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
In Dr. Carleton Brown's admirable study of the narrative which supplied the basis for The Prioresses Tale he pointed out that Chaucer made use of a thirteenth-century exemplum of a Miracle of our Lady. Although the earliest extant versions are of the thirteenth century, the story had its origin before 1200. There is, however, a striking similarity between the details of Chaucer's poem and the Latin exemplum C vi, which Dr. Brown has printed from a collection of Miracles of the Virgin in Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, MS. A.5.10, Lib. ii, Cap 87, written in the fifteenth century. This post-Chaucerian version offers a number of points for comparison: a little boy passed twice a day through the Jewry singing his antiphon. So in Chaucer: Twies a day it passed thurgh his throte, As I have seyd, thurghout the Juerie, This litel child, as he cam to and fro, Ful murily than wolde he synge and crie O alma redemptoris everemo.
1 Carleton Brown, A Study of the Miracle of Our Lady told by Chaucer's Prioress, Chaucer Society, Second Series, number 45, (London, 1910). I have referred to this text in all quotations from Dr. Brown's work. See also Dr. Brown's earlier article, “Chaucer's Prioresses Tale and its Analogues,” PMLA, xxi (1906), 486–518. There is an able summary of Dr. Brown's work on The Prioresses Tale in R. D. French, A Chaucer Handbook (New York, 1927), pp. 233–242.
2 Brown, A Study of the Miracle of our Lady, p. 54-p. 87: “We may conclude that the parent version of this group came into existence between 1270 and 1290—I do not say ‘was written,‘ for the reason that I do not wish to ignore the possibility of oral transmission.”
3 Printed by Brown, A Study of the Miracle of Our Lady, pp. 37–39.
4 The parallels are taken from Brown, ibid., pp. 107–112. The text of Chaucer is from the edition of F. N. Robinson (Oxford, 1934), pp. 194–197.
5 The collection is interesting for the number of proper names which appear. The compiler prefers to tell from whom he has taken the exemplum. If we may judge from the character of the sources, the collection was made well before the close of the century. Exemplum number xxv (at fol. 96b) is ascribed to Master Henry Calvus, who is mentioned as if speaking to the compiler. Master Henry says that he attended the schools at Oxford before Langton became archbishop—in 1207.
Fol. 96b [ex. xxv] Ex relatu Magistri Henrici Calui: Erat, inquit, apud Oxoniam quidam magister liberalium artium tempore quo ego ibi scolas frequentaui. Eratque nepos Magistri Stephani de Longed [one], postea Cantuariensis archiepiscopi. Fuit autem iuuenis etate, statura procerus, forma decorus, corpore et animo castus, nomine Radulphus. Accidit autem ut hic talis inciderei in acutam portatusque est extra uillam Oxoniam circiter milaria duo ad quandam consanguineam suam ob beneficium uidelicet purioris aeris …
Since the compiler appears to have heard this story directly from a man who was at Oxford before 1207, the collection was made before the third quarter of the century, but after the death of Philip Augustus (1223), who is mentioned on fol. 97b: Philippus rex Francie conuicit falsos testes … and again, ibid.: magnus Theobaldus comes Blesensis frater regine Francie matris regis Philippi (This was Theobald V, brother of Alix of Champagne, third and last wife of Louis VII).
According to the inscription on the fly leaf, the MS was given to Corpus Christi College by Henry Parry. Mr. J. R. Liddell tells me that Parry's library included many Llanthony MSS.
6 This is perhaps a misspelling of Carcassum (i.e., Carcassonne), where there was a large community of Jews in the thirteenth century.—On the community of Jews in Carcassonne see T. Bouges, Histoire Ecclesiastique et civile de la ville de Carcassonne (Paris, 1741), p. 191.—Bouges (p. 597) gives a realistic picture of social conditions among the Jews of Carcassonne. In 1272 the synod called by Bishop Bernard de Canpendu drafted regulations which make clear the position of Jews at the time. They were not strictly segregated, but were required to wear a white tunic with a round badge at the breast. On certain days (diebus Lamentacionis et Dominicae Passionis) they were not to go out, nor on those days let Christian servants take out the children, nor serve in the house. The penalty for infringement of these rules was a boycott—“et si contra presumpserint, omnibus Christianis inhibeatur districte ne cum eis aliquod audeant commercium exercere.” From this we may presume that the Jews did not form a self-sufficient community, but were dependent upon the commerce of the town. In spite of the restrictions, however, they enjoyed a comparatively high standard of living. Christians were ordered to keep away from Jewish banquets (convivia), and were not to invite Jews, nor eat unleavened bread (azima), nor live with Jews, nor call for the service of a Jewish physician, nor go to the bath (Balneo) with a Jew. Jews were ordered not to act as bailiffs for Christians nor take public office so that there might be no opportunity to rebel against Christians. “Prohibemus quoque ne Judaei super Christianos bajulias seu aliqua publica officia habeant, ne in Christianos occasionem habeant insurgendi” (Bajulia is here used in the sense of a pact or concession, involving in some measure public control (see Du Cange s.v. and also s.v. bailia (3)). The Constitutions of the synod are printed in full in the appendix to Bouge's Histoire, pp. 565–606, and give an interesting account of the difficulties of the Church and the social conditions in Carcassonne.
7 Mathew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Luard, H. R., Rolls Series (London, 1880), v, 516–519.
8 Mathew Paris, ibid., v, 517.
1 adds Polens et nobilis
2 qui
3 ire poterat
4 de mensa sua
5 pre debilitate uenire nequiuerat
6 sufficientem
7 et sicud illi etate conuenit uox clara ab eius gutture resonebat
8 Disposicio
9 adds sic beatam uirginem clare uoce laudans
10 grandi murmure stomochati
11 puer
12 adds Et dicebant, “Quid faciemus?”
13 adds Quod et fecerunt
14 debutantes
15 per medium et
16 Sei licet christiani sicud dictum est uocem cantantis euidenter sunt experti, iudei tamen uocem et cantum sunt penitus inexperti.
17 adds ex more
18 cepit circumire filium suum querens
19 adds Cum autem attencius circum circa quereret
20 quia
21 adds more solito
22 intellexit
23 adds recedens
24 nunciauit hoc diuiti
25 a quo missi ministri
26 adds iudei
27 adds similiter
28 ad istud spectaculum conuenerunt. Cf. Matthew Paris: ‘Et factum est mirabile spectaculum in populo.‘
29 sicque corpus pueri de cloacha merentes
30 Miro quidem
31 adds obcecata perfidia
32 gaudio
33 clerus et populus obsequiumfuneris explerent