Today | News | Books | Recipes Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History Bookhowever, _poete_ is made trisyllabic, then l. 1499 should not contain _daun_. In 1494, for _high the_, read _highte_ (as in l. 744). In 1527, for _into_ read _in_. In 1570, read _Up peyne_. In 1666, 1701, and 1720, for _werkes_ read _werk_. In 1702, read _clew_ (see note)[10]. In 1717, _lyen_ is an error for _lyuen_, i.e. live. In 1750, read _To_, not _The_. In 1775, supply _ye_; or there is no sense. In 1793, supply _they_ for a like reason. In 1804, 5, supply _the_, and _al_; for the scansion. In 1897, read _wiste_, not _wot_. In 1940, _hattes_ should be _hottes_; this emendation has been accepted by several scholars. In 1936, the right word is _falwe_, not _salwe_ (as in Morris). In 1960, there should be no comma at the end of the line, as in most editions; and in 1961, 2 read _werre_, _reste_ (not _werres_, _restes_). In 1975, _mis_ and _governement_ are distinct words. In 2017, _frot_[11] is an error for _froyt_; it is better to read _fruit_ at once; this correction is due to Koch. In 2021, suppress _in_ after _yaf_. In 2049, for _he_ read _the other_ (Willert). In 2059, _wondermost_ is all one word. In 2076, I read _word_; Morris reads _mothe_, but does not explain it, and it gives no sense. In 2156, I supply _nevene_. I mention these as examples of necessary emendations of which the usual editions take no notice. I also take occasion to draw attention to the careful articles on this poem by Dr. J. Koch, in Anglia, vol. vii. App. 24-30, and Englische Studien, xv. 409-415; and the remarks by Willert in Anglia, vii. App. 203-7. The best general account of the poem is that in Ten Brink's History of English Literature. In conclusion, I add a few 'last words.' L. 399. We learn, from Troil. i. 654, that Chaucer actually supposed 'Oënone' to have four syllables. This restores the metre. Read:--And Paris to Oënone. 503. Read 'brighte,' with final _e_; 'bright' is a misprint. 859. Compare Cant. Tales, F 726. 1119. 'To climbe hit,' i.e. to climb the rock; still a common idiom. 2115. Compare Cant. Tales, A 2078. Perhaps read 'wanie.' INTRODUCTION TO THE LEGEND OF GOOD WOMEN. § 1. DATE OF THE POEM: A.D. 1385. The Legend of Good Women presents several points of peculiar, I might almost say of unique interest. It is the immediate precursor of the Canterbury Tales, and enables us to see how the poet was led on towards the composition of that immortal poem. This is easily seen, upon consideration of the date at which it was composed. The question of the date has been well investigated by Ten Brink; but it may be observed beforehand that the allusion to the 'queen' in l. 496 has long ago been noticed, and it has been thence inferred, by Tyrwhitt, that the Prologue must have been written _after_ 1382, the year when Richard II. married his first wife, the 'good queen Anne.' But Ten Brink's remarks enable us to look at the question much more closely. He shows that Chaucer's work can be clearly divided into three chief periods, the chronology of which he presents in the following form[12]. FIRST PERIOD. 1366 (at latest). The Romaunt of the Rose. 1369. The Book of the Duchesse. 1372. (end of the period). SECOND PERIOD. 1373. The Lyf of Seint Cecile. The Assembly of Foules. Palamon and Arcite. Translation of Boethius. Troilus and Creseide. 1384. The House of Fame. THIRD PERIOD. 1385. Legend of Good Women. Canterbury Tales. 1391. Treatise on the Astrolabe. It is unnecessary for our present purpose to insert the conjectured dates of the Minor Poems not here mentioned. According to Ten Brink, the poems of the First Period were composed before Chaucer set out on his Italian travels, i.e. before December, 1372, and contain no allusions to writings by Italian authors. In them, the influence of French authors is very strongly marked. The poems of the Second Period (he tells us) were composed after that date. The Life of Seint Cecile already marks the author's acquaintance with Dante's Divina Commedia; lines 36-51 are, in fact, a free translation from the Paradiso, canto xxxiii. ll. 1-21. See my note to this passage, and the remarks on the 'Second Nun's Tale' in vol. v. The Parlement of Foules contains references to Dante and a long passage translated from Boccaccio's Teseide; see my notes to that poem in vol. i. The original Palamon and Arcite was also taken from the Teseide; for even the revised version of it (now known as the Knightes Tale, and containing, doubtless, much more of Chaucer's own work) is founded upon that poem, and occasionally presents verbal imitations of it. Troilus is similarly dependent upon Boccaccio's Filostrato. The close connexion between Troilus and the translation of Boethius is seen from several considerations, of which it may suffice here to mention two. The former is the association of these two works in Chaucer's lines to Adam-- 'Adam scriveyn, if ever it thee befalle _Boece_ or _Troilus_ to wryten newe.' Minor Poems; see vol. i. p. 379. And the latter is, the fact that Chaucer inserts in Troilus (book iv. stanzas 140-154) a long passage on predestination and free-will, taken from Boethius, book v. proses 2, 3; which he would appear to have still fresh in his mind. It is probable that his Boethius preceded Troilus almost immediately; indeed, it is conceivable that, for a short season, both may have been in hand at the same time. There is also a close connexion between Troilus and the House of Fame, the latter of which shows the influence of Dante in a high degree; see p. vii. This connexion will appear from comparing Troil. v. stt. 52-55 with Ho. Fame, 2-54; and Troil. i. st. 74 (ll. 517-8) with Ho. Fame, 639, 640. See Ten Brink, Studien, p. 121. It would seem that the House of Fame followed Troilus almost immediately. At the same time, we cannot put the date of the House of Fame later than 1384, because of Chaucer's complaint in it of the hardship of his official duties, from much of which he was released (as we shall see) early in 1385. Further, the 10th of December is especially mentioned as being the date on which the House of Fame was commenced (l. 111), the year being probably 1383 (see Note to that line). It would appear, further, that the Legend was begun soon after the House of Fame was suddenly abandoned, in the very middle of a sentence. That it was written later than Troilus and the House of Fame is obvious, from the mention of these poems in the Prologue; ll. 332, 417, 441. That it was written at no great interval after Troilus appears from the fact that, even while writing Troilus, Chaucer had already been meditating upon the goodness of Alcestis, of which the Prologue to the Legend says so much. Observe the following passages (cited by Ten Brink, Studien, p. 120) from Troilus, bk. v. stt. 219, 254:-- 'As wel thou mightest lyen on _Alceste_ That was of creatures--but men lye-- That ever weren, kindest and the beste. For whan hir housbonde was in Iupartye To dye himself, but-if she wolde dye, S |