[206] La Belle Dame sans Merci, a poem translated from the French originally written by 'Maister Aleyn,' chief secretary to the King of France. Certainly not by Chaucer; for Alain Chartier, the author of the original French poem, was only about four years old when Chaucer died. Moreover, it is now known that the author of the English poem was Sir Richard Ros. See p. [35], note 2.
[207] All in Caxton's edition of the Minor Poems, described above, p. 27.
[208] Both in the small quarto volume described above, p. 27.
[209] Speght added three more pieces, but they are also found in ed. 1550 and ed. 1542, at the end of the Table of Contents; see below, p. 45, nos. 66-8.
[210] Jack Upland is in prose, and in the form of a succession of questions directed against the friars.
[211] I have often made use of a handy edition with the following titlepage: 'The Poetical Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, with an Essay on his Language and Versification and an Introductory Discourse, together with Notes and a Glossary. By Thomas Tyrwhitt. London, Edward Moxon, Dover Street, 1855.' I cannot but think that this title-page may have misled others, as it for a long time misled myself. As a fact, Tyrwhitt never edited anything beyond the Canterbury Tales, though he has left us some useful notes upon the Minor Poems, and his Glossary covers the whole ground. The Minor Poems in this edition are merely reprinted from the black-letter editions.
[212] Probably copies slightly differ. The book described by me is a copy in my own possession, somewhat torn at the beginning, and imperfect at the end. But the three missing leaves only refer to Lydgate's Storie of Thebes.
[213] I print in italics the names of the pieces which I reject as spurious. In the case of The Romaunt of the Rose, the first 1705 lines are genuine; but the rest, which is spurious, is more than three-fourths of the whole. See p. [1] above.
[214] I. e. the folios are misnumbered. Piece 8 begins with fol. ccxliiii, which is followed by ccxlvj (sic), ccxli (sic), ccxli (repeated), ccxlii, and ccxliii; which brings us to 'ccxliiii' over again.
[215] Marked Fol. cclxxvj by mistake.