Chaucer's Works, Volume 6 — Introduction, Glossary, and Indexes

Title: Chaucer's Works, Volume 6 — Introduction, Glossary, and Indexes

Author: Geoffrey Chaucer

Editor: Walter W. Skeat

Release date: July 5, 2013 [eBook #43097] Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43097

Credits: Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Keith Edkins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

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

* * * * * *

INTRODUCTION, GLOSSARY, AND INDEXES

'Thou shall have yit, or hit be eve,

Of every word of this sentence

A preve, by experience;

And with thyn eres heren wel

Top and tail, and everydel.'

The Hous of Fame, 876-880.

Oxford

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

M DCCC XCIV

Oxford

PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS BY HORACE HART, M.A., PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

IN GRATEFUL MEMORY

OF

HENRY BRADSHAW

[vii]

CONTENTS.

[ix]

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

§ 1. In the very brief Introduction to vol. I., I have given a sketch of the general contents of the present work. I here take occasion, for the reader's information, to describe somewhat more particularly the chief objects which I have had in view.

In the first place, my endeavour has been to produce a thoroughly sound text, founded solely on the best MSS. and the earliest prints, which shall satisfy at once the requirements of the student of language and the reader who delights in poetry. In the interest of both, it is highly desirable that Chaucer's genuine works should be kept apart from those which were recklessly associated with them in the early editions, and even in modern editions have been but imperfectly suppressed. It was also desirable, or rather absolutely necessary, that the recent advances in our knowledge of Middle-English grammar and phonetics should be rightly utilised, and that no verbal form should be allowed to appear which would have been unacceptable to a good scribe of the fourteenth century[1].

I have also provided a large body of illustrative notes, many of them gathered from the works of my predecessors, but enlarged by illustrations due to my own reading during a long course of years, and by many others due to the labours of the most [x]recent critics. The number of allusions that have been traced to their origin during the last fifteen years is considerable; and much additional light has thus been thrown upon Chaucer's method of treating his originals. How far such investigation has been successful, can readily be gathered from an inspection of the Index of Authors Quoted in the present volume, in which the passages quoted by Chaucer are collected and arranged, and an alphabetical list is given of the authors whom he appears to have most consulted.

The Glossary has been compiled on a much larger scale than any hitherto attempted, wherein the part of speech of almost every word is duly marked, and every verbal form is sufficiently parsed. A special feature of the Glossary is the exclusion from it of non-Chaucerian words and forms; and in order to secure this result, separate Glossaries are given of the chief words occurring in Fragments B and C of the Romaunt of the Rose and in Gamelyn; and we are thus enabled to detect a marked difference in the vocabulary employed in these pieces from that which was employed by Chaucer[2]. And I cannot refrain from here expressing the hope, that the practical usefulness of the Glossary and Indexes may predispose the critic to forgive some errors in other parts of the work. And further, also in the interest of every true student, much pains have been bestowed on the mode of numbering the lines. It is not so easy a matter as it would seem to be. Many editors give no numbering at all; and, where it is given, it is not always correct[3]. The

numbering of the Canterbury Tales, in particular, was especially [xi]troublesome. I give three distinct systems of counting the lines, and even thus have failed in giving the numbering of Wright's edition beyond l. 11928, where he suddenly begins a new numbering of his own[4].

I append a few remarks on the text of the various pieces.

§ 2. Romaunt of the Rose. The old text is often extremely and even ludicrously corrupt. Thanks to the patient labours of Dr. Max Kaluza, and his restoration, by the collation of MSS., of the French original, many emendations have been made, for several of which I am much indebted to him. A paper (by myself) containing a summary of the principal passages which are thus, for the first time, rendered intelligible, has lately appeared in the Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society, vol. iii. p. 239; but the whole subject is treated, in an exhaustive and highly satisfactory manner, in two works by Kaluza. The former of these is his edition of the Romaunt, from the Glasgow MS., side by side with the French text in an emended form, as published for the Chaucer Society; and the other work is entitled 'Chaucer und der Rosenroman,' published at Berlin in 1893[5].

See also the valuable paper on 'The Authorship of the English Romaunt of the Rose' by Prof. G. L. Kittredge, printed in 'Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature,' and published [xii]by Ginn and Co., Boston, U.S.A., in 1892. This essay shews, in opposition to Prof. Lounsbury, that there is no reason for attributing to Chaucer the Fragments B and C of the Romaunt.

The notes to the Romaunt of the Rose are largely my own. Some are borrowed from the notes to Bell's edition.

§ 3. Minor Poems. In preparing a new edition of the Minor Poems, I have been much assisted by the experience acquired from the publication of my separate edition of the same in 1888. A large number of criticisms were made by Prof. Koch, which have been carefully considered; and some of them have been gratefully adopted.

The question of authenticity chiefly applies here. Practically, the modern 'Canon' of Chaucer's genuine works has been taken, strangely enough, from Moxon's reprint of the Poetical Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, which bears 'by Thomas Tyrwhitt' on the title-page, and contains twenty-five poems which Tyrwhitt never edited, as has been fully shewn in vol. v. pp. x-xiv. This curious production, by an anonymous editor, was really made up by reprinting such pieces as were supposed by Tyrwhitt, in 1778, to be not spurious. The six unauthorised pieces which it contains are The Court of Love, The Complaint of the Black Knight, Chaucer's Dream, The Flower and the Leaf, The Cuckoo and the Nightingale, and a Virelai. Of these, The Complaint of the Black Knight is now known to be Lydgate's, whilst The Court of Love, Chaucer's Dream, and the Virelai are written in language very different from that of the fourteenth century. The Flower and the Leaf, like The Assembly of Ladies, claims to have been written by 'a gentlewoman,' and perhaps it was. It does not seem possible

to refer it to the fourteenth century, but rather to the middle of the fifteenth. The oldest poem of this set is The Cuckoo and the Nightingale; but it has already been shewn (vol. i. p. 39) that it contains several rimes that are not like Chaucer's. In addition to these I would now also note the extraordinary rime of upon with mon (for man) in l. 85; it is merely a matter of common prudence to discover a similar use of mon for man in Chaucer before we rashly assign to him this rather pretty poem.

Suffice it to say, that no manuscript or other evidence has ever been produced, or is known, that connects any of the above poems with the authorship of Chaucer; though it is a very [xiii]common mistake, on the part of such critics as have never studied the facts, to assume the genuineness of these poems, and to expect an editor to prove the contrary! Surely, it is enough to say that the external evidence wholly fails, and that the internal evidence points, decisively, the other way. There is no reason for attributing poems to Chaucer on grounds which would not for a moment be allowed in the case of any other poet.

§ 4. All the other Minor Poems in Moxon's reprint are well known to be genuine, and are therefore included in my first volume. I add a few last words on the poems which are also printed there, though they do not appear in Tyrwhitt's list.

A Compleint to his Lady. The internal evidence in favour of this poem is so remarkable, that I need not enlarge upon it here. In particular, it is difficult to see how any other poet of that age could have known anything about Dante's terza rima. However, the matter is fairly settled by Dr. Furnivall's discovery of the additional final stanza, with the name of 'Chaucer' appended to it. Cf. vol. i. p. 75; and p. lx. (footnotes) below.

The Former Age. Well known to be genuine, as occurring in two MSS., both of which give Chaucer's name.

Merciless Beaute. Discussed in vol. i. p. 80. The external evidence is, that it is the last poem in a MS., in which it is immediately preceded by nine of Chaucer's acknowledged pieces.

In addition to the internal evidence already given in vol. i. p. 80, I have just discovered further evidence of great interest, as bearing upon Chaucer's treatment of the long open and close e, which to Lydgate's ear sounded sufficiently alike. In the first Roundel, all the e's are close, whereas, in the last Roundel, all the e's are open (§ 38)[6]. This is a strong point in its favour.

Balade to Rosemounde. The unique MS. copy appends Chaucer's name.

Against Women Unconstaunt. Discussed in vol. i. p. 88; and in vol. v. p. xv. We must give great weight to the connection of this poem with Machault, from whom Chaucer certainly borrowed, though his works do not appear to have influenced any [xiv]other English author; see § 55 below. However, this poem is placed in the Appendix.

An Amorous Compleint. Likewise placed in the Appendix. I believe it to be genuine, on the strength of the internal evidence, and its obvious connection with Troilus and other genuine poems; see the Notes, vol. i. p. 567. All the rimes are perfect, according to Chaucer's use, though it extends to 91 lines.

A Balade of Compleynt. In the Appendix. The genuineness of this poem is not insisted on. It is added rather by way of illustration of the peculiar style of poems entitled 'Complaint,' of which Chaucer was so fond. He must have written many which have not been preserved.

Womanly Noblesse. Printed in vol. iv. p. xxv. Attributed to Chaucer in the unique MS. copy. A unique example of rhythm, in which Chaucer was an experimentalist. I know of no other poem having 33 lines on only 3 rimes, similarly arranged. Cf. vol. v. p. xvi.

Complaint to my Mortal Foe; and Complaint to my Lodesterre. These also are added as illustrative of Complaints. But I do not say they are Chaucer's; though they may be so.

One reason for printing the Balade to Rosemounde, An Amorous Complaint, A Balade of Compleynt, Womanly Noblesse, and the two Complaints last-mentioned is, that they have never been printed before, and are wholly unknown. The Balade to Rosemounde and Womanly Noblesse are certainly genuine; and there is a high probability that An Amorous Complaint is the same.

The piece called A Compleint to his Lady was first printed in Stowe's edition of 1561, but without the last stanza, and was reprinted in the same imperfect state by Chalmers. It was omitted in Moxon's reprint, which accounts for its being usually neglected. It is strange that poems which are certainly spurious should be much better known and more highly prized.

§ 5. Boethius. It is sufficiently explained in the Preface to vol. ii. that this piece is now printed, for the first time, with modern punctuation, and with Chaucer's glosses in italics. This is also the first edition with explanatory notes.

§ 6. Troilus. The text is much improved by the use of the Campsall and Corpus MSS., which have never been before [xv]collated for any edition, though they are the two best. The third best MS. is that printed by Dr. Morris. It is a sad drawback to the use of his edition that Book IV begins in the wrong place, so that all his references to this book are wrong, and require the addition of 28. Thus Tyrwhitt's Glossary gives the reference to 'Nettle in, dock out,' as T. iv. 461. In Morris's edition, it is T. iv. 433.

A few notes to Troilus occur in Bell's edition. I have added to them largely, and supplied the schemes in vol. ii. pp. 461, 467, 474, 484, 494, which enable ready reference to be made to the corresponding passages in Boccaccio's Filostrato.

The valuable work on 'The Language of Troilus,' by Prof. Kittredge, is of great importance. I regret that I was unable to use it at the time when my own text was in course of preparation.

§ 7. The House of Fame. Previously edited by me in 1888 among the 'Minor Poems,' and again, separately, in 1893. Much help has been received from the (incomplete) edition by Hans Willert (Berlin, 1888). As some lexicographers number the lines of each book separately, this mode of numbering is duly given, as well as a continuous one.

§ 8. The Legend of Good Women. Previously edited by me in 1889, when I made the curious discovery that the MSS. can be divided into two sets of types, which may be called A and B; that type A is considerably the better; and yet, that no MS. of type A had ever before been made the basis of an edition! The natural result was the easy correction of many corrupt passages, the publication of the Prologue in its earlier as well as in its later form, and the addition of a few previously unknown lines. As regards the Notes, the most help was obtained from the edition by Prof. Corson. The admirable article by Bech deserves a special mention.

§ 9. A treatise on the Astrolabe. Previously edited by me for the Early English Text Society's Extra Series, in 1872; when I discovered that none but inferior MSS. had ever been previously printed, and that all other editions are, in various ways, incomplete. The only one of any worth is the modern edition by Mr. Brae, who was an excellent astronomer; but he unfortunately based his edition upon an 'edited' MS., written about 1555, which is not, after all, of a good type. The extraordinary errors in the early editions of the Astrolabe are well illustrated by [xvi]Mr. Brae. For example, the statement in Part II. § 6. l. 8 (vol. iii. p. 194) that 'the nadir of the sonne is thilke degree that is opposit to the degree of the sonne, in the seventhe signe,' appears in most early editions as 'in the 320 signe.' But 320 signs for the zodiac is much too liberal an allowance.

My edition for the E.E.T.S. also contains an edition of Messahala's Latin treatise, from which Chaucer derived about two-thirds of his work; see vol. iii. p. lxx.

This Treatise is of more importance than might be supposed, owing to Chaucer's frequent allusions to astronomical subjects. Every editor of Chaucer should know that there are nine spheres; otherwise, he may fall (as three editors have done) into the trap prepared by the scribe of the Harleian MS., who gives lines 1280 and 1283 of Group F of the Canterbury Tales in this extraordinary form:—

'And by his thre speeres in his worching' ...

'That in the fourthe speere considred is.'

It was a special pleasure to find that Chaucer's star Aldiran (Cant. Tales, F 265) was one of the stars marked on the 'Rete' or web of a Parisian astrolabe in A.D. 1223, and is described (in MS. Ii. 3. 3, in the Camb. Univ. Library) as being 'in fronte Leonis.' See vol. v. p. 380.

Some attempts have been made to calculate the date of the Canterbury Tales from ll. 10, 11 of the Parson's Prologue. The absurdity of such an endeavour is patent to any one who knows enough of the old astronomy and astrology to be aware that the 'moon's exaltation' is merely a name for a sign of the zodiac, and has nothing whatever to do with the position of the moon itself. Here, again, the scribe of the Harleian MS. has turned the phrase I mene into In mena[7], misleading many enquirers who fail to realise that he was as careless in this passage as in the former one.

§ 10. The Canterbury Tales. The great gain in this poem has been the foundation of the text upon the basis of the Ellesmere MS., the most satisfactory of all existing MSS. having any reference to Chaucer. [xvii]

The general excellence and correctness of its spellings and readings render it the safest on which to found rules for our guidance as to pronunciation, syntax, and prosody. For further remarks, see the Introduction to vol. iv. p. xvii.

Much help has been obtained from the experience gained in editing various portions of the Tales from the same MS. in former years. The edition of the Prologue, the Knightes Tale, and the Nonnes Preestes Tale, originally issued by Dr. Morris, underwent a considerable amount of revision by him and by myself conjointly; and so great was the interest which he took in the work, and so freely were the results of our researches thrown, as it were, into a common fund, that in many instances I am unable to say which of us it was that suggested the illustrations given in the Notes. Dr. Morris was justly celebrated for his acuteness in unravelling the intricacies of the various Middle-English dialects, and for his swiftness of perception of the right use of grammatical inflections; and he communicated the results of his labours with unsparing generosity.

The Prioresses Tale, Sire Thopas, the Monkes Tale, the Clerkes Tale, and the Squieres Tale were first edited by me, with Notes and a Glossary, as far back as 1874; and the book has passed through several editions since that date[8].

The Tale of the Man of Lawe, the Pardoneres Tale, the Second Nonnes Tale, and the Chanouns Yemannes Tale, were first edited by me, with Notes and a Glossary, in 1877; and have been several times revised in subsequent editions[8].

It will now be readily understood that nearly all the notes and illustrations that have appeared in these various books are here collected and reproduced (with corrections where necessary); and that many others have been added of a like kind.

Perhaps I may fairly introduce here the remark that many illustrations and explanations which are now perfectly familiar to readers of Chaucer originally appeared for the first time in these smaller editions. Thus, to mention a matter of no great importance, my note on Group C, l. 321, demonstrates the exact form and position of the ale-stake, and shews that the old [xviii]interpretation of 'may-pole' in Speght is wrong, and that Tyrwhitt's statement as to its being 'set up' is misleading; for its position was horizontal. And only a little further on, at l. 405, I explain how the peculiar construction arose which admitted of such a phrase as 'goon a-blakeberied'; an explanation which is duly quoted as mine in the New E. Dict., s.v. Begged.

Nevertheless, provided that correct explanations are given, it makes but little difference to the reader by whom they were first made. Hence notes have been included from all accessible sources, and it has not always seemed to be necessary, in minor instances, to specify whence they are derived; though this has usually been done.

§ 11. It remains for me to express my great obligations to the labours of others, and to acknowledge, with thankfulness, their assistance and guidance.

As regards the texts, my chief debt is to the Chaucer Society, which means, practically, Dr. Furnivall, through whose zeal and energy so many splendid and accurate prints of the MSS. have been produced, thus rendering the actual readings and spellings of the scribes accessible to students in all countries. It is obvious that, but for such work, no edition of Chaucer could have been attempted without an enormous increase of labour and a prodigal expenditure of time.