![]() | | ![]() |
ALTHOUGH THE BEST MANUSCRIPTS OF LAK of Stedfastnesse are in substantial agreement on most readings, they divide into two groups at lines 5, 10, and 28. One group reads ben no thyng on (l. 5), ffor now adayes, (l. 10), and dryue thi peple (l. 28); the other, Is no thing lyke, For amonge vs now, and wed thi folk. The choice between the first two pairs of readings—everyday phrases, practically synony-mous—is relatively inconsequential. With the third pair, however, the variation between 'drive' and 'wed' considerably affects the interpretation of the poem, for each indicates a different attitude toward kingship.[1]
Both sets of readings are in passably Chaucerian English; and previously, so far as manuscript evidence was concerned, editors have virtually been forced to toss a coin when considering these lines. Hence one finds Furnivall, Holt, MacCracken, and Koch supporting the first set; Skeat, Brusendorff, and Robinson, the second; Heath, both (in the belief that they derived from 'separate originals').[2] With the discovery of a new manuscript, however, it is now possible to show that one set of readings is the work of scribes.
This new text—an eighteenth-century transcription of the burnt Cotton manuscript Otho A. XVIII [3]—reads the lines in question as follows: Is no thynge oon, Amonges vs nowe, and dreve
![Click to Enlarge Page 106](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996484/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
Even so, the knowledge that one set of variants is of scribal origin is sufficient, I believe, to allow one to solve the problem, and in the end to arrive at a firmly established text for the poem. To accomplish this aim, however, one must analyze anew the Lak of Stedfastnesse manuscripts—a desirable project in any event, for the published studies of the text of this poem are conflicting and incomplete.[4]
The authorities for Lak of Stedfastnesse, with their sigils, are:[5]
- A Additional 22139. British Museum. Fol. 138a.
- B Advocates Library i. 1. 6. (the 'Bannatyne Ms.'). Edinburgh. Fol. 67a.
- C Cotton Cleopatra D. VII. British Museum. Fol. 188b.
- Co Cotton Otho A. XVIII (transcription). British Museum. After p. 548 in a copy of Urry's Chaucer (643. m. 4).
- D Trinity College, Dublin, No. 432. Fol. 59a.
- F Fairfax 16. Bodleian. Fol. 194a.
- H1 Harley 7333. British Museum. Fol. 147b.
- H2 Harley 7578. British Museum. Fol. 17a.
- Ht Hatton 73. Bodleian. Fol. 119a.
- L Lambeth Palace Library No. 344. London. Fol. 11a.
- M Pepys 2553 (the 'Maitland Folio Ms.'). Magdalene College, Cambridge. Page 329.
- R1 Trinity College, Cambridge, R. 3. 20. Page 356.
- R2 Trinity College, Cambridge, R. 3. 21. Fols. 245b and 319a (identical copies; the envoy only).
- R3 Trinity College, Cambridge, R. 14. 51. Fol. iia.
- Th Thynne's printed version, derived from a lost Ms., in The Workes of Geffray Chaucer (London, 1532). Sig. Vvv4a.
![Click to Enlarge Page 107](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996485/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
![illustration](http://static.lib.virginia.edu/legacy/S/sb041071.jpg)
I. In explaining the tree, it will be of help to establish
first the relationships which depend for their proof
solely upon the distribution of the variants, since in so
doing we can not only keep distinct the kinds of evidence
with which we have to deal but can also reduce the number
of texts which need careful consideration from fifteen to
seven. These relationships are as follows:
(1) H1 and R1 share three readings found in no other Ms. and hence must be considered as closely related. Neither, however, can be regarded as descended from the other, for each text reads uniquely in places where the other agrees with the rest of the Mss.
![Click to Enlarge Page 108](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996486/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
- 3. is fals; R1 is so fals.
- 17. wyght; R1 man.
- 27. thorow all goodnesse; R1 trouth and worthynesse.
Now, this unique reading in R1 (H1's reading is supported by other Mss):
- 6. by wikked wilfulnesse; H1 thorowe mede & wylfullnesse.[7]
These readings are uniquely common to H1 and R1:
- 2. was holde (R1 was holde for). The others read was.
- 4. werke. The others read dede.
- 8. H1 made, R1 mape. The others read maketh, causep.
- 1. þis worlde was so stedfast and stable.
- 2. was holde (or was holde for).[9]
- 3. And . . . so fals and disceyvable.
- 4. worde and werke as in conclusyone.
- 5. Beon no thing oon for tourned vp so doune.
- 6. thorowe mede and wylfulnesse.
- 8. maþe (or made) this worlde to be so variable.
- 9. folk . . . in discencioun.
- 10. ffor nowe adayes.
- 11. But if . . . by sum collusyone.
- 12. Do.
- 13. What causeþe þis but wilful wrechednesse.
- 16. Vertue haþe nowe no domynacone.
- 17. Pytee exyled no man is mercyable.
- 18. is blent.
- 19. þe worlde haþe made a parmutacone.
- 20. frome trouth to fikulnesse.
- 22. O prynce desyre for to beo honurable.
- 23. Cherisshe þy folke.
- 24. may beo.
- 25. To þyne estate doone in þy Regyoune.
- 26. Shewe forpe þy swerde of castigacioun.
- 27. trouth and worþynesse.
- 28. And dryve þy people ageine to stidfastnesse.
![Click to Enlarge Page 109](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996487/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
(2) As MacCracken has observed,[10] L is apparently an actual copy of Ht, although not a very faithful one. The two texts share three readings not found elsewhere:
- 3. But (L Byt) now. The others (less R3, Now) read And now.
- 12. Do to. The others (less D, To do) read Do.
- 13. that. The others (less R3, And alle causyht) read this.
- 2. That man ys word; Ht (and the rest) that mannes word.
- 13. wrechednesse; Ht (and the rest) wilful wrecchednesse.
- 2. was.
- 3. But . . . so fals And disceyvable.
- 4. word and dede as in conclusioun.
- 6. for mede and wilfulnesse.
- 8. makith this world to be so variable.
- 12. Do to.
- 13. What causeth that but wilful wrecchednesse.
- 22. O prince desyre to be honurable.
- 27. trouthe and rightwesnesse.
(3) Except for reading uniquely In for To in line 25, R2, a fragment consisting only of the envoy, is identical with Co. The
![Click to Enlarge Page 110](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996488/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
- 2. was.
- 4. wurde and dede as yn conclusion.
- 5. Ys no thynge oon.
- 6. for mede and wilfulnesse.
- 8. Whate makith this worled to be varyable.
- 16. As line 17.
- 17. As line 16: Pitey is so gyled no man is mercyable.
- 28. dreve thy folke.
(4) The two late sixteenth-century texts B and M share nine readings found in no other Ms. Because of the following unique readings in B (where M agrees with the rest of the Mss), we cannot, however, assume the descent B>M:
- 9. quhilk; M pat.
- 16. nane at hir devotioun; M now na dominatioun.
- 25. B writes line 26 here.
- 26. That vertew may rigne within thy regioun; M Schaw furth þi Sworde of castigatioun (D R3 Th yerde for sworde).
- 4. deidis; B deid.
- 11. Except; B Bot gif.
- 19. is; B hes (= hath).
The following readings are uniquely common to B and M:
- 4. in conclusioun. The rest read as in conclusioun.
- 5. bot. The rest read for.
- 9. B bot discretioun; M of indescretioun. the rest read in discencion.
- 12. Doing The rest (less A, Done) read Do.
- 13. makis . . . wofull. The rest (less D, causep . . . sotel) read causeth . . . wilfull.
- 17. and na man meretabill. The rest (less H1, wyght for man, and A, man merciable) read no man is mercyable.
- 20. ressone to wilfulnes. The rest read trouth to fikulnesse.
- 24. be. The rest read may be.
![Click to Enlarge Page 111](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996489/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
On the basis of these readings, we may assume ex2B M (the d of the tree). The significant readings for d, so far as they differ from those of a, are as follows:
- 1. this (M ye) warld so steidfast was & stabill (order).
- 2. was.
- 4. word and deid (B adds discordis) in conclusioun.
- 5. Ar no thing lyke bot turnd up syd (B up and) doun.
- 6. for neid (B greid) and wilfulnes.
- 8. makis pis warld to be so variabill.
- 9. folk . . . of indiscretioun (B bot discretioun)
- 10. Amang ws now.
- 12. Doing.
- 13. Quhat makis this bot wofull wretchitnes.
- 17. Petie exylit and na man meritabill.
- 18. Blind is.
- 19. The warld hes maid a permutatioun.
- 20. fra rasoun to wilfulnes. Non-Chaucerian stanza.
- 24. be (B bene)
- 27. treuth and rychtuousnes.
- 28. And leid (B bring) þi folk agane to stedfastnes. Stanzas 2 and 3 reversed.
(5) R3 and Th share two readings found in no other Ms. Because of these unique readings in Th (where R3 and the other Mss agree), we cannot, however, assume the descent R3<Th:[12]
- 6. fykelnesse; R3 wylfulnes.
- 12. and; R3 or.
Similarly, we cannot assume the descent R3>Th because of unique readings in R3 (where Th and the rest of the Mss agree):
- 1. Wylum; Th Somtyme.
- 3. Now hyt ysse; Th And nowe it is.
- 5. els butt; Th lyke.[13]
- 13. And alle causyht; Th What causeth this but.
- 19. Thys; Th The.
- 28. ayeyn thy folke; Th thy folke ayen.
![Click to Enlarge Page 112](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996490/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
- 1. was stedefast (with H2); Th so stedfast was.
- 5. up & don (with B A); Th up so doun.
- 8. causyht (with D); Th maketh.
- 27. Ryhtwysnis (with Ht L B M); Th worthynes.
These readings are uniquely common to R3 and Th:
- 9. men. All other Mss read folke.
- 10. For amonge vs. The other Mss read ffor among vs now, Among ws now, ffor now adayes.
- 17. Pyte is exyled (with D). The others (less Co, Pitey is so gyled) read Pite exiled.
- 22. Prynce (with A). The others (less D, illegible) read O prince.
- 26. yerd (with D). The others read sword.
- 1. Somtyme þe world so stedfast was and stable.
- 2. was.
- 4. worde and dede as in conclusioun.
- 5. Is nothyng lyke for turned vp so doun.
- 8. maketh the worlde to be so variable.
- 9. men . . . in discensyon.
- 10. For amonge vs.
- 17. Pety ys exylyd no man ysse mercyable.
- 22. Prince desyre to be honourable.
- 26. Schow forthe thy yerd of castygacyun.
- 27. trouthe and worthynes (R3 t. a. Ryhtwysnis.)[14]
- 28. And wedde thy folke ayen to stedfastnesse.
![Click to Enlarge Page 113](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996491/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
(6) H2 and F share one reading not found elsewhere. Because of the following readings in H2 (where F and the other Mss agree), we cannot, however, assume the descent H2>F:
- 1. Somme tyme worlde; F Some tyme the worlde.
- 5. torneth; F turned.
- 16. none; F noo.
Nor, because of the following unique reading in F (where H2 and the other Mss agree), can we assume the descent H2<F:
- 10. holde; H2 is holde.
The following reading is uniquely common to H2 and F:
- 3. so fals and so disceyuable. All other Mss omit the second so.
On the basis of the above evidence, we may assume ex2H2 F (the g of the tree). The significant readings for g, so far as they differ from those of a, are as follows:
- 1. Some tyme the worlde was so stedfast and stable.
- 2. was.
- 3. And . . . so fals and so disceyuable.
- 4. word and dede as in conclusyon.
- 5. Ys noo thing lyke for turned vp so don.
- 6. for mede and wilfulnesse.
- 8. maketh this worlde to be so variable.
- 10. ffor amonge vs nowe.
- 11. conclusioun.
- 22. O prince desire to be honourable.
- 28. And wedde thy folke ayeyne to stedfastnesse.
![Click to Enlarge Page 114](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996492/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
A, C, and g share one reading which seems valid for grouping them together: the obvious error conclusion for collusion in line 11. None of these texts, however, can be the parent of any of the others, g because of its reading in line 3, A and C because of readings elsewhere. The readings which prevent descent from A are:
- 12. Done. C, g, and the rest (less B M Doing) read Do.
- 23. Speke with folke. C, g., and the rest read Cherice þi folk.
- 19. permutacioun. A, g, and the rest (less H1) read a parmutacioun.
- 3. And . . . so false and disceyuable.
- 10. ffor among vs now.
As for the remaining Ms., D, one can deduce from the distribution of the variants alone only that it cannot be the parent of any of the other texts. This we can show by listing the unique readings which it contains:
- 1-7. Omits the first stanza.
- 8-28. Begins with the envoy and reverses stanzas 2 and 3.
- 11. But he can com be sum ymaginacioun. The rest read But yf he can by som collusioun (A C F H2 L conclusion).
- 13. sotel dowblenes. The rest (less B M, wofull wretchitnes) read wilful wrechidnesse.
- 15. Troupe is rebuked & reson is hold but fable. The rest read Trouthe is putte doune resoun is holden fable.
- 25. To your astate wher ye have correctioun. The rest (less B, which reads uniquely) read To thine estaitt doen in þy regioune.
- 26. your. The rest read thy.
- 28. & knyt to gydre your peple with stedfastnes. The rest read And wed (Co R2 Ht L R1 H1 drive, B leid, M bring) thi folke (Ht L R1 H1 peple) ayen to stedfastnesse.
Although we cannot relate D to any of the other texts at this
![Click to Enlarge Page 115](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996493/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
A glance at the italicized lines (indicating unique variants) in the 'significant readings' given above for Ht, Co, D, and the reconstructed parents of H1-R1, B-M, R3-Th, and H2-F-A-C will show that none of these can be the parent of any extant text. Hence we have seven authorities, none of which can be directly descended from any of the others.
We have carried our study of the relationships of the Mss about as far as we can solely on the basis of the distribution of the variants. We have established certain relationships, and in so doing have reduced our original fifteen authorities to seven—three actual Mss and four postulated ones. If we continue our procedure of determining kinship by shared variants, we soon arrive at the impasse mentioned in the first paragraph of this paper. On the one hand, we have Ht a D reading, in lines 5, 10, and 28, ben no thyng on, ffor now adayes, and dryue thi peple; on the other, d f h reading Is no thing lyke, For amonge vs now, and wed thi folk. In between lies Co, with its transition readings, Ys no thing oon, Amonges vs nowe, and dreve thy folk, showing that only one of the above sets can be Chaucerian. But the only readings uniquely common to Ht a D are their variants for lines 5, 10, and 28; and, similarly, the only readings uniquely common to d f h are their variants for lines 5, 10, and 28. Distributional study, then, leaves us in a dilemma. If we are to relate the seven authorities to each other, as shown in the tree on page 107, we must seek other means.
II. So far we have not examined the headings for the poem. Only five Mss have titles. These are Co Ht L R1 H1—with the exception of Co, the Mss which read ben no thyng on, ffor now adayes, and dryue thi peple. If we study these titles, we find a similarity between them which suggests that the five texts are related closely.
- Co Balade Ryalle made by Poetecall Chaucyer a Gaufrede.
- Ht Old title: Chaucier send (no more visible); new title: These balladis were send to the kynge. (L has Ht's second title.)
- a R1 Balade Royal made by oure laureall poete of Albyoun in hees laste yeeres. H1 This balade made Geffrey Chaunciers the laureall poete of Albion and sent it to his souerain lorde kynge Richarde the seconde pane being in his castell of Windesore.
![Click to Enlarge Page 116](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996494/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
![illustration](http://static.lib.virginia.edu/legacy/S/sb041161.jpg)
But before accepting this explanation, we should certainly like additional, and stronger, evidence. Nor have we far to go to find it. In the manuscript books of Ht (and L), Co, and H1, Lak of Stedfastnesse immediately follows Chaucer's Truth; in R1 it immediately precedes it. Again we find a similarity in the titles.[15] More important, however, we find from a purely distributional study of
![Click to Enlarge Page 117](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996495/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
![illustration](http://static.lib.virginia.edu/legacy/S/sb041171.jpg)
III. There is no evidence whatsoever for the alternate assumption, that the readings Is no thing lyke, For amonge vs now, and wed thi folk are of scribal origin. We may hence assume that Ht and a have a common parent (the b of the tree). Because D also reads ffor now on dayes and peple, I have graphed it as descended from b.[18] The significant readings for b, so far as they differ from those of a, are as follows:
- 2. was.
- 4. word and dede as in conclusioun.
- 6. for mede and wilfulnesse.
- 8. makith this world to be so variable.
Further, for reasons already stated we may assume that b and the transition Ms. Co have an exclusive common ancestor (the c
![Click to Enlarge Page 118](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996496/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
- 5. Is no thynge oon for turned vppe so down.
- 10. Amonges vs nowe.[19]
- 28. And dreve thy folke ageyn to stedefastnesse.
The readings of c for lines 10 and 22 (for to be honorable) are found also in d. In addition, both texts have had trouble with line 28 (d reads either leid þi folk [M] or bring thy folk [B]). Because of the unique readings listed above for d, however, we cannot assume the descent d>c. Nor can we assume the descent d<c, since c reads, in line 5, oon, which has been shown to be of scribal origin, and d reads lyke, which has been shown to be the reading of the original. Hence we must assume ex2 c d (the e of the tree). The significant readings for e, so far as they differ from those of c, are these:
- 5. Is no thynge lyke.[20]
- 28. **** thy folke.
V. In the tree I have graphed e, f, and h as descended inde-dently from O. That this conclusion is inescapable the following table shows. The table lists only the readings on which the three texts disagree.
e | f | h | |
1. | this world was so stedfast | þe world so stedfast was | the worlde was so stedfast |
8. | this world | the worlde | this worlde |
9. | folk | men | folke |
10. | Among ws now | For amonge vs | ffor among vs now |
11. | collusioun | collusioun | conclusion |
17. | exiled | is exyled | exiled |
22. | O prince for to be honorable | Prince to be honourable | O prince to be honurable |
26. | swerd | yerd | swerde |
28. | **** thy folke | wedde thy folke | wed thi folk |
![Click to Enlarge Page 119](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996497/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
VI. We have now completed the explanation of the tree.[21] We have four Mss at one remove from the original—Th R3 A C. Of these, C is decidedly the best. It is the basis of the text which I now print.
Sumtyme the worlde was so stedfast and stable
That mannes worde was obligacioun
And nowe it is so false and disceyuable
That worde and dede as in conclusioun
[5] Is no thing lyke for turned vp so doun
Is all this worlde for mede and wilfulnesse
That al is lost for lak of stedfastnesse
![Click to Enlarge Page 120](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996498/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
What maketh this worlde to be so variable
But lust that folke haue in discencioun
[10] For amonge vs now a man is holde vnable
But yf he can by som collusioun
Do his neyghbour wrong or oppressioun
What causeth this but wilful wrechednesse
That al is lost for lake of stedfastnesse
[15] Trouthe is putte doun resoun is holden fable
Vertu hath now no dominacioun
Pite exiled no man is merciable
Thorugh couetyse is blent discrecioun
The worlde hath made a permutacioun
[20] Fro right to wrong fro trouth to fikelnesse
That al is lost for lak of stedfastnesse
O prince desyre to be honurable
Cherisshe þi folke and hate extorcioun
Suffre no thing that may be reprouable
[25] To thine estate don in þi regioun
Shewe forth thy swerde of castigacioun
Drede god do law loue trouthe and worthynesse
And wed thi folk ayen to stedfastnesse
Although this text is not markedly different from Skeat's or Robinson's,[22] there are a few differences worth noting:
- 1. the worlde. Skeat and Robinson, this world.
- 5. Is no thing lyke. Skeat and Robinson, Ben nothing lyk (this reading occurs in no Ms.).
- 10. For amonge vs now. Skeat, Among us now.
- 12. Do. Skeat and Robinson, Don (this reading occurs only in A).
![Click to Enlarge Page 121](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996499/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
Drede god, do lawe, loue trouthe and worthynesse,
And dryve thy peple ageyne to stedfastnesse.
The weakness of this reasoning is apparent if one asks oneself the question, Why should a scribe emend a reading which 'makes sense' to one which 'does not seem to do so'?
If one reads the line in its true context, however, 'wed' makes much better sense poetically than 'dryve.' I quote from the beginning of the envoy:
Cherisshe þi folke and hate extorcioun
Suffre no thing that may be reprouable
To thine estate don in þi regioun
Shewe forth thy swerde of castigacioun
Drede god do law loue trouthe and worthynesse
And wed thi folk ayen to stedfastnesse
Since three scholars have misinterpreted this passage, I hope I may be forgiven for obtruding literary criticism upon a discussion of manuscript relationships. Chaucer asks the king to 'shewe forth'
![Click to Enlarge Page 122](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:996500/full/!200,200/0/default.jpg)
![]() | | ![]() |