Chaucerian and Other Pieces. Various

      ERRATA AND ADDENDA

      P. 26, l. 45. For conuersion read conversion.

      P. 32, l. 38. Mr. Bradley suggests that maistresse is a misprint of Thynne's for maistres secrè, i.e. master's secret; alluding to John of Northampton.

      P. 33, l. 75. For may it be sayd in that thinge 'this man thou demest, read may it be sayd, 'in that thinge this man thou demest,

      P. 50, l. 28. For in sacke, sowed with wolle perhaps read in sacke sowed, with wolle.

      P. 52, ll. 107, 109. Mr. Bradley suggests that 'Caynes' and 'Cayn' are Thynne's misprints for 'Cames' and 'Cam'; where Cam (misread as Cain) means Ham, for which the Vulgate has Cham.

      P. 153, l. 187. Insert a hyphen in gold-mastling.

      P. 163, l. 520. For punishments read punishëments. (See note.)

      P. 180, l. 1050. For [ful] read [not]. (See note.)

      P. 186, l. 1231. End the line with a semicolon.

      P. 192, l. 36. Insert a mark of interrogation after speketh of.

      P. 206, l. 27. For request [the] read requestë. (See note.)

      P. 213, l. 294. For men perhaps read pees. (See note.)

      P. 215, l. 363. For debated read delated. (See note.)

      P. 237; footnotes, l. 1. For 1542 read 1532.

      P. 256, l. 371. For tha read that.

      P. 458; note to l. 117. See also P. Pl. B. xiii. 277, 292.

      P. 458; note to l. 53. For fuller details, see the Introduction.

      P. 473; note to l. 155. Chaucer's Astrolabe was not written till 1391, after Usk's death.

      P. 475; note to Ch. XI. l. 11. On the subject of Grace, see Bk. iii. ch. 8.

      P. 478; note to l. 47. For taken from read compare.

      INTRODUCTION

      § 1. The following pieces are selected, as being the most important, from among the very numerous ones which have been appended to Chaucer's works in various editions.

      I use the word 'appended' advisedly. It is not true that these works were all attributed to Chaucer in the black-letter editions. The Praise of Peace was marked as Gower's in Thynne's first edition of 1532. Another piece in that edition is attributed to Scogan. The Letter of Cupid is expressly dated 1402, though Chaucer died in 1400. The Flower of Curtesye contains the words 'Chaucer is dede'; and The Testament of Cresseid contains a remark which, in modern English, would run thus—'Who knows if all that Chaucer wrote is true?'

      Those who, through ignorance or negligence, regard Thynne's edition of Chaucer as containing 'Works attributed to Chaucer' make a great mistake; and even if the mistake be excused on the ground that it has been very generally and very frequently made, this does not lessen its magnitude. The title of Thynne's book is very instructive, and really runs thus:—'The Workes of Geffray Chaucer newly printed, with dyuers workes which were neuer in print before, &c.' This is strictly and literally true; for it contains such works of Chaucer's as had previously been printed by Caxton, Wynkyn de Worde, and Julian Notary (see vol. i. p. 28), together with 'dyuers workes [of various authors] which were neuer in print before.' Which is the simple solution of the whole matter, as far as this edition is concerned. The same remarks apply to the second edition in 1542, and the third, printed about 1550. But Stowe, in 1561, altered the title so as to give it a new meaning. The title-page of his edition runs thus:—'The Woorkes of Geffrey Chaucer, newly printed with diuers Addicions which were neuer in printe before.' Here the authorship of Chaucer was, for the first time, practically claimed for the whole of Thynne's volume. At the same time, Stowe did not really mean what he seems to say, for it was he who first added the words—'made by Ihon lidgate'—to the title of 'The Flower of Curtesie,' and who first assigned a title (ascribing the poem to dan Ihon lidgat) to the poem beginning 'Consider wel'; see no. 40 (vol. i. p. 33).

      § 2. It is clear that Thynne's intention was to print a collection of poems, including all he could find of Chaucer and anything else of a similar character that he could lay his hands on^[1]. In other words, the collection was, from the beginning, a collection of the Works of Chaucer and other writers; and this fact was in no way modified by the adoption by Stowe and Speght of misleading titles that actually assigned to Chaucer all the poems in the volume! See further, as to this subject, in the discussion of The Court of Love below.

      The number of pieces appended, at various times, to Chaucer's Works are so numerous that I have been obliged to restrict myself to giving a selection of them only.

      Of the non-Chaucerian pieces printed by Thynne in 1532, I have included all but three. The rejected pieces are those numbered 18, 21, and 22 in the list given at p. 32 of vol. i. They are all poor and uninteresting, but I add a few words of description.

      18. A Praise of Women. Noticed in vol. i. p. 37. Though decisively rejected by Tyrwhitt, and excluded from Moxon's reprint, it was revived (for no good reason) by Bell, and consequently appeared in the Aldine edition, which was founded on Bell's. It enumerates the merits of womankind, and condemns the slanders of men concerning them. We ought to worship all women out of reverence for the Queen of heaven, and we shall do well to pray to Our Lady to bring us to the heaven in which she and all good women will be found. Thynne is not the sole authority for this poem, as it occurs also (in a Scottish dress) in the Bannatyne MS., fol. 275. The whole of this MS. (written in 1568) was printed for the Hunterian Club in 1873–9; see p. 799 of that edition.

      21. The Lamentation of Mary Magdalen. Noticed in vol. i. p. 37. This lugubrious piece was probably the wail of a nun, who had no book but a Vulgate version of the Bible, from which all her quotations are taken. It bears no resemblance to any work by Chaucer, nor to any of the pieces in the present volume. It consists of 102 seven-line

Скачать книгу