Chapter V: Introduction: The Romaunt of the Rose

§ 1. In the Third Edition of my volume of Chaucer Selections, containing the Prioress's Tale, &c., published by the Clarendon Press in 1880, I included an essay to shew 'why the Romaunt of the Rose is not Chaucer's,' meaning thereby the particular English version of Le Roman de la Rose which happens to be preserved. I have since seen reason to modify this opinion as regards a comparatively short portion of it at the beginning (here printed in large type), but the arguments then put forward remain as valid as ever as regards the main part of it (here printed in smaller type, and in double columns). Some of these arguments had been previously put forward by me in a letter to the Academy, Aug. 10, 1878, p. 143. I ought to add that the chief of them are not original, but borrowed from Mr. Henry Bradshaw, whose profound knowledge of all matters relating to Chaucer has been acknowledged by all students.

§ 2. That Chaucer translated the French poem called Le Roman de la Rose, or at least some part of it[185], no one doubts; for he tells us so himself in the Prologue of his Legend of Good Women (A 255, B 329), and the very frequent references to it, in many of his poems, shew that many parts of it were familiarly known to him. Nevertheless, it does not follow that the particular version of it which happens to be preserved, is the very one which he made; for it was a poem familiar to many others besides him, and it is extremely probable that Middle English versions of it were numerous. In fact, it will presently appear that the English version printed in this volume actually consists of _three_ separate fragments, _all by different hands_.

The English version, which I shall here, for brevity, call 'the translation,' has far less claim to be considered as Chaucer's than unthinking people imagine. Modern readers find it included in many editions of his Works, and fancy that such a fact is conclusive; but it is the merest prudence to enquire how it came there. The answer is, that it first appeared in Thynne's edition of 1532, a collection of Chaucer's (supposed) works made more than _a hundred and thirty years_ after his death. Such an attribution is obviously valueless; we must examine the matter for ourselves, and on independent grounds.

§ 3. A critical examination of the internal evidence at once shews that by far the larger part of 'the translation' cannot possibly be Chaucer's; for the language of it contradicts most of his habits, and presents peculiarities such as we never find in his genuine poems. I shewed this in my 'Essay' by the use of several unfailing tests, the nature of which I shall explain presently. The only weak point in my argument was, that I then considered 'the translation' as being the production of _one_ author, and thought it sufficient to draw my examples (as I unconsciously, for the most part, did) from the central portion of the whole.

§ 4. The next step in this investigation was made by Dr. Lindner. In a painstaking article printed in _Englische Studien_, xi. 163, he made it appear highly probable that at least _two_ fragments of 'the translation' are _by different hands_. That there are two fragments, _at least_, is easily discerned; for after l. 5810 there is a great gap, equivalent to an omission of more than 5000 lines.

§ 5. Still more recently, Dr. Max Kaluza has pointed out that there is another distinct break in the poem near l. 1700. The style of translation, not to speak of its accuracy, is much better in the first 1700 lines than in the subsequent portions. We may notice, in particular, that the French word _boutons_ is translated by _knoppes_ in ll. 1675, 1683, 1685, 1691, 1702, whilst, in l. 1721 and subsequent passages, the same word is merely Englished by _botoun_ or _botouns_. A closer study of the passage extending from l. 1702 to l. 1721 shews that there is a very marked break at the end of l. 1705. Here the French text has (ed. Méon, l. 1676):--

'L'odor de lui entor s'espent;
La soatime qui en ist
Toute la place replenist.'

The English version has:--

'The swote smelle sprong so wyde
That it dide al the place aboute'--

followed by:--

'Whan I had smelled the savour swote,
No wille hadde I fro thens yit go'; &c.

It will be observed that the sentence in the two former lines is incomplete; _dide_ is a mere auxiliary verb, and the real verb of the sentence is lost; whilst the two latter lines lead off with a new sentence altogether. It is still more interesting to observe that, at this very point, we come upon a false rime. The word _aboute_ was then pronounced (abuu·t[*e]), where (uu) denotes the sound of _ou_ in _soup_, and ([*e]) denotes an obscure vowel, like the _a_ in _China_. But the vowel _o_ in _swote_ was then pronounced like the German _o_ in G. _so_ (nearly E. _o_ in _so_), so that it was quite unlike the M.E. _ou_; and the rime is no better than if we were to rime the mod. E. _boot_ with the mod. E. _goat_. It is clear that there has been a _join_ here, and a rather clumsy one. The supply of 'copy' of the first translation ran short, perhaps because the rest of it had been torn away and lost, and the missing matter was supplied from some other source. We thus obtain, as the result to be tested, the following arrangement:--

Fragment A.--Lines 1-1705. French text, 1-1678.

Fragment B.--Lines 1706-5810. French text, 1679-5169.

Fragment C.--Lines 5811-7698. French text, 10716-12564.

It should be noted, further, that l. 7698 by no means reaches to the _end_. It merely corresponds to l. 12564 of the French text, leaving 9510 lines untouched towards the end, besides the gap of 5547 lines between Fragments B and C. In fact, the three fragments, conjointly, only represent 7018 lines of the original, leaving 15056 lines (more than double that number) wholly untranslated.

§ 6. DISCUSSION OF FRAGMENT B.

TEST I.--PROPORTION OF ENGLISH TO FRENCH.--As regards these fragments, one thing strikes us at once, viz. the much greater _diffuseness_ of the translation in fragment B, as may be seen from the following table:--

A.--English, 1705 lines; French, 1678; as 101.6 to 100.

B.--English, 4105 lines; French, 3491; as 117.5 to 100.

C.--English, 1888 lines; French, 1849; as 102.1 to 100.

Thus, in A and C, the translation runs nearly line for line; but in B, the translator employs, on an average, 11 lines and three-quarters for every 10 of the original.

§ 7. TEST II.--DIALECT.--But the striking characteristic of Fragment B is the use in it of a Northern dialect. That this is due to the author, and not merely to the scribe, is obvious from the employment of Northern forms in rimes, where any change would destroy the rime altogether. This may be called the Dialect-test. Examples abound, and I only mention some of the most striking.

1. Use of the Northern pres. part. in _-and_. In l. 2263, we have _wel sittand_ (for _wel sitting_), riming with _hand_. In l. 2708, we have _wel doand_ (for _wel doing_), riming with _fand_. Even _fand_ is a Northern form. Chaucer uses _fond_, riming with _hond_ (Cant. Ta. A 4116, 4221, &c.), _lond_ (A 702, &c.); cf. the subj. form _fond-e_, riming with _hond-e_, _lond-e_, _bond-e_ (B 3521).

2. In l. 1853, we have the rimes _thar_, _mar_ (though miswritten _thore_, _more_ in MS. G.), where the Chaucerian forms _there_, _more_, would not rime at all. These are well-known Northern forms, as in Barbour's Bruce. So again, in l. 2215, we find _mar_, _ar_ (though _mar_ is written as _more_ in MS. G.). In l. 2397, we find _stat_, _hat_; where _hat_ is the Northern form of Chaucer's _hoot_, adj., 'hot.' So also, in 5399, we have North. _wat_ instead of Ch. _wot_ or _woot_, riming with _estat_. In l. 5542, we find the Northern _certis_ (in place of Chaucer's _certes_), riming with _is_.

3. Chaucer (or his scribes) admit the use of the Northern _til_, in place of the Southern _to_, very sparingly; it occurs, e.g. in Cant. Ta. A 1478, before a vowel. But it never occurs after its case, nor at the end of a line. Yet, in fragment B, we twice find _him til_ used finally, 4594, 4852.

4. The use of _ado_ (for _at do_), in the sense of 'to do,' is also Northern; see the New E. Dict. It occurs in l. 5080, riming with _go_.

5. The dropping of the inflexional _e_, in the infin. mood or gerund, is also Northern. In fragment B, this is very common; as examples, take the rimes _lyf_, _dryf_, 1873; _feet_, _lete_ (= _leet_), 1981; _sit_, _flit_, 2371; _may_, _convay_, 2427; _may_, _assay_, 2453; _set_, _get_, 2615; _spring_, _thing_, 2627; _ly_, _by_, 2629; _ly_, _erly_, 2645; &c. The Chaucerian forms are _dryv-e_, _let-e_, _flit-te_, _convey-e_, _assay-e_, _get-e_, _spring-e_, _ly-e_. That the Northern forms are not due to the scribe, is obvious; for he usually avoids them where he can. Thus in l. 2309, he writes _sitting_ instead of _sittand_; but in l. 2263, he could not avoid the form _sittand_, because of the rime.

§ 8. TEST III.--THE RIMING OF -y WITH -y-ë.--With two intentional exceptions (both in the ballad metre of Sir Thopas, see note to Cant. Ta. B 2092), Chaucer _never_ allows such a word as _trewely_ (which etymologically ends in _-y_) to rime with French substantives in _-y-ë_, such as _fol-y-ë_, _Ielos-y-ë_ (Ital. _follia_, _gelosia_). But in fragment B, examples abound; e. g. _I_, _malady(e)_[186], 1849; _hastily_, _company(e)_, 1861; _generally_, _vilany(e)_, 2179; _worthy_, _curtesy(e)_, 2209; _foly(e)_, _by_, 2493, 2521; _curtesy(e)_, _gladly_, 2985; _foly(e)_, _utterly_, 3171; _foly(e)_, _hastily_, 3241; and many more.

This famous test, first proposed by Mr. Bradshaw, is a very simple but effective one; it separates the spurious from the genuine works of Chaucer with ease and certainty in all but a few cases, viz. cases wherein a spurious poem happens to satisfy the test; and these are rare indeed.

§ 9. TEST IV.--ASSONANT RIMES. Those who know nothing about the pronunciation of Middle English, and require an easy test, appreciable by any child who has a good ear, may observe this. Chaucer does not employ mere assonances, i. e. rimes in which only the vowel-sounds correspond. He does not rime _take_ with _shape_, nor _fame_ with _lane_. But the author of fragment B had no ear for this. He actually has such rimes as these: _kepe_, _eke_, 2125; _shape_, _make_, 2259; _escape_, _make_, 2753; _take_, _scape_, 3165; _storm_, _corn_, 4343; _doun_, _tourn_, 5469.

OTHER STRANGE RIMES.--Other rimes which occur here, but not in Chaucer, are these and others like them: _aboute_, _swote_, 1705 (already noticed); _desyre_, _nere_, 1785, 2441; _thar_ (Ch. _there_), _to-shar_, 1857; _Ioynt_, _queynt_[187], 2037; _soon_ (Ch. _son-e_), _doon_, 2377; _abrede_, _forweried_, 2563; _anney_ (Ch. _annoy_), _awey_, 2675; _desyre_, _manere_, 2779; _Ioye_, _convoye_ (Ch. _conveye_), 2915, &c. It is needless to multiply instances.

§ 10. It would be easy to employ further tests; we might, for example, make a minute critical examination of the method in which the final _-e_ is grammatically employed. But the results are always the same. We shall always find irrefragable proof that fragment B exhibits usages far different from those which occur in the undoubted works of Chaucer, and cannot possibly have proceeded from his pen. Repeated investigations, made by me during the past thirteen years, have always come round to this result, and it is not possible for future criticism to alter it.

Hence our first result is this. Fragment B, consisting of ll. 1706-5810 (4105 lines), containing more than fragments A and C together, and therefore more than half of 'the translation,' _is not Chaucer's, but was composed by an author who, to say the least, frequently employed Northern English forms and phrases. Moreover, his translation is too diffuse; and, though spirited, it is not always accurate._

§ 11. DISCUSSION OF FRAGMENT C.

I shall now speak of fragment C. The first noticeable point about it is, that it does _not_ exhibit many of the peculiarities of B. There is nothing to indicate, with any certainty, a Northern origin, nor to connect it with B. In fact, we may readily conclude that B and C are by different authors. The sole question that remains, as far as we are now concerned, is this. Can we attribute it to Chaucer?

The answer, in this case, is not quite so easily given, because the differences between it and Chaucer's genuine works are less glaring and obvious than in the case above. Nevertheless, we at once find some good reasons for refraining to attribute it to our author.

§ 12. RIME-TESTS.--If, for instance, we apply the simple but effective test of the rimes of words ending in _-y_ with those ending in _-y-e_, we at once find that this fragment fails to satisfy the text.

Examples: _covertly_, _Ipocrisy(e)_, 6112; _company(e)_, _outerly_, 6301; _loteby_, _company(e)_, 6339; _why_, _tregetry(e)_, 6373; _company(e)_, _I_, 6875; _mekely_, _trechery(e)_, 7319. These six instances, in less than 1900 lines, ought to make us hesitate.

If we look a little more closely, we find other indications which should make us hesitate still more. At l. 5919, we find _hors_ (horse) riming with _wors_ (worse); but Chaucer rimes _wors_ with _curs_ (Cant. Ta. A 4349), and with _pervers_ (Book Duch. 813). At l. 6045, we find _fare_, _are_; but Chaucer never uses _are_ at the end of a line; he always uses _been_. At l. 6105, we find _atte last_, _agast_; but Chaucer only has _atte last-e_ (which is never monosyllabic). At l. 6429, we find _paci-ence_, _venge-aunce_, a false rime which it would be libellous to attribute to Chaucer; and, at l. 6469, we find _force_, _croce_, which is still worse, and makes it doubtful whether it is worth while to go on. However, if we go a little further, we find the pl. form _wrought_ riming with _nought_, 6565; but Chaucer usually has _wrought-e_, which would destroy the rime. This, however, is not decisive, since Chaucer has _bisought_ for _bisoughte_, Cant. Ta. A. 4117, and _brought_ for _broughte_, id. F. 1273. But when, at l. 6679, we find _preched_ riming with _teched_, we feel at once that this is nothing in which Chaucer had a hand, for he certainly uses the form _taughte_ (Prologue, 497), and as certainly does _not_ invent such a form as _praughte_ to rime with it. Another unpleasant feature is the use of the form _Abstinaunce_ in l. 7483, to gain a rime to _penaunce_, whilst in l. 7505, only 22 lines lower down, we find _Abstinence_, to rime with _sentence_; but the original has similar variations.

§ 13. I will just mention, in conclusion, one more peculiarity to be found in fragment C. In the Cant. Tales, B 480 (and elsewhere), Chaucer uses such rimes as _clerkes_, _derk is_, and the like; but not very frequently. The author of fragment C was evidently much taken with this peculiarity, and gives us plenty of examples of it. Such are: _requestis_, _honést is_, 6039; _places_, _place is_, 6119; _nede is_, _dedis_, 6659; _apert is_, _certis_, 6799; _chaieris_, _dere is_, 6915; _enquestes_, _honést is_, 6977; _prophetis_, _prophete is_, 7093; _ypocritis_, _spite is_, 7253. Here are eight instances in less than 1900 lines. However, there are five examples (at ll. 19, 75, 387, 621, 1349) in the Hous of Fame, which contains 2158 lines in the same metre as our 'translation'; and there are 19 instances in the Cant. Tales.

We should also notice that the character called _Bialacoil_ throughout Fragment B is invariably called _Fair-Welcoming_ in C.

We should also remark how Dr. Lindner (_Engl. Studien_, xi. 172) came to the conclusion that Chaucer certainly never wrote fragment C. As to the rest he doubted, and with some reason; for he had not before him the idea of splitting lines 1-5810 into two fragments.

§ 14. A consideration of the above-mentioned facts, and of others similar to them, leads us to our second result, which is this. Fragment C, containing 1888 lines, and corresponding to ll. 12564 of the French original, is _neither by the author of fragment B, nor by Chaucer, but is not so glaringly unlike Chaucer's work as in the case of fragment B_.

§ 15. DISCUSSION OF FRAGMENT A.

It remains to consider fragment A. The first test to apply is that of rimes in _-y_ and _-y-e_; and, when we remember how indiscriminately these are used in fragments B and C, it is at least instructive to observe the perfect regularity with which they are employed in fragment A. The student who is unacquainted with the subtle distinctions which this test introduces, and who probably is, on that account, predisposed to ignore it, may learn something new by the mere perusal of the examples here given.

1. Words that should, etymologically, end in _-y_ (and not in _-y-e_) are here found riming together, and never rime with a word of the other class.

Examples: _covertly_, _openly_, 19; _redily_, _erly_, 93; _by_, _I_, 111; _bisily_, _redily_, 143; _by_, _I_, 163; _I_, _by_, 207; _povrely_, _courtepy_[188], 219; _beggarly_, _by_, 223; _enemy_, _hardily_, 269; _awry_[189], _baggingly_, 291; _certeinly_, _tenderly_, 331; _prively_, _sikerly_, 371; _redily_, _by_, 379; _Pope-holy_, _prively_, 415; _I_, _openly_, 501; _queyntely_, _fetisly_, 569; _fetisly_, _richely_, 577; _only_, _uncouthly_, 583; _I_, _namely_, 595; _sikerly_, _erthely_, 647; _lustily_, _semely_, 747; _parfitly_, _sotilly_, 771; _queyntely_, _prively_, 783; _fetisly_, _richely_, 837; _sotilly_, _I_, 1119; _enemy_[190], _tristely_, 1165; _sotilly_, _therby_, 1183; _newely_, _by_, 1205; _fetisly_, _trewely_, 1235; _I_, _by_, 1273; _trewely_, _comunly_, 1307; _lustily_, _sikerly_, 1319; _merily_, _hastely_, 1329; _I_, _sikerly_, 1549; _I_, _craftely_, 1567; _openly_, _therby_, 1585; _diversely_, _verily_, 1629; _openly_, _by_, 1637. Thirty-eight examples.

We here notice how frequently words in _-ly_ rime together; but this peculiarity is Chaucerian; cf. _semely_, _fetisly_, C. T. prol. A 123, &c.

2. Words that, etymologically, should end in _-y-e_, rime together. These are of two sorts: (_a_) French substantives; and (_b_) words in _-y_, with an inflexional _-e_ added.

Examples: (_a_) _felony-e_, _vilany-e_, 165; _envy-e_, _masonry-e_, 301; _company-e_, _curtesy-e_, 639; _melody-e_, _reverdy-e_, 719; _curtesy-e_, _company-e_, 957; _vilany-e_, _felony-e_, 977; _envy-e_, _company-e_, 1069; _chivalry-e_, _maistry-e_, 1207; _villany-e_, _sukkeny-e_, 1231; _envye_, _Pavie_, 1653.

(_b_) _dy-e_, infin. mood, _dry-e_, dissyllabic adj. (A. S. _dr[=y]ge_), 1565.

(_a_) and (_b_) mixed: _melody-e_, F. sb., _dy-e_, infin. mood, 675; _espy-e_, gerund, _curtesy-e_, F. sb., 795; _hy-e_, dat. adj., _maistry-e_, 841; _dy-e_, gerund, _flatery-e_, F. sb., 1063; _curtesy-e_, F. sb., _hy-e_, dat. case, pl. adj., 1251; _dy-e_, infin. mood, _remedy-e_, F. sb., 1479. Seventeen examples. (In all, fifty-five examples.)

Thus, in more than fifty cases, the Chaucerian habit is maintained, and there is _no_ instance to the contrary. Even the least trained reader may now fairly begin to believe that there is some value in this proposed test, and may see one reason for supposing that fragment A may be genuine.

§ 16. A still closer examination of other rimes tends to confirm this. There are no Northern forms (as in B), no merely assonant rimes (as in B), nor any false or bad or un-Chaucerian rimes (as in both B and C), except such as can be accounted for. The last remark refers to the fact that the scribe or the printer of Thynne's edition frequently misspells words so as to obscure the rime, whereas they rime perfectly when properly spelt; a fact which tells remarkably in favour of the possible genuineness of the fragment. Thus, at l. 29, Thynne prints _befal_, and at l. 30, _al_. Both forms are wrong; read _befalle_, _alle_. Here Thynne has, however, preserved the rime by making a _double_ mistake; as in several other places. A more important instance is at l. 249, where the Glasgow MS. has _farede_, _herede_, a bad rime; but Thynne correctly has _ferde_, _herde_, as in Chaucer, Cant. Ta. A 1371. So again, at ll. 499, 673, where the Glasgow MS. is right (except in putting _herd_ for _herde_ in l. 673).

At l. 505, there is a false rime; but it is clearly due to a misreading, as explained in the notes. A similar difficulty, at l. 1341, is explicable in the same way.

§ 17. So far, there is no reason why fragment A may not be Chaucer's; and the more closely we examine it, the more probable does this supposition become. Dr. Kaluza has noticed, for instance, that the style of translation in fragment A is distinctly better, clearer, and more accurate than in fragment B. I find also another significant fact, viz. that in my essay written to shew that 'the translation' is not Chaucer's (written at a time when I unfortunately regarded the whole translation as being the work of _one_ writer, a position which is no longer tenable), nearly all my arguments were drawn from certain peculiarities contained in fragments B and C, especially the former. I have therefore nothing, of any consequence, to retract; nor do I even now find that I made any serious mistake.

§ 18. The third result may, accordingly, be arrived at thus. Seeing that Chaucer really translated the 'Roman de la Rose,' and that three fragments of English translations have come down to us, of which two cannot be his, whilst the third may be, _we may provisionally accept fragment A as genuine; and we find that, the more closely we examine it, the more probable does its genuineness become_.

§ 19. SUMMARY.--Having now discussed the three fragments A, B, C, successively and separately (though in a different order), we may conveniently sum up the three results as follows.

1. Fragment A appears to be a real portion of Chaucer's own translation. Its occurrence, at the _beginning_, is, after all, just what we should expect. The scribe or editor would naturally follow it as far as it was extant; and when it failed, would as naturally piece it out with any other translation or translations to which he could gain access. This fragment ceases suddenly, at the end of l. 1705, in the middle of an incomplete sentence. The junction with the succeeding portion is clumsily managed, for it falsely assumes that the previous sentence is complete, and leads off with a false rime.

2. Fragment B is obviously from some other source, and is at once dissociated from both the other fragments by the facts (_a_) that it was _originally_ written in a Northumbrian dialect, though this is somewhat concealed by the manipulation of the spelling by a later scribe; (_b_) that it was written in a more _diffuse_ style, the matter being expanded to the extent, on an average, of nearly twelve lines to ten; (_c_) that many licences appear in the rimes, which sometimes degenerate into mere assonances; and (_d_) that it is less exact and less correct in its method of rendering the original.

3. After fragment B, there is a large gap in the story, more than 5000 lines of the original being missing. Hence Fragment C is from yet a third source, not much of which seems to have been accessible. It neither joins on to Fragment B, nor carries the story much further; and it comes to an end somewhat suddenly, at a point more than 9000 lines from the end of the original. It is, however, both more correct than Fragment B, and more in Chaucer's style; though, at the same time, I cannot accept it as his.

§ 20. There is little that is surprising in this result. That translations of this then famous and popular French poem should have been attempted by many hands, is just what we should expect. At the same time, the enormous length of the original may very well have deterred even the most persevering of the translators from ever arriving at the far end of it. Chaucer's translation was evidently the work of his younger years, and the frequent use which he made of the French poem in his later works may have made him careless of his own version, if indeed he ever finished it, which may be doubted. All this, however, is mere speculation, and all that concerns us now is the net result. It is clear, that, in the 1705 lines here printed in the larger type, we have recovered all of Chaucer's work that we can ever hope to recover. With this we must needs rest satisfied, and it is a great gain to have even so much of it; the more so, when we remember how much reason there was to fear that the whole of Chaucer's work was lost. It was not until Dr. Kaluza happily hit upon the resolution of lines 1-5810 into two fragments, that Chaucer's portion was at last discovered.

§ 21. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

In what has preceded, we have drawn our conclusions from the most helpful form of evidence--the internal evidence. It remains to look at the external form of the poem, and to enquire how it has come down to us.

The apparent sources are _two_, viz. Thynne's edition of 1532 (reprinted in 1542, 1550, 1561, and at later dates), and a MS. in the Hunterian collection at Glasgow. But a very slight examination shews that these are nearly duplicate copies, both borrowed from one and the same original, which is now no longer extant. I shall denote these sources, for convenience, by the symbols Th., G., and O., meaning, respectively, Thynne, Glasgow MS., and the (lost) Original.

The resemblance of Th. and G. is very close; however, each sometimes corrects _small_ faults in the other, and the collation of them is, on this account, frequently helpful. Both are remarkable for an extraordinary misarrangement of the material, in which respect they closely agree; and we are enabled, from this circumstance, to say, definitely, that the C-portion of O. (i. e. their common original) was written (doubtless on vellum) in quires containing 8 leaves (or 16 pages) each, there being, on an average, 24 lines upon every page. Of these quires, the fourth had its leaves transposed, by mistake, when the MS. was bound, in such a manner that the _middle_ pair of leaves of this quire was displaced, so as to come next the two _outer_ pair of leaves; and this displacement was never suspected till of late years, nor ever (so far as I am aware[191]) fully appreciated and explained till now[192]. This displacement of the material was first noticed in Bell's edition, where the editor found it out by the simple process of comparing the English 'translation' with the French 'Roman'; but he gives no account of how it came about. But a closer investigation is useful as showing how exactly 'Th.' and 'G.' agree in following an original displacement in 'O.', or rather in the still older MS. from which the C-portion of O. was copied.

In the fourth sheet (as said above), the pair of middle leaves, containing its 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th pages (G, H, I, K, with the contents recorded in note 2 below) was subtracted from the middle of the quire, and placed so that the 7th page (G) followed the 2nd (B), whilst at the same time, the 10th page (K) came to precede the 15th page (P). The resulting order of pages was, necessarily, A, B, G, H, C, D, E, F, L, M, N, O, I, K, P, Q; as is easily seen by help of a small paper model. And the resulting order of the lines was, accordingly, 6965-6988, 6989-7012, 7109-7133, 7134-7158, 7013-7036, 7037-60, 7061-84, 7085-7108, 7209-7232, 7233-7256, 7257-7280, 7281-7304, 7159-7183, 7184-7208, 7305-7328, 7329-7352; or, collecting the successive numbers, ... -7012, 7109-7158, 7013-7108, 7209-7304, 7159-7208, 7305, &c. And this is precisely the order found, both in Th. and G.

We see further that the fourth and last quire of this C-portion of O. consisted of 7 leaves only, the rest being torn away. For 7 leaves containing 48 lines apiece give a total of 336 lines, which, added to 7352, make up 7688 lines; and, as 10 of the pages seem to have had 25 lines, we thus obtain 7698 lines as the number found in O.

The A-portion of O. was probably copied from a MS. containing usually 25 lines on a page, and occasionally 26. Four quires at 50 lines to the leaf give 32 × 50, or 1600 lines; and 2 leaves more give 100 lines, or 1700 lines in all. If 5 of the pages had 26 lines, we should thus make up the number, viz. 1705. Of the B-portion we can tell nothing, as we do not know how it was made to join on.

As O. was necessarily older than G., and G. is judged by experts[193] to be hardly later than 1440, it is probable that O. was written out not much later than 1430; we cannot say how much earlier, if earlier it was.

§ 22. G. (the Glasgow MS.) is a well-written MS., on vellum; the size of each page being about 11 inches by 7½, with wide margins, especially at the bottom. Each page contains about 24 lines, and each quire contains 8 leaves. The first quire is imperfect, the 1st leaf (ll. 1-44) and the 8th (ll. 333-380) being lost. Nine other leaves are also lost, containing ll. 1387-1482, 2395-2442, 3595-3690, and 7385-7576; for the contents of which (as of the former two) Th. remains the sole authority. The date of the MS. is about 1440; and its class-mark is V. 3. 7.

It begins at l. 45--'So mochel pris,' &c. At the top of the first extant leaf is the name of Thomas Griggs, a former owner. On a slip of parchment at the beginning is a note by A. Askew (from whom Hunter bought the MS.) to this effect:--'Tho. Martin_us_. Ex dono dom' Iacobi Sturgeon de Bury sc[=i] Edmundi in agro Suffolc: Artis Chirurgicæ Periti. Nov. 9, 1720.' It ends very abruptly in the following manner:--

'Ne half so lettred as am I
I am licenced boldely
To Reden in diuinite
And longe haue red
Explicit.'

The third of these lines is incorrect, and the fourth is corrupt and imperfect; moreover, Thynne's copy gives four more lines after them. It would thus appear that G. was copied from O. at a later period than the MS. used by Thynne and now lost, viz. at a period when O. was somewhat damaged or torn at the end of its last page. A careful and exact copy of this MS. is now (in 1891) being printed for the Chaucer Society, edited by Dr. Kaluza.

§ 23. TH.--The version printed in Thynne's edition, 1532, and reprinted in 1542, 1550, 1561, &c. The first four editions, at least, are very much alike. The particular edition at first used by me for constructing the present text is that which I call the edition of 1550. (It is really undated, but that is about the date of it.) Its variations from the earlier editions are trifling, and I afterwards reduced all the readings to the standard of the _first_ edition (1532). The MS. used by Thynne was obviously a copy of 'O.', as explained above; and it shews indications of being copied at an earlier date than 'G.', i. e. before 1440. On the whole, 'Th.' appears to me more correct than 'G.', and I have found it very serviceable. We learn from it, for example, that the scribe of 'G.' frequently dropped the prefix _y-_ in past participles, giving l. 890 in the form 'For nought _clad_ in silk was he,' instead of _y-clad_. Cf. ll. 892, 897, 900, &c.; see the foot-notes.

'Th.' supplies the deficiencies in G., viz. ll. 1-44, 333-380, &c., as well as four lines at the end; and suggests numerous corrections.

§ 24. The various later reprints of the 'Romaunt,' as in Speght (1598) and other editions, are merely less correct copies of 'Th.', and are not worth consulting. The only exceptions are the editions by Bell and Morris. Bell's text was the first for which 'G.' was consulted, and he follows the MS. as his general guide, filling up the deficiencies from Speght's edition, which he describes as 'corrupt and half-modernised.' Why he chose Speght in preference to Thynne, he does not tell us. In consequence, he has left lines incomplete in a large number of instances, owing to putting too much faith in the MS., and neglecting the better printed sources. Thus, in l. 890, he gives us 'clad' instead of '_y_-clad'; where any of the printed texts would have set him right.

Morris's edition is 'printed from the unique MS. in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow'; but contains numerous corrections, apparently from Thynne. Thus, in l. 890, he reads '_y_-clad'; the _y-_ being printed in italics to shew that it is not in the MS.

§ 25. THE PRESENT EDITION.

The present edition principally follows 'G.', but it has been collated with 'Th.' throughout. Besides this, a large number of spellings in Fragment A. have been slightly amended on definite principles, the rejected spellings being given in the footnotes, whenever they are of the slightest interest or importance. Silent alterations are changes such as _i_ for _y_ in _king_ for _kyng_ (l. 10), and _whylom_ for _whilom_ (in the same line), to distinguish vowel-length; the use of _v_ for consonantal _u_ in _avisioun_ for _auisioun_ (l. 9); the use of _ee_ for (long) _e_ in _Iolitee_ for _Iolite_ (l. 52) for the sake of clearness; and a few other alterations of the like kind, which make the text easier to read without at all affecting its accuracy. I have also altered the suffix _-is_ into _-es_ in such words as _hertes_ for _hertis_ (l. 76); and changed the suffixes _-id_ and _-ith_ into the more usual _-ed_ and _-eth_, both of which are common in the MS., usually giving notice; and in other similar minute ways have made the text more like the usual texts of Chaucer in appearance. But in Fragments B and C such changes have been made more sparingly.

I have also corrected numerous absolute blunders, especially in the use of the final e. For example, in l. 125, I have no hesitation in printing _wissh_ for _wysshe_, because the use of final _e_ at the end of a strong past tense, in the first person singular, is obviously absurd. Owing to the care with which the two authorities, 'G.' and 'Th.', have been collated, and my constant reference to the French original, I have no hesitation in saying that the present edition, if fairly judged, will be found to be more correct than its predecessors. For Dr. Kaluza's help I am most grateful.

§ 26. For example, in l. 1188, all the editions have _sarlynysh_, there being no such word. It is an obvious error for _Sarsinesshe_ (riming with _fresshe_); for the F. text has _Sarrazinesche_, i. e. Saracenic.

In l. 1201, the authorities and Bell have _gousfaucoun_, which Morris alters to _gounfaucoun_ in his text, and to _gownfaucoun_ in his glossary. But all of these are 'ghost-words,' i. e. non-existent. Seeing that the original has _gonfanon_, it is clear that Chaucer wrote _gonfanoun_, riming with _renoun_.

In l. 1379, late editions have _lorey_; in l. 1313, Bell has _loreryes_, which Morris alters to _loreyes_. There is no such word as _lorey_. Thynne has _laurer_, _laurelles_. Considering that _loreres_ rimes with _oliveres_, it is obvious that the right forms are _lorer_ and _loreres_ (French, _loriers_); see _laurer_ in Stratmann.

In l. 1420, where the authorities have _veluet_, the modern editions have _velvet_. But the _u_ (also written _ou_) was at that time a vowel, and _velu-et_ (or _velou-et_) was trisyllabic, as the rhythm shews. The modern _velvet_ seems to have arisen from a mistake.

Several other restorations of the text are pointed out in the notes, and I need not say more about them here.

N.B. After l. 4658, the lines in Morris's edition are misnumbered. His
l. 4670 is really l. 4667; and so on. Also, 5700 is printed in the
wrong place; and so is 6010; but without throwing out the numbering.
Also, 6210 is only _nine_ lines after 6200, throwing out the subsequent
numbering, so that his l. 6220 is really 6216. At his l. 6232, 6231 is
printed, and so counted; thus, his 6240 is really 6237. His 6380 is
_eleven_ lines after 6370, and is really 6378. After l. 7172, I insert
two lines by translation, to fill up a slight gap. This makes his l.
7180 agree with my l. 7180, and brings his numbering right again.

For a few of the Notes, I am indebted to Bell's edition; but most of the work in them is my own.

§ 27. THE FRENCH TEXT.

For some account of the famous French poem entitled 'Le Roman de la Rose,' see Morley's English Writers, 1889, iv. 1. It was commenced by Guillaume de Lorris, born at Lorris, in the valley of the Loire, who wrote it at the age of five-and-twenty, probably between the years 1200 and 1230[194]. He must have died young, as he left the poem incomplete, though it then extended to 4070 lines. It was continued, a little more than 40 years after Guillaume's death, by Jean de Meun (or Meung), born (as he tells us) at Meung-sur-Loire, and surnamed _le Clopinel_ (i. e. the hobbler, the lame). See, for these facts, the French text, ll. 10601, 10603, 10626. He added 18004 lines, so that the whole poem finally extended to the enormous length of 22074 lines.

Jean de Meun was a man of a very different temperament from his predecessor. Guillaume de Lorris merely planned a fanciful allegorical love-poem, in which the loved one was represented as a Rose in a beautiful garden, and the lover as one who desired to pluck it, but was hindered by various allegorical personages, such as Danger, Shame, Jealousy, and Fear, though assisted by others, such as _Bel Accueil_ (Fair Reception), Frankness, Pity, and the like. But Jean de Meun took up the subject in a keener and more earnest spirit, inserting some powerful pieces of satire against the degraded state of many women of the day and against various corruptions of the church. This infused a newer life into the poem, and made it extremely popular and successful. We may look upon the former part, down to l. 4432 of the translation, as a pretty and courtly description of a fanciful dream, whilst the remaining portion intersperses with the general description many forcible remarks, of a satirical nature, on the manners of the time, and affords numerous specimens of the author's erudition. Jean de Meun was the author of several other pieces, including a poem which he called his 'Testament.' He probably lived into the beginning of the fourteenth century, and died about 1318.

§ 28. Professor Morley gives a brief analysis of the whole poem, which will be found to be a useful guide through the labyrinth of this rambling poem. The chief points in it are the following.

The poet's dream begins, after a brief introduction, with a description of allegorical personages, as seen painted on the outside of the walls of a garden, viz. Hate and Felony, Covetousness, &c.; ll. 147-474 of the translation.

We may next note a description of Idleness, the young girl who opens the door of the garden (531-599); of Sir Mirth (600-644); of the garden itself (645-732); again, of Sir Mirth, the lady Gladness, Cupid, or the God of Love, with his two bows and ten arrows, and his bachelor, named Sweet-looking (733-998). Next comes a company of dancers, such as Beauty, Riches, Largesse (Bounty), Frankness, Courtesy, and Idleness again (999-1308). The poet next describes the trees in the garden (1349-1408), and the wells in the same (1409-1454); especially the well of Narcissus, whose story is duly told (1455-1648). THE ROSE-TREE (1649-1690). THE ROSE-BUD (1691-1714).

At 1. 1705, Fragment A ends.

§ 29. Just at this point, the descriptions cease for a while, and the action, so to speak, begins. The God of Love seeks to wound the poet, or lover, with his arrows, and succeeds in doing so; after which he calls upon the lover to yield himself up as a prisoner, which he does (1715-2086). Love locks up the lover's heart, and gives him full instructions for his behaviour (2087-2950); after which Love vanishes (2951-2966). The Rose-tree is defended by a hedge; the lover seeks the assistance of Bialacoil or Belacoil (i. e. Fair-Reception), but is warned off by Danger, Wicked-Tongue, and Shame (2967-3166); and at last, Fair-Reception flees away (3167-3188). At this juncture, Reason comes to the lover, and gives him good advice; but he rejects it, and she leaves him to himself (3189-3334).

He now seeks the help of a Friend, and Danger allows him to come a little nearer, but tells him he must not pass within the hedge (3335-3498). Frankness and Pity now assist him, and he enters the garden, rejoined by Fair-Reception (3499-3626). THE ROSE appears more beautiful than ever, and the lover, aided by Venus, kisses it (3627-3772). This leads to trouble; Wicked-tongue and Jealousy raise opposition, Danger is reproved, and becomes more watchful than before (3773-4144). Jealousy builds a strong tower of stone, to guard the Rose-tree; the gates of the tower are guarded by Danger, Shame, Dread, and Wicked-tongue (4145-4276); and Fair-Reception is imprisoned within it (4277-4314). The lover mourns, and is inclined to despair (4315-4432).

§ 30. At this point, the work of G. de Lorris ceases, and Jean de Meun begins by echoing the word 'despair,' and declaring that he will have none of it. The lover reconsiders his position (4433-4614). Reason (in somewhat of a new character) revisits the lover, and again instructs him, declaring how love is made up of contrarieties, and discussing the folly of youth and the self-restraint of old-age (4615-5134). The lover again rejects Reason's advice, who continues her argument, gives a definition of Friendship, and discusses the variability of Fortune (5135-5560), the value of Poverty (5561-5696), and the vanity of Covetousness (5697-5810).

§ 31. Here ends Fragment B, and a large gap occurs in the translation. The omitted portion of the French text continues the discourse of Reason, with examples from the stories of Virginia, Nero, and Croesus, and references to the fall of Manfred (conquered by Charles of Anjou) and the fate of Conradin. But all this is wasted on the lover, whom Reason quits once more. The lover applies a second time to his Friend, who recommends bounty or bribery. Here Jean de Meun discourses on prodigality, on women who take presents, on the Age of Gold, and on jealous husbands, with much satire interspersed, and many allusions, as for example, to Penelope, Lucretia, Abelard, Hercules, and others.

At last Love pities the lover, and descends to help him; and, with the further assistance of Bounty, Honour, and other barons of Love's court, proceeds to lay siege to the castle in which Jealousy has imprisoned Fair-Reception.

§ 32. Here begins Fragment C; in which the ranks of the besiegers are joined by other assistants of a doubtful and treacherous character, viz. False-Semblant and Constrained-Abstinence (5811-5876). Love discusses buying and selling, and the use of bounty and riches (5877-6016). Love's Barons ask Love to take False-Semblant and Constrained-Abstinence into his service (6017-6057). Love consents, but bids False-Semblant confess his true character (6058-6081). False-Semblant replies by truly exposing his own hypocrisy, with keen attacks upon religious hypocrites (6082-7334). Love now begins the assault upon the castle of Jealousy (7335-7352). A digression follows, regarding the outward appearance of False-Semblant and Constrained-Abstinence (7353-7420). The assailants advance to the gate guarded by Wicked-Tongue, who is harangued by Constrained-Abstinence (7421-7605), and by False-Semblant (7606-7696). And here the English version ends.

The above sketch gives a sufficient notion of the general contents of the poem. Of course the lover is ultimately successful, and carries off the Rose in triumph.

§ 33. It deserves to be noted, in conclusion, that, as the three Fragments of the English version, all taken together, represent less than a third of the French poem, we must not be surprised to find, as we do, that Chaucer's numerous allusions to, and citations from, the French poem, usually lie outside that part of it that happens to be translated. Still more often, they lie outside the part of it translated in Fragment A. Hence it seldom happens that we can compare his quotations with his own translation. In the chief instances where we can do so, we find that he has not repeated his own version _verbatim_, but has somewhat varied his expressions. I refer, in particular, to the Book of the Duchess, 284-6, as compared with Rom. Rose, 7-10; the same, 340-1, beside R.R., 130-1; the same, 410-2, beside R.R., 61-2; and the same, 419-426, 429-432, beside R.R., 1391-1403.

§ 34. In the present edition I have supplied the original French text, in the lower part of each page, as far as the end of Fragment A, where Chaucer's work ends. This text is exactly copied from the edition by M. Méon, published at Paris in four volumes in 1813[195]. I omit, however, the occasional versified headings, which appear as summaries and are of no consequence. Throughout the notes I refer to the lines as numbered in this edition. The later edition by M. Michel is practically useless for the purpose of reference, as the numbering of the lines in it is strangely incorrect. For example, line 3408 is called 4008, and the whole number of lines is made out to be 22817, which is largely in excess of the truth.

Fragments B and C are printed in smaller type, to mark their distinction from Fragment A; and the corresponding French text is omitted, to save space.

* * * * *

THE MINOR POEMS.

§ 1. It has been usual, in editions of Chaucer's Works, to mingle with those which he is known to have written, a heterogeneous jumble of poems by Gower, Lydgate, Hoccleve, Henrysoun, and various anonymous writers (some of quite late date), and then to accept a quotation from any one of them as being a quotation 'from Chaucer.' Some principle of selection is obviously desirable; and the first question that arises is, naturally, this: which of the Minor Poems are genuine? The list here given partly coincides with that adopted by Dr. Furnivall in the publications of the Chaucer Society. I have, however, added six, here numbered VI, XI, XII, XXI, XXII, and XXIII; my reasons for doing so are given below, where each poem is discussed separately. At the same time, I have omitted the poem entitled 'The Mother of God,' which is known to have been written by Hoccleve. The only known copy of it is in a MS. now in the library of the late Sir Thomas Phillipps, which contains sixteen poems, all of which are by the same hand, viz. that of Hoccleve. After all, it is only a translation; still, it is well and carefully written, and the imitation of Chaucer's style is good. In determining which poems have the best right to be reckoned as Chaucer's, we have to consider both the external and the internal evidence.

We will therefore consider, in the first place, the external evidence generally.

§ 2. TESTIMONY OF CHAUCER REGARDING HIS WORKS.

The most important evidence is that afforded by the poet himself. In an Introduction prefixed to the Man of Law's Prologue (Cant. Tales, B 57), he says--

'In youth he made of _Ceys and Alcion_'--

a story which is preserved at the beginning of the Book of the Duchesse.

In the Prologue to the Legend of Good Women (see vol. iii.), he refers to his translation of the Romaunce of the Rose, and to his Troilus; and, according to MS. Fairfax 16, ll. 417-423, he says--

'He made the book that hight the _Hous of Fame_,
And eke the Deeth of _Blaunche the Duchesse_,
And the _Parlement of Foules_, as I gesse,
And al the love of Palamon and Arcite
Of Thebes, thogh the story ys knowen lyte,
And many an ympne for your halydayes
That highten Balades, Roundels, Virelayes,' &c.

The rest of the passage does not immediately concern us, excepting ll. 427, 428, where we find--

'He made also, goon ys a grete while,
_Origenes vpon the Maudeleyne_.'

In the copy of the same Prologue, as extant in MS. Gg. 4. 27, in the Cambridge University Library, there are two additional lines, doubtless genuine, to this effect--

'And of the _wrechede engendrynge of mankynde_,
As man may in pope Innocent I-fynde.'

There is also a remarkable passage at the end of his Persones Tale, the genuineness of which has been doubted by some, but it appears in the MSS., and I do not know of any sound reason for rejecting it. According to the Ellesmere MS., he here mentions--'the book of Troilus, the book also of Fame, the book of the xxv. Ladies[196], the book of the Duchesse, the book of seint Valentynes day of the parlement of briddes ... the book of the Leoun ... and many a song,' &c.

Besides this, in the House of Fame, l. 729, he mentions his own name, viz. 'Geffrey.' We thus may be quite certain as to the genuineness of this poem, the longest and most important of all the Minor Poems[197], and we may at once add to the list the Book of the Duchesse, the next in order of length, and the Parliament of Foules, which is the third in the same order.

We also learn that he composed some poems which have not come down to us, concerning which a few words may be useful.

1. 'Origines vpon the Maudeleyne' must have been a translation from a piece attributed to Origen. In consequence, probably, of this remark of the poet, the old editions insert a piece called the 'Lamentacion of Marie Magdaleine,' which has no pretence to be considered Chaucer's, and may be summarily dismissed. It is sufficient to notice that it contains a considerable number of rimes such as are never found in his genuine works, as, for example, the dissyllabic _dy-e_[198] riming with _why_ (st. 13); the plural adjective _ken-e_ riming with _y-ën_, i. e. eyes, which would, with this Chaucerian pronunciation, be no rime at all (st. 19); and thirdly, _disgised_ riming with _rived_, which is a mere assonance, and saves us from the trouble of further investigation (st. 25). See below, p. 37.

2. 'The wrechede engendrynge of mankynde' is obviously meant to describe a translation or imitation of the treatise by Pope Innocent III, entitled _De Miseria Conditionis Humanae_. The same treatise is referred to by Richard Rolle de Hampole, in his Pricke of Conscience, l. 498. It should be noted, however, that a few stanzas of this work have been preserved, by being incorporated (as quotations) in the Canterbury Tales, viz. in B 99-121, 421-7, 771-7, 925-31, 1135-8; cf. C 537-40, 551-2. See notes to these passages.

3. 'The book of the Leoun,' i. e. of the lion, was probably a translation of the poem called _Le Dit du Lion_ by Machault; see the note to l. 1024 of the Book of the Duchesse in the present volume.

§ 3. LYDGATE'S LIST OF CHAUCER'S POEMS.

The next piece of evidence is that given in what is known as 'Lydgate's list.' This is contained in a long passage in the prologue to his poem known as the 'Fall of Princes,' translated from the French version (by Laurens de Premierfait) of the Latin book by Boccaccio, entitled 'De Casibus Virorum Illustrium[199].' In this Lydgate commends his 'maister Chaucer,' and mentions many of his works, as, e. g. Troilus and Creseide, the translation of Boethius' _De Consolatione Philosophiae_, the treatise on the Astrolabe addressed to his 'sonne that called was Lowys,' the Legend of Good Women, and the Canterbury Tales. The whole passage is given in Morris's edition of Chaucer, vol. i. pp. 79-81; but I shall only cite so much of it as refers to the Minor Poems, and I take the opportunity of doing so directly, from an undated black-letter edition published by John Wayland.

'He wrote also full many a day agone
_Dant in English_, him-selfe doth so expresse,
The piteous story of _Ceix and Alcion_:
And the death also of _Blaunche the duches_:
And notably [he] did his businesse
By great auise his wittes to dispose,
To translate the _Romaynt of the Rose_.

'Thus in vertue he set all his entent,
Idelnes and vyces for to fle:
Of _fowles_ also he wrote _the parliament_,
Therein remembring of royall Eagles thre,
Howe in their choyse they felt aduersitye,
To-fore nature profered the battayle,
Eche for his partye, if it woulde auayle.

'He did also his diligence and payne
In our vulgare to translate and endite
_Orygene upon the Maudelayn_:
And of _the Lyon a boke_ he did write.
_Of Annelida and of false Arcite_
He made _a complaynt_ dolefull and piteous;
And of _the broche which that Uulcanus_

'_At Thebes_ wrought, ful diuers of nature.
Ouide[200] writeth: who-so thereof had a syght,
For high desire, he shoulde not endure
But he it had, neuer be glad ne light:
And if he had it once in his myght,
Like as my master sayth & writeth in dede,
It to conserue he shoulde euer liue in dred.'

It is clear to me that Lydgate is, _at first_, simply repeating the information which we have already had upon Chaucer's own authority; he begins by merely following Chaucer's own language in the extracts above cited. Possibly he knew no more than we do of 'Orygene vpon the Maudelayn,' and of the 'boke of the Lyon.' At any rate, he tells us no more about them. Naturally, in speaking of the Minor Poems, we should expect to find him following, as regards the three chief poems, the order of length; that is, we should expect to find here a notice of (1) the House of Fame; (2) the Book of the Duchesse; and (3) the Parliament of Foules. We are naturally disposed to exclaim with Ten Brink (_Studien_, p. 152)--'Why did he leave out the House of Fame?' But we need not say with him, that 'to this question I know of no answer.' For it is perfectly clear to me, though I cannot find that any one else seems to have thought of it, that 'Dant in English' and 'The House of Fame' are one and the same poem, described in the same position and connexion. If anything about the House of Fame is clear at all, it is that (as Ten Brink so clearly points out, in his _Studien_, p. 89) the influence of Dante is more obvious in this poem than in any other. I would even go further and say that it is the _only_ poem which owes its chief inspiration to Dante in the whole of English literature during, at least, the Middle-English period. There is absolutely nothing else to which such a name as 'Dante in English' can with any fitness be applied. The phrase 'himselfe doth so expresse' is rather dubious; but I take it to mean: '(I give it that name, for) he, i. e. Chaucer, expresses himself like Dante (therein).' In any case, I refuse to take any other view until some competent critic will undertake to tell me, what poem of Chaucer's, other than the House of Fame, can possibly be intended.

To which argument I have to add a second, viz. that Lydgate mentions the House of Fame in yet another way; for he refers to it at least three times, in clear terms, in other passages of the same poem, i. e. of the Fall of Princes.

'Fame in her palice hath tru_m_pes mo than one,
Some of golde, that geueth a freshe soun'; &c.--Book I. cap. 14.

'Within my house called the house of Fame
The golden trumpet w_i_t_h_ blastes of good name
Enhaunceth on to ful hie parties,
Wher Iupiter sytteth amo_n_g the heue_n_ly skies.

'Another tru_m_pet of sownes ful vengeable
Which bloweth vp at feastes funerall,
Nothinge bright, but of colour sable'; &c.--Prol. to Book VI.

'The golden trumpe of the house of Fame[201]
Through the world blew abrode his name.'--Book VI. cap. 15.

Lydgate describes the Parliament of Foules in terms which clearly shew that he had read it. He also enables us to add to our list the Complaint of Anelida and the Complaint of Mars; for it is the latter poem which contains the story of the _broche_ of Thebes. We have, accordingly, complete authority for the genuineness of the House of Fame and the four longest of the Minor Poems, which, as arranged in order of length, are these: The House of Fame (2158 lines); Book of the Duchesse (1334 lines); Parliament of Foules (699 lines); Anelida and Arcite (357 lines); and Complaint of Mars (298 lines). This gives us a total of 4846 lines, furnishing a very fair standard of comparison whereby to consider the claims to genuineness of other poems. Lydgate further tells us that Chaucer

'Made and compiled many a freshe dittie,
Complaynts, ballades, rou_n_dels, vyrelaies.'

§ 4. TESTIMONY OF JOHN SHIRLEY.

The next best evidence is that afforded by notes in the existing MSS.; and here, in particular, we should first consider the remarks by Chaucer's great admirer, John Shirley, who took considerable pains to copy out and preserve his poems, and is said by Stowe to have died Oct. 21, 1456, at the great age of ninety, so that he was born more than 30 years before Chaucer died. On his authority, we may attribute to Chaucer the A. B. C.; the Complaint to Pity; the Complaint of Mars (according to a heading in MS. T.); the Complaint of Anelida (according to a heading in MS. Addit. 16165); the Lines to Adam, called in MS. T. 'Chauciers Wordes a. Geffrey vn-to Adam his owen scryveyne'; Fortune; Truth; Gentilesse; Lak of Stedfastnesse; the Compleint of Venus; and the Compleint to his Empty Purse. The MSS. due to Shirley are the Sion College MS., Trin. Coll. Cam. R. 3. 20, Addit. 16165, Ashmole 59, Harl. 78, Harl. 2251, and Harl. 7333. See also § 23, p. 75.

§ 5. TESTIMONY OF SCRIBES OF THE MSS.

The Fairfax MS. 16, a very fair MS. of the fifteenth century, contains several of the Minor Poems; and in this the name of Chaucer is written at the end of the poem on Truth and of the Compleint to his Purse; it also appears in the title of Lenvoy de _Chaucer_ a Scogan; in that of Lenvoy de _Chaucer_ a Bukton; in that of the Compleint of _Chaucer_ to his empty Purse, and in that of 'Proverbe of _Chaucer_.'

Again, the Pepys MS. no. 2006 attributes to Chaucer the A. B. C., the title there given being 'Pryer a nostre Dame, per Chaucer'; as well as the Compleint to his Purse, the title being 'La Compleint de Chaucer a sa Bourse Voide.' It also has the title 'Lenvoy de Chaucer a Scogan.' See also p. 80, note 2.

The 'Former Age' is entitled 'Chawcer vp-on this fyfte metur of the second book' in the Cambridge MS. Ii. 3. 21; and at the end of the same poem is written 'Finit etas prima. Chaucers' in the Cambridge MS. Hh. 4. 12. The poem on Fortune is also marked 'Causer' in the former of these MSS.; indeed, these two poems practically belong to Chaucer's translation of Boethius, though probably written at a somewhat later period. After all, the most striking testimony to their authenticity is the fact that, in MS. Ii. 3. 21, these two poems are inserted in the very midst of the prose text of 'Boethius,' between the fifth metre and the sixth prose of Book II.

The Cambridge MS. Gg. 4. 27, which contains an excellent copy of the Canterbury Tales, attributes to Chaucer the Parliament of Foules; and gives us the title 'Litera directa de Scogon per G. C.' Of course 'G. C.' is Geoffrey Chaucer.

From Furnivall's _Trial Forewords_, p. 13, we learn that there is a verse translation of De Deguileville's _Pèlerinage do la Vie Humaine_, attributed to Lydgate, in MS. Cotton, Vitellius C. XIII. (leaf 256), in which the 'A. B. C.' is distinctly attributed to Chaucer[202].

The Balade 'To Rosamounde' is assigned to Chaucer in the unique copy of it in the Rawlinson MS. 'A Compleint to his Lady' is assigned to Chaucer in the only _complete_ copy of it.

We ought also to assign _some_ value to the manner in which the poems appear in the MS. copies. This can only be appreciated by inspection of the MSS. themselves. Any one who will _look for himself_ at the copies of Gentilesse, Lak of Stedfastnesse, Truth, and Against Women Inconstaunt in MS. Cotton, Cleop. D. 7, will see that the scribe clearly regarded the last of these as genuine, as well as the rest. And the same may be said of some other poems which are not absolutely marked with Chaucer's name. This important argument is easily derided by those who cannot read MSS., but it remains valuable all the same.

§ 6. TESTIMONY OF CAXTON.

At p. 116 of the same _Trial Forewords_ is a description by Mr. Bradshaw of a very rare edition by Caxton of some of Chaucer's Minor Poems. It contains: (1) Parliament of Foules; (2) a treatise by Scogan, in which Chaucer's 'Gentilesse' is introduced; (3) a single stanza of 7 lines, beginning--'Wyth empty honde men may no hawkes lure'; (4) Chaucer's 'Truth,' entitled--'The good counceyl of Chawcer'; (5) the poem on 'Fortune'; and (6) part of Lenvoy to Scogan, viz. the first three stanzas. The volume is imperfect at the end. As to the article No. 3, it was probably included because the first line of it is quoted from l. 415 of the Wyf of Bathes Prologue (Cant. Ta. 5997, vol. iv. p. 332).

At p. 118 of the same is another description, also by Mr. Bradshaw, of a small quarto volume printed by Caxton, consisting of only ten leaves. It contains, according to him: (1) Anelida and Arcite, ll. 1-210; (2) The Compleint of Anelida, being the continuation of the former, ll. 211-350, where the poem ends; (3) The Compleint of Chaucer vnto his empty purse, with an Envoy headed--'Thenuoye of Chaucer vnto the kynge'; (4) Three[203] couplets, beginning--'Whan feyth failleth in prestes sawes,' and ending--'Be brought to grete confusio_u_n'; (5) Two couplets, beginning--'Hit falleth for euery gentilman,' and ending--'And the soth in his presence'; (6) Two couplets, beginning--'Hit cometh by kynde of gentil blode,' and ending--'The werk of wisedom berith witnes'; followed by--'Et sic est finis.' The last three articles only make fourteen lines in all, and are of little importance[204].

§ 7. EARLY EDITIONS OF CHAUCER'S WORKS.

The first collected edition of Chaucer's Works is that edited by W. Thynne in 1532, but there were earlier editions of his separate poems. The best account of these is that which I here copy from a note on p. 70 of Furnivall's edition of F. Thynne's 'Animaduersions vpon the Annotacions and Corrections of some imperfections of impressiones of Chaucer's Workes'; published for the Chaucer Society in 1875.

Only one edition of Chaucer's _Works_ had been published before the date of Thynne's, 1532, and that was Pynson's in 1526, without a general title, but containing three parts, with separate signatures, and seemingly intended to sell separately; 1. the boke of Caunterbury tales; 2. the boke of Fame ... with dyuers other of his workes [i. e. Assemble of Foules[205], La Belle Dame[206], Morall Prouerbes]; 3. the boke of Troylus and Cryseyde. But of separate works of Chaucer before 1532, the following had been published:--

_Canterbury Tales._ 1. Caxton, about 1477-8, from a poor MS.; 2.
Caxton, ab. 1483, from a better MS.; 3. Pynson, ab. 1493; 4. Wynkyn de
Worde, 1498; 5. Pynson, 1526.

_Book of Fame._ 1. Caxton, ab. 1483; 2. Pynson, 1526.

_Troylus._ 1. Caxton, ab. 1483; 2. Wynkyn de Worde, 1517; 3. Pynson,
1526.

_Parliament of Foules[207]._ 1. Caxton, ab. 1477-8; 2. Pynson, 1526; 3.
Wynkyn de Worde, 1530.

_Gentilnesse_[207] (in Scogan's poem). 1. Caxton, ab. 1477-8.

_Truth[207]._ (The good counceyl of chawcer.) 1. Caxton, ab. 1477-8.

_Fortune[207]._ (Balade of the vilage (_sic_) without peyntyng.) 1.
Caxton, ab. 1477-8.

_Envoy to Skogan[207]._ 1. Caxton, ab. 1477-8 (all lost, after the
third stanza).

_Anelida and Arcyte[208]._ 1. Caxton, ab. 1477-8.

_Purse[208]._ (The compleynt of Chaucer vnto his empty purse.) 1.
Caxton, ab. 1477-8.

_Mars_; _Venus_; _Marriage_ (Lenvoy to Bukton). 1. Julian Notary,
1499-1502.

After Thynne's first edition of the _Works_ in 1532 (printed by Thomas Godfray), came his second in 1542 (for John Reynes and Wyllyam Bonham), to which he added 'The Plowman's Tale' _after_ the Parson's Tale, i. e. at the end.

Then came a reprint for the booksellers (Wm. Bonham, R. Kele, T. Petit, Robert Toye), about 1550, which put the Plowman's Tale _before_ the Parson's. This was followed by an edition in 1561 for the booksellers (Ihon Kyngston, Henry Bradsha, citizen and grocer of London, &c.), to which, when more than half printed, Stowe contributed some fresh pieces, the spurious _Court of Love_, Lydgate's _Sege of Thebes_, and other poems. Next came Speght's edition of 1598--on which William Thynne comments in his _Animadversions_--which added the spurious 'Dreme,' and 'Flower and Leaf.' This was followed by Speght's second edition, in 1602, in which Francis Thynne helped him, and to which were added Chaucer's 'A. B. C.', and the spurious 'Jack Upland[209].' Jack Upland had been before printed, with Chaucer's name on the title-page, about 1536-40 (London, J. Gough, no date, 8vo.).

In an Appendix to the Preface to Tyrwhitt's edition of the Canterbury Tales, there is a similar account of the early editions of Chaucer, to which the reader may refer. He quotes the whole of Caxton's preface to his second edition of the Canterbury Tales, shewing how Caxton reprinted the book because he had meanwhile come upon a more correct MS. than that which he had first followed.

If we now briefly consider all the earlier editions, we find that they may be thus tabulated.

SEPARATE WORKS. Various editions before 1532; see the list above, on p. 28.

COLLECTED WORKS. Pynson's edition of 1526, containing only a portion, as above; _La Belle Dame_ being spurious. Also the following:--

1. Ed. by Wm. Thynne; London, 1532. Folio. Pr. by Godfray.

2. Reprinted, with additional matter; London, 1542. Folio.

The chief addition is the spurious Plowman's Tale.

3. Reprinted, with the matter rearranged; London, no date, about 1550. Folio. (Of this edition I possess a copy.)

Here the Plowman's Tale is put before the Parson's. Moreover, the three pieces numbered 66-68 below (p. 45), are inserted at the end of the Table of Contents.

4. Reprinted, with large additions by John Stowe. London, 1561. Folio. (See further below, p. 31). I possess a copy.

5. Reprinted, with additions and alterations by Thomas Speght; London, 1598. Folio.

Here, for the first time, appear 'Chaucer's Dream' and 'The Flower and the Leaf'; both are spurious.

6. Reprinted, with further additions and alterations by Thomas Speght; London, 1602. Folio.

Here, for the first time, appear the spurious Jack Upland[210] and the genuine A. B. C.

7. Reprinted, with slight additions; London, 1687. Folio.

8. Reprinted, with additions and great alterations in spelling, by John Urry; London, 1721. Folio.

This edition is the worst that has appeared. It is not necessary for our purpose to enumerate the numerous later editions. An entirely new edition of the Canterbury Tales was produced by Thomas Tyrwhitt in 1775-8, in 5 vols., 8vo.; to which all later editions have been much indebted[211].

The manner in which these editions were copied one from the other renders it no very difficult task to describe the whole contents of them accurately. The only important addition in the editions of 1542 and 1550 is the spurious Plowman's Tale, which in no way concerns us. Again, the only important additional poems after 1561 are the spurious _Chaucer's Dream_, _The Flower and the Leaf_, and the genuine _A. B. C._ The two representative editions are really those of 1532 and 1561. Now the edition of 1561 consists of two parts; the former consists of a reprint from former editions, and so differs but little from the edition of 1532; whilst the latter part consists of additional matter furnished by John Stowe. Hence a careful examination of the edition of 1561 is, practically, nearly sufficient to give us all the information which we need. I shall therefore give a complete table of the contents of this edition.

§ 8. TABLE OF CONTENTS OF STOWE'S EDITION (1561)[212].