Chaucer's Works (ed. Skeat) Vol. V/Introduction


 * —§ 1. Some points for discussion. § 2. Canon of Chaucer's Works. Thynne's edition of 1532. § 3. Later reprints. § 4. Tyrwhitt's edition; and his endeavours to establish a canon. § 5. The same; continued. § 6. Chalmers' edition. § 7. The anonymous edition of 1845; published by Moxon. § 8. This edition due to Tyrwhitt's suggestions. § 9. Later work; results arrived at by Prof. Lounsbnry. § 10. Some of The Minor Poems in The present edition. § 11. The Poem no. XXIV. § 12. Poems numbered XXIII, XXV, and XXVI. § 13. The text of the Canterbury Tales; lines 'clipped' at The beginning. § 14. The Harleian MS. § 15. The Ellesmere MS. § 16. The old black-letter editions. § 17. Stowe's edition in 1561. § 18. Dryden's remarks on Chaucer's verse. § 19. Brief rules for scansion. § 20. Accentuation. § 21. Examples. § 22. Old pronunciation. § 23. Modernising of spelling. § 24. Sources of The Notes; acknowledgments

§ 1. In the brief Introduction to vol. iv. I have given a list of the MSS. of the Canterbury Tales; some account of the early printed editions; and some explanation of the methods employed in preparing the present edition. I propose here to discuss further certain important points of general interest. And first, I would say a few words as to the Canon of Chaucer's Works, whereby the genuine works are separated from others that have been attributed to him, at various times, by mistake or inadvertence.

This has already been considered, at considerable length, in vol. i. pp. 20-90. But it is necessary to say a few words on the whole subject, owing to the extremely erroneous opinions that are so widely prevalent.

Sometimes a poem is claimed for Chaucer because it occurs 'in a Chaucer MS.' There is a certain force in this plea in a few cases, as I have already pointed out. But it commonly happens that such MSS. (as, for example, MS. Fairfax 16, MS. Bodley 638, and others) are mere collections of poetry of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, from which nothing can safely be inferred as to the authorship of the poems which they contain, unless the scribe distinctly gives the author's name. As a rule, however, the scribes not only omit to mention names, but they frequently omit the very title of the poem, and thus withhold such help as, in many cases, they might easily have afforded.

The celebrated first edition of 'Chaucer's Works,' edited by William Thynne in 1532, made no attempt to establish any canon. Thynne simply put together such a book as he believed would be generally acceptable; and deliberately inserted poems which he knew to be by other authors. Some of these poems bear the name of Lydgate; one has the name of Gower; and another, by Hoccleve, is dated 1402, or two years after Chaucer's death. They were tossed together without much attempt at order; so that even the eleventh poem in the volume is 'The Floure of Curtesie, made by Ihon lidgate.' The edition, in fact, is a mere collection of poems by Chaucer, Lydgate, Gower, Hoccleve, Robert Henrysoun, Sir Richard Ros, and various anonymous authors; and the number of poems by other authors almost equals the number of Chaucer's. The mere accident of the inclusion of a given piece in this volume practically tells us nothing, unless it happens to be distinctly marked; though we can, of course, often tell the authorship from some remark made by Chaucer himself, or by others. And the net result is this; that Thynne neither attempted to draw up a list of Chaucer's genuine works, nor to exclude such works as were not his. He merely printed such things as came to hand, without any attempt at selection or observance of order, or regard to authorship. All that we can say is, that he did not knowingly exclude any of the genuine pieces. Nevertheless, he omitted Chaucer's A.B.C., of which there must have been many copies in existence, for we have twelve still extant.

§ 3. The mere repetition of this collection, in various reprints, did not confer on it any fresh authority. Stowe indeed, in 1561, added more pieces to the collection, but he suppressed nothing. Neither did he himself exercise much principle of selection; see vol. i. p. 56. He even added The Storie of Thebes, which he must have known to be Lydgate's. Later reprints were all edited after the same bewildering fashion.

§ 4. The first person to exercise any discrimination in this matter was Thomas Tyrwhitt, who published a new edition of the Canterbury Tales in five volumes, 8vo., in 1775-8; being the first edition in which some critical care was exercised. After Tyrwhitt had printed the Canterbury Tales, accompanied by a most valuable commentary in the shape of Notes, it occurred to him to make a Glossary. He had not proceeded far before he decided that such a Glossary ought to be founded upon the whole of Chaucer's Works, instead of referring to the Tales only; since this would alone suffice to shew clearly the nature of Chaucer's vocabulary. He at once began to draw up something in the nature of a canon. He rejected the works that were marked with the names of other poets, and remorselessly swept away a large number of Stowe's very casual additions. And, considering that he was unable, at that date, to apply any linguistic tests of any value—that he had no means of distinguishing Chaucer's rimes from those of other poets—that he had, in fact, nothing to guide him but his literary instinct and a few notes found in the MSS.—his attempt was a fairly good one. He decisively rejected the following poems found in Thynne's edition, viz. no. 4 (Testament of Criseyde, by Henrysoun); 11 (The Floure of Curtesie, by Lydgate); 13 (La Belle Dame, by Sir R. Ros); 15 (The Assemblee of Ladies); 18 (A Praise of Women); 21 (The Lamentacion of Marie Magdaleine); 22 (The Remedie of Love); 25 (The Letter of Cupide, by Hoccleve); 26 (A Ballade in commendacion of our Ladie, by Lydgate); 27 (Jhon Gower to Henry IV); 28 and 29 (Sayings of Dan John, by Lydgate); 30 (Balade de Bon Conseil, by Lydgate); 32 (Balade with Envoy—O leude booke); 33 (Scogan's poem, except the stanzas on Gentilesse); 40 (A balade..., by Dan John lidgat); and in no single instance was he wrong in his rejection. He also implied that the following had no claim to be Chaucer's, as he did not insert them in his final list; viz. no. 6 (A goodlie balade of Chaucer); and 38 (Two stanzas—Go foorthe, kyng); and here he was again quite right. It is also obvious that no. 41 (A balade in the Praise of Master Geffray Chauser) was written by another hand; and indeed, the first line says that Chaucer 'now lith in grave.' It will at once be seen that Tyrwhitt did excellent service; for, in fact, he eliminated from Thynne's edition no less than nineteen pieces out of forty-one; leaving only twenty-two remaining. Of this remainder, if we include The Romaunt of the Rose, all but three are unhesitatingly accepted by scholars. The three exceptions are nos. 17, 20, and 31; i. e. The Complaint of the Black Knight ; The Testament of Love ; and The Cuckoo and the Nightingale.

§ 5. When Tyrwhitt came to examine the later editions, the only other pieces that seemed to him sufficiently good for the purpose of being quoted in his Glossary were the six following, viz. Chaucer's A.B.C. (in ed. 1602); The Court of Love (in ed. 1561); Chaucer's Dreme (in ed. 1598); The Flower and the Leaf (in ed. 1598); Proverbes by Chaucer (in ed. 1561); and Chaucer's Words to his Scrivener Adam (in ed. 1561). Of these, we may accept the first and the two last; but there is no external evidence in favour of the other three. He also added that the Virelai (no. 50, in ed. 1561) may 'perhaps' be Chaucer's.

§ 6. In 1810 we find an edition of Chaucer's Works, by A. Chalmers, F.S.A., in the first volume of the 'English Poets,' collected in twenty-one volumes. In this edition, some sort of attempt was made, for the first time, to separate the spurious from the genuine poems. But this separation was made with such reckless carelessness that we actually find no less than six poems (nos. 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, in vol. i. 32, 33, above) printed twice over, once as being genuine, and once as being spurious. It is obvious that we cannot accept a canon of Chaucer's Works of such a character as this.

§ 7. In 1845 appeared the edition in which modern critics, till quite recently, put all their trust; and no student will ever understand what is really meant by 'the canon of Chaucer's Works' until he examines this edition with something like common care. It bears this remarkable title:—'The Poetical Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. With an Essay on his Language and Versification, and an Introductory Discourse; together with Notes and a Glossary. By Thomas Tyrwhitt. London: Edward Moxon, Dover Street, 1855 .'

In this title, which must be most carefully scanned, there is one very slight unintentional misprint, which alters its whole character. The stop after the word 'Glossary' should have been a comma only. The difference in sense is something startling. The title-page was meant to convey that the volume contains, (1) The Poetical Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (comprising Tyrwhitt's text of the Canterbury Tales, the remaining poems being anonymously re-edited); and that it also contains, (2) an Essay, a Discourse, Notes, and a Glossary, all by Thomas Tyrwhitt. Such are the facts; and such would have been the (possible) sense of the title-page, if the comma after 'Glossary' had not been misprinted as a full stop. But as the title actually appears, even serious students have fallen into the error of supposing that Tyrwhitt edited these Poetical Works; an error of the first magnitude, which has produced disastrous results. A moment's reflection will shew that, as Tyrwhitt edited the Canterbury Tales only, and died in 1786, he could not have edited the Poetical Works in 1845, fifty-nine years after his death. It would have been better if a short explanation, to this effect, had been inserted in the volume; but there is nothing of the kind.

It must therefore be carefully borne in mind, that this edition of 1845, on the title-page of which the name of Tyrwhitt is so conspicuous, was really edited anonymously, or may even be said not to have been edited at all. The Canterbury Tales are reprinted from Tyrwhitt; and so also are the Essay, the Discourse, the Notes, and the Glossary; and it is most important to observe that 'the Glossary' is preceded by Tyrwhitt's 'Advertisement,' and by his 'Account of the Works of Chaucer to which this Glossary is adapted; and of those other pieces which have been improperly intermixed with his in the Editions.' The volume is, in fact, made up in this way. Pages i-lxx and 1-209 are all due to Tyrwhitt; and contain a Preface, an Appendix to the Preface, an Abstract of Passages of the Life of Chaucer, an Essay, an Introductory Discourse to the Tales, and the Tales themselves. Again, pp. 441-502 are all due to Tyrwhitt, and contain an Advertisement to the Glossary, an Account of Chaucer's Works (as above), and a Glossary. Moreover, this Glossary contains a large number of words from most of Chaucer's Works, including even his prose treatises; besides a handful of words from spurious works such as 'Chaucer's Dream.'

In this way, all the former part and all the latter part of the volume are due to Tyrwhitt; it is the middle part that is wholly independent of him. It is here that we find no less than twenty-five poems, which he never edited, reprinted (inexactly) from the old black-letter editions or from Chalmers. It thus becomes plain that the words 'By Thomas Tyrwhitt' on the title-page refer only to the second clause of it, but have no reference to the former clause, consisting of the words, 'The Poetical Works of Geoffrey Chaucer.' It remains to be said that the twenty-five poems which are here appended to the Canterbury Tales are well selected; and that the anonymous editor or superintendent was guided in his choice by Tyrwhitt's 'Account of the Works.'

§ 8. This somewhat tedious account is absolutely necessary, every word of it, in order to enable the reader to understand what has always been meant (since 1845) by critics who talk about some works as being 'attributed to Chaucer.' They really mean (in the case, for example, of The Cuckoo and the Nightingale) that it happens to be included in a certain volume by an anonymous editor, published in 1845, in which the suggestions made by Tyrwhitt in 1778 were practically adopted without any important deviation. In the case of any other author, such a basis for a canon would be considered rather a sandy one; it derives its whole value from the fact that Tyrwhitt was an excellent literary critic, who may well be excused for a few mistakes, considering how much service he did in thus reducing the number of poems in 'Chaucer's Works' from 64 to little more than 26. Really, this was a grand achievement, especially as it clearly emphasised the absurdity of trusting to the old editions. But it is an abuse of language to say that 'The Cuckoo and Nightingale' has 'always been attributed to Chaucer,' merely because it happens to have been printed by Thynne in 1532, and had the good luck to be accepted by Tyrwhitt in 1778. On the contrary, such a piece remains on its trial; and it must be rejected absolutely, both on the external and on the internal evidence. Externally, because no scribe or early writer connects it with him in any way. Internally, for reasons given in vol. i. p. 39 ; and for other reasons given in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer.

§ 9. The chief value of the anonymous edition in 1845 is, that it gave practical expression to Tyrwhitt's views. The later editions by Bell and Morris were, in some respects, retrogressive. Both, for example, include The Lamentation of Mary Magdalene, which Tyrwhitt rightly denounced in no dubious terms; (see vol. i. above, pp. 37, 38). But, of late years, the question of constructing a canon of Chaucer's genuine works has received proper attention, and has been considered by such scholars as Henry Bradshaw, Bernhard ten Brink, Dr. Koch, Dr. Furnivall, Professor Lounsbury, and others; with a fairly unanimous result. The whole question is well summed up in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, Chapter IV, on 'The Writings of Chaucer.' His conclusion is, that his 'examination leaves as works about which there is no dispute twenty-six titles.' By these titles he means The Canterbury Tales, Boethius, Troilus, The House of Fame, The Legend of Good Women, The Astrolabe, and the nineteen Minor Poems which I denote by the numbers I-XI, XIII-XX (no. XX being counted as two). His examination did not at first include no. XII (To Rosemounde); but, in his Appendix (vol. iii. pp. 449, 450), he calls attention to it, and accepts it without hesitation. He also says of no. XXII, that 'it may be Chaucer's own work.'

§ 10. I may add a few words about the other Minor Poems which I now print, numbered XXI, XXIII, and XXIV-XXVI; the last three of which appear in vol. iv. pp. xxv-xxxi.

As regards no. XXI, or 'Against Women Unconstaunt,' I observe that Mr. Pollard, in his 'Chaucer Primer,' has these words. The authenticity of this poem 'has lately been reasserted by Prof. Skeat, on the triple ground that it is (1) a good poem; (2) perfect in its rhymes ; (3) found in conjunction with poems undoubtedly by Chaucer in two MSS.' This account, however, leaves out my chief argument, viz. its obvious dependence upon a Ballade by Machault, whom Chaucer is known to have imitated, and who is not known to have been imitated by any other Englishman. I also lay stress on the very peculiar manner in which the poem occurs in MS. Ct. See above, vol. i. p. 88. It should also be compared with the Balade to Rosemounde, which it resembles in tone. It seems to me that the printing of this poem in an Appendix is quite justifiable. We may some day learn more about it.

§ 11. As regards no. XXIV (vol. iv. p. xxv), the external evidence is explicit. It occurs in the same MS. as that which authenticates no. VI (A Compleint to his Lady); and the MS. itself is one of Shirley's. Internally, we observe the great peculiarity of the rhythm. Not only is the poem arranged in nine-line stanzas, but the whole is a tour de force. In the course of 33 lines, there are but 3 rime-endings; and we may particularly notice the repetition of the first two lines at the end of the poem, just as in the Complaint of Anelida, which likewise begins and ends with a line in which remembraunce is the last word. We have here a specimen of the kind of nine-line stanza (examples of which are very scarce) which Hoccleve endeavoured to imitate in his Balade to my Lord of York ; but Hoccleve had to employ three rimes in the stanza instead of two. The poem is chiefly of importance as an example of Chaucer's metrical experiments, and as being an excellent specimen of a Complaint. There is a particular reason for taking an interest in all poems of this character, because few Complaints are extant, although Chaucer assures us that he wrote many of them.

§ 12. As to the poems numbered XXIII (A Balade of Compleynt), XXV (Complaint to my Mortal Foe, vol. iv. p. xxvii), and XXVI (Complaint to my Lodesterre, vol. iv. p. xxix), there are two points of interest: (1) that they are Complaints, and (2) that they have never been printed before. That they are genuine, I have no clear proof to offer; but they certainly illustrate this peculiar kind of poem, and are of some interest; and it is clearly a convenience to be able to compare them with such Complaints as we know to be genuine, particularly with no. VI (A Complaint to his Lady). They may be considered as relegated to an Appendix, for the purposes of comparison and illustration. I do not think I shall be much blamed for thus rendering them accessible. It may seem to some that it must be an easy task to discover unprinted poems that are reasonably like Chaucer's in vocabulary, tone, and rhythm. Those who think so had better take the task in hand; they will probably, in any case, learn a good deal that they did not know before. The student of original MSS. sees many points in a new light; and, if he is capable of it, will learn humility.

On this subject I have already said something above (vol. iv. pp. xvii-xx); and have offered a few remarks on the texts in former editions (vol. iv. pp. xvi, xvii; cf. p. viii). But I now take the opportunity of discussing the matter somewhat further.

It is unfortunate that readers have hitherto been so accustomed to inaccurate texts, that they have necessarily imbibed several erroneous notions. I do not hereby intend any reflection upon the editors, as the best MSS. were inaccessible to them; and it is only during the last few years that many important points regarding the grammar, the pronunciation, and the scansion of Middle-English have been sufficiently determined. Still, the fact remains, and is too important to be passed over.

In particular, I may call attention to the unfortunate prejudice against a certain habit of Chaucer's, which it taxed all the ingenuity of some of the editors to suppress. Chaucer frequently allows the first foot of his verse to consist of a single accented syllable, as has been abundantly illustrated above with respect to his Legend of Good Women (vol. iii. pp. xliv-xlvii). It was a natural mistake on Tyrwhitt's part to attribute the apparent fault to the scribes, and to amend the lines which seemed to be so strangely defective. It will be sufficient to enumerate the lines of this character that occur in the Prologue, viz. ll. 76, 131, 170, 247, 294, 371, and 391.

Tyrwhitt alters Al to Alle, meaning no doubt Al-le (dissyllabic), which would be ungrammatical. For That, he has Thatte, as if for That-te; whereas That is invariably a monosyllable. For Gingling, he has Gingeling, evidently meant to be lengthened out to a trisyllable. For For, he prints As for. For Twenty, he has A twenty. The next line is untouched; he clearly took Everich to be thoroughly trisyllabic; which may be doubted. For In, he has All in. And the same system is applied, throughout all the Tales. The point is, of course, that the MSS. do not countenance such corrections, but are almost unanimously obstinate in asserting the 'imperfection' of the lines.

The natural result of altering twenty to A twenty (not only here, but again in D. 1695), was to induce the belief in students that A twenty bookes is a Chaucerian idiom. I can speak feelingly, for I believed it for some years; and I have met with many who have done the same. And the unfortunate part of the business is, that the restoration of the true reading shocks the reader's sense of propriety. This is to be regretted, certainly; but the truth must be told; especially as the true readings of the MSS. are now, thanks to the Chaucer Society, accessible to many. The student, in fact, has something to unlearn; and he who is most familiar with the old texts has to unlearn the most. The restoration of the text to the form of it given in the seven best MSS. is, consequently, in a few instances, of an almost revolutionary character; and it is best that this should be said plainly.

The editions by Wright and Morris do not repeat the above amendments by Tyrwhitt; but strictly conform to the Harleian MS. Even so, they are not wholly correct; for this MS. blunders over two lines out of the seven. It gives l. 247 in this extraordinary form:—'For to delen with such poraile'; where the omission of no renders all scansion hopeless. And again, it gives l. 371 in the form:—'Euery man for the wisdom that he can'; which is hardly pleasing. And in a great many places, the faithful following of this treacherous MS. has led the editors into sad trouble.

§ 14. The printing of this MS. for the Chaucer Society enables us to see that Mr. Wright did not adhere so closely to the text of the MS. as he would have us believe. As many readers may not have the opportunity of testing this statement for themselves, I here subjoin a few specimens of lines from this MS., to shew the nature of its errors.

So in Wright; for beggere read beggestére.

Corrected by Wright.

Wright has 'othur for to wynne.' This is correct; but the word for is silently supplied, without comment; and so in other cases.

For weren, read were; or pronounce it wer'n. I cite this line because it is, practically, correct, and agrees with other MSS., it being remembered that 'viság-e' is trisyllabic. But readers have not, as yet, been permitted to see this line in its correct form. The black-letter editions insert sore before aferd. Tyrwhitt follows them; Wright follows Tyrwhitt; and Morris follows Wright, but prints sore in italics, to shew that there is here a deviation from the MS. of some sort or other.

A few more quotations are here subjoined, without comment.

These examples shew that the Harleian MS. requires very careful watching. There is no doubt as to its early age and its frequent helpfulness in difficult passages; but it is not the kind of MS. that should be greatly trusted.

§ 15. The excellence of this MS. renders the task of editing the Tales much easier than that of editing The House of Fame or the Minor Poems. The text here given only varies from it in places where variation seemed highly desirable, as explained in the footnotes. As to my general treatment of it, I have spoken above (vol. iv. pp. xviii-xx).

One great advantage of this MS., quite apart from the excellence of its readings, is the highly phonetic character of the spelling. The future editor will probably some day desire to normalise the spelling of Chaucer throughout his works. If so, he must very carefully study the spelling of the Ellesmere and Hengwrt MSS., which resemble each other very closely. By their help, it becomes possible to regulate the use of the final e to a very great extent, which is extremely helpful for the scansion of the lines.

§ 16. This matter is best illustrated by referring, for a while, to the old black-letter editions; moreover, the whole matter will appear in a clearer light if we consider, at the same time, the remarkable argument put forward by Prof. Morley (Eng. Writers, v. 126) in favour of the genuineness of The Court of Love.

'Chaucer (he says) could not have written verse that would scan without sounding in due place the final -e. But when the final e came to be dropped, a skilful copyist of later time would have no difficulty whatever in making the lines run without it.... If Chaucer wrote—"But that I liké, may I not come by" —it was an easy change to—"But that I like, that may I not come by." With so or and, or well, or gat, or that, and many a convenient monosyllable, lines that seemed short to the later ear were readily eked out.' He then proceeds to give a specimen from the beginning of the Canterbury Tales, suggesting, by way of example, that l. 9 can easily be made to scan in modern fashion by writing—'And when the small fowls maken melodye.'

Such a theory would be perfectly true, if it had any basis in facts. The plain answer is, that later scribes easily might have eked out lines which seemed deficient; only, as a matter of fact, they did not do so. The notion that Chaucer's lines run smoothly, and can be scanned, is quite a modern notion, largely due to Tyrwhitt's common sense. The editors of the sixteenth century did not know that Chaucer's lines ran smoothly, and did not often attempt to mend them, but generally gave them up as hopeless; and we ought to be much obliged to them for doing so. Whenever they actually make amendments here and there, the patching is usually plain enough. The fact is, however, that they commonly let the texts alone; so that if they followed a good MS., the lines will frequently scan, not by their help, but as it were in spite of them.

§ 17. Let us look for a moment, at the very edition by Stowe (in 1561), which contains the earliest copy of The Court of Love. The 9th line of the tales runs thus:—'And smale fowles maken melodie,' which is sufficiently correct. We can scan it now in the present century, but it is strongly to be suspected that Stowe could not, and did not care to try. For this is how he presents some of the lines.

For him, wenden or wende was a monosyllable; and go would do just as well.

He omits the before stables; it did not matter to him. So that, instead of filling up an imperfect line, as Prof. Morley says he would be sure to do, he leaves a gap.

Tel should be tel-le. As it is, the line halts. But where is the filling up by the help of some convenient monosyllable?

I add a few more examples, from Stowe, without comment.

It is needless to proceed; it is obvious that Stowe was not the man who would care to eke out a line by filling it up with convenient monosyllables. And it is just because these old editors usually let the text alone, that the old black-letter editions still retain a certain value, and represent some lost manuscript.

§ 18. One editor, apparently Speght, actually had an inkling of the truth; but he was promptly put down by Dryden (Pref. to the Fables). 'The verse of Chaucer, I confess, is not harmonious to us; ... there is the rude sweetness of a Scotch tune in it, which is natural and pleasing, though not perfect. It is true, I cannot go so far as he who published the last edition of him; for he would make us believe the fault is in our ears, and that there were really ten syllables in a verse where we find but nine; but this error is not worth confuting; it is so gross and obvious an error, that common sense (which is a rule in everything but matters of faith and revelation) must convince the reader, that equality of numbers in every verse which we call Heroic, was either not known, or not always practised in Chaucer's age. It were an easy matter to produce some thousands of verses, which are lame for want of half a foot, and sometimes a whole one, and which no pronunciation can make otherwise.' We cannot doubt that such was the prevalent opinion at that time.

§ 19. For such readers as do not wish to study the language or the grammar of Chaucer, but merely wish to read the text with some degree of comfort, and to come by the stories and their general literary expression with the least possible trouble, the Ellesmere MS. furnishes quite an ideal text. Such a reader has only to observe the following empirical rules.

1. Pronounce every final e like the final a in China, except in a few very common words like wolde, sholde, were, and the like, which may be read as wold&apos;, shold&apos;, wer&apos;, unless the metre seems to demand that they should be fully pronounced. The commonest clipped words of this character are have, hadde (when a mere auxiliary), were, nere (were not), wolde, nolde (would not), thise (like mod. E. these), othere, and a few others, that are easily picked up by observation.

2. Always pronounce final -ed, -es, -en, as distinct syllables, unless it is particularly convenient to clip them. Such extra syllables, like the final -e, are especially to be preserved at the end of the line; a large number of the rimes being double (or feminine).

3. But the final -e is almost invariably elided, and other light syllables, especially -en, -er, -el, are frequently treated as being redundant, whenever the next word following begins with a vowel or is one of the words (beginning with h) in the following list, viz. he, his, him, her, hir (their), hem (them), hath, hadde, have, how, heer.

These three simple rules will go a long way. An attentive reader will thus catch the swing of the metre, and will be carried along almost mechanically. The chief obstacle to a succession of smooth lines is the jerk caused by the occasional occurrence of a line defective in the first foot, as explained above. Perhaps it may be further noted that an e sometimes occurs, as a distinct syllable, in the middle of a word as well as at the end of it. Exx.: Eng-e-lond (A. 16); wod-e-craft (A. 110); sem-e-ly (A. 136).

§ 20. We must also remember that the accentuation of many words, especially of such as are of French origin, was quite different then from what it is now. A word like 'reason' was then properly pronounced resóun (rezuun), i. e. somewhat like a modern ray-zóon; but even in Chaucer's day the habit of throwing back the accent was beginning to prevail, and there was a tendency to say réson (reezun), somewhat like a modern ráy-zun. Chaucer avails himself of this variable accent, and adopts the sound which comes in more conveniently at the moment. Thus while we find resóun (rezuun) in l. 37, in l. 274 we find résons (reezunz).

§ 21. I give a few examples of the three rules stated above.

The following words are properly dissyllabic, in the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales:—(l. 1) shou-res, so-te; (2) drogh-te, Mar-che, per-ced, ro-te; (3) ba-thed, vey-ne; (5) swe-te; (7) crop-pes, yon-ge, son-ne; (8) half-e; (9) sma-le, fow-les, ma-ken; (10) sle-pen, o-pen, y-ë; (13) straun-ge, strond-es; (14) fer-ne, hal-wes, lon-des; (15) shi-res, end-e; and so on.

In the same way, there are three syllables in (1) A-pril-le; (4) en-gend-red; (5) Zéph-i-rús; (6) In-spi-red; (8) y-ron-ne; &c. And there are four syllables in (9) mél-o-dý-ë; (12) pil-grim-á-ges.

Elision takes place of the e in drogh-te and of the e in couth-e in l. 14; of the e in nyn-e in l. 24; &c. In such cases, the words may be read as if spelt droght, couth, nyn, for convenience. There are some cases in which the scribe actually fails to write a final e, owing to such elision; but they are not common. I have noted a few in the Glossarial Index.

The final e is ignored, before a consonant, in were (59, 68, 74, 81); and even, which is not common, in hope (88) and nose (152).

As examples of accents to which we are no longer accustomed, we may notice A-príl-le (1); ver-tú (4); cor-á-ges (11); á-ven-túre (25); tó-ward (27); re-sóun (37); hon-óur (46); hon-óur-ed (50); a-ry´-ve (60); sta-tú-re (83); Cur-téys (99).

The lines were recited deliberately, with a distinct pause near the middle of each, at which no elision could take place. At this medial pause there is often a redundant syllable (as is more fully explained in vol. vi). Thus, in l. 3, the -e in veyn-e should be preserved, though modern readers are sure to ignore it. Cf. carie in l. 130; studie in l. 184; &c.

§ 22. By help of the above hints, some notion of the melody of Chaucer may be gained, even by such as adopt the modern English pronunciation. It is right, however, to bear in mind that most of the vowels had, at that time, much the same powers as in modern French and Italian; and it sometimes makes a considerable difference. Thus the word charitable in l. 143 was really pronounced more like the modern French charitable; only that the initial sound was that of the O. F. and E. ch, as in church, not that of the modern French ch in cher. For further remarks on the pronunciation, see vol. vi.

§ 23. The feeble suggestion is sometimes made that Chaucer's spelling ought to be modernised, like that of Shakespeare. This betrays a total ignorance of the history of English spelling. It is not strictly the case, that Shakespeare's spelling has been modernised; for the fact is the other way, viz. that in all that is most essential, it is the spelling of Shakespeare's time that has been adopted in modern English. The so-called 'modern' spelling is really a survival, and is sadly unfit, as we all know to our cost, for representing modern English sounds. By 'modernising,' such critics usually mean the cutting off of final e in places where it was just as little required in Elizabethan English as it is now; the freër use of 'v' and of 'j'; and so forth; nearly all of the alterations referring to unessential details. Such alterations would have been useful even in Shakespeare's time, and would not have touched the character of the spelling. But the spelling of Chaucer's time refers to quite a different age, when a large number of inflections were still in use that have since been discarded; so that it involves changes in essential and vital points. As it happens, the spelling of the Ellesmere MS. is phonetic in a very high degree. Pronounce the words as they are spelt, but with the Italian vowel-sounds and the German final e, and you come very near the truth. If this is too much trouble, pronounce the words as they are spelt, with modern English vowels (usually adding a final e, pronounced like a in China, when it is visibly present); and, even so, it is easy to follow. The alteration of a word like quene to queene does not make it any easier; and the further alteration to queen destroys its dissyllabic nature. Besides, those who want the spelling modernised can get it in Gilfillan's edition.

Surely, it is better to stick to the true old phonetic spelling. Boys at school, who have learnt Attic Greek, are supposed to be able to face the spelling of Homer without wincing, though it is not their native language; and the number of Englishwomen who are fairly familiar with Middle-English is becoming considerable.

§ 24. As regards the Notes in the present volume, it will be readily understood that I have copied them or collected them from many sources. Many of those on the Prologue and Knightes Tale were really written by Dr. Morris; but, owing to the great kindness he shewed me in allowing me to work in conjunction with him on terms of equality, I should often be hard put to it to say which they are. A large number are taken from the editions by Tyrwhitt, Wright, and Bell; but these are usually acknowledged. Others I have adopted from the various works published by the Chaucer Society; from the excellent notes by Dr. Köppell, Dr. Kölbing, and Dr. Koch that have appeared in Anglia, and in similar publications; and from Professor Lounsbury's excellent work entitled Studies in Chaucer. I have usually endeavoured to point out the sources of my information; and, if I have in several cases failed to do this, I hope it will be understood that, as Chaucer's fox said, 'I dide it in no wikke entente.' Perhaps this may seem an unlucky reference, for the fox was not speaking the strict truth, as we all know that he ought to have done. If I may take any credit for any part of the Notes, I think it may be for my endeavour to hunt up, as far as I could, a large number of the very frequent allusions to Le Roman de la Rose, and to such authors as Ovid and Statius; besides undertaking the more difficult task involved in tracing out some of the mysterious references which occur in the margins of the manuscripts. For the Tale of Melibeus, I naturally derived much help and comfort from the admirable edition of Albertano's Liber Consolationis by Thor Sundby, and the careful notes made by Mätzner. As for the references in the Persones Tale, I should never have found out so many of them, but for the kind assistance of the Rev. E. Marshall. To all my predecessors in the task of annotation, and to all helpers, I beg leave to express my hearty thanks. For further remarks on this and some other subjects, see vol. vi.

As it frequently happens that it is highly desirable to be able to recover speedily the whereabouts of a note on some particular word or subject, an Index to the Notes is appended to this volume.

At p. xxiv of vol. iv, a list of Errata is given, many of which are of slight importance. Much use of this volume, for the purpose of illustration, has brought to my notice a few more Errata, six of which, here marked with an asterisk, are worth special notice.

P. 73; l. 10 from bottom. Dele comma after Thornton.

P. 119; l. 1. For l. 393 read l. 3931.

P. 262; note to C 60. Cf. Ayenbite of Inwyt, p. 205:—'Ac the greate metes and thet stronge wyn alighteth and norisseth lecherie, ase oyle other grese alighteth and strengtheth thet uer' [i. e. the fire]. This passage occurs quite close to that quoted in the note to A 4406. Probably Chaucer took both of these from the French original of the Ayenbite. Cf. p. 447.

P. 450. The note to G 1171 has been accidentally omitted, but is important. The reading should here be terved, not torned; and again, in G 1274, read terve, not torne. The Ellesmere MS. is really right in both places, though terued appears as terned in the Six-text edition. These readings are duly noted in the Errata to vol. iv, at p. xxvi. The verb terve means 'to strip,' or 'to roll back' the edge of a cuff or the like. The Bremen Wörterbuch has: &apos;um tarven, up tarven, den Rand von einem Kleidungstücke umschlagen, das innerste auswärts kehren.' Hence read tirueden in Havelok, 603; teruen of in the Wars of Alexander, 4114; tyrue in Allit. Poems, ed. Morris, B. 630; and tyruen in Gawain and the Grene Knight, 1921.


 * to vol. i. p. ix. I am informed that it appears, from a charter in the British Museum, that one Galfridus de Chaucere is a witness to a grant of land to Hatfield Broad Oak Priory, co. Essex, about A.D. 1300. This shews that the poet was not the first of his surname to bear the name of Geoffrey.

, 923. Turke bowes, Turkish bows. The form Turke can hardly be right, as the adjective is required. The original copy probably had 'Turkis,' with the is written as a contraction; this would easily be misread as 'Turke,' i. e. as if the contraction stood for e. The French text has ars turquois, as the reader can see.

Cotgrave gives: 'Arc turquois, the Turkish long-bow.' But the Turkish long-bow was short, as compared with the English. Strutt speaks of his seeing the Turkish ambassador shoot; this was in the year 1800. 'The bow he used was much shorter than those belonging to the English archers; and his arrows were of the bolt kind, with round heads made of wood'; Sports and Pastimes, bk. ii. c. i. § 17. Cf. 'with bowes turkoys,' Percy Folio MS., ed. Hales and Furnivall, ii. 458.

III. (Book of the Duchesse), 1318, 1319. The lines are:—

There can be no doubt that (as has been suggested by the Bishop of Oxford) these apparently otiose lines contain punning allusions to the whole subject of the poem. (put for Lon-castell, or the castle on the Lune) was another name for Lancaster; compare the modern Lonsdale as a name for the valley of the Lune, and see Barbour's Bruce, xvii. 285, 582. alludes to Blanche. Thus the former line expresses Blanche, Duchess of Lancaster.

In the second line, the RICHE HIL refers to Richmond in Yorkshire; and the whole line expresses John, Earl of Richmond. John of Gaunt had been created Earl of Richmond (vol. i. p. xviii).

For some corrections, see vol. ii. p. lxxix.

For some corrections and additions, see vol. ii. pp. lxxix, lxxx.

For an Additional Note to Bk. iii. 674, see vol. ii. p. 506.

For an Additional Note to ll. 1896-8, see vol. iii. p. lvi.

pp. 421, 422. It is tolerably clear that Chaucer really got the former part of this story from one of the Miracles of our Lady, by Gautier de Coinci or Coincy. And I have now little doubt that he adapted the latter part of it from another story in the same collection (and therefore in the same MS.), by the same author. It so happens that the latter story is printed in Bartsch and Horning's collection in 'La Langue et la Littérature Françaises'; Paris, 1887; col. 367. It is there entitled 'De Clerico Sancte Virgini devoto, in cuius iam mortui ore flos inuentus est.' It is rather a stupid and pointless story, to the following effect. There was a wicked cleric at Chartres, who gave himself up to all kinds of debauchery; but he had one merit. He never passed an image of Our Lady without kneeling down and saying a prayer. Some enemies killed him; and it was at once resolved to bury him in a ditch, as an outcast; and this was done. But Our Lady appeared to one of the chief clergy, and commanded that he should be buried again, in the holiest spot in the cemetery. When the body was recovered, it was found that the tongue of the corpse remained uncorrupted, being as red as a rose, and a miraculous flower was blossoming in his mouth. He was reburied in holy ground, with many tears from the pious. It was also observed that his tongue still slowly moved, as if endeavouring to sing the Virgin's praises.

This is rather a clumsy assumption; for the tongue might have been trying to swear. Hence Chaucer gives it a real voice; and substitutes a small grain in place of the flower; probably because there was a well-known legend about the three grains found by Seth under Adam's tongue (above, p. 180, note to l. 1852). Chaucer's tale is really made up, with great skill, from a combination of these two poems by Gautier de Coinci; and it is highly remarkable that, in the Vernon MS., there is a version of the story which says that five roses were found in the child's head; one in his mouth, two in his eyes, and two in his ears. In the Legend of Alphonsus of Lincoln (see vol. iii. p. 421), the child has a precious stone in place of a tongue; but this legend was composed in 1459, and was probably copied from Chaucer. I think it highly probable that Chaucer combined the two 'Miracles' himself; though of course some one else may have done it before him. In any case, it is worth while pointing out that we must combine the two stories by de Coinci, before we obtain the whole of Chaucer's poem.

pp. 502, 503. The statement that the French treatise by Frère Lorens, entitled La Somme des Vices et des Vertus, 'has never been printed,' is incorrect. However, the book is scarce. Mr. Bradley tells me that there is a copy of it in the British Museum, printed by Anthoine Verard 'sus le pont notre dame,' Paris. It is undated, but it is said to have been printed in 1495.

The Canterbury Tales, and especially the Prologue, are so full of allusions and expressions that either require or invite illustrations, that no commentary upon them can be considered exhaustive. Consequently, those points only have, for the most part, been considered where the expressions used are for any reason difficult, obscure, or likely to be misunderstood; for it frequently happens that, by a change in meaning, the modern form or use of a word suggests a wrong impression.

A considerable number of words and phrases which occur in Chaucer have already been explained by me in the Notes to Piers the Plowman. Hence, in many cases, additional illustrations and references can easily be had by consulting the 'Index to the Explanations in the Notes' printed in P. Plowman, vol. iv. pp. 464-491.

The 'Index of Books referred to in the Notes' to the same, vol. iv. pp. 492-502, gives a long list of books, most of which are useful for the illustration of Chaucer also. I add here a few additional notes, taken almost at random, for two of which I am indebted to Professor Earle.

A. 30. Zupitza (Notes to Guy of Warwick, 855, p. 361) further illustrates this line. 'There can be no doubt that the pp. goon is to be supplied.' He quotes 'to reste eode þa sunne,' Layamon, 28328; 'until the son was gon to rest,' Iwaine, 3612, ed. Ritson (Met. Romances, i. 151); also from J. Grimm, Mythology, p. 702, who treats of the M.H.G. phrase ze reste gān.

A. 179. It is shown (vol. v. p. 22) that the simile about the fish out of water occurs in the Life of St. Anthony. Chaucer clearly took it from Jehan de Meung (or Jean de Meun); but the French poet probably took it from the Life of St. Anthony in the Legenda Aurea. We find it even in Caxton's Golden Legende:—'for lyke as fysshes that haue ben longe in the water whan they come in-to drye londe they muste dye, in lyke wyse the monkes that goon out of theyr cloystre or selles, yf they conuerse longe wyth seculiers they must nedes lose theyr holynesse and leue theyr good lyf.'

A. 387. With the beste, 'as well as possible,' but originally 'among the best.' So in Zupitza, notes to Guy of Warwick, l. 1496. He quotes Mätzner's Grammatik, II. 2. 434; King Horn, 1326, knight with the beste; &c. Cf. with the furste, King Horn, 1119.

A. 467. She coude muche of wandring by the weye; i. e. she knew much which she had learnt through being so great a traveller.—J. Earle.

I have explained it above, p. 44, by—'She knew much about travelling.' The original will bear either interpretation; all depends upon the meaning of the word of.

A. 655. See Freeman, vol. v. p. 497, and his quotation from John of Salisbury, Ep. 146 (Giles, i. 260):—'Erat, ut memini, genus hominum, qui in ecclesia Dei archidiaconorum censentur nomine, quibus vestra discretio omnem salutis viam querebatur esse praeclusam. Nam, ut dicere consuevistis, diligunt munera, sequuntur retributiones, ad injurias proni sunt, calumniis gaudent, peccata populi comedunt et bibunt, quibus vivitur ex rapto, ut non sit hospes ab hospite tutus.'—J. Earle. [From Freeman's Hist. of the Norman Conquest, ed. 1867-79.]

Cf. the Somnours Tale; especially D. 1315, 1317, and the notes.

A. 1155. For par amour, see all the instances referred to in the Glossary. The fact that it sometimes means 'with all affection,' or 'affectionately,' is well illustrated by a passage in the Coventry Mysteries, p. 50, where it is put into the mouth of Abraham, when addressing Isaac. 'Thu art my suete childe, and par amoure Ful wele in herte do I the loue.'

A. 1452. Seven yeer is an old proverbial expression for a long time; see Seven-year in Halliwell; P. Plowman, C. vii. 214, xi. 73; Zupitza's notes to Guy of Warwick (l. 8667); &c. The curious thing is that Chaucer understood himself literally: 'It fel that in the seventhe yeer, in May'; A. 1462.

A. 2749. Some further illustration of the word expulsive as a technical term may be found in old treatises. Thus Brunetto Latini, in his Livres dou Tresor, livre i. part iii. chap. 103, says that the four virtues which sustain life are the appetitive (due to the element of fire), the retentive (due to earth), the digestive (due to air), and the expulsive (due to water). Hence we have an appetite for food; we retain it; we digest it; and expel it. 'L'aigue est froide et moiste, et fait la vertu expulsive, ce est qu'ele chace fuer la viande quant ele est cuite.' Sir Thos. Elyot, Castel of Helth, 1539, p. 10, says there are three Powers, animal, spiritual, and natural. Of these, it is the natural power which 'appetiteth, retayneth, digesteth, expelleth'; whereas it is the 'power animall' that 'ordeyneth, discerneth, and composeth; that moueth by voluntarye mocyon,' &c. Of the four 'operations,' he says that 'expulsion [is] by colde and moyste.' The whole of this sort of jargon is full of inconsistencies.

A. 3287. Do wey, i. e. take away. So also go wey occurs for 'go away.' See these phrases plentifully illustrated in Zupitza's notes to Guy of Warwick, l. 3097.

B. 124. After all, this line is probably merely a reproduction from Le Roman de la Rose, l. 10438:—

B. 1983. The phrase in toune is, as I have said, practically otiose, and means nothing, being merely introduced as a tag. So again in londe, in l. 2077. For further illustrations see Zupitza's notes to Guy of Warwick, l. 5841.

B. 3917. A correspondent kindly reminds me that the story of Cyrus in Vincent of Beauvais came originally from Herodotus, who tells it, not of Cyrus, but of Polycrates of Samos; see Herodotus, bk. iii. capp. 124, 125. In Herodotus, the vision is seen by the daughter.

C. 406. In the long note at pp. 272-274, I have shewn that the sense is 'though their souls go a-gathering blackberries,' i. e. wander wherever they please. Mr. E.M. Spence suggests for comparison the well-known words of Falstaff (1 Hen. IV. ii. 4. 448):—'Shall the blessed sun of heaven prove a micher and eat blackberries?'

C. 570. In the Accounts of Henry, Earl of Derby, on his return from Prussia in 1391, the following item occurs for March:—'Et per manus eiusdem pro ij barrellis ferreres [vessels for carrying wine on horseback] vini de Lepe, viz. lj stope per ipsum emptis ibidem, ij nobles'; printed for the Camden Society, ed. L. Toulmin Smith, p. 95. Miss Toulmin Smith quotes from Henderson's History of Wines, 1824, the note that Lepe wine is 'a strong white wine of Spain,' and that Lepe is 'a small town on the sea-coast, between Ayamont and Palos, long celebrated for figs, raisins, and wine.' Its position was favourable, as it is in the part of Andalucia nearest to England. See Lepe in Pinero's Spanish Dictionary, ed. 1740.

D. 110. The word fore occurs also, but with the Southern spelling vore, in P. Plowman, C. vii. 118; on which see my note.

D. 325. At line 180 above (see the note), the Wife is plainly alluding to one of the passages in Le Roman de la Rose in which the Almageste is mentioned; and I have no doubt that she here refers to the other (l. 18772). For though the passage quoted by Jean de Meun, as from the Almagest, is really quite different, there is a general reference, in the context, to the idea of contentment:—

And just below:—

F. 226. Many examples are given in Godefroy of the use of Fr. maistre with the adjectival sense of 'principal' or 'chief.' Thus we find la mestre yglise, la mestre tor, la maistre rue, la maistre cité, la maistre tente. See Maister in the Glossarial Index.

F. 233. Tyrwhitt remarks that a 'treatise on Perspective, under his name [i. e. of Aristotle], is mentioned by Vincent of Beauvais, in the thirteenth century (Speculum Historiale, lib. iii. c. 84):—"Extat etiam liber, qui dicitur Perspectiva Aristotelis."' See the word Aristotle in Tyrwhitt's Glossary to Chaucer.