§ 64. The Clerkes Tale. Of this tale, the main part is a rather close translation from Petrarch's De obedientia et fide uxoriâ Mythologia, as explained in the Notes; and it must be added that Petrarch had it from Boccaccio. It is the very last tale—the tenth tale of the tenth day—in the Decamerone, written shortly after the year 1348. Whether Boccaccio invented it or not can hardly be determined; for an expression of Petrarch, to the effect that he had heard it 'many years' (multos annos) before 1373, is not at all decisive on this point, as he may easily have heard it twenty years before then, even though he had never before read the Decamerone, as he himself asserts. There has been some unnecessary mystification about the matter. Tyrwhitt wonders why Chaucer should have owned an obligation to Petrarch rather than to Boccaccio; but a very cursory examination shews the now undoubted fact, that Chaucer follows Petrarch almost word for word in many passages, though Petrarch by no means closely follows Boccaccio. In fact, ll. 41-55 settle the matter. The date of Petrarch's version, though a little uncertain, seems to have been 1373; and Chaucer himself tells us that he met Petrarch at Padua[[134]]. We may therefore readily adopt Dr. Furnivall's suggestion, that 'during his Italian embassy in 1373, Chaucer may have met Petrarch.' Only let us suppose for a moment that Chaucer himself knew best, that he is not intentionally and unnecessarily inventing his statements, and all difficulty vanishes. We know that Chaucer was absent from England on the king's business, visiting Florence and Genoa, from December 1, 1372, till some time before November 22, 1373. We know that Petrarch's letter to Boccaccio, really forming a preface to the tale of Griselda, and therefore written shortly after he had made his version of it, is dated in some copies June 8, 1373, though in other copies no date appears. And we know that Petrarch, on his own shewing, was so pleased with the story of Griselda that he learnt it by heart as well as he could, for the express purpose of repeating it to friends, before the idea of turning it into Latin occurred to him. Whence we may conclude that Chaucer and Petrarch met at Padua early in 1373; that Petrarch told Chaucer the story by word of mouth, either in Italian or French[[135]]; and that Chaucer shortly after obtained a copy of Petrarch's Latin version, which he kept constantly before him whilst making his own translation[[136]]. At this rate, the main part of the Clerk's Tale was probably written in 1373 or early in 1374[[137]], and required but little revision to make it suitable for one of the tales of the Canterbury series. The test of metre likewise suggests that it was probably one of his early works. The closeness of the translation also proves the same point. Chaucer, in his revised version, adds the Prologue, containing an allusion to Petrarch's death (which took place in 1374), and eulogises the great Italian writer according to his desert. At the end of the translation, which terminates with l. 1162, he adds two new stanzas, and the Envoy. The lateness of this (undramatic) addition is proved at once by the whole tone of it, and, in particular, by the mention of the Wife of Bath in l. 1170. The Envoy is a marvel of rhythm, since, though it consists of thirty-six lines, it contains but three rime-endings, viz. -ence, -aille, and -inde. Besides this addition, there is yet one more, in the middle of the tale, viz. the two stanzas in ll. 995-1008, as pointed out in the Notes; they are conspicuous for their excellence.
The story of Griselda, as told by Boccaccio, together with Petrarch's Latin version of it, and the letter of Petrarch to Boccaccio concerning it, are all reprinted in the 'Originals and Analogues of some of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales,' Part II, published for the Chaucer Society, and dated (in advance) 1875. Were any additional proof needed that Chaucer had Petrarch's version before him, it is supplied by the fact that numerous quotations from that version are actually written in the margins of the pages of the Ellesmere and Hengwrt MSS., each in its proper place. All the passages that are made clearer by a comparison with the Latin text are duly considered in the Notes. Speaking of the story of Griselda, Warton remarks that it 'soon became so popular in France, that the comedians of Paris represented a mystery in French verse, entitled Le mystere de Griselidis Marquis[e] de Saluces, in the year 1393. Before, or in the same year, the French prose version in Le Ménagier de Paris was composed, and there is an entirely different version in the Imperial library. Lydgate, almost Chaucer's contemporary, in his poem entitled the Temple of Glass, among the celebrated lovers painted on the walls of the Temple, mentions Dido, Medea and Jason, Penelope, Alcestis, Patient Griselda[[138]], Belle Isoulde and Sir Tristram, Pyramus and Thisbe, Theseus, Lucretia, Canace, Palamon, and Emilia.' Elsewhere Warton remarks (Hist. Eng. Poetry, ed. Hazlitt, iv. 229, note 3) that 'the affecting story of Patient Grisild seems to have long kept up its celebrity. In the books of the Stationers, in 1565, Owen Rogers has a licence to print "a Ballat intituled the Songe of Pacyent Gressell vnto hyr make" [husband]; Registr. A. fol. 132, b. Two ballads are entered in 1565, "to the tune of pacyente Gressell"; ibid. fol. 135, a. In the same year T. Colwell has licence to print The History of meke and pacyent Gresell; ibid. fol. 139, a. Instances occur much lower.' See also Hazlitt's Handbook of Early English Literature.
In Originals and Analogues, published by the Chaucer Society, 1887, p. 527, there is an article by Mr. Clouston giving an abstract of an Early French version of this story which was printed in Le Grand's Fabliaux ou Contes, du XIIIe et du XIIIIe siècle, ed. 1781, tome ii. 232-252. Mr. Clouston draws the conclusion that both the Latin version in Petrarch and the Italian version in Boccaccio were taken from a common source closely resembling this Early French fabliau. 'The differences,' he observes, 'between the French and Latin versions are few and immaterial. As Petrarch plainly states that he was familiar with the tale long before he had read it in the Decameron, we may, I think, safely conclude that he knew it from a fabliau, which was probably also the source of Boccaccio's novel.'
Similar tales are not common in Asiatic literature; but 'in the earlier literature of India,' says Mr. Clouston, 'before it could be affected by baleful Muslim notions regarding women, there occur several notable tales of faithful, virtuous, obedient wives.' One is the tale of a queen, as given in the Kathá Sárit Ságara (Tawney's translation, vol. i. p. 355); see the abstract by Mr. Clouston. Another faithful wife appears in Sitá, the spouse of Ráma, in the great Hindú epic, the Rámayana; and again, in Damayanti, wife of Nala, in the beautiful episode called the Tale of Nala, in the great poem entitled the Mahábhárata.
Two English versions of the Tale of Griselda are printed in vol. iii. of the Percy Society's publications. One is in prose, dated 1610, and is said to have been 'written first in French'; the other, in ballad form, is said to be 'translated out of Italian.'
There is a ballad called 'Patient Grissell,' in the Percy Folio MS., ed. Hales and Furnivall, iii. 421; and there is one by Thomas Deloney in Professor Child's English and Scottish Ballads, vol. iv. Professor Child remarks that 'two plays upon the subject are known to have been written, one of which (by Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton) has been printed by the Shakespeare Society, while the other, an older production of the close of Henry VIII's reign, is lost.' Pepys refers to the 'puppet-play' of Patient Grizell in his Diary, Aug. 30, 1667. Butler, in his Hudibras (pt. i. c. 2. 772), couples Grizel with Job.
In Italy the story is so common that it is still often acted in marionette theatres; it is to be had, moreover, in common chap-books, and a series of cheap pictures representing various scenes in it may often be seen decorating cottage-walls. (Notes and Queries, 5th S. i. 105, 255). The same thing was done in England.
We in the country do not scorn
Our walls with ballads to adorn
Of patient Grissel and the Lord of Lorn.'