Chapter VI: Introduction (4)

§ 71. The sole MS. copy of The Court of Love belongs to the sixteenth century, and there is nothing to shew that the poem itself was of earlier date. Indeed, the language of it is remarkably like that of the former half of that century. If it be compared with Sackville's famous 'Induction,' the metrical form of the stanzas is much the same; there is the same smoothness of rhythm and frequent modernness of form, quite different from the halting lines of Lydgate and Hawes. This raises a suggestion that the author may have learnt his metre from Scottish authors, such as Henryson and Dunbar; and it is surprising to find him employing such words as _celsitude_ and _pulcritude_, and even riming them together, precisely as Dunbar did (ll. 611-613, and the note). One wonders where he learnt to use such words, if not from Scottish authors. Curiously enough, a single instance of the use of a Northern inflexion occurs in the phrase _me thynkes_, 874. And I admit the certainty that he consulted The Kingis Quair.

I have no space to discuss the matter at length; so shall content myself with saying that the impression produced upon me is that we have here the work of one of the heralds of the Elizabethan poetry, of the class to which belonged Nicholas Grimoald, Thomas Sackville, Lord Surrey, Lord Vaux, and Sir Francis Bryan. There must have been much fairly good poetry in the time of Henry VIII that is lost to us. Tottell's Miscellany clearly shews this, as it is a mere selection of short pieces, which very nearly perished; but for this fortunate relic, we should not have known much about Wyat and Surrey. Sackville, when at Cambridge, acquired some distinction for Latin and English verse, but we possess none of it. However, Sackville was not the author of The Court of Love, seeing that it was published in a 'Chaucer' collection in 1561, long before his death.

The fact that our clerk was well acquainted with so many pieces by Chaucer, such as The Knight's Tale, the Complaint of Pity, The Legend of Good Women, Troilus, and Anelida, besides giving us reminiscences of The Letter of Cupid, and (perhaps) of The Cuckoo and Nightingale, raises the suspicion that he had access to Thynne's edition of 1532; and it is quite possible that this very book inspired him for his effort. This suspicion becomes almost a certainty if it be true that ll. 495-496 are borrowed from Rom. Rose, 2819-20; see note at p. 545. I can find no reason for dating the poem earlier than that year.

§ 72. However this may be, the chief point to notice is that his archaisms are affectations and not natural. He frequently dispenses with them altogether for whole stanzas at a time. When they occur, they are such as he found in Chaucer abundantly; I refer to such phrases as _I-wis_ or _y-wis_; _as blyve_; the use of _ich_ for _I_ (661); _besy cure_ (36); _gan me dresse_ (113; cf. C. T., G 1271); _by the feith I shall to god_ (131; cf. Troil. iii. 1649); and many more. He rarely uses the prefix _i-_ or _y-_ with the pp.; we find _y-born_ (976), _y-formed_ (1176), _y-heried_ (592), _y-sped_ (977), all in Chaucer; besides these, I only note _y-fed_ (975), _y-ravisshed_ (153), _y-stope_ (281), the last being used in the sense of Chaucer's _stope_. The most remarkable point is the almost total absence of the final _-e_; I only observe _His len-ë body_ (1257); _to serv-e_ (909); _to dred-e_ (603); and _in thilk-ë place_ (642); the last of which is a phrase (cf. R. R. 660). On the other hand, whilst thus abstaining from the use of the final _-e_, he makes large use of the longer and less usual suffix _-en_, which he employs with much skill to heighten the archaic effect. Thus we find the past participles _holden_, 62; _growen_, 182; _yoven_ or _yeven_, 742; _shapen_, 816, 1354; _blowen_, 1240; the gerunds _writen_, 35; _dressen_, 179; _byden_, 321; _semen_, 607; _seken_, 838; _worshippen_, 1165, and a few others; the infinitives _maken_, 81; _byden_, 189; _quyten_, 327, &c., this being the commonest use; the present plurals _wailen_, 256; _foten_, 586; _speden_, 945, &c.; with the same form for the first person, as in _wailen_, 1113; _bleden_, 1153; and for the second person, as in _waxen_, 958; _slepen_, 999. Occasionally, this suffix is varied to _-yn_ or _-in_, as in _exilyn_, v., 336; _serchyn_, v., 950; _spakyn_, pt. pl., 624; _approchyn_, pr. pl., 1212. This may be the scribe's doing, and is consistent with East Anglian spelling.

But the artificial character of these endings is startlingly revealed when we find _-en_ added in an impossible position, shewing that its true grammatical use was quite dead. Yet we find such examples. A serious error (hardly the scribe's) occurs in l. 347: 'Wheder that she me _helden_ lefe or loth.' _Hold_ being a strong verb, the pt. t. is _held_; we could however justify the use of _held-e_, by supposing it to be the subjunctive mood, which suits the sense; but _held-en_ (with _-en_) is the _plural_ form, while _she_ is singular; and really this use of _-e_ in the subjunctive must have been long dead. In l. 684, we have a case that is even worse, viz. _I kepen in no wyse_; here the use of _-en_ saves a hiatus, but the concord is false, like the Latin _ego seruamus_. In l. 928, the same thing recurs, though the scribe has altered _greven_ into _growen_[40]; for this present tense is supposed to agree with _I_! A very clear case occurs in l. 725: _For if by me this mater springen out_; where the use of _-en_, again meant to save a hiatus, is excruciatingly wrong; for _mater_ is singular! This cannot be the fault of the scribe. Other examples of false grammar are: _thou serven_, 290; _thou sene_, 499. But the climax is attained in l. 526, where we meet with _thay kepten ben_, where the _-en_ is required for the metre. _Kepten_, as a _past participle_, is quite unique; let us drop a veil over this sad lapse, and say no more about it[41].

We may, however, fairly notice the constant use of the Northern forms _their_ and _thaim_ or _theim_, where Chaucer has _hir_ and _hem_. The use of _their_ and _them_ (not _thaim_) was well established by the year 1500 in literary English, as, e.g., in Hawes and Skelton. Caxton uses all four forms, _hem_ and _them_, _her_ and _their_.

§ 73. I add a few notes, suggested by an examination of the rimes employed.

The final _-e_ is not used at the end of a line. This is easily seen, if carefully looked into. Thus _lette_ (1284) stands for _let_, for it rimes with _y-set_; _grace_ and _trespace_ rime with _was_, 163; _kene_ rimes with _bene_, misspelling of _been_, 252; _redde_, put for _red_, rimes with _spred_, 302; _yerde_, put for _yerd_, rimes with _aferd_, 363; _ende_ rimes with _frend_ and _fend_, 530; and so on throughout[42]. The following assonances occur: _here_, _grene_, 253; _kepe_, _flete_, 309; and the following rimes are imperfect: _plaint_, _talent_, _consent_, 716; _frend_, _mynd_, 1056; _nonne_ (for _non_), _boun_, 1149; _like_ (_i_ long), _stike_ (_i_ short), 673; and perhaps _hold_, _shuld_[43], 408; _hard_, _ferd_, 151. _Hard_ is repeated, 149, 151; 1275, 1277. A curious rime is that of _length_ with _thynketh_, 1059; read _thenk'th_, and it is good enough. Noteworthy are these: _thryse_ (for Chaucer's _thry-ës_), _wyse_, 537; _hens_ (for Chaucer's _henn-ës_), _eloquence_, 935; _desire_, _here_, 961, 1301; _eke_, _like_, 561; _tretesse_ (for Chaucer's _tretys_), _worthinesse_, 28; _write_, _aright_, 13; _sey_ (I saw), _way_, 692. In one place, he has _discryve_, 778, to rime with _lyve_; and in another _discry_ (miswritten _discryve_, 97), to rime with _high_. As in Chaucer, he sometimes has _dy_, to die, riming with _remedy_, 340, and elsewhere _dey_, to rime with _pray_, 582; and again _fire_, _fyr_, riming with _hyre_, 883, or with _desire_, 1285, and at another time the Kentish form _fere_ (borrowed from Chaucer), with the same sense, r. w. _y-fere_, 622. The most curious forms are those for 'eye.' When it rimes with _degree_, 132, _see_, 768, we seem to have the Northern form _ee_ or _e_; but elsewhere it rimes with _besily_, 299, _pretily_, 419, _wounderly_, 695, _dispitously_, 1139, or with _I_, 282; and the plural _yen_ (= _y'n_) rimes with _lyne_, 135. The sounds represented by _[=e]_ and _y_ obviously afford permissible rimes; that the sounds were not identical appears from ll. 1051-1055, which end with _me_, _remedy_, _be_, _dy_, _company_ consecutively.

§ 74. Perhaps an easier way for enabling a learner to recognise the peculiarities of The Court of Love, and the difference of its language from Chaucer, is to translate some lines of it into Chaucerian English. The effect upon the metre is startling.

So thanne I went-ë by straunge and fer-rë contrees; 57.
Alceste it was that kept-ë there her sojour; 105.
To whom obeyd-ën the ladies god-ë nynten-ë; 108.
And yong-ë men fel-ë cam-ë forth with lusty pace; 110.
O bright-ë Regina, who mad-ë thee so fair? 141.
And mercy ask-ë for al my gret-ë trespas; 166.
This eight-ë-ten-ë yeer have kept yourself at large; 184.
In me did never worch-ë trew-ë-ly, yit I; 212.
And ther I sey the fres-shë quene of Cartáge; 231.
A! new-ë com-ën folk, abyde, and woot ye why; 271.
Than gan I me present-ë tofor-ë the king; 274.
That thou be trew-ë from henn-es-forth, to thy might; 289.
And nam-ë-ly haw-ë-thorn brought-ën both-ë page and grom-ë; 1433.

Very many more such examples may be given. Or take the following; Chaucer has (L. G. W. 476):--

For Love ne wól nat countrepleted be.

And this is how it reappears in C. L. 429:--

For Love wil not be counterpleted, indede!

Here the melody of the line is completely spoilt.

In the present state of our knowledge of the history of the English language, any notion of attributing The Court of Love to Chaucer is worse than untenable; for it is wholly disgraceful. Everything points to a very late date, and tends to exclude it, not only from the fourteenth, but even from the fifteenth century.

At the same time, it will readily be granted that the poem abounds with Chaucerian words and phrases to an extent that almost surpasses even the poems of Lydgate. The versification is smooth, and the poem, as a whole, is pleasing. I have nothing to say against it, when considered on its own merits.

§ 75. Space fails me to discuss the somewhat vexed question of the Courts of Love, of which some have denied the existence. However, there seems to be good evidence to shew that they arose in Provence, and were due to the extravagances of the troubadours. They were travesties of the courts of law, with a lady of rank for a judge, and minstrels for advocates; and they discussed subtle questions relating to affairs of love, usually between troubadours and ladies. The discussions were conducted with much seriousness, and doubtless often served to give much amusement to many idle people. Not unfrequently they led to tragedies, as is easily understood when we notice that the first of one set of thirty-one Laws of Love runs as follows:--'Marriage cannot be pleaded as an excuse for refusing to love.' The reader who requires further information is referred to 'The Troubadours and Courts of Love,' by J. F. Rowbotham, M.A., London, Swan Sonnenschein and Co., 1895.

It is perhaps necessary to observe that the said Courts have very little to do with the present poem, which treats of a Court of Cupid in the Chaucerian sense (Leg. Good Women, 352). Even the statutes of the Court are largely imitated from Lydgate.

§ 76. PIECES NUMBERED XXV-XXIX.

XXV. VIRELAY. This piece, from the Trinity MS., belongs to the end of the fifteenth century, and contains no example of the final _-e_ as constituting a syllable. Chaucer would have used _sore_ (l. 2), _more_ (l. 12), _trouth_ (l. 13), as dissyllables; and he would not have rimed _pleyn_ and _disdayn_ with _compleyn_ and _absteyn_, as the two latter require a final _-e_. The rime of _finde_ with _ende_ is extraordinary.

The title 'Virelai' is given to this piece in Moxon's Chaucer, and is, strictly speaking, incorrect; in the MS. and in Stowe's edition, it has no title at all! Tyrwhitt cautiously spoke of it as being 'perhaps by Chaucer'; and says that 'it comes nearer to the description of a _Virelay_, than anything else of his that has been preserved.' This is not the case; see note to Anelida, 256; vol. i. p. 536. Tyrwhitt quotes from Cotgrave--'_Virelay_, a round, freemen's song,' and adds--'There is a particular description of a _Virlai_, in the _Jardin de plaisance_, fol. xii, where it makes the _decima sexta species Rhetorice Gallicane_.' For further remarks, see p. 554.

XXVI. PROSPERITY: BY JOHN WALTON. 'To Mr. [Mark] Liddell belongs the honour of the discovery of John Walton as the author of the little poem on fol. 119 [of MS. Arch. Seld. B. 24]. The lines occur as part of the Prologue (ll. 83-90) to Walton's translation of Boethius' _De Consolatione_.'--J. T. T. Brown, _The Authorship of the Kingis Quair_, Glasgow, 1896; p. 71. See the account of Walton in Warton's Hist. E. Poetry, sect. xx. The original date of the stanza was, accordingly, 1410; but we here find it in a late Scottish dress. The ascription of it to 'Chaucer,' in the MS., is an obvious error; it was written ten years after his death.

XXVII. LEAULTE VAULT RICHESSE. This piece, like the former, has no title in the MS.; but the words _Leaulte vault Richesse_ (Loyalty deserves riches) occur at the end of it. If the original was in a Midland dialect, it must belong to the latter part of the fifteenth century. Even in these eight lines we find a contradiction to Chaucer's usage; for he always uses _lent_, pp., as a monosyllable, and _rent-e_ as a dissyllable. It is further remarkable that he never uses _content_ as an adjective; it first appears in Rom. Rose, 5628.

XXVIII. SAYINGS. I give these sayings as printed by Caxton; see vol. i. p. 46, where I note that Caxton did not ascribe them to Chaucer. They are not at all in his style.

In MS. Ashmole 59, fol. 78, I find a similar prophecy:--

_Prophecia merlini doctoris perfecti._

Whane lordes wol leefe theire olde lawes,
And preestis been varyinge in theire sawes,
And leccherie is holden solace,
And oppressyou_n_ for truwe p_ur_chace;
And whan the moon is on dauid stall,
And the kynge passe Arthures hall,
Than[44] is [the] lande of Albyon
Nexst to his confusyoun.

It is extremely interesting to observe the ascription of these lines to _Merlin_; see King Lear, iii. 2. 95.

XXIX. BALADE. This poor stanza, with its long-drawn lines, appears in Stowe at the end of 'Chaucer's Works.' In the Trinity MS., it occurs at the end of a copy of The Parlement of Foules.

§ 77. An examination of the pieces contained in the present volume leads us to a somewhat remarkable result, viz. that we readily distinguish in them the handiwork of _at least_ twelve different authors, of whom no two are much alike, whilst every one of them can be distinguished from Chaucer.

These are: (1) the author of The Testament of Love, who writes in a prose style all his own; (2) the author of The Plowmans Tale and Plowmans Crede, with his strong powers of invective and love of alliteration, whose style could never have been mistaken for Chaucer's in any age[45]; (3) the author of Jack Upland, with his direct and searching questions; (4) John Gower, with his scrupulous regularity of grammatical usages; (5) Thomas Hoccleve, who too often accents a dissyllable on the latter syllable when it should be accented on the former; (6) Henry Scogan, whose lines are lacking in interest and originality; (7) John Lydgate[46], who allows his verse too many licences, so that it cannot always be scanned at the first trial; (8) Sir Richard Ros, who writes in English of a quite modern cast, using _their_ and _them_ as in modern English, and wholly discarding the use of final _-e_ as an inflexion; (9) Robert Henryson, who writes smoothly enough and with a fine vein of invention, but employs the Northern dialect; (10) Sir Thomas Clanvowe, who employs the final _-e_ much more frequently than Chaucer or even Gower; (11) the authoress of The Flower and the Leaf and The Assembly of Ladies, to whom the final _-e_ was an archaism, very convenient for metrical embellishment; and (12) the author of The Court of Love, who, while discarding the use of the final _-e_, was glad to use the final _-en_ to save a hiatus or to gain a syllable, and did not hesitate to employ it where it was grammatically wrong to do so.

§ 78. If the reader were to suppose that this exhausts the list, he would be mistaken; for it is quite easy to add at least one known name, and to suggest three others. For the piece numbered XXVI, on p. 449, has been identified as the work of John Walton, who wrote a verse translation of Boethius in the year 1410; whilst it is extremely unlikely that no. XXVII, written in Lowland Scottish, was due to Henryson, the only writer in that dialect who has been mentioned above. This gives a total of _fourteen_ authors already; and I believe that we require yet two more before the Virelai and the Sayings printed by Caxton (nos. XXV and XXVIII) can be satisfactorily accounted for. As for no. XIX--the Envoy to Alison--it _may_ be Lydgate's, but, on the other hand, it may not. And as for no. XXIX, it is of no consequence.

Moreover, it must be remembered that I here only refer to the selected pieces printed in the present volume. If we go further afield, we soon find several more authors, all distinct from those above-mentioned, from each other, and from Chaucer. I will just instance the author of the Isle of Ladies, the authoress (presumably) of The Lamentation of Mary Magdalen, the author of The Craft of Lovers, the 'man unknown' who wrote The Ten Commandments of Love, and the author of the clumsy lines dignified by the title of The Nine Ladies Worthy. It is quite certain that _not less_ than twenty authors are represented in the mass of heterogeneous material which appears under Chaucer's name in a compilation such as that which is printed in the first volume of Chalmers' British Poets; which, precisely on that very account, is useful enough in its own peculiar way.

§ 79. I believe it may be said of nearly every piece in the volume, that it now appears in an improved form. In several cases, I have collated MSS. that have not previously been examined, and have found them to be the best. The Notes are nearly all new; very few have been taken from Bell's Chaucer. Several are due to Schick's useful notes to The Temple of Glas; and some to Krausser's edition of The Black Knight, and to Gröhler's edition of La Belle Dame, both of which reached me after my own notes were all in type. I have added a Glossary of the harder words; for others, see the Glossary already printed in vol. vi.

In extenuation of faults, I may plead that I have found it much more difficult to deal with such heterogenous material as is comprised in the present volume than with pieces all written by the same author. The style, the grammar, the mode of scansion, the dialect, and even the pronunciation are constantly shifting, instead of being reasonably consistent, as in the genuine works of Chaucer. Any one who will take the pains to observe these points, to compile a sufficient number of notes upon difficult passages, and to prepare a somewhat full glossary, may thus practically convince himself, as I have done, that not a single piece in the present volume ought ever to have been 'attributed' to Chaucer. That any of them should have been so attributed--and some of them never were--has been the result of negligence, superficiality, and incapacity, such as (it may be hoped) we have seen the last of.

I wish once more to acknowledge my obligations to Mr. E. B. Nicholson, for the loan of his transcript of The Praise of Peace; to Mr. Bradley, for his discovery of the authorship of The Testament of Love and for other assistance as regards the same; to Dr. E. Krausser, for his edition of The Complaint of the Black Knight; to Dr. Gröhler, for his dissertation on La Belle Dame sans Mercy; and to Professor Hales for his kind help as to some difficult points, and particularly with regard to The Court of Love.

* * * * *

THE TESTAMENT OF LOVE.