difficulty and moment arises with regard to the other prose piece included
among the "Canterbury Tales." Of these the so-called "Parson's Tale" is
the last in order of succession. Is it to be looked upon as an integral
part of the collection; and, if so, what general and what personal
significance should be attached to it?

As it stands, the long tractate or sermon (partly adapted from a popular
French religious manual), which bears the name of the "Parson's Tale," is,
if not unfinished, at least internally incomplete. It lacks symmetry, and
fails entirely to make good the argument or scheme of divisions with which
the sermon begins, as conscientiously as one of Barrow's. Accordingly, an
attempt has been made to show that what we have is something different
from the "meditation" which Chaucer originally put into his "Parson's"
mouth. But, while we may stand in respectful awe of the German daring
which, whether the matter in hand be a few pages of Chaucer, a Book of
Homer, or a chapter of the Old Testament, is fully prepared to show which
parts of each are mutilated, which interpolated, and which transposed, we
may safely content ourselves, in the present instance, with considering
the preliminary question. A priori, is there sufficient reason for
supposing any transpositions, interpolations, and mutilations to have been
introduced into the "Parson's Tale"? The question is full of interest;
for while, on the one hand, the character of the "Parson" in the
"Prologue" has been frequently interpreted as evidence of sympathy on
Chaucer's part with Wycliffism, on the other hand, the "Parson's Tale," in
its extant form, goes far to disprove the supposition that its author was
a Wycliffite.

This, then, seems the appropriate place for briefly reviewing the vexed
question--WAS CHAUCER A WYCLIFFITE? Apart from the character of the
"Parson" and from the "Parson's Tale," what is the nature of our evidence