Chaucer's Works-The Canterbury Tales Part 2

Wright's edition, or from the original MS., are pointed out in the footnotes for the ultimate satisfaction of the reader.' For the instances in which this is really done are very rare indeed, in spite of the large number of such deviations.

Of Tyrwhitt's text, it is sufficient to remark that it was hardly possible, at [xvii] that date, for a better text to have been produced.

The rules of Middle English grammar had not been formulated, so that we are not surprised to find that he constantly makes the past tense of a weak verb monosyllabic, when it should be dissyllabic, and treats the past participle as dissyllabic, when it should be monosyllabic: which makes wild work with the scansion. It is also to be regretted that he based his text upon the faulty black-letter editions, though he took a great deal of pains in collating them with various MSS.

On the other hand, his literary notes are full of learning and research; and the number of admirable ill.u.s.trations by which he has efficiently elucidated the text is very great. His reputation as one of the foremost of our literary critics is thoroughly established, and needs no comment.

Mr. Wright's notes are likewise excellent, and resulted from a wide reading. I have also found some most useful hints in the notes to Bell's edition. Of all such sources of information I have been only too glad to avail myself, as is more fully shewn in the succeeding volume.

-- 4. PLAN OF THE PRESENT EDITION.

The text of the present edition of the Canterbury Tales is founded upon that of the Ellesmere MS. (E.) It has been collated throughout with that of the other six MSS. published by the Chaucer Society. Of these seven MSS., the Harleian MS. 7334 (Hl.) was printed separately. The other six were printed in the valuable 'Six-text' edition, to which I constantly have occasion to refer, in parallel columns. The six MSS. are: E. (Ellesmere), Hn. (Hengwrt), Cm. (Cambridge, Gg. 4. 27), Cp. (Corpus Coll., Oxford), Pt.

(Petworth), and Ln. (Lansdowne). MSS. E. Hn. Cm. represent the earliest type (A) of the text; Hl., a transitional type (B); Cp. and Ln., a still later type (C); and Pt., the latest of all (D), but hardly differing from C.

In using these terms, 'earliest,' &c., I do not refer to the age of the MSS., but to the type of text which they exhibit.

In the list of MSS. given above, Hl. is no. 1; E., Hn., Cm., are nos. 40, 41, and 28; and Cp., Pt., Ln., are nos. 24, 42, and 10 respectively.

Of all the MSS., E. is the best in nearly every respect. It not only gives good lines and good sense, but is also (usually) grammatically accurate and thoroughly well spelt. The publication of it has been a very great boon to all Chaucer students, for which Dr. Furnivall will be ever gratefully remembered. We must not omit, at the same time, to recognise the liberality and generosity of the owner of the MS., who so freely permitted such full use of it to be made; the same remark applies, equally, to the [xviii]

owners of the Hengwrt and the Petworth MSS. The names of the Earl of Ellesmere, Mr. Wm. W. E. Wynne of Peniarth, and Lord Leconfield have deservedly become as 'familiar as household words' to many a student of Chaucer.

This splendid MS. has also the great merit of being complete, requiring no supplement from any other source, except in the few cases where a line or two has been missed. For example, it does not contain A 252 _b-c_ (found in Hn. only); nor A 2681-2 (also not in Hn. or Cm.); nor B 1163-1190 (also not in Hn. or Cm.); nor B 1995 (very rare indeed).

It is slightly imperfect in B 2510, 2514, 2525, 2526, 2623-4, 2746, 2967.

It drops B 3147-8, C 103-4, C 297-8 (not in Hn. Cm. Pt.), E 1358-61, G 564-5; and has a few defects in the Parson's Tale in I 190, 273, &c. In the Tale of Melibeus, the French original shews that _all_ the MSS. have lost B 2252-3, 2623-4, which have to be supplied by translation.

None of the seven MSS. have B 4637-4652; these lines are genuine, but were probably meant to be cancelled. They only occur, to my knowledge, in four MSS., nos. 7, 11, 25, and 29; though found also in the old black-letter editions.

On the other hand, E. preserves lines rarely found elsewhere. Such are A 3155-6, 3721-2, F 1455-6, 1493-9; twelve genuine lines, none of which are in Tyrwhitt, and only the first two are in Wright. Observe also the stanza in the footnote to p. 424; with which compare B 3083, on p. 241.

The text of the Ellesmere MS. has only been corrected in cases where careful collation suggests a desirable improvement. Every instance of this character is invariably recorded in the footnotes. Thus, in A 8, the grammar and scansion require _half-e_, not _half_; though, curiously enough, this correct form appears in Hl. only, among all the seven MSS. In very difficult cases, other MSS. (besides the seven) have been collated, but I have seldom gained much by it. The chief additional MSS. thus used are Dd.= Cambridge, Dd. 4. 24 (no. 29 above); Slo. or Sl. = Sloane 1685 (no. 8); Roy. or Rl. = Royal 18 C 2 (no. 6); Harl. = Harleian 1758 (see p.

645); Li. or Lich. = Lichfield MS. (no. 35), for the Canon's Yeoman's Tale; and others that are sufficiently indicated.

I have paid especial attention to the suffixes required by Middle-English grammar, to the scansion, and to the p.r.o.nunciation; and I suppose that this is the first complete edition in which the [xix] spelling has been tested by phonetic considerations. With a view to making the spelling a little clearer and more consistent, I have ventured to adopt certain methods which I here explain.

In certain words of variable spelling in E., such as _whan_ or _whanne, than_ or _thanne_, I have adopted that form which the scansion requires; but the MS. is usually right.

E. usually has _hise_ for _his_ with a plural sb., as in l. 1; I use _his_ always, except in prose. E. has _hir, here_, for her, their; I use _hir_ only, except at the end of a line.

E. uses the endings _-ight_ or _-yght_, _-inde_ or _-ynde_; I use _-ight_ _-inde_ only; and, in general, I use _i_ to represent short _i_, and _y_ to represent long _i_, as in _king, wyf_. Such is the usual habit of the scribe, but he often changes _i_ into _y_ before _m_ and _n_, to make his writing clearer; such a precaution is needless in modern printing. Thus, in l. 42, I replace the scribe's _bigynne_ by _biginne_; and in l. 78, I replace his _pilgrymage_ by _pilgrimage_. This makes the text easier to read.

For a like reason, where equivalent spellings occur, I select the simpler; writing _couthe_ (as in Pt.) for _kowthe_, _sote_ for _soote_, _sege_ for _seege_, and so on. In words such as _our_ or _oure_, _your_ or _youre_, _hir_ or _hire_, _neuer_ or _neuere_, I usually give the simpler forms, without the final _-e_, when the _-e_ is obviously silent.

For consonantal _u_, as in _neuer_, I write _v_, as in _never_. This is usual in all editions. But I could not bring myself to use _j_ for _i_ consonant; the anachronism is too great. _Never_ for _neuer_ is common in the fifteenth century, but _j_ does not occur even in the first folio of Shakespeare. I therefore usually keep the capital _i_ of the MSS. and of the Elizabethan printers, as in _Ioye_ (=_joye_) where initial, and the small _i_, as in _enioinen_=_enjoinen_) elsewhere. Those who dislike such conservatism may be comforted by the reflection that the sound rarely occurs.

The word _eye_ has to be altered to _ye_ at the end of a line, to preserve the rimes. The scribes usually write _eye_ in the middle of a line, but when they come to it at the end of one, they are fairly puzzled. In l. 10, the scribe of Hn. writes _Iye_, and that of Ln. writes _yhe_; and the variations on this theme are most curious. The spelling _ye_ (=_ye_) is, however, common; as in A 1096 (Cm., Pt.). I print it 'ye' to distinguish it from _ye_, the pl. p.r.o.noun.

These minute variations are, I trust, legitimate, and I have not recorded them. They cause trouble to the editor, but afford ease [xx] to the reader, which seems a sufficient justification for adopting them. But the scrupulous critic need not fear that the MS. has been departed from in any case, where it could make any phonetic difference, without due notice.

Thus, in l. 9, where I have changed _foweles_ into _fowles_ as being a more usual form, the fact that _foweles_ is the Ellesmere spelling is duly recorded in the footnotes. And so in other cases.

The footnotes do not record various readings where E. is correct as it stands; they have purposely been made as concise as possible. It would have been easy to multiply them fourfold without giving much information of value; this is not unfrequently done, but the gain is slight. With so good a MS. as the basis of the text, it did not seem desirable.

The following methods for shortening the footnotes have been adopted.

1. Sometimes only the readings of _some_ of the MSS. are given. Thus at l. 9 (p. 1), I omit the readings of Cp. and of Cm. As a fact, neither of these MSS. contain the line; but it was not worth while to take up s.p.a.ce by saying so. At l. 10 (p. 1), I again omit the readings of Cp.

and of Cm., for the same reason; also of Ln., which is a poor MS., though here it agrees with Hl. (having _yhe_); also of Pt., which has _eyghe_, a spelling not here to be thought of. At l. 12, I just note that E. has _pilgrimage_ (by mistake); of course this means that it should have had _pilgrimages_ in the plural, as in other MSS., and as required by the rime.

2. At l. 23 (p. 2), the remark '_rest_ was' implies that all the rest of the seven MSS. specially collated have 'was.' The word '_rest_' is a convenient abbreviation.

3. When, as at l. 53, I give _nacions_ as a rejected reading of E. in the footnote, it will be understood that _naciouns_ is a better spelling, justified by other MSS., and by other lines in E. itself.

E.g., _naciouns_ occurs in Hl. and Pt., and Cm. has _naciounnys_.

4. I often use '_om._' for '_omit_,' or '_omits_' as in the footnote to l. 188 (p. 6).

5. At l. 335 (p. 11), I give the footnote:--'ever] Hl. al.' This means that MS. Hl. has _al_ instead of the word _ever_ of the other MSS. It seemed worth noting; but _ever_ is probably right.

6. At l. 520 (p. 16), the note is:--'_All but_ Hl. this was.' That is, Hl. has _was_, as in the text; the rest have _this was_, where the addition of _this_ sadly clogs the line.

With these hints, the footnotes present no difficulty.

As a rule, I have refrained from all emendation; but, in B 1189, I have ventured to suggest _physices_[3], for reasons explained in the Notes.

Those who prefer the reading _Phislyas_ can adopt it.

For further details regarding particular pa.s.sages, I beg leave to refer the reader to the Notes in vol. v.

[xxi]

-- 5. TABLE OF SYMBOLS DENOTING MSS.

Cm.--Cambridge Univ. Lib. Gg. 4. 27 (Ellesmere type). No. 28 in list.

Cp.--Carpus Chr. Coll., Oxford, no. 198. No. 24.

Dd.--Cambridge Univ. Lib. Dd. 4. 24 (Ellesmere type). No. 29.

E.--Ellesmere MS. (basis of the text). No. 40.

Harl.--Harl. 1758; Brit. Mus.; see p. 645. No. 4.

Hl.--Harl. 7334; British Museum. No. 1.

Hn.--Hengwrt MS. no. 154. No. 41.

Li. _or_ Lich.--Lichfield MS.; see pp. 533-553. No. 35.

Ln.--Lansdowne 851; Brit. Mus. (Corpus type). No. 10.

Pt.--Petworth MS. No. 42.

Rl. _or_ Roy.--Royal 18 C. II; Brit. Mus.; see p. 645. No. 6.