New-York tribune., 1891-12-16


fame by attrbuting 10 him fabulous learning.
Various details We're added to the meagre knowl-
edge Of his life. His humble origin was forgotten.
his relations to the Government were misnter-
pretcd, he was no longer allowed to claim London
as his birthplace and his learning was accounted
for in way to crafty the adherents Of the uni
versities. II more than a century after his
death before the first pretence was made to write
his biography. In the short account Of Leland
Chaucer appeared as q man OF noble birth, edu-
Gated at Oxford and sent forth into the world
an acute logician, a delightful orator. an ele-
CANT poet, profound philosopher, an able
mathematician, and devout theologian, ana
finally polished with all the graces of literature
and society in France. A subsequent biographer
made Chaucer's father a knight, and raised the
poet to the rank. A similar process went
on with regard 10 the poets works, until hnalIy
he was in "a fair way 20 be credited with every
thing, whether prose or verse, that appeared TO
date from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
for which no other author happened to be known.
When his writings came to he printed IT was
the pet ambition of antiquarian collectors TO add
in every edition something that had not been
known or had been rejected before. In the times
Of the Reformation and Of puritanism. when a
devout theOlogan' was worth regiment OF poets.
the assertion of Leland and the biting satire with
which Chaucer attacked the vices Of the monks
and friars suficed to invest him with
the character of an ardent controversialist,
an opponent of the Roman Church, and an ad-
herent Of Wiclif. Doubtless this increment in
his fame would have surprised the easy-going poet
more than all the rest. Nothing could have been
further from his disposition than controversy.
He was in his critical temper and in his impair
tioJ and uralt
toward every question, whether religious or social
that he approached, far more like Erasmus than
like Luther His satire on the monks was SO
much kecner for having no ulterior purpose like
that of the Reformers. The men who were most
deeply wounded hardly felt the blow His weapon
was like that famous sword with which Wieland
Glove his enemy The latter merely felt as II an
ice-cold stream Of water had flowed down MS
body, but when he shook himself he fell to pieces
The Puritans were right in feeling gratitude ana
admiration toward Chaucer. Their mistake was
in enrolling him partisan.
After all these came an era in which men no
longer understood the language or the verse OF
Chaucer There will always be found men In
numbers ready TO attempt exactly those thlnes
which they are untitled to do and so this era Oh
ignorance was of all times the one when limitations
of Chaucer fiourished. To those peopie
Chaucer's verse was no longer musical. Ills
text was corrupt in almost every respect Vhae
errors of copyiSts and printers could corrupt IT,
But all these mistakes were supposed 10 DE 'he
virtues of the poet himself If his verse was not
molodious if was because of the ruggedness of
antiouitv. and it was therefore the privilege OF
English poetry to be rough and the duty or
the English poet to make it 50. AS against these
cratic PERSONS Dryden set a good example
hv translating the ancient poet INTO
the artificial forms of the eighteenth century
If the people did not learn much OF the
real Chaucer by this method, they learned much
about him that they would otherwise never nave
known For example, they learned that no man
knew better than he how to tell good story.
Naturally at last there came a revulsion against
these legendary and corrupting tendencies Inc
question was asked, What was the real truth about
Cbaucer and what is there in all this mass OF
material which actually owed to him its author
shin? Professor Lounsbury praises Tyrwhitt as the
man who made the first adequate effort to answer
this question. and he demoishes the claim tn
superior learning, tactly, if not expressly, set up
by Thomas Wright whose criticisms of Tyrwmtt
were invariably marked ny somewhat rancorous
spirit. But from Tyrwhtt's time the movement
in general has been directed toward the purlhca-
tion of Chaucer's text, and the clear dlscrlmlna-
tion between what is known respecting MS
life and what is onT matter OF tradition
and conjecture In fact. the effort TO eN-
clude from the works of Chaucer everything which
was written by Others has, in Professor Louns-
bury's opinion, gone too far. lie makes an
elaborate argument for the genuincness of the
" Romance of the Rose" which must be considered
whether its conclusions are universally accepted
or nOt-a masterpiece Of metbOdlcal CRITICISM
This work. as il has descended 10 modern times.
is as far as it goes. a singularly fel1cltous ana
accurate translation Of the French poem which
has the same title. But it consists of two widely
senarated fragments This division into two
parts. and the general doubt on the subject, leave
room for great diversity of opinion in regard to
the origin of the work. II may be held to be
wholly Chauccrs own, it may be wholly denied
to him; he may be credited with the first part or
the second part, or it may be supposed that the
work was done under his supervision by some one
we'll acquainted with his style. All, or nearly
all these hypothesis have been maintained.
Professor Skeat. the strongest opponent Of the
renuineness of the poem, drew up very
systematic array of reasons, chiefly relating u
dialect, pronunciation and syntaX, which he con-
sidered conclusive. Professor Lounsbury ignores
none Of these arguments. To the general reader.
however, the considerations which will appeal most
forcibly are the fact recorded by Chaucer HIM
self and his contemporaries that he made a
translation of this particular French poem. the
fact that throughout his known writings the in
fuence Of the original was obvious, and that
the translation which we now have is in every
sense worthy of his PEN If its genuineness be
denied the adverse critic must then sustain the
highly improbable thesis that two translations of
equal merit were made in the same age by two
different poets, one of whom was rising man
Of genius whose fame soon overtopped that Of all
other writers in his time, while the other was a
man unknown in his own day, and utterly beyond
Identification now: and worst of all that the
poem written by the man whom all England
knew disappeared at and forever, whereas
The poem written by the unknown copied