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

Z -, ,bo humble instrument OF relieving his
} noros Of two OF these unfang tests upon which
no had So confidently relied one OF them-that
+ If yocabuIa ry-took up rs much space as all the
! rest put together. It is now conspicuous by its
| absence So. in truth Are number Of eX-
| an,plcs of various kinds belonging 10 MS other
| tests which | had shown to be founded upon
error Naturally no comment is made upon these
;. withdrawals Of his previous statements. though
! Professor Skeat assures US that the only weak
point in his original argument was that ne then
| oore,aored The translation as being Inc work OF
but one author
| This leads US to the latest result at which
scholarship working independently of literature
has succeeded In arriving Since his first d.s-
cided pronouncement on the genuineness OF the
| Romance of the Rose Professor Skeats views
have gone through a series of changes fHs'
came DIR Iindner and insisted that the trans
| lation was the work of two hands. rms we"
Professor Skeat accepted unhes.tatingE ana III
once Consequently we had a poem consisting
| of two fragments named A and Il. Next came
DR. Kaluza and showed Fragment y TO pe '"e
| work Of two authors The first part Oh IT, oo"-
sisting OF 1905 lines. he attributed To Chau'ei
| This view Professor Skeat row accepts. Hence
| Fragment 4 has become Fragments anu H. an"
the previ ous fragment p is now named Fragment
I.
translation Of the French poem in three parts
each of which is in Professor Skcats OPINION inc
work of q different author. though To those VINO
| have no sense Of the foIce and significance Oh
! such arguments as philologN readily 7upPH'S'
| these three parts seem unquesiionahE To n'Ne
been the production Of but one man As YET "'
third German scholar has presented h'hSeH -
! divide the poem still further; hut MS COMING -
as inevitable the process of the suns III i"C''
,bere &c even now an opening for him ready
made The first reason that Professor Hke''
! gives for the spurousness OF the present fr"e
ment Il is the greater diffuseness of the tiaiiSa-
ton in this part, while in y ana l the version
,,,ns nearlv line for line But this same fact Of
closeness Of rendering is true Of the earliest part
Of tho assumed spurious Fragment b. For in
stance line LOO Of the translation corresponds
to line 1872 Vt the original. Line lSoj OF the
! translation corresponds 10 line LA OF the org
| inal Consequently the first hundred lines oi
FRAGMENT y are o. sentlally a line for line vers on
| 100 lines 6. the French being rendered by lo2 II
| English This is exactly the proportion OF inc
| concededlv genuine Fragment \. similar state
| Of things can be found In the next hundred INES
though in them it is evident, what Is true oil oth'r
parts Of the whole version. that we do not nave
| in all cases the text which the translator iol-
| lowed 1t is not TIL we get further on tha' the
! dffuseness of tho so-called Fragment Is shows IL
self Here is ample reason for still further oiNIu-
ING the poen and bringing in a fourth writer, and
II will be a lingustio scandal If 1t is not i'm
proved
II may be added that there is difference "i
opinion among those who insist that the trans
| lation is rot the work of ChauCer alone. Pro-
fessor Kaluza accepts as genuine fragments \
and C and throws gu, Fragment b. Professor
! I'D brpt, ont
ment p: but his attitude towards Fragment
NAV be best described that of chastened eN-
pectation while waiting for further tiines from
GERMANY He argues against It in his preface
but in the notes there l. percepdble trace 81
weakness Part g" he there says. IS con-
siderably better than Part T. and apr "a hes
much nearer to Chaucer's style; indeed, lT.
| Kaluza accepts IT as genuine. but am not my
self (us pcD fully convinced upon this poln'. tn
| italics mine.
| But now follows something much more surpris-
! ing In this first volume Professor Skeat had In
! his own opinion annihilated the Chaurtflan
| authorship Of the Romance 90 the Rose. with
| the exception Of Fragment y. There may nave
! occurred t. him the suspicion that the corpse
stu showed signs OF vitality; at any rate. certain
! it is that he returns later TO the renewed
| shaving Of the slain After ignoring in
ton everything | had said upon me
| subject he turns mp most UNEXPECTEDLY IN me
sixth volume with an elaborate attack upon som"
! Of the examples had given in the way Of Illus
| tra,on The opening for this came from the side
| Of vocabulary toward which he still turns with
| longing eyes though he H. far from speaking Of
| IT with the old assurance. His remarks are all
| devoted to linguistic details. which must neces-
! sary be considered elsewhere than in these
| columns. As my main arguments have scarcely
/ a reference made t. them. this is paying tltheS
OF mint cummin and anseseed with vengeance
while emitting matters OF consequence ana real
weight. These comments were well enough in
the journal In which they originally appeared;
but the only effect of their Introduction here is
20 distract the attention from the real question.
But this, perhaps is allowable enough In contro-
versy All I here wish to protest against person
ally is the constant assumption put forth that
any attack Of mine o. the views Of Professor
Skeat is an attack on Chaucer himself, that am
an assallant Of the poet because | choose to re-
| gard him as the master Of metre and not az its
slave. Even In the general index under my name
appear these entries: His attacks on Chaucers
rhymes considered" HIS attack on Cover con-
sidered" The righteousness Of this way Of put,
ting things robs it largely. to be sure. Of its some
what offensive character No one up 10 this time
has thought Of confounding Professor Skeat with
| the poet ana II is certainly more unfortunate for
him than any one else II he has failed to grasp
the fact that the ditor Of Chaucer works IL al
altogether distinct being from the author Of
! them.
Il remains To- be said that much good work has
been done by Professor Skeat in correcting the
errors in the existing text Of the Romance Of
the Rose" IT. this he acknowledges the valuable
aid received from the labors Of KaluIa. it was
something very necessary to be done No pro-
| duction that goes under the name Of Chaucer
has needed more thorough and competent re-
vision. To the task the editor has given good
deal Of attention. so that It Is the barest act Of