After this the Canterbury Tales were invariably issued with the rest of
Chaucer’s Works, until after 1721. Some account of these editions is given
in the Preface to the Minor Poems, in vol. i.; which see. They are:
Thynne’s three editions, in 1532, 1542, and 1550 (the last is undated);
Stowe’s edition, 1561; Speght’s editions, in 1598, 1602, and 1687; Urry’s
edition, in 1721.
Two modernised editions of the Canterbury Tales were published in London in
1737 or 1740, and in 1741.
Next came: ‘Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, to which is added, an Essay on his
Language and Versification; an introductory discourse; notes, and a
glossary. By Thomas Tyrwhitt, London, 1775-8, 8vo, 5 vols.’ A work of high
literary value, to which I am greatly indebted for many necessary notes.
Reprinted in 1798 in 4to, 2 vols., by the University of Oxford; and again,
at London, in 1822, in post 8vo, 5 vols.; (by Pickering) in 1830, 8vo, 5
vols.; [xvi] and (by Moxon) in 1845, in 1 vol. imp. 8vo. The last of these
adds poor texts of the rest of Chaucer’s Works, from old black-letter
editions, with which Tyrwhitt had nothing to do. In Tyrwhitt’s text, the
number of grammatical errors is very large, and he frequently introduces
words into the text without authority. For some account of the later
editions of Chaucer’s Works, see the Introduction to the Legend of Good
Women, in vol. iii. I may note, by the way, that the editions by Wright,
Bell, and Morris are all founded on MS. Harl. 7334, a very unsafe MS. in
some respects; see p. viii (above).
It is necessary to add here a few words of warning. Wright’s edition,
though it has many merits, turns out, in practice, to be dangerously
untrustworthy. He frequently inserts words, borrowed from Tyrwhitt’s
edition (which he heartily condemns as being full of errors in
grammar), without the least indication that they are _not in the MS._
This becomes the more serious when we find, upon examination, that
Tyrwhitt had likewise no authority for some of such insertions, but
simply introduced them, by guess, to fill up a line in a way that
pleased him. For example, A 628 runs thus, in all the seven MSS.:—
‘Of his visage children were aferd.’ It is quite correct; for ‘viság-e’
is trisyllabic. Tyrwhitt did not know this, and counted the syllables
as _two_ only, neglecting the final _e_. The line seemed then too short;
so he inserted _sore_ before _aferd_, thus ruining the scansion. Wright
follows suit, and inserts _sore_, though it is not in his MS.; giving
no notice at all of what he has done. Bell follows suit, and the word
is even preserved in Morris; but the latter prints the word in italics,
to shew that it is not in the MS. Nor is it in the Six-text.
I shall not adduce more instances, but shall content myself with saying
that, until the publications of the Chaucer Society appeared, no reader
had the means of knowing what the best MS. texts were really like. All
who have been accustomed to former (complete) editions have necessarily
imbibed hundreds of false impressions, and have necessarily accepted
numberless theories as to the scansion of lines which they will, in
course of due time, be prepared to abandon. In the course of my work,
it has been made clear to me that Chaucer’s text has been manipulated
and sophisticated, frequently in most cunning and plausible ways, to a
far greater extent than I could have believed to be possible. This is
not a pleasant subject, and I only mention it for the use of scholars.
Such variations fortunately seldom affect the sense; but they vitiate
the scansion, the grammar, and the etymology in many cases. Of course
it will be understood that I am saying no more than I can fully
substantiate.
It is absolutely appalling to read such a statement as the following in
Bell’s edition, vol. i. p. 60. ‘All deviations, either from Mr.
Wright’s edition, or from the original MS., are pointed out in the
footnotes for the ultimate satisfaction of the reader.’ For the
instances in which this is really done are very rare indeed, in spite
of the large number of such deviations.
Of Tyrwhitt’s text, it is sufficient to remark that it was hardly
possible, at [xvii] that date, for a better text to have been produced.
The rules of Middle English grammar had not been formulated, so that we
are not surprised to find that he constantly makes the past tense of a
weak verb monosyllabic, when it should be dissyllabic, and treats the
past participle as dissyllabic, when it should be monosyllabic: which
makes wild work with the scansion. It is also to be regretted that he
based his text upon the faulty black-letter editions, though he took a
great deal of pains in collating them with various MSS.
On the other hand, his literary notes are full of learning and
research; and the number of admirable illustrations by which he has
efficiently elucidated the text is very great. His reputation as one of
the foremost of our literary critics is thoroughly established, and
needs no comment.
Mr. Wright’s notes are likewise excellent, and resulted from a wide
reading. I have also found some most useful hints in the notes to
Bell’s edition. Of all such sources of information I have been only too
glad to avail myself, as is more fully shewn in the succeeding volume.
§ 4. PLAN OF THE PRESENT EDITION.
The text of the present edition of the Canterbury Tales is founded upon
that of the Ellesmere MS. (E.) It has been collated throughout with that of
the other six MSS. published by the Chaucer Society. Of these seven MSS.,
the Harleian MS. 7334 (Hl.) was printed separately. The other six were
printed in the valuable ‘Six-text’ edition, to which I constantly have
occasion to refer, in parallel columns. The six MSS. are: E. (Ellesmere),
Hn. (Hengwrt), Cm. (Cambridge, Gg. 4. 27), Cp. (Corpus Coll., Oxford), Pt.
(Petworth), and Ln. (Lansdowne). MSS. E. Hn. Cm. represent the earliest
type (A) of the text; Hl., a transitional type (B); Cp. and Ln., a still
later type (C); and Pt., the latest of all (D), but hardly differing from
C.
In using these terms, ‘earliest,’ &c., I do not refer to the age of the
MSS., but to the type of text which they exhibit.
In the list of MSS. given above, Hl. is no. 1; E., Hn., Cm., are nos. 40,
41, and 28; and Cp., Pt., Ln., are nos. 24, 42, and 10 respectively.
Of all the MSS., E. is the best in nearly every respect. It not only gives
good lines and good sense, but is also (usually) grammatically accurate and
thoroughly well spelt. The publication of it has been a very great boon to
all Chaucer students, for which Dr. Furnivall will be ever gratefully
remembered. We must not omit, at the same time, to recognise the liberality
and generosity of the owner of the MS., who so freely permitted such full
use of it to be made; the same remark applies, equally, to the [xviii]
owners of the Hengwrt and the Petworth MSS. The names of the Earl of
Ellesmere, Mr. Wm. W. E. Wynne of Peniarth, and Lord Leconfield have
deservedly become as ‘familiar as household words’ to many a student of
Chaucer.
This splendid MS. has also the great merit of being complete, requiring no
supplement from any other source, except in the few cases where a line or
two has been missed. For example, it does not contain A 252 _b-c_ (found in
Hn. only); nor A 2681-2 (also not in Hn. or Cm.); nor B 1163-1190 (also not
in Hn. or Cm.); nor B 1995 (very rare indeed).
It is slightly imperfect in B 2510, 2514, 2525, 2526, 2623-4, 2746, 2967.
It drops B 3147-8, C 103-4, C 297-8 (not in Hn. Cm. Pt.), E 1358-61, G
564-5; and has a few defects in the Parson’s Tale in I 190, 273, &c. In the
Tale of Melibeus, the French original shews that _all_ the MSS. have lost B
2252-3, 2623-4, which have to be supplied by translation.
None of the seven MSS. have B 4637-4652; these lines are genuine, but were
probably meant to be cancelled. They only occur, to my knowledge, in four
MSS., nos. 7, 11, 25, and 29; though found also in the old black-letter
editions.
On the other hand, E. preserves lines rarely found elsewhere. Such are A
3155-6, 3721-2, F 1455-6, 1493-9; twelve genuine lines, none of which are
in Tyrwhitt, and only the first two are in Wright. Observe also the stanza
in the footnote to p. 424; with which compare B 3083, on p. 241.
The text of the Ellesmere MS. has only been corrected in cases where
careful collation suggests a desirable improvement. Every instance of this
character is invariably recorded in the footnotes. Thus, in A 8, the
grammar and scansion require _half-e_, not _half_; though, curiously
enough, this correct form appears in Hl. only, among all the seven MSS. In
very difficult cases, other MSS. (besides the seven) have been collated,
but I have seldom gained much by it. The chief additional MSS. thus used
are Dd.= Cambridge, Dd. 4. 24 (no. 29 above); Slo. or Sl. = Sloane 1685
(no. 8); Roy. or Rl. = Royal 18 C 2 (no. 6); Harl. = Harleian 1758 (see p.
645); Li. or Lich. = Lichfield MS. (no. 35), for the Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale;
and others that are sufficiently indicated.
I have paid especial attention to the suffixes required by Middle-English
grammar, to the scansion, and to the pronunciation; and I suppose that this
is the first complete edition in which the [xix] spelling has been tested
by phonetic considerations. With a view to making the spelling a little
clearer and more consistent, I have ventured to adopt certain methods which
I here explain.
In certain words of variable spelling in E., such as _whan_ or _whanne,
than_ or _thanne_, I have adopted that form which the scansion requires;
but the MS. is usually right.
E. usually has _hise_ for _his_ with a plural sb., as in l. 1; I use _his_
always, except in prose. E. has _hir, here_, for her, their; I use _hir_
only, except at the end of a line.
E. uses the endings _-ight_ or _-yght_, _-inde_ or _-ynde_; I use _-ight_
_-inde_ only; and, in general, I use _i_ to represent short _i_, and _y_ to
represent long _i_, as in _king, wyf_. Such is the usual habit of the
scribe, but he often changes _i_ into _y_ before _m_ and _n_, to make his
writing clearer; such a precaution is needless in modern printing. Thus, in
l. 42, I replace the scribe’s _bigynne_ by _biginne_; and in l. 78, I
replace his _pilgrymage_ by _pilgrimage_. This makes the text easier to
read.
For a like reason, where equivalent spellings occur, I select the simpler;
writing _couthe_ (as in Pt.) for _kowthe_, _sote_ for _soote_, _sege_ for
_seege_, and so on. In words such as _our_ or _oure_, _your_ or _youre_,
_hir_ or _hire_, _neuer_ or _neuere_, I usually give the simpler forms,
without the final _-e_, when the _-e_ is obviously silent.
For consonantal _u_, as in _neuer_, I write _v_, as in _never_. This is
usual in all editions. But I could not bring myself to use _j_ for _i_
consonant; the anachronism is too great. _Never_ for _neuer_ is common in
the fifteenth century, but _j_ does not occur even in the first folio of
Shakespeare. I therefore usually keep the capital _i_ of the MSS. and of
the Elizabethan printers, as in _Ioye_ (=_joye_) where initial, and the
small _i_, as in _enioinen_=_enjoinen_) elsewhere. Those who dislike such
conservatism may be comforted by the reflection that the sound rarely
occurs.
The word _eye_ has to be altered to _yë_ at the end of a line, to preserve
the rimes. The scribes usually write _eye_ in the middle of a line, but
when they come to it at the end of one, they are fairly puzzled. In l. 10,
the scribe of Hn. writes _Iye_, and that of Ln. writes _yhe_; and the
variations on this theme are most curious. The spelling _ye_ (=_yë_) is,
however, common; as in A 1096 (Cm., Pt.). I print it ‘yë’ to distinguish it
from _ye_, the pl. pronoun.
These minute variations are, I trust, legitimate, and I have not recorded
them. They cause trouble to the editor, but afford ease [xx] to the reader,
which seems a sufficient justification for adopting them. But the
scrupulous critic need not fear that the MS. has been departed from in any
case, where it could make any phonetic difference, without due notice.
Thus, in l. 9, where I have changed _foweles_ into _fowles_ as being a more
usual form, the fact that _foweles_ is the Ellesmere spelling is duly
recorded in the footnotes. And so in other cases.
The footnotes do not record various readings where E. is correct as it
stands; they have purposely been made as concise as possible. It would have
been easy to multiply them fourfold without giving much information of
value; this is not unfrequently done, but the gain is slight. With so good
a MS. as the basis of the text, it did not seem desirable.
The following methods for shortening the footnotes have been adopted.
1. Sometimes only the readings of _some_ of the MSS. are given. Thus at
l. 9 (p. 1), I omit the readings of Cp. and of Cm. As a fact, neither
of these MSS. contain the line; but it was not worth while to take up
space by saying so. At l. 10 (p. 1), I again omit the readings of Cp.
and of Cm., for the same reason; also of Ln., which is a poor MS.,
though here it agrees with Hl. (having _yhe_); also of Pt., which has
_eyghe_, a spelling not here to be thought of. At l. 12, I just note
that E. has _pilgrimage_ (by mistake); of course this means that it
should have had _pilgrimages_ in the plural, as in other MSS., and as
required by the rime.
2. At l. 23 (p. 2), the remark ‘_rest_ was’ implies that all the rest
of the seven MSS. specially collated have ‘was.’ The word ‘_rest_’ is a
convenient abbreviation.
3. When, as at l. 53, I give _nacions_ as a rejected reading of E. in
the footnote, it will be understood that _naciouns_ is a better
spelling, justified by other MSS., and by other lines in E. itself.
E.g., _naciouns_ occurs in Hl. and Pt., and Cm. has _naciounnys_.
4. I often use ‘_om._’ for ‘_omit_,’ or ‘_omits_’ as in the footnote to
l. 188 (p. 6).
5. At l. 335 (p. 11), I give the footnote:—‘ever] Hl. al.’ This means
that MS. Hl. has _al_ instead of the word _ever_ of the other MSS. It
seemed worth noting; but _ever_ is probably right.
6. At l. 520 (p. 16), the note is:—‘_All but_ Hl. this was.’ That is,
Hl. has _was_, as in the text; the rest have _this was_, where the
addition of _this_ sadly clogs the line.
With these hints, the footnotes present no difficulty.
As a rule, I have refrained from all emendation; but, in B 1189, I have
ventured to suggest _physices_[3], for reasons explained in the Notes.
Those who prefer the reading _Phislyas_ can adopt it.
For further details regarding particular passages, I beg leave to refer the
reader to the Notes in vol. v.
[xxi]
§ 5. TABLE OF SYMBOLS DENOTING MSS.
Cm.—Cambridge Univ. Lib. Gg. 4. 27 (Ellesmere type). No. 28 in list.
Cp.—Carpus Chr. Coll., Oxford, no. 198. No. 24.
Dd.—Cambridge Univ. Lib. Dd. 4. 24 (Ellesmere type). No. 29.
E.—Ellesmere MS. (basis of the text). No. 40.
Harl.—Harl. 1758; Brit. Mus.; see p. 645. No. 4.
Hl.—Harl. 7334; British Museum. No. 1.
Hn.—Hengwrt MS. no. 154. No. 41.
Li. _or_ Lich.—Lichfield MS.; see pp. 533-553. No. 35.
Ln.—Lansdowne 851; Brit. Mus. (Corpus type). No. 10.
Pt.—Petworth MS. No. 42.
Rl. _or_ Roy.—Royal 18 C. II; Brit. Mus.; see p. 645. No. 6.
Seld.—Arch. Selden, B. 14; Bodleian Library. No. 18.
Sl. _or_ Slo.—Sloane 1685: Brit. Mus.; see p. 645. No. 8.
§ 6. TABLE SHEWING THE VARIOUS WAYS OF NUMBERING THE LINES.
SIX-TEXT (as here) TYRWHITT. WRIGHT.
A—1-4422 1-4420[4] 1-4420[4]
B—1-1162 4421-5582 4421-5582
B—1163-2156 12903-13894[5] 14384-15374[6]
B—2157-3078[7] Prose; not counted[8]. Prose; not counted.
B—3079-3564 13895-14380 15375-15860
B—3565-3652 14685-14772 15861-15948
[xxii]
B—3653-3956 14381-14684 15949-16262
B—3957-4652 14773-15468 16253-16932[9]
_Spurious_; see p. 11929-11934 13410-13415
289, note.
C—1-968 11935-12902 13416-14383
D (2294 lines); E 5583-11928[10] 5583-11928
(2440); F(1624)
G—1-1481 15469-16949 11929-13409
H—(362); I 1-74 16950-17385 16933-17368
Hence, to obtain the order of the lines in Tyrwhitt, see A-B 1162; D, E, F;
p. 289, footnote; C; B 1163-2156, 3079-3564, 3653-3956, 3565-3652,
3957-4652; G, H, I.
Or (by pages), see pp. 1-164, 320-508, 289 (footnote), 290-319, 165-256
(which includes Melibeus), 259-268, 256-258, 269-289, 509-end.
To facilitate reference, the numbering of the lines in Tyrwhitt’s text is
marked at the top of every page, preceded by the letter ‘T.’; lines which
Tyrwhitt omits are marked ‘[T. _om._’, as on p. 90; and his paragraphs (all
numbered in this edition) are carefully preserved in Melibeus and the
Parson’s Tale, which are in prose. In the Prologue, after l. 250, his
numbering is given within marks of parenthesis.
The lines in every piece are also numbered _separately_, within marks of
parenthesis, as (10), (20), on p. 26. This numbering (borrowed from Dr.
Murray) agrees with the references given in the New English Dictionary. It
also gives, in most cases, either exactly or approximately, the references
to Dr. Morris’s edition, who adopts a similar method, with a few variations
of detail. The lines in Bell’s edition are not numbered at all.
To obtain the order in Wright’s edition, see pp. 1-164, 320-554, 289
(footnote), 290-319, 165-289, 555-end. The variations are fewer.
Some may find it more convenient to observe the names of the Tales.
[xxiii] Tyrwhitt’s order of the Tales is as follows[11]:—Prologue, Knight,
Miller, Reeve, Cook—Man of Lawe—Wife, Friar, Somnour—Clerk,
Merchant—Squire, Franklin—Doctor (Physician), Pardoner—Shipman,
Prioress, Sir Thopas, Melibeus, Monk[12], Nun’s Priest—Second Nun, Canon’s
Yeoman—Manciple—Parson.
§7. THE FOUR LEADING TYPES OF THE MSS.
The four leading types of MSS. usually exhibit a variation in the order of
the Tales, as well as many minor differences. I only note here the former
(omitting Gamelyn, which is absent from MSS. of the A-type, and from some
of the D-type).
A.—1. Prologue, Knight, Miller, Reeve, Cook.
2. Man of Lawe.
3. Wife of Bath, Friar, Sompnour.
4. Clerk, Merchant.
5. Squire, Franklin.
6. Doctor, Pardoner.
7. Shipman, Prioress, Sir Thopas, Melibeus, Monk, Nun’s Priest.
8. Second Nun, Canon’s Yeoman.
9. Manciple, (_slightly linked to_) Parson.
B.—Places 8 before 6. Order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 6, 7, 9.
C.—Not only places 8 before 6 (as B), but splits 5 into 5 _a_
(Squire) and 5 _b_ (Franklin), and places 5 _a_ before 3. Order: 1,
2, 5 _a_, 3, 4, 5 _b_, 8, 6, 7, 9.
D.—As C, but further splits 4 into 4 _a_ (Clerk), and 4 _b_
(Merchant), and places 4 _b_ after 5 _a_. Order: 1, 2, 5 _a_, 4 b, 3, 4 _a_,
5 _b_, 8, 6, 7, 9. (D. is really a mere variety of C., with an external
difference.)
Observe the position of the Franklin. Thus: A. Squire, Franklin, Doctor. B.
Squire, Franklin, Second Nun. C. Merchant, Franklin, Second Nun. D. Clerk,
Franklin, Second Nun.
For further remarks on this subject, see vol. v.
[xxiv] ERRATA
N.B. The following are all the Errata that I have observed. Those
marked with an asterisk should be noticed. The rest are unimportant.
P. 14. A 467. Perhaps the full stop at the end of the line should be a
colon.
P. 15. Footnote to A 503. For ‘Hl. _alone_’ _read_ ‘Tyrwhitt.’