{ Vignette: Chaucer’s Fragments: from A/I to B/II or: Chaucer Starts Again: from the Cook to the Man of Law

 Fragment I: General Prologue, Knight, Miller, Reeve, Cook  Fragment II: Man of Law  Fragment III: Wife of Bath, Friar, Summoner  Fragment IV: Clerk, Merchant  Fragment V: Squire, Franklin  Fragment VI: Physician, Pardoner  Fragment VII: Shipman, Prioress, "Chaucer" (Sir Thopas and Melibee), Monk, Nun's Priest  Fragment VIII: Second Nun, Canon's Yeoman  Fragment IX: Manciple  Fragment X:Parson’s Tale, Retractions * Fragments are units of Chaucer’s narrative clearly joined by transitions * Some tales, like the Man of Law’s, are cut off from previous/following tales * Others, like the Manciple and the Parson, are joined only in some copies * The situation is complicated by a wish on the part of copyists to make joins where none may have existed. * It is further complicated by signs Chaucer had not always made up his own mind

1. The Man of Law’s End-Link: a transition to the Wife of Bath, the Shipman, or possibly the Squire 2. The Nun’s Priest’s Prologue and the Nun’s Priest’s Epilogue 3. The Parson’s Prologue These are examples of Chaucer’s plan for his poem in process and not necessarily resolved Compare shift from early plan (two tales each way) to the later plan (one tale, told on the way) Like the suggestion we “turn the leaf and choose another tale,” they offered readers opportunities to interact with the poem as a work in progress, potentially to contribute to it There are numerous fifteenth-century “continuations” to the Tales, some of which became part of the history of the poem. The Cook’s Tale is given a sound moral ending; the “Canterbury Fragment” describes the pilgrims’ arrival at the cathedral, etc. The shiftiness of the Tales and their relationship also cause problems for editors and did from the start. How do we know what poem to copy or to print?

One scribe copied two key early Chaucer manuscripts, Ellesmere and Hengwrt, both between 1400 and 1410 Linne Mooney argues this scribe was Adam Pinkhurst, perhaps addressed here Ellesmere and Hengwrt are both good, careful copies. But they have many differences, including differences in the order and attribution of certain Tales If this scribe did not know Chaucer’s final intentions, then who did? Adam Scrivener, if ever thee befall Boece or Troilus for to write new, Under thy longe locks thow maist have the scall, But after my makinge thou write mor trew, So oft a day I mot thy werke renewe It to correct, and eke to rubbe and scrape, And all is thorowe thy necligence and rape. Adam Pinkhurst: Chaucer’s Scribe? The Battle Rages Linne R. Mooney, ‘Chaucer’s Scribe’, Speculum, 81 (2006), 97–138. Simon Horobin, 'Adam Pinkhurst, Geoffrey Chaucer, and the Hengwrt Manuscript of the Canterbury Tales', The Chaucer Review, 44 no.4 (2010) Jane Roberts, 'On Giving Scribe B a Name and a Clutch of London manuscripts from c.1400', Medium Aevum, 80 (2011)

In a manuscript culture, where copies are written individually, there may be a closer relationship between author and scribe or scribe and reader. Also more fluidity. The individual reader may make choices about how a book should look, what it should contain, etc. This may particularly be the case in a culture where reading is still often conducted aloud and in small groups. Here, poetry is written for the ear more than the eye. But it’s also written with an awareness of performance in social situations. In this way, medieval poetry is like modern entertainment media, such as TV: “turn the other page” = “flip the channel” This openness to readers and performances has an impact on Chaucer’s compositional processes in The Canterbury Tales. He invites us to dialogue. Authorship before Print