These rocks we see so fixed, shall be removed,
Made champain field, ere I so impious prove
To stain my lord's bed with adulterous love.'
The supposed miracle is achieved by Valerius, the brother of Martius, who had been trained 'in the mathematics' by an 'old Chaldean.'
Finally, 'part of the plot of a comedy, printed in 1620, entitled The Two Merry Milkmaids ... seems founded on Boccaccio's novel, yet the heroine's name [Dorigena] is that of the lady in Chaucer's version.'
Tyrwhitt bids us remark that 'the long list of virtuous women in Dorigen's soliloquy is plainly copied from Hieronymus contra Iouinianum.' Cf. Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer, ii. 293.
Group G.
§ 72. The Seconde Nonnes Tale. There is a peculiar interest about this Tale, because, as compared with the rest, it so clearly shews us Chaucer's mode of compilation; his advance from close translation to a more free handling of materials; and his change of rhythm, from stanzas to rimed couplets. The closeness of the translation and the rhythm alike point to early workmanship; and, most fortunately, we are not left to conjecture in this matter, since our author himself refers to this piece, by the Title of the Lyf of Seint Cecyle, in his Prologue to the Legend of Good Women, l. 426. It was probably written some time before the Legend. Dr. Furnivall assigns to it the conjectural date of 1373, which many critics have accepted[[161]]. The expression in l. 78, 'Yet preye I yow that reden that I wryte,' clearly shews that it was neither originally written as a tale of the series, nor properly revised; and the expression in l. 62, 'And though that I, unworthy sone of Eve,' cannot fail to strike the reader as a singular one to be put into the mouth of a nun. We possess, in fact, the Tale in its original shape, without either revision or introduction; though I fully suspect ll. 36-56, which are largely from Dante, was a later insertion[[162]]. What is called the 'Prologue' is, in fact, nothing of the sort; it is merely such an introduction as was suitable for the Legend at the time of translation. We have no description of the Second Nun, no introduction of her as a narrator, nor anything to connect the Tale with those that precede it. There is no authority, indeed, for attributing it to the Second Nun at all beyond the mere rubrics printed at pp. 509, 513, and 526 of vol. iv.
It is not even made quite clear to us who the Second Nun was. We may, however, conclude that, as the Prioresse was herself a Nun, i.e. the first nun (see Prol. l. 118), the person intended is the 'Another Nonne' mentioned in the Prologue, l. 163, but mentioned nowhere else. The first line of the Canon's Yeoman's Prologue, G 554, merely mentions 'the lyf of Seint Cecyle,' without any hint as to the supposed narrator of it. The Prioress herself, on the other hand, is properly introduced to us, and her Tale is carefully inserted in its right place.
An analysis of the so-called Prologue to this Tale is given in the Notes, at the beginning; cf. note to l. 84. Tyrwhitt pointed out that the Tale itself is translated from the Life of St. Cecilia as given in the Legenda Aurea (or Golden Legend) of Jacobus Januensis, or Jacobus a Voragine, who was archbishop of Genoa at the close of the thirteenth century; compare the heading above, l. 85. But Dr. Kölbing has since shewn, in an able article which appeared in Englische Studien, i. 215, that Tyrwhitt's suggestion is only partially correct. As a matter of fact, Chaucer followed a Latin original which agreed rather closely with the account in the Legenda Aurea down to l. 348, or thereabouts. But after this point (and in a few places even before it) his translation better agrees with another Latin Life of St. Cecilia, derived from Simeon Metaphrastes. This account is quoted by Dr. Kölbing from the printed edition in Historiae Aloysii Lipomani de vitis sanctorum, pars II., Lovanii, 1571, p. 32; which he denotes by the symbol 'Lip.' Of this work, the only edition accessible to me is that entitled De Vitis Sanctorum, ab Aloysio Lipomano, episcopo Veronae, a F. L. Surio emendatis et auctis, Venetiis, 1581, p. 161; this I shall quote by the same symbol, as I suppose there is no material difference between the two editions.