New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-06
THE ROMANCE OF THE ROSE
DISCUSSION OF THE CHAUCERIAN AU-
THORSHIP

DISCUSSION OF THE CHAUCERIAN AU-
THORSHIP
In the columns of The Manchester England
Guardian" there has of late been going on a
further discussion of the Chaucerian authorship
of the Romance of the Rose" 1t sprang up
in consequence of a notice which appeared in
that journal of the first volume Of Professor
Skeats new edition of Chaucer. The reviewer,
while commencing the work highly, took excep-
ton to the editors attitude toward the transa-
ton of the Roman de In Rose" which occupies
a good share of this first volume. THE other
fresh piece of work" he wrote. is upon the
translated fragments. the ROmaunt OF the Rose
Great labor has been spent the making of a
good text and full notes, and the original French
Is printed below that part Of the version which
the editor now holds to be by Chaucer. Five or six
years ago he denied any Of it to be by Chaucer;
but now. convinced by DR.. Kaluza that his de-
structive arguments do not apply to the first
LOS lines of 1t (Which constitute. says Dr. Kausa,
the first of three distinct fragments). he &C
cepts these l.7O5 lines-but those ony-as
Chaucer's translation. Professor Skeat gives his
for thinking thus. but we fail 10 under
stand why he should pass in silence nor
mas he. believe. dealt at large with II any
where else) that remarkable and learned plea for
the Chauceran authorship Of the whole version
which Professor Lounsbury published in 1892. a
man cannot ignore that plea, on which vast re-
search was expended. without falling into the
of the controversy. Professor Skeats new
conclusions will doubtless themselves receive
from some expert that scrutiny, In the light OF
Professor Lounsbury's arguments. for which
they certainly call. We think. in any case, that
in an edition intended to be classical the chief
u-rit subject Of this kind
should be plainly named and Judged. whether
the editor agrees with them or not"
In the issue Of March Professor Skeat makes
a reply to the charge contained In the above
notice. in the following letter:
PROFESSOR SKEATS LETTER.
To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian.
SIR: May | explain certain matter 10 whlch
reference is made In your very kind notice OF my
now edition Of Chaucer which appeared IN me
Manchester Guardian" of February q? 1t IL
there said that "a man cannot ignore the ~
markablc and learned plea for the Chaucerlan
authorship OF the whole # the three fragments
of the "Romaunt OF the Rps' published ny lro-
fessor Iounsbury without falling into the rear
of the controversy" I have not ignored 1t, for
have proved that at least Fragment B was not
written by the author OF Fragment a. II thlS
he So the plea referred To becomes Naue!ess
But besides this. have shown. In several letters
in The Academy" that Professor L"unspuiS
has made such serious mistakes Inc MS estimate
of Chaucerian grammar that his arguments are
practically untrustworthy from a linguistic point
Of view.
versv his arguments have been almost COM
pleiclv DESTROYED by Professor ktircdge. ~ liar-
ward college in studies and Notes IN fh''i'Sy
and Literature" published at harvard III ~
As Professor Iounsbury has never answered
these attacks but. TO the best OF my behe'' 49,
quiesces in their results puiposeS rciIali,' !
from cumbcring my pages with an account o'
Nv sixth volume will contain en- index 70 The
articles and works by Professor Ten BFlhk' ITO
fcssor L0uusbury and others .,., .
hog leave 10 express my sense ot graNtulc
N Professor Iounsburv's studies In 'hau'tr
rom which have derived many excellent hih'S
and references lie was unfortunate IN ms a't -
80. - ,ha "R0maunt OF the Rose ana IN MS
attacks upon Chauccr's grammar ana RHYMES =
huf I'm ali other respects he has rendered l"por-
tant service . -.
ac,i,, fallen into the rear II the controversy"
on the contrary. give the very latest f,ru'. =
"a - 49,. &c WALTER ". SKEAT.
,. tho ,s.ue q, March the reviewer replied
:, tho letter Of Professor skcat He withirew'
4, consequence OF the editors explanation me
assertion that he had fallen into the rear Of the
oo,,roversv. but he insisted that the coniro-
,..-sv was by no means closed and reiterated
b,s nrav,ous remark that the EDITORS silence
rr,, the subject OF Professor 1,ounsbury's argu-
mon, was unwarranted while mentioning the
,-.u,s 81 Lindncr. Kauza. and his own former
oc,ni,n. and that II was hazardous t. assume.
,nl.s. ihe assertion was founded ON private
l,rovl.dr. that because Professor Loun~oury
had been silent under attack FOR over year
ne gave NJ his argument 80 FAR aS thlS
last point IS concerned. II IS settled definitely Dy
Professor Lounsbury himself I'm IN" following
letter contained I'm the issue ~ The Manchester
Guardian" 81 April is. which has Just come To
hand:
PROFESSOR LO,'Nsm'RY's REJOGNpER
r. the Editor Of Th,. Manchester Guardian.
sir Permit me 10 express e. You M t"ilhs
for volr courtesy in forwarding me COPY OF
vour issue Of March >. containing the letter
Of Professor Skcat FROM 'hlS IIl.. "a 80
a good deal 10 my as,onishW"nt' mat my M
ruisIic argument In regard to the authorship
Of the "EDrnance of the Rose has been 'n'r'-
uallv disposed of 10y Professor Skrat hlulseI III
tw, or fhree letters To- The Academy, whlie
he fratcrnally relcgates the demolition oi my III
rrarv argument 10 Professor Kittredgc In "The
Harvard studies certainly hasr 10 ",'.'
10 interfere with any temporary eNchhhte al III
tornafi,ual CONGRATULATIONS that may b, going
ON between the champions of the npn-Chau-
ceran authorship Of the Romance OF me
Rose" Your reviewer was, however. perfectly
correct In his inference that my silence on ihc
subject since the publication " my own mono
graph was not due In the slightest I" any con
currencc with the latest oi Professor SUI >
theories II was owing In some degree 10 my
desire. 10 see everything that could or would ne
said upon this veXcd question before suDJectlnS
the work To- "A renewed examination, but NANNY
10 the fact that have been possessed OF but
very scanty leisure. Even the little nave
is mortgaged for some time 10 come by duties
that cannot be delayed evaded sun, as my
silence has been misinterpreted. VIII say here
that IL has been. and is. my expectation 10 take
up again. soon as my engagements Will per
nit the examination " the Romance OF the
Rose" and discuss It's authorship In the light of
everything that has since been written upon the
subject. 49,
| have never disguised the difficulties that be-
set the consideration OF the authorship OF the
work In question. II ! can judge fairly OF my
own position. II Is to ascertain the exact truth
I'm the matter. and not 10 contend Tor the trl-