New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-02-24


effect had ever been made ! could of course have
come upon the knowledge Of the truth by acct
dent As a matter of fact. it cost me some pains
in examining the old French chronicles IN order
TO ascertain it, and thereby correct the error OF
previous biographers. Professor Skeat concurs In
the results | reached. He remembers to record
the information communicated. He remembers
to forget the person who communicated it,
The other example IL concerned with the emen-
dation of the text. In the PARLIAMENT OF Fowls
in all modern editions occur. in the description
given of the various birds. the following lines:
The swallow, mordrer Of the bees smale.
That maken honey of flowers fresh Of hew.
Bees however is not found in a single manu-
script Eleven of the thirteen printed read foricS
ard one its equivalent. briddcs, that u.s. birds
To represent the swallow the murderer OF
birds which birds also make honey. was almost
aggressvely absurd. and in spite Of the weight OF
authority in favor of the reading. was manifestly
incorrect. The single remaining manuscript read
fycs. "fies." That also the word found IN
the earlier black-letter editions till the folio or
1851 Than and there bees was substituted in its
place. Though the genu;neness Of bees was MADE
suspicious on literary grounds by the addition In
the line following of the somewhat unnecessar!
information that they We're in the habit of making
honey. the word accepted and remained IN
all subsequent editions. For instance. In 1871
Professor Skeat brought out volume containing
the minor Poems" in which the "Parliament OF
Fowls was included In 1t he adhered to the
reading which ad been in use since lool. lie
appended indeed. to the line containing IL the
following foot-note: Bees must he right pu'
there is no authority for It except that OF the
black-etter editions: thus. ed lo0l mas heeS'
Here again | pointed out in my studies IN Chau-
GER (vo L.. p. 243) that bees was certainly WRONG
as we'll as unauthorized; that the reading FV'S
of the earlier black-etter editions was correct
and to prove 1t quoted two passages from Chaucer
himself-one from the Parsons tale and the other
from the translation of Boethus-to the enec'
that bees were then called flies which made
honey In Professor Skeats present edition F"S
now makes its appearance but with nothing De-
vond the mere assurance that it is 1.-The right
reading" and the brefest Of references follows
to the same passages | had already quoted
Far be il from me. of course. TO insinuate that
Professor skeats knowledge of the facts have
inst mentioned or Of others could mention, was
derived from me- They were presumably among
those instances in which he says. he found IL
less troublesome consult original authorities Tor
himself than to hunt up what others have said
relative to the passage under consideration. sui
his silence in regard to any connection of mine
with facts which the first TO note or views
which | was the first to put forth naturally
forces itself upon my attention when contrasted
with the fairly ELUSIVE way in which ne ac-
knowledges his obligations 10 Teutonic scholars
Take for illusra ton the old point OF the aitera-
ton without the slightest authority. Of yfIR' to
ernie in the Book Of the Duchess "of the
restoration Of this line" he writes. II should have
had some reason to be proud; but find that Ten
Brink (who seems to miss nothing has antici-
pated me-" My own personal opinion In TINS
case is that Professor Skeat would have been
justified in feeling much prouder If he had re-
Trained from making any emendation at all, ana
had contented himself with leaving the text as
according TO all existing authorities. Chaucer
wrote it.
At bottom however these are matters OF little
importance. and in his later volumes Professor
Skeat has given all the credit could ask,
and very likely more than l deserve. The honor
of prioritv in discovering fact sure to be dis
covered and OF making an emendation certain
some time TO be made is not. In truth. Of kind
about which one need feel any undue exaltation.
So long as the right result is reached. ii matters
comparatively little by what means or through
whose agency Il is reached. There are far graNer
defects than these. which hinder this work from
being regarded an ideal edition OF Chaucer'
though they must not be construed INTO dehiai
Of it's general excellence. still it would be I'M
proper in expressing critical Judgment To pass
them over in silence Unfair 1t would obviously
be to dwell on little oversights and occasional IN
accuraces in matters Of no essential Importance
Several Of these have noted; but lapscs OF such
a kind are almost inevitable in work Of this
magnitude. in which II is practically Impossible
to keep the attention constantly fixed upon points
do 81
from the real value Of what has been accom-
plished and indeed 1t Is rarely that 1t miseads.
The faults to which attention is now to BE- called
are either such as characterize the general treat
ment or are the results Of views deliberately
adopted and zealously maintained
I have said elsewhere that for the editing OF
Chaucer there is not demanded merely the special
learning OF the grammarian, or the general learn
ing Of the scholar, but even in a higher degree
the cultivated taste Of the man Of letters. 1t was
the possession Of this last qualification which
gave Tyrwhitt his prominence and renders his
opinions as editor still necessary TO he con-
sdered in spite OF the vast advance which Eng
lish scholarship has made since his time. 1t is In
this last qualification that Professor Skeat most
signaly fails. On the literary side he is az weak
as on the linguistic side he is strong. This may
seem a hard saying to utter OF man who began
his career as an author by making a translation-
and by means a bad translation
OF poems Of INLAND. and who to this very day oc-
casionay drops into verse in the columns Of the
London weekles 1t is probable that the absorb
ing attention paid to linguistic detail has to some
extent impaired 1t often does, literary appre-
citation. That such at any rate has been the re-
suit il Is not likely that any one who considers
the examples &c be furnished will be disposed TO
deny BEFORE giving these however IL is desra-
BILE to bring out prominently general tendency
which is Just now characterizing the study Of
Chaucer.
No student of literary history is likely to forget
how Shakespeare edi,ed in the last century.
From Pope to Stevens. and even later his lines
were put through all manner Of managing proc
esses 10 cnmnel them 70 conform 20 The mndcls