Chaucer's Works, Volume 1 — Romaunt of the Rose; Minor Poems
by Geoffrey Chaucer · English · Gutenberg #43089 · 1,494,054 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Chaucer's Works, Volume 1 — Romaunt of the Rose; Minor Poems
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Chaucer's Works, Volume 1 — Romaunt of the Rose; Minor Poems
Author: Geoffrey Chaucer
Editor: Walter W. Skeat
Release date: July 3, 2013 [eBook #43089]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43089
Credits: Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Keith Edkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHAUCER'S WORKS, VOLUME 1 — ROMAUNT OF THE ROSE; MINOR POEMS ***
Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they
are listed at the end of the text.
* * * * *
In this text [*e] represents the "schwa" or obscure vowel, printed as
inverted-e, and [gh] represents the Middle English letter "yogh", similar
to the numeral 3. [=a] signifies "a macron", and so forth.
Parallel bilingual texts are marked with << for Chaucer's text, >> for the
original, in blocks as printed page by page.
* * * * *
[Illustration: Vol. I. _Frontispiece._
GEOFFREY CHAUCER: FROM MS. HARL. 4866]
* * * * *
THE COMPLETE WORKS
OF
GEOFFREY CHAUCER
_EDITED, FROM NUMEROUS MANUSCRIPTS_
BY THE
REV. WALTER W. SKEAT, M.A.
LITT.D., LL.D., D.C.L., PH.D.
ELRINGTON AND BOSWORTH PROFESSOR OF ANGLO-SAXON
AND FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
*
ROMAUNT OF THE ROSE
MINOR POEMS
----'blanda sonantibus
Chordis carmina temperans.'
BOETHIUS, _De Cons. Phil._ Lib. III. Met. 12.
'He temprede hise blaundisshinge songes by resowninge strenges.'
_Chaucer's Translation._
SECOND EDITION
Oxford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
MDCCCXCIX
* * * * *
Oxford
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, M.A.,
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
* * * * *
CONTENTS.
*** The Portrait of Chaucer in the frontispiece is noticed at p. lix.
PAGE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION vii
LIFE OF CHAUCER ix
LIST OF CHAUCER'S WORKS lxii
ERRATA AND ADDENDA lxiv
INTRODUCTION TO THE ROMAUNT OF THE ROSE.--§ 1. Why (the chief part
of) the Romaunt of the Rose is not Chaucer's. § 2. The English
Version of the Romaunt. § 3. Internal evidence. § 4. Dr. Lidner's
opinion. § 5. Dr. Kaluza's opinion. The three Fragments. § 6.
Discussion of Fragment B. Test. I.--Proportion of English to
French. § 7. Test II.--Dialect. § 8. Test III.--The Riming of
_-y_ with _-yë_. § 9. Test IV.--Assonant Rimes. § 10.
Result: Fragment B is not by Chaucer. § 11. Discussion of Fragment
C. § 12. Rime-tests. § 13. Further considerations. § 14. Result:
Fragment C is not by the author of Fragment B, and perhaps not by
Chaucer. § 15. Discussion of Fragment A. (1) Rimes in _-y._
(2) Rimes in _-yë_ § 16. No false rimes. § 17. The three
Fragments seem to be all distinct. § 18. Fragment A is probably
Chaucer's. § 19. Summary. § 20. Probability of the results. § 21.
The external evidence. § 22. The Glasgow MS. § 23. Th.--Thynne's
Edition; 1532. § 24. Reprints. § 25. The Present Edition. § 26.
Some corrections. § 27. The French Text. §§ 28, 29. Brief Analysis
of the French Poem: G. de Lorris. § 30. Jean de Meun; to the end
of Fragment B. § 31. Gap in the Translation. § 32. Fragment C.
§ 33. Chaucer's use of 'Le Roman.' § 34. Méon's French text 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE MINOR POEMS.--§ 1. Principles of selection.
§ 2. Testimony of Chaucer regarding his Works. § 3. Lydgate's
List. § 4. Testimony of Shirley. § 5. Testimony of Scribes.
§ 6. Testimony of Caxton. § 7. Early Editions of Chaucer.
§ 8. Contents of Stowe's Edition (1561): Part I.--Reprinted
Matter. § 9. Part II.--Additions by Stowe. § 10. Part I. discussed.
§ 11. Part II. discussed. § 12. Poems added by Speght.
§ 13. Poems added by Morris. § 14. Description of the MSS.
List of the MSS. § 15. Remarks on the MSS. at Oxford.
§ 16. MSS. at Cambridge. § 17. London MSS. § 18. I.--A. B. C.
§ 19. II.--The Compleynt unto Pitè. § 20. III.--The Book of
the Duchesse. § 21. IV.--The Compleynt of Mars. § 22. V.--The
Parlement of Foules. § 23. VI.--A Compleint to his Lady.
§ 24. VII.--Anelida and Arcite. § 25. VIII. Chaucers Wordes
unto Adam. § 26. IX.--The Former Age. § 27. X.--Fortune.
§ 28. XI.--Merciless Beauty. § 29. XII.--To Rosemounde.
§ 30. XIII.--Truth. § 31. XIV.--Gentilesse. § 32. XV.--Lak
of Stedfastnesse. § 33. XVI--Lenvoy to Scogan. § 34.
XVII.--Lenvoy to Bukton. § 35. XVIII.--Compleynt of Venus.
§ 36. XIX.--The Compleint to his Purse. § 37. XX.--Proverbs.
§ 38. XXI.--Against Women Unconstaunt. § 39. XXII.--An
Amorous Complaint. § 40. XXIII.--Balade of Compleynt. § 41.
Concluding Remarks 20
THE ROMAUNT OF THE ROSE.
FRAGMENT A. (with the French Text) 93
FRAGMENT B. (containing Northern forms) 164
FRAGMENT C. 229
THE MINOR POEMS.
I. An A. B. C. (with the French original) 261
II. The Compleynte unto Pitè 272
III. The Book of the Duchesse 277
IV. The Compleynt of Mars 323
V. The Parlement of Foules 335
VI. A Compleint to his Lady 360
VII. Anelida and Arcite 365
VIII. Chaucers Wordes unto Adam 379
IX. The Former Age 380
X. Fortune 383
XI. Merciles Beautè 387
XII. Balade to Rosemounde 389
XIII. Truth 390
XIV. Gentilesse 392
XV. Lak of Stedfastnesse 394
XVI. Lenvoy to Scogan 396
XVII. Lenvoy to Bukton 398
XVIII. The Compleynt of Venus (with the French original) 400
XIX. The Compleint of Chaucer to his empty Purse 405
XX. Proverbs of Chaucer 407
XXI. APPENDIX: Against Women Unconstaunt 409
XXII. An Amorous Complaint 411
XXIII. A Balade of Compleynt 415
NOTES TO THE ROMAUNT OF THE ROSE 417
NOTES TO THE MINOR POEMS 452
* * * * *
GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
The present edition of Chaucer contains an entirely new Text, founded
solely on the manuscripts and on the earliest accessible printed editions.
For correct copies of the manuscripts, I am indebted, except in a few rare
instances, to the admirable texts published by the Chaucer Society.
In each case, the best copy has been selected as the basis of the text, and
has only been departed from where other copies afforded a better reading.
All such variations, as regards the wording of the text, are invariably
recorded in the footnotes at the bottom of each page; or, in the case of
the Treatise on the Astrolabe, in Critical Notes immediately following the
text. Variations in the spelling are also recorded, wherever they can be
said to be of consequence. But I have purposely abstained from recording
variations of reading that are certainly inferior to the reading given in
the text.
The requirements of metre and grammar have been carefully considered
throughout. Beside these, the phonology and spelling of every word have
received particular attention. With the exception of reasonable and
intelligible variations, the spelling is uniform throughout, and consistent
with the highly phonetic system employed by the scribe of the very valuable
Ellesmere MS. of the Canterbury Tales. The old reproach, that Chaucer's
works are chiefly remarkable for bad spelling, can no longer be fairly
made; since the spelling here given is a fair guide to the old
pronunciation of nearly every word. For further particulars, see the
Introduction to vol. iv. and the remarks on Chaucer's language in vol. v.
The present edition comprises the whole of Chaucer's Works, whether in
verse or prose, together with a commentary (contained in the Notes) upon
every passage which seems to present any difficulty or to require
illustration. It is arranged in six volumes, as follows.
Vol. I. commences with a Life of Chaucer, containing all the known facts
and incidents that have been recorded, with authorities for the same, and
dates. It also contains the Romaunt of the Rose and the Minor Poems, with a
special Introduction and illustrative Notes. The Introduction discusses the
genuineness of the poems here given, and explains why certain poems,
formerly ascribed to Chaucer with more rashness than knowledge, are here
omitted.
The attempt to construct a reasonably good text of the Romaunt has involved
great labour; all previous texts abound with corruptions, many of which
have now for the first time been amended, partly by help of diligent
collation of the two authorities, and partly by help of the French
original.
Vol. II. contains Boethius and Troilus, each with a special Introduction.
The text of Boethius is much more correct than in any previous edition, and
appears for the first time with modern punctuation. The Notes are nearly
all new, at any rate as regards the English version.
The text of Troilus is also a new one. The valuable 'Corpus MS.' has been
collated for the first time; and several curious words, which have been
hitherto suppressed because they were not understood, have been restored to
the text, as explained in the Introduction. Most of the explanatory Notes
are new; others have appeared in Bell's edition.
Vol. III. contains The House of Fame, the Legend of Good Women, and the
Treatise on the Astrolabe; with special Introductions. All these have been
previously edited by myself, with Notes. Both the text and the Notes have
been carefully revised, and contain several corrections and additions. The
latter part of the volume contains a discussion of the Sources of the
Canterbury Tales.
Vol. IV. contains the Canterbury Tales, with the Tale of Gamelyn appended.
The MSS. of the Canterbury Tales, and the mode of printing them, are
discussed in the Introduction.
Vol. V. contains a full Commentary on the Canterbury Tales, in the form of
Notes. Such as have appeared before have been carefully revised; whilst
many of them appear for the first time. The volume further includes all
necessary helps for the study of Chaucer, such as remarks on the
pronunciation, grammar, and scansion.
Vol. VI. contains a Glossarial Index and an Index of Names.
* * * * *
LIFE OF GEOFFREY CHAUCER.
*** Many of the documents referred to in the foot-notes are printed _at
length_ in Godwin's Life of Chaucer, 2nd ed. 1804 (vol. iv), or in the Life
by Sir H. Nicolas. The former set are marked (G.); the latter set are
denoted by a reference to 'Note A,' or 'Note B'; &c.
§ 1. The name CHAUCER, like many others in England in olden times, was
originally significant of an occupation. The Old French _chaucier_ (for
which see Godefroy's Old French Dictionary) signified rather 'a hosier'
than 'a shoemaker,' though it was also sometimes used in the latter sense.
The modern French _chausse_ represents a Low Latin _calcia_, fem. sb., a
kind of hose, closely allied to the Latin _calceus_, a shoe. See _Chausses,
Chaussure_, in the New English Dictionary.
It is probable that the Chaucer family came originally from East Anglia.
Henry le Chaucier is mentioned as a citizen of Norfolk in 1275; and Walter
le Chaucer as the same, in 1292[1]. But Gerard le Chaucer, in 1296, and
Bartholomew le Chaucer, in 1312-3, seem to have lived near Colchester[2].
In several early instances, the name occurs in connexion with Cordwainer
Street, or with the small Ward of the City of London bearing the same name.
Thus, Baldwin le Chaucer dwelt in 'Cordewanerstrete' in 1307; Elyas le
Chaucer in the same, in 1318-9; Nicholas Chaucer in the same, in 1356; and
Henry Chaucer was a man-at-arms provided for the king's service by
Cordwanerstrete Ward[3]. This is worthy of remark, because, as we shall see
presently, both Chaucer's father and his grandmother once resided in the
same street, the northern end of which is now called Bow Lane, the southern
end extending to Garlick Hithe. (See the article on Cordwainer Street Ward
in Stowe's Survey of London.)
§ 2. ROBERT LE CHAUCER. The earliest relative with whom we can certainly
connect the poet is his grandfather Robert, who is first mentioned,
together with Mary his wife, in 1307, when they sold ten acres of land in
Edmonton to Ralph le Clerk, for 100s.[4] On Aug. 2, 1310, Robert le Chaucer
was appointed 'one of the collectors in the port of London of the new
customs upon wines granted by the merchants of Aquitaine[5].' It is also
recorded that he was possessed of one messuage, with its appurtenances, in
Ipswich[6]; and it was alleged, in the course of some law-proceedings (of
which I have more to say below), that the said estate was only worth 20
shillings a year. He is probably the Robert Chaucer who is mentioned under
the date 1310, in the Early Letter-books of the City of London[7].
Robert Chaucer was married, in or before 1307 (see above), to a widow named
Maria or Mary Heyroun[8], whose maiden name was probably Stace[9]; and the
only child of whom we find any mention was his son and heir, named John,
who was the poet's father. At the same time, it is necessary to observe
that Maria had a son still living, named Thomas Heyroun, who died in
1349[10].
John Chaucer was born, as will be shewn, in 1312; and his father Robert
died before 1316 (Close Rolls, 9 Edw. II., p. 318).
§ 3. RICHARD LE CHAUCER. Some years after Robert's death, namely in
1323[11], his widow married for the third time. Her third husband was
probably a relative (perhaps a cousin) of her second, his name being
Richard le Chaucer, a vintner residing in the Ward of Cordwainer Street;
respecting whom several particulars are known.
Richard le Chaucer was 'one of the vintners sworn at St. Martin's, Vintry,
in 1320, to make proper scrutiny of wines[12]'; so that he was necessarily
brought into business relations with Robert, whose widow he married in
1323, as already stated.
A plea held at Norwich in 1326, and entered on mem. 13 of the Coram Rege
Roll of Hilary 19 Edw. II.[13], is, for the present purpose, so important
that I here quote Mr. Rye's translation of the more material portions of it
from the Life-Records of Chaucer (Chaucer Soc.), p. 125:--
'London.--Agnes, the widow of Walter de Westhale, Thomas Stace,
Geoffrey Stace, and Laurence 'Geffreyesman Stace[14],' were attached to
answer _Richard le Chaucer of London and Mary his wife_ on a plea that
whereas the custody of the heir and land of _Robert le Chaucer_, until
the same heir became of full age, belonged to the said Richard and Mary
(because the said Robert held his land in socage, and _the said Mary is
nearer in relationship to the heir of the said Robert_,) and whereas
the said Richard and Mary long remained in full and peaceful seizin of
such wardship, the said Agnes, Thomas, Geoffrey, and Laurence by force
and arms took away _John, the son and heir of the said Robert_, who was
_under age_ and in the custody of the said Richard and Mary, and
married him[15] against the will of the said R. and M. and of the said
heir, and also did other unlawful acts against the said R. and M., to
the grave injury of the said R. and M., and against the peace.
'And therefore the said R. and M. complain that, whereas the custody of
the land and heir of the said Robert, viz. of _one messuage with its
appurtenances in Ipswich_, until the full age of, &c., belonged, &c.,
... because the said Robert held the said messuage in socage, and the
said Mary _is nearer in relationship to the said Robert,_ viz. _mother
of the said heir, and formerly_ _the wife of the said Robert_, and
(whereas) the said R. and M. remained in full and peaceful seizin of
_the said wardship_ for a long while, viz. _for one year_; they, the
said Agnes, T., G., and L., on the _Monday_ [Dec. 3] _before the feast
of St. Nicholas, in the eighteenth year of the present king_ [1324],
... stole and took away by force and arms ... the said John, _son and
heir of the said Robert_, who was under age, viz. _under the age of
fourteen years_, and then in the wardship of the said R. and M. _at
London_, viz. _in the Ward of Cordwanerstrete_, and married him to one
_Joan, the daughter of Walter de Esthale_ [error for _Westhale_], and
committed other unlawful acts, &c.
'Wherefore they say they are injured, and have suffered damage to the
extent of 300l.'
The defence put in was--
'That, _according to the customs of the borough of Ipswich_ ... any
heir under age when his heirship shall descend to him shall remain in
the charge of the nearest of his blood, but that his inheritance shall
not descend to him _till he has completed the age of twelve years_ ...
and they say that the said heir of the said Robert _completed the age
of twelve years_ before the suing out of the said writ[16].'
And it was further alleged that the said Agnes, T., G., and L. _did not
cause the said heir to be married_.
'Most of the rest of the membrane,' adds Mr. Rye, 'is taken up with a long
technical dispute as to jurisdiction, of which the mayor and citizens of
London apparently got the best; for the trial came on before R. Baynard and
Hamo de Chikewell [Chigwell] and Nicholas de Farndon (the two latter
sitting on behalf of the City) at St. Martin's the Great (le Grand),
London, on the Sunday [Sept. 7, 1326] next before the Nativity of the
B.V.M. [Sept. 8]; when, the defendants making default, a verdict was
entered for the plaintiffs for 250l. damages.'
Further information as to this affair is given in the Liber Albus, ed.
Riley, 1859, vol. i. pp. 437-444. A translation of this passage is given at
pp. 376-381 of the English edition of the same work, published by the same
editor in 1861. We hence learn that the Staces, being much dissatisfied
with the heavy damages which they were thus called upon to pay, attainted
Richard le Chaucer and his wife, in November, 1328, of committing perjury
in the above-mentioned trial. But it was decided that attaint does not lie
as to the verdict of a jury in London; a decision so important that the
full particulars of the trial and of this appeal were carefully preserved
among the city records.
Mr. Rye goes on to give some information as to a third document relating to
the same affair. It appears that Geoffrey Stace next 'presented a petition
to parliament (2 Edw. III., 1328, no. 6), praying for relief against the
damages of 250l., which he alleged were excessive, on the ground that the
heir's estate was only worth 20s. a year[17]. This petition sets out all
the proceedings, referring to John as "fuiz [fiz] et heire Robert le
Chaucier," but puts the finding of the jury thus: "et trove fu qu'ils
avoient ravi le dit heire, _mes ne mie mariee_," and alleges that "le dit
heire est al large et ove [_with_] les avantditz Richard et Marie demourant
et _unkore dismarie_."' The result of this petition is unknown.
From the above particulars I draw the following inferences.
The fact that Mary le Chaucer claimed to be _nearer in relationship_ to the
heir (being, in fact, his mother) than the Staces, clearly shews that they
also were very near relations. We can hardly doubt that the maiden name of
Mary le Chaucer was Stace, and that she was sister to Thomas and Geoffrey
Stace.
In Dec. 1324, John le Chaucer was, according to his mother's statement,
'under age'; i. e. less than fourteen years old. According to the Staces,
he had 'completed the age of twelve before the suing out, &c.' We may
safely infer that John was still under twelve when the Staces carried him
off, on Dec. 3, 1324. Hence he was born in 1312, and we have seen that his
father Robert married the widow Maria Heyroun not later than 1307 (§ 2).
She was married to Richard in 1323 (_one year_ before 1324), and she died
before 1349, as Richard was then a widower.
The attempt to marry John to Joan de Westhale (probably his cousin) was
unsuccessful. He was still unmarried in Nov. 1328, and still only sixteen
years old. This disposes at once of an old tradition, for which no
authority has ever been discovered, that the poet was born in 1328. The
_earliest_ date that can fairly be postulated for the birth of Geoffrey is
1330; and even then his father was only eighteen years old.
We further learn from Riley's Memorials of London (Pref. p. xxxiii), that
Richard Chaucer was a man of some wealth. He was assessed, in 1340, to lend
10l. towards the expenses of the French war; and again, in 1346, for 6l.
and 1 mark towards the 3,000l. given to the king. In 1345, he was witness
to a conveyance of a shop situated next his own tenement and tavern in La
Reole or Royal Street, near Upper Thames Street.
The last extant document relative to Richard Chaucer is his will. Sir H.
Nicolas (Life of Chaucer, Note A) says that the will of Richard Chaucer,
vintner, of London, dated on Easter-day (Apr. 12), 1349, was proved in the
Hustings Court of the City of London by Simon Chamberlain and Richard
Litlebury, on the feast of St. Margaret (July 20), in the same year. He
bequeathed his tenement and tavern, &c., in the street called La Reole, to
the Church of St. Aldermary in Bow Lane, where he was buried; and left
other property to pious uses. The will mentions only his deceased wife Mary
and her son Thomas Heyroun; and appointed Henry at Strete and Richard
Mallyns his executors[18]. From this we may infer that his stepson John
was, by this time, a prosperous citizen, and already provided for.
The will of Thomas Heyroun (see the same Note A) was dated just five days
earlier, April 7, 1349, and was also proved in the Hustings Court. He
appointed his half-brother, John Chaucer, his executor; and on Monday after
the Feast of St. Thomas the Martyr[19] in the same year, John Chaucer, by
the description of 'citizen and vintner, executor of the will of my brother
Thomas Heyroun,' executed a deed relating to some lands. (Records of the
Hustings Court, 23 Edw. III.)
It thus appears that Richard Chaucer and Thomas Heyroun both died in 1349,
the year of the first and the most fatal pestilence.
§ 4. JOHN CHAUCER. Of John Chaucer, the poet's father, not many particulars
are known. He was born, as we have seen, about 1312, and was not married
till 1329, or somewhat later. His wife's name was Agnes, described in 1369
as the kinswoman (consanguinea) and heiress of the city moneyer, Hamo de
Copton, who is known to have owned property in Aldgate[20]. He was a
citizen and vintner of London, and owned a house in Thames Street[21],
close to Walbrook, a stream now flowing underground beneath Walbrook
Street[22]; so that it must have been near the spot where the arrival
platform of the South-Eastern railway (at Cannon Street) now crosses Thames
Street. In this house, in all probability, Chaucer was born; at any rate,
it became his own property, as he parted with it in 1380. It is further
known that John and Agnes Chaucer were possessed of a certain annual
quit-rent of 40d. sterling, arising out of a tenement in the parish of St.
Botolph-without-Aldgate[23].
In 1338 (on June 12), John Chaucer obtained letters of protection, being
then on an expedition to Flanders, in attendance on the king[24]. Ten years
later, in the months of February and November, 1348, he is referred to as
being deputy to the king's butler in the port of Southampton[25]. In 1349,
as we have seen, he was executor to the will of his half-brother, Thomas
Heyroun. There is a mention of him in 1352[26]. His name appears, together
with that of his wife Agnes, in a conveyance of property dated Jan. 16,
1366[27]; but he died shortly afterwards, aged about fifty-four. His widow
married again in the course of a few months; for she is described in a deed
dated May 6, 1367, as being then the wife of Bartholomew atte Chapel,
citizen and vintner of London, and lately wife of John Chaucer, citizen and
vintner[28]. The date of her death is not known.
§ 5. CHAUCER'S EARLY YEARS. The exact date of Geoffrey's birth is not
known, and will probably always remain a subject of dispute. It cannot, as
we have seen, have been earlier than 1330; and it can hardly have been
later than 1340. That it was nearer to 1340 than 1330, is the solution
which best suits all the circumstances of the case. Those who argue for an
early date do so solely because the poet sometimes refers to his 'old age';
as for example in the Envoy to Scogan, 35-42, written probably in 1393; and
still earlier, probably in 1385, Gower speaks, in the epilogue to the
former edition of his Confessio Amantis, of the 'later age' of Chaucer, and
of his 'dayes olde'; whereas, if Chaucer was born in 1340, he was, at that
time, only forty-five years old. But it is essential to observe that Gower
is speaking comparatively; he contrasts Chaucer's 'later age' with 'the
floures of his youth,' when he 'fulfild the land,' in sundry wise, 'of
ditees and of songes glade.' And, in spite of all the needless stress that
has been laid upon such references as the above, we must, if we really wish
to ascertain the truth without prejudice, try to bear in mind the fact
that, in the fourteenth century, men were deemed old at an age which we
should now esteem as almost young. Chaucer's pupil, Hoccleve, describes
himself as worn out with old age, and ready to die, at the age of
_fifty-three_; all that he can look forward to is making a translation of a
treatise on 'learning to die.'
'Of age am I fifty winter and thre;
Ripeness of dethe fast vpon me hasteth.'
Hoccleve's Poems, ed. Furnivall, p. 119[29].
And further, if, in order to make out that Chaucer died at the age of
nearly 70, we place his birth near the year 1330, we are at once confronted
with the extraordinary difficulty, that the poet was already nearly 39 when
he wrote 'The Book of the Duchesse,' certainly one of the earliest of his
poems that have been preserved, and hardly to be esteemed as a highly
satisfactory performance. But as the exact date still remains uncertain, I
can only say that we must place it between 1330 and 1340. The reader can
incline to whichever end of the decade best pleases him. I merely record my
opinion, for what it is worth, that 'shortly before 1340' fits in best with
_all_ the facts.
The earliest notice of Geoffrey Chaucer, on which we can rely, refers to
the year 1357. This discovery is due to Mr. (now Dr.) E. A. Bond, who, in
1851, found some fragments of an old household account which had been used
to line the covers of a MS. containing Lydgate's Storie of Thebes and
Hoccleve's De Regimine Principum, and now known as MS. Addit. 18,632 in the
British Museum. They proved to form a part of the Household Accounts of
Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster, wife of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the third
son of King Edward III., for the years 1356-9[30]. These Accounts shew
that, in April, 1357, when the Countess was in London, an entire suit of
clothes, consisting of a paltock or short cloak, a pair of red and black
breeches, and shoes, was provided for Geoffrey Chaucer at a cost of 7s.,
equal to about 5l. of our present money. On the 20th of May another article
of dress was purchased for him in London. In December of the same year
(1357), when the Countess was at Hatfield (near Doncaster) in Yorkshire,
her principal place of residence, we find a note of a donation of 2s. 6d.
to Geoffrey Chaucer for necessaries at Christmas. It further appears that
John of Gaunt, the Countess's brother-in-law, was a visitor at Hatfield at
the same period; which indicates the probable origin of the interest in the
poet's fortunes which that illustrious prince so frequently manifested,
during a long period of years.
It is further worthy of remark that, on several occasions, a female
attendant on the Countess is designated as 'Philippa Pan', which is
supposed to be the contracted form of Panetaria, i. e. mistress of the
pantry. 'Speculations suggest themselves,' says Dr. Bond, 'that the
Countess's attendant Philippa may have been Chaucer's future wife.... The
Countess died in 1363, ... and nothing would be more likely than that the
principal lady of her household should have found shelter after her death
in the family of her husband's mother,' i. e. Queen Philippa. It is quite
possible; it is even probable.
Perhaps it was at Hatfield that Chaucer picked up some knowledge of the
Northern dialect, as employed by him in the Reves Tale. The fact that the
non-Chaucerian Fragment B of the Romaunt of the Rose exhibits traces of a
Northern dialect is quite a different matter; for Fragment A, which is
certainly Chaucer's, shews no trace of anything of the kind. What was
Chaucer's exact position in the Countess of Ulster's household, we are not
informed. If he was born about 1340, we may suppose that he was a page; if
several years earlier, he would, in 1357, have been too old for such
service. We only know that he was attached to the service of Lionel, duke
of Clarence, and of the Countess of Ulster his wife, as early as the
beginning of 1357, and was at that time at Hatfield, in Yorkshire. 'He was
present,' says Dr. Bond, 'at the celebration of the feast of St. George, at
Edward III's court, in attendance on the Countess, in April of that year;
he followed the court to Woodstock; and he was again at Hatfield, probably
from September, 1357, to the end of March, 1358, and would have witnessed
there the reception of John of Ghent, then Earl of Richmond.' We may well
believe that he accompanied the Countess when she attended the funeral of
Queen Isabella (king Edward's mother), which took place at the Church of
the Friars Minors, in Newgate Street, on Nov. 27, 1358.
§ 6. CHAUCER'S FIRST EXPEDITION. 1359-60. A year later, in November, 1359,
Chaucer joined the great expedition of Edward III. to France. 'There was
not knight, squire, or man of honour, from the age of twenty to sixty
years, that did not go[31].' The king of England was 'attended by the
prince of Wales and three other sons,' including 'Lionel, earl of
Ulster[32]'; and we may be sure that Chaucer accompanied his master prince
Lionel. The march of the troops lay through Artois, past Arras to Bapaume;
then through Picardy, past Peronne and St. Quentin, to Rheims, which
Edward, with his whole army, ineffectually besieged for seven weeks. It is
interesting to note that the army must, on this occasion, have crossed the
Oise, somewhere near Chauny and La-Fère, which easily accounts for the
mention of that river in the House of Fame (l. 1928); and shews the
uselessness of Warton's suggestion, that Chaucer learnt the name of that
river by studying Provençal poetry! In one of the numerous skirmishes that
took place, Chaucer had the misfortune to be taken prisoner. This appears
from his own evidence, in the 'Scrope and Grosvenor' trial, referred to
below under the date of 1386; he then testified that he had seen Sir
Richard Scrope wearing arms described as 'azure, a bend or,' before the
town of 'Retters,' an obvious error for Rethel[33], not far from Rheims;
and he added that he 'had seen him so armed during the whole expedition,
until he (the said Geoffrey) was taken.' See the evidence as quoted at
length at p. xxxvi. But he was soon ransomed, viz. on March 1, 1360; and
the King himself contributed to his ransom the sum of 16l.[34] According to
Froissart, Edward was at this time in the neighbourhood of Auxerre[35].
After a short and ineffectual siege of Paris, the English army suffered
severely from thunder-storms during a retreat towards Chartres, and Edward
was glad to make peace; articles of peace were accordingly concluded, on
May 8, 1360, at Bretigny, near Chartres. King John of France was set at
liberty, leaving Eltham on Wednesday, July 1; and after stopping for three
nights on the road, viz. at Dartford, Rochester, and Ospringe, he arrived
at Canterbury on the Saturday[36]. On the Monday he came to Dover, and
thence proceeded to Calais. And surely Chaucer must have been present
during the fifteen days of October which the two kings spent at Calais in
each other's company; the Prince of Wales and his two brothers, _Lionel_
and Edmund, being also present[37]. On leaving Calais, King John and the
English princes 'went on foot to the church of our Lady of Boulogne, where
they made their offerings most devoutly, and afterward returned to the
abbey at Boulogne, which had been prepared for the reception of the King of
France and the princes of England[38].'
On July 1, 1361, prince Lionel was appointed lieutenant of Ireland,
probably because he already bore the title of Earl of Ulster. It does not
appear that Chaucer remained in his service much longer; for he must have
been attached to the royal household not long after the return of the
English army from France. In the Schedule of names of those employed in the
Royal Household, for whom robes for Christmas were to be provided,
Chaucer's name occurs as seventeenth in the list of thirty-seven esquires.
The list is not dated, but is marked by the Record Office '? 40 Edw. III,'
i. e. 1366[39]. However, Mr. Selby thinks the right date of this document
is 1368.
§ 7. CHAUCER'S MARRIAGE: PHILIPPA CHAUCER. In 1366, we find Chaucer already
married. On Sept. 12, in that year, Philippa Chaucer received from the
queen, after whom she was doubtless named, a pension of ten marks (or 6l.
13s. 4d.) annually for life, perhaps on the occasion of her marriage; and
we find her described as 'una domicellarum camerae Philippae Reginae
Angliae[40].' The first known payment on behalf of this pension is dated
Feb. 19, 1368[41]. Nicolas tells us that her pension 'was confirmed by
Richard the Second; and she apparently received it (except between 1370[42]
and 1373, in 1378, and in 1385, the reason of which omissions does not
appear) from 1366 until June 18, 1387. The money was usually paid to her
through her husband; but in November, 1374, by the hands of John de
Hermesthorpe, and in June, 1377 (the Poet being then on his mission in
France), by Sir Roger de Trumpington, whose wife, Lady Blanche de
Trumpington, was [then], like herself[43], in the service of the Duchess of
Lancaster.' As no payment appears after June, 1387, we may conclude that
she died towards the end of that year[44].
Philippa's maiden name is not known. She cannot be identified with Philippa
Picard, because both names, viz. Philippa Chaucer and Philippa Picard,
occur in the same document[45]. Another supposition identifies her with
Philippa Roet, on the assumption that Thomas Chaucer, on whose tomb appear
the arms of Roet, was her son. This, as will be shewn hereafter, is highly
probable, though not quite certain.
It is possible that she was the same person as Philippa, the 'lady of the
pantry,' who has been already mentioned as belonging to the household of
the Countess of Ulster. If so, she doubtless entered the royal household on
the Countess's death in 1363, and was married in 1366, or earlier. After
the death of the queen in 1369 (Aug. 15), we find that (on Sept. 1) the
king gave Chaucer, as being one of his squires of lesser degree, three ells
of cloth for mourning; and, at the same time, six ells of cloth, for the
same, to Philippa Chaucer[46].
In 1372, John of Gaunt married (as his second wife) Constance, elder
daughter of Pedro, king of Castile; and in the same year (Aug. 30), he
granted Philippa Chaucer a pension of 10l. per annum, in consideration of
her past and future services to his dearest wife, the queen of Castile[47].
Under the name of Philippa Chaucy (as the name is also written in this
volume), the duke presented her with a 'botoner,' apparently a button-hook,
and six silver-gilt buttons as a New Year's gift for the year 1373[48]. In
1374, on June 13, he granted 10l. per annum to his well-loved Geoffrey
Chaucer and his well-beloved Philippa, for their service to Queen Philippa
and to his wife the queen [i. e. of Castile], to be received at the duke's
manor of the Savoy[49]. In 1377, on May 31, payments were made to Geoffrey
Chaucer, varlet, of an annuity of 20 marks that day granted, and of 10
marks to Philippa Chaucer (granted to her for life) as being one of the
damsels of the chamber to the late queen, by the hands of Geoffrey Chaucer,
her husband[50]. In 1380, the duke gave Philippa a silver hanap (or cup)
with its cover, as his New Year's gift; and a similar gift in 1381 and
1382[51]. A payment of 5l. to Geoffrey 'Chaucy' is recorded soon after the
first of these gifts. In 1384, the sum of 13l. 6s. 8d. (20 marks) is
transmitted to Philippa Chaucer by John Hinesthorp, chamberlain[52]. The
last recorded payment of a pension to Philippa Chaucer is on June 18, 1387;
and it is probable, as said above, that she died very shortly afterwards.
Sir H. Nicolas mentions that, in 1380-2, Philippa Chaucer was one of the
three ladies in attendance on the Duchess of Lancaster, the two others
being Lady Senche Blount and Lady Blanche de Trompington; and that in June,
1377, as mentioned above, her pension was paid to Sir Roger de Trumpington,
who was Lady Blanche's husband. This is worth a passing notice; for it
clearly shews that the poet was familiar with the name of Trumpington, and
must have known of its situation near Cambridge. And this may account for
his laying the scene of the Reves Tale in that village, without
necessitating the inference that he must have visited Cambridge himself.
For indeed, it is not easy to see why the two 'clerks' should have been
benighted there; the distance from Cambridge is so slight that, even in
those days of bad roads, they could soon have returned home after dark
without any insuperable difficulty.
§ 8. 1367. To return to Chaucer. In 1367, we find him 'a valet of the
king's household'; and by the title of 'dilectus valettus noster,' the
king, in consideration of his _former_ and his future services, granted
him, on June 20, an annual salary of 20 marks (13l. 6s. 8d.) for life, or
until he should be otherwise provided for[53]. Memoranda are found of the
payment of this pension, in half-yearly instalments, on November 6, 1367,
and May 25, 1368[54]; but not in November, 1368, or May, 1369. The next
entry as to its payment is dated October, 1369[55]. As to the duties of a
valet in the royal household, see Life-Records of Chaucer, part ii. p. xi.
Amongst other things, he was expected to make beds, hold torches, set
boards (i. e. lay the tables for dinner), and perform various menial
offices.
§ 9. 1368. The note that he received his pension, in 1368, on May 25, is of
some importance. It renders improbable a suggestion of Speght, that he
accompanied his former master, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, to Italy in this
year. Lionel set off with an unusually large retinue, about the 10th of
May[56], and passed through France on his way to Italy, where he was
shortly afterwards married, for the second time, to Violante, daughter of
Galeazzo Visconti. But his married life was of short duration; he died on
Oct. 17 of the same year, not without suspicion of poison. His will, dated
Oct. 3, 1368, is given in Testamenta Vetusta, ed. Nicolas, p. 70. It does
not appear that Chaucer went to Italy before 1372-3; but it is interesting
to observe that, on his second journey there in 1378, he was sent to treat
with Barnabo Visconti, Galeazzo's brother, as noted at p. xxxii.
§ 10. 1369. In this year, Chaucer was again campaigning in France. An
advance of 10l. is recorded as having been made to him by Henry de
Wakefeld, the Keeper of the King's Wardrobe; and he is described as
'equitanti de guerre (_sic_) in partibus Francie[57].' In the same year,
there is a note that Chaucer was to have 20s. for summer clothes[58].
This year is memorable for the last of the three great pestilences which
afflicted England, as well as other countries, in the fourteenth century.
Queen Philippa died at Windsor on Aug. 15; and we find an entry, dated
Sept. 1, that Geoffrey Chaucer, a squire of less estate, and his wife
Philippa, were to have an allowance for mourning[59], as stated above. Less
than a month later, the Duchess Blaunche died, on Sept. 12; and her death
was commemorated by the poet in one of the earliest of his extant poems,
the Book of the Duchesse (see p. 277).
§ 11. 1370-1372. In the course of the next ten years (1370-80), the poet
was attached to the court, and employed in no less than seven diplomatic
services. The first of these occasions was during the summer of 1370, when
he obtained the usual letters of protection, dated June 10, to remain in
force till the ensuing Michaelmas[60]. That he returned immediately
afterwards, appears from the fact that he received his half-yearly pension
in person on Tuesday, the 8th of October[61]; though on the preceding
occasion (Thursday, April 25), it was paid to Walter Walssh instead of to
himself[62].
In 1371 and 1372, he received his pension himself[63]. In 1372 and 1373 he
received 2l. for his clothes each year. This was probably a customary
annual allowance to squires[64]. A like payment is again recorded in 1377.
Towards the end of the latter year, on Nov. 12, 1372, Chaucer, being then
'scutifer,' or one of the king's esquires, was joined in a commission with
James Provan and John de Mari, the latter of whom is described as a citizen
of Genoa, to treat with the duke, citizens, and merchants of Genoa, for the
purpose of choosing an English port where the Genoese might form a
commercial establishment[65]. On Dec. 1, he received an advance of 66l.
13s. 4d. towards his expenses[66]; and probably left England before the
close of the year.
§ 12. 1373. CHAUCER'S FIRST VISIT TO ITALY. All that is known of this
mission is that he visited Florence as well as Genoa, and that he returned
before Nov. 22, 1373, on which day he received his pension in person[67].
It further appears that his expenses finally exceeded the money advanced to
him; for on Feb. 4, 1374, a further sum was paid to him, on this account,
of 25l. 6s. 8d.[68] It was probably on this occasion that Chaucer met
Petrarch at Padua, and learnt from him the story of Griselda, reproduced in
the Clerkes Tale. Some critics prefer to think that Chaucer's assertions on
this point are to be taken as imaginative, and that it was the Clerk, and
not himself, who went to Padua; but it is clear that in writing the Clerkes
Tale, Chaucer actually had a copy of Petrarch's Latin version before him;
and it is difficult to see how he came by it unless he obtained it from
Petrarch himself or by Petrarch's assistance. For further discussion of
this point, see remarks on the Sources of the Clerkes Tale, in vol. iii.,
and the notes in vol. v.[69] We must, in any case, bear in mind the
important influence which this mission to Italy, and a later one in 1378-9
to the same country, produced upon the development of his poetical
writings.
It may be convenient to note here that Petrarch resided chiefly at Arquà,
within easy reach of Padua, in 1370-4. His death took place there on July
18, 1374, soon after Chaucer had returned home.
§ 13. 1374. We may fairly infer that Chaucer's execution of this important
mission was satisfactorily performed; for we find that on the 23rd of
April, 1374, on the celebration at Windsor of the festival of St. George,
the king made him a grant of a pitcher of wine daily, to be received in the
port of London from the king's butler[70]. This was, doubtless, found to be
rather a troublesome gift; accordingly, it was commuted, in 1378 (April
18), for the annual sum of 20 marks (13l. 6s. 8d.)[71]. The original grant
was made 'dilecto Armigero nostro, Galfrido Chaucer.'
On May 10, in the same year, the corporation of London granted Chaucer a
lease for his life of the dwelling-house situate above the city-gate of
Aldgate, on condition that he kept the same in good repair; he seems to
have made this his usual residence till 1385, and we know that he retained
possession of it till October, 1386[72].
Four weeks later, on June 8, 1374, he was appointed Comptroller of the
Customs and Subsidy of wools, skins, and tanned hides in the Port of
London, with the usual fees. Like his predecessors, he was to write the
rolls of his office with his own hand, to be continually present, and to
perform his duties personally (except, of course, when employed on the
King's service elsewhere); and the other part of the seal called the
'coket' (quod dicitur _coket_) was to remain in his custody[73]. The
warrant by which, on June 13, 1374, the Duke of Lancaster granted him 10l.
for life, in consideration of the services of himself and his wife, has
been mentioned at p. xxi. In the same year, he received his half-yearly
pension of 10 marks as usual; and again in 1375.
§ 14. 1375. On Nov. 8, 1375, his income was, for a time, considerably
increased. He received from the crown a grant of the custody of the lands
and person of Edmond, son and heir of Edmond Staplegate of Kent[74], who
had died in 1372[75]; this he retained for three years, during which he
received in all, for his wardship and on Edmond's marriage, the sum of
104l. This is ascertained from the petition presented by Edmond de
Staplegate to Richard II. at his coronation, in which he laid claim to be
permitted to exercise the office of chief butler to the king[76]. And
further, on Dec. 28, 1375, he received a grant from the king of the custody
of five 'solidates' of rent for land at Soles, in Kent, during the minority
of William de Solys, then an infant aged 1 year, son and heir of John
Solys, deceased; together with a fee due on the marriage of the said
heir[77]. But the value of this grant cannot have been large.
§15. 1376. In 1376, on May 31, he received at the exchequer his own
half-yearly pension of ten marks and his wife's of five marks, or 10l. in
all (see Notes and Queries, 3rd Ser. viii. 63); and in October he received
an advance from the exchequer of 50s. on account of his pension[78]. He
also duly received his annuity of 10l. from the duke of Lancaster (Oct. 18,
1376, and June 12, 1377)[79].
In the same year, we also meet with the only known record connected with
Chaucer's exercise of the Office of Comptroller of the Customs. On July 12,
1376, the King granted him the sum of 71l. 4s. 6d., being the value of a
fine paid by John Kent, of London, for shipping wool to Dordrecht without
having paid the duty thereon[80].
Towards the end of this year, Sir John Burley and Geoffrey Chaucer were
employed together on some secret service (in secretis negociis domini
Regis), the nature of which is unknown; for on Dec. 23, 1376, Sir John 'de
Burlee' received 13l. 6s. 8d., and Chaucer half that sum, for the business
upon which they had been employed[81].
§16. 1377. On Feb. 12, 1377, Chaucer was associated with Sir Thomas Percy
(afterwards Earl of Worcester) in a secret mission to Flanders, the nature
of which remains unknown; and on this occasion Chaucer received letters of
protection during his mission, to be in force till Michaelmas in the same
year[82]. Five days later, on Feb. 17, the sum of 33l. 6s. 8d. was advanced
to Sir Thomas, and 10l. to Chaucer, for their expenses[83]. They started
immediately, and the business was transacted by March 25; and on April 11
Chaucer himself received at the exchequer the sum of 20l. as a reward from
the king for the various journeys which he had made abroad upon the king's
service (pro regardo suo causâ diuersorum viagiorum per ipsum Galfridum
factorum, eundo ad diuersas partes transmarinas ex precepto domini Regis in
obsequio ipsius domini Regis)[84].
While Sir Thomas Percy and Chaucer were absent in Flanders, viz. on Feb.
20, 1377, the Bishop of Hereford, Lord Cobham, Sir John Montacu (i. e.
Montague), and Dr. Shepeye were empowered to treat for peace with the
French King[85]. Their endeavours must have been ineffectual; for soon
after Chaucer's return, viz. on April 26, 1377, Sir Guichard d'Angle and
several others were also appointed to negotiate a peace with France[86].
Though Chaucer's name does not expressly appear in this commission, he was
clearly in some way associated with it; for only six days previously (Apr.
20), letters of protection were issued to him, to continue till Aug. 1,
whilst he was on the king's service abroad[87]; and on April 30, he was
paid the sum of 26l. 13s. 4d. for his wages on this occasion[88]. We
further find, from an entry in the Issue Roll for March 6, 1381 (noticed
again at p. xxix), that he was sent to Moustrell (Montreuil) and Paris, and
that he was instructed to treat for peace.
This is clearly the occasion to which Froissart refers in the following
passage. 'About Shrovetide[89], a secret treaty was formed between the two
kings for their ambassadors to meet at Montreuil-sur-Mer; and the king of
England sent to Calais sir Guiscard d'Angle, Sir Richard Sturey, and sir
Geoffrey Chaucer. On the part of the French were the lords de Coucy and de
la Rivieres, sir Nicholas Bragues and Nicholas Bracier. They for a long
time discussed the subject of the above marriage [the marriage of the
French princess with Richard, prince of Wales]; and the French, _as I was
informed_, made some offers, but the others demanded different terms, or
refused treating. These lords returned therefore, with their treaties, to
their sovereigns; and the truces were prolonged to the first of
May.'--Johnes, tr. of Froissart, bk. i. c. 326.
I think Sir H. Nicolas has not given Froissart's meaning correctly.
According to him, 'Froissart states that, in Feb. 1377, Chaucer was joined
with Sir Guichard d'Angle, &c., to negociate a secret treaty for the
marriage of Richard, prince of Wales, with Mary, daughter of the king of
France,' &c.; and that the truce was prolonged till the first of May. And
he concludes that Froissart has confused two occasions, because there
really was an attempt at a treaty about this marriage in 1378 (see below).
It does not appear that Froissart is wrong. He merely gives the date of
about Shrovetide (Feb. 10) as the time when 'a secret treaty was formed';
and this must refer to the ineffectual commission of Feb. 20, 1377. After
this 'the king of England' really sent 'Sir Guiscard d'Angle' in April; and
Chaucer either went with the rest or joined them at Montreuil. Neither does
it appear that discussion of the subject of the marriage arose on the
English side; it was the French who proposed it, but the English who
declined it, for the reason that they had received no instructions to that
effect. On the other hand, the English ambassadors, having been instructed
to treat for peace, procured, at any rate, a short truce. This explanation
seems to me sufficient, especially as Froissart merely wrote what he had
been informed; he was not present himself. The very fact that the marriage
was proposed by the French on this occasion explains how the English came
to consider this proposal seriously in the following year.
Fortunately, the matter is entirely cleared up by the express language
employed in the Issue Roll of 4 Ric. II., under the date Mar. 6, as printed
in Nicolas, Note R; where the object of the deliberations at Montreuil is
definitely restricted to a treaty for peace, whilst the proposal of
marriage (from the _English_ side) is definitely dated as having been made
in the reign of Richard, not of Edward III. The words are: 'tam tempore
regis Edwardi ... in nuncium eiusdem ... versus Moustrell' et Parys ...
causa tractatus pacis ... quam tempore domini regis nunc, causa locutionis
habite de maritagio inter ipsum dominum regem nunc et filiam eiusdem
aduersarii sui Francie.'
The princess Marie, fifth daughter of Charles V., was born in 1370 (N. and
Q., 3 S. vii. 470), and was therefore only seven years old in 1377; and
died in the same year. It is remarkable that Richard married Isabella,
daughter of Charles VI., in 1396, when she was only eight.
It is worth notice that Stowe, in his Annales, p. 437, alludes to the same
mission. He mentions, as being among the ambassadors, 'the Earle of
Salisbury and Sir Richard Anglisison a Poyton [can this be Sir Guiscard
D'Angle?], the Bishop of Saint Dauids, the Bishop of Hereford, [and]
Geffrey Chaucer, the famous Poet of England.' See Life-Records of Chaucer,
p. 133, note 3.
The payments made to Chaucer by John of Gaunt on May 31 of this year have
been noticed above in § 7, at p. xxi.
The long reign of Edward III. terminated on June 21, 1377, during which
Chaucer had received many favours from the king and the Duke of Lancaster,
and some, doubtless, from Lionel, Duke of Clarence. At the same time, his
wife was in favour with the queen, till her death in August, 1369; and
afterwards, with the second duchess of Lancaster. The poet was evidently,
at this time, in easy circumstances; and it is not unlikely that he was
somewhat lavish in his expenditure. The accession of Richard, at the early
age of eleven, made no difference to his position for some nine years; but
in 1386, the adverse supremacy of Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, caused him
much pecuniary loss and embarrassment for some time, and he frequently
suffered from distress during the later period of his life.
§ 17. CHAUCER'S EARLIER POEMS: TILL THE DEATH OF EDWARD III. It is probable
that not much of Chaucer's extant poetry can be referred to the reign of
Edward III. At the same time, it is likely that he wrote many short pieces,
in the form of ballads, complaints, virelayes, and roundels, which have not
been preserved; perhaps some of them were occasional pieces, and chiefly of
interest at the time of writing them. Amongst the lost works we may
certainly include his translation of 'Origenes upon the Maudelayne,' 'The
Book of the Lion,' all but a few stanzas (preserved in the Man of Lawes
Tale) of his translation of Pope Innocent's 'Wrecched Engendring of
Mankinde,' and all but the first 1705 lines of his translation of Le Roman
de la Rose. His early work entitled 'Ceyx and Alcioun' is partly preserved
in the Book of the Duchesse, written in 1369-70. His A. B. C. is, perhaps,
his earliest extant complete poem.
It seems reasonable to date the poems which show a strong Italian influence
after Chaucer's visit to Italy in 1373. The Compleint to his Lady is,
perhaps, one of the earliest of these; and the Amorous Complaint bears so
strong a resemblance to it that it may have been composed nearly at the
same time. The Complaint to Pity seems to belong to the same period, rather
than, as assumed in the text, to a time preceding the Book of the Duchesse.
The original form of the Life of St. Cecily (afterwards the Second Nonnes
Tale) is also somewhat early, as well as the original Palamon and Arcite,
and Anelida. I should also include, amongst the earlier works, the original
form of the Man of Lawes Tale (from Anglo-French), of the Clerkes Tale
(from Petrarch's Latin), and some parts of the Monkes Tale. But the great
bulk of his poetry almost certainly belongs to the reign of Richard II. See
the List of Works at p. lxii.
§ 18. 1377. (CONTINUED). In the commencement of the new reign, Chaucer was
twice paid 40s. by the keeper of the king's Wardrobe, for his half-yearly
allowance for robes as one of the (late) king's esquires[90]. He also
received 7l. 2s. 6½d. on account of his daily allowance of a pitcher of
wine, calculated from October 27, 1376, to June 21, 1377, the day of king
Edward's death[91].
§ 19. 1378. In 1378, on Jan. 16, Chaucer was again associated with Sir
Guichard d'Angle (created Earl of Huntingdon at the coronation of the new
king), with Sir Hugh Segrave, and Dr. Skirlawe, in a mission to France to
negotiate for the king's marriage with a daughter of the king of
France[92]; this is in accordance with a suggestion which, as noted at p.
xxix., originated with the French. The negotiations came, however, to no
result.
On Mar. 9, 1378, Geoffrey Chaucer and John Beauchamp are mentioned as
sureties for William de Beauchamp, Knight, in a business having respect to
Pembroke Castle[93].
On Mar. 23, 1378, Chaucer's previous annuity of 20 marks was confirmed to
him by letters patent[94]; on April 18, his previous grant of a pitcher of
wine was commuted for an annual sum of twenty marks[95]; and, on May 14, he
received 20l. for the arrears of his pension, and 26s. 8d. in advance, for
the current half-year[96].
CHAUCER'S SECOND VISIT TO ITALY: BARNABO VISCONTI. On May 10, 1378, he
received letters of protection, till Christmas[97]; on May 21, he procured
letters of general attorney, allowing John Gower (the poet) and Richard
Forrester to act for him during his absence from England[98]; and on May
28, he received 66l. 13s. 4d. for his wages and the expenses of his
journey, which lasted till the 19th of September[99]. All these entries
refer to the same matter, viz. his second visit to Italy. On this occasion,
he was sent to Lombardy with Sir Edward Berkeley, to treat with Barnabo
Visconti, lord of Milan, and the famous free-lance Sir John Hawkwood, on
certain matters touching the king's expedition of war (pro certis negociis
expeditionem guerre regis tangentibus); a phrase of uncertain import. This
is the Barnabo Visconti, whose death, in 1385, is commemorated by a stanza
in the Monkes Tale, B 3589-3596. Of Sir John Hawkwood, a soldier of
fortune, and the most skilful general of his age, a memoir is given in the
Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, vol. vi. pp. 1-35. The appointment of
Gower as Chaucer's attorney during his absence is of interest, and shews
the amicable relations between the two poets at this time. For a discussion
of their subsequent relations, see Sources of the Canterbury Tales, vol.
iii. § 38, p. 413.
§ 20. 1379-80. In 1379 and 1380, the notices of Chaucer refer chiefly to
the payment of his pensions. In 1379, he received 12l. 13s. 4d. _with his
own hands_ on Feb. 3[100]; on May 24, he received the sums of 26s. 4d. and
13l. 6s. 4d. (the latter on account of the original grant of a pitcher of
wine), both _by assignment_[101], which indicates his absence from London
at the time; and on Dec. 9 he received, _with his own hands_, two sums of
6l. 13s. 4d. each on account of his two pensions[102]. In 1380, on July 3,
he received the same _by assignment_[103]; and on Nov. 28, he received the
same _with his own hands_[104], together with a sum of 14l. for wages and
expenses in connexion with his mission to Lombardy in 1378[104], in
addition to the 66l. 13s. 4d. paid to him on May 28 of that year. He also
received 5l. from the Duke of Lancaster on May 11 (N. and Q., 7 S. v. 290).
By a deed dated May 1, 1380, a certain Cecilia Chaumpaigne, daughter of the
late William Chaumpaigne and Agnes his wife, released to Chaucer all her
rights of action against him 'de raptu meo[105].' We have no means of
ascertaining either the meaning of the phrase, or the circumstances
referred to. It may mean that Chaucer was accessory to her abduction, much
as Geoffrey Stace and others were concerned in the abduction of the poet's
father; or it may be connected with the fact that his 'little son Lowis'
was ten years old in 1391, as we learn from the Prologue to the Treatise on
the Astrolabe.
§ 21. 1381. On March 6, Chaucer received 22l. for his services in going to
Montreuil and Paris in the time of the late king, i. e. in 1377, in order
to treat for peace; as well as for his journey to France in 1378 to treat
for a marriage between king Richard and the daughter of his adversary
(adversarii sui)[106]. The Treasury must, at this time, have been slack in
paying its just debts. On May 24, he and his wife received their usual
half-yearly pensions[107].
By a deed dated June 19, 1380, but preserved in the Hustings Roll, no. 110,
at the Guildhall, and there dated 5 Ric. II. (1381-2), Chaucer released his
interest in his father's house to Henry Herbury, vintner, in whose
occupation it then was; and it is here that he describes himself as 'me
Galfridum Chaucer, filium Johannis Chaucer, Vinetarii Londonie [108].' This
is the best authority for ascertaining his father's name, occupation, and
abode. Towards the close of the year we find the following payments to him;
viz. on Nov. 16, sums of 6l. 13s. 4d. and 6_s_. 8d.; on Nov. 28, the large
sum of 46l. 13s. 4d., paid to Nicholas Brembre and John Philipot,
Collectors of Customs, and to Geoffrey Chaucer, Comptroller of the Customs;
and on Dec. 31, certain sums to himself and his wife[109].
§ 22. 1382. We have seen that, in 1378, an ineffectual attempt was made to
bring about a marriage between the king and a French princess. In 1382, the
matter was settled by his marriage with Anne of Bohemia, who exerted
herself to calm the animosities which were continually arising in the
court, and thus earned the title of the 'good queen Anne.' It was to her
that Chaucer was doubtless indebted for some relaxation of his official
duties in February, 1385, as noted below.
On May 8, 1382, Chaucer's income was further increased. Whilst retaining
his office of Comptroller of the Customs of Wools, the duties of which he
discharged personally, he was further appointed Comptroller of the Petty
Customs in the Port of London, and was allowed to discharge the duties of
the office by a sufficient deputy[110]. The usual payments of his own and
his wife's pensions were made, in this year, on July 22 and Nov. 11. On
Dec. 10, a payment to him is recorded, in respect of his office as
Comptroller of the Customs [111].
§ 23. 1383. In 1383, the recorded payments are: on Feb. 27, 6s. 8d.; on May
5, his own and his wife's pensions; and on Oct. 24, 6l. 13s. 4d. for his
own pension[112]. Besides these, is the following entry for Nov. 23: 'To
Nicholas Brembre and John Philipot, Collectors of Customs, and Geoffrey
Chaucer, Comptroller; money delivered to them this day in regard of the
assiduity, labour, and diligence brought to bear by them on the duties of
their office, for the year late elapsed, 46l. 13s. 4d.'; being the same
amount as in 1381[113]. It is possible that the date Dec. 10, on which he
tells us that he began his House of Fame, refers to this year.
§ 24. 1384. In 1384, on Apr. 30, he received his own and his wife's
pensions[114]. On Nov. 25, he was allowed to absent himself from his duties
for one month, on account of his own urgent affairs; and the Collectors of
the Customs were commanded to swear in his deputy[115]. On Dec. 9, one
_Philip_ Chaucer is referred to as Comptroller of the Customs, but Philip
is here an error for Geoffrey, as shewn by Mr. Selby[116].
§ 25. 1385. In 1385, a stroke of good fortune befell him, which evidently
gave him much relief and pleasure. It appears that Chaucer had asked the
king to allow him to have a sufficient deputy in his office as Comptroller
at the Wool Quay (in French, _Wolkee_) of London[117]. And on Feb. 17, he
was released from the somewhat severe pressure of his official duties (of
which he complains feelingly in the House of Fame, 652-660) by being
allowed to appoint a permanent deputy[118]. He seems to have revelled in
his newly-found leisure; and we may fairly infer from the Prologue to the
Legend of Good Women, which seems to have been begun shortly afterwards,
that he was chiefly indebted for this favour to the good queen Anne. (See
the Introduction to vol. iii. p. xix.) On April 24, he received his own
pensions as usual, in two sums of 6l. 13s. 4d. each; and, on account of his
wife's pension, 3l. 6s. 8d.[119]
§ 26. 1386. In 1386, as shewn by the Issue Rolls, he received his pensions
as usual. In other respects, the year was eventful. Chaucer was elected a
knight of the shire[120] for the county of Kent, with which he would
therefore seem to have had some connexion, perhaps by the circumstance of
residing at Greenwich (see § 32). He sat accordingly in the parliament
which met at Westminster on Oct. 1, and continued its sittings till Nov. 1.
He and his colleague, William Betenham, were allowed 24l. 8s. for their
expenses in coming to and returning from the parliament, and for attendance
at the same; at the rate of 8s. a day for 61 days[121]. The poet was thus
an unwilling contributor to his own misfortunes; for the proceedings of
this parliament were chiefly directed against the party of the duke of
Lancaster, his patron, and on Nov. 19 the king was obliged to grant a
patent by which he was practically deprived of all power. A council of
regency of eleven persons was formed, with the duke of Gloucester at their
head; and the partisans of John of Gaunt found themselves in an unenviable
position. Among the very few persons who still adhered to the king was Sir
Nicholas Brembre[122], Chaucer's associate in the Customs (see note above,
Nov. 23, 1383); and we may feel confident that Chaucer's sympathies were on
the same side. We shall presently see that, when the king regained his
power in 1389, Chaucer almost immediately received a valuable appointment.
It was during the sitting of this parliament, viz. on Oct. 15, that Chaucer
was examined at Westminster in the case of Richard, lord Scrope, against
the claim of Sir Robert Grosvenor, as to the right of bearing the coat of
arms described as 'azure, a bend or.' The account of Chaucer's evidence is
given in French[123]; the following is a translation of it, chiefly in the
words of Sir H. Nicolas:--
'Geoffrey Chaucer, Esquire, of the age of 40 years and upwards, armed
for 27 years, produced on behalf of Sir Richard Scrope, sworn and
examined.
'Asked, whether the arms, "azure, a bend or," belonged or ought to
belong to the said Sir Richard of right and heritage? Said--Yes, for he
had seen them armed in France before the town of Retters[124], and Sir
Henry Scrope armed in the same arms with a white label, and with a
banner, and the said Sir Richard armed in the entire arms, Azure, a
bend Or, and he had so seen them armed during the whole expedition,
till the said Geoffrey was taken.
'Asked, how he knew that the said arms appertained to the said Sir
Richard? Said--by hearsay from old knights and squires, and that they
had always continued their possession of the said arms; and that they
had always been reputed to be their arms, as the common fame and the
public voice testifies and had testified; and he also said, that when
he had seen the said arms in banners, glass, paintings, and vestments,
they were commonly called the arms of Scrope.
'Asked, if he had ever heard say who was the first ancestor of the said
Sir Richard who first bore the said arms? Said--No; nor had he ever
heard otherwise than that they were come of old ancestry and of old
gentry, and that they had used the said arms.
'Asked, if he had ever heard say how long a time the ancestors of the
said Sir Richard had used the said arms? Said--No; but he had heard say
that it passed the memory of man.
'Asked, if he had ever heard of any interruption or claim made by Sir
Robert Grosvenor or by his ancestors or by any one in his name, against
the said Sir Richard or any of his ancestors? Said--No; but said, that
he was once in Friday Street, London, and, as he was walking in the
street, he saw a new sign, made of the said arms, hanging out; and he
asked what inn it was that had hung out these arms of Scrope? And one
answered him and said--No, sir; they are not hung out as the arms of
Scrope, nor painted for those arms; but they are painted and put there
by a knight of the county of Chester, whom men call Sir Robert
Grosvenor; and that was the first time that he had ever heard speak of
Sir Robert Grosvenor, or of his ancestors, or of any one bearing the
name of Grosvenor.'
The statement that Chaucer was, at this time, of the age of 'forty and
upwards' (xl. ans et plus) ought to be of assistance in determining the
date of his birth; but it has been frequently discredited on the ground
that similar statements made, in the same account, respecting other
persons, can easily be shewn to be incorrect. It can hardly be regarded as
more than a mere phrase, expressing that the witness was old enough to give
material evidence. But the testimony that the witness had borne arms for
twenty-seven years (xxvii. ans) is more explicit, and happens to tally
exactly with the evidence actually given concerning the campaign of 1359; a
campaign which we may at once admit, on his own shewing, to have been his
first. Taken in connexion with his service in the household of the Countess
of Ulster, where his position was probably that of page, we should expect
that, in 1359, he was somewhere near 20 years of age, and born not long
before 1340. It is needless to discuss the point further, as nothing will
convince those who are determined to make much of Chaucer's allusions to
his 'old age' (which is, after all, a personal affair), and who cannot
understand why Hoccleve should speak of himself as 'ripe for death' when he
was only fifty-three.
It was during the session of this same parliament (Oct. 1386) that Chaucer
gave up the house in Aldgate which he had occupied since May, 1374; and the
premises were granted by the corporation to one Richard Forster, possibly
the same person as the Richard Forrester who had been his proxy in
1378[125]. In this house he must have composed several of his poems; and,
in particular, The Parlement of Foules, The House of Fame, and Troilus,
besides making his translation of Boethius. The remarks about 'my house' in
the Prologue to the Legend of Good Women, 282, are inconsistent with the
position of a house above a city-gate. If, as is probable, they have
reference to facts, we may suppose that he had already practically resigned
his house to his friend in 1385, when he was no longer expected to perform
his official duties personally.
Meanwhile, the duke of Gloucester was daily gaining ascendancy; and Chaucer
was soon to feel the resentment of his party. On Dec. 4, 1386, he was
deprived of his more important office, that of Comptroller of the Customs
of Wool, and Adam Yerdeley was appointed in his stead. Only ten days later,
on Dec. 14, he lost his other office likewise, and Henry Gisors became
Comptroller of the Petty Customs[126]. This must have been a heavy loss to
one who had previously been in good circumstances, and who seems to have
spent his money rather freely[127]. He was suffered, however, to retain his
own and his wife's pensions, as there was no pretence for depriving him of
them.
§ 27. 1387. In 1387, the payment of his wife's pension, on June 18, appears
for the last time[128]. It cannot be doubted that she died during the
latter part of this year. In the same year, and in the spring of 1388, he
received his own pensions, as usual[129]; but his wife's pension ceased at
her death, at a time when his own income was seriously reduced.
§ 28. 1388. In 1388, on May 1, the grants of his two annual pensions, of 20
marks each, were cancelled at his own request, and assigned, in his stead,
to John Scalby[130]. The only probable interpretation of this act is that
he was then hard pressed for money, and adopted this ready but rather rash
method for obtaining a considerable sum at once. He retained, however, the
pension of 10l. per annum, granted him by the duke of Lancaster in 1374.
Chaucer was evidently a hard worker and a practical man. We have every
reason for believing that he performed his duties assiduously, as he
himself asserts; and the loss of his offices in Dec. 1386 must have
occasioned a good deal of enforced leisure. This explains at once why the
years 1387 and 1388 were, as appears from other considerations, the most
active time of his poetical career; he was then hard at work on his
Canterbury Tales. And though the loss of his wife, at the close of 1387,
must have caused a sad interruption in his congenial task, we can hardly
wonder if, after a reasonable interval, he resumed it; it was perhaps the
best thing that he could do.
§ 29. 1389. This period of almost complete leisure came to an end in July,
1389; owing, probably, to the fact that the king, on May 3 in that year,
suddenly took the government into his own hands. The influence of the duke
of Gloucester was on the wane; the duke of Lancaster returned to England;
and the cloud that had lain over Chaucer's fortunes was once more
dispersed. His public work required some attention, though he was allowed
to have a deputy, and the time devoted to the Canterbury Tales was
diminished. It is doubtful whether, with the exception of a few occasional
pieces, Chaucer wrote much new poetry during the last ten years of his
life.
On July 12, Chaucer received the valuable appointment of Clerk of the
King's Works at the palace of Westminster, the Tower of London, the Mews at
Charing Cross, and other places. Among them are mentioned the Castle of
Berkhemsted (Berkhamstead, Herts.), the King's manors of Kennington (now in
London), Eltham (Kent), Clarendon (near Salisbury), Sheen (now Richmond,
Surrey)[131], Byfleet (Surrey), Childern Langley (i. e. King's Langley,
Hertfordshire), and Feckenham (Worcestershire); also the Royal lodge of
Hatherbergh in the New Forest, and the lodges in the parks of Clarendon,
Childern Langley, and Feckenham. He was permitted to execute his duties by
deputy, and his salary was 2s. per day, or 36l. 10s. annually, a
considerable sum[132]. A payment to Chaucer, as Clerk of the Works, is
recorded only ten days later (July 22); and we find that, about this time,
he issued a commission to one Hugh Swayn to provide materials for the
king's works at Westminster, Sheen, and elsewhere[133].
§ 30. 1390. In 1390, on March 13, Chaucer was appointed on a commission,
with five others, to repair the banks of the Thames between Woolwich and
Greenwich (at that time, probably, his place of residence); but was
superseded in 1391[134].
In the same year, Chaucer was entrusted with the task of putting up
scaffolds in Smithfield for the king and queen to see the jousts which took
place there in the month of May; this notice is particularly interesting in
connexion with the Knightes Tale (A 1881-92). The cost of doing this,
amounting to 8l. 12s. 6d., was allowed him in a writ dated July 1, 1390;
and he received further payment at the rate of 2s. a day[135].
About this time, in the 14th year of king Richard (June 22, 1390-June 21,
1391), he was appointed joint forester, with Richard Brittle, of North
Petherton Park, in Somersetshire, by the earl of March, the grandson of his
first patron, Prince Lionel. Perhaps in consequence of the death of Richard
Brittle, he was made sole forester in 21 Ric. II. (1397-8) by the countess
of March; and he probably held the appointment till his death in 1400. No
appointment, however, is known to have been then made, and we find that the
next forester, appointed in 4 Hen. V. (1416-17), was no other than Thomas
Chaucer, who may have been his son[136]. It is perhaps worthy of remark
that some of the land in North Petherton, as shewn by Collinson, descended
to Emma, third daughter of William de Placetis, which William had the same
office of 'forester of North Petherton' till his death in 1274; and this
Emma married John Heyron, who died in 1326-7, seised of lands at Enfield,
Middlesex, and at Newton, Exton, and North Petherton, in the county of
Somerset (Calend. Inquis. post Mortem, 1806, vol. i. p. 333; col. 1). If
this John Heyron was related to the Maria Heyron who was Chaucer's
grandmother, there was perhaps a special reason for appointing Chaucer to
this particular office.
On July 12, 1390, he was ordered to procure workmen and materials for the
repair of St. George's Chapel, Windsor, then in a ruinous condition; this
furnishes a very interesting association[137].
On Sept. 6, 1390, a curious misfortune befell the poet. He was robbed twice
on the same day, by the same gang of robbers; once of 10l. of the king's
money, at Westminster, and again of 9l. 3s. 2d., of his horse, and of other
property, near the 'foul oak' (_foule ok_) at Hatcham, Surrey (now a part
of London, approached by the Old Kent Road, and not far from Deptford and
Greenwich). One of the gang confessed the robberies; and Chaucer was
forgiven the repayment of the money[138].
§ 31. 1391. In 1391, on Jan. 22, Chaucer appointed John Elmhurst as his
deputy, for superintending repairs at the palace of Westminster and the
tower of London; this appointment was confirmed by the king[139]. It was in
this year that he wrote his Treatise on the Astrolabe, for the use of his
son Lowis. By this time, the Canterbury Tales had ceased to make much
progress. For some unknown reason, Chaucer lost his appointment in the
summer; for on June 17, a writ was issued, commanding him to give up to
John Gedney[140] all his rolls, &c. connected with his office[141]; and on
Sept. 16, we find, accordingly, that the office was held by John
Gedney[142]; nevertheless, payments to Chaucer as 'late Clerk of the Works'
occur on Dec. 16, 1391, Mar. 4 and July 13, 1392, and even as late as in
1393[143].
§ 32. 1392-3. Chaucer was now once more without public employment. No doubt
the Canterbury Tales received some attention, and perhaps we may assign to
this period various alterations in the original plan of the poem. The
author must by this time have seen the necessity of limiting each of his
characters to the telling of _one_ Tale only. The Envoy to Scogan and the
Complaint of Venus were probably written in 1393. According to a note
written opposite l. 45 of the former poem, Chaucer was then residing at
Greenwich, a most convenient position for frequent observation of pilgrims
on the road to Canterbury. See §§ 26 and 30.
§ 33. 1394. Chaucer was once more a poor man, although, as a widower, his
expenses may have been less. Probably he endeavoured to draw attention to
his reduced circumstances, or Henry Scogan may have done so for him, in
accordance with the poet's suggestion in l. 48 of the Envoy just mentioned.
In 1394, on Feb. 28, he obtained from the king a grant of 20l. per annum
for life, payable half-yearly at Easter and Michaelmas, being 6l. 13s. 8d.
less than the pensions which he had disposed of in 1388[144]; but the first
payment was not made till Dec. 20, when he received 10l. for the half-year
from Easter to Michaelmas, and the proportional sum of 1l. 16s. 7d. for the
month of March[145].
§ 34. 1395. The difficulties which Chaucer experienced at this time, as to
money matters, are clearly illustrated during the year 1395. In this year
he applied for a loan from the exchequer, in advance of his pension, no
less than four times. In this way he borrowed 10l. on April 1; 10l. on June
25; 1l. 6s. 8d. on Sept. 9; and 8l. 6s. 8d. on Nov. 27. He repaid the first
of these loans on May 28; and the second was covered by his allowance at
Michaelmas. He must also have repaid the small third loan, as the account
was squared by his receipt of the balance of 1l. 13s. 4d. (instead of 10l.)
on March 1, 1396[146]. All the sums were paid into his own hands, so that
he was not far from home in 1395. The fact that he borrowed so small a sum
as 1l. 6s. 8d. is significant and saddening.
In 19 Ric. II. (June, 1395-June, 1396), Chaucer was one of the attorneys of
Gregory Ballard, to receive seizin of the manor of Spitalcombe, and of
other lands in Kent[147].
§ 35. 1396. In 1396, as noted above, he received the balance of his first
half-year's pension on March 1. The second half-year's pension was not paid
till Dec. 25[148]. The Balades of Truth, Gentilesse, and Lak of
Stedfastnesse possibly belong to this period, but some critics would place
the last of these somewhat earlier.
§ 36. 1397. In 1397, the payment of the pension was again behindhand; there
seems to have been some difficulty in obtaining it, due, probably, to the
lavish extravagance of the king. Instead of receiving his half-yearly
pension at Easter, Chaucer received it much later, and in two instalments;
viz. 5l. on July 2, and 5l. on Aug. 9. But after this, things mended; for
his Michaelmas pension was paid in full, viz. 10l., on Oct 26[149]. It was
received for him by John Walden, and it is probable that at this time he
was in infirm health.
§ 37. 1398. We may certainly infer that, at this time, Chaucer was once
more in great distress for money, and considerably in debt. It is also
probable that he was becoming infirm; for indeed, his death was now
approaching. In the Easter term of 1398 (Apr. 24-May 20), one Isabella
Buckholt sued him for the sum of 14l. 1s. 11d. He did not, however, put in
an appearance; for the sheriff's return, in the Michaelmas term (Oct.
9-Nov. 28), was--'non est inventus'; and a similar return was again made in
the Trinity term of 1399 (June 4-25)[150].
We are tempted to suspect that the sheriff was not particularly diligent in
his search after the debtor. That Chaucer was well aware of the awkwardness
of his position, is shewn by the fact that on May 4, 1398, just at the very
time when the suit was brought, he applied for, and obtained, letters of
protection from the king against his enemies, forbidding any one to sue or
arrest him on any plea, except it were connected with land, for the term of
two years[151]. This furnishes an additional reason why the sheriff did not
'find' him. When the two years terminated, in May, 1400, he had not half a
year to live.
On June 3, 1398, Chaucer was again unable to receive his pension himself,
but it was conveyed to him by William Waxcombe[152]. At the close of the
next month, he was reduced to such pitiable straits that we find him
applying _personally_ to the exchequer, for such a trifling advance as 6s.
8d., on July 24; and for the same sum only a week later, on July 31[152].
On Aug. 23, he personally received a further advance of 5l. 6s. 8d.[152]
In his distress, he determined to send in a petition to the king. A copy of
this, in French, is still preserved. On Oct. 13, 1398, he prayed to be
allowed a hogshead of wine (tonel de vin), to be given him by the king's
butler[153]; he even asked this favour 'for God's sake and as a work of
charity' (pur Dieu et en oeure de charitee). It is satisfactory to find
that his request met with a prompt response; for only two days afterwards,
on Oct. 15, the king made him a grant of a tun of wine annually for life,
from the king's butler or his deputy; Sir H. Nicolas computes the value of
this grant at about 5l. a year. Moreover, the grant was made to date as
from Dec. 1, 1397; so that he necessarily received from it some immediate
benefit[154]. He also received from the exchequer, with his own hands, the
sum of 10l. on Oct. 28[155].
§ 38. 1399. In 1399, the great change in political affairs practically
brought his distress to an end; and it is pleasant to think that, as far as
money matters were concerned, he ended his days in comparative ease. Henry
of Lancaster was declared king on Sept. 30; and Chaucer lost no time in
laying his case before him. This he did by sending in a copy of his
'Compleint to his Empty Purse,' a poem which seems to have been originally
written on some other occasion. He added to it, however, an Envoy of five
lines, which, like a postscript to some letters, contained the pith of the
matter:--
'O conquerour of Brutes Albioun,
Which that by lyne and free eleccioun
Ben verray king, this song to you I sende;
And ye, that mowen al our harm amende,
Have mind upon my supplicacioun!'
The king was prompt to reply; it must have given him real satisfaction to
be able to assist the old poet, with whom he must have been on familiar
terms. On Oct. 3, only the fourth day after the king's accession, the
answer came. He was to receive 40 marks yearly (26l. 13s. 4d.), in addition
to the annuity of 20l. which king Richard had granted him; so that his
income was more than doubled. Even then, he met with a slight misfortune,
in losing his letters patent; but, having made oath in Chancery, that the
letters patent of Feb. 28, 1394 (referring to king Richard's grant of
20l.), and the new letters patent of Oct. 3, 1399, had been accidentally
lost, he procured, on Oct. 13, exemplifications of these records[156].
These grants were finally confirmed by the king on Oct. 21[157].
On Christmas eve, 1399, he covenanted for a lease of 53 years (a long term
for one at his age to contemplate) of a house situate in the garden of the
Chapel of St. Mary, Westminster, near Westminster Abbey, at the annual rent
of 2l. 13s. 4d. This lease, from the Custos Capellae Beatae Mariae to
Geoffrey Chaucer, dated Dec. 24, 1399, is in the Muniment Room of
Westminster Abbey. The house stood on or near the spot now occupied by
Henry the Seventh's Chapel[158]. We find, however, that he had only a
life-interest in the lease, as the premises were to revert to the Custos
Capellae if the tenant died within the term.
§ 39. 1400. In 1400, payments to him are recorded on Feb. 21, of the
pension of 20l. granted by king Richard[159], in respect of the half-year
ending at Michaelmas, 1399; and on June 5, the sum of 5l., being part of a
sum of 8l. 13s. 5d. due for a portion of the next half-year, calculated as
commencing on Oct. 21, 1399, and terminating on the last day of March,
1400, was sent him by the hands of Henry Somere[160].
We should notice that this Henry Somere was, at the time, the Clerk of the
Receipt of the Exchequer; he was afterwards Under Treasurer, at which time
Hoccleve addressed to him a Balade, printed in Furnivall's edition of
Hoccleve's Works, at p. 59, followed by a Roundel containing a pun upon his
name; as well as a second Balade, addressed to him after he had been made a
Baron, and promoted to be Chancellor (see the same, p. 64). Perhaps he was
related to John Somere, the Frere, mentioned in the Treatise on the
Astrolabe (Prol. 62).
Chaucer died on Oct. 25, 1400, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. The
date of his death is only known from an inscription on the tomb of gray
marble erected near his grave, in 1556, by Nicholas Brigham, a man of
letters, and an admirer of the poet's writings; but it is probably correct,
and may have rested on tradition[161]. We have no note of him after June 5,
and no record of a payment of the pension in October. According to Stowe,
Chaucer's grave is in the cloister, where also lies the body of 'Henrie
Scogan, a learned poet,' i. e. the Scogan who was Chaucer's friend.
§ 40. CHAUCER'S ARMS AND TOMB. 'In front of the tomb,' says Sir. H.
Nicolas, 'are three panelled divisions of starred quarterfoils (_sic_),
containing shields with the Arms of Chaucer, viz. Per pale argent and
gules, a bend counterchanged; and the same Arms also occur in an oblong
compartment at the back of the recess, where the following inscription was
placed, but which is now almost obliterated, from the partial decomposition
and crumbling state of the marble. A small whole-length portrait of Chaucer
was delineated _in plano_ on the north side of the inscription, but not a
vestige of it is left; and the whole of the recess and canopy has recently
been coloured black.
M.S.
Qui fuit Anglorum Vates ter maximus olim,
Galfridus Chaucer conditur hoc tumulo:
Annum si quaeras domini, si tempora vitae,
Ecce notae subsunt, quae tibi cuncta notant.
25 Octobris 1400.
Ærumnarum requies mors.
N. Brigham hos fecit musarum nomine sumptus
1556.
On the ledge of the tomb the following verses were engraved:--
'Si rogites quis eram, forsan te fama docebit:
Quod si fama negat, mundi quia gloria transit,
Haec monumenta lege.'
We learn from an interesting note at the end of Caxton's edition of
Boethius, that the good printer was not satisfied with printing some of
Chaucer's works, but further endeavoured to perpetuate the poet's memory by
raising a pillar near his tomb, to support a tablet containing an epitaph
consisting of 34 Latin verses. This epitaph was composed by Stephanus
Surigonus of Milan, licentiate in decrees, and is reprinted in Stowe's
edition of Chaucer's Works (1561), at fol. 355, back. The last four lines
refer to Caxton's pious care:--
'Post obitum Caxton voluit te viuere cura
Willelmi, Chaucer, clare poeta, tui.
Nam tua non solum compressit opuscula formis,
Has quoque sed laudes iussit hic esse tuas.'
A description, by Dean Stanley, of the Chaucer window in Westminster Abbey,
completed in 1868, is given in Furnivall's Temporary Preface (Ch. Soc.), p.
133. Some of the subjects in the window are taken from the poem entitled
'The Flower and the Leaf,' which he did not write.
It will be observed that Sir H. Nicolas speaks, just above, of 'the arms of
Chaucer,' which he describes. But it should be remembered that this is,
practically, an assumption, which at once launches us into an uncertain and
debateable position. These arms certainly belonged to _Thomas_ Chaucer, for
they occur on a seal of his of which a drawing is given in MS. Julius C 7,
fol. 153; an accurate copy of which is given by Sir H. Nicolas. It is
therefore quite possible that the same arms were assigned to the poet in
1556, only because it was then assumed that Thomas was Geoffrey's son; the
fact being that the relationship of Thomas to Geoffrey is open to doubt,
and the case requires to be stated with great care.
§ 41. THOMAS CHAUCER. Few things are more remarkable than the utter absence
of unequivocal early evidence as to the above-mentioned point. That
Geoffrey Chaucer was a famous man, even in his own day, cannot be doubted;
and it is equally certain that Thomas Chaucer was a man of great wealth and
of some consequence. Sir H. Nicolas has collected the principal facts
relating to him, the most important being the following. On Oct. 26, 1399,
Henry IV. granted him the offices of Constable of Wallingford Castle and
Steward of the Honours of Wallingford and St. Valery and of the Chiltern
Hundreds for life, receiving therefrom 40l. a year, with 10l. additional
for his deputy[162]. On Nov. 5, 1402, he was appointed Chief Butler for
life to King Henry IV.[163]; and there is a note that he had previously
been Chief Butler to Richard II.[164], but the date of that appointment has
not been ascertained. He was also Chief Butler to Henry V. until March,
1418, when he was superseded[165]; but was again appointed Chief Butler to
Henry VI. after his accession. He represented Oxfordshire in Parliament in
1402, 1408, 1409, 1412, 1414, 1423, 1427, and 1429; and was Speaker of the
House of Commons in 1414[166], and in other years. 'He was employed on many
occasions of trust and importance during the reigns of Henry IV., Henry V.,
and Henry VI.;' to which Sir H. Nicolas adds, that he 'never attained a
higher rank than that of esquire.'
His wealth, at his death in 1434, was unusually great, as shewn by the long
list of his landed possessions in the Inquisitiones post Mortem. This
wealth he doubtless acquired by his marriage with an heiress, viz. Matilda,
second daughter and co-heiress of Sir John Burghersh, who died Sept. 21,
1391, when Matilda was 12 years old. Unfortunately, the date of this
marriage is uncertain, though Sir H. Nicolas shews that it was probably
earlier than 1403. The exact date would be very useful; for if it took
place before 1399, it becomes difficult to understand why the poet was left
so poor, whilst his son had vast possessions.
It should be noticed that there is but little to connect even Thomas
Chaucer (still less Geoffrey) with Woodstock, until 1411; when the Queen
(Joan of Navarre) granted Thomas the farm of the manors of Woodstock,
Hanburgh, Wotton, and Stonfield, which, by the king's assignment, he
enjoyed for life[167]. That the poet visited Woodstock in 1357, when in the
service of Prince Lionel, is almost certain; but beyond this, we have no
sure information on the matter. It is true that 'Wodestok' is mentioned in
the last line of the Cuckow and the Nightingale, but this supposed
connecting link is at once broken, when we find that the said poem was
certainly not of his writing[168]. The suggested reference to Woodstock in
the Parliament of Foules, l. 122, is discussed below, at p. 510.
The only child of Thomas and Matilda Chaucer was Alice, whose third husband
was no less a person than William de la Pole, then Earl and afterwards Duke
of Suffolk, who was beheaded in 1450. Their eldest son was John de la Pole,
Duke of Suffolk, who married Elizabeth, sister of King Edward IV. Their
eldest son bore the same name, and was not only created Earl of Lincoln,
but was actually declared heir-apparent to the throne by Richard III; so
that there was, at one time, a probability that Thomas Chaucer's
great-grandson would succeed to the throne. But the battle of Bosworth, in
1485, set this arrangement aside; and the Earl of Lincoln was himself
killed two years later, in the battle of Stoke.
§ 42. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THOMAS TO GEOFFREY CHAUCER. Considering the great
eminence of these two men, the almost total silence of early evidence,
establishing a connexion between them, is in a high degree remarkable.
The earliest connecting link is the fact that a deed by Thomas Chaucer
still exists, written (in English) at Ewelme, and dated May 20, 1409, to
which a seal is appended. This seal exhibits the arms which were certainly
borne by Thomas Chaucer (viz. party per pale, argent and gules, a bend
counterchanged); but the legend, though somewhat indistinct, can only be
read as: 'S' Ghofrai Chaucier[169]'; where S' signifies 'Sigillum.'
The spelling 'Ghofrai' is hardly satisfactory; but if Geoffrey be really
meant, we gain a piece of evidence of high importance. It proves that
Geoffrey bore the same arms as Thomas, and _not_ the same arms as his
father John; whose seal displays a shield ermine, on a chief, three birds'
heads issuant (The Academy, Oct. 13, 1877, p. 364). Moreover, the use of
Geoffrey's seal by Thomas goes far to establish that the latter was the son
of the former.
The next link is that Geoffrey Chaucer was succeeded by Thomas Chaucer in
the office of forester of North Petherton in Somersetshire; but even here
there is a gap in the succession, as Thomas was not appointed till 1416-7,
the fourth year of Henry V.[170]
It is not till the reign of Henry VI. that we at last obtain an unequivocal
statement. Thomas Gascoigne, who died in 1458, wrote a Theological
Dictionary, which still exists, in MS., in the Library of Lincoln College,
Oxford. He tells us that Chaucer, in his last hours, frequently lamented
the wickedness of his writings, though it is transparent that he here
merely repeats, in a varied form, the general tenour of the well-known
final paragraph of the Persones Tale. But he adds this important sentence:
'Fuit idem Chawserus pater Thomae Chawserus, armigeri, qui Thomas sepelitur
in Nuhelm iuxta Oxoniam[171].' The statement is the more important because
Gascoigne ought to have known the exact truth. He was Chancellor of Oxford,
and Thomas Chaucer held the manor of Ewelme, at no great distance, at the
same date. As he mentions Thomas's sepulture, he wrote later than 1434, yet
before 1458. Even in the case of this decisive statement, it were to be
wished that he had shewn greater accuracy in the context; surely he gives a
quite unfair turn to the poet's own words.
On the whole, I can only admit at present, that there is a high probability
that Thomas was really Geoffrey's son. Perhaps we shall some day know the
certainty of the matter.
§ 43. THOMAS'S MOTHER. The chief reason why it is so desirable to know the
exact truth as to the relationship of Thomas to Geoffrey, is that a good
deal depends upon it. If such was the case, it follows that Philippa
Chaucer was Thomas's mother; in which case, we may feel tolerably confident
that her maiden name was Roet or Rouet. This has been inferred from the
fact that the arms (apparently) of Roet 'occur repeatedly on Thomas
Chaucer's tomb, as his paternal coat, instead of the arms usually
attributed to him and to the poet.' These arms bore 'three wheels,
evidently in allusion to the name[172].' Having thus assigned to Philippa
Chaucer the name of Roet, the next step (usually accepted, yet not
absolutely proved) is to assume that she was the sister of the Katherine de
Roet of Hainault[173], who married Sir Hugh Swynford, and afterwards became
the mistress, and, in 1396, the third wife of John of Gaunt. Her father is
supposed to have been Sir Payne Roet, of Hainault, upon the evidence of his
epitaph, which (in Weever's Funeral Monuments, p. 413) is thus given:--'Hic
jacet Paganus Roet, Miles, Guyenne Rex Armorum, Pater Catherine Ducisse
Lancastriae[174].' It is obvious that, if all the inferences are correct,
they clearly establish an important and close connexion between the poet
and John of Gaunt. Further arguments, whether in favour of or against this
connexion, need hardly be repeated here. They may be found in Nicolas's
Life of Chaucer, and in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, vol. i.
Thynne has the following remark in his Animadversions, &c. (ed. Furnivall,
p. 22): 'Althoughe I fynde a recorde of the _pellis exitus_, in the tyme of
Edwarde the thirde, of a yerely stypende to Elizabethe Chawcer, _Domicelle
regine Philippe_, whiche _Domicella_ dothe signyfye one of her weytinge
gentlewomen: yet I cannott ... thinke this was his wyfe, but rather his
sister or kinneswoman, who, after the deathe of her mystresse Quene
Philippe, did forsake the worlde and became a nonne at Seinte Heleins in
London.' And we find, accordingly (as Nicolas shews), that 'on July 27,
1377, the King exercised his right to nominate a Nun in the Priory of St.
Helen's, London, after the coronation, in favour of Elizabeth Chausier.'
Another Elizabeth Chaucy (who may have been the poet's daughter) is also
noticed by Nicolas, for whose noviciate, in the Abbey of Berking in Essex,
John of Gaunt paid 51l. 8s. 2d., on May 12, 1381. But these are mere
matters for conjecture.
§ 44. The preceding sections include all the most material facts that have
been ascertained with respect to Geoffrey Chaucer, and it is fortunate
that, owing to his connexion with public business, they are so numerous and
so authentic. At the same time, it will doubtless be considered that such
dry details, however useful, tell us very little about the man himself;
though they clearly shew the versatility of his talents, and exhibit him as
a page, a soldier, a valet and esquire of the royal household, an envoy, a
comptroller of customs, a clerk of works, and a member of Parliament. In
the truest sense, his own works best exhibit his thoughts and character;
though we must not always accept all his expressions as if they were all
his own. We have to deal with a writer in whom the dramatic faculty was
highly developed, and I prefer to leave the reader to draw his own
inferences, even from those passages which are most relied upon to support
the theory that his domestic life may have been unhappy, and others of the
like kind. We can hardly doubt, for example, that he refers to his wife as
'oon that I coude nevene,' i. e. one that I could name, in the Hous of
Fame, 562; and he plainly says that the eagle spoke something to him in a
kindly tone, such as he never heard from his wife. But when we notice that
the something said was the word 'awake,' in order that he should 'the bet
abrayde,' i. e. the sooner recover from his dazed state, it is possible
that a sentence which at first seems decidedly spiteful is no more than a
mild and gentle jest.
§ 45. PERSONAL ALLUSIONS IN CHAUCER'S WORKS. Instead of drawing my own
inferences, which may easily be wrong, from various passages in Chaucer's
Works, I prefer the humbler task of giving the more important references,
from which the reader may perform the task for himself, to his greater
satisfaction. I will only say that when a poet complains of hopeless love,
or expresses his despair, or tells us (on the other hand) that he has no
idea as to what love means, we are surely free to believe, in each case,
just as little or as much as we please. It is a very sandy foundation on
which to build up a serious autobiographical structure.
The only remark which I feel justified in making is, that I believe his
wife's death to have been a serious loss to him in one respect at least.
Most of his early works are reasonably free from coarseness; whereas such
Tales as those of the Miller, the Reeve, the Shipman, the Merchant, and the
Prologue to the Wife's Tale, can hardly be defended. All these may
confidently be dated after the year 1387.
I have also to add one caution. We must not draw inferences as to Chaucer's
life from poems or works with which he had nothing to do. Even Sir H.
Nicolas, with all his carefulness, has not avoided this. He quotes the
'Cuckoo and Nightingale' as mentioning Woodstock; and he only distrusts the
'Testament of Love' because it is 'an allegorical composition[175].' As to
the numerous fables that have been imported into the early Lives of
Chaucer, see the excellent chapter in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer,
entitled 'The Chaucer Legend.'
§ 46. REFERENCES. I here use the following abbreviations. Ast. (Treatise on
the Astrolabe); B. D. (Book of the Duchesse); C. T. (Canterbury Tales);
H. F. (Hous of Fame); L. G. W. (Legend of Good Women); T. (Troilus and
Criseyde).
1. PERSONAL ALLUSIONS. The poet's name is Geffrey, H. F. 729; and his
surname, Chaucer, C. T., B 47. He describes himself, C. T., B 1886; Envoy
to Scogan, 31. His poverty, H. F. 1349; Envoy to Scogan, 45; Compl. to his
Purse. Refers to the sale of wine (his father being a vintner), C. T., C
564. Is despondent in love, Compl. unto Pity; B. D. 1-43; T. i. 15-18. His
Complaints, viz. unto Pity; to his Lady; and an Amorous Complaint. Has long
served Cupid and Venus; H. F. 616. Is no longer a lover, P. F. 158-166;
H. F. 639; T. ii. 19-21; L. G. W. 490. Is love's clerk, T. iii. 41. Is
love's foe, L. G. W. 323. His misery, H. F. 2012-8. His religious feeling,
A. B. C., Second Nun's Tale, Prioress's Tale, &c. Refers to his work when
Comptroller of the Customs, H. F. 652. Is unambitious of fame, H. F.
1870-900; and has but little in his head, ib. 621. Is sometimes a mere
compiler, Ast. prol. 43. Addresses his little son Lowis, Ast. prol.
1-45[176]. Expresses his gratitude to the queen, L. G. W. 84-96, 445-461,
496. His old age, L. G. W., A 262, A 315; Envoy to Scogan, 31-42; Compl. of
Venus, 76[177]. He will not marry a second time, Envoy to Bukton, 8. He
exhibits his knowledge of the Northern dialect in the Reeve's Tale. The
whole of the Prologue to the Legend of Good Women deserves particular
attention.
Chaucer mentions several friends, viz. Gower the poet, T. v. 1856; Strode,
T. v. 1857 (cf. the colophon to Ast. pt. ii. § 40); and a lady named
Rosemounde, in the Balade addressed to her. He also addresses Envoys to
Henry Scogan and to Bukton. The Envoy to the Compleint to his Purse is
addressed to king Henry IV.
He is fond of books and of reading, P. F. 15; H. F. 657; L. G. W. 17-35;
and even reads in bed, B. D. 50, 274, 1326. For a full account of the books
which he quotes, see vol. vi. I may just notice here the lists in C. T., B
2088; L. G. W., A 272-307; and his references to his own works in L. G. W.
329, 332, 417-28; C. T., B 57-76; C. T., I 1086[178]. His love of nature
appears in several excellent descriptions; we may particularly notice his
lines upon the sunrise, C. T., A 1491, F 385; on the golden-tressed
Phoebus, T. v. 8; on the daisy, L. G. W. 41; his description of the birds,
P. F. 330; of a blooming garden, P. F. 182; of the golden age, The Former
Age; of fine weather for hunting, B. D. 336, and of the chase itself, B. D.
360, L. G. W. 1188. He frequently mentions the fair month of May, L. G. W.
36, 45, 108, 176, T. ii. 50, C. T. A 1500, 1510; and St. Valentine's day,
Compl. of Mars, 13; P. F. 309, 322, 386, 683; Amorous Compleint, 85.
He was our first great metrist, and has frequent references to his poetical
art. He never slept on Parnassus, C. T., F 721; and the Host (in the C. T.)
even accused him of writing 'dogerel,' B 2115. He cannot write alliterative
verse, C. T., I 43. He admits that his rime is 'light and lewed,' and that
some lines fail in a syllable, H. F., 1096-8. Yet he hopes that none will
'mismetre' him, T. v. 1796. He writes books, songs, and ditties in rime or
'cadence,' H. F. 622; also hymns, balades, roundels, and virelays, L. G. W.
422; and complaints, such as the Complaint to Pity, to his Lady, to his
Purse, the Complaints of Mars, Anelida, and Venus, and the Complaint
D'amours (or Amorous Complaint). Specimens of his graphic and dramatic
power, of his skill in story and metre, of his tenderness and his humour,
need not be here specified. He is fond of astronomy, as shewn by his
Treatise on the Astrolabe; and, though he has but little faith in astrology
(Ast. ii. 4. 37), he frequently refers to it as well as to astronomy; see
B. D. 1206; Compl. Mars, 29, 54, 69, 79, 86, 113, 120, 129, 139, 145; P.
F., 56, 59, 67, 117; Envoy to Scogan, 3, 9; H. F. 932, 936, 965, 993-1017;
T. ii. 50, iii. 2, 618, 625, 716, iv. 1592, v. 1809; L. G. W. 113, 2223,
2585-99; C. T., A 7, 1087, 1328, 1463, 1537, 1566, 1850, 2021, 2035, 2059,
2217, 2271, 2367, 2454-69, 3192, 3209, 3516; B 1-14, 191, 308, 312, 4045-8,
4378-89; D 613, 704; E 1795, 1969, 2132, 2222; F 47-51, 263-5, 386, 906,
1032-5, 1045-59, 1130, 1245-9, 1261-6, 1273-96; I 2-12. Even his alchemy
has some reference to astrology; C. T., G 826-9; cf. H. F. 1430-1512.
He refers to optics, C. T., F 228-235; to Boethius on music, C. T., B 4484,
H. F. 788-818; and to magical arts, H. F. 1259-81, C. T., F 115, 132, 146,
156, 219, 250, 1142-51, 1157-62, 1189-1208.
2. HISTORICAL ALLUSIONS. The references to contemporary history are but
few. The death of the Lady Blaunche is commemorated in the Book of the
Duchesse. He refers to good queen Anne, L. G. W. 255, 275, 496; to the
archbishop of Canterbury, C. T., B 4635; to 'this pestilence,' C 679; to
Tyler's rebellion, A 2459; and Jack Straw, B 4584. Perhaps the Complaints
of Mars and Venus refer to real personages; see the Notes to those poems.
He mentions Dante, H. F. 450, L. G. W. 360, C. T. B 3651, D 1126; Petrarch,
C. T., E 31, 1147; Pedro the Cruel, king of Spain, C. T., B 3565, Bertrand
du Gueschlin, 3573, and Sir Oliver Mauny, 3576; Peter, king of Cyprus,
3581; Bernabo Visconti, duke of Milan, 3589, and the 'tyrants' of Lombardy,
L. G. W. 374; Ugolino of Pisa and the archbishop Ruggieri, C. T., B 3597,
3606. There are several allusions to recent events in the Prologue, A
51-66, 86, 276, 399; and perhaps in C. T., E 995-1001.
His literary allusions are too numerous to be here recited. The reader can
consult the Index in vol. vi.
§ 47. ALLUSIONS TO CHAUCER. One of the earliest allusions to Chaucer as a
poet occurs in the works of Eustache Deschamps, a contemporary poet of
France. It is remarkable that he chiefly praises him as being 'a great
translator.' Perhaps this was before his longest poems were written; there
is express reference to his translation of Le Roman de la Rose, and,
possibly, to Boethius. The poem tells us that Deschamps had sent Chaucer a
copy of some of his poems by a friend named Clifford, and he hopes to
receive something of Chaucer's in return. The poem is here quoted entire,
from the edition of Deschamps by le Marquis de Queux de Saint-Hilaire,
published for the Société des Anciens Textes Français, t. ii. p. 138:--
'O Socrates plains de philosophie,
Seneque en meurs et Anglux en pratique,
Ovides grans en ta poeterie,
Bries en parler, saiges en rethorique,
Aigles treshaulz, qui par ta theorique
Enlumines le regne d'Eneas,
L'Isle aux Geans, ceuls de Bruth, et qui as
Semé les fleurs et planté le rosier,
Aux ignorans de la langue pandras,
Grant translateur, noble Geffroy Chaucier.
Tu es d'amours mondains Dieux en Albie:
Et de la Rose, en la terre Angelique,
Qui d'Angela saxonne, est puis flourie
Angleterre, d'elle ce nom s'applique
Le derrenier en l'ethimologique;
En bon anglès le livre translatas;
Et un vergier ou du plant demandas
De ceuls qui font pour eulx autorisier,
A ja longtemps que tu edifias,
Grant translateur, noble Geffroy Chaucier.
A toy pour ce de la fontaine Helye
Requier avoir un buvraige autentique,
Dont la doys est du tout en ta baillie,
Pour rafrener d'elle ma soif ethique,
Qui en Gaule seray paralitique
Jusques a ce que tu m'abuveras.
Eustaces sui, qui de mon plant aras:
Mais pran en gré les euvres d'escolier
Que par Clifford de moy avoir pourras,
Grant translateur, noble Geffroy Chaucier.
LENVOY.
Poete hault, loenge destruye,
En ton jardin ne seroye qu'ortie:
Consideré ce que j'ay dit premier
Ton noble plant, ta douce mélodie,
Mais pour sçavoir, de rescripre te prie,
Grant translateur, noble Geffroy Chaucier.'
Gower alludes to Chaucer in the first edition of the Confessio Amantis; see
the passage discussed in vol. iii. p. 414.
Henry Scogan wrote 'a moral balade' in twenty-one 8-line stanzas, in which
he not only refers to Chaucer's poetical skill, but quotes the whole of his
Balade on Gentilesse; see vol. i. p. 83.
Hoccleve frequently refers to Chaucer as his 'maister,' i. e. his teacher,
with great affection; and, if he learnt but little more, he certainly
learnt the true method of scansion of his master's lines, and imitates his
metres and rimes with great exactness. The passages relating to Chaucer are
as follows[179].
(1) From the Governail of Princes, or De Regimine Principum (ed. Wright, p.
67, st. 267):--
'Thou were acqueynted with Chaucer, pardee--
God save his soule--best of any wight.'
(2) From the same, p. 75, stanzas 280, 281-283, 297-299, 301:--
'But weylawey! so is myn herte wo
That the honour of English tonge is deed,
Of which I wont was han conseil and reed.
O maister dere and fader reverent,
My maister Chaucer, flour of eloquence,
Mirour of fructuous entendement,
O universel fader in science,
Allas! that thou thyn excellent prudence
In thy bed mortel mightest not bequethe!
What eyled Deeth? Allas! why wolde he slee thee?
O Deeth! thou didest not harm singuler
In slaghtre of him, but al this land it smerteth!
But nathelees, yit hast thou no powèr
His name slee; his hy vertu asterteth
Unslayn fro thee, which ay us lyfly herteth
With bokes of his ornat endyting,
That is to al this land enlumining....
My dere maister--God his soule quyte--
and fader, Chaucer, fayn wolde han me taught;
But I was dul, and lernede right naught[180].
Allas! my worthy maister honorable,
This landes verray tresor and richesse!
Deeth, by thy deeth, hath harm irreparable
Unto us doon; hir vengeable duresse
Despoiled hath this land of the swetnesse
Of rethoryk; for unto[181] Tullius
Was never man so lyk amonges us.
Also who was heyr[182] in philosophye
To Aristotle, in our tonge, but thou?
The steppes of Virgyle in poesye
Thou folwedest eek, men wot wel y-now.
That combre-world, that thee (my maister) slow--
Wolde I slayn werë--Deeth, was to hastyf
To renne on thee, and reve thee thy lyf....
She mighte han taried hir vengeance a whyle
Til that som man had egal to thee be;
Nay, lat be that! she knew wel that this yle
May never man forth bringe lyk to thee,
And hir offyce nedes do mot she:
God bad hir so, I truste as for the beste;
O maister, maister, God thy soule reste!
(3) From the same, p. 179, stanzas 712-4:--
The firste finder of our fair langage
Hath seyd in caas semblable, and othere mo,
So hyly wel, that it is my dotage
For to expresse or touche any of tho.
Allas! my fader fro the worlde is go,
My worthy maister Chaucer, him I mene:
Be thou advóket for him, hevenes quene?
As thou wel knowest, O blessèd virgyne,
With loving herte and hy devocioun
In thyn honour he wroot ful many a lyne.
O, now thy help and thy promocioun!
To God, thy Sonë, mak a mocioun
How he thy servaunt was, mayden Marië,
And lat his lovë floure and fructifyë.
Al-thogh his lyf be queynt, the résemblaunce
Of him hath in me so fresh lyflinesse
That, to putte othere men in rémembraunce
Of his persone, I have heer his lyknesse
Do makë, to this ende, in sothfastnesse,
That they, that have of him lest thought and minde,
By this peynturë may ageyn him finde.'
Here is given, in the margin of the MS., the famous portrait of Chaucer
which is believed to be the best, and probably the only one that can be
accepted as authentic. A copy of it is prefixed to the present volume, and
to Furnivall's Trial-Forewords, Chaucer Soc., 1871; and an enlarged copy
accompanies the Life-Records of Chaucer, part 2. It is thus described by
Sir H. Nicolas:--'The figure, which is half-length, has a back-ground of
green tapestry. He is represented with grey hair and beard, which is
biforked; he wears a dark-coloured dress and hood; his right hand is
extended, and in his left he holds a string of beads. From his vest a black
case is suspended, which appears to contain a knife, or possibly a
'penner,' or pen-case[183]. The expression of the countenance is
intelligent; but the fire of the eye seems quenched, and evident marks of
advanced age appear on the countenance.' Hoccleve did not paint this
portrait himself, as is often erroneously said; he 'leet do make it,' i. e.
had it made. It thus became the business of the scribe, and the portraits
in different copies of Hoccleve's works vary accordingly. There is a
full-length portrait in MS. Reg. 17 D. vi, marked as 'Chaucers ymage'; and
another in a MS. copy once in the possession of Mr. Tyson, which was
engraved in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1792, vol. lxii. p. 614; perhaps
the latter is the copy which is now MS. Phillipps 1099. A representation of
Chaucer on horseback, as one of the pilgrims, occurs in the Ellesmere MS.;
an engraving of it appears as a frontispiece to Todd's Illustrations of
Chaucer. A small full-length picture of Chaucer occurs in the initial
letter of the Canterbury Tales, in MS. Lansdowne 851. Other portraits, such
as that in MS. Addit. (or Sloane) 5141, the painting upon wood in the
Bodleian Library, and the like, are of much later date, and cannot pretend
to any authenticity.
Lydgate has frequent references to his 'maister Chaucer.' The most
important is that in the Prologue to his Fall of Princes, which begins
thus:--
'My maister Chaucer, with his fresh comédies,
Is deed, allas! cheef poete of Bretayne,
That somtym made ful pitous tragédies;
The "fall of princes" he dide also compleyne,
As he that was of making soverayne,
Whom al this land of right[e] ought preferre,
Sith of our langage he was the loodsterre.'
The 'fall of princes' refers to the Monkes Tale, as explained in vol. iii.
p. 431. He next refers to 'Troilus' as being a translation of a book 'which
called is Trophe' (see vol. ii. p. liv.); and to the Translation of
Boethius and the Treatise of the Astrolabe. He then mentions many of the
Minor Poems (in the stanzas quoted below, p. 23), the Legend of Good Women
(see vol. iii. p. xx.), and the Canterbury Tales; and concludes thus:--
'This sayd poete, my maister, in his dayes
Made and composed ful many a fresh ditee,
Complaintes, balades, roundels, virelayes,
Ful delectable to heren and to see;
For which men shulde, of right and equitee,
Sith he of English in making was the beste,
Praye unto God to yeve his soule reste.'
So also, in his Siege of Troye, fol. K 2:--
'Noble Galfryde, chefe Poete of Brytayne,
Among our English that caused first to rayne
The golden droppes of Rethorike so fyne,
Our rudë language onely t'enlumine,' &c.
And again, in the same, fol. R 2, back:--
'For he our English gilt[e] with his layes,
Rude and boystous first, by oldë dayes,
That was ful fer from al perfeccioun
And but of lytel reputacioun,
Til that he cam, and with his poetrye
Gan our tungë first to magnifye,
And adourne it with his eloquence'; &c.
And yet again, at fol. Ee 2:--
'And, if I shal shortly him discryve,
Was never noon [un]to this day alyve,
To reken all[e], bothe of yonge and olde,
That worthy was his inkhorn for to holde.'
Similar passages occur in some of his other works, and shew that he
regarded Chaucer with affectionate reverence.
Allusions in later authors have only a literary value, and need not be
cited in a Life of Chaucer.
* * * * *
I subjoin (on p. lxii.) a List of Chaucer's genuine works, arranged, as
nearly as I can conjecture, in their chronological order. Of his poetical
excellence it is superfluous to speak; Lowell's essay on 'Chaucer' in My
Study Windows gives a just estimate of his powers.
LIST OF CHAUCER'S WORKS.
The following list is arranged, _conjecturally_, in chronological order. It
will be understood that much of the arrangement and some of the dates are
due to guesswork; on a few points scholars are agreed. See further in pp.
20-91 below, &c. Of the Poems marked (a), there seem to have been _two_
editions, (a) being the earlier. The letters and numbers appended at the
end denote the _metres_, according to the following scheme.
A = octosyllabic metre; B = ballad metre, in Sir Thopas; C = 4-line stanza,
in the Proverbes; P = Prose.
The following sixteen metres are original (i. e. in _English_); viz. 1 =
8-line stanza, _ababbcbc_; 1 b = the same, thrice, with refrain. 2 = 7-line
stanza, _ababbcc_; 2 b = the same, thrice, with refrain; 2 _c_ = 7-line
stanza, _ababbab_. 3 = terza rima. 4 = 10-line stanza, _aabaabcddc_. 5 =
9-line stanza, _aabaabbab_; 5 b = the same, with internal rimes. 6 =
virelai of 16 lines. 7 = 9-line stanza, _aabaabbcc_. 8 = roundel. 9 =
heroic couplet. 10 = 6-line stanza, _ababcb_, repeated six times. 11 =
10-line stanza, _aabaabbaab_. 12 = 5-line stanza, _aabba_.
*** C. T. = Canterbury Tales; L. G. W. = Legend of Good Women; M. P. =
Minor Poems.
Origenes upon the Maudeleyne (See L. G. W., A 418; lost.)
Book of the Leoun (C. T., I. 1087; lost).
(a) Ceys and Alcion (C. T., B. 57; Bk. Duch. 62-214).--A.
Romaunt of the Rose, ll. 1-1705; rest lost.--A.
A. B. C.; in M. P. I.--1.
1369. Book of the Duchesse; M. P. III.--A.
(a) Lyf of Seynt Cecyle (L. G. W., B 426; C. T.,
G. 1-553).--2[184].
(a) Monkes Tale (parts of); except B. 3565-3652.--1.
ab. 1372-3. (a) Clerkes Tale; except E. 995-1008, and the Envoy.--2.
(a) Palamon and Arcite (scraps preserved).--2.
Compleint to his Lady; M. P. VI.--2. 3. 4.
An Amorous Compleint, made at Windsor; M. P. XXII.--2.
Compleint unto Pitè; M. P. II.--2.
Anelida and Arcite (10 stt. from Palamon); M. P. VII.--
2. 5. 6. 5 b.
(a) The Tale of Melibeus.--P.
(a) The Persones Tale.--P.
(a) Of the Wreched Engendring of Mankinde (L. G. W., A. 414;
cf. C. T., B. 99-121, &c.)--2.
(a) Man of Lawes Tale; amplified in C. T.--2.
1377-81. Translation of Boethius.--P.
1379? Compleint of Mars; M. P. IV.--2. 7.
1379-83. Troilus and Criseyde (3 stt. from Palamon).--2.
Wordes to Adam (concerning Boece and Troilus);
M. P. VIII.--2.
The Former Age (from Boece); M. P. IX.--1.
Fortune (hints from Boece); M. P. X.--1 b. 2 c.
1382. Parlement of Foules (16 stt. from Palamon); M. P. V.--2. 8.
1383-4. House of Fame.--A.
1385-6. Legend of Good Women.--9.
1386. Canterbury Tales begun.
1387-8. Central period of the Canterbury Tales.
1389, &c. The Tales continued.--B. 1. 2. 9. 10. P.
1391. Treatise on the Astrolabe.--P.
1393? Compleint of Venus; M. P. XVIII.--1 b. 11.
1393. Lenvoy to Scogan; M. P. XVI.--2.
1396. Lenvoy to Bukton; M. P. XVII.--1.
1399. Envoy to Compleint to his Purse; M. P. XIX.--12.
The following occasional triple roundel and balades _may_ have been
composed between 1380 and 1396:--
Merciless Beautè; M. P. XI--8.
Balade to Rosamounde; M. P. XII.--1 b.
Against Women Unconstaunt; M. P. XXI--2 b.
(_a_) Compleint to his Purse; M. P. XIX.--2 b.
Lak of Stedfastnesse; M. P. XV.--2 b.
Gentilesse; M. P. XIV.--2 b.
Truth; M. P. XIII.--2 b.
Proverbes of Chaucer; M. P. XX.--C.
* * * * *
ERRATA AND ADDENDA.
P. 95: l. 47. Insert a comma after 'oughte'
P. 98: l. 114. Omit the comma at the end of the line.
P. 123: l. 705. It would be better to read 'Withoute.' The scansion
then is:
Without | e fabl' | I wol | descryve.
P. 126: l. 793. Delete the comma at the end of the line.
P. 127: l. 806. Delete the comma at the end of the line.
P. 135: l. 997. _For_ shall _read_ shal
P. 136: ll. 1015-6. Improve the punctuation thus:--
As whyt as lilie or rose in rys
Hir face, gentil and tretys.
P. 136: l. 1021. Delete the comma after 'yelowe'
P. 141: l. 1154. Delete the comma after 'seide'
P. 168: l. 1962. _For_ Bu -if _read_ But-if
P. 176: l. 2456. _For_ joy _read_ Ioy
P. 201: l. 4035. For the comma substitute a semicolon.
P. 249: l. 7087. _For_ echerye _read_ trecherye
P. 253: l. 7324. _For_ weary _read_ wery
P. 255: l. 7437. Supply a comma at the end of the line.
P. 258: l. 7665. Insert a comma after 'helle'
P. 269: l. 145. The stop at the end should be a comma.
P. 278: l. 49. _For_ aud _read_ and
P. 282: l. 145. _For_ Aud _read_ And
P. 301: l. 716. The comma should perhaps be a semicolon or a full stop.
P. 313: l. 1069. For 'Antilegius,' a better form would be 'Antilogus,'
a French form of Antilochus.
P. 326: l. 74. Perhaps 'let' should be 'lete'
P. 330: l. 206. _For_ folke _read_ folk
P. 338: l. 91. _For_ Aud _read_ And
P. 340: l. 133. _For_ the _read_ thee
P. 362: l. 76. The final stop should be a comma.
P. 374: ll. 243, 248. _For_ desteny _and_ ful _better forms are_
destinee _and_ fulle
P. 377: l. 328. _For_ furlong wey _read_ furlong-wey
* * * * *
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].
PART I. REPRINTED MATTER.
1. Caunterburie Tales. (The Prologue begins on a page with the signature A
2, the first quire of six leaves not being numbered; the Knightes Tale
begins on a page with the signature B ii., and marked Fol. i. The spurious
Plowman's Tale precedes the Parson's Tale.)
2. _The Romaunt of the Rose[213]._ Fol. cxvi.
3. Troilus and Creseide. Fol. cli., back.
4. _The testament of Creseide._ [By Robert Henryson.] Fol. cxciiii.
Followed by its continuation, called _The Complaint of Creseide_; by the
same.
5. The Legende of Good Women. Fol. cxcvij.
6. _A goodlie balade of Chaucer_; beginning--'Mother of norture, best
beloued of all.' Fol. ccx.
7. Boecius de Consolatione Philosophie. Fol. ccx., back.
8. The dreame of Chaucer. [The Book of the Duchesse.] Fol. ccxliiij.
9. Begins--'My master. &c. Whe_n_ of Christ our kyng.' [Lenvoy to Buckton.]
Fol. ccxliiii[214].
10. The assemble of Foules. [Parlement of Foules.] Fol. ccxliiii., back.
11. _The Floure of Curtesie, made by Ihon lidgate._ Fol. ccxlviij. Followed
by a Balade, which forms part of it.
12. How pyte is deed, etc. [Complaint unto Pite.] Fol. ccxlix., back.
13. _La belle Dame sans Mercy._ [By Sir R. Ros.] Fol. ccl.
14. Of Quene Annelida and false Arcite. Fol. cclv.
15. _The assemble of ladies._ Fol. ccxlvij.
16. The conclucions of the Astrolabie. Fol. cclxi.
17. _The complaint of the blacke Knight._ [By Lydgate; see p. 35, note 3.]
Fol. cclxx.
18. _A praise of Women._ Begins--'Al tho the lyste of women euill to
speke.' Fol. cclxxiii.[215], back.
19. The House of Fame. Fol. cclxxiiij., back.
20. _The Testament of Loue_ (in prose). Fol. cclxxxiiij., back.
21. _The lamentacion of Marie Magdaleine._ Fol. cccxviij.
22. _The remedie of Loue._ Fol. cccxxj., back.
23, 24. The complaint of Mars and Venus. Fol. cccxxiiij., back. (Printed as
_one_ poem; but there is a new title--The complaint of Venus--at the
beginning of the latter.)
25. _The letter of Cupide._ [By Hoccleve; _dated_ 1402.] Fol. cccxxvj.,
back.
26. _A Ballade in commendacion of our Ladie._ Fol. cccxxix. [By Lydgate;
see p. 38.]
27. _Ihon Gower vnto the noble King Henry the .iiij._ Fol. cccxxx., back.
[By Gower.]
28. _A saiyng of dan Ihon._ [By Lydgate.] Fol. cccxxxii., back[216].
29. _Yet of the same._ [By Lydgate.] On the same page.
30. _Balade de bon consail._ Begins--If it be fall that God the list
visite. (Only 7 lines.) On the same page.
31. _Of the Cuckowe and the Nightingale._ Fol. cccxxxiij. [By Hoccleve?]
32. _Balade with Envoy_ (no title). Begins--'O leude booke w_i_t_h_ thy
foule rudenesse.' Fol. cccxxxiiij., back.
33. _Scogan, vnto the Lordes and Gentilmen of the Kinges house._ (This
poem, by H. Scogan, quotes Chaucer's 'Gentilesse' in full.) Fol.
cccxxxiiij., back.
34. Begins--'Somtyme the worlde so stedfast was and stable.' [Lak of
Stedfastnesse.] Fol. cccxxxv., back.
35. Good counsail of Chaucer. [Truth.] Same page.
36. Balade of the village (_sic_) without paintyng. [Fortune.] Fol.
cccxxxvj.
37. Begins--'Tobroken been the statutes hie in heauen'; headed _Lenuoye_.
[Lenvoy to Scogan.] Fol. cccxxxvj., back.
38. _Poem in two stanzas of seven lines each._ Begins--'Go foorthe kyng,
rule thee by Sapience.' Same page.
39. Chaucer to his emptie purse. Same page.
40. _A balade of good counseile translated out of Latin verses in-to
Englishe, by Dan Ihon lidgat cleped the monke of Buri._ Begins--'COnsyder
well euery circumstaunce.' Fol. cccxxxvij.
41. _A balade in the Praise and commendacion of master Geffray Chauser for
his golden eloquence._ (Only 7 lines.) Same leaf, back. [See p. 56.]
§ 9. PART II. ADDITIONS BY JOHN STOWE.
At the top of fol. cccxl. is the following remark:--
¶ Here foloweth certaine woorkes of Geffray Chauser, whiche hath not
heretofore been printed, and are gathered and added to this booke by Ihon
Stowe.
42. A balade made by Chaucer, teching what is gentilnes[217]. [Gentilesse.]
Fol. cccxl.
43. A Prouerbe [_read_ Prouerbs] agaynst couitise and negligence.
[Proverbs.] Same page.
44. A balade which Chaucer made agaynst women vnconstaunt. Same page.
[Certainly genuine, in my opinion; but here relegated to an Appendix, to
appease such as cannot readily apprehend my reasons. Cf. p. 26.]
45. _A balade which Chaucer made in the praise or rather dispraise, of
women for their doublenes._ [By Lydgate.] Begins--'This world is full of
variaunce.' Same page.
46. _This werke folowinge was compiled by Chaucer, and is caled the craft
of louers._ Fol. cccxli. [Written in 1448.]
47. _A Balade._ Begins--'Of their nature they greatly the_m_ delite.' Fol.
cccxli., back. [Quotes from no. 56.]
48. _The .x. Commaundementes of Loue._ Fol. cccxlij.
49. The _.ix. Ladies worthie_. Fol. cccxlij., back.
50. [_Virelai; no title._] Begins--'Alone walkyng.' Fol. cccxliij.
51. _A Ballade._ Begins--'In the season of Feuerere when it was full
colde.' Same page.
52. _A Ballade._ Begins--'O Mercifull and o merciable.' Fol. cccxliij.,
back. [Made up of scraps from late poems; see p. 57.]
53. _Here foloweth how Mercurie with Pallas, Venus and Minarua, appered to
Paris of Troie, he slepyng by a fountain._ Fol. cccxliiij.
54. _A balade pleasaunte._ Begins--'I haue a Ladie where so she bee.' Same
page. At the end--'Explicit the discriuyng of a faire Ladie.'
55. _An other Balade._ Begins--'O Mossie Quince, hangyng by your stalke.'
Fol. cccxliiij., back.
56. _A balade, warnyng men to beware of deceitptfnll women (sic)._
Begins--'LOke well aboute ye that louers bee.' Same page. [By Lydgate.]
57. These verses next folowing were compiled by Geffray Chauser, and in the
writen copies foloweth at the ende of the complainte of petee. Begins--'THe
long nyghtes when euery [c]reature.' [This is the 'Compleint to his Lady,'
as I venture to call it.] Fol. cccxlv[218].
58. _A balade declaring that wemens chastite Doeth moche excel all treasure
worldly._ Begins--'IN womanhede as auctours al write.' Back of same leaf.
59. _The Court of Loue._ Begins--'WIth temerous herte, and tre_m_bling hand
of drede.' Fol. cccxlviij.
60. Chaucers woordes vnto his owne Scriuener[219]. Fol. ccclv., back. _At
the end_--Thus endeth the workes of Geffray Chaucer. (This is followed by
34 Latin verses, entitled _Epitaphium Galfridi Chaucer_, &c.)
61. _The Storie of Thebes._ [By Lydgate.] Fol. ccclvj.
§ 10. DISCUSSION OF THE POEMS IN PART I. OF ED. 1561.
Of the 41 pieces in Part I. of the above, we must of course accept as
Chaucer's the four poems entitled Canterbury Tales, Troilus, Legend of Good
Women, and House of Fame; also the prose translation of Boethius, and the
prose treatise on the Astrolabie. The remaining number of Minor Poems
(excluding the Romaunt of the Rose) is 34; out of which number I accept the
13 numbered above with the numbers 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 23, 24, 33 (so far as
it quotes Chaucer), 34, 35, 36, 37, and 39. Every one of these has already
been shewn to be genuine on sufficient external evidence, and it is not
likely that their genuineness will be doubted. In the present volume they
appear, respectively, as nos. III, XVII, V, II, VII, IV, XVIII, XIV, XV,
XIII, X, XVI, XIX. Of the remaining 21, several may be dismissed in a few
words. No. 4 is well known to have been written by Robert Henryson. Nos.
11, 28, 29, and 40 are distinctly claimed for Lydgate in all the editions;
and no. 27 is similarly claimed for Gower. No. 25 was written by
Hoccleve[220]; and the last line gives the date--'A thousande, foure
hundred and seconde,' i. e. 1402, or two years after Chaucer's death. No.
13 is translated from Alain Chartier, who was only four years old when
Chaucer died; see p. 28, note 2. Tyrwhitt remarks that, in MS. Harl. 372,
this poem is expressly attributed to a Sir Richard Ros[221]. No one can
suppose that no. 41 is by Chaucer, seeing that the first line is--'Maister
Geffray Chauser, that now lithe in graue.' Mr. Bradshaw once assured me
that no. 17 is ascribed, on MS. authority, to Lydgate; and no one who reads
it with care can doubt that this is correct[222]. It is, in a measur
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/43089