New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-03

Clarendon PRESS. 1871 NV
York Macmillan & CO.
II would be no difficult matter to 60 on ana aud
to,itho examples given in the previous notice a
number Of others in which the editor mas el'her
failed TO comprehend the exact sense or has
maid insufficient attention to its proper express
sion. But the task would not only be an I'M
pracious one il would necessarily tend to convey
al entirely wrong impression as to the real char-
acter Of the work under review The value OF an
edition Of this kind is determined not by the
existence OF occasional oversights or OF few posi-
tive errors but by the presence OF numerous en-
cellencies In these it abounds FROM the Ho
ment Professor Skeat escapes from the trahihei'
~ views IN which he has committed himself and
o,yss free nlav 70 his natural fairness and sanity
OF view there is comparatively little ne says Va
does which cannot be safely accepted ana trust
ed Fortunately also Chaucer Is so clear "rl'er
that when the manuscripts are suhhien' ana sat
sfactory the text rarely presents any o'her u'ii-
culties than those with which the present eoi'oi
Is specially fitted to deal 1t is right to repeat
this remark here. because in cr1ucislns 'ie VoH-
tents Of the various volumes there will be fire.
ouent occasion to dissent from Professor SKea'
conclusions Attention also must Of necessity be
largely called To points wherein the WORK seems
defective With this preliminary warning pro-
coed IN the consideration of the various volumes
IN the order of their publication. They have been
coming out AT regular intervals during the past
vasr and the work is now finished with the pub
LEGATION Of the sixth. which has just made its
appearance.
One thing in the first volume is worthy Of pecu
lar commentator. This is the method OF narrat-
ing the little knowledge we possess OF the poets
career. Professor Skeat has not attempted the
impossible task Of writing regular biography OF
Chaucer. He has arranged all the ascertalned
details about him in the form Of annals. the
events of each year being put under the partcu-
lar year in which they occurred In work de-
signed primarily for the special student, this
would be undeniably the best course but in the
case of Chaucer it is the best for the general
reader There may have been and very likely
was much did We know 1t, in the stirring life the
poet led TO make an account of his career en-
Pertaining and even exciting; but none of the
details that would have lent animation 10 the
page have come down to our times. Chaucer it
must be remembered. did not belong TO life-writ-
ing days like ours, when candor has assumed the
place Of hero-worship and everybody feels justi-
fed and even gratifed in giving all the facts
agreeable or dsagreeable. he has discovered about
the victim Of his biography. On the contrary
when he fourished there was nothing told Of
anybody. A sort OF fOg, IN consequence HdHsS
over his career as dense as any that has ever
descended upon the city wherein so much of his
life was spent The few incidents that loom up
occasionally, like headands through the mist. are
no, due to the recollectons Of friends or admirers.
but TO tn, juiceless entries of official documents.
As such they are not merely disconnected they
throw little certain light upon his character To
gather and arrange in the form of annals the
hat collected
satisfactory way Of treating subject Of which
our knowledge is too scanty to impart to 1t con-
tinuous and connected interest. The task which
Professor Skeat set before himself in this matter
has n general been executed with thoroughness
and care.
The rest Of this first volume is taken up with
the Minor Poems" strictly so-called. and with
the translation Of the Roman de la Rose. OF
the former it is hardly necessary to say more
than that with the exception Of his own previous
publication this is the first time that these poems
have been presented to the reader in thorough
" satisfactory form. The principal difference
between this and his previous edition is the inser-
ton OF a new and undoubtedly genuine piece dis
covered by the editor himself; the transference
from the doubtful list to the certain Of the Com
pleint to his Lady; and on the other hand
the RELOCATION 10 the doubtful list from the GER
tain OF the bdlldde Against w omen CnConStdHt
In both cases the wisdom Of second thought is
manifest for there can be as little question that
the one poem is the production of Chaucer that
the other is not.
A large share Of this first volume is taken up
with the Romance Of the Rose" 1t is neither
he time the place here to fight over the old
battle of the genuineness Of the translation. Tn.
most that can be attempted is 10 make few
general observations. Professor Skeat. ike his
fellow believers forgets or rather fails TO that
the Romance of the Rose stands on an entirely
different footing from all the other doubtful
works There is question that Chaucer made
translation Of the French poem. There is no
question that translation has come down to US
with his name attached to it from the time 1t
first appeared print. There is no question
that the translation which has come down Is in
no sense unworthy Of his powers that 1t ex-
libits his peculiarties OF style and dictiOn, and
that there is no other known contemporary au-
thor who had the ability TO produce it, The bur
len Of proof is therefore upon him who denies its
yenuineness. not upon him who maintains IT, The
former cannot rest with merely considering the
iifficulties that lie in the way OF its being Chau-
,ers; he has also to consider the more serious
difficulties that lie in the way Of its not being
chaucer's. This is view either entirely over
looked or airily set aside by those VINO choose
% regard it az spurious They differ immensely
N degree indeed. but they do not differ in kind
from the men who have committed themselves to
he supreme literary absurdity of modern times.
The Baconian authorship OF Shakspeares plays.
These last calmly ignore, perhaps 1t would
De better to say are contentedly ignorant Of the
immense mass Of evidence opposed to their theory
and spend their time in cavilling about details
wh IN ShakS-
oeare's authorship of the dramas that go under
lis name The treatment Of this translation by
those who reject its genuineness is essentially Of
ne same nature. however different in degree The
positive arguments In favor of it's being the
work Of Chaucer never really met. Usually
they not even comprehended. Least Of all
IAN they be controversial by ASSUMPTIONS and as