Thanne kam ther a kyng, Thanne cam ther a kyng,
Knyghthod hym ladde, Knyghtod hym ladde,
Might of the communes The meche myghte of the men
Made hym to regne. Made hym to regne.
And thanne cam kynde wit, And thanne cam a kynde witte,
And clerkes he made, And clerkus he made,
For to counseillen the kyng, And concience and kynde wit,
And the commune save. And knyghthod to-gederes,
The kyng and knyghthod, Caste that the comune
And clergie bothe, Sholde hure comunes fynde.
Casten that the commune Kynde wit and the comune
Sholde hem self fynde. Contrevede alle craftes,
The commune contreved And for most profitable to the puple,
Of kynde wit craftes, A plouh thei gonne make,
And for profit of al the peple Wit leil labour to lyve,
Plowmen ordeyned, Wyl lyve and londe lasteth.
To tilie and to travaille,
As trewe lif asketh.
The kyng and the commune,
And kynde wit the thridde,
Shopen lawe and leauté,
Ech man to knowe his owene.
Nobody, I think, can deny that in this instance the doctrine is stated far
more distinctly and far more boldly in the first text than in the second.
In general the first text is the best, whether we look at the mode in which
the sentiments are stated, or at the poetry and language.
As far as I have been able to examine the remaining manuscripts of Piers
Ploughman, at London and in the Universities, I think that nearly
two-thirds of those which remain are of the _fourteenth_ century; and the
greater number, particularly of those written in the fourteenth century,
present what I have distinguished as the first text, that given in the
present volumes. I am by no means inclined to coincide in the reasons which
led Dr. Whitaker to prefer the second text; if I were disposed to admit, as
barely possible (the supposition is quite a gratuitous one), "that the
first edition of this work appeared when its author was a young man, and
that he lived and continued in the habit of transcribing to extreme old
age" (Pref.), I cannot agree with an editor in adopting a copy which he
believes to be "a faithful representation of the work as it came first from
the author," and which not only abounds in words and idioms which he
afterwards altered, but which contains also "many original passages which
the greater maturity of the author's judgment induced him to expunge."
I know only of two manuscripts of the Creed of Piers Ploughman, one in the
British Museum (MS. Reg. 18, B. XVII.), the other in the Library of Trinity
College, Cambridge, both on paper, and written long after the date of the
printed editions, from which they appear to have been copied.
The first printed edition of the Vision was that of Robert Crowley, in
1550; and it was so favourably received, that there is reason for believing
that no less than three editions (or rather three impressions[20]) were
sold in the course of the year. It is clear that Crowley had obtained an
excellent manuscript; the printer has changed the orthography at will, and
has evidently altered a word at times, but on the whole this printed text
differs very little from the one we now publish.
Three years after the appearance of the Vision, another printer, Reynold
Wolfe, published the first edition of the Creed, in the same form as
Crowley's edition of the Vision.[21]
After the stormy reign of Mary was past, in the beginning of that of
Elizabeth, the call for a new edition, and perhaps the destruction of many
copies of the old one, led the well-known printer Owen Rogers to reprint
the Vision and the Creed together.[22] The impression was probably large,
for it is still by no means a rare book. It was evidently much read during
the reign of Elizabeth, and is not unfrequently alluded to by the writers
of that age.
No other edition of this popular poem appeared, until it was published by
Dr. Whitaker, in 1813,[23] from a manuscript then in the possession of Mr.
Heber,[24] which contained the second text, written in a rather broad
provincial dialect. This edition was printed in black-letter, in a very
large and expensive form. In 1814, a reprint of the old edition of the
Creed was published in the same form, as a companion to the Vision. It is
not generally known that Dr. Whitaker projected an edition of the same text
and paraphrase which are given in his 4to edition, in 8vo, with Roman type
instead of black-letter. After a few sheets had been composed, the design
was abandoned, as it is said, in favour of the larger form. A copy of the
proof sheets, formerly belonging to Mr. Haslewood, is now in the possession
of Sir Frederick Madden. I am told that a rival edition was also begun, but
not persevered in.
An attempt at a modernization, or rather a translation, of Piers Ploughman,
was made in the earlier years of the present century, but only a few
specimens appear to have been executed. The following lines, which possess
some merit (though not very literal or correct), are the modern version the
author proposed to give of ll. 2847-2870 of the poem. They were
communicated to me by Sir Henry Ellis.
"Next AVARICE came: but how he look'd, to say,
Words do I want that rightly shall portray:
Like leathern purse his shrivell'd cheeks did shew,
Thick lipp'd, with two blear eyes and beetle brow:
In a torn threadbare tabard was he clad,
Which twelve whole winters now in wear he had;
French scarlet 'twas, its colour well it kept,
So smooth that louse upon its surface crept."
It will be necessary, in conclusion, to say a few words on the edition now
offered to the public. Without taking into consideration the inaccuracies
and imperfections of Whitaker's edition, its inconvenient size and high
price made it altogether inaccessible to the general reader; and there
appeared to be a wish for one in a more convenient and less expensive form.
At the same time it was desired that a good text of a work so important for
the history of our language and literature should be selected. Dr. Whitaker
was not well qualified for this undertaking; he also laboured under many
disadvantages; he had access to only three manuscripts, and those not very
good ones; and he has not chosen the best text even of those. Unless he had
some reason to believe that the book was originally written in a particular
dialect, he ought to have given a preference to that among the oldest
manuscripts which presents the purest language; but we cannot allow that
manuscript to be chosen on a ground so capricious as "that the orthography
and dialect in which it is written approach very near to that semi-Saxon
jargon in the midst of which the editor was brought up, and which he
continues to hear daily spoken on the confines of Lancashire, and the West
Riding of the county of York." (Pref.) This could not have been the
language employed by a monk of Malvern.
The present editor has endeavoured, in the leisure moments which he has
been able to snatch from other employments, to supply the deficiency as
well, and in as unassuming manner, as he could. He has chosen for his text
a manuscript belonging to the valuable library of Trinity College,
Cambridge (where its shelf-mark is B. 15, 17), because it appears to him to
be the best and oldest manuscript now in existence. It is a fine folio
manuscript, on vellum, written in a large hand, undoubtedly contemporary
with the author of the poem, and in remarkably pure English, with
ornamented initial letters. His object has been to give the poem as popular
a form as is consistent with philological correctness. He has added a few
notes which occurred to him in the course of editing the text, and which he
hopes may render the meaning and allusions sometimes clearer to the general
reader, for whom more especially they are intended. They might have been
enlarged and rendered more complete, if he had been master of sufficient
leisure to enable him to undertake extensive researches. But there are
allusions, as well as words, in both poems to which it would be difficult
at present to give any certain explanation. It has been thought advisable
to give in the notes the important variations of the second text, from Dr.
Whitaker's edition; and a few readings are added from a second manuscript
in Trinity College Library (R. 3, 14). The editor has hoped to add to the
utility of the book by a copious glossary. He has been unwillingly obliged
to leave a few words without explanation; all our early alliterative poetry
abounds in difficult words. In this point he has to acknowledge the kind
assistance of Sir Frederick Madden, whom no person equals in profound
knowledge of English glossography, and than whom no one is more generous to
advise and assist those who are in need of his aid. To Sir Henry Ellis, who
kindly lent him his own manuscript notes on Piers Ploughman, the editor
also owes his grateful acknowledgments; and he regrets that at the time he
received them the notes were already so far printed as to hinder him from
making as much use of them as he could have wished.
_London, June 1, 1842._
* * * * *