Chapter V: Introduction (3)

§ 47. The text in Thynne is a good one, and it seemed convenient to make it the basis of the edition; but it has been carefully controlled by collation with MS. Ff. 1. 6, which is, in some respects, the best MS. I am not sure that Thynne always followed his MS.; he may have collated some other one, as he professes in some cases to have done. MS. Ff. 1. 6, the Trinity MS., and Thynne's principal MS. form one group, which we may call A; whilst the Fairfax and Harleian MSS. form a second group, which we may call B: and of these, group A is the better. The MSS. in group B sadly transpose the subject-matter, and give the poem in the following order; viz. lines 1-428, 669-716, 525-572, 477-524, 621-668, 573-620, 429-476, 717-856. The cause of this dislocation is simple enough. It means that the B-group MSS. were copied from one in which three leaves, each containing six stanzas, were misarranged. The three leaves were placed one within the other, to form a sheet, and were written upon. Then the outer pair of these leaves was turned inside out, whilst the second and third pair changed places. This can easily be verified by making a little book of six leaves and numbering each page with the numbers 429-452, 453-476, 477-500, 501-524, &c. (i.e. with 24 lines on a page, ending with 716), and then misarranging the leaves in the manner indicated.

The copy in MS. Harl. 372 was printed, just as it stands, by Dr. Furnivall, in his volume entitled Political, Religious, and Love Poems, published for the E. E. T. S. in 1866; at p. 52. The text is there, accordingly, misarranged as above stated.

There is another MS. copy, as has been said above, in MS. Trin. Coll. Camb. R. 3. 19; but I have not collated it. It seems to be closely related to MS. Ff., and to present no additional information. Not only do the MSS. of the A-group contain the text in the right order, but they frequently give the better readings. Thus, in l. 47, we have the odd line--'My _pen_ coud never have knowlege what it ment'; as given in MS. Ff., the Trinity MS., and Thynne. The word _pen_ is altered to _eyen_ in MSS. H. and F.; nevertheless, it is perfectly right, for the French original has _plume_; see the Note on the line. Other examples are given in the Notes.

In l. 174, MS. Ff. alone has the right reading, _apert_. I had made up my mind that this was the right reading even before consulting that MS., because the old reading--'One wyse nor other, prevy nor _perte_'--is so extremely harsh. There is no sense in using the clipped form of the word when the true _and usual_ form will scan so much better. See C. T., F 531, Ho. Fame, 717. The Trinity MS. gets out of the difficulty by a material alteration of the line, so that it there becomes--'In any wyse, nether preuy nor perte.'

§ 48. XVII. THE TESTAMENT OF CRESSEID.

I do not suppose this was ever supposed to be Chaucer's even by Thynne. Line 64--'Quha wait gif all that Chaucer wrait was trew?'--must have settled the question from the first. No doubt Thynne added it simply as a pendant to Troilus, and he must have had a copy before him in the Northern dialect, which he modified as well as he could. Nevertheless, he gives us _can_ for the Southern _gan_ in l. 6, _wrate_ for _wrote_ in l. 64, and has many similar Northern forms.

The poem was printed at Edinburgh in 1593 with the author's name. The title is as follows--¶ THE TESTAMENT OF CRESSEID, Compylit be M. Robert Henrysone, Sculemai-ster in Dunfermeling. IMPRENTIT AT EDIN = burgh be Henrie Charteris. MD. XCIII. The text is in 4to, ten leaves, black-letter. Only one copy has been preserved, which is now in the British Museum; but it was reprinted page for page in the volume presented by Mr. Chalmers to the Bannatyne Club in 1824. The present edition is from this reprint, with very few modifications, such as _sh_ for _sch_, and final _-y_ for final _-ie_ in immaterial cases. All other modifications are accounted for in the footnotes below. No early MS. copy is known; there was once a copy in the Asloan MS., but the leaves containing it are lost.

Thynne's print must have been a good deal altered from the original, to make it more intelligible. It is odd to find him altering _quhisling_ (20) to _whiskyng_, and _ringand_ (144) to _tynkyng_. I note all Thynne's variations that are of any interest. He must have been much puzzled by _aneuch in_ (which he seems to have regarded as one word and as a past participle) before he turned it into _enewed_ (110). But in some cases Thynne gives us real help, as I will now point out.

In l. 48, E. (the Edinburgh edition) has--'Quhill Esperus reioisit him agane'; where _Esperus_ gives no good sense. But Thynne prints _esperous_, which at once suggests _esperans_ (hope), as opposed to _wanhope_ in the preceding line.

In l. 155, E. has _frosnit_, which Laing interprets 'frozen,' as if the pp. of _freeze_ could have both a strong and weak pp. suffix at the same moment! But Thynne has _frounsed_, evidently put for _fronsit_, as used elsewhere by Henryson in The Fable of the Paddock and the Mous, l. 43:--'The Mous beheld unto her _fronsit_ face.' A printer's error of _sn_ for _ns_ is not surprising.

In ll. 164, 178, 260, E. has _gyis_ or _gyse_; but Thynne has preserved the true Chaucerian word _gyte_, which the printer evidently did not understand. It is true that in l. 164 he turned it into _gate_; but when he found it recur, he let it alone.

In l. 205, E. has _upricht_ (!); which Thynne corrects.

In l. 290, Th. has _iniure_ for _iniurie_, and I think he is right, though I have let _injurie_ stand; _iniure_ is Chaucer's form (Troil. iii. 1018), and it suits the scansion better.

In l. 382, Thynne corrects _Unto_ to _To_; and in l. 386, has _Beuer_ for _bawar_. In l. 441, he has _syder_ for _ceder_. In l. 501, he has _plyte_ for _plye_, where a letter may have dropped out in E.; but see the note (p. 525). In l. 590, his reading _tokenyng_ suggests that _takning_ (as in E.) should be _takining_ or _takinning_; the line will then scan. The contracted form _taikning_ occurs, however, in l. 232, where the word is less emphatic.

Note further, that in l. 216 the original must have had _Philogoney_ (see the Note). This appears in the astonishing forms _Philologie_ (E.), and _Philologee_ (Th.). Laing prints _Phlegonie_, which will neither scan nor rime, without any hint that he is departing from his exemplar. All his corrections are made silently, so that one cannot tell where they occur without reference to the original.

For further information concerning Robert Henryson, schoolmaster of Dunfermline, see the preface to David Laing's edition of The Poems and Fables of Robert Henryson, Edinburgh, 1865; and Morley's English Writers, 1890, vol. vi. p. 250. He is supposed to have been born about 1425, and to have died about 1500. On Sept. 10, 1462, the Venerable Master Robert Henrysone, Licentiate in Arts and Bachelor in Decrees, was incorporated or admitted a member of the newly founded university of Glasgow; and he is known to have been a notary public. Perhaps The Testament of Cresseid was written about 1460. It is a rather mature performance, and is his best piece. Perhaps it is the best piece in the present volume.

§ 49. XVIII. THE CUCKOO AND THE NIGHTINGALE.

Of this piece there are several MSS., which fall into two main classes: (A)--Ff. (Ff. 1. 6, in the Camb. Univ. Library); T. (Tanner 346); Th. (MS. used by Thynne, closely allied to T.); and (B)--F. (Fairfax 16), and B. (Bodley 638), which are closely allied. There is also S. (Selden, B. 24) imperfect, which has readings of its own[20]. Of these groups, A is the better, and MS. Ff. is, in some respects, the most important. Nevertheless, MS. Ff. has never been collated hitherto, so that I am able to give a somewhat improved text. For example, in all former editions lines 12 and 13 are transposed. In l. 180, the reading _haire_ (as in Bell and Morris) is somewhat comic (see the Note). In l. 203, MS. Ff. restores the true reading _hit_, i.e. hitteth. Bell, by some accident, omits the stanza in which this word occurs. In vol. i. p. 39, I took occasion to complain of the riming of _now_ with _rescow-e_ in ll. 228-9, according to Bell. The right reading, however, is not _now_, but _avow-e_, which rimes well enough. MS. Selden has _allowe_, which Morris follows, though it is clearly inferior and is unsupported. On the other hand, MS. Selden correctly, and alone, has _leve_ in l. 237; but the confusion between _e_ and _o_ is endless, so that the false reading _loue_ creates no surprise.

This poem is very interesting, and has deservedly been a favourite one. It is therefore a great pleasure to me to have found the author's name. This is given at the end of the poem in MS. Ff. (the best MS., but hitherto neglected), where we find, in firm distinct letters, in the same handwriting as the poem itself, the remark--EXPLICIT CLANVOWE. Remembering that the true title of the poem is 'The Book of Cupid, God of Love[21],' I applied to Dr. Furnivall, asking him if he had met with the name. He at once referred me to his preface to Hoccleve's Works, p. x, where Sir John Clanvowe and Thomas Hoccleve are both mentioned in the same document (about A.D. 1385). But Sir John Clanvowe died in 1391, and therefore could not have imitated the title of Hoccleve's poem, which was not written till 1402. Our poet was probably Sir Thomas Clanvowe, concerning whom several particulars are known, and who must have been a well-known personage at the courts of Richard II and Henry IV. We learn from Wylie's Hist. of Henry IV, vol. iii. p. 261, that he was one of twenty-five knights who accompanied John Beaufort (son of John of Gaunt) to Barbary in 1390. This Sir Thomas favoured the opinions of the Lollards, but was nevertheless a friend of 'Prince Hal,' at the time when the prince was still friendly to freethinkers. He seems to have accompanied the prince in the mountains of Wales; see Wylie, as above, iii. 333. In 1401, he is mentioned as being one of 'vi Chivalers' in the list of esquires who were summoned to a council by king Henry IV; see the Acts of the Privy Council, ed. Nicolas, temp. Henry IV, p. 162. (It may be noted that Sir John Clanvowe was a witness, in 1385, to the will of the widow of the Black Prince; see Testamenta Vetusta, ed. Nicolas.)

§ 50. It now becomes easy to explain the reference to the queen at Woodstock, which has never yet been accounted for. The poem begins with the words--'_The God of Love!_ Ah benedicite,' quoted from Chaucer, the title of the poem being 'The Book of Cupid, _God of Love_,' as has been said; and this title was imitated from Hoccleve's poem of 1402. But there was no queen of England after Henry's accession till Feb. 7, 1403, when the king married Joan of Navarre; and it was she who held as a part of her dower the manor and park of Woodstock; see Wylie, as above, ii. 284. Hence the following hypothesis will suit the facts--namely, that the poem, imitating Chaucer's manner, and having a title imitated from Hoccleve's poem of 1402, was written by Sir Thomas Clanvowe, who held Lollard opinions[22] and was a friend (at one time) of Henry of Monmouth. And it was addressed to Joan of Navarre, Henry's stepmother, queen of England from 1403 to 1413, who held as a part of her dower the manor of Woodstock. If so, we should expect it to have been written before April, 1410, when Thomas Badby, the Lollard, was executed in the presence of the prince of Wales. Further, as it was probably written early rather than late in this period, I should be inclined to date it in 1403; possibly in May, as it relates so much to the time of spring.

I may add that the Clanvowes were a Herefordshire family, from the neighbourhood of Wigmore. The only remarkable non-Chaucerian word in the poem is the verb _greden_, to cry out (A.S. _gr[=æ]dan_); a word found in many dialects, and used by Layamon, Robert of Gloucester, Langland, and Hoccleve.

The poem is written in a light and pleasing style, which Wordsworth has fairly reproduced. The final _-e_ is suppressed in _assay-e_ (l. 52). The non-Chaucerian rimes are few, viz. _gren-e_ and _sen-e_ as riming with _been_ (61-5), shewing that Clanvowe cut down those dissyllables to _green_ and _seen_. And further, the forms _ron_ and _mon_ are employed, in order to rime with _upon_ (81-5); whereas Chaucer only has the form _man_; whilst of _ran_ I remember no example at the end of a line[23].

§ 51. But there is one point about Clanvowe's verse which renders it, for the fifteenth century, quite unique. In imitating Chaucer's use of the final _-e_, he employs this suffix with unprecedented freedom, and rather avoids than seeks elision. This gives quite a distinctive character to his versification, and is very noticeable when attention has once been drawn to it. If, for example, we compare it with the Parliament of Foules, which it most resembles in general character, we find the following results. If, in the Cuckoo and Nightingale, we observe the first 21 lines, we shall find (even if we omit the example of _hy-e_ in l. 4, and all the examples of final _-e_ at the end of a line) the following clear examples of its use:--_low-e_, _lyk-e_, _hard-e_, _sek-e_, _hol-e_ (twice), _mak-e_, _hav-e_, _wys-e_, _proud-e_, _grev-e_, _trew-e_, _hert-e_, i.e. 13 examples, besides the 5 examples of final _-en_ in _mak-en_, _bind-en_, _unbind-en_, _bound-en_, _destroy-en_. But in the first 21 lines of the Parliament of Foules there are only 2 examples of the final _-e_ in the middle of a line, viz. _lust-e_ (15) and _long-e_ (21), whilst of the final _-en_ there is none. The difference between 18 and 2 must strike even the most inexperienced reader, when it is once brought under his notice. However, it is an extreme case.

Yet again, if the _last_ 21 lines in the Cuckoo be compared with ll. 659-679 of the Parliament (being the _last_ 21 lines, if we dismiss the roundel and the stanza that follows it), we find in the former 7 examples of final _-e_ and 2 of _-en_, or 9 in all, whilst in Chaucer there are 7 of final _-e_, and 1 of _-en_, or 8 in all; and this also happens to be an extreme case in the other direction, owing to the occurrence in the former poem of the words _egle_, _maple_, and _chambre_, which I have not taken into account.

This suggests that, to make sure, we must compare much longer passages. In the whole of the Cuckoo, I make about 120 such cases of final _-e_, and 23 such cases of final _-en_, or 143 in all. In 290 lines of the Parliament of Foules, I make about 68 and 19 such cases respectively; or about 87 in all. Now the difference between 143 and 87 is surely very marked.

The cause of this result is obvious, viz. that Chaucer makes a more frequent use of elision. In the first 21 lines of the Parl. of Foules, we find elisions of _men'_, _sor'_, _wak'_, _oft'_ (twice), _red'_ (twice), _spek'_, _fast'_, _radd'_; i.e. 10 examples; added to which, Chaucer has _joy(e)_, _love_, _knowe_, _usage_, _boke_, at the cæsura, and suppresses the _e_ in _write_ (written). But in ll. 1-21, Clanvowe has (in addition to _love_, _make_, _lowe_, _make_ (twice), _gladde_ at the cæsura) only 3 examples of true elision, viz. _fressh'_, _tell'_, and _mak'_ (15).

And further, we seldom find _two_ examples of the use of the final _-e_ in the _same_ line in Chaucer. I do not observe any instance, in the Parl. of Foules, till we arrive at l. 94:--'Took rest that mad-_e_ me to slep-_e_ faste.' But in Clanvowe they are fairly common. Examples are: Of sek-_e_ folk ful hol-_e_ (7); For every trew-_e_ gentil hert-_e_ free (21); That any hert-_e_ shuld-_e_ slepy be (44); I went-_e_ forth alon-_e_ bold-e-ly (59); They coud-_e_ that servyc-_e_ al by rote (71); and the like. In l. 73, we have even _three_ examples in _one_ line; Some song-_e_ loud-_e_, as they hadd-_e_ playned. From all of which it appears that the critics who have assigned the Cuckoo to Chaucer have taken no pains whatever to check their opinion by any sort of analysis. They have trusted to their own mere opinion, without looking the facts in the face.

§ 52. I will point out yet one more very striking difference. We know that Chaucer sometimes employs headless lines, such as: Twénty bókes át his béddes héed. But he does so sparingly, especially in his Minor Poems. But in the Cuckoo, they are not uncommon; see, e.g. lines 16, 50, 72, 100, 116, 118, 146, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 166, 205, 232, 242, 252, 261, 265, 268. It is true that, in Morris's edition, lines 72, 146, 153, 161, and 205 are slightly altered; but in no case can I find that the alteration is authorised. And even then, this does not get rid of the _five consecutive_ examples in ll. 154-158, which cannot be explained away. Once more, I repeat, the critics have failed to use their powers of observation.

I think the poem may still be admired, even if it be allowed that Clanvowe wrote it some three years after Chaucer's death.

§ 53. At any rate, it was admired by so good a judge of poetry as John Milton, who of course possessed a copy of it in the volume which was so pleasantly called 'The Works of Chaucer.' That his famous sonnet 'To the Nightingale' owed something to Clanvowe, I cannot doubt. 'Thou with fresh hope the lover's heart dost fill' is, in part, the older poet's theme; see ll. 1-30, 149-155, 191-192. Even his first line reminds one of ll. 77, 288. If Milton writes of May, so does Clanvowe; see ll. 20, 23, 34, 55, 70, 230, 235, 242; note especially l. 230. But the real point of contact is in the lines--

'Thy liquid notes that close the eye of day,
First heard before the shallow cuckoo's bill,
Portend success in love ...
Now timely sing, ere the rude bird of hate
Foretell my hopeless doom in some grove nigh;
As thou from year to year hast sung too late
For my relief, yet hadst no reason why:
Whether the Muse or Love call thee his mate,
Both them I serve, and of their train am I.'

With which compare:--

'That it were good to here the nightingale
Rather than the lewde cukkow singe': (49).
'A litel hast thou been to longe henne;
For here hath been the lew[e]de cukkow,
And songen songes rather than hast thou': (102).
'Ye, quod she, and be thou not amayed,
Though thou have herd the cukkow er than me.
For, if I live, it shal amended be
The nexte May, if I be not affrayed': (232).
'And I wol singe oon of my songes newe
For love of thee, as loude as I may crye': (247).
'For in this worlde is noon so good servyse
To every wight that gentil is of kinde': (149).

§ 54. XIX. ENVOY TO ALISON.

This piece has always hitherto been printed _without any title_, and is made to follow The Cuckoo and the Nightingale, as if there were some sort of connection between them. This is probably because it happens to follow that poem in the Fairfax and Tanner MSS., and probably did so in the MS. used by Thynne, which has a striking resemblance to the Tanner MS. However, the poem is entirely absent from the Cambridge, Selden, and Bodley MSS., proving that there is no connection with the preceding poem, from which it differs very widely in style, in language, and in metre.

I call it an Envoy to Alison. For first, it is an Envoy[24], as it refers to the author's 'lewd book,' which it recommends to a lady. What the book is, no one can say; but it may safely be conjectured that it was of no great value. And secondly, the lady's name was Alison, as shewn by the acrostic in lines 22-27; and the author has recourse to almost ludicrous efforts, in order to secure the first four letters of the name.

Briefly, it is a very poor piece; and my chief object in reprinting it is to shew how unworthy it is of Clanvowe, not to mention Chaucer. We have no right even to assign it to Lydgate. And its date may be later than 1450.

§ 55. XX. THE FLOWER AND THE LEAF.

This piece many 'critics' would assign to Chaucer, merely because they like it. This may be sentiment, but it is not criticism; and, after all, a desire to arrive at the truth should be of more weight with us than indulgence in ignorant credulity.

It is of some consequence to learn, first of all, that it is hardly possible to separate this piece from the next. The authoress of one was the authoress of the other. That The Assembly of Ladies is longer and duller, and has not held its own in popular estimation, is no sound argument to the contrary; for it is only partially true. Between the first eleven stanzas of the Assembly and the first eleven stanzas of the present poem, there is a strong general resemblance, and not much to choose. Other stanzas of the Assembly that are well up to the standard of the Flower will be found in lines 456-490, 511-539. The reason of the general inferiority of the Assembly lies chiefly in the choice of the subject; it was meant to interest some medieval household, but it gave small scope for retaining the reader's attention, and must be held to be a failure.

The links connecting these poems are so numerous that I must begin by asking the reader to let me denote The Flower and the Leaf by the letter F (= Flower), and The Assembly of Ladies by the letter A (= Assembly).

The first point is that (with the sole exception of the Nutbrown Maid) no English poems exist, as far as I remember, written previously to 1500, and purporting to be written by a woman. In the case of F. and A., this is assumed throughout. When the author of F. salutes a certain fair lady, the lady replies--'_My doughter, gramercy_'; 462. And again she says, '_My fair doughter_'; 467, 500, 547. The author of A. says she was one of five ladies; 5-7, 407. Again, she was a woman; 18. The author of A. and some other ladies salute Lady Countenance, who in reply says 'fair sisters'; 370. Again, she and others salute a lady-chamberlain, who replies by calling them 'sisters'; 450; &c.

The poem A. is supposed to be an account of a dream, told by the authoress to a gentleman; with the exception of this gentleman, all the characters of the poem are _ladies_; and hence its title. The poem F. is not quite so exclusive, but it comes very near it; all the principal characters are ladies, and the chief personages are queens, viz. the queen of the Leaf and the queen of the Flower. The 'world of ladies' in l. 137 take precedence of the Nine Worthies, who were merely men. A recognition of this fact makes the whole poem much clearer.

But the most characteristic thing is the continual reference to colours, dresses, ornaments, and decorations. In F., we have descriptions of, or references to, white surcoats, velvet, seams, emeralds, purfils, colours, sleeves, trains, pearls, diamonds, a fret of gold, chaplets of leaves, chaplets of woodbine, chaplets of _agnus-castus_, a crown of gold, thundering trumpets, the treasury of Prester John, white cloaks, chaplets of oak, banners of Tartary-silk, more pearls, collars, escutcheons, kings-of-arms, cloaks of white cloth, crowns set with pearls, rubies, sapphires, and diamonds. Then there is a company all clad in one suit (or livery); heralds and poursuivants, more chaplets and escutcheons, men in armour with cloth of gold and horse-trappings, with bosses on their bridles and peitrels--it is surely needless to go on, though we have only arrived at l. 246.

In A., we have much the same sort of thing all over again, though it does not set in before l. 83. Then we meet with blue colours, an embroidered gown, and a purfil with a device. After a respite, we begin again at l. 206--'Her gown was blue'; and the lady wore a French motto. Diligence tells the authoress that she looks well in her new blue gown (259). At l. 305, there is another blue gown, furred with gray, with a motto on the sleeve; and there are plenty more mottoes to follow. At l. 451 we come to a paved floor, and walls made of beryl and crystal, engraved with stories; next, a well-apparelled chair or throne, on five stages, wrought of 'cassidony,' with four pommels of gold, and set with sapphires; a cloth of estate, wrought with the needle (486); cloth of gold (521); a blue gown, with sleeves wrought tabard-wise, of which the collar and the _vent_ (slit in front of the neck) are described as being like ermine; it was couched with great pearls, powdered with diamonds, and had sleeves and purfils; then we come to rubies, enamel, a great balas-ruby, and more of the same kind. Again, it is useless to go further. Surely these descriptions of seams, and collars, and sleeves, are due to a woman.

The likeness comes out remarkably in two parallel stanzas. One of them is from F. 148, and the other from A. 526.

'As grete perles, round and orient,
Diamondes fyne and rubies rede,
And many another stoon, of which I want
The names now; and everich on her hede
A riche fret of gold, which, without drede,
Was ful of statly riche stones set;
And every lady had a chapelet,' &c.

'After a sort the coller and the vent,
Lyk as ermyne is mad in purfeling;
With grete perles, ful fyne and orient,
They were couched, al after oon worching,
With dyamonds in stede of powdering;
The sleves and purfilles of assyse;
They were y-mad [ful] lyke, in every wyse.'

I wonder which the reader prefers; for myself, I have really no choice.

For I do not see how to choose between such lines as these following:--

And on I put my gere and myn array; F. 26.
That ye wold help me on with myn aray; A. 241.
_or_, So than I dressed me in myn aray; A. 253.
As grete perles, round and orient; F. 148.
With grete perles, ful fyne and orient; A. 528.
And forth they yede togider, twain and twain; F. 295.
See how they come togider, twain and twain; A. 350.
So long, alas! and, if that it you plese
To go with me, I shal do yow the ese; F. 391.
And see, what I can do you for to plese,
I am redy, that may be to your ese; A. 447.
I thank you now, in my most humble wyse; F. 567.
We thanked her in our most humble wyse; A. 729.

Besides these striking coincidences in whole lines, there are a large number of phrases and endings of lines that are common to the two poems; such as--_the springing of the day_, F. 25, A. 218; _Which, as me thought_, F. 36, A. 50; _wel y-wrought_, F. 49, A. 165; _by mesure_, F. 58, A. 81; _I you ensure_, F. 60, 287, A. 52, 199; _in this wyse_, F. 98, A. 589; _I sat me doun_, F. 118, A. 77; _oon and oon_, F. 144, A. 368, 543, 710; _by and by_, F. 59, 146, A. 87; _withouten fail_, F. 369, A. 567, 646; _herself aloon_, F. 458, A. 84; _ful demure_, F. 459, A. 82; _to put in wryting_, F. 589, A. 664; and others that are printed out in the Notes.

Very characteristic of female authorship is the remark that the ladies vied with each other as to which looked the best; a remark which occurs in _both_ poems; see F. 188, A. 384.

A construction common to both poems is the use of _very_ with an adjective, a construction used by Lydgate, but not by Chaucer; examples are _very rede_, F. 35; _very good_, F. 10, 315; _very round_, A. 479.

It is tedious to enumerate how much these poems have in common. They open in a similar way, F. with the description of a grove, A. with the description of a garden with a maze. In the eighth stanza of F., we come to 'a herber that benched was'; and in the seventh stanza of A. we come to a similar 'herber, mad with benches'; both from The Legend of Good Women.

In F., the authoress has a waking vision of 'a world of ladies' (137); in A. she sees in a dream the 'assembly of ladies.' In both, she sees an abundance of dresses, and gems, and bright colours. Both introduce several scraps of French. In both, the authoress has interviews with allegorical or visionary personages, who address her either as daughter or sister. I have little doubt that the careful reader will discover more points of resemblance for himself.

§ 56. The chief appreciable difference between the two poems is that F. was probably written considerably earlier than A. This appears from the more frequent use of the final _-e_, which the authoress occasionally uses as an archaic embellishment, though she frequently forgets all about it for many stanzas together. In the former poem (F.) there seem to be about 50 examples, whilst in the latter (A.) there are hardly 10[25]. In almost every case, it is correctly used, owing, no doubt, to tradition or to a perusal of older poetry. The most important cases are the abundant ones in which a final _e_ is omitted where Chaucer would inevitably have inserted it. For example, such a line as F. 195--From the same grove, where the ladyes come out--would become, in Chaucer--From the sam-ë grov-ë wher the ladyes come out--giving at least twelve syllables in the line. The examples of the omission of final _-e_, where such omission makes a difference to the scansion, are not very numerous, because many such come before a vowel (where they might be elided) or at the cæsura (where they might be tolerated). Still we may note such a case as _green_ in l. 109 where Chaucer would have written _gren-e_, giving _a fresh gren-ë laurer-tree_, to the ruin of the scansion. Similar offences against Chaucer's usage are _herd_ for _herd-e_, 128 (cf. 191); _spek'_ for _spek-e_, 140; _al_ for _all-e_, plural, 165; _sight_ for _sight-e_, 174; _lyf_ for _lyv-e_, 182; _sam'_ for _sam-e_, 195; _the tenth_ for _the tenth-e_, 203; _gret_ for _gret-e_, plural, 214, 225; _red_ for _red-e_, 242; _the worst_ for _the worst-e_, 255; _yed'_ for _yed-e_, 295, 301; _fast_ for _fast-e_, 304; _rejoice_ for _rejoy-se_, 313; _noise_ for _nois-e_, 353; _sonn'_ for _son-ne_, 355, 408; _hir fresh_ for _hir fres-she_, 357; _laft_ for _laft-e_, pt. t., 364; _their greet_ for _hir gret-e_, 377; _sick_ for _sek-e_, 410; _about_ for _about-e_, 411; _to soup_ for _to soup-e_, 417; _without_ for _without-e_, 423, 549; _the hool_ for _the hol-e_, 437; _to know_ for _to know-e_, 453; _past_ for _pass-ede_ or _past-e_, 465; _My fair_ for _My fair-e_, vocative, 467, 500; _to tel_ for _to tell-e_, 495; _nin(e)_ for _nyn-e_, 502; _imagin(e)_ for _imagin-en_, 525; _they last_ for _they last-e_, 562; _thy rud(e)_ for _thy rud-e_, 595. Those who believe that The Flower and the Leaf was written by Chaucer will have to explain away every one of these cases; and when they have done so, there is more to be said.

§ 57. For it is well known that such a word as _sweetly_ (96) was trisyllabic, as _swet-e-ly_, in Chaucer; C. T., A 221. Similarly, our authoress has _trewly_ for _trew-e-ly_[26], 130; _richly_ for _rich-e-ly_, 169; _woodbind_ for _wod-e-bind-e_, 485. Similar is _ointments_ for _oin-e-ments_, 409. And, moreover, our authoress differs from Chaucer as to other points of grammar. Thus she has _Forshronk_ as a strong pp., 358, which ought to be _forshronk-en_ or _forshronk-e_. Still more marked is her use of _rood_ as the _plural_ of the past tense, 449, 454, where Chaucer has _rid-en_; and her use of _began_ as a plural, 385, where Chaucer has _bigonn-e_. Can these things be explained away also? If so, there is more to be said.

§ 58. All the above examples have been made out, without so much as looking at the rimes. But the rimes are much harder to explain away, where they differ from Chaucer's. Here are a few specimens.

_Pas-se_ rimes with _was_, 27; so it must have been cut down to _pas_! Similarly, _hew-e_ has become _hew_; for it rimes with _grew_, sing., 32. _Sight-e_ has become _sight_, to rime with _wight_, 37. _Brought_ should rather be _brought-e_, but it rimes with _wrought_, 48. Similar difficulties occur in _peyn_ (for _peyn-e_), r. w. _seyn_ (62); _syd'_ for _syd-e_, r. w. _espy'd_ for _espy-ed_, 72; _eet_, r. w. _sweet_ for _swet-e_, 90; _not'_ for _not-e_, r. w. _sot_, 99; _busily_, r. w. _aspy'_ for _aspy-e_, 106; _trewly_, r. w. _armony'_ for _armony-e_, 130; _orient_ (_oriant_?), r. w. _want_ for _want-e_, 148; _person_ for _person-e_, r. w. _everichon_, 167. It is tedious to go on; let the critic finish the list, if he knows how to do it. If not, let him be humble. For there is more to come.

§ 59. Besides the grammar, there is yet the pronunciation to be considered; and here comes in the greatest difficulty of all. For, in ll. 86-89, we have the unusual rime of _tree_ and _be_ with _pretily_. This so staggered Dr. Morris, that he was induced to print the last word as _pretile_; which raises the difficulty without explaining it. For the explanation, the reader should consult the excellent dissertation by Dr. Curtis on The Romance of Clariodus (Halle, 1894), p. 56, § 187. He remarks that a rime of this character gives evidence of the transition of M.E. long close _e_ to (Italian) long _i_ [as in the change from A.S. _m[=e]_ to mod. E. _me_], and adds: 'this change became general in the fifteenth century, but had begun in some dialects at an earlier date.' Its occurrence in the present poem is a strong indication that it is later than the year 1400, and effectually disposes of any supposed connection with Midland poems of the fourteenth century.

Both poems are remarkably free from classical allusions and from references to such medieval authors as are freely quoted by Chaucer. There is nothing to shew that the authoress was acquainted with Latin, though she knew French, especially the French of songs and mottoes.

The Flower and the Leaf is chiefly famous for having been versified by Dryden. The version is a free one, in a manner all his own, and is finer than the original, which can hardly be said of his 'versions' of Palamon and Arcite and The Cock and the Fox. It is doubtless from this version that many critics have formed exaggerated ideas of the poem's value; otherwise, it is difficult to understand for what reasons it was considered worthy of so great a master as Geoffrey Chaucer.

§ 60. It will be seen, from the Notes, that the authoress was well acquainted with the Prologue to The Legend of Good Women; and it can hardly be questioned that she took the main idea of the poem from that source, especially ll. 188-194 of the later text. At the same time she was well acquainted with Gower's lines on the same subject, in the Conf. Amantis, iii. 357, 358; see vol. iii. pp. xlii, 297. Gower has:--

'Me thoughte I sigh to-fore myn hede
Cupide with his bowe bent,
And like unto a parlement
Which were ordeined for the nones,
With him cam al the world atones[27]
Of gentil folk, that whylom were
Lovers; I sigh hem alle there ...
Her hedes kempt, and therupon
Garlondes, nought of o colour,
Some of the Lefe, some of the Flour,[28]
And some of grete perles were.[29] ...
So loude that on every syde
It thoughte as al the heven cryde[30]
In such accorde and suche a soun
Of bombard and of clarioun ...
So glad a noise for to here.
The grene Leef is overthrowe[31] ...
Despuiled is the somer fare,' &c. (p. 371).

§ 61. XXI. THE ASSEMBLY OF LADIES.

This has already been discussed, in some measure, in considering the preceding poem. Both pieces were written by the same authoress; but the former is the more sprightly and probably the earlier. With the exception of the unusual rime of _tree_ with _pretily_ (discussed above), nearly all the peculiarities of the preceding poem occur here also. The Chaucerian final _-e_ appears now and then, as in _commaund-e_ (probably plural), 203; _red-e_, 215; _countenanc-e_, 295; _pen-ne_ [or else _seyd-e_], 307; _chayr-e_, 476; _tak-e_, 565; _trouth-e_, 647; _liv-e_, 672; _sem-e_ (pr. s. subj.), 696. But it is usually dropped, as in _The fresh_ for _The fres-she_, 2; &c. In l. 11, Thynne prints _fantasyse_ for _fantasyes_; for it obviously rimes with _gyse_ (monosyllabic); cf. 533-535. _Hew-e_ and _new-e_ are cut down to _hew_ and _new_, to rime with _knew_, 67. _Bold_ rimes with _told_, clipped form of _told-e_, 94; and so on. So, again, _trewly_ appears in place of Chaucer's _trew-e-ly_, 488. It is needless to pursue the subject.

The description of the maze and the arbour, in ll. 29-70, is good. Another pleasing passage is that contained in ll. 449-497; and the description of a lady's dress in ll. 519-539. As for the lady herself--

'It was a world to loke on her visage.'

There is a most characteristic touch of a female writer in lines 253-254:--

'So than I dressed me in myn aray,
And asked her, _whether it were wel or no?_'

To attribute such a question as 'how will my dress do' to a male writer is a little too dramatic for a mere narrative poem.

The two MSS. have now been collated for the first time and afford some important corrections, of which l. 61 presents remarkable instances. MS. Addit. 34360 is of some value.

§ 62. A considerable part of The Assembly of Ladies that is now of little interest may have been much appreciated at the time, as having reference to the ordering of a large medieval household, with its chambers, parlours, bay-windows, and galleries, carefully kept in good order by the various officers and servants; such as Perseverance the usher, Countenance the porter, Discretion the chief purveyor, Acquaintance the harbinger, Largesse the steward, Bel-cheer the marshal of the hall, Remembrance the chamberlain, and the rest. The authoress must have been perfectly familiar with spectacles and pageants and all the amusements of the court; but she was too humble to aspire to wear a motto.

'And for my "word," I have non; this is trew.
It is ynough that my clothing be blew
As here-before I had commaundement;
And so to do I am right wel content'; A. 312.

We must not forget that the period of the Wars of the Roses, especially from 1455 to 1471, was one during which the composition of these poems was hardly possible. It is obviously very difficult to assign a date to them; perhaps they may be referred to the last quarter of the fifteenth century. We must not put them too late, because The Assembly exists in MSS. that seem to be as old as that period.

§ 63. XXII. A GOODLY BALADE.

For this poem there is but one authority, viz. Thynne's edition of 1532. He calls it 'A goodly balade of Chaucer'; but it is manifestly Lydgate's. Moreover, it is really a triple Balade, with an Envoy, on the model of Chaucer's Fortune and Compleynt of Venus; only it has seven-line stanzas instead of stanzas of eight lines. An inspection of Thynne's volume shews that it was inserted to fill a gap, viz. a blank page at the back of the concluding lines of The Legend of Good Women, so that the translation of Boethius might commence on a new leaf.

It is obvious that the third stanza of the second Balade was missing in Thynne's MS. He did not leave it out for lack of space; for there is plenty of room on his page.

That it is not Chaucer's appears from the first Balade, where the use of the monosyllables _shal_ and _smal_ in ll. 8 and 10 necessitates the use of the clipped forms _al_ for _al-le_, _cal_ for _cal-le_, _apal_ for _apal-le_, and _befal_ for _befal-le_. Moreover, the whole style of it suggests Lydgate, and does not suggest Chaucer.

The sixth stanza probably began with the letter _D_; in which case, the initial letters of the stanzas give us _M_, _M_, _M_; _D_, _D_, _D_; _J_, _C_, _Q_. And, as it was evidently addressed to a lady named _Margaret_ (see the Notes), we seem to see here _Margaret, Dame Jacques_. The name of _Robert Jacques_ occurs in the Writs of Parliament; Bardsley's English Surnames, 2nd ed., p. 565. Of course this is a guess which it is easy to deride; but it is very difficult to account otherwise for the introduction of the letters _J_, _C_, _Q_ in the third Balade; yet it was evidently intentional, for much force was employed to achieve the result. To make the first stanza begin with _J_, recourse is had to French; and the other two stanzas both begin with inverted clauses.

§ 64. XXIII. GO FORTH, KING.

I give this from Thynne's first edition; but add the Latin lines from the copy printed in Schick's edition of The Temple of Glas, at p. 68. His text is from that printed by Wynken de Worde about 1498, collated with the second and third prints from the same press at somewhat later dates, and a still later copy printed by Berthelet.

The only difference between Thynne's text and that given by Schick is that Wynken de Worde printed _ar_ in the last line where Thynne has printed _be_. Schick also notes that 'the Chaucer-Prints of 1561 and 1598 omit _thou_' in l. 9; and I find that it is also omitted in the third edition (undated, about 1550). But it occurs in the edition of 1532, all the same; shewing that the later reprints cannot always be relied upon.

I have already said (vol. i. p. 40)--'Surely it must be Lydgate's.' For it exhibits his love for 'catalogues,' and presents his peculiarities of metre. Dr. Schick agrees with this ascription, and points out that its appearance in the four prints above-mentioned, in all of which it is annexed to Lydgate's Temple of Glas, tends to strengthen my supposition. I think this may be taken as removing all doubt on the subject.

§ 65. I beg leave to quote here Schick's excellent remarks upon the poem itself.

'There are similar pieces to these _Duodecim Abusiones_ in earlier English literature (see ten Brink, _Geschichte der englischen Literatur_, i. 268, and note).[32] The "twelf unþ[=e]awas" existed also in Old-English; a homily on them is printed in Morris, _Old Eng. Homilies_, pp. 101-119[33]. It is based on the Latin Homily "De octo viciis et de duodecim abusivis huius saeculi," attributed to St. Cyprian or St. Patrick; see Dietrich in Niedner's _Zeitschrift für historische Theologie_, 1855, p. 518; Wanley's _Catalogus_, passim (cf. the Index _sub voce_ Patrick). In the Middle-English period we meet again with more or less of these "Abusions"; see Morris, _Old Eng. Miscellany_, p. 185 (11 Abusions); Furnivall, _Early Eng. Poems_, Berlin, 1862 (Phil. Soc.), p. 161; "Five Evil Things," Wright and Halliwell, _Reliquiae Antiquae_, i. 316, and ii. 14.'

§ 66. XXIV. THE COURT OF LOVE.

This piece was first printed by Stowe in 1561. Stowe happened to have access to a MS. which was really a miscellaneous collection of Middle-English pieces of various dates; and he proceeded to print them as being 'certaine workes of Geffray Chauser,' without paying any regard to their contents or style. In vol. i. pp. 33, 34, I give a list of his additions, numbered 42-60[34]. By good fortune, the very MS. in question is now in Trinity College Library, marked R. 3. 19. We can thus tell that he was indebted to it for the pieces numbered 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 59. These eleven pieces are all alike remarkable for being non-Chaucerian; indeed, no. 56 is certainly Lydgate's. But it has so happened that no. 59, or The Court of Love, being the best of these pieces, was on that account 'attributed' to Chaucer, whilst the others were unhesitatingly rejected. And it happened on this wise.

§ 67. After Tyrwhitt had edited the Canterbury Tales afresh, it occurred to him to compile a Glossary. He rightly reasoned that the Glossary would be strengthened and made more correct if he included in it all the harder words found in the _whole_ of Chaucer's Works, instead of limiting the vocabulary to words which occur in the Canterbury Tales only. For this purpose, he proceeded to draw up a List of what he conceived to be Chaucer's _genuine_ works; and we must remember that the only process open to him was to consider all the old editions, and _reject_ such as he conceived to be spurious. Hence his List is not really a list of genuine works, but one made by striking out from all previous lists the works which he _knew_ to be spurious. A moment's reflection will show that this is a very different thing.

Considering that he had only his own acumen to guide him, and had no access to linguistic or grammatical tests, still less to tests derived from an examination of rimes or phonology, it is wonderful how well he did his work. In the matter of rejection, he did not make a single mistake. His first revision was made by considering only the pieces numbered 1-41, in the _first_ part of Stowe's print (see vol. i. pp. 31-33); and he struck out the following, on the express ground that they were _known to have been written by other authors_; viz. nos. 4, 11, 13, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, and 40[35].

Then he went over the list again, and struck out, on internal evidence, nos. 15, 18, 21, 22, and 32[36].

Truly, here was a noble beginning! The only non-Chaucerian pieces which he failed to reject explicitly, among nos. 1-41, were the following, viz. 6 (A Goodly Balade of Chaucer), 17 (The Complaint of the Black Knight), 20 (The Testament of Love), 31 (The Cuckoo and the Nightingale), 38 (Go forth, King), and 41 (A Balade in Praise of Chaucer). Of course he rejected the last of these, but it was not worth his while to say so; and, in the same way, he tacitly rejected or ignored nos. 6, 30, and 38. Hence it was that nos. 6, 30, 38, and 41 did not appear in Moxon's Chaucer, and even no. 32 was carefully excluded. In his final list, out of nos. 1-41, Tyrwhitt actually got rid of all but nos. 17, 20, and 31 (The Black Knight, The Testament of Love, and The Cuckoo).

As to the remaining articles, he accepted, among the longer pieces, nos. 59, 62, and 63, i.e. The Court of Love, Chaucer's Dream, and The Flower and the Leaf; to which he added nos. 42, 43, and 60 (as to which there is no doubt), and also the Virelai (no. 50), on the slippery ground that it _is_ a virelai (which, strictly speaking, it is not).

§ 68. One result of his investigations was that an edition of Chaucer was published by Moxon (my copy is dated 1855), in which all the poems were included which Tyrwhitt accepted, followed by Tyrwhitt's Account of the Works of Chaucer.

Owing to the popularity of this edition, many scholars accepted the poems contained in it as being certainly genuine; but it is obvious that this was a very risky thing to do, in the absence of external evidence; especially when it is remembered that Tyrwhitt merely wanted to illustrate his glossary to the Canterbury Tales by adding words from other texts. The idea of drawing up a canon by the process of striking out from luxuriant lists the names of pieces that are obviously spurious, is one that should never have found acceptance.

§ 69. There is only one correct method of drawing up a canon of genuine works, viz. that adopted by Mr. Henry Bradshaw, formerly our Cambridge University Librarian. It is simple enough, viz. to take a clean sheet of paper, and enter upon it, first of all, the names of all the pieces that are admittedly genuine; and then to see if it can fairly be augmented by adding such pieces as have reasonable evidence in their favour. In making a list of this character, The Court of Love has no claim to be considered at all, as I fully proved about twenty years ago[37]; and there is an end of the matter. The MS. copy is in a hand of the sixteenth century[38], and there is no internal evidence to suggest an earlier date.

§ 70. Our task is to determine what it really is, and what can be made of it as it stands. We learn from the author that he was 'a clerk of Cambridge' (913), which we may readily accept. Beyond this, there is nothing but internal evidence; but of this there is much. That our 'clerk' had read Ovid and Maximian appears from the Notes; he even seems to have imbibed something of 'the new learning,' as he makes up the names Philo-genet and Philo-bone by help of a Greek adjective[39]. Dr. Schick has made it clear that he was well acquainted with Lydgate's Temple of Glas, which he imitates freely; see Schick's edition of that poem, p. cxxix. Mr. J. T. T. Brown, in his criticism on 'The Authorship of the Kingis Quair,' Glasgow, 1896, draws many parallels between The Court of Love and The Kingis Quair, and concludes that The Kingis Quair was indebted to The Court of Love; but it is tolerably certain that the indebtedness was in the other direction. For, in The Kingis Quair, some knowledge of the true use of Chaucer's final _-e_ is still exhibited, even in a Northern poem, whilst in The Court of Love, it is almost altogether dead, though the poem is in the Midland dialect. I shall presently shew that our clerk, whilst very nearly ignoring the final _-e_, occasionally employs the final _-en_; but this he does in a way which clearly shews that he did not understand when to use it aright, a fact which is highly significant.

I am much indebted to my friend Professor Hales for pointing out another very cogent argument. He draws attention to the numerous instances in which the author of The Court of Love fails to end a stanza with a stop. There is no stop, for example, at the end of ll. 14, 567, 672, 693, 700, 763, 826, 1064, 1288; and only a slight pause at the end of ll. 28, 49, 70, 84, 189, 231, 259, 280, 371, 406, 427, &c. In Chaucer's Parlement of Foules, on the other hand, there is but one stanza without a stop at the end, viz. at l. 280; and but one with a slight pause, viz. at l. 154. The difference between these results is very marked, and would convince any mathematician. I should like to add that the same test disposes of the claims of The Flower and the Leaf to be considered as Chaucer's; it has no stop at the end of ll. 7, 70, 154, 161, 196, 231, 280, 308, 392, 476, and has mere commas at the end of ll. 28, 49, 56, 98, 119, 224, 259, 329, 336, &c. In the Assembly of Ladies this departure from Chaucer's usage has been nearly abandoned, which is one reason why that piece is in a less lively style.