Neither look exactly like a Caxton 1st or 2nd Edition - but then although the script is Burgundian there are variants (I think even within each of Caxton's two printings)

 

The general formation of what looks like a y (which I gather was an i for the end of words or where it would look good)would be as follows

1. a down stroke from mid-height to the line with a slight turn to right at the bottom

2. a down stroke from same mid-height slightly to the right of the first, this turns to almost horizontal to track left and meet the first

3. it continues in a wide cursive loop similar open to the right

 

Neither of these look correct - the first has a distinct right to left upwards stroke to join the two downstrokes and the second is formed by first making a left to right downstroke.

 

Secondly the question is a little odd - Neither are "From the Canterbury Tales" as such; the oldest version we have of the Tales was handwritten after Chaucer's death by a friend/colleague - so potential thoughts of an "original" canonical version are moot. Works of literature have text not type - whereas impressions, printings and books have type and script. My copy of the Canterbury tales has both the Burgundian Script of Caxton, the Times New Roman of a transliteration, and the Italic Roman of a modern English translation - all are "The Canterbury Tales" as much as each other