§ 1. In the Third Edition of my volume of Chaucer Selections, containing
the Prioress's Tale, &c., published by the Clarendon Press in 1880, I
included an essay to shew 'why the Romaunt of the Rose is not Chaucer's,'
meaning thereby the particular English version of Le Roman de la Rose which
happens to be preserved. I have since seen reason to modify this opinion as
regards a comparatively short portion of it at the beginning (here printed
in large type), but the arguments then put forward remain as valid as ever
as regards the main part of it (here printed in smaller type, and in double
columns). Some of these arguments had been previously put forward by me in
a letter to the Academy, Aug. 10, 1878, p. 143. I ought to add that the
chief of them are not original, but borrowed from Mr. Henry Bradshaw, whose
profound knowledge of all matters relating to Chaucer has been acknowledged
by all students.
§ 2. That Chaucer translated the French poem called Le Roman de la Rose, or
at least some part of it[185], no one doubts; for he tells us so himself in
the Prologue of his Legend of Good Women (A 255, B 329), and the very
frequent references to it, in many of his poems, shew that many parts of it
were familiarly known to him. Nevertheless, it does not follow that the
particular version of it which happens to be preserved, is the very one
which he made; for it was a poem familiar to many others besides him, and
it is extremely probable that Middle English versions of it were numerous.
In fact, it will presently appear that the English version printed in this
volume actually consists of _three_ separate fragments, _all by different
hands_.
The English version, which I shall here, for brevity, call 'the
translation,' has far less claim to be considered as Chaucer's than
unthinking people imagine. Modern readers find it included in many editions
of his Works, and fancy that such a fact is conclusive; but it is the
merest prudence to enquire how it came there. The answer is, that it first
appeared in Thynne's edition of 1532, a collection of Chaucer's (supposed)
works made more than _a hundred and thirty years_ after his death. Such an
attribution is obviously valueless; we must examine the matter for
ourselves, and on independent grounds.
§ 3. A critical examination of the internal evidence at once shews that by
far the larger part of 'the translation' cannot possibly be Chaucer's; for
the language of it contradicts most of his habits, and presents
peculiarities such as we never find in his genuine poems. I shewed this in
my 'Essay' by the use of several unfailing tests, the nature of which I
shall explain presently. The only weak point in my argument was, that I
then considered 'the translation' as being the production of _one_ author,
and thought it sufficient to draw my examples (as I unconsciously, for the
most part, did) from the central portion of the whole.
§ 4. The next step in this investigation was made by Dr. Lindner. In a
painstaking article printed in _Englische Studien_, xi. 163, he made it
appear highly probable that at least _two_ fragments of 'the translation'
are _by different hands_. That there are two fragments, _at least_, is
easily discerned; for after l. 5810 there is a great gap, equivalent to an
omission of more than 5000 lines.
§ 5. Still more recently, Dr. Max Kaluza has pointed out that there is
another distinct break in the poem near l. 1700. The style of translation,
not to speak of its accuracy, is much better in the first 1700 lines than
in the subsequent portions. We may notice, in particular, that the French
word _boutons_ is translated by _knoppes_ in ll. 1675, 1683, 1685, 1691,
1702, whilst, in l. 1721 and subsequent passages, the same word is merely
Englished by _botoun_ or _botouns_. A closer study of the passage extending
from l. 1702 to l. 1721 shews that there is a very marked break at the end
of l. 1705. Here the French text has (ed. Méon, l. 1676):--
'L'odor de lui entor s'espent;
La soatime qui en ist
Toute la place replenist.'