesting to compare ll. 3-120 of this Tale, which are practically Chaucer's own, with ll. 255-76, where he follows Jean de Meun rather closely. In order to illustrate this, I give the whole passage of the French text, from Méon's edition, lines 5613-82; t. ii. p. 74:--

Comment Virginius plaida Devant Apius, qui jugea Que sa fille, à tout bien taillée, Fust tost à Claudius baillée. Ne fist bien Apius à pendre, Qui fist à son serjant emprendre Par faus tesmoings, fauce querele 5615 Contre Virgine la pucele, Qui fu fille Virginius, Si cum dist Titus Livius[121] Qui bien set le cas raconter, Por ce qu'il ne pooit donter 5620 La pucele, qui n'avoit cure Ne di li, ne de sa luxure. Li ribaus[122] dist en audience: 'Sire juges[123], donnes sentence Por moi, car la pucele est moie; 5625 Por ma serve la proveroie Contre tous ceus qui sunt en vie: Car où qu'ele ait été norrie, De mon ostel me fu emblée Dès-lors par poi qu'ele fu née, 5630 Et baillie à Virginius. Si vous requier, sire Apius, Que vous me délivrés ma serve, Car il est drois qu'ele me serve, Non pas celi qui l'a norrie: 5635 Et se Virginius le nie, Tout ce sui-ge prest de prover, Car bons tesmoings en puis trover.' Ainsinc parloit li faus traïstre Qui du faus juge[124] estoit menistre[125]; 5640 Et cum li plais ainsinc alast, Ains[126] que Virginius parlast, Qui tout estoit prest de respondre Por ses aversaires confondre, Juga par hastive sentence 5645 Apius que, sans atendence, Fust la pucele au serf renduë. Et[127] quant la chose a entenduë, Li bons prodons devant nommés, Bons chevaliers, bien renommés, 5650 C'est assavoir Virginius, Qui bien voit que vers Apius Ne puet pas sa fille deffendre, Ains li convient par force rendre, Et son cors livrer à hontage, 5655 Si change honte por damage Par merveilleus apensement, Se Titus-Livius ne ment. Comment après la jugement Virginius hastivement A sa fille le chief couppa, Dont de la mort point n'échappa; Et mieulx ainsi le voulut faire Que la livrer à pute affaire; Puis le chief presenta au juge Qui en escheut en grant déluge. Car[128] il par amors, sans haine, A sa belle fille Virgine 5660 Tantost a la teste copée, Et puis au juge présentée Devant tous en plain consistoire; Et li juges, selonc l'estoire, Le commanda tastost à prendre 5665 Por li mener ocir ou pendre. Mès ne l'occit ne ne pendi, Car li pueples le deffendi Qui fu tous de pitié méus Si tost cum li fais fu séus; 5670 Puis fu por ceste mesprison Apius mis en la prison, Et là s'occist hastivement Ains le jor de son jugement; Et Claudius li chalangieres 5675 Jugiés fu à mort comme lieres, Se ne l'en éust respitié Virginius par sa pitié, Qui tant volt li pueple proier, Qu'en essil le fist envoier, 5680 Et tuit cil condampnés moururent Qui tesmoingz de la cause furent.

We thus see that the remark 'as seith the storie,' in C 258, simply translates the French--'selonc l'estoire.' It is to be regretted that Chaucer was unacquainted with Livy's version; see Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer, ii. 283. Gower (ed. Pauli, iii. 264) tells the same story; but I find no points of close resemblance, and many of divergence.

§ 54. WORDS OF THE HOST TO THE PHISICIEN AND THE PARDONER. These 'Words' connect the Phisiciens Tale with that of the Pardoner. There are some curious variations in the copies, which suggest that some alterations were here made by the author. The chief variations are the following.

C 289. E. Hn. fals cherl and; Cp. Pt. Ln. Hl. cursed theef.

C 290. E. Hn. Cp. Pt. sham(e)ful; Ln. Hl. schendful.

C 291, 2. E. Hn. Pt. _wholly vary from_ Cp. Ln. Hl.; see footnote in vol. iv. p. 299.

C 297-8. E. Hn. Pt. _omit these lines._

C 299, 300. Hl. (_and others_) _omit these lines._

I suppose that lines C 297-8, omitted in E. Hn., are a later (genuine) insertion. And perhaps the readings _cursed theef_ and _schendful_ are also corrections. But I follow MS. E. as the best guide, inserting 297-8 (as in the Six-text edition), that they may not be lost.

§ 55. PROLOGUE OF THE PARDONERS TALE. This is really a preamble; and the Tale itself has a long digression from the main subject. The portrait of the Pardoner, as here painted by himself, is historically valuable and minutely accurate; see the paper on 'Chaucer's Pardoner and the Pope's Pardoners,' by Dr. J. J. Jusserand, in Essays on Chaucer, p. 423 (Chaucer Society). The descriptions by Chaucer, Langland, Heywood (who plagiarises Chaucer mercilessly), and Sir David Lyndsay are, in this essay, supported by extracts from a papal letter by Boniface IX, written in 1390; by statements made by Richard d'Angerville, bp. of Durham, given in the Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense, iii. 325 (Rolls Series); and by extracts from Wilkins, Concilia, ii. 747, iii. 84, 131, 365. There is nothing to shew that the picture is unfair or overdrawn.

It may well be compared with one of the Tales in Boccaccio's Decamerone, Day 6, Nov. 10, which is given in full in a cheap reprint of selections from this work, edited by Prof. H. Morley, according to an English version made in the time of James I. There is nothing to shew that Chaucer had read this story; and, as has often been remarked above, he seems to have been unacquainted with the Decamerone. Some account of this Tale, with remarks, is given in Dunlop's History of Fiction, chap. vii. The hero of it is a certain friar Cipolla (i.e. Onion), whose account of himself is amusing. 'He gave a long account (says Dunlop) of his travels as far as India, and told how on his return he had visited the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who had shewn him innumerable relics; among others, a lock of the hair of the seraph that appeared to St. Francis, a paring of the cherub's nail, a few of the rays of the blessed star that guided the Magi in the east, the jaw-bone of Lazarus,' &c. He adds: 'This tale of Boccaccio drew down the censure of the Council of Trent, and is the one which gave the greatest umbrage to the church. The author has been defended by his commentators, on the ground that he did not intend to censure the respectable orders of friars, but to expose those wandering mendicants who supported themselves by imposing on the credulity of the people; that he did not mean to ridicule the sacred relics of the church, but those which were believed so in consequence of the fraud and artifice of monks.' But it must have been hard to draw this line. In the note to C 349, I have drawn attention to Heywood's close plagiarism from Chaucer, in the passage from the Four P.'s, printed in the note to l. 701 of Morris's edition of Chaucer's Prologue; also to Sir David Lyndsay's Satyre of the Three Estates, ll. 2037-2121.

§ 56. THE PARDONERES TALE. A considerable part of this Tale is taken up with a digression; the Tale itself is told simply and well, occupying ll. 463-484, 661-894. Mr. Wright remarks: 'This beautiful moral story appears to have been taken from a Fabliau, now lost, but of which the mere outline is preserved [as first noted by Tyrwhitt] in the Cento Novelle Antiche, Nov. lxxxii, as well as the story itself by Chaucer.' Dunlop, in his History of Fiction, p. 203, says: 'It is evident from the title of the Cento Novelle _Antiche_, that it was not a new and original production, but a compilation of stories already current in the world. The collection was made towards the end of the thirteenth century, and was formed from episodes in Romances of chivalry; the Fabliaux of the French Trouveurs; the ancient chronicles of Italy; recent incidents; or jests and repartees current by oral tradition. That the stories derived from these sources were compiled by different authors, is evident from the great variety of style; but who those authors were, is still a problem in the literary annals of Italy.' The story is not exactly the same in all the editions of the Cento Novelle; and two different forms of it have been printed by Dr. Furnivall, in his Originals and Analogues (Chaucer Soc.), Pt. ii. pp. 131-133. Of these, the former is from the edition of 1525, with the title Le Ciento Novelle Antike, where it appears as Nov. lxxxiii. It is very brief, and to this effect. As Christ was walking with His disciples through a wild country, they suddenly espied some bright golden piastres, and said, 'Let us take some of these for our use.' But Christ reproved them, warning them that they would soon see the fatal effects of avarice. Soon after, two men found the gold; and one of them went to fetch a mule to carry it off, whilst the other remained to guard it. On his return with the mule, the former offered to his companion two loaves which he had bought for him. The latter refused at the moment, and shortly afterwards took an opportunity of stabbing the other as he chanced to be stooping down. He then took the two loaves, gave one to the mule, and ate the other himself. The loaves were poisoned; and man and mule fell dead. Then our Lord, passing by once more, pointed out to His disciples the three dead bodies.

The other version is from the edition of 1572, entitled Libro di Novelle, et di bel Parlar Gentile; where it is Nov. lxxxii. This is much more like Chaucer's story, and is occasionally quoted in the Notes as the 'Italian text.' Dr. Furnivall's analysis of the story is as follows:--

'A hermit lying down in a cave, sees there much gold. At once he runs away, and meets three robbers. They see no one chasing the hermit, and ask him what he is running away from. "Death, which is chasing me." "Where is he? shew him us." "Come with me, and I will." The hermit takes them to the cave, and shews them Death--the gold. They laugh at him, and make great joy, and say, "The hermit is a fool." Then the three robbers consult as to what they shall do. The second proposes that one shall go to the town, buy bread and wine and all things needful; but the crafty Devil puts into the heart of the robber who goes to the town, that he shall feed himself, poison his mates, and then have all the treasure, and be the richest man in that country. Meantime, the other robbers plot to murder their mate as soon as he comes back with the bread and wine, and then share the treasure. Their mate returns from the city, and they murder him at once. Then they eat the food he has brought, and both fall dead. Thus doth our Lord God requite traitors. The robbers found death. The wise man fled, and left the gold free.'

As the original is not long, I here reprint it, for the reader's convenience:--

'Qui conta d'uno Romito che andando per un luogo foresto trouo molto grande Tesoro.

'Andando vn giorno vn Romito per vn luogo foresto: si trouò vna grandissima grotta, laquale era molo celata, et ritirandosi verso là per riposarsi, pero che era assai affaticato; come e' giunse alla grotta si la vide in certo luogo molto tralucere, impercio che vi hauea molto oro: e si tosto come il conobbe, incontanente si partio, et comincio a correre per lo deserto, quanto e' ne potea andare. Correndo cosi questo Romito s'intoppo in tre grandi scherani, liquali stauano in quella foresta per rubare chi unque vi passaua. Ne gia mai si erano accorti, che questo oro vi fosse. Hor vedendo costoro, che nascosti si stauano, fuggir cosi questo huomo, non hauendo persona dietro che 'l cacciasse, alquanto hebbero temenza, ma pur se li pararono dinanzi per sapere perche fuggíua, che di cio molto sí marauígliauano. Ed elli rispose et disse: "Fratelli miei, io fuggo la morte, che mi vien dietro cacciando mi." Que' non vedendo ne huomo, ne bestia, che il cacciasse, dissero: "Mostraci chi ti caccia: et menaci cola one ella è." Allhora il Romito disse loro, "venite meco, et mostrerollaui," pregandoli tutta via che non andassero ad essa, impercio che elli per se la fuggia. Ed eglino volendola trouare, per vedere come fosse fatta, nol domandouano di altro. Il Romito vedendo che non potea piu, et hauendo paura di loro, gli condusse alla grotta, onde egli s'era partito, e disse loro, "Qui è la morte, che mi cacciaua," et mostra loro l'oro che u' era, ed eglino il conobbero incontanente, et molto si cominciarano a rallegrare, et a fare insieme grande sollazzo. Allhora accommiatarono questo buono huomo; et egli sen'ando per i fatti suoi: et quelli cominciarono a dire tra loro, come elli era semplice persona. Rimasero questi scherani tutti e tre insieme, a guardare questo hauere, e incominciarono a ragionare quello che voleano fare. L'uno rispuose et disse: "A me pare, da che Dio ci ha dato cosi alta ventura, che noi non ci partiamo di qui, insino a tanto che noi non ne portiamo tutto questo hauere." Et l'altro disse: "non facciamo cosi; l' vno di noi ne tolga alquanto, et vada alla cittade et vendalo, et rechi del pane et del vino, et di quello che ci bisogna, e di cio s'ingegni il meglio che puote: faccia egli, pur com' elli ci fornisca." A questo s'accordarono tutti e tre insieme. Il Demonio ch'è ingegnoso, e reo d'ordinare di fare quanto male e puote, mise in cuori a costui che andaua alla citta per lo fornimento, "da ch'io sarò nella cittade" (dicea fra se medesimo) "io voglio mangiare et bere quanto mi bisogna, et poi fornirmi di certe cose delle quali io ho mestiere hora al presente: et poi auuelenero quello che io porto a miei compagni: si che, da ch elli saranno morti amendue, si saro io poi Signore di tutto quello hauere, et secondo che mi pare egli è tanto, che io saio poi il piu ricco huomo di tutto questo paese da parte d'hauere:" et come li venne in pensiero, cosi fece. Prese viuanda per se quanta gli bisogno, et poi tutta l'altra auuelenoe, e cosi la porto a que suoi compagni. Intanto ch'ando alla cittade secondo che detto hauemo: se elli pensoe et ordinoe male per uccidere li suoi compagni, accio che ogni cosa li rimanesse: quelli pensaro di lui non meglio ch'elli di loro, et dissero tra loro: "Si tosto come questo nostro compagno tornera col pane et col vino, et con l'altre cose che ci bisognano, si l'uccideremo, et poi mangeremo quanto uorremo, e sara poi tra noi due tutto questo grande hauere. Et come meno parti ne saremo, tanto n'haueremo maggior parte ciascuno di noi." Hor viene quelli, che era ito alla cittade a comperare le cose che bisognaua loro. Tornato a suoi compagni incontanente che 'l videro, gli furono addosso con le lancie et con le coltella, et l'uccisero. Da che l'hebbero morto, mangiarono di quello che egli hauea recato: et si tosto come furono satolli, amendue caddero morti: et cosi morirono tutti e tre: che l' vno vccise l'altro si come vdito hauete, et non hebbe l'hauere: et cosi paga Domenedio li traditori, che egli andarono caendo la morte, et in questo modo la trouarono, et si come ellino n'erano degni. Et il saggio sauiamente la fuggio, e l'oro rimase libero come di prima.'

Dr. Furnivall has also reprinted Novella xlii. from the Novellae of Morlinus, ed. Naples, 1520 (reprinted at Paris in 1799); corrected by the Paris edition of Morlinus' Works, 1855. The story is very brief, being as follows:--

'De illis qui, in Tiberi reperto thesauro, ad inuicem conspirantes, ueneno et ferro periere.

'Magus magico susurro in Tiberi delitere thesaurum, quadam in cauea spirituum reuelatione cognouit: quo reperto, cum magnum siclorum cumulum aspiceret, communi uoto pars sociorum proximum oppidum seu castellum, epulas aliasque res comparaturi, accedunt: ceteri uero copiosum interea ignem instruunt, thesaurumque custodiunt. Dumque in castellum conuenissent, radice malorum cupiditate affecti, ut consocios thesauri parte priuarent, diro ueneno illos interimere statuerunt: cum dicto, in caupona epulantes, ebrii ac uino sepulti, aliquatenus moram fecere. In Tiberi expectantes atque esurientes, consocios de mora incussabant: Iouemque adiurauerunt, repedantes ex oppido atque castello et uita et thesauri parte priuare. Sicque ad inuicem conspirantes, non multo post adueniunt ex pago illi, uinarios utres, pullos, pisces, aliaque tucetosi saporis pulmentaria atque prelectum hircum ferentes. Quibus obuiam dederunt ieiuni, illosque omnes morti imparatos incautosque insecauere atque crudeli strage perdiderunt. Pone sumptis cibariis diro ueneno tabefactis, insigni iocunditate gnauiter cuncta ministrare incipiunt; alter uerrit, alter sternit, pars coquit, atque tuceta concinnat. Pone omnibus scitule appositis, ac mensa largiter instructa edere ceperunt, omniaque ingurgitauerunt. Commodum ex eis mensa erectis erant (_sic_) quod, morte preuenti, cum sociis uitam fato reddentes, sub elemento mortui et sepulti remansere.

'Nouella indicat: nec esse de malo cogitandum: nam quod quis seminat, metit.'

It has lately been discovered that this striking story is unquestionably of Asiatic origin. Numerous analogous stories have been collected and printed for the Chaucer Society by Mr. W. A. Clouston. At pp. 417-436 of these 'Originals and Analogues' is printed a Buddhist original of great antiquity, together with varying versions in several languages, viz. Persian, Arabic, Kashmiri, and Tibetan. Versions also occur in French, Italian, German, and Portuguese.

The Buddhist story is one entitled 'Vedabbha Játaka,' being the 48th story in Fausböll's edition of the Páli text of the Játaka-book. Mr. Clouston says (p. 418): 'The first to point out the identity of the Pardoner's Tale with one of those Buddhist "Birth"-stories was the Rev. Dr. Richard Morris, in the Contemporary Review, May, 1881, vol. xxxix. p. 738, and afterwards two other scholars each made the same discovery independently: Mr. H. T. Francis, in The Academy, Dec. 22, 1883, and Prof. C. H. Tawney, in the Journal of Philology, 1883, vol. xii. pp. 203-8. The Bishop of Colombo, in the Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1884, published translations of the first 50 Játakas, the 48th of which, as already stated, is the Vedabbha Játaka.' Mr. Clouston then gives a complete translation of this Játaka, from which I extract, for comparison, a few sentences:--

'But those two men [two robbers] deftly carried off that wealth, and hid it in a thicket near a village, and one remained guarding it, sword in hand, while the other took some rice and went off to the village to get it cooked. Truly this passion of avarice is the root of destruction[129], for the one who was guarding the wealth said to himself: "When my fellow returns, this wealth will have to be divided into two portions, so I had better kill him with a sword-cut as soon as he arrives." So he made ready his sword, and remained watching for his return. The other said to himself: "This wealth will have to be divided into two portions so I had better put poison in the rice, and give it to my fellow to eat and so kill him, and take all the wealth for myself." Accordingly as soon as the rice was cooked, he ate all he wanted, and put poison in the rest, and set out with it in his hand. No sooner had he put the rice down than the other cut him in two with his sword and threw his body into a tangled thicket. Then he ate the rice, and fell dead on the spot.'

The Persian Version follows, from a poem in the 'Book of Calamities,' made in the twelfth century by Ferídu-'d-Dín 'Attár, a celebrated philosopher and poet. In this version, as in Chaucer, there are _three_ men; one of them goes to the town to buy bread, some of which he eats, and poisons the rest. The other two slay him on his return, eat the poisoned bread, and perish.

Of the Arabic versions, one occurs in the Breslau edition of the Book of the Thousand and One Nights (Burton's Supplementary Nights, vol. i p.250).

The Kashmírí version is given in Mr. Knowles' Dictionary of Kashmírí Proverbs and Sayings, Bombay, 1885, p. 45. Here there are four men, two of whom conspire against the other two, and slay them with axes; but afterwards eat the poisoned bread which the latter couple had prepared for them.

I must refer the reader to Mr. Clouston's essay for further particulars.

I must not omit to notice here the instances in which Chaucer has borrowed some of his moral reflexions from the treatise De Contemptu Mundi, by Pope Innocent, which has already been discussed above; see § 36. Dr. E. Köppel has noticed the following, in the Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen, ed. L. Herrig, vol. 84, p. 411.

C 483, 4. 'Propterea dicit apostolus: Nolite inebriari vino, in quo est luxuria:' lib. ii. cap. 19.

C 505-7; 491. 'Gula paradisum clausit; decollauit Baptistam:' lib. ii. cap. 18.

C 513-6; 521-3. 'Inde non salus et sanitas, sed morbus et mors. Audi super hoc sententiam Sapientis: "Noli auidus esse in omni epulatione, et non te effundas super omnem escam. In multis enim escis erit infirmitas; et propter crapulam multi perierunt." "Esca uentri, et uenter escis; Deus autem et hunc et hanc destruet":' lib. ii. cap. 17.

C 517-520[130]. 'Nunc autem gulosis non sufficiunt fructus arborum, non genera leguminum, non radices herbarum, non pisces maris, non bestiae terrae, non aues coeli.' ... 'Tam breuis est gulae uoluptas, ut spatio loci uix sit quatuor digitorum,' &c.: lib. ii. cap. 17.

C 534-6. 'Quanto sunt delicatoria cibaria, tanto foetidiora sunt stercora. Turpius egerit, qui turpiter ingerit, superius et inferius horribilem flatum exprimens, et abominabilem sonum emittens:' lib. ii. cap. 18.

C 537-546. 'Quaeruntur pigmenta, comparantur aromata ... quae studiose coquuntur arte coquorum.... Alius contundit et colat, alius confundit et conficit, substantiam conuertit in accidens ... ut fastidium reuocet appetitum, ad irritandum gulam:' lib. ii. cap. 17.

C 551-2; 560-1. 'Quid turpius ebrioso? cui fetor in ore ... cui facies transformatur? "Nullum enim secretum, ubi regnat ebrietas":' lib. ii. cap. 19. Cf. Man of Lawes Tale, B 771-2, 776-7. See above, p. 408.

All these passages are probably versified from Chaucer's lost prose translation of Innocent's treatise. Observe that all the passages quoted lie close together, viz. in lib. ii. capp. 17-19.

A modernized version of the Pardoner's Tale was brought out by the Rev. Wm. Lipscomb, in 1792; and another version, made with some spirit, but far inferior to the original, will be found among Leigh Hunt's Poems, with the title 'Death and the Ruffians.'

GROUP D.

§ 57. THE WIFE OF BATH'S PROLOGUE. In some MSS., as in E. and Cm., this Prologue follows the Man of Lawes Tale, but without any connecting link. In others, as in Pt. and in the black-letter editions, it follows the Marchants Tale; and rarely, as in Cp. and Ln., it follows the Squieres Tale; but in no case are there any _genuine_ lines to link it with what precedes. Two spurious prologues are, however, found. The former occurs in MS. Royal 18 C. II., and in MSS. Laud 739 and Barlow 20 (in the Bodleian Library). Tyrwhitt prints it from the first of these, 'to justify himself for not inserting them in the text'; as follows:--

Oure oost gan tho to loke[n] up anon: 'Gode men,' quod he, 'herkeneth everichone; As evere mote I drynke wyn or ale, This Marchaunt hath itold a mery tale, Howe Ianuarie hadde a lither Iape; 5 His wyf put in his hood an ape. But hereoff I wil leve off as now. Dame Wyf of Bathe,' quod he, 'I pray[e] you, Telle us a tale now nexte after this.' 'Sir Oost,' quod she, 'so god my soule blis, 10 As I fully therto wil consente; And also it is myn hole entente To done yow alle disporte as that I can. But holde me excused: I am a woman. I can not reherse as these clerkes kunne.' 15 And right anon she hath hir tale bygunne. Experience, &c.

Here ll. 5 and 6 are imitated from B 1629 and 1630.

The Lansdowne MS. subjoins eight spurious lines at the end of the Squieres Tale, and prefixes to the Wife's Tale the four lines that follow:--

Than shortly ansewarde the wife of Bathe, And swore a wonder grete hathe, 'Be goddes bones, I wil tel next; I will nouht glose, bot saye the text.'

Here _hathe_ (for _aath_) means 'oath,' and is a purely Northern form.

As to the Prologue itself, Wright remarks:--'The Wife of Bath's Prologue may be considered as a separate Tale, and belongs to a class of which there are several examples among the literature of the middle ages. One of the latest is "The twa Maryit Wemen and the Wedo" [Widow], of William Dunbar. The popular literature of what is commonly looked upon as the age of chivalry shews us that the female character was then estimated at the lowest possible rate.'

Tyrwhitt's remarks on this Prologue are excellent. 'The extraordinary length of it, as well as the vein of pleasantry that runs through it, is very suitable to the character of the speaker. The greatest part must have been of Chaucer's own invention, though we may plainly see that he had been reading the popular invectives against marriage and women in general; such as the Roman de la Rose; Valerius ad Rufinum de non ducenda uxore; and particularly, Hieronymus contra Iouinianum.' Of the last of these he says:--'The holy Father, by way of recommending celibacy, has exerted all his learning and eloquence (and he certainly was not deficient in either) to collect together and aggravate whatever he coud find to the prejudice of the female sex. Among other things he has inserted his own translation (probably) of a long extract from what he calls "Liber aureolus Theophrasti de nuptiis."

'Next to him in order of time was the treatise entitled Epistola Valerii ad Rufinum de non ducenda uxore (MS. Reg. 12 D. III). It has been printed, for the similarity of its sentiments, I suppose, among the works of St. Jerome, though it is evidently of a much later date. Tanner (from Wood's MS. Coll) attributes it to Walter Map (Bib. Brit., v. MAP). I should not believe it to be older; as John of Salisbury, who has treated of the same subject in his Polycraticus, lib. viii. cap. 11, does not appear to have seen it.

'To these two books Jean de Meun has been obliged for some of his severest strokes in his Roman de la Rose; and Chaucer has transfused the quintessence of all the three works, upon the subject of Matrimony, into his Wife of Bathes Prologue and Merchant's Tale[131].'

Dr. Köppel has shewn that, in _one_ passage (D 278), there is a trace of a quotation from Pope Innocent's treatise De Contemptu Mundi, lib. i. c. 18. This passage introduces the word 'smoke,' which is not in the wording of Prov. xxvii. 15, the ultimate authority for the quotation. Similarly, when Innocent cites the same text, he introduces the word _fumus_.

§ 58. THE TALE OF THE WYF OF BATHE. The various Tales analogous to this have been discussed by Mr. W. A. Clouston, in the 'Originals and Analogues' published by the Chaucer Society in 1887, p. 483. Mr. Clouston calls the Tales of this class 'The Knight and the Loathly Lady.' He begins by observing that 'Gower anticipated the Wife of Bath's characteristic Tale by a few years[132] in his Confessio Amantis, but there seems no good reason to suppose Chaucer to have borrowed from his friend, the two versions differing so very considerably in details; and it is probable that both poets drew their materials independently from a French source, or sources.' He then quotes Gower's tale, from MS. Harl. 3869; cf. Pauli's edition, i. 89-104. Here the hero is named Florent and is supposed to be the nephew[133] of the emperor Claudius. Florent has slain one Branchus, whose grandmother plots a plan of revenge. She sends for Florent, offering him a full pardon if he can answer a certain question; but if he fails, he must forfeit his life. To this he agrees, and is allowed a term of days for the solution of the question. The question is--'What do all women most desire?'

After much vain enquiry, Florent finds a loathly old woman, who tells him that she can save him from death; but if she does this, he must marry her; and to this he desperately consents. She tells him that women desire sovereignty, and to have all their will. The answer is correct; his life is saved, and he must perform his promise. He weds her, and is at last persuaded that he ought to kiss her; whereupon she is transformed into a young girl, of eighteen years of age. She explains that she had been bewitched, and his courtesy had broken the charm.

A similar story is the subject of the 'Weddynge of Syr Gawen and Dame Ragnell,' printed by Sir F. Madden in his 'Syr Gawayne,' from MS. Rawlinson C. 86. The outline of it is given by Prof. Child in his English and Scottish Ballads, Boston (U. S.), 1884, Part ii., pp. 289, 290, and is reprinted by Mr. Clouston. In this story, it is King Arthur who, to save his life, undertakes to solve, within a twelvemonth, the question--'What do women love most?' Soon after, Arthur tells his adventure to Sir Gawain, who is willing to help him. Gawain meets a hideous hag who offers to tell him the answer on the usual terms; her name is Dame Ragnell. Gawain learns the answer, imparts it to Arthur, and kisses Dame Ragnell, who is transformed into the fairest creature he had ever seen.

This is the story on which is founded the ballad of the Marriage of Sir Gawaine, a fragmentary piece printed in the Percy Folio MS., ed. Hales and Furnivall, i. 103.

Another version, perhaps older than either of the foregoing, is the Border Ballad of King Henrie, printed by Scott in his Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border. William Tytler's version of this ballad was adapted by Lewis for his Tales of Wonder, with the new title of 'Courteous King Jamie'; vol. ii. 453. Mr. Clouston adds:--'A similar ballad, "Of a Knight and a Fair Virgin," is found in Johnson's Crown Garland of Golden Roses, printed about 1600. And Voltaire has followed Chaucer in his tale Ce qui plaît aux Dames.

'Scott, in his prefatory note to the ballad of King Henrie, after referring to its resemblance to the Marriage of Sir Gawaine and the Wife of Bath's Tale, cites what he considers as "the original" [viz. an Icelandic version] from Torfeus (Hrolffi Krakii Hist., Hafn. 1715, p. 49).'

Another Icelandic version is given by Clouston (from Prof. Child), in the form of an abstract.

Another version follows, from the Gaelic, taken from the story of The Daughter of King Under-Waves; given in Campbell's Popular Tales of the West Highlands, iii. 403.

A similar notion occurs in Mandeville's Travels, ed. Halliwell, chap. iv. pp. 23-26. His story is to the effect that in the Isle of Lango is to be found the daughter of Ypocras (Hippocrates), who has been transformed into a loathsome Dragon, a hundred fathoms long. 'But whan a Knyghte comethe, that is so hardy to kisse hire, he schalle not dye: but he schalle turne the Damysele in-to hire righte Forme and kyndely Schapp; and he schal be Lord of alle the Contreyes and Iles aboveseyd.' It is disappointing to find that no one ever performed the task; so that, in fact, the lady remains a dragon to the present day.

Mr. Clouston adds a Turkish Analogue from a story-book entitled Phantasms from the Presence of God, written in 1796-7, by 'Ali 'Aziz Efendi, the Cretan; and refers to similar ideas found in Sanskrit stories. He concludes by saying:--'Legends similar to the tale of the Knight and the Loathly Lady seem to be of universal currency and of very ancient date. Have we not all listened to them in the nursery, and been especially charmed with the tale of the Frog-Prince? And there are several parallels to it among the nations of South Africa.' He appends two Kaffir analogues from Theal's Kaffir Folk-Lore.

The Wife of Bath's Tale has been retold by Dryden, in a way peculiarly his own. If compared with the original, it suffers sadly by the comparison. The poet Gay wrote a comedy called The Wife of Bath, which appeared in 1713. A later edition, 'revised and altered by the author,' appeared in 1730.

§ 59. THE FRIAR'S PROLOGUE. This is closely linked with the preceding tale, and is chiefly remarkable for the Friar's outburst against the Somnour, which shews such rancour that even the Host interferes. As Tyrwhitt here notes--'The Regular Clergy, and particularly the Mendicant Friars, affected a total exemption from all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, except that of the Pope, which made them exceedingly obnoxious to the Bishops, and of course to all the inferior orders of the national hierarchy.'

§ 60. THE FRERES TALE. Warton, in his History of Eng. Poetry (ed. Hazlitt,