Transcriber's note: Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
[=a] signifies "a with macron"; [)a] "a with breve"; and so forth. [gh]
represents yogh, [*e] the schwa. A carat character is used to denote
superscription: a single character following the carat is superscripted
(example: XIII^e).
In this edition the two versions of the Prologue to the Legend are each
assembled for continuous reading. Skeat's commentary on the Astrolabe
(mentioned in the text as "Footnotes") has been similarly separated from
Chaucer's text.
Project Gutenberg has Volume VI of Skeat's edition, which contains a
Glossary covering the texts in this volume. See:
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43097
* * * * *
[Illustration: MS. FAIRFAX 16. LEGEND OF GOOD WOMEN, 414-450
_Frontispiece***_]
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
* * *
THE HOUSE OF FAME: THE LEGEND OF GOOD WOMEN
THE TREATISE ON THE ASTROLABE
WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE SOURCES OF THE CANTERBURY TALES
'He made the book that hight the Hous of Fame.'
_Legend of Good Women_; 417.
'Who-so that wol his large volume seke
Cleped the Seintes Legende of Cupyde.'
_Canterbury Tales_; B 60.
'His Astrelabie, longinge for his art.'
_Canterbury Tales_; A 3209.
SECOND EDITION
Oxford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
M DCCCC
* * * * * *
Oxford
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
* * * * * *
CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSE OF FAME.--§ 1. Authorship. § 2. Influence
of Dante. § 3. Testimony of Lydgate. § 4. Influence of Ovid.
§ 5. Date of the Poem. § 6. Metre. § 7. Imitations.
§ 8. Authorities. § 9. Some Emendations vii
INTRODUCTION TO THE LEGEND OF GOOD WOMEN.--§ 1. Date of the Poem.
§ 2. The Two Forms of the Prologue. § 3. Comparison of these.
§ 4. The Subject of the Legend. § 5. The Daisy. § 6. Agaton.
§ 7. Chief Sources of the Legend. § 8. The Prologue; Legends of
(1) Cleopatra; (2) Thisbe; (3) Dido; (4) Hypsipyle and Medea;
(5) Lucretia; (6) Ariadne; (7) Philomela; (8) Phyllis;
(9) Hypermnestra. § 9. Gower's Confessio Amantis. § 10. Metre.
§ 11. 'Clipped' Lines. § 12. Description of the MSS.
§ 13. Description of the Printed Editions. § 14. Some Improvements
in my Edition of 1889. § 15. Conclusion xvi
INTRODUCTION TO A TREATISE ON THE ASTROLABE.--§ 1. Description of
the MSS. §§ 2-16. MSS. A., B., C., D., E., F., G., H., I., K., L.,
M., N., O., P. § 17. MSS. Q., R., S., T., U., W., X.
§ 18. Thynne's Edition. § 19. The two Classes of MSS. § 20. The
last five Sections (spurious). § 21. Gap between Sections 40
and 41. § 22. Gap between Sections 43 and 44. § 23. Conclusion 40.
§ 24. Extant portion of the Treatise. § 25. Sources. § 26. Various
Editions. § 27. Works on the Subject. § 28. Description of the
Astrolabe Planisphere. § 29. Uses of the Astrolabe Planisphere.
§ 30. Stars marked on the Rete. § 31. Astrological Notes.
§ 32. Description of the Plates lvii
PLATES ILLUSTRATING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ASTROLABE lxxxi
THE HOUS OF FAME: BOOK I. 1
THE HOUS OF FAME: BOOK II. 16
THE HOUS OF FAME: BOOK III. 33
THE LEGEND OF GOOD WOMEN: THE PROLOGUE 65
I. THE LEGEND OF CLEOPATRA 106
II. THE LEGEND OF THISBE 110
III. THE LEGEND OF DIDO 117
IV. THE LEGEND OF HYPSIPYLE AND MEDEA 131
V. THE LEGEND OF LUCRETIA 140
VI. THE LEGEND OF ARIADNE 147
VII. THE LEGEND OF PHILOMELA 158
VIII. THE LEGEND OF PHYLLIS 164
IX. THE LEGEND OF HYPERMNESTRA 169
A TREATISE ON THE ASTROLABE 175
CRITICAL NOTES TO A TREATISE ON THE ASTROLABE 233
NOTES TO THE HOUSE OF FAME 243
NOTES TO THE LEGEND OF GOOD WOMEN 288
NOTES TO A TREATISE ON THE ASTROLABE 352
AN ACCOUNT OF THE SOURCES OF THE CANTERBURY TALES 370
INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSE OF FAME
§ 1. It is needless to say that this Poem is genuine, as Chaucer himself
claims it twice over; once in his Prologue to the Legend of Good Women, l.
417, and again by the insertion in the poem itself of the name _Geffrey_
(l. 729)[1].
§ 2. INFLUENCE OF DANTE. The influence of Dante is here very marked, and
has been thoroughly discussed by Rambeau in Englische Studien, iii. 209, in
an article far too important to be neglected. I can only say here that the
author points out both general and particular likenesses between the two
poems. In general, both are visions; both are in three books; in both, the
authors seek abstraction from surrounding troubles by venturing into the
realm of imagination. As Dante is led by Vergil, so Chaucer is upborne by
an eagle. Dante begins his third book, Il Paradiso, with an invocation to
Apollo, and Chaucer likewise begins his third book with the same; moreover,
Chaucer's invocation is little more than a translation of Dante's.
Among the particular resemblances, we may notice the method of commencing
each division of the Poem with an invocation[2]. Again, both poets mark the
exact date of commencing their poems; Dante descended into the Inferno on
Good Friday, 1300 (Inf. xxi. 112); Chaucer began his work on the 10th of
December, the year being, probably, 1383 (see note to l. 111).
Chaucer sees the desert of Lybia (l. 488), corresponding to similar waste
spaces mentioned by Dante; see note to l. 482. Chaucer's eagle is also
Dante's eagle; see note to l. 500. Chaucer gives an account of Phaethon (l.
942) and of Icarus (l. 920), much like those given by Dante (Inf. xvii.
107, 109); both accounts, however, may have been taken from Ovid[3].
Chaucer's account of the eagle's lecture to him (l. 729) resembles Dante's
Paradiso, i. 109-117. Chaucer's steep rock of ice (l. 1130) corresponds to
Dante's steep rock (Purg. iii. 47). If Chaucer cannot describe all the
beauty of the House of Fame (l. 1168), Dante is equally unable to describe
Paradise (Par. i. 6). Chaucer copies from Dante his description of Statius,
and follows his mistake in saying that he was born at Toulouse; see note to
l. 1460. The description of the house of Rumour is also imitated from
Dante; see note to l. 2034. Chaucer's error of making Marsyas a female
arose from his misunderstanding the Italian form Marsia in Dante; see note
to l. 1229.
These are but some of the points discussed in Rambeau's article; it is
difficult to give, in a summary, a just idea of the careful way in which
the resemblances between these two great poets are pointed out. I am quite
aware that many of the alleged parallel passages are too trivial to be
relied upon, and that the author's case would have been strengthened,
rather than weakened, by several judicious omissions; but we may fairly
accept the conclusion, that Chaucer is more indebted to Dante in this poem
than in any other; perhaps more than in all his other works put together.
It is no longer possible to question Chaucer's knowledge of Italian; and it
is useless to search for the original of The House of Fame in Provençal
literature, as Warton vaguely suggests that we should do (see note to l.
1928). At the same time, I can see no help to be obtained from a perusal of
Petrarch's Trionfo della Fama, to which some refer us.
§ 3. TESTIMONY OF LYDGATE. It is remarkable that Lydgate does not expressly
mention The House of Fame by name, in his list of Chaucer's works. I have
already discussed this point in the Introduction to vol. i. pp. 23, 24,
where I shew that Lydgate, nevertheless, refers to this work at least
thrice in the course of the poem in which his list occurs; and, at the same
time, he speaks of a poem by Chaucer which he calls 'Dant in English,' to
which there is nothing to correspond, unless it can be identified with The
House of Fame[4]. We know, however, that Lydgate's testimony as to this
point is wholly immaterial; so that the discussion as to the true
interpretation of his words is a mere matter of curiosity.
§ 4. INFLUENCE OF OVID. It must, on the other hand, be obvious to all
readers, that the general notion of a House of Fame was adopted from a
passage in Ovid's Metamorphoses, xii. 39-63. The proof of this appears from
the great care with which Chaucer works in all the details occurring in
that passage. He also keeps an eye on the celebrated description of Fame in
Vergil's Æneid, iv. 173-183; even to the unlucky rendering of 'pernicibus
alis' by 'partriches winges,' in l. 1392[5].
I here quote the passage from Ovid at length, as it is very useful for
frequent reference (cf. Ho. Fame, 711-24, 672-99, 1025-41, 1951-76,
2034-77):--
'Orbe locus medio est inter terrasque, fretumque,
Caelestesque plagas, triplicis confinia mundi;
Unde quod est usquam, quamuis regionibus absit,
Inspicitur penetratque cauas uox omnis ad aures.
FAMA tenet, summaque domum sibi legit in arce;
Innumerosque aditus, ac mille foramina tectis
Addidit, et nullis inclusit limina portis.
Nocte dieque patent. Tota est ex aere sonanti;
Tota fremit, uocesque refert, iteratque quod audit.
Nulla quies intus, nullaque silentia parte.
Nec tamen est clamor, sed paruae murmura uocis;
Qualia de pelagi, si quis procul audiat, undis
Esse solent; qualemue sonum, cum Iupiter atras
Increpuit nubes, extrema tonitrua reddunt.
Atria turba tenet; ueniunt leue uulgus, euntque;
Mixtaque cum ueris passim commenta uagantur
Millia rumorum, confusaque uerba uolutant.
E quibus hi uacuas implent sermonibus aures;
Hi narrata ferunt alio; mensuraque ficti
Crescit, et auditis aliquid nouus adicit auctor.
Illic Credulitas, illic temerarius Error,
Vanaque Laetitia est, consternatique Timores,
Seditioque repens, dubioque auctore Susurri.
Ipsa quid in caelo rerum, pelagoque geratur,
Et tellure uidet, totumque inquirit in orbem.'
A few other references to Ovid are pointed out in the Notes.
By way of further illustration, I here quote the whole of Golding's
translation of the above passage from Ovid:--
'Amid the world tweene heauen and earth, and sea, there is a place,
Set from the bounds of each of them indifferently in space,
From whence is seene what-euer thing is practizde any-where,
Although the Realme be neere so farre: and roundly to the eare
Commes whatsoeuer spoken is; Fame hath his dwelling there,
Who in the top of all the house is lodged in a towre.
A thousand entries, glades, and holes are framed in this bowre.
There are no doores to shut. The doores stand open night and day.
The house is all of sounding brasse, and roreth euery way,
Reporting double euery word it heareth people say.
There is no rest within, there is no silence any-where.
Yet is there not a yelling out: but humming, as it were
The sound of surges being heard farre off, or like the sound
That at the end of thunderclaps long after doth redound
When _Ioue_ doth make the clouds to crack. Within the courts is preace
Of common people, which to come and go do neuer ceace.
And millions both of troths and lies run gadding euery-where,
And wordes confuselie flie in heapes, of which some fill the eare
That heard not of them erst, and some cole-cariers part do play,
To spread abroade the things they heard, and euer by the way
The thing that was inuented growes much greater than before,
And euery one that gets it by the end addes somewhat more.
Light credit dwelleth there, there dwells rash error, there doth dwell
Vaine ioy: there dwelleth hartlesse feare, and brute that loues to tell
Uncertaine newes vpon report, whereof he doth not knowe
The author, and sedition who fresh rumors loues to sowe.
This Fame beholdeth what is done in heauen, on sea, and land,
And what is wrought in all the world he layes to vnderstand.'
§ 5. DATE OF THE POEM. Ten Brink, in his Chaucer Studien, pp. 120, 121,
concludes that The House of Fame was, in all probability, composed shortly
after Troilus, as the opening lines reproduce, in effect, a passage
concerning dreams which appears in the last Book of Troilus, ll. 358-385.
We may also observe the following lines in Troilus, from Book I, 517-8:--
'Now, thonked be god, he may goon in the daunce
Of hem that Love list febly for to avaunce.'
These lines, jestingly applied to Troilus by Pandarus, are in the House of
Fame, 639, 640, applied by Chaucer to himself:--
'Although thou mayst go in the daunce
Of hem that him list not avaunce.'
Again, the House of Fame preceded the Legend of Good Women, because he here
complains of the hardship of his official duties (652-660); whereas, in the
Prologue to the Legend, he rejoices at obtaining some release from them. We
may also note the quotation from Boethius (note to l. 972). As Boethius and
Troilus seem to have been written together, somewhere about 1380, and took
up a considerable time, and the apparent date of the Legend is 1385, the
probable date of the House of Fame is about 1383 or 1384. Ten Brink further
remarks that the references to Jupiter suggest to the reader that the 10th
of December was a Thursday (see note to 111). This would give 1383 for
beginning the poem; and perhaps no fitter date than the end of 1383 and the
spring of 1384 can be found.
§ 6. METRE. Many of Chaucer's metres were introduced by him from the
French; but the four-accent metre, with rime as here employed, was commonly
known before Chaucer's time. It was used by Robert of Brunne in 1303, in
the Cursor Mundi, and in Havelok. It is, however, of French origin, and
occurs in the very lengthy poem of Le Roman de la Rose. Chaucer only
employed it thrice: (1) in translating the Roman de la Rose; (2) in the
Book of the Duchesse; and (3) in the present poem.
For normal lines, with masculine rimes, see 7, 8, 13, 14, 29, 33, &c. For
normal lines, with feminine rimes, see 1, 2, 9, 15, 18, &c. Elision is
common, as of _e_ in _turne_ (1), in _somme_ (6), in _Devyne_ (14); &c.
Sometimes there is a middle pause, where a final syllable need not always
be elided. Thus we may read:--
'By abstinencë--or by seknesse' (25):
'In studie--or melancolious' (30):
'And fro unhappë--and ech disese' (89):
'In his substáuncë--is but air' (768).
Two short syllables, rapidly pronounced, may take the place of one:--
'I noot; but who-_so of_ these mirácles' (12):
'_By a_visiouns, or bý figúres' (47).
The first foot frequently consists of a single syllable; see 26, 35, 40,
44; so also in l. 3, where, in modern English, we should prefer _Unto_.
The final _e_, followed by a consonant, is usually sounded, and has its
usual grammatical values. Thus we have _think-e_, infin. (15); _bot-e_, old
accus. of a fem. sb. (32); _swich-e_, plural (35); _oft-e_, adverbial (35);
_soft-e_, with essential final _e_ (A.S. _s[=o]fte_); _find-e_, pres. pl.
indic. (43); _com-e_, gerund (45): _gret-e_, pl. (53); _mak-e_, infin.
(56); _rod-e_, dat. form used as a new nom., of which there are many
examples in Chaucer (57); _blind-e_, def. adj. (138). The endings _-ed_,
_-en_, _-es_, usually form a distinct syllable; so also _-eth_, which,
however, occasionally becomes _'th_; cf. _comth_ (71). A few common words,
written with final _e_, are monosyllabic; as _thise_ (these); also _shulde_
(should), and the like, occasionally. Remember that the old accent is
frequently different from the modern; as in _orácles_, _mirácles_ (11, 12):
_distaúnc-e_ (18), _aventúres_, _figúres_ (47, 48): _povért_ (88):
_málicióus_ (93): &c. The endings _-i-al_, _-i-oun_, _-i-ous_, usually form
two distinct syllables.
For further remarks on Metre and Grammar, see vol. v.
§ 7. IMITATIONS. The chief imitations of the House of Fame are The Temple
of Glas, by Lydgate[6]; The Palice of Honour, by Gawain Douglas; The
Garland of Laurell, by John Skelton; and The Temple of Fame, by Pope.
Pope's poem should not be compared with Chaucer's; it is very different in
character, and is best appreciated by forgetting its origin.
§ 8. AUTHORITIES. The authorities for the text are few and poor; hence it
is hardly possible to produce a thoroughly satisfactory text. There are
three MSS. of the fifteenth century, viz. F. (Fairfax MS. 16, in the
Bodleian Library); B. (MS. Bodley, 638, in the same); P. (MS. Pepys 2006,
in Magdalene College, Cambridge). The last of these is imperfect, ending at
l. 1843. There are two early printed editions of some value, viz. Cx.
(Caxton's edition, undated); and Th. (Thynne's edition, 1532). None of the
later editions are of much value, except the critical edition by Hans
Willert (Berlin, 1883). Of these, F. and B., which are much alike, form a
first group; P. and Cx. form a second group; whilst Th. partly agrees with
Cx., and partly with F. The text is chiefly from F., with collations of the
other sources, as given in the footnotes, which record only the more
important variations.
§ 9. SOME EMENDATIONS. In constructing the text, a good deal of emendation
has been necessary; and I have adopted many hints from Willert's edition
above mentioned; though perhaps I may be allowed to add that, in many
cases, I had arrived at the same emendations independently, especially
where they were obvious. Among the emendations in spelling, I may
particularise _misdemen_ (92), where all the authorities have _mysdeme_ or
_misdeme_; _Dispyt_, in place of _Dispyte_ (96); _barfoot_, for _barefoot_
or _barefote_ (98); _proces_ (as in P.) for _processe_, as in the rest
(251); _delyt_, _profyt_, for _delyte_, _profyte_ (309, 310); _sleighte_
for _sleight_ (462); _brighte_[7], _sighte_, for _bright_, _sight_ (503,
504); _wighte_, _highte_, for _wight_, _hight_ (739, 740); _fyn_, _Delphyn_
(as in Cx.), for _fyne_, _Delphyne_ (1005, 1006); _magyk_, _syk_, for
_magyke_, _syke_ (1269, 1270); _losenges_, for _losynges_ (1317), and
_frenges_ (as in F.) for _frynges_, as in the rest (1318); _dispyt_ for
_dispite_ (1716); _laughe_ for _laugh_ (Cx. _lawhe_, 1809); _delyt_ for
_delyte_ (P. _delit_, 1831); _thengyn_ (as in Th.) for _thengyne_ (1934);
_othere_ for _other_ (2151, footnote). These are only a few of the
instances where nearly all the authorities are at fault.
The above instances merely relate to questions of spelling. Still more
serious are the defects in the MSS. and printed texts as regards the sense;
but all instances of emendation are duly specified in the footnotes, and
are frequently further discussed in the Notes at the end. Thus, in l. 329,
it is necessary to supply _I_. In 370, _allas_ should be _Eneas_. In 513,
Willert rightly puts _selly_, i.e. wonderful, for _sely_, blessed. In 557,
the metre is easily restored, by reading _so agast_ for _agast so_. In 621,
we must read _lyte is_, not _lytel is_, if we want a rime to _dytees_. In
827, I restore the word _mansioun_; the usual readings are tautological. In
911, I restore _toun_ for _token_, and adopt the only reading of l. 912
that gives any sense. In 1007, the only possible reading is _Atlantes_. In
1044, Morris's edition has _biten_, correctly; though MS. F. has _beten_,
and there is no indication that a correction has been made. In 1114, the
right word is _site_; cf. the Treatise on the Astrolabe (see Note). In
1135, read _bilt_ (i.e. buildeth); _bilte_ gives neither sense nor rhythm.
In 1173, supply _be_. Ll. 1177, 1178 have been set right by Willert. In
1189, the right word is _Babewinnes_[8]. In 1208, read _Bret_ (as in B.).
In 1233, read _famous_. In 1236, read _Reyes_[9]. In 1303, read _hatte_,
i.e. are named. In 1351, read _Fulle_, not _Fyne_. In 1372, adopt the
reading of Cx. Th. P., or there is no nominative to _streighte_; and in
1373, read _wonderliche_. In 1411, read _tharmes_ (= _the armes_). In 1425,
I supply _and hy_, to fill out the line. In 1483, I supply _dan_; if,
however, _poete_ is made trisyllabic, then l. 1499 should not contain
_daun_. In 1494, for _high the_, read _highte_ (as in l. 744). In 1527, for
_into_ read _in_. In 1570, read _Up peyne_. In 1666, 1701, and 1720, for
_werkes_ read _werk_. In 1702, read _clew_ (see note)[10]. In 1717, _lyen_
is an error for _lyuen_, i.e. live. In 1750, read _To_, not _The_. In 1775,
supply _ye_; or there is no sense. In 1793, supply _they_ for a like
reason. In 1804, 5, supply _the_, and _al_; for the scansion. In 1897, read
_wiste_, not _wot_. In 1940, _hattes_ should be _hottes_; this emendation
has been accepted by several scholars. In 1936, the right word is _falwe_,
not _salwe_ (as in Morris). In 1960, there should be no comma at the end of
the line, as in most editions; and in 1961, 2 read _werre_, _reste_ (not
_werres_, _restes_). In 1975, _mis_ and _governement_ are distinct words.
In 2017, _frot_[11] is an error for _froyt_; it is better to read _fruit_
at once; this correction is due to Koch. In 2021, suppress _in_ after
_yaf_. In 2049, for _he_ read _the other_ (Willert). In 2059, _wondermost_
is all one word. In 2076, I read _word_; Morris reads _mothe_, but does not
explain it, and it gives no sense. In 2156, I supply _nevene_.
I mention these as examples of necessary emendations of which the usual
editions take no notice.
I also take occasion to draw attention to the careful articles on this poem
by Dr. J. Koch, in Anglia, vol. vii. App. 24-30, and Englische Studien, xv.
409-415; and the remarks by Willert in Anglia, vii. App. 203-7. The best
general account of the poem is that in Ten Brink's History of English
Literature.
In conclusion, I add a few 'last words.'
L. 399. We learn, from Troil. i. 654, that Chaucer actually supposed
'Oënone' to have four syllables. This restores the metre. Read:--And Paris
to Oënone.
503. Read 'brighte,' with final _e_; 'bright' is a misprint.
859. Compare Cant. Tales, F 726.
1119. 'To climbe hit,' i.e. to climb the rock; still a common idiom.
2115. Compare Cant. Tales, A 2078. Perhaps read 'wanie.'
INTRODUCTION TO THE LEGEND OF GOOD WOMEN.
§ 1. DATE OF THE POEM: A.D. 1385. The Legend of Good Women presents several
points of peculiar, I might almost say of unique interest. It is the
immediate precursor of the Canterbury Tales, and enables us to see how the
poet was led on towards the composition of that immortal poem. This is
easily seen, upon consideration of the date at which it was composed.
The question of the date has been well investigated by Ten Brink; but it
may be observed beforehand that the allusion to the 'queen' in l. 496 has
long ago been noticed, and it has been thence inferred, by Tyrwhitt, that
the Prologue must have been written _after_ 1382, the year when Richard II.
married his first wife, the 'good queen Anne.' But Ten Brink's remarks
enable us to look at the question much more closely.
He shows that Chaucer's work can be clearly divided into three chief
periods, the chronology of which he presents in the following form[12].
FIRST PERIOD.
1366 (at latest). The Romaunt of the Rose.
1369. The Book of the Duchesse.
1372. (end of the period).
SECOND PERIOD.
1373. The Lyf of Seint Cecile.
The Assembly of Foules.
Palamon and Arcite.
Translation of Boethius.
Troilus and Creseide.
1384. The House of Fame.
THIRD PERIOD.
1385. Legend of Good Women.
Canterbury Tales.
1391. Treatise on the Astrolabe.
It is unnecessary for our present purpose to insert the conjectured dates
of the Minor Poems not here mentioned.
According to Ten Brink, the poems of the First Period were composed before
Chaucer set out on his Italian travels, i.e. before December, 1372, and
contain no allusions to writings by Italian authors. In them, the influence
of French authors is very strongly marked.
The poems of the Second Period (he tells us) were composed after that date.
The Life of Seint Cecile already marks the author's acquaintance with
Dante's Divina Commedia; lines 36-51 are, in fact, a free translation from
the Paradiso, canto xxxiii. ll. 1-21. See my note to this passage, and the
remarks on the 'Second Nun's Tale' in vol. v. The Parlement of Foules
contains references to Dante and a long passage translated from Boccaccio's
Teseide; see my notes to that poem in vol. i. The original Palamon and
Arcite was also taken from the Teseide; for even the revised version of it
(now known as the Knightes Tale, and containing, doubtless, much more of
Chaucer's own work) is founded upon that poem, and occasionally presents
verbal imitations of it. Troilus is similarly dependent upon Boccaccio's
Filostrato. The close connexion between Troilus and the translation of
Boethius is seen from several considerations, of which it may suffice here
to mention two. The former is the association of these two works in
Chaucer's lines to Adam--
'Adam scriveyn, if ever it thee befalle
_Boece_ or _Troilus_ to wryten newe.'
Minor Poems; see vol. i. p. 379.
And the latter is, the fact that Chaucer inserts in Troilus (book iv.
stanzas 140-154) a long passage on predestination and free-will, taken from
Boethius, book v. proses 2, 3; which he would appear to have still fresh in
his mind. It is probable that his Boethius preceded Troilus almost
immediately; indeed, it is conceivable that, for a short season, both may
have been in hand at the same time.
There is also a close connexion between Troilus and the House of Fame, the
latter of which shows the influence of Dante in a high degree; see p. vii.
This connexion will appear from comparing Troil. v. stt. 52-55 with Ho.
Fame, 2-54; and Troil. i. st. 74 (ll. 517-8) with Ho. Fame, 639, 640. See
Ten Brink, Studien, p. 121. It would seem that the House of Fame followed
Troilus almost immediately. At the same time, we cannot put the date of the
House of Fame later than 1384, because of Chaucer's complaint in it of the
hardship of his official duties, from much of which he was released (as we
shall see) early in 1385. Further, the 10th of December is especially
mentioned as being the date on which the House of Fame was commenced (l.
111), the year being probably 1383 (see Note to that line).
It would appear, further, that the Legend was begun soon after the House of
Fame was suddenly abandoned, in the very middle of a sentence. That it was
written later than Troilus and the House of Fame is obvious, from the
mention of these poems in the Prologue; ll. 332, 417, 441. That it was
written at no great interval after Troilus appears from the fact that, even
while writing Troilus, Chaucer had already been meditating upon the
goodness of Alcestis, of which the Prologue to the Legend says so much.
Observe the following passages (cited by Ten Brink, Studien, p. 120) from
Troilus, bk. v. stt. 219, 254:--
'As wel thou mightest lyen on _Alceste_
That was of creatures--but men lye--
That ever weren, kindest and the beste.
For whan hir housbonde was in Iupartye
To dye himself, but-if she wolde dye,
She chees for him to dye and go to helle,
And starf anoon, as us the bokes telle.
Besechinge every lady bright of hewe,
And every gentil womman, what she be,
That, al be that Criseyde was untrewe,
That for that gilt she be not wrooth with me.
Ye may hir gilt in othere bokes see;
And gladlier I wol wryten, if yow leste,
Penelopeës trouthe, and good _Alceste_.'
There is also a striking similarity between the argument in Troilus, bk.
iv. st. 3, and ll. 369-372 (B-text) of the Prologue to the Legend. The
stanza runs thus:--
'For how Criseyde Troilus forsook,
Or at the leste, how that she was unkinde,
Mot hennes-forth ben matere of my book,
As wryten folk thorugh whiche it is in minde.
Allas! that they shulde ever cause finde
To speke hir harm; and, if they on hir lye,
Y-wis, hem-self sholde han the vilanye.'
I will here also note the fact that the first line of the above stanza is
quoted, almost unaltered, in the _earlier version_ of the Prologue, viz. at
l. 265 of the A-text, on p. 88.
From the above considerations we may already infer that the House of Fame
was begun, probably, in December, 1383, and continued in 1384; and that the
Legend of Good Women, which almost immediately succeeded it, may be dated
about 1384 or 1385; certainly after 1382, when King Richard was first
married. But now that we have come so near to the date, it is possible to
come still nearer; for it can hardly be doubted that the extremely grateful
way in which Chaucer speaks of the queen may fairly be connected with the
stroke of good fortune which happened to him just at this very period. In
the House of Fame we find him groaning about the troublesomeness of his
official duties; and the one object of his life, just then, was to obtain
greater leisure, especially if it could be had without serious loss of
income. Now we know that, on the 17th of February, 1385, he obtained the
indulgence of being allowed to nominate a permanent deputy for his
Controllership of the Customs and Subsidies; see Furnivall's Trial
Forewords to the Minor Poems, p. 25. If with our knowledge of this fact we
combine these considerations, viz. that Chaucer expresses himself
gratefully to the queen, that he says nothing more of his troublesome
duties, and that Richard II. is known to have been a patron of letters (as
we learn from Gower), we may well conclude that the poet's release from his
burden was brought about by the queen's intercession with the king on his
behalf. We may here notice Lydgate's remarks in the following stanza, which
occurs in the Prologue to the Fall of Princes[13]:--
'This poete wrote, _at the request of the quene_,
A Legende, of perfite holynesse,
Of Good Women, to fynd out nynetene
That did excell in bounte and fayrenes;
But for his labour and besinesse
Was importable, his wittes to encombre,
In all this world to fynd so gret a nombre[14].'
Lydgate can hardly be correct in his statement that Chaucer wrote 'at the
request' of the queen: for, had our author done so, he would have let us
know it. Still, he has seized the right idea, viz. that the queen was, so
to speak, the moving cause which effected the production of the poem.
It is, moreover, much to the point to observe that Chaucer's state of
delightful freedom did not last long. Owing to a sudden change in the
government we find that, on Dec. 4, 1386, he lost his Controllership of the
Customs and Subsidies; and, only ten days later, also lost his
Controllership of the Petty Customs. Something certainly went wrong, but we
have no proof that Chaucer abused his privilege.
On the whole we may interpret ll. 496, 7 (p. 101), viz.
'And whan this book is maad, yive hit the quene,
On my behalfe, at Eltham[15] or at Shene,'
as giving us a date but little later than Feb. 17, 1385, and certainly
before Dec. 4, 1386. The mention of the month of May in ll. 36, 45, 108,
176, is probably conventional; still, the other frequent references to
spring-time, as in ll. 40-66, 130-147, 171-174, 206, &c., may mean
something; and in particular we may note the reference to St. Valentine's
day as being _past_, in ll. 145, 146; seeing that _chees_ (chose) occurs in
the past tense. We can hardly resist the conviction that the right date of
the Prologue is the spring of 1385, which satisfies every condition.
§ 2. THE TWO FORMS OF THE PROLOGUE. So far, I have kept out of view the
important fact, that the Prologue exists in two distinct forms, viz. an
earlier and a revised form. The lines in which 'the queen' is expressly
mentioned occur in the later version only, so that some of the above
arguments really relate to that alone. But it makes no great difference, as
there is no reason to suppose that there was any appreciable lapse of time
between the two versions.
In order to save words, I shall call the earlier version the A-text, and
the later one the B-text. The manner of printing these texts is explained
at p. 65. I print the B-text in full, in the lower half of the page. The
A-text appears in the upper half of the same, and is taken from MS. C.
(Camb. Univ. Library, Gg. 4. 27), which is the only MS. that contains it,
with corrections of the spelling, as recorded in the footnotes. Lines which
appear in _one_ text only are marked with an asterisk (*); those which
stand almost exactly the same in _both_ texts are marked with a dagger (+)
prefixed to them; whilst the unmarked lines are such as occur in both
texts, but with some slight alteration. By way of example, observe that
lines B. 496, 497, mentioning the queen, are duly marked with an asterisk,
as not being in A. Line 2, standing the same in both texts, is marked with
a dagger. And thirdly, line 1 is unmarked, because it is slightly altered.
A. has here the older expression 'A thousand _sythes_,' whilst B. has the
more familiar 'A thousand _tymes_.'
The fact that A. is older than B. cannot perhaps be absolutely proved
without a long investigation. But all the conditions point in that
direction. In the first place, it occurs in only _one_ MS., viz. MS. C.,
whilst all the others give the B-text; and it is more likely that a revised
text should be multiplied than that a first draft should be. Next, this MS.
C. is of high value and great importance, being quite the best MS., as
regards age, of the whole set; and it is a fortunate thing that the A-text
has been preserved at all. And lastly, the internal evidence tends, in my
opinion, to shew that B. can be more easily evolved from A. than
conversely. I am not aware that any one has ever doubted this result.
We may easily see that the A-text is, on the whole, more general and vague,
whilst the B-text is more particular in its references. The impression left
on my mind by the perusal of the two forms of the Prologue is that Chaucer
made immediate use of the comparative liberty accorded to him on the 17th
of February, 1385, to plan a new poem, in an entirely new metre, and in the
new form of a succession of tales. He decided, further, that the tales
should relate to women famous in love-stories, and began by writing the
tale of Cleopatra, which is specially mentioned in B. 566 (and A. 542)[16].
The idea then occurred to him of writing a preface or Prologue, which would
afford him the double opportunity of justifying and explaining his design,
and of expressing his gratitude for his attainment of greater leisure.
Having done this, he was not wholly satisfied with it; he thought the
expression of gratitude did not come out with sufficient clearness, at
least with regard to the person to whom he owed the greatest debt. So he at
once set about to amend and alter it; the first draught, of which he had no
reason to be ashamed, being at the same time preserved. And we may be sure
that the revision was made almost immediately; he was not the man to take
up a piece of work again after the first excitement of it had passed
away[17]. On the contrary, he used to form larger plans than he could well
execute, and leave them unfinished when he grew tired of them. I therefore
propose to assign the conjectural date of the spring of 1385 to both forms
of the Prologue; and I suppose that Chaucer went on with one tale of the
series after another during the summer and latter part of the same year
till he grew tired of the task, and at last gave it up in the middle of a
sentence. An expression of doubt as to the completion of the task already
appears in l. 2457.
§ 3. COMPARISON OF THE TWO FORMS OF THE PROLOGUE. A detailed comparison of
the two forms of the Prologue would extend to a great length. I merely
point out some of the more remarkable variations.
The first _distinct_ note of difference that calls for notice is at line A.
89 (B. 108), p. 72, where the line--
'When passed was almost the month of May'
is altered to--
'And this was now the firste morwe of May.'
This is clearly done for the sake of greater definiteness, and because of
the association of the 1st of May with certain national customs expressive
of rejoicing. It is emphasized by the statements in B. 114 as to the exact
position of the sun (see note to the line). In like manner the vague
expression about 'the Ioly tyme of May' in A. 36 is exchanged for the more
exact--'whan that the month of May Is comen'; B. 36. In the B-text, the
date is definitely fixed; in ll. 36-63 we learn what he _usually_ did on
the recurrence of the May-season; in ll. 103-124, we have his (supposed)
actual rising at the dawn of May-day; then the manner in which he spent
that day (ll. 179-185); and lastly, the arrival of night, his return home,
his falling asleep, and his dream (ll. 197-210). He awakes on the morning
of May 2, and sets to work at once (ll. 578, 579).
Another notable variation is on p. 71. On arriving at line A. 70, he puts
aside A. 71-80 for the present, to be introduced later on (p. 77); and
writes the new and important passage contained in B. 83-96 (p. 71). The
lady whom he here addresses as being his 'very light,' one whom his heart
dreads, whom he obeys as a harp obeys the hand of the player, who is his
guide, his 'lady sovereign,' and his 'earthly god,' cannot be mistaken. The
reference is obviously to his sovereign lady the queen; and the expression
'earthly god' is made clear by the declaration (in B. 387) that kings are
as demi-gods in this present world.
In A., the Proem or true Introduction ends at l. 88, and is more marked
than in B., wherein it ends at l. 102.
The passage in A. contained in ll. 127-138 (pp. 75, 76) is corrupt and
imperfect in the MS. The sole existing copy of it was evidently made from a
MS. that had been more or less defaced; I have had to restore it as I best
could. The B-text has here been altered and revised, though the variations
are neither extensive nor important; but the passage is immediately
followed by about 30 new lines, in which Mercy is said to be a greater
power than Right, or strict Justice, especially when Right is overcome
'through innocence and ruled curtesye'; the application of which expression
is obvious.
In B. 183-187 we have the etymology of _daisy_, the declaration that 'she
is the empress of flowers,' and a prayer for her prosperity, i.e. for the
prosperity of the queen.
In A. 103 (p. 73), the poet falls asleep and dreams. In his dream, he sees
a lark (A. 141, p. 79) who introduces the God of Love. In the B-text, the
dream is postponed till B. 210 (p. 79), and the lark is left out, as being
unnecessary. This is a clear improvement.
An important change is made in the 'Balade' at pp. 83, 84. The refrain is
altered from 'Alceste is here' to 'My lady cometh.' The reason is twofold.
The poet wishes to suppress the name of Alcestis for the present, in order
to introduce it as a surprise towards the end (B. 518)[18]; and secondly,
the words 'My lady cometh' are used as being _directly_ applicable to the
queen, instead of being only applicable through the medium of allegory.
Indeed, Chaucer takes good care to say so; for he inserts a passage to that
effect (B. 271-5); where we may remember, by the way, that _free_ means
'bounteous' in Middle-English. We have a few additional lines of the same
sort in B. 296-299.
On the other hand, Chaucer suppressed the long and interesting passage in
A. 258-264, 267-287, 289-312, for no very obvious reason. But for the
existence of MS. C., it would have been wholly lost to us, and the recovery
of it is a clear gain. Most interesting of all is the allusion to Chaucer's
sixty books of his own, all full of love-stories and personages known to
history, in which, for every bad woman, mention was duly made of a hundred
good ones (A. 273-277, p. 88)[19]. Important also is his mention of some of
his authors, such as Valerius, Livy, Claudian, Jerome, Ovid, and Vincent of
Beauvais.
If, as we have seen, Alcestis in this Prologue really meant the queen, it
should follow that the God of Love really meant the king. This is made
clear in B. 373-408, especially in the comparison between a just king (such
as Richard, of course) and the tyrants of Lombardy. In fact, in A. 360-364,
Chaucer said a little too much about the duty of a king to hear the
complaints and petitions of the people, and he very wisely omitted it in
revision. In A. 355, he used the unlucky word 'wilfulhed' as an attribute
of a Lombard tyrant; but as it was not wholly inapplicable to the king of
England, he quietly suppressed it. But the comparison of the king to a
lion, and of himself to a fly, was in excellent taste; so no alteration was
needed here (p. 94).
In his enumeration of his former works (B. 417-430), he left out one work
which he had previously mentioned (A. 414, 415, p. 96). This work is now
lost[20], and was probably omitted as being a mere translation, and of no
great account. Perhaps the poet's good sense told him that the original was
a miserable production, as it must certainly be allowed to be, if we employ
the word _miserable_ with its literal meaning (see p. 307).
At pp. 103, 104, some lines are altered in A. (527-532) in order to get rid
of the name of Alcestis here, and to bring in a more immediate reference to
the Balade. Line B. 540 is especially curious, because he had _not_, in the
first instance, forgotten to put her in his Balade (see A. 209); but he now
wished to seem to have done so.
In B. 552-565, we have an interesting addition, in which Love charges him
to put all the nineteen ladies, besides Alcestis, into his Legend; and
tells him that he may _choose his own metre_ (B. 562). Again, in B.
568-577, he practically stipulates that he is only to tell the more
interesting part of each story, and to leave out whatever he should deem to
be tedious. This proviso was eminently practical and judicious.
§ 4. THE SUBJECT OF THE LEGEND. We learn, from B. 241, 283, that Chaucer
saw in his vision Alcestis and nineteen other ladies, and from B. 557, that
he was to commemorate them all in his Legend, beginning with Cleopatra
(566) and ending with Alcestis (549, 550). As to the names of the nineteen,
they are to be found in his Balade (555).
Upon turning to the Balade (p. 83), the names actually mentioned include
some which are hardly admissible. For example, Absalom and Jonathan are
names of men; Esther is hardly a suitable subject, whilst Ysoult belongs to
a romance of medieval times. (Cf. A. 275, p. 88.) The resulting practicable
list is thus reduced to the following, viz. Penelope, Marcia, Helen,
Lavinia, Lucretia, Polyxena, Cleopatra, Thisbe, Hero, Dido, Laodamia,
Phyllis, Canace, Hypsipyle, Hypermnestra, and Ariadne. At the same time, we
find legends of Medea and Philomela, though neither of these are mentioned
in the Balade. It is of course intended that the Balade should give a
representative list only, without being exactly accurate.
But we are next confronted by a most extraordinary piece of evidence, viz.
that of Chaucer himself, when, at a later period, he wrote the Introduction
to the Man of Lawes Prologue (see vol. iv. p. 131). He there expressly
refers to his Legend of Good Women, which he is pleased to call 'the
Seintes Legende of Cupide,' i.e. the Legend of Cupid's Saints. And, in
describing this former work of his, he introduces the following lines:--
'Ther may be seen the large woundes wyde
Of Lucresse, and of Babilan Tisbee;
The swerd of Dido for the false Enee;
The tree of Phillis for hir Demophon;
The pleinte of Dianire and Hermion,
Of Adriane and of Isiphilee;
The bareyne yle stonding in the see;
The dreynte Leander for his Erro;
The teres of Eleyne, and eek the wo
Of Brixseyde, and of thee, Ladomea;
The cruelte of thee, queen Medea,
Thy litel children hanging by the hals
For thy Iason, that was of love so fals!
O Ypermistra, Penelopee, Alceste,
Your wyfhod he comendeth with the beste!
But certeinly no word ne wryteth he
Of thilke wikke example of Canacee'; &c.
We can only suppose that he is referring to the contents of his work in
quite general terms, with a passing reference to his vision of Alcestis and
the nineteen ladies, and to those mentioned in his Balade. There is no
reason for supposing that he ever wrote complete tales about Deianira,
Hermione, Hero, Helen, Briseis, Laodamia, or Penelope, any more than he did
about Alcestis. But it is highly probable that, just at the period of
writing his Introduction to the Man of Lawes Prologue, he was seriously
intending to take up again his 'Legend,' and was planning how to continue
it. But he never did it.
On comparing these two lists, we find that the following names are common
to both, viz. Penelope, Helen, Lucretia, Thisbe, Hero, Dido, Laodamia,
Phyllis, Canace, Hypsipyle, Hypermnestra, Ariadne, and (in effect)
Alcestis. The following occur in the Balade only, viz. Marcia, Lavinia,
Polyxena, Cleopatra. And the following are mentioned in the above-quoted
passage only, viz. Deianira, Hermione, Briseis, Medea. We further know that
he actually wrote the Legend of Philomela, though it is in neither of the
above lists; whilst the story of Canace was expressly rejected. Combining
our information, and rearranging it, we see that his intention was to write
nineteen Legends, descriptive of twenty women, viz. Alcestis and nineteen
others; the number of Legends being reduced by one owing to the treatment
of the stories of Medea and Hypsipyle under one narrative. Putting aside
Alcestis, whose Legend was to come last, the nineteen women can be made up
as follows:--
1. Cleopatra. 2. Thisbe. 3. Dido. 4 and 5. Hypsipyle and Medea. 6.
Lucretia. 7. Ariadne. 8. Philomela. 9. Phyllis. 10. Hypermnestra (_all of
which are extant_). _Next come_--11. Penelope: 12. Helen: 13. Hero: 14.
Laodamia (_all mentioned in both lists_). 15. Lavinia: 16. Polyxena[21]
(_mentioned in the Balade_). 17. Deianira: 18. Hermione: 19. Briseis (_in
the Introduction to the Man of Lawe_).
This conjectural list is sufficient to elucidate Chaucer's plan fully, and
agrees with that given in the note to l. 61 of the Introduction to the Man
of Lawes Tale, in vol. v.
If we next enquire how such lists of 'martyred' women came to be suggested
to Chaucer, we may feel sure that he was thinking of Boccaccio's book
entitled De Claris Mulieribus, and of Ovid's Heroides. Boccaccio's book
contains 105 tales of Illustrious Women, briefly told in Latin prose.
Chaucer seems to have partially imitated from it the title of his
poem--'The Legend of Good Women'; and he doubtless consulted it for his
purpose. But he took care to consult other sources also, in order to be
able to give the tales at greater length, so that the traces of his debt to
the above work by Boccaccio are very slight.
We must not, however, omit to take notice that, whilst Chaucer owes but
little to Boccaccio as regards his subject-matter, it was from him, in
particular, that he took his _general plan_. This is well shewn in the
excellent and careful essay by M. Bech, printed in 'Anglia,' vol. v. pp.
313-382, with the title--'Quellen und Plan der _Legende of Goode Women_ und
ihr Verhältniss zur _Confessio Amantis_.' At p. 381, Bech compares
Chaucer's work with Boccaccio's, and finds the following points of
resemblance.
1. Both works treat exclusively of women; one of them speaks particularly
of 'Gode Women,' whilst the other is written 'De Claris Mulieribus.'
2. Both works relate chiefly to tales of olden time.
3. In both, the tales follow each other without any intermediate matter.
4. Both are compacted into a whole by means of an introductory Prologue.
5. Both writers wish to dedicate their works to a queen, but effect this
modestly and indirectly. Boccaccio addresses his Prologue to a countess,
telling her that he wishes to dedicate his book to Joanna, queen of
Jerusalem and Sicily; whilst Chaucer veils his address to queen Anne under
the guise of allegory.
6. Both record the fact of their writing in a time of comparative leisure.
Boccaccio uses the words: 'paululum ab inerti uulgo semotus et a ceteris
fere solutus curis.'
7. Had Chaucer finished his work, his last Legend would have related to
Alcestis, i.e. to the queen herself. Boccaccio actually concludes his work
with a chapter 'De Iohanna Hierusalem et Sicilie regina.'
See further in Bech, who quotes Boccaccio's 'Prologue' in full.
To this comparison should be added (as Bech remarks) an accidental
coincidence which is even more striking, viz. that the work 'De Claris
Mulieribus' bears much the same relation to the more famous one entitled
'Il Decamerone,' that the Legend of Good Women does to the Canterbury
Tales.
Boccaccio has all of Chaucer's finished tales, except those of Ariadne,
Philomela, and Phyllis[22]; he also gives the stories of some whom Chaucer
only mentions, such as the stories of Deianira (cap. 22), Polyxena (cap.
31), Helena (cap. 35), Penelope (cap. 38); and others. To Ovid our author
is much more indebted, and frequently translates passages from his Heroides
(or Epistles) and from the Metamorphoses. The former of these works
contains the Epistles of Phyllis, Hypsipyle, Medea, Dido, Ariadne, and
Hypermnestra, whose stories Chaucer relates, as well as the letters of most
of those whom Chaucer merely mentions, viz. of Penelope, Briseis, Hermione,
Deianira, Laodamia, Helena, and Hero. It is evident that our poet was
chiefly guided by Ovid in selecting stories from the much larger collection
in Boccaccio. At the same time it is remarkable that neither Boccaccio (in
the above work) nor Ovid gives the story of Alcestis, and it is not quite
certain whence Chaucer obtained it. It is briefly told in the 51st of the
Fabulae of Hyginus, but it is much more likely that Chaucer borrowed it
from another work by Boccaccio, entitled De Genealogia Deorum[23], where it
appears amongst the fifty-one labours of Hercules, in the following
words:--
'Alcestem Admeti regis Thessaliae coniugem retraxit [Hercules] ad uirum.
Dicunt enim, quod cum infirmaretur Admetus, implorassetque Apollinis
auxilium, sibi ab Apolline dictum mortem euadere non posse, nisi illam
aliquis ex affinibus atque necessariis subiret. Quod cum audisset Alcestis
coniunx, non dubitauit suam pro salute uiri concedere, et sic ea mortua
Admetus liberatus est, qui plurimum uxori compatiens Herculem orauit, vt ad
inferos uadens illius animam reuocaret ad superos, quod et factum est.'--
Lib. xiii. c. 1 (ed. 1532).
§ 5. THE DAISY. To this story Chaucer has added a pretty addition of his
own invention, that this heroine was finally transformed into a daisy. The
idea of choosing this flower as the emblem of perfect wifehood was
certainly a happy one, and has often been admired. It is first alluded to
by Lydgate, in a Poem against Self-Love (see Lydgate's Minor Poems, ed.
Halliwell, p. 161):--
'Alcestis flower, with white, with red and greene,
Displaieth hir crown geyn Phebus bemys brihte.'
And again, in the same author's Temple of Glas, ll. 71-74:--
'I mene Alceste, the noble trewe wyf ...
Hou she was turned to a dayesye.'
The anonymous author of the Court of Love seized upon the same fancy to
adorn his description of the Castle of Love, which, as he tells us, was--
'With-in and oute depeinted wonderly
With many a thousand daisy[es] rede as rose
And white also, this sawe I verely.
But what tho deis[y]es might do signifye
Can I not tel, saufe that the quenes floure,
Alceste, it was, that kept ther her soioure,
Which vnder Uenus lady was and quene,
And Admete kyng and souerain of that place,
To whom obeied _the ladies good ninetene_,
With many a thousand other bright of face[24].'
The mention of 'the ladies good ninetene' at once shews us whence this
mention of Alcestis was borrowed.
In a modern book entitled Flora Historica, by Henry Phillips, 2nd ed. i.
42, we are gravely told that 'fabulous history informs us that this plant
[the daisy] is called _Bellis_ because it owes its origin to Belides, a
granddaughter of Danaus, and one of the nymphs called Dryads, that presided
over the meadows and pastures in ancient times. Belides is said to have
encouraged the suit of Ephigeus, but whilst dancing on the green with this
rural deity she attracted the admiration of Vertumnus, who, just as he was
about to seize her in his embrace, saw her transformed into the humble
plant that now bears her name.' It is clear that the concocter of this
stupid story was not aware that _Belides_ is a _plural_ substantive, being
the collective name of the fifty daughters of Danaus, who are here rolled
into one in order to be transformed into a single daisy; and all because
the words _bellis_ and _Belides_ happen to begin with the same three
letters! It may also be noticed that 'in ancient times' the business of the
Dryads was to preside over trees rather than 'over meadows and pastures.'
Who the 'rural deity' was who is here named 'Ephigeus' I neither know nor
care. But it is curious to observe the degeneracy of the story for which
Chaucer was (in my belief) originally responsible[25]. See Notes and
Queries, 7th S. vi. 186, 309.
Of course it is easy to see that this invention on the part of Chaucer is
imitated from Ovid's Metamorphoses, where Clytie becomes a sun-flower,
Daphne a laurel, and Narcissus, Crocus, and Hyacinthus become,
respectively, a narcissus, a crocus, and a hyacinth. At the same time,
Chaucer's attention may have been directed to the daisy in particular, as
Tyrwhitt long ago pointed out, by a perusal of such poems as Le Dit de la
fleur de lis et de la Marguerite, by Guillaume de Machault (printed in
Tarbe's edition, 1849, p. 123), and Le Dittié de la flour de la Margherite,
by Froissart (printed in Bartsch's Chrestomathie de l'ancien Français,
1875, p. 422); see Introduction to Chaucer's Minor Poems, in vol. i. p. 36.
In particular, we may well compare lines 42, 48, 49, 60-63 of our B-text
with Machault's Dit de la Marguerite (ed. Tarbé, p. 123):--
'J'aim une fleur, qui s'uevre et qui s'encline
Vers le soleil, de jour quant il chemine;
Et quant il est couchiez soubz sa courtine
Par nuit obscure,
Elle se clost, ainsois que li jours fine.'
And again, we may compare ll. 53-55 with the lines in Machault that
immediately follow, viz.
'Toutes passe, ce mest vis, en coulour,
Et toutes ha surmonté de douçour;
Ne comparer
Ne se porroit nulle à li de coulour': &c.[26]
The resemblance is, I think, too close to be accidental.
We may also compare (though the resemblance is less striking) ll. 40-57 of
the B-text of the Prologue (pp. 68, 69) with ll. 22-30 of Froissart's poem
on the Daisy:--
'Son doulç vëoir grandement me proufite,
et pour ce est dedens mon coer escripte
si plainnement
que nuit et jour en pensant ie recite
les grans vertus de quoi elle est confite,
et di ensi: "la heure soit benite
quant pour moi ai tele flourette eslite,
qui de bonté et de beauté est dite
la souveraine,"' &c.
At l. 68 of the same poem, as pointed out by M. Sandras (Étude sur G.
Chaucer, 1859, p. 58), and more clearly by Bech (Anglia, v. 363), we have a
story of a woman named Herés--'une pucelle [qui] ama tant son mari'--whose
tears, shed for the loss of her husband Cephëy, were turned by Jupiter into
_daisies_ as they fell upon the green turf. There they were discovered, one
January, by Mercury, who formed a garland of them, which he sent by a
messenger named Lirés to Serés (Ceres). Ceres was so pleased by the gift
that she caused Lirés to be beloved, which he had never been before.
This mention of Ceres doubtless suggested Chaucer's mention of Cibella
(Cybele) in B. 531. In fact, Chaucer first transforms Alcestis herself into
a daisy (B. 512); but afterwards tells us that Jupiter changed her into a
constellation (B. 525), whilst Cybele made the daisies spring up 'in
remembrance and honour' of her. The clue seems to be in the name Cephëy,
representing _Cephei_ gen. case of _Cepheus_. He was a king of Ethiopia,
husband of Cassiope, father of Andromeda, and father-in-law of Perseus.
They were all four 'stellified,' and four constellations bear their names
even to the present day. According to the old mythology, it was not
Alcestis, but Cassiope, who was said to be 'stellified[27].' The whole
matter is thus sufficiently illustrated.
§ 6. AGATON. This is, perhaps, the most convenient place for explaining who
is meant by Agaton (B. 526). The solution of this difficult problem was
first given by Cary, in his translation of Dante's Purgatorio, canto xxii.
l. 106, where the original has _Agatone_. Cary first quotes Chaucer, and
then the opinion of Tyrwhitt, that there seems to be no reference to 'any
of the Agathoes of antiquity,' and adds: 'I am inclined to believe that
Chaucer must have meant Agatho, the dramatic writer, whose name, at least,
appears to have been familiar in the Middle Ages; for, besides the mention
of him in the text, he is quoted by Dante in the Treatise de Monarchia,
lib. iii. "Deus per nuncium facere non potest, genita non esse genita,
iuxta sententiam Agathonis."' The original is to be found in Aristotle,
Ethic. Nicom. lib. vi. c. 2:--
[Greek: Monou gar autou kai theos sterisketai]
[Greek: Agenêta poiein hass' an ê pepragmena.]
Agatho is mentioned by Xenophon in his Symposium, by Plato in the
Protagoras, and in the Banquet, a favourite book with our author [Dante],
and by Aristotle in his Art of Poetry, where the following remarkable
passage occurs concerning him, from which I will leave it to the reader to
decide whether it is possible that the allusion in Chaucer might have
arisen: [Greek: en eniais men hen ê duo tôn gnôrimôn estin onomatôn, ta de
alla pepoiêmena; en eniais de outhen; hoion en tô Agathônos Anthei. homoiôs
gar en toutô ta te pragmata kai ta onomata pepoiêtai, kai ouden hêtton
euphrainei]. Edit. 1794, p. 33. "There are, however, some tragedies, in
which one or two of the names are historical, and the rest feigned; there
are even some, in which none of the names are historical; such is Agatho's
tragedy called 'The Flower'; for in that all is invention, both incidents
and names; and yet it pleases." Aristotle's Treatise on Poetry, by Thos.
Twining, 8vo. edit. 1812, vol. i. p. 128.'
The peculiar spelling _Agaton_ renders it highly probable that Chaucer took
the name from Dante (Purg. xxii. 106), but this does not wholly
suffice[28]. Accordingly, Bech suggests that he may also have noticed the
name in the Saturnalia of Macrobius, an author whose Somnium Scipionis
Chaucer certainly consulted (Book Duch. 284; Parl. Foules, 111). In this
work Macrobius mentions, incidentally, both Alcestis (lib. v. c. 19) and
Agatho (lib. ii. c. 1), and Chaucer may have observed the names there,
though he obtained no particular information about them. Froissart (as Bech
bids us remark), in his poem on the Daisy, has the lines:--
'Mercurius, _ce dist li escripture_,
trouva premier
la belle flour que j'ainc oultre mesure,' &c.
The remark--'ce dist li escripture,' 'as the book says'--may well have
suggested to Chaucer that he ought to give _some authority_ for his story,
and the name of Agatho (of whom he probably knew _nothing more_ than the
name) served his turn as well as another. His easy way of citing authors is
probably, at times, humorously assumed; and such may be the explanation of
his famous 'Lollius.' It is quite useless to make any further search.
I may add that this Agatho, or Agathon ([Greek: Agathon]), was an Athenian
tragic poet, and a friend of Euripides and Plato. He was born about B.C.
447, and died about B.C. 400.
Lounsbury (Studies in Chaucer, ii. 402) rejects this explanation; but it is
not likely that we shall ever meet with a better one.
§ 7. CHIEF SOURCES OF THE LEGEND. The more obvious sources of the various
tales have frequently been pointed out. Thus Prof. Morley, in his English
Writers, v. 241 (1890), says that Thisbe is from Ovid's Metamorphoses, iv.
55-166; Dido, from Vergil and Ovid's Heroides, Ep. vii; Hypsipyle and Medea
from Ovid (Met. vii., Her. Ep. vi, xii); Lucretia from Ovid (Fasti, ii.
721) and Livy (Hist. i. 57); Ariadne and Philomela from Ovid (Met. viii.
152, vi. 412-676), and Phyllis and Hypermnestra also from Ovid (Her. Ep.
ii. and Ep. xiv). He also notes the allusion to St. Augustine (De Civitate
Dei, cap. xix.) in l. 1690, and observes that all the tales, except those
of Ariadne and Phyllis[29], are in Boccaccio's De Claris Mulieribus. But it
is possible to examine them a little more closely, and to obtain further
light upon at least a few other points. It will be most convenient to take
each piece in its order. For some of my information, I am indebted to the
essay by Bech, above mentioned (p. xxviii).
§ 8. PROLOGUE. Original. Besides mere passing allusions, we find references
to the story of Alcestis, queen of Thrace (432[30], 518). As she is not
mentioned in Boccaccio's book De Claris Mulieribus, and Ovid nowhere
mentions her name, and only alludes in passing to the 'wife of Admetus' in
two passages (Ex Ponto, iii. 1. 106; Trist. v. 14. 37), it is tolerably
certain that Chaucer must have read her story either in Boccaccio's book De
Genealogia Deorum, lib. xiii. c. 1 (see p. xxix), or in the Fables of
Hyginus (Fab. 51). A large number of the names mentioned in the Balade
(249) were suggested either by Boccaccio's De Claris Mulieribus, or by
Ovid's Heroides; probably, by both of these works. We may here also note
that the Fables of Hyginus very briefly give the stories of Jason and Medea
(capp. 24, 25); Theseus and Ariadne (capp. 41-43); Philomela (cap. 45);
Alcestis (cap. 51); Phyllis (cap. 59); Laodamia (cap. 104); Polyxena (cap.
110); Hypermnestra (cap. 168); Nisus and Scylla (cap. 198; cf. ll.
1904-1920); Penelope (cap. 126); and Helena (capp. 78, 92). The probability
that Chaucer consulted Machault's and Froissart's poems has already been
discussed; see p. xxxi.
It is interesting to note that Chaucer had already praised many of his Good
Women in previous poems. Compare such passages as the following:--
'Of Medea and of Iason,
Of Paris, Eleyne, and Lavyne.'
Book of the Duch. 330.
'By as good right as Medea was,
That slow her children for Iason;
And Phyllis als for Demophon
Heng hir-self, so weylaway!
For he had broke his terme-day
To come to her. Another rage
Had Dydo, quene eek of Cartage,
That slow hir-self, for Eneas
Was fals; a! whiche a fool she was!' Id. 726.
--'as moche debonairtee
As ever had Hester in the bible.' Id. 986.
'For love of hir, Polixena-- ...
She was as good, so have I reste,
As ever Penelope of Greece,
Or as the noble wyf Lucrece,
That was the beste--he telleth thus,
The Romain, Tytus Livius.' Id. 1071, 1080.
'She passed hath Penelope and Lucresse.'
Anelida; 82.
'Biblis, Dido, Tisbe and Piramus,
Tristram, Isoude, Paris, and Achilles,
Eleyne, Cleopatre, and Troilus.'
Parlement of Foules; 289.
'But al the maner how she [Dido] deyde,
And al the wordes that she seyde,
Who-so to knowe hit hath purpos,
Reed Virgile in Eneidos
Or the Epistle of Ovyde,
What that she wroot or that she dyde;
And, nere hit to long to endyte,
By god, I wolde hit here wryte.'
House of Fame; 375.
The last quotation proves clearly, that Chaucer was already meditating a
new version of the Legend of Dido, to be made up from the Æneid and the
Heroides, whilst still engaged upon the House of Fame (which actually gives
this story at considerable length, viz. in ll. 140-382); and consequently,
that the Legend of Good Women succeeded the House of Fame by a very short
interval. But this is not all; for only a few lines further on we find the
following passage:--
'Lo, Demophon, duk of Athenis,
How he forswor him ful falsly,
And trayed Phillis wikkedly,
That kinges doghter was of Trace,
And falsly gan his terme pace;
And when she wiste that he was fals,
She heng hir-self right by the hals,
For he had do hir swich untrouthe;
Lo! was not this a wo and routhe?
Eek lo! how fals and reccheles
Was to Briseida Achilles,
And Paris to Oënone;
And Iason to Isiphile;
And eft Iason to Medea;
And Ercules to Dyanira;
For he lefte hir for Iöle,
That made him cacche his deeth, parde!
How fals eek was he, Theseus;
That, as the story telleth us,
How he betrayed Adriane;
The devel be his soules bane[31]!
For had he laughed, had he loured,
He mostë have be al devoured,
If Adriane ne had y-be[32]!' &c. Id. 387.
Here we already have an outline of the Legend of Phyllis; a reference to
Briseis; to Jason, Hypsipyle, Medea, and to Deianira; a sufficient sketch
of the Legend of Ariadne; and another version of the Legend of Dido.
We trace a lingering influence upon Chaucer of the Roman de la Rose; see
notes to ll. 125, 128, 171. Dante is both quoted and mentioned by name; ll.
357-360. Various other allusions are pointed out in the Notes.
In ll. 280, 281, 284, 305-308 of the A-text of the Prologue (pp. 89, 90),
Chaucer refers us to several authors, but not necessarily in connexion with
the present work. Yet he actually makes use (at second-hand) of Titus (i.e.
Livy, l. 1683), and also further of the 'epistles of Ovyde.' He takes
occasion to refer to his own translation of the Roman de la Rose (B. ll.
329, 441, 470), and to his Troilus (ll. 332, 441, 469); besides enumerating
many of his poems (417-428).
I. THE LEGEND OF CLEOPATRA. The source of this legend is by no means clear.
As Bech points out, some expressions shew that one of the sources was the
Epitome Rerum Romanarum of L. Annæus Florus, lib. iv. c. 11; see notes to
ll. 655, 662, 679. No doubt Chaucer also consulted Boccaccio's De Claris
Mulieribus, cap. 86, though he makes no special use of the account there
given. The story is also in the history of Orosius, bk. iv. c. 19; see
Sweet's edition of King Alfred's Orosius, p. 247. Besides which, I think he
may have had access to a Latin translation of Plutarch, or of excerpts from
the same; see the notes.
It is worth while to note here that Gower (ed. Pauli, iii. 361) has the
following lines:--
'I sigh [_saw_] also the woful quene
Cleopatras, which in a cave
With serpents hath her-self begrave
Al quik, and so was she to-tore,
For sorwe of that she hadde lore
Antonie, which her love hath be.
And forth with her I sigh Thisbe'; &c.
It is clear that he here refers to Chaucer's Legend of Good Women, because
he actually repeats Chaucer's very peculiar account of the manner of
Cleopatra's death. See § 9, p. xl. Compare L. G. W. ll. 695-697; and note
that, both in Chaucer and Gower, the Legend of Thisbe follows that of
Cleopatra; whilst the Legend of Philomela immediately follows that of
Ariadne. This is more than mere coincidence. See Bech's essay; Anglia, v.
365.
II. THE LEGEND OF THISBE. This is from Ovid's Metamorphoses, iv. 55-166,
and from no other source. Some of the lines are closely translated, but in
other places the phraseology is entirely recast. The free manner in which
Chaucer treats his original is worthy of study; see, as to this, the
excellent criticism of Ten Brink, in his Geschichte der Englischen
Litteratur, ii. 117. Most noteworthy of all is his suppression of the
mythological element. The story gains in pathos in a high degree by the
omission of the mulberry-tree, the colour of the fruit of which was changed
from white to black by the blood of Pyramus; see note to l. 851. This is
the more remarkable, because it was just for the sake of this very
metamorphosis that Ovid admitted the tale into his series. See also notes
to ll. 745, 784, 797, 798, 814, 835, 869, &c.; and cf. Gower's Confessio
Amantis, ed. Pauli, i. 324.
III. THE LEGEND OF DIDO. Chiefly from Vergil's Aeneid, books i-iv. (see
note to l. 928, and compare the notes throughout); but ll. 1355-1365 are
from Ovid's Heroides, vii. 1-8, quoted at length in the note to l. 1355.
And see, particularly, the House of Fame, ll. 140-382. Cf. Gower, C. A. ii.
4-6[33].
IV. THE LEGENDS OF HYPSIPYLE AND MEDEA. The sources mentioned by Morley are
Ovid's Metamorphoses, bk. vii., and Heroides, epist. vi.; to which we must
add Heroides, epist. xii. But this omits a much more important source, to
which Chaucer expressly refers. In l. 1396, all previous editions have the
following reading--'In Tessalye, as _Ovyde_ telleth us'; but four important
MSS. read _Guido_ for _Ovyde_, and they are quite right[34]. The false
reading _Ovyde_ is the more remarkable, because _all_ the MSS. have the
reading _Guido_ in l. 1464, where a change would have destroyed the rime.
As a matter of fact, ll. 1396-1461 are from Guido delle Colonne's Historia
Troiana, book i. (see notes to ll. 1396, 1463); and ll. 1580-3, 1589-1655
are also from the same, book ii. (see notes to ll. 1580, 1590). Another
source which Chaucer may have consulted, though he made but little use of
it, was the first and second books of the Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus,
expressly mentioned in l. 1457 (see notes to ll. 1457, 1469, 1479, 1509,
1558)[35]. The use made of Ovid, Met. vii., is extremely slight (see note
to l. 1661). As to Ovid, Her. vii., xii., see notes to ll. 1564, 1670. The
net result is that Guido is a far more important source of this Legend than
all the passages from Ovid put together. Chaucer also doubtless consulted
the fifth book of the Thebaid of his favourite author Statius; see notes to
ll. 1457, 1467. Perhaps he also consulted Hyginus, whose 14th Fable gives
the long list of the Argonauts, and the 15th, a sketch of the story of
Hypsipyle. Compare also Boccaccio, De Claris Mulieribus, capp. 15, 16; and
the same, De Genealogia Deorum, lib. xiii. c. 26. Observe also that Gower
gives the story of Medea, and expressly states that the tale 'is in the
_boke of Troie_ write,' i.e. in Guido. See Pauli's edition, ii. 236.
V. THE LEGEND OF LUCRETIA. Chaucer refers to Livy's History (bk. i. capp.
57-59); and to Ovid (Fasti, ii. 721-852). With a few exceptions, the Legend
follows the latter source. He also refers to St. Augustine; see note to l.
1690[36]. Cf. Boccaccio, De Claris Mulieribus, cap. 46, who follows Livy.
Several touches are Chaucer's own; see notes to ll. 1812, 1838, 1861, 1871,
1881.
Gower has the same story (iii. 251), and likewise follows Ovid and Livy.
VI. THE LEGEND OF ARIADNE. From Ovid, Met. vii. 456-8, viii. 6-182; Her.
Epist. x. (chiefly 1-74); cf. Fasti, iii. 461-516. But Chaucer consulted
other sources also, probably a Latin translation of Plutarch's Life of
Theseus; Boccaccio, De Genealogia Deorum, lib. xi. capp. 27, 29, 30; also
Vergil, Aen. vi. 20-30; and perhaps Hyginus, Fabulae, capp. 41-43. Cf.
House of Fame, 405-426; and Gower, ii. 302[37].
VII. THE LEGEND OF PHILOMELA. Chiefly from Ovid, Met. vi. 424-605; and
perhaps from no other source, though the use of the word _radevore_ in l.
2352 is yet to be accounted for. Cf. Boccaccio, De Genealogia Deorum, lib.
ix. c. 8; and Gower, Conf. Amantis, ii. 313, who refers us to Ovid.
VIII. THE LEGEND OF PHYLLIS. Chiefly from Ovid, Her. Epist. ii.; cf.
Remedia Amoris, 591-608. But a comparison with the story as told by Gower
(C. A. ii. 26) shews that both poets consulted some further source, which I
cannot trace. The tale is told by Hyginus (Fab. capp. 59, 243) and
Boccaccio in a few lines. Cf. House of Fame, 388-396. A few lines are from
Vergil, Æn. i. 85-102, 142; iv. 373. And see notes to Lydgate's Temple of
Glas, ed. Schick, p. 75.
IX. THE LEGEND OF HYPERMNESTRA. Chiefly from Ovid, Her. Epist. xiv. But
Ovid calls her husband Lynceus, whereas Chaucer calls him Lino. Again, Ovid
does not give the name of Lynceus' father. Chaucer not only transposes the
names of the two fathers[38], but calls Ægyptus by the name of Egiste or
Egistes. Hence we see that he also consulted Boccaccio, De Genealogia
Deorum, lib. ii. c. 22, where we find the following account: 'Danaus Beli
Prisci fuit filius, ut asserit Paulus[39], et illud idem affirmat
Lactantius, qui etiam et ante Paulum Orosium, dicit Danaum Beli filium ex
pluribus coniugibus .l. filias habuisse, quas cum _Ægistus_ frater eius,
cui totidem erant melioris sexus filii, postulasset in nurus, Danaus
oraculi responso comperto se manibus generi moriturum, uolens euitare
periculum, conscensis nauibus in Argos uenit.... Ægistus autem, quod
spretus esset indignans, ut illum sequerentur filiis imperauit, lege data
ut nunquam domum repeterent, ni prius Danaum occidissent. Qui cum apud
Argos oppugnarent patruum, ab eo diffidente fraude capti sunt. Spopondit
enim se illis iuxta Ægisti uotum filias daturum in coniuges, nec defuit
promisso fides. Subornatae enim a patre uirorum intrauere thalamos singulis
cultris clam armatae omnes, et cum uino laetitiaque calentes iuuenes facile
in soporem iuissent, obedientes patri uirgines, captato tempore
iugulauerunt uiros, unaquaeque suum, _Hypermestra_ excepta, quae _Lino_ seu
Linceo uiro suo miserta pepercit.' We may note, by the way, that Chaucer's
spelling _Hypermistre_ is nearer to Boccaccio's _Hypermestra_ than to the
form in Ovid.
§ 9. GOWER'S CONFESSIO AMANTIS. The relationship of Gower's Confessio
Amantis to Chaucer's Legend has been investigated by Bech; in Anglia, v.
365-371. His conclusion is, that the passages in Gower which resemble
Chaucer are only _three_ at most; and I am here concerned to shew that, in
_two_ of these, the supposed resemblance is delusive.
1. In Gower's introduction, at the very beginning, ed. Pauli, i.4, we are
told that, but for books, the renown of many excellent people would be
lost. This seems to be copied from Chaucer's Prologue to the Legend, ll.
17-28. I have no doubt that such is the case; but we must be careful to
remember that these lines by Gower form part of the prologue _to his second
edition_, and were not written till 1393; by which time Chaucer's lines
were common property, and could be imitated by any one who chose to do it;
so we really learn nothing at all from this comparison.
2. In Gower, i. 45-48, there is a passage which bears some resemblance to
Chaucer's Prologue to the Legend. But if it be considered impartially, I
believe it will be found that the resemblance is too vague to be of any
value, and cannot be relied upon. We really must not set much store by such
generalities as the mention of the month of May; the address of the poet to
Cupid and Venus; the wrathful aspect of Cupid; and the graciousness of
Venus, who bids him disclose his malady and shrive himself. If Gower could
not 'invent' such common poetical talk, he had small business to write at
all. I would rather conclude, that Gower had no opportunity of seeing
Chaucer's poem till somewhat later; for it is a striking fact, that,
whereas Gower seized the opportunity of copying some of Chaucer's phrases
in the Tale of Constance (see this discussed at p. 415), he tells several
of Chaucer's Legends, such as those of Thisbe, Dido, Medea, Lucrece,
Ariadne, Philomela, and Phyllis in a wholly independent manner; and, when
telling the tale of Alcestis (iii. 149), he had no idea that she was ever
transformed into a daisy. Moreover, if he had been able to refer to the
Legend, l. 1355-6, he would hardly have translated 'Maeandri' by 'king
Menander' (ii. 5).
Without hesitation, I dismiss these alleged resemblances as trifling, and
the deduction from them as misleading.
3. But when we come to the _very end_ of Gower's work (iii. 357-367), the
case is entirely altered, and the resemblances are striking and
irrefragable. This is best seen by comparing the whole passage. Gower is in
the midst of lamenting his old age, a subject to which he afterwards
returns, when he suddenly introduces a digression, in which he sees
'Cupide with his bowe bent;
And, like unto a parlement
Which were ordeined for the nones,
With him cam al the world atones
Of gentil folk, that whilom were
Lovers; I sigh hem alle there'....
'Garlondes, nought of o colour,
Some of the _lefe_, som of the _flour_,
And some of grete perles were.'
After which we are introduced to Tristram and Isolde, Jason and Hercules,
Theseus and Phedra, _Troilus and Criseide_ and Diomede, Pyramus, Dido,
Phyllis, Adriane, Cleopatra, Tisbe, Progne and Philomene and Tereus,
Lucrece, Alcestis; and even _Ceyx and Alcyone_ (cf. Chaucer's youthful
poem). The matter is put beyond doubt by Gower's adoption of Chaucer's
peculiar account of Cleopatra's death, as already noted above; see p.
xxxvii.
The conclusion to be drawn from these facts is obvious. We see that, in the
year 1385, Gower had almost completed his long poem, and communicated the
fact to his friend Chaucer; and Chaucer, in return, told him of the new
poem (the Legend) upon which he was then himself engaged, so planned as to
contain nineteen tales or sections, and likely to extend to some 6,000
lines. Moreover, it was written in a new metre, such as no Englishman had
ever employed before. Gower was allowed to see the MS. and to read a
considerable portion of it. He was so struck with it as to make room for
some remarks about it; and even went out of his way to introduce a personal
reference to his friend. He makes Venus say to himself (iii. 374):--
'And grete wel Chaucer, whan ye mete,
As _my_ disciple and _my_ poete....
Forthy now, in his dayes olde[40],
Thou shall telle him this message,
That he, upon his later age[40],
To sette an ende of alle his werke,
As he, which is myn owne clerke,
Do make his testament of love,
(As thou hast do thy shrift above),
So that my court it may recorde.'
That is to say, Chaucer, being the poet of Venus, is to make his testament
of love, or final declaration concerning love, in a form suitable for being
recorded in the court of the goddess. This 'testament' is, of course, the
Legend of Good Women, in which the martyrs of love are duly recorded; and
their stories, written at the command of Cupid and by way of penance for
what he had missaid against women, were to be placed to the good side of
the author's account with Venus and her son. Moreover, they were finally to
be sent in to the visible representative of the court of Love, viz. to the
queen of England and her court.
It is interesting to observe that Gower, like Chaucer himself at the
moment, regarded this poem as the crowning effort of Chaucer's poetical
career. Neither of them had, at the time, any suspicion that Chaucer would,
after all, 'sette an ende of alle his werke' in a very different manner. We
may thus confidently date the first edition of Gower's Confessio Amantis in
the year 1385, before the Legend of Hypermnestra was abandoned in the
middle of a sentence. The date of the second edition of the same is 1393;
and it is a great help to have these dates thus settled.
§ 10. METRE. The most interesting point about this poem is that it is the
first of the 'third period' of Chaucer's literary work. Here, for the first
time, he writes a series of tales, to which he prefixes a prologue; he
adopts a new style, in which he seeks to delineate characters; and, at the
same time, he introduces a new metre, previously unknown to English
writers, but now famous as 'the heroic couplet.' In all these respects, the
Legend is evidently the forerunner of the Canterbury Tales, and we see how
he was gradually, yet unconsciously, preparing himself for that supreme
work. In two notable respects, as Ten Brink remarks, the Legend is inferior
to the Tales. The various legends composing it are merely grouped together,
not joined by connecting links which afford an agreeable relief. And again,
the Prologue to the Legend is mere allegory, whilst the famous Prologue to
the Tales is full of real life and dramatic sketches of character.
Chaucer had already introduced the seven-line stanza, unknown to his
predecessors--the earliest example being the Compleint unto Pite--as well
as the eight-line stanza, employed in his earliest extant poem, the A. B.
C. For the hint as to this form of verse, he was doubtless indebted in the
first instance to French poets, such as Guillaume de Machault, though he
afterwards conformed his lines, as regarded their cadence and general laws,
to those of Boccaccio and Dante[41].
The idea of the heroic couplet was also, I suppose, taken from French; we
find it in a Complainte written by Machault about 1356-8 (see below, p.
383); but here, again, Chaucer's melody has rather the Italian than the
French character. The lines in Froissart's poem on the Daisy (p. xxxi) are
of the same length, but rime together in groups of seven lines at a time,
separated by short lines having two accents only. Boccaccio's favourite
stanza in the Teseide, known as the _ottava rima_, ends with two lines that
form an heroic couplet[42].
§ 11. 'CLIPPED' LINES. It ought to be clearly understood that the
introduction of the new metre was quite an experiment, for which Chaucer
himself offers some apology when he makes the God of Love say expressly:
'Make the metres of hem as thee leste' (l. 562). Hence it was that he
introduced into the line a variety which is now held to be inadmissible;
though we must not forget that even so great a master of melody as
Tennyson, after beginning his 'Vision of Sin' with lines of normal length,
begins the second portion of it with the lines:--
'Then methought I heard a hollow sound
Gathering up from all the lower ground;
Narrowing in to where they sat assembled,
Low voluptuous music winding trembled,' &c.
It is precisely this variation that Chaucer sometimes allowed himself, and
it is easy to see how it came to pass.
In lines of a shorter type we constantly find a similar variation. There
are a large number of 'clipped' lines in the House of Fame. Practically,
their first foot consists of a single syllable, and they may be scanned
accordingly, by marking off that syllable at the beginning. Thus, ll.
2117-2120 run thus:--
'And leet | hem gon. Ther might' I seen
Weng | ed wondres faste fleen,
Twent | ty thousand in a route,
As E | olus hem blew aboute.'
This variation is still admissible, and is, of course, common enough in
such poems as Milton's L'Allegro and Il Penseroso. It is considered a
beauty.
The introduction of two more syllables in lines of the above type gives us
a similar variation in the longer line. If, for example, after the word
_thousand_ in the third of the above lines, we introduce the word _freres_
(dissyllabic), we obtain the line:--
'Twen | ty thousand freres in a route.'
It is a remarkable fact, that this very line actually occurs in the
Canterbury Tales (Group D, 1695); as I have pointed out in the note to l.
2119 of the House of Fame, at p. 286 below. Persistent efforts have often
been made to deny this fact, to declare it 'impossible,' and to deride me
for having pointed it out (as I did in 1866, in Morris's edition of
Chaucer, i. 174); but I believe that the fact is now pretty generally
admitted. It is none the less necessary to say here, that there is rather a
large number of such lines in the Legend of Good Women; precisely as we
might expect to find in a metre which was, in fact, a new experiment. As it
is advisable to present the evidence rather fully, I here cite several of
these lines, marking off the first syllable in the right way:--
'That | of all' the flour-es in the med-e'; 41.
'Suf | fisaunt this flour to preys' aright'; 67.
'Of | this flour, when that it shuld unclos-e'; 111.
'Mad' | her lyk a daisie for to sen-e'; 224.
'Half | hir beautee shulde men nat fynd-e'; 245.
'With | the whyt-e coroun, clad in gren-e'; 303.
'Mai | dens been y-kept, for Ielosy-e'; 722.
'For | to met' in o plac' at o tyd-e'; 783.
'With | her fac' y-wimpled subtilly'; 797.
'Both | e with her hert' and with her y-ën'; 859.
'Bet | ing with his hel-es on the ground-e'; 863.
'We | that wer-en whylom children your-e'; 901.
'Been | as trew' and loving as a man'; 911.
'Had | den in this temple been ov'r-al'; 1024.
'We | that wer-en in prosperitee'; 1030.
'Lyk | ed him the bet, as, god do bot-e'; 1076.
'Lov' | wol lov', for no wight wol hit wond-e'; 1187.
'Send' | her lettres, tokens, broches, ring-es'; 1275.
'Mer | cy, lord! hav' pitè in your thoght'; 1324.
'Twen | ty tym' y-swowned hath she than-ne'; 1342.
'With | her meynee, end-e-long the strond-e'; 1498.
'Yift | es gret', and to her officeres'; 1551.
'Fad | er, moder, husbond, al y-fer-e'; 1828.
'Fight | en with this fend, and him defend-e'; 1996.
'Tell | en al his doing to and fro'; 2471.
'Y | permistra, yongest of hem all-e'; 2575.
It is worth notice that they become scarcer towards the end of the poem.
For all that, Chaucer regarded this form of the line as an admissible
variety, and Hoccleve and Lydgate followed him in this peculiarity. The
practice of Hoccleve and Lydgate is entirely ignored by those to whom it is
convenient to ignore it. Perhaps they do not understand it. The usual
argument of those who wish to regulate Chaucer's verse according to their
own preconceived ideas, is to exclaim against the badness of the MSS. and
the stupidity of the scribes. This was tolerably safe before Dr. Furnivall
printed his valuable and exact copies of the MSS., but is less safe now. We
now have twelve MSS. (some imperfect) in type, besides a copy of Thynne's
first edition of the poem in 1532, making thirteen authorities in all. Now,
as far as this particular matter is concerned, the chief MSS. shew a
wonderful unanimity. In ll. 41, 111, 224, 722, 797, 901, 911, 1076, 1187,
1996, there is no variation that affects the scansion. And this means a
great deal more than it seems to do at first sight. For the scribes of MSS.
A. and T. evidently did not like these lines, and sometimes attempted
emendations with all the hardihood of modern editors. The fact that the
scribes are unwilling witnesses, with a tendency to corrupt the evidence,
makes their testimony upon this point all the stronger. Added to which, I
here admit that, wherever there seemed to be _sufficient_ evidence, I have
so far yielded to popular prejudice as to receive the suggested emendation.
I now leave this matter to the consideration of the unprejudiced reader;
merely observing, that I believe a considerable number of lines in the
Canterbury Tales have been 'emended' in order to get rid of lines of this
character, solely on the strength of the Harleian MS., the scribe of which
kept a keen look-out, with a view to the suppression of this eccentricity
on the part of his author. To give him much encouragement seems
inconsistent with strict morality.
The introduction (ll. 249-269) of a Balade of twenty-one lines makes every
succeeding couplet end with a line denoted by an _odd_ number. The whole
number of lines is 2,723. Dr. Furnivall was the first person who succeeded
in counting their number correctly.
§ 12. DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPTS. The MSS. easily fall into two
distinct classes, and may be separated by merely observing the reading of
l. 1396: see note to that line. MSS. C., T., A. here read _Guido_ or
_Guydo_; whilst MSS. F., Tn., B. read _Ouyde_. MS. P. is here deficient,
but commonly agrees with the former class. Those of the same class will be
described together. Besides this, MS. C. is, as regards the Prologue only,
unique of its kind; and is throughout of the highest authority,
notwithstanding some unpleasant peculiarities of spelling. It is necessary
to pay special attention to it.
The list of the MSS. (including Thynne's edition) is as follows:--
A.--Arch. Selden B. 24; Bodleian Library (_First class_).
Add.--Additional 9832; British Museum (_First class_).
Additional 12524; British Museum (_First class_).
B.--Bodley 638; Bodleian Library (_Second class_).
C.--Cambridge Univ. Library, Gg. 4. 27 (_First class_).
F.--Fairfax 16; Bodleian Library (_Second class_).
P.--Pepys 2006; Magd. Coll., Cambridge (_First class_).
T.--Trinity College, Cambridge, R. 3. 19 (_First class_).
Th.--Thynne's edition, pr. in 1532 (_Second class?_).
Tn.--Tanner 346; Bodleian Library (_Second class_).
[alpha].--Additional 28617; British Museum (_First class_); but only a
fragment, viz. ll. 513-610, 808-1105, 1306-1801, 1852-2110, 2125-2135,
2151-2723.
[beta].--Cambridge Univ. Library, Ff. 1. 6 (Thisbe _only_).
[gamma].--Rawlinson C. 86; Bodleian Library (Dido _only_).
They may be thus described.
C. (Camb. Univ. Lib. Gg. 4. 27) is the famous Cambridge MS., containing the
Canterbury Tales, denoted by the symbol 'Cm.' in the footnotes to vol. iv
(i.e. throughout the Canterbury Tales); also by the symbol 'Gg.' in vol.
i., i.e. in the Minor Poems; see p. 49 of the Introduction to vol. i. It
also contains some other pieces by Chaucer, viz. the A. B. C., Envoy to
Scogan, Truth, Troilus, and the Parlement of Foules. It is of early date,
and altogether the oldest, best, and most important of the existing copies
of the Legend. I shall call all those that resemble it MSS. of the _first
class_.
Its great peculiarity is that it possesses the unique copy of the early
draught of the Prologue; see p. xxi. Upon comparison of it with the Fairfax
MS. (the best MS. of the _second class_), it is found to offer slight
differences in many places throughout the various Legends, besides
presenting large differences throughout the Prologue. The variations are
frequently for the better, and it becomes clear that the first class of
MSS. is of an older type. The second class is of a later type, and differs
in two ways, in one way for the worse, and in another way for the better.
In the former respect, it presents corrupted or inferior readings in
several passages; whilst, on the other hand, it presents corrections that
are real improvements, and may have been due to revision. No doubt there
was once in existence a correct edition of the revised text, but no
existing MS. represents it. We can, however, practically reconstruct it by
a careful collation of MS. C. with MS. F.; and this I have attempted to do.
Throughout the Prologue, I take MS. C. as the basis of the 'A-text,'
correcting its eccentricities of spelling, but recording them in footnotes
wherever the variation is at all important; such a variation as _hym_ for
_him_, or _yt_ for _hit_, I regard as being of no value. At the same time,
I take MS. F. as the basis of the B-text, and correct it, where necessary,
by collation with the rest. Throughout the Legends themselves, I take MS.
F. as the basis of the text, collating it with C. throughout, so that the
text really depends on a comparison of these MSS.; if MS. C. had been made
the basis, the result would have been much the same. It was convenient to
take F. as the basis, because it agrees, very nearly, with all previous
editions of the poem. Unfortunately, leaf 469 of MS. C. has been cut out of
it; and, in consequence, ll. 1836-1907 are missing. The scribe has missed
ll. 1922, 1923, 2506, 2507, in the process of copying.
ADDIT. 9832. This is an imperfect MS., ending at l. 1985, no more leaves of
the MS. being left after that line. Besides this, the scribe has omitted
several lines, viz. ll. 166, 233, 234, 332, 333, 351, 865-872, 960, 961,
1255, 1517, 1744-1746, 1783, 1895, 1945. It belongs to the first class of
the MSS., but is an unsatisfactory copy, and I have not fully collated it.
It confirms, however, several of the readings of this edition, as
distinguished from former editions.
ADDIT. 12524. This also is only a fragment. The first leaf begins at l.
1640 of the poem, from which point it is complete to the end, though ll.
2454-2461 are partially effaced. It belongs to the first class of MSS., but
is a late copy, and I have not fully collated it. It confirms several of my
readings.
T.--MS. Trin. Coll. Cam. R. 3. 19. Denoted by the symbol 'Trin.' in my
edition of the Minor Poems, and described in vol. i., Introd. p. 56. It is
of rather late date, about 1500, but belongs to the first class of MSS. The
scribe has omitted the following lines, viz. 233, 234, 332, 333, 489, 960,
961, 1627, 2202, 2203, 2287-2292, and 2569.
A.--MS. Arch. Selden B. 24 (Bodley). Denoted by the symbol 'Ar.' in my
edition of the Minor Poems, and described in vol. i., Introd. p. 54. A
Scottish copy, written about 1472. It belongs to the first class of MSS.,
but the Scottish scribe sometimes takes liberties, and gives us a reading
of his own. For example, l. 714 becomes:--'As in grete townis the maner is
and wone.' But its readings, on the whole, are good. It alone preserves the
word 'almychti' in l. 1538, which in all the rest is too short; this may
not have been the original reading, but it gives a fair line, and furnishes
as good an emendation as we are likely to get. The scribe has omitted ll.
860, 861, 960, 961, 1568-1571, 2226, and 2227; besides which, one leaf of
the MS. is missing, causing the loss of ll. 2551-2616.
P.--Pepys 2006, Magd. Coll., Cambridge. Denoted by 'P.' in my edition of
the Minor Poems, of which it contains ten. It belongs, on the whole, to the
first class of MSS. The scribe has omitted ll. 232, 437, 623, and 1275.
Besides this, it has lost at least one leaf, causing the complete loss of
ll. 706-776, whilst ll. 777-845 are in a different handwriting. At l. 1377
it breaks off altogether, so that it is only a fragment. It gives l. 1377
in the following extraordinary form:--'And thow wer not fals to oon, but
thow wer fals to twoo'; giving six feet at least to the line, and a
syllable over.
[alpha].--Addit. 28617. A fair MS., but only a fragment, as already noted
(p. xlvii). It confirms many of my readings; as, e.g., in ll. 1995, 2019,
2020, 2199, &c. It varies in l. 1999, but gives there an excellent
reading:--That is nat derk, and ther is roum and space.
[beta].--Camb. Univ. Library, Ff. 1. 6. Contains the Legend of Thisbe only.
A late and poor MS., of small account.
[gamma].--Rawl. C. 86 (Bodleian Library). Contains the Legend of Dido only.
A poor text, with many errors. Yet it seems to be of the first class, and
preserves ll. 960-1. It confirms my readings of ll. 1048, 1074, 1079, 1139,
1144, 1159, 1174, 1195, 1196, 1215, 1366.
F.--Fairfax 16 (Bodleian Library). This is the valuable MS. which contains
so many of the Minor Poems. It is described in my Introd. to the Minor
Poems; vol. i. p. 51. I have taken it as the basis of the edition, though
it was necessary to correct it in all the places where the MSS. of the
first class have better readings. It is the best MS. of the second class,
and Bell's edition does little more than follow it, almost too faithfully,
though the editor professes to have collated with it the MS. A. described
above. The same text, in the main, reappears in the editions by Thynne,
Morris, Corson, Gilman. The scribe is careless, and frequently leaves out
essential words; he also omits ll. 249, 487, 846, 960, 961, 1490[43], 1643,
1693, 1998, part of 2150, 2151, 2152, part of 2153[44], 2193, 2338 (in
place of which a spurious line is inserted in a wrong place), and 2475.
Besides this, the scribe often ruins the scansion of a line by omitting an
essential word in it, as has already been mentioned. Thus in l. 614, he
drops the word _for_, which occurs in all the other MSS. The scribe often
wrongly adds or omits a final _e_, and is too fond of substituting _y_ for
_i_ in such words as _him_, _king_. When these variations are allowed for,
the spelling of the MS. is, for the most part, clear and satisfactory, and
a fair guide to the right pronunciation. Rejected spellings are given in
footnotes as far as l. 924; after which I have made such alterations as are
purely trivial without giving notice. Even in ll. 1-924 I have changed
_hym_ into _him_, and _kyng_ into _king_; and, conversely, _strif_ into
_stryf_, (where the _y_ denotes that the vowel is long), without hesitation
and without recording the change. My text is, in fact, spelt phonetically;
and, after all, the test of a text of Chaucer is to read it with the
Middle-English pronunciation as given by Dr. Sweet in his Second
Middle-English Primer, and to observe whether the result is perfectly in
accord with the flowing melody so manifest in the Canterbury Tales.
B.--Bodley 638. Closely related to MS. F., and almost a duplicate of it,
both being derived from a common source. B. is sometimes right where F. is
wrong; thus in l. 1196 it has _houyn_, where F. has _heuen_. See Introd. to
the Minor Poems, vol. i. p. 53. Of course this MS. belongs, like F., to the
second class. It preserves l. 1693 (missing in F.); otherwise it omits all
the lines that are omitted in F., as well as ll. 157, 262, 623, 1345, 1866;
all of which F. retains. Like F., it has a spurious line in place of l.
2338.
TN.--Tanner 346 (Bodley). This is a MS. of the second class, strongly
resembling F.; see Introd. to the Minor Poems, vol. i. p. 54. It preserves
ll. 1693, 2193, 2475; otherwise it omits all the lines omitted in F., as
well as the latter half of l. 1378 and the former half of l. 1379. It has a
spurious line in place of l. 2338. It is clear that F., B., and Tn. are all
from a common source, which was an older MS. not now known.
§ 13. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRINTED EDITIONS. TH.--Thynne's edition; A.D.
1532. This follows, mainly, the MSS. of the second class; its alliance with
F., B., and Tn. is shewn by its containing the spurious form of l. 2338.
But it gives the genuine form also, so that in this place _three_ lines
rime together. It is more complete than any of those MSS., preserving the
lines which they omit (excepting ll. 960, 961), save that it omits ll.
1326, 1327 (doubtless by oversight), which are found in these three MSS.,
and indeed in all the copies. Probably Thynne used more than one MS., as he
sometimes agrees with the MSS. of the first class. Thus, in l. 1163, he
reads _vpreysed had_, as in C., T., A., P., instead of _vp-reyseth hath_,
as in F., Tn., B. He might, however, have corrected this by the light of
nature. In ll. 1902, 1923, Thynne alone gives the right reading _Alcathoe_;
unfortunately, both these lines are missing in MS. C. The chief faults of
Thynne's edition are its omission of ll. 960, 961, 1326, 1327, and its
spurious l. 2338. Thynne was also unfortunate in following, in general, the
authority of a MS. of the second class.
SOME LATER EDITIONS.--Later editions appeared in the collected editions of
Chaucer's Works, viz. in 1542, (about) 1550, 1561, 1598, 1602, 1687; after
which came Urry's useless edition of 1721. Excepting the last, I suppose
the editions are all mere reprints; each being worse than its predecessor,
as is almost always the case. At any rate, the edition of 1561 is a close
reprint of Thynne, with a few later spellings, such as _guide_ in place of
Thynne's _gyde_ in l. 969. This edition of course omits ll. 960, 961, 1326,
1327; and gives the spurious l. 2338.
According to Lowndes, other later editions of Chaucer's Works are the
following:--Edinburgh, 1777; 18mo. 12 vols.--Edinburgh, 1782; 12mo. 14
vols.--In Anderson's British Poets, Edinburgh, 1793-1807; royal 8vo. 13
vols.--In Cooke's British Poets, London, 1798, &c., 18mo. 80 parts.--In
Chalmers' English Poets, London, 1810; royal 8vo. 21 vols. I suppose that
all of these are mere reprints; such is certainly the case with the edition
by Chalmers, which merely reproduces Tyrwhitt's edition of the Canterbury
Tales, and follows 'the black-letter editions' throughout the other poems.
The same remark applies to the edition printed by Moxon in 1855, and
attributed to Tyrwhitt as editor.
Other editions are those by S. W. Singer, London, 1822, fcp. 8vo. 5 vols.;
by Sir H. Nicolas (in the Aldine edition of English Poets), London, 1845,
post 8vo. 6 vols.; and by Robert Bell, London, 1855, 12mo. 8 vols. The last
was really edited by Mr. Jephson.
Bell's (so-called) edition was conveniently reprinted in four volumes, in
Bohn's Standard Library; a revised edition of this was published in 1878,
with a Preliminary Essay by myself. Of the Legend of Good Women, the editor
(Mr. Jephson) remarks that 'the text of the present edition is founded upon
a careful collation of the MS. Fairfax 16, in the Bodleian Library, and MS.
Arch. Seld. B. 24'; i.e. upon a collation of F. with A. It gives us the
text of MS. F., with the missing lines supplied from Thynne or from MS. A.
It omits ll. 960, 961, and inserts ll. 1326, 1327 _in the wrong place_,
viz. after l. 1329. At l. 2338, it gives both the correct and the spurious
forms of the line; so that here (as in Thynne) _three_ lines rime together.
In l. 2150-3, the same confusion occurs as is noticed below, in the account
of Morris's edition. The chief gain in this edition is that it has a few
explanatory notes. Of these I have freely availed myself, marking them with
the word 'Bell' whenever I quote them exactly; though they were really
written, as I am told, by Mr. Jephson, whose name nowhere appears, except
at p. 12 of my Essay, as prefixed to the revised edition.
The Aldine edition was reprinted in 1866, on which occasion it was edited
by Dr. Morris. With respect to the Legend of Good Women, Dr. Morris says
that it is copied from MS. F., collated with MSS. A., C. (privately printed
at Cambridge by Mr. H. Bradshaw, 1864), and MSS. Addit. 9832 and 12524. In
this edition, variations from the MS. (F.) are denoted by italic letters,
but such variations are very few. Practically, we here find a correct print
of MS. F., with most of the missing lines supplied by collation, and with
very few corrections. Lines 960, 961 are, however, still omitted, though
found in MS. C.; but ll. 1326, 1327 (also omitted by Thynne) are duly
given, being found, in fact, in MS. F. At l. 2338, the correct line is
given, but the spurious line is also retained; so that (as in Thynne)
_three_ lines here rime together. In the former part of l. 2153, a part of
l. 2150 is repeated, giving us _by_ instead of _eek_; the fact is that the
scribe slipped from _gayler_ in l. 2150 to _gayler_ in l. 2153, omitting
all that came between these words. Nothing is said about the interesting
form of the Prologue as existing in MS. C. There are no explanatory notes.
Besides the English editions, two editions of the Legend of Good Women have
appeared in America, which demand some notice.
Of these, the former is a very handy edition of the Legend of Good Women,
published _separately_ for the first time, and edited by Professor Hiram
Corson. The text is that of Bell's edition; but the explanatory notes are
fuller and better, and I have carefully consulted them. At the end is an
Index of all the words explained, which really serves the purpose of a
glossary. This is certainly the best edition I have met with.
The other edition is that of Chaucer's Works, edited by Arthur Gilman, and
published at Boston in 1879, in three volumes. The Legend of Good Women
occurs in vol. iii. pp. 79-183. The harder words are explained in
footnotes, and there are just a few notes on the subject-matter. The chief
point in this edition is that the editor quotes some of the more remarkable
variations in the Prologue from MS. C., which he says is 'evidently an
earlier one than the one followed in the text, Fairfax 16, in the Bodleian
Library, Oxford.' Yet his text is a mere reprint from that of Morris; it
omits ll. 960, 961, and gives l. 2338 both in its correct and in its
spurious form. Consequently, it contains 2722 lines instead of 2723. The
true number of lines is _odd_, because of the Balade of 21 lines at l. 249.
The net result is this; that none of the editions are complete, and they
are all _much the same_. After twenty editions, we are left almost where we
started at first. Thynne's edition was founded on a MS. very closely
resembling F., but more complete; still it omits four lines, and gives l.
2338 twice over, in different forms. The same is true of all the numerous
reprints from it. Bell's edition restores ll. 1326, 1327, but in the wrong
place; whilst Morris's edition restores them in the right place. These
lines actually occur in MS. F. (in the right place), and could hardly have
been unnoticed in collating the proofs with the MS. These editions are both
supposed to be collated with MS. A. at least, but the results of such
collation are practically _nil_, as that MS. was merely consulted to supply
missing lines. The editors practically ignore the readings of that MS.,
except where F. is imperfect. Hence they did not discover that MS. A.
_belongs to a different class of MSS., and that it frequently gives earlier
and better readings_. But even A. omits ll. 960, 961, though it also
rightly suppresses the spurious form of l. 2338.
§ 14. SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN MY EDITION OF 1889. No real advance towards a
better text was made till Dr. Furnivall brought out, for the Chaucer
Society, his valuable and exact prints of the manuscripts themselves. This
splendid and important work gives the texts _in extenso_ of all the MSS.
above mentioned, viz. MSS. C., F., Tn., T., A., and Th. (Thynne's ed.) in
the 'Parallel-Text edition of Chaucer's Minor Poems,' Part III; MSS. B.,
Addit. 9832, P., and Addit. 12524, in the 'Supplementary Parallel-Texts,'
Part II; and MSS. [alpha], [beta], [gamma], in 'Odd Texts,' 1880. But for
the invaluable help thus rendered, the edition of 1889 would never have
been undertaken, and I should never have attained to so clear an
understanding of the text. I have already said that Dr. Furnivall was the
_first_ person who succeeded in numbering the lines of the poem correctly;
indeed, most editions have no numbering at all.
I have not thought it necessary to encumber the pages with wholly inferior
readings that are of no value, but I have carefully collated the best MSS.,
viz. C., F., Tn., T., A., B., and sometimes P., besides keeping an eye upon
Th., i.e. Thynne's edition. I thus was enabled to see the true state of the
case, viz. that the MSS. of the first class (C., T., A., P., Addit. 9832,
12524, and 28617) have been practically neglected altogether; whilst, of
the MSS. &c. of the second class (F., Tn., B., Th.), only F. and Th. have
received sufficient attention. It is now abundantly clear that the best
authorities are C. and F., as being of different classes, and that the
right plan is to consult these _first_, and then to see how the other MSS.
support them. A long list of important emendations, and an exposure of the
extreme inaccuracy of most of the previous editions, will be found in the
Introduction to my edition of 1889, and need not be repeated here.
§ 15. CONCLUSION. In conclusion, I may mention the Poem in MS. Ashmole 59,
entitled 'The Cronycle made by Chaucier. ¶ Here nowe folowe the names of
the nyene worshipfullest Ladyes ... by Chaucier.' It is a poor production,
perhaps written by Shirley, and merely gives a short epitome of the
contents of the Legend of Good Women. The words 'by Chaucier' refer to
Chaucer's authorship of the Legend only, and not to the authorship of the
epitome, which, though of some interest, is practically worthless. The
author makes the odd mistake of confusing the story of Alcestis with that
of Ceyx and Alcyone in the Book of the Duchesse (62-230). This 'Cronycle'
was printed by Dr. Furnivall in his Odd-texts of Chaucer's Minor Poems,
Part i.
I have now only to record my indebtedness to others, especially to Dr.
Furnivall for his invaluable prints in the Parallel-Texts; to the excellent
essay by M. Bech, in vol. v. of Anglia[45]; to Mr. Jephson for his notes in
'Bell's' edition; and to the notes in the edition by Professor Corson. Also
to Professor Ten Brink, the second part of whose second volume of the
Geschichte der englischen Litteratur has just appeared (1893).
NOTE.--If the reader finds the _two_ forms of the Prologue troublesome, he
has only to confine his attention to the 'B-text,' in the _lower_ part of
pp. 65-105. The text agrees with that usually given, and contains 579
lines. The first line of 'Cleopatra' is l. 580, the numbering being
continuous. Besides this, the lines of each Legend are given _separately_,
within marks of parenthesis. Thus l. 589 is the 10th line of 'Cleopatra';
and so in other cases.
I here subjoin an Additional Note to lines 1896-8.
At p. xxxix. above (footnote no. 2), I give Bech's reference to Godfrey of
Viterbo. The passage runs thus:--
'_De Ioue primo rege Atheniensi._
A Ioue nostrorum uenit generatio regum,
A Ioue principium recipit descriptio regum,
A Ioue _philosophi_ dogmata prima legunt.
Rex erat ex rege quondam patre natus Athenis,
Indeque quadriuii triuiique scientia uenit;
Legis et artis ibi rex ydioma dedit.'
INTRODUCTION TO A TREATISE ON THE ASTROLABE.
§ 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE MSS. The existing MSS. of the 'Astrolabe' are still
numerous. I have been successful in finding no less than twenty-two, which
I here describe. It is remarkable that, although many printed editions of
the treatise have appeared, no first-class MS. has ever hitherto come under
the notice of any one of the various editors. This point will appear more
clearly hereafter.
§ 2. A.--MS. Dd. 3. 53 (part 2) in the Cambridge University Library. The
'Treatise on the Astrolabie' begins at fol. 212 of the MS. considered as a
whole, but the folios are now properly renumbered throughout the treatise.
The MS. is of vellum, and the writing clear and good, with a great number
of neatly drawn diagrams, which appear wherever the words 'lo here thi
figure' occur in the text. This MS. I have made the basis of the text, and
it is followed with sufficient exactness, except when notice to the
contrary is given in the Critical Notes.
This MS. is of considerable importance. The handwriting exactly resembles
that in MS. B., and a comparison of these MSS. leads to the following
results. It appears that MSS. A. and B. were written out by the same
scribe, nearly at the same time. The peculiarities of spelling,
particularly those which are faulty, are the same in both in a great many
instances. It is also clear that the said scribe had but a very dim notion
of what he was writing, and committed just such blunders as are described
in Chaucer's Lines to Adam Scriveyn, and are there attributed to
'negligence and rape[46].' It is still more interesting to observe that
Chaucer tells us that he had to amend his MSS. by 'rubbing and scraping'
with his own hand; for MS. A. and B. differ precisely in this point, viz.
that while the latter is left uncorrected, the former has been diligently
'rubbed and scraped' by the hand of a corrector who well knew what he was
doing, and the right letters have been inserted in the right places over
the erasures. These inserted letters are in the hand of a second scribe who
was a better writer than the first, and who was entrusted with the task of
drawing the diagrams. The two hands are contemporaneous, as appears from
the additions to the diagrams made by the writer of the text.
Unfortunately, there are still a good many errors left. This is because the
blunders were so numerous as to beguile the corrector into passing over
some of them. When, for example, the scribe, having to write 'lo here thy
figure' at the end of nearly every section, took the trouble to write the
last word 'vigure' or 'vigour' in nearly every instance, we are not
surprised to find that, in a few places, the word has escaped correction.
It further appears that some of the later sections, particularly sections
39 and 40, have not been properly revised; the corrector may very well have
become a little tired of his task by the time he arrived at them. It must
also be remembered, that such blunders as are made by a scribe who is not
clear as to the meaning of his subject-matter are by no means the blunders
which are most puzzling or most misleading; they are obvious at once as
evident blotches, and the general impression left upon the mind by the
perusal of this MS. is--that a careless scribe copied it from some almost
perfect original, and that his errors were partially corrected by an
intelligent corrector (possibly the author), who grew tired of his task
just towards the end.
The order of the Conclusions in Part ii. differs from that in all the
editions hitherto printed, and the MS. terminates abruptly in the middle of
a sentence, at the words 'howre after howre' in Conclusion 40 (p. 223). A
portion of the page of the MS. below these words is left blank, though the
colophon 'Explicit tractatus,' &c. was added at the bottom of the page at a
later period.
Certain allusions in the former part of the MS. render it probable that it
was written in London, about the year 1400.
§ 3. B.--MS. E Museo 54, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. This is an
uncorrected duplicate of the preceding, as has been explained, and ends in
the same way, at the words 'howre after howre,' followed by a blank space.
The chief addition is the rubricated title--'Bred and mylk For childeren,'
boldly written at the beginning; in the margin are the following notes in a
late hand--'S_i_r Jiffray Chaucer'--'Do_mi_nus Gaufredus
Chaucerus'--'Galfredi Chauceri Tractatus de Ratione et vsu Astrolabij ad
Ludouicum filiu_m_.'
§ 4. C.--MS. Rawlinson, Misc. 1262, otherwise 1370 (leaves 22-42), in the
Bodleian Library, Oxford.
This is a beautifully written MS., on vellum, with 38 pages of text, and 4
blank pages. It has the Conclusions in the same order as the preceding, six
well-executed diagrams, and corrections on nearly every page. It is of
early date, perhaps about A.D. 1420, and of considerable importance. It
agrees closely with the text, and, like it, ends with 'howre after howre.'
Some variations of spelling are to be found in the Critical Notes. In this
MS. the Conclusions are numbered in the margin, and the numbers agree with
those adopted in this edition.
§ 5. D.--MS. Ashmole 391, in the Bodleian Library. I have made but little
use of this MS., on account of its being very imperfect.
§ 6. E.--MS. Bodley 619. This MS., like B., has the title--'Brede and Milke
for children.' Like other good MSS., it ends sect. 40 with 'houre after
houre.' But after this, there occurs an additional section, probably not
genuine, but printed here (for the sake of completeness) as section 46; see
p. 229. Cf. § 17.
At fol. 21 is an additional section, not found elsewhere, which is printed
in the Notes; see p. 360. This Conclusion has some claims to our notice,
because, whether genuine or not, it is translated from Messahala.
§ 7. F.--MS. 424, in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Very
imperfect, especially at the beginning, where a large portion has been
lost.
The Conclusions follow the right order, as in the best MSS.
§ 8. G.--MS. R. 15, 18, in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. This
is a curious and interesting volume, as it contains several tracts in
English on astrology and astronomy, with tables of stars, &c.
The copy of the 'Astrolabe' in this MS. is not a good one. It ends in Part
ii. sect. 34, l. 14. The Conclusions are in the right order, and there are
a few diagrams.
§ 9. H.--MS. Sloane 314, British Museum. A late MS. on paper, absurdly said
in a note to be in Chaucer's handwriting, whereas it is clearly to be
referred to the end of the fifteenth century.
§ 10. I.--MS. Sloane 261. This is an 'edited' MS., having been apparently
prepared with a view to publication. Mr. Brae has made considerable use of
it, and gives, in his preface, a careful and interesting account of it. He
concludes that this MS. was written by Walter Stevins in 1555, and
dedicated by him to Edward Earl of Devonshire; and that MS. H. was one of
those which Stevins especially consulted, because it contains marginal
notes in Stevins' handwriting. The contents of this MS. can be so well
ascertained from Mr. Brae's edition that it is unnecessary to say more
about it here. The Conclusions are arranged in the same order as in other
MSS. that are _not_ of the first class.
§ 11. K.--MS. Rawlinson Misc. 3, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. On
vellum, 49 folios, with rich gold capitals, beautifully ornamented; in a
large clear handwriting, with red rubrics. Title--'Astralabium.'
Begins--'Lityl lowys my sone,' &c.--and ends--'For þe mone meuyth the
contrarie from other planetys. as yn here epicircle. but in none other
maner'; see end of Part ii. sect. 35; p. 217. Order of Conclusions in Part
ii. as follows; 1-12, 19-21, 13-18, 22-35; as in other late MSS. There are
no diagrams, and the MS., though well written, may perhaps be referred to
the latter half of the fifteenth century.
§ 12. L.--MS. Additional 23002, British Museum. A fair MS., on vellum,
without diagrams; imperfect. See description of MS. R. in § 17. And see the
Note on Part ii. sect. 3 (p. 360).
§ 13. M.--MS. E. 2 in the Library of St. John's College, Cambridge. Small
MS. on vellum, without diagrams. The leaves have been misplaced, and bound
up in a wrong order, but nothing is lost. I have printed from this MS. the
last five words of sect. 40; also 41-43, and 41_a_-42_b_; besides collating
it for the improvement of the text in sect. 44; sect. 45 is missing. I have
also been indebted to it for the _Latin_ rubrics to the Conclusions, which
I have not found elsewhere. Several various readings from this MS. appear
in the Critical Notes (pp. 233-241).
§ 14. N.--MS. Digby 72, in the Bodleian Library. From this MS. I have
printed the text of sections 44 and 45 (pp. 226-9), but have made little
further use of it.
§ 15. O.--MS. Ashmole 360, in the Bodleian Library. Late MS., on paper;
former owner's name, Joh_a_n Pekeryng; without diagrams. There are
evidently some omissions in it. But it includes sections 44 and 45, and I
have given various readings from it in those sections (p. 240). It ends at
the end of sect. 43_a_, with the words--'on_e_ to twelfe. _& sic finis_';
see p. 232.
§ 16. P.--MS. Dd. 12. 51 in the Cambridge University Library. Small MS. on
vellum; written in the fifteenth century. The text is by no means a bad
one, though the spelling is peculiar. Some of the pages are very much
rubbed and defaced. I have taken from it some various readings, recorded in
the Critical Notes.
One point deserves particular attention. It not only contains the
Conclusions of Part ii. _in the right order_, but continues it _without a
break_ to the end of Conclusion 43 (p. 225); at the end of which is the
colophon--Explicit tractatus astrolabii.
§ 17. Q.--MS. Ashmole 393, in the Bodleian Library; on paper. Of little
importance.
R.--MS. Egerton 2622, in the British Museum. A neat MS., but without
diagrams. Contains: Part I. (except 15-23); Part II. §§ 1-12, 19-21, 13-18,
22-35, 41-43, 44, 45; 41_a_, 41_b_, 42_a_, 43_a_, 42_b_, 36, 37. Thus it
has all the additional sections except 46; but 38-40 are missing. MS. L.
contains the same sections in the same order; see § 12.
S.--MS. Addit. 29250. A poor MS., but remarkable for containing the scarce
section no. 46; of which there is but one other copy, viz. that in MS. E (§
6); cf. pp. 240, 241.
T.--MS. Phillipps 11955; at Cheltenham. On vellum; 31 leaves; said to be of
the fourteenth century, which is improbable.
U.--MS. Bodley 68. Imperfect; ends at Part ii. § 36.
W.--MS. E Museo 116, in the Bodleian Library. A mere fragment.
X.--A MS. at Brussels, no. 1591. See F. J. Mone, Quellen und Forschungen,
(Aachen, 1830); pp. 549-551.
§ 18. Of the above MSS., Mr. Brae describes H., I., and L. only, and does
not seem to have made use of any others. Mr. Todd, in his Animadversions on
Gower and Chaucer, p. 125, enumerates only four MSS., which are plainly A.,
P., F., and G. The rest seem to have escaped attention.
In addition to the MS. authorities, we have one more source of text, viz.
the Editio Princeps, which may be thus described.
Th.--The edition of Chaucer's Works by Wm. Thynne, printed at London by
Thomas Godfray in 1532. This is the first edition in which the Treatise on
the Astrolabe appeared; it begins at fol. ccxcviii, back. The Conclusions
in Part ii. are in the order following, viz. 1-12, 19-21, 13-18, 22-40;
after which come 41-43, and 41_a_-42_b_. This order does not agree
precisely with that in any MS. now extant, with the exception of I., which
imitates it. It has some corrupt additions and exhibits many grave errors.
All later editions, down to Urry's in 1721, contribute no new information.
The few slight alterations which appear in them are such as could have been
made without reference to MSS. at all.
§ 19. REMARKS ON THE CLASSES OF THE MSS. On comparing the MSS., it at once
appears that they do not agree as to the order of the Conclusions in Part
ii. The MSS. A., B., C. (which are unquestionably the oldest), as well as
E., F., G., and P., adopt the order which appears in this edition, but
which has never appeared in any previous edition. In all other editions we
find the three sections 19-21 made to precede sections 13-18. Now we might
here appeal to authority only, and say that the order in the _oldest_ MSS.
ought to be preferred. But it so happens that we can appeal to internal
evidence as well, and there are two considerations which shew that the
oldest MSS. are certainly correct. These are as follows. In the _first_
place, sect. 18 amounts to finding the degree of the zodiac which _souths_
with any star, and begins with the words 'Set the centre of the sterre upon
the lyne meridional'; whilst sect. 19 amounts to finding the degree of the
zodiac that _rises_ with any star, and begins with the words 'Set the
sentre of the sterre upon the est orisonte.' Clearly, these Conclusions are
closely linked together, and one ought to follow the other. But, in all the
editions, this continuity is broken. In the _second_ place, the rubric of
sect. 21 is--'To knowe for what latitude in any regioun,' &c.; whilst that
of sect. 22 is--'To knowe in special the latitude of oure countray,' &c.
Clearly, these Conclusions are closely linked, and in their right order.
But, in all the editions, this continuity is again broken; and we have this
absurd result, viz. that a proposition headed--'To knowe the degrees of the
longitudes of fixe sterres' is followed by one headed--'To knowe _in
special_ the latitude of oure countray.' Hence we are enabled to draw a
line, and to divide the MSS. into two classes; those in which the order of
sections is correct, and those in which it has suffered misplacement, the
number in each class being much the same. This gives us the following
result.
_First Class._ A., B., C, (probably D.,) E., F., G., P.
_Second Class._ H., I., K., L., M., N., O., R.; to which add Th.
But this division immediately leads to another very curious result, and
that is, a certain lack of authority for sections after the _fortieth_,
which ends on p. 223.
A. ends with an incomplete sentence, in sect. 40, with the words--'howre
after howre.' B., C. end exactly at the same place.
E. ends sect. 40 with the same words; and, after this, has only one
additional section (46), which is, in my opinion, spurious; especially as
it does not appear in Messahala, of which more anon.
D., F., and G. all fail at an earlier point.
In none of the first-class MSS. (excepting P., which terminates with
section 43) is there a word about _umbra recta_ or _umbra versa_.
Even in the second class of MSS., we find H. breaking off at sect. 36, and
K. at sect. 35; so that the sections on the _umbrae_ rest only on MSS. I.
(obviously an edition, not a transcript), L., M., N., O., P., and R.
Putting aside the first of these, as being 'edited,' we have but six left;
and in the first four and the last of these we find that the additional
Conclusions appear in a certain order, viz. they insert 44 and 45 (on the
'mene mote') between three sections 41-43 on the 'umbrae' and five other
sections 41_a_-42_b_ on the same.
§ 20. THE LAST FIVE SECTIONS SPURIOUS. This at once suggests two results.
The _first_ is, that, as this gives two sets of sections on the 'umbrae,'
we can hardly expect both to be genuine; and accordingly, we at once find
that the _last five_ of these are mere clumsy repetitions of the _first
three_; for which reason, I unhesitatingly reject the said _last five_ as
spurious. This view is strikingly confirmed by MS. P.; for this, the only
first-class MS. that is carried on beyond section 40, contains the first
three sections on the 'umbrae' only. The _second_ result is, that if the
first three sections on the 'umbrae' are to be received, there is good
reason why we should consider the possible genuineness of sections 44 and
45 on the 'mene mote,' which rest very nearly on the same authority.
Now the sections on the 'mene mote' have in their favour one strong piece
of internal evidence; for the date 1397 is mentioned in them more than once
as being the 'root' or epoch from which to reckon. In most cases, the
mention of a date 1397 would lead us to attribute the writing in which it
occurs to that year or to a _later_ year, but a date fixed on for a 'root'
may very well be a _prospective_ one, so that these sections may have been
written _before_ 1397; an idea which is supported by the line 'behold
whether thy date be more or _lasse_ than the yere 1397'; sect. 44, l. 5.
But I suspect the date to be an error for 1387, since that [see _Somer_ in
Tyrwhitt's Glossary] was really the 'rote' used by Nicholas Lenne. In
either case, I think we may connect these sections with the previous
sections written in 1391[47]. Besides which, Chaucer so expressly intimates
his acquaintance with the subjects of these sections in the Canterbury
Tales[48], that we may the more readily admit them to be really his. There
is still less difficulty about admitting the first three sections (41-43)
on the 'umbrae,' because we find similar matter in the treatise of
Messahala, from which, as will appear, he derived so much. And hence we may
readily conclude that, in the second part, the first forty sections, found
in the oldest MSS., are certainly genuine, whilst sections 41-43, as well
as 44 and 45, have every claim to be considered genuine also. This need
not, however, force us to accept the remaining sections, since they may
easily have been added by another hand; a circumstance which is rendered
the more probable by the fact that sections 41_a_-42_b_ merely repeat 41-43
in a more clumsy form, and by the consideration that, if genuine, they
should have occupied their proper place immediately after sect. 43, instead
of being separated from the former set. As to sect. 46, I pronounce no
decided opinion; there is but little to be said either for or against it,
and it is of little consequence.
§ 21. GAP BETWEEN §§ 40 AND 41. But admitting the genuineness of sections
40-45, it at once becomes evident that there are two distinct gaps or
breaks in the continuity of the treatise; the first between 40 and 41; and
the second between 43 and 44. A little consideration will account for
these. Looking at the Canterbury Tales, we observe the very same
peculiarity; at certain points there are distinct breaks, and no mending
can link the various groups together in a satisfactory manner. This can be
accounted for in part by our knowledge of the fact that the poet died
before he had completed the proper linking-together of the tales which he
had more or less finished; but I think it also shews him to have been a
fragmentary worker. To suppose that, upon reaching Conclusion 40, he
suddenly turned to the sections upon the 'umbrae,' which are at once more
easy to explain, more suitable for a child, and illustrative of a different
and more practical use of the Astrolabe, seems to me natural enough; and
more probable than to suppose that anything is here lost. For, in fact, it
is to the very MSS. that contain sections 41-43 that we are indebted for
the last five words of sect. 40, so curiously omitted in the oldest and
best MSS.; and this is a direct argument against the supposition of any
matter having been here lost.
§ 22. GAP BETWEEN §§ 43 AND 44. The break between sections 43 and 44 may be
explained in a totally different manner. In this case, the break indicates
a _real_, not an accidental, gap. I suppose section 43 to have been really
the _last_ section of Part ii, and I refer sections 44 and 45 to the
_Fourth_ Part of the Treatise, and not to the _Second_ at all[49]. For if
we run through the contents of Parts Three and Four (p. 177), we observe
that they chiefly involve tables, with reference to one of which we find
the words 'upon which table ther folwith a _canon_,' &c. Now sections 44
and 45 exactly answer the description; they are alternative _canons_,
shewing how certain tables may be used. It happens that Conclusion 40 is
particularly dependent upon tables. To supply these was partly the object
of Part iv--'the whiche ferthe partie in special shal shewen a _table of
the verray moeving of the mone from houre to houre_, every day and in every
signe, after thyn almenak; _upon which table ther folwith a canon_,
suffisant to teche as wel the _maner of the wyrking of that same
conclusioun_, as to knowe in oure orizonte with which degree of the zodiac
that the mone ariseth in any latitude; and the arising of any planete after
his latitude fro the ecliptik lyne.' The opening words of the same
Conclusion are--'Knowe by thyn almenak the degree of the ecliptik of any
signe in which that the planete is rekned for to be:' (p. 221). This is
easily said; but I suppose that it was not so easy in olden times to know
off-hand the exact position of a planet. It must have been shewn by tables,
and these tables chiefly considered the 'mene mote,' or average motion of
the planets, and that only for periods of years. If you wanted the position
of a planet at a given hour on a given day, you had to work it out by
figures; the rule for which working was called a 'canon.' This very 'canon'
is precisely given at length in sect. 44; and sect. 45 is only another way
of doing the same thing, or, in other words, is an alternative canon. When
all this is fairly and sufficiently considered, we shall find good grounds
for supposing that these sections on the 'mene mote' are perfectly genuine,
and that they really belong to Part iv. of the Treatise.
I will only add, that the fact of sections 41_a_-42_b_ being thus placed
after a portion of Part iv. is one more indication that they are spurious.
§ 23. CONCLUSION 40. But it may be objected, as Mr. Brae has fairly
objected, that Conclusion 40 itself ought to belong to Part iv. So it ought
perhaps, if Chaucer had followed out his own plan. But it is clear from its
contents that the Prologue to the 'Astrolabie' was written _before_ the
commencement of the treatise itself, and not, as prefaces generally are,
afterwards. He was pleased with his son's progress. Little Lewis had asked
him if he might learn something about an astrolabe. The father at once sent
him a small astrolabe[50] by way of reward, constructed for the latitude of
Oxford, and having 45 circles of latitude on the flat disc (see Fig. 5)
instead of having 90 such circles, as the best instruments had[51]. This,
however, was a 'sufficient' astrolabe for the purpose. But he believes the
Latin treatises to be too hard for his son's use, and the Conclusions in
them to be too numerous. He therefore proposes to select some of the more
important Conclusions, and to turn them into English with such
modifications as would render them easier for a child to understand, He
then lays down a table of contents of his proposed five parts, throughout
which he employs the future tense, as 'the firste partie _shal_
reherse,'--'the second partie _shal_ teche,' &c. This use of the future
would not alone prove much, but taken in connexion with the context, it
becomes very suggestive. However, the most significant phrase is in the
last line of the Prologue, which speaks of 'other noteful thinges, yif god
wol vouche-sauf & his modur the mayde, mo than I behete,' i.e. other useful
things, _more than I now promise, if God and the Virgin vouchsafe it_. In
accordance with his habits of seldom finishing and of deviating from his
own plans at pleasure, we have but an imperfect result, not altogether
answerable to the table of contents. I therefore agree with Mr. Brae that
the 40th Conclusion would have done better for Part iv., though I do not
agree with him in rejecting it as spurious. This he was led to do by the
badness of the text of the MSS. which he consulted, but we can hardly
reject this Conclusion without rejecting the whole Treatise, as it is found
in all the oldest copies. By way of illustration, I would point out that
this is not the only difficulty, for the Conclusions about astrology ought
certainly to have been reserved for Part v. These are Conclusions 36 and
37, which concern the 'equaciouns of houses'; and this is probably why, in
three of the MSS. (viz. L., N., and R.), these two conclusions are made to
come _at the end of the Treatise_. There is nothing for it but to accept
what we have, and be thankful.
§ 24. EXTANT PORTION OF THE TREATISE. If, then, the questions be asked, how
much of the Treatise has come down to us, and what was to have been the
contents of the missing portion, the account stands thus.
Of Part i. we have the whole.
Of Part ii. we have nearly all, and probably all that ever was written,
including Conclusions 1-40 on astronomical matters, and Conclusions 41-43
on the taking of altitudes of terrestrial objects. Possibly Conclusion 46
is to be added to these; but Conclusions 41_a_-42_b_ are certainly
spurious.
Part iii. probably consisted entirely of tables, and some at least of these
may very well have been transmitted to little Lewis. Indeed, they may have
been prepared by or copied from Nicholas of Lynn and John Somer, before
Chaucer took the rest in hand. The tables were to have been (and perhaps
were) as follows:--
1. Tables of latitude and longitudes of the stars which were represented on
the 'Rete' of the Astrolabe. Specimens of such tables are found in MSS.
2. Tables of declinations of the sun, according to the day of the year.
3. Tables of longitudes of cities and towns.
4. Tables for setting clocks and finding the meridian altitudes (of the
sun, probably).
Such tables as these are by no means lost. There are MSS. which contain
little else, as e.g. MS. Hh. 6. 8 in the Cambridge University Library. The
longitudes of towns are given in MS. Camb. Ii. 3. 3, at fol. 214_b_. Again,
in MS. F. 25, in St. John's College Library, Cambridge, we find tables of
fixed stars, tables of latitudes and longitudes of towns, tables of
altitudes of the sun at different hours, and many others.
Part iv. was to explain the motions of the heavenly bodies, with their
causes. This was probably never written, though there is an allusion to it
in Part ii. § 11, l. 12. It was also to contain a table to shew the
position of the moon, according to an almanac; and such a table is given in
the St. John's MS. above mentioned, and in MS. Camb. Ii. 3. 3, at fol. 143.
This was to have been followed by a canon, and an explanation of the
working of the Conclusion--'to knowe with which degree of the zodiac that
the mone ariseth,' and 'the arising of any planete,' &c. The canon is
partly accounted for, as regards the planets at least, by sections 44 and
45, and the 'Conclusion' by section 40.
Part v. was to contain the general rules of astrology, with tables of
equations of houses, dignities of planets, and other useful things which
God and the Virgin might vouchsafe that the author should accomplish.
Sections 36 and 37 tell us something about the equations of houses; but, in
all probability, none (or, at least, no more) of this fifth Part was ever
written. Tables of equations of houses, for the latitude of Toledo, are
given in MS. Camb. Ii. 3. 3, at fol. 177, and elsewhere. Of the general
rules of astrology we find in old MSS. somewhat too much, but they are
generally in Latin; however, the Trinity MS. R. 15. 18 has some of them in
English.
On the whole, we have quite as much of Chaucer's Treatise as we need care
for; and he may easily have changed his mind about the necessity of writing
Part v; for we actually find him declaring (and it is pleasant to hear him)
that 'natheles, thise ben observauncez of iudicial matiere & _rytes of
payens, in which my spirit ne hath no feith_'; ii. 4. 36; (p. 192).
§ 25. SOURCES OF THE TREATISE. I next have to point out the sources whence
Chaucer's treatise was derived. Mr. Halliwell, in a note at the end of his
edition of Mandeville's Travels, speaks of the original treatise on the
Astrolabe, written in Sanskrit, on which he supposes Chaucer's treatise to
have been founded. Whether the Latin version used by Chaucer was ultimately
derived from a Sanskrit copy or not, need not be considered here. The use
of the Astrolabe was no doubt well known at an early period in India and
among the Persians and Arabs; see the 'Description of a Planispheric
Astrolabe constructed for Sháh Sultán Husain Safawí, King of Persia,' by W.
H. Morley, in which elaborate and beautifully illustrated volume the reader
may find sufficient information. Marco Polo says (bk. ii. c. 33) that there
were 5000 astrologers and soothsayers in the city of Cambaluc,
adding--'they have a kind of _Astrolabe_, on which are inscribed the
planetary signs, the hours, and critical points of the whole year'; Marco
Polo, ed. Yule, i. 399. Compare also the mention of the instrument in the
161st night of the Arabian Nights' Entertainments, where a translation
which I have now before me has the words--'instead of putting water into
the basin, he [the barber] took a very handsome astrolabe out of his case,
and went very gravely out of my room to the middle of the yard, to take the
height of the sun'; on which passage Mr. Lane has a note (chap. v. note 57)
which Mr. Brae quotes at length in his edition. There is also at least one
version of a treatise in Greek, entitled [Greek: peri tês tou astrolabou
chrêseôs], by Johannes Philoponus, of which the Cambridge University
Library possesses two copies, viz. MSS. Dd. 15. 27 and Gg. 2. 33. But it is
clear, from his own words, that Chaucer followed the Latin, and I can point
out[52] one of the Latin treatises to which he was very considerably
indebted. This is the 'Compositio et Operatio Astrolabie,' by
Messahala[53], of which copies are, I have no doubt, sufficiently numerous.
The Cambridge Library has four, viz. Hh. 6. 8, Ii. 1. 13, Ii. 3. 3[54], and
Kk. 1. 1, and there is another copy in St. John's College Library,
Cambridge, marked F. 25. The title should be particularly observed; for the
treatise is distinctly divisible into two separate parts, viz. the
'Compositio Astrolabii' and the 'Operatio Astrolabii.' The former begins
with the words--'Scito quod astrolabium sit nomen Graecum,' and explains
how to make an astrolabe, and how to inscribe on it the various necessary
lines and circles with sufficient exactness. It is much the longer portion
of the treatise, and (in MS. Ii. 3. 3) is illustrated by numerous diagrams,
whilst the second part has no such illustrations. But it does not appear
that Chaucer made any use of this former part, as his astrolabe had been
procured ready-made. The second part of the treatise, or 'Operatio
Astrolabii,' begins with the words 'Nomina instrumentorum sunt hec.' This
is evidently one of the sources from which Chaucer drew largely[55].
Chaucer's Part i. is almost wholly taken from this, but he has expanded it
in several places, with the evident intention of making it more easy to
understand. In Part ii. he has taken from it, with more or less exactness,
sections 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27-31, 33-37, 41 and 42;
whilst sections 4, 9, 12, 19, 22, 23, 26, 32, 38-40 and 43 do not appear in
it. In other words, Messahala's treatise accounts for thirty-one
conclusions out of forty-three, or about _two-thirds_ of the whole. In some
places, Chaucer has translated almost word for word, so as to leave no
doubt as to his authority. Besides which, I have already remarked that
Chaucer's version is _directly_ connected with Messahala by the quotations
from the latter which appear in MS. E.; see description of this MS. at p.
lix. If it be inquired, whence did Chaucer derive the remaining third of
his Second Part, I think it very likely that some of it may be found
amongst the varied and voluminous contents of such a MS. as Ii 3. 3, which
is a sort of general compendium of astronomical and astrological knowledge.
The complete solution of this question I leave to some one with more
leisure than myself, being satisfied that to have found the original of
Part i. and two-thirds of Part ii. is to have made a good start. It must
not be omitted, that the MSS. of Messahala are not all alike; that some
copies have propositions which are not in others; and that the order of the
Conclusions is not invariable. The chief noteworthy difference between
Chaucer's version and the Latin original is in the order of the
Conclusions; it is clear that Chaucer not only took what he liked, but
rearranged his materials after his own fashion.
§ 26. VARIOUS EDITIONS. About the early printed editions of the Astrolabe,
I have not much to say. The Editio Princeps of 1532 was clearly derived
from some MS. of the second class, and, what between the errors of the
scribes and printers, absurdities abound. After a careful examination of
the old editions, I came to the conclusion that the less I consulted them
the better, and have therefore rather avoided them than sought their
assistance. All the editions not only give the conclusions in a wrong
order, but (like the MSS. of the second class) absurdly repeat Conclusion
I. of Part ii., and reckon the repetition of it as Conclusion III. MSS. of
the first class are free from this defect, and may thus be easily known.
The only edition worth consulting is that by Mr. A. E. Brae, published
quite recently, in 1870. Mr. Brae made much use of MS. I., besides which he
consulted the Printed Editions, and MSS. H. and L. See the descriptions of
these MSS. above. From this edition I have taken many hints, and I wish to
express, very thankfully, my obligations to it. Mr. Brae has brought to
bear upon his work much skill and knowledge, and has investigated many
points with much patience, minuteness, and critical ability. But I cannot
but perceive that he has often expended his labour upon very inferior
materials, and has been sometimes misled by the badness of those MSS. to
which alone he had access[56].
Besides his print of Chaucer's Astrolabe, Mr. Brae has reprinted some
curious and interesting critical notes of his own, and has added some
essays on Chaucer's 'prime,' on 'the Carrenare,' and 'shippes opposteres.'
To all that he has done I am much indebted.
§ 27. WORKS ON THE SUBJECT. The works upon, and descriptions of, the
astrolabe, are numerous. I have had neither time nor inclination to make
researches into the subject; for which reason I here note the names of a
few books which may be examined by the curious reader.
In his Universal Lexicon, Zedler explains that astrolabes are of two kinds,
'universal' and 'particular.' He speaks of the astrolabes (1) of Gemma
Frisius; see Petri Apiani Cosmographia, per Gemmam Phrysium restituta; (2)
of Johan de Rojas, a Spaniard, A.D. 1550; (3) of De la Hire the elder,
professor of mathematics at Paris, A.D. 1702; (4) of Johannes Stoflerinus
(or Stöffler), A.D. 1510. The last of these varied from the others in
adopting a different and more convenient system of projection, viz. that
upon the plane of the equator, or one parallel to it, the eye being in the
antarctic pole, and the arctic pole being made the centre of the
instrument. This projection is the same as that which was used by Ptolemy,
and it is adopted in the diagrams which accompany Chaucer's treatise in
some of the MSS. It should be observed here that the term 'astrolabe' alone
is vague; it was originally a general name for any circular instrument used
for observation of the stars; but in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries it was restricted to the particular kind called the 'Astrolabe
Planisphere,' or astrolabe _on a flat surface_, in which sense alone the
word is used throughout this volume. See the English Cyclopaedia, Arts and
Sciences, s.v. _Astrolabe_.
The simplest work is that by Stöffler or Stoflerinus, as he calls himself;
see also Gemma Frisius, Metius, Clavius Bambergensis, the Cursus
Mathematicus of Dechales, vol. iv. p. 161, Delambre's History of Astronomy,
and other works. The plates in Metius are most exquisitely engraved, and on
a large scale, and give a better representation of the instrument than any
others that I have seen.
One of the MSS., viz. MS. E., refers to an astrolabe belonging to Merton
College, Oxford[57]. There is a very nice one, made of brass, and by a
Dutch engraver, in the library of King's College, Cambridge. It has several
discs or plates, or, as Chaucer calls them, 'tables[58].' Of this
instrument the same library contains a written description, with some
account of the problems it will solve, and an investigation of its probable
date, by H. Godfray, Esq., of St. John's College.
There is a book entitled 'A verie briefe and most plaine description of Mr.
Blagrave his Astrolabe,' &c., by Mr. Blundevill; London, printed by William
Stansby. But it turns out to be of little practical assistance, because
Blagrave's astrolabe was on a different principle.
§ 28. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASTROLABE PLANISPHERE. There is not, however, much
need of reference to books to understand what the astrolabe used by Chaucer
was like. The instrument may be readily understood from a brief
description, and from the Plates in this volume.
The most important part of the 'astrolabe planisphere' consisted of a
somewhat heavy circular plate of metal from four to seven inches in
diameter, which could be suspended from the thumb by a ring (i. 1), working
with such freedom as would allow the instrument to assume a perfectly
perpendicular position (i. 2). One side of the plate was perfectly flat,
and was called the _back_. This is represented in Fig. 1. On it was
described a number of concentric rings, marked with various divisions,
which may be readily understood from the figure. Beginning at the outermost
ring, the first two represent the ninety degrees into which each quadrant
of a circle can be divided (i. 7). The next two represent the signs of the
zodiac, each subdivided into thirty degrees (i. 8). The next two represent
the days of the year, and are rather difficult to mark, as the circle has,
for this purpose, to be divided into 365¼ equal parts (i. 9). The next
three circles shew the names of the months, the number of days in each, and
the small divisions which represent each day, which coincide exactly with
those representing the days of the year (i. 10). The two innermost rings
shew the saints' days, with their Sunday-letters. Thus, above the 21st of
December is written 'Thome,' i.e. St. Thomas's day, its Sunday-letter being
E; the rest can easily be traced by the tables in a Prayer-book (i. 11).
These may be thus briefly recapitulated:--
1 and 2. Circles of degrees of the quadrant and circle.
3 and 4. Circles of the zodiacal signs, with their degrees.
5 and 6. Circles of the days of the year, with their numbers.
7, 8 and 9. Circles of the months, with their days and numbers of the
days.
10 and 11. Circles of saints' days, with their Sunday-letters.
Within all these, are the Scales of Umbra Recta and Umbra Versa, in each of
which the scale is divided into twelve equal parts, for the convenience of
taking and computing altitudes (i. 12). This primitive and loose method of
computation has long been superseded by the methods of trigonometry.
Besides these circles, there is a perpendicular line, marking the South and
North points, and a horizontal line from East to West.
The other side of the plate, called the _front_, and shewn in Fig. 2, had a
thick rim with a wide depression in the middle (i. 3). The rim was marked
with three rings or circles, of which the outermost was the Circle of
Letters (A to Z) representing the twenty-four hours of the day, and the two
innermost the degrees of the quadrants (i. 16). The depressed central
portion of the plate was marked only with three circles, the 'Tropicus
Cancri,' the 'Æquinoctialis,' and the 'Tropicus Capricorni' (i. 17); and
with the cross-lines from North to South, and from East to West (i. 15).
But several thin plates or discs of metal were provided, which were of such
a size as exactly to drop into the depression spoken of. The principal one
of these, called the 'Rete,' is shewn in Fig. 2. It consisted of a circular
ring marked with the zodiacal signs, subdivided into degrees, with narrow
branching limbs both within and without this ring, having smaller branches
or tongues terminating in points, each of which denoted the exact position
of some well-known star. The names of these stars, as 'Alhabor,' 'Rigel,'
&c., are (some of them) written on the branches (i. 21). The 'Rete' being
thus, as it were, a skeleton plate, allows the 'Tropicus Cancri,' &c.,
marked upon the body of the instrument, to be partially seen below it.
Another form of the 'Rete' is shewn in Fig. 9, and other _positions_ of the
Rete in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12. But it was more usual to interpose between the
'Rete' and the body of the instrument (called the 'Mother') another thin
plate or disc, such as that in Fig. 5, so that portions of this latter
plate could be seen beneath the skeleton-form of the 'Rete' (i. 17). These
plates are called by Chaucer 'tables,' and sometimes an instrument was
provided with several of them, differently marked, for use in places having
different latitudes. The one in Fig. 5 is suitable for the latitude of
Oxford (nearly). The upper part, above the Horizon Obliquus, is marked with
circles of altitude (i. 18), crossed by incomplete arcs of azimuth tending
to a common centre, the zenith (i. 19). The lower part of the same plate is
marked with arcs denoting the twelve planetary hours (i. 20).
At the _back_ of the astrolabe revolved the 'rule,' made of metal, and
fitted with sights, represented in Fig. 3 (i. 13). At the _front_ of it
revolved the 'label,' represented in Fig. 6 (i. 22).
All the parts were held together by the central pin (Fig. 4) which passed
through the holes in the 'moder,' plates, 'Rete,' rule, and label[59], and
was secured by a little wedge (i. 14), which was sometimes fancifully
carved to resemble a horse (Fig. 7).
Another 'table' or disc is shewn in Fig. 14, and was used for ascertaining
the twelve astrological houses.
§ 29. USES OF THE ASTROLABE PLANISPHERE. I here briefly enumerate such
principal uses of the instrument as are mentioned by Chaucer.
The _back_ (Fig. 1) shews at once the degree of the zodiac answering to
every day in the year (ii. 1). The altitude of the sun can be taken by the
'Rule,' elevated at the proper angle (ii. 2). If the Rete be properly
adjusted to this altitude, we can thus tell the hour of the day (ii. 3).
The duration of twilight can be calculated by observing when the sun is 18°
below the horizon (ii. 6). Observe the times of sunrise and sundown, and
the interval is the 'artificial day' (ii. 7). This day, with the duration
of morning and evening twilights added to it, is called the 'vulgar day'
(ii. 9). The plate in Fig. 5 shews the planetary hours (ii. 12). The
placing of the sun's degree on the South-line gives the sun's meridian
altitude (ii. 13), and conversely (ii. 14). The back of the instrument can
shew what days in the year are of equal length (ii. 15). The degree of the
zodiac which souths with _any_ star can be ascertained by observing two
altitudes of the star; but the observations must be made when the star is
_very near_ the meridian (ii. 17). If the star be marked on the Rete, the
said degree is easily found by use of the Rete (ii. 18). We can also find
with what degree of the zodiac the same star rises (ii. 19). The use of the
Rete also shews the declination of every degree in the zodiac (ii. 20). We
can always tell for what latitude a disc such as that in Fig. 5 is
constructed, by properly examining it (ii. 21). The latitude of any place
can be found by two observations of the altitude of the Pole-star (ii. 23);
or of any circumpolar star (ii. 24); or by observing the sun's meridional
altitude (ii. 25). The Rete also tells us the 'ascensions of signs,' or how
many degrees of the equinoctial circle pass the meridian with a given sign
(ii. 27); as also the 'oblique ascensions' of the same (ii. 28). The
astrolabe can also be used to discover (but only in an imperfect and
approximate manner) the four cardinal points of the compass (ii. 29). We
can also compare the altitude of a planet with that of the sun (ii. 30). We
can find in what part of the horizon the sun rises (ii. 31); and in what
direction to look for a conjunction of the sun and moon (ii. 32); also near
what point of the compass the sun is at any given hour (ii. 33). The moon's
observed altitude will shew her longitude (ii. 34). We can tell, from two
observations of a planet properly made, whether the planet's movement is
direct or retrograde (ii. 35). The disc shewn in Fig. 14 helps to shew the
'equations of houses' (ii. 36). The four cardinal points can be found
_without_ an astrolabe, by an experiment properly conducted (ii. 38). The
astrolabe can be used to find the degree of the zodiac with which any
planet ascends, even when the planet is not situated in the ecliptic (ii.
40).
By the use of the _Umbra Recta_ on the back of the instrument, we can take
the altitude of an accessible object by a single observation (ii. 41); or
of an inaccessible object by two observations (ii. 43). Or, the height of
an inaccessible object may likewise be taken by two observations, by the
scale marked _Umbra Versa_ (ii. 42).
The few Conclusions not here referred to are chiefly explanatory, or of
minor interest.
§ 30. STARS MARKED ON THE RETE. Several of the Latin MSS. upon the
Astrolabe give a list of the stars marked upon the Rete. There is a double
list, for example, in MS. Ii. 3. 3, in the Cambridge University Library,
fol. 70, back. It is given in the form of two tables; the first mentions
forty-nine stars, with the degrees of the zodiac which south along with
them, and their declinations from the equinoctial line. The second table
mentions some only of _the same_ stars, with their longitudes and
latitudes, as referred to the ecliptic.
A list of the principal stars usually marked upon the Rete, as shewn in
Fig. 2, is given in the Note to Part i. § 21. 4 (p. 357). Fig. 9 shews
another Rete, with many of the same stars, with the addition of Markep
([iota] Argous). Alchimech is the same as Azimech, i.e. [alpha] Virginis;
Cor Leonis is [alpha] Leonis; and Alfart is [alpha] Hydræ.
§ 31. ASTROLOGICAL NOTES. For a general sketch of Astrology, see the
English Cyclopaedia, s.v. Worthless as the science is, it is useful to have
a few 'facts' for handy reference. I therefore attempt a synopsis of the
chief points of it, drawn from Johannis Hispalensis Isagoge in Astrologiam.
To save space, I give the information in a tabular form, wherein I denote
the twelve Signs by A., T., G., C., L., V., Li., S., Sa., Cp., Aq., P.; and
the seven Planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, by
St., J., Ms., Sn., V., My., Mo. What the table exactly means shall be
explained presently.
Signs.| Man. | Ex. | Day. | Nt. | Com. |Face 1.|Face 2.|Face 3.
------+------+----------+------+------+------+-------+-------+-------
A. | Ms. | Sn. (19) | Sn. | J. | St. | Ms. | Sn. | V.
T. | V. | Mn. (3) | V. | Mn. | Ms. | My. | Mn. | St.
G. | My. | D. H. | St. | My. | J. | J. | Ms. | Sn.
C. | Mn. | J. (15) | V. | Ms. | Mn. | V. | My. | Mn.
L. | Sn. | | Sn. | J. | St. | St. | J. | Ms.
V. | My. | My. (15) | V. | Mn. | Ms. | Sa. | V. | My.
Li. | V. | St. (19) | St. | My. | J. | Mn. | St. | J.
S. | Ms. | | V. | Ms. | Mn. | Ms. | Sn. | V.
Sa. | J. | D. T. | Sn. | J. | St. | My. | Mn. | St.
Cp. | St. | Ms. (28) | V. | Mn. | Ms. | J. | Ms. | Sn.
Aq. | St. | | St. | My. | J. | V. | My. | Mn.
P. | J. | V. (21) | V. | Ms. | Mn. | St. | J. | Ms.
The first line is to be read thus.
Aries is the mansion (or house) of Mars; the exaltation (or honour) of the
Sun, in the 19th degree of the sign; the lord of the Triplicity of Aries
with its attendant signs is the Sun by day, Jupiter by night, and Saturn in
Common, both by day and night; the first Face of Aries (degrees 1 to 10) is
that of Mars; the second Face (degrees 11 to 20) is that of the Sun; the
third Face (degrees 21 to 30) is that of Venus. And so on for the rest;
noting that Gemini is the Exaltation of the Dragon's Head (D. H.), and
Sagittarius that of the Dragon's Tail (D. T.).
The meanings of the words are as follows:--
A _Mansion_ or _House_ appears to be that sign in which the planet is
peculiarly at home for some reason or other.
The _Exaltation_ or _Honour_ is that degree of a sign in which the planet
named has its greatest power; but the degree was often neglected, and Aries
was called the Exaltation of the Sun, simply.
The _Fall_ (Lat. _occasus vel detrimentum_) of a planet is the sign
opposite its mansion. Libra is opposite Aries; therefore Libra is the Fall
of Mars.
The _Dejection_ or _Depression_ (Lat. _dedecus_) of a planet is the sign
opposite to that of its exaltation. Libra is opposite Aries; therefore
Libra is the Dejection of the Sun. And so on.
A _Triplicity_ is a combination of three signs in the form of a triangle,
each 120° apart. Thus Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius form the first
triplicity; Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn, the second; Gemini, Libra, Aquarius,
the third; Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces, the fourth. Equal divisions of a sign
(third-parts, namely) are called _Faces_. There were also unequal divisions
called _Terms_.
The 'mobill' or movable signs are Aries, Cancer, Libra, Capricorn. The
'fixe' or fixed signs are Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, Aquarius. The 'common'
signs are Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, Pisces.
The signs Aries, Gemini, Leo, &c. (taking _every other_ sign) are _diurnal_
or _masculine_. The rest, Taurus, Cancer, &c., are _nocturnal_ or
_feminine_.
The first six signs, Aries to Virgo, are _northern_ or _sinister_ signs. So
called because astrologers looked towards the east or ascendent.
The last six, Libra to Pisces, are _southern_ or _dexter_ signs.
The signs Cancer to Sagittarius are _western_, _sovereign_, _right_, or
_direct_ signs. Cf. Astrol. ii. 28, and see Fig. 2.
The rest, Capricorn to Gemini, are _eastern_, _obedient_, _tortuous_, or
_oblique_ signs.
This is all that a reader is likely to want. For other points, see the
authorities.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.
§ 32. Plate I. Fig. 1. The flat back of the Astrolabe; see § 28.
Plate II. Fig. 2. The front of the Astrolabe, with raised border. In the
wide depression in the middle, the plate called the 'Rete' is dropped in,
and is shewn in its primary position. Other positions of it are sketched in
Fig. 11 and Fig. 12.
Plate III. Fig. 3. The 'Rewle' carrying two sights, which revolved at the
back of the Astrolabe. Astrol. i. 13.
Fig. 4. The central 'Pin,' shewn with the 'Wedge' inserted through it.
Astrol. i. 14; cf. Fig. 7.
Fig. 5. One of the Tables or discs, used by being dropped within the
depression on the _front_ of the Astrolabe; i. 17. They were marked
differently, according to the latitude of the place. The one here drawn is
suitable for the latitude of Oxford, nearly.
Fig. 6. The 'Label,' which revolved at the _front_ of the Astrolabe; i. 22.
Plate IV. Fig. 7. Another form of the 'Pin,' shewing the Wedge cut into the
shape of a Horse (i. 14); from MS. Camb. Ii. 3. 3.
Fig. 8. Diagram, shewing how to draw the three 'principal circles'; see
footnote on p. 183.
Fig. 9. Another form of the 'Rete,' from MS. Ii. 3. 3; cf. Fig. 2. This
figure shews the 'Almury' very clearly; Astrol. i. 23.
Plate V. Fig. 10. Diagram of the nine spheres; from MS. Camb. Ii. 3. 3.
Astrol. i. 17.
Fig. 11. Rough sketch of the position of the 'Rete' in Astrol. ii. 3 (first
part). Denticle opposite C, and first point of Aries opposite X; 9 a.m.
Fig. 12. Rough sketch of the position of the 'Rete' in Astrol. ii. 3
(second part). Denticle near O; first point of Aries near H; 8h. 8m. p.m.
Fig. 13. Diagram of the Elevation of the Pole; Astrol. ii. 23. The arc AN
is 56°; A'N is 48°; A'P is 4°; and PN is 52°. A, A' are two positions of
the Pole-star.
Plate VI. Fig. 14. A 'Table' or disc shewing the twelve astrological
'Houses'; Astrol. ii. 36 and 37.
Fig. 15. Diagram shewing how to ascertain the meridional line from two
shadows of an upright gnomon; Astrol. ii. 38.
Fig. 16. Diagram illustrating the use of the Umbra Recta; Astrol. ii. 41,
41_a_, and 41_b_.
Fig. 17. Diagram of the use of the Umbra Versa, at two observations;
Astrol. ii. 42, 42_a_, and 42_b_.
Fig. 18. Use of the Umbra Recta, at two observations; Astrol. ii. 43 and
43_a_.
[Illustration: FIG. 1. BACK OF THE 'ASTROLABE.']
[Illustration: FIG. 2. FRONT OF THE 'ASTROLABE.']
[Illustration: FIG. 3. LABEL.
FIG. 4. PIN.
FIG. 5. PLATE FOR A CLIMATE.
FIG. 6. RULE.]
[Illustration: FIG. 7. WEDGE AND HORSE (from a MS.).
FIG. 8. DIAGRAM FOR A PROPOSITION.
FIG. 9. STAR-POINTS.]
[Illustration: FIG. 10. NINE SPHERES.
FIGS. 11, 12, 13. PROBLEMS.]
[Illustration: FIG. 14. HOUSES.
FIGS. 15-18. UMBRA RECTA AND UMBRA VERSA.]
THE HOUS OF FAME.
BOOK I.
God turne us every dreem to gode!
For hit is wonder, by the rode,
To my wit, what causeth swevenes
Either on morwes, or on evenes;
And why the effect folweth of somme, 5
And of somme hit shal never come;
Why that is an avisioun,
And this a revelacioun;
Why this a dreem, why that a sweven, And nat to every man liche even; 10
Why this a fantom, these oracles,
I noot; but who-so of these miracles
The causes knoweth bet than I,
Devyne he; for I certeinly
Ne can hem noght, ne never thinke 15
To besily my wit to swinke,
To knowe of hir signifiaunce
The gendres, neither the distaunce
Of tymes of hem, ne the causes
For-why this more than that cause is; 20
As if folkes complexiouns
Make hem dreme of reflexiouns;
Or elles thus, as other sayn,
For to greet feblenesse of brayn,
By abstinence, or by seeknesse, 25
Prison, stewe, or greet distresse;
Or elles by disordinaunce
Of naturel acustomaunce,
That som man is to curious
In studie, or melancolious, 30
Or thus, so inly ful of drede,
That no man may him bote bede;
Or elles, that devocioun
Of somme, and contemplacioun
Causeth swiche dremes ofte; 35
Or that the cruel lyf unsofte
Which these ilke lovers leden
That hopen over muche or dreden,
That purely hir impressiouns
Causeth hem avisiouns; 40
Or if that spirits have the might
To make folk to dreme a-night
Or if the soule, of propre kinde,
Be so parfit, as men finde,
That hit forwot that is to come, 45
And that hit warneth alle and somme
Of everiche of hir aventures
By avisiouns, or by figures,
But that our flesh ne hath no might
To understonden hit aright, 50
For hit is warned to derkly;--
But why the cause is, noght wot I.
Wel worthe, of this thing, grete clerkes,
That trete of this and other werkes;
For I of noon opinioun 55
Nil as now make mencioun,
But only that the holy rode
Turne us every dreem to gode!
For never, sith that I was born,
Ne no man elles, me biforn, 60
Mette, I trowe stedfastly,
So wonderful a dreem as I
The tenthe day [dide] of Decembre,
The which, as I can now remembre,
I wol yow tellen every del. 65
_The Invocation._
But at my ginning, trusteth wel,
I wol make invocacioun,
With special devocioun,
Unto the god of slepe anoon,
That dwelleth in a cave of stoon 70
Upon a streem that comth fro Lete,
That is a flood of helle unswete;
Besyde a folk men clepe Cimerie,
Ther slepeth ay this god unmerie
With his slepy thousand sones 75
That alway for to slepe hir wone is--
And to this god, that I of rede,
Preye I, that he wol me spede
My sweven for to telle aright,
If every dreem stonde in his might. 80
And he, that mover is of al
That is and was, and ever shal,
So yive hem Ioye that hit here
Of alle that they dreme to-yere,
And for to stonden alle in grace 85
Of hir loves, or in what place
That hem wer levest for to stonde,
And shelde hem fro povert and shonde,
And fro unhappe and ech disese,
And sende hem al that may hem plese, 90
That take hit wel, and scorne hit noght,
Ne hit misdemen in her thoght
Through malicious entencioun.
And who-so, through presumpcioun,
Or hate or scorne, or through envye, 95
Dispyt, or Iape, or vilanye,
Misdeme hit, preye I Iesus god
That (dreme he barfoot, dreme he shod),
That every harm that any man
Hath had, sith [that] the world began, 100
Befalle him therof, or he sterve,
And graunte he mote hit ful deserve,
Lo! with swich a conclusioun
As had of his avisioun
Cresus, that was king of Lyde, 105
That high upon a gebet dyde!
This prayer shal he have of me;
I am no bet in charite!
Now herkneth, as I have you seyd,
What that I mette, or I abreyd. 110
_The Dream._
Of Decembre the tenthe day,
Whan hit was night, to slepe I lay
Right ther as I was wont to done,
And fil on slepe wonder sone,
As he that wery was for-go 115
On pilgrimage myles two
To the corseynt Leonard,
To make lythe of that was hard.
But as I sleep, me mette I was
Within a temple y-mad of glas; 120
In whiche ther were mo images
Of gold, stondinge in sondry stages,
And mo riche tabernacles,
And with perre mo pinacles,
And mo curious portreytures, 125
And queynte maner of figures
Of olde werke, then I saw ever.
For certeynly, I niste never
Wher that I was, but wel wiste I,
Hit was of Venus redely, 130
The temple; for, in portreyture,
I saw anoon-right hir figure
Naked fletinge in a see.
And also on hir heed, parde,
Hir rose-garlond whyt and reed, 135
And hir comb to kembe hir heed,
Hir dowves, and daun Cupido,
Hir blinde sone, and Vulcano,
That in his face was ful broun.
But as I romed up and doun, 140
I fond that on a wal ther was
Thus writen, on a table of bras:
'I wol now singe, if that I can,
The armes, and al-so the man,
That first cam, through his destinee, 145
Fugitif of Troye contree,
In Itaile, with ful moche pyne,
Unto the strondes of Lavyne.'
And tho began the story anoon,
As I shal telle yow echoon. 150
First saw I the destruccioun
Of Troye, through the Greek Sinoun,
[That] with his false forsweringe,
And his chere and his lesinge
Made the hors broght into Troye, 155
Thorgh which Troyens loste al hir Ioye.
And after this was grave, allas!
How Ilioun assailed was
And wonne, and king Priam y-slayn,
And Polites his sone, certayn, 160
Dispitously, of dan Pirrus.
And next that saw I how Venus,
Whan that she saw the castel brende,
Doun fro the hevene gan descende,
And bad hir sone Eneas flee; 165
And how he fledde, and how that he
Escaped was from al the pres,
And took his fader, Anchises,
And bar him on his bakke away,
Cryinge, 'Allas, and welaway!' 170
The whiche Anchises in his honde
Bar the goddes of the londe,
Thilke that unbrende were.
And I saw next, in alle this fere,
How Creusa, daun Eneas wyf, 175
Which that he lovede as his lyf,
And hir yonge sone Iulo,
And eek Ascanius also,
Fledden eek with drery chere,
That hit was pitee for to here; 180
And in a forest, as they wente,
At a turninge of a wente,
How Creusa was y-lost, allas!
That deed, [but] noot I how, she was;
How he hir soughte, and how hir gost 185
Bad him to flee the Grekes ost,
And seyde, he moste unto Itaile,
As was his destinee, sauns faille;
That hit was pitee for to here,
Whan hir spirit gan appere, 190
The wordes that she to him seyde,
And for to kepe hir sone him preyde.
Ther saw I graven eek how he,
His fader eek, and his meynee,
With his shippes gan to sayle 195
Toward the contree of Itaile,
As streight as that they mighte go.
Ther saw I thee, cruel Iuno,
That art daun Iupiteres wyf,
That hast y-hated, al thy lyf, 200
Al the Troyanisshe blood,
Renne and crye, as thou were wood,
On Eolus, the god of windes,
To blowen out, of alle kindes,
So loude, that he shulde drenche 205
Lord and lady, grome and wenche
Of al the Troyan nacioun,
Withoute any savacioun.
Ther saw I swich tempeste aryse,
That every herte mighte agryse, 210
To see hit peynted on the walle.
Ther saw I graven eek withalle,
Venus, how ye, my lady dere,
Wepinge with ful woful chere,
Prayen Iupiter an hye 215
To save and kepe that navye
Of the Troyan Eneas,
Sith that he hir sone was.
Ther saw I Ioves Venus kisse,
And graunted of the tempest lisse. 220
Ther saw I how the tempest stente,
And how with alle pyne he wente,
And prevely took arrivage
In the contree of Cartage;
And on the morwe, how that he 225
And a knight, hight Achatee,
Metten with Venus that day,
Goinge in a queynt array,
As she had ben an hunteresse,
With wind blowinge upon hir tresse; 230
How Eneas gan him to pleyne,
Whan that he knew hir, of his peyne;
And how his shippes dreynte were,
Or elles lost, he niste where;
How she gan him comforte tho, 235
And bad him to Cartage go,
And ther he shuldë his folk finde,
That in the see were left behinde.
And, shortly of this thing to pace,
She made Eneas so in grace 240
Of Dido, quene of that contree,
That, shortly for to tellen, she
Becam his love, and leet him do
That that wedding longeth to.
What shulde I speke more queynte, 245
Or peyne me my wordes peynte,
To speke of love? hit wol not be;
I can not of that facultee.
And eek to telle the manere
How they aqueynteden in-fere, 250
Hit were a long proces to telle,
And over long for yow to dwelle.
Ther saw I grave, how Eneas
Tolde Dido every cas,
That him was tid upon the see. 255
And after grave was, how she
Made of him, shortly, at oo word,
Hir lyf, hir love, hir lust, hir lord;
And dide him al the reverence,
And leyde on him al the dispence, 260
That any woman mighte do,
Weninge hit had al be so,
As he hir swoor; and her-by demed
That he was good, for he swich semed.
Allas! what harm doth apparence, 265
Whan hit is fals in existence!
For he to hir a traitour was;
Wherfor she slow hir-self, allas!
Lo, how a woman doth amis,
To love him that unknowen is! 270
For, by Crist, lo! thus hit fareth;
'Hit is not al gold, that glareth.'
For, al-so brouke I wel myn heed,
Ther may be under goodliheed
Kevered many a shrewed vyce; 275
Therfor be no wight so nyce,
To take a love only for chere,
For speche, or for frendly manere;
For this shal every woman finde
That som man, of his pure kinde, 280
Wol shewen outward the faireste,
Til he have caught that what him leste;
And thanne wol he causes finde,
And swere how that she is unkinde,
Or fals, or prevy, or double was. 285
Al this seye I by Eneas
And Dido, and hir nyce lest,
That lovede al to sone a gest;
Therfor I wol seye a proverbe,
That 'he that fully knoweth therbe 290
May saufly leye hit to his yë';
Withoute dreed, this is no lye.
But let us speke of Eneas,
How he betrayed hir, allas!
And lefte hir ful unkindely. 295
So whan she saw al-utterly,
That he wolde hir of trouthe faile,
And wende fro hir to Itaile,
She gan to wringe hir hondes two.
'Allas!' quod she, 'what me is wo! 300
Allas! is every man thus trewe,
That every yere wolde have a newe,
If hit so longe tyme dure,
Or elles three, peraventure?
As thus: of oon he wolde have fame 305
In magnifying of his name;
Another for frendship, seith he;
And yet ther shal the thridde be,
That shal be taken for delyt,
Lo, or for singular profyt.' 310
In swiche wordes gan to pleyne
Dido of hir grete peyne,
As me mette redely;
Non other auctour alegge I.
'Allas!' quod she, 'my swete herte, 315
Have pitee on my sorwes smerte,
And slee me not! go noght away!
O woful Dido, wel away!'
Quod she to hir-selve tho.
'O Eneas! what wil ye do? 320
O, that your love, ne your bonde,
That ye han sworn with your right honde,
Ne my cruel deeth,' quod she,
'May holde yow still heer with me!
O, haveth of my deeth pitee! 325
Y-wis, my dere herte, ye
Knowen ful wel that never yit,
As fer-forth as I hadde wit,
Agilte [I] yow in thoght ne deed.
O, have ye men swich goodliheed 330
In speche, and never a deel of trouthe?
Allas, that ever hadde routhe
Any woman on any man!
Now see I wel, and telle can,
We wrecched wimmen conne non art; 335
For certeyn, for the more part,
Thus we be served everichone.
How sore that ye men conne grone,
Anoon as we have yow receyved!
Certeinly we ben deceyved; 340
For, though your love laste a sesoun,
Wayte upon the conclusioun,
And eek how that ye determynen,
And for the more part diffynen.
'O, welawey that I was born! 345
For through yow is my name lorn,
And alle myn actes red and songe
Over al this lond, on every tonge.
O wikke Fame! for ther nis
Nothing so swift, lo, as she is! 350
O, sooth is, every thing is wist,
Though hit be kevered with the mist.
Eek, thogh I mighte duren ever,
That I have doon, rekever I never,
That I ne shal be seyd, allas, 355
Y-shamed be through Eneas,
And that I shal thus Iuged be--
"Lo, right as she hath doon, now she
Wol do eftsones, hardily;"
Thus seyth the peple prevely.'-- 360
But that is doon, nis not to done;
Al hir compleynt ne al hir mone,
Certeyn, availeth hir not a stre.
And whan she wiste sothly he
Was forth unto his shippes goon, 365
She in hir chambre wente anoon,
And called on hir suster Anne,
And gan hir to compleyne thanne;
And seyde, that she cause was
That she first lovede [Eneas], 370
And thus counseilled hir therto.
But what! when this was seyd and do,
She roof hir-selve to the herte,
And deyde through the wounde smerte.
But al the maner how she deyde, 375
And al the wordes that she seyde,
Who-so to knowe hit hath purpos,
Reed Virgile in Eneidos
Or the Epistle of Ovyde,
What that she wroot or that she dyde; 380
And nere hit to long to endyte,
By god, I woldë hit here wryte.
But, welaway! the harm, the routhe,
That hath betid for swich untrouthe,
As men may ofte in bokes rede, 385
And al day seen hit yet in dede,
That for to thenken hit, a tene is.
Lo, Demophon, duk of Athenis,
How he forswor him ful falsly,
And trayed Phillis wikkedly, 390
That kinges doghter was of Trace,
And falsly gan his terme pace;
And when she wiste that he was fals,
She heng hir-self right by the hals,
For he had do hir swich untrouthe; 395
Lo! was not this a wo and routhe?
Eek lo! how fals and reccheles
Was to Briseida Achilles,
And Paris to Enone;
And Iason to Isiphile; 400
And eft Iason to Medea;
And Ercules to Dyanira;
For he lefte hir for Iöle,
That made him cacche his deeth, parde.
How fals eek was he, Theseus; 405
That, as the story telleth us,
How he betrayed Adriane;
The devel be his soules bane!
For had he laughed, had he loured,
He mostë have be al devoured, 410
If Adriane ne had y-be!
And, for she had of him pitee,
She made him fro the dethe escape,
And he made hir a ful fals Iape;
For after this, within a whyle 415
He lefte hir slepinge in an yle,
Deserte alone, right in the see,
And stal away, and leet hir be;
And took hir suster Phedra tho
With him, and gan to shippe go. 420
And yet he had y-sworn to here,
On al that ever he mighte swere,
That, so she saved him his lyf,
He wolde have take hir to his wyf;
For she desired nothing elles, 425
In certein, as the book us telles.
But to excusen Eneas
Fulliche of al his greet trespas,
The book seyth, Mercurie, sauns faile,
Bad him go into Itaile, 430
And leve Auffrykes regioun,
And Dido and hir faire toun.
Tho saw I grave, how to Itaile
Daun Eneas is go to saile;
And how the tempest al began, 435
And how he loste his steresman,
Which that the stere, or he took keep,
Smot over-bord, lo! as he sleep.
And also saw I how Sibyle
And Eneas, besyde an yle, 440
To helle wente, for to see
His fader, Anchises the free.
How he ther fond Palinurus,
And Dido, and eek Deiphebus;
And every tourment eek in helle 445
Saw he, which is long to telle.
Which who-so willeth for to knowe,
He moste rede many a rowe
On Virgile or on Claudian,
Or Daunte, that hit telle can. 450
Tho saw I grave al tharivaile
That Eneas had in Itaile;
And with king Latine his tretee,
And alle the batailles that he
Was at him-self, and eek his knightes, 455
Or he had al y-wonne his rightes;
And how he Turnus refte his lyf,
And wan Lavyna to his wyf;
And al the mervelous signals
Of the goddes celestials; 460
How, maugre Iuno, Eneas,
For al hir sleighte and hir compas,
Acheved al his aventure;
For Iupiter took of him cure
At the prayere of Venus; 465
The whiche I preye alway save us,
And us ay of our sorwes lighte!
Whan I had seyen al this sighte
In this noble temple thus,
'A, Lord!' thoughte I, 'that madest us, 470
Yet saw I never swich noblesse
Of images, ne swich richesse,
As I saw graven in this chirche;
But not woot I who dide hem wirche,
Ne wher I am, ne in what contree. 475
But now wol I go out and see,
Right at the wiket, if I can
See o-wher stering any man,
That may me telle wher I am.'
When I out at the dores cam, 480
I faste aboute me beheld.
Then saw I but a large feld,
As fer as that I mighte see,
Withouten toun, or hous, or tree,
Or bush, or gras, or ered lond; 485
For al the feld nas but of sond
As smal as man may see yet lye
In the desert of Libye;
Ne I no maner creature,
That is y-formed by nature, 490
Ne saw, me [for] to rede or wisse.
'O Crist,' thoughte I, 'that art in blisse,
Fro fantom and illusioun
Me save!' and with devocioun
Myn yën to the heven I caste. 495
Tho was I war, lo! at the laste,
That faste by the sonne, as hyë
As kenne mighte I with myn yë,
Me thoughte I saw an egle sore,
But that hit semed moche more 500
Then I had any egle seyn.
But this as sooth as deeth, certeyn,
Hit was of golde, and shoon so bright,
That never saw men such a sighte,
But-if the heven hadde y-wonne 505
Al newe of golde another sonne;
So shoon the egles fethres brighte,
And somwhat dounward gan hit lighte.
EXPLICIT LIBER PRIMUS.
_The authorities are_ F. (Fairfax 16); B. (Bodley 638); P. (Pepys 2006);
Cx. (Caxton's ed.); Th. (Thynne's ed. 1532). _I follow_ F. _mainly,
correcting the spelling._
1. P. drem; _rest_ dreme. 8. _All have_ And why; _I omit_ why. 9, 10. F.
swevene, evene; Cx. Th. sweuen, euen. 11. Th. B. a fantome; P. a fauntom;
Cx. a fanton; F. affaintome; _after which, all needlessly insert_ why. 12.
F. Th. B. P. not; Cx. note (= noot). _Elide_ o _in_ so. 20. _All wrongly
insert_ is _before_ more. 24. B. of the; _rest_ of her; _I omit_ the (her).
26. F. B. stewe; P. stoe; Cx. stryf; Th. stryfe. 35. P. sweche; _rest_
suche, such. 45. F. B. forwote; _rest_ wote. 50. F. vnderstonde, _followed
by a metrical mark, indicating a pause: I add_ n. 58, 62. MSS. dreme (=
dreem). 63. _See_ note. 64. B. P. now; F. yow; _rest om._ 71. P. strem;
_rest_ streme (= streem); _so_ P. drem (_rest_ dreme) _in_ l. 80. MSS.
cometh (= com'th). 73. Cx. Th. clepe; F. clepeth. 77. F. That; _rest_ And.
78. Th. wol; P. wol; Cx. wyl; F. B. wolde. 85. F. B. stonde; Cx. Th.
stande; P. stond. Cx. alle; F. Th. al (_wrongly_). 88. _All_ pouerte. 89.
B. ech; F. eche. 100. _I supply_ that. 103. P. _om._ a. 109, 110. Cx. seyd,
abreyd; _the rest_ seyde (sayde), abreyde (abrayde). _Grammar requires_
seyd, abreyd; (abreyde _also occurs_). 117, 118. Cx. P. leonard, hard; F.
Th. B. leonarde, harde. P. _om._ of. 119. MSS. slept, slepte; _read_ sleep,
_as in_ l. 438. 122. F. Th. golde; Cx. P. gold; B. goold. 126. _All_
queynt. 127. F. B. olde; Th. golde; Cx. P. gold. F. sawgh. 131. Th. This;
_rest_ The. 132. F. sawgh. 134. Th. heed; B. hed; F. Cx. hede. Cx. Th. P.
parde; F. B. partee (!). 135. B. red; F. Th. rede; Cx. Rose garlondes
smellynge as a mede. 136. MSS. combe. B. hed; _rest_ hede. 139. Cx. P.
brown; F. broune. 140. Cx. down; F. dovne. 141. P. fond; F. Cx. B. fonde;
Th. founde. Cx. Th. wal; B. wall; F. walle. 143. F. B. say; _rest_ synge.
F. B. P. _om._ that. 146. F. B. Troy. 148. Cx. Th. P. Lauyne; F. B. Labyne.
152. Cx. Th. P. Troye; F. B. Troy; _see_ l. 155. 153. _All om._ That. F. B.
P. fals; Cx. fals vntrewe; Th. false vntrewe. 159. Cx. Th. kyng; F. B.
kynge. F. y-slayne; _rest_ slayn. 160. Th. Polytes; F. B. Polite. _From
this point I make no further note of obvious corrections in spelling._ 172.
Cx. P. Th. goddes; F. B. goddesse (_wrongly_) 173. F. B. -brende; _rest_
-brenned. 174. Cx. P. this; F. B. his. 184. F. P. That dede not I how she
was; B. That ded not I how she was; Cx. That rede note I how it was; Th.
That rede nat I howe that it was. _Read_ deed, _and insert_ but. 188. Cx.
Th. destyne; F. destanye. 193. Cx. Th. grauen; P. graven; F. grave; B.
graue. 196. F. B. Towardes. 199. P. Iubiter; _rest_ Iupiters; _read_
Iupiteres. 204. F. blowe; P. Cx. Th. blowen. 210. Th. herte; _rest_ hert.
220. F. _omits from_ lisse _to_ tempest _in next line; the rest are right_.
221, 222. F. B. stent, went; Cx. Th. stente, wente. 227. P. Cx. Th. Metten;
F. B. Mette. 235. F. P. comfort; _rest_ comforte. 237. P. folk; _rest_
folke; _but_ shulde _is here dissyllabic_. 242. F. tel; B. tell_e_; P. Cx.
Th. tellen. 257, 8. _All_ worde, lorde. 260. Th. the; _rest omit_. 270. F.
vnknowe; _rest_ vnknowen. 278. Th. Or speche; _rest_ Or (F. Of!) for
speche; _read_ For speche. _Lines 280-2 3 are in_ Th. _only, which reads_
some; fayrest; lest; than. 285. Cx. Th. (_3rd_) or; F. B. P. _om._ 290. F.
B. therbe (= the herbe); P. Cx. Th. the herbe. 305. Cx. Th. one; P. on; F.
B. love. 309, 310. _All_ delyte, profyte. 313. _For_ mette, Cx. Th. _have_
mette dremyng (!). 314. F. auttour = auctour. 315. F. he; _the rest_ she.
320. F. Th. wol; P. will_e_; Cx. wyl. 322. F. ha; P. B. haue; _rest om._
328. _All_ had. 329. _I insert_ I; _which all omit_. 332. P. hadde; _rest_
had. 334. Cx. telle; P. tellen; F. tel. 340. F. _omits this line; the rest
have it_. 347. F. B. al youre; Cx. Th. P. myn (_om._ al). 352. F. B. _om._
be. 353. Th. duren; F. B. dure. 358. Th. done; _rest omit_. 362. _All
insert_ But _before_ Al. 363. Cx. Th. P. Certeyn; F. B. Certeynly. 365. Cx.
goon; P. gon; F. agoon; B. agon. 366. in] _All_ in to. 370. _All_ Allas
(alas); _read_ Eneas. 371. F. B. As; _rest_ And. 375. Cx. Th. P. But; F. B.
And. 381. F. And nor hyt were to; Cx. And nere it were to; Th. And nere it
to; B. P. And ner it were to. Th. B. to endyte; F. Cx. tendyte. 387. P.
thenken; F. B. thynke; Cx. Th. thynken. 391. F. B. _om._ was. 402. Cx. Th.
P. And; F. B. _omit_. 410. Th. al; Cx. all; P. alle; F. B. _om._ 426. F. B.
_om._ as _and_ us. 428. F. B. _om._ greet. 429. B. Mercure; F. Mercur_e_;
_rest om._ 433. F. B. how that; _rest_ how. 434. Cx. P. to saylle; Th. for
to sayle; F. B. for to assayle. 446. Th. longe is for; F. B. is longe. Cx.
P. whyche no tonge can telle. 451. _For_ tharivaile, F. B. Th. _have_ the
aryvayle; Cx. the arryuaylle; P. the arevaille. 458. F. labina; _rest_
Lauyna. 468. Cx. P. seyn; _rest_ seen (sene). 473. F. B. grave; _rest_
grauen. 475. F. B. _omit_ in. 478. Th. sterynge any; _the rest_ any stiryng
(sterynge). 486. Cx. Th. P. was but of sonde (sande); F. B. nas but sonde.
491. _I insert_ for. Cx. Th. P. _insert_ I _after_ saw; _but it is in_ l.
489. 496. F. B. _omit_ lo. 504. F. B. _omit lines_ 504-507. COLOPHON AND
TITLE. _So in_ Cx.; _the rest omit them_.