About the Work
This volume comprises a collection of Geoffrey Chaucer’s works, presented with extensive editorial apparatus. The contents include The Legend of Good Women, a dream-vision poem, and A Treatise on the Astrolabe, a technical prose work on astronomy. The book also contains substantial editorial notes, textual criticism, and commentary on various other Chaucerian pieces, including portions of the Canterbury Tales such as the Shipman’s Tale, the Prioresses Tale, Sir Thopas, Melibeus, the Monkes Tale, the Nonne Preestes Tale, and the Squire’s Tale.
The work is presented in a scholarly edition, with the editor providing detailed textual variants, manuscript comparisons, and explanatory notes. The material reflects a late medieval English literary context, with Chaucer writing in Middle English. The edition itself appears to be a product of nineteenth-century scholarship, given the editor’s references to contemporary critics and the state of textual criticism at the time. The notes reference various manuscripts (designated by letters such as A, B, C, G, M, P) and printed editions, indicating a careful collation of sources. The editor also engages with the works of other scholars, including Tyrwhitt, Bell, Lücke, Bradshaw, Warton, and Kittredge, situating this edition within an ongoing scholarly conversation about Chaucer’s texts.
Context
The notes reveal a rich literary context surrounding Chaucer’s works. The editor discusses Chaucer’s relationship with his contemporary, John Gower, at considerable length. The editor argues that after Chaucer wrote his story, he lent a copy to his friend Gower, who then introduced expressions resembling Chaucer’s into his own work. The editor cites twenty-seven examples of such borrowings, as documented by a scholar named Lücke in the journal Anglia. The editor refutes Lücke’s conclusion that Chaucer copied from Gower, comparing such a suggestion to claiming that Tennyson borrowed from Martin Tupper. The editor further suggests that Chaucer’s displeasure at this borrowing may explain his harsh references to Gower in his revised edition of the Legend of Good Women. Gower, who had included a complimentary allusion to Chaucer in his first edition, subsequently suppressed it in his revised copy.
The editor quotes Gower’s first edition, where Venus calls Chaucer “my disciple and my poete,” praising his youthful songs made “for my sake,” and requesting Chaucer “upon his later age” to “make his testament of love.” These lines were followed by praise of King Richard, which Gower later suppressed as unfitting. The editor dates these lines to 1385, when Gower learned Chaucer was writing the Legend of Good Women, which Venus could claim as a “testament of love” written as “penance” at Cupid’s command.
The editor also traces sources for Chaucer’s works. Both Chaucer and Gower knew the chronicler Trivet, and the editor provides evidence of how each used him differently. Chaucer’s “nekke-bon” translates Trivet’s “haterel,” while Gower omits it; Gower mentions Knaresburgh from Trivet, which Chaucer omits. The editor lists clear cases where Gower resembles Chaucer rather than Trivet, including phrases about being “stiked at the bord,” “conseil of the sowdan,” “take anon,” “ship al sterelees,” Hermengild’s love, restoring sight, approaching the bed, accusing Constance, the king’s conversion, the chamber and birth-time, writing back, the same ship, kneeling on the strand, coming to ship, and seeing the wonder.
The Shipman’s Tale is noted as similar to Boccaccio’s Decamerone, Day 8, Nov. 1, but the editor suggests Chaucer likely used a French fabliau rather than Boccaccio directly. The opening uses “us,” “we,” “our,” showing it was originally intended for the Wyf of Bathe. The Prioresses Tale is discussed in relation to legends of children murdered by Jews, including Hugh of Lincoln (1255) and various canonized children. The editor notes a modernised version by Wordsworth is unsatisfactory. Sir Thopas is identified as a burlesque ridiculing “palpable gross” fictions of common rimers, with the editor discussing its metrical varieties and typical romance conventions parodied. Melibeus is a translation of Le Livre de Melibee et de dame Prudence, adapted by Jean de Meun from Albertano of Brescia’s Liber Consolationis et Consilii (1246). The Monkes Tale is modeled on Boccaccio’s De Casibus Virorum Illustrium. The Nonne Preestes Tale is based on Marie de France’s fable and Le Roman du Renart.
The Squire’s Tale receives extensive commentary. The editor quotes Warton’s critical assessment, which judges the Canterbury Tales unequal in merit, with the Knight’s Tale being Chaucer’s noblest composition and the Squire’s Tale deserving next place, being the poem by which Milton characterises Chaucer. Warton identifies the tale’s imagination as “Arabian fiction engrafted on Gothic chivalry,” founded on Arabian learning. The editor then argues Warton fails to identify Chaucer’s specific source, suggesting the Arabian Nights and Marco Polo’s travels. Colonel Yule notes “Cambuscan” derives from Chinghiz Khan’s name; Professor Palmer confirms djenguiz means “great.” The editor compares Chaucer’s descriptions with Marco Polo’s account of Kublai Khan, his palace, birthday feasts, and hunting practices. The editor dismisses Professor Brandl’s theory that Cambinskan represents Edward III, citing Kittredge’s refutation.
Structure of the Book
The volume contains several distinct works. The Legend of Good Women is presented with a prologue and multiple books. The notes indicate the poem is written in three books, with the editor noting that he numbers the lines consecutively throughout. The prologue begins with a discussion on dreams, with the narrator telling of a dream on the 10th of a month. The second book opens with a reference to Scipio, and the third book invokes Apollo for aid in writing the last book. The poem includes sections titled “THE LEGEND OF HYPSIPYLE” and “THE LEGEND OF MEDEA,” indicating it comprises a series of legends of virtuous women.
A Treatise on the Astrolabe is structured in two main parts. The first part is titled “HERE BIGINNETH THE DESCRIPCION OF THE ASTROLABIE,” describing the instrument itself. The second part is titled “HERE BIGINNEN THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASTROLABIE,” containing a series of propositions or conclusions for using the astrolabe. The notes reference sections numbered up to at least 30, with Latin headings to the propositions. The treatise includes practical instructions for reckoning hours, finding the sun’s degree, determining meridian altitudes, calculating declinations, and establishing the latitude of Oxford.
The editorial apparatus includes extensive notes on the text of the Legend of Good Women, with detailed textual variants for specific lines. The editor also provides commentary on the Canterbury Tales portions, including discussion of the Shipman’s Prologue, which appears in only one manuscript (Arch. Seld.), with other manuscripts assigning it variously. Bradshaw proved its correct position follows the Man of Lawes Tale. A spurious twelve-line Shipman’s Prologue was concocted, which the editor reproduces with textual variants and metrical criticism.
Detailed Section-by-Section Summary
The House of Fame on the Rock of Ice
The narrator, set down by the eagle, beholds a strange and wondrous place. He first describes the house and its site before proceeding further. The house stands on a rock higher than any in Spain, and as he climbs it, he examines the stone. It shines like glass but is actually a rock of ice, not steel, which he thinks a feeble foundation for so high a place. On one half of the rock, he sees the names of famous folk engraved, but the letters are mostly thawed away, so their fame has become unfamous, and he reflects that nothing may last. The other side, facing north, has names as fresh as if written that day, conserved by the shade of a castle standing in a cold place.
The Beryl Hall and Its Inhabitants
Climbing to the top, he finds a dwelling of indescribable beauty, made entirely of beryl stone with no joints, adorned with pinnacles, images, and windows. In the pinnacles stand minstrels and storytellers, and he hears Orpheus harping, with Orion, Eacides Chiron, and the Bret Glascurion nearby. Behind them, many thousands play cornemuse and shalmyes, and he sees Atiteris, dan Pseustis of Athens, and Marcia, who lost her skin for envying Apollo’s piping, along with pipers of the Duche tonge. In another place are trumpeters, including Messenus, Ioab, and Theodomas, and all who used clarion in Cataloigne and Aragon. He sees Iogelours, magicians, tregetours, phitonesses, charmeresses, old wicches, sorceresses, and clerks of natural magic, including queen Medea, Circes, Calipsa, Hermes Ballenus, Lymote, Simon Magus, and Colle tregetour, who carried a wind-mill under a walsh-note shale.
The Goddess Fame on Her Dees
Finding himself free, he muses on the beryl walls, which make things seem larger than they are, as is Fame’s nature. He finds the castle-gate, carved wonderfully, though wrought by adventure as often as by cure, and enters, hearing cries of “A larges!” to the lady Fame. He sees pursevauntes and heraudes wearing cote-armures, with arms of famous folk from Auffrike, Europe, and Asye. The hall’s walls, floor, and roof are plated half a foot thick with gold, set with stones from the Lapidaire. On a dees sits Fame, a feminyne creature, first as small as a cubyte, then stretching so her feet reach the earth and her head touches heaven. She has as many eyes as feathers on birds, or as the four beasts in John’s Apocalypse, and as many up-standing ears and tongues as hairs on beasts, with partriches wings on her feet. Calliopee and her eight sisters sing eternally of Fame, and on her shoulders she sustains the arms and names of Alexander and Hercules.
The Pillars of Historians
On either side of Fame stand pillars of metal, each bearing a famous writer. On a pillar of lede and yren stands the Ebrayk Iosephus, bearing the fame of the Iewerye, with seven others. On an yren pillar stands Stace of Tholosan, bearing Thebes’ fame and Achilles’, and near him stand Omeer, Dares, Tytus, Lollius, Guido de Columpnis, and English Gaufride, all bearing up Troy, though with envy between them, one saying Omere made lies. On a pillar of tinned yren stands Virgyle, bearing Pius Eneas’ fame. On a coper pillar stands Ovyde, Venus’ clerk. On an yren pillar stands daun Lucan, bearing Iulius and Pompee’s fame. On a soulfre pillar stands Dan Claudian, bearing the fame of helle, Pluto, and Proserpyne.
The Companies Before Fame
A noise like bees approaches, and a great company enters, of all regions and conditions. They kneel and ask Fame for a boon, and she grants some, denies some, and grants others the contrary of their asking, like her sister Fortune. The first company asks for good fame for good works, but she denies them, saying no one shall speak of them. She sends her messanger to Eolus, god of winde, in Trace, to bring his clarions, Clere Laude and Sclaundre. The messanger finds Eolus in a cave holding the winds, and he takes Triton to carry the clarions and blows a wind, so Eolus comes to Fame’s feet. A second company of good folk asks for good fame, but she grants them a shrewed fame and wikked loos, bidding Eolus blow Sclaunder light. The narrator pities them, shamed gilteles, as Eolus blows his black trumpe of bras, emitting smoke and stench, and their shame is ronge on every tongue.
The Fates of the Remaining Companies
A third company, having deserved fame rightfully, asks that it be known, and she grants it, bidding Eolus blow Laude, which he does, smelling of bawme and roses. A fourth company, few in number, asks to hide their works, having done them for bountee, and she grants their asking, letting their work be deed. A fifth company also asks to hide their good works for contemplacioun, but she refuses, calling them wood, and bids Eolus blow their fame. A sixth company, having done nothing, asks for fame as if they had done noble gestes, and to be held worthy, wise, and happy unto love, and she grants it. A seventh company asks the same, but she refuses, calling them masty swyn and ydel wrecches, like the sweynte cat that would have fish but not wet his clowes.
The Chaucer-Gower Relationship and the Legend’s Textual History
The editor examines the relationship between Chaucer and his contemporary John Gower, arguing that after Chaucer completed his work, he lent a copy to Gower, who then introduced expressions resembling Chaucer’s into his own writing. The editor refutes the notion that Chaucer copied Gower, comparing such a claim to suggesting Tennyson borrowed from Martin Tupper, and suggests that Chaucer’s displeasure at this borrowing may explain his harsh references to Gower in his revised edition. Gower, who had originally included a complimentary allusion to Chaucer, later suppressed it in his revised copy. The editor quotes Gower’s first edition, where Venus calls Chaucer “my disciple and my poete,” praising his youthful songs and requesting that “upon his later age” he “make his testament of love,” lines dated to 1385, when Gower learned Chaucer was writing the Legend of Good Women, which Venus could claim as a “testament of love” written as “penance” at Cupid’s command.
Shared Sources and Verbal Parallels with Trivet
The editor notes that both poets knew the chronicler Trivet, citing specific instances where Chaucer’s translation of “nekke-bon” corresponds to Trivet’s “haterel,” while Gower omits it, and where Gower mentions Knaresburgh from Trivet, which Chaucer omits. The analysis lists clear verbal parallels where Gower resembles Chaucer rather than Trivet, including phrases about being “stiked at the bord,” the “conseil of the sowdan,” taking action “anon,” the “ship al sterelees,” Hermengild’s love, restoring sight, approaching the bed, accusing Constance, the king’s conversion, the chamber and birth-time, writing back, the same ship, kneeling on the strand, coming to ship, and seeing the wonder.
Manuscript Issues and the Shipman’s Tale
The editor addresses manuscript problems, noting that the Shipman’s Prologue appears in only one manuscript, with Bradshaw proving its correct position follows the Man of Lawes Tale. A spurious twelve-line Shipman’s Prologue was concocted, which the editor reproduces with textual variants and metrical criticism. The Shipman’s Tale itself is similar to Boccaccio’s Decamerone, but Chaucer likely used a French fabliau; its opening uses “us,” “we,” and “our,” showing it was originally intended for the Wyf of Bathe.
The Prioresses Tale and Sir Thopas
The Prioresses Tale’s Proem resembles the Life of Seint Cecile, and the editor discusses Tyrwhitt’s account of legends of children murdered by Jews, including Hugh of Lincoln and various canonized children, noting that a modernised version by Wordsworth is unsatisfactory. Regarding Sir Thopas, Tyrwhitt says it ridicules the “palpable gross” fictions of common Rimers; the editor discusses its burlesque nature, its eight metrical stanza forms, and the typical romance conventions it parodies.
Melibeus, the Monkes Tale, and the Nonne Preestes Tale
Melibeus is identified as a translation of Le Livre de Melibee et de dame Prudence, adapted by Jean de Meun from Albertano of Brescia’s Liber Consolationis et Consilii. The Monkes Tale is modeled on Boccaccio’s De Casibus Virorum Illustrium, with the editor analyzing the grouping of tragedies into six groups, noting that the group with “modern instances” was an afterthought, and discussing the chronological order and sources including the Romaunt of the Rose. The Nonne Preestes Tale is based on Marie de France’s fable and Le Roman du Renart, with the editor including his own translation of Marie’s fable.
Warton’s Assessment of the Squire’s Tale
The editor begins with Warton’s critical assessment of the Squire’s Tale, which judges the Canterbury Tales unequal in merit, with the Knight’s Tale being Chaucer’s noblest composition and the Squire’s Tale deserving next place, being the poem by which Milton characterises Chaucer. Warton identifies the tale’s imagination as “Arabian fiction engrafted on Gothic chivalry,” founded on Arabian learning, and describes Cambuscan, King of Tartary, celebrating his birthday at Sarra when guests are alarmed by a miraculous spectacle.
The Four Magical Gifts
Warton details the four magical gifts from the King of Arabia and India: the Horse of Brass, which transports riders anywhere in twenty-four hours and flies like an eagle; the Mirror of Glass, which reveals future disasters and hidden treasons; the Naked Sword, which pierces impenetrable armour and heals wounds with its edge; and the Ring for Canace, which enables understanding of bird language and plant virtues.
Arabian Sources and Historical Origins
Warton traces these inventions to Arabian sciences: the brass horse to chemical knowledge of metals, citing Jeber’s Lapis Philosophorum; the speaking brazen head to Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Pope Sylvester II, and Albertus Magnus; the mirror to optics, citing Alcen/Alhazen and Vitellio, plus Gower’s description of Virgil’s Roman mirror; the sword to metallurgy and medicine, comparing it to the spear of Peleus and swords in Berni, Ariosto, and Spenser; and the ring to Arabian claims of understanding bird speech since Solomon, citing Balkis and the lapwing Hudhud, plus the story of Alhejaj and the camel-feeder.
The Search for Chaucer’s Specific Source
The editor argues that Warton fails to identify Chaucer’s specific source, suggesting the Arabian Nights and Marco Polo’s travels. Colonel Yule notes “Cambuscan” derives from Chinghiz Khan’s name, and Professor Palmer confirms djenguiz means “great.” The editor compares Chaucer’s descriptions with Marco Polo’s account of Kublai Khan, his palace, birthday feasts, and hunting practices, and discusses the Magic Horse in Cleomades and Claremond, the Arabian Nights, and Cervantes; the Magic Mirror in Prince Ahmed; the Magic Ring in Solomon’s seal-ring; and the Falcon as a metempsychosis figure. The editor dismisses Professor Brandl’s theory that Cambinskan represents Edward III, citing Kittredge’s refutation, and concludes with editorial notes on the Frankeleyn’s words, the Franklin’s Prologue and Tale, tracing the latter to Eastern sources including the Indian Vetála story of Madanasená, and Boccaccio’s version with its altered flower-garden motif.
Main Arguments
The work makes several arguments through its various components. In the Legend of Good Women, the narrator’s dream vision presents a complex meditation on fame and reputation. The dreamer, set down by an eagle, beholds a house of Fame standing on a rock of ice. The rock is engraved with famous folk’s names, but the letters on one side are mostly thawed away, so their fame has become unfamous; the narrator reflects that nothing may last. The other side, facing north, has names as fresh as if written that day, conserved by the shade of a castle. This imagery argues for the fragility of fame and the arbitrary nature of its preservation.
The poem presents Fame as a feminyne creature of variable size, first as small as a cubyte, then stretching so her feet reach the earth and her head touches heaven. She has as many eyes as feathers on birds, and as many up-standing ears and tongues as hairs on beasts. The narrator describes pillars of metal supporting various classical authors: on a pillar of lede and yren stands the Ebrayk Iosephus; on an yren pillar stands Stace of Tholosan; near him stand Omeer, Dares, Tytus, Lollius, Guido de Columpnis, and English Gaufride, all bearing up Troy, though with envy between them, one saying Omere made lies. On a pillar of tinned yren stands Virgyle; on a coper pillar stands Ovyde, Venus’ clerk; on an yren pillar stands daun Lucan; on a soulfre pillar stands Dan Claudian.
The poem argues for the arbitrary nature of fame through a series of companies who petition Fame for boons. She grants some, denies some, and grants others the contrary of their asking, like her sister Fortune. A company of good folk who ask for good fame are denied, with Fame saying no one shall speak of them. Another company of good folk who ask for good fame are granted a shrewed fame and wikked loos, with Eolus blowing Sclaunder light. A third company, having deserved fame rightfully, are granted it, with Eolus blowing Laude, smelling of bawme and roses. A fourth company, few in number, ask to hide their works, having done them for bountee; she grants their asking. A fifth company also asks to hide their good works for contemplacioun; she refuses, calling them wood. A sixth company, having done nothing, ask for fame as if they had done noble gestes; she grants it. A seventh company asks the same; she refuses, calling them masty swyn and ydel wrecches, like the sweynte cat that would have fish but not wet his clowes.
The Treatise on the Astrolabe argues for the practical utility of astronomical knowledge. The propositions provide methods for reckoning hours, determining the sun’s degree, finding meridian altitudes, calculating declinations, and establishing latitude. The treatise presents a systematic approach to using the astrolabe, with each conclusion building on previous ones. The detailed instructions for determining the latitude of Oxford, with specific figures of 51 degrees 50 minutes for the arctic pole’s height, demonstrate the practical application of the instrument.
Key Concepts
The Legend of Good Women introduces several named concepts. Fame herself is a central figure, a feminyne creature with variable size and numerous eyes, ears, and tongues. She acts like her sister Fortune, granting boons arbitrarily. Eolus, god of winde, dwells in Trace in a cave holding the winds. He possesses two clarions: Clere Laude, which smells of bawme and roses when blown, and Sclaundre, a black trumpe of bras that emits smoke and stench. Triton carries the clarions. The house of Fame stands on a rock of ice, with one side thawing and the other conserved by shade. The dwelling is made entirely of beryl stone, with no joints, which makes things seem larger than they are, as is Fame’s nature.
The poem names numerous classical and legendary figures. The narrator hears Orpheus harping, with Orion, Eacides Chiron, and the Bret Glascurion nearby. He sees Atiteris, dan Pseustis of Athens, and Marcia, who lost her skin for envying Apollo’s piping. Trumpeters include Messenus, Ioab, and Theodomas. Magicians and sorceresses include queen Medea, Circes, Calipsa, Hermes Ballenus, Lymote, Simon Magus, and Colle tregetour, who carried a wind-mill under a walsh-note shale. The pillars support Iosephus, Stace, Omeer, Dares, Tytus, Lollius, Guido de Columpnis, English Gaufride, Virgyle, Ovyde, daun Lucan, and Dan Claudian.
The Treatise on the Astrolabe introduces technical concepts. The astrolabe has a border divided into 15 degrees for reckoning equal (clock) hours. The riet and label are movable parts. The almikanteras are circles for measuring altitude. The meridian line runs through the instrument. The equinoxial is the celestial equator, and the arctic pole is the north celestial pole. The zodiac is divided into semicircles from Capricorn’s head to Cancer’s head and back. The treatise distinguishes between the sun’s declination from the equinoxial and planets’ latitudes from the ecliptic line. The latitude of a place is the distance from the zenith to the equinoxial. The treatise provides specific figures for Oxford: the arctic pole’s height from the north horizon is 51 degrees 50 minutes; the zenith from the arctic pole is 38 degrees 10 minutes.
The editorial notes introduce concepts from classical and medieval literature. The editor discusses the Gest Hystoriale translated from Guido, where Achilles slew Hector by treachery, not in fair fight as Homer says. The editor notes that the Latin races declined to accept an account that did not sufficiently praise the Trojans, whom they regarded as ancestors. Geoffrey of Monmouth followed this notion by making Trojans ancestors of the ancient Britons. The editor quotes Dante, who exalts Homer above Horace, Ovid, and Lucan. The editor also discusses the Lapidaire, a source for the stones set in the hall’s walls.
Themes
A recurring theme in the Legend of Good Women is the instability of fame and the fragility of reputation. The rock of ice with names thawing away serves as a powerful image of how memory fades. The narrator reflects that nothing may last, and the arbitrary grants and denials of Fame reinforce the sense that reputation is not tied to merit. The contrast between the thawing south side and the conserved north side suggests that fame depends on circumstances beyond individual control. The beryl walls that make things seem larger than they are indicate that fame inherently distorts.
The poem also explores the relationship between truth and falsehood in the preservation of fame. The authors bearing up Troy quarrel among themselves, with one saying Omere made lies. The editor’s notes elaborate on this theme, discussing how Guido asserts Achilles slew Hector by treachery, not in fair fight as Homer says, and how the Latin races declined to accept an account that did not sufficiently praise the Trojans. The editor notes that Homer’s iron is “admirably represented as having been by Virgil covered over with tin,” suggesting layers of embellishment and distortion in literary tradition.
The theme of judgment and reward appears in the series of companies petitioning Fame. The poem questions whether good works receive recognition, as the first company of good folk are denied fame entirely, while the sixth company, having done nothing, are granted fame as if they had done noble gestes. The seventh company, asking the same, are refused and called masty swyn and ydel wrecches. This arbitrary distribution of reward suggests a critique of worldly judgment. The narrator pities the second company, shamed gilteles, indicating sympathy for the undeserving punished.
The Treatise on the Astrolabe embodies a theme of ordered knowledge and systematic understanding. The propositions build logically, each conclusion depending on previous ones. The treatise presents the cosmos as knowable and measurable, with specific figures for latitudes and declinations. This contrasts with the arbitrary world of Fame, suggesting a realm where cause and effect operate reliably. The detailed instructions for proving latitude by the arctic pole’s height demonstrate a commitment to empirical verification.
The editorial commentary introduces themes of literary influence and borrowing. The discussion of Chaucer and Gower’s relationship raises questions about originality and imitation in medieval literature. The editor’s argument that Gower borrowed from Chaucer, rather than the reverse, and Chaucer’s possible displeasure at this borrowing, suggests the importance of authorial ownership even in a period often characterized by anonymous transmission. The editor’s comparison of Lücke’s error to suggesting Tennyson borrowed from Martin Tupper indicates a concern with proper attribution and the evaluation of literary debts.
The Author’s Conclusions
The Legend of Good Women concludes with the narrator’s dream vision reaching its end. The final companies have petitioned Fame, and the narrator has observed the arbitrary distribution of renown. The poem does not resolve the tension between merit and reputation; instead, it leaves the reader with the image of Fame’s capricious judgments. The narrator’s pity for the shamed gilteles suggests a moral stance, but the poem offers no systematic solution to the problem of unjust reputation.
The Treatise on the Astrolabe concludes with practical instructions for using the instrument. The final propositions provide methods for determining the latitude of a place, with detailed procedures for proving latitude by the arctic pole’s height. The treatise ends with the technical demonstration of how to measure the pole’s elevation, completing the systematic presentation of astronomical knowledge. The conclusion is practical and procedural, offering the reader the tools to make their own observations.
The editorial notes conclude with commentary on the Squire’s Tale and the Franklin’s Tale. The editor discusses Warton’s assessment of the Squire’s Tale as deserving next place after the Knight’s Tale, and the tale’s “Arabian fiction engrafted on Gothic chivalry.” The editor traces the tale’s sources to the Arabian Nights and Marco Polo’s travels, comparing Chaucer’s descriptions with Polo’s account of Kublai Khan. The editor dismisses Brandl’s theory that Cambinskan represents Edward III, citing Kittredge’s refutation. The passage concludes with editorial notes on the Frankeleyn’s words, the Franklin’s Prologue and Tale, tracing the latter to Eastern sources including the Indian Vetála story of Madanasená, and Boccaccio’s version with its altered flower-garden motif.
Significance
This edition represents a significant contribution to Chaucer scholarship. The editor’s detailed textual criticism, with careful collation of manuscripts and discussion of variants, demonstrates the state of nineteenth-century editorial practice. The editor’s engagement with previous scholars, including Tyrwhitt, Bell, Lücke, Bradshaw, Warton, and Kittredge, situates this work within an ongoing scholarly conversation. The editor’s arguments about the Chaucer-Gower relationship, including the dating of Gower’s lines to 1385 and the suggestion that Chaucer’s harsh references to Gower in his revised edition stem from Gower’s borrowing, offer a specific interpretation of literary history.
The edition’s treatment of sources is particularly valuable. The editor traces the Shipman’s Tale to a French fabliau rather than Boccaccio, identifies Melibeus as a translation of Jean de Meun’s adaptation of Albertano of Brescia, and models the Monkes Tale on Boccaccio’s De Casibus Virorum Illustrium. The extensive discussion of the Squire’s Tale sources, including the Arabian Nights, Marco Polo, and various magical objects in European literature, demonstrates the wide-ranging learning brought to bear on Chaucer’s texts. The editor’s dismissal of Brandl’s allegorical reading of Cambinskan as Edward III, citing Kittredge’s refutation, shows a commitment to textual evidence over speculative interpretation.
The inclusion of the Treatise on the Astrolabe alongside the literary works highlights the range of Chaucer’s interests and output. The technical treatise, with its precise instructions for astronomical calculation, contrasts with the dream-vision poetry of the Legend of Good Women. The edition thus presents Chaucer as both a poet and a scientific writer, a figure engaged with the full intellectual range of his age. The specific figures for Oxford’s latitude, 51 degrees 50 minutes, ground the treatise in a particular time and place, connecting the abstract science to the practical needs of a specific community.
