No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
The source of Chaucer's Tale of Melibeus is well established. This long medieval tractate on prudence is a translation—and a very close translation—of a French treatise which Chaucer read and admired so much that he put it into English dress and placed it among his Canterbury Tales. The French treatise was, in turn, an adaptation of a Latin work by Albertano of Brescia: namely, Liber Consolationis et Consilii. Chaucer's tale, however, was uninfluenced by the Latin: he was content simply to translate the French adaptation which he had under his eyes.
1 Sundby, Thor (ed.), Liber Consolationis et Consilii, Chaucer Society (1873).
2 Koeppel, Emil, “Chaucer und Albertanus Brixiensis,” Archiv, lxxxvi, 29–46. Below I refute Miss Landrum's argument opposed to Koeppel. My study of the French manuscripts also renders me unable to subscribe to Professor Tatlock's belief that Chaucer knew the Latin version when he wrote the prologue to the Melibeus. (Tatlock, J. S. P., The Development and Chronology of Chaucer's Works, Chaucer Society [1907], p. 190.) Undoubtedly he knew another version (perhaps more than one) which was different from the one which he was using; but, as Professor Tatlock admits, at least one of Chaucer's statements about this other version does not fit the Latin tale. There were, besides the version employed by Chaucer for the Melibeus, at least three other Old French translations of Albertano's Liber Consolationis et Consilii: may not Chaucer have been referring to one of them? Conceivably, too, his reference may have been to one or more other manuscripts of the very version which he was employing, since the manuscripts differ among themselves in respect to completeness and accuracy.
3 Pichon, Jerôme (ed.), Le Ménagier de Paris (Paris, 1846), i, 186–235.
4 Professor A. S. Cook argues for Chaucer's knowledge and use of Le Ménagier in his article “Chaucer's Clerk's Tale and a French Version of His Original,” The Romanic Review, viii, 210–226. In another place (“Chaucer's Source MSS. for the Clerkes Tale,” PMLA, xlvii, 431–452) I have demonstrated that Chaucer did not use Le Ménagier for the story of Griselda and her husband; in the present article I shall demonstrate that he did not use Le Ménagier for the story of Melibeus and his wife. It seems doubtful, therefore, whether Chaucer knew Le Ménagier at all; certainly he did not employ it as source material.
5 In all, I have located twenty-six manuscripts containing the text of the Old French Mélibée which was Chaucer's source. (This does not include the three manuscripts of Le Ménagier.) The list follows: Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris), MSS. fr. 578, 580, 813, 1090, 1165, 1468, 1540, 1746, 1972, 2240, n. a. 10554, 15015, 17272, 19123, 20042, 25547; Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal (Paris), MSS. 2691 and 3356; Bibliothèque de Brüssel, MSS. 9237, 9552, and 10404; British Museum, MSS. Reg. 19 C VII and Reg. 19 C XI; Bibliothèque de Beauvais, MS. 9 (2807); Bibliothèque de Lille, MS. 392; Bibliothèque de Besançon, MS. 587. With the exception of the last three, I have seen all these manuscripts. The list, of course, does not include manuscripts of other Old French translations of Albertano's tale of Melibeus. I am aware of three other translations—one at the Bibliothèque Nationale in MS. fr. 1142, another at the Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal in MS. 2880, and a third (in verse) at the Bodleian in MS. 5264 (Marshall 29).
6 Allertano references are to page and line in Sundby, op. cit.; Ménagier references are to page in Pichon, op. cit., i; Chaucer references are to line in the Melibeus (Skeat's one-volume Oxford text is employed for all references throughout the paper). In printing passages from the MSS. I have accented tonic e (é) wherever it might be mistaken for e muet.
7 Skeat conjectured that Chaucer's reading was due to such an error in the French manuscript (Skeat, W. W., The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, v, 222); here we have corroboration of Skeat's surmise.
8 Since Albertano is quoting Ovid here (see Sundby, op. cit., p. 2), Chaucer's turn of phrase may have been influenced directly by the Latin poet; but it seems more probable that here, as in the rest of the Melibeus, he was following his French source very closely.
9 Since these are merely representative illustrative passages, I have thought it wise to indicate briefly all the places in Chaucer's tale for which Le Ménagier is untrustworthy. This list, with two exceptions (Ch 2498 and 2557, for which MS. B. N. fr. 20042 was consulted), is based wholly upon closer readings in MS. 1165, and will probably be augmented by examination of other manuscripts. Le Ménagier, then, does not give accurately the reading of Chaucer's source manuscript in the following places: Mén 186, Ch 2157, 2159; Mén 187, Ch 2163, 2165–6, 2169, 2172–3, 2175, 2178; Mén 188, Ch 2184, 2189; Mén 189, Ch 2190, 2194–5, 2202; Mén 190, Ch 2208, 2215, 2218, 2222; Mén 191, Ch 2227; Mén 192, Ch 2234–6, 2240–1, 2244–6; Mén 193, Ch 2251, 2254; Mén 194, Ch 2258, 2264; Mén 195, Ch 2274, 2281; Mén 196, Ch 2284, 2289–90, 2293, 2296; Mén 197, Ch 2308, 2310–21; Mén 198, Ch 2327, 2329; Mén 200, Ch 2360–1, 2367; Mén 201, Ch 2377; Mén 202, Ch 2387–8, 2392; Mén 203, Ch 2407–11; Mén 204, Ch 2420–2, 2424; Mén 205, Ch 2432, 2435, 2444–5; Mén 206, Ch 2453, 2455, 2459; Mén 207, Ch 2475, 2478, 2483, 2491, 2494, 2498; Mén 208, Ch 2507, 2510–2; Mén 209, Ch 2519; Mén 211, Ch 2557; Mén 212, Ch 2586, 2590; Mén 213, Ch 2594–6, 2598–9, 2601, 2608–9, 2611–3; Mén 214, Ch 2619, 2626; Mén 215, Ch 2631–2, 2636, 2638–9, 2644; Mén 216, Ch 2647–8, 2652, 2654, 2659–60, 2662; Mén 217, Ch 2665, 2669, 2674–5, 2684; Mén 218, Ch 2687, 2692, 2695, 2699, 2702–3; Mén 219, Ch 2708, 2711–3, 2718, 2720–1; Mén 220, Ch 2725, 2730, 2732, 2736; Mén 221, Ch 2739, 2741, 2743, 2746–9, 2754, 2757–8; Mén 222, Ch 2763, 2775–6; Mén 223, Ch 2785–6, 2792–3, 2795; Mén 224, Ch 2804, 2820–1, 2824–5; Mén 225, Ch 2832, 2839–41, 2843; Mén 226, Ch 2847, 2849, 2851–2, 2854–5, 2863; Mén 227, Ch 2866–9, 2878–81; Mén 228, Ch 2887–8, 2891, 2894–5, 2902, 2904, 2907–8; Mén 229, Ch 2909–11, 2914; Mén 230, Ch 2944, 2950; Mén 231, Ch 2959–61, 2970, 2974; Mén 232, Ch 2985, 2991, 2993, 2997, 2999, 3001; Mén 233, Ch 3005, 3017–8, 3025–6; Mén 234, Ch 3031–2, 3050; Mén 235, Ch 3059, 3067.
10 Landrum, Grace W., “Chaucer's Use of the Vulgate,” PMLA, xxxix, 75–100.
11 Hotson, J. Leslie, “The Tale of Melibeus and John of Gaunt,” Studies in Philology, xviii, 430.
12 Ibid., 447.
13 Ibid., 447–448.
14 A notable exception to this statement is the theory advanced by Professor Tatlock concerning Une 2389 of the Melibeus (Tatlock, op. cit., 192). Consulting Le Ménagier at this point, Professor Tatlock found a passage which was lacking in Chaucer's version—a passage deploring the sorry state of a nation burdened with a boy-sovereign. Interpreting this omission as deliberate on Chaucer's part, he deduced therefrom a date for the tale—i.e., after the death of the Black Prince, when the youth of his successor, Richard, rendered politic the omission of the passage. My investigations confirm Professor Tatlock's theory: no manuscript of the twenty-three which I examined omitted the passage, although some of them shortened it somewhat.
15 Prologue to Melibeus, ll. 2135, 2139.