Early Print Editions Project

       This project is intended to give you some hands-on (washed hands, of course!) experience working with one of several old Chaucer editions and translations by which English authors of the period 1598 to about 1800 would have known Chaucer's "works" and Chaucer as a historical poet.  You will get the most out of the experience if you take the time to properly prepare your mind by following the instructions immediately below.  Also, before you go to Special Collections, read this hyperlinked short page of instructions about how to handle archival materials.  Then, pick one of the available "early print editions" of Chaucer and call or email Special Collections and Archives (SCA) to arrange an appointment to work with it.  Suggestions about what to look for are included for each book.  A single one of those questions might be entirely enough to motivate your answer if you think carefully about it.  Seniors' reports are due by the Wednesday of exam week, and returning students' reports are due by the following Friday.  Extensions for returning students can be arranged, but senior grades are due much sooner.

        You may work in a small group of no more than two or three if you wish.  Sometimes, having more eyes on the object helps you all see it better.  Take reading/viewing notes in pencil while you are working in SCA, and write a report about your findings that you will send me by the time the final exam period is over. Because the assignment is meant to replace the fifth annotated bibliography assignment, use a good, thorough "bib"'s length as your guideline for how much writing I'm looking for, though if you go longer and better, you're in extra credit territory.  As always, if you get stuck or just cannot get started, please ask me for help.

       Begin by familiarizing yourself briefly with the manuscript orders in which vellum and paper manuscripts of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales have survived by consulting this web page and talking with the instructor: http://faculty.goucher.edu/eng330/ct_tale_orders.htm.  Especially note that the "families" of manuscripts from which the tale orders are reconstructed are composed of unique documents, each differing from the others in countless ways, including some fairly dramatic differences in which some of the tales occur.  Most importantly, all of the manuscripts of Chaucer's works contain no "front matter" or notes, the editorial guidance and aids modern students are used to encountering in the Norton Anthology or Riverside editions of Chaucer's works.  Short scribal notes, that the Riverside prints in italics, are the most reading aid manuscripts supply.  For example, page through the first few leaves of  the Oxford University Corpus Christi Manuscript 198, which begins in mid-sentence with the General Prologue description of the Knight's "not good" array in very faded ink at the top of the page.  (If you have trouble reading the faded letters, scroll down to the darker ink which picks up the Squire's description at "and karf biforne his fader atte table.")  If you want to see more images of medieval Chaucer MSS, see some of the library's printed facsimiles in the Goucher library collection.

        Next, look at the first leaves in digital facsimile of William Caxton's first printed edition ("editio princeps") of Canterbury Tales (London: 1476) or his second printed edition (London: 1483) at the British Library web site.  Note what Caxton does not give his readers that the Norton and Riverside editors give their readers before they begin reading Chaucer's works.  How does the presence of that editorial "apparatus" affect/shape readers' reception of what Chaucer wrote?

        Then, consult one of these rare printed editions in Goucher's Special Collections and examine their editorial apparatus, tale order and selection, and layout, to see what kind of "Chaucer," the works and the poet, the book presents to its readers.  How might that have affected Chaucer's reputation, his works' reception by later poets, and his influence on English poetry?

1)  The 1689 reprint of the Speght Chaucer edition (1598, 1602, 1687).  Though not in the Goucher Library collection, this book is available for research from my collection.  It probably is related to the 1598 edition below by its choice of which Chaucer texts to print, and much of the front matter (introduction, biographical note, etc.) and "hard word glossary" at the back.  The main question we need to answer is whether this Chaucer may be a "nondescript" edition  That is, it seems not to have been described in any of the official scholarly bibliographies of Chaucer editions.  In addition to this copy, I have been able to find evidence of the existence of just two more copies in online records.  It may be a new discovery of considerable importance, or it may just be a sort of "knock-off" of the 1687 edition.  Previously, according to Editing Chaucer: The Great Tradition (1987) and the Early English Short Title Catalog, the 1687 edition was the last printed in "black letter" or gothic type, and the last Renaissance Chaucer edition in Middle English.  The next one, Urry's 1721 edition, was printed in Roman type and involved a complete re-edition of Chaucer's works rather than reprinting Speght's 1598 edition without changes other than typographical errors.  The title page of my copy of the 1698 edition is distinctly different from the title page of the 1687 edition, which lists no printer or sellers, and includes the Arabic date "1687." 

        Two possibilities seem most likely to explain the appearance of the 1698 edition in only three copies. The most exciting and least likely explanation would be that the book represents a previously unknown setting of the type for Chaucer's works, with perhaps different front matter and glossing than the 1687 or other editions.  The more likely but still interesting explanation is that, two years after the 1687 printing, the booksellers still had enough unbound sheets left unsold to make up a small batch of "new" Chaucers, and paid to have a new title page run off to give the books sales appeal.  (Yes, I know you are shocked, as I once was, that deceptive marketing occurred even in the Renaissance printing business!)  If this is a true new edition, the easiest evidence to consult will be the ESTC record of the pagination and "signatures" (markers for the bookbinder at the bottom of the page.  The page count (720) is exactly the same for both editions, but this is what one would expect if the type were not reset, or if it were reset following the previous edition, letter-for-letter.  If you click on the link, you will note that the 1687 edition also has a mis-signed page, where the binder's signature should read "c1" but instead was set "d."  This, and the other signatures and pagination, would be the definitive bibliographic "points" to identify, in addition to other copy-specific features of the book as an artifact.

THE WORKS OF OUR ANCIENT, LEARNED, & EXCELLENT ENGLISH POET, JEFFREY CHAUCER: As They Have Lately Been Compar'd With The Beft Manufcripts; And Several Things Added, Never Before In Print. To Which Is Adjoyn'd, The Story Of The Siege Of Thebes, By John Lidgate, Monk Of Bury.

London: Printed by J.H. are to be ʃold by Samuel Crouch, in Cornhill, Mat- | thew Gelliflower and William Henʃhman in Weʃtminʃter-Hall, Abel Roper and | George Grafton in Fleet-Street, MDCLXXXIX

• What is this book's actual (hand-tallied) pagination and signature system?  Just doing that laborious work would enable us to properly "collate" the book against the 1687 edition's ESTC record.  Even within a print run of the same editions, mistakes can occur as battered or loose type is reset, or previous typesetting errors are detected and corrected without going back to change the previously printed sheets.
• 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.  Comparison of Speght's biography of Chaucer with that in the Norton Anthology or Riverside Chaucer will be especially interesting.  What sorts of things did Renaissance readers think had happened to Geoffrey Chaucer that modern scholars know was not true?
• 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?  In what order are the "Canterbury Tales" printed?
• How does this reprint edition compare with Speght's original 1598 edition, especially in its front matter?

2)  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).  The initial two or three pages of the Speght Chaucer are extremely fragile.  Use great care with working with them.  When possible, prepare by examining the digital images (linked below) before you decide you need to handle those pages.

The workes of our antient and learned English poet, Geffrey Chaucer, newly printed : In this impression you shall find these additions. 1. His portraiture and progenie shewed. 2. His life collected. 3. Arguments to every booke gathered. 4. Old and obscure words explaned. 5. Authors by him cited, declared. 6. Difficulties opened. 7. Two bookes of his, never before printed

• 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.  Comparison of Speght's biography of Chaucer with that in the Norton Anthology or Riverside Chaucer will be especially interesting.  What sorts of things did Renaissance readers think had happened to Geoffrey Chaucer that modern scholars know was not true?
• 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?  In what order are the "Canterbury Tales" printed?
• 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?
• What is the modern scholarly opinion of Speght as an editor of Chaucer?  For one well-informed opinion, consult Derek Pearsall's chapter on Speght in Paul G. Ruggiers, ed., Editing Chaucer: The Great Tradition (Norman, Okla: Pilgrim, 1984), 71-92.   826.2 C49Sru 1984

Speght Chaucer Images

3)  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 

        NOTE: the "covers detached" descriptive note below is an important limitation on how you must work with the Urry Chaucer.  Ask for assistance in moving this extremely large, heavy book from its protective enclosure to a properly arranged foam book cradle.  Also ask for help when positioning the detached boards so that opening pages will not pull any of them loose from the binding.

• What does Urry's preface say about his method of editing Chaucer?  What does that suggest about the eighteenth-century readers' concerns, to which the editor is appealing?  Notice especially the overall appearance of this edition, perhaps compared with your Norton Anthology or Riverside Chaucer.  What kind of book is this?  If you have examined the Speght Chaucer, how would that compare with Speght's or a modern editor's methods? 
• Compare the "front matter" (frontispiece, title page, dedicatory material)  and think about them as the editor's and printer's attempt to "sell" the edition to the readers.  What kinds of visual appeals are being made, and do you find any of them at all unusual?  Comparison with the images of the Speght Chaucer front matter (linked above) may help inform your eye.
• Comparing Speght's contents with Urry's, what do you see?  What has been added and what left out? 
• In what order does Urry print the "Canterbury Tales"?
• 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?
• What is the modern opinion of Urry's edition?  For one well-informed opinion, consult William L. Anderson's chapter on Speght in Paul G. Ruggiers, ed., Editing Chaucer: The Great Tradition (Norman, Okla: Pilgrim, 1984), 93-115.   826.2 C49Sru 1984

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

• Dryden's selection of a specific Canterbury Tale, his translation of it into late-C18 Modern English, and his juxtaposition of the tale with translations from Homer, Ovid, and Boccaccio does correspond to what many modern fiction anthologists do.  How does Dryden's decision to "modernize" Chaucer reflect his readers' likely interests, reading skills, and limitations? 
• What other major English poets from the period between 1400 (Chaucer's death) and 1700 (Dryden's death) used Homer, Ovid, Boccaccio, or Chaucer as sources of material for original compositions, and how does Dryden's translation relate to the uses they made of those poets? 
• 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?  Feel free to use the Oxford or Cambridge Companions and Guides to aid your analysis.
• What significance might Dryden be intending by associating Homer, Ovid, and Boccaccio with Chaucer in this Modern English translation?
• What might Dryden's vocabulary and the book's "front matter" 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?

5)  John Dryden, Fables Antient and Modern (1771 edition)

Fables antient and modern : translated into verse, from Homer, Ovid, Boccace and Chaucer: with original poems / by John Dryden Esq.

• This later edition collects, with the text of Dryden's original 1700 edition of Fables, a number of other translations.  Among them, it adds to Dryden's "Knight's Tale" his translations of the "Nuns' Priest's Tale" and the "Wife of Bath's Tale."  What major (multiple-line) sections of Chaucer's text has he left out of those works that readers of the Riverside Chaucer would have encountered, and how might that have changed the narrative?
• Compare, line by line, some important passage or passages from your RC edition of either the "Nuns' Priest's Tale" or "Wife of Bath's Tale" with Dryden's version.  How has the seventeenth-century poet "read and interpreted" the Middle English text for his readers, and what values do you see him transmitting and subverting or eliminating from the passages.
•  What does the extraction of any one of the three Chaucerian tales do to its meaning and significance as opposed to the version readers encounter in the RC?
• If you are feeling especially ambitious, read "The flower and the lear: or, The lady in the arbour, a vision out of Chaucer."  What kind of text is it, and how does it work in Dryden's version of Chaucer's canonical works?