§ 73. The Canon's Yeoman's Prologue, and Tale. The Prologue, as well as the Tale itself, belongs to the very latest period of Chaucer's work. This is clear at once, from its originality, as well as from the metre, and the careless ease of the rhythm, which sometimes almost degenerates into slovenliness, as though our author had written some of it in hot haste, with the intention of revising it more carefully afterwards. Besides, the poet has boldly improved upon his plan of the pilgrims' stories as laid down in his Prologue. We have there no hint of the Canon nor of his Yeoman; they are two new pilgrims who join themselves to the rest upon the road. A dispute arising between the master and the man, the former is put out of countenance, and actually rides away for very sorrow and shame (l. 702); but the man remains, to denounce the cupidity of the alchemists and to expose their trickery. Tyrwhitt remarks:—'The introduction of the Chanouns Yeman to tell a tale, at a time when so many of the original characters remain to be called upon, appears a little extraordinary. It should seem, that some sudden resentment had determined Chaucer to interrupt the regular course of his work, in order to insert a satire against the alchemists. That their pretended science was much cultivated about this time, and produced its usual evils, may fairly be inferred from the Act, which was passed soon after, 5 Henry IV, cap. iv. to make it Felonie to multiplie gold or siluer, or to vse the art of multiplication.' He adds—'The first considerable coinage of gold in this country was begun by Edward III in the year 1343, and according to Camden (in his Remains, art. Money), "the Alchemists did affirm, as an unwritten verity, that the Rose-nobles, which were coined soon after, were made by projection or multiplication Alchemical of Raymund Lully in the Tower of London." Ashmole, in his Theatrum Chemicum, p. 443, has repeated this ridiculous story concerning Lully with additional circumstances, as if he really believed it; though Lully, by the best accounts, had been dead above twenty years before Edward III began to coin gold[165].'
The above-mentioned volume by Ashmole, entitled Theatrum Chemicum[166], is a very singular production. And, perhaps, not the least singular circumstance is that Ashmole actually gives 'The Tale of the Chanon's Yeman, written by our ancient and famous poet, Geoffry Chaucer,' Prologue and all, at full length (pp. 227-256), under the impression, apparently, that Chaucer was really a believer in the science! He says—'One reason why I selected out of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales that of the Chanon's Yeoman was, to let the world see what notorious cheating there has beene ever used, under pretence of this true (though injur'd) Science; Another is, to shew that Chaucer himselfe was a Master therein.' It is indeed true that Chaucer had examined into alchemy very closely; but it is perfectly clear that he had made up his mind, with his strong English common sense, that the whole matter was a delusion. Had he lived in the present century, he could hardly have spoken out in more assured terms. In a similar manner he had studied astrology, and was equally a disbeliever in all but the terms of it and a few of its most general and vague assertions. He says expressly, in his Treatise on the Astrolabe, pt. ii. sec. 4, l. 36:—'natheles, thise ben observauncez of iudicial matiere and rytes of payens [pagans], in which my spirit ne hath no feith, ne no knowing of hir horoscopum.' But it is evident that the believers in alchemy had to make the best use they could of Chaucer's language, by applying it as being directed only against notorious cheats; and accordingly, we find in The Ordinall of Alchimy, by Thomas Norton of Bristol, printed in Ashmole's collection, various passages imitated from Chaucer, such as, e.g. that at p. 17:—
'The fals man walketh from Towne to Towne,
For the most parte in a threed-bare Gowne,' &c.
And again, George Ripley, in his Compound of Alchymie, dedicated to King Edward IV., printed in the same collection, says, at p. 153:—
'Their Clothes be bawdy and woryn threde-bare,
Men may them smell for Multyplyers where they go,' &c.[167]
Ashmole's work contains several treatises which profess to explain alchemy, nearly all alike couched in mysterious, and often in ridiculous language. Such are Norton's Ordinall of Alchimy, Ripley's Compound of Alchymie, Liber Patris Sapientiae, Hermes Bird (really Lydgate's poem of The Churl and the Bird), Chaucer's Canon's Yeoman's Tale (!), Pearce the Blacke Monke upon the Elixir, Charnock's Breviary of Naturall Philosophy[168], Ripley's Mistery of Alchymists, an extract from Gower's Confessio Amantis, Aristotle's Secreta Secretorum, translated by Lydgate; and so on. On the whole, the book is equally curious and dull.
It would hardly be possible to give much idea of alchemy in a brief space, and it would certainly be unprofitable. The curious will find an excellent article upon it (entitled 'Alchemy') in the new edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica; and a history of it, by no means uninteresting, in the first volume of Thomson's History of Chemistry. In Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences, 2nd edition, 1847, vol. i. p. 320, the following notice of it occurs, which I quote for the reader's convenience:—'Like other kinds of Mysticism, Alchemy seems to have grown out of the notions of moral, personal, and mythological qualities, which men associated with terms, of which the primary application was to physical properties. This is the form in which the subject is presented to us in the earliest writings which we possess on the subject of chemistry, those of Geber of Seville, who is supposed to have lived in the eighth or ninth century. The very titles of Geber's works show the notions on which this pretended science proceeds. They are, "Of the Search of Perfection;" "Of the Sum of Perfection or of the Perfect Magistery;" "Of the Invention of Verity, of Perfection." The basis of this phraseology is the distinction of metals into more or less perfect; gold being the most perfect, as being the most valuable, most beautiful, most pure, most durable; silver the next; and so on. The "Search of Perfection" was, therefore, the attempt to convert other metals into gold; and doctrines were adopted which represented the metals as all compounded of the same elements, so that this was theoretically possible. But the mystical trains of association were pursued much further than this; gold and silver were held to be the most noble of metals; gold was their King, and silver their Queen. Mythological associations were called in aid of these fancies, as had been done in astrology. Gold was Sol, the sun; silver was Luna, the moon; copper, iron, tin, lead, were assigned to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. The processes of mixture and heat were spoken of as personal actions and relations, struggles and victories. Some elements were conquerors, some conquered; there existed preparations which possessed the power of changing the whole of a body into a substance of another kind: these were called magisteries[169]. When gold and quicksilver are combined, the king and the queen are married, to produce children of their own kind. It will easily be conceived, that when chemical operations were described in phraseology of this sort, the enthusiasm of the fancy would be added to that of the hopes, and observation would not be permitted to correct the delusion, or to suggest sounder and more rational views.
'The exaggeration of the vague notion of perfection and power in the object of the alchemist's search was carried further still. The same preparation which possessed the faculty of turning baser metals into gold, was imagined to be also a universal medicine, to have the gift of curing or preventing diseases, prolonging life, producing bodily strength and beauty: the philosopher's stone was finally invested with every desirable efficacy which the fancy of the "philosophers" could devise.'
See also Dr. Whewell's account of the doctrine of 'the four elements' in the same work; vol. iii. p. 121.
The history of the rise and growth of the ideas involved in alchemy is ably treated of in the article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica already referred to; it is of some interest to note how some of the more important notions were developed. From ancient Persia came the idea of a correspondence between the heavenly bodies and parts of the human frame, alluded to in Chaucer's Treatise on the Astrolabe, and in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, i. 3. 148[170]. From ancient India came the idea of a peregrination of sinful souls through the animal, vegetable, and even the mineral world, till they were absorbed into Deity. Hence was further evolved the notion of a transmutation of elements. The Greeks held that different deities had under their protection and guidance different types of men; an idea still preserved in our words mercurial, jovial, and saturnine. The school of Hippocrates held the doctrine of the four elements, or primary substances of which all others were made, an idea first mentioned (it is said) by Empedocles; to which Aristotle added a fifth element, that of ether (Arist. de Caelo, i. 2). But this idea is probably older; for we find five bhútas, or elements, enumerated in Sanskrit, viz. earth, water, fire, air, and ether; see Benfey's Skt. Dict. s.v. bhú, p. 658. Another very ancient notion is that male and female principles existed in all three worlds alike, animal, vegetable, and mineral; from which it followed that the union of two metals could produce a third. It was argued that 'monstrosities are the productions of diseased metals (really alloys), which, if properly treated, may be cured, and will turn to gold, or at least silver. The second stage in this imitation of nature is to obtain, by tincture or projection, solid or liquid gold, the cure of all evils'; Encycl. Brit. i. 463, col. 2. This notion is still preserved in the word arsenic (Gk. ἀρσενικόν, male). It was universally believed that nature produced changes in the substance of various metals by slow degrees, and the great object of alchemy was to produce the same changes quickly. The chief names in connexion with the progress of alchemy are Geber, a Sabaean, who flourished about A.D. 800; Avicenna, a native of Shiraz, born A.D. 980, died June, 1037; Albertus Magnus, born about 1193, died Nov. 15, 1280, who uses much more intelligible language than alchemists usually indulge in; Raymund Lully, born at Majorca in 1235, a scholar of Roger Bacon, who was himself deeply imbued with the mystery of alchemy; Arnoldus de Villa Nova (mentioned by Chaucer), so named because born at Villeneuve, in Provence, in 1240; and others. Paracelsus[171], a Swiss physician (born in 1493, died 1541) was somewhat better than a mere alchemist. He did something towards destroying the notion of the necessity of consulting astrological influences, and prepared the way for the discoveries of Van Helmont (born at Brussels in 1577, died 1644), with whom the history of modern chemistry may be said to begin. Van Helmont was the inventor of two new terms, gas[172] and blas, the former of which remains in common use, though the latter is wholly forgotten.
The great storehouse of treatises upon alchemy is the Latin collection, in five volumes, called Theatrum Chemicum. I have made considerable use of the edition of this work published in 1660, which I have frequently quoted in the Notes. We hence gather that most of the authors upon the subject wished men to believe that the true secrets of the science were known to themselves only; yet they all learnt more or less of a certain jargon which they continually repeated, attributing their empirical rules to Hermes, or Geber, or other supposed masters. The same ideas, alleged results, and supposed principles continually recur; and the brief statement of a few of these will at once shew what the reader of an alchemical treatise may expect to find. Much depended on the supposed powers of certain numbers. Thus, there were three primary colours, black, white, and red[173], from which all others were produced by combination; Theat. Chem. iv. 536. According to Gower, there were really three kinds of the philosopher's stone, viz. animal, vegetable, and mineral. Some said it was composed of three parts; body, spirit, and soul—corpus, spiritus, and anima; Ashmole's Th. Ch. p. 382. Again, there were four elements; four complexions of nature or temperaments; four colours (said some), viz. white, black, citrine (i.e. gold-coloured, with a purple tinge), and red; four savours, insipid, acid, sweet, and bitter; four odours, sweet, fetid, intense, and slight (remissus); Theat. Chem. iii. 82. In particular, there were four spirits, sulphur, sal ammoniac, quicksilver, and arsenic; see note to line 778; also four states or conditions, hot, cold, wet, and dry; Theat. Chem. iv. 537. There were seven planets; and because there were seven planets, it followed that every planet had a corresponding note in the musical scale of seven notes. Every planet had its proper colour; and, in this view, there were seven colours, sable, vert, gules, or, argent, sanguine, and umber; Batman upon Bartholome, lib. 19, c. 37. Every planet had its proper metal; there were therefore seven metals; see the extract from Gower, in the note to l. 820. Now, as all substances are made of the same four elements, it follows that if a substance can be decomposed, and reunited in different proportions, its nature may be so changed that it shall become another substance. Many substances, if subjected to heat, are destroyed; but metals are not so, and therefore became the favourite subject for experiments. It was laid down that one metal could be transmuted into another, but only after having been first reduced into its primary elements; Theat. Chem. iv. 531. Ere long, it was accepted as an axiom that all baser metals could be transmuted either into gold (or sol), typified by the sun, or into silver (or luna), typified by the moon; these being the two extremes between which the other five metals were ranged. It was agreed that the chief agents in producing this transmutation were quicksilver and sulphur, and of these quicksilver was the more important; so much so, that the mention of quicksilver meets us everywhere, and no alchemist could work without it[174]. It was also agreed that certain processes must be gone through in a due order, generally ten or twelve in number; and if any one of them failed, the whole work had to be begun afresh. They are commonly described as (1) calcination, (2) solution, (3) separation of the elements, (4) conjunction, (5) putrefaction, (6) coagulation, (7) cibation, (8) sublimation, (9) fermentation, (10) exaltation, (11) augmentation or multiplication; and (12) projection; Theat. Chem. ii. 175, and Ripley's Compound of Alchemy. By insisting on the necessity of all these processes, alchemists sufficiently guarded against all chances of an unfavourable result, viz. by securing that a result could not very well be arrived at.
The moment that we attempt to analyse their processes more closely, we are met by two difficulties that are simply insuperable: the first, that the same name is clearly used to denote quite different substances; and the second, that the same substance is called by many different names. Hence also arose endless evasions, and arrogant claims to pretended secrets; it was often said that the quicksilver of the alchemists was a substance only known to adepts, and that those who used only ordinary quicksilver knew nothing of the matter. The master could thus always mystify his pupils, and make it appear that he alone, and no one else, knew what he was talking about.
Yet it was frequently alleged that the experiments did succeed. The easiest explanation of this matter is, that the hopes of the alchemists were doubtless buoyed up by the fact that every now and then the experiments appeared to succeed; and it is easy to shew how. The close affinity of quicksilver for gold is well known. I copy the following from a book on experiments, which really suffices to explain the whole matter. 'If a sovereign be rubbed with mercury, it will lose its usual appearance, and appear as if silvered over[175]; the attraction of the gold for the mercury being sufficient to cause a coating of it to remain. When it is wished to remove the silvery appearance, dip the sovereign in a dilute solution of nitric acid, which will entirely take it off.' Now the alchemists tell us that quicksilver must always be used in all experiments; and they constantly recommend the introduction into the substances experimented on of a small quantity of gold, which they thought would be increased. The experiments constantly failed; and whenever they failed, the pieces of molten metal were carefully saved, to be used over and over again. The frequent introduction of small quantities of gold caused that metal to accumulate; and if, by any favourable process, the quicksilver was separated from the mass, a considerable quantity of gold would now and then actually appear. This account is so much in accordance with all that we read, that we may confidently accept the conclusion of Dr. Thomson, the author of the History of Chemistry, that the vaunted philosopher's stone was certainly an amalgam of gold; which, 'if projected into melted lead or tin, and afterwards cupellated, would leave a portion of gold; all the gold, of course, that existed previously in the amalgam.' He adds that 'the alchemists who prepared the amalgam could not be ignorant that it contained gold'; a statement which I am inclined to modify by suggesting that it may very easily have contained more gold than they supposed it did. In a word, we may conclude that some deceived themselves, and others were conscious cheats.
Group H.
§ 74. The Manciple's Prologue. In the black-letter editions, this Prologue begins with the 16 lines printed at p. 289 (vol. iv) as the Epilogue to the Nonne Prestes Tale; because, in them, that Tale precedes. See remarks on § 51 above (p. 433).
The Prologue is self-explanatory; we see how the responsibility passed from the Cook to the Manciple. It is curious that the Cook is addressed as if he had told no Tale hitherto; see, as to this, the remarks on § 28 above (p. 399).
§ 75. The Maunciples Tale. With respect to this story, Tyrwhitt briefly remarks that 'The Fable of the Crow has been related by so many authors, from Ovid down to Gower, that it is impossible to say whom Chaucer principally followed. His skill in new dressing an old story was never, perhaps, more successfully exerted.'
Chaucer was so familiar with Ovid, and, in particular, with the Metamorphoses, that we may fairly suppose that this was the real source of his Tale; see Metam. ii. 534-632. The last line of his story (H 308), excluding the moral, closely agrees in sense with the last line in Ovid's tale—'Inter aues albas uetuit considere coruum.'
Gower's story is in his Confessio Amantis, bk. iii, ed. Pauli, i. 305-6; but it is so briefly sketched, in 35 lines, that Chaucer could have derived nothing from it, even if he had wished to do so.
Another Middle-English analogue, much more important than Gower's, is the story of the Magpie, being the 10th Tale in the collection known as The Seven Sages, printed in Weber's Metrical Romances, iii. 86. It is much the same as the story of the Popinjay in Wright's edition of the Seven Sages, p. 73. The version in the Seven Sages clearly points to an Eastern origin for the story. See Mr. Clouston's essay on The Tell-tale Bird, in Originals and Analogues (Chaucer Soc.), p. 437; to which I refer the reader for further information.
Dr. Köppel[176] has shewn that several passages in the moral advice with which the Tale concludes (including nearly the whole of lines H 325-358), are taken from a work by Albertano of Brescia, entitled De Arte Loquendi et Tacendi, written in 1245, and newly edited by Thor Sundby in the second Appendix to his work called Brunetto Latinos levnet og skrifter (Life and Writings of Brunetto Latino), Copenhagen, 1869. See further in my Notes.
Group I.
§ 76. The Parson's Prologue. Most copies place this after the Manciples Tale, and insert the word maunciple in the first line. The black-letter edition of 1542 added the spurious Plowman's Tale after the Parson's, i.e. at the end of all. But all the later editions in black-letter inserted this spurious Tale before the Parson's, and hence the editors had to alter the word maunciple (above) into Plowman; which they did.
The Persones Tale was clearly meant to come last (I 47), and there is an allusion to the hour of 4 P. M. (I 5, and note). The Maunciples Tale well precedes it, because the Prologue to that Tale says they were approaching Canterbury (H 2, 3). But there is a great difficulty in the mention of the early morning (H 16); and this is why Group I has to be taken as a separate Fragment.
The reading Foure, in l. 5, is explained and justified in the Notes.
Some German commentators have endeavoured to discover the date of the Tales from lines 10, 11, by giving these lines a wholly gratuitous and impossible interpretation, as if they were meant to express that the moon's position was in Libra! But Chaucer says nothing of the sort; he is speaking of the moon's exaltation, and adds, parenthetically, 'I mean (to say) Libra.' Unluckily, he happens to go wrong; for Libra was the exaltation of Saturn: but this does not alter the fact, that exaltation never denotes position, but was a common astrological term. It invariably refers to a sign of the Zodiac; and although Chaucer, for the moment, forgot to which planet Libra caused an exaltation or increase of strength, he really did know the meaning of one of the commonest terms in all astrology. It is much to be regretted that theories should be founded on such gross misconceptions.
§ 77. The Persones Tale. It is now known that this Tale is little else than an adaptation (with alterations, omissions, and additions, as usual with Chaucer) of a French treatise by Frère Lorens, entitled La Somme des Vices et des Vertus, written in 1279. The English work by Dan Michel of Northgate, usually known by the title of The Ayenbite of Inwyt, or Remorse of Conscience, is a much more literal and closer translation of the same treatise, and thus affords a good guide for comparison between Chaucer and the French original. The French treatise has never been printed, but exists in two MSS. in the British Museum[177], viz. Cleop. A v, and Royal 19 C ii.
An excellent dissertation on this Tale, in which a close comparison with its original is duly made, was written in German by Dr. W. Eilers in 1882, and has been rendered more accessible to Chaucer students by an English translation made in 1884, and printed in Essays on Chaucer (Chaucer Soc.), p. 501. Of this Essay I have made much use in the Notes, to which I refer the reader for further information.
It is clear that this Tale was once an independent Treatise (see § 104, in vol. iv. p. 644), which people could either 'herkne or rede'; and it was probably written before 1380, at much the same time as the Tale of Melibeus, which it somewhat resembles in style. It was obvious that, if this treatise was to be inserted among the Canterbury Tales, it could only be assigned to the Parson, who is made, accordingly, to warn the company that he dislikes rime, and can only tell them 'a mery tale in prose'; see I 46. The word mery sometimes meant what we should now call 'interesting'; and it probably interested a much larger number of people in those days than it can possibly do at the present time. Our ancestors, at times, certainly inclined to serious discourses, such as the present age has no relish for.
It is quite clear that a few paragraphs near the end (iv. 644, I 1084-90)—beginning with and namely, and ending with my soule—were inserted at a much later time, probably on one of the last occasions when the poet revised his work. This passage has sometimes been called his 'Retractation'; but this term is a bad one[178]. The phrase used is 'the whiche I revoke in my retracciouns,' i.e. among the things which I disclaim; and the word revoke, i.e. recall, means that he wishes to disclaim many of his works, as being deficient in such theological merit as would conduce to the salvation of his soul; a disclaimer which he at once follows up by thanking 'oure lord and his blisful moder and alle the seintes,' for such works as were of a moral and meritorious character. This I believe to be the real meaning, and to refer to the prevalent idea that many evil deeds and sayings could be out-balanced, even at the last moment, by an appeal to a few good actions; of which medieval literature affords us many examples. Perhaps it is fair to add that the poet had good cause to regret such Tales as those of the Miller, the Reeve, and the Merchant.
In Essays on Chaucer, p. 227, is printed an Essay on this Tale by H. Simon, of Schmalkalden. The object of the Essay is to prove that Chaucer was a Wycliffite; and, filled with this idea (the truth of which I am not particularly careful either to deny or assert), the author endeavours to shew that the Persones Tale is full of interpolations made by some designing and fraudulent person. He even goes so far as to give us what he considers to be 'the original Tale' (p. 283). The French text tends to upset at least some portions of this superfluous theory, and Dr. Köppel has written an excellent article[179] to shew—what to a plain person needs but little proof—that the Persones Tale is to be considered as wholly genuine, inasmuch as a considerable number of conspicuous passages reappear, in a slightly modified form, in other parts of the Canterbury Tales. If we are to go through the Tales, picking out, and setting aside as spurious, every passage which does not please us, the result can only be unsatisfactory. Different readers will eliminate different phrases and opinions, and the residuum will be valueless. I see no reason why we may not be content with the Tales in the form presented by the best MSS.
Postscript.
P. 395.—In a small book by Professor G. Stephens, entitled Förteckning öfver de fornämsta Brittiska och Fransyska Handskrifterna i Stockholm (Stockholm, 1847), at p. 20, is a description of a MS. which contains a copy of Palamon and Arcite in French verse, and was written early in the fifteenth century. It is remarkable that the metre is the same as that of the Knightes Tale; from which, perhaps, it was borrowed.
In Anglia, XVI. 261, L. Fränkel, of Munich, reprints a Latin fable by Casparus Cropacius, which first appeared in 1581, in illustration of the Milleres Tale. This fable follows Chaucer closely in the principal details, but omits the humour of the original. I fail to see any merit in this form of the story, and therefore refrain from reproducing it.
P. 423. See Dr. Jessopp's article on 'William of Norwich' in The Nineteenth Century, May, 1893.
THE OXFORD EDITION
OF
Piers the Plowman
|
In two Volumes, demy
8vo, pp. civ + 1112, uniform with this THE VISION OF WILLIAM CONCERNING PIERS THE PLOWMAN IN THREE PARALLEL TEXTS TOGETHER WITH RICHARD THE REDELESS BY WILLIAM LANGLAND (ABOUT 1362-1399 A.D.) EDITED FROM NUMEROUS MANUSCRIPTS WITH PREFACE, NOTES, AND A GLOSSARY BY THE REV. WALTER W. SKEAT, Litt.D., LL.D. ELRINGTON AND
BOSWORTH PROFESSOR OF ANGLO-SAXON |
Oxford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
LONDON: HENRY FROWDE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER, E.C.
OTHER WORKS
BY THE REV.
Prof. W. W. SKEAT, Litt.D.
An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, arranged on an Historical Basis. Second Edition. 4to, cloth, 2l. 4s.
A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s. 6d.
A List of English Words the Etymology of which is illustrated by comparison with Icelandic. 4to, 2s.
The Principles of English Etymology. Crown 8vo.
First Series. The Native Element. Second Edition. 10s. 6d.
Second Series. The Foreign Element. 10s. 6d.
A Primer of English Etymology. 1s. 6d.
Specimens of Early English. Part II. From Robert of Gloucester to Gower (A.D. 1298 to A.D. 1393). By R. Morris, LL.D., and W. W. Skeat, Litt. D. Third Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.
Specimens of English Literature, from the 'Ploughman's Crede' to the 'Shepheardes Calender' (A.D. 1394 to A.D. 1579). With Introduction, Notes, and Glossarial Index. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.
The Vision of William concerning Piers the Plowman, by William Langland. With Notes, &c. Sixth Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, 4s. 6d.
Chaucer. The Prioresses Tale; Sir Thopas; The Monkes Tale; The Clerkes Tale; The Squieres Tale, &c. Fifth Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, 4s. 6d.
Chaucer. The Tale of the Man of Lawe; The Pardoners Tale; The Second Nonnes Tale; The Chanouns Yemannes Tale. New Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, 4s. 6d.
Chaucer. The Minor Poems. Crown 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d.
Chaucer. The Legend of Good Women. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s.
The Tale of Gamelyn. Edited with Notes, Glossary, &c. Extra fcap. 8vo, stiff covers, 1s. 6d.
Twelve Facsimiles of Old English MSS., with Transcriptions and Introduction. 4to, 7s. 6d.
The New Testament in English, according to the Version by John Wycliffe, about A.D. 1380, and Revised by John Purvey, about A.D. 1388. With Glossary, &c. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, 6s.
The Books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon: according to the Wycliffite Version made by Nicholas de Hereford, about A.D. 1381, and Revised by John Purvey, about A.D. 1388. With Glossary, &c. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d.
The Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic. Extra fcap. 8vo, cloth, 4s.
Oxford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
LONDON: HENRY FROWDE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER, E.C.
FOOTNOTES.
It is also mentioned as 'the book of Fame' at the end of the Persones Tale, I 1086. I accept this passage as genuine.
In Dante's Inferno, this invocation begins Canto II.; for Canto I. forms a general introduction to the whole.
Where Chaucer says 'leet the reynes goon' (l. 951), and Dante has 'abbandonò li freni' (Inf. xvii. 107), we find in Ovid 'equi ... colla iugo eripiunt, abruptaque lora relinquunt' (Met. ii. 315). Chaucer's words seem closer to Dante than to the Latin original.
On which Prof. Lounsbury remarks (Studies in Chaucer, ii. 243)—'More extreme indeed than that of any one else is the position of Professor Skeat. He asserts in all seriousness that the "House of Fame" is the translation to which reference is made by Lydgate, when he said that Chaucer wrote "Dante in English." Beyond this utterance it is hardly possible to go.' This is mere banter, and entirely misrepresents my view. Lydgate does not say that 'Dant in English' was a translation; this is a pure assumption, for a strategical purpose in argument. Lydgate was ignorant of Italian, and has used a stupid phrase, the correctness of which I by no means admit. But he certainly meant something; and the prominence which he gives to "Dant in English," when he comes to speak of Chaucer's Minor Poems, naturally suggests The House of Fame, which he otherwise omits! My challenge to 'some competent critic' to tell me what other poem is here referred to, remains unanswered.
When Chaucer consulted Dante, his thoughts were naturally directed to Vergil. We find, accordingly, that he begins by quoting (in ll. 143-8) the opening lines of the Æneid; and a large portion of Book I (ll. 143-467) is entirely taken up with a general sketch of the contents of that poem. It is clear that, at the time of writing, Vergil was, in the main, a new book to him, whilst Ovid was certainly an old acquaintance.
By this, I only mean that Lydgate seems to have been indebted to Chaucer for the general idea of his poem, and even for the title of it (cf. Ho. Fame, 120). For a full account of all its sources, see the admirable edition of Lydgate's Temple of Glas by Dr. J. Schick, p. cxv. (Early Eng. Text Society).
Misprinted 'bright,' as the final e has 'dropped out' at press; of course it should be the adverbial form, with final e. In l. 507, the form is 'brighte' again, where it is the plural adjective. And, owing to this repetition, MSS. F. and B. actually omit lines 504-7.
Morris has rabewyures, from MS. F.; but there is no such word in his Glossary. See the New E. Dictionary, s.v. Baboon.
Morris has Reues; but his Glossary has: 'Reues, or reyes, sb. a kind of dance.' Of course it is plural.
Morris has clywe; and his Glossary has 'Clywe, v. to turn or twist'; but no such verb is known. See Claw, v. § 3, in the New E. Dict.
Morris has frot; but it does not appear in the Glossary.
I do not here endorse all Ten Brink's dates. I give his scheme for what it is worth, as it is certainly deserving of consideration.
It is the stanza next following the last one quoted in vol. i. p. 23. I quote it from the Aldine edition of Chaucer, ed. Morris, i. 80.
Of course Lydgate knew the work was unfinished; so he offers a humorous excuse for its incompleteness. I may here note that Hoccleve refers to the Legend in his poem entitled the Letter of Cupid, where Cupid is made to speak of 'my Legende of Martres'; see Hoccleve's Works, ed. Furnivall, p. 85, l. 316.
In December, 1384, Richard II. 'held his Christmas' at Eltham (Fabyan).
I think lines 568, 569 (added in B.) are meant to refer directly to ll. 703, 704.
The Knightes Tale is a clear exception. The original Palamon and Arcite was too good to be wholly lost; but it was entirely recast in a new metre, and so became quite a new work.
It is amusing to see that Chaucer forgot, at the same time, to alter A. 422 (= B. 432), in which Alcestis actually tells her name. The oversight is obvious.
Line A. 277 reappears in the Canterbury Tales in the improved form—'And ever a thousand gode ageyn oon badde.' This is the 47th line in the Milleres Prologue, but is omitted in Tyrwhitt's edition, together with the line that follows it.
I.e. with the exception of the stanzas which were transferred from that work to the Man of Lawes Prologue and Tale; see the 'Account of the Sources,' &c. p. 407, and the last note on p. 307 of the present volume.
I omit 'Marcia Catoun'; like Esther, she is hardly to be ranked with the heroines of olden fables. Indeed, even Cleopatra comes in rather strangely.
See De Claris Mulieribus:—Cleopatra, cap. 86. Thisbe, cap. 12. Dido, cap. 40. Hypsipyle and Medea, capp. 15, 16. Lucretia, cap. 46. Hypermnestra cap. 13. And see Morley's English Writers, v. 241 (1890).