ERRATA AND ADDENDA.
P. 95: l. 47. Insert a comma after 'oughte'
P. 98: l. 114. Omit the comma at the end of the line.
P. 123: l. 705. It would be better to read 'Withoute.' The scansion then is:
Without | e fabl' | I wol | descryve.
P. 126: l. 793. Delete the comma at the end of the line.
P. 127: l. 806. Delete the comma at the end of the line.
P. 135: l. 997. For shall read shal
P. 136: ll. 1015-6. Improve the punctuation thus:—
As whyt as lilie or rose in rys
Hir face, gentil and tretys.
P. 136: l. 1021. Delete the comma after 'yelowe'
P. 141: l. 1154. Delete the comma after 'seide'
P. 168: l. 1962. For Bu -if read But-if
P. 176: l. 2456. For joy read Ioy
P. 201: l. 4035. For the comma substitute a semicolon.
P. 249: l. 7087. For echerye read trecherye
P. 253: l. 7324. For weary read wery
P. 255: l. 7437. Supply a comma at the end of the line.
P. 258: l. 7665. Insert a comma after 'helle'
P. 269: l. 145. The stop at the end should be a comma.
P. 278: l. 49. For aud read and
P. 282: l. 145. For Aud read And
P. 301: l. 716. The comma should perhaps be a semicolon or a full stop.
P. 313: l. 1069. For 'Antilegius,' a better form would be 'Antilogus,' a French form of Antilochus.
P. 326: l. 74. Perhaps 'let' should be 'lete'
P. 330: l. 206. For folke read folk
P. 338: l. 91. For Aud read And
P. 340: l. 133. For the read thee
P. 362: l. 76. The final stop should be a comma.
P. 374: ll. 243, 248. For desteny and ful better forms are destinee and fulle
P. 377: l. 328. For furlong wey read furlong-wey
INTRODUCTION.
THE ROMAUNT OF THE ROSE.
[§ 1]. In the Third Edition of my volume of Chaucer Selections, containing the Prioress's Tale, &c., published by the Clarendon Press in 1880, I included an essay to shew 'why the Romaunt of the Rose is not Chaucer's,' meaning thereby the particular English version of Le Roman de la Rose which happens to be preserved. I have since seen reason to modify this opinion as regards a comparatively short portion of it at the beginning (here printed in large type), but the arguments then put forward remain as valid as ever as regards the main part of it (here printed in smaller type, and in double columns). Some of these arguments had been previously put forward by me in a letter to the Academy, Aug. 10, 1878, p. 143. I ought to add that the chief of them are not original, but borrowed from Mr. Henry Bradshaw, whose profound knowledge of all matters relating to Chaucer has been acknowledged by all students.
[§ 2]. That Chaucer translated the French poem called Le Roman de la Rose, or at least some part of it[[185]], no one doubts; for he tells us so himself in the Prologue of his Legend of Good Women (A 255, B 329), and the very frequent references to it, in many of his poems, shew that many parts of it were familiarly known to him. Nevertheless, it does not follow that the particular version of it which happens to be preserved, is the very one which he made; for it was a poem familiar to many others besides him, and it is
extremely probable that Middle English versions of it were numerous. In fact, it will presently appear that the English version printed in this volume actually consists of three separate fragments, all by different hands.
The English version, which I shall here, for brevity, call 'the translation,' has far less claim to be considered as Chaucer's than unthinking people imagine. Modern readers find it included in many editions of his Works, and fancy that such a fact is conclusive; but it is the merest prudence to enquire how it came there. The answer is, that it first appeared in Thynne's edition of 1532, a collection of Chaucer's (supposed) works made more than a hundred and thirty years after his death. Such an attribution is obviously valueless; we must examine the matter for ourselves, and on independent grounds.