Some Old Things Worth Knowing Very Well and Some Questions They Can Answer if Asked Carefully

The "Speght Chaucer," 1598.  This volume contains a wealth of evidence about how the Renaissance English reading public understood Chaucer, his works, his importance to English literature, and the Middle English language.  It would have been the most recent Chaucer edition available during the period when Shakespeare was adapting Chaucer's Troilus to create Troilus and Cressida (1601-2).

• How many owners has this book had, that is, how many do you see evidence for, and how many can you name?  Can you tell more about who any of them were, and were any of them historically important?
• What features of this book resemble those of a modern edition like the Riverside Chaucer, and what features seem similar but strangely different, or even completely different?  Think about the book as a physical artifact, as well as a collection of texts to be read.
• What works are ascribed to Chaucer by Speght, and which of them do you find in the Riverside Chaucer?  What do you suppose accounts for the difference?
• Speght dedicates this edition to Sir Robert Cecil.  What does he say to Cecil in the dedication?  Who was Cecil--what were his rank and status and political connections?  What is the relationship between Speght, the editor, and Cecil, the noble patron?
• If you want to do further work with this edition, it probably has much to tell us.  At least since 1924, we have known that one of the owners this volume is the son of a famous artist with whom William Blake quarreled.  What did Blake think this owner's father had done?  (A scholarly Blake biography will tell you quickly.)  What effect did this quarrel have on Blake's career?  Can you find any evidence in this text, which probably was inherited by the son from his father, that Blake's charges were true or false?

Speght Chaucer Images

Individual Book Projects, in Order of Age and Rated for Difficulty, Level of Student Interest Needed, etc.

1)  St. Bonaventure, Opuscula, 1495--all Latin, but one of our oldest holdings, and with much to tell us about early printed book construction and a surprise about the reason this volume is in Goucher's library  [Requires high student interest level and, ideally, some Latin or at least willingness to use a Latin-English dictionary]

• Once you have figured out who gave the book to Goucher, think about the politics, ethics, and aesthetics of book collecting and donation.  Why was the donor interested in it and why give it to Goucher?
• How was this book produced, by hand (scribal manuscript) or by machine (printing press), and how do you know?
• What kinds of textual apparatus (tables of contents, folio numbers, title pages, glossaries, etc.) does the Speght Chaucer have that this volume lacks?  Why do you suppose these things are missing?
• What makes it difficult to tell how it was made and why do you think that might be, when books from only a few decades later look much more like those we are used to seeing?
• Pay special attention to the binding.  What do you think explains its strangeness, and what does that suggest about how books were made and sold in the late C15?
• Who was St. Bonaventure and what were his "Opuscula"?  Can you translate any of the titles?  What kind of book is this?  That is, does it resemble any type of modern book you are familiar with?

Bonaventure, Opuscula, images

2)  John Hardyng, The Chronicle of Ihon Hardyng, (1543)  [Both front and back boards have separated from the binding, and a few initial blank pages are loose, but the remaining binding is firm and the pages are not brittle.  Take care--it's very rare in this edition.]

• Hardyng's Chronicle, then circulating in manuscript form, supplied Sir Thomas Malory's Morte Darthur with the Pentecostal "Round Table Oath" which closes the episodes editor Eugene Vinaver gives the title "Torre and Pellinor" (75-6 in Vinaver's Oxford paper back edition).  It also may have affected Malory's attitude toward the historicity of Arthur, and his importance to the continuity and legitimacy of English hereditary kingship.  Hardyng compiled the work, and created a series of forged "charters" purporting to show Scots lords had sworn homage to English kings, as part of his campaign to support the English king's claims to Scotland, and his own pleas for courtly patronage.  What evidence do you see in the section surtitled "Arthur" that Hardyng saw Arthur as Malory did?
• This volume bears written signs of a former owner's interest specifically in the Arthurian portion of its chronicle.  What do you see this prior reader paying attention to and what does that tell you about the reader's interests?
• Paying attention to the handwriting, instead of what it says, roughly in what century do you think the reader lived, read, and wrote?  What does that tell you, especially in combination with the reader's interests as suggested by what the reader paid special attention to?
• If you are interested in pursuing this subject further, you might be interested in one or more of these studies, especially Lesley Coote's, about the reception of the Arthurian narrative in Early Modern England:

3)  [John Higgins], The First parte of the Mirour for magistrates (1574) [Rebound, C19--excellent condition.]

• Shakespeare used the "Mirrour" (probably in this edition or the 1576 reprint) to help build his conception of the play which became King Lear.  What part of the text does he draw upon?  Hint: it's not a section called "King Lear," but it does bear the name (differently spelled) of an important character we encounter in the play.  What is different about the way "Mirrour" represents the events and, especially, this character's life and death?
• Look at the author's preface (folio 1 verso) and figure out what circumstances he says led to the creation of this narrative.  What kind of genre is it, and how does it relate to some Medieval works we are reading this semester?  You should be able to make some interesting comparisons, particularly with the introductions of some works by Chaucer.
• Do you detect any signs of owners' inscriptions, or any other clues to their use of the book?
• How can we tell the book was rebound? 
• If you are interested in doing further work with this book, consult Lily Campbell's scholarly edition of the Huntington Library's copy (826.3 M67 1946).     

4)  Peter Heylyn, The historie of the most famous saint and souldier of Christ Iesvs; St. George of Cappadocia . . ., 1633

• Compare the "front matter" of this edition with that of the 1598 Speght Chaucer (above).  What publisher's apparatus does this have that the Speght Chaucer does not?  Especially pay attention to the title page.
• Why does Peter Heylyn appear to be so interested in establishing the "historie" of St. George of Cappadocia, and how does he structure that "historie" with respect to its Medieval sources?  Who does he seem to be writing "against" and who are his allies?
• Does the date of publication or anything else about this edition give you any clues about why Heylyn might believe that there would be a market for books defending the historicity of St. George in England at this time?

Heylyn, The historie of the most famous saint and souldier of Christ Iesvs; St. George of Cappadocia . . . , images.

5)  Geoffrey Chaucer (trans. Sir Francis Kinnaston), Amorvm Troili et Cresidae.  Libri duo priores Anglico-Latini, 1635

• Why would anyone bother to translate Chaucer's Middle English poem into Latin in 1635?  Read the dedicatory poems, most of which are written in Early Modern English.
• What does the translation say about Chaucer's status and the way Seventeenth-Century English readers understood their own literary past?
• Where was this book printed, and what might that have to do with the readers' response to Kinnaston's labors?
• One of the dedicatory poems differs from all the others in its word choice and syntax.  Which one, why, and how good a job do you think its author is doing at what he attempts to do?

Chaucer, trans. Kinnaston, Amorvm Troili et Creseidae, 1635, images.

6)  Richard Brathwait, A comment upon the two tales of our ancient, renovvned, and ever-living poet, Sr. Jeffray Chavcer, Knight . . . , 1665

• What kinds of "comments" does Brathwait make on Chaucer, and what kind of critic/interpreter/scholar do you make him out to be?
• What portions of the tales does Brathwait choose for his "comments"?  Pick a portion of the "Miller's Tale" or the "Wife of Bath's Prologue" or "Wife of Bath's Tale" that you know well (consult your Norton Anthology or the Riverside Chaucer), and see what he has to say about it.  What is this guy up to?
• Look up Brathwait's surviving editions that are for sale on www.abe.com and notice what else he writes for sale?  How does his "comment" upon these two Canterbury Tales fit into his agenda as a writer?  What does this tell you about the social consequences of being familiar with Chaucer's work in the mid-Seventeenth-Century, and what does it tell you about readers' linguistic skills?
• Brathwait calls Chaucer "Sir Jeffray" and makes the formal "addition," "Knight," to his name.  This is a significant gesture.  Compare Sir Thomas Malory's "signatures" when he names himself in the explicits or scribal ending-notes of his Morte Darthur at the end of the Grail Quest, at the end of the section Vinaver calls "Launcelot and Guenivere," and at the end of the "Morte" or "hoole boke."  Refresh your memory of Chaucer's biography from the Riveside--was Chaucer ever knighted?  What's Brathwait up to?
• Brathwait's title page is followed by a dedication page invoking the praise and protection of his literary patron.  To whom does he dedicate the book?  What was the patron's rank and status?
• If you are interested in reading Brathwait's original work, the library also has a 1640 edition of his Lancashire Lovers.

Brathwait, A comment upon the two tales of our ancient, renovvvned, and ever-living poet Sr. Jeffray Chavcer, Knight, 1665, images

7)  William Clagett, trans., An abridgement of The prerogatives of St. Ann, mother of the mother of God . . . , 1688

• What concerns does the translator, William Clagett, say should concern us about the veneration of St. Ann?
• Why might an English translator think there would be a market in Protestant England for such a work in 1688?  Look up what was happening at the time, especially regarding James II.
• What does this tell you about the state of religious toleration and the political factors affecting book publication in late C17 England?

8)  John Dryden, Fables Ancient and Modern: Translated into English from Homer, Ovid, Boccacce, and Chaucer . . . , 1713

• Note that Dryden chooses the "Knight's Tale" from among the Canterbury Tales to be translated beside the works by Ovid.  The titles appear similar.  Is there also a similarity in the themes of each story?
• What significance might Dryden be intending by associating Homer, Ovid, and Boccaccio with Chaucer in this Modern English translation?
• What might it mean about the way Middle English now seemed to English readers' eyes and ears?
• If you know "Knight's Tale," compare some passages from Dryden's translation with the original and see how good Dryden is as a translator.  Most critics would call such a translation of one poet's work by another a "reading" or "interpretation" or even a "rewriting" of the original.  Is Dryden taking creative liberties with his subject, and if so, where, when, and why?

9)  Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. Thomas Urry, THE WORKS...three Tales are Added...together with a Glossary...to the Whole is Prefixed the Author's Life..., 1721 

• What does Urry's preface say about his method of editing Chaucer, and how would that compare with Speght's or a modern editor's methods?
• Comparing Speght's contents with Urry's, what do you see?  What has been added and what left out?  When you compare Urry with the Riverside Chaucer, how often was he fooled by spurious works and do you see any pattern in that?
• Do you see evidence of ownership, owner's use of the volume, etc.?
• Is the binding original and do the pages appear to have been trimmed?

10)  Laurence Minot, ed. Anon, Poems on interesting events in the reign of King Edward III; written, in the year MCCCLII, by Laurence Minot, 1795.  This shows us an example of scholarly editing of one of Chaucer's predecessor's works in the late C18.  Just scanning the poems will give one a sense of the kinds of political lyrics Chaucer would have encountered when learning Middle English.  The diligent student who peruses all the editor's apparatus to the very end will be rewarded with a (bizarre) surprise.  [Requires moderately high student interest, but no specialized language skills.]

11)  Thomas Hoccleve, ed. George Mason, Poems by Thomas Hoccleve, never before printed . . . , 1796  This shows us an example of scholarly editing of one of Chaucer's contemporaries' works in the late C18.  Several of Hoccleve's poems were confused with Chaucer's in Speght's edition, which resulted in some major dislocations of Renaissance readers' sense of Chaucer's life, parentage, and relationship to English culture.  See the preface for the editor's explanation of why the manuscript was believed to be Chaucer's work--do you agree that is the only reason?  [Requires moderately high student interest, but no specialized language skills.]

12)  Godwin, William, Life of Geoffrey Chaucer, the early English poet . . . , 1803