Whiche is thus englished: Next to Franchise went a young bacheler, I knowe not howe he was called, he was fayre and gentle, as yf he had byn sonne to the lorde of Windsore. Where in olde frenche this word fuiz (vsed here as in manye places of that Booke) is placed for that whiche we wryte and pronounce at this daye for filz or fitz, in Englishe sonne. and that it is here so mente, you shall see in the Romante of the Roose turned into proese, moralized, by the french Molinet, and printed at Paris in the yere 1521, who hathe the same verses in these woordes in proese. A Franchise s’estoit prins vn ieune Bacheler de qui ne scay le nome, fors bell, en son temps filz du seigneure de Guindesore. Whiche you mighte have well seene, had you but remembered their orthographie, and that the latyne, Italiane, frenche, and spanyshe have no doble w, as the Dutche, the Englishe, and such as haue affynytye with the Dutche, since they vse for doble w (a letter comone to vs) these two letters Gu, as in Gulielmus, which we wryte Willielmus; in guerra, which we call and writte warre, in Gualterus, which we write Walter; in guardeine, which we pronounce and write wardeyne; and suche lyke; accordinge to whiche in the frenche yt is Guindesore for Windesore. Master Thynne knoweth not clearly why the Baron should be called of Windsor. for your other coniectures, whye that Chaucer sholde inserte the loordes sonne of Windesore, they are of [no?] great momente, neque adhuc constat that Chaucer translated the Romante, whene Windsore Castle was in buildinge. for then I suppose that Chaucer was but yonge; whereof I will not stande at this tyme, no moore than I will that there was no lord Windsore in those dayes; althoughe I suppose that sir William Windsore, being then a worthye knighte and of great auctorytye in Englande and in the partes beyond the seas under the kinge of Englande, mighte be lord Windsore, of whom the Frenche tooke notice, being in those partes, and by them called seigneure de Windesore, as euery gouernor was called seigneure emongst them. But whether he were a Baron or no in Englande, I cannott yet saye, because I haue not my booke of Somons of Barons to parliamente in my handes at this instante.
The ordeal was not tryall by fier only, but also by water, nor for chastity only, but for many other matters. Fo: 171. pa: 2. by ordall, &c. Vppone whiche you write thus. “Ordalia is a tryall of chastytye, throughe the fyre, as did Emma, mother of the Confessor, or ells over hoote burnynge culters of yrone barefotte, as did Cunegunde, &c.” But in this describinge definitione, you have commytted manye imperfections. first, that ordell was a tryall by fyre, whiche is but a species of the ordell; for ordalium was a tryall by fyre and water: secondlye, that yt was a tryall of Chastitye whiche was but parcell thereof; for the ordale was a tryall for manye other matters. The fyery ordeal was by going on hote shares and cultors, not going through the fyre. The mother of Edward confessor passed over nine burnynge shares. Thirdlye, you saye yt was by goinge throughe the fyre. when the fyery ordale was onlye by goinge one hoote shares or cultores, or by holdinge a hoote pece of yrone in the hande, and not going through the fyre. fourthlye, that Emma, mother to Edwarde the confessor, receued this tryall by goinge through the fyre: But she passed not through the fyre as you bringe her for one example of your ordale but passed barefotte vppone nyne burnynge shares, fowr for her selfe, and fyve for Alwyne Bishoppe of Winchester, with whome she was suspected with incontynencye, whiche historye you maye see at large in Ranulphus Higden, in his policronicone li: 6. ca: 23, and in other auctors; of whiche ordale I colde make a longe and no commone discourse; of the manner of consecrating the fyre and water, how yt was vsed emongst the saxons before, and the normans since, the Conqueste, and of many other thinges belonging vnto yt. but I will passe them ouer, and only deliuer to you a thinge knowen to fewe, The ordeal taken away by the court of Rome, and after by Henry III. how this ordale was contynued in Englande in the tyme of kinge Johne, as appereth in Claus. 17. Johīs, m. 25, vntill yt was taken awaye by the courte of Rome; and after that, in Englande, by the auctorytye of kinge Henrye the thirde, whereof you shall fynde this recorde in the towre Patente. 3. H. 3. mem. 5, where yt speakethe of iudgmente and tryall by fyer and water to be forbydden by the Churche of Roome, and that yt sholde not be vsed here in Englande; as apperethe in the woordes of that record: Illis vero qui mediis criminibus vectati sunt, et quibus competeret iudicium ignis vel aquæ si non esset prohibitum, et de quibus si regnum nostrum abiurarent, nulla fieret postea, maleficiendi suspitio, regnum nostrum abiurent &c.
The stork bewrayeth not adultery but wreaketh the adultery of his owne mate. Fo: 246. pa: 1. speaking of the storke, you saye that Chaucers woordes “wreaker of adulterye” shoulde rather bee “bewrayer of Adulterye;” whiche in truth accordinge to one propryetye of his nature may be as you saye, but according to another propryetye of his nature, yt sholde be “the wreaker of Adulterye,” as Chaucer hathe; for he ys a greater wreaker of the adulterye of his owne kynde and female than the bewrayer of the adulterye of one other kynde, and of his hostesse one the toppe of whose howse he harborethe. for Aristotle sayeth & Bartholomeus de proprietatibus rerum li: 12. cap. 8. with many other auctors, that yf the storke by any meanes perceve that his female hath brooked spousehedde, he will no more dwell with her, but stryketh and so cruelly beateth her, that he will not surcease vntill he hathe killed her yf he maye, to wreake and revenge that adulterye.
These and suche lyke in my conceyte are worthye to be touched in your Annotacions, besides other matters whiche you haue not handled; whereof (because tyme requirethe after all this tedious treatyce to drawe to one ende) I will not now treate; but onlye speake a little moore of fyve especiall thinges, woorthye the animadversione, of which the fyrste ys, The plowman’s tale is wrong placed. that you make the Plowmans tale to go next before the persons tale, suffering the persons corrupted prologue to passe with this begynnynge, “By that the plowmanne had his tale ended,” when all written copies, (whiche I coulde yet see,) and my fathers editione, haue yt, “By that the mancyple had his tale ended.” And because my father colde not see by any Prologues of thee other tales, (whiche for the most parte shewe the dependancye of one Tale vppone one other,) where to place the plowmans tale, he putt yt after the persons tale, whiche, by Chaucers owne woordes, was the laste tale; as apperethe by the persons prologue, where the hooste sayethe, that “euery manne had tolde his Tale before.” So that the plowmans tale must be sett in some other place before the manciple and persons tale, and not as yt ys in the last editione.
Chaucer’s proper works should be distinguished from those adulterat and not his. One other thinge ys, that yt would be good that Chaucers proper woorkes were distinguyshed from the adulterat and suche as were not his, as the Testamente of Cressyde, the Letter of Cupide, and the ballade begynnynge “I have a ladye whereso she bee,” &c. whiche Chaucer never composed, as may sufficientlye be proved by the things themselves.
There were three editions of Chaucer before William Thynne dedicated his to Henry VIII. The thirde matter ys, that in youre epistle dedicatorye to Sir Roberte Cecille, you saye, “This Booke whene yt was first published in printe was dedicate to kinge Henrye the eighte.” But that is not soo. for the firste dedicatione to that kinge was by my father, when diverse of Chaucers woorkes had byn thrise printed before; whereof two editions were by William Caxtone, the firste printer of Englande, who first printed Chaucers Tales in one columne in a ragged letter, and after in one colume in a better order; and the thirde editione was printed, as farre as I remember, by Winkin de Worde or Richarde Pynson, the seconde and thirde printers of Englande, as I take them.[11] The first editions being very corrupt, William Thynne augmented and corrected them. Whiche three editons beinge verye unperfecte and corrupte occasioned my father (for the love he oughte to Chaucers learnynge) to seeke the augmente and correctione of Chaucers Woorkes, whiche he happily fynyshed; the same being, since that tyme, by often printinge much corrupted. of this matter I sholde have spooken first of all, because yt is the first imperfectione of your paynfull and comendable labors: Yet because the proverb ys better late than never, I hold yt better to speake of yt here then not at all.
Master Speight hath omytted many auctors vouched by Chaucer. The fourthe thinge ys, that, in the catalogue of the auctors, you haue omytted many auctors vouched by chaucer; and therefore did rightlye intitle yt, moost, and not all, of the auctors cited by Geffrye Chaucer.
It should be Harlottes, and not Haroldes. The fyfte matter ys in the Romante of the Roose, fo. 144, that the worde Haroldes in this verse,
My kinge of Haroltes shalte thou bee,
must, by a mathesis or transpositione of the letters, be Harlotes, and not Haroltes, and the verse thus,