| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
 |
|
The British Library owns the Ellesmere Manuscript, 'one of the most important manuscripts of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales'. But not the original since no manuscripts from Chaucer's time survive. This one is
| made in the first decade of the 15th century, and is also richly illustrated. Chaucer died in around 1400 and no manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales date from his lifetime. |
The manuscript appears to have no provenance earlier than the sixteenth century when it was owned by Thomas Egerton, Elizabeth I's Master of the Rolls and Lord Chancellor, and patron of Francis Bacon
| the manuscript is named after Sir Thomas Egerton (1540–1617), who was Baron Ellesmere and Viscount Brackley |
How to explain the "paucity of contemporaneous Chaucer manuscripts"? There is a mystery around not only the disappearance of the manuscripts but of Chaucer himself, said to have died c. 1400. The presumption seems to be that the Church deliberately destroyed the manuscripts due to ridicule which Chaucer had directed at the clergy. Or of course they never existed.
The National Library of Wales has another manuscript, the Hengwrt Manuscript, also a copy of a lost doc, which "may have been written at the end of the fourteenth century", so it hasn't been scientifically dated.
| The Hengwrt Chaucer manuscript is an early-15th-century manuscript of the Canterbury Tales, held in the National Library of Wales, in Aberystwyth. It is an important source for Chaucer's text, and was possibly written by someone with access to original authorial holograph, now lost. |
It first appeared in the seventeenth century, part of the collection of Robert Vaughan, Welsh antiquary (c.1592–1667), who bequeathed his manuscript collection to the newly formed National Library... Wales's Robert Cotton.
| The Hengwrt manuscript's very early ownership is unknown... By the 16th century it can be identified as belonging to Fouke Dutton, a draper of Chester who died in 1558. It then seems to have passed into the ownership of the Bannester family of Chester and Caernarfon, and through them was in the possession of an Andrew Brereton by 1625; by the middle of the 17th century it had been acquired by Vaughan. |
How it passed into the hands of 'Fouke Dutton' isn't known apparently. So it's ignored. Actually no-one's sure which manuscript is the earliest, the texts have been cobbled together as if in a hurry. Not that it matters which is a copy of which since neither is an original
| The two manuscripts are believed to have been written by the same scribe, and there is much disgreement about which has priority. The Hengwrt often has better readings than the Ellesmere, and it may be the earlier. However, it is incomplete and disorganized, and most editions are based to some degree on the Ellesmere. |
Two supposedly separate products being written by 'the same scribe' is a bit of a give away; it came up when we looked at the Durham and Echternach Gospels.
In view of Chaucer's fame and social standing it's unlikely his manuscripts could have been disappeared so comprehensively as to leave not a leaf.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
If Chaucer's manuscript materialised in the sixteenth century, so too does Chaucer the man. His death, said to have occurred in 1400, was recorded somewhat later
| Chaucer died of unknown causes on 25 October 1400, although the only evidence for this date comes from the engraving on his tomb which was erected more than 100 years after his death. |
The British Library has a one-page manuscript, BL MS Additional 5141, with a portrait of Chaucer instantly familiar to readers of Penguin Classics. It arrived at the Library in 1786, a gift from George Steevens, who owned "a valuable library rich in Elizabethan literature" and was a Shakespeare and forgery expert.
The definitive result of his researches was embodied in an edition of fifteen volumes. He made changes in the text sometimes apparently with the sole object of showing how much abler he was as an emendator than rival editor Edmund Malone
He wrote an entirely fictitious account of the Java upas tree, derived from an imaginary Dutch traveller, which imposed on Erasmus Darwin, and he hoaxed the Society of Antiquaries with the tombstone of Hardicanute, supposed to have been dug up in Kennington, but really engraved with an Anglo-Saxon inscription of his own invention |
Steevens also gave the Library a Canterbury Tales manuscript (BL MS Add. 5140) that he'd purchased for nine guineas at an auction. He hadn't bought the portrait at the same auction however, in fact no mention of the portrait is made in the sale catalogue. He was known as a 'prankster', not that this put the British Museum off
After Steevens’ death in 1800, his library was sold. A significant portion went to the British Museum.
|
On the back of the portrait page is a brief Life of Chaucer, written in a late sixteenth-century hand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Do you want to get us shot?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
You might as well take out Piers Ploughman while you're there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be amazed if Thomas Egerton wasn't a member of the Society of Antiquaries (Elizabethan).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | The British Library owns the Ellesmere Manuscript, 'one of the most important manuscripts of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales'. But not the original since no manuscripts from Chaucer's time survive. |
If you want to write a best-seller, write a book to argue that Chaucer is a forgery (something I have also long suspected). This was a really great post! Thanks for this work!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Let me understand the position. You, Ishmael, have for many years been pondering the astounding fact that Chaucerian poetry might be fake. During those many years you posted regularly on a forum that specialised in exploring the possibilities of a) astounding ideas and b) historical fakes. Every morning you said to yourself, "This is the day I'll post up my Chaucerian theory." Every night you went to bed saying, "Damn, I forgot again." Then one day Hatty posted up the idea and you decided today's the day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
It's the work rather than the man that is in question. Let's assume that a 'real' Geoffrey Chaucer was part of Richard II's court. Richard II is presented as a patron of English literature but there's a mysterious lack of documentary evidence. For instance, no records exist of any payments by the king or his chancellor to literary figures, not even to such a famous one as Froissart, the French chronicler, who allegedly gave Richard a copy of his love poems in 1395.
Richard is believed to have been one of the first English kings to converse in English rather than French so English should be the language of nobility and prestige. It's around this time that the reputation of Chaucer as a court poet seems to have taken off, even abroad. Here, the Church condemned the bible-translator, Wyclif, in 1382, so presumably Lollardy influenced attitudes to works written in English... would such a climate favour censorship or sponsorship?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Poor old Hatty’s getting it from all sides.
Irish Archaeology†@irarchaeology
The diminutive early medieval church of St Kevin at Glendalough, Co Wicklow |
That’s pretty important because, if true, it would mean a church before the Normans arrived. Hatty gently points out that it isn’t
Harriet Vered†@HarrietVered Replying to @irarchaeology
The archaeological report says it's medieval. No traces of 'early medieval' ecclesiastical structures have been found. |
Irish Archaeology seems nonplussed and decide on bluster
Irish Archaeology†@irarchaeology
What report? Extensive early medieval remains have been uncovered at Glendalough by archaeologists |
Harriet Vered†@HarrietVered
2012 excavation. Notice the question mark http://www.donovandigs.com/2012/06/hello-world/ … |
Oh, that one. We know all about that one.
Well, you can have a look for yourselves. It’s quite short and there's nothing ecclesiastical in it. But apparently only Hatty's spotted the ... um ... what's the phrase ... 'absence of evidence'.
Harriet Vered†@HarrietVered
I can see nothing here that points to a monastery. Perhaps I am missing it. Could you quote the relevant sentence or sentences perhaps. Sorry to be a nuisance. |
Irish Archaeology†@irarchaeology
Wait, you think Glendalough wasn't a monastery? |
No, chuckles, she’s saying that the archaeological report you’ve just claimed is the evidence for an early medieval monastery doesn’t contain anything monastic. Though I have to say Hatty doesn't word the follow-up very fiercely
Harriet Vered†@HarrietVered
Are you saying there's archaeological evidence of an early medieval monastery at Glendalough? I'd appreciate being shown the evidence that I asked for earlier. |
At this point an outfit altogether grander than Irish Archaeology enters the fray
Megalithic Portal #theoldstones†@megportal Replying to @irarchaeology
Troll alert... |
Blimey, they must be following her around. But anyway with such heavyweight British support, Irish Archaeology is off the hook and won't have to admit the plain truth after all
Irish Archaeology†@irarchaeology
Bye Harriet |
To which Hatty, more in sorrow than in anger (I keep warning her about that) says
Harriet Vered†@HarrietVered
Excuse me but is a polite request for data seen as trolling? This isn't a personal attack and it's important surely to share information, assuming it exists. In cases where archaeology differs from historical accounts I'd rather trust archaeology but it has to be independent. |
More than a troll, a brute beast. She wants putting down, that one. Constantly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
We were both pretty shocked at Megalithic Portal’s intervention so, at the risk of undue navel gazing, I thought I’d better itemise our dealing with that, we thought, benevolent mega-organisation. The following is as best I recall but since our relationship goes back seventeen years, I cannot absolutely vouch for the details.
THOBR was sent to them for review and it got a fairly hostile reception. Then a number of people popped up and said they thought it was brilliant, epochal etc. (None of my doing, honest!) The reviewer stood his ground. End of.
A Megalithic Empire was sent to them for review with much the same result (except this time nobody jumped to its defence). Since TME’s subject matter was more germane Hatty and I occasionally contributed to forum topics. With no obvious ramifications. We used the related Glastonbury lecture material to post on subjects like the Channel Islands and tin mining but these were only of interest to people like dowsers and electro-magnetic fruitcakes. The Portal prides itself on being an extremely broad church.
Forgeries was not sent to them (twice bitten, thrice shy) but we did use its material to comment on early medieval stonework and stuff like that. This did occasionally get a reaction from the Moderators but only to urge us to post in speculative forums provided for that purpose. We couldn’t help noticing that the dowsers and e-m fruitcakes were perfectly acceptable in the straight sections.
Hatty can be a bit rebarbative (I don't post there nowadays) but there has never been any accusations of trollery. Indeed, on the Portal Spectrum, she would have to be considered at most, moderate left. It’s a real mystery. We must be doing something right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Then one day Hatty posted up the idea and you decided today's the day. |
I think you will find that I have mentioned it. Though it was no "theory." It was a suspicion at best. In fact, I think this is a notion we have *all* discussed previously.
Hatty is the first to present any evidence or even information relevant to the question. I am in no way attempting to steal her thunder.
Something to keep in mind....
I don't think reliable History begins until the death of Napoleon. I hold everything prior to that in question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Here is one of my posts where I raised the question.
Are the Canterbury Tales a forgery?
| Ishmael wrote: | | A question that has nagged at me for years, ever since I first spotted this Becket duplication: Can we do away with Becket without also trashing Chaucer? |
This question was raised in the context of my questioning the historicity of the killing of Thomas Becket. I have subsequently accumulated much more evidence that this event did not occur. No Thomas Becket means no legitimate reason for any pilgrimages to Canterbury. No pilgrimages means no Canterbury Tales.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, yes, I grovel in abject apology. Godalmighty, people are always complaining just because I'm always complaining. Where will it end? Actually tomorrow when I post up some Chaucer material that I acquired yesterday from an unexpected source. A man I met on the Portobello Road.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Megalithic Portal isn't grovelling apologetically. They replied
The link they give is a tourist information site. Pretty weird coming from an organisation that focuses on archaeology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Hatty has mastered the "Paddington Bear" when it comes to dealing with orthodoxy.
Its remarkably effective but probably took her many years to learn.
I wish I could do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
