The scribe is usually right. I only remember observing one MS. in which the scribe is reckless; see vol. i. p. 47.
To which add, as a twenty-third, the three stanzas on Gentilesse quoted in Scogan’s poem (no. 33).
Now known to be Lydgate’s; see vol. i. p. 35, note 3.
I have lately made a curious discovery as to the Testament of Love. The first paragraph begins with a large capital M; the second with a large capital A; and so on. By putting together all the letters thus pointed out, we at once have an acrostic, forming a complete sentence. The sentence is—MARGARET OF VIRTW, HAVE MERCI ON TSKNVI. Of course the last word is expressed as an anagram, which I decipher as KITSVN, i. e. Kitsun, the author’s name. The whole piece is clearly addressed to a lady named Margaret, and contains frequent reference to the virtues of pearls, which were supposed to possess healing powers. Even if ‘Kitsun’ is not the right reading, we learn something; for it is quite clear that TSKNVI cannot possibly represent the name of Chaucer. See The Academy, March 11, 1893; p. 222.
No. 38 is not noticed in the Index, on its reappearance at p. 555.
Originally (I understand)1845. I have only a copy with a reprinted title-page and an altered date.
It should be—‘and of some of those other pieces’; for the ‘Account’ does not profess to be exhaustive.
See the pieces numbered 1-68, in vol. i. pp. 31–45. But four pieces are in prose, viz. Boethius, Astrolabe, Testament of Love, and Jack Upland. Of course Tyrwhitt rejected Jack Upland. He admitted, however, rather more than 26, the number in the edition of 1845.
The false rime of now with rescowe in st. 46 may be got over, it is suggested, by a change in the readings. On the other hand, I now observe a fatal rhyme in st. 17, where upon and ron rime with mon, a man. When such a form as mon (for man ) can be found in Chaucer, we may reconsider his claim to this poem. Meanwhile, I would note the curious word grede in st. 27. It does not occur in Chaucer, but is frequent in The Owl and the Nightingale.
Exception may be taken to the riming of mene (l. 20) with open e, and grene with close e.
Hoccleve’s Poems; ed. Furnivall, p. 49; cf. p. 56.
See the admirable remarks on this subject in Lounsbury’s Studies in Chaucer, i. 305–28. Much that I wish to say is there said for me, in a way which I cannot improve.
MS. Lansdowne (the worst of the seven) has Alle, and Gyngelinge; Cm. has Gyngelyn; Hl. has Euery man; and that is all.
The phrase wel a ten (F. 383) is not precisely parallel.
Thus, the Parson calls his Tale ‘a mery’ one (I. 46). Tyrwhitt has ‘a litel tale.’
Ielousye cannot rime with me.
The latter line answers to A. 2018; lines 2012–7 being wholly omitted.
Which, by the way, makes come monosyllabic.
Dryden had some reason; for whenever (as often) the editors omitted some essential word, the line could not possibly be right.
The explanation of these rules depends upon Middle-English grammar and pronunciation; for which see the Introduction to vol. vi.
A word like taverne is ta-vér-ne, in three syllables, if the accent be on the second syllable; but when it is on the first, it becomes táv-ern ’, and is only dissyllabic.
Many of them were discovered by Dr. Köppell.
Many of them were discovered by Dr. Köppell.
‘Thou were nought skoymus to take the maydenes womb’ is the reading given in The Prymer, ed. H. Littlehales, p. 22.
The black-letter editions have mare; and Tyrwhitt follows them. I take this to be a mere guess.
Spelt Xeuxis in one MS., and Zensis in another, in the same passage; see Anglo-Latin Satirists, ed. Wright, ii. 303.
This seems to be a mistake; the MSS. and old editions have simply ‘god you see.’
The words vel e contrario are in the margin of E., but not in the printed edition.
The reading Burdeuxs actually occurs in MS. Camb. Univ. Lib. Ii. 3. 26. See Boundys in the Glossary; and see vol. iii. p. 400.
No quotation is given to support this assertion.
Unluckily misprinted Poincy (vol. iii. p. 422).