The dates suit very well, as they suggest that the English poem was written, probably, between 1450 and 1460, or at the beginning of the second half of the fifteenth century; which sufficiently agrees with the language employed and with the probable age of the MSS. The date assigned in the New English Dictionary, s.v.Currish, is 1460; which cannot be far wrong. It can hardly be much later.
§ 45. The above notice also suggests that, as Sir Richard Ros was of a Leicestershire family, the dialect of the piece may, originally at least, have been North Leicestershire. Belvoir is situate in the N.E. corner of Leicestershire, not far from Grantham in Lincolnshire, and at no great distance from the birthplace of Robert of Brunne. It is well known that Robert of Brunne wrote in a variety of the Midland dialect which coincides, to a remarkable extent, with the form of the language which has become the standard literary English. Now it is easily seen that La Belle Dame has the same peculiarity, and I venture to think that, on this account, it is worth special attention. If we want to see a specimen of what the Midland literary dialect was like in the middle of the fifteenth century, it is here that we may find it. Many of the stanzas are, in fact, remarkably modern, both in grammar and expression; we have only to alter the spelling, and there is nothing left to explain. Take for example the last stanza on p. 301 (ll. 77-84):—
'In this great thought, sore troubled in my mind,Alone thus rode I all the morrow-tide,Till, at the last, it happèd me to findThe place wherein I cast me to abide
'In this great thought, sore troubled in my mind,Alone thus rode I all the morrow-tide,Till, at the last, it happèd me to findThe place wherein I cast me to abide
'In this great thought, sore troubled in my mind,
Alone thus rode I all the morrow-tide,
Till, at the last, it happèd me to find
The place wherein I cast me to abide
When that I had no further for to ride.And as I went my lodging to purvey,Right soon I heard, but little me beside,In a gardén, where minstrels gan to play.'
When that I had no further for to ride.And as I went my lodging to purvey,Right soon I heard, but little me beside,In a gardén, where minstrels gan to play.'
When that I had no further for to ride.
And as I went my lodging to purvey,
Right soon I heard, but little me beside,
In a gardén, where minstrels gan to play.'
A large number of stanzas readily lend themselves to similar treatment; and this is quite enough to dissociate the poem from Chaucer. The great difficulty about modernising Chaucer is, as every one knows, his use of the final-eas a distinct syllable; but we may search a whole page of La Belle Dame without finding anything of the kind. When Sir Richard's words have an extra syllable, it is due to the suffix-esor the suffix-ed; and even these are not remarkably numerous; we do not arrive atcloth-ës, a plural in-es, before l. 22; and, in the course of the first four stanzas, all the words in-edareawak-ed,nak-ed,vex-ed,tourn-ed, andbold-ed, none of which would be surprising to a student of Elizabethan poetry. That there was something of a Northern element in Sir Richard's language appears from the rime oflong-eswithsong-es, in ll. 53-55; wherelongesis the third person singular of the present tense; but modern English hasbelongs, with the same suffix! Again, he constantly uses the Northern possessive pronountheir; but modern English does the same!
§ 46. Another remarkable point about the poem is the perfect smoothness and regularity of the metre in a large number of lines, even as judged by a modern standard. The first line—'Half in a dream, not fully well awaked'—might, from a metrical point of view, have been written yesterday. It is a pity that the poem is somewhat dull, owing to its needless prolixity; but this is not a little due to Alan Chartier. Sir Richard has only eight stanzas of his own, four at the beginning, and four at the end; and it is remarkable that these are in the seven-line stanza, while the rest of the stanzas have eight lines, like their French original, of which I here give the first stanza, from the Paris edition of 1617, p. 502. (See l. 29 of the English version.)
'N'agueres cheuauchant pensoye,Comme homme triste et douloreux,Au dueil où il faut que ie soyeLe plus dolant des amoureux;Puisque par son dart rigoureuxLa mort me tolli ma Maistresse,Et me laissa seul langoureuxEn la conduicte de tristesse.'
'N'agueres cheuauchant pensoye,Comme homme triste et douloreux,Au dueil où il faut que ie soyeLe plus dolant des amoureux;Puisque par son dart rigoureuxLa mort me tolli ma Maistresse,Et me laissa seul langoureuxEn la conduicte de tristesse.'
'N'agueres cheuauchant pensoye,
Comme homme triste et douloreux,
Au dueil où il faut que ie soye
Le plus dolant des amoureux;
Puisque par son dart rigoureux
La mort me tolli ma Maistresse,
Et me laissa seul langoureux
En la conduicte de tristesse.'
I have cited in the Notes a few passages of the original text which help to explain the translation.
§ 47. The text in Thynne is a good one, and it seemed convenient to make it the basis of the edition; but it has been carefully controlled by collation with MS. Ff. 1. 6, which is, in some respects, the best MS. I am not sure that Thynne always followed his MS.; he may have collated some other one, as he professes in some cases to have done. MS. Ff. 1. 6, the Trinity MS., and Thynne's principal MS. form one group, which we may call A; whilst the Fairfax and Harleian MSS. form a second group, which we may call B: and of these, group A is the better. The MSS. in group B sadly transpose the subject-matter, and give the poem in the following order; viz. lines 1-428, 669-716, 525-572, 477-524, 621-668, 573-620, 429-476, 717-856. The cause of this dislocation is simple enough. It means that the B-group MSS. were copied from one in which three leaves, each containing six stanzas, were misarranged. The three leaves were placed one within the other, to form a sheet, and were written upon. Then the outer pair of these leaves was turned inside out, whilst the second and third pair changed places. This can easily be verified by making a little book of six leaves and numbering each page with the numbers 429-452, 453-476, 477-500, 501-524, &c. (i.e. with 24 lines on a page, ending with 716), and then misarranging the leaves in the manner indicated.
The copy in MS. Harl. 372 was printed, just as it stands, by Dr. Furnivall, in his volume entitled Political, Religious, and Love Poems, published for the E. E. T. S. in 1866; at p. 52. The text is there, accordingly, misarranged as above stated.
There is another MS. copy, as has been said above, in MS. Trin. Coll. Camb. R. 3. 19; but I have not collated it. It seems to be closely related to MS. Ff., and to present no additional information. Not only do the MSS. of the A-group contain the text in the right order, but they frequently give the better readings. Thus, in l. 47, we have the odd line—'Mypencoud never have knowlege what it ment'; as given in MS. Ff., the Trinity MS., and Thynne. The wordpenis altered toeyenin MSS. H. and F.; nevertheless, it is perfectly right, for the French original hasplume; see the Note on the line. Other examples are given in the Notes.
In l. 174, MS. Ff. alone has the right reading,apert. I had made up my mind that this was the right reading even before consulting that MS., because the old reading—'One wyse nor other, prevy norperte'—is so extremely harsh. There is no sense in using the clipped form of the word when the trueand usualform will scan so much better. See C. T., F 531, Ho. Fame, 717. The Trinity MS. gets out of the difficulty by a material alteration of the line, so that it there becomes—'In any wyse, nether preuy nor perte.'
§ 48. XVII.The Testament of Cresseid.
I do not suppose this was ever supposed to be Chaucer's even by Thynne. Line 64—'Quha wait gif all that Chaucer wrait was trew?'—must have settled the question from the first. No doubt Thynne added it simply as a pendant to Troilus, and he must have had a copy before him in the Northern dialect, which he modified as well as he could. Nevertheless, he gives uscanfor the Southernganin l. 6,wrateforwrotein l. 64, and has many similar Northern forms.
The poem was printed at Edinburgh in 1593 with the author's name. The title is as follows—¶The Testament ofCRESSEID, Compylit be M. Robert Henrysone, Sculemai-ster in Dunfermeling.Imprentit at Edin= burgh be Henrie Charteris.MD. XCIII.The text is in 4to, ten leaves, black-letter. Only one copy has been preserved, which is now in the British Museum; but it was reprinted page for page in the volume presented by Mr. Chalmers to the Bannatyne Club in 1824. The present edition is from this reprint, with very few modifications, such asshforsch, and final-yfor final-iein immaterial cases. All other modifications are accounted for in the footnotes below. No early MS. copy is known; there was once a copy in the Asloan MS., but the leaves containing it are lost.
Thynne's print must have been a good deal altered from the original, to make it more intelligible. It is odd to find him alteringquhisling(20) towhiskyng, andringand(144) totynkyng. I note all Thynne's variations that are of any interest. He must have been much puzzled byaneuch in(which he seems to have regarded as one word and as a past participle) before he turned it intoenewed(110). But in some cases Thynne gives us real help, as I will now point out.
In l. 48, E. (the Edinburgh edition) has—'Quhill Esperus reioisit him agane'; whereEsperusgives no good sense. But Thynne printsesperous, which at once suggestsesperans(hope), as opposed towanhopein the preceding line.
In l. 155, E. hasfrosnit, which Laing interprets 'frozen,' as if the pp. offreezecould have both a strong and weak pp. suffix at the same moment! But Thynne hasfrounsed, evidently put forfronsit, as used elsewhere by Henryson in The Fable of the Paddock and the Mous, l. 43:—'The Mous beheld unto herfronsitface.' A printer's error ofsnfornsis not surprising.
In ll. 164, 178, 260, E. hasgyisorgyse; but Thynne has preserved the true Chaucerian wordgyte, which the printer evidently did not understand. It is true that in l. 164 he turned it intogate; but when he found it recur, he let it alone.
In l. 205, E. hasupricht(!); which Thynne corrects.
In l. 290, Th. hasiniureforiniurie, and I think he is right, though I have letinjuriestand;iniureis Chaucer's form (Troil. iii. 1018), and it suits the scansion better.
In l. 382, Thynne correctsUntotoTo; and in l. 386, hasBeuerforbawar. In l. 441, he hassyderforceder. In l. 501, he hasplyteforplye, where a letter may have dropped out in E.; but see the note (p. 525). In l. 590, his readingtokenyngsuggests thattakning(as in E.) should betakiningortakinning; the line will then scan. The contracted formtaikningoccurs, however, in l. 232, where the word is less emphatic.
Note further, that in l. 216 the original must have hadPhilogoney(see the Note). This appears in the astonishing formsPhilologie(E.), andPhilologee(Th.). Laing printsPhlegonie, which will neither scan nor rime, without any hint that he is departing from his exemplar. All his corrections are made silently, so that one cannot tell where they occur without reference to the original.
For further information concerning Robert Henryson, schoolmaster of Dunfermline, see the preface to David Laing's edition of The Poems and Fables of Robert Henryson, Edinburgh, 1865; and Morley's English Writers, 1890, vol. vi. p. 250. He is supposed to have been born about 1425, and to have died about 1500. On Sept. 10, 1462, the Venerable Master Robert Henrysone, Licentiate in Arts and Bachelor in Decrees, was incorporated or admitted a member of the newly founded universityof Glasgow; and he is known to have been a notary public. Perhaps The Testament of Cresseid was written about 1460. It is a rather mature performance, and is his best piece. Perhaps it is the best piece in the present volume.
§ 49. XVIII.The Cuckoo and the Nightingale.
Of this piece there are several MSS., which fall into two main classes: (A)—Ff. (Ff. 1. 6, in the Camb. Univ. Library); T. (Tanner 346); Th. (MS. used by Thynne, closely allied to T.); and (B)—F. (Fairfax 16), and B. (Bodley 638), which are closely allied. There is also S. (Selden, B. 24) imperfect, which has readings of its own[20]. Of these groups, A is the better, and MS. Ff. is, in some respects, the most important. Nevertheless, MS. Ff. has never been collated hitherto, so that I am able to give a somewhat improved text. For example, in all former editions lines 12 and 13 are transposed. In l. 180, the readinghaire(as in Bell and Morris) is somewhat comic (see the Note). In l. 203, MS. Ff. restores the true readinghit, i.e. hitteth. Bell, by some accident, omits the stanza in which this word occurs. In vol. i. p. 39, I took occasion to complain of the riming ofnowwithrescow-ein ll. 228-9, according to Bell. The right reading, however, is notnow, butavow-e, which rimes well enough. MS. Selden hasallowe, which Morris follows, though it is clearly inferior and is unsupported. On the other hand, MS. Selden correctly, and alone, haslevein l. 237; but the confusion betweeneandois endless, so that the false readinglouecreates no surprise.
This poem is very interesting, and has deservedly been a favourite one. It is therefore a great pleasure to me to have found the author's name. This is given at the end of the poem in MS. Ff. (the best MS., but hitherto neglected), where we find, in firm distinct letters, in the same handwriting as the poem itself, the remark—Explicit Clanvowe. Remembering that the true title of the poem is 'The Book of Cupid, God of Love[21],' I applied to Dr. Furnivall, asking him if he had met with the name. He at once referred me to his preface to Hoccleve'sWorks, p. x, where Sir John Clanvowe and Thomas Hoccleve are both mentioned in the same document (aboutA.D.1385). But Sir John Clanvowe died in 1391, and therefore could not have imitated the title of Hoccleve's poem, which was not written till 1402. Our poet was probably Sir Thomas Clanvowe, concerning whom several particulars are known, and who must have been a well-known personage at the courts of Richard II and Henry IV. We learn from Wylie's Hist. of Henry IV, vol. iii. p. 261, that he was one of twenty-five knights who accompanied John Beaufort (son of John of Gaunt) to Barbary in 1390. This Sir Thomas favoured the opinions of the Lollards, but was nevertheless a friend of 'Prince Hal,' at the time when the prince was still friendly to freethinkers. He seems to have accompanied the prince in the mountains of Wales; see Wylie, as above, iii. 333. In 1401, he is mentioned as being one of 'vi Chivalers' in the list of esquires who were summoned to a council by king Henry IV; see the Acts of the Privy Council, ed. Nicolas, temp. Henry IV, p. 162. (It may be noted that Sir John Clanvowe was a witness, in 1385, to the will of the widow of the Black Prince; see Testamenta Vetusta, ed. Nicolas.)
§ 50. It now becomes easy to explain the reference to the queen at Woodstock, which has never yet been accounted for. The poem begins with the words—'The God of Love!Ah benedicite,' quoted from Chaucer, the title of the poem being 'The Book of Cupid,God of Love,' as has been said; and this title was imitated from Hoccleve's poem of 1402. But there was no queen of England after Henry's accession till Feb. 7, 1403, when the king married Joan of Navarre; and it was she who held as a part of her dower the manor and park of Woodstock; see Wylie, as above, ii. 284. Hence the following hypothesis will suit the facts—namely, that the poem, imitating Chaucer's manner, and having a title imitated from Hoccleve's poem of 1402, was written by Sir Thomas Clanvowe, who held Lollard opinions[22]and was a friend (at one time) of Henry of Monmouth. And it was addressed to Joan of Navarre, Henry's stepmother, queen of England from 1403 to 1413, who held as a part of herdower the manor of Woodstock. If so, we should expect it to have been written before April, 1410, when Thomas Badby, the Lollard, was executed in the presence of the prince of Wales. Further, as it was probably written early rather than late in this period, I should be inclined to date it in 1403; possibly in May, as it relates so much to the time of spring.
I may add that the Clanvowes were a Herefordshire family, from the neighbourhood of Wigmore. The only remarkable non-Chaucerian word in the poem is the verbgreden, to cry out (A.S.grǣdan); a word found in many dialects, and used by Layamon, Robert of Gloucester, Langland, and Hoccleve.
The poem is written in a light and pleasing style, which Wordsworth has fairly reproduced. The final-eis suppressed inassay-e(l. 52). The non-Chaucerian rimes are few, viz.gren-eandsen-eas riming withbeen(61-5), shewing that Clanvowe cut down those dissyllables togreenandseen. And further, the formsronandmonare employed, in order to rime withupon(81-5); whereas Chaucer only has the formman; whilst ofranI remember no example at the end of a line[23].
§ 51. But there is one point about Clanvowe's verse which renders it, for the fifteenth century, quite unique. In imitating Chaucer's use of the final-e, he employs this suffix with unprecedented freedom, and rather avoids than seeks elision. This gives quite a distinctive character to his versification, and is very noticeable when attention has once been drawn to it. If, for example, we compare it with the Parliament of Foules, which it most resembles in general character, we find the following results. If, in the Cuckoo and Nightingale, we observe the first 21 lines, we shall find (even if we omit the example ofhy-ein l. 4, and all the examples of final-eat the end of a line) the following clear examples of its use:—low-e,lyk-e,hard-e,sek-e,hol-e(twice),mak-e,hav-e,wys-e,proud-e,grev-e,trew-e,hert-e, i.e. 13 examples, besides the 5 examples of final-eninmak-en,bind-en,unbind-en,bound-en,destroy-en. But in the first 21 lines of the Parliament of Foules there are only 2 examples of the final-ein the middle of a line, viz.lust-e(15) andlong-e(21), whilst of the final-enthere is none. The difference between 18 and 2 must strike eventhe most inexperienced reader, when it is once brought under his notice. However, it is an extreme case.
Yet again, if thelast21 lines in the Cuckoo be compared with ll. 659-679 of the Parliament (being thelast21 lines, if we dismiss the roundel and the stanza that follows it), we find in the former 7 examples of final-eand 2 of-en, or 9 in all, whilst in Chaucer there are 7 of final-e, and 1 of-en, or 8 in all; and this also happens to be an extreme case in the other direction, owing to the occurrence in the former poem of the wordsegle,maple, andchambre, which I have not taken into account.
This suggests that, to make sure, we must compare much longer passages. In the whole of the Cuckoo, I make about 120 such cases of final-e, and 23 such cases of final-en, or 143 in all. In 290 lines of the Parliament of Foules, I make about 68 and 19 such cases respectively; or about 87 in all. Now the difference between 143 and 87 is surely very marked.
The cause of this result is obvious, viz. that Chaucer makes a more frequent use of elision. In the first 21 lines of the Parl. of Foules, we find elisions ofmen',sor',wak',oft'(twice),red'(twice),spek',fast',radd'; i.e. 10 examples; added to which, Chaucer hasjoy(e),love,knowe,usage,boke, at the cæsura, and suppresses theeinwrite(written). But in ll. 1-21, Clanvowe has (in addition tolove,make,lowe,make(twice),gladdeat the cæsura) only 3 examples of true elision, viz.fressh',tell', andmak'(15).
And further, we seldom findtwoexamples of the use of the final-ein thesameline in Chaucer. I do not observe any instance, in the Parl. of Foules, till we arrive at l. 94:—'Took rest that mad-eme to slep-efaste.' But in Clanvowe they are fairly common. Examples are: Ofsek-efolk ful hol-e(7); For every trew-egentil hert-efree (21); That any hert-eshuld-eslepy be (44); I went-eforth alon-ebold-e-ly (59); They coud-ethat servyc-eal by rote (71); and the like. In l. 73, we have eventhreeexamples inoneline; Some song-eloud-e, as they hadd-eplayned. From all of which it appears that the critics who have assigned the Cuckoo to Chaucer have taken no pains whatever to check their opinion by any sort of analysis. They have trusted to their own mere opinion, without looking the facts in the face.
§ 52. I will point out yet one more very striking difference. We know that Chaucer sometimes employs headless lines, such as: Twénty bókes át his béddes héed. But he does so sparingly,especially in his Minor Poems. But in the Cuckoo, they are not uncommon; see, e.g. lines 16, 50, 72, 100, 116, 118, 146, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 166, 205, 232, 242, 252, 261, 265, 268. It is true that, in Morris's edition, lines 72, 146, 153, 161, and 205 are slightly altered; but in no case can I find that the alteration is authorised. And even then, this does not get rid of thefive consecutiveexamples in ll. 154-158, which cannot be explained away. Once more, I repeat, the critics have failed to use their powers of observation.
I think the poem may still be admired, even if it be allowed that Clanvowe wrote it some three years after Chaucer's death.
§ 53. At any rate, it was admired by so good a judge of poetry as John Milton, who of course possessed a copy of it in the volume which was so pleasantly called 'The Works of Chaucer.' That his famous sonnet 'To the Nightingale' owed something to Clanvowe, I cannot doubt. 'Thou with fresh hope the lover's heart dost fill' is, in part, the older poet's theme; see ll. 1-30, 149-155, 191-192. Even his first line reminds one of ll. 77, 288. If Milton writes of May, so does Clanvowe; see ll. 20, 23, 34, 55, 70, 230, 235, 242; note especially l. 230. But the real point of contact is in the lines—
'Thy liquid notes that close the eye of day,First heard before the shallow cuckoo's bill,Portend success in love ...Now timely sing, ere the rude bird of hateForetell my hopeless doom in some grove nigh;As thou from year to year hast sung too lateFor my relief, yet hadst no reason why:Whether the Muse or Love call thee his mate,Both them I serve, and of their train am I.'
'Thy liquid notes that close the eye of day,First heard before the shallow cuckoo's bill,Portend success in love ...Now timely sing, ere the rude bird of hateForetell my hopeless doom in some grove nigh;As thou from year to year hast sung too lateFor my relief, yet hadst no reason why:Whether the Muse or Love call thee his mate,Both them I serve, and of their train am I.'
'Thy liquid notes that close the eye of day,
First heard before the shallow cuckoo's bill,
Portend success in love ...
Now timely sing, ere the rude bird of hate
Foretell my hopeless doom in some grove nigh;
As thou from year to year hast sung too late
For my relief, yet hadst no reason why:
Whether the Muse or Love call thee his mate,
Both them I serve, and of their train am I.'
With which compare:—
'That it were good to here the nightingaleRather than the lewde cukkow singe': (49).'A litel hast thou been to longe henne;For here hath been the lew[e]de cukkow,And songen songes rather than hast thou': (102).'Ye, quod she, and be thou not amayed,Though thou have herd the cukkow er than me.For, if I live, it shal amended beThe nexte May, if I be not affrayed': (232).'And I wol singe oon of my songes neweFor love of thee, as loude as I may crye': (247).'For in this worlde is noon so good servyseTo every wight that gentil is of kinde': (149).
'That it were good to here the nightingaleRather than the lewde cukkow singe': (49).'A litel hast thou been to longe henne;For here hath been the lew[e]de cukkow,And songen songes rather than hast thou': (102).'Ye, quod she, and be thou not amayed,Though thou have herd the cukkow er than me.For, if I live, it shal amended beThe nexte May, if I be not affrayed': (232).'And I wol singe oon of my songes neweFor love of thee, as loude as I may crye': (247).'For in this worlde is noon so good servyseTo every wight that gentil is of kinde': (149).
'That it were good to here the nightingale
Rather than the lewde cukkow singe': (49).
'A litel hast thou been to longe henne;
For here hath been the lew[e]de cukkow,
And songen songes rather than hast thou': (102).
'Ye, quod she, and be thou not amayed,
Though thou have herd the cukkow er than me.
For, if I live, it shal amended be
The nexte May, if I be not affrayed': (232).
'And I wol singe oon of my songes newe
For love of thee, as loude as I may crye': (247).
'For in this worlde is noon so good servyse
To every wight that gentil is of kinde': (149).
§ 54. XIX.Envoy to Alison.
This piece has always hitherto been printedwithout any title, and is made to follow The Cuckoo and the Nightingale, as if there were some sort of connection between them. This is probably because it happens to follow that poem in the Fairfax and Tanner MSS., and probably did so in the MS. used by Thynne, which has a striking resemblance to the Tanner MS. However, the poem is entirely absent from the Cambridge, Selden, and Bodley MSS., proving that there is no connection with the preceding poem, from which it differs very widely in style, in language, and in metre.
I call it an Envoy to Alison. For first, it is an Envoy[24], as it refers to the author's 'lewd book,' which it recommends to a lady. What the book is, no one can say; but it may safely be conjectured that it was of no great value. And secondly, the lady's name was Alison, as shewn by the acrostic in lines 22-27; and the author has recourse to almost ludicrous efforts, in order to secure the first four letters of the name.
Briefly, it is a very poor piece; and my chief object in reprinting it is to shew how unworthy it is of Clanvowe, not to mention Chaucer. We have no right even to assign it to Lydgate. And its date may be later than 1450.
§ 55. XX.The Flower and the Leaf.
This piece many 'critics' would assign to Chaucer, merely because they like it. This may be sentiment, but it is not criticism; and, after all, a desire to arrive at the truth should be of more weight with us than indulgence in ignorant credulity.
It is of some consequence to learn, first of all, that it is hardly possible to separate this piece from the next. The authoress of one was the authoress of the other. That The Assembly of Ladies is longer and duller, and has not held its own in popular estimation, is no sound argument to the contrary; for it is only partially true. Between the first eleven stanzas of the Assembly and the first eleven stanzas of the present poem, there is a strong general resemblance, and not much to choose. Other stanzasof the Assembly that are well up to the standard of the Flower will be found in lines 456-490, 511-539. The reason of the general inferiority of the Assembly lies chiefly in the choice of the subject; it was meant to interest some medieval household, but it gave small scope for retaining the reader's attention, and must be held to be a failure.
The links connecting these poems are so numerous that I must begin by asking the reader to let me denote The Flower and the Leaf by the letterF(= Flower), and The Assembly of Ladies by the letterA(= Assembly).
The first point is that (with the sole exception of the Nutbrown Maid) no English poems exist, as far as I remember, written previously to 1500, and purporting to be written by a woman. In the case of F. and A., this is assumed throughout. When the author of F. salutes a certain fair lady, the lady replies—'My doughter, gramercy'; 462. And again she says, 'My fair doughter'; 467, 500, 547. The author of A. says she was one of five ladies; 5-7, 407. Again, she was a woman; 18. The author of A. and some other ladies salute Lady Countenance, who in reply says 'fair sisters'; 370. Again, she and others salute a lady-chamberlain, who replies by calling them 'sisters'; 450; &c.
The poem A. is supposed to be an account of a dream, told by the authoress to a gentleman; with the exception of this gentleman, all the characters of the poem areladies; and hence its title. The poem F. is not quite so exclusive, but it comes very near it; all the principal characters are ladies, and the chief personages are queens, viz. the queen of the Leaf and the queen of the Flower. The 'world of ladies' in l. 137 take precedence of the Nine Worthies, who were merely men. A recognition of this fact makes the whole poem much clearer.
But the most characteristic thing is the continual reference to colours, dresses, ornaments, and decorations. In F., we have descriptions of, or references to, white surcoats, velvet, seams, emeralds, purfils, colours, sleeves, trains, pearls, diamonds, a fret of gold, chaplets of leaves, chaplets of woodbine, chaplets ofagnus-castus, a crown of gold, thundering trumpets, the treasury of Prester John, white cloaks, chaplets of oak, banners of Tartary-silk, more pearls, collars, escutcheons, kings-of-arms, cloaks of white cloth, crowns set with pearls, rubies, sapphires, and diamonds. Then there is a company all clad in one suit (or livery); heraldsand poursuivants, more chaplets and escutcheons, men in armour with cloth of gold and horse-trappings, with bosses on their bridles and peitrels—it is surely needless to go on, though we have only arrived at l. 246.
In A., we have much the same sort of thing all over again, though it does not set in before l. 83. Then we meet with blue colours, an embroidered gown, and a purfil with a device. After a respite, we begin again at l. 206—'Her gown was blue'; and the lady wore a French motto. Diligence tells the authoress that she looks well in her new blue gown (259). At l. 305, there is another blue gown, furred with gray, with a motto on the sleeve; and there are plenty more mottoes to follow. At l. 451 we come to a paved floor, and walls made of beryl and crystal, engraved with stories; next, a well-apparelled chair or throne, on five stages, wrought of 'cassidony,' with four pommels of gold, and set with sapphires; a cloth of estate, wrought with the needle (486); cloth of gold (521); a blue gown, with sleeves wrought tabard-wise, of which the collar and thevent(slit in front of the neck) are described as being like ermine; it was couched with great pearls, powdered with diamonds, and had sleeves and purfils; then we come to rubies, enamel, a great balas-ruby, and more of the same kind. Again, it is useless to go further. Surely these descriptions of seams, and collars, and sleeves, are due to a woman.
The likeness comes out remarkably in two parallel stanzas. One of them is from F. 148, and the other from A. 526.
'As grete perles, round and orient,Diamondes fyne and rubies rede,And many another stoon, of which I wantThe names now; and everich on her hedeA riche fret of gold, which, without drede,Was ful of statly riche stones set;And every lady had a chapelet,' &c.
'As grete perles, round and orient,Diamondes fyne and rubies rede,And many another stoon, of which I wantThe names now; and everich on her hedeA riche fret of gold, which, without drede,Was ful of statly riche stones set;And every lady had a chapelet,' &c.
'As grete perles, round and orient,
Diamondes fyne and rubies rede,
And many another stoon, of which I want
The names now; and everich on her hede
A riche fret of gold, which, without drede,
Was ful of statly riche stones set;
And every lady had a chapelet,' &c.
'After a sort the coller and the vent,Lyk as ermyne is mad in purfeling;With grete perles, ful fyne and orient,They were couched, al after oon worching,With dyamonds in stede of powdering;The sleves and purfilles of assyse;They were y-mad [ful] lyke, in every wyse.'
'After a sort the coller and the vent,Lyk as ermyne is mad in purfeling;With grete perles, ful fyne and orient,They were couched, al after oon worching,With dyamonds in stede of powdering;The sleves and purfilles of assyse;They were y-mad [ful] lyke, in every wyse.'
'After a sort the coller and the vent,
Lyk as ermyne is mad in purfeling;
With grete perles, ful fyne and orient,
They were couched, al after oon worching,
With dyamonds in stede of powdering;
The sleves and purfilles of assyse;
They were y-mad [ful] lyke, in every wyse.'
I wonder which the reader prefers; for myself, I have really no choice.
For I do not see how to choose between such lines as these following:—
And on I put my gere and myn array; F. 26.That ye wold help me on with myn aray; A. 241.or, So than I dressed me in myn aray; A. 253.As grete perles, round and orient; F. 148.With grete perles, ful fyne and orient; A. 528.And forth they yede togider, twain and twain; F. 295.See how they come togider, twain and twain; A. 350.So long, alas! and, if that it you pleseTo go with me, I shal do yow the ese; F. 391.And see, what I can do you for to plese,I am redy, that may be to your ese; A. 447.I thank you now, in my most humble wyse; F. 567.We thanked her in our most humble wyse; A. 729.
And on I put my gere and myn array; F. 26.That ye wold help me on with myn aray; A. 241.or, So than I dressed me in myn aray; A. 253.As grete perles, round and orient; F. 148.With grete perles, ful fyne and orient; A. 528.And forth they yede togider, twain and twain; F. 295.See how they come togider, twain and twain; A. 350.So long, alas! and, if that it you pleseTo go with me, I shal do yow the ese; F. 391.And see, what I can do you for to plese,I am redy, that may be to your ese; A. 447.I thank you now, in my most humble wyse; F. 567.We thanked her in our most humble wyse; A. 729.
And on I put my gere and myn array; F. 26.
That ye wold help me on with myn aray; A. 241.
or, So than I dressed me in myn aray; A. 253.
As grete perles, round and orient; F. 148.
With grete perles, ful fyne and orient; A. 528.
And forth they yede togider, twain and twain; F. 295.
See how they come togider, twain and twain; A. 350.
So long, alas! and, if that it you plese
To go with me, I shal do yow the ese; F. 391.
And see, what I can do you for to plese,
I am redy, that may be to your ese; A. 447.
I thank you now, in my most humble wyse; F. 567.
We thanked her in our most humble wyse; A. 729.
Besides these striking coincidences in whole lines, there are a large number of phrases and endings of lines that are common to the two poems; such as—the springing of the day, F. 25, A. 218;Which, as me thought, F. 36, A. 50;wel y-wrought, F. 49, A. 165;by mesure, F. 58, A. 81;I you ensure, F. 60, 287, A. 52, 199;in this wyse, F. 98, A. 589;I sat me doun, F. 118, A. 77;oon and oon, F. 144, A. 368, 543, 710;by and by, F. 59, 146, A. 87;withouten fail, F. 369, A. 567, 646;herself aloon, F. 458, A. 84;ful demure, F. 459, A. 82;to put in wryting, F. 589, A. 664; and others that are printed out in the Notes.
Very characteristic of female authorship is the remark that the ladies vied with each other as to which looked the best; a remark which occurs inbothpoems; see F. 188, A. 384.
A construction common to both poems is the use ofverywith an adjective, a construction used by Lydgate, but not by Chaucer; examples arevery rede, F. 35;very good, F. 10, 315;very round, A. 479.
It is tedious to enumerate how much these poems have in common. They open in a similar way, F. with the description of a grove, A. with the description of a garden with a maze. In the eighth stanza of F., we come to 'a herber that benched was'; and in the seventh stanza of A. we come to a similar 'herber, mad with benches'; both from The Legend of Good Women.
In F., the authoress has a waking vision of 'a world of ladies' (137); in A. she sees in a dream the 'assembly of ladies.' In both, she sees an abundance of dresses, and gems, and bright colours. Both introduce several scraps of French. In both, theauthoress has interviews with allegorical or visionary personages, who address her either as daughter or sister. I have little doubt that the careful reader will discover more points of resemblance for himself.
§ 56. The chief appreciable difference between the two poems is that F. was probably written considerably earlier than A. This appears from the more frequent use of the final-e, which the authoress occasionally uses as an archaic embellishment, though she frequently forgets all about it for many stanzas together. In the former poem (F.) there seem to be about 50 examples, whilst in the latter (A.) there are hardly 10[25]. In almost every case, it is correctly used, owing, no doubt, to tradition or to a perusal of older poetry. The most important cases are the abundant ones in which a finaleis omitted where Chaucer would inevitably have inserted it. For example, such a line as F. 195—From the same grove, where the ladyes come out—would become, in Chaucer—From the sam-ë grov-ë wher the ladyes come out—giving at least twelve syllables in the line. The examples of the omission of final-e, where such omission makes a difference to the scansion, are not very numerous, because many such come before a vowel (where they might be elided) or at the cæsura (where they might be tolerated). Still we may note such a case asgreenin l. 109 where Chaucer would have writtengren-e, givinga fresh gren-ë laurer-tree, to the ruin of the scansion. Similar offences against Chaucer's usage areherdforherd-e, 128 (cf. 191);spek'forspek-e, 140;alforall-e, plural, 165;sightforsight-e, 174;lyfforlyv-e, 182;sam'forsam-e, 195;the tenthforthe tenth-e, 203;gretforgret-e, plural, 214, 225;redforred-e, 242;the worstforthe worst-e, 255;yed'foryed-e, 295, 301;fastforfast-e, 304;rejoiceforrejoy-se, 313;noisefornois-e, 353;sonn'forson-ne, 355, 408;hir freshforhir fres-she, 357;laftforlaft-e, pt. t., 364;their greetforhir gret-e, 377;sickforsek-e, 410;aboutforabout-e, 411;to soupforto soup-e, 417;withoutforwithout-e, 423, 549;the hoolforthe hol-e, 437;to knowforto know-e, 453;pastforpass-edeorpast-e, 465;My fairforMy fair-e, vocative, 467, 500;to telforto tell-e, 495;nin(e)fornyn-e, 502;imagin(e)forimagin-en, 525;they lastforthey last-e, 562;thy rud(e)forthy rud-e, 595. Those who believe that The Flower and the Leaf was written by Chaucer will have to explain away every one of these cases; and when they have done so, there is more to be said.
§ 57. For it is well known that such a word assweetly(96) was trisyllabic, asswet-e-ly, in Chaucer; C. T., A 221. Similarly, our authoress hastrewlyfortrew-e-ly[26], 130;richlyforrich-e-ly, 169;woodbindforwod-e-bind-e, 485. Similar isointmentsforoin-e-ments, 409. And, moreover, our authoress differs from Chaucer as to other points of grammar. Thus she hasForshronkas a strong pp., 358, which ought to beforshronk-enorforshronk-e. Still more marked is her use ofroodas thepluralof the past tense, 449, 454, where Chaucer hasrid-en; and her use ofbeganas a plural, 385, where Chaucer hasbigonn-e. Can these things be explained away also? If so, there is more to be said.
§ 58. All the above examples have been made out, without so much as looking at the rimes. But the rimes are much harder to explain away, where they differ from Chaucer's. Here are a few specimens.
Pas-serimes withwas, 27; so it must have been cut down topas! Similarly,hew-ehas becomehew; for it rimes withgrew, sing., 32.Sight-ehas becomesight, to rime withwight, 37.Broughtshould rather bebrought-e, but it rimes withwrought, 48. Similar difficulties occur inpeyn(forpeyn-e), r. w.seyn(62);syd'forsyd-e, r. w.espy'dforespy-ed, 72;eet, r. w.sweetforswet-e, 90;not'fornot-e, r. w.sot, 99;busily, r. w.aspy'foraspy-e, 106;trewly, r. w.armony'forarmony-e, 130;orient(oriant?), r. w.wantforwant-e, 148;personforperson-e, r. w.everichon, 167. It is tedious to go on; let the critic finish the list, if he knows how to do it. If not, let him be humble. For there is more to come.
§ 59. Besides the grammar, there is yet the pronunciation to be considered; and here comes in the greatest difficulty of all. For, in ll. 86-89, we have the unusual rime oftreeandbewithpretily. This so staggered Dr. Morris, that he was induced to print the last word aspretile; which raises the difficulty without explaining it. For the explanation, the reader should consult the excellent dissertation by Dr. Curtis on The Romance of Clariodus(Halle, 1894), p. 56,§ 187. He remarks that a rime of this character gives evidence of the transition of M.E. long closeeto (Italian) longi[as in the change from A.S.mēto mod. E.me], and adds: 'this change became general in the fifteenth century, but had begun in some dialects at an earlier date.' Its occurrence in the present poem is a strong indication that it is later than the year 1400, and effectually disposes of any supposed connection with Midland poems of the fourteenth century.
Both poems are remarkably free from classical allusions and from references to such medieval authors as are freely quoted by Chaucer. There is nothing to shew that the authoress was acquainted with Latin, though she knew French, especially the French of songs and mottoes.
The Flower and the Leaf is chiefly famous for having been versified by Dryden. The version is a free one, in a manner all his own, and is finer than the original, which can hardly be said of his 'versions' of Palamon and Arcite and The Cock and the Fox. It is doubtless from this version that many critics have formed exaggerated ideas of the poem's value; otherwise, it is difficult to understand for what reasons it was considered worthy of so great a master as Geoffrey Chaucer.
§ 60. It will be seen, from the Notes, that the authoress was well acquainted with the Prologue to The Legend of Good Women; and it can hardly be questioned that she took the main idea of the poem from that source, especially ll. 188-194 of the later text. At the same time she was well acquainted with Gower's lines on the same subject, in the Conf. Amantis, iii. 357, 358; see vol. iii. pp. xlii, 297. Gower has:—
'Me thoughte I sigh to-fore myn hedeCupide with his bowe bent,And like unto a parlementWhich were ordeined for the nones,With him cam al the world atones[27]Of gentil folk, that whylom wereLovers; I sigh hem alle there ...Her hedes kempt, and theruponGarlondes, nought of o colour,Some of the Lefe, some of the Flour,[28]And some of grete perles were.[29]...So loude that on every sydeIt thoughte as al the heven cryde[30]In such accorde and suche a sounOf bombard and of clarioun ...So glad a noise for to here.The grene Leef is overthrowe[31]...Despuiled is the somer fare,' &c. (p. 371).
'Me thoughte I sigh to-fore myn hedeCupide with his bowe bent,And like unto a parlementWhich were ordeined for the nones,With him cam al the world atones[27]Of gentil folk, that whylom wereLovers; I sigh hem alle there ...Her hedes kempt, and theruponGarlondes, nought of o colour,Some of the Lefe, some of the Flour,[28]And some of grete perles were.[29]...So loude that on every sydeIt thoughte as al the heven cryde[30]In such accorde and suche a sounOf bombard and of clarioun ...So glad a noise for to here.The grene Leef is overthrowe[31]...Despuiled is the somer fare,' &c. (p. 371).
'Me thoughte I sigh to-fore myn hede
Cupide with his bowe bent,
And like unto a parlement
Which were ordeined for the nones,
With him cam al the world atones[27]
Of gentil folk, that whylom were
Lovers; I sigh hem alle there ...
Her hedes kempt, and therupon
Garlondes, nought of o colour,
Some of the Lefe, some of the Flour,[28]
And some of grete perles were.[29]...
So loude that on every syde
It thoughte as al the heven cryde[30]
In such accorde and suche a soun
Of bombard and of clarioun ...
So glad a noise for to here.
The grene Leef is overthrowe[31]...
Despuiled is the somer fare,' &c. (p. 371).
§ 61. XXI.The Assembly of Ladies.
This has already been discussed, in some measure, in considering the preceding poem. Both pieces were written by the same authoress; but the former is the more sprightly and probably the earlier. With the exception of the unusual rime oftreewithpretily(discussed above), nearly all the peculiarities of the preceding poem occur here also. The Chaucerian final-eappears now and then, as incommaund-e(probably plural), 203;red-e, 215;countenanc-e, 295;pen-ne[or elseseyd-e], 307;chayr-e, 476;tak-e, 565;trouth-e, 647;liv-e, 672;sem-e(pr. s. subj.), 696. But it is usually dropped, as inThe freshforThe fres-she, 2; &c. In l. 11, Thynne printsfantasyseforfantasyes; for it obviously rimes withgyse(monosyllabic); cf. 533-535.Hew-eandnew-eare cut down tohewandnew, to rime withknew, 67.Boldrimes withtold, clipped form oftold-e, 94; and so on. So, again,trewlyappears in place of Chaucer'strew-e-ly, 488. It is needless to pursue the subject.
The description of the maze and the arbour, in ll. 29-70, is good. Another pleasing passage is that contained in ll. 449-497; and the description of a lady's dress in ll. 519-539. As for the lady herself—