Chaucer, Canterbury Tales

Segment Structure and Thematic Linkages ("Marriage Group," etc.)

        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 (e.g., don't tell the Miller's Tale to a Prioress unless she has a dirty mind, don't tell the Knight's Tale unless you've got a long dinner planned, but preserve sequences that work particularly well together like GP-KT-MT-RT-CF, which always are found together and in the same order).   The two most persuasive orders, Ellesmere and Hengwyrt, are the results of manuscript students who have classified the existing MSS into "families" based on their contents, unique scribal errors they share, etc.  The "Chaucer Society 8-Text" order attempts to argue that the "eight texts" chosen by the editors (see below) were aesthetically better than the rest and must, therefore, consitute our nearest approach to Chaucer's final intentions (i.e., he never would make a MS worse in revision).  The "Bradshaw Shift" which produces the order followed by editors Baugh and Pratt is a product of critics' attempt 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.

       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) or the Merchant (Ellesmere), 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).  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.

        The "thematic linkage" type of analysis is unabashedly "dramatic" in its acceptance of the tale-telling frame as an unavoidable element in interpretation, contra David Benson's position that the tales artificially represent a kind of masterpiece portfolio containing a variety of genres and styles of narrative. The segment structures are based on surviving manuscript evidence of authorial intention, but note the positions of the "moveable" tales in the major variant manuscript groups, a, b, c, d, and the important early MSS, Ha4, and Hg. Each big group (a,b,c,d) represents many manuscripts of which the named ones are the most important exemplars.

The a group MSS--Ellesmere MS; MS Gg.iv.27, University Library, Cambridge; Egerton MS 2726, B.L.; Add'l. MS 35286 B.L.

Fragment 1--GP, KT, MT, RT, Cfrag

Fragment 2--MoLT

Fragment 3--WoBT, FrT, SumT

Fragment 4--ClerkT, MerchT

Fragment 5--SqT, FrankT

Fragment 6--PhysT, PardT,

Fragment 7--ShipT, PrioressT, "Sir Thopas," "Melibee," MonkT, NPT

Fragment 8--2nd NunT, CYT

Fragment 9--ManT

Fragment 10--ParsonT, Retraction

The b group MSS--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

The c group MSS--Corpus Christi 198, Oxford; Lincoln Cathedral 110; Sloan 1686 B.L. (finishes "fragment," 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

The d group MSS--Petworth House MS 7 (continues "fragment" like c group + 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

Ha4--Harley MS 7334, B.L. (the c-d "Gamelyn" continuation plus an a-group front to FrankT, then the "non-a" insertion of 2nd Nun and CYT before 6, 7, 9, and 10)

Fragment 1--GP, KT, MT, RT, Cfrag

"Gamelyn" (spurious "Cook's Tale" continuation)

Fragment 2--MoLT

Fragment 3--WoBT, FrT, SumT

Fragment 4--ClerkT, MerchT

Fragment 5--SqT, FrankT

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

Hg--Hengwyrt MS 154, N.L. of Wales (missing CYT, and recombining 4, 5, and 8

Fragment 1--GP, KT, MT, RT, Cfrag

Fragment 3--WoBT, FrT, SumT

Fragment 2--MoLT

Sq. T.; Merch.T.; Frank.T.; 2nd NunT; ClerkT (from 4, 5, and 8)

Fragment 6--PhysT, PardT,

Fragment 7--ShipT, PrioressT, "Sir Thopas," "Melibee," MonkT, NPT

Fragment 9--ManT

Fragment 10--ParsonT, Retraction

Thematic Group Analysis--

Kittredge, George Lyman. Modern Philology 8 (1912) 435-67.

        Proposes existence of "marriage group" of tales debating women's and men's roles in marriage, starting with WoBT and ending with FrankT, which he takes to be Chaucer's "solution" to the marriage debate. See note p. 863-4 in RC for an important brief discussion of the "marriage debate debate."

Possible "Marriage Group" Participants Possible "Moral/Justice" Participants

KT-->MT                                                             ?KT-->MT?-->RT-->CFrag

MoLT-->WoBT                                             FrT-->SumT

ClT-->MerchT                                                     ?SqT

or ClT-->MerchT-->SqT-->FrankT                 PhysT-->PardT

ShipT?                                                         ?ShipT-->PriorT-->SirT-->Mel

NPT                                                                 MonkT-->2ndNT-->CYT

MancipleT                                                 ParsonT

Some other (of many proposed) possible internal schemes of thematic coordination: (also see Mika Sam's bibliographic note on Gittes, 1991)

estates competition vs. Christian humanism

(also, philosophically/morally, cupiditas vs. caritas)

civil vs. clerical power

romantic vs. comic tales

comic vs. tragic tales

expert vs. inexpert tellers

teller's intention vs. teller's inadvertent revelation

pugilists vs. peace-makers