V 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 82 . \ 
 
 Ut "Y apaem? 
 
 ILVNfV^lsiTY tsftY 
 
 si 
 
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 The person charging this material is responsible for its 
 renewal or return to the library on or before the due date. 
 The minimum fee for a lost item is $ 125 . 00 , $ 300.00 for 
 bound journals. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
 for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 
 the University. Please note: self-stick notes may result in 
 torn pages and lift some inks. 
 
 Renew via the Telephone Center at 217-333-8400 
 846-262-1510 (toll-free) orcirclib@uiuc.edu. 
 
 Renew online by choosing the My Account option at: 
 
 http://www.library.uiuc.edu/catalog/ 
 
 MAfl 2 2 2Q1Q 
 
 VCC 2SWS 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/fivehundredyears53spur 
 
Cfjattctr Sochtg. 
 
 Second Series, 53. 
 
 FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 OF CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 AND ALLUSION ( 1357 - 1900 ) 
 
 BY 
 
 CAROLINE F. E. SPURGEON 
 
 DOCTEUR DE l’uNIVERSITE DE PARIS 
 HON. LITT.D. MICHIGAN 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE ill THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 
 
 PART IV 
 
 APPENDIX A 
 
 „ / 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE CHAUCER SOCIETY 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 AMEN CORNER, LONDON, E.C. 4 , AND IN NEW YORK, 
 
 AND BY KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd., 
 
 68-74 CARTER LANE, LUDGATE HILL, LONDON, E.C. 4 . 
 
 1922 for the Issue of 1914. 
 
CIj t Cljnuctr Societg. 
 
 The Founder and Director was De. F. J. Fuenivall. 
 
 Hon. Sec. is W. A. Dalzikl, Esq., 67 Victoria Road, Finsbury Park, London, N. 4. 
 
 To do honour to Chatjcee, and to let the lovers and students of him see how far the 
 best unprinted Manuscripts of his works differd from the printed texts, this Society 
 was founded in 1868. There were then, and are still, many questions of metre, pro- 
 nunciation, orthography, and etymology yet to be settled, for which more prints of 
 Manuscripts were and are wanted ; and it is hardly too much to say that every line 
 of Chaucer contains points that need reconsideration. The founder (Dr. Furnivall) 
 began with The Canterbury Tales , and has given of them (in parallel columns in 
 Royal 4to) six of the best theretofore unprinted Manuscripts known. Inasmuch as 
 the parallel arrangement necessitated the alteration of the places of certain tales in 
 some of the MSS, a print of each MS has been issued separately, following the order 
 of its original. The first six MSS printed have been : the Ellesmere (by leave of tbe 
 Earl of Ellesmere) ; the Hengwrt (by leave of W. W. E. Wynne, Esq.) ; the Camb. 
 Univ. Libr., MS Gg. 4. 27 ; the Corpus, Oxford ; the Petworth (by leave of Lord 
 Leconfield) ; and the Lansdowne 851 (Brit. Mus.). The Harleian 7334 has followd, 
 and the Cambridge Dd., completed by Egerton 2726 (the HaistwellMS.). Specimens 
 of all accessible MSS of the Tales are now nearly completed, edited by the late Prof. 
 Zupitza, Ph.D., and Prof. John Koch, Ph.D. 
 
 Of Chaucer’s Minor Poems , — the MSS of which are generally later than the best 
 MSS of the Canterbury Tales, — all the available MSS have been printed, so as to 
 secure all the existing evidence for the true text. 
 
 Of Troilus , Parallel-Texts from the 6 best MSS have been issued (the Campsall 
 MS also separately), and a 7th MS text of it with the englisht Boccaccio Comparison. 
 Autotypes of most of the best Chaucer MSS have been publisht. 
 
 The Society’s publications are issued in two Series, of which the First contains the 
 different texts of Chaucer’s works; and the Second, such originals of and essays on 
 these as can be procured, with other illustrative treatises, and Supplementary Tales. 
 
 The yearly subscription, which constitutes Membership, is 2 guineas, beginning 
 with January 1, 1868. All the Society's Publications can still be had — except First 
 Series, Nos. 48, 54, 56. 
 
 The Society’s Hon. Secs, for America are, Prof. Kittredge, of Harvard College, 
 Cambridge, Mass., for the North and East, and Prof. Bright, of Johns Hopkins 
 University, Baltimore, for the South and West. Members’ names and subscriptions 
 should be sent to the home Hon. Sec., W. A. Dalziel, Esq., 67 Victoria Road, 
 Finsbury Park, London, N. 4. 
 
 FIRST SERIES. 
 
 The Society’s issue for 1868 , in the First Series, is, 
 
 I. The Prologue and Knight’s Tale, of the Canterbury Tales, in 6 parallel 
 Texts (from the 6 MSS named below), together with Tables, showing the 
 Groups of the Tales, and their varying order in 38 MSS of the Tales, and 
 in 5 old printed editions, and also Specimens from several MSS of the 
 “Moveable Prologues” of the Canterbury Tales, — The Shipman’s Prologue, 
 and Franklin’s Prologue, — when moved from their right places, and of the 
 Substitutes for them. (The Six-Text, Part I.) 
 
 II — VII. II. The Prologue and Knight’s Tale from the Ellesmere MS, Part I ; III. 
 Hengwrt MS, 154, Pt I ; IV. Cambridge MS Gg. 4. 27, Pt I ; V. Corpus 
 MS, Oxford, Pt I ; VI. Petworth MS, Pt I; VII. Lansdowne MS, 851, 
 Pt I. (Separate issues of the Texts forming Part I of the Six-Text edition.) 
 
 The issue for 1869, in the First Series, is, 
 
 VIII— XIII. VIII. The Miller’s, Reeve’s, and Cook’s Tales: Ellesmere MS, Part 
 II ; IX. Hengwrt MS, Pt II ; X. Cambridge MS, Pt II ; XI. Corpus MS, 
 Pt II ; XII. Petworth MS, Pt II; XIII. Lansdowne MS, Pt II, with an 
 Appendi” of “Gamelyn” from six MSS. 
 
 (Separate issues of the Texts forming the Six-Text, Part II, No. XIV.) 
 The issue for 1870, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XIV. The Miller’s, Reeve’s, and Cook’s Tales, with an Appendix of the Spurious 
 Tale of Gamelyn, in 6 parallel Texts. (Six-Text, Part II.) 
 
 The issue for 1871, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XV. The Man of Law’s, Shipman’s, and Prioress’s Tales, with Chaucer’s own 
 Tale of Sir Thopas, in 6 parallel Texts from the MSS above named, and 9 
 coloured drawings of Tellers of Tales, after the oi’iginals in the Ellesmere MS. 
 (&ix-Text, Part III.) 
 
 XVI. The Man of Law’s Tale, from the Ellesmere MS. Part III. 
 
 XVII. ,, „ „ „ „ Cambridge MS. Part III. 
 
 XVIII. „ / ,, „ „ „ „ Corpus MS. Part III. 
 
 XIX. The Shipman's, Prioress’s, and Man of Law’s Tales, from the Petworth MS. 
 Part III. 
 
FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 
 OF 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM AND ALLUSION 
 
FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 OF CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 AND ALLUSION (1357-1900) 
 
 BY 
 
 CAROLINE F. E. SPURGEON 
 
 DOCTEUR DE l’uNIVERSITE DE PARIS 
 HON. LITT.D. MICHIGAN 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 
 
 PART IV 
 
 APPENDIX A 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE CHAUCER SOCIETY 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 AMEN CORNER, LONDON, E.C. 4, AND IN NEW YORK, 
 
 and by KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd., 
 
 68-74 CARTER LANE, LUDGATE HILL, LONDON, E.C. 4. 
 
 1922 for the Issue of 1914. 
 
.Sctmtb Series, 53 
 
 Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, 
 
 BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 
 
ERRATA to FOREWORD TO PART I 
 
 Line 6, for Part II read Parts II and III. 
 
 ,, 8, „ Part III read the remaining Parts. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 
 Containing : 
 
 (1) Introductory Note, 
 
 and (in one Chronological Series) : 
 
 (2) Additional English and Latin References, with 
 
 (3) Notes on the Debt of some Writers to Chaucer. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 3 
 
 For many of the additional entries of the sixteenth and seven- 
 teenth centuries we are indebted to Professor Hyder E. Rollins, 
 ° of New York, who very kindly placed at our disposal a collection 
 which he had made while working on the Elizabethan ballad- 
 writers and on the influence of Henryson. 
 
 In a prefatory note Professor Rollins says 
 
 “ By far the majority of these allusions is to Troilus and 
 to Criseyde , and the number could be almost indefinitely increased. 
 
 ' In her Chaucer devant la Critique en Angleterre et en France 
 (1911) . . . Miss Spurgeon shows clearly enough that the Troilus 
 
 - up to 170Q (and later, for that matter) ‘est de beaucoup le 
 
 - plus populaire, le plus gen4ralement connu et le plus frequem- 
 !/» ment cite de tous les po^mes de Chaucer.’ Butin the Chaucer 
 ' Allusions her treatment of Troilus and Criseyde is not wholly 
 ^satisfactory. Wherever possible, she has rigidly excluded every 
 yjline that savors, or seems to savor, of Henryson’s Testament 
 ' of Cresseid , although from 1535 to 1650 this poem was, by almost 
 
 all readers and editors, thought to be Chaucer’s own work, and 
 vit so completely changed the course of Chaucer’s narrative that 
 after about 1560 Henryson’s Cresseid, not Chaucer’s Criseyde, 
 ^was the heroine always thought of, whether or not her leprosy 
 H was explicitly mentioned. Only a few allusions to Henryson’s 
 Cresseid have crept in here, but by excluding them one cannot 
 Ifope justly to show the influence of Chaucer’s own poem. 
 r 1 There are, to be sure, a number of tests by which one can 
 
 il 
 
 -separate allusions to Chaucer’s story from allusions to Henryson’s 
 — if one is determined to adopt so modern and unjustifiable an 
 
 y Attitude. When, for example, George Gascoigne wrote : 
 
 I found naught else but trickes of Cressides kinde, 
 Which playnly proude that thou weart of hir bloud. 
 I found that absent Troylus was forgot, 
 
 When Dyomede had got both brooch and belt, 
 
 Both gloue and hand, yea harte and all, God wot, 
 When absent Troylus did in sorowes swelt, 
 
 — PS CHAUCER CRITICISM. — IV. 
 
 82 S 748 
 
2 ) Appendix A. [a.d. 1391 — 
 
 he was certainly thinking of the Testament , from which he bor- 
 rowed the ‘belt’ and its riming-mate ‘swelt.’ But these lines 
 are closely followed by three others which imitate verses in 
 Chaucer’s Troilus (see No. 27). Again, in a passage quoted by 
 Miss Spurgeon (p. 110), Gascoigne refers to Cressid’s unchastity 
 with mention of both Chaucer and ‘Lollius,’ only to continue (in 
 lines not quoted in the Chaucer Allusions ) with a brief summary 
 of Henryson’s story. Gascoigne evidently thought that his 
 information came from Chaucer; and the two allusions which 
 Miss Spurgeon gives from the Posies utterly fail to indicate the 
 enormous fascination the Troilus-Cressida story, as told in every 
 edition of Chaucer’s works known to Gascoigne, had upon him. 
 Miss Spurgeon remarks, to be sure, that ‘ there are several refer- 
 ences to Cresside in Gascoigne’s poems ; these are possibly to 
 Chaucer’s poem, but no special reference is made to him.’ When, 
 however, Gascoigne wrote even such an insignificant line as 
 
 As Pandars niece (if she wer here) would quickly giue hir 
 place, 1 
 
 he was definitely referring to Chaucer. For Chaucer invented 
 the niece-fiction, and Pandar is not once mentioned in the Testa- 
 ment. So, too, when poets tell us that Troilus knew in love no 
 law until he saw Cressid praying at the church (Nos. 16, 18, 22) 
 or that Troilus ‘ by help of his friend Pandarus ’ gained Cressid’s 
 love (No. 36), they are indisputably referring to Chaucer, however 
 unimportant the allusion may be. 
 
 Peculiarly enough, too, the Chaucer Allusions contains only one 
 quotation from George Turbervile — a bare reference in his Book of 
 Falconry (1575) to ‘a Canterbury tale’; whereas the Troilus- 
 Cressida story influenced Turbervile even more than Gascoigne. 
 He alluded to it constantly, though, like Gascoigne, he usually 
 had the Cresseid of the Scotch poet in mind (see Nos. 19, 26, 40). 
 Some distinction, of course, must be made between allusions to 
 genuine and to uncanonical works, but in drawing a sharp dis- 
 tinction between Troilus and Criseyde and the Testament of 
 Cresseid , an allusion book might almost defeat its own purpose.” 
 
 It is, however, only partly true that we have drawn a distinc- 
 tion between Chaucer’s genuine and uncanonical works. It seemed 
 to us that where a writer expressed an opinion about one of 
 the latter, he was, if he attributed it to Chaucer, and not other- 
 wise, expressing an opinion about Chaucer. And false and 
 unfounded opinions about him may be as significant as true and 
 well-founded ones. Thus it is surely of the greatest interest to 
 
 1 Complete Poems of Gascoigne , ed. Hazlitt, I. 55. 
 
1420 ] Appendix A. ^ 3 
 
 note the rise and decay of the legend based on the acceptance as 
 genuine of the Court of Love and Testament of Love ; and all such 
 allusions are carefully collected here. Allusions to the story of 
 Troilus which do not clearly point to Chaucer’s story are really 
 on the border-line ; they may be taken in the main as involving a 
 tacit attribution of Henryson’s poem to him, and so far Professor 
 Rollins’s criticism is just. Considerations of time and space, 
 however, prevent us from making a special search for additions 
 which would be numerous and of very minor importance. But 
 with this reservation we have gratefully incorporated nearly all 
 Professor Rollins’s entries ; they are distinguished by their 
 numbers in his series, to facilitate the references in his note 
 quoted above. 
 
 1391, June 17. Writ commanding Chaucer to deliver to John Gedney 
 the office of Clerk of the Works. Exch. Q.R. Accounts, Works 6 4r 2 - 
 (Kirk 236.) 15 ‘ 
 
 1412-20. Lydgate, John. The hystorye, sege and dystruccyon of Troy e 
 MS. Cott. Aug. 4, fol. 48 h. [See pt. i, pp. 23, 24 above. These 
 are additional references.] 
 
 MasUine 01 ' -^ 0 take on me it were but hi^e foly 
 quoted in i n an y W y Se £ 0 a dde more per-to 
 above.] For wel I wot anoon as I haue do 
 
 pat I in soth no panke disserue may 
 Because pat he [Chaucer] in writyng was so gay 
 And but I write I mote pe troupe leue 
 Of troye boke and my mater breue 
 And ouer-passe and nat go by and by 
 [col. 2] As Guydo dop in ordre ceryously 
 
 And pus I most don offenciourc, 
 poru^e necligence or presumpcknm 
 So am I sette euene amyddes tweyne 
 Gret cause haue I & mater to compleyne. 
 
 [7 following lines are quoted in pt. i, p. 24 above, ending] 
 To god I pray pat he his soule haue 
 After whos help of nede I most crave 
 And seke his boke [ Troilus ] pat is left be hynde 
 Som goodly worde per in for to fynde 
 To sette amonge pe crokid lynys rude 
 Whiche I do write as by similitude 
 
4 
 
 [a.d. 1420 - 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 pe ruby stant so royal of renoun 
 With Inne a ryng of copur or latoun 
 So stant }>e makyng of hym doutles 
 Among oure bokis of englische perles 
 pei arn ethe to knowe J>ei ben so excellent 
 per is no makyng to his equipolent 
 We do but halt who so takep hede 
 pat medle of makyng with outen any drede 
 Whan we wolde his stile counterfet 
 We may al day oure colour grynde & bete 
 Tempre our a 30 ur and vermyloun 
 But al I holde but presumpcioun 
 
 [c. 1420 P] Unknown. Inscription on MS. Cotton Galba E., ix, fol. 1 b. 
 [Quoted in J. Hall’s Poems of Laurence Minot, 1914, p. vii.] 
 
 [Rollins 1.] 
 
 Chaucer, Exemplar emendate scriptum. 
 
 1430. Lydgate, John. Fall of Princes. 
 
 He wrot also / ful many a day agone, 
 
 Dante in ynglyssh / hym-sylff so doth expresse, 
 
 The pitous story of Ceix and Alcyone . . . 
 
 [See pt. i, p. 38. We believe that Professor Kittredge has pointed out, though not 
 in print, that Lydgate here does not say that Chaucer wrote “Dante in English,” 
 but is merely calling Chaucer “our English Dante,” and repeating Chaucer’s own 
 statement in Prol. L.G. W. that he had written Ceyx and Alcyone. In any case the 
 Hous of Fame is far more French than Italian.] 
 
 [c. 1444. Lydgate, John.] Poem on the truce of 1444. 
 
 Comoun Astrologeer . . . 
 
 [See pt. i, p. 46. Professor Tatlock points out that this phrase for the Cock is from 
 Troilus , iii, 1415.] 
 
 [c. 1445 ? De la Pole, William, Duke of Suffolk?] How the louer ys sett 
 to serve the floure , stanzas 3 and 4. MS. Fairfax 16, Bodleian 
 Library, fol. 326. [Printed by Dr. H. N. MacCracken in Publica- 
 tions of the Modern Language Association of America, vol. xxvi, 
 No. 1, March 1911, p. 169.] 
 
 So wolde god, that my symple connyng 
 
 Ware sufficiaunt this goodly flour to prayse, 
 
 For as to me ys non so ryche a thyng 
 
 That able were this flour to countirpayse, 
 
 O noble Chaucer, passyd ben thy dayse, 
 
 Off poetrye ynamyd worthyest, 
 
 And of makyng in alle othir days the best. 
 
1450] 
 
 Appendix A . 
 
 5 
 
 Now thou art gon, thyn helpe I may not haue ; 
 
 Wherfor to god I pray, ryght specially, 
 
 Syth thou art ded, and beryde in thy graue, 
 
 That on thy soule hym lyst to haue mercy. 
 
 And to the monke of bury now speke I, — 
 
 For thy connyng, ys syche, and eke thy grace, 
 
 After Chaucer to occupye his place. 
 
 [For the question of authorship see the article by Dr. 
 H. N. MacCracken referred to above, An English Friend 
 of Charles of Orleans , in Publications of the Modern Lan- 
 guage Association'of America, vol. xxvi, pp. 142 et seq. Dr. 
 MacCracken thinks Suffolk was the translator of Charles 
 d’Orleans’s poems (MS. Harleian 682). With regard to the 
 Chaucer reference in these English poems in the Roxburghe 
 edn., see above, pt. ii, sect, i, p. 167, 1827, Taylor.] 
 
 [c. 1445.] Unknown. Headline to 1 Lack of Stedfastness .’ 
 
 [In MS. Bodley Hatton 73 there is an older title to Lack 
 of Stedfastness discovered by Dr. H. N. MacCracken by 
 applying acid. The revived title reads :] 
 
 Geffrey Chauncier sende these Balades to kyng Richard. 
 
 [See Modern Language Notes, Nov. 1908, p. 214.] 
 
 [a. 1450.] Unknown. The Tale of Beryn. The Prologue , or the 
 mery adventure of the Pardonere and Tapstere at the Inn at Canter- 
 bury. Duke of Northumberland’s MS., fol. 188, verso. (Chaucer 
 Society, ed. F. J. Furnivall and W. G. Stone, 1887, p. 22, 11. 680-4. 
 The transcript is taken from this edition, not from the MS.) 
 
 Now, qwod j?e hoost of South work [MS. South word], 
 
 & to pe feleshipp bent. 
 
 Who sawe evir so feir, or [evir] so glad a day ? 
 
 And how sote this seson is, entring in to may, 
 
 *[When Chauceres daysyes sprynge. Herke eek the 
 
 fowles syngyng,] 
 
 The thrustelis & the thrusshis, in fis glad mornyng. 
 
 [The Tale of Beryn is a supplement to the Canterbury 
 Tales, and in the prologue Chaucer’s characters (the Pardoner, 
 Sompnour, Reve, the Clerk, of ‘Oxinforth,’ the Kny^t, the 
 Miller, etc., and the ‘ Hoost of South work J ) are depicted at 
 Canterbury, and we see their adventures there. On the way 
 back they decide not to draw lots as to who shall tell a tale, 
 and the Merchant offers to tell the tale of Beryn. The 
 
 * This line is not in Urry, and was apparently supplied by Dr. Furnivall. 
 
6 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 [A.D. 1450 - 
 
 Prologue is thus an indirect appreciation of Chaucer’s work, 
 in its sincerest form, imitation. It opens thus :] 
 
 When aH this ffressh[e] feleship were com to Cauntirbury, 
 As ye have herd to-fore, with talys glad & merry, 
 
 (Som of sotiH centence, of 1 vertu & of 1 love, 
 
 And som of* othir myrthis, for hem pat hold no store 
 Of wisdom, ne of H holynes, ne of 1 chiualry, 
 
 Nethir of* vertuouse matere, but [holich] to foly 
 Leyd wit & lustis ah, to such [e nyce] lapis 
 As Hurlewaynes meyne in every hegg that capes 
 Thurgh unstabiH mynde, . . .) 
 
 They toke hir In, & loggit hem at mydmorowe, I trowe 
 Atte “ Cheker of" the hope ” pat many a man doith knowe. 
 
 [c. 1450.] Burgh, Benedict. Translation of Cato’s Disticha Moralia , 
 stanza 41. [MS. Harl. 4733, fol. 9 6.] 
 
 The lymytour pat vysiteth the wyfys 
 Ys wyse y-nough of hym a man may lere 
 To 3 eue gnidelis [needles] pynnys and knyuys 
 This craff is good thys doth the sely frere 
 3euith thyngys smale for thyngys pat bene dere 
 3 if thu resceyue 3 eue ay sum what agayne 
 And that wull noryssh frendys dere sertayne. 
 
 [According to Caxton’s prologue to his own translation of Cato, 1483, Burgh made 
 his for William, Viscount Bourchier ; the latter was probably not born much before 
 1435, and was married in 1466. It is likely that this translation was made for him 
 during his youth. The reference is to Prol., 11. 233-4.] 
 
 1450[-51]. Cumberworth, Sir Thomas. Will , made 15 Feb. 1450-51. 
 [In Bishop Marmaduke Lumley’s Register at Lincoln ; printed 
 in Lincoln Diocese Documents , 1450-1544, ed. Andrew Clark, 
 E. E. T. Soc., 1914, p. 49.] 
 
 And I will my nese Annes . . . haue . . . my boke of 
 the talys of cantyrbury. 
 
 [c. 1450.] Shirley, John. Headline to Stanza in Lord Ellesmere’s 
 Lydgate MS., fol. 3, foot. 
 
 To yowe Chaucer. 
 
 [This comes at the foot of the page, and the verso is blank. 
 Possibly the stanza intended to follow it was the * commend- 
 acions of Chaucer ’ from Lydgate’s Life of Our Lady. See 
 above, 1409-11.] 
 
1470] Appendix A. 7 
 
 [c. 1450.] Unknown. Headline to 1 Truth.' 
 
 [In MS. Bodley Hatton 73, there is an older headline to 
 Truth, discovered by Dr. H. N. MacCracken. It reads :] 
 
 ‘Chauncier [his?] balade up on his deth bed.’ 
 
 [This is interesting, as the statement is thus placed on an 
 earlier and firmer basis than John Shirley’s word in MS. 
 Tr. Coll. R. 3. 20 ; for Hatton is not derived from Shirley. 
 See Modern Language Notes , Nov. 1908, p. 214.] 
 
 [c. 1450.] Unknown. A Song between Palamon , Ersyte, and Emlyn. 
 [Five stanzas, “copied from a MS. of the time of Henry VI. pre- 
 served in the library of Trinity College, Dublin,” and printed in 
 Wright and Halliwell’s Reliquiae Antiquae, vol. ii, p. 11.] 
 
 [Rollins 2.] 
 
 [st. 4] O thou, Emlyne, thi fayrenes 
 
 Brought Palamon and Ersyte in gret distresse ; 
 
 In a garden whan thou didist syng 
 So fresshely in a May mornyng. 
 
 [c. 1470?] Unknown. Selections and alterations in the manuscript of 
 Chaucer’s Monkes Tale in Trinity College, Cambridge MS.,R. 3, 19. 
 
 [On folio 1 70 & a prohemium begins, 
 
 Worshipfull and dyscrete that here present be 
 I wyll yow tell a tale, two or thre, 
 
 which continues in the terms of the monk’s opening speech, 
 Oxford Chaucer, B. 3158-3180. The first line as here given, 
 and the alteration in the second line are the work of the 
 person who made the extracts ; the rest are all Chaucer’s. 
 There follows the Monkes Tale , B. 3181-3196 (De Lucifero). 
 Then, because Chaucer has not done justice to Adam in his 
 one poor stanza, the scribe substitutes Lydgate’s long 
 account of Adam in the Fall of Princes, and certain envoys 
 from the same source, in Bk. I, chaps. 1, 3, 4, 8 (in part). 
 This takes up to folio 179 a, where the scribe goes back 
 to Monkes Tale and completes it (with the exception of 
 11. 3565-3588, and 1. 364 which are omitted) from Sampson 
 to Cresus, B. 3205-3956. 
 
 Having completed the Monkes Tale , and added his Explicit , 
 the scribe goes on with the extracts and envoys from the 
 Fall of Princes, in the following order : Books I, chapters 6, 
 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, 23; II, 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, 25, 
 27, 30; III, 5, 9, 10, 14, 17, 20. 
 
 This is notable as an indication of the taste which 
 
8 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1474 - 
 
 could select this tale of all others for reading, and then 
 substitute Lydgate for Chaucer. 
 
 See note by Dr. H. N. MacCracken in Modern Language 
 Notes, March 1908, p. 93, from which this is summarised.] 
 
 [1474.] Caxton, William. The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye. 
 (Ed. H. 0. Sommer, vol. ii, pp. 601, 604.) 
 
 [Rollins 3.] 
 
 [p. 60 i] Calcas that by the comandement of Appolyn had lefte 
 the troians / had a passing fayr doughter and wyse named 
 breseyda / Chaucer in his booke that he made of Troylus 
 named her creseyda. 
 
 [p. 604] Ther was neuer seen so moche sorowe made betwene two 
 louers at their departyng / who that lyste to here of alle 
 theyr loue / late bym rede the booke of troyllus that chawcer 
 made j wherin he shall fynde the storye hooll / whiche were 
 to longe to wryte here. 
 
 1476-7. Spirleng, Geoffrey and Thomas. Colophon to MS. Hunterian 
 197. Canterbury Tales . (Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the 
 . . . Hunterian Museum, 1908, p. 140.) 
 
 [f. io 2 m] Orate pro salute animarum Galfridi Spirleng Ciuis Norwici 
 Court holder Clerici maioratus et Comitatis dicte Comitatis 
 ac Thome Spirleng filij sui qui scribendo hunc librum com- 
 plenerunt mense Januarij anno domini Millesimo cccc mo 
 lxxvj 0 que [quo?] tempore dictus Galfridus quasi quinqua- 
 ginta et dictus Thomas quasi Sedecimo etatis extiterunt 
 annorum. 
 
 [c. 1490.] Colet, John. Study of Chaucer. See supra, pt. i, p. 73, 
 Erasmus, 1519. 
 
 [In pt. i, p. 73, this is entered under 1519, the date of Erasmus’ letter ; but it 
 s’ould have been entered as c. 1490 ; for Erasmus distinctly refers to the period 
 of Colet’s life prior to his journey to Italy in 1493.] 
 
 [c. 1500.] Unknown. A ryght pleasaunt and merye Historic of the 
 Mylner of Abyngdon , with his wife , and his fagi'e daughter : and 
 of two poor scholers of Cambridge . . . Imprinted at London by 
 Rycharde Ihones. 
 
 [The unique copy of this edition is in the Bodleian ; that 
 of Wynkyn de Worde’s, also undated, was at Brit well. The 
 poem is probably much older than any printed edition. 
 
 The plot is that of the Reves Tale, but it may be inde- 
 pendently derived from a French fabliau. See the reprint 
 in Thomas Wright’s Anecdota Literaria, 1844.] 
 
9 
 
 1507] 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 1501. 
 
 Gavin. The Palis of Honoure. (Poetical 
 1874, vol. i, p. 22.) [1st ed. in B.M., Copland 
 
 si S- C4b - ] [Rollins 5. 
 
 Douglas, 
 ed. J . Small, 
 
 Works, 
 
 [1553], 
 
 Thair wes Arsyte, and Palemon alswa 
 Accumpanyit with fare Emylya, 
 
 The quene Dido with hir fals luf Enee, 
 
 Trew Troylus, vnfaythfull Cressida. 
 
 [Mr. Rollins says: “The context makes it almost 
 
 certain that Douglas had in mind the Legend of Good 
 Women (cf. Miss Spurgeon’s quotation, p. 71, from Douglas) 
 as well as the Troilus and the Knight's , Tale. There are 
 other allusions in Douglas similar to this.” See also above, 
 pt. i, p. 65.] 
 
 [n.h. 1606.] Unknown. Verses, written on the flyleaf of a copy of 
 Durandus, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, Lyons, 1506, panted 
 in Notes and Queries , ser. i, vol. vii, pp. 568-9, 11 June 1853, 
 by W. H. G. 
 
 [Stanza 4th and last begins :] 
 
 O ye imps of Chynner [i. e. Chaucer], ye Lydgatys pene, 
 With the spright of bookkas ye goodly inspirryd, 
 
 Ye Ynglyshe poet [etc.]. 
 
 [c. 1507.] Skelton, John. Phyllyp Sparowe. (Works, ed. A. Dyce, 
 1855, I, 84-85), 11. 672 ff. [Earliest ed. in B.M., Kele [1545?], 
 sig. B 8 b -C l b .] \See also above, pt. i, p. 68.] 
 
 [Rollins 6.] 
 
 And though I can expounde 
 Of Hector of Troye, . . . 
 
 And of the loue so hote 
 That made Troylus to dote 
 Ypon fayre Cressyde, 
 
 And what they wrote and sayd, 
 
 And of theyr wanton wylles 
 Pandaer [sic] bare the bylies 
 From one to the other ; 
 
 His maisters loue to further, 
 
 Sometyme a presyous thyng, 
 
 An ouche, or els a ryng ; 
 
 From her to hym agayn 
 Somtyme a prety chayn, 
 
10 
 
 [A.D. 1510- 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 Or a bracelet of her here; 
 
 Prayd Troylus for to were 
 That token for her sake ; 
 
 How hartely he dyd it take, 
 
 And moche therof dyd make 
 And all that was in vayne, 
 
 For she dyd bnt fayne ; 
 
 The story telleth playne . . . 
 
 Disparaged is her fame ; 
 
 And blemysshed is her name, 
 
 In maner half with shame ; 
 
 Troylus also hath lost 
 On her moch loue and cost, 
 
 And now must kys the post ; 
 
 Pandara [sic], that went betwene, 
 
 Hath won nothing, I wene, 
 
 But lyght for somer grene ; 
 
 Yet for a speciall laud 
 He is named Troylus baud, 
 
 Of that name he is sure, 
 
 Whyles the world shall dure. 
 
 [c. 1510.] Skelton, John. Skelton Lauriate Defend[er\ Agenst M. 
 Garnesche Challenger , et Cetera. (Works, ed. Dyce, 1843, 2 vols., 
 vol. i, p. 117.) 
 
 [Rollins 7.] 
 
 . . . your semely snowte doth passe, 
 
 Plowkyd as a hawkys beke, lyke Syr Topyas. 
 
 , [Sir Thopas, 11. 17-18.] 
 
 [Skelton possibly had these verses also in mind when he 
 later wrote of Garnesche (Works, vol. i, p. 130) : 
 
 For thow hast a long snowte, 
 
 A semely nose and a stowte.] 
 
 1516. Cornish, William. The Story of Troylous and Pandor [sic]. 
 [Unpublished. See C. W. Wallace, Evolution of the English 
 Drama up to Shakespeare, Berlin, 1912, pp. 48, 50-2, 54.] 
 
 [Rollins 8.] 
 
 [This comedy was played by fifteen actors on Twelfth 
 Night, 1515/16. Cornish took the r61e of Calchas. “The 
 
11 
 
 1528] Appendix A. 
 
 children acted the rdles of Troilus, Cressid, Diomed, Pandor 
 Imc], Ulysses, and others not named. . . . The play was a 
 free adaptation of the love-theme of Chaucer’s Troilus and 
 Criseyde . . . . Even Chaucer’s ‘ Criseyda in widowes habite 
 blak ’ remained in the account of the furnishings as ‘ Kryssyd 
 imparylled lyke a wedow of onour, in blake sarsenet and 
 other abelements for seche mater.’” Other borrowings 
 from Chaucer are also discussed by Professor Wallace.] 
 
 f c . 1520.1 Unknown. Here is the boke of mayd Fmlyn that had .v. 
 
 1 Husbandes and all kockoldes, John Skot, n.d. (Ed. E. F. Rim- 
 bault, Percy Society, 1842, vol. vi, pp. 13-29.) 
 
 [Rollins 9.] 
 
 [p . is] mayde Emlynne, 
 
 That had husbandes fyue, 
 
 And all did neuer thryue. 
 
 f p. i6] She coude byte and wliyne. 
 
 [Cf. “ For' as an hors I coude byte and whyne.” 
 
 Wife of Bath’s Prologue, i, 386.] 
 
 [Rimbault, p. viii, remarks that this poem “ bears some 
 slight resemblance ” to the Wife of Bath’s Prologue. The 
 resemblance is far from slight. Chaucer’s poem no doubt 
 suggested this Mayd Emlyn. The whole tone of the two 
 poems is the same, although the author has greatly debased 
 Emlyn.] 
 
 1523. Skelton, John. Skelton , Laureate , Ac. Howe the Douty Duke 
 of Albany. Lyke a Cowarde Knyght, Ran Avxtye Shamfully , with 
 an Hundred Thousande Tratlande Scottes and Faint Parted 
 Frenchmen , beside the Water of Twede, Ac. (Works, ed. A. Dyce, 
 
 1855, ii, 330.) „ 
 
 ’ ’ [Rollins 10.] 
 
 But hyde the, sir Topias, 
 Nowe into the castell of Bas, 
 
 And lurke there, like an as. 
 
 1528. Tyndale, William. The Obedience of a Christen Man, To the 
 Reader, f. xx, recto. (Ed. by R. Lovett [1888], Christian Classics 
 Series, no. v, p. 67.) 
 
 They [the ecclesiastical authorities] permitte & sofre you 
 to reade Robyn hode & bevise of hampton, hercules, hector 
 and troylus with a tousand histories & fables of love & 
 wantones & of rybaudry . . . 
 
12 
 
 Appendix A. [ a . d . 1531- 
 
 1531 - 2 . Gaunte, William. Will of 12 March 1531-2 (proved 16 
 April 1532), [in] Lincolnshire Wills , 1500-1600, ed. A. R. 
 Maddison, 1888, p. 8. 
 
 [In this will William Gaunte, of Biddle thorpe, Lincoln- 
 shire gives his son John] 
 
 Certain inglysh bokes : Legenda aurea, Crownacles, 
 
 Canterbury tales, and lyttylton teners. 
 
 [This was perhaps a copy of one of Caxton’s editions.] 
 
 [n.a. 1534 .] Unknown. The Payne and Sorowe of Euyll Maryage 
 Wynkyn de Worke (Percy Society reprint, 1840). 
 
 [Rollins 12.] 
 
 [Wynkyn de Worde died in 1534.] 
 
 [st. 14] ... Salamon sayth there be thynges thre, 
 
 Shrewde wyves, rayne, and smokes blake 
 Make husbandes ofte theyr house to forsake. 
 
 [Possibly a reference to Wife of Bath's Prologue, ii, 278 
 81, but the passage in Proverbs was very often quoted.] 
 
 [st. 16 ] They them rejoyce to se and to be sene, 
 
 And for to seke sondrye pylgrymages, 
 
 At greate gaderynges to walke on the grene, 
 
 And on scaffoldes to sytte on hygh stages, 
 
 If they be fay re to she we theyr vy sages. 
 
 [Possibly a reference to Wife of Bath's Prologue , ii, 555- 
 559.] 
 
 1538 , Smyth, Walter. Will. (P. C. C. Wills, 8 Cromwell, 1538.) 
 
 To John More, Chauscer of Talles. 
 
 [Walter Smyth, the author of the Twelve Merry Jests of the Widow Edith , was a 
 member of the household of Sir Thomas More.] 
 
 [a, 1542.] Wyatt, Sir Thomas. Influence of Chaucer. 
 
 [The influence on Wyatt of Chaucer’s verse as read in 
 Pynson and Thynne is very marked. See, for a detailed 
 examination of this, A Study of Sir Thomas Wyatt's Poems , 
 by A. K. Foxwell, London, 1911, chaps, vi and vii. There 
 are also resemblances in phrase and in word forms, see ibid., 
 pp. 53-6 ; and one poem of Wyatt’s, ‘ If thou wilt mighty 
 be, flee from the rage ’ (Tottel’s Miscellany, Arber’s reprint, 
 1895, p. 224) is probably founded on Chaucer’s prose trans- 
 lation of Boethius, though it may be translated from the 
 Latin original ; see ibid., p. 57. For Wyatt, see above, 
 pt. i, p. 83.] 
 
13 
 
 1545] Appendix A. 
 
 1542. Leland, John. Naeniae in mortem Thomx Viati equitis incom- 
 parabilis, Aij recto. 
 
 Ioannis Lelandi Antiquarii carmen ad Henrieum Houar- 
 dum Regnorum comitem iuuenem turn nobiliss. turn doctis- 
 simum. 
 
 Accipe Regnorum comes illustrissime carmen, 
 
 Quo mea Musa tuum laudauit moestaViatum 
 Non expectato sublatum funere terris. 
 
 Nominis ille tui dum vixit magnus amator. 
 
 Tu modo non viuum coluisti candidus ilium, 
 
 Yerum etiam vita defunctum carmine tali 
 Collaudasti, quale suum Chaucerus auitae 
 Dulce decus linguae vel iuste agnosceret esse. 
 
 [c. 1545.] Leland, John. [Life of Chaucer in] Commentarii de Scriptor- 
 ibus Britannicis, ed. A. Hall, Oxford, 1709, pp. 419-26. 
 
 Cap. DV. De Gallofrido Chaucer o. 
 
 [p. 419 ] Gallofridus Chaucerus , nobili loco natus, & summae spei 
 juvenis, Isiacas scholas tarn diligenter, quam qui maxim e, 
 celebravit : id quod ut faceret, academiae vicinitas quodam- 
 modo invitavit. Nam quibusdam argumentis adducor ut 
 
 Lp. 420 ] credam, Isiacam vel Berochensem provinciam illius natale 
 solum fuisse. Hinc acutus dialecticus, hinc dulcis rhetor, 
 hinc lepidus poeta, hinc gravis philosophus, hinc ingeniosus 
 mathematicus (qua parte & a Joanne Somaeo, & Nicolao f 
 Carmelita Linensi , viris in mathesi eruditis, quos in libro de 
 Sphcera nominat, instructus fuit) hinc denique sanctus 
 theologus evasit. Maxima equidem sum locutus ; at 
 quisquis ejus libros curiosa manu evolverit, me bonae 
 fidei praeconem facile judicabit. Ingenue tamen fatebor 
 sic eum Isiaci studuisse, ut & alibi etiam longo studiorum 
 usu multa ad scientiae cumulum adjecerit. Constat utique 
 ilium circa postremos Richardi secundi, cui non incognitus 
 erat, annos in Gallia floruisse, magnamque ex assidua in 
 literis exercitatione gloriam sibi comparasse : turn praeterea 
 eadem opera omnes veneres, lepores, delicias, sales, ac pos- 
 tremo gratias linguae Gallicce tarn alte coimbibisse, quam 
 cuiquam vix credibile. Laus ista Gallofridum in Angliam 
 reversum sequebatur, tanquam comes ejus virtutis individua. 
 Ejusmodi igitur laetus successibus forum Londinense <fc 
 
14 [Leland] Appendix A. [A. D. 1545 
 
 collegia leguleiorum, qui ibidem patria jura interpretantur, 
 frequentavit, ut & ante Galtiam cognitam forsitan fecerat. 
 
 Illis temporibus inter forenses clarissimus erat Joannes 
 G over us, cujus vitam prsescripsimus, homo venerandse setatis, 
 & qui mirum in modum Anglicce linguse politiei studebat. 
 Hie, perspecta indole & examinata Gallofridi probitate, 
 ilium in familiarem sibi accivit, ilium ulnis amplexus est, 
 ilium etiam in honestis deliciis habuit, ilium denique 
 tanquam numen aliquod modo non veneratus est. Ut ego 
 taceam, ipsemet Governs in libro, qui titulo Amantis in- 
 scribitur, abunde satis declarat, quanti suum Chaucerum 
 fecerit ; quern accuratissime prius laudatum, eximium vocat 
 poetam, & sui operis quasi Aristarchum facit. Ecce tibi, 
 lector, pulcherrimum virtutis certamen, nam ut Governs , 
 honorem parum sibi tribuens, lucubrationes, quas consum- 
 maverat Gallofridi ' judicio modeste submisit : sic rursus 
 Chaucerus Amores Troili Goveri & Strodcei calculis subjecit. 
 Sed quis hie Strodceus fuerit, apud autorem nullum hactenus 
 legi. At memini interim legisse me illustria de Strodceo , 
 Maridunensis societatis ad Isidis Vadum alumno, in poesi 
 [p. 421 ] eruditissimo, qui & in catalogo Maridunensium postremis 
 Eadveardi tertii annis adscribitur. Tantum apparet ex 
 Gallofridi versiculis philosophise studiosum fuisse. Adde 
 hue, quod quemadmodum Chaucerus admirator simul & 
 sectator Goveri , ita . . . [stops as in text] Schoganus, cujus 
 sepulchrum Visimonasterii extat, vir ad omnes facetias & 
 sales compositus, Chaucer i admirator ac imitator fuit. At 
 rursus, quanto discipulus Chaucerus major Govero prseceptore 
 suo, tanto minor erat Schoganus Chaucero. 
 
 Nunc vero orationis series postulat, ut aperte doceamus 
 quern scopum Gallofridum studiis prsefixerit. Profecto ejus 
 scopus unicus fuit, ut linguam Anglicam numeris omnibus 
 quam ornatissimam redderet, viderat enim Goverum in 
 eodem negotio belle processisse. Quare nullum non moven- 
 dum sibi lapidem putabat, quo ad supremam felicitatis 
 metam perveniret. Et quoniam poesim prseter csetera 
 semper dilexit, amavit, coluit ; visum est ei vel commodis- 
 simum per ilium ad ipsa eloquentise culmina viam patefacere. 
 Tale etenim est poesis, ut tropos, elegantias, ornamenta, 
 copiam, & quicquid venerum & leporum est, non modo 
 admittat, verum, quod multo majus, suo quodam jure poscat. 
 
[. Leland ] 15 
 
 1545] Appendix A. 
 
 Adde hue, quod Italos k Gallos , qui plurima suis linguis terse, 
 nitide, ac eleganter scripserunt, in partem operis evocaverit. 
 Tantum est inclytos habere duces, quos sequaris. Petrarcha 
 circa haec tempora in Italia claruit, cujus opera lingua ibidem 
 vernacula eo elegantiae perducta est, ut cum ipsa Latina 
 de eloquentiae palma contenderit. Quidam etiam Alanus 
 linguam Gallicam infinitis modis expoliebat. Uterque 
 istorum (multos alios clarissimae notae homines, qui eadem 
 fecerunt, omitto) calcar Chaucer o, alioqui sua sponte satis 
 currenti, addidit. Bonis igitur avibus incepto operi incubuit, 
 nunc libellos Gallica lingua compte, ornate, diserte scriptos 
 in patrium sermonem transferens ; nunc Latinos versus 
 Anglicis , sed docte, sed apte, sed canore exprimens ; nunc 
 multa e suo capite nata, & Latinorum felicitatem aequantia, 
 victuris chartis commendans ; nunc lectori ut prodesset 
 nervis omnibus contendens, & vicissim ut eundem delectaret 
 sedulo curans : nec antea finem fecit, quam linguam nostram 
 ad earn puritatem, ad earn eloquentiam, ad earn denique 
 brevitatem ac gratiam perduxerat, ut inter expolitas gentium 
 [p. 422 ] linguas posset recte quidem connumerari. Itaque in libris 
 meorum Epigrammaton his versibus ejus glorise assurgo : 
 
 Prsedicat Aligerum merito Florentia Dantern , 
 
 Italia & numeros tota, Petrarche , tuos : 
 
 Anglia Chaucer um venera tur nostra poetam, 
 
 Cui veneres debet patria lingua suas. 
 
 Et rursus : 
 
 Dum juga montis aper, frondes dum laeta volucris, 
 Squamiger & liquidas piscis amabit aquas : 
 
 Mceonides, Grcecce linguae clarissimus autor, 
 
 Aonio primus carmine semper erit. 
 
 Sic quoque Virgilius Romance gloria musae 
 Maxima, vel Phcebo judice, semper erit. 
 
 Nec minus & noster Galfridus summa Britctnnce 
 Chaucer us citharae gratia semper erit. 
 
 Illos quis nescit felicia saecla tulisse, 
 
 Hunc talem & tantum protulit hora rudis. 
 
 Tempora vidisset quod si florentia musis, 
 iEquasset celebres, vel superasset avos. 
 
 Neque hie pigebit in medium adducere Hendecasyllabos, 
 ex eodem fonte petitos, quos aliquot ab hinc annis, orante 
 
16 [. Leland ] Appendix A. [a.d. 1545 
 
 Thoma Bertholeto , typographo cum diligenti turn erudito, 
 scripsi : 
 
 Cum novum brevis Atticus leporem 
 Invenisset, & undecunque Grcecam 
 Linguam perpoliisset, insolenter 
 Barbaros reliquos vocare ccepit. 
 
 Cujus vestigia impiger Quirinus 
 Ter certo pede persequens, Latin um 
 Sermonem bene reddidit venustum ; 
 
 Et cum Grceco alios rudes vocavit. 
 
 At quanto mihi rectius videtur 
 Fecisse officium suum disertus 
 Chaucerus, brevitate primus apta 
 Linguam qui patriam redegit illam 
 In formam, ut venere & lepore multo, 
 
 Ut multo sale, gratiaque multa 
 423 ] Luceret, velut Hesperus minora 
 
 Inter sidera ; nec tamen superbe 
 Linguse barbariem exprobravit ulli. 
 
 Quare vos juvenes manu Britanni 
 Lseta spargite nunc rosas suave- 
 Spirantes, violasque molliores, 
 
 Et vestro date, candidi, poetse 
 Formosam ex hedera [citi] coronam. 
 
 Sed jam satis nostrarum nugarum adposuimus. Alius ill© 
 sortis homo erat, quam ut mese praeconio musae meritas 
 laudes accipere queat. O quanto citius sub aequo judice a suis 
 operibus justam consequetur laudem. Ideoque optarem 
 quidem nostram linguam poetis Latinis familiarem esse : tunc 
 facile inquam, facile in meam sententiam irent. At quoniam 
 quod opto vix fieri potest, tantum exoratos volo, ut mihi 
 Latinarum literarum amatori aliquid in hac parte fidei 
 habeant. Quo auspicio non gravabor ejus lucubrationum 
 inscriptiones Latinitate donare ) ut sic saltern leonem, 
 quemadmodum in proverbio est, ex ipsis sestiment unguibus. 
 
 Quanquam priusquam id, quod modo sum pollicitus, 
 prsestitero, non alienum meo erit instituto palam facere 
 Gulielmum Caxodunum , hominem nec indiligentem, nec 
 indoctum, & quern constat primum Londini artem exercuisse 
 typographicam, Chauceri opera, quotquot vel pretio vel 
 precibus comparare potuit, in unum volumen collegisse. 
 
1545] Appendix A. [. Leland\ 17 
 
 Yicit tamen Caxodunicam editionem Bertholetus noster 
 opera Gulielmi TJiynni ; qui, multo labore, sedulitate, ac 
 cura usus in perquirendis vetustis exemplaribus, multa 
 primse adjecit edifcioni. Sed nec in hac parte caruit Brianus 
 Tucca , mihi familiaritate conjunctissimus, & Anglicce linguae 
 eloquentia mirificus, sua gloria, edita in postremam im- 
 pressionem prsefatione elimata, luculenta, eleganti. Sequar 
 igitur codicem paucis ab hinc annis impressum, & promissum 
 adponam syllabon. 
 
 Fabulse Cantiance xxiv. 
 
 quarum duse soluta oratione scriptse; sed Petri Aratoris 
 fabula, quse communi doctorum consensu Chaucero , tanquam 
 vero parenti, attribuitur, in utraque editione, quia malos 
 sacerdotum mores vehementer increpavit, suppressa est. 
 
 [p. 424 ] De Arte amandi, alias Romaunce of the Rose. 
 
 Amores Troili & Chrysidis lib. 5. 
 
 Testamentum Chrysidis & ejusdem Lamentatio. 
 
 Amores Heroidum. 
 
 De Consolatione Philosophise, soluta oratione. 
 
 Somnium Chaucer i, 
 
 Chorus Avium. 
 
 Flos Humanitatis, 
 
 qui libellulus a multis, tanquam nothus, rejicitur. 
 
 De Pietate mortua, & ejus Sepultura. 
 
 Chorus Heroidum. 
 
 De Astrolabio ad Ludovicum filium suum, prosa. 
 Querela Equitis Cogn. Nigri. 
 
 Encomium Mulierum. 
 
 De Fama lib. 3. 
 
 Testamentum Amoris, lib. 3. 
 
 Threni Magdalenoe. 
 
 De Remedio Amoris. 
 
 Querelse Martis & Veneris. 
 
 Epistola Cupidinis. 
 
 Cantiones. 
 
 Hactenus de nomenclatura ejus librorum, qui hodie passim 
 leguntur. Prseter illos tamen, quos ego recensui, ipsemet 
 in prologo, Amoribus Heroidum prsefixo, fatetur se scripsisse 
 libellum de Morte Blanchce ducis : turn etiam Origenis de 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. — IV. O 
 
18 
 
 Appendix A e [a.d. 1545 - 
 
 Magdalena opusculum transtulisse : quod ego, (si modo 
 Origenes tale quidquam scripsit) idem esse arbitror cum 
 Lamentatione Magdalence , de qua superius in syllabo men- 
 tionem feci. 
 
 Forsitan hie aliquis finem dicendi a me expectaret, sed 
 ego pauca adhuc habeo, quse Chaucerum posteritati magni- 
 fice commendabunt. Nam, quemadmodum Richardo Bur- 
 degalensi , Anglorum regi, cognitus, & virtutum nomine 
 charus fuit ; ita etiam Henrico quarto, & ejus filio, qui de 
 Gallis triumphavit, eisdem titulis commendatissimus erat. 
 Quid quod & tota nobilitas Anglicct ilium, tanquam absolu- 
 tum torrentis eloquentise exemplum, suspexit. Accessit in- 
 super ad ejus gloriam, quod sororem habuerit, quse Gulielmo 
 Polo (nisi me nomen fallit) Sudovolgice duci, nupsit, ac magno 
 in splendore Aquelmi vitam egit ; ubi postea, fatis sic 
 volentibus, diem quoque obiit, &, ut ego aliquando accepi, 
 sepulta est. 
 
 [p. 425 ] Inter hsec Chanceries ad canos devenit, sensitque ipsam 
 senectutem morbum esse; qua ingravescente, dum is Londini 
 causas suas curaret, mortuus est, & Visimonasterii in australi 
 insula basilicse, D. Petro saerse, sepultus. 
 
 Ludovicum autem reliquit fortunarum suarum, quas 
 utcunque amplas habebat, hseredem, & prsecipue villse suse 
 Vodestochce, regise admodum vicinse. Aliquanto post tempore 
 Gulielmus Caxodunus Chauceri monimentum hoc disticho 
 inscribi fecit. 
 
 Galfridus Chaucer vates, & fama poesis 
 Maternse, hac sacra sum tumulatus humo. 
 
 Hi duo versus desumpti fuerunt ex quadam nsenia, quam 
 Stephanus Surigonus, Mediolanensis, poeta suo tempore 
 clarus, rogante Gulielmo Caxtono , scripsit. Quare juvat 
 totam ipsam nseniam, quoniam tersa, canora, & rotunda est, 
 in prsesentia recitare. Sic enim Chaucerus , qui re vera 
 maximus fuit, nobili testimonio externi scriptoris major 
 videbitur : 
 
 [Quotes Surigo’s Latin epitaph, beginning : 
 
 ‘ Pier ides musse, si possunt numina fletus.’ 
 
 See a. 1479, vol. i, p. 59, ante.] 
 
 [p. 426 ] Habes nunc, humanissime lector, elegos in nivea tabella 
 
1548] 
 
 19 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 depictos, quos Surigonus Visimonasterii columnae, Ckauceri 
 sepulchro vicinae, adfixit. Tu saepe eosdem in nostri vatis 
 gratiam legas. Sic tibi quisquis eris, faveat suadela, 
 leposque. 
 
 [A translation of this earliest account of Chaucer is given 
 in Lounsbury’s Studies in Chaucer (1892), vol. i, pp. 133-42.] 
 
 \n.a. 1547.] Howard, Henry, Earl of Surrey, Influence of Chaucer 
 upon, in The Poems of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, [ed. by] 
 F. M. Padelford (Univ. of Washington Publ., Lang. & Lit., vol. i), 
 1920, critical notes, passim. 
 
 [n.a. 1547.] Howard, Henry, Earl of Surrey. Complaint of a diying 
 [sic] louer, [a poem, in] Songes and Sonettes [Totters Miscellany], 
 1st ed., 5 July, 1557, in Bodl. ; 2nd ed, 31 July, 1557, 1st in B.M., 
 sign. Ci6. (Ed. E. Arber, 1870, p. 18.) 
 
 [Rollins 14.] 
 
 Chreseids loue, king Priams sonne, ye worthy Troilus. 
 
 1548. Bale, John. [ Life of Chaucer, in] Ulustrium Maioris Britannix 
 Scriptorum . . . Summarium, ff. 198, 233. 
 
 Galfridus Chaucer, Anglus, eques auratus, uir tam bonis 
 disciplinis quam armata militia nobilis, exquisita quadam 
 Anglici sermonis eloquentia, setatem suam multo quam 
 an tea ornatiorem reddidit. Praeter Mathesim quam ingenue 
 callebgd, poeta lepidus erat. Ac talis apud suos Anglos, 
 quales olim fuere apud Italos, Dantes & Petrarcha. Patrij 
 sermonis restaurator, potius illustrator (& merito quidem) 
 habetur adhuc primus. Boetium de consolatione philo- 
 sophise transtulit ad filium suura Ludouicura Chaucerum, 
 & poemate uario, in lingua materna perappositae ac compte 
 tractatus hos fecit, ut partim uidi, partim ab amico quodam 
 fideliter accepi. 
 
 Trophaeum Lombardicum, li. 1 . 
 
 De principum ruina, 
 Emblemata moralia, 
 Amatoria carmina, 
 
 De curia Veneris, 
 Chryseidae testamentum, 
 
 li. 1. 
 li. 1, 
 li. 1. 
 li. 1. 
 
 In Mai ocum uirescerent, &c. 
 
 trac. 1. Diuturnis horis donee dolo. 
 Chryseidae quaerimoniam, trac. 1 . 0 tristem & cruentam lethi. 
 Laudes bonarum mulierum, trac. 1. Mille uicibus accepi muli. 
 Cleopatrae uitam, trac. 1 . Post mortem Ptolemei regis. 
 
20 Appendix A. [a.d. 1548- 
 
 Yitam Thy sbes Baby lonicae, trac. 1. Babyloniae quam Semi- 
 
 rannis [sic]. 
 
 Yitam Didonis Carthaginensis, trac. 1. Tuo sit nomine Yergili. 
 De Hipsyphile & Medaea, trac. 1. Sinistri amoris radix Iason. 
 Yitam Lucretiae Romanse, trac. 1. Fingendum mihi est 
 
 Romano. 
 
 De Ariadna Cretensi, trac. 1. Cretensium rex Minos infer, 
 ffoi. De Phylomela Atheniensi, trac. 1. formarum fabricator, qui. 
 19861 De Phyllide Thracensi, trac. 1. Tam argumento quam autori. 
 De hypermestra ^gyptia, trac. 1. In Graecia duo fratres erant. 
 Somnium Chauceri, trac. 1. Admirari hercle sat nequeo. 
 Yolucrum conglobationem, trac. 1. Tam brevis est uita, ars. 
 Yrbanitatis florem, trac. 1. In februario cum luna. 
 
 De misericordiae sepultura, trac. 1. Quaesitam a multis annis. 
 Carmen facetum, trac. 1. In somno semisepultus.au. 
 
 De Augea & Telepho, trac. 1. Immictis belligerantium deus. 
 Choream dominarum, trac. 1. Dum in Septembri uirgulta. 
 
 De Astrolabij ratione, trac. 1. Fili mi Ludouice, certis. 
 Quaeremoniam, nigri militis, trac. 1. In Maio dum Flora 
 
 regina. 
 
 Foeminarum Encomion, trac. 1. Quibus animus est de muli. 
 Narrationes diuersorum, trac. 1. In comitatu Lyncolniensi. 
 De Troilo & Chryseida, trac. 1. 
 
 De Caeyce & Halcyona, trac. 1. 
 
 In obi turn Blanchiae ducissae, trac. 1. 
 
 Tragcedias graues, li. 1. 
 
 Comcedias leues, li. 1. 
 
 Satyras & Iambos, li. I. 
 
 Facecias & locos, li. 1. 
 
 Elegias & pcemata [sic], li. 1. 
 
 De ceteris nihil accepi. A Guilielmo Whyte atque alijs 
 tunc uerbi ministris talia hausisse fertur, quod monachorum 
 otia, missantium turbam ingentem, horas non intellectas, 
 reliquias, ac ceremonias parum probauerit. Ad annum 
 humanq redemptions, 1450, uixisse perhibetur sub Henrico 
 sexto. 
 
 [fol. 2336.] Thomas Wyet[sic], ex illustri prosapia eques auratus, cum 
 animi nobilitate literas Cantabrigise coniungens, in illu- 
 stratione patrij sermonis, Chaucerum plane adsequabat. 
 
21 
 
 1557] Appendix A. 
 
 \_Free translation of above : 
 
 Geoffrey Chaucer, an English knight, distinguished both 
 for his courtesy and military talents, exhibited consummate 
 skill in the handling of the English language, and adorned 
 the age in which he lived. Besides mathematics, in which 
 he was proficient, he excelled as a poet, and rightly enjoys 
 to this day in England the same reputation as Dante and 
 Petrarch possessed of old in Italy, as having restored, nay 
 added, glory to his mother tongue. He translated for his 
 son, Lewis Chaucer, the treatise of Boethius on the Con- 
 solation of Philosophy, and composed in English with great 
 appositeness and grace, the following poems in various 
 styles, some of which I have seen and the others heard of 
 on good authority from a friend. 
 
 [List of works follows.] 
 
 Of his other works I have not heard. It is related by 
 William White and other contemporary divines that Chaucer 
 by no means approved of the idleness of that great crowd 
 of mumblers, the monks, nor of their unintelligible prayers, 
 their relics and ceremonies. He is said to have lived until 
 the year 1450 of the Christian Era, in the reign of Henry VI. 
 
 Thomas Wyat, knight, of illustrious ancestry, combined 
 scholarship, gained at Cambridge, with loftiness of mind, 
 and equalled Chaucer in adorning his native tongue.] 
 
 1557. Unknown. A comparison of his loue with the faithfull and 
 painfull loue of Troylus to Creside, ([a poem, in] Songes and 
 Sonettes [Tottel’s Miscellany]. (1st ed. 5 June, 1557, in Bod). ; 
 2nd ed., 31 July, 1557, 1st in B.M., f. 81. Ed. Arber, pp. 192-194.) 
 
 [Rollins 16.] 
 
 [The author borrowed Chaucer’s details up to the point 
 where Cressid “yielded grace” to Troilus. He tells, e. g., 
 how Troilus fell in love with Cressid at first sight, and how 
 he was so lovelorn that] 
 
 His chamber with his common walke, 
 
 Wherein he kept him se[c]retely, 
 
 He made his bedde the place of talke. 
 
 1557. Bale, John. Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Brytannise . . . 
 Summarium, Basle, 1557-9, vol. i, pp. 525-7 [ Life of Chaucer in 
 Bale’s 2nd edition], 702, 
 
 Galfridus Chavcer, xxiiii 
 
 Galfridus Chaucer, nobili loco natus, & summse spei 
 iuuenis, Oxonienses scholas tarn diligenter quam qui 
 
22 [Bale] Appendix A. [a.d. 1557 
 
 maxime celebrauit : id quod ut faceret, academise uicinitas 
 quodammodo inuitauit. Nam quibusdam argumentis 
 adducebatur Lelandus, ut crederet Oxoniensem uel Baro- 
 chensem prouinciam, illius fuisse nata’ie solum. Hinc acutus 
 dialecticus, hinc dulcis rhetor, hinc lepidus poeta, hinc 
 grauis philosophus, ac sanctus deniqwe theologus euasit. 
 Mathematicus insuper ingeniosus erat, a Ioanne Sombo 
 & Nicolao Lynna, Carmelitis Lynnensibus, uirisqwe in 
 Mathesi eruditis, instructus : quos ipse in libro suo de 
 Sphaera celebrat, & clericos reuerendos uocat. Constat 
 utique, ilium circa postremos annos Tticardi secundi in 
 Galliis floruisse, magnamqite illic ex assidua in literis 
 exercitatione gloriam sibi comparasse. Turn prseterea eadem 
 opera, omnes ueneres, lepores, delicias, sales, ac postremo 
 gratias linguse Gallicse tarn alte imbibisse, quam cuiquam 
 uix credibile. Laus ista Galfridum in Angliam reuersum 
 sequebatur, tanquam comes eius uirtutis indiuidua. Eius- 
 modi igitur lsetis successibus, forum Londinense & collegia 
 leguleiorum, qui ibidem patria iura interpretan tur, frequent- 
 auit, familiaremqwe amicum inter eos Ioannem Gouerum mox 
 habuit. Horum duorum unicus erat studiorum scopus, ut 
 linguam Anglicam numeris omnibus quam ornatissimam 
 redderent. Nec antea finem fecerant, quam linguam illam ad 
 earn eloquentiam, ad earn deniqwe breuitatem perduxerant, 
 ut inter expolitas gentium linguas posset recte quidem 
 connumerari. Huius Chauceri lucubrationum inscriptiones 
 non grauabor hie latinitate donare : ut sic saltern leonem, 
 ut in prouerbio est, homines ex ipsis sestiment unguibus. 
 Adponam ergo syllabon, composuit enim, 
 
 Fabulas Cantianas, 24, Lib. 1. Olim erat, ut ueteres history 
 
 innuunt. 
 
 Preefationes earundem, Lib. 1. Bum imbribus suauibus Aprilis. 
 Aratoris narrationem, Lib. 1. Agricola tulit aratrum, dum 
 
 essent. 
 
 De arte amandi, Romano, Lib. 1. Pleriq«e fatentur in som- 
 
 nijs meras. 
 
 Amores Troili & Chrysidis, Lib. 5. Vt demonstrarem Troili 
 
 duplicem. 
 
 Testamentum Chrysidis, Lib. 1. Diuturnis horis donee dolo. 
 Lamentationem Chrysidis, Lib. 1 . O gemitus offella mcerore lm. 
 
[Bale] 23 
 
 1557 ] Appendix A . 
 
 Amores Heroidum, Lib. 1. 
 
 De consolatione philosophise, Lib. 5. Carmina quae quondam 
 
 studio. 
 
 Somnium Chauceri, Lib. 1. Admirorhercle plurimum, quali. 
 Chorum auium, Lib. 1. Vita tam breuis est, artis tam. 
 Vrbanitatis florem, Lib. 1. In Februario cum cornuta esset. 
 De pietate mortua. Lib. 1 . Oh, quod pietatem tandiu quaesi. 
 Heroidum Chorum, Lib. 1 . In Septembri, dum folia uirgulta. 
 [p. 526 ]De astrolabio, ad filium, Lib. 1. Fili mi Ludouice, certis signis. 
 Querelam equitis nigri, Lib. 1. In Maio, dum Flora regina 
 
 terram. 
 
 Encomium mulierum, Lib. 1 . Quibus animus est, mulieres. 
 
 De fama, & eius domicilio, Lib. 3. Vertat nobis Deus somnia in. 
 Testamentum amoris, Lib. 3. Multi sunt qui patulis auribus. 
 Threnos Magdalenae, Lib. 1. Moestitiae lethiferse uoraginibus. 
 De remedio amoris, Lib. 1. Viso multiplici incommodo, quod. 
 Querelam Martis & Veneris, Lib. 1. Congratulemini ama tores, 
 
 pullu. 
 
 Epistolam Cupidinis, Lib. 1. Cupido, ad cuius nutum gener. 
 Cantiones quoq ue, Lib. 1. Mille historias adhuc recensere. 
 
 De Meliboeo & prudentia, Lib. 1. Iuuenis quidam Meliboeus, 
 
 pontem. 
 
 De peccatis ac remedijs, Lib. 1. Hieremiae 6. State super uias. 
 Laudes bonarum mulierum, Lib. 1 . Mille uicibus ab hominibus 
 
 atqwe. 
 
 Cleopatrae uitam, Lib. 1. Post mortem Ptolemaei regis magni. 
 Vitam Thisbae Babylonicae, Lib. 1. Babyloniae quandoqwe con- 
 
 tigit. 
 
 Vitam Didonis Carthaginensis, Lib. 1. Gloriosum sit Vergili 
 
 Mantuane. 
 
 De Hypsiphile & Medea, Lib. 1. Dissimulantium amatorum 
 
 radix. 
 
 Lucretiae Romanae uitam, Lib. 1. Narrare nunc oportet 
 
 auxilium. 
 
 De Ariadna Cretensi, Lib. 1. Discern e, inf ernalis Cretae rex. 
 De Philomela Atheniensi, Libi. 1. Formarum fabricator qui 
 
 formasti. 
 
 De Phyllide Thracensi. Lib. 1 . Tam argumento quam authori- 
 
 tate. 
 
 De Hypermnestra Aegyptia, Lib. 1 . In Graecia aliquando duo 
 
 fratres. 
 
24 [Bale] Appendix A. [a.d. 1557 
 
 Carmen Chauceri, Lib, 1. Probse educations amantissima. 
 Super impia domina, Lib. 1. Me dormientem aureus sopor. 
 
 De Annelida & Arcyto, Lib. 1. Immitis belligerantium Deus. 
 De cuculo & pbilomela, Lib. 1. Amorum Deus, quam potens. 
 Octo questiones & responsa, Lib. 1. In Grseciaquandoqwe tam 
 
 nobili. 
 
 Chronicon conquestus Anglici, Lib. 1. Ea setate, ut 
 
 ueteres annales. 
 
 De curia Veneris, Lib. 1. InMaio cum uirescerent, &c. 
 Epigrammata quoqwe, Lib. 1. Fugite multitudinem, ueri. 
 Narrationes diuersorum, Lib. 1. In comitatu Lyncolniensi fuit. 
 
 De Ceyce & Halcyona, Lib. 1. 
 
 In obitum Blanchise ducissse, Lib. 1 . 
 De Vulcani ueru, Lib. 1. 
 
 De leone & eius dignitate, Lib. 1. 
 Vi tarn D. Cecilise, Lib. 1. 
 
 Hymnos amatorios, Lib. 1. 
 
 Amores Palsemonis & Arcyti, Lib. 1 . 
 De Thisbse amore, Lib. 1. 
 
 De castello dominarum, Lib. 1 . 
 Comcedia!s & Tragoedias, Lib. 1. 
 Facetias & iocos, Lib. 1. 
 
 Dantem Italum transtulit, Lib. 1. 
 Petrarchse qusedam, Lib. 1. 
 
 Origenis tractatum, Lib. 1. 
 
 Aliaq?^e plura fecit, in quibus monachorum ocia, missan- 
 tium tarn magnam multitudinem, horas non intellectas, 
 reliquias, perigrinationes, ac cseremonias parum probauit. 
 Inter hsec Chaucerus ad canos deuenit, sensitqwe ipsam 
 senectutem morbum esse. Qua ingrauescente, dum Londini 
 [p. 529 ] causas suas curaret, mortuus est, & Vuestmonasterij in 
 australi Basilicaj parte sepultus. Vixit anno Domini 
 1402, ut in charta Cupidinis refert. In quodam libro 
 suorum Epigrammaton bis uersibus Lelandus ilium 
 celebrat : 
 
 Prsedicat Algerum meritd Florentia Dantem 
 Italia & numeros tota Petrarche tuos. 
 
 Anglia Chaucerum ueneratur nostra poetam, 
 
 Cui ueneres debet patria lingua suas. 
 
1557] 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 [Bale] 25 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Ex Lelandi Catalogo : Illis temporibus inter Forenses, 
 clarissimus erat Ioannes Gouerus, historicus ac poeta 
 moralis, cuius uitam praescripsimus, homo uenerandae aetatis, 
 et qui mirum in modum Anglicse linguae politiei studebat. 
 Hie perspecta indole & examinata Galfridi probitate, ilium 
 in familiarem sibi acciuit, ilium ulnis amplexus est, ilium 
 etiam in honestis delieijs habuit, ilium denique tanquam 
 numen aliquod propemodum uenerabatur. Et ut ego (inquit) 
 taceam, ipsemet Gouerus in libro qui titulo Amantis inscribi- 
 tur, abunde satis declarat, quanti suum Chaucerum fecerit: 
 quern accuratissime prius laudatum, eximium poetam uocat, 
 & sui operis quasi Aristarchum facit. Ecce tibi lector, 
 pulcherrimum uirtutis certamen. Nam ut Gouerus, homo 
 parum sibi tribuens, lucubrationes quas consummauerat, 
 Galfridi iudicio modeste submissit : sic rursus Chaucerus, 
 Amores Troili, Goueri & Strodi calculis subiecit, &c. Et 
 quoniam poesim praeter caetera semper dilexit, amauit, coluit : 
 uisum est ei uel commodissimum, per illam ad ipsa eloquen- 
 tiae culmina uiam patefacere. Tale etenim quiddam est 
 poesis, ut tropos, elegantias, ornamenta, copiam, & quicquid 
 uenerum & leporum est, non mod6 admittat : uerum quod 
 multo maius est, suo quodam iure poscat. Adde hue, qudd 
 Italos & Gallos, qui plurima suis linguis terse ac nitide scrip- 
 serunt, in partem operis euocauerit. Dantes & Petrarcha 
 Italicam linguam, Alanus Gallicam, Ioannes Mena His- 
 panicam, atq ue alij alias, infinitis modis tunc expolierant : 
 hi Chaucero calcar addiderunt. Bonis igitur auibus incsepto 
 operi incubuit : nunc libellos Gallica lingua scriptos, in 
 patrium sermonem transferens : nunc Latinos uersus Angli- 
 cis, sed docte, exprimens : nunc multa e suo capite nata, 
 & Latinorum foeli[ci]tatem sequantia, uicturis chartis com- 
 mendans, lectoriqwe neruis omnibus prodesse contendens. 
 Accessit etiam ad eius gloriam, qudd sororem habuerit 
 quae Guilhelmo Polo Sudouolgiorum duci nupsit, ac magno 
 in splendore Aquelmi uitam egit, &c. 
 
 Ip. 702.] [In list of Nicolas Grimoald’s works :] 
 
 Troilum ex Chaucero, comoediam. Lib. 1. 
 
 * 
 
26 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 [a.d. 1557— 
 
 \Translation of Balds Life of Chaucer, 1557—59. 
 
 Geoffrey Chaucer, a nobleman by birth, gave much promise 
 as a youth. At Oxford, where he studied, he was one of the most 
 diligent scholars of his day. The vicinity of the university proved 
 an incentive to him, if as was surmised by Leland from certain 
 information, he was a native of Oxfordshire or Berkshire. 
 
 He left the university a keen dialectician, a graceful rhetorician, 
 an elegant poet, a profound philosopher, and a devout theologian. 
 
 He was, moreover, a clever mathematician, having been taught 
 by John Some and Nicholas Lynn, Carmelite friars of Lynn, 
 and skilled mathematicians. He paid tribute to them in his book 
 on the Astrolabe, and called them venerable clerics. 
 
 It is well known that towards the last years of Richard II’s 
 reign, he attained great fame in France through his diligent 
 pursuit of letters. Further, he succeeded to an almost incredible 
 degree by the same means in acquiring the attractiveness, the 
 grace, the wit, and finally the charm of the French language. This 
 is the kind of praise which followed Geoffrey upon his return to 
 England, the inevitable accompaniment, as it were, of his 
 attainments. 
 
 He then frequented the London law-courts, and among the 
 members of the Inns of Court, where the laws of the country are 
 studied, he soon found an intimate friend in John Gower. These 
 two men had but one aim in their studies, which was to enrich the 
 English tongue in all kinds of verse. Nor did they desist until 
 they had brought the language to such a degree of eloquence and 
 brevity that it might be fit to take its place amongst the most 
 polished languages of all nations. 
 
 I shall not deem it troublesome to give the titles of his works 
 in Latin, for, as the proverb says, you know the lion by his claws. 
 I shall, therefore, append the list. 
 
 [Here follows the list, see above, Latin version.] 
 
 And he wrote many other works in which he showed his disap- 
 proval of that great multitude of mumblers, the monks, of their 
 idleness, their unintelligible prayers, their relics, pilgrimages and 
 ceremonies. 
 
 Meanwhile Chaucer grew older, and felt that old age was an 
 illness, which continued to increase, until one day, while he was 
 attending to his affairs in London, he died. He was buried in the 
 south part of Westminster Abbey. He was still alive in the year 
 1402, as he himself testifies in his letter of Cupid. In his book of 
 Epigrams Leland praises Chaucer in the following lines — [quotes 
 Leland ’s verses]. 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 From the Catalogue of Leland 
 
 Among the lawyers in those days the most celebrated was 
 
27 
 
 1559 ] Appendix A. 
 
 John Gower, whose life we have written. An historian and a 
 moral poet, he had attained to a venerable age, and his special aim 
 was to add finish to the English language. 
 
 He, knowing the character of Chaucer, and having proved its 
 uprightness, admitted him into a close friendship, took him to his 
 heart, showed him the most honourable affection — in fact, he almost 
 revered him as a god. Gower himself, in his book entitled Amantis, 
 gives abundant evidence of the high regard he had for his friend 
 Chaucer. 
 
 Having first of all praised him most fully, he calls him an 
 excellent poet, and constitutes him a sort of Aristarchus of his 
 work. Behold, reader, a beautiful rivalry in virtue. For, just as 
 Gower, thinking little of his own merit, modestly submitted his 
 works to Chaucer’s criticism, so in turn Chaucer referred the Loves 
 of Troilus to the criticisms of Gower and Strode. And since he 
 loved and honoured poetry above all things, it seemed to him to 
 be the most suitable road through which he could reach the 
 heights of fame. For this, indeed, is the nature of poetry, that it 
 not only admits of figures, grace of style, adornments in abundance 
 and all that is pleasing and beautiful, but that it demands it all as 
 a right. Add to this that he made use of the Italians and the 
 French, who have written tersely and beautifully in their own 
 languages. Dante and Petrarch in Italian, Alain [Chartier] in 
 French, John Mena in Spanish, and the many others who at that 
 time had written in polished language, were a spur to Chaucer. 
 It was, therefore, under good auspices that he set to work upon his 
 task, now translating books from the French, now skilfully rendering 
 Latin verses into English, now embodying the numerous creations 
 of his own imagination in imperishable works, equalling the most 
 felicitous productions of the Latins, endeavouring in every way to 
 be of some use to his readers. This also added to his reputation — 
 that he had a sister, who married William Pole, Duke of Suffolk, 
 and spent her life in splendour at Ewelme.] 
 
 1559. Elderton, William. The pcinges of Loue and loners F[i\ttes [a 
 ballad]. [Reprinted in J. P. Collier’s Old Ballads , Percy Society, 
 vol. i, p. 25, and in H. L. Collmann’s Ballads and Broadsides , 
 Roxburghe Club, 1912, p. 111.] 
 
 [st. 2 ] Know ye not, how Troylus 
 
 Languished and lost his joye, 
 
 With fittes and feuers meruailous 
 For Cresseda that dwelt in Troye ; 
 
 Tyll pytie planted in her brest, 
 
 Ladie ! ladie ! 
 
 To slepe with him, and graunt him rest, 
 
 My dear ladie. 
 
28 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 [a.d. 1561 - 
 
 [This ballad was enormously popular, and is constantly 
 quoted by Elizabethan writers. A Scottish version is 
 preserved in the Bannatyne MS. (1568), ed. J. B. Murdoch, 
 Hunterian Club, vol. iii, p. 612. A moralized version, 
 “ Ane Dissuasion from Yaine Lust,” in The Gude and Godlie 
 Ballatis, 1567 (ed. A. F. Mitchell, Scottish Text Society, 
 1897, p 213), begins:] 
 
 Thocht Troylus Cressed did enjoy, 
 
 As Paris Helene did lykewise ; 
 
 Zit leuit he not lang in Troy, 
 
 Bot that Fortoun did him dispise. 
 
 Quha wald then wirk accordinglie ? 
 
 Allace, allace ! 
 
 Sic plesoure bringis miserie, 
 
 As come to pas. 
 
 1561. Sackville, Thomas, and Norton, Thomas. The Tragedie of Ferrex 
 and Porrex [ Gorboduc ], imprinted at London by John Daye . . . 
 [1570? First acted 1561], sign. F ii b. 
 
 Then saw I how he smiled with slaying knife 
 Wrapped under cloke. 
 
 [Cf. Chaucer’s Knights' Tale , 1. 1999. This resemblance 
 is noted by Hazlitt in his Lectures on the Dramatic Literature 
 of the Age of Elizabeth. See above, 1820, pt. ii, sect, i, p. 123.] 
 
 1562. Bale, John. MS. notes by Bale, printed by Thomas Hearne in 
 Johannis de Trokelowe, Annates Edvardi II., 1729. Appendix iii, 
 pp. 286-7 {see above, pt. i, p. 97]. 
 
 [p. 286 ] Galfridus Chaucer] Hie Tullius minor dicebatur, tarn erat 
 artis dicendi peritus, Thomam Ocklevum Scribam olim 
 habuit. 
 
 Epitaph ium Chauceri MS. 
 
 Qui fuit Anglorum Yates ter maximus olim, 
 
 Galfridus Chaucer, conditur hoc tumulo. 
 
 Annum si quseras Domini, si tempora mortis, 
 
 Ecce notse subsunt, quse tibi cuncta notant. 
 
 26 Octobris anno Domini 1400. 
 
 Nicolaus Brigam Westmonasterii hos fecit Musarum 
 nomine sumptus. 
 
Appendix A. 
 
 29 
 
 1562] 
 
 Super ejus Sepulchro, 
 
 Si rogites, quis eram, forsan te fama docebit, 
 Quodsi fama negat, Mundi quia gloria transit, 
 Hsec Monumenta lege. 
 
 Thomas Occleve] Joannis Goweri et Galfridi Chauceri 
 [p. 2S7] Discipulus erat, ut in suo Libro de Regimine Principum 
 refert . . . 
 
 1562. Brooke, or Broke, Arthur. Influence of Chaucer in The 
 Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Iuliet , written first in Italian by 
 Banded , and nowe in Englishe by Ar. Br. [Brooke’s poem was 
 one of the main sources of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. For 
 a fuller account of Brooke’s debt to Chaucer, see Romeus and Juliet , 
 
 ‘ Shakespeare Classics,’ ed. by J. J. Munro, 1908. Mr. Munro has 
 kindly supplied the following notes :] 
 
 [Brooke’s debt is of two kinds : (a) where he amplifies a 
 suggestion in his original (Boaistuau) with the help of 
 Chaucer’s Troilus ; and ( b ) where he derives a suggestion 
 from Chaucer only.] 
 
 (a) Boaistuau (ed. 1559), p. 43 : l’amour qu’il portoit a sa 
 premiere damoiselle demoura vaincu par ce nouueau feu. 
 
 Brooke , 11. 207-9 : 1 
 
 And as out of a planke a nayle a nayle doth driue : 
 
 So nouell loue out of the minde the auncient loue doth riue 
 This sodain kindled fyre in time is wox so great : etc. 
 
 Troilus & Criseyde , iv, 415 : 
 
 The newe love out chaceth ofte the olde. 
 
 Troilus <$c Criseyde, iv, 422 : 
 
 The newe love, labour or other wo, 
 
 Or elles selde seinge of a wight, 
 
 Don olde affectiouns alle over-go. 2 
 
 Boaistuau, p. 45 b : ie suis vostre, estat preste & diposee 
 de vous obeyr en tout ce que l’honneur pourra souffrir. 
 
 1 The line-references to Brooke are to the ‘ fourteeners,’ each of which 
 is printed as two lines in the original edition. 
 
 2 From Boccaccio’s Filostrato, but originally from Ovid : Successore 
 novo vincitur omnis amor. (Remed. Amor. 462.) Brooke’s lines were 
 copied by Shakespere in Two Gentlemen of Verona , Romeo, and Julius 
 Caesar. 
 
30 [ Brooke] 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 [a.d. 1562 
 
 Brooke , 1. 314 : 
 
 (My honor saued) prest tobay [i. e. to obey] your will, while 
 life endures. 
 
 Troil. iii, 480 : 
 
 . . . but elles wml I fonde, 
 
 Myn honour sauf, please him fro day to day ; 
 
 Troil. iii, 159 : 
 
 she . . . 
 
 . . . sayde him softely, 
 
 ‘Myn honour sauf/ I wol wel trewely, etc. 
 
 [Juliet in Brooke, and Criseyde in Troilus, both make 
 frequent insistence that their lovers’ conduct must be 
 honorable.] 
 
 Boaistuau, p. 52 : de sorte que s’ils eussent peu com- 
 mander au ciel comme Iosue fist au soleil, etc. 
 
 Brooke , 1. 824 : 
 
 So that I deeme if they might haue (as of Alcume [sic for 
 Alcmene] we heare) 
 
 The sunne bond to theyr will ; etc. 
 
 Troil. iii, 1427-8 : 
 
 0 right, alias ! why niltow over us hove 
 As longe as whanne Almena lay by J ove % 1 
 
 [This under similar circumstances in both poems : i. e. in 
 connexion with the lovers’ nocturnal meeting.] 
 
 ( b ) Brooke , 1. 332 : 
 
 Of both the ylles to choose the lesse, 
 
 1 wene the choyse were harde. 
 
 Troil. ii, 47 0 : 
 
 Of harmes two, the lesse is for to cliese. 
 
 Brooke , 1. 393 : 
 
 [Juliet] A thousand stories more, to teaclie me to beware, 
 
 In Boccace and in Ouids bookes too playnely written are. 
 
 Troil. iii, 297 : 
 
 [Criseyde] A thousand olde stories thee alegge 
 Of women lost, through fals and foies host. 
 
1562] 
 
 [Brooke] 31 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 [Romeus and Troilus, while waiting for the help of 
 Laurence or Pandare, are both like the patient waiting for 
 the leech’s salve.] 
 
 Brooke , 1. 613 : 
 
 The wounded man that now doth dedly paines endure : 
 Scarce pacient tarieth whilst his leech doth make the salue 
 to cure. 
 
 So Romeus, etc. 
 
 Troil. i, 1086 : 
 
 Now lat us stinte of Troilus a stounde, 
 
 That fareth lyk a man that hurt is sore, 
 
 And is somdel of akinge of his wounde 
 Y-lissed wel, but heled no del more : 
 
 And, as an esy pacient, the lore 
 Abit of him that gooth aboute his cure ; 
 
 And thus he dryveth forth his a venture. 
 
 [The first night of parting between the lovers.] 
 
 Brooke , 1 : 1537 : 
 
 But on his brest her hed doth ioylesse Iuliet lay, 
 
 And on her slender necke his chyn doth ruthfull Romeus 
 stay. 
 
 Troil. iv, 1150 : 
 
 1 Help, Troilus ! ’ and ther-with-al hir face 
 Upon his brest she leyde, and loste speche. 
 
 [The two scenes throughout are very similar.] 
 
 [Brooke’s additions to the Romeo story. 
 
 These are not important so far as the story is concerned, but 
 they form the best cases of borrowing. In the now lost 
 earlier play (?) on Romeo which Brooke mentions and which 
 both Brooke and Shakspere appear to have used, there was a 
 scene at Laurence’s cell in which Romeo lamented. In 
 Brooke he becomes savage : this is taken from a similar 
 scene with Troilus just before the entry of Pandare, as the 
 references show.] 
 
 Brooke , 1. 1291 : 
 
 These heauy tydinges heard, his golden lockes he tare : 
 
 And like a frantike man hath torne the garmentes that he 
 
 ware. 
 
32 [ Brooke ] Appendix A. [a.d. 1562 
 
 And as the smitten deere in brakes is waitring found : 
 
 So waltreth he, and with his brest doth beate the troden 
 grounde. 
 
 He rises eft, and strikes his head against the wals, 
 
 He falleth downe againe, and lowde for hasty death he cals. 
 Come spedy death (quoth he) ; etc. 
 
 Troil iv, 239 : 
 
 Right as the wilde bole biginneth springe 
 Now here, now there, y-dexted to the herte, 
 
 And of his deeth roseth in compleyninge, 
 
 Right so gan he aboute the chaumbre sterte, 
 
 Smyting his brest ay with his festes smerte ; 
 
 His heed to the wal, his body to the grounde 
 Ful ofte he swepte, him-selven to confounde. 
 
 1. 250 : 
 
 ‘ O deeth, alias ! why nil tow do me deye : ’ 
 
 Brooke , 1. 1325 : 
 
 Fyrst nature did he blame, the author of his lyfe, 
 
 In which his ioyes had been so scant, and sorowes aye so 
 ryfe : 
 
 The time and place of byrth, he fiersly did reproue, 
 
 He cryed out (with open mouth) against the starres aboue : 
 The fatall sisters three he said, had done him wrong ; etc. 
 
 1. 1335 : 
 
 And then did he complaine on Venus cruel sonne. 
 
 1. 1343: 
 
 On Fortune eke he raylde, he calde her deafe, and blynde 
 Vnconstant, fond, deceitful], rashe, vnruthfull, and vnkynd. 
 And to him self he layd a great part of the fait : 
 
 For that he slewe, and was not slayne, in fighting with 
 Tibalt. 
 
 He blamed all the world, and all he did defye, 
 
 But Iuliet, for whom he liued for whom eke would he dye. 
 
 Troil. v, 204 : 
 
 And there his sorwes that he spared hadde 
 He yaf an issue large, and 1 * * * deeth ! 5 he cryde ; 
 
 And in his throwes frenetyk and madde 
 
Appendix A. 
 
 [Brooke] 33 
 
 He cursed love, Appollo, and eek Cupyde, 
 
 He cursed Ceres, Bacus, and Cipryde, 
 
 His burthe, him-self, his fate, and eek nature, 
 
 And, save his lady, every creature. 
 
 [Laurence to Romeus.] 
 
 Brooke , 1. 1353 : 
 
 Art thou quoth he a man 1 thy shape saith, so thou art : 
 
 Thy crying and they weping eyes, denote a woman’s hart. 
 [Pandare to Troilus.] 
 
 Troil. iii, 1098 : 
 
 ‘ O theef, is this a mannes herte ? ’ 
 
 And of he rente al to his bare sherte. 
 
 [Criseyde to Troilus.] 
 
 Troil. iii, 1126 : 
 
 ‘is this a mannes game 'l 
 What, Troilus ! wol ye do thus, for shame 1 * 
 
 [The other innovation made by Brooke is Romeus’s sorrow 
 in his exile, copied from Troilus. Both Troilus and Romeus 
 sigh and weep at night ; etc.] 
 
 Brooke , 1. 1755 : 
 
 Eche night a thousand times he calleth for the day, 
 
 He thinketh Titans restles stedes of restives do stay ; 
 
 Or that at length they haue some bayting place found out, 
 Or (gyded yll) haue lost theyr way and wandred farre about- 
 
 Troil. v. 659 : 
 
 The day is more, and lenger every night, 
 
 Than they be wont to be, him thoughte tho ; 
 
 And that the sonne wente his course unright 
 By lenger wey than it was wont to go ; 
 
 And seyde ‘ y-wis, ne dredeth ever-mo, 
 
 The sonnes sone, Pheton, be on-lyve, 
 
 And that his fad res cart amis he dryve. 
 
 [It should be remembered that Troilus is in many respects 
 quite parallel to Borneo. In each story two lovers are secretly 
 betrothed and meet at night in the lady’s house. They 
 vacillate between joy and sorrow and are comforted and 
 helped by a philosophical friend. One of them is banished, 
 and they have a final night together and part at dawn. It 
 was at these points of contact that Brooke was able to 
 derive suggestions from Chaucer.] 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM IV. D 
 
34 Appendix A. [a.d. 1565 - | 
 
 1505. Googe, Barnaby, The Preface to the vertuous and frendely j 
 Reader, [in] The Zodiake of Life ... by the . . . Poet Marcellus 
 Pallingenius . . . newly translated into Englishe verse by Barnabse 
 Googe, sign (|) 3 b. 
 
 Louing and frendly reader ... be not so straight of 
 iudgement as I know a number to be that can not abyde to .j 
 reade anye thing written in Englishe verse, which nowe is 
 so plenteously enriched wyth a number of eloquent writers, j 
 that in my fansy it is ly ttle inferiour to the pleasaunt verses 
 of the auncient Romaines. For since the time of our 
 excellente countreyman Sir Geffray Chaucer who liueth in' 
 like estimation with vs as did olde Ennius wyth the 
 Latines. There hath flourished in England so fine and 
 filed phrases, and so good <fc pleasant Poets as may counter- 
 uayle the doings of .Virgill, Ouid, Horace, Iuuenal, etc. 
 
 [This reference is not in the edition of 1561, and the 
 verses with the Chaucer reference in that edition quoted in 
 vol. i, p. 96 (Unknown) are not given here.] 
 
 [1566.] Unknown. A Ballad beginning, “When Troylus dwelt in 
 Troy towne.” Bodleian MS. Ashmole 48 (Songs and Ballads, ed. 
 T, Wright, Roxb. Club, 1860, pp. 195-197.) 
 
 [Rollins 18.] 
 
 [st. 3] Tyll at the last he cam to churche, 
 
 Where Cressyd sat and prayed-a; 
 
 Whose lookes gaue Troylus such a lurche, 
 
 Hys hart was all dysmayde-a ! 
 
 [st. 6] And to hys neece he [Pandar] dyd commend 
 
 The state of Troylus then-a ; 
 
 Wyll yow kyll Troylus? God defend ! 
 
 He ys a nobell man-a. 
 
 [st. 13] Then Pandare, lyke a wyly pye, 
 
 That cowld the matter handell, 
 
 Stept to the tabell by and by, 
 
 And forthe he blewe the candell. 
 
 [These stanzas are chosen only for illustration. The 
 entire ballad, as has long been known, is modelled on 
 Chaucer’s Troilus. The ballad was registered at Stationers’ 
 Hall (Arber’s Transcript, vol. i, p. 300), in 1565-66 as “the 
 history of Troilus Whose throtes [i. e., trothes] hath Well 
 bene tryed.”] 
 
35 
 
 1568] Appendix A. 
 
 [1567-79?] Harvey, Gabriel. Marginal notes in Gabriel Harvey’s 
 handwriting [in] M. Fabii Quintiliani. . . Institutionum oratori- 
 arum Libri xii, Parisiis, 1548, at the foot of p. 643 [printed 543] 
 [B.M. C. 60. 1. 11]. (Gabriel Harvey’s Marginalia, ed. G. C. Moore 
 Smith, 1913, p. 122.) 
 
 Tria viridissima Britannorum ingenia, Chaucerus, Moras, 
 Juellus : Quibus addo tres florentissimas indoles, Heiuodum, 
 Sidneium, Spencerum. Qui quserit illustriora Anglorum in- 
 genia, inueniet obscuriora. Perpaucos excipio; eorumqwe 
 primos, Smithum, Aschamum, Yilsonum ; Diggesium, Blun- 
 deuilum, Hacluitum, mea Corcula. 
 
 [c. 1567.] Turbervile, George. Epitaphes, Epigrams, Songs and 
 Sonets. (1567 ed., ‘newly corrected, with additions,’ 1st known ; 
 1570 1st in B.M. ; ff. 6b, 30b, 61b, 71a, b; Ed. J. P. Collier 
 [1867 ?] pp. 10, 54, 108-9, 126-27.) 
 
 [Rollins 19.] 
 
 p. 10] Pause, pen, a while therefore, 
 
 and use thy woonted meane : 
 
 For Boccas braine, and Chaucers quill 
 in this were foyled cleane. 
 
 Ip. 54] Let Cressed myrror bee, that did forgo 
 
 Hir former faythfull friend, King Priam’s sonne 
 And Diomed the Greeke imbraced so, 
 
 And left the loue so well that was begonne : 
 
 But when hir cards were tolde and twist ysponne, 
 
 She found hir Trojan friend the best of both, 
 
 For he renounst hir not, but kept his oth. 
 
 [There are very many other allusions to Cressid in Turber- 
 vile’s Epitaphes. Most of them refer to her as a leper, but 
 there can be no doubt that Turbervile regarded Chaucer as 
 the author of the story which tells of her leprosy.] 
 
 1568. Fulwood, William. A constant Loner doth express His gripyng 
 griefes, which still encrease, [a model letter, in] The Enimie of 
 Idlenesse , pp. 187-8. (P. Wolter’s William Ftdlwood, Diss. Rostock. 
 Potsdam, 1907, pp. 72-73.) 
 
 [Rollins 22. 
 
 As Troylus did neglect the trade 
 of Louers skilfull lawe, 
 
 Before such time that Cresseid faire 
 with fixed eyes he sawe. 
 
36 
 
 
 Appendix A. [ 1568 - 
 
 But sith I lacke some such a friende 
 as he of Pandor had, 
 
 Who brought his purpose well about, 
 and made his minde full glad. 
 
 [This poem is undoubtedly indebted to Chaucer’s Troilus .] 
 
 1568. Howell, Thomas. The Arhor of Amitie. [Ed. 1568 not in B.M.] 
 (Poems, ed. A. B. Grosart, 1879, pp. 10, 32.) 
 
 [For John Keeper’s prefatory verses to The Arhor of Amitie , 
 see above, pt. i, p. 102.1 
 
 1 [Hollins 23.] 
 
 [p. 10] 
 
 If I had Tullies tongue 
 
 / 
 
 and thousand wittes thereto : 
 
 If Chaucers vaine, if Homers skill, 
 if thousand helpers mo : 
 
 Yet tongue, not wyt nor vaine, 
 nor skill nor helpe at all 
 Can well descrie your due desarte, 
 in praise perpetuall. 
 
 [p. 32 ] To leaue behinde a picture fine to see 
 
 It may small time well stande in steede for thee. 
 But picture faire of noble actes of minde, 
 
 That farre excelles to learne to leaue behinde, 
 Which will maintaine a noble name for aye 
 As Tullis tongue and Caesars acts can saye. 
 
 As Chaucer shewes and eke our morall Gowre 
 With thousands more, whose fame shal stil endure. 
 
 [Cf. O moral Gower, this booke I directe . — Troilus v, 1. 1856.] 
 
 1568. Stewart. Furth ouer the Mold at Marrow as I merit , [a poem, 
 in] the Bannatyne MS. (Ed. Hunterian Club, 1896, [1873-1901], 
 
 4 vols., vol. iv, pp. 774-76.) i 
 
 [Rollins 21.] , 
 
 [The poet says that as he was walking out he met a man :] 
 I sperit his name and he said, Panderus, 
 
 That sumtyme seruit the gud knycht Troyelus. 
 
 [Pandarus then launches into a tirade against women.] 
 
 1568. Unknown. Quhair Love is hendlit confortles [a poem, in the] 
 Bannatyne MS. (Ed. J. B. Murdoch, Hunterian Club, vol. iii, 
 p. 705 ; Sibbald’s Chronicle of Scottish Poetry , vol. iii, p. 177.) 
 
 [Rollins 20.] 
 
37 
 
 1570] Appendix A . 
 
 Trew Troyallus, he langorit ay, 
 
 Still waitand for his luvis returne, 
 
 Had nocht sic pyne, it was hot play, 
 
 As daylie dois my body burne. 
 
 [There are various other allusions similar to this in 
 the MS.] 
 
 1568. Wedderburn. My Luve ivas fals and full of Flattry, [a poem, 
 signed] “ Finis quod Weddirburnef [in the] Bannatyne MS. (Ed. 
 Murdoch, Hunterian Club, vol. iv, p. 760 ; also in Sibbald’s 
 Chronicle of Scottish Poetry , vol. iii, p. 235.) 
 
 [Rollins 24] 
 
 [st. 3 ] The skorne that I gatt micht bene maid ane farss, 
 
 Quhilk excedit the skorne of Absolone, 
 
 Quhen the hett culter wes schott in his herss, 
 
 Be clerk Nicolus and his luve Allesone, 
 
 As Canterberry Tailis makis mentioun ; 
 
 Yit I suspekkit nocht bot scho wes trew, 
 
 Bot I wes all begylit, quhilk sail* I rew. 
 
 [Cf. The Miller's Tale. — In Stanza 7 of this same poem 
 the author refers to, and quotes a line from, the Testament 
 of Cresseid , rather conclusive proof that he, too, thought 
 that work to have been written by Chaucer.] 
 
 [1569.] TUrbervile, George. Epitaplies and Sonnettes, [written in 
 1569, added to his] Tragicall Tales , f. 1646. (Edinburgh, 1837, 
 p. 330.) 
 
 [Rollins 40.] 
 
 Farewell thou shamelesse shrew, 
 fair Cresides heire thou art : 
 
 And I Sir Troylus earst haue been, 
 as prooueth by my smart. 
 
 Hencefoorth beguile the Greekes, 
 no Troyans will thee trust : 
 
 I yeeld thee vp to Diomed , 
 to glut his filthie lust. 
 
 [There are striking allusions to Henryson’s Cressida on 
 pp. 334, 369. The Tales first appeared before 1575, but 
 the 1587 edition is the first extant in a complete copy, that 
 of 1576 being only known from a fragment.] 
 
 [1570.] B., R. A nexo balade entituled as foloweth. To such as unite 
 in Mefres. . . . [B.M. Huth 50 (13).] 
 
 [Rollins 25.] 
 
38 Appendix A. [ a . d . 1572- 
 
 Wyshyng all them that wyll adresse 
 Their pen to metres, let them not spare 
 To follow Chawcer, a man very rare, 
 
 Lidgate, Wager, Barclay and Bale, 
 
 With many other that excellent are, 
 
 In these our dayes, extant to sale. 
 
 [Licensed on or soon after July 22, 1570. See B.M. Cat. Huth Bequest, 50 (35).] 
 
 [n.a. 1572.] Gascoigne, George. A Ilundreth sundrie Flowers, [1573], 
 pp. 321, 352-3, 418. (Complete Works, ed. J. W. Cunliffe, 1907-10, 
 
 2 vols., vol. i, pp. 54, 90, 101.) 
 
 [Gascoigne revised and reissued these poems (under the title of Posies) in 1575, 
 q.v. above, pt. i, pp. 110-11, and below, 1575. There are many other allusions^ | 
 to Troilus and Criseyde scattered about Gascoigne’s poems.] 
 
 [p. 90] [References to “ trusty Troylus,” and “ Pandar’s niece,” 
 who would give place to the author’s mistress.] 
 
 [p. ioi] [The passage from The delectable history of . . . Dan 
 Bartholomew of Bath quoted in pt. i, p. 110, under the 2nd 
 edn. ( Posies ) of 1575, should have been quoted from 
 this 1st edition.] 
 
 1572. T[urbervile ?], G[eorge?]. The Letter of G. T. to his very friend , 
 H. W. concerning this worke, [dated August 10, 1572, prefixed to 
 George Gascoigne’s] The aduentures of Master F. I. [ Ferdinando ; 
 Jeronimi, in] A Hundreth Sundrie Flowers , [1573] p. 203.. (Com- ' 
 plete Poems of Gascoigne, ed. W. C. Hazlitt, vol. i, p. xxxix.) 
 
 [Rollins 26.] ■ 
 
 And the more pitie, that amongst so many toward wittes 
 no one hath bene hitherto encouraged to followe the trace of 
 that worthy and famous Knight Sir Geffrey Chaucer , and 
 after many pretie deuises spent in youth, for the obtayning 
 a worthies victorie, might consume and consummate his age . 
 in discribing the right pathway to perfect felicitie, with the; 
 due preseruation of the same. 
 
 1575. Churchyard, Thomas. A discourse of vertue, [and] Churchyards 
 Dream , [in] The Firste parte of Churchyardes Chippes , ff. 716, 82a. 
 [Reprinted by J. P. Collier (1870?), pp. 154, 177.] 
 
 A discourse of vertue. 
 
 [p. 154 ] True dealing was but cauld a doult, 
 
 or els Gods foole, in deade : 
 
 Dame Flattery claymed frindships place, 
 
 Yet faild her frinde at neade. 
 
39 
 
 1576] Appendix A. 
 
 And robbry was good purchace helde, 
 and lust was sollace sweete : 
 
 And they were calld the lively laddes, 
 that had the quickest sprete. 
 
 Som said lords hestes were held for lawes, 
 but those were Chawsers woordes : 
 
 And faith did faile in old priestes sawes, 
 tushe all this was but boordes. 
 
 Churchyctrdes Dreame. 
 
 [Hollins 28.] 
 
 tp. 177] Howe shuld I hit in Chausers vayn, 
 
 Or toutche the typ, of Surries brayn 
 Or dip my pen, in Petrarkes stiell, 
 
 Sens conning lak I all the whiell 1 
 
 1575. [Edwards, Richard?] A new Tragicall Comedie of Apius and 
 Virginia , by R. B. [misprint for R. E., i.e. R. Edwards ?] 
 
 [The plot was probably taken from the Phisiciens Tale. 
 See C. W. Wallace, Evolution of the English Drama, 1912, 
 pp. 108-9.] 
 
 [1575.] Gascoigne, George. Dan Bartholmew of Bathe , [in] The Posies 
 of George Gascoigne, Esquire , corrected, perfected and augmented . . . 
 1575, p. cxii. (Complete works, ed. J. W. Cunliffe, 1907-10, 
 2 vols., vol. i, p. 137.) [This passage is not in the 1st edn., 
 A Hnndreth sundrie Flowers, [1573], q.v. above, pt. i, pp. 110-11, 
 and App. A., [■ n.a . 1572.] The publisher there adds a note that 
 Dan Bartholmew of Bathe is incomplete.] 
 
 [Rollins 27.] 
 
 [p. 137 ] Thus unto thee these leaues I recommend, 
 
 To reade, to raze, to view, and to correct : 
 
 Vouchsafe (my friend) therein for to amend 
 That is amisse . . . 
 
 [Cf. Troilus, v., st. 262, 263.] 
 
 1576. L., R. Beyng in Loue, he complaineth , [a poem, in] The Paradyse 
 of daynty deuises . . . deuised [edited] by M. [Richard] Edwardes. 
 (Ed. 1578, 1st in B.M., p. 48 ; ed. J. P. Collier, 1867, p. 132.) 
 
 [Rollins 31,] 
 
 Vnto whose grace yelde he, as I doe offer me, 
 
 Into your hands to haue his happ, not like hym for to be : 
 
40 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1576 - 
 
 But as kyng Priamus [sonnet], did bind hym to the will, 
 
 Of Cressed false whiche hym forsoke, with Diomed to spill. 
 
 [The four lines that follow these allude to the Cressid of 
 the Testament , and refer to her “Lazares death.”] 
 
 1576. Unknown. An excellent and pleasant Comedie, termed after the 
 name of the Vice , Common Conditions. [Licensed 1576.] (Ed. 
 Tucker Brooke, 1915, sign. D.) [Only copy of original, now in 
 America, lacks title.] 
 
 [Rollins 29.] 
 
 [LI. 800-823 refer to the stories of Medea and Jason, 
 Troilus and Cressida, Eneas and Dido, Theseus and Ariadne. 
 The probability that the author’s information about all these 
 lovers came from Chaucer is strengthened by the fact that 
 Cressid is referred to as a leper : the author had certainly 
 read the Testament of Cresseid, and this was accessible only 
 in an edition of Chaucer.. Cf. also Brooke’s note, p. 70.] 
 
 1576. Whetstone, George. Epilogus [to] The Castle of Delight [being 
 the first part of] The Roche of Regard, diuided into foure parts. 
 [No imprint or date : the preface is dated October 15, 15761. (Ed. 
 J. P. Collier, p. 90.) 
 
 [Rollins 30.] 
 
 Loe ! here the fruits of lust and lawlesse love, 
 
 Loe ! here their faults that vale to either vice ; 
 
 Loe ! ladyes here, their falles (for your behove) 
 
 Whose wanton willes sets light by sound advice. 
 
 [Cf. Troilus, v, st. 265. One of the poems to which these 
 lines form part of the epilogue is “ Cressids Complaint,” an 
 extremely bitter attack on the leprosy-stricken girl, q.v. 
 above, pt. i, p. 113.] 
 
 1577. Holinshed, Raphael. The Firste ( the Laste ) volume of the 
 Chronicles of England , Scotlande , and Irelande, vol. i, f. 5, col. 2, 
 vol. ii, f. 1118, col. 2. 
 
 [See also above, pt. i, p. 114.] 
 
 Tvol. i, f. 
 5, col. 2] 
 
 Afterward also, by the 
 
 diligent 
 
 traueile of Geffray 
 
 Chauser, and J ohn Gowre in the time of Richard the 
 second, & after the of John Scoga, & John Lydgate monke 
 of Berry, our tong was brought to an excellent passe. 
 
 [v°i. ii, [Among the writers of the reign of Richard II was] John 
 col. 2]’ Moone an Englishman borne, but a student in Paris, who 
 compyled in the French tongue the Romant of the Rose, 
 translated into English by Geffrey Chaucer. 
 
41 
 
 1578 ] Appendix A. 
 
 1577. Unknown. [ Annotations , dated 1577, on the flyleaf of a copy 
 * of] The Vision of Pierce Plowman, 1561, [printed in] Notes and 
 Queries, Sept. 18, 1858, 2nd ser. vol. vi, pp. 229-30. 
 
 2. Mention is made of Peerce Plowghman’s Creede, in 
 Chawcers tale off the Plowman. 
 
 3. I deeme Chawcer to be the author [i. e. of the Creede !]. 
 
 I think hit not to be on ond the same y t made both . . . 
 
 4. . . . G. Chawcerus vivit [sic] 1402 . . . 
 
 [1578.] Lyly, John. Influence of Chaucer. 
 
 [There seems little doubt that Lyly knew and liked 
 Chaucer well, from the reminiscences of the older poet 
 ^ to be found in his works. The following passages are 
 ~ specially to be noted ; the references are to the Complete 
 Works of John Lyly . . ed. , . R. Warwick Bond, 1902. 
 3 vols. 
 
 (1) Euphues , vol. i, p. 316. The letter to Aldus about 
 true ‘ gentilesse.’ Cf. Wyf of Bathes Tale , D. 1109-64. 
 
 (2) Euphues , vol. ii, p. 83, 1. 9. Cf. Wife's Prologue, 
 D. 466. 
 
 (3) In Gallathea is to be found the story of the Alchemist, 
 and his desertion by Peter, clearly borrowed (possibly via 
 Reginald Scot) from the Canon's Yeomans Prologue and 
 Tale [ see Introduction to play, in Lyly’s works, vol. ii, 
 pp. 423-4], wherein the exclamation ‘ Peter,’ [1. 665], may 
 have suggested the name of Lyly’s rascal, while the name 
 of Robin, the miller’s son, and the tale of the Astronomer 
 falling into a pond, may be taken from The MilleP'S Tale. 
 
 (4) Fairies in Gallathea and in Endimion. Cp. Wyf of 
 Bathes Tale. See also Notes to Lyly’s Works, vol. i, 
 p. 525. 
 
 (5) Endimion, character of Sir Tophas ‘follows closely, 
 though not obviously, the main lines of Chaucer’s Sir Topas. 
 R. Warwick Bond. See his notes to the play, Lyly’s 
 •Works, vol. iii, pp. 503-4. See also John Lyly, par A, 
 Feuillerat, Cambridge (1910), p. 318 and note. 
 
 (6) Mother Bornbie, i, 1. 73-5. Memphio’s remark: 
 ‘ Now for my wife I would have kept this from her, else 
 I shall not be able to keepe my house from smoake,’ may be 
 reminiscent of Wife of Bathes Prologue, D. 278-80. Also 
 iii, 4. 13-4. Rixula’s proverb about the ‘gray goose in the 
 lake.’ Cf. Wife of Bathes Prologue, D. 269-70. 
 
 (7) Euphues , vol. ii, p. 92, 1. 8, and Gallathea , iv, 1. 46, 
 ‘ hee must halt cunninglie, that will deceive a cripple.’ Cf. 
 Troilus and Criseyde, iv, 1458. 
 
 (8) Gallathea. Terms of alchemy and technical details owe 
 
42 
 
 1578 . 
 
 1579 . 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1578 - 
 
 much to Ch. Yeoman s Tale . See The Alchemist by Ben 
 Jonson, ed. C. M. Hathaway, N. York, 1903, pp. 73-4. 
 Mr. Hathaway gives some details of Lyly’s debt to Chaucer 
 in this respect, and maintains that Lyly 1 studied his alchemy 
 almost altogether in the Chanouns Yemannes Tale.' 
 
 For fuller notes on Lyly’s debt to Chaucer, see Lyly’s 
 Works, ed. R. Warwick Bond, biographical appendix, vol. i, 
 p. 401, of which the above is a summary.] 
 
 [Procter], T[homas]. The Louer in the prayse of his beloued , etc. 
 [in] A gorgious Gallery of gallant Inuentions. [No early ed. in 
 B.M.] (Three Collections of English Poetry [ed. Sir Henry Ellis], 
 Roxb. Club, 1844, sign. G. iv b.) 
 
 [Rollins 32.] 
 
 Nor shee whose eyes did pearce true Troylus brest, 
 
 And made him yeeld, that knew in loue no law . . . 
 
 [This allusion is unmistakably to Chaucer’s Troilus. 
 There are many other allusions in this work to Troilus 
 and Cressida, most of them, however, written with the 
 Testament in mind.] 
 
 A Student in Cambridge. [C., J. T\ A poore Knight his 
 P allace of priuate pleasures Written by a student of Cam- 
 
 bridge, and published by I. C. Gent. [No early ed. in B.M.] 
 (Ellis’s Three Collections, sign. B iiii b.) 
 
 [Rollins 33.] 
 
 And as I pryed by chaunce, I saw a damsell morne, 
 
 With ragged weedes, and Lazers spots, a wight to much 
 forlorne. 
 
 Quoth Morpheus doost thou see, wheras that caytiffe 
 lyes, 
 
 Much like the wretched Crocodill, beholde now how shee 
 cryes. , 
 
 That is Pandare his Nice, and Calcas only childe, 
 
 By whose deceites and pollicies, young Troylus was 
 beguilde. 
 
 Shee is kept in affliction where many other are, 
 
 And veweth Troylus lying dead, vpon the Mount of Care. 
 Shee wepte, shee sighed, shee sobd, for him shee doth 
 lament, 
 
 And all too late, yet to to vaine, her facte she doth 
 repent : 
 
 How could that stedfast knight, (quoth I) loue such a 
 dame? 
 
1584] 
 
 43 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 Morpheus replied in beauty bright, shee bare away the 
 fame : 
 
 Till that shee had betrayed, her Troylus and her dere, 
 And then the Gods assigned a plague, and after set her 
 heref. 
 
 [This remarkable combination of Chaucer’s and Henry- 
 son’s stories is equalled by another passage at sign. F. For 
 one at sign. C iii b, see above , pt. i, p. 119.] 
 
 1580. Unknown. A Complaint (by “Troylus”) and “A Beplye” 
 (by “Cressida”), [a ballad in two parts printed in 1580 edn. (not 
 in B.M.) of] The Paradyce of daynty deuyses. [Not in the 1st edn. 
 of 1578.] (Ed. Sir E. Brydges, 1812, pp. 100-102 ; W. C. Hazlitt’s 
 Complete Poems of George Gascoigne , vol. ii, pp. 331-333.) 
 
 [Rollins 34.] 
 
 [This ballad was very probably “ A proper ballad Dialoge 
 wise betwene Troylus and Cressida ” which Edward White 
 registered for publication on June 23, 1581 (Arber’s Tran- 
 script, vol. ii, p. 394). It has some interest as showing the 
 popular conception of Cressida, though most of its details are 
 borrowed from Henry son rather than from Chaucer.] 
 
 [c. 1582.] Unknown. The Pare Triumphes of Loue and Fortune. 
 Plaide before the Queenes most excellent Maiestie [between 
 Christmas 1581 and Feb. 1582]. At London. Printed by E. A. 
 for Edward White . . . 1589. (Dodsley’s Old Plays , ed. Hazlitt, 
 vol. vi, p. 155.) 
 
 [Rollms 35.] 
 
 [The unique copy of the original is the Bridgewater-Huntington, and is in 
 America.] 
 
 Enter the shoiv of Troilus and Cressida. 
 
 Mercury [speaks :] 
 
 Behold, how Troilus and Cressida 
 
 Cries out on Love, that framed their decay. 
 
 [1584-88. Puttenham, George.] The Arte of English Poesie, 1589, 
 p. 69. (Ed. Arber, 1869, p. 97.) 
 
 [Rollins 41.] 
 
 [See also above, pt. i, p. 125.] 
 
 . . . blind harpers or such like tauerne minstrels that 
 giue a fit of mirth for a groat, & their matters being for the 
 most part stories of old time, as the tale of Sir Topas , the 
 reportes of Beuis of Southampton , ... & such other old 
 Romances or historicall rimes, made purposely for recreation 
 of the common people . . . 
 
44 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1584 - 
 
 1584. Tomson, I. The Loner complaineth the losse of his Ladie [a 
 poem in] A Handefull of pleasant delites , by Clement Robinson, 
 and diuers others, sign. B 8 6. (Spenser Society reprint, 1871, 
 p. 32.) 
 
 [Rollins 36.] 
 
 If Venus would grant vnto me, 
 such happinesse : 
 
 As she did vnto Troylus , 
 
 By help of his friend Pandarus , 
 
 To Cressids loue who worse, 
 
 Than all the women certainly 
 That euer liued naturally, 
 
 Whose slight falsed faith, the storie saith, 
 
 Did breed by plagues, her great & sore distresse, 
 For she became so leprosie, 
 
 That she did die in penurie. 
 
 Because she did transgresse. 
 
 [The first few lines of this passage certainly refer to 
 Chaucer’s own poem : there is no Pandar in Henryson.] 
 
 1584. Unknown. A warning for Wooers, [and] The Loner being 
 wounded with his Ladis beutie, requireth mercy , [poems in] A 
 Handefull of pleasant delites , sign. C 7 a, D 4 6. (Spenser Society 
 reprint, pp. 45, 56.) 
 
 [Rollins 37.] 
 
 Ip- 56 ] The wofull prisoner Palemon , 
 
 And Troylus eke kinge Py ramus sonne, 
 Constrained by loue did neuer mone : 
 
 . As I my deer for thee haue done. 
 
 [1585-1590 P] Harvey, Gabriel. MS. notes in Gabriel Harvey’s 
 handwriting, in his copy of The mathematical Iewel, [by John 
 Blagrave, 1585. [B.M., C. 60. o. 7.] (Gabriel Harvey’s Margin- 
 
 alia, ed. G. C. Moore Smith, Stratford-upon-Avon, 1913, p. 211.) 
 
 [On preliminary page headed ‘ Margarita Mathematical in 
 Harvey’s handwriting :] 
 
 Chawcers Conclusions of the Astrolabie, still in esse. 
 Pregnant rules to manie worthie purposes. 
 
 [c. 1586.] Sidney, Sir Philip. [A sonnet, first printed in] Works, 1598, 
 p. 479. ( Elizabethan Sonnets, ed. Sir Sidney Lee, in An English 
 
 Garner, 1904, 2 vols., vol. i, p. 120. 
 
 [Rollins 38.] 
 
1589] 
 
 45 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 Are poets then, the only lovers true ? 
 
 Whose hearts are set on measuring a verse ; 
 
 Who think themselves well blest, if they renew 
 Some good old dump, that Chaucer's mistress knew . . . 
 
 1586. Whetstone, George. The English Myrror , Lib. 3, ch. 7, p. 235. 
 
 [Rollins 39.] 
 
 I haue in many places of my booke shewen sundrie ex- 
 amples of their [i. e., husbandmen’s] vnconstancie, and 
 therefore heere w T ill onely set down what Chauser writeth 
 of their dispositions vnder. 
 
 O sterne people, vniust, and vntrue, 
 
 Ay vndiscreete, and chaunging as a fane, 
 
 Delyting euer in rumours that be new : 
 
 For like the Moone you euer wax and wane, 
 
 Your reason halteth, your iudgement is lame 
 Your dome is false, your Constance euil preueth. 
 
 A ful great foole is he that on you leueth. 
 
 [ Clerkes Tale, 11. 995-1001.] 
 
 1588. Dale, Valentine. Letter to Lord Burghley, June 21, 1588. 
 (Record Office MS. Quoted by J. L. Motley in The United Nether- 
 lands ; Works, 1904, 9 vols., United Netherlands, vol. ii, p. 451.) 
 
 In the meantime, as the wife of Bath saith in Chaucer by 
 her husband, we owe them [the King of Spain’s Commis- 
 sioners] not a word. 
 
 [1589-1603.] Shakespeare, William. Influence of Chaucer. 
 
 [Although Shakespeare never refers to Chaucer by name, 
 and only once to the title of one of his works (the House of 
 Fame, in Titus Andronicus, see under 1589-90, above pt. i, 
 p. 131), yet there are many indications that he knew Chaucer 
 and was indebted to him. For literature on this subject, see 
 J. H. Hippisley in Chapters on Early English Literature, 
 1837, pp. 60-72; J. W. Hales in Quar. Review, Jan. 1873 ; 
 W. W. Lloyd in Critical Essays on Shakespeare, 1875 ; W. 
 Hertzberg in Shakespeare Jahrbuch, 1871, pp. 201-209; 
 O. Ballmann in Chaucers einfluss auf das englische drama, 
 Anglia, xxv, 1902; G. Sarrazin in Anglia, Beiblatt, vii, p. 265 ; 
 R. A. Small in The Stage Quarrel, Forschungen zur eng. 
 sprache, E. Kolbing, Heft I, 1899; E Stache in Das Ver- 
 haltniss von Shakespeare’s Troilus und Cressida zu Chaucer’s 
 gleichnamigen Gedicht, progr. des Realgymn. zu Nord- 
 
46 Appendix A. [ A. d. 1589- 
 
 hausen, reviewed in Anglia, Beiblatt, 1894, p. 269 ; II. R. D. 
 Anders in Shakespeare’s Books, Berlin, 1904, chap. 3 ; 
 H. Ord, Chaucer and the Rival Poet in Shakespeare’s 
 Sonnets, 1921. 
 
 In addition to the four Shakesperian references given 
 ante (under 1589-90, 1596-7, 1599, 1610-11), the following 
 may be specially noted. 
 
 [1593-4.] Lucrece. 
 
 ‘ And fellowship in woe doth woe assuage 
 As palmers’ chat makes short their pilgrimage.’ 
 
 This is a possible allusion to the C. Tales. For other 
 Chaucer resemblances in this poem, see O. Ballmann in 
 Anglia xxv, pp. 10-13, and G. Sarrazin in Anglia, Beibl. 
 vii, p. 266. 
 
 [1593-4.] A Midsummer-Night's Dream certainly shows 
 knowledge of the Theseus-Hippolyta part of Chaucer’s 
 Knight’s Tale. See Chapters on Early English Literature, 
 by J. H. Hippisley, pp. 60-2, also Quarterly Review, Jan. 
 1873, p. 249, and O. Ballmann in Anglia, xxv, pp. 5-9. 
 
 [1603.] Troilus and Criseyde. 
 
 Shakespeare undoubtedly used Chaucer’s poem as a main 
 source of his Troilus story ; see specially on this point, 
 R. A. Small in the Stage Quarrel, Forschungen zur eng. 
 sprache, Heft. 1, 1899, pp. 154-6. Dr. Small holds that ‘the 
 whole character of Pandarus . . is taken directly from 
 Chaucer’s japing Pandarus,’ that Shakespeare’s play ‘follows 
 the order of Chaucer’s story exactly, contains many passages 
 obviously suggested by it . . . and owes to it one aspect of 
 the character of Troilus.’ See also Critical Essays on 
 Shakespeare, by W. W. Lloyd, 1875, pp. 322-6.] 
 
 1592. JefFes, Abel. Entry in the Register of the Stationers' Company 
 of Chaucer’s Works. (A Transcript of the Registers, etc., ed. by 
 E. Arber, 1875-94, 5 vols., vol. ii, p. 621.) 
 
 [Rollins 42.] 
 
 vj t0 die Octobris. Abell JefFes. Entred for his copie 
 . . . Chaucers workes to Print for the companye. 
 
 [For the transfer of this licence to Adam Islip see below, 
 1594, Islip.] 
 
 1594. Islip, Adam. Entry in the Register of the Stationers' Company 
 of Chaucer’s Works. (A Transcript of the Registers, etc., ed. by 
 E. Arber, 1875-94, 5 vols., vol. ii, p. 611.) 
 
 xx° die Decembris. Adam Islip. Entred to him for his 
 copie to printe for the companye. Chawcers workes ... by 
 
47 
 
 1596] Appendix A. 
 
 the appointment of Abell Jeffes, to whom this copie was 
 first entred, and yf hereafter there be any Comentary or 
 other thinge written upon the same booke then the same 
 Adam shall have the offer of the same. 
 
 [For Jeffes’s entry see above, App. A, 1592.] 
 
 1594 . Percy, William. Sonnets to the Fairest Goelia. Sonnet viii. 
 (Elizabethan Sonnets, ed. Sir Sidney Lee, in An English Garner, 
 1904, 2 vols., vol. ii, p. 145.) 
 
 Strike up, my Lute . . . 
 
 Rehearse the songs of forlorne amor’us 
 Driv’ne to despaire by dames tyrannicall, 
 
 Of Alpheus losse, of woes of Troilus . * . 
 
 1595 . Churchyard, Thomas. A Praise of Poetrie, [in] A Musicall 
 Consort of Heauenly harmonie . . . called Churchyards Charitie. 
 [No old ed. in B.M.] ( Frondes Caducae, vol. iv, 1817, p. 40.) 
 
 [Rollins 43.] 
 
 Of heauenly things that earthly men 
 Can scarcely vnderstand 
 Did not our Chausers golden pen 
 (That beautifide this land) 
 
 Reach to the sunne and highest star 
 And toucht the heauens all 
 A poets knowledge goes so far 
 That it to mind can call. 
 
 [* See also above, pt. i, p. 141. “The Author to his 
 booke” (at the end of Churchyards Charitie ) begins “Go 
 now plaine booke, where thou maist welcom find,” possibly 
 in imitation of Troilus , v, st. 256.] 
 
 1596 . Lodge, Thomas. Wits Miserie, aud the Worlds Madnesse , 
 sign. F iij b. (Works, ed. Hunterian Club, 1879, vol. iv, p. 44.) 
 
 [Rollins 44.] 
 
 She [Cousenage] is the excellent of her age at a ring & a 
 basket : & for a baudie bargain, I dare turne her loose to 
 Chaucer’s Pandare. 
 
 1596 . Spenser, Edmund. The Faerie Queene, bk. vi, canto 3, st. i. 
 
 True is, that whilome that good poet sayd, 
 
 The gentle mind by gentle deeds is knowne. 
 
 ' [ Wife of Bath's Tale , 1. 1170.] 
 
48 Appendix A. [a.d. 1596- 
 
 1596 . W., D. [Verses] To the Author, [in] Sir Francis Brake , His 
 Honorable lifes commendation, and his Tragicall Deathes lament- 
 ation [by Charles FitzGeffrey], sig. A 4 recto, st. 3. 
 
 [Rollins 46.] 
 
 Old Geffrey Chaucer, Englands auncient Muse, 
 
 And mirrour of the times that did ensue, 
 
 Yeelded to death, that nere admits excuse ; 
 
 But now in thee he seemes to live anewe, 
 
 (If grave Pythagoras sage sawes be true :) 
 
 Then sith old Geffrey’s spirite lives in thee, 
 Rightlie thou named art Fitz-Geffery. 
 
 [For another example of this conceit applied to FitzGeoffrey, see above, pt. i, 
 p. 216, Haxby, 1636.] 
 
 1697 . Gerarde, John. The Herball, bk. ii, p. 424. 
 
 The first kinde, of Penny woort . . . groweth vpon West- 
 minster Abbay, ouer the doore that leadeth from Chaucer 
 his tombe to the olde palace. 
 
 1598 . Harington, Sir John. The Most Elegant and Wittie Epigrams 
 of Sir John Harington, Knight , [written about 1598, printed 
 1633] bk. i, ep. 8. 
 
 [Rollins 47.] 
 
 Chawcers jest. 
 
 [ 1598-1600 ?] Harvey, Gabriel. MS. notes in Gabriel Harvey’s 
 handwriting, in his copy of ‘ The Workes of . . . Geffrey Chaucer, 
 newly Printed,’ . . . 1598. [Speght’s first edn. of Chaucer.] 
 (Gabriel Harvey’s Marginalia, collected and edited by G. C. 
 Moore Smith, 1913, Appendix II, pp. 224-34.) 
 
 [There are a good many notes in this book ; Professor Moore Smith gives them 
 in full. Only those bearing directly on Chaucer or his work are printed here. 
 There are difficulties in fixing with any certainty the dates of these notes. Probably 
 they were written at different times between 1598, when Speght’s Chaucer came into 
 Harvey’s possession (as proved by his autograph with date], and 1600 or even 1608. 
 This latter date might be the earliest possible for the note on the Shipman’s Tale, 
 where Harvey quotes from the 1608, not the 1590, edition of the Cobler of Canterburie. 
 As, however, the book was licensed on June 12, 1600, there may have been an inter- 
 mediate edition in that year. For a full discussion of the date of Harvey’s notes, 
 with the views of Bishop Percy and Edmund Malone, see Gabriel Harvey's Marginalia, 
 ed. G. C. Moore Smith, 1913, Preface, pp. viii-xi, and Notes, p. 304.] 
 
 [p. 226] [At end of Chaucer's Life : — ] 
 
 Amongst the sonnes of the Inglish Muses ; Gower, Lid- 
 gate, Heywood, Phaer, & a fewe other of famous memorie, 
 ar meethinkes, good in manie kindes : but abooue all other, 
 Chawcer in mie conceit, is excellent in euerie veine, & 
 
1598] Appendix A. [ Harvey ] 49 
 
 humour : & none so like him for gallant varietie, both in 
 matter, & forme, as Sir Philip Sidney. . . 
 
 On ‘ Arguments to euery Tale and Boohe * on ‘ The Argu- 
 ment to the Prologues ’ [written by Speght]. 
 
 Pleasant interteinement of Time, with sociable intercourse 
 of Tales, stories, discourses, & merriments of all fashions, 
 Gallant varietie of notable veines, & humors in manie kinds, 
 sujora to his loouing frend, concerning his obseruation of the 
 [p. 227 ] art of Decorum in his Tales. A fine discretion in the 
 autor : & a pithie note in the Censor, utrumqwe scitum. 
 
 [Speght, in this ‘ Argument,’ remarks on Chaucer’s ‘ decorum ’ in speech ( see below, 
 App. A. 1598). Francis Beaumont, who, in his prefatory letter, signs himself 
 Speght’s ‘loving friend,’ asserts also that Chaucer observes decorum in suiting his 
 speeches and stories to his characters (see above, vol. i, p. 146), hence Harvey’s 
 remark.] 
 
 [On ‘ The Knights Tale ,’ on the words ‘ deeds of Armes, 
 and loue of Ladies : ’ — ] 
 
 Heroical pageants. 
 
 [On 1 The Millars tale : ’ — ] 
 
 Comical tricks. The Prior disguised like a scull, shame- 
 fully discouered, in the new Canterburie Tales. 
 
 [On ‘ The Reues Tale : ’ — ] 
 
 Such a reueng vpon Marian of Cherryhynton, bie Sir 
 Rowland of Peters hostell in Cambridg. In the new 
 Canterburie Tales, called The Cobler of Canterburie. A 
 Tragedie for a Comedie. 
 
 Tria grata ; Nouitas, Yarietas, breuitas. 
 
 [On ‘ The man of Lawes Tale : ’ — ] 
 
 Courtlie practises. 
 
 [On ‘ The Squiers Tale : ’ — ] 
 
 Heroical, & magical feates. 
 
 [On ‘ The Merchaunts Tale ’ :■ — ] 
 
 Comical. 
 
 [On ‘ The Fryars Tale' on the words ‘ inuective against 
 the briberie of the spirituall Courts ’ : — ] 
 
 Ecclesiastical iurisdiction, J.C. 
 
 [On ‘ The Somners Tale ’ : — ] 
 
 An od iest in scorne of friars. 
 
 [On ‘ The Clarke of Oxfords Tale ’ : — ] 
 
 Moral, & pathetical. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. — IV. E 
 
50 [ Harvey ] Appendix A. [ a . d . 1598 
 
 [On ‘ The Frankelins TaleJ on the words ‘The scope of 
 this tale seemeth a contention in curtesie ’ : — ] 
 
 A generous Emulation. Magical feates bie the way. 
 
 [On ‘ The second Nonnes Tale ' : — ] 
 
 An Ecclesiastical Legend. The life of S. Crispin, in 
 honour of the gentle Craft, for varietie. The lines of 
 Eunapius, Philostratus, or such like. 
 
 [p. 228] [On ‘ The Chanons Yeomans Tale * : — ] 
 
 A chymical discourse, & discouerie of a cunning im- 
 postour. One of Axiophilus memorials : with that lost 
 labour of Aurelius. Two notable discourses of cunning 
 
 O 
 
 withowt effect. 
 
 [' Axiophilus’ is probably Harvey himself, see Gabriel Harvey’s Marginalia, ed. 
 
 G. C. Moore Smith, p. 306. Aurelius is the squire in the Frankeleynes Tale.] 
 
 [On ‘ The Shipmans Tale ’ : — ] 
 
 The Smithes Tale, in the new Canterburie Tales. A 
 iealous Cobler, cunningly made a Cuckold. In the Cobler’s 
 Tale, the Eight orders of Cuckholds. Cuckhold Machomita. 
 Heretick. Lunatick. Patient. Incontinent. Bie con- 
 sent. Bie parlament. Innocent. 
 
 [On ‘ Chaucers Tale ’ : — ] 
 
 Morall. 
 
 [On ‘ The Monkes Tale on the words ‘ A Tragicall 
 discourse on such as haue fallen from high estate to extreame ! 
 miserie ’ : — ] 
 
 The Mirrour of Magistrates. 
 
 [On ‘ The Manciples Tale ’ : — ] 
 
 No Tales like the Tales of Cunning Experiments, or 
 straung exploits, or queint surprises, or stratagems, or i 
 miracles, or sum such rare singularities. '• 
 
 [On ‘ The Persons Tale ’ : — ] 
 
 Moral and penitential. The last of his Canterburie f 
 Tales, with Lidgates tragical storie of Thebes. 
 
 [On ‘ Troylus and Creseid 1 : — ] 
 
 A peece of braue, fine <fc sweet poetrie. One of Astrophils 
 Cordials. 
 
 [This alludes to Sidney’s criticism, q.v. above, vol. i, pp. 121-2, 1581.] 
 
 [p. 229] [On ‘ The Legend of good women * : — ] 
 
 Heroical & Tragical Legends. 
 
1598 ] 
 
 [ Harvey ] 51 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 [On £ The Astrolabe 1 : — ] 
 
 An astronomical discourse. 
 
 [On £ The Testament of Loue 1 : — ] 
 
 A philosophical discourse in the Veine of Boetius, & 
 sumtime of Seneca. 
 
 [After ‘ Finis ’ : — ] 
 
 All notable Legends in one respect, or other : & worthie 
 to be read, for theire particular invention, or elocution : 
 & specially for the varietie both of matter, & manner, that 
 delightes with proflit, & proffites with delight. Though I 
 could haue wdsshed better choice of sum arguments, and 
 sum subjects of more importance. 
 
 [On the text of the poems : — ] 
 
 [‘ The Millers Tale ’ ; — ] 
 
 A student of Astrologie. 
 
 [‘ The Squiers Tale ’ : — ] 
 
 The Spring : vt supra in fra. 
 
 Cunning Compositions bie Natural Magique. 
 
 [‘ The Frankeleins Tale ’ : — ] 
 
 A cunning man, & arch-magician. 
 
 [ £ The Tale of the Chanons Yeman ’ .• — ] 
 
 Alchymie. 
 
 The great Alchymist. 
 
 [ £ The Tale of the Nonnes Priest f ; — ] 
 
 The spring. The prime of day. 
 
 [ £ The Parsons Prologue ’ : — ] 
 
 The description of the howre. ut supra 17. 
 
 Contritio cordis. 
 
 [ £ The Pomant of the Rose ’ : — ] 
 
 Excellent descriptions of Beautie. Richesse. Largesse, 
 tp. 230] Fine Optiques. 
 
 Jelosies architecture. 
 
 [ £ The Fifth Booke of Troilus 5 : — ] 
 
 A cold spring. 
 
 [ £ The Prologue ’ (to the Legend of Good Women ) : — ] 
 
 The daisie, his looue. 
 
 The Golden Legends of famous Ladies and Worthie 
 Woomen. 
 
52 
 
 [a.d. 1598- 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 Chaucer’s Works in honour of Woomen. 
 
 [p. 23i] [At the end of the poems : — ] 
 
 Not manie Chawcers, or Lidgates, Gowers, or Occleues, 
 Surries, or Heywoods, in those dayes : & how few Aschams 
 or Phaers, Sidneys or Spensers, Warners or Daniels, 
 Siluesters or Chapmans, in this pregnant age. But when 
 shall we tast the preserued dainties of Sir Edward Dier, j 
 Sir Walter Raleigh, M. Secretarie Cecill, the new patron 
 of Chawcer; the Earle of Essex, the King of Scotland, 
 the soueraine of the diuine art ; or a few such other refined 
 wittes & surprising spirits % 
 
 More of Chaucer, & his Inglish traine in a familiar discourse ! 
 of Anonymus [= Harvey 1 ?]. 
 
 [p. 232] And now translated Petrarch, Ariosto, Tasso & Bartas 
 himself deserue curious comparison with Chaucer, Lidgate 
 & owre best Inglish, auncient & moderne. 
 
 1598. Speght, Thomas. The Workes of our Antient and lerned English .< 
 Poet , Geffrey Chaucer. [Additional extracts.] 
 
 [Sign. c. iiii.] Arguments to every Tale and Booke. [48 in all.] 
 
 The Argument to the Prologues — 
 
 The Authour in these Prologues to his Canterbury Tales, 
 doth describe the reporters thereof for two causes : first, that 
 the Reader seeing the qualitie of the person, may iudge of his 
 speech accordingly : wherein Chaucer hath most excellently 
 kept that decorum , which Horace requireth in that behalfe. ; 
 Secondly to shew, how that euen in our language, that may \ 
 be perfourmed for descriptions, which the Greeke and Latine \ | 
 Poets in their tongues haue done at large. And surely this 
 Poet in the iudgement of the best learned, is not inferiour to 
 any of them in his descriptions, whether they be of persons, ! 
 times, or places. Ynder the Pilgrimes, being a certaine 
 number, and all of differing trades, he comprehendeth all 
 the people of the land, and the nature and disposition of 
 them in those daies; namely, giuen to deuotion rather of 
 custome than of zeale. In the Tales is shewed the state 
 of the Church, the Court, and Countrey, with such Arte and 
 
1600] 
 
 53 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 cunning, that although none could deny himselfe to be 
 touched, yet none durst complaine that he was wronged. 
 For the man being of greater learning then the most, and 
 backed by the best in the land, was rather admired and 
 feared, then any way disgraced. Whoso shall read these 
 his works without preiudice, shall find that he was a man of 
 rare conceit and of great reading. 
 
 [Sign. c. v.3 The Plowman's Tale. 
 
 A complaint against the pride and couetousnesse of the 
 cleargie : made no doubt by Chaucer with the rest of the 
 Tales. For I haue seene it in written hand in Iohn Stowes 
 Library in a booke of such antiquity, as seemeth to haue 
 beene written neare to Chaucers time. 
 
 [Sign. c. v b.] The Legend of Good Women. 
 
 For that some Ladies in the Court tooke offence at Chaucers 
 large speeches against the vntruth of women, the Queene 
 enioyned him to compile this booke in the commendation of 
 sundry maydens and wiues, who shewed themselues faithfull 
 to faithlesse men. 
 
 [In the second edn. of Speght’s Chaucer. 1602, these 
 ‘ Arguments ’ were removed from their place immediately 
 after the ‘Life,’ and placed at the beginnings of the 
 respective works.] 
 
 1599. Dekker, Thomas, and Chettle, Henry, Troilus and Cressida 
 [“ Troyeles & creassedaye,” “ Troyelles & cresseda,” a play men- 
 tioned in Henslowe’s Diary (ed. W. W, Greg., vol. i, pp. 104, 
 109) on April 7 and 16, 1599.] 
 
 [Rollins 48.] 
 
 [Probably indebted to Chaucer’s Troilus. A rough plot 
 preserved among the Henslowe Papers (ed. Greg., p. 142), 
 shows clearly enough that the Testament of Cresseid was 
 used.] 
 
 [1600 ?] Atkinson, , of Cambridge ? [About this time was 
 
 christened Troilus Atkinson, later a bookseller. See Bibl. Soc. 
 Dictionary of Printers, 1668-1725. His parents’ names and the 
 date of his birth are unknown. There was also a Sir Troilus 
 Turberville, a Royalist, who was killed in the Civil War, and who 
 was probably rather younger. These are the only definitely 
 Chaucerian Christian names that we have found.] 
 
54 
 
 Appendix A. [ a . d . 1600 - 
 
 [n.a. 1600. Moore, Paul ?] The Wanton Wife of Bath, To the tune of 
 Flying Fame, dec. [Ballad.] Percy’s Reliques , ed. 1765, Bk. II, 
 
 No. 12 ; ed. 1767, III, 145 ; the Ballad Society’s Roxburahe 
 Ballads, VII, 212. Cf. also No. 79, below. 
 
 [Rollins 49.] 
 
 In Bath a wanton Wife did dwell, 
 
 As Chaucer he doth write, 
 
 Who did in pleasure spend her dayes, 
 
 And many a fond delight. 
 
 [The following entry appeared in the Stationers’ Registers 
 (Arber’s Transcript, vol. ii, p. 831) on] 
 
 25. Junij [1600.] 
 
 Yt is ordered touchinge a Disorderly^ ballad of the wife 
 of Bathe, printed by Edward aldee and william white and 
 sold by Edward white : That all the same ballates shalbe 
 brought in and burnt / And that either of the printers 
 for theire Disorders in printinge yt shall pay v s A pece 
 for a fine. And that master white for his offence and 
 Disorder in sellinge it shall pay x 8 for a fine . xx 8 . 
 
 And ther Imprisonment is respited till another tyme / 
 
 [The ballad, then, is as least as old as 1600. It is also 
 interesting to observe that on June 24, 1632, Henry 
 Goskin, of London, was summoned before the Court of 
 High Commission for printing this ballad, “wherein the 
 histories of the Bible are scurrilously abused,” and was 
 sent to Bridewell. — See J. S. Burns’s High Commission, 
 London, 1865, p. 47, and S. It. Gardiner’s Reports, Camden 
 Society, 1886, p. 314. 
 
 It was frequently reprinted, and more than once re- 
 written and enlarged. It describes the Wife of Bath’s 
 journey to Heaven and her retorts to the Biblical characters 
 who refuse her admittance. For a Scotch version, “ The • 
 Wanton Wife of Beith,” see above, 1700, vol. i, p. 288. ]< 
 
 The authorship is attributed to Paul Moore in a MS. 
 copy written in the Huth (now B.M.) copy of Phillips’ 
 ‘Satyr against Hypocrites,’ 1655; but this may refer only 
 to a contemporary version of the ballad. 
 
 The earliest extant printed text is a sheet printed for 
 W. Thackeray, about 1670.] 
 
 1600. Thynne, Francis, Fmblemes and Epigrams, epigram 61. [The 
 autograph MS. has dedication dated 1600, (Ed. F. J. Furnivall, 
 E.E.T.S., 1876, p. 82.) 
 
 [Rollins 51.] 
 
1603] 
 
 55 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 ffor in this cottage rurall muse doth reste ; 
 here dwelleth Cher ill , and Topas the Knighte, 
 
 [1600^] Unknown, A ballad of Cresus [i.e. Cressida ; in the Percy Folio 
 MS.] (Ed. Hales and Furnivall, vol. iii, pp. 301-2.) 
 
 [Rollins 50.] 
 
 [ S t. i] Cressus : was the ffairest of Troye, 
 
 whom Troylus did loue ! 
 the Knight was kind, & shee was coy, 
 no words nor worthes cold moue, 
 till Pindaurus soe playd his part 
 that the 'Knight obtained her hart . . . 
 
 [n.b. 1602 . Goddard, William. Verses written on the back of the 
 portrait in a copy of Chaucer’s works, 1602, being No. 117 in a 
 list, c. 1917, of books offered for sale by Mr. G. H. Last, of 
 Bromley.] 
 
 If thou yll-rellishe Chaucer for his ryme, 
 
 Consider when he liud, the age and time, 
 
 And thou’t saie old Geffrye neatlie writt 
 And shows both elloquence and curious witt, 
 
 Noe age did ere afford a merry er vaine, 
 
 Yet divd into a deepe and sollid straine. 
 
 Willyam Goddard. 
 
 1602. Scott, Robert, Junior Dean of Trinity. College, Cambridge. 
 Sermon [quoted by John Manningham in his Diary for 1602, (ed. 
 J. Bruce, Camden Soc., 1868, p. 11).] 
 
 [Rollins 52.] 
 
 All our new corne comes out of old feilds, and all our 
 new learning is gathered out of old bookes. {(Chaucer.) 
 [Pari. Foules , 11. 22-25.] 
 
 1603. H[arsnet], Sfamuel]. A Declaration of egregious Popish 
 Impostures, pp. 12, 25. 
 
 [Rollins 53.] 
 
 [p. 12 ] Trayford cryes out by the way water, water, as the Frier 
 
 [sic] did that by Absolon in Chawcer was scalded. . . . 
 
 [ Milleret Tale, 11. 620 ff.] 
 
 [p. 25 ] [“ Cressida,” meaning a mistress.] 
 
 [ See also above, vol. i, p. 173.] 
 
56 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1603 - 
 
 [1603 ?] Shakespeare, William. Troilus and Cressida [written about 
 1603. For Shakespeare’s debt to Chaucer see H. E. Rollins, “The 
 Troilus-Cressida Story from Chaucer to Shakespeare,” in the 
 Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 
 Sept. 1917, vol. xxxii, pp. 383-429]. 
 
 [c. 1604. Fowler, William?] [The Laste Epistle of Creseydto Troyalus. 
 (Works, ed. H. W. Meikle, Scottish Text Society, 1914, vol. i, 
 pp. 379-387.) 
 
 [Rollins 54.] 
 
 [This curious poem aims at completing Henryson’s Testa- 
 ment, to which it is chiefly indebted. It retells Henryson’s 
 story, with various borrowings from Chaucer and, apparently, 
 from Lydgate’s Troy Booh .] 
 
 1604. Unknown. A Pleasant Comoedie, Wherein is merily shewen : 
 The wit of a Woman , sig. E4b (Malone soc. reprint, 1913, 
 11. 1154, 5). 
 
 [Rollins 55.] 
 
 Issa\bella]. Is not this a prettie world? Ianuary and 
 May make a match. 
 
 [1605. Bedell, William, Bishop?] The Shepherd's Tale of the 
 Pouder-Plott. A Poem in Spenser's Style. [Written in 1605, 
 printed in 1713, as “A Protestant Memorial, or The -Shepherd’s 
 Tale,” etc.] 
 
 [Alexander Clogie, in his Speculum Episcoporum ( q . v. 
 below, [c. 1675-6]) attributes this poem to Bishop Bedell, 
 and says that it is “conceived in the old dialect of Tusser 
 and Chaucer.” The pastoral dialogue is imitated from 
 Spenser ; the tale may possibly be considered to be imitated : 
 from Chaucer; it is in very rough couplets : e.g.] 
 
 In Italy (mought I tell it right) 
 
 An ancient City stands that Rome hight ; 
 
 Who hath not heard by Report of Fame, 
 
 Wide in the World of this Rome the Name? 
 
 1606. Licence to print The Ploughman' s Tale (as Chaucer’s), [in] Registers 
 ol the Stationers’ Company of London (Arber’s Transcript , III, 
 310). 
 
 [Rollins 57.] 
 
1606] 
 
 57 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 17. Januarij [1605/6] 
 
 Samuel Macham Entred for their copy ... A book called the 
 Mathue Coo e. pi 0U g} imans tale shewinge by the doctrine and lyres 
 of the popishe clergie that the pope is Ante christ and they 
 his Ministers, written by Sir Geffrey Chawcer amongst 
 his Canterbury Tales and nowe sett out apart from the 
 rest with A short exposition of the woordes and matter for 
 the capacity and vnderstandinge of the sympler sort of 
 readers v j d 
 
 [For the edition see above, vol. i, p. 177.] 
 
 1600. [Chapman, George ?] Influence of Chaucer on the author [George 
 Chapman?] of Sir Gyles Goosecappe. Notes by Professor G. L. 
 Kittredge on Sir Gyles Goosecappe in “Notes on Elizabethan 
 Plays,” in the Journal of Germanic Philology, vol. ii, 1898, 
 pp. 10-13. 
 
 * [The source of the plot is the first 3 books of Chaucer’s 
 Troilus and Criseyde.] It is sufficiently curious to see the 
 skill with which the anonymous playwright has adapted his 
 original to the fashions of Elizabethan comedy conversation. 
 
 Acti, sc. 4 (pp. 21-28) contains the confession of Clarence 
 (in reply to protestations of long-standing friendship on 
 the part of Monford) that he is in love with Monford’s 
 niece Eugenia. The narrative corresponds in general to 
 Troilus , i, 547-1071, but it is much condensed and shows 
 few, if any, verbal resemblances. Act ii, sc. 1 contains the 
 visit of Monford to his niece’s house. The agreement here 
 is closer. One has but to read Troilus ii. 78 ff. to recognize 
 the source of the scene.] 
 
 Sir Gyles Goosecappe. 
 
 Mom. I, and I could tell you 
 a thing would make your Lady- 
 ship very dancitive. p. 32 
 
 Eug. But I. pray tell me my 
 Lord could you tell me of a 
 thing would make me dance say 
 you? p. 32 
 
 Troilus. 
 
 ‘As ever thryve I,’ quod this 
 Pandarus, 
 
 Yet coude I telle a thing to doon 
 you pleye. 
 
 ‘ Now uncle dere,’ quod she, ‘ tel 
 it us 
 
 For goddes love.’ 2. 120-23 
 
 ‘ Ye, holy god ! ” quod she, ‘ what 
 thing is that?’ 2. 127 
 
58 [Chapman] Appendix A. [a.d. 1606 
 
 Mom. Well — farewell, sweet 
 Neece, I must needs take my 
 leave in earnest. 
 
 Eug. Lord blesse us, heres 
 such a stir with your farewcls. 
 
 Mom. I will see you againe 
 within these two or three dayes 
 a my word Neece. 
 
 Eug. Cods pretious, two or 
 three days ? Why this Lord is 
 in a maruallous strange humor. 
 Sit downe, sweet Ynkle ; yfaith 
 I have to talke with you about 
 greate matters. p. 32 
 
 And with that word tho Pan- 
 darus, as blyve, 
 
 He took his leve, and seyde, ‘ I 
 wol go henne.’ 
 
 ‘ Hay, blame have I, myn uncle/ 
 quod she, thenne. 
 
 What eyleth yow to be thus 
 wery sone, 
 
 And namelich of wommen ? wol 
 ye so? 
 
 Nay, sitteth down ; by god, I 
 have to done 
 
 With yow, to speke of wisdom er 
 ye go.’ 2. 208-14 
 
 [pp. 32-3 are then compared with Troilus ii. 274-80.] 
 
 Mom. Never trust me, if all 
 things be not answerable to the 
 prediction of a most Divine 
 fortune towards her ; now if 
 she have the grace to apprehend 
 it in the nicke ; thers all. 
 
 p. 33 
 
 Mom. Neece, Clarence, Clar- 
 ence, rather my soule than my 
 friend Clarence, of two sub- 
 stantiall a worth, to have any 
 figures, cast about him (not- 
 withstanding, no other woman 
 with Empires could stirre his 
 affections) is with your vertues 
 most extreamely in love ; and 
 without your requitall dead. 
 
 p. 33 
 
 Eug. Ay me poor Dame, 0 you 
 amase me Ynkle. 
 
 ‘ Good aventure, 0 bele nece, 
 have ye 
 
 Ful lightly founden, and ye conne 
 it take ; 
 
 And, for the love of god, and 
 eek of me, 
 
 Cacche it anoon ; lest aventure 
 slake.’ 2. 288-91 
 
 ‘Now, nece myn, the kinges 
 dere sone, 
 
 The goode, wyse, worthy, fresshe 
 and free, 
 
 Which alwey for to do wel is his 
 wone, 
 
 The noble Troilus, so loveth thee, 
 
 That, bot ye helpe, it wol his 
 bane be.’ 2. 316-20 
 
 ‘ This false world, alas ! who 
 may it leve ? 
 
1606 ] 
 
 Is this the wondrous fortune 
 you presage ? 
 
 What man may miserable 
 women trust ? p. 34 
 
 Mom. But now I see how you 
 accept my motion : I perceive 
 (how upon true triall) you 
 esteeme me. p. 34 
 
 [Chapman] 59 
 
 What'? is this al the Ioye and 
 al the feste 1 
 
 Is this your reed, is this my 
 blisful cas 1 
 
 Is this the verray meede of your 
 beheste.’ 2. 420-3 
 
 ‘ I see ful wel that ye sette lyte 
 of us.’ 2. 432 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 In act iii, sc. 2 (pp. 51, 52), Clarence writes a letter at the 
 suggestion of Monford (cf. Troilus , ii. 1002, 1023 ff.), which 
 the latter undertakes (p. 54) to deliver to Eugenia. In act 
 iv. (pp. 57 ff.) Monford delivers the letters : 
 
 Eug. What winde blowes you 
 hether troe ? 
 
 Mom. Harke you, Madam, 
 the sweet gale of one Clarences 
 breath, with this his paper 
 sayle blowes me hether. p. 57 
 
 Eug. Aye me, still in that 
 humour 1 beshrewe my heart, if 
 I take anie Papers from him. 
 
 p. 57 
 
 Mom. Kinde bosome doe thou 
 take it then. 
 
 Eug. Nay then never trust 
 i me. 
 
 Mom. Let it fall then or cast 
 it away, you were best, that 
 everybody may discover your 
 love suits, doe, theres somebody 
 neare, you note it. p. 57 
 
 ‘ What maner windes gydeth 
 yow now here ? ’ 2.1104 
 
 He seyde hir thus, and out the 
 lettre plighte, 
 
 ‘ Lo, he that is al hooley youres 
 free. 
 
 Him recomaundeth lowly to 
 your grace, 
 
 And sent to you this lettre here 
 by me.’ 2. 1120-23 
 
 ‘ Scrit ne bille, 
 
 For love of god, that toucheth 
 swich matere, 
 
 Ne bring ne noon.’ 2. 1130-32 
 
 * Refuse it nought/ quod he, and 
 hente her faste, 
 
 And in her bosom the lettre 
 doun he thraste, 
 
 And seyde hir, ‘ now cast it 
 away anoon, 
 
 That folk may seen and gauren 
 on us tweye/ 
 
 Quod she, ‘ I can abyde till they 
 be goon.’ 2. 1154-8 
 
 
GO 
 
 
 Appendix A . [ a . d . 1606 - 
 
 [There follows the account of Eugenia’s writing a reply to 
 Clarence’s letter (pp. 58—61), which should be compared with 
 Troilus ii. 171 ff. The pretended sickness of Troilus 
 ( Troilus ii. 1513 ff., 3. 8 ff.) and the supper at Pandarus’s 
 house ( Troilus ii. 554 ff.) are combined in the fifth act, with 
 some important modifications. A contract of marriage is 
 made between Eugenia and Clarence, and the play closes 
 with a ‘ measure ’ and a song.] 
 
 1606. Craig, Alexander. The Amorose Songes , Sonets , and Elegies: 
 Of M. Alexander Craige, Scoto-Britane. (Works, Hunterian Club. 
 1873, pp. 82, 111.) 
 
 [Rollins 58.] 
 
 [p- 823 To Lais. 
 
 When Cressid went from Troy to Calch[a]s tent, 
 and Greeks with Troians were at skirmidg hot 
 Then Diomed did late and aire frequent 
 Her companie, and Troil was forgot. 
 
 [Craig must have had Troilus and Criseyde in mind. See 
 next quotation.] 
 
 tP- ni l To Lais. 
 
 Braue Troilus the Troian stout and true, 
 
 As more at length in Chauser wee may find, 
 
 Dreamd that a faire White Bull, as did insue, 
 
 Had spoyld his Loue, and left him hurt behind . . . 
 
 [Cf. Troilus, v, st. 178, 207 ff] 
 
 1607. C., R. The Epistle Dedicatorie [to] A World of Wonders 
 [translated from the French of Henri Estienne], sign IT 3. 
 
 They [our ancestors] thought him [Herodotus] worthy to 
 be read at the games of Olympus. These men [i. e. modern 
 critics] reade him but as a Canterburie tale, to hold children 
 from play, and old folkes from the chimney corner. 
 
 1607. Dekker, Thomas, and Webster, John. West-Ward Hoe , 
 Act v, sign. G 4b. (Dekker’s Plays, ed. Pearson, 1873, vol. ii, 
 p. 348.) ' 
 
 [Rollins 59.] 
 
 No remedy trusty Troylus : and it greeues mee as much, 
 that youle want your false Cressida to night, for heeres no 
 sir Pandarus to vsher you into your Chamber. 
 
61 
 
 1611] Appendix A. 
 
 [1608 ?] Beaumont, Francis. The Triumph of Honor [the first of] 
 Four Plays or Moral Representations in One , [first printed in 
 Beaumont and Fletchers] Comedies and Tragedies, (Works, ed. 
 A. R. Waller, 1905-12, 10 vols., vol. x, pp. 292, etc.) 
 
 [Based on the Frankeleynes Tale, the name of Dorigen 
 being retained for the heroine. This and the second 
 Triumph are attributed to Beaumont.] 
 
 1609. Hey wood, Thomas. Troia Britanica: Or Great Britaines Troy , 
 A Poem , Canto xi, p. 254 n, 
 
 [Rollins 60.] 
 
 The passages of Loue betwixt Troylus and Cressida, the 
 reuerent Poet Chaucer hath sufficiently discourst, to whom 
 I wholy refer you, hauing past it ouer with little circum- 
 stance. 
 
 [“This passage was kindly copied for me,” says Professor Rollins, “by Dr. 
 J. B. Munn, of Harvard.”] 
 
 [c. 1610.] Unknown. Troilus and Cressida , [a Welsh Play, in MS. 
 Peniarth 106, National Library of Wales]. 
 
 [For this curious and important work, which is said to 
 borrow freely from both Chaucer and Henryson, see 
 J. S. P. Tatlock’s article in the Modern Language Review, 
 vol. x (1915), pp. 265 ff.] 
 
 [1611 ?] Davies, John, of Hereford. The Scourge of Folly, p, 109. 
 (Works, ed. A. B. Grosart, 1875-78, vol. ii, pp. 34, 57.) 
 
 [Rollins 63] 
 
 [p. 34] Epig. 288 [sic, for 228]. 
 
 She . . . loues to bourd, or iest, 
 
 (Or as Sir Chaucer tearmes it) with the best. 
 
 [p. 57] To my tenderly heloued friend Mr Nicholas Deehle. 
 
 Hend Nicholas (quoth Chaucer) kinde to me . . . 
 
 [Milleres Tale.] 
 
 1611. Sydenham, George. Note to a Poem in Coryat’s Crudities, 
 sign. F 2b. 
 
 [A coarse phrase in the text is described as “a Chaucer- 
 isme.”] 
 
62 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1611 — 
 
 1611. Sylvester, Joshua. [ Lines interpolated by Sylvester in] Du 
 Bartas his Deuine Weekes and Workes Translated ... by 
 Josuali Sylvester. Now thirdly corrected & augm., 1611, p. 69. 
 (Complete Works, ed. A. B. Grosart, 1880, vol. i., p. 43). These 
 lines are not in the earlier editions of 1605 or 1608, but are first in- 
 serted in the 1611 edition]. 
 
 And little Lambe’s-Bourn, though thou match not Lers, 
 
 Nor had’st the Honor of Du Bartas’ Yerse, 
 
 If mine have any, Thou must needst partake, 
 
 Both for thine Owne, and for thine Owner’s Sake; 
 
 Whose kinde Excesses Thee so neerely touch, 
 
 That Yeerely for them Thou doost weep so much 
 All Summer-long (while all the Sisters shrink) 
 
 That of thy teares a million daily drink ; 
 
 Besides thy waast which then in haste doth run 
 To wash the feet of Chaucer’s Donnington : 
 
 [This is quoted in the Gentleman’s Magazine, Nov. 1743, q. v. below.] 
 
 1612. Johnson, Richard. A New Sonnet of a Knight and a Faire 
 Virgin, [a ballad, in] A Crowne-Garland of Goulden Hoses. (Ed. 
 1631, 1st in BM ; Percy Soc. ed., 1842, pp. 68-71.) 
 
 [Rollins 64.] 
 
 [Johnson tells the Wife of Bath's Tale , closely following j 
 Chaucer.] 
 
 I 
 
 1612. Unknown. [A Poem on Troilus and Cressida, added to the : 
 1612 edn. (B.M.) of Deloney’s Strange Histories .] 
 
 [This poem covers the whole plot of the Troilus story, in 
 outline, the earlier part being told in a dialogue between 
 the lovers. Cressida’s leprosy is mentioned at the end.] 
 
 1613-16. Browne, William. Influence of Chaucer on Browne. William I 
 Browne, his Britannia’s Pastorals, by F. W. Moorman (Quellen und j 
 Forschungen, lxxxi, 1897), pp. 59-62, 120. 
 
 j 
 
 [pp. 59- [Browne’s Song iii, describing the Golden Age, drawn in 
 some points from Chaucer, especially the Boethius . ] 
 
 [p. 120 .] [The concert of birds based on the Assemble of Foules.] 
 
 1613. Dekker, Thomas. A Strange Horse-Race, sign. C3b, Non- 
 Dramatic Works, ed. A. B. Grosart, vol. iii, pp. 336-337.) 
 
 [Rollins 65.] 
 
 [Dekker quotes the FranJceleynes Tale, 11. 1243-1254.] 
 
63 
 
 1613] Appendix A. 
 
 1613. Pits [or] Pitseus, John. Relationum Historicarum de Rebus 
 Angiitis tomus primus, Parisiis, 1619. De illustribus Anglice 
 Scriptoribus, pp. 572-5 [life of Chaucer], 576 [Gower], 632 
 [Lydgate], 670 [Caxton]. 
 
 [The author’s colophon reads : Huic operi finem imposui mense Septembri i, 
 Anno Domini 1613. Ioannes Pitseus.] 
 
 [ P . 572 ] De Galfredo Chaucero. 
 
 1400 Galfredus Chaucerus apud Wodstoc non longe ab Oxonio 
 
 730 in Anglia Claris parentibus natns, patrem habuit Equestris 
 ordinis virum, & ipse tandem auratus fact us est Eques. Vir 
 belli pacisque artibus mir& Horens. Cum ab ipsa pueritia 
 proeclaram ostenderet indolem, ad scholas Oxionienses exco- 
 lendi ingenij causa adolescens missus est. Vbi tanta cum 
 industria, tanta cum foelicitate florentes annos in optimarum 
 litterarum studijs collocauit, vt nihil eorum omiserit, quse 
 ad ornatum ingenij sui long& cultissimi facerent. Nam iam 
 antequam virilem oetatem attigisset, erat Poeta elegans, & 
 qui Poesim Anglicam ita illustrauit, vt Anglicus Homerus 
 merito liaberetur. Rhetor etiam disertus, Mathematicus 
 peritus, Philosophus acutus, Theologus denique non contemn- 
 endus. Exquisitissimos in his omnibus scientijs habuit prse- 
 ceptores, quos & ipse propter miram animi alacritatem ad 
 studia, & singularem ingenij promptitudinem ac fcelicitatem, 
 ita consecutus est, vt eorum cuique in cuiusque facultate par 
 & sequalis, si non superior, euaserit. In scientijs Mathe- 
 maticis legentes audiuit Ioanem Sombum & Nicolaum Linnam 
 Carmelitas Linnenses, viros per ilia tempora pereruditos, 
 & Mathematicorum illius oetatis facile principes, quos 
 Chaucerus in sua sphsera reuerewter admodum compellat, & 
 cum honore nominat. Absolutis autem in Anglia studijs, 
 transfretauit in Galliam, turn vt linguam addisceret, & 
 exterorum mores videret, turn etiam vt nihil reliqui faceret 
 ad accuratissimam scientiarum perfectionem, si quid ei forsan 
 suppeditaret Gallia, quod Anglia non haberet. Ibi omnes 
 hominis ingenium, eruditionem, vrbanitatem, morum suaui- 
 tatem, aliasque insignes dotes admiratione simul & amore 
 prosecuti sunt, tile interim quse h re eius erat, non neglexit, 
 didicitque linguam, lepores, sales, omnesque Gallorum 
 argutas facetias. Qua supellectile cumulate instructus, & 
 quasi quibusdam floribus nitid& ornatus, redijt in Angliam. 
 Deind& Londini agens patrijs iuribus studuit, & Collegia 
 
64 [Pits] Appendix A. [a.d. 1613 - 
 
 iurisperitorum illic inuisit, historias etiam non omittens, ad 
 excolendam patriam linguam se contulit. Inter hsec incidit 
 [p. 573] in Ioannem Gouerum (de quo mox dicendum) virum nobilem, 
 doctum, Galfredo ferb per omnia similem, quique eundem 
 prorsus habuit omnium studiorum suorum propositum finem. 
 Deprehenditur facile morum similitudo, initur cito amicitia, 
 concurritur in idem propositum, coniunguntur labores, fre- 
 quens fit congressus, quotidiana familiaritas, omnis conatus 
 eb refertur, vt materna excolatur lingua, & in Anglico ser- 
 mone eloquentise Romanse expressa appareant vestigia. Et 
 attulerunt certe hi duo viri nostro idiomati tantum splen- 
 doris & ornamenti, quantum ante illos prorsus nemo. Nam 
 sibi mutuo calcar addiderunt, & vter patrise plus afferre 
 honoris, vterque vinci & vincere ambiens, amanter conten- 
 derunt. Non solum memores, sed etiam imitatores illius 
 
 Quod lingua Catonis & Enni 
 Sermonem patrium ditauerit i noua rerum 
 Nomina protulerit. 
 
 Et quia sua vel patrum memoria nouerant multos iam 
 linguas vulgares industria cultura exornasse : Nam Dantes 
 & Petrarcha Italicam, Alanus Gallicam, Ioannes Mena His- 
 panicam linguas iam cultiores reddiderant : operse precium 
 igitur putabant isti, idem in Anglica linguae prsestare, quod 
 viderant alios in suis linguis magna cum laude, & posteri- 
 tatis incomparabili vtilitate gnauiter praestitisse. Itaque 
 alia ex alijs linguis transferendo, alia imitando, alia in. 
 ueniendo, & proprio Marte componendo, compte, tersb, politb 
 scribere Anglico idiomate conati sunt. Et profecto in multis 
 Latinorum elegantiam, si non sint plene consecuti, at certb 1 
 non infoeliciter imitati. Yterque tamen minus sibi tribue- 
 bat, quam alteri. Vndb factum est, vt alter alterius iudicio 
 scrip ta sua mutuo subijceret, & si quid in altero deesset, 
 alter suppleret, atque ita communicatis consilijs, vtriusque 
 lucubrationes, ssepius sub incude vocatse, emendatiores in 
 publicum prodierunt. Ynum hie, licet a nostro proposito 
 forsan alienum videri quibusdam poterit, adnotare non 
 piget. Licet Chaucerus tantum esset ordinis Equestris, 
 tamen sororem habuit Guilhelmo Polo Illustrissimo Suffol- 
 censium Duci in matrimonio longb supra suam sortem foeli- 
 
1(523] Appendix A. [Pt£s] 65 
 
 cissime splendidissim&que collocatam. Quod connubium ilia 
 magis virtutibus & doctrine fratris, quam splendori suorum 
 natalium habuit acceptum. Nunc restat videre quibus litte- 
 rarum monimentis, hanc nominis immortalitatem, quam 
 habet, consecutus sit. De quo Lelandus noster inter epi- 
 grammata sua sic scribit 
 
 Prcedicat Algerum merito Florentia Dantem , 
 
 Italia & numeros tota Petrarcha tuos. 
 
 Anglia Chaucerum veneratur nostra Poetam , 
 
 Cui veneres debet patria lingua suas. 
 
 Scripsit autem cultissimus noster Chaucerus pleraque 
 Anglic^, sed quoniam omnia fer& Latina facta sunt, operum 
 titulos & exordia Latin& ponam. 
 
 [Then follow a list of Chaucer’s works, pp. 574-5, and 
 a few words on his tomb and epitaph. For these see 
 Chaucer , by E. P. Hammond, pp. 15-17.] 
 
 1615. Gordon, Patrick. The Famous Historie of . . . Prince Robert 
 surname d the Bruce, Preface, sign. *iija. 
 
 It [the old poem of the Bruce] was in old ryme like to 
 Chaucer. 
 
 [1617?] Campion, Thomas. The Third and Fourth Booke of Ayres. 
 Preface “to the Reader” of the Fourth Book of Ayres. (Thomas 
 Campion, Songs and Masques, ed. A. H. Bullen, 1903, p. 111). 
 
 If any squeamish stomachs shall check at two or three 
 vain ditties at the end of this book, let them pour off the 
 clearest and leave those as dregs in the bottom. Howso- 
 ever, if they be but conferred with the Canterbury Tales 
 of that venerable Poet Chaucer, they will then appear 
 toothsome enough. 
 
 [ti, a. 1617.] Unknown. [ A Poem in praise of tobacco, attributed to 
 Chaucer. See the answer to it, “ Chaucer’s Incensed Ghost,” by 
 Richard Brathwait, 1617, above, vol. i, p. 192. We have not been 
 able to identify the original.] 
 
 1623. Painter, William. Chaucer new painted. 
 
 [Rollins 66.] 
 
 [This was licensed on 14 May to Eld and Flesher, not, as 
 - stated in pt. i, on 23 May to Serle. (Stationers’ Register, 
 Arber’s Transcript, vol. iv, p. 96.)] 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. — IV. F 
 
66 Appendix A. [ a . d . 1631 - 
 
 1631. Weever, John. Ancient Funeral Monuments, pp. 595-96, 661. 
 
 [Rollins 67.] 
 
 [pp. 595 - The next vnto them be knights eldest sonnes : and such 
 an Esquire was the knightes sonne in Chaucer , who attended 
 his father on pilgrimage to Thomas Bechets Shrine, as doth 
 appeare by their characters in the Prologues to the Canter- 
 bury tales. Of which so much as tends to this purpose. 
 [He then quotes the Prologue , 11. 43-46, 77-82, 99-100.] 
 
 Geffrey Chaucer Cp ‘ 661] This Sir Payne Roet had issue, the aforesaid , 
 
 Brother m Law Dutchesse [of Lancaster], and Anne who was married 
 
 by marriage to L J 7 
 
 Lancaster 6 ° f ™ e ff re y Chaucer, our famous English Poet, who by 
 her had issue, Sir Thomas Chaucer , whose daughter 
 Alice was married to Thomas Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, 
 
 . . . and after to William de la Pole Duke of Suffolke . . . 
 
 [See also above, vol. i, p. 204.] 
 
 1631. Shirley, James. Changes: Or, Love in a Maze. A Comedie, ] 
 sign. B 4 6-C 1 a. 
 
 [Rollins 68.] 
 
 Cap[erwit]. Though I were borne a Poet I will study to 
 be your servant in Prose, yet if now and then my braines 
 doe sparkle, I cannot helpe it, raptures will out; . . . the 
 midwife wrapt my head up in a sheet of Sir Philip Sidney 
 that inspired me, and my nurse descended from old Chaucer. 
 
 1633. Ware, Sir James. The Historie of Ireland, collected by three 
 learned authors, [edited by Sir James Ware], Dublin, Preface 
 to Spenser’s View of Ireland, sign. T 3b. 
 
 [Spenser buried by Chaucer/ 4 whom he worthily imitated ; ” 
 his epitaph ( q . v. above, vol. i, p. 163) quoted. J 
 
 [n.cr. 1634.] Coke, Edward, Lord [d. 1634]. [ Opinion on Chaucer, cited 
 by Emerson, Conduct of Life (Works, Centenary Ed., vol. vi, p. 132).] 
 
 Lord Coke valued Chaucer highly because the Canon 
 Yeman’s Tale illustrates the Statute fifth Hen. IY. chap. 4 
 against alchemy. 
 
 [We have not been able to trace the origin of this.] 
 
 1635. Kynaston, Sir Francis. [Dedications and Prefatory address to] 
 Amorum Troili et Creseidee libri duo, Oxoniae, 1635. Dedication 
 ‘Clarissimo . . . Dn Patricio Iunio’, sign. A 26-A 36; Preface to 
 the reader (dated Dec. 1634), sign, f la ; [Here follow the dedi- 
 
( 335 ] Appendix A. [Kynaston] 67 
 
 catory verses, see above, vol. i, pp. 207-215,] Dedication to Book ii, 
 
 ‘ Eruditissimo . . . viro Iolianni Rous’, sign. P 26. 
 
 Clarissimo et 
 Ornatissimo 
 Yiro 
 
 Dn° Patricio Iunio 
 Bibliothecario Regio, 
 
 Franciscus Kinaston ; 
 
 S.P.L. 
 
 [sign Quare cum ita se res habeat, Eroticum hoc poema, cuius 
 a 2 b] f r ontem tuo amicissimo nomine decoramus, sevi injuria 
 obliteratum fere, & inter deperdita recensendum, ad te & 
 tuum patrocinium inter alia priscorum opera & pegmata non 
 immerito confugere videtur ; cuius duo nomina sunt totidem 
 bona omina, quae authori Chaucer o & mihi aliquid fausti 
 portendunt . . . 
 
 [sicrn Quod reliquum est, gratiam & sestimationem, quam inculta 
 a 36 1 hsec carmina, quoad versionem, apud exteros, vel ab authore 
 Chaucero, vel a me eius vmbra sperare nequibant, (vt vatis 
 celeberrimi & popularis tui Buchanani aureis vtar verbis) 
 Debebunt Genio forsitan ilia tuo. Vale. 
 
 Candido Lectori 
 Franciscus Kinaston, 
 
 Eques Auratus & Regii 
 Corporis Armiger, 
 
 S.P.D. 
 
 sign. Cvm tantus sit,. Lector amice, apud omnes, venerandi 
 * la sequ& ac vetusti Poetse nostri honos & existimatio, vt nec 
 doctissimorum censuram metuat, nec potentissimorum 
 virorum patrocinium flagitet : nil superest, quin vt te paucis 
 moneam de hac mea versione huius poematis in Linguam 
 Latinam ; nempe quo consilio earn aggressus sim, & cui bono, 
 quo modo hosce duos libros priores novo & hactenus in- 
 tentato apud Latinos carminis genere absolverim, quse 
 occurrerint difficultates, deniqwe in quibus erratum sit, & 
 venia tua exoranda. 
 
 Hsec omnia libens lubens facio, eo quod non solum adhuc sit 
 
68 [Kynaston\ Appendix A. [a.d. 1635 
 
 incertum : quam gratum exteris futurum sit hoc poemation 
 & nostra qualiscunqwe versio, sed quod incertior sit vitae 
 meae meta, cuius continuationem vix fas est sperare adeo 
 diuturnam, vt ad operis inccepti consummationem extendatur. 
 Ob eamqwe causam, dum meimet ipsius contemplatione caeter- 
 orum omnium statum labentem intueor, ecce, video Chciucerum 
 nostrum, huius Insulae ornamentum & Poeseos decus egreg- 
 ium, non solum senescentem, & sub obsoleto & iam spreto 
 Anglici vetusti Idiomatis vestimento vilescentem ; sed (proh 
 dolor) prorsus tabescentem & ferme emortuum. Cuius de- 
 ploratae conditioni dum aveo ferre suppetias, & aeterne suae 
 memoriae cOnservationi prospicere : Yisum est mihi con- 
 sultissimum, ilium nova lingua donare, & novato rythmi & 
 carminis genere decorare ; eumqwe perenni Roman eloquij 
 columna fulcire, & per omnia secula (quantum in nobis 
 est) stabilem & immotum reddere. 
 
 Enimvero, potuissem (idqwe facillimb) verba obsoleta per 
 totum hoc poema passim sparsa in nova mutare, & omnes 
 phrases & dictiones desuetas verbis purioribus, & quae hodib 
 obtinent, reddere, & ad captum praesentis aevi, non tantum 
 Anglice, sed etiam & metrice accommodare. Nee enim sine 
 exemplari errassem, si hoc praestitissem, cum Poema quoddam 
 Gallicum, cui titulus Legenda Rosea , a quodam Gulielmo de 
 Lorris trecentis fere ab huic annis inchoatum, & post quadra- 
 ginta annos opera Iohannis de Mohun absolutum, septies ex 
 eo tempore Gallicb editum, & phrasi uniuscuiusqwe seculi 
 aptatum, & quasi de novo scriptum fuerit. Sed peccatum 
 inexpiabile in Manes Chauceri admisisse me existimarem, 
 si vel minimum Iota in eius scriptis immutassem, quae sacra 
 & intacta in aeternum manere digna sunt. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 ? 
 
 [Dedication of Book ii. 
 viro Iohanni Rous. 
 
 [sign. Sed tandem (Vt plerunqwe fit) cessit amori pudor, & . 
 P26 l gratitudo vicit verecundiam, adeo vt temperare mihi non 
 potuerim, quin te simul Authoris venerandi lectorem, ac 
 versionis meae barbarae & incomptae Patronum deligerem et - 
 avidb exoptarem ; Quam si benigne adspexeris, & vmbrara 
 patrocinii tui non plane indignam existimaveris, quicquid 
 alii oggannient, non multum morabor, neq ue rigidos delicati 
 huius saeculi Aristarchos, aut illorum censuram verebor. 
 
 ] Eruditissimo et generosissimo 
 
1635 ] Appendix A. [ Kynaston ] 69 
 
 Quibus si versus nonnulli claudicare & pedes Agrippinos. 
 Tsign. habere videbuntur, cum tamen sensum genuinum Chauceri 
 P 31 patris & mentem integram tanquam ex traduce derivatam 
 cum accuratissima rythmorum Anglicorum observatione 
 in versione Latina (quae mihi prsecipue curse fuit) vbiqwe 
 a me retentam esse deprehenderint : si sequa lance momenta 
 omnia perpenderint, vel ipsi vnius aut alterius paginse 
 periculum fecerint, rem non adeo proclivis & facilis negotii 
 mecum fortasse fatebuntur. 
 
 [Specimen of Kynaston’s Latin translation of Troilus.] 
 
 AMORUM TROILI ET CRES3IDA] 
 
 Liber Primus. 
 
 1 . 
 
 Dolorem Troili duplicem narrare, 
 
 Qui Priami Regis Trojse fuit gnatus, 
 
 Yt primum illi contigit amare, 
 
 Yt miser, felix, & infortunatus 
 Erat, decessum ante sum conatus. 
 
 Tisiphone fer opem recensere 
 
 Hos versus, qui, dum scribo, visi Here. 
 
 2 . 
 
 Te invoco, & numen tuum infestum, 
 
 Dira crudelis, dolens semper pcenis, 
 
 Me iuva, qui sum instrumentum msestum, 
 
 Amantes queri docens his camcenis : 
 
 Nam conuenit humentibus & genis, 
 
 Tristem habere tremulum pauorem, 
 
 Historiam moestam, vultus & mcerorem. 
 
 1635. Wentworth, Thomas, Earl of Strafford. Letter to Mr. Secretary 
 Coke , [dated] Dublin, 14 Dec., 1635, [printed in The Earl of 
 Stratforde’s Letters and Despatches, 1739, 2 vols., vol. i, p. 497, 
 quoted in Robert Browning’s Prose Life of Strafford (Browning 
 Soc.) 1892, p. 197.) 
 
 There is no more to be added in his [Sir Piers Crosby’s] 
 Case, but these two Yerses of old Jeffery Chaucer, 
 
 A busier than he none was, 
 
 And yet he seem’d more busy than he was. 
 
 [ Prol . 11. 821-2.] 
 
70 Appendix A. [a.d. 1636 - 
 
 1636. Conway, Edward, 2nd Viscount. Letter to Thomas Wentworth 
 Earl of Strafford, [dated] Sion, 22 Jan. 1636, [printed in' The Earl 
 of Strafforde’s Letters and Despatches, 1739, 2 vols., vol. ii, p. 47, 
 quoted in Robert Browning’s Prose Life of Strafford (Browning 
 Soc.), 1892, p. 129]. 
 
 Now if I were a good Poet, I should with Chaucer call 
 upon Melpomene 
 
 To help me to indite 
 Verses that weepen as I write. 
 
 1637. Wentworth, Thomas, Earl of Strafford. Letter to the Lord 
 Viscount Conway, [dated] Dublin, 6 Jan., 1637, [printed in The 
 Earl of Strafforde’s Letters and Despatches, 1739, 2 vols., vol. ii, 
 p. 145, quoted in Robert Browning’s Prose Life of Strafford 
 (Browning Soc.), 1892, pp. 196-7]. 
 
 At my Lord Mountnorris his departure hence, he seemed 
 wondrously humbled, as much as Chaucer’s Friar, that 
 would not for him any Thing should be dead. 
 
 [ Somnourt Tale, 1. 1842.] 
 
 [n. a. 1640.] Jackson, Thomas, Dean of Peterborough. Dominus 
 Veniet. Of Christ’s Session at the Right-Hand of God , [first printed 
 in] A Collection of the Works of T. Jackson, 1653-7, pt. 3. (Works, 
 1673, 3 vols., vol. iii, p. 746.) 
 
 [Dr. Jackson died in 1640.] 
 
 As our Posterity in a few years will hardly understand 
 some passages in the Fairy Queen , or in Mother Hubbards 
 or other Tales in Chaucer, better known at this day to old 
 Courtiers than to young Students. 
 
 1640. Jonson, Ben. The English Grammar, made by Ben Johnson 
 for the benefit of all Strangers, out of his observation of the 
 English Language now spoken, and in use, pp. 66, 70, 72, 79-80, 
 82-4. 
 
 [Examples from Chaucer.] 
 
 1643. Unknown. Powers to be Resisted: or a Dialogue arguing the 
 Parliaments lawfull Resistance of the Powers now in Armes against 
 them, pp. 39-40. 
 
 [p. 39] This is like old Chaucers tale of a Fryar, whose belly was 
 [p. 40] his god, he would feed upon the sweetest, Mutton, Goose, 
 and Pig, but a pitifull man ! he would have no creature 
 killed for him, not he. 
 
 [Somnours Tale, 1. 1842.] 
 
71 
 
 1650] 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 1644. Symonds, Richard. Diary , Oct. 21, 1644. 
 Camden Society, 1859, p. 143.) 
 
 (Ed. C. E. Long, 
 [Rollins 69.] 
 
 Dennington or Demyston [otc] Castle, com. Berks., was 
 . antiently the seate of Geoffry Chaucer the poet. 
 
 1645. Milton, John. Tl Penseroso, [in] Poems, 1645, p. 37. 
 
 As thick and numberless 
 As the gay motes that people the Sun Beams, 
 
 [Cf. Wife of Bath’s T., 1. 86S.] 
 
 1647 Unknown. Match me these two , p. 9. [Not in B.M. ; copy in 
 ‘ Bodl. (Wood 6544/10.)] 
 
 O Chaucer and thy Genius , help on my tale. 
 
 1648. Unknown. A Brown Dozen of Drunkards, pp. 6, 16. 
 
 [p . 6] When he drinks fluently, the shouts which the old wives 
 in Chaucer gave, and Dame Partlet the Hen, when the Fox 
 carried Chanticleere the Cock to the wood . . . scarce 
 parallel the clamours. 
 
 [p. 16 ] Though he doe not as exactly as Virgil imitate Homer, nor 
 as our Chaucer and Spenser Virgil ... 
 
 1648. Unknown. The Legend of Captain Jones, p. 3- 
 
 ^ rime in Topas hard quest after th’ Elfe Queen to Barwick. 
 
 Chaucer.] 
 
 1648. Whitelock, Bulstrode. Speech to the new Serjeants at the 
 Chancery Bar. See above [a. 1675], pt. i, p. 251. 
 
 1649. Herbert, Anne, Countess of Pembroke. Letter to the Countess 
 Dowager of Kent, [dated :] Appleby Castle, 10 Jan. 1649, [in 
 Harl. MS. 7001, quoted by T. Park, Royal and Noble Authors, 
 1806, 5 vols., vol. iii, p. 17]. 
 
 [Lady Pembroke sends her love and service to “ worthy 
 Mr. Selden,” and adds that she should be in pitiful case 
 if she had not “ excelentt Chacers booke,” to comfort her ; 
 but when she read in that she scorned and made light of her 
 troubles.] 
 
 [1650 ? or 1660 ?] Marvell, Andrew. Tom May's Death, [in] Miscel- 
 laneous Poems, 1681, p. 37. (Poems and Satires, ed. G. A. Aitken, 
 vol. ii, p. 13.) 
 
 [May died in 1650, and was buried in Westminster Abbey ; at tbe Restoration his 
 
72 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1650- 
 
 body was removed. It bas been suggested that the poem was written after the 
 latter event, and that the lines here quoted refer to it ; but this seems to require 
 too wanton a malignity in Marvell.] 
 
 Poor poet thou, and grateful senate they 
 . . . . To lead thee home. 
 
 If that can be thy home where Spenser lies 
 And reverend Chaucer ; but their dust does rise 
 Against thee, and expel thee from their side, 
 
 As the eagle’s plumes from other birds divide. 
 
 1650. Toll, Thofmas]. To the Author, [in] Fragmenta Foetica . . 
 by Nich. Murford, 1650, sig. A 5. (B.M. C. 39. b. 41.) [Ends :] * 
 
 Trade on wits Merchant, give the world to know 
 Chaucer was bred in Lyn, and so wert Thou. 
 
 Raptim 
 
 Tho. Toll junior, Gent. 
 
 1651. Sheppard, Samuel. Epigrams, Lib. 4, Epig. 28. On Mr. 
 Spencer’s . . . Faerie Queen, p. 95. 
 
 Collin my Master, O Muse sound his praise, 
 
 Extoll his never to be equal’d Layes, 
 
 Whom thou dost Imitate with all thy might, 
 
 As he did once in Chawcers veine delight. 
 
 1653. Flecknoe, Richard. A Letter treating of Conversation, Acquaint- 
 ance and freindship [sic], [in] Miscellania , pp. 126-7. 
 
 One of whome is Chawcer’s busy man, of whom it may 
 well be sayd, That a busier man nere nas, and yet he seemed 
 far busier than he was. 
 
 1654. Gayton, Edmund. Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot, p. 50. 
 
 [Rollins 70.] 
 
 As unfortunate it is, when fifteen joines to seventy, there’s 
 old doinge (as they saye) the Man and Wife sitting together 
 like January and May day. 
 
 [Perhaps an allusion to the Merchant's Tale. For another 
 passage see above, vol. i, p. 229.] 
 
 1657. Jordan, Thomas. The Walks of Islington and Hogsdon, Act iv, 
 sc. i, sign. E 4b. 
 
 By the wanton memory of Chaucer I could turn Poet, 
 
 And write in as Heathen English ; and as Bawdy. 
 
73 
 
 1 661 ] Appendix A. 
 
 1658. Philips, Edward. The New World of English Words, sign. L4. 
 
 [Bollins 72.] 
 
 Bennington , a Castle in Bark-shire ... it was once the 
 Residence of the Poet Chaucer. 
 
 [There are other allusions to Chaucer in this Dictionary. 
 See, e.g., under “Bay.” See also above, vol. i, p. 236.] 
 
 1658. W., S. W., C.C. Oxon. [Verses to the author (K.Q.), in] Naps 
 upon Pornassus, sign . B 5a. 
 
 To thee compar’d, our English Poets all stop . . . 
 
 Chaucer the first of all wasn’t worth a farthing. 
 
 [1659-61.] “ Montelion, Knight of the Oracle.” [Phillips, John.] 
 
 Montelion ... or the Prophetical Almanack. 
 
 [In the issue for 1660 (no doubt issued the previous 
 year) Chaucer is named in the Calendar at 13th Jan.; in 
 that for 1662 (copy in Bodl.) “Chaucer’s Millar” occurs at 
 23rd Nov. There is no Chaucer allusion in 1661.] 
 
 1659. Wood, Anthony. A note on Woodstock , in Wood MS. E I. 
 ‘fol 89, [printed in] The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, ed. 
 A. Clark, 1891, vol. i, p. 283. 
 
 Chaucer’s ould house by and within the gate as you go to 
 the manor house on the right. 
 
 [c. 1660.] Widdrington, Sir Thomas. Analecta Eboracensia. Some 
 Bemaynes of the ancient City of York. Egerton MS. 2578 (ed. 
 Csesar Caine, 1897, p. 205). 
 
 Some of the Archbishops were Cardinals. I go now not 
 by reality of honour, but by the esteem which was then of 
 Cardinals, for I remember what Chaucer saith — 
 
 They maken persons for the penny 
 And Canons of her Cardinals. 
 
 [Ploughmans Tale , not by Chaucer.] 
 
 1661. Owen, John. ®eo\oyovpeva TravToharra. Sive de natura . . . 
 theologje, p. 96. 
 
 [Immorality of the pre-Reformation clergy.] Ita Chaucerus 
 nostras [s-ic] de fratrum conventu quodam suo tempore 
 notissimo : 
 
Appendix A. [a.d. 1661 - 
 
 For there as wont to walken was an Elfe, 
 
 There walketh now the Limitor himselfe. 
 
 In every bush, and under every Tree 
 There nis none other incubus but he. 
 
 [Wife of Bath's T., 11. 17 18, 23-24.] 
 
 1661. T., J. To His Most ingenuous Friend , The Authour of the 
 Exaltation of Hornes , [verses prefixed to] The Horn exalted. 
 [See next entry.] 
 
 [Rollins 73.] 
 
 Read, and beware how that ye firk, 
 
 Least the repentance stool o’ th’ Kirk, 
 
 * Chaucer. Prove the reward of your queint * wirk. 
 
 1661. Unknown. The' Horn exalted , or Roome for Cuckolds, pp. 1 2 
 3-4, 8, 25, 30, 42, 45, 47, 52, 54, 56, 58, 65, 69, 71, 75, 80, 81-2. ’ 
 
 [Rollins 74.] 
 
 [Quotations appropriate to the subject matter of the book, 
 from the Canterbury Tales, the Court of Love, and the Remedy 
 of Love, the last two being quoted as Chaucer’s.] 
 
 1662. Fuller, Thomas. The History of the Worthies of England, 
 Kent, Proverbs, p. 64, sign. Kk 1 a. 
 
 A J ack of Dover i] 
 
 I find the first mention of this Proverb in our English 
 Ennius, Chaucer, in his Proeme to the Cook, 
 
 And many a Jack of Dover had he sold 
 
 Which had been two times hot and two times cold. 
 
 [For other extracts from Fuller's Worthies, see above, vol. i, pp. 239-40.] 
 
 1664. Cavendish, William, Duke of Newcastle. To the Lady 
 Marchioness of Newcastle , On Her Book of Poems [Verses prefixed 
 to] Poems and Phancies written by the Lady Marchioness of 
 Newcastle, the Second Impression, 1664. 
 
 [Rollins 75.]' 
 
 And Gentle Shakespear weeping, since he must 
 At best, be Buried, now, in Chaucers Dust : 
 
 Thus dark Oblivion covers their each Name , 
 
 Since you have Robb’d them of their Glorious Fame. 
 
1668] Appendix A. 75 
 
 1665 Baker, Sir Richard. A Chronicle of the Kings of England, pp. 
 
 *144, 146, 168, 180. 
 
 [P . H4] Pain Poet’s . . . younger daughter being married to Sir 
 Geoffry Chawcer, our Laureat Poet. 
 
 [ P . 146 ] [List of great men in Edward III.’s reign :] 
 
 Sir Geoffry Chawcer, the Homer of our Nation ; and who 
 found as sweet a Muse in the Groves of W oodstock, as the 
 Ancients did upon the banks of Helicon. 
 
 [ P . iso] The next place after these [ecclesiastics] is justly due to 
 Geoffry Chaucer , and John Gower, two famous poets in this 
 time, and the Fathers of English Poets in all the times after : 
 Chaucer died in the fourth year of this King, [Henry IV] 
 and lieth buried at Westminster. 
 
 11667 1 Marvell, Andrew. The Last Instructions to a Painter about 
 
 1 the Dutch Wars , 1667. (Poems and Satires, ed. G. A. Aitken, 
 1892, 2 vols., vol. ii, p. 50 ) 
 
 At night than Chanticleer more brisk and hot, 
 
 And sergeant’s wife serves him for partelot. 
 
 [n.a. 1667.] Cowley, Abraham. Opinion of Chaucer. 
 
 [Dryden, in his Preface to the Fables ( see below, 1700, 
 p. 280), says : “ Some people . . . look on Chaucer as a dry, 
 old fashioned Wit, not worth receiving [sic; ed. 1723 
 ‘ reviving ’]. I have often heard the late Earl of Leicester 
 say that" Mr. Cowley himself was of that opinion ; who, 
 having read him over at my Lord’s Request, declared he had 
 no taste for him.”] 
 
 [Cowley died in 1667, Philip Sidney, third Earl of Leicester, not till 1698.] 
 
 ri667 ?] Unknown. Burlesque [of the epitaph to Cowley, contributed, 
 from a MS. copy, by Henry Campkin, to] Notes and Queries, 
 March 20, 1852, 1st s., vol. v. pp. 266-7. 
 
 . . . Sleep in beggar’s Limbo, by dull Chawcer . . . 
 Whilst thou dost soar aloft leave coyrs [?] behind 
 To be interrd in antient monast’ry 
 And to the chimeing rabble safely joyn’d 
 [To] Draiton, Spencer, and old Jeffery. 
 
 1668. Junius, Francis. Letter to Mr. Dugdale , [printed in] Life, Diary 
 and Correspondence of Sir William Dugdale, Knight, 1827, p. 383. 
 
 I took your archpoet Chaucer in hand : and though I 
 think that in manie places he is not to bee understood 
 
76 
 
 Appendix A. [ a . d . 1670 - 
 
 without the help of old MS. copies, which England can 
 afford manie ; yet doe I perswade my selfe to have met with 
 innumerable places, hitherto misunderstood, or not under- 
 stood at all, which I can illustrate. To which work I hold 
 the bishop of Dunkeld his Yirgilian translation to be very 
 much conducing . . . 
 
 [c. 1670.] Unknown. The Wanton Wife of Bath. See above, App. A 
 \n. a. 1600, Moore]. 
 
 1672. [Ramsey, or Ramesey, William.] The Gentlemans Companion , 
 Division iv, Exercises within Doors, pp. 127-9. 
 
 tp. 127] I shall here contract his [the Gentleman’s] Study into 
 these few Books following ... [A list of theological and 
 scientific literature, mostly contemporary, with some other 
 books.] 
 
 [p.i29] And among our selves, old Sr. Jeffery Chaucer, Ben 
 Johnson, Shakespear, Spencer, Beaumont and Fletcher, 
 .Dryden, and what other Playes from time to time you find 
 best Penn’d . . . 
 
 1672. V[eal], R[obert]. To Mr. T. D[urfey] on his Ingenious Songs and f 
 ■Poems , [m] New Court-Songs and Poems, By R. V. Gent., sign. A8. 
 
 How many Best of Poets have we known ? 
 
 And yet how far those Best have been out-done ! 
 
 When Chaucer dy’d, Men of that Age decreed 
 A Dismal Fate to all that shou’d succeed : 
 
 Yet when Great Ben , and Mighty Shakespear wrote. 
 
 We were convinc’d those Elder Times did dote. 
 
 Clogie, Alexander. Speculum Episcoporum^ or The Apostoliaue h 
 Bishop : being a brieffe account of the lyfe and death of William 
 Bedell, Lord Bishop of Kilmore. (Ed. 1862, “Memoir of the ? 
 Life and Episcopate of William Bedell,” ed. W. W. Wilkins pp 
 227-8.) ’ 
 
 [Dated c. 1676 by Wilkins, and c. 1675 by A. C. Bickley in D.N.B., art. Clogie.] 
 
 After supper he constantly read on the same day [i. e. 5th 
 Nov.] an excellent poem that he wrote at that time [i. e. 
 1605] upon that discovery [i. e. of the Gunpowder Plot], and 
 called “ The Shepherd’s Tale ”... It is conceived in the 
 old dialect of Tusser and Chaucer. 
 
 [For the Shepherd's Tale see above, App. A. [1605, Bedell?] 
 
77 
 
 1686] Appendix A. 
 
 1676. Coles, Elisha. An English Dictionary. 
 
 Black-buried, gone to Hell. 
 
 At Dulcarnon, in a maze, at my wits end, Chaucer, 1. 3, 
 fol. 161. 
 
 Eclympastery , Son to Morpheus, the God of sleep. 
 
 Quinible (q whinable), a treble. 
 
 Ribible, o. a rebeck or fiddle. 
 
 Tregetor, o. a J ugler. 
 
 [For other allusions to Chancer in Coles’s Dictionary see above, vol. i, p 252.] 
 
 [1678 ?] Butler, Samuel. Addition to Hudibras. [First printed in 
 Butler’s Remains, 1822.] (Poetical Works, ed. R. Bell, 1855, 
 3 vols., vol. iii, p. 197.) 
 
 To make our patriots miraculous 
 
 Scorched in the touts, like Chaucer’s Nicholas. 
 
 [Pt.' iii of Hudibras, for which these lines were probably intended, appeared in 
 1678.] 
 
 1682. Keepe, Henry. Monumenta Westmonasteriensia : or an His- 
 torical account of . . . St. Peter’s, or the Abbey Church of 
 Westminster . . . 1682. pp. 47, 210. 
 
 And now we come to the first and last best Poets of the 
 English Nation Geffrey Chaucer , and Abraham Cowley, 
 the one being the Sun just rising, and shewing itself on the 
 English Horizon, and so by degrees increasing and growing 
 in strength till it come to its full Glory and Meridian in 
 the incomparable Cowley . . . Chaucer lies in an antient 
 Tomb, Canopied, of grey marble, with his picture painted 
 thereon in piano, with some verses by ; he died in the year 
 1400. 
 
 [p. 210 ] Arms, viz. Chaucer. Per pale Gules and Argent, a bend 
 Counter changed. 
 
 [Chaucer’s Epitaph.] 
 
 1686. Chaucer junior, ps. Canterbury Tales, composed for the enter- 
 tainment of all ingenious young men and maids at their merry 
 meetings . 
 
 [A jest-book, connected with Chaucer by the title only. There is a copy in the 
 Pepys Library, and one of a much later edition in B.M.] 
 
78 Appendix A. [a.d. 1686 - 
 
 [1686 ?] W., W. [Preface to his pt. 3 of Richard Johnson’s] The Seven 
 Champions of Christendom, sign. A 3 b. 
 
 [Rollins 76.] 
 
 [A copy of this edition, following Johnson’s pts. 1, 2, ed. 1687, is in the Pepys 
 Library. The imprint is cropped and the date doubtful ; it may be the same as 
 that of 1696(?)in B.M., which also has the date cropped. None earlier is known. 
 Johnson’s work first appeared in 1596-7.] 
 
 If I have soared above the heigth [sic] of the Language 
 in the two former parts, know that our speech is refined 
 since they were writ, Chaucer whose lines did excel for 
 Eloquence in his days, is now despized for plain and rustick, 
 even by those who scarcely know what language is. 
 
 [c. 1687. Wharton, Henry.] Historiola de Chaucero nostro , scripta 
 etiam a Reverendiss. Tho. Tenison, archiepiscopo Cant, [or rather 
 by Henry Wharton] ad. calcem Historian G. Cavei Literarise, 
 [printed in] Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorurn Historia Literaria, by 
 William Cave, 1740-3, vol. ii, Appendix, pp. 13, 14 of Notse MSS. & 
 Accessiones Anonymi, &c. [$ee above, vol. i, p. 261.] 
 
 [Not in the edition of 1688.] 
 
 Galfridus Chaucer, Natione Anglus, Domo Londinensis, ’ 
 nobili, ut videtur, loco natils, prima Literarum tyrocinia in 
 Academia Oxoniensi posuit, si Lelando apud Baleum fides. 
 Sunt qui Cantabrigise etiam literis ilium incubuisse volunt ; : 
 testimonio ex Amoris Auld desump to innixi. Yerum libel- 
 lum istum Chauceri non esse nos infra adnotabimus. ? 
 Posita domi melioris Literature fundamenta diuturna inter ; 
 exteras Gentes peregrinatione ac culmen perduxit. Domum 
 re versus, Legum Municipalium studio in Hospitiis Juris- 
 consultorum Londinensibus animum adjecit. Dein rara 
 Artis Poeticse fama illustris, Anglise Regibus et Magnatibus 
 in pretio esse ccepit. Variis honoribus cumulatus, ab j 
 Edwardo 111°. Armigeri dignitate auctus, & in Galliam * 
 anno 1377 legatus, ut Mariam Francorum Regis filiam \ 
 Richardo Walliee Principi procaretur, a Richardo Secundo 
 inter Aulicos allectus est. Semel atque iterum ad exteros 
 Principes missus & frequentibus stipendiis donatus, claruit 
 Anno 1380. Uxorem duxit filiam Pagani Roveti Equitis 
 Hannoniensis, cujus alteram filiam duxerat Joannes Dux 
 Lancastrensis ; ipsomet Duce Lancastrensi, cui imprimis 
 charus fuit, nuptias ei procurante. Turbatis sub Richardo 
 secundo seditione populari rebus, ipse Plebis tumultuantis 
 partibus plus sequo favit ; ut multifariis Regni gravaminibus, 
 
] Appendix A. [Wharton] 79 
 
 qu« sub impotentis animi Juvene Rege nimis invaluerant, 
 medelam adhiberi efficeret, uti ipse in Testamento Amoris 
 scribit. Compositis Regni rebus, rei familiaris grave dis- 
 crimen adiit ; Regis & Procerum inimicitias aliquandiu 
 expertus, &, ut nonnulli volunt, in carcerem datus. Tandem 
 in integrum restitutus, Praedium suum in villa regia de 
 Woodstock propre Oxonium situm concessit, ubi ultimum 
 vitae decennium, Musis unice intentus, exegit. Anno 1400, 
 Londinum profectus, ut »res domesticas curaret, vitam clausit 
 25° Octob. die, anno iEtatis circiter 72°. In Ecclesia 
 Westmonasteriensi sepultus : Yir extra controversiam doc- 
 tissimus, Poetarum vero Anglicorum facile princeps & Parens, 
 sui sceculi ornamentum , inquit magnus ille Camdenus, extra 
 omnern ingenii aleam positus, & Poetastros nostros longo post 
 se intervallo relinquens ; sane is est, quern antiquis Latii 
 poetis non immerito conferre possemus ; si aut saeculum 
 aut linguam nactus esset faeliciorem, licet id in Chauceri 
 laudem haud parum cedat, quod tarn rudi aevo Priscorum 
 Poetarum Yeneres si non assecutus, saltern imitatus fuerit, 
 & horridiusculam linguae Anglicanae (qualis tunc temporis 
 obtinuit) duriciem, Carmine ligatam, amoeniorem atque 
 elegantiorem reddiderit ; primus enim omnium Linguae 
 nostrati sordes excussit, nitorem intulit, & larga vocum 
 molliorum aliunde invectarum supellectile ditavit ; id operis 
 praecipue in Poematis [sic] suis condendis in animo habuisse 
 visus. Unde jure de eo Lelandus, 
 
 Anglia Chaucerum veneratur nostra Poetam : 
 
 Cui Yeneres debet Patria lingua suas. 
 
 Neque solum principem apud conterraneos Poetas loci 
 gloriam tulit, verum etiat to turn scientarum, qua late patet, 
 circulam haud infaeliciter confecerat. Dialecticae & Philo- 
 sophiae haud vulgariter peritus, Historiae callentissimus, 
 Rhetor satis venustus, Matheseos non ignarus, in rebus 
 denique Theologicis apprime versatus, de quibus acute atque 
 erudite disputat. Subtiliorem etenim scholarum disciplinam 
 probe noverat ; castioris autem Theologiae studio nullos fere 
 non sui temporis Theologos antecelluit, Wiclefi dogmata 
 ut plurimum secutus, & infucatam & genuinam pietatem 
 sectatus. Hinc graviores Ecclesiae Romanae superstitiones 
 & errores acerbe saepius vellicat; corruptam ineptissimis 
 
80 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1691 - 
 
 commentis Disciplinam Ecclesiasticam lugefc ; Cleri luxuriamj 
 & ignaviam castigat, in Ordines autem Mendicantes project-8 
 issimo ubique odio invehitur, quorum hypocrisin, ambitio- 
 nem, aliaque vitia turpissima aliquoties totk oper&, nullibii 
 vero non oblata qua vis occasione, acerrime insectatur. 
 
 [Here follows some account of Chaucer’s works, and of 
 various editions.] 
 
 1691. G[ibson] E[dmund]. Polemo-Middinia. Carmen Macaronicum. 
 Autore Gulielmo Drummundo, . . . accedit Jacobi id nominis 
 Quinti, Regis Scotorum, Cantilena Rustica outgo inscripta Christs 
 Kirk on the Green. Recensuit, Notisque illustravit , E. Gr. Oxonii 
 • . . 1691. [Illustrative quotations from Chaucer, printed in 
 black-letter, in] Notes, pp. 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17. 
 
 [p. 4] Qui pottas b dihtavit. 
 
 Note b. Purgavit, a Sax. dihtan. She gan the house to 
 dight, Chaucer. 
 
 [p. 9] Cartes stabbatus f greitans. 
 
 Note/. Flens, plorans. Anglis Borealibus & Scotis to 
 graet, . . . For want of it I grone and grete. Chaucer. 
 
 [p. 10 ] Sic fraya fuit, sic a guisa peracta est. 
 
 Note a. Mendose, ausim dicere, pro guerra, unde nostrum 
 ‘ war. Guerring, brawling. Chaucer. Better is a morsell 
 or little gobbet of bread with joy, than an house filled ; 
 full of delices, with chiding and guerring. 
 
 [p. li] To dance these Damosels them c dight. 
 
 Note c. Prepare, provide ; a Sax. dihtan, parare, instruere. 
 Vox Chaucero usitatissima. Dighteth his dinner. — To bed 
 thou wolt the dight. — His instruments would he dight. — j 
 He was aie the first in armes dight. — He doth his shippes 
 dight. 
 
 tp. 12 ] Her d lyre was like the Lilly. 
 
 Note d. Complexion, countenance, a Cimbrico hlyre . . . 
 
 Cui consonant ilia Chauceri. 
 
 — Saturne his lere was like the lede 
 — Thy lustie lere overspredde with spottes blacke. 
 
 Vel forsan ‘laugh,’ ‘smile,’ a Cimbr. hlyr . . . Huic 
 concinit & istud Chauceri — And nere I went and gan 
 to lere. 
 
81 
 
 1697] 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 A “ yape young man that stood him niest. 
 
 Note a. Insulting, vaunting. 
 
 And saied to me in great jape, 
 
 Yelde thee, for thou may not escape. Chaucer. 
 
 An hasty kinsman called Hary, 
 
 That was an Archer keen, 
 e Tyed up a tackel withoutten tary. 
 
 Note e. Made ready an arrow. 
 
 Well could he dresse his tackle yomanly, 
 
 Chaucer. 
 
 He straight up to his eare drougli 
 • The strong bow, that was so tough, 
 
 And shot at me, so wonder smart, 
 
 That through mine eye unto mine hart 
 The takell smote, and depe it went. Id. 
 
 He shote at me full hastely 
 An arowe, named Companie, 
 
 The which takell is full able 
 To make these Ladies merciable. Id. 
 
 [p. 17 ] c It was no mowes. 
 
 Note c. It was no jesting matter. Of the foule mowes 
 and of the reproves that men saied to him. Chaucer. 
 
 And 9 bickered him with Bowes. 
 
 Note g. Pelted, invaded. We two shall have a biker. 
 Chaucer. 
 
 1697. De la Pryme, Abraham. Diary (Surtees Soc., vol. liv), 1869, 
 p. 319. 
 
 [De la Pryme contributed to Wanley’s Catalogus, q.v. 
 below, the following :] 
 
 All the works of old Chaucer, in long folio. This vol. 
 belonged to the monastery of Canterbury — Penes D. Edmund 
 Cauley, de home, in Com. Ebor. 
 
 1697. Wanley, Humphrey. Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum 
 Anglioe. 
 
 [Many MSS. of Chaucer are enumerated. See index to 
 each part.] 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. — IV. G 
 
82 Appendix A. [a.d. 1699 - 
 
 1699-1700. [Ward, Edward.] The London Spy, Jail. 1699, vol. i, pt. 
 iii, p. 16 ; April, 1700, vo], ii, pt. vi, p. 5. 
 
 Most that you see here, come under Chancers [sic\ 
 character of a Sempstriss . . . 
 
 She keeps a Shop for Countenance, 
 
 And S for Maintenance. 
 
 [Cokes T., 11. 57-8.] 
 
 yT, 0 p. 1 5 .] Pt * [Dryden buried between Chaucer and Cowley.] 
 
 1705. [Defoe, Daniel?] Letter in The Little Review , Wed., Aug. 15, 
 1705, No. 21, p. 81. 
 
 [The following is quoted in black letter :] 
 
 Physicians know what is digestible, 
 
 But their study is but little in the Bible. 
 
 Chaucer [Prol. 11. 437-8.] 
 
 [Defoe was the editor of this paper, and was also probably 
 the author of many of the letters addressed to the editor.] 
 
 1710. [For Stubbes, George, read Bubb, George, who signs the verses 
 to the author of The Laurel and the Olive (Stubbes), quoted, above, 
 pt. i, p. 313.] 
 
 1712. [King, William.] Bibliotheca ; a Poem. [Not in B.M.] (Bell’s 
 Poets, 1781, vol. Ixxxvi, p. 74.) 
 
 Chaucer, the chief of all the throng 
 That whilom dealt in ancient song 
 (Whose laurell’d fame shall never cease 
 While wit can charm or humour please) 
 
 Lies all in tatters on the ground, 
 
 With dust instead of laurels crown’d. 
 
 1714. License for Urry’s edition of Chaucer, [signed] W. Bromley, [and 
 dated] 20 July, 1714. [Printed with the Proposals for printing 
 the edition ( see above, 1716, p. 344) bound in Thomas’s interleaved 
 copy of Urry, 1721, B.M. 643. m. 4. ( See above, 1721, pt. i, p, 353.)] 
 
 ANNE R. 
 
 Whereas Our Trusty and Well-beloved John Vrry . . . 
 hath humbly represented unto Us, that he hath with great 
 Labour and Expence prepared for the Press a compleat 
 and correct Copy of the Works of Jeoffrey Chaucer , with a 
 Glossary, and in order thereunto has carefully perused and 
 compared, not only all the former Editions of Value, but 
 
1719] 
 
 83 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 many rare and ancient Manuscripts, not hitherto consulted ; 
 from the collating of which he hath in a great Measure 
 restored and perfected the Text . . . remarked many Pieces 
 in them falsly ascribed to Chaucer , and added several entire 
 Tales never yet printed, as well as many single Lines hitherto 
 omitted ... by which Alterations, Amendments and 
 Additions, the Work is in a Manner become new, and has 
 therefore humbly besought Us to grant him Our Royal 
 Privilege and Licence for the sole Printing and Publishing 
 thereof for the Term of Fourteen Years. We being 
 graciously inclined to encourage the said Undertaking, are 
 pleased to condescend to his Request. . . . 
 
 Given at our Court of Kensington the Twentieth Day of 
 July , 1714, in the Thirteenth Year of Our Reign. 
 
 By Her Majesty’s Command, 
 
 W. Bromley. 
 
 1715. The Art of Poetry, referred to at this date under Haslewood and 
 Bliss [c. 1833], above, pt. i, p. 188, is Dryden’s[?] version of 
 Boileau, q.v. above, 1680-83, pt. i, p. 254. 
 
 1715. Gay, John, and Pope, Alexander. Letter to Mr. John Cary , 
 [dated] April, 1715, [printed in] The Works of Alex: Pope, ed. W. 
 Courthope and W. Elwin, 1871-89, 10 vols., vol. vi, p. 227, 
 
 Chaucer has a tale where a knight saves his head by dis- 
 covering that it [sovereignty] was the thing which all women 
 most coveted. 
 
 [There is a similar sentence in a letter of the same date 
 from Gay and Pope to Congreve ( ib . p. 414).] 
 
 [1718 ?] Oldys, William. MS. Commonplace Book (B.M. MS. Add. 
 12,522, foil. 29, 30). 
 
 [Chaucer compared with Homer ; of low birth.] 
 
 Chaucer wrote in a Tounge in his Days uncapable of any 
 thing but Ballads, Tales & Roundelays. . . . He forbore not 
 to spoyl our English Tongue by mixing therewith so much 
 Latin & French. [Yerstegan referred to.] 
 
 1719. Prior, Matthew. Letter to Dean Swift, [dated May 5, 1719 
 printed in] Correspondence of Jonathan Swift, ed. F. E. Ball 
 1912, vol. iii, p. 33. 
 
 [Rollins 78.] 
 
 My bookseller is a blockhead ; so have they all been, or 
 worse, from Chaucer’s scrivener, down to John and Jacob. 
 
1 
 
 84 Appendix A. [a.d. 1721- j 
 
 1721. Gildon, Charles. The Laws of Poetry, as laid down by the Duke J 
 of Buckinghamshire in his Essay on Poetry , p. 32. 
 
 Chaucer was the first, that is of any consideration, who 
 enrich’d his mother-tongue with poetry ; but Chaucer was a \ 
 man of quality, a knight of the garter, and of so considerable 
 a fortune as to marry into the family of John of Gaunt . . . m 
 so that he had no need of encouragement to exert that 3 
 excellent genius of which he was master, in poetry. After j 
 him, we had no man that made any figure in English verse, | 
 till the Earl of Surrey . . . 
 
 1725. Cobb, Samuel. The Miller s Tale, from Chaucer. 
 
 [Modernised. Reprinted in Ogle’s Canterbury Tales, 1741, 
 q.v. above, pt. i, p. 389.] 
 
 1727. Harte, Walter. Notes upon the Sixth Thebaid of Statius, and 
 To my Soul. From Chaucer, [“Fie from the pres,” modernised, in] 
 Poems on Several Occasions, pp. 189-90, 195, 243. 
 
 [Note on v. 51.] Chaucer, who was perhaps the greatest 
 
 [p. 190] poet among the moderns, has translated these verses almost 
 
 word for word in his Knight’s Tale. I shall make this ,j 
 remark once for all : As nothing particularizes the fine « 
 passages in Homer more than that Yirgil vouchsaved to 
 imitate them : so scarce anything can exalt the reputation | 
 of Statius higher, than the verbal imitations of our great ■ 
 countryman. I prefer this to a volume of criticisms ; no 
 man would imitate, what he eould exceed. 
 
 [p. 194] Stretch’d o’er the ground the tow’ring oaks were seen ... j 
 
 [V. 108.] 
 
 [p. 195] Chaucer seems to have a particular eye to this passage [ 
 throughout his poems. See his Knights’ Tale , the Assembly 
 of Fowls , and Complaint of the black Knight. 
 
 To my Soul. From Chaucer. 
 
 [p. 243] Far from mankind, my weary soul retire, 
 
 Still follow truth, contentment still desire [etc.]. 
 
 [For other extracts from this volume, see above, pt. i, p. 369.] 
 
 1728. Ralph, James. Sawney, p. 11. 
 
 Chaucer erects the Court [sic] of Fame , and builds 
 The Arches strong ; but Iron Time comes on, 
 
85 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 And wastes the frail materials of the Frame ; 
 
 In Heaps it lies a glorious Ruin, while 
 Sawney up-rears, on the neglected Base, 
 
 Another Pile, razes the Founder’s Name, 
 
 And super-adds his own : An Hand unseen 
 Points out his Weakness and his Fraud . . . 
 
 [An attack on Pope’s Temple of Fame , q. v. above, pt. i, 
 p. 318.] 
 
 1729. Swift, Jonathan. Letter to John Gay , [dated] Nov. 20, 1729, 
 [printed in] Correspondence, ed. F. E. Ball, vol. iv, p. 112. 
 
 I have heard of the Wife of Bath, I think in Shakespeare. 
 
 [This is in answer to a letter from Gay (of Nov. 9), in 
 which he says : “I have employed my time in new writing a 
 damned play, which I wrote several years ago, called the 
 Wife of Lath.” For Gay’s Wife of Bath see above, 1713, 
 pt. i, pp. 326-7.] 
 
 [1730-52.] Unknown. Verses [quoted by George Yertue, among] 
 Notes and extracts on Chaucer, [in] Notebook [lettered E 4 (MS. 
 Add. 23,091)], foil. 100-104, 1166, 1196, 123, 125. 
 
 [f. 123 ] A Copy of Verses in the Celebrated English Poets 
 engraved by Mr. Yertue. 
 
 Learning had long withdrawn her vital Pow’r 
 
 At length in Chaucer s verse her head she rears 
 Starts from the slumber of a thousand years, 
 
 He of the shineing host the Vesper rode, 
 
 And spake the brightness of the coming God. 
 
 I Whether he chuse a careless mirth to raise 
 
 In tales diversify’d a thousand ways, 
 
 Or else in Epics takes a nobler flight. 
 
 These fill with rapture and those move delight. 
 
 [Tlie “ Celebrated English Poets ’ were engraved in 1730.] 
 
 [c. 1730. Young, Edward.] Two Epistles to Mr. Pope , concerning the 
 Authors of the Age, Epistle ii., p. 27. 
 
 Fontaine and Chaucer , dying, wisht unwrote 
 The sprightliest efforts of their wanton thought. 
 
 1730] 
 
86 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1731 - 
 
 1731. Unknown. A Good and Bad Priest , from Fog’s Journal, Sept* 
 4, no. 147, [reprinted in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Sept. 1731, 
 vol. i, p. 369. 
 
 [Brief reference to] the character of a good priest as drawn 
 by old Chaucer and moderniz’d by Dryden. 
 
 1732. Unknown. Weekly Essays, from the Grub Street Journal, April 
 13, no. 119, and the Universal Spectator, Sept. 23, no. 207, 
 [reprinted in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, April and Sept., vol. ii, 
 pp. 698, 965. 
 
 [p. 698] [Reference to “ Sainct Cecily ” in Second Nonnes Tale .] 
 
 [p. 965] With us Chaucer began the dance [of immodest writing], 
 and it has been too closely followed ever since. 
 
 [1733. Grosvenor, , ps., i.e. Budgell, Eustace?] Modernisation 
 
 of the Sompnour's Tale, [in] The Bee [edited by Eustace Budgell], 
 vol. ii, no. xxiii, Aug. 4, [1733,] p. 1020. 
 
 [This was reprinted in Ogle’s Canterbury Tales , q.v. above, 1741, pt. i, p. 389.] 
 
 1735. [Arbuthnot, John.] Critical Remarks on Capt. Gulliver’s Travels. , 
 By Doctor Bantley, Cambridge, 1735, sign. Aiv6, pp. 5, 6, 7. 
 [See above, pt. ii, sect, i, p. 65, 1814, Scott, Memoirs of Swift.] 
 
 [p. 5] The first Author I shall cite is Chaucer ; a Poet of our : 
 own Nation, who was well read in the antient Geography, 
 and is allowed by all Critics to have been a Man of universal 
 Learning, as well as of inimitable Wit and Humour. . . . 
 
 [p. 6] 1 Certes (qd. John) I, 2 nat denye, 
 
 That, 3 touchende of the 4 Stedes countrye, 
 
 I 5 rede, as thylke olde 6 crony ke seythe, 
 
 7 p longe afore our 8 crysten fey the, 
 
 Ther 9 ben, as ye shull understonde, 
 
 An 10 yle, n ycleped 12 Coursyr’s londe, 
 
 Wher, 13 nis, 14 ne 15 dampnynge 16 couetyse; 
 
 Ne, 17 Letchere hotte, in 18 Sainctes gise; 
 
 Ne, 19 seely Squire, 20 lycke 21 browdred Ape, 
 
 1 Certainly. 2 Do not. 3 Concerning. 4 Horses. 5 Read. 
 6 Chronicle. 7 Long before. 6 Christian. 9 There was. 10 Island. 
 11 Called. 12 Horses. 13 There is not. 14 Any. 15 Damnable. 
 
 19 Covetousness. 17 Nor lewd Person. 18 Pretending sanctity. 19 Silly. 
 
 20 Like. 21 Embroidered. 
 
 i 
 
 : 
 
 . 
 
 I 
 
 
 
Appendix A. 87 
 
 Who maken 1 Goddes 2 boke a 3 Jape \ 
 
 Ne 4 Lemman uyle, mishandlynge youthe, 
 
 Ne women, 5 brutell [sec] ware in 6 sothe ; 
 
 Ne Flattrer, Ne 7 unlettred Clerke, 
 
 Who 8 richen him, withouten 9 werke ; 
 
 For Vice in thought, ne 10 als in 11 dede, 
 
 Was never none in Londe of 12 Stede. 
 
 Chaucer. 
 
 i 2 The Bible. 
 
 7 Illiterate Parson. 
 11 Deed or Action. 
 
 3 A Jest. 4 Harlot. 5 Brittle ware. 
 8 Enriching himself. 9 Labour. 
 
 12 Stede Land, or Houyhnhm Land. 
 
 6 Truly. 
 10 Else. 
 
 ri735-01.1 Oldys, William. Note [in his copy of] Winstanleys Lives 
 of the Poets [opposite the passage on Occleve’s portrait of Chaucer 
 in the De Kegimine Principis, printed in] Notes and Queries, 
 2nd ser., vol. xi, p. 181. 
 
 [Oldys died in 1761, and these Advtrsaria were among the MS. collections left 
 by him.] 
 
 This book, De regimine principis , a pretty thick folio, 
 written, in English stanzas, on vellum, with that picture of 
 Chaucer on the side of the verses, is in the possession of 
 Mr. West of the Temple, who showed it me, Feb. 27, 1735. 
 
 1735. Philalethes. Merlin and his Gave , from Fog’s Journal, Dec. 6, 
 no. 370, [reprinted in] The Gentleman s Magazine, Dec., vol. v, 
 p. 715. 
 
 [Allusion to the Wife of Path’s Talef] 
 
 1735. Unknown. Essay, from The Prompter, no. 72, July 18, 1735, 
 [reprinted in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, July 1735, vol. v, 
 p. 358. 
 
 There are many Persian Poems . . . which are but 
 moderniz’d Essays, (as our Chaucer by Dryden ), the ancient 
 Words being grown obscure, by Corruption of their Lan- 
 guage ; as Chaucer s by Improvement of ours. 
 
 1737. Unknown. A Sonnet , modernized from Chaucer , [in] The Gentle- 
 man’s Magazine, Feb. 1737, vol. vii, p. 118. 
 
 [This “ sonnet ” is a poem of ten six-line verses, beginning 
 “ A chaste behaviour is the highest praise.’ ] 
 
88 Appendix A. [a.d 1740 " 1 
 
 1739. Unknown. The Apotheosis of Milton , continued, [in] The Gentle- I 
 man s Magazine, Feb. 1739, vol. ix, p. 74. 
 
 When they [the poets] were all seated, a profound Silence I 
 ensued, which was broken by the President, [Chaucer] who 
 . . . enlarged with Great Eloquence, upon the fine Qualifi- 1 
 cations, the Learning and the Genius of Milton . . . 
 
 [For the first part, see above, 1738, pt. i, p. 384.] 
 
 [a. 1740.] Swift, Jonathan. Memorandum of the oaths used in the ■ 
 Canterbury Tales, [and] An imitation of Chaucer. 
 
 [Neither of these seems to have been preserved. Sir 
 Walter Scott, in his Memoirs of Swift, says that Chaucer 1 
 seems to have been his favourite, for “ I observe among his 1 
 papers a memorandum of the oaths used in the Canterbury 1 
 Tales, classed with the personages by whom they are I 
 used.” In a footnote to the edn. of 1834, Monck Mason I 
 is quoted as stating that Scott had sent him an imitation 
 of Chaucer’s style in the handwriting of Swift. This he ? 
 regrets having lost. See above, pt. ii, sect, i, p. 65, 1814, f 
 Scott, Memoirs of Jonathan Swift, Miscellaneous Prose ? 
 works of Sir Walter Scott, Edinburgh, 1834-71, 30 vols., j 
 vol. ii, p. 414 and note.] 
 
 1743. Birch, Thomas. The Heads of Illustrious Persons of Great fl 
 Britain , engraven by Mr. Honbraken and Mr. Vertue. With 
 their lives and characters by Thomas Birch. 
 
 [A conventional life of Chaucer. The engraving of him 
 is by Houbraken, and is dated 1741.] 
 
 1743. [Editor of The Gentleman’s Magazine.] Note [in] 
 Gentleman’s Magazine, Nov., vol. xiii, p. 586. 
 
 [On the Lambesbourne in Berkshire. Quotes Sylvester’s ' 
 reference to “ Chaucer’s Donnington,” q.v. above, App. A. 
 1611.] 
 
 1744. Mason, William. Musseus. 
 
 [Given in the text above under 1747, pt. i, p. 393. It 
 should have been entered under 1744, which Mason says, in 
 a note on p. 3 of Poems , 1764, was the date of composition.] 
 
 1744. Pope, Alexander. Letter to Lord Orrery, [dated] April 10, 
 1744, [printed in] Works, ed. W. Courthope and W. Elwin, 1871- 
 89, 10 vols., vol. viii, p. 518. 
 
 I doubt not how much Bounce [his dog] was lamented. 
 They might say as the Athenians did to Arcite in Chaucer, 
 
89 
 
 1748] Appendix A. 
 
 Ah Arcite ! gentle knight, why wouldst thou die, 
 
 When thou hadst gold enough, and Emily ! 
 
 Ah Bounce ! Ah gentle beast, why wouldst thou die, 
 When thou hadst meat enough, and Orrery ? 
 
 1744. Whitehead, William. On Nobility , p. 6. 
 
 And did your gentle Grandames always prove 
 Stern Rebels to the Charms of lawless Love % 
 
 And never pitied, at some tender Time, 
 
 1 A dying Damian , with’ring in his Prime ? 
 
 1 A dying Damian, &c.] See January and May in Chaucer and Mr. Pope. 
 
 1746. Unknown. Poem, [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Dec. 1746, 
 vol. xvi, p. 665. 
 
 Father Francis’s prayer to St. Agnes. In Imitation of 
 Chaucer. 
 
 Ne gay attire, ne marble hall, 
 
 Ne arched roof, ne painted wall, . . . 
 
 Ne power, ne such-like idle fawncies 
 Sweet Agnes, grant to father Frauncis . . . 
 
 [18 more lines with no greater resemblance to Chaucer 
 than the above.] 
 
 1747. Mason, William. Musaeus. See above, 1744. 
 
 1747. Warton, Thomas, the elder. Paraphrase of Leviticus , xi. 13, 
 [in] Poems on Several Occasions, pp. 30-33. 
 
 [p . 30 ] Hereafter in English Metre ensueth A Paraphrase on 
 the Holie Book entitled Leviticus Chap. xi. Yers. 13, &c. 
 Fashioned after the Maniere of Maister Geoffery Chaucer 
 in his Assemblie of Foules : Containing the Reasons of the 
 several Prohibitions. 
 
 Of feathred Foules, that fanne the bucksom Aire 
 Not All alike were made for Foode to men ; 
 
 For, These Thou shalt not eat, doth God declare, 
 
 Twice tenne Their Nombre, and their Fleshe unclene . . . 
 
 \a. 1748. Tanner, Thomas.] Collections for the Bibliotheca Britannico- 
 Hibernica, [in Latin], MS. Add. 6261, ff. 24, 68. 
 
 [References to Chaucer as Controller of Customs for the 
 Port of London, and to the Sloane MS. of the Astrolabe. 
 
90 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1748 - 1 
 
 There are probably other references to Chaucer in this 
 MS., which consists chiefly of extracts from and references 1 
 to MSS.] 
 
 1748. Tanner, Thomas. Bibliotheca Britannico-FLihernica. [In Latin, j 
 Article on Chaucer, pp. 166-70, references in articles on Gower, 1 
 336-7, Lydgate, 489, 91, Occleve, 557, Spenser, 684, Strode, 697, j 
 and Thynne, 713.] 
 
 [The biographical part of the account of Chaucer is 1 
 avowedly based on Speght.] 
 
 1749. C., J. Verses to Mr. Mason , [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, - 
 Nov. 1749, vol. xix, p. 516. 
 
 [Brief reference to Chaucer and Spenser. The poem is 
 occasioned by Mason’s Musaeus , q.v. above, 1747, pt. i, 
 p. 393; see also above, App. A., 1744.] 
 
 1751. Unknown. Letter, [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, July 1751, 1 
 vol. xxi, pp. 302-3. 
 
 [Reference to and quotation from Chanouns Yemannes j 
 Tale.] 
 
 1752. [Fielding, Henry?] A Plesaunt Balade , or, Advice to the ■ 
 Fayre Maydens: written by Dan Jeffrey Chaucer, [in] The Covent ] 
 Garden Journal, no. 50, June 23, 1752. (Ed. G. E. Jensen, New * 
 Haven & London, 1915, 2 vols., vol. ii, pp. 37-8 and (notes) 
 p. 237.) 
 
 [The “ Balade ” is preceded by an unsigned letter, 1 
 beginning :] 
 
 Sir, Perhaps your Readers will not be displeased with 
 the Sight of the following Poem, when they are told it was 
 written by that ancient and venerable Bard, Dan Jeffrey 
 Chaucer . . . 
 
 [The poem begins as follows :] 
 
 Listhnith [«c], Ladies, to your olde Frende : 
 
 If yee be fayre, be fayre to sum gode Ende. 
 
 For Gallants rath or late must loken out 
 For thilk same Yoke, so ese out of Lout, 
 
 * Yclepid Marriage ; yet sootly Weman be 
 Malum per accidens vel malum per se, 
 
 As lerned Clerkes saie : this Latin is, 
 
 Ladies, that yee al bene Mannis chefe Blis, 
 
 [etc.]. 
 
 [Cf. N.P.T., 11. 343-6.] 
 
 * [Note in original] : Called. 
 
91 
 
 1755] 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 [The Covent Garden Journal was edited and largely 
 written by Fielding under the pseudonym of “Sir Alex- 
 ander Drawcansir.” Professor W. L. Cross (The History 
 of Henry Fielding, 1918, 3 vols., vol. ii, pp. 382-3) prints 
 the poem, and attributes it to Fielding, adding, “Nowhere 
 else, so far as I remember, does Fielding give the slightest 
 evidence of any first-hand acquaintance with the father of 
 English poetry. In the list of the world’s great humorists 
 enumerated in ‘Torn Jones,’ the name of Chaucer is con- 
 spicuous for its absence.”] 
 
 1752. Rawlinson, Richard. Dimissio Tenementi siti in Gardino 
 capellae beatae Mariae Westm . . . concessa Galfndo Chaucers 
 . . . Dec. 1399. 
 
 [An engraved facsimile of the lease ( q.v . above, 1399, 
 pt. i, pp. 13-14), made for Richard Rawlinson.]- 
 
 1753. 
 
 [p. 10] 
 
 [Armstrong, John.] Taste: an Epistle to a Young Critic , 
 pp. 10, 15. (Bell’s Poets, 1781, vol. c, pp. 93, 96.) 
 
 As like as (if I am not grossly wrong) 
 
 Erie Robert’s Mice to aught e’er Chaucer sung. 
 
 The Lords who starv’d old Ben were learndly fond 
 Of Chaucer , whom with bungling Toil they conn’d. 
 
 1753. Unknown. Publisher’s Advertisement of the Lives of the Poets by 
 Theophilns Cibber (q.v. above, pt. i, p. 407.) 
 
 [This is stated in Notes and Queries , 1st ser., vol. v p. 26, 
 Jan. 10, 1852, q.v. above, pt. ii, sect, ii, p. 10, to be by 
 Johnson.] 
 
 1754. Gemsege, Paul [i.e. Pegge, Samuel.] Letter, [m] The Gentle- 
 man’s Magazine, May 1754, vol. xxiv, p. 212. 
 
 [Brief reference.] 
 
 [Paul Gemsege is the anagram of Samuel Pegge. He contributed largely to The 
 Gentleman’s Magazine between the years 1746 and 1796, principally under the 
 signature of Paul Gemsege. Other pseudonyms of his which appear here are . 
 T. Row, L. E., L. Echard, Portius, Senex ; he also used his initials, S.P. 
 
 See an article on Pegge’s contributions to The Gentleman’s Magazine in the 
 number for Dec. 1796, p. 979 and supplement, p. 1081.] 
 
 [1755. Grey, Zachary.] Remarks upon a late [i.e. Warburton’s] Edition 
 of Shakespeare, p. 16. 
 
 [ Frankeleynes Tale , 11. 1045-6, quoted to illustrate “ shene. ] 
 
92 Appendix A. [a.d. 1755- 
 
 1755. Rider, W. Westminster Abbey , [a poem, in] The Gentleman’s 
 Magazine, Aug. 1755, vol. xxv, p. 373. 
 
 Chaucer, who first in Britain taught to sing, 
 
 In his half-crumbling, dreary tomb I hail ; 
 
 Him every muse inspir’d to wake the string, 
 
 But yet how little doth his mirth avail ! 
 
 His rhimes, his language, and his numbers fail . . . 
 
 1757. Gemsege, Paul [i.e. Pegge, Samuel]. Letter, [in] the Gentle- 
 man's Magazine, vol. xxvii, Dec. 1757, p. 561. 
 
 The word crowd . . . occurs even in Chaucer, who died 
 a.d. 1402, or thereabouts. 
 
 1757. Unknown. Biographia Britannica, vol. iv, pp. 2242-51. 
 
 [Article on Gower, containing many more or less passing 
 references to Chaucer. For vol. ii see above, pt. i, 1748; for 
 vol. v, below, App. A, 1760.] 
 
 1758. A., A. On a passage in the Fairy Queen, [in] The Gentleman’s 
 Magazine, Feb. 1758, vol. xxviii, p. 57. 
 
 [Brief reference illustrating Spenser’s phrase “powdered 
 with stars”]. 
 
 1758. Massey, W. The various translations of the Bible into English 
 [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, March 1758, vol. xxviii, p. 108. ’ 
 
 In Chaucer's time, there was a tradition that the Gospels 
 were extant in the British tongue, when Alla was king of 
 Northumberland, in the seventh century. Chaucer's words 
 in the Man of Lawes tale, are these : 
 
 A Breton boke written with Evangeles was set . . 
 
 1760. Copywell, Jemmy [i.e. Wotyx, William]. Poem, reprinted in 
 the Gentleman’s Magazine, March, vol. xxx, p. 146. 
 
 [The reference to this at pt. i, p. 417, was made in 
 error; it is that entered above, a . 1730, Unknown, pt i 
 p. 371, q.v.] F ' ’ 
 
 1760. Unknown. Biographia Britannica, vol. v, p. 3405. 
 
 [Pope’s juvenile imitations of Chaucer, etc., generally 
 condemned. For vol. ii see above, pt. i, 1748; for vol. iv 
 above, App. A, 1757.] 
 
93 
 
 1765 ] Appendix A. 
 
 1761. Dodsley, Robert. Letter to Williarrt Shenstone [dated] June 25 
 * [1761], [printed in] Select Letters, 1777, 2 vols., vol. li, p. 113. 
 
 I send you a List of some Statues, about the same size 
 with that Pair you have ; 
 
 Demosthenes Locke Chaucer Shakespeare 
 
 and and and and 
 
 Cicero, Newton, Spencer, Milton. 
 
 When you have fixed upon which Pair you will have, you 
 will let me know whether you will have them white or 
 bronzed. 
 
 [1763 ?] Unknown. A Short Account of the first Else and Progress of 
 Printing , 32°, p. 44. 
 
 In this [Arnold' s Chronicle ] is the Nut Brown Maid, 
 supposed by Chaucer, as Skelton confirms ... Mr. Prior 
 has made a paraphrase of it . . . but knew not that it was 
 by Chaucer. 
 
 \a 1765.] Dunkin, William. The Character of a Good Parson , From 
 ’ Chaucer, [in] Select Poetical Works of the late William Dunkm, 
 D.D., Dublin, 1769-70, vol. ii, p. 480. 
 
 [Dr. Dunkin died on 24 Nov., 1765.] 
 
 1765. Hurd, Richard. Moral and Political Dialogues; with Letters on 
 ' Chivalry and Romance ... the third edition, vol. iii, pp. 230, 
 [Letter iv, reference to the Theseus in the Knight's Tale], 318-27 
 [Letter xi]. 
 
 [p 318] It is, further, to be noted, that the Tale of the Giant 
 Olyphant and Chylde Topaz was not a fiction of his own, 
 but a story of antique fame, and very celebrated in the days 
 of chivalry : so that nothing could better suit the poet’s 
 [p. 319] design of discrediting the old romances, than the choice of 
 this venerable legend for the vehicle of his ridicule upon 
 them. 
 
 Sir Topaz is all Don Quixote in little ; as you will easily 
 see from comparing the two knights together. [This is 
 expanded.] 
 
 [p. 325] Only, I would observe, that, though, in this ridiculous 
 ballad, the poet clearly intended to expose the romances of 
 the time, as they were commonly written, he did not mean, 
 absolutely and under every form, to condemn the kind of 
 writing itself : as, I think, we must conclude from the 
 
. 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1769 - 
 
 serious air, and very different conduct, of the Squire’s 
 Tale, which Spenser and Milton were so particularly 
 pleased with. 
 
 [For the original and much briefer version, set above, pt. i, 1762, p. 421. The first 
 paragraph quoted here follows that in the 1762 edn., ending “ most proper to be put 
 into the hands of the People.”] 
 
 1769. Unknown. The Whimsical Legacy. In Imitation of the Sum- 
 mer's [sic] Tale in Chaucer , [in] The Merry Droll, pp. 84-90. [Not 
 in B. M. ; Bodl., Douce DD. 35.] 
 
 1773. Steevens, George. Notes [in] The Plays of William Shakespeare. 
 
 p. 3, ii.] is probable that the hint for this play [The Midsummer 
 Night’s Dream] was received from Chaucer’s Knight’s 
 Tale . . . 
 
 K] iX> Chaucer had made the loves of Troilus and Cressida 
 famous, which very probably might have been Shakespeare’s 
 inducement to try their fate on the stage. [See above, pt. i, 
 p. 431, Capell.] 
 
 [There are also some passing references to Chaucer in 
 Steevens’s notes. For an additional note in Steevens’s 
 revised 2nd edn., see below, App. A, 1778.] 
 
 1775. Atticus. Stanzas on Poetry , [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, 
 July 1775, vol. xlv, p. 340. ° | 
 
 Thus when our Chaucer first awoke the string, 
 
 o' 
 
 All rude and harsh the lays — though bold the flight . . . 
 
 1775. Unknown. Review of Tyrwhitt’s edition of the Canterbury 
 
 Tales , [in] The London Magazine, vol. xliv, pp. 652, 653 ; in The { 
 Critical Review, vol. xl, pp. 205-7 ; and in The Monthly Review, 
 vol. liii, pp. 26-7. { 
 
 [Brief conventional tributes.] 
 
 j 
 
 1775. Walpole, Horace. Letter to the Rev. W. Mason , April 14, 1775, 
 [in] Letters of Horace Walpole, ed. Mrs. Paget Toynbee, vol. ix, 
 
 pp. 180-1. 
 
 I have waded through Mr. Tyrrwhit’s most tedious notes 
 to the “Canterbury Tales,” for a true Antiquary can still be 
 zealous to settle the genuine shape of a lump of mineral 
 from which Dryden extracted all the gold, and converted 
 [it] into beautiful medals. 
 
95 
 
 1778 ] Appendix A. 
 
 1775-81 White, Gilbert. Letters to the Rev. John White, Jan. 5 and 
 March 9, 1775 ; and to Miss Molly White, Dec. 19, 1781, [printed 
 in] The Life and Letters of Gilbert White, 1901, 2 vols., vol. l, 
 pp. 274, 281, vol. ii, p. 78. 
 
 [Chaucer’s mention of gossamer; the colours of young 
 leaves observed by Chaucer in the Flour and the Lefe .] 
 
 1778 Duncombe, John. An Elegy written in Canterbury Cathedral , 
 
 ’p.8. 
 
 [Reference to Chaucer and the pilgrims, and to the 
 Chequer inn, as that where they lodged.] 
 
 1778. Rymsdyk, Jan van. Museum Britannicum , pp. 71-2, tab. 
 xxviii. 
 
 [An unofficial account of objects of interest in the British Museum.] 
 
 9. A Rough Egyptian Pebble ... on which is a striking 
 Likeness of the Head of Chaucer, father of the English 
 Poets, and is entirely by the Pencil of Nature, without any 
 assistance of Art. And now we will give a slight De- 
 scription of another kind of Diamond, meaning Chaucer. 
 [Quotations from Leland and Dryden.] One may see his 
 very Temper on this Egyptian Pebble, which is a Compo- 
 sition of the Gay, the Modest, and the Grave. 
 
 [The Pebble is shewn in engraving No. 9 on pi. xxviii, 
 facing p. 69. It is still exhibited in the Mineral Gallery of 
 the Natural History Museum, and is mentioned in the 
 “Blue Guide” to London, 1918, p. 246.] 
 
 ! 
 
 1778. Steevens, George. Note [in] The Plays of William Shakespeare 
 ... To which are added Notes by Samuel Johnson and George 
 Steevens. The Second Edition, revised and augmented, vol. v, 
 p. 523. 
 
 [Note on Henry IT., Part 2, Act iii, scene 2, to Skogan’s 
 head.] Who Scogan was, may be understood from the 
 following passage in The Fortunate Isles , a masque of Ben 
 Jonson, 1626. [Quoted.] 
 
 Among the works of Chaucer is a poem called ‘ Scogan, 
 unto the Lordes and Gentilmen of the Kinges House.’ — 
 Steevens. 
 
 [See also below, App. A, 1783, Ritson, and 1793, Malone. For Steevens’s other 
 notes, see his ed. 1, above, App. A., 1773.] 
 
96 
 
 Appendix A. [ a . d . 1778 - 
 
 1778. Unknown. Encyclopaedia Britannica ; see above, pt. i, p. 452. 
 
 [The 6th edn. appeared in 1823; the Chancer and Lydgate 
 articles in it are exact reprints of those in the 5th.] 
 
 [n. a. 1779.] Mortimer, John Hamilton. A series of nine drawings 
 for the Canterbury Tales. 
 
 [ Hamilton died in 1779; these drawings were engraved 
 in 1787 for some projected 4° edition of the Tales. See 
 N. and Q. 1880, 6th ser., vol. ii, pp. 325-6, 355; Hammond, 
 Chaucer , p. 324.] 
 
 1779. Unknown. [Poem] To Mr. Warton on the third volume of his 
 History of English Poetry being unpublished, [in] The Gentleman’s 
 Magazine, Sept. 1779, vol. xl, p. 464. 
 
 [Brief reference.] 
 
 1780. Antiquarius. Letter , [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Nov. 
 
 1780, vol. 1, p. 515. : 
 
 [Brief reference ; Chaucer on fairies.] 
 
 [c. 1780.] Catling, John, verger at Westminster Abbey. Conversations 
 with Joseph Nollekens, [reported by J. T. Smith, in Nollekens and ^ 
 his Times , 2 vols., 1828, vol. i, p. 179]. 
 
 Catling : Hid you ever notice the remaining colours of 
 the curious little figure that was painted on the tomb of ; 
 Chaucer ? 
 
 Nollekens : No, that’s not at all in my way. 
 
 [J. T. Smith accompanied his father and Nollekens on this occasion as an assistant 
 in their work as monumental sculptors, and Was probably about fifteen ; he was 
 born in 1766.] 
 
 1780. R., J. Letter , [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Sept. 1780, vol. 1, 
 p. 420. [$ee also below, 1781.] 
 
 [On the genitive case in Saxon ; forms in Chaucer such 
 as Knitisf\ 
 
 1781. B., W. Remarks on Dr. Johnson's Lives of the Poets, [in] The 
 Gentleman’s Magazine, Nov., vol. li, p. 507. 
 
 [Johnson and Hryden on Chaucer.] 
 
 1781. H. Two Letters , [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Jan. and April 
 
 1781, vol. li, pp. 12, 13, 175. 
 
 [In continuation of J. R., see above, 1780, and also below, 
 1781, ‘Scrutator.’] 
 
97 
 
 1785] Appendix A. 
 
 1781. Harris, James. Philological Inquiries, Part iii, chapter xi, pp„ 
 467-72, 480. 
 
 [Chaucer’s learning.] 
 
 1781. [Pinkerton, John.] On the progress of the English Language , 
 Sonnet 1, Rimes, p. 131. 
 
 Chaucer to the wanton court her bore, 
 
 Where jest and wiles she learned and amorous play. 
 
 [‘ Her ’ is the English Muse.] 
 
 1781. Scrutator. Letter, [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, June 1781, 
 vol. li. p. 266. 
 
 [In continuation of ‘ J. R.’ and £ H.’ above, 1780, 1781.] 
 
 1782. Unknown. On the Rev. Thomas Wartons Escape , after falling 
 into the river between Winchester and St. Cross, [in] The Gentle- 
 man’s Magazine, Jan. 1782, vol. Iii, p. 39. 
 
 [stanza v] ... The busy throng 
 
 Of spirits waft him safe along 
 
 Where Chaucer’s reverend shade yclad in bayes 
 
 His chaplet vails, meet guerdon of his layes. 
 
 1783. [Bit son, Joseph.] Remarks . . . on . . . the last Edition of 
 Shakespeare , pp. 31, 99-100. 
 
 [p. 3i] [‘ Kid-fox.’] 
 
 [p. 99] [Scogan.] 
 
 1783. S., D. ; W., T. H. ; and W., J. Letters , etc., [in] The Gentle- 
 man’s Magazine, April, May and Aug., vol. liii, pp. 281-3, 
 406-7, 639. 
 
 1784. Eugenio; W., R. ; and Unknown. Letters , [in] The Gentle- 
 man’s Magazine, April and May, vol. liv, pp. 257, 270, 323-4. 
 
 1785. Henry, Robert. The History of Great Britain . . . Written on 
 a New Plan, vol. v. [a.d. 1399-1485], p. 549. [For vol. iv, see 
 above, pt. i, pp. 459-63.] 
 
 The works of Chaucer and Gower, who flourished in the 
 fourteenth century, are as intelligible to a modem reader, 
 as those of King James, Lydgate, or Occleve. 
 
 1785. W., T. ; E., N. ; E., S. ; Unknown; and D., J. Letters, etc., 
 [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Feb., March, June, Aug. and 
 Dec., vol. lv, pp. 110, 181, 414, 629, 950. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. — IV. H 
 
98 
 
 Appendix A . [a.d. 1786- 
 
 1786. W., T. H. ; Unknown ; R., B. ; and W., C. Letters , etc. [in] 
 The Gentleman’s Magazine, Jan., April, June and July, vol. IvL 
 pp. 39, 321, 472, 554. 
 
 1787. Search, P. ; A., J. ; W., T. H. ; and Unknown. Letters , etc., 
 [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Feb., Aug., Nov., and Suppl., 
 vol. lvii, pp. 126, 689, 945-6, 1169. 
 
 1788, Belzebub. Letters on Education , [in] The Gentleman’s Maga- 
 zine, May, vol. lviii, p. 391. 
 
 [Brief reference.] 
 
 1789. Diplom, and others. Letter on the spelling of the name 
 ‘Shakespeare,’ [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, June, vol. lix, 
 p. 494. 
 
 [Brief reference.] 
 
 1789. Seward, Anna. On the Comparative Merits of Pope and 
 Dry den, [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Sept,, vol. lix, p. 820. 
 
 [Brief reference.] 
 
 1789. White, Gilbert. The Natural History and Antiquities of Sel- 
 borne , p. 381. 
 
 [Chaucer and Langland satirize the clergy.] The laugh- 
 able tales of the former are familiar to almost every reader. 
 
 1790. Hamilton, William. The Death of Arcite. [Design, engraved 
 in stipple by Bartolozzi.] 
 
 1790. Malone, Edmond. Notes , [in] The Plays and Poems of William 
 Shakespeare , 10 vols., vol. ii, pp. 441, 461-2, 527, 529 [ Midsum - 
 mer’s Nights Dream \ ; v, pp. 355-6 [Henry IV., pt. ii, Scogan] ; ; 
 viii, pp. 143-4 [ Troilus and Cressida ]. 
 
 [There are probably other Chaucerian quotations and references in Malone’s notes | 
 to the Plays.] 
 
 1791. D’Israeli, Isaac. Curiosities of Literature, 1 vol, p. 503. 
 
 The Living Language. 
 
 Chaucer, Gower, Lydgate, and an infinite number of 
 excellent writers, have fallen martyrs to their patriotism 
 by writing in their mother tongue. Spenser is not always 
 intelligible without a glossary. 
 
 [Reprinted in the 4th edn., 179S, vol. i, p. 586, but not reprinted in later editions, 
 D’lsraeli added to and enlarged this book for many years ; vol. ii was added in 
 
 AH 
 
1793] 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 99 
 
 1793, vol. iii in 1817, vols. iv and v in 1823, and vol. vi in 1834. By 1841 twelve 
 editions had appeared, each revised and altered. For further Chaucer references in 
 the completed work, see below, 1793, 1798, and above, pt. i, 1807, 1823, 1834.] 
 
 1791. [Huddesford, George.] Salmagundi; a miscellaneous combin- 
 ation of Original Poetry, p. 143. 
 
 Monody on the death of Dick, an academical cat. 
 
 Cat-Gossips full of Canterbury Tales. 
 
 1791. Unknown. Imitation of Chaucer, [in] The Bee [edited] by 
 James Anderson, LL.D., Edinburgh, vol. iv, Aug. 11, 1791, p. 182. 
 
 Right wele of learnet clerkis is it saide, 
 
 That wemenheid for mannis use is made. 
 
 1792. Cary, Henry Francis. Letter to Miss Seward , [dated] 7 May 
 1792, [printed in] Memoir of the Rev. H. F. Cary, 1847, 2 vols., 
 vol. i, p. 42. 
 
 Our greatest English poets, Chaucer, Spenser, and Milton, 
 have been professed admirers of the Italians. 
 
 [For Miss Seward's letter in reply to this, see above, pt. i, p. 494.] 
 
 [1792.] Macklin, . Proposals for Macklin’s English Poets . . . 
 
 particularly . . . Chaucer . . . Skelton, etc. 
 
 [Inserted in Haslewood and Bliss’s interleaved copy of 
 Winstanley’s Lives of the English Poets (B.M. C. 45. d. 13), 
 q.v. above, pt. ii, sect, i, p. 187, [c. 1833] Haslewood.] 
 
 1792. Tyson, ; and G., D. R. H. Letters on a portrait of Chaucer, 
 
 [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, July, Aug., vol. lxii, pp. 614, 714. 
 
 1792. Mercier, Richard Edward ; Sigla ; and Unknown. Articles, 
 etc., [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, April, Sept, and Nov., vol. 
 lxii, pp. 326, 805, 1022. 
 
 [Poke of Fame, ed. Caxton; Chaucer’s house; review of 
 Lipscombe’s Pardoner s Talef[ 
 
 1793, D’Israeli, Isaac. Curiosities of Literature, 2 vols., 1793, vol. ii, 
 pp. 217, 286, 469. (14th edn., 3 vols., 1849, vol. i, p. 274, pp. 
 499, 508.) 
 
 Romances. 
 
 [p. 217 ] Chaucer is a notorious imitator and lover of them [the 
 Italian Romances] ; his Knight’s Tale is little more than a 
 paraphrase of Boccaccio’s Teseide. 
 
100 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 [a.d. 1794- 
 
 Poet Laureat. 
 
 [p. 286 ] Gower and Chaucer were laureates. 
 
 [p. 469] N atural Productions resembling artificial compositions , 
 
 There is preserved in the British Museum a black stone, 1 
 on which nature has sketched a resemblance of the portrait I 
 of Chaucer. [See above, App. A., 1778, Bymsdyk.] 
 
 1794. ^[Mathias, Thomas James.] The Pursuits of Literature, pp. 1 
 
 [‘ Gibbe our cat.’] 
 
 [For other references in the Pursuits of Literature, see above, 1794, pt. i, p. 495, 1 
 and below, 1797 and 1800.] 
 
 1794. P., B. Local Expression , [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, Feb., I 
 vol. lxiv, p. 110. ’I 
 
 [‘ Nesh.’] 
 
 1794. Tooke, John Horne. [When in the Tower Tooke had a Chaucer, j 
 which he used for notes and minutes. The copy afterwards | 
 belonged to Samuel Rogers. See Crabb Robinson’s ‘Diary, 1840, I 
 ed. 1869, vol. iii, p. 187.] . 
 
 1794. Unknown. Gualtherus and Griselda, [modernised version of 
 part of the Clerkes Tale, in] Angelica’s Ladies’ Library, pp. 73-104. ] 
 
 1795. Z., K. ; Unknown ; and Sciolus. Articles, etc., [in] The Gentle- 
 man s Magazine, April, June, Sept., vol. lxv, pp. 282, 495, 728. 
 
 [Brief reference ; Review of Lipscomb’s Canterbury Tales ; 1 
 the marriage service in Chaucer.] 
 
 1795. Southey, Robert. Dunnington-Castle, a sonnet, [in] Poems : by 1 
 Robert Lovell and Robert Southey, Bath, p. 61. 
 
 Thou ruin’d relique of the ancient pile, 
 
 Rear d by that hoary bard, whose tuneful lyre 
 First breath’d the voice of music on our isle ; 
 
 Where, warn’d in life’s calm evening to retire, 
 
 Old Chaucer slowly sunk at last to night, 
 
 Still shall his forceful line, his varied strain, 
 
 A firmer, nobler monument remain, 
 
 When the high grass waves o’er thy lovely site ; 
 
 And yet the cankering tooth of envious age 
 
1798] 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 101 
 
 Has sapp’d the fabric of his lofty rhyme ; 
 
 Though genius still shall ponder o’er the page, 
 
 And piercing through the shadowy mist of time, 
 
 The festive Bard of Edward’s court recall, 
 
 As fancy paints the pomp that once adorn’d thy wall. 
 
 [1796 ?] Southey, Robert. Essay on the Poetry of Spain and Portugal , 
 [in] Letters written ... in Spain and Portugal, Bristol, 1797, 
 
 pp. 121, 122. 
 
 Chaucer frequently spared himself the trouble of invention, 
 and adopted the allegories of the Provengal school, and the 
 licentious humour or the dignified romance of Boccaccio. 
 
 1796. Unknown. Review of Poems by Minot, [in] The Gentleman’s 
 Magazine, Jan., vol. lxvi, p. 49. 
 
 [Tyrwhitt’s discovery of Minot.] 
 
 1797. J., J. H. Letter on Donnington Castle, [with a plate, in] The 
 Gentleman’s Magazine, March, vol. lxvii, p. 185. 
 
 1797. [Mathias, Thomas James.] The Pursuits of Literature, pt. iv, 
 p. 48 n. 
 
 What old Chaucer says of poetry, 
 
 Tis every dele 
 
 A rock of ice and not of steel. 
 
 [See also above, 1794, pt. i, p. 495, and App. A, 1794, and below, 1800.] 
 
 1798. D ’Israeli, Isaac. Curiosities of Literature , 4th edn., 2 vols., 
 1798 ; vol. i, p. 479 ; vol. ii, p. 40. (14th edn., 3 vols., 1849, vol. i, 
 pp. 248, 363.) 
 
 Anecdotes of Fashion. 
 
 [vol. i, 
 p. 479] 
 
 [Chaucer on prelates’ dress quoted.] 
 
 A Literary Wife. 
 
 [vol. ii, 
 p. 40J 
 
 [This section is headed as follows :] 
 
 Marriage is such a rabble rout 
 
 That those that are out, would fain get in ; 
 
 And those that are in, would fain get out. 
 
 Chaucer. 
 
 1798. Jaques. What was ! [in] Satires, etc., pp. 9, 10. 
 
 Chaucer . . . 
 
 Has left good models for the present day . . 
 
102 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1798 - 
 
 1798. Unknown; and Wiccamicus. Review and Letter , [in] The 
 Gentleman's Magazine, Oct., vol. Ixviii, pp. 862-4, 38-9 
 
 [Saxon words in Chaucer ; modernizations, etc.] 
 
 1799. Gilpin, John ; An Architect, and Unknown. Articles , etc., 1 
 
 [in] The Gentlemans Magazine, March, Aug., Dec., vol. lxix, pp. 
 180, 670, 1040. r 
 
 [Brief reference ; Chaucer’s tomb ; Donnington.] 
 
 1800. Brydges, Sir Samuel Egerton. Preface to Phillips’ Theatrum 1 
 Poetarum, pp. xlvii-viii, lvi, lix. 
 
 [Chaucer’s innate superiority to his contemporaries.] 
 
 1800. Fox, Charles James. Letter to Charles Grey , [dated] Friday [no 
 month] 1800, [in] Memorials of C. J. Fox, 1854, vol. iii, pp. 
 310-11. ^ 
 
 In defence of my opinion about the nightingales, I find 
 Chaucer, who of all poets seems to have been fondest of the 
 singing of birds, calls it a merry note. 
 
 1800. [Mathias, Thomas James.] The Pursuits of Literature. [This 
 note is dated Nov. 1800 in the collected edn. of 1812 (p. 359); it ] 
 is here quoted from the 11th edn., 1801, pp. 441-2. 
 
 [Quotation from the Hous of Fame.] 
 
 [For other extracts from The Piirsuits of Literature , see above, pt. i, 1794, p. 495, I 
 and App. A, 1794 and 1797.] 
 
 1800. Unknown. Letter, [in] The Gentleman’s Magazine, April, vol. I 
 lxx, p. 336. 1 
 
 [Quotation from Antient Scottish Poems ; Gower preferred ( 
 to Chaucer in their own time.] 
 
 1 
 
 1800. Wordsworth, William. Lyrical Ballads , with other Poems, ' 
 preface, p. xii n. (Prose Works, ed. W. Knight, 2 vols., 1896, vol. i, *• 
 p. 49 n.) 
 
 It is worth while here to observe, that the affecting parts 
 of Chaucer are almost always expressed in language pure 
 and universally intelligible to this day. — W. W., 1800. 
 
 [This preface did not appear in the first edition of 1798.] 
 
 1803. Leyden, John. Scenes of Infancy, pt. ii. pp. 45-6; notes, pp. 
 165, 176. 
 
 [Chaucer and the daisy.] 
 
103 
 
 1811 ] Appendix A. 
 
 1807. Beloe, William. Anecdotes of Literature , vol. ii, pp. 367-8. 
 [For vol. vi, see below, 1812.] 
 
 [The Knightes Tale and Troilus based on Boccaccio’s 
 Teseide and Filostrato ; Chaucer the inventor of the rhyme- 
 royal stanza.] 
 
 1809. Dibdin, Thomas Frognall. The Bibliomania, p. 52 n . 
 
 [Pynson’s Chaucer sold at Dr. Askew’s sale.] 
 
 [There are many new allusions in the greatly enlarged edition of 1811, q.v. below.] 
 
 1810. Scott, Sir Walter. The Lady of the Lake, p. 196 n. 
 
 [Quotation from “The Coke’s Tale of Gamlyn, ascribed to 
 Chaucer.”] 
 
 1811. Dibdin, Thomas Frognall. Bibliomania , Motto to pt. 1, pp. 153 n., 
 157 n., 244 n., 256 n., 319, 507 n., 515 n., 569 n., 594 n. 
 
 [The note on p. 515 is the only allusion in the small first 
 edn. of 1809 (q.v. above, App. A.); the other allusions 
 appear here for the first time and are reprinted in the 3rd 
 edn. of 1842, with the addition of two in the account of 
 Baron Bolland’s books in the First Supplement. Most are 
 unimportant; that on p. 319 is a laudation of William 
 Thynne for his love for and work on Chaucer.] 
 
 [1811.] Landor, Walter Savage. Commentary on Memoirs of Mr. Fox , 
 lately written [by J. B. Trotter], 1812 [actually in 1811], ed. 
 S. Wheeler, 1907, pp. 211-12, 215. 
 
 [The unique copy of the original edn. of 1812 belongs to Lord Crewe. See above, 
 pt. ii, sect, i, p. 56, 1811, Trotter ; also above, App. A., 1800, Fox.] 
 
 [p. 211 ] “ He entertained a sincere veneration for Chaucer.” He 
 
 entertained a sincere veneration for so many, that we have 
 reason to suppose he had little discrimination. . . . Chaucer 
 
 [p. 212 ] is indeed an admirable poet ; until the time of Shakespeare 
 none equalled him ; and perhaps none after, till ours. The 
 truth of his delineations, his humour, his simplicity, his 
 tenderness, how different from the distorted images and 
 gorgeous languor of Spenser ! The language, too, of Chaucer 
 was the language of his day, the language of those English- 
 men who conquered France; that of Spenser is a strange 
 uncouth compound of words. . . . 
 
 [p. 215 ] In Chaucer ... we recognize the strong homely strokes, 
 
 f 
 
104 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1812- 
 
 the broad and negligent facility, of a great master. Within 
 his time and Shakespeare’s, there was nothing comparable, 
 nor, I think, between Shakespeare and Burns, a poet who 
 much resembles him in a knowledge of nature and manners. 
 
 1812. P. Tabard Inn , [with plate, in] The Gentleman’s Magazine,, 
 Sept. 1812, vol. lxxxii, p. 217. 
 
 [The inn, the inscription over the gateway, etc.] Till lately 
 there was some ancient tapestry in the house representing a 
 procession to Canterbury. A well-painted sign by Mr. Blake 
 [? a copy of the Canterbury Pilgrims] represents Chaucer 
 and his merry company setting out . . . 
 
 1813. Scott, Sir Walter. The Bridal of Trier main. 
 
 Motto on title page. 
 
 An elf-quene wol I love I wis 
 [and five following lines.] 
 
 Rime of Sir Thopas. 
 
 1815. Scott, Sir Walter. The Antiquary , chap. xvi. 
 
 Ah ! you have looked on the face of the grisly god of 
 arms, then? — you are acquainted with the frowns of Mars 
 armipotent ? 
 
 1819. Keats, John. The Eve of Saint Mark. [Composed early in 1819, 
 and published posthumously.] (Works, ed. E. de Selincourt, 2nd 
 ed., 1907, pp. 243.) 
 
 [The following lines, supposed to introduce the mediaeval 
 legend of St. Mark, are clearly imitated from Chaucer :] 
 
 Als writith he of swevenis 
 
 Men han beforne they wake in bliss . . . 
 
 And how a litling child mote be 
 A saint er its nativitie . . . 
 
 He writith ; and thinges many mo 
 Of swiche thinges I may not show 
 Bot I must tellen veritie 
 Somdel of Sainte Cicilie, 
 
 And chieflie what he auctorethe 
 Of Sainte Markis life and dethe . . . 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
105 
 
 1830 ] Appendix A. 
 
 1821. Southey, Robert. The Vision of Judgment, p. 33. 
 
 Thee too, Father Chaucer ! I saw, and delighted to see thee, 
 At whose well undefiled I drank in my youth and was 
 strengthen’d ; 
 
 With whose mind immortal so oft I have communed, par- 
 taking 
 
 All its manifold moods, and willingly moved at its pleasure. 
 
 1823. Hunt, James Henry Leigh. The First Canto of the Squire's 
 Tale. 
 
 [This is stated above (pt. ii, sect, i, p. 144) to have been 
 reprinted in 1855. But that reprint is of Hunt’s second 
 version, first published in Chaucer Modernised, 1841.] 
 
 1823. Markham, Mrs. [ps., i.e. Elizabeth Penrose.] A History of 
 England , for the Use of Young Persons, conversation on chap, xix, 
 pp. 174-5 (edn. 1853). 
 
 [Chaucer the father of English poetry ; this is enlarged 
 upon, and a few lines (“the busy lark, the messenger of 
 day,” etc.) quoted and obsolete words explained.] 
 
 [Professor Skeat (A Student’s Pastime, 1896, pp. xiii-xiv) stated that Mrs. Mark- 
 ham's History of England was one of his lesson-books as a child [c. 1845], and that 
 this passage first turned his attention to old English.] 
 
 [1825. Keble, John.] Review [of] The Star in the East, by Josiah 
 Conder, 1824, [in] The Quarterly Review, June 1825, vol. xxxii, 
 pp. 224—5. [Reprinted, as Sacred Poetry, in Occasional Papers and 
 Reviews by John Keble, 1877, pp. 97—8.] 
 
 [p. 97 ] In all ages of our literary history it seems to hhve been 
 considered almost as an essential part of a poet’s duty to 
 give up some pages to Scriptural story, or to the praise of 
 his Maker, how remote soever from anything like religion 
 the general strain of his writings might be. Witness the 
 “ Lamentation of Mary Magdalene ” in the works of Chaucer, 
 
 [p. 98] and the beautiful legend of “ Hew of Lincoln,” which he has 
 inserted in the “ Canterbury Tales ”... 
 
 1826. Cooper, James Fenimore. The Last of the Mohicans, p. 30. 
 
 The most confirmed gait that he could establish was a 
 Canterbury gallop with the hind legs. 
 
 1830. Cunningham, Allan. The Lives of the Most Eminent British 
 Painters, Sculptcrrs and Architects, 6 vols., vol. ii, pp. 161-2, 165, 
 172. 
 
106 
 
 Appendix A. [a.d. 1834-58 
 
 [p. 162 ] The picture [Blake’s Canterbury Pilgrims] is a failure. 
 Blake was too great a visionary for dealing with such literal 
 wantons as the Wife of Bath and her jolly companions. 
 ... He gives grossness of body for grossness of mind. 
 
 [a. 1834.] Stothard, Thomas. Paintings , etc., illustrating Chaucer. 
 
 [Stothard not only painted the celebrated picture of the 
 Canterbury Pilgrims, q. v. above, pt. ii, sect, i, 1808, and 
 Carey, pt. ii, sect, i, p. 35, etc.; at his sale in 1834 three 
 pictures from Chaucer were sold, and at Samuel Rogers’s 
 sale in 1856 “ The Canterbury Pilgrims ” and engravings and 
 drawings of it, and also another picture, probably one of 
 those sold in 1834, appear. See Rogers’s Catalogue, pp. 64, 
 9/ -8, 103, 115, 181 and 195 ; and Mrs. Bray’s Life of Thomas 
 Stothard, 1851, pp. 241, 243. He also painted a picture 
 of the Cock and the Fox. See above, 1836, pt. ii, sect, i. 
 
 1843. [Chambers, Robert ?] Chaucer, [in the] Cyclopcedia of English 
 Literature . . . edited by Robert Chambers, Edinburgh, 1844 ■ 
 [preface dated 1843], 2 vols., vol. i, pp. 12-23. 
 
 [An account of Chaucer, followed by select passages. ; 
 Chaucer the founder of literary English; a man of the i 
 world; his life (including the exile, etc.); his works, a brief 
 account of some of the minor works, including some suppo- 
 sititious pieces, e. g. The Testament of Love and The Court \ 
 of Love ; a longer account of the scheme of The Canterbury 
 Tales. An extract is given from the Prologue, in original 
 spelling ; this is followed by other extracts, mainly from the 
 Canterbury Tales , in Cowden Clarke’s and other modernized ■ 
 forms. Illustrated with woodcuts of Chaucer, of his tomb, 
 and of the Tabard Inn.] 
 
 1848. Gaskell, Elizabeth Cleghorn, Mrs. Mary Barton 2 vols., vol. i 
 pp. 70, 80, 96, 127, 157, 211. 
 
 [Foot-notes pointing out the survival of Chaucerian words 
 in Lancashire.] 
 
 [c. 1857—8.] Hunt, James Henry Leigh. An Essay on the Sonnet , [in] 
 The Booh of the Sonnet, 1867. 
 
 [This is entered above, pt. ii, sect, ii, p. 22, as [ c . 1855], In the Examiner, 18 May, 
 1867, it is stated that Hunt finished his part of this work “ a year or two before his 
 death,” which happened in 1859. The date should therefore read as here given.] 
 
 
 
1596] 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 107 
 
 * ADDENDUM. 
 
 [1596.] Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice, v, i, 3-6. 
 
 In such a night 
 Troilus methinks mounted the Troyan walls, 
 
 And sighed his soul toward the Grecian tents 
 Where Cressid lay that night. 
 
 [For other evidences of Shakespeare’s debt to Troilus , see above, App. A 1589- 
 1603, and 1603?] 
 
Cijaucci Society 
 
 Second Series, 54. 
 
 FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 OF CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 AND ALLUSION (1357-1900) 
 
 BY 
 
 CAROLINE F. E. SPURGEON 
 
 DOCTEUR DE l’uNIVERSITE DE PARIS 
 HON. LITT.D. MICHIGAN 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 
 
 PART Y 
 
 APPENDICES B and C 
 FRENCH AND GERMAN ALLUSIONS 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE CHAUCER SOCIETY 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 AMEN CORNER, LONDON, E.C. 4 , AND IN NEW YORK, 
 
 AND BY KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd., 
 
 68-74 CARTER LANE, LUDGATE HILL, LONDON, E.C. 4 . 
 
 1922 for the Issue of 1915. 
 
Qttj t Cljaucci' Socutg. 
 
 The Founder and Director was Du. F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 Hon. Sec. is W. A. Dalzikl, Esq., 67 Victoria Road, Finsbury Park, London, N. 4. 
 
 To do honour to Chaucer, and to let the lovers and students of him see how far the 
 
 lliS T' kS di ? erd fr0,n tbe P rinted texts ’ this Society 
 ni; r d d « l868 ‘ , lher ® were then > and are sfclll > luan y questions of metre, pro- 
 nunciation orthography, and etymology yet to be settled, for which more prints of 
 Manuscripts were and are wanted : and if lfi llQV/llxr fnrv rmmli 4-/-\ -f-'U 4- ~ 1 • . 
 
 Manuscripts were and are wanted; and it is ha7dl7 too niuch to sTy t^aT every line 
 
 reconsideration. The founder (Dr. Furnivall) 
 
 of Chaucer contains points that need iW ™ 8 mmuou. me rounder (jjr. furnivall) 
 TWa n i r ? ? he C « ilte l' bu >'y. Tales and has given of them (in parallel columns in 
 Royal 4 to) six of the best theretofore unprinted Manuscripts known. Inasmuch as 
 the parallel arrangement necessitated the alteration of the places of certain tales in 
 some of the MSSb a print of each MS has been issued separately, following the order 
 of its original. Ine nrst six MSS printed have been : the Ellesmere (by leave of the 
 Eari of Ellesmere) ; the Hengwrt (by leave of W. W. E. Wynne, Esq.) ; the Camb. 
 
 S’’ 2/ i tbe Corpus > 0xf ord; the Petworth (by leave of Lord 
 
 Leconfield) ; and the Lansdowne Sol (Brit. Mum.). The Harleian 7334 has followd 
 
 % ?\\ C r$ e ! ed by E - erton 2726 ( the Haistwell MS.) . Specimens 
 of all accessible MSS of the dales are now nearly completed, edited by the late Prof 
 Zupitza, Ph.D., and Prof. John Koch, Ph.D. 
 
 ivr«Q C i lt ? 1 uce I s j lvior d'oems — the MSS of which are generally later than the best 
 MSS of the Canterbury I ales, -all the available MSS have been printed, so as to 
 secure all the existing evidence for the true text. 
 
 ^ °^ ns ' 1 exts from the 6 best MSS have been issued (the Camnsall 
 
 MS also separately), and a 7th MS text of it with the englisht Boccaccio Comparison. 
 
 Autotypes of most of the best Chaucer MSS have been publisht. 
 
 ihe Society’s publications are issued in two Series, of which the First contains the 
 different texts of Chaucer s works; and the Second, such originals of and essays on 
 these as can be procured, with other illustrative treatises, and Supplementary Tales. 
 
 Ihe yearly subscription, which constitutes Membership, is 2 guineas, beginning 
 
 slrL J Nos r 48 ’54 56 ^ **“ S ° dety ' S 1>nhlicati can still behad-ex cept First 
 
 The Society’s lion. Secs, for America are, Prof. Kittredge, of Harvard College, 
 Cambridge, Mass., for the North and East, and Prof. Bright, of Johns Hopldns 
 Cmversity, Baltimore, for the South and West. Members’ names and subscriptions 
 
 Sea ’ A ' D8lZie1 ’ ESq " 67 ViCt ° ria L “ d ' 
 FIDS T SFIIIFS. 
 
 The Society’s issue for 1868, in the First Series, is, 
 
 L d ’ he Prologue and Knight’s Tale, of the Canterbury Tales, in 6 parallel 
 iexts (from the 6 MSS named below), together with Tables, showing the 
 Groups of the Tales, and their varying order in 3S MSS of the Tales, and 
 in o old printed editions, and also Specimens from several KISS of the 
 Moveable Prologues’’ of the Canterbury Tales, — The Shipman’s Prologue, 
 and Franklin’s Prologue,— when moved from their right places, and of the 
 Substitutes for them. (The Six- Text, Part I.) 
 
 II— VII. II. The Prologue and Knight’s Tale from the Ellesmere MS, Part I • III 
 Hengwrt MS 154, Ft I ; IV. Cambridge MS Gg. 4. 27, Ft 1 ; V. Corpus 
 * IS i °* f ° rd - 71 1 > VI - Petworth MS, Pt I; VII. Lansdowne MS. 851, 
 Ft I. (Separate issues of the Texts forming Part I of the Six-Text edition.) 
 
 The issue for 1869, in the First Series, is, 
 
 VIII— XIII. VIII. The Miller’s, Reeve’s, and Cook’s Tales: Ellesmere MS, Part 
 “ ;J X - 1 Jengwrt MS, Pt II ; X. Cambridge MS, Pt II ; XI. Corpus MS, 
 Pt II ; XII. Petworth MS, Pt II; XIII. Lansdowne MS, Pt II, with an 
 Appendix of_“ Gamelyn ” from six MSS. 
 
 (Separate issues of the Texts forming the Six-Text, Part II, No. XIV.) 
 
 The issue for 1870, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XIV. Ihe Miller s, Reeves, and Cook’s Tales, with an Appendix of the Spurious 
 I ale of Gamelyn, in 6 parallel Texts. (Six-Text, Part II.) 
 
 The issue for 1871, in the First Series, is, 
 
 ,p b . e ^ an °f Law’s, Shipman’s, and Prioress’s Tales, with Chaucer’s own 
 lale of Sir Thopas, in 6 parallel Texts from the MSS above named, and 9 
 coloured drawings of Tellers of Tales, after the originals in the Ellesmere MS. 
 
 ^ (Six- Text, Part III.) 
 
 XVI. The Man of Law’s Tale, from the Ellesmere MS. Part III. 
 
 *» >> » >> » » „ Cambridge MS. Part III. 
 
 X vni. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Corpus MS. Part III. 
 
 XIX, I lie Shipman’s, Prioress's, and Man of Law’s Tales, from the Petworth MS. 
 Part III, 
 
FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 OF CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 AND ALLUSION (1357-1900) 
 
 BY 
 
 CAROLINE F. E. SPURGEON 
 
 DOCTEUR DE l’uNIVERSITE DE PARIS 
 HON. LITT.D. MICHIGAN 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 
 
 PART V 
 
 APPENDICES B and C 
 FRENCH AND GERMAN ALLUSIONS 
 
 LONDON ; 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE CHAUCER SOCIETY 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 AMEN CORNER, LONDON, E.C. 4, AND IN NEW YORK, 
 
 AND BY KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd., 
 
 68-74 CARTER LANE, LUDGATE HILL, LONDON, E.C. 4. 
 
 1922 for the Issue of 1915. 
 
Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, 
 
 BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 THE REPUTATION OP CHAUCER IN FRANCE. 
 
 A detailed account of the history of Chaucer’s fame in France 
 will be found in my French book on Chaucer criticism. 1 Here a 
 brief sketch only will be given of the main points of interest in it, 
 to be followed by the text of the French allusions and criticisms. 
 
 It is curious that the earliest tribute of praise to Chaucer as a 
 poet should have been written by a Frenchman. For Eustache 
 Deschamps’ charming greeting to the ‘ grant translateur, noble 
 Geffroy Chaucier,’ is, if we accept 1386 as its probable date, the 
 earliest known allusion to Chaucer written by either poet or critic. 2 
 Deschamps himself little thought when he wrote his ballad to his 
 brother poet across the Channel, that, with the exception of 
 Froissart’s reference in his Chronicles, nearly three centuries 
 would pass before any reference to Chaucer of any kind would 
 again be found in a French book. 
 
 Deschamps’ ballad is well known, and, although there are 
 many linguistic difficulties in it, the main drift of it is clear. 
 Deschamps has heard of Chaucer’s Roman de la Rose and possibly 
 of other poems, but his fame as a translator overshadows all else. 
 Chaucer, he says, has started an orchard in England in which he 
 has planted many fair plants and flowers for those who are 
 ignorant of the French tongue. Deschamps thirsts for a draught 
 from Chaucer’s fountain. He therefore sends some of his own 
 small plants by Clifford to the English poet, begging him to look 
 kindly on the work of a beginner, ‘ les oeuvres d’escolier,’ and asking 
 Chaucer to quench his thirst by sending him some of his works in 
 return. 
 
 Making all duo allowance for rhetoric, still the praise in the 
 first stanza of the ballad is very high ; Chaucer is a Socrates in 
 philosophy, a Seneca in morals and an Ovid in poetry, brief in 
 speech and wise in eloquence. 
 
 1 Chaucer devant la Critique en Angleterre d cn France depuis son. temps 
 jusqu’d nos jours, par Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Hachette, 1911, ch. vii. 
 
 2 Thomas Usk’s Testament of Love is dated c. 1387, and Gower’s first version 
 of the Confessio Amantis, 1390. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. — V* 1 B 
 
 
2 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 The next allusion we find to Chaucer in France is Froissart’s ! 
 well-known mention of him in the Chronicles (written 1386-88), 
 when he records that in the spring of 1377 ‘ Jeffrois Cauchies’ 
 was sent by the English king with others to ‘ Monstruel-sus-mer ’ 
 to treat for peace. 
 
 An interesting proof that Chaucer was at an early date read 
 by a Frenchman is to be found in the list of Chaucer’s pilgrims j 
 written by Jean d’Orleans on his manuscript copy of the Canter- 
 bury Tales, showing that during his captivity in England (from ! 
 1412 to 1445) he had read and probably appreciated the English I 
 poet. And after this, until the year 1674, we find no reference 
 to Chaucer in France, no sign of knowledge on the part of any | 
 French writer that such a poet existed. 1 This is not so odd as at 
 first sight it appears, when we realise that English was practically I 
 an unknown tongue in France, and that even the very few French- 
 men who penetrated to the barbarous island during the 16th and 
 17th centuries seem to have had neither the desire nor the capacity 
 to learn the language. 2 
 
 So that whereas in England, from the days of Gower and 
 Chaucer, the French language and literature were well known, 
 and Marot, Du Bellay, Rabelais, Montaigne and Du Bartas were ' 
 familiar to our poets and scholars ; in France, on the other 
 hand, from the time that Deschamps wrote his ballad to the ■ 
 beginning of the 18th century, for savants and poets as well 
 as for the whole French nation, English literature simply did 
 not exist. 
 
 In the very last year of the 17 th centuiy, however, we have a 
 curious bit of evidence as to the interest that was being taken in 
 Chaucer by at least one famous French writer. Dryden, in his 
 Preface to the Fables (written 1699), tells us that he hears on , 
 good authority that Mademoiselle de Scudery is translating 
 Chaucer into modern French. 3 
 
 Although ‘ Sapho ’ was at this time ninety-two, we know from 
 
 1 Thevet’s account of Chaucer, published in 1584, was not known to^us 
 when these pages were printed. 
 
 2 For proof of this see Relations de la France avee VAngleterre, par E. J. B. 
 Father} 7 , in the Revue Contemporaine, 1855, vols. xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii ; Jean- 
 Jacques Rovsscau et les origines du Cosmopolitisme litteraire , par Joseph Texte, 
 Paris, 1895 ; Shakespeare cn France , par J. J. Jusscrand, Paris, 1898, and 
 Chaucer devant la Critique , par C. F. E. Spurgeon, cli. vii. 
 
 3 See above, pt. i, p. 282. 
 
3 
 
 The Reputation of Chancer in France. 
 
 the pen of an English writer that in 1698 she was mentally as 
 vigorous as ever, 1 so there is'no reason to doubt the accuracy of the 
 information, and it is interesting to picture the writer of Lejdrand 
 Cyrus busying herself in her old age by turning Chaucer into 
 French. We have, however, searched Mademoiselle de Scudery’s 
 letters in vain for any allusion to this occupation, and if she suc- 
 ceeded in completing any of the translation, it is not now to be 
 found. 
 
 The earliest mention of Chaucer we can find in a French book 
 after Froissart’s reference to him is in the first edition of Louis 
 Moreri’s Grand Dictionnaire Ilistorique , which appeared in 1674. 
 This contains a short notice of the poet stating that ‘ il fut 
 surnomme l’Homere Anglais a cause de ses beaux vers.’ 
 
 Chaucer’s name occurs in a list of English poets in a work by 
 Guy Mi£ge, called L'Ftat present d’Angleterre sous la reine Anne , 
 published in 1702. Miege’s book was a kind of periodical publi- 
 cation, of which there were a good many editions both in English 
 and French, and this list of poets in the 1702 French edition is 
 almost an exact translation of the list in the three English editions 
 of 1691, 1693 and 1707. In the next French edition of Miege’s 
 book, however (in 1708), a curious change occurs, and Gower, 
 Lydgate and Chaucer are all left out of the list, possibly because 
 it was thought they were so obscure and ancient that they could 
 have no interest for French readers. 
 
 It is in the Journals and Gazettes written by the Protestant 
 refugees in England, and published sometimes in London and 
 sometimes in Holland, that we find for the first time a real know- 
 ledge of English literature and a detailed account of it in the 
 French tongue ; and it is in one of these many cosmopolitan reviews, 
 the Journal Literaire , a la Haye, that we find the next two 
 references to Chaucer. One of these (1715) is an announcement 
 of the forthcoming edition of Chaucer’s Works by Urry, and the 
 other (1717) comes at the end of a really detailed and able essay 
 on English literature, the most important which had as yet been 
 written in French, entitled Dissertation sur la Poesie Angloise. 
 The writer regrets that space has not permitted him to speak of 
 Chaucer, ‘ le Pere de la Poesie Angloise,’ but adds that he hopes to 
 write about him at length when the new edition of his works 
 
 1 See A Journey to Paris in the Year 1698, by Dr. Martin Lister, London, 
 1699, pp. 93-4. 
 
4 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 appears. This was a promise which remained unfulfilled, for there 
 is no further reference to him in the Journal, when, after many ! 
 delays, Urry’s edition finally appeared in 1721. It is, however, a 
 great advance to mention him at all, and to do so, moreover, in 
 such respectful terms. 
 
 During the years 1720-50 a great change took place as 
 regards the knowledge and appreciation of English authors in 
 France. In the early years of the 18th century the French j 
 reading public were both ignorant and contemptuous of English ; 
 literature, whereas by 1750 the taste for English books in France 
 had so grown as almost to reach the point of mania. This extra- 
 ordinary change was mainly due to the work of the Abbe Prevost 
 and Voltaire, who both lived for some time in England and made 
 it one of their chief aims in writing to introduce into France a 
 knowledge and a love of England and of English thought. 
 
 Prevost, in his Journal Le Pour et Contre , translates and 
 reviews a good deal of contemporary English literature, but the ; 
 older poets are scarcely mentioned by him, and there is but one 
 passing reference to Chaucer in 1740. Voltaire shows no know- 
 ledge of any poet before Shakespeare ; he mentions Spenser twice, ; 
 but in terms which show he has not read him, and he never speaks ' 
 of Chaucer at all. Still, owing chiefly to these two writers, the 
 taste for English literature in France steadily increased, and it was 
 augmented by the extraordinary and immediate vogue of Richard- , 
 son and the large number of translations from the English which 
 now began to appear. 
 
 To meet the public taste many journals devoted a great part 
 of their space to translations and reviews of English works, 1 
 and English novels, poems and plays were collected, translated :j 
 and abridged in great quantities. Two typical compilations , 
 of this kind are V Idee de la po'esie angloise, by the Abbe Yart, 
 1749 and 1753-6, and Choix de differ em morceaux de Po'esie , 
 traduits de V Anglois, by J. A. Trochereau, 1749; and in both of 
 these we find references to Chaucer. 
 
 The full title of the Abbe Yart’s book is significant and fairly 
 ambitious (see below, 1749) ; he published it in two volumes in 
 1749, and apparently it met with success, for he re-issued it in 
 1753-56, much enlarged, in eight volumes. 
 
 1 See the list of these given by M. Jusserand on pp. 275-6 of his Shakespeare 
 in France (English edn.), and see also Texte, Jean- Jacques Rousseau, pp. 265-8. 
 
The Reputation of Chaucer in France. 5 
 
 It is in the seventh volume of the second edition that we find 
 the most interesting Chaucer references. This contains transla- 
 tions of various English ‘ Contes,’ preceded by a Discours sur les 
 Contes, and followed by a life of Chaucer, and a translation of 
 Dryden’s version of Palamon and Arcite. 
 
 In the preliminary ‘Discours’ Yart points out that Chaucer 
 was inspired alike by the Provengal poets and by their imitators, 
 the Italians, and thaf}, according to Dryden, Chaucer surpassed 
 both originals and imitators : ‘ il a efface Ovide meme, et il ne le cede 
 pas a Homere ni a Yirgile ; nous verrons ce qu’il faut penser de 
 ce prejuge national.’ He goes on to say that he will give an 
 example of a very noble type of * Conte ’ which Dryden has 
 imitated from Chaucer. 
 
 Then follows Chaucer’s life, at some length, which is the most 
 considerable account of the poet that had as yet appeared in French. 
 The remarks on the Canterbury Tales are interesting and unusual, 
 those towards the end specially have a refreshing ring of genuine 
 feeling called forth apparently by Yart having vainly attempted to 
 translate some of the poems. 
 
 ‘Ce qu’il ya de plus original dans Chaucer,’ he says, ‘ ce sont 
 les divers caracteres des auteurs des Contes . . . il peignit d’apres 
 nature leurs caracteres, leurs habillements, leurs vertus et leurs 
 vices, mais ses portraits sont si bizarres et si etranges, ses person- 
 nages si desagreables et si indecens, ses satyres si cruelles et si 
 impies, que malgre l’art que j’ai tache de mettle dans ma traduction, 
 je n’ai pu me flatter de les rendre supportables. Ses autres 
 contes sont encores plus licencieux que ceux de nos Poetes les plus 
 obsc^nes ; je les laisserai par la meme raison dans l’obscurite de 
 leur vieux langage.’ This outburst is modified a little further on 
 when Yart admits that it is said that the poetry of Chaucer is 
 as easy -and natural as the prose of Boccaccio. Finally, Yart quotes 
 and applies to Chaucer, Voltaire’s stanza on Homer, without 
 giving any indication of the change he is making ; so that it 
 runs thus : — 
 
 ‘ Plein de beautes et de d^fauts 
 Le vieux Chaucer a mon estime 
 Il est, comme tous ses heros 
 Babillard, outr6, mais sublime.’ 
 
 Yart adds to this, by way of qualification : ‘ Il est sublime quelque- 
 fois, mais il ne l’est pas aussi souvent qu’Homere.’ 
 
6 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 In the little volume called Choix de differens morceaux de Po'esie , 
 iraduits de VAnglois , which was published by Trochereau in 1749, 
 this writer says in a note to his translation of Pope’s Temple of Fame 
 that Chaucer is so often spoken of in English books that he thinks 
 it may be of interest to give some account of his life, which he 
 accordingly does, ending with some quotations from Dryden’s 
 appreciation, the first time, we believe, that this had appeared ! 
 in French. 
 
 In 1755 we have an interesting record of tho first attempt we j 
 know of on the part of a Frenchman to write a history of English j 
 literature. This work was projected by Claude-Pierre Patu, a 
 young enthusiast about all things English, who, however, did not 
 live to carry it out, for he died of consumption in 1757. He j 
 sketches his plan in a series of letters to his friend David Garrick, 
 whom he begs to send him a copy of Chaucer, and also to give 
 him some information as to the state of the English language in j 
 Chaucer’s time (see below, 1755). 
 
 The best-known of the many French magazines dealing witli j 
 English literature about this time was perhaps the Journal 
 Stranger , which was issued from 1754 to 1762, and was edited 
 in turn by five well-known men, Grimm, Prevost, Freron, Arnaud ! 
 and Suard. The object of the journal is stated clearly in tho 
 first number (April 1754, pp. iv-ix), and it may be taken as 
 representative of the aim of all these cosmopolitan papers. This 
 aim was, in fact, to establish a correspondence between the nations 
 of Europe in matters of thought, to draw together various types 
 of genius, to put writers of all countries in touch with one another, 
 and to teach each nation no longer to despise others and to claim for 
 itself the exclusive gift of thought, which claim alone, says the ' 
 writer, shows how baseless it is. 
 
 In this paper, during the time it was under Prevost’s editorship i 
 (which lasted only from January to August 1755), there appeared, 
 in the volume for May 1755, a long account of Chaucer, very 
 probably written by Prevost himself. This account (which is 
 headed ‘Vie des Poetes Anglais, par M. Colley Cibber’) is a 
 very free and abridged translation of portions of Theophilus 
 Cibber’s ‘Life’ of Chaucer, which appeared in 1753, with some 
 remarks added by the French writer. He compares his style to 
 Villon and to Marot, and he ends with a paragraph of strong 
 praise which is not in Cibber, but which is inspired evidently by 
 
The Reputation of Chaucer in France. 7 
 
 Dryden’s favourable opinion. His praise for Nicolas Brigham’s 
 ‘ public spirit ’ is noteworthy, because Brigham’s action is taken 
 absolutely for granted by all English writers and receives no 
 
 comment from them. 7 . 
 
 In October, 1775, a fortnightly review, the Journal Anglais , 
 was started, which had for sole subject England and English 
 matters, and a feature of each number is that it contains a 
 biography of some English poet or man of letters. The first of 
 these was, quite rightly, devoted to Chaucer; it is a long and 
 detailed life, founded on Cibber and the Biographia Bntannica 
 of 1748, interspersed with occasional little embroideries by the 
 French writer. The summing up of Chaucer’s character and 
 powers at the end of the article is of special interest; it is evident 
 that Dryden’s appreciation of the poet has been read, so also it 
 would appear has been one of Lydgate’s remarks on the kindness 
 of the great man towards his brother poets. 
 
 After this date, biographical dictionaries and cyclopaedias 
 begin to take the place of these ‘Journals’ as disseminators of 
 general knowledge, and the greater number of the references 
 to Chaucer, which we find from the beginning of the 19th 
 century onwards, are in works of this nature. Moreri’s Grand 
 Dictionnaire Ilistorique , to which we have already referred, is the 
 earliest in date of these to mention Chaucer (1674). In the 
 numerous editions of this work in the early 18th century there 
 is little change in the notice of the poet, but the edition of 1740 
 has an interesting variation. After the statement that Chaucer s 
 English works were printed in London in 1561, we find this 
 instructive addition : ‘ On a de lui en Latin, Landes bonarum 
 Mulierum; Vita Cleopatra ; Vita Lucreticz Bomanm ; Flos Urbani 
 tatis ; Sepultura Misericordix ; De Astrolabii ratione. Evidently 
 the reviser of 1740, being struck by the expression ‘ Ses ouvrages 
 anglais’ which occurs in the earlier editions, thought it a pity 
 some account should not be given of works in other languages, 
 and so proceeded to search for and successfully to find Chaucer’s 
 Latin works. But why two of the lives of the Legend of Good 
 Women , the Flower of Courtesy , the Complaynte to Pity and the 
 Astrolabe should have been selected for this distinction, it is 
 impossible to say. Had he looked in Leland, or Bale, or Bits, he 
 would have found the titles of all Chaucers works in Latin, and 
 not these only ; besides, these titles, as given here, have a slightly 
 
8 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 different form from those in any of these three lists. It is in 
 this edition of the Dictionary that we are told in the article on 
 Shakespeare that he died in 1576, so the information it 
 contains on matters appertaining to English literature is not 
 very accurate. 
 
 After 1750, many lives of Chaucer appear in the various 
 Biographical Dictionaries. Louis /Chaudon contributes one to the 
 Nouveau Dictionnaire Ilistorique in 1770, reprinted by the Abbe 
 Feller in the Dictionnaire Ilistorique in 1781 and 1789-94, in 
 which Chaucer is called ‘le Marot des Anglais ’ and where we are 
 told that Chaucer did much by means of his poems to procure 
 the crown for his brother-in-law the Duke of Lancaster, and that 
 subsequently he shared that monarch’s good and bad fortune. 
 Some remarks are added on Chaucer’s style which show no greater 
 knowledge of the poet than of English history. This article is 
 reprinted in all subsequent editions of the Dictionary, and is to 
 be found as late as in the Biographie Universelle of 1860. 
 
 In 1813, J. B. Suard contributed a long account of Chaucer 
 to the Biographie Universelle. Suard (1734—1817) was a writer 
 of considerable ability who made the study of England and of 
 English literature his special province. He knew the language 
 well, and translated, or edited the translations, of many works 
 from the English, and he was looked upon as an authority in all 
 English questions. Suard’s article on Chaucer is the first written 
 by a Frenchman which conveys the feeling that he had read any 
 of the poems in the original. He evidently knows the opening, 
 at any rate, of Troilus and Criseyde , a poem which had not been j 
 modernised by any writer ; he also shows some knowledge of Sir ; 
 Thopas. So that Suard’s article may be said to mark a new ; 
 departure in the appreciation of the poet in France, and to in- ]\ 
 augurate the time when he was to be read by Frenchmen in his j 
 own original English, and to be judged by them— no longer on J 
 hearsay — but on his own merits. 
 
 Before going on to give some account of the successors of 
 Suard, that is, of the French writers who, in the 19th century, 
 have really known something of Chaucer, and consequently have 
 liked him, certain facts may be indicated which show how 
 little the general public, including many writers of books, knew 
 or cared about him. To go back a little, we may begin with 
 Contant d’Orville, the dramatist and novelist (born in 1730), who 
 
The Reputation of Chaucer in France. 9 
 
 after a visit to London in 1770, of which he gives an amusing 
 account, published Les Nuits Anglaises. The full title (see below, 
 1770) sufficiently indicates the medley of topics to be found in this 
 curious compilation. It contains anecdotes of all kinds about 
 English people in every age, extracts from English newspapers 
 and English literature, and ‘ Digressions ’ of all sorts, on religion, 
 on the Stock Exchange, on Beau Nash and on the English poets. 
 Under this latter heading D'Orville gives a brief account of 
 33 different poets, beginning with Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare 
 and Cowley ; and on Chaucer he furnishes us with the following 
 useful piece of information : — 
 
 ‘Chaucher. Chaucer est regarde comme le pere de la Poesie 
 anglaise : il vivait vers le milieu du quinzieme siecle. On a de lui 
 des contes plaisans et naifs, ecrits sans art et d’un style grossier, 
 ou l’on rencontre des pensees fortes.’ 
 
 For the date when Chaucer flourished, D'Orville had possibly 
 consulted Collier’s Historical Dictionary of 1701, where 1440 is 
 given as the year of Chaucer’s death. The literary criticism is 
 taken direct from Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s lines in 
 the Progress of Poetry , which were translated by Yart in 1749 
 (see below). 
 
 In 1784, Rivarol, one of the most brilliant French writers at 
 the end of the 18th century, neatly characterises Chaucer’s 
 work, as well as the whole of English literature up to Milton, in 
 the following words : — 
 
 ‘ Pendant un espace de quatre cents ans, je ne trouve en 
 Angleterre que Chaucer et Spencer. Le premier merita, vers le 
 milieu du quinzieme siecle, d’etre appele l’Homere Anglais ; notre 
 Ronsard le merita de meme ; et Chaucer, aussi obscur que lui, fut 
 encore moins connu. De Chaucer jusqu’a Shakespeare et Milton, 
 rien ne transpire dans cette Isle celebre, et sa litterature ne vaut 
 pas un coup d’oeil.’ 
 
 It will be noticed that Rivarol, like D’Orville, pictured 
 Chaucer as living in the middle of the 15th century, and a pass- 
 ing reference made to the poet by Madame de Stael, in 1800, looks 
 as if she too were extremely hazy as to his dates (see below, 1800). 
 The next writer who deals with Chaucer in French jumps him 
 back more than a century from the date indicated by Rivarol 
 and D’Orville, for he fixes 1328 as the time when he flourished 
 and wrote (see below, 1803, Schwab). Three years later, Hennet 
 
10 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 (1758-1828) published a Poetique Anglaise (3 tomes, Paris, 1806), 
 in which he sums up Chaucer’s work by saying that he composed 
 twelve volumes of verses, mostly tales in the style of Boccaccio, 
 and that his language is hardly understood by the English of the 
 present day. 
 
 There are not many more signs among those who write on the 
 subject of almost complete lack of knowledge of the poet’s works 
 and life. By degrees fuller and more accurate information about 
 him became accessible in France, largely owing to the careful 
 work of Gomont (1847) and Sandras (1859). 
 
 We may turn now to the more grateful task of tracing the 
 gradual growth in France of knowledge and appreciation of 
 Chaucer’s work. 
 
 Curiously enough, in 1813, the year in which Suard’s article 
 appeared, we have proof that Chaucer in the original text was 
 being read by yet another Frenchman. This is the close and 
 careful translation of the Clerk's Tale done by Dubuc in the first 
 of two little volumes called Les deux Griselidis , Histoires Traduites 
 de V anglais, Vune de Chaucer , et V autre de Mile. Edgeworth. The 
 translation is done, not from Ogle’s modernisation from which Miss I 
 Edgeworth quotes, but from Chaucer’s own text, and, with the 
 exception of the fragment of the Pardoner’s Prologue (in the \ 
 Journal Etranger , 1755), this is, we believe, the first translation of 
 any part of Chaucer into French, and it is, on the whole, very well j 
 done. Dubuc explains in his preface that although Miss Edgeworth 
 has quoted from Ogle’s version, which is elegant but diffuse, he 
 himself prefers Ogle’s original. Here we have some one speaking 
 who has really read the original, and, having read it, appreciates 
 its simplicity and charm. 
 
 Chateaubriand’s study of Chaucer, in his Essai sur la littera- , I 
 ture anglaise (1836) in a chapter on ‘Chaucer, Bower [sz'c] and 
 Barbour,’ is disappointing, and reveals no sign of knowledge of | 
 any but the two spurious poems, the Court of Love and the 
 Plowmans Tale. This insufficient treatment by Chateaubriand, 
 however, called forth some interesting remarks in the following 
 year (1837) from Villemain, who was professor of eloquence and 
 modern history, and later of English literature, at the Sorbonne. 
 These remarks prove that the poet had at that time at least one 
 sincere admirer in France, who had read some of his \york. 
 
 Chaucer s next admirer in France, E. J. de Ldcluze, writes a 
 
The Reputation of Chaucer in France. II 
 
 very interesting article on the poet in the Revue franraise for 
 April 1838. He says he has on his walls an engraving of 
 Stothard’s picture of the Canterbury pilgrims, and that he finds 
 himself obliged so often to explain the meaning of this ‘ strange 
 assembly ’ to his friends that he has decided once and for all to 
 translate the Prologue of the Canterbury Tales into French. 
 There follows what we believe to be the earliest translation into 
 French of the complete Prologue. It is done into prose, and 
 it is very careful and simple. Several pages are then devoted 
 to an account of Chaucer and of his work; each Canterbury 
 Tale being described separately. The little prologue to Sir 
 Thopas, part of the prologue of the Clerk’s Tale and a few lines 
 from the prologue of the Wife of Bath are also translated. At 
 the end the writer urges that it would bo rendering a real service 
 to letters if some one would make a complete translation of the 
 Canterbury Tales into French. Unfortunately (putting aside the 
 Chevalier de Chatelain’s translation in 1855) seventy years were 
 to elapse before M. de Lecluze’s desire was accomplished, and a 
 scholarly translation of Chaucer’s great work was given to 
 the French public. Nine years after this article was written, 
 Gomont published his study of Chaucer, 1 in which, for the first 
 time, a French writer devotes a whole book to the poet. It 
 is a book which it is somewhat difficult to characterise. It is 
 careful work, but at times the writer so entirely lacks compre- 
 hension of and sympathy with his subject that one wonders why 
 he ever undertook it. Troilus and Criseyde , for instance, is dis- 
 missed as follows : ‘ Tro'ile et Cresside , poeme en cinq chants, d’un 
 style generalement- obscur. Le mauvais gout et la bizarrerie y 
 dominent.’ Or again, in speaking of the various tales told by the 
 pilgrims, he says that in the eyes of an unprejudiced judge the 
 greater number of the tales will certainly appear either badly 
 chosen or badly told. 
 
 This last example shows piore than anything else, perhaps, 
 how the very spirit and essence of Chaucer’s art has been missed, 
 more especially if we compare it with the very different treatment 
 of the same point by M. Legouis in his introduction to the 
 translation of the Canterbury Tales published in 1908. 
 
 All the same, Gomont’s book marks a distinct advance in 
 
 1 Geoffrey Chaucer , pobte, anglaisc du XIV e siecle. Analyses et fragments , 
 par H. Gomont : Paris, 1847. 
 
12 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 Chaucer criticism in France. We get in it for the first time a 
 detailed and comprehensive view of the poet's work, with long 
 quotations from his poems in French, and we have as well a prose 
 translation of the whole of the Knight's Tale. 
 
 Between the years 1857-60, the Chevalier de Chatelain 
 brought out the whole of the Canterbury Tales in French verse. 
 The attention of this eccentric and unliterary writer cannot, we 
 fear, much have- furthered Chaucer’s reputation in France, for his 
 careless, facile, jog-trot verses would not give any one who did not 
 know the original, the least idea of Chaucer’s work or of the 
 delicacy of his art. Gausseron summed up the result ac- 
 curately, if scathingly, when he said (in 1887) that ‘l’essai de 
 traduction des Contes de Canterbury par le Chevalier de Chatelain 
 ne permet pas de dire que nous en possedions une version 
 fran^aise.’ 
 
 In 1859 there appeared Sandras’s careful Etude sur Chaucer 
 considere comme imitateur des Trouveres. This is a fine piece of 
 work, in which, for the first time, Chaucer’s French sources are 
 examined and his debt to French poets made out. To the present- 
 day reader some of the ‘ etude ’ seems superficial, some of the 
 assumptions appear hasty and unfounded, and there is a good deal 
 which a competent scholar could now add or re-write; but fifty years 
 ago it was pioneer work and extremely good. 
 
 Sandras examines the poems in considerable detail, and indicates ! 
 the great influence exercised on Chaucer by the two parts of the 
 Roman de la Rose , and he proves that it was in the school of 
 Guillaume de Lorris that the English poet’s taste was formed, just 
 as it was in the school of Jean de Mcung ‘que s’est fa 5 onne son 
 esprit.’ 
 
 . The next stud T of Chaucer is that by Taine. As early as 1856 j 
 
 Tame published an article on Chaucer in the Revue de V Instruction | 
 
 pubhque, but his really important study of him is that in his^ 1 
 Ilistoire de la literature anglaise, the first volume of which 
 appeared in 1863. This book is epoch-making as regards the 
 knowledge of English letters in France, and for the first time the 
 whole of English literature is brilliantly reviewed by a French 
 pen. Taine places Chaucer to some extent in his setting, and 
 he indicates in what ways he was more particularly a child of the 
 middle ages. Here we find for the first time Troilus and Criseyde 
 fully appreciated by a French writer, and Taine points out that it 
 
13 
 
 The Reputation of Chaucer in France. 
 
 is in this poem that Chaucer’s affinity with the French spirit is 
 specially seen. 
 
 After Taine’s book the references to English literature and to 
 Chaucer gradually increase, and literary histories become more 
 general. So we find notices by Ampere (1867), by Emile Chasles 
 (1877), by J. J. Jusserand (1878), by Leon Boucher (1882), by 
 Augustin Filon and Emile Montegut (1883), to name only a few. 
 A more detailed study than any of these is in the Etude sur la 
 langue anglaise au XIV e siecle by Adrien Baret in 1883, where 
 Chaucer’s life, language, versification and genius are dealt with at 
 some length. 
 
 In 1889 another attempt was made to translate the Canterbury 
 Tales , this time into French prose, but it did not succeed (see 
 below, 1889, Simond). 
 
 M. Jusserand wrote on Chaucer lor the first time at any 
 length in an article in the Revue des Deux Mondes in 1893, which 
 was incorporated in his Histoire litteraire du peuple anglais of 
 the following year. Here we have a long account of Chaucer’s 
 life and work, with detailed criticism of the Hous of Fame, 
 of Troilus, and of the Canterbury Tales. Chaucer’s descriptive 
 power, his humour, his sympathy with all classes, his good sense 
 and his impartial judgment are all dealt with and charmingly 
 portrayed. 
 
 In the year 1908 we come to the most important tribute to 
 Chaucer which has so far appeared in France. This is the 
 complete translation of the Canterbury Tales into French prose, 
 which has been carried out by a company of the picked English 
 scholars of France. The rendering is very careful and close, 
 practically corresponding line for line with Skeat’s edition. Three 
 of the Tales (Reve, Shipmanne, and Prioress) and the Wife of 
 Bath’s Prologue have been put into blank verse by MM. 
 Derocquigny and Koszul. Their poems retain to some extent the 
 lightness and grace of the original, because of the movement or 
 rhythm of the verse. But all the others are in prose, and although 
 it is impossible for a foreigner to pronounce judgment on the effect 
 this has on French ears, it would seem as if much of the grace and 
 music of Chaucer were thereby lost. One cannot help wishing that 
 it had been possible to render the Prologue, at any rate, into 
 French verse, and this wish is intensified when we read some of 
 M. Legouis’ translations in his recent book on Chaucer, or even the 
 
14 
 
 Appendix B 
 
 following charming fragment of Sir Thopas which he gives in a 
 footnote to his prose translation in this collection 
 
 Oyez seigneurs, pretez l’oreille, • 
 
 Si vous diroi-je grand’ merveille, 
 
 Histoire de renom, 
 
 D’un Chevalier bel et courtois 
 Dans la bataille et les tournois j 
 Sire Topaze a nom. 
 
 Sur terre etrange il vint au monde, 
 En Flandre, outre la mer profonde ; 
 
 Popering est le lieu ; 
 
 Son pere estoit homme d’honneur 
 Et de tout le pays seigneur 
 Par la grace de Dieu. 
 
 Si grandit-il en preux varlet ; 
 
 Sa face est blanche comme lait, 
 
 Sa bouche est de coral ; 
 
 Son teint semble ecarlate en graine, 
 Et, tenez la chose certaine, 
 
 Son nez n’a pas d’egal. 
 
 Here we have, all at once, the lilt and movement of Chaucer’s 
 verse and. at the same time his humour, his finesse, and his o-race 
 
 This French version of the Canterbury Tales was received with 
 much interest and appreciation on both sides of the Channel as 
 may be seen by two articles by M. Emile Gebhart (Gaulois, 
 April 23, 1907, and Dibats, May 11, 1908), and by English 
 reviews such as that in the Academy, Jan. 25, 1908, or in°the 
 Times Literary Supplement of August 14 of the same year. 
 
 In the interesting and suggestive introduction which M. 
 Legouis contributes to this volume, he proves how completely a 
 modern Frenchman can understand Chaucer. He draws attention 
 to the supreme achievement of Chaucer in the development of 
 story-telling as an art, which is the shifting of the centre of 
 interest from the machinery or plot to the characters of the actors 
 
 f,° f* Wi * Chaucer an awakening of sympathy even for 
 the deluded and cheated characters, which formed no part of the 
 old fabliaux or comic tales. We find ourselves no longer in the 
 presence of simple comedy, but of something at once more human 
 and more complex, drama which trembles between laughter and 
 pity. Thus we see in Chaucer’s work the first indications of a new 
 observation of life and of new forms of art yet to be born. 
 
The Reputation of Chaucer in France. 15 
 
 M. Legouis has developed and enlarged his study of ChauceL 
 in the little volume on the poet which he contributed m 1910 to 
 the series of ‘ Les Grands Ecrivains Etrangers.’ He there gives a 
 complete account of Chaucer’s life and work, and the book is enriched 
 by many delightful translations of the poems into French verse. 
 
 With these two recent incontestable proofs of Chaucer scholar- 
 ship and appreciation in France this brief survey comes to a close. 
 
 As the centuries pass on and scholarship widens, change m 
 language or difference in language presents less and less of a 
 barrier. So it is that to-day we see Chaucer reaching, not a 
 smaller but a larger audience, becoming more loved and better 
 known, not only in his own land, but also in France, to whose 
 literature he owed so much, and to whose spirit he was in many 
 ways so closely akin. 
 
FRENCH ALLUSIONS. 
 
 •]. Desehamps, Eustache. Ballad addressed to Geoffrey Chavcer 
 ^ Veschamps, when sending him his own works. 'Unique MS. 
 Bit.liothhque national, No. 840, fonds fran 9 ais, fol. lxii, liii verso. 
 Uisuvres completes d’Eustache Descliamps , publiees par le 
 
 i de Saint Hilaire, Soci6t6 des Anciens Textes 
 
 vol. 11 , 1880, pp. 138-40. 
 
 marquis 
 
 Frangais, 
 
 Autre Balade 1 
 O Socrates plains de philosophic 
 Seneqwe en meurs et anglux en pratique 
 Ouides grans en ta poeterie 
 Bries en parler saiges en rethorique 
 Aigles treshaulz qui par ta theoriqae 5 
 
 Enlumines le regne deneas 
 Lisle aux geaws ceuls de bruth 2 et qui as 
 Seme les fleurs et plante le rosier 
 Aux ignorans de la langue pandras 3 
 Grant translateur noble geffroy chaucier 10 
 
 if w h !rf XaC i5 text ° f * he ™ anuscri pt is here printed. This may be useful, as 
 it has often been reprinted with different corrections. Thus slight changes 
 
 maC 6 111 ^ te ^’ even ln the editi on of the Anciens Textes Francais, 
 without due comment. For example : ‘ 
 
 line 25 
 line 20, 30 
 line 32 
 
 Manuscript. 
 Qui men gaule 
 Grant 
 
 Printed Text. 
 
 Qui en Gaule 
 Grand 
 
 seroye seroie. 
 
 * D , c “', ham P s “''ta'” 5 namo by which he designates England from the 
 
 tern wi^hTheyefrlin e >< b r- Ia f!l 0f Desc . 1,a ™l ,s ’ Sur les divers noms de V Angle- 
 terre^ith the lefram C est de ce mot 1 mterpretacion,” CEuvres vi pi) 87-8 • 
 
 latent tff-fn* f Mer - K A- SUr l “ destrudim d' Angleterre qui doit brief 
 advenir, refrain Ou temps jadis estoit ci Angleterre, ” CEuvres ii, pp. 33-4 J 
 
 com5“lsrfrom^V»i raS "p th u Fre,lch Iangu u a « e - Thc idea of this expression 
 comes also from Wace. Pandras was a mythical king of Greece who had been 
 
 legend*— at^ the ZZKT*" ^ ^ 
 
 te 0 ena at the head of a certain number of Trojan exiles who had been kent 
 Fandras. When Brutus, with the Trojan victors, landed Fn 
 . /j® f 01 !.™ 5 ®* 1 tlle realm of Britain. The language of the inhabitants 
 of Britain (that of Chaucer) is first of all called Trojan, then “ British ” i e the 
 
 ST t°he B : UtUS - In J f ailgUage 0f i BrUtUS bei ^ E "^h, the language of 
 Pandras, the enemy of Brutus, must have been French, the language of the 
 
 hereditary enemies of England. See an article in the Academy, Nov .14, 1891, 
 p. 432, by Dr. Paget Toynbee, on this ballade. 
 
 16 
 
[a.d. 1386] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 17 
 
 Tu es damowrs mondains dieux en albie 
 Et de la rose en laterre angelique 
 Q ui dangela saxcmne et 1 puis llourie 
 Angleterre delle ce nom sapplique 
 Le derrenier en lethimologique 
 En bon angles le livre translatas 
 Et un vergier ou du plant demandas 
 De ceuls qwi font 2 pour eulx auctorisier 
 A ja long temps q ue tu edifias 
 Grant translator noble geffroy chaucier 
 
 A toy pour ce de la fontaine helye 
 Requier avoir un buuraige autentique 
 Dont la doys est du tout en ta baillie 
 Pour refrener delle ma soif ethique 
 Q ui men 3 gaule seray paralitique 
 Jusqttes a ce q ue tu mabuueras 
 Eustaces sui qui de mon plant aras 
 Mais pran en gre les euures descolier 
 Q ue par Clifford de moy auoir pourras 
 Grant translates noble gieffroy chaucier 
 
 Lenuoy 
 
 Poete hault loenge destmye 4 
 En ton jardin'ne seroie quortie 
 Considers 5 6 ce que jay dit premier 
 Ton noble plant ta douce melodie 
 Mais pour scauoir de rescripre te prie 35 
 
 Grant translateur noble geffroy chaucier. 
 
 25 
 
 30 
 
 1 est? 
 
 2 Ceuls qui font, i.e. the poets, “the makers.” Cf. Chaucer in the Compleynt 
 of Venus, where he speaks of Oton de Graunson as “flour of hem that make 
 in Fraunce.” 
 
 3 en? 
 
 4 Destmye. It appears to us that this is, without doubt, the reading of the 
 manuscript, although, at first sight, “ destruye ” might seem to he correct. But 
 on close inspection it will be seen that the down-stroke of the m is without 
 the small hook that the scribe attaches throughout to the r. “destinye” 
 is possible, but no dot is visible over the i. It seems impossible to discover 
 the sense of the passage. Toynbee and Ker suggest “deservve” (Academy, 
 Nov. 14, 1891), Nicholas, Wright and Sandras suggest “destinye” ; “destruye” 
 is printed in the edn. of the Anciens Textes Franfjais, and Tarbe (Oeuvres 
 
 inidites de Deschamps, 1849, tome i, pp. 123-4) is the sole editor who has 
 previously printed the word as it is found in the manuscript. 
 
 6 Should it be read considiri ? 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM— V. C 
 
18 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1386 - 
 
 [1386-88.] Froissart, Jehan. Chroniques de France, d'Engleterre 
 dliscoce, de Bretaigne, d’Espaigne, d’Ytalie, de Flandres , el 
 (lAlemaigne. ((Euvres de Froissart , ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove 
 Bruxelles, 1869, tome viii, p. 383.) 
 
 Environ le quaremiel [1377] se fist uns secres trettids 
 entre ces Frangois et ces Engl&s, et deurent li Engles leurs 
 tretti^s porter en Engleterre, et li Frangois en France, cascuns 
 devers son signeur le roy, et devoient retourner, ou aultre 
 commis que li roy renvoieroient, a Monstruel-sus-mer, et sus 
 cel estat furent les triewes ralongies jusques au premier jour 
 de may. . . Si furent envoyet a Monstruel-sus-mer, du cost6 
 des F rangois, li sires de Couci, li sires de le Riviere, messires 
 Nicolas Brake et Nicolas le Mercier, et du cost6 des EngUs, 
 messires Guichars d’Angle, messires Richars Sturi et Jeffrois 
 Cauchies. 
 
 [ante 1445.] D’Orleans, Jean, Comte d’Angonleme. A list of the nil- 
 gi inis in the Canterbury Tales , written in Jean d’Orleans’ hand, on 
 a manuscript of the Canterbury Tales which was amon^ the books 
 m his library. MSS. Angl. No. 39, Bibl. Nationale, fol. A. 
 
 Prologus— Knicht— Millener— Reve— Men of Lau— Clerc 
 of Oxonford— Wif of Bathe— Frere— Somneur— Marchant— 
 Scuier — F ranquelin — Fisicien — Pardoner — Chip man — 
 Prioresse — Chaucer — Monk — Nones priste— Y e Nonne — 
 Chanoines man — Y e manciple. 
 
 [Jean d Orleans (brother of Charles d’Orleans) was given as a hostage to Thomas 
 of Lancaster, Duke of Clarence, by the Dukes of Orleans, of Berry, of Bretagne and 
 Bourbon, in 1412, at the age of 13. He was imprisoned first in London, then at the 
 Castle of Maxey, and he was only released at the age of 46, in May, 1445 , after 33 
 years of captivity. He was passionately fond of books, and he had a library of some 
 160 manuscripts, 11 of which are copied in his own hand. From the Inventory made 
 of his books in 1467 (he died on the 30th April, 1467), it is clear that he was a great 
 reader and a scholar, that he had learnt English and that he read Chaucer in the 
 original. For in this Inventory we find a manuscript of the Canterbury Tales thus 
 described: ‘ Ung romant, en Anglois, rim6,,en papier, commandant, ou premi.r 
 fueillet, “ want taht aprilh” et finissant, ou penultime, “Aliberons apetite Lie] 
 
 This manuscript is now in the Bibliotheque Nationale with the table of contents in 
 the handwriting of Jean d’Orleans. 
 
 See Jean d’Orleans d’apr&s sa bibliotheque, par G. Dupont-Ferrier, Biblio- 
 theque de la Faculte des Lettres, Paris, 1897, tome iii, p. 64 ; La Captivity de Jean 
 d’Orlcans, par G. Dupont-Ferrier, Revue Hislorique, tome lxii, 1S96 ; Catalogue des 
 manusents anglais de la Bibliotheque Nationale, par Gaston Raynaud, Paris 1884, 
 Tp. 14-15.] ’ 
 
 1674. Moreri, Louis. [Article l Geofroy' in the] Grand dictionnaire 
 histonque . . . premiere edition. [This work was revised and 
 reprinted in 1681 {q.v.), and many times afterwards.] 
 
 [No article under Chaucer. But under Geofroy or Gode- 
 froy de Viterbe there is a second paragraph which begins :] 
 
1(381] French Allusions. 19 
 
 II y a aussi eu Geoffroy, . . . Religieux de l’ordre de Saint 
 
 Benoit. ... [5 lines.] 
 
 . . . Geoffroy, autre B£n6dictin. [5 lines.] 
 
 Geoffroy Chaucer de Woodstock en Angleterre, sur- 
 nomm6 l’Homere Anglois a cause de ses beaux vers, se fit 
 des Estimateurs de tous les honnetes gens, et donna au 
 public divers Traites, dont Gesner fait le d^nombrement, in 
 Bibl. Camden, Britan ., p. 55. 
 
 . . Geoffroy, dit de Fontibus. [4 lines.] 
 
 . . . Geoffroy de Ville Hardouin. [4 lines.] 
 
 [These five men are described in this one paragraph, 
 whereas a little earlier 16 lines are given to Geofroy de 
 Monmouth .] 
 
 1681 Moreri, Louis. [Article ‘ Chancer y in] Grand didionnaire his- 
 torique . . . [2nd ed., enlarged by Moreri, and ed. after Ins death 
 in 1682, by G. Parayre], p. 872. 
 
 Chaucer (^Geofroy) natif de Woodstock en Angleterre, 
 vivoit dans le xiv Siecle. II fut surnomme PHomere Anglois, 
 a cause de ses beaux Vers, k il se fit des estimateurs de tous 
 les honnetes gens de son terns. II donna au public divers 
 Ouvrages de sa fa^on, dont on pourra voir le d^nombrement 
 dans Leland, Pitseus, Gesner, &c. Le premier parle ainsi 
 de luy dans ses Epigrammes : 
 
 Praedicat Algerum merito Florentia Dantem , 
 
 Italia & numeros tota , Petracha, tuos, 
 
 Anglia Chaucerum veneratur nostra Poetam , 
 
 Cui veneres debet patria lingua suas. 
 
 Chaucer, outre la Poesie, s^avoit les Mathematiques & les 
 belles Lettres. Ses Ouvrages Anglois ont ete imprimez a 
 Londres l’an 1561. II mourut en 1400. & en 1555, on 
 retablit son tombeau qui est a Westminster & Pon y mit 
 cette Epitafe : 
 
 Qui fuic Anglorum rates ter maxirnus dim , 
 
 Galfredus Chaucer conditur hoc tumulo , 
 
 Annum si quaeras Domini, si tempora mortis, 
 
 Ecce notae subsunt, quae tibi cuncta notent, 
 xxv. Octob. 1400. 
 
 Gesner, in Bibl. Leland, Balseus k Pitseus, de Script. Angl. 
 Camden, etc. 
 
20 Appendix B. [a.d. 1702 - 
 
 1702. [Midge, Guy], Etat present d'Angleterre sous la Seine Anne 
 
 Iradmt de 1 Anglois, a Amsterdam, 1702, tome ii, partie ii, chap.'ij 
 
 [Title of the chapter.] Des Habitans d’Angleterre, de 
 leur Temperament, Genie, Langage, avec une liste des plus 
 habiles Personnages de ce Pais qui ont excelld dans la Guerre, 
 & dans les Lettres. . . . 
 
 Pour la Poesie, Gower. & Lydgate Moine de St. Edmund 
 Bury, le fameux Godefroy Chaucer Beau-Frere de Jean de 
 Gand Due de Lancastre ; le Chevalier Philippe Sydney, & 
 le fameux Spencer. Daniel, & Drayton, le premier le 
 Lucain, & lautre l’Ovide des Anglois. Beaumont & Fletcher, 
 celuy-cy le Terence, & celuy-la le Plaute de la Nation! 
 Enfin Ben Janson [sfc.] & le fameux Cowley. 
 
 1705. [Des Maizeaux P. J.] [Preface, with a life of Saint Evre- 
 mond, prefixed to] (Euvres meslees de M’ de Saint Evremond , 
 .Lonares, 1<05, tome i, sign, c iii verso. 
 
 II [Saint-Evremond] fut enterre dans l’Abbaye de West- 
 minster, aupres des Savans Casaubon, Camden, Barrow, & 
 des Poetes Chaucer, Spencer, Cowley, <kc. 
 
 [In the more recent edns. of this book, this sentence runs : 
 ‘ . . . aupres des . . . celebres Poetes Anglois, Chaucer, 
 Spencer, Cowley, &c.’ — see, for instance, La vie de . . . Saint 
 Evremond, par ... Des Maizeaux (4 me edn.), Amsterdam 
 1726, p. 203.] 
 
 1706 Unknown. [Article in] Le Journal des Scavans, a Paris, pour 
 lannee 1706, p. 249. 
 
 [A review, pp. 243-51, of VEtat present d'Angleterre , by 
 Miege, 1702, quoting the list of poets; see under 1702 
 above.] 
 
 1707 • yHknown. [Article ‘ Chaucer’ in] Grand dictionnaire historique 
 [de MoiAri], 1707. * 
 
 [The article is a little shorter than that in the edition of 
 1681.] ... II [Chaucer] fut surnomme l’Homere Anglois 
 a cause de ses poesies. II donna au public divers Ouvrages 
 &c. . . . [Leland’s epigram and the epitaph on Chaucer’s 
 tomb are both omitted.] 
 
21 
 
 £ 723 ] French Allusions. 
 
 1715. Unknown. Journal Literaire, de l’annee 1715, k la Hay e, tome 
 vi, 2 e partie ; Nouvelles literaires de Londres, p. 505. 
 
 M. Urry Membre du College de Christ-Church a Oxford a 
 r^solu de faire imprimer ici in folio toutes les (Euvres de 
 Chaucer ancien Poete Anglois fort estime. II a examine non 
 seulement toutes les autres Editions de ce Poete, mais aussi 
 diverses anciennes copies manuscrites ; & par ce moyen il a 
 corrige un grand nombre de passages corrompus, retabli 
 quantite de vers omis, & ajoute divers Contes en tiers de ce 
 Poete qui n’avoient pas encore vu le jour. II ajoute a tout 
 cela un bon Glossaire, pour expliquer tous les vieux mots 
 Anglois de Chaucer. Ainsi on s’attend a une Edition fort 
 exacte & fort complete. L’Editeur avoit obtenu Privilege 
 pour ce Livre peu de jours avant la mort de la Reine Anne : 
 il est date du 20. Juillet 1714, & est a ce que je croi le dernier 
 de cette sorte qu’elle ait signe. On l’imprime par souscrip- 
 tions : le prix a ceux qui ont signe est 30. shillings pour le 
 papier ordinaire & 50. shillings pour le grand papier. 
 
 1717. Unknown. Dissertation sur la Poesie Angloise , [article in the] 
 Journal Literaire de l’annee 1717, a la Haye, tome ix, pt. i, p. 216. 
 
 [A long detailed article on English poetry, with comparison 
 between French and English poets. These words come at 
 the end] : 
 
 Cette Dissertation n’est deja que trop grande pour un 
 Article de ce Journal, ainsi il est plus que terns de la finir, 
 quoi qu’il reste encore bien des choses a dire sur cette matiere. 
 On n’a pas seulement parle de Chaucer le P&re de la Poesie 
 Angloise, mais on aura occasion d’en parler au long quand la 
 nouvelle Edition de ses (Euvres, que nous avons deja annoncee 
 paroitra. 
 
 [Other authors not mentioned for lack of space are Beau- 
 mont and Fletcher, Lord Orrery, Ben Jonson, Suckling, 
 Sedley, Denham, Etherige, Cowley, Waller, Otway, Wicherly 
 and Congreve.] On pourra s’etendre a. une autre fois, sur 
 tous ces Auteurs & sur plusieurs autres, si on trouve que ce 
 qu’on vient de dire ici est goute des Lecteurs judicieux. 
 
 1723. La Roche, Michel de. Memoires Literaires de la Grande 
 Bretagne , a la Haye, 1723, tome xi, p. 257. Art. x, La vie de 
 Guillaume Camden. 
 
22 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 [a.d. 1734 - 
 
 Camden mourufc le 9. Novembre, 1623. . . .11 fut enterre 
 dans l’Eglise de Westminster . . . vis-a-vis du Tombeau de 
 Chaucer , Poete celebre. 
 
 1734. Unknown. Copie d'une Lettre, e'crite de Londpes le 19 et 30 
 Decembre , 1734, a M. Dargenville. Conseiller dn Roy . . . sur 
 quelques Illustres Anglois [in the] Mercure de France , Paris, May, 
 1735, p. 837. 
 
 II y a un cahier de 12 Poetes celebres Anglois, qui sont, 
 si je ne me trompe, Chaucher, Spenser , Johnson , Fletcher , 
 Beaumont , Shakespear , Milton , Cowley , Buttler , Otway , Waller 
 et Driden. Chaucher est le plus vieux Poete dont on fasse 
 cas. II vivoit dans le 14 e siecle. Les Anglois d’aujourd’hui 
 ont de la peine a l’entendre. On dit .qu’il est inimitable dans 
 ses Descriptions, et en general fort ingenieux. On a fait une 
 tres belle Edition de ses Ouvrages en un volume in-folio avec 
 une Explication des expressions difficiles et surannees. 
 
 1735. Thevet, Andre. Vie de Jean Clopinel , dit de Meung, [en tete 
 du] Roman de la Rose , par G. de Lorris et J. de Meung , 3 tomes, 
 Amsterdam, 1735, tome i, pp. li-lii, lxv. [Thevet’s life of Jean de 
 Meung is reprinted from his Pourtraits et vies des Hommes Illustres. 
 1584.] 
 
 Plusieurs ont voulu imiter ce Romans [sic] de la Rose, k 
 entre autres Geofroy Chaucer Anglois, qui en a compose un 
 qu’il intitule The Romant of the Rose ; lequel, au raport de 
 Balaeus, a este tird du Livre de PArt d’aimer de Jean Mone, 
 qu’il il [sic] faict Anglois. Je conjecture qu’il entend nostre 
 J ean de Meung, encores qu’il le face Anglois, d’autant que 
 n’est ais6 a croire qu’un Anglois osa se hazarder a une telle 
 oeuvre, quoy que les termes ne semblent que trop rudes 
 maintenant, si estoient-ils bien riches pour lors. . . . [La 
 renommee de Jean de Meung] a este en telle estime que 
 (comme j’ay dit) PAnglois Baleus Pa voulu transporter en 
 Angleterre dont n’est merveilles. . . . Quoique ce soit 
 encores, est-il contraint de confesser que son Chaucer a pille 
 (il appelle cela illustrer le Livre de Jean de Meung) les 
 plus beaux boutons qu’il a pu du Roman de la Rose, pour en 
 embellir k enrichir le sien. 
 
 1736. Niceron, Jean Pierre. Memoires pour servir a VHistoire des 
 Hommes illustres dans la Re'publiqne des Lettres, avec un catalogue 
 raisonne de lours Ouvrages , 1729-45, 43 vols., tome xxxiiii, p. 44. 
 
 . . . George Chaucer , V Homer e de son pays, a mis Pouvrage 
 de Boccace en vers Anglois. 
 
1740] 
 
 1737. Unknown 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 23 
 
 moderne. 
 
 steidiiin. 
 
 i Note on Chaucer [in] Le Spedateur, qu Le Socrate 
 Trad ait de l’Anglois. Suivant la 45me Edition d Am- 
 _ Basle, 1737. Tome i, p. 374. 
 
 [Text.] Chaucer * d6crit fort joliment, dans un de ses 
 Contes, cette humeur volage d’une Idole ; II nous la repre- 
 sente assise autour d’une Table avec trois de ses Esclaves, qui 
 n’oublient rien pour gagner ses bonnes graces, et lui rendre 
 leurs devoirs : La-dessus, elle sourioit a l’un, buvoit a la 
 
 sante de lautre, et pressoit le pi6 du troisi^me sous la 
 Table. Quel done de ces trois dit le vieux Barde, croinez- 
 vous etre le veritable favori? De bonne foi, ajoute-t-il, pas 
 undes trois. 
 
 [Note.] * II s’appelloit Geofroi. & vivoit vers le milieu 
 da XV. sifecle. Les Anglois le regardent comme le Pere de 
 leur Poiisie. 
 
 r According to T, P. Betz (Bodmer-Denkschrift, Zurich, 1900, p. 238) editions of the 
 above were publishod at Amsterdam in 1714, 1716-18, 1722 30, 1 7 31 36, 1 « 44, 7 , 
 
 at PariTin 1716-26, 1754 (corrigee et augment ee) and 1754-55. The only edition m 
 the British Museum is dated Amsterdam, 1746-50, where this reference occurs in 
 tome i, p. 379.] 
 
 174 0 Unknown. [Article ‘ Chaucer 5 in the] Grand dichonnane his- 
 torique . . . commence en 1674 par M re Louis Moren . . 18 edn., 
 1740, tome ii, p. 352. 
 
 Chaucer (Geofroy), natif de Woodstock en Angleterre, 
 dans le xiv siecle, fut surnomme V Homer e Anglois , a cause 
 de ses Poesies. II donna au public divers Ouvrages de sa 
 fagon, dont on pourra voir le denombrement dans Leland, 
 Pitseus, Gesner, etc. . . . Chaucer, outre la Poesie, scavoit les 
 Mathematiques et les Belles Lettres. Ses ouvrages Anglois 
 ont ete imprimez a Londres l’an 1561. On a de lui en Latin, 
 Laudes bonarum Mulierum ; Vita Cleopatrce ; Vita Lucretice 
 Romance; Flos Urbanitatis ; Sepultura Misericordice ; De 
 Astrolabii ratione. II mourut en 1400, et en 1555, on retablit 
 son tombeau, qui est a Westminster. Gesner, in Ublioth. 
 Leland. Balaeus et Pitseus, de script, angl. Camden, etc. 
 
 [The sentence, relating to Chaucer’s Latin works appears for thejlrst time in 
 this edition. For earlier editions see above, 1674, Moren, and 1688 and 1707, 
 Unknown.] 
 
 1740. [Prevost d’Exiles, Antoine Francois.] Le Pour et Gontre, 1740, 
 tome xx, pp. 78, 79. 
 
 Henri [iv] aspiroit avec tant d’ardeur au titre de Champion 
 de l’Eglise, qu’en se preparant a la conquete de la Terre 
 
24 
 
 Appendix B. [ a . d . 1745, 
 
 [p. 79] Sainte, il avoit d4ja jett6 les yeux sur Geoffroi Chaucer , 
 Poete fameux qui florissait sous son regne, pour c61ebrer les 
 exploits qu’il meditoit. Remarquons en passant, que ce 
 Chaucer, Auteur de plusieurs Poesies qui sont encore en 
 estime, k Jean Gauwer , autre Poete du meme terns, passent 
 commundment pour les premiers R6formateurs de la langue 
 Angloise, a peu pres comme Malherbe a cette gloire parmi 
 nous. 
 
 1745. [Le Blanc, J. B.] 
 tome i, pp. 104-5. 
 
 Lettres dun Francois, a la Haye, 1745j 
 
 . . . L’ Anglois d’il y a trois ou quatre cens ans, 4toit encore 
 plus melange du Frangois, qu’il ne Test aujourd’hui. Je ne 
 scai meme si la connoissance de 1’ Anglois de ces tems-la ne 
 seroit pas tres utile a ceux qui veulent entendre notre vieux 
 Francois. La lecture de Chaucer m’a rendu celle de nos 
 anciens Poetes plus facile. 
 
 1749. Yart Antoine, Abbe [de Rouen], Idee de la poUsie angloise, 
 ou Traduction des meiUeurs Poetes Anglois, qui n’ont point encore 
 paru dans notre Langue , avec un jugement sur leurs Ouvraaes 
 & une comparison de leurs Poesies avec celles des Auteurs anciens 
 modernes. A 1 ans, chez Qlaude Briasson ... 2 tomes, 1749. 
 
 [to. i, [Abridgement of the life of John Philips], ecrite en anglois, 
 par M. George Sewell, 4diteur de ses Ouvrages. 
 
 ... a l’exemple de Milton, son Auteur favori, il cherchoit 
 a s’enrichir des termes propres, expresses, harmonieux du 
 vieux langage. . . . Dans ce dessein, il lut Chaucer & 
 Spenser. 
 
 [Note by Yart.] Chaucer vecut au milieu du quatorzi&me 
 sRcle; il mourut en 1400, il a compose un assez grand 
 nombre de Contes; ses Compatriotes admirent l’enjoue- 
 ment & la naivete de ses narrations; mais son langage 
 est tellement vieilli, que les Anglois ne l’entendcnt presque 
 plus; il faisoit des vers fort enjoues, & il sgavoit les MathA 
 matiques ; il fut surnomm6 l’Hom^re Anglois ; son Tombeau 
 est a Westminster : on l’a rdtabli en 1550. 
 
 xxivT^' [ Abrid S eme nt of the life of Philips, by Sewell.] Simon 
 Harcourt, Lord Chancelier d’Anglcterre lui a elev4 a West- 
 minster un mausolee aupres de celui de Chaucer. 
 
 tP. Kvijj [Abridgement of the life of Philips, continued,— epitaph] 
 Qu’il lui soit done permis, 6 Chaucer, Pere de la Poesie 
 
1749] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 25 
 
 ftoin. i 
 d. 77] 
 
 [p. 80] 
 
 [P- 81] 
 
 [p. 82] 
 
 [P- 107] 
 
 Angloise, quoiqu’il riait pas suivi les Loix (a) que vons avez 
 donnees a la versification , de fermer un des cotes de votre 
 Tombeau, il ne deshonorera pas le Choeur des Poetes qui 
 entourent vos cendres. 
 
 Pas fit hinc 
 
 Auso licet a tua metrorum lege dicedere, 
 
 O Pocsis Anglicanse Pater, atque conditor Chaucere, 
 Aeternum tibi latus claudere : 
 
 Yatum certe cineres, tuos undique stipantium; 
 
 Non dedecebit chorum, 
 
 (a) [Note by Yart.] Milton fut le premier Poete 
 d’Angleterre qui substitua aux Yers rimes, inventus par 
 Chaucer, les Yers blancs ou non rimes. Philips, & plusieurs 
 autres Poetes, ont imite Milton dans ce nouveau genre de 
 Poesie. . . . 
 
 i. On va voir paroitre Chaucer & Spencer, ensuite Cowley, 
 Milton, Denham, & enfin Waller, Roscommon, Dryden, 
 Congreve & Montagu, on verra naitre la Poesie Angloise 
 avec les premiers, se former avec les seconds, & se polir avec 
 les derniers. 
 
 Histoire abreg^e des plus grands poetes anglois, par 
 J oseph Addison, a monsieur Henry Sacheverell. [A trans- 
 lation follows from Addison’s Account of the greatest English 
 Poets , 1694. Yart translates thus the verses referring to 
 Chaucer.] ° 
 
 Yous voulez, cher Sacheverell, que je parcoure les siecles 
 qui se sont Joules depuis Chaucer jusqu’a Dryden. 
 
 Nos stupides ayeux 6toient plonges depuis long-terns dans 
 un sommeil profond ; leur ame insensible, n’etoit point emue 
 par l’enthousiasme des neuf soeurs, lorsque Chaucer parut; 
 Poete naif, il fit divers Contes en Yers & en Prose, mais le 
 terns a porte sa rouille sur ses Ecrits, defigure son langage, 
 obscurci son esprit; il s’efforce d’egayer ses vers grossiers 
 par des plaisanteries, il ne peut venir a bout de divertir ses 
 lecteurs. 
 
 [The Progress of Poetry, by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu.] 
 
 • . . Chaucer, le premier, ouvrit sa veine comique, il en fit 
 couler ses contes plaisans & na'ifs : des beautes sans parure, 
 
26 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1749- 
 
 ornent ses vers sans art; son style est grossier, mai ses 
 pens^es sont fortes. 
 
 1749. Trochereau de la Berli&re, Jean Arnold. Choix de Differens 
 morceaux de Poesie traduits de VAnglois, par M. Trochereau . . . 
 k Paris, 1749 [e.g. Essay on Poetry , by Buckingham, Essay on 
 Translated Verse, by Roscommon, and the Temple of Fame , by 
 Pope]. 
 
 [ P . 20 ] [Note on Denham.] [II] fut enterre a Westmunster [sic] 
 pres de Chaucer, Spenser & Cowley. . . . 
 
 Ip . 21 ] [Note on Cowley.] II fut enterre . . . pres des cendres 
 de Spencer & Chaucer. 
 
 t P . ii7] [Forewords by Trochereau on the Temple of Fame by 
 Pope; based on the note printed by Pope himself at the 
 head of his Temple of Fame.] M. Pope dit qu’il en a puis6 
 l’idde dans le Poeme de Chaucer, intitule le Palais de la 
 Renommee. Mais le dessein, dit-il, n’en est pas le meme; 
 les descriptions de presque toutes les pens^es m’appartiennent. 
 ... Si quelqu’un vouloit comparer ce Poeme a celui de 
 Chaucer, il peut commencer au troisRme Livre de la 
 Renommee , car il n’y a rien dans les deux premiers qui 
 reponde a leur titre. 
 
 [Note by Trochereau.] Il est si souvent parle de Chaucer, 
 dans les Livres Anglois, que j’ai cru qu’on verroit avec 
 quelque plaisir les circonstances de sa vie. 
 
 Geoffroi Chaucer, Poete distingue du xiv si&cle, naquit 
 dans la 3 e annee du r£gne d’Edouard hi, Tan 1328. Il fut 
 d’abord Page de ce Roi ; qui le combla de biens & de faveurs. 
 Il le fit Gentilhomme de sa Chambre, & lui donna une pension 
 considerable. Ses talens le firent employer en qualite de 
 Negociateur dans differentes Cours : il fut envoye a Genes 
 pour traiter avec le Doge de cette Republique, & peu de 
 terns apres il fut depute a la Cour de France. 
 
 Les regnes malheureux de Richard hi [sic] & de Henry iv 
 sliccederent aux beaux jours du regne d’Edouard in. Chaucer 
 £prouva alors differentes revolutions dans sa fortune. Il 
 mourut a 72 ans le 25 Octobre 1400, & il fut enterre dans 
 l’Abbaye de Westmunster. 
 
 En 1555 ou 1556. M. Nicolas Bryham [sic], Gentilhomme 
 d’Oxford, lui fit blever a ses propres d6pens un beau 
 
[750] French Allusions. 27 
 
 monument dans la meme Abbaye, & y fit graver cette 
 Inscription : 
 
 M. S. 
 
 Qui fuit Anglorum vates ter maximas [sic] olim, 
 Gofrigidus [sic] Chaucer conditur hoc tumulo 
 Annum si quseras Domini, si tempora vitie, 
 
 Ecce notse subsunt, quae tibi cuncta notant. 
 
 25 Octob. 1400. 
 
 Milton le mettoit au rang des plus grands Poetes. M. 
 Dryden dit dan,s la Preface qu’il a mise a la tete de ses 
 Fables, qu’on doit le regarder comme le pere de la Poesie 
 Angloise. Qu’il doit etre aussi estimd en Angleterre 
 qu’Homere l’6toit chez les Grecs, & Yirgile chez les Latins ; 
 qu’il suit la nature par-tout ; mais que jamais il ne la passe, 
 & que sgachant ce qu’il falloit dire, il s^avoit aussi ou il 
 falloit s’arreter, que ses vers ne sont pas harmonieux, mais 
 qu’ils etoient a l’unisson des oreilles de son siecle. 
 
 Il a demerit les Contes de ses Pelerins de Cantorberi, les 
 caracteres, les moeurs & les vices des son terns. Il a compose 
 beaucoup d’autres ouvrages pleins d’enjouement & de naivete ; 
 il egaie souvent ses lecteurs aux depens des moines & de la 
 pudeur. Son langage a tellement vieilli que les Anglois 
 meme ne l’entendent presque plus : Voici ce que dit M. Pope 
 a ce sujet dans so n^Fssai sur la Critique. 
 
 ‘ La reputation passe promptement, et douze lustres sont le 
 plus long terme dont on puisse se flater. Nos fils voyent 
 d^cheoir le langage de leurs peres, et ce que Chaucer est pour 
 nous, Dryden le sera pour eux.’ (Traduction de M. Sillouet.) 
 
 1750. Chauffepie, Jacques Georges de. Nouveau Dictionnaire Ilis- 
 torique et Critique your servir de Supplement ou de Continuation an 
 Dictionnaire Historique et Critique de Mr. Pierre Bayle, tome ii. 
 [Long article on Chaucer, biography and study of his works, 
 pp. 71-76 ; references also in the article on Cowley, p. 137 ; in the 
 article on Denham, p. 24 j and in the article on Gowei, p. 48.] 
 
 [ P . 7i] Chaucer, (Geoffroi), fameux Poete Anglois dans le xiv 
 siecle, etoit n6, selon les uns dans le Comte de Berk, selon 
 d’autres dans celui d’Oxford ; mais vraisemblablement ceux 
 [p. 72 ] qui le font naitre a Londres, sont les mieux fond6s. . . . Il 
 paroit clairement par son Discours sur V Astrolabe, qu’il 6toit 
 habile Astronome. ... On voit par le Conte du Yeoman du 
 Chanoine , qu’il 6toit verse dans la Philosophie Herm^tique, 
 
28 
 
 Appendix B. [ a . d . 1750 - 
 
 qui 4toit fort en vogue dans ce tems-la. Le Conte du Curd 
 fait voir qu’il entendoit la TIRologie ; et le Testament d’ Amour, 
 qu’il possedoit la Philosophie. Apres qu’il eut quitte l’TJni- 
 versite, il voyagea en France, en Hollande & en d’autres 
 Pays, ou il passa ses premieres annees.. A son retour il 
 entra dans le Temple Interieur, ou il 4tudia les Loix 
 Municipales d’ Angle terre. . . . 
 
 [p. 73] La ruine du Due de Lancastre entraina celle de Chaucer; 
 & ce Prince aiant pass6 la mer, ses amis se viren t exposes k i 
 toute la haine du Parti oppose : ce qui les excita a appeler la 
 populace a leur secours ; d’ou il s’ensuivit plusieurs emotions 
 populaires, & entre autres une a Londres meme. Comme 
 notre Poete contribua beaucoup sous-main a ces mouvemens, 
 il en ressentit aussi le contre-coup a sa ruine, aiant et6 oblig6 
 de s’enfuir dans le Hainault : mais la necessity l’obligea de 
 revenir en Angleterre ou il fut arrete par ordre du Roi, & mis 
 selon les apparences a la Tour de Londres. A la fin il’avoua 
 franchement toute l’intrigue ; & quoiqu’il s’exposat par-la au 
 ressentiment du Peuple, il obtint son pardon du Roi. Ces 
 malheurs lui donnerent occasion de composer son excellent 
 Traits, intitule le Testament $ Amour. . . 
 
 [p. 74] ... Il quitta le Monde en homme qui le m^prise, comme ' 
 
 cela paroit par une Ode qui commence, File fro the Prese , &c. 
 qu’il composa dans ses dernieres heures. . . . Il mourut le 
 25 Octobre 1400, &, fut enterre a l’Abbaye de Westminster. ! 
 . . . Dans sa jeunesse il 6toit trop gai & trop libre : le 
 [p. 75 ] mariage meme, n’arreta pas son humeur galante, & lui meme 
 dans sa Retractation temoigne une inquietude penitente des : 
 Pieces libertines qu’il avoit faites dans sa jeunesse. Vers la 
 fin de sa vie, le Poete badin fit place au Philosophe grave, et ! 
 Theologien pieux. Il fut fort lie avec les plus ceRbres ' 
 Savans de son terns. Nous donnerons son Caractere ci- I 
 [p 76]. dessous. Il s est fait plusieurs Editions de ses Ouvrages; ! 
 qui sont en fort grande nombre. 
 
 [This article is an abridged translation of that in the 
 Biographia Britannica of 1748, and the notes here, as 
 there, give much information. In the note, for instance, 
 headed ‘ Nous donnerons son Caractere ci-dessous,’ the ap- 
 preciations of Ascham, Sidney, Francis Beaumont, Sir 
 Henry Savil, Milton, Rymer, and Dryden are cited. In 
 the note ‘Ses Ouvrages,’ is a very complete list, noticing 
 many of the apocryphal poems, wherein mention is also 
 
1753] French Allusions. 29 
 
 made of Kynaston’s Latin translation of Troylus , and the 
 ‘ modernisations ’ of Dryden and Pope.] 
 
 [1753. Yart, Antoine. Idee de la poesie angloise, [2nd edition in 8 vols. 
 The two first volumes are an exact reprint of those of the edition 
 of 1749, and the quotations are thus identical], tome iv, p. 261, 
 tome vii, pp. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 24-32 [Life of Chaucer], 
 
 Discours sur les Contes, [pp. 4, 5.] 
 
 [Chaucer imitated the Italians and also the ‘ Conteurs of 
 Provence.] Ainsi ne cherchez pas plus d’inventions dans 
 les Poemes de Chaucer que dans ceux de la Fontaine, mais 
 si l’invention du fond leur manque, elle est suppleee dans l’un 
 &, dans l’autre par le genie des details ; merite plus admirable 
 peut-etre que celui de l’invention. 
 
 [Epitome of the life of Chaucer. Yart begins by referring 
 us to the New Historical and Critical Dictionary made by 
 the English in imitation of that of Bayle. We are there 
 informed that the poet lived at the end of the fourteenth 
 century and the commencement of the fifteenth, in the 
 reigns of Edward hi, Richard ir, and of Henry iv, whose 
 poet and friend he was . . . and that he] contribua beaucoup 
 par ses intrigues et plus encore par les eloges qu’il fit de 
 [ P . 20 ] Henri iv, a le faire monter et a l’affirmir sur le trone. . . . 
 
 [ P . 27 ] II s’occupa de sciences et de poesie, tandis qu’il mesuroit 
 les cieux et qu’il faisoit un savant traite sur l’Astrolabe, il 
 etudioit les Langues Prove^ale et Italienne, et il faisoit 
 passer dans sa Langue, qui etait encore informe, les expres- 
 sions, les tours et l’harmonie de ces deux langues. . . . 
 
 Ce qu’il y a de plus original dans Chaucer, ce sont les 
 divers caracteres des auteurs de ses Contes, intitules Contes 
 de Cantorbery . . . il peignit d’apres nature leurs caracteres, 
 leurs habillements, leurs vertus et leurs vices, mais ses 
 portraits sont si bizarres et si etranges, ses personnages si 
 desagreables et si indecens, ses satyres si cruelles et si 
 impies, que, malgre l’art que j’ai tache de mettre dans ma 
 traduction, je n’ai pu me flatter de les rendre supportables. 
 Ses autres contes sont encore plus licencieux que ceux de 
 nos Poetes les plus obscenes, je les laisserai par la meme 
 raison dans l’obscurite de leur vieux langage. . . . 
 
 [Yart admits, nevertheless, that the poetry of Chaucer] 
 
 |[p. 20 ] est, dit-on, aussi facile et aussi naturelle que la prose de 
 Boccace. 
 
30 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1755 
 
 [And he quotes these verses written originally by Voltaire 
 on Homer ; Yart substitutes the name of Chaucer] : 
 
 Plein de beautes et de defauts 
 Le vieux Chaucer a mon estime 
 II est, comme tous ses heros 
 Babillard, outre, mais sublime. 
 
 II est sublime quelquefois, mais il ne Test pas aussi souvent 
 qu’Hom&re. 
 
 [Chaucer imitated the Teseide of Boccaccio in 1400. Yart 
 then quotes the description of this poem by Dryden : ‘ Ce 
 fp s'of 9 ~ P°® me es ^ du genre epique &c. . . .] 
 
 uote? [Yart cites] ‘la savante Bibliotheque Frangaise de M. 
 l’Abbe Goujet, tome vii/ [q.v. below, 1755; but, he adds,] 
 ‘ce qu’on ne trouve point dans cette Bibliotheque, c’est que 
 la celebre Demoiselle de Scudery a traduit en Frangois selon 
 Dryden les contes de Chaucer/ &c., &c. [and he quotes all 
 that Dryden had to say on this subject in his Preface to 
 the Fables ; see above, pt. i, pp. 282-3]. 
 
 [pp 33-si] [Translation of the Palamon and Arcite of Dryden.] 
 p!°78j Etait-ce faute de gout ou par amour-propre, que Dryden 
 [p. 79] mettoit ce Poeme vis-a-vis de lTliade & de l’En6ide. J’ai 
 conserve les principaux faits de ce conte. II renferme des' 
 impiet^s & des obscurites que je n’ai eu garde de traduire, 
 des longueurs a chaque page que j’ai retranch4es, quelques' 
 folies & beaucoup de beaux traits que j’ai tach6 de rendre. 
 Thes4e est injuste de condamner ces deux jeunes h£ros a une 
 prison horrible, sans qu’ils l’ayent m6rite, & cependant ce 
 Thesee est un assez bon Prince. Arcite a eu tort au com- 
 mencement : mais il est si aimable, si genereux, si tendre 
 dans la suite qu’on lui pardonne ses torts : on le prefere a 
 Palemon, qui merite moins que lui d’etre heureux. Emilie' 
 n ’a presque aucun caractere : elle est dans une inaction 
 continuelle. Ce Poeme est au moins de 2500 Vers : il y en' 
 a 2000 de superflus : le reste est rempli de beautes ; il falloit 
 rendre plus int^ressans Emilie & Palemon, qui sont les 
 principaux Ileros. 
 
 1755. Goujet, Claude-Pierre. Bibliotheque Frangoise, Paris, 1741-5G, 
 tome vii, 1755, p. 340. [This vol. must have been long in 
 jn-eparation, as we find Yart citing it in 1753, see above.] 
 
 [Speaking of the Teseide of Boccaccio] : — 
 
 George Chaucher, que l’on a surnomme l’Homere de 
 i’Angleterre, l’avoit traduit en vers Anglois des l’an 1100. 
 
1755] French Allusions. 31 
 
 II y en a une vieille traduction en prose Fran^oise que I on 
 trouve manuscrite dans quelques Biblioth&ques. Celle-ci a 
 servi de canevas a Anne de Graville, Dame du Boys de Males- 
 herbe, pour mettre en vers Francis l’histoire d’Arcite k 
 Palemon, par ordre de la Reine Claude, femme de Francois I . 
 
 1755 Patu, Claude-Pierre. Letters to David Garrick, Aug. 23, Sept. 23, 
 Nov. 1 Nov. 28, 1755. (The Private Correspondence of David 
 Garrick, 1832, 2 vols., vol. ii, pp. 399, 405, 406, 407, 409, 411, 412.) 
 
 [Patu was an enthusiastic admirer of English literature, 
 and he was preparing a History of English Poetry which he 
 never finished, for he died of consumption at the age of 27 
 in 1757. He writes to Garrick of his plans with regard to 
 this history:] 
 
 23 aout, 1755 ... Je serois aussi tres-curieux dune 
 edition de Chaucer, qui ne fut point in-folio. 
 
 23 septembre, 1755. J’ai resolu . . . de commencer au 
 plutot un ouvrage, en quatre volumes, dont voici le titre : 
 
 Le Parnasse Anglois, ou Ties des principaux Poetes qui 
 ont illustre la Grande-Bretagne, pour servir a l’Histoire de 
 la Poesie Angloise . . . Enfin, lorsque j’aurai a peu pres tout 
 dit, et de mon mieux, sur mon but en composant cet ouvrage, 
 j’ajouterai une premiere dissertation sur le premier age de 
 votre poesie depuis Chaucer jusqu’a la Reine Elizabeth, 
 annee 1560 . . . 
 
 1 nov., 1755. II me faut aussi, mon tres cher . . . un re- 
 cueil precis de vos reflexions, 1° sur la naissance de votre 
 poesie, sur l’etat de votre langue au terns de Chaucer et de 
 ses predecesseurs, et 2° sur le changement qui a pu se faire 
 vers la Reine Elizabeth. ... II s’agit de faire un ouvrage 
 solide, utile, reflechi, sans prejuges, sans sotises [sic] litter- 
 aires. 
 
 28 nov., 1755. Je m’en tiens de bon coeur a ce que vous 
 me dites sur Chaucer. J’aurais ete bien aise de l’avoir in- 
 12mo, ou tout au plus in-8vo ; un in-4to, a plus forte raison 
 un in folio, ne seroit nullement de mon gout . . . Souvenez- 
 vous, mon bon ami . . . il me faut absolument des remarques 
 de votre main sur le premier age de votre poesie . . . avec 
 une note exacte des poetes que vous choisirez comme les 
 principaux de ce premier age (depuis Chaucer, ou le premier 
 poete quelqu’il soit, si vous etes Pre-chaucerite, jusqu’a la 
 Reine Elizabeth). 
 

 32 Appendix B. [a.d. 1755 
 
 1755. Unknown. Journal Mranger, [Periodical founded in Paris in 
 1754, and directed by l’Abbe Provost from January to August, 
 1755]. Vies des Poetes Anglois, par M. Colley Cibber, in the 
 article Philologie , May, 1755, pp. 156-172; August, p. 125. 
 
 [The first of these articles on the Lives of Cibber is printed ;■ 
 in the March number, 1755, and deals with Eustace Budgell, 
 the Tatler , Spectator , and Guardian .] 
 
 [mai, p. 156] Qu’on nous permette ici une espece d’Ana- li 
 cronisme. Apr5s avoir donne les vies de quelques Poetes jj 
 modernes, nous allons remonter jusqu’au Pere & au cr6ateur I 
 de la Poesie Angloise. . . . 
 
 Cr- 157] Geoffroy Chaucer. Le lieu de sa naissance est aussi incer- 
 tain que la Patrie d’Hom&re ; & plusieurs Comtes d’ Angle- i 
 terre comme plusieurs Villes de Greee, se disputent l’hon- 
 neur d’avoir donne le jour au Fondateur de la Poesie 
 Nation ale. On sgait par conjecture qu’il etoit Gentilhomme. 
 
 Un Chevalier de son nom vivoit a la Cour d’Edouard iii au 
 commencement de son r5gne ; on presume qu’il fut le Pere 
 de notre Poete. Quoiqu’il en soit, l’^poque de sa naissance 
 est du moins certaine, & tous les Historiens la fixent a 
 l’ann^e 1328. . . . II 6tudia successivement dans les deux 
 Universites, ou il devint, dit M. Leland, ‘ un Logicien subtil, 11 
 un Orateur elegant, un Poete agreable, un grand Philosophe, 
 un Mathematicien ingenieux, et un profond Theologien.’ I 
 II voyagea ensuite dans les Pays etrangers. 
 
 [p. 15S] . . . Les Dames, sur tout, Phonoroient a l’envi des distinc- 
 
 tions les plus flatteuses. La Reine m§me, la Duchesse de 
 [p. 159] Lancastre, la Princesse Marguerite, fille du Roi, et la 
 Comtesse de Pembroke, furent ses Protectrices declarees. 
 Pcu s’en fallut cependant qu’il ne perdit leurs bonnes graces, ;1 
 pour avoir traduit du Frangois, le fameux Roman de la Rose. ;j 
 Chacun sgait combien le beau sexe y est peu m6nag6. II . 
 avoit rendu litteralement les expressions de l’Original ; les j 
 Dames, & surtout la Princesse, lui en temoignerent leur 
 ressentiment. On lui prescrivit la maniere d’expier cette i 
 faute : ce fut de composer la Legende des honnetes femmes. 
 
 sa vertu comblee d’eloges. Les autres Protectrices y 
 trouverent aussi leur place, chacune fut celebree comme un 
 prodige de chastete. Plus un eloge est exclusif, plus il flatte 
 l’amour propre. Fieres de l’exception, elles abandonnerent 
 volontiers aux traits de la Satire, le reste de leur sexe. 
 
1755] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 33 
 
 Chaucer , ayant la liberte de faire main basse sur la reputa- 
 tion des femmes, en usa tres amplement, et n’en fit que mieux 
 tp. 160 ] sa Cour. C’etoient de nouveaux trophees qu’il erigeoit a ses 
 Heroines. 
 
 Sa faveur alia toujours en augmentant; la Duchesse de 
 Lancastre lui fit epouser la Demoiselle de Rouet qui lui etoit 
 attachee, et dont la soeur, Lady Swin/ord , etoit Gouvernante 
 de ses enfans. Le Due son mari, Prince ambitieux, & 
 rempli de vastes projets, 6toit fait pour sentir le prix des 
 talens, du sgavoir et de l’hiabilete. Parmi les Courtisans, il 
 ne trouva que le seul Chaucer, qui reunit tous ces differens 
 avantages. . . . Le Due, persuade de l’utilite qui accom- 
 pagne le vrai merite, chercha l’occasion de faire employer 
 notre Poete. . . . 
 
 [p. 165] La mort du Due de Lancastre, les troubles & les malheurs 
 dont elle fut suivie, ceux dont l’Angleterre etoit menacee par 
 l’exil et la revolte du Comte de Derby, son supplice s’il 
 echouoit, son crime s’il r^ussissoit, tout cela s’offrit a la vue 
 de ce vieux Courtisan. Age alors de soixante et dix ans, il 
 ne put se resoudre, ni a trahir son Hoi, ni a prendre les 
 armes contre le fils de son Bienfaiteur. Il quitta done la 
 Cour, & se retira a la Campagne pour y passer le reste de 
 ses jours dans un repos contemplatif. Notre Poete y vecut 
 encore deux ans, & mourut en 1400, comble de gloire et de 
 bienfaits. . . . 
 
 [p. 168 ] Il en vouloit sur tout aux fraudes pieuses, qui dans ces 
 Siecles d’ignorance defiguroient la Religion. Dans le Pro- 
 logue de son Pardonner , ou Distributeur d’ Indulgences, il 
 introduit un de ces Vagabonds, qui couroient les Campagnes, 
 pour s6mer la superstition & recueillir de l’argent. Il seroit 
 difficile de traduire ce morceau litteralement. Il y a, dans 
 la naivete de son vieux langage, un agr^ment qu’on ne peut 
 rendre que par comparaison. C’est un stile, auquel celui de 
 Villon et de Marot ressemble assez dans notre Langue. . . . 
 [A translation follows of part of the Prologue of the Pardoner.] 
 
 [p. 170] Enfin il excella dans tous les genres : le stile s^rieux, 
 [p. 171] l’enjou6, le tendre, le galant, lui furent egalement familiers, 
 & son genie Poetique peut passer pour universe! C’est a ce 
 titre que Dryden, le comparant avec Homere & Virgile, ose 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. — V. n 
 
34 Appendix B. [a.d. 1757- 
 
 l’elever au-dessus du second, & le placer merae vis-a-vis du 
 premier. 
 
 1757. Unknown. La Femme de Bath. Conte de Chaucer , remanie par 
 Driden , [translated into French prose, in the] Journal Etranqer, 
 June, 1757, pp. 80-96. 
 
 1766. Lerouge, George L. Curiosites de Londres et de VAngleterre 
 [translated from the English, from the edn. of 17631 2 me ‘ edn., 
 Bordeaux, 1766, p. 21. 
 
 [Dans l’abbaye de Westminster] on voit aussi les monu- 
 ments des Poetes Dryden, Philips, Cowley, Ben Johnson, 
 Milton, Butler, Spincer, Fairy Queen, Michel Drayton, 
 Geofroi Chaucer . . , etc. 
 
 1766. [Chaudon, Louis Mai'eul. Article ‘Chaucer ’ in] Nouveau Diction- 
 naire historique-portatif . . . par une Socide de Gens de Lettres 
 [i.e. Chaudon], edn. 2. 1770 [and probably in edn. 1. 1766]. See 
 below, 1791, Feller, p. 705. 
 
 1770. [Contant d’Orville, A. G.] Les Nuits Anglaises , ou recueil de 
 traits singidiers, d’ anecdotes, d’eve'nements remarquables , de faits 
 extra ordinaires, de bizarreries , cT observations critiques & de pensees 
 philosophiqv.es, Ac. propres a faire amnaitre le genie A le caractere 
 des Anglais; a Paris, 1770, 4 tomes. Tome ii, p. 227, tome iii, 
 
 p. 268. 
 
 p^sS?] 1, digression sur les Poetes Anglais. 
 
 Chaucher 
 
 Chaucer est regards comme le pere de la Po6sie anglaise : 
 il vivait vers le milieu du quinzi&me si&cle. On a de lui des 
 contes plaisans & na'ifs, ecrits sans art & d’un style grossier 
 ou l’on rencontre des pensees fortes. 
 
 p °268 j"’ ^ a demme de Bath , Conte de Chaucer , remanie par Dryden. 
 
 [A translation follows of Dryden’s version of the Tale of 
 the Wyf of Bathe , preceded by the following note :] On 
 connait en France le joli Conte de M. de Voltaire, intitule 
 Ce qui plait aux Dames , & dont M. Favart s’est servi, pour 
 composer son Opera-bouffon de La Fee Urgelle ; & Ton ne 
 sera sans doute pas fache de leur opposer la manure de 
 raconter des Anglais. 
 
 1772. Rigoleyde Juvigny, Jean Antoine. Les Bibliotheques Francoises 
 de la Croix du Maine et de du Verdier , nouvelle edn., Paris, 1772, 
 tome iii, pp. 81-2, note 4. 
 
 [p.si] Anne de Graville ... a translate de veil langage & prose, 
 en nouveau & rime . . . le beau B,oman des deux amans, 
 Palamon & Arcita. 1 
 
 1. Note. — [A short description of Boccaccio’s Teseide .] 
 
 [p. 82 ] 
 
1775] French A llusions. 35 
 
 C’est la conclusion du Roman, traduit en vers Anglais par 
 VHomere de son }iays, Georces [sic] Chaucer, l’an 1 400. 
 
 1775. Unknown. [Article on Chaucer in the] Journal anglais , conte- 
 nant les decouvertes dans les sciences, les arts liberaux, etc., No. 1, 
 Oct. 15, 1775, pp. 11-18. 
 
 [This article is mentioned in V Annie Litleraire, 1775, tome v., p. 279.] 
 
 [A life of Chaucer.] II parait que son pere etait chevalier, 
 
 . . . Le jeune Chaucer re^ut un accueil favorable a la cour, 
 apr£s avoir quitte l’Universite et le college des Loix. . . . 
 II commenga ses etudes a Cambridge et les continua a 
 Oxford. C’est dans cette dernifere University qu’il cultiva 
 son gout pour la pobsie, dont il avait deja donne des preuves 
 a Cambridge par sa Cour dl Amour. . . . [The poet then 
 .travelled in France, in Holland and the Low Countries, and 
 at this period composed his imitation of the Roman de la 
 Rose.] Quand les premiers feux de l’age commencerent a se 
 calmer, il parut regretter cette esp£ce de vie inappliqu^e et 
 vagabonde. Pour la Sparer en quelque sorte, il prit le parti 
 de s’en retourner a Londres, et de s’aller ensevelir dans 
 Fbtude a l’lnner Temple. . . . Des personnes de distinction, 
 char'myes de son merite, l’introduisirent a la Cour. Il avait 
 alors 30 ans, et sans compter les avantages de Tesprit et de 
 la science, il se faisait remarquer par Thonnetete de son 
 maintien et les graces de sa personne. Il devint bientot un 
 Courtisan accompli. Il fut fait d’abord Page du Roi, place 
 surtout alors, tres honorable. [The author proceeds to 
 enumerate the favours bestowed on Chaucer by different 
 monarchs and then (following Cibber) refers to the patronage 
 of the great court ladies. See le Journal JEtranger , 1755, 
 above.] 
 
 Riche par ses emplois et les bienfaits de la Cour, il ne fut 
 pas reduit a travailler pour vivre. Il suivit son gout, il 
 ycrivit pour la gloire [Chaucer was appointed Comptroller of 
 the Customs, became the brother-in law of the Duke of 
 Lancaster, and was forced to leave England]. Il y retourna 
 ensuite, et il y fut quelque terns dans une situation tres 
 facheuse, et dans une grande detresse. Ses liaisons avec 
 Wicleffe le firent alors accuser de donner dans ses erreurs. 
 On oublia, ou on parut oublier, que son commerce avec un 
 homme qu’il avoit connu a Oxford et a Cambridge, qui n’avoit 
 pas d’abord levy le masque . . . pouvait avoir une cause 
 
36 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1777- 
 
 plus innocente et plus simple. . . . Quoiqu’il en soit, il fufc 
 mis en prison ... la bonne fortune do Chaucer revint avec 
 celle du due de Lancastre qui fut Chef du Conseil, et dont 
 la Posterity monta dans la suite sur le Trone. . . . Enfin 
 Chaucer, apres avoir 6te Poete, Courtisan, Homme d’Etat, 
 finit par etre Philosophe, sans jamais cesser d’etre Poete. 
 
 . . . Retire a Dunnington Castle, ilycoula dans sa vieillesse 
 des jours heureux, g^ralement aim6 et honors. II £tait 
 tres li6 avec tous les savans de son siecle, et particuli&rement 
 avec le c^lebre Petrarque, son ami, qui, de son terns, re<jut a 
 Rome la Couronne Poetique. 
 
 II regnait dans le caractere de ce grand homme un melange 
 de gaiete, de modestie et de gravity qui le rendait egalement 
 propre a la Cour et a la Ville, et le faisait rechercher dans 
 les bonnes compagnies. II avait l’esprit agr^able, la penetra- 
 tion vive, le jugement sain et sur. II etait sincere mais 
 honnete critique, plus porte a l’indulgence qu’a la censure, et 
 plus dispose a excuser ou a couvrir les fautes des Ecrivains 
 contemporains, qu’a les produire au grand jour. Superieur a 
 son siecle, il eut voulu l’eiever jusqu’a lui. Tout parle de 
 sa gloire comme Poete. Sa Patrie a confirme ce jugement, 
 on ne peut assez louer ses graces antiques, toujours nouvelles, 
 et la clarte de son stile dans une langue qui, depuis le 
 treizieme siecle, a eprouve tant de changemens. . . . Ses 
 vertus egalaient ses talents. Il fut fiddle et constant ami. 
 Pour tout dire en un mot, il fut philosophe suivant la vraie 
 acception de ce terme, e’est-a-dire qu’il eut de la religion et 
 des mceurs. 
 
 1777. Unknown. [Parallele d'Ovide et de Chaucer , traduit de Dryden, 
 dans le] Journal anglais No. 17,. p. 32. 
 
 1784. [Rivarol, Antoine de.] ^ De VUniversalite de la langue frangaise ; 
 Discours qui a remporte le prix a VAcademie de Berlin , a Berlin, 
 et se trouve a Paris, . . . 1784, p. 36. (Euvres completes de Rivarol 
 & Paris 1808, ii, p. 37. 
 
 Pendant un espace de quatre cents ans, je ne trouve en 
 Angleterre que Chaucer et Spencer. Le premier m^rita, 
 vers le milieu du quinzieme siecle, d’etre appele l’Homere 
 Anglais; notre Ronsard le merita de meme; et Chaucer, 
 aussi obscur que lui, fut encore moins connu. De Chaucer 
 jusqu’a Shakespeare et Milton, rien ne transpire dans cette 
 Isle c^Rbre, et sa litterature ne vaut pas un coup d’oeil. 
 
1797 ] French Allusions. 37 
 
 1791. Feller, Frangois-Xavier de. [ Revision of L. M. Chaudon’s 
 Article ‘ Chaucer ’ in] Le Dictionnaire Historique , 2 e edn., 
 1789-94, tome iii, 1791. 
 
 Chaucer (Geoffroy), le Maroi des Anglais, ne a Londres 
 en 1328, mort en 1400, fut inhumd dans l’abbaye de West- 
 minster. II contribna beaucoup, par des podsies faites a 
 la louange du due de Lancastre son beau-frere, a lui pro- 
 curer la couronne. II partagea la bonne et la mauvaise 
 fortune de ce monarque. Ses Poesies furent publiees a 
 Londres en 1721, in-folio. On y trouve des contes pleins 
 d’enjouement, de naivete et de licence, faits d’apres les 
 troubadours et d’apr^s Boccace. L’im agination qui les a 
 
 dictes etait vive et feconde, mais tr&s peu reglee et souvent 
 tres obscene. Son style est avili par grand nombre de mots 
 obscurs et intelligibles. La langue anglaise 6tait encore, de 
 son temps, rude et grossiere. Si Y esprit de Chaucer dtait 
 agreable, son langage ne l’dtait pas, et les Anglais d’a 
 present ont peine a F entendre. Chaucer a laissd, outre 
 ses poesies, des ouvrages en prose : Le Testament d’ amour ; 
 un Traite de V astrolabe. II s^dtait appliqud a l’astronomie 
 et aux langues dtrang&res, autant qu’a la versification. II 
 avait meme voulu dogmatiser. Les opinions de Wiclef 
 faisaient alors beaucoup de bruit; Chaucer les embrassa; 
 et se fit chasser pour quelque temps de sa patrie. 
 
 [The first edition of tliis dictionary was published in 1781, but no copy of it can 
 be found, either in the Biblioth&que Nationale or in the British Museum. It probably 
 contains the article on Chaucer. This article is that by L. M. Cliaudon, in his 
 Nouveau Dictionnaire historique-portatif, 1770, vol. i, pp. 520-1, with a few altera- 
 tions, the most important being the addition of the birth date, and the substitution 
 of the reference to the Works, 1721, for one to that of 1561. Chaudon’s article was 
 translated into English by ‘ Historicus ’ in 1777, q.v. above, vol. i, p. 440 (misprinted 
 Charon). The same article is reprinted in the fifth edn. of the Dictionnaire His- 
 torique, 1821, tome iii, p. 546 ; in the Biographic universelle ou Dictionnaire historique, 
 1848, and in the Biographie universelle, i860.] 
 
 1796. Unknown. Bibliotheque Britannique ou Becueil extrait des 
 
 ouvrages Anglais periodiques & autres , des Memoires A Transactions 
 des Soddtes & Academies de la Grande- Bretagne, cdAsie, d’Afrique 
 et d'Amerique; en Deux series , intitulees : Literature, et Sciences , 
 et Arts ; redige a Genkve, par une societe' de Gens de Lettres [from 
 the article Antiquites ]. Traits caracteristiques des coutumes <b 
 
 mceurs des Anglo-Saxons, tires de Vouvrage de James Petit Andrews 
 [History of Great Britain, 1794-5, q.v.], tome i, No. 4, avril, p. 689. 
 
 II paroit qu’on n’entendoit par le mot trag^die qu’un r6cit, 
 non un drame. (Prologue of Monk’s tale de Chaucer.) 
 
 1797. Unknown. Bibliotheque Britannique . . . [from the article 
 Melanges]. Du caractkre des Gens de Lettres. Tire du ix e 
 chapitre de Touvrage de I. d’lsraeli intitule : Essay on the 
 
38 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1800 - 
 
 Manners and Genius of the Literary Character tome iv. No 3 
 mars, 367. ’ * ’ 
 
 Le spirituel Cowley m^prisoit le naturel de Chaucer. 
 
 1800. Stael-Holstein, Anne L. G. de. De la Literature considered 
 dans ses rapports avec les institutions sociales, tome i, p. 269. 
 
 Au moment de la renaissance des lettres, et au commence- 
 ment de la literature anglaise, un assez grand nombre de 
 poetes anglais s’ecarta du caractere national, pour imiter les 
 Italiens. J’ai citb Waller et Cowley pour etre de ce nombre : 
 je pourrois y joindre Downe [sic], Chaucer, &c. Les essais 
 dans ce genre ont encore plus mal r^ussi aux Anglais qu’aux 
 autres peuples ; ils manquent visiblement de grace dans les 
 formes; ils manquent de cette promptitude, de cette facility 
 de cette aisance d esprit, qui sacquiert par le commerce 
 habituel avec les homines reunis en society dans le seul but 
 de se plaire. 
 
 18 °3. Schwab, Johann-Cbristoph. Dissertation sur les Causes de 
 l Universalite de la Langue francoise et la dure'e vraisemblablede son 
 7lTlrS Tl ’ adUlt de 1,allemand P ar D - Robelot, Paris, 1803, pp. 
 
 [r. 216 ] Voulons-nous ^tendre nos recherches, nous aurons dans cet 
 espace de temps des observations semblables a faire sur les 
 Anglois. Je me bornerai a la suivante ; Chaucer, qui vivoit ! 
 au quatorzi&me si^cle, puisa son conte de Troile et Creseide , 
 et beaucoup d autres sujets, dans Boccace, qu’il avoit connu 
 person^llement en Italie . . . 
 
 [p. 323] [Note by the translator.] 
 
 Chaucer qu’on compare a un beau matin du printemps, qui 
 £crivit sous le regne d’Edouard hi (il fleurissoit en 1328), j 
 ainsi dans un temps ou lusage du fran^is avoit 6t6 proscrit \ 
 dans l’Angleterre, Chaucer avoit pris la plupart de ses contes, 
 chez les Provengaux et dans Boccace. 
 
 Jean Gower qui approche le plus de lui. 
 
 1806. Hennet, Albert Joseph Ulpien. Poetique Anglaise , Paris, 1806, 
 3 tomes, tome ii, pp. 1-3. 
 
 Liste chronologique des Poetes Anglais : 
 
 (1) Chaucer. 
 
 N6 a Londres en 1328. 
 
 Mort dans la meme ville en 1400, age de 72 ans. 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 39 
 
 1811 ] 
 
 Appels le p&re de la po6sie anglaise, contemporain de 
 P^trarque et de Bocace, il ecrivit dans le quatorzi£me siecle, 
 lorsque la France ne comptait encore aucuns poetes. Elev6 
 a Cambridge, il composa, a dix-huit ans, la Gour d' amour. 
 
 Devenu page et ensuite gentilhomme de la chambre du 
 roi, il eut pour protecteur Jean de Gand, due de Lancastre, 
 et ^pousa une fille d’honneur de la duchesse. Cette jeune 
 personne, nee en Hainaut, se nommait Philippa Roxet [sic]. 
 Envoy6 dans des cours 6trangeres, Chaucer s’y distingua et 
 revint a Londres jouir d’une fortune considerable. 
 
 Quelque terns apr&s, il ecrivit contre le clerg4 et fut oblige 
 de fuir. Il passa plusieurs annees en Hainaut et en France. 
 C’est la qu’il composa une partie de ses ouvrages. Revenu 
 a Londres, il y fut arrete, obtint enfin sa liberte, et maria la 
 sceur de sa femme au due de Lancastre, dont le fils monta sur 
 le trone d’Angleterre. Se trouvant ainsi bel-oncle du roi, il 
 vecut dans l’aisance et la tranquillite, retire a la campagne. 
 
 Chaucer composa douze volumes de vers qui consistent 
 principalement en Contes , dans le genre de ceux de Bocace, 
 et dont quelques-uns ont et6 depuis rajeunis par des auteurs 
 modernes. Son langage est a peine compris aujourd’hui par 
 les anglais. 
 
 1810. Unknown. [Article in] Le Publiciste of October 24, 1810 ; [see 
 the following quotation.] 
 
 1811. Ginguene, P. L. Histoire Litteraire d’ltcdie , Paris, 1811, tome 
 iii, pp. 107-11. 
 
 [The discussion is of the debt of Chaucer to Boccaccio.] 
 [Note to pp. 109-10.] Il y a quelque temps qu’on annon^a 
 dans le Publiciste (24 octobre 1810) la traduction prete a 
 paraitre d’une Histoire litteraire allemande ttes estim6e. 
 On parlait de Chaucer dans cette annonce ... on avan^ait 
 que ce po&te avait compost ses Fables de Canterbury a 
 limitation du Decameron de Boccace ; mais on y affirmait 
 tres positivement, que ‘ Chaucer se montre fort superieur a 
 hauteur italien par l’agrementdu tecit, l’esprit qui regne dans 
 les details, la finesse des observations, le talent avec lequel il y 
 peint les caracteres.’ . . . Je crois cependant que Boccace, 
 si recommandable par la beaute du style, Pest peut-etre 
 plus encore par ces memes qualites que l’on pretend trouver 
 en lui inferieures a ce qu’elles sont dans Chaucer. J e voudrais 
 qu’on nous en eut donn6 de meilleures preuves qu’un certain 
 

 40 Appendix B. [a.d. 1813 
 
 portrait d’une None, rempli de traits tels que ceux-ci : ‘A 
 table, elle se comportait en personne fort bien 41ev6e, ne 
 laissait pas tomber un morceau de ses l&vres, et se gardait 
 bien de mouiller ses doigts dans sa sauce ; . . [etc.] Ce sont 
 M de ces peintures de caracteres, ou plutot de ces caricatures 
 tr6s fr^quentes dans les poetes anglais et allemands, et qu’on 
 ne trouve guCe, il est vrai, dans les Italiens, si ce nest dans 
 le genre Bernesque. II n’est pas sur que le bon gout ait le 
 droit de les en blamer. 
 
 1813. Suard, Jean-Baptiste-Antoine. [Article on Chaucer in the] Bio- 
 graphie Umverselle, ancienne et moderne. . . . ouvrage entice- 
 ment neuf, redio-e par une society de gens de lettres. Paris 1813 
 tome viii. pp. 286-89. 
 
 [A long biography, with the usual errors due to the 
 acceptance of the Testament of Love , but written with care, 
 and indicating some knowledge of the poems of Chaucer.] 
 
 [p- 287] ... La Cour d' amour avait 6t6 suivie, peu de temps apres, 
 
 du poeme de Troilus et Creseide , d’Jrcile [sic] et Pale'mon, de 
 la Maison de la Renommee , etc., ouvrages dont il ne parait pas 
 que l’invention appartienne a Chaucer ; mais dont il donne 
 quelques-uns pour imites, et dont les autres le sont visible- 
 ment, soit du Roman de la Rose , de Boccace, soit de quelques 
 auteurs moins cdl&bres. Il parait avoir puise surtout dans 
 les ouvrages des troubadours provengaux, qu’il affectionnait 
 particuli&rement, et auxquels la fiertd anglaise lui reproche 
 d’avoir emprunte un grand nombre de mots pour les trans- 
 porter dans sa langue, comme il est ais6 de le voir par l’abon- 
 dance de mots frangais qui se trouvent dans ses ecrits. Ces 
 poesies, dont l’invention, quand elle appartiendrait a Chaucer, • 
 ne vaudrait pas la peine d’etre revendiqu4e, portent l’em- ; 
 preinte du mauvais gout qui regnait alors dans tout l’Europe, ' 
 
 [p. 288 ] [Description of the Court of Love ] . . . Dans Troilus et ' 
 
 Creseide, poeme dont l’action se passe durant le si&ge de Troie, ? 
 Troilus est designe comme un jeune chevalier (knight), et de 
 meme prCisement que l’A est maintenant la premiere lettre 
 de 1 alphabet, Cr6s6ide 6tait, parmi les dames troyennes, la 
 premiere en beautC 
 
 Ses autres ouvrages, tels que la Maison de la Renommee, 
 que Pope a imitee dans son Temple de la Renommee, et les 
 poesies faites en l’honneur du due et de la duchesse de Lan- 
 castre, sont, pour la plupart, des reves, des visions alldgo- 
 riques, mel^s de dissertations morales ou theologiques dans le 
 
1§13] French Allusions. 41 
 
 gout du temps ; ce qui, outre la difficulty de la langue, rend la 
 lecture des ouvrages de Chaucer penible et ennuyeuse. On y 
 trouve cependant de la verity dans la peinture des caracteres 
 et une d&icatesse de sentiments, qui, dans ce temps la, 
 s’alliait assez souvent a la grossi^rete des expressions. Les 
 Anglais assurent de plus que, malgre l’irregulante de la 
 versification, la poesie de Chaucer ne manque pas d’harmonie ; 
 et cette irregularity n’a pas empeche de le regarder comme 
 289] l’inventeur du vers heroique anglais. . . . [Chaucer] jouissait 
 tranquillement de sa fortune dans le chateau de Dunnmgton 
 Ce fut la que, dans ses dernieres annees, il composa celui 
 de ses ouvrages qui a conserve le plus de reputation, ses 
 Contes de Cantorbery, ecrits en vers, dans la forme du De- 
 cameron de Boccace, mais dont les sujets, entierement anglais, 
 offrent une grande vari6t6 de caract6res peints avec la verite 
 propre a ce po£te, et une vivacite qu’on ne lui trouve pas 
 tou jours. Chaucer a eu le sort de tous les ycrivains qui ont 
 montry du genie dans les premiers temps de la renaissance 
 des lettres, lorsque la langue et le gout n’ytaient pas encore 
 formys. On l’admire et on le loue beaucoup, mais on le 
 lit peu. 
 
 II est le premier des modernes qui ait fait usage dans la 
 poysie de l’esprit et des fictions chevaleresques. Son conte 
 de Sir Topaz est dans le gout de Don Quichotte. 
 
 [Suard’s article, much abridged, and containing hardly 
 anything of the passages quoted above, was reprinted in the 
 Biographie universelle of 1833 (6 vols.), of 1838 (6 vols.) and 
 of 1843-7 (Brussels, 21 vols.); and also in the Biographie 
 universelle classique , 1829.] 
 
 1813. Dubuc (translator). Les deux Griselidis, Histoires traduites 
 
 de Vanglois Vune de Chaucer, et Vautre de Mile. Edgeworth. 2 tom. 
 Tome i, pp. 5-8, 11-92, 95, 151-2, 162-173 ; tome ii,<pp. 171-3. 
 
 [For The Modern Griselda, by Maria Edgeworth, see above, Part ii, sect, i, p. 24, 
 1805.] 
 
 [p. 51 [Avertissement.] Nous offrons aujourd’hui au public This 
 [p. 6] toire de deux Griselidis, bien differentes entre elles. L’une 
 vivoit . . . vers le onzieme siecle, dans le marquisat de Saluces; 
 l’autre vivoit, et vit peut-etre encore en Angleterre. Le 
 caractyre de cette derniere a yty observy et peint par une 
 artiste celebre dans ce genre, par Mademoiselle Edgeworth. 
 
 Nous avons pensy que le rapprochement de la Crisylidis 
 moderne et de celle des temps anterieurs pourroit devenir 
 piquant, et nous avons emprunty l’histoire de la plus ancienne 
 
42 
 
 Appeivlix B. [a.d. 1813- 
 
 [p. 7] a Chaucer, patriarche de la po^sie angloise. Nous ne croyons 
 pas qu’on ait jamais rien traduit en frangais des oeuvres de cet 
 auteur dont le style vieilli n’est pas toujours intelligible pour 
 les Anglois eux-memes. Une autre consideration nous a fait 
 pr6ferer le r£cit de Chaucer a celui de Bocace ; c’est que 
 Mademoiselle Edgeworth, dans sa nouvelle, fait allusion a 
 l’histoire de la Griselidis ancienne ; elle en cite meme un 
 
 Ip. 8] morceau, et ce morceau est tire de la narration de son com- 
 patriote Chaucer, rajeunie, a la verite, par un poete anglois 
 aussi, nomme Monsieur Ogle, dont le style assez Elegant est 
 pourtant diffus, si on le compare a celui de son modele. 
 
 Ip * 111 Gauthier et Griselidis. Histoire traduite de l’anglois de 
 Chaucer [pp. 11-92]. 
 
 Ip. 95] La nouvelle Griselidis, traduite de l’anglois de Mademoiselle 
 Edgeworth. 
 
 [The passages in which Miss Edgeworth refers to Chaucer 
 are as follows :] 
 
 [p. i5i) Mon cher ami, a propos de femmes parfaites, vous avez 
 [p. 152] s u remen t lu les contes de Chaucer. Dites-moi un peu ce que 
 vous pensez de la veritable, de l’ancienne Griselidis 1 
 
 —II y a si longtemps que j’ai lu cette histoire, que je ne 
 puis vous donner de reponse precise. — Alors lisez-la de ! 
 nouveau, et dites m’en votre avis sans detour . . . il faut que 
 nous ayons ici une soiree de lecture. . . . 
 
 [P.152] [Chaucer’s tale of Griselda is being read.] Le lecteur en 
 vint a ce moment ou Gauthier fait prononcer un serment a sa 
 femme. < 
 
 Jurez que nuit et jour, a mes ordres soumise, 
 
 Avec empressement, avec zele et franchise, 
 
 Sans murmurer jamais, seule ou devant temoins 
 A m’obeir toujours, vous mettrez tous vos soins. 
 
 [etc. and the 10 lines following, from Ogle’s edition.] 
 
 [p. 172] Certes, je ne puis admirer ni Griselidis, ni aucune de celles 
 qui l’imitent. . . . 
 
 — On ne risque pas de rencontrer de nos jours, beaucoup 
 Ip. 173] de femmes qui marchent sur ces traces. Si Chaucer eut vecu 
 
 * 
 
1825] 
 
 dans ce temps 
 autrement. . . 
 
 French Allusions. ^ 
 
 de lumieres, il eat dessine ce caractere tout 
 
 Nous pardonnerons a ce pauvre Chaucer, si nous con- 
 sid6rons le siecle oh il vivoit. La situation et Intelligence 
 des femmes ont 6t6 bien amelior6es depuis cette 6poque. 
 
 1819 [Renouard, Antoine Augustin.] Catalogue de la 
 
 Amateur , <mc notes bibliographies , critiques et htteraii es, Pans, 
 1829, tome iii, pp. 125-7. . 
 
 The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer . . . Oxford, 178b 
 
 [sic, i.e. 1798.] 
 
 Amateur anglois je me trouverois grandement heureux si 
 je pouvois placer ici quelques-unes des editions rares de 
 Chaucer, donn^es dans le xv e siecle par Caxton et Pynson, 
 ou le volume plus rare encore, the Assemble of foules, 1530, 
 in-4, que les Anglois n’estiment pas moins de einquante 
 guin6es, ; mais ces curiosites angloises ne sont pas vivement 
 d6sir5es hors de l’Angleterre ; et les amateurs du continent 
 n’en sont pas encore venus a se passioner pour une ancienpe 
 edition de quelque pi£ce de Shakespeare, de Spencer, ou de 
 Chaucer, comme pour les editions primitives d’Homere, de 
 
 Yirgile, Horace, etc. 
 
 1822 Unknown. [Article ‘ Clmtterton' in the] Biogmphie iwuvdle 
 des contemporains, ou dictionnaire lnstorique et raisonne de tous 
 les hommes qui, depuis la Revolution fran t aise, ont acquis de la 
 cdldbrit^ . . [edited by] MM. Arnault. Jay, Jouy, Norvins ; et 
 autres homines de lettres . . tome iv, 1822, p. JOB. 
 
 Chatterlon (Thomas). ... A peine publics, les podsies 
 de Rowley devinrent un grand sujet de discussion pour les 
 critiques. Le style etait d’une couleur antique ; la phrasb- 
 ologie gothique, la versification entierement semblable a cello 
 de Chancer [sic], Mais l’ordre et l’energie des idees . . . 
 une imagination forte . . . rangeaient l’auteur de ces ceuvres 
 parmi les maitres de l’art, et etonnaient profondement 
 quiconque avait ddvord l’ennui des mauvais poetes du xiv* 
 et xv' siecle. Chancer et Spencer Staient surpasses de bien 
 loin. . . . 
 
 1825. Pichot, Am6d66. Voyage Historique et Litteravre en Angleterre et 
 en Ecosse, Paris, 1825, tome i, pp. 173, 242, 243, 244, tome n, 
 p. 271, tome iii, p. 8. 
 
 [i, p. 173] Le P'elerinage de Cantorb'ery , sujet emprunte au vieux po4te 
 Chaucer, est une belle composition de Stothard ; mais ie 
 n’en connais que la gravure. . . . 
 
44 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 [a.d. 1827— 
 
 [p. 242] Jacques [l er ] reconnaissait pour ses maitres Chaucer 
 ower et Lydgate . . . Warton a . . . compart l’apparition 
 de Chaucer, dans la literature nationale, au jour prtcoce 
 
 d un printemps d’Angleterre, aprts lequel l’hiver revient avec 
 ses orages. . . 
 
 1M \l™W’ Abe '. fapvSM. Essai litteraire sur Shakespeare 
 pp 145-6^ ^ h,storl 1 ues et Htteraires, Paris, 1827, tome iii,’ 
 
 La poSsie anglaise n’itait pas non plus, & cette 6poque 
 [end of the sixteenth century], dans un etat d’indigence et 
 de grossierete ; elle commenqait de toutes parts a se polir. 
 
 pencer . . . avait <$crit un long poeme, d’un style savant, 
 ingenieux . . . prodigieusement supcrieur h la diction gro- 
 tesque de notre Ronsard. II n'etait pas jusqu’au vieux 
 Chaucer, imitateur de Boccace et de Petrarque, qui, dans son 
 anglais du quatomime siecle, n’offrit d<5ja des modifies de 
 naivete, et grande abondance de fictions heureuses. 
 
 18 2 8 - Querard, J M. [under tlie name Chaucer in] La France lit 
 
 £ZtCdtt7Z re bm r-^T^ hietorZZ t 
 ti" \^ti£ teurs amngers qJmt 
 
 Chaucer, po£te 
 Melanges de poesies Anglaises. 
 
 Anglais. 
 
 Voy. Edgeworth (Miss), et 
 
 i82 9 auerard, J. M. [under the name Edgeworth in] La France 
 182^?8.°“ dictionnaire bibliographique des savants . . . tome iii, 
 
 Edgeworth (Miss Mar) . . . 
 
 ——Deux (les) Griselidis, histoires trad, de l’angl., l’une de 
 Miss Edgeworth, Pautre de Chaucer (par M. Dubuc), Paris, 
 Galignam, 1813, 2 vol. in- 12, 4 fr, 
 
 183 °' D *4 L E r glish Professor at the Royal College of St. 
 
 E ^: act \f:°™ the most celebrated British Poets. 
 
 rl^i V ° L H * 7 [ °£ ° Uter cover of the volum e there 
 is a Liste Chi onologique des Poetes . . . dans les ouvraqes desauels 
 
 ZirZr extr f ts f d ° nt \ a Biographie se trouve l la fil du 
 
 nr nt?d SS ™ Z Z liSt) but ” on ® of llis P°e™ are 
 
 d ‘ T - 1S a short bl °g' ra P b .y of the poet on pp. 543-4 
 and several allusions on pp. 541, 542.] ^ ’ 
 
 Chaucer, properly considered as the father of english 
 poetry , preceded Spenser by two centuries, and was connected 
 by marriage with the famous John of Gaunt. His chief 
 productions are the Serjeant at Law, the Frankelin, the 
 
1830 ] French Allusions. 45 
 
 Shipman, the Doctor of Physic, the Miller, the Knight’s Tale, 
 the Story of the Fox, the Three Thieves, the Story of Griselda 
 and of the little Child slain in Jewry. One of the finest 
 parts of Chaucer is the beginning of the Flower and the Leaf 
 [long description]. Chaucer’s versification, considering the 
 time he wrote at, has considerable strength and harmony. 
 
 His works are the source from which the other poets 
 have usually borrowed. In depth of simple pathos, and 
 intensity of conception, no writer comes near him, not even 
 the Greek tragedians. 
 
 [This allusion is given here because the book, although 
 written in English, was printed in France and intended for 
 a French public.] 
 
 1830 Villemain, Abel Francois. Cours de litterature franc aise. Lit- 
 ' terature du moyen age, en France, en Italie, en Espagne et en 
 Angleterre , Paris, 1830, tome ii, pp. 206-212, 214-217, 227. 
 
 [ P . 206 ] Ce n’est qu’au milieu du xiv e siecle qu’enfin 1’ Angleterre 
 poss&de un ecrivain, un poete, un homme en qui on ne peut 
 m^connaitre beaucoup d’esprit, 1 art de conter, et ce melange 
 d’erudition et de naivete qui rend si piquans plusieurs 6cri- 
 vains du moyen-age. Je parle de Chaucer. C’est de lui que 
 la plupart des critiques anglais datent le premier age de leur 
 p 0 6sie litteraire. Bien plus recent que les Troubadours, 
 venu apres le Dante, Petrarque et Boccace, Chaucer, qui fut 
 leur eleve, ne saurait leur etre compart. II a cependant son 
 m6rite et son tour original. Mais il est fort difficile a traduire, 
 ou pour la langue ou pour la bienseance. II a de plus 
 [ P . 207] beaucoup 6crit ; et j’avoue qu’embarrasse souvent par son 
 vieux style, ses idiotismes, ses allusions, je ne l’ai pas lu tout 
 entier. [A short notice follows of the life of Chaucer and 
 of his assumed meeting with Petrarch.] 
 
 Ainsi c’est un homme du FTord qui vient puiser a la belle 
 civilisation du Midi. Ce n’est plus l’esprit natif de la vieille 
 [p. 208] Angleterre, plus ou moins melange d esprit normand , c est 
 un lettr6 anglais qui connait bien les deux Italies, et a devant 
 lui plusieurs modeles. Chaucer savait a fond la langue latine, 
 et l’6crivait avec gout ", il traduisit la Consolation de Bo&ce. 
 
 Malgre cette 6tude et ce gout d’imitation classique, 
 [p. 209 ] il n’est pas de meilleur peintre que lui du moyen age ; pas 
 d’^crivain ou les mceurs, l’esprit, le langage de ce temps 
 
46 
 
 Appendix B. [ a .d. 1830 
 
 soient mieux conserves. Voila son originalite. C’est uni 
 Trouvere anglais, c’est un conteur de la cite de Londres. 1 
 II unite nos fabliaux et les chants amoureux des Troubadours . i 
 Mais ll a son caractere propre de liberte politique et religieuse • 
 et son imagination savante est nourrie de fables orientals' 
 comme de reminiscences latines. 
 
 Cest Chaucer qui marque le premier d^veloppement de 
 la poesie anglaise. Le frangais n’est plus pour lui la langue 
 de la conquete, mais une langue litteraire. C’est ainsi qu’il 
 a traduit en vers le Roman de la Rose , comme il aurait imite 
 un ouvrage classique des anciens. Dans cette version, il 
 lutte habilement contre le style de ses deux modeles, et 
 semble parfois l’emporter, soit que son anglais paraisse moins 
 vieilli que le frangais de Jean de Meung, soit qu’il ait ajoute 
 quelques traits de hardiesse. Car, il faut le dire, d ses titres 
 d’homme de cour, de savant, d’ami de Petrarque, d’imitateur 
 de Boccace, il joignait celui d’hetetique. Il fut un des 
 premiers disciples de Wiclef. . 
 
 ] ' • • Chaucer se fit le poete de cette teforme; c’est-a-dire 
 
 toutes les pensees hardies qui dtaient enveloppdes dans la 
 tlteologie de Wiclef, toutes les inductions ... que les : 
 esprits libres pouvaient tirer de la lecture immediate de la 
 Bible, Chaucer les exprimait vivement, et les animait par des I 
 satires contre la cour de Borne et les abus de la vie monacale. 
 tp. 2 ii] La chevalerie meme n’est pas epargn^e par le bon sens 
 dpigrammatique de Chaucer. . . 
 
 Son sir Thopas est le ptecurseur de Don Quichotte. Cette 
 parodie fait partie des Contes de Cantorbery , recueil d’histori- | 
 ettes, dans le gout du Decameron, mais Writes en vers, avec ; 
 moins de charme et de po4sie que n’en offre la prose de 
 Boccace. } 
 
 Le cadre de ce recueil est du reste ing^nieux. Chaucer . 
 rassemble a Southwark , dans une auberge, divers pelerins, 
 venus pour honorer la chasse de Thomas Becket. Dans 
 l’inaction de la soiree, ces pelerins se content des histoires 
 touchantes, ou gaies. Leur reunion seule est assez drama- 
 tique. Elle offre tous les itats, tous les personnages du 
 moyen age, un chevalier, un (teuver . . . etc. 
 
1830] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 47 
 
 Chaucer, parlant a son tour, commence l’histoire de sir 
 [p . 212 ] Thopas. II accumule les enchantemens et les prodiges. 
 Mais au milieu du r^cit, lorsqu’il avait deja. tire grand 
 nombre de geans, un des auditeurs l’arrete et lui dit : ‘ Plus 
 de ces contes pour l’amour de Dieu ; vous ne faites que 
 perdre le temps ; ne rimez pas d’avantage. Dites-nous en 
 prose seulement quelque chose, oil il y ait un peu de gait6 
 et d’instruction.’ Chaucer laisse la son histoire, et com- 
 mence une allegorie morale de Melib^e, qui a pour Spouse la 
 Prudence , et pour fille la Sagesse. 
 
 Toute cette histoire est assez commune ; mais elle renferme 
 de sages conseils et une excellente morale pour un faiseui de 
 contes, parfois licencieux, comme Chaucer. C’est un des 
 premiers essais de la prose anglaise. Malheureusement 
 Chaucer est peu piquant, lorsqu’il est moral. 
 
 [p. 214 ] Chaucer est rempli d’allusions plaisantes a ce sujet [French 
 as then spoken in England]. Parle-t-il d une abbesse dans 
 le prologue de ses Contes de Cantorbery, il la represente 
 ainsi. 
 
 [Description of the Prioress.] 
 
 [ P . 215 ] Le style de Chaucer est en partie forme sur le module du 
 Roman de la Rose et de nos meilleurs fabliaux. Non seule- 
 ment, il imite avec art plusieurs tournures de notre langue. 
 Souvent, par une bigarrure moins heureuse, il introduit dans 
 son style anglais des mots, des phrases toutes frangaises ; 
 par exemple, ce refrain, qui coupe une de ses ballades 
 anglaises ‘ J’ai tout perdu, mon temps et mon labeur.’ 
 
 Ailleurs il conserve en frangais les noms de nos person- 
 nages all6goriques : Faux-Semblant , Rel-Accueil } etc. 
 
 lP . 227 ] Ce qu’il y a de sur, c’est que la vraie po^sie anglaise du 
 xiv e et du xv e siecle n’a produit, a l’exception de Chaucer, 
 rien de puissant et d’original. 
 
 1830. Thierry, Augustin. Histoire de la conquete de V Angleterre par 
 ’ les Normands (3 me edn. revue), Paris, 1830, tome iv, pp. 390, 
 391, 392, 393. [Ed. i, 1825, 3 vols., vol. iii, pp. 546-50, is only 
 slightly revised in that quoted.] 
 
 [p. 390 ] Les ecrivains en langue frangaise traitaient ordinairement 
 
48 
 
 1 
 
 Appendix B. [ A .d. 1832- 
 
 cette classe d’hommes [la bourgeoisie et les vilains] avec 
 le dernier mepris . . . Au contraire, les poetes anglais pre- 
 naient pour sujet . . . de leurs contes joyeux, des aventures 
 plebeiennes . . . et les bistoriettes du meme genre qui so | 
 trouvent en si grand nombre dans les ouvrages de Chaucer, j 
 Un autre caractere commun k presque tous ces po&tes, c’est 
 une esp^ce de haine nationale contre la langue de la j 
 [ P . 39i] conquete. . . . Chaucer, Tun des hommes les plus spirituels | 
 de son temps, met plus de finesse dans cette critique; il 
 oppose au dialecte anglo-normand, vieilli et incorrect, le I 
 frangais poll de la cour de France ... [in the portrait of 
 the Prioress]. 
 
 [p. 393] C’6tait l’habitude ou la manie des gens de loi . . meme 
 loisquils parlaient anglais, d’employer a tout propos des 
 paroles et des phrases frangaises, coinme Ah ! sire, je vous 
 jure ; . . . et d’autres exclamations dont Chaucer ne manque 
 jamais de bigarrer leurs discours, lorsqu’il en met quelqu’un 
 en scene. 
 
 1832 mt“,, P P m chrdienne ' aaucer - 
 
 ' ■ La , E,ue > Gervais de. Fssavi Historiques sur les Bardes, les 
 i et les trouv ' eres • • . 3 tomes, Caen, 1834, tome i, pp. 11, 
 54, 18/ -8, tome iii, pp. 267, 270, 271. 
 
 [p. 2C7] [ Jean Gower . ] Le poete Chaucer l’appelait le moraliste 
 
 Gower. 
 
 [PP. 27 °- ^ [Froissart lived for a long time in England] ... k la 
 meme 6poque brillaient dans ce meme royaume les poetes l 
 Gower et Chaucer, et il est impossible de ne pas croire que 
 Froissart connut leurs poesies ; il est meme tr£s-probable I 
 qu’il fut li6 avec ces auteurs, et alors comment n’aurait il 
 pas pris d’eux le gout des Ballades, Yirelais, Rondeaux, 
 etc. ? 
 
 1835. Unknown. Poetes Laureats de la grande Bretagne [article 
 translated from the New Literary Magazine, in the] Revue Britan - 
 nique, Paris, August 1835, pp. 227, 228. 
 
 Goyer [sic] et Chaucer sont d£sign6s comme laureats; 
 mais il reste douteux qu’ils appartinssent sous ce titreplutot 
 a la maison du souverain qu’a celle de quelque noble. 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 49 
 
 1836] ------ 
 
 ioo« Chateaubriand, Francois Rene de. Essai sur la Literature 
 ’ anqlaise par M. de Chateaubriand, Paris, 1836, pp. 109-111. 
 (CEuvres completes de . . . Chateaubriand, Paris 1838, tome xxxm, 
 
 pp. 102-7.) 
 
 Chaucer, Bower [sic], Barbour. 
 
 En meme temps que les tribunaux retournerent par ordon- 
 nance au dialecte du sol, Chaucer fut appele a rehabiliter la 
 harpe des bardes ; mais Bower, son devancier de quelques 
 annees, et son rival, composait encore dans les deux 
 langues. . . . 
 
 [Chateaubriand next quotes a ballade by ‘ Bower ’ : ‘ Amour 
 est chose merveilleuse,’ which proves, according to him, that 
 Gower’s French was better than his English. He continues :] 
 
 La langue anglaise de Chaucer est loin d’avoir ce poli du 
 vieux francais, lequel a deja quelque chose d achev6 dans ce 
 petit genre de literature. Cependant l’idiome du po&te 
 Anglo-Saxon, [c-a-d Chaucer] amas hdterogene de patois 
 divers, est devenu la souche de l’anglais moderne. 
 
 Courtisan Lancastrien, Wiclefiste, infidele a ses convictions, 
 traitre a son parti, tantot banni, tantot voyageuL tantot en 
 faveur, tantot en disgrace, Chaucer avait renconte Petrarque 
 a Padoue: au lieu de remonter aux sources saxonnes, il 
 emprunta le gout de ses chants aux troubadours prove^aux 
 et a l’amant de Laure, et le caract&re de ses contes a 
 Bocace. 
 
 Dans la Cour d Amour . . . [here follows an account of 
 the Court of Love\. 
 
 Le Plough-man (toujours le canevas du vieux Pierre 
 Plowman) a de la verve : le clerg6, les leadies [sic] et les 
 lords sont l’objet de l’attaque du poete : 
 
 ‘ Suche as can not y say ther crede 5 
 
 [etc. ; 8 lines quoted, followed by a translation]. 
 
 Le poete 6crivait a son chateau de Dunnington, sous le 
 chene de Chaucer , ses Contes de Cantorbery, dans la forme 
 du Decameron. A son d6but la literature anglaise du 
 moyen-age fut d6figuree par la litterature romane j a sa 
 naissance, la litterature anglaise moderne se masqua en 
 literature italienne. 
 
 1836. Unknown. Biographie de William Godwin [article in the] Revue 
 Britannique, April 1836, pp. 377-8. [Notice of his Life of 
 Chaucer.] 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. V. E 
 
50 
 
 
 Appevtdvc B. [ a . d . 1837 _ 
 
 1837. Villemain, Abel Francis. [Review of Chateaubriand’s Essai 
 sur la htberature anglaise , an article in the] Journal des Savant l I 
 April, 1837, pp. 219-220. n T 
 
 . . . L ’Essai sur la litterature anglaise est moins juste 
 que piquant, lorsqu’il nous dit : ‘ II n’a tenu a rien que les 
 trois royaumes de la Crande-Bretagne ne parlassent f rangais : 
 Shakespeare aurait ecrit dans la langue de Rabelais.’ Cela 
 tenait a tout, au contraire ; et si la langue anglaise s’est 
 etablie, ce n’est pas parce que le parlement de 1483 a r^dige 
 ses bills en anglais ; mais il les a rediges ainsi pour etre 
 entendu. 
 
 Quoi qu’il en soit, bien avant cette epoque, l’idiome 
 anglais avait porte d’heureux fruits. Nous regrettons que 
 1 illustre auteur [Chateaubriand] n’ait accorde que peu de 
 lignes au vieux poete Chaucer, et n’ait pas meme parle de 
 sa traduction du Roman de la Rose. Poete lettr6 et poete 
 populaire, imitant les Latins, les Italiens, les Fran^ais, et. 
 ayant au plus haut degr6 1 Rumour anglaise, le tour d’esprit 
 s^rieux et moqueur, Chaucer m6ritait une place plus 4tendue 
 dans cette brillante esquisse de lettres anglaises. II n’atteste 
 pas moins que Gower la longue rivalit^ des deux langues 
 anglaise et fran^aise, puisqu’il a fait quelques pieces de vers 
 ou il les entremele par un refrain alternatif. Mais ses 
 Contes de Canterbury sont, pour le style comme pour les 
 details, la plus complete peinture de la vie et de la soci6te 
 anglaise du temps. . . . 
 
 Sans comparer, comme a fait Dryden, Chaucer a Ovide, 
 sans analyser sa vie et ses ouvrages en deux volumes in-4°, 
 comme a fait Godwin, la critique litt6raire aurait beaucoup 
 a dire sur ce vieux troubadour anglais, qui parfois a cont4 \ 
 comme Bocace, s’est moque de la chevalerie avant Cervantes ; j 
 et qui, fort po^tique d’expression dans ses vers un peu rudes 
 et negliges, a donne en meme temps a sa langue, les premiers 
 modeles d’une prose reguliere et savante. Nous regrettons 
 que V Essai soit si laconique sur Chaucer, et se borne presque 
 a le traiter de courtisan lancastrien, wiclejiste, infidele a ses 
 convictions , traitre a son parti , tantot banni , tantot voyageur. 
 Chaucer n’etait ni plus courtisan, ni plus voyageur, ni plus 
 infidele a ses convictions que notre bon Froissard, qui recevait 
 de si beaux presents des rois d’Angleterre : et la part meme 
 qu’il prit aux premiers essais du schisme en Angleterre donne 
 un grand interet historique a ses ouvrages. 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 1838] 
 
 51 
 
 1837. Michelet, J. Histoire de France , tome iii, livre vi, ch. ler, 
 p. 351, note. 
 
 [Short account of the fashions introduced into France 
 and England during the feasts and festivals which followed 
 the ravages of the great plague in the fourteenth century.] 
 
 Les femmes chargeaient leur tete d’une mitre enorme d’oii 
 flottaient des rubans, comme les flammes d’un mat . . . elles 
 portaient deux dagues a la ceinture. 1 
 
 1 [Note] Chaucer 198. Gaguin, apud Spond, 488. Lingard, 
 ann. 1350. . . . 
 
 1838. Lecluze, Etienne-Jean de. Chaucer. Le Pelerinage de Canter- 
 bury, 1328-1400, [article in the] Revue frangaise, tome vi, April 
 1838, pp. 33-62. 
 
 J’aime les gravures. Au nombre de celles qui ornent ma 
 [p. 33 ] modeste demeure, il en est une dont la composition originale 
 pique vivement la curiosite de ceux qui y ont une fois porte 
 leurs regards. C’est le Felerinage de Canterbury , ouvrage 
 du peintre anglais Stothard, grave fort habilement par J. 
 Heath. Dans un cadre tr£s large et peu eleve, se dA 
 veloppe une longue cavalcade ou. l’on distingue des person- 
 nages de conditions, d’etats et de sexes differens . . . [descrip- 
 tion of the pilgrims]. 
 
 Quoique l'5diteur de la gravure ait pris soin d’y faire 
 inscrire, a la marge inferieure, la quality et un num£ro qui 
 se rapportent a chaque personnage, cette indication est loin 
 de faire connaitre, surtout aux Fran^ais, la cause et le but 
 de cette strange reunion. Souvent je me suis trouv6 dans 
 la n^cessite d’en faire, tant a mes amis qu a des curieux, une 
 explication qui, bien qu’assez etendue, etait loin cependant 
 de les satisfaire. J’omettais toujours quelque circonstance 
 importante ; j’intervertissais l’ordre du r6cit en n’observant 
 [p . 34 ] pas celui dans lequel sont ranges les figures, et, lorsque j’en 
 venais a nommer Chaucer, le poete dont l’ouvrage a donn6 
 lieu a la composition de Stothard, on redoublait de questions 
 k son sujet. . . . Je pris done le parti, pour satisfaire plus 
 completement la curiosity des autres et me soulager, il faut 
 bien le dire, de la r6p6tition assez frequente des memes 
 paroles, de traduire le Prologue des Contes de Canterbury , du 
 poete anglais Chaucer . . . prologue qui fait le sujet de la 
 gravure. . . . 
 
 Mais cette explication, mise a la portee de mes curieux, 
 ne fut pas encore suffisante pour plusieurs d’entre eux. 
 Ceux de ces derniers surtout qui aiment ou cultivent les 
 
52 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1838- 
 
 lettres n’avaient pas plutot lu la traduction du Prologue 
 . . . devant la gravure, qu’ils recommen^aient leurs ques- 
 tions sur le poete Chaucer, sur ses ouvrages et sur son siecle, 
 tant qu’enfin je cedai a leurs demandes en ajoutant a la 
 traduction qu’ils avaient entre les mains quelques reflexions 
 sur le caractere du talent de Chaucer, sur son temps, sans 
 omettre de faire sentir la distinction des qualites propres a 
 cet ing^nieux 6crivain anglais du quatorzieme siecle avec 
 celles qu’il a empruntees aux auteurs frangais et surtout aux 
 Italiens de son temps. ... [A translation in French prose 
 follows of the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. ] 
 
 [p- 49] II est difficile de trouver un cadre plus ingenieux en lui- 
 meme et plus favorable pour preparer le lecteur a la narration 
 d’une suite de contes ou de nouvelles que ce charmant 
 prologue de Chaucer. Toutefois, ce qui demontre la super- 
 iorite de l’imagination et du talent de cet 6crivain, c’est que 
 la plupart des contes qu il prete a ses personnages sont 
 disposes avec autant d’art et Merits avec autant de verve et 
 d’esprit que le prologue. Aussi les Contes de Canterbury 
 forment-ils le principal titre de la gloire de Chaucer, et 
 marquent-ils une 6poque tres int^ressante dans l’histoire de la 
 literature et de la poesie anglaises, dont Geoffroy Chaucer : 
 est regards com me le pere. 
 
 Ce poete, car il m4rite r4ellement ce nom par la double 
 faculte qu il avait de bien composer et de bien exprimer ses 
 id^es, Geoffroy Chaucer ... est n6 en 1328. ... [A two- 
 page description is then given of England in the fourteenth 
 century, and reference is made to Chaucer’s satire against 
 the Church, and to his sympathy for the doctrines of Wyclif.] 
 
 [p. 52] On sait peu de choses positives sur la vie de . . . Chaucer. 
 
 [The usual statement of his life follows, first as student, then j 
 courtier, lawyer, traveller and ambassador. A short account 
 of his prose works, Boece , the apocryphal Testament of Love \ 
 and the Astrolabe , is then given, with a list of his poems 
 ending with the Canterbury Tales.] 
 
 Tp. 54] Ce recueil de contes, dont on a lu l’ing6nieux prologue, passe 
 pour etre le dernier ouvrage du pere de la poesie anglaise. 
 
 . . . On ne peut douter que le Decameron de Boccace ne lui 
 ait fourni l’idee et la donnee premiere de son recueil ; mais il 
 fatit avouer aussi qu’il est difficile, en suivant la route d’un 
 autre, de s’y montrer avec plus d’originalite et de nouveaut6 
 que Geoffroy Chaucer. Je ne craindrai meme pas d’avouer 
 que, sous le rapport de l’invention, le po&te anglais est 
 
1841] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 53 
 
 souvent sup^rieur au prosateur italien ; et j’en prends pour 
 preuve le prologue des Contes de Canterbury , compart a 
 l’avant-propos du Decameron. 
 
 II me semble que ce seraib un service a rendre aux per- 
 sonnes qui aiment les lettres, comme a celles qui cherchent a 
 s’instruire dans la connaissance des mceurs et de 1 esprit du 
 quatorzieme siecle . . . que de donner une traduction en 
 frangais des Contes de Canterbury. En faisant un premier 
 essai moi-meme sur le prologue, j’ai eu l’idee d’engager 
 quelques jeunes et studieux litterateurs a se livrer a ce 
 grand travail. Malgre les imperfections qui fourmillent sans 
 rp. 55 ] doute dans ma traduction, je crois cependant que la verve 
 petulante avec laquelle le po5te Chaucer a trace les portraits 
 de ses conteurs, edate avec vivacite, et que cette spirituelle 
 preface fera naitre un vif desir de connaitre le reste de 
 l’ouvrage. [The author then proceeds to give a short 
 account of each tale, 6 pp.]. • 
 
 [p. ei] Je ne sais si le lecteur me saura gre des details minutieux 
 que je viens de donner sur l’ensemble et sur les parties des 
 ouvrages de G. Chaucer. Mais ses po&mes sont de nature a 
 ne pouvoir etre analyses qu’isoldnent, car la variete des 
 sujets et du style est un trait caracteristique dans les pro- 
 ductions de cet ecrivain, et je n’ai pas cru pouvoir faire 
 mieux connaitre le genie vari6 de cet homme qu’en repro- 
 duisant successivement toutes les faces sous lesquelles il se 
 presente. 
 
 Geoffroy Chaucer est sans doute une des gloires littdaires 
 de FAngleterre ; mais, en sa qualite de savant, d’ecrivain, 
 de po&te de la renaissance, il appartient a la grande famille 
 europeenne, et doit etre plac6 au nombre des hommes qui 
 ont le plus activement contribu6 a rallumer le flambeau des 
 sciences, des lettres et de l’erudition. Le nom de Chaucer 
 le c&de, il est vrai, a ceux de Dante et de Petrarque, mais on 
 peut l’inscrire sur la meme ligne que celui de Boccace. 
 
 1841. Thommerel, J. P. Eecherches sur la fusion du franco-normand 
 et de Vanglo-saxon y Paris, 1841, pp. 53, 87, 88. 
 
 [p. 53] [Chaucer derides those who spoke French after the 
 fashion of ‘ Stratford le Bow.’ A quotation from the 
 Prologue is given.]. ....... 
 
 [p. 88] On peut done resumer tout ce qui a 6t6 ecrit sur Chaucer en 
 disant : 1° ce n ! est pas lui qui a introduit le premier le 
 
54 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 [A.D. 1841 
 
 fran^ais dans l’anglais, comme l’a pretendu Johnson ; 2° il a 
 ete un grand meleur d’anglais avec le francais (Werstegan 
 [sic] 67) ; 3° s’il ne fut pas la source du pur anglais, comme 
 le dit Spenser, c’est-a-dire de l’anglais sans melange etranger , 
 il a merite ce nom par la purete de ses pensees et de son style! 
 
 1841. Ampere, J. J. Histoire de la literature frangaise au moyen doe 
 comparde aux litteratures e'trangeres, Paris, 1841, pp. liv-]v. J 
 
 ip. liv] Les sujets de plusieurs fabliaux et de plusieurs apologues 
 se retrouvent chez les Arabes, les Persans, jusque dans 
 
 [p. lv] Plnde, jusqu’a la Chine. Puis ils ont 4te reproduits tour a 
 tour par diverses nations de PEurope ; ils ont fourni des 
 themes piquants aux nouvellistes italiens, et a Chaucer. 
 
 1842. Chasles, Y.-E.-Philar6te. Litterature anglaise, [article in thel 
 
 lievue des JJeux Mondes, April 1842, pp. 99, 100. J 
 
 tp. ioo] Jusqu’au dernier souffle de sa vie commerciale et politique 
 PAngleterre conseryera ce caractere, [of observer of man- 
 ners]. Sa superiority d’observatrice n’est pas un merite : 
 c’est pour elle une necessity . . . il faut qu’elle observe, 
 qu elle compare, qu’elle juge, qu’elle soit homme d’affaires et 
 analyste, pour exister. On voit ce caractere se prononcer 
 d une maniere profonde des les premiers pas que fait la 
 Grande-Bretagne dans la carriere litteraire : admirez de quels 
 traits positifs et precis sont marques tous les personnages que 
 le vieux Chaucer met en mouvement dans ses Canterbury 
 Tales. L’homme de lettres, l’6tudiant d ’Oxford, parle peu et 
 d’une voix douce [etc., several pilgrims are cited by way of 
 example]. . . . Tous ces petits traits caracteristiques vous 
 donnent une image nette et complete de chaque personnage, 
 et vous croyez vous promener dans une galerie peinte p & ar 
 Holbein. 
 
 1843 Saint-Laurent Charles [p s ., i.c, L. G. L. G. de Lavergnel 
 [ Art icle Chaueer m the] Dictionnaire encyclopedique usuel, 2« 
 Edition, 1843. [The 1st ed., 1841, is not in B.M.J 
 
 (Chaucer, Geoffiroy) poete anglais, n6 a Londres en 1328. 
 
 Il fut eleve des universites de Cambridge et d’Oxford. En 
 1370, il etait porte-bouclier d’Edouard iii. Sous le regne de 
 Richard n, il fut oblige de s’expatrier pour avoir embrasse 
 la doctrine de Wiclef. Il mourut en 1400, a Londres, et fut 
 enterre a Westminster. On l’a surnomme le Fere de la 
 poesie anglaise. Parmi ses poesies on remarque les Contes 
 de Canterbury. 
 
French Allusions. 55 
 
 1847. Gomont, H. Geoffrey Chaucer poete anglais du XIV siecle. 
 Analyses et fragments , Paris, 1847. 
 
 \ Introduction 
 
 Ip 10 , Chaucer . . . est devenu l’un des sojete d'orgued de ses 
 compatriotes. II a <5te mis par eux au rang de leurs grands 
 pontes • il a etc imite et commente. Les chefs memes de 
 mole classique anglaise, Pope et Dryden, se sont empresses 
 de lui prodiguer leurs hommages. L’un Fa proclaim^ le 
 crdateur du pur anglais; l’autre, non content de lui 
 attribuer le incite impossible a son epoque d’une prosodie 
 achevee, a 6t6 jusqu’a vouloir en faire l’egal d’Homere et de 
 Yirgile. 
 
 L’exag4ration d’un tel Moge n’a pas besom detre d^mon- 
 tr6e. Mais on ne saurait nier les droits de Chaucer a une 
 place eminente dans le pantheon britannique. Possedant 
 
 [P . in une connaissance directe et approfondie des auteurs latins, 
 une science de l’antiquite bien rare au moyen age, et sans 
 doute alors unique en Angleterre, il marche l’egal de Boccace 
 et de Petrarque, ses contemporains. Parfois meme il sut les 
 depasser, grace a Wnergie du saxon, que son gout pour les 
 langues classiques ne l’empecha pas d apprccier. . . . 
 
 Nous voudrions ajouter quelques details sur la vie de notre 
 po&te : malheureusement il nous faudra etre a ce sujet d une 
 grande sobri6t6 ; car les renseignements tout a fait certains 
 sont assez rares, bien que les histoires de Chaucer ne man- 
 quent pas. 
 
 [ P . 12 ] En France, Feller et l’abbe Suard [sic, should be 
 l’abbe Feller et Suard], ont public des biographies de 
 cet auteur. La notice du premier est evidemment 
 aussi inexacte que tronquee; pour en faire apprccier 
 l’esprit, nous dirons seulement qu’elle appelle Chaucer le 
 Clement Marot anglais. L’ceuvre du second atteste du soin 
 et des recherches ; mais elle se compose encore de faits 
 trop legerement admis pour avoir un caractere authentique. 
 Des travaux plus serieux ont n^cessairement ete faits en 
 Angleterre ; et, parmi les auteurs qui se sont occupes de 
 Chaucer, trois surtout a notre connaissance, ont ecrit avec 
 science et reflexion ; ce sont, Speght, Godwin, et John 
 Urry. . . . 
 
 [Here follows a short life of the poet, written with care. 
 The Testament of Love is given as the foundation for the 
 story of Chaucer’s flight. Next comes a collection of 
 
56 
 
 Appendix B. [ a . d . 1347 
 
 -Umoignages d’auteurs contemporains en faveur de Geoffrey 
 Chaucer, [pp. 27-31], quotations from Lydgate (Prologue 
 of the Siege of Thebes ), and from Gower (Epilogue Conf 
 Amantis), translated into French, and the ballade of 
 Leschamps. Then follows a description of] 
 
 (1) Po&mes all^goriques et songes. 
 
 I ... Le Palais de la Benoynimee. 
 
 Dans cette oeuvre, dont Pope a donn4 une imitation, le 
 g^me de 1’auteur revet un caractere qui ne lui est pas habi- 
 tuei. Ici, Chaucer laisse de cot4 ses sujets de predilection, 
 cest-a-dire les tableaux gracieux, les sentiments melanco- 
 liques ou tendres, les scenes naivement comiques, pour 
 prendre un essor plus 41eve. II recherche avant tout les 
 <il<5ments poetiques d’une nature gigantesque. Des foules 
 innombrables, des espaces infinis, des bruits (Stranges : voila 
 ce qu’il se plait it decrire. Dans cette oeuvre singuliire, les 
 jeux de son imagination nous semblent rappeler parfois les 
 conceptions d’un peintre moderne, son compatriote, le fan- 
 tastique Martins [sic], Mais, chez le poete anglais, la 
 grandeur des idees et larichesse de la creation sont rarement 
 exemptes de confusion. Le palais de la Renommee peche par I 
 tr.39j un defaut de plan bien sensible, et par des repetitions, des 
 redondances qui en rendent la lecture difficile et fatigante. 
 
 [A detailed account of the poem follows, pp. 39-48.] 
 
 (p. Le lime de la duchesse. [An account of the poem with 
 long quotations in French, pp. 49-54.] 
 
 (p.mi On y trouve [in the last part of the Boke of the Duchesse] I 
 . . . plusieurs de ces traits de nature qui placent Chaucer si 
 haut dans l’opinion de Walter Scott. Mais ce sont des ' 
 traits fugitifs qu’absorbe . . . le fatras de mauvais gout au ‘ 
 milieu duquel ils se rencontrent. 
 
 [p. 73j (2) Contes et Recits non-allegoriques. 
 
 Tro'ile et Cresside , poeme en cinq chants, d’un style gen6- 
 ralement obscur. Le mauvais gofit et la bizarrerie y 
 dominent. J 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 lp.74] Les Contes de Cantorbery. Bien que laissee incomplete par 
 l’auteur, cette composition est la plus vaste de Chaucer. 
 
1847] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 57 
 
 [p- 81] 
 
 [?. 82] 
 
 [p 83] 
 
 [The author gives an abridgement of the Prologue in 
 French, up to the end of the description of the Prioress.] 
 
 Cette galerie de personnages se continue de la 
 sorte pendant cinq ou six cents vers, et nous montre, 
 ainsi que l’annonce l’auteur, des voyageurs de rangs fort 
 divers. . . . 
 
 On peut reprocher a ces portraits quelque chose 
 d’ uniforme dans 1 exposition, souvent aussi oes redondances 
 de mots et d’idees ' } mais les d^fauts de 1 ensemble dis- 
 paraissent devant la piquante richesse des details ; et Intro- 
 duction aux Contes de C antorbery est, sans contredit, une des 
 oeuvres les plus remarquables de Chaucer. En effet, trac6 
 avec une verve et une originalite soutenues, chaque caractere 
 de cette nombreuse reunion presente l’etude d’une classe 
 sociale au quatorzieme siecle. Le poete, d’ailleurs, comme on 
 a deja pu en juger, ne se renferme pas dans la description 
 des choses exterieures et materielles, des figures ou des 
 costumes ; il est philosophe aussi bien que peintre ; il p^netre 
 l’esprit, les moeurs, les ridicules de ses contemporains. 
 Ajoutez a cela que ses critiques, comme toutes les observa- 
 tions faites sur le fond meme de l’esprit humain, se trouvent 
 souvent applicables a tous les temps. Ainsi le lord des 
 sessions, ‘ bon vivant a complexion sanguine, inaugurant sa 
 journee par une soupe au vin et tenant table ouverte en 
 permanence,’ devait etre le modele parfait des magistrats 
 provinciaux de son epoque ; et aujourd’hui encore, il pour- 
 rait representer certains juges de paix de la joyeuse Angle- 
 terre. Nos comedies n’offrent pas de meilleurs types que la 
 bourgeoise de Bath, veuve de cinq epoux, ‘toujours la 
 premiere .de sa paroisse a aller a l’offrande, et se mettant 
 en fureur si quelqu’un l’y devancait; du reste, excellente 
 pour rire, causer, amuser en voyage et indiquer des recettes 
 contre Famour.’ On en peut dire autant du medecin, 
 ‘ homme des plus savants, qui faisait gagner les apothicaires 
 et que les apothicaires faisaient gagner.’ A cote de ce digne 
 pendant des docteurs de Lesage et de Moliere, figure fort 
 bien aussi le sergent de la loi. . . . Derriere ces figures d’un 
 comique un peu grotesque, vient le personnage modeste du 
 clerc d’Oxford, comme pour montrer que Chaucer s’entendait 
 aussi en comique delicat et de bon gout. Dans le portrait 
 de ce pauvre savant, ‘ maigre de corps, maigrement vetu, 
 maigrement mont6, fort logicien, du reste pas assez mondain 
 
58 
 
 Appendix B. [ a .d. 1847 
 
 pour avoir un office/ se rencontre le sarcasme fin, le pinceau 
 a la fois juste et retenu de La Bruyere. 
 
 , Nous pourrions puiser dans les caracteres du matelot, de 
 [p. 84] l^conome, de l’intendant, du meunier, nombre de passages 
 aussi heureux, nombre de traits dignes d’etre etudes par 
 quiconque a la pretention de peindre le cceur humain, et qui 
 certainement ont M exploites plus d’une fois par les 
 £crivains anglais ; mais il est une autre face de l’intro- 
 duction aux Contes de Canlorbery, qui m6rite aussi sa part 
 d’examen. 
 
 Chaucer ne s’est pas renferme dans la peinture des ddauts 
 ou des vices domestiques. Outre la satire priv^e, il a fait de 
 la satire sociale ; et, dans cette partie de son oeuvre, il a des 
 droits non-seulement a 1 attention du litterateur, mais encore 
 a celle de 1 historien. Soit que l’on considere ses tableaux 
 comme un miroir fidele du temps, soit qu’on y voie simple- 
 ment l’opinion passionn^e d’un homme, ils sont une source 
 precieuse de documents sur l’etat des esprits et des choses en 
 Angleterre, au quatorzieme siecle. D’abord, le lecteur y 
 trouve la preuve que cette hardiesse de pensee, si commune 
 jadis parmi nos poetes et nos romanciers, se rencontrait 
 aussi de l’autre cote de la Manche. Ensuite, tout en ' 
 
 exagerant peut-etre les desordres produits, a cette epoque, 
 par un clerge souvent sans vocation, ces satires attestent du 
 moins de deplorables abus ; -elles en indiquent la nature et, 
 jusqu’a un certain point, la gravite. Les diatribes du poete 
 auront encore un autre interet, si l’on se rappelle l’adhesion 
 [p- 85] de Chaucer a certaines doctrines heterodoxes de Wiclef ; car 
 elles seront alors l’expression vivante de l’animosite des 
 reformateurs anglais du quatorzieme siede, envers la 
 hierarchie ecclesiastique. 
 
 Les personnages que Chaucer, dans sa galerie de portraits, a 
 sacrifies en partie a la verite historique, en partie a ses antipa- * 
 thies de reformateur, sont le moine, le frere mendiant,Phuissier 
 Episcopal et le porteur d’indulgences. Le premier de ces 
 quatre personnages a servi de modele a Walter Scott pour son 
 prieur de Jorvaulx seulement, le romancier ecossais, avec 
 ce tact si remarquable en lui, n’a emprunt6 a loriginal que des 
 traits et des couleurs adoucis, presumant que c’dait le plus 
 sur moyen de rester dans le vrai. Yoici le caractde trace 
 par Chaucer : on pourra le comparer avec celui du moine 
 d’lvanhoe. 
 
18 47] French Allusions. 
 
 [The description of the monk follows.] 
 
 88] . . . L’indignite du frere precheur a pour pendant l’ayance 
 et la fourberie de l’huissier episcopal et du porteur d’mdul- 
 gences. Le premier est un effronte voleur, qui, fermant les 
 yeux pour de l’argent sur les plus grands scandales, ne se fait 
 aucun scrupule de tourner en derision l’autorit6 dont ll exe- 
 
 89] cute les ordres. Le second est aussi repoussant au moral qu’au 
 
 physique, une sorte decastrat tout bard4 de reliques menson- 
 g^res, avec lesquelles il soutire de l’argent a tout le monde. 
 
 On dira peut-etre que jusqu’ici cet acharnement contre les 
 mceurs du clerg6 n’est remarquable que par la forme ; que 
 c’est, du reste, le fond des diatribes si frequerrtes chez Boccace 
 et pltrarque en Italie, chez les troubadours et les trouveres en 
 France : soit ; mais voici qui ajoute un trait tout particulier 
 ^ la censure de Chaucer. Apres avoir fl^tri les abus ecclesi- 
 astiques et battu en breche le clerge r^gulier, l’auteur songe a 
 Clever un monument conforme a ses propres doctrines. Cette 
 pretention n’est pas plus avou^e que les vues subversives 
 cachees sous les portraits dont nous venons de rendre compte ; 
 mais ellese sent, elle se revele. Onvaenjuger. Auxindignes 
 personnages dont il vient de peindre les defauts et les vices, 
 Chaucer oppose le caract^re du cure, homme instruit, de 
 mceurs et d’habitudes toutes primitives, et qui preche la vraie 
 morale de Jesus Christ. Ce pretre, bon et resigne dans le 
 [p. 90 ] malheur, qui, malgre l’dtendue de sa paroisse, va, malade ou 
 bien portant, par la pluie ou par le tonnerre, visiter a pied ses 
 paroissienS les plus eloignes, qui reside et n’emploie pas son 
 temps a briguer un benefice lucratif a Londres, ce pretre tout 
 apostolique est le reve du poete. Il en fait un id6al accompli, 
 au sujet duquel il expose ses theories, ou plutot celle des 
 Wiclejistes, qui, non-seulement voulaient Clever le clerge 
 s^culier sur la ruine des ordres monastiques, mais imposaient 
 lp. 9i] aussi aux liommes de Dieu la pauvret6 et 1’innocence des 
 premiers temps du christianisme. 
 
 [Comparison with the Decamerone of Boccaccio] . . . 
 
 [p. 93 ] Exception faite du r6cit du chevalier qui tient un rang 
 tout a fait hors ligne, les contes enchassds dans le pelerinage 
 de Cantorbery, nous semblent l’emporter rarement sur les 
 [p. 94 ] nouvelles du Decameron. . . . C’est le m6rite litt^raire qui 
 seul est en question. Or, sous ce rapport, l’oeuvre de Chaucer 
 prete beaucoup plus a la critique que ne le reconnaissent 
 g6n6ralement ses compatriotes. Aux yeux d’un juge non 
 
60 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1847 - 
 
 pr4venu, la plupart de ses contes paraitront certainement, ou 
 mal choisis, ou d’une narration defectueuse. 
 
 fP ‘ ° 6] ’ ‘ ’ 11 a ^ ^it P^ us haut, que, parmi les contes de Cantor- 
 
 bery, on en trouve un dont la superiority est incontestable. 
 Ce morceau [the Knightes Tale ] important par son ytendue 
 est une sorte de poeme h4roTque oil le bon gout des id^es! 
 1 art du style et l’inttrSt des situations, sont port^s a une 
 hauteur rare chez les ecrivains du moyen age. Une telle 
 oeuvre montre combien Chaucer aurait pu exceller dans les 
 sujets nobles et graves. Inspiree en grande partie par un 
 poeme de .Boccace oubliy maintenant, elle ne doit pour cela 
 rien perdre de notre estime; car nulle composition ne norite 
 da vantage la qualite d’ originate accordee si souvent, et k juste 
 titre, aux autres imitations de notre poyte. 
 
 £P Jo 4 j° 1_ [ Prose translation of the Knightes Tale.] 
 
 [ P p 20 7 - [Analysis of the Prologues and Tales and extracts from 
 J them.] 
 
 tp 2 p 7if: P rief lamination of the shorter poems and prose trans- 
 lations of some of them.] 
 
 1847. Cbauc«°inT ^ l R ™iew of Gomont’s book on 
 u aucer inj Le Moniteur nniversel. Pans, 14 Sept. 1847, p. 2568. 
 
 [A somewhat detailed review, two columns in length.] 
 
 C est avec raison que Geoffroy Chaucer est consider comme 
 Pun des poetes les plus eminents de la vieille Angleterre. 
 Son esprit observateur plein d’etendue, excellait dins une 
 ryproduction originale et feconde des oeuvres qu’il imitait 
 toutes les oeuvres de longue haleine que ce poete nous a laissees, 
 bien qu’yvidemment empruntyes a ses predycesseurs, n’eri 
 ont pas moins un caractere profond d’originalite. [His life and 
 a notice of his works follow.] . . . [The Canterbury Tales . ] 
 Malheureusement les ry C its qu’il met dans la bouche de ces 
 diffyrents personnages ne sont pas toujours en harmonie avec 
 leur caractere. Cependant plusieurs de ces recits sont tres- 
 curieux et tout a fait dignes de remarque. M. Gomont a 
 traduit en entier celui que fait le chevalier, et qui a tout 
 Pinteret et toute l’etendue dun vieux roman de chevalerie. 
 
 [1850.] Chasles, V.-E.-PhilarJte. Etudes sur la literature et les mceurs 
 de l Angleterre an xix e siecle, Paris [1850], pp. 20, 26-7. 
 
 Hu genie de la langue anglaise. 
 
 [p. 20 ] Mainte phrase de Chaucer est tellement normande et 
 
1853] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 61 
 
 saxonne, que personne aujourd’hui ne s’en rend compte sans 
 dictionnaire. 
 
 [p.26] Tout le dictionnaire des archaismes de Chaucer et de 
 Layamon entrera-t-il dans le nouveau lexique ? 
 
 1850 . F[orguesP], E. La Poesie Humor istique,[ article in the] Revue 
 Britannique, July 1850, pp. 97-100. 
 
 [ P . 98] Chaucer, par exemple, dans sa naivety plus savante qu’on 
 ne le dirait, est bien sup^rieur k Butler, bien sup^rieur lui- 
 meme a Wolcott ; ses caricatures sont bien plus fortement 
 burin^es et rappellent bien mieux la nature. . . . On ne 
 saurait dire le charme de cette bonhomie narquoise, de ces 
 rares sarcasmes, pointant, 9a et la, sur un fond uni et tran- 
 quille, et que releve une teinte de p6danterie, apanage du 
 temps. Dans ce cortege si pittoresque des Pelerins de 
 Canterbury, que de pr6cieux apergus ! quelles physionomies 
 spirituellement esquiss^es et d’une ressemblance appreciable 
 encore aujourd’hui ! [The Prioress, Clerk of Oxenford and Man 
 of Lawe are referred to]. . . . Bref, a chaque instant, le trait 
 malin, lepigramme caracteristique, d^cochee a petit bruit, 
 avec une absence de preoccupation, une nonchalance appa- 
 rente qui en doublent le prix pour les connaisseurs. 1 
 
 1 [Note by the editor of the journal, Am6d6e Picliot.] Le 
 prologue des Contes de Canterbury est, a notre avis, un vrai 
 chef-d’oeuvre. Traduit plusieurs fois, il l’a 6te par le r£dac- 
 teur de cet article, il y a quelques annees, ce qu’il rappelle 
 uniquement pour attester la sinc4rit£ de son admiration. 
 
 1853 . Desclozeaux, Ernest. [Article ‘ Chaucer ’ in the] Dictionnaire 
 de la conversation et de la lecture sous la direction de M. W. 
 Duckett, 2® edn., Paris, 1853, tom. v. [Reprinted, with some 
 revision, from the 1st edn. of 1834.] 
 
 Chaucer (Geoffroy). Le premier poete lettr6 qui en Angle- 
 terre ait mani6 la langue nationale, ne a Londres, en 1328 
 [etc. the ordinary biographical details ; very little said about 
 the works]. [Les] c616bres Canterbury Tales. Ces contes nous 
 font entrer dans la vie intime de l’Angleterre au xiv e si&cle. 
 Sup6rieur a celui du Decameron, le plan des Canterbury Tales 
 comporte des incidents qui tiennent la curiosite dveill^e. 
 Que si 1’ action du poeme est un 6v6nement trop simple pour 
 distraire l’attention des r6cits des pterins, le pelerinage lui- 
 meme est un pr^texte suffisant pour reunir dans le meme 
 cadre toutes les classes de la societe, depuis le noble cheva- 
 
62 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1855- 
 
 lier jusqu a l’artisan, et pour peindre les vieilles moeurs et les 
 vieilles coutumes. Chaucer excelle surtout dans les descrip- 
 tions ; on pourrait se passer de ses digressions morales, mais 
 on ne voudrait perdre aucun de ses portraits. 
 
 1855. Rathery, E. J. B. Des Relations sociales et intellectuelles, 
 entre la France et V Angleterre , [in the] Revue Contemporaine , 
 July 1855, pp. 410, 411 [the language of Chaucer and his debt to 
 France] ; August 1855, pp. 41, 42. 
 
 1855. Chatelain, Jean Baptiste de, Chevalier. La Fleur et la 
 Feuille, poeme avec le texte anglais en regard, traduit en vers 
 frangais de G. Chaucer. 
 
 Dedicace, a Miss Kearsley. 
 
 Du Grand Chaucer, de ce charmant conteur, 
 
 Yous qui savez gouter le vieux langage, 
 
 A vous je viens offrir la gente fleur 
 Qu’il fit fleurir sous si touffu feuillage 
 Que fleur et feuille ont encor leur fraicheur. 
 
 Laissez la fleur ! . . . Mais conservez la feuille 
 En souvenir de moi dans votre portefeuille. 
 
 Le Chevalier de Chatelain. 
 
 Geffery Chaucer 
 
 Chaucer, que Ton peut appeler k juste titre le pere de la 
 poesie anglaise, est ne en 1328 et mort en 1400. Le poeme 
 dont nous offrons aujourd’hui la traduction, a nos lecteurs, 
 est a notre avis du moins, une des plus gracieuses creations 
 de son auteur. Nous donnons la version de Chaucer dans 
 son vieux langage, parce que ce vieux langage est mille fois 
 plus naif que le langage modernise, depuis Chaucer, quelque 
 fois par des hommes d’un talent veritable. Inutile de dire j 
 que nous nous serions cru fort impertinent envers la memoire , 
 du grand poete, si nous eussions adopte la version de quelques- 
 uns de ses commentateurs, qui se sont egares a plaisir en 
 voulant expliquer ce qui nous a paru clair comme le jour. 
 
 En 1825 Edward lord Thurlow a publie (imprime par 
 William Nicol, Cleveland Row, St. James’s) The Flower and 
 the Leaf, after the famous poet Geoffrey Chaucer. Nous croyons 
 que le noble lord a ete fort mal inspire en reprenant ainsi 
 Chaucer en sous-ceuvre pour en faire un poeme a alineas de 
 toutes les grandeurs. Lord Thurlow s’est rendu coupable, 
 selon nous, d’une pauvre contrefa^on de Chaucer, de ce poete 
 
1856] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 63 
 
 original qu’il a prive par son fait, clu charme indicible des 
 strophes de sept vers dont le metre est a la fois si original 
 et si musicalement agr^able. 
 
 Si Ton veut savoir le pourquoi de notre predilection pour 
 The Floure and the Leafe, nous dirons tout uniment que ce 
 sujet nous a rappele avec bonheur les na'ives poesies de 
 Clement Marot, qui peut etre consider^ lui comme le pere de 
 la poesie fran^aise. 
 
 Le Traducteur. 
 
 1856. Taine, Hippolyte. Jeffrey Chaucer [article in the] Hevue de 
 Vinstrudion publique, 13 March, 1856, pp. 686-690. 
 
 [A long article on Chaucer, with a notice of his life and of 
 the Canterbury Tales , Troylus, and the Flower and the Leaf, 
 with lengthy French quotations from these poems. Recast 
 in VHistoire de la litterature anglaise , tome i, 1863, q. v.] 
 
 1856. Brunet, G. [Article on Chaucer in the] Nouvelle Biograpliie 
 Generate . . . tom. x, Paris, 1856, pp. 118-120. 
 
 [Biographical and literary notice occupying three columns.] 
 Chaucer (Godefroy), c^lebre poete anglais, ne en 1328, mort 
 le 25 octobre 1400. On manque completement de details au 
 sujet de sa famille ; les uns ont cru qu’il 6tait le fils d un 
 tavernier, d’autres le regardent comme issu de parents 
 nobles. [Then follow the ordinary details of his life, based 
 on the Testament of Love. The Canterbury Tales are next 
 described.] Les sujets graves et plaisants sont entremeles 
 avec art. . . . Le style naif du moyen age prete a ces contes* 
 un charme particulier, ils font les delices des Anglais, qui y 
 trouvent une foule de details curieux sur les mceurs de leurs 
 ancetres. Ils ont moins d’int^ret pour les etrangers, qui 
 seraient sou vent rebutes de leur longueur ; aucune traduction 
 ne saurait d’ailleurs en donner une idee exacte. [Stothard’s 
 picture of the pilgrims is mentioned, and is followed by a 
 list of Chaucer’s works.] . . . Observateur judicieux, Chaucer 
 n’a en vue que des realit^s ; poete essentiellement pittoresque 
 et dramatique, il d^crit d’une fa^on aussi vive que naturelle; 
 ses personnages sont peints d’apres nature, et caracteris6s 
 de maniere a ne pouvoir etre oublies. 
 
 1856. [Le Clerc, Victor.] Histoire litte'raire de la France, ouvrage com- 
 mence par aes religieux benedictins, de la congregation de St Maur. 
 et continue par des Membres de VInstitut , tom. xxiii, Paris, 1856, 
 pp. 46, 77, 83, 143, 247, 503. [See also below under 1862.] 
 
64 Appendix B. [a.d. 1856 - 
 
 [p. 46] Des la fin du xm e [siecle], le roman de la Rose obtint 
 
 une grande cel^brite, qui se maintint et s’accrut encore dans 
 le siecle suivant. Petrarque en Italie et Chaucer en Angle- 
 terre eurent de l’estime pour ce po'eme; Chaucer meme voulut 
 le traduire, et il reste sept mille cent vers de sa traduction. 
 
 [p. 77] [In the study of the Fabliaux] ... II devait y avoir, 
 outre le conte de la Male vieille qui en fait partie, un fabliau 
 franqais de Dame Siriz dont il reste une traduction anglaise, 
 la plus ancienne des narrations anglaises de ce genre, et qui 
 a pr6c£de les imitations de Chaucer, c’est le quatorzi&me 
 chapitre de Pierre d’Alphonse. . . . 
 
 [p. 83] ... Le psautier, que La Fontaine emprunte de Boccace , 
 
 a pour origine, outre les Braies du Cordelier, un Episode du 
 Renart Contrefait, termini vers 1320, trente trois ans avant 
 le Decameron. . . . [The Italians borrowed a good deal 
 from the Latin fabliaux, and there are many reminiscences 
 of their French origin in the Italian novels.] Si les Italiens 
 se sont attribu^ en ce genre une f6condit6 inventive qui ne 
 leur appartient pas, la critique anglaise ne s’est pas moins 
 fourvoyee. Elle savait d’une maniere gen4rale que l’auteur 
 des Contes de Canterbury avait imite les fabliaux fran^ais; 
 mais aucune comparaison n’avait 6t6 faite entre les modeles : 
 et le copiste. On a felicite Chaucer d’avoir dans son 
 Meunier de Trumpington, change heureusement quelques 
 details d’une nouvelle de Boccace, qui passait pour l’in- 
 venteur : tout le merite de Chaucer est d’avoir fidelement 
 transcrit Pancien fabliau. 
 
 i 
 
 tp. 143] Au xiv e siecle, le poete anglais Chaucer, qui a tant imit6 
 nos rimeurs frangais, leur emprunta ce conte [de Gombert et > 
 des deux clercs ], avec beaucoup d’autres, et c’est de la que 
 vient son Meunier de Trumpington. . . . Comme tout le 
 monde avait lu le meme conte dans Boccace ... les eloges 
 des critiques anglais 6taient inepuisables en l’honneur de 
 Chaucer, qui, dans son imitation, avait su ajouter, disait-on, 
 d’heureuses circonstances au recit de Boccace. Nous savons 
 aujourd’hui que tout ce m6rite d’inventeur qu’on lui attribuait 
 consiste a avoir fort bien copi6 notre fabliau. 
 
1857] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 65 
 
 [ P . C 47 ] Chiche face (vilaine mine), esp&ce d’animal fantastique ou 
 de loup-garou, toujours pret, dit-on, 5, devorer les femmes> 
 lorsqu’elles ont le tort de ne pas contredire leurs maris . . • 
 Chicheface dont la maigreur prouve que les femmes ont eu 
 soin de ne pas lui donner l’occasion de se mieux nourrir. 
 Chaucer parle de celle-ci dans la copie qu’il a faite de la 
 Griselidis latine de Petrarque. 
 
 [ P 503 ] . . . En Angleterre, ou le poete Chaucer fait succeder sans 
 
 piti6 a toute la splendeur de la vieille chevalerie le ridicule 
 personnage de Sire Thopas, on trouve aussi, dans le Tournoi 
 de Trottenham [sic\ les nobles ceremonies du champ clos 
 jouees insolemment par des bouffons. 
 
 1857. GefFroy, A. [Account of Chaucer in the] Dictionnaire General 
 de Biographie et d’Histoire , . . . par Ch. Dezobry et Th. Bachelet 
 . . . Paris, 1857, premiere partie, p. 556. 
 
 [A short life of Chaucer, inexact, because founded on the 
 Testament of Love. It concludes thus] : 
 
 Enrichi par les bont^s de la cour . . . il v^cut heureux. 
 Jusqu’alors les poetes anglais avaient 4t£ des savants reclus ; 
 Chaucer fut un homme du monde. Encourage par Jean 
 Gower, son ami, le premier guide de ses etudes, il assigna un 
 rang litteraire a la langue anglaise qu’Edouard hi venait 
 de proclamer langue nationale, a Pexclusion du normand. 
 Quoiqu’il abonde en allusions classiques, il imite les auteurs 
 franQais et etrangers. Ses poesies legeres ressemblent a celles 
 de Froissart. . . . Le long poeme de Tro'ile et Cressida offre 
 des souvenirs de Petrarque, de Boece et d’Ovide. Son 
 Temple de la Renommee , froidement imite par Pope, est de 
 source provengale. Mais ses Contes de Canterbury , souvent 
 imites de Boccace, sont surtout c^lebres : on y trouve Phistoire 
 de Griselidis, des satires contre les moines, une parodie des 
 romans chevaleresques etc. Chaucer a un grand talent de 
 satire et d’observation, une imagination vive et riante ; son 
 style a vieilli, mais se lit encore. . . . 
 
 [It is interesting to note that this account of Chaucer is 
 reprinted almost verbatim in the 12th and last edn. of this 
 work, Paris, 1903. In a Preface to the 10th edn. in 1888, 
 M. Darsy wrote : ‘ Toutes les parties du Dictionnaire ont ete 
 soumises a une revision severe. Tous les articles sans en* 
 
 lj 
 
 excepter un seul, ont ete contrdles, modifies ou remplaces 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. V. F 
 
06 Appendix B. [a.d. 1857 
 
 lorsqu’ils n’etaient plus en rapport avec l’etat actuel de la 
 science.’ Yet we are here told that Chaucer was horn in 1328, [ 
 studied at Oxford, ‘embrassa les erreurs de Wiclef et fut j 
 emprisonne,’ and the Testament de V Amour is especially 
 cited as being one of his prose works.] 
 
 1857-61. Chatelain, Jean Baptiste de, Chevalier. Contes de Cantor- ; 
 bery, traduits en vers fran?ais . . . par le Chevalier de Chatelain. 
 
 3 tomes, London. 
 
 [t.i, [Introduction.] Geoffrey Chaucer, le p&re de la Poesie 
 P ' 1X Anglaise, naquit vers l’an 1328, de quelle extraction? Sa 
 Posterity n’en sait mot ; mais le Genie et l’Esprit £tant la 
 plus pure essence de la Divinite, Chaucer fut noble, le hazard 
 l’eut-il fait naitre de parents n’ayant un nom inscrit dans 
 les fastes de la Noblesse ... [A short life of the poet 
 follows.] 
 
 Les classiques, l’Astronomie, I’Astrologie, les Sciences du 
 droit canon et du droit civil, le Commerce, l’lndustrie, rien 
 ne parait lui [Chaucer] avoir 6t6 complement etranger, et 
 les Contes de Cantorbery en font foi. 
 
 [p. xii] Sur notre traduction des Contes de Cantorbery nous avons 
 peu de choses a dire, en laissant l’appreciation aux critiques . 
 litteraires, honnetes, et heureusement il y en a encore un 
 assez grand nombre en Angleterre. . . . 
 
 [ P . xiii] Regardant Chaucer comme le Boccace de 1’ Angleterre, le 
 mettant sous plus dun rapport, au moins au niveau de 
 Shakespeare, qu’il a precede, le consid6rant, nous le r6p6tons < 
 comme le Pere de la Poesie Anglaise, nous avons cru devoir 
 Clever a sa memoire un monument Europeen, en traduisant j 
 les Contes de Cantorbery en vers frangais ; la langue de 
 [p. xiv] Chaucer, d’un acces assez difficile pour ceux qui sont desireux 
 d’en apprecier les beautes et d’en savourer les charmes, 
 n’etant plus lue, meme en Angleterre, que par le tr&s petit 
 nombre. Nous croyons done livrer a l’admiration du continent 
 non pas notre traduction, comme un certain literary lawyer 
 (un de nos intimes ennemis qui se cache sous ce pseudonyme 
 dans le Morning Star), sera tente de nous en accuser, mais 
 l’ceuvre de Chaucer, qu’on ne se meprenne pas ! Ce n’est pas 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 67 
 
 1857] 
 
 l’habit que nous croyons digne d’admiration, c est le moine 
 en chair et en os. . . . 
 
 Et bien qu’a notre avis il n’y ait pas plus de vilains mots 
 dans Chaucer que dans Boccace, qui a 6t6 lu par tout le 
 monde, encore y en a-t-il beaucoup trop pour les traduire 
 sans vergogne, et les jeter a la face du public dans ce dix- 
 neuvieme siecle devenu d’autant plus prude que l’immoralite 
 y fleurit plus vivace. C’est en cela que notre tache a 6te 
 fort difficile a remplir. Nous avons du laisser autant que 
 possible tout son esprit a Chaucer, en adoucissant toutefois 
 quelques-unes de ses expressions, nous contentant de laisser 
 subsister sa pens6e, en modifiant ou en raturant le mot trop 
 . . . comment dirons-nous cela ? . . . trop peu vetu. . . . 
 
 [p. xv] Quant a la partie materielle de notre oeuvre, nous avons 
 traduit les Contes de Cantorbery sou vent vers pour vers, 
 toujours strophes pour strophes, dans les contes qui sont Merits 
 ainsi par leur auteur ; d’autres fois nous avons laisse courir 
 notre plume sans nous inquirer d’augmenter un conte de 
 vingt, trente ou quarante vers, alors que nous pensions que 
 la narration pouvait gagner du naturel. . . . 
 
 [p. xvi] Nous avons cru devoir comprendre dans la collection des 
 Contes de Cantorbery, le Conte de Gamelvn raconte par le 
 Cuisinier, bien qu’il y ait incertitude s’il est ou non de 
 Chaucer. . . . 
 
 Nous avons cru devoir rendre en vers le conte de M4lib6e 
 raconte en prose par Chaucer, et traduit par lui d’un manu- 
 scrit frangais qui fait aujourd’hui partie du Menagier de 
 Paris , publie par la societe des Bibliophiles Frangais ; nous 
 avons traduit egalement en vers le Conte du Cure , ce long 
 Traite . . . nous paraissant moins lourd en vers. 
 
 [t. ii, [ Introduction .] Messieurs les Puri tains ont erffi cependant 
 
 P ’ Vn haro sur nous et sur notre traduction des Contes de Canter- 
 bury et pourquoi 1 ? . . . Ils seraient, nous le croyons, tr&s 
 embarrasses de le dire : car nous avons 4normement adouci 
 Texpression de Chaucer dans les passages scabreux de 
 quelques-uns de ses contes. Nous serions vraiment tent6 de 
 croire que la langue frangaise etant de nos jours plus facile a 
 lire et a comprendre que le langage a l’ecorce rude de Chaucer, 
 ces pudiques terivains (Anglais) viennent de lire le Pere de la 
 Po'esie Anglaise pour la premiere fois dans notre traduction. 
 
68 
 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1857- 
 
 [p. ix] C’est done a l’adresse de ces critiques Puri tains que nous 
 croyons devoir citer notre r^ponse k un journal de province 
 qui nous fit connaitre qu’il ne serait pas rendu compte dans 
 ses colonnes de notre traduction de Chaucer, parce que nous 
 avions traduit Fceuvre du grand poete in extenso ; et que 
 suivant le conseil que nous a donne depuis le Guardian , nous 
 eussions du omettre la moi tie des contes de cet infame 
 Monsieur Chaucer. . . . 
 
 \Lettrei\ Au pape Pie IX. 
 
 [t. iii, Tr&s cher Frere en Christ. 
 
 P ’ vn A cette anomalie agonisante que vous faites appeler en 
 plein xix e siecle, par une modestie peu digne des Apotres, 
 Yotre Saintete, il a plu : — 
 
 Apres les massacres de Perouse, et par suite apres la perte 
 des Romagnes, 
 
 D’excommunier mon pauvre Moi, avec 30 millions de 
 Frangais, mes compatriotes, et aussi pas mal de millions 
 d’ltaliens : 
 
 II me plait k moi, sans permission, et malgre Fexcommuni- 
 cation dont Yous, hauteur du dogme impie de l’lmmacuiee , 
 Conception, m’avez frapp6, de Yous dedier ma traduction du 
 Plowman , Fun des plus beaux poemes du grand Chaucer. 
 
 Dans cette ceuvre admirable Chaucer a maudi vos pr6d6- 
 cesseurs, Yous et Yotre M6gnie, avec une force et une logique 
 radieuses de v6rite. 
 
 Or Chaucer n’6tant lu que par les Anglais, un peuple de 
 [p. viii] parpaillots, qui ne se prosterne pas devant les idoles cr66es 
 par Yotre Saintete, j’ai cru devoir le mettre a la portae de 
 mes compatriotes les 30 millions d’excommunids par votre 
 dextre sainte, en le traduisant en frangais, a cette fin que 
 Yous meme puissiez le lire, dans vos loisirs, lorsque vous 
 aurez 4t6 chass6 de Rome, ce qui, D.Y., ne peut tarder 
 d’arriver. 
 
 Sans modestie, comme sans presomption, je crois que la 
 malediction formulee par Chaucer sur les Eternelles Iniquites 
 de la Cour de Rome produira plus d’effet que le brandon de 
 discorde que vous avez eu la pretention de jeter ce dernier 
 carnaval urbi et orbi , comme vous dites la-bas. 
 
 Le Cjjevalier de Cuatelain. 
 
1859] 
 
 French Allusions . 
 
 69 
 
 [ P . xiii] [. Introduction .] Pour tout homme qui veut se donner la 
 
 peine de refl^chir, il demeure Evident que le Plowman n’a ete 
 laisse de cote dans les premieres Editions des Contes de Cantor- 
 bery que parce que Chaucer y denon^ait trop vertement les 
 abus scandaleux de la Cour de Rome ; le Catholicisme a l’aide 
 duquel on peut r6duire a l’esclavage une nation, 6tant alors 
 en Angleterre et malheureusement pour elle, la religion 
 dominante. 
 
 [p. xvi] Nos lecteurs trouveront, a la suite de THistoire de B6ryn, 
 l’A. B. C. longtemps attribu6 a Chaucer, et qui est l’ceuvre 
 de Guillaume Guileville. Nous avons 6t6 heureux d’ap- 
 prendre que l’auteur du Plowman n’a 4te que le traducteur 
 de l’A. B. C. . . . nous eussions regrett6 de trouver Chaucer 
 parmi ceux qui font de Marie une vierge immacul^e. La 
 vraisemblance doit etre gard6e meme dans un conte de 
 f6es, meme dans les mythologies de 1’ Antiquity et des temps 
 modernes. 
 
 1859. Sandras, E. G. Etude sur Chaucer consider e comme imitateur 
 des Trouveres, Paris, 1859. 
 
 [Table of contents.] 
 
 [Introduction, pp. 1-7. l re Partie. Biographie et 
 PohMES allegoriques, chap, i, Biographie, pp. 11-29; 
 chap, ii, Roman de la Rose, pp. 31-40; chap, iii, Etude des 
 poemes de source italienne etfran^aise, i.e., Troilus etCresseide , 
 Arcite et Palamon , la Cour d Amour, le Parlement des Oiseaux , 
 pp. 41-74 ; chap, iv, Etude des poemes de source exclusive- 
 ment franQaise, i. e., le reve de Chaucer , Livre de la Duchesse , 
 la Fleur et la Feuille , et petits poemes, pp. 75-110; chap, v, 
 De limitation de Y antiquity dans Chaucfer, Annelida et Arcite , 
 la Ugende des dix-neuf Heroines, le palais de la renommee, 
 pp. 111-132. 2 nde Partie. P1:lerinage de Canterbury, 
 pp. 133-257. 
 
 [p. i] [ Introduction .] J e me propose de faire connaitre les oeuvres 
 
 de Chaucer et les sources ou il a puis6, sans vouloir toutefois 
 lui contester sa part d’originalit£ et son g£nie. Ce qui m’a 
 d6termin6 k entreprendre ce travail, c’est que la plupart des 
 6crivains qui lui ont fourni des mat6riaux ou des modules 
 appartiennent k notre pays. . . . 
 
70 
 
 [P. 3] 
 
 [p.4] 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 [a.d. 1859 
 
 Ces poesies [all, except the Canterbury Tales ] ne sont ni des 
 oeuvres originales ni de fiddles copies : v^ritables mosaiques, 
 elles se composent de passages emprunt^s a divers auteurs ou 
 a divers Merits du meme auteur. Aucune page, prise s6par6- 
 ment, n’appartient peut-etre a Chaucer ; 1 ensemble est a lui. 
 II choisit, il traduit, il combine. Id4es, sentiments, de- 
 scriptions, portraits, situations, tout est de provenance 
 4trangere, presque toujours de provenance frangaise. A ce 
 titre, chacun de ces poemes est digne de notre attention. 
 
 tp. 35] 
 
 [P- 37] 
 
 [pp. 41- 
 50] 
 
 [pp. 50- 
 56] 
 
 Chaucer . . . des sa jeunesse, avait fait du Roman de la 
 Rose son livre de predilection. Il en traduisit une partie, et il 
 prit des inspirations continuelles. C est au point que ce 
 poete, qui sentait les beautes de la nature, qui savait les 
 peindre, se contente souvent dans ses descriptions d’etre le 
 copiste de G. de Lorris ; que cet 6rudit . . . reproduit 
 l’histoire romaine telle que J. de Meung la lui transmet, 
 alter^e par l’imagination des conteurs ; que cet homme de 
 g4nie, qui m^rite d’etre place entre Aristophane et Moliere, 
 arrive a la vieillesse, toujours sous le joug de limitation, et 
 n’ayant gu&re compost que des poemes allegoriques. Quand 
 il renonce a cette poesie de cour si fausse, si mani^ree, et 
 qu il 6crit le Pelerinage de Canterbury , drame vivant et popu- 
 late, on retrouve dans son oeuvre les traits saillants qui ’ 
 caract6risent la seconde partie du Roman de la Rose, de 
 longues tirades contre les femmes et le ridicule jet6 a pleines 
 mains sur les ordres religieux. Sans doute il remonte aux 
 sources premieres ou ont puis6 ses maitres, sans doute il 
 6tudie les ouvrages de leurs disciples, ses contemporains ; 
 mais e’est a l’ecole de G. de Lorris que son gout s’est form6 j 
 ou, si l’on veut, alt6r6 ; e’est a l’ecole de Jean du Meung que 
 s’est fagonn£ son esprit. 
 
 [Sandras shows that Troylus , although translated from 
 the Filostrato of Boccaccio, owes something to Benoit de 
 Sainte-Maure, and that this love-tale was first related by 
 him, and subsequently re-told by Boccaccio, Chaucer and 
 Shakespeare.] 
 
 [The Knightes Tale , translated from the Teseide of Boccac- 
 cio. There is no proof that Boccaccio took his subject from 
 the Greek.] Telle qu’elle se presente, avec les couleurs 
 que Boccace parait lui avoir en partie conserves, je la 
 rattacherais au cycle gr6co-romain ; je lui ferais une place 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 71 
 
 L859] 
 
 entre le Roman de Thebes et celui de Troie. Au lieu de nous 
 laisser aller aux conjectures, il est plus sage de former des 
 veeux pour la decouverte d’un texte qui nous dise que cette 
 charmante fiction est nee de notre sol. 
 
 p. 66.] . . . L’imagination, dans Chaucer, est toujours 1 echo de 
 
 1’ Erudition. Ce n’est pas dans le spectacle de la nature, dans 
 le drame de la vie humaine telle qu’elle s’agite autour de lui 
 et en lui, qu’il puise directement ses inspirations ; il aime les 
 livres, les vieux livres, d’ou sort science nouvelle comme d'un 
 vieux chamjp bU nouveau. C’est avec les souvenirs de ses 
 lectures qu’il compose. Ici, dans un sujet de pure fantaisie, 
 [the Parlement of Foules ], il a mis a contribution Ciceron, 
 Stace, Dante, Guillaume de Lorris, Boccace, Alain de lisle, 
 G. de Machault, et peut-etre quelque Yolucraire qui a 
 6chappe a mes recherches. . . . 
 
 pp. 7i- [Sandras prints the first lines of the rondeau which is sung 
 ^ by the birds [. Pari . of Foules\ , ‘ Qui bien aime a tart oublie, 
 and which he finds at the beginning of one of the two poems 
 by Machaut called Le Lay de plour .] 
 
 [ p . 74] . . . Meme en imitant les Italiens, Chaucer s’est rapproch6 
 
 autant que possible de nos trouv^res. 
 
 [ PP . si- [Chaucer’s debt to G. de Machaut in the Dream of Chaucer 
 891 (Dit du Lyon ) and to Marie de France (Lai d’ Fliduc),] 
 
 [pp. 89- [His debt to the Roman de la Rose , to Machaut, and to 
 9oJ Froissart in the Boke of the Duchesse .] 
 
 [p. in] Chaucer, par certains cotes, touche a la renaissance \ il 
 domine les prejuges de son 4poque ; par d autres, il reste un 
 homme du moyen-age. Il n’a pas, comme son contemporain 
 Petrarque, le vif sentiment, la parfaite intelligence de ce que 
 fut l’antiquite. Il semble ne connaitre les auteurs anciens 
 qu’a travers la naive metamorphose que leur font subir nos 
 trouveres. , . . 
 
 [pp.127- Conclusion de la l e partie. 
 
 [p!^i30] En resume, voici ce que Chaucer doit a l’ltalie : il a imit6 
 le Filostrato et la Theseide , poemes qui sont, l’un certainement, 
 1’ autre vraisemblablement d’origine fran^aise. Tr^s-circon- 
 spect a regard de Petrarque, il ne lui a pris qu’un sonnet, 
 et s’est peut-etre souvenu du Trionfo della Farna. Les 
 
72 Appendix B. [a.d. 1859 
 
 emprunts qui nous sont strangers sont ceux qui proviennent 
 de la Divine Comedie; encore Chaucer, en cette occasion, 
 s est-il servi du rhythme et du style de nos trouveres, de I 
 meme que, dans Troilus et Cresseide , il a prefere notre vers 
 eiegiaque a l’hendecasyllabe italien, le stance de J. de 
 Brienne et de Thibaut, a l’octave, et la naivete de nos 
 rimeurs, a l’^legance presque classique de son modele. 
 
 Tyrwhitt avait soupqonne, d’apres le m^moire du comte de 
 CayluS, qu’un Ditie de Machault n’avait pas ete inconnu. . . . 
 
 Tp. i3i] [a Chaucer]. Une lecture attentive . . . des poesies ... 
 de notre compatriote, m’a prouv6 qu’avec le Homan de la 
 Rose, elles ont servi de modele a Geoffrey, pour plusieurs 
 de ses compositions allegoriques. . . . [Chaucer imitates 
 Machault], et sans doute parce qu’il voit en lui un autre 
 G. de Dorris ) mais il relive cette fade poesie par sa verve 
 caustique et d’heureux emprunts faits a nos auteurs de l’age 
 precedent, entre autres a Marie de France . . . Froissart et 
 Chaucer offrent des passages d’une ressemblance frappante, 
 
 . . . il est . . . difficile de se prononcer sur la priorite. . . . 
 
 [ P . 132] Des po'etes frangais que Chaucer a mis a contribution, il n’a 
 nomme que celui auquel il doit le moins, et qui avait le moins 
 k lui preter, Gransson, gentilhomme qu’il connut a la cour de 
 Richard n. 
 
 . . . . # t t _ t 
 
 [p. 135] 2 e Partie. Pelerinage de Canterbury. L’idee d’encadrer 
 plusieurs histoires dans une narration, nous est venue 
 d’Orient; elle a ete popularisee en Europe longtemps avant 
 Chaucer par Pierre d’ Alphonse, juif converti, auteur de la 
 Disciplina clericalis , et par les nombreuses versions du 
 Roman des Sept Sages. Ce sont des ouvrages qui paraissent 
 avoir servi de module au Pelerinage de Canterbury plutot 
 que le D£cam6ron, inconnu peut-etre a Geoffrey. Mais le 
 poete anglais est superieur a ses devanciers, y compris 
 Boccace, par la fable, qui a un denouement, et par la diversity 
 des personnages qui entraine celle des histoires. 
 
 [p. 138] C est sur ce sujet [the Canterbury Pilgrimage], que le 
 vieux Geoffrey a compose dans une langue claire, riche, har- 
 monieuse, une ample comedie qui le place entre Aristophane 
 et Moliere. Peintre, moraliste, poete, il embrasse dans son 
 
 [p. 139] oeuvre toute la societe contemporaine. . . . Cette vaste com- 
 position offre a la critique deux objets d’examen nettement 
 
1859] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 73 
 
 S( Ws; dun c6t6, l’introduction et les prologues qui prt- 
 cfedent les contes ; de l’autre, les contes. Une distinction 
 plus vraie encore consiste a ftudier les caracteres, puis es 
 situations. On voit alors clairement ce qui appartient au 
 g£nie de Chaucer, dans le tissu de cliaque histoire, le poete 
 anglais n’est qu’imitateur : exposition, incidents, denoue- 
 ment, il emprunte tout k nos ferivains. Dans la peinture 
 des personnages, il est inventeur . . , il a surtout pour 
 [p. 140 ) modele la rteliW qui l’entoure. 
 
 [pp. 142- [Description of the pilgrims.] . . 
 
 U M im- On serait amene k cette conviction qu’en ce siecle, ou 
 % relfaieux et laics jouaient dans les eglises des farces grossitres, 
 Chaucer crtait la vraie comedie, qu’il en fa<;onnait la langue, 
 qu’il enseignait l’art de dessiner des caracteres. . . . On 
 souscrirait peut-etre a cette assertion d’un critique anglais, 
 que Geoffrey, dans la comedie, n’est pas inferieur a Shake- 
 speare. . . • Toutefois, en reconnaissant tout ce qu’il y a 
 d’originalite et d’inspiration directe dans cette partie de 
 l’ceuvre de Chaucer, il est juste de ne pas oublier que souvent 
 nos trouv&res ont trace les premiers lineaments des portraits 
 qu’il achCve si bien. 
 
 [ P p. 197- [The sources of the Tales.] 
 
 [ P f iqV] Le rCsultat de ces investigations laboneuses [de plusieurs 
 6crivains] a CtC de constater que le poete anglais ne doit 
 rien au DCcameron, et qu’il a puisC, comme Boccace, a des 
 sources fran 9 aises. [This point is dealt with in detail. 
 (1) Legends , The Prioresses Tale, seconde Ronnes T. (Jacques 
 de Yoragine), Man of Lawes T. ; (2) Breton lays , Clerkes T. 
 W of Bathes T., Franklin’s T. ; (3) fabliaux , Phisiciens T. 
 (of Jean de Meung), Maniciples T. (influence of Machault 
 and Jean de Meung) Somnores T., (fabliau of Jacques de 
 Baisieux), Milleres T, Marchantes T. (Latin fabliau), Nonne 
 Preestes T. (Roman du Renard).] 
 
 [ P . 253 ] Conclusion de la 2 e partie. . . . Quelle est la part d in- 
 vention qui revient a Chaucer, 1° dans la fable : 2° dans les 
 caractcres : 3° dans les contes 'l 
 
 Je regarde comme sans fondement l’opinion de Tyr- 
 whitt . . . que c’est du DecamCron qu’est venue 1’idee 
 
 [p 254 ] du Pelerinage de Canterbury. La Disciplina clericalis et le 
 Roman des Sept Sages avaient dCja donnC l’exemple de 
 rassembler dans un cadre commun plusieurs histoires. Dans 
 de nombreux passages de nos fabliaux se trouvait dCcnte la 
 

 74 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d, 18C2 
 
 coutume, qui regnait alors chez nous, d’egayer par des recits 
 la table d’un liote. . . 
 
 2 On reconnait que c’esfc dans la peinture des caracteres 
 [p. 255] que Chaucer a deploye le plus d’originalitt, et a montre qu’il 
 savait allier l’observation la plus exacte, la reflexion la plus 
 profonde, a une imagination vraiment puissante. . . ] 
 
 Toutefois, meme dans eette partie de son muvre, son inspire- 
 tion n’est pas entierement d^gagee de reminiscences puisees I 
 chez nos trouveres. 
 
 3° Chaucer n’est l’inventeur d’aucun des contes inseres 
 dans son poeme . . . j’ai constate que, dans les legendes, le 
 poete suit ordinairement le texte; que, dans les lais bre- 
 tons, il mele l’erudition et la satire k lament chevaler- 
 esque; qu’enfin, dans les fabliaux, tout en se conformant au 
 canevas pnmitif, il devient createur, k la maniere de 
 la Fontaine. . . . 
 
 tp. 257] Deux noms de poetes fran ? ais me semblent caractdriser le 
 g<5nie du pere de la poesie anglaise. Dans ses poemes 
 allegonques et chevaleresques, Chaucer adopte le genre mis 
 en vogue par G. de Lorris-, dans le I'Merinage de Canter- 
 bury, ? element qui domine, c’est la satire, et les traits en , 
 i sont dln 8« s contre les memes objets qu’avait attaques la 
 verve erudite et impitoyable de Jean de Meung. 
 
 [For critical review s of Sandras’s book, see Adolf Ebert’s, of 1861 translated in 
 
 cZZeZ^Z Chf T r S ° dety ’ 1869 ’ F - J ’ ^rnivali, THai to 
 
 Chaucers Minor Poems, 1871, pp. 45-63, and Athenceum, Aug. 3, 1872, p. 147.] 
 
 1862 Londre^llfif ? a ? ti a e ?- e - Beaute ' s de la anglaise, 
 
 mtpp’ 4® 2 ;ii;ti: , 43 ntrodactlon ’ pp - xi > xiv - xv ’ - 1 - * 
 
 [Brief allusions to Chaucer ] 
 
 18 <32 Le Clerc, Victor Histoire Utteraire de la France, ouvrane 
 c^mence par des rdigieux bene'didins de la congregation de it 
 Maur et continue par des membres de VInstitut (Academie des 
 Jnscn^o^s ^ Belles-lettres ), tome xxiv, 1862, pp. 136 400-401 
 SOO-oOl, 502, 503, 504, 505-10, 520. [See alsi aboveT 1856.] ’ 
 
 [P. 136] ... l’Angleterre a son Wiclef, ap6tre de la separation 
 
 deux si&cles avant l’independance anglicane, et dont les 
 enseignements se repandent sans obstacle, propag^s par le 
 poete Chaucer, qui les recommande a la multitude. 
 
18 ^ 2 ] French Allusions. 75 
 
 IPP 'oi]°“ [Chaucer’s prioress, and the French which she speaks.] 
 
 [rp. 500 - TChaucer satirises chivalry in Sir Thopas .] 
 
 501 ] L ...... 
 
 [p 505] De ces traductions sans nom, ou qui portent des noras peu 
 connus, il est temps d’arriver a quelques noms ceBbres. 
 Chaucer avait beaucoup ‘ translate ’ ; c’est ce que proclame 
 [p . 506] un de ses amis, le poete frangais Eustache Desehamps : 
 
 Grant translateur, noble Geffroi Chaucier. 
 
 Ne a Londres vers l’an 1330 , mort en 1400 , il avait vu la 
 France, l’ltalie, et, comme ses meilleurs disciples, Gower et 
 Lydgate, il avait mis a profit les po'etes des deux pays : on ne 
 croit pas qu’il eut etudie ceux de la Provence. 
 
 [A list follows of his translations and imitations, pp. 
 
 506 - 7 .] 
 
 [p. 507] On sait que plusieurs nouvelles des autres p&lerins, comme 
 celle de Griselidis . . . viennent reellement de Boccace ; 
 mais on n’ avait pas fait une observation qui est de quelque 
 importance dans notre sujet, c’est que diverses circonstances 
 des nouvelles de Chaucer, qui ont passe jusqu’ici pour d’heu- 
 reux changements de son invention, sont tout simplement 
 traduites de nos fabliaux. On le louait aussi d avoir le 
 premier . . . Iaiss 6 voir, dans son etrange figure de sir 
 Thopas, le cote grotesque ou heroi-comique de la chevalerie : 
 nous pouvons affirmer aujourd’hui que dans ce genre qui 
 a fait la gloire du Pulci et de l’Arioste, il avait ete devance, 
 ainsi que l’auteur du Tournoi ridicule de Tottenham, par le 
 Dit d’aventures, par les faceties trop libres d’Audigier, parle 
 Siege du chateau de Neuville, par le petit poeme sur Charle- 
 magne a Constantinople, et meme par de grandes composi- 
 tions telles que le Moniage Guillaume, Bainouart, Baudouin 
 de Seburg. 
 
 Ces nombreuses imitations de notre vieille poesie frangaise 
 n’avaient pas ete suffisamment remarquees dans Chaucer, 
 parce qu’on s’etait preoccupe de ses rapports avec ITtalie ; 
 mais nous croyons que plus on comparera ses oeuvres avec 
 celles de nos trouveres, plus on reconnaitra combien il leur 
 ressemble. C’est une ressemblance fort naturelle de la part 
 de celui qui disait : ‘ Des esprits superieurs se sont plu a 
 “ dieter ” en frantjais, et ils ont accompli de belles choses . . . 
 (Test, of Love , prolog.). 
 
70 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1862 - 
 
 Chaucer a tous les defaults des trouveres ; il est inegal 
 comme eux ; il s’abandonne a tous les hasards d’une imagina- 
 tion capricieuse • il ignore les conditions difficiles de l’ordre et 
 de la proportion, l’art de preparer et de lier entre elles les 
 diverses parties d’un recit; le style meme, qui ne manque ni ! 
 de force ni d’adresse, abonde, comme chez ses maitres, en I 
 [p. 508] negligences et en triviality. L’avantage de Chaucer est 
 d’avoir ete toujours lu et compris d’un grand nombre de ses | 
 compatnotes, tandis que nos vieux poetes ont eu a subir, I 
 en Fiance, un tel oubli, qu’on y a fait honneur de leurs '] 
 inventions a des imitateurs etrangers. 
 
 1862. Tame, Hippolyte. Chaucer et son temps, [four articles in thel 
 Journal des Debats, December 16, 17, 18, & 24, 1862. J 
 
 I. En quoi Chaucer est du moyen age : poemes d’ima<dna- 
 tion. 
 
 II. En quoi Chaucer est du moyen age : poemes d’amour. 
 
 III. En quoi Chaucer est Frangais : poemes satiriques et 
 gaillards. 
 
 IV. En quoi Chaucer est Anglais et original : ses portraits 
 et son style. 
 
 ^ ecas ^ kh e Histoire de la litterature anglaise tome i 
 1863, see below.] 
 
 1863. Taine, Hippolyte. Histoire de 
 chapitre 3, La nouvelle Langue , 
 taining] : 
 
 la litterature anglaise, tom i 
 pp. 135-7, 166, 171-242 [con- : 
 
 I. Chaucer. Son education.— Sa vie politique et mondaine 1 
 — En quoi elle a servi son talent.— Il est peintre de la 
 seconde societe feodale. 
 
 II. Comment le moyen age a degenere.— Diminution de | 
 serieux dans les moeurs, dans les ecrits et dans les ceuvres i 
 d’art.— Besoin d excitation.— Situations analogues de 1’archi- S 
 tecture et de la litterature. 
 
 III. En quoi Chaucer est du moyen age.— Poemes roman- 
 tiques et decoratifs.— Le Roman de la R*ose.—Troilus et 
 Cressida.— Contes de Cantorbery.— Defile de descriptions et 
 d’evenements .— La Maison de la Eenommee .— Visions et 
 reves fantastiques.— Poemes d’amour .— Troiluset Cressida.— 
 
 Developpement exagere de l’amour au moyen age. Pour- 
 
 quoi l’esprit avait pris cette voie.— L’amour mystique.— La 
 Fleur et la Feuille.-Va.moMT sensuel .—Troilus et Cressida. 
 
 IV. En quoi Chaucer est Frangais. — Poemes satiriques et 
 gaillards. Contes de Cantorbery . — La bourgeoise de Bath et 
 
1863 ] French Allusions. 77 
 
 le mariage.— Le frere queteur et la religion.— La bouffonnene, 
 la polissonnerie et la grossierete du moyen age. 
 
 Y En quoi Chaucer est Anglais et original.— Conception 
 du caractere et de l’individu.-Yan Eyck et Chaucer sont 
 contemporains. — Prologue des Contes de Cantorbtry.- 
 Portraits du franklin, du moine, du meumer, de la bourgeoise, 
 du chevalier, de l’ecuyer, de l’abbesse, du bon cure —Liaison 
 des evenements et des caracteres.— Conception de 1 ensem- 
 ble.— Importance de cette conception.— Chaucer precurseur 
 de la Renaissance.— II s’arrete en chemin.— Ses longueurs e 
 ses enfances.— Causes de cette impuissance.— Sa prose et ses 
 idees scolastiques— Comment dans son siecle il est isole. . . . 
 r P . 172] [Vers le quatorzieme siecle, en Angleterre] . . . il y 
 avait place pour un grand ecrivain. Un homme supeneur 
 parut, Jeffrey Chaucer, inventeur quoique disciple, original 
 quoique traducteur, et qui, par son g<hiie, son education et 
 sa vie, se trouva capable de connaitre et de pemdre tout un 
 monde, mais surtout de contenter le monde chevaleresque 
 et les cours somptueuses qui brillent sur les sommets. . . . 
 
 [p ns] Comme Froissart, et mieux que Froissart, il a pu pemdre 
 les chateaux des nobles, leurs entretiens, leurs amours, meme 
 quelque chose d’autre, et leur plaire par leur portrait. . . . 
 
 t P 182 ] Chaucer decrit une troupe de pelerins, gens de toute con- 
 dition qui vont a Cantorbery ... qui conviennent de dire 
 [ P . 183 ] chacununehistoire. ... Sur ce fil leger et flexible, tous les 
 joyaux, faux ou vrais, de l’imagination feodale viennent 
 poser bout a bout leurs bigarrures et faire un collier . . . 
 Chaucer est comme un joaillier, les mains plemes ; perles et 
 verroteries, diamants 6tincelants, agates vulgaires, jais 
 sombres, roses de rubis, tout ce que l’histoire et Timagination 
 ont pu ramasser et tailler depuis trois siecles en Orient, en 
 France^ dans le pays de Galles, en Provence, en Italie, tout 
 ce qui a roul6 jusqu’a lui entrechoque, rompu, ou poll par le 
 courant des stecles, et par le grand pele-mele de la ntemoire 
 humaine, il l’a sous la main, il le dispose, il en compose une 
 longue parure nuancee, a vingt pendens, a mille facettes, et 
 qui, par son 6clat, ses vari6t6s, ses contrastes, peut attirer et 
 contenter les yeux les plus avides d’amusement et de 
 nouveaut6. . . % 
 
 tp. 200 ] [Love-poems. In writing of Troylus, Taine gives a quota- 
 tion from The Cuckoo and the Nightingale, 11. 241-250, 
 
78 Appendix B. [a.d. 1863- 
 
 wherein the nightingale weeps for sadness on hearing the 
 cuckoo speak evil of love.] 
 
 Eh bien, dit-il, use de ce renaede, . . . 
 
 Puis il commenga bien haut la chanson 
 
 ‘ Je blame tous ceux qui sont en amour infid &les.’ 
 
 Cest jusqu’a ces delicatesses exquises que l’amour, ici S 
 comme chez Petrarque, avait porte la poesie : meme par 
 raffinement, comme chez Petrarque, il s’egare ici parfois dans 
 le bel esprit, les concetti et les pointes. Mais un trait 
 [p. 201 ] marque le separe a l’instant de Petrarque. S’il est exalte, il 
 est outre cela gracieux, poli, plein de mievreries, de demi- 
 moqueries, de fines gaietes sensuelles, et un peu bavard, tel 
 que les Frangais l’ont toujours fait. C’est que Chaucer ici 
 suit ses veritables maitres, et qu’il est lui-meme beau diseur, 
 abondant, prompt au sourire, amateur de plaisir choisi, disciple 
 du Roman de la Rose, et bien moins Italien que Frangais. 
 La pente du caractere frangais fait de l’amour, non une pas- j 
 sion, mais un joli festin, arrange avec gout, ou le service est 
 elegant, la chair [sic] fine, l’argenterie brillante, les deux 
 convives pares, dispos, ingenieux a se prevenir, a se plaire, 
 a s’egayer et s’en aller. Certainement dans Chaucer, a cote i 
 des tirades sentimentales, cette autre veine coule, toute \ 
 [p. 202 ] mondaine. . . . Non seulement il est gai, mais il est moqueur 
 d un bout a 1 autre du r6cit [de Tro'ilus et Criseyde\ , il voit 
 clair a travers les subterfuges de la pudeur feminine j il en 
 nt malicieusement et sait bien ce qu’il y a derri&re ; il a l'air 
 de nous dire, un doigt sur les levres : ‘Chut! laissez couler I 
 les grands mots, vous serez £difi6 tout a l’heure.’ . . . 
 
 [p. 203] D’autres traits sont encore plus gais : voici venir la vraie j 
 litterature gauloise, les fabliaux sales, les mauvais tours joues J 
 au voisin, non pas enveloppes dans la phrase ciceronienne de ij 
 Boccace, mais contes lestement et par un homme en belle 
 humeur. Surtout voici venir la malic© alerte, l’art de rire 
 aux depens du prochain. Chaucer l’a, mieux que Rutebeuf, 
 
 [p. 204] et quelquefois aussi bien que la Fontaine. Il n’assomme 
 pas, il pique, en passant, non par haine ou indignation pro- 
 fonde, mais par agilite d’esprit et prompt sentiment des 
 ridicules ; il les jette a pleines poignees sur les personnages. 
 [Taine then deals with the Wife of Bath & the Monk.] 
 
1865 ] French Allusions. ' 
 
 [p. 217] Pour la premiere fois, chez Chaucer, comme cliez Van 
 Eyck, le personnage prend un relief, ses membres se tien- 
 nent, il n’est plus un fantdme sans substance, on devhm son 
 passe, on voit venir son action . . . encore aujourd bui, 
 apres quatre siecles, il est un individu et un type ; il reste 
 debout dans la memoire humaine comme les creatures de 
 Shakespeare et de Rubens. Cette eclosion, on la surprend 
 ici sur le fait. Non-seulement Chaucer, comme Boccace, relie 
 ses contes en une seule histoire, mais encore, ce qui manque 
 chez Boccace, il debute par les portraits de tous ses conteurs, 
 [p. 218 ] chevalier, huissier [etc.] . . . environ trente figures dis- 
 tinctes . . . chacune peinte avec son temperament . . . 
 ses habitudes et son passe ... si bien qu’on trouverait ici, 
 avant tout autre peuple, le germe du roman de moeurs te 
 que nous le faisons aujourd’hui. ... 
 tl >. 222 ] [Portrait of the Prioress.] Voici done la reflexion qui 
 commence a poindre, et aussi le grand art. Chaucer ne 
 s’amuse plus, il 6tudie. . . . Chaque conte est appropne au 
 conteur. . . . Tous ces recits sont lies, et beaucoup mieux 
 que chez Boccace, par de petits incidents vrais, qui naissent 
 du caractere des personnages, et tels qu’on en rencontre en 
 voyage. ... 
 
 [p. 225 ] On est sur le bord de la pensee independante et de la 
 d^couverte feconde. Chaucer y est. ^ A cent cinquante ans 
 de distance, il touche aux poetes d’Elisabeth par sa galerie 
 de peintures, et aux reformateurs du seizieme si&cle par son 
 portrait du boil curA 
 
 
 1864. Sainte-Beuve, C.-A. [Review of Taine’s Histoire de la 
 Litterature anglaise, reprinted in] Nouveaux Lundis , tome vm, 
 Paris, 1867, pp. 90, 92, 132. 
 
 [p. 90 ] Chaucer, le premier en date des poetes et conteurs anglais, 
 est un disciple des trouveres et auteurs de fabliaux ; il y 
 joint pourtant, dans le tour et la fa^on, quelque chose de bien 
 a lui ; il a deja de ce qu’on appellera V humour et une grande 
 vivacite naturelle de description : on l’a heuresement com- 
 pare a une riante et pr^coce matinee de printemps. 
 
 1865. Circout, Adolphe de. [Review of The Origin and History of 
 the English Language , etc., by G. P. Marsh, q. v. above, JPt. ii, sect, l, 
 1862, in the] Revue Britannique , August, 1865, pp. 474, 476. 
 
 [p. 475 ] Chaucer occupe, dans la litterature anglaise, le meme rang 
 que Dante dans celle de l’ltalie. De mbme que son incom- 
 
80 
 
 Appendix B. [a.D. 1860 - 
 
 parable precurseur, il n’a rien invents, dans le sens absolu de 
 ce terme . . . ses contemporains hors d’Angleterre ne le 
 saluaient que du titre de ‘ grand translates, ’ c’est pourtant 
 sur les compositions originales de Chaucer, bien plus que sur 
 sa version m6trique du Roman de la Rose, que repose l’^difice 
 solide de sa reputation. Les Re'cits du pelerinage a Cantor- 
 bery peuvent supporter la comparaison avec le Decamerone, et 
 Chaucer, en tant que poete, l’emporte certainement sur 
 Boccace. . , . 
 
 1866. Unknown. [Review of Tame s Histoire de la litterature anqlaise 
 translated from the Edinburgh Review of April, 1865, in the! Revue 
 Bntannique , January 1866, pp. 56-57, 59. 
 
 [p.56] La langue anglaise 4tait forage; un grand poete parut 
 pour en montrer la richesse. Chaucer est un gentilhomme 
 accompli qui sait le monde. . . . Cai et Uger de tempera- 
 ment comme un Frangais, il est pourtant de son pays. A 
 des conceptions dramatiques, a un rude esprit de satire, il 
 joint un gout passionne pour la nature et une veine de medi- 
 tation serieuse qui caracterisent le genie anglais. 
 
 1867. Larousse, Pierre [Article ‘ Chaucer ’ in the] Grand dictionnaire 
 ■umversel du xi x e siecle, tome iii, p. 1093, col. 1 and 2. 
 
 Chaucer ( Geoffroy ), poete anglais, a Londres en 1328, 
 mort en 1400. Il 6tait, suivant les uns, fils d’un marchand, 
 suivant d autres, issu d’une famille noble. Quoi qu’il en soit, 
 il fit de bonnes etudes a Cambridge et a Oxford [etc., the 
 Court of Love]. . . . Independamment de grandes quality 
 poetiques, Chaucer annonga de bonne heure un esprit juste 
 et profond, capable de s’appliquer aux sciences positives. 
 Apres etre sorti des universites, Chaucer voyagea quelque 
 temps en France et dans les Pays-Bas, puis il entra a la cour 
 dans les pages d’Edouard in. Cette cour 4tait alors la plus 
 biillante et la plus polie de PEurope. . . . Chaucer s’attacha 
 bientot au due de Lancastre . . . il epousa meme une des 
 femmes de la duchesse, [et le roi] lui confia d’importantes 
 missions diplomatiques et lui donna ensuite la place lucrative 
 de controleur des douanes. A cette heureuse epoque de sa 
 vie, Chaucer composa ses poemes si gais et qui semblent si 
 bien appropries a Phumeur de son temps. L’esprit galant 
 et guerrier qu’on y rencontre etait alors en vogue : aussi 
 leur publication lui acquit-elle une grande renommee. Ses 
 ouvrages furent g4n£ralement applaudis, excepts par les 
 
 1 
 
 < 
 
 .1 
 
 o| 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 81 
 
 moines, dont il attaquait les mceurs dissolues, comme tous 
 les ecrivains du xiv® siecle ; . . . Les moines ameuterent la 
 populace de Londres contre Chaucer, en meme temps que 
 contre le due de Lancastre, qui s’etait declare contre eux. 
 L’hdtel meme du due fut saccage. Chaucer suivit les chances 
 diverses de la fortune de son patron ; il subit l’exil, la prison • 
 il fut enferme pendant trois ann^es a la Tour de Londres. 
 On lui a fait le reproche d’avoir abandonn^ ses anciens amis 
 et de s’etre rallie a la eour ; on Ta accuse meme d’avoir fait, 
 pour quitter sa prison, de coupables revelations ; mais, comme 
 ces pretendues revelations de Chaucer n’amen&rent pour 
 personne de r^sultats facheux, cette accusation tombe d’elle- 
 meme. Chaucer, qui dans sa jeunesse avait traduit les Conso- 
 lations de Boece, n’en montrait pas plus de Constance et de 
 resignation ; la prison le consumait : il voulut en sortir et se 
 rapprocha d’une eour qui ne demandait pas mieux que de le 
 recevoir. 
 
 Richard n regnait alors. Ce prince rendit au poete ses 
 pensions, et l’admit aupres de sa personne ; mais Chaucer se 
 retira bientot a Woodstock, pour y vivre dans la solitude, 
 occup6 seulement de ses travaux litteraires. Il y revit tous 
 ses ouvrages, qu’il corrigea avec soin, se levant avec le soleil 
 et jouissant de tous les charmes du delicieux s^jour qu’il 
 avait choisi. Henri iv, successeur de Richard, voulut 
 ramener Chaucer a la eour ; le poete se rendit a Londres ; 
 mais la mort l’y attendait. Il mourut le 25 octobre 1400. 
 Il fut enseveli dans l’abbaye de Westminster, ce pantheon 
 des illustrations de l’Angleterre, ou les grands Ecrivains 
 dorment a cote des rois et des grands capitaines. On peut 
 y voir encore le monument dedi6 a Chaucer. 
 
 Plusieurs critiques out reproche a Chaucer de s’etre servi 
 d’une foule de mots fran^ais, et d’avoir vicie le pur et 
 antique saxon : ‘ Ils n’ont pas pris garde,’ dit M. H. Lucas, 
 ‘que depuis la conquete on parlait frangais a la eour 
 d’Angleterre, et que les Ecrivains qui ont devanc6 Chaucer 
 ont 4crit en frangais lorsqu’ils n’ont pas ecrit en latin. Il 
 faut lui savoir gre d’avoir ressuscit6 plutot la langue 
 d’ Alfred et d’Egbert.’ 
 
 . . . Son chef-d’oeuvre est la collection de contes en vers 
 intitules Contes de Canterbury , dans la forme du Decameron, 
 et qui nous font connaitre les moeurs des diverses classes 
 de la society anglaise du xiv e si6cle. On trouve dans ces 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. — V. q 
 
82 
 
 Appendix B. [ a . d . 1867- 
 
 contes des portraits peints avec finesse et v6rit4, des traits I 
 satiriques contre le clergd qui rappellent le Partisan de 
 Wiclef, beaucoup d ’imagination, et une naivete malicieuse i 
 a laquelle le langage du temps prete un cbarme particulier 
 pour les Anglais. On a encore de Chaucer : Tro'ile et 
 Cressida, le Temple de la Renommee i une traduction libre du 
 Roman de la Rose , et divers autres poemes remplis de 
 reves, d’all^gories et de dissertations morales ou th^ologiques j 
 dans le gout du temps ; et ou l’on peut relever des I 
 imitations de Boccace, de P^trarque, de Froissart et des 
 troubadours, mais qui 6tincellent de beaut^s originales et ! 
 vraies. Ses oeuvres ont 4t6 souvent r6imprim6es. L’une 
 des meilleures editions est celle de Harris Nicholas (Londres, j 
 1845), avec une vie de Chaucer. 
 
 1867. Ampere, J. J. Melanges d’histoire litteraire , Paris, 1867, pp. 94, 
 352, 450, 454. 
 
 [p. 450 ] Les Renaissances. 
 
 La literature anglaise, au moyen age, ne nous offrira 
 point un de ces sommets £lev6s que nous ont months 
 l’ltalie ou l’Espagne, mais une gracieuse colline, semblable 
 a celles qui forment la riante parure de l’Angleterre ; et 
 autour de cette colline nous apercevons serpenter a 1 ’horizon 
 le cortege mel6 des personnages si divers, et tous si 
 vivement dessin^s par Chaucer, des pelerins de Cantorb^ry. 
 Ils vont vers la vieille cath6drale et, chemin faisant, 
 racontent des fabliaux un peu a la maniere de Boccace : 
 cela est gracieux, aimable, mais n’a rien de la grandeur . . 
 ni de cette montagne au sommet de laquelle 6tait Dante, ni 
 meme de ce rocher de la vieille Castille dont la cime portait 
 le chateau fort du Cid. 
 
 1 
 
 1870. Circourt, Adolphe de. [Article on] Canterbury , [in the] Revue \ 
 Bi-itannique , June 1870, p. 393. 
 
 . . . Canterbury, pendant le quinzieme si&cle, vit a 
 plusieurs reprises cent mille p&lerins inonder son 4troite 
 enceinte. Geoffroy Chaucer et son continuateur anonyme 
 nous ont transmis le tableau curieusement bizarre de leurs 
 occupations, de leurs joyeuses cavalcades, de leurs disposi- 
 tions d’esprit. 
 
 1870. Pichot, AnAd6e. [Notice of the poems of W. Morris in the] 
 Revue Britanniqiie , June 1870, p. 561. 
 
1876] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 88 
 
 Son module est le vieux Chaucer dans le Pelerinage de 
 Cantortery . . . chaque mois [of the Earthly Paradise\ 
 fournit le texte d’un prologue qui rappelle heureusement 
 tantot un avant-propos de Chaucer, tantot les gracieuses 
 digressions de PArioste. 
 
 1873 . Larousse, Pierre. Grand Didionnaire universel du xix e siecle, 
 tome x, 1873, p. 821, article ‘Lydgate (John).’ [Chaucer twice 
 named.] 
 
 1875 - Dantes, Alfred. [Article 1 Chaucer 7 in the] Didionnaire bio- 
 graphique et bibliographique alphabe'tique et metlnodique des hommes 
 les plus remarquables dans les lettres, les sciences et les arts chez tons 
 les peuples, a toutes les epoques , p. 177. 
 
 Chaucer (Geof.) 1328, Lond. — 1400, Dunington. Poete 
 angl., envoy e en mission en Italie, puis en France, obtint les 
 faveurs d’Edouard hi et de Henri iv, mais fut persecute 
 p. Richard n ; est considere comme le pere de la poesie angl., 
 son style a de la vivacite et de l’eclat. 
 
 Contes de Canterbury, La Cour d’amour, Le Temple de la 
 Renommee, Le Testament de V amour, Troilus et Cressida, Le 
 Roman de la Rose. 
 
 CEuv. ed. angl. p. Thomas, Lond., 1721, fo. fig.; p. 
 Tyrwhitt , Oxford, 1798, 2. gr. 4°; p. id. Lond., 1845, gr. 
 8°; 1830, 5, p. 8°, et 1855, 8, 12°; ed. fr. en vers. p. 
 Chatelain , ib. 1857, 2, gr. 8°, et 3, 12°. 
 
 [References to Godwin, Nicolas, Gomont, and four 
 reviews.] 
 
 1875 . Dantes, Alfred. Tableau chronologique . . des principaux 
 evenements de Vhistoire du monde, depuis la creation jusqu’a nos 
 jours [Supplement to the Didionnaire biographique ], p. 18. 
 
 1400. Deposition de Wenceslas. Aven. de Robert. 
 Mort de Chaucer, poete anglais. 
 
 1876 . Chasles, Y.-E. Philarhte. Voyages dun critique a travers la vie 
 et les limes. D Angleterre litteraire, Paris, 1876, pp. 4, 6-7. 
 
 [p- 4 1 Les premieres oeuvres de talent que Ton rencontre dans la 
 litterature anglaise avant le seizieme et pendant le seizRme 
 si&cle, les bons contes de Chaucer, la vision du laboureur 
 Pierce, la prose concise et piquante de Bacon, portent ce 
 cachet original de la langue et du genie anglais. 
 
 [p. 6] D’epoque en epoque, chacune des nuances du mouvement 
 intellectuel en Angleterre s’est caracterisee d’une mani&re 
 nouvelle. Le style de Chaucer n’est pas plus celui de 
 Shakespeare que celui de Walter Scott. 
 
84 
 
 Appendix B. [ a . d . 1876- 
 
 1876. Vapereau, G. [Notices on Chaucer. Goiver, Lydgate and Chatter- 
 ton ] Dictionnaire universel des Literatures , pp. 440-2, 918-9, 
 1287. 
 
 Chaucer (Geoffrey), c&l&bre poete anglais, n6 en 1328, 
 mort en 1400. Son nom sous la forme frangaise, chaussier, 
 semble indiquer une origine normande et, par consequent, 
 une certaine noblesse ; lui-meme se donna pour Londenois . . . 
 Chaucer etait d’un caractere aimable, port6 a la meditation, 
 et jouissait avec delices des beautes de la nature . . . 
 
 On distingue dans les oeuvres de Chaucer deux influences 
 principales, celle de la po4sie frangaise pr6dominante dans 
 les premieres, et celle de la poesie italienne prenant le 
 dessus dans les dernieres et les plus belles, l’inspiration du 
 poete restant d’ailleurs originale et bien anglaise. On y 
 retrouve aussi celle des nouvelles idees de la reforme en 
 matiere religieuse. r . . 
 
 Parmi les ouvrages qui relevent de l’influence frangaise, on 
 compte : le Roman de la Rose , la Cour d’ Amour, VAssemblee 
 des oiseaux, le Coucou et le Rossignol, la Fleur et la Feuille, 
 le Songe de Chaucer , le Livre de la duchesse, la Maison de la 
 Renommee ; on rattache a l’influence italienne : la Legende , 
 des bonnes femmes , Tro'ilus et Creseide, et les Contes de 
 Canterbury (Canterbury’s Tales) [sic] la derniere de ses 
 grandes productions et son chef-d’oeuvre. . . . 
 
 Le Roman de la Rose , qui ouvre la premiere [serie], est 
 traduit du frangais. La portion de Guillaume de Lorris 
 (5000 vers) est entierement traduite; celle de Jean de 
 Meung est rapidement resum4e. La meme ou le traducteur 
 est le plus fidele, il ajoute des touches vigoureuses et 
 poetiques au texte. ... \ 
 
 [A description of the other poems is given] . . , 
 
 C’est dans ses contes de Canterbury, que Chaucer a 
 montre tout son talent descriptif, et plus encore ce genie 
 createur, ce don supreme de produire des personnages vrais, 
 vivants. . . . 
 
 Quant aux contes et recits que font ces personnages, 
 Chaucer ne parait pas avoir pris la peine d’en inventei 
 aucun; il les emprunte aux fabliaux frangais, au recueil 
 cel&bre des Gesta Romanorum, a Boccace ; ils sont, les uns 
 pathetiques, les autres satiriques ; tous les tons conviennent 
 a Chaucer, qui sans doute n’est pas exempt de quelque 
 grossierete, mais qui va de preference a tout ce qui est 
 honnete, noble, elev6. . . . 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 85 
 
 1878] 
 
 Chaucer a ecrit en prose une traduction de la Consolation 
 de Bo'ece , une imitation du meme livre sous le titre de 
 Testament d’ Amour. 
 
 Chatterton. ... La lecture de Chaucer et de Percy com- 
 pleta son instruction d’antiquaire. . . . Ces oeuvres [the 
 Rowley poems] n’avaient d’antique que l’orthographe sur- 
 charge de consonnes et une partie du vocabulaire empruntee 
 a Chaucer et a d’autres poetes des xiv e et xv e siecles. 
 
 1877. Chasles, Emile. Extraits des classiques anglais accompagnes d’une 
 histoire de la litterature anglaise et de notices biographiques . . . Paris, 
 1877, pp. 2, 3, 4-7, 8, 10. 
 
 [p. 4 ] Apres la Vision de Ploughman, il faut citer les contes 
 tout diflferents de Chaucer, qui sont trop celebres pour ne 
 pas meriter une mention speciale. [Then comes pp. 4-5, 
 a description of the pilgrims, translated from the Prologue .] 
 
 [p. 5 ] Ainsi debute l’ouvrage cel&bre intitule Canterbury Tales 
 que Chaucer ecrivit dans sa vieillesse. ... La collection 
 de ces contes forme un livre tres-piquant, tres-varie et qui 
 aujourd’hui meme peut se lire avec un vif plaisir, tant 
 l’ecrivain est observateur spirituel et peintre admirable. . . . 
 
 [p. 0 ] [A short life of Chaucer.] 
 
 [p. io] L’inspiration de Piers Ploughman se retrouvera dans 
 Bunyan et dans Milton, le trait pittoresque et familier de 
 Chaucer dans Goldsmith. . . . 
 
 1878. Jusserand, J. J. Le Theatre en Angleterre depuis la conquete 
 jusqu’aux predecesseurs immediats de Shakespeare, Paris, 1878, 
 pp. 25, 28, 66, 72, 84 n., 105, 108—10, 144, 145, 153, 155-56 n., 
 160, 207 n., 216, 220. 
 
 tp. 144 ] [The humour of the Middle Ages.] Ainsi, au Moyen 
 Age, Pentendait Chaucer. Esprit ingenieux et charmant, 
 vraiment naif, de la meme naivete malicieuse et rieuse que 
 notre bon La Fontaine, i] croit que les lionn§tes gens 
 peuvent, sans grand mal, rire aux discours licencieux d’un 
 meunier ivre j Madame de Sevigne etait de son avis. . . 
 
 [p. 145 ] Chaucer avait reuni dans un cadre unique une collection 
 complete de portraits . . . et les figures souriantes, ou 
 grondeuses, ou lAjouies, montraient surtout comment les 
 ames etaient faites. II nous restait a voir quelques-uns de 
 ces personnages sortir de leur cadre, prendre la parole et 
 vivre un instant, sur les planches, la vie que leurs originaux 
 menaient dans la rue. Ce fut John Hey wood . . . qui les 
 fit monter sur la scene. 
 
86 Appendix B. [a.d. 1879- 
 
 1879. Sarradin, A. Eustache Des Champs , sa vie et ses oeuvres , Paris, 
 1879, note, pp. 315-317. 
 
 Un fait assez curieux a noter, ce sont les relations de | 
 l’Angleterre et de la France au xiv e siecle. La situation 
 respective des deux pays amena frequemment a la cour de 
 Charles Y ou de son fils des negociateurs anglais. Ce fut 
 ainsi que le poete Chaucer vint en France au commencement ! 
 de l’annee 1377, charge dune mission diplomatique. Des 
 Champs dut le voir a cette 4poque . . . [Deschamps’ ballad j 
 to Chaucer is quoted]. . . . G. Chaucer n’a ecrit qu’en j 
 anglais ; mais son ami et son emule Jean Gower a ecrit 
 en frangais. ... II est curieux de retrouver de l’autre 
 cote de la Manche, toute la poetique en usage alors chez 
 nous. . . . [Relations between the work of Machaut, 
 Froissart and Chaucer]. 
 
 1880. Hallberg, Eugene. Histoire des litteratures etrangeres, Littera- 
 tures anglaise et slave depuis leurs origines jusquen 1850, p. 8. 
 [See below, 1881, Jusseraud.] 
 
 1880. Jusserand, J. J. [Review of Chaucer, by A. W. Ward 
 (English Men of Letters series), 1879, in the] Revue Critique 
 d’ Histoire et de Litterature, November 1880, pp. 347-50. 
 
 Si le lecteur ne demande pas une exactitude absolue dans 
 les faits et une grande precision dans les raisonnements, le : i 
 livre de M. Ward lui plaira . . . pp. 45-6 [of Ward]. Les 
 qualites de Tame et du coeur de Chaucer sont divisees en j 
 deux categories : les vices et les vertus ; les premiers lui 
 viennent de France, les autres d’Angleterre, parce que le II 
 genie des deux peuples est tout different. Sur ce point, j 
 aucune objection; seulement pourquoi voir la marque d’un j 
 esprit frangais dans l’indifference supreme d’un auteur a 
 la licence qui peut regner dans ses ecrits ? C’est faire de 
 Shakespeare et de plusieurs autres des Frangais malgre eux. f 
 
 p. 56 [of Ward] M. W. considere le Romaunt of the Rose \ 
 comme ceuvre authentique de Chaucer et en deduit beaucoup 
 de conclusions sur le genie et l’esprit de Pauteur. On trouvera 
 sa demonstration peu decisive. . . . 
 
 1881. Guillon, F61ix. Etude Historique et biographique sur Guillaume 
 de Lorris, 0rl6ans et Paris, p. 100. 
 
 Geoffrey Chaucer, * le poete, l’ami et l’allie du roi Henri vi 
 [sic], d’Angleterre,’ dans The Romant of the Ross [sic], traduisit 
 entierement la partie du poeme qui revient k G. de Lory. 
 
1882] 
 
 1881. 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 8 1 
 
 Tusserand J J. [Notice of Litteratures anglaise et slave ... 
 by Eugtoe Hallberg, Paris, 1880] CnUgne d’Ru tone et de 
 
 Litterature, February 1881, pp. 102, 103. 
 
 Mieux vaut passer sous silence la declaration que 
 l’auteur [M. Hallberg] a revu ‘ tous les fails, tous les noms 
 et les dates principles de son livre,’ d’aprts H encyclop&he 
 de la litterature anglaise’ d’Allibone . . . Chaucer [paraitol] 
 est ne en 1328 (p. 8); il est l’auteur du Testament d amour 
 
 (p. 8) . . . 
 
 1881. Paris, Gaston. Histoire Littiraire de la France . . . tomo 
 xxviii, 1881, p. 181. 
 
 [Article on William de Wadington and his Manuel des 
 PJches 1 Ces traits [neglect of French grammar, metre and 
 orthography by the Anglo-French authors] se retrouvent 
 d’ailleurs, ainsi que nous l’avons dit, chez plus dun es 
 representants de cette etrange litterature, composee en 
 francais par des Anglais, fruit de l’enseignement autant 
 que de l’imitation, moitie morte et moitie vivante, qui, nee 
 sous l’influence de la litterature franchise it la suite de la 
 conquete, ne ceda que lentement le terrain A. la reaction 
 de la litterature nationale, et ne disparut qu’au moment 
 oil deja, sous la plume de Chaucer, celle-ci bnllait dun 
 vif eclat. 
 
 1882 Boucher, Leon. Tableau de la Litterature anglaise, pp. 20 -.6, 
 
 * 29, 33, 77, 97, 139, 149. 
 
 [p . 20 ] L’oeuvre de Geoffrey Chaucer (1340-1400) presente en 
 raccourci l’image de la soci6t6 du xiv e siecle. C’est une 
 veritable tapisserie de haute lice ou se dressent dans les 
 attitudes les plus varies et sous les couleurs les plus dclatantes 
 toutes les figures du monde chevaleresque, eccRsiastique et 
 bourgeois qui s’agite sur le seuil des temps modernes, avec son 
 ideal, ses gouts, ses passions, son ignorance et ses app6tits. . . . 
 
 [p. 23 ] (Contes de Canterbury.) R£cits de guerre et d amour, 
 legendes pieuses et roman tiques, contes gracieux et spirituels, 
 [p. 24 ] toute la po6sie du moyen age qui va fimr, s’y trouve repr6- 
 sentee dans ce qu’elle a de plus naif, de plus touchant et de 
 plus satirique, depuis la pathetique aventure de Grisdlidis, 
 type admirable d’affection et de patience conjugates, jusqu a 
 la parodie meme de l’ideal chevaleresque, ridiculisd dans la 
 chanson de Sir Thopas. . 
 

 88 Appendix B. [a.d. 1883 ! 
 
 Admirable observateur de l’etre humain et merveilleux 
 conteur, joignant au don du rire celui des larmes, et la finesse I 
 a la naivete, Chaucer n’est pas seulement un poete dramatique | 
 avant le drame et comique avant la comedie, c’est encore et 
 surtout le createur de la langue poetique, le premier qui ait 
 su mettre de l’art et un grand art dans son oeuvre. 
 
 1883. Baret, Adrien. Etude sur la langue anglaise au xiv e siecle. I 
 These de Doctorat, Fac. des lettres de Bordeaux, Paris, 1883 
 chapitres iv — x. 
 
 Chapitre vi. Vie de Chaucer, et description de son influ* j 
 ence pr^pond^rante sur la formation de l’idiome anglais. 
 [M. Baret says that Chaucer was born in 1328, and he seems 
 to regard the Testament of Love as authentic.] 
 
 [p. no] [Chaucer] etait Anglais par le coeur, mais Frangais par I 
 l’esprit. II nous appartenait, a son insu sans doute, par la j 
 finesse satirique de son esprit, la multiplicity de ses aptitudes ! 
 et la forme classique de ses conceptions. 
 
 Ch. vii. ‘ The King s English.’ Etude de la langue de j 
 Chaucer, et ses emprunts au frangais. 
 
 [p. ns] Constatons d’abord par quelques exemples que le melange : 
 des mots frangais n’y est pas fait au hasard, et qu’il depend ( 
 toujours des exigences du sujet choisi par le poete. Dans le^ 
 style familier, dans la peinture des moeurs populaires, meme 
 lorsque le recit est une imitation des fabliaux frangais, 
 Chaucer se garde bien de sortir du vocabulaire anglo-saxon. 
 
 [M. Baret compares the Milleres Tale , 11. 312-26 with the 
 Clerk's Prologue , 11. 15-25, or the Rous of Fame, ii, 11. 
 345-51.] 
 
 Ch. viii. ‘ La Versification de Chaucer.’ Maniere de ' 
 scander ses vers ; — ils sont bases sur l’accent tonique. Regies ! 
 de l’accentuation chauc6rienne. [This chapter is based on ? 
 Skeat and Child.] 
 
 Ch. ix. La Prononciation de la langue de Chaucer [based 
 on Ellis]. 
 
 Ch. x. Le G4nie de Chaucer. II a le temperament 
 dramatique. Son style. Etude des Canterbury Tales. La 
 comedie chez Chaucer. 
 
 tp. 188 ] Chaucer . . . homme d’etude et d’observation, toujours 
 froid, mais toujours attentif, se plait a etudier les mceurs de 
 la soeiete qui l’environne, et il parvient a les peindre avec 
 un rare bonheur. Comme Homere, et La Fontaine, il sait 
 
1883] French Allusions. 
 
 d’un seul mot animer une physionomie, eclairer tout un 
 
 tableau. ... , 
 
 ft>. 189] . . . L’imagination n’occupe pas le premier rang dans sa 
 
 podsie ; l’enthousiasme y est rare ; il observe bien plus qu 1 
 n’admire, 
 
 tp i 96 ] " Chaucer posside deja toutes les qualites distinetives du 
 genie anglais, mais le cote dramatique de son talent est 
 surtout remarquable. ... 
 
 Quel que soit son sujet ... les personnages quil met en 
 
 scene agissent beaucoup plus qu ils ne pailent. . . * 
 
 1883 Filon Augustin. Mistoire de la Literature anglmse deputsses 
 oriaZs jnfqu’a nos jours. Chapitre iv., I’Age de Chaucer Vie 
 
 do Cliaucer pp 52 - 54 .— (Euvres diverses de Chaucer, pp. 54-55.— - 
 Les^contes'de'cauterbuiy, pp. 55-59. Chapitre v, De Chaucer a 
 Spenser. Les lieritiers de Chaucer, p. bl. 
 
 [P , 3 ] On parle encore francos en Angleterre; mais quel 
 francais? Celui de Stratford Atte Bowe, que Chaucer met 
 sur les levres de sa Prieure, et qui est restt proverbial. 
 Enfin en 1404, deux envoyes anglais en France, dont lun 
 est Sir Thomas Swynford, le neveu de la femme de Chaucer, 
 declarent ‘ ne pas plus savoir le francais que 1 hebreu. 
 
 IP 62 ] ' Vie de Chaucer. . . Voici Chaucer, synthese vivante des 
 
 deux races, greffee sur une puissante originality po6tique. II 
 est a la fois Anglais et Normand, et, en outre, il est lui-meme. 
 
 ... On s’accorde generalement a croire que Geoffrey 
 Chaucer naquit en 1328 [reprinted in the edn. of 1896]. . . . 
 
 jp 53 ] ' Ees lettres et les pottes de l’epoque le consideraient 
 comme leur chef et leur maitre. Sa renonimee avait passe 
 le detroit, comme le prouve cette dedicace d’un poete fra^ais 
 [E. Deschamps], qui lui offrit ses vers : 
 
 < Grant translateur, noble Geoffroy Chaucer. 
 
 Chaucer mourut en 1400, dans une petite maison qui 
 dependait de Westminster, et, tout naturellement, on l’en- 
 terra dans l’abbaye. Cette sepulture fit precedent, et crea 
 une tradition. Chaucer est le plus ancien habitant du Poet’s 
 
 corner. . . . 
 
 [ P . 54 ] CEuvres diverses de Chaucer. On ne peut determiner la 
 
Appendix B. [ a . d . 1883 - 
 
 date d’aucune des compositions de Chaucer; neanmoins, s’il 
 f . permis d’etablir des conjectures sur un fait qui manque 
 lui-meme de certitude, on ferait deux parts de la vie litte 
 raire et de l’ceuvre de Chaucer. On rangerait dans la 
 premiere calorie les poemes qui portent la trace de 
 1 influence romane et gothique, dans la seconde ceux qui 
 offrent d4ja le reflet de la Renaissance italienne. . I 
 
 , T f^ he C ™ rl °f Love ’ Mower and Leaf, and Cuckoo and 
 Nightingale are mentioned among his works.] 
 
 [p. 55] Pope n’a pas dedaigne d’imiter The House of Fame, et n’a 
 pas reussi k l’egaler. Chaucer entendait le mot fame dans le i 
 double sens du latin fama, car il nous montre a la fois le i 
 temple de la Gloire et la demeure de la Renomm<5e. Dans la 
 Legende des Bonnes Femmes, nous d&ouvrons une m<5thode 
 different, un art nouveau. Plus de reve, plus de vision, plu 3 
 d allegorie, mais une serie de tableaux ou de r^cits, des types 
 plus ou moins historiques, en tout cas dramatiques et humains 
 autant que ceux de Shakespeare. . . . En traduisant, k son 
 tour, ce sujet grec [Troilus and Cressida], dejft retouch^ par 
 1 art florentm, Chaucer lui enteve les derniers traits de sa 
 physionomie originelle. II deguise un heros d’Homere en 1 
 amoureux transi ; il transforme en une coquette du Decameron 
 la contemporaine d’Andromaque et de Nausicaa. 
 
 1P.5S] Les Contes de Canterbury. . . . Puis, les recits se JuccMent ; 
 comme dans le Decameron de Boccace, auquel cette forme de 
 poeme est empruntfe. Mais combien est evidente la superio- 
 rity de Chaucer! Combien l’art est, chez lui, plus sensible : 
 et plus delicat ! Les jeunes gens et les jeunes femmes du i 
 Decameron vivent dans le meme milieu, ont memes idees, i 
 meme age, a peu de chose pres meme caractere. Ici, chaque 1 
 conte est approprie au conteur, et l’on vient de voir combien 1 
 les conteurs different. . . . Tous ces recits sont lies, et beau- j 
 coup mieux que chez Boccace, par de petits incidents vrais, 
 qui naissent du caractere des personnages et tels qu’on en 
 
 [p. 59] rencontre en voyage. . . . L'ensemble du tableau est si bien 
 calculy, l’aspect est si vivant et si gai, que le lecteur ‘ se prend 
 d’envie de monter a cheval par une belle matinee riante, le 
 long des prairies vertes, pour galoper avec les pelerins jusqu’a 
 la cliasse du bon saint de Canterbury.’ [Taine.] 
 
 1883. Brunetiere, P [Review of Pilon’s Histoire de la litteratuve 
 anglaxse ] Revue des Deux Mondes , August 1883, pp. 699, 704. 
 
 [Brief references to Chaucer and his Canterbury Tales.] 
 
L886] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 91 
 
 1883. Beljame, Alexandre. Le public et les hommes de lettrcs m Angle- 
 terre au xvm e siecle , Paris, 1883, p. 316. 
 
 [Sir William Temple does not mention Chaucer among 
 the modern poets in his Essay upon Ancient and .Modern 
 Learning , and Swift attributes to Shakespeare one of 
 Chaucer’s characters, the Wife of Bath.] 
 
 1883. Dreyss, Charles Louis. Chronologic universetle, 5* 4dn, Paris, 
 1883, tome i, a i’an 1400 [1st edn., 1846]. 
 
 1400 Mort du premier grand poete anglais, Chaucer: 
 ses productions ressemblent un peu a celles de Boccace. 
 Sectaire de Wiclef, apres avoir etd persecute sous Bichard ii, 
 il etait rentrd en faveur a l’avenement des Lancastre, ses 
 protecteurs. 
 
 1883. Montegut, Emile. Caraderes 
 
 ; [in] Essais sur la litterature anglaise, Pans, 1883, pp. 1U3, , 
 
 105. 
 
 [ P . 104 ] II existe bien une p6riode anglo-normande ; mais, pendant 
 toute cette periode, le genie saxon se cache ou se tait. . . . 
 Cette periode se reduit, a proprement parler, a un seul nom, 
 Chaucer. Celui-la est bien un Francais si l’on veut, et on 
 reconnait en lui un contemporain de Froissard. . . . 
 
 [ p . 105] Ainsi, pendant toute la pdriode anglo-normande, il ne 
 saurait etre question de la combinaison du g6nie normand 
 et du g6nie saxon, puisque ce dernier reste muet, et que le 
 seul 6crivain qu’on puisse citer, Chaucer, n’est qu’un Francais 
 qui s’exprime en langue anglaise. 
 
 100 . t eQTO r,H T T La Vie Nomade et les routes d’Angleterre au 
 
 200, 203, 204, 213, 218, 221. Appendice, pp. 265, 277-8, 281, -82, 
 285’ 286, 290, 291. 
 
 1884 Rietstap, J. B. Armorial General Precede Pun Dictionnaire 
 des Termes du Blo.son . . . tom. i, 2« edn. . . . Gouda, p. 411, 
 col. 1. 
 
 Chaucer, Parti d’arg. et de gu. ; a la bande de l’un en 
 l’autre, C. : une tortue pass, au nat. [Armes du poete 
 anglais, Geoffrey Chaucer.] 
 
 1886. Drumont, Edouard. La France Juive, Paris, 1886, tome ii, 
 pp. 381-91. 
 
 [p. 38 i] En constatant la persistance de ces sentiments de haine 
 chez les Juifs, il est impossible de ne point parler un peu 
 
92 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1887 
 
 longuement de ce sacrifice sanglant, cette accusation mille 
 fois prouvde [qu’ils tuerent les petits enfants] . . . 
 
 [p 383] II nest pas un ^crivain du Moyen Age qui ne parle de 
 ces faits comme d’une chose ordinaire. . ^ . 
 
 [p.384] Mais e’est Chaucer peut-etre qui est le plus interessant a 
 consulter sur ce point. Le po6te du xv e siecle [sic], qui 
 repose a Westminster et sur la tombe duquel on a grav4 
 quelques jolis vers de la Fleur et de la Feuille , fut le pelntre j 
 exact des mceurs de son temps. Les Contes de Canterbury S 
 sont une sorte de Decameron auquel sert de pr6texte efc j 
 tp. 385] de cadre le pelerinage . . . R6unis par hasard, des pelerins I 
 de toutes les conditions . . . conviennent pour charmer | 
 l’ennui du chemin de conter tour k tour une histoire. 
 Rien n’est plus touchant que le Recit de la Prieure. II est > 
 vraiment d’un charme si profond dans son mysticisme ! 
 feminin, que nous le traduisons presque en entier, en nous 
 efforgant de respecter, autant que possible, la naivete de I 
 1 ’original. [There follows a translation of the Prioresses 
 Tale , pp. 385-90.] 
 
 1887. Gausseron, B.-H. [Article ‘Chaucer' in] La Grande Encyclo- \ 
 pedie inventaire raisonne des sciences , des lettres et des arts , tome x 
 p. 930. ’ 
 
 Chaucer (Geoffrey), poete anglais, ne probablement vers ' 
 1340, etnonen 1328, suivant la date ordinairement adoptee ; 
 moit le 25 oct. 1400. Les travaux de la critique moderne 
 et tout particulierement de ceux de sir Harris Nicolas, du 
 Dr. Furnivall et des erudits qui composent la ‘ Chaucer 
 Society’ fondee en 1868, ont jet6 quelque clarte sur les { 
 points obscurs de la vie de Chaucer. Son pere, negociant \ \ 
 en vins ( vintner ) a Londres, faicait partie de la suite ] 
 emmenee par la famille royale lors du voyage en Flandre 
 et a Cologne, en 1338. Cette circonstance aide a com- I 
 prendre que Geoffrey Chaucer nous apparaisse, la premiere ' 
 fois qu’il est fait mention de son nom dans un document 
 (1357), en qualite de page attache a la maison de Lionel, 
 due de Clarence, second fils d’Edward in. En 1359, il est 
 dans les rangs de l’arm^e anglaise qui envahit la France, 
 et dont Froissart a raconte l’expedition. II y fut fait 
 prisonnier, et recouvra sa liberte moyennant rangon, quelque 
 temps avant le traite de Bretigny. Nous le retrouvons en 
 1367 avec le titre de valet ( valettus ) du roi, qui lui accorde 
 une pension et l’emploie a des missions diverses hors 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 d’Angleterre on 1369 et en 1370. II etait marie dte cette 
 ipoque a la fille de sir Payne Roet, du Hainault, et sa 
 femme, Philippa, avait une charge de dame de la chambre 
 auprts de la reine. Apres une mission diplomatique en 
 Italie (1372-1373), il fut nomme controleur des coutumes 
 et subsides pour les laines et les peaux dans le port, de 
 Londres et, en meme temps que cette charge lucrative, 
 remplit celle, plus honorifique, d’ecuyer du roi. Sa earri.'jre 
 de diplomate ne fut pas interrompue pour cela, et il eut 
 encore a soutenir les infants de la cour d’Angleterre en 
 Flandre, en Prance et en Italie. La mort d’Edouard in et 
 l’avenementde Richard n (1377) n’6branRrent point d’abord 
 la fortune de Chaucer. Il fut meme envoye a la Chambre 
 des communes par le comte de Kent. Mais bient6t sa 
 charge de contrdleur lui fut retiree, sa femme mourut, et il 
 se dJbattit des lors dans des embarras financiers dont il ne 
 fut delivre que vers la fin de sa vie, par la faveur du roi 
 Henri iv (1399), fils de son meilleur protecteur, le due de 
 Lancastre, lequel etait devenu son beau-frtre en epousant 
 Catherine, veuve de sir Hugh Swynford et sceur de Philippa, 
 sa femme. Nommd en 1389 secretaire des travaux du roi 
 au palais de Westminster, k la Tour de Londres et aux 
 autres chateaux de la eouronne, il perdit cette place en 1391 
 et dut accepter, avec un certain Richard Brittle, les fonc- 
 tions de garde-forestier que Roger Mortimer, comte de 
 March, leur offrait k North Petherton Park, dans le comt6 
 de Somerset. Il n’etait pourtant pas complement oublie 
 k la cour, car on le trouve en 1398, remplissant pour le 
 compte du roi des missions secretes dans differentes parties 
 du royaume. Il mourut le 25 oct. 1400, et fut inhume dans 
 la chapelle de l’abbaye de Westminster, ou il inaugura ce 
 qu’on a appele le ‘ Coin des pottes.’ C’est, en effet, comme 
 potte que Geoffrey Chaucer s’est assure un renom immortel. 
 Il est, avec Gower, et bien au-dessus de lui, le veritable 
 piu-e de la poesie anglaise. Le premier, il a su plier la 
 langue vulgaire, sortie du fond saxon et tres fortement 
 milangee d’elements francais-norniaruls, aux necessity et 
 aux fantaisies d’une pensee raffinee ; il lui a donne la soup- 
 lesse et la sonorite du rythme; tout en lui conservant son 
 caracttre populaire de familiarite et d’energie, il en a faitle 
 merveilleux instrument litteraire dont tant de genies divers 
 se sont servis jusqu’a nos jours pour creer des chefs-d’ceuvre. 
 

 Appendix B. [a.d. 1887 - 
 
 La manure litteraire de Chaucer peut se diviser en trois 
 penodes assez distinctes. Dans la premiere, il se montre 
 disciple direct de nos trouvk-es. S’il n’est pas 1’auteur de 
 la version anglaise du Roman de la Rose, que beaucoup lui 
 attnbuent, c’est du moins a cette periode que se rapportent 
 ? U la P™re de Nostre Dame et la Complainte h 
 a itie. Puis 1 influence italienne, que ses sejours repetes 
 en Italie devaient le disposer a subir facilement, se fait 
 de plus en plus sentir dans des oeuvres comme the Parlement 
 of Foules , the Complaint of Mars , Anelida and Arcite sa 
 traduction en prose et en vers du De Consolatione de BoSce 
 Trdilus and Criseyde, the House of Fame, the Legend of 
 (rood Women, the Complaint of Venus, etc. Enfin il se 
 montre lui-meme inventeur, createuret grand poete, lorsque 
 dans un cadre dont le Decameron a sans doute fourni Tidee 
 premiere, il nous presente le pittoresque, saisissant et amusant 
 defile de tons les types caracteristiques de la societe anglaise 
 de son temps, reunis ala tavernedu Tabard, pr£s de London- 
 Bndge, en route pour un pelerinage au tombeau de Thomas 
 Becket, et profitant de leur rencontre pour se raconter les 
 inoubliables histoires, qui, sous le titre de Canterbury Tales 
 font a jamais partie du tr^sor litteraire du genre humain 
 La premiere edition en fut publiee par Caxton vers 1478 
 la meilleure est celle de Furnivall (1868). Un litterateur 
 de plus d excentncite que de talent, le chevalier de Chate- 
 lain, a donne, dans ce si£cle, un essai de traduction des 
 Contes de Cantorbery, qui ne permet pas de dire que nous 
 en possedions une version fran^aise. 
 
 1887, etc. Unknown. 
 1146, col. 2 ; tome 
 p. 1082, col. 1. 
 
 La grande Encyclopedic . . . tome xiv, p 
 xvin, p. 284, col. 2; tome xxx, pp. 89, col. 2 ; 
 
 [t. H] [Article] Dry den (J ohn) . . . Dryden entreprit alors la 
 traduction en vers des oeuvres de Yirgile (1697) qu’il fit 
 suivre de ses Fables, morceaux imites de Ylliade, des 
 Metamorphoses d’Ovide, et des Contes de Boccace et de 
 Chaucer. 
 
 [t. 18] 
 
 [Article] Furnivall (Frederick James). Il se consacra 
 b, sa sortie de l universite de Cambridge k l’etude de la 
 litterature anglaise du moyen age, dont il £dita nombre 
 
 nazIT* V ' S ' X t6XteS d ® S Carderbur V Tales de Chaucer 
 (1868-75, 7 parties) . . . Il fut, en outre, l’un des fondateurs 
 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 l 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
1889] French Allusions. 95 
 
 des society suivantes. . . . The Chaucer Society (1868). 
 
 The Shettery [= Shelley] (1886). , 
 
 [t. 30] [Article] Skeat (Walter William). . . . Parmi ses tres 
 nombreux ouvrages nous citerons . . . une excellente edition 
 
 des oeuvres de Chaucer (1897, 7 vols.). ... 
 
 [Article] Tennyson (Alfred). ... On lui fit a Westminster 
 des obs&ques somptueuses et on lui eleva un monument a 
 cote de celui de Chaucer. 
 
 1ftR9 J Ch Review of Skeat’s Principles of English Etymology , 
 ' Karting’s Grundriss der Geschichte der englischen Litteratur, etc., 
 in th ef Revue Critique d’Histoire et de Literature , December 
 1889, pp. 425, 426. 
 
 [The language of Chaucer and his importance for the 
 student.] 
 
 [A small booklet of 64 pages, containing only the Pro- 
 logue, the Man of Lawes Tale, and the Clerkes Tale in 
 French prose. There is a short biographical sketch, 
 quoting Taine.] 
 
 [p- 2 1 II n’existe en prose frangaise aucune traduction complete 
 des Contes de Canterbury ni des oeuvres de Chaucer. 1 
 
 [Foot- i Nous avons annonc6 dans la Bibliographic de la France 
 ^ la prochaine publication de notre traduction complete des 
 Contes de Canterbury. La regrettable lacune se trouvera 
 ainsi reparee. T. S. 
 
 [This number was the only one which appeared, and the 
 complete translation was never published. We add a 
 specimen of the translation of the Prologue ;] 
 
 Quand avril a, de ses douces averses, p6netr6 jusqu’au 
 fond la s^cheresse de mars et baignb toute la glebe de cette 
 liqueur par la vertu de laquelle est engondr4e la fleur : 
 quand Zephyr aussi a, de sa douce haleine, souffle dans les 
 bosquets et les bruy&res sur les tendres pousses ; quand le 
 soleil rajeuni a, dans le Belier, depass6 la moiti6 de sa 
 course ; quand les petits oiseaux font entendre leur m^lodie 
 et dorment toute la nuit les yeux ouverts, tant la nature 
 aiguillonne leur vaillance, alors les gens brulent de partir en 
 p&lerinages. . . . 
 

 96 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 [a.d. 1890 - 
 
 lp. 37] 
 
 1890 ' au m °y™ <%«> 2« a., 
 
 [p. 1H] II est certain que Boccace et Chaucer, par exemple, ont 
 parfois imit,5 des tableaux fran 5 ais : mais il n’est nullement 
 e a i que ce soit toujours le cas ; ces contes circulaient 
 oralement dans toute l’Enrope (sans parler de leur admission 
 ans les sermons et les livres pieux), et ils ont fort bien 
 pu etre recueillis independamment par les poetes ou les 
 nouvellistes des diiferents pays. 
 
 G4me de Chaucer. Par les Canterbury Tales, Chaucer 
 entre dans la phalange des rares ■Wains qui ont ,5te des 
 
 ereateurs On sent ici 1’homme maitre de sa pens<§e, 
 
 1 artiste maitre de son instrument et de sa main. On y 
 sent aussi 1’observateur qui a vu de prts la yie, le pofete 
 qui, pathetiques ou comiques, sait choisir dans les traits 
 mnombrables de la physionomie humaine et peut leur 
 onner, en les reproduisant, un caractfcre plastique et une 
 forme distincte. 
 
 • • - Au don merveilleux entre tous de crfer des etres 
 pottiques qui produisent illusion de la rfelitt Chaucer unit 
 ie talent de pemdre par des mots, ayec l'aspect exterieur de 
 1 nomme, la nature elle-meme. 
 
 in^hol r ^ n< ^’ 5 LAngleterre au temps des invasions [article 
 m the] Revue des Deux Maudes, June 1892, pp. 571, 573-5. 
 
 [1892.] Dietz H. Les Litteratures Etrang'eres. Anqleterre. Allemaane 
 pp. 29-30 [a short life of Chaucer], pp. 30-41 [his work] 9 * 
 
 “■ ”■ 
 
 ip. 104] Chaucer, avec son g4nie et ses myites de toute sorte, sa 
 gait<§ et sa bonne grdce, sa faculte d’observation et cette 
 ouverture d’esprit qui lui permet de sympathiser avec les 
 specimens les plus divers de l’humanite, a trac6 une im- 
 mortelle et incomparable peinture de l’Angleterre au moyen 
 age. Sur certains points cependant le tableau est in- 
 
 complet, et il faut emprunter a Langland des traits pour 
 1 achever. ... 
 
 [p. 38] 
 
jgg4] French Allusions. J* 
 
 rp 176] On a beaucoup reproche a ce dernier [Chaucer] d avoir 
 donne, par son g6nie, droit de cit6 dans la langue anglaise a 
 quantite de mots frangais. Le reproche est injuste ; Chaucer 
 6crivit la langue de son temps, telle quelle existait, sans la 
 modifier, la franciser ou la fausser ; et Langland, au besoin, 
 en fournirait la preuve. . . . 
 
 [P . 185 ] Langland est un vrai Anglais, comme Chaucer ; il Test 
 peut-etre meme davantage. Un trait important manque k 
 Chaucer : il nest pas insulaire ; son esprit a des ramifications 
 [p. 186 ] frangaises et italiennes ; au fond assur6ment il est anglais 
 et tr&s anglais ; par certains points cependant il est un peu 
 cosmopolite. 
 
 1893 Jusserand, J. J. [Article on Chaucer . from the] Re me des 
 Deux Mondes of April 15, pp. 815-54 ; Etudes Anglmses. La 
 vie et les cernres de Geoffrey Chaucer. [39 pages, re-cast in the 
 Histoire litteraire du peuple anglais, 1894, pp. 269-349. J 
 
 1893. Bedier, Joseph. Les Fabliaux, l re 6dn., Paris, 1893, pp. 278, 
 419. [A few words only on the Beeves Tale and the fabliau 
 d’Auberee.] 
 
 1894. Darmesteter, Mary (Madame). Froissart [in the series] Les 
 Grands Fcrivains frangais : p. 19. 
 
 Geoffrey Chaucer, page a la suite d’Edouard hi, com- 
 mengait a tirer une langue belle et puissante du dialecte 
 informe des pauvres. . . . 
 
 Soyez surs que toute cette renaissance 6chappa au jeune 
 Froissart. 11 n’6tait pas homme de lettres : il prononce a 
 peine le nom de Geoffrey Chaucer, son cadet de quelques 
 mois, qui 6tait comme lui a Ija cour, et qu’il a du rencontrer 
 plus d’une fois chez sir Richard Stury, et encore ne parle-t-il 
 de lui que comme diplomate. 
 
 1894 Jusserand, J. J. Histoire litteraire du peuple anglais. Paris, 
 
 ' 1894, tom. 1, pp. 124, 165-6, 220, 226, 232, 240, 245, 246 [chap- 
 ter ii Chaucer], pp. 269-349, pp. 351, 354, 355, 360, 362, 363, 
 
 367 371, 373, 374, 379, 380, 382, 383, 384, 385, 390, 393, 399, 400, 
 
 401 403, 404, 411, 412, 413, 414, 423, 424, 435, 464, 478, 487, 488, 
 
 496’, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 528, 
 
 529, 530, 542. 
 
 [pp. 269-349, a lengthy sketch of Chaucer’s life and 
 works, more especially of the House of Fame, Troilus and 
 the Canterbury Tales.] 
 
 [p. 319 ] [Prologue to the Tales.] "V oici a present, dans un livre 
 anglais, °une foule d’etres vivants, pris sur le fait, aux 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. — V. H 
 
98 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1894 
 
 mouvements souples, aux types varies comme dans la vie, 
 [p. 320] reprdsent6s au naturel, dans leurs sentiments et dans leur 
 costume, si bien qu’on croit les voir et que, lorsqu’on les 
 quitte, ce n est pas pour les oublier ; les connaissances faites 
 ‘au Tabart pres de la Cloche’ ne sont pas de celles qui 
 s’effacent du souvenir ; elles durent toute la vie. 
 
 Rien de ce qui peut servir a accrocher, a ancrer dans 
 notre memoire, la vision de ces personnages n’est omis. TJn 
 demi-vers, qui devoile le trait saillant de leur caract£re, 
 devient inoubliable ; leur posture, leurs gestes, leur costume, 
 leurs verrues, le son de leur voix, leurs defauts de pro- 
 nonciation : ‘somwhat he lipsede for wantonnesse,’ leurs 
 tics, la figure rouge de l’hote et jaune du bailli, leurs 
 Elegances, leurs fleches a plumes de paon, leurs cornemuses, 
 rien n’est omis; leurs chevaux et la maniere dont ils les 
 montent sont decrits ; Chancer regarde meme dans les sacs 
 de ses personnages et dit ce qu’il y trouve. 
 
 La nouvelle Angleterre a done son Froissart, qui va conter 
 des apertises d’armes et des histoires d’amour aux couleurs 
 4clatantes, et nous promener de 9a de la, par les villes et par 
 les chemins, pretant l’oreille a tout r6cit, observant, notant, « 
 racontant ? Ce jeune pays a Froissart et mieux que Frois- 
 sart. Les peintures sont aussi vives et aussi claires, mais 
 deux grandes differences distinguent les unes des autres : « 
 hhumour et la sympathie. D6ja, chez Chaucer, l’humour 
 existe; ses malices pen&trent plus profondement que les 
 malices frangaises : il ne va pas jusqu’aux blessures, mais il 
 fait plus que piquer l’epiderme ; et, ce .faisant, il rit d’un rire 
 silencieux : ‘ Un homme jadis etait fort riche, e’est pourquoi 
 tout le monde vantait sa sagesse.’ . . . 
 
 [p. 32i] De plus, Chaucer sympathise ; il a un cceur vibrant que 
 les larmes 6meuvent et que toutes les souffrances touchent, 
 celles des pauvres et celles des princes. Le role du peuple* 
 si maique dans la litterature et la politique anglaises, 
 s affirme ici, des la premiere heure . . . Chaucer, des le 
 quatorzi&me siecle, est curieux de voir ce que e’est que 
 Thornme dans un ‘cuisinier de Londres ’ et que la femme 
 dans une ‘bourgeoise de Bath.’ Combien de miserables 
 perissent dans Froissart ! Que de sang, quelles hecatombes ! 
 et combien peu de larmes ! . . . 
 
 [ P 322] Ils [the lesser people] figurent dans le recit de Chaucer 
 parce que Chaucer les aime ; il aime son laboureur . il 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 99 
 
 1894] 
 
 souffre a l’id&s des sentiers boueux que son pauvre curd suit 
 l’hiver pour aller, par la pluie, visiter une chaumiire loin- 
 taine ; la sympathie est large chez le poete ; ll aime, comme 
 il deteste, de tout cceur. . . . 
 
 [ P . 340] Ce bon sens, qui a fait donner aux contes de Cantorbery 
 un agencement si conforme a la raison et a la nature, est une 
 des quality les plus eminentes de Chaucer. Elle parait dans 
 les details comme dans l’ensemble et lui inspire, au milieu de 
 ses recits les plus fantaisistes, des remarques rassurantes qui 
 nous montrent que la terre et la vie rdelle ne sont pas lom et 
 que nous ne courons pas le risque de tomber des nues. II 
 rappelle, avec a-propos, qu’il y a une certaine noblesse, la 
 plus haute de toutes, qu’on ne saurait leguer par testament ; 
 que les dchantillons corrompus dune classe sociale ne doivent 
 pas faire condamner toute la classe : ‘ Of every ordre some 
 schrew is, pardee ’ ; que, dans l’education des enfants, il faut 
 se garder de les traiter trop tot en hommes ) si on les mene 
 avant lage aux fetes, ils deviennent effrontds, ‘to soone 
 [p . 34i] rype and bold . . . which is ful perilous ’ (Tale of the 
 Doctor of Phisik, vers. 68). Il s’exprime fort librement sur 
 les grands capitaines qu’on eut qualifies de ‘brigands’ s’lls 
 avaient fait moins de mal. Cette demure idee est indiqude 
 en quelques vers d’un humour si vraiment anglais qu ils font 
 songer a Swift et a Fielding ; et l’on peut d’autant mieux en 
 effet songer a Fielding qu’il a consacre tout son roman de 
 Jonathan Wild-le-Grand a developper exactement la memo 
 
 thdse. 1 
 
 Enfin, a ce meme bon sens de Chaucer, on doit une chose 
 plus remarquable encore : c’est que, avec sa connaissance du 
 latin et du fran^ais, vivant dans un milieu oil ces deux 
 langues avaient une grande faveur, il dcrivit uniquement en 
 anglais : sa prose, comme ses vers, son traits sur 1’ Astrolabe, 
 comme ses contes, sont en anglais. Il appartient k la nation 
 
 1 But, for the tiraunt is of greter might 
 By force of meyne for to sle doun right, 
 
 And brenne hous and home, and make al playn, 
 
 Lo, therfor is he cleped a capitayn ; 
 
 And, for an outlawe hath no smal'meynC 
 And may not doon so grete an harm as he, 
 
 Ne bringe a contre to so gret mischief, 
 
 Men clepen him an outlawe or a theef. 
 
 Maunciple’s Tale, vers. 123, t. iii, p. 256. Cf. le roman de Fielding, The Life 
 of Mr. Jonathan Wild the Great, 1743. 
 
100 Appendix B. [a.d. 1894- 
 
 anglaise et c’est pourquoi il £crit dans cette langue; c’est 
 assez pour lui d’une telle raison. . . . 
 
 [p. 342] La meme sagesse fait encore que Chaucer ne se perd pas 
 en vains efforts pour tenter d’impossibles r^formes et pour 
 marcher a contre courant. On le lui a reproch6 de notre 
 temps ; et certains, par amour des Anglo- Saxons, se sont 
 indign6s de la quantity de mots frangais que Chaucer 
 emploie : que n’est-il remonte aux origines du langage? 
 Mais Chaucer n’6tait pas de ceux qui, comme dit Milton, 
 ferment les grilles de leur pare pour empecher les corneilles 
 de s en aller. II s’est servi du langage national, tel qu’il 
 existait de son temps. 
 
 [p. 345] Le meme bon sens optiiniste et tranquille qui lui a fait 
 adopter la langue de son pays et la versification usuelle, qui 
 l’a empech6 de reagir avec exc6s contre les id^es regues, l’a 
 empeche aussi de se faire, par patriotisme, piete ou orgueil, 
 des illusions sur sa pa trie, sa religion ou son temps. II en 
 fut cependant autant que personne, les aima et les honora 
 mieux que pas un. L’impartialit6 de jugement de cet ancien 
 prisonnier des Frangais est extraordinaire, sup6rieure meme 
 a celle de Froissart. . . . 
 
 Chaucer, d un bout a l’autre de sa carri&re, demeure le 
 meme, et le fait est d’autant plus remarquable que sa tournure 
 d esprit, son inspiration et son id^al litt6raire deviennent de 
 plus en plus anglais, a mesure qu’il prend des annees. II 
 reste impartial, ou plutot, en dehors de la grande querelle, 
 a laquelle cependant il avait pris part dans la r<$alit6 ; ses 
 oeuvres ne contiennent pas un vers qui soit dirig6 contre la 
 France, ni meme un seul 41oge de son pays oh celui-ci soit 
 loue en tant que rival heureux du notre. 
 
 1894 . Mezieres, A. Predecesseurs et Contemporains de Shakespeare , 
 Pans, 1894, pp. 11, 12. r ’ 
 
 tp. ii] Rien . . . n’est plus conforme au g£nie des Anglo-Saxons 
 que le melange du plaisant et du serieux. Ils ont mis de 
 tp. 12 ] tout temps de la gaiet6 dans les sujets les plus graves. C’est 
 le trait commun de plus anciens et des plus recents de 
 leurs 6crivains. Depuis Chaucer jusqu’a Byron et jusqu’a 
 Thackeray, que de grandes et nobles oeuvres varices par le 
 badinage et meme par la bouffonnerie ! Les Contes de 
 Cantorhery sont aussi amusants que touchants. La plupart 
 
French Allusions. 101 
 
 des personnages y ont im c6tt serieux et un cot6 comique. 
 La chaste soeur Eglantine, avec toutes ses vertus solides, 
 carle, mange et marche en personne un peu ridicule. La 
 marchande de Bath enterre joyeuseinent ses cinq mans 
 dans le cours d’une dissertation tris grave sur le manage. 
 
 L’indeflnissable humour qui donne tant de prix a 
 quelques-uns des ouvrages les plus celebres de la Grande- 
 Bretagne n’est gufere autre chose qu’une manure plaisante 
 et imprivue de presenter des idtes serieuses. II y entre de 
 l’imacination, du bon sens, de l’observation ; mais a plus 
 haute dose que tout le reste, il y entre de la gaiety. 
 
 1894. Lavisse Ernest, et Kambaud, Alfred 
 
 du iv" stecle a nos jours. Formation des grands etats, 1270 1492, 
 tom. iii, chap, vii, l’Angleterre, de 1272 a 148o, pp. 383 4. 
 
 [p. 383 ] r English literature.} . . . C’est au moment meme oil la 
 Chambre des communes se constitue definitivement que 
 naquit Chaucer, le pere de la literature anglaise (1340). 
 
 . Les autres [ecrivains], ceux dont les oeuvres comptent 
 vraiment, qui ont illustre la seconde moitid du xiv e siecle 
 sont des moralistes, moralistes gaiement satiriques comme 
 Chaucer, l’dcrivain genial, le peintre charm ant des moeurs 
 de son temps, ou pompeux et declamatoires comme John 
 
 Gower. ... A A 
 
 [ r . 364 ] Les origines de Wycliffe sont fort obscures. II parait etre 
 
 n6 vers 1320 (vingt ans avant Chaucer). 
 
 1895. Demogeot, Jacques Claude. Histoire des litteratures etrangeres. 
 * Litteratures septentrional es, Angleterre, Allemagne, 2 e edn., Pans, 
 1895, pp. 3-13, 24. [The first edn. appeared in 1880, and is 
 identical.] 
 
 Chaucer, que les Anglais considerent comme le p£re de 
 leur poesie, n’est encore qu’un des echos de la po6sie 
 universelle du moyen age : c est le frere puine de nos 
 trouveres j c’est un poete fran^ais et italien qui 6ciit en 
 
 anglais. . . . 
 
 [p 6 ] Deux choses toutefois distinguaient dAja les premiers 
 poemes de Chaucer : d’abord un sentiment vif et personnel 
 du monde r6el ... Ses descriptions de la nature sont aussi 
 fraiches que leur modele. ... 
 
 [ P . 7 ] Un autre trait distinctif qui pei^ait deja dans les composi- 
 [p. 8] tions de la jeunesse de Chaucer, c’est un enjouement mali- 
 cieux, une douce satire ; qui assaisonne d’un sel agr^able les 
 
102 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 [a.d. 1895 
 
 longues descriptions et les solennelles allegories. Dans son 
 Iroilus, par exemple, poeme antique par le sujet, grave et 
 touchant par les incidents et les passions des personnages 
 on entrevoit sans cesse, comme chez Pulci, comme chez 
 1 Arioste, comme dans nos fabliaux, le sourire du narrateur 
 qui s amuse et pretend bien amuser les autres. 
 
 [Les Contes de Cantorbery est] l’ouvrage qui seul assure 4 
 txeollroy Chaucer une renommee durable . . . c’est la seule- 
 ment qu’il se revele dans toute la force de son talent 
 afifranchi du gout factice de ses protecteurs et de ses con' 
 temporains . . . il ose litre tout 4 fait lui-meme, donner libre 
 carri4re 4 son humour , peindre ce qu’il a vu, dire ce qu’il a 
 pensd, et composer ainsi l’un des plus charmants tableaux de 
 genre qui aient jamais dte faits. 
 
 1895 ' ,?F ore1 ’ L ® on \ [ Short stud y on the work of Chaucer ini James 
 lhomson , sa vie et ses oeuvres , 2 me partie, pp. 214-19. J 
 
 [The author briefly recalls what importance the love of 
 nature has had in the history of English literature 1 
 tP. 213 ] Pour savoir quel role a joue le monde des choses dans ’la 
 litt6rature anglaise, nous consulterons done seulement les 
 plus grands parmi les maitres. . . 
 
 [ P . 214 ] Geoffrey Chaucer.— Le sentiment de la nature se montre 
 ires vif et tr£s precis, chez le plus vieux des grands pontes de 
 l’Angleterre, chez ce Chaucer dont Fceuvre cl6t une longue 
 per lode litteraire et ouvre l’&re moderne de la poesie. . . f 
 
 [p. 215] Le meme don do sympathie vibrante et de precision dans 
 observation, qui lui permet de comprendre les hommes au 
 milieu desquels il vit et de les faire passer dans ses po^mes j 
 si vivement crayonnes, si vrais et si vivants, le meme don 
 Chaucer l’applique a Tobservation de la nature. 
 
 Ce qu’il a surtout au coeur. . . . c’est l’amour des choses ' 
 de la campagne. Il en retrace avec complaisance les aspects, 
 meme les plus simples et les plus ordinaires. Son oeuvre est 
 remplie des 6tres, des formes, des sons et des parfums de la 
 nature rustique. Les pelerins des ‘Recits de Cantorbery ’ 
 cheminent vraiment sur une route anglaise, au milieu des 
 champs et des plaines, a travers les villages et les bourns de 
 la vieille Angleterre. Tout le po6me est baigne de grand air 
 et de lumi&re, et partout la nature fait un chaud et solide 
 fond de tableau a la cavalcade bigarr^e. C’est un des 
 
1895] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 103 
 
 caracttres par lesquels le potoe se s6pare le plus profonde- 
 ment de son module italien. Tandis que les egoistes causeurs 
 du ‘Decameron’ sont, par le potte aussi bien que par leu r 
 propre decision, isoles du reste du monde, tandis qu lls ne 
 vivent qu’une existence toute mentale, les personnages de 
 Chaucer doivent en partie leur relief et leur verity drama- 
 [P . 216 ] tique au contact toujours senti de la nature ambiante. . . • 
 Qu’on se rappelle, entre mille traits analogues, cette breve 
 
 notation d’une aurore : . , 
 
 ‘ L’alouette affairee, messag&re du jour,— salue de sa 
 chanson le gris matin,— et l’ardent Phebus s’eleve si 
 radieux-que tout l’orient rit a sa vue-et de ses rayons il 
 seclie, dans les bosquets toutes les gouttes argents des 
 
 [ P 217 ] II y a manifestement la, dans la minutiede l’observa- 
 
 tion* et dans la justesse de touche de la peinture, quelque 
 chose que le moyen age n’avait pas connu, pas meme dans 
 les vers gracieux, trop pares et trop spirituels, du rondeau 
 celebre de Charles d’Orleans. 
 
 C’est cette precision aigue de la vision qui sauve^ de la 
 monotonie les descriptions si frequentes d’oiseaux, d’arbres 
 et de fleurs. Dans une foret, Chaucer donne a chaque arbre 
 sa physionomie propre. . . . H voit tous les details des 
 obiets, et en meme temps il sympathise avec toutes les 
 manifestations de la vie des choses. Y oyez ce que lui sugg^re 
 une averse de prin temps : 
 
 t P . 218 ] ‘ Quand les douces ondees de la pluie tombent mollement,— 
 
 que le sol bien souvent — exhale de bienfaisantes vapeurs, 
 et que chaque plaine se pare richement— d’une fraiche 
 verdure; que les petites fleurs— £closent 9 a et la dans les 
 champs et les prairies,— si bonnes et si bienfaisantes sontces 
 ondees, — qu’elles renouvellent ce qui 6 tait vieux et mort 
 pendant l’hiver ; et, de toutes les semences,— sortent les 
 plantes ; si bien que chacun — se sent, a la venue de la saison 
 
 nouvelle, tout joyeux et 16ger.’ 
 
 Et cependant ces descriptions directes ne sont pas tout ce 
 que r6v61e chez Chaucer le sentiment de l’amour de la 
 
 nature. ... , 
 
 Tantot c’est une comparison prolong^ comme cede de 
 
 Cressid avouant son amour : 
 
 < Tel le jeune rossignol timide qui s’arrete d’abord quand 
 il commen^ait a chanter’ [etc. Troilus , bk. iii, 177-181] 
 
104 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1896 | 
 
 Plus souvent encore, c’est une indication rapide telle quo 
 celle qui complete la description du costume d’un jeune 
 ecuyer: ‘tout brodd, comme une prairie pleine de fraiches 
 neurs blanches et rouges.’ 
 
 [p. 219] Ainsi, la nature, directement sentie, et rappelee aveo un 
 mtarissable plaisir, figure partout dans l’oeuvre du p5re de la 
 poesie anglaise. . . . C’est la nature aimable et riante telle 
 qu’elle nous charme dans la jeune saison et dans les matinees 
 ra leuses. . . . On pourrait appliquer au poete le vers 
 par lequel il resume le portrait du jeune seigneur : ‘ il avait 
 toute la fraicheur du mois de mai.’ 
 
 1896 V™«« t S Joee pb- Ilistcnre de la langue d de la littemture 
 Jrangaise . . publiee sous la direction de L. Petit de JulleviJle 
 tome n, [Les Fabliaux], pp. 68, 77. e , 
 
 1896 P L m lois ’ Ernest ' Ibid -’ tome [Le Koman de la Eose ]> 
 
 1896. Petit de Julleville, L. Ibid., tome ii, [Froissart], p. 347. 
 
 1896, Brunot, Ferdinand. Ibid., tome ii [la Langue franjaise], p. 526 
 Le poete Gower, aprte avoir commencd par dcrire en 
 fran^ais, se sert du latin, puis enfin de l’anglais, et l’immortel ! 
 Chaucer, sans avotr des hesitations, l’adopte et le consacre a 
 la iois par son genie. 
 
 1890. Legouis, Lmile. Quomodo Edmundus Spenserus ad Chaucerum 
 se fingens m eclogis ‘The Shepheardes Calender 5 versum heroicum 
 renovarit ac refecent [Thesis], Paris, 1896. neroicum 
 
 195, 6 2 7 23 68 26 7 2 !’ 87> 97 ’ 102> 104 ’ 105 ’ 10 * 
 
 [p. 4P] En outre, la personnalitd propre de Chaucer commence a S 
 paraitre dans ces oeuvres [‘ Lyf of Saint Cecile ’1373: ‘ Com- ) 
 plain te of Mars’ 1380, prose translation of the ‘De Consola- 
 tione’ of Boethius, ‘Parliament of Foules,’ ‘Troilus,’ 1382 
 ‘Hous of Fame’ 1383-4, ‘The Legend of Good Women,’]' 
 sa bienveillance, son humour , sa sympathie indulgente pour 
 [p.50] tout ce qui est humain, ses dons d’observation, Part du 
 dialogue familier, la vivacite de repartie, le soin de la forme : 
 qualites que nous avions discernees a l’etat embryonnaire 
 dans la race celtique et qui ont passe maintenant, grace a la 
 fusion intervenue, dans la race anglaise. 
 
 Ces dons brillent surtout dans ‘Troilus et Cressida’ 
 
French Allusions. 
 
 105 
 
 1896] 
 
 admirable po&me, roman et drame k la fois, plein de tendresse 
 et en meme temps d’ironie douce, ou quelque reste des 
 melancolies saxonnes s’allie a la gaiet6 frangaise, ou Boccace 
 ( Filostrato ) est imite et surpass^. ... 
 
 • P . 53 ] [Dans les contes de Canterbury] c’est toute l’Angleterre 
 qui nous est montr6e, jeune, printani&re, 6panouie. Les 
 g6nies des deux races d’autrefois se sont fondus ; le g6nie 
 celtique et latin domine toutefois dans Chaucer. Nous le 
 trouvons optimiste et indulgent, n’inclinant nullement vers 
 le fatal isme et le d^sespoir. II voit les vices d’un regard 
 clair et ne se fait pas d’illusion ; il tache de les guerir ; s’il 
 ne peut, il s’en console, et s’il ne peut s’en consoler, il s’en 
 venge du moins par une epigramme. Ses epigrammes, il est 
 vrai, font plus que piquer, elles p6netrent : ce ne sont pas 
 de simples amusements; a son esprit petillant, a lafrancaise, 
 se mele une forte dose humour anglais. 
 
 Il s’lnt^resse aux humbles et les aime ; si ce sont des 
 coquins, le pittoresque de leurs moeurs impures l’amuse ; s’ils 
 p. 54 ] sont vertueux, ils lui inspirent une admiration attendrie 
 (portrait du bon cure). Les ‘ gens de rien ’ occupent dej& 
 dans son oeuvre la place qu’ils devaient tenir dans tout la 
 litterature anglaise et dans l’histoire politique du pays. Il 
 voit d’une vue claire, il sent d’un coeur sensible. Il traduit 
 sa vision et son impression par le mot qui fait voir ou le 
 mot qui touche, avec une justesse inconnue jusque-la dans 
 son pays. Il a un sens de la forme et de la mesure rare 
 avant la Renaissance ; il blame les longueurs sans tou jours 
 les eviter ; mais c’est deja beaucoup de savoir que les 
 longueurs sont un defaut, et le merite n’etait pas banal 
 de son temps. Il versifie avec soin ; la place des mots ne 
 lui est pas indifferente, leurs sonorites le preoccupent. Il 
 a sur tous ces points des idees arretees, il n’^crit pas au 
 hasard ; il veut, il choisit ; bref, et pour la premiere fois 
 dans l’histoire des lettres anglaises, nous nous trouvons en 
 presence d’un artiste. 
 
 Avec cela, des moyens simples : nulle pretention ; il veut 
 et choisit, et cependant garde un air de facilite : son vocabu- 
 laire est le vocabulaire de tout le monde, sa prosodie de 
 meme; ce sont cette prosodie et ce vocabulaire, ces vers 
 rimes ou les accents marquent la cadence, cette langue ou 
 surabondent les mots fran^ais, dont nous avons expose plus 
 
106 Appendix B. [a.d. 1897- 
 
 haut la formation. II les prit tels qu’il les trouva, et il lea 
 consacra par l’usage qu’il en fit. . . . 
 
 1897. Jusserand, J. J. Jacques L er d’Fcosse, fut-il poete? Etude sur 
 Vauthenticite du ‘ Gainer dn Hoi,’ pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 note, 20-22. 
 
 1898., Soult, Amelie (M lle ). Chaucer . Copie de la conference anglaise 
 par laquelle Mlle. A. Soult ... devait inaugurer , a la Sorbonne , 
 le l er decembre 1897, les conferences en langue anglaise de la Societe 
 de propagation des langues etrangeres en France. 
 
 [A short biography of Chaucer, followed by a study of 
 the Canterbury Tales ; in English.] 
 
 1898. Unknown. [Article 4 Chaucer ’ in] Le Nouveau Larousse illustre , 
 tome ii, p. 735 [short biographical notice]. 
 
 1900. Legouis, Emile. Quel fut le premier compose partfhaucer des 
 deux Prologues de la Leyende des Femmes Fxemplaires ? [extract 
 from the Revue de V enseignement des langues vivantes , Paris, April 
 1900]. Le Havre, 1900. r 
 
 [M. Legouis maintains that the A text was composed 
 first.] 
 
 1900. Lecoq, J. [Notice of Legouis, Quel fut le premier compose par 
 Chaucer des deux prologues de la Legende des Femmes Fxemplaires , ' 
 in the] Revue Critique d’Histoire et de Litterature , 10 Dec 1900 
 p. 467. 
 
 ? 
 
 1900. Lecoq, J. [Notice of Skeat’s Chaucer Canon , in the] Revue ; 
 Critique d’Histoire et de Litterature , 10 Dec. 1900, pp. 466-7. 
 
 1903. Raynaud, Gaston. Lntroduction [to the] (Euvres completes de 
 Eustache Deschamps, Soci6t6 des Anciens Textes Francais, tome xi 
 1903, Sujets des pieces, p. 213. 
 
 Chaucer. Toute une ballade adress^e a Chaucer fait allu- j 
 sion a une traduction anglaise du Roman de la Rose aujour- 
 d’hui perdue, dont il etait l’auteur. Son po&me The Flower 
 and the Leaf (Aldine edition, 1902, t. ix, p. 87), peut aussi 
 etre rapproch^ des pieces consacrees par Deschamps a YOrdre 
 de la Fleur et a YOrdre de la Feuille. 
 
 1906. Harvey-Jellie, W. Les Sources du Theatre Anglais a Vepoque 
 de la Restauration [Thesis], p. 32. 
 
 Waller remit en lumiere les vers suivis, dont Chaucer 
 s’etait si remarquablement servi. 
 
1907] French Allusions. 107 
 
 1907. Gebhart, Emile. Merry Old England [article from the] Gaulois, 
 Tuesday, April 23, 1907. [A review of the translation of the 
 first series of the Canterbury Tales appearing in the Bevue Ger- 
 manique, September, 1906. See below, under 1908.] 
 
 La joyeuse vieille Angle terre ! Je ne demand ais pas mieux 
 que de souscrire a ce signalement, qui s’impose a nous 
 par l’autoritA seculaire d’un proverbe ou d’une sentence 
 historique. 
 
 Mais j’avais beau me frotter les yeux, je ne distinguais 
 pas tres clairement, dans la vieille litterature anglaise, ce 
 trait caract^ristique de gaiete nationale. Shakespeare n’est 
 point d’humeur essentiellement joyeuse [M. Gebhart cites 
 Macbeth, Hamlet and ‘ le gros Ealstaff,’ qui ‘n’est qu’un 
 boufifon de taverne.’ Sterne, Swift and Addison, and 
 Hogarth and the other caricaturists of the eighteenth 
 century, are not really happy (joyeux). In the history of 
 the country itself, as in its literature and arts of design, 
 reigns a terribly tragic note.] 
 
 Et voila que toujours The Merry Old England s’obstine a 
 se derober a nos yeux. 
 
 Elle existe pourtant, bien originale et bien vivante, et 
 c’est pr6cis6ment aux ann6es memes de YAguto et dans les 
 horreurs de la guerre de Cent Ans, qu’elle se r^vele de la 
 manure la plus inattendue et la plus aimable. Le premier 
 grand poeme de la literature anglaise, les Contes de Canter- 
 bury de Geoffrey Chaucer, nous m^nageaient cette surprise. 
 Les plus distingues de nos maitres anglicisants viennent 
 d’en entreprendre la traduction, sous la direction de M. 
 Emile Legouis. . . . 
 
 [A short biography of Chaucer and an account of his debt 
 to Boccaccio’s Decamerone follow.] 
 
 L’imagination de Chaucer fut joliment cicatrice. Voyez, 
 en son Prologue , la variete individuelle, et le mouvement des 
 personnages qui Avoluent comme sur une scene de theatre 
 bien reglee, la face franchement tournee vers le spectateur, 
 avec leur allure propre, leur costume, leur geste professionnel, 
 l’inoubliable trait particular de leur visage. 
 
 Yoici vingt-neuf pelerins qui s’en vont a Canterbury, afin 
 d’y venerer les reliques du grand 6veque martyr. Le hasard 
 les a r6unis en une hotellerie du vieux Londres, a l’enseigne 
 
108 Appendix B. [a.d. 1907- 
 
 du Tabard: ils representent, en dehors de l’aristocratie j 
 feodale, la soci^te anglaise de l’epoque. . . . 
 
 L hote, un joyeux drille, ravi d une clientele si choisie, se 
 joint au pMerinage et propose a ses comperes de conter, le 
 long du chemin, des histoires d’aventures ‘du temps jadis.’ 
 
 . . . L’offre du ruse aubergiste est acclamee par enthousi-l 
 asme. On tire a la courte paille. Au chevalier de parler 
 le premier. C est un lettre, ce chevalier. II a lu la Theseide 
 de Boccace, et raconte amplement les chevaleries du due 
 Th6s6e. Et chacun a son tour, paye son ecot. C’est un; 
 defile de contes de toutes les couleurs, surtout de couleurs 
 assez crues, de fabliaux friands, de bons tours d’6coliers, 
 dont quelques-uns seront repris et tendrement ciseles a neuf > 
 par La Fontaine. Madame la Prieure, les clercs et les 
 moines auront maintes fois l’occasion de baisser les yeux, 
 tout en cheminant vers la tombe de saint Thomas Becket. : 
 
 Gaietes de saveur toute gaulofse, d’importation 6trangere : 
 je n’y reconnais pas encore un signe d’originalite. La | 
 grande invention de Chaucer, c’est le portrait meme de ses 
 p^lerins. La galerie qu il nous fait parcourir est chose 
 merveilleuse. Chaque figure du Prologue est l’effigie d’un 
 temperament moral ; la demarche, le costume, la coiffure, ! 
 le tour et le ton de la parole jusqu’aux menues confidences, 
 du po&te sur le train intime ou les innocentes manies du : 
 personnage, tout concourt a la perfection du tableau. Mais 
 notez ceci, qui est essentiel; Chaucer ne vise point a la 
 caricature ; il a le sens necessairement mesure et discret du 
 comique, et le grotesque n’est point pour le seduire. Ses i 
 couleurs ont la fraicheur du matin verdoyant de mai qui | 
 eclaire la marche du pelerinage, jamais elles ne sont violentes. j 
 II se trouvait jouir du plus charmant etat d’ame : la con- i 
 templation du monde l’amusait; il jugeait divertissants les 
 visages et les actes quotidiens de ses semblables et n’en res- ' 
 sentait ni colere, ni amertume, ni tristesse. Il les caressaifc 
 d’une ironie legere, et se gardait de les meurtrir dune moquerie 
 mechante. Soyez certains que cet homme ne s’ennuyait pas 
 souvent et que, dans le cercle seigneurial ou l’on goutait la 
 grace de son esprit, la melancolie fut une visiteuse assez rare. 
 
 Je detache l’image de la ‘simple et discrete* Pripure, 
 M me Eglantine, dont le plus grand serment etait : ‘ Par saint 1 
 Eloi ! ’ [A description of the Prioress follows.] 
 
1908] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 109 
 
 La miniature est exquise. 
 
 Cette alRgresse de l’imagination, assaisonnee de malice et 
 de bonhomie, fut-elle le don propre de Geoffroy Chaucer, ou 
 bien repond-elle a l’enjouement de la societe feodale anglaise, 
 vers la fin du quatorzieme si&clel Nous saisirons enfin The 
 Merry Old England , au moins dans les rangs cultives de 
 l’aristocratie. Sinon, le vieux conteur representerait a lui 
 seul la ‘ joyeuse vieille Angleterre.’ Or, comme une hirondelle 
 ne fait pas le printemps, je me trouverais lance de nouveau 
 sur une mer d’incertitude. 
 
 1907. Berger, P. William Blake , Mysiicisme et Poesie , pp. 87, 88. 
 
 1908. Gebhart, Lmile. Deux Contes de Geoffroy Chaucer [article from 
 the] Journal des Debats , 11 March, 1908. [Review of the second 
 series of the Tales appearing in the Bevue Germanique. See under 
 1908 below.] 
 
 . . . Je ne veux aujourd’hui que presenter au lecteur l’ou- 
 vrage si peu connu, chez nous, du Boccace anglais, invention 
 charmante, qui a toutes les graces, les maladresses, les 
 timidit^s et le joli p^dantisme des creations de l’adolescence. 
 Quand Chaucer a la bonne fortune de rencontrer quelque 
 tragi que tradition morale venue de Tite-Live, par exemple 
 la mort de Virginie, il s’y com plait avec cette joie que les 
 poetes du moyen age ont savour^e chaque fois qu’ils tou- 
 chaient aux souvenirs de la Grece ou de Rome. Nos aieux, 
 ravis de paraitre si savants, s’abandonnaient alors a de 
 dfflicieux bavardages : l’histoire romaine chez la portiere. 
 Mais voici un conte, qui promettait beaucoup, mais qui finira 
 raal, ou plutot qui ne finira pas du tout : le conte de sire 
 Topaze ! Chaucer semblait s’abandonner a un souffle d’in- 
 vention chevaleresque : ce petit jouvenceau de sire Topaze, 
 n6 en Flandre, ‘par dela la mer/ fils de seigneur, brave, 
 mignon, la face blanche comme pain de luxe, les Rvres rouges 
 comme rose, les cheveux et la barbe d’un blond de safran, 
 s’en allait chevauchant par les collines et les valRes, sous la 
 futaie des forets profondes, la lance en arret, gaiement, folle- 
 ment, le galop de son cheval chassait les chevreuils, les 
 IRvres et les sangliers hors de leurs retraites ; mais Topaze 
 ne se souciait point des betes fauves : il attendait le chant 
 des oiseaux. 
 
 Cet Man printanier a travers la vie, cette intelligence 
 
110 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1908 
 
 familiere des voix de la nature, du chant des oiseaux, 
 faisaient vaguement penser au saint Julien l’Hospitalier de 
 Flaubert : cet amour pour une creature de reve, toute voilee 
 de brouillard et de rayons de lune, nous acheminait vers la 
 feerie, vers les prestiges du roman chevaleresque, qui deja 
 enchantait l’imagination heroique de l’Espagne. M. Legouis 
 voit en effet, en ce conte, une imitation, mais une imitation 
 ironique de cette litterature qui, au temps de Chaucer, 
 d6gen6rait deja en ballades ou poemes populaires semi 
 lyriques. 
 
 Fans le vieux fabliau, ou les trois personnages essentiels 
 sont le mari, la femme et l’amant (tres souvent un moine de 
 la race de Frere Jean des Entommeures), Chaucer se sent 
 fort a son aise j dans 1 aimable conte du J\daviniev, ou le 
 moine, dom Jean, est le cousin meme du mari, il imagine 
 des incidents et des discours franchement comiques. Ceci 
 est la bonne veine de la literature bourgeoise du moyen age 
 europeen. Apres tout, l’invention de Chaucer n’y porte que 
 sur le detail des episodes. Mais le don original du conteur 
 est une plaisante allegresse du r4cit j il s’amuse infiniment 
 aux histoires contees par ses p&lerins. Si le conte est une 
 predication morale, il le renforce de toute lerudition possible, 
 dun veritable debordement d exemples 4difiants. Fans le ! 
 conte du moine defilent les plus tragiques m^saventures, 
 d’Adam a Pierre le Cruel : Neron y occupe une place fort 
 ample, et Ugolin s’y montre en toute l’horreur de sa duresse. 
 Ce dernier tableau est d’une r^elle beaute, et fort curieux a 
 4tudier de pres : certains traits d’un pathetique profond, a 
 peine indiqu6 par Fante, ont et6 saisis par l’instinct poetique , 
 de Chaucer : 
 
 Le geolier ferma la porte de la tour. 
 
 Il l’entendit bien, mais ne dit mot. 
 
 C’est le terrible Senzafar motto de la Cantica. Mais, tout 
 aussitot, etourdi comme un ecolier, notre Anglais inflige au 
 texte italien un strange contresens : 
 
 do non piangeva : si dentro impietrai. 
 
 * Je ne pleurais pas : tant j’avais de pierre en dedans.’ 
 
 ‘ Helas ! helas ! ’ gemit TUgolin de Chaucer, ‘pourquoi j 
 suis-je ne?’ 
 
 ‘ A ces mots, les larmes tomberent de ses yeux 
 
1908] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Le plus interessant morceau de cette seconde s6rie, au 
 point de vue de l’oeuvre artistique, me semble etre le Conte 
 du pretre de Nonnains , du Coq chanteclair et de la Poule 
 Pertelote , un fabliau installe dans le monde de la volaille, un 
 dementi inflige a la tradition triomphante de maitre Renard, 
 Renard l’invincible et l’infaillible, et, melee a ce drame de 
 basse-cour, une th6orie de la divination et des songes d’apres 
 les meilleurs auteurs de l’antiquite. Un pur bijou et, si le 
 chapelain de ces petites nonnes avait, en son br£viaire, beau- 
 coup de contes, aussi agreables, on ne devait point s’ennuyer 
 au couvent. 
 
 1908. Hcepffner, Ernest. Introduction [to the] QHuvi'es de Guillaume 
 de Machaut , Soc. des Anc. Textes Frangais, tome i, p. vii. 
 
 Les oeuvres de Guillaume dtaient connues meme au dela 
 du domaine de la langue fran$aise. Chaucer, le grand po&te 
 anglais, s’est inspire du Dit de la Fontaine arnoureuse pour son 
 Boke of the Duchesse et a fait des emprunts encores a d’autres 
 poemes de Machaut. 
 
 1908. Les Contes de Canterbury de Geoffroy Chaucer. Traduction fran- 
 gaise, a/cec une introduction et des notes. . . . Paris, Felix Alcan, 
 1908. 
 
 [This appeared as No. 4 bis of the Revue Germanique for Sept. 1006, 1907 and 190^, 
 and was re-issued in 1 vol. in 1908.] 
 
 [p.v] La traduction a £t£ ainsi repartie entre les professeurs 
 agreg^s d’anglais dont les noms suivent : 
 
 Prologue General. — M. Cazamian, professeur adjoint h 
 P University de Bordeaux. 
 
 Conte du Chevalier. I re partie. M. Leon Morel, charge 
 de cours a la Sorbonne. 
 
 II e partie. — M. C.-M. Gamier, pro- 
 fesseur au lycee Henri iv. 
 
 III e et IV e parties. — M. Bourgogne, 
 professeur au lyc4e Condorcet. 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Meunier. — M. Delcourt, professeur au 
 lycee de Montpellier. 
 
 Prologue et Conte de VIntendamt. \ M ' ^erocquigny, Fata- 
 7 , ~ . 7 ~ . . . V seur a 1 Umversite de 
 
 Prologue et Conte du tuisimer. 
 
 Introduction , Prologue et Conte de V Homme de Loi. — M. W. 
 Thomas, professeur a l’Universit6 de Lyon. 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Marinier. iM. Koszul, professeur au 
 
 Prologue et Conte de la Prieure.j lycee de Lyon. 
 
112 
 
 [A.D. 1908 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 Prologue et Conte de Chaucer sur 
 
 sire Thopaze. I M. Pegouis, profes- \ 
 
 Prologue du Mellibee. ) seur a ^ a Sorbonne. 
 
 Conte de Chaucer sur Mellibee.— M. Bastide, professeur au j 
 lycee Charlemagne. 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Moine.—M. Charles Petit, professeur i 
 au lycee d’Amiens. 
 
 Prologue , Conte et Epilogue duPretrede Nonnains.— M. C. I 
 Cestre, maitre de conferences a l’Universite de Lyon. 
 
 Conte et Epilogue du Medecin. f M * Clerm ont, profes- j 
 Prologue et Conte du Pardonneur.) seura u lyc6e Janson- 
 
 [ de-Sailly. 
 
 Prologue de la F emme de Bath. — -M. Lerocquigny, profes- 
 ‘ seur a l’Universite de Lille. 
 
 [I*. Vi] Conte de la Femme de Bath. |M. E. Wahl, professeur au 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Frere.j lycee Janson-de-Sailly. 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Semoneur. — M. Bauchet, professeur 
 au lycee d’Evreux. 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Clerc. — M. R. Huchon, maitre de 
 conferences a FUniversite de Nancy. 
 
 Prologue, Conte et Epilogue du Marchand. — M. Lavault, 
 professeur au lycee Janson-de-Sailly. 
 
 Conte et Epilogue de l Ecuyer. — M. Bahans, professeur au 
 lycee de Pau. 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Franklin. — M. P. Berger, professeur 
 au lycee de Bordeaux. 
 
 Prologue et Conte de la Seconde JPonne. — M. Yallod, pro- 
 fesseur au lyc6e de Nancy. 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Valet du Chanoine.—M. Castelain, 
 professeur adjoint a l’Universite de Poitiers. 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Manciple. VM. Bastide, professeur au ] 
 
 Prologue et Conte du Cure. J lyc^e Charlemagne. 
 
 * 
 
 [p. vii] Avertissement. Les traducteurs ont adopts les regies 
 suivantes : 
 
 1° Emploi du texte des Contes de Canterbury , publie par 
 Mr. W. W. Skeat dans son Student's Chaucer . . . le meilleur 
 texte existant, presque dcfmitif. Ce texte a bte suivi fidele- 
 ment, mais non servilement, et les traducteurs ont cru devoir 
 s’en separer, en de tres rares occasions, surtout en ce qui 
 concerne la ponctuation adoptee par la critique. . . . 
 
1908 ] French Allusions. 113 
 
 2° Notes r^duites au strict n6cessaire. . . . 
 
 3° Traduction lineaire, vers pour vers, d’ou un style sans 
 doute moins coulant, mais en revanche plus fidele et peut- 
 etre plus savoureux. . . . 
 
 [p. viii] L’accueil fait a la premiere moiti6 de ce livre permet de 
 croire qu’il vient a son heure et comble une lacune enfin 
 devenue sensible. Le premier Groupe des Contes, paru en 
 fascicule dans un nuinero supplementaire de la Revue 
 Germanique , a ete honore par l’Academie frangaise d’une 
 
 partie du prix Langlois. ... 
 
 II est d’ailleurs difficile de ne pas voir un indice signale du 
 progres des etudes de langues vivantes chez nous, dans le 
 nombre, la competence et le zele des collaborateurs qui se 
 sont unis spontanement en vue de mener a bien une oeuvre 
 longue, delicate, exigeant la connaissance de la vieille langue 
 
 anglaise, et toute desint6ress6e. 
 
 La Societe pour V Etude des Langues 
 et Litteratures modernes. 
 
 [pp. ix.-xxxii.] Introduction, par M. Emile Legouis. [See 
 below.] 
 
 1908. Legouis, Emile. 
 Geoffroy Chaucer , 
 xxxii. 
 
 Introduction [to the] Contes de Canterbury de 
 traduction frangaise . . . Paris, 1908, pp. ix- 
 
 [ P . ix] L’oeuvre dont la traduction est donnee dans ce volume a 
 d£ja £t6 a plus d’une reprise celebree chez nous par la critique. 
 En des pages nombreuses et brillantes, tour a tour Taine et 
 M. Jusserand, pour ne parler que d eux, ont proclame que 
 les Contes de Canterbury etaient non seulement le premier 
 chef-d’oeuvre en langue anglaise, mais encore l’un des poemes 
 capitaux de l’Europe avant la Renaissance, qu’ils pourraient 
 bien meme en etre de tous le plus vivant, le plus varie et le 
 plus r^jouissant. Nul des lecteurs de leurs belles etudes qui 
 n’ait senti l’attrait du vieux livre dans leurs citations et a 
 travers leurs analyses. Or c’est un indice curieux (et inquie- 
 tant aussi) de notre tournure d’esprit que le manque persistant 
 d’une version accessible de ces Contes si bien loues. 
 
 ! [ P . x] Les Contes de Canterbury sont done restes pour la France 
 
 un de ces chefs-d’oeuvre qu’on salue de tres loin et qu’on 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. V. I 
 
114 
 
 Appendix B. [a.d. 1908 
 
 ignore. C est ainsi qu’il manque au lecteur desinteresse un 
 des livres de jadis qui peuvent le plus pour son amusement ; a 
 l’historien un tableau unique de la vie populaire du xiv e 
 si^cle ; au litterateur un des plus remarquables prolongements 
 & 1 etranger de notre po^sie nationale, et avec cela une oeuvre 
 qui, fond4e sur le pass6, fait mieux qu’aucune pr^voir le 
 progr^s de la literature europ^enne. 
 
 II est un autre regret auquel le manque de cette traduction 
 peut justement donner lieu. Faute de lire les. Contes de 
 Canterbury les Fra^ais se sont refuse la seule entree de plain- 
 pied qui leur fut possible dans la literature anglaise . 
 
 Ce pas est a peine franchi que la communion devient parfaite : 
 rr- xi] pens^es, sentiments, histoires, plaisanteries, tours d’esprit et 
 de style, on y retrouve ce qu’on a laisse derri^re. On y est 
 chez soi, avec l’agrement d’etre en meme temps hors de chez 
 soi; on y apprend selon des modes familiers des choses 
 curieuses sur un pays different. . . . Nul ecrivain anglais 
 ne nous communique au meme degre que Chaucer le sens de 
 cette entente cordiale primitive. Ce n’est certes pas que nous 
 songions a le revendiquer comme notre ; il nous est preferable 
 que ses vers et ses contes aient essaim6 de chez nous pour 
 former au dehors une ruche nouvelle, riche et prolifique. 
 Ainsi pouvons-nous dans la suite, apres avoir sejourn6 quelque 
 temps aupres de lui, passer mieux prepares aux autres grands 
 poetes anglais, vrais indigenes ceux-la et parfois tres strangers 
 k notre esprit, mais qui ont tous 4te a quelque degre ses 
 sieves, et tous ont salue en lui le maitre et le pere. 
 
 [r. xviii] La galerie des portraits qui mene aux contes est la seule 
 partie de Tedifice qui ait 6tk achevee definitivement, ou 
 presque definitivement. Les vingt-neuf compagnons de 
 route de Chaucer y figurent fix6s en des traits et des couleurs 
 que les annees n’ont fait, semble-t-il, qu’aviver. 
 
 Us sont la une trentaine appartenant aux professions les 
 plus dissemblables. 
 
 [p. xix] Nul doute que Chaucer, en quete de conteurs distincts, ne 
 se soit d’abord avise de cette differenciation la plus facile et la 
 plus nette qui consiste dans le contraste des professions. 
 Cela fait — etfaisait surtout alors — unebigarrure de couleurs 
 et de costumes dont l’ceil est saisi d’embl^e, une suite d’habi- 
 tudes et de tendances que l’esprit entend a demi-mot. II 
 
1908] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 115 
 
 suffisaifc de noter les traits generiques, les caract&res moyens 
 de chaque metier, pour obtenir deja des portraits fortement 
 accuses et qui ne risquaienc pas d’etre confondus. Plus d’une 
 fois le poete s’en tient a un simple releve des indices pro- 
 fessionnels. . . . Neanmoins il va souvent au dela \ ces 
 signes de metier qu’il n’omet jamais, et qui donnent a tous 
 les pelerins une g£n6ralite par quoi ils sont vraiment repre- 
 sentatifs, il lui arrive de les resserrer et de les diriger en 
 inclinant soit a l’id^alisation, soit a la satire. Aussi vrai que 
 son Chevalier est le parangon des preux, que son Cure de 
 village est le niodele des bons pasteurs, que son Clerc 
 d’Oxford est le ^type de l’amour desinteress6 de l’etude, 
 inversement son’ Moine, son Frere, son Semoneur, son Par- 
 donneur, rassemplent les traits les moins estimables de leurs 
 congeneres. PaVfois aussi une generalisation d’une autre 
 espece vient cyoiser et enrichir celle du simple metier . 
 l’Ecuyer est ei i meme temps la Jeunesse: le Laboureur est 
 encore la Charite parfaite chez les humbles ; la Drapiere de 
 Bath est du meme coup l’essence de la satire contre la 
 femme. 
 
 [p.*xx] Enfin il ne s’en tient pas la ; il vivifie et rajeunit les de- 
 scriptions convenues ou les generalisations anterieures en 
 ajoutant des Retails que lui fournit l’observation directe. 
 Il superpose les traits individuels aux generiques ; il donne, 
 meme quand il peint le type, l’impression de peindre une 
 personne unique, rencontree par hasard. . . . Cette com- 
 binaison des divers elements est chez lui d’un dosage variable, 
 extremement adroit sans qu’il y paraisse. Un peu plus de 
 gen6ralite, et ce serait le symbole fig6, l’abstraction froide ; 
 un peu plus de traits purement individuels, et ce serait la 
 confusion ou l’esprit s’egare faute de points de repere. 
 
 La vraisemblance est d’autant mieux obtenue que nulle 
 trace d’effort ou de composition ne se r^vele : 
 
 Ses nonchalances sont ses plus grands artifices. 
 
 Les details semblent se succdder au petit bonheur : les 
 traits de costume ou d’equipement alternent avec les notations 
 de caract&re ou de moralite. Cela parait a peine tri6 et 
 ordonne. Ajoutez que la naivety des procedes rappelle sans 
 cesse celle des peintres primitifs, par je ne sais quel air de 
 gaucherie, par la raideur inexperte de certains contours, par 
 une insistance sur des minuties qui fait d’abord sourire, par 
 
Appendix B. [a.d. 1908 
 
 la recherche des couleurs vives et en meme temps par l’unique 
 emploi des teintes plates a l’exclusion des tons degrades. La 
 presentation des pelerins est faite avec une simplicity mono- 
 tone dont le plus rude artiste ne se contenterait pas aujour- 
 d hui. Un a un, en des cadres ranges a egale distance Fun 
 de 1 autre, places sur le meme plan, et tous a la meme hauteur, 
 ils nous regardent tous de face. . . . 
 
 [p. xxii] Chaucer a done pu rivaliser avec le peintre. . . . Mais le 
 poete a des ressources refusees au peintre ; il dispose des sons 
 comme des couleurs. Chaucer use de cet avantage avec un 
 egal bonheur. II nous fait entendre les grelots qui, a la 
 bride du beau cheval brun monte par le Moine, tintent au 
 vent siffleur ‘ aussi clair et aussi fort que la cloche d’une 
 chapelle.’ 
 
 Mieux encore, ces portraits acheves, Chaucer s’est a vise 
 de les faire descendre de leur cadre. II ne passe pas du 
 [P.xxiii] portrait au conte sans intermediate. . . . Les prologues et 
 les epilogues particuliers ramenent sans cesse l’attention des 
 contes aux pelerins qui les disent ou les ecoutent, et soulignent 
 le dessein du po£te : faire de chacun de ces recits Fexpression 
 naturelle et vraisemblable de tel ou tel individu. 
 
 A pelerins divers de costume et de caractere il preta des 
 contes d iffy rents de fond et de forme. Son poeme est une 
 sorte d’ Arche de Noe ou des specimens de tous les genres 
 litteraires alors existants ont trouv6 place, chacun y gardant 
 la singularity de sa physionomie. La prose, les distiques, les 
 stances, se succedent et se croisent. 
 
 [ P . xxiv] ^ Il fallait encore— et ce n’etait pas le moins difficile de la 
 tache— attribuer a chaque pelerin celui de ces contes qui 
 convenait a sa caste et a sa nature. Cela encore Chaucer 
 l’a fait admirablement ou il a eu le temps de le faire, et la 
 reussite est telle dans les parties achevees de son poeme 
 qu °n peut, qu’on doit admettre qu’il y eut triomphe d’un 
 bout a 1 autre s il avait men4 l’oeuvre a sa conclusion. 
 
 tp. xxv] Certes le conte n’est plus toujours, dans Fabstrait, si bon, 
 si rapide, si lestement et habilement tourne qu’il pourrait 
 l’etre, ni si souvent relevy de spirituels mots d’auteur. 
 
1908] 
 
 French Allusions. 
 
 117 
 
 Ainsi, pris a part, le conte de la Bourgeoise de Bath est in- 
 ferieur en aisance, en dext^rite et en brillant a Ce qui plait 
 aux Dames de Yoltaire. Mais le conte tel qu’il est dans 
 Chaucer ne sort pas de la bouche du poete ; il 6mane d’une 
 commere qui y met sa philosophic de la vie et s’en fait un 
 argument ; il lui sert a proclamer son idee des rapports entre 
 mari et femme. Yu de cette manure, il prend une richesse 
 et un comique qui font paraitre minces et sans portee les 
 vers agiles du poete frangais. D’ailleurs ce conte n’est ici 
 que parcelle — la moins importante et savoureuse — de cette 
 immense confession que nous fait la Bourgeoise. Du role 
 principal il a passe a celui d’accessoire. 
 
 [p. xxviii] Enfin, dernier pas, Chaucer va jusqu’a nous offrir des 
 histoires dont il nous permet de nous moquer, si meme il ne 
 nous invite pas a les juger en soi fastidieuses ou ridicules. 
 Le Moine essaie de compenser sa mine trop fleurie de joyeux 
 veneur, sa carrure de grand * engendreur,’ en psalmodiant la 
 plus lugubre des complaintes sur la fin tragique des illustres 
 de ce monde ; il est assez cuirasse d’embonpoint et d’indiffe- 
 rence, lui, pour soutenir avec calme le choc de ces infortunes 
 anciennes ; mais le bon cceur du Chevalier souffre et proteste ; 
 l’Aubergiste bailie et declare que ‘ ce conte ennuie toute la 
 compagnie.’ Le chapelet funebre ne sera pas egrene jusqu’au 
 bout, et le Moine rentrera dans le silence, apres avoir par la 
 force soporifique de sa parole retabli l’opinion de sa gravite 
 dans resprit des pelerins. Chaucer non plus ne pourra pas 
 mener au terme le conte qu’il s’est attribue. L’Aubergiste 
 sense le rabrouera pour ce qu’il chante une ballade de cheva- 
 lerie qui rime beaucoup mais ne rime a rien. Somme de dire 
 une histoire ou il y ait moins d’assonances et plus de doctrine, 
 [p. xxix] il se vengera de son critique sournoisement en lui obeissant 
 a la lettre. Il renoncera aux vers et repetera en prose la 
 redoutable et interminable allegorie ou Dame Prudence 
 prouve a son epoux, par tous les Peres de l’Eglise et tous les 
 docteurs du stoicisme, qu’il doit prendre en douceur les maux 
 peu communs dont il est afflige. Dans ces trois cas, il serait 
 malavise, le lectern* qui chercherait son plaisir dans l’exeellence 
 des contes, au lieu de l’extraire, comme le poete, de leur 
 absurdite ou de leur ennui. 
 
118 Appendix B. [a.d. 1908- 
 
 Ainsi se transforment les contes, simplement par la justesse 
 de 1 attribution, alors que, pour le reste, ils conservent visible 
 leur marque d’origine. Mais il faut se garder de croire qu a 
 1 int^rieur meme des contes nul progres ne se r6v&le. 
 
 La meme faculty vivifiante qui donna corps et ame aux 
 pelerins court et circule dans beaucoup des recits qu’ils 
 font. Ici sans doute l’apport de Chaucer est tres in6gal 
 selon les cas. ... II faut convenir que Chaucer est tr&s 
 faiblement original dans la partie s^rieuse, proprement 
 po^tique, des Contes de Canterbury. L’histoire de ce 
 genre qu’il ait le plus remani4e est surement la Theseide de 
 Boccace. . . . 
 
 Mais ailleurs Chaucer est ou traducteur litteral, comme 
 pour le conte de Mellib^e, ou adaptateur tres voisin du 
 modele comme pour le sermon du cure, pour la vie de sainte 
 Cecile [etc.]. . / . 
 
 [p. xxx] lout autre est le cas pour les histoires comiques et r^alistes 
 analogues a nos fabliaux. Ici renrichissement est tel qu’on 
 pourrait parler de creation. Et cela reste en partie vrai, 
 meme si nous comparons Chaucer avec l’auteur du Decameron , 
 qui sut infuser a un genre originairement si sec tant de chaleur 
 et de rougeur de sang. Mais tandis que Boccace, gardant la 
 concision du genre, ne depasse guere le tableau de moeurs, 
 Chaucer, moins dense et moins passionn6, s’avance progressive- 
 ment vers l’etude des caracteres ; il reproduit a l’int^rieur de 
 plus d’un de ces contes cet effort pour saisir l’individu qui 
 fait la gloire de son Prologue. Boccace mene au roman 
 picaresque ; Chaucer montre deja la voie a Moliere et a 
 Fielding. C’est a ce point que chez lui l’intrigue, l’anecdote 
 initiale, qui fut le tout du fabliau et qui reste le principal 
 dans Boccace, passe a l’arriere-plan, s’efface, n’est plus guere 
 qu’un pretexte. Des le Conte du Meunier on s’en apergoit k 
 l’importance que prennent les portraits : celui de l’etudiant, 
 celui du clerc Nicolas, celui d Alison. Mais le plus caracteris- 
 tique a cet egard est le Conte du Semoneur. Tout ce qui 
 importe, ce sur quoi Chaucer s’etend, c’est la mise en scene 
 [p.xxxi]du Frere mendiant, ses fagons a la fois patelines et familieres, 
 ses extraordinaires efforts d’eloquence pour arriver a escroquer 
 l’argent de son malade. Quand on atteint la grosse farce 
 primitive, le meilleur du conte est acheve, et plus des deux 
 tiers en est dit. Ce qui fut l’unique raison d’etre du fabliau 
 de Jacques de Basiu n’est plus ici que la simple conclusion 
 
1009] French Allusions. 119 
 
 d’une <Stude de caractSre ensemble tris approfondie et 
 merveilleusement comique. 
 
 [ P . xxxii] Sans cesse nous eprouvons en lisant les C ontes de Canterbury , 
 surtout les contes plaisants, l’impression que quelque chose 
 est en train de naitre. Un levain d’observation et de verite 
 fermente a l’interieur de genres fixes, qui eurent leur per- 
 fection speciale, mais etroits et condamnes. Ce travail qui 
 s’opere, c’est le theatre moderne, voire le roman moderne, 
 qui donnent leurs premiers signes manifestes d’existence. 
 
 Cet Anglais du xiv e si^cle, parfois empetr6 dans une 
 syntaxe enfantine, encore imbu de scolastique, la memoire 
 surchargee de citations et d’autorites bibliques ou profanes, 
 ayant sur sa tete un ciel astrologique plus strange aux regards 
 europeens d’aujourd’hui que celui de l’hemisphere sud,— ce 
 ‘translates’ docile d’oeuvres disparates et souvent elles- 
 memes surannees,— se trouve en verity avoir ouvert une 6re 
 nouvelle. C’est qu’en lui le d^sir de voir et de comprendre la 
 vie a pass6 avant l’ambition de la transformer. PoHe exil6 
 pour pech6 d’humour des regions les plus hautes de la poesie, 
 la curiosite l’a decidement emporte chez lui sur la foi, et la 
 joie des yeux ou de Intelligence sur celle de l’enthousiasme. 
 Les paroles qu’il a entendues lui ont paru toujours r^jouis- 
 santes, et meme veridiques, du moins comme indices de la 
 nature et de la pature de qui les disait. II m&ne le groupe, 
 sans cesse accru, des contemplateurs qui accepteront comme 
 un fait, avec une indulgence amusee, sans pretendre a reteindre 
 1 etoffe d’une couleur unique, l’entrecroisement des fils de 
 diverses nuances dont se compose le tissu bigarre d une 
 societe. II a sans doute juge certaines couleurs plus belles 
 que d’autres, mais c’est sur le contraste de toutes qu’il a 
 fonde a la fois sa philosophic de la vie et les lois de son art. 
 
 1909. Unknown. [Review of the translation of the Canterbury Tales 
 in the] Hevue Universitaire , January 15, 1909. [Very briof.] 
 
 1909. Maury, Lucien. [Review of the translation of the Canterbury 
 Tales in the] Revue Bleue of January 23, 1909, pp. 120-122. 
 
 D’Assise a Canterbury 
 
 Voici une etonnante nouvelle : les contes de Chaucer 
 n’etaient pas traduits en fra^ais ! depuis le temps que ces 
 
120 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 [a.d. 1909 - 
 
 contes sont populates en Angleterre ! Depuis le temps 
 qu’ils constituent Inn des monuments de la litterature britan- 
 nique, et, sans doute, de la litterature europeenne ! Eh bien ! 
 non, nul ne s etait encore rencontre pour franciser ce livre 
 ceRbre, tandis que par milliers les plus mediocres ouyrages . . . 
 passaient dans notre langue. Le cas est surprenant. 
 
 Etait-ce done 1 enormite de la tache qui decouragea les 
 bonnes volontes ? Elies ne furent certes point deroutees par 
 1 etrangete de ces recits ; bien au contraire ; tous ceux de 
 nos Frangais qui en ont parle ont vante la grace limpide 
 et le charme accessible de ces vieilles aventures ; la matiere 
 n en est guere originale, et si Anglais qu’il soit, Chaucer parut 
 toujours tr£s voisin, par son art et son humeur de nos anciens 
 conteurs. . . . Et peut-etre ce fait suffit-il a expliquer l’espece 
 de defaveur dont son oeuvre, sinon son nom, souffrit en 
 France ; pourquoi demander a autrui ce que nous possedions 
 nous-memes? . . . 
 
 Enfin voici une traduction . . . qu’il etait scandaleux que 
 nous n’eussions point : vingt et un professeurs d’anglais l’ont 
 faite: . . . rajeunir Chaucer c’eftt ete le trahir; ses vingt 
 traducteurs le rajeunissent le moins possible ; ils ne tiennent 
 point la ridicule gageure de muer entierement son anglais 
 hesitant et savoureux en frangais du xiv e ou du xv e siecle ; 
 mais ils se souviennent des emprunts que nous fit Chaucer ; 
 emprunts est-ce assez dire? quand souvent des passages et 
 parfois des recits entiers sont passes presque mot pour mot 
 de 1 un de nos fabliaux ou de nos romans dans le texte 
 de Canterbury. . . . Recourir a ces fabliaux . . . recourir 
 meme a Petrarque, a Stace etait indique . . . s’inspirer 
 du latin et des formes oubliees du frangais . . . extraire 
 des ecrits de Jacques de Basiu (ou Boisieux) . . . du Roman 
 de la Bose ... des termes, des tournures et des metaphores, 
 etait legitime ; labeur minutieux, qui fut accompli avec plus 
 ou moms de bonheur, ... a qui nous devons ga et la de 
 prestigieuses reussites et au total un Chaucer frangais qui 
 n est point indigne du Chaucer anglais. 
 
 
 Hatons nous de temoigner notre gratitude aux vingt 
 traducteurs de ce merveilleux livre. 
 
1910] French Allusions. 121 
 
 L910. Legouis, Smile. Geoffroy Chaucer [in the Berios Les Grands 
 Ecrivains Etrangers ], Bloud, Paris, 1910. 
 
 [This is the first book written in French on Chaucer as 
 man and artist, giving an account of his environment and his 
 poetical development, with a detailed study of the poems. 
 The following is a table of the contents.] 
 
 Chapitre I. — Biographie du poete. 
 
 I. Yie de Chaucer. 
 
 II. Son caractere. 
 
 III. Relation de son oeuvre avec l’histoire de son temps. 
 
 IV. Son patron J ean de Gand. 
 
 Chapitre II. — Sa formation poetique. 
 
 I. Etat de la langue anglaise vers 1360. 
 
 II. Chaucer a Pecole de nos trouveres. 
 
 III. Sa poesie lyrique. 
 
 Chapitre III. — Les poemes allegoriques. 
 
 I. Le Livre de la Duchesse. 
 
 II. Le Parlement des Oiseaux. 
 
 III. La Maison de Renommee. 
 
 IY. La Legende des Femmes Exemplaires. 
 
 Chapitre IY. — Chaucer et ITtalie. 
 
 I. Influence de Dante, Petrarque et Boccace sur Chaucer. 
 
 II. r l y roilus et Crisede. 
 
 Chapitre Y. — Les Contes de Canterbury. 
 
 Sources et Elements. 
 
 I. Origine et conception de l’ceuvre. 
 
 II. Le realisme de Chaucer. Chaucer historien. 
 
 III. Limites de son impartiality L’art et la satire. 
 
 IY. Sources de ses Contes. 
 
 Chapitre YI. — Les Contes de Canterbury. 
 
 Analyse. 
 
 I. A l’auberge du Tabard. 
 
 II. Premiere journee de route : 
 
 [Here follows a detailed examination and criticism of all 
 the Canterbury Tales, illustrated with charming translations 
 into French verse of portions of the poems.] 
 
122 
 
 Appendix B. 
 
 [a.d. 
 
 Cliapitre VII. — Les Contes de Canterbury. 
 Etude Litteraire. 
 
 I. Les Portraits. 
 
 II. La Mise en mouvement des Pelerins. 
 
 III. Adaptation des Contes aux conteurs. 
 
 IV. Valeur des Contes. 
 
 V. Le style. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
Addenda to Appendix B, 
 
 123 
 
 385 ?] 
 
 ADDENDA TO APPENDIX B. 
 
 1385 ?] Froissart, Jean. Le Paradys d' Amour. (Oeuvres.— Poesies 
 publiees par M. Aug. Scheler, 1870-72, 3 vols., vol. i, pp. 1, 2.) 
 
 Je sui de moi en grant merveille 
 Comment je vifs quant tant je veille, 
 
 Et on ne porvit en veillant 
 Trouver de moi plus traveillant, 
 
 Car bien sacies que par veillier' 
 
 Me viennent souvent travillier 
 Pensees et merancolies 
 
 Et nonpourquant n’a pas lone terme 
 Que de dormir oc voloir ferme, 
 
 Car tant priai a Morpheus 
 A Juno et a Oleiis 
 
 Et le doulc dieu fist son commant, 
 
 Car il envoia parmi l’air 
 
 L’un de ses fils, Enclimpostair . . . 
 
 [The whole of this, the opening passage of the poem, 
 closely resembles that of The BoJce of the Buchesse, and 
 ‘ Enclimpostair ’ is Chaucer’s ‘ Eclympastey re. ’ Baron Kervy n 
 de Lettenhove (. Froissart , 1857, 2 vols., vol. ii, p. 264, 
 q. v. below) dates the Paradys <T Amour in 1385 ; The Boke 
 of the Buchesse cannot be much later than 1369.] 
 
 .584. Thevet, Andre. Pourtraits et Vies des Hommes Illustres. See 
 above, 1735. 
 
 i.699. Scudery, Madeleine de. [ Translation of Chaucer. See above, 
 pt. i, 1700, Dryden, and Introduction to App. B., pp. 2, 3.] 
 
 .764. Thiroux d’Arconville, M. G. C. Melanges de Poesie Ang- 
 loise . . . pp. 131-2 n. Henry et Emma, poeme de Prior, imite 
 de La Belle Brune de Chaucer. [Prose translation.] 
 
 [Translator’s note :] Chaucer, Poete Anglois, naquit a 
 Londres en 1328, & fut protege par le Due de Lancastre 
 et par les Hois Edouard hi & Richard. Ay ant donne dans 
 les erreurs de Wiclef il fut oblige de sortir d’ Angle terre : 
 
124 
 
 Addenda to Appendix B. [a.d. 1834- 
 
 y etant retournb quelquels terns apres il fut mis en prison, 
 mais il y resta peu de terns. II epousa la sceur de lal 
 Duchesse de Lancastre, & mourut en 1400, age de 72 ans : 
 il fut enterre dans l’Eglise de Westminster. Il nous restej 
 des Ouvrages de Chaucer en prose et en vers. Parmi ces* 1 
 derniers qui sont en grand nombre, on estime surtout la 
 Piece intitulee Le Testament d’ Amour. 
 
 1834. Desclozeaux, Ernest. Article 1 Chaucer; [in th e] Didionnaire 
 de la conversation et de la lecture. 1833, etc., vol xiii 1834 
 pp. 433-6. See above, 1853. ’ ’ : 
 
 18 35 S[pach], L[ouis]. Chaucer, [in] Encyclopedic des Gens du\ 
 Monde , pp. 594-6. 
 
 [An article of three columns laying the usual stress on i 
 Chaucer’s imitation of French and Italian writers.] 
 
 1842. Bouillet, Marie- Nicolas. Dictionnaire universelle d'histoire et 
 de geographie, art. Chaucer, p. 366. 
 
 [A short conventional biography. Troilus imitated I 
 from the Roman de la Rose. Chaucer’s works now very 
 difficult to understand.] 
 
 [The B.M. has the 1st edn., 1842, the 11th, 1856, the 20th, 1864, the 28th, 1884 1 
 and the 32nd, 1901, the last ‘refondu sous la direction de L.-G. Gouraigne/ The | 
 article is slightly revised by 1856, but no error is corrected. The sentence about | 
 Chaucer’s difficulty is deleted by 1864. The article in 1884 is practically iden- 
 tical, but by (and probably in) 1901 it is much enlarged and improved, though 
 1328 is still given as the birth-date, and the Complaint of Venus is included in the i 
 list of works.] 
 
 1850. F[orgues], E. D. La Poesie humoristique [g.r. above, p. 61]. jj 
 
 [This article is translated by Forgues from The Extractor , J 
 and is a review of Leigh Hunt’s Wit and Humour. Forgues’ j 
 translation of the Prologue , mentioned above, we have & not 1 
 found, and it was perhaps never published.] 
 
 1853. Dreyss, Charles Louis. Clironologie universelle , p. 419. 
 
 [The Chaucer reference appears in this edition. Entered above, p. 91 from ! 
 that of 1883.] 
 
 1854. Brunet, G. Chaucer, [in] Hoefer’s Nouvelle Biographic Generate, 
 vol. x, pp. 118-19. y r * 
 
 [Entered above, p. 63, under 1856.] 
 
125 
 
 1906-7] Addenda to Appendix B. 
 
 [rt. a. 1857?] Comte, Auguste. Calendrier Positiviste. 
 
 8° mois (Dante, l’Epopee moderne) 2 [July 17] Boccace, 
 Chaucer. 
 
 [Not in 1st edn., 1849. Comte died in 1857.] 
 
 1857. Kervyn de Lettenhove, J. M. B. C., Baron. Froissart , Brux- 
 elles, 2 vols., vol. i, pp. 57 n. [Philippa de Roet], 226-9 [Froissart 
 and Chaucer]; vol. ii, pp. 56-7 [the Canterbury Pilgrims; Sir 
 Thopas], 195 [the French of Madame Eglantine], 196 [Chaucer 
 borrows from Froissart], 264 [Enclimpostair. See above, 1385 ? 
 Froissart], 289 [the Empty Purse ; Chaucer’s verses inferior to 
 those of Froissart]. 
 
 1858. Rietstap, J.-B. Armorial general , Gouda, 1858-61, livr. v, vi, 
 1858, pp. 240-41, armes du po5te anglais Geoffrey Chaucer. 
 
 [Entered above, p. 91, from the edn. of 1884.] 
 
 1865. Bouillet, M. N. Atlas Universel d' Histoire et de Geographie , 
 p. 207. 
 
 1400. Mort du premier grande poete anglais, Chaucer. 
 
 1880. Demogeot, J.-C. Histoire des Litteratures etrangeres. See 
 above, 1895. 
 
 1881. Beljame, Alexandre. Le Public et les hommes de lettres en 
 Angleterre au xviii e siecle. 
 
 [Entered above from 2nd edn., 1883, which is identical.] 
 
 1888. Paris, Gaston. La Litterature frangaise au moyen age. 
 
 [The Chaucer references in this, the 1st, edn. are identical with those in the 2nd 
 1890, entered above.] 
 
 1889. Meyer, Paul. [ Introduction to the] Contes moralises de Nicole 
 Bozon . . . publies . . . par L. Toulmin Smith et Paul Meyer, 
 Paris, 1889, pp. xiii, xxiv, lvii. 
 
 [p. xiii, Chaucer’s Pardoner knew well the liking which 
 the lay folk had for the old tales ; p. xxiv, Bozon would say, 
 like Chaucer’s Pardoner : Radix malorum est cupiditas ; p. 
 lvii, English literature takes its first flight with Chaucer.] 
 
 i.894. Bemont, Charles, is the author of the section cited from Lavisse 
 and Ram baud’s Histoire generate. 
 
 l906-7. Les Contes de Canterbury. Traduction. See above, 1908, 
 
APPENDIX C. 
 
 GERMAN REFERENCES. 
 
 The work done on Chaucer by scholars in modern Germany is 
 so vast that it would need a volume to itself to deal at all 
 adequately with it. Here, therefore, owing to pressure of both 
 time and space, it has been left almost wholly unrecorded. But 
 the lack of this record here, from about the year 1880, is of com- 
 paratively little importance, owing to the many admirable biblio- 
 graphies, books of reference, and magazine indexes which exist 
 in German. Since the year 1879, practically every book and 
 monograph and article on Chaucer has been recorded and com- 
 mented on in the Jahresbericht iiber die Erscheinungen auf deni 
 Gebiete der germanischen Philologie , Berlin, 1879 (in progress). In 
 addition, there is the valuable Chaucer bibliography in Korting’s 
 Grundriss der geschichte der englischen Litteratur , Munster, i. \V.,' 
 1887, 1893, and 1905, and the large amount of close and accurate 
 information on Chaucer bibliography and criticism in Chaucer , a 
 Bibliographical Manual , by E. P. Hammond, Hew York, 1908. In 
 this last-named book a summary is given of the more important 
 articles on Chaucer in German periodicals \ and references to 
 German dissertations and monographs on Chaucer, and in many: 
 cases to reviews of these, are to be found on pp. 74, 81, 237-8, 
 273, 275, 279, 282, 288, 365, 376, 378, 475-80, 491, 501, 503-4.] 
 Full lists of German dissertations have been published monthly 
 since 1889 in the Bibliographische Monatsbericht iiber neit-erschie- 
 nene Schul- und Universitatsschriften , Leipzig. In addition, the; 
 principal German philological periodicals and reviews, many of 
 which contain a large number of Chaucer articles, are fully 
 indexed, and in many cases have special detailed index volumes. 
 See, for instance, below— 
 
 1846 ff. Archiv fur das Studium der neueren Sprachen und 
 Litteraturen . 
 
 1859 ff. Jahrbuch fiir romanische und englische Sprache und 
 Litteratur. 
 
 1877 ff. Englische Studien. 
 
 1878 If. Anglia. Zeitschrift fur englische Philologie. 
 
 126 
 
Appendix C. 
 
 127 
 
 It would, therefore, be a comparatively easy matter, with the help 
 of these and other hooks, to compile a formidable mass of German 
 critical work on Chaucer during the past thirty or forty years, 
 and it would be useful to have it all together. Here, however, 
 are given a selection of the more interesting German references 
 before 1860. From these it will be seen that there was fuller and 
 more accurate knowledge of Chaucer in the 17th and 18th centuries 
 in Germany than in any other foreign country. Specially interest- 
 ing are the remarks by Ludolf in 1691, by Bodmer in 1743, by 
 Herder in 1777 and 1796, and the long original critical essay, 
 probably by Eschenburg, in 1793. This latter is the best account 
 of Chaucer given by any foreign writer in the 18th century. The 
 praise of the Knightes Tale , of the poet’s ‘powerful yet flowing 
 verse,’ of his originality in Troilus , of the Squieres and Miller es 
 Tales, and, above all, of the connecting links or Prologues in the 
 ; Canterbury Tales, shows first-hand knowledge and real appreciation 
 of a kind which at this date is rarely found, even in England. 
 
 Wieland’s debt to Chaucer’s Marchantes Tale in Oberon (1780) 
 is generally known, but Seume’s translation of Chaucer’s Complaint 
 to his Purse (c. 1801), Breyer’s excellent paraphrase of Godwin’s 
 Life (1812), and Tieck’s use of the folio Chaucer in one of his 
 novels may not be so familiar to English readers. 
 
 The article on Chaucer by Meyer in 1845 is specially worthy 
 of remark. It is unusually good, accurate and fresh, written with 
 undoubted first-hand knowledge of Chaucer’s writings, his prede- 
 cessors and followers, editions of his works, and the facts about his 
 life so far as they were known in 1845. The Chaucer article in 
 the latest edition of Meyer’s Lexikon (1897) is entirely re-written, 
 [and although full of accurate and useful information, it lacks the 
 feeling of really close knowledge and appreciation of the poet’s 
 work which the original article gives. 
 
 After 1860, up to 1900, only a few of the more important 
 works on Chaucer are entered in the following list, such as Hertz- 
 berg’s and von D firing’s translations, ten Brink’s critical writings, 
 a, few monographs, and the reviews which contain so much valuable 
 Chaucer research and criticism. For the more recent important 
 German work on Chaucer, the names of Ballmann, Brandi, Flfigel, 
 Kaluza, Koch, Koelbing, Schipper and Zupitza are specially to be 
 noted. 
 
GERMAN REFERENCES. 
 
 1574. Gesner, Conrad. Bibliotheca , instituta et collecla primum a 
 
 Conrado Gesnero. Zurich, 1574, p. 214, col. 2. 
 
 Galfridus Chaucerus Anglus, eques auratus, Boethium de 
 consolation© Philosophiae transtulit in linguam Anglicam 
 poemate vario. Scripsit Trophaeum Lombardicum lib. i. » 
 De principum ruina. Emblemata moralia. Amatoria 
 carmina. De curia Yeneris. Chryseidae testamentu?^. 
 Chryseidae querimoniam. Laudes bonarum mulierum. 
 Cleopatrae vitam. Yitam Thysbes Babylonicae. Yitam 
 Didonis Carthaginensis. De Hypsipyle & Medea. Yitam 
 Lucretiae Romanae. De Ariadna Cretensi. De Philomela 
 Atheniensi. De Phyllide Thracewsi. De Hypermestra : 
 Aegyptia. Somnium Chauceri. Yolucrum conglobationem. 
 Yrbanitatis florem. Misericordiae sepulturam. De Augea 1 
 & Telepho. Choream Dominarum. De astrolabij ratione. 
 Querimoniam Nigri militis. Foeminarum encomion. Nar- 
 rationes diuersorum. De Troilo & Chryseida. De Caeyce 
 & Halcyone. In obitum Blanchiae ducissae. Tragcedias, 
 item Domoedias multas, ac elegias poemataque varia. Claruit 
 anno Domini 1450. 
 
 [In the edition of 1583 this notice is precisely similar.] 
 
 1654. Quenstedt, Joannes Andreas. Dialogus de Patriis TLlustrium 
 doctrina et scriptis virorum. Wittebergae, 1654, pp. 84, 85. 
 
 In Oxoniensi agro est Woodstock oppidum, quod cum nihil 
 habeat, quod ostentet (verba sunt Gul. Camdeni in Britan. 
 p. 155) Homerum nostrum Anglicum Galfeedum Chaucerum, 
 alumnum suum fuisse gloriatur. De quo & nostris Poetis 
 Anglicis (pergit idem) illud vere asseram, quod de Homero 
 & Graecis ille Italus dixit : 
 
 — Hie ille est , cujus de gurgite sacro 
 Combibit arcanos Vatum omnis turba furores. 
 
 128 
 
120 
 
 A.D. 1574-1691] German References. 
 
 Ille enim extra omnem ingenii aleam positus, & Poetastros 
 nostros longo post se intervallo relinquens, 
 
 — jam monte potitus , 
 
 Ridet anhelantem dura ad fastigia turbam . 
 
 Haec ille. Opuscula ejus varia recenset Conrad. Gesnerus 
 in Bibl. 
 
 [The passage is identical in the 2nd edition of 1691.] 
 
 1678. Konig, G. M. Bibliotheca vetus et nova , Altdorfi, 1678, p. 186. 
 
 Ohaucerus (Galfr.) Anglus, A. 1400. obiit. Yid. Ghilinus, 
 vol. 2. pag. 102. Quenst. pag. 84. 
 
 [For the Qnenstedt reference see above, 1654. Ghilinus is Girolamo Ghilini, 
 Teatro d'Huomini Letterati, Yen. 1647.] 
 
 1682. Morhof, D. G. Unterricht von der Teutschen Sprache and Poesie , 
 Kiel, 1682, p. 238. 
 
 Der Aelteste Englische Poet wird von dem Ubersetzer des 
 Eapini gesetzet Geoffry Chaucer, der im Jahr 1400 gelebet. 
 Selbiger ist mit imter den Chymisclien Poeten, und findet 
 sicb in dess Ashmols seinen Tractat ein Getichte \sic\ dessen 
 Uberschrifft The Tale of the Chanons Yeoman; workmen 
 er von dieser Kunst handelt. Sein Bildnusz und sein 
 Epitaphium, welches in der Kirchen zu Westminister zu 
 finden, hat er dabey abmahlen lassen. Dieser gebraucht 
 sich vieler alten Worter und Redensarten, die nicht mehr 
 gebrauchlich sevn. 
 
 [There w T ere subsequent editions of this work in 1700 
 and 1718. The notice of Chaucer is repeated in them with 
 slight verbal alterations.] 
 
 1691. Ludolf (or Leutolf), Hiob. Jobi Ludolji alias Leutholf dicti 
 ad suam Historiam JEthiopicam ante hac editam Commentarius 
 . . . Francofurti ad Moenum, 1691, p. 440. 
 
 L. iii, c. 6, FI. lxxi. 
 
 Seldenus id etiam olim in Britannia inter Christianos in 
 usu fuisse docet, producto veteri rhythmi Galfredi Chauceri , 
 qui sub Eduardo tertio floruit, de uxore sua Bathoniensi 
 ante fores templi quinquies maritata, Anglice sic ceciuit : 
 
 <She teas a tocrth^ toxmtatt all her libc 
 g)U 0 baab 0 at ike (Ehurrh boxt hah she ft be. 
 
 Id est : 
 
 Sie war ein wiirdig Weib in allem ihrem Leben 
 
 Der Manner fiinff bekam sie fur der Kirch Thiir eben. 
 
 [For the Selden reference see above, pt. i, 1646.] 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. V. K 
 
130 
 
 Appendix C. [a.d. 1694- 
 
 1694 Benthem H L. Engelandischer Kirch- und ScJiulen-Staatl 
 Luneburg, 1694, p. 595. 
 
 [In a list of Gelehrte of the fourteenth century :] 
 
 Geoffrey Chawcer, ein grosser Poet, welchen die Engelander 
 fur ihren Homerum halten. 
 
 l^[This notice was much extended in a second edition. See 
 
 ITQO.Unknowm [A review of Dry den’s Fables Ancient and Modern, 
 1^00, mj Acta Eruditorum, Leipzig, July 1700, p. 321-4. 
 
 [p. 321] Quae in laudem Chauceri, poetarum Anglorum communis 
 velut paths, prseposuisse in titulo hujus operis videtur 
 auctor Johannes Dryden, ex Yirgilii ^Eneid. Lib. 5 : [11. 55-56.] 
 
 Nunc ultro ad cineres ipsius, & ossa parentis 
 
 (Haud equidem sine mente reor, sine Numine Divum.) 
 
 Adsumus ; 
 
 non sine omine Angli jam ad ipsum Auctorem applicave 
 poterunt. 
 
 [p.323] . . . Inde Ovidium quoque cum Chaucero poeta Anglo \ 
 
 admodum vetusto comparat, & utrumque ait patriam linguam 
 percoluisse, utrumque fuisse ingenuum, festivum, amantem, j 
 utrumque Philosophiae, Philologiae, Astronomiae operam ; 
 dedisse \ facilem utrique esse dictionem, sed neutrum pro- 
 priis inventis multum excellere : Ovidium quippe Grae- 
 corum fabulas descripsisse, Chaucerum Italorumfui temporis 
 poemata in suum usum convertisse ; aliqua tamen Chaucerum ; 
 invenisse, Ovidium, quantum constet, nihil prorsus. Nequo 
 minus praestare Chaucerum in affectibus atque actionibus • 
 personarum ad vivum describendis, atque ipsa verborum ; 
 simplicitate, cum natura rerum minus saepe ferre videatur > 
 verborum & sententiarum flexus, quales apud Ovidium 
 ubique ferme offendas. Quid quod Chaucerum eodem loco 
 Anglis habendum putat, quo Graeci Homerum, & Virgilium 
 Pomani habebant? . . . [and another page of this epitome 
 of the Preface dealing with Chaucer]. 
 
 1704 Unknown. [A review of The London Spy, id est Explorator 
 Lonuinensis, Londini, 1703, in] Acta Eruditorum, Leipzig, June 
 1704, p. 284. [Describing Dry den’s funeral.] 
 
 Postquam itaque in templum Abbatise Westmonasteriensis 
 ventum esset, cantatum est epicediura, & postrema a 
 
 
1725] 
 
 German References. 
 
 131 
 
 quoclam ejus templi Sacerdote persoluta sunt, demumque 
 funus, magna cum honoris significatione, medio loco inter 
 Chaucerum & Coulseum, insignes Anglorum Poetas, Epicum 
 alterum, alterum Lyricum, tumulatum est ; quo in loco ut 
 splendidum monumentum, tantoque viro dignum erigatur, 
 Nobiliores quidam Angli procurabunt. 
 
 1709. Unknown. [A review of A New View of London , 1708, in] 
 Acta Eruditornm, Leipzig, March, 1709, p. 112. 
 
 [Account of Westminster Abbey, and the poets buried 
 there.] Proximi sunt Cowlejo Poetse alii, Galfridus Chaucer, 
 A. 1400, Edmundus Spencerus, A. 1596 [etc.]. 
 
 1715. Mencke, Johann Burchard. Gompendioses Gelehrten-Lexicon, 
 Leipzig, 1715, p. 466. 
 
 Chaucer (Codfried, oder Galfried) ein in der Mathematic, 
 studiis elegantioribus und Poesie wohl erfahrener Ritter, 
 von Woodstock in Engeland, wurde wegen seiner schonen 
 Yerse der Englische Homerus genannt, schrieb im Engl, 
 laudes bonarum mulierum, vitam Cleopatrae, vitam Lucretiae 
 Romanae, und andere Schrifften, welche zu London zusam- 
 men gedruckt sind, und st. 1400. 
 
 [The notice is similar in the subsequent editions of 1726 
 and 1733. In 1750-3 this work was republished as Jocher’s 
 Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon, and the Chaucer notice in it 
 has slight additions (vol. i, p. 1855, col. i). In the list of his 
 works, after c vitam Lucretiae romanae 5 is added : — ‘ amorum 
 Troili de Chriseidae libros 2, welche letztern Franc. 
 Kingston [sfc] in lateinische Yerse gebracht, nebst andern 
 Schriften,’ etc. The alternative date 1402 is added for 
 Chaucer’s death. The later edition of this Lexicon, 1 787— 
 1822, is merely supplementary of names up to then 
 omitted.] 
 
 1722. Unknown. [A review of Joseph Trapp’s Praelediones Poeticae 
 in schola naturalis Philosophiae Oxonii habitae : in] Ada Erudi- 
 torum , Leipzig, March, 1722, p. 130. 
 
 Immaturum enim Drydeni Angli judicium censet quo 
 ille Chauceri poema, pulcrum sane, Iliada ^Eneidaque 
 aequare imo superare contendit. 
 
 1725 Unknown. [A review of The Survey of Cornwall , etc., by Richard 
 Carew, 1723, in] Ada Eruditorum , Leipzig, March, 1725, p. 121-2. 
 
 [p. i 2 i] Utque probet, veteres Grsecos & Romanos pares in 
 
Appendix C. [a.d. 1727 — 
 
 Anglia habuisse, Platoni Thomam Smith, Ionibus Thomam 
 Morum, Ciceroni Aschamum , Yarroni Chaucerum . . . omnes 
 prsestantissimos illius tevi scriptores Anglos, opponit. 
 
 1727 ’ ^ n . known ; l A review of J. Dart's Westmonasterium , or the 
 History and Antiquities of the Abbey-Church of St. Peter's, West- 
 minster: in] Acta Eruditorum , Leipzig, June, 1727, p. 243. 
 
 Galfridus Chaucer, pater Poetarum Angl. cujus vitam 
 prolixiorem Poster nuperse ejus Operum editioni pnemisit, 
 natus Londini A. 1328, denatus est Oct. 25 A. 1400. 
 
 1780. Unknown. Allgemeines Ilistorisches Lexicon , 3te Aufl. i Teil 
 Leipzig, 1730, p. 958. 
 
 CHAUCER, (Godfried oder Galfredus) ein Hitter, gebiirtig 
 von Woodstock in Engelland, wurde wegen seiner schonen 
 verse der Englische Homerus zugenannt. Hiernachst war er 
 auch in der mathematic und in den studiis elegantioribus 
 wohl eifahren. Er starb an. 1400. Seine Engellandiscke 
 schrifften sind an. 1561 zu London zusammen gedruckt 
 worden ; er hat aber geschrieben, laudes bonarum mulierum ; • : 
 vitam Cleopatrse ; vitam Lucretise Bomanse; urbanitatis 
 florem ; misericordise sepulturam ; de astrolabii ratione, &c. i 
 Leland , Balaeus <k Pitsxus de script. Angl. Gesnerus, 
 Camden, fee. 
 
 [This notice is quoted from the third edition — the only 
 edition which the British Museum possesses — but a notice ' 
 on Chaucer also appeared in the first edition, Leipzig, 1709. { 
 
 Possibly the notice in the first edition was the same as that j 
 in Mencke’s Lexicon (see above, 1715), as Mencke virtually ' 
 based his work on the older Ilistorisches Lexicon .] 
 
 1732. Bentheim, H. L. Neu-erbjfueter Englandischer Kirch und 
 Schulen-Staat, 2nd Edition, Leipzig, 1732, pp. 861-2. 
 
 Geoffrey Chaucer, machte zwar die Adeliche Geburt und 
 der Bitter-Orden, zu der Zeit gnug ansehnlich, aber seine 
 Gelahrtheit [szc] und Dicht-Kunst hat ihn der Yergessenheit 
 entzogen, und so hochberiihmt gemachet, dass er noch der 
 Engelandische Homerus insgemein genennet wird. Dock 
 findet man heutiges Pages keinen sonderlichen Geschmack 
 mehr an seiner Schreib-Art, weil er seine Reimen mit vielen 
 Frantzosischen oder Normannischen Wortern bespicket hat; 
 
 
1777] 
 
 133 
 
 German References. 
 
 Dennoch aber haben die Engelander Ursache ihn annocli 
 hoch zu halten, weil er das Eiss in der Dicht-Kunst ihren 
 Landes-Leuten zuerst gebroeben hat. 
 
 [For the first edition of this work, see above, 1694.] 
 
 1743. Bodmer, J. J. Sammlung critischer , poetischer und anderer 
 geistvollen tichriften, siebendes Stuck. Zurich, 1741-4, pp. 46-7. 
 
 Das Metrum [des mittelhochdeutschen hofischen Epos] 
 ist demjenigen gantz gleich, welches der Englische Schaser 
 noch in dem 14ten Sseculo gebraucht hat, da uns aber 
 verborgen ist, wie man es gelesen, oder gesungen babe. 
 Schaser schriebt zum Ex. : 
 
 It stood upon so high a rock 
 Higher standeth none in Spayne, 
 
 What manner stone this rock was 
 For it was like a lymed glass 
 But that it schon full more clere 
 But of what congeled matere 
 It was, I niste redily. 
 
 \_Hous of Fame, Book iii, 11. 26-7 ; 33-7.] 
 
 Die Engellander haben sich von diesem Sylbenmasse nicht 
 irre machen lassen, dass sie den Innhalt und die Erfindungen 
 darunter aus dem Gesichte verlohren hatten, ihre heutigen 
 Poeten finden noch ietzo die Perlen darinnen, und wissen sie 
 geschickt herauszunehmen. Sie halten Schasers poetisches 
 Naturell noch ietzo in Hochachtung* da sie seine Sprache 
 haben untergehen lassen. Wir aber haben unsre Schaser 
 mit ihrem Zahlmasse, ihrer Sprache und ihrer Poesie, unter 
 die Banke geworffen. 
 
 1777. Herder, Johann Gottfried. Von Aehnlichkeit der mittlern 
 englischen und deutschen Dichtkunst , [published in] Deutsches 
 Museum , Band ii, pp. 425-6. 
 
 [[>. 425] Wenn nun auch liier England und Deutschland grosse 
 Gemeinschaft haben, wie weiter waren wir, wenn wir diese 
 Volksmeynungen und Sagen auch so gebraucht hatten, wie 
 die Britten und unsre Poesie so ganz darauf gebaut ware, 
 als dort Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespear auf Glauben des 
 Yolks baueten, daher schufen und daher nahmen. Wo sind 
 
134 
 
 Appendix G. 
 
 [ad. 1780- 
 
 unsre Chaucer, Spenser und Shakespeare ? Wie weit stehen 
 unsre M eistersanger unter jenen ! 
 
 »• 426] Ich sage nur so viel : Hatten wir wenigstens die Stiieke 
 gesammlet, aus denen sieh Bemerkungen oder Nuzbarkeiten 
 die Art ergaben-aber wo sind sie? Die Englander-mit 
 welcher Begierde haben sie ihre alte Gesange und Melodien 
 gesammlet, gedruekt und wiedergedruckt, genuzt, gelesen I 
 Kamsay, Percy und ihres Gleichen sind mit BeyfaU aufre- 
 nommen, ihre neuern Dichter Shenstone, Mason, Mailer hie 1 
 aben sich wemgstens schon und miissig, in die Manier 
 hmeingearbeitet: Dryden, Pope, Addison, Swift sie nach 
 ihrer Art gebrauchet: die altern Dichter, Chaucer, Spenser, 
 Shakespear, Milton haben in Gesangen der Art gelebet 
 andre edle Manner, Philipp Sidney, Selden, und wie viel 
 muste ich nennen, haben gesammlet, gelobt, bewundert • 
 aus Samenkornern der Art ist der Britten beste lyriseke 
 dramatische, mythische, epische Dichtkunst erwachsen • 
 und wir-wn- uberfiillte, satte, klassische Deutsche- wir? 
 -Man lasse in Deutschland nur Lieder drucken wie sie 
 Ramsay, Percy a . zum Theil haben drucken lassen, und 
 
 hore, was unsre geschmackvolle klassisclie Kunstrichter 
 sagen ! 
 
 1780 'G™ngen d ’ CI ' riSt ° Ph Oberon ’ ein Gedicht “ vierzehn 
 
 [The Whole of the 7th song of Oberon is taken from 
 Chaucers Marehantes Tale. Wieland himself names Chaucer 
 -not ^°P e 7 as hl « _ source, see 1796 below, but although 
 W eland undoubtedly knew Chaucer’s original version (pro- 
 bab!y m Tyrwhitt s edn. of 1775-8), he unquestionably 
 also follows Popes modernisation in the main For the 
 questum of Wieland’s debt to Chaucer and Pope respectively 
 see T)as Quellenverhaltmss von Wieland' s Oberon, von Dr Max 
 Koch, Marburg, 1880, pp. 52-5.] 
 
 1793. [Eschenburg, J. J. ?] Gottfried Chancer, [ini Charahtere der 
 
 n} VMfr -k alU r< Nationen ; nebst kritischen und histori- 
 schen Abhandluncj uber Geqenstande der schonen Kiinste und -Wis 
 
 emer Gesdlscha f t von Gelehrten, Leipzig, 1793, vol. 
 
 bv [ Tar S essa 7 (27 PP.) is, so far as I know, 
 
 •/r K be r el shteenth-century account of Chaucer 
 written by any foreign writer. It is written with evident 
 
 reneTv dge °f Cha, ' cer s ' Tork a * first hand, and is no mere 
 repetition of what others have said. The poems, and 
 
1793] 
 
 German References. 
 
 135 
 
 Chaucer’s sources, are discussed in detail, with accuracy 
 and insight.] 
 
 [p. ns] Mit dem klassischen Alterthum war Chaucer nicht unbe- 
 kannt; das beweisen seine haufigen Anspielungen auf Stellen 
 der Alten. Aber ihre Dichtkunst war wenigstens nicht 
 das Yorbild seiner Nachahmung. Dazu war seine Welt- 
 kenntniss und seine Belesenheit zu mannigfaltig. Aus den 
 franzosischen und italienischen Dichtern entlehnte er das 
 meiste. Aus ihnen schopfte er nicht nur den Stoif, sondern 
 die ganze Behandlungsart seiner beyden und vornehmsten 
 Gedichte, The Knight's Tale , und The Romaunt of the Rose. 
 
 [p. 119 ] Unter Chaucer’s Hand erhielt diese Dicbtung ( The 
 Knight's Tale) viele neue Schonheiten. Einige vorziigliche 
 Gemalde und Beschreibungen, z. B. die von den Tempeln 
 des Mars, der Yenus, und der Diana, und manche darein 
 verwebte Allegorien, haben durch die freye und edle Manier 
 des brittischen Dichters nicht wenig gewonnen. Nicht genug 
 indess, dass er manch Neues und Eignes hinzuthat ; er liess 
 auch viel Mattes und Weitschweifiges hinweg, welches die 
 Lesung des italienischen Originals so oft ermiidend macht. 
 Auch entledigte er sich der Einformigkeit und des Zwanges der 
 Stanzen, und wahlte das freyere Metrum des zehnsylbigen 
 Iamben, von dessen gliicklicher Bearbeitung er in diesem 
 Gedichte das erste Muster gab. Bekanntlich hat Dryden 
 diess Gedicht in seiner Erzahlung, Palamon und Arcite, 
 modernisirt ; aber Chaucer’s kraftvoller und dabey sehr 
 fliessender Yers hat nicht wenig Antheil an dem Yerdienste, 
 welches sich der Yortrag des neuern Dichters nun um so 
 leichter erwerben konnte. . . . [Romaunt of the Rose, 
 sources and characteristics.] 
 
 [p. 122] Eine andre vorziiglich merkwiirdige Arbeit Chaucer’s ist 
 sein erzahlendes Gedicht, Troilus und Kressida . . . [His 
 sources, ‘ Lollius * and Guido de Colonna.] Aber auch liier 
 ist das Eigenthiimliche des englischen Dichters unverkenn- 
 bar ; und er zeigte hier vornainlich seine Starke in lebhafter 
 Erregung des Mitgefiihls. . . . 
 
 \The IIous of Fame. Pope’s rendering is inferior.] 
 
 [p. 123 ] Am beriihmtesten indess von alien Werken unsers 
 
136 
 
 Appendix C. [a.d. 1793 
 
 Dichters sind seine Canterbury-Tales. Die Veranlassung zu 
 diesen Erzahlungen ist ganz sinnreich ausgesonnen. [De- 
 scription of the setting, and the improvement on Boccaccio’s 
 Decameron, in that Chaucer’s personages are drawn from 
 many different parts of the country, and from different 
 classes and trades.] 
 
 [r. 124 ] Freylich aber sind diese Erzahlungen, von Seiten ihres 
 innern Gehalts, ziemlich ungleich, und nicht alle von 
 gleichem poetischen Verdienst. Yon ihrer Erfindung gehort 
 dem englischen Dichter wohl nur wenig eigen. Die schonste 
 darunter, nachst der schon angefuhrten Knight’s- Tale, ist 
 ohne Zweifel, The Squirr’ s-Tale [sfc]. [Description of this 
 and of the Clerices Tale.] ... 
 
 [p.126] In der komischen Gattung sind The Tale of the Nonnes \ 
 Priest und January and May , durch Dryden’s und Pope’s 
 Modernisirungen, die bekanntesten geworden ; obgleich The 
 Miller’s Tale mehr achte komische Laune hat ... In den 
 meisten iibrigen Erzahlungen Chaucer’s ist mehr komische, 
 als ernsthafte Wendung; und die Naive tat des Tons ist 
 darin nicht weniger anziehend, als die Wahrheit und Leb- 
 haftigkeit der ganzen Darstellung. 
 
 Mehr aber noch, als in den Erzahlungen selbst, stromt 
 die ergiebige launigte Ader unsers Dichters in den Prologen, 
 womit er jede Mahrchen einleitet. 
 
 tp. 127 ] Hier fand er zu treffenden Sittengemalden uberall Gele- 
 genheit ; und diese sind wirklich meisterhaft entworfen, und 
 mit treffender Satyre untermischt. Man bewundert den 
 eindringenden Scharfsinn in diesen charakteristischen Schil- 
 derungen eben so sehr, als ilire gluckliche Auswahl und 
 Mannigfaltigkeit. 
 
 Dabey sind sie durcliaus original und einheimisch, nicht 
 flach, sondern ausserst individuell, und mit immer reger 
 Lebhaftigkeit ausgefuhrt. Dnter andern sticht der Charakter * 
 des Wirths von der Herberge der erzahlenden Pilger sehr * 
 vorthielhaft hervor. Seine Zwisclienreden und Bemerk- 
 ungen, womit er die Erzahlungen zuweilen unterbricht, 
 sind Uberaus treffend ; und er ist beinahe eben das, was der 
 Clior auf der griechischen Biihne war. . . . 
 
 [Chaucer’s language and verse is then discussed.] 
 
137 
 
 1796] 
 
 German References. 
 
 1796 Herder, Johann Gottfried von. Brief e zu Beforderung dev Hu- 
 manitat, achte Sammlung, Brief 98. (Herder's Sa'nmtliche Werke, 
 lierausgegeben von Bernhard Suphan, Berlin, 1877-1913, Band 
 xviii, pp. 100, 102, 107 [Passing references to ‘ Chaucer’s Reime’]. 
 
 [ P . ioo] Der Unterschied, den das Fragment zwiscben Poesie aus 
 Reflexion und . . der reinen Fabel-poesie macht, ist mir aus 
 der Geschichte der Zeiten, auf die das Fragment weiset, 
 o-anz erklarlich worden. So lange namlich der Richter 
 nichts seyn wollte, als Minstrel, ein Sanger, der uns die 
 Begebenheit pelbst phantastisch vors Ange bringt und solche 
 mit seiner Harfe fast unmerklich begleitet, so lange ladet 
 der gleichsam blinde Sanger uns zum unmittelbaren An- 
 schauen derselben ein. Nicht auf sich will er die Blicke 
 ziehen . . . er selbst ist in der Vision der Welt ^genwartig, 
 die er uns ins Gemiith ruft. 
 
 Dies war der Ton aller Romanzen- und Fabelsanger dei 
 mittleren Zeit, und (urn bei der Englischen Geschichte zu 
 bleiben, aus der das Fragment Beispiele holet) es war noch 
 der Ton Gottfried Chaucers, Edmund Spensers und ihres 
 Gleichen. Der erste in seinen Canterbury- Tales erzahlt 
 vollig noch als ein Troubadour; er hat eine Reihe ergotz- 
 ender Mahrchen zu seinem Zweck der Zeitkiirzung 
 und Lehre, charakteristisch fur alle Stande und Personen, 
 die er erzahlend einfiihrt, geordnet ; Er selbst erscheint 
 nicht eher, als bis an ihn zu erzahlen die Reihe kommt, 
 da er denn seinem Charakter nach, als ein Dritter auft.ritt. 
 
 1796. Wieland, Christoph Martin. An den Leser , [prefixed to] Oberon. 
 
 Sdmmtliche Werke, Leipzig, 1794-1802, 42vols., vol. xxii, pp. ii, iii. 
 
 [ P . ii] Aber der Oberon, der in diesem alten Ritterromane die 
 Rolle des Deus ex machina spielt, und der Oberon, der dem 
 gegenwartigen Gedichte seinen Nahmen gegeben, sind zwey 
 sehr verschiedene Wesen. Jener ist eine seltsame Art 
 von Spuk, ein Mittelding von Mensch und Kobold, der Sohn 
 Julius Casars und einer Fee, ... der meinige ist mit dem 
 Oberon, welcher in Chaucer’s Merchant' s-Tale und Shake- 
 speare’s Midsummer- Night' s- Dream als ein Feen- oder 
 Elfenkonig (King of Fayries) erscheint, eine und eben 
 dieselbe Person ; und die Art, wie die Geschichte seines 
 Zwistes mit seiner Gemahlin Titania in die Geschichte 
 [p.iii] Hiions und Rezia’s eingewebt worden, scheint mir (mit 
 
Appendix C. [ A . D . 1801 - 
 
 Erlaubniss der Kunstrichter) die eigenthiimlichste Schon- 
 
 h eit des Plans und der Komposizion dieses Gedichtes zu 
 seyn. 
 
 [C ' 18 UtrL,?k3:,/rt ann ?°i tfr, ' e ?-. Ghau ™ ™ •** leere Bdrse 
 L ; t trai)slat io n o f Chaucer s Complemt to his Empty Purse ] . (Seumes 
 
 Sammtliche Werke, Leipzig, 1826, Band vi, pp. 98, 99.) J ^ 
 
 [The following is the first stanza.] 
 
 Geliebte, der keine Geliebte mehr gleicht, 
 
 Ach Liebe, wie bist Du so leer; 
 
 Wie bist Du so winzig und jammerlich leicht; 
 
 Das macht mir das Leben so schwer. 
 
 Und lieber schon war 5 ich zur Bahre gebleicht ; 
 
 Erbarme Dich meiner, und sei wieder schwer, 
 
 Sonst leb ich nicht mehr. 
 
 1813 Breyer, Carl Wilhelm Friedrich. Leben Geoffrey Chauceds des 
 Voters der enghschen DrcUkunst. Nach dem Englischen Heim 
 William Godwins frey bearbeitet, Jena, 1812. 
 
 [This is an admirably done paraphrase of Godwin’s Life 
 of Chaucer (1803), retaining all the essentials relating to 
 Chaucer and Ins work, and omitting the superfluous, as 
 Breyer indicates m his preface. Some twenty-one irrelevant 
 chapters are entirely omitted, and others are vastly reduced 
 so that Breyer s version is a little volume of 146 pages 
 (+ 39 pages of quotation from the Romaunt of the Rose ) 
 whereas Godwin s forms two large volumes of 489 4- 64? 
 pages.] ^ J 
 
 Vorbencht. Es ist allerdings ein sehr angenehmes Ge- 
 schenk, welches Hr. William Godwin mit seiner ohnliingst 
 erschienenen Schrift : Life of Geoffrey Chaucer, nicht nur | 
 semen Landsleuten, den Englandern, sondern den Freunden 1 
 der Pcesie und Historie iiberhaupt, gemacht hat. Nur der 
 Form, in welcher der beruhmte Verfasser dies Geschenk 
 darbrachte, mussen wir unsern Beyfall versagen. [It is 
 not only a life of Chaucer, but an historical account 
 of the fourteenth century in England, there are too many 
 long digressions in it.] ... J 
 
 Was wir dem deutschen Publikum hier liefern, ist daher 
 ini strengen Sinne des Worts eine freye Bearbeitung des 
 englischen Originals. Indem wir alles U el)ei .fla ssige we „. 
 schnitten, machten wir, so viel es uns moglich war, den 
 
1822] 
 
 139 
 
 German References. 
 
 Yater der englischen Dichtkunst zum Mittelpunkt unsrer 
 ganzen Erzahlung. 
 
 1822. Tieck, Johann Ludwig. Des Lebens Ueberfluss, Ludwig Tieck’s 
 gesammelte Novellen, vermehrt und verbessert, 1838-42, neue 
 Folge, Breslau, Band 1, 1842, pp. 23, 24, 39, 104, 105, 106. 
 
 [In this story, a rare copy of Chaucer, printed by Caxton, 
 becomes the means of tracing the eccentric scholar, who was 
 forced to sell it in his poverty. The following are some of 
 the passages where the Chaucer is referred to.] 
 
 [p. 23] Er nahm das Tagebuch wieder vor und schlug ein Blatt 
 zuriick. Er las laut : Heut verkaufte ich dem geizigen 
 Buchhandler mein seltenes Exemplar des Chaucer, jene alte 
 kostbare Ausgabe von Caxton. Mein Freund, der liebe, 
 edle Andreas Yandelmeer, hatte sie mir zu meinem Geburts- 
 tage, den wir in der Jugend auf der Universitat feierten, 
 geschenkt. Er hatte sie eigens aus London verschrieben, 
 sehr theuer bezahlt und sie dann nach seinem eigensin- 
 nigen Geschmack herrlich und reich mit vielen gothischen 
 [p. 24] Yerzierungen einbinden lassen. Der alte Geizhals, so 
 wenig er wir auch gegeben hat, hat sie gewiss sogleich nach 
 London geschickt, um mehr als das Zehnfaclie wieder zu 
 erhalten. Hatte ich nur wenigstens das Blatt herausge- 
 schnitten, auf welchem ich die Geschichte dieser Schenkung 
 erzahle und zugleich diese unsre Wohnung verzeichnefc hatte. 
 Das geht nun mit nach London oder in die Bibliothek eines 
 reichen Mannes. Ich bin dariiber verdriesslich . Und dass 
 ich dies liebe Exemplar so weggeben und unter dem Preise 
 verkauft habe, sollte micli fast auf den Gedanken bringen, 
 dass ich wirklich veramt sei oder Noth litte ; denn ohne 
 Zweifel war doch dieses Buch das theuerste Eigenthum, was 
 ich jemals besessen habe, und welches Angedenken von 
 ihm, von meinem einzigen Freunde ! O Andreas Yandel- 
 meer ! Lebst du noch % Wo weilest du ? Gedenkst du 
 noch mein ? 
 
 [He tells his wife that his friend Andreas went to the 
 East, and he heard that he had died there of cholera. He 
 continues to read pages in his diary — an account of the 
 stress of poverty which led him to part with his Chaucer.] 
 
 [p. 39] So werde ich also nun doch meinem Chaucer, von Caxton 
 
140 
 
 Appendix G. [a. D. 1827- 
 
 gedruckt, verstossen und das schimpfliche Gebot des knau- 
 sernden Buchhandlers annehmen miissen. Das wort “ ver- 
 stossen ” hat mich immer besonders geriihrt, wenn geringere 
 Frauen es brauchten, indem'sie in der Noth gute oder 
 geliebte kleider versetzen oder verkaufen mussten. Es 
 klingt fast wie von Kindern. — Verstossen ! — Wie Lear 
 Cordelien, so ich meinem Chaucer. — 
 
 [They grow poorer, and are brought to great straits, until 
 one day a stranger drives up to the door in a magnificent' 
 carnage and pair. It is the scholar’s friend Andreas, who 
 has tracked him through the Chaucer.] 
 
 [p. 105] Aber nun lass uns auch verniinftig sprechen, sagte Andreas. 
 Dein Kapital, welches Du mir damals bei meiner Abreise 
 anvertrautest, hat in Indien so gewuchert , dass Du Dich 
 jetzt einen reichen Mann nennen kannst ... In der Freude, 
 Dich bald wiederzusehen, stieg ich in London ans Land, 
 weil ich dort einige Geldgeschafte zu berichtigen hatte. Ich 
 verfiige mich wieder zu meinem BtLcherantiquar, um fiir ' 
 Deine Liebhaberei an Alterthiimern ein artiges Gesclienk 
 auszusuchen. Sieh da, sage ich zu mir selber, da hat ja 
 Jemand den 'Chaucer in demselben eigensinnigen Geschmack : 
 [p.i06] binden lassen, wie ich die Art damals fur Dich ersann. Ich 
 nehme das Buch in die Hand und erschrecke, dennes ist das t 
 Deinige. 
 
 1827. Kannegiesser, Carl Ludwig. Gottfried Chaucers CanterburyscM 
 Mrzahlungen , (Auswahl) iibersetzt von Knnnegiesser, 2 vols. i 
 Zwickau. (Taschenbibliothek auswartiger Klassiker.) 
 
 [Vol. i, Prologue and Knightes Tale ; vol. ii, Frankeleyns ! 
 prologue and Tale , Pardoneres prologue and Tale, Doctors \ 
 [ 1 . e. Phisiciens ] prologue and Tale, Cokes Tale, i. e. Gamelyn , J i 
 not the real Cokes Tale. In verse.] 
 
 1837 ‘ Jproneman, Sarus A. J. de Ruever. Diatribe in Johannis Widifji, \ 
 lieformaUonis prodromi, Vitam , Ingenium , Scripta. Traiecti ad 
 Rhenum, 1837, p. 231-2 n. J 
 
 Chaucerus poemate pulcro depinxit presbyterum quendam 
 ruralem, quern cum adumbrabat, ob oculos eum habuisse 
 Wicliffum, multi putant. [He then quotes a portion of 
 Chaucer’s description of the parson from the Prologue, 1 
 11. 477-84, 491-5, 524-8— 
 
1845] 
 
 German References. 
 
 ‘A good man there was of religion,’ etc.] 
 
 141 
 
 1844. Fiedler, E. Canterbury sche Ezdhlungen , vol. i [no more pub- 
 lished], Dessau, 1844. 
 
 [With an introduction and notes. The Tales of the Knight, 
 Miller, Reeve, Cook and Man of Law are translated into 
 German verse.] 
 
 1845. Meyer, J. [Article Chaucer in] Das grosse Conversations- Lexicon 
 fur die gebildeten Stande. Hildburghausen, 1840-55, vol. vii, pt. ii, 
 1845, pp. 47-49. 
 
 col 4 2 ] Chaucer, Geoff roy, der Yater der englischen Dichtkunst 
 genannt. Wie eifrig bes. engl. Biographen liber C.’s Lebens- 
 umstande auch nachgeforscht haben, so ist doch his jetzt 
 noch Yieles dunkel geblieben. Das J. 1328 wird gewohnl. 
 a Is das seiner Geburt bezeichnet [etc., a full life, based 
 on Leland, Godwin, the Testament of Love, etc.]. 
 
 iP; 48 > C.’s Werke sind in verschiedenen Handschriften aufbe- 
 col. 2] 
 
 wahrt, was ihre fortwahrende PopularitaJ; bezeugt, und nach- 
 her haufig gedruckt worden. Eines der ersten Produkte von 
 Caxtons Presse ist eine Ausgabe der Canterbury-Erzahl- 
 ungen. . . . Als Beweis von C.’s Popularitat in Schottland 
 mag gelten, dass eine der friihesten Arbeiten der schottischen 
 Presse seine “Klage des schwarzen Ritters” war, die 1508 
 von Chapman und My liar . . . gedruckt wurde. [Thynne’s 
 1532 edn. noted and Tyrwhitt’s edn. of the C. Tales much 
 praised, “ ein Muster der Akkuratesse und kritischen 
 Behandlung.”] 
 
 C.’s Yerdienste als Dichter sind nicht gewohnlicher Art, 
 dp, 4 ?, aber indem wir sie zu wiirdigen suchen, miissen wir das 
 Zeitalter betrachten, in welchem er lebte und dichtete. C. 
 musste die Sprache erst schaffen, in der er schrieb; auch in 
 England herrschte die TJnsitte, dass man am liebsten in 
 fremden Zungen sprach und dariiber die eigene Mutter- 
 sprache vernachlassigte . . . [an account of earlier English 
 14th century poetry, Piers Plowman, Gower.] C. mag schon 
 als Dichter bekannt gewesen seyn, als Langland seine Yi- 
 sionen schrieb, sein grosstes Werk fallt aber zwanzig Jahre 
 spater. 
 
 Sein Hauptverdienst in Bezug auf die Yersifikation 
 besteht darin, dass er sie natiirlicher, regelmlissiger und 
 
142 
 
 Appendix C. [a.d. 1846- 
 
 gedrangter machte, indem er die Alliteration abschaffte 
 und den unregelmassigen Alexandriner in eine Kunst- 
 gerechtere Form brachte. Sein Yersmass, die zehn-und- 
 achtsylbige Zeile, ist fast von alien engliscben Dichtern, von 
 Epencer bis Byron, beibehalten worden. 
 
 In C/s Scbriften fiihlt man nicht nur seinen eigenen 
 persohnlichen Charakter und Geist, sondern auch den 
 Emfluss seines Yerkebrs mit der Welt. [His followers 
 imitated his style and manner, but were quite unable to 
 catch his spirit and character. It is noteworthy that C. 
 translated many French and Italian works into English but 
 always in such a way that they had far more the character 
 of original works than of translations.] Lebhafte Phantasie, 
 Eleganz und Schonheit der Beschreibungen bezeichnen alle 
 seine Werke; aber all die Anmuth und Schonheit seiner 
 allegor. Schriften bleibt weit hinter seinem Talent zuriick, 
 das Leben der Menschen zu schildern, wie er es in den 
 unsterbliclien Canterbury-Erzahlungen that. In diesem 
 Werke . . . bringt er einen bunten Haufen allerhand « 
 “ sundhaften Yolkes ” zusammen . . . [description of the C. 
 Tales.] 
 
 coi. 4 2 j ^ lchts hbertrifft die Kunst, mit welcher die Lebensart 
 u. die Eigenthumlichkeiten der Pilger in der Haupteinleitun* \ 
 geschildert sind. Jede einzelne Erzahlung ist ein wahrer ! 
 Schatz von Humor und ein Zeugniss genauester Kenntniss 
 der menschlichen Natur ; dieses Werk C/s bleibt stets eine 
 der schonsten Zierden der engl Literatur. 
 
 1846, Archiv fur das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Littera- 
 
 o3;r v ra Ffl! g fm n V T T Lu 1 d u ig ^errig und Heinrich Viehoff. 
 Quaiterly. Elberfeld und Iserlohn, Braunschweig. In progress. 
 
 [A good many Chaucer articles have appeared in this from 
 time to time, see, for instance, General-Register zum Archiv, 
 
 Bd. 1-50, lierausgegeben von Ludwig^ 
 
 Herrig, Braun- 
 
 schweig, 1874, p. 25, and General-Register, Bd. 51-100 
 von Hermann Springer, 1900, p. 67. Two early articles 
 are here named, see 1847, 1849, and those by Koeppel 
 on Chaucer Sources in vols. 84, 86, 87, 90, 101, and a paper 
 by Koch on 1 he Parlement of Foules in vols. Ill, 112, may 
 also be noted.] J 
 
 1847 Fiedler, E. Zur Beurtheilung des Chaucer , [on Chaucer’s debt to 
 Latin writers,] in Archiv fur das Studium der neueren Sprachen und 
 Litteraturen, vol. 11 , pp. 151-1G9 and 390-402 
 
 
German References. 
 
 143 
 
 
 
 1856] 
 
 1847. Gesenius, F. W. Be Lingua Chauceri. Diss. Bonn, pp. 87. 
 
 [For a summary of this, see Early English Pronunciation, 
 by A. J. Ellis, 1867-71, vol. iii, pp. 664-671.] 
 
 1849. Gesenius, F. W. Probe eines Chaucerschen Manuscriptes der 
 Nationalbibliothek in Paris [in] Archiv fur das Studium der neueren 
 Sprachen und Litteraturen, vol. v, pp. 1-15. 
 
 1853. Behnsch, Ottoman Geschichte der Englischen Sprache und 
 Litteratur von den altesten Zeiten bis zur Einfiihrung der Buch- 
 druckerkunst, Breslau 1853, pp. 180-97. 
 
 [A good short account of Chaucer and his work; his 
 knowledge of versification is upheld and vindicated, in con- 
 tradistinction to the view of English writers, e.g. R. 
 Chambers in the Cyclopaedia of English Literature , 1844, 
 who is quoted as stating that Chaucer, whenever it suits 
 him, “ makes accented syllables, short, and short syllables 
 emphatic.” Behnsch points out the different accentuation of 
 the French words used by Chaucer (nature, corages, etc.), as 
 well as the sounding of the final “ e,” and shows how much 
 this affects the proper scansion of his verse.] 
 
 1856. Hertzberg, Wilhelm. Die Erzdhlung des Weibes von Bath , aus 
 Gottfried Chaucer’s ‘ Canterbury-Erzahlungen.’ Translated into 
 German heroic verse, [in] Deutsches Museum, hrsg. von Robert 
 Prutz, No. 6, Feb. 7, 1856, pp. 193-202. 
 
 Geoffrey Chaucer’s Leben und S«hriftstellerischer Char aider [in] 
 Deutsches Museum, No. 8, Feb. 21, 1856, pp. 271-89. 
 
 [A very good account of Chaucer’s life and work.] 
 
 tp. 288 ] Chaucer’s Charakteristiken losen eins der schwerigsten 
 Probleme der Kunst : sie sind individuell und typisch zu- 
 gleich; das heisst, sie machen auf uns einestheils den Eindruck 
 [p. 289] einer concreten lebendigen Personlichkeit und stellen dock 
 andererseits eine ganze classe von Personen dar, und da sie 
 die Darstellung der aiissern Erscheinung an Eigenthiimlich- 
 keiten des menschlichen Geistes kniipfen, die zu alien Zeiten, 
 wenn auch unter andern Formen wesentlich dieselben 
 bleiben, so werden wir dadurch unwillkiirlich und wie 
 durch magischen Zwang in diejenigen Zeiten und Sitten 
 zuriickversetzt, deren Schilderung die nachste Aufgabe des 
 Dichters ist. . . . 
 
 Ich habe schon bemerkt, dass die komischen Erzahl- 
 ungen vortrefflich, zum Theil meisterhaft angelegt sind ; 
 Chaucer’s Hauptstarke liegt aber doch in den komischen 
 
144 
 
 Appendix C. [a.d. 1856- 
 
 Charakter-Zeichnungen. Es steht ihm jeder Grad der Satire 
 zugebote. Den Hochmuth, die Unverschiimtheit, vor allem 
 aber die Heuchelei geisselt er mit den seharfsten Hieben. 
 Das kleine Gebrechen, das Steckenpferd, die Thorheit— 
 er straft sie allerdings auch schon, indem er sie schildert, aber 
 er straft sie lachend— oder vielmehr lachelnd. Es ist nichts 
 Superkluges, keine Selbstiiberhebung in dieser Ironie, es 
 liegt darin das gutmiithige Einverstandniss, dass Jedermann 
 hiemeden, dass auch er, der Dichter, sein Packchen Thor- 
 heit trage, dass mit Alle des Ruhms mangeln, den wir haben 
 sollen, nicht bios weil wir allzumal Siinder, sondern auch 
 — -mehr oder weniger— allzumal Narren sind. Und hier- 
 mit glaube ich, auf den feinsten und merkwiirdigsten Zug 
 in Chaucer s dichterischem Charakter hinge wiesen zu haben 
 —auf einem Zug, der von alien Dichtern der Welt zuerst 
 bei ihm zur klaren Entfaltung gekoiiimen, der seitdem 
 der eigenste und vielleicht der liebenswiirdigste Zug des 
 englischen Yolks-charakters ge worden ist: Chaucer i^t der 
 erste Humorist. 
 
 [The above excellent criticism is embodied in the 
 ‘ Emleitung ’ to Hertzberg’s translation of the Canterbury 
 dales which was published ten years later. See below, 1866.] 
 
 1856. P,, K. [A review of] Englische Dichter , eine Auswahl englischer 
 Dichter m deutschen Ubersetzungen von 0 L H r Tinl 
 Deutsches Museum, No. 43, Oct. 23, 1856, p. 6*23. * * * ’ L J 
 
 [A passing allusion to Chaucer’s times, and to the life of 
 him in an earlier number (No. 8) of the Deutsches Museum 
 q.v. above, 1856.] 
 
 1859, ff. Jahrbuch fur romanische und englische Sprache und Litteratur 
 Berlin, 1859. [In progress.] 
 
 [Many Chaucer articles ) a few early ones are here men- 
 tioned, see below, 1859, 1867, 1875.] 
 
 1859. Ebert, Adolf. Die Englischen Mysterien [in] Jahrbuch fur ro- 
 mamsche und englische -Sprache und Litteratur, Berlin, Jan. 1859, 
 pp. 150, 155, 166. 
 
 t P . 150] [The national originality of the characters in the mystery 
 plays is remarkable, as in Chaucer’s Milleres Tale.] 
 
 [p. 155] [The individual character drawing in the mysteries reminds 
 one of the creations of the great master Chaucer.] 
 
 
145 
 
 1866 ] German References. 
 
 1859. Rapp, Curl Moritz. Vercjleichende Grammatik , Stuttgart und 
 Ttibingen, vol. iii, pp. 166-179. 
 
 [For a summary of tliis see Early English Pronunciation, 
 by A. J. Ellis, 1867-71, vol. iii, pp. 672-77.] 
 
 1860. Pauli, Reinhold. Bilder aus Alt-England, Gotha, 1860, chap, 
 vii, Zwei Dichter , Gower und Chaucer. 
 
 [An English translation of this book was published in 1S61.] 
 
 [pp. 184-188. Chaucer’s Life.] 
 
 [pp. 193-196. His early poems.] 
 
 [pp. 196-208. The Canterbury Tales, a detailed account.] 
 
 [p. 208. Conclusion.] Auf dem Gebiete, das er sich so 
 kostlich abgesteckt und mit lebendigen Gestalten auszufiillen 
 gewusst, in einer Sprache, die fortdauert und niemals ganz 
 veralten kann, kommen ihm darum auch nur sehr wenige 
 nahe ; in edit poetischem Realismus hat ihn selbst Shakspere 
 nicht iibertroffen. Dabei versteht er mitten in der Mannig- 
 [p. 209 ] faltigkeit seiner Darstellung, wie es der Dichter soli, Mass 
 und Einheit inne zu halten. Das stimmt sehr gut zu seinem 
 Benehmen gegeniiber den grossen politischen und religiosen 
 Eragen seiner Zeit, die ihn niemals in die Enge getrieben wie 
 Gower oder in das entgegengesetze Extrem fortgerissen, iiber 
 die er vielmelir, so weit wir davon urtheilen konnen, im 
 eigenen Herzen sich vollig klar gewesen und sie daher 
 objectiv, wie seine ganze Natur angelegt war, zu behandeln 
 trachtete. Edel und reich ausgestattet wie er selber ist also 
 auch die Leistung, die ihn unsterblich macht. Zwar darf er 
 sich den wenigen Auserwahlten, die den lierrlichsten Lorber 
 tragen, nicht ebenbiirtig an die Seite stellen, aber den 
 Ehrennamen : Yater der englischen Poesie tragt Riemand 
 wiirdiger. 
 
 f 
 
 1866. Hertzberg, Wilhelm. Chaucer s Canterbury-Gcschichten iiber- 
 setzt in den Versmassen der Urschrift und durch Einleitung und 
 Anmerkungen erlautert von Wilhelm Hertzberg, Bibliothek aus- 
 landischer Klassiker, 41, Hildburgliausen, 1866. 
 
 [A good and close translation of the whole of the Canterbury 
 Tales, with the exception of Melibceus and the Parson’s Tale.] 
 
 Yorwort, pp. 5-10. [Dated Bremen, 1865. The writer’s 
 object and method in doing this translation is stated, with 
 some account of earlier work on Chaucer in England and in 
 Germany.] 
 
 CHAUCEll CRITICISM. V. 
 
 L 
 
146 
 
 
 Appendix C. [a.d. 1867 - 
 
 Einleitung. Geoffrey Chaucer’s Zeitalter, Leben und 
 schriftstellerischer Charakter, pp. 13—64. 
 
 [A good account of Chaucer’s times and life, he is shown 
 definitely not to be the author of the Testament of Love\ 
 therefore that poem can not be accepted as a biographical 
 source (pp. 36, 37). There follows a good deal of interest- J 
 ing and original literary criticism and appreciation, some of 
 which had already been printed in the Deutsches Museum 
 Feb. 21, 1856, and is here quoted under that date.] 
 
 [Here are two specimens of the translation. Prologue, 
 
 11. 447-57.] 
 
 [p. 79] Eiri gutes Weib war da ; sie war nicht weit 
 
 Von Bath ; doch etwas taub, das that mir leid. 
 
 Als Tuchfabrik w T ar so beriihmt ihr Haus, 
 
 Sie stach am Markte Gent und Cypern aus. 
 
 Kein Weib im Kirchspiel, die sich untersing, 
 
 Dass sie vor ihr zum Messehoren ging. 
 
 o o 
 
 Und that es Eine, wurde sie so schlimm, 
 
 Hass die der Andacht ganz vergass vor Grimm. 
 
 Hochst prachtig sass ihr auf dem Kopf der Bund, 
 
 Ich schwore traun, er wog beinah zehn Pfund, 
 
 [p. so] Zum mindesten wie sie ihn Sonntags tru". 
 
 J o O 
 
 Has Eeimgediciit vom Herrn Thopas. 
 
 [p. 463] Herrschaften, leiht mir euer Ohr, 
 
 Ein wahres Lied trag’ ich euch vor 
 Von Kurzweil und von Spass ; 
 
 Es that vor allem Bitterchor 
 Sich in Turnei und Schlacht hervor 
 Her edle Herr Thopas. W 
 
 Er war geboren antfernem Strand, 
 
 Jenseit des Meers in flam’sehen Land, 
 
 Zu Popering am Gestade. 
 
 Sein Vater war von gutem Stand, 
 
 Er war der Herr in diesem Land, 
 
 So wollt’ es Gottes Gnade. 
 
 1867. Hertzberg, Wilhelm. Nachlese zu Chaucer [in] Jahrbuch fiir 
 romanische und englische Litteratur, Leipzig, 1867, Bd. viii, 
 Heft 2, pp. 129-169. 
 
 [Various points about Chaucer’s life are discussed. 
 
 
147 
 
 1370] Gennadi References. 
 
 Hertzberg disagrees with Mr. Bond’s theory that in the 
 dream in the Book of the Duchesse John of Gaunt s mairiage 
 to Blanche of Lancaster is commemorated. He criticises 
 and praises Sandras’s 4 Etude/ which has just appeared, and 
 Kissner’s Dissertation on Chaucer’s relation to Italian litera- 
 ture (1867). He adds some remarks arising out of his own 
 translation of Chaucer sent him by two German scholars, 
 Herr Dr. Duroy of Hamburg, and Herr Pastor Carow.] 
 
 1867. Kissner, Alfons. Chaucer in seinen Beziehungen zur italienischen 
 Literatur , Diss., Marburg, 1867. 
 
 1867. Lemcke, Ludwig. Kritische Anzeigen : Zur Literatur iiber 
 Chaucer , [in] Jahrbuch fiir romanische und englishe Litteratur, 
 Leipzig, 1867, Baud viii, Heft 1, pp. 94-110. 
 
 [A long and careful review of recent Chaucer work; i.e. 
 Chaucer’s Poetical Works , Bell and Daldy, 1867, 6 vols. ; 
 Hertzberg’s translation of the Canterbury Tales, 1866, and 
 Kissner’s book on Chaucer’s relation to Italian literature, 
 1867.] 
 
 1867. Matzner, Eduard. Altenenglische Sprachproben . . . unter mit- 
 wirkung von Ivai‘1 Goldbeck, Berlin. 18b7, vol. i, part 1, pp. 
 336-347. [For part 2 see below, 1869.] 
 
 [pp. 336-338. Notes on Chaucer’s life and work, 
 pp. 338-343. The Wyf of Bathes Tale. 400 lines, 
 pp. 344-346. The Romaunt of the Rose. 11. 2721-2966. 
 p.347. Rondel. * Your two eyn will sle me sodenly.’] 
 
 1867. ten Brink, Bernhard. Zum Romaunt of the Rose , [in] Jahrbuch 
 fiir romanische und englische Litteratur, Leipzig, 1867, Bd. viii, 
 Ileft 3, pp. 306-14. 
 
 1869. Matzner, Eduard. Altenenglische Sprachproben .... Berlin, 
 1869, vol. i, part 2, pp. 273-415. 
 
 [pp. 373-5. Notes on The Tale of Melibeus and on 
 Chaucer. 
 
 pp. 375-415. The Tale of Melibeus.] 
 
 1869. Petzold, E. Ueber Alliteration in den Werken Chaucers , mit 
 Ausschluss der Canterbury Tales, Diss., Marburg. 
 
 L870. ten Brink, Bernhard. Chaucer. Studien zur Geschichte seiner 
 Entwicklung und zur Chronologie seiner Schriften, Munster, 1870. 
 
 [This and Professor Child’s Essay ( Observations on the 
 Language of Chaucer , 1863) are perhaps the most remark- 
 able and epoch-making single pieces of work on Chaucer 
 
Appendix f C. [a.d. 1871 - 
 
 published in the 19th century. Here the development of 
 Chaucers genius under external influences was first fully 
 discussed, and his work was for the first time divided into 
 periods. 
 
 See a sketch on ten Brink’s life and work by Kolbincr 
 with a full bibliography of his writings, in Englische Studien 
 xvn, 186-7.] ’ 
 
 1871. ten Brink, Bernhard. Prolog zu den 
 einer Kritischen Ausgabe, Marburg. 
 Universitatschrift diem natalem . , . 
 elmi I.] 
 
 Canterbury Tales : Versuch 
 [Beigabe der Marburger 
 imperatoris ac regis Guili- 
 
 1871. Zupitza, Julius. Chaucer. The Book of the Tales of Canterbury. 
 
 Prolog (A 1-8 o 8) Mit Vananten zum Gebrauch bei Vorlesunqen 
 
 herausgegeben , Marburg, 1871. Second edition, Berlin 1882 
 reprinted 1896. * 5 
 
 18 72. Lange, P. Chaucers Einfiuss auf die Oriqinaldichtunq des 
 Schotten Gawam Douglas , Biss., Leipzig. 
 
 1872. Mamroth, F. Geoffrey Chaucer , seine Zeit und seine Abhanqiq - 
 keit von Boccaccio. Berlin. 1872. - J 
 
 [Of little value.] 
 
 187 3. Lechler , Gotthard. Johann von Wiclif und die Vorgeschichtc dtr '■ 
 Deformation, vol. i, pp. 408, 409, 453, 454 ; vol. ii, p. 4 note 2. 
 
 1875. Lindner, F. Die Alliteration bei Chaucer [in] Jahrbuch fur ! 
 romanische und englische Litteratur, Neue Folge, Bd. ii 3 Leipzig, : 
 
 i o i o, pp. oil — OO 0. 
 
 [This paper, revised, altered and translated into English 
 is in the Chaucer Society Essays, 1876, part hi ] 
 
 1877, if. Englische Studien , Heilbronn, 1877-1900; Leipzig- 1900 to 
 present. Quarterly. [In progress.] 
 
 [This periodical contains a large number of valuable 
 Chaucer papers. In the Index (General-Begister zu Band 
 i-25, Leipzig, 1902), three and a quarter pages are taken up 
 with references to articles and notes on Chaucer. 
 
 A.mong the more important are the following ; 
 
 Kolbing, E. Zu Chaucer’s Ccecilien-legende, i, 215. 
 
 Zu Chaucer. The Knightes Tale, ii, 528. 
 
 Zu Chaucer’s Sir Thopas, xi, 495. 
 
 Byron und Chaucer, xxi, 331. 
 
 Zwei Bemerkungen zu Chaucer’s C. Tales 
 xxiv, 341. 
 
 Zu chronologic Chaucer’s schriften, xvii, 189. 
 
 . 
 
 ! 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
1879] 
 
 149 
 
 German References. 
 
 Koch J Ein Beitrag zur kritik Chaucers, i, 249, and see 
 vii, 238, 162, etc. 
 
 Brandi, A. Ueber einige historische^anspielungen in den 
 Chaucer-dichtungen, xii, 161. 
 
 Kambeau, A. Chaucer’s ‘House of Fame’ in seinem ver- 
 baltniss zu Dante’s ‘ Divina Commedia, 
 iii, 209. 
 
 ten Brink, B. Zur chronologie von Chaucer’s Schriften, 
 xvii, 1. 
 
 Zwei stellen in prolog der Canterbury Tales, 
 xxiv, 464. 
 
 Bischoff, 0. Ueber zweisilbige senkung und epische casur 
 bei Chaucer, xxiv, 353, xxv, 339. 
 
 See, for a fuller list, Chaucer, by E. P. Hammond, 1908, 
 p. 546.] 
 
 1878, ff. Anglia, Zeitschrift fur englishe Philologie, Halle, 1878. 
 Quarterly. [In progress.] 
 
 [A very large number of Chaucer articles, many of great 
 value, by Schoepke, Bech, Lange, Uhlemann, Graef, Koeppel, 
 Liicke, Fliigel, Ballmann, Koch, and others, have appeared 
 in Anglia. °The more important are named by E. P. Ham- 
 mond in Chaucer, a bibliographical manual, 1908, p. 543 ; 
 and they are practically all referred to as they appear in the 
 Jahresbericht (see below, 1879). 
 
 With Anglia (1886) was published an ‘ U ebersicht ^ ol 
 books on English language and literature, for 1885-6, 
 giving full reference to Chaucer articles, and (in 1889) for 
 1888.° This Uebersicht has appeared yearly since 1894, 
 which latter issue covered 1891. See also 1890, Anglia 
 Beiblatt.] 
 
 1878. Schoepke, 0. DryderCs Uebertragungen Chaucers im Verhdlt- 
 niss zu ihren Originalen, Diss., Halle. 
 
 [See also Schoepke in Anglia, ii, pp. 314-53, Dry den s 
 Bearbeitungen Chaucerscher Gedichte.] 
 
 1879 Wiilker, R. Altenglisches Lesebuch, Halle, 2 vols., 1874- 
 
 * 1879. 
 
 [Vol. ii, 1879, contains the Squieres Tale, text from 
 Morris ; an extract from Troilus and from the Persones J ale 
 and passages from Boethius .] 
 

 150 
 
 Appendix C. 
 
 [a.d. 1879 - 
 
 1879. Wurzner, A. Ueher Chaucer's Lyrische Gedichte. Steyr. 
 
 1880. Koch, J AusgewaUte kleinere Dichtungen Chaucer’s in Ver* 
 rnaasse des Originals in das Deutsche\berirZen und Zi 
 Erorterungenversehen. Leipzig. y ’ 1 
 
 [Coiitaimng Pity, Words to Adam, Parlement of Foules 
 GmtlleSSe ’ Sted f™tnesse, Fortune, Bukton, Scogan, 
 
 1880. Schrader, K A Das altenglische BelaUvpronomen mit be 
 sonderer BerucksicMigung der Sprache Chance* KM. 
 
 1881-1888. Schipper, Jacob. Englische Metrik in Hstorischer und 
 
 dargestellt , 3 vols., Bonn vol i 
 Altenglische Metrik , 1881, ch. viii Der e-ereirntp frinffott* 5 
 jambische Vers vor und bei Chaucer nn g 434 4ftR / ^ taktl ^ e ’ 
 Chancer references all through this vilu^'e] 83 [and 
 
 brlS7„™ ferenCeS f q n 6VieW f ° f the above > and for a “ excellent 
 S ,rr? i ~ hlpper aanal y sis Of Chaucer’s verse, see 
 Chaucer, by E. P. Hammond, 1908, pp. 476-478.] 
 
 ““'■ft® Dtaj “wie. UnUrSUdm ^ n Chaucer’s Bole of the 
 
 1883-6. During, Adolf 
 
 Strassburg, 1883-86. 
 
 von. 
 
 Geoffrey Chaucer’s Werke , 3 vols. 
 
 _JY K ’ ff , ous °f f anl - e ’ Le 9 end °f G ood Women, Parle- 
 ment of Foules Vols. n and m, the Canterbury Tales. In 
 verse, with full critical remarks and appreciations, and some 
 notes. No more was published.] 
 
 
 1883 ' fktmfftvhn. 6 H ° US 0fFame: Mnleit ™9 und Text-verhult- 
 
 1884 ‘hnrn Brink ’ BerQhard - CT,Ws %•«<** und Verskunst, Strass- 
 
 1 QOS re 7-« WS *° f r, 1S 7°, tk ’ See Chauc «r, by E. P. Hammond, 
 in lom t 78 Pi? ~ ri . nk S book was transla te<l into English 
 o/cl ’ V ’ “ ThS Lan 3 ua 9 e und Versification 
 
 1887 '„f/7 e ? kel ’i Eug t n - Sppw durch die mittelenglische Syntax 
 einlm b ^ on , de7 f r Kerucksichtigung der Sprache Chaucer’s . . \ Mit 
 emein Worterbuc-li von W. Grote, Munster i.W. 
 
 loqo’ K ° rti “£> !i ,stav - . Grundriss der Geschichte der Enqlischen 
 and LMemtur ’ Munster '- W -> 1887 > chap. viii, pp. 154-70. ? 
 
 1905. . [This work, containing a valuable Chaucer bibliography 
 giving references to most of the important GermaS work 
 
151 
 
 1890 ] German References. 
 
 on Chaucer, was re-issued in 1893 somewhat enlarged, and 
 again in 1905, considerably enlarged and brought up to date. 
 In this last issue of 1905, the Chaucer bibliography is in 
 chap. 12, pp. 176-95.] 
 
 1888. Graef, Ado’f. Das perfektum bei Chaucer , Diss., Kiel, 1887, 
 pp. 96, published Frankenliausen, 1888, pp. 102. 
 
 1888. Heussler, [Hans ?] Die Stellung von Subjekt und Pradekat 
 in der Erzdhlung des Melibeus und in der des Pfarrers in Chaucer s 
 Canterbury Tales , Diss., Wesel. 
 
 1888. Kunz, Siegfried. Das Verhdltnis der Handschriften von Chaucer’s 
 “ Legend of Good Women f Diss., Breslau. 
 
 1888. Willert, H. G. Chaucer. The Hous of Fame : Text, Varianten, 
 Anmerkungen. Berlin. 
 
 1889. Freudenberger, M. Ueber dasFehlen des Auftakts in Chaucer’s 
 heroischem Verse, Leipzig. 
 
 1889. Meyer, Carl F. H. John Goiver’s Beziehungen zu Chaucer und 
 Konig Richard II., Diss., Bonn. 
 
 1889. ten Brink, Bernhard. Geschichte der englischen Litter atur, vol. ii, 
 part 1, Berlin, 1889. 
 
 [The first volume of this history was published in 1887 ; 
 vol. ii, part 1, which contains the study of Chaucer, in 1889 ; 
 and part 2 of vol. ii, was in the press when ten Brink died 
 suddenly in January, 1892 ; it was then corrected and edited 
 by Brandi, Strassburg, 1893. The Chaucer portion is vol. 
 ii, part 1, book 4, section v-xv (end of book 4), pp. 33-214 
 of the 1893 edition. It is extremely valuable, as ten Brink 
 combined close and scholarly textual knowledge with real 
 literary appreciation. This volume was translated into 
 English by W. Clarke Robinson in 1893, Bohn’s edn., vol. ii.] 
 
 1890. Haeckel, W. Das Sprichwort bei Chaucer , Leipzig. 
 
 1890, ff. Beiblatt zur Anglia. [Full title] Mitteilungen aus dem ge- 
 sarnmten gebiete der englischen spraclie und litteratur. Monat- 
 schriftfiir den englischen unterricht . . . lierausgegeben vonEwald 
 Fliigel, Halle. [In progress.] 
 
 [This contains reviews of books, and has many Chaucer 
 articles and notes, as well as valuable lists of articles in 
 reviews, etc.] 
 
152 
 
 Appendix G. [a.d. i‘ 891 - 
 
 1891. Ballerstedt, E. Ueber Chaucer's Naturschilderunqen, Diss., Got- 
 tingen. 
 
 1891. Lange, H. Die Versicherungen bei Chaucer , Diss., Halle. 
 
 1892. Crow, C. L. Zur Geschichte des kurzen Reimpaars irn Mittel- 
 englischen . . . Chaucer’s House of Fame, Diss., Gottingen. 
 
 1892. Hagedorn, H. Ueber die Sprache einiger nordlicher Chaucer- 
 schiiler , Diss., Gottingen. 
 
 1893. Graef, Adolf. Das futurum und die entwicklung von schal und 
 uil zn futurischen tempusbildern bei Chaucer , Flensberg. (In 
 Jahresberieht der Flensburger Handelschule.) 
 
 1893. Kaluza, Max. Chaucer and der Rosenroman. Eine litterar - ; 
 geschichtliche Studie, Berlin. 
 
 1893. Klaeber, F. Das Bild bei Chaucer , Diss., Berlin. 
 
 1893. Paul, Hermann. Grundriss der Germanischen Pliilologie. Strass- 
 burg, 3 vols. 1891-93, vol. ii, 1893, part i (2nd ed., 1897). 
 
 [Contains articles on : — 
 
 (i) Mittelenglishe Litteratur by A. Brandi, Chaucer, pp. 
 
 672-682 (not of much value). 
 
 (ii) Englische Metrik by J. Schipper (continual reference to 
 
 Chaucer).] 
 
 1896. Morsbach, Lorenz. Mittelenglische Grammatik. Part i. Halle 
 (Sammlung kurzer grammatiken germanischer dialekte, No. vii). 
 
 1897. BischofF, O. Ueber ziveisilbige Senkung und epische Casur bei ; 
 Chaucer , Diss., Konigsberg. 
 
 [See some account of this in Chaucer, by E. P. Hammond, | 
 p. 499.] 
 
 1897. Schade, Arthur. Ueber das verhaltniss von Pope's u January 
 und May ” und “ The Wife of Bath , her Prologue ” zu den 1 
 entsprechenden abschnitten von Chaucer's Canterbury Tales Diss 
 Darmstadt. 
 
 1898. Hampel, E. Die Silbenmassung in Chaucer's funftaktigem Verse, 
 teil i, Diss., Halle. 
 
 1899. Fischer, R. Zu der kunstformen des mit'telalterlichen Epos, 
 Vienna. 
 
 [Hartmann s Iwein, the A lebelungenlied, Boccaccio’s Fdo- 
 strato and Chaucer’s Troilus.] 
 
Cijaum: Society. 
 
 Second Series, 55. 
 
 FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 OF CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 AND ALLUSION (1357-1900) 
 
 BY 
 
 CAROLINE F. E. SPURGEON 
 
 DOCTEUR DE l’uNIVERSITE DE PARIS 
 HON. LITT.D. MICHIGAN 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE CHAUCER SOCIETY 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 AMEN HOUSE, WARWICK SQUARE, LONDON, E.C. 4, AND IN NEW YORK, 
 
 AND BY KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TROBNER & CO., Ltd., 
 
 39 NEW OXFORD STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1. 
 
€lj t Cljauccr Societti. 
 
 The Founder and Director was Dr. F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 Hon. Sec. is W. A. Dalzikl, Esq., 67 Victoria Road, Finsbury Park, London, N. 4. 
 
 To do honour to Chaucer, and to let the lovers and students of him see how far the 
 best unprinted Manuscripts of his works differd from the printed texts, this Society 
 was founded in 1868. There were then, and are still, many questions of metre, pro- 
 nunciation, orthography, and etymology yet to be settled, for which more prints of 
 Manuscripts were and are wanted ; and it is hardly too much to say that every line 
 of Chaucer contains points ths.t need reconsideration. The founder (Dr. Furnivall) 
 began with The Canterbury Tales , and has given of them (in parallel columns in 
 Royal 4to) six of the best theretofore unprinted Manuscripts known. Inasmuch as 
 the parallel arrangement necessitated the alteration of the places of certain tales in 
 some of the MSS, a print of each MS has been issued separately, following the order 
 of its original. The first six MSS printed have been : the Ellesmere (by leave of the 
 Earl of Ellesmere) ; the Heilgwrt (by leave of W. W. E. Wynne, Esq.) ; the Camb. 
 Univ. Libr., MS Gg. 4. 27 ; the Corpus, Oxford ; the Petworth (by leave of Lord 
 Leconfield) ; and the Lansdowne 851 (Brit. Mus.). The Harleian 7334 has followd, 
 and the Cambridge Dd., completed by Egerton 2726 (the Haistwell MS). Specimens 
 of all accessible MSS of the Tales are now nearly completed, edited by the late Prof. 
 Zupitza, Ph.D., and Prof. John Koch, Ph.D. 
 
 Of Chaucer’s Minor Foems , — the MSS of which are generally later than the best 
 MSS of the Canterbury Tales, — all the available MSS have been printed, so as to 
 secure all the existing evidence for the true text. 
 
 Of Troilus , Parallel-Texts from the 6 best MSS have been issued (the Campsall 
 MS also separately), and a 7th MS text of it with the englisht Boccaccio Comparison. 
 
 Autotypes of most of the best Chaucer MSS have been publisht. 
 
 The Society’s publications are issued in two Series, of which the First contains the 
 different texts of Chaucer’s works; and the Second, such originals of and essays on 
 these as can be procured, with other illustrative treatises, and Supplementary Tales. 
 
 The yearly subscription, which constitutes Membership, is 2 guineas, beginning 
 with January 1, 1868. 
 
 Most of the Society’s Publications can still be had from the home Hon. Sec. 
 
 The Society’s Hon. Secs, for America are, Prof. Kittredge, of Harvard College, 
 Cambridge, Mass., for the North and East, and Prof. Bright, of Johns Hopkins 
 University, Baltimore, for the South and West. Members’ names and subscriptions 
 should be sent to the home Hon. Sec., W. A. Dalziel, Esq., 67 Victoria Road, 
 Finsbury Park, London, N. 4. 
 
 FIRST SERIFS . 
 
 The Society’s issue for 1868, in the First Series, is, 
 
 I. The Prologue and Knight’s Tale, of the Canterbury Tales, in 6 parallel 
 Texts (from the 6 MSS named below), together with Tables, showing the 
 Groups of the Tales, and their varying order in 38 MSS of the Tales, and 
 in 5 old printed editions, and also Specimens from several MSS of the 
 “Moveable Prologues” of the Canterbury Tales, — The Shipman’s Prologue, 
 and Franklin’s Prologue, — when moved from their right places, and of the 
 Substitutes for them. (The Six-Text, Part I.) 
 
 II — VII. II. The Prologue and Knight’s Tale from the Ellesmere MS, Part I ; III. 
 
 Hengwrt MS, 154, Pt I ; IV. Cambridge MS Gg. 4. 27, Pt 1 ; V. Corpus 
 MS, Oxford, Pt I ; VI. Petworth MS, Pt I; VII. Lansdowne MS, 8ol, 
 Pt I. (Separate issues of the Texts forming Part I of the Six-Text edition.) 
 
 The issue for 1869, in the First Series, is, 
 
 VIII— XIII. VIII. The Miller’s, Reeve’s, and Cook’s Tales: Ellesmere MS, Part 
 II ; IX. Hengwrt MS, Pt II ; X. Cambridge MS, Pt II ; XI. Corpus MS, 
 Pt II ; XII. Petworth MS, Pt II ; XIII. Lansdowne MS, Pt II, with an 
 Appendix of “Gamelyn” from six MSS. 
 
 (Separate issues of the Texts forming the Six-Text, Part II, No. XIV.) 
 
 The issue for 1870, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XIV. The Miller’s, Reeve’s, and Cook’s Tales, with an Appendix of the Spurious 
 Tale of Gamelyn, in 6 parallel Texts. (Six-Text, Part II.) 
 
 The issue for 1871, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XV. The Man of Law’s, Shipman’s, and Prioress’s Tales, with Chaucer s own 
 Tale of Sir Thopas, in 6 parallel Texts from the MSS above named, and 9 
 coloured drawings of Tellers of Tales, after the originals in the Ellesmere MS. 
 
 (Six-Text, Part III.) 
 
 XVI. The Man of Law’s Tale, from the Ellesmere MS. Part III. 
 
 XVII. „ „ „ „ „ „ „ Cambridge MS Part III. 
 
 XVIII. „ ,, ,, ,, ,, „ „ Corpus MS. Part III. 
 
 XIX, The Shipman’s, Prioress’s and Man of Law’s Tales, from the Petworth MS. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 XX. The Man of Law’s Tale, from the Lansdowne MS. Part III. 
 
 (each with woodcuts of fourteen drawings of Tellers of lales m tne 
 Ellesmere MS.) 
 
FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 
 OF 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM AND ALLUSION 
 
FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 OF CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 AND ALLUSION (1357-1900) 
 
 BY 
 
 CAROLINE F. E. SPURGEON 
 
 DOCTEUR DE l’uNIVERSITE DE PARIS 
 HON. LITT.D. MICHIGAN 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE CHAUCER SOCIETY 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 AMEN CORNER, LONDON, E.C. 4, AND IN NEW YORK, 
 
 AND BY KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TROBNER & CO., Ltd., 
 
 39 NEW OXFORD STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1. 
 
JSftonb £fritg, No. 55. 
 
 Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, 
 
 BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 
 
C5‘ i'/cS 
 
 FOREWORD. 
 
 The collection of this body of Chaucer references and 
 allusions was begun nearly twenty-three years ago. For 
 various reasons it has taken a long time to get the whole 
 completed and printed (a six-years’ interval, for example, 
 during and after the war), and in any case it is clearly not, 
 as Sir Thomas Browne would say, a work which a man, or 
 a woman either, can do ‘ standing upon one legge.’ 
 
 The idea of collecting a body of opinion on Chaucer was 
 Dr. Furnivall’s, and as early as 1888 he appealed in the Academy 
 for a volunteer to undertake it. It was not, however, until 
 1901, when he met me, then an unwary as well as an eager 
 student, that he succeeded in persuading anyone to undertake 
 a task which was far heavier than either he or I then suspected. 
 
 It has now been done very much more fully than Dr. Furni- 
 vall at first suggested, and up to 1800 the references, as far as I 
 have found them, are given fairly completely; from 1800 to 
 1867 the most important or interesting ones are selected, while 
 from 1868, the date of the foundation of the Chaucer Society, 
 to 1900, only the chief editions of the poet and a few notable 
 or typical criticisms are included. This gradual thinning out 
 was found necessary for reasons of sheer bulk of material. 
 
 An Appendix (A) contains additional English and Latin 
 references, and two Appendices (B and C) give French and 
 German ones. Further, a few copies of a Supplement, 
 containing some 900 additional allusions between 1868 and 
 1900, have been printed and placed in the chief public libraries. 
 
 The greatest care has been taken to guard against in- 
 accuracies or misprints, as a compilation of this kind onl) 
 justifies its existence in so far as it can approach to accuracy 
 But no large collection of detail is ever free from errors, and I 
 
vi 
 
 Foreword . 
 
 can hardly hope that this is an exception. I shall be most 
 grateful, therefore, if readers who discover mistakes will kindly 
 tell me of them, and if those who know of important allusions 
 to Chaucer not here included, will be so good as to send me 
 the references. 
 
 No one can be more conscious than I am of how much better 
 this work could be done, or indeed of how much better even 
 I myself could do it were I to begin all over again. But faulty 
 and incomplete as it is, I hope that in various ways it may 
 be of use to students, and that it may perhaps serve as a 
 humble but solid brick in the future building of a history of 
 English poetics and poetical taste. 
 
 It only remains for me to thank all those who, throughout 
 these years, have so generously helped me in sending me 
 references, in searching for references and in copying and collat- 
 ing. To name them all individually would be too lengthy, 
 but I must specially refer to Professor Churton Collins, who, 
 during one fruitful evening, first started me on various lines 
 of investigation, to Dr. Paget Toynbee, who has sent me many 
 references, to Professor Hyder E. Rollins, who most generously 
 handed over to me a valuable collection of Troilus allusions, 
 and to M. J. J. Jusserand, who gave me several suggestions 
 in connection with French criticism. 
 
 Among others who have helped in various ways, I desire 
 to record, with much gratitude, the names of Miss Evelyn Fox, 
 Major J. J. Munro, Mrs. H. C. Tait, and, above all, Mr. Arundel! 
 Esdaile of the British Museum, who is responsible for the 
 Index, and without whose expert and invaluable help in recent 
 years these volumes would, I fear, still be unfinished. 
 
 There is, however, one name and personality above all 
 others to whom I owe, not only the suggestion of the work, 
 but also for nine years constant stimulus, help and inspiration. 
 All Chaucer students know Dr. Furnivall— I speak of him in 
 the present, for his spirit still lives in the work which is being 
 done— and they all owe him a debt. But no one of them owes 
 him more than I do for encouragement, inspiration and generous 
 and unsparing aid of every kind. 
 
 .1 cannot kelp wisking tkat in tke Elysian Fields, or wkerever 
 
Foreword. 
 
 Vll 
 
 lie may be, be could just bave a look at tbe finished work which 
 he initiated and so greatly desired to see accomplished ; for, if 
 he at all resembles what he was on earth, I know that these 
 volumes, even with their many imperfections, would give him 
 
 pleasure. Caroline F. E. Spurgeon. 
 
 New York , 
 
 December. 1923 . 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 This record of the changing attitude of Englishmen during 
 five centuries towards one of their greatest poets furnishes food 
 for thought of many kinds ; literary, artistic and philosophical. 
 
 The aim of this Introduction is first to sum up, briefly and 
 in a concise form, the actual results which the following 
 documents furnish, and secondly to suggest, very tentatively, 
 a few of the problems which these collected facts raise, and 
 upon which they may help to throw some light. 
 
 Viewing the matter first of all from what is here our chief 
 concern, namely, as a contribution towards the history of 
 literary criticism, it will be discussed under the following 
 headings : — 
 
 § 1. An outline of the fluctuations of the literary reputation 
 of Chaucer during the last five hundred years. 
 
 § 2. An examination of the criticisms and allusions them- 
 selves, roughly grouped and sorted. 
 
 § 3. The various classes of qualities ascribed to Chaucer. 
 
 § 4. The evolution of Chaucer biography. 
 
 § 5. A note on some Chaucer lovers and workers of whom 
 we get glimpses throughout the centuries. 
 
 A few notes will then be made on more abstract or philo- 
 sophical questions, and we shall consider our material to some 
 extent as a contribution towards the history of poetics in 
 England, more especially in connection with the following 
 points : — 
 
 § 6. The change or curve of literary taste and fashion. 
 
 § 7 . The birth and growth of criticism itself as an art. 
 
 § 8. The gradual evolution of new senses in the race. 
 
 § 9. The evolution of scholarship and accuracy in literary 
 matters. 
 
 IX 
 
X 
 
 § 1. The Six Stages in Chaucer Criticism. 
 
 § 1. An Outline History of Chaucer Criticism. 
 
 Broadly speaking, from 1400 to the present day, Chaucer’s 
 reputation may be said to pass through six fairly well marked 
 stages : — 
 
 (1) Enthusiastic and reverential praise by his contem- 
 poraries and immediate successors, which lasts to the end of 
 the fifteenth century. 
 
 (2) The universal acknowledgment of his genius by the 
 Scottish poets of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, 
 this admiration noticeably taking the form of imitation; 
 whereas in England at this period Chaucer is hdmired rather 
 more as a social reformer and as an exposer of vice and folly, 
 than as a literary artist. 
 
 (3) The critical attitude, which begins towards the end of 
 the sixteenth century with the Elizabethans. Chaucer still 
 holds his place as prince of English poets; Sidney praises him, 
 Spenser looks to him as master. Now, however, begins to 
 creep in that general belief which clung so persistently to the 
 minds of all writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ; 
 that Chaucer was obsolete, that his language was very difficult 
 to understand, his style rough and unpolished, and his versifi- 
 cation imperfect. 
 
 (4) During the seventeenth century this belief gains so 
 much ground that Chaucer’s language is said to be an unknown 
 tongue ; the knowledge of his versification entirely disappears ; 
 for eighty-five years (1602-87) no edition of his works is pub- 
 lished, and his reputation altogether touches its lowest point. 
 
 (5) Dryden’s Fables in 1700 inaugurate what may be called 
 the period of ‘ modernizations. ’ This is a time of ever-increasing 
 interest in and admiration for Chaucer, combined with the 
 fixed belief that in order to make him intelligible or possible 
 to modern readers his writings must be ‘refined’; that is, 
 diluted and translated into current English. This phase may 
 be said to have continued up to 1841, when the last ambitious 
 
 modernization was published, but it was co-existent with 
 and largely overlapped the sixth and present period of — 
 
§ 1. Period I. Contemporary Praise — Gower. xi 
 
 (6) Scholarly study and appreciation, dating from the 
 publication of Tyrwhitt’s edition of the Canterbury Tales in 
 1775. Tyrwhitt made possible to the general reader the rational 
 study of Chaucer’s own works by editing a careful and scholarly 
 text of his Tales, and for the first time he definitely and clearly 
 stated and proved the true theory of the poet’s versification, 
 thus disposing of one of the most serious obstacles to the proper 
 recognition of Chaucer’s greatness as a literary craftsman. 
 This work was carried on and practically completed by the 
 labours of the members of the Chaucer Society, founded in 
 1868, which prepared the way for the final scholarly complete 
 edition of the poet’s works brought out by Professor Skeat in 
 1894. 
 
 Period I.— The early praise of the poet, and the estimation 
 in which he was held, are more generally known than the 
 tributes of later years, because portions of the eulogies by 
 Gower, Lydgate, Hoccleve, Caxton, and others, are reprinted 
 many times in various lives of Chaucer and editions of his 
 works. 
 
 When we remember that Chaucer could only be read and 
 praise of him be recorded in manuscript by a very limited public, 
 the appreciation which he received from his contemporaries 
 and which has come down to us, is remarkable. If we take 
 into account the printing facilities and the growth of the reading 
 public in Shakespeare’s time, and add to that the fact that the 
 dramatist’s work could be seen and judged by the unliterary 
 public, there is no comparison between the contemporary 
 appreciation shown of the two poets. That given to Chaucer 
 is undoubtedly greater, and the unquestioned recognition of 
 his position as a great poet is as hearty as it is universal. The 
 earliest literary reference, and it is only a possible one, occurs 
 in one of Gower’s French poems, the Mirour de Vomme (1376-9), 
 but there is considerable doubt as to whether Gower is here 
 referring to Chaucer’s Troilus or not (see below, p. 4). The 
 next reference is, curiously enough, also to Troilus , x but here 
 
 1 For the early popularity of this poem, see pp. lxxvi-lxxvii below. 
 
xii § 1. Period I. Contemporary Praise. Usk, Lydgate, Hoccleve. 
 
 there is no doubt that Chaucer’s work is meant. It occurs in 
 the Testament of Love by Thomas Usk (c. 1387, see below, p. 8) 
 and refers to a special passage in the poem ( Troilus , IV, 953- 
 1085). The discourse between the author and the fair lady 
 who is Love (in imitation of that between Boethius and Philo- 
 sophy) has been on divine foreknowledge and human freewill, 
 and Love refers to Chaucer in the warmest terms as her own 
 true servant who in wit and clear writing surpasses all other 
 poets. Next, in point of time, comes the well-known message 
 sent to Chaucer by Venus, in Gower’s Confessio Amantis, which 
 bears upon the margin of the manuscript the date 1390. Venus, 
 m taking leave of Gower, sends a greeting to Chaucer, who! 
 she says, is her ‘ disciple ’ and ‘ poete,’ and to whom she is 
 ‘above alle othre’ ‘most holde,’ and she bids him finish 
 his work by making his ‘ testament of love ’ (see below, p. 10). 
 
 The next certain reference is by Lydgate, and it ’is from 
 him and another contemporary and survivor, Hoccleve, that 
 Chaucer receives the most constant and whole-hearted admira- 
 tion in these earlier years. The praise and estimate of Chaucer 
 left by these two comparatively obscure writers has a value for 
 us which no other can have; for they alone— of all his critics 
 save Gower— knew the poet personally; and we can gather 
 from them not only the admiration he excited as an artist, but 
 the personal devotion he inspired as a man. In the poems of 
 Lydgate, during some forty years (c. 1400-1439), we find 
 repeated, allusion to and unstinted praise of his ‘ master 
 Chaucer ; praise, which in spite of certain set phrases repeated 
 more than once, we feel comes straight from the heart of the 
 writer. Mingled with the praise are to be found little personal 
 or characteristic descriptions, which are to many people the 
 most precious things in Lydgate’s voluminous writings ; such, 
 for instance, as that in the Troy Book (1412-1420), where he 
 thus records his master’s kindness, tolerance, and encourage- 
 ment to younger writers, an amiable trait which from the 
 literary point of view the hapless reader of Lydgate may often 
 find occasion to deplore : — 
 
§ 1. Period 1. Contemporary Praise. Lydgate and Hoccleve. xiii 
 
 For he pat was gronde of wel seying 
 In al hys lyf hyndred no makyng 
 My maister Chaucer fat founde ful many spot 
 Hym liste not pinche nor gruche at euery blot 
 Nor meue hym silf to perturbe his reste 
 I haue herde telle but seide alweie f e best 
 Suffring goodly of his gentilnes 
 Ful many fing embracid with rudnes. 
 
 It is in the translation of the Fall of Princes , written probably 
 thirty years after Chaucer’s death, that there are most references 
 to him, including the well-known passage giving a list of his 
 writings (pp. 37-42 below). However, in the case of Lydgate 
 — most garrulous of poets — the supreme proof of his admiration 
 for Chaucer, greater than praise or than imitation itself, is the 
 fact that he refrains from telling several stories or only tells 
 them in the shortest possible way, because they have already 
 been treated by the older poet. Thus, in translating Deguile- 
 ville’s Pilgrimage of the Life of Man [1426], Lydgate gives 
 Chaucer’s version of the A.B.C. ; and again in the Fall of 
 Princes he says : — 
 
 Myn Auctour here no lengere lyst soiourne, 
 
 Off this Emperours the Fallys for to wryte, 
 
 But in haste he doth his style tourne 
 To Zenobia hire story for tendyte; 
 
 But, for chaunceer so wel did hym quyte 
 In this tragedyes hir pitous fal tentrete, 
 
 I wyl passe ovir itehersyng but the grete. 
 
 Lydgate excels in frequency of reference to Chaucer, and 
 Hoccleve perhaps in fervency. In his Regement of Princes , 
 Hoccleve goes so far as to say that England can never again 
 bring forth Chaucer’s equal : 4 Death myght have stayed her 
 hand,’ he cries, 
 
 She myghte han taried hir vengeance awhile, 
 
 Til that sum man had egal to the be. 
 
 Nay, lat be pat l sche knew wel pat f?is yle 
 May neuer man forth brynge lyk to the. 
 
xiv §1. Period I. Caxton and the Bool of Curtesy e. 
 
 He calls him 
 
 The firste fyndere of our faire langage, 
 and again : — 
 
 0, maister deere, and fadir reuerent ! 
 
 Mi maister Chaucer, flour of eloquence, 
 
 Mirour of fructuous entendement. 
 
 And he goes on to liken him to Aristotle in philosophy, and to 
 Virgil in poetry (below, pp. 21, 22). 
 
 So great and whole-hearted was the admiration and devotion 
 given to Chaucer by these two men, his friends and followers, 
 that we cannot doubt they would have been the first to acknow- 
 ledge it fitting that the principal value of their writings to us 
 — five centuries later — lies in their references to their ‘ maister 
 Chaucer.’ 
 
 On the whole, amongst all Chaucer’s contemporaries and 
 successors during the fifteenth century, the most discriminating 
 appreciations are those given him by Caxton, and by the 
 unknown author of the Bool of Curtesy e. The remarks of 
 both writers sound curiously modern as to the qualities they 
 specially single out for approval. Chaucer’s vivid powers of : 
 description, his felicitous use of words, his freedom from long- 
 windedness in which he differed so markedly from his con- 
 temporaries— all are noted by Caxton 
 
 He comprehended hys maters in short, quyck and hye 
 sentences, eschewyng prolyxyte, castyng away the chaf of 
 superfluyte, and shewyng the pyked grayn of sentence': 
 uttered by crafty and sugred eloquence. . . . [Prohemye 
 to Canterbury Tales, 2nd edn. c. 1483, below, p. 62.] 
 
 He wrytteth no voyde wordes, but alle hys mater is ful 
 of hye and quycke sentence. [Epilogue to the Bool of 
 Fame , below, p. 61.] 
 
 And in the Bool of Curtesy e (a. 1477), Chaucer’s works are 
 recommended above all others : — 
 
 Eedith his werkis / full of plesaunce 
 Clere in sentence / in langage excellent 
 Briefly to wryte / suche was his suffysance 
 Whateuer to saye / he toke in his entente 
 
XV 
 
 § 1. Period II. The Scottish Chaucerians. 
 
 His langage was so fayr and pertynente 
 It seemeth vnto mannys heeryngc 
 Not only the worde / but verely the thynge. 
 
 The imaginative power of the poet is here specially noted 
 in a way which is not equalled until Sir Brian Tuke, fifty-five 
 years later, wrote his introduction to Thynne’s edition (1532). 
 
 One early piece of indirect praise must not pass unnoticed, 
 more especially as it cannot find a place under the ‘ allusions ’ ; 
 and this is the charming poem of the Flower and the Leaf, so long 
 attributed to Chaucer, now generally thought to have been 
 written by a woman, probably about 1475. The authoress was 
 evidently well acquainted with and an admirer of Chaucer’s 
 writings, more particularly the Prologue to and the Legend of 
 Good Women. ( See Skeat’s Chaucer, vol. vii, pp. lxii-lxviii.) 
 
 Period II. — Next we come to the enthusiastic and reverent 
 devotion expressed for Chaucer by the Scottish poets of the 
 latter end of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Henry - 
 son, Gawain Douglas, Dunbar and Lyndsay, all speak of him 
 in terms of fervent admiration. Henry son, in 1475, wrote a 
 continuation of Troilus and Cressida, called the Testament of 
 Cresseid — for a long time included amongst Chaucer’s works 
 in the beginning of which he says he made up the fire, took a 
 drink to comfort his spirits and cut short the winter night, and 
 then leaving all other amusement, he took down a book written 
 by ‘ worthie Chaucer glorious, of fair Cresseid and worthie 
 Troylus.’ Gawain Douglas speaks of Chaucer in the Palace of 
 Honour (1501) as ‘ a per se, sans peir in his vulgare, 5 and later as 
 
 Hevinlie trumpat, horleige and reguleir, 
 
 In eloquence balmy, condit, and diall, 
 
 Mylky fountane, cleir strand, and rose riall, 
 
 Of fresch endite, throw Albion iland braid. 
 
 When, later on, in this same Prologue (to the First Buik of 
 Eneados, 1513), Douglas finds fault with Chaucer for not follow- 
 ing Virgil accurately in his account of Dido (p. 72 below), he 
 does so with great timidity, and a clear consciousness of his 
 own inferiority : 
 
xvi § 1 . Period II. Dunbar and Lyndsay. 
 
 My master Chaucer greitlie Yirgile offendit 
 All thocht I be to bald hyme to repreif. 
 
 Dunbar, in his Lament, or the Makaris, speaks of ‘ The noble 
 Chaucer, of makaris flouir ’ ; and in the Golden Targe he sur- 
 passes all Chaucer’s other Scottish followers in his enthusiasm : — 
 
 0 reverend Chaucere, rose of rethoris all, 
 
 As in oure tong ane flour imperiall 
 
 That raise in Britane ewir, quho redis rycht, 
 
 Thou beris of makaris the tryumph riall; 
 
 Thy fresch anamalit termes celicall 
 
 This mater coud illumynit haue full brycht : 
 
 Was thou noucht of oure Inglisch all the lycht, 
 
 Surmounting ewiry tong terrestriall 
 
 Alls fer as Mayes morow dois mydnycht? 
 
 Lyndsay, in the Testament of the Papyngo, also refers to 
 Chaucer in the usual way. But a more remarkable testimony 
 to the admiration felt, is the wholesale imitation of Chaucer 
 by these Scottish writers. The ideas of their poems, the forms 
 they assumed, whole passages, single lines, turns of phrase and 
 words are borrowed from Chaucer, and suggested by him. 
 James I, if he was the author of the King's Quair, was in 1423 
 the first Scottish imitator, and of all this group, this is perhaps 
 the poem the most completely saturated with the master’s 
 spirit. 
 
 The Scottish view, then, was one of unstinted admiration, 
 complete comprehension of Chaucer’s writings, and hearty 
 acknowledgment of his superiority as artist to every other 
 English or Scottish poet. 
 
 In England, in the meantime, printing had been introduced, 
 and we see by the books issued that Chaucer’s popularity had 
 not waned, for there was a continual demand for his works. 
 Two editions of his Canterbury Tales were published by Caxton ; 
 and before the end of the fifteenth century two more followed 
 from the presses of Wynkyn de Worde and Pynson. 
 
 In 1532 William Thynne, the first real editor of Chaucer, 
 brought out his edition of the poet’s works, which must indeed 
 have been a labour of love. Francis Thynne tells us that his 
 
; 
 
 §1. Period II. William Thy nne, Chaucer's first Editor. xvii 
 
 father had a commission from Henry VIII ‘ to serche all the 
 liberaries of Englande for Chaucers workes, so that oute of all 
 the Abbies of this Realme ... he was fully furnished with 
 multitude of Bookes.’ This c multitude ’ of copies, probably 
 about twenty-five, Thynne collated to the best of his ability. 
 
 The dedication to Henry VIII, though signed by Thynne, 
 was written by Sir Brian Tuke, and the following quotation 
 may presumably be taken therefore as expressing the appre- 
 ciation of both men : — 
 
 I . . . haue taken great delectacyon ... to rede and 
 here the bokes of that noble & famous clerke Geffray 
 Chaucer, in whose workes is so manyfest . . . suche 
 frutefulnesse in wordes, wel accordynge to the mater and 
 purpose, so swete and plesaunt sentences, suche perfectyon 
 in metre, the composycion so adapted, suche fresshnesse 
 of inuencion, compendyousnesse in narration, such sensible 
 
 and open style that it is moche to be marueyled, 
 
 howe in his tyme suche an excellent poete in 
 
 our tonge, shulde . . . spryng and aryse. 
 
 The literary influence of Chaucer in England in the sixteenth 
 century can be clearly traced even before the publication of 
 Pynson’s edition of the ‘ Works ’ in 1526. John Heywood owes 
 a good deal to Chaucer in his Mery filaye betwene the pardoner 
 and the frere (written probably before 1521), and he incorporates 
 in it two long speeches out of the mouth of Chaucer’s Pardoner. 
 Later, in The Foure P’s, and in a ballad written in 1554, he 
 shows further Chaucerian influence (see pp. 80-81 below). 
 
 The effect of Pynson’s Chaucer on the first English poet of 
 the Renaissance was immediate, for Sir Thomas Wyatt’s debt 
 to it between 1528 and 1532 is undoubted, and later his study 
 of Thynne’s edition is equally clear (see below, App. A, a. 
 1542). 
 
 The general criticism of Chaucer in England in the early 
 sixteenth century is, from a literary point of view, not quite so 
 satisfactory as in Scotland. There are two things in especial 
 which detract from the value of the remarks we find about 
 him : 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. b 
 
xviii § 1 . Period II. Chaucer classed with Gower and Lydgate. 
 
 (1) That in the greater number of cases where he is praised, 
 Chaucer is not, as he was by Hoccleve or Caxton, placed alone, I 
 but he is associated with Grower and Lydgate * — sometimes 
 with no apparent difference in the commendation bestowed— 
 whilst one writer at least actually places Lydgate above him. 
 This is Stephen Hawes, who, in his Pastime of Pleasure (below, 
 p. 67), begins thus with the usual praise of Gower, Chaucer, 
 and Lydgate : — 
 
 As morall Gower, whose sentencious dewe 
 Adowne reflareth with fayre golden beames, 
 
 And after Chaucers, all abroade doth shewe' 
 
 Our vyces to dense, his depared streames 
 Kindlynge our hartes, wyth the fiery leames 
 Of morall vertue, as is probable 
 In all his bokes so swete and profitable. 
 
 Hawes goes on to speak in warm terms of the Book of Fame, the 
 Legend of Good Women, the Canterbury Tales and Troilus, and 
 the reader is gratified with the discrimination shown, until he 
 discovers that the writer is but leading up to a peroration on 
 Lydgate, who receives a much larger share of praise, ending : 
 
 0 mayster Lydgate, the most dulcet sprynge 
 Of famous rethoryke, wyth balade ryall, 
 
 The chefe original of my lernyng. 
 
 This enthusiasm somewhat detracts from the value of his 
 remarks on Chaucer. 
 
 Hawes, it is true, is in a minority of one in placing Lydgate 
 above Chaucer, 1 2 but the type of allusion which brackets the 
 three early writers together on equal terms is very common, j 
 
 1 This habit began quite early, and he was first bracketed with Gower, c 
 Lydgate being later added to the list to make it complete, so that by the 
 end of the 15th century it was a well-established formula. Such references 
 are, for example, those by John Walton, 1410 (p. 20 below), James I, 1423 
 (p. 34), Bokenham, 1443-7 (p. 46), George Ashby, c. 1470 (p. 54), Thomas 
 Feylde, 1509 (p. 70), John Rastell, 1520 (p. 73), Skelton, 1523 (p. 74), etc. 
 
 2 Until 1707, when an unknown writer in an essay on the old English 
 poets and poetry, in the Muses Mercury, vol. i, No. 6, pp. 130-1, definitely 
 states that Lydgate s English and his ‘ numbers ’ are more polished than 
 his master s (see p. 295 below). This view reappears occasionally later, 
 as in the article on Lydgate in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, 1780 (q. v. 
 below), and in Sharon Turner’s History of England, 1815 (q. v. below). 
 
§ 1. Period II. Chaucer annexed by the Reformers. xix 
 
 and shows a certain formalism and convention in the acknow- 
 ledgment of the genius of the three ‘ primier poetes of this 
 nacion,’ as Ashby calls them ; and shows also, though not so 
 markedly as in the case of Hawes, a lack of critical faculty. 
 These shortcomings have to be borne in mind when we are 
 estimating the early sixteenth century praise of Chaucer in 
 England. We may compare, for instance, the difference in 
 critical judgment shown by Douglas and Dunbar in their 
 respective references to the three poets on pp. 65 and 66 
 below, and the supremacy unhesitatingly awarded by them to 
 Chaucer, and the allusion by Hawes following next on p. 66, 
 which, unlike his later one, is quite representative of the 
 ordinary English attitude. 
 
 (2) The other point which lessens the value of Chaucer 
 criticism at this time is also indicated in the verse quoted above, 
 from Hawes’s Pastime of Pleasure, and that is that Chaucer is 
 valued primarily as a reformer, as a moralist and satirist who 
 exposes and rebukes vices and follies. This view is continually 
 emphasised all through the sixteenth century, and for this 
 characteristic Chaucer receives praise consistently from a 
 curious assortment of critics. 
 
 He was annexed by the Reformers, not without reason, as a 
 kind of forerunner and a sharer of their opinions with regard to 
 Rome, as evidenced by his keen satirical exposure of the religious 
 orders of his time. There is support for this view in the 
 Canterbury Tales alone, and more especially in the Prologue , but 
 when in addition Chaucer was credited with the authorship of 
 Jack Upland, the Pilgrim's Tale, and the Plowman's Tale (all of 
 them diatribes against the Church of Rome) one is not surprised 
 to find him cited as a great religious reformer. 
 
 Foxe, writing in 1570, in his enlarged second edition of his 
 ‘ Book of Martyrs,’ expresses the views held on this point by a 
 certain section of the serious thinkers of the sixteenth century, 
 when he points out that the bishops, in condemning all English 
 books that might lead the people to any light of knowledge, 
 had yet allowed Chaucer to be read, takin his work but for 
 jests or toys,’ and not seeing or understanding that he ‘ albeit . . . 
 
XX 
 
 § 1. Period II. Chaucer as theologian and reformer. 
 
 in mirth and covertly ’ was upholding the ends of true religion 
 and was indeed a right Wicklifian. In this manner God— for 
 the sake of his people— was pleased to blind the eyes of the 
 adversary, that through the reading of the poet’s books good 
 might redound to the Church, which, says Foxe, has certainly 
 been the case, for, I am partly informed of certain which 
 knew the parties, which to them reported that by reading of 
 Chaucer’s works they were brought to the true knowledge of 
 religion.’ When we remember the popularity of Foxe’s book, 
 and the number of editions it went through, we realize he must 
 have done a good deal to strengthen this conception of the poet. 
 [See the whole passage, p. 106 below.) 
 
 This quaint view of Chaucer, as a theologian, reformer and 
 moralist, is one which would, of all those here collected, perhaps 
 have most surprised and amused the poet himself, yet it is held by 
 certain writers with great persistence from the time that Leland 
 (his first biographer, ante 1550) tells us that Chaucer ‘ left the 
 University a devout theologian,’ to the sketch of him prepared by 
 Henry Wharton (c. 1687) as an addition to Cave’s Ecclesiastical 
 Writers, in which we are told that the poet was scarcely excelled 
 h Y an y theologian of his time in his zeal for a purer religion. 1 
 
 In addition to this conception of him as a reforming divine, 
 he is much admired for the energy with which he scourges vice 
 of all kinds, and he is referred to continually as an unquestioned 
 authority in such matters. Thus Ascham, in speaking of gaming, 
 
 Whose horriblenes is so large that it passed the eloquence 
 of our Englishe Homer to compasse it : yet because I euer 
 thought hys sayinges to have as much authoritye as 
 eyther Sophocles or Euripedes in Greke, therefore gladly do 
 I remembre these verses of hys [and he quotes from the 
 Pardoner’s Tale, see p. 85 below]. 
 
 So also Thomas Lodge, in his Reply to Stephen Gosson (1579) 
 says, Chaucer in pleasant vain can rebuke sin vncontrold, & 
 though he be lauish in the letter, his sence is serious ’ ; and 
 Webbe notes that Chaucer, 
 
 1 See also below, 1834, R. A. Willmott, Lives of Sacred Poets. 
 
§ 1. Period II. Chaucer condemned for 4 flat scurrilitiel xxi 
 
 by bis delightsome vayne, so gulled the eares of men with 
 his deuises, that . . . without controllment might hee 
 gyrde at the vices and abuses of all states . . . which he 
 did so learnedly and pleasantly, that none therefore would 
 call him into question. For such was his bold spyrit, that 
 what enormities he saw in any, he would not spare to pay 
 them home, eyther in playne words, or els in some prety 
 and pleasant covert, that the simplest might espy him 
 (p. 129, below). 
 
 Episodes or sayings in his poems are repeatedly quoted by 
 divines and moralists, or even later by seventeenth-century 
 Puritans, to point their remarks and support them in the 
 denunciation of special sins, 1 so that one easily sees how it 
 came to be generally believed, both by those who looked only 
 to his moral teaching, and also by those who admired him as 
 poet, but wished to justify their admiration by grounding it 
 on morality, that — to quote Francis Beaumont — his 4 drift 
 was to touch all sorts of men, and to discover all vices of that 
 Age.’ 
 
 There were, however, a certain number of writers who held 
 just the contrary opinion, and considered the poet’s works to be 
 anything but edifying literature. 4 Canterbury Tale ’ seems 
 very early to have been used as a term of contempt, meaning 
 either a story with no truth in it, or a vain and scurrilous tale. 
 We get three such references, curiously enough, in the same 
 year, 1549, by Becke, Latimer and Cranmer; Wharton, in 
 1575, refers to the 4 stale tales of Chaucer,’ and Proctor (1578), 
 and Fulke (1579), make similar allusions, while Thomas Drant 
 (1567), and Sir John Harington (1591), openly condemn 
 Chaucer, the latter for 4 flat scurrilitie.’ This is a view which, 
 as we shall see later, gradually gained ground, although in the 
 laxer days of the Restoration and earlier eighteenth century 
 the poet was not condemned for it, and finally it completely 
 ousted the aspect of Chaucer as a great moral reformer. 
 
 1 See below Calfhill, 1565, p. 99, Hanmer, 1576, p. 112, Northbrook, 
 1577, p. 115, Bp. Babington, 1583, Scot, 1584, p. 124, Stowe, 1598, p. 159, 
 and a letter from a Parliament Officer, 1645-6, p. 224. 
 
xxii § 1. Period III. Francis Beaumont and Francis Thynne. 
 
 Period III. — At the end of the sixteenth century the 
 references to Chaucer become very numerous, and as a whole 
 they are very appreciative. Among the most interesting are 
 those by Sir Philip Sidney (1581 ?), by Gabriel Harvey (MS. 
 notes c. 1585 and 1598), by Webbe and Puttenham in their 
 discourses on poetry, by the unknown writers of Greene's 
 Vision (1592) and of the Returne from Parnassus (1597), and by 
 Francis Beaumont and Francis Thynne in their respective 
 letters called forth by Speght ’s edition of Chaucer in 1598. 
 
 Francis Beaumont the judge (died 1598) was the father of 
 the dramatist, and he prided himself on being one of those who 
 first urged Speght to edit Chaucer. His letter (p. 145 below) 
 is of particular interest, for in addition to his defence of the 
 two faults of which Chaucer is most commonly accused — 
 obsolete language and coarseness — he reminds Speght that when 
 they were at Cambridge together (at Peterhouse, between 
 1560 and 1570) there were a group of older scholars there who 
 were well read in Chaucer, and who commended him to the 
 younger men, and it was they who first brought Speght as well 
 as Beaumont himself to be ‘ in love 5 with the poet. 
 
 Francis Thynne, the son of William Thynne, the first editor 
 of Chaucer (see 1598, below), was another Chaucer enthusiast. 
 He had rather a chequered career, but ended finally by holding 
 a post in the Herald’s Office; he was a born antiquary, and, 
 judging from his ‘ Animadversions,’ a somewhat querulous and 
 pedantic but kindly old man, much concerned with small points 
 of detail, intensely proud of his family, of his father’s good name 
 and literary work, and of his own office as Lancaster Herald. 
 
 He evidently shared his father’s love for Chaucer manu- 
 scripts, some five and twenty of which he inherited : some of 
 them, he says, were stolen out of his house at Poplar, and some 
 he gave to the parson. In any case he had made preparations 
 for a new edition of the poet, when, in 1598, his acquaintance, 
 Thomas Speght, brought out his new edition of Chaucer’s works, 
 and in his preface insinuated that no editor before then had 
 collated manuscripts for his text. This, combined with the fact 
 that he, the hereditary editor of Chaucer, had not been con- 
 
 i 
 
 $ 
 
 i 
 
 ■ 
 
 a 
 
 :■ 
 
§1. Period III. Francis Thynne' s ‘ Animadversions' xxiii 
 
 suited, enraged Thynne, and he at once produced the ‘ Animad- 
 versions,’ in which he snubs Speght for his injustice to William 
 Thynne, his lack of courtesy to himself, Francis Thynne, and 
 his general ignorance, of which he gives detailed specimens. 
 
 The most interesting part of Thynne’s treatise is the account 
 he gives of his father’s cancelled edition (pp. 151, 152 below). 
 But the critical value of Thynne’s comments is also consider- 
 able ; only in four instances out of fifty is he wrong, and some- 
 times (as on the date of the Nonne Preestes Tale, ‘ Animadver- 
 sions,’ pp. 59-62) his notes are admirable, and always show 
 great accuracy and scrupulous care in consulting authorities. 
 
 Altogether it would seem as if Francis Thynne, of all the 
 Chaucer scholars up to Tyrwhitt, had been the best equipped to 
 bring out a really correct and critical edition of the poet’s text, 
 and we can only regret that he did not carry out his intention 
 to re-edit Chaucer (see below, p. 155), and more especially to 
 try to distinguish between his genuine and spurious works; 
 for, with the help of those twenty-five manuscript copies, 
 especially the one inscribed ‘ examinatur Chaucer,’ some invalu- 
 able evidence might have been supplied. 
 
 Among criticisms and appreciations of a more literary kind 
 there is one writer at the end of the sixteenth century whose 
 praise is more emphatic than any other, who of all his readers 
 during these five hundred years has been most influenced by 
 Chaucer’s language and literary methods, and who, in his turn, 
 has exerted so much influence over others, that he has justly 
 been called the ‘ poet’s poet.’ Spenser’s admiration for Chaucer 
 began early, and continued to increase up to the time when 
 he made his dying request to be laid near the master he loved 
 and honoured. In the first great poem of the Elizabethan 
 age, Chaucer is mentioned repeatedly, both in the introductory 
 letter, the notes by ‘ E. K.,’ and in the poem itself — where 
 Spenser calls him ‘ Tityrus ’ : — 
 
 The God of shepheards, Tityrus is dead, 
 
 Who taught me homely, as I can, to make. 
 
 He, whilst he lived, was the soueraigne head 
 Of shepheards all that bene with loue y-take : 
 
xxiv § 1 . Period III. Spenser’s Appreciation. 
 
 (0 ! why should death on hym such outrage showe ?) 
 
 And all hys passing skil with him is fledde, 
 
 The fame whereof doth dayly greater growe. 
 
 This last line is interesting, and is probably quite true, j 
 Chaucer had as yet no rival in England. We know by Beau- 
 mont’s letter that at Cambridge twenty or twenty-five years j 
 earlier he was much read and discussed, and in the intellectual ! 
 activity of the time, doubtless there was keen interest in the j 
 greatest and first English Poet. 
 
 The strong Chaucerian influence shown in the Shepheardes 
 Calender and Mother Huhherd’s Tale is well known, but the close 
 resemblance of Spenser’s Daphna'ida to the Book of the Duchess, I 
 has not, until recently, been worked out, showing that Spenser, I 
 not only early, but also comparatively late in his career, is I 
 indebted to Chaucer for general subject-matter, form, incidents, 
 words and phrases. 1 
 
 Spenser has said some very graceful and beautiful things 
 about ! 
 
 Dan Chaucer, well of Englishe vndefyled 
 On Fames eternall bead roll worthie to be fyled, 
 
 but his famous apology to his master when he was about to 
 add an ending to the Squires Tale, in the fourth book of the ! 
 Faerie Queene, is perhaps the finest tribute ever paid by one 
 great poet to another. 
 
 Then pardon, 0 most sacred happie spirit, 
 
 That I thy labours lost may thus reuiue, 
 
 And steale from thee the meede of thy due merit, 
 
 That none durst euer whilest thou wast aliue, 4 
 
 And being dead in vaine yet many striue : 
 
 Ne dare I like, but through infusion sweete 
 Of thine owne spirit, which doth in me surviue, 
 
 I follow here the footing of thy feete, 
 
 That with thy meaning so I may the rather meete. 
 
 With Spenser as one of his strongest advocates and 
 adherents, Chaucer now enters upon his period of storm and 
 
 { 1 I> ee aote below, p. 119, and especially T. W. Nadal’s article on 
 Daphnai'da and the Book of the Duchess,’ in Publications of Modern 
 Language Association of America, Dec. 1908. 
 
§ 1. Period III. Chaucer's Versification is not understood, xxv 
 
 stress; of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, buffetings of 
 every description, and finally of obloquy and neglect. 
 
 We can see from all the references by critics and others at 
 this time that it was already a matter of common opinion that 
 Chaucer’s style was rough and unpolished, his language obsolete, 
 and his metre halting. 1 As far as we can judge, his versification 
 was not wholly understood by any one, the secret of it was lost 
 when inflections were lost, no one seems to have been aware 
 of the pronunciation of the final ! e’; with the result that there 
 was a general agreement that the poet’s verse was ‘ harsh ’ and 
 ‘ irregular.’ Spenser, his follower and admirer, — himself most 
 musical of poets — when he thinks he is writing in Chaucer’s 
 manner produces this sort of verse : — 
 
 But this I wot withall, that we shall ronne 
 Into great daunger, like to bee undone, 
 Thus wildly to wander in the world’s eye 
 Withouten pasport or good warrantye. 
 
 His breeches were made after the new cut, 
 A1 Portugese, loose like an emptie gut ; 
 
 And his hose broken high above the heeling, 
 And his shooes beaten out with traveling, 
 
 
 
 thus showing plainly in his imitations of Chaucer’s versification 
 in Mother Hubberd's Tale and Colin Clouts come home again 
 that he considers his aim best achieved when he writes irregular 
 lines without the proper number of syllables, distinguished by 
 a lack of harmony and rhythm such as we find nowhere else in 
 Spenser’s work. 
 
 This attitude both as to language and verse must have begun 
 very early; for, little more than one hundred years after 
 Chaucer’s death, Skelton, in Philip Sparrow, feels it necessary 
 to repudiate the idea that Chaucer is difficult to understand. 
 His language, he says, was — 
 
 1 When we remember that Chaucer was known only through the 
 blackletter texts which mangled his verse, this complete misconception 
 of it is not extraordinary. See Wyatt’s system of versification built on 
 his reading of Chaucer in Pynson’s 1526 edition (below, App. A., a. 1542). 
 
xxvi § 1. Period III. V arious attitudes towards Chaucer’s Verse. 
 
 At those days moch commended, 
 
 And now men wold haue amended 
 His english, where-at they barke, 
 
 And marre all they warke : 
 
 Chaucer, that famous Clarke, 
 
 His tearmes were not darcke, 
 
 But pleasaunt, easy, and playne; 
 
 No worde he wrote in vayne. 
 
 The various attitudes assumed by critics in discussing 
 Chaucer’s limitations are curious and interesting. There were 
 those, who, like Spenser, felt something in themselves respond 
 to Chaucer s touch, who knew he was a true poet and a great I 
 one, and looked upon his antique diction, and occasional rugged- 
 ness of versification— a fact which had to be conceded— as in 
 themselves worthy of imitation, having proceeded from so 
 great a master. 
 
 So we find Spenser not only deliberately composes rough 
 and halting lines in the older poet’s honour, but also goes so far 
 m copying Chaucer’s words (or rather what he thought were his 
 words) in the Shepheardes Calender, that Ben Jonson was well 
 
 justified in saying that in ‘ affecting the ancients, Spenser writ 
 no language.’ 
 
 This is the slavish imitation so strongly condemned by 
 Ascham in The Scholemaster, when he says : 
 
 Some that make Chaucer in Englishe and Petrarch in 
 Italian, \ then* Gods in verses, and yet be not able to make 
 true difference, what is a fault, and what a iust prayse, { 
 m those two worthie wittes, will moch mislike this my j. 
 wntyng. But such men be even like followers of Chaucer ' 
 & Petrarke as one here in England did follow Syr Tho. \ 
 More : who, being most vnlike vnto him in wit and learn- \ 
 ? 1 euer ^eles in wearing his gowne awrye vpon the one 
 shoulder, as Syr Tho. More was wont to doe, would needes 
 be counted like vnto hym. 
 
 Next there was the apologetic party— and this was largely 
 in the majority — who, whilst honouring and revering Chaucer, 
 yet deliberately avowed these great faults in him, the while 
 excusing him on the score of his antiquity, and the barbaric 
 age in which he lived. Such were Sidney and Webbe. 
 
§ 1. Period III. Sidney, Webbe and Gascoigne. xxvii 
 
 Sidney, in his Apologie for Poetrie, says : — 
 
 Chaucer, vndoubtedly did excellently in hys Troylus and 
 Cresseid, of whom truly I know not, whether to meruaile 
 more, either that he in that mystie time could see so clearely, 
 or that wee in this cleare age walke so stumblingly after 
 him. Yet had he great wants, fitte to be forgiuen in so 
 reuerent antiquitie. 
 
 Webbe, in his Discourse of English Poetrie, says : — 
 
 Though the manner of hys stile may seem blunt and 
 course to many fine English eares at these dayes, yet in 
 trueth if it be equally pondered, and with good judgment 
 aduised, and confirmed with the time wherein he wrote, a 
 man shall perceiue thereby even a true picture or perfect 
 shape of a right Poet. 
 
 Again, there were those of the new classical school, the 
 denouncers of ‘ rude and beggarly riming,’ who actually praised 
 Chaucer for the supposed irregularity of his metre, which they 
 regarded as an approach to the classical method of quantitative 
 verse. Gascoigne is one of these who gets curiously near the 
 truth of Chaucerian versification without actually reaching it. 
 For he maintains that some natural quality of the words, their 
 sound, as he puts it, makes the short line right. They are not 
 equal-syllabled and yet they scan. Thus, writing in 1575, 
 he says 
 
 Our father Chaucer hath vsed the same libertie in feete 
 and measures that the Latinists do vse : and who so euer 
 do peruse and well consider his workes, he shall finde that 
 although his lines are not alwayes of one selfe same number 
 of Syllables, yet beyng redde by one that hath vnder- 
 standing, the longest verse and that which hath most 
 Syllables in it, will fall (to the eare) correspondent vnto 
 that whiche hath fewest sillables in it : and like wise 
 that whiche hath in it fewest syllables, shalbe founde yet 
 to consist of woordes that haue suche naturall sounde, 
 as may seeme equall in length to a verse which hath many 
 moe sillables of lighter accentes. 
 
 Lastly there were those — but they were woefully few — who 
 would not allow these faults in Chaucer at all, and attributed 
 
xxviii § 1. Period IV. Chaucer considered antiquated. 
 
 them, when they did occur, either to lack of intelligence in 
 the reader or to the negligence of the scribe. 
 
 Foremost amongst these was Thomas Speght, who stoutly 
 upholds syllabic versification, and in his prefatory address to 
 his second edition of Chaucer, writes : 
 
 And for his verses, although, in diuers places they may 
 seeme to vs to stand of vnequall measures : yet a skilfull 
 .Header, that can scan them in their nature, shall find it 
 otherwise. And if a verse here and there fal out a sillable 
 shorter or longer than another, I rather aret it to the 
 negligence and rape of Adam Scriuener, that I may speake 
 
 the Author ’ than t0 ^ Vnconnin S or flight in 
 
 Period IV.— The edition of Chaucer’s works in which the l 
 foregoing preface is to be found, was published in 1602, and 
 there was no other edition brought out until 1687— an interval 
 of eighty-five years. This speaks for itself. 
 
 Even the more hardy spirits who admired Chaucer foresaw j 
 
 this neglect, and were reconciled to it. They genuinely believed 
 
 that he had had his day, and that he was too antiquated to | 
 endure. Daniel, in his Musojphilus, as early as 1599, expresses M 
 this sentiment, and consoles himself by reflecting how long 1 
 Chaucer’s fame had already lasted 
 
 For what hy races hath there come to fall, 
 
 With low disgrace, quite vanished and past, 
 oince Chaucer liu’d who yet liues and yet shall, 
 
 Though (which I grieue to say) but in his last. 
 
 Yet what a time hath he wrested from time, 
 
 And won vpon the mighty waste of daies, ' 
 
 Vnto th’ immortall honor of our clime, 
 
 Vnto the sacred Relicks of whose rime 
 We yet are bound in zeale to offer praise ? 
 
 Even Chaucer’s most ardent admirers at this time are forced 
 to acknowledge that his language is obsolete, although they 
 maintain that once that difficulty is surmounted, the reader is 
 well rewarded. 
 
§ 1. Period IV. Chaucer little read or understood, xxix 
 
 So Henry Peacham, the schoolmaster at Wymondham, says 
 to his Compleat Gentleman in 1622 : — 
 
 Of English poets of our owne Nation, esteeme Sir 
 Geoffrey Chaucer the father; although the stile for the 
 antiquitie, may distast you, yet as vnder a bitter and rough 
 rinde, there lyeth a delicate kernell of conceit and sweet 
 inuention. ... In briefe, account him among the best of 
 your English bookes in your librarie. 
 
 In spite of all the talk about Chaucer’s barbarous style, 
 there was one writer, at least, who, even in the seventeenth 
 century, maintained that he ought to be read easily, and that 
 if not, the fault lay with his readers. This is Sir Aston Cockayne, 
 who in 1658 writes : — 
 
 Our good old Chaucer some despise : and why ? 
 
 Because say they he writeth barbarously. 
 
 Blame him not (Ignorants) but your selves, that do 
 
 Not at these years your native language know. 
 
 Notwithstanding the sound advice given by these two last- 
 named writers, Chaucer was obviously little read and less under- 
 stood, although his name continued to have great power. We 
 nd a curious illustration of this in John Earle’s remark in his 
 Microcosmographie (1628), a collection of ‘ Characters ’ such as 
 was dear to seventeenth-century writers, in which he defines 
 the character of a Vulgar Spirited Man , as one ‘ that cries 
 Chaucer for his Money aboue all our English Poets, because 
 the voice ha’s gone so, and he ha’s read none ’ ; thus indicating 
 that Chaucer was still called the greatest of English poets by 
 those only who preferred to follow convention and tradition, 
 rather than to use their own judgment. 
 
 By the end of the century Chaucer was frankly looked upon 
 as antiquated and barbaric by the highest authorities in these 
 matters. Waller, in his poem Of English Verse (first published 
 1668), says : — 
 
 Poets that lasting Marble seek, 
 
 Must carve in Latine or in Greek , 
 
 We write in Sand, our Language grows 
 And like the Tide, our work o’re flows. 
 
xxx § 1 . Period IV. Addison's crushing estimate in 1694. 
 
 Chaucer, his Sense can only boast, 
 
 The glory of his numbers lost, 
 
 Years have defac’d his matchless strain, 
 
 And yet he did not sing in vain. 
 
 Crushing though this estimate may appear, it is complimen 
 tary compared with Addison’s judgment, delivered sonnj 
 twenty-six years later, to which, however, too much weighlj 
 must not be given, as the critic was only twenty-one when he I 
 wrote it, and was obviously, as Pope remarked later (1728-30, 
 see p. 370 below), ignorant of Chaucer. Still, taking it in con- 
 junction with similar remarks by Waller, Howard (1689), 
 Cobb (a. 1700), Wesley (1700), Bysshe (1702), Hughes (1707), 
 and others, we may assume it to be the ordinary conventional 
 view taken by most writers, though expressed with unusual 
 force by Addison. These are his lines, in his Account of the 
 Greatest English Poets (1694) : — 
 
 Long had our dull Fore-Fathers slept Supine, 
 
 Nor felt the Raptures of the Tuneful Nine; 
 
 Till Chaucer first, a merry Bard, arose ; 
 
 And many a Story told in Rhime and Prose. 
 
 But Age has Rusted what the Poet writ, 
 
 Worn out his Language and obscur’d his Wit : 
 
 In vain he jests in his unpolish’d strain 
 And tries to make his Readers laugh in vain. 1 
 
 Other writers acknowledge Chaucer’s position in former times, 
 but it is taken as understood that he is now quite superseded \ 
 so Edward Phillips (Milton’s nephew) in 1675 says : — 
 
 True it is that the style of Poetry till Henry the 8th’s time, \ 
 and partly also within his Reign, may very well appear 
 uncouth, strange and unpleasant to those that are affected : 
 only with what is familiar and accustom’d to them, not 
 but there were even before those times some that had their 
 Poetical excellencies if well examin’d, and chiefly among the 
 
 1 This is perhaps only equalled by the following judgment pronounced 
 6y Byron at the still more immature age of nineteen : — 
 
 Chaucer, notwithstanding the praises bestowed upon him, I think 
 obscene and contemptible ; he owes his celebrity merely to his antiquity, 
 which he does not deserve so well as Pierce Plowman or Thomas of 
 Ercildoune.’ [Nov. 30, 1807.] Moore’s Life of Byron, 1875, p. 80. 
 
§ 1. Period IV. Chaucer wins respect for his antiquity, xxxi 
 
 rest, Chaucer, who through all the neglect of former 
 ag’d Poets still keeps a name, being by some few admir’d 
 for his real worth, to others not unpleasing for his facetious 
 way, which joyn’d with his old English intertains them 
 with a kind of Drollery. 
 
 Later in the same work he speaks of him as ‘ the Prince and 
 Coryphceus, generally so. reputed, till this Age, of our English 
 Poets, and as much as we triumph over his old fashion’d phrase 
 and obsolete words, one of the first refiners of the English 
 language.’ 
 
 There are numerous other references of this description to 
 Chaucer. Sir Thomas Pope Blount in his De Re Poetica (1694) 
 says : — 
 
 ‘ This is agreed upon by all hands, that he [Chaucer] was 
 counted the chief of the English Poets, not only of his time, 
 but continued to be so esteem’d till this Age,’ and so on. It 
 is generally agreed, except by Waller, Cowley and Addison, 
 that with all his shortcomings, Chaucer refined our English, 
 and deserves respect and mention because of his antiquity. 
 So Rymer in the Short View of Tragedy tells us : — 
 
 They who attempted verse in English, down till Chaucers 
 time, made an heavy pudder, and are always miserably put 
 
 to’t for a word to clink Chaucer found an Herculean 
 
 labour on his Hands ; And did perform to Admiration. He 
 seizes all Provencal, French or Latin that came in his 
 way, gives them a new garb and livery, and mingles them 
 amongst our English : turns out English, gowty, or super- 
 annuated, to place in their room the foreigners, fit for 
 service, train’d and accustomed to Poetical Discipline. 
 
 This, as Professor Ker points out, 1 is ‘ the passage of literary 
 history summed up in Rymer’ s Table of Contents in the following 
 remarkable terms : Chaucer refin'd our English, Which in per- 
 fection hy Waller.’ 2 
 
 In addition to the recognition of his work as ‘ refiner,’ 
 Chaucer, although no longer looked upon as the greatest, is 
 
 1 Dryden’s prose works, ed. W. P. Ker, vol. ii, Notes, p. 307. 
 
 2 For a more detailed account of the attitude towards Chaucer as the 
 refiner ’ and remodeller of the English language, see pp. lxxiii, lxxiv below. 
 
XXX11 
 
 § 1 . Period I V . Drayton, Denham, Strafford and Milton. 
 
 the first or earliest English poet ; priority in point of time is I 
 still granted him, and is by some considered his greatest title to | 
 fame. So Drayton, in his Epistle to Henry Reynolds (1627) 
 alludes to him as : — 
 
 That noble Chaucer, in those former times, 
 
 The first inrich’d our English with his rimes, 
 
 And was the first of ours, that euer brake, 
 
 Into the Muses treasure, and first spake 
 In weighty numbers, 
 
 And Sir John Denham begins his poem on the death of Cowley 
 thus : — 
 
 Old Chaucer, like the Morning Star, 
 
 To us discovers day from far, 
 
 His light those Mists and Clouds dissolv’d, 
 
 Which our dark Nation long involv’d ; 
 
 But he, descending to the shades, 
 
 Darkness again the Age invades. 
 
 There are, however, a few bright spots in this somewhat gloomy 
 outlook. 
 
 It is of interest to note that £ the great person ’ Strafford 
 clearly knew the Canterbury Tales well and quoted them ■ 
 readily, as may be seen in his two letters of 1635 and 1637 
 (App. A. pp. 69, 70). Doubtless his liking for Chaucer was j 
 known to his friends, and so we find Lord Conway, when 
 writing to Strafford, also referring to the poet (ibid., p. 70). 
 
 There is no doubt that Milton was well acquainted with f 
 Chaucer’s writings, although he cannot be said to have left j 
 any record in praise of them, except the well-known invocation « 
 to Melancholy in II Penseroso, to 
 
 . . . call up him that left half told 
 The story of Cambuscan bold, 
 
 and he couples him in this connection with Musseus and 
 Orpheus. 
 
 At the beginning of the poem, when he banishes the 
 ‘ fancies fond ’ 
 
 ‘ as thick and numberless 
 As the gay motes that people the Sun Beam 5 
 
§ 1. Period IV. Kynaston’ s Latin Translation of Troilus. xxxiii 
 
 there is a clear reminiscence of the twelfth line of the Wife of 
 Bath’s Tale, and he refers to that Tale no less than three 
 times in his Common-place Book, where he also quotes with 
 special approval from the Physiciens Tale the condemnation 
 of feasts and dances for the young (see below, a 1674). 
 
 About the same time that Milton was writing II Penseroso, 
 another great admirer of Chaucer was preparing a somewhat 
 curious composition in his honour. This was Sir Francis 
 Kynaston, who, in 1635, brought out the first two books of 
 Troilus and Cressida, translated into Latin rimed verse. It is 
 a quaint little volume, with the English on one side and the 
 translation on the opposite page. In the preface, which is also 
 in Latin, Kynaston tells us how he daily saw Chaucer coming to 
 be more despised and less known, while clothed in the ancient 
 English tongue ; and so he determined to rescue him from this 
 oblivion, and to secure his fame for all ages by turning him 
 into Latin. Fifteen prefatory poems by various writers, ten 
 of which are also in Latin, nearly all agree in saying that 
 Chaucer’s fame is almost dead, because few people can under- 
 stand what he wrote; but that will now be changed, and he 
 will live for ever, and be known throughout the world in the 
 Latin of Kynaston. 
 
 This desire to translate Chaucer into Latin was one of the 
 curious outcomes of the belief which was so general in the 
 seventeenth century, and lasted on in many minds during the 
 eighteenth century, that the English language being in a con- 
 tinual state of change had no stability, and that the writings 
 of one age would be quite unintelligible to succeeding genera- 
 tions. (See Pope in his Essay on Criticism, pp. 310-11, below.) 
 This was the belief which led Bacon to have his English works 
 translated into Latin in order to secure their permanence, 
 
 ‘ for,’ as he writes in 1623, 4 these modern languages will at 
 one time or other play bankrupt with books.’ We have seen 
 Waller, in his lines on English verse (1668), expressing the same 
 opinion (see also Edward Phillips, 1675), and one writer at any 
 rate went so far as to wish that all our poets, including Shake- 
 speare, had written in Latin instead of in their mother tongue. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. C 
 
xxxiv § 1. Period IV. Sir John Minnes ‘ doats ’ on Chaucer. 
 
 This was Dr. William King (1663-1712), best known perhaps 
 as the author of A Journey to London in the Year 1698, who 
 remarks in his Adversaria : — 
 
 It is pity, that the finest of our English poets, especially 
 the divine Shakespeare, had not communicated their 
 beauties to the world so as to be understood in Latin, 
 whereby Foreigners have sustained so great a loss to this 
 day ; when [s^c] all of them were inexcusable but the most 
 inimitable Shakespeare. I am so far from being envious, 
 and desirous to keep those treasures to ourselves, that I 
 could wish all our most excellent Poets translated into 
 Latin that are not so already. 
 
 ‘ This hint of the Doctor’s,’ continues his editor, John 
 Nichols (-writing in 1776), ‘ was not lost. Among other things, 
 we have seen since not only a Latin translation of Prior’s Solo- 
 mon but even of Milton’s Paradise Lost excellently performed 
 in verse by Mr. Dobson, Fellow of New College, Oxford,’ and 
 he goes on to detail other essays of the same nature. (See 
 Adversaria , in Original Works of . . . Dr. William King, 1776, 
 vol. i, p. 241, also p. xxix.) 
 
 To return to other admirers of Chaucer in the seventeenth 
 century. One of these is mentioned by Pepys in his Diary, 
 when on the 14th of June, 1663, he notes an assembly at Sir 
 William Penn’s. ‘ Among the rest,’ he writes, ‘ Sir John Minnes 
 brought many fine expressions of Chaucer, which he doats on 
 mightily, and without doubt he is a fine poet.’ 
 
 Sir John Minnes was a retired vice-admiral and a controller 
 of the navy, who in business matters was a continual thorn in 
 the side of his subordinate, the Clerk of the Acts, who refers 
 to him more than once as a ‘ doating fool,’ and says he 4 would 
 do the king more hurt by his dotage and folly than all the rest 
 can do by their knavery ’ {Diary, March 2, 1667-8). Although 
 apparently quite inefficient and tactless in his office, Minnes 
 had an undoubted reputation as a lover of the fine arts and a wit, 
 for we find Sir William Coventry swearing to Pepys that Minnes 
 was so bad at his work, that he (Coventry) would henceforth be 
 against a wit being employed in business. Minnes published 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 6 
 
 'i 
 
 \ 
 
§ 1. Period IV. Samuel Pejpys buys Chaucer's Works, xxxv 
 
 several books ( e . g. Wit and Drollery, 1656) ; Pepys quotes 
 many of his stories with evident gusto ( e . g. Oct. 30, 1662), he 
 alludes to his judgment in pictures (Sept. 28, 1663), and he 
 records another pleasant evening (Sept. 18, 1665), when having 
 had news of the defeat of the Dutch, they made merry together, 
 and Minnes and John Evelyn vied with one another in bouts 
 of wit, Evelyn on this occasion surpassing Minnes in the latter’s 
 4 own manner of genius.’ 
 
 Thus Minnes may be assumed to have had certain qualifica- 
 tions for judging of Chaucer, and he is an interesting example 
 of the genuine admiration of and enthusiasm for the poet to 
 be found in unexpected places, even when his fame was at its 
 lowest. 
 
 Pepys himself had a fondness for Chaucer. In an entry of 
 Dec. 10, 1663, he tells us he went to his booksellers, and names a 
 number of books which he looked through before making his 
 final choice. A Chaucer was among the number, and he was 
 evidently sorely tempted ; but he did not buy it on that occa- 
 sion, although he must have done so later, for in July of the 
 following year (1664) we find him going to the binder’s about 
 4 the doing of my Chaucer, though they were not full neat 
 enough for me, but pretty well it is ; and thence to the clasp- 
 maker’s to have it clasped and bossed.’ The next day he 
 takes the copy home, well pleased with it, and a month later he 
 quotes Chaucer : so in addition to having the poet’s works 
 bound and 4 clasped and bossed,’ he must also have read them. 
 It was thirty-four years later, when Dryden one day was dining 
 with him, that Pepys recommended to him the character of 
 Chaucer’s 4 Good Parson,’ which led Dryden to put it into 4 his 
 English.’ (See Dryden’s letter to Pepys, July 14, 1699, p. 270 
 below.) 
 
 Richard Brathwait, a north-country squire of literary tastes, 
 who published in 1665 a comment upon two of Chaucer’s 
 Tales, is forced to take a very curious position in order to defend 
 his favourite. He contends that the substance of what Chaucer 
 says is so good that the manner of saying it matters com- 
 paratively little. In a quaint little Appendix at the end of 
 
xxxvi § 1. Period IV. Praise by Richard Brathwait. 
 
 his volume, a carping critic is represented as coming forward 
 and saying 
 
 that he could allow well of Chaucer, if his Language were | 
 Better. Whereto the Author of these Commentaries 
 return’d him this Answer : “ Sir, it appears, you prefer 
 Speech before the Head piece ; Language before Invention ; 
 whereas Weight of Judgment has ever given Invention 
 Priority before Language. And not to leave you dis- j 
 satisfied, As the Time wherein these Tales were writ, ren- j 
 dered him incapable of the one; so his Pregnancy of 
 Fancy approv’d him incomparable for the other.” Which 
 Answer still’d this Censor, and justified the Author. 
 
 Brathwait is interesting as a survival — far into the seven- j 
 teenth century — of the Elizabethan attitude towards Chaucer. 
 As a matter of fact he had written his Comment in 1617, and, 
 for some unknown reason, waited forty-eight years to publish j 
 it, by which time he was an old man of nearly eighty. In the ! 
 Appendix, however, written at the time of publication, Brath- j 
 wait shows that in spite of the change in public opinion as to \ 
 Chaucer’s merits, he clings faithfully to the tradition of his j 
 youth. He knew the poet’s works well and loved them I 
 genuinely; could his life be renewed he tells us ‘ his Youthful \ 
 genius could not bestow his Endeavour on any Author with j 
 more Pleasure nor Complacency to Fancy, than the Illustrations j 
 of Chaucer.’ For him Chaucer is still ‘ the Ancient, Renowned \ 
 and Ever Living Poet ’ ; his teaching is sound and moral and 
 his imagination and wit incomparable, although owing to the * 
 dark age in which he lived his style is often rude and rough. { 
 This view in the early years of the seventeenth century was ; 
 common enough; but when Brathwait in 1665 published his 'j 
 little volume, containing a few whole-hearted words of praise 
 of him who, so he never doubted, was the greatest of English j 
 Poets, the old man’s opinions and literary tastes were quite ' 
 behind the times, thoroughly old-fashioned and obsolete. They j 
 differed widely from those held by Waller and Cowley ( see 
 Dryden, Preface to Fables , 1700, below), and later by Addison; j 
 but they dated back to the days when Edmund Spenser counted i 
 
§ l. Period V. Dry den compares Chaucer to Ovid, xxxvn 
 
 it his greatest honour to call ‘ Dan Chaucer ’ master, and his 
 highest aspiration to follow in the 4 footing ’ of his feet. 
 
 With Brathwait’s little book we may end our account of the 
 very few bright places of Chaucer criticism during the time of 
 gloom and neglect encountered by the old poet in the seven- 
 teenth century, and Brathwait himself seems to help to bridge 
 over this dreary interval, by reaching out a hand on the one side 
 to Spenser, and on the other to Dryden, forming thus a link 
 between one of the greatest of English poets and one of the 
 greatest of English critics, who were each distinguished by 
 their appreciation of Geoffrey Chaucer. 
 
 Period V— In 1700 appeared Dryden’s volume of Fables , 
 which contained the modernized version of several Chaucerian 
 poems, prefixed by Dryden’s celebrated dissertation, which 
 is the first detailed and careful criticism of Chaucer, as 
 well as one of the most interesting literary discussions ever 
 
 written. 
 
 He compares Chaucer to Ovid, and actually prefers the 
 English poet, for which, he says, the vulgar judges ‘ will think 
 me little less than mad.’ He notes Chaucer’s power of vivid 
 description,— 1 1 see,’ he says, 1 all the Pilgrims m the Canter- 
 bury Tales, their Humours, their Features, and the very Dress 
 as distinctly as if I had supp’d with them at the Tabard in 
 Southwark ; ’—his good sense : ‘ He is a perpetual Fountain 
 of good Sense ; ’—his feeling of proportion : ‘ He . . . speaks 
 properly on all Subjects : As he knew what to say, so he knows 
 also when to leave off ; a continence which is practised by few 
 Writers, and scarcely by any of the Ancients, excepting Virgil 
 and Horace ; ’—his truth to Nature : ‘ Chaucer follow’d Nature 
 everywhere, but was never so bold to go beyond her ; his 
 power of characterization : ‘ He must have been a Man of a 
 most wonderful comprehensive Nature, because, as it has been 
 truly observ’d of him, he has taken into the Compass of his 
 Canterbury Tales, the various Manners and Humours of the 
 whole English Nation, in his age. Not a single Character has 
 escap’d him. All his Pilgrims are severally distinguish’d from 
 
 t 
 
xxxvm § 1. Period V. Dry den's appreciation and its influence. j 
 
 each other; and not only in their Inclinations, but in their 
 very Phisiognomies and. Persons.’ 
 
 Such a discerning criticism as this, coming from such a 
 writer as Dryden, carried with it great weight, and all through 
 the eighteenth century we can trace its influence. Those who 
 knew something of Chaucer, and liked what they knew, had 
 the authority of the great Mr. Dryden to support them in a 
 judgment they might otherwise have hesitated to express. ! 
 Thus one can feel Elizabeth Elstob 1 (1715) is emboldened by i 
 her knowledge of Dryden; and Dart, and later Cibber, are | 
 strengthened in their apology for Chaucer’s language by the j 
 argument that even Dryden did not in some places attempt 
 to alter it (pp. 361, 406 below) ; while George Sewell (1720), ! 
 who writes the most sensible and enlightened criticism of j 
 Chaucer between Dryden and Warton, is obviously well pleased 
 that he has the greatest modern poet and critic on his side, i 
 Some of those who would be naturally inclined to depreciate | 
 Chaucer, are a little restrained and often not a little puzzled 
 by Dryden s attitude in the affair. In a curious dialogue in a j 
 coffee-house in hell between Dryden and Chaucer, written by j 
 Thomas Brown (a. 1704) Chaucer is represented as thanking 
 his successor for the honour he has done him in furbishing up 
 some of his old musty Tales,’ but he remonstrates strongly 
 with him for his exaggeration in likening him to Ovid. To 
 this Mr. Dryden, anticipating the methods of Dr. Johnson, thus 
 makes reply : ‘ Why, sir, I maintain it, and who then dares be 
 so saucy as to oppose me ? ’ One feels in truth that the adverse, 1 
 often contemptuous criticism of the earlier eighteenth century | 
 is very greatly weakened by the firm stand taken by Dryden. ■ 
 With regard to Chaucer’s verse, Dryden is not so happy, j 
 ‘ ft is ,’ be says, I confess, ‘ not Harmonious to us; . They 
 who liv’d with him, and some time after him, thought it 
 Musical. . . . There is the rude Sweetness of a Scotch Tune in 
 it, which is natural and pleasing, though not perfect.’ Then 
 
 ; ‘ ^ wiI T 1 n , ot be taken amiss,’ she says apologetically, ‘ bv those who 
 value the Judgment of Sir Philip Sydney and Mr. Dryden if I begin with 
 Father Chaucer ( see p. 338 below). 
 
§ 1. Period V. Dryden explains the general attitude, xxxix 
 
 follows Dryden’s famous denunciation of Speght’s theory, that 
 the fault might possibly lie with the readers 
 
 ’Tis true, I cannot go so far as he who puMi&h’d ^the last 
 Edition of him; for he would make us beheve the Fault 
 is in our Ears, and that there were really Ten Syllables 
 in a Verse where we could find but Nine : but this Opinion 
 is not worth confuting; ’tis so gross and obvious an 
 Errour that common Sense . . . must convince the 
 Reader, that Equality of Numbers m every Verse wkch 
 we call Heroic k, was either not known, or not always 
 practis’d, in Chaucer’s Age. 
 
 In addition to giving his own estimate, Dryden also shows 
 in this preface the general attitude of the age towards Chaucer 
 There were two objections, he says, raised to this wor< o 
 modernization, and raised by two parties or classes of people 
 who took entirely opposed views of Chaucer. The first class 
 objected that th'e subject was unworthy of his pains, because 
 says Dryden, ‘ they look on Chaucer as.a dry old-fashioned wit 
 — not worth reviving.’ Doubtless Waller, had e sti sen 
 alive, would have endorsed this view. Addison certainly did. 
 Dryden himself cites Cowley : 
 
 I have often heard the late Earl of Leicester say, that 
 Mr. Cowley himself was of that opinion; who, having 
 read him over at my Lord’s Request, declared he had no 
 Taste of him. I dare not advance my Opinion against 
 the Judgment of so great an Author : But I think it fair, 
 however, to leave the Decision to the Public . • 
 
 Cawley was too modest to set up for a Dictatour ; an 
 being shock’d perhaps with his old Style, never examm 
 into the depth of his good Sense. 
 
 The other party considered Chaucer should not be modern- 
 ized ‘ out of a quite contrary Notion,’ says Dryden. They 
 suppose there is a certain Veneration due to his old Language ; 
 and that it is little else than Profanation and Sacrilege to alter 
 it.’ Foremost amongst these, Dryden mentions the Earl of 
 Leicester (who had persuaded Cowley to read Chaucer) who 
 valued Chaucer as much as Mr. Cowley despis d him. e a 
 indeed dissuaded Dryden from his intention to modernize the 
 
xl 
 
 § 1. Period V. The first 1 Modernizations: 
 
 poet ; and Dryden had refrained from doing so until after 
 -Lord Leicester s death. 
 
 Between these two extreme views Dryden himself takes up 
 an intermediate one, of admiration and veneration for Chaucer 
 combined with a conviction, that in order to perpetuate his 
 memory, he must be translated. ‘ Chaucer, I confess, is a 
 rough Diamond, and must first be polish’d e’er he shines.’ 
 his work of ‘ polishing ’ continued for nearly one hundred 
 and fatty years ; all sorts and conditions of writers, from the 
 greatest poets down to the most obscure scribblers— from 
 Dryden, Pope and Wordsworth, to Ogle, Betterton and Lips- 
 comb-tried their hands in turn at it; and when we see the 
 consensus of opinion in England, headed by Dryden himself 
 as to the complete obsoleteness of Chaucer’s language, we are 
 not surprised that so many attempts were made to ‘ improve ’ 
 and modernize it. 
 
 There is no question but that the men of the eighteenth 
 century were as firmly 'convinced as their forefathers that the 
 n inua change in the English language was destined to 
 render unintelligible, within a comparatively short period, all 
 writers who chose that medium. 1 Their suggested remedy, 
 however, was not to write in Latin as urged by Bacon or Waller’ 
 but the introduction of a mysterious process, reminiscent of the 
 photographic ‘dark room,’ which they called ‘fixing the 
 language.’ 
 
 Swift’s well-known letter to Lord Oxford in 1712 best 
 expresses the views generally held at this time on the subject; 
 he there says that every man can hope to be read with pleasure 
 for a few years only. After that he will need an interpreter; 
 and he urges on the Earl in his function as Lord High Treasurer 
 of Great Britain to lose no time in establishing an academy to 
 fix a standard of speech. 2 
 
 This argument is based on the assumption that the further 
 
 r-l See /, instance the Paragraph in the quotation from Cibber’s 
 Lives of the Poets, 1753, p. 407 below. 
 
 2 A Proposal for correcting, improving and ascertaining the English 
 tongue . . . London, 1712, pp. 38, 40-3. s 
 
§ 1. Period V. Ignorance of Earlier English, xli 
 
 removed we are from a period in time, the less intelligible 
 will become its words and grammar. In one sense this is true, 
 particularly of uncultivated speech. But the formation of a 
 great literature, and the spread of a general knowledge of read- 
 ing, at once checks this tendency. The great authors are 
 increasingly read and studied, until their words and turns of 
 phrase become familiar, so that language, and more especially 
 the cultured written language, instead of moving on in a straight 
 line, away from its source, tends to revolve about its literature. 1 
 
 One’s natural inclination would be to think that Shake- 
 speare, Spenser and Chaucer would have been more intelligible 
 to the men of Queen Anne’s time than they are to us, two 
 hundred years later. But this was not the case. What 
 collector of an English anthology would to-day think of exclud- 
 ing Shakespeare’s poems on the ground that his language was 
 obsolete? Yet in 1702, we find Bysshe, in his Preface to The 
 Art of English Poetry , saying that the reason 4 the Good Shake- 
 speare ’ is not so frequently quoted in his book as he otherwise 
 deserves to be, is because, like Chaucer and Spenser, the garb 
 in which he is clothed is so out of fashion that readers of that 
 age have no ear for him (see pp. 290-91 below). This is probably 
 one of the works indignantly referred to by Charles Gildon in 
 1718 (Advertisement to Shakesperiana in The Complete Art of 
 Poetry, p. 303) when he writes : ‘ Finding the inimitable 
 
 Shakespear rejected by some Modern Collectors for his Obsolete 
 Language, and having lately run over this great Poet, I could not 
 but present the Reader with a Specimen of his Descriptions and 
 Moral Reflections, to shew the Injustice of such an Obloquy.’ 2 * 
 
 What poet of to-day would append a glossary to his verses to 
 explain the following 4 obsolete words ’ : — 4 to appal,’ 4 to carol,’ 
 4 certes,’ 4 deftly,’ 4 fays,’ 4 glee,’ 4 lea,’ 4 lithe,’ 4 loathly,’ 
 
 1 See Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer, iii, p. 145-50. 
 
 2 Shakespeare’s language being looked upon as obsolete, or at any rate 
 difficult, naturally was a bar to his being read, and probably at no period 
 was he so little known as in the first quarter of the 18th century. Thus 
 we find the Duke of Buckingham, who refers to Falstaff in his poem called 
 
 ‘ An Essay on Poetry ’ in 1721, adding the following doubtless necessary 
 
 footnote : 4 An admirable Character in a Play of Shakespeare’s.’ 
 
xlii § 1. Period V. Chaucer's language considered unintelligible. 
 
 1 sooth ’ and ‘ thrall ’ ? Yet these words are all carefully 
 expounded by Thomson in the glossary to his Castle of Indolence 
 published in 1748; and Gay, in his notes ’to The Shepherd's 
 Week, in 1714, explains such words as 4 doff,’ 4 don,’ 4 token,’ 
 
 4 scant,’ 4 deft,’ 4 glen ’ and 4 dumps.’ 
 
 At this time (when imitations of Spenser were so much in 
 vogue) one finds continually glossaries appended to poems j 
 explaining what to all readers to-day are perfectly familiar 
 terms. Thus, in notes to 4 The Salisbury Ballad ’ (see below, 
 p. 329), published in 1714, we find 4 lore,’ 4 bouncing,’ 4 twang,’ 
 bard, and 4 lyre ’ all carefully annotated and interpreted, 
 and in a contemporary hand in a copy of this same book (in 
 the British Museum), extra notes are made on some of the 
 words not explained by the editor, among which is 4 blithe, 
 an old word for cheerfull.’ These details are cited to prove 
 what really was the case, that the ignorance of our earlier 
 literature was at this time so great, that words and phrases 
 which are to us to-day perfectly familiar and in ordinary use, 
 were then practically unknown. 
 
 No wonder, then, that the English of Chaucer was looked 
 upon as to all intents and purposes a dead language, for the : 
 comprehension of which a special and an arduous course of study 
 was necessary. Thus in an essay on the old English poets, i 
 written in 1707, we are told that in order to understand j 
 Chaucer, his readers will need a knowledge of French and also 1 
 of Dutch, because 4 there is so much of the Saxon or German 
 Tongue in his language ’ (below, p. 295). 
 
 On almost every page which deals in any way with English ] 
 poetry at this time are to be found remarks of the nature of the \ 
 following lines addressed by Elijah Fenton to Mr. Southerne, in 
 which he says : — 
 
 Chaucer had all that Beauty cou’d inspire, 
 
 And Surry's Numbers glow’d with warm Desire : 
 
 Both now are priz’d by few, unknown to most, 
 
 Because the Thoughts are in the Language lost ; 
 
 Ev’n Spencer's Pearls in muddy Waters lye, 
 
 Rarely discover’d by the Diver’s Eye : 
 
 Rich was their Imag’ry, till Time defac’d 
 The curious Works, but Waller came at last. . . . 
 
§ 1. Period V. Chaucer's name synonymous with decay, xliii 
 
 Then follows the usual glowing panegyric which the name of 
 Waller invariably aroused. This extract is of interest, as show- 
 ing that not only Chaucer, and, as we have already seen, 
 Shakespeare, but Surrey and Spenser are looked upon as 
 obsolete in the year 1711. 
 
 Thus we find Chaucer’s language, and by degrees his very 
 name becoming synonymous with decay. In some verses 
 written on the great actress, Mrs. Oldfield (died 1730), the writer 
 moralizes on the transitoriness of human fame and says : 
 
 In vain secure of deathless praise, 
 
 There poets’ ashes come, 
 
 Since obsolete grows Chaucer’s phrase, 
 
 And moulders with his tomb. 
 
 Pope, in his Essay on Criticism, is but carrying this gloomy 
 belief to its melancholy but logical conclusion, when he asserts 
 that the writers of his day would in their turn be as unintelli- 
 gible to succeeding generations as Chaucer was to his. 
 
 Short is the date, alas ! of modern rhymes, 
 
 And ’tis but just to let them live betimes. 
 
 No longer now that golden age appears, 
 
 When patriarch wits survived a thousand years. 
 
 Now length of fame (our second life) is lost, 
 
 And bare threescore is all ev’n that can boast ; 
 
 Our sons their fathers’ failing language see, 
 
 And such as Chaucer is shall Dry den be. 
 
 It is small wonder then, in view of this state of affairs, that 
 those who cared for Chaucer should have done their utmost 
 to translate him into intelligible language whilst yet there was 
 time, and whilst they themselves had still some glimmering 
 of his meaning. Dryden and Pope set the fashion, 1 each in his 
 turn clothing the poet anew, and it was in the dress provided 
 by them that Chaucer was principally known to readers of the 
 eighteenth century. 
 
 There is no need to say anything here about these modern- 
 izations ; they are well known, and they have their own merits. 
 
 1 There was one earlier attempt at a modernization, but it was never 
 published; this was Sidnam’s version of the first three books of Troilus 
 and Cressida, c. 1630. (See p. 203 below.) 
 
xliv § 1. Period V. Appreciation of the Modernizations. 
 
 They were hailed with delight, were universally praised, and 
 for many years were held unquestioningly to be far superior 
 to Chaucer’s own poems ; most of their admirers appear to 
 think that the more they belittled the originals the greater was 
 the honour which redounded to the modernizers. This is the 
 kind of verse one meets with continually on the subject : — 
 
 Revolving Time had injur’d Chaucer's Name, 
 
 And dimm’d the brilliant Lustre of his Fame; 
 Deform’d his Language, and his Wit depress’d, 
 
 His serious Sense oft sinking to a Jest; 
 
 Almost a Stranger ev’n to British Eyes, 
 
 We scarcely knew him in the rude Disguise : 
 
 But cloath’d by Thee, the banish’d Bard appears 
 In all his Glory, and new Honours wears. 
 
 Thus Ennius was by Virgil chang’d of old; 
 
 He found him Rubbish, and he left him Gold. 
 
 ( Verses occasioned by reading Mr. Dry den's Fables , 
 by Jabez Hughes, c. 1707.) 
 
 These sentiments are expressed over and over again all 
 through the eighteenth century. In the Gentleman's Magazine 
 for January 1740 there is a little poem by ‘ Astrophil,’ In 
 Praise of Chaucer , which, though giving to Chaucer every recog- 
 nition, yet ends in the usual way : — 
 
 So true with life his characters agree, 
 
 What e’er is read we almost think we see. 
 
 Such Chaucer was, bright mirror of his age 
 Tho’ length of years has quite obscur’d his page ; 
 
 His stile grown obsolete, his numbers rude, 
 
 Scarce read, and but with labour understood. 
 
 Yet by fam’d modern bards new minted o’er, 
 
 His standard wit has oft enrich’d their store ; 
 
 Whose Canterbury Tales could task impart 
 For Pope’s and Dry den's choice refining art; 
 
 And in their graceful polish let us view 
 
 What wealth enrich’d the mind where first they grew. 
 
 Later still, in 1781, we find Walpole in a letter to Mason 
 refusing the offer to procure a first edition of Chaucer for a 
 guinea, saying, ‘ I am too, though a Goth, so modern a Goth 
 
§ 1. Period V. Chaucer in the Original is scarcely read, xlv 
 
 that I hate the black letter, and I love Chaucer better in Dryden 
 and Baskerville than in his own language and dress.’ 
 
 The tendency of the modernizations was to divert people 
 from reading the originals. Chaucer’s name became better 
 known, but his actual works less and less known : only a kind 
 of tradition about them was kept up., 
 
 The attitude of the great dictator of letters himself was not 
 favourable to Chaucer, although he at one time contemplated 
 bringing out a new edition of the poet; he rarely mentions 
 him, and when he does, the utterance is not sympathetic, so 
 that we cannot help suspecting him of the fault he imputes to 
 Dryden, who, he says, ‘ in confidence of his abilities, ventured 
 to write of what he had not examined, and ascribes to Chaucer 
 the first refinement of our numbers.’ But Johnson goes on to 
 show that Gower’s numbers are quite as smooth, and his rimes 
 as easy as those of Chaucer. The works of Chaucer, he says, 
 which Dryden has modernized, 
 
 require little criticism. The tale of The Cock seems hardly 
 
 I worth revival ; and the story of Palamon and Arcite, con- 
 
 taining an action unsuitable to the times in which it is 
 placed, can hardly be suffered to pass without censure of 
 the hyperbolical commendation which Dryden has given 
 it in the general Preface. 
 
 For Johnson, in short — and he well represents the dominant 
 eighteenth-century critical attitude — English poetry began 
 with Waller, and earlier writers (with a very qualified exception 
 of Shakespeare) were not worthy serious attention; Chaucer 
 was a Goth, and the greatest praise to which he was entitled 
 was that he might perhaps, with great justice, be styled ‘ the 
 first of our versifiers who wrote poetically.’ 
 
 Those who wrote the modernizations at any rate were forced 
 to read the originals, and from them occasionally we get a 
 sensible criticism. We have heard Dryden; and Pope is 
 reported by Spence to have said — 
 
 I read Chaucer still with as much pleasure as almost any 
 of our poets. He is a master of manners, of description, and 
 the first tale-teller in the true and enlivened natural way. 
 
x lvi § 1. Period V. The Modernizers appreciate Chaucer. 
 
 And again he writes — 
 
 Good sense shows itself in every line of the Prologue to 
 the Canterbury Tales. . . . Addison’s character of Chaucer 
 is diametrically opposed to the truth, he blames him for 
 want of humour. 
 
 In 1739, George Ogle, in his Letter to a Friend (p. 384 below), 
 prefixed to his modernization of the Clerk of Oxford’s tale, which 
 he calls Gualtherus and Griselda, shows, that he too, having read 
 Chaucer, can appreciate his merit. He quotes Dryden’s 
 criticism with approval, and adds, 4 As to the Point of Character- 
 izing, at which Chaucer was most singularly happy : You can 
 name no Author even of Antiquity, whether in the Comic or 
 in the Satiric Way, equal, at least superior, to Him.’ Then he 
 throws together ’ a few touches taken from his Descriptions 
 of the Pilgrims. 4 The Knight, an old soldier, who, though he 
 was worthy (meaning a man of excessive Bravery) yet was 
 wise . . . and the Serjeant at Law ; Who seemed much busier 
 than he was .’ So he goes through twenty more of them, show- ' 
 ing thorough sympathy and understanding. Yet it was this 
 same Mr. Ogle, a sincere admirer of Chaucer’s, who, when he 
 brought out the whole of the Canterbury Tales 4 modernized by 
 several hands,’ thus rendered the Prologue fit for modern 
 ears : — 
 
 When April, soft’ning sheds refreshing Show’rs 
 And frees, from droughty March the springing Flow’rs, 
 April, That bathes the teeming womb of Earth 
 And gives to Vegetation, kindly Birth ! 
 
 When Zephyr breathes the Gale that favours Love, 
 
 And Cherishes the Growth of ev’ry Grove ; \ 
 
 Zephyr ! That ministers with genial Breeze, 
 
 Bloom to the Shrubs and Verdure to the Trees. 
 
 When youthful Phoebus half his course compleats 
 Divides the Ram, and glows with temp’rate Heats ; 
 
 Phoebus ! Our equal Good, the live-long year 
 Or should he take or should he quit the Sphere ; 
 
 When Philomel injoys the Coming Spring, 
 
 And feeling her approach, delights to sing. 
 
 Sweet Philomel ! Of all the Birds that fly, 
 
 The Sole, to pass the Night with sleepless Eye. 
 
§ 1. Period V. Chaucerian Imitations. xlvii 
 
 One is tempted to linger over these modernizations ‘ by several 
 hands.’ They are very fascinating, though not in the way their 
 authors intended ; for they seem more curious to us than even 
 the 4 barbaric ’ relics of Chaucer himself, and their language is far 
 stranger than his. 
 
 There is a beautiful and high-sounding poem by Henry 
 Brooke, Constantia, or The Man of Law's Tale , the opening of 
 which is especially worthy of note. In the original, Chaucer 
 writes thirty-five lines descriptive of the ills of poverty, but 
 Henry Brooke transmutes these into one hundred and sixty- 
 eight lines on the same topic. 
 
 We must, however, leave Chaucer in the hands of his merci- 
 less interpreters, of whom there were many more (notably 
 Lipscomb, 1792-5, and the last great attempt to modernize 
 him in 1841, to which reference will be made later), and consider 
 very briefly another form of appreciation which was rather 
 popular in the eighteenth century. This consisted of imitation 
 of Chaucer, that is poems or verses written in what was supposed 
 to be his manner. 
 
 This ‘ imitation ’ of the older poets — Chaucer, Spenser and 
 Milton — was one of the many ways in which eighteenth-century 
 writers gave expression to their growing interest in the earlier 
 literature of their country, and the number of Spenserian 
 imitations published; good, bad, and worse than indifferent, 
 from the Castle of Indolence to Mickle’s Sir Martyn, is almost 
 incredible until one collects a list of them. 1 
 
 The imitations of Chaucer were comparatively few in 
 quantity, but they make up for this by being fearful and wonder- 
 ful in quality. The earliest instance of this kind of imitation 
 is in William Bullein’s Dialogue . . against the fever Pestilence, 
 1564. Chaucer is here introduced in person, and commends 
 * his deare Brigham ’ for the monument he has erected to him, at 
 the same time he laments the rifling of tombs and spoiling of 
 epitaphs which is so common, and he concludes these remarks 
 in a stanza of what is apparently intended to be Chaucerian verse 
 
 1 See the list from 1700 to 1775 in The Beginnings of the English 
 Romantic Movement , by William Lyon Phelps, 1893, Appendix I. 
 
xlviii § 1 . Period V. Interest in Chaucer hy Prior, Gay and others. 
 
 (see below, p. 99). In the seventeenth century we find several! 
 imitations. There are some verses in Chaucer’s style among 
 the dedicatory poems to Kynaston’s Troilus in 1635, and a 
 similar poem by the same author, Francis James, in 1638. j 
 These, combined with the jargon Cartwright puts into the mouth | 
 of the antiquary, Moth, in his play of The Ordinary ( c . 1634, see 
 below, p. 206), are interesting as showing the strange conception 
 of Chaucer’s language which was current among seventeenth- 
 century scholars. 
 
 Two satiric pieces in Chaucer’s style, one of them probably 
 by Sir John Minnes, were published in the Musarum Deliciae 
 in 1655, and in the next year an imitation of the tale of Sir 
 Thopas appeared in a collection called Choyce Drollery. 
 
 In the eighteenth century the recipe for this class of com- 
 position was, as Professor Lounsbury points out, 1 quite simple, 
 and consisted of three main ingredients; the story must be 
 obscene, the language ungrammatical, and the verse rugged. 
 The first was not always insisted on — though it made it 
 more complete — but the last two were absolutely indis- 
 pensable. 
 
 There is no doubt that Dryden’s modernizations and his 
 praise of Chaucer gave a great impetus to this kind of poetic 
 exercise, of which Prior’s two imitations are typical examples, ,j 
 published in 1712 ; about which time there seems to have been 
 a curious outburst of interest in Chaucer. In 1711, Pope 
 brought out his Temple of Fame, largely based on the elder • 
 poet’s work; in 1712, in addition to Prior’s imitations, Better- j 
 ton and Cobb both published their modernizations, and a tract { 
 called the Parliament of Birds appeared ; in 1713 Gay produced ■ 
 his comedy called The Wife of Bath, with Chaucer as the 
 principal character; while all this time at Oxford, as we can 
 tell from Hearne’s diaries, there was among scholars much 
 interest in and talk about Chaucer, for Urry was working hard 
 at his edition of the poet, and collecting all the manuscripts and 
 printed copies on which he could lay hands. 
 
 The greater number of the ‘ imitations ’ are to be found in 
 
 1 Studies in Chaucer , vol. iii, p. 121. 
 
§ 1. Period V. Revival of genuine Chaucer appreciation-. xlix 
 
 the first half of the eighteenth century ; 1 we may note Gay’s 
 Answer to the Sompner’s Prologue , Fenton’s Tale devised in the 
 plesaunt manere of gentil Maister Jeojfrey Chaucer , both pub- 
 lished in Lintott’s Miscellany in 1717, and William Thompson’s 
 In Chaucer's Boure ( c . 1745). 
 
 The Rev. Thomas Warton, at one time Professor of Poetry at 
 Oxford, but best known as the father of two eminent sons, 
 published in 1747 a less crude caricature of Chaucer’s style than 
 any of the above, in his paraphrase of some verses in Leviticus 
 in the manner of the Parlement of Foules ; and in the same 
 year Mason, the friend of Gray, shows best perhaps all the 
 peculiarities of bad grammar, unknown words, and halting 
 verse which to the eighteenth century represented Chaucer’s 
 * homely rhyme.’ Here are some of the lines he puts into 
 Chaucer’s mouth when mourning the death of Pope, in the 
 Musceus (for the whole extract see p. 393 below) : — 
 
 For syn the daies whereas my lyre ben strongen, 
 
 And deftly many a mery laie I songen. 
 
 Old Time, which alle things don maliciously, 
 
 Gnawen with rusty tooth continually, 
 
 Gnattrid my lines, that they all cancrid ben, 
 
 Till at the last thou smoothen ’hem hast again ; 
 
 Sithence full semely gliden my rymes rude. 
 
 Comment here seems needless, unless it be to remark that, 
 if Chaucer’s lines resembled these, they certainly required 
 smoothing. 
 
 Now we may turn to the more grateful task of tracing the 
 gradual revival in the eighteenth century of genuine appreciation 
 of Chaucer, based on knowledge of his work. This change 
 naturally was brought about by scholars, not by poets and men 
 of letters, for the study and understanding of Chaucer in the 
 original was in the eighteenth century confined to scholars, and 
 to extremely few of these. We can see the interest he aroused 
 in Hearne, and we may regret that Dean Atterbury did not 
 
 1 Whether the imitations which were called out by the Chatterton- 
 Rowley discussion at the end of the century were supposed to be in 
 Chaucer’s or in Rowley’s language is not quite clear. See, for instance, 
 pp. 465, 466 below, 1782, John Baynes and E. B. Greene. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. d 
 
1 § 1. Period V. Two Women Scholars appreciate Chaucer. 
 
 fix on him instead of on Urry to edit the poet’s works. Morell, 
 in 1737, as a result of really reading and studying Chaucer, 
 came to the conclusion that he had ‘ been wretchedly abused, I 
 miswrote and mismetred by all his editors,’ and he shows that | 
 he had a glimmering, partly suggested to him by Urry, that to j 
 sound the final ‘ e ’ might make a great difference to the alleged j 
 roughness of his verse. Morell also incidentally gives us a clue j 
 to the reason why the rational study of Chaucer was so long j 
 delayed : which was that it was not thought quite a dignified or 
 weighty subject worthy of the whole attention of scholars. It was 
 suitable enough for an amusement or hobby, but not for a serious 
 occupation. ‘ This then has been my amusement for some 
 time, he says at the end of the preface to his unfinished edition 
 of the Canterbury Tales, ‘ and I hope with no great detriment to 
 the more severe and decent studies required by my place and j 
 character. I believe many a leisure hour might have been spent 
 worse.’ 
 
 There are two writers, both scholars, and curiously enough, 
 both women, who must be noted in the early eighteenth century 
 as showing some real knowledge, and consequently genuine ; 
 appreciation of Chaucer. Elizabeth Elstob, the earlier of these, j 
 was a born scholar and linguist, whose love for learning helped j 
 her to overcome incredible difficulties in the days when it was j 
 considered almost indecent for a woman to occupy her mind i 
 with such studies as Anglo-Saxon; in 1715 she published the j 
 first attempt at an Old English grammar, written in English, 1 I 
 with the following significant title : — 
 
 The Rudiments of Grammar for the English- Saxon Tongue, first ■ 
 given in English : with an Apology for the study of Northern | 
 Antiquities. Being very useful toward the understanding our ■ 
 ancient English Poets, and other Writers. 
 
 In her preface she takes occasion to point out more fully j 
 that a knowledge of the Saxon Tongue, by which she means Old j 
 
 1 The first Old English grammar was in Latin by George Hickes, 
 Oxford, 1689, republished and enlarged later under the title Thesaurus 
 Grarrimaticocnticus , 1705. Elizabeth Elstob was Hickes’s niece. 
 
§ 1. Period V. Thomas Wartoris enlightened view. li 
 
 and Middle English, is necessary or at least useful to the right 
 understanding of the older English Poets, such as Chaucer. 
 
 Elizabeth Cooper was the second of these writers, and was 
 one of the very earliest people to try to revive a knowledge of 
 the older English poets, of whose work she in 1737 published 
 Specimens, — ‘ from the Saxons to the Reign of King Charles II,’ 
 so runs the title page. As a matter of fact the complete project 
 of the ‘ Muses Library ’ was from lack of support not carried out, 
 but the first volume, the only one published, has a number of 
 well-chosen poetical extracts ranging from Piers Plowman to 
 Daniel. 
 
 Her preface is very interesting, showing on the subject of 
 the older literature a combination of accurate and first-hand 
 knowledge with critical independence and judgment not to be 
 met elsewhere at that time. ‘ Very Few,’ she says, c of these 
 great Men [Chaucer, Barclay, Skelton, Surrey, Sackville, Spenser, 
 Lord Brook, Donne, Corbet, Carew, etc.] are generally known to 
 the present Age : And tho’ Chaucer and Spencer are ever nam’d 
 with much Respect, not many are intimately acquainted with 
 their Beauties ’ (below, p. 379) ; and then, after praising Chaucer 
 in terms which show that she, at any rate, has read him, she 
 selects as a specimen of his work the unhackneyed and yet 
 highly characteristic Prologue to the Pardoner's Tale. 
 
 The first writer, however, who really attacked the question 
 with authority combined with knowledge and insight, was 
 Thomas Warton. As early as 1754 he held a brief for Chaucer, 
 and in his Observations on the Faerie Queene , wrote a most acute 
 and discriminating account of him, in which he pointed out that 
 it was the modernizations which had stood in the way of Chaucer 
 himself being read, and had brought about a general ignorance 
 of the original ( see p. 409 below). ‘ Chaucer,’ he says, ‘ seems 
 to be regarded rather as an old poet, than as a good one, and 
 that he wrote English verses four hundred years ago seems more 
 frequently to be urged in his commendation, than that he wrote 
 four hundred years ago with taste and judgment. 1 . . . When I 
 
 1 Compare Sewell’s remarks in 1720 : ‘ they who speak of him rather 
 pay a blind Veneration to his Antiquity than his intrinsic Worth.’ 
 
lii § I. Period V. Gray's Notes on Chaucer's Metre. 
 
 sate down to read Chaucer with the curiosity of knowing how 
 the first English poet wrote, I left him with the satisfaction of 
 having found what later and more refin’d ages could hardly ! 
 equal in true humour, pathos, or sublimity.’ 
 
 Warton’s enlightened view of Chaucer is displayed very j 
 much more fully in his History of English Poetry in 1774, but 
 by that time the tide of opinion was beginning to turn. Gray, j 
 in his notes on metre (c. 1760), repudiates the idea that Chaucer ! 
 had no ear, and definitely asserts, what had been suggested 
 first by Speght, and later by Urry and Morell, that if the poet’s 
 verse appeared irregular, the fault lay not with the writer but the 
 reader. He instances the sounding of initial and final syllables, 
 especially the genitive singular, and nominative plural of nouns, 
 and he is the first, we believe, clearly to point out how much the 
 change in the accentuation of words must affect our reading of 
 the older poets : ‘ we undoubtedly destroy,’ he says, ‘ a great 
 part of the music of their versification by laying the accent of 
 words where nobody then laid it.’ 
 
 Gray’s notes were not published till 1814, otherwise we 
 might think that Tyrwhitt owed something to them. 
 
 Bishop Hurd, in his Letters on Chivalry and Romance (1762), 
 again shows that Chaucer himself is being read, when he calls ’ 
 attention to what is evidently to him a surprising fact, that in : 
 so early an age when chivalry still flourished, Chaucer in Sir 
 Thopas actually detected the absurdity of the old romances, j 
 and was making fun of them. In the same year (1762) Warton 
 issued a second edition of his Observations , in which he slightly \ 
 alters his remarks on Chaucer. In 1754 he had emphasized the \ 
 fact that it was Chaucer who ‘ first gave the English nation in 
 its own language an idea of Humour,' he now points out that the j 
 poet ‘ abounds not only in strokes of humour, which is commonly 
 supposed to be his sole talent, but of pathos and sublimity.’ 
 This remark, perhaps more than anything else, shows that a 
 new era is dawning for Chaucer. 
 
 That which is most surprising in looking back over the great 
 mass of Chaucer criticism, up to this date, is that even his most 
 ardent admirers do not seem to have had a complete conception 
 
1. Period V. Chaucer regarded chiefly as a Comic Poet, liii 
 
 of what Chaucer really was, nor wherein lay his great strength 
 as a poet. 
 
 The characteristics which most attract us to him to-day, in 
 addition to his delightful humour, are his simplicity, his tender- 
 ness, his wisdom, toleration and broad-mindedness, his close 
 knowledge of human nature, and his almost constant felicity of 
 expression. Yet, with curiously few exceptions, from the middle 
 of the sixteenth to the end of the eighteenth century , not one of 
 these qualities seems to be remarked in Chaucer. All his 
 early admirers understood and praised his verse, but, as we 
 have seen, in later years that found no supporter. Spenser, 
 Dryden and Pope, as well as Caxton, the author of the Book of 
 Curtesye, and William Thynne, note Chaucer s true poetical 
 strength, his imagination and power of expression. Otherwise, 
 he is looked upon for the most part as a comic poet chiefly 
 remarkable for the scurrility of his verses. This is a view which, 
 as we have seen, began to creep in at the end of the sixteenth 
 century ; it was for this that men like Drant or Harrington 
 openly condemned him, while others, less stern, merely laughed 
 at his ‘ merie tales,’ and looked on his outspokenness as suffi- 
 cient reason that they should outvie him in this respect ; so we 
 find the unknown author of Greene’s Vision making Chaucer 
 cite his own practice in order to reassure Greene, who is 
 reproaching himself for the wanton writings of his youth ( see 
 pp. 137-38 below). This attitude of tolerant amusement rapidly 
 gained ground in the seventeenth and earlier eighteenth 
 centuries, 1 and if his coarseness is not insisted on, he is at best 
 a good, jolly story teller ; as Warton says, ‘ strokes of humour 
 are ‘ commonly supposd to be his sole talent.’ 
 
 Old Chaucer shall, for his facetious style, 
 
 Be read, and prais’d by warlike Britains, while 
 The Sea enriches, and defends their Isle, 
 
 writes John Evelyn in 1685. Chaucer was a merry wit, but a 
 rough one, for even his humour, the only quality granted him, 
 was not recognized to be the most light and delicate ever 
 
 1 See, for instance, Rowlands 1602, Smith 1656, Philips 1675, Evelyn 
 1685, Addison 1694, Cobb a. 1700, Gay 1712, Draper 1713 and Harte 1727. 
 
liv § 1. Period VI. Tyrwhitt' s edition of the ‘ Canterbury Tales! 
 
 possessed by an Englishman, but rather quaint and coarse, fit 
 only for a barbarous age. This point is emphasized here, for 
 it must be remembered that it was the general and common 
 attitude existing side by side with the new and intellectual 
 interest which we have seen scholars were beginning to take ! 
 in his work. Moreover it is one which, with a certain class of 
 writers— men who did not read Chaucer, but yet thought it 
 correct to refer to him — increases all through the first three j 
 quarters of the eighteenth century. It is well summed up in 
 the following lines in an Elegy called Woodstock Park , published | 
 anonymously in 1761 : — 
 
 Old Chaucer, who in rough unequal verse, 
 
 Sung quaint allusion and facetious tale ; 
 
 And ever as his jests he would rehearse, 
 
 Loud peals of laughter echoed through the vale. 
 
 What though succeeding poets, as they [their ?] sire, 
 Eevere his memory and approve his wit ; 
 
 Though Spenser’s elegance and Dryden’s fire 
 His name to ages far remote transmit ; 
 
 His tuneless numbers hardly now survive 
 As ruins of a dark and Gothic age ; 
 
 And all his blithesome tales their praise derive 
 From Pope’s immortal song and Prior’s page. 
 
 This poem, which was published the year before the second 
 edition of Warton’s Observations , illustrates better perhaps than 
 could anything else the startling change in Chaucer criticism 
 which was inaugurated immediately afterwards by the work 
 of scholars like Warton and Tyrwhitt. 
 
 Period VI. — It is with the publication of Tyrwhitt’s edition ' 
 of the Canterbury Tales in 1775, that we enter upon the sixth 
 and present period of Chaucer criticism; it is entirely owing 
 to the work of this great, but little known, scholar that the sane 
 and rational study of the poet’s work was, for the first time 
 since the early sixteenth century, made possible for Englishmen. 
 Not only did Tyrwhitt edit the first good text of the Canterbury 
 Tales , but in his prefatory essay he definitely and clearly dis- 
 posed for ever of the persistently erroneous view which was held 
 
§1 . Period VI. Gradual disappearance of misconceptions, lv 
 
 of Chaucer’s versification (see pp. 442-45 below). His text of 
 the ‘ Tales ’ was almost immediately pirated by Bell for his 
 edition of the English poets (1782) ; it was also used by Anderson 
 in his English poets (1795), and other reprints of it in the 
 nineteenth century were numerous, so it thus became easily 
 accessible to every would-be reader. 
 
 With Tyr whitt’s monumental work as a starting-point and 
 basis, we can trace in this period very clearly the history, first 
 of the gradual disappearance of certain persistent and long- 
 cherished beliefs about Chaucer founded upon ignorance either 
 of his language, or his work, or of both ; and the substitution 
 for these of sane, sound and scholarly appreciation, not only 
 of the wisdom, the humour and the imagination of the poet, 
 but also of his supreme technical and artistic skill. 1 * 
 
 The distinctly eighteenth-century ideas which gradually 
 dispersed like mist before the sunlight, may for convenience be 
 summarized as follows : — 
 
 As regards manner : — 
 
 (1) That Chaucer’s language was barbarous and difficult. 
 
 (2) That he had no ear for metre, and wrote rough and 
 irregular lines. 
 
 (3) That these shortcomings were not wholly his fault, but a 
 necessary result of the rude age in which he wrote, when 
 poetry was in its infancy. 
 
 (4) That therefore the only possible way to read him was 
 in a 4 modernization.’ 
 
 As regards matter : — 
 
 (5) That he was principally a £ facetious ’ or roughly comic 
 poet, chiefly delighting in coarse tales, and lacking 
 seriousness and dignity. 
 
 These beliefs were not by any means swept away at one 
 breath, as they might have been by a careful reading of Tyr- 
 whitt’s text and preface. Convictions so firmly rooted in men’s 
 minds cannot be disposed of in a moment. For example, we 
 
 1 For an early example of the effect of Tyrwhitt’s work on the ordinary 
 
 reviewer or hack writer, see below, p. 488, Philip Neve, 1789. 
 
lvi § 1. Period VI. Belief in Chaucer’s ‘ hobbling cadences ' 
 
 find the idea that Chaucer’s verse is rough and that he is difficult j 
 to read and understand is one that lasts on with curious per- 
 sistence. In the article on Lydgate in the second edition of 
 the Encyclopedia Britannica (1778-83) it is stated that Lyd- 
 gate s versification is much more harmonious than Chaucer’s. | 
 This assertion is repeated in subsequent editions of the 
 Encyclopaedia up to 1842, and we hear echoes of this view from 
 time to time in the nineteenth century, as in Sharon Turner’s I 
 History of England (1815), or in Burrowes’s Modern Encuclo- I 
 pcedia (1837). 
 
 Anna Seward, who in 1792 writes of Chaucer’s ‘ obsolete, j 
 coarse and inharmonious diction,’ maintains this attitude in her | 
 letters to Scott and others later on. She comments, in 1806, on j 
 the insane partiality of Godwin for the poetic powers of 
 Chaucer, whose compositions, she says, ‘have so little good 
 which is not translation, and so much that is tedious, unnatural, 
 conceited and obscure.’ Richard Wharton, in 1804, speaks of 
 his ‘ hobbling cadences and obsolete phrases ’ ; in 1807 ‘ Peter ! 
 Pindar ’ (Dr. John Wolcot) writes just as did Hughes and Cobb 
 a century earlier. 
 
 Though obsolete, alas ! thy line, 
 
 And doomed in cold neglect to shine, 
 
 and Byron, in Hints from Horace (1811), takes the usual !j 
 eighteenth century view when he says that our forefathers, 
 who did not trouble about the classics, ' 
 
 Were satisfied with Chaucer and old Ben; 
 
 The jokes and numbers suited to their taste 
 
 Were quaint and careless, anything but chaste. 
 
 Lord Thurlow, who, unlike Byron, much admired Chaucer, yet 
 speaks of his ‘ homely rhyme ’ (1813) ; ‘ quaint and rough,’ a ] 
 writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine (May 1818) calls it ; ‘ anti- | 
 quated ’ and ‘ outworn ’ says Horace Smith in 1825, and in ! 
 the following year, Hazlitt, in reporting the conversation which j 
 took place at one of Lamb’s Wednesdays on ‘Persons one would | 
 wish to have seen, says that all the company were in favour of j 
 Chaucer, except William Ayrton, the musician, ‘ who said 
 something about the ruggedness of the metre.’ 
 
§ 1. Period VI. Opinions of Nott and D' Israeli. lvii 
 
 Consequently, tlie idea tends to be developed about this 
 time which is baldly stated by Beringfcon in 1814 (below, 
 Part II, p. 61), that the chief merit and interest of Chaucer is 
 not as a poet but as a historian of manners, and that his works 
 are not merely 4 effusions of a poetical imagination ’ but 4 they 
 are pregnant with instruction of a higher order. They are an 
 essential portion of the authentic history of his country ’ (see 
 end of article in The Retrospective Review , 1824 below, Part II, 
 p. 155). 
 
 Nott’s views, in 1815, on Chaucer’s versification are worth 
 noting, for they are not careless remarks made on insufficient 
 knowledge, but are the result of close study of the text. He 
 examines Tyrwhitt’s ‘ system respecting Chaucer’s versifi- 
 cation,’ and objects to it. He does not believe in the sounding 
 of the final ‘ e ’ feminine ; he maintains that Chaucer’s lines 
 are not intended for iambic decasyllabics, although uninten- 
 tionally such lines occur, but that his principle of versification is 
 rhythmical and not metrical, and that he ‘ designed his lines 
 to be read with a caesura and rhythmical cadence.’ Southey, 
 in 1807, had partly anticipated this view, and later, in 1833, 
 having been reinforced by the views of Farmer and Nott, he is 
 more emphatic on the point and says he believes Chaucer to 
 have written his verses on the same principle on which Coleridge 
 wrote his Christahel. 
 
 Isaac D ’Israeli, as late as 1841, completely routs Tyrwhitt’s 
 theory of Chaucer’s versification and asserts, that the poet 
 makes his words long or short, dissyllabic or trisyllabic at his 
 pleasure. ‘ It is evident,’ he continues, ‘ that Chaucer trusted 
 his cadences to his ear, and his verse is therefore usually rhyth- 
 mical and accidentally metrical.’ He also doubts if anything 
 but the Canterbury Tales (made accessible by Tyrwhitt) will 
 ever be read, for the difficulties are too great. Readers will be 
 appalled by having to face 4 a massive tome dark with the 
 Gothic type, whose obsolete words and difficult phrases, and for 
 us, uncadenced metre, are to be conned by a glossary as obsolete 
 as the text, to be perpetually referred to, to the interruption of 
 all poetry and all patience.’ 
 
 It was in this same year (1841), just one hundred years after 
 
lviii §1. Period VI. The 4 Modernizations' of 1841. 
 
 Ogle’s venture, that the last important attempt was made to 
 modernize Chaucer. This was a small volume called 4 The 
 Poems of Geoffrey Chaucer Modernized,’ which is chiefly j 
 remarkable for the worthlessness of its contents and the j 
 eminence of its contributors, many of whom, one is tempted to I 
 think, ought to have known better. 
 
 It was edited by Richard Hengist Horne, who says he thinks i 
 the project was set on foot by Wordsworth, who promised to j 
 contribute, assisted by Leigh Hunt, Miss Barrett, Robert Bell, | 
 Monckton Milnes, Leonhard Schmitz and Horne himself. For 
 the second volume (which, happily, never appeared), it was 
 intended to ask for the help of Tennyson, Talfourd, Browning, 
 Bulwer, Mr. and Mrs. Cowden Clarke, and Mary Howitt ; and 
 we are told that every one who was invited to take part in the 
 project agreed cordially, with the sole exception of Landor, who 
 at once saw the folly of the attempt, and expressed his views 
 on it with great decision. His first reply to Mr. Horne’s 
 application was that he believed 4 as many people read Chaucer 
 (meaning in the original) as were fit to read him.’ Home mis- 
 understood this remark, and so Landor wrote again to explain 
 his views more fully, expressing himself very characteristically 
 as follows : — ‘ Indeed, I do admire him, or rather love him,’ ; 
 adding, 4 Pardon me if I say I would rather see Chaucer quite ! 
 alone, in the dew of his sunny morning, than with twenty j 
 clever gentlefolks about him, arranging his shoe-strings and ; 
 buttoning his doublet. I like even his language. I will have 
 no hand in breaking his dun but rich painted glass to put in 
 (if clearer) much thinner panes.’ ‘ And thus,’ commented Horne, { 
 — when he published part of this correspondence in 1877— 4 with 
 the true but narrow devotion of the best men on the black- 
 letter side, and their resistance to all attempts to melt the 
 obsolete language and form it into modern moulds ... the 
 Homer of English poetry continues unread except by very few.’ 
 The introduction to the 4 Modernizations ’ is interesting, j 
 We see that in 1841 the state of Chaucer’s language was looked j 
 upon as being as hopelessly unintelligible as in the days of ! 
 Pope; and that the reader must, among other qualifications, i 
 
§ 1. Period VI. Distaste for Chaucer persists in 19th century, lix 
 
 be ‘ learned in the black letter ’ (whatever that may be) in 
 order to hope to understand him. We also learn that in 1841 
 everything had been done for Chaucer’s works in the collation 
 of texts and the writing of notes and glossaries that could be 
 wished for; which causes us to wonder what the Chaucer 
 Society has since found to do. Horne’s criticisms of earlier 
 translations, as well as some of his own renderings of Chaucer’s 
 text, are quite worth study, and indeed the whole book is a 
 curiosity of literature. 1 * * Its chief interest from our point of 
 view consists in the proof it gives of the growth during the 
 past eighty years, not only of general knowledge of Chaucer 
 and familiarity with his language, but of English scholarship 
 generally. This is made clear at once when we reflect how 
 impossible it would be for a group of writers of intelligence and 
 even genius to-day, of the same standing as these contributors, 
 to attempt a similar production. 
 
 We find also the distaste for Chaucer experienced by Cowley, 
 lasting far on into the nineteenth century, especially in some 
 of the Reviews. A reviewer of Godwin’s 4 Life,’ in 1804, asserts 
 that the idea that Chaucer in the 4 uncouth and antiquated 
 style of the original ’ could ever give the pleasure he does in 
 the 4 finely-turned versification ’ of Dryden and Pope, is one 
 4 which could be entertained for a moment only by the blindest 
 enthusiasm.’ 
 
 A writer in the Gentleman’ s Magazine for October 1818, 
 while giving Chaucer some appreciation, yet at the same time 
 denounces the poet in all the old familiar terms, speaks of 
 his 4 rough phraseology,’ the 4 harshness and lameness of his 
 numbers,’ his ribaldry and coarseness, and concludes by saying 
 
 1 See Lounsbury’s Studies in Chaucer, vol. iii, pp. 213-29, where an 
 amusing account of this book is given, and some of the most flagrant 
 mistakes and blunders in it are noted. Such are, for instance, the 
 ascription to Wordsworth of a quotation from Drayton which is printed 
 on the title page; or the entire misunderstanding of many of Chaucer’s 
 words; or such grotesque renderings as that of Chaucer’s description of 
 the poor Clerk of Oxford : 
 
 ‘ Full threadbare was his overest courtepy,’ 
 
 which in Horne’s version becomes 
 
 ‘ His uppermost short coat was a bare thread.’ 
 
lx § 1. Period VI. Contrast in 19th-century views on Chaucer. 
 
 that not ‘ all the hyperbolical praises of the illustrious Dryden 
 [can] prove that he was gifted with one spark of the sublime ! 
 spirit of the Grecian Bard.’ 
 
 The view of Chaucer as a coarse and comic poet unfit for 
 study by serious people also persists, and a delightful example of 
 it is the case of the Rev. Henry Richman, who, in his youth, 
 had written a sequel to the Canterbury Tales , of which his 
 friends could never obtain a sight ; for, says one of them, £ he 
 always declined permitting . . . [them] to peruse it, upon this | 
 principle, that the levity of such compositions was inconsistent j 
 with the decorum of the clerical character ’ ( see below, c. 1810). 
 The severely moral view of Chaucer’s sins is also taken by an 
 anonymous writer, who, in 1841, published an abridgment 
 of Dryden’s version of the character of the good parson, as well 
 as the Parson’s Prologue and Tale. In alluding to the £ ribaldry j 
 and pollution ’ to be found in other parts of Chaucer’s writings | 
 and to his [spurious ?] Retractation at the end of the Canterbury I 
 Tales , the editor of this pamphlet concludes, £ an author should 
 never forget, that ... his works, if calculated to corrupt, may j 
 still be doing their mischief, and . . . his crimes may’ thus j 
 be extended . . . through centuries.’ This forms a curious '! 
 contrast to the estimate of Chaucer’s outlook and influence as 
 expressed later, for instance, by Ruskin and Alfred Austin. | 
 For what Ruskin says in Fors Clavigera, see p. lxiv below; and ! 
 the then poet laureate, when speaking on the occasion of j 
 Chaucer s quincentenary, said that £ poets like Chaucer were i 
 themselves ministers of God,’ and that £ he was an exponent j 
 of the purest and the most permanent elements of Christianity.,’ 
 
 The latest expression of the older view we meet with is in 
 1878, when in a History of English Humour , by A. G. K. 
 L’Estrange, the surprising statement is made that although no j 
 doubt at the time he wrote he was thought witty, that £ scarcely I 
 any part of Chaucer s writings would raise a laugh at the present 
 day, though they might a blush.’ 
 
 But it is not only among unknown reviewers and odd writers I 
 that we find a distaste for Chaucer in the first half of the 
 nineteenth century. Byron’s condemnation is well known : 
 
§1. Period VI. Early 19th-century distaste for Chaucer, lxi 
 
 ‘ Chaucer, notwithstanding the praises heaped upon him, I 
 think obscene and contemptible’ (1807), and John Galt, the 
 novelist, writes in 1812: ‘I have never been able to bring 
 myself to entertain any feeling approximating to respect for 
 Chaucer, Gower, Lydgate, and the other tribe of rhymers before 
 Henry VIII,’ for which remark we are glad to see he was severely 
 chastised in the Quarterly of September of the same year. The 
 poet Moore found Chaucer unreadable (1819), so did Lord 
 Lansdowne, and Sir Kenelm Digby, in 1844, calls him ‘ impious 
 and obscene.’ 
 
 Cardinal Wiseman, who showed some appreciation of him as 
 a poet, nevertheless regrets (1855) that in his work, as well as 
 in that of Spenser’s, ‘ every rich description of natural beauty is 
 connected with wantonness, voluptuousness, and debauchery.’ 
 
 It was this ‘ foul and false accusation ’ (Leigh Hunt’s 
 Correspondence , 1862, vol. ii., p. 264) which roused Leigh Hunt 
 to write in defence of these two poets one of his last articles 
 published in Fraser’s Magazine four months after his death 
 (December 1859). 
 
 A remnant of the survival of the predominating eighteenth 
 century idea that Chaucer was a ‘ comic ’ poet, and thus un- 
 dignified, may have affected Matthew Arnold’s criticism of him 
 in 1880. 1 * He classes Chaucer, quite rightly, below Homer, 
 Dante and Shakespeare, but he does so not because he did not 
 equal them in genius, but because he lacked seriousness. 
 
 The uncritical attitude towards Chaucer, and real ignorance 
 about him, his life and work, is to be found in unexpected places 
 long after ample materials were published which would have 
 made, one would have thought, such mis-statements impossible. 
 Emerson, who read Chaucer with delight in early youth (c. 1820), 
 and continually refers to him with appreciation, yet reveals the 
 vague knowledge of facts and dates which is reminiscent of 
 sixteenth century writers. In his essay on Shakespeare (1848) 
 he says, 4 Chaucer is a huge borrower : [He] . . . drew con- 
 
 1 Introduction to The English Poets, edited by T. H. Ward, London, 
 
 1880, reprinted in Essays in Criticism, 2nd series. 
 
lxii § 1. Period VI. 19th-century appreciation. Scott and Blake.l 
 
 tmually, through Lydgate and Caxton, from Guido di Colonna.’! 
 Professor Minto, in his article (1876) on the poet in the ninth 
 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that Chaucer’s 
 father was in the expedition of 1359 instead of that of 1338;! 
 he declares the Court of Love to be genuine, dating it about 100 
 years before it was written, and invents a statement that 
 James I in the Kingis Quhair attributes it to Chaucer. 
 
 And in the Cornhill for March 1877, we find no less a critic | 
 than Leslie Stephen attributing to Chaucer a large number of j 
 spurious poems, and saying in a note on the Court of Love 
 The Chaucer critics reject this poem, but as we are not writing 
 a critical paper, we cannot afford to forgo so much good i 
 material.’ 
 
 The main trend, however, of nineteenth-century opinion | 
 and knowledge has been very markedly in the contrary direction 
 to these cases we have cited, which are really survivals. We I 
 find (with the exception of Byron) all the greatest men of letters j 
 of the early nineteenth century reading Chaucer and delighting 
 in him. j 
 
 Scott is very appreciative ; he points out that Chaucer is 
 sometimes much better than his modernizer Dryden ; he has a ; 
 charming reference to him in Woodstock ; his mind is clearly 
 stored with reminiscences of him, he quotes him in several of his 
 novels, and (in 1817) he urges the intending reader not to be j 
 put off by apparent difficulties of obsolete spelling and the like. 
 
 Blake has left us a wonderful and luminous criticism of the j 
 Canterbury Tales (1809), in some ways anticipating Carlyle in ' 
 thought. He points out that Chaucer has, in his pilgrims, ! 
 pictured for all time the eternal classes of men, eternal principles, ; 
 changing in outward details, but in essentials remaining the j 
 same, the Hero, the Knave, the Apostle, and so on, for ‘ every 
 age is a Canterbury Pilgrimage, we all pass on, each sustaining j 
 one or other of these characters ; nor can a child be born, who 
 is not one of these characters of Chaucer.’ 
 
 He was one of the few authors Wordsworth read constantly, 
 and one of the still fewer to whom he felt and admitted himself j 
 inferior ; that fine critic, Dorothy, read him with £ exquisite j 
 
§ 1. Period VI. Appreciation by Coleridge , Lamb and Landor. lxiii 
 
 delight ’ ; Southey repeatedly praises him, and speaks enthusi- 
 astically of 4 his versatility of talents,’ 4 in which only Ariosto 
 has approached, and only Shakespeare equalled him ’ ; Thomas 
 Campbell, in 1819, appreciates the 4 pathetic beauty ’ of Troilus, 
 
 ‘ a story of vast length and almost desolate simplicity,’ and the 
 vivid characterization of the Canterbury Tales, and Coleridge, 
 as early as 1804, planned an Essay on his genius and writings, 
 while thirty years later he says, 4 I take increasing delight in 
 Chaucer. His manly cheerfulness is especially delicious to 
 me in my old age. How exquisitely tender he is, and yet how 
 perfectly free from the least touch of sickly melancholy or 
 morbid drooping.’ 
 
 Lamb’s references (13 in all, from 1797 to 1827) are slight, 
 but sufficient to show his knowledge and love. He compares 
 Coleridge’s poem of 4 The Raven ’ to Chaucer, and he points 
 out the radiance of the 4 almost Chaucer-like painting ’ in 
 Keats’s Eve of St. Agnes. He clearly revels and delights in his 
 4 foolish stories,’ the 4 darling things . . . old Chaucer sings,’ 
 he treasures his 4 black letter ’ Speght, he marvels at the 
 4 comprehensiveness of genius ’ in the Pilgrims’ portraits, and 
 compares the thought underlying the poet’s comedy with 
 Hogarth’s handling of his themes. x 
 
 He suggests to Haydon for a picture the subject of Chaucer 
 beating a Franciscan friar in Fleet Street, and we are not sur- 
 prised that it was Lamb, sooner than any one else apparently, 
 who appreciated to the full Blake’s brilliant description of the 
 Pilgrims, 4 the finest criticism he had ever read of Chaucer’s 
 poem,’ 4 mystical and full of vision.’ How entirely we can 
 sympathise with his trouble over the review of Godwin’s ill- 
 proportioned and pompous ‘Life’ (1803); little wonder that 
 although he sat down to it 4 for three or four days successively ’ 
 he could not produce anything which would satisfy both 
 Godwin and himself. 
 
 Landor, as we have seen, thoroughly appreciated Chaucer, 
 and in an unpublished prose fragment, written probably about 
 1861, he says : 4 There is no poet excepting Homer whom I 
 have studied so attentively as Chaucer. They are the ablest 
 of their respective countries.’ In other writings he places 
 
lxiv § 1. Period VI. RusJcin places Chaucer Ugh as a theologian. 
 
 him next Shakespeare and Milton, and prefers him to Spenser. 
 Shelley speaks of him with understanding and reverence, 
 and Hazlitt, who writes on him the first appreciative literary 
 criticism of any length since Dryden, ranks him with Spenser 
 as one of the four greatest English poets. Miss Mitford, as 
 
 early as 1815, writes : 4 Two or three of Chaucer’s Canterbury 
 
 Tales, and some select passages from his other productions, are 
 worth all the age of Queen Anne . . . ever produced ’ ; De 
 
 Quincey says he is £ a poet worth five hundred of Homer,’ 
 
 and Mrs. Browning (despite the modernizations) has written 
 of him some of the most charmingly discriminating praise ever 
 penned : Peacock, Edward Fitzgerald and George Meredith 
 have all recorded their admiration ; we are told that Tennyson 
 enjoyed reading Chaucer aloud more than any poet except 
 Shakespeare and Milton ; while the enthusiasm of the Pre- 
 Raphaelite group for Chaucer was so great, that in addition 
 to painting scenes from his life and poems, they saw a physical 
 likeness to him in the people they admired. This resemblance , 
 they said was noticeable in Rossetti, Morris and R. W. Dixon. 
 
 Ruskin was reading and quoting Chaucer with appreciation 
 for forty years (1849-1889); and he refers one hundred and ■ 
 eight times to the poet or his works ( Index to the Complete 
 Works, ed. Cook and Wedderburn). A few of these references * 
 are printed here, and a larger selection (between 1869 and 1889) 
 in the Supplement to Five Hundred Y ears of Chaucer Criticism 
 ( see Foreword, also footnote p. lxix below). His remarks, as 
 one would expect, are acute and unusual, as when in The 
 Harbours of England (1856), he notes Chaucer’s aversion to the 
 sea and everything connected with it. ] 
 
 Ruskin is among those who place Chaucer very high as a -1 
 theologian and teacher; in Fors Clavigera (letter 61, January 1 
 1876) he says he is ‘ one of the men who have taught the purest 
 theological truth,’ and he chooses him together with Moses, 
 David, Hesiod, Virgil, Dante and St. John as one of the seven 
 authors of ‘ standard theological writings ’ whose lives and 
 works are to be specially edited for the St. George’s schools; 
 a scheme which was, however, not carried out. 
 
§ 1. Period VI. Leigh Hunt's love for Chaucer. lxv 
 
 He is also one of the few people who express surprise or 
 vexation at the pre-eminent position given to the Canterbury 
 Tales (letter to Dr. Furnivall, December 15, 1873, unpublished), 
 and he deliberately excludes them from his planned edition for 
 St. George’s library, while he includes, 4 be they authentic or 
 not, the Dream and the fragment of the translation of the 
 Romance of the Rose.' ( Fors , ut sup.) He was particularly 
 attracted to the Dream (the Isle of Ladies), and, as he had told 
 Dr. Furnivall (letter of Dec. 15, 1873), about the year 1869, 
 he had prepared an edition of it for press 4 (not at all as a fine 
 example of Chaucer, but as one about which I had much to say) 
 — with long notes, and hunting down of words — and no doubt 
 at all expressed of the genuineness.’ 4 Had this come out,’ he 
 adds, 4 1 should never have got over it in literary dis-reputation.’ 
 
 However, in spite of the demonstration that it was not 
 Chaucer’s, he remained constant in his predilection for the 
 Dream as well as for the authentic minor poems, and he definitely 
 set himself to work mainly on them and on the ethics and 
 temper of them. 
 
 Perhaps, however, the most constant and enthusiastic lover 
 of Chaucer in the early nineteenth century was Leigh Hunt. 
 He came to him comparatively late (‘ Chaucer, who has since 
 been one of my best friends, I was not acquainted with at 
 school, nor till long afterwards,’ Autobiography, 1860, p. 79), 
 but for nearly half a century (1812-59) Hunt shows increasing 
 knowledge of and admiration for Chaucer. So numerous are 
 his references to him both in prose and verse that a large 
 bundle of them has been put aside, and only a small selection 
 (43) are here printed, as otherwise they would have thrown 
 out of proportion the mass of nineteenth-century criticism. 
 
 Hunt genuinely loves Chaucer, he reads him constantly 
 and carefully, and, in spite of Lockhart’s scathing snub in 
 Blackwood ( see below, 1817, Z.) his praise is discriminating as 
 well as enthusiastic. 
 
 He is as daring and independent in his judgment of Chaucer’s 
 poetic powers as he is of those of Keats. As early as 1816, he 
 classes him with Dryden, Spenser, Milton, Ariosto and Shake- 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. e 
 
lxvi § 1. Period VI. Leigh Hunt's discriminating praise. 
 
 speare as one of the great masters of modern versification, and 
 some years later (1820) he maintains that Chaucer’s verse is 
 4 touched with a finer sense of music even than Dryden’s.’ 
 
 He constantly recurs to this theme in his critical writings I 
 and points out that Chaucer is scarcely known at all, that he is j 
 considered 4 a rude sort of poet,’ that his versification has never 
 had justice done it, and that the 4 sweet and delicate gravity 
 of its music ’ is as 4 unlike the crabbed and unintentional stuff j 
 it is supposed to be as possible.’ 
 
 He considers Chaucer has 4 the strongest imagination of real 
 life, beyond any writers but Homer, Dante and Shakespeare, 
 and in comic painting inferior to none.’ Hunt’s appreciation 
 of Chaucer’s 4 comic genius ’ is given in full in Wit and Humour 
 (1846) and the three characteristic qualities of it which he 
 selects reveal his close understanding of it. 
 
 And through all these years, Hunt proves his admiration in 
 the most practical way, by making every effort to get Chaucer 
 better known, to bring his work to the notice of the ordinary j 
 reader and to induce him to go to the original for himself. He 
 writes about him and quotes him constantly, he gives copious 
 extracts from his poems in modern spelling in a series of numbers • 
 of the London Journal (1835), and he modernizes several of the 
 Tales. His views on the function of modernizations are t 
 thoroughly sound (see specially the Preface to Death and the j 
 Ruffians, 1855). Modernizations, he says, should be little more i 
 than a change of spelling, 4 for every alteration of Chaucer is j 
 an injury,’ and their only excuse is that they ‘ may act as 
 incitements towards acquaintance with the great original.’ 
 Hunt’s love of Chaucer deserves emphasis, for it is especially I 
 interesting historically because of his influence on Keats. 
 
 Hunt and Keats first met probably in the early summer of }| 
 1816; they immediately became friends and read and talked | 
 together, leaving, as Hunt records, 4 no imaginative pleasure ’ ! 
 untouched or unenjoyed. It is practically certain that they 
 talked about Chaucer, and that Keats was led to read far 
 more than the non-Chaucerian Floure and Lefe which so took 
 his fancy and from which he chose the motto for Sleep and 
 
§ 1. Period VI. Hunt , Keats and the Pre-Raphaelites, lxvii 
 
 Poetry , written probably during his first intimacy with Hunt 
 in the autumn of 1816. It was in the following February 
 that he wrote the sonnet in Cowden Clarke’s Chaucer, and a 
 few months later he began Endymion with the prayer that 
 he ‘ might stammer where old Chaucer used to sing.’ By 
 the end of the next year (1818) he is the proud possessor of a 
 ‘black letter Chaucer’ of his own; all through 1819 it is 
 obvious from his letters that he is reading it, and the result of 
 his study is to be seen in the Eve of St. Mark at which he was 
 working at intervals during that year. Its narrative method 
 and metre are clearly suggested by Chaucer, as well as the 
 pseudo old English which is surely an echo of him rather than 
 of Chatterton as has generally been assumed. That this is 
 so is even more clearly seen in the additional sixteen lines 
 in the Woodhouse transcript (found in 1913) beginning 
 
 Gif ye wol stonden hardie wight — 
 
 Amiddes of the blacke night — 
 
 Righte in the churche porch, pardie 
 Ye wol behold a companie, 
 
 in which Keats deliberately tries to reproduce the style and 
 vocabulary of Chaucer. 
 
 Thus we have a series of links which form one of the most 
 interesting bits of literary history in the nineteenth century. 
 
 Leigh Hunt’s immense admiration for Chaucer undoubtedly 
 stimulated, if it did not start, Keats’s serious study of him ; 
 this study profoundly affected the wonderful fragment of the 
 Eve of St. Mark, which, with La Belle Dame, were the poems 
 which kindled the enthusiasm of the Pre-Raphaelite group and 
 gave to William Morris his immediate impulse in romantic 
 story telling. As Sir Sidney Colvin points out (Life of Keats 
 p. 438), the opening of the Eve of St. Mark, reminiscent of the 
 movement of Chaucer’s verse and anticipating the very 
 cadences of Morris, forms a direct bridge or stepping stone 
 between the two great poets. It was in 1855 that Morris with 
 Burne-Jones at Oxford was for the first time reading and 
 rejoicing in the older narrative poet whom later he definitely 
 took as his master. For not since the days of Elizabeth had 
 
lxviii § 1 . Period VI. The changed attitude of the Reviews . 
 
 Chaucer so directly inspired a great English singer as he did 
 him who prayed : — 
 
 Would that I 
 
 Had but some portion of that mastery 
 That from the rose-hung lanes of woody Kent 
 Through these five hundred years such songs have sent 
 To us, who, meshed within this smoky net 
 Of unrejoicing labour, love them yet. 
 
 And thou, 0 Master ! Yea, my Master still 
 Whatever feet have scaled Parnassus’ hill 
 Since like thy measures, clear and sweet and strong, 
 Thames’ stream scarce fettered drave the dace along 
 Unto the bastioned bridge, his only chain — 
 
 0 Master, pardon me if yet in vain 
 Thou art my Master, and I fail to bring 
 Before men’s eyes the image of the thing 
 My heart is filled with : thou whose dreamy eyes 
 Beheld the flush to Cressid’s cheek arise, 
 
 As Troilus rode up the praising street, 
 
 As clearly as they saw thy townsmen meet 
 Those whom in vineyards of Poictou withstood 
 The glistening horror of the steel-topped wood. 
 
 The changed attitude of the important Reviews towards i 
 Chaucer in the early nineteenth century is worthy of notice ; he is 
 constantly put next to Shakespeare, and sometimes compared to i 
 Goethe ; the Quarterly is almost uniformly favourable to him, and * 
 often enthusiastic. Thus in the volume of May 1809, Chaucer is > 
 placed next below Shakespeare and Milton; in July 1814 he is 
 called ‘ a star of the first magnitude,’ and it is urged that it is 
 a disgrace that the Canterbury Tales should be the only portion 
 of his works edited with ability; while in the Edinburgh for | 
 July 1830 he is said to be in manner and expression the most | 
 Homeric of our poets. 
 
 All this appreciation, however, though very enthusiastic, 
 was largely uncritical, and based on an incomplete knowledge of 
 Chaucer s real work, and it was not until the appearance in 
 1862 (in the United States) of Professor Child’s masterly and 
 exhaustive essay on the use of the final ‘ e ’ in the Harleian 
 manuscript 7334, followed in 1868 by the foundation of the 
 
§ 1. Period VI. Foundation of the Chaucer Society, lxix 
 
 Chaucer Society by Dr. Furnivall, that the scholarly and 
 critical work was inaugurated, which is one of the literary 
 glories of the nineteenth century. 
 
 Professor Child furnished the money which enabled the 
 Chaucer Society to start work, and so it is to him that Dr. 
 Furnivall dedicates its first great publication, the Six-Text 
 print of the Canterbury Tales 1 (see 1868-77, below). 
 
 The work of Chaucer scholars in England and America during 
 the last fifty years has been so great that to write any detailed 
 account of it would demand more space than can here be given. 
 Some record of it will be found in the following pages, and a still 
 fuller record in the Supplement. 1 2 * These speak for themselves. 
 Certain landmarks in the work can, however, be indicated. 
 
 The Chaucer Society, which was established 4 to do honour 
 to Chaucer, and to let lovers and students of him see how far 
 the best unprinted manuscripts of his works differed from the 
 printed texts,’ has achieved results of four kinds : — 
 
 (1) The printing of all the best Chaucer manuscripts. 
 
 (2) The establishment of the chronology of Chaucer’s works, 
 
 including the arrangement of the Canterbury Tales. 
 
 (3) The final settlement of the Chaucer Canon. 
 
 (4) The discovery of many hitherto unknown facts about 
 
 Chaucer’s life and family. 
 
 1 That is the six best and oldest MSS. of the Canterbury Tales , printed 
 in parallel columns so as to make the different readings at once apparent. 
 
 2 Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion: A Supple- 
 ment, containing additional entries, 1868-1900 ; London, privately 
 printed, 1920. 
 
 As the work of collecting these Chaucer allusions proceeded, it became 
 clear that it would be impossible, for reasons of mere bulk of matter, to 
 deal so comprehensively with the last generation as with those up to 
 1800, or even up to 1867. A break therefore is made at the latter date, 
 and after the foundation of the Chaucer Society only the chief editions 
 of the poet are included and a few important or typical criticisms. 
 
 As, however, a considerable number of allusions for this period, about 
 900 in all, had already been collected and were in type, a few copies of this 
 matter were printed off and have been placed in the principal libraries. 
 
 A complete list of the publications of the Chaucer Society down to 1907 
 is given in Chaucer, a bibliographical manual, by E. P. Hammond, 1908, 
 pp. 523-41. 
 
Ixx § 1. Period VI. 19th-century editions of Chaucer’s Works. 
 
 (1) The first attempt to print a single manuscript was made 
 by Thomas Wright, who in 1848—51 edited for the Percy 
 Society the Canterbury Tales from the Harleian 7334, with 
 additions and collations from the Lansdowne MS. Later the 
 printing of all the best Chaucer MSS. was carried through by 
 the indefatigable energy of Dr. Furnivall ; this made possible j 
 the edition of the poems published at Boston in 1880 by | 
 Mr. Gilman, and finally resulted in the first complete, accurate, 
 and critical edition of Chaucer’s works, which was edited by 
 Professor Skeat in 1894-7. 
 
 All through the nineteenth century, from Southey onwards 
 (see below, 1812), we find repeated desire expressed for a com- 
 plete critical text of Chaucer’s works, culminating with the 
 statement in the long and well-informed article in the Edinburqh 
 Review for July 1870, that it is a national reproach to be still 
 without one. 
 
 Skeat ’s great six- volume edition, based on the careful 
 collation of the seven best manuscripts, was therefore received 
 with enthusiasm, and widely reviewed. After its publication 
 and of that of the smaller reprint of the text (Student’s Edition) 
 in 1895, there is a noticeable increase in the general knowledge , 
 and study of Chaucer. This tendency was quickened by the 
 appearance, in 1896, of William Morris’s Kelmscott Chaucer, \ 
 illustrated by Burne-Jones, 1 which aroused considerable interest ; 
 and comment. 
 
 The impetus given to the reading of Chaucer by the work of 
 the Chaucer Society is clearly seen in the increase of editions 5 
 of his works published between 1851 and 1910. For various ( 
 reasons it is difficult to be certain of getting these numbers | 
 absolutely complete, but the table below is approximately l 
 correct and shows the result of this impetus pictorially. 
 
 Between 1801 and 1850 there appeared seven editions of 
 Chaucer’s complete works (in the original text). Between 1851 
 and 1900 nine new editions came out, as well as one German 
 translation. Only three editions of the Canterbury Tales were 
 
 1 Or by drawings suggested by Burne-Jones. See The Nation, 1903, 1, 
 pp. 313-14. 
 
§ 1. Period VI. Impetus given to the reading of Chaucer, lxxi 
 TABLE OF EDITIONS OF CHAUCER’S WORKS FROM 1801 TO 1910. 
 
 
 NUMBEB 
 
 , OP EDITIONS PUBLISHED. 
 
 
 (1801-1850) 
 
 (1851 1900) 
 
 (1901-1910) 
 
 Complete Works (original text) 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 (+1 German) 
 
 2 
 
 Complete Works (modernised) 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 
 Canterbury Tales (original text) 
 
 3 
 
 ^(-(- 1 re-issue) 
 
 9 
 
 (+2 re-issues : 
 
 2 
 
 (+ 1 French and 
 
 
 1 French and 
 1 German) 
 
 1 German) 
 
 
 Canterbury Tales (modernised, 
 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 paraphrased, or ‘retold’) 
 
 4 
 
 (+1 unpub- 
 lished) 
 
 
 
 Selected or single poems (ori- 
 
 
 67 
 
 32 
 
 ginal text) .... 
 
 9 
 
 (-f 1 French and 
 
 (-f 1 French and 
 
 (+1 re-issue 
 
 
 1 German) 
 
 1 German) 
 
 and 1 Dutch) 
 
 Selected or single poems (mod- 
 
 
 
 
 ernised, paraphrased, or ‘ re- 
 told ’) 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 published in the first half of the nineteenth century , as compared 
 with nine editions in the second half. Nine editions of selected 
 or single poems (in the original text) came out between 1801 
 and 1850, whereas there were sixty-seven of these between 
 1851 and 1900. And this increase of figures still continues, for 
 between 1901 and 1910 there appeared two new editions of 
 Chaucer’s complete works, two editions of the Canterbury T ales 
 as well as one French and one German translation, and thirty- 
 two editions of selected or single poems. 1 
 
 (2) The first serious attempt to fix the chronological order 
 of Chaucer’s works was largely due to a man who had never 
 even seen a Chaucer manuscript, or heard of the Chaucer 
 Society, Professor ten Brink, who, in 1870, astounded English 
 scholars by the publication of his Chaucer Studien, in which he 
 for the first time threw a real light on the distinction between 
 genuine and spurious in the poet’s works, and also on their true 
 order of succession. Although some of these questions are in 
 
 
 1 The Clarendon Press, Oxford, report that Chaucer’s poetical works 
 have a larger sale than those of either Pope or Dryden, so that he is now 
 the most ‘ popular ’ author of the three. 
 
lxxn § 1 . Period VI. Work accomplished by the Chaucer Society. 
 
 dispute still, the chronology is for the most part now fairly well 
 established. 
 
 Mr. Bradshaw, at Cambridge, had been working at the same 
 problem independently for some years previously, but had not 
 printed any account of his results. To him, however, is due 
 the solution of the puzzle as to the right order and structure 
 of the ‘ Tales.’ 
 
 ( 3 ) To the final settlement of the genuine poems many 
 scholars have contributed, notably ten Brink, Bradshaw , j 
 Furmvall, Koch, and Skeat, and these results have been summed I 
 up in such books as Koch’s Chronology of Chaucer Writings, 
 Chaucer Society, 1890 ; Pollard’s Chaucer in ‘Literature 
 Primers,’ 2nd edition, 1903 ; Skeat ’s Complete Works of Chaucer, 
 1894 , introductions to vols. i and vi ; Skeat’s Chaucer Canon, 
 1900 ; and Tatlock’s Development and Chronology of Chaucer's 
 Works, Chaucer Society, 1907 . 
 
 ( 4 ) Of the life records of Chaucer, some few were printed by 
 Godwin in 1803 , and still more by Sir Harris Nicolas in 1843 , 
 but to Dr. Furnivall almost alone are due the discoveries along 1 
 this line, not only on account of his own extensive researches, 
 but because of the way he stimulated others, notably Mr. - 
 Selby, Mr. Bond and Mr. Kirk, to undertake the work; so 
 that in 1900 it was possible to publish the completed volume of j 
 the Life Records of Chaucer, a fitting commemoration of the 
 poet’s quincentenary. 
 
 So the work goes on, and our poet has come to his own at 
 last ; and the heart of Francis Thynne would rejoice to see how 
 Chawcer s Woorkes, by much conference and many judg- ! 
 mentes have at length obtained ‘ their true perfectione and | 
 glory ’ ; for after long years of neglect and misinterpretations, j 
 we of to-day are fortunate enough to have the old poet’s verses \ 
 as he wrote them, and to be able to read them for ourselves, 
 even without a knowledge of 4 the black letter ’ ; and we can 
 picture Chaucer himself smiling on us benignly as he says, 
 
 Be glad, thou reder, and thy sorwe of-caste, 
 
 A1 open am I ; passe in and hy the faste ! 
 
§ 2. Classification of Chaucer references. lxxiii 
 
 § 2. Examination and classification of the various 
 types of Chaucer references. 
 
 The allusions to Chaucer, from his death up to 1800, fall for 
 the most part fairly easily into certain definite types, which it 
 may be useful very briefly to summarize. 
 
 (1) A dedicatory notice to Chaucer of some one of the 
 following kinds : — 
 
 (a) The acknowledgment of indebtedness to Chaucer as first 
 
 and greatest of English poets. 
 
 This is the earliest and most common for the first 150 years 
 after his death. It is specially found among Chaucer’s con- 
 temporaries and immediate successors, and among poets of the 
 ‘ Chaucerian school ’ both in England and Scotland. Lydgate 
 is the stock example of this sort of reference ; he writes at great 
 length on the subject, bewailing his own inferiority and the 
 irreparable loss he has sustained in the death of the master. 
 With Lydgate we must class Hoccleve (1412), and the references 
 by Scogan (c. 1407), Walton (1410), James I. (1423), Bokeman 
 (1443-7), Shirley (c. 1450), Ashby (c. 1470), Dunbar (1503), 
 Hawes (1503-4), and many others. Late examples are Gascoigne 
 (1576), Spenser (1579 and 1590-6), and Drayton (1627), which 
 latter acknowledges Chaucer as the earliest but no longer as 
 the greatest of English poets. 
 
 (b) A reference to Chaucer in company with Gower and 
 
 Lydgate . 
 
 These, with two or three exceptions, are formal from the 
 first and soon crystallize into a kind of stock phrase. Such are 
 Bokenam (1443-7), Unknown (c. 1450), Ashby (c. 1470), Un- 
 known (c. 1500), Douglas (1501), Hawes (1503-4), Feylde (1509), 
 Rastell (1520), Skelton (1523), Lindsay (1530), Forrest (c. 1545), 
 Harvey (1577), Lawson (1581), Meres (1598), Bodenham (1600), 
 and Freeman, who in 1614 is the last we have found mentioning 
 these three poets and these alone. 
 
 (c) A reference to Chaucer in company with other poets. 
 
 These are so very common that it is unnecessary to enumer- 
 ate them. The earliest here is that by Bradshaw (1513). who 
 
lxxiv § 2. Various Types of Chaucer references. 
 
 classes Chaucer with Lydgate, Barkley and Skelton; while in 
 some verses in 1561 he is classed with Homer, Virgil and Ovid. 
 Churchyard (1568) puts him with ‘ Peers Plowman, Surrey and 
 Lord Vaus,’ and with Sir Thomas More, Surrey, Sidney, and 
 later Spenser, Drayton, Shakespeare and Jonson he is often 
 bracketed, while, in the eighteenth century Milton, Cowley 
 and Dry den are added. 
 
 (d) An apostrophe by a poet or writer expressing the desire to 
 have the genius or ‘ muse ’ of Chaucer , or to call up his 
 spirit ; or an assertion that Chaucer's soul is revived in 
 the later writer. 
 
 This is not to be found among the very early references, 
 for the respect and veneration of the poet’s first admirers were 
 so great that none of them would have dared even to suggest 
 or hope that a portion of his power might descend to them. 
 Lydgate compares himself deprecatingly with his master, but 
 never dreams of aspiring to his 4 muse,’ so great is the distance 
 between them ; compare also the humility of the last stanza of 
 George Ashby’s Active policy of a Prince (c. 1470) below. It is in 
 the Elizabethan age, when Chaucer was still much admired, but 
 not so deeply venerated, that we first find this class of allusion, 
 and it is practically non-existent after 1650. Such are Stani- 
 hurst (1582), Churchyard (1587), Spenser (1590-6), Harvey 
 (1592), Davies (1594), Haxby (1636), E. G. (1646), while Milton’s 
 well-known reference in II Penseroso (1632), is of this nature. 
 
 (2) A quotation from Chaucer’s works (or what were taken 
 to be his works), or a reference to one of his characters, or to 
 incidents in his poems : — 
 
 (a) As a matter of literary interest. 
 
 (b) To enforce some moral point , taking Chaucer either as 
 
 standing for morality or against it. 
 
 (c) As an authority or precedent for sundry things. 
 
 In the first subdivision (a) Lydgate leads the way, for he 
 quotes from Chaucer and refers to his stories continually. 1 
 There are a fair number in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, 
 
 1 .There a possibility that the earliest reference of this class is that to 
 Troilus in the (test hystoriale (a. 1400), but this is doubtful. 
 
§ 2. Chaucer quoted as a matter of literary interest. lxxv 
 
 but this class of reference is far more numerous in the first half 
 of the seventeenth century. Indeed, in the following references 
 there are close on twice as many of this nature between 1600-50 
 as there are during the whole of the eighteenth century. Men 
 like Camden, Selden, Burton, Ben Jonson, Strafford, Milton and 
 Joseph Hall, quote Chaucer (some of them repeatedly) in a way 
 which shows they know him well, whereas in the eighteenth 
 century not only is there no general writer (that is excepting 
 language and Chaucer specialists such as Morrell or Tyrwhitt, 
 or literary historians like Thomas Warton and Robert Henry), 
 who cites him with this familiar knowledge, but even when 
 referred to, he is misquoted by those who ought to know better. 
 
 Thus Addison quotes with approval as being Chaucer’s the 
 sixteenth- century poem The Remedy of Love (printed by Thynne), 
 and Horace Walpole in his first reference (1742) adds a note 
 which looks as if he did not know Chaucer’s Wife of Bath, 1 while 
 in a letter in 1789 he quotes two well-known lines in the Pro- 
 logue, as being Spenser’s. In a note below is given a list of 
 references up to 1800 where Chaucer is quoted as a matter of 
 literary interest. 2 
 
 1 Ten Brink (History of Eng. Lit., vol. ii, p. 126) possibly on the ground 
 of this allusion and the New Wife of Bath 1785, &c., suggests that the 
 name of ‘ Wife of Bath ’ had been a sort of proverb before Chaucer 
 immortalised it. 
 
 2 Gest hustoriale (a. 1400)? Lydgate (1400-30), Ed. 2nd Duke of York 
 
 (1406-13), Scogan (c. 1407), Hoccleve (1421), Unknown (1440 ?) Norton 
 (c. 1477), John de Irlandia (1490), Hawes (1506), Skelton (1507), Feylde 
 (1509), Margaret Roper (1535), Layton (1535), Unknown (^36), Wyatt 
 (a. 1542), Lyndsay (1548), Unknown (1549), Baldwin (1561), Calihi 1 
 (1565), Drant (1567), B. G. (1569), Gascoigne (1575), Kirke C 579) Howell 
 (1581), Feme (1586), Spenser (1590-6), Greene (1592), Nash (1592, 1599), 
 Peele (a. 1596), Breton (1597), Hall (1598), Spenser (1599), Stowe, Thynne 
 (1600), Unknown (c. 1600), Rowlands (1602), Scoloker (1604), Camden 
 (1605, 1616), Walkington (1607), Thynne (a. 1608), Wybarne (1609) 
 Beaumont (1610), ’ Atto8ihj.ovvt6(Pi\os (1611), Selden, William r. ( . ) 
 
 Peacham (1615), Fletcher (c. 1615), Burton (1621-52), B. Jonson (1625, 
 1629, 1632, a. 1637, 1641), Drayton (1627), Nash (1633), Cartwright (c. 
 1634), Fletcher (1634), Strafford (1635, 1637), Marmion (1641), Milton 
 (1641, a. 1674), Hall, Kynaston (1642), Cavendish (1645), A Parliament 
 Officer (1645-6), Selden (1646), Plume (1649), Cleveland (a. 1658), Jones 
 (1659), a Wood (1661-6), Gayton (1663), Whitelock (a. 1675), Coles (1676), 
 Aubrey (1683-4), Unknown (1696), Wanley (1701), Addison (1711), Pope 
 (1711, 1712, 1725), Johnson (1712), Gay (1715), Oldys (1725), Unknown 
 (1732), Walpole (1742, 1789), Carter (1753), Chatterton {a. 1770), Strutt 
 (1775-6), Rogers (1782), Unknown (1785), Ritson (1796). 
 
 I 
 
lxxvi § 2. 4 Troilus ’ the favourite poem up to 1750 . 
 
 (a) Poems and characters which are most popular and mos \ 
 frequently quoted. 
 
 An investigation of this point shows that up to 1700 Troilus 
 and Cressida is by far the most popular, the most generally 
 known and the most often quoted of Chaucer’s poems. If at| 
 any time during the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries it hadi 
 been proposed to translate Chaucer’s representative work into I 
 French, as has recently been done, Troilus, and not the Canter- 
 bury Tales, would assuredly have been chosen. It is the first 
 poem to be mentioned by a contemporary writer ; and if the 
 allusions by Gower (1376-9) and in the Gest hystoriale (a. 1400) 
 are to Chaucer’s poem, we have three very early references 
 to it by name. Unquestionably up to 1700 it is on the whole 
 looked upon as Chaucer’s representative and greatest poem ; 1 
 Henryson (1475) wrote a sequel to it, Berthelet (1532) refers to 
 it as Chaucer’s 4 moste speciall warke,’ it is obviously the poem 
 Sidney knew best, and he singles it out as Chaucer’s master- 
 piece, it gave its name to the form of verse in which it is written, 
 so that as we now speak of the £ Spenserian stanza,’ the Eliza- ; 
 bethan critics wrote of 4 Troilus verse,’ 2 and in the Returnefrom 
 Parnassus (1597) where Chaucer and Skakespeare are parodied ' 
 and imitated, it is the Troilus and Venus and Adonis which are 
 chosen for the purpose, as being probably the best-known work ; 
 of each writer. In Chapman’s ( ? ) Sir Gyles Goosecappe (1606) ' 
 we find direct imitation of the first three books of the poem, a 
 little later (c. 1630) it is being modernized by an admirer, the 
 first of Chaucer s poems to be subjected to this process, and in 
 1634 another enthusiast turns it into Latin verse, presumably 5 
 because he considered it the poem of Chaucer’s best worth ' 
 preserving. 
 
 Up to 1 7 00 the number of references to Troilus are more than J 
 double those made to the Canterbury Tales (as a whole), and 
 they are over three times as many as those to the General 
 Prologue. This marked preference for the love poem may be 
 
 1 See Feylde (1509), Hawes (1516), Lyndsay (1548), Gascoigne (1575). 
 
 2 See James VI (1584), below. 6 v ' 
 
§ 2. After 1750, the ‘ Canterbury Tales ' come first, lxxvii 
 
 compared with the numerous references to Shakespeare’s 
 Venus and Adonis up to 1650. When we remember that the 
 plays had the advantage of being known to the non-reading 
 public, it is significant to find that with the exception of Hamlet 
 and Henry IV there are, up to 1650, more allusions to the Venus 
 and Adonis than to any other single work of Shakespeare’s. * 1 
 The preference for Troilus in the earlier centuries is not to be 
 wondered at, the wonder rather is that during the last hundred 
 and fifty years it has dropped so much out of the knowledge of 
 the general reader. For it is the first great tragic novel, 2 rich 
 in variety of character, and throbbing with humanity and 
 passion, it stands out from among all the other poems of its 
 author in dignity and beauty, and it brings out the strength of 
 Chaucer’s imagination more than even the dramatic monologues 
 of the Wife of Bath and the Pardoner. 
 
 This priority of reference as regards Troilus continues up to 
 1750, although during the latter fifty years the allusions are 
 more perfunctory and show little direct knowledge (which is 
 the case as regards all Chaucer’s work), but there is at the same 
 time an increase in the references to the General Prologue and 
 the separate Tales, owing chiefly to Dryden, who gave a great 
 ‘ lift ’ to the Canterbury Tales by devoting, as he did, practically 
 all his criticism and eulogy to them, and only mentioning 
 Troilus in passing as an amplified translation. After 1750, 
 however, a marked change is shown, and from that time on 
 the Canterbury Tales easily come first, while Troilus sinks to 
 the fifth place. This must be largely owing to the fact that 
 Troilus was not modernized, and that Chaucer himself in the 
 original was not read. Still there is no question that from 1750 
 onwards, aided naturally much by Tyrwhitt’s edition, the 
 
 *• 
 
 1 As computed by Mr. Munro (editor of the Shakespere Allusion- Book , 
 1909), Hamlet (the most popular of the plays) is alluded to 58 times, the 
 much-loved Falstaff 32 times, and the play of Henry IV 38 times; as 
 compared with 44 references to the Venus and Adonis. During the same 
 years we find 2 references to As You Like It, 6 to Henry V, 5 to Lear, and 
 4 to Antony and Cleopatra and Twelfth Night respectively. See ibid. 
 vol. ii, pp. 540-1. 
 
 2 See W. P. Ker in the Quarterly Review , April 1895, below. 
 
lxxvili § 2. Change in the 'popularity of ‘ Nun’s Priest’s Tale.’ | 
 
 Canterbury Tales became the most popular and the recognized 
 representative work of Chaucer, completely putting all the! 
 others in the shade. 
 
 As regards the separate Tales, only one shows any marked 
 change m favour, and this is the Nun’s Priest’s. Up to 1 700, and ! 
 more especially in the seventeenth century, it was very popular, 
 being quoted nearly as often as the General Prologue the 
 Knight’s Tale and the Wife of Bath’s Prologue, while between | 
 1700 and 1800 we find only four references to it, and two of j 
 these belittle it. Dr. Johnson (1779) remarks that it was not ! 
 worth revival by Dryden, while an annotator of Dryden’s j 
 Fables (c. 1785 ?) scratches it all out, saying that it is so foolish, | 
 if not worse, that it adds little to Chaucer’s reputation that he I 
 was the author of it (below, p. 481). 
 
 In the estimation of the proportionate number of references 
 given in the tables below, there are included only references or 
 quotations which are made as a matter of literary interest, or 
 to illustrate a point, or where a poem is specially picked out 
 
 for praise or blame. Hence the following are not counted : j 
 
 Prologues, epilogues or headlines to Chaucer’s works, such as 
 those by Shirley and Caxton, lists of Chaucer’s works, as given 
 by Leland, Bale or Hearne, or a detailed account of the whole J 
 of Chaucer’s work, such as Francis Thynne’s Animadversions ! j 
 (1598) or Dryden s preface; and, in the eighteenth century, j 
 general literary criticism or histories of literature, such as that ! 
 by Hearne, the Wartons, Tyrwhitt, etc., where every poem is 
 mentioned many times, or notes to Shakespeare’s plays, as 
 this latter would give an undue proportion to Troilus and 
 Cressida and the Knight’s Tale. The numerous references to ;; 
 spurious poems are naturally omitted, as also are quotations 
 which are so incorrect as to make it doubtful from what poem 
 they are taken. 
 
§ 2. Table of the relative popularity of Chaucer's Poems, lxxix 
 
 TABLE OF THE RELATIVE POPULARITY OF CHAUCER’S 
 POEMS AT DIFFERENT TIMES. 
 
 , . . Approximate 
 
 W No. of refs. 
 
 Order up to 1700. 
 
 Approximate 
 No. of refs. 
 
 Troilus .... 
 
 115 
 
 Cant. Tales (as a 
 
 
 whole) 
 
 53 
 
 General Prol. C. T. 
 
 33 
 
 Nonne Preestes T. . 
 
 26 
 
 Knight’s T. . 
 
 23 
 
 W. of Bath’s Prol. . 
 
 20 
 
 H. of Fame . . . 
 
 18 
 
 Clerke’s T. . 
 
 17 
 
 Sir Thopas . 
 
 16 
 
 Marchant’s T. \ 
 
 15 
 
 W. of Bath’s T.J * 
 
 
 Squieres T. . 1 
 
 
 Rom. of Rose j- 
 
 13 
 
 Legend . . J 
 
 
 Pardoneres T. . 
 
 12 
 
 Astrolabe 
 
 8 
 
 (ii) 
 
 
 Order up to 1750. 
 
 Troilus . . . . 
 
 124 
 
 Cant. Tales . 
 
 59 
 
 Genl. Prol. C. T. . 
 
 42 
 
 Knight’s T. 
 
 29 
 
 Nonne Preestes T. . 
 
 26 
 
 W. of Bath’s Prol. . 
 
 25 
 
 House of Fame 
 
 24 
 
 Clerke’s T. . 
 
 18 
 
 Marchant’s T.l 
 
 
 Rom. of Rose j- . 
 
 17 
 
 Sir Thopas . J 
 
 
 Squieres T. . 
 
 13 
 
 Pardoneres T. . 
 
 12 
 
 Astrolabe 
 
 8 
 
 (hi) 
 
 
 Order from 1750 to 1800. 
 
 Cant. Tales ... 19 
 
 General Prol. C. T. 11 
 
 Knight’s T. 10 
 
 Squieres T. . 8 
 
 W. of Bath’s Prol A 
 Troilus h 5 
 
 House of Fame J 
 Sir Thopas . 1 ^ 
 
 Nonne Preestes T.J 
 Pardoneres T. \ ^ 
 
 Rom. of RoseJ 
 
 (iv) 
 
 Order from 1700 to 1800 
 
 Cant. Tales ... 24 
 
 General Prol. C. T. 17 
 
 Knight’s T. . 16 
 
 Troilus .... 13 
 
 H. of Fame ... 11 
 
 W. of Bath’s Prol. . 10 
 
 Squieres T. . 8 
 
 Rom. of Rose . . 6 
 
 Sir Thopas . . \ ^ 
 
 Nonne Preestes T. J 
 Pardoneres T. . 2 
 
 (v) 
 
 Order from the beginning 
 up to 1800. 
 
 Troilus . . . . 129 
 
 Cant. Tales ... 78 
 
 Genl. Prol. C. T. . 50 
 
 Knight’s T. . 39 
 
 W. of Bath’s Prol. 1 o 0 
 Nonne Preestes T. / 
 
 House of Fame . 29 
 
 Sir Thopas \ . . 94 
 
 Squieres T.J 
 
 Clerkes T. . 20 
 
 Rom. of Rose . . 19 
 
 Marchantes T. . . 18 
 
 Pardoneres T. . . 14 
 
 Astrolabe ... 9 
 
 (b) Chaucer quoted to enforce some moral point, in which he 
 is ranged either on the side of morality or against it. 
 
 This type of reference becomes, as we have seen (see above, 
 pp. xix-xxi), very common about the middle to the end of the 
 
lxxx § 2. Chaucer quoted as an authority or precedent. 
 
 sixteenth century. Thus Sir John Elyot points out what i 
 discord there is between Troilus and the New Testament (1533)| 
 while Ascham (1544), John Northbrooke (1577) and Bisho]i 
 Babington (1583) quote the Pardoner es Tale in condemnation or 
 gaming and card-playing. Becke, Cranmer and Latimer refeij 
 to ‘ Canterbury tales ’ as light and trifling reading upon which 
 people waste much time, while, on the other hand, Foxe main- 
 tains that Chaucer’s works have been the means of bringing 
 many to the true knowledge of religion. Some writers, like! 
 Sir John Harrington, condemn Chaucer for ‘ flat scurrilitie, i 
 whilst others not only emphasise the value of his satire against! 
 Rome (see Foxe, Scot and Harsnet), but even maintain, as does! 
 Prynne (1633), who surely cannot have read the poet very 
 exhaustively, that his subjects are all 4 serious, sacred and 
 divine.’ 
 
 Later, at the end of the seventeenth century, Milton and) 
 Aubrey both quote Chaucer with approval as to methods of 
 education. 
 
 (c) As an authority or precedent for sundry things. 
 
 For instance John Bossewell, in his 1 Vorlces of Armorie y \ 
 (1572), quotes Chaucer as authority for a definition of generosity, 1 
 for an allusion to gentle birth, for the name of the inventor of 
 the game of chess, and the preciousness of the daisy; in the! 
 Returne from Parnassus (1597) he is quoted for his ‘ vayn’ ! 
 i.e. style; Hakluyt (1598) quotes him as authority for the I 
 voyages and exploits of our nobles and Knights in the fourteenth 
 century ; Milton (1641) cites him as a precedent for mis-spelling j 
 foreign names ; Hawkins (1776) and Burney (1782) for evidence 1 
 as to the musical instruments and love of music in his time, and 
 many later writers (e. g. Robert Henry 1781, Strutt 1799) for 
 light thrown on contemporary customs, dress and habits. 
 
 (3) Biographies, or short references to the Poet’s life. 
 
 These are examined under § 4. 
 
 (4) Notices of Chaucer in connection with language and 
 style. 
 
 These must be noted under a separate heading, although 
 
§ 2. Notices of Chaucer in connection with language, lxxxi 
 
 they do not, as a rule, stand alone ; that is (with the exception 
 of (e)) they more generally occur in the course of a life or account 
 
 of the poet. 
 
 They are mainly of the following kinds : — 
 
 (a) Those which state that he refined and improved the language. 
 
 (b) Those which assert he corrupted it. 
 
 (c) Those which say he is difficult to understand and obsolete, 
 
 and that his versification is rough and irregular. 
 
 (d) Those which refute this, or try to excuse it. 
 
 (e) Remarks, prefaces or verses in connection with translations 
 
 and modernizations of Chaucer. 
 
 (a) As Tyrwhitt points out in his introductory essay (1775, 
 below) the language of Chaucer has undergone two entirely 
 opposite judgments : (a) and (b) above. His earlier admirers, 
 Lydgate (‘ the ffyrste in any age that amended our language,’) 
 Hoccleve (‘ the firste fyndere of our faire language,’) Caxton, 
 Skelton, the Scotch poets, Sir Brian Tuke, and others at 
 intervals up to Spenser (1590-6), who has immortalized him as 
 * well of Englishe undefyled,’ all agree that he first showed of 
 what English was capable, and in the matter of style set up a 
 high standard for his followers and imitators. 
 
 An interesting early example of this view is in the jilted 
 lovers’ reply to the scorn or 4 flyting ’ letter of his mistress 
 (MS. Bodl. Bawl. poet. 36, c. 1470), where he says satirically : — 
 
 To me ye haue sent a letter of derision 
 Werfore I thanke you as I fynde cause, 
 
 The ynglysch of Chaucere was nat in youre mynd, 
 
 Ne tullyus termys wyth so gret elloquence, 
 
 But ye as vncurtes and crabbed of leynde 
 Boiled hem on a hepe it semyth by the sentens. 
 
 A little later, however, to this view is added the assertion or 
 implication, that Chaucer definitely and deliberately set himself 
 the task of refining and polishing our language. Indeed some 
 writers would make out that to accomplish this was his dearest 
 wish, and that he expressed himself in verse merely as a means 
 :o this end, to which he devoted himself with untiring patience. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM,, f 
 
lxxxii § 2. Critics who state that Chaucer 4 refined ’ the language, j 
 
 Leland, in his mythical account of the poet, as retold by 
 Bale (published 1619), first fully emphasizes this point of view. 
 
 Following in the footsteps of his master Gower, who took 
 4 wonderful pains to polish the English tongue,’ Leland tells us 
 that Chaucer had one distinct aim in his studies, which was to 
 render the English speech as polished as possible in all respects,’ 
 and he thought 4 that no stone should be left unturned by 
 himself in order to reach the farthest goal of success.’ To 
 this end he chose to express himself in poetry, because of the 
 scope it gives for ornaments of speech and grace of style, and 
 he also translated from French and Latin into English. 4 Nor 
 did he cease from his labours until he had carried our language 
 to that height of purity, of eloquence, of conciseness and 
 beauty, that it can justly be reckoned among the thoroughly 
 polished languages of the world.’ This is the point of view, 
 more or less exaggerated, which is repeated constantly by later 
 writers, from many of whom it would be assumed that the , 
 
 4 refining ’ of the English tongue was the one thing for which 
 Chaucer lived and worked. Speght (1598), for instance, savs 
 4 Chaucer had alwaies an earnest desire to enrich and beautifie i 
 our English tongue, which in those days was verie rude and 
 barren’; and the tenor of Rymer’s remarks (1692) is to the 1 
 effect that Chaucer found himself faced with the herculean task j 
 of remodelling the language, which he immediately and with ! 
 great energy set himself to do, the process of which described j 
 in detail resembles nothing so much as the recipe for making j 
 a pudding. 1 
 
 1 As late as 1879 we find Dr. Weisse (in Origin, progress and destiny J 
 of the English Language and Literature, New York, 1879), definitely J 
 stating that Chaucer, ‘ after rendering himself master of the situation ; 
 as to Anglo-Saxon, French and Latin, resolved to bring some order out 
 of this confusion,’ so he immediately and as it were by a stroke of the 
 pen, ‘ dropped the thirty-four senseless inflections of the Anglo-Saxon 
 definite article,’ replacing them by ‘ the,’ and introducing ‘ a ’ as an 
 indefinite article, he swept away all inflections of adjectives, largely 
 reduced the changes in the personal and possessive pronouns, reduced 
 twenty-three inflections of the demonstrative pronoun to two, dropped 
 all inflections in nouns, substituting the particles ‘ of,’ ‘ from,’ etc., to 
 denote the various cases, and adopted the French rule of forming the 
 plural of nouns by adding an ‘s’ to the singular. This was a fair 
 achievement for one man single-handed to accomplish. 
 
§ 2. Those who assert that Chaucer corrupted the language, lxxxiii 
 
 (b) Next we come to the opposite statement, that Chaucer 
 corrupted the language. 
 
 The writer who appeared definitely to start this view 
 (although it was indicated earlier, see e. g. Chapman 1598) was 
 Richard Yerstegan (or Rowlands), the antiquary and old 
 English scholar. In his Restitution of Decayed Intelligence 
 (1605) he says that he does not agree with those who call 
 Chaucer the first illuminator of the English tongue, because 
 ‘ he was a great mingler of English with French, unto which 
 language by lyke, for that he was descended of French or rather 
 Wallon race, he caryed a great affection.’ 
 
 Yerstegan was looked upon as a great authority in anti- 
 quarian matters, and all through the seventeenth and eighteenth 
 centuries his remark is quoted with respect, and its truth 
 accepted as unquestioned, although there is a difference of 
 opinion as to whether introducing French terms was a corruption 
 of English or not. So, for instance, Tooke (1647), Fuller (1662), 
 and Rymer (1692) defend Chaucer against this accusation, 
 while Dr. Johnson (1755) points out that Gower uses the French 
 words of which Chaucer is charged as being the importer. But 
 more often it is assumed as true that the French words were a 
 corruption, and it is repeated with approval, as by Phillips 
 (1658), Lewis (1737), Oldvs (1738) and Percy (1765); or, as 
 in the case of Skinner, it is expanded and emphasized. In 
 the Latin preface to his Etymological Dictionary (1671) Skinner 
 writes : — 4 Chaucer having by the worst sort of example brought 
 in whole cart-loads of words into our speech from . . . France, 
 despoiled it, already too much adulterated by the victory of 
 the Normans, of almost all its native grace and elegance.’ This 
 kind of assertion in an authoritative work of reference naturally 
 increased the general belief in Chaucer’s wickedness in this 
 respect. 
 
 In addition to Chaucer having imported French words 
 wholesale into the language, it was for nearly a century 
 generally assumed that he had also borrowed largely from 
 the Proven 9 al; although this is generally held to be to his 
 credit rather than the reverse. Rymer seems to have started 
 
lxxxiv § 2. Assertion that Chaucer borrowed from the Provencal. 
 
 this belief in 1692, and Dryden quoted Bymer’s remark with 
 approval, which gave it general currency. In the sketches of ! 
 a history of English poetry drawn up by both Pope 1 and | 
 Gray 2 it is laid down that Chaucer imitated the Provencal | 
 writers, and Warburton and Warton both endorse this, the 
 latter stating that ‘ Chaucer formed a style by naturalizing I 
 words from the Provencial.’ 3 Tyrwhitt (1775) finally put | 
 an end to this theory by asserting that he could find no phrase I 
 or word in Chaucer which appeared to have been taken from 
 south of the Loire, and he even doubted whether Chaucer had 
 any acquaintance with the poets of Provence. 
 
 (c) and (d) have been dealt with fully in the earlier part 
 of this introduction. Of (c) — the assertion that Chaucer is 
 obsolete and his versification rough — the most noteworthy 
 early references are Ashton (1546), Wilson (1553), Puttenham 
 (1584), Co veil (1595), Marston (1598), Daniel (1599 and 1646), 
 Jonson (a. 1637), Waller (1668), Phillips (1675), Dryden (1679 j 
 and 1700), Howard (1689), Addison (1694), and Blount (1694). | 
 Later on, right up to the third quarter of the eighteenth < 
 century, this class of reference becomes increasingly common. ! 
 Of (d) the refutation of or excuse made for this assertion — J 
 we may note Skelton (a. 1508), Webbe (1586), Sidney (1595), j 
 Gascoigne (1575), Beaumont (1597), Speght (1602), Peacham 
 (1622), Cockayne (1658), and Brathwait (1665). 
 
 (e) Verses and prose writing in connection with translations j 
 and modernizations are fairly well marked and easy to find, J 
 beginning with the preface and verses before Kynaston’s Latin | 
 translation (1634); after the publication of Dryden’s Fables \ 
 there are a great number (see the years 1700, 1706, 1707); I 
 and again after Pope’s and the many other modernizations all 1 
 through the eighteenth century. 
 
 (5) References to a ‘ Canterbury Tale,’ meaning a fictitious 
 and utterly improbable tale, or a scurrilous story. 
 
 1 Ruffhead’s Life of Pope, 1769, pp. 424-5; see also p. 377 below. 
 
 2 Letter to Warton, April 15, 1770, see p. 436 below. 
 
 3 History of English Poetry, by Thomas Warton, 1774, vol. i, p. 344. 
 
lxxxv 
 
 § 2. References to a 4 Canterbury Tale' 
 
 The earliest references we have found of this description 
 are those in the year 1547, when Latimer, Cranmer and Becke 
 all allude to 4 Canterbury Tales ’ in the sense either of profane 
 histories or 4 fables or trifles.’ 
 
 We do not meet it again (though doubtless it was an 
 ordinary expression, and there are many examples of it) until 
 1575, when Turberville uses it, and at the same time explains 
 exactly what he means by it, viz. ; 4 a verie olde woman’s 
 fable,’ and in the same year Wharton speaks of 4 olde babies, 
 or stale tales of Chaucer.’ 
 
 The expression then becomes fairly common, and we find 
 it under Proctor (1578), Fulke (1579), Lyly (1580), who alter- 
 nates it with 4 an iEsop’s Fable,’ Stanihurst (1582), Dekker 
 (1605), who in 1625 uses a 4 Kentish Tale ’ in the same sense, 
 Chapman (?) (1606), Wither (1621), Unknown (1630), and in 
 A Fraction in the Assembly (1648) the same meaning is implied, 
 though the actual expression is not used. The Elizabethan 
 meaning evidently took root in America, for Dean Stanley, 
 writing in 1855 (see below), says that Americans have been 
 accustomed from their earliest years to hear a marvellous 
 story followed by the exclamation, 44 What a Canterbury ! ” 
 It was still in use in England in the eighteenth century, mean- 
 ing a long-winded tale, for Steele (1709) twice uses it in this 
 connection; also unknown writers in 1737, 1753 and 1795, 
 the last in the sense of a 4 cock and bull ’ story. 
 
 (6) References relating to Westminster and Chaucer’s Tomb. 
 
 These are to be found in three connections; of which (a) 
 and (b) are very common. 
 
 (a) In speaking of poets or others buried near Chaucer , as 
 
 for instance, Spenser, Drayton, Cowley, Dryden, 
 
 Robert Hall (see below Vallans, 1615). 
 
 (b) In any general account of the tombs at Westminster. 
 
 (c) In connection with the curious custom of using Chaucer's 
 
 tomb as a meeting place for the payment of money. 
 
 See below 1566, 1585 and 1596, Order by the Court of 
 
lxxxvi § 2. Chaucerian Titles of Books or Plays. 
 
 Requests to pay money at Chaucer’s tomb, and c. 1833, Hasle- 
 wood. 
 
 (7) Titles of pamphlets or books or plays taken from or 
 connected with Chaucer, such as : — 
 
 1566. Palamon and Arcite (a play, now lost), by Richard j 
 Edwards. 
 
 1590. The Cobler of Canterburie. 
 
 1597. The Northern Mothers Blessing. The way of Thrift, 
 written nine years before the death of G. Chaucer. 
 By S. J. 
 
 1603. The Pleasant Comodie of Patient Grissil, by Thomas 
 Dekker. 
 
 1617. Chaucer’s incensed Ghost (a poem), by Richard 
 Brathwait. 
 
 1623. Chaucer new painted, by William Painter. 
 
 1630. The Tincker of Turvey [running title is 4 Canter- 
 burie Tales ’]. 
 
 1641. A Canterbury Tale, Translated out of Chaucer’s 
 old English Into our now vsuall Language. ... 
 by Alexander Brome. 
 
 1672. Chaucer’s Ghoast, Or a Piece of Antiquity. 
 
 1700 and 1778. The New Wife of Beath (a poem). 
 
 1701. Chaucer’s Whims. 
 
 1709. The Court of Love. A Tale from Chaucer [a poem], 
 by Arthur Maynwaring. 
 
 1/11. The Temple of Fame: A Vision, by Alexander 
 Pope. 
 
 1712. Parliament of Birds. 
 
 1713. The Wife of Bath, a comedy, by John Gay. 
 
 1716. Brown Bread and Honour, A Tale moderniz’d from 
 
 an Ancient Manuscript of Chaucer. 
 
 1717. The Court of Love. A Vision from Chaucer (a 
 
 poem), by Alexander S. Catcott. 
 
 1717. A Tale Devised in the plesaunt manere of gentil 
 Maister Jeoffrey Chaucer, by Elijah Fenton. 
 
 1727. A Tale of Chaucer. Lately found in an old Manu- 
 script, by Alexander Pope. 
 
 
§ 2. Chaucer's Works mentioned in Wills and Catalogues, lxxxvii 
 
 1747. Hereafter in English Metre ensueth a Paraphrase on 
 the Holie Book entitled Leviticus, Chap, xi, vers. 
 13, etc. Fashioned after the Maniere of Maister 
 Geoffery Chaucer in his Assemblie of Foules (a 
 poem), by Thomas Warton. 
 a. 1758. A Fragment of Chaucer, by J. H., Esq. 
 
 1797 _ 8 . Canterbury Tales, by Harriet and Sophia Lee. 
 1802. Canterbury Tales, by Nathan Drake. 
 
 (8) Notes to hooks. 
 
 Such for instance, as to works of Spenser, Shakespeare, ■ 
 Dryden, or the Scottish poets; or illustrative passages in 
 dictionaries, grammars, etc. 
 
 (9) A vision of poets, in which Chaucer appears. 
 
 There are a fair number of these, both in prose and verse, 
 such as Douglas (1501), Skelton (1523), Bullein (1564), Greene s 
 Vision (1592), Foulface (1593), Dekker (1607), Webster (1624), 
 Holland (1656), Unknown (1656), Unknown (c. 1669), Phillips 
 (1673), Unknown (1700), Brown (a. 1704), Croxall (1715) 
 Unknown (1730 and 1738), Clarke (c. 1740), Mason (1747), 
 Warton (1749), Lloyd (1751), Craven (1778), Hayley (1782). 
 
 (10) Prefatory matter in verse and prose, prologues to plays, 
 epigrams and epitaphs. 
 
 (11) References to Chaucer’s Works in Wills, and in 
 catalogues of libraries or sales. 
 
 These are interesting, and throw incidentally some light 
 on how much Chaucer was read and valued at certain times. 
 The earliest bequest of any of his works to be found m a will 
 is in that of John Brinchele, 1420, who leaves to John Broune 
 the book in English called Boecius de Consolacione Philosophic, 
 and to William Holgrave one of his executors, 6 s. 8 d., his best 
 bow, and his book called the Tales of Canterbury. 
 
 In 1450 Sir Thomas Cumberworth leaves to his niece Anne 
 his ‘ boke of the talys of Cantyrbury ’ and in 1471 Dame Eliza- 
 
Ixxxviii § 2. Textual Comments and MS. additions. 
 
 beth Brune bequeaths to one fortunate legatee her copy of! 
 the Canterbury Tales, together with a gilt cup, a sparver (balda- 1 
 
 chin) of silk, a diall of gold, two horses in her stable, and one I 
 double harp. 
 
 In 1509 the Countess of Richmond details among her 
 legacies ‘ a booke of velom of Canterbury Tales in Englische,’ j 
 and m 1568 Henry Payne leaves, in one bequest, his Chaucer ] 
 
 written in vellum and illumyned in gold ’ together with his I 
 best gelding. 
 
 The earliest library catalogue among the following refer- 
 ences, in which a work of Chaucer’s appears, is John Paston’s 
 (c. 1482), in which a ‘ Boke of Troylus ’ is entered as having 
 been lent to a friend and apparently not returned. 
 
 Among other early private library catalogues in which ! 
 Chaucer’s works are mentioned is that of William Cavendish 
 1540; of Sir William More, 1556; of Henry Fairfax, a. 1665* i 
 and of Prince Rupert, 1677. 
 
 (12) Textual Comments on Chaucer. 
 
 These often take the form of copying out portions of his ! 
 works and annotating them. Among the most interesting of 
 these are Walter Stevin’s emendations to Chaucer’s Astrolabe • 
 (c. 1555), Gabriel Harvey’s notes on Chaucer’s learning and j 
 nature descriptions (c. 1585), Bryan Twyne’s extracts (1608- i 
 44), Samuel Butler’s use of Chaucer’s characters to illustrate :! 
 his points (c. 1667), Elias Ashmole’s marginal notes in his 
 Chaucer MS. (a. 1692); while Brathwait’s Comments in 1665 j 
 are a printed example of the same kind of exercise. 
 
 .* 
 
 1 
 
 (13) MS. additions to Chaucer’s text in the MS. copies. 
 
 These are generally merely headings or end lines to the 
 poems, they are nearly all early, and a great number will be 
 found from about 1420-1500, practically all by unknown 
 scribes, except in the case of John Shirley, who contributes a 
 good many (principally placed c. 1445-50), of which the most 
 important are his metrical prologue to Boethius and his prose 
 introduction to the Knight’s Tale (a. 1456). 
 
§ 2. References of peculiar interest. lxxxix 
 
 (14) References in connection with certain places and 
 
 certain people. 
 
 These are to be found in histories, guide books, etc., in 
 connection with places like Woodstock or Oxfordshire, and 
 people such as Wicklif and John of Gaunt. 
 
 (15) Bibliographical references. 
 
 These are comparatively rare until we come to the nine- 
 teenth century, but among earlier ones may be noted part of 
 Thynne’s Animadversions 1598, some of Stow’s notes 1600, 
 the letters of Hearne and Bagford 1708-9, the diaries of Hearne 
 1709-15, and the Typographical Antiquities by Ames and 
 Herbert 1749 and 1785. 
 
 (16) References that stand alone, because of some peculiar 
 
 interest. 
 
 These often come under one or other of the above headings, 
 but they deserve to be picked out because of some special 
 light they throw on Chaucer’s reputation. Such, for instance, 
 is the statute of 1542-3 for the abolishing of forbidden books, 
 Chaucer’s being among those excepted; or Wilson’s remark 
 in his Arte of Rhetorique (1553), that ‘ the fine Courtier will 
 talke nothing but Chaucer.’ John Earle’s interesting remark 
 in 1628, the letter of the Parliament Officer in 1645-6, Brath- 
 wait’s ‘ Comments ’ (1665), Addison’s criticism (1694), the 
 references by Pepys (1663-4), Gay’s comedy (1713), Mr. Brome’s 
 letter (1733), and others, are referred to in the earlier part of 
 this introduction. The references by Miss Carter (1774), Miss 
 Seward (1792), Miss Mitford (1815), and Byron (1807), also 
 deserve special notice. 
 
 (17) References that are really literary criticism. 
 
 By this is meant references that are not merely textual 
 annotations or general repetition of common opinion (such 
 as Sir T. Pope Blount 1694, Giles Jacob 1720, John Dart 
 1721, John Entick 1736, William Thompson 1745, Biographica 
 Britannica 1747, or Theophilus Cibber 1753), but original 
 criticism, showing first-hand knowledge, and contributing 
 something fresh to the body of critical work on Chaucer. 
 Of these we will merely give a list (up to 1800), as this question 
 as already been dealt with. 
 

 XC § 2. References of real critical worth. 
 
 
 1400-30 
 
 John Lydgate. 
 
 
 1412 
 
 Thomas Hoccleve. 
 
 
 1475 
 
 Bobert Henryson. 
 
 
 a. 1477 
 
 Book of Curtesye , 
 
 Early appreciation by 
 
 
 stanza 49. 
 
 English and Scottish 
 
 ( c. 1483 
 
 William Caxton. 
 
 writers. 
 
 1501 and 
 1513 
 
 | Gavin Douglas. 
 
 
 1503 
 
 William Dunbar. 
 
 
 1507 
 
 John Skelton. 
 
 
 1532 
 
 Sir Brian Tuke. 
 
 
 1544, 1552,\-p . , 
 
 1563-8 } R0ger Ascham ' 
 
 
 1553 
 
 Thomas Wilson. 
 
 Elizabethan criticism, 
 
 1555 
 
 Robert Braham. 
 
 which, with the excep- 
 tion of Spenser, Beau- 
 
 1575 
 
 1579, 1 
 
 1590-6 J 
 
 George Gascoigne. 
 
 mont and Speght, con-( 
 sists chiefly of investi- 
 
 Edmund Spenser. 
 
 gation of metre and 
 
 1581 
 
 Sir Philip Sidney. 
 
 language. 
 
 1584-8 
 
 George Puttenham. 
 
 
 1586 
 
 William Webbe. 
 
 
 1597 
 
 Francis Beaumont. 
 
 
 1602 
 
 Thomas Speght. 
 
 17th-century criticism. , 
 
 / 1622 
 
 1 
 
 Henry Peacham. 
 
 With the very great 
 
 
 J \ 
 \ 
 
 exception of Dryden, 
 
 
 \ 
 
 who writes the first 
 
 1665 
 
 Richard Brathwait. 
 
 literary criticism in the 
 modern sense of the 
 
 
 3 
 
 term, there is otherwise 
 little of original worthy 
 
 1675 
 
 Edward Phillips. 
 
 for Brathwait, whose 
 ‘ Comment ’ was written 
 
 
 
 in 1617 (see p. xxxvi 
 above), is really a sur- 
 
 1692 
 
 Thomas Rymer. 
 
 vival from the Eliza- 
 bethans. 
 
 1700 
 
 John Dryden. 
 
8 2. Chaucer is not included in Poetical ‘ Selections , 
 
 xci 
 
 Eighteenth-century criti-^ 
 cism. 
 
 1720 
 
 George Sewell. 
 
 1728-30 
 
 Alexander Pope. 
 
 1737 
 
 Thomas Morell. 
 
 1737 
 
 Elizabeth Cooper. 
 
 1739 
 
 George Ogle. 
 
 1751 
 
 John Upton. 
 
 1754, 1762, 
 
 | Thomas Warton. 
 
 1774 
 
 1755 
 
 Samuel Johnson (very 
 little). 
 
 1760-1 
 
 Thomas Gray. 
 
 1762 
 
 Richard Hurd. 
 
 1775 
 
 Thomas Tyrwhitt. 
 
 The above seventeen types will be found roughly to account 
 for all the references up to 1800. Allusions in letters are not 
 separately classed, because they are of so many various kinds, 
 bibliographical (as Hearne and Bagford), a quotation as a 
 matter of literary interest (as Margaret Roper (1535) or Horace 
 Walpole (1789)), or critical. Records of Chaucer in his life- 
 time also are not separately specified, as they all fall between 
 1357-99, and therefore are very easily found. 
 
 There is one class of reference that one would have expected 
 to be fairly common, and that is the inclusion of passages from 
 Chaucer in books of poetical selections or extracts. Such, 
 however, is not the case, for upon examination of these up to 
 1800, there seems, with one exception, to have been a curious 
 shyness about including Chaucer in any of them. The single 
 exception is, however, rather interesting. Tottell s Songes and 
 Sonnettes, published in 1557, is the first poetical miscellany in 
 English, 1 and among the poems by ‘Uncertain Authours’ is 
 included Chaucer’s ‘ Truth ’ (‘ Flee fro the prees ’). The editor 
 of Tottell heads it ‘ To leade a vertuous and honest life,’ and 
 prints it with some curious variations from the usual text. 
 
 
 Though this title ought, strictly speaking, to be given to Thynne s 
 edition of ‘ Chaucer 1 in 1532, q. v. below, p. 78. 
 
xcii § 2. Apologies for the non-inclusion of Chaucer. 
 
 In the later collections, such as the Paradise of Dainty Devices 
 (1578), the Gorgeous Gallery of Gallant Inventions (1578), or 
 England's Helicon (1600), there was no question of including 
 any but practically contemporary poets. But John Boden- ! 
 ham, the editor of Belvedere (1600), seems to have had a desire !; 
 to include extracts from Chaucer and the older poets, which j 
 was not carried out. Belvedere is a collection of single ten- lj 
 syllable lines or couplets from a number of poets arranged 
 under various subject headings, such as Life, Death, Hope. 
 Learning, etc., a method very popular later on, especially in 
 the eighteenth century. The reasons for the non-inclusion 
 of Chaucer, Gower and Lydgate were apparently two; first, 
 because of the irregularity of their verse, ‘ it was not knowne 
 how their forme would agree with these of ten syllables only,’ 
 and secondly, because ‘ the Gentleman who was the cause of 
 this collection ’ absolutely refused to include them. Notwith- 
 standing this, Bodenham had hopes that in the next edition 
 (which never appeared) they might be added. 
 
 Naturally, in the seventeenth century, there would be no 
 question of including Chaucer in a poetical miscellany, and ! 
 therefore no excuse was needed for the omission, but in 1702 
 we find Edward Bysshe apologizing for the non-inclusion of ; 
 Chaucer and Spenser in his Art of English Poetry, which is a 
 collection of a similar nature to Bodenham’s, though not 
 limited to single or ten-syllable lines. The reason he gives 
 for the omission is that ‘ the garb in which they are cloath’d i 
 ... is now become so out of fashion, that the readers of our ] 
 age have no ear for them.’ 
 
 In another book of the same sort which he published twelve 
 years later ( The British Parnassus ; or, a compleat Common- ] 
 place- Book of English Poetry, 1714), which consists of fresh 
 extracts gathered from 83 instead of from 43 different poets, 
 as in the earlier collection, although there are long quotations 
 from Dry den’s modernizations of Chaucer, and some from 
 Pope’s, and Spenser is added to the list of poets, there are no 
 quotations from Chaucer in the original. 
 
 Charles Gildon, who in 1718 published the Complete Art of \ 
 
§ 3. Qualities attributed to Chaucer. xciii 
 
 Poetry, shows a great advance on Bysshe in the matter of 
 appreciation of the older poets, for he makes a point of quoting 
 much from both Spenser and Shakespeare (see his Preface), 
 but all his extracts from Chaucer are from Dryden’s versions. 
 
 Elizabeth Cooper (1737) is the first editor after Tottell 
 who includes an extract from Chaucer in the original in a 
 Poetical Miscellany, but her good example is not followed. 
 
 Although there was evidently at one time an intention to 
 include Chaucer among Dr. Johnson’s poets (see letter from 
 Edward Dilly to Boswell, 1777, below), this was not carried 
 out. In 1781 a book of extracts was published, stating m 
 the title that they were selected from ‘ Chaucer to Churchill, 
 but this must have been merely for the sake of alliteration, 
 for there are no Chaucer extracts in the book; and in 1787, 
 when Henry Headley published Select Beauties of Ancient 
 English Poetry, he deliberately omitted Chaucer, as well as 
 Shakespeare, Jonson and Milton, because, as he says, though 
 they are 4 familiar to us in conversation,’ they are nevertheless 
 ‘ not universally either read or understood. 
 
 § 3. Qualities attributed to Chaucer. 
 
 In examining the qualities ascribed to Chaucer as a poet, 
 one is struck by a rather curious fact which applies more 
 especially to the first three hundred and fifty years of criticism, 
 and this is that certain epithets have a distinct and well- 
 marked vogue ; during a definite time they are used repeatedly , 
 and evidently represent the leading characteristic of the poet 
 in the minds of his critics; they then completely fall out of 
 fashion, to be replaced by some other leading and quite 
 different quality. 
 
 Thus, for instance, to note in their chronological order the 
 most salient of these : — • 
 
 (1) Chaucer is golden tonged, eloquent, ‘ ornate ,’ for about 
 the first 150 years after his death (1400-1550). This view was 
 started by Lydgate, who again and again dwells on the rhetorical 
 powers of his master 4 the noble rethor Poete of breteine ’ who 
 
xciv § 3. Chaucer is eloquent , moral and learned. 
 
 ‘ made firste to distille and reyne the golde dewe droppis of 
 speeche and eloquence into our tounge.’ This quality is 
 emphasized by Walton (1410), Hoccleve (1412), ‘flour of ! 
 eloquence,’ James I (1423), ‘Shirley’ (c. 1450), the author of ! 
 the Book of Curtesye (a. 1477), Caxton (a. 1479 and c. 1483), ! 
 John de Irlandia (1490), Dunbar (1503), Hawes (1503-4),’ 
 Feylde (1509), Douglas (1513), Skelton (1523), Unknown (1525 j 
 and 1561), B. G. (1569). By the middle of the sixteenth j 
 century Chaucer s verse and language were becoming difficult I 
 to understand, so that he was no longer thought of as ‘ golden 
 tongued ; and this class of praise drops with such complete- 
 ness, that it is something of the nature of a shock to find as 
 late as 1602 and 1609 the expression ‘ golden pen ’ (1602, 
 Nixon, below, and 1609, Heale). The first one is accounted I 
 for when one finds that the Christian Navy is merely a reprint 
 (with title and a few words altered) of a poem published in 
 1569, which is itself, with these two last exceptions, the very 
 latest reference we have found to the ‘ golden eloquence ’of j 
 Chaucer. 
 
 When his most ardent admirer can no longer assert that 1 
 he has a flowing and melodious style, the quality which comes i 
 in to replace this is that — 
 
 (2) He is a moral poet. This is a view held by a certain 
 class of critic almost exclusively in the sixteenth century, 
 although there are isolated examples earlier and later. Lyd- i 
 gate, who ascribes most qualities to Chaucer except imagination J 
 and humour, of neither of which he was very well qualified to • 
 judge, notes that ‘ in vertu he set al his entent ydelnesse and j 
 vices for to flee ’ ; but the first definite allusion to Chaucer’s | 
 use of satire with a clear moral purpose is that made by Hawes j 
 in 1506; and he is followed by Foxe (1570), Lodge (1579), 
 Webbe (1586), and Prynne (1633). This quality is also implied 
 in many other references where sayings and stories of Chaucer’s 
 are quoted which condemn some particular sin. Such are 
 Ascham (1544), Northbrooke (1577), Babington (1583), Scot 
 (1584), and Harsnet (1603). 
 
 Side by side with this view, and often coupled with it, 
 
xcv 
 
 § 3. The learning of Chaucer is emphasized. 
 
 there goes another attribute which is very general, and peculiarly 
 Elizabethan. This is that 
 
 (3) He is a learned poet , prevalent from about 1530 to 1660. 
 Sir Brian Tuke first draws attention to it in his preface to 
 Thynne’s edition of the poet in 1532, but it is not till the third 
 quarter of the century that it becomes the favourite attribute. 
 O. B. in 1569 speaks of ‘learned Chaucer’; Foxe, in 1570, 
 couples Chaucer with Linacre and Pace in commendation of 
 his ‘studie and lernyng ’ ; Holinshed, in 1577, lays special 
 stress on his exquisite learning ‘ in all sciences ’ ; Spenser 
 (1579) prays that on him ‘ some little drops ’ might flow ‘ of 
 that spring was in his learned hedde,’ and Puttenham (1584-88) 
 singles out Chaucer to be commended above Gower, Lydgate 
 and Harding 4 for the much learning appeareth to be in him 
 above any of the rest.’ This view is strongly emphasized 
 by Gabriel Harvey in his curious and hitherto unpublished 
 MS. notes (c. 1585), where he says that Chaucer and Lydgate 
 were 4 much better learned than oure moderne poets,’ and 
 sums up his remarks on them in the following characteristic 
 sentence : 4 Other commend Ohawcer and Lidgate for their 
 witt, pleasant veine, varietie of poetical discourse, and all 
 humanitie. I specially note their Astronomie, philosophic , and 
 other parts of profound or cunning art. Wherein few of their 
 time were more exactly learned. It is not sufficient for poets 
 to be superficial humanists : but they must be exquisite 
 
 artists, and curious uniuersal schollers.’ Churchyard (1587) 
 speaks of Chaucer’s. 4 learned tales,’ the author of the Cobler 
 of Caunterburie (1590) praises his 4 conceited learning,’ the 
 first epithet used by Hakluyt (1598) is 4 learned, and Francis 
 Thynne (1598) refers to the love his father had for Chaucer’s 
 4 lernynge,’ Harsnet (1603) and Stowe (1603) allude to him as 
 a learned writer rather than as a poet, and it is significant 
 that Speght calls his edition of 1598, the 4 Workes of our 
 Antient and lerned English Poet.’ That Speght does this of 
 set purpose, is evident from his preface of 1602, where he 
 says that it would be a good piece of work for some industrious 
 scholar to look up and note all Chaucer’s classical authorities, 
 
XCV1 
 
 § 3. Chaucer is a jovial facetious poet. 
 
 ‘ which would,’ he adds, ‘ so grace this auncient Poet, that 
 whereas divers have thought him vnlearned, and his writings 
 meere trifles, it should appeare, that besides the knowledge of 
 sundne tongues, he was a man of great reading, and deep 
 judgement.’ 
 
 Selden also (1612) specially notes Chaucer’s learning and 
 wit, asking how many of the poet’s readers suspect his know- I 
 ledge ‘ transcending the common Rode ’ in his use, for instance, j 
 of ‘ Dulcarnon ’ in Troilus and Cressida. 
 
 Freeman (1614) again dwells on the same point, coupling I 
 Chaucer in this respect with Lydgate and Gower, who, he | 
 affirms, ‘ equal’d all the Sages of these, their owne, of former i 
 Ages.’ Webster (1624) classes Chaucer, Gower, Lydgate, More I 
 and Sidney together as ‘ five famous scholars and poets of ! 
 this our kingdom,’ and ‘five learn’d poets’; and ‘learned’ 
 is the adjective selected for Chaucer by Basse in his well- 
 known epitaph on Shakespeare (c. 1622). Other similar refer- j 
 ences are Unknown (1622), E. G. (1646), Leigh (1656), Howard I 
 (1689), Hatton (1708). 
 
 But on the whole (in the following extracts, with the sole j 
 exception of Robert Henry 1781), to the men of the later 
 seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries, Chaucer was no 
 longer a learned poet, and on the very rare occasions when 
 that adjective is used it is more in the sense of repeating a 
 commonplace which was at one time, but is no longer, generally j 
 believed; see, for instance, Grainger’s account in the Bio- | 
 graphical History of England , 1769, below. The quality to 
 which ‘ learned ’ gave place, and which may fairly be called 
 the dominant characteristic from about 1670 to 1760, is that— 1 
 
 (4) He is a jovial, facetious, merry poet. 
 
 These qualities of ‘merry’ or ‘jovial’ are applied to 
 Chaucer with two rather different meanings — 
 
 (а) really pleasant, lively, amusing; 
 
 (б) one who delights in a broad jest, and tells coarse stories. 
 
 The first meaning (with the exception of the discriminating 
 
 criticism in the Boke of Curtesy e 1477) is found mostly from 
 about 1570 to 1600, as in Robinson (1574) and Spenser (1579), 
 
§ 3. Change of meaning in the term £ Witty' xcvn 
 
 who both speak of Chaucer’s ‘ merry tales ’ ; Puttenham (1584) 
 speaks of his ‘ pleasant wit,’ Webbe (1586) of his £ delightsome 
 vayne,’ in which he wrote £ learnedly and pleasantly, un- 
 folding £ pleasant and delightsome matters of mirth ’ ; in the 
 Cobler of Caunterburie his wit and pleasantness are dwelt on, 
 and Beaumont (1597) says Chaucer is £ the verie life itself of 
 all mirth and pleasant writing.’ 
 
 We occasionally find the term £ witty ’ applied to Chaucer, 
 and his £ wit ’ is often alluded to. It is, however, difficult to 
 know exactly what was meant by £ wit ’ and £ witty, par- 
 ticularly at the end of the sixteenth and in the early seven- 
 teenth centuries. We know that £ wit,’ which originally meant 
 simply the intellect or understanding, first acquired its secondary 
 and more restricted meaning somewhere about this time, and 
 that a little later the adjective £ witty ’ passed from the 
 signification of £ skilful ’ or £ wise ’ to that of ingenious and quick 
 in a certain imaginative quality of seizing resemblances between 
 two apparently different things. Early in the seventeenth 
 century £ wit ’ appears often 1 as an equivalent for the Italian 
 £ ingegno,’ and indeed is used by Jonson as synonymous with 
 £ ingenuity.’ 2 Hobbes tells us in the Leviathan (1651) that 
 wit had become a synonym for £ fancy,’ and in his Answer to 
 Davenant's Discourse upon Gondibert (1650), he defines the 
 function of £ fancy ’ to be the furnishing of the ornaments of 
 poetry, whereas £ judgment ’ supplies the £ strength and struc- 
 ture.’ His distinction between the two was adopted by later 
 seventeenth and eighteenth century critics, and wit came to 
 mean a quickness of mind in seeing unexpected resemblances. 3 
 Dryden and Addison both say that to the resemblance of ideas 
 
 1 But not always; thus in Glapthorne’s Wit in a Constable, 1639, 
 
 ‘ witty ’ appears to be used in the sense of ‘ knowing/ ‘ clever,’ the 
 reverse of stupid. 
 
 2 Every Man out of His Humour, hi, iii. For the whole question of 
 the change of meaning in ‘ wit 1 at this time, see Critical Essays of the 
 nth Century, Oxford, 1908; Introduction by Prof. Spingarn, pp. xxvii- 
 
 xxxi. 
 
 3 Locke, Human Understanding, 1690, book ii, chap, xi, § 2. Temple, 
 Miscellanea, 2nd part, p. 318; and Addison, Spectator, No. 62. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. 
 
xcviii § 3. Chaucer considered an incorrigible Jester. 
 
 should be added the sensation of surprise and delight, and sc 
 we can see how the particular meaning now attached to the 
 adjective ‘ witty ’ gradually crept in. 1 
 
 So that when Stevins (c. 1555) and Bullein (1564) speak of 
 4 wittie Chaucer ’ we have to remember that they mean ‘ pos-j 
 sessed of wisdom or understanding,’ 2 in which sense it falls inj 
 under ‘ learned,’ the characteristic epithet of the time, and! 
 when Puttenham (1584) and Thynne (1600) speak of his I 
 ‘pleasant’ and ‘flowing wit,’ they mean intellect or under- 
 standing. But when William Barker, in his prefatory verses 
 to Kynaston (1635), alludes to ‘ up start verse- wrights ’ first 
 stealing Chaucer’s ‘ wit ’ and then pronouncing him dull, 
 something of the new meaning of ‘ ingenium ’ is included, 3 
 and Gayton (1654) in saying Chaucer writes ‘ wittily ’ certainly 
 means with ingenuity, while Addison (in 1694) probably 
 interprets the word much as he did in the Spectator (No. 62). 
 Sewell (1718), in describing Chaucer’s satire, says it is severe,' 
 but it is ‘ the Severity of a Court Poet ; much wit and more 
 good manners.’ Here we have completely reached the modern j 
 meaning, and it is the only time in the following references 
 (up to 1800) that we can be certain it is applied to Chaucer; 
 for Walpole, in writing to George Montagu in 1768, though he j 
 probably had Chaucer’s wit in his mind, is not speaking directly 
 of him. 
 
 Adjectives such as ‘merry’ or ‘jovial,’ in their second 
 
 1 There was, however, a good deal of variation in the meaning attached j 
 to ‘ wit ’ by different 17th and 18th century writers. Thus, in addition | 
 to the meanings given it by Jonson and Hobbes, Dryden uses it at one 
 time as a synonym for ‘ imagination ’ (Letter to Sir Robt. Howard, ■; 
 prefaced to Annus Mirabilus, 1666), and at another he defines it as 
 
 a propriety of words and thoughts adapted to the subject’ ( Essays , j 
 ed. Ker, vol. i, p. 190) ; whereas Dennis uses it almost to mean ‘ reason ’ i 
 (■ Miscellanies in Verse and Prose, 1693, preface). 
 
 2 Cf. Spenser’s use of £ wittily ’ in the F. Q., ii, c. 9 — 
 
 ‘ All artes, all science, all Philosophy, 
 
 And all that in the world was ay thought wittily 1 
 and Marlowe in Tamb., Pt. I, Act ii, sc. 4 : ‘ Are you the witty King 
 of Persia ? ’ Also Shakespeare in Richard III, iv, ii, 42. 
 
 3 Note Walkington in The Optick Glasse of Humours, below, 1607, ! 
 translates ‘ wit ’ by ‘ ingenium.’ 
 
XC1X 
 
 § 3. Even Spenser is considered ‘ ludicrous .’ 
 
 meaning of delighting in a broad jest or coarse story, begin 
 to be used about 1575, and for the following hundred years we 
 find this signification occasionally. Towards the end of the 
 seventeenth century it becomes more common, and for the first 
 sixty years of the eighteenth century something of this nature 
 is the characteristic epithet. ‘ Joking, jocound, sprightly, 
 ‘gleeful,’ ‘blithe,’ ‘merry,’ ‘gay,’ ‘ frolic,’ ‘facetious,’ are 
 among the adjectives used quite constantly in speaking of 
 Chaucer or his work at this time ; and one annotator (towards 
 the end of the eighteenth century) goes so far as to compare 
 Chaucer, as regards this tendency to jocoseness, with Charles II 
 ‘ who could hardly sustain his gravity long enough to make a 
 speech from the throne ’ (see c. 1785, below). 
 
 The fact is that in spite of the growing admiration for the 
 antique and ‘ Gothic ’ in the eighteenth century, there was at 
 the same time a tendency to think what was old very ludicrous. 
 That this was so is clearly shown in the attitude towards the 
 other great poet whose language was generally considered 
 obsolete. We can see that Chaucer’s love of a jest and his 
 sense of fun might give reason to superficial readers to think 
 there was little else than the comic in him, but when we find 
 that the ‘ ludicrous element ’ in Spenser is what most strikes 
 many of his admirers at this time, we realize that the older 
 turns of phrase and so-called ‘ simplicity of diction ’ were to 
 the eighteenth-century reader really funny in themselves. 
 Shenstone, whose School- Mistress (1742) is, next to the Castle 
 of Indolence , one of the best of the many Spenserian imitations, 
 writes to Mr. Graves, in June 1742, that he could not at first 
 read Spenser, but that later ‘ Pope’s Alley made me consider 
 him ludicrously ; and in that light, I think, one may read him 
 with pleasure. I am now . . . from trifling and laughing at 
 him, really in love with him.’ 1 Thomson, in the Advertisement 
 to the Castle of Indolence (1748) says that as the poem is written 
 in the manner of Spenser, ‘ the obsolete words and a simplicity 
 of diction in some of the lines, which borders on the ludicrous,’ 
 
 1 Shenstone’s Works, 1769, vol. iii, p. 66. 
 
c § 3. The critics find in Chaucer the qualities they seek 
 
 are necessary in order to make the imitation more perfect. 
 And William Mickle, another imitator, writes, in his preface* 
 to Sir Martyn (1778), that 4 some reasons perhaps may be! 
 expected for having adopted the manner of Spenser,’ and he! 
 will only say that the £ fulness and wantonness of description, 
 the quaint simplicity, and above all, the ludicrous, of which 
 the antique phraseology and manner of Spenser are so happily ! 
 and peculiarly susceptible ’ are what attracted him to it. | 
 
 In the light of these remarks, it is not surprising that! 
 Chaucer was thought of chiefly as a very good joke, and that 
 Joseph Warton, in his essay on Pope (1782) found it necessary 
 to draw attention to the common though mistaken notion I 
 that Chaucer’s excellence and ‘ vein of poetry ’ lay chiefly in j 
 his manner of treating light and ridiculous subjects; Warton' 
 attributes the mistake to the accidental fact that Dryden and i 
 Pope had modernized principally the gay and ludicrous poems; | 
 and he assures those who look into Chaucer that they will ! 
 soon be convinced of this prevailing prejudice, and will find his j 
 comic vein ... to be only like one of mercury, imperceptibly J 
 mingled with a mine of gold.’ 
 
 This attitude towards the poet did in fact gradually change 
 at the end of the century, and after the publication of; 
 Tyrwhitt s work, which brought about a gradually increasing I 
 knowledge of Chaucer, we can find no special quality ascribed ' 
 to the poet at any particular period. 
 
 Such general adjectives as ‘ venerable,’ ‘ ancient,’ or ‘ cele- J 
 brated,’ have not been noted. These are particularly common 3 
 in the eighteenth century when he was least known, as they ] 
 were safe and non-committal terms. 
 
 It will be noticed that the characteristic qualities attributed ] 
 to Chaucer from 1400 to 1800, are those in which the critics | 
 or men of letters of the time were themselves more specially 
 interested. 
 
 In the fifteenth and earlier sixteenth centuries, when the I 
 language was still crude and unsettled, and good writing ! 
 was very scarce, the desire for ease of expression was strong 
 and the appreciation of it great. Later, the closely allied 
 
§ 4. The Evolution of Chaucer Biography. 
 
 Reformation and Renaissance brought with them an overmaster- 
 ing interest in ethics, morality, and learning, and so ‘ moral 
 and ‘ learned ’ go side by side throughout the Elizabethan age. 
 Then, when the overladen exuberance of the Renaissance 
 literature had brought about a reaction in favour of 4 clear- 
 ness ’ and ‘ wit,’ as Chaucer was certainly not ‘ clear ’ to the 
 readers of the seventeenth century, they searched for his 
 ‘wit’; and to men who delighted in the Restoration drama, 
 this seems mostly to be found in his broadest stories. 
 
 So it is, that here as elsewhere, what men seek for, that 
 generally do they find. 
 
 § 4 . The Evolution of Chaucer Biography. 
 
 List of the Chief Lives or Biographical Accounts of Chaucer up 
 
 to 1900. 
 
 DATE. 
 
 [c. 1545] 
 
 4548 
 
 i 1557-9 
 / 1598 
 
 1602 
 
 author. title of work. 
 
 John Leland [in] Commentarii de Scriptonbus 
 
 Britannicis, [first printed by] 
 A. Hall, Oxford, 1709, pp. 
 419-26 [in Latin]. 
 
 John Bale [in] Illustrium Maioris Britannise 
 
 Scriptorum . . . Summarium 
 [1st edn.] fol. 198 and b [in 
 Latin]. 
 
 [in] Scriptorum Illustrium maioris 
 Brytannise . . . Summarium 
 Basilse . . . [2nd edn.] vol. i, 
 pp. 525-7 [in Latin]. 
 
 Thomas Speght [prefixed to] The Workes of our 
 (aided by John Antient and lerned English 
 Stow) Poet Geffrey Chaucer, newly 
 
 printed. Londini, Impensis 
 Geo. Bishop, anno 1598. 
 
 Thomas Speght [in 2nd edn. of] The Workes of 
 (aided by Fran- . . . Geffrey Chaucer, 
 cis Thynne) 
 
cii 
 
 DATE. 
 
 [a. 1616] 
 
 1655 
 ' 1662 
 1660 
 1675 
 
 [c. 1687] 
 
 1687 
 
 1694 
 
 1700 
 
 1701 
 
 1709 
 
 § 4. List of the chief ‘ Lives y of Chaucer, 
 
 AUTHOR. 
 
 John Pits 
 
 Thomas Fuller 
 
 55 >5 
 
 William Winstan- 
 ley 
 
 Edward Phillips 
 
 [Henry Wharton] 
 
 William Winstan- 
 ley 
 
 Sir Thomas Pope 
 Blount 
 
 John Dryden 
 
 Jeremy Collier 
 
 Thomas Hearne 
 
 TITLE OF WORK. 
 
 [in] Relationes Historicse de 
 Bebus Anglicis, Parisiis, 1619, I 
 pp. 572-5 [in Latin]. 
 
 [in] The Church-History of 
 Britain, book iv, pp. 151-2. 
 
 [in] The History of the Worthies j 
 of England, pp. 337-8. 
 
 [in] England’s Worthies . . . j 
 
 1600 , pp. 91 - 8 . 
 
 [in] Theatrum Poetarum, or a j 
 Compleat Collection of the | 
 Poets . . . pp. 50-1. 
 
 [printed in Appendix to vol. ii | 
 of] Scriptorum Ecclesiasti- I 
 corum Historia Literaria, by 
 William Cave, 1740-3, Notse j 
 MSS. & Accessiones Anonymi, j 
 &c., pp. 13-15 ; [in Latin]. 
 
 [in] The Lives of the most Famous J 
 English Poets, pp. 23-32 I 
 [altered and enlarged from the i 
 earlier ‘ Life ’ in 1660]. 
 
 [in] De Re Poetica . . . [Part 2.] 
 Characters and Censures, pp. 
 41-4. 
 
 [slight account in] Preface to j 
 F ables Ancient and Modern ... ■- 
 [in] The Great Historical, Geo- J 
 graphical, Genealogical and h 
 P oetical Dictionary . ., vol. i, 
 sign Bbb 2. 
 
 A Letter to Mr. Bagford, con- 
 taining some Remarks upon 
 Geffry Chaucer . . [in] Robert 
 of Gloucester’s Chronicle, 
 Transcrib’d . . by Thomas 
 Hearne, 1724, vol. ii, App. iv, 
 pp. 596-606. 
 
§ 4. List of the chief ‘ Lives ’ of Chaucer. 
 
 DATE. 
 
 1720 
 
 1721 
 
 author. 
 Giles Jacob 
 
 John Dart (cor- 
 rected by Wil- 
 liam Thomas) 
 
 TITLE OF WORK. 
 
 [in] An Historical Account of the 
 Lives and Writings of our 
 most Considerable English 
 Poets [being the 2nd vol. of 
 the Poetical Register, 1719], 
 pp. 26-30. 
 
 [prefixed to] The Works of 
 Geoffrey Chaucer. ... By 
 John Urry, . . London, 
 
 Printed for Bernard Lintot . . 
 
 1748 
 
 1748 
 
 1753 
 
 1774 
 
 1775 
 
 1803 
 
 sign a 1 — f 2. 
 
 Unknown [in] Biographia Britannica : or, 
 
 the Lives of the most eminent 
 Persons who have flourished 
 in Great Britain and Ireland 
 . . 6 vols., 1747-63; vol. ii, 
 1748, pp. 1293-1308. 
 
 Thomas Tanner [in] Bibliotheca Britanmco- 
 
 Hibernica, pp. 166-70 ; [in 
 Latin]. 
 
 Theophilus Cibber [in] The Lives of the Poets of 
 [or Robert Great Britain and Ireland . . 
 
 Shiels 1 ] vol. i, pp. 1-17. 
 
 Thomas Warton [a very slight account in] The 
 
 History of English Poetry, 
 vol. i, pp. 341-2. 
 
 Thomas Tyrwhitt [a short abstract of historical 
 
 passages in life, prefixed to] 
 The Canterbury Tales of 
 Chaucer, vol. i, pp. xxiv- 
 xxxvi. 
 
 William Godwin The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer . . 
 2 vols. 
 
 1 See Life of Johnson, by James Boswell, April 10, 1776, ed. 
 
 )ec k Hill, 1887, vol. iii, pp. 29-30 ; also Six Essays on Johnson by Walter 
 laleigh, Oxford, 1910, p. 120, note. 
 
 
civ 
 
 DATE. 
 
 1810 
 
 1844 
 
 1876 
 
 1880 
 
 1880 
 
 1887 
 
 1887 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1894 
 
 1900 
 
 § 4. List of the chief £ Lives ’ of Chaucer. 
 
 AUTHOR. 
 
 Henry J. Todd 
 
 Sir Nicholas Har- 
 ris Nicolas 
 
 W. Minto 
 
 A. W. Ward 
 Arthur Gilman 
 
 John W. Hales 
 Henry Morley 
 
 TITLE or WORK. 
 
 Illustrations of the Lives and 
 Writings of Gower and 
 Chaucer, collected from 
 authentic documents. 
 
 The Life of Chaucer [prefixed to] 
 Chaucer’s poetical works, 
 Aldine edn. of British poets, 
 
 vol. 47. 
 
 [Article 4 Chaucer ’ in] Encyclo- I 
 psedia Britannica [ninth j 
 edition]. 
 
 Chaucer [in the English Men of j 
 Letters Series]. 
 
 [prefixed to] The Poetical Works j 
 of Geffrey Chaucer . . ed. by I 
 Arthur Gilman . . Boston, j 
 
 1880, vol. i, pp. xix-lvi. 
 [Article in] The Dictionary of 
 National Biography. 
 
 [in] English Writers, vol. v, pp. 
 83-347. 
 
 Thomas R. Louns- The Life of Chaucer [in] Studies j 
 W in Chaucer, vol. i, chap. i. 
 
 Alfred W. Pollard Chaucer [in Literature Primers]. 
 Walter W. Skeat [in] The Complete Works of 
 Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. . . by j 
 the Rev. Walter W. Skeat . . I 
 
 [edited by] 
 
 W. D. Selby 
 F. J. Furnivall 
 E. A. Bond 
 R. E. G. Kirk 
 
 Oxford, 1894, vol. i, pp. ix-lxi. J 
 ' Life Records of Chaucer ... I 
 comprising all known records 
 relating to Geoffrey Chaucer. 
 (Chaucer Society.) 
 
 The first life of the poet, the first attempt made to record 
 any facts ^bout him, is the sketch written in Latin by Leland 
 
cv 
 
 § 4. The first ‘ Life ’ of Chaucer. 
 
 the antiquary. Leland, as we know, was armed with a com- 
 mission from Henry VIII to search all likely places throughout 
 the land— castles, monasteries, colleges, etc— for records of 
 the past ; and after spending six years in this search, and 
 another six in endeavouring to put his materials in order, his 
 mind gave way early in 1547, and he died in 1552. Some of 
 his information, doubtless, was correct and of great value, 
 but if his other biographies resemble that of Chaucer they 
 must be more remarkable for fertility of imagination than for 
 
 accuracy of fact. ,, 
 
 These biographies were never printed till 1709, but Leland s 
 
 manuscript collections were freely used by later writers, and 
 in the case of Chaucer, all the information was incorporated 
 by Bale in his life in 1557-9, and again by Pits in the life pub- 
 lished in 1619; and it formed the starting-point of the follow- 
 ing legends about Chaucer, some of which have survived until 
 quite recent years. 
 
 (i) That Chaucer was born of a noble family. 
 
 (ii) That he studied at Oxford. 
 
 (iii) That he was taught there by John Some and the friar 
 
 Nicolas. 
 
 (iv) That he left the University (i) * * 4 an acute logican, a delight- 
 
 ful orator, an elegant poet, a profound philosopher, 
 an able mathematician . . . [and] a devout theo- 
 logian.’ 
 
 (v) That he admired and imitated Gower, looking up to 
 
 him as master. 
 
 (vi) That he had a sister married to William Pole, Duke of 
 
 Suffolk, who ‘ passed her life in great splendour at 
 Ewelme.’ 
 
 (vii) That he had a house at Woodstock, adjoining the 
 
 palace of the King. 
 
 (viii) That he lived in France during the last years of 
 Richard II. 
 
 (ix) That he was highly esteemed by (and personally 
 known to) Henry IV and Henry V. 
 
CV1 § 4. Chaucer Legends started by Leland and Bale. 
 
 Leland also gives a list of Chaucer’s works, 1 which,’ he 
 says, ‘at the present day are read everywhere.’ In this all 
 his principal writings are included, as well as the ten following I 
 spurious works: Piers Plowman’s Tale, The Testament of\ 
 Cresseid, The Flower of Courtesy (which he notes is rejected I 
 by many as spurious), The Assembly of Ladies, The Complaint 
 of the Black Knight, A Praise of Women, The Testament of ! 
 Love, Lamentation of Mary Magdalen, The Remedy of Love 
 and The Letter of Cupid. 
 
 John Bale (1495-1563), the violent reformer, writer of 
 morality plays, and later Bishop of Ossory, who for many years 
 was a friend of Leland, and, like him, was desirous of saving 
 old chronicles and ‘ noble antiquities,’ was about the same 
 time collecting material for his Lives of Illustrious British 
 Writers, the first edition of which appeared in 1548. His 
 account of Chaucer is very short and vague; he evidently 
 knew little about him, and that little was largely incorrect. 
 Thus he states that he was a knight (‘ eques auratus ’), and 
 that it is said that he lived until the year 1450, under Henry VI. 
 For the rest, he was chiefly remarkable for his good manners 1 
 and for the graceful eloquence of his English, and was con- 
 sidered to have been the renovator of the English tongue, 'j 
 Before the appearance of the second edition of his work in 
 1557-9, however, Bale had come across Leland’s MSS., and 
 incorporated in his enlarged account of the poet most of : 
 Leland’s mistakes, reproducing them largely word for word, ; 
 and adding a few more on his own account. Thus, although j 
 he does not in this edition give 1450 as the date of Chaucer’s j 
 death, he says he was living in 1402, because of the last verse 1 
 of the (spurious) Letter of Cupid. 
 
 The next biography is that prefixed by Speght to his edition 
 of the poet s works in 1598. This is the first life written in 
 English, and it is much the most careful and the fullest bio- 
 graphy that had so far appeared. It represented a good deal 
 of search among public records, and some real facts were 
 contributed to what was known of the poet’s life; such as 
 Chaucer’s titles of ‘ armiger,’ ‘ scutifer ’ and ‘ valettus,’ the 
 

 § 4. The Fictions added hy Speght. 
 
 cvii 
 
 grant to him of the custody of the lands and body of Edmund 
 Staplegate of Kent, his controllership of the port of London, 
 his employment abroad, and the gifts and pensions received 
 by him from Richard II and Henry IV. These researches 
 were, as we know from himself, the work of the antiquary 
 Stow who handed over his materials to Speght (see Survey oj 
 London , 1598, below). In addition, however, to Stow s contri- 
 butions, Speght relies much on Leland and Bale, and quotes 
 from them, adding also the following fictions of his own . 
 
 (i) Chaucer was born in London, because of his words in 
 
 the (spurious) Testament of Love. 
 
 (ii) He went to Cambridge, as well as to Oxford, because 
 
 of his remarks in the (spurious) Court of Love. 
 
 (iii) He suggests that Chaucer got into political trouble m 
 
 Richard II’s reign, and ‘ kept himselfe much out of 
 the way in Holland, Zeland and France, w ere e 
 wrote most of his bookes ’ (also founded on the 
 
 Testament of Love). . 
 
 (iv) He suggests Chaucer’s journey to Italy m 1368, w en 
 
 lie may have met Petrarch. 
 
 Speght also printed a family pedigree of the poet, made 
 out by Glover, the Somerset Herald, in which, for the first time 
 Chaucer is represented as marrying a daughter of Sir Payne 
 Roet (sister of John of Gaunt’s third wife) and having Thomas 
 Chaucer as his son. Some further records about ‘ Chaucers^ 
 possibly forbears of the poet, were contributed by Francis 
 Thynne in his criticism of Speght’s edition : a John an an 
 ‘ Elias ’ Chaucer, as well as a Ralph le Chaucer living m King 
 John’s time, had been found. ‘ But,’ says Thynne, in closing 
 this section of his remarks, ‘ what shall wee stande nppon e 
 Antiquyte and gentry of Chaucer, when the rolle of Battle 
 Abbaye affirmeth hym to come in with the Conqueror 
 (Animadversions, 1598, pub. Chaucer Soc., 18(5, p. 1 an 
 
 1 This, which at first was thought to be incoiMct, is trae, and the 
 reference is to be found in Harl. MS. 53 and Lambeth MS. b. 
 
cviii 
 
 § 4. The ‘ Life ’ hy John Pits. 
 
 note 2). This additional information, which was very popular 
 with succeeding biographers, was embodied by Speght in his 
 second edition of 1602. 8 
 
 In 1619 was published the Relationes Historical de Rebus 
 Anglicis, by John Pits, whose life of Chaucer (in Latin) is like 
 that of Bale, founded upon Leland, with some amplifications 
 and additional inaccuracies. He expanded Leland and Bale’s 
 remarks about the poet’s noble birth to the assertion that both 
 he and his father were Knights; ‘ patrem habuit Equestris 
 ordims virum, & ipse tandem auratus factus est Eques.’ 
 
 The belief in Chaucer’s knighthood, probably started by 
 Bale s statement m 1548, was evidently quite general through- 
 out the latter half of the sixteenth century, for we find him 
 constantly called ‘Sir’ (cf. Unknown, c. 1560, Legh 1562 
 Whetstone 1576 and 1578, A poore knight his Pallace of private 
 pleasures 1579, in which Chaucer is referred to as ‘ The cheefest 
 of all Englishmen, and yet hee was a knight,’ Greene 1590 
 The Cobler of Caunterburie 1590, Greene’s Vision 1592). Pits 
 also positively states that Chaucer was born at Woodstock 
 here again merely crystallizing what was by this time a ' 
 recognized tradition; see Camden in his Britannia (1586 
 below). ’ 
 
 Leland s life, as reproduced and embellished by Bale and 
 Pits in Latin, and Speght’s life in English, to which Stow and 
 Francis Thynne contributed, were the only authorities on the 
 facts connected with Chaucer all through the seventeenth 
 century. Dryden, in the few remarks he makes on Chaucer’s ( 
 life m his Preface to the Fables (1700), simply repeats the \ 
 mistakes of these earlier biographers. Other lives of him i 
 which appeared during this time (see list, p. cii above) were I 
 also repetitions of the facts and inaccuracies recorded by 
 these writers, with occasionally some added fictions. Thus 
 Edward Phillips asserts that Chaucer e flourished ’ during the 
 reigns of Henry IV, Henry V and part of Henry VI (i. e . 1399- 
 c. 1440), and that, as well as being knight, he was Poet Laureate. 
 
 This is naturally all repeated by subsequent biographers 
 (e.g. Sir Thomas Pope Blount, 1694), and it was doubtless on 
 
 
§ 4. The Eighteenth-Century Biographers. cix 
 
 [ the strength of Phillips’s information that Jeremy Collier 
 positively asserted in his Dictionary (1701) that 1440 was the 
 date of the poet’s death. 
 
 Early in the eighteenth century, the antiquary Thomas 
 Hearne was making notes and collecting information about 
 Chaucer’s life, as may be seen from his diary of 1709, and the 
 results — which are not great — are summed up in his letter to 
 Bagford of the same year, where he points out that Leland 
 is probably mistaken in saying Chaucer was of noble birth, 
 whereas in all likelihood, his father, though wealthy, was only 
 a merchant (which was suggested by Speght), and he adds 
 that he is sure much information relating to the poet would 
 be found by a careful inspection of the records, which task 
 he has not himself time to undertake. Failing these, how- 
 ever, many of Hearne’s other conjectures are based on the 
 Testament of Love and the Plowman's Tale. The spurious 
 poems, especially these two and the Court of Love , have been 
 an unfailing quarry up to quite recent years for deductions 
 about the poet’s life, and they were made full use of by the 
 writers (John Dart, corrected by William Thomas) of the 
 account of Chaucer prefixed to Urry’s edition of 1721. 
 
 This was the most elaborate life of the poet which had 
 yet appeared, and was not merely a re-statement of Leland 
 and Speght, but it contained many fresh assertions mostly 
 founded on the above poems; such, for instance, as that 
 Chaucer composed the Court of Love when he was a student 
 at Cambridge, aged eighteen; and a very definite account 
 was given of his collision with the court party in his later 
 years, his forced exile in Zealand, and his imprisonment in 
 the Tower, all founded on remarks in the Testament of Love. 
 Dart, however, on the other hand, suggested that John Chaucer 
 was the poet’s father, first mentioned the Scrope and Grosvenor 
 dispute, and Chaucer’s testimony there (see 1386, below), 
 doubted Chaucer ever having been poet laureate, and rejected 
 his authorship of the Plowman's Tale and Jack Upland. 
 
 The life in the Biographia Britannica, 1748, is very detailed 
 and careful, in that it is based on all the old authorities, Leland, 
 
cx § 4. Tyrwhitt’ s biographical notes. 
 
 Bale, Pits, Speght, Hearne and Urry, but there is no original! 
 work in it, and the same mistakes are repeated. 
 
 Tyrwhitt, in his introductory matter to the Canterbury I 
 Tales (1775), wisely refrained from writing any life of Chaucer | 
 at all, for he says after searching for materials, he found he 
 could add few facts to those already published, and ‘ he was I 
 not disposed, either to repeat the comments and inventions, ! 
 by which former biographers have endeavoured to supply the 
 deficiency of facts, or to substitute any of his own for the I 
 same laudable purpose.’ He contented himself, therefore, 
 with pointing out the untrustworthiness of Leland’s informa- 
 tion, as well as the lack of proof for other commonly accepted 
 facts (such as Chaucer’s connection with Donnington Castle) 
 and with printing a short abstract of the historical passages in | 
 the life of the poet, consisting of the few records published by I 
 Speght and Rymer. He also notes one or two points which 
 may possibly be inferred from the Testament of Love (that he 
 was a Londoner) and the Court of Love (that he was at Cam- 
 bridge). He is careful, however, to deduce nothing further 
 from the poems, 1 and gives a warning against ‘supposing I 
 allusions which Chaucer never intended, or arguing from pieces I 
 which he never wrote, as if they were his.’ 
 
 This warning was, unhappily, not taken to heart by the ■ 
 poet’s next biographer, William Godwin, Shelley’s father-in-law, 
 who, m 1803, brought out Chaucer’s life in two large volumes.’ i 
 His method was the exact antithesis of the procedure of 
 the scholarly and cautious Tyrwhitt, and, except for the fact f 
 that he found and printed some fresh official records about 1 
 Chaucer, his Life, though entertaining, is absolutely worthless. ,j 
 Godwin snubs Tyrwhitt for casting so much doubt on i 
 Leland, and for not having made any exertions to discover 
 facts as to the history of the poet, and compares his own inde- 
 atigable search of the records. The fresh information thus 
 acquired did not, however, enable him to write a life any more 
 
 refe'Jd^oCl^na^ote." 1 ^ ° f Chaucer ’ s life are 
 

 § 4. The system on which Godwin wrote Biography. cxi 
 
 correct than those which had preceded his; on the contrary 
 it forced him to evolve theories whereby the newly discovered 
 and rather troublesome dates might be made to fit in with 
 preconceived facts, largely derived from the Testament of 
 Love. For instance, it was in the beginning of 1384 that the 
 political disturbances in London took place which were sup- 
 posed to have caused Chaucer’s flight abroad. But Godwin 
 found by the records that in November 1384 Chaucer was still 
 at his post as Controller -of the Customs, for he then applied 
 for leave of absence for one month. This was very awkward, 
 and all Godwin could do was to transport him abroad in 
 November (nine months after the riots which were the 
 supposed cause of his flight) and to extend his month’s holiday 
 into an exile of two years. The exile is described in great 
 detail; Chaucer, we are told, doubtless took his wife with 
 him, that is if she were still living, for ‘ although prudence 
 would have dictated their separation, yet Chaucer was too 
 deeply pervaded with the human and domestic affections to 
 be able to consent to such a measure.’ The whole book is 
 written in this style, and as regards Chaucer, it is a tissue of 
 baseless conjecture from beginning to end. In addition to 
 this, it contains a mass of entirely irrelevant information, for 
 Godwin held that ‘ the full and complete life of a poet, would 
 include an extensive survey of the manners, the opinions, 
 the arts and the literature of the age in which the poet 
 lived.’ 
 
 Acting on this principle, the chapters are built up something 
 as follows : — It is not improbable that Chaucer was brought 
 up in the Homan Catholic faith, so thirteen pages are devoted 
 to the Church in England in the fourteenth century ; he possibly 
 studied in the Inner Temple, therefore twelve pages are given 
 to an account of civil and canon and feudal law of the English 
 constitution, the early writers on English law, modes of pleading 
 and so on. 1 
 
 1 The following paragraph, with which this section on law closes, 
 sufficiently indicates the style of the whole book : — ‘ It may be amusing 
 to the fancy of a reader of Chaucer’s works, to represent to himself the 
 
 j 
 
exn § 4. Memoir by Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas. 
 
 No wonder Mrs. Godwin confidentially asked Charles Lamb 
 whether he did not think there was rather too much fancy in 
 the work. 1 J 
 
 In 1844 Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas published his memoir, 
 prefixed to the Aldine edition of Chaucer’s works, which really ; 
 is the first life of Chaucer produced on modern methods of 
 research and accuracy. Nicolas uses Godwin’s documents, but < 
 prints many more records which finally demonstrated that the 
 story in the T estament of Love could not be regarded as auto- 
 biographic. 
 
 They showed that during the time Chaucer was supposed 
 to be in exile, he was living in London and personally receiving ! 
 his pension half-yearly, that he was holding his offices in the j 
 Customs from 1382 to 1386, and that in August 1386, instead 
 of being imprisoned in the Tower, he was a member of parlia- 
 ment as Knight of the shire for the County of Kent. 
 
 Although in soundness and accuracy this work is a great 
 advance, yet Nicolas makes a few mistakes, such as the ‘ eleven 
 months ’ of Chaucer’s stay in Italy, his disbelief in Chaucer’s I 
 knowledge of Italian, and his acceptation as genuine of The j 
 Cuckoo and the Nightingale, The Flower and the Leaf and the | 
 Testament of Love. For in spite of the evidence of the newly 
 discovered records, which proved it could not be autobio- 5 
 graphical, the faith of critics in Chaucer’s authorship of the 
 
 young poet, accoutred in the robes of a lawyer, examining a witness, 
 xing upon him the keenness of his eye, addressing himself with anxiety 
 and expectation to a jury, or exercising the subtlety of his wit and 
 judgment in the development of one of those quirks by which a client 
 was to be rescued from the rigour of strict and unfavouring justice. 
 Perhaps Chaucer, in the course of his legal life, saved a thief from the 
 ga lows, and gave him a new chance of becoming a decent and useful 
 mem her of society : perhaps by his penetration he discerned and demon- 
 strated that innocence, which to a less able pleader would never have 
 been evident, and which a less able pleader would never have succeeded 
 m restoring triu mphant to its place in the community and its fair fame.’ 
 Godwins Life of Chaucer, vol. i, chap, xviii, pp. 369-70.) 
 
 1 See Lamb’s letter to Godwin, Nov. 10, 1803, below. The book 
 was,, on the whole, condemned by the reviewers. See below, Gentle- 
 man s Magazine, Dec. 1803; Scott, in the Edinburgh Review, Jan. 1804, 
 is very severe, and Blackwood's reviewer in 1821 dismisses it as being 
 contemptible in criticism.’ 
 
§ 4. Discoveries in the Decords. 0X111 
 
 Testament of Love remained unshaken until William Hertzberg, 
 who translated the Canterbury Tales into German in 1866 
 pointed out the proofs against its being by Chaucer at a 
 while in 1867, John Payne Collier in England independent y 
 came to the same conclusion. But this did not prevent later 
 writers of Chaucer’s life detailing his flight, exile and imprison- 
 ment as actual occurrences, 1 2 sometimes shifting the date ol 
 these to between the years 1386-88 so as not to clash quite so 
 much with the records. 
 
 After the foundation of the Chaucer Society, however, in 
 1868, Dr. Furnivall and others set to work at the records, 
 whence a number of interesting facts have been extracted, 
 enabling us now at any rate to say very definitely what is not 
 
 true in earlier Chaucer biographies. 
 
 Mr. Bond’s discovery in 1873, of a page of the household 
 accounts of Lionel, third son of Edward III, from which it is 
 certain that between 1356-59 Chaucer was attached to the 
 household of that prince, and most probably (judging from the 
 value of the articles recorded as given him) in the position 
 of a page, makes the hitherto generally stated date of 1328 
 for the poet’s birth an impossible one; and 1340, for which 
 there is supporting evidence, is now the generally accepte 
 
 ° ne * 
 
 In 1894 Professor Skeat published his life of the poet, 
 prefixed to his edition of Chaucer’s collected works, which 
 embodies all discoveries made up to then, more especially 
 Dr. Furnivall’ s important finds in the public record office, 
 published in the Athenaeum during the years 1873, 1874 ; and 
 in 1900 the complete Life Records of Chaucer appeared, con- 
 taining some fresh information, and comprising all known 
 records relating to the poet. 
 
 1 Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury -Geschichten, uebersetzt von Wilhelm 
 Hertzberg, Hildburghausen, 1866. Einleitung, pp. 34-37. 
 
 2 See for instance, Origin ... of the English Language and Litera- 
 ture, by John Weisse, N. York, 1879, pp. 269-70. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. 
 
 k 
 
cxiv § 5. Glimpses at some Chaucer lovers and workers. 
 
 § 5. A NOTE ON SOME CHAUCER LOVERS AND WORKERS 
 THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES. 
 
 In the following pages we get many peeps at students of 
 Chaucer ; men who during these five hundred years have 
 loved him and have been content to spend much time in the 
 generally unremunerative labour of studying and editing his 
 works, and in collecting information about him. Sometimes 
 we actually see them at work — Caxton in his Westminster | 
 printing office, Brian Tuke ‘ tarying for the tyde at Green- j 
 wich,’ Urry in his college rooms at Oxford, or Tyrwhitt in the 
 British Museum, — sometimes only the result of their labours ; 
 is visible. 
 
 ■ 
 
 Foremost among this gallant band comes — 
 
 (1) John Shirley (1366 ?— 1456), translator and transcriber, 
 who possibly knew Chaucer personally, and most certainly 
 loved and admired him, for he busied himself in writing out j 
 copies of the poems, 1 to which he added various pieces of 
 information, 2 and sometimes of exhortation to the reader (see 
 c. 1450, a. 1456, below). 
 
 W e know little about Shirley, beyond the lines recorded as 
 being on his monument in the Church of S. Bartholomew the i 
 Less, 3 among which are the following : — 
 
 £ Ilis Pen reporteth 
 His Lives Occupation,’ 
 
 to which Stowe adds that he was £ a great Traveller in divers \ 
 Countries, and amongst other his Labours painfully collected j 
 
 1 Tne MSS. we owe to Shirley are the Sion College MS. (contains of j 
 Chaucer only an inserted copy of the ABC), Trin. Coll. Cam. R. 3. 20, ' 
 Addit. 16165, Ashmole 59, Harl. 78 (4 leaves only). The Harl. 7333 i 
 and 2251 are not in Shirley’s hand. For full details on Shirley’s MSS. 
 see E. P. Hammond in Chaucer, a biblioqraphical manual, N. York, I 
 1908, pp. 515-17. 
 
 2 It is on Shirley’s authority that the following works are ascribed 
 to Chaucer : — the ABC, the Complaint to Pity, Complaint of Mars, j 
 Anelida, Lines to Adam, Fortune, Truth, Gentilnesse, Lak of Stedfast- 
 nesse. Complaint of Venus, and Complaint to his Empty Purse. 
 
 3 Stowe’s Survey of London, ed. Strype, 1720, bk. iii, pp. 232-3. 
 
§ 5. Caxtoris care in printing the ‘ Canterbury Tales, cxv 
 
 the Works of Geffrey Chaucer , John Lidgate, and other learned 
 Writers, which works he wrote in sundry volumes to remain 
 for Posterity.’ 
 
 Next we encounter — 
 
 (2) William Caxton (1422 ?— 1491), whose love and admira- 
 tion are expressed with so much warmth and charm in his Pro 
 hemye to the Canterbury Tales ; where we catch a glimpse of 
 him with care and pride printing the Tales from his own MS. 
 copy (1st ed. 1477-8), which had been brought to him, and 
 which he supposed to be very true and correct. But soon after 
 one of the purchasers of a copy of this first edition pays him a 
 visit, and points out that the printed version differs consider- 
 ably from the book as Geoffrey Chaucer had written it. To 
 this Caxton mildly answers that he had set up the type according 
 to his own MS. copy, which he had followed faithfully. His 
 visitor replies that his father possesses a copy of the Canterbury 
 Tales which he much loves, and which is true to Chaucer’s 
 original, and that if Caxton would print it again, he would 
 get him this actual book for a copy, although he knew that 
 his father would be loth to part with it. To this suggestion 
 Caxton gladly agrees, and sets to work at once to print the 
 whole book over again (2nd ed. 1484?), humbly apologizing 
 the while to the shade of Chaucer for the mistake he in his 
 ignorance had made of printing his book other than he 
 wrote it. 
 
 Caxton was not content with printing Chaucer, but he 
 further tried to perpetuate his memory by erecting a pillar 
 near his tomb to support a tablet on which was written Surigo s 
 Latin epitaph (see a. 1479, below), at the end of which there 
 were four lines, possibly by Caxton himself. 1 
 
 The next worker is — 
 
 (3) William Thynne (d. 1546), Chief Clerk of the Kitchen 
 to Henry VIII, and the holder of many other offices, who 
 combined the faithful and apparently successful discharge of 
 
 1 See Caxton’s Epilogue to Boethius , a. 1479, below, also Blade s 
 Life and Typography of Caxton , 1861, vol. ii, p. 67. 
 
cxvi § 5. William Thynne’s Chaucer Work. 
 
 many duties in the King’s household with an enthusiastic 
 devotion to Chaucer and study of his works. In 1532 he 
 published his edition of the poet, and sixty-six years later, 
 his son Francis Thynne, in the course of his rather querulous 
 letter of criticism to Speght on his edition of 1598 (see 1598, 
 below), affords us a delightful glimpse of his father at work . 
 on Chaucer. The elder Thynne was commissioned by Henry ! 
 VIII, with whom he was a great favourite, to search all the I 
 libraries and monasteries of England for Chaucer’s works; 
 which he did with such success that he was ‘ fully furnished 
 with multitude of Bookes, amongst which was one copy which 
 was marked “ Examinatur Chaucer.” ’ All these copies he 
 carefully collated, so that although four of Chaucer’s pieces i 
 had been issued together by Pynson in 1526, yet Thynne’s 
 may fairly claim to be the first attempt at a collected edition 
 of the 4 Works,’ and Thynne himself is the first real editor of 
 Chaucer, for he produced a better text of the Canterbury Tales 
 than had been given before, as well as printing for the first 
 time Chaucer s part of the Romaunt of the Rose , his Legende of 
 Good Women , Boece, Book of the Duchess, Pity , Astrolabe, and ! 
 Lack of Stedfastness. 
 
 His son further tells us that he included (or perhaps in- 
 tended to include ?) the (spurious) Pilgrim’s Tale, which gave 
 such offence to Wolsey and the Bishops, that they brought 
 pressure on the King to insist that Chaucer must be newly 
 printed, and the Pilgrim s Tale omitted. This was done, but 
 in the second edition of 1542 Thynne managed to get the ; 
 (spurious) Plowmans Tale (an equally strong invective against j 
 the clergy) inserted; although it was sanctioned with great d 
 difficulty. 1 
 
 William Thynne must have been a good hater of Romanism j 
 and the priests, and Wolsey, his ‘ old enymye,’ owed him a | 
 
 This story of Francis Thynne’s about the cancelled edition has 
 been d.credUed, as the Pilgrim's Tale is not to be found in any edition 
 ot Ihynne s Chaucer, nor has any one-columned edition of Thynne’s 
 come down to us. See on the whole question, Thynne’s Animadversions, 
 ed. h. J. Furmvall, Chaucer Soc., 1875, pp. xli, xlii, and 75, 76. 
 
cxvn 
 
 § 5. John Stowe’s Chaucer Work. 
 
 grudge for many reasons, so Francis Thynne tells us, but mostly 
 because Thynne had protected Skelton, and helped him to 
 publish Colin Clout, most of which was written at Thynne’s 
 
 house at Erith in Kent. ttttt 
 
 Thynne dedicates his edition in his name to Henry Vlli, 
 
 but it is practically certain that this preface was written by 
 Sir Brian Tuke, then Postmaster, and so a colleague of Thynne s 
 in the Boyal Household. Leland refers to a preface by Tuke, 
 and in a copy of Thynne’s Chaucer (1532) in Clare College, 
 Cambridge, Sir Brian Tuke has written in his own hand : 
 
 < This preface I sir Bryan Tuke knight wrot at the request of 
 Mr. Clarke of the Kechyn then being tarying for the tyde at 
 Grenewich.’ 1 
 
 (4) John Stowe (1525 ?-l 605), chronicler and antiquarian 
 by choice, and tailor by profession, is entitled to a place among 
 Chaucer students and editors, although the service he rendered 
 the poet is a doubtful one. His own account of his claim to 
 the position is that Chaucer’s works were ‘ corrected and twice 
 increased through mine owne painefull labours, in the raigne 
 of Queene Elizabeth, to wit in the yeare 1561, and again beauti - 
 fied with noates, by me collected out of diuers Recordes and 
 Monumentes, which I deliuered to my loving friende Thomas 
 Speight ’ for his edition of 1597. 
 
 The modern view of Stowe’s work does not quite agree with 
 this. He is principally famed for having assigned more spurious 
 poems to Chaucer than any one else has ever successfully 
 done, and it has been indeed— as Tyrwhitt prophesied in 1775 
 
 ‘ a work of time to sift accurately the heap of rubbish which 
 
 was added ’ by him to the edition of 1561. Not only did he 
 for the first time in 1561 publish a number of poems as Chaucer’s 
 which are not his (see list 1532, below), but by reprinting all 
 that was in Thynne’s edition of 1532 (which was really a 
 miscellany, see note to 1532, Thynne, below), and altering the 
 title to ‘ The workes of Geffrey Chaucer, newlie printed, with 
 
 i See Mr. Bradshaw in Thynne’s Animadversions, Chaucer Soc., 
 p. xxvi. 
 
CXV111 
 
 § 5. J ohn Stowe and Thomas Speght. 
 
 diuers addicions, whiche were neuer in print before/ he prac- 
 tically claimed for Chaucer the whole of Thynne’s volume. 
 
 On the other hand, we owe to him the first print of Chaucer’s | 
 words to Adam, and three other short pieces, and there is no ! 
 doubt that he furnished a good deal of matter to Speght for i 
 use in his life of the poet. He seems to have been a cheery, ! 
 lively man, a hard worker, and a great favourite with men of I 
 letters. He was a member of the old Society of Antiquaries, 
 founded about 1559, and among his colleagues and friends were 
 Walter Cope, Joseph Holland, Francis Tate, and Francis Thynne. 
 He was always desperately poor, and consequently carried on 
 his researches with great difficulty; for his was not then, any 
 more than it is now, the kind of work which brings in money. 
 
 In 1598 he writes of his Summarie of Englyshe Chronicles , 
 
 ‘ It hath cost me many a weary mile’s travel, many a hard- 
 earned penny and pound, and many a cold winter night’s 
 study.’ He could not afford to ride in order to make his 
 enquiries, but was forced to go on foot. We realize how sharp 
 was the pressure of poverty, when as an old man, probably 
 upwards of seventy-seven, after years of hard work at the • 
 chronicles of London and other records of value, we find that 
 in acknowledgment of his services a grateful government 
 granted him a license to beg and collect voluntary contributions ! 
 in the streets. 
 
 Of 
 
 (5) Thomas Speght (fl. 1600), the next editor of Chaucer, 
 we know very little, except that he was possibly a Yorkshire- : 
 man, and certainly a graduate of Cambridge, a schoolmaster, \ 
 and a lover of Chaucer. It was at college that he first came to j 
 know and love Chaucer (see above, p. xxii, and Beaumont’s i 
 letter to Speght, 1597, below). Speght had evidently long 
 studied Chaucer’s works and annotated them (see his preface, 
 1598, below), and in 1598, when his first edition of the poet 
 appeared, he added a good deal of extra matter, and wrote the 
 fullest and most correct life of the poet which had yet appeared 
 (see p. cvi above). 
 
 Francis Thynne was preparing notes for a full commentary 
 

 §5. Kynastori and John Urry. 
 
 cxix 
 
 on Chaucer’s works when Speght anticipated him, and so Thynne 
 contented himself with writing his long letter, minutely criticizing 
 Speght’s production, and correcting many of his mistakes. 
 
 All these remarks Speght took in good part, and embodied them, 
 with grateful acknowledgment, in his next edition of 1602. 
 He also had much help from Stowe, who put his notes at Speght’s 
 disposal. 
 
 We must pass over Sir Francis Kynaston (1587-1642), the 
 seventeenth-century litterateur, poet and scholar, who was 
 called more Geoffreyan than Chaucer himself ; 1 the founder of 
 the Musieum Minervee, that curious academy of learning, designed 
 to give a lengthy course of instruction to intending travellers; 
 whose fervent admiration of Chaucer took the unusual form 
 of translating his Troilus into Latin verse, and copiously 
 annotating it, both in English and Latin. 
 
 (6) John Urry (1666-1715) is the next editor of Chaucer, 
 and also the worst. As a man he seems to have been a sturdy, 
 honest scholar with a sense of humour, and a certain charm of 
 style (see his sketch of a preface, 1714 below), of staunch loyalist 
 principles, unlike his uncle Sir John Urry the soldier, who 
 seemed unable to make up his mind on which side to fight. 
 Our Urry bore arms against Monmouth in the Rebellion, and 
 refused to take the oath of supremacy to William III, though 
 this cost him his studentship at Christ Church. Dr. Atterbury, 
 the Dean of Christ Church, persuaded him, much against his 
 inclination, to prepare a new edition of Chaucer, his sole qualifi- 
 cation apparently being that he came of a Scottish family, so 
 that his familiarity with the northern tongue enabled him to 
 read Chaucer more easily than an Englishman. 2 He carried 
 through the task with a will, and collected together from many 
 sources a good number of MSS. and printed copies of Chaucer 
 for the purpose. We catch glimpses of him in Hearne’s diary 
 from the year 1711 to February 17H> working in the Bodleian, 
 examining the Junius MSS., collecting Chaucer editions and 
 
 2 See Timothy Thomas’s Preface to Urry’s Chaucer, 1721, below. 
 
 1 See Strode’ s verses, 1635, below. 
 
cxx 
 
 § 5. TJ rry's Edition of Chaucer , 1721. 
 
 MSS., over which the two friends often pored together in the 
 evenings. In an interesting letter to Lord Harley (1712, see 
 below), Urry describes his method of work, and expresses the 
 belief, after close study of the Canterbury Tales, that 4 Chaucer 
 made them exact metre, but the transcribers have much injured 
 them. He adds that he hopes, by collating many MSS. and 
 printed editions, to be able to 4 restore him to his feet again.’ 
 In March 17f§-, however, Urry died very suddenly of a fever, 
 leaving his Chaucer unfinished. He appears to have completely 
 prepared the text after a curious fashion of his own, which was 
 to lengthen or shorten Chaucer’s words, or to add an extra word, 
 whenever he thought the verse would be improved by it, with- 
 out giving to the reader any indication whatever of his altera- 
 tions (see below 1721 Thomas). It seems that he originally 
 had the intention of enclosing these additions within hooks [ ] 
 (the reverse process from that of 4 slashing Bentley ’), but this 
 4 just, useful and necessary ’ design, as Timothy Thomas calls 
 it, was for some unknown reason not carried out. Consequently 
 the edition, as regards text, is quite the worst ever issued. It 
 was taken in hand, after Urry’s death, by the authorities of 
 Christ Church and Urry’s executor, William Brome, and 
 Bernard Lintot the bookseller, and, after many vicissitudes, it 
 was published in two enormous folios in 1721 ; the preface and 
 glossary being added by Timothy Thomas, and the life of 
 Chaucer by John Dart. 
 
 The edition was divided between the College, Brome and 
 Lintot, in equal shares, the proceeds for the College being devoted 
 to the building of Peckwater Quadrangle. It does not, however, 
 appear to have been in great demand, for twelve years later we 
 find poor Mr. Brome complaining that he cannot sell his copies, 
 
 4 which lie upon hand, so that I am like to be a great sufferer ’ 
 (p. 375 below). Lintot, being in the way of business, was better 
 able to sell his, and the College authorities had adopted a simple 
 and effective method of disposing of theirs, which was to oblige 
 all scholars upon entrance to buy a copy. The picture of the 
 young fox-hunting squires of Christ Church being forced willy- 
 nilly to carry off their Chaucer folios is a delightful one; and 
 
§ 5. Some account of Thomas Tyrwhitt. 
 
 cxxi 
 
 it may perhaps account for the number of copies of Urry 
 Chaucer to be found in the old country houses of England. 
 
 (7) Thomas Tyrwhitt (1730-86) is the next, and up to this 
 date by far the greatest Chaucer scholar and editor. Con- 
 sidering the importance of Tyrwhitt’s work there is curiously 
 little known about him. He was a man of good family and 
 ample means, educated at Eton and Oxford where he was 
 elected to a fellowship at Merton College in 1755; he was ap- 
 pointed Deputy Secretary at War in 1756, and he was Clerk 
 of the House of Commons from 1762 to 1768, in which latter 
 year he resigned the position, preferring to that post of honoui 
 a private station devoted to learned ease. Later e 1 
 good work for a year or two as a trustee of the British Museum. 
 
 He was a well-known classical scholar, editor and annotator, 
 a Shakespeare critic, and the only eighteenth-century writer 
 who on sound linguistic grounds was able to expose the Chatter- 
 ton forgeries; he was indeed reputed to have a knowledge of 
 nearly every European tongue. He seems to have been quiet 
 and reserved, not strong in health, a born student; from his 
 earliest years he loved books, ‘ for,’ as one writes who knew 
 him, ‘ he never was a boy.’ He was quietly benevolent and 
 generous to those less well off than himself, 1 and is reported to 
 have given away as much as £2,000 in one year. He worked 
 for sheer love of the work, indifferent to fame or recognition. 
 The letter he writes on the occasion of the pirating of his Chaucer 
 text by Bell (June 12, 1783) is indicative of his character. It 
 is dignified and restrained, and not without a dry sense of 
 humour. A friend had told him that m Bell’s edition of the 
 English poets (1782-3) his text of the Canterbury Tales and his 
 notes had just been annexed and printed. Tyrwhitt replies 
 that it is true, but he finds he can do nothing, for as his book 
 has not been entered at Stationers’ Hall he has no legal righ 
 over it. ‘ But even if I had,’ he continues, ‘ would you advise 
 ne to go to law for a property unattended by any profit . 
 
 1 See the letter from the Bishop of St. Davids in Nichol’s Literary 
 Anecdotes, vol. ix, pp. 756-7. 
 
cxxii § 5. Tyrwhitt at work in the British Museum. 
 
 A certain philosopher, when his gouty shoes were stolen, only 
 wished that they might fit the thief as well as they fitted him- 
 self ; and for my own part I shall be contented, if my book 
 shall prove just as lucrative to Mr. Bell as it has been to me.’ 
 Tyrwhitt got nothing for his work in money, and, until long i 
 after his death, very little in fame or recognition. What led 
 him to undertake the editing of the Canterbury Tales we do not ! 
 know, but he was admirably fitted for the task ; he possessed I 
 what was at that time a probably unique knowledge of the 
 literature of the Middle Ages and of the English language of j 
 the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and he had the finest 
 literary taste combined with sound independent judgment and 
 critical insight. Probably it was the desire to do this special 
 piece of work which made him anxious to give up the Clerkship 
 of the House of Commons, so that he might have all his time for j 
 literary research. 
 
 In 1771 and the following year we get a glimpse of him col- 
 lating Chaucer texts at the British Museum. The Rev. Thomas 
 Morell, the friend of Hogarth and Handel, a cheerful, musical 
 
 and an improvident scholar, had himself designed an edition 
 of the Canterbury Tales , and had, in 1737, actually published a 
 modernization of the Prologue and Knight's Tale. Morell, 
 like Tyrwhitt, found that editing Chaucer was not remunerative, 
 but, on the contrary, rather expensive, and so he was obliged 
 to put the remainder of his Chaucer work on one side. One 
 day, however, in the summer of 1771, he writes to Mr. West, 
 that he had happened to see in the Museum a 4 gentleman 
 collating Chaucer.’ This reminded him of his work which had 
 lain by him unfinished for forty years, £ which,’ he adds rather 
 pathetically, 4 being unwilling to lose, I intend to continue ere 
 long, some way to reassume the work, and hope to get the start 
 of him, as there is one volume already printed.’ The 4 gentle- 
 man ’ was undoubtedly Tyrwhitt, for Richard Gough, in writing 
 to Mr. Tyson in the following January (1772), says that 4 Mr. 
 Tyrwhitt (late Clerk of the House of Commons) applies himself 
 totis viribus to Chaucer in the Museum, where is a copy of Urry’s 
 edition, with infinite collations by Bishop Tanner. Mr. 
 
 i 
 
 b 
 
 
§ 5. Great Chaucer Scholars at Home and Abroad, cxxiii 
 
 , Tyrwhitt conceals his design from his most intimate friends ; 
 but much is suspected and expected from his leisure and 
 
 aPP Mo a r t en did not ‘ get the start ’ of the worker in the Museum, 
 and the first four volumes of Tyrwhitt’s fine edition appeared 
 a little more than three years later. There is no need to describe 
 it here, it is generally acknowledged to be not only one of the 
 best editions of a great English classic, but also the first to be 
 done in the scholarly and conscientious way which is now thought 
 
 necessary. . . , 
 
 In the light of the immense advance m the knowledge ot 
 
 our own language during the last fifty years, it is easy now to 
 point out where .Tyrwhitt makes mistakes; but when we 
 remember that in the eighteenth century practically nothing 
 was known about Middle English, and that Tyrwhitt had to 
 discover it all for himself, his book stands out as a monument 
 of learning and critical acumen, and to it all subsequent editors 
 of Chaucer owe an incalculable debt. 
 
 It would be impossible here to mention all the Chaucer 
 scholars of the nineteenth century, for the study of our first 
 great poet has been taken up with enthusiasm, not only in 
 England, but also in Germany and America, where such excellent 
 work has been done by Lounsbury, Kittridge, Koch, Lowes, 
 Tatlock, and many others. In France, also, of late years, 
 interest has awakened in Chaucer, and a great impetus was given 
 to the French study and appreciation of our first and most 
 Gallic poet, by the admirable translation of the Canterbury Tales 
 in 1908, to which all the best-known English scholars in France 
 contributed, under the editorship of M. Emile Legouis. So 
 much has been done, and so many and able have been the workers, 
 that a book itself might be written on them and their labours. 
 F. J. Child, ten Brink and Skeat are names that will be remem- 
 bered as long as Chaucer is read ; but there is one figure which 
 stands out above the rest, one name and personality which 
 older Chaucer students of to-day will not easily forget. Dr. 
 F. J. Furnivall, in 1868, from a sheer love of our early literature, 
 founded the Chaucer Society, and, since then, not only carried 
 
cxxiv § 6. The change in literary taste and fashion. 
 
 through herculean tasks himself, but stimulated, helped, advisedj 
 and encouraged two whole generations of workers in this field. 
 
 Somehow, one cannot help thinking that, of all the great| 
 and distinguished men who have so freely given of their timei 
 and labour to our old poet, no one of them would have been: 
 more congenial to Chaucer himself, with no one would he have! 
 talked more readily or laughed more heartily than with this 
 latter-day ‘ Clerk of Cauntebrigge ’ ‘ that unto rowing hadde j 
 longe y-go,’ 1 this happy octogenarian who almost to the end 
 was young and vigorous, who loved the river and the green 
 fields, and youth and good fellowship, and who 
 
 . . . not for place or pay, 
 
 But all for the fame of the English wrought in the 
 English way. 2 
 
 § 6. The change and fluctuation of literary 
 
 TASTE AND FASHION. 
 
 In the foregoing notes we have pointed out how the mass . 
 of critical material here printed illustrates and throws light on 
 the change of attitude towards Chaucer himself throughout ' 
 these five hundred years, the change to be discerned in an ever- ' 
 shifting multitude of separate minds turned towards one fixed ; j 
 central point. It is, however, impossible to survey a great ] 
 body of critical opinion such as is to be found in the following ; 
 pages, without certain problems connected with the philosophy 
 of taste, and the doctrine of evolution generally, rising to one’s 
 mind. It is not proposed seriously to investigate the prob- j 
 lems, or to attempt any solution of them here, but it may ' 
 be of interest perhaps just to indicate a few of them, such as ! 
 those discussed in this and the three following sections. 
 
 As we watch this vast company of writers passing 'before j 
 Chaucer, and leaving on record their opinion of him, it is curious 
 to reflect that the criticism Chaucer has received throughout j 
 
 1 See Skeat’s poem, ‘ In Honorem F. J. F. J (a.d. 1900), in An English 
 Miscellany, Oxford, 1901, a quotation from which fitly closes our main 
 series of allusions. 
 
 2 Gfeorge] S[aintsbury] to F, J, F., p. 1, ibid , 
 
cxxv 
 
 § 6. Change of taste in a nation. 
 
 these five centuries in reality forms a measurement of judgment 
 not of him— but of his critics. Just as we trace the develop- 
 ment of the mind of an individual by studying his opinions and 
 works at different periods of his life, so it would seem that in 
 looking at this ever-shifting procession of critics we can trace 
 the development of the mind and spirit of the nation to which 
 they belong We know that as individuals our taste changes 
 and fluctuates from youth to age; the favourite authors of our 
 youth are not, as a rule, the favourites of middle age, or if 
 they are, we like them for other qualities, they make another 
 appeal to us. Similarly, we can here watch the taste of a nation 
 changing and fluctuating ; Chaucer is now liked for one quality, 
 now for another, while at times different ideals and interests 
 so predominate that he makes no appeal to it at all. 
 
 Chaucer undoubtedly suffered from change in language quite 
 as much as from change in taste, but even making due allowance 
 for this there is no question that had the average men of letters 
 and critics of the later seventeenth and earlier eighteenth cen- 
 turies been able to read and scan his work with perfect ease, 
 they would yet not have seen in him what is seen by the average 
 literary reader of to-day. Cowley would probably still have 
 had ‘ no taste of him,’ and Addison would have thought his 
 • wit ’ out of date. They had different ideals before them , with 
 which Chaucer did not fit in. It is for precisely this reason 
 that we no longer have ‘ a taste of ’ Waller, who, to the later 
 seventeenth century, was the most important figure in Englis 
 letters 
 
 We are so accustomed to this change of taste that we accept 
 as a natural condition of evolution, as a necessary sign of 
 growth, in nations as in individuals, this continual fluctuation, 
 of which not the least curious quality is that, although we are 
 intellectually conscious of its existence, we are as incapable of 
 realizing it as we are of realizing that our physical bodies are 
 composed of whirling and ever-changing atoms. 
 
 We all of us, individually and collectively, at any given 
 time, trained and guided as we are by the best thought of our 
 age, are inclined to feel that the way we regard an author, a 
 
cxxvi § 6. Critical opinion on Shakespeare and Chaucer. 
 
 classic, for instance, like Chaucer, is the truest and only possible 
 way he can be regarded. We of to-day are sure that we appreci- 
 ate to the full all his special qualities, and that his position in 
 the history of our literature has been once and for all established, j 
 It may be so, but the experience of the past does not confirm it. ' 
 Cowley, Addison, Dr. Johnson, and a host of minor critics, i 
 all probably felt exactly as we do ; they never doubted that their 
 taste was true, their attitude the only sane one, and that 
 Chaucer’s position, in spite of Dryden’s curious fancy for him, 
 was quite certainly and definitely settled. 
 
 To-day, with the record of the opinion of five centuries 
 before us, we can see that the verdict of the most competent 
 critic cannot be wholly trusted until Time has set his seal on 
 it, and that much allowance must always be made, as Hazlitt 
 would have said, ‘ for the wind,’ that is, for the prevailing bias 
 of the age, the standards, ideals and fashions, change in which 
 constitutes change in taste. 
 
 Some further light may be thrown on the evolution of 
 critical taste and method when we are able to compare over an 
 appreciable space of time the critical attitude of a nation towards ' 
 more than one great poet of its own race. This is only to-day 
 beginning to be possible. If, for instance, we compare the ! 
 movement of critical opinion and research on Shakespeare 
 with that on Chaucer, it is clear that there is a certain similarity, 
 which would appear to indicate the existence of a definite 
 rhythm in the evolution of taste and critical method, as there \ 
 is a rhythm in all life. The investigation in the future will be ] 
 complicated by the fact that there will be two rhythms to i 
 follow, (1) that of the development of the nation itself and of its l 
 critical powers, and (2) that of the evolution of its attitude ' 
 towards any one given poet. Owing, however, to the literary 
 barrenness of the fifteenth century in England, the development 
 of the first was not at the outset sufficiently rapid to make any 
 great difference in the treatment of Chaucer and Shakespeare. 
 
 Thus, in the case of each of these poets there is a period of 
 early praise and personal appreciation, love for the man, with 
 an unquestioned recognition of his position as a great artist. 
 
§ 6. Shakespeare & Chaucer. Similarity m critical attitude, cxxvn 
 
 This is followed by a more critical attitude, which, m Shake- 
 speare’s case, for various fairly obvious reasons, comes about 
 much sooner after his death than it does with Chaucer. Then 
 follows, for both poets, a time of effort to make their rough and 
 unpolished works more acceptable to modern taste; Shake- 
 sperian revision and ‘improvement’ began as early as 166^ 
 (when Davenant produced his blend of Measure for Measure and 
 Much Ado), though it did not continue so late into the nineteenth 
 
 century as is the case with Chaucer. 
 
 At the same time it is in the eighteenth century that the 
 gradual revival of real first-hand knowledge and appreciation 
 of both poets began, critical and scholarly investigation was 
 started, stupendous work on Shakespeare’s text was done y 
 the great succession of eighteenth-century editors, and Tyrwhitt 
 brought out his monumental edition of the Canterbury Tales. 
 
 In the later period of ‘ romantic ’ criticism for both poets, 
 which began at the end of the eighteenth century and went on 
 all through the nineteenth century, we find in the case of 
 Chaucer that this romantic, psychological and often ethica 
 appreciation is followed and accompanied from the eighteen 
 sixties onwards with very close textual work and specialised 
 investigation of his language and versification. This closer and 
 specialised investigation of Shakespeare has yet to come; it is, 
 possibly, just beginning. It is in fact probable that investi- 
 gators to-day, three hundred years after Shakespeare s deatn, 
 may be about to do for his text something analogous to what 
 Tyrwhitt, three hundred and seventy-five years after Chaucer s 
 death, did for him when he disposed of the persistently erroneous 
 view of his versification and proved that he was a far greater 
 artist and a far more finished literary craftsman than had up 
 to that time been suspected. 
 
 It is not suggested that Shakespeare’s supreme technical 
 skill has in modern times ever been in doubt, but he has been 
 believed to be very careless, and the text of his plays to be 
 very corrupt, and it has been taken for granted that the quarto 
 editions were very carelessly printed and not to be trusted. 
 Mr. Pollard, Mr. Dover Wilson and other workers are to-day 
 
cxxviii § 6 . Shakespeare and Chaucer. Parallels in qualities. 
 
 taking us back, not only to close investigation of Elizabethan 
 book-production and of the Quartos in particular, but also in 
 part to the reconstruction of Shakespeare’s manuscript, and as 
 a result they show us that passages which to modern eyes 
 appear corrupt and ungrammatical in punctuation are in reality 
 most delicately and sensitively pointed as an indication of 
 how they are to be said, and that lines written by some one 
 apparently devoid of the most elementary sense of rhythm, 
 can, in the light of the study of contemporary manuscripts, be 
 easily accounted for and reconstructed. 
 
 In addition to this dawning likeness in what might be called 
 critical approach, there are other parallels in the works and 
 qualities of both poets most appreciated at certain times. 
 Such, for instance, is the early preference for the love poems, 
 Chaucer’s Troilus , and in Shakespeare’s case the Venus and 
 Adonis and Romeo and Juliet ( see The Shakespere Allusion 
 book, vol. i, p. xxiii, vol. ii, p. 540). It is clear that the works 
 of a poet most prized by contemporaries or immediate successors 
 are by no means those which later generations will put first. 
 
 A striking illustration of this is the lack of contemporary 
 appreciation of Antony and Cleopatra, which to-day most lovers 
 of Shakespeare would place among the very greatest and most 
 poetical of his plays. There is a noticeable absence of the 
 borrowing of phrases from it by other authors, and up to 1700 
 only fifteen references to it have been found compared with 
 ninety-five to Hamlet, eighty to Falstaff and sixty-one each to 
 Romeo and Juliet and Venus and Adonis. 
 
 Indeed, as Mr. Munro suggests ( Shakespere Allusions, vol. i, 
 p. xxiv), the cause of the neglect of Antony may be the secret 
 of the Elizabethan attitude towards Shakespeare the dramatist, 
 and may show us better than anything else the qualities they 
 most prized and those they ignored. In the same way, as we 
 have seen (p. lxxvii above), it is not until after 1750 that the 
 Canterbury Tales takes the first place among Chaucer’s works. 
 
 It is clear then that taste does change, but if we ask what 
 it is that causes it to change, there is no satisfactory answer 
 to be given. 
 
§ 6. Possible increase in capacity to appreciate Chaucer . cxxix 
 
 There are certain influences, foreign literatures, canons of 
 criticism, indicated in every history of the subject, which we 
 can plainly see do much to bring about this change. But all 
 these ‘ causes ’ only push the question one step further back. 
 These influences, taken singly or together, do not explain why 
 taste is in a state of continual flux and changes with each 
 generation. This flux is as mysterious as life itself , it is in 
 truth the fundamental characteristic of life, and it is because 
 taste is a living thing, because it is the capacity for discernment 
 of what is good, that it must inevitably change. 
 
 Granting this, then, we see that in Chaucer s case the change 
 in critical attitude accounts for much. We no longer have a 
 definite body of poetic rules and ideals to which all poets, how- 
 ever alien in kind, must conform or be condemned ; and that 
 class of criticism is extinct, which is so admirably exemplified 
 in Miss Jenkyns’s remark on the author of the Pickwick Papers, 
 
 ‘ Doubtless, a young man, who might do very well if he would 
 take Dr. Johnson for a model.’ 
 
 Our demands are different and our tests are different. To- 
 day we prize Chaucer above all because he is a great artist, 
 we delight in his simplicity, his freshness, his humanity, his 
 humour, but it is possible that these may not be the only or 
 even the principal reasons why he is liked three hundred years 
 hence. If, as would seem to be the case, the common conscious- 
 ness of a people becomes enriched with time and experience, 
 enabling them to see ever more and more in the work of a great 
 poet, the lovers of Chaucer three centuries hence will be capable 
 of seeing more in him and will be able to come actually nearer 
 to him than can those who love him to-day. 
 
 Three directions may be indicated in which this enrichment 
 of consciousness is here seen. They are all exactly parallel 
 with what takes place in the growth and development of the 
 individual personality. The first is the development of self- 
 consciousness, of the art of criticism itself; the second is the 
 development of a new sense, and the third is intellectual 
 development, as seen in accuracy and trained scholarship. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM. 
 
cxxx § 7. Gradual change in the conception of criticism. 
 
 § 7. The birth and growth of criticism as an art. 
 
 We know that in nations, as in individuals, the critical 
 faculty develops late, for criticism is a self-conscious art, and 
 cannot exist in the intellectual childhood of a race. England, 
 as compared with France and Italy, was backward in this art, 
 for the northern races mature less quickly, and it is only neces- j 
 sary to cast a glance over the tributes to Chaucer during the > 
 first 150 years after his death, to realize why England was late I 
 in producing criticism. Chaucer is praised mainly for two j 
 reasons, because he settled or established the language, and 
 because he was our first, and by far our greatest poet. We | 
 lacked, until later than either France or Italy, a single form 
 of standard speech, and, with one exception, we also lacked j 
 good writers. Thus no criticism was for us possible tmtil j 
 the pre-eminence of Chaucer’s work had helped to establish I 
 the dialect of London as the standard English speech, and ! 
 until we possessed a certain body of literary work, both in 
 prose and verse, which could be analyzed, commented on and j 
 compared. 
 
 We have here under our hand, and can easily trace as we J 
 turn over the pages, the gradual change in the conception of 
 criticism. It begins with bare classification of the external and 
 obvious, and the analysis of form, or, it is concerned only with 
 the ethics of the matter : next it searches for the establishment 
 of an outside fixed standard, by the degree of conformity to j 
 which it judges a work, and it delights in the manufacture of , 
 receipts for poetry. With Dryden comes the dawn of the j 
 conception of organic life and growth in matters literary — £ for J 
 we have our Lineal Descents and Clans, as well as other 
 Families ’ — in the eighteenth century the reaction to the judg- 
 ment by fixed standard, and finally the gradual realization that 
 aesthetic is not fixed, but relative, varying from age to age, and 
 from country to country, and that criticism, even as poetry, 
 is a creative art, whose true function lies in interpretation, in 
 painting to the intellect what already c lies painted to the heart 
 
§ 7. The slow growth of critical power. cxxxi 
 
 and imagination.’ 1 From this point of view the remarks on 
 Chaucer by Ascham (1544), Gascoigne (1575), Nash (1592), 
 Waller (1668), Dryden (1700), Johnson (1755), Warton (1774), 
 Blake (1809), and Hazlitt (1817-18) would in themselves, if 
 rightly read, form a short illustrated History of English 
 Criticism. 
 
 Besides the new idea of the function of criticism and the 
 change in the standard in critical judgment, we find here what 
 is really a rather startling illustration of the curiously slow 
 growth of any sort of critical power in the modern sense of the 
 word. 
 
 If we examine the comments on Chaucer which have any 
 pretension to be called literary or aesthetic criticism (see list, 
 p. xc above), we see that up to the middle of the sixteenth 
 century they consist purely of praise of a very simple and vague 
 kind, the vagueness and general nature of the remarks being 
 their most striking feature. Elizabethan criticism is either 
 a very elementary analysis of Chaucer’s metre and language, 
 or a tribute of admiration, or a defence of the poet against 
 certain shortcomings with which he is charged. The sixteenth- 
 century criticisms are good illustrations of how completely 
 literature was treated as an external phenomenon; the work 
 was tested 4 in vacuo,’ 2 * the critic was concerned with its unity, 
 regularity, harmony and so on, but never with its relation to 
 the mind that created it, or to the age in which it was written. 
 Of the change in this respect which gradually took place in the 
 seventeenth century, we cannot here judge, for of seventeenth- 
 century Chaucerian criticism there is practically none, until 
 in the last year of the century, quite suddenly, and as it were 
 without any preparation, we find the first aesthetic criticism of 
 his work, which is in many respects the finest, sanest and most 
 illuminating essay ever written concerning Chaucer’s merits 
 and position as a poet. 
 
 1 Carlyle, ‘ State of German Literature,’ 1827, Miscellaneous Essays, 
 1899, vol. i, p. 61. 
 
 2 See Professor Spingarn in Introduction to Critical Essays of the Ylth 
 
 Century, 1908, vol. i, pp. xxvii-viii. 
 
cxxxii § 7. Introduction of comparative and historical criticism. 
 
 Nothing more astonishingly brings out Dryden’s greatness i 
 as a critic, his freedom, breadth, acuteness, courage, and 
 extraordinary independence of view, than does his treatment 
 of Chaucer. Not only is he the first writer to give us real 
 criticism in the modern sense of the word, but in an age which 
 despised Chaucer, and frankly looked upon him as barbarous 
 and obsolete, 1 Dryden calmly compares him with Ovid, and 
 maintains that the English poet is the more classical of the two. I 
 In this surprising and ever refreshing piece of criticism, Dryden ! 
 makes use, for the first time as applied to Chaucer, of the com- j 
 parative and historical methods, both of which were new in j 
 English criticism. Before this time the mention of a date or of 
 the fact that Chaucer is our first poet is the only evidence that a j 
 rudimentary historical sense ^ existed. There is no attempt I 
 really to compare one writer with another, unless the simile 
 ‘ our English Homer ’ is to be described as such. Dryden also 
 shows the way to the study of poetry by definite illustration, 
 quotation and comparison. This method was practically J 
 unknown in England until Bymer wrote his preface to Rapin 
 in 1674, before which date, as has been pointed out, 2 * scarcely • 
 a line of English verse had been quoted for the purpose of critical 
 analysis or discussion.’ Unfortunately, Rymer in discussing ; 
 the heroic poets of England, passes Chaucer over, because in 
 his time the English language was ‘ not capable of any Heroick 
 character.’ 
 
 After Dryden, criticism as an art stood still for more than a 
 hundred years, or, indeed, it may more accurately be said to have ] 
 gone back. This is well illustrated by the Chaucer criticism of 
 the eighteenth century. George Sewell, in 1720, shows acute- 
 ness in his remarks, putting his finger on the weak points in 1 
 contemporary Chaucer criticism, and he gives two concrete 
 
 1 The general and most lenient attitude towards Chaucer at this time 
 is well represented by Edward Phillips (1675), who says that Chaucer 
 
 ‘ through all the neglect of former ag’d Poets still keeps a name, being j 
 by some few admir’d for his real worth, to others not unpleasing for his 
 facetious way, which joyn’d with his old English intertains them with a 
 kind of Drollery.’ 
 
 2 Introduction to Critical Essays of the 17 th Century, ed. Spingam, 
 vol. i, p. Ixv. 
 
 j 
 

 §7. Eighteenth-century criticism. 
 
 cxxxm 
 
 illustrations of the statement he makes as to Dryden’s debt to 
 Chaucer. George Ogle (1739) also uses concrete illustrations, 
 and attempts some comparison of qualities with the classical 
 poets. Apart from these, which only stand out because other 
 criticisms are so inadequate, there is nothing of real critical 
 worth about Chaucer until we come to the revival in the third 
 quarter of the century, which shows itself so strongly m the love 
 for the literature of the past. Thomas Warton, first in his 
 observations on Spenser (1754 and 1762), and later and more 
 fully in his History of English Poetry (1774-78); Gray, in his 
 notes on Chaucerian metre (1760-1), and Tyrwhitt, in his 
 edition of the Canterbury Tales (1775), mark a new departure 
 in interpretative, philological and metrical criticism. Warton 
 is followed by Scott, Blake, Coleridge, Hazlitt, and the early 
 nineteenth-century reviewers, but it was to be nearly ninety 
 years before any worthy successor of Tyrwhitt again applied 
 
 himself to the text of Chaucer. 
 
 It is a fact worth noting, that the earliest literary critic, and the 
 earliest philologist in England (in the modern sense of the terms), 
 were alike in their love for Chaucer, and each of them has left 
 as a monument to him, a work which was not even approached 
 in merit for a century after its appearance. 
 
 In addition to the evolution in taste, in critical standard, and 
 critical faculty, we would seem also to have evolved new senses. 
 
 An obvious instance of this is the feeling for nature, the 
 development of which is so recent a feature of our literature. 
 Why should this sense, more especially the appreciation of wild 
 scenery, have lain practically dormant until the third quarter 
 of the eighteenth century ? Why should mountains and moors 
 until then have been found 4 sad,’ 4 frightful and horrid ? 1 
 ‘ Who can like the Highlands? 5 replied Dr. Johnson to an 
 incautious inquiry from a Southerner as to how he had liked the 
 
 1 See a letter from Mason to Walpole, 1773, Walpole s Letters, ed. 
 Cunningham, vol. v, p. 501, note, or Life of John Buncle, by Thomas 
 Amory, 1756, vol. i, p. 291; ii, p. 97, or Hutchinson’s Excursion to the 
 Lakes , 1773, pp. 11, 17. 
 
 § 8. The evolution of new senses. 
 
cxxxiv § 8. The Evolution of new senses. 
 
 North. An Englishman, describing in 1740 the beautiful road 
 which runs along the south-eastern shore of Loch Ness, calls the 
 rugged mountains ‘ those hideous productions of nature ’ ; 1 the 
 poet Gray, when crossing Perthshire early in September (1765), 
 when the heather must have been a blaze of purple, describes 
 it as a weird and dismal heath, fit for an assembly of witches ’ ; 2 
 and a little later (1775) we find the citizens of Edinburgh being 
 urged to plant trees near the town so as to purify the air 4 and 
 dispel those putrid and noxious vapours which are frequently 
 wafted from the Highlands.’ 3 Twenty-three years later Words- 
 worth and Coleridge were writing the Lyrical Ballads. 
 
 A similar problem as regards the evolution of a sense meets 
 us in respect of the subtle and well-nigh indefinable quality, 
 which we now call humour. 
 
 This faculty, which surely must be distinctively human, for 
 the animals have it not, and the gods perchance transcend it, 4 
 this consciousness of human life in relation to its eternal 
 environment, this quick recognition of incongruity and contrast 
 seen in the light of a larger wisdom ; this power of inverting the 
 relative values of things both small and great, because of an 
 instinct that from some point outside they would be seen to be 
 neither small nor great, but only deeply significant — this is a 
 quality which, in its literary expression, is peculiarly English. 
 Wit we cede to France, and philosophy to Germany, but in 
 humour we stand supreme. 
 
 It is an interesting, although an obviously natural fact that 
 seriousness and humour constantly go together; it is the most 
 serious nations in Europe — England and Spain — who have on 
 the whole been the most humorous. For humour implies 
 belief, deep feeling, tenderness; and the dissonances of life 
 
 1 Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotland, London, 1754, 
 vol. ii, p. 339. 
 
 2 Gray’s Works, ed. Gosse, vol. iii, p. 214. 
 
 3 Topham’s Letters from Edinburgh, 1776, pp. 231, 233. 
 
 A sense of humour is dependent on a condition of partial knowledge. 
 Complete knowledge or complete ignorance are fatal to it. A Mrs. 
 Gamp is not humorous to a Betsy Prig, for both are on the same level. 
 Neither could be humorous to a Power, who knows everything and can be 
 surprised at nothing and to whom no one thing is more incongruous than 
 another.’— W. H. Mallock. 
 
cxxxv 
 
 § 8. The earlier meaning of ‘ Humour .’ 
 
 stand out more apparent to eyes which have been used to 
 
 look on man’s mortality.’ 1 . 
 
 That the quality of humour existed in full measure in 
 fourteenth-century England we know by reading Chaucers 
 Prologue, but we are forced to ask whether it was less common 
 than now, only to be found here and there among men of 
 genius If it was as general and as well recognised as it is 
 to-day by what name was it called? The faculty, it would 
 seem is of late growth, in the race as in the individual, savages 
 and children possess it very slightly and in a very elementary 
 form. Possibly it is only yet in the germ. One thing is certain 
 
 that in Chaucer’s time, and for long after, it was not called 
 < humour,’ for it is evident that no glimmering of the modern 
 meaning of that word was known until the very end of the 
 seventeenth century. It is perhaps the most important of a 
 number of words-such as ‘ wit,’ ‘ fancy,’ ‘ taste ’-which have 
 so extended their meaning as to be new creations. These all 
 came into being in their literary sense, as qualities of the mind, 
 during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and brought 
 about practically a new terminology in criticism. 
 
 ‘ Humour,’ which is literally ‘ moisture,’ was first used in 
 mediaeval physiology as a term for one of the chief fluids of the 
 body (blood, phlegm, choler and melancholy), 2 and so by 
 extension in the later sixteenth century in England it came to 
 mean the special singularity of disposition or character which 
 distinguishes a man from his fellows. Shakespeare employs it 
 in this sense, while Ben Jonson’s use of it is characteristic. 3 
 
 1 See The Evolution of Humour, by S. J. Butcher, in Harper’s Magazine, 
 May 1890, vol. 80, p. 906: also The Humorous m Literature , by J. a. 
 Shorthous’e, in Literary Remains, 1905, vol. ii, pp. 248-280. 
 
 2 So used by Chaucer, for example, in the Nonne Preestes Tale, 11. 
 
 4113-4128. 
 
 3 Thus, in the Induction to Every Man out of his Humour . 
 after explaining the medical notion of a humour, continues— 
 
 ‘ It may by metaphor apply itself 
 Unto the general disposition : 
 
 As when some one peculiar quality 
 Doth so possess a man, that it doth draw 
 All his effects, his spirits, and his powers, 
 In their conductions, all to run one way^ 
 This may be truly said to be a Humour.’ 
 
 Jonson, 
 
cxxxvi § 8. Humour a specially English Quality. 
 
 Dryden, when expounding humour in his Essay of Dramatic l 
 Poesy (1668), does not seem conscious of any but the Jonsonian 
 meaning, but there is no doubt that Shaftesbury, in his Essay 
 on The Freedom of Wit and Humour (1709), gave it another inter- ji 
 pretation, and looked upon it as an alternative to Wit. The f 
 fresh extension of meaning, from humours meaning singular 'i 
 traits of character, to humour a special and subtle quality of 
 
 mind, seems to have taken place somewhere between these two I 
 dates. 
 
 Sir William Temple, in his Essay of Poetry (1692), certainly , 
 has something of the modern signification in his mind when he ) 
 speaks of ‘ a vein, natural, perhaps to our country, and which 
 with us is called humour— a word peculiar to our language 
 too, and hard to be expressed in another; nor is it, that I 
 know of, found in any foreign writers, unless it be Moliere. i 
 Shakespeare was the first that opened this vein upon our 
 stage.’ 
 
 ^ Congreve, in his letter to Dennis (1695), 1 and the Swiss, 
 Beat de Muralt, who visited England at the end of the 
 seventeenth century, both speak of it as a universally ' 
 recognized quality possessed by the English. ‘ They have 
 what they call Humour, and pretend ’tis all their own 
 it seems they mean by it a certain Fruitfulness of Imagina- 
 tion, which for the most part tends to overthrow the Ideas 
 of things, turning Virtue into Ridicule, and making Vice 
 agreeable.’ 2 
 
 Whether Temple were responsible for the belief or no, it is j 
 certain that not only English but also French writers of the \ 
 eighteenth century generally spoke of £ humour ’ as something \ 
 specially English, bo^h as regards the quality and the word f 
 
 t i i^ e V*L f ^^r Congreve to - Dennis ’ Concerning Humour in Comedy, 
 duly iu, 1695 [in] Letters upon several occasions, published by Mr. Dennis, 
 London, 1696, pp. 80-96. Congreve gives the Jonsonian meaning to 
 umour, with a slight indication of the wider extension in the use of the 
 adjective humorously. ’ 
 
 2 Letters describing the character and customs of the English and 
 French, by Beat de Muralt (Eng. Trans., 1726), p. 28. 
 
§ 8. The English claim to ‘ humour ’ disputed. 
 
 cxxxvn 
 
 denoting it. 1 2 This claim was disputed by some writers ; thus 
 Swift, while agreeing with Temple that the word was peculiar 
 to English, points out that the quality is to be found m other 
 nations, and cites Cervantes in proof of this.* Voltaire goes a 
 step further and maintains that neither the quality nor the word 
 was the exclusive possession of English literature. 3 Addison, 
 as early as 1711, points out very clearly 4 the difference between 
 True and False Humour, and shows that a great deal was 
 called ‘ humorous ’ which did not deserve the name. Indeed there 
 was much uncertainty in the use of the term throughout the 
 eighteenth century, and even later. There is no question that 
 although by some (e.g. Addison and Swift) the greatness of 
 humour was recognized, yet in many minds the meaning of the 
 word was degraded, and it was connected to some extent with 
 ‘ buffoonery ’ or ‘ facetiousness,’ and even with holding up 
 something or some one as an object of ridicule. This was 
 
 1 See Idee de la Po'esie Anglaise, by Abb6 Yart, Paris, 1740, i, PP- 195 
 and 214 • also Pensees et fragments inedits de Montesquieu, Bordeaux, 
 1901 ii’pp 8, 14-16; also Nouvelles Litteraires, dec., France f 
 VAngleter™, Lettre xxii, 1752, pp. 2 3; and as late as i 1800 Madame de 
 StaeFs De la Litterature, chap, xiv, De la Plaisantene ^n^tee For the 
 whole subject of the development of humour see an article by Benedetto 
 Croce in the Journal of Comparative LUerature, N. York Jf"; 
 also Etudes dihistoire litteraire, par F. Baldensperger Pans > 19( ”’ PP: 
 176-227; Moliere et Shakespeare, par ?au * Stepfer, Paris 1887 ch. 
 and vii; and Critical Essays of the 11th Century, ed. J. E. Spmgam, 
 Oxford, 1908, Introduction, pp. ix-lxiii. 
 
 2 The Intelligencer, 1698, No. 3. . , 
 
 3 Letter to the Abbe d’Olivet, Aug. 20, 1761, CEuvres de Volteire^d 
 
 Moland, Paris, 1883, xli, 405. ‘ Ils [les Anglais] ont un terme pou 
 
 signifier cette plaisanterie, ce vrai comique, cette gaiete, cette urbani^ 
 ces saillies qui echappent a un homme sans qu il s en doute . ^ ils rendent 
 cette idee par le mot humeur, humour, qu ils prononcent yurmr et ils 
 croient qu’ils ont seuls cette humeur; que es autres na \ 10 “ 3 f 
 
 de terme pour exprimer ce caractere d esprit. Cependan . di j e 
 
 mot de notre langue, employe en ce sens dans plusieurs ■ Tooted 
 Corneille ’ A passage illustrating Corneille s use of humeur is quoted 
 by Sn in Recreations Philologiques, i, p. 213-6, {Suite dn Menteur 
 (1643), III, i), but the meaning there seems to be original, ecc ® ntr1 ^ 
 ‘something of a character,’ rather than our modern sense o £ the term. 
 See Corneille’s Lexique ; ‘humeur,’ and note. Voltaire s defimtio 
 ‘ esprit ’ (wit) in his Dictionnaire philosophique is worth noting, as it ; seems 
 to include certain qualities which we consider essentially characteristic ot 
 * humour.’ 
 
 4 The Spectator , No. 35, April 10, 1711. 
 
cxxxviii § 8. Evolution of the meaning of 4 Humour .’ 
 
 obviously the meaning which Goldsmith had in his mind when 
 he deliberately placed humour below wit; 1 while as late as 
 1805, Sydney Smith evidently takes it to mean little more than 
 agreeable raillery and facetious remark.’ 2 
 
 It is not until nearly fifty years later (1851) that we find 
 Thackeray giving a definition of the term that satisfies the 
 modern mind. 3 4 
 
 There can be no question, then, that although the quality 
 itself is to be found as far back as Chaucer, the people as a 
 whole possessed it only in an elementary and gross form, and 
 were far less susceptible to it than they are to-day. 4 Nothing,’ 
 says Goethe, 4 is more significant of men’s character than what 
 they find laughable.’ George Eliot, in quoting this remark, 
 observes that it would perhaps have been more accurate to say 
 culture instead of character.’ 4 It is most certain that, as 
 men evolve, as they grow in refinement, in quickness and delicacy 
 of perception, in sensitiveness and in sympathy, their conception 
 of what is humorous must grow proportionately. 
 
 It is only necessary to stray a little in the by-paths, more 
 especially of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century literature, to 
 realize that in no one quality of mind is the growth of the race 
 more marked and apparent than in this conception. We may 
 briefly illustrate this point by the history of Chaucer criticism. 
 In Chaucer we have a poet whose distinguishing quality of 
 mind is a subtle, shifting, delicate and all-pervading humour, 
 to which full justice has not perhaps even yet been done 5 ; yet 
 through all these years of critical remark there is until the 
 eighteenth century no reference to the quality as we know it, 
 
 Wit raises human nature above its level ; humour acts a contrary 
 part and equally depresses it. To expect exalted humour is a contra- 
 diction in terms . when a thing is humorously described . . we compare 
 the absurdity of the character represented with our own, and triumph 
 m our own conscious superiority.’ An Enquiry into the Present State 
 o t Polite Learning in Europe, 1759, pp. 155, 156. 
 
 2 Elementary Sketches of Moral Philosophy, by Sydney Smith, 1854 
 Lecture xi, p. 144. ' J 
 
 C I ^ °P en * n & paragraphs of The English Humourists of the 1 8th 
 
 4 German Wit, Heinrich Heine, Westminster Review, 1856. 
 
 See the excellent remarks on this by Prof. Saintsbury in the 
 Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. ii, 1908, chap. vii. 
 
CXXX1X 
 
 § 8. Chaucer's humour is unrecognized. 
 
 which he so amply possessed. There is a certain recognition 
 among some earlier writers of his 4 pleasant vayne and wit, 
 and his 4 delightsome mirth ’ (see p. xcvii above), by which is 
 probably meant his relish of a good story, his sly sense of fun, 
 and the general atmosphere of good-humour which pervades 
 his work, but there is no hint of appreciation of that deeper 
 and more delicate quality alone deserving the name of 
 ‘ humour,’ which is insight, sympathy and tender seriousness, 
 all brought into play upon the ever-present sense of the incon- 
 gruous, and of the inconsistent in character and life. Of all 
 this, as far as we can judge, they are unconscious. 
 
 The first mention we find of the word 4 humour ’ as applied 
 to Chaucer is in some verses by John Gay in 1712, where he 
 speaks of Prior entertaining the admiring reader with 4 Chaucer s 
 Humour ’ ; but we cannot be certain of the exact meaning here 
 attached to the word, although if we may judge from the coarse 
 and vulgar comedy which Gay in some sense founded on the 
 Canterbury pilgrims, what he was most aware of in Chaucer 
 was facetiousness, jokes and general jollity. In 1715 John 
 Hughes clearly employs the word in the older Jonsonian sense 
 of the predominating characteristic, but it would seem as if 
 Pope, in 1728, when censuring Addison, was using the word 
 with some approach to its modern meaning. So, surely, was 
 Elizabeth Cooper (1737), when she says that Chaucer 4 blended 
 the acutest Raillery, with the most insinuating Humour.’ 
 
 It is Thomas Warton who, in 1754, first uses the term in 
 what we can be quite sure is something near the modern sense ; 
 moreover he lays considerable emphasis on the fact that Chaucer 
 was the first English writer to possess it. After Warton, the 
 idea began very gradually to creep in that a sense of humour 
 was one of the qualities of the poet. Bishop Percy (1765), in 
 his remarks on Sir Thopas, and Charles Burney (1782), who 
 speaks of Chaucer’s 4 wit and humour,’ are cases in point. 1 It 
 is not, however, until well on in the nineteenth century, not 
 indeed until Leigh Hunt wrote on it in 1846, that Chaucer s 
 humour seems to have met with any adequate recognition. 
 
 1 It is worth noting that although Gray seems to use the word in its 
 modem sense in speaking of Lydgate, he does not apply it at all to 
 Chaucer (see 1766-1, Gray). 
 
cxl § 9. Change in standard of accuracy and scholarship. 
 
 § 9. The evolution of scholarship and accuracy in 
 
 LITEEAEY MATTEES. 
 
 The development along this line is here more conspicuous 
 than perhaps anything else. It is so obvious that it is only 
 necessary to give one or two illustrations in point. Consider, 
 for instance, the history of Chaucer biography. The fertility 
 of invention, the touching and unquestioning faith in the printed I' 
 word, the unhesitating belief of later biographers in all the 
 utterances of their predecessors, and the extraordinary blindness b 
 to contradiction and inaccuracy in statements of fact, these are ■ 
 characteristics which undergo little change up to the eighteenth 
 century. Thus we know that Leland was as an antiquary • 
 quite justly much revered both by his contemporaries and 
 succeeding generations, and the main body of his work was i 
 for full three hundred years accepted as authoritative. Much 
 of his historical and topographical work was certainly most j 
 valuable, and proves him to have been painstaking and j 
 laborious, and he appears to have set before himself the I 
 very highest ideals as to research and accuracy; 1 indeed his 
 name became almost synonymous with a passionate love of 
 truth. 2 
 
 Yet his life of Chaucer, which we have already examined, 
 shows gross ignorance, carelessness and inaccuracy ; statements 
 aie authoritatively made without any hesitation, which we i 
 know now could not have had any foundation in fact. 
 
 We can understand that owing to scarcity of books and j 
 libraries, and difficulties of access to public records, it was not 
 
 t m ^? e .-belaud s New Year’s Gift,’ in The Itinerary of John Leland, ed. 
 -L. Toulmin Smith, 1907, vol. i, pp. xxxviii— xli. 
 
 2 i Ba ]e, refers to this in his 1 Kynge Johan 1 (ed. J. P. Collier, Camden 
 Society 1838, 11. 2163-4), written probably when Leland was insane, when 
 Virgil eS Verity Say ’ °PP osin g a supposed lie of the Romanist, Polydore 
 
 Yes ! therefore, Leylonde, out of thy slumbre awake, 
 And wytnesse a trewthe for thyne owne contrayes sake/ 
 

 § 9. The inaccuracy of Leland and others . 
 
 cxli 
 
 easily within the power even of scholars to verify their facts, 
 and it does not surprise us to find that so careful a critic as 
 Dryden takes on trust all the assertions of earlier biographers, 
 or accepts unquestioningly Chaucer’s authorship of the Plow- 
 man’s Tale and even confuses it with the Vision of Piers Plow- 
 man, until lately thought to be by Langland. What remains 
 a puzzle is the apparent lack of perception of obvious errors and 
 inconsistencies within these narratives themselves. For instance 
 Leland represents Chaucer as highly esteemed by Henry IV 
 and his son (Henry V), and yet, although the generally accepted 
 date for Chaucer’s death was 1400, Tyrwhitt is, so far as we 
 know, the first writer to point out that Leland evidently con- 
 sidered Chaucer as living at least 20 years later than he really 
 did. Far from noticing this blunder, succeeding historians 
 only made it more definite, and we find Giles Jacob in 1720, m 
 his Lives of the English Poets, stating that Chaucer was Poet 
 Laureate in the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V, and that he 
 died in 1400. The fact that the reigns of these two kings 
 extend from 1399-1422 seems to escape the notice, not only 
 of the writer of these 1 Lives,’ but also of his readers. 
 
 Another point well illustrated here is the slender equipment 
 thought necessary by the best authorities for the editing of a 
 great classic. We know that as late as the eighteenth century 
 men of letters, though as a rule possessed of wide general 
 knowledge and interests, entirely lacked the training and 
 specialization in any one branch of study which to-day seems so 
 essential. They attempted, and carried through single-handed, 
 tasks, such as Gibbon’s History and Johnson’s Dictionary, 
 which to-day would afford life-long employment to a small 
 army of specialists. 
 
 Plenty of courage and a Scottish extraction, although good 
 qualifications in their way, would not to a modern Dean of 
 Christ Church seem sufficient grounds upon which to persuade 
 a man to undertake a critical edition of Chaucer. Yet Dr. 
 Atterbury appears to have urged this task on John Urry 
 mainly for these two reasons. As we know, Dr. Johnson him- 
 self seriously contemplated editing Chaucer with full critical 
 
cxlii § 9. Lack of critical scholarship in the 18th century. 
 
 apparatus of notes and linguistic remarks, and although better 
 equipped than Urry, his qualifications for the task were not 
 striking. The fact is that critical scholarship and minute 
 and searching investigation were at this time practically un- 
 known, and therefore were not regarded as necessary. Gold- 
 smith, in addition to his imaginative work, produced with 
 equal ease and confidence histories of England, of Rome of 
 Greece, and of the Earth and Animated Nature ; and Johnson 
 when writing his ‘ Lives,’ could not be troubled to make many 
 researches or to do much reading for the purpose, 1 preferring to 
 trust to his sound common-sense and wide general knowledge. 
 
 I his lack of thoroughness and scholarly accuracy may be 
 forgiven m Johnson or Goldsmith, and the more easily when we 
 realize the general lowness of standard in this respect which is 
 so marked in the work of the smaller writers and commentators 
 m connection with Chaucer criticism until the middle of the 
 nineteenth century. A study of these brings home to us what 
 strides ordinary scholarship has made during the last hundred 
 years, and how changed are our ideals and requirements in 
 this connection. The modernizations of Chaucer in 1841 have 
 already been cited as a good illustration of this (see p. lix 
 above); we will add only one more. In 1795 the Rev. William 'i 
 Lipscomb, a scholar of Corpus Christi, who had carried off a 
 Chancellor s prize at Oxford, was private tutor and chaplain 
 to the Duke of Cleveland, and a constant contributor to the 
 Gentleman’s Magazine , published a complete modernization of 
 the Canterbury Tales ; in the preface he states that the Life of i 
 Chaucer he reprints is ‘ taken from the valuable edition of his ' 
 
 original works published by Mr. Tyrwhitt.’ Not only is the ‘Life’ 
 
 which Lipscomb prints taken wholesale from the Biographia 
 Bntanmca for 1747, but remarks in it are diametrically 
 opposed m important particulars (as regards language, etc.) 
 
 1 For instance, in writing of Congreve, Johnson says ‘ Of his nlavi 
 
 passed °butwL? 1StmCtly ? ■ f ° r SinCG 1 ins P ected them miny years have 
 passed, but what remains in my memory is ’ ^ - 
 
 tollows. A nineteenth -century writer ~ 
 
 Johnson, would have re-read the plays. 
 
 is 
 
 even 
 
 ***v»iij j vu/ac ua v 
 
 and a critical account 
 of the same eminence as 
 
cxliii 
 
 § 9. Dante and Chaucer through the centuries. 
 
 to what Tyrwhitt says in his essay. 1 But this is not all. 
 Lipscomb, who apparently much admired Chaucer, had under- 
 taken to reprint all existing modernizations of the Tales, and 
 to supply omissions by his own renderings. One would there- 
 fore not unnaturally assume that before publication he would 
 make himself familiar with the literature of the subject. He 
 does not, however, thus trammel himself. He reprints the 
 versions of Ogle, Betterton, Dryden, Pope, Brooke, Markland, 
 Grosvenor and Boyse, which appear in Ogle’s edition of 1741, 
 but he supplies his own version of the Nun’s Priest’s Tale, 
 for, as he tells us in a naive Postscript, 2 he did not know, 
 until the book was finished, of the existence of a version 
 by Dryden. Comment is superfluous, except to add that 
 Lipscomb got some excellent reviews. 
 
 Our material has been considered from various points of 
 view, and these notes must now end. Each reader will, how- 
 ever, find other aspects from which it may be regarded, and 
 other problems upon which it may possibly throw a ray of 
 light. 
 
 The collection itself must in one sense remain unique. Of 
 no other great English poet will it be possible, for a century and 
 a half to come, to collect a continuous record of the critical 
 opinion of his countrymen during five hundred years. Indeed 
 there is only one other European poet,— greater even than 
 Chaucer— the fluctuations of whose fame can be followed during 
 these special centuries, which bridge over the time of transition 
 from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, and from the 
 Renaissance to the modern world. 
 
 Dante and Chaucer,— seer and humanist— could the body 
 of opinion on these two poets throughout the centuries be 
 
 1 Tyrwhitt wrote no ‘ life ’ of Chaucer, only an ‘ abstract of historical 
 passages.’ 
 
 2 ‘ I have barely time here, the Tales being already almost all printed 
 off, to apologize to the Reader for having inserted my own translation 
 of the Nun’s Priest’s Tale, instead of that of Dryden : but the fact was, 
 I did not know that Dryden’s version existed ; . . . having never till 
 very lately, strange as it may seem, seen the volume of Dryden’s Fables, 
 in which it may be found.’ Postscript, vol. i, p. xi. 
 
cxliv § 9. The Prophecy of Spenser is fulfilled. 
 
 studied together, it would light up a good deal of literary 
 history. In many ways, as is natural, there is resemblance 
 between their fortunes, although the Englishman never en- 
 countered anything like the discredit and even abuse which in 
 the eighteenth century fell to Dante’s lot. 1 Now, however, 
 each poet rests secure in his appointed niche in the great ‘ Hous 
 of Fame,’ and the history of their reputation seems but a 
 fulfilment of the half bitter, half triumphant words of Spenser : 
 
 For deeds doe die, how ever noblie donne, 
 
 And thoughts of men do as themselves decay ; 
 
 But wise wordes, taught in numbers for to runne, 
 Becorded by the Muses, live for ay ; 
 
 Ne may with storming showers be washt away, 
 
 Ne bitter-breathing windes with harmfull blast, 
 
 Nor age, nor envie, shall them ever wast. 
 
 S 1 e remarks on Dante by Lord Chesterfield, who writes to his 
 son that the poet is not worth the pains necessary to understand him- 
 Goldsmith, who regards him ns lif+G « 1 — 1 • „ _i ^ 
 
 Goldsmith, who regards him as little better than a barbarian, who owed 
 most of his reputation to the obscurity of the times in which he lived * - 
 Horace Walpole, who characterizes him as ‘extravagant, absurd dis- 
 gusting in short, a Methodist parson in Bedlam ’ ; Thomas Warton’ who 
 is shocked by his ‘ disgusting fooleries ’ ; and above all Voltaire ’ who 
 scarce can find words to express his contempt. For all these, and the 
 whole question of Dante criticism in England, see Dante in Enqlish 
 Literature from Chaucer to Cary, by Dr. Paget Toynbee, 1909. 
 

 Cljauccr Jwtictg. 
 
 Second Series, 56. 
 
 FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 OF CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 AND ALLUSION (1357-1900) 
 
 CAROLINE F. E. SPURGEON 
 
 docteur de l’universite DE PARIS 
 
 HON. LITT.D. MICHIGAN 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 
 
 INDEX 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE CHAUCER SOCIETY 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 AMEN HOUSE, WARWICK SQUARE, LONDON, E.C. 4, AND IN NEW YORK, 
 
 and by KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TROBNER & CO., Ltd., 
 
 39 NEW OXFORD STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1. 
 
FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 
 OF 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM AND ALLUSION 
 
FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 OF CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 AND ALLUSION (1357-1900) 
 
 BY 
 
 CAROLINE F. E. SPURGEON 
 
 DOCTEUR DE l’uNIVERSITE DE PARIS 
 HON. LITT.D. MICHIGAN 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 
 
 INDEX 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE CHAUCER SOCIETY 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 AMEN HOUSE, WARWICK SQUARE, LONDON, E.C. 4, AND IN NEW YORK, 
 
 and by KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TROBNER & CO., Ltd., 
 
 39 NEW OXFORD STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1. 
 
Swonir S $zxm, No. 56. 
 
 Printed in Great Britain bv Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, 
 
 BUNQAT, SUFFOLK. 
 
INDEX 
 
 The references are to the parts as originally issued by the Chaucer Society. 
 The following table shews their relation to the volumes of the Cambridge 
 re-issue : — 
 
 Chaucer Society. 
 
 
 Cambridge. 
 
 Part I 
 
 
 
 Vol. I. 
 
 Part II 
 
 Part III 
 
 .../ - 
 
 Vol. II. 
 
 Part IV 
 
 Part V 
 
 ...) 
 
 .../ - 
 
 Vol. III. 
 
 Part VI (Introduction) . . . 
 
 
 
 Vol. I. 
 
 In the index, in contradistinction from the text, modern spellings of book 
 titles have been adopted where possible. 
 
 Abbess, the Prioress ; so called in error. 
 See Prioress. 
 
 A.B.C. See Chaucer, G. [vm. Works . — 
 (g.) 1.] 
 
 A Beckett, G. A., The Canterbury 
 Pilgrims (opera), 1884, iii. 135. 
 Adam, B., Lennce Redeviva (1676?), 
 claims C. as a native of Lynn, i. 
 252. 
 
 Adam Scrivener. See- Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works. — (g.) 2.] 
 
 Adams, J., The Pronunciation of the 
 English Language , 1799, i. 501. 
 Addison, J., An Account of the Greatest 
 English Poets, 1694, his condemna- 
 tion of C. in, introd. xxx, i. 266. 
 
 — • — Spectator, No. 73, 1711, i. 314. 
 Adolphus, J. L., Memoranda, 1827, ii. 
 164-5. 
 
 Aikin, -J., General Biography (Chaucer), 
 1801, ii. 1; (Gower), 1803, ii. 6. 
 Letters to a Young Jjady, 1804, 
 
 ii. 14. 
 
 Akenside, M., For a Statue of Chaucer 
 at Woodstock, in Dodsley {a. 1758), i. 
 413. 
 
 Alcseus, ps., letter in Gentleman’s 
 Magazine, Aug. 1740, i. 386-7. 
 Alchemy. See Chaucer, G. [viii. 
 Works. — (f.) 15. Canon’s Yeoman’s 
 Tale.] 
 
 Alcilia. See C., J. 
 
 Aldgate, the dwelling above, leased 
 to C., 1374, i. 3 ; to Richard Forster, 
 1386, i. 8; the lease discovered by 
 H. T Riley, 1859, iii. 51. 
 
 Allen, T., The History and Anti- 
 quities of London, 1828, ii. 168. 
 
 Allgemeines Historisches Lexicon, 1709, 
 1730, v. 132. 
 
 Alliteration, the mark of Northern poets 
 in C.’s time (Sir W. Scott, 1804, 
 1814), ii. 19, 65. 
 
 Allusions, classified, introd. Ixxiii sqq. ; 
 collected by Sir T. P. Blount, 1690, 
 i. 262 ; F. J. Furnivall calls for an 
 editor of, 1888, iii. 138. 
 
 Alves, R., Sketches of a History of 
 Literature, 1794, i. 495. 
 
 Amadis de Gaul, review of Southey 
 and Rose’s, 1803, ii. 13. 
 
 Amatory Poetry, selected from Chaucer, 
 Lidgate, etc., 1737, i. 378. 
 
 Ames, J., MS. notes and letter, 19 Aug. 
 1741, i. 389. 
 
 Typographical Antiquities, 1749, 
 
 i. 398-9 ; ed. by Herbert, 1785-90, 
 i. 477-8, 483, 491 ; by Dibdin, 1810- 
 19, ii. 49, 58, 81, 114. 
 
 Ampere, J. J., Histoire de la litterature 
 frangaise an moyen age, 1841, v. 
 54. 
 
 Melanges d’histoire litteraire, 1867, 
 
 v. 82. 
 
 Ancient Songs, ed. by Ritson, 1790, i. 
 491. 
 
 Ancient State of the Jews in England 
 (in Ijondon Magazine), 1820, ii. 
 128-9. 
 
 Anderson, R., his Poets of Great 
 Britain, preface to, 1795, i. 496, ed. 
 of C., with Life, in, 1793, i. 494. 
 
 Andrews, J. P., letter on Donnington, 
 1759, i. 475-6. 
 
 Anelida and Arcite. See Chaucer, G. 
 j [vm. Works . — (g.) 3.] 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 Index. 
 
 Angelo, H., Reminiscences, 1828, ii. 
 168. 
 
 Anglia, 1878, etc., v. 149 ; Beiblatt 
 zur, 1890, etc., v. 151. 
 
 Anglorum Speculum, by G. S., 1684, 
 i. 257. 
 
 Anne, of Bohemia, patroness of C. (H. 
 Lawrance, 1840), ii. 227. 
 
 Anstis, J., History of the Officers of 
 Arms (MS.) [a. 1745], i. 391. 
 
 Anthologies and series of poets, C. in- 
 cluded in, see Chaucer, G. [viii. (k.)] 
 
 Antiquarius, letter in Gent’s Mag., 
 1780, iv. 96. 
 
 ’ A.Tvo^T]fxovvT6<piKos, verses in Coryat’s 
 Crudities, 1611, i. 185. 
 
 Apology for Women, by W. HFeale], 
 1609, i. 183-4. 
 
 Arbuthnot, J., Critical Remarks on 
 Capt. Gulliver’s Travels , 1735, 
 
 imitates C., iv. 86-7. 
 
 Architecture, illustrated from C., by 
 Ruskin, 1849, ii. 280; by J. H. 
 Parker, 1853-9, iii. 15; by T. 
 Wright, 1862, iii. 66. 
 
 Archiv fur das Studium der neueren 
 Sprachen und Litteraturcn, articles 
 in, 1846, etc., v. 142. 
 
 Armour, 1858-9, iii. 48. 
 
 Armstrong, J., Taste, 1753, iv. 91. 
 
 Arnold, M., Maurice de Guerin, 1863, 
 on C.’s couplet, iii. 67. 
 
 The Study of Celtic Literature, 
 
 1866, C. not read in schools, iii. 82. 
 
 The Study of Poetry, 1880, iii. 
 
 126-30. 
 
 his estimate of C. as lacking in 
 
 seriousness, a survival, introd. lxi. 
 
 Arnold, T., A Manual of English 
 Literature, 1862, iii. 60. 
 
 Ascham, R., Report of the Affairs of 
 Germany, 1552, i. 91. 
 
 The Schoolmaster, 1563-8, i. 97-98. 
 
 Toxophilus, 1544, quotes C. 
 
 against gaming, i. 85, introd. xx. 
 
 Ash, J., A New and Complete Diction- 
 ary of the English Language, 1775, 
 i. 441. 
 
 Ashby, G., Active policy of a Prince 
 [c. 1470], invocation to C., i. 54-5. 
 
 Ashmole, E., marginal notes on 
 Cook's T., etc., and Scogan’s Moral 
 Ballad [a. 1692], i. 264. 
 
 Theatrum Chemicum Britann- 
 
 icum, 1652, i. 227. 
 
 Ashton, P., ded. to his transl. of 
 A Short Treatise upon the Turks' 
 Chronicles, 1546, C.’s terms out of 
 use, i. 87. 
 
 Assembly of Fowls. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works . — (g.)] 
 
 Astle, T., Catalogue of the Harleian 
 MSS., 1759, i. 416, 424. 
 
 The Origin and Progress of 
 
 Writing, 1784, i. 476. 
 
 Astrolabe, Treatise of the. See Chaucer, 
 G. [viii. Works . — (g.) 5.] 
 
 Astrology and Alchemy ( Quarterly 
 Review), 1822, ii. 140. 
 
 Astronomy, A. E. Brae on C.’s, 1851, 
 1870, iii. 4-6, 107. 
 
 • Astronomies Aphorismi [c. 1500], 
 
 i. 65. 
 
 Astrophil, ps.. In Praise of Chaucer, in 
 Gent’s. Mag., 1740, i. 387-8. 
 
 Athenian Mercury, 1691, i. 263 ; 1693, 
 
 . i. 265-6. 
 
 Atkins, J., To Mr. J. S[mith ] upon 
 Penelope and Ulysses, in Wit 
 Restored , 1658, i. 234. 
 
 Atterbury, F., letter to Pope, 2 Aug., 
 1721, i. 361. 
 
 Atticus, Stanzas on Poetry (in Gent.’s 
 Mag.), 1775, iv. 94. 
 
 Aubrey, J., Anecdotes [a. 1697], i. 
 268-9. 
 
 Brief Lives, 1669-96, i. 245-6. 
 
 An Idea of Education, 1683-4, 
 
 i. 256-7. 
 
 Miscellanies, 1696, i. 267. 
 
 Austin, S., verses in Naps upon 
 Parnassus, 1658, i. 235. 
 
 B., Geoffrey Chaucer (in Dublin Univ. 
 Mag.), 1859, iii. 48-9. 
 
 B., letter by, in Memoirs of the 
 Society of Grub Street, 1730, i. 372-3. 
 
 B., A. See Brome, A. 
 
 B., C., note on Pope’s modernizations 
 (in Gent.’s Mag.), 1749, i. 399. 
 
 B., C., General Remarks upon the best 
 British Poets (in Gent.’s Mag.), 1818, 
 
 ii. 94. 
 
 B., G. (W. Baldwin, or B. Googe ?), 
 Ship of Safeguard, 1569, i. 103-4. 
 
 B., H., poem to C. in Works, 1598, 
 i. 148-9. 
 
 B., J. See Barry, J. 
 
 B., O., Questions talked of by two old 
 Seniors, 1594, i. 140. 
 
 B., R., A Neiv Ballad to such as write 
 in Metres, 1570, iv. 37-8. 
 
 B., T., commendatory verses, in Dray- 
 ton’s England’s Heroical Epistles, 
 1695, i. 267. 
 
 B., T. See Blount, T. 
 
 Babington, G., Exposition of the Com- 
 mandments, 1583, i. 124. 
 
Index. 
 
 3 
 
 Bagehot, W., Charles Dickens, 1858, 
 iii. 41. 
 
 Bagford, J., letters to T. Hearne, 
 1709, i. 297. 
 
 his researches on Chaucer, 1709, 
 
 i. 302-9. 
 
 Bahans, — , transl. Squire’s T. into 
 French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Bailey, N., An Universal Etymological 
 Dictionary, 1721, i. 356. 
 
 Bailly, H. See Host, the. 
 
 Baker, Sir R., Chronicle, 1643, i. 
 222-3 ; 1665, iv. 75. 
 
 Theatrum Trium phans, 1670, i. 
 
 247. 
 
 Balade de visage saunz peynture. See 
 Chaucer, G. [vm. Works. — (g.) 14. 
 Fortune .] 
 
 Baldwin, W., Beware the Cat [1561], 
 i. 95. 
 
 — < — See' B., G. 
 
 Bale, J., lllustrium Majoris Britannice 
 Scriptorum Summarium, 1548, iv. 
 19-21 ; 2nd ed., 1557-9, i. 95, iv. 
 21-27. 
 
 notes by [c. 1550-57], 1562, i. 
 
 91, iv. 28-9. 
 
 his life and account of C., legends 
 
 started by, introd. cvi. 
 
 Ballad of Good Counsel. See Chaucer, 
 G. [vm. Works. — (g.) 29. Truth.] 
 
 Ballads, C.’s, Lydgate not acquainted 
 with, i. 42. 
 
 Ballerstedt, Ueher Chaucer’s Natur- 
 schilderungen, 1891, v. 152. 
 
 Bancks, J., M iscellaneous Works, 1738, 
 calls C. the Hogarth of his age, i. 
 383. 
 
 Bandinel, B. (?), Douce Catalogue 
 (Bodleian), 1840, ii. 226. 
 
 * Malone Catalogue (Bodleian), 
 
 1836, ii. 202. 
 
 Bannatyne MS., nine poems, falsely 
 attributed to Chaucer in, 1568, i. 
 102-3. 
 
 poems from, containing C. reff., 
 
 1568, iv. 36-7. 
 
 notes to, by Lord Hailes, 1770, 
 
 i. 436. 
 
 Baret, A., ifitude sur la langue anglaise 
 au XI V e Siicle, 1883, v. 88-9. 
 
 Barham, R. H., Ingoldsby Legends 
 {Grandpapa’s Story — The Witches’ 
 Frolic), 1838, ii. 221. 
 
 Barker, W., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 207-8. 
 
 Barkham, J., MS. note in MS. Laud 
 misc. 600 [by J. B. ?], a. 1642, i. 
 221 . 
 
 Barnes, B., Four Books of Offices, 1606, 
 i. 177. 
 
 Barnfield, R., Poems in divers 
 Humours, 1598, i. 156. 
 
 Barrett, afterwards Browning, Eliza- 
 beth Barrett, letters to Robert 
 Browning, 1845, ii. 259; to R. H. 
 Horne, 1840, ii. 226-7; 1845, ii. 258; 
 to J. Kenyon, 1843, ii. 246; to Mrs. 
 Martin, 1843, ii. 246-7. 
 
 The Lost Bower, and A Vision of 
 
 Poets [1838-44], ii. 252. 
 
 modernization of Anelida and 
 
 Arcite by, 1841, ii. 235. 
 
 notes on heroic metre, 1826, ii. 
 
 160. 
 
 reviews The Book of the Poets, 
 
 1842, ii. 242-3. 
 
 had a bust of C. in her room, ii. 
 
 246-7. 
 
 Barrett, W., letters to and from Dr. 
 Ducarel, 1772, i. 437. 
 
 Barrington, D., Observations on the 
 earliest Clocks (in Annual Register), 
 1779, i. 455-6. 
 
 Barry, J., A Funeral Elegy on King 
 James [c. 1625], i. 200. 
 
 Barry, J., painter, Account of Pictures 
 at the Adelphi, 1783, i. 472. 
 
 Basse, W., Epitaph on Shakespeare, 
 [c. 1622], i. 196. 
 
 Bastide, — , transl. Melibeus, Man- 
 ciple’s T. and Parson’s T. into 
 French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Bath, the Wife of. See Wife of Bath ; 
 .see also Chaucer, G. [vm. Works . — 
 (f.) 35, 36.] 
 
 Bauchet, — , transl. Sompnour’s T. 
 into French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Baxter, N., Sir Philip Sydney’s Ourania, 
 1606, i. 177. 
 
 Baynes, J., An Archaeological Epistle 
 to J. Milles, on his ed. of the Rowley 
 poems [by J. Baynes?], 1782, i. 465. 
 
 Baynes, T. S., The Text of Chaucer , 
 1870, iii. 98-107. 
 
 Eeath,the Wife of. See Wife of Bath. 
 
 Beatniffe, R., The Norfolk Tour, 1786, 
 i. 483. 
 
 Beattie, J., Dissertations, on C.’s lan- 
 guage, 1783, i. 472-3. 
 
 Beaumont, F., letter to Speght (1597) 
 urging him to edit C., printed in 
 Works, 1598, i. 145-6, introd. xxii. 
 
 The Triumph of Honor, 1608, iv. 
 
 61. 
 
 his name will take up all 
 
 Chaucer’s room (J. Earle, [1616]), 
 i. 192. 
 
4 
 
 Index. 
 
 and Fletcher, J., The 
 
 Coxcomb [1610], i. 184. 
 
 * — The W oman’ s Prize\c. 1615], 
 
 i. 191. 
 
 use of ‘ armipotent ’ by (L. 
 
 Hunt, 1855), iii. 21. 
 
 Becke, E., preface to bis ed. of the 
 Bible, 1549, wishing it were as much 
 read as the Cant. Tales , i. 88. 
 
 Bedell, W., Bishop, The Shepherd’s 
 Tale of the Powder-Plot [1605], 
 imitation of C. ( ?) in, iv. 56. 
 
 - — > — A. Clogie’s life of [1675-6], iv. 76. 
 
 Bedier, J., Les Fabliaux , 1893, v. 97 ; 
 in Petit de Julie ville, 1896, v. 104. 
 
 Behnsch, 0., Geschichte der englischen 
 Sprache und Litteratur, 1853, v. 143. 
 
 Beith, the Wife of. See Wife of Bath. 
 
 Beljame, A., Le public et les hommes de 
 lettres en Angleterre an XVIII e 
 Siecle, 1881-83, v. 91, 125. 
 
 Bell, J., C’s Works in Bell’s Poets, 
 1782, i. 464-5 ; Tyrwhitt’s text 
 pirated in, i. 474—5 ; praised by 
 Leigh Hunt for including C. and 
 Spenser, ii. 169. 
 
 Bell, R., his ed. of C.’s Works, 1854-6, 
 reviewed, iii. 35-6, 51-2, 59-60 ; 
 revised, 1878, iii. 123. 
 
 Bell, W., of Ulcomb, ATS. notes (by 
 W. B.?), c. 1785, i. 480-1. 
 
 Belle Dame sans Merci, la, see Ross, R. 
 
 Beloe, W., Anecdotes of Literature, 
 1807-12, ii. 57; iv. 103. 
 
 B6mont, C., chapters on Engl. lit. in 
 Lavisse and Rambaud’s Hist, gen., 
 1894, v. 125. 
 
 Bentheim, orBenthem, II. L .,Engeland- 
 ischer Kirchund Schulen-Staat, 1694, 
 v. 130; 1732, v. 132-3. 
 
 Bentley, S., Excerpta Historica, 1831, 
 
 ii. 180-1. 
 
 Berger, P., transl. Franklin’s T. into 
 French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 William Blake, 1907, v. 109. 
 
 Berington, J., A Literary History of 
 the Middle Ages, 1814, ii. 61. 
 
 Berkenhout, J., Biographia Literaria, 
 1777, i. 447. 
 
 Bernard, J. P., and others, A General 
 Dictionary, 1734-41, 1736-7, i. 378. 
 
 Berners, Juliana, Hawking and Hunt- 
 ing, ed. by J. Haslewood, 1810, ii. 
 49. 
 
 Berthelet, T., Address to the Reader, 
 in Gower’s Confessio Amantis, 1532, 
 i. 77-8. 
 
 Beryn, the Tale of. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works. — (1.) Spurious. 3.] 
 
 Betham, P., pref. to his transl. of 
 Purlilia’s Precepts of War, 1544, i. 86. 
 Betterton, T., Prol. and Reeve’s T. 
 modernized by [a. 1710], i. 312. 
 
 Tales modernized by, in Ogle, 
 
 1741, i. 389-90. 
 
 the modernization of Prol. 
 
 published as his said to be really 
 Pope’s, by J. Warton, 1797, i. 500. 
 Bibliography of Chaucer. See Chaucer, 
 G. [vn. Bibliography.'] 
 
 Bibliotheca. See King, W. 
 
 Bibliotheca Anglo-Poelica. See Griffiths, 
 A. F. 
 
 Bibliotheque Britannique, 1796-7, v. 
 37-8. 
 
 Billam, J., letter to W. Herbert, 4 Aug. 
 1786, i. 483. 
 
 Biographia Britannica, 1748, 1757, 
 1760, 1784, i. 395-6, iv. 92, i. 476. 
 Biographical Sketches of Eminent 
 English Poets, 1851, iii. 8. 
 Biography of C. See Chaucer, G. 
 [i. Biography.] 
 
 Birch, T., The Heads of Illustrious 
 Persons, 1743, iv. 88. 
 
 ed. Spenser's Faerie Queen, 1751, 
 
 i. 402 ; letter concerning this ed., by 
 J. Upton, 1751, i. 403-5. 
 
 Birds in C., C. J. Fox on, 1800, iv. 102 ; 
 
 W. J. Courthope on, 1870, iii. 107-8. 
 Birth of King Arthur, the, ed. by 
 Southey, 1817, ii. 92. 
 
 Bischoff, O., TJeber zweisilbige Senkung 
 und epische Cdsur bei Chaucer, 
 1897, v. 152; articles in Englische 
 Studien, v. 149. 
 
 Black, W. H., ed. Paraphrase of the 
 Seven Penitential Psalms, 1842, ii. 
 244. 
 
 Blades, W., The Life and Typography 
 of William Caxton, 1861-3, iii. 55. 
 Blake, W., A Descriptive Catalogue of 
 Pictures painted by, 1809, ii. 42-6; 
 ‘the finest criticism of C.’ (Lamb, 
 reported by Crabb Robinson, 1810), 
 
 ii. 49. 
 
 work on, by P. Berger, 1907, v. 
 
 109; by Swinburne, 1868 (‘1866’ 
 in text), iii. 85. 
 
 For his ‘Canterbury Pilgrims’ 
 
 see Chaucer, G. [v. Illustrations. 1.] 
 Blanchard, E. L. L., Harlequin and 
 Friar Bacon, a Pantomime (bringing 
 in C. as a character), 1863, iii. 67. 
 Blankenburg, F. von, Litterarische 
 Zusdlze zu J. G. Sulzers Allgemeine 
 Theorie der Schonen Kunste, 1796, 
 v. 153 (in Cambridge issue only). 
 
Index. 
 
 5 
 
 Bliss, P., notes, etc .,c. 1833, ii. 187-9. 
 Blount, T., Glossographia, 1656, i. 
 231. 
 
 Blount, Sir T. P., Censura Gelebriorum 
 Authorum, collection of reff. to C., 
 1690, i. 262. 
 
 De Re Poetica, 1694, i. 267. 
 
 Boccaccio, G., for general comparisons 
 of, with. C., see Chaucer, G. [n. 
 (g.)]; for the framework of Decam. 
 and C. T., see ib. [viii. (f.) 12]; 
 for Teseide and Knight’s T., and 
 for Filostr. and Troilus, see ib. [viii. 
 (f.) 20, (g.) 28]; see also Italian 
 Literature. 
 
 Bodenham, J., Belvedere, 1600, i. 161. 
 Bodleian Library, catalogue of the, by 
 T. James, 1605, i. 175; 1620, i. 193; 
 by T. Hyde, 1674, i. 249 ; MSS. in 
 (Wanley, 1705), i. 292-3; 1839, ii. 
 225; for the Douce and Malone 
 collections, see Bandinel, B. 
 
 Bodmer, J. J., Sammlung Schriften, 
 1741-4(1743), v. 133. 
 
 Boethius, C.’s transl. of. See Chaucer, 
 G. [viii. Works. — (g.) 6.] 
 
 Bokenam, O., he Lives of Saints, 
 [1443-7?], i. 46. 
 
 Boker, G. H., letter to R. H. 
 
 Stoddard, 7 Jan., 1850, ii. 282. 
 Bolton, E., Hypercritica [1618?], does 
 not allow Chaucer for practic 
 English, i. 192. 
 
 Bond, Sir E. A., New Facts in the Life 
 of Geoffrey Chaucer, 1866, iii. 82. 
 Book of the Duchess. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works. — (g.) 7.] 
 
 Booth, D., An Analytical Dictionary 
 of the English Language, 1822-35, 
 and Introduction, 1806, ii. 136. 
 Borrow, G., Wild Wales, 1862, iii. 
 60-1. 
 
 Bossewell, J., Works of Armory, 1572, 
 
 i. 108-9. 
 
 Boswell, J., The Life of Samuel 
 Johnson, 1791, rejects the Life of C., 
 1756, from Johnson’s Works, i. 492. 
 Book of the Poets, the [a. 1841], ii. 241 ; 
 
 reviewed by E. B. Barrett, ii. 242-3. 
 Boucher, J., Glossary of Archaic and 
 Provincial Words, 1804, 1832, ii. 15, 
 184. 
 
 Proposals for printing Linguae 
 
 Anglicance veteris Thesaurus [ 1 803 ?], 
 
 ii. 6. 
 
 Boucher, L., Histoire de la litter ature 
 anglaise, 1 890, v. 96. 
 
 Tableau de la Litterature anglaise, 
 
 1882, v. 87-8, 
 
 Bouillet, Marie N., art. Chaucer, in 
 Diet. univ. d’hist. et de geog., 1842, 
 v. 124. 
 
 Atlas univ. d’hist. et de geog., 
 
 1865, v. 125. 
 
 Bourgogne, — , transl. part of Knight’ s 
 T. into French, 1908, v. 111. 
 
 Bowyr, A., Writing-book [1653?], i. 
 228-9. 
 
 Boyd, H., Woodstock, 1777, in Poems, 
 1793, i. 447-8. 
 
 Boys, T., Chaucer Difficulties (notes 
 in N. andQ.), 1857-8, iii. 40-1, 45-7. 
 
 Boyse, S., Account of the Life of, in 
 Annual Register, 1764, i. 425. 
 
 . — r — Cook’s and Squire’s Tales 
 modernized by, 1741, i. 389-90. 
 
 his modernization of Squire’s T. 
 
 concluded by Ogle and Sterling, 
 1785, i. 479. 
 
 Braddon, Mary E., Asphodel, 1881, iii. 
 132. 
 
 Bradshaw, H., Librarian of Camb. 
 Univ., The Skeleton of Chaucer’s 
 Canterbury Tales, 1867-71, iii. 87. 
 
 his projected Attempt to ascertain 
 
 the state of Chaucer’s Works, 1865, 
 
 iii. 75. 
 
 his projected edd. of Works, 
 
 1864-79, iii. 71-2. 
 
 prints Prol. A to the Legend of 
 
 Good Women, 1864, iii. 72. 
 
 Bradshaw, H., Poet, The Holy Life 
 and History of Saint Werburge, 1513, 
 i. 71. 
 
 Bradwardine, T., Archbishop, De 
 Causa Dei, ed. 1618, i. 192-3. 
 
 Brae, A. E., astronomical notes in 
 N. and Q., 1851, iii. 4-6. 
 
 ed. The Treatise of the Astrolabe, 
 
 1870, iii. 107. 
 
 Braham, R., epistle, prefixed to 
 Lydgate’s Troy Book, 1555, i. 93-4. 
 
 Brand, J., Observations on Popular 
 Antiquities, 1813, ii. 60. 
 
 Brandi, A., Ueber einige historische 
 Anspielungen in den Chaucer - 
 dichtungen, v. 149. 
 
 Brathwait, R., Chaucer’s Incensed 
 Ghost, 1617, i. 192. 
 
 A Comment upon the Miller’s 
 
 Tale [and the ] Wife of Bath, 1665, 
 i. 242. 
 
 The English Gentleman, 1630, 
 
 i. 202. 
 
 Nature’s Embassies ( Omphale ), 
 
 1621, iv. 108 (in Cambridge issue 
 only). 
 
 Whimzies, 1631, i. 204, 
 
Index. 
 
 a lost poem in praise of tobacco, 
 
 attributed to Chaucer, answered 
 by, 1617, iv. 65. 
 
 ■ a lover of C., introd. xxxv-vii. 
 
 Braune, G. M., The Persone of a Toun, 
 1859, iii. 49. 
 
 Bray, Anne E., Life of Thomas Stothard, 
 reviewed, 1852, iii. 11. 
 
 Bray, W. See Manning, 0. 
 
 Brayley, E. W., Beauties of England 
 and Wales, 1810, ii. 48. 
 
 (with J. Britton), The History and 
 
 Antiquities of the Abbey, West- 
 minster, 1818-23, ii. 94-5, 141. 
 
 History of the Palace of West- 
 minster, 1836, ii. 202. 
 
 Brazil, the dye, C.’s mention of, not 
 understood, 1810, ii. 50-51. 
 
 Breton, N., The Arbor of Amorous 
 Desires, 1597, i. 144. 
 
 Pasquil’s Fools-cap, 1600, i. 162. 
 
 Brewer, E. C., Poetical Chronology of 
 Inventions, 1846, ii. 267. 
 
 Breyer, C. W. E., Leben Geoffrey 
 Chaucers, 1812, v. 138-9. 
 
 Bridges, J., letter to T. Hearne, c. 
 5 June, 1716, i. 343. 
 
 Bridgwater House Library, catalogue of, 
 by J. P. Collier, 1837, ii. 210-11. 
 
 Brigham, 1ST. See Chaucer, G. [i. (e.) 
 7. Tomb.] 
 
 Bright, James W., review of Chaucer’s 
 Minor Poems, 1888, ed. W. W. 
 Skeat, 1889, iii. 139. 
 
 Bright, John, Speech on Abolition 
 of Capital Punishment, 1850, ii. 
 283. 
 
 Brinchele, J., will of, bequeathing 
 Boethius and C. T., 1420, i. 25. 
 
 Brink, B. ten, articles in Englische 
 Studien, v. 149. 
 
 Chaucer’ sSpracheund Verslcunst, 
 
 1884, v. 150. 
 
 Chaucer- Studien, 1870, v. 147-8; 
 
 the first attempt to fix the chrono- 
 logy of C.’s works, introd. lxxi. 
 
 Geschichte der englischen Lit- 
 
 teratur, 1889, transl. into English, 
 1893, v. 151. 
 
 ed. Prol. C.T., v. 1871, 148. 
 
 • Zum Romaunt of the Rose, 1867, 
 
 v. 147. 
 
 British Biography, 1766, i. 429-30. 
 
 British Warrior, The, 1706, i. 293-4. 
 
 Brito, ps. See Goldsmith, O. 
 
 Britton, J. See Brayley, E. W. 
 
 Broke, A. See Brooke. 
 
 Brome, A., A Canterbury Tale, 1641, 
 i. 219. 
 
 Brome, W. (Urry’s executor and 
 part publisher of Works, 1721), 
 letter to T. Rawlins, June 23, 1733, 
 offering copies of Urry, i. 375; to 
 T. Hearne, 17jf , 1716, transmitting 
 Sloane’s and Bagford’s MSS., i. 
 341-2, 344. 
 
 Bromley, H., A Catalogue of Engraved 
 British Portraits, 1793, i. 494. 
 
 Brooke, A., Romeus and Juliet, 1562, 
 influence of Troilus upon, iv. 29-33. 
 
 Brooke, H., Constantia (modernization 
 of Man of Law’s Tale), 1741, i. 
 389-90; reprinted with original, 
 1778, i. 449. 
 
 Brooke, Stopford A., The Descriptive 
 Poetry of Chaucer, 1871, iii. 111-12. 
 
 Brown Bread and Honour, 1716, the 
 title derived from Wife of Bath’s 
 Prol,, i. 345. 
 
 Brown Dozen of Drunkards, a. 1648, 
 iv. 71. 
 
 Brown, Ford Madox, Chaucer at the 
 Court of Edward III . (picture), 
 1845-51, ii. 259. 
 
 Brown, T., Letters from the Dead to the 
 Living [a. 1704], i.^291-2. 
 
 Browne, M., ps., Chaucer’s England, 
 1869, iii. 97. 
 
 Browne, W., Britannia' s Pastorals, bk. 
 3 [1626-43], i. 200. 
 
 • The Shepherd’s Pipe, 1614, i. 
 
 187-8. 
 
 ■ catalogue (by W. B.?) of poems 
 
 in MS. Add. 34,360 [c. 1640], i. 
 219. 
 
 influence of Chaucer on, iv. 62. 
 
 Browning, Elizabeth B. B. See 
 Barrett, afterwards Browning, E. B. 
 
 Browning, B., letters to E. B. 
 Barrett, 1846, on T. Powell’s plagi- 
 arisms, ii. 267-8; to A. Domett, 
 1846, ii. 267. 
 
 compared with C. by Landor, 
 
 1846, ii. 273; this referred to by 
 Browning, ii. 267. 
 
 Life of Strafford (by R. B. ?), 1836, 
 
 ii. 202. 
 
 Bruckner, J., Criticisms on the 
 Diversions of Purley, 1790, i. 490-1. 
 
 Brunet, G., art. Chaucer, in Hoefer’s 
 Nouv. Biog. gen., 1854, v. 63, 124. 
 
 Brunetiere, F., reviews A. Filon’s 
 Histoire de la Litterature anglaise, 
 1883, v. 90. 
 
 Brunot, F., La Langue frangaise, in 
 Petit de Julleville, 1896, v. 104. 
 
 Bruyn, Elizabeth, will of, bequeathing 
 C. T., 1471, i. 56. 
 
Index. 
 
 7 
 
 Bryant, J., Observations upon the 
 Poems of Thomas Rowley , 1781, i. 
 459 ; confuted by Malone, ib. 463. 
 
 Brydges, Sir S. E., The British 
 Bibliographer, 1810-12, ii. 48, 57. 
 
 Censura Literaria, 1809, ii. 46. 
 
 Desuitor ia, 1811, ii. 52. 
 
 Restituta, 1815-6, ii. 68-9. 
 
 Preface to Phillips’ Theatrum 
 
 Poetarum, 1800, iv. 102. 
 
 Bubb (Dodington), G., verses, in G. 
 Stubbes’s The Laurel and the 
 Olive (wrongly entered in Cli. Soc. 
 issue under G. Stubbes), 1710, i. 313. 
 
 Budgell, E., modernization of The 
 Sompnour' s Tale (by E. B.?) [1733], 
 iv. 86. 
 
 Bukton, Envoy to. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works . — (g.) 8.] 
 
 Bullar, J., Selections from the British 
 Poets, 1822, ii. 137. 
 
 Bullein, W., Dialogue against the 
 fever Pestilence, 1564, i. 98. 
 
 Bulwer, E., 1st Lord Lytton, letter to 
 his son, 1860, iii. 53. 
 
 Burgh, B., translation of Cato’s 
 Disticha Moralia [c. 1450], iv. 6. 
 
 Burke, E., letter to Malone, 8 April, 
 1796, i. 498. 
 
 Burlington, C., The Modern Universal 
 British Traveller, 1779, i. 456. 
 
 Burne-Jones, Sir E. C., read C. at 
 Oxford, 1855, iii, 25-6; designs for 
 L. G. W. (glass at Peterhouse, 
 Cambridge), 1862-4, iii. 61, 72; for 
 Chaucer’s Dream (water-colour), 
 1865, iii. 75; ‘The Prioresses Tale ’ 
 (oil-painting), 1858, iii. 41; illus- 
 trations for the Kelmscott ed. of 
 Works, 1896, iii. 150 (in Cambridge 
 issue only), introd. lxx. 
 
 Burney, C., A General History of 
 Music, 1782, i. 465. 
 
 Bums, R., for comparisons of with C., 
 see Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Compari- 
 sons with other writers .] 
 
 Burrow, R., discovered the Sanscrit 
 origin of the Astrolabe (J. O. 
 Halli well- Phillips, 1840), ii. 227. 
 
 Burrowes, A. D., The Modem 
 Encyclopaedia, 1837, ii. 210. 
 
 Burton, R., quotes C. on love, in The 
 Anatomy of Melancholy, 1621, etc., i. 
 195-6. 
 
 Butler, C., Rhetoricce libri duo, 1600, 
 i. 162. 
 
 Butler, S. (author of Hudibras), 
 Hudibras, addition to [1678?], iv. 77. 
 
 Remains [c. 1667], i. 243. 
 
 Butler, S. (author of Erewhon ), The 
 Wife of Bath, 1891, in Notebooks , 
 iii. 140. 
 
 Byrom, J., Shorthand Journal, for 
 22 May, 1736, is asked to put the 
 character of the Good Parson into 
 verse, i. 377. 
 
 Byron, G. G. N., Lord, read Chaucer as 
 a boy (Moore, 1830), ii. 178. 
 
 Childe Harold, 1809, ii. 46. 
 
 Hints from Horace, 1811, con- 
 demning C.’s indecency and his 
 verse, ii. 52. 
 
 letter to John Murrav, 20 Jan., 
 
 1819, ii. 110. 
 
 List of Poets, 1807 (C. obscene 
 
 and contemptible), ii. 29. 
 
 The Vision of Judgment, 1821, 
 
 quoting The Wanton Wife of Bath 
 as C.’s, ii. 131. 
 
 Bysshe, E., The Art of English Poetry , 
 1702, i. 290-1. 
 
 C., J., Alcilia, 1595, i. 142. 
 
 Verses to Mr. Mason, 1749, iv. 90. 
 
 C., R., Epistle dedicatory to English 
 ed. of H. Estienne’s A World of 
 Wonders, 1607, iv. 60. 
 
 Caesar, Sir J., The Ancient State of 
 the Court of Requests, 1596, i. 143. 
 
 Caius, J., De Antiquitate Cantabri- 
 giensis Academice, 1568, i. 101. 
 
 Caius, T., Vindicice Antiquitatis Acad- 
 emice Oxoniensis [c. 1570], i. 104. 
 
 Calais, C. at, 1360, i. 1. 
 
 Calf hill, J., Answer to the Treatise of 
 the Cross, 1565, i. 99. 
 
 Callander, J., ed. Two Ancient 
 Scottish Poems, 1782, i. 465. 
 
 Cambridge, C. a student at, see 
 Chaucer, G. [i. Biog. (e.) 2.] 
 
 learned men in read and com- 
 mend C., c. 1560-70 (F. Beaumont, 
 1597), i. 146, introd. xxii. 
 
 Boolc-rarities in, by C. H. Harts- 
 
 horne, 1829, ii. 172. 
 
 Camden, W., Annales , vol. 2, 1627, i. 
 200 . 
 
 Britannia, 1586, i. 128-9 ; 5th 
 
 edn., 1600, i. 162, Reges da alii 
 W estmonasterii sepulti, 1600, i. 163. 
 
 Remains concerning Britain, 
 
 1605, quotes N. P. T., i. 175. 
 
 • note, quoting N. P. T., 1616, i. 
 
 191. 
 
 Campbell, T., Chaucer (in Brewster’s 
 Edinb. Encycl.), 1830, ii. 177-8. 
 
 Chaucer and Windsor, 1836, ii. 
 
 202-3. 
 
8 
 
 Index. 
 
 Specimens of the British Poets , 
 
 1819, ii. 110-13; reviewed, ii. 117, 
 
 120 . 
 
 Campion, T., The Third and Fourth 
 book of Ayres [1617?], claims that 
 his vain ditties are more accept- 
 able than C. T., iv. 65. 
 
 Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale, see Chaucer, 
 G. [vm. Works. — (f.) 15.] 
 
 Canterbury, Chequer Inn at, see 
 Chequer Inn. 
 
 Canterbury gallop, 1826, iv. 105. 
 
 Canterbury pace, 1648, i. 225. 
 
 Canterbury Pilgrims, The, described by 
 Blake, 1809, ii. 42-6; by Washing- 
 ton Irving, 1822, ii. 137-8; by J. 
 Saunders, 1845, ii. 263-4; Dryden 
 saw them as distinctly as if he had 
 supped with them at the Tabard, 
 1700, i. 274; Hogarth’s characters 
 resemble the (Lamb, 1811), ii. 54; 
 permanent types (Clough, 1852), 
 iii. 8 ; their distinct characterisation 
 (H. H. Milman, 1855), iii. 24-5. 
 See also Chaucer, G. [vm. Works. 
 • — (f.) C. T., and esp. Prol .] For 
 pictures of, see Chaucer, G. [v. 
 Illustrations .] See also under the 
 individual Pilgrims. 
 
 Canterbury story, or Canterbury tale, 
 meaning (1) a fable, 1535, i. 81; 
 [1549?], i. 88; 1565, i. 99; 1575, 
 i. Ill; 1579, i. 116; 1580, i. 119; 
 1589, i. 130; 1607, iv. 60; 1621, 
 i. 195; 1662, i. 239; 1763, i. 424; 
 1795, i. 497-8; survives in America 
 as a ‘Canterbury,’ 1855, iii. 27; 
 summary of references for, introd. 
 lxxxiv-v. 
 
 — - — • (2) a frivolous story, 1549, i. 88, 
 89; 1578, i. 116; (a comedy), 1605, 
 
 i. 175. 
 
 (3 ) a dull and long-winded fiction, 
 
 1575, i. Ill; 1631, i. 204; 1709- 
 10, i. 311; 1724, i. 366; 1737, i. 
 383; 1753, i. 408. 
 
 Capell, E. , ed. Shakespeare [1 76 8], i. 43 1 . 
 
 Carew, R., The Excellency of the 
 English Tongue [1595-6?], i. 142. 
 
 Carew, T., criticism of, 1821, ii. 135. 
 
 Carey, H., Epilogue for Mr. Cibber’s 
 Love in a Riddle, in Poems, 3rd ed., 
 1729, i. 370-71. 
 
 Carey, W., Critical Description of the 
 Procession of Chaucer’s Pilgrims 
 to Canterbury, painted by Stothard, 
 1808, ii. 35-7. 
 
 Reminiscences of Stothard, 1836, 
 
 ii. 203. 
 
 Carlisle, F. Howard, 5th Earl of. See 
 Howard. 
 
 Carlyle, T., Past and Present, 1843 
 (C. not the first English poet), ii. 
 247. 
 
 Carter, Edmund, The History of the 
 County of Cambridge, 1753, quoting 
 Dryden’s Reeve’s T. as C.’s, i. 406. 
 
 Carter, Elizabeth, letter to Mrs. 
 Montagu, 3 Sept., 1774, confessing 
 that she never read C., i. 438. 
 
 Cartwright, W., The Ordinary [c. 
 1634], i. 206. 
 
 verses in Kynaston’s Troilus , 
 
 1635, i. 208. 
 
 Cary, H. F., The Early French Poets , 
 1821-4, compares C. with Marot, 
 ii. 131-2. 
 
 ed. Dante’s Inferno, 1805-6, ii. 
 
 23; The Vision (1st complete ed.), 
 1814, ii, 61. 
 
 The Life of Dante (in The 
 
 Vision, translated by H. F. C. ), 1 819, 
 ii. 114. 
 
 letter to W. Birch, has read C. 
 
 through, 1818, ii. 95; to Anna 
 Seward, 1792, calling C., Spenser 
 and Milton our greatest poets, iv. 
 99; controverted by Miss Seward, 
 i. 494; 1806, ii. 27. 
 
 Case, M. P., Chaucer and his Times , 
 1854, iii. 15-17. 
 
 Cassander, T., ps. See Bruckner, J. 
 
 Castelain, — , transl. Canon’s Yeo- 
 man’s T. into French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Catalogue of Books, sold by B. White, 
 1768, i. 430-1. 
 
 Catalogue de la Bibliotheque d’un 
 Amateur. See Renouard, A. A. 
 
 Catalogues, early, entries of C.’s works 
 in, introd. lxxxvii-viii. 
 
 Catcott, A. S., The Court of Love 
 modernized by, 1717, i. 345. 
 
 Catling, J., Conversation with Nolle- 
 kens, 1780, iv. 96. 
 
 Cato, Dionysius, Disticha Moralia, tr. 
 by B. Burgh [c. 1450], iv. 6. 
 
 Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of New- 
 castle, Poems, 1664, has robbed 
 Chaucer and Shakespeare of their 
 fame (W. Cavendish, Duke of N., 
 1664), iv. 74. 
 
 Cavendish, W., author of The Life of 
 W olsey, ‘ Chaucer ’ in his library, 
 1540, i. 82. 
 
 Cavendish, W., Duke of Newcastle, 
 Phanseys, 1645, i. 223. 
 
 verses in the Duchess of New- 
 castle’s Poems, 1664, iv. 74, 
 
Index. 
 
 9 
 
 Caxton, W., printed The Booh of 
 Courtesy \a . 1477], i. 57 ; Assembly 
 of Fowls, etc. [1477-8], Anelida 
 and Arcite, etc. [1477-8], C. T. 
 [1477-8], Boethius [a. 1479], with 
 epilogue, i. 58; Troilus [c. 1483], 
 i. 60 ; House of Fame [c. 1483], with 
 epilogue, and C. T. (2nd edn.) [c. 
 1483?], with proem, i. 61-3. 
 
 transl. The Recuyell of the 
 
 Histories of Troy, inserting a refer- 
 ence to Troilus, 1474, iv. 8. 
 
 — * — imperfection of his edns. of C. T. 
 (F. Thynne, 1598), i. 155. 
 
 lives of, by J. Lewis, 1737, i. 
 
 380-81; by C. Knight, 1844, ii. 
 256; by MV. Blades, 1861-3, iii. 55. 
 
 Proposals for an Account of 
 
 the Books printed by (R. Minshull, 
 [1741?]), i. 389. 
 
 his praise of C., and work for 
 
 for him, introd. xiv, cxv. 
 
 Cazamian, L., transl. C. T. Frol, into 
 French, 1908, v. 111. 
 
 Cestre, C., transl. Nuns' Priest's T. 
 
 into French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Chalmers, A., Worhs of C., ed. by, 
 1810, ii. 48-9. 
 
 his statement that C.’s popu- 
 larity has gone by, controverted 
 by Southey (?), 1814, ii, 66. 
 Chalmers, G., Henryson’s Bobene and 
 Malcyne and Testament of Cresseid, 
 ed. by, 1824, ii. 149. 
 
 ■ notes to Sir David Lyndsay, 1806, 
 
 ii. 27. 
 
 — — Poetic Remains of Scottish Kings, 
 1824, ii. 149. 
 
 Chambers, R., The Booh of Days, 
 1863-4, iii. 67. 
 
 Encyclopedia of English Litera- 
 ture, 1843, iv. 106. 
 
 Chances of the Dice [c. 1440], i. 44—5. 
 
 . attributed to Chaucer by Stowe, 
 
 1598, i. 159. 
 
 Chanoun Yemannes Tale. See Chaucer, 
 G. [viii. Worhs. — (f.) 15.] 
 
 Chapman, G., Achilles' Shield, 1598, 
 on C.’s importation of new words, 
 i. 156. 
 
 Sir Giles Goosecap, Knight (by 
 
 G. C.?), 1606, the plot drawn from 
 Troilus, i. 177-8 ; influence of C. 
 in, iv. 57-60. 
 
 Chappell, W., The Ancient Minstrelsy 
 of England, 1838, ii. 221. 
 
 Charahtere der vornehmsien Dichter 
 (by J. J. Eschenburg ?), 1793, v. 
 134-6, 
 
 Charon, L. M., see Chaudon, L. M. 
 Charteris, H., preface to his edn. of 
 Sir D. Lindsay’s Works, 1568, i. 
 101 . 
 
 Chasles, E., Extraits des classiques 
 anglais, 1877, v. 85. 
 
 Chasles, V. E. P., Etudes sur la lit- 
 terature et les mceurs de V Angleterre 
 du XIX e Siecle, 1850, v. 60-1. 
 
 Litterature anglaise (in Revue des 
 
 Deux Mondes, 1842), v. 54. 
 
 Voyages d’un critique, 1876, v. 
 
 83. 
 
 Chateaubriand, F. R. de, Essai sur la 
 Litterature anglaise, 1836, v. 10, 49; 
 reviewed by A. F. Villemain, v. 10, 
 50; in Edinb. Reviev), ii. 220-1. 
 Chatelain, J. B. de, Beautes de la 
 Poesie Anglaise, 1862-72, v. 74. 
 
 . L’ Hostellerie du Tabard (poem), 
 
 1866, iii. 82. 
 
 transl. C. T., 1857-61, v. 12, 
 
 66-9. 
 
 criticized by B. H. Gausseron, 
 
 1887, v. 12, 94. 
 
 — - — transl. The Flower and the Leaf, 
 1855, iii. 20; v. 62-3. 
 
 — . — finds the original of the Squire's 
 Tale (A. H. Clough, 1858), iii. 41. 
 Chatterton, T., Poems by Thomas 
 Rowley [a. 1770], i. 432-5; MS. 
 extracts, notes, and articles, ib. 
 
 ed. by Tyrwhitt, 1777, i. 432-3; 
 
 reviewed, 1777, i. 448; Tyrwhitt’s 
 Appendix to, 1778, i. 451. 
 
 . ed. by J. Milles, 1782, i. 468. 
 
 Worhs, reviewed by Scott, 1804, 
 
 ii. 16-17. 
 
 controversy over, 1781-2, i. 
 
 459, 463, 465-9, 472-3; 1811, ii. 
 54. 
 
 Life of, by G. Gregory, 1789, i. 
 
 487; in Biog. nouv. des contemp., v. 
 43. 
 
 for comparisons of with Chaucer, 
 
 see Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Compari- 
 sons with other writers.'] 
 
 Chaucer, Alice, see Chaucer, G. [i. 
 Biog. (d.) 3.] 
 
 } Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 Synopsis 
 
 I. Biography. 
 
 (а) Evolution. 
 
 (б) Life Records. 
 
 (c) General Accounts of C. 
 
 (d) Family, etc. 
 
 (e) Phases and Episodes, 
 
 (f) Portraits, 
 
10 Index . 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. § I. (a-c. 
 
 II. Criticism. 
 
 (a) Evolution. 
 
 (&) General. 
 
 (c) Language. 
 
 (d) Verse. 
 
 (e) Prose. 
 
 (/) Qualities found in C. 
 
 (g) Comparisons of C. with 
 
 other writers. 
 
 (h) Influence of C. on other 
 
 poets. 
 
 III. Modernizations. 
 
 IV. Imitations. 
 
 V. Illustrations. 
 
 VI. Manuscripts. 
 
 VII. Bibliography. 
 
 VIII. Works. 
 
 (a) Relative popularity of. 
 
 (&) 19th century edd. of. 
 
 (c) Chronology of. 
 
 (d) Canon of. 
 
 (e) Editions of complete or 
 
 nearly complete Works. 
 (/) Canterbury Tales. 
 
 1-13 : general. 
 
 14-36 : separate tales. 
 
 (g) Other works. 
 
 (h) Selections. 
 
 (0 Lost works. 
 
 (&) Appearance in Antholo- 
 gies. 
 
 (Z) Spurious works. 
 
 IX. C. a character in fiction and 
 drama. 
 
 X. Book-titles taken from C. 
 
 I. Biography 
 
 (a) Evolution : 
 
 introd. ci-xiii. ; T. R. Louns- 
 bury, 1891, iii. 140-4. 
 
 (b) Life-Records : 
 
 set out chronologically, i. 1-14, 
 iv. 3; printed by J. Rymer in 
 Feeder a, 1708-9, i. 297, 311; 
 Exchequer issues printed 1837, 
 ii. 21 1 ; discovered by Sir N. H. 
 Nicolas, dispose of the C. -legend, 
 1845, ii. 262, introd. cxii ; printed 
 in N. and Q., 1865, iii. 79-80; 
 gradual publication of, introd. 
 lxxii; modern discoveries of, 
 collected in 1900, introd. cxiii. 
 
 (c) General Accounts of C. : 
 
 1. English : 
 
 by J. Leland [c. 1545], iv. 13- 
 19; Bale, 1548-57, iv. 19-27; 
 
 R. Holinshed, 1577, i. 114-15; 
 Stowe, 1600, i. 164-5; Pits, 
 1613, i. 191, iv. 63-5; T. 
 Fuller, 1655, i. 230-1 ; E. Leigh, 
 1656, i. 233; H. Wharton, 1687, 
 iv. 78-80; G. Jacob, 1720, i. 
 349; J. Dart, 1721, i. 358-61; 
 in Eiographia Britannica, 1748, 
 i. 395-6 ; London Magazine, 
 1753, i. 407 ; A New Biographi- 
 cal Dictionary, 1761, i. 421; 
 British Biography, 1766, i. 429; 
 by J. Berkenhout, 1777, i. 447; 
 in Encyclopcedia Britannica , 
 2nd and later edd., 1778, etc., i. 
 452-4; byR. Anderson (?). 1793, 
 
 i. 494; by W. Godwin, 1803, 
 
 ii. 6-9 ; A. Rees, 1819, ii. 118-9; 
 in Encyclopcedia Edinensis, 
 1827, ii. 167-8; Worthies of the 
 United Kingdom, 1828, ii. 171; 
 by T. Campbell, 1830, ii. 177-8; 
 C. Cowden Clarke, 1835, ii. 194; 
 C. G. Cunningham, 1835, ii. 
 194-5; S. A. Dunham, in Lard- 
 ner, 1836, ii. 204-5; in the 
 Penny Cyclopaedia, 1837, ii. 219; 
 by L. Schmitz, 1841, ii. 234, 238 ; 
 C. Cowden Clarke (in Encycl. 
 Brit.), 1842, ii. 244; R. Cham- 
 bers (in Encycl. of Eng. Lit.), 
 1843, iv. 106 ; Sir N. H. Nicolas, 
 1843^4, ii. 262; J. Saunders, 
 1845, ii. 266; C. D. Deshler (in 
 his Selections), 1847, ii. 274; in 
 North British Rev., 1849, ii. 
 281-2; English Cycl., 1856, iii. 
 36-7 ; The Westminster Review , 
 1866, iii. 85 ; by Sir A. W. Ward, 
 1879, iii. 124-6; A. W. Pollard, 
 1893, iii. 144-5. 
 
 2. French : 
 
 in Moreri’s Grand dictionnaire 
 historique, 1674, 1681, 1707, 
 1740, v. 18-20, 23 ; by A. 
 Yart; 1749, v. 24-6; 1753-6, 
 v. 29-30; J. G. de Chauffepie, 
 1750, v. 27—9; in Journal 
 Stranger, 1755, v. 32^4; by 
 L. M. Chaudon, 1766, v. 34; 
 revised, 1791, v. 37; transl. into 
 English, 1777, i. 449; in Le 
 Journal Anglais, 1775, v. 35-6; 
 by A. J. U. Hennet, 1806, v. 
 38-9; J. B. Suard in La Bio- 
 graphic Universelle, 1813, v. 
 40-1 ; E. J. de Lecluze, 1838, v. 
 
Index. 
 
 11 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. § I. (d-e.) 
 
 51-3; H. Gomont, 1847, v. 55- 
 60; A. Geffroy, 1857, 1903, y. 
 G5-6; P. Larousse, 1867, v. 
 80-2; B. H. Gausseron, 1887, 
 v. 92-4; E. Legouis, 1910, v. 
 121 - 2 . 
 
 3. German : 
 
 by C. W. F. Breyer (based on 
 Godwin), 1812, v. 138-9; in 
 Meyer’s Grosse Conversations - 
 Lexicon, 1845, v. 141-2; by 0. 
 Behnsch, 1853, v. 143; W. 
 Hertzberg, 1856, 66-7, v, 143- 
 7; R. Pauli, 1860, v. 145. 
 
 Family, etc. : 
 
 1 . Genealogy: 
 
 Glover’s pedigree, introd. cvii; 
 Vertue’s, described by Gray, 
 1760, i. 417-18; J. Skelton, 
 1823, ii. 147-8; S. Bentley, 
 1831, ii. 180-1 ; the surname, 
 1855, iii. 28; Stowe, 1600, i. 
 164-5; Fuller, 1655, i. 230; of 
 Walloon descent (R. Verstegan, 
 1605), i. 176. 
 
 2. Arms and Seal : 
 
 Arms : T. Robson, 1830, ii. 179; 
 J. B. Rietstap, 1858, 1884, v. 
 91, 125. Seal : 1409, i. 19; J. 
 Hunter, 1850, ii. 284. 
 
 3. Other holders of the name : 
 
 records of, contributed by F. 
 Thynne, introd. cvii. Walter 
 le C., 1292-3, iii. 31 ; Richard C., 
 vintner, supposed to be C.’s 
 father by Stowe, 1598, i. 159; 
 by J. P. Malcolm, 1803, ii. 11; 
 * Sir ’ John, his father (T. Allen, 
 1828), ii. 168; Philipjpa, his 
 wife, Stowe, 1600, i. 164-5; 
 Anna Jameson, 1829, ii. 172; 
 S. Bentley, 1831, ii. 180-1 ; Sir 
 N. H. Nicolas, 1844, ii. 256; 
 her annuity, 1374, i. 3 ; Thomas, 
 his son, 1409, i. 19; Stowe, 
 1600, i. 164-5; T. Gascoigne, 
 1434-57, i. 43; P. Le Neve, 
 1701, i. 289; Vertue, i. 418; 
 Sir N. H. Nicolas, 1826, ii. 163 ; 
 Alice de la Pole, Duchess of 
 Suffolk, his grand- daughter, i. 
 486, ii. 181, iv. 66; first stated 
 
 by Leland to be C.’s sister, 
 introd. cv; by Pits, 1613, iv. 
 64-5; see also Ewelme. 
 
 (e) Phases and Episodes : 
 
 1 . Birth : 
 
 Leland [c. 1545], iv. 13; Pits, 
 1613, iv. 63; H. Wharton [c. 
 1687], iv. 78; Encycl. Brit., 
 1778, i. 452; C. Cowden Clarke, 
 1842, ii. 244; his noble birth, 
 first stated by Leland, introd. 
 cv; his birth in London, first 
 stated by Speght (from Testa- 
 ment of Love), introd. cvii. For 
 his birth at Woodstock, see 
 Woodstock. For the date of 
 c. 1340, see below [i. Biog. (e.) 5. 
 Scrope-Grosvenor Controversy .] 
 
 2. Education : 
 
 at Oxford, Leland [c. 1545], iv. 
 13; Leland the first to state 
 this, introd. cv; Pits, 1613, iv. 
 63; W. Coveil, 1595, i. 141-2; 
 G. Powel [1604], i. 174; G. 
 Jacob, 1720, i. 349; at Cam- 
 bridge, first stated by Speght 
 (from Court of Love), introd., 
 cvii; G. Jacob, 1720, i. 349; 
 Penny Cycl., 1837, ii. 219; 
 doubted by H. Wharton [c. 
 1687], iv. 78 (see also Court 
 of Love) ; in France, Leland 
 [c. 1545], iv. 13; Pits, 1613, 
 iv. 63 ; at Temple, Leland 
 [c. 1545], iv. 14; Pits, 1613, iv. 
 63-4; H. Wharton [c. 1687], 
 iv. 78; Hazlitt, 1826, ii. 161; 
 L. Hunt, 1835, ii. 197; while 
 there is fined for beating a 
 Franciscan friar, Speght’ s story- 
 doubted by F. Thynne, 1598, i. 
 154; alluded to by Fuller, 1655, 
 i. 230; by Chatterton, 1770, i. 
 434; by De Quincey, 1841, ii. 
 229; by G. H. Kingsley, 1865, 
 iii. 77—8 ; suggested by Lamb 
 as a subject for Haydon to 
 paint, 1827, ii. 165. 
 
 3. His diplomatic and other journeys 
 abroad : 
 
 Prisoner, ransomed from the 
 French, 1359-60, i. 1 ; at Calais, 
 1360, i. 1 ; journey to Italy in 
 1368, and meeting with Petr- 
 
12 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. § I. (e.) 
 
 arch, first suggested by Speght, 
 introd. cvii; R. Lowth, 1759, 
 i. 416; T. Warton, 1775, i. 441 ; 
 D. H., 1803, ii. 9 ; Z., 1803, ii. 
 14; W. Carey, 1808, ii. 36; 
 Landor, 1829, ii. 172-6; A. F. 
 Villemain, 1830, v. 45-7 ; Milton 
 [1638-9] (without mention of 
 Petrarch), i. 219; goes abroad, 
 1370, i. 2; to Genoa and 
 Florence, 1372-3, i. 2-3 ; abroad 
 on the King’s service, 1376-8, 
 i. 4-6; to France and Italy, 
 1380, i. 6; H. Wharton [c. 
 1687], iv. 78; his mission to 
 Montreuil, 1377, Froissart, i. 
 20; Stowe, 1592, i. 136. 
 
 4. Appointments, annuities, grants, 
 etc. : 
 
 his first annuity from the Crown, 
 1367-89), i. 1-2 ; Esquire in the 
 King’s Household, 1369, i. 2; 
 Comptroller of Custom of Wools 
 and Wines in the Port of 
 London, 1374, i. 3 ; granted an 
 annuity by John of Gaunt, 1374, 
 i. 3 ; granted a daily pitcher of 
 wine, 1374, i. 3; appoints a 
 Deputy Controller of Customs, 
 1384-5, i. 7; receives Commis- 
 sion of the Peace for Kent, 
 
 1386, i. 7 ; returned as Knight 
 of the Shire for Kent, 1386, i. 
 7-8; for C.’s Knighthood see 
 below, § 5 ; is succeeded as 
 Controller of Customs and 
 Petty Customs, 1386, i. 8; 
 Commissioner in respect of the 
 abduction of Isabella atte Halle, 
 
 1387, i. 8 ; Clerk of the Works 
 from 1389, i. 9—13 ; Commis- 
 sioner for survey of Kentish 
 shore of the Thames, 1390, i. 9; 
 Sub-Forester of North Pether- 
 ton, 1390-1, i. 11; granted an 
 annuity of £20 by the king, 1394, 
 i. 12; granted a butt of wine 
 yearly, 1398, i. 13; granted an 
 additional annuity of 40 marks, 
 1399, i. 13. 
 
 5. Other Episodes : 
 
 in household of the Duchess of 
 Clarence, 1357, i. 1 ; marriage 
 (see above: (d.) 3); his Aldgate 
 lease, 1374, i. 3; this found by 
 H. T. Riley, 1859, iii. 51 ; For- 
 
 ster’s lease of the same, 1386, i. 
 8; “raptus” of Cecily Chaum- 
 paigne, 1380, i. 6; a witness in 
 the Scrope-Grosvenor case, 1386, 
 i. 8 ; this discovered by Godwin 
 (Scott, 1804), ii. 17-18; G. 
 Ormerod, 1819, ii. 118; N. H. 
 Nicolas, 1832, ii. 185-6; Un- 
 known, 1836, ii. 209-10 ; as- 
 saulted and robbed at Hatcham, 
 1390, i. 10-11; action for debt 
 against, 1398, i. 12-13; his 
 Westminster lease, 1399, i. 13- 
 14; facsimile of, 1752, iv. 91; 
 visits to Spalding Priory with 
 J ohn of Gaunt, i. 322 ; a knight, 
 introd. cviii; Bale, 1548, iv. 19; 
 1579, i. 119; Greene, 1590, i. 
 131; G. Powel [1604], i. 174; 
 1606, i. 177 ; H. Peacham, 1622, 
 i. 197; Pits, 1613, iv. 64; E. 
 Leigh, 1656, i. 233; Aubrey, 
 1669, i. 245; E. Phillips, 1675, 
 i. 250; H. Wharton [c. 1687], 
 iv. 78; G. Jacob, 1720, i. 349; 
 Sir N. H. Nicolas, 1845, ii. 262; 
 a Knight of the Garter, C. 
 Gildon, 1721, iv. 84; poet 
 laureate, the phrase used of C. 
 by Lydgate, i. 17 ; in modern 
 sense by E. Phillips, 1675, i. 
 250, introd. cviii; in Dryden’s 
 patent, 1670, i. 247; by W. 
 Howell [1679;], i. 254; G. 
 Jacob, 1720, i. 349; friendship 
 with Gower, etc., see Gower, 
 J.; income, Encycl. Brit., 1778, 
 
 i. 453; disgrace, imprisonment, 
 flight, stated by all biographers 
 accepting the Testament of Love , 
 including Speght, 1598, introd. 
 cvii; H. Wharton [c. 1687], iv. 
 79; Encycl. Brit., 1778, i. 453; 
 C. Cowden Clarke, 1835 (re- 
 peated in 1870), 1842, ii. 194, 
 244; G. G. Cunningham, 1835, 
 
 ii. 194-5 (see also Usk, T., 
 Testament of Love) ; a Wycliffite 
 and Reformer, see below : [n. 
 (f.) 6], and Wycliffe, J. ; person- 
 ally known and valued by 
 Richard II, Henry IV and V 
 (Leland [c. 1545]) iv. 18, introd. 
 cv; H. Peacham, 1622, i. 197; 
 most of his career not literary ; 
 his late development (A. W. Pol- 
 lard, 1894), iii. 145; retirement 
 to Donnington, see Donning- 
 
Index. 
 
 13 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. § I. (e-f.) 
 
 ton Castle: to Woodstock, see 
 Woodstock. 
 
 6. Death : 
 
 Leland [c. 1545] (without date), 
 iv. 18; Bale, 1548 (1450), iv.20; 
 Holinshed, 1577 (1402 or 1400), 
 i. 114; E. Phillips, 1675 (in reign 
 of Henry VI), i. 250, flourished 
 1402, G. Powel [1604], i. 174; 
 died 1440 [c. 1700], i. 144 ; for 
 his pious death-bed, see below : 
 [viii. Works. — (g.) 29. Truth.'] 
 
 7. Tomb and Epitaph : 
 
 (Surigo’s epitaph) \a. 1479], i. 
 59-60, quoted by Leland [c. 
 1545], i. 87; account of by 
 Caxton,1479, i. 59 ; T. Berthelet, 
 1532, i. 78; Brigham’s inscrip- 
 tion on, 1556, i. 94; Leland [c. 
 1545], iv. 18-19; J. Foxe, 1570, 
 i. 107; D. Rogers [c. 1570], i. 
 107; Holinshed, 1577, i. 114; 
 W. Lambarde [c. 1585], i. 126; 
 Stowe, 1598, i. 159 ; W. Camden, 
 1600, i. 163; W. Warner, 1606, 
 i. 178; Pits, 1613, iv. 65; R. 
 Commaundre (quotes epitaph) 
 [a. 1613], i. 1-86; W. Vallans, 
 1615, i. 190-1 ; W. Basse [c. 
 1622 ?], i. 196 ; B. Jonson (quot- 
 ing Basse), 1623, i. 198; J. 
 Weever, 1631, i. 204 ; [c. 1680 ?], 
 i. 255; Keepe, 1681, i. 255-6; 
 1682, iv. 77 ; (Dryden buried in 
 or near), 1700, i. 286-8 ; E. Hat- 
 ton, 1708, i. 296 ; J. Strype, 1720, 
 i. 352 ; Dart, 1723, i. 363 ; Catling 
 [c. 1780], iv. 96 ; J. Gough, 1786- 
 96, i. 483; C. Burlington, 1779, 
 
 i. 456; J. P. Malcolm, 1802, ii. 
 4; G. W. L. in Gent's Mag., 
 1808, ii. 38; P. in Gent's Mag., 
 
 1822, ii. 138; E. W. Brayley, 
 
 1823, ii. 141 ; T. Allen, 1828, ii. 
 168; N.B., in Gent's Mag., 1849, 
 
 ii. 279; J. P. Collier, 1850, ii. 
 283; appeal by Committee for 
 the repair of, 1850, ii. 283; M. 
 N. S., in N. and Q., 1850, ii. 
 286; 1851, iff. 4-5, 7; in Gent.'s 
 Mag., 1858, iff. 43; H. Poole, 
 1881, iff. 133; payments made 
 at, 1566, i. 99; 1585, i. 128; 
 1596, i. 143; 1833, ii. 188; 
 introd. lxxxv-vi; other poets 
 buried near, introd. lxxxv and 
 
 see Cowley, A.; Drayton, M. ; 
 Dryden, J. ; Hall, R. ; Phillips, J., 
 and Spenser, E. 
 
 (f) Portraits : 
 
 1 . Original or supposed : 
 
 those exhibited in the National 
 Portrait Exhibition, 1866, iii. 
 86; Belvoir (I. Eller, 1841), ii. 
 233; Bodleian, 1792, i. 493; 
 exhibited in London, 1866, iii. 
 86 ; a copy from Hoccleve’s, ib. ; 
 Chastleton, T. Gray, 1760, i. 417- 
 8; Clarendon (Hyde’s), 1689, 
 i. 261; Cotton (now burnt), i. 
 23 ; Donnington, J. P. Andrews, 
 1759, i. 416 ; removed to Buckle - 
 bury (Unknown, 1783), i. 476; 
 Ellesmere, Walpole’s Anecdotes, 
 ed. Dallaway, 1826, ii. 160-61 ; 
 Gatacre, 1821, ii. 135; Har- 
 bottle, 1836, ii. 209; Harleian 
 (MS. 4826), verses on the mutila- 
 tion of [c. 1540], i. 82-3; Har- 
 leian (another) bought from — 
 Sykes, 1726, i. 368; Hoccleve’s , 
 
 i. 23; T. Hearne, 1711, i. 315, 
 and 1716, i. 343-4; J. Bridges 
 (as “ in Mr. Murray’s custody ”), 
 1716, i. 343; Gray, 1760, i. 
 417-18; Vertue on (Walpole, 
 1762), i. 423; B. W. Proctor, 
 1824, ii. 151-2 ; J. Elmes, 1825, 
 
 ii. 156 ; copied by Pope (Spence, 
 1728-58), i. 413 ; print from, in 
 Speght, 1598, i. 147 ; another (?), 
 owned by M. Tyson, 1792, i. 
 494; Lansdowne, H. Ellis, 1812, 
 ii. 58, and 1819, ii. 115; Llan- 
 shaw, given to B. Dyke, 1803, 
 exhibited in London, 1866, iii. 
 86 ; this a copy from Hoccleve’s, 
 ib. ; Phillips, J. Elmes, 1825, 
 ii. 156; rejected by Hazlitt, 
 1829-30, ii. 172; Royal MS. 
 (Reg. 17. D.G.), i. 23; Wood- 
 stock, Aubrey, 1669, i. 245; in 
 possession of T. Warton (J. 
 Skelton, 1823), ii. 147 ; another, 
 1792, iv. 99. 
 
 2. Engraved : 
 
 in Speght’ s ed., after Hoccleve, 
 1598, i. 147 ; verses by F. 
 Thynne upon, 1602 v i. 170; 
 mentioned, 1792, i. 494; Hou- 
 braken, 1741 (Birch, 1743), iv. 
 88; Vertue (Walpole, 1763), i. 
 
14 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 424; Gray, 1760, i. 417-18; in 
 a Catalogue of Engraved British 
 Portraits, byH. Bromley, 1793, 
 i. 494 ; see also above : Original : 
 Hoccleve’s. 
 
 3. Modern : 
 
 by Barry, 1783, i. 472 ; by Ford 
 Madox Brown, 1845-51, ii. 259; 
 by Burne Jones, 1874, iii. 61; 
 casts of statue of Chaucer pur- 
 chasable (Dodsley, 1761), iv. 93 ; 
 proposal to erect a statue in 
 Houses of Parliament, 1845, ii. 
 
 260 ; the natural portrait in an 
 “ Egyptian pebble ” (J. van 
 Rymsdyk, 1778), iv. 95; (I. 
 
 D ’Israeli), 1793, iv. 100; verbal, 
 in Greene's Vision [1592], i. 137. 
 
 II. Criticism 
 (a) Evolution ; 
 
 introd. cxxiv, etc., cxl-cxliii; 
 traced by J. H. Hippisley, 
 
 1837, ii. 213-14; by T. S. 
 Baynes, 1870, iii. 99-107 ; 
 vagueness of early praises, 
 introd. cxxxi ; growth of 
 knowledge in 18th and 19th 
 centuries, introd. xli, xlix- 
 lxxii; various aspects illustra- 
 ted by analysis of allusions : 
 literary, introd. lxxiv-v, moral, 
 ib. lxxix-lxxx; as authority 
 or precedent, ib. lxxx ; C.’s 
 reputation traced by R. H. 
 Horne, 1841, ii. 235-8; fluctu- 
 ated like Dante’s, introd. cxliii- 
 iv ; C. praised or talked of, but 
 neglected, G. Sewell, 1720, i. 
 351-2; H. Headley, 1787, i. 
 
 486; 1836, ii. 208; A. Smith, 
 
 1862, iii. 65-6; in France, E. 
 Legouis, 1908, v. 113-114; in 
 the 16th cent. C. chiefly re- 
 garded as a moral poet, introd. 
 xix-xxi, as a learned poet, ib. 
 xcv; in the 16th-18th as a 
 comic and indecent poet, ib. 
 xxi, liii-iv, in the early 19th as 
 an historian of manners, ib. 
 lvii; present day reasons for 
 admiring, ib. cxxix; some 
 workers and editors, ib. cxiv- 
 cxxiv; T. S. Baynes, 1870, iii. 
 99-107 ; Fumivall appeals for 
 an editor of the praises of C., 
 
 1888, iii. 138. 
 
 § II- (a-c.) 
 
 (b) General, selected : 
 
 W. Webbe, 1586, i. 129 ; Dryden, 
 1700, i. 272-85; Warton, 1774, 
 
 i. 439-41 ; J. J. Eschenburg (?), 
 1793, v. 135-7; Southey, 1814, 
 
 ii. 66-7; C.B., 1818, ii. 94; S. T. 
 Coleridge, 1818, ii. 95-6; H. 
 Hallam, 1818, ii. 97; Hazlitt, 
 1818, ii. 98-106 ; Campbell, 1819, 
 ii. 110-3; Hazlitt, 1824, ii. 150; 
 in Retrosp. Rev., 1824, ii. 153-5; 
 H. Neele, 1827, ii. 166 ; Southey, 
 1831, ii. 183; L. Hunt, 1835, ii. 
 195-6 ; H. Hallam, 1837, ii. 212 ; 
 H. Hippisley, 1837, ii. 212-17; 
 A. F. Villemain, 1830, v. 45—7 ; 
 1837, v. 50; D’Israeli, 1841, 
 ii. 231-3; E. B. Barrett- 
 Browning, 1842, [ii. 242-3; 
 Thoreau, 1843, ii. ^250-2; L. 
 Hunt, 1844, ii. 253-5; Christo- 
 pher North, 1845, ii. 262-3; 
 
 L. Hunt, 1846, ii. 269-71; 
 
 M. P. Case, 1854, iii. 15-17; 
 H. H. Milman, 1855, iii. 23-5; 
 Unknown, 1859, iii. 51-2; 
 E. G. Sandras, 1859, v. 69-74^ 
 in Nat. Rev., 1862, iii. 66; 
 Taine, 1862-3, v. 76-9; A. 
 Smith, 1863, iii. 70-1; F. D. 
 Maurice, 1865, iii. 78-9; T. S. 
 Baynes, 1870, iii. 98-107; J. R. 
 Lowell, 1870, iii. 108-11 ; F. J. 
 Fumivall, 1873, iii. 113-4; 
 J. R. Green, 1874, iii. 117-9; 
 Sir A. W. Ward, 1879, iii. 
 124-6; M. Arnold, 1880, iii. 
 126-30; A. C. Swinburne, 
 1880, iii. 131-2; T. R. Louns- 
 bury, 1891, iii. 140-4; A. W. 
 Pollard, 1893, iii. 144-5; J. J. 
 Jusserand, 1894, v. 97-100, and 
 1896, v. 104-6; W. P. Ker, 
 1895, iii. 148-50; E. Gebhart, 
 1907-8, v. 107-11; E. Legouis, 
 1908, v. 113—19; see also above : 
 i. (c.) 
 
 (c) Language: 
 
 1. General : 
 
 B. Jonson, 1640, iv. 70; E. 
 Coles, 1676, iv. 77; E. Gibson, 
 1691, iv. 80-81; L. Welsted, 
 1724, i. 367; T. Morell, 1737, i. 
 381-2; Gray [1760-1 ?], i. 418- 
 21; Tyrwhitt, 1775, i. 442-6; 
 Horne-Tooke, 1786, i. 486; J. 
 
Index. 
 
 15 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 Cassander (J. Bruckner), 1790, 
 
 i. 490-1; G. Ellis, 1801, ii. 1; 
 
 J. Sherwen, 1811, ii. 55; J. 
 Boucher, 1832, ii. 184; W. 
 Hunter, 1832, ii. 185; E. Guest, 
 
 1842, ii. 244; G. L. Craik, 1851, 
 iii. 1 ; F. M. N. (in Gent’s Mag. ), 
 1852-3, iii. 10; M. P. Case, 
 
 1854, iii. 15-17; L. E. Edman, 
 
 1861, iii. 56; F. J. Child, 
 
 1862, iii. 61-2; P. P. Marsh, 
 
 1862, iii. 63-4; A. Baret, 1883, 
 v. 88-9; B. ten Brink, 1884, 
 v. 150; E. Einenkel, 1887, v. 
 
 150; L. Morsbach, 1893, v. 
 
 152; (of L.G.W.) J. M. Manly, 
 
 1890, iii. 139; (of Troilus ) G. L. 
 Kittredge, 1894, iii. 148. 
 
 2. Monosyllables : 
 
 E. Elstob, 1715, i. 338. 
 
 3. Dialects : 
 
 Lancashire, Gaskell, 1848, iv. 
 
 106; W. A. Part, 1867, iii. 93; 
 Norfolk, E.G.R., in N. and Q., 
 
 1856, iii. 32; Northern, R. 
 Garnett the elder, 1836, ii. 205. 
 
 For other special points see 
 Notes and Queries, 'passim, in 
 pt. iii. 1853-67 ; also numerous 
 German dissertations, v. ISO- 
 152. 
 
 4. Pronunciation : 
 
 Gray, [1760-1], i. 418-21; 
 Unknown, 1771, i. 436-7; 
 Tyrwhitt, 1778, i. 444-5; J. 
 Adams, 1799, i. 501; A. J. 
 
 Ellis, 1869-89, iii. 97-8; also 
 many entered above as [n. 
 
 (c.) 1, General.] 
 
 5. Held obsolete or rude (including 
 those w r ho excuse while admit- 
 ting the charge) : 
 
 So held from later 16th cent., 
 introd. xxvi, etc. ; ignorance of 
 C. in 18th cent., ib. xli-iii; 
 decline of the belief, ib. li-iii; 
 it survives Tyrwhitt, ib. lv-ix; 
 analysis of notable references 
 which assert, deny, or excuse 
 this, ib. lxxxiv ; Skelton, 
 
 [1507 ?] (men would amend it), 
 i. 69; Surrey [c. 1542], i. 84 ; P. 
 Ashton, 1546, i. 87 ; T. Wilson 
 (‘ The fine courtier will talk 
 
 § II. (c.) 
 
 nothing but Chaucer ’), 1553, i. 
 91 ; Sir P. Sidney, 1581, i. 122; 
 A. Hall, 1576, i. 112; introd. 
 xxvii; B. Melbancke, who 
 uses his obsolete words, 1583, 
 iv. 107 (in Cambridge issue 
 only); Puttenham [1584-8], i. 
 126; W. Webbe, 1586, i. 129, 
 introd. xxvii; Spenser, 1590-6, 
 i. 133; 121 words explained by 
 P. Greenwood, 1594, i. 41; W. 
 Coveil, 1595, i. 142; Sir R. 
 Dallington, 1598, i. 156; Mar- 
 ston, 1598, i. 158 ; ‘ old and 
 obscure words explained ’ by 
 Speght, 1598, i. 147, 149; S. 
 Daniel, 1599, i. 160, introd. 
 xxviii; T. Middleton [1613 ?], i. 
 187; E. Bolton [1618?], i. 192; 
 Ben Jonson [1620-35 ?], i. 193- 
 4; H. Peacham, 1622, i. 197, 
 introd. xxix; J. Earle, 1628, i. 
 201 ; J. Sidnam [c. 1630], i. 203 ; 
 Sir F. Kynaston, 1635, i. 207 ; 
 W. Barker, 1635, i. 207; E. 
 Foulis, 1635, i. 211; S. Daniel, 
 1646, i.224; R. Brathwait, 1665, 
 i. 242; Cowley [n.a. 1667], iv. 
 75; Waller, 1668, i. 244; 
 Spenser’s revival of, condemned 
 by Sir T. Culpeper, 1671, i. 247- 
 8; E. Phillips, 1675, i. 250; 
 Dryden, 1679, i. 254, 1697, i. 
 269, and 1700, i. 282 ; E. Howard, 
 1689, i. 262; Addison, 1694, i. 
 266; Sir T. P. Blount, 1694, i. 
 267; Jabez Hughes [c. 1707], i. 
 294; John Hughes, 1715, i. 
 340-1 ; E. Bysshe, 1702, i. 290; 
 T. Brown [a. 1704], i. 291 ; Pope 
 [1709], i. 310-11; J. Dennis 
 [1711], i. 314-15; W. Nicols, 
 
 1711, i. 317; J. Oldmixon 
 [1712?], i. 322-3; W. King, 
 
 1712, iv. 82 ; Unknown, 1730, i. 
 373; Unknown, 1731, i. 373; 
 H. Dalrymple (,?), 1761, i. 421; 
 Unknown, 1763, i. 424; Un- 
 known, 1772, i. 437 ; V. Knox, 
 1779, i. 457-8; Hayley, 1782, 
 
 i. 466; J. Beattie, 1783, i. 473; 
 Seward, 1792, i. 494; H, 1804, 
 
 ii. 23; W. Irving, 1807, ii. 30; 
 Southey, 1811, ii. 55; J. H. 
 Hippisley, 1837, ii. 216; J. O. 
 Halliwell-Phillipps (Diet. of 
 Archaic Words), 1847, ii. 274; 
 
 ‘ B.,’ 1859 (C. ‘resembles an 
 
16 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. § II. (c-d.) 
 
 antique Stilton’), iii. 49; M. 
 Arnold, 1861-2, iii. 54-5. 
 
 6. Held not obsolete or rude : 
 
 by Skelton, 1507, i. 69; F. 
 Beaumont, i. 145-6; Sir A. 
 Cokayne, 1658, i. 236; Pinker, 
 ton, 1785, i. 478-9; L. Hunt, 
 1823, ii. 144-5; S. T. Coleridge, 
 1834, ii. 190-1; analysis of 
 notable references to this effect, 
 introd. lxxxiv. 
 
 7. C. 'praised for refining English : 
 introd. xxxi, lxxxii ; Lydgate 
 [1400J-1430, i. 14, 15, 19, 24, 37, 
 etc. ; Hoccleve, 1412, i. 21- 
 2 ; Caxton [a. 1479], i. 58 and 
 [c. 1483 ?], i. 62 ; Dunbar, 1503, 
 i. 66; Skelton [1507?], i. 69 
 and 1523, i. 74; H. Bradshaw, 
 1513, i. 71; J. Bastell (?) 
 [1520], i. 73; R. Copland, 1530, 
 i. 77; Sir B. Tuke, 1532, i. 79- 
 80; Leland [c. 1545], iv. 14; 
 
 R. Braham, 1555, i. 93; G. 
 Gascoigne, 1576, i. 112; R. 
 Holinshed, 1577, i. 114; E. 
 Kirke, 1579, i. 117; Sidney 
 [1581?], i. 121; W. Webbe, 
 1586, i. 129; Spenser, 1590-6, 
 i. 133 ; F. Beaumont, 1597, i. 145; 
 Speght, 1598, introd. lxxxii; 
 G. Wharton, 1652, i. 228; T. 
 Fuller, 1655, i. 230 ; E. Phillips, 
 1675, i. 250; T. Rymer, 1692, 
 i. 265, introd. xxxi; Sir T. P. 
 Blount, 1694, i. 267; Unknown, 
 1707, i. 295; J. Lewis, 1737, 
 i. 380; Burke, 1796, i. 498; 
 Wordsworth, 1800, iv. 102 ; 
 Southey, 1831, ii. 183; J. H. 
 Hippisley, 1837, ii. 216; Un- 
 known, 1837, ii. 220; M. P. 
 Case, 1854, iii. 15-16; Landor 
 [c. 1861], iii. 57. 
 
 8. C. corrupted English, generally, 
 or specifically, by importing 
 French ( or Provencal ) words : 
 
 notable references asserting and 
 denying this, introd. Ixxxiii ; 
 asserted by Chapman, 1598, i. 
 156; R. Verstegan, 1605, i. 176, 
 introd. Ixxxiii; A. Gil, 1619, i. 
 193 ; E. Phillips, 1658, i. 236 ; S. 
 Skinner [a. 1667], i. 243; T. 
 Rymer, 1692, i. 265; Dryden, 
 1700 (Proven 9 al words), i. 273; 
 
 ii. 155; Pope [1734-6] (Pro- 
 venial words), i. 377 ; W. Oldys, 
 1738, i. 384; J. B. Le Blanc, 
 1745, v. 24 ; Percy, 1765, i. 427 ; 
 Warton, 1778, i. 454; Encycl. 
 Brit., 1778 (Proven 9 al words), 
 i. 454; T. D. Whitaker, 180$ 
 (‘ The great poet wrote the 
 language of no age’), ii. 25; 
 A. Baret, 1883, v. 88-9; J. P. 
 Thommerel, 1841, v. 53-4; J. J. 
 Jusserand, 1893, v. 96-7. 
 
 9. The importation minimised or 
 excused : 
 
 G. Tooke, 1647, i. 225; T. 
 Fuller, 1655, i. 230 ; J. Oldham, 
 1681, i. 256 ; in Biographia 
 Britannica, 1748, i. 395-6; 
 Warton, 1778, . 454-5; Un- 
 known, 1850, ii. 287; R. C. 
 Trench, 1855, iii. 28; T. S. 
 Baynes, 1870, iii. 107. 
 
 10. The importation denied ( directly 
 or implicitly) : 
 
 by Betham, 1544, i. 86; Nashe, 
 1592, i. 136; Johnson, 1755, 
 i. 410-11; Tyrwhitt, 1775, i. 
 442-3; Warton, 1778, i. 454; 
 J. Pinkerton, 1786, i. 484; 
 Campbell, 1819, ii. Ill; G. L. 
 Craik, 1851, iii. 1; G. P. 
 Marsh, 1862, iii. 63, and 
 (romance words mostly used 
 for rhymes), 1858-9, iii. 44. 
 
 (d) Verse : 
 
 1. thought irregular : 
 
 the secret of it lost in the 
 16th and 17th centuries, introd. 
 xxv-xxviii ; belief in its rough- 
 ness prevails in 18th cent., ib. 
 xlvii-xlix, Iv-vii; thought ir- 
 regular by Bodenham, 1600, i. 
 161-2; Dryden, 1700, i. 276-7; 
 
 S. Wesley, 1700, i. 289; Un- 
 known, 1707, i. 295 ; J. Hughes, 
 1715, i. 341; J. Dart, 1721, i. 
 360; J. J. Bodmer, 1743, v. 
 133; R. Lloyd, 1751, i. 402; 
 
 T. Cibber, 1753, i. 406-7; H. 
 Dalrymple ( ?), 1761, i. 421; 
 Unknown, 1777, i. 448; Un- 
 known, 1778, i. 453; Un- 
 known, 1780, i. 459; R. Alves, 
 1794, i. 495; A. Seward, 1798, 
 i. 500; Byron, 1811, ii. 52; 
 
Index. 
 
 17 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 J. B. Suard, 1813, v. 40-1; 
 Landor, 1861, iii. 57 ; for 
 other references see above : 
 
 [n. (c.) Language .] 
 
 2. thought rhythmical : 
 by Gascoigne, 1575, introd. 
 xxvii, i. 110; R. Farmer, 1767, 
 i. 430; Coleridge, 1803, ii. 11— 
 
 12 (but see the next section, 
 1817); Southey, introd. lvii, 
 
 1803, ii. 11-12; 1807 (doubt- 
 fully), ii. 34; 1831, ii. 183; 
 
 1836, ii. 206-7; G. F. Nott, 
 1815-16, ii. 73-7; I. D’lsraeli, 
 1841, ii. 232 ; R. F. Weymouth, 
 1862, iii. 66. 
 
 3. thought only apparently irre- 
 gular, or, more definitely, metri- 
 cal ; praised in general terms : 
 by J. Metham, 1448-9, i. 47; 
 Henryson, 1475, i. 56; Sir B. 
 Tuke, 1532, introd. xvii, i. 79- 
 80 ; Puttenham [1584-8], i. 126 ; 
 Speght, 1602, i. 169; Dekker 
 [1607], i. 179; T. Yalden, 1693, 
 i. 266 ; Pinkerton, 1786 (regular 
 only in stanza, not in couplet), 
 i. 485; P. Neve, 1789, i. 489; 
 Unknown, 1707, i. 295; Urry 
 (according to T. Thomas), 
 1721, i. 357; T. Morell, 1737, 
 i. 381-2; T. Cibber, 1753, i. 
 
 406; Gray [1760-1 ?], introd. 
 
 Iii, i. 418-21; Warton, 1774, i. 
 
 440; Tyrwhitt, 1775, introd. 
 liv-vi, i. 442-6 ; R. Henry, 1781, 
 
 i. 460; W.Tytler, 1783, i. 475; 
 Unknown, 1816, ii. 85; Cole- 
 ridge, 1817, ii. 85-7 ; 1834, ii. 190 
 (but see the preceding section, 
 1803); Campbell, 1819, ii. Ill; 
 
 L. Hunt, 1823, introd. lvii-lviii, 
 
 ii. 144-5; 1832, ii. 185; 1835, ii. 
 
 196; C. G. Cunningham, 1835, 
 ii. 194-5; E. Guest, 1838, ii. 
 222-4; O. Behnsch, 1853, v. 
 
 143; Landor, 1856, iii. 30 (but 
 see section (d.) 1 above, 1861); 
 Bulwer, 1860, iii. 53; G. L. 
 Craik, 1861, iii. 56; J. R. 
 Lowell, 1870, iii. 109; M. 
 Arnold, 1880, iii. 127-8; A. 
 Baret, 1883, v. 88-9; H. C. 
 Coote, 1883, iii. 133-4; introd. 
 xliv. 
 
 § II. (d-f.) 
 
 4. Final e discovered : 
 by T. Morell, 1737, i. 382; 
 Gray [1760-1 ?], i. 419; Tyr- 
 whitt, 1775, i. 443; Coleridge, 
 1817, ii. 86; E. Guest, 1838, ii. 
 222; A. H. Clough, 1854, iii. 
 17. 
 
 5. decried : 
 
 by Unknown, 1855, iii. 28; and 
 see (d.) 1 above. 
 
 6. Riding rhyme : 
 
 Gascoigne, 1575, i. Ill ; Putten- 
 ham [1584-8], i. 126; (Sir 
 Thopas’s) F. Thynne, 1600, i. 
 166; Gray [1760-1 ?], i. 420; 
 
 E. Guest, 1838, ii. 223. 
 
 7. Couplet: 
 
 not suitable for sustained high 
 poetry, ace. to M. Arnold, 1863, 
 iii. 67. 
 
 8. Stanza: 
 
 one attributed to him by W. 
 Thompson, 1757, iv. 109 (in 
 Cambridge issue only). 
 
 9. Alliteration : 
 
 F. Lindner, 1873, v. 148. 
 
 10. Miscellaneous : 
 
 J. Schipper, 1881-8, 1893, v. 
 150, 152; B. ten Brink, 1884, 
 v. 150 ; M. Freudenberger, 
 1889, v. 151 ; C. L. Crow, 1892, 
 v. 152; O. Bischoff, 1897, v. 
 152; E. Hampel, 1898, v. 152. 
 
 (e) Prose : 
 
 W. Gray, 1835, ii. 195 ; E. Guest, 
 1838, ii. 223-4; T. Thomas’s 
 and T. Keightley’s theory that 
 it is blank verse, 1721, 1860, 
 1862, i. 498-9, iii. 54, 65; his 
 Boethius opens with two hexa- 
 meters (J. P. Collier, 1865), iii. 
 75-6 ; see also below [viii. 
 Works. — (f.) 23, Melibeus.] 
 
 (f) Particular qualities found in C.: 
 
 list of critical references, introd. 
 lxxxix-xci. 
 
 1. Realism : description of man- 
 ners : 
 
 Book of Courtesy , 1477, i. 57 ; F. 
 Beaumont, 1597, i. 146; Dry- 
 den, 1700, i. 274-6; J. Dart, 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. § II. (f.) 
 
 1721, i. 361; Pope, 1728-30, 
 
 i. 370; T. Morell, 1737, i. 382; 
 J. Bancks (‘ the Hogarth of 
 his age ’), 1738, i. 383; Thom- 
 son, 1744, i. 391; Warton, 
 1774, i. 440; E. B. Greene, 
 1782, i. 466; Crabbe, 1812, ii. 
 57-8; Hazlitt, 1817, ii. 87-9; 
 T. Campbell, 1819, ii. 113; 
 Keats, 1819, ii. 118; J. H. 
 Hippisley, 1837, ii. 216; L. 
 Hunt, 1844, ii. 255; Unknown, 
 1845, ii. 266-7 ; Unknown, 1849, 
 
 ii. 281-2; A. Edgar, 1852, iii. 
 9; A. Smith [n.a. 1863], iii. 71 ; 
 J. R. Lowell, 1870, iii. 109; 
 J. R. Green, 1874, iii. 118-9; 
 A. W. Ward, 1879, iii. 125-6; 
 T. R. Lounsbury, 1891, iii. 141. 
 
 2. Observation of Character : 
 
 R. Ascham, 1552, i. 91 ; Dry- 
 den, 1700, i. 278-9; J. Hughes, 
 1715, i. 340; G. Jacob, 1720, 
 i. 349; G. Ogle, 1739, i. 385-6; 
 ‘ Astrophil,’ 1740, i. 387; 
 Warton, 1774, i. 440; Blake, 
 1809 (‘ as Newton numbered 
 the stars, so C. numbered the 
 classes of men’), ii. 42-6; 
 I. D’Israeli, 1841, ii. 231; L. 
 Hunt [n.a. 1849], ii. 279; H. H. 
 Milman, 1855, iii. 24-5; J. W. 
 Hales, 1873, iii. 115. 
 
 3. Humour : ‘ wit ’ {in its various 
 senses) : 
 
 supposed by many to be his 
 only virtue, 16th-18th cent., 
 introd. liii-iv ; held to be chiefly 
 a comic and obscene poet, 
 after Tyrwhitt, ib. lv, lix-lxi; 
 W. Stevins [c. 1555], i. 92-3; 
 R. Robinson [1574], i. 109; 
 
 ‘ Simon Smel-Knave ’ [1591 ?], 
 i. 134; R. Hakluyt, 1598, i. 
 157; S. Pick, 1638, i. 219; 
 E. Phillips, 1675 (wit not C.’s 
 real worth), i. 250 ; J. Evelyn, 
 1685, i. 258; Unknown, 1673, 
 i. 266 ; Addison, 1694 (C. * tries 
 to make his readers laugh in 
 vain’), i. 266; S. Cobb [a. 
 1700], i. 271; J. Gay, 1712, i. 
 319; S. Croxall, 1715, i. 337; 
 G. Jacob, 1720, i. 349; J. 
 Madan, 1721, i. 362; ‘ Astro - 
 phil,’ 1740, i. 387; T. War- 
 
 ton, 1754 (C. the first humorist 
 in English), i. 409-10, introd. 
 cxxxix. H. Dalrymple(?), 1761, i. 
 421 ; T. Percy, 1765, i. 427 ; Un- 
 known, 1772, i. 437 ; T. Warton, 
 1774, i. 440; C. Burney, 1782, 
 i. 465; W. Bell (?) (misplaced 
 jocoseness), [c. 1785], i. 480-1; 
 Gilbert White, 1789, iv. 98; its 
 simplicity, R. H., 1820, ii. 122-3 ; 
 L. Hunt, 1846, ii. 269-71; W. 
 Hertzberg, 1856, v. 144 ; A. G. K. 
 L’Estrange, 1878 (denying it), 
 introd. lx.; Swinburne, 1880, 
 
 iii. 131 ; his wit, variations in 
 the meaning of the term, introd. 
 xcvii-viii; gradual recognition 
 of C.’s humour, ib. cxxxviii— ix. 
 
 4. Indecency : frivolity : 
 
 his reputation for, introd. xxi; 
 supposed in 16th-18th cents, to 
 be his chief characteristic, ib. 
 xlv; survival of this belief in 
 early 19th cent., ib. lx; ex- 
 emplified in references by Tyn- 
 dale, 1528, iv. 11; E. Becke, 
 1549, i. 88; Cranmer [1549?], 
 i. 88-9; Latimer, 1549, i. 89; 
 A. Scott, 1562, i. 97; T. Drant, 
 1567, i. 100; J. Wharton, 
 1575, i. Ill; T. Procter, 
 1578, i. 116; W. Fulke, 1579, 
 i. 116; Sir J. Harington, 1591, 
 i. 134; T. Campion, [1617?], 
 
 iv. 65; T. Jordan, 1657, iv. 72; 
 
 Dryden, 1680-3, i. 254-5, 1700, 
 i. 279-80; Lady M. Wortley 
 Montagu [1713-14], i. 329; 
 Pope, 1737 (‘Chaucer’s worst 
 ribaldry is learned by rote), 
 i. 383; A. Yart, 1753-6, v. 
 29; Cowper, 1781, i. 459; 
 Anna Seward, 1806, ii. 28; 
 Byron, 1807, ii. 29, 1811, ii. 52; 
 H. Richman [c. 1810], ii. 49; 
 
 S. T. Coleridge, 1818, ii. 95; 
 K. H. Digby, 1826, ii. 161; 
 J. P. Collier, 1833, ii. 187; Un- 
 known, 1841, ii. 241; Card. 
 Wiseman, 1855, iii. 29, introd. 
 lxi. ; E. Fitzgerald, 1856, iii. 29. 
 (By the use of the phrase 
 ‘ Chaucer's jest ’) : G. Whet- 
 
 stone, 1576, i. 113, 1578, i. 
 116; ‘A.,’ 1592, i. 138; Re- 
 turn from Parnassus [1597], i. 
 
Index. 
 
 19 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 144-5; N. Breton, 1597, i. 144, 
 
 1600, i. 162; 'A.TrohrinovvT6<pi\os, 
 
 1611, i. 185; Mdismata, 1611, 
 i. 185; (‘Chaucerism’), Nashe, 
 
 1592, i. 135 ; (‘ Chaucer’s saw ’), 
 
 E. Phillips, 1658, i. 236. Mini- 
 mised or denied by : F. Beau- 
 mont, 1597, i. 145—6 ; Field and 
 Hunt, 1811, ii. 54 ; Lowell, 1870, 
 iff. Ill ; A. W. Ward, 1879, iff. 
 
 125. His regret for, recorded 
 by T. Gascoigne, 1434-57, i. 43. 
 
 5. Moral purpose : satire : 
 belief in, in the 16th cent., 
 introd. xx-xxi, xciv-v ; J. 
 Shirley [c. 1450], i. 49; S. 
 Hawes, 1506, i. 67 ; R. Ascham, 
 
 1544, i. 85-6; J. Northbrooke, 
 
 1577, i. 115; T. Lodge, 1579, i. 
 
 117; Babington, 1583, i. 124; 
 
 W. Webbe, 1586, i. 129; F. 
 Beaumont, 1597, i. 146; S. 
 Harsnet, 1603, i. 173 ; J. Flet- 
 cher [1613 ?], i. 187; J. Prynne, 
 
 1633, i. 206; Unknown, 1691, i. 
 
 263; J. Dart, 1720, i. 360; Un- 
 known, 1775, v. 36; Hazlitt 
 (who would like to meet him), 
 
 1826, ii. 161 ; Ruskin, introd. 
 lxiv; J. R. Lowell, 1870, iff. 
 
 Ill ; A. W. Ward, 1879, iff. 125. 
 
 6. Anticlericalism : 
 his works escape condemnation 
 by Parliament, 1542-3, i. 152; 
 
 H. Charteris, 1568, i. 102; J. 
 
 Foxe, 1570, i. 104-7; L. 
 Humphrey, 1582, i. 122; R. 
 
 Scot, 1584, i. 124-5; S. Hars- 
 net, 1603, i. 173; G. Powel 
 [1604], i. 174; T. Fuller, 1655, 
 i. 230; Dryden, 1700, i. 278; 
 
 T. Heame, 1709, i. 307-8; C. 
 
 Dodd, 1737, i. 380; 1823, ii. 
 
 148 ; Lytton, 1826, ii. 163 ; H. 
 Gomont, 1847, v. 58-9; FI. H. 
 Milman, 1855, iii. 25, see also 
 below, Wy cliff e, J. 
 
 7. Piety : 
 
 C. leaves Oxford a * sanctus 
 theologus,’ first stated by Leland 
 [c. 1545], iv. 13 ; * his zeal for a 
 purer religion,’ H. Wharton, c. 
 
 1687, his piety, ‘ Astrophil,’ 
 
 1740, i. 387; Unknown, 1775, 
 v. 36; E. B. Browning, 1843, ii. 
 
 § II. (f.) 
 
 246; J. R. Lowell, 1845, ii. 261, 
 1870, iii. 108; H. H. Milman, 
 1855, iff. 24; Ruskin, introd. 
 lxiv. 
 
 8. Impiety : 
 
 C. Dodd, 1737, i. 380; A. Yart, 
 1753-6, v. 29; K. H. Digby, 
 1826, ii. 161. 
 
 9. Pathos : 
 
 Unknown, 1696, i. 268; Astro- 
 phil, 1740, i. 387; T. Warton, 
 1762, introd. xliv, Hi, i. 423, 
 1774, i. 440, 1782, i. 470; N. 
 Drake, 1805, ii. 24; J. B. 
 Trotter, 1811, ii. 56; Hazlitt, 
 1818, ii. 99; Campbell, 1819, 
 ii. 112; Scott, 1829, ii. 176; 
 
 D. O’Sullivan, 1830, v. 45; I. 
 D’lsraeli, 1841, ii. 231; E. B. 
 Browning, 1842, ii. 243; 
 Thoreau, 1842, ii. 251 ; L. 
 Hunt, 1843, ii. 254-5; F. J. 
 Furnivall, 1873, iii. 113-4; 
 J. W. Hales, 1873, iii. 116; 
 M. Arnold, 1880, iii. 127; 
 Swinburne, 1880, iii. 131. 
 
 10. Sublimity : 
 
 T. Usk [c. 1387], i. 8; G. 
 Harvey, 1593, i. 140; A. Yart, 
 1753-6, v. 29; T. Warton, 1762, 
 
 i. 423; C. Lamb, 1820, ii. 127. 
 
 11. Want of sublimity or of serious- 
 ness : 
 
 T. Rymer, 1674, i. 249; Un- 
 known, 1839, ii. 226; C. B., 
 1818, ii. 94; H. Hallam, 1818, 
 
 ii. 97 ; Unknown, 1839, ii. 226 ; 
 Thoreau, 1843, ii. 251; J. J. 
 Ampere, 1867, v. 82; J. R. 
 Lowell, 1870 (his ‘gracious 
 worldliness’), iii. 108; Un- 
 known, 1 873, iii. 1 1 7 ; M. Arnold, 
 1880, iii. 128; W. Morris, 1887, 
 
 iii. 137-8; T. R. Lounsbury, 
 1891, iii. 141-2 ; E. Legouis, 
 1908, v. 119. 
 
 12. Love of nature : 
 
 J. Bossewell, 1572 (love of the 
 daisy), i. 108-9; J. Dart, 1721, 
 i. 358-9; C. J. Fox, 1800 (sing- 
 ing of birds), iv. 102 ; Coleridge, 
 1818, ii. 95 ; L. Hunt, 1820, ii. 
 124-5, 1844, ii. 253; N. Drake, 
 1828, ii. 168 ; M. P. Case, 1854, 
 
20 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 
 iii. 16; Ruskin, 1856 (C.’s love 
 of forests and hatred of the sea), 
 iii. 33-4; Card. Wiseman, 1855 
 (C.’s love of nature associated 
 with wantonness), iii. 29 ; this 
 denied by L. Hunt, 1859, iii. 49; 
 
 S. A. Brooke, 1871, iii. 111-2; 
 
 A. W. Ward, 1879, iii. 126; 
 
 L. Morel, 1895, v. 102. See also 
 Flower and the Leaf, the. 
 
 13. Happiness : cheerfulness : 
 
 Spenser, 1590-96, i. 133,* T. 
 
 Dekker [1607], i. 178; Cole- 
 ridge, 1817, ii. 85, 1834, ii. 190; 
 Unknown, 1842 (‘ Chaucer’s 
 
 blithe old world, for ever 
 new ’), ii. 246; Furnivall, 1873, 
 iii. 114; Swinburne, 1880, iii. 
 
 131-2. 
 
 14. Learning : 
 
 often mentioned in 16th cent., 
 introd., xcv-vi; by Hoccleve, 
 
 1412, i. 21 ; Sir B. Tuke, 1532, 
 i. 79; G. B., 1569, i. 103; 
 
 Foxe, 1570, i. 105; Holinshed, 
 
 1577, i. 114; Spenser, 1579, i. 
 
 118; Puttenham [1584-8], i. 
 
 125; G. Harvey [c. 1585], i. 
 
 127; Churchyard, 1587, i. 130; 
 
 Cobbler of Canterbury, 1590, i. 
 
 132; Hakluyt, 1598, i. 157; 
 
 F. Thynne, 1598, i. 155; 
 
 Speght, 1598, i. 147, 1602, i. 
 
 169; Harsnet, 1603, i. 173; 
 
 Stowe, 1603, i. 174; Selden, 
 
 1612 (C.’s knowledge ‘trans- 
 cending the common rode ’ ), 
 i. 186; Freeman, 1614, i. 188; 
 
 Basse [c. 1622], i. 196; Un- 
 known, 1622, i. 198; Webster, 
 
 1624, i. 199; Milton, 1641 (‘our 
 learned C.’), i. 221 ; E. G., 1646, 
 i. 225; E. Leigh, 1656, i. 232; 
 
 B. Whitelock [a. 1675], i. 251 ; 
 
 H. Wharton [c. 1687], ‘ vir extra 
 controversiam doctissimus ’), iv. 
 
 79; E. Howard, 1689, i. 262; 
 
 Dryden, 1700, i. 274; E. Hat- 
 ton, 1708, i. 296; J. Grainger, 
 
 1769, i, 431 ; R. Henry, 1781, 
 i. 460; G. Dyer [1811], ii. 53; 
 
 G. F. Nott, 1815-16, ii. 77-80; 
 
 E. G. Sandras, 1859, v. 71. 
 
 15. Universality : 
 
 Unknown, 1755, v. 33; Un- 
 known, 1756, i. 412; W. Ros- 
 
 § II. (f-g.) 
 
 coe, 1824, ii. 152; H. Neele, >i 
 1827, ii. 166; L. Hunt, 1844, 
 
 ii. 255; G. P. Marsh, 1858-9, 
 
 iii. 44. 
 
 16. Prolixity ; 
 
 Pinkerton, 1786, i. 484; Camp- 
 bell, 1819, ii. 112; Unknown, 
 1846, ii. 273; A. Smith, 1862, 1 
 iii. 65; Unknown, 1873, iii. 117. i 
 
 17. Brevity : 
 
 Lydgate, 1430, i. 42; Caxton ■ 
 [c. 1483], i. 61-2, introd. xiv; 
 
 J. Rastell ( ?) [1520], i. 73; Sir 
 B. Tuke, 1532, i. 80, introd. 
 xvii. 
 
 18. Eloquence : 
 
 the common opinion [c. 1400- 
 1550], introd.- xciii-iv; Lyd- 
 gate [c. 1403, etc.], i. 17, 19, 
 24, 27, 35; J. Walton, 1410, 
 i. 20; Hoccleve, 1412, i. 21; 
 James I., 1423, i. 34; Un- 
 known [c. 1440], i. 45; J. 
 Shirley [c. 1450], i. 49; Un- 
 known [1450-60 ?], i. 53 ; Un- ; 
 known [a. 1477], i. 57 ; Caxton 
 [a. 1479], i. 58; Dunbar, 1503, 
 i. 66; Hawes [1503-4], i. 66; ! 
 H. Bradshaw, 1513, i. 71 ; 
 Douglas, 1513, i. 71-2 ; Skelton, 
 1523, i. 74; Unknown [1525?], ! 
 i. 75; J. Grange, 1577, i. 107 
 (in Cambridge issue only). 
 
 19. Facility : 
 
 Landor, 1811, iv. 103-4; J. R. 
 Lowell, 1870, iii. 110; T. R. 
 Lounsbury, 1891, iii. 143. 
 
 20. Artificiality : 
 
 Anna Seward, 1806, ii. 28; { 
 Unknown, 1877, iii. 122-3. 
 
 21. Heaviness : 
 
 Unknown, 1861 (‘wanting in a 
 certain lightness of touch, con- 
 ciseness and melody’), iii. 60. 
 
 22. Originality : 
 
 J. R. Lowell, 1871 (‘one of the 
 most purely original of poets’), 
 iii. 111. 
 
 (g) Comparisons of, with other Writers. 
 Some of these writers are 
 merely equalled with or pre- 
 ferred to Chaucer by enthusi- 
 
Index. 
 
 21 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 astic admirers. The numerous 
 passages from early writers 
 given in the text in which 
 Chaucer is mentioned in com- 
 pany with Gower, Lydgate, 
 Surrey, Spenser, etc., without 
 comment are omitted here ; 
 see introd. lxxiii-iv. 
 
 1. Beaumont : J. Earle [1616], i. 
 
 192. 
 
 2. Boccaccio : D. Rogers [c. 1570], 
 
 i. 107 ; Dryden, 1700, i. 273-4, 
 283-4; J. C. Dunlop, 1814, ii. 
 
 61-3; Macaulay, 1815, ii. 72; 
 
 H. Gomont, 1847, v. 59-60; 
 
 ( Troilus and Philostrato ), W. M. 
 Rossetti, 1873, iii. 116-17; 
 for comparisons of the frame of 
 the Decameron and the Canter- 
 bury Tales , see below : [viii. 
 Works . — (f.) 12.] 
 
 3. Browning, B. : Landor, 1846, 
 
 ii. 273. 
 
 4. Burns: N. Drake, 1828, ii. 168; 
 Landor, 1846, ii. 272; M. 
 Arnold, 1880, iii. 130. 
 
 5. Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of 
 Newcastle : W. Cavendish, D. 
 of N., 1664, iv. 74. 
 
 6. Chatterton : in Biog. nouvelle des 
 contemp., 1822, v. 43. 
 
 7. Cicero : Bale, 1562, iv. 28. 
 
 8. Crabbe: J. R. Lowell, 1845, ii. 
 
 261. 
 
 9. Dante : Unknown, 1842, ii. 246 ; 
 Swinburne, 1880, iii. 131-2. 
 
 10. Dryden : Wordsworth, 1805, ii. 
 
 26; Unknown, 1855, iii. 28. 
 
 11. Dunbar: (excelled C. at all 
 
 points) Pinkerton, 1786, i. 484; 
 
 D. Irving, 1804, ii. 15 ; N. Drake, 
 
 1828, ii. 168; Scott, 1829, ii. 
 
 176; 1830, ii. 179. 
 
 12. Ennius: B. Googe, 1565, iv. 34; 
 Hakluyt, 1598, i. 157 ; Dryden, 
 
 1697, i. 269 ; S. Wesley, 1700, i. 
 
 289; J. Hughes [c. 1707], i.294; 
 
 T. Ruddiman, 1710, i. 313. 
 
 13. Gower (mere collocations of the 
 names omitted) : introd. xviii- 
 xix, lxxiii; Pymlico, 1609, i. 
 
 184; S. Turner, 1825, ii. 158. 
 
 14. Henry, the Minstrel : D. Irving, 
 
 1804, ii. 15. 
 
 15. Hogarth: J. Bancks, 1738, i. 
 
 383; C. Lamb, 1811, ii. 54. 
 
 16. Homer: Leland [c. 1545], iv. 15; 
 Camden, 1586, i. 128; B. Vul- 
 
 § II. (£.) 
 
 canius, 1586, iv. 187 (in Cam- 
 bridge issue only); Unknown, 
 1830, ii. 179-80; De Quincey, 
 1838-9, ii. 221, 1841, ii. 229- 
 30; Unknown, 1842, ii. 246; 
 (for archaic diction) M. Arnold, 
 1861-2, iii. 54-5. 
 
 17. T. Howell : J. Keeper, 1568, i. 
 102 . 
 
 18. Keats : Landor, 1846, ii. 272, 
 1848, ii. 278. 
 
 19. La Fontaine : J. J. Jusserand, 
 1878, v. 85. 
 
 20. Lydgate (mere collocations of the 
 names omitted) : introd. xviii- 
 xix, lxxiii ; preferred to C. by 
 Hawes, introd. xviii; equalled 
 with him by J. Lawson, 1581, 
 
 i. 120. 
 
 21. Marot : D. Rogers [c. 1570], i. 
 107; L. M. Chaudon, 1791, v. 
 37; H. F. Cary, 1821^1, ii. 
 131-2. 
 
 22. The Meister singer: Herder, 1777, 
 v. 133-4. 
 
 23. W. Morris : A. C. Swinburne, 
 1867, iii. 94. 
 
 24. Ossian : H. D. Thoreau, 1843, 
 
 ii. 250. 
 
 25. Ovid: Dryden, 1700, i. 272-6; 
 Dryden ’s comparison ridiculed 
 by T. Brown [a. 1704], i. 291-2. 
 
 26. Pope : Hazlitt, 1821, ii. 132-3. 
 
 27. Allan Bamsay : A. F. Tytler, 
 1800, i. 504. 
 
 28. Buiz de Hita : G. Ticknor, 1849, 
 
 ii. 280. 
 
 29. Shakespeare: Hazlitt, 1817, ii. 
 87-9, 1818, ii. 105; Coleridge, 
 1834, ii. 190; FitzGerald, 1859, 
 
 iii. 49; J. W. Hales, 1873, iii. 
 115-16. 
 
 30. Skelton: Pymlico, 1609, i. 184. 
 
 31. Spenser : F. Thynne, 1600, i. 
 166; Spenser preferred by C. 
 Fitz^effrey, 1601, i. 167 ; R. R., 
 1605, i. 176; J. Hughes, 1715, 
 i. 340; W. Thompson, 1745, 
 i. 391-2; Southey, 1811, ii. 55; 
 Landor, 1811, iv. 103, [ n.a . 
 1841] (‘ C. worth a score or two 
 of Spensei’s ’), ii. 239; Hazlitt, 
 1818, ii. 98, 1826, ii. 161-2. 
 
 32. Varro : R. Carew [1595-6 ?], i. 
 142. 
 
 33. Villon : A. C. Swinburne, 1880, 
 iii. 131-2. 
 
 34. Wyatt : Surrey [1542], i. 84. 
 
22 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 (h) Influence of, on other 'poets : 
 
 on Arthur Broke, iv. 2,9-33; 
 on William Browne, iv. 62 ; 
 on Lyly, iv. 41-2; on Shake- 
 speare, i. 396 ; iv. 45-6 ( see also 
 Shakespeare, W.); on Spenser, 
 
 i. 118-19; on Surrey, iv. 19; on 
 Wyatt, iv. 12; on the author 
 of Sir Gyles Goosecappe (Chap- 
 man ?), iv. 57-60. 
 
 III. Modernizations 
 
 (a) General : 
 
 See also below (b) 10, Dryden. 
 
 1. Praised or defended : 
 
 as saving C. from oblivion, by 
 C. B., 1749, i. 399; H. Dalrym- 
 ple ( ?), 1761, i. 421 ; as superior 
 to originals, by Walpole, 1774, 
 i. 439, 1781, i. 464; as incite- 
 ment to read originals, by 
 Leigh Hunt, 1855, iii. 22-3; 
 called for by J. Dart, 1718, i. 
 346. 
 
 2. Condemned : 
 
 by W. Harrison, 1706, i. 293; 
 T. Warton, 1754, 1762, 1774, 
 i. 409, 423, 439—40 ; Unknown, 
 1826, ii. 164; Landor [n.a. 
 1841], ii. 238-9, introd. lviii; 
 Unknown, 1847, ii. 275. 
 
 3. Criticized : 
 
 by Leigh Hunt, 1817, ii. 89, 
 introd., lxvi ; J. Johnstone, 
 1828, ii. 169-170; E. B. Brown- 
 ing, 1840, ii. 226-7; R. H. 
 Horne, 1841, ii. 237; J. Saun- 
 ders, 1845-7, ii. 264-6; introd. 
 xliii-vii. 
 
 (b) Particular : 
 
 1. Bell, B., 1841, ii. 234. 
 
 2. Betterton, T. [a. 1710], i. 312; 
 see below : Pope. 
 
 3. Browning, E. B., 1841, ii. 235. 
 
 4. Budgell, E., see Grosvenor. 
 
 5. Catcott, A. E., 1717, i. 345. 
 
 6. Clarke, C. Cowden, 1833, ii. 187; 
 1835, ii. 194. 
 
 7. Cobb, S., 1725, iv. 84. 
 
 8. Cooke, W., 1774, i. 438. 
 
 9. Dart, J ., 1718, i. 346. 
 
 10. Dryden, J., 1700, i. 272-85; 
 praised by J. Hughes [c. 1707], 
 i. 294; Walpole, 1775, iv. 94; 
 
 § ii. (h.)-§ hi. (b.) 
 
 C. Reeve, 1785, i. 479; con- 
 demned by W. Harrison, 1706, 
 
 i. 293; Southey, 1803, ii. 12; 
 Hazlitt, 1815, 1818, ii. 70, 
 105-6; Lowell, 1845, ii. 261; 
 A. Smith (Dryden and Pope 
 ‘ committed assault and battery ’ 
 on C. ), 1 862, iii. 65 ; criticized 
 by Johnson, 1779-81, i. 456- 
 7; Scott, 1808, ii. 39-41; O. 
 Schoepke, 1878, v. 149; spoken 
 of as' if the originals, by J. 
 Aikin, 1804, ii. 14-15. 
 
 11. Dunkin, W. [a. 1765], iv. 93. 
 
 12. Grosvenor [i.e. E. Budgell ?] 
 [1733], iv. 86. 
 
 13. Harte, W., 1727, iv. 84. 
 
 14. Haweis, M. E., 1876, iii. 121. 
 
 15. Horne, B. H., and others, in 
 Chaucer Modernized, 1841, ii. 
 234-8 ; Landor declines to con- 
 tribute to, ii. 238-9 ; reviewed, 
 
 ii. 241 ; Wordsworth on, ii. 
 228—9, 242, introd. lvii— lix. 
 
 16. Hunt, Leigh, Pardoner’s Tale , 
 1820, ii. 126, 1845, ii. 260, 1855, 
 
 iii. 22-3 ; Squire’s Tale, first 
 version, 1823, iv. 105; second 
 version, 1841, ii. 235, 1855, ii. 
 144, iv. 105. 
 
 17. Jackson, A., 1750, i. 401. 
 
 18. Johnstone, J., 1827, ii. 165. 
 
 19. Lipscomb, W., Pardoner’ s Tale, 
 1791, i. 493; C.T., 1795, i. 
 496-7. 
 
 20. Markland, J., 1728, i. 370; in 
 Ogle, 1741, i. 389-90. 
 
 21. Maynwaring, A., 1709, i. 310. 
 
 22. Milnes, M., 1844, ii. 256. 
 
 23. Ogle, G., Clerk’s Tale, 1739, i. 
 384-6; with others, C.T., 1741, 
 i. 389-90. 
 
 24. Penn, J., 1794, i. 495-6. 
 
 25. Pitt-Taylor, F., 1884, iii. 135-6. 
 
 26. Pope, A., January and May,' 
 1709, i. 310; used by Wieland 
 in his Oberon, 1780, v. 134. 
 
 The Temple of Fame, 1711, 
 i. 318, attacked by J. Ralph, 
 1728, iv. 84-5; praised by Dr. 
 Johnson, 1779, i. 457; J. War- 
 ton, 1782, i. 471. 
 
 Wife of Bath’s Prol., 1714, 
 i. 330. 
 
 Franklin’s Tale, lines on 
 love, paraphrased from, in 
 Eloisa to Abelard, 1717, i. 346, 
 489. 
 
Index. 
 
 23 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 Knight’s Tale, etc., line on 
 pity paraphrased from, 1711, 
 
 i. 319. 
 
 Prol. C.T., Pope wrote the 
 modernization of, published as 
 Betterton’s, i. 500. 
 
 General : praised by C. B., 
 1749, i. 399; by Roscoe, 1824, 
 
 ii. 152; condemned by Theo- 
 bald, 1732, i. 374; by A. Smith, 
 1862, iii. 65; their relation to 
 their originals discussed by A. 
 Schade, 1897, v. 152. See also 
 above, Dryden. 
 
 27. Powell, T., 1841, ii. 228, 234; 
 his plagiarisms, 239-40, 267-8. 
 
 28. Saunders, J ., 1845-7, ii. 264-6. 
 
 29. Sewell, G., Hoccleve’s Letter of 
 Cupid (as C.’s), 1718, i. 347-8, 
 1720, i. 350; Song of Troilus , 
 1720, i. 350-52. 
 
 30. Storr, F., and Turner, H., 1878, 
 
 iii. 123. 
 
 31. Thurlow, E., Lord, Knight’s 
 Tale, 1822, ii. 140; The Flower 
 and the Leaf, 1823, ii. 148. 
 
 32. Trinitarius, 1800, i. 504. 
 
 33. Tytler, H. W., 1828, ii. 171. 
 
 34. Wordsworth, W., 1801-2, ii. 2-3, 
 5; 1841, ii. 234. 
 
 35. Z., Z. A. [i.e. R. H. Hornet], 
 1841, ii. 234, 239-40. 
 
 36. Anon., ‘sonnet’ (source uniden- 
 tified), 1737, iv. 87 ; Sompnour’s 
 Tale, 1769, iv. 94; Miller’s 
 Tale, 1791, i. 493; Clerk’s Tale, 
 1794, iv. 100; Squire’s Tale, 
 1796, i. 499; L.G.W., Ariadne, 
 
 1803, ii. 13; Squire’s Tale, 
 
 1804, ii. 21; C.T., etc., 1811, 
 ii. 56; Truth, 1815, ii. 80-81; 
 Clerk’s Tale, 1837, ii. 219; 
 Parson, 1841, ii. 240-1; Clerk’s 
 Tale, 1845, ii. 266. 
 
 IV. Imitations 
 
 (a) Imitation in general : 
 
 introd. xlvii-ix ; condemned 
 by Ascham, 1563-8, i. 97-8; 
 by Ben Jonson [1620-35 ?], i. 
 193-4. 
 
 (b) Particular Imitators : 
 
 1. Arbuihnot, J. ( ?), 1735, iv. 
 
 86-7. 
 
 2. Baynes , «/.(?), 1782, i. 465. 
 
 § III. (b.)-§ IV (b.) 
 
 3. Brome, A., 1641, i. 219. 
 
 4. Brooke, A., 1562, iv. 29-33. 
 
 5. Bullein, W., 1564, i. 99. 
 
 6. Chatterton, T. [a. 1770], i. 
 
 432-5; the controversy over, 
 1781-2, i. 459, 463, 465-9, 
 472-3 ; see also Chatterton, T. 
 
 7. Drayton, M., 1593, i. 139. 
 
 8. Fagan, C. G., 1883, iii. 134-5. 
 
 9. Fenton, E., 1717, i. 345. 
 
 10. Fielding, H. ( ?), 1752, iv. 90- 
 91. 
 
 11. Frere, J.H.{t) [c. 1787], ii. 21, 
 
 iv. 107 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 109 
 (in Cambridge issue). 
 
 12. Gay, J., 1717, i. 345. 
 
 13. Gough, R., 1764, i. 425. 
 
 14. Greene, E. B., 1782, i. 466. 
 
 15. Harris, J. [a. 1758], i. 412. 
 
 16. Hunt, Leigh, 1858, iii. 43. 
 
 17. James, F., 1635, i. 212-3; 1638, 
 i. 218-9. 
 
 18. Keats, J., 1819, iv. 104, introd. 
 lxvi-vii. 
 
 19. Ker, W. P., 1891, iii. 140. 
 
 20. Mason, W ., 1744 (quoted as 
 1747), i. 393-4. 
 
 21. Mathias, T. J., 1782, i. 466-7. 
 
 22. Mennis, Sir J., and Smith, J., 
 1655, i. 231. 
 
 23. N., B. ( ?), 1789, i. 487-8. 
 
 24. Pope, A., 1727, i. 369. 
 
 25. Prior, M. {Erie Robert’s Mice, 
 etc.), 1712, i. 323-4; condemned 
 by Armstrong, 1753, iv. 91; 
 another [1718 ?], i. 347. 
 
 26. Skeat, W. W., 1900, iii. 151-2 
 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 152 (in 
 Cambridge issue). 
 
 27. Smith, J. See above, Mennis, J. 
 
 28. Spenser, E., 1579, 1590-96, i. 
 118, 132-3; praised by S. 
 Cobb [a. 1700], i. 271; con- 
 demned by Ben Jonson [1620- 
 35 ?], i. 193-4, introd. xxvi. 
 
 29. Starkey, A., 1859, iii. 51. 
 
 30. Swift, J. (lost), ii. 65, iv. 88. 
 
 31. Thompson, W. [c. 1745], i. 
 
 392-3. 
 
 32. Taylor, J. (the Water Poet), 
 ref. to by Southey, 1831, ii. 184. 
 
 33. Thurlow, E., Lord, 1823, ii. 148. 
 
 34. Warton, T., sen., 1747, i. 394, 
 iv. 89. 
 
 35. Wharton, R., 1804-5, ii. 22. 
 
 36. Anon. [1597], i. 144; 1746, iv. 
 89; 1772, i. 437; 1791, iv. 99; 
 1796, i. 499. 
 
24 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 V. Illustrations 
 
 1. Blake , W ., 1 The Canterbury 
 Pilgrims ’ ; described by him- 
 self, 1809, ii. 42-6; admired 
 by Lamb, 1810, ii. 49, 1824, ii. 
 151 ; condemned by A. Cun- 
 ningham, 1830, iv. 106; by 
 T. F. Dibdin, 1836, ii. 203-4; 
 original oil sketch for, owned 
 by R. C. Jackson, 1864, iii. 
 74; selections from C.T. Prol. 
 printed to illustrate, 1812, ii. 
 56; used as the sign of the 
 Tabard Inn, 1812, iv. 104. 
 See also below, 9. Stothard. 
 
 2. Burne Jones, Sir E. C., 
 Prioress's Tale , 1858, iii. 41 ; 
 Assembly of Fowls (‘ Cupid’s 
 Forge’), 1861, iii. 55; L.G.W. 
 (designs), 1862, iii. 61, praised 
 by Ruskin, 1867, iii.' 93; (glass 
 at Peterhouse), 1864, iii. 72; 
 Isle of Ladies (‘ Chaucer’s 
 Dream’), 1865, iii. 75; Works 
 (Kelmscott ed.), 1896, iii. 150 
 (in Cambridge issue only), in- 
 trod. lxx. 
 
 3. Corbould, E., Cant. Tales, 1853, 
 iii. 12. 
 
 4. Dixon, R. W., Merchant’s Tale 
 ( ?) ( £ A Wedding Scene ’), 1855, 
 
 iii. 21. 
 
 5. Hamilton, W., Knight’s Tale 
 C The Death of Arcite ’), 1790, 
 
 iv. 98. 
 
 6. Hooper, W. H., engraved wood- 
 cuts after the Ellesmere MS. 
 for the Six Text C.T., 1868, iii. 
 
 95; after Rurne Jones for the 
 Kelmscott Works, 1896, iii. 150 
 (in Cambridge issue only), in- 
 trod. lxx. 
 
 7. Jelfereys, J ., ‘The Canterbury 
 Pilgrims ’ [c. 1780 ?], i. 458-9. 
 
 8. Mortimer, J. H., Cant. Tales, 
 [n.a. 1779], i. 447, iv. 96. 
 
 9. Stothard, T., ‘ The Canterbury 
 Pilgrims,’ praised by F. Douce, 
 1807, ii. 31; by J. Hoppner, 
 1807, ii. 32; proposals for 
 printing the engraving after, 
 by R. H. Cromek, 1808, ii. 37; 
 condemned by Blake, 1809, ii. 
 
 46 ; exhibited in all great 
 towns, the engraving widely 
 sold, ii. 203; at Abbotsford, 
 1827, ii. 164-5; preferred to 
 
 §§ V, VI, VII. 
 
 Blake’s by T. F. Dibdin, 1836, 
 ii- 203-4; suggested to de 
 Lecluze his translation of C.T. 
 Prol., 1838, v. 51-3. See also 
 above, 1. Blake. Other illustra- 
 tions of Chaucer, ii. 203, iv. 106. 
 
 10. Waller, J. G., window in West- 
 minster Abbey, 1868, iii. 97 
 
 11. Anon., 1824, ii. 149. 
 
 VI. Manuscripts 
 
 i. 26-64; iv. 4-8; those used 
 by Thynne, including one in- 
 scribed ‘examinatur Chaucer,’ 
 i. 151 ; Sir H. L’Estrange’s, 
 1669-96, i. 245; H. Wanley, 
 1697, iv. 81, 1705, i. 292-3; T. 
 Heame, 1709, 1711, i. 297-300, 
 306-7, 316-17; J. Urry, 1712, 
 1721, i. 325-6, 358; Sir H. 
 Sloane, 1715, i. 335; Sloane’s 
 and Bagford’s lent to Hearne 
 for Urry’s ed., i. 341-2; Tyr- 
 whitt, 1775. i. 442; the Har- 
 leian, 1769, 1808, i. 416, 424, ii. 
 41-2; Todd, 1810, ii. 50; Dib- 
 din, 1817, ii. 87; Furnivall (?), 
 1865, iii. 76; to be printed by 
 the Chaucer Society, 1867, iii. 
 89-90, 95-6 ; T. S. Baynes, 
 1870, iii. 99, 103-5: and see 
 below, viii., under the separate 
 works. 
 
 VII. Bibliography 
 Rarity of early bibliographical 
 references, introd. Ixxxix; lists 
 and references by Lydgate, 
 1430, i. 3-43; Hawes, 1506, 
 
 i. 67; Leland [c. 1545], iv. 17; 
 Bale, 1548, 1557, iv. 19-20, 
 22-4; F. Thynne, 1598, i. 155; 
 Stow, 1598, 1600, i. 159-60, 
 165; Pits, 1613, iv. 65; Bag- 
 ford, 1709, i. 297; Hearne, 
 1708-15, i. 296-337; Ames, 
 1749, i. 398-9; Herbert, 1785- 
 90, i. 477-8, 483, 491 ; Griffiths, 
 1815, ii. 69; Dibdin, 1809-24, 
 iv. 103, ii. 49, 69, 87, 149-50; 
 Watt [a. 1819], ii. 120; Harts- 
 horne, 1829, ii. 172; Scott [n.a. 
 1832], ii. 186; Heber sale, 
 1834-6, ii. 193; Lowndes, 1834, 
 
 ii. 192; King’s Library cata- 
 logue, 1834, ii. 193; " Douce, 
 1840, ii. 226; Collier, 1865, 
 
 iii. 75-6. 
 
Index. 
 
 25 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 VIII. Works 
 
 Relative popularity of : 
 introd. lxxvi-ix. 
 
 Table of 19 th cent. edd. of ( com- 
 plete and separate ) : 
 introd. lxxi. 
 
 Chronology of : 
 
 ten Brink, 1870, v. 147-8, 
 introd. lxxi-ii ; criticized by 
 Minto, 1874, iii. 119; Furnivall, 
 1873, iii. 113; Koch, 1890, 
 iii. 139. 
 
 Canon of : 
 
 Skeat, 1900, iii. 150-1 (in Ch. 
 Soc. issue), 151 (in Cambridge 
 issue) ; introd., lxxii. See also 
 below ; [vm. (1.) Spurious .] 
 
 Editions of Complete (or nearly 
 Complete ) Works : 
 
 Pynson, 1526, i. 75; Thynne 
 (Godfray), 1532, i. 78; this 
 really the first English miscel- 
 lany, iii. 87 ; Thynne (Bonham), 
 1542, i. 83; Thynne (Bonham, 
 etc.) [c. 1545], i. 86; Stowe, 
 1561, i. 96 ; this the beginning 
 of a projected collection of old 
 authors, i. 100 ; Speght, 1598, 
 i. 147; F. Thynne’s Animad- 
 versions on, 1598, i. 149-55; 
 Speght’s 2nd ed., 1602, i. 168; 
 1687, i. 259; this readvertised 
 in 1689, i. 262; Urry’s, in pre- 
 paration, 1714-15, i. 330-37; 
 published, 1721, i. 353-61; 
 Brome’s letter on, 1733, i. 375 
 [see also Urry]; Entick’s pro- 
 posals for an ed., 1736, i. 377- 
 8; one projected by Dr. John- 
 son [c. 1750], i. 401; in Bell's 
 Poets, 1782, i. 464-5; the 
 Canterbury Tales in this ed. a 
 piracy from Tyrwhitt, 1783, 
 i. 474; in Anderson’s Poets, 
 1793, i. 494; a lost ed., 16mo., 
 1807, ii. 29; in Chalmers’ 
 English Poets , 1810, ii. 48-9; 
 in British Poets , 1822, ii. 136; 
 Moxon, 1843, ii. 246; Aldine 
 ed., 1845, ii. 258; Bell’s 
 annotated ed., 1854-6, iii. 15; 
 ed. projected by Aldis Wright, 
 Henry Bradshaw, and Furni- 
 vall, 1864, iii. 71-2; Aldine 
 
 § VIII. (a-f.) 
 
 ed., 1866, iii. 81; ed. by R. 
 Bell, 1878, iii. 123; by Gilman, 
 Boston, 1878-80, iii. 123-4; 
 by Skeat, 1894-7, iii. 146-8; 
 the Kelmscott, 1896, iii. 150 
 (in Cambridge issue only), 
 interest aroused by, introd. 
 lxx; the Globe, 1898, iii. 150; 
 During’s uncompleted German 
 version, 1883-6, v. 150. 
 
 (f) Canterbury Tales : 
 
 1. Manuscripts : 
 
 various, i. 26, 32-3, 36, 50-52, 
 54 ; Harl. 7334 used by Wright, 
 1847-51, ii. 274; rhyme index 
 to Ellesmere MS., 1875, iii. 95; 
 note in Laud MS., i. 221 ; those 
 used for Chaucer Soc.’s Six- 
 Text ed., iii. 89, 95-6 ; see 
 above : vi. 
 
 2. Early records of copies : 
 bequeathed by J. Brinchele, 
 1420, i. 25-6 ; Eliz. Bruyn, 
 1471, i. 56; J. Parmenter, 
 1479, i. 60 ; Margaret, Countess 
 of Richmond, 1509, i. 71. 
 
 3. Editions ( English ) : 
 
 Caxton, 1st ed. [1477-8], i. 58; 
 incorrectness of this ed. pointed 
 out to Caxton, i. 62; 2nd ed. 
 [c. 1483], i. 61 ; Pynson [c. 
 1492], i. 64-5; Wynkyn de 
 Worde, 1498, i. 65; Pynson, 
 1526, i. 75; Tyrwhitt, 1775-8, 
 
 i. 442-6, 451 ; this the first 
 good text, introd. liv ; 2nd 
 ed., 1798, i. 500; Cumberland 
 [1820?], ii. 121; reprint of 
 Tyrwhitt, 1822, ii. 136; 1824, 
 with other poems, illustrated, 
 
 ii. 149; Dove’s Classics [ n.a . 
 1841], ii. 229; Wright, 1847- 
 51, ii. 274, 1853 (repr., 1860), 
 
 iii. 12 ; illustr. by E. Corbould, 
 1853 (repr. 1878, 1882), iii. 12; 
 Tyrwhitt, repr. with mem. by 
 Gilfillan, 1860, iii. 52-3; Six- 
 text print (Chaucer Soc.), 1868- 
 77, iii. 95-6 ; various, discussed 
 by T. S. Baynes, 1870, iii. 104-5. 
 
 4. Editions ( French ) : 
 
 J. B. de Chatelain, 1857-61, 
 v. 12, 66-9; P. van* Cleem- 
 putte, unfinished [1869], v. 95; 
 
26 
 
 Index . 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 E. Legouis, 1906-8, v. 13-14, 
 111-113; reviewed, v. 107-11, 
 119-20. 
 
 5. Editions ( German ) : 
 
 C. L. Kannegiesser (select), 
 1827, v. 140 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 
 
 139 (in Cambridge issue) ; E. 
 Fiedler (four tales only), 1844, 
 v. 141; W. Hertzberg, 1866, v. 
 145-6. 
 
 6. Abridgments for children : 
 
 C. Cowden Clarke, 1833, 1870, 
 
 ii. 187; M. E. Haweis, 1876, 
 
 iii. 121 ; F. Storrs and H. 
 Turner, 1878, iii. 123. 
 
 7. Modernizations : 
 
 G. Ogle and others, 1741, i. 
 389-90; W. Lipscomb, 1795, 
 
 i. 496-7 ; anon, (unpublished) 
 
 [■ n.b . 1811], ii. 56; R. H. Horne 
 and others, 1841, ii. 234-8; sig- 
 nificance and effect of, introd. 
 xliii-xlviii. 
 
 8. Sequels : 
 
 Lydgate’s Siege of Thebes, i. 26- 
 32; H. J. Richman [c. 1810], ii. 
 
 49 ; R. Warner upon this, 1830, 
 
 ii. 180 ; see also below (1.) Spuri- 
 ous Works, 3 and 8. 
 
 9. Rhyme-Index : 
 
 to Ellesmere MS., by H. Cromie, 
 
 1875, iii. 95. 
 
 10. Summaries : 
 
 B. Twyne [1608-44], i. 181. 
 
 11. The Characters : See under the 
 name of each, and also below, 
 under the separate Tales. 
 
 12. Frame and Order of the Tales : 
 links, i. 126, 32-3, 36, spurious, 
 i. 50-52 ; improbabilities noted 
 in by J. Dixon, 1865 ( N . <fc 
 Q.), iii. 79; H. Bradshaw, 
 1867-71, iii. 87; the scheme 
 imitated in The Cobbler of 
 Canterbury, 1590, i. 131 ; held 
 original by F. Beaumont, 1597, 
 i. 146; by T. Warton, 1782, 
 
 i. 470; by A. P. Stanley, 1855, 
 
 iii. 27; criticized by Crabbe, 
 
 181 2, ii. 57 ; by Unknown, 1825, 
 
 ii. 158; comparisons with the 
 framework of the Decameron : 
 
 J. J. Eschenburg (?), 1793, v. 
 
 § VIII. (f.) 
 
 136; Unknown, 1825, ii. 158; 
 
 E. Desclozeaux, 1853, v. 61 ; 
 A. Filon, 1883, v. 90; L. Morel, 
 1895, v. 102-3; E. Legouis, 
 1908, v. 118. 
 
 13. Criticisms : 
 
 In this heading and other separ- 
 ate works below, minor refer- 
 ences are only indexed for the 
 early period. 
 
 the conception taken from 
 Gower’s Confessio Amantis (W. 
 Gray), 1835, ii. 195; references 
 by Lydgate, i. 26-32, 39; 
 
 Caxton’s praise of [c. 1483], 
 i. 62 ; Skelton can report them, 
 1507, i. 69; M. Hanmer finds 
 good decorum observed in 
 them, 1576, i. 112; as also do 
 
 F. Beaumont, 1597, i. 146 ; G. 
 Harvey [1598-1600 ?] iv. 49 ; 
 and Speght, 1598, iv. 52; this 
 denied by Le Roux de Lincy, 
 1847, v. 60 ; held original by 
 Hawes, 1506, i. 67 ; by Putten- 
 ham [1584-8], i. 125 ; and by H. 
 Peacham, 1622, i. 197; praised 
 in The Cobbler of Canterbury, 
 1590, i. 131 ; they should be 
 translated into Latin, as well as 
 Troilus (S. Evans), 1635, i. 210; 
 here is God’s plenty (Dryden), 
 1700, i. 279; their vividness 
 (G. Jacob), 1720, i. 349; T. 
 Morell, 1737, i. 382; Dryden, 
 1700, i. 274; praised by J. 
 Warton, 1782, i. 1470; one of 
 the most extraordinary monu- 
 ments of human genius (W. 
 Godwin), 1803, ii. 8-9; improb- 
 ability of pilgrims of different 
 classes forming a travelling 
 intimacy (G. Crabbe), 1812, i. 
 57 ; two or three of the tales 
 worth all that our Augustan 
 age produced (Miss Mitford), 
 1815, i. 72; praised by Campbell, 
 1819, ii. 113; depict middle and 
 lowlife, unlike C.’s earlier poems 
 (J. H. Hippisley), 1837, ii. 217 ; 
 dates of composition and publi- 
 cation of (De Quincey), 1841, ii. 
 229-30 ; humour in (Leigh 
 Hunt), 1846, ii. 269-71 ; value 
 of as social history (A. Edgar), 
 1852, iii. 9 ; drawing of ecclesi- 
 astical types in (H. H. Milman), 
 
Index. 
 
 27 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 1855, iii. 24-5 ; his other poems 
 only remembered thanks to (F. 
 
 D. Maurice), 1865, iii. 79 ; and 
 (Unknown), 1877, iii. 122 ; also 
 ( J. C. Demogeot), 1895, v. 102 ; 
 contrasted with Piers Ploivman 
 by J. R. Green, 1874, iii. 119; 
 excluded by Ruskin from his 
 planned ed. of C., introd. lxv. ; 
 criticized by French writers : 
 
 A. Yart, 1753-6, v. 29 ; J. B. A. 
 Suard, 1813, v. 41 ; A. F. 
 Villemain, 1830, v. 46-7; H. 
 Gomont, 1847, v. 56-60; G. 
 Brunet, 1856, v. 63 ; E. G. 
 Sandras, 1859, v. 72-4; H. 
 Taine, 1863, v. 77 ; G. Vaper- 
 eau, 1876 (all the tales bor- 
 rowed), v. 84 ; L. Boucher, 
 
 1882 (variety and dramatic 
 quality of the C.T. ), v. 87-8 
 (C. in them a creator), v. 96 ; 
 
 B. H. Gausseron, 1887, v. 94; 
 
 J. J. Jusserand, 1895, v. 105; 
 
 E. Legouis, 1908, 1910, v. 113- 
 19, 121-2 ; by German writers : 
 
 J. J. Eschenburg (?), 1793, v. 
 135-6 ; J. Meyer, 1845, v. 142 ; 
 
 W. Hertzberg, 1856, v. 143-4; 
 
 R. Pauli, 1860, v. 145; E. 
 Kolbing, 1877, etc., v. 148 ; 
 
 Most general criticisms of C. 
 are largely based on the Tales : 
 see above : ii (a). 
 
 14. Prologue : 
 
 edited separately by T. Morell, 
 1737, i. 381-2, by ten Brink, 
 1871, v. 148; by J. Zupitza, 
 1871, etc., v. 148; with 
 Knight’s Tale and Nun’s Priest’s 
 Tale , by R. Morris, 1867, iii. 
 
 86; selections printed to illus- 
 trate Blake’s Pilgrims, 1812, ii. 
 
 56 ; modernization of, pub- 
 lished as by T. Betterton [a. 
 1710], i. 312; this really by 
 Pope, i. 500; translated into 
 French prose by E. J. de 
 Lecluze, 1838, v. 51-3; by E. 
 Forgues [c. 1850], v. 61, 124; 
 illustrations of (in MS.) by 
 
 F. J. Furnivall, 1857, iii, 37-8 ; 
 praised by G. Ogle, 1739, i. 
 385-6 ; by T. Warton, 1774, i. 
 
 440 ; analysed by Blake, 1809, 
 ii. 42-6 ; one of his few original 
 works (H. Hallam), 1818, ii. 
 
 § VIII. (f.) 
 
 97; E. FitzGerald, 1851, iii. 
 1-2 ; E. Forgues, 1850, v. 61 ; 
 J. J. Jusserand, 1894, v. 97-8 ; 
 
 E. Gebhart, 1907, v. 107-8. 
 Criticisms and analyses of the 
 
 Prologue are also embodied in 
 nearly all criticisms of the C. T. 
 at large, q.v. above: viii. (f.) 
 13 ; see also Canterbury Pil- 
 grims, the individual Pilgrims, 
 and for representations, above : 
 v. Illustrations. 
 
 15. Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale : 
 quoted by T. Norton [c. 1477], 
 i. 57-8 ; in alchemical MSS. 
 (Sloane 1098, 1723) [c. 1550], 
 i. 90; quoted and summarized 
 by R. Scot, 1584, i. 125; Lord 
 Coke values as illustrating the 
 Statute against alchemy [n.a. 
 1634], iv. 66; the source of 
 Erasmus’s Alcumnistica and Ben 
 Jonson’s Alchymist (J. Wilson, 
 1662), i. 240; shows C. an 
 alchemist (F. Thynne, 1576), 
 
 i. 113; mentioned by Ashmole, 
 1652, i. 227; quoted, 1822, ii. 
 140. 
 
 16. Clerk’s Tale : 
 
 edited by W. Aldis Wright, 
 1867, iii. 87; MS. of, at Naples 
 recorded by D. Laing, 1843, ii. 
 248; modernized by G. Ogle, 
 1739, i. 384-6; anon., 1794, iv. 
 100; by H. W. Tytler, 1828, 
 
 ii. 171; anon. 1837, ii. 219; 
 anon, (abridged), 1845, ii. 
 266; translated into French, 
 1813, v. 41-3; the subject 
 dramatized in Woman’s Love, 
 1828, ii. 171 ; its relation to 
 Petrarch and Boccaccio dis- 
 cussed by J. P. Collier, 1841, 
 ii. 229; retold by R. Radcliffe 
 [a. 1559], i. 95; references and 
 quotations by Lydgate [1403 ?], 
 i. 17, 18, 36; by J. Metham, 
 1448-9, i. 47; in A Remedy 
 for Sedition, 1536, i. 81-2; by 
 
 F. W., 1612, i. 185. 
 
 17. Cook’s Tale : 
 
 colophon to, in MS. Hengwrt, 
 [c. 1420], i. 26; spurious con- 
 clusion of, added in Works , 
 1687, i. 260. 
 
28 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. § VIII. (f.) 
 
 18. Franklin' s Tale : 
 modernized by R. Wharton, 
 1804-5, ii. 22; Beaumont's 
 Triumph of Honor based on 
 [1608 ?], iv. 61 ; ref. to by 
 Lydgate [1403?], i. 18; quoted 
 by T. Walkington, 1607, i. 180; 
 by Dekker, 1613, iv. 62; lines 
 on love from, modernized by 
 Pope, 1717, i. 346. 
 
 19. Friar’s Tale : 
 
 modernized by J. Markland, 
 reprinted by Ogle, 1741, i. 389- 
 90 (cf. 1728. i. 370); the source 
 of, found by T. Wright, 1847, 
 ii. 275. 
 
 20. Knight’s Tale : 
 
 edited by T. Morell, 1737, i. 
 381-2 ; by R. Morris (with 
 Frol, and N.P.T. ), 1867, iii. 
 86; modernized, and praised, 
 by Dryden, 1700, i. 284-5; by 
 Lord Thurlow, 1822, ii. 140; 
 translated into French by A. 
 Yart (from Dryden), 1753-6, v. 
 30 ; by H. Gomont, 1847, v. 60 ; 
 prologue to, in prose, by J. 
 Shirley [a. 1456], i. 53-4; taken 
 in part from Statius (W. Harte, 
 1727), iv. 84; newly discovered 
 to be from the Teseide (Warton, 
 1782), i. 470; the source of a 
 play by R. Edwards, 1566, i. 99 ; 
 of one, perhaps the last, pro- 
 duced by Henslowe, 1594, i. 
 141 ; of the Midsummer Night’s 
 Dream (Steevens, 1773), iv. 94; 
 of Fletcher’s Two Noble Kins- 
 men [1613?], i. 187; ref. to 
 by Lydgate [1402-3], i. 16-17; 
 quoted in Cuckoo and Night- 
 ingale [c. 1403], i. 16; in 
 Greeting on New Year’s Morn- 
 ing [c. 1440], i. 46; by Skelton 
 [1507 ?], i. 69; contrasted with 
 Sir Thopas by Wyatt [a. 1542], 
 
 i. 83-4 ; quoted by J. Bosse- 
 well, 1572, i. 109; criticized 
 by A. Yart, 1753-6, v. 30; by 
 Dr. Johnson, 1779, i. 456; by 
 J. J. Eschenburg ( ?), 1793, v. 
 135; by Hazlitt, 1818, ii. 99- 
 103; by Leigh Hunt, 1820, 
 
 ii. 124-5 ; compared with Dry- 
 den's version by Scott, 1808, 
 ii. 39-40. 
 
 21. Man of Law’s Tale : 
 modernized by H. Brooke, as 
 Constantia, in Ogle’s C.T., 
 1741, i. 389 ; this reprinted with 
 original, .1778, i. 449; derived 
 from Emare (J. Planta, 1802), 
 ii. 4; from Gower (W. Gray, 
 1835), ii. 195; criticized by 
 Ruskin, 1856, iii. 33-4. 
 
 22. Manciple’s Tale : 
 modernized by Wordsworth, 
 1801-2, ii. 3, 5; by Leigh 
 Hunt, 1841, ii. 234; ref. to in 
 The Institution of a Gentleman, 
 1555, i. 94; by F. Thynne 
 [a. 1608], i. 180. 
 
 23. Melibeus : 
 
 MSS. of [1420-30], i. 33; retold 
 by R. Radcliffe [a. 1559], i. 95; 
 held by T. Thomas, 1721, and 
 by T. Keightley, 1860, 1862, 
 to be written in blank verse, i. 
 498-9, iii. 54, 65 ; this doubted 
 by Steevens, 1796, i. 498-9; 
 held by E. Guest to be in 
 ‘ cadence,’ 1838, ii. 224. 
 
 24. Merchant’s Tale : 
 modernized by Pope, as January 
 and May, 1709, i. 310; source 
 of, found by T. Wright, 1843, 
 ii. 252 ; is the source of Wie- 
 land's Oberon, 1780, v. 134; 
 reff. to, by Lydgate [1403 ?] and 
 [1430], i. 18, 36; by Sir R. 
 Maitland [c. 1576], i. 113; by 
 
 0. B., 1594, i. 140; by Bp. 
 Hall, 1598, i. 158; by A. 
 Niccholes and H. Peacham, 
 1615, i. 190; by Beaumont 
 and Fletcher [c. 1615], i. 191; 
 by Dekker, 1623, i. 198; by 
 S. Marmion, 1641, i. 220. 
 
 25. Miller’s Tale : 
 modernized by S. Cobb, 1712, 
 
 1. 319; the same, 1725, iv. 84; 
 reprinted by Ogle, 1741, i. 389; 
 another, 1791, i. 493 ; reviewed, 
 1792, ib. ; R. Brath wait’s 
 comment upon, 1665, i. 242; 
 summarized in part by S. 
 Rowlands, 1620, i. 194; called 
 C.’s masterpiece by J. Pinker- 
 ton, 1786, i. 485; supposed by 
 Sir S. E. Brydges to be, in 
 
Index. 
 
 29 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 common with Masuccio’s tale, 
 taken from an earlier fabliau, 
 1812, ii. 57. 
 
 26. Monk’s Tale : 
 
 passages from, summarized by 
 Lydgate [1400], i. 14; de- 
 scribed by, 1430, i. 42—3 ; Trin. 
 
 Coll. MS. of [c. 1470], iv. 7-8? 
 the story of Ugolino from, 
 modernized by T. Powell or 
 Leigh Hunt, 1845, ii. 240; re- 
 lation of this story to Dante’s, 
 
 L. Hunt, 1846, ii, 268-9; E. 
 Gebhardt, 1908, v. 110. 
 
 27. Nuns’ Priest’s Tale : 
 
 edited (with Prol. and K.T .) 
 by R. Morris, 1867, iii. 86; 
 modernized by Dryden, 1700, 
 i. 285; by T. Powell or Leigh 
 Hunt, 1841, ii. 239-40; reff. 
 to, by Lydgate, 1444, i. 46; 
 in Colcelbie Sow [1440?], i. 44; 
 by Skelton [1507 ?], i. 68-9 ; in 
 Tales and Quick Answers [c. 
 1540], i. 83; by Drant, 1567, 
 i. 100; by Shakespeare, in 
 Henry IV, pt. i. [1596-7], i. 
 
 144, and in Winter’s Tale 
 [1610-11], i. 185; by Stowe, 
 1600, i. 164; by Camden, 1605 
 and 1616, i. 175, 191; by 
 Hey wood and Rowley [1607-9], 
 i. 180 ; by T. Walkington, 1607, 
 i. 180; by B. Twine, as ‘the 
 prettiest tale of all ’ [1608- 
 44?], i. 182-3; quoted by T. 
 Nash, 1633, i. 205; by W. 
 Cartwright [c. 1634], i. 206; 
 by J. Cleveland [a. 1658], i. 
 235; Garrick’s reading of [c. 
 1770], i. 436; Dr. Johnson 
 thought hardly worth Dryden’s 
 revival, 1779—81, i. 456 ; thought 
 ‘ foolish if not worse ' by W. 
 Bell [c. 1785], i. 481; praised 
 by Scott, 1808, ii. 41; ref. to 
 by W. J. Thoms, 1844, ii. 257; 
 its fall from popularity after 
 the- 17th cent., introd. lxxviii. 
 
 28. Pardoner’s Tale : 
 
 modernized by Lipscomb, 1792, 
 i. 493 ; this reviewed, ib. ; 
 modernized by Leigh Hunt, 
 1845-55, ii. 260, iii. 22-3; by 
 the same ( ?h 1820. ii. 126; 
 
 § VIII. (f.) 
 
 quoted by Heywood, his Four 
 P.P. influenced by, 1533, i. 80- 
 81 ; quoted for its moral against 
 gaming, etc., by R. Ascham, 
 1544, i. 85-6 ; in The Institution 
 of a Gentleman, 1555, i. 94; 
 and by J. Northbrooke, 1577, 
 i. 115. 
 
 29. Parson’s Tale : 
 
 MSS. of [c. 1420-30], i. 32; 
 modernized, with his character 
 from Prol., 1841, ii. 240-1; 
 the Retractation at the end of : 
 texts of noted by T. Hearne, 
 1709, i. 306-9; E. Young [c. 
 1730], iv. 85; H. D. Thoreau, 
 1842, ii. 245; for the prose of, 
 see above, n. (e.), and also above, 
 ix. (f.) 23, Melibeus. 
 
 30. Prioress's Tale : 
 
 MSS. of [c. 1420-35], i. 33; 
 modernized by Wordsworth, 
 1801, ii. 3; by J. Johnstone, 
 1827, ii. 165; translated into 
 French by E. Drumont, 1886, 
 v. 92 ; painting after, by Burne 
 Jones, 1858, iii. 41 ; ref. to 
 by Rossetti [c. 1854], iii. 19; 
 by M. Arnold, 1880, iii. 128. 
 
 31. Reeve's Tale : 
 
 modernized by Betterton [a. 
 1710], i. 312; the plot that of 
 the Miller of Abingdon [c. 
 1500], iv. 8; its source found 
 in a fabliau by T. Wright, 
 1844, ii. 257-8; also by V. 
 Leclerc, 1856, v. 64; dialect 
 in, is that of Craven, Yorkshire 
 (T. D. Whitaker, 1805), ii. 26; 
 quoted in The Institution of a 
 Gentleman, 1855, i. 94. 
 
 32. Sir Thomas : 
 
 MSS. of [c. 1420-30], i. 26, 32 ; 
 imitated by Drayton, 1593, 
 i. 139 ; by 'AiroduyowrAcpiXos, 
 1611, i. 185; condemned by 
 Skelton, 1510-23, iv. 10-11; 
 by Wyatt [a. 1542], i. 83-4; 
 by F. Thynne, 1600, i. 165-6; 
 praised as a parody by Hurd, 
 1762, i. 422, 1765, iv. 93^, 
 introd. Iii; and by Percy, 1765, 
 i. 427-9; quoted by J. Bosse- 
 well, 1572, i. 109 ; by Spenser, 
 
30 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey 
 1599, i. 161 ; by D. Lloyd, 1648, 
 iv. 71 ; the name used bv Lviv 
 1591, i. 134. J 
 
 33. Sompnour's Tale : 
 modernized by E. Budgell 
 (“ Grosvenor ”) [1733], iv. 86; 
 imitated by Anon., 1769, iv. 
 
 94 ; an answer to the Prologue 
 to, by Gay, 1717, i. 345. 
 
 34. Squire's Tale : 
 modernized by Boyse and 
 Ogle, 1741, i. 390; this con- 
 cluded by Stealing, 1785, i. 
 479; modernized by J. Penn, 
 1794, i. 495-6; by an Un- 
 known, 1804, ii. 21; modern- 
 ized and concluded by R. 
 Wharton, 1804-5, ii. 22; con- 
 tinued by J. Lane, 1614, i. 
 189; spurious conclusion to, 
 added in Works, 1687, i. 260; 
 reported by E. Phillips to be 
 complete in Arundel House, 
 1675, i. 250; from an Arabian 
 fiction, according to Warton, 
 1785, i. 479; the original of, said 
 by Clough to have been found 
 at Paris by de Chatelain, 1858, 
 iii. 41 ; ref. to by Lydgate 
 [1403?], [c. 1421-5], i. 17-18, 
 
 34; by Spenser, 1590-96, and 
 1599, i. 132—3, 161 ; by Milton 
 (as ‘ the story of Cambuscan 
 bold ”) [1632 ?], i. 204. 
 
 35. W ife of Bath's Prologue : 
 modernized by Pope, 1714, i. 
 
 330 ; the source of Maid 
 Emlyn, 1520, iv. 11; ref. to, 
 by Lydgate [c. 1430?], i. 35; 
 in The . Chances of the Dice [c. 
 1440], i. 45 ; its effect on wives 
 (Skelton, 1507), i. 69; will ever 
 be talked of (Nashe, 1592), i. 
 
 136; ref. to, by Selden, 1646, i. 
 
 225; the title of Brown Bread 
 and Honour, 1716, taken from, 
 i. 345. 
 
 36. Wife of Bath's Tale : 
 modernized by Dryden, 1700, 
 i. 283-5 ; translated into 
 French, 1757, repr. 1770, v. 
 
 34 ; into German by W. 
 Hertzberg, 1856, v. 143-4; 
 retold by R. Johnson, 1612, 
 iv. 62; R. Brath wait’s com- 
 
 § VIII. (f-g.) 
 
 ment upon, 1665, i. 242; 
 praised by Scott, 1808, ii. 41 • 
 quoted by Hocclev§, 1421-2’ 
 i. 33; in The Pilgrim's Tale 
 [1536-40?], i. 82; in The 
 Institution of a Gentleman, 1555, 
 i. 94; by J. Bossewell, 1572, 
 i. 108; by R. Scot, 1584, i. 
 125; by S. Harsnet, 1603, i. 
 173; by Ritson, 1831, ii. 182; 
 by Leigh Hunt, 1834, ii. 191-2. 
 See also Fairies. 
 
 (g) Other separate Works : 
 
 1. A.B.C . ; 
 
 Sion Coll. MS. of, iii. 53- 
 added to Speght’s 2nd edn.’ 
 1602, i. 168; quoted by 
 Lydgate [1426], i. 34-5 ; transl. 
 from Deguilevile (de Chatelain 
 1857), v. 69. 
 
 2. Adam Scrivener : 
 
 Shirley’s MS. of [c. 1450], i. 48; 
 ref. to, by Ben Jonson, 1614, 
 i. 189; by F. J. Child, 1862, 
 iii. 61-2. 
 
 3. Anelida and Arcite : 
 
 Caxton’s edn. of [1477-8], i. 
 58; modernized by E. Barrett 
 Browning, 1841, ii. 235; reff. 
 to, by Lydgate [1402-3, 1430], 
 i. 16, 39. 
 
 4. Assembly of Fowls. See below : 
 Parliament of Fowls. 
 
 5. Astrolabe : 
 
 MS. Egerton, 2622, i. 255; 
 MS. Sloane, 314 [c. 1560?], 
 i. 95; ed. by A. E. Brae, 1870, 
 iii. 107; “amended” version 
 of, by W. Stevins [c. 1555], 
 i. 92-3; ref. to, by Lydgate, 
 1430, i. 38 ; praised by Oxford 
 mathematicians, 1608, i. 181; 
 by H. Peacham, 1622, i. 197; 
 by R. Henry, 1781, i. 460; 
 from a Sanscrit original (Halli- 
 well-Phillips, 1840), ii. 227; 
 from Messahalah (Selden 
 [1612]), i. 186; see also 
 Astrology. 
 
 6. Boethius : 
 
 Shirley’s MS. of, and prol. to 
 [c. 1450], i. 49; Caxton’s ed. 
 of [a. 1479], i. 58; ref. to, by 
 
Index. 
 
 31 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 Lydgate, 1430, i. 38; a copy 
 bequeathed by J. Brinchele, 
 1420, i. 25. 
 
 7. Book of the Duchess : 
 
 B.M. MS. of, i. 166 ; ref. to, by 
 Lydgate, 1430, i. 38; quoted 
 by J. Bossewell, 1572, i. 108; 
 Froissart’s Paradys d? Amour 
 partly imitated from, v. 123; 
 
 J. A. M. Lange on, 1883, v. 
 
 150. 
 
 8. Buldon, Envoy to : 
 
 MS. of [c. 1445], i. 47, printed 
 by Notary [1499-1502], i. 65. 
 
 9. Complaint of Mars : 
 
 Shirley’s MS. of [c. 1450], i. 
 
 48 ; modernized by R. Bell, 
 1841, ii. 234. 
 
 10. Complaint of Venus : 
 
 Shirley’s MSS. of [c. 1450], i. 
 
 48; Bodleian MS. of [c. 1488], 
 i. 64 ; modernized by R. Bell, 
 1841, ii. 234. 
 
 1 1 . Complaint to his Purse : 
 
 MSS. of [c. 1450], i. 50; printed 
 with Anelida and Arcite by 
 Caxton [1477-8], i. 58; transl. 
 into German by J. G. Seume 
 [c. 1801], v. 138. 
 
 12. Complaint to Pity : 
 
 MSS. of [c. 1440, c. 1450], i. 45, 
 
 50 ; tells the story of C.’s 
 unhappy love (F. J. Furnivall, 
 1873), iii. 113; this disputed 
 by W. Minto, 1874, iii. 119. 
 
 13. Former Age : 
 
 Cambridge MS. of [c. 1420], 
 i. 26. 
 
 14. Fortune : 
 
 Shirley’s and other MSS. of, 
 
 [c. 1430-40], i. 43; printed by 
 Caxton with Parliament of 
 Fowls [1477-8], i. 58; by 
 Pynson with Troilus, 1526, 
 i. 75. 
 
 15. Gentilesse : 
 
 Shirley’s MSS. of [c. 1450], i. 
 
 47-8 ; printed by Caxton with 
 Parliament of Fowls [1477-8], 
 i. 58; quoted by Scogan [c. 
 1407], i. 19; quoted by J. 
 Bossewell, 1572, i. 108. 
 
 § VIII. (g.) 
 
 16. House of Fame : 
 
 Caxton’s ed. and praise of [c. 
 1483], i. 61 ; Pynson’s ed. of, 
 1526, i. 75; H. Willert’s ed. of, 
 1888, v. 151 ; for the imitation of 
 by Pope in the Temple of Fame : 
 see Pope, A.; ref. to by Lyd- 
 gate, 1439, i. 44 ; held original 
 by Hawes, 1506, i. 67 ; ref. to 
 in Tales and Quick Answers 
 [c. 1540], i. 83; by W. Baldwin 
 [1561], i. 95—6 ; quoted by J. 
 Bossewell, 1572, i. 109; drawn 
 on by Shakespeare (?) in Titus 
 Andronicus ([1589-90 ?]), i. 131 ; 
 reminiscences of, in Peele’s 
 Honour of the Garter , 1593, i. 
 140; ref. to, by F. Thynne, 
 1600, i. 166; Inigo Jones 
 followed in designing scenery 
 for Ben Jonson’s Masque of 
 Queens [1609], i. 184; a source 
 for Ben Jonson’s Staple of 
 News [1625?], i. 199; criticised 
 by Campbell, 1819, ii. 112-13; 
 in the Penny Magazine, 1832, 
 ii. 187; by H. Gomont, 1847, 
 v. 56; its relation to Dante 
 studied by A. Rambeau, v. 
 149; its short couplet studied 
 by C. L. Crow, 1892, v. 152; 
 foreshadowed the Crystal 
 Palace, 1851, 1854, iii. 4, 19- 
 20 . 
 
 17. Lack of Steadfastness : 
 earlier headline to, in MS. 
 Bodl. [c. 1445], iv. 5; quoted 
 by M. Hanmer, 1576, i. 113. 
 
 18. Legend of Good Women : 
 
 MSS. of, criticised by S. Kunz, 
 1888, v. 151; MS. Bodl. [c. 
 1488], i. 64; MS. of Prol. 
 (Text B) belonging to S. Pegge, 
 1758, i. 413-14; Prol. (Text A) 
 printed from Cambridge MS. 
 by H. Bradshaw, 1864, iii. 72; 
 three tales from, modernized 
 byT. Powell (?) 1841, ii. 234; 
 Ariadne, in part modernized, 
 1803, ii. 13 ; quoted by Edw^ard, 
 2nd Duke of York [1406-13], 
 i. 18; described by Lydgate, 
 1430, i. 39-40; said by Hawes 
 to be a translation, 1506, i. 67 ; 
 quoted by Gavin Douglas, 
 1513, i. 72; by J. Bossewell, 
 
32 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 1572, i. 108-9; ref. to, by W. 
 Heale, 1609, i. 184; by J. 
 Fletcher [1634], i. 206; sug- 
 gested Tennyson’s Dream of 
 Fair Women, 1832, ii. 186; 
 expositions of, by Ruskin, 
 
 1867, iii. 93; Observations on 
 the Language of, by J. M. 
 Manly, 1890, iii. 139; essay 
 on the two Prologues to, by 
 E. Legouis, 1900, v. 106; this 
 reviewed by J. Lecoq, ib. 
 
 19. Marriage. See above : Bukton. 
 
 20. Merciless Beauty : 
 
 first printed by Percy from 
 Pepysian MS., 1765, i. 427, ii. 
 240. 
 
 21. Minor Poems : 
 
 Aldine ed. of, with Rom. Rose 
 and Troilus, 1846, ii. 267 ; 
 Chaucer Society’s Parallel- 
 Text ed. of, 1871-3, iii. 113; 
 ed. by W. W. Skeat, 1888, 
 reviewed by J. W. Bright, 
 1889, iii. 139; a Critical Ed. of 
 some Minor Poems, ed. by 
 J. Koch, 1883, iii. 135; trans- 
 lated into German by J. Koch, 
 1880, v. 150. 
 
 22. Mother of God : 
 
 Entered here by an error. See 
 Hoccleve, T. 
 
 23. Parliament of Fowls : 
 
 Bodl. MS. of, i. 64, ii. 225 ; 
 printed by Caxton [1477-8], i. 
 58 ; by Pynson, 1526, i. 75 ; by 
 de Worde, 1530, i. 76; ref. to 
 by Lydgate, 1430, i. 38 ; remin- 
 iscences of, by J. Heywood, 
 1533, i. 81 ; ref. to by Spenser, 
 1590-6, i. 133; by Stowe [c. 
 1600], i, 164; criticized by J. 
 Koch, v. 142; illustration of, 
 by Burne Jones, 1861, iii. 55; 
 The Book of the Howlat imitated 
 from (A. Thomson \a. 1803]), 
 ii. 5-6; exposition of, by Bus- 
 kin, 1865, iii. 81. 
 
 24. Proverbs : 
 
 MSS. of [c. 1450], i. 50. 
 
 25. Romaunt of the Rose : 
 
 first printed entire as C.’s by 
 Thynne, 1532, i. 78; with 
 
 § VIII. (g.) 
 
 Troilus and Minor Poems 
 (Aldine ed.), 1846, ii. 267; C. 
 stated to have translated Rom. 
 Rose, by Lydgate [1430], i. 
 38; in Pilgrim's T. [c. 1536- 
 40], i. 82; by G. B., 1569, i. 
 103; by R. Corbet \a. 1635], 
 i. 206; by A. Thevet (quoting 
 Bale), 1735, v. 22; C. stated 
 to have transl. half of, by H. 
 Peacham, 1622, i. 197; author- 
 ship discussed by B. ten Brink, 
 1867, v. 147; G. L. Kittredge, 
 1892, iii. 144; M. Kaluza, 1893, 
 v. 152 ; influence of the original 
 Rom. Rose on Cant. Tales 
 asserted by E. G. Sandras, 
 1859, v. 70. 
 
 26. Rosamounde : 
 
 discovered and printed by 
 Skeat, 1891, iii. 139; parody of 
 by W. P. Ker, 1891, iii. 140. 
 
 27. Scogan, Envoy to : 
 
 MSS. of [c. 1445], i. 47 ; printed, 
 with Parliament of Fowls, etc., 
 by Caxton [1477-8], i. 58. 
 
 28. Troilus : 
 
 printed by Caxton [c. 1483?], 
 i. 60; by W. de Worde, 1517, 
 i. 72; by Pynson, 1526, i. 75; 
 with Rom. Rose and Minor 
 Poems (Aldine ed.), 1846, ii. 
 267 ; bks. i-iii paraphrased 
 by J. Sidnam [c. 1630], i. 203; 
 Kynaston’s Latin version of 
 bks. i, ii, 1635, i. 207 ; verses 
 upon this, i. 207-15; reviewed 
 in Retrosp. Rev., 1825, ii. 159; 
 the song from bk. i, modernized 
 by G. Sewell, 1720, i. 350-2; 
 extract from bk. v, modernized 
 by Wordsworth, 1801, ii. 3, 
 printed 1841, ii. 234; con- 
 tinued by Henryson in The 
 Testament of Cresseid, 1475, 
 i. 56 ; this often treated as 
 C.’s, iv. 1-3, 9-62 passim ; 
 dramatized by W. Cornish, 
 1516, iv. 10-11; by N. 
 Grimoald [a. 1559], i. 95; 
 
 by Shakespeare, his debt dis- 
 cussed by H. E. Rollins, iv. 
 56, and denied by Theobald, 
 1729-30, i. 371; Shakespeare’s 
 debt to, in The Merchant of 
 
Index. 
 
 33 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. § VIII. (g.) 
 
 Venice, iv. 107 (in Ch. Soc. 
 issue, 108 (in Cambridge issue) ; 
 in The Merry Wives of Windsor, 
 i. 161 ; dramatized by Dekker 
 and Chettle in a lost play, 1599, 
 iv. 53 ; in a Welsh play [c.1610], 
 iv. 61 ; ballad on [1566], iv. 
 34 ; imitated in The Return 
 from Parnassus [1597], i. 144; 
 the early popularity of, noticed 
 by T. Campbell, 1819, ii. 112; 
 note on, by H. E. Rollins, iv. 
 1-3 ; to 1700 C.’s most popular 
 poem, and to 1750 the most 
 often referred to, introd. lxxtd- 
 vii, lxxix ; carried in the bosom 
 a New Testament in the hand 
 (Sir J. Elyot), 1533, i. 8t); C. 
 chiefly known by, according to 
 H. Reynolds [1632?], i. 205; 
 instances of Troilus, given as a 
 Christian name [1600 ?], iv. 53 ; 
 compared with Boccaccio’s 
 Philostrato, by W. M. Rossetti, 
 1873, iii. 116-7; Observations 
 on the Language of, by G. L. 
 Kittredge, 1894, iii. 148; a 
 copy of, among John Paston’s 
 books [1482?], i. 60; praised 
 by Sidney [1581 ?], i. 122 ; by 
 Peele, for its pathos [a. 1596 ?], 
 i. 143; spoken of as immoral 
 by Sir T. Elyot, 1533, i. 80; 
 by N. Breton, 1597, i. 144; 
 C. made it “ long or that he 
 died,” according to Lydgate, 
 1412, i. 24 ; said by Lydgate to 
 be translated from a book called 
 Trophe in Lombard tongue, 
 1430, i. 37 ; so translated by C. 
 as to be his own (H. Peacham, 
 1622), i. 197 ; the first English 
 heroic poem, its verse-form 
 (H. C. Coote, 1883), iii. 133-4; 
 the first great modern romance, 
 a tragic novel (W. P. Ker, 
 1895), iii. 149-50; originally 
 intended for one of the G.T. 
 (Southey, 1812), ii. 59; mis- 
 cellaneous quotations from, re- 
 ferences to, and criticisms of 
 (including references to Henry- 
 son’s continuation, i.e. to 
 Cresaid’s leprosy) : a body of 
 allusions, 1501-1612, iv. 9-62, 
 passim ; also : by Gower, 
 
 1376-9, i. 4, introd. xi; by 
 Usk in The Testament of Love 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 
 [c. 1387], i. 8; ref. in The Gest 
 hystoriale of the destruction of 
 Troy [a. 1400], i. 14 ; by Lyd- 
 gate, 1430, i. 37 ; in The Chances 
 of the Dice [c. 1440], i. 45; J. 
 Metham, 1448-9, i. 47 ; ref. to 
 in Unto my Lady the Flower of 
 Womanhood [1450-60 ?], i. 53 ; 
 by Hawes, 1506, i. 67 ; Skelton, 
 1523, i. 74; in la Conusaunce 
 Damours [1525?], i. 75; R. 
 Wyer (?) [ n.b . 1536], iv. 107 
 (in Cambridge issue only); by 
 T. Berth elet, 1532, i. 77 ; Mar- 
 garet Roper or Sir T. More, 1535, 
 i. 81 ; Wyatt [a. 1542], i. 83- 
 4 ; Sir D. Lindsay [1548 ?], i. 88 ; 
 in Lucres of Scene [1549 ?], 
 i. 89; by T. Howell [1567- 
 8?], i. 100; Gascoigne, 1575, 
 
 i. 110; W! Jtstone, 1576, i. 
 113; Lyly [1578], i. 115; E. 
 Kirke, 1579, i. 117; T. Howell, 
 
 1581, i. 120; R. Stanihurst, 
 
 1582, i. 122 ; B. Melbancke, 1583, 
 iv. 107; J. C., 1595, i. 142; 
 A. S4oloker, 1604, i. 175; R. 
 Tofte, 1615, iv. 108 (in Cam- 
 bridge issue only); R. Brath- 
 wait, 1621, iv. 108 (in Cam- 
 bridge issue only) ; Sir F. 
 Kynaston, 1642, i. 222; W. 
 Godwin, 1803, ii. 6-8; criti- 
 cized by Campbell, 1819, 1830, 
 
 ii. 112, 177-8; J. P. Collier, 
 1832, ii. 184; Hartley Coleridge 
 \n.a. 1848], ii. 276; W. W. 
 Lloyd, 1856, iii. 30-1; R. 
 Fischer, 1899, v. 152. 
 
 29. Truth (“Fie fro the pres ” or 
 “ Ballade of Good Counsel ”) : 
 MSS. of, i. 48, 63, 85, iv. 7; 
 printed with Pari, of Fowls, 
 etc., by Caxton [1477-8], i. 58 ; 
 printed (under “ Uncertain 
 Authors”) in TotteVs Mis- 
 cellany, 1557, i. 94; first com- 
 pletely printed by F. J. Furni- 
 vall, 1867, iii. 88; modernized 
 by W. Harte, 1727, iv. 84; 
 by Unknown as C.’s “ dying 
 ode,” 1815, ii. 80-1; by M. 
 Milnes, 1844, ii. 256; para- 
 phrased in a hymn by W. J. 
 Fox, 1841, ii. 233; ref. to, 
 by Beaumont and Fletcher 
 [1610], i. 184. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 Index. 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey. 
 
 (h) Selections : 
 
 curious lack of these, introd. 
 xci-iii; an ed. of, proposed by 
 Pinkerton, 1783, i. 473; San- 
 ford’s, 1819, ii. 119; Southey’s, 
 1831, ii. 183; Deshler’s, 1847, ii. 
 274 ; see also below : (k) Ap- 
 pearance in Anthologies. 
 
 (i) Lost Works : 
 
 several mentioned by Lydgate, 
 1430, i. 38-42; Warton, 1787, 
 
 i. 487 ; his lost songs regretted 
 by Ritson, 1790, i. 491. 
 
 (k) Appearance in Anthologies : 
 
 Leigh Hunt’s Characteristic 
 Specimens, 1835, ii. 195-6; 
 various, 1851-76, iii. 8; reasons 
 for non-inclusion in, introd. 
 xcii-iii. 
 
 (l) Spurious Works : 
 
 1 . Collective : 
 
 those attributed to him by 
 Leland [c. 1545], iv. 17, introd. 
 evi; by Bale, 1548, iv. 19-20; 
 those printed in the various 
 editions, 1526-1721, i. 78-9; 
 those attributed to C. in Ban- 
 natyne MS., 1568, i. 102-3; 
 F. Thynne wishes they were 
 distinguished from the genuine, 
 1598, i. 154-5. 
 
 2. Belle Dame sans Merci. See 
 Ros, R. 
 
 3. Beryn, the Tale of : 
 
 MS. Northumberland [a. 1450], 
 iv. 5-6 ; first printed by 
 Urry, 1721, i. 79; quoted by 
 T. Wright, 1845, ii. 267. 
 
 4. Chaucer's Dream : 
 
 See below : 9. Isle of Ladies. 
 
 4*. Chronicle : Shirley’s MS. of 
 [1450], i. 48. 
 
 5. Court of Love : 
 
 See Court of Love. 
 
 6. Cuckoo and Nightingale : 
 
 MSS., etc., 1403, i. 16; first 
 printed in C.’s works by 
 Thynne, 1532, i. 79; modern- 
 ized by W. Cooke, 1774, i. 438; 
 by Wordsworth, 1801, ii. 3, 
 printed, 1841, ii. 284; art. on 
 and reprint of, in Free-Thinker , 
 1720, i. 353. 
 
 §§ VIII (h.), IX, X. 
 
 7. Flower and the Leaf, The : 
 
 Sec Flower and the Leaf. 
 
 8. Gamelyn, The Tale of : 
 
 Urry accepts and prints for 
 the first time, i. 331 ; said by 
 Johnson to be the source of As 
 You Like It, 1765, i. 426; 
 modernized by H. W. Tytler, 
 1828, ii. 171 ; ref. to, by Keats, 
 1818, ii. 107. 
 
 9. Isle of Ladies {Chaucer ' 3 
 Dream) : 
 
 first printed by Speght, 1598, 
 i. 79; admired by Ruskin, 
 who prepared an ed. of it as 
 genuine, introd. lxv ; illustrated 
 by Burne Jones, 1865, iii. 75. 
 
 10. Jack Upland. See Jack Upland. 
 
 10*. Letter of Cupid. See Hoc- 
 cleve, T. 
 
 11. Ploughman's Tale. See Plough- 
 man's Tale. 
 
 12. Testament of Love. See Usk, T. 
 
 13. Epitaph on Edward III. : 
 attributed to C. by W. Win- 
 stanley, 1660, i. 238. 
 
 IX. Chatjcer a Character in 
 Fiction and Drama. 
 
 In Webster’s City pageant, .1624, 
 
 i. 198-9 ; in Gay’s Wife of Bath, 
 1713, i. 326-8; in James White’s 
 Adventures of John of Gaunt, 
 1790, i. 492; in Landor’s 
 Imaginary Conversations, 1829, 
 
 ii. 172-6 ; in The Court Magazine, 
 1835, ii. 198-201; in Blan- 
 chard’s Harlequin and Friar 
 Bacon, 1863, iii. 67. 
 
 X. Book Titles taken from C. 
 Cobbler of Canterbury, 1590, i. 
 131 ; Chaucer's Incensed Ghost 
 (Braithwait), 1617, i. 192; A 
 Canterbury Tale (Brome), 1641, 
 i. 219; Chaucer’s Ghost, 1672, i. 
 248; Chaucer Junior, Canter- 
 bury Tales, 1686, iv. 77 ; Chau- 
 cer’s Whims, 1701, i. 289 ; Brown 
 Bread and Honour, 1716, i. 345; 
 Canterbury Tales (Lee), 1798, i. 
 499 ; Canterbury Tales (N. 
 Drake), 1802, ii. 4. See also 
 introd. lxxxvi-vii. 
 
Index. 
 
 35 
 
 Chaucer, John, Philippa, Richard, 
 Thomas, and Walter. See Chaucer, 
 G. [i. Biog. (d.) 3.] 
 
 Chaucer, Junior, Canterbury Tales (jest- 
 book), 1686, iv. 77. 
 
 Chaucer Society, the, Manifesto of, 
 by F. J. Furnivall, 1867, iii. 
 88-90 ; publications, iii. 95, 
 sqq., criticized, iii. 104-5; 
 praised by T. S. Baynes, 1870, 
 iii. 100-101, 104-5; its founda- 
 tion, aims and achievement, 
 introd. lxix-lxxii. 
 
 Chaucer’s Ghost, 1672, i. 248. 
 Chaucer’s Incensed Ghost [by R. 
 
 Brathwait], 1617, i. 192. 
 
 Chaucer’s Love-Poetry ( Cornhill ), 1877, 
 iii. 122-3. 
 
 Chaucer’s Whims, 1701, i. 289. 
 Chaudon, L. M., art. Chaucer in 
 Nouveau Dictionnaire historique- 
 portatif, 1766, v. 8, 34; revised, 
 1791, v. 37 ; transl. into English, 
 1777, i. 449. 
 
 Chauffepie, J. G. de, Nouveau Diction- 
 naire historique et critique, 1750, v. 
 27-9. 
 
 Chaumpaigne, Cecily, releases C. in 
 respect of her 4 raptus,’ 1380, i. 6. 
 Chepman, W., and Myllar, A., print 
 Lydgate’s Complaint of the Black 
 Knight as The Maying or Disport 
 of Chaucer, 1508, i. 70. 
 
 Chequer Inn, Canterbury (T. Wright, 
 1845), ii. 267. 
 
 Chesterfield, P. D. Stanhope, 4th Earl 
 of. See Stanhope. 
 
 Chetwood, K., To the Earl of Ros- 
 common, 1684, i. 257. 
 
 Child, F. J., English and Scottish 
 Ballads, 1857-9, iii. 37. 
 
 ■ Observations on the Language 
 
 of Chaucer, 1862, iii. 61-2. 
 
 projects an ed. of C., 1853-4, 
 
 iii. 12, 17. 
 
 gives £50 to start the Chaucer 
 
 Society, 1867, iii. 89. 
 
 importance of his work, introd. 
 
 Ixix. 
 
 Childe Harold in the Shades, 1819, ii. 
 119-20. 
 
 Chivalry, romances of, ridiculed by C. 
 See Chaucer, G. [vm. Works. — (f.) 
 32. Sir Thopas .] 
 
 Hurd’s Letters on, 1762, i. 421-2. 
 
 ■ influence of, upon C. (Chr. North, 
 
 1845), ii. 263. 
 
 Choyce Drollery , 1656, i. 234. 
 
 Christine. See Pisan, C. de. 
 
 Christopher, a, explained, 1839, ii. 
 226. 
 
 Chronicle, attributed to C. by Shirley. 
 See Chaucer, G. [vm. Works. — (1.) 
 Spurious. 4*.] 
 
 Church, R., ed. Spenser’s Faerie 
 Queene, 1758-9, i. 413. 
 
 Churchyard, T., Churchyard’s Chips, 
 pt. 1, 1575, iv. 38-9. 
 
 A Praise of Poetry, in A Musical 
 
 Consort, 1595, i. 141 ; iv. 47. 
 
 The Worthiness of Wales, 1587, 
 
 i. 130. 
 
 verses, in Skelton’s Works, 1568, 
 
 i. 102. 
 
 Cibber, T., The Lives of the Poets, 
 1753, i. 406-7; advertisement of, 
 by Dr. Johnson (?), i. 407, iii. 10, 
 iv. 91. 
 
 Cicero, for comparisons of Chaucer 
 to, see Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Com- 
 parisons with other writers .] 
 
 Circourt, A. de, Canterbury, in Rev. 
 Britann., 1870, v. 82. 
 
 reviews Marsh’s Origin and 
 
 History of the English Language, 
 1865, v. 79-80. 
 
 City's Warning Piece, The [1643], 
 
 i. 223. 
 
 Clanvowe, Sir T., The Cuckoo and the 
 Nightingale', see Chaucer G. [vm. 
 Works. — (1.) Spurious. 6.] 
 
 Clarence, Duchess of, C. in household 
 of, 1356-9, i. 1, iii. 82. 
 
 Clarendon, E. Hyde, Earl of. See 
 Hyde. 
 
 Clarke, C. Cowden, art. Chaucer in 
 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1842, ii. 
 244. 
 
 The Riches of Chaucer (modern- 
 ized selections), ed. by, 1834, ii. 
 194; reviewed by L. Hunt, 1835, 
 
 ii. 196-7. 
 
 Tales from Chaucer in Prose, 
 
 1833, ii. 187 ; reviewed, 1834, ii. 
 192-3. 
 
 Clarke, Mary Cowden, Music among 
 the Poets , 1855-8, iii. 20. 
 
 Clarke, W., An Impromptu on English 
 Poets [c. 1740?], i. 388. 
 
 Repertorium Bihliographicum, 
 
 1819, ii. 114. 
 
 Cleemputte, P. van (‘ Ch. Simond’), 
 his (unfinished) transl. into French 
 of C.T. [1889], v. 95. 
 
 Clergy, C.’s satires on the, see Chaucer, 
 G. [ii. (f.) 6.] 
 
 Clerk's Tale, see Chaucer G. [ W orlcs . — 
 (£.) 16.] 
 
36 
 
 Index. 
 
 Clermont, transl. Physician’s T. and 
 Pardoner’s T. into French, 1908, 
 v. 112. 
 
 Cleveland, J., The Rustic Rampant 
 [a. 1658], i. 235. 
 
 Letter from a Parliament Officer to 
 
 [1645-67], i. 224. 
 
 Climax, ps., letter in Gent 's Mag., 
 1790, i. 491. 
 
 Clogie, A., Speculum Episcoporum, 
 1675-6, iv. 76. 
 
 Clough, A. H., Lecture on the Develop- 
 ment of English Literature, 1852, 
 iii. 8, 9. 
 
 letters to F. J. Child, 1854, 
 
 iii. 17; 1858, iii. 41; to C. E. 
 Norton, 1853, iii. 12. 
 
 Cobb, S., Miller's Tale modernized 
 by, 1712, i. 319; 1725, iv. 84; 
 
 1741, i. 389-90. 
 
 Poetce Britannici [a. 1700], i. 
 
 271-2. 
 
 Cobbler of Canterbury, The, imitation 
 of C. in, 1590, i. 131-2. 
 
 Cockloft, P., ps. See Irving, Washing- 
 ton. 
 
 Cokayne, Sir A., Small Poems of 
 Divers Sorts, 1658, defends C.’s 
 style, i. 235-6 ; introd. xxix. 
 
 Coke, E., Lord, his good opinion 
 of Canon’s Yeoman’s T. [n.a. 1634], 
 
 iv. 66. 
 
 Coke, J., Debate between the Heralds 
 of England and France, 1550, i. 90. 
 Colcelbie Sow [1440 ?], i. 44. 
 
 Colces Tale. See Chaucer, G. [vm. 
 Worlcs. — (f.) 17.] 
 
 Coleridge, H., Chaucer (poem) [ n.a . 
 1848], ii. 276. 
 
 Notes on Shakespeare [n.a. 1848], 
 
 ii. 276. 
 
 Coleridge, S. T., Biographia Literaria, 
 
 1817, ii. 85-7. 
 
 letter to Southey, July, 1 803. ii. 6. 
 
 — — projects an Essay on C., in a 
 letter to Sir G. Beaumont, Feb. 
 1804), ii. 15. 
 
 intends to lecture on C. (letter 
 
 to Sir H. Davy, Sept. 11, 1807), 
 ii. 30; (J. P. Collier, 1811), ii. 53. 
 
 • Note on Troilus and Cressida, 
 
 1818, ii. 96. 
 
 Notes of Lectures, 1818, ii. 95-6. 
 
 Note on Milton and Shakespeare, 
 
 1819-28, ii. 114. 
 
 notes in Lamb’s copy of Daniel’s 
 
 Poems, 1808, ii. 37. 
 
 his Raven resembles Chaucer, 
 
 (Lamb, 1797), i. 499. 
 
 Table Talk, 1834, ii. 190-1 ; 
 
 introd. lxiii. 
 
 ■ according to Southey holds C.’s 
 
 to be rhythmical, 1803, ii. 11-12. 
 
 Coles, E., An English Dictionary, 
 1676, i. 252; iv. 77. 
 
 Colet, J., studied Chaucer and Gower, 
 i. 73, iv. 8. 
 
 Collier, J., The Great Dictionary, 1701, 
 
 i. 289. 
 
 Collier, J. P., A Bibliographical and 
 Critical Account of the Rarest 
 Books in the English Language, 
 1865, iii. 75-6. 
 
 A Catalogue of Early English 
 
 Literature, 1837, ii. 210-11. 
 
 Chaucer's Monument and 
 
 Spenser’s Death, 1850, ii. 283. 
 
 Diary, Oct. 29, 1810, ii. 53. 
 
 The History of English Dramatic 
 
 Poetry, 1831, ii. 181. 
 
 An Old Man’s Diary, 1832-3, 
 
 ii. 184, 187. 
 
 Patient Grissil, by Dekker, etc., 
 
 ed. by, 1841, ii. 229. 
 
 The Poetical Decameron, 1820, 
 
 ii. 121-2. 
 
 The Poet’s Pilgrimage, 1825, 
 
 ii. 156. 
 
 Seven English Poetical Miscel- 
 lanies, 1867, iii. 87. 
 
 Testament of Love rejected by, 
 
 iii. 87, 93 ; introd. cxiii. 
 
 Collins, J. C., The Predecessors of 
 Shakespeare, 1885, iii. 136-7. 
 
 Colman, G., sen., The Deuce is in him, 
 1763, i. 424. 
 
 Literary Offerings in the Temple 
 
 of Fame, 1753, i. 407. 
 
 Colour, C.’s love and observation of 
 (S. A. Brooke, 1871) iii. 112. 
 
 Comedy, G. Meredith on, 1877, iii. 122. 
 
 Commaundre, B., Epitaph on C., 
 quoted in MS. Book of Heraldry 
 [a. 1613], i. 186. 
 
 Common Conditions, 1576, iv. 40. 
 
 Comparison, A, of his love with the 
 love of Troilus to Cresseid (poem 
 in Tottel's Misc., 1557), iv. 21. 
 
 Complaint of Mars. See Chaucer, G. 
 [vm. Works. — (g.) 9.] 
 
 Complaint of Mary Magdalene, printed 
 by Pynson with Troilus, etc., 1526, 
 i. 75. 
 
 Complaint of Scotland [1549 ?], i. 89; 
 ed. J. Leyden, 1801, ii. 1 ; critique 
 on, 1802, ii. 5. 
 
 Complaint of Venus. See Chaucer, G. 
 [vm. Works. — (g.) 10.] 
 
Index. 
 
 37 
 
 
 Complaint to his Purse. See Chaucer, 
 G. [viii. Works. — (g.) 11.] 
 
 Complaint to Pity. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works. — (g.) 12.] 
 
 Comte, A., Calendrier Positiviste \n.a. 
 1857], v. 125. 
 
 Conder, J., The Star in the East, 
 reviewed [by J. Keble], 1825, iv. 
 105. 
 
 Conjectures on Original Composition 
 [by E. Young], 1759, i. 417. 
 
 Contant d’Orville, A. G., Les Nuits 
 Anglaises, 1770, v. 8-9, 34. 
 
 Conusaunce Damours, la [1525 ?], 
 i. 75. 
 
 Conway, E., 2nd Viscount, letter to 
 Strafford, 22 Jan., 1636, iv. 70. 
 
 ‘Cook, Chaucer’s,’ i.e. a plagiarist, the 
 phrase used by A. Scott and A. 
 Montgomerie, i. 97, 124. 
 
 Cook, the, Chatterton’s error about, 
 i. 435; Scott, 1804, ii. 16-17. 
 
 Cook’s Tale. See Chaucer, G. [viii. 
 Works. — (f.) 17.] 
 
 Cooke, W., modernized The Cuckoo 
 and the Nightingale, 1774, i. 438. 
 
 Cooper, Elizabeth, The Muses’ Library, 
 1737, i. 378-9; her studies in old 
 English poetry, introd. li. 
 
 Cooper, J. Fenimore, The Last of the 
 Mohicans, ‘a Canterbury gallop,’ 
 1826, iv. 105. 
 
 Coote, H. C., Chaucer’s Ten-Syllable 
 Verse, 1883, iii. 133-4. 
 
 Copland, R., verses in Assembly of 
 Fowls, 1530, i. 76-7. 
 
 Copywell, J., ps. See Wotyx, W. 
 
 Corbet, Sir J., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 209. 
 
 Corbet, R., Certain Elegant Poems [a. 
 1635], i. 206. 
 
 Cornish, W., The Story of Troilus and 
 Pandar, 1516, iv. 10-11. 
 
 Cornwall, B., ps. See Procter, B. W. 
 
 Cornucopice. See F., W. < 
 
 Coryat, T., Coryat’s Crudities, verses 
 in, 1611, i. 185. 
 
 Costume (Strutt, 1799), i. 502 ; (Planche, 
 1834), ii. 192; (H. Shaw, 1843), ii. 
 249 ; (F. W. Fairholt, 1846), ii. 268. 
 
 Cotton Library, MSS. of C. in, 1696, i. 
 268. 
 
 Couplet, the. See Chaucer G. [n. (d.) 
 6 & 7.] 
 
 Court of Love, the, reprinted as C.’s, 
 with Ovid’s Art of Love, 1709, i. 
 310; [c. 1850], ii. 284; a source of 
 the Chaucer legend, introd. cix.; 
 legend of C.’s Cambridge studies 
 
 based on by Speght, introd. cvii. ; 
 taken as genuine by Bp. J. Hall, 
 1598, i. 158; by Tytler, 1783, i. 
 475; by J. Upton, 1751, i. 404-5; 
 by Campbell, 1819, ii. Ill; by 
 L. Schmitz, 1841, ii. 238; by R. 
 Chambers, 1843, iv. 106; by C. D. 
 Deshler, 1847, ii. 274; by Swin- 
 burne, 1868 (‘1866’), iii. 85; by 
 W. Minto, 1874, iii. 119-20; re- 
 jected by Abp. Tenison, 1751, i. 
 404; by H. Wharton [c. 1687], iv. 
 78 ; modernized by A. S. Catcott, 
 1717, i. 345; adapted by A. Mayn- 
 waring, 1709, i. 310; praised by 
 Swinburne, 1868, ‘ 1866,’ iii. 85. 
 Courtesy, Book of \a. 1477], i. 67; 
 
 praises of C. in, introd. xiv-xv. 
 Courthope, W. J., The Paradise of 
 Birds, 1870, iii. 107-8. 
 
 Courtier, the fine, ‘ will talk nothing 
 but Chaucer’ (T. Wilson, 1553), i. 
 91. 
 
 Coveil, W., Polimanteia, 1595, i. 141. 
 Cowley, A., Poems, 1656, .i. 232. 
 
 Account of, in Antiquarian Re- 
 pertory (Unknown, 1779), i. 458. 
 
 Sir J. Denham’s epitaph on, 
 
 1668, i. 244; burlesque on, iv. 75. 
 
 his contempt for Chaucer, iv. 75 ; 
 
 introd. xxxix ; (D’Israeli, 1795), i. 
 496. 
 
 Cowper, W., Anti-Thelyphthora, 1781, 
 
 i. 459. 
 
 Crabbe, G., Tales in Verse, 1812, ii. 
 57-8. 
 
 Tales of the Hall, reviewed 1819, 
 
 ii. 120. 
 
 ■ compared with C. by J. R. 
 
 Lowell, 1845, ii. 261. 
 
 Craig, A., Amorose Songes, 1606, iv. 
 60. 
 
 Craik, G. L., A Compendious History 
 of English Literature, 1861, iii. 56. 
 
 Outlines of the History of the 
 
 English Language, 1851, iii. 1. 
 
 (with C. Macfarlane), The 
 
 Pictorial History of England, 1837, 
 ii. 211. 
 
 Sketches of Literature and Learn- 
 ing in England, 1844-5, ii. 252. 
 Cranmer, T., A Sermon concerning the 
 time of Rebellion [1549], i. 88-9. 
 Craven, Elizabeth, Lady, prologue to 
 The Sleep-Walker, 1778, i. 449-50. 
 Cresus (i.e. Cressida), A Ballad of, 
 1600, iv. 55. 
 
 Criticism, growth of, introd. cxxx.-iii; 
 illustrated by the allusions, ib. 
 
38 
 
 Index. 
 
 cxxiv, etc.; evolution of scholar- 
 ship in, ib. cxl-iii. ; see Chaucer, G. 
 [n. Criticism, (a.)] 
 
 Cromek, R. H. (?), proposal for print- 
 ing Stothard’s Canterbury Pilgrims, 
 1808, ii. 37. 
 
 Cromie, H., rhyme-index to C.T. 
 (Ellesmere MS.), in Six-Text ed., 
 1875, iii. 95. 
 
 Crouther, J., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 209. 
 
 Crow, C. L ., Zur Oeschichte des Kurzen 
 Beimpaars im Mittelenglischen : 
 Chaucers House of Fame, 1892, v. 
 152. 
 
 Croxall, S., The Vision, 1715, i. 337. 
 
 Crystal Palace, the (in Blackwood's 
 Mag.), 1854, iii. 19-20. 
 
 Cuckoo and the Nightingale, the. See 
 Chaucer, G. [viii. Works.— (1.) 
 Spurious. 6.] 
 
 Culpeper, Sir T., Essays, 1671, i. 247-8. 
 
 Cumberworth, Sir T., will, 1450, iv. 6. 
 
 Cunningham, A., The Lives of British 
 Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, 
 1830, iv. 105-6. 
 
 The Songs of Scotland, 1825, ii. 
 
 156. 
 
 Cunningham, G. G., Lives of Eminent 
 Englishmen, 1835, ii. 194-5. 
 
 Cursory Remarks on some of the 
 Ancient English Poets [by P. Neve], 
 1789, i. 488-9. 
 
 Cust, Katherine I., Le Pelerinage 
 de V Homme compared with the Pil- 
 grim's Progress, 1858, iii. 42. 
 
 Cycle of English Song, The (in Temple 
 Bar), 1873, iii. 117. 
 
 D., T. See Dekker, T. 
 
 Daisy, C.’s love of the (W. de la Pole 
 [c. 1445]), iv. 4; J. Leyden, 1803, iv 
 102 ; E. Kent, 1823, ii. 146; (C. 
 Knight [1847-8]), ii. 275; see also 
 Chaucer, G. [viii. Works. — (g.) 18. 
 Legend of Good Women.] 
 
 Dale, T., lectures on Chaucer at 
 Christchurch, attended by Ruskin, 
 1836, ii. 205. 
 
 Dale, V., letter to Lord Burghley, 
 21 June, 1588, iv. 45. 
 
 Daliaway, J., Walpole’s Anecdotes of 
 Painting in England, ed. by, 1826, 
 
 ii. 160-1. 
 
 Dallington, R., A Method for Travel, 
 1598, i. 156-7. 
 
 Dalrymple, Sir D., Lord Hailes, notes 
 to Ancient Scottish Poems (Banna- 
 tyne MS.), 1770, i. 436. 
 
 Dalrymple, H. (?), Woodstock Park, 
 1761, i. 421. 
 
 Danby, — , Countess of, though ,an 
 Italian, had C. at her fingers’ ends, 
 i. 245. 
 
 Daniel, G., Poems, 1646, i. 224. 
 
 Trinarchodia, 1649, i. 226. 
 
 Daniel, S., MusopKilus, 1599, i. 160. 
 classed with C., by R. R., 1605, 
 
 i. 176. 
 
 Dante, Divina Commedia, relation of 
 to the House of Fame (A. Ram- 
 beau, 1877), v. 149. 
 
 transl. by H. F. Cary, 1819, 
 
 ii. 114. 
 
 Longfellow’s notes to, 1867, 
 
 iii. 90. 
 
 — — Inferno, transl. by Cary, 1805-6, 
 ii. 23; transl. by C. Rogers, 1782, 
 i. 468. 
 
 his influence on C. (S. H. 
 
 Reynolds, 1861), iii. 59. 
 
 for his story of Ugolino and 
 
 Monk's T., see Chaucer, G. [viii. 
 
 (f.) 26.] 
 
 for comparisons of, with C., 
 
 see Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Compari- 
 sons with other writers.] 
 
 similarity of his and C.’s later 
 
 fortunes, introd. cxliii-iv ; contempt 
 for in the 18th cent., ib.; ‘Dante 
 in English’ (Lydgate, 1430), i. 38, 
 
 iv. 4 ; see also Italian Literature. 
 Dantes, A., art. Chaucer in Diet, biog., 
 
 1875, v. 83. 
 
 Tableau chronologique, 1875, v. 83. 
 
 Darby, S., Letter to Warton on his 
 ed. of Milton' s Juvenile Poems, 178.5, 
 i. 482. 
 
 Darmesteter, A. Mary F., Froissart , 
 1894, v. 97. 
 
 Darrell, — , Dr., An Excellent Ballad, 
 in The Oxford Sausage [a. 1760], 
 i. 417. 
 
 Dart, J., modernized The Complaint 
 of the Slack Knight (as Chaucer’s), 
 praises Chaucer, 1718, i. 346. 
 
 life of C., in Works, 1721, i. 
 
 358-61 ; much based on the spuri- 
 ous poems, introd. cix. 
 
 Poem on Chaucer, 1722, i. 366. 
 
 Westminster Abbey, 1721, i. 
 
 361-2. 
 
 Westmonasterium, 1723, 1742, 
 
 i. 363-6. 
 
 Davies, — , History of Magnetical Dis- 
 covery, quoted, 1840, ii. 227. 
 
 Davies, J., of Hereford, The Scourge 
 of Folly [1611 ?], iv. 61. 
 
Index. 
 
 39 
 
 Davies, Sir J., letter to Sir It. Cotton 
 [c. 1602], i. 172. 
 
 Orchestra [1594], i. 140-1. 
 
 Davies, Sneyd, letter to T. Thomas, 
 c. Feb. 1738, i. 383. 
 
 Day, J.,(?), The Return from Parnassus, 
 (written) 1602, i. 171. , 
 
 Dee, J., transcribed T. Norton s 
 Ordinal of Alchemy, 1577, i. 114. 
 Defoe, D., The Fortunate Mistress 
 (Roxana), 1724, i. 366. 
 
 letter in The Little Review, 
 
 1705, iv. 82. , . 
 
 A Tour thro’ Great Britain (vol. 
 
 iii.), 1727, i. 368. 
 
 Deguilevile, G. de. See Lydgate, J., 
 Pilgrimage of the Life of Man. 
 
 A.B.C. transl. from, according to 
 
 de Chatelain, 1857, v. 69. 
 
 Dekker, T„ A Knight's Conjuring 
 [1607], i. 178-9. „ . 
 
 Northward Hoe [ 1 60 5]k 
 
 Patient Grissel, 1603, i. V73 m 
 
 A Rod for Runaways, 1625, i. 
 
 199. 
 
 A Strange Horse- Rac^k 613, iv. 
 
 62. .ix 
 
 Troilus and Cressida (lost play ), 
 
 1599, iv. 53. 
 
 Westward Hoe, 1607, iv. 60. 
 
 The Wonder of a Kingdom, 1623, 
 
 De la Pole, AHce,,.t>no]j<tesof Suffolk, 
 C.’s granddaughter. See Chaucer, 
 G. [i. (d.) 3]. 
 
 De la Pole, \§., Duke of Suffolk, 
 How the lover^^SOffto serve the 
 Jlower, 1445, iv. 4-5 ; married Alice 
 Chaucer, see Chaucer G. [i. (d.) 3.] 
 De la Pry me, A./ Diary, 1697, iv. 81. 
 De la Roche, M. See La Roche. 
 Delcourt, — , transl. Miller's T. into 
 French, 1908, v. 111. 
 
 Deloney, T., Strange Histories, a poem 
 on Troilus and Cressida added to 
 the posthumous (1612) ed. of, iv. 
 
 Demogeot, J.JC., Histoires des liter- 
 atures Granger es, 1880-95, v. 101-2, 
 
 125 . 
 
 DemosthenesfC. to be read for D.'s vein 
 in LngUjni (R. Carew [1595-6 ?]), 
 
 i. 112. . 
 
 Denham, Sir J., Epitaph on Cowley, 
 1 (mm 244. 
 
 Dennis, J., Reflections upon . [Pope’s] 
 EfSay on Criticism [1711], i. 314—15. 
 
 A True Character of Mr. Pope, 
 
 2nd ed., 1717, i. 345. 
 
 The Usefulness of the Stage, 
 
 1698, i. 270. . 
 
 De Quincey, T., A Brief Appraisal of 
 the Greek Literature, 1838-9, com- 
 paring Homer with C., ii. 221-2. 
 
 Confessions of an English Opium- 
 
 Eater, 1821, ii. 132; 1835, ii. 195. . 
 
 False Distinctions, 1824, ii. 
 
 149. 
 
 Homer and the Homer idee, 1841, 
 
 comparing Homer with C., ii. 229- 
 30. 
 
 Letters to a Young Man, 1823, 
 
 ii. 142. 
 
 — On Murder considered as one 
 of the Fine Arts, 1827, ii.,165. 
 
 — review of Roscoe’s Works of 
 Pope, 1848, ii. 277. 
 
 review of T&lfourd s Final 
 
 Memorials of Charles Lamb, 1848, 
 ii. 277. 
 
 Sketches oh Life and Character, 
 
 see supra : Co;nfewQnS^an-English 
 
 Opium- 
 
 Derocquigny, -^transl Reeve's*. 
 
 Cook’s T ., and Wife' of Bath s Prol. 
 into French, 1908, v. 1 1 1 'A 
 Deschamps, E., Ballade addressed tot 
 C., 1386, v. 1, 16-17. 
 
 G. Raynaud’s ed. of, 1903, n. 
 
 106. 
 
 life of. bv A. Sarradin, 1879, 
 
 
 v. 86. 
 
 Desclozeaux, E., art. Chaucer, in 
 Diet, de la conversation, 1833, 
 revised, 1853, v. 61—2, 124. 
 
 Deshler, C. D., ed. Selections from 
 Chaucer, 1847, ii. 274. 
 
 Des Maizeaux, P. J., preface to Saint 
 Evremond’s CEuvres Meslees, 1705, 
 v. 20. 
 
 De Vere, A. T., Chaucer and Spenser, 
 1861, iii. 56. 
 
 Select Specimens of the English 
 
 Poets, 1858, iii. 42. 
 
 Devereux, R., Earl of Essex, note in 
 a copy of Drayton’s Idea, 1593, i. 
 138-9. 
 
 Devon, F., Issues of the Exchequer, 
 1837, ii. 211. 
 
 Diaper, W., Dryades, 1713, i. 326. 
 
 Dibdin, T. F., The Bibliographical 
 Decameron, 1817, ii. 87. 
 
 The Bibliomania , 1809, 1811, 
 
 iv. 103. 
 
 Bibliotheca Spenceriana , 
 
 ii. 69. 
 
 The Library Companion, 
 
 ii. 149-50. 
 
 1815, 
 
 1824, 
 
40 
 
 Index . 
 
 — — Reminiscences, 1836, condemn- 
 ing Blake’s ‘Pilgrims,’ ii. 203-4. 
 ed. Ames’s and Herbert’s Typo- 
 graphical Antiquities, 1810-19, ii. 
 49, 58, 81, 114. 
 
 lecture on C. (Director, 1807), 
 
 ii. 30. 
 
 Dickens, C., David Copperfield, 1850, 
 ii. 283-4. 
 
 • letter to Sir J. E. Tennent, 
 
 20 Aug., 1866, iii. 82. 
 
 Our Mutual Friend, 1864, iii. 72. 
 
 Dido, Letter of, to Eneas, printed by 
 Pynson with Troilus , etc., 1526, i. 
 75. 
 
 Dietz, H., Les Litteratures etranqeres, 
 1892, v. 96. 
 
 Digby, K. H., The Broad Stone of 
 Honour, 1822, ii. 137; 1826, calls 
 C. impious and obscene, ii. 161. 
 Digges, D., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 210. 
 
 Dilly, letter to Boswell, 26 Sept., 
 IVil, i. 448. 
 
 B ’Israeli, I., Amenities of Literature, 
 1841, ii. 231-3. 
 
 Calamities of Authors, 1812, ii. 
 
 58. 
 
 Curiosities of Literature, 1791, 
 
 ’93, ’98, iv. 98-101 ; 5th ed., 1807, 
 ii. 30; 7th ed., 1823, ii. 142-3; 
 9th ed., 1834, ii. 191. 
 
 An Essay on the Literary 
 Character, 1795, i. 496. 
 
 thought C.’s verse irregular, 
 
 introd. lvii, ii. 231. 
 
 Dixon, J., note on order of G.T., in 
 N. & Q., 1865, iii. 79. 
 
 Dixon, B. W., painting, “ A Wedding 
 Scene from Chaucer ” [c. 1855], iii. 
 21 ; his personal resemblance to 
 C., ib. ; introd. lxiv. 
 
 Dobell, S. T., America, 1855, iii. 21. 
 Dobson, S., The Life of Petrarch, 1775, 
 i. 441 ; reviewed, ib. 
 
 Dodd, C., The Church History of 
 England, 1737, i. 379-80. 
 
 Dodsley, J., note by, in Dodsley’s 
 Miscellany, 1782, i. 465. 
 
 Dodsley, R., letter to William Shen- 
 stone, 1761, iv. 93. 
 
 Select Collection of Old Plays, J. 
 
 Reed’s preface to the 1780 ed. of, 
 i. 459. 
 
 Donnington Castle, a possession of C.’s, 
 according to J. Sylvester, 1611, iv. 
 62; J. Evelyn, 1654, i. 229; E. 
 Hyde (Earl of Clarendon) [a. 1674], 
 i. 248; W. Diaper, 1713, i. 326; 
 
 Elizabeth Montagu, 1745, i. 391 ; 
 J. P. Andrews, 1759, i. 416, 475-6; 
 E. Grose, 1773, i. 437 ; Southey’s 
 sonnet on, 1795, iv. 100; letter on, 
 by J. H. J., and view of ( Gent's 
 Mag.), 1797, iv. 101 ; letter and 
 sonnet on, by Mary R. Mitford, 
 1815, ii. 72-3; described by Miss 
 Mitford, 1852, iii. 9—10; granted to 
 C. by John of Gaunt, according to 
 S. Bentley, 1831, ii. 181. 
 
 Douce, F., catalogue of his collection 
 (Bodleian), 1840, ii. 226. 
 
 Illustrations of Shakespeare, 
 
 1807, ii. 31. 
 
 preface to Arnold’s Customs of 
 
 London, 1811, ii. 53. 
 
 Douglas, G., Eneados, 1513, Chaucer 
 his master, quotes L.G.W., i. 71-2. 
 
 The Palace of Honour, 1501, his 
 
 praise of C. in, i. 65 ; iv. 9. 
 
 J - A Description of May, from, by 
 
 E* Fawkes, 1752, i. 405. 
 
 C.’s influence on (P. Lange, 
 
 1872), vl 148. 
 
 Downes, X, Roscius Anglicanus, 1708, 
 i. 295. 
 
 Drake, N., Canterbury Tales, 1802, ii. 
 4. 
 
 Essays, 1805, ii. 24; 1809, calls 
 
 for a new ed. of Works, ii. 46-7. 
 
 Montchensey, 1824, ii. 150. 
 
 Mornings in Spring, 1828, ii. 168. 
 
 Observations on ‘ Les Jardins,' 
 
 1824, ii. 150. 
 
 Drant, T., preface to his transl. of 
 Horace, Art of Poetry, 1567, i. 100. 
 
 Drayton, M., Idea, 1593, imitates Sir 
 Thopas in, i. 138. 
 
 Nimphidia, 1627, i. 201. 
 
 Polyolbion, Selden’s preface to 
 
 [1612], i. 185-6. 
 
 To Henry Reynolds, Esquire, of 
 
 Poets and Poesie, 1627, i. 200-1. 
 
 buried near C. (T. Puller, 1662), 
 
 iv. 108 (in Cambridge issue only). 
 
 Dream, Chaucer's. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works. — (g.) 7. Book of the 
 Duchess ]; and also : ib. '[viii. (1.) 
 
 9. Isle of Ladies .] 
 
 Dress. See Costume. 
 
 Dresses of the English, of the Ancient 
 and Modern (in Town and Country 
 JHagazine), 1769, i. 432. 
 
 Dreyss, C. L., Chronologie 
 1853, 1883, v. 91, 124. M 
 
 Drummond, W., Polemo Middinia, 
 annotated by E. Gibson, 1691, iv. 
 80-1. 
 
Index. 
 
 41 
 
 Drumont, l£., La France Juive, 1886, 
 v. 91-2. 
 
 Dryden, J., The Art of Poetry, 1715, 
 version from Boileau by Dryden 
 (?), i. 254, ii. 188. 
 
 Critical and Miscellaneous Works, 
 
 ed. by Malone, 1800, i. 503-4. 
 
 Works, ed. by Scott, 1808, ii. 
 
 39-41. 
 
 Fables, 1700, i. 272-85 ; reviewed 
 
 in Acta Eruditorum, 1700, v. 130; 
 W. Bell sets out to improve, c. 1785, 
 
 i. 480-1 ; effect of, on the reputa- 
 tion of C., introd. xxxvii-xl; his 
 version of Reeve’s Tale in, quoted 
 as Chaucer’s by E. Carter, 1753, 
 i. 406; his parallel of Ovid and 
 Chaucer in, transl. into French, 
 1777, v. 36; the same ridiculed by 
 T. Brown [a. 1704], i. 291-2; 
 imitated C. before he modernized 
 him (G. Sewell, 1720), i. 351 ; his 
 translations from C. in, are his 
 most brilliant and celebrated work 
 (Seward, 1789), i. 490; his preface 
 to, the best critical estimate of 
 Chaucer (T. S. Baynes, 1870), iii. 
 99 ; originality of, introd. cxxxii. 
 
 neglected the antiquarian study 
 
 necessary for understanding C. 
 (Malone, 1800), i. 503^. 
 
 .the first to conceive of organic 
 
 growth in literature, introd. cxxx. 
 
 repeated Leland’s biographical 
 
 inventions, ib. cxli. 
 
 letter to Mrs. Steward, 1698, 
 
 i. 270; to Pepys, with the Good 
 Parson, 1699, i. 270; Pepys thanks 
 him for it, i. 271. 
 
 his Juvenal, 1692, i. 264-5. 
 
 his Troilus and Cressida, 1679, 
 
 i. 254. 
 
 his Virgil, 1697, i. 269. 
 
 Johnson’s Life of, 1779, i. 456. 
 
 his patent as Poet Laureate, 
 
 1670, i. 247. 
 
 his funeral, described by H. 
 
 Playford, T. Tanner, Unknown, E. 
 Ward, 1700, i. 286-8; by E. 
 Thomas, 1729, i. 371; in Acta 
 Eruditorum, 1704, v. 130-1 ; verses 
 on, printed in or appended to 
 Luctus Britannici, 1700, i. 286-7. 
 
 See Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Com- 
 parisons with other writers ] ; see also 
 ib. [m. Modernizations .] 
 
 Du Bartas, G. S. Divine Weeks and 
 Works, transl. by J. Sylvester, 1605, 
 1611, i. 176, iv. 62. 
 
 Dubuc, — , transl. Les deux Griselidis 
 from Chaucer and Miss Edgeworth, 
 
 1813, v. 10, 41-3. 
 
 Duearel, A. C., correspondence with 
 W. Barrett, 1772, i. 437. 
 
 Duchess, the Book of the, see Chaucer, 
 G. [vm. Works. — (g.) 7.] 
 
 Duclaux, Mary. See Darmesteter, 
 A. Mary F. 
 
 Duering, A. von, transl. Works (in- 
 complete), 1883-6, v. 150. 
 
 Dugdale, Sir W., Origines J undid ales, 
 1666, i. 242. 
 
 C. his arch-poet (F. Junius, 
 
 1668), iv. 75-6. 
 
 Dunbar, W., his praise of C. in The 
 Golden Targe, 1503, i. 66; Lament 
 for the Makaris, 1507, i. 68. 
 
 his works, ed. by D. Laing, 
 
 1834, ii. 192. 
 
 for comparisons of, with C., 
 
 see Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Comparisons 
 with other writers .] 
 
 Duncoxnbe, J., An Elegy written in 
 Canterbury Cathedral, 1778, iv. 95. 
 Dunham, S. A., Chaucer (in Lardner’s 
 Cabinet Cyclopaedia), 1836, ii. 204—5. 
 Dunkin, W., The Character of a Good 
 Parson, from Chaucer [a. 1765], iv. 
 93. 
 
 Dunlop, J. C., History of Fiction, 
 
 1814, comparing C. with Boccaccio, 
 
 ii, 61-3 ; reviewed, ii. 68. 
 Durandus,G., Rationale, verses written 
 
 in a copy of [ n.b . 1500], iv. 9. 
 Durfey, T., New Court Songs and 
 Poems, 1672, verses by R. Veal in, 
 iv. 76. 
 
 During, A. See Duering. 
 
 Dyer, G., On the Connection of the 
 Arts and Sciences, 1811, ii. 53. 
 
 Earle, J. (17th cent, writer), Elegy 
 on Beaumont [1616], i. 192. 
 
 Micro- cosmography, 1628, his 
 
 ‘ vulgar-spirited man ’ admires 
 without having read C., i. 201, 
 introd. xxix. 
 
 Earle, J. (19th cent, scholar) pro- 
 jected ed. of C.’s Works by, 1864, 
 
 iii. 71. 
 
 Early English Texts (in Edinburgh 
 Review), 1867, iii. 94. 
 
 Early English Text Society, the, 3rd 
 Report of, and appeal for, by F. J. 
 Furnivall, Chaucerian publications 
 promised by, 1867, iii. 88. 
 Eastwood, James, notes in N. <Ss Q., 
 1857, ’59, ’60, ’62, iii. 40, 50, 54, 64. 
 
 1 
 
42 
 
 Index . 
 
 Eastwood, Jonathan, and Wright, 
 W. A., The Bible Word-Book, 1866, 
 iii. 82. 
 
 Ebert, A., Die englischen Mysterien, 
 1859, v. 144. 
 
 Edgar, A., Popular Literature (in 
 Tusculana ), 1852, iii. 9. 
 dgeworth, Maria, The Modern 
 Griselda, 1805, ii. 24; transl. into 
 French, 1813, v. 41-3. 
 
 Editing. See Scholarship. 
 
 Edman, L. E., A Specimen of Chaucer's 
 Language , 1861, iii. 56. 
 
 Edmondes, Sir T., It. Winwood is 
 sure he is become a good Chaucerist, 
 1601, i. 167. 
 
 Edward III, epitaph on, in West- 
 minster Abbey, attributed to C. 
 by W. Winstanley, 1660, i. 238. 
 Edward, 2nd Duke of York, The 
 Book of Hunting [1406-13], i. 18. 
 Edwards, R., Appius and Virginia, 
 
 1575, iv. 39. 
 
 Palamon and Arcite, a play, 
 
 1566, performance of at Oxford re- 
 corded, i. 99. 
 
 The Paradise of Dainty Devices, 
 
 1576, poem in by R. L., iv. 39-40. 
 Einenkel, E., Streifzuge durch die 
 
 mittelenglische Syntax, 1887, v. 150. 
 Elderton, W., The Pangs of Love and 
 Lover’s Fits, 1559, iv. 27-8. 
 
 Eliot, G., Middlemarch, chapter head- 
 ings in, 1871-2, iii. 112-13. 
 Elizabeth, Queen, quotes C. (Scott, 
 1820, ’21, ’29), ii. 128, 133, 176, iv. 
 107 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 108 (in 
 Cambridge issue). 
 
 Eller, I., The History of Belvoir 
 Castle, 1841, ii. 233. 
 
 Ellis, A. J., On Early English Pro- 
 nunciation, 1869-89, iii. 97-8. 
 
 Ellis, F. S., edits the Kelmscott ed. of 
 C.’s Works, 1896, iii. 150 (in Cam- 
 bridge issue only). 
 
 Ellis, G., Specimens of Early English 
 Poets, 1801, ii. 1 ; reviewed, ii. 12, 
 21. 
 
 Specimens of Early English 
 
 Metrical Romances, 1805, ii. 24. 
 
 Ellis, Sir H., Catalogue of the Lans- 
 downe MSS., 1812, ii. 58; 1819, ii. 
 115. 
 
 ed. Brand’s Observations on 
 
 Popular Antiquities, 1813, ii. 60. 
 
 ed. Original Letters, 1846, ii. 
 
 268. 
 
 Elmes, J., The Arts and Artists, 1825, 
 ii. 156. 
 
 Eloquence, C.’s, introd. xciii-iv. See 
 Chaucer, G. [n. (f.)] 
 
 Elstob, Elizabeth, The Rudiments of 
 Grammar for the English-Saxon 
 Tongue, 1715, i. 338-9; her studies 
 in old English, introd. 1-li. 
 
 Elyot, Sir T., Pasquil the Plain, 1533, 
 i. 80. 
 
 Emare, the romance of, the source of 
 the Man of Law's Tale (J. Planta, 
 1802), ii. 4. 
 
 Emblem of Wedlock (in Gentleman's 
 Magazine ), 1772, i. 437. 
 
 Emerson, R. W., The American 
 Scholar, 1837, ii. 212. 
 
 The Conduct of Life, 1860 (1851), 
 
 iii. 1. 
 
 English Traits, 1856, iii. 29. 
 
 Essays, 1st ser. ( History , and 
 
 The Over Soul), 1841, ii. 233. 
 
 Europe and European Books, 
 
 1843, ii. 247. 
 
 Journal, 1820, reads C. in his 
 
 youth, ii. 122; 1835, ii. 195; 1851, 
 
 iii. 1. 
 
 Literary Ethics, 1838, ii. 222. 
 
 ■ Persian Poetry, 1858, iii. 42. 
 
 The Poet, 1844, ii. 253. 
 
 Shakspeare, 1848, ii. 277-8. 
 
 his vagueness as to the facts 
 
 concerning C., introd. lxi-lxii, ii. 
 277-8, iii. 13, 18. 
 
 Emlyn, the Book of Maid, 1520, de- 
 rived from the Wife of Bath's Prol., 
 
 iv. 11. 
 
 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1st ed., 
 1771, i. 436-7; 2nd and later 
 edd., 1778, etc., i. 452-4, 459, iv. 
 96. 
 
 Edinensis, 1827, ii. 167-8. 
 
 Perthensis, 1816, ii. 84. 
 
 Encyclopedic des Gens du Monde, 
 1835, v. 124. 
 
 England Illustrated, 1764, i. 425. 
 
 Englische Studien, articles in, 1877, 
 etc., v. 148-9. 
 
 English Encyclopaedia, 1802, ii. 5. 
 
 English Language, ignorance of Chau- 
 cerian and Elizabethan, in 18th 
 century, introd. xli-iii; lack of 
 a standard dialect of, till after 
 Chaucer’s time, hampered criticism, 
 ib. cxxx; see Chaucer, G. [n. (c.) 
 iMnguage.li 
 
 English Surnames (in Edinb. Rev.), 
 1855, iii. 28. 
 
 Ennius, C. the English. See Chaucer, 
 G. [ii. (g.) Comparisons with other 
 writers .] 
 
Index. 
 
 43 
 
 Entick, J-, Proposals for Printing 
 the works of Chaucer, 1736, i. 377-8. 
 
 Envoy to Scogan. See Chaucer, G. 
 [vtti. Works. — (g.) 27.] 
 
 Epitaphs on C. See Chaucer, Or. 
 [i. Biog. (e.) 7.] 
 
 Erasmus, letter to Jodocus Jonas ot 
 Erfurt, describing Colet’s study of 
 Chaucer and Gower (?), 1519, i. 
 73. 
 
 took his Alcumnistica from 
 
 Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale (J. Wilson, 
 1662), i. 240. 
 
 Eschenburg, J. J. (?), Gottfried Chaucer 
 (in Charaktere der Dichter ), the best 
 18th cent, account of C. by any 
 foreign writer, 1793, v. 134-6. 
 
 Essex, Robert, Earl of. See Devereux. 
 
 Estienne, H., A World of Wonders, 
 epistle dedicatory to (by R. C.), 
 
 __ 1607, iv. 60. 
 
 Etat present d’ Angleterre. See Miege, 
 G. 
 
 Eulogium Chauceri [1574 ?], i. 109. 
 
 Evans, S., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 210. 
 
 Evelyn, J., Diary, 1654, i. 229; 1667, 
 i. 243. 
 
 The Immortality of Poesie, 1685, 
 
 i 258 
 
 — — Sylva, 1662, i. 239. 
 
 letter to Pepys, 1689, i. 261. 
 
 Ewelme, owned by C., according to 
 Stowe, 1600, i. 164-5; J. Skelton, 
 1823, i. 147; said to have been 
 given to C. by Richard II in reward 
 for his poems (Sir W. Vaughan, 
 1600), i. 167. 
 
 C.’s sister first stated by Leland 
 
 to have lived at, as Duchess of 
 Suffolk, introd. cv; in reality his 
 granddaughter Alice de la Pole, see 
 Chaucer, G. [i. Biog. — (d.) 3.] 
 
 Exchequer, issues from the, to C. See 
 Chaucer, G. [i. Biog. (b.)] 
 
 Exile, C.’s to Holland, etc. See 
 Chaucer, G. [i. (e.) 5.] 
 
 Extractos em Portugueze em Inglez, 
 reviewed, 1809, ii. 48. 
 
 F., G., On Ancient House Signs 
 (in Gent.'s Mag.), 1823, ii. 143. 
 
 F., William, Cornucopias, 1612, i. 
 185. 
 
 Fabliaux, the French, imitated by C. 
 (T. Wright, 1844), ii. 257-8; V. 
 Leclerc, 1856, v. 64 ; E. G. Sandras, 
 1859, v. 73; J. Bedier, 1893-6, v. 
 97, 104. 
 
 Faerie King [c. 1650]. See Sheppard, 
 
 s 
 
 Fagan, C. G., Chaucer in Oxenforde, 
 1883, iii. 134-5. 
 
 Fairfax, H., catalogue of the library 
 of [a. 1665], i. 242. 
 
 Fairholt, F., W., Costume in England, 
 1846, ii. 268. 
 
 Fairies in C. (J. Ritson, 1831), ii. 182; 
 (L. Hunt, 1834), i. 191-2; (J. H. 
 Hippisley, 1837), ii. 215; (C. M. 
 Wieland, 1796), v. 137-8. See also 
 Chaucer, G. [viii. Works. — (f.) 36. 
 Wife of Bath's T.] 
 
 Falconer, T., letter to C. Gray, 1774, 
 i. 438. 
 
 Familiar Epistle from the Shades, A, 
 [a. 1730], i. 371-2. 
 
 Farmer, R., An Essay on the Learning 
 of Shakespeare, 1st and 2nd edd., 
 1767, i. 430. 
 
 Father Francis’s Prayer (poem in 
 Gent.'s Mag.), 1746, iv. 89. 
 
 Fawkes, F., A Description of May 
 from Gawin Douglas, 1752, i. 405. 
 
 Fell, J., Remarks on [Tyrwhitt’s] 
 Appendix [to] Rowley's Poems, 
 1782, i. 466. 
 
 Feller, F. X., revised L. M. Chaudon’s 
 Dictionnaire historique portatif, 
 1791, v. 37. 
 
 Fenton, E., An Epistle to Mr. South- 
 erne, 1711, i- 313-4. 
 
 A Tale in the manere of Chaucer , 
 
 1717, i. 345. 
 
 Feme, Sir J., The Blazon of Gentry, 
 1586, i. 129. 
 
 Feylde, T., The Controversy between 
 a Lover and a Jay, 1509, calls C. 
 ‘Cancer’ and confuses Clerk's T. 
 with Troilus, i. 70. 
 
 Fiedler, E., Zur Beurtheilung des 
 
 ' Chaucer, 1847, v. 142. 
 
 transl. some C.T. into German, 
 
 1844, v. 141. 
 
 Field, B., Is it Justifiable to reprint 
 the Pruriencies of our old Poets ? 
 1811, ii. 54. 
 
 Fielding, H. (?), A Plesaunt Balade, 
 or advice to the Fayre Maydens, 
 1752, iv. 90-1. 
 
 Filon, A., Histone de la Litterature 
 anglaise, 1883, v. 89-90; reviewed 
 by Brunetiere, v. 90. 
 
 Finch, Anne, Countess of Winchelsea, 
 To Mr. Pope, 1717, i. 346. 
 
 Fischer, R., Zu der Kunstformen des 
 mittelalterlichen Epos , 1899, v. 
 
44 
 
 Index . 
 
 Fitzgeoffrey, C., Affania, 1601, i. 167. 
 
 ■ rightly named, as being Chaucer’s 
 
 spiritual descendant, W. D., 1596, 
 iv. 48; R. Hayman, 1628, i. 201: 
 S. Haxby, 1636, i. 216-17. as* 
 
 Fitzgerald, E., Euphranor, 1851, iii 
 1-3. 
 
 letter to J. Allen, 21 Nov 
 
 1832, ii. 185; to Crabbe, 4 Oct. 
 1859, comparing C. with Shake- 
 speare, iii. 49. 
 
 Salaman and Absal, 1856, iii. 
 
 29-30. 
 
 transl. Six Dramas of Calderon, 
 
 1853, iii. 12. 
 
 Fie fro the pres. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [vm. Works. — (g.) 29. Truth.'] 
 
 Fleay, F. G., Guide to Chaucer and 
 Spenser, 1877, iii. 121. 
 
 Flecknoe, R., A Letter treating of 
 Conversation, etc., in Miscellania , 
 1653, iv. 72. 
 
 Fletcher, J., The Faithful Shep- 
 herdess [1609 ?], refers to C. as 
 * Tityrus,’ i. 183. 
 
 The Lovers' Progress [16341, i. 
 
 206. 
 
 The Two Noble Kinsmen, C. 
 
 gives the story of [1613 ?1, i. 
 187. 
 
 See also Beaumont, F., and 
 
 Fletcher, J. 
 
 Flower and the Leaf, The, first printed 
 by Speght, 1598, i. 79. 
 
 modernized by Dryden, 1700, 
 
 i. 284-5; by T. Powell, 1841, ii. 
 234; by Lord Thurlow, 1823, ii. 
 148. 
 
 transl. into French by J. B. de 
 
 Chatelain, 1855, iii. 20. 
 
 interpretation of, by Ruskin, 
 
 1861, iii. 59. 
 
 preferred to The Canterbury 
 
 Tales by S. Lanier, 1879-80, iii. 
 124; praised (as C.’s) by N. Drake, 
 1828, ii. 168; by Hazlitt, 1828, ii. 
 169. 
 
 sonnet on, by Keats, 1817, ii. 
 
 89-90. 
 
 observation of nature in, noted 
 
 by Gilbert White, 1775-81, iv. 95. 
 
 — — a piece of indirect praise of C., 
 introd. xv. 
 
 ■ See also Chaucer, G. [n. (f.) 12. 
 
 Love of Nature.] 
 
 Forests, see Woods. 
 
 Forgues, E. (?), transl. La Poesie 
 humoristique (in La Revue Britan- 
 nigue, 1850), v. 61, 124. 
 
 (?), transl. Prol., c. 1850, v. 61, 
 
 124. 
 
 Former Age, The. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works. — (g.) 13.] 
 
 Forrest, W., History of Joseph [c. 
 1545], i. 86-7. 
 
 Fortescue- Aland, J., notes to Sir 
 J. Fortescue’s Difference between 
 an Absolute and Limited Monarchy, 
 1714, i. 329. 
 
 Fortune. See Chaucer, G. [viii. 
 Works. — (g.) 14.] 
 
 Foulface, Philip, ps., Bacchus' Bounty, 
 1593, i. 139. 
 
 Foulis, E., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 211. 
 
 Fowler, W., The Last Epistle of Cres- 
 seid to Troilus, 1604, iv. 56. 
 
 Fox, C. J., letter to C. Grey, 1800, iv. 
 102 . 
 
 venerated C. (Trotter, 1811), ii. 
 
 27, 56 ; but without discrimination, 
 according to Landor, 1811, iv. 103. 
 Fox, W. J., adapts Truth to a hymn 
 in Hymns and Anthems used at 
 the Unitarian Chapel, South Place, 
 Finsbury, 1841, ii. 233. 
 
 Foxe, J., Ecclesiastical History (Acts 
 and Monuments ), 2nd ed., 1570, 
 praises C. as a Reformer, i. 104, 
 106, introd. xix-xx. 
 
 Fox well, A. K., A Study of Sir Thomas 
 Wyatt's Poems, 1911, iv. 12. 
 Fraction in the Assembly, A, 1648, 
 i. 225. 
 
 France, C., lived in during last years 
 of Richard II. See Chaucer, G. 
 [i. Biog. (e.) 5.] 
 
 Franklin's Tale. See Chaucer, G 
 [viii. Works. — (f.) 18.] 
 
 Fraunce, A., The Lawyer' s Logic, 1588, 
 
 i. 130. 
 
 Freeman, T., Run and a Great Cast, 
 1614, i. 188-9. 
 
 French of Stratford-atte-Bowe (Sir J. 
 
 , Feme, 1586), i. 129; (Sir W. Scott, 
 1804), ii. 19; (Sir N. H. Nicolas, 
 1841), ii. 239; (Sir H. Ellis, 1846), 
 
 ii. 268. 
 
 French words, said to be imported 
 by Chaucer. See Chaucer, G. 
 [it. (c.) 8]. 
 
 French writers, C.’s debt to, Emerson, 
 1848, ii. 277-8; K. I. Cust, 1858, 
 
 iii. 42; W. Minto, 1874, iii. 119; 
 Swinburne, 1880, iii. 131-2; also 
 passim in the authors of French 
 allusions, especially A. F. Villemain, 
 1830, v. 45; V, Leclerc, 1856, v.64, 
 
Index 
 
 45 
 
 1862, v. 74-5, who is criticized, 1867, 
 iii. 94; Kervyn de Lettenhove, 
 1857, v. 125; E. G. Sandras, 1859, 
 v. 12, 69-74, who is criticized, 1867, 
 iii. 94; Taine, 1863, v. 78; G. Va- 
 pereau, 1876, v. 84; A. Sarradin, 
 1879, v. 86; E. Gebhart, 1908, v. 
 109; see also Fabliaux, Froissart, 
 Machaut. 
 
 Frere, J. H. (?), transl. the Ode on 
 JEthelstan’ s Victory into Chaucerian 
 English, [c. 1787], ii, 21, iv. 107 (in 
 Ch. Soc. issue), 109 (in Cambridge 
 issue). 
 
 Freres Tale. See Chaucer, G. [vm. 
 Works. — (f.) 19.] 
 
 Freudenberger, M., Ueber das Fehlen 
 des Auftakts in Chaucer's heroischem 
 Verse, 1889, v. 151. 
 
 Friar's Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 [vm. Works. — (f.) 19.] 
 
 Friars. See Chaucer, G. [n. (f.) 6.] 
 
 Froissart, J., Chroniques, 1410, re- 
 cords C.’s mission to Montreuil in 
 1377, i. 20; v. 2, 18; transl. by T. 
 Johnes, 1803-10, ii. 9. ^ 
 
 his poems indebted to C.’s (G. 
 
 de la Rue, 1834), v. 48. 
 
 Le Paradys d' Amour [1385 ?], 
 
 partly imitated from Book of the 
 Duchess , v. 123. 
 
 Kervyn de Lettenhove’s life of, 
 
 1857, v. 125. 
 
 Frost, F., ps. See Blanchard, E. L. L. 
 
 Froude, J. A., The Nemesis of Faith, 
 1849, ii. 279. 
 
 Fulke, W., Master Heskins ’ Parlia- 
 ment Repealed, 1579, i. 118. 
 
 Fuller, T., The Church-History of 
 Britain, 1655, i. 230. 
 
 The History of the Worthies of 
 
 England, 1662, i. 239; iv. 74, 108 
 (the latter in Cambridge issue only). 
 
 Fulwood, W., A Constant Lover, 1568, 
 iv. 35-6. 
 
 Furnivall, F. J., appeals for editors 
 for The Praise of Chaucer, and 
 England in Chaucer's Time, 1888, 
 iii. 138. 
 
 article in The Reader on MSS., 
 
 etc., 1865, iii. 76. 
 
 The Chaucer Society's Mani- 
 festo, 1867, iii. 88-90. 
 
 The Early English Text Society 
 
 (art. in Gent's. Mag.), 1867, iii. 88. 
 
 3rd Report of the E.E.T.S. , 
 
 1867, iii. 88. 
 
 ■ Illustrations of Prol. C.T. (un- 
 
 published), 1857, iii. 37-8. 
 
 Recent Work at Chaucer, 1873, 
 
 iii. 113-4. 
 
 notes on A New Envoy of 
 
 Chaucer's (to Truth), 1867, iii. 88; 
 on Lytil Johan [by F. J. F. ?], 
 (Athenceum), 1867, iii. 94; on Miss 
 Braddon’s Asphodel, 1881, iii. 132; 
 (unpublished) to M. Arnold’s Study 
 of Poetry, iii. 130; in N. & Q., 
 1865, iii. 79; notices of Chaucer 
 discoveries, notes, correspondence, 
 etc., 1873, etc., iii. 114-5. 
 
 edits Adam of Cob sam’s The 
 
 Wright's Chaste Wife, 1865, iii. 76; 
 the Six Text C.T., 1868-77, iii. 96; 
 Parallel-text ed. of Minor Poems, 
 1871-3, iii. 113; Robert of Brunne's 
 Handling Sin, 1862, iii. 62-3. 
 
 his projected ed. of C.’s Works, 
 
 1879, iii. 71-2. 
 
 reviews Kingsley’s ed. of Thyn- 
 
 ne’s Animadversions, 1865, and 
 Perry’s ed. of Morte Arthure, iii. 77. 
 
 is asked by J. R. Green to write 
 
 a primer on Chaucer, 1877, iii. 
 121 - 2 . 
 
 Skeat’s Chaucerian poem on, 
 
 1900, iii. 151-2 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 
 152 (in Cambridge issue). 
 
 his work on C., introd. cxxiii-iv. 
 
 See also Chaucer Society. 
 
 G., E., verses, in M. Lluelyn’s Men 
 Miracles, 1646, i. 224. 
 
 See Gibson, E. 
 
 Gallus, verses on Dryden in, 1700, i. 
 288. 
 
 Galt, J., Life of Cardinal Wolsey, 1812, 
 ii. 58; reviewed, ii. 59. 
 
 Gamelyn, The Tale of. See Chaucer, 
 G. [viii. Works — (1.) Spurious. 8.] 
 
 Garnett, R., the Elder, Antiquarian 
 Club Books, 1848, ii. 278. 
 
 English Dialects, 1836, ii. 205. 
 
 Gamier, C. M., transl. part of Knight's 
 T. into French, 1908, v. 111. 
 
 Garrick, D., reading of Nuns' Priest’s 
 Tale, c. 1770, i. 436; ii. 168; C. P. 
 Patu’s letters to, 1755, v. 31. 
 
 Gascoigne, G., Dan Bartholomew of 
 Bath, etc., 1575, i. 110; iv. 39. 
 
 The Grief of Joy, 1576, i. 112. 
 
 A Hundred Sundry Flowers \n.a. 
 
 1572], iv. 38. 
 
 imagined by G. Harvey as being 
 
 greeted in Purgatory by C., Gower 
 and Lydgate, 1577, i. 114; calls 
 himself ‘C.’s boy,’ i. 112 ; his theory 
 of C.’s verse, introd. xxvii. 
 
46 
 
 Index. 
 
 Gascoigne, T., Dictionarium Theo- 
 logicum, 1434-57, i. 43. 
 
 Gaskell, Elizabeth C., Mary Barton, 
 1848, iv. 106. 
 
 Gatacre, E., obituary of, his portrait 
 of C., 1821, ii. 135. 
 
 Gaunt, John of, Duke of Lancaster, 
 grant of annuities to C. and his wife, 
 1374, i. 3; supposed to have 
 granted Donnington to C., but his 
 connection with C. doubted by S. 
 Bentley, 1831, ii, 181. 
 
 Gaunte, W., will of, 1531-2, iv. 12. 
 Gausseron, B. H., art. Chaucer, in 
 Grande Encycl., 1887, v. 92-4. 
 Gawain, Sir, ed. by Sir F. Madden, 
 1839, ii. 225; C.’s allusions to in 
 Squire’s T. and Rom. Rose, ib. ; Wife 
 of Bath’s Tale borrowed from, 
 according to Percy, 1765, i. 428, 
 ii. 225. 
 
 Gay, J., An Answer to the Sompnour’s 
 Prologue, 1717, i. 345. 
 
 letter from Gay and Pope to 
 
 J. Caryll, April, 1715, i. 340; iv. 83. 
 
 The Shepherd's Week, 1714, 
 
 i. 329. 
 
 verses to B. Lintot, speaks of 
 
 C.’s humour, 1712, i. 319; introd. 
 cxxxix. 
 
 — The Wife of Bath, 1713, i. 
 326-8. 
 
 Gayton, E., Pleasant Notes upon Don 
 Quixot, 1654, i. 229; iv. 72. 
 
 ■ The Religion of a Physician, 
 
 1663, i., 240-1. 
 
 Gebhart, E., reviews French transL of 
 C.T., 1907-8, v. 107-11. 
 
 Geffroy, A., art. Chaucer, in Diet. 
 Gen. de Biog. et d’Hist., 1857, v. 
 65-6. 
 
 Gemsege, P., ps. See Pegge, S. 
 
 Genlis, Felicite, Comtesse de, Pitrarque 
 et Laure, noticed in Quarterly Review, 
 1821, ii. 134. 
 
 Gentleman’ s Companion, The [by W. 
 Bamesey], 1669, i. 246; 1672, iv. 
 76. 
 
 Gentleman’ s Magazine, The, contri- 
 butions to, not separately indexed, 
 1780-98, iv. 96-102. 
 
 Gentilesse. See Chaucer, G. [vm. 
 Works. — (g.) 15.] 
 
 Gerarde, J., The Herball, 1597, iv. 48. 
 Gesenius, F. W., De Lingua Chauceri, 
 1847, v. 143. 
 
 ■ Probe eines Chaucer schen Manu- 
 
 scriptes der Nationalbibliothek in 
 Paris, 1849, v. 143. 
 
 Gesner, C., Bibliotheca, 1574, v. 128. 
 Gest hystoriale of the destruction of 
 Troy [a. 1400], i. 14. 
 
 Gibbon, E., Outlines of the History of 
 the World [1760], i. 417. 
 
 Gibson, E., notes to W. Drummond's 
 Polemo-Middenia, 1691, iv. 80-1. 
 Gifford, W., review of Hazlitt’s 
 Lectures on the English Poets, 1818, 
 
 ii. 96-7. 
 
 Gil, A., Logonomia Anglica, 1619, con- 
 demns C.’s Gallicisms and Latin- 
 isms, i. 193. 
 
 Gildon, C., The Complete Art of 
 Poetry, 1718, i. 346-7; denies that 
 Shakespeare’s language is obsolete, 
 introd. xli. 
 
 — — The Laws of Poetry, 1721, iv. 
 
 The Lives and Characters of the 
 
 English Dramatic Poets [1699], i. 
 270. 
 
 Remarks on the Plays of Shake- 
 
 spear, 1710, i. 312. 
 
 Gilfillan, G., his ed. of C.T., 1860, 
 
 iii. 52-3. 
 
 Gillies, R. P., German Stories, reviewed, 
 1826, ii. 164. 
 
 Gilman, A., ed. C.’s Poetical Works, 
 1879-80, iii. 123-4. 
 
 Ginguen6, P. L., Histoire Litteraire : 
 d’ltalie, 1811, v. 39-40. 
 
 Giraldus Cambrensis, compared with 
 the fifth husband of the Wife of 
 Bath, 1806, ii. 29. 
 
 Glimpses of the Pageant of Literature, 
 1845, ii. 266-7. 
 
 Goddard, W., verses on the portrait 
 in Works, 1602, iv. 55. 
 
 Godwin, W., Essay on Sepulchres, 
 1809, ii. 47. 
 
 — — - Life of Geoffrey Chaucer, 1803, ■ 
 
 ii. 6—9 ; Lamb’s inability to review - 
 it, ii. 10-11, introd. lxiii. ; reviews 
 of, ii. 10-23 passim; noticed in \ 
 Revue Britannique, 1836, v. 49; ■■ 
 
 C. W. F. Breyer’s Ltben G. Chaucers, ; 
 1812, based on, v. 138—9; its irrele- 
 vance, introd. cx-cxii. 
 
 Goethe, J. W. von, studied C. (Murray, 
 1830), ii. 178; found by Emerson 
 to be lacking in some of C.’s quali- 
 ties, 1851, iii. 1. 
 
 Goldsmith, O., The History of our 
 own Language, 1758, i. 415. 
 
 The Poetical Scale, 1758, i. 
 
 414. 
 
 • Tears for the Death of, 1774, i. 
 
 438. 
 
Index. 
 
 47 
 
 Gomont, H., Geoffrey Chaucer, 1847, 
 v. 55-60 ; reviewed by Le Roux de 
 Lincy, 1847, v. 60. 
 
 Googe, B. See B., G. 
 
 i preface to The Zodiack of Life, 
 
 1565, iv. 34. 
 
 Gordon, P., The famous History of 
 Prince Robert surnamed the Bruce, 
 1615, iv. 65. 
 
 Gorton, J. G., A General Biographical 
 Dictionary, 1828, ii. 168. 
 
 Gough, R., letter to the Rev. M. 
 Tyson, 30 Jan., 1772, i. 437. 
 
 Sepulchral Monuments in Great 
 
 Britain, 1786-96, i. 483; vol. ii. of, 
 reviewed, 1798, i. 501. 
 
 MS. inscription by, in a copy of 
 
 C.’s Works, 1764, i. 425. 
 
 Goujet, C. P., Bibliotheque Franqoise, 
 1755, v. 30-1 ; quoted by Southey 
 [c. 1810], ii. 50. 
 
 Gowen, T., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 212. 
 
 Gower, J., Confessio Amantis (first 
 version) [1390], i. 10; ed. by R. 
 Pauli, 1857, iii. 41 ; gave the con- 
 ception of the Canterbury Tales 
 (W. Gray, 1835), ii. 195. 
 
 Mirour de Vomme, 1376-9; ref. 
 
 to Troilus in, i. 4 ; introd. xi. 
 
 Illustrations of, by H. J. Todd, 
 
 1810, ii. 50. 
 
 with C., ‘ garnished the English 
 
 tongue’ (Holinshed, 1577), i. 114; 
 refined our language (G. Wharton, 
 1652), i. 228; C.’s lines to him in 
 Troilus quoted by T. Berthelet, i. 
 77-8; ‘a great deal C.’s ancient’ 
 (Foxe, 1570), i. 105; C.’s friend (J. 
 Leland, [c. 1545], iv. 14, introd. 
 cv.; (J. Pits, 1613), iv. 64; (W. 
 Webbe, 1586), i. 129; relations of, 
 with C. (H. J. Todd, 1818), ii. 109; 
 (W. Gray, 1835), ii. 195; with C. 
 and Richard II (C. Meyer, 1889), 
 v. 151; classed or compared with 
 C., see Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Com- 
 parisons with other writers .] 
 
 Graef, A., Das Futurum bei Chaucer, 
 1893, v. 152. 
 
 Das Perfectum bei Chaucer, 1888, 
 
 v. 151. . 
 
 Grand Dictionnaire hislorique. See 
 Moreri, L. t 
 
 Grande Encyclopedic, La, arts, in, 
 1887, etc., v. 92-5. 
 
 Grange, J., The Golden Aphroditis, 
 1577, iv. 107 (in Cambridge issue 
 only). 
 
 
 Granger, J., A Biographical History 
 of England, 1769, i. 431-2. 
 
 Graves, R., note to de la Casa’s 
 Galateo, 1774, i. 438. 
 
 Graville, A. de, his Palamon et 
 Anzita, v. 34. 
 
 Gray, T., letters to Walpole, 2 Sept., 
 1760, i. 417-18; to T. Warton, 15 
 April, 1770, i. 436. 
 
 Metrum [1760-1?], i. 418-21; 
 
 his assertion there of the regularity 
 of C.’s verse, introd. Iii. 
 
 The Progress of Poesy (note 
 
 added to), 1768, i. 431. 
 
 Mason's Life and Writings of, 
 
 reviewed, 1814, ii. 68. 
 
 his line, ‘ Even in our ashes,’ 
 
 etc., and Reeve's Prol. (1. 3880), 1782, 
 i. 465; 1814, ii. 68; (I. D’lsraeli, 
 1823), ii. 143. 
 
 Gray, W., Origin and Progress of 
 English Prose Literature, 1835, ii. 
 195. 
 
 Green, H., Obsolete Words in Whitney 
 {Choice of Emblems), 1866, iii. 83. 
 
 Green, J. R., letters to Dr. Fumivall, 
 asking him to write a primer on C., 
 1877, iii. 121-2. 
 
 A Short History of the English 
 
 People, 1874, iii. li7-19. 
 
 Greene, E. B., Strictures upon (Ma- 
 lone’s) Cursory Observations on 
 Rowley, 1782, i. 466. 
 
 Greene, R., Greene’s Mourning Gar- 
 ment, 1590, i. 131. 
 
 Greene’s Vision (of C. and Gower) 
 
 [1592], i. 137. 
 
 Menaphon, 1589, i. 130. 
 
 A Quip for an Upstart Courtier, 
 
 1592, i. 137. 
 
 The Royal Exchange, 1590, i. 131. 
 
 Greenwood, P., Grammatica Anglicana, 
 1594, with list of Chaucerian words, 
 i. 141. 
 
 Greeting on New Year’s Morning [c. 
 1440], i. 46. 
 
 Gregory, G., The Life of Thomas 
 Chabterton, 1789, i. 487. 
 
 Gregson, M., Portfolio of Fragments, 
 1817, ii. 87. 
 
 Grey, Z., Critical Notes on Shake- 
 speare, 1754, i. 408-9. 
 
 Remarks upon a late [War- 
 
 burton’s] ed. of Shakespeare, 1755, 
 iv. 91. 
 
 ■ and others, Catalogue of the 
 
 Libraries of, 1768, i. 431. 
 
 Griffiths, A. F., Bibliotheca Anglo- 
 Poetica, 1815, ii. 69. 
 
 
48 
 
 Index. 
 
 Grimoald or Grimald, N., printed 
 Truth in Toltel’s Miscellany (under 
 ‘ Uncertain Authors ’), 1557, i. 94, 
 introd. xci. 
 
 Troilus ex Chaucero comcedia 
 [a. 1559], i. 95. 
 
 Griselda. See Chaucer, G. [vm. Works. 
 
 — (1) 16. Clerk's T.] 
 
 Groneraan, S. A. J. de R., Diatribe in 
 J. Wicliffl vitam, 1837, v. 140 (in 
 Ch. Soc. issue), 139 (in Cambridge 
 issue). 
 
 Grose, F., The Antiquities of England 
 and Wales, 1773, i. 437. 
 
 Grosvenor, — [i.e. E. Budgell?], 
 Sompnour’s Tale modernized by, 
 1733, iv. 86 ; 1741, i. 389-90. 
 Growth, individual and national com- 
 pared, introd. cxxix, sqq. 
 
 in literature, first conceived by 
 Dry den, introd. cxxx. 
 
 Gualtherus and Griselda (moderniza- 
 tion of Clerk's T.), 1794, iv. 100. 
 Guest, E., A History of English 
 Rhythms, 1838, C.’s verse rhythmi- 
 cal, his prose in * cadence,’ ii. 
 222-4. 
 
 Philological Papers, 1842-6, ii. 
 
 244. 
 
 Guilevile, G. de. See De Guilevile. 
 Guillon, F., Etude sur Guillaume de 
 Lorris, 1881, v. 86. 
 
 Guilpin, E., Skialetheia, 1598, i. 
 157. 
 
 Gulliver, Critical remarks on [by J. 
 Arbuthnot?], 1735, iv. 86-7. 
 
 H., D., letter, in Gent’s Mag., doubt- 
 ing C.’s meeting with Petrarch, 
 1803, ii. 9. 
 
 H., J., Esq. See Harris, J. 
 
 H., M., prefatory verse in G. Fenton’s 
 Certain Tragical Discourses, 1567, 
 i. 100. 
 
 H., N., verses on Dryden in Gallus, 
 1700, i. 288. 
 
 H., R., On the Connexion between the 
 Character and Poetry of Nations (in 
 London Mag.), 1820, ii. 122-3. 
 
 See Hayman, R. 
 
 Habington, W., Cdstara, ed. 2, 1635, 
 i. 216. 
 
 Haeckel, W., Das Sprichwort bei 
 Chaucer', 1890, v. 151. 
 
 Hagedorn, H., Ueber die Sprache 
 einiger nor Richer Chaucer -scliuler, 
 1892, v. 152. 
 
 Hailes, D., Lord. See Dalrymple, 
 SirD. J * 
 
 Hakluyt, R., The Principal Naviga- 
 tions of the English Nation, 1598 
 i. 157. 
 
 Hales, J. W., Chaucer and Shake- 
 speare, 1873, iii. 115-16. 
 
 Hall, A., A Letter touching a guarrd. 
 [1576], i. 112. 
 
 Hall, H., To the Memory of John 
 Dryden , Esq., in Luctus Britannici, 
 1700, i. 286-7. 
 
 Hall, J., Bishop, A Modest Confuta- 
 tion of Animadversions, etc. [by 
 J. H. ?], 1642, i. 222. 
 
 Virgidemiarum the three last 
 
 Books, 1598, i. 158. 
 
 Hall, R., buried near C. (W. Vallans, 
 1615), i. 190-1. 
 
 Hallam, A. H., Introduction to the 
 Literature of Europe, 1837, ii. 212; 
 reviewed, ii. 219-20. 
 
 ' Oration on the Influence of 
 Italian, 1831, ii. 181. 
 
 View of the State of Europe dur- 
 ing the Middle Ages, 1818, ii. 97. 
 Hallberg, E., Histoire des Litteratures 
 etrangeres, 1880, v. 86; reviewed by 
 J. J. Jusserand, 1881, v. 87. 
 Halliwell, afterwards Halliwell- 
 Phillips, J. O., A Dictionary of 
 Archaic and Provincial Words, 
 1847, ii. 274. 
 
 ■ Ludus Coventries, ed. by, 1841, 
 
 ii. 234. 
 
 The Volvelle, and on Chaucer’s 
 Treatise of the Astrolabe, 1840, ii. 
 227. 
 
 Hamilton, W., The Death of Arcite 
 (design), 1790, iv. 98. 
 
 Hampel, E., Die Silbenmessung in 
 Chaucers funftaktigem Verse , 1898, 
 v. 152. 
 
 Hamper, W., letter in Gent’s. Mag., 
 June 1809, ii. 47. 
 
 Hancocke, G., verses in J. Lane’s 
 Spenser’s Squire’s Tale, 1615, i. 190. 
 Hanmer, Sir J., Sonnets, 1840, ii. 227. 
 Hanmer, M., his transl. of Eusebius, 
 Ecclesiastical Histories, etc., 1576, 
 i. 112-3. 
 
 Harbert, W., To the Maiesty of King 
 James , 1604, i. 174. 
 
 Hardinge, G., or Harding, N., en- 
 couraged Morell (J. Ames, 1741), i. 
 389. 
 
 Hare, J. C. arid A. W., Guesses at 
 Truth, 1847, ii. 274, 278. 
 
 Harington, James, introduction to A. 
 Wood’s Athence Oxonienses (vol. ii), 
 1691, i. 263-4. 
 
Index. 
 
 40 
 
 Ifcirington, Sir John, An Apology of 
 Poetry, 1591, i. 134. 
 
 - — ■ — Epigrams, 1598, iv. 48. 
 
 ■ Ulysses upon Ajax, 1596, i. 144. 
 
 Harleian MSS., Catalogue of, by T. 
 
 Astle, 1759, i. 416; 1808-12, ii. 
 41-2; verses in, i. 246. 
 
 Harley, R., Earl of Oxford, buys a 
 picture of C., [c. 1726], i. 368. 
 Harris, J., A Fragment of Chaucer 
 (imitation), in Dodsley [a. 1758], i. 
 412. 
 
 - — — Philological Inquiries, 1781, iv. 
 97. 
 
 Harrison, W., Woodstock Park, 1706, 
 i. 293. 
 
 Harsnet, S., Declaration of egregious 
 Popish Impostors, 1603, i. 173; iv. 
 55. 
 
 Harte, W., Notes upon the Sixth 
 Thebaid of Statius, in Poems, 1727, 
 iv. 84; modernized Truth, ib. 
 
 To a Young Lady, in Poems, 
 
 1727, i. 369. 
 
 Hartshorne, C. H., The Book Rarities 
 in the University of Cambridge, 
 1829, ii. 172. 
 
 Harvey, G., Four Letters and certain 
 Sonnets touching R. Greene, 1592, 
 
 i. 134-5. 
 
 * Gralulationum Valdinensium libri 
 
 quatuor, 1578, i. 115. 
 
 Pierce's Supererogation, 1593, i. 
 
 139. 
 
 The Scholar’s Love, 1573, i. 109. 
 
 MS. notes, in Blagrave’s Math - 
 
 matical Jewel [1585-90?], iv. 44; 
 in C.’s Works, 1598, iv. 48-52; 
 Dionysius Alexandrinus, Survey of 
 the World, transl. Twine, 1572 [c. 
 1585], i. 127-8 ; in Quintilian [1567- 
 79?], iv. 35. 
 
 ■ verses on Gascoigne in his 
 
 Letter Book, 1577, i. 114. 
 Harvey-Jellie, W., Les Sources du 
 Theatre anglais a I’dpoque de la 
 Restauration, 1906, v. 106. 
 Haslewood, J., Collections for the Lives 
 of the English Poets [c. 1833], ii. 
 189-90. 
 
 notes and cuttings [c. 1833], ii. 
 
 187-9. 
 
 — notes on Langley’s Master of the 
 Game, 1827, ii. 165. 
 
 The Payment of Money at 
 
 Chaucer’s Tomb (in Gent.’s Mag.), 
 1823, ii. 143. 
 
 ed. Juliana Berners’ Hawking 
 
 and Hunting, 1810, ii. 49. 
 
 Hastings, Anne, or Margaret, Countess 
 of Pembroke, tells C. that his con- 
 versation is less witty than his 
 tales, quoted by I. D’lsraeli, 1807, 
 ii. 30. 
 
 Hatton, E., A New View of London, 
 1708, i. 296. 
 
 Haweis, Mary E., Chaucer for Children, 
 1877 [1876], iii. 121. 
 
 Hawes, S., The Example of Virtue 
 [1503-4], i. 66-7. 
 
 The Historic of Graunde Amour 
 
 and la bell Pucel, 1506, i. 67-8. 
 
 praise of C. for his morality, 
 
 mention of C’s works, Lydgate 
 his master, i. 67. « 
 
 Hawkins, Sir J., A General History 
 of Music, 1776, i. 446-7. 
 
 Haworth, — , Dr., MS. notes in C.T. , 
 1798, i. 500. 
 
 Haxby, S., verses, in C. FitzGeoffrey’s 
 Blessed Birthday, 1636, i. 216. 
 
 Hayley, W., An Essay on Epic Poetry, 
 1782, i. 466; explained by Anna 
 Seward, 1786, i. 485-6. 
 
 Hayman, R., Quodlibets, 1628, i. 201. 
 
 Hazlitt, W., Characters of Shake- 
 speare’s Plays, dwells on C.’s realism 
 and limitations, 1817, ii. 87-9. 
 
 — ■ — ■ Conversations of James North- 
 cote, 1829-30, ii. 172. 
 
 Essay on Manners, prefers C. to 
 
 Dryden, 1815, ii. 70. 
 
 A Farewell to Essay Writing, 
 
 praises The Flower and the Leaf, 
 1828, ii. 169. 
 
 Lectures on the Comic Writers, 
 
 1818, ii. 106. 
 
 — — • Lectures, chiefly on the Dramatic 
 Literature of the Age of Elizabeth, 
 1820, ii. 123. 
 
 — — Lectures on the English Poets, 
 dwells on C.’s realism, pathos and 
 sublimity, 1818, ii. 98-106; re- 
 viewed by W. Gifford, 1818, ii. 
 96-7; his reply to, 1819, ii. 115-16. 
 
 My First Acquaintance with 
 
 Poets (Coleridge ‘ went sounding on 
 his way ’), 1823, ii. 143. 
 
 Of Persons one would wish to 
 
 have seen, 1826, ii. 161-2. 
 
 On the Ideal, 1815, ii. 70. 
 
 On Pedantry, 1816, ii. 81. 
 
 On Posthumous Fame, 1814, ii. 
 
 63. 
 
 The Plain Speaker, 1820-1, ii. 
 
 130-1. 
 
 ■ — • — Queries relating to [Malthus’s] 
 Essay on Population, 1815, ii. 70. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 Index . 
 
 Pope, Lord Byron and Mr. 
 
 Bowles (C.’s deeper pathos), 1821, 
 ii. 132-3. 
 
 Select British Poets, 1824, ii. 150. 
 
 Sketches of the Principal Picture 
 
 Galleries in England, 1824, ii. 151. 
 
 * The Spirit of the Age, 1825, ii. 
 
 156-7 ; note on, by Wordsworth, 
 asserting his love of Shakespeare, 
 1836, ii. 210. 
 
 A View of the English Staqe, 
 
 1818, ii. 106. 
 
 Why the Arts are not Pro- 
 gressive, 1814, ii. 63. 
 
 reviews by, of Sismondi’s Liter- 
 ature of the South, 1815, ii. 71; 
 Leigh Hunt's Rimini, 1816, ii. 82; 
 Walpole’s Letters, 1818, ii. 106. 
 
 Hazlitt, W. C., Handbook to the Popular 
 Literature, 1867, iii. 90. 
 
 Remains of the Early Popular 
 
 Poetry of England, 1866, iii. 83. 
 
 his estimate of The Miller of 
 
 Abingdon, ib. 
 
 Headley, H., Select Beauties of Ancient 
 English Poetry, omitting C. as an 
 ‘older classic,’ 1787, i. 486. 
 
 Heale, W., An Apology for Women, 
 1609, i. 183-4. 
 
 Hearne, T., Diary and letters to and 
 from, 1705, 1708-16, i. 292-344, 
 passim. 
 
 ■ — — • glossary to Robert of Gloucester, 
 1724, i. 367. 
 
 • letter to R. Rawlinson, criticizing 
 
 Urry, 13 March, 1734-5, i. 376. 
 
 Benedictus Abbas, de vita et 
 
 Gestis Henrici II, etc., edited by, 
 1735, i. 376-7. 
 
 — - — his researches in C.’s biography, 
 introd. cix. 
 
 Heath, B., A Revisal of Shakespear’s 
 Text, 1765, i. 425. 
 
 Heath, Sir H. F., one of the editors of 
 C.’s Works (Globe ed.), 1898, iii. 150. 
 
 Heber, R., Bibliotheca Heberiana (sale 
 catalogue), 1834-6, ii. 193. 
 
 Hector, the Life and Death of [by T. 
 Heywood], 1614, i. 189. 
 
 Hennet, A. J., Poetique Anglaise, 1806, 
 v. 38-9. 
 
 Henry IV. and V., C. personally known 
 and valued by, according to Leland 
 [c. 1545], iv. 18, introd. cv. 
 
 Henry VIII., patron of W. Thynne’s 
 edn. of Works , 1532 (F. Thynne, 
 1598), i. 152. 
 
 Henry, the Minstrel, compared with 
 C. by D. Irving, 1804, ii. 15. 
 
 Henry, R., The History of Great 
 Britain, 1781-5; i. 459-63; iv. 
 97. 
 
 Henryson, R., Poems and Fables, ed. 
 by D. Laing, 1865, iii. 78. 
 
 Testament of Cresseid, 1475, 
 
 i. 56; first pr. as C.’s by W. 
 Thynne, 1532, i. 79; allusions to, 
 mixed with Chaucer’s Troilus, 1567- 
 1612, iv. 35-62, passim. ; attrib. to 
 Chaucer, by G. Hickes, 1703, i. 291 ; 
 not distinguished from C.’s genuine 
 works by Speght (F. Thynne, 1598), 
 i. 154-5; retold and completed (by 
 William Fowler?) in The Last 
 Epistle of Cresseid, c. 1604, iv. 56; 
 note on, by Prof. H. E. Rollins, iv. 
 1-3 ; see also Chaucer, G. [vm. 
 Works. — (g.) 28. Troilus.] 
 
 Hensiowe, P., Diary, mentioning a 
 play ‘ Palamon and Arsett,’ 1594, 
 i. 141. 
 
 Henssler, — , Die Stdlung von Siib- 
 jekt und Pradikat in der Erzahlung 
 von Mdibeus und in der des Pfarrers, 
 1888, v. 151. 
 
 Herbert, Anne, Countess of Pembroke, 
 letter to the Countess Dowager of 
 Kent, 10 Jan. 1649, iv. 71. 
 
 Herbert, T., 8th Earl of Pembroke, 
 MS. notes in The Book of Miscd- 
 lanies [a. 1732], i. 374. 
 
 Herbert, W., Typographical An- 
 tiquities (enlarged from Ames, q.v.), 
 1785-90, i. 477-8, 483, 491. 
 
 Herder, J. G. von, Briefe zu Bef or de- 
 rung der Humanitdt, 1796, v. 137-8. 
 
 Von der Aehnlichkeit der mittlern 
 
 englischen und deutschen Dicht- 
 kunst, 1777, v.133h1. 
 
 Heroic poetry, C.’s language not capable 
 of (T. Rymer, 1674), i. 249. 
 
 Heron, R., ps. See Pinkerton, J. 
 
 Herrick, R., etc., Select Poems from, 
 reviewed, 1810, ii. 50. 
 
 Hertzberg, W., Chaucers Leben und 
 schriftstdlerischer Charakter, v. 143- 
 4. 
 
 transl. Wife of Bath's Tale, 1856, 
 
 v. 143. 
 
 transl. C.T., 1866, v. 145-6. 
 
 Nachlese zu Chaucer, 1867, v. 
 
 146-7. 
 
 discovers The Testament of Love 
 
 to be spurious, 1866, v. 146, introd. 
 cxiii. ; but see Collier, J. P. 
 
 Hexameters, said by J. P. Collier to be 
 used in C.’s Boethius, iii. 75. 
 
 Heylin, P., 3Iicrocosmus, 1621, i. 194. 
 
Index. 
 
 51 
 
 Heywood, J., Ballad on the marriage 
 of Queen Mary, 1554, reminiscent 
 of Pari. Fowls , i. 81. 
 
 Play between the Pardoner and 
 
 the Friar, 1533, and The Four 
 P.’s [1530?], reminiscent of C.'s 
 Pardoner, i. 80-81 ; Jusserand, 1878, 
 v. 85; introd. xvii. 
 
 Heywood, T., The Life and Death of 
 Hector , 1614, i. 189. 
 
 Troia Britanica, 1609, iv. 61. 
 
 • and Rowley, W., Fortune by 
 
 Land and Sea [1607-9], i. 180. 
 
 Hickes, G., letter to T. Hearne, 22 
 March, 1714/15, i. 332. 
 
 Linguarum vett. Septentrionalium 
 
 Thesaurus, 1703-5, i. 291. 
 
 Hickford, R., Observations on the 
 Poems attributed to Rowley, 1782, 
 
 i. 466. 
 
 Higgons, B., verses on Dryden in 
 Gallus, 1700, i. 288. 
 
 Hindmarsh, J., printer and editor of 
 C.’s Works, 1687, i. 259-60. 
 
 Hints for a New Book of Literary 
 Parallels (in Fraser’s Mag.), 1842, 
 
 ii. 246. 
 
 Hippislcy, J. H., Chapters on Early 
 English Literature, 1837, ii. 212-17 ; 
 reviewed, 1839, ii. 225-6. 
 
 Histoire litter air e de la France. See 
 Le Clerc, V. 
 
 ‘Historicus,’transl.Chaudon’s (wrongly 
 called ‘ Charon’s ’ in text) article on 
 Chaucer, 1777, i. 449. 
 
 History of Allchester, 1622, i. 198. 
 
 Hoare, Sir R. C., ed. of Giraldus Cam- 
 brensis, reviewed, 1806, ii. 29. 
 
 Hoccleve, T., De beata virgine, linked 
 to C.T. as Ploughman’ s T. [c. 1450], 
 i. 53. 
 
 Dialogus cum Amico, 1421-2, i. 
 
 33. 
 
 — — Letter of Cupid, attributed to 
 C. by Hakluyt, 1598, i. 157-8; not 
 distinguished from C.’s genuine 
 works by Speght (F. Thynne, 1598), 
 i. 154-5; modernized by G. Sewell 
 (as Chaucer’s), 1718, i. 347-8; 1720, 
 
 • i. 350-2. 
 
 Mother of God, MS. of, attr. to 
 
 C. [c. 1488], i. 64; quoted in full by 
 J. de Irlandia, 1490, i. 64 ; attributed 
 to C. by ‘ Philo-Chaucer,’ 1855, and 
 by F. J. Furnivall, 1878-80, iii. 
 26-7. 
 
 The Regiment of Princes, 1412, 
 
 containing praise and portrait of 
 C., i. 21-3. 
 
 ballades by, printed as C.’s, i, 
 
 79. 
 
 Poems, ed. 1796, i. 498. 
 
 calls Chaucer his master, i. 21; 
 
 has C.’s portrait made, i. 22-3; 
 for his portrait of C. see Chaucer, G. 
 [i. Biog. — (f.) Portraits ]; his praises 
 of C., introd. xii-xiv. 
 
 Hoepffner, E., introduction to CEuvres 
 de G. de Machaut, 1908, v. 111. 
 
 Hogarth, W., compared with C. by 
 J. Bancks, 1738, i. 383; his 
 characters resemble the Canterbury 
 Pilgrims (Lamb, 1811), ii. 54. 
 
 Holinshed, R., Chronicles of England, 
 1577, i. 114-5; iv. 40. 
 
 Holland, C.'s exile to. See Chaucer, 
 G. [i. Biog. (e.) 5.] 
 
 Holland, H., Pancharis, 1603, i. 173. 
 
 Holland, J., Of Heralds in England, 
 1601, i. 167. 
 
 Holland, Sir R., imitated C. in Book 
 of the Howlat (A. Thomson [a. 
 1803]), ii. 5-6. 
 
 Holland, S., Don Zara del Fogo — Wit 
 and Fancy in a Maze, 1656, i. 232. 
 
 Holmes, O. W., The Autocrat of the 
 Breakfast Table, 1858, iii. 43. 
 
 Homer, his diction less antiquated to 
 Sophocles than C.’s to M. Arnold, 
 1861-2, iii. 54-5; for comparisons 
 of, with C., see Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) 
 Comparisons with other writers .] 
 
 Hood, E. See Haslewood, J. 
 
 Hood, T., Mrs. Gardiner, 1843, ii. 
 247. 
 
 Up the Rhine, 1839, ii. 225. 
 
 A Widow, 1829, ii. 172. 
 
 Hook, W. F., Lives of the Archbishops 
 of Canterbury, 1865, iii. 77. 
 
 Hoole, J., Orlando Furioso, 1783, 
 i. 473. 
 
 Hoppner, J., letter to R. Cumber- 
 land, 30 May, 1807, ii. 32. 
 
 Horn exalted, The, verses by J. T. in, 
 1661, iv. 74. 
 
 Horne, R. H., ed. The Poems of 
 Geoffrey Chaucer Modernized ( Prol ., 
 Reeve’s and Franklin’s Tales and 
 introd. by Horne), 1841, ii. 234-8; 
 see also Chaucer, G. [iii. Moderniza- 
 tions.'] 
 
 comment in Letters of Elizabeth 
 
 Barrett Browning, 1844, ii. 253. 
 
 Horne-Tooke, J., ’E^ea -KTepievTa, or 
 the Diversions of Purley, 1786, i. 
 486; 2nd ed., 1798-1805, i. 501; 
 Criticisms on, by J. Bruckner 
 (‘ I Cassander '), 1790, i. 490-1. 
 
 
52 
 
 Index, 
 
 letter to J. Dunning, 1778, i. 
 
 450, 
 
 — - — annotated a copy of Chaucer 
 when in the Tower, 1794, iv. 100. 
 
 Host, the, his celebrity (T. Nashe, 
 1592), i. 136; was an M.P. (G.R.C., 
 1857), iii. 39. 
 
 Houbraken, J., his engraving of 
 Chaucer’s portrait, 1741, iv. 88. 
 
 House of Fame. See Chaucer, G. 
 [vm. Works. — (g.) 16.] 
 
 How a Lover praiseth his Lady [ c . 
 1450?], praise of C. in, i. 49. 
 
 Howard, C., 10th Duke of Norfolk, 
 Historical Anecdotes of the Howard 
 Family, 1769, i. 432. 
 
 Howard, E., Caroloiades, 1689, i. 
 261. 
 
 Howard, H., 5th Earl of Carlisle, pro- 
 logue to The Father’s Revenge, ed. 
 1800, i. 502-3. 
 
 Howard, H., Earl of Surrey, Complaint 
 of a dying lover [ n.a . 1547], iv. 19; 
 influence of Chaucer upon, ib. 
 
 Poem on the Death of Sir T. 
 
 Wyatt (whom he puts above C.) 
 [c. 1542], i. 84; praised by Leland, 
 1542, iv. 13. 
 
 Works, ed. by G. F. Nott, 
 
 1815-16, ii. 73-80. 
 
 classed with C. and Gower by 
 
 T. Churchyard, 1595, i. 141. 
 
 Howell, T., The Arbour of Amity, 
 1568, iv. 36; verses by J. Keeper 
 in, i. 102. 
 
 ‘ Chaucer’s peer ’ ( J. Keeper, 
 
 1568), i. 102. 
 
 his Devices, 1581, i. 120. 
 
 New Sonnets [1567-8?], i. 100; 
 
 verses by J. Keeper in, i. 101. 
 
 Howell, W., Medulla Histories Angli- 
 cance [1679 ?], i. 254. 
 
 Howlat, The, criticism on, by A. 
 Thomson \a. 1803], ii. 5-6. 
 
 Huchon, R., transl. Clerk's T. into 
 French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Huddesford, G., Salmagundi, 1791, iv. 
 99. 
 
 Hughes, Jabez, Miscellanies [ c . 1707], 
 i. 294. 
 
 Hughes, John, ed. Works of Spenser, 
 1715, i. 340-41. 
 
 Humour, growth of the sense of, and 
 changes in the meaning of the word, 
 introd. cxxxiv-ix. 
 
 ■ attributed to C. See Chaucer, 
 
 G. [ii. (f). 3. Humour.'] 
 
 Humphrey, L., Iesuitismi pars prima, 
 1582, i. 122. 
 
 Hunt, J. H. Leigh. 
 
 [Books containing substantial ex- L 
 tracts and criticism :] 
 
 Characteristic Specimens of the 
 
 English Poets, 1835, ii. 195-6. 
 
 Imagination and Fancy, 1844, 
 
 ii. 253-5. 
 
 Wit and Humour, 1846, ii. 269- 
 
 71 ; review of, in the Extractor, 
 transl. by E. F[orgues?], 1850, v. 
 61, 124. 
 
 English Poetry versus Cardinal 
 
 Wiseman (defends C.'s morality), 
 1859, iii. 49. 
 
 [Books and articles containing illus- 
 trative references to, and quotations 
 from C. :] 
 
 La Bdle Dame sans Merci, 1820, 
 
 Chartier’s title gave Keats the idea 
 of his poem, ii. 125-6. 
 
 Blue Stocking Revels, 1837, ii. 
 
 217-8. 
 
 The Book of Beginnings, 1823, 
 
 ii. 144-5. 
 
 The Descent of Liberty, 1815, ii. 
 
 71. 
 
 Epistles, in Foliage, 1816 (C.’s 
 
 debt to Italy), ii. 83. 
 
 An Essay on the Sonnet [c. 1857- 
 
 8], iii. 22 (entered as [c. 1855]); iv. 
 106. 
 
 Essay on Washerwomen, 1814, 
 
 ii. 63. 
 
 Fairies, 1834, ii. 191-2. 
 
 The Feast of the Poets, 1812, 
 
 ii. 59; 1814, ii. 64; 1815, ii. 
 
 71. 
 
 A Few Thoughts on Sleep, 1820, 
 
 ii. 123-4. 
 
 Fine Days in January and 
 
 February, 1828, ii. 169. 
 
 Is it justifiable to reprint the 
 
 Pruriencies of our Old Poets ? 1811, 
 ii. 54. 
 
 A Jar of Honey from Mount 
 
 Hybla, 1844, ii. 253. 
 
 Lord Byron and some of his Con- 
 temporaries, 1828, ii. 169. 
 
 Mayday, 1820, ii. 124-5. 
 
 My Books, 1823, ii. 145-6; 
 
 1825, ii. 157. 
 
 ■ Pleasant Recollections of the 
 
 Metropolis, 1819, ii. 116. 
 
 preface to his Poetical Works, 
 
 defends C.’s verse, 1832, ii. 185. 
 
 essays in The Round Table, 
 
 1817, ii. 89. 
 
 Seamen on Shore, 1820, ii. 124. 
 
 Sonnet, 1849, ii. 279. 
 
Index , 
 
 53 
 
 — — Specimens of a Dictionary of Love I 
 and Beauty, 1826, ii. 162. 
 
 — . — ■ Spring and Daisies , 1820, ii. 124. 
 
 •' — . Stories from the Italian Poet3 
 
 (Ugolino), 1846, ii. 268—9. 
 
 V- The Story of Rimini, 1816, ii. 
 
 82-3; reviewed by Hazlitt, ib. ; 
 praised by Jeffrey, ii. 83. 
 
 g. The Streets of the Metropolis, 
 
 1835, ii. 197. 
 
 f l ed. selection from Beaumont 
 
 and Fletcher, 1855, iii. 21. 
 
 ■ reviews Cowden Clarke’s Riches 
 
 of Chaucer, 1835, ii. 196-7. 
 [Modernizations :] 
 
 ■ Extracts from Chaucer, 1831, 
 
 ii. 181-2. 
 
 The Manciple's, Friar’s and 
 
 Squire’s Tales, by, 1841, ii. 234. 
 
 Squire’s Tale (1st version), 1823, 
 
 ii. 144; iv. 105; (2nd version), 1841, 
 repr. 1855, ii. 234; iv. 105. 
 
 prose modernization of Par- 
 doner’s Tale ( Death and the 
 Drunkards), 1820, ii. 126. 
 
 verse mocfcrnization of the 
 
 same ( Death and the Ruffians), 1845, 
 
 ii. 260; revised, with pref., 1855, 
 
 iii. 22-3. 
 
 modernizations by, printed as 
 
 T. Powell’s, 1841-5, ii. 239-40. 
 [General :] 
 
 did not read C. till grown-up, 
 
 ii, 169; his love of C., introd. lxi, 
 lxv-vii; stimulated Keats’s study 
 of him, introd. lxvi-vii; attacked 
 by J. G. Lockhart, 1817, ii. 93; 
 imitates C. in The Tapiser’s Tale, 
 1858, iii. 43. 
 
 Hunter, J., The Seal of Chaucer (in 
 Archceologia), 1850, ii. 284. 
 
 Hunter, W., An Anglo-Saxon Gram- 
 mar, 1832, ii. 185. 
 
 Hurd, R., Bishop, Letters on Chivalry 
 and Romance, 1762, finds Sir 
 Thopas to be a parody of romances, 
 i. 421-2 ; enlarged ed., 1765, iv. 93-4. 
 
 letter to Joseph Warton, 15 
 
 Sept. 1769, i. 432. 
 
 Hutton, W., A Bran New Wark in a 
 true Calendar of his Thoughts, 1785, 
 i. 482-3. 
 
 Hyde, E., Earl of Clarendon, had a 
 portrait of Chaucer at Cornbury 
 (J. Evelyn, 1689), i. 261. 
 
 History of the Rebellion [a. 1674], 
 
 i. 248. 
 
 Hyde, T., Catalogues bibliothecae Bod- 
 leiance, 1674, i. 249. 
 
 Hymns and Anthems used at the 
 Unitarian Chapel, Finsbury, by 
 W. J. Fox, 1841, C.’s Truth para- 
 phrased in one of, ii. 233. 
 
 Illustrations of C.’s works. See 
 Chaucer, G. [v. Illustrations. ] 
 
 Imitations of C.’s language and style. 
 See Chaucer, G. [iv. Imitations.] 
 
 Innes, H., A Lecture on the Genius of 
 Chaucer, 1851, iii. 3. 
 
 Institution of a Gentleman, 1555, i. 94. 
 
 Irlandia, J. de, Opera Theologica, 
 followed in MS. Adv. by Mother of 
 God, 1490, i. 64. 
 
 Irving, D., The History of Scottish 
 Poetry \a. 1860], iii. 53. 
 
 Lives of the Scotish Poets , 1804, 
 
 ii. 15. 
 
 preface to Henryson’s JEsop, 
 
 1832, ii. 185. 
 
 Irving, W., Bracebridge Hall, 1822, 
 ii. 137-8. 
 
 Salmagundi, 1807, ii. 30. 
 
 The Sketch Book of Geoffrey 
 
 Crayon, 1819-20, ii. 116-17. 
 
 Isle of Ladies (“ Chaucer’s Dream ”). 
 See Chaucer, G. [vm. Works. — (1.) 9. 
 Spurious .] 
 
 Islip, A., entry in the Register of the 
 Stationer’s Company of Chaucer’s 
 Works, 1594, iv. 46-7. 
 
 Italian literature, influence of, upon 
 C. : Leland [c. 1545], iv. 15 ; Bale, 
 1557, iv. 25; Puttenham [1584-8], 
 
 i. 125 ; Dryden, 1700, i. 273- 
 4, 283-4; G. Ogle, 1739, i. 384- 
 5; Yart, 1753-6, v. 29; Gray, 
 1768, i. 431 ; J. Warton, 1782, i. 
 470; Mme. de Stael, 1800, v. 38; 
 J. C. Schwab, 1803, ib. ; Douce, 
 1807, ii. 31; P. L. Ginguene, 1811, 
 v. 39-40; J. C. Dunlop, 1814, ii. 
 61-3 ; G. F. Nott, 1815, ii. 78 ; S. 
 Turner, 1815, ii. 80 ; L. Hunt, 1816, 
 
 ii. 83; P. B. Shelley, 1821, ii. 134 ; 
 A. F. Villemain, 1827, v. 45; 
 Landor, 1829, v. 174-5; A. H. 
 Hallam, 1831, ii. 181; J. P. Collier, 
 1841, ii, 229 ; Landor, 1846 (C. first 
 united the two glorious realms of 
 Italy and England), ii. 272; H. 
 Gomont, 1847 ( Knight’s T. deserves 
 to be called an original), ii. 
 60 ; Emerson, 1848, ii. 277-8 ; 
 J.M.B., 1853, iii. 14; L. Hunt, 
 1855, iii. 22 ; H. Milman, 1855, iii. 
 24 ; A. Geffroy, 1857, v. 65 ; W. J- 
 Thoms, 1859, iii. 49 ; E. G. Sandras, 
 
54 
 
 Index . 
 
 1859, v. 69, 73; G. P. Marsh, 1862, 
 m. 64; A. Kissner, 1867, v. 147; 
 J. R, Green, 1874, iii. 118; denied 
 by W. Minto, 1874, iii. 119; G. 
 Vapereau, 1876, v. 84; A. C. Swin- 
 burne, 1880, iii. 131 ; B. H. Gaus- 
 seron, 1887, v. 94 ; W. Morris, 1887, 
 iii. 137; E. Legouis, 1908, v. 118. 
 See also Chaucer, G. [ii. (g.) Com- 
 parisons. — Boccaccio , etc.l and Tviii. 
 
 (f.) 12.] 
 
 Italy, C.’s visits to. • See Chaucer, G. 
 [I. Biog. — (e.) 3.] 
 
 Jack of Dover (T. Fuller, 1662), iv. 74. 
 Jack Upland (or Jack by Land ) [ c . 
 1540], i. 83; printed as Chaucer’s 
 in Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 
 2nd edn., 1570, i. 105; added in 
 Speght’s 2nd edn., 1602, i. 168. 
 Jackson, A., Matrimonial Scenes 
 (modernizations from C.T. ), 1750 
 i. 401. 
 
 Jackson, J., A Treatise on Wood- 
 Engraving, reviewed, 1839, ii. 226. 
 Jackson, T., Dean, Dominus Veniet 
 \n.a. 1640], iv. 70. 
 
 Jacob, G., An Historical Account of 
 English Poets, 1720, i. 349-50. 
 
 J ahrbuch fur romanische und englische 
 Sprache und Litteratur, articles in, 
 1859, etc., v. 144. 
 
 James I., King of Scotland, The 
 King’s Quair, 1423 (C. his master), 
 i. 34. ' 
 
 Poetical Remains, ed. by W 
 
 Tytler, 1783, i. 475. 
 
 J. J. Jusserand upon, 1897, v. 
 
 106; poem on by Landor, 1850, ii. 
 284; hjs relation to C., D. Irving, 
 1804, ii. 115; introd. xvi. See also 
 Scottish poets. 
 
 James VI., King of Scotland, Rewlis 
 and Cautelis in Scottis Poesie, 1584, 
 i. 124. 
 
 James, F., verses in imitation of 
 Chaucer, in Kynaston’s Troilus, 
 1635, i. 212; in Achilles Tatius, 
 The Loves of Clitophon and Leucippe, 
 1638, i. 218. 
 
 James, T., Catalogus universalis 
 librorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, 
 1605, i. 175; 1620, i. 193. 
 
 Jameson, Anna, The Loves of the 
 Poets (C. and Philippa), 1829, ii. 172. 
 Jamieson, J., An Etymological Dic- 
 tionary of the Scottish Language, 
 1808, ii. 37; reviewed, 1809, ii. 
 48; 1811 (Sherwen), ii. 55. 
 
 January and May. See Chaucer, G 
 [vm. Works. — (f.) 24. Merchant’s 
 Tale.'] 
 
 Jaques, ps., What was! (in Satires) 
 1798, iv. 101. h 
 
 Jeffereys, J., drawings of the Canter- 
 bury Pilgrims [c. 1780?], i. 458-9. 
 Jeffes, A., entry in the Register of 
 the Stationers’ Company of 
 Chaucer’s works, 1592, iv. 46. 
 
 Jeffrey, F., Lord, letter to Moore, 
 praising Leigh Hunt’s Rimini, 1816, 
 ii. 83. 
 
 reviews Scott’s Swift, 1816, ii. 
 
 83 ; Campbell’s Specimens of the 
 British Poets, 1819, ii. 117; Pepys's 
 Diary, 1825, ii. 157. 
 
 Johnes, T., transl. Froissart, 1803-10. 
 ii. 9. 
 
 Johnson, M., An Introduction to the 
 Minute Books of the Spalding 
 Society [1712?], i. 322. 
 
 Johnson, R., A New Sonnet of a 
 Knight and a Fair Virgin (retelling 
 Wife of Bath’s T.), 1612, iv. 62. 
 
 The Seven Chartupions, preface to, 
 
 by W. W. [1686 ?]JTv. 78. 
 
 Johnson, S., Dr., advertisement of 
 T. Cibber’s Lives of the Poets (by ; 
 Johnson?), i. 407; iii. 10; iv. 91. 
 conversation with Allan Ram- 
 say, 1778, i. 450. 
 
 ■ Dictionary, 1755, his criticism 
 
 of C. in, i. 410-11; ed. by H. J. 
 Todd, 1818, ii. 109; G. Mason's ; 
 suppl. to, 1800, i. 504. 
 
 Idler, no. 63, 1759, i. 416. 
 
 ■ The Life of Chaucer, in Smart’s 
 
 Universal Visiter, said not to be 
 Johnson’s, by Boswell, 1791, i. 492. 
 
 Lives of the English Poets, 1779- : 
 
 81, i. 456-7 ; to have included C. 
 (E. Dilly, 1777), i. 448; remarks 
 on, by B. W. [Cent’s Mag.), 1781, J 
 iv. 96; his omission of C., etc., 
 from, criticised by Wordsworth, ' 
 1815, ii. 81. 
 
 ■ projects an ed. of C. [c. 1750?], 
 
 i. 401. J 
 
 ■ his ed. of Shakespeare, 1765, i. 
 
 426. 
 
 his general attitude to C. introd. 
 
 xlv. 
 
 Johnston, A., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 213. 
 
 Johnstone, J., Specimens of the Poets 
 of Great Britain, 1828, ii. 169-70. 
 
 Specimens of Sacred and Serious 
 
 Poetry, 1827, ii. 165. 
 
Index . 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 Jones, B., Hermcelogium, 1659, i. 237. 
 
 Jones, Inigo, designed scenery for Ben 
 Jonson’s Masque of Queens [1609], 
 from House of Fame, i. 184. 
 
 Jonson, Ben, The Alchymist, drawn 
 from Canon's Yeoman’s Tale and 
 Erasmus’s Alcumnistica (J. Wilson, 
 1662), i. 240. 
 
 Bartholomew Fair, 1614, i. 189. 
 
 The English Grammar [a. 1637], 
 
 i. 217-8 ; iv. 70. 
 
 Epitaph on Shakespeare, 1623, 
 
 i. 198. 
 
 The Magnetic Lady [acted 1632], 
 
 i. 204. 
 
 Masques at Court, 1615, i. 190. 
 
 The Masque of Queens [1609], 
 
 scenery for, designed from House 
 of Fame by Inigo Jones, i. 184. 
 
 The New Inn [played 1629], i. 
 
 202 . 
 
 — — ■ The Sad Shepherd, 1641, i. 220 ; 
 ed. by F. G. Waldron, 1783, i. 476. 
 
 — The Staple of News [1625?], 
 suggested by House of Fame, i. 199. 
 
 — — Timber, or Discoveries [1620- 
 35?], i. 193. 
 
 condemns Chaucerisms [1620— 
 
 35?], i. 193. 
 
 Jordan, T., The Walks of Islington 
 and Hogsdon, invokes ‘ the wanton 
 memory of C.,’ 1657, iv. 72. 
 
 Journal des Sgavans, 1706, v. 20. 
 
 Journal Stranger, 1755, v. 32-4. 
 
 Journal Literaire, 1715-17, v. 21. 
 
 Jugglers, tricks like those mentioned 
 by C. recorded by Aubrey [a 1697], 
 i. 268-9; C. familiar with (I. 
 D’Israeli, 1834), ii. 191. See also 
 Sports. 
 
 Junius, F., the Elder, his annotations 
 in a copy of C.’s Works, 1598, i. 
 253; his MS. Dictionarium Veteris 
 Linguoe Anglicance [a. 1677], ib. 
 
 letter to Dugdale, 1668, iv. 
 
 75-6. 
 
 Junius, F., the Younger, Etymo- 
 logicum Anglicanum, 1743, i. 390. 
 
 Jusserand, J. J., L’Angleterre au 
 temps des invasions (in Rev. des 
 Deux Mondes), 1892, v. 96. 
 
 L’lpopee Mystique de William 
 
 Langland (Langland supplements 
 C.), 1893, v. 96-7. 
 
 Etudes anglaises, 1893, v. 97. 
 
 Histoire abrdgee de la literature 
 
 anglaise, 1896, v. 104-6. 
 
 Histoire litteraire du peuple 
 
 anglais, 1894, v. 13, 97-100. 
 
 Jacques Ier d’ficosse, 1897, v. 
 
 106. 
 
 Le Theatre en Angleterre on C.’s 
 
 humour, his figures dramatised by 
 Hey wood, 1878, v. 85. 
 
 La Vie Nomade et les routes 
 
 d’ Angleterre au XlVe silcle, 1884, 
 v. 91. 
 
 — — reviews A. W. Ward's Chaucer, 
 1880, v. 86; E. Hallberg’s Liter- 
 ature anglaise et slave, 1881, v. 
 87. 
 
 Kaluza, M., Chaucer und der Rosen- 
 roman, 1893, v. 152. 
 
 Kannegiesser, C. L., transl. some of 
 the Canterbury Tales, 1827, v. 140 
 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 139 (in Cam- 
 bridge issue). 
 
 Keats, J., Endymion, praise of C. and 
 ref. to Troilus in, 1817-18, ii. 90. 
 The Eve of Saint Mark, imita- 
 tion of C. in, 1819, iv. 104, introd. 
 lxvii. 
 
 La Belle Dame sans merci, sug- 
 gested by the transl. from Chartier 
 printed in C.’s works (L. Hunt, 
 1820), ii. 125-6. 
 
 Lamia, reviewed by Lamb, 1820, 
 
 ii. 127. 
 
 Robin Hood, ref. to Gamelyn in, 
 
 1818, ii. 107. 
 
 Sleep and Poetry, headed by 
 
 motto fropi the Flower and the Leaf, 
 
 1817, ii. 90. 
 
 Sonnet on the Flower and the 
 
 Leaf, 1817, ii. 89-90. 
 
 letter to J. H. Reynolds, 3 May, 
 
 1818, ii. 107; to Messrs. Taylor 
 and Hessey, 16 May, 1817, ii. 90; 
 various, 1819, ii. 117-8. 
 
 verses in letter to Thomas 
 
 Keats, 17 July, 1818, ii. 107. 
 
 compared with C. by Lamb, 
 
 1820, ii. 127 ; by Landor, 1846, ii. 
 272, and 1847, ii. 278. 
 
 his study of C., stimulated by 
 
 Leigh Hunt, introd. lxvi-vii. 
 
 Keble, J., reviews J. Conder’s Star 
 in the East, 1825, iv. 105. 
 
 Keepe, H., Monumenta Westmonas- 
 teriensia, 1681—2, i. 255—6 ; iv. 
 77. 
 
 Keeper, J., verses in T. Howell’s New 
 Sonnets and Arbour of Amity, 
 1567-8, i. 101-2. 
 
 Keightley, T., his theory that C.'s 
 prose is blank verse, N. & Q., I860, 
 I 1862, iii. 54, 65. 
 
56 
 
 Index . 
 
 Ken, T., Bishop, the Good Parson 
 drawn from (Unknown, pref. to 
 Expostulatoria, 1711), i. 319. 
 
 Kennet, W., Parochial Antiquities. 
 
 1695, quoted, 1823, ii. 147. 
 
 Kent, Elizabeth, Flora Domestica (C. 
 
 and the daisy), 1823, ii. 146. 
 
 Kent, W. C. M., Chaucer at Woodstock 
 (poem), 1862, iii. 63. 
 
 Ker, W. P ., Of Chaucers Rosemounde, 
 Balade to ye Makeres, 1891, iii. 140. 
 
 ■ reviews Skeat’s ed. of Works. 
 
 1895, iii. 148-50. 
 
 Kervyn de Lettenhove, J. M. B. C., 
 
 Baron, Froissart, 1857, v. 125. 
 
 King, W., Adversaria [a. 1712], wishes 
 English poets translated into Latin, 
 i. 322; introd. xxxiv. 
 
 The Art of Love [1709], i. 310. 
 
 Bibliotheca , a poem, 1712, iv 
 
 82. 
 
 Kingsley, C., Novels and Poems , re- 
 viewed, 1855, iii. 28. 
 
 Two Years Ago, 1857, iii. 38. 
 
 Kingsley, G. H., ed. Thynne’s 
 Animadversions, 1865, iii. 77-8. 
 King’s Library, British Museum (art. 
 
 in Gent's Mag.), 1834, ii. 193. 
 
 King’s Lynn, C. a native of (Adam 
 [1676?]), i. 252; (T. Toll, 1650), iv. 
 72. 
 
 Nicholas of. See Lynn. 
 
 Kinsayder, W. See Marston, J. 
 
 Kippis, A., supplementary article on 
 C. in Biographia Britannica, 1784, 
 i. 476. 
 
 Kirke, E., letter to Gabriel Harvey 
 and notes in The Shepherd’s 
 Calendar, 1579, i. 117. 
 
 Kissner, A., Chaucer in seinen Bezieh- 
 ungen zur italienischen Literatur . 
 1867, v. 147. 
 
 Kittredge, G. L., The Authorship of 
 the English Bomaunt of the Rose 
 
 1892, iii. 144. 
 
 ■ Observations on the Language of 
 
 Chaucer’s Troilus, 1894, iii. 148. 
 Klaeber, F., Das Bild bei Chaucer. 
 
 1893, v. 152. 
 
 Knight, the, character of, quoted by 
 Hakluyt, 1598, i. 157. 
 
 Knight’s Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works . — (f.) 20.] 
 
 Knight, C., Half Hours with the Best 
 Authors, 1847-8, ii. 275. 
 
 The Popular History of England, 
 
 1856, iii. 30. 
 
 ■ William Caxion, 1844, ii. 256. 
 
 Knighthood, C.'s, origin of the in- 
 
 vention, introd. cviii. See Chaucer, 
 G. [I. Biog. (e.) 5.] 
 
 Knox, V., On the Old English Poets 
 m Essays, 2nd ed., 1779, i. 457-8 
 Koch, J ., The Chronology of Chaucer’s 
 Writings, 1890, iii. 139. 
 
 Ein Beitrag zur kritik Chaucers, 
 
 v. 149. 
 
 ■ — article on The Parliament of 
 
 Fowls, in Archiv fur das Studium 
 der neueren Sprachen, v. 142. 
 
 — - ed. Some of Chaucer’s Minor 
 Poems, 1883, iii. 135. 
 
 - transl. select minor poems of C. 
 1880, v. 150. 
 
 Koch, M., Das Quellenverhdltniss von 
 Wielands Oberon (1780), 1880, v. 134. 
 Keep pel, E., article on C.’s sources in 
 Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren 
 Sprachen, v. 142. 
 
 Kolbing, E., articles in Englische 
 Studien, 1877, etc., ,v. 148. 
 
 Konig, G. M., Bibliotheca, 1678, v. 
 
 Korting, G., Grundriss der Geschichte 
 der englischen Litteratur, 1887, 1893 
 1905, v. 150-1. 
 
 Koszul, — , transl. Shipman’s T. and 
 Prioress's T. into French, 1908, v. 
 
 Kunz, S., Das V erhaltnis der Hand- 
 schriften von Chaucer’s “ Legend of 
 Good Women,” 1888, v. 151. 
 Kynaston, Sir F., Amorum Troili et 
 Creseidce libri duo prior es Anglico- 
 Latini, 1635, i. 207 ; dedications, 
 etc., to, iv. 66-9; verses by various 
 authors prefixed to, i. 207-15; 
 
 F. G. Waldron’s specimen and pro- 
 jected ed. of, 1797, i. 207, 499; 
 praised by Southey, 1806, ii. 28; 
 and (anon.) in Retrospective Re- 
 view, 1825, ii. 159; its significance, 
 introd. xxxiii. 
 
 Leoline and Sydanis, 1642, i. 222. 
 
 Kynaston, S., verses in Sir F. Kynas- 
 ton’s Troilus, 1635, i. 213. 
 
 L., R., Being in Love . . . (poem in 
 The Paradise of Dainty Devices). 
 1576, iv. 39-40. 
 
 La Casa, G. de, Galateo, notes to, by 
 R. Graves, 1774, i. 438. 
 
 Lack of Steadfastness. See Chaucer, 
 
 G. [viii. Works.— (g.) 17.] 
 
 La Fontaine, J., for comparisons of, 
 with Chaucer, see Chaucer, G. 
 [n. (g.) Comparisons with other 
 writers .] 
 
Index, 
 
 57 
 
 Laing, D., ed. Select Remains of the 
 Ancient Popular Poetry of Scotland , 
 
 1822, ii. 138; the Howlat, 1823, ii. 
 146; Dunbar, 1834, ii. 192; Reliquice 
 Antiques, 1843, ii. 247-8; Henry- 
 son, 1865, iii. 78. 
 
 Laing, M., ed. Golagrus and Gawaine, 
 1827, ii. 165. 
 
 Lamb, C., A Deathbed, 1827, ii. 166. 
 
 The Genius and Character of 
 
 Hogarth, comparing his character- 
 drawing with C.’s, 1811, ii. 54. 
 
 Oxford in the Vacation, 1820, 
 
 ii. 127. 
 
 Specimens of English Dramatic 
 
 Poets, 1808, ii. 38. 
 
 review of Godwin’s Life of 
 
 Chaucer, never identified, 1803, ii. 
 11; of Keats’s Lamia (Keats’s 
 “ almost Chaucer-like painting ” 
 and sublimity), 1820, ii. 127. 
 
 letters : to Ainsworth, 9 Dec., 
 
 1823, ii. 146; to B. Barton (praising 
 Blake’s Pilgrims and Catalogue), 
 
 1 15 May, 1824, ii. 151; to S. T. 
 Coleridge, 5 Feb., 1797, i. 499; to 
 W. Godwin, on reviewing Godwin’s 
 Life of C.), 8-10 Nov., 1803, ii. 
 10-11; to B. R. Haydon, March, 
 1827, ii. 165-6; to T. Manning, 
 19 Feb., 1803, ii. 9; to Words- 
 worth, 1 Feb., 1806, ii. 27-8. 
 
 admired Blake’s Pilgrims, and 
 
 held his description “ the finest 
 criticism of Chaucer” (Robinson, 
 1810), ii. 49. 
 
 Lambarde, W., Dictionarium Anglia 
 Topographicum et Historicum [c. 
 15851, i. 126. 
 
 nute in MS. of his Saxon Dic- 
 tionary, 1570, i. 104; copied by T. 
 Hearne, 1711, i. 316. 
 
 Lancashire dialect in C. See Chaucer, 
 G. [ii. (b.) 3.] 
 
 Lancaster, John of Gaunt, Duke of. 
 See Gaunt. 
 
 Landor, W. S., Commentary on [Trot- 
 ter’s] Memoirs of Mr. Fox, prais- 
 ing C.’s strength and facility, etc., 
 1811, iv. 103-4. 
 
 Imaginary Conversations, 1826, 
 
 etc., Johnson and Tooke, ii. 162; 
 verses to Keats, ii. 170; Chaucer, 
 Boccaccio and Petrarca, ii. 172-6; 
 Southey and Porson, 2nd conv., 
 ii. 244-5; Landor, English Visiter, 
 ii. 271-3; Hare and Landor, iii. 
 12-13; Milton and Marvel [sic], iii. 
 75. 
 
 An Ode to Wordsworth, 1837, ii. 
 
 218. 
 
 The Pentameron and Pentalogia 
 
 (Petrarch and Boccaccio), 1837, ii. 
 218. 
 
 To Robert Browning (poem), 
 
 1846, ii. 273 ; mentioned by Brown- 
 ing, ii. 267. 
 
 James I of Scotland (poem), 
 
 1850, ii. 284. 
 
 On Orthography (letter to 
 
 Augustus Jessopp, pubd. in Fraser’s 
 Mag.), 1856, iii. 30. 
 
 Old-fashioned Verse, 1858, iii. 
 
 43-4. 
 
 Chaucer (MS. frag.) [c. 1861], iii. 
 
 57. 
 
 Heroic Idylls (“ To Chaucer,” 
 
 and other verses), 1863, iii. 68-9. 
 
 reviews Meineke’s Theocritus, 
 
 Bio, et Moschus, 1842, ii. 245. 
 
 letters : to R. H. Horne [n.a. 
 
 1841], refusing to contribute to 
 Chaucer Modernised, ii. 238-9 ; 
 significance of this, introd. lviii; to 
 a friend, quoted by Horne, on C., 
 Spenser and Keats [n.a. 1844], ii. 
 256; to Monckton Milnes, on C. 
 and Keats, 1848, ii. 278; to 
 Augustus Jessopp, 1856, see above : 
 On Orthography ; to A. de N. 
 Walker, on C.’s spelling, 1861, iii. 
 56. 
 
 Lane, J., The corrected history of Sir 
 Guy, Earl of Warwick, begun by 
 Lydgate, 1617, i. 192. 
 
 Spenser’s Squire’s Tale (licensed, 
 
 1614; published 1630), i. 189. 
 
 ■ Triton’s Trumpet to the Sweet 
 
 Months, 1621, i. 195. 
 
 Langbaine, G., An Account of the 
 English Dramatick Poets (Cowley, 
 Denham, Dryden), 1691, i. 262. 
 
 letter to Selden (on the latter’s 
 
 “Scotch copy” of C.), 1653, i. 
 229. 
 
 Lange, H., Die V ersicherungen bei 
 Chaucer, 1891, v. 152. 
 
 Lange, J. A. M., Untersuchungen uber 
 Chaucers Boke of the Duchesse, 1883, 
 v. 150. 
 
 Lange, T., Chaucers Einfluss auf 
 die Originaldichtung des Schotten 
 Gawain Douglas, 1872, v. 148. 
 
 Langland, W., his style equally un- 
 musical and obsolete with Chaucer’s 
 (T. Cibber, 1753), i. 406-7; the 
 first English Poet (Whitaker, 1813), 
 ii. 60-1; contrasted, as “the gaunt 
 
58 
 
 Index , 
 
 poet of the poor," with C., by 
 J. R. Green, 1874, iii. 119; supple- 
 ments C. (Jusserand, 1893), v. 96-7. 
 Langlois, E., Le Roman de la Rose, in 
 Petit de Julleville, 1896, v. 104. 
 Lanier, S., Shakspere and his Fore- 
 runners, 1879-80, prefers The Flower 
 and the Leaf to C.T., iii. 124. 
 Lansdowne, J. H. Petty, 2nd Marquis 
 of. See Petty. 
 
 La Roche, M. de, ed. Memoirs of 
 Literature,. 1722, i. 362. 
 
 Memoir es Literaires de la Grande 
 
 Bretagne, 1723, v. 21-2. 
 
 Larousse, P., arts. ‘ Chaucer,' ‘ Lyd- 
 gate,' in Grand Diet. univ. du xiz e 
 siecle, 1867, v. 80-3. 
 
 le nouveau, illustre, 1898, v. 106. 
 
 La Rue, G. de, Essais historiques sur 
 les Bardes, 1834, v. 48. 
 
 Latimer, H., Second Sermon preached 
 before the King’s Majesty (con- 
 temptuous ref. to Canterbury Tales), 
 1549, i. 89. 
 
 Latin, the desire to translate C. into, 
 introd. xxxiii-iv, shewn by Kynas- 
 ton, etc., 1635, i. 207-15 ; by Waller, 
 1668, i. 244; C. and Spenser ex- 
 ceptions to the rule that per- 
 manence can only be secured by 
 writing in (J. Hughes, 1715), i. 
 340. 
 
 Lavault, — , transl. Merchant' s T. into 
 French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Lavergne, L. G. L. G. de (‘ C. Saint- 
 Laurent '), art. ‘ Chaucer ' in Dic- 
 tionnaire encyclopedique usuel, 1843 
 (1841?), v. 54. 
 
 Lavisse, E., and Rambaud, A. N., 
 
 Histoire generale, 1894, v. 101. 
 
 Law, C.’s study of the. See Chaucer, 
 G. [n. Biog. (e.) 2.] 
 
 Lawrance, Hannah, Historical Me- 
 moirs of the Queens of England, 
 1840, ii. 227-8. 
 
 Lawson, J., Lawson’s Orchet, 1581, i. 
 120 - 1 . 
 
 Layton, R., speaks contemptuously 
 of C.T. in a letter to Thomas 
 Cromwell, 1535, i. 81. 
 
 Learning, attributed to C. See Chaucer, 
 G. [n. (f.) Learning.'] 
 
 Le Bas, C. W., The Life of Wiclif 
 (W. may have been the original of 
 the Good Parson). 1832, ii. 185. 
 
 Le Blanc, J. B., Lettres d’un Francois, 
 1745, v. 24. 
 
 Lechler, G., Johann von Wiclif, 1873, 
 v. 148. 
 
 Le Clerc, V., Histoire Litteraire de la 
 France, 1856, v. 63-5; 1862, v 
 74-6. 
 
 Lecluze, A J. de, Chaucer, Le Pelerin- 
 agede Canterbury (in Revue francaise. 
 1838), v. 10-11, 51-53. 
 
 Lecoq, J., reviews Legouis on Frol. 
 L.G.W., 1900, v. 106; Skeat’s 
 Chaucer Canon, 1900, v. 106. 
 
 Lee, Harriet and Sophia, Canterbury 
 Tales, 1797-8, i. 499. 
 
 Legend of Captain Jones, The [by D. 
 
 Lloyd], 1648, iv. 71. 
 
 Legend of Good Women. See Chaucer, 
 G. [viii. Works. — (g.) 18.] 
 
 Legh, G., The Accedens of Armory, 
 1562, i. 97. 
 
 Legouis, l^mile, Geoffroy Chaucer, 
 1910, v. 15, 121-2. 
 
 Quel fut le premier compose des 
 
 deux Prologues de la Legende des 
 Femmes exemplaires, 1900, v. 106; 
 reviewed by J. Lecoq, ib. 
 
 “ ■ Quomodo E. Spenserus versum 
 
 heroicum renovarit, 1896, v. 104. 
 
 ■ introduction to C.T. in French, 
 
 1908, v. 14, 113-9. 
 
 transl. Sir Thopas and Prol. 
 
 Melibeus, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Leicester, R. Sidney, Earl of. See 
 Sidney. 
 
 Leigh, E., general account of C. in 
 A Treatise of Religion and Learning, 
 1656, i. 232-3. 
 
 Leigh, P., imitation of C., in The 
 Lament of the Statues, 1845, ii. 260. 
 Leland, J., Commentarii de Scrip- 
 toribus Britannicis [c. 1545], first 
 life and account of C. in, iv. 13-19; 
 the source of the legendary life of 
 C., introd. civ— vi; inaccuracy of, 
 ib. cxl ; this pointed out by Tyr- 
 whitt, who therefore does not quote 
 him, ib. cx; for later biographies 
 based on his, see Chaucer, G. [i. 
 Biog. (a.) and (c.)] 
 
 De Rebus Britannicis Collectanea, 
 
 quotes Surigo’s epitaph [c. 1545], i. 
 87. 
 
 • Ncenice in Mortem Thomas Viati. 
 
 1542, iv. 13. 
 
 Lemcke, L., Kritische Anzeigen : zur 
 Literatur iiber Chaucer, 1867, v. 147. 
 Le Neve, P., letter to Sir J. Perceval, 
 1701, i. 289. 
 
 Lermont, Thomas. See Thomas, of 
 Ercildoune, the Rhymer. 
 
 Lerouge, G. L., Curiosites de Londres 
 et de l’ Angleterre, 1766, v. 34. 
 
Index. 
 
 59 
 
 Le Roux de Lincy, A. J. V., reviews 
 Gomont’s Geoffrey Chaucer, 1847, 
 v. 60. 
 
 L’Estrange, A. G. K., the latest critic 
 to treat C. as merely a coarse jester, 
 1878, introd. lx. 
 
 Letter, a, sent from a Parliament 
 Officer at Grantham to John Cleve- 
 land [1645-6], i. 224. 
 
 Letters on Chivalry and Romance. 
 See Hurd, R. 
 
 Lettres d’un Frangois. See Le Blano, 
 J. B. 
 
 Lewis, J., The History of Wicliffe (W. 
 at Oxford with C.), 1720, i. 350. 
 
 Life of Caxton, 1737, i. 380—1 ; 
 
 reviewed in The History of the 
 Works of the Learned, 1739, i. 386, 
 
 Leyden, J., Scenes of Infancy, 1803, 
 iv. 102. 
 
 ed. The Complaint of Scotland, 
 
 1801, ii. 1. 
 
 Liddell, M. H., one of the editors of 
 Works (Globe ed.), 1898, iii. 150. 
 
 Lille, J. de, Les Jardins, transl. by 
 — Powell, 1789, i. 489. 
 
 Lindner, F., Die Alliteration lei 
 Chaucer, 1875, v. 148. 
 
 Lindsay, Sir D., Complaint of a 
 Popinjay, 1530, classes Chaucer 
 with Gower and Lydgate, i. 77. 
 
 Squire Meldrum [1548?], refers 
 
 to C.’s Troilus, i. 88. 
 
 Poetical Works, ed. by G. 
 
 Chalmers, 1806, ii. 27. 
 
 Lion, a book of the, C. wrote (Lydgate, 
 1430), i. 39. 
 
 Lipscomb, W., The Canterbury Tales, 
 completed in a modem version by, 
 1795, i. 496-7 ; reviewed, ib. 
 
 his modernization of Pardoner’s 
 
 (and Miller’ si) Tale, 1792, i. 493. 
 
 collected modernizations of C. T. 
 
 without knowing Dryden’s, introd. 
 clxiii. 
 
 Literary Offerings in the Temple of 
 Fame [by G. Colman], 1753, i. 
 407. 
 
 Literary taste, fluctuations in, illus- 
 trated by the allusions, introd. 
 cxxiv, etc. 
 
 Little Johan, note on, by F. J. Furni- 
 vall ( ?), 1867, iii. 94. 
 
 Lloyd, D., The Legend of Captain 
 Jones, 1648, iv. 71. 
 
 Lloyd, R., The Progress of Envy, 1751, 
 i. 402. 
 
 Lloyd, T., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 214. 
 
 Lloyd, W. W., Critical Essay on 
 Troilus and Cressida, 1856, iii. 30-1. 
 Lockhart, J. G. (“ Z ”), On the Cockney 
 School of Poetry, 1817, ii. 93. 
 
 Lodge, E., Illustrations of British 
 History, 1791, i. 492. 
 
 Lodge, T., A Reply to S. Gosson’s 
 School of Abuse, regards C. as a 
 moral writer, 1579, i. 117; introd. 
 
 XX. 
 
 Wits Misery, 1596, iv. 47. 
 
 Lollius, Troilus said to be transl. from 
 a book Trophe in the Lombard 
 tongue by, Lydgate, 1430, i. 37 ; 
 Dryden, 1679, i, 254 ; I. D’Israeli, 
 1807, ii. 31; H. Coleridge [n. a. 
 1848], ii. 276 ; see also Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works. — (g.) 28. Troilus .] 
 Lombard tongue, Troilus translated 
 from the, see Lollius; see . also 
 Chaucer, G. [viii. Works.— (g.) 28. 
 Troilus.] 
 
 London, C. born in. See Chaucer, G. 
 [i. Biog. (e.) 1]; a citizen of (F. D. 
 Maurice, 1857), iii. 39. 
 
 Antiquities of, by J. T. Smith, 
 
 1791, i. 492. 
 
 Fortnight’s Ramble through, 
 
 1795, i. 497-8. 
 
 Spy, the [by E. Ward], 1699- 
 
 1700, iv. 82. 
 
 Longfellow, H. W., Hyperion, 1839, 
 ii. 225. 
 
 sonnet on Chaucer in The 
 
 Masque of Pandora, 1875, iii. 120. 
 
 notes to the Divine Comedy of 
 
 Dante Alighieri, 1867, iii. 90. 
 
 Outre-Mer, 1835, ii. 197. 
 
 The Poets and Poetry of Europe, 
 
 1845, ii. 260. 
 
 Lounsbury, T. R., Studies in Chaucer , 
 1891, iii. 140-4. 
 
 Love, C.’s attitude towards, not very 
 serious (E. B. Lytton, 1862), iii. 63; 
 his poetry of, condemned by Un- 
 known, 1877, iii. 122-3. 
 
 Lowell, J. R., Chaucer, 1870, iii. 
 108-11. 
 
 Conversations on some of the 
 
 Old Poets, 1845, ii. 260-2. 
 
 Leaves from my Journal in 
 
 Italy, 1854, iii. 17-18. 
 
 Lowndes, W. T., The Bibliographer’s 
 Manual, 1834, ii. 192. 
 
 Lowth, R., asks J. Warton for 
 authority for C.'s meeting with 
 Petrarch, 1759, i. 416. 
 
 Lucrece of Siena (‘ Lucres of Scene '), 
 [1549?], i. 89. 
 
60 
 
 Index . 
 
 Lucius Britannici, verses by H. Hall 
 and others in, 1700, i. 286-7. 
 Ludolf, H ., Ad Historiam Mthiopicam 
 Commentarius, 1691, v. 129. 
 Lydgate, J., Balade of deceitful women , 
 quoted as C.’s by R. Winwood, 
 1601, i. 167 by W. Cavendish, 
 Duke of Newcastle, 1645, i. 223. 
 
 The Churl and the Bird [ c . 1400], 
 
 i. 15. 
 
 • The Complaint of the Blade 
 
 Knight [1402-3], i. 15-16; attr. to 
 C. [c. 1488], i. 63; printed as The 
 Maying or Disport of Chaucer, 1508, 
 i. 70; ed. by M. Laing, 1827, ii. 
 165; modernized (as Chaucer’s) by 
 J. Dart, 1718, i. 346. 
 
 The corrected history of Sir Guy 
 
 Earl of Warwick, begun by, 1617, 
 i. 192. 
 
 Curia Sapientice [1403?], i. 16- 
 
 17. 
 
 A Disguising of the Rude Up- 
 
 landish People complaining on their 
 wives [c. 1430?], i. 35. 
 
 — Fall of Princes, 1430, i. 36-43; 
 iv. 4; stanza on C. from, quoted 
 in Wit’s Recreation, 1641, i. 219. 
 
 The Flower of Courtesy [c. 1401], 
 
 i. 15. 
 
 The History of Troy [1412-20], 
 
 i. 23-5 ; iv. 3-4 ; note on, i. 44 ; R. 
 Braham’s Epistle prefixed to, 1555, 
 i. 93 ; T. Heywood’s modernized 
 version of, 1614, i. 189. 
 
 Horse, Goose, Sheep [c. 1421-5], 
 
 i. 34. 
 
 The Life and Passion of St. Alban, 
 
 1439, i. 44. 
 
 The Life of our Lady [1409- 
 
 11?], i. 19; paraphrased [1450- 
 60 ?], i. 53. 
 
 — — • The Pilgrimage of the Life of 
 Man [1426], i. 34-5. 
 
 Poem on the truce of 1AAA \c. 
 
 1444], i. 46 ; iv. 4. 
 
 The Prohemy of a Marriage 
 
 betwixt an old man and a young 
 wife [1430], i. 36. 
 
 • Proverbs, printed by Pynson 
 
 with Troilus, etc., 1526, i. 75. 
 
 Siege of Thebes [1420-221, i. 26- 
 
 32. 
 
 * The Serpent of Division [1400], 
 
 i. 14. 
 
 The Temple of Glass [1403 ?], 
 
 i. 17-18. 
 
 This World is a thoroughfare full 
 
 of woe [1430], i. 36. 
 
 — — A Rebuke to (anon.) [c. 1440], 
 i. 45. 
 
 poems of, printed as C.’s, i. 
 
 7 8—9. 
 
 called C.’s disciple by himself, 
 
 i. 15, 19, 23, 34, 37, 39, 43; by 
 Hawes, 1506, i, 67-8; introd. xviii. ; 
 by Unknown [c. 1450], i. 53; by 
 R. Braham, 1555, i. 93; by J. 
 Caius, 1568, i. 101; by T. Caius 
 [c. 1570], i. 103. 
 
 * praised by Gray [1760-1?!. i. 
 
 420-1. J 
 
 ■ his language and verse preferred 
 
 to Chaucer’s, 1707, i. 295; 1780 i 
 459. 
 
 like C., a wonderful astronomer 
 for his time (G. Harvey) [c. 1585], 
 i. 128. 
 
 * classed or compared with C. 
 
 See Chaucer, G. [ii. (g.) Comparison 
 with other writers .] 
 
 • verses in imitation of, by 
 
 B. N. (?), 1789, i. 487-8. 
 
 his praises of C., introd. xii-xiv. 
 
 Lyly, J., Endymion, 1591, i. 134. 
 
 Euphues [1578], i. 115. 
 
 Euphues and his England, 1580, 
 
 i. 119. 
 
 • influence of Chaucer on, 1578, 
 
 iv. 41-2. 
 
 Lyndsay, Sir D. See Lindsay. 
 
 Lynn. See King’s Lynn. 
 
 Lynn, Nicholas of, C.’s mention of (R. 
 Beatniffe, 1786), i. 483; his teacher 
 in mathematics (Leland [c. 1545]), 
 iv. 13; (Pits, 1613), iv. 63. 
 
 Lytton, Edward Bulwer, Lord, The 
 Influence of Love upon Literature 
 and Real Life, 1S62, iii. 63. 
 
 Sketch of the Progress of English 
 
 Poetry, 1826, ii. 163. 
 
 M Lady. See Manners, C. R. 
 
 M., Sir J., and S., J. See Mennis, 
 Sir J. 
 
 Macaulay, T. B., Lord, History of 
 England, 1848, ii. 278-9. 
 
 Lord Bacon, 1837, ii. 218-19. 
 
 prefers Boccaccio to C. (letter 
 
 to his mother, Aug. 23, 1815), ii. 
 72. 
 
 McCormick, Sir W. S., one of the 
 editors of C.’s Works (Globe ed.). 
 1898, iii. 150. 
 
 Macfarlane, C. See Craik, G. L. 
 Machaut, G. de, his influence on C. 
 (E. G. Sandras, 1859), v. 72; (E. 
 Hoepffner, 1908), v. 111. 
 
Index . 
 
 61 
 
 Mackay, C., A Thousand and One 
 Gems of English Poetry, 1867, iii. 90. 
 Macklin, — , his English Poets, Pro- 
 posals for, 1792, iv. 99. 
 
 Madan, Julia, The Progress of Poetry, 
 1721, i. 362. „ T . _ 
 
 Madden, Sir F., The Old English 
 Versions of the Gesta Romanorum, 
 ed. by, 1838, ii. 224. 
 
 Sir Gawayne, ed. by, 1839, 
 
 ii. 225. 
 
 Maetzner, E. See Matzner. 
 
 Magaziniana (in Lond. Mag.), 1827, 
 ii. 168. 
 
 Magna Britannia, 1727, i. 369—70. 
 Mainwaring, A. See Maynwaring. 
 Maitland, Sir R., On the Folly of an 
 Old Man’s Marrying a Young 
 Woman [c. 1576], i. 113. 
 
 Malcolm, J. P., Anecdotes of the 
 Manners and Customs of London, 
 1811, ii. 54. 
 
 Londinium Redivivum, 1802-3, 
 
 ii- 4 > H- . „ 
 
 Malone, E., catalogue of his collection 
 (in the Bodleian), ii. 202. 
 
 ed. Dry den’ s Critical and Miscel- 
 laneous Works, 1800, i. 503—4. 
 
 Remarks on two new Publica- 
 tions [by Milles and Bryant] on 
 Rowley’s Poems (signed ‘Misopicle- 
 rus’), 1781, i. 463. 
 
 notes in his edition of Shake- 
 speare, 1790, iv. 98. 
 
 . — . — strictures upon his Cursory 
 Observations on Rowley, by E. B. 
 Greene, 1782, i. 466. 
 
 — ed. Phillips’s Theatrum Poetarum, 
 1800, i. 503. 
 
 Mamroth, F., Geoffrey Chaucer, 1872, 
 v. 148. 
 
 Man of Law’s Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works . — (f.) 21.] 
 
 Manciple's Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works . — (f.) 22.] 
 
 Manly, J. M., Observations on the 
 Language of Chaucer’s Legend of 
 Good Women, 1890, iii. 139. 
 Manners of the Athenians (in Quarterly 
 Review), 1820, ii. 129. 
 
 Manners, Catherine Rebecca, Lady, 
 Review of Poetry, 1799, i. 501. 
 Manning, O., and Bray, W., History 
 and Antiquities of Surrey, 1814, 
 ii. 64-5. 
 
 Manuscripts. See Chaucer, G. [vi. 
 MSS.] 
 
 Marchantes Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works . — (f.) 24.] 
 
 Margaret, daughter of Edward III., 
 C.’s patroness (Strickland), 1840, 
 ii. 228. 
 
 Markham, Mrs., A History of England, 
 1823, iv. 105. 
 
 Markland, J., his modernization from 
 C.T. ( Friar’s Talel) in The Altar of 
 Love, 1728, i. 370; reprinted by 
 Ogle, 1741, i. 389-90. 
 
 Markland, J. H., Some Remarks on the 
 Early Use of Carriages in England, 
 1821, ii. 133. 
 
 Marmion, S., The Antiquary, 1641, 
 
 i. 220. 
 
 Marot, C., classed with C. See 
 Chaucer, G. [ii. (g.) Comparisons 
 with other writers.] 
 
 Marriage ( Bukton ). See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works . — (g.) 8.] 
 
 Marsh, G. P., Lectures on the English 
 Language, 1858-9, iii. 44. 
 
 Origin and History of the English 
 
 Language, 1862, iii. 63-4. 
 
 Marsh, H., Horce Pelasgicas, 1815, 
 
 ii. 72. 
 
 Marshall, Isabel (with L. Porter and 
 W. W. Skeat), Ryme Index to 
 Chaucer's Minor Poems, 1887, iii. 
 137. 
 
 Marston, J., The Scourge of Villame, 
 1598, i. 158. 
 
 Marten, Sir H., letter to Charles I., 
 1635, i. 216. 
 
 Marvell, A., The Last Instructions to a 
 Painter about the Dutch Wars, 1667, 
 iv. 75. 
 
 Tom May’s Death [1650? or 
 
 1660?], iv. 71-2. 
 
 Mason, G., Poems by Thomas Hoccleve, 
 ed. by, 1796, i. 498. 
 
 Supplement to Johnson’s Dic- 
 tionary, 1800, i. 504. 
 
 Mason, W ., An Archaeological Epistle 
 to J. Milles [by W. Mason?], 1782, 
 i. 465. 
 
 Musasus, 1747 (1744), i. 393-4; 
 
 iv. 88; typical 18th cent, ignor- 
 ance of C. displayed in, introd. 
 xlix. 
 
 Massey, W., The Various Translations 
 of the Bible into English (in Gent.’s 
 Mag.), 1758, iv. 92. 
 
 Match me these two, 1647, iv. 71. 
 Matthias, T. J., An Essay on Rowley, 
 1783, i. 473. 
 
 The Pursuits of Literature, 1794, 
 
 i. 495; 1800, iv. 100-102. 
 
 Rowley and Chatterton in the 
 
 Shades, 1782, i. 466-7. 
 
62 
 
 Index. 
 
 Matzner, E., Altenglische Sprachprobe, 
 1867, 1869, v. 147. 
 
 Maunciples Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [vm. Works. — (f.) 22.] 
 
 Maurice, F. D., The Friendship of 
 Books , 1856, iii. 31. 
 
 • Milton considered as a School- 
 
 master, 1857, iii. 39. 
 
 On Books, 1865, iii. 78-9. 
 
 On the Representation and Educa- 
 tion of the People, 1866, iii. 83. 
 Maury, L., reviews Canterbury Tales 
 in French, 1909, v. 119-20. 
 
 Maying or Disport of Chaucer, The, 
 Lydgate’s Complaint of the Black 
 Knight printed as, 1508, i. 70. 
 
 May n waring, A., The Court of Love, 
 a tale from Chaucer, 1709, i. 310. 
 
 Life and Posthumous Works of. 
 
 1715, i. 341. J 
 
 Mediceval English Literature, Chaucer 
 (in National Review), 1862, iii. 66. 
 Meen, H., letter to T. Percy, Aug. 6, 
 1796, i. 498. 
 
 Meistersdnger, The, inferior to C. 
 
 (Herder, 1777), v. 133-4. 
 
 Melbancke, B., uses only obsolete 
 words used by C., 1583, iv. 107 (in 
 Cambridge issue only). 
 
 Melibeus. See Chaucer, G. [vm. 
 
 Works. — (f.) 23.] 
 
 Melismata, 1611, i. 185. 
 
 Memoirs of Literature, 1722, i. 362. 
 Mencke, J. B., Compendidses Gelehrten- 
 Lexicon, 1715, v. 131. 
 
 Mennis, Sir J., and Smith, J., Musarum 
 Delicice, 1655, i. 231. 
 
 Merchant's Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [vm. Works. — (f.) 24.] 
 
 Merciless Beauty. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [vm. Works. — (g.) 20.] 
 
 Mercure de France, 1734, v. 22. 
 
 Meres, F., Palladis Tamia, 1598, i. 159. 
 Meredith, G., On the Idea of Comedy , 
 1877, iii. 122. 
 
 Poems , 1851, iii. 3. 
 
 Metham, J., Amoryus and Cleopes, 
 1448-9, calls C. his master, i. 47. 
 Meyer, C. F. H., John Gower’s 
 Beziehungen zu Chaucer und Konig 
 Richard II., 1889, v. 151. 
 
 Meyer, J., Das grosse Conversations - 
 Lexicon, 1845, v. 141-2. 
 
 Meyer, P., introduction to the Contes 
 Moralises de Nicole Bozon, 1889. 
 v. 125. 
 
 Mezieres, A., Predecesseurs et Contem- 
 porains de Shakespeare, 1894, v. 
 100 - 1 . 
 
 Micawber, Mr., refers to C.T., ii. 283-4. 
 Michelet, J., Histoire de France, 1837, 
 v. 51. 
 
 Middle class, C. the poet of the 
 English (Swinburne, 1880), iii 
 131-2. 
 
 Middleton, T., The Family of Love, 
 1607, i. 179. y 1 
 
 More Dissemblers besides Women 
 
 [a. 1622], i. 197. 
 
 iVo ^ Help ) a Woman's 
 
 [1613?], i. 187 
 
 Miege, G., Flat present d' Angleierre, 
 1702, v. 3, 20. 
 
 Miller of Abingdon, The, its relation 
 to Reeve's T., iv. 8; attrib. to 
 Borde and said to be from Reeve s 
 T. by Hearne, 1735, i. 376-7 ; pre- 
 ferred to Reeve's T. by W. C. 
 Hazlitt, 1866, iii. 83; this judg- 
 ment denounced by Lowell, ib. 
 Miller s Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works.— (f.) 25.] 
 
 Milles, J., Bean, ed. Rowley Poems 
 as genuine, 1782, i. 468. 
 
 his views on the Rowley Poems 
 
 confuted by Malone, 1781, i. 463; 
 and in An Archaeological Epistle to 
 [by J. Baynes? or W. Mason?]. 
 1782, i. 465. 
 
 Milman, H. H., History of Latin 
 Christianity, vol. vi. 1855, iii. 23-5. 
 Milner, J., History of Winchester, 
 reviewed, 1810, ii. 50. 
 
 Milnes, R. Monckton (Lord Houghton) 
 modernized Truth, 1844, ii. 256. 
 Milton, J., II Penseroso [1632?] 
 (printed 1645), i. 204; m 71; 
 Warton’s notes on, in his ed. of 
 Milton’s Minor Poems, 1785, i. 482; 
 
 S. Darby’s letter to Warton on this 
 ed., ib. 
 
 Mansus 34, in Poems, 1645 
 
 [1638-9], C.’s visit to Italy, i. 219. 
 
 Paradise Lost, T. Newton’s 
 
 notes to, 1749, i. 400. 
 
 Animadversions upon the Re- 
 monstrant’s Defence, 1641, i. 221. 
 
 . Of Reformation touching Church 
 
 Discipline in England, quoting 
 Ploughman’s T. as genuine, 1641, i. 
 220 . 
 
 Common Place Book, citing C. 
 
 against marriage [a. 1674 ?], i. 248-9. 
 
 The Apotheosis of, 1738-9 (in 
 
 Gent.’s Mag.), i. 384, iv. 88. 
 
 said by Dryden to have 4 dug 
 
 I ancient words’ from C., i. 265; 
 
Index. 
 
 63 
 
 overlooks Chaucer’s comic vein and 
 dwells on the romantic (Warton, 
 1785), i. 482; his knowledge of C., 
 introd. xxxii. 
 
 Minnes, Sir J., ‘ doats on C. mightily 
 (Pepys, 1663-4), i. 241; introd. 
 
 xxxiv-v. 
 
 Minor Poems. See Chaucer, Or. 
 
 [viii. Works. — (g.) 21.] 
 
 Minshull, R., Proposals for an Account 
 of the Books printed by Caxton 
 [1741?], i. 389. 
 
 Minto, W., Characteristics of English 
 Poets, 1874, iii. 119-20. 
 
 Chaucer (art. in Encyclopedia 
 
 Britannica), 1876, iii. 121. 
 
 Miscellany Poems by Oxford Hands, 
 1685, i. 258. 
 
 Misopiclerus. See Malone, E. 
 
 Mitford, Mary R., letters : to Miss 
 Barrett, 1842, ii. 245; to Sir W. 
 Elford, 1815, ii. 72-3; 1819, ii. 118; 
 1820, ii. 127. 
 
 reading of C., 1806, ii. 28. 
 
 Recollections of a Literary Life, 
 
 1852, iii. 9-10. 
 
 Modernization, of Shakespeare pre- 
 cedes that of C., introd. cxxvii. 
 
 For modernizations of C.’s 
 
 works, see Chaucer, G. [in. Modern- 
 izations.'] 
 
 Monk's Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works. — (f.) 26.] 
 
 Montagu, Elizabeth, letter to the 
 Duchess of Portland, July 24, 1745, 
 i. 391. 
 
 Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley, Un- 
 finished Sketches of a Larger Poem, 
 ref. to C.’s dulness and ribaldry, 
 [1713-14], i. 329. 
 
 Moutegut, ]£., Caracteres generaux de 
 la litterature anglaise, 1883, v. 91. 
 Montelion, Knight of the Oracle { John 
 Phillips), 1659-61, iv. 73. 
 Montgomerie, A., The Flyting betwixt 
 Montgomerie and Polwart, calling 
 Polwart ‘ C.’s cook’ [a. 1584], i. 124. 
 Montgomery, G., La Belle Try amour 
 (poem), 1823, ii. 147. 
 
 Moore, P., The Wanton Wife of Bath 
 (ballad [by P. Moore ?]). See Wife 
 of Bath. 
 
 Moore, T., Letters and Journals of 
 Lord Byron, ed. by, 1830, ii. 178. 
 
 note to Song of the Departing 
 
 Spirit of Tithe [1828?], ii. 170. 
 
 finds C. unreadable [Diary, 
 
 1819), ii. 118. 
 
 Moral purpose, C. writes with a. 
 
 See Chaucer, G. [ii. (f.) Qualities 
 found in C. — 5.] 
 
 More, Sir W., possessed a copy of 
 C., 1556, i. 94. 
 
 Morel, L., James Thomson, 1895, 
 v. 102-4. 
 
 transl. part of Knight’s Tale 
 
 into French, 1908, v. 111. 
 
 Morell, T., his ed. of The Canterbury 
 Tales ( Prol . and Knight's Tale), 
 1737, i. 381-2; praised by T. S. 
 Baynes, 1870, iii. 102. 
 
 letter [to James West?], 18 
 
 July, 1771, intends to continue his 
 ed. of C., i. 436. 
 
 Moreri, L., notice of C. in Grand 
 Dictionnaire historique, 1674, 1681, 
 1707, 1740, v. 3, 18-19, 20, 23. 
 Morhof, D. G., Unterricht von der 
 teutschen Sprache und Poesie, 1682, 
 v. 129. 
 
 Morley, H., English Writers, 1864-7, 
 iii. 72. 
 
 Morris, R., ed. C.T. Prologue, etc., 
 1867, iii. 86. 
 
 Specimens of Early English, 
 
 1867, iii. 90-1. 
 
 Morris, W., The Earthly Paradise, 
 1868-70, iii. 96-7. 
 
 Feudal England, 1887, iii. 137-8. 
 
 The Life and Death of Jason, 
 
 1867, iii. 91; reviewed by Swin- 
 burne, iii. 94. 
 
 his Kelmscott ed. of C.’s Works, 
 
 1896, iii. 150 (in Cambridge issue 
 only), introd. lxx. 
 
 — glass by, after Burne Jones, at 
 
 Peterhouse, Cambridge, iii. 61. 
 
 read C. at Oxford, 1855, his 
 
 personal resemblance to C., iii. 25—6. 
 
 takes C. for his master, introd. 
 
 lxvii-viii. 
 
 for comparisons of with C., see 
 
 Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Comparisons of 
 C. with other writers.] 
 
 Morsbach, L., Mittelenglische Gram- 
 matik, 1893, v. 152. 
 
 Mortimer, J. H., drawings illustrating 
 C.T. [1776?], i. 447; iv. 96. 
 
 Mother of God. See Hoccleve, T. 
 Murford, N., Fragmenta Poetica, 1650, 
 verses by T. Toll in, iv. 72. 
 
 Murray, Sir C. A., Memorandum, 1830, 
 in Goethe’s Gesprdche, ii. 178. 
 
 Music in C. (Sir J. Hawkins, 1776), i. 
 446-7; (C. Burney, 1782), i. 465; 
 (J. Ritson, 1829), ii. 176; (W. 
 Chappell, 1838), ii. 221 ; (M. Cow- 
 den Clarke), 1855-8, iii. 20. 
 
64 
 
 Index. 
 
 N., B. (?), verses imitating Lydgate, in 
 Literary Museum, 1789, i. 487-8. 
 Nays upon Parnassus, 1658, verses 
 on, by S. Austin, i. 235. 
 
 Nares, R., A Glossary, 1822, ii. 138; 
 reviewed, ii. 141. 
 
 ^ a i633 , 2 ; 5 Phil °P 0lite8 ’ Q ua Lrnio, 
 
 Nashe, T., N ashes Lenten Stuff, 1599, 
 i. 161. 
 
 Pierce Penniless, 1592, i. 136. 
 
 Strange News of the Inter- 
 cepting of Certain Letters, 1592, 
 i. 135. 
 
 Greene’s introduction to Mena- 
 
 phon, 1589, he will oppose Chaucer, 
 -Lydgate and Gower to Petrarch, 
 Tasso and Celiano, i. 130. 
 
 Nature, rise of the feeling for, introd. 
 cxxxiii ; Chaucer’s love of. See 
 Chaucer, G. [n. (f.) 12.] 
 
 Neele, H., Lectures on English Poetry, 
 1827, ii. 166. 
 
 Neve, P., Cursory Remarks on some of 
 the Ancient English Poets, 1789 
 i. 488—9. 
 
 Neville, A., poem in B. Googe’s Egloqs, 
 1563, i. 98. ^ 
 
 New and General Biographical Dic- 
 tionary, A, 1761, i-. 421. 
 
 Newcastle, Margaret, Duchess of; 
 
 William, Duke of. See Cavendish. 
 Newelme. See Ewelme. 
 
 Newman, P., on M. Arnold’s contrast 
 between Homer and C., 1861-2, iii. 
 54-5. 
 
 Newton, T., notes to Paradise Lost, 
 1749, i. 400. 
 
 Niccholes, A., A Discourse of Marriaae, 
 1615, i. 190. 
 
 Niccols, R., The Cuckow, 1607, i. 179. 
 Niceron, J. P., Memoires des Hommes 
 Illustres, 1736, v. 22. 
 
 Nichols, J., Pinkerton suggests that 
 he should edit selections from C., 
 1783, i. 473. 
 
 Nicolas, Sir N. H., The French of 
 Stratford atte Bowe, 1841, ii. 239. 
 
 — — Life of Chaucer, 1843-4, ii. 248; 
 issued with C.’s Works, 1845, ii. 
 258; his researches for (Palgrave, 
 1844), ii. 256 ; reviewed, ib. ; the first 
 based on research, introd. cxii— xiii. 
 Privy Purse expenses of Eliza- 
 beth of Yon fc, 1830, ii. 179. 
 
 The Scrope and Grosvenor Con- 
 troversy, 1832, ii. 185-6; reviewed, 
 1836, ii. 209-10. 
 
 Testamenta Vetusta, 1826, ii. 163. 
 
 — — The Wife of Chaucer (in Gent.’s 
 Mag.), 1844, ii. 256. 
 
 Nicols, W., De Literis Inventis , 1711 
 i. 317-18. 
 
 Nine Ladies Worthy, The. See 
 Chaucer, G. [vm. Works . — (1.) 
 Spurious. 4*. Chronicle.'] 
 
 Nixom A^, The Christian Navy, 1602, 
 
 Nonnes Prestes Tale. See Chaucer, G 
 [vm. Works.— (f.) 27.] 
 
 Norfolk, Charles, 10th Duke of. See 
 Howard. 
 
 North, C. (John Wilson), Specimens 
 of the British Critics, 1845, ii. 262-3. 
 Northbrooke, J., Spiritus est vicarius 
 Christi in terra, 1577, i. 115. 
 
 North Petherton, C. Sub-Forester of, 
 1390-1, i. 11. 
 
 Northren Mother’s Blessing, The. See 
 S., J. 
 
 Norton, T., The Ordinal of Alchemy 
 [c. 1477], i. 57-8. 3 
 
 Notes and Queries, summaries of 
 Chaucer allusions in, year by vear 
 1849, ii. 279; 1850, ii. 284-6 ; 1851,’ 
 iii. 3-7; 1852, iii. 10-11; 1853,’ 
 iii. 13-14; 1854, iii. 18-19; 1855, 
 iii. 26-7; 1856, iii. 31-2; 1857, iii. 
 39-41; 1858, iii. 44-8; 1859, iii. 
 49-50; 1860, iii. 53-4; 1861, iii. 57- . 
 
 9; 1862, iii. 64-5; 1863, iii. 69- 
 70; 1864, iii. 73; 1865, iii. 79-80; 
 1866, iii. 83-4; 1867, iii. 91-3. 
 
 Nott, G. F., ed. Works of Surrey and 
 Wyatt; their imitation of and 
 improvement on C., 1815-6, ii. 73- 
 80; reviewed, ii. 85; his view that 
 C.’s verse is rhythmical, ib., and 
 introd. lvii; confuted by G. L. 
 Craik, 1861, iii. 56. 
 
 N ouveau Dictionnaire Historique '■ 
 
 portatif. See Chaudon, L. M. 
 
 Nuits Anglaises, Les. See Contant < 
 
 d’ Orville, A. G. 
 
 Nuns’ Priests’ Tale. See Chaucer, G. I 
 [vm. Works. — (f.) 27.] 
 
 Nut-brown Maid, The, ‘ supposed by ’ 
 Chaucer (Herbert [a. 1732]), i. 374; 
 (Unknown [1763 ?]),iv. 93; formerly 
 attributed to C. (Douce, 1811), ii. 
 
 Observations upon the English Lan- 
 guage [1752], i. 405-6. 
 
 Occleve, T. See Hoccleve. 
 
 Ogle, G., his modernizations from 
 C.T., 1741, i. 389-90; quoted in 
 advance by ‘Alcaeus,’ 1740, i. 
 
Index. 
 
 65 
 
 386-7; completed by Lipscomb, 
 1796, i. 496-7; Clerk’s Tale pub- 
 lished separately, 1739, i. 384-6; 
 his admiration and interpretation 
 of C. contrasted, introd. xlvi. 
 
 O’Hagan, J., Chaucer, 1864, iii. 73. 
 
 Old English Poets and Poetry, in The 
 Muses Mercury, 1707, i. 295. 
 
 Oldfield, Anne, Verses on the death of, 
 1763, i. 424. 
 
 Oldham, J., Horace, his Art of Poetry, 
 imitated in English, 1681, i. 266. 
 
 Oldmixon, J., The Life of Arthur 
 Maynwaring, 1715, i. 341. 
 
 note to The Salisbury Ballad, 
 
 1713, i. 329. 
 
 Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter 
 
 about the English Tongue [1712?], 
 
 i. 322-3. 
 
 Oldys, A. (initials A. 0. not identified 
 in text), said to imitate C. in 
 ballads, [c. 1696], i. 268. 
 
 Oldys, W., The British Librarian, 
 1738, i. 383-4. 
 
 MS. Commonplace Book, 1718, 
 
 iv. 83. 
 
 MS. notes in Langbaine’s Eng- 
 lish Dramatick Poets, 1725, etc., 
 i. 368; in Winstanley’s Lives of the 
 Poets, iv. 87. 
 
 ‘ Origen upon the Mawdelayne,’ C.’s 
 
 ? lost translation of. See Chaucer, 
 G. [viii. Works. — (i.) Lost Works.] 
 Orleans, Charles d’, supposed ref. to 
 C. by (G. W. Taylor, 1827), ii. 
 167. 
 
 Orleans, Jean d’, Comte d’Angouleme, 
 his list of the Pilgrims in the Canter- 
 bury Tales, 1445, v. 2, 18. 
 
 Ormerod, G., The History of the County 
 Palatine and City of Chester, 1819, 
 
 ii. 118. 
 
 Ormulum, The, its metre usable as a 
 test for the Chaucer Canon (W. W. 
 Skeat, 1900), iii. 151. 
 
 Ornate style, tried and abandoned 
 by C. (Southey, 1807, 1814, 1836), 
 ii. 35, 67, 207; (D’Israeli, 1841), ii. 
 231. 
 
 Ossian, compared with C. by Tho- 
 reau, 1843, ii. 250. 
 
 O’Sullivan, D., Elegant Extracts from 
 British Poets, Paris, 1830, v. 44-5. 
 Ovid, for comparisons of, with C. 
 See Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Compari- 
 sons with other writers .] 
 
 Owen, J., ®eo\oy6viJLeva nravTihaiva, 
 sive de natura theologies, 1661, iv. 
 73-4. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 
 Oxford, for C.'s supposed studies at, 
 see Chaucer, G. [i. Biog. — (e.) 2]; 
 learned men in, read and commend 
 C. (F. Beaumont, 1597), i. 146. 
 Oxford, R. Harley, Earl of. See 
 Harley. 
 
 Oxford Guide, The New, 8th ed., 1785, 
 
 i. 479-80. 
 
 Pain and Sorrow of Evil Marriage, 
 The, 1534, iv. 12. 
 
 Painter, W., Chaucer new painted, 
 licensed, 1623, i. 198; details of 
 licence corrected, iv. 65. 
 
 Palamon and Arcite. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works. — (f.) 20. Knight's 
 
 Tale.] 
 
 dialogue poem of [c. 1450], iv. 7 ; 
 
 printed in Reliquice Antiques, 1843, 
 
 ii. 247. 
 
 Palgrave, Sir F., note on Sir N. H. 
 Nicolas's work, in Fifth Report of 
 the Deputy Keeper of the Public 
 Records, 1844, ii. 256. 
 
 Palingenius, M., The Zodiack of Life, 
 verses in B. Googe’s transL of, 1561, 
 i. 96. 
 
 Palmer, S., The General History of 
 Printing, 1732, i. 374. 
 
 Panegyrick on the Ladies, A, in The 
 Student, 1750, i. 401-2. 
 
 Pantomime, Chaucer introduced into 
 a, by E. L. L. Blanchard, 1863, 
 
 iii. 67. 
 
 Paradise of Dainty Devices, 2nd ed., 
 1580, containing a ballad of Troilus 
 and Cressida, iv. 43. 
 
 Pardoner, the, character of, perhaps 
 suggested to It. Watts the exclusion 
 of proctors from his hospital at 
 Rochester (Dickens, 1866), iii. 82; 
 ref. to, as ‘ Friar,’ by Unknown 
 [1645-6], i. 224. 
 
 Pardoner’s Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works. — (f.) 28.] 
 
 Paris, G., Histoire litteraire de la 
 France, 1881, v. 87. 
 
 La Litterature frangaise au 
 
 moyen age, 1888, 90, v. 96, 125. 
 Park, T., Warton’s History of English 
 Poetry, ed. by, 1824, ii. 151. 
 
 Parker, J. H., Domestic Architecture 
 in England, vol. ii., 1853-9, iii. 
 15. 
 
 Parker, M., The Famous History of 
 Arthur King of the Britains, 1660, 
 i. 238. 
 
 ■ The Poet's Blind Man’s Bough , 
 
 1641, i. 221. 
 
 F 
 
 
66 
 
 Index. 
 
 Parliament, Act of, 1542-3, against 
 forbidden books. ‘ Canterbury 
 Tales, Chaucer’s books ’ exempted 
 from, i. 84; this accounted for by 
 Sir J. Thynne (reported by F. 
 Thynne, 1598) and J. Foxe, 1570, 
 by contempt for his tales as fables, 
 
 i. 152, 106; protests of the poets 
 against erection of their statues in 
 Houses of, 1845, ii. 260. 
 
 Parliament of Birds, The , 1712, i 
 324. 
 
 Parliament of Fowls . See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [vm. Works.— (g.) 23.] 
 
 Parmenter, J., will, bequeathing copv 
 of C.T., 1479, i. 60. ** 
 
 Parnassus, 1696, i. 268. 
 
 Parson, character of the, quoted in 
 Pilgrim's Tale [1536-40?], i. 82. 
 
 — — Dryden’s enlarged modern- 
 ization of, suggested by Pepys, 1698, 
 and sent to him, 1699, i. 270-71; 
 published in Fables, 1700, i. 278^ 
 285 ; reprinted at Salisbury [1790 ?]’ 
 i. 491 ; quoted as original by S. J. 
 Pratt, 1808, ii. 38. 
 
 modernized by W. D unkin [a. 
 
 1765], iv. 93; by Trinitarius, 1800, 
 
 i. 504; by J. Johnstone, 1827, ii. 
 165. 
 
 J. Byrom asked to ‘put it into 
 
 verse,’ 1736, i. 377. 
 
 — suggested by Wycliffe (?). See 
 Wycliffe, J. ; by Bp. Ken (Un- 
 known, 1711), i. 319; R. Walker 
 compared with, by Wordsworth 
 1820, ii. 130. 
 
 Parson's Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works. — (f J 29.] 
 
 Part, W. A., letter on Lancashire 
 words in C. (in Gent.’s Mag.), 1867, 
 iii. 93. 
 
 Partonopex of Blois, W. S. Rose’s 
 transl. of, reviewed, 1809, ii. 48. 
 Paston, J., catalogue of his books, 
 including Troilus [1482?], i. 60. 
 Pater, W. H., conversations with 
 Richard C. Jackson [1864 ?], iii. 74. 
 Tatmore, C. K. D., Sonnet, 1844, 
 
 ii. 256. 
 
 Patu, C. P., letters to Garrick, plans 
 a Parnasse Anglois, 1755, v. 6, 31. 
 Paul, H., Grundriss der germanischen 
 Philologie, 1893, v. 152. 
 
 Pauli, R., Bilder aus Alt-England, 
 
 1860, v. 145; Engl, transl. of, 
 
 1861, iii. 59. 
 
 ed. Gower’s Confessio Amantis, 
 
 1858, iii. 41. 
 
 Payne, H., will, bequeathing MS. of 
 Chaucer, 1568, i. 102. 
 
 Peacham, H., recommends C., in 
 The Compleat Gentleman, 1622 i 
 197. 
 
 — — . Prince Henry Revived, 1615, i. 
 
 Peacock, T. L., Crotchet Castle, 1831, 
 
 ii. 182. 
 
 Gryll Grange, 1861, iii. 59. 
 
 • Sir Proteus, 1814, ii. 65. 
 
 ~ re-reads C. in old age (letter to 
 Lord Broughton, Feb. 22, 1862) 
 
 iii. 65. 
 
 Peele, G., The Honour of the Garter, 
 1593, i. 140. 
 
 The Old Wives’ Tale, 1595, 
 
 i. 142. 
 
 ~~~ 14? 6 Tale Tr ° y 1596 ? 1 ’ 
 Pegge, S., sen. (ps. P. Gemsege, T. 
 Row, etc.), Anonymiana [c. 1776-8] 
 (ed. 1809), i. 450-1. 
 
 Essay on Sir names ( Gent.’s 
 
 Mag.), 1772, i. 437. 
 
 Of the Crasis ( Gent.’s Maq.), 
 
 1777, i. 448. y> 
 
 his MS. of L.G.W. (Prol. only?) 
 (letter in Gent.’s Mag.), 1758, i. 
 413-14; answered by R. P i. 
 415. ’ * 
 
 other letters in Gent.’s Maa.. 
 
 1754, 1757, iv. 91-2. 
 
 Pegge, S., jun., Anecdotes of the English i 
 Language [a. 1800], pubd. 1803, r 
 i. 502. 
 
 Pell Records, the, enabled Sir N. H. 
 Nicolas to produce facts of C.’s 
 life (Sir F. Palgrave, 1844), ii. 256. 
 Pembroke, Anne, or Margaret, 
 Countess of (14th cent.). See 
 Hastings. 
 
 Anne, Countess of (1649). See j 
 
 Herbert. { 
 
 Pembroke, T., 8th Earl of. See 
 Herbert. 
 
 Penn, J., The Squire’s Tale, modern- I 
 ized by, in Poems, 1794, i. 495-6. 
 Penniless Parliament of Threadbare 
 Poets, The, 1608, an adaptation of 
 Fearful effects of two dangerous 
 Comets, by Simon Smelknave, 
 [1591 ?], i. 183. 
 
 Penrose, Elizabeth. See Markham, 
 Mrs., ps. 
 
 Penny Cyclopaedia, article on C. in the, 
 1837, ii. 219. 
 
 Pepys, S., Diary, 1663-4, refrains from 
 buying a Chaucer, Dec. 1663; 
 
Index , 
 
 67 
 
 having bought one (ed. 1602) has 
 it bound, July, 1664; quotes 
 Troilus on seals, Aug. 1664; i. 
 241-2. 
 
 Dryden sends him ‘the Good 
 
 Parson,’ which Pepys had recom- 
 mended him to modernize; letter 
 thanking Drvden for it, 1699, i. 
 270-71, ii. 240. 
 
 possessed a MS. containing 
 
 poems by C. (J. Smith, 1841), ii. 
 240. 
 
 Life of, by J. Smith, 1841, 
 
 ii. 240. 
 
 a lover of C., introd. xxxiv-v. 
 
 Percy, T., Bishop, Reliques of Ancient 
 English Poetry, 1765, i. 426-9; 
 2nd ed., 1767, i. 430; 3rd ed., 
 1775, i. 441; reviewed in Gent.’s 
 Mag., 1765, i. 429. 
 
 poem to, by E. B. Greene, 1782, 
 
 i. 466. 
 
 Percy, W., Sonnets to the Fairest 
 Codia, 1594, iv. 47. 
 
 Perrot, C.,' inscription in a printed 
 copy of Chaucer's Works, chained 
 in his house at Woodstock, 1678, 
 i. 253. 
 
 Persone, the. See Parson. 
 
 Persones Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works. — (f.) 29.] 
 
 Peterhouse, Cambridge, glass by 
 Morris after Burne-Jones’s ‘ The 
 Dream of Good Women’ at, 1862- 
 4, iii. 61, 72. 
 
 Petit, C., transl. Monk’s Tale into 
 French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Petit de Julleville, L., Histoire de la 
 langue et de la literature frangaise, 
 1896, v. 104. 
 
 Petrarch, T. Watson notes the varia- 
 tion between his and C.’s versions 
 (the latter in Troilus) of Petrarch’s 
 sonnet, S’amor non e [1582], i. 
 123. 
 
 resemblance between schemes of 
 
 his Trionfi and of House of Fame, 
 noticed, 1821, ii. 134. 
 
 • C.’s meeting with. See Chaucer, 
 
 G. [i. Biog. (e.) 3.] 
 
 C.’s debt to. See Italian 
 
 Literature. 
 
 Petty, J. H., 2nd Marquis of Lans- 
 downe, finds C. unreadable (T. 
 Moore, 1819), ii. 118. 
 
 Petzold, E., Ueber Alliteration in den 
 Werken Chaucers, 1869, v. 147. 
 
 Phaer, T., classed with C. and Gower 
 by Peele, 1593, i. 140. 
 
 Philalethes, Merlin and his Cave 
 (in Fog' s Journal), 1735, iv. 87. 
 
 Philippa, of Hainault, said to be C.’s 
 patroness, by A. and E. Strickland, 
 1840-3, ii. 228. 
 
 Phillips, E., records ‘ old Chaucer’s 
 saw ’ in The Mysteries of Love and 
 Eloquence, 1658, i. 236. 
 
 The New World of Words, 1658, 
 
 i. 236; iv. 73. 
 
 estimation of C. in Theatrum 
 
 Poetarum, 1675, i. 250-1 ; ed. by 
 Malone, 1800, i. 503; Sir S. E. 
 Brydges’ pref. to, iv. 102. 
 
 Tractatulus de Carmine Dramat- 
 
 ico Poetarum Veterum, 1679, i. 
 254. 
 
 the first to state that C. was 
 
 Poet Laureate and died in 1440, 
 introd. cviii-ix. 
 
 Phillips, J., Maronides, 1673, i. 248. 
 
 Montelion, 1659-61, iv. 73. 
 
 inscription on the monument 
 
 to, in Westminster Abbey, 1708, 
 i. 295-6. 
 
 read over Chaucer carefully and 
 
 revived his words (G. Sewell, 1715), 
 i. 341. 
 
 Phillips, Sir R., shewed Northcote a 
 supposed portrait of C., ii. 172. 
 
 Philologus, letter in Gent.’ s Mag., 
 in praise of Upton, 1790, i. 405, 
 491. 
 
 Picard, Philippa, supposed to be C.’s 
 wife. See Chaucer, G. [i. Biog. (d.) 
 3.] 
 
 Pichot, A., reviews W. Morris’s Poems, 
 1870, v., 82-3. 
 
 Voyage historique et litter air e en 
 
 Angleterre et en ficosse, 1825, v. 
 43-4. 
 
 Pick, S., Festum Voluntatis, 1638, 
 i. 219. 
 
 Piers Plowman, ed. by T. D. Whitaker, 
 1813, ii. 60-1. 
 
 illustrations of Prol. C.T. from, 
 
 by F. J. Furnivall, 1857, iii. 37-8. 
 
 Piety of C. See Chaucer, G. [n. (f.) 7.] 
 
 Pilgrim's Tale [1536-40?], i. 82; 
 described and its authenticity 
 defended by F. Thynne, 1598, 
 i. 151-3; said to have been in 
 Stow’s library, not discovered by 
 J. Hindmarsh, 1685, i. 259. 
 
 Pilgrimages, held up to ridicule in 
 C.T. (Strutt, 1799), i. 502. 
 
 Pilgrims, the Canterbury. See Canter- 
 bury Pilgrims. 
 
 Pimlyco, 1609, i. 184. 
 
68 
 
 Index. 
 
 Pindar, Peter, ps. (J. Wolcot), Lines 
 addressed to Chaucer, 1807, ii. 32-3. 
 Pinkerton, J., Letters of Literature, 
 
 1785, i. 478-9. 
 
 * On the Progress of the English 
 
 Language (poem), 1781, iv. 97. 
 
 * Ancient Scotish Poems, ed. by, 
 
 1786, i. 484-5. 
 
 * letter to J. Nichols, urging him 
 
 to edit C.’s Select Works, 1783, 
 i. 473. 
 
 Pisan, Christine de, C. Histories of 
 Troy [ n.b . 1536], iv. 107. 
 
 * Moral Proverbs of, printed by 
 
 Pynson with Troilus, 1526, i. 75. 
 Pits, J., Pelationes historical de rebus 
 Anglicis [1613], i. 191; iv. 63-5. 
 
 — — his contribution to the Chaucer 
 legend, introd. cviii. 
 
 Pitt-Taylor, F., his modernized select- 
 ion of C.T., 1884, iii. 135-6. 
 
 Pity. See Chaucer, G. [vm. Works.— 
 (g.) 12.] 
 
 Planch6, J. R., History of British 
 Costume, 1834, ii. 192. 
 
 Planta, J., Catalogue of the Cottonian 
 Library, 1802, ii. 4. 
 
 Play ford, H., advertisement for Luctus 
 Britannici, in Postboy, 1700, i. 
 286. 
 
 Plesaunt Balade, A [by Henry Field- 
 ing?], 1752, iv. 90-91. 
 
 Plot, R., The Natural History of 
 Oxfordshire, 1676, i. 252. 
 Ploughman’s Creed, The, C.’s author- 
 ship of, doubted, 1577, iv. 41. 
 Ploughman’s Me, first printed [1532- 
 5], 1542, and later edd. of, i. 80, 83; 
 printed as C.’s, 1606, i. 177 ; licence 
 for, iv. 56-7. 
 
 attrib. to C. by common opinion 
 
 in Leland’s day, iv. 17 ; Unknown, 
 1577, iv. 41 ; by L. Humphrey, 1582, 
 i. 122; by J. Milton, 1641, i. 220; 
 by J. Barkham (hesitatingly) [a. 
 1642], i. 221-2; by T. Fuller, 1655, 
 i. 231; by Sir T. Widdrington [c. 
 1660], iv. 73 ; by T. Hyde, 1674, i. 
 249; by T. Hearne, 1709, i. 301-2, 
 309; by T. Moore [1828?], ii. 170; 
 its authenticity defended, and 
 French transl. dedicated to the 
 Pope, by J. B. de Chatelain, 1857- 
 61, v. 68-9; doubted by Dart, 
 1723, i. 363-6; rejected by Tyr- 
 whitt, i. 80 ; a source of the 
 Chaucer-legend, introd. cix. 
 
 Plume, T., Anecdotes of English 
 Writers [1649-64], i. 226. 
 
 Poesie Chretienne ; Chaucer (in Revue 
 Europeenne) [1832], v. 48. 
 
 Poesie Humoristique, La, transl. by 
 E. F. See Forgues, E. 
 
 Poltes Laureats de la Grande Bretagne 
 (in Rev. Britann., 1835), v. 48. 
 
 Poetical Scale, The [by Goldsmith], 
 1758, i. 414. 
 
 P oet-laureateship, C.’s, first stated by 
 E. Phillips, and repeated, introd. 
 cviii. 
 
 Poetry (anon. art. in Edinb. Rev.), 
 1825, ii. 159. 
 
 Pole, W. de la, Duke of Suffolk. See 
 De la Pole, W. 
 
 Pollard, A. W., ed. C.T., 1894, iii. 
 145-6. 
 
 (and others), ed. Works (Globe 
 
 ed.), 1898, iii. 150. 
 
 Chaucer (Primer), 1893, iii. 
 
 144-5. 
 
 Polwart, called ‘ Chaucer’s cook,’ 
 and represented as calling himself 
 ‘ Chaucer’s man,’ by A. Mont- 
 gomerie [a. 1584], i. 124. 
 
 Poole, H., Westminster Abbey, 1881, . 
 iii. 133. 
 
 Poole, J., The English Parnassus, 
 1657, i. 234. 
 
 Poor Knight, A, his Palace of Private 
 Pleasures, 1579, i. 119; iv. 42-3. : 
 
 Pope, A., An Essay on Criticism [1709] 
 
 (‘ such as Chaucer is shall Dry den 
 be’), i. 310-11; introd. xliii. ; Be - ! 
 flections upon, by J. Dennis [1711], 
 i. 314-15. 
 
 The Second Book of the Epistles 
 
 of Horace imitated by (‘C.’s worst 
 ribaldry learned by rote ’), 1737, 
 i. 382-3. 
 
 Works of Shakespear, ed. by, 
 
 1725, i. 368. 
 
 letters : to H. Cromwell,' 1709, 
 
 note to, 1735, i. 377; July 24, 1711, 
 i. 318-19; to Gay, Dec. 24, 1712, 
 i. 323; (with Gay) to J. Caryll, 
 April 1715, i. 340; iv. 83; to Mrs. f 
 J. Cooper (on C.’s descriptions), 
 Sept. 26, 1723, i. 366; to Lord 
 Orrery, April 1744, iv. 88-9. 
 
 Works, ed. by J. Warton, 1797! 
 
 i. 500; ed. by W. Roscoe, 1824, 
 
 ii. 152. 
 
 sayings, reported by Spence, 
 
 1728-30, i. 370; 1734-6, i. 377. 
 
 Ruff head’s Life of, 1769, i. 
 
 432. 
 
 Johnson’s Life of, 1779-81, 
 
 i. 456-7. 
 
Index. 
 
 J. Warton’s Essay on,’ 1782, 
 
 i. 470-1. 
 
 Tvjo Epistles to [by E. Young, 
 
 c. 1730], iv. 85. 
 
 copied the Hoccleve portrait of 
 
 C. (Spence, 1728-58), i. 413. 
 
 lacks C.’s feeling (Hazlitt, 1821), 
 
 ii. 132-3. 
 
 - — - — E. Quillinan learnt to read C. 
 from, 1 843, ii. 248. 
 
 ■ See Chaucer, G. [hi. Moderniza- 
 
 tions ] and [iv. Imitations]. 
 
 Popularity, relative, of C.’s works 
 and characters. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works, (a.) Relative popu- 
 larity.] 
 
 Porter, Lela (with J. Marshall and 
 W. W. Skeat), Ryme Index to 
 Chaucer's Minor Poems , 1887, 
 
 iii. 137. 
 
 Portraits of Chaucer. See Chaucer, G. 
 [i. Biog. (f.)] 
 
 Potter, R., A Farewell Hymn to the 
 Country, 1749, i. 400. 
 
 Pour et Contre, Le. See Pr6vost 
 d’Exiles, A. F. 
 
 Powel, G., Disputationum theologi- 
 carum de Antichristo libri II., 1605 
 [1604], i. 174. 
 
 Powell, — ■, transl. J. de Lille’s Les 
 Jardins, 1789, i. 489. 
 
 Powell, T., modernizations by, in 
 Poems modernised, 1841, ii. 234; 
 others (byL. Hunt) printed as his 
 own by, 1841-5, ii. 239-40, 1846, 
 ii. 267-8. 
 
 Powers to be Resisted, 1643, iv. 70. 
 
 Praise of the Mass [c. 1500], i. 65. 
 
 Praises of Isis, The, 1755, i. 411. 
 
 Pratt, S. J., includes ‘ Dry den’s Good 
 Parson ’ in The Cabinet of Poetry, 
 1808, ii. 38. 
 
 Provost d’Exiles, A. F., Le Pour et 
 Contre, 1740, v. 4, 23-4. 
 
 Priest, the. See Parson. 
 
 Printing, A Short Account of the first 
 Rise and Progress of [1763?], iv. 
 93. 
 
 Prior, M., Susannah, and Erie Robert's 
 Mice, 1712, i. 319, 323-4. 
 
 Erie Robert's Mice, condemned 
 
 as unlike Chaucer, by Armstrong, 
 1753, iv. 91. 
 
 [Poem] In the same [i.e. 
 
 Chaucer’s supposed] Style [1718?], 
 i. 347. 
 
 Henry and Emma, transl. into 
 
 French by M. Thiroux d’Arconville 
 as imitated from Chaucer, v. 123-4. 
 
 The Turtle and the Sparrow, 
 
 1708 (ref. to Pari. Fowls), i. 296-7. 
 
 • — — letter to Dean Swift, May 5, 
 1719 (ref. to Adam Scrivener), iv. 
 83. 
 
 the soul of Chaucer restored in 
 
 (T. Tickell, 1712), i. 324. 
 
 Prioress, the, her character (L. Hunt, 
 1826), ii. 162; her French (Sir 
 J. Feme, 1586), i. 129; (Sir W. 
 Scott, 1804), ii. 19; (Sir N. H. 
 Nicolas, 1841), ii. 239; (Sir H. Ellis, 
 1846), ii. 268; called ‘ The Abbess ’ 
 by Unknown, 1826, ii. 164; by De 
 Quincey, 1827, ii. 165; by Leigh 
 Hunt, 1834, ii. 191. 
 
 Prioress's Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works. — (f.) 30.] 
 
 Procter, Thomas, A Gorgeous Gallery 
 of Gallant Inventions, 1578, poems 
 in, i. 116, iv. 42. 
 
 speaks contemptuously of 
 
 ‘ fables of Canterbury ’ in Of the 
 Knowledge and Conduct of Wars, 
 1578, i. 116. 
 
 Proctor, B. W. (‘Barry Cornwall’), 
 describes C.'s portrait, in Effigies 
 Poeticce, 1824, ii. 151-2. 
 
 Progress of Poetry, in Annual Register, 
 1772, i. 437. 
 
 Prologue, the, to C.T. See Chaucer, 
 G. [viii. Works. — (f.) 14.] 
 
 Pronunciation of C., A. J. Ellis on, 
 1869-89, iii. 97-8. 
 
 ‘ Prophecy, C.’s ’ (‘ when faith faileth. 
 
 . . .’) printed by Caxton, quoted 
 by M. Hanmer, 1576, i. 113; in 
 MS. B.M. Add. 24, 663 [c. 1590], 
 i. 132. 
 
 Provencal words, said to be imported 
 by C. See Chaucer, G. [ii. (c.) Lan- 
 guage . — 8. C. corrupted English.] 
 
 Provencals, The Literary History of 
 the (Unknown, 1824), ii. 155. 
 
 Proverbs. See Chaucer, G. [viii. 
 Works. — (g.) 24.] 
 
 Proverbs in C., W. Haeckel on, 1890, 
 v. 151. 
 
 Prynne, W., Histrio-Mastix, 1633, 
 i. 206. 
 
 Puttenham, G., on C.’s learning and 
 use of ‘ riding rhyme,’ in The 
 Art of English Poesy [1584-8], 
 i. 125-6 ; iv. 43. 
 
 Pycroft, — , reported Landor as holding 
 C. cheap, 1861, 1863, iii. 57, 68. 
 
 Pynson, R., printed C.T. [c. 1492], i. 
 64-5 ; Conusaunce damours [1525 ?], 
 i. 75; Works, 1526, i. 75. 
 
70 
 
 Index , 
 
 Quenstedt, J., Dialogus de patriis 
 illustrium virorum, 1654, v. 128-9. 
 
 Qu6rard, J. M., La France Litteraire, 
 1828-9, v. 44. 
 
 Questions talked of by two old Seniors. 
 See B„ 0. 
 
 Quillinan, E., learnt from Pope to 
 read C. (letter to H. C. Robinson, 
 1843), ii. 248. 
 
 R., C. See Reeve, Clara. 
 
 R., R., lines in Sylvester’s Bart as, 
 [1605], i. 176. 
 
 R., S. See Rowlands, S. 
 
 Radcliffe, R., De Patientia Qrisildis, 
 and De Melibceo Chauceriano, [a. 
 1559] i. 95. 
 
 Ralph, J., attacks Pope’s Temple of 
 Fame in Sawney, 1728, iv. 84-5. 
 
 Rambeau, A., Chaucers 1 House of 
 Fame ’ in seinem Verhdltniss zu 
 Dantes ‘ Divina Commedia,’ v. 149. 
 
 Ramesey, W., recommends the read- 
 ing of C., in The Gentleman’s Com- 
 panion, 1669, i. 246 ; 1672, iv. 
 76. 
 
 Ramsay, A., his poems ed. and com- 
 pared with C. by Tytler, 1800, 
 i. 504. 
 
 Rands, W. B. See Browne, M., ps. 
 
 Rapin, R., Reflections on Aristotle’s 
 Treatise of Poesie, T. Rymer’s 
 preface to, 1674, i. 249. 
 
 Rapp, C. M., Vergleichende Gram- 
 matik, 1859, v. 145. 
 
 Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune, 
 The, 1582, iv. 43. 
 
 Rastell, J., praise of C. in his prol. to 
 Terence, Andria [1520?], i. 73. 
 
 Rathery, E. J. B., Des Relations 
 sociales et intellectuelles entre la 
 France et V Angleterre, 1855, v. 62. 
 
 Rawlinson, R., facsimile of Chaucer’s 
 Westminster lease of 1399 engraved 
 for, 1752, iv. 91. 
 
 Ray, J., A Collection of English Words 
 not generally used, 1674, i. 249. 
 
 Raynaud, G., introduction to Des- 
 champs, 1903, v. 106. 
 
 Read (or Reade), T., verses in Kynas- 
 ton’s Troilus, 1635, i. 214-15. 
 
 Realism of C. See Chaucer, G. [n. (f.) 
 Qualities found in C. — 1.] 
 
 Reed, I., preface to Dodsley’s Plays, 
 1780, i. 459. 
 
 ■ notes and cuttings collected by, 
 
 [c. 1833], ii. 189. 
 
 Rees, A*, The Cyclopaedia, 1819, 
 118-19. 
 
 Reeve, Clara, praises Dryden for 
 saving C. from oblivion ( The 
 Progress of Romance, 1785), i. 479. 
 
 Reeve’s Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [vim Works. — (f.) 31.] 
 
 References to C. See Allusions. 
 
 Remedy of Love, quoted as C.’s by 
 Addison, 1711, i. 314. 
 
 Remedy for Sedition, 1536, i. 81-2. 
 
 Renouard, A. A., notes small value on 
 the Continent of early editions of 
 C., etc. ( Catalogue de la Bibliotheque 
 d’un Amateur, 1819), v. 43. 
 
 Return from Parnassus, pt. i. [1597], 
 imitation of C. in, i. 144-5 : pt. ii. 
 1602, i. 171. 
 
 Reves Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works. — (f.) 31.] 
 
 Reynolds, H., Mythomystes [1632?], 
 
 i. 205. 
 
 Reynolds, J. H., Peter Bell, 1819, 
 
 ii. 119. 
 
 Sonnet to Keats, 1817, ii. 91. 
 
 Reynolds, S. H., on the influence of 
 Dante on C., in Dante and his 
 English Translators, 1861, iii. 59. 
 
 Rich man, H. J., his lost sequel to 
 C.T. [c. 1810], concealed by him 
 on account of its levity, ii. 49, 
 180. 
 
 Richmond, Margaret, Countess of, her 
 will, bequeathing a copy of C.T., 
 1509, i. 71. 
 
 Rider, W., Westminster Abbey (poem 
 in Gent.’ s Mag.), 1755, iv. 92. 
 
 Riding-rhyme. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [n. Verse. — (d.) 6.] 
 
 Rietstap, J. B., Armorial General, 
 1858, 84, v. 91, 125. 
 
 Rigoley de Juvigny, J. A., Les Biblio- 
 theques Francoises de la Croix du 
 Maine et de du Verdier, 1772, v. 
 34-5. 
 
 Riley, H. T., discovers and prints the 
 lease to C. of the lodging over Ald- 
 gate, 1859, iii. 51. 
 
 Ritson, J., Ancient English Metrical * 
 Romances, 1802, ii. 4; reviewed by 
 Southey, ii. 12. 
 
 Ancient Songs, 1790, i. 491. 
 
 Ancient Songs and Ballads, 1829, 
 
 ii. 176. 
 
 Bibliographia Poetica, 1802, ii. 4. 
 
 Fairy Tales, 1831, ii. 182. 
 
 praises Tyrwhitt in Observa- 
 tions on (Warton’s) History of 
 English Poetry, 1782, i. 468. 
 
 Remarks on the last Edition of 
 
 Shakespeare, 1783, iv. 97. 
 
Index . 
 
 71 
 
 letters : to J. Frank, 1799, 
 
 i. 501 ; to R. Harrison, 1793, i. 495; 
 1796, i. 498; 1797, i. 500. 
 
 Rivarol, A. de, De VUniversalite de la 
 langue frangaise, 1784, v. 9, 36. 
 
 Robert, Hermit of Knaresborough, 
 Life of, attributed to C., 1817, ii. 
 92-3. 
 
 Robert, of Gloucester, Hearne’s Glos- 
 sary to, 1724, i. 367. 
 
 Robinson, A. Mary F. See Darme- 
 steter. 
 
 Robinson, C., A Handf ul of pleasant 
 delights, 1584, poems by various 
 authors in, iv. 44. 
 
 Robinson, H. Crabb, gave Lamb 
 Blake’s Catalogue, 1810, ii. 49. 
 
 • — — Diary, March 30, 1811, ii. 54. 
 
 Robinson, N., records performance of 
 R. Edwards’s Palamon and Arcite, 
 
 i. 99. 
 
 Robinson, R., The Reward of Wicked- 
 ness [1574], i. 109. 
 
 Robinson, T., letter to H. Crabb 
 Robinson, May 6, 1804, ii. 16. 
 
 Robson, T., The British Herald, 1830, 
 
 ii. 179. 
 
 Rochester, J. Wilmot, Earl of. See 
 Wilmot. 
 
 Roet, Sir Payne and Philippa, his 
 daughter. See Chaucer, G. [i. Biog. 
 (d.) 3.] 
 
 Rogers, C., transl. Dante’s Inferno, 
 1782, i. 468. 
 
 Rogers, D., Latin epigrams on C.’s 
 tomb and poems [c. 1570], i. 107. 
 
 Rollins, H. E., allusions contributed 
 by, iv. 1-3. 
 
 Roman de la Rose, influence of, on C. T. 
 (E. G. Sandras, 1859), v. 70. 
 
 transl. of, attributed to C., see 
 
 Chaucer, G. [vm. Works. — (g.) 25.] 
 
 Romance, Hurd’s Letters on, 1762, 
 i. 421-2; 1765, iv. 93-4; Percy on, 
 1765, i. 426-9; Scott on, 1804, ii. 
 19; Scott’s Essay on, 1824, ii. 152- 
 3; De Quincey on, 1841, ii. 230. 
 
 Roper, Margaret, letter to Lady 
 Ali-ngton, 1535, quotes Troilus 
 (‘ Dulcarnon ’), i. 81. 
 
 Ros, R., La belle dame sans merci, 
 printed by Pynson with Troilus, 
 etc., 1526, i. 75; and by Thynne, 
 1532, i. 78 ; rejected from C.’s works 
 by H. F. Cary, 1821, ii. 132. 
 
 — Moral Proverbs, printed as C.'s by 
 Pynson, 1526, i. 78. 
 
 Rosamond, To. See Chaucer, G. [vm. 
 Works. — (g.) 26.] 
 
 Roscoe, T., The Italian Novelists, 
 1825, ii. 157 ; reviewed in E dirib. 
 Rev., ii. 158. 
 
 Roscoe, W., Works of Pope, ed. by, 
 1824, ii. 152; reviewed, ii. 160. 
 Rossetti, D. G., Beauty and the Bird 
 (sonnet) [c. 1854], iii. 19. 
 
 • his resemblance to the Hoccleve 
 
 portrait, ii. 259. 
 
 Rossetti, W. M., Chaucer's Troylus 
 and Cryseyde compared with 
 Boccaccio’s Filostrato, 1873, iii. 
 116-17. 
 
 Row, T., ps. See Pegge, S. 
 
 Rowlands, S., The Night Raven, 1620, 
 i. 194. 
 
 • ’Tis Merry when Gossips Meet , 
 
 1602, i. 172. 
 
 Rowley, W., and Heywood, T., 
 
 Fortune by Land and Sea [1607-9], 
 i. 180. 
 
 Rudd, A. J., letters to J. Ames, July 
 21 and 29, 1746, i. 393. 
 
 Ruddiman, T., preface to Douglas’s 
 Virgil's ^Eneis, 1710, i. 312-13. 
 Ruffhead, O., Life of Pope, 1769, 
 i. 432. 
 
 Ruiz de Hita, J., compared with C. by 
 G. Ticknor, 1849, ii. 280. 
 
 Rupert, Prince, had a copy of C.’s 
 Works, ed. 1602 (in catalogue, 1677), 
 
 i. 253. 
 
 Ruskin, J., The Oestus of Aglaia, 
 1865, expounding Dame Pacience in 
 Pari. Fowls, iii. 80-1. 
 
 • The Harbours of England, 1856, 
 
 noticing Chaucer’s horror of the sea, 
 
 iii. 33-4. 
 
 Munera Pulveris, 1862, iii. 65. 
 
 ■ Modern Painters (vol. ii), 1846, 
 
 ii. 273; (vol. iii), 1856, noticing C.’s 
 love of woods, iii. 32-3. 
 
 • On the Present State of Modern 
 
 Art, 1867, on two cartoons by Burne- 
 Jones from Legend of Good Women, 
 
 iii. 93. 
 
 ■ Sesame and Lilies, 1864, iii. 74-5. 
 
 The Seven Lamps of Architec- 
 ture, 1849, on architecture in Knight’s 
 T., ii. 280. 
 
 Time and Tide by Weare and 
 
 Tyne, 1867, on C.’s ‘scorn for 
 mechanic life,’ iii. 94. 
 
 ■ Tree Twigs, 1861, referring to 
 
 The Flower and the Leaf as C.’s, iii. 
 59. 
 
 goes to T. Dale’s lectures on C., 
 
 etc. (letter to his father, March 25, 
 1836), ii. 205; letter to W. H. 
 
72 
 
 Index. 
 
 Harrison [1850?], ii. 286; intended 
 to edit C.'s works; his appreciation 
 of C., introd. Ixiv— v; admired and 
 prepared an ed. (never published) 
 of the Isle of Ladies [c. 1869], ib. 
 Ixv. 
 
 Rymer, T., gives life -records of C. in 
 Fcedera, 1708, i. 297; 1709, i. 311. 
 
 preface to Rapin’s Reflections 
 
 on Aristotle's Treatise of Poesie, 
 1674, i. 249. 
 
 A Short View of Tragedy, 1692 
 
 (on C.’s supposed reform of English), 
 i. 265. 
 
 Rymsdyk, J. van, on the likeness of 
 C. in an ‘ Egyptian pebble,’ in 
 Museum Britannicum, 1778, iv. 95. 
 
 S., G., Anglorum Speculum, 1684, 
 i. 257. 
 
 S., J., The Northren Mother's Blessing , 
 written 9 years before the death of 
 G. Chaucer, 1597, i. 144. 
 
 S., J. See Sidnam, J. 
 
 Sackville, T., and Norton, T., reminis- 
 cence of Knight's T. in Ferrex and 
 Porrex ( Gorboduc ), 1561, iv. 28. 
 
 Saint David’s, Bishop of, Queen 
 Elizabeth quotes C. to a, according 
 to Sir W. Scott, ii. 176, iv. 107 (in 
 Ch. Soc. issue), 108 (in Cambridge 
 issue). 
 
 Saint-Laurent, C., ps. See Lavergne, 
 L. G. L. G. de. 
 
 Sainte-Beuve, C. A., reviews Taine’s 
 Histoire de la Litterature Anglaise, 
 1864, v. 79. 
 
 Salisbury Ballad, The, notes on, by J. 
 Oldmixon, 1713, i. 329. 
 
 Salmagundi [by G. Huddesford], 
 1791, iv. 99. 
 
 Sandras, E. G., fitude sur Chaucer 
 considere comme imitateur des 
 Trouveres, 1859, v. 12, 69-74. 
 
 Sanford, E., Select Poems of Geoffrey 
 Chaucer, ed. by, 1819, ii. 119. 
 
 Sarradin, A., Eustache Deschamps, 
 1879, v. 86. 
 
 Saunders, J., Chaucer’s Portrait Gal- 
 lery, 1841, ii. 240; enlarged as 
 Cabinet Pictures of English Life : 
 Chaucer, based on C.T., 1845, ii. 
 263-4. 
 
 Chaucer, 1845, ii. 266. 
 
 Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (ex- 
 tracts and summaries), 1845-7, 
 ii. 264-6; reviewed, ii. 275. 
 
 • The Tabard (in Knight’s London, 
 
 1841), ii. 240. 
 
 Saunders, J., Westminster Abbey (in 
 Knight’s London), 1843, ii. 248-9. 
 
 Savile, Sir H., ed. Bradwardine, De 
 Causa Dei, 1618, i. 192-3. 
 
 ‘ Schaser,’ spelling for Chaucer, used 
 by J. J. Bodmer, 1743, v. 133. 
 
 Schede, A., Ueber das Verhdltniss von 
 Popes ‘ January and May’ und 
 ‘ The Wife of Bath her Prologue’ 
 zu Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (1897. 
 v. 152. 
 
 Schipper, J., Englische MetriJc, 1881-8, 
 v. 150; articles on, in Paul’s Grund- 
 riss, 1893, v. 152. 
 
 Schoepke, O., Dryden's Uebertrdgungen 
 Chaucers, 1878, v. 149. 
 
 Scholarship, evolution of, introd. cxl- 
 cxliii; long not thought necessary 
 for English studies, ib. cxl-cxliii. 
 
 Schrader, K. A., Das altenglische 
 Relativpronomen, 1880, v. 150. 
 
 Schwab, J.-C., Dissertation sur VUni- 
 versalite de la langue francoise, 1803, 
 v. 38. 
 
 Scogan, H., calls Chaucer his master 
 and quotes Gentilesse in A moral 
 balade [c. 1407], i. 18-19 ; the Balade 
 printed in C.’s Works by W. Thynne, 
 1532, i. 79; ref. to by Leland fc. 
 1545], iv. 14. 
 
 C.’s Envoy to. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works. — (g.) 27.] 
 
 Scoloker, A., Diaphantus, 1604, i. 175. 
 
 Scot, Reginald, regards C. as a Pro- 
 testant, and summarizes Canon's 
 Yeoman's T. in The Discovery of 
 Witchcraft, 1584, i. 124-5. 
 
 Scott, A., New Year Gift to the Queen 
 Mary, 1562, contrasting ‘ Chaucer’s 
 cooks ’ with Christians, i. 97. 
 
 Scott, Robert, Sermon, 1602, iv. 55. 
 
 Scott, Sir W. 
 
 [Quotations and references in his 
 novels, poems, etc. :] 
 
 The Abbot, 1820, ii. 127; 1831, ii. 
 
 183. 
 
 The Antiquary, 1815, iv. 104; 
 
 1816, ii. 84. 
 
 The Bridal of Triermain, 1813, 
 
 iv. 104. 
 
 ■ The Bride of Lammermoor, 
 
 1819, ii. 119. 
 
 Castle Dangerous, 1832, ii. 186. 
 
 The Fair Maid of Perth, 1828, 
 
 ii. 170. 
 
 The Fortunes of Nigel, 1822, 
 
 ii. 139. 
 
 Ivanhoe, 1817, ii. 91-2. 
 
 Kenilworth , 1821, ii. 133. 
 
Index. 
 
 73 
 
 The Lady of the Lake (note on), 
 
 1810, W. 103. 
 
 The Monastery, 1820, ii. 128; 
 
 1830, ii. 179. 
 
 Old Mortality, 1816, ii. 83. 
 
 — — • Peveril of the Peak, 1822, ii. 
 139-40. 
 
 The Pirate, 1821, ii. 133. 
 
 Bob Boy, 1818, ii. 108. 
 
 St. Valentine’s Eve. See supra : 
 
 The Fair Maid of Perth. 
 
 • Woodstock, 1826, ii. 163-4. 
 
 [in miscellaneous works :] 
 
 Chivalry (in Encycl. Brit.), 1818, 
 
 ii. 107-8. 
 
 Essay on Border Antiquities, 
 
 1814, ii. 65. 
 
 The History of Scotland, 1830, 
 
 ii. 179. 
 
 Journal, 1826, ii. 163. 
 
 lettef to G. Ellis, 1805, ii. 25. 
 
 Letters on Demonology and 
 
 Witchcraft, 1830, ii. 179. 
 
 — = — Memoir of George Bannatyne, 
 1829 (compares Dunbar with. C.), 
 ii. 176. 
 
 On Landscape Gardening (notes 
 
 C.’s love of woods), 1828, ii. 170-1. 
 
 Bomance (in Encycl. Brit.), 
 
 1824, ii. 152-3. 
 
 Tales of a Grandfather, 2nd ser., 
 
 1829, ii. 176. 
 
 • Works of Dry den, ed. by (notes 
 
 on Dryden’s modernizations from 
 
 C. ), 1808, ii. 39-41; reviewed, ii. 
 42. 
 
 Memoirs of Jonathan Swift, 
 
 D. D., 1814, ii. 65; his ed. of Swift 
 reviewed by Jeffrey, 1816, ii. 83. 
 
 • Sir Tristrem, ed. by, 1804, ii. 19. 
 
 reviews Ellis’s Specimens of the 
 
 Early English Poets, 1804, ii. 16; 
 Godwin’s Life of Chaucer, 1804, ii. 
 17-19 ; Chatterton, 1804, ii. 16-17; 
 Cromek’s Beliques of Burns, 1809, 
 ii. 47. 
 
 puts quotation from C. (‘ the 
 
 greatest clerks. . . ,’ Beeve’s T., 
 1. 134) into the mouth of Queen 
 Elizabeth, ii. 128, 133, 176, iv. 107 
 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 108 (in Cambridge 
 issue). 
 
 Bob Boy and The Heart of Mid- 
 lothian reviewed, 1821, ii. 135. 
 
 editions of C., etc., possessed by 
 
 Scott (. Library Catalogue, 1832), 
 ii. 186. 
 
 had Stothard’s Canterbury Pil- 
 grims at Abbotsford, ii. 164-5. 
 
 Scottish poets, the, their praises and 
 imitations of C., introd. xv-xvi; 
 Chronicle of, by J. Sibbald, 1803, ii. 
 
 5 ; Lives of, by D. Irving, 1804, ii. 15. 
 
 • did not imitate C., preferred to 
 
 him by J. Pinkerton, 1786, i. 
 484-5. 
 
 history of, by D. Irving, ed. by 
 
 J. A. Carlyle, 1861, iii. 53. 
 
 See also : Douglas, G. ; Dunbar, 
 
 W. ; Henryson, R. ; James I. ; 
 Lyndsay, Sir D. 
 
 Scrope Grosvenor controversy. See 
 
 Chaucer, G. [i. Biog. (e.) 5.] 
 
 Scudery, Madeleine de, reported to be 
 translating Chaucer, by Dryden, 
 1699, v. 2-3, 123; 1700, i. 282-3. 
 
 Sea, the, C.’s horror of (Rusl^in, 1856), 
 iii. 33; (Swinburne, 1867), iii. 94. 
 
 Selden, J., preface to Drayton’s 
 Polyolbion [1612], i. 185. 
 
 Uxor Ebraica, 1646, i. 225. 
 
 his Scotch MS. of Chaucer 
 
 (G. Langbaine, 1653), i. 229. 
 
 Selections from the British Poets, 1851, 
 iii. 8. 
 
 Selections from C.’s works. See 
 Chaucer, G. [viii. Works. — (h.) 
 Selections .] 
 
 Senses, evolution of new, in a race, 
 introd. cxxxiii. 
 
 Seume, J. G., transl. into German 
 Chaucer’s Complaint to his Empty 
 Purse [c. 1801?], v. 138. 
 
 Seward, Anna, letters, mostly dis- 
 paraging C. : to H. Cary, May 29, 
 1792, i. 494; to R. Fellowes, May 
 31, 1806, ii. 28; to G. Hardinge, 
 Oct. 27, 1786, i. 485-6; to Mrs. 
 Jackson, June 3, 1806, ii. 28; 
 to J. Saville, June 15, 1798, i. 500; 
 to H. J. Todd, Oct. 19, 1798, i. 500 ; 
 to Sir W. Scott, July 10, 1802, ii. 4, 
 Jan. 29 and April 17, 1807, ii. 33; 
 to Mr. Weston, Jan. 7, 1789, i. 490. 
 
 article on the comparative 
 
 merits of Pope and Dryden, in 
 Gent’s Mag., 1789, iv. 98. 
 
 Sewell, G., The Life and Character of 
 Mr. John Philips, 1715, i. 341. 
 
 Memoirs, pref. to Poems of 
 
 Surrey, 1717, i. 346. 
 
 modernized Hoccleve’s Letter of 
 
 Cupid ( The Proclamation of Cupid), 
 as C.’s, 1718, i. 347-8; reprinted in 
 A New Collection of Original Poems, 
 1720, i. 350. 
 
 modernized the Song of Troilus, 
 
 1720, i. 350-52. 
 
74 
 
 Index. 
 
 Shakespeare, W., influence of C. upon, 
 iv. 45-6; not great (Johnson, 1765), 
 i. 426 ; see also below in : 
 
 7 [References in, and remarks on, 
 individual plays:] 
 
 Antony and Cleopatra , early 
 
 neglect of, cxxviii. 
 
 * As You Like It, the plot of, 
 
 stated by Johnson to be derived 
 from Gamely n, 1765, i. 426. 
 
 Henry IV., Pt. I [1596—7] 
 
 (‘ Dame Partlet the Hen ’), i. 144. 
 
 The Merchant of Venice, 1596, 
 
 ref. to Troilus in, iv. 107 (in Ch. Soc. 
 issue), 108 (in Cambridge issue). 
 
 The Merry Wives of Windsor 
 
 [1599?], ref. to Troilus in, i. 161. 
 Midsummer Night's Dream, pro- 
 bably suggested by Knight’s T. 
 (G. Steevens, 1773), iv. 94. 
 
 Titus Andronicus [1589-90?], 
 
 ref. to House of Fame in, i. 131. 
 
 Troilus and Cressida [1603?, its 
 
 debt to C.’s Troilus'], iv. 56, re- 
 marked by Pope, 1725, i. 368; by 
 Steevens, 1773, iv. 94; derived from 
 the Recuyles of Troy, not from C., 
 in the opinion of Theobald, 17f$, i. 
 371, 376; notes on, by Theobald, 
 1733, i. 375-6; essay on by W. W. 
 Lloyd, 1856, iii. 30-31. 
 
 The Winter's Tale [1610-11] 
 
 (‘ Dame Partlet ’), i. 185. 
 
 — — [Notes, etc., by his editors :] 
 Works , ed. by Pope, 1725, i. 368; 
 by Theobald, 1733, i. 375-6; and 
 1740, i. 388; by Warburton, 1747, 
 i. 394; by Johnson, 1765, i. 426; 
 by Steevens, 1773, 1778, iv. 94-5; 
 Ritson’s criticism on Steevens, 1 783, 
 iv. 97; by W. W. Lloyd, 1856, 
 iii. 30-31. 
 
 ■ [Critical works on :] 
 
 Shakespeare Restored, by L. Theo- 
 bald, 1726, i. 368; Critical Observa- 
 tions on, by J. Upton, 1746, i. 393; 
 1748, i. 396-8; Critical Notes on, 
 by Z. Grey, 1754, i. 408-9; A 
 Revisal of Shakespeare's Text, by 
 B. Heath, 1765, i. 425; Observa- 
 tions on, by Tyrwhitt, 1766, i. 429; 
 Remarks on the Last [Steevens ’s] 
 Edition of, by J. Ritson, 1783, iv. 
 97; Illustrations of, by F. Douce, 
 1807, ii. 31; Characters of Shalce- 
 spear's Plays, by W. Hazlitt, 1817, 
 ii. 87-9. 
 
 [Miscellaneous :] 
 
 early allusions to show a preference 
 
 for his love -poems, introd. cxxviii; 
 evolution of criticism of, parallel to 
 that of C., ib. cxxvi, etc. 
 
 W. Basse’s Epitaph on [c. 16221. 
 
 i. 196. J 
 
 preferred (ironically) to C. in 
 
 The Return from Parnassus [15971, 
 
 i. 144-5. 
 
 for comparisons of with C. 
 
 See Chaucer, G. [ii. (g.) Comparisons 
 with other writers.] 
 
 Shaw, H., Dresses and Decorations of 
 the Middle Ages, 1843, ii. 249. 
 
 Shaw, S., A Tour to the West of 
 England (Woodstock), 1789, i. 490. 
 Shelley, Mary W., records Shelley’s 
 reading aloud from C., in her 
 Journal, 1821, ii. 134. 
 
 Shelley, P. B., A Defence of Poetry, 
 1821, ii. 134. . 
 
 reads The Flower and the Leaf 
 
 and Chaucer's Dream to Mary, 1821, 
 
 ii. 134. J 
 
 Sheppard, S., epigram on Spenser’s 
 
 imitation of C., 1651, iv. 72. 
 
 The Faerie King Fashioning 
 
 Love and Honour [c. 1650], i. 227. 
 Sherwin, J., On the Authenticity of 
 Rowley’s Poems, 1811, ii. 54. 
 
 review of Jamieson’s Etymo- 
 logical Dictionary, 1811, ii. 55. 
 
 Shiels, R., real author of Cibber’s 
 Lives of the Poets, 1753, i. 406-7. 
 Shipman, the, true to the modern 
 sailor (L. Hunt, 1820), ii. 124. 
 Shirley, James, Changes, 1631, iv. 66. 
 Shirley, John, notes, headlines, etc., 
 to MSS. of Chaucer [c. 1445-1450], 
 
 i. 46-9, iv. 6. 
 
 verses in praise of Chaucer, in 
 
 his prol. to Boethius [c. 1450], i. 
 49. 
 
 prol. [in prose] of the Knight’s 
 
 T. [a. 1456], i. 53. 
 
 painfully collected the works of 
 
 Chaucer (Stow, 1603), i. 174; introd. 
 cxiv-v. 
 
 Short Account of Printing, A [1763 ?], 
 iv. 93; quoted by Douce, 1811, 
 
 ii. 53. 
 
 Sibbald, J., Chronicle of Scottish 
 Poetry, 1803, ii. 5. 
 
 Sid n am, J., A Paraphrase upon 
 Troilus and Cressida, bks. 1-3 
 [c. 1630], i. 203. 
 
 Sidney, Sir P., praises Troilus, in 
 An Apology for Poetry [1581?], i. 
 121 — 2 . 
 
 Sonnet [c. 1586], iv. 44-5. 
 
Index. 
 
 75 
 
 Sidney, R., Earl of Leicester, a lover 
 of C., i. 281, introd. xxxix. 
 
 ‘ Simon Smel-Knave,’ Fearful Effects 
 of two Dangerous Comets [1591 ?], 
 i. 134. 
 
 Simond, C., ps., see Cleemputte, P. van. 
 
 Simpson, J., Catalogus universalis 
 librorum in Bibliotheca Collegii 
 Sionii, 1650, i. 227. 
 
 Singer, S. W., Life of Chaucer (British 
 Poets), 1822, ii. 140. 
 
 Sir Gyles Goosecappe, influence of 
 Chaucer on the author of (Chap- 
 man?), 1606, iv. 57-60. 
 
 Sir Thopas. See Chaucer, G. [vm. 
 Works.— (f.) 32.] 
 
 Skeat, W. W., turned to old English 
 by Mrs. Markham’s praise of C., 
 c. 1845, iv. 105. 
 
 notes in Notes and Queries , 1866- 
 
 7, iii. 84, 92. 
 
 declines to edit C.’s Works, 
 
 c. 1870, iii. 71. 
 
 preface to Bell’s ed. of Works, 
 
 1878, iii. 123. 
 
 (with I. Marshall and L. Porter) 
 
 By me Index to Chaucer's Minor 
 Poems, 1887, iii. 137. 
 
 his ed. of C.’s Minor Poems, 
 
 1888, reviewed by J. W. Bright, 
 
 1889, iii. 139. 
 
 discovers and prints To Rosa - 
 
 mounde, 1891, iii. 139. 
 
 his ed. of C.’s Complete Works, 
 
 1894-7, iii. 146-8; reviewed by 
 W. P. Ker, 1895, iii. 148-50. 
 
 The Chaucer Canon, 1900, iii. 
 
 150-1 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 151 (in 
 Cambridge issue) ; reviewed by J. 
 Lecoq, 1900, v. 106. 
 
 his parody of C., In Honor em 
 
 F. J. F[urnivall], 1900, iii. 151-2 (in 
 Ch. Soc. issue), 152 (in Cambridge 
 issue). 
 
 Skelton, John, Philip Sparrow [1507 ?], 
 (maintains that C.’s English is 
 easy), i. 68-9 ; (claims to be familiar 
 with Troilus), iv. 9-10. 
 
 Against M. Garnesche (quotes 
 
 Sir Thopas) [c. 1510?], iv. 10. 
 
 How the Doughty Duke of 
 
 Albany ran away shamefully (quotes 
 Sir Thopas ), 1523, iv. 11. 
 
 Garland of Laurel (classes C. 
 
 with Gower and Lydgate, dreams 
 that C. brings him before the 
 Queen of Fame), 1523, i. 74. 
 
 ■ said to have attributed The 
 
 Nut Brown Maid to C., ii. 53. 
 
 C., Gower and Lydgate, pre- 
 ferred to, in Pymlico, 1609, i. 184. 
 
 classed with Chaucer. See 
 
 Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) Comparisons 
 with other writers.] 
 
 Skelton, Joseph, Illustrations of the 
 Principal Antiquities of Oxford- 
 shire, 1823, ii. 147-8. 
 
 Skinner, S., quotes Verstegan for C.’s 
 introduction of French words, in 
 Etymologicon Linguae Anglicance 
 [a. 1667], i. 243. 
 
 Sloane, Sir H., letters to T. Hearne, 
 1715, asking for the return of his 
 MSS. and editions of C., lent to 
 Urry, i. 335. 
 
 Smith, Alexander, A Life Drama, 
 1852, iii. 11. 
 
 Geoffrey Chaucer, 1862, condemns 
 
 Dryden’s and Pope’s moderniza- 
 tions, iii. 65-6. 
 
 Sydney Dobell, 1856, contrasts 
 
 C. with Spenser, iii. 34-5. 
 
 William Dunbar [ n.a . 1863], 
 
 character of C., iii. 70-1. 
 
 Smith, Edmund, A Poem on the Death 
 of Mr. John Philips [1709?], i. 
 311. 
 
 Smith, Horatio, Address to the Orange 
 Tree at Versailles, 1825, ii. 158. 
 
 Smith, James, preface to Penelope and 
 Ulysses, in Wit and Drollery, 1656, 
 
 i. 233. 
 
 See Mennis, Sir J. 
 
 Smith, John, The Life, Journal, and 
 Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, 
 1841, ii. 240. 
 
 Smith, John T., Antiquities of London, 
 1790, i. 492. 
 
 Nollekens and his Times, 1828, 
 
 ii. 171 ; iv. 96. 
 
 Smith, Richard (i), verses in Gas- 
 coigne’s Posies, 1575, i. 111. 
 
 Smith, Richard (ii), C.’s Works, 1602, 
 in his sale catalogue, r 1682, i. 
 256. 
 
 Smith, Thomas, Catalogus librorum 
 MSS. bibl. Cottoniance, 1696, i. 268. 
 
 Smyth, W., his will, bequeathing C.’s 
 Tales to John More, 1538, iv. 12. 
 
 Some Account of Chaucer, in The 
 Universal Visiter, 1756, i. 412. 
 
 Somes, J., taught C. mathematics (Le- 
 land, [c. 1545]), iv. 13 (Pits, 1613), 
 iv. 63. 
 
 Sompnour's Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 [viii. Works.— (f.) 33.] 
 
 Sonnets, why C. did not write (Leigh 
 Hunt [c. 1855]), iii. 22. 
 
76 
 
 Index. 
 
 Sotheby, W., Specimens of a New 
 Version of Homer, reviewed (E dirib. 
 Rev., 1830), ii. 179-80. 
 
 Soult, Amelie, Ohaucer, 1898, v. 106. 
 Southey, R., Dunnington Castle (son- 
 net), 1795, iv. 100-1. 
 
 — • Essay on the Poetry of Spain 
 and Portugal, 1796, iv. 101. 
 
 Specimens of the Later English 
 
 Poets, 1807, ii. 33-5. 
 
 ■ Commonplace Book, 3rd ser., 
 
 1810, ii. 50; [ n.a . 1843], ii. 249-50. 
 
 History of Brazil, reviewed, 
 
 1810, ii. 50-1. 
 
 Omniana, 1812, ii. 59. 
 
 ■ Notes for Inscriptions on English 
 
 Poets, in Oliver N awman, 1814, ii. 66. 
 
 ed. The Birth, Life, and Acts 
 
 of King Arthur, 1817, ii. 92. 
 
 The Doctor [a. 1819], praises 
 
 Wordsworth’s modernization, ii. 
 109-10. 
 
 Vision of Judgment, 1821, iv. 
 
 105. 
 
 ■ biog. of C. in Select Works of the 
 
 British Poets, 1831, ii. 183. 
 
 ■ Essay, in Attempts in Verse, 
 
 by John Jones, 1831, ii. 184. 
 
 ■ Sketch of the Progress of English 
 
 Poetry, 1836, ii. 206-8. 
 
 preface to his Poetical Works, 
 
 1837, says that he “ drank betimes 
 of Chaucer’s well,” ii. 219. 
 
 ■ letters : to C. Bedford, 1828, if 
 
 confined to twelve English books 
 would include C., ii, 171; to S. T. 
 Coleridge, Feb. 1804, regrets his 
 mildness in reviewing Godwin, ii. 
 20; to W. S. Landor, 1811, admits 
 Spenser’s inferiority to C., ii. 55; 
 to John Rickman, Jan. 20, 1804, 
 ii. 20; to C. H. Townsend, Oct. 31, 
 1817, hopes to ask questions of C. 
 in Heaven, ii. 92; to C. W. W. 
 Wynn, June 9, 1803, ii. 11-12. 
 
 ■ reviews : of Ellis’s Specimens of 
 
 the Early English Poets, 1803, con- 
 demns Dryden’s and Pope’s modern- 
 izations, ii. 12; Ritson’s Ancient 
 English Romances, 1803, ii. 12 ; God- 
 win’s Life of Chaucer, 1803, ii. 12; 
 Chalmers’s ed. of Lyndsay’s Poetical 
 Works, 1806, ii. 28; Lord Holland’s 
 Account of Lope de Vega, 1806, 
 praises Kynaston’s Latin Troilus, 
 ii. 28; Chalmers’s English Poets, 
 1814, confutes Chalmers’s state- 
 ment that C.'s popularity was gone 
 by, ii. 66-7. I 
 
 holds C.’s verse to be rhyth- 
 mical, ii. 11-12, 206-7, introd. lvii, 
 doubtfully, ii. 34; desiderates a 
 complete and faithful ed. of C., ii. 
 28, 59, 208; his early love of C., ii. 
 219, iv. 105. 
 
 Spach, L., art. Chaucer, in Encycl. 
 
 des Gens du Monde, 1835, v. 124. 
 Spalding Society, An Introduction to 
 the Minute Books of [1712?], C. 
 visited Spalding Priory with John 
 of Gaunt, i. 322. 
 
 Spectateur, le, 1737, v. 23. 
 
 Speed, S., The Legend of Humphrey, 
 Duke of St. Paul’s Cathedral Walk 
 (in Fragmenta, Carceris 1674), i. 250. 
 Speght, T., F. Beaumont’s letter to, 
 urging him to publish his Chaucerian 
 studies, 1597, i. 145-6. 
 
 his ed. of Works, 1598, i. 147-8 
 
 iv. 52-3; 1602, i. 168. 
 
 F. Thynne’s Animadversions on. 
 1598, i. 149. 
 
 praised by H. B., 1598, i. 148. 
 
 criticized favourably by T. S. 
 
 Baynes, 1870, iii. 101. 
 
 ■ his defence of C.’s verse, introd. 
 
 xxviii ; his life of C., the best till 
 then, facts and fictions added in, ib. 
 cvi— viii; estimate of his work on C., 
 ib. cxviii-xix. 
 
 Spence, J., Anecdotes collected from 
 Mr. Pope, i. 370, 377, 413. 
 
 Spenser, E., Colin Clout’s come Home 
 Again, 1591, i. 134. 
 
 The Faerie Queene, 1590-96, 
 
 apostrophizes C. as his master, i. 
 132-3; quotes him, iv. 47; ed. by 
 T. Birch, 1751, i. 402; letter con- 
 cerning this ed., by J. Upton, 1751, 
 i. 403—5 ; ed. by R. Church, 
 1758-9, i. 413; ed. by J. Upton, 
 1758, i. 415; Observations on, by 
 T. Warton, 1754, i. 409-10; 2nd 
 ed., 1762, i. 423. 
 
 The Shepherd’s Calendar, praises 
 
 C. as Tityrus, 1579, i. 118-9; Tity- 
 rus interpreted as C. by E. Kirke, 
 i. 117-8. 
 
 ■ A View of the Present State of 
 
 Ireland, 1599, quotes Sir Thopas 
 and Squire’s T.,i. 161. 
 
 ■ Works, ed. J. Hughes, 1715, 
 
 i. 340-41; ed. by H. J. Todd, 
 1805, ii. 25. 
 
 ■ preferred to C. by F. Thynne, 
 
 1600, i. 166; by C. Fitzgeoffrey, 
 
 1601, i. 167 ; by W. Thompson, 1745, 
 i. 391-2. 
 
Index . 
 
 77 
 
 called ‘ our second Chaucer ’ 
 
 by J. Wybarne, 1609, i. 184. 
 
 called, by contrast with C., ‘ the 
 
 father of the intense, allegorical, 
 didactic poets,’ by A. Smith [6. 
 1856], iii. 34. 
 
 — — • by contrast with C. always sent 
 Landor to sleep, ii. 218, iii. 68. 
 
 ■ for comparisons of, with 
 
 Chaucer, see Chaucer, G. [n. (g.) 
 Comparisons with other writers .] 
 
 his revival of Chaucer's diction 
 
 condemned by Ben Jonson [1620- 
 35?], i. 193-4; by Sir T. Culpeper, 
 1671, i. 247-8 ; commended by F. 
 Beaumont, 1597, i. 145-6; by T. 
 Fuller, 1662, i. 239-40; by S. 
 Cobb [a. 1700], i. 271-2 ; see also 
 the editions of Spenser. 
 
 his stanza supposed by W. 
 
 Thompson to have been used by 
 C., 1757, i. 412. 
 
 dissertation on, by E. Legouis, 
 
 1896, v. 104. 
 
 his tomb described, and his 
 
 epitaphs quoted, by Camden, 1600, 
 i. 163; said to have been buried 
 by C. ‘ per accidens,’ by W. Warner, 
 1606, i. 178; at his dying request, 
 by M. P. Case, 1854, iii. 16. 
 
 • • his love of C., introd. xxiii-xxv. 
 
 Spenser’s Squire’s Tale, a continuation 
 of Squire's T ., so entitled, by J. 
 Lane, 1614, i. 189. 
 
 Spirleng, G. and T., copied Cant. 
 Tales (Hunterian MS. 197), 1476-7, 
 iv. 8. 
 
 Sports, mentioned by C., J. Strutt, 
 1801, ii. 2. 
 
 Sprat, T., Bishop, History of the 
 Royal Society , 1667, i. 244. 
 
 Spurious poems. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [vm. Works . — (1.) Spurious .] 
 
 Squire, the, FitzGerald on, 1851, 
 iii. 1-3. 
 
 Squire’s Tale. See Chaucer, G. 
 
 [viii. Works. — (f.) 34.] 
 Stael-Holstein, Anne L. G. de, Be la 
 Litterature, 1800, v. 38. 
 
 Stage Coach, The [1753], i. 408. 
 Stanford, Sir C. V., composed the 
 music for G. A. & Beckett’s opera, 
 The Canterbury Pilgrims, 1884, 
 iii. 135. 
 
 Stanhope, P. D., 4th Earl of Chester- 
 field, letter to his son, Sept. 27, 
 1748, i. 394-5. 
 
 Stanihurst, R., his transl. of Virgil, 
 ^Eneid i-iv, 1582, compares C. to 
 
 Homer or Virgil, and quotes Troilus, 
 
 i. 122-3. 
 
 Stanley, A. P., Historical Memorials 
 of Canterbury, 1855, iii. 27. 
 
 Starkey, A., The Prioress’s Tale and 
 other Poems, 1859, iii. 51. 
 
 Statius, Knight’s Tale partly taken 
 from his Thebais. See Chaucer, G. 
 [vm. Works. — (f . ) 20. Knight’s Tale.\ 
 
 Steele, R., The Tatler, 1709-10, i. 311. 
 
 Steevens, G., letter to T. Percy on 
 Melibeus, Oct. 24, 1796, i. 498-9. 
 
 notes in his edn. of Shakespeare, 
 
 1773, iv. 94; 1778, iv. 95; criticized 
 by Ritson, 1783, iv. 97. 
 
 Sterling, J., concludes Squire’s Tale 
 (as Cambuscan), 1785, i. 479. 
 
 his version and life of Musseus, 
 
 1728, iv. 109 (in Cambridge issue 
 only). 
 
 Stevenson, R. L., A Portrait, in 
 Underwood (quoting “the smiler 
 with the knife ”), 1887, iii. 138. 
 
 Stevins, W., ‘ amended ’ version of 
 Astrolabe [c. 1555], i. 92-3. 
 
 Stewart, — , Furth over the Mold 
 (poem in Bannatyne MS.), 1568, iv. 
 36. 
 
 Stockdale, P, Lectures on the English 
 Poets, reviewed by Unknown, 1808, 
 
 ii. 42. 
 
 Stonor, family of, descended from C., 
 ii. 181. 
 
 Storr, F., jun. (with H. Turner), 
 Canterbury Chimes, 1878, iii. 123. 
 
 Story telling, the essence of C. and of 
 all mediaeval poetry, iii. 51-2. 
 
 Stothard, T., his Canterbury Pilgrims. 
 See Chaucer, G. [v. Illustrations.'] 
 
 various illustrations of C. [a. 
 
 1834], iv. 106. 
 
 Stow, J., The Chronicles ( Annales ) 
 of England, 1580, 1592, 1600, 
 
 records C.'s journey to France of 
 1377, i. 119, 136, 164. 
 
 ■ — - — • The Summary of English 
 Chronicles, 1567, i. 100. 
 
 A Survey of London, 1598, i. 
 
 159-60; 1603, i. 174; ed. Strype, 
 1720, i. 352. 
 
 MS. notes [c. 1600], i. 164. 
 
 his ed. of the Works of C., 1561, 
 
 i. 96; a beginning of a projected 
 collection of ancient authors, 1567, 
 i. 100; criticized by T. S. Baynes, 
 1870, iii. 101. 
 
 contributed facts to Speght’s 
 
 life of C., introd. cvii ; his work on 
 C., ib. cxvii-xviii. 
 
78 
 
 Indeti. 
 
 Strafford, T., Earl of. See Wentworth. 
 Strickland, Agnes, The Pilgrims of 
 Walsingham, 1835, ii. 197. 
 
 and Elizabeth, Lives of the 
 
 Queens of England , 1840-3, ii. 228. 
 Strode, W., verses in Kynaston’s 
 Troilus, 1635, i. 215. 
 
 Strutt, J., A Complete View of the 
 Dress and Habits of the People of 
 England, 1799, i. 502. 
 
 Glig-Gamena Angel-peod ( Sports 
 
 and Pastimes), 1801, ii. 2. 
 
 The Regal and Ecclesiastical 
 
 Antiquities of England, 1773, i. 437. 
 
 ■ pojida An^el-cynnan, 1775-6, i. 
 
 446. 
 
 Strype, J., ed. Stow’s Survey of London 
 and Westminster, 1720, i. 352. 
 Stubbes, G., The Laurel and the 
 Olive, 1710, verses in, by G. Rubb 
 (-Dodington), i. 313. 
 
 Suard, J. B. A., Chaucer in La 
 Biographic Universelle, 1813, the 
 first French account of C. written 
 from first-hand knowledge, v. 8, 
 40-1. 
 
 Suffolk, Alice de la Pole, Duchess of. 
 
 See Chaucer, G. [i. Biog. (d.) 3.] 
 Suffolk, W., Duke of. See De la Pole. 
 Surigo, Stephen, for his epitaph on C. 
 
 see Chaucer, G. [i. (e.) 7.] 
 
 Surrey, H. Howard, Earl of. See 
 Howard. 
 
 Swift, J., letter to John Gay, Nov. 20, 
 1729, thinks he has heard of the 
 Wife of Bath in Shakespeare, iv. 85. 
 — — Memorandum of the Oaths used 
 in the Canterbury Tales, 1740, iv. 88, 
 
 Proposal for correcting the English 
 
 Tongue , 1712, introd. xl-xli; Re- 
 flections on, by J. Oldmixon [1712 ?], 
 l. 322 — 3. 
 
 his lost imitation of C., iv. 88, 
 
 ii. 65. 
 
 C. his favourite (Scott, 1814), ii. 
 
 65. 
 
 Swinburne, A. C., A Midsummer 
 Holiday, 1884, praise of ‘ our 
 father C.,’ iii. 136. 
 
 Short Notes on English Poets, 
 
 foreign influences on C., he repre- 
 sents the English middle class, his 
 happiness, 1880, iii. 131-2. 
 
 William Blake, 1868 (entered as 
 
 1866), iii. 85. 
 
 reviews W. Morris’s Life and 
 
 Death of Jason, 1867, compares 
 Morris as a teller of tales with C., 
 
 iii. 94. 
 
 Swynford, family of, allied to 0. (S. 
 
 Bentley, 1831), ii. 180-81. 
 
 Sydenham, G., note to a poem in 
 Coryat's Crudities, 1611, calls a 
 coarse phrase “ a Chaucerism,” 
 
 iv. 61. 
 
 Sykes, J., applies to Robert Harley, 
 Earl of Oxford, for payment for a 
 picture of C., 1726, i. 368. 
 
 Sylvester, J., lines interpolated in 
 Du Bartas his Divine Weeks and 
 Works, 1611, iv.,62. 
 
 Symonds, R., Diary, 1644, mentioning 
 Donnington as having belonged to 
 C., iv. 71. 
 
 T., G. See Tooke, G. 
 
 T., J., verses to the author of The 
 Horn Exalted, 1661, iv. 74. 
 
 T., W. I., The Court Magazine in the 
 Fourteenth Century, 1835, ii. 198- 
 201 . 
 
 Tabard Inn, the, ref. to Prol. for, by 
 Stowe, 1598, i. 159. 
 
 • called the Talbot (T. Plume \c. 
 
 1649-64]), i. 226. 
 
 article on, 1812, iv. 104. 
 
 ■ described by Manning and 
 
 Bray, 1814, ii. 64-5 ; by Washington 
 Irving, 1822, ii. 137-8; by J. 
 Saunders, 1841, ii. 240. 
 
 • poem on by J. B. F. E. de 
 
 Chatelain, 1866, iii. 82. 
 
 its destruction, iii. 58, 64, 80. 
 
 Taine, H., Chaucer et son temps, in 
 Journal des Debats, 1862, v. 76. 
 
 Histoire de la litterature anglaise, ? 
 
 1863, v. 12—13,76—9; reviewed by 
 Sainte-Beuve, v. 79-80, by Un- 
 known, v. 80. 
 
 Jeffrey Chaucer, in Revue de \ 
 
 I’Instr. publ., 1856, v. 63. 
 
 Talbot, Sir G., possessed a printed l 
 copy of C.T., 1517, i. 73. 
 
 Tale of a Tub revers'd, 1705,'i. 292. 
 
 Tales and Quick Answers \c. 1540], 
 i. 83. 
 
 Tanner, T., Bishop, Bibliotheca 
 Britannico-Hibernica, biography of 
 C., based on Speght, 1748, iv. 90. 
 
 Collections for the Bibliotheca 
 
 Britannico-Hibernica [a. 1748], iv. 
 89-90. 
 
 letter to Dr. A. Charlett on 
 
 Dryden’s funeral, 1700, i. 286. 
 
 Taste [by J. Armstrong ?], 1753, iv. 91. 
 Taste, literary, fluctuations in, illus- 
 trated by the allusions, introd. 
 cxxiv, etc. 
 
Index. 
 
 79 
 
 Tatham, J., The Character of the 
 Rump, 1660, i. 238. 
 
 Taylor, G. W., Poems, written in 
 English, by Charles Duke of 
 Orleans, ed. by, 1827, ii. 167. 
 
 Taylor, J., ‘the Water Poet,’ The 
 Honourable Foundations of divers 
 Cities, 1636, i. 217. 
 
 The Praise of Hemp-seed, 1620, 
 
 i. 194. 
 
 Taylor’s Motto, 1621, has read 
 
 C. and noted much good, i. 195. 
 
 his catalogue of birds imitated 
 
 from C. (Southey, 1831), ii. 184. 
 
 Temple, the, C.’s connection with, 
 see Chaucer, G [i. Biog. (e.) 2.] 
 
 ten Brink, B. See Brink, B. ten. 
 
 Tenison, T., Abp. of Cant., rejects 
 The Court of Love in * a little 
 history of C.,’ contributed to Cave’s 
 Ecclesiastical Writers, quoted by 
 Upton, i. 404-5. 
 
 Tennyson, A., Lord, A Dream of 
 Fair Women, inspired by L.G.W., 
 1832, ii. 186. 
 
 Poems, 1842, reviewed, ii. 246. 
 
 letter to the Duke of Argyll, 
 
 1864, iii. 75. 
 
 enjoyed reading Chaucer aloud, 
 
 ib. 
 
 Terrent, T., elegy on Ben Jonson, in 
 Jonsonus Virbius, 1637, i. 218. 
 
 Testament of Love, The. See Usk, T. 
 
 Text of C. See Chaucer, G. [vi. 
 Manuscripts; viii. Works. — (e.) 
 Editions; and under separate 
 Works (f.), (g.)] 
 
 Thackeray, W. M., A Grumble about 
 the Christmas Books, 1847, ii. 275. 
 
 Theobald, L., letters to Warburton, 
 1729-30, with notes on Shake- 
 speare’s Troilus, etc., i. 371. 
 
 A Miscellany on Taste, 1732, 
 
 i. 374. 
 
 notes in his ed. of Shakespeare, 
 
 1740, i. 388. 
 
 preface to Richard II., 1720, 
 
 i. 352. 
 
 Shakespeare Restored, 1726, i. 
 
 368. 
 
 ed. Shakespeare, Works, 1733, 
 
 i. 375-6. 
 
 Th6vet, A., quotes Bale for C.’s Rom. 
 Rose in Vie de Jean Clopinel dit de 
 Meung (in Roman de la Rose), 1584, 
 (entered under 1735), v. 22, 123. 
 
 Thierry, A., Histoire de la Conquete 
 de V Angleterre par les Normands, 
 1825, 3rd ed., 1830, v. 47-8. 
 
 Thiroux d’Arconville, M. G. C., 
 
 Melanges de Poesie angloise, 1764, 
 considers the most esteemed of 
 C.’s works to be The Testament of 
 Love, v. 123-4. 
 
 Thomas, of Ercildoune, the Rhymer, 
 Sir Tristrem, ed. Sir W. Scott, 1804, 
 ii. 19. 
 
 — - — more responsible than C. for 
 admixture of French words (Pinker- 
 ton, 1786), i. 484. 
 
 Thomas, Elizabeth, her account of 
 Dryden’s funeral, 1729, i. 371. 
 
 Thomas, T., Estimate of the Produce 
 of the [Urry’s] ed. of Chaucer 
 [1715?], i. 334. 
 
 preface and glossary to Works, 
 
 1721, i. 356-8. 
 
 held Melibeus to be in blank 
 
 verse (Steevens, 1796), i. 498-9. 
 
 Thomas, W., Professor at Lyons 
 Univ., transl. Man of Law's T., 
 etc., into French, 1908, v. 111. 
 
 Thomas, William, notes in a copy of 
 Urry’s ed. of Works [a. 1764], 
 i. 424. 
 
 Thommerel, J. P., Recherches sur la 
 fusion du franco-norman et de 
 I’anglo- saxon, 1841, v. 53-4. 
 
 Thompson, W., In Chaucer’s Boure 
 (imitation of C.) [c. 1745], i. 392-3. 
 
 ■ An Hymn to May, in Poems, 
 
 1757, i. 412; iv. 109 (in Cambridge 
 issue only). 
 
 Sickness, 1745, i. 391-2. 
 
 Thomson, A., criticism on the Howlat 
 [a. 1803], ii. 5-6. 
 
 Thomson, J., Summer, 1744, confesses 
 his debt to C., i. 391. 
 
 Thoms, W. J., ed. The History of 
 Reynard the Fox, 1844, with notes 
 on Nuns’ Priest’s T., ii. 257. 
 
 ■ notes in Notes and Queries, 1850, 
 
 58, 59, ii. 284-5, iii. 47, 49. 
 
 Thopas, Sir. See Chaucer, G. [viii. 
 Works. — (f.) 32.] 
 
 Thoreau, H. D., Homer, Ossian, 
 Chaucer, 1843, ii. 250-2. 
 
 Journal, 1842, ii. 245. 
 
 ■ — — Walden, 1854, iii. 19. 
 
 Thurlow, E. H., Lord, Arcita and 
 Palamon, modernization of Knight’s 
 T., 1822, ii. 140. 
 
 The Flower and the Leaf 
 
 (modernization), 1823, ii. 148. 
 
 Moonlight, 1814, ii. 67. 
 
 Sylva (in Poems), 1813, ii. 60. 
 
 Thynne, F., Animadversions upon the 
 [Speght’s] Annotations of Chaucer’s 
 
80 
 
 Index. 
 
 Works, 1598, i. 149-55; reprinted 
 by H. J. Todd, 1810, ii. 50, ed. 
 by G. H. Kingsley, 1865, iii. 77-8; 
 ed. by F. J. Furnivall, 1875, iii. 
 78; introd. xxii-xxiii. 
 
 Another Discourse upon the 
 
 Philosopher’s Arms, 1576, i. 113. 
 
 Emblems and Epigrams, 1600, 
 
 i. 165; iv. 54-5. 
 
 Of the Antiquity of the Houses 
 
 of Law [a. 1608], i. 180. 
 
 poem ‘ upon the picture of 
 
 Chaucer,’ 1602, i. 170. 
 
 Thynne, W., ed. Works, 1532, i. 78-9; 
 2nd ed., 1542, i. 83 ; introd. xvi- 
 xvii; praised by Leland [c. 1545], 
 iv 17 ; account of, by F. Thynne, 
 1598, i. 150-5; criticized by T. S. 
 Bajmes, 1870, iii. 101; his work on 
 C., introd. cxv-xvii. 
 
 Tick ell, T., A Poem on the Prospect of 
 Peace, 1712, i. 324. 
 
 Ticknor, G., History of Spanish 
 Literature, 1849, compares Ruiz 
 de Hita with C., ii. 280. 
 
 Tieck, J. L., Des Lebens Ueberfluss, 
 1822, v. 139-40 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 
 1839, v. 140 (in Cambridge issue). 
 Times and Poetry of Chaucer, The 
 (in Knickerbocker Mag.), 1849, ii. 
 280-1. 
 
 Tinker of Turvey, The, 1630, his tales 
 claimed to imitate C.’s, i. 803. 
 
 Titles of books drawn from or con- 
 nected with C., introd. lxxxvi-vii; 
 see Chaucer, G. [x.] 
 
 Tityrus, Spenser’s nom de bergerie for 
 C., in Shepherd’s Calendar, 1579, 
 i. 118; in Colin Clout, 1591, i. 134; 
 so explained by E. Kirke, 1579, 
 
 i. 117; followed by W. Browne, 
 
 1614, [1626-43], i. 187-8, 200; by 
 W. Mason, 1744 (entered as 1747), i. 
 393; tyy R. Potter, 1749, i. 400. 
 
 Tobacco, a lost poem in praise of, 
 attributed to Chaucer \n.a. 1617], 
 answered by Brathwait, iv. 65. 
 
 Todd, H. J., Illustrations of Chaucer 
 and Gower, 1810, ii. 50. 
 
 ed. Johnson’s Dictionary, 1818, 
 
 ii. 109. 
 
 ed. Works of Spenser, 1805, ii. 25. 
 
 Tofte, R., The Fruits of Jealousy, 
 
 1615, iv. 108 (in Cambridge issue 
 only). 
 
 Toll, T., verses to the author, in 
 Murford’s Fragmenta Poetica, 1650, 
 asserting that C. was bred in Lynn, 
 iv. 72 . 
 
 Tomb, Chaucer’s. See Chaucer, G. 
 [I- (e.) 7.] 
 
 Tomson, I., The Lover complaineth 
 the loss of his Lady (in A Handful 
 of pleasant delights), 1584, iv. 44. 
 Tooke, G., The Belides, 1647, i. 225. 
 Tooke, J. Horne. See Horne-Tooke, J. 
 Topsell, E., The History of Four- 
 footed Beasts and Serpents, 1658, 
 i. 236. 
 
 Tragedies, C. wrote (Lydgate, 1430), 
 i. 43. 
 
 Translation, nearly all C.’s work under 
 the age of forty is (A. W. Pollard, 
 1894), iii. 145; see also French 
 Literature ; Italian Literature ; 
 Boccaccio ; Dante ; Fabliaux ; 
 Roman de la Rose; etc. 
 
 Trapp, J., Prodectiones Poeticce, 1722, 
 prefers Dryden to Homer and 
 Virgil, i. 362-3. 
 
 Trench, R. C., English Past and 
 Present, 1855, iii. 28. 
 
 Trinitarius, modernization by, of the 
 Good Parson, 1800, i. 504. 
 Trochereau de la BerliSre, J., A. 
 Choix de differens Morceaux de 
 Poesie traduits de I’Anglois, 1749, 
 giving an account of C., v. 6, 26-7. 
 Troilus and Cresseid. See Chaucer, 
 G. [vm. Works. — (g.) 28.] 
 
 Trotter, J. B., Memoirs of C. J. Fox, 
 1811, ii. 56; Landor’s comment 
 upon, iv. 103. 
 
 Trouveres, C.’s debt to (E. G. Sandras, 
 1859), v. 69-74. 
 
 ■ C. only classed with, from 
 
 Chauvinism (Unknown, 1867), iii. 
 94. 
 
 Troy, the Destruction of [a. 1400], 
 i. 14. 
 
 Trumpington Mill, the ruins of, still 
 visible in 1753 (E. Carter), i. 406. 
 See also Chaucer, G. [vm. (f.) 31. 
 Reeve’s Tale.] 
 
 Truth. See Chaucer, G. [vm. (g.) 
 29.] 
 
 Tuke, Sir B., dedication to Henry 
 VIII. of Thynne’s ed. of Chaucer, 
 1532, i. 79, introd. xvii ; preface to 
 same, ib. cxvii; assisted in the ed., 
 according to F. Thynne, 1598, i. 
 151. 
 
 Turberville, G., The Book of Falconry, 
 1575, uses “ Canterbury Tale ” 
 contemptuously, i. 111. 
 
 Epitaphs, Epigrams, Songs and 
 
 Sonnets [ c . 1567], confuses C.’s and 
 Henryson’s Cresseid, iv. 35. 
 
Index . 
 
 81 
 
 Epitaphs and Sonnets. 1569, vi. 
 
 37. 
 
 letter in Gascoigne's Hundreth 
 
 Sundrie Flowers, 1572, iv. 38. 
 
 Turner, H. (with F. Storr), Canterbury 
 Chimes, 1878 (selected tales for 
 children), iii. 123. 
 
 Turner, S., History of England during 
 the Middle Ages, 1815, giving an 
 account of C., ii. 80; 1825, dis- 
 parages C., ii. 158. 
 
 Turner, T. H., Some Account of 
 Domestic Architecture in England, 
 1851, iii. 7. 
 
 Turner, W., letter to J. Foxe [1550- 
 53?], speaking of C. and others as 
 being translated into a bastard 
 Anglo-French, i. 90. 
 
 Twyne, B., Antiquitatis Academiae 
 Oxoniensis Apologia, 1608, i. 180. 
 
 extracts from Chaucer [1608— 
 
 44?], i. 181. 
 
 Tyndale, W., The Obedience of a 
 Christen Man, 1528, classes Troilus 
 with frivolous romances, etc., iv. 
 11 . 
 
 Tyr whitt, T., noticed as being at 
 work on C., by Morell, 1771, and 
 by Gough, 1772, i. 436-7. 
 
 his ed. of C.T., 1775-8, i. 442-6, 
 
 451 ; reviews and mentions of, i. 
 451, 455, iv. 94; text of, pirated by 
 Bell, 1781, i. 464-5, 474; his 
 edition financially unprofitable, i. 
 474; praised by Ritson, 1782, 
 i. 468; by P. Neve, 1789, i. 488; 
 criticised, 1866, iii. 85; by T. S. 
 Bayne) s, 1870, iii. 102-3; his notes 
 to, thought tedious by H. Walpole, 
 1775, iv. 94; his text condemned 
 by T. Wright, 1844, ii. 258; 
 Lipscomb’s use of, 1795, i. 496-7; 
 his caution in touching C.'s bio- 
 graphy, introd. cx ; his work on C., 
 ib. liv-v, cxxi-iii. 
 
 his ed. of Chatterton, 1777, i. 
 
 432-3; Appendix to, 1778, i. 451; 
 Vindication of the Appendix, 1782, 
 i. 469; praised by Walpole, ib. ; 
 criticized by J. Fell, i. 466; re- 
 viewed, i. 469. 
 
 Observations upon some Passages 
 
 of Shakespeare, 1766, i. 429. 
 
 Tytler, A. F., Lord Woodhouselee, 
 his ed. of Allan Ramsay’s Poems , 
 1800, i. 504. 
 
 Tytler, H. W., modernizations of 
 Clerk’s T. and Gamelyn, in Mis- 
 cellanies, 1828, ii. 171. 
 
 Tytler, W., A Dissertation on the 
 Scottish Musick, in Arnot’s History 
 of Edinburgh, 1779, i. 458. 
 
 ■ his ed. of Poetical Remains of 
 
 James I. of Scotland, 1783, praise 
 of C. in, i. 475. 
 
 U nto my Lady, the Flower of Woman- 
 hood [1450-60 ?], i. 53. 
 
 Upton, J., Critical Observations on 
 Shakespeare, 1746, i. 393; 1748, i. 
 396-8. 
 
 — — A Letter concerning a new 
 [Birch’s] edition of Spenser’s Faerie 
 Queene, 1751, i. 403-5. 
 
 — — • ed. Spenser’s Faerie Queene, 
 1758, i. 415; criticized (Unknown, 
 1759), 416. 
 
 Urry, J., his ed. of Works, 1714-15, 
 passim, i. 330-37; 1721, i. 353-6; 
 sketch of a preface to it, 1714, 
 i. 330-31; licence for, 1714, iv. 
 82-3 ; announcement of, in le 
 Journal Literaire, 1715, v. 3, 21; 
 his work described by T. Thomas, 
 1721, i. 356-8; letter about, by 
 W. Brome, 1733, i. 375; badness 
 of his text pointed out by Heame, 
 17-||, i. 376; and illustrated by P. 
 Neve, 1789, i. 488-9; criticized by 
 Unknown, 1836, ii. 209; by T. S. 
 Baynes, 1870, iii. 102 ; by the editor, 
 introd. cxix-xxi. 
 
 letter to Lord Harley on MSS. 
 
 of C., Nov. 24, 1712, i. 325-6. 
 
 epitaph on himself, 1714-15, i. 
 
 332. 
 
 death of, 1714-15 (G. Hickes, 
 
 T. Hearne), i. 332-3. 
 
 Usk, T., The Testament of Love [c. 
 1387], i. 8; introd. xii; first printed 
 by Thynne, 1532, i. 79 ; referred to 
 or quoted as C.’s by (among others) 
 J. Foxe, 1570, i. 106; J. Bossewell, 
 1572, i. 108; T. Hearne, 1709; con- 
 sidered the most admired of C.’s 
 works by Thiroux d’Arconville, 
 1764, v. 123-4; rejected by W. 
 Hertzberg, 1866, v. 146-7; and by 
 J. P. Collier, 1867, iii. 87, 93; 
 legends based on by Speght, introd. 
 evii ; a source of the C. legend, ib. 
 cix. 
 
 V., R., Gent. See Veal, R. 
 
 V., W. See Vallans, W. 
 
 Vallans, W., The Honourable Prentice , 
 
 1615, i. 190-1. 
 
 CHAUCER CRITICISM 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 Index. 
 
 Vallod, — , transl. Second Nun's T. 
 into French, 1908, v. 112. 
 
 Vapereau, G., arts, on Chaucer, Gower, 
 Lydgate and Chatterton, in Diet, 
 univ. des Litt ., 1876, v. 84-5. 
 
 Vaughan, R., Revolutions in English 
 History, 1859, iii. 52. 
 
 Vaughan, Sir W., The Golden-grove , 
 1600, i. 167. 
 
 Veal, R., verses in Durfey’s New 
 Court-Songs and Poems, 1672, iv. 76. 
 
 Vernon, H., verses on Dryden, in 
 Gallus, 1700, i. 288. 
 
 Verstegan, R., A Restitution of 
 Decayed Intelligence, 1605, re- 
 verences C., but calls him a great 
 mingler of English with French, 
 i. 176. 
 
 Vertue, G., note on portraits of C., 
 in Anecdotes of Painting, ed. by 
 H. Walpole, 1762, i. 423. 
 
 his engravings and account of 
 
 Hoccleve’s portrait (Gray, 1760), 
 i. 417-18. 
 
 notes on C. by, iv. 85. 
 
 Remarks, in Philosophical Trans- 
 actions, 1747, i. 394. 
 
 was a versifier, his searches 
 
 after and portraits of C. (Walpole, 
 1778), i. 454. 
 
 Villemain, A. F., Cours de Litterature 
 Frangaise, 1830, v. 45-7. 
 
 Essai lifteraire sur Shakespeare 
 
 (in Melanges ), 1827, v. 44. 
 
 reviews Chateaubriand’s Essai 
 
 sur la Litterature anglaise, 1837, 
 v. 10, 50. 
 
 Villon, F., contrasted with C. by 
 Swinburne, 1880, iii. 131-2. 
 
 Vinegar, T., ps., Letter to Captain 
 Vinegar, 1739, i. 386. 
 
 Visions of poets in which C. appears, 
 introd. Ixxxvii. 
 
 Vorio, ps., Verses in Gent.’s Mag., 
 1740, i. 388. 
 
 Vulcanius, B., compares C. to Homer, 
 1586, iv. 107 (in Cambridge issue 
 only). 
 
 W., C., Sonnet to Chaucer (in Chaucer 
 Modernized, 1823), ii. 148. 
 
 W., D., verses to the Author of Sir 
 Francis Drake (Charles Fitz- 
 Geffrey), 1596, iv. 48. 
 
 W., P., verses on Dryden, in Gallus, 
 1700, i. 288. 
 
 W., S. W., verses to the author 
 (K.Q.), in Naps upon Parnassus, 
 1658, iv. 73. 
 
 W., W., preface to R. Johnson’s 
 Seven Champions [1686 ?], iv. 78. 
 
 Wade, the romance of, probably a 
 border composition (Scott, 1804), 
 
 Wade, T., The Contention of Death 
 and Love, 1837, ii. 221. 
 
 Wahl, E., transl. Wife of Bath’s T., 
 and Friar’s T. into French, 1908, 
 v. 112. 
 
 Waine wright, T. G., C. van V ink- 
 booms, his Dogmas for Dilettanti, 
 1821, ii. 136. 
 
 — —-^Exhibition of the Royal Academy, 
 
 Modest offer of Service from Mr. 
 
 Bonmot (in London Mag.), 1820, ii. 
 
 Sentimentalities on the Fine 
 
 Arts, 1820, ii. 129. 
 
 WaP [Waller ?], Nic., MS. stanza in a 
 copy of C.’s Works, 1602, i. 173. 
 
 Waldron, F. G., ed. Ben Jonson’s 
 Sad Shepherd, 1783, i. 476. 
 
 ed. Peacham’s Period of Mourn- 
 ing, 1789, i. 490. 
 
 — — ed. Kynaston’s Troilus, 1797, 
 i. 499; reviewed, i. 500. 
 
 Walkington, T., The Optic Glass of 
 Humours, 1607, i. 179. 
 
 Wall, J. W., Early English Poets, 
 Chaucer (in Knickerbocker Mag.), 
 1854, iii. 20. ' 
 
 Waller, E., Poems, ed. 3, 1668, holds 
 4 the glory of C.’s numbers lost, 
 because not written in Latin or 
 Greek,’ i. 244. 
 
 Waller, J. G., designed a painted 
 window over C.’s tomb, 1868, 
 iii. 97. 
 
 Wallis, J., Grammatica Linguae 
 Anglicanoe, 1653, i. 229. 
 
 Walpole, Horace, Anecdotes of Paint- < 
 ing, 1762, i. 423; ed. by Dallaway, 
 1826, ii. 160-61. 
 
 A Catalogue of Royal and Noble 
 
 Authors, 1758, i. 415; ed. of, in 
 Works, 1798, i. 501. 
 
 letter to W. Barrett, with re- 
 mark on Vertue, May 23, 1778, i. 
 454; to Misses M. and A. Berry, 
 Sept. 4, 1789, quoting Prol. 751-2 
 as Spenser’s, i. 490 ; to Earl 
 Harcourt, Sept. 7, 1782, i. 469; 
 to Sir H. Mann, July 29, 1742, 
 alluding to the Wife of Bath as 
 from the old ballad, not as from 
 C., i. 390; to W. Mason, April 7, 
 1774, i. 439* preferring Dryden 
 
Index . 
 
 83 
 
 to C., 1775, iv. 94; Nov. 13, 1781, 
 i. 464; to G. Montagu, Aug. 11, 
 1748, on his attempt to prove his 
 descent from C., i. 398; April 15, 
 1768, i. 431; to J. Pinkerton, 
 June 22, 1785, i. 482. 
 
 List of Vertue's Works, in 
 
 A Catalogue of Engravers, 1763, 
 i. 424. 
 
 Walton, J., of Osney, Liber Boeti de 
 Consolatione philosophi, 1410, con- 
 fesses his inferiority to C., i. 20-1. 
 
 poem in his transl. of Boethius, 
 
 attr. to C. in a MS., i. 63. 
 
 Wanley, H., Catalogus librorum 
 manuscriptorum Anglice, 1697, iv. 
 81. 
 
 Codices Anglo- Saxonici Biblio- 
 
 thecce Bodleiance, 1705, i. 292-3. 
 
 letter to Dr. Charlett, 1701, 
 
 i. 290. 
 
 Warburton, W., Bishop, letter to Dr. 
 Balguy, Oct. 7, 1762, wishing 
 
 Warton to edit C., i. 423-4. 
 
 — — • ed. Shakespeare, 1747, i. 394. 
 
 Ward, Sir A. W., Chaucer (in “ English 
 Men of Letters”), 1879, iii. 124-6; 
 reviewed by J. J. Jusserand, 1880, 
 v. 86. 
 
 Ward, E., London Spy, 1700, with 
 account of Dry den’s funeral, i. 286 ; 
 iv. 82. 
 
 "Ware, Sir J., The History of Ireland, 
 ed. by, 1633, Spenser buried by C., 
 iv. 66. 
 
 Spenser’s View of the State of 
 
 Ireland, ed. by, 1633, i. 206. 
 
 Warner, R., Literary Recollections, 
 1830, on Richman’s sequel to C.T., 
 
 ii. 180. 
 
 Warner, W., A Continuance of 
 Albions England, 1606, Spenser 
 buried near C. “ per accidens,” i. 
 178. 
 
 Warton, John, ed. Poetical Works of 
 Dryden, 1811, ii. 56. 
 
 Warton, Joseph, Essay on Pope, 
 1756, i. 412; 4th ed., 1782, i. 
 470-1 ; reviews of, i. 472. 
 
 notes to Dryden’s Poetical 
 
 Works, 1811, ii. 56. 
 
 ed. Pope’s Works, 1797, i. 500. 
 
 Warton, T., sen., Paraphrase on 
 Leviticus, 1747, imitating C., i. 
 394; iv. 89; this imitation a step 
 forward, introd. xlix. 
 
 Warton, T., jun., An Enquiry into the 
 Authenticity of Rowley , 1782, i. 472; 
 reviews of, ib. 
 
 Essays on Gothic Architecture , 
 
 1800, i. 504. 
 
 — — The History of English Poetry, 
 1774, 1778, 1781, i. 439-41, 454-5, 
 464; criticized by Ritson, 1782, 
 i. 468; condemned by Walpole, 
 1774, i. 439; other notices of, 
 1774-81, i. 439, 442, 455, 461, 464. 
 
 • Observations on the Fairy Queen, 
 
 1754, i. 409-10; 2nd ed., 1762, i. 
 423; praised, an ed. of C. by him 
 wished for, by Warburton, 1762, 
 i. 423-4. 
 
 Ode on His Majesty's Birthday, 
 
 1787, i. 486-7. 
 
 The Triumph of Isis [1749], 
 
 i. 400. 
 
 ed. Milton’s Poems upon Several 
 
 Occasions, 1785, i. 482; Darby’s 
 Letter to him upon this, ib. 
 
 poem to (in Gent.’s Mag.), 1779, 
 
 iv. 96. 
 
 ■ the first thorough student of 
 
 C., and the first to notice his pathos 
 and sublimity, introd. li-ii. 
 
 Watson, T., The 'EKcnofAiradia [1582], 
 with note on C.’s transl. from 
 Petrarch, i. 123. 
 
 Watt, R., Bibliotheca Britannica, 
 1819, ii. 120. 
 
 Watts, R., exclusion of proctors 
 from his Refuge for Poor Travellers 
 at Rochester perhaps based on 
 C.’s Pardoner (Dickens, 1866), iii. 
 82. 
 
 Webb(e), C., Satire on the Cockney 
 School, 1817, ii. 93. 
 
 Sonnet to Italy, 1819, ii. 121. 
 
 Webbe, W., A Discourse of English 
 Poetry, 1586, defending C. as 
 stylist and satirist, i. 129-30. 
 
 • treats C. as a moral writer, 
 
 introd. xx-xxi. 
 
 Webster, J., Monuments of Honour, 
 1624, introducing C. into a City 
 pageant, i. 198-9. 
 
 and Dekker, T., Northward 
 
 Hoe [1605], i. 175. 
 
 * (with Dekker), Westward Hoe , 
 
 1607, iv. 60. 
 
 Wedderburn, — , My love was false 
 (poem in Bannatyne MS.), 1568, iv. 
 37. 
 
 Weekly Essays (in Grub Street Journal, 
 etc.), 1732, iv. 86. 
 
 Weever, J., Ancient Funeral Monu- 
 ments, 1631, C.’s tomb, i. 204; 
 his marriage and connections, iv. 
 66 . 
 
Index. 
 
 Welsted, L., dissertation, prefixed to 
 Epistles , etc., 1724, holds the 
 English language to be then at its 
 perfection, i. 367. 
 
 Poem to the Memory of J. 
 
 Philips [1710], i. 313. 
 
 Wentworth, T., Earl of Strafford, 
 letter to Mr. Secretary Coke, 1635, 
 iv. 69; to Viscount Conway, 1637, 
 iv. 70. 
 
 C., with Donne, his favourite 
 
 poet, according to Browning ( ?), 
 1836, ii. 202; his knowledge of 
 C.T., introd. xxxii. 
 
 Wesley, S., An Epistle concerning 
 Poetry, 1700, finds C.’s lines rough 
 and unequal, i. 289. 
 
 Maggots [1685], i. 258. 
 
 Westminster Abbey. See Chaucer, G. 
 [i. (e.) 7. Tomb.] 
 
 Weymouth, R. E., Bishop Grosseteste's 
 “ Castle of Love," 1862, commenting 
 on the irregularity of C.’s verse, 
 iii. 66. 
 
 Wharton, G. [Sir George?], To Mr. 
 Loveday [verses], in La Calpre- 
 nede’s Hymen’s Prceludia, 1652, i. 
 228. 
 
 Wharton, H., Historiola de Chaucero 
 nostro [as a theologian], [c. 1687], 
 i. 261; iv. 78-80. 
 
 Wharton, J., To the Christian Reader, 
 in Jud. Smith’s Mystical Device, 
 1575, condemning C.’s “stale 
 [i. e. dirty] tales,” i. 111. 
 
 Wharton, R., Fables, 1804-5, con- 
 taining modernizations from C., 
 etc., ii. 22. 
 
 Whetstone, G., Epilogus to The 
 Castle of Delight, 1576, iv. 40. 
 
 ■ — — • The English Myrror, 1586, iv. 45. 
 
 Promos and Cassandra, 1578, 
 
 i. 116. 
 
 Whimsical Legacy, The, 1769 (imita- 
 tion of Sompnour’s T.), iv. 94. 
 Whitaker, T. D., History and Anti- 
 quities of Craven, 1805, ii. 25-6. 
 
 ed. Visio Willi de Petro Plouh- 
 
 man, 1813, ii. 60-1. 
 
 White, Gilbert, letters, 1775-81, iv. 
 95. 
 
 The Natural History and Anti- 
 quities of Selborne, 1789, refers to 
 C.’s fame as a satirist, iv. 98. 
 
 White, James, The Adventures of 
 John of Gaunt, 1790, introducing 
 C. as a character, i. 492. 
 
 White, John, The Country- Man’s 
 Conductor, 1701, i. 290. 
 
 White, W. (contemporary divine), 
 testified to C.’s disapproval of idle 
 monks, as recorded by Bale, 1548, 
 iv. 20. 
 
 Whitehead, W., On Nobility, 1744, 
 iv. 89. 
 
 Whitelock, B., Speech to the new Ser- 
 jeants at the Chancery Bar, 1648, 
 
 iv. 71 ; printed in his Memorials, 
 1675, i. 251. 
 
 Whitgift, J., Archbishop ( ?), read and 
 commended C. while at Cambridge 
 (F. Beaumont, 1597), i. 146. 
 Whitney, — , obsolete words in his 
 Choice of Emblems, 1586, by H. 
 Green, 1866, iii. 83. 
 
 Whittier, J. G., Margaret Smith’s 
 Journal, 1849, ii. 282. 
 
 Wiclif. See Wycliffe. 
 
 Widdrington, Sir T., Analecta Ebor- 
 acensia, 1660, quoting Ploughman’s 
 T. as C.’s, iv. 73. 
 
 Wieland, C. M., Oberon, 1780, derived 
 from Merchant’ s T. through Pope, 
 
 v. 134. 
 
 Wife of Bath, the, her character at- 
 tributed to Shakespeare by Swift, 
 1729, iv. 85; described by Blake, 
 
 1809, ii. 45-6; this criticized by 
 Cunningham, iv. 105-6 ; S. Butler, 
 1891, iii. 140; Gay’s comedy of the, 
 1713, i. 326-8. 
 
 Wife of Bath’s Prol. and Tale. 
 
 See Chaucer, G. [vm. Works. — (f.) 
 35, 36.] 
 
 The Wanton Wife of Bath (by 
 
 Paul Moore?), 1600, iv. 54; altered 
 as The New Wife of Beath, 1700, i. 
 288; as The Wife of Beith [1785 ?], 
 i. 480. 
 
 Wilkes, J., Encyclopaedia Londinensis, 
 
 1810, ii. 51; 1815, ii. 81. 
 
 Wilier t, H., The House of Fame, dis. 
 sertation on, 1883, v. 150; ed. of, 
 1888, v. 151. 
 
 Williams, Sir C. Hanbury, To Mrs. 
 Bindon at Bath, in Dodsley, 1758, 
 i. 415. 
 
 Willis, B., satire on, as an antiquary, 
 by Dr. Darrell [a. 1760], i. 417. 
 Willmott, R. A., Lives of the Sacred 
 Poets, 1834, regards C. as a 
 Wycliffite, ii. 194. 
 
 Wills, early, bequests of copies of 
 C.’s works in, introd. lxxxvii- 
 viii. 
 
 Wihnot, J., Earl of Rochester, A 
 Pastoral on the Death of, in his 
 Poems, 1696, i. 268. 
 
Index. 
 
 85 
 
 Wilson, J., dramatist. The Cheats , 
 1662, i. 240. 
 
 Wilson, J., critic. See North, C. 
 
 Wilson, T., The Art of Rhetoric, 1553, 
 observes that courtiers talk Chaucer, 
 i. 91. 
 
 Winchelsea, Anne Finch, Countess of. 
 See Finch. 
 
 Windsor, Chaucer at, poem by T. 
 Campbell [c. 1836-40], ii. 202-3. 
 
 Winstanley, W., England’s Worthies, 
 1660, attributing Edward III.’s 
 epitaph to C., i. 238. 
 
 The Lives of the English Poets , 
 
 1687, i. 261. 
 
 Winwood, R., letter to Sir T. 
 Edmondes, 1601, quoting Lyd- 
 gate’s Balade of deceitful women 
 as C.’s, i. 167. 
 
 Wiseman, N. P. S., Cardinal, On the 
 Perception of Natural Beauty, C.’s 
 love of nature associated with 
 wantonness, 1855, iii. 29; reply 
 to, by Leigh Hunt, 1859, iii. 49. 
 
 Wit, attributed to C. See Chaucer, G. 
 [h. (f.) 3.] . 
 
 changes in the meaning ot the 
 
 word, introd. xcvii-viii. 
 
 Wit and Drollery, 1656, verses in, i. 
 233-4. 
 
 Wit and Fancy in a Maze. See 
 Holland, S. 
 
 Wit of a Woman, The, 1604, iv. 56. 
 
 Wit Restored, 1658, verses in, i. 
 234. 
 
 Wit’s Recreation, 1641, i. 219. 
 
 With, Elizabeth, Elizabeth Fools 
 Warning, 1659, i. 237. 
 
 Wither, G., Wither’s Motto, 1621, i. 
 195. 
 
 Wolcot, J. See Pindar, Peter, ps. 
 
 Woman’s Dove, or the Triumphs of 
 Patience (a play, based on the 
 Griselda story), critique of, 1828, 
 ii 171. 
 
 Wood, A. a, Athenai Oxonienses, 
 1691-2, i. 264. 
 
 MS. note on Woodstock, 1659, 
 
 iv. 73. 
 
 ■ — — Survey of the Antiquities of 
 Oxford, 1661-6, i. 238. 
 
 Woods, C.’s love of, noticed by Scott, 
 1828, ii. 170-1 ; by Ruskin, 1856, 
 iii. 33; more feared by southern 
 than by northern peoples, ib. 
 
 Woodstock, C. born at : Camden, 1586, 
 i. 128 ; Pits, 1613, iv. 63 ; Unknown, 
 1622, i. 198; J. Taylor, 1636, i. 217 ; 
 Kennet, 1695, ii. 147: Unknown, 
 
 1727, i. 369-70; H. Boyd, 1797, i. 
 447-8; J. Skelton, 1823, ii. 147-8; 
 lived and wrote at : (besides the 
 refs, above) Leland [c. 1545], iv. 8; 
 Stow, 1600, i. 164; E. Gayton, 
 1654, i. 229 ; Aubrey, 1669, i. 245 ; 
 W. Harrison, 1706, i. 293; T. 
 Tickell, 1712, i. 324; J. Dart, 1721, 
 
 i. 358; H. Dalrymple (?), 1761, i. 
 421 ; remains of his house still ex- 
 isted at in 1659 (A. a Wood) iv. 73 ; 
 in 1772, i. 493; C. retired to: H. 
 Wharton, [c. 1687], iv. 79. 
 
 Worde, W. de, printed C.T., 1498, i. 
 65; Troilus, 1517, i. 72; Parlia- 
 ment of Fowls, 1530, i. 76. 
 
 Wordsworth, C., Ecclesiastical Bio- 
 graphy, 1810, ii. 51. 
 
 Wordsworth, Dorothy, entries in her 
 Journal, mostly recording readings 
 of C. with W. Wordsworth, 1801, 
 
 ii. 2-3, 5, 14; 1820, ii. 130. 
 
 Wordsworth, W. 
 
 [Books, poems, etc., containing 
 
 allusions :] 
 
 — — Lyrical Ballads, preface to, 
 2nd ed., 1800 (the affecting parts 
 of C. expressed in language still 
 intelligible), iv. 102. 
 
 Prelude, 1805, ii. 26. 
 
 The Daisy (2nd poem), note on, 
 
 1807, ii. 35; 1815, ii. 81. 
 
 article in The Friend, 1810, 
 
 ii. 52. 
 
 The Country Churchyard [1810 ?], 
 
 ii. 51. 
 
 Second Tour in Scotland, 1814, 
 
 ii. 68. 
 
 Essay, supplementary to the 
 
 Preface of the Poems, 1815, ii. 81. 
 
 Seathwaite Chapel, 1820 (its 
 
 pastor worthy of C.’s Good Parson), 
 ii. 130. 
 
 Edward VI. ( Ecclesiastical Son- 
 nets), 1821, praising Prioress’s T., 
 ii. 136. 
 
 Liberty, 1829, ii. 176-7. 
 
 Tour to Scotland in 1831, 1835, 
 
 ii. 202. 
 
 Poetical Works, 1835 (post- 
 script), ii. 201. 
 
 • — — note on Hazlitt’s Spirit of the 
 Age, asserting his love of Shake- 
 speare, 1836, ii. 210. 
 
 — — - Miscellaneous Memoranda [ n.a . 
 1850], ii. 287-8. 
 
 [Letters :] 
 
 to W. Scott, Nov. 7, 1805, on 
 
 Dryden and C., ii. 26 ; to Lady 
 
86 
 
 Index. 
 
 Beaumont, 1806, quoting The 
 Flower and the Leaf as C.’s, ii. 29; 
 to A. Cunningham, Nov. 23, 1823, 
 ii. 149; to A. Watts, Nov. 16, 
 1824, ii. 155; to A. Dyce, May, 
 1830, ii. 180; to J. K. Miller, 
 Dec. 17, 1831, ii. 184; to J. 
 Kenyon, Sept. 13, 1831, ii. 184; 
 Jan. 26, 1832, ii. 187; to T. N. 
 Talfourd, Nov. 28, 1836, ii. 210; 
 to Moxon, Feb. 24, 1840 (has 
 handed over to T. Powell three of 
 his modernizations), ii. 228-9; to 
 H. Reed, 1841, on Chaucer Modern- 
 ized, ii. 242. 
 
 [Modernizations :] 
 
 Selections from Chaucer Modern- 
 ised ( Prioress's Tale, Cuckoo and 
 Nightingale, Troilus fragment), 
 1801, ii. 3; at work on (Dorothy 
 Wordsworth’s Journal, 1801-2), ii. 
 2, 3, 5; praised by Southey \a. 
 1819], ii. 110. 
 
 these, with the Manciple's Tale 
 
 revised and handed over to T. 
 Powell, ii. 228-9; printed in 
 Chaucer Modernised, 1841, ii. 234-8. 
 
 first became acquainted with C. 
 
 through Anderson’s Poets, ii. 68; 
 read C. at Cambridge, ii. 26 ; asserts 
 his love of Shakespeare to be not 
 less than of C., though he praises 
 the latter more loudly as being 
 less known, ii. 210; calls C. one 
 of his models, ii. 287-8; for his 
 readings of C., and work at his 
 modernizations, see Wordsworth, 
 Dorothy. 
 
 Worfat, William de, ps. See Hutton, 
 W. 
 
 World, The, as it goes, 1781, extracts 
 from C. promised in the title of 
 but not included in, i. 464. 
 
 Worthies of the United Kingdom, The, 
 1828, ii. 171. 
 
 Wotton, W., letter to the Rev. M. 
 Williams, 1722, i. 363. 
 
 Wotyx, W. (J. Copywell, ps.), A 
 Familiar Epistle from the Shades, 
 1730, i. 371-2. 
 
 Wright, T., note on Alliterative Poem 
 on the Deposition of Richard III., 
 1838, ii. 224-5. 
 
 A Selection of Latin Stories, 
 
 1843, ii. 252. 
 
 Anecdota Literaria, 1844, on C.’s 
 
 debt to the fabliaux, ii. 257-8. 
 
 Meeting of the British Archaeo- 
 logical Association, 1845, ii. 267. 
 
 — — On Some Early Latin Stories , 
 imitated by Chaucer and Shake- 
 speare, 1847, ii. 275. 
 
 his ed. of Canterbury Tales, 
 
 1847—51, ii. 274; the first from a 
 single MS., introd. lxx; criticized 
 by T. S. Baynes, 1870, iii. 103-4; 
 reviewed in the Athenaeum, March 
 15, 1851, iii. 7. 
 
 Essays on Archaeological Sub- 
 jects, 1861, iii. 60. 
 
 History of Domestic Manners. 
 
 1862, iii. 66. 
 
 Wright, W. Aldis, his projected ed. of 
 C.’s Works, 1864, iii. 71; declines 
 to edit C.’s Works, c. 1870, iii. 
 
 71. 
 
 (with J. Eastwood) The Bible 
 
 Word Book, 1866, iii. 82. 
 
 Wiilker, R., Altenglisches Lesebuch , 
 1879, v. 149. 
 
 Wiirzner, A., Ueber Chaucers lyrische 
 Gedichte, 1879, v. 150. 
 
 Wyatt, Sir T., satires of [a. 1542], 
 contrasts Sir Thopas and The 
 Knight’s Tale, i. 83-4. 
 
 Surrey’s poem on the death of, 
 
 W. ‘ reft Chaucer the glory of his 
 wit,’ i. 84; echoed by Leland in 
 Ncenice, 1542, iv. 13; held equal 
 with C. by Bale, 1548, iv. 20. 
 
 his Works, ed. by G. F. Nott, 
 
 1815-16, ii. 73-80. 
 
 influence of C. upon, iv. 12; 
 
 introd. xvii. 
 
 Wybarne, J., The New Age of Old 
 Names, 1609, i. 184. 
 
 Wycliffe, J., C. called a Wycliffite by 
 Foxe, 1570, i. 106; by E. Leigh, 
 1656, i. 233; by H. Wharton [c. 
 1687], iv. 79; by J. Lewis, 1720, i. 
 350; by C. Dodd, 1737, i. 380; by 
 Unknown [c. 1785], i. 481; by A. 
 Villemain, 1830, v. 46; C.’s rela- 
 tions with, F. D. Maurice on, 1865, 
 iii. 78-9; suggested as the original 
 of Chaucer’s Priest, by C. W. Le 
 Bas, 1832, ii. 185; by S. Groneman, 
 1837, v. 140-1 (in Ch. Soc. issue), 
 139 (in Cambridge issue). 
 
 • See also Chaucer, G. [n. (f.) 
 
 6, 7.] 
 
 Wyer, R. ( ?), quotes Troilus in his 
 version of Christine de Pisan’s 
 C. Histories of Troy, iv. 107 (in 
 Cambridge issue only). 
 
 Yalden, T., to Mr. Congreve, 1693, 
 i. 266. 
 
Index. 
 
 87 
 
 Yart, A., Idee de la poesie angloise, 
 1749, v. 4-5, 24-6; 1753-6, v. 
 29-30. 
 
 Young, E., Conjectures on Original 
 Composition, 1759, i. 417, 
 
 Two Epistles to Mr. Pope [c. 
 
 1730], mentioning C.’s retractation, 
 iv. 85. 
 
 Z. See Lockhart, J. G. 
 
 Zupitza, J., ed. Prol. C.T., 1871, v. 
 148. 
 
Cjmtccr §oxl etn 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE CHAUCER SOCIETY 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 AMEN HOUSE, WARWICK SQUARE, LONDON, E.C. 4, AND IN NEW YORK, 
 
 AND BY KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd., 
 
 39 NEW OXFORD STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1. 
 
 8/24 
 
£I)C Cljauccv Soctctg. 
 
 The Founder and Director teas Dr. F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 Hon. Sec. is W. A. Dalziel, Esq., 67 Victoria Road, Finsbury Park, London, N. 4. 
 
 To do honour to Chaucer, and to let the lovers and students of him see how far the 
 best unprinted Manuscripts of his works differd from the printed texts, this Society 
 was founded in 1868. There were then, and are still, many questions of metre, pro- 
 nunciation, orthography, and etymology yet to be settled, for which more prints of 
 Manuscripts were and are wanted ; and it is hardly too much to say that every line 
 of Chaucer contains points that need reconsideration. The founder (Dr. Furnivall) 
 began with The Canterbury Tales , and has given of them (in parallel columns in 
 Royal 4to) six of the best theretofore unprinted Manuscripts known. Inasmuch as 
 the parallel arrangement necessitated the alteration of the places of certain tales in 
 some of the MSS, a print of each MS has been issued separately, following the order 
 of its original. The first six MSS pi’inted have been : the Flllesmere (by leave of the 
 Earl of Ellesmere) ; the Hengwrt (by leave of W. W. E. Wynne, Esq.) ; the Camb. 
 Univ. Libr., MS Gg. 4. 27 ; the Corpus, Oxford ; the Petworth (by leave of Lord 
 Leconfield) ; and the Lansdowne 851 (Brit. Mus.). The Harleian 7334 has followd, 
 and the Cambridge Dd. , completed by Egerton 2726 (the Haistwell MS) . Specimens 
 of all accessible MSS of the Tales are now nearly completed, edited by the late Prof. 
 Zupitza, Ph.D., and Prof. John Koch, Ph.D. 
 
 Of Chaucer’s Minor Poems , — the MSS of which are generally later than the best 
 MSS of the Canterbury Tales, — all the available MSS have been printed, so as to 
 secure all the existing evidence for the true text. 
 
 Of Troilus , Parallel-Texts from the 6 best MSS have been issued (the Campsall 
 MS also separately), and a 7th MS text of it with the englisht Boccaccio Comparison. 
 
 Autotypes of most of the best Chaucer MSS have been publisht. 
 
 Ihe Society’s publications are issued in two Series, of which the First contains the 
 different texts of Chaucer’s works; and the Second, such originals of and essays on 
 these as can be procured, with other illustrative treatises, and Supplementary Tales. 
 
 The yearly subscription, which constitutes Membership, is 2 guineas, beginning 
 with January 1, 1868. 
 
 Most of the Society’s Publications can still be had from the home Hon. Sec. 
 
 The Society’s Hon. Secs, for America are, Prof. Kittredge, of Harvard College, 
 Ciimbridge, Mass., for the North and East, and Prof. Bright, of Johns Hopkins , 
 University, Baltimore, for the South and West. Members’ names and subscriptions 
 should be sent to the home Hon. Sec., W. A. Dalziel, Esq., 67 Victoria Road, 
 Finsbury Park, London, N. 4. , 
 
 FIRST SERIES. 
 
 The Society’s issue for 1808, in the First Series, is, 
 
 I. The Prologue and Knight’s Tale, of the Canterbury Tales, in 6 parallel % 
 Texts (from the 6 MSS named below), together with Tables, showing the . 
 Groups of the Tales, and their varying order in 38 MSS of the Tales, and 
 in 5 old printed editions, and also Specimens from several MSS of the 
 “Moveable Prologues” of the Canterbury Tales, — The Shipman’s Prologue, 
 and Franklin’s Prologue, — when moved from their right places, and of the 
 Substitutes for them. (The Six-Text, Part I.) 
 
 II— VII. II. The Prologue and Knight’s Tale from the Ellesmere MS, Part I ; III. ! 
 
 Hengwrt MS, 154, Pt I ; IV. Cambridge MS Gg. 4. 27, Pt I ; V. Corpus > 
 
 MS, Oxford, Pt I ; VI. Petworth MS, Pt I; VII. Lansdowne MS, 851, ] 
 Pt I. (Separate issues of the Te;xts forming Part I of the Six-Text edition.) i 
 
 The issue for 1869, in the First Series, is, 
 
 VIII — XIII. VIII. The Miller’s, Reeve’s, and Cook’s Tales: Ellesmere MS, Part 1: 
 II ; IX. Hengwrt MS, Pt II ; X. Cambridge MS, Pt II ; XI. Corpus MS, ! 
 
 Pt II ; XII. Petworth MS, Pt II ; XIII. Lansdowne MS, Pt II, with an ( 
 
 Appendix of “Gamelyn” from six MSS. 
 
 (Separate issues of the Texts forming the Six-Text, Part II, No. XIV.) 
 
 The issue for 1870, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XIV. The Miller’s, Reeve’s, and Cook’s Tales, with an Appendix of the Spurious 
 Tale of Gamelyn, in 6 parallel Texts. (Six-Text, Part II.) 
 
 The issue for 1871, in the First Series, is, 
 
 X V. The Man of Law’s, Shipman’s, and Prioress’s Tales, with Chaucer’s own 
 Tale of Sir Thopas, in 6 parallel Texts from the MSS above named, and 9 
 coloured drawings of Tellers of Tales, after the originals in the Ellesmere MS. 
 (Six-Text, Part III.) 
 
 XVI. The Man of Law’s Tale, from the Ellesmere MS. Part III. 
 
 XVII. ,, ,, ,, ,, „ ,, ,, Cambridge MS. Part III. 
 
 XVIII. „ „ ,, „ „ „ „ Corpus MS. Part III. 
 
 XIX. The Shipman’s, Prioress’s and Man of Law’s Tales, from the Petworth MS. 
 Part III. 
 
 XX. The Man of Law’s Tale, from the Lansdowne MS. Part III. 
 
 (each with woodcuts of fourteen drawings of Tellers of Tales in the 
 Ellesmere MS.) 
 
Chaucer Society's Publications : First Series. 
 
 XXI. A Parallel-Text edition of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, Part I 1. ‘ The Lethe 
 
 of Blaunche the Duchesse ,’ from Thynne’s ed. of 1532, the Fairfax MS 16, 
 and Tanner MS 346; 2. ‘ the . Compleynt to Fite,’ 3. '‘the Farlament of 
 Foules,’ and 4. ‘ the Compleynt of Mars,’ each from six MSS. 
 
 XXII. Supplementary Parallel-Texts of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, Part I, containing 
 
 1. ‘The Pari ament of Foules,’ from three MSS. [Reprinted in LIX, 
 First Series.] 
 
 XXIII. Odd Texts of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, Part I, containing 1. two Mb fragments 
 of ‘ The Pari ament of Foules ; ’ 2. the two differing versions of ‘The Prologue 
 to the Legende of Good Women,’ arranged so as to show their differences , 
 3. an Appendix of Poems attributed to Chaucer, I. ‘The Balade of Pitee 
 by Chauciers ; ’ n. ‘The Cronycle made by Chaucer,’ both from MSS written 
 by Shirley, Chaucer’s contemporary. 
 
 A One-Text Print of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, being the best Text from the 
 Parallel-Text Edition, Part I, containing, I. The Dethe of Blaunche the 
 Duchesse, II. The Compleynt to Pite, III. The Parlament of Foules, IV . 
 The Compleynt of Mars, V. The ABC, wifh its original from De DeGuile- 
 ville’s Pelerinage de la Vie humaine (edited from the best Paris MSS by M. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 Paul Meyer) . 
 
 The issue for 1872, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XXV. Chaucer’s Tale of Melihe, the Monk’s, Nun’s-Priest’s, Doctor’s, Pardoner’s, 
 Wife of Bath’s, Friar’s, and Summoner’s Tales, in 6 parallel Texts from the 
 MSS above named, with the remaining 14 coloured drawings of Tellers of 
 Tales, after the originals in the Ellesmere MS, and with Specimens of the 
 Variations of 30 MSS in the Doctor-Pardoner Link. (Six-Text, Part IV.) 
 
 XXVI. The Wife’s, Friar’s, and Summoner’s Tales, from the Ellesmere MS, with 
 
 9 woodcuts of Tale-Tellers. (Part IV.) < . 
 
 XXVII. The Wife’s, Friar’s, Summoner’s, Monk’s, and Nun s-Pnest s lales, from 
 the Hengwrt MS, with 23 woodcuts of the Tellers of the Tales. (Part III.) 
 
 XXVIII. The Wife’s, Friar’s, and Summoner’s Tales, from the Cambridge MS, 
 with 9 woodcuts of Tale-Tellers. (Part IV.) 
 
 XXIX. A Treatise on the Astrolabe, addressed to his son Lowys, in 1391 a.d., by 
 Geoffrey Chaucer, edited by the Rev. Prof. Walter W. Skeat, M.A. 
 
 The issue for 1873, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XXX. The Six-Text Canterbury Tales, Part V, containing the Clerk’s and Mer- 
 
 chant’s Tales. 
 
 The issue for 1874, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XXXI. The Six-Text, Part VI, containing the Squire’s and Franklin’s Tales. 
 
 XXXII. The Clerk’s, Merchant’s, Squire’s, Franklin’s, Doctor’s, Pardoner’s, Ship- 
 man’s, Prioress’s Tales, Sir Thopas, Melibeus, Monk’s, Nun’s-Priest’s, 
 Second Nun’s Tales, Ellesmere MS, Part V. 
 
 XXXIII. The Clerk’s, Merchant’s, Squire’s, Franklin’s, Doctor’s, Pardoner’s, Ship- 
 man’s, Prioress’s Tales, Sir Thopas, Melibeus, Monk’s, Nun’s-Priest’s, 
 Second Nun’s Tales, Cambridge MS, Part V. 
 
 XXXIV. Squire’s, Wife of Bath’s, Friar’s, Summoner’s, Clerk’s, Merchant’s, 
 Franklin’s Tales, Corpus MS, Part IV. 
 
 XXXV. Squire’s, Merchant’s, Wife of Bath’s, Friar’s, Summoner’s, Clerk’s, Frank- 
 lin’s, Second Nun’s Tales, Petworth MS, Part IV. 
 
 XXXVI. Squire’s, Wife of Bath’s, Friar’s, Summoner’s, Clerk’s, Merchant’s, 
 Franklin’s Tales, Lansdowne MS, Part IV. 
 
 The issue for 1875, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XXXVII. The Six-Text, Part VII, the Second Nun’s, Canon’s-Yeoman’s, and 
 Manciple’s Tales, with the Blank-Parson Link. 
 
 XXXVIII. Second Nun’s, Canon’s-Yeoman’s, Manciple’s Tales, Ellesmere MS, 
 Part VI. 
 
 XXXIX. Manciple’s, Man of Law’s, Squire’s, Merchant’s, Franklin’s, Second 
 Nun’s, Clerk’s, Doctor’s, Pardoner’s, Shipman’s, Prioress’s Tales, Sir 
 Thopas, Melibeus Tales, Hengwrt MS, Part IV. 
 
 XL. Second Nun’s, Canon’s- Yeoman’s, Manciple’s Tales, Cambridge MS, Part VI. 
 
 XLI. Second Nun’s, Canon’s-Yeoman’s, Doctor’s, Pardoner’s, Shipman’s, Prioress’s 
 Tales, Sir Thopas. Melibeus, Monk’s, Nuns-Priest’s, Manciple’s Tales, 
 Corpus MS, Part V. 
 
 XLII. Second Nun’s, Canon’s-Yeoman’s, Doctor’s, Pardoner’s Tales, Sir Thopas, 
 Melibeus, Monk’s, Nun’s-Priest’s, Manciple’s Tales, Petworth MS. Part V. 
 
 XLIII. Second Nun’s. Canon’s-Yeoman’s, Doctor’s, Pardoner’s, Shipman’s, Prioress’s 
 Tales, Sir Thopas, Melibeus, Monk’s, Nun’s-Priest’s, Manciple’s Tales, 
 Lansdowne MS, Part V. 
 
 XLI V. A detaild Comparison of the Troylus and Cryseyde with Boccaccio’s Filos- 
 trato , with a Translation of all Passages used by Chaucer, and an Abstract 
 of the Parts not used, by W. Michael Rossetti, Esq., and with a print of the 
 Troylus from the Harleian INIS 3943. Part I. 
 
 XLV. Ryme-Index to the Ellesmere MS of the Canterbury Tales, by Henry Cromie, 
 Esq., M.A. In 8vo for the separate Ellesmere MS. 
 
4 
 
 Chaucer Society's Publications : Mrst Series. 
 
 XLVI. Ryme-Index to the Ellesmere MS, by Henry Cromie, Esq., M.A. In Roval 
 4to for the Six-Text. J 
 
 XLVII. Notes and Corrections for the 8vo Ryme-Index, by H. Cromie, Esq., M.A. 
 
 The issue for 1876, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XLVIII. Autotype Specimens of the Chief Chaucer MSS, Part I, 16 Autotypes 
 with a Note on the MSS, by Dr. F. J. Furnivall. ' ’ 
 
 The issue for 1877, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XLIX. The Six-Text, Part VIII, containing the Parson’s Tale, with a Table of its 
 Contents; and Mr Cromie’s Notes and Corrections for the 4to Ryme-Index. 
 L— LV. L. The Parson’s Tale, Ellesmere MS, Part VII ; LI. Hengwrt MS, Part 
 V; LII. Cambridge MS, Part VII; LIII. Corpus MS, Part VI;LIV 
 Petworth MS, Part VI ; LV. Lansdowne MS, Part VI. 
 
 The issue for 1878, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LVI. Autotype Specimens of the Chief Chaucer MSS, Part II : 9 from the Cambridge 
 MS Gg. 4. 27, and 1 from Lord Leconfield’s MS. 
 
 LVII. A Parallel-Text edition of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, Part II 5. The ABC 
 from 6 MSS ; 6. The Mother of God , from 3 MSS ; 7. Anelida and Arcyte, 
 from 5 MSS and Caxton’s print; 8. The Former Aye, from 2 MSS (with 
 the Latin original, and Chaucer’s prose Englishing) ; 9. To his Scrivener 
 from Shirley’s MS and Stowe’s print; 10. The House of Fame , from 2 MSS 
 and Caxton’s and Thynne’s prints. 
 
 The issue for 1879, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LVIII. A Parallel-Text edition of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, Part III, completing the 
 Parallel-Text , and containing, 11. The Legend of Good, Women from 5 MSS 
 and Thynne’s print; 12. Truth from 6 MSS ; 13. The Compleynt of Venus 
 from 6 MSS; 14. The Envoy to Scogan from 3 MSS; 15. Marriaqe, or The 
 Envoy to Bulcton , from 1 MS and Notary’s and Thynne’s prints ; 16. Gentil- 
 esse from 6 MSS ; 17. Proverbs from 3 MSS ; 18. Stedfastness from 6 MSS- 
 19. Fortune from 6 MSS ; 20. Chaucer to his empty Purse , from 6 MSS. 
 
 The issue for 1880, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LIX. Supplementary Parallel-Texts of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, Part II la. The 
 Parlament of Foules from 3 MSS ; 2. The A B C from 6 MSS ; 3. Anelida 
 and Arcite from 6 MSS; 4. The Legend of Good Women , in whole or part 
 from 4 MSS ; 5. The Complaint of Mars from 3 MSS ; 6. Truth from 6 
 MSS ; 7. The Compleynt of Venus ‘from 3 MSS ; 8. Gentilesse from 3 MSS ; 
 
 9. Lack of Stedfastness from Thynne’s print and 2 MSS ; 10. Fortune from 
 2 MSS and Caxton’s print. 
 
 LX. Odd-Texts of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, Part II, containing, 3. The ^4 B C, from ! 
 2 MSS ; 4. The House of Fame, from the Pepys’ MS, &c. ; 5. The Legend 
 of Good W omen from 3 MSS ; 6. The Hethe of Blaunche the Huchesse from 
 1 MS ; 7. The Complaint to Pity from 2 MSS ; 8. The Parlament of Fow/es 
 fi’om 1 MS ; 9. Truth from 3 MSS ; 10. Envoy to Scogan from 1 MS • 11 
 Purse from 1 MS. 9 y ’ 
 
 LXI. A One-Text Print of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, Part II, containing, VI. Mother 
 of God; VII. Anelida; VIII. The Former Age ; IX. Adam Scrivener ; 
 
 X. The House of Fame ; XI. Legende ; XII. Truth ; XIII. Venus; XIV. 
 Scogan; XV. Marriage; XVI. Gentilesse; XVII. Proverbs; XVIII. 
 Stedfastness; XIX. Fortune; XU. Purse. 
 
 LXII. Autotype Specimens of the chief Chaucer MSS. Part III : 2 from Henry ' 
 V’s MS of the 1'roilus, when he was Prince of Wales (now Mr. Bacon 
 Frank’s) ; 1 from Shirley’s MS of the ^Cat Sion Coll ( out of print). I 
 
 The issue for 1881, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXIII. A Parallel-Text edition of Chaucer’s Troilus § Criseyde from the Campsall 
 MS, b. 1415 a.d. (written for Henry V when Prince of Wales), Harleian 
 MS. 2280, and Cambr. Univ. Libr. Gg. 4. 27. Part I. Books 1 and 2. 
 
 The issue for 1882, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXIV. A Parallel-’! ext edition of Chaucer’s Troilus 8$ Criseyde from the Campsall 
 MS, before 1415 a.d. (written for Henry V when Prince of Wales), Harleian 
 MS 2280, and Cambr. Univ. Libr. Gg. 4. 27. Part II. Books 3, 4, 5. 
 
 The issue for 1883, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXV. Part II of Mr. W. M. Rossetti’s Comparison of Chaucer’s Troilus and Cry- 
 seyde with Boccaccio’s Filostrato, completing the work. 
 
 The issue for 1884, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXVI-LXXI. 6 Appendixes to the 6 MSS of the Six-Text, with Wood-cuts of 
 6 Tellers of Tales and of 6 emblematical Figures from the Cambridge Univ. 
 
 MS. Gg. 4. 27, &c., and Process Engravings, for the Ellesmere MS Part, 
 of the 23 Ellesmere MS Miniatures. The Hengwrt MS, Part VI, contains 
 The Canon’s-Yeoman’s Tale from the Lichfield MS. 
 
 I.XXII. The Six-Text, Part IX. with colord Cuts of 6 Tellers of Tales and 6 emble- 
 matical Figures from the Cambridge Univers. MS Gg.4. 27; and Prof. 
 Hiram Corson’s Index of Proper Names and Subjects of The Canterbury 
 'Tales. 8vo. [Issued in 1911.] 
 
Chaucer Society’s Publications: First Series. 
 
 5 
 
 The issue for 1885, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LX XIII. The Harleian MS 7334 of The Canterbury Tales , with Woodcuts of 23 
 Tellers of Tales from the Ellesmere MS, &c. 
 
 LXXIY. Autotype Specimens of the chief Chaucer MSS. Ft IV. The Ellesmere. 
 
 The issue for 1886, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXXV. Chaucer’s Boece from the Cambridge University MS. li. 3. 21. 
 
 LXXVl. Chaucer’s Boece from the Additional MS 10.340 in the British Museum, 
 as edited by the liev. Dr. R. Morris for the E. E. Text Soc, in 1868. 
 LXXV1I. More Odd Texts of Chaucer’s Minor Poems, containing, 1. The Com- 
 pleynte to Fite ; 2. The Complaint of the Anelida and Arcite ; 3. Truth ; 
 4. Lack of Stedfastness ; 5. Fortune'; 6. Furse. Appendix: I. The Balade 
 of Fite. II. Roundels ( Mercilesse Beaute). 
 
 The issue for 1887, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXXVIII. A Ryme-Index to Chaucer's Minor Foems, by Miss Isabel Marshall and 
 Miss Lela Porter, in Royal 4to for the Farallel-Tcxt. 
 
 The issue for 1888, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXXIX. A One-Text. Print of Chaucer’s Troilus, from the Campsall MS bef.1415 a.d. 
 
 The issue for 1889, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXXX. A Ryme-Index to Chaucer's Minor Foems, by Miss Isabel Marshall and 
 Miss Lela Porter, in 8vo for the One-Text pi’int of the Minor Foems. 
 
 The issue for 1890, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXXXI. Farallel-Text Specimens of all accessible unprinted Chaucer MSS: The 
 Fardoner's Prolog and Tale , edited by Prof. Zupitza, Pli.l). Part I, from 
 7 MSS : Cambridge Dd.4. 24, Christ-Church, Additional 5140, Devonshire, 
 Haistwell (or Egerton 3726), Ingilby, Northumberland : the Dd. Group. 
 LXXXII. The Romaunt of the Rose , from Thynne’s print, 1532, ed. F. J. Furnivall. 
 [Issued in 1911.] 
 
 The issue for 1891, in the First Series,* is, 
 
 LXXXIII. A Parallel text of The Romaunt of the Rose (of which the first 1705 lines 
 are most probably Chaucer’s), from the unique MS at Glasgow, and its 
 French original, Le Roman de la Rose, edited by Dr Max Kaluza. Part I. 
 LXXXIV. A Rime-Index to Chaucer’s Troilus , by Prof. Skeat, Litt.D. 
 
 The issue for 1892, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXXXV. Farallel-Text Specimens of all accessible unprinted Chaucer MSS : The 
 Pardoner' s Prolog and Tale, edited by Prof. Zupitza, Ph.D. Part II, 
 from 10 MSS. 
 
 The issue for 1893, in the First Series, is, . 
 
 LXXXVI. Farallel-Text Specimens of all accessible unprinted Chaucer JIISS : The 
 Fardoner's Prolog and Tale , edited by Prof. Zupitza, Ph.D. Part III, 
 from 6 MSS. 
 
 The issue for 1894, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXXXV1I. A Parallel-Text of 3 more MSS of Chaucer’s Troilus , the St. John’s 
 and Corpus, Cambridge, and Hail. 1239, Brit. Mus., put forth by Dr. F. J. 
 Furnivall. Part I, with a Note by G. C. Macaulay, M.A. 
 
 The issue for 1895, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXXXV1I1. A Parallel-Text of 3 more MSS of Chaucer's Troilus , Part II. 
 
 The issue for 1896, in the First Series, is, 
 
 LXXXIX. Specimen Extracts from the nine known unprinted MSS of Chaucer’s 
 Troilus , and from Caxton’s and Thynne’s First Editions, edited by Sir 
 William S. McCormick and Dr. Robert Kilburn Root. Part III. 
 (Publisht in 1914.) 
 
 The issue for 1897, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XC. Farallel-Text Specimens of all accessible unprinted MSS : The Pardoner' » 
 Prolog and Tale , Part IV, from 17 MSS, edited by the late Prof. Zupitza, 
 Ph.D., and Prof. John Koch, Ph.D. 
 
 The issue for 1898, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XCI. Farallel-Text Specimens , Part V : The Pardoner' s Prolog and Tale , a Six- 
 Text, from 3 MSS and 3 black-letters, edited by Prof. John Koch, Ph.D. 
 and Dr. F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 The issue for 1899, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XCII. Farallel-Text Specimens. Part VI : The Clerk's Tale , a Six-Text Print from 
 6 MSS not containing The Pardoner' s Tale, put forth by Dr. F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 The issue for 1900, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XCIII. Farallel-Text Specimens, Part VII: The Clerk's Tale from the Phillipps 
 MS 8299 and the Longleat MS, put forth by Dr. F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 XCIV. Farallel-Text Specimens , Part VIII : The Pardoner s Prolog and Tale from 
 the Hodson MS 39, put forth by Dr. F. J. Furnivall with an Introduction 
 by Prof. John Koch, Ph.D 
 
 The issue for 1901, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XCV. The Cambridge MS Dd. 4. 24. of the Canterbury Tales, completed by the 
 Egerton MS 2726 (the Haistwell MS), ed. F. J. Furnivall. Part I. 
 
 The issue for 1902, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XCVI. The Cambridge MS Dd. 4. 24. of the Canterbury Tales, completed by the 
 Egerton MS 2726 (the Haistwell MS), with woodcuts of the 23 Tellers of 
 
6 
 
 Chaucer Society's Publications : First and Second Series. 
 
 The Canterbury Tales , from the Ellesmere MS— and of 6 Tellers of Canter- 
 bury Tales, and 6 emblematical figures from the Cambridge MS Ge- 4 27 
 ed. F. J. Furnivall. Part II. 
 
 XC VII. Parallel-Text Specimens, Part IX : An Introduction to the eight Specimens 
 of Chaucer’s Cleric's Tale, by Prof. Dr. John Ivoch. 
 
 The issue for 1911, in the First Series [none in 1903-1910], is, 
 
 XCVIII. The Manuscripts of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde with 23 collotype 
 facsimiles of all the handwritings. By Dr. Robert Kilburn Root. Tissued 
 in 1915.] 
 
 The issue for 1912, in the First Series, is, 
 
 XCIX. The Textual Tradition of Chaucer’s Troilus. By Dr. Robert Kilburn 
 Root. [Issued in 1916.] 
 
 SECOND SERIES. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1868 is, 
 
 1. Early English Pronunciation, with especial reference to Shakspere and Chaucer, 
 by Alexander J . Ellis, Esq., F.R.S. Part I. This work includes an amalgamation of 
 Prof. F. J. Child’s two Papers on the use of the final -e by Chaucer (in T. Wright’s ed. 
 of The Canterb. Tales) and by Gower (in Dr. Pauli’s ed. of the Confessio Amantis). 
 
 2. Essays on Chaucer, his JFords and Works, Part I. : 1. Prof. Ebert’s Review of 
 Sandras’s Etude sur Chaucer , ti’anslated by J. W. van Rees Hoets, M.A. ; 2. A 
 13th-century Latin Treatise on the Chilindre (of the Shipman's Tale), edited by 
 Mr. E. Brock. 
 
 3. A Temporary Preface to the Society’s Six-Text edition of Chaucer’s Canterbury 
 Tales, attempting to show the right Order of the Tales, and the Days and Stages 
 of the Pilgrimage, &c. &c., by F. J. Furnivall, Esq., M.A. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1869 is, 
 
 4. Early English Pronunciation, with especial reference to Shakspere and Chaucer 
 by Alexander J. Ellis, Esq., F.R.S. Part II. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1870 is, 
 
 5. Early English Pronunciation, with especial reference to Shakspere and Chaucer 
 by Alexander J. Ellis, Esq., F.R.S. Part III. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1871 is, 
 
 6. Trial-Forewords to my Parallel-Text edition of Chaucer's Minor Poems for the 
 Chaucer Society (with a try to set Chaucer’s Works in their right order of Time), by 
 Fredk. J. Furnivall. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1872 is, 
 
 7- Originals and Analogues of some of Chaucer' s Canterbury Tales, Part I. 1. The 
 original of the Man of Law's Tale of Constance, from the French Chronicle of 
 Nicholas Trivet, Arundel MS 56, ab. 1340 A. D., -collated with the later copy, ab. 1400, 
 in the National Library at Stockholm ; copied and edited, with a translation, by Mr. 
 Edmund Brock. 2. The Tale of “Merelaus the Emperor,” englisht from the Gesta 
 Romanorumby Thomas Hoccleve, in Harl. MS 7333 ; and 3. Part of Matthew Paris’s 
 Vita Offce Primi, both stories illustrating incidents in the Man of Law's Tale. 4. Two 
 French Fabliaux like the Reeve's Tale. 5. Two Latin Stories like the Friar's Tale. 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1873 is, 
 
 8. Albertano of Brescia’s Liber Consilii et Consolationis, a.d. 1246 (the Latin 
 source of the French original of Chaucer’s Melibe), edited from the MSS, by Dr. 
 Thor Sundby. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1874 is, 
 
 9. Essays on Chaucer, his Words and Works, Part II. : 3. John of Hoveden’s 
 Practica i Chilindri, edited from the MS. with a translation, hy Mr. E. Brock. 4. 
 Chaucer’s use of the final -e, by Joseph Payne, Esq. 5. Mrs. E. Barrett-Browning 
 on Chaucer : being those parts of her review of the Rook of the Poets , 1842, which 
 relate to him ; here reprinted by leave of Mr. Robert Browning. 6. Professor 
 Bernhard ten Brink’s critical edition of Chaucer’s Compleynte to Pite. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1875 is, 
 
 10. Originals and Analogues of Chaucer' s Canterbury Tales, Part II. 6. Alphon- 
 sus of Lincoln, a Story like the Prioress' s Tale. 7. How Reynard caught Chanti- 
 cleer, the soui'ce of the Nun' s- Priest' s Tale. 8. Two Italian Stories, and a Latin 
 one, like the Pardoner' s Tale. 9. The Tale of the Priest’s Bladder, a story like the 
 Summoner's Tale, being ‘Li dis de le Vescie a Prestre,’ par Jakes de Basiw. 10. 
 Petrarch’s Latin Tale of Griseldis (with Boccaccio’s Story from which it was re- told), 
 the original of the Clerk's Tale. 11. Five Versions of a Pear-tree Story like that in 
 the Merchant' s Tale. 12. Four Vei’sions of The Life of Saint Cecilia, the original 
 of the Second Nun's Tale. Edited by F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 11. Early English Pronunciation, with especial reference to Shakspere and Chau- 
 cer, by Alexander J. Ellis, Esq., F.R.S. Part IV. 
 
 12. Life-Records of Chaucer, Part I, The Robberies of Chaucer by Richard Brere- 
 lay and others at Westminster, and at Hatcham, Surrey, on Tuesday, Sept. 6, 1390, 
 with some Account of the Robbers, from the Enrolments in the Public Record 06006* 
 by Walford D. Selby, Esq., of the Public Record Office. 
 
Chaucer Society's Publications: Second Series. 
 
 7 
 
 13. Thynne’s Animadversions (1599) on Speght’s Chaucers Worlces , re-edited from 
 the unique MS, by Fredk. J. Furnivall, with fresh Lives of William and Francis 
 Thynne, and the only known fragment of The Pilgrim's Tale. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1876 is, 
 
 14. Life-Records of Chaucer , Part II, The Household Ordinances of King 
 Edward II, June 1322 (as englisht by Francis Tale in March 1601 A.D.), with ex- 
 tracts from those of King Edward IV, to show the probable duties of Chaucer as 
 Valet or Yeoman of the Chamber, and Esquire, to Edward III, of whose Household 
 Book no MS is known ; together with Chaucer’s Oath as Controller of the Customs, 
 and an enlargd Autotype of Hoccleve’s Portrait of Chaucer, ed. by F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 15. Originals and Analogues of Chaucer' s Canterbury Tales , Part III. 13. The 
 Story of Constance, for the Man of Law's Tale. 14. The Boy killd by a Jew for 
 singing ‘ Gaude Maria,’ an Analogue of the Prioress's Tale. 15. The Paris Beggar- 
 boy murderd by a Jew for singing ‘Alma redemptoris mater! ’ an Analogue of the 
 Prioress's Tale ; with a Poem by Lydgate. Edited by F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 16. Essayson Chaucer, his Words and Works , Part III. 7. Chaucer’s Prioress, her 
 Nun Chaplain and 3 Priests, illustrated from the Paper Survey of St Mary’s Abbey, 
 Winchester, by F. J. Furnivall. 8. Alliteration in Chaucei-, by Dr. Paul Lindner. 
 9. Chaucer a Wicliffite; a critical Examination of the Parson's Tale , by Herr Hugo 
 Simon. 10. The sources of the Wife of Bath’s Prologue : Chaucer not a borrower 
 from John of Salisbury, by the Rev. W. W. Woollcombe. 
 
 17. Supplementary Canterbury Tales : 1. The Tale of Beryn , with a Prologue of 
 the merry Adventure of the Pardoner with a Tapster at Canterbury, re-edited from 
 the Duke of Northumberland’s unique MS, by Fredk. J. Furnivall. Part I, the 
 Text, with Wm. Smith’s Map of Canterbury in 1588, now first engravd from his 
 unique MS., and Ogilby’s Plan of the Road from London to Canterbury in 1675. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1878 (there was none in 1877) is, 
 
 IS. Essays on Chaucer , his Words and Works, Part IV. 11. On here and there 
 in Chaucer (his Pronunciation of the two «’s), by Dr. R. F. Weymouth ; 12. On a, An 
 Original Version of the Knight's Tale ; (3. the Date (1381) and Personages of the 
 Parlament of Foules ; y. on Anelida and Arcyte, on Lollius, on Chaucer, and Boc- 
 caccio, &c., by Dr. John Koch, with a fragment of a later Palamon and Ersyte from 
 th^Dublin MS D. 4. 18. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1884 (none in 1879, ’80, ’81, ’82, ’83, ’85) is, 
 
 19. Essayson Chaucer , his Words and Works, Part V : 13. Chaucer’s Pardoner: his 
 
 character illustrated by documents of his time, by Dr. J. J. Jusserand. 14. Why the 
 Romaunt of the Rose is not Chaucer’s, by Prof. Skeat, M.A. 15. Chaucer’s Schipman, 
 and his Barge ‘The Maudelayne,’ by P. Q. Karkeek, Esq. 16. Chaucer’s Parson's 
 Tale compared with Frere Lorens’ s Somme de Vices et de Vertus, by Wilhelm Eilers, 
 Ph.D., 1882, englisht 1884. 17. On Chaucer’s Reputed Works, by T. L. Kington- 
 
 Oliphant, M.A. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1886 is, 
 
 20. Originals and Analogs of the Canterbury Tales. Part IV. Eastern Analogs 1, 
 by W. A. Clouston. 
 
 21. Life-Records of Chaucer, Part III, a. The Household hook of Isabella, wife of 
 Prince Lionel, third son of Edward III, in which the name of Geoefrey Chaucer 
 first occurs ; edited from the unique MS in the Brit. Mus., by Edward A. Bond, 
 LL.D., Chief Librarian, b. Chaucer as Forester of North Petherton, Somerset, 
 1390 — 1400, by Walford D. Selby, Esq. With an Appendix by Walter Rye, Esq., 
 on I, Chaucer’s Grandfather ; II, Chaucer’s connection with Lynn and Norfolk. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1887 is, 
 
 22. Originals and Analogs of the Canterbury Tales , Part V (completing the 
 volume). Eastern Analogs, II, by W. A. Clouston. 
 
 23. J ohn Lane’s Continuation of Chaucer's Squire's Tale, edited by F. J. Furnivall 
 from the 2 MSS in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, a.d. 1616, 1630. Part I. 
 
 24. Supplementary Canterbury Tales: 2, The Tale of Beryn, Part II. Forewords 
 by F. J. Furnivall, Notes by F. Vipan, M.A. &c., and Glossary by W. G. Stone; 
 with an Essay on Analogs of the Tale, by W. A. Clouston. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1888 ( wrongly markt No. 27 for 1889) if,, 
 
 25. Early English Pronunciation , with especial reference to Shakspere and 
 Chaucer, by Alexander J. Ellis, Esq., F.R.S. Part V, and last. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1889 is, 
 
 26. John Lane's Continuation of Chaucer' s Squire's Tale. Part II, with an Essay 
 on the Magical Elements in the Squire's Tale , and Analogues, by W. A. Clouston/ 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1890 is, 
 
 27. The Chronology of Chaucer's Writings, by John Koch, Ph.D., Berlin. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1891 is, 
 
 28. Observations on the Language of Chaucer's Troilus (a Study of its MSS, their 
 words and forms), by Prof. George Lyman Kittredge, M.A. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1892 is, 
 
 29. Essays on Chaucer, his Words and Works, Part VI, by Prof. Cowell, LL.D., 
 Alois Brandi, Ph.D., Rev. Prof. Skeat, Litt.D., and W. M. Rossetti. 
 
8 
 
 Chaucer Society's Publications: Second Series. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1898 (none in 1893-97) is, 
 
 30. Notes on the Hoad from London to Canterbury, ed. H. Littlehales, Esq. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1900 (none' in 1899) is, 
 
 31. The Portraits of Geoffrey Chaucer. By M. H. Spielmann. 
 
 32. Life-llecords of Chaucer, Part IY, Enrolments and Documents from the Public 
 Record Office, the City of London Town-Clerk’s Office, &c., ed. R. E. G. Kirk, Esq. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1901 is, 
 
 33. R. Brathwait's Comments on 2 Tales of Chaucer , 1665, ed. Miss C. Spurgeon. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1902 is, 
 
 3L Supplementary Canterbury Tales: 3, A new Ploughman's Tale, being Hoc- 
 cleve’s englisht Legend of the Virgin and her Sleeveless Garment , from the Christ- 
 church and Ashburnham MSS, edited by A. Beatty, M.A., Wisconsin. Part III. 
 
 35. The Pardoner' s Prologue and Tale, a critical edition by John Koch, Ph.D. ' 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1903 is, 
 
 36. Analogues of Chaucer s Canterbury Pilgrimage, the 4-days’ Journey from 
 London to Canterbury and back 'of the Aragonese Ambassadors, 31 July— 3 Aug. 1415 
 etc., etc., ed. R. E. G. Kirk and F. J. Furnivall. (Publishtin 1906.) 
 
 37. The .Development and Chronology of Chaucer's Works, by John S. P. Tatlock, 
 Ph.D. , Assistant Professor of English in the University of Michigan. (Issued in 1907.) 
 
 38. The Evolution of the Canterbury Tales, by Prof. W. W. Skeat, Litt.D. (1907.) 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1904 (publisht in 1907) is, 
 
 39. Studies in Chaucer's Rous of Fame, by Wilbur Owen Sypherd, Ph.D. 
 Professor of English in Delaware College, U.S.A. 
 
 40. The Origin and Development of the Story of Troilus and Criseyde, by Karl 
 Young, Ph.D. 
 
 41. The Harleian MS 733U and Revision of the Canterbury Tales by Prof. 
 Tatlock, Ph.D. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issule for 1905 (publisht in 1908) is, 
 
 42. The Date of Chaucer' s Troilus and other Chaucer matters , by Prof. George 
 Lyman Kittredge, LL.D., Litt.D. 
 
 43. The Eight-Text Edition of the Canterbury Tales ; with especial reference to 
 the Harleian MS 733h, by Prof. W. W. Skeat, Litt.D. 
 
 44. The Syntax of the Infinitive in Chaucer, by John Samuel Kenyon, Ph.D. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1906 (publisht in 1910-1) is, 
 
 45. A Study of the Miracles of Our Lady, told by Chaucer's Prioress, by Prof 
 
 Carleton Brown, Ph.D. * * ‘ 
 
 46. Lydgate's Siege of Thebes, ed. from the MSS by Prof. Axel Erdmann, Ph.D. 
 Part I, the Text (1911). Part II will be publisht by the E.E.T.S. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1907 (publisht in 1913) is, 
 
 47. A Detailed Comparison of the Eight Manuscripts of Chaucer's Canterbury 
 Tales , as completely printed by the Chaucer Society, by Professor John Koch, Ph.D. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1908 (publisht in 1914) is, 
 
 48. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, 1357-1900 a.d., by 
 Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de TUniversite de Paris. Part I. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1909 k 1910 (publisht in 1918) is, 
 
 49 & 50. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, 1357-1900 a.d., 
 by Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de l’Universite de Paris. Part II. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1911 is, 
 
 51. The Scene of the Franklin's Tale visited, by Professor J. S. P. Tatlock, Ph.D. 
 (publishtin 1914). 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1913 is, 
 
 52. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, 1357-1900 a.d., by 
 Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de TUmversite de Paris. Part III. 
 (Publisht in 1921.) 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1914 is, 
 
 53. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, Appendix A, 
 Part. IV (publisht in 1922), by Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de 
 1’Universite de Paris. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1915 is, 
 
 54. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, Appendices B and C, 
 Part. Y (publisht in 1922), by Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de 
 l’Universite de Paris. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1916 is, 
 
 55. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion , The Introduction, 
 Part YI (publisht in 1924), by Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de 
 l’Universite de Paris. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1917 is, 
 
 56. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, The Index, Part VII 
 (publisht in 1924), by Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de TUniversite 
 de Paris. 
 
 57. A Comparative Study of all the MSS of the Canterbury Tales, by Professor 
 John S. P. Tatlock. For 1918. [ Not yet Ready . ] . 
 
 [■ Printed in Groat Britain by li. Clay & Sons, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. 
 
Chaucer Society's Publications ; Second Series. 
 
 7 
 
 11. Parly English Pronunciation , with especial reference to Shakspere and Chau- 
 cer, by Alexander J. Ellis, Esq., F.It.S. Part IV. . 
 
 12. Life-Records of Chaucer , Part I, The Robberies of Chaucer by Richard Brere- 
 
 lav and others at Westminster, and at Hatcham, Surrey, on Tuesday, Sept. 6 1390 
 with some Account of the Robbers, from the Enrolments in the Public Record Offipp’ 
 by Walford D. Selby, Esq., of the Public Record Office. ’ 
 
 13. Tnynne’s Animadversions (1599) on Speght’s Chaucers Wor/ces, re-edited from 
 the unique MS, by Fredk. J. Furnivall, with fresh Lives of William and Francis 
 Thynne, and the only known fragment of The Pilgrim’s Tale. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1876 is, 
 
 14. Life-Records of Chaucer , Part II, The Household Ordinances of King 
 Edward II, June 1322 (as englisht by Francis Tate in March 1601 a.d.) with ex- 
 tracts from those of King Edward IY, to show the probable duties of Chaucer as 
 Valet or Yeoman of the Chamber, and Esquire, to Edward III, of whose Household 
 Book no MS is known ; together with Chaucer’s Oath as Controller of the Customs 
 and an enlargd Autotype of Hoccleve’s Portrait of Chaucer, ed. by F. J. Furnivall.’ 
 
 15. Originals and Analogues of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales , Part III 13 The 
 Story of Constance, for the Man of Law’s Tale. 14. The Boy killd by a Jew for 
 singing ‘ Gaude Maria,’ an Analogue of the Prioress’s Tale. 15. The Paris Beggar- 
 boy murderd by a J ew for singing ‘ Alma redemptoris mater ! ’ an Analogue 6f the 
 Prioress’s Tale; with a Poem by Lydgate. Edited by F. J. Furnivall. 
 
 16. Essays on Chancer, his Words and Works , Part III. 7. Chaucer’s Prioress her 
 Nun Chaplain and 3 Priests, illustrated from the Paper Survey of St Mary’s Abbey 
 Winchester, by F. J. Furnivall. 8. Alliteration in Chaucer, by Dr. Paul Lindner! 
 9. Chaucer a Wicliffite; a critical Examination of the Parson’s Tale, by Herr Hu°-o 
 Simon 10. The sources of the Wife of Bath’s Prologue : Chaucer not a borrower 
 from John of Salisbury, by the Rev. W. W. Woollcombe. 
 
 17. Supplementary Canterbury Tales: 1. The Tale of Beryn, with a Prologue of 
 the merry Adventure of the Pardoner with a Tapster at Canterbury, re-edited from 
 the Duke of Northumberland’s unique MS, by Fredk. J. Furnivall. Part I the 
 Text, with Wm. Smith’s Map of Canterbury in 1588, now first engravd from his 
 unique MS., and Ogilby’s Plan of the Road from London to Canterbury in 1675. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1878 (there was none in 1877) is, 
 
 18. Essays on Chaucer , his Words and Works , Part IV. 11. On here and there 
 in Chaucer (his Pronunciation of the two e’s ), by Dr. R. F. Weymouth ; 12 On a An 
 Original Version of the Knight’s Tale ; /3. the Date (1381) and Personages of ' the 
 tar lament of Foules ; y. on Anelida and Arcyte, on Lollius, on Chaucer, and Boc- 
 caccio, &c., by Dr. John Koch, with a fragment of a later Palamon and Ersyte from 
 the Dublin MS D. 4. 18. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1884 (none in 1879, ’80, ’81, ’82, ’83, ’85) is 
 
 19. Essays on Chaucer , his Words and Works , Part V: 13. Chaucer’s Pardoner: his 
 character illustrated by documents of his time, by Dr. J. J. Jusserand. 14 Why the 
 Romauntof the Rose is not Chaucer’s, by Prof. Skeat, M.A. 15. Chaucer’s Schipman, 
 and his Barge ‘The Maudelayne,’ by P. Q. Karkeek, Esq. 16. Chaucer’s Parson’s 
 /^compared with Frere Lorens’ s Somme de Vices et de Vertus, by Wilhelm Eilers, 
 Ph.D., 1882, englisht 1884. 17. On Chaucer’s Reputed Works, by T. L. Kington- 
 vj lipUclIlt , M.A, 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1886 is, 
 
 20 Originals and Analogs of the Canterbury Tales. Part IV. Eastern Analogs I, 
 by W. A. Clouston. 6 ’ 
 
 21. Life-Records of Chaucer , Part III, a. The Household book of Isabella, wife of 
 Punce Lionel, third son of Edward III, in which the name of Geoffrey Chaucer 
 first occurs ; edited from the unique MS in the Brit. Mus., by Edward A. Bond, 
 rton'i^n ,e u Llbranan b Chaucer as Forester of North Petherton, Somerset, 
 139 ? _ ^ 1 , 400 - b y Y alford D ’ Selb ^ Es( h Wlth an Appendix by Walter Rye, Esq. 
 on I, Chaucer s Grandfather; II, Chaucer’s connection with Lynn and Norfolk. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1887 is, 
 
 22. Originals and Analogs of the Canterbury Tales, Part V (completing the 
 
 volume). Eastern Analogs, II, by W. A. Clouston. * 6 
 
 23. John Lane’s Continuation of Chaucer' s Squire’s Tale, edited byF. J. Furnivall 
 from the 2 MSS in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, a.d. 1616, 1630. Part I 
 
 24. Supplementary Canterbury Tales: 2, The Tale of Reryn, Part II. Forewords 
 hy *• J- Furnivall, Notes by F. Vipan, M.A. &c., and Glossary by W. G. Stone- 
 with an Essay on Analogs of the Tale, by W. A. Clouston. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1888 ( wrongly markt No. 27 for 1889) is 
 fo. Early English Pronunciation , with especial reference to Shakspere arid 
 Chaucer, by Alexander J. Ellis, Esq., F.R.S. Part V, and last. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1889 is, 
 
 26. John Lane's Continuation of Chaucer’s Squire’s Tale. Part II, with an Essay 
 on the Magical Elements in the Squire’s Tale, and Analogues, by W. A. Clouston. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1890 is, 
 
 27. The Chronology of Chaucer's Writings, by John Koch, Ph.D., Berlin. 
 
8 
 
 Chaucer Society's Publications: Second Series. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1891 is, 
 
 28. Observations on the Language of Chaucers Troilus fa Study of its MSS, their 
 wolds and forms), by Prof. George Lyman Kittredge, M.A. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1892 is, 
 
 29. Essays on Chaucer , his Words and Works , Part VI, by Prof. Cowell, LL.D., 
 Alois Brandi, Ph.D., Rev. Prof. Skeat, Litt.D., and W. M. Rossetti. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1898 (none in 1893-97) is, 
 
 30. Notes on the Road from London to Canterbury , ed. H. Littlehales, Esq. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1900 (none in 1899) is, 
 
 31. The Portraits of Geoffrey Chaucer. By M. H. Spielmann. 
 
 32. Life-Records of Chaucer, Part IV, Enrolments and Documents from the Public 
 Record Office, the City of London Town-Clerk’s Office, &c., ed. II. 'Es G. Kirk, Esq. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1901 is, 
 
 33. R. Bratliwait' s Comments on 2 Tales of Chaucer , 1665, ed. Miss C. Spurgeon. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1902 is, 
 
 34. Supplementary Canterbury Tales : 3, A new Ploughman' s Tale , being IIoc- 
 cleve’s englisht Legend of the Virgin and her Sleeveless Garment, from the Christ- 
 church and Ashburnham MSS, edited by A. Beatty, M.A., Wisconsin. Part III. 
 
 35. The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale, a critical edition by John Koch, Ph.D. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1903 is, 
 
 36. Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Pilgrimage, the 4-days’ Journey from 
 London to Canterbury and back of the Aragonese Ambassadors, 31 J uly — 3 Aug. 1415, 
 etc., etc., ed. R. E. G. Kirk and F. J. Furnivall. (Publishtin 1906.) 
 
 37- The . Development and Chronology of Chaucer's Works, by John S. P. Tatlock, 
 Ph.D. , Assistant Professor of English in the University of Michigan. (Issued in 1907.) 
 
 38. The Evolution of the Canterbury Tales, by Prof. W. W. Skeat, Litt.D. (1907.) 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1904 (publislit in 1907) is, 
 
 39. Studies in Chaucer' s Nous of Fame, by Wilbur Owen Sypherd, Ph.D., 
 Professor of English in Delaware College, U.S.A. 
 
 40. The Origin and Development of the Story of Troilus and Criseyde, by Karl 
 Young, Ph.D. 
 
 41. The Harleian NS 733U and Revision of the Canterbury Tales, by Prof. 
 Tatlock, Ph.D. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1905 (publisht in 1908) is, 
 
 - 42. The Date of Chaucer' s Troilus and other Chaucer matters , by Prof. George 
 'Lyman Kittredge, LL.D., Litt.D. 
 
 43. The Eight-Text Edition of the Canterbury Tales ; with especial reference to 
 the Harleian MS 733k, by Prof. W. W. Skeat, Litt.D. 
 
 44. The Syntax of the Lnffnitive in Chaucer , by John Samuel Kenyon, Ph.D. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1906 (pubiislit in 1910-1) is, 
 
 45. A Study of the Miracles of Our Lady , told by Chaucer's Prioress , by Prof. 
 Carleton Brown, Ph.D. 
 
 46. Lydgate' s Siege of Thebes, ed. from the MSS by Prof. Axel Erdmann, Ph.D. 
 Part I, the Text (1911)'. Part II will be publisht by the E.E.T.S. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1907 (publisht in 1913) is, 
 
 47. A Detailed Comparison of the Eight Manuscripts of Chaucer's Canterbury 
 Tales, as completely printed by the Chaucer Society, by Professor John Koch, Ph.D. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1908 (publisht in 1914) is, 
 
 48. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, 1357-1900 a.d., by 
 Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de l’Universite de Paris. Part I. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1909 & 1910 (publisht in 1918) is, 
 
 49 & 50. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion , 1357-1900 a.d., 
 by Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de l’Universite de Paris. Part II. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1911 is, 
 
 51. The Scene of the Franklin's Tale visited , by Professor J. S. P. Tatlock, Ph.D. 
 (publisht in 1914). 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1913 is, 
 
 52. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and, Allusion , 1357-1900 a.d., by 
 Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de l’Universite de Paris. Part III. 
 (Publisht in 1921.) 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1914 is, 
 
 53. Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, Appendix A 
 (Publisht in 1922), Part IV, by Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de 
 l’Universit^ de Paris. 
 
 Of the Second Series, the issue for 1915 is, 
 
 54. Five Hundred, Years of Chaucer Criticism and, Allusion , Appendix B 
 (Publisht in 1922), Part V, by Professor Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Docteur de 
 l’Universite de Paris. 
 
 Among the Texts and Chaucer Essays, Ac. preparing for the Society are : — 
 
 Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion. Parts VI and VII. 
 Introduction and Index, completing the work. 
 
 A Comparative Study of all the MSS of the Canterbury Tales, by the late 
 Professor George Stevenson, B.A. 
 
 Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, 
 
 BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 
 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 3 0112 078036339