New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-06
cursorv comments npon individual facts and ex-

CuTSOTS comments upon ln0lNluutt ldNNS an" ~
amples.
had not purpOsed until my own re-examina-
tion OF the poem was completed. 10 make any
reply to the attack on my literary arguhe,n ~,
but as my silence seems here also to have I'M
posed upon Professor Skcat | beg leave 70 Tres
pass sufficiently far upon the hospitality OF your
columns to state briefly. even If Of necessity I'M I'M
perfectly. what was the exact nature oI ms
argument and to indicate the character ara tN-
tent OF the havoc announced as wrought 81 II ~
the article In The Harvard Studies. Ny Hd'h
argument was that certain words and phrases
and methods Of expression, and furtherHore' d
tendency to repeat his own lines. were plaIhIy
marked characteristics OF Chaucer's style. lney
occur with more or less Of frequency ana Win
a certain degree of regularity in all ms known
writings, varying Of course. To some event WIN
the subject. For almost all the WO!uS anu
phrases and me thOds Of expression ci'ed ana 10.
a very large proportion Of the lines there was NOT
the slightest pretence put forth thai tney VIZ
limited 10 Chaucer or that they originated Win
him / then x on to show that the same chdI-
acteristcs Of phrase and expression ana lines
the examples of various kinds running up into
the hundrcds-occur also In the HohahCe 81 nv
Rose" and with about the same degree on IT.
Quency As the writings compared are SenrrdllE
conceded 10 he contemporary, the natural INFER
ence is that both the production al tne sdlle
author. especially when mat author Is KNOWN
from other sources 10 hay" written II WoIN WI"
the same title a the in dispute.
It is obvious that the only way IN when tnis
argument can be demolished on the literary slae
is TO show that between any two WRITINGS Oh 'i'e
same period known t. have come from different
preston If not so numerous, at least somewhat
approaching the number found to exist between
the Romance Of the Rose ana the VIKINGS 81
Chaucer Is anything Of the KIND done IN thc
article IT, The Harvard Studies| Has Proies-
sor Kittredge pointed out any such series "
parallesms between Chaucer on the one sac ana
Cover Barbour or any possible contemporary
on the other The answer Is. He has not even
attempted to do It. Furthermore has ne SHOWN
any such resemblanceS between any TWO VIII
ings Of any period whatever. known from o'hei
rp1 ID have from inherent duAh'iH
The answer IS again. He has not even attempted
II. Has he. in fact. shown similar resenD3lces
even remotely on the scale here eNhiplted pe-
tween writings produced in different PERIODS
which I'm the case Of an imitation might De a
possibility He has not even attempted inft;
The literary argument was not really attacked
at ali IN any important point 1t would be I'M
tust to say that it Intentionally aVolded'
the difficulty is that plain as 1t was 1t was not
pretended
What then has Professor Kittredge done that
has misled Professor Skeat into making tle
statement he did in your columns? ~ sred,
expenditure of time and labor ne mas BdlHe'''
from the whole % early English literature COZ
lection Of phrases and expressions the same or
similar - those | have exhibited as found po'h
In the writings OF Chaucer and In the 'lto'nance
Of the Rose" They have been brought To-
gether from periods the most remote, from ai-
thors the most unlike. work belonging 10
one century would furnish on" or more 4"uS'"
tons. another work belonging 10 another cen
fury would furnish the same or other illustra-
tons In the anxiety 10 make out case eN-
later than Chaucer Even The Court OF
Love" largely an imitation Of the poet ana
Astounding I'm his words and phrases. was. singu-
larry enough. pressed into service. But not IN
a single instance was 1t shown that the works of
any two contemporary authors q any period. or
even particular works - different periods. fur-
nished parlllclisns ~ the Kind and extent which
! have. shown ~ exist between ChauccTs writings
md the Romance ~ ~ Rose. And whch,
after assuming AL those favorable CONDITIONS
similar examples could not BE- found. the ones
frtIIr al rrfafes sod a M
monpace or trivial or We're explained as liin'd,
tons whether ~ Chaucer or by Chaucer Is. l
believe not specified am very far from adj
hitting e.. but fpr Tho time b Ing VIII Tor the
sake 81 the argument concedc here that I'm the
article in The Harvard studies there
have been gathered together from tho scattered
projections = the Who'll" - the carly English
period parallel passages. or what can be- made -
O., duty FOR such for every instance ID! resein-
blancr ! have pointed out between the Writings
~ Chauccr AMI the Romance of the Rose.
This IS certainly as much as Professor Skcat
can ask and more than Professor kittredge
would claim But even were this fact II
would not meet the argument II would not
account for the vast number on resemblances
existing between two contemporary works as
coming from two different authors. and the es-
s"nually uniform recurrence ~ these resent
tlanccs IN each. The collection OF examples that
has been made undoubtedly evinces a most COM
mcndable Industry the part OF the compiler.
but Il evlnc"s equally 4 failure - understand
the argument sought 10 be overthrown. In this
inability 20 comprehend r. Professor Skeat So ms
:, SHARE Th- clerk ~ oxford. Chaucer tells
us. unto logik haide lonye igo" II f. 10 be
feared that logic is a subject which has not Of
late engaged the attention II the Clerk "f cam
bridge either in the Oh or ID" New England
80 one Yields 20 me In ny respect FOR the cini-
ncut services oc Prof, -sor Skcat. and II Is a
sourc" ~ personal regret that cannot always
hold hts cpuriusi us in the same estimation
which have flr hi- kuoWi' lge. hts labors and
his zeal Accordingly. ass silence seems. IN
his eyes tD mean assent. beg leave t.
express hcGr my utter disbelief I'm the dual
authorship ~ thc Romance of the Rose,
and still more I'm the additional absurd
lily 80 triple authorship. one can under
stand such view originating with foreigners.
and finding ardent advocates among them But
the adoption u a. I'm the ia OF direct and posi-
UN. proof. by any one To- whom English r.
naive tongue docs NOS indeed. presuppose the
Ia * II the literary sense. but IL does Imply, IL
seems 20 mo. It's partal paralysis, or most UNI
ninchng determination 20 max" the least pos
sibic Us" II IL In this particular invcstigiuon. l
am etc. T. K. LptNSBCRf.
Vale University. Ncw-liayen. L. 5 y. March
9S 1894
FRTCE or MEIT DrEfNG THE SIEGE or PiETS