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 aabγbbg, where γ denotes a line with but one accent, riming with the line denoted by g (1980). (5) A stanza of ten lines, aabccbγddg (2071). (6) A stanza of 10 lines, aabaabγccg (1997). (7) A stanza of 10 lines, aabaabγaag (1987). (8) A stanza of ten lines, aabccbγccg (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) Crœsus. 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 Crœsus. 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 Crœsus 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.