$C 13 51b CD C\J O UJ >- LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. The Decennial Publication's ON THE TEXT OF CHAUCER'S PARLEMENT OF FOULES BY ELEANOR PRESGOTT HAMMOND The Decennial Publications V.'SM i lie i-'resiaent s lieport. A. AaniuiisTratiou. VoiA ^: riie President's Report. P>. Publications ol the Members of the University. txvt:sttgattoxs wi[K iM n>(-1.u_>-v P.!iftorir>](Xn'. SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUM KS A series of volumes emlxjdying original research, consisting of systematic t unpublished documents, and the like. Size, octavo. 1. i:>03. The mparate articles constituting the I'ari./ Vol times, rcilf be published assoov asreadi/. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO rODMOBD BV JOHN O. ROCKBriLLBft The Decennial Publications ON THE TEXT OF CHAUCER'S PARLEMENT OF FOULES BY ELEANOR PRESCOTT HAMMOND DOCBNT IN THE DKPAKTMENT OF ENOLIBH PRINTED FROM VOLUME VH CHICAGO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 1902 fyum Copyright 1902 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PBINTED APRIL 10, 1902 ON THE TEXT OF CHAUCER'S PARLEMENT OF FOULES Elbanob Pbbsoott Hammond In the Globe edition of Chaucer's works, published by The Macmillan Com- pany in 1898, and edited by A. W. Pollard, M. H. Liddell, and others, the Par^ lement of Foules is, with the other minor poems, supervised by Mr. H. F. Heath. In his brief introduction to the poem Mr. Heath prints the genealogical tree of most of the manuscripts as it was indicated by Koch in Anglia, IV, Anz., p. 97, remarking that he agrees with Koch in its construction. The dia- gram is as follows : ' But a minute collation of the entire text of the Parlement of Foules will, it seems to me, lead a student to several conclusions : (1) that the above genealogy must be modified in detail ; (2) that, even were it ac- cepted, some of the read- / ings elected by Mr. Heath are unjustified ; (3) that, if the results here arrived at be correct, the discussion of Chaucerian metre must be reopened. These conclusions I shall examine in full below. Examples of the second point may be given at once: e. g., in line 65, of the two main (and four secondary) groups as drawn out by Mr. Heath, one main and an opposed secondary group read or indicate And was sumdel ful of harde grace, the other sub-group having, plainly by alteration in its own immediate source, the reading And ful of turment and of harde grace. This latter, adopted by Mr. Heath into a nominally critical text, cannot be supported on the manuscript evidence.' Other examples of modification necessary to a critical text are much less radical ; indeed, an interesting feature of this examination ha^ been the general correspondence of the resultant text, so far as verbal similarity goes, with those printed by Professor Skeat (Student's Chaucer) and Mr. Heath. A still more interesting feature has been the frequency with which Professor Skeat, following what I may term the method of genial intuitivity, has arrived at readings in harmony with critical deduction, while Mr. Heath, working with a genealogy of the manuscripts before his eyes, has deviated. A few examples illustrating these points are subjoined: 1 1 hare altered the lettering of this diagram to oorre- cannot agree. I consider that Ff omitted ful, and that Qg spond with that here used. distorted the reading ; cf. the tendencies of these mana- 3 With Koch's oonjectore, Engl' Stud., XXYII, p. 49, I scripts as discussed below. s 118320 4 Text of Ohauoeb's Pablement of Foules Line 7. Critical text : Nat wot I wet wher that I flete or synke. So Heath ; Skeat, wlier that I wake or wynke. Line 54. Critical text: Meneth hut a maner deth what wey we trace. Skeat and Heath, Nis hut, etc., the reading of Gg and Cax' only. Cf. Selden.' Line 142. Critical text : Of which I gan astonyd to beholde. Heath and Skeat, The which, etc., the reading of one sub-group, opposed by its fellow and by the other main group. Skeat, a stounde, the reading of one sub-group, the remainder of that main group showing stonde and the opposed main group astonyd. Line 150. Critical text: Ne hath no myght to meve to nor fro. Both editors. That hath, etc., the reading of the C group, while the A group shows the reading above printed. Since, according to Mr. Heath, the A is the better group of manu- scripts, we expect to see its readings followed where it and C are opposed. Line 205. Both editors follow GgFfCax in omitting a ther present in other texts. But note that in line 119 both editors passed a reading offered by GgFfHh. Line 207. Critical text: No man may ther wexe seke ne olde. Skeat and Heath, Ne no man, etc., the reading of a branch of one sub-group. Line 214. Critical text: And wille hys doghter tempred al the while. Skeat, And wel . . . . al the whyle; Heath, And Wille . . . . al this while. Skeat's wel is from Gg and S, the manuscripts FfHDTLt showing a while, whiele, whill, which is plainly influenced by the last word in the line. According to Boccaccio, the daughter of Cupid was Voluttade — Voluptas. If Chaucer, or the scribe in whose text he read Boccaccio, chanced to misinterpret Voluttade as Volutade or Voluntade, the transition to Will is inevitable. The this in Heath's text is found in one sub-group and one branch-group of A, the other branch-group and the C manuscripts showing the. Line 278. Critical text: To whom on knees two yonge folk ther criede. Both editors, two yonge folkes cryde. The ther is omitted by C and by one A group manuscript, the HRSCax antecedent. As both these texts have a tendency to omit (see below), and as a coincident insertion of ther by three A group manuscripts, GgFf, Hh, P^Jo, is less credible than such coincident omission, the ther is retained. Observe that it appears in the GgFf pair, a pair whose isolated readings are frequently adopted by one or both editors, but are here disregarded by them. Line 285. Critical text: Of many a storye of which I touche shal. So Skeat. Heath, Ful many, etc., the GgFfCax reading, occurring in those allied manuscripts possibly by transfer from the opening of line 282. Note the adoption of a GgFf reading here and the rejection of it in line 278. Line 298. Critical text: Tho was I war wher ther sate a quene. Both editors, where that ther, the reading of Gg and of the arbitrary and contaminated S. Con- sidering the idiosyncrasies of Gg discussed below, its isolated reading cannot be adopted here. Note the consequent "Lydgatian" movement of the line; and observe that in line 393 the reading of GgS is ignored by both editors. 3 For the Caxton print (Cax), Selden (S), and Pepys (P) seo list of manuscripts on p. 8. 4 Eleanor Pbbsoott Hammond Line 313. Critical text: That erthe and see and tree and euery lake. So Skeat. Heath, erthe and eyr, etc., the reading of GgFf alone. Line 317. Critical text: Devyseth Nature of suche array and face. Both editors omit suche, as do GgFf. This reading is opposed by the other division of A and by C. It may be easy to argue a coincident insertion of suche by C and A*, under the influence of line 318. Line 325. Critical text: That eten as that nature toolde enclyne. Both editors, hem instead of that, the reading of GgFfCax. Line 380. Critical text: That hoot colde hevy lyght moiste and drye. Skeat inserts an and, found in no manuscript, before moiste; this he brackets. Heath inserts the and without brackets. Line 389. Critical text : With youre makes as I prik yow with plesaunce. Both editors drop the opening with, as do GgFf. Note that in line 385, however, the Gg FfLtCax reading, I wol you spede, is passed by both editors in favor of the general I wol me spede. Line 396. Critical text: The whiche I have formed as ye may see. GgFf omit the opening The, a reading not adopted by Skeat or Heath. Neither is the wet, which these two manuscripts show before see, taken by the editors; but cf. their procedure in line 389. Skeat alters the word-order to formed have, marking his change by a dagger ; Heath takes the yformed of Pepys, there written Iformed. Line 426. Critical text: Hauyng rewarde oonly to my trouthe. Heath, And havyng reward, etc., the reading of CaxGg also showing the And, with a different word-order. Skeat inserts a bracketed al before oonly. Line 452. Critical text : Or atte lest I love hyr as wel as ye. So Skeat. Heath omits hyr, as do GgCaxS. Line 473. Critical text: Thise twenty wynter and as wel happen may. Both editors omit a^, taking, in this respect, the reading of C and of the careless sub-group HRS. As we shall see below, the distinction of C from A is frequently because of omission by the former; and it is more credible to suppose that the A archetype showed as, omitted by HRS, than that two branches of A should independently insert as. Considering, then, the tendency of C to omit, we retain the A reading. Both editors print winter, passing over the yere of GgCax ; note their procedure in line 54. Line 487. Critical text: Who that hadde leyser and kunnynge. Skeat, Whoso that, etc., bracketing the so, which appears only in Jo, and there in the form Whoso hath, without any that. Heath's line is like Skeat's, but without the brackets. Cf. 380. Line 490. Critical text: Til dounward went the sonne wonder faste. Both editors take the drow of Gg instead of went. Note, however, that in line 497 they both print For ye or nay withoiiten any preve, when the Gg reads othir preve. Line 503. Critical text: And wol sey my veyrdit faire and swythe. Both editors. And I wol sey, the reading of Gg and of the untrustworthy manuscripts Cax and S. Note the I in line 502. 6 6 Text op Chaucer's Parlement of Foules In line 506, as in lines 567, 583, 629, 647, 661, 670, and 672, Heath adopts the isolated readings of Gg, Skeat agreeing with the critical text. The reading in line 629 is supported by Jo. Line 543. Critical text: For sirs taketh noght agrefe I pray. Both editors adopt the Gg reading, with ne before taketh. Line 564. Critical text: And herkeneth which a reson I shal forth brynge Both editors take the Gg reading with omitted forth. Line 569. Critical text : Quod the sperhauke neuer mote she thee. Heath prints the after Quod, the reading of TD. Line 585. Critical text: Yet let hym serve hir euer tyl he be dede. So Skeat. Heath shows a reading of no manuscript, P being nearest it. He prints serven hir til he, etc. ; P thus, but with no n on the infinitive. Gg shows a smooth metrical reading, seme hire til that he, but Heath unexpectedly disregards this. See his procedure noted in line 506 and elsewhere. In line 594, where Skeat follows the main group — plus the opposed sub-group — reading duk, Heath takes the reading gos, disregarding not only the weight of authority, but also the agreement of Gg with that authority. In line 602 both editors follow GgCax in printing nat instead of neyther; but in line 611 neither editor adopts the Gg reading thanne after seyde. In line 621, again, both editors take the GgCax the eleccion instead of hir eleccion. Line 620. Critical text: But fynally this ys my conclusyon. So Skeat. Heath omits ys, thus offering a reading found in no manuscript. Line 626. Critical text: Than wol I doon this fauour to hir that she. Both editors take the Gg reading. Line 637. Critical text: That to yow hit ought to been a suffisaunce. Both editors follow GgCax in omitting hit. Line 641. Critical text: As is euerych other creature. Both editors show an opening Lyk found only in Jo. The normal though headless Ff and erratic Gg readings are here both passed over. In line 644 the Gg is passed in favor of Ff and the majority. Cf. Heath's procedure as noted on line 506 and elsewhere, from which he again deviates in line 654. The roundel is freely handled by both editors.* It will appear from the above notes on the editorial methods of Professor Skeat and Mr. Heath that the manuscript Gg receives from them an especially peculiar treatment, being now fully accredited, now suddenly discredited; and the interest which this manuscript consequently acquires for us is increased by noting a set of cases in which, either alone or with slight support, manuscript Gg presents a reading that appeals to us on literary or metrical grounds. Such cases are: Line 166. Manuscript Gg: And demyn yit wher he do bet or he; manuscript *The questions regarding the roundel, its omission, insertion, or distortion, will not be here discussed. 6 Eleanob Pbesoott Hammond Jo: And to deme, etc.; manuscript S: And deme, etc. All other manuscripts show the third singular of the verb, which Skeat retains, Heath taking the infinitive. Line 232. Manuscript Gg: Aboute that temple daunsedyn alwey. No other manuscript shows the trisyllabic plural. Line 363. Manuscript Gg: The rauen toys the crowe wit vois of care. Ff omits toys; all other manuscripts omit the epithet and also show the plural forms rauenya, . Crowes. Line 460. Manuscript Gg: Aa wel as that myn wit can me suffyse. No other manuscript shows that. Both editors print it Line 551. Manuscript Gg: Were sittyngest for hire If that he teste. No other manuscript but S shows the superlative, and it in the form best sitting. Observe the superlatives in the three lines preceding. Both editors print the Gg adjective, but ignore the Gg he (other manuscripts her). Line 613. Manuscript Gg: That broughte the forth thow reufulles glotoun. Both editors print a bracketed rewthelees, derived partly from this manuscript, partly from Pepys. All other manuscripts rewful. Line 632. Manuscript Gg: If I were resoun certis thanne wold I. All other manuscripts omit certis. Line 655. Manuscript Gg: Quod tho Nature heere is no more to seye. Other manuscripts show no tho, except H. Though manuscript Gg is not the only manuscript of which the isolated testimony has been accepted by Chaucerian editors — witness the participial form of P in line 396, the Jlyes of R in line 353, the like of Jo in line 641 — yet no manuscript but this has received from the editors of this poem such frequent and distinguished honor. When we observe, however, that it is at times entirely discredited by the same editors, we recognize that an especial part of our investigation must be an inquiry into the individual peculiarities and genealogical position of manuscript Gg. External com- bine with internal idiosyncrasies to render this investigation necessary; the Gg is the only manuscript showing the A version of the prologue to the Legend of Good Women; this fact, with others equally noteworthy, and its probable early date, indicate a close relationship to the true Chaucerian text; while its occasional flagrant lapses and evidently tinkered text point to a confusion of treatment by its immediate scribe. A complete investigation of its peculiarities, however, cannot be carried through without a minute examination, here and now impossible, of its contents as a whole, their arrangement, and the different hands in which they are copied; and the same is true of all other manuscripts. Were it possible to put side by side the Tanner, Digby, Fairfax, Bodley, and Longleat manuscripts, and to compare all in their entirety with Ff, I think that an idea of manuscript relationships as wholes might be obtained which would perhaps modify and enlarge the genealogical schemes constructed by editors of Chaucer and Lydgate, as well as that here offered. With this consciousness 7 Text of Chaucer's Parlement of Foules in mind, I have felt an especial hesitation in outlining the subjoined genealogy; for it seems to me that the next move in Chaucerian study will be in the direction to which I have just alluded, and that such a move will in all likelihood render these attempts of small avail. Further, let it be said that the purpose of this examination is not to contravene the possibility or the need of conjectural emendation in Chaucerian text construction, but to discriminate between a text so emended and a text adhering rigidly to the existing evidence. The manuscripts of the Parlement of Foules, fifteen in number, are as follows : Gg 4, 27 (University Library, Cambridge), referred to here as Gg. Ff I, 6, of the same library, referred to here as Ff. Hh 4, 12, of the same hbrary, referred to here as Hh, R 3, 19 (Trinity College, Cambridge), referred to here as R. Pepys 2006 (Magdalen College, Cambridge), referred to here as P. St. John's LVII (St. John's College, Oxford), referred to here as Jo. Fairfax 16 (Bodleian, Oxford), referred to here as F. Bodley 638 (Bodleian), referred to here as B. Tanner 346 (Bodleian), referred to here as T. Digby 181 (Bodleian), referred to here as D. Laud 416 (Bodleian), referred to here as Ld. Selden B 24 (Bodleian), referred to here as S. Harley 7333 (British Museum) referred to here as H. Longleat 181 (Marquess of Bath), referred to here as Lt. The original of the Caxton print (University Library, Cambridge), referred to here as Cax. All are studied from the Chaucer Society's reprints. Of these manuscripts the major part are substantially complete. Selden, a recension strongly tinged with Scotticisms, and constantly arbitrary in its renderings, is made use of here only to line 601; beyond that point it is spurious. Pepys is incomplete after line 667 ; Hh and Laud are fragments, of 365 and 142 lines respect- ively; and B lacks a number of stanzas, comprising lines 1-22 and 157-99. Parallelizing these texts, I find a sharp divergence into two main groups, which I term A and C. Into the A group fall manuscripts Gg, Ff, H, R, Jo, Ld, S, Hh, P, and Cax; into the C group, manuscripts F, B, T, Lt, and D. This division is made upon the basis of the following readings: Line 3, A dreadful C blissful Line 55, A after C when 5, uxmderful dreadful 58, the hevens hevens 5, astonyeth astonyeth so 64, bade (or said) — syn bade — see 13, I dare dare I 69, shuld shal 26, (as) of this of my first 70, is doon was doon 29, make of mencion make mencion 72, into that to 30, as I shal telle I shal you telle 75, Shalt not Shalt neuer 32, seven it hadde it hadde seven 84, send us (or thee) send each lover 35, say tell 107, I had red I red had 37, In — meteth Into — mette 110, totorne al totorne 43, tellith it (or he) told he him 135, strokis stroke 44, shewed yshewed 137, neuer tree shal tree shal nev^r 50, folk the folk 138, to unto Elbanob Pbesoott Hammond Line 149, A aette C ysette or is set Line 233, A I som ther were C som were 178, boxtre piper box pipe ire 234, wer gay gay 188, that moimmen and swimming 237, of doves white satv I white 192, so ov 8om that 238, Sitting— 100 (or 1,000) Of doves 1 194, al aboute aboute 240, sat with a sat a 206, wex or VX18 growen 241, by her side her beside 209, than man no man 250, and wel wel 215, her hard 338, hardy sparhawk sparhawk 217, for to to 436, al be al though 221, do before (or by force) go before 501, said said tho 222, I will I shall 544, may not go may not 229, shall not here shall not 666, brought wrought 100 While making this division, several noteworthy facts become evident: first, the marked decrease in group divergences after line 250; secondly, the fact that in several cases the difference of group C from group A is due to an omission by the former archetype; thirdly, that, owing to this and other reasons, the text of the A archetype was probably nearer to the ultimate original verbally. Such additional reasons I find in cases of this sort: The original of line 221 is, in the Teseide, VII, stanza 55, Di fare altrui a forza far follia. The reading do?i by force . ... to donfolye is there- fore beyond a doubt the Chaucerian line; the C archetype not only dropped a letter from be force, making it he fore, as did the GgFf ancestor," but under the pressure of this adverbial idea changed don to gon. The confusion of pronouns in line 43, where some A manuscripts show a similar slip, the misunderstanding in line 64, and the meaningless inversion in line 178 are other cases which have led me to adhere, in writing out a critical text, to the readings of the A archetype when that and C are opposed. The orthography to be adopted is, however, another question. Proceeding to classify' the C group, we note at once the distinction of BF from DLtT; cf. lines 56, 106, *108 (omission by FB), 126, 154, 208, 214, 224, 236, 278, 295, 303 (omission by DLtT), *383 (omission by FB), *512, 612, 628, 669. Cf. also the colo- phon of these two manuscripts, and the presence of the French phrase after stanza 97. That F is not derived from B may be argued from lines 27, 63, 140, 206, 313 — omissions by B alone — and from the misreadings and slight insertions of B not appear- ing in F; cf. Unes 37, 72, 231, 263, 335, 364, 394, 395, 504, 556, 585, 637, 688. For the converse, the independence of B from F, the evidence is very scanty, the verbal and even orthographical agreement of the two manuscripts being exceedingly close. The divergences of the two in lines 152, 216, 253, 263, 551, 590, 637 argue little or nothing for or against B's derivation from F; the slips of F in lines 359, 381, 420, 436, 652 might possibly be emended by the careful Bodley scribe; but lines *201, *476, and in less measure 358 — Bodley's avoidance of omission made by Fairfax — seem to point to independent transcription of a common originaL See also line 652. Although the &In line 80 the GgFf ancestor also slipped a letter, writing " Shol whirle aboate |>ere al wey in peyne," instead of \>€r\>c, the erthe, a form shown in C, and changed by A* to the world, probably by influence of line 81. * Starred line-numbers indicate important instances. 10 Text of Chaucer's Parlement of Foules hypothesis of two extremely careful scribes may at first glance appear to require a double amount of credulity, the steady accuracy of the Bodley scribe is no more striking on the theory of independent transcription than it is on the theory of tran- scription from Fairfax. I have therefore dissented from Mr, Furnivall's conjecture that Fairfax may be the source of Bodley, and assumed for these two manuscripts independent transcription from an ancestor separate from the ancestor or ancestors of DLtT. Before turning to consider these three manuscripts, we note the rigid mechanical fidelity of F and B to an accurate original. Note, e. gr., their galoxye in line 56, their will in line 214 already commented on, their Cipride in line 277, where many manuscripts write Cupide, and the fact that in none of their divergences from the rest of group C is the difference due to misunderstanding or to arbitrary deviation. Passing now to study the interrelations of the three remaining C group manu- scripts, we observe: 1. That Digby cannot be the source of Lt or T. For note the omissions and misreadings of D not appearing in either of the others, lines 27, 54, 109, 119, 144, 166, *178, ^202, *220, *238, *245, 255, *296, *354, 375, 377, 389, 391, 426, *438, 460, 462, 493, 530, 540, 562, 573, *582, 587, 644, 659, 666. 2. Similarly, T cannot be the source of D or Lt ; cf. the errors of this manuscript alone in lines ♦80, 93, 112, *125, 169, 170, 177, 187, 189, *274, 310, *400, 404, 411, 415, 438, ^439, 448, 454, 461, ^511, 516, 562, *594, *665, *672, *692. 3. Nor can Lt be the immediate source of either of the other two ; cf. its diver- gences and omissions not shared by D or T in lines 1, 5, 17, *25, 27, 29, *40, *42, 79, 81-82, 117, 136, *139, 140, 156, 158, 175, 183, 203, 225, *228, *234, 256, *262, ♦286, 294, ^307, 312, 329, 332, ^335, 336, 348, 351, ^352, 366, 372, *379, 384, 385, 390, ^414, 417, 422, 428, 431, 436, 449, ^462, *493, *494, *504, 514, *519, *525, ♦533, ^537, 539, 557-558, ^560, 570, 592, 601, 605, 606, 616, 634, 635, 640, *658, 669, 670, ^676, 677, 679, 689, 691. While making this investigation, several facts become apparent. The errors of Lt are constant throughout the poem, and are very largely of omission; Tanner, though showing a number of omissions, some ten in all, errs otherwise only in two trivial insertions and in some fifteen scribal errors, of which but one or two {cf. line 672) are glaring ; in this respect, as in that of omission, it is far superior to the heedless Lt, and its tendency to miscopy does not appear until eleven stanzas have been transcribed ; Lt, on the other hand, showing at the beginning the insensibility to rime sound evinced again in lines ^139, ^379, 404, 438, 484, 628, 669. In line 114 Lt is accom- panied in rime-slip by D and T; in line 551 by D; in all these cases F and B write the correct forms, and we are thus led to emphasize again the accuracy with which the two latter are transcribed, and to recognize that, whatever be the tendency to omit in C, it must have presented very consistent and careful orthography. To this point we shall later return ; at present another fact regarding D must be observed. 10 Elbanob Pbbsoott Hammond 11 Digby's omissions are some twelve in number, its insertions two, and of its some nineteen scribal errors only one or two can be considered deliberate; thus perhaps line 64-1. Its omissions are more serious than those made by Tanner, and its intrinsic value is thus slightly lessened; but this tendency to omit is curi- ously paralleled by a small class of important cases in which D shows a reading present in the A group, and apparently blurred by omission in all other C group manuscripts. Such cases occur in lines 53, 244, *467, where D has respectively the how, the eke, and the Nature of the A group, not present in F, B, Lt, or T. These agreements of D with the A type are emphasized by the reading of line *7, where D and the A group show Jlete or synke as opposed to the wake or wynke of FBLtT. Slighter cases of agreement between D and A are to be seen in lines 28, 148. The data just cited, especially line *7, point to a union of FBLtT in opposition to D; and as the bond between F and B and the separate position of D have been above demonstrated, it would seem that we are now brought to a genealogy for the C manuscripts opposed to that printed by Mr. Heath. The case is, however, not so clear; a close examination shows, for one thing, points of alliance between D and Lt Such points of alliance are as follows: From line 75 on, these readings: line 75, FBT and A To comon profit, DLt The comon, etc.; line 91, DLt omit the ek of FBTA; line 98, DLt the, FBTA my; line 100, FBTA To woods, DLt To the woode; line 104, DLt change the general meteth or mst to dremeth; line 127, they alter the general men goon to men come; in line *142 the A reading astonyd, FBT a stounde, becomes for DLt the infinitive stonde; in line 152 DLt show an opening Thus; in lines 161, 167, 190, 191, 196 slight points of agreement set them off from FBT; in line 209 they apparently insert a he not present in FBTA ; in lines 282, 297, 306 they write broke, walked, was, as against FBT ybroke, welk, nas; in line 322 they show an opening On not in FBT ; in lines *387- 90 they have the rime order ordenaunce — governaunce, while FBT have governaunce in both lines. Observe the A readings. In line 457 they read in any wise, FBT having no in; in line 468 they omit that; in line *472 they deviate from all other manu- scripts by writing they that been instead of he that hath been; in line 520 both write loudenesse instead of the general lewdenesse; in line 527 they read That where other manuscripts have The; in line 577 both omit her, and in line 594 they read said, with the A group, FB showing quoth, and T omitting; in line *596 DLt omit gentil; in line 619 they write an opening For (from line 618) instead of the general And; in line 642 they change dure to endure, as does manuscript R; in line 652 they read This is, FBT Thi^. These facts indicate a union DLt after line 75 at least, while the Koch-Heath genealogy indicates an opposition DLtT to FB, and within the group DLtT a special bond LtT. The evidence adduced by Koch for this division is as follows: lines 3, 7, 96, 106, 108, 152, 278. (Anglia, loc. cit.) 11 12 Text of Chaucer's Parlement of Foules Of these examples, I find that the adjective of line 3 shows merely the divergence of A and C, Fairfax plainly erring, and Bodley not presenting the line because of imperfection at the beginning; line 7 has already been cited as a noteworthy case of FBLtT diverging from D and A; line 96 is a mere question of the use or non-use of final -n; lines 106, 108, and 278 prove but the alliance of F and B, DLtT here going with A; and in line 152 the difference is in the use of whether or wher that. F and B show wher that, Lt where, D whedir, T whether that; if this isolated example proves anything, it is the alliance of T with FB. These cases are cited by Koch " beispielsweise ; " in Englische Studien, XXVII, he has extended his comments on the condition and relationships of these manuscripts by stating his opinion that Digby is contaminated with some manuscript of the A type; in confirmation of this he mentions lines 7, 62, 148, 387, 417, 460. Lines 7 and 62 have been above noted in support of the division FBLtT versus D anterior to line 75, In line 148 D and A* show an opening For not present in A* or FBLtT; but note the beginning of line 151 and the ease of independent trans- ference. In line 387 it is the rime treatment in which Koch finds evidence of A influence on D, and also on Lt ; these two manuscripts here agree in the rime sequence ordenaunce — govemaunce with the sub-group HRS of A, other A manuscripts, except Jo, reading governaunce — ordenaunce, and Jo agreeing with FBT in having govem- aunce — govemaunce. If these readings prove anything, they prove the possibility of independent but coincident change by various manuscripts. In line 417 D and A omit an and present in FBT; in line 460 D and two A manuscripts show any instead of myj the A manuscripts in question are P and Ff, the interrelations of which will be discussed later; note that the rest of the line garbled by P and Ff is uninjured in D, that the visual error is an easy one, and that the A manuscripts here chancing to agree in part with D are not those which agreed with it in lines 387-90. I cannot find in these examples adequate proof of A influence on D. Rather do I see, in line *7 of the above cases, evidence of D's retention, with A, of an X reading lost in FBLtT, which manuscripts, up to line 75, are wholly or partly opposed to D. Lines 53 and 62 show this separation also; after line 75 Lt is allied with Digby, as in the Anelida text, but, because of its marked tendency to omit, does not share the readings of lines 244 and 467. It remains to deduce the position of Tanner. According to Krausser, Anglia, XIX, p. 212, the contents of this manuscript are written in " zeitlich ziemlich auseinanderliegenden Handschrif ten ; " at what points or with what poems these differ- ences appear I cannot at present say, important as is the question in determining the relation of the manuscript to others. But of the three poems, Legend of Good Women, Parlement of Foules, and Deth of Blaunche, which occur in that sequence in the three manuscripts, F, B, and T, Mr. Pollard (Globe Chaucer) says, in com- menting on the first : "F and B must be derived immediately from the same original, and T, which shares most of their glaring faults, from the original of that ; " and both 12 Eleanor Pbesoott Hammond 18 Lange and Koch, discussing the manuscript genealogy of the Deth of Blaunche, draw out the relation of the three manuscripts FBT as shown in the accompanying figure. In this they are followed by Heath. Considering now the fact that the three poems occur in like sequence in all these manuscripts, it surely is reasonable to infer that all the scribes worked from one and the same archetype in transcribing this set of poems; and, if dependent on this evidence alone, we should assuredly group our five manuscripts as FBT versus DLt, deriving the T at a point higher than the FB original, as in the Legend of Oood Women and Deth of Blaunche. What, now, is the testimony offered by the text of this particular poem ? The heading and colophon of T are like those of F and FB, Lt agreeing, in these respects, with D; and after line 75 the concurrence of FBT in readings where LtD diverge, as already noted, is steady. Whether these agreements of T with FB are due to immediate affiliation with their branch, or whether its position be on the DLt stem above them and thus free from their special errors, remains to be discovered. Cases which come under consideration are: lines 3, 8, 56, 59, 78, 119, 149, 154, 437, 466, 512, 569. Line 3 is an interesting study, DT read awey that fleth; Lt, that alwey fleth. F has here a distorted reading, the slyder loy that alwey slyd; and B is wanting. In the A group we find: GgFf, alwey that slit (slydeth); HR, alwey that fyltt (Jleeth); HhCax, that alwey flytt (flit) ; P, alle wey that slittej JoLd, that alwey slite (slydyth). From this we see that one branch of A (HhCaxHR) has /-forms, R showing Jleeth — the DLtT verb — but that GgFf and PJoLd have an .s-form as in Fairfax. The con- fusion of / and the long s is an easy one, and we would infer in this case that A read slity the manuscript at the head of the HhCaxHR branch changing it to flit. What, however, did C read? T and Lt, which four lines below unite with F against D, here go with D against F, and show Jleeth; the soberly accurate Fairfax garbles a reading as nowhere else in the poem, but garbles in a manner which compels us to infer that slyd was certainly before the scribe's eyes. The safest deduction appears to be that C also read slyd or slit; that the DLtT ancestor passed this through Jlit to Jleeth, just as the R manuscript of the A stock did, F retaining the parent reading. Such a supposi- tion argues a bond DLtT at this point. In line 8 we have an agreement of TF against a DLt common error; in lines 56 and 59 orthographical differences of FB from DLtT ; in line 78 an omission of an important word, soth, by both T and Lt; in line 119 a retention by D alone of a word present in the A group; in line 149 there is a slight orthographical agreement of TLt; in line 154 DLtT have a me not present in FB; in line 437 is a TLt omission of be; in line 466 LtT read For instead of the general Forth; in line 512 DLtT read, incorrectly, worthyest instead of unworthyest; in line 569 T and D both show a tho not present in FBLtA, where the Lt reading may, of course, be caused by omission, as opposed to the DT reading. 13 14 Text of Chauceb's Parlement of Foules Of these lines, *3, 56, 59, 154, *512, 569 indicate DLtT kinship; the ortho- graphical correctness of FB in line 59 and their accuracy in line 512 as opposed to DLtT make these two lines arguments for a DLtT stem diverging from FB. Line 78 does not show evidence for either stem-division against the other, and the proof of TLt special alliance consists in their common omission of soth in this line, another common omission of he in line 437, and a slight common error in line 466. Reviewing the especial DLt bonds already given, we see that only in the rimes of lines 387-90, as in heading and colophon, is T after line 75 so distinctly with FB as to unite it with that stem rather than with the DLt; all other special features of DLt there mentioned can be ascribed to their common immediate ancestor. Of especially close bond T with D, line 3 — the awey instead of alwey — is the only noteworthy case, 569 being probably a point for a DLtT connection. An alliance DLtT versus FB is now suf- ficiently probable after line 75 ; anterior to that point the aflBliation of TLt is partly also with FB; cf. lines 7, 53, 62. From about line 75 on Lt adheres to D, while T perhaps had access to an FB codex; cf. lines 387-90 and the colo- phon. From what has already been said regard- ing the transcription of the Legend of Good Women, the Parlement of Foules, and the Deth of Blaunche in that order by the three manuscripts, F, B, and T, it will appear inconsistent to assign to T a closer kinship with DLt in one of these three texts than with FB. But it is to be noted that elsewhere in the T codex the Anelida and Lydgate's Black Knight are copied in close conjunction; that Krausser, in his edition of the latter poem [Anglia, XIX), finds D and T connected in a group opposed to F and B, and that the Koch-Heath genealogy of the Anelida text places T on the same stem with DLt, above them and opposed with them to FB. Assuming these conclusions to be well grounded, we have the possibility that in the Parlement of Foules T (and Lt) worked partly with FB in the first few stanzas as in the poem preceding, but then for some reason deviated to use the copy which they had followed in transcribing the Black Knight. Further it might be remarked that the undetailed genealogy which so far lies before the student for the Legend of Oood Women does not preclude the possibility that the diiBPerence of T from FB may there be one of difference in stem, as here indicated. The freedom of T from FB errors in the former poem, alluded to by Mr. Pollard, may be because of a difference in stem. A study of the manuscripts as wholes, and of their interrelations as Chaucer codices, will perhaps lead to the construction of a general tree for the minor poems. One fact appears with especial distinctness as consequence of these inferences: 14 ElbanobPbesoottHammonI) 15 the very great value, intrinsically and by position, of FB. The tree is as shown on the preceding page. THE A QBOUP Passing over now to the texts deriving from A, we observe an alliance between manuscripts Gg and Ff as opposed to the other manuscripts; c/. lines 22 and 24 (rime), 46 (omission GgFf), 62, 64, ♦eS, 74, ♦80 (see footnote ante), 84, ^88, 115 (c/. Cax), *119, 126 (c/. C group), 142, 148, 167, 168, 169, 186, 204, 205, *206, ♦221, *238, 269, ^284, 317, 325, 344 (omission GgFf?), 352 (c/ Cax), 366, 368, 381, 385 (c/. Cax), 389, 396, 400, 480 (cf. S), 594 (c/. Cax), 642, 650. The decrease in group-divergence after line 400 is very noticeable. Taking up first the larger body of texts, we find a division of JoLd from HR; cf. lines 2, *4 (error by JoLd), omissions by HR in 8, 17, 19, 26, a JoLd deviation in 10, an HR deviation in 14, a JoLd change in 22 and 24, line 30 (omission by JoLd), 34, 35 (slip by HR), 39 (deviation by JoLd), ^41 (slip by JoLd), 43, 49 HR, 56, 60 (insertion by HR), 67, 69 (omission by HR), 72 (slip HR), 73, 74, 89 (omission by HR), 96 (omission by JoLd), *104 (deviation by JoLd), 106, 112, 117, 121. With line 142 the Laud fragment ends, but the HR differences from Jo continue to indicate their different parentage: cf. their omissions in lines 156, *174, *185, 219, ♦249, 278, 408, 411, 425, 460, 495, 526, 548, 588, ^654, 656. Further slips by the HR ancestor alone may be noted in lines 144, ^151, 159, 196, 201, 210, 224, ^239, 253, 305, 350, 369, ^412, ^454, ^459, 477, ^520, 534, 553, ^556, 564, 666. The carelessness of the HR parent manuscript is evident from this list. That R is not transcribed from H may be proved by H's lack of lines 296-302 and of stanza 98, all present in R, and by R's avoidance of slips or omissions made by H in lines 7, 94, 249, 271, 285, 396, 440, 478, 483, 557, 616, 659; that H was not copied from R is plain by its freedom from R's numerous omissions and still more numerous errors or deviations; cf. lines 1, 39, 43, ^45, 46, ^51, 80, 93, 101, 103, 117, 137, 146, 152, 162, 163, 180-181, 194, 226, 229, 247, 248, 249, 306, 307, 353, 382, 403, 414, 434, 458, 490, 499, 508, 519, 527, 536, 558, 590, 594, 601, 620, 623, 642, 649, 674. That Jo and Ld were transcribed independently follows, first, from Ld's freedom from Jo's omission and deviation in lines 3, 9, 28, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 61, 68, 71, 76, 77, 79, 87, 98, 105, 109, 113, 114, and secondly from Jo's immunity from Ld's slips, lines 16, 17, 19, 27, 33, 52, 66, 67, 99, 116, 122, 133, 134, 137. Jo's further variants, largely of omission, are exemplified in lines 143, 149, 163, 166, 169, 172, 202, 206, 207, 209, 220, 226, 233, 250, 257, 260, 261, 271, 297, 299, 306, 313, 315, 316, 324, 325, 326, 333, 336, 337, 338, 339, 342, 345, 349, 350, 355, 372, 380, 382, 395, 398, 406, 418, 430, 433, 435, 440, 448, 464, 467, 468, 469, 486, 487, 491, 496, 505, 516, 518, 521, 522, 524, 528, 542, 549, 550, 553, 560, 562, 563, 571, 584, 588, 589, 593, 606, 609, 619, 623, 628, 641, 648, 665. From the above it appears that any one of the three manuscripts, HRJo, is 16 16 Text of Chaucer's Parlement of Foules inferior in accuracy to D or T of the C group, that the pair FB of the C group is superior to any one of these A manuscripts, and that the FB ancestor far outweighs in value either the HR parent or the JoLd parent. Numerous as are the errors of the HR parent manuscript, they are much exceeded by those of the cognate Selden manuscript. It may be stated at the outset, with regard to S, that, aside from the linguistic corruptions introduced into the text by its northern scribe, its readings are rendered highly untrustworthy by the liberties which have been taken with the poem in transcription. Examples of this are so frequent and so flagrant that citations in proof are superfluous; the Selden readings cannot be appealed to unless supported by strong evidence from other sources, and they are especially dubious in cases where they present apparent improvement. For it is beyond question that the Selden scribe made his alterations deliberately ; his changes for the sake of obtaining northern rime would alone show this. Accordingly, an isolated reading offered by S is of no value in a critical text; and an agreement between S and any other manuscript bearing traces of conscious attempt at better- ment is to be regarded with suspicion. To this point I shall return when discussing manuscript Gg. The place of S is in the sub-group comprising HR JoLd ; and its affiliation within that sub-group is with the HR branch ; cf. lines previously cited in discussing those two manuscripts. Its freedom from characteristic HR slips indicates a derivation from the stem at a point somewhat higher than the HR parent ; but in several cases it shows a resemblance to the Gg type. These examples are: line 166, GgS read the infinitive instead of the third singular; line 393, GgS insert an adverb before voel; line 480, GgS change a word to avoid identical rime; lino 551, GgS use the superla- tive instead of the positive. Such agreements may be due to contamination, or they may be due to independent attempt at emendation; the latter theory is rendered possible by the different adverbs used in line 393, but does not seem so probable in line 480. In either case, no corroboration is given the Gg by these Selden readings. They cannot have been those of A^ since no other manuscript of that group shows them; if they are due to contamination, they of course carry no weight; and if the result of independent change by S and Gg, their presence in S, the most arbitrary and regardless of all our texts, is directly injurious to the credit of the Gg, which, as we shall later see, shows some tendencies of the same sort. The Pepys manuscript is full of slight errors of a sort indicating a scribe both careless and unconscious; no such frank tampering with the text appears here as is continual in the Selden. Examples of error are: lines 7, 17, 18, 19, *21 (omission), 26 and 27 transposed, omissions in 26, 27, 29, 34, 43, insertion in 28, errors in 46, 49, 51, 64, 72, 83, 84, 88, 98, 107, 112, 120, 126, 143, 145 (omitted), 175, 189, 192 (omitted), 194, 196, 197, 200, 208, 209, 210, 212, 219, 220, 222, 228, 229, 236, 237, 240, 256, *262 (omission), 276, 278, 282, 296, 300, 303, 329, 348, 353, 370, 371, 379, 383, *385 (omission), 388, 397, 403, 410, 412, 420, 424, 431, 437, 439 (c/. HR), 444, 16 Eleanor Pbescott Hammond 17 445, 479, 482, 483, 484, 499, 504, 511, 514, 522, 523, 544, 559, 564, *567 (omission), 668, 572, 577, *579 (omission), 584, 585, 588, 590, 692, 594, ♦595 (insertion), 699, 601, ♦604 (omission), 606, 611, 615, 616, 618, 619, 638, 640, 642, 643 (omitted), •645 (omission), ^651 (insertion), 654, 656, 659, 664, 666. Few of these omissions, and still fewer of the deviations, are of a major character; but the dropping out or insertion of particles and unimportant words is constant, especially the tendency to omit. The manuscript is intrinsically inferior even to the Longleat, and is about on a par with the Jo. Among the A group manuscripts the affiliation of P is with the larger body of texts, those opposed to GgFf : witness the readings of lines 49, 53, 62, 64, ♦65, 74, ♦80, 84, 88, 115, 142, 148, 206, 214, 221, 238, 284, 389, etc. Its closer relationship is with the JoLd pair, as may be seen from lines 3, 10, *14, *73, 96 (common omission), 102 (JoP), ^104, 190, 260, 266, 298, 307, ^320, ♦327-8, 333 (common omission), 410, 414-419-440 (common omissions), ^456, 468 (common omission), 480, 516 (word order), ^521, 541 (common omission), ^558, ^563, 594. The exact placing of this manuscript is rendered difficult, not only by its possible contamination with the Ff type (see below), but by the fact that the lax and slovenly transcription of Jo is hardly sufficient, after the evidence of the Ld fragment is withdrawn (line 142), for us to determine the continuance or non-continuance of a bond between P and Jo. Also, as has already been remarked, the deviations of the groups from one another are so much less pronounced after line 250 than before, that the proof of separation or affiliation is beyond that point scanty. But it would seem that P derives from the JoLd stem at a point higher than they; c/. lines 4, 5, ♦lO, ^22, 24, ♦30, 39, 41, 52, 53, 59, and 117 (orthography), 121; its freedom from Jo's errors in the remainder of the text may be due to the continuance of its position, or may be owing to the neglect of Jo; lines ^320 and 336 may be noted as evidence of a PJo bond. A possible contact between P and the Ff type will be discussed in speaking of the latter manuscript below. An agreement PCax is line 175. Cf. line 511 ( ?). The alliance of the Hh fragment (lines 1-365) is also with the sub-group HRSPJoLd, as is evident from the readings of lines 49, 62, ^65, ^80, 88, 148, 169, 192, 204, ^206, ^221, ^238, 271, 284, ^313, 344, 354. Within that sub-group it cannot be classed with PJoLd, because of the readings of lines 3, ♦lO, ^14, 43, 52, 53, 96, 104, 173, 222, ^320, 336, of which instances lines 3, 14, 52, 53, 104, and 222 point to an alliance of Hh with the stem terminating in HR. But, although on nearly all crucial points a member of the larger division of A, the Hh exhibits in a few cases resemblance to the GgFf type. Such cases are as follows: in line 53 the retention of the word worldes, lacking in all A manuscripts except Gg and Cax; in line 119 the eke of GgFf; in line 126 the fell of FfCax instead of the say of all other manuscripts; in line 202 the so of Ff; in line 278 the ther of GgFf PJo; in line 310 the ther of GgP Jo and the brid of GgFf Cax ; in line 346, together with C and Cax, the (incorrect) form egles, all other A manuscripts reading eles. 17 18 Text of Chaucer's Parlement of Foules This last example cannot be taken to indicate a CHh bond. Such cases of inde- pendent coincidence occur occasionally in these manuscripts; for instance, in line 511 P agrees with the C group in reading as good be still, other A manuscripts having as fair be still, Cax, better be still. Again, cf. in line 362 the ful of Cax, S, and Lt, apparently carried down from line 359 ; or the insertion of most by D and Ff in line 375 ; or the LtFf change of lord to god in line 379. The independent writing of egles for eles by two of the, say, thirty manuscripts, C and Hh, is not surprising when one considers the constant recurrence of bird names and of the word egle in the poem. Note the change of faconde to faucon by the PJo stem and by S in lines 521, 558. From the other cases above given we infer a possible bond GgFf Hh ; line 278 and part of line 310 might be taken to indicate merely a position of Hh close to A', the HRS differing by their own omission; but the other instances cannot be so explained, and we must assume one of two things : on the one hand, a contamination between Hh or its immediate ancestor and Ff or its immediate ancestor; on the other hand, coincident and independent deviation by Ff and Hh. We must, on the theory of contamination, posit between A* and Ff a manuscript retaining many A' characteristics lost by Ff, the Hh contaminations being with such a text rather than with A* or Ff. For, to take examples from the list just given, the so of Ff, line 202, not in Gg, is present in Hh, while in line 310 a ther omitted by Ff, retained in Gg, is present in Hh. In line 53 the important word worldes, present in Hh, is not transcribed by Ff, but in line 126 FfHh have tell instead of the say of Gg and all other manuscripts. Gg's agreement here with other texts indicates that A read say; consequently the change shared by Hh took place in the special Ff stem, below A* ; such a fact, together with Hh's avoidance of some Ff omissions, may indi- cate the existence of the text to which I allude. The amount of agreement is, however, so slight as to permit of the hypothesis of coincidence. See below under Caxton. The errors of Hh are exemplified in lines 3, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21 {cf. FfR), 22, 27, 30, 35, 37, 43, 49 {cf GgFf), 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72 {cf HR), 77, 78, 80, 81, 84, 90, 94, 101, 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 134, 138, 143, 145, 148, 150, 151, 154, 162, 167, 169, 172, 174, 176, 179, 180, 186, *196, 199, 205, 207, 214, 215, 219, 224, 225, ♦226, 228, *230, 244, 246, 247, 248, 251, *268, 269, 274, 277, 279, 293, 297, 299, 301, 306, 307, 313, 315, 328, 331, 333, 337, 339, 348, 350, *353, 361, 364. Of these errors some fourteen are orthographic carelessnesses, of a sort indicating a scribe whose mind is not following his work; and many of the omissions {ca^ 25) are trivialities of a similar character. But though major errors are not frequent, and evidence of deliberate alteration does not appear, the constant slips of the text and its possible contaminated condition deprive it of authoritative value. Its position appears to be in the HRS branch, above those texts. From the data just given regarding contamination in Hh, it will be seen that Cax shares in some of those peculiarities. Like Hh, also, Cax is a member of the larger sub-group of A, as a glance over the crucial readings listed for Hh will show; 18 Eleanor Pbesoott Hammond 19 and its nearer affiliation with HRS, though deriving higher than they, may be inferred from lines 8, 30, 35, 54, 60, 89, 150, 174, 190, 239, 249, 253, *201, ♦200, *362, 414, 495, *553. A link with Hh in lines 53 and 340 has already been mentioned, and there exists also a series of points common to Cax and the GgFf type. Such cases are: lines 54 (Gg), 93 (Gg), 115 (A), 205 (A), 222 (GgFfCaxPJo), 285 (A), •SOS (A), 328 (A), *352 (A) ; in line 354 Cax deviates from A, with all other manuscripts except Digby; 383 (Ff), 385 (A), 387-90 (A), 439 (Gg), 452 (Gg, common omis- sion), *473 (Gg), 503 (GgS), 507 (FfA), 517 (Gg, common omission), 518 (Ff), 594 (A), 002 (Gg), 021 (Gg), 044 (FfA). The influence on Cax, in lesser points, of the GgFf type will appear from the above list; but a minute examination shows that only in line 54, in the yere of line 473, and perhaps the / of line 503, is there probable a contact with Gg itself. Caxton's treatment of the entire line 473 and its alliance with the FfA' reading in such a case as line 507 indicate its lack of any bond with Gg in especial. It appears to me much more credible that its few A' readings were derived from the A' type than that they were due to the Q(g type; the rendering of line 54 may be proof of contact between Gg and Cax early in the poem, but the I of line 503, shared also by S, may be derived by independent error from the line just above. The place of Cax, so far as it can be determined for a text known to be composite, is on the HRS stem, above those manuscripts, and probably in close contact with Hh. Its errors are not many, but it shows plainly the editorial hand; note stanza 51, where it avoids identity of adjective in lines 352 and 354, as does A', and also avoids the identity of rime seen in the same lines in A' and D. Owing to its frankly editorial character, the Caxton recension can be used only in support of evidence already credible. This text is, indeed, the only one of those before us which shows, e. g., in lines 352-4, any clear trace of contamination. From Caxton's own words, in the preface to his second edition of the Canterbury Tales, we infer that he might, in other cases as in that volume, correct one text by another; just what his conception of "hurtyng and dyffamyng" Chaucer's poems "in dyuerce places" was we shall not know until a close comparison of the two editions has been made. But in the occasional agreements of the very arbitrary Selden with the somewhat arbitrary Gg it is quite possible to see, not contamination, but a coincident and independent alteration of the text. Simi- larly, in the hypothetical relations of Ff and P discussed below, or those of Hh and Ff already alluded to, the evidence for contamination is of the frailest kind. No conspicuous alterations, no insertions, no body of conflate readings, are to be seen in these texts; even in the case of the archetypes A and C the tendency of one of them to error is so greatly remedied after line 250 that from that point on all the manu- scripts run together. The general steadiness of the text is no less marked than the slightness of evidence for contamination ; for the change of fowl to brid, of halfe to syde, of say to tell, might well occur independently to two scribes; if tho inserted after Quod in line 055 GgH is no evidence of bond between those manuscripts, then 19 20 Text of Chaucer's Pablement of Foules an inserted tho after Quod in line 569 TD need not force us to draw those two texts together. It is, of course, the mass of agreements which tells; but when we observe that at best these agreements are slight and few in hundreds of lines, we hesitate to insist on the contaminated condition of any text, save perhaps Caxton, With the two remaining manuscripts of this group, Gg and Ff, we reach the most critical and interesting part of our discussion. As has already been mentioned, these two manuscripts diflFer from the rest of the group in a series of variant readings which grow suddenly and noticeably less after line 400 or so. This lessening in divergence is due probably, first, to the change in the Ff copyist at line 414; here a new scribe, W. Calverley, begins work, and completes the poem. According to Mr. Fumivall's note at this point in the Chaucer Society's reprint, Calverley "follows another text;" according to the same authority. Trial Forewords, p. 54, Calverley "follows Fairfax." If the list of divergences between A and C, already given, be consulted, it will be seen that their differences after line 413, after line 250 in fact, are very slight. Only five can be cited — lines 436, 501, 511, 544, 666; and on all these points Ff is with the A group. Further, the characteristic FB readings of lines 612, 623, 669 do not appear in Ff, which is also free from the line *476 omission of Fairfax alone. I cannot, therefore, see adequate cause for arguing Ff's transcription from F or any C manuscript; the closer agreement of Ff with the main body of texts after line 413 must be otherwise explained. Up to line 414 the union of Gg and Ff is generally clear, though sometimes obscured by the idiosyncrasies of the two scribes. Ff has, in the ante-Calverley portion, a tendency to omission and to distortion of the text second only to the Selden. For cases of the former fault see lines 3, 7, 12, 13, 22, 24, 26, 48, *49, *53, *57, 60, ♦65, 66, 72, 87, 94, 95, *102, 107, ^117, 118, 119, 143, 146, 147, 150, 156, *162, 163, 165, 179, Une 180, *186, *188, 195, 197, 198, 200, 219, 220, 229, *234, *242, *259, 270, *285, 286, 298, 310, *313, 315, 316, 318, 333, 340, 345, 348, 349, 361, 363, 388, 393, 396, 440, 442, 456, 468, 477, 486, 509, *531, *554, *567, *604, 625, 637, *657, 658, *660, 666 (c/. Jo), 678. Ff's misreadings and variants are to be seen in lines 5, *6, 8, 11, 17, 18, *30, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 49, 50, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, *67, 68, 73, 74, ^78, 80, 81, 82, *93, 103, *104, 105, 110, *111, 112, 113, 123, 126, 133, *139, 140, 145, 147, *149, 151, 152, 153, *159, 166, 177, 178, 184, 190, 192, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 209, 212, 213, *214, 216, 221, 223, 224, 228, 230, 231, 238, 246, 247, *248, 252, *253, 254, 256, 260, 262, 265, *266, 267, 271, 274, *277, 278, 279, *280, 282, 284, 287, 288, 293, 294, 295, 299, 300, 301, 304, *306, 341, 343, 348, 353, 360, 366, 375, 376, #379, 380, 381, ^382, 383, 386, 388, 390, *391, *392, 397, 402, *408, 409, 410, *411, 412 and 413 transposed, 419, 430, 431, 439, 441, 451, *460, 487, 488, 493, 505, *518, 520, 532, 533, 534, 543, 552, 563, 595, 596, 605, *616, *623, *634, 652, 655, 664. 20 . Eleanor Presoott Hammond 21 Not only are the divergences of A and C very few after line 250, as already mentioned, but within the A group the diflFerences between A' and A' become minor after that point The Ff scribe continues to err, in the lines 250-413, as previously; but it is difficult to see with what text he is working, because of the approximation of all manuscripts during the last two-thirds of the poem. We may observe, however, that the noteworthy GgFf agreements after line 250 are common omissions in lines 344, 368, 389, the presence of torts or were in line ^284, a corimon deviation in line *313, and (inserted?) wel in line ♦39G, common errors in lines *354 and 400, the rime of line ♦480 (c/. S), and the doke of line 594 (c/. Cax). Lines 366, 381, 642, 650 are trivial coincidences, and 317 may be an omission by Ff. Common idiosyncrasies in lines 284, ♦305, ^313, 352, ^354, ^396 show the GgFf union still existent from line 250 up to 414; beyond that point lines ^480, ^594 still hold Ff to Gg, and the only marked likeness between Ff and any other A text is in the case of the Pepys. The Pepys manuscript, as already mentioned, shows some traces of contamination. Slight likenesses between it and Gg are traceable as follows: line 125, GgP syde, other manuscripts halfe; line 152, GgP no opening So, though Gg has it in the margin (H also omits So) ; line 198, GgP And, others A; line 203, GgP brid, others foul; line 224, GgP with, others by; line 632, GgP /, Ff A it. After Calverley begins transcription with line 414, more distinct likenesses between his Ff text and P appear; thus line ^460, PFf any vnght, others my wit; line 487, PFf an opening But; line 518, PFf Cax insert ful (from line 517?) ; line 543, PFf insert it; lines 567 and 604, PFf both omit, but in a way which indicates that direct contact did not take place between them; in line 644 they agree in word-order against the others. In line 567 P omits love, Ff love him; in line 604 both omit said, P also showing the general and, while Ff has as. The reading of line 533 indicates, as do the two lines just given, that P was not contaminated with Ff direct; in line 533 Ff has matere, P and other manuscripts manere, though in the same line Ff Jo and P have that where other texts show than. In line 632 Ff A show it, GgC I. If contact was not directly between P and Ff, either the P immediate ancestor or the Ff immediate ancestor must have been concerned, and in the former case Jo also might have been affected. Cases in which Jo or JoLd do show GgFf or Ff read- ings are: line 2, GgFf JoLd sharp — hard, P and others hard — sharp; line ^14, GgFfPJoLd say, all other manuscripts can; line 39, GgFf JoLd of the, PCaxC al the; line 89, GgJoLd of {cf FfP with), other texts of; line 105, PFf insert that; line 203, JoFf insert that; line 260, FfP Jo Of, others in; 333, FfP Jo omit that; line 414, GgFf P Jo show no ful, present in C and in the other A stem; line 440, FfP Jo omit so, line 468 they omit here, line 505 they insert the. Cf. Gg or Ff ancestor and P in line 632. It will be seen that in no case except the trivial line 89 is it necessary to weigh Gg influence on PJoLd ; the question is how the agreement of Ff with P or JoLd or PJoLd is to be accounted for. In lines 2 and 39, P goes with other manuscripts, JoLd 21 22 Text of Chaucer's Parlement of Foules agreeing with Ff ; and yet the reading of line *14 shows these manuscripts and Gg united in divergence from all other texts. The remaining cases above given are either variations in very minor detail, or agreement in omission between Ff , P, and Jo, in line 414 A\ P, and Jo. In these latter instances it is therefore probably the PJo common ancestor below A' which is concerned, as in line *14. We have then to explain the P readings in lines 2 and 39, and the agreement of Gg with FfPJoLd in lines 14 and 414. These last two bring into consideration A", or rather the immediate ancestor already posited, since the readings of Ff in, e. g., lines 533, 567, and 604 have already proved that Ff itself did not influence P; and since the participation of Gg in lines 14 and 414 indi- cates that the agreement PFf cannot be an attraction of Ff toward P. Contamination between these two lost manuscripts, the P source and the Ff source, may thus be looked to to explain the minor likenesses between Ff and PJo. Too much stress should not be laid on the common omissions of these manuscripts after line 413 ; it is the cases of lines 2, 14, and 39 which deserve attention. Line 2 is a matter of word- order, GgFfJoLd, not P, showing sharp — hard; in line 39 GgFfJoLd read of, P al, the latter being probably the ancestral reading. It appears to me that it is easy to overemphasize the importance of these agreements; the misreading of al to of is a very easy one; cf. Lt 17. The common change of can to say in line 14 by GgFfP JoLd, and the concurrence in some omissions, after line 413, by FfPJo, are thus the evidence for a contamination between the P ancestor and the Ff ancestor. Bearing in mind the ease of omission, and the occurrence of the (incorrect) say in line 13, whence transference to line 14 might be ready, I do not emphasize the need for posit- ing a bond between P and Ff. Nor do I see reason for separating Gg and Ff in the portion line 413 to end ; the greater accuracy and sobriety of Calverley and the agree- ments in lines 480 and 594 seem to me sufficient, in the absence of any proved attrac- tion toward other texts, to retain Gg and Ff side by side. Turning to the Gg manuscript, we note omissions in lines *57, 77, 138, 324, 365 ?, 450, 452?, 471, 517?, ^520, 527, *533, *564?, 583?, 626?, *627, 637?, *670, *678. The shortness of the list is a very noticeable fact regarding this manuscript; and I mark some of the references with a query if the change there be not rather a deliber- ate alteration by the Gg scribe. This question is raised by the frequent tendency in this copyist to vary from the body of manuscripts, and to vary, in a number of cases, in favor of what, from the modern point of view, seems superior sense or superior metre. Such variations may be observed in lines 27, 30, 34, 50, 54 (c/. Cax), *166, ♦232, 298, 307, *363, 393 {cf S), 428, 452 (cf Cax), 460, *498, 517 [cf Cax), 537, 543, ♦551, 557, 585, 613 (note loss of es in 614), 616?, *632, 637 {cf Cax), *655 {cf H), 670, *672. But we may also note constant slight changes, sometimes errors, sometimes perhaps deviations for a fancied improvement's sake, in lines 12, 15, 22, 76, 79, 82, 85, 110, 125, 160, 203, 207, *214, 279, 284?, 305, 348, *356, *358, 379, 882, 391 {cf Ff), 394, 401?, 426, 432, 435, *455, 457, 462, 476, 490, 497, 505, 506, 22 Eleanor Pbesoott Hammond 23 553, 558, 560, 561, pronouns in 562, 563 and 569, 564, 573, 581, 593, 594, 598, 600, 611, 614, 619, 626, 638, 644, 645, 647, 669, 674, 677, 689, 692; and, further, a body of deviations to detriment of sense or metre in lines 31, *65, 84, 132, *137, 140, 167, 170, 175, 204, ^261, *326, ♦436, *438, 471, •507, *516, 518, 540, 577, 583, *596, 622, ♦641, ^662, ♦663. Such facts impair the value of this manuscript, and render its unsupported evidence of questionable worth in a critical text construction. For it will hardly be maintained by any that the Gg manuscript in itself repre- sents the Chaucerian text ; did we assert that, we must of course accept it bodily, with its unpleasing as well as its agreeable peculiarities. Nor can it be maintained that Gg's immediate ancestor A ^ is the archetype ; for such a theory would not only com- pel us to accept all GgFf readings against A"C — note, e. gr., lines 80, 84, 167 and 168, ♦214, ^221, 305, 400, etc. — but it would leave us to account for A'C agreements against A^ in these instances and in such cases as lines 88, ^313, ^354, as well as for agreements FfA^C against Org as noted above. The ground here taken is that the scribe of the Gg worked consciously, and in some cases successfully, toward the betterment of the text before him ; an interesting example of such procedure is to be detected in line 358. This line runs: The waker goos the cokkow most onkynde, against which, in the Six-text reprint, there stands an editorial note telling us that the m of most has been altered from en. When I observe that all other manuscripts read euer vnkynde, and note the Gg tendency to alteration, I cannot avoid the inference that the Gg scribe here began to copy the regular ewer, and, perhaps feeling that a monosyllable would give a smoother line-flow, changed after he had written two letters. Note other Gg corrections, lines 33, 97, 255, 260, 336?, 385, 420, 422, 436?, 438?, 448, 450, 454, 478, 545, 561, 610, 627; these, how- ever, are true corrections. Should it appear questionable to the student that a Chaucerian manuscript pre- sent cases of scribal betterment in transcription, recourse may be had to a parallel example in the work of Lydgate. In Horstmann's Altenglische Legenden (Heilbronn, 1881) there will be found at pp. 376 fF. a reprint of Lydgate's Saint Edmund, from manuscript Harley 2278. This poem was written on the occasion of a visit of King Henry VI. to Bury St. Edmunds, at the command of the abbot of the monastery ; and Harley 2278 is the royal gift-copy, beautifully executed and illuminated. At the foot of each page Dr. Horstmann prints the variants of manuscript Ashmole 46, written " perhaps by the same hand as the Harley," and " seemingly a later recension of the text by the poet himself." This later manuscript was dedicated to Edward IV., whose name replaces that of Henry VI. in the text. Whether this revision be by Lydgate himself or not — which raises the unsettled question of the date of his death — it is curious to note the textual changes obviously made for metre's sake. To instance but one example: of the thirty-six headless lines occurring in lines 1-725, twenty-three are removed in the later recension, either by the rearrangement of the line or by the prefixing of And, For, Like, etc. Cf. lines 286, 290, 300, 308, 314, 320, 362, 369, 23 24 Text of Chaucer's Parlement of Foules 407, 421, 434, 436, 465, 467, 475, 580, 581, 582, 626, 637, 652, 707, 723. In several cases also the "Lydgatian caesura" is smoothed out; c/. lines 468, 584, 606. I see no imperative reason to feel, with Dr. Horstmann, that these emendations were made by Lydgate himself. No modern conscientious scruples would deter either Ashmole 46 or Gg from modifying the text before him ; and careless though the great majority of mediaeval scribes may be, we have no ground for asserting that Chaucer was the only man in two centuries possessed of metrical sensitiveness. Nor should we forget that when, by refusing the isolated evidence of Gg, we are compelled to deduce for X what seems to us an awkward line, we are not necessarily arrived at Chaucer because we have constructed X. The argu- ment from Chaucer's liter- ary mastery to his metrical mastery, so long tacitly relied upon, still holds good; and the possibility or necessity of conjectural emendation is not excluded by the construction of a critical text. It should be emphasized, however, that already in the fifteenth century scribes could try their hands, and not unsuc- cessfully, at editing. Such an "editor," it appears to me, was Gg; and his isolated testimony, or his testimony when supported only by a manuscript either contaminated with his own type or visibly tampering with the text, such as Caxton or Selden, cannot be accepted as decisive, if we are to deduce X. Nor do I find myself in full agreement with the valuation of A as the better group. When the tendency of C to omit has been allowed for, as also its occasional slight lapses already mentioned, it will be recognized that the C group offers a set of readings certainly equal in value to those of A ; and it will also be recognized that the complete freedom of F and B from any tendency to meddle with the text, together with their sober accuracy of transcription and of orthography, render them intrinsically the most trustworthy of the manuscript pairs as witnesses. Compared with them, the Gg is as Froude among historians. The text resulting from these manuscript studies differs from those already printed in certain metrical points, notably the increase in the number of headless lines, and the presence of a small number of lines moving awkwardly. In such a line ' Caxton is probably slightly contaminated with the Gg type ; S, Hh, and P, whose contaminated condition has been asserted by editors, are discussed above. 24 Eleanor Pbescott Hammond 25 as 632 the editor will not find it necessary to appeal to the ceriis of manuscript Gg; the verse may be read headless aa If I wer^ resoun than wold I. The objection which might be raised here is that the suggestive emphasis on the first / is thereby lost; and such a line as Troilus and Criseyde, I, 1052, But thou wys, thou wost, thou mayst, thou art al, would be instanced in proof of Chaucer's nice use of emphasis. An assertion of omission by Ff, A', and O must then be made to justify the adoption of the ceriis into the text. In line 363 an editor desirous of incorporating in his text the Gg The rauen wys the crowe tDit{h) vois of care would have to emphasize the unlikelihood of Chaucer's chang- ing from singular to plural and speaking of ravens and crows after previously naming but one bird of each class; he would point also to the possibility of rau£nwys being misread rauenys; just as in line 221 both A* and C dropped a letter from be force and read before, so here A' and C might lose a w and pluralize crow to correspond with rauenys, while Ff's tendency to omission might explain its lack of the adjective present in Gg. The Gg readings, however, cannot be adopted, when isolated, unless susceptible of some such justification; and the critical text of this poem lies, generally speaking, nearer FB than Gg. The presence in it of headless lines is hardly surpris- ing. In Herrig's Archiv, XCIV (1895), p. 443, Professor Zupitza remarked, speak- ing of Canterbury Tales, D 2201: "Ich glaube, dass Chaucer, wie vor der ersten Hebung, so auch gelegentlich in der Pause eine Senkung weggelassen hat." A comparison of Professor ten Brink's disavowal of the headless line in Chaucer, made in 1884, will suggest to the student the change of opinion on this point, and will perhaps support the conclusion foreshadowed by this investigation. It remains for me to acknowledge the advice and help of Professor John Matthews Manly, at whose suggestion this study was undertaken ; and I desire also to express my constant sense of gratitude to the scholar who first introduced me to Early English work. Professor Arthur S. Napier, of the University of Oxford. 2B 14 DAY USE KBTUKN TO DBSKPKOMWmcH BORROWED LOAN DEPT This book is due on the Ia„ ^.. ' -e„e;rit^r"^'--^'°"'''' ..^.?T'^'^ subject to immediate recall. LD 21A-50w-4,'59 (Al724sl0)476B .G«neraJ Library /