Book iii
. 830). An hous, that _domus Dedali_, That _Laborintus_ cleped is.--B. iii. pr. 12. 118.
LEGEND OF GOOD WOMEN.
195 (p. 78). tonne.--B. ii. pr. 2. 53-5.
*2228-30. (_Philomela_, 1-3).--B. iii. met. 9. 8-10. (Doubtful; for the same is in _Le Roman de la Rose_, 16931-6, which is taken from Boethius. And Köppel remarks that the word _Eternally_ answers to nothing in the Latin text, whilst it corresponds to the French _Tous jors en pardurableté_).
MINOR POEMS.
III. BOOK OF THE DUCHESSE.
The quotations from Boethius are all taken at second-hand. See above, pp. xx, xxi.
V. PARLEMENT OF FOULES.
*380. That hoot, cold, hevy, light, [and] moist and dreye, &c.--B. iii. pr. 11. 98-103.
(Practically, a chance resemblance; these lines are really from Alanus, De Planctu Naturæ; see the note).
599. ... as oules doon by light; The day hem blent, ful wel they see by night. B. iv. pr. 4. 132-3.
IX. THE FORMER AGE.
## Partly from B. ii. met. 5; see the notes.
X. FORTUNE.
1-4. Compare B. ii. met. 1. 5-7.
10-12. Compare B. ii. pr. 8. 22-25.
13. Compare B. ii. pr. 4. 98-101.
*17. Socrates.--B. i. pr. 3. 20. (But really from Le Roman de la Rose, 5871-4).
25. No man is wrecched, but himself it wene.--B. ii. pr. 4. 79, 80; cf. pr. 2. 1-10.
29-30. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 17, 18.
31. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 59, 60.
33, 34. Cf. B. ii. pr. 8. 25-28.
38. Yit halt thyn ancre.--B. ii. pr. 4. 40.
43, 44. Cf. B. ii. pr. 1. 69-72, and 78-80.
45, 46. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 60-62; and 37.
50-52. Cf. B. ii. pr. 8. 25-28.
57-64. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 11-18.
65-68. Cf. B. iv. pr. 6. 42-46.
68. Ye blinde bestes.--B. iii. pr. 3. 1.
71. Thy laste day.--B. ii. pr. 3. 60, 61.
XIII. TRUTH.
2. Cf. B. ii. pr. 5. 56, 57.
3. For hord hath hate.--B. ii. pr. 5. 11.
3. and climbing tikelnesse.--B. iii. pr. 8. 10, 11.
7. And trouthe shal delivere. Cf. B. iii. met. 11. 7-9; 15-20.
8. Tempest thee noght.--B. ii. pr. 4. 50.
9. hir that turneth as a bal.--B. ii. pr. 2. 37.
15. That thee is sent, receyve in buxumnesse.--B. ii. pr. 1. 66-68.
17, 19. Her nis non hoom. Cf. B. i. pr. 5. 11-15.
18. Forth, beste.--B. iii. pr. 3. 1.
19. Know thy contree, lok up.--B. v. met. 5. 14, 15.
XIV. GENTILESSE.
For the general idea, see B. iii. pr. 6. 24-38; met. 6. 2, and 6-10. With l. 5 compare B. iii. pr. 4. 25.
XV. LAK OF STEDFASTNESSE.
For the general idea, cf. B. ii. met. 8.
CANTERBURY TALES: GROUP A.
PROLOGUE. 337-8. Pleyn delyt, &c.--B. iii. pr. 2. 55.
741-2. The wordes mote be cosin to the dede.--B. iii. pr. 12. 152.
KNIGHTES TALE. 925. Thanked be Fortune, and hir false wheel.--B. ii. pr. 2. 37-39.
1164. Who shal yeve a lover any lawe?--B. iii, met. 12. 37.
*1251-4. Cf. B. iv. pr. 6. 147-151.
1255, 1256. Cf. B. iii. pr. 2. 19; ii. pr. 5. 122.
1262. A dronke man, &c.--B. iii. pr. 2. 61.
1266. We seke faste after felicitee, But we goon wrong ful often, trewely. B. iii. pr. 2. 59, 60; met. 8. 1.
1303-12. O cruel goddes, that governe, &c.--B. i. met. 5. 22-26; iv. pr. 1. 19-26.
*1946. The riche Cresus. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 44. (But cf. Monkes Ta. B. 3917, and notes.)
2987-2993[38]. The firste moevere, &c.--B. ii. met. 8. 6-11. (But see also the _Teseide_, Bk. ix. st. 51.)
2994-9, 3003-4.--B. iv. pr. 6. 29-35.
3005-3010.--B. iii. pr. 10. 18-22.
3011-5.--B. iv. pr. 6.
GROUP B.
MAN OF LAWES TALE. 295-299. O firste moeving cruel firmament. Cf. B. i. met. 5. 1-3; iii. pr. 8. 22; pr. 12. 145-147; iv. met. 1. 6.
481-3. Doth thing for certein ende that ful derk is.--B. iv. pr. 6. 114-117, and 152-154.
813-6. O mighty god, if that it be thy wille.--B. i. met. 5. 22-30; iv. pr. 1. 19-26.
N.B. The stanzas 421-7, and 925-931, are not from Boethius, but from Pope Innocent; see notes.
THE TALE OF MELIBEUS. The suggested parallels between this Tale and Boece are only three; the first is marked by Mr. Stewart as doubtful, the third follows Albertano of Brescia word for word; and the second is too general a statement. It is best to say that no certain instance can be given[39].
THE MONK'S PROLOGUE. 3163. Tragedie.--B. ii. pr. 2. 51.
THE MONKES TALE: HERCULES. 3285-3300.--B. iv. met. 7. 20-42. (But see Sources of the Tales, § 48; vol. iii. p. 430.)
*3329. Ful wys is he that can him-selven knowe. Cf. B. ii. pr. 4. 98-101.
3434. For what man that hath freendes thurgh fortune, Mishap wol make hem enemys, I gesse. B. iii. pr. 5. 48-50.
3537. But ay fortune hath in hir hony galle.--B. ii. pr. 4. 86-7.
3587. Thus can fortune hir wheel governe and gye.--B. ii. pr. 2. 37-39.
*3636. Thy false wheel my wo al may I wyte.--B. ii. pr. 1. 7-10.
3653. NERO. See B. ii. met. 6; esp. 5-16.
3914. JULIUS CESAR. No man ne truste upon hir favour longe. B. ii. pr. 1. 48-53.
3921. CRESUS.--B. ii. pr. 2. 44-46.
3951. TRAGEDIE.--B. ii. pr. 2. 51-2. (See 3163 above.)
3956. And covere hir brighte face with a cloude.--B. ii. pr. 1. 42.
NONNE PREESTES TALE. 4190. That us governeth alle as in comune.--B. ii. pr. 2. 61.
4424. But what that god forwoot mot nedes be.--B. v. pr. 3. 7-10.
4433. Whether that godes worthy forwiting, &c.--B. v. pr. 3. 5-15; 27-39; pr. 4. 25-34; &c.
GROUP D.
*100. WYF OF BATH. He hath not every vessel al of gold.--B. iv. pr. 1. 30-33. (But cf. 2 Tim. ii. 20.)
170. Another tonne.--B. ii. pr. 2. 53.
1109-1116. 'Gentilesse.'--B. iii. pr. 6. 24-38; met. 6. 6, 7.
1140. Caucasus.--B. ii. pr. 7. 43.
1142. Yit wol the fyr as faire lye and brenne.--B. iii. pr. 4. 47.
1170. That he is gentil that doth gentil dedis.--B. iii. met. 6. 7-10.
1187. He that coveyteth is a povre wight.--B. iii. pr. 5. 20-32.
1203. Povert a spectacle is, as thinketh me.--B. ii. pr. 8. 23-25, 31-33.
THE FRERES TALE. 1483. For som-tyme we ben goddes instruments.--B. iv. pr. 6. 62-71.
THE SOMNOURS TALE. 1968. Lo, ech thing that is oned in him-selve, &c.--B. iii. pr. 11. 37-40.
GROUP E.
THE CLERKES TALE. Mr. Stewart refers ll. 810-2 to Boethius, but these lines translate Petrarch's sentence--'Nulla homini perpetua sors est.' Also ll. 1155-1158, 1161; but these lines translate Petrarch's sentence--'Probat tamen et sæpe nos, multis ac _grauibus flagellis exerceri sinit_, non ut animum nostrum sciat, quem sciuit antequam crearemur ... abundè ergo constantibus uiris ascripserim, quisquis is fuerit, qui pro Deo suo sine murmure patiatur.' I find no hint that Chaucer was directly influenced by Boethius, while writing this Tale.
THE MARCHANTES TALE. Mr. Stewart refers ll. 1311-4 to Boethius, but they are more likely from Albertanus Brixiensis, _Liber de Amore dei_, fol. 30 a (as shewn by Dr. Köppel):--'Et merito uxor est diligenda, qui donum est Dei,' followed by a quotation from Prov. xix. 14.
1582. a mirour--B. v. met. 4. 8.
1784. O famulier foo.--B. iii. pr. 5. 50.
1849. The slakke skin.--B. i. met. 1. 12.
1967-9. Were it by destinee or aventure, &c.--B. iv. pr. 6. 62-71.
2021. felicitee Stant in delyt.--B. iii. pr. 2. 55.
2062. O monstre, &c.--B. ii. pr. 1. 10-14.
GROUP F.
THE SQUIERES TALE. *258. As sore wondren somme on cause of thonder. Cf. B. iv. met. 5. 6. (Somewhat doubtful.)
608. Alle thing, repeiring to his kinde.--B. iii. met. 2. 27-29.
611. As briddes doon that men in cages fede.--B. iii. met. 2. 15-22.
THE FRANKELEINS TALE. 865. Eterne god, that thurgh thy purveyaunce, &c.--B. i. met. 5. 22, 23; iii. met. 9. 1; cf. iii. pr. 9. 147, 148.
879. Which mankinde is so fair part of thy werk.--B. i. met. 5. 38.
886. Al is for the beste.--B. iv. pr. 6. 194-196.
1031. God and governour, &c.--B. i. met. 6. 10-14.
GROUP G.
THE SECONDE NONNES TALE. I think it certain that this early Tale is quite independent of Boethius. L. 114, instanced by Mr. Stewart, is from 'Ysidorus'; see my note.
THE CANOUNS YEMANNES TALE. *958. We fayle of that which that we wolden have.--B. iii. pr. 9. 89-91. (Very doubtful.)
GROUP H.
THE MAUNCIPLES TALE. 160.
ther may no man embrace As to destreyne a thing, which that nature Hath naturelly set in a creature.--B. iii. met. 2. 1-5.
163. Tak any brid, &c.--B. iii. met. 2. 15-22.
GROUP I.
THE PERSONES TALE. *212. A shadwe hath the lyknesse of the thing of which it is shadwe, but shadwe is nat the same thing of which it is shadwe.--B. v. pr. 4. 45, 46. (Doubtful.)
*471. Who-so prydeth him in the goodes of fortune, he is a ful greet fool; for som-tyme is a man a greet lord by the morwe, that is a caitif and a wrecche er it be night.--B. ii. met. 3. 16-18. (I think this is doubtful, and mark it as such.)
472. Som-tyme the delyces of a man is cause of the grevous maladye thurgh which he dyeth.--B. iii. pr. 7. 3-5.
§ 24. It is worth while to see what light is thrown upon the chronology of the Canterbury Tales by comparison with Boethius.
In the first place, we may remark that, of the Tales mentioned above, there is nothing to shew that The Seconde Nonnes Tale, the Clerkes Tale, or even the Tale of Melibeus, really refer to any passages in Boethius. They may, in fact, have been written _before_ that translation was made. In the instance of the Second Nonnes Tale, this was certainly the case; and it is not unlikely that the same is true with respect to the others.
But the following Tales (_as revised_) seem to be later than 'Boece,' viz. The Knightes Tale, The Man of Lawes Tale, and The Monkes Tale; whilst it is quite certain that the following Tales were amongst the latest written, viz. the Nonne Preestes Tale, the three tales in Group D (Wyf, Frere, Somnour), the Marchantes Tale, the Squieres Tale, the Frankeleins Tale, the Canouns Yemannes Tale, and the Maunciples Tale; all of which are in the heroic couplet, and later than 1385.
The case of the Knightes Tale is especially interesting; for the numerous references in it to Boece, and the verbal resemblances between it and Troilus shew that _either_ the original _Palamoun and Arcite_ was written just after those works, _or else_ (which is more likely) it was revised, and became the Knight's Tale, nearly at that time. The connection between Palamon and Arcite, Anelida, and the Parlement of Foules, and the introduction of three stanzas from the Teseide near the end of Troilus, render the former supposition unlikely; whilst at the same time we are confirmed in the impression that the (revised) Knightes Tale succeeded Boece and Troilus at no long interval, and was, in fact, the _first_ of the Canterbury Tales that was written _expressly for the purpose_ of being inserted in that collection, viz. about 1385-6.
§ 25. THE MANUSCRIPTS.
I have now to explain the sources of the present edition.
1. MS. C. = MS. Camb. Ii. 3. 21. This MS., in the Cambridge University Library, is certainly the best; and has therefore been taken as the basis of the text. The English portion of it was printed by Dr. Furnivall for the Chaucer Society in 1886; and I have usually relied upon this very useful edition[40]. It is a fine folio MS., wholly occupied with Boethius (_De Consolatione Philosophiae_), and comments upon it.
It is divided into two distinct parts, which have been bound up together. The latter portion consists of a lengthy commentary upon Boethius, at the end of which we find the title, viz.--'Exposicio preclara quam Iohannes Theutonicus prescripsit et finiuit Anno d_omi_ni M^oCCCvj viij ydus Iunii;' i.e. An Excellent Commentary, written by Johannes Teutonicus, and finished June 6, 1306. This vast commentary occupies 118 folios, in double columns.
The former part of the volume concerns us more nearly. I take it to be, for all practical purposes, _the authentic copy_. For it presents the following peculiarities. It contains the whole of the Latin text, as well as Chaucer's English version; and it is surprising to find that these are written in alternate chapters. Thus the volume begins with the Latin text of Metre 1, at the close of which there follows immediately, on the same page, Chaucer's translation of Metre 1. Next comes Prose 1 in Latin, followed by Prose 1 in English; and so throughout.
Again, if we examine the Latin text, there seems reason to suppose that it fairly represents the very recension which Chaucer used. It abounds with side-notes and glosses, all in Latin; and the glosses correspond to those in Chaucer's version. Thus, to take an example, the following lines occur near the end of Bk. iii. met. 11:--
'Nam cur rogati sponte recte[41] censetis Ni mersus alto uiueret fomes corde.'
Over _rogati_ is written the gloss _i. interrogato_.
Over _censetis_ is written _i. iudicatis_.
Over _Ni_ is _i. nisi_; over _mersus alto_ is _i. latenter conditos_; over _uiueret_ is _i. vigeret_; and over _fomes_ is _i. radix veritatis_.
Besides these glosses, there is here the following side-note:--'Nisi radix veritatis latenter conditus vigeret in abscondito mentis, homo non iudicaret recta quacunque ordinata interrogata.'
When we turn to Chaucer's version, we find that he first gives a translation of the two verses, thus:--
'For wherefor elles demen ye of your owne wil the rightes, whan ye ben axed, but-yif so were that the norisshinge of resoun ne livede y-plounged in the depthe of your herte?'
After this he adds, by way of comment:--'This is to seyn, how sholden men demen the sooth of anything that were axed, yif ther nere a rote of soothfastnesse that were y-plounged and hid in naturel principles, the whiche soothfastnesse lived with-in the deepnesse of the thought.'
It is obvious that he has here reproduced the general sense of the Latin side-note above quoted. The chief thing which is missing in the Latin is the expression 'in naturel principles.' But we have only to look to a passage a little higher up, and we find the line--
'Suis retrusum possidere thesauris.'
Over the word _retrusum_ is written _i. absconditum_; and over _thesauris_ is _i. naturalibus policiis et principiis naturaliter inditis_. Out of these we have only to pick the words _absconditum naturalibus ... principiis_, and we at once obtain the missing phrase--'hid in naturel principles.'
Or, to take another striking example. Bk. iv. met. 7 begins, in the MS., with the lines:
'Bella bis quinis operatus annis Vltor attrides frigie ruinis, Fratris amissos thalamos piauit.'
At the beginning, just above these, is written a note: 'Istud metrum est de tribus exemplis: de agamenone (_sic_); secundum de vlixe; tertium, de hercule.'
The glosses are these; over _quinis_ is _i. decim_; over _attrides_ is _agamenon_ (_sic_); over _Fratris_ is _s. menelai_; and over _piauit_ is _i. vlcissendo_ (_sic_) _purgauit: troia enim erat metropolis Frigie_.
If we turn to Chaucer's version, in which I print the additions to the text in italics, we find that it runs thus:--
'The wreker Attrides, _that is to seyn, Agamenon_, that wroughte and continuede the batailes by ten yeer, recovered and purgede _in wrekinge_, by the destruccioun of Troye, the loste chaumbres of mariage of his brother; _this is to seyn, that he, Agamenon, wan ayein Eleyne, that was Menelaus wyf his brother_.'
We see how this was made up. Not a little curious are the spellings _Attrides_ and _Agamenon_[42], as occurring both in the Latin part of this MS. and in Chaucer's version. Again, Chaucer has _ten_, corresponding to the gloss _decim_, not to the textual phrase _bis quinis_. His explanation of _piauit_ by _recovered and purgede in wrekinge_ is clearly due to the gloss _ulciscendo purgauit_. His substitution of _Troye_ for _Frigie_ is due to the gloss: _troia enim erat metropolis Frigie_. And even the name _Menelaus his brother_ answers to _Fratris, s. menelai_. And all that is left, as being absolutely his own, are the words _and continuede_, _recovered_, and _wan ayein Eleyne_. We soon discover that, in a hundred instances, he renders a single Latin verb or substantive by two English verbs or substantives, by way of making the sense clearer; which accounts for his introduction of the verbs _continuede_ and _recovered_; and this consideration reduces Chaucer's additional contribution to a mention of the name of _Eleyne_, which was of course extremely familiar to him.
Similarly, we find in this MS. the original of the gloss explaining _coempcioun_ (p. 11); of the 'Glose' on p. 15; of the 'Glosa' on p. 26; and of most of the notes which, at first sight, look like additions by Chaucer himself[43].
The result is that, in all difficulties, the first authority to be consulted is the Latin text in this particular MS.; for we are easily led to conclude that it was intentionally designed to preserve both Chaucer's translation and the original text. It does not follow that it is always perfect; for it can only be a _copy_ of the Latin, and the scribe may err. In writing _recte_ for _recta_ (see note on p. xxxviii), he has certainly committed an error by a slip of the pen. The same mistake has been observed to occur in another MS., viz. Codex Gothanus I.
The only drawback is this. The MS. is so crowded with glosses and side-notes, many of them closely written in small characters, that it is almost impossible to consult them all. I have therefore contented myself with resorting to them for information in difficult passages only. For further remarks on this subject, I must refer the reader to the Notes.
Lastly, I may observe that the design of preserving in this MS. all the apparatus referring to Chaucer's Boethius, is made the more apparent by the curious fact that, _in this MS. only_, the two poems by Chaucer that are closely related to Boethius, viz. The Former Age, and Fortune, are actually inserted into the very body of it, immediately after Bk. ii. met. 5. This place was of course chosen because The Former Age is, to some extent, a verse translation of that metre; and Fortune was added because, being founded upon scraps from several chapters, it had no definite claim to any specific place of its own.
In this MS., the English text, like the Latin one, has a few imperfections. One imperfection appears in certain peculiarities of spelling. The scribe seems to have had some habits of pronunciation that betoken a greater familiarity with Anglo-French than with English. The awkward position of the guttural sound of _gh_ in _neighebour_ seems to have been too much for him; hence he substituted _ssh_ (= _sh-sh_) for _gh_, and gives us the spelling _neysshebour_ (Bk. ii. pr. 3. 24, foot-note; pr. 7. 57, foot-note.) Nevertheless, it is the best MS. and has most authority. For further remarks, see the account of the present edition, on pp. xlvi-xlviii.
2. MS. Camb. Ii. 1. 38. This MS. also belongs to the Cambridge University Library, and was written early in the fifteenth century. It contains 8 complete quires of 8 leaves, and 1 incomplete quire of 6 leaves, making 70 leaves in all. The English version appears alone, and occupies 68 leaves, and part of leaf 69 recto; leaf 69, verso, and leaf 70, are blank. The last words are:--'þe eyen of þe Iuge þat seeth and demeth alle thinges. _Explicit liber boecij, &c._' Other treatises, in Latin, are bound up with it, but are unrelated. The readings of this MS. agree very closely with those of Ii. 3. 21, and of our text. Thus, in Met. i. l. 9, it has the reading _wyerdes_, with the gloss _s. fata_, as in Ii. 3. 21. (The scribe at first wrote _wyerldes_, but the _l_ is marked for expunction.) In l. 12, it has _emptid_, whereas the Addit. MS. has _emty_; and in l. 16 it has _nayteth_, whereas the Addit. MS. wrongly has _naieth_. On account of its close agreement with the text, I have made but little use of it.
It is worth notice that this MS. (like Harl. 2421) frequently has correct readings in cases where even the MS. above described exhibits some blunder. A few such instances are given in the notes. For example, it has the reading _wrythith_ in Bk. i. met. 4. 7, where MS. C. has the absurd word _writith_, and MS. A. has _wircheth_. In the very next line, it has _thonder-leit_, and it is highly probable that _leit_ is the real word, and _light_ an ignorant substitution; for _leit_ (answering to A.S. _l[=e]get_, _l[=i]get_) is the right M.E. word for 'lightning'; see the examples in Stratmann. So again, in Bk. ii. met. 3. 13, it reads _ouer-whelueth_, like the black-letter editions; whilst MS. C. turns _whelueth_ into _welueeth_, and MS. A. gives the spelling _whelweth_. In Bk. ii. pr. 6. 63, it correctly retains _I_ after _may_, though MSS. C. and A. both omit it. In Bk. ii. pr. 8. 17, it has _wyndy_, not _wyndynge_; and I shew (in the note at p. 434) that _windy_ is, after all, the correct reading, since the Lat. text has _uentosam_. In Bk. iii. met. 3. 1, it resembles the printed editions in the insertion of the words _or a goter_ after _river_. In Bk. iv. pr. 3. 47, 48, it preserves the missing words: _peyne, he ne douteth nat þat he nys entecchid and defouled with_. In Bk. iv. met. 6. 24, it has the right reading, viz. _brethith_. Finally, it usually retains the word _whylom_ in places where the MS. next described substitutes the word _somtyme_. If any difficulty in the text raises future discussion, it is clear that this MS. should be consulted.
3. MS. A. = MS. Addit. 10340, in the British Museum. This is the MS. printed at length by Dr. Morris for the Early English Text Society, and denoted by the letter 'A.' in my foot-notes. As it is so accessible, I need say but little. It is less correct than MS. Ii. 3. 21 in many readings, and the spelling, on the whole, is not so good. The omissions in it are also more numerous, but it occasionally preserves a passage which the Cambridge MS. omits. It is also imperfect, as it omits Prose 8 and Metre 8 of Bk. ii., and Prose 1 of Bk. iii. It has been collated throughout, though I have usually refrained from quoting such readings from it as are evidently inferior or wrong. I notice one peculiarity in particular, viz. that it almost invariably substitutes the word _somtyme_ for the _whylom_ found in other copies; and _whylom_, in this treatise, is a rather common word. Dr. Morris's account of the MS. is here copied.
'The Additional MS. is written by a scribe who was unacquainted with the force of the final _-e_. Thus he adds it to the preterites of strong verbs, which do not require it; he omits it in the preterites of weak verbs where it is wanted, and attaches it to passive participles of weak verbs, where it is superfluous. The scribe of the Cambridge MS. is careful to preserve the final _-e_ where it is a sign (1) of the definite declension of the adjective; (2) of the plural adjective; (3) of the infinitive mood; (4) of the preterite of weak verbs; (5) of present participles; (6) of the 2nd pers. pret. indic. of strong verbs; (7) of adverbs; (8) of an older vowel-ending.
'The Addit. MS. has frequently _thilk_ (singular and plural) and _-nes_ (in _wrechednes_, &c.), when the Camb. MS. has _thilke_ (as usual in the Canterbury Tales) and _-nesse_.'
The copy of Boethius is contained on foll. 3-40. On fol. 41, recto, is a copy of Chaucer's _Truth_, and the description of the 'Persone,' extracted from the Prologue to the Cant. Tales. The other side of the leaf is blank. This is, in fact, the MS. which I denote by 'At.,' as described in the Introduction to the 'Minor Poems' in vol. i. p. 57.
4. MS. Addit. 16165, in the British Museum. This is one of Shirley's MSS., being that which I denote by 'Ad.,' and have described in the Introduction to the 'Minor Poems' in vol. i. p. 56. I believe this MS. to be of less value than MS. A. (above), and have therefore not collated it; for even A. is not a very good authority.
5. MS. Harl. 2421. The Harleian Catalogue describes it thus: 'Torq. Sever. Boetius: his 5 Books of the Comfort of Philosophy. Translated into English. On vellum, 152 leaves. XV century.'
A small quarto MS. of the middle of the fifteenth century. The first Prose of Bk. i. begins (like MS. A.) with the words: 'In þe mene while þat y stil recorded þese þinges;' &c. Hence are derived the readings marked 'H.' in Morris's edition, pp. 62-64. It rightly reads _writheth_, _wyndy_, _bretheth_ (see p. xlii).
6. The celebrated Hengwrt MS. of the Canterbury Tales (denoted by 'Hn.' in the foot-notes to that poem) contains a part of Chaucer's Boethius. See the Second Report of the Historical MSS. Commission, p. 106.
7. There is also a copy in a MS. belonging to the Cathedral Library at Salisbury. It was discovered by Dr. Wülker in 1875; see the _Academy_ for Oct. 5, 1875. Bk. i. met. 1 was printed, from this MS., by Dr. Wülker in _Anglia_, ii. 373. It resembles MS. A.
8. In the Phillipps collection, MS. no. 9472 is described as 'Boetius' Boke of Comfort,' and is said to be of the fifteenth century. I do not know its real contents.
§ 26. THE PRINTED EDITIONS.
CAXTON. Chaucer's Boethius was first printed by Caxton, without date; but probably before 1479. See the description in The Biography and Typography of W. Caxton, by W. Blades; second edition, 1882; p. 213. A complete collation of this text with MS. A., as printed by Morris, was printed by L. Kellner, of Vienna, in Englische Studien, vol. xiv, pp. 1-53; of which I have gladly availed myself. The text agrees very closely indeed with that printed by Thynne in 1532, and resembles MS. C. rather than MS. A.
Perhaps it is necessary to remark that the readings of MS. C., as given in Kellner's collation, are sometimes incorrect, because MS. C. had not at that time been printed, and the readings of that MS. were only known to him from the foot-notes in Morris's edition, which are not exhaustive, but only record the more important variations. There is a curious but natural error, for example, in his note on l. 1002 of Morris's edition (Bk. ii. met. 3. 14, p. 32, l. 1), where MS. C. has _[gh]eelde_ (= _zeelde_). The word is missing in MS. A., but Morris supplied it from C. to complete the text. Hence the foot-note has: '[_[gh]eelde_]--from C.'; meaning that A. omits _[gh]eelde_, which is supplied from C. This Kellner took to mean that A. has _[gh]eelde_, and C. has _from_. However, the readings of A. and of Caxton are given with all possible care and minuteness; and now that C. is also in type, the slight inevitable errors are easily put right. This excellent piece of work has saved me much trouble.
It turns out that Caxton's text is of great value. He followed a MS. (now lost) which is, in some places, even more correct than MS. C. The following readings are of great importance, as they correct MSS. C. and A. (I denote Caxton's edition by the symbol Cx.)
Bk. i. met. 4. 7. Cx. writheth. (Cf. p. xlii. above, l. 6.)
Bk. i. met. 4. 8. Cx. thonder leyte[44].
Bk. i. met. 5. 26. Cx. punisheth.
Bk. i. met. 5. 28. Cx. on the nekkes.
Bk. i. pr. 6. 54. Cx. funden (_but read_ founden).
Bk. i. pr. 6. 65. Cx. norissing. (Perhaps better than _norisshinges_, as in the MSS.; for the Lat. text has the sing. _fomitem_.) Cf. Bk. iii. met. 11. 27.
Bk. ii. pr. 3. 59. Cx. seeld (_better_ selde). It is clear that _yelde_ in MS. A. arose from a reading _[gh]elde_, which really meant _zelde_, the Southern form of _selde_. See below.
Bk. ii. met. 3. 14. Cx. selde (_correctly_). And so again in Bk. ii. pr. 6. 15.
Bk. ii. pr. 6. 63. Cx. may I most. (MSS. C. A. _omit_ I.)
Bk. ii. pr. 8. 17. Cx. wyndy (which is right; see note, p. 434).
Bk. iii. pr. 1. 26. Cx. thyne (_better_ thyn, _as in_ Thynne).
Bk. iii. pr. 10. 10. Cx. denyed (_or read_ deneyed).
Bk. iii. pr. 10. 51. Cx. that the fader. (MSS. that this prince.) Caxton's translation is closer; Lat. text, _patrem_.
Bk. iii. pr. 11. 116. Cx. slepen.
Bk. iii. pr. 11. 152. Cx. maistow (Thynne _has_ mayst thou) MS. C. _omits_ thou; and MS. A. is defective.
Bk. iii. pr. 12. 143. Cx. Parmenides.
Bk. iv. pr. 6. 52. Cx. be cleped.
Bk. iv. pr. 6. 188, 189. Cx. and some dispyse that they mowe not here (_misprint for_ bere). MSS. C. and A. omit this clause.
Bk. v. pr. 1. 9, 10. Cx. assoilen to the the dette (where the former _the_ = thee).
Bk. v. pr. 3. 142. Cx. impetren.
In a few places, Caxton's text is somewhat fuller than that of the MSS. Thus in Bk. ii. pr. 3. 8, Cx. has: thei ben herd _and sowne in eeres_ thei, &c. However, the Lat. text has merely: 'cum audiuntur.' And again, only 9 lines lower (l. 17), Cx. inserts _and ajuste_ after _moeve_; but the Lat. text has merely: 'admouebo.' In some cases, it is closer to the Latin text; as, e. g. in Bk. i. met. 3. 9, where Cx. has _kaue_ (Lat. _antro_), whereas MSS. C. and A. have the pl. _kaues_. In Bk. i. pr. 3. 41, where C. has the E. form _Sorans_, Cx. preserves the Latin form _Soranos_.
It thus appears that a collation with Caxton's text is of considerable service.
THYNNE. Thynne's edition of Chaucer, printed in 1532, contains Boethius. I suspect that Thynne simply reprinted Caxton's text, without consulting any other authority; for it is hard to detect any difference, except that his spellings are somewhat less archaic. Hence this text, by a lucky accident, is an extremely good one, and I have constantly referred to it in all cases of difficulty. Readings from this edition are marked in the foot-notes with the symbol 'Ed.'
The later black-letter copies are mere reprints of Thynne's text, each being, as usual, a little worse than its predecessor, owing to the introduction of misprints and later forms. I have consulted the editions of 1550 (undated) and 1561. Perhaps the most readable edition is that by Chalmers, in vol. i. of his British Poets, as it is in Roman type. It closely resembles the edition of 1561, and is therefore not very correct.
§ 27. THE PRESENT EDITION.
The present edition is, practically, the first in which the preparation of the text has received adequate attention. Caxton's edition probably represents a single MS., though a very good one; and all the black-letter editions merely reproduce the same text, with various new errors. Dr. Morris's edition was unfortunately founded on an inferior MS., as he discovered before the printing of it was completed. Dr. Furnivall's text reproduces the excellent MS. C., but collation was rightly refrained from, as his object was to give the exact spellings of the MS. for the benefit of students. Hence there are several passages, in both of these editions, which do not afford the best sense; in a few places, they are less correct than the black-letter editions. It is also a considerable drawback to the reader, that they reproduce, of course intentionally and fully, the troublesome and obscure punctuation-marks of the MSS.
Finding the ground thus clear, I have taken occasion to introduce the following improvements. The text is founded on MS. C., certainly the best extant authority, which it follows, on the whole, very closely. At the same time, it has been carefully collated throughout with the text of MS. A., and (what is even more important) with the texts printed by Caxton and Thynne and with the original Latin text (1) as given in the edition by Obbarius (Jena 1843)[45] and (2) as existing in MS. C. The latter usually gives the exact readings of the MS. used by Chaucer himself. By taking these precautions, I have introduced a considerable number of necessary corrections, so that we now possess a very close approximation to the original text as it left Chaucer's hands. In all cases where emendations are made, the various readings are given in the foot-notes, where 'C.' and 'A.' refer to the two chief MSS., and 'Ed.' refers to Thynne's first edition (1532). But I have intentionally refrained from crowding these foot-notes with inferior readings which are certainly false. Some readings from the excellent MS. Ii. 1. 38 are given in the Notes; I now wish that I had collated it throughout. I have introduced modern punctuation. As I am here entirely responsible, the reader is at liberty to alter it, provided that he is justified in so doing by the Latin text.
Wherever Chaucer has introduced explanatory words and phrases which are not in the Latin text, I have printed them _in italics_; as in lines 6, 7, and 18 on page 1. However, these words and phrases are seldom original; they are usually translated or adapted from some of the Latin glosses and notes with which MS. C. abounds; as explained above, at p. xxxviii.
I have also adopted an entirely new system of numbering. In Dr. Morris's edition, every line of the _printed_ text is numbered consecutively, from 1 up to 5219, which is the last line of the treatise. In Dr. Furnivall's print of MS. C., a new numbering begins on every page, from 1 to 32, 33, 34, or 35. Both these methods are entirely useless for general reference. The right method of reference is Tyrwhitt's, viz. to treat every chapter separately. Thus a reference to 'Bk. 1. met. 2' serves for every edition; but I have further taken occasion to number the lines of every chapter, for greater convenience. Thus the word _acountinge_ occurs in Bk. i. met. 2. 10: and even in referring to a black-letter edition, the number 10 is of some use, since it shews that the word occurs very nearly _in the middle_ of the Metre. The usual method of referring to editions _by the page_ is an extremely poor and inconvenient makeshift; and it is really nearly time that editors should learn this elementary lesson. Unfortunately, some difficulty will always remain as to the numbering of the lines of _prose_ works, because the length of each line is indefinite. The longest chapter, Bk. iv. pr. 6, here extends to 258 lines; the shortest, Bk. iii. met. 3, has less than 7 lines.
I have also corrected the spelling of MS. C. in a large number of places, but within very narrow limits. The use of the final _e_ in that MS. is exceedingly correct, and has almost always been followed, except where notice to the contrary is given in the notes. My corrections are chiefly limited to the substitution of _in_ for _yn_, and of _i_ for short _y_, in such words as _bygynnen_, for which I write _biginnen_; the substitution of _y_ for long _i_, as in _whylom_, when the MS. has _whilom_; the use of _v_ for the MS. symbol _u_ (where necessary); the substitution of _sch_ or _ssh_ for _ss_, when the sound intended is double _sh_; and the substitution of _e_ and _o_ for _ee_ and _oo_ where the vowels are obviously long by their position in the word. I also substitute _-eth_ and _-ed_ for the variable _-eth_ or _-ith_, and _-ed_, _-id,_ or _-yd_ of the MS. Such changes render the text more uniformly phonetic, and much more readable, without really interfering with the evidence. Changes of a bolder character are duly noted.
The introduction of these slight improvements will not really trouble the reader. The trouble has been the editor's; for I found that the only satisfactory way of producing a really good text was to rewrite the whole of it. It seemed worth while to have a useful critical edition of 'Boethius' for general reference, because of the considerable use which Chaucer himself made of his translation when writing many of his later poems.
The Notes are all new, in the sense that no annotated edition of Chaucer's text has hitherto appeared. But many of them are, necessarily, copied or adapted from the notes to the Latin text in the editions by Vallinus and Valpy.
INTRODUCTION TO TROILUS.
§ 1. DATE OF THE WORK. The probable date is about 1380-2, and can hardly have been earlier than 1379 or later than 1383. No doubt it was in hand for a considerable time. It certainly followed close upon the translation of Boethius; see p. vii above.
§ 2. SOURCES OF THE WORK. The chief authority followed by Chaucer is Boccaccio's poem named _Il Filostrato_, in 9 Parts or Books of very variable length, and composed in ottava rima, or stanzas containing eight lines each. I have used the copy in the Opere Volgari di G. Boccaccio; Firenze, 1832.
Owing to the patient labours of Mr. W. M. Rossetti, who has collated the _Filostrato_ with the _Troilus_ line by line, and published the results of his work for the Chaucer Society in 1875, we are able to tell the precise extent to which Chaucer is indebted to Boccaccio for this story. The _Filostrato_ contains 5704 lines; and the _Troilus_ 8239 lines[46], if we do not reckon in the 12 Latin lines printed below, at p. 404. Hence we obtain the following result.
Total of lines in _Troilus_ 8239 Adapted from the _Filostrato_ (2730 lines, condensed into) 2583 ---- Balance due to Chaucer 5656
In other words, Chaucer's debt to Boccaccio amounts to _less than_ one-third of the whole poem; and there remains more than two-thirds of it to be accounted for from other sources. But even after all deductions have been made for passages borrowed from other authors, very nearly two-thirds remain for which Chaucer is solely responsible. As in the case of the Knightes Tale, close investigation shews that Chaucer is, after all, less indebted to Boccaccio than might seem, upon a hasty comparison, to be the case.
As it was found impracticable to give Mr. Rossetti's results in full, I have drawn up lists of parallel passages in a somewhat rough way, which are given in the Notes, at the beginning of every Book; see pp. 461, 467, 474, 484, 494. These lists are sufficiently accurate to enable the reader, in general, to discover the passages which are in no way due to the _Filostrato_.
§ 3. I have taken occasion, at the same time, to note _other_ passages for which Chaucer is indebted to some other authors. Of these we may
## particularly note the following. In Book I , lines 400-420 are translated
from Petrarch's 88th Sonnet, which is quoted at length at p. 464. In Book III , lines 813-833, 1625-9, and 1744-1768 are all from the second Book of Boethius (Prose 4, 86-120 and 4-10, and Metre 8). In Book IV , lines 974-1078 are from Boethius, Book V . In