© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press 2007; all rights reserved
‘Here's One I Prepared Earlier’: The Work of Scribe D on Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 198
University of Sheffield
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Chaucer died in 1400 leaving the Canterbury Tales unfinished. Despite acknowledgement of the unfinished nature of the poem, many scholars have found it difficult to accept that discrepancies in the text and order might precisely reflect the state of creative chaos presided over by an author whose ongoing process of reordering, rewriting and composing was abruptly terminated. The earliest extant manuscripts of Chaucer's poem, thought to have been copied in the years following Chaucer's death, reproduce exactly that state of creative chaos yet they are believed to be the product of scribes attempting the impossible, that is, the fashioning of a complete poem out of disparate parts without any direction. That is not what the manuscripts themselves tell us.
The Hengwrt manuscript is generally accepted by scholars to be the earliest attempt to assemble the Tales, with Ellesmere perhaps a later, more accomplished attempt by the same scribe, probably the scrivener Adam Pinkhurst, identified by Linne Mooney. Two more important early manuscripts, Oxford, Corpus Christi College MS 198 [Corpus], and the British Library's Harley 7334 [Harley 4] also shared a scribe, the unidentified Scribe D. All four manuscripts are traditionally dated after the death of the poet, between 1400 and 1410.
However, close examination of the codicology of these four manuscripts reveals exciting information, particularly so in the case of Corpus where the disbinding of the manuscript in 1987 uncovered a wealth of detail not noticed by Manly and Rickert. Distinct codicological irregularities at certain key points in each of the four manuscripts appear to be the result of two scribes in the process of refashioning, augmenting, inserting and recopying portions of the Canterbury Tales, at times synchronously, in a process of evolution which appears to be ongoing. Evidence in all four manuscripts also suggests that for some reason further development of the poem came to an abrupt halt.
The physical state of Corpus is the key to correspondences between the manuscripts. Analysis of the vellum in that manuscript provides a starting point for comparison and could raise the question of an earlier collection of tales brought out of retirement to be refreshed and refurbished in a final burst of activity. Scribe D's work on Corpus appears closely linked with Adam's copying of Hengwrt, and Harley 4 and Ellesmere share codicological irregularities in some places which are difficult to account for unless each scribe was acquiring material and information at more or less the same time.
It is perhaps time to allow the physical state of Corpus, one of the earliest manuscripts, to tell its own tale and inform us on the development of the Canterbury Tales.