Printing Pilgrimage

Introduction

The 1721 John Urry edition of Geoffrey Chaucer’s works is a unique assemblage of this popular author’s literary achievements. This massive book includes “three tales…which were never before printed.” However, these tales are not to be found in this edition. The tales as mentioned in the title are “The coke’s tale of Gamelyn; The marchant’s second tale, or The history of Beryn; and The adventure of the pardoner and tapster at the Inn at Canterbury” (https://know.freelibrary.org/Record/873745). Of these, “The Coke’s Tale of Gamelyn” is found in this edition of Chaucer’s works, yet the other two additional tales are not included. Although, there is one additional tale in this edition that is not found elsewhere. While the title does emphasize that these three additional were found in “many valuable manuscripts.” This one additional tale, as described in its own, peculiar introduction, is said to have been found no where else, yet is attributed to Chaucer. That tale is the Plowman’s Tale, which is in no modern editions. The editor claims that “this tale is in none of the manuscripts that [he] [has] seen” (Urry 178). The sole witness to this tales inclusion in The Canterbury Tales is a Master Stowe, who “carefully collected and preserved” this tale in his library (178).

Though this edition of Chaucer’s works is not an ideal study tool, it does allow the modern scholar or reader to view what was valued by those in the 18th century. Urry’s preservation of Chaucer as an important figure in English history, is not extended to his literary work. That is to say, that these liberal changes made to The Canterbury Tales alter the tales and the interactions between the pilgrims, themselves. Without this mediation, were the texts preserved as we are privy to them today, there would be more assurance of Urry’s intent. However, Urry was making these texts accessible to the 18th century reader, which assumes that the 18th century reader is not capable of understanding or accessing Chaucer. This mediation of Chaucer, on Urry’s part, demonstrates that Chaucer is timeless, regardless of any perceived language barriers.

John Urry

The liberal variations that Urry has imposed upon this edition of Chaucer informs the modern reader of the audience to which Urry was directing his work. Urry has maintained his own notion of the archaic nature of Chaucer’s works. Since, Chaucer was a poet and writer just over 300 years before Urry was compiling his edition. In the meantime, Chaucer has undergone many transformations, one of which was being inducted into the role of The English Poet. Chaucer and his works signified what it was to be English. Taking on this role means that Chaucer was still widely known even 300 years after his initial emergence onto the artistic stage. This edition was initiated by Urry, however he died in the process so its publication was posthumous for Urry. His variants were proposed with the “intent to establish an authoritative text for Chaucer, but he altered the text wherever he thought that he could better achieve the essential mood established by Chaucer” (http://openbook.lib.utah.edu/?p=1506). It has been proposed that for anyone desiring to perform literary analysis of the works of Chaucer, this edition is not recommended.

John Urry’s intent to create a fully composed edition of Chaucer’s works means that he was generous with his alterations. His spelling throughout the General Prologue is modernized, but not uniformly. Urry played with the flexible nature of Middle English in his altering the line metre as well as the spelling. Those familiar with Chaucer will notice some drastic changes in lines; removing some lines entirely or adding in others at his own discretion. I claim Urry as the over-arching editor, though this was published after his death. His initiating its composition as well as including his generous portrait facing the Title Page, asserts that it is his edition. His spellings in the Prologue are modernized, expanded, and rearranged. Also, in an attempt to maintain the archaic nature of Chaucer’s works, Urry has implemented the use of “ð” (eth).

Humorously enough, Urry has even taken liberties with the spelling of “Geoffrey.” Though on the initial Title Page and the Title Page of Chaucer’s life, The spelling has remained Geoffrey. It is only once The Canterbury Tales is beginning that this new spelling emerges.

Urry takes it upon himself to alter the order of the tales, which effects how the tales interact with each other. The Prologues preceding the tales are thus altered slightly, as the conversation between pilgrims is altered to accommodate these changes in tale order.
As stated above, two of the additional tales, as mentioned in the title, are not included in this edition. However, the Plowman’s Tale is included even though it is not considered one of the three additional texts. This tale is only found in one particular manuscript, making it unlikely that it was composed by Chaucer.

Synopsis of the Plowman’s Tale

It seems unlikely that the Plowman would expose such controversial views than was conventional at the time. His demeanour in the Prologue is expressly characterized as an ideal Christian: “God loved he best with al his hole herte / At all times, thogh him gamed or smerte, / And thanne his neighbour right as himselve” (535-537). This tale itself contradicts this characterization and also aligns the Plowman with the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. His selflessness regardless of his less-fortunate social position and his love of god suggest that the Plowman’s Tale is erringly attributed to Chaucer.

One of the three additional tales that is found in this edition is “The Coke’s Tale of Gamelyn.” This is a tale about Robin Hood that Urry has attributed to the Cook. However, he includes a picture of the Squire’s Yeoman, which is not even one of the pilgrims in The Canterbury Tales.

The Squire’s Yeoman

The inclusion of this tale into this edition is justified:

Finally, Urry concludes the tale with a disclaimer: