Proposed Canterbury Tale Orders
Scholars generally agree that Chaucer never decided upon a final order for the Canterbury Tales, and common sense suggests that he would vary his tale orders to suit the occasion of the telling. For instance, you wouldn't tell the "Miller's Tale" to a Prioress unless you knew she has a dirty mind, and you wouldn't tell the Knight's Tale unless you've got a long dinner planned, but you would preserve sequences that work particularly well together like GP-KT-MT-RT-CF, which always are found together and in the same order, perhaps remnants of many long winter weeks' feasting. The best way to use tale ordering as a critical tool involves looking at what tales might precede or follow the one(s) you are working on. For instance, it makes a great deal of difference whether the Squire was following the Man of Law (Hengwyrt order) or the Merchant (Ellesmere or "a" order), given the contents of their tales, and it makes an equally great deal of difference whether the Squire was interrupted by the Merchant (Hengwyrt) or the Franklin (Ellesmere/a). Because the Ellesmere and Hengwyrt orders are the most reliable guides to (at least) fifteenth-century and Renaissance readers' reception of Chaucer, they are the most necessary to consult.
These manuscript orders are the results of scholars who have classified the existing MSS into "families" based on their contents, unique scribal errors they share, etc. Their reasoning is that combinations of information order and unique error establish a "lineage" or "family tree" by which the manuscripts descend to us. Hengwyrt is an unique MS order, and based on paleographic evidence, it is apparently very early. Some scholars believe, because of its origin near the time of Chaucer's death, that it represents the nearest thing to Chaucer's final intentions for tale orders when he died. It looks like this:
MS Hengwrt Order: Fragment I [GP, KT, MT, RT, Cfrag], Fragment III [Wife of Bath's Prologue; Wife of Bath; Friar; Summoner], Fragment II [Intro to Man of Law; Man of Law; Man of Law's Endlink], Squire, Merchant, Franklin, 2nd Nun, Clerk, Fragment VI [Physician; Pardoner's Prologue; Pardoner], Fragment VII [Shipman; Prioress; [Chaucer-the-Pilgrim] Prologue to Sir Thopas; [Chaucer-the-Pilgrim] Sir Thopas; [Chaucer-the-Pilgrim] Melibee; Monk; Nuns' Priest], Fragment IX [Manciple's Prologue; Manciple], Fragment X [Parson's Prologue; Parson; [Chaucer-the-Poet] Retraction]
The numbers commonly used to indicate the tale groups (I, II, III, etc.) originated because critics in the middle of the twentieth century formed a general consensus that the Ellesmere MS, which represents the common "a" group, was the best constructed narrative, both complete and relatively coherent in terms of tale linkage. Click here to see a transcription of several of the tales and the GP from MS Hengwrt.
"a" Group or MS Ellesmere Order:
This order contains the most beautiful CT manuscript, currently on display in a nitrogen-filled case at the Huntington Library, San Marino, California. This is the order followed by Benson in the Riverside Chaucer, but many scholars think it owes much to its scribe's innovations, and that the "MS Hengwyrt Order" (see above) is closer to the order commonly found in MSS composed nearer to Chaucer's own time. I follow the common critical convention of referring to the CT fragments by the roman numerals of the Ellesmere MS order.
Fragment I: General Prologue; Knight; Miller; Reeve; Cook's Fragment
Fragment II: Intro to Man of Law; Man of Law; Man of Law's Endlink
Fragment III: Wife of Bath's Prologue; Wife of Bath; Friar; Summoner
Fragment IV: Clerk's Prologue; Clerk; Merchant's Prologue; Merchant
Fragment V: Squire's Intro; Squire; Franklin
Fragment VI: Physician; Pardoner's Prologue; Pardoner
Fragment VII: Shipman; Prioress; [Chaucer-the-Pilgrim] Prologue to Sir Thopas; [Chaucer-the-Pilgrim] Sir Thopas; [Chaucer-the-Pilgrim] Melibee; Monk; Nuns' Priest
Fragment VIII: Prologue to 2nd Nun; 2nd Nun; Canon's Yeoman Prologue; Canon's Yeoman
Fragment IX: Manciple's Prologue; Manciple
Fragment X: Parson's Prologue; Parson; [Chaucer-the-Poet] Retraction
However, the "b," "c," and "d" groups share some common features, especially shifting the Wife of Bath around and changing who interrupts the Squire. Though a-group manuscripts are the most numerous, taken together the other three families contain many MSS. Here's what they look like:
"b" group MSS:--e.g., New College MS 314, Oxford. (divides 4 and 5 around 3, rel. "marriage" theme?; and juxtaposes "moral" with "moral" tales or "immoral" with "immoral" segment boundary tales thereafter)
Fragment 1--GP, KT, MT, RT, Cfrag
Fragment 2--MoLT
Sq. T; Merch. T (from Frag. 5 and 4)
Fragment 3--WoBT, FrT, SumT
ClerkT; Frank.T (from Frag. 4 and 5)
Fragment 8--2nd NunT, CYT
Fragment 6--PhysT, PardT,
Fragment 7--ShipT, PrioressT, "Sir Thopas," "Melibee," MonkT, NPT
Fragment 9--ManT
Fragment 10--ParsonT, Retraction
"c" group MSS:--e.g., Corpus Christi 198, Oxford; Lincoln Cathedral 110; Sloan 1686 B.L. (finishes "fragment 1," splits Fragment 5 around "marriage" related tales + b's moral/immoral boundary tale matching)
Fragment 1--GP, KT, MT, RT, Cfrag
"Gamelyn" (spurious "Cook's Tale" continuation)
Fragment 2--MoLT
Sq. T (from Frag. 5)
Fragment 3--WoBT, FrT, SumT
Fragment 4--ClerkT, MerchT
Frank.T. (from Frag. 5)
Fragment 8--2nd NunT, CYT
Fragment 6--PhysT, PardT,
Fragment 7--ShipT, PrioressT, "Sir Thopas," "Melibee," MonkT, NPT
Fragment 9--ManT
Fragment 10--ParsonT, Retraction
"d" group MSS:--Petworth House MS 7 (continues "fragment" like c group but follows b group handling of Squire and Merchant, and Clerk and Franklin)
Fragment 1--GP, KT, MT, RT, Cfrag
"Gamelyn" (spurious "Cook's Tale" continuation)
Fragment 2--MoLT
Sq. T; Merch. T. (from Frag. 5 and 4)
Fragment 3--WoBT, FrT, SumT
ClerkT; Frank.T (from Frag. 4 and 5)
Fragment 8--2nd NunT, CYT
Fragment 6--PhysT, PardT,
Fragment 7--ShipT, PrioressT, "Sir Thopas," "Melibee," MonkT, NPT
Fragment 9--ManT
Fragment 10--ParsonT, Retraction
Of modern attempts to rationalize the CT into a coherent structure, one rarely read variety is The "Chaucer Society 8-Text" order, which attempts to argue that the "eight texts" chosen by the editors (see below) were aesthetically better than the rest (according to what standard?) and must, therefore, constitute our nearest approach to Chaucer's final intentions (i.e., he never would make a MS worse in revision). It looks like this:
Chaucer Society Order (8-Text): I, II, VII, VI, III, IV, V, VIII, IX, X
[Based on John Matthews Manly and Edith Rickert's 1940 edition, this set the standard for F.R. Robinson's 2nd edition, the immediate ancestor of RC. By 1985, Benson's revision of RC was treating Manly-Rickert skeptically. In the '90s, the "Canterbury Tales Project" led by Norman Blake and Peter Robinson has reopened the task but has not issued an edition.]
Another modern order, the famous "Bradshaw Shift" which produces the order followed by editors Baugh and Pratt, attempts to logically order the tales based on the prologues' and endlinks' references to geographic and time clues appropriate to travelers going from London to Canterbury and back again.
"Bradshaw Shift" or Baugh/Pratt Order: I, II, VII, III, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, X
[See RC: 1121.]