The Canterbury Tales Glosses and the Manuscript Groups

Stephen Partridge argues that the marginal and interlinear glosses in The Canterbury Tales manuscripts constitute a substantial but underused body of evidence for understanding manuscript relationships and scribal practice. Although Manly and Rickert devoted considerable effort to recording these glosses, Partridge shows that their appendix is marred by errors, omissions, and—more significantly—an overly complex and inconsistent system of presentation that obscures broader patterns. As a result, later scholarship has tended to neglect glosses as unreliable or marginal evidence.

Partridge reassesses the Manly and Rickert material and demonstrates that, despite its flaws, the gloss evidence can be reorganized to yield clear classificatory value. He argues that a core set of early, widespread source glosses—particularly in verse tales such as the Knight’s Tale, Man of Law’s Tale, Squire’s Tale, and Pardoner’s Tale—allows the manuscripts to be divided into three coherent groups. These groupings largely align with, but also refine and sometimes challenge, Manly and Rickert’s textual groupings. In particular, glosses confirm some established relationships while revealing others that textual variants alone fail to capture.

Crucially, Partridge shows that gloss transmission does not always mirror text transmission. Some scribes copied glosses faithfully from their exemplars; others supplemented them selectively from additional sources. This mixed practice explains why manuscripts not closely related textually may nonetheless share distinctive glosses. Through detailed case studies, Partridge highlights the importance of manuscripts such as Bo2 and Ch, which—despite their relatively late dates—preserve accurate glosses derived from lost early exemplars. He argues that Ch, in particular, has been undervalued and deserves greater attention as a witness to the text.

Partridge concludes that glosses offer independent and sometimes corrective evidence for reconstructing manuscript history. When integrated with textual, codicological, and linguistic analysis—especially through the tools of the Canterbury Tales Project—they can significantly enrich our understanding of how Chaucer’s text was copied, interpreted, and transmitted.