Chaucer's Lak of
Stedfastnesse
by
George B. Pace
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
thy folke. As a moment's inspection
will show, these readings are almost beyond doubt a
transition between the two groups of variants given above.
It follows, of course, that only one of the two groups can
be Chaucerian. But unfortunately the readings from
Otho A. XVIII do not reveal
which group that is.
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.
If my reasoning is correct, these authorities
arrange as follows:
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.
First, H
1's unique readings (R
1's
readings are supported by the other Mss):
- 3. is fals; R1
is so fals.
- 17. wyght; R1
man.
- 27. thorow all
goodnesse; R1
trouth and
worthynesse.
In addition, H
1 reads (with
C),
[6] in line 19,
permutacioun; R
1 a
parmutacone, the
reading of all other Mss.
Now, this unique reading in R1 (H1's reading is supported by other
Mss):
- 6. by wikked
wilfulnesse; H1
thorowe mede &
wylfullnesse.[7]
In addition, R
1 reads (with
R
3), in line 8,
the (H
1
and the rest,
this), and (with L),
in line 9,
folkes (H
1 and the rest, less R
3,
folke).
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.
On the basis of these readings we may assume ex
2H
1 R
1 (the a of the tree). The
significant readings for a are as follows:
[8]
- 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.
(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.
Ht has no unique readings. L, however, has the
following two, which establish the descent as Ht>L:
[11]
- 2. That man ys word;
Ht (and the rest) that mannes
word.
- 13. wrechednesse; Ht
(and the rest) wilful
wrecchednesse.
The significant readings of Ht, so far as they
differ from those of
a, are as
follows:
- 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
significant readings for Co, so far as they differ from
those of
a, are as follows:
- 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).
Nor, because of the following unique readings in M
(where B agrees with the rest of the Mss), can we assume
the descent B<M:
- 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.
In addition, B and M insert a stanza which seems
plainly non-Chaucerian immediately before the envoy, and
reverse stanzas 2 and 3.
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.
As corroborating evidence, one should note that Th
reads uniquely
an, line 2 and
is, line 5, whereas R
3 and the other texts agree in
omitting these words.
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.
In addition, R
3 reads
uniquely, in line 11,
maner, which
Th omits with all other Mss, and shares with a scattering
of texts certain other readings which, since Th's are
widely supported, prevent the descent R
3>Th:
- 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.
In addition, the following readings, although not
uniquely common to R
3 and Th, are
evidence for grouping them together:
- 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.
On the basis of these readings, we may assume
ex
2R
3
Th (the
f of the tree). The
significant readings for
f, so far
as they differ from those of
a, are
as follows:
- 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.
(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.
In addition, H
2 reads (with
A R3), in line 1,
was stedfast. F
and the other Mss read
was so
stedfast (B M
so steidfast
was).
Nor, because of the following unique reading in F (where H2 and the other Mss agree), can
we assume the descent H2<F:
The following reading is uniquely common to H2 and F:
- 3. so fals and so
disceyuable. All other Mss omit the second
so.
Furthermore, except for the readings cited for
lines 1, 5, 10, and 16, the text of F and H
2 are identical, frequently even
in spelling.
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.
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.
The following reading for C, while not unique,
prevents one from considering it the parent of any Ms.:
- 19. permutacioun. A,
g, and the rest (less H1)
read a parmutacioun.
Finally, no two of these Mss can have a common
ancestor which excludes the third, since none shares
readings with one that it does not also share with the
other. We must hence assume ex
2 C A
g (the
h of the tree). This Ms. differs from
g as follows:
- 3. And . . . so false and disceyuable.
- 10. ffor among vs
now.
The reading for line 10, confined to
h and its descendants, has
become in effect a 'unique reading.'
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
point, we can remark that it
agrees with Ht
a in reading
ffor now on dayes (I. 10) and
peple (I. 28). We can also
note that the general badness of D's text—its
beginning with the envoy and proceeding backwards through
the next two stanzas, its many unique and obviously
incorrect readings—make it unthinkable that D was
copied from a Ms. Almost
certainly D's scribe was writing from an imperfect memory
of the poem.
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.
We note that the three texts which mention the
poet's name spell it -
ier, not -
er. We also note that Co and
R
1 are similar in that each
calls the poem a ballad royal, and that Ht and H
1 are alike in asserting that
Chaucer sent the poem to the king. Further, since H
1 and R
1
are sister texts on strong evidence, we are justified in
assuming that their parent,
a, read
much as does H
1 but began, say,
'Ballad Royal . . .,' as do R
1 and
Co. If we attempt to classify these texts on the basis of
their titles, we have the following arrangement:
The readings
ben no thyng on, ffor now adayes, and
dryue thi peple thus appear to
have been begun by the scribe who wrote
c and then 'improved upon' by the scribe who
wrote
b.
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
the text that the copies of
Truth are related in one or the
other of two ways:
[16]
As one can see, the second
tree is identical with that proposed above for
Lak of Stedfastnesse. The
coincidence between the trees virtually proves that the
two poems, side by side in the manuscripts, have the same
ancestry.
[17]
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
of the tree). Except for the following,
the significant readings for
c are
the same as those for
b:
- 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 |
As one can see, neither
e
nor
f can be descended from
h because of
its reading in line 11; neither
e
nor
h can be descended from
f because of its readings in
lines 1, 2, 9, 10, 22, and 26; and neither
f nor
h
can be descended from
e because of
its readings in lines 1, 10, and 28. Hence we must assume
that all three texts derive independently from 0.
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.
[Lack of
Stedfastnesse]
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
[2]
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
[3]
[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
[Lenvoy]
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
[Explicit]
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).
With the other group of texts—Heath's,
Holt's, Koch's, and Mac-Cracken's—the differences
are of course numerous, but there seems little point in
cataloging them here since the manuscripts on which they
based their texts have been shown to be poor authorities.
It is interesting, however, and perhaps instructive, to
examine the reasoning which led them into error.
The
last important difference is to be found in the
final line of the poem, where Skeat has 'wed thy
folk' and I have adopted the reading of the H S Hat
[H1 R1 Ht] group, 'Dryve thy people.' . . . The
obvious reason why I have adopted the H S Hat
reading is that the verb 'Dryve' makes sense where
the other does not seem to do so. I quote from line
26:
Shew forthe thy swerde of castigacion,
Drede god, do lawe, loue trouthe and
worthynesse,
And dryve thy peple ageyne to
stedfastnesse.
He is implored to draw his sword and drive
the people to stedfastnesse; is this not more
sensible than to draw his sword and wed his folk to
stedfastnesse?
[23]
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:
O prince desyre to be honurable
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'
his 'swerde of
castigacioun' against those who do things 'that may be
reprouable'—the extortioners, the godless, the
lawbreakers: the enemies of steadfastness. He can hardly
ask the king to cherish his folk in line 23 and five lines
later to drive them with the sword. Nor does he, if the
analysis in this paper is correct.
Notes