'The swote smelle sprong so wyde
That it dide al the place aboute'--
followed by:--
'Whan I had smelled the savour swote,
No wille hadde I fro thens yit go'; &c.
It will be observed that the sentence in the two former lines is
incomplete; _dide_ is a mere auxiliary verb, and the real verb of the
sentence is lost; whilst the two latter lines lead off with a new sentence
altogether. It is still more interesting to observe that, at this very
point, we come upon a false rime. The word _aboute_ was then pronounced
(abuu·t[*e]), where (uu) denotes the sound of _ou_ in _soup_, and ([*e])
denotes an obscure vowel, like the _a_ in _China_. But the vowel _o_ in
_swote_ was then pronounced like the German _o_ in G. _so_ (nearly E. _o_
in _so_), so that it was quite unlike the M.E. _ou_; and the rime is no
better than if we were to rime the mod. E. _boot_ with the mod. E. _goat_.
It is clear that there has been a _join_ here, and a rather clumsy one. The
supply of 'copy' of the first translation ran short, perhaps because the
rest of it had been torn away and lost, and the missing matter was supplied
from some other source. We thus obtain, as the result to be tested, the
following arrangement:--
Fragment A.--Lines 1-1705. French text, 1-1678.
Fragment B.--Lines 1706-5810. French text, 1679-5169.
Fragment C.--Lines 5811-7698. French text, 10716-12564.
It should be noted, further, that l. 7698 by no means reaches to the _end_.
It merely corresponds to l. 12564 of the French text, leaving 9510 lines
untouched towards the end, besides the gap of 5547 lines between Fragments
B and C. In fact, the three fragments, conjointly, only represent 7018
lines of the original, leaving 15056 lines (more than double that number)
wholly untranslated.
§ 6. DISCUSSION OF FRAGMENT B.
TEST I.--PROPORTION OF ENGLISH TO FRENCH.--As regards these fragments, one
thing strikes us at once, viz. the much greater _diffuseness_ of the
translation in fragment B, as may be seen from the following table:--
A.--English, 1705 lines; French, 1678; as 101.6 to 100.
B.--English, 4105 lines; French, 3491; as 117.5 to 100.
C.--English, 1888 lines; French, 1849; as 102.1 to 100.
Thus, in A and C, the translation runs nearly line for line; but in B, the
translator employs, on an average, 11 lines and three-quarters for every 10
of the original.
§ 7. TEST II.--DIALECT.--But the striking characteristic of Fragment B is
the use in it of a Northern dialect. That this is due to the author, and
not merely to the scribe, is obvious from the employment of Northern forms
in rimes, where any change would destroy the rime altogether. This may be
called the Dialect-test. Examples abound, and I only mention some of the
most striking.
1. Use of the Northern pres. part. in _-and_. In l. 2263, we have _wel
sittand_ (for _wel sitting_), riming with _hand_. In l. 2708, we have _wel
doand_ (for _wel doing_), riming with _fand_. Even _fand_ is a Northern
form. Chaucer uses _fond_, riming with _hond_ (Cant. Ta. A 4116, 4221,
&c.), _lond_ (A 702, &c.); cf. the subj. form _fond-e_, riming with
_hond-e_, _lond-e_, _bond-e_ (B 3521).
2. In l. 1853, we have the rimes _thar_, _mar_ (though miswritten _thore_,
_more_ in MS. G.), where the Chaucerian forms _there_, _more_, would not
rime at all. These are well-known Northern forms, as in Barbour's Bruce. So
again, in l. 2215, we find _mar_, _ar_ (though _mar_ is written as _more_
in MS. G.). In l. 2397, we find _stat_, _hat_; where _hat_ is the Northern
form of Chaucer's _hoot_, adj., 'hot.' So also, in 5399, we have North.
_wat_ instead of Ch. _wot_ or _woot_, riming with _estat_. In l. 5542, we
find the Northern _certis_ (in place of Chaucer's _certes_), riming with
_is_.
3. Chaucer (or his scribes) admit the use of the Northern _til_, in place
of the Southern _to_, very sparingly; it occurs, e.g. in Cant. Ta. A 1478,
before a vowel. But it never occurs after its case, nor at the end of a
line. Yet, in fragment B, we twice find _him til_ used finally, 4594, 4852.
4. The use of _ado_ (for _at do_), in the sense of 'to do,' is also
Northern; see the New E. Dict. It occurs in l. 5080, riming with _go_.
5. The dropping of the inflexional _e_, in the infin. mood or gerund, is
also Northern. In fragment B, this is very common; as examples, take the
rimes _lyf_, _dryf_, 1873; _feet_, _lete_ (= _leet_), 1981; _sit_, _flit_,
2371; _may_, _convay_, 2427; _may_, _assay_, 2453; _set_, _get_, 2615;
_spring_, _thing_, 2627; _ly_, _by_, 2629; _ly_, _erly_, 2645; &c. The
Chaucerian forms are _dryv-e_, _let-e_, _flit-te_, _convey-e_, _assay-e_,
_get-e_, _spring-e_, _ly-e_. That the Northern forms are not due to the
scribe, is obvious; for he usually avoids them where he can. Thus in l.
2309, he writes _sitting_ instead of _sittand_; but in l. 2263, he could
not avoid the form _sittand_, because of the rime.
§ 8. TEST III.--THE RIMING OF -y WITH -y-ë.--With two intentional
exceptions (both in the ballad metre of Sir Thopas, see note to Cant. Ta. B
2092), Chaucer _never_ allows such a word as _trewely_ (which
etymologically ends in _-y_) to rime with French substantives in _-y-ë_,
such as _fol-y-ë_, _Ielos-y-ë_ (Ital. _follia_, _gelosia_). But in fragment
B, examples abound; e. g. _I_, _malady(e)_[186], 1849; _hastily_,
_company(e)_, 1861; _generally_, _vilany(e)_, 2179; _worthy_, _curtesy(e)_,
2209; _foly(e)_, _by_, 2493, 2521; _curtesy(e)_, _gladly_, 2985; _foly(e)_,
_utterly_, 3171; _foly(e)_, _hastily_, 3241; and many more.
This famous test, first proposed by Mr. Bradshaw, is a very simple but
effective one; it separates the spurious from the genuine works of Chaucer
with ease and certainty in all but a few cases, viz. cases wherein a
spurious poem happens to satisfy the test; and these are rare indeed.
§ 9. TEST IV.--ASSONANT RIMES. Those who know nothing about the
pronunciation of Middle English, and require an easy test, appreciable by
any child who has a good ear, may observe this. Chaucer does not employ
mere assonances, i. e. rimes in which only the vowel-sounds correspond. He
does not rime _take_ with _shape_, nor _fame_ with _lane_. But the author
of fragment B had no ear for this. He actually has such rimes as these:
_kepe_, _eke_, 2125; _shape_, _make_, 2259; _escape_, _make_, 2753; _take_,
_scape_, 3165; _storm_, _corn_, 4343; _doun_, _tourn_, 5469.
OTHER STRANGE RIMES.--Other rimes which occur here, but not in Chaucer, are
these and others like them: _aboute_, _swote_, 1705 (already noticed);
_desyre_, _nere_, 1785, 2441; _thar_ (Ch. _there_), _to-shar_, 1857;
_Ioynt_, _queynt_[187], 2037; _soon_ (Ch. _son-e_), _doon_, 2377; _abrede_,
_forweried_, 2563; _anney_ (Ch. _annoy_), _awey_, 2675; _desyre_, _manere_,
2779; _Ioye_, _convoye_ (Ch. _conveye_), 2915, &c. It is needless to
multiply instances.
§ 10. It would be easy to employ further tests; we might, for example, make
a minute critical examination of the method in which the final _-e_ is
grammatically employed. But the results are always the same. We shall
always find irrefragable proof that fragment B exhibits usages far
different from those which occur in the undoubted works of Chaucer, and
cannot possibly have proceeded from his pen. Repeated investigations, made
by me during the past thirteen years, have always come round to this
result, and it is not possible for future criticism to alter it.
Hence our first result is this. Fragment B, consisting of ll. 1706-5810
(4105 lines), containing more than fragments A and C together, and
therefore more than half of 'the translation,' _is not Chaucer's, but was
composed by an author who, to say the least, frequently employed Northern
English forms and phrases. Moreover, his translation is too diffuse; and,
though spirited, it is not always accurate._
§ 11. DISCUSSION OF FRAGMENT C.
I shall now speak of fragment C. The first noticeable point about it is,
that it does _not_ exhibit many of the peculiarities of B. There is nothing
to indicate, with any certainty, a Northern origin, nor to connect it with
B. In fact, we may readily conclude that B and C are by different authors.
The sole question that remains, as far as we are now concerned, is this.
Can we attribute it to Chaucer?
The answer, in this case, is not quite so easily given, because the
differences between it and Chaucer's genuine works are less glaring and
obvious than in the case above. Nevertheless, we at once find some good
reasons for refraining to attribute it to our author.
§ 12. RIME-TESTS.--If, for instance, we apply the simple but effective test
of the rimes of words ending in _-y_ with those ending in _-y-e_, we at
once find that this fragment fails to satisfy the text.
Examples: _covertly_, _Ipocrisy(e)_, 6112; _company(e)_, _outerly_, 6301;
_loteby_, _company(e)_, 6339; _why_, _tregetry(e)_, 6373; _company(e)_,
_I_, 6875; _mekely_, _trechery(e)_, 7319. These six instances, in less than
1900 lines, ought to make us hesitate.
If we look a little more closely, we find other indications which should
make us hesitate still more. At l. 5919, we find _hors_ (horse) riming with
_wors_ (worse); but Chaucer rimes _wors_ with _curs_ (Cant. Ta. A 4349),
and with _pervers_ (Book Duch. 813). At l. 6045, we find _fare_, _are_; but
Chaucer never uses _are_ at the end of a line; he always uses _been_. At l.
6105, we find _atte last_, _agast_; but Chaucer only has _atte last-e_
(which is never monosyllabic). At l. 6429, we find _paci-ence_,
_venge-aunce_, a false rime which it would be libellous to attribute to
Chaucer; and, at l. 6469, we find _force_, _croce_, which is still worse,
and makes it doubtful whether it is worth while to go on. However, if we go
a little further, we find the pl. form _wrought_ riming with _nought_,
6565; but Chaucer usually has _wrought-e_, which would destroy the rime.
This, however, is not decisive, since Chaucer has _bisought_ for
_bisoughte_, Cant. Ta. A. 4117, and _brought_ for _broughte_, id. F. 1273.
But when, at l. 6679, we find _preched_ riming with _teched_, we feel at
once that this is nothing in which Chaucer had a hand, for he certainly
uses the form _taughte_ (Prologue, 497), and as certainly does _not_ invent
such a form as _praughte_ to rime with it. Another unpleasant feature is
the use of the form _Abstinaunce_ in l. 7483, to gain a rime to _penaunce_,
whilst in l. 7505, only 22 lines lower down, we find _Abstinence_, to rime
with _sentence_; but the original has similar variations.
§ 13. I will just mention, in conclusion, one more peculiarity to be found
in fragment C. In the Cant. Tales, B 480 (and elsewhere), Chaucer uses such
rimes as _clerkes_, _derk is_, and the like; but not very frequently. The
author of fragment C was evidently much taken with this peculiarity, and
gives us plenty of examples of it. Such are: _requestis_, _honést is_,
6039; _places_, _place is_, 6119; _nede is_, _dedis_, 6659; _apert is_,
_certis_, 6799; _chaieris_, _dere is_, 6915; _enquestes_, _honést is_,
6977; _prophetis_, _prophete is_, 7093; _ypocritis_, _spite is_, 7253. Here
are eight instances in less than 1900 lines. However, there are five
examples (at ll. 19, 75, 387, 621, 1349) in the Hous of Fame, which
contains 2158 lines in the same metre as our 'translation'; and there are
19 instances in the Cant. Tales.
We should also notice that the character called _Bialacoil_ throughout
Fragment B is invariably called _Fair-Welcoming_ in C.
We should also remark how Dr. Lindner (_Engl. Studien_, xi. 172) came to
the conclusion that Chaucer certainly never wrote fragment C. As to the
rest he doubted, and with some reason; for he had not before him the idea
of splitting lines 1-5810 into two fragments.
§ 14. A consideration of the above-mentioned facts, and of others similar
to them, leads us to our second result, which is this. Fragment C,
containing 1888 lines, and corresponding to ll. 12564 of the French
original, is _neither by the author of fragment B, nor by Chaucer, but is
not so glaringly unlike Chaucer's work as in the case of fragment B_.
§ 15. DISCUSSION OF FRAGMENT A.
It remains to consider fragment A. The first test to apply is that of rimes
in _-y_ and _-y-e_; and, when we remember how indiscriminately these are
used in fragments B and C, it is at least instructive to observe the
perfect regularity with which they are employed in fragment A. The student
who is unacquainted with the subtle distinctions which this test
introduces, and who probably is, on that account, predisposed to ignore it,
may learn something new by the mere perusal of the examples here given.
1. Words that should, etymologically, end in _-y_ (and not in _-y-e_) are
here found riming together, and never rime with a word of the other class.
Examples: _covertly_, _openly_, 19; _redily_, _erly_, 93; _by_, _I_, 111;
_bisily_, _redily_, 143; _by_, _I_, 163; _I_, _by_, 207; _povrely_,
_courtepy_[188], 219; _beggarly_, _by_, 223; _enemy_, _hardily_, 269;
_awry_[189], _baggingly_, 291; _certeinly_, _tenderly_, 331; _prively_,
_sikerly_, 371; _redily_, _by_, 379; _Pope-holy_, _prively_, 415; _I_,
_openly_, 501; _queyntely_, _fetisly_, 569; _fetisly_, _richely_, 577;
_only_, _uncouthly_, 583; _I_, _namely_, 595; _sikerly_, _erthely_, 647;
_lustily_, _semely_, 747; _parfitly_, _sotilly_, 771; _queyntely_,
_prively_, 783; _fetisly_, _richely_, 837; _sotilly_, _I_, 1119;
_enemy_[190], _tristely_, 1165; _sotilly_, _therby_, 1183; _newely_, _by_,
1205; _fetisly_, _trewely_, 1235; _I_, _by_, 1273; _trewely_, _comunly_,
1307; _lustily_, _sikerly_, 1319; _merily_, _hastely_, 1329; _I_,
_sikerly_, 1549; _I_, _craftely_, 1567; _openly_, _therby_, 1585;
_diversely_, _verily_, 1629; _openly_, _by_, 1637. Thirty-eight examples.
We here notice how frequently words in _-ly_ rime together; but this
peculiarity is Chaucerian; cf. _semely_, _fetisly_, C. T. prol. A 123, &c.
2. Words that, etymologically, should end in _-y-e_, rime together. These
are of two sorts: (_a_) French substantives; and (_b_) words in _-y_, with
an inflexional _-e_ added.
Examples: (_a_) _felony-e_, _vilany-e_, 165; _envy-e_, _masonry-e_, 301;
_company-e_, _curtesy-e_, 639; _melody-e_, _reverdy-e_, 719; _curtesy-e_,
_company-e_, 957; _vilany-e_, _felony-e_, 977; _envy-e_, _company-e_, 1069;
_chivalry-e_, _maistry-e_, 1207; _villany-e_, _sukkeny-e_, 1231; _envye_,
_Pavie_, 1653.
(_b_) _dy-e_, infin. mood, _dry-e_, dissyllabic adj. (A. S. _dr[=y]ge_),
1565.
(_a_) and (_b_) mixed: _melody-e_, F. sb., _dy-e_, infin. mood, 675;
_espy-e_, gerund, _curtesy-e_, F. sb., 795; _hy-e_, dat. adj., _maistry-e_,
841; _dy-e_, gerund, _flatery-e_, F. sb., 1063; _curtesy-e_, F. sb.,
_hy-e_, dat. case, pl. adj., 1251; _dy-e_, infin. mood, _remedy-e_, F. sb.,
1479. Seventeen examples. (In all, fifty-five examples.)
Thus, in more than fifty cases, the Chaucerian habit is maintained, and
there is _no_ instance to the contrary. Even the least trained reader may
now fairly begin to believe that there is some value in this proposed test,
and may see one reason for supposing that fragment A may be genuine.
§ 16. A still closer examination of other rimes tends to confirm this.
There are no Northern forms (as in B), no merely assonant rimes (as in B),
nor any false or bad or un-Chaucerian rimes (as in both B and C), except
such as can be accounted for. The last remark refers to the fact that the
scribe or the printer of Thynne's edition frequently misspells words so as
to obscure the rime, whereas they rime perfectly when properly spelt; a
fact which tells remarkably in favour of the possible genuineness of the
fragment. Thus, at l. 29, Thynne prints _befal_, and at l. 30, _al_. Both
forms are wrong; read _befalle_, _alle_. Here Thynne has, however,
preserved the rime by making a _double_ mistake; as in several other
places. A more important instance is at l. 249, where the Glasgow MS. has
_farede_, _herede_, a bad rime; but Thynne correctly has _ferde_, _herde_,
as in Chaucer, Cant. Ta. A 1371. So again, at ll. 499, 673, where the
Glasgow MS. is right (except in putting _herd_ for _herde_ in l. 673).
At l. 505, there is a false rime; but it is clearly due to a misreading, as
explained in the notes. A similar difficulty, at l. 1341, is explicable in
the same way.
§ 17. So far, there is no reason why fragment A may not be Chaucer's; and
the more closely we examine it, the more probable does this supposition
become. Dr. Kaluza has noticed, for instance, that the style of translation
in fragment A is distinctly better, clearer, and more accurate than in
fragment B. I find also another significant fact, viz. that in my essay
written to shew that 'the translation' is not Chaucer's (written at a time
when I unfortunately regarded the whole translation as being the work of
_one_ writer, a position which is no longer tenable), nearly all my
arguments were drawn from certain peculiarities contained in fragments B
and C, especially the former. I have therefore nothing, of any consequence,
to retract; nor do I even now find that I made any serious mistake.
§ 18. The third result may, accordingly, be arrived at thus. Seeing that
Chaucer really translated the 'Roman de la Rose,' and that three fragments
of English translations have come down to us, of which two cannot be his,
whilst the third may be, _we may provisionally accept fragment A as
genuine; and we find that, the more closely we examine it, the more
probable does its genuineness become_.
§ 19. SUMMARY.--Having now discussed the three fragments A, B, C,
successively and separately (though in a different order), we may
conveniently sum up the three results as follows.
1. Fragment A appears to be a real portion of Chaucer's own translation.
Its occurrence, at the _beginning_, is, after all, just what we should
expect. The scribe or editor would naturally follow it as far as it was
extant; and when it failed, would as naturally piece it out with any other
translation or translations to which he could gain access. This fragment
ceases suddenly, at the end of l. 1705, in the middle of an incomplete
sentence. The junction with the succeeding portion is clumsily managed, for
it falsely assumes that the previous sentence is complete, and leads off
with a false rime.
2. Fragment B is obviously from some other source, and is at once
dissociated from both the other fragments by the facts (_a_) that it was
_originally_ written in a Northumbrian dialect, though this is somewhat
concealed by the manipulation of the spelling by a later scribe; (_b_) that
it was written in a more _diffuse_ style, the matter being expanded to the
extent, on an average, of nearly twelve lines to ten; (_c_) that many
licences appear in the rimes, which sometimes degenerate into mere
assonances; and (_d_) that it is less exact and less correct in its method
of rendering the original.
3. After fragment B, there is a large gap in the story, more than 5000
lines of the original being missing. Hence Fragment C is from yet a third
source, not much of which seems to have been accessible. It neither joins
on to Fragment B, nor carries the story much further; and it comes to an
end somewhat suddenly, at a point more than 9000 lines from the end of the
original. It is, however, both more correct than Fragment B, and more in
Chaucer's style; though, at the same time, I cannot accept it as his.
§ 20. There is little that is surprising in this result. That translations
of this then famous and popular French poem should have been attempted by
many hands, is just what we should expect. At the same time, the enormous
length of the original may very well have deterred even the most
persevering of the translators from ever arriving at the far end of it.
Chaucer's translation was evidently the work of his younger years, and the
frequent use which he made of the French poem in his later works may have
made him careless of his own version, if indeed he ever finished it, which
may be doubted. All this, however, is mere speculation, and all that
concerns us now is the net result. It is clear, that, in the 1705 lines
here printed in the larger type, we have recovered all of Chaucer's work
that we can ever hope to recover. With this we must needs rest satisfied,
and it is a great gain to have even so much of it; the more so, when we
remember how much reason there was to fear that the whole of Chaucer's work
was lost. It was not until Dr. Kaluza happily hit upon the resolution of
lines 1-5810 into two fragments, that Chaucer's portion was at last
discovered.
§ 21. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
In what has preceded, we have drawn our conclusions from the most helpful
form of evidence--the internal evidence. It remains to look at the external
form of the poem, and to enquire how it has come down to us.
The apparent sources are _two_, viz. Thynne's edition of 1532 (reprinted in
1542, 1550, 1561, and at later dates), and a MS. in the Hunterian
collection at Glasgow. But a very slight examination shews that these are
nearly duplicate copies, both borrowed from one and the same original,
which is now no longer extant. I shall denote these sources, for
convenience, by the symbols Th., G., and O., meaning, respectively, Thynne,
Glasgow MS., and the (lost) Original.
The resemblance of Th. and G. is very close; however, each sometimes
corrects _small_ faults in the other, and the collation of them is, on this
account, frequently helpful. Both are remarkable for an extraordinary
misarrangement of the material, in which respect they closely agree; and we
are enabled, from this circumstance, to say, definitely, that the C-portion
of O. (i. e. their common original) was written (doubtless on vellum) in
quires containing 8 leaves (or 16 pages) each, there being, on an average,
24 lines upon every page. Of these quires, the fourth had its leaves
transposed, by mistake, when the MS. was bound, in such a manner that the
_middle_ pair of leaves of this quire was displaced, so as to come next the
two _outer_ pair of leaves; and this displacement was never suspected till
of late years, nor ever (so far as I am aware[191]) fully appreciated and
explained till now[192]. This displacement of the material was first
noticed in Bell's edition, where the editor found it out by the simple
process of comparing the English 'translation' with the French 'Roman'; but
he gives no account of how it came about. But a closer investigation is
useful as showing how exactly 'Th.' and 'G.' agree in following an original
displacement in 'O.', or rather in the still older MS. from which the
C-portion of O. was copied.
In the fourth sheet (as said above), the pair of middle leaves, containing
its 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th pages (G, H, I, K, with the contents recorded
in note 2 below) was subtracted from the middle of the quire, and placed so
that the 7th page (G) followed the 2nd (B), whilst at the same time, the
10th page (K) came to precede the 15th page (P). The resulting order of
pages was, necessarily, A, B, G, H, C, D, E, F, L, M, N, O, I, K, P, Q; as
is easily seen by help of a small paper model. And the resulting order of
the lines was, accordingly, 6965-6988, 6989-7012, 7109-7133, 7134-7158,
7013-7036, 7037-60, 7061-84, 7085-7108, 7209-7232, 7233-7256, 7257-7280,
7281-7304, 7159-7183, 7184-7208, 7305-7328, 7329-7352; or, collecting the
successive numbers, ... -7012, 7109-7158, 7013-7108, 7209-7304, 7159-7208,
7305, &c. And this is precisely the order found, both in Th. and G.
We see further that the fourth and last quire of this C-portion of O.
consisted of 7 leaves only, the rest being torn away. For 7 leaves
containing 48 lines apiece give a total of 336 lines, which, added to 7352,
make up 7688 lines; and, as 10 of the pages seem to have had 25 lines, we
thus obtain 7698 lines as the number found in O.
The A-portion of O. was probably copied from a MS. containing usually 25
lines on a page, and occasionally 26. Four quires at 50 lines to the leaf
give 32 × 50, or 1600 lines; and 2 leaves more give 100 lines, or 1700
lines in all. If 5 of the pages had 26 lines, we should thus make up the
number, viz. 1705. Of the B-portion we can tell nothing, as we do not know
how it was made to join on.
As O. was necessarily older than G., and G. is judged by experts[193] to be
hardly later than 1440, it is probable that O. was written out not much
later than 1430; we cannot say how much earlier, if earlier it was.
§ 22. G. (the Glasgow MS.) is a well-written MS., on vellum; the size of
each page being about 11 inches by 7½, with wide margins, especially at the
bottom. Each page contains about 24 lines, and each quire contains 8
leaves. The first quire is imperfect, the 1st leaf (ll. 1-44) and the 8th
(ll. 333-380) being lost. Nine other leaves are also lost, containing ll.
1387-1482, 2395-2442, 3595-3690, and 7385-7576; for the contents of which
(as of the former two) Th. remains the sole authority. The date of the MS.
is about 1440; and its class-mark is V. 3. 7.
It begins at l. 45--'So mochel pris,' &c. At the top of the first extant
leaf is the name of Thomas Griggs, a former owner. On a slip of parchment
at the beginning is a note by A. Askew (from whom Hunter bought the MS.) to
this effect:--'Tho. Martin_us_. Ex dono dom' Iacobi Sturgeon de Bury sc[=i]
Edmundi in agro Suffolc: Artis Chirurgicæ Periti. Nov. 9, 1720.' It ends
very abruptly in the following manner:--
'Ne half so lettred as am I
I am licenced boldely
To Reden in diuinite
And longe haue red
Explicit.'
The third of these lines is incorrect, and the fourth is corrupt and
imperfect; moreover, Thynne's copy gives four more lines after them. It
would thus appear that G. was copied from O. at a later period than the MS.
used by Thynne and now lost, viz. at a period when O. was somewhat damaged
or torn at the end of its last page. A careful and exact copy of this MS.
is now (in 1891) being printed for the Chaucer Society, edited by Dr.
Kaluza.
§ 23. TH.--The version printed in Thynne's edition, 1532, and reprinted in
1542, 1550, 1561, &c. The first four editions, at least, are very much
alike. The particular edition at first used by me for constructing the
present text is that which I call the edition of 1550. (It is really
undated, but that is about the date of it.) Its variations from the earlier
editions are trifling, and I afterwards reduced all the readings to the
standard of the _first_ edition (1532). The MS. used by Thynne was
obviously a copy of 'O.', as explained above; and it shews indications of
being copied at an earlier date than 'G.', i. e. before 1440. On the whole,
'Th.' appears to me more correct than 'G.', and I have found it very
serviceable. We learn from it, for example, that the scribe of 'G.'
frequently dropped the prefix _y-_ in past participles, giving l. 890 in
the form 'For nought _clad_ in silk was he,' instead of _y-clad_. Cf. ll.
892, 897, 900, &c.; see the foot-notes.
'Th.' supplies the deficiencies in G., viz. ll. 1-44, 333-380, &c., as well
as four lines at the end; and suggests numerous corrections.
§ 24. The various later reprints of the 'Romaunt,' as in Speght (1598) and
other editions, are merely less correct copies of 'Th.', and are not worth
consulting. The only exceptions are the editions by Bell and Morris. Bell's
text was the first for which 'G.' was consulted, and he follows the MS. as
his general guide, filling up the deficiencies from Speght's edition, which
he describes as 'corrupt and half-modernised.' Why he chose Speght in
preference to Thynne, he does not tell us. In consequence, he has left
lines incomplete in a large number of instances, owing to putting too much
faith in the MS., and neglecting the better printed sources. Thus, in l.
890, he gives us 'clad' instead of '_y_-clad'; where any of the printed
texts would have set him right.
Morris's edition is 'printed from the unique MS. in the Hunterian Museum,
Glasgow'; but contains numerous corrections, apparently from Thynne. Thus,
in l. 890, he reads '_y_-clad'; the _y-_ being printed in italics to shew
that it is not in the MS.
§ 25. THE PRESENT EDITION.
The present edition principally follows 'G.', but it has been collated with
'Th.' throughout. Besides this, a large number of spellings in Fragment A.
have been slightly amended on definite principles, the rejected spellings
being given in the footnotes, whenever they are of the slightest interest
or importance. Silent alterations are changes such as _i_ for _y_ in _king_
for _kyng_ (l. 10), and _whylom_ for _whilom_ (in the same line), to
distinguish vowel-length; the use of _v_ for consonantal _u_ in _avisioun_
for _auisioun_ (l. 9); the use of _ee_ for (long) _e_ in _Iolitee_ for
_Iolite_ (l. 52) for the sake of clearness; and a few other alterations of
the like kind, which make the text easier to read without at all affecting
its accuracy. I have also altered the suffix _-is_ into _-es_ in such words
as _hertes_ for _hertis_ (l. 76); and changed the suffixes _-id_ and _-ith_
into the more usual _-ed_ and _-eth_, both of which are common in the MS.,
usually giving notice; and in other similar minute ways have made the text
more like the usual texts of Chaucer in appearance. But in Fragments B and
C such changes have been made more sparingly.
I have also corrected numerous absolute blunders, especially in the use of
the final e. For example, in l. 125, I have no hesitation in printing
_wissh_ for _wysshe_, because the use of final _e_ at the end of a strong
past tense, in the first person singular, is obviously absurd. Owing to the
care with which the two authorities, 'G.' and 'Th.', have been collated,
and my constant reference to the French original, I have no hesitation in
saying that the present edition, if fairly judged, will be found to be more
correct than its predecessors. For Dr. Kaluza's help I am most grateful.
§ 26. For example, in l. 1188, all the editions have _sarlynysh_, there
being no such word. It is an obvious error for _Sarsinesshe_ (riming with
_fresshe_); for the F. text has _Sarrazinesche_, i. e. Saracenic.
In l. 1201, the authorities and Bell have _gousfaucoun_, which Morris
alters to _gounfaucoun_ in his text, and to _gownfaucoun_ in his glossary.
But all of these are 'ghost-words,' i. e. non-existent. Seeing that the
original has _gonfanon_, it is clear that Chaucer wrote _gonfanoun_, riming
with _renoun_.
In l. 1379, late editions have _lorey_; in l. 1313, Bell has _loreryes_,
which Morris alters to _loreyes_. There is no such word as _lorey_. Thynne
has _laurer_, _laurelles_. Considering that _loreres_ rimes with
_oliveres_, it is obvious that the right forms are _lorer_ and _loreres_
(French, _loriers_); see _laurer_ in Stratmann.
In l. 1420, where the authorities have _veluet_, the modern editions have
_velvet_. But the _u_ (also written _ou_) was at that time a vowel, and
_velu-et_ (or _velou-et_) was trisyllabic, as the rhythm shews. The modern
_velvet_ seems to have arisen from a mistake.
Several other restorations of the text are pointed out in the notes, and I
need not say more about them here.
N.B. After l. 4658, the lines in Morris's edition are misnumbered. His
l. 4670 is really l. 4667; and so on. Also, 5700 is printed in the
wrong place; and so is 6010; but without throwing out the numbering.
Also, 6210 is only _nine_ lines after 6200, throwing out the subsequent
numbering, so that his l. 6220 is really 6216. At his l. 6232, 6231 is
printed, and so counted; thus, his 6240 is really 6237. His 6380 is
_eleven_ lines after 6370, and is really 6378. After l. 7172, I insert
two lines by translation, to fill up a slight gap. This makes his l.
7180 agree with my l. 7180, and brings his numbering right again.
For a few of the Notes, I am indebted to Bell's edition; but most of the
work in them is my own.
§ 27. THE FRENCH TEXT.
For some account of the famous French poem entitled 'Le Roman de la Rose,'
see Morley's English Writers, 1889, iv. 1. It was commenced by Guillaume de
Lorris, born at Lorris, in the valley of the Loire, who wrote it at the age
of five-and-twenty, probably between the years 1200 and 1230[194]. He must
have died young, as he left the poem incomplete, though it then extended to
4070 lines. It was continued, a little more than 40 years after Guillaume's
death, by Jean de Meun (or Meung), born (as he tells us) at
Meung-sur-Loire, and surnamed _le Clopinel_ (i. e. the hobbler, the lame).
See, for these facts, the French text, ll. 10601, 10603, 10626. He added
18004 lines, so that the whole poem finally extended to the enormous length
of 22074 lines.
Jean de Meun was a man of a very different temperament from his
predecessor. Guillaume de Lorris merely planned a fanciful allegorical
love-poem, in which the loved one was represented as a Rose in a beautiful
garden, and the lover as one who desired to pluck it, but was hindered by
various allegorical personages, such as Danger, Shame, Jealousy, and Fear,
though assisted by others, such as _Bel Accueil_ (Fair Reception),
Frankness, Pity, and the like. But Jean de Meun took up the subject in a
keener and more earnest spirit, inserting some powerful pieces of satire
against the degraded state of many women of the day and against various
corruptions of the church. This infused a newer life into the poem, and
made it extremely popular and successful. We may look upon the former part,
down to l. 4432 of the translation, as a pretty and courtly description of
a fanciful dream, whilst the remaining portion intersperses with the
general description many forcible remarks, of a satirical nature, on the
manners of the time, and affords numerous specimens of the author's
erudition. Jean de Meun was the author of several other pieces, including a
poem which he called his 'Testament.' He probably lived into the beginning
of the fourteenth century, and died about 1318.
§ 28. Professor Morley gives a brief analysis of the whole poem, which will
be found to be a useful guide through the labyrinth of this rambling poem.
The chief points in it are the following.
The poet's dream begins, after a brief introduction, with a description of
allegorical personages, as seen painted on the outside of the walls of a
garden, viz. Hate and Felony, Covetousness, &c.; ll. 147-474 of the
translation.
We may next note a description of Idleness, the young girl who opens the
door of the garden (531-599); of Sir Mirth (600-644); of the garden itself
(645-732); again, of Sir Mirth, the lady Gladness, Cupid, or the God of
Love, with his two bows and ten arrows, and his bachelor, named
Sweet-looking (733-998). Next comes a company of dancers, such as Beauty,
Riches, Largesse (Bounty), Frankness, Courtesy, and Idleness again
(999-1308). The poet next describes the trees in the garden (1349-1408),
and the wells in the same (1409-1454); especially the well of Narcissus,
whose story is duly told (1455-1648). THE ROSE-TREE (1649-1690). THE
ROSE-BUD (1691-1714).
At 1. 1705, Fragment A ends.
§ 29. Just at this point, the descriptions cease for a while, and the
action, so to speak, begins. The God of Love seeks to wound the poet, or
lover, with his arrows, and succeeds in doing so; after which he calls upon
the lover to yield himself up as a prisoner, which he does (1715-2086).
Love locks up the lover's heart, and gives him full instructions for his
behaviour (2087-2950); after which Love vanishes (2951-2966). The Rose-tree
is defended by a hedge; the lover seeks the assistance of Bialacoil or
Belacoil (i. e. Fair-Reception), but is warned off by Danger,
Wicked-Tongue, and Shame (2967-3166); and at last, Fair-Reception flees
away (3167-3188). At this juncture, Reason comes to the lover, and gives
him good advice; but he rejects it, and she leaves him to himself
(3189-3334).
He now seeks the help of a Friend, and Danger allows him to come a little
nearer, but tells him he must not pass within the hedge (3335-3498).
Frankness and Pity now assist him, and he enters the garden, rejoined by
Fair-Reception (3499-3626). THE ROSE appears more beautiful than ever, and
the lover, aided by Venus, kisses it (3627-3772). This leads to trouble;
Wicked-tongue and Jealousy raise opposition, Danger is reproved, and
becomes more watchful than before (3773-4144). Jealousy builds a strong
tower of stone, to guard the Rose-tree; the gates of the tower are guarded
by Danger, Shame, Dread, and Wicked-tongue (4145-4276); and Fair-Reception
is imprisoned within it (4277-4314). The lover mourns, and is inclined to
despair (4315-4432).
§ 30. At this point, the work of G. de Lorris ceases, and Jean de Meun
begins by echoing the word 'despair,' and declaring that he will have none
of it. The lover reconsiders his position (4433-4614). Reason (in somewhat
of a new character) revisits the lover, and again instructs him, declaring
how love is made up of contrarieties, and discussing the folly of youth and
the self-restraint of old-age (4615-5134). The lover again rejects Reason's
advice, who continues her argument, gives a definition of Friendship, and
discusses the variability of Fortune (5135-5560), the value of Poverty
(5561-5696), and the vanity of Covetousness (5697-5810).
§ 31. Here ends Fragment B, and a large gap occurs in the translation. The
omitted portion of the French text continues the discourse of Reason, with
examples from the stories of Virginia, Nero, and Croesus, and references to
the fall of Manfred (conquered by Charles of Anjou) and the fate of
Conradin. But all this is wasted on the lover, whom Reason quits once more.
The lover applies a second time to his Friend, who recommends bounty or
bribery. Here Jean de Meun discourses on prodigality, on women who take
presents, on the Age of Gold, and on jealous husbands, with much satire
interspersed, and many allusions, as for example, to Penelope, Lucretia,
Abelard, Hercules, and others.
At last Love pities the lover, and descends to help him; and, with the
further assistance of Bounty, Honour, and other barons of Love's court,
proceeds to lay siege to the castle in which Jealousy has imprisoned
Fair-Reception.
§ 32. Here begins Fragment C; in which the ranks of the besiegers are
joined by other assistants of a doubtful and treacherous character, viz.
False-Semblant and Constrained-Abstinence (5811-5876). Love discusses
buying and selling, and the use of bounty and riches (5877-6016). Love's
Barons ask Love to take False-Semblant and Constrained-Abstinence into his
service (6017-6057). Love consents, but bids False-Semblant confess his
true character (6058-6081). False-Semblant replies by truly exposing his
own hypocrisy, with keen attacks upon religious hypocrites (6082-7334).
Love now begins the assault upon the castle of Jealousy (7335-7352). A
digression follows, regarding the outward appearance of False-Semblant and
Constrained-Abstinence (7353-7420). The assailants advance to the gate
guarded by Wicked-Tongue, who is harangued by Constrained-Abstinence
(7421-7605), and by False-Semblant (7606-7696). And here the English
version ends.
The above sketch gives a sufficient notion of the general contents of the
poem. Of course the lover is ultimately successful, and carries off the
Rose in triumph.
§ 33. It deserves to be noted, in conclusion, that, as the three Fragments
of the English version, all taken together, represent less than a third of
the French poem, we must not be surprised to find, as we do, that Chaucer's
numerous allusions to, and citations from, the French poem, usually lie
outside that part of it that happens to be translated. Still more often,
they lie outside the part of it translated in Fragment A. Hence it seldom
happens that we can compare his quotations with his own translation. In the
chief instances where we can do so, we find that he has not repeated his
own version _verbatim_, but has somewhat varied his expressions. I refer,
in particular, to the Book of the Duchess, 284-6, as compared with Rom.
Rose, 7-10; the same, 340-1, beside R.R., 130-1; the same, 410-2, beside
R.R., 61-2; and the same, 419-426, 429-432, beside R.R., 1391-1403.
§ 34. In the present edition I have supplied the original French text, in
the lower part of each page, as far as the end of Fragment A, where
Chaucer's work ends. This text is exactly copied from the edition by M.
Méon, published at Paris in four volumes in 1813[195]. I omit, however, the
occasional versified headings, which appear as summaries and are of no
consequence. Throughout the notes I refer to the lines as numbered in this
edition. The later edition by M. Michel is practically useless for the
purpose of reference, as the numbering of the lines in it is strangely
incorrect. For example, line 3408 is called 4008, and the whole number of
lines is made out to be 22817, which is largely in excess of the truth.
Fragments B and C are printed in smaller type, to mark their distinction
from Fragment A; and the corresponding French text is omitted, to save
space.
* * * * *