University of Virginia Library

Cf. F. J. Furnivall, A Parallel-Text Edition of Chaucer's Minor Poems, p. 433.

Furnivall, ibid.; L. H. Holt, JEGP, IV (1906), 419-431; H. N. MacCracken, The College Chaucer, p. 557; J. Koch, Anglia, IV (1881), anz. 109 and Geoffrey Chaucers Kleinere Dichtungen, (Heidelberg, 1928), p. 35; W. W. Skeat, Oxford Chaucer, I, 394-395; A. Brusendorff, The Chaucer Tradition, pp. 275-276; F. N. Robinson, Chaucer, pp. 1037-38; H. F. Heath, Globe Chaucer, p. xlix.

Printed in my article, "Otho A. XVIII," Speculum, XXVI (1951), 306-316.

The following texts were unclassified until the present study: Co, D, M, R2, and the Black Letter prints subsequent to Thynne's (for the meaning of the sigils, see text below). Nine of the remaining authorities were arranged by Koch, and later by Heath, as follows: (1) R1 H1 (2) A C F H2 B R3 Th. Holt published a similar bifid tree. Brusendorff, who criticized Holt's article severely (and justly), offered a trifid arrangement: (1) A C F H2; (2) H1 R1 Ht L; (3) Th R3 B. (Robinson's brief textual note agrees with Brusendorff's classification. Skeat did not attempt a classification, but his text is similar to Robinson's.) Only Koch, Heath, and Holt published actual trees; only Holt argued in detail.

Except for B and D (of which I have only seen photostats), I have examined all of the Mss and have based my study upon my transcriptions of the poem. All the Mss, including the Ms of Co (see fn. 3), however, have been published (for references, see the Brown-Robbins Index of Middle English Verse). The most important difference between the published transcriptions and my own is in A, the final (envoy) stanza of which the Chaucer Society failed to print. In consequence, the Ms. is always listed as lacking the envoy (cf., e. g., Robinson, p. 1037). Except for B (1568) and M (c. 1570), the Mss are from the 15th century; A C F R1 are from the first half.

In view of the evidence just given, the agreement with C seems non-significant. For a further discussion of this agreement, and of all other agreements considered non-significant, see fn. 21 below.

R3 thro mede & wylfulnes; the rest fore mede and wilfulnesse.

'Significant' in that at least one Ms. reads differently. (Where no reading is given, the Mss are in agreement.)

The italic type indicates that the reading is not found outside the hypothetical Ms. and its descendants.

MLN, XXIII (1908), 212-214.

In addition, L reads, in 6, In alle thys worle (with A M), and in 11, conclusyoun (with A C F H2); Ht and the rest read Is al this world and collusioun. Although the agreements seem clearly the result of chance (see fn. 21 and 22), they make the descent Ht<L even more unlikely.

From Th, however, are ultimately descended the versions of Lak of Stedfastnesse in the Black Letter Chaucers of the 16th and 17th centuries (and also the copy in the Urry Chaucer of 1721). Since these texts are practically identical, they are of no value for this study (for the order of descent, see my article, "The Text of Chaucer's Purse," [Studies in Bibliography], I (1948), 111; the printed versions of the two poems have the same history.) Likewise, the copy of the envoy in Meredith Hanmer's The Auncient Ecclesiasticall Histories (1577) which Miss Spurgeon mentions (Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, I, 112) is of no value textually. Except for changes in spelling, it is identical with Th.

R3's reading is virtually illegible (butt, the most likely guess, is also the reading of the Chaucer Society).

The evidence for this line is as follows: Ht d R3 trouthe and rightwesnesse. The rest (less H1) trouthe and worthynesse. H1 all goodnesse. As a glance at the tree will show, there is every reason to believe that Chaucer's text read worthynesse; I hence assume that this was the reading of f. (Brusendorff and Robinson, however, group R3 Th with B, which reads rychtuousness. While this arrangement may seem to explain the presence of the same variant in R3 and B, it is in fact not an explanation, for it merely shifts the problem from R3's Ryhtwysnis to Th's worthynes. It is now contradicted by the readings which B shares with Co.)

Co A balade by Geffrey Chaucier uppon his dethe bedde lyinge in his grete Anguysse. Ht (Old title) Chauncier balade up on his deth bed (new title: Good conseylle; so L also). R1 Balade þat Chaucier made on his deeth bedde. H1's title bears no resemblance to the others (A Moral Balade of Chaucyre).

Discussed in detail in my article cited above, fn. 3.

Although the coincidence seems to be too striking to be due to chance, we cannot positively reject the first tree. Both trees explain the evidence reasonably well, but the first, which requires us to make fewer assumptions, would ordinarily be preferred on the ground of simplicity. Whichever tree we accept, however, these Mss. are obviously very closely related in Truth; and, in view of the fact that the two poems seem to go as a pair, we are safe in concluding that they are closely related in Lak of Stedfastnesse.

But D also shares three readings with R3: 8, causep; 17, is exciled (so Th also); 26, yerde (so Th also); hence D might just as well be graphed, perhaps, as a sister of R3.

Despite the for in b's reading, we can hardly assume that c read, compositely, For amonges vs nowe, since we should then have to assume that Co and d edited identically. Moreover, it is just as easy to believe that b derived For nowe adayes from Amonges vs nowe as from For amonges vs nowe (one automatically supplies for or an equivalent connective).

Here a composite reading seems to me to be justified. Ar no thing lyke is most easily explained as a 16th-century 'correction.'

But strong contradictory evidence has forced us, from time to time, to regard some readings as non-significant; and since there is no absolute certainty in textual matters, I collect these readings here. Most of them are easily explained as the result of careless copying, of dialect differences, or of time. (1) Careless copying (small changes, roughly synonymous): 1, this for the (A e), wasse stedfast for w. so s. (A H2 R3); 6, In for Is (A d), thorowe for for (H1 f); 8, pe for this (R1 f): 9, han for haue (A F-H4 Ht); 12, and for or (Co Th); 19, permutacioun for a permutacioun (C H1); 22, Prince for O prince (A f). Here probably also belongs conclusioun for collusioun (L h), 11. (2) Dialect or time: 5, Ar for Is (A d; a 'correction' analogous to the Beon of H1 R1 Ht L D); up and doun for up so doun (A B R3); the effect of time upon idiom—cf. M's up syd doun). The remaining variants are possibly the result of contamination: 27, rightwesnesse for worthynesse (d Ht R3); 8, causep (D R3); 17, is exciled (D R3 Th); 26, yerde for swerde (D R3 Th). I have not, however, assumed contamination to explain the first pair, since the only evidence is the one reading and it is capable of another explanation, that of independent editing. Although one may hesitate to adopt this explanation, he has, I feel, good grounds for making it here. First, the nature of the variant itself. The number of metrically satisfactory substitutes for worthynesse is extremely small. Hence if any number of scribes decide to emend the reading (because, say, their copy is illegible), the chances are that a large proportion of them will hit upon rightwesnesse. Further, 'truth and righteousness' has a kind of obvious force which 'truth and worthyness' lacks, and thus might seem to a scribe an improvement worth making. Second, the nature of the Mss reading rightwesnesse. Ht has every appearance of being a faithful copy. R3, however, is quite corrupt and is clearly not the work of a professional scribe (it is written on a flyleaf of a book of medical receipts and is preceded by a stanza, likewise corrupt, from Gentilesse). Such variants as Wylum for Sumtyme (1), no thyng els butt for no thing lyke (5), and by sum maner colusyon for by som collusioun (11) show that R3's scribe was either having difficulty reading his copy or was writing from memory. As for the third Ms, d, which survives in the late 16 century texts B and M, emendation seems almost to have been the rule (see p. 110 above). At least in R3 and d, then, it is not surprising to find some other reading than worthynesse, and, since the substitutes are few, not especially surprising to find rightwesnesse in both. Nor have I assumed contamination to explain the agreements between D and R3 (Th). It is quite possible that D's scribe was familiar with two versions of the poem and that these had fused in his very faulty memory. But with two such corrupt texts as D and R3, a question mark, I feel, more exactly expresses the situation than a dotted line. Whether or not my reasoning in this footnote is correct, I should like to express indebtedness, for the method I have employed, to two articles, one by Sir Walter Greg, "The Rationale of Copy-text," and the other by A. A. Hill, "Some Postulates for Distributional Study of Texts," Studies in Bibliography, III (1950), 19-36, and 63-95.

Although he did not classify the Mss, Skeat correctly chose C as his basic text. Robinson concluded that neither R1-H1 nor C-A-F-H2 is consistently superior, but in most cases gave preference to the latter group.

I quote from Holt (op. cit., p. 431). Heath and Koch reason similarly, but Mac-Cracken does not say why he chose H1 for his text.