§ 1. In the brief Introduction to vol. iv. I have given a list of the MSS.
of the Canterbury Tales; some account of the early printed editions; and
some explanation of the methods employed in preparing the present edition.
I propose here to discuss further certain important points of general
interest. And first, I would say a few words as to the Canon of Chaucer's
Works, whereby the genuine works are separated from others that have been
attributed to him, at various times, by mistake or inadvertence.
§ 2. CANON OF CHAUCER'S WORKS.
This has already been considered, at considerable length, in vol. i. pp.
20-90. But it is necessary to say a few words on the whole subject, owing
to the extremely erroneous opinions that are so widely prevalent.
Sometimes a poem is claimed for Chaucer because it occurs 'in a Chaucer
MS.' There is a certain force in this plea in a few cases, as I have
already pointed out. But it commonly happens that such MSS. (as, for
example, MS. Fairfax 16, MS. Bodley 638, and others) are mere collections
of poetry of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, from which nothing can
safely be inferred as to the authorship of the poems which they contain,
unless the scribe distinctly gives the author's name[1]. As a rule,
however, the scribes not only omit to mention names, but they frequently
omit the very title of the poem, and thus [x] withhold such help as, in
many cases, they might easily have afforded.
The celebrated first edition of 'Chaucer's Works,' edited by William Thynne
in 1532, made no attempt to establish any canon. Thynne simply put together
such a book as he believed would be generally acceptable; and deliberately
inserted poems which he knew to be by other authors. Some of these poems
bear the name of Lydgate; one has the name of Gower; and another, by
Hoccleve, is dated 1402, or two years after Chaucer's death. They were
tossed together without much attempt at order; so that even the eleventh
poem in the volume is 'The Floure of Curtesie, made by Ihon lidgate.' The
edition, in fact, is a mere collection of poems by Chaucer, Lydgate, Gower,
Hoccleve, Robert Henrysoun, Sir Richard Ros, and various anonymous authors;
and the number of poems by other authors almost equals the number of
Chaucer's. The mere accident of the inclusion of a given piece in this
volume practically tells us nothing, unless it happens to be distinctly
marked; though we can, of course, often tell the authorship from some
remark made by Chaucer himself, or by others. And the net result is this;
that Thynne neither attempted to draw up a list of Chaucer's genuine works,
nor to exclude such works as were not his. He merely printed such things as
came to hand, without any attempt at selection or observance of order, or
regard to authorship. All that we can say is, that he did not knowingly
exclude any of the genuine pieces. Nevertheless, he omitted Chaucer's
A.B.C., of which there must have been many copies in existence, for we have
twelve still extant.
§ 3. The mere repetition of this collection, in various reprints, did not
confer on it any fresh authority. Stowe indeed, in 1561, added more pieces
to the collection, but he suppressed nothing. Neither did he himself
exercise much principle of selection; see vol. i. p. 56. He even added The
Storie of Thebes, which he must have known to be Lydgate's. Later reprints
were all edited after the same bewildering fashion.
§ 4. The first person to exercise any discrimination in this matter was
Thomas Tyrwhitt, who published a new edition of the Canterbury Tales in
five volumes, 8vo., in 1775-8; being the first edition in which some
critical care was exercised. After Tyrwhitt had printed the Canterbury
Tales, accompanied by [xi] a most valuable commentary in the shape of
Notes, it occurred to him to make a Glossary. He had not proceeded far
before he decided that such a Glossary ought to be founded upon the whole
of Chaucer's Works, instead of referring to the Tales only; since this
would alone suffice to shew clearly the nature of Chaucer's vocabulary. He
at once began to draw up something in the nature of a canon. He rejected
the works that were marked with the names of other poets, and remorselessly
swept away a large number of Stowe's very casual additions. And,
considering that he was unable, at that date, to apply any linguistic tests
of any value--that he had no means of distinguishing Chaucer's rimes from
those of other poets--that he had, in fact, nothing to guide him but his
literary instinct and a few notes found in the MSS.--his attempt was a
fairly good one. He decisively rejected the following poems found in
Thynne's edition, viz. no. 4 (Testament of Criseyde, by Henrysoun); 11 (The
Floure of Curtesie, by Lydgate); 13 (La Belle Dame, by Sir R. Ros); 15 (The
Assemblee of Ladies); 18 (A Praise of Women); 21 (The Lamentacion of Marie
Magdaleine); 22 (The Remedie of Love); 25 (The Letter of Cupide, by
Hoccleve); 26 (A Ballade in commendacion of our Ladie, by Lydgate); 27
(Jhon Gower to Henry IV); 28 and 29 (Sayings of Dan John, by Lydgate); 30
(Balade de Bon Conseil, by Lydgate); 32 (Balade with Envoy--O leude booke);
33 (Scogan's poem, except the stanzas on Gentilesse); 40 (A balade..., by
Dan John lidgat); and in no single instance was he wrong in his rejection.
He also implied that the following had no claim to be Chaucer's, as he did
not insert them in his final list; viz. no. 6 (A goodlie balade of
Chaucer); and 38 (Two stanzas--Go foorthe, kyng); and here he was again
quite right. It is also obvious that no. 41 (A balade in the Praise of
Master Geffray Chauser) was written by another hand; and indeed, the first
line says that Chaucer 'now lith in grave.' It will at once be seen that
Tyrwhitt did excellent service; for, in fact, he eliminated from Thynne's
edition no less than nineteen pieces out of forty-one; leaving only
twenty-two[2] remaining. Of this remainder, if we include The Romaunt of
the Rose, all but three are unhesitatingly accepted by scholars. The three
exceptions are nos. 17, 20, and [xii] 31; i. e. The Complaint of the Black
Knight[3]; The Testament of Love[4]; and The Cuckoo and the Nightingale.
§ 5. When Tyrwhitt came to examine the later editions, the only other
pieces that seemed to him sufficiently good for the purpose of being quoted
in his Glossary were the six following, viz. Chaucer's A.B.C. (in ed.
1602); The Court of Love (in ed. 1561); Chaucer's Dreme (in ed. 1598); The
Flower and the Leaf (in ed. 1598); Proverbes by Chaucer (in ed. 1561); and
Chaucer's Words to his Scrivener Adam (in ed. 1561). Of these, we may
accept the first and the two last; but there is no external evidence in
favour of the other three. He also added that the Virelai (no. 50, in ed.
1561) may 'perhaps' be Chaucer's.
§ 6. In 1810 we find an edition of Chaucer's Works, by A. Chalmers, F.S.A.,
in the first volume of the 'English Poets,' collected in twenty-one
volumes. In this edition, some sort of attempt was made, for the first
time, to separate the spurious from the genuine poems. But this separation
was made with such reckless carelessness that we actually find no less than
six poems (nos. 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, in vol. i. 32, 33, above) printed
twice over, once as being genuine, and once as being spurious[5]. It is
obvious that we cannot accept a canon of Chaucer's Works of such a
character as this.
§ 7. In 1845 appeared the edition in which modern critics, till quite
recently, put all their trust; and no student will ever understand what is
really meant by 'the canon of Chaucer's Works' until he examines this
edition with something like common care. It bears this remarkable
title:--'The Poetical Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. With an Essay on his
Language and Versification, and an [xiii] Introductory Discourse; together
with Notes and a Glossary. By Thomas Tyrwhitt. London: Edward Moxon, Dover
Street, 1855[6].'
In this title, which must be most carefully scanned, there is one very
slight unintentional misprint, which alters its whole character. The stop
after the word 'Glossary' should have been a comma only. The difference in
sense is something startling. The title-page was meant to convey that the
volume contains, (1) The Poetical Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (comprising
Tyrwhitt's text of the Canterbury Tales, _the remaining poems being
anonymously re-edited_); and that it _also_ contains, (2) an Essay, a
Discourse, Notes, and a Glossary, all by Thomas Tyrwhitt. Such are the
facts; and such would have been the (possible) sense of the title-page, if
the comma after 'Glossary' had not been misprinted as a full stop. But as
the title actually appears, even serious students have fallen into the
error of supposing that Tyrwhitt edited these Poetical Works; an error of
the first magnitude, which has produced disastrous results. A moment's
reflection will shew that, as Tyrwhitt edited the Canterbury Tales only,
and died in 1786, he could not have edited the Poetical Works in 1845,
fifty-nine years after his death. It would have been better if a short
explanation, to this effect, had been inserted in the volume; but there is
nothing of the kind.
It must therefore be carefully borne in mind, that this edition of 1845, on
the title-page of which the name of Tyrwhitt is so conspicuous, was really
edited anonymously, or may even be said not to have been edited at all. The
Canterbury Tales are reprinted from Tyrwhitt; and so also are the Essay,
the Discourse, the Notes, and the Glossary; and it is most important to
observe that 'the Glossary' is preceded by Tyrwhitt's 'Advertisement,' and
by his 'Account of the Works of Chaucer to which this Glossary is adapted;
and of those other pieces[7] which have been improperly intermixed with his
in the Editions.' The volume is, in fact, made up in this way. Pages i-lxx
and 1-209 are all due to Tyrwhitt; and contain a Preface, an Appendix to
the Preface, an Abstract of Passages of the Life of Chaucer, an Essay, an
Introductory Discourse to the Tales, and the Tales themselves. [xiv] Again,
pp. 441-502 are all due to Tyrwhitt, and contain an Advertisement to the
Glossary, an Account of Chaucer's Works (as above), and a Glossary.
Moreover, this Glossary contains a large number of words from most of
Chaucer's Works, including even his _prose_ treatises; besides a handful of
words from spurious works such as 'Chaucer's Dream.'
In this way, all the former part and all the latter part of the volume are
due to Tyrwhitt; it is the _middle part_ that is wholly independent of him.
It is here that we find no less than twenty-five poems, _which he never
edited_, reprinted (inexactly) from the old black-letter editions or from
Chalmers. It thus becomes plain that the words 'By Thomas Tyrwhitt' on the
title-page refer only to the second clause of it, but have no reference to
the former clause, consisting of the words, 'The Poetical Works of Geoffrey
Chaucer.' It remains to be said that the twenty-five poems which are here
appended to the Canterbury Tales are well selected; and that the anonymous
editor or superintendent was guided in his choice by Tyrwhitt's 'Account of
the Works.'
§ 8. This somewhat tedious account is absolutely necessary, every word of
it, in order to enable the reader to understand what has always been meant
(since 1845) by critics who talk about some works as being 'attributed to
Chaucer.' They really mean (in the case, for example, of The Cuckoo and the
Nightingale) that it happens to be included in a certain volume _by an
anonymous editor_, published in 1845, in which the suggestions made by
Tyrwhitt in 1778 were practically adopted without any important deviation.
In the case of any other author, such a basis for a canon would be
considered rather a sandy one; it derives its whole value from the fact
that Tyrwhitt was an excellent literary critic, who may well be excused for
a few mistakes, considering how much service he did in thus reducing the
number of poems in 'Chaucer's Works' from 64 to little more than 26[8].
Really, this was a grand achievement, especially as it clearly emphasised
the absurdity of trusting to the old editions. But it is an abuse of
language to say that 'The Cuckoo and Nightingale' has 'always been
attributed to Chaucer,' merely [xv] because it happens to have been printed
by Thynne in 1532, and had the good luck to be accepted by Tyrwhitt in
1778. On the contrary, such a piece remains on its trial; and it must be
rejected absolutely, both on the external and on the internal evidence.
Externally, because no scribe or early writer connects it with him in any
way. Internally, for reasons given in vol. i. p. 39[9]; and for other
reasons given in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer.
§ 9. The chief value of the anonymous edition in 1845 is, that it gave
practical expression to Tyrwhitt's views. The later editions by Bell and
Morris were, in some respects, retrogressive. Both, for example, include
The Lamentation of Mary Magdalene, which Tyrwhitt rightly denounced in no
dubious terms; (see vol. i. above, pp. 37, 38). But, of late years, the
question of constructing a canon of Chaucer's genuine works has received
proper attention, and has been considered by such scholars as Henry
Bradshaw, Bernhard ten Brink, Dr. Koch, Dr. Furnivall, Professor Lounsbury,
and others; with a fairly unanimous result. The whole question is well
summed up in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, Chapter IV, on 'The Writings
of Chaucer.' His conclusion is, that his 'examination leaves as works about
which there is no dispute twenty-six titles.' By these titles he means The
Canterbury Tales, Boethius, Troilus, The House of Fame, The Legend of Good
Women, The Astrolabe, and the nineteen Minor Poems which I denote by the
numbers I-XI, XIII-XX (no. XX being counted as _two_). His examination did
not at first include no. XII (To Rosemounde); but, in his Appendix (vol.
iii. pp. 449, 450), he calls attention to it, and accepts it without
hesitation. He also says of no. XXII, that 'it may be Chaucer's own work.'
§ 10. I may add a few words about the other Minor Poems which I now print,
numbered XXI, XXIII, and XXIV-XXVI; the last three of which appear in vol.
iv. pp. xxv-xxxi.
As regards no. XXI, or 'Against Women Unconstaunt,' [xvi] I observe that
Mr. Pollard, in his 'Chaucer Primer,' has these words. The authenticity of
this poem 'has lately been reasserted by Prof. Skeat, on the triple ground
that it is (1) a good poem; (2) perfect in its rhymes[10]; (3) found in
conjunction with poems undoubtedly by Chaucer in two MSS.' This account,
however, leaves out my chief argument, viz. its obvious dependence upon a
Ballade by Machault, whom Chaucer is known to have imitated, and who is not
known to have been imitated by any other Englishman. I also lay stress on
the very peculiar manner in which the poem occurs in MS. Ct. See above,
vol. i. p. 88. It should also be compared with the Balade to Rosemounde,
which it resembles in tone. It seems to me that the printing of this poem
in an Appendix is quite justifiable. We may some day learn more about it.
§ 11. As regards no. XXIV (vol. iv. p. xxv), the external evidence is
explicit. It occurs in the same MS. as that which authenticates no. VI (A
Compleint to his Lady); and the MS. itself is one of Shirley's. Internally,
we observe the great peculiarity of the rhythm. Not only is the poem
arranged in nine-line stanzas, but the whole is a _tour de force_. In the
course of 33 lines, there are but 3 rime-endings; and we may particularly
notice the repetition of the first two lines at the end of the poem, just
as in the Complaint of Anelida, which likewise begins and ends with a line
in which _remembraunce_ is the last word. We have here a specimen of the
kind of nine-line stanza (examples of which are very scarce) which Hoccleve
endeavoured to imitate in his Balade to my Lord of York[11]; but Hoccleve
had to employ three rimes in the stanza instead of two. The poem is chiefly
of importance as an example of Chaucer's metrical experiments, and as being
an excellent specimen of a Complaint. There is a particular reason for
taking an interest in all poems of this character, because few Complaints
are extant, although Chaucer assures us that he wrote many of them.
§ 12. As to the poems numbered XXIII (A Balade of Compleynt), XXV
(Complaint to my Mortal Foe, vol. iv. p. xxvii), and XXVI (Complaint to my
Lodesterre, vol. iv. p. xxix), there are two points of interest: (1) that
they are Complaints, and [xvii] (2) that they have never been printed
before. That they are genuine, I have no clear proof to offer; but they
certainly illustrate this peculiar kind of poem, and are of some interest;
and it is clearly a convenience to be able to compare them with such
Complaints as we know to be genuine, particularly with no. VI (A Complaint
to his Lady). They may be considered as relegated to an Appendix, for the
purposes of comparison and illustration. I do not think I shall be much
blamed for thus rendering them accessible. It may seem to some that it must
be an easy task to discover unprinted poems that are reasonably like
Chaucer's in vocabulary, tone, and rhythm. Those who think so had better
take the task in hand; they will probably, in any case, learn a good deal
that they did not know before. The student of original MSS. sees many
points in a new light; and, if he is capable of it, will learn humility.
§ 13. THE TEXT OF THE CANTERBURY TALES.
On this subject I have already said something above (vol. iv. pp. xvii-xx);
and have offered a few remarks on the texts in former editions (vol. iv.
pp. xvi, xvii; cf. p. viii). But I now take the opportunity of discussing
the matter somewhat further.
It is unfortunate that readers have hitherto been so accustomed to
inaccurate texts, that they have necessarily imbibed several erroneous
notions. I do not hereby intend any reflection upon the editors, as the
best MSS. were inaccessible to them; and it is only during the last few
years that many important points regarding the grammar, the pronunciation,
and the scansion of Middle-English have been sufficiently determined[12].
Still, the fact remains, and is too important to be passed over.
In particular, I may call attention to the unfortunate prejudice against a
certain habit of Chaucer's, which it taxed all the ingenuity of some of the
editors to suppress. Chaucer frequently allows the first foot of his verse
to consist of a single accented syllable, as has been abundantly
illustrated above with respect to his Legend of Good Women (vol. iii. pp.
xliv-xlvii). It was a natural mistake on Tyrwhitt's part to attribute the
apparent fault to the scribes, and to amend the lines which seemed to
[xviii] be so strangely defective. It will be sufficient to enumerate the
lines of this character that occur in the Prologue, viz. ll. 76, 131, 170,
247, 294, 371, and 391.
Al | bismotered with his habergeoun.
That | no drope ne fille upon hir breste
Ging | len in a whistling wind as clere.
For | to delen with no swich poraille.
Twen | ty bokes, clad in blak or reed.
Ev' | rich, for the wisdom that he can.
In | a gowne of falding to the knee.
Tyrwhitt alters _Al_ to _Alle_, meaning no doubt _Al-le_ (dissyllabic),
which would be ungrammatical. For _That_, he has _Thatte_, as if for
_That-te_; whereas _That_ is invariably a monosyllable. For _Gingling_, he
has _Gingeling_, evidently meant to be lengthened out to a trisyllable. For
_For_, he prints _As for_. For _Twenty_, he has _A twenty_. The next line
is untouched; he clearly took _Everich_ to be thoroughly trisyllabic; which
may be doubted. For _In_, he has _All in_. And the same system is applied,
throughout all the Tales. The point is, of course, that the MSS. do not
countenance such corrections, but are almost unanimously obstinate in
asserting the 'imperfection' of the lines[13].
The natural result of altering _twenty_ to _A twenty_ (not only here, but
again in D. 1695), was to induce the belief in students that _A twenty
bookes_ is a Chaucerian idiom. I can speak feelingly, for I believed it for
some years; and I have met with many who have done the same[14]. And the
unfortunate part of the business is, that the restoration of the true
reading shocks the reader's sense of propriety. This is to be regretted,
certainly; but the truth must be told; especially as the true readings of
the MSS. are now, thanks to the Chaucer Society, accessible to many. The
student, in fact, has something to unlearn; and he who is most familiar
with the old texts has to unlearn the most. The restoration of the text to
the form of it given in the seven best MSS. is, consequently, in a few
instances, of an almost revolutionary character; and it is best that this
should be said plainly[15]. [xix]
The editions by Wright and Morris do not repeat the above amendments by
Tyrwhitt; but strictly conform to the Harleian MS. Even so, they are not
wholly correct; for this MS. blunders over two lines out of the seven. It
gives l. 247 in this extraordinary form:--'For to delen with such poraile';
where the omission of _no_ renders all scansion hopeless. And again, it
gives l. 371 in the form:--'Euery man for the wisdom that he can'; which is
hardly pleasing. And in a great many places, the faithful following of this
treacherous MS. has led the editors into sad trouble.
§ 14. THE HARLEIAN MS. The printing of this MS. for the Chaucer Society
enables us to see that Mr. Wright did not adhere so closely to the text of
the MS. as he would have us believe. As many readers may not have the
opportunity of testing this statement for themselves, I here subjoin a few
specimens of lines from this MS., to shew the nature of its errors.
Bet than a lazer or a beggere; A. 242.
So in Wright; for _beggere_ read _beggestére_.
But al that he might gete and his frendes sende; A. 299.
Corrected by Wright.
For eche of hem made othur to Wynne; A. 427.
Wright has 'othur _for_ to wynne.' This is correct; but the word _for_ is
silently supplied, without comment; and so in other cases.
Of his visage children weren aferd; A. 628.
For _weren_, read _were_; or pronounce it _wer'n_. I cite this line because
it is, practically, correct, and agrees with other MSS., it being
remembered that 'viság-e' is trisyllabic. But readers have not, as yet,
been permitted to see this line in its correct form. The black-letter
editions insert _sore_ before _aferd_. Tyrwhitt follows them; Wright
follows Tyrwhitt; and Morris follows Wright, but prints _sore_ in italics,
to shew that there is here a deviation from the MS. of some sort or other.
A few more quotations are here subjoined, without comment.
I not which was the fyner of hem two; A. 1039.
To make a certeyn gerland for hire heede; A. 1054.
And hereth him comyng in the greues; A. 1641.
They foyneden ech at other longe; A. 1654.
And as wilde boores gonne they smyte
That frothen white as fome frothe wood; A. 1658-9.
Be it of pees, other hate or loue; A. 1671.
[xx]
That sche for whom they haue this Ielousye; A. 1807[16].
As he that hath often ben caught in his lace; A. 1817.
Charmes and sorcery, lesynges and flatery; A. 1927.
And abouen hire heed dowues fleyng; A. 1962.
A bowe he bar, and arwes fair and greene; A. 1966.
I saugh woundes laughyng in here rage,
The hunt strangled with wilde bores corage; A. 2011-8[17].
The riche aray of Thebes his paleys; A. 2199.
Now ryngede the tromp and clarioun; A. 2600.
In goth the speres into the rest; A. 2602.
But as a Iustes or as a turmentyng; A. 2720.
And rent forth by arme foot and too; A. 2726.
Of olde folk that ben of tendre yeeres; A. 2828.
And eek more ryalte and holynesse; A. 3180.
He syngeth crowyng as a nightyngale; A. 3377.
What wikked way is he gan, gan he crye; A. 4078.
His wyf burdoun a ful strong; A. 4165.
These examples shew that the Harleian MS. requires very careful watching.
There is no doubt as to its early age and its frequent helpfulness in
difficult passages; but it is not the kind of MS. that should be greatly
trusted.
§ 15. THE ELLESMERE MS. The excellence of this MS. renders the task of
editing the Tales much easier than that of editing The House of Fame or the
Minor Poems. The text here given only varies from it in places where
variation seemed highly desirable, as explained in the footnotes. As to my
general treatment of it, I have spoken above (vol. iv. pp. xviii-xx).
One great advantage of this MS., quite apart from the excellence of its
readings, is the highly phonetic character of the spelling. The future
editor will probably some day desire to normalise the spelling of Chaucer
throughout his works. If so, he must very carefully study the spelling of
the Ellesmere and Hengwrt MSS., which resemble each other very closely. By
their help, it becomes possible to regulate the use of the final _e_ to a
very great extent, which is extremely helpful for the scansion of the
lines.
§ 16. This matter is best illustrated by referring, for a while, to the old
black-letter editions; moreover, the whole matter will appear in a clearer
light if we consider, at the same time, the remarkable argument put forward
by Prof. Morley (Eng. Writers, v. 126) in favour of the genuineness of The
Court of Love. [xxi]
'Chaucer (he says) could not have written verse that would scan without
sounding in due place the final _-e_. But when the final _e_ came to be
dropped, a skilful copyist of later time would have no difficulty whatever
in making the lines run without it.... If Chaucer wrote--"But that I liké,
may I not come by"[18]--it was an easy change to--"But that I like, _that_
may I not come by." With _so_ or _and_, or _well_, or _gat_, or _that_, and
many a convenient monosyllable, lines that seemed short to the later ear
were readily eked out.' He then proceeds to give a specimen from the
beginning of the Canterbury Tales, suggesting, by way of example, that l. 9
can easily be made to scan in modern fashion by writing--'And when the
small fowls maken melodye.'
Such a theory would be perfectly true, if it had any basis in facts. The
plain answer is, that later scribes easily _might_ have eked out lines
which seemed deficient; only, as a matter of fact, they _did not do so_.
The notion that Chaucer's lines run smoothly, and can be scanned, is quite
a modern notion, largely due to Tyrwhitt's common sense. The editors of the
sixteenth century _did not know_ that Chaucer's lines ran smoothly, and did
not often attempt to mend them, but generally gave them up as hopeless; and
we ought to be much obliged to them for doing so. Whenever they actually
make amendments here and there, the patching is usually plain enough. The
fact is, however, that they commonly let the texts alone; so that if they
followed a good MS., the lines will frequently scan, not by their help, but
as it were in spite of them.
§ 17. Let us look for a moment, at the very edition by Stowe (in 1561),
which contains the earliest copy of The Court of Love. The 9th line of the
tales runs thus:--'And smale fowles maken melodie,' which is sufficiently
correct. We can scan it now in the present century, but it is strongly to
be suspected that Stowe could not, and did not care to try. For this is how
he presents some of the lines.
Redie to go in my pilgrimage; A. 21.
For him, _wenden_ or _wende_ was a monosyllable; and _go_ would do just as
well.
The chambres and stables weren wyde; A. 28.
He omits _the_ before _stables_; it did not matter to him. So that, [xxii]
instead of _filling up_ an imperfect line, as Prof. Morley says he would be
sure to do, he leaves a gap.
To tel you al the condicion; A. 38.
_Tel_ should be _tel-le_. As it is, the line halts. But where is the
filling up by the help of some convenient monosyllable?