University of Virginia Library

Urry and Tyrwhitt

Because the Speght editions are so similar to each other it is more important (and much easier) to show that Blake could not have derived his quotations from the elaborate 1721 Urry or the scholarly 1775-78 Tyrwhitt. This is not to say that Blake did not know of these eighteenth-century editions; indeed, we can be certain that he was aware of both in one way or another. He engraved one plate after Stothard for the Bell's English Poets edition of Chaucer, which used Tyrwhitt's text for the Canterbury Tales and Urry's text for the other works, and he surely recalled this convenient (and inexpensive) 1783 edition when he set to work on the tempera of the Pilgrims (Bowden 170). Similarly, we know that he must have seen a copy of Urry in William Hayley's library at Felpham, for Blake copied from this edition the figures

of the Merchant and Wife of Bath that appear in a Chaucer portrait executed for Hayley in 1801-1803 (Wells 18-19).

But Blake's Chaucer quotations could not have been copied, however freely, from Urry or Tyrwhitt, because his versions never follow the texts of these editions in the telltale passages unique to them, except in instances of coincidental revision; his quotations do, however, follow 1687 and sometimes other editions in these and most other passages. When comparing Blake's source with his quotations we can expect to find that Blake or the compositor committed a few errors in transcription or typesetting. Given the divergence of Blake's text from all editions, we can also expect to find that he made minor changes in order to fix perceived deficiencies in meter, modernized spelling (or at least made it conform to his own practice), and even substituted words in instances in which the Middle English word might be misunderstood or not understood at all. But none of these more or less predictable editorial patterns can account for all the differences between Blake's text and those of Urry or Tyrwhitt.

The Urry edition is discredited as Blake's source by substantial differences between its text and Blake's. For instance, in the Wife of Bath's Prologue Urry's edition reads, "But Age alas! that all woll undermine," whereas Blake has "But age, alas, that all will envenime," as (in various spellings) do all other editions that could have been available to him.[6] The Urry emendation is so plausible (and so unremarkable in itself) that Blake would not have noticed it unless he were carefully checking Urry against another text, which is unlikely. Similarly, Urry's description of the Squire reads, "And Songis he couth make," whereas Blake's quotation is "He could songs make," a version in modern spelling of the reading found in all other editions. Another typical variation occurs in the General Prologue. There Urry reports that the Reeve "rode hinderest of our rowte," whereas Blake (twice) has him "hinderest of the rout." Again, Urry's reading is unique, and also so unremarkable that it would have been copied without any suspicion that it was not Chaucer's.

There are more than a hundred and fifty additional differences between Blake's quotations and Urry's text; most of these are trivial, but several are as telling individually as those cited above. Further, Urry's practice of spelling "ed," "es," and "en" endings "id," "is," and "in" (if they were to be pronounced) is nowhere reflected in Blake's texts; these editorial spellings usually do not interfere with reading, so Blake, who preserved many archaisms, probably would not have eliminated all trace of them.

The evidence that discredits the great 1775-78 edition of the Canterbury Tales by Tyrwhitt is not as immediately compelling as that against Urry, but it is equally strong, especially when the claim of Tyrwhitt is weighed against that of either the 1602 or 1687 Speght editions. If we compare selected passages from Tyrwhitt with both Blake's and Speght's text (of 1687), it is clear that the latter is a more likely source even when it is possible to imagine circumstances under which Blake could have derived his text from Tyrwhitt's. For instance, Blake says of the Prioress:

Speght's 1687 text is:

Tyrwhitt's text differs in two important ways:

The Tyrwhitt text is plausible, and metrically acceptable whether one reads it with or without pronouncing some final "e's" (one cannot, of course, maintain pentameter without the final "e," but Blake's text suggests that he did not recognize its function). It is thus unlikely that Blake would have modified the Tyrwhitt text here; because Speght is so much closer to Blake there is no reason to construct scenarios in which he would have done so.

Ockham's razor is also useful in considering the relative claims of Speght and Tyrwhitt for several other lines in the General Prologue:

Blake:
He could songs make, and eke well indite
Just, and eke dance, pourtray, and well write.

Speght:
He coud songs make, and eke well indite,
Just, and eke dance, portray and well write.

Tyrwhitt:
He coude songes make, and wel endite,
Just and eke dance, and wel pourtraie and write.

The presence of "eke" in Blake's version of the first of these lines and the differing placement of "wel" in the second both argue against Tyrwhitt as source; Tyrwhitt's "pourtraie" might appear to have influenced Blake's spelling except that "pourtray" is Blake's own spelling in his Modern English description of the Franklin (the only other time the word appears in his surviving work). Additional incongruent texts occur in the descriptions of the Squire and Reeve:

Blake:
And kerft before his fader at the table.

Speght:
And kerfte before his Fader at the table.

Tyrwhitt:
And carf before his fader at the table.

Blake:
And ever he rode hinderest of the rout.

Speght:
And ever he rode hinderest of the route.

Tyrwhitt:
And ever he rode the hinderest of the route.

Of the tradesmen:

Blake:
All were yclothed in o liverie.

Speght:
All were yclothed in o Lyvere,

Tyrwhitt:
Were alle yclothed in o livere,

In the Monk's Prologue:

Blake:
Tragedie is to tell a certain story,

Speght:
Tragedie is to tell a certaine story

Tyrwhitt:
Tragedie is to sayn a certain storie,

But Tyrwhitt's text also contains two readings that are in Blake but cannot be found in 1687 (or 1602) Speght. These, however, probably represent instances in which Blake and Tyrwhitt (who was also using Speght as his basic copy-text) made minor emendations that happened to coincide. The first of these occurs in the account of the Squire:

Blake:
In Flanders, in Artois, and in Picardy,

Speght:
In Flaunders, in Artois, and Picardy,

Tyrwhitt:
In Flaundres, in Artois, and in Picardie,

Because this "in" appears before "Picardy" in 1598 Speght and all other sixteenth-century editions as well as Tyrwhitt, the presence of it in Blake's text is not evidence that he used the 1775-78 edition. More likely, Blake and Tyrwhitt independently concluded that the parallel structure of the line had to be continued to the end. It is possible that Blake or the compositor checked a second text containing this reading, but it is hard to imagine why either would have done so.

Another reading found in both Blake and Tyrwhitt can be attributed to coincidence more confidently, for this editorial addition (once again, of a small preposition) clearly improves the scansion of a clumsy line. The text in question occurs in the Wife of Bath's Prologue:

Blake:
But Lord, when it remembereth me
Upon my youth and on my jollity,

Speght:
But lord Christ, when it remembreth me
Upon my youth, and my jolite,

Tyrwhitt:
But, lord Crist, whan that it remembreth me
Upon my youth, and on my jolitee,

Because Urry also contains this "on," it may be worth contemplating the implications of his version of these two lines as well:

The three most thorough editors (that is, Urry, Tyrwhitt, and Blake) all appear to have felt the need to adjust both lines to reach an even number of syllables. Urry, who often added unauthorized expletives to the text, inserted the poetaster's favorite expedient, an "o," in the first line. Tyrwhitt probably found manuscript authority for the "that," as have modern editors. Blake, however, decided to create a tetrameter line by subtraction rather than a pentameter line by addition; because he did not recognize that final "e" was sometimes pronounced, he must have believed that tetrameter lines were very common in Chaucer's pentameter verse. Blake's decision to emend the line in this way, and to drop the word "Christ" (an elision that is not authorized by any edition) was probably not arbitrary, though he might have cut "Lord," and even "But." One may imagine that he chose to omit "Christ" because he could not accept the suggestion that his anathema, the Wife of Bath, was a Christian, even a blasphemous one. But the Wife wears a crucifix in Blake's pictures of her, as do several other pilgrims of varying degrees of

piety. Crucifixes have variable symbolic value in his work, but this one makes it unlikely that Blake was suppressing the Wife's pretensions to Christianity. More probably, in this appeal to a wide audience, he wanted to avoid stirring up the old charge that Chaucer was offensive; certainly none of his other quotations gives evidence of the recurrent blasphemies in the Tales.

Thus Urry, Tyrwhitt, and Blake each responded to the weaknesses they saw in the first of these two lines with a different solution; yet faced with an even less satisfactory second line, all three arrived at the same answer, a reading that does not appear in any other edition under consideration but is accepted by modern editors. The line obviously needs a word between "and" and "my," a word with only one syllable. Because the word in question must parallel "Upon," the only candidate is "on," and each editor probably chose it independently.