Chapter 1

Produced by Louise Hope, Taavi Kalju and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned images of public domain material from the Google Print project.)

[This text uses UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding. If the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a last resort, use the Latin-1 version of the file instead.

The text is based on the 1865 EETS edition of Thynne’s _Animadversions_. Two purely typographic features have been adopted from the 1876 Chaucer Society re-edition of the same MS. Passages printed in brackets in 1865 have been changed to 1876’s parentheses; conversely, letters and whole words supplied by the editor are shown in brackets, reserving italics for expanded abbreviations. A few apparent errors were corrected from the 1876 text. Some other differences between the two editions are noted at the end of the e-text.

Italicized letters within a word are shown in {braces}. Other italics are shown conventionally with _lines_. Superscripts are shown with carets ^.

The Sidenotes have been duplicated at the beginning of the text to act as a table of contents.]

Animaduersions

uppon

Chaucer’s Workes.

[Sidenotes: The author is vexed that Master Speight did not consult him on his new edition of Chaucer. Also vexed at a side blow at his father’s edition, and justifies him as editor. His father’s collection of MS. Chaucers and their curiosity. The Pilgrime’s Tale telling forth the evil lives of churchmen. William Thynne in favour with Henry VIII., who promiseth to countenance him. The promise broken through the power of Wolsey. The most part of Colin Clout written at William Thynne’s house at Erith. Chaucer’s works like to be destroyed by parliament. Reasons why the Pilgrime’s Tale should be Chaucer’s. How William Thynne’s collection of Chaucer’s MS. was dispersed abroad. He differeth from Master Speight on Chaucer’s family. Chausier, one who hoseth or shueth a man. Chaucer his arms injustly undervalued. Philippa of Henault came not over with Prince Edward. Bartholomew de Burgersh sent for Philippa of Henault. The conjecture that Chaucer’s ancestors were merchants, of no valydytye. Master Speight misquoteth Gower. Chaucer submitteth his works to Gower, not Gower to Chaucer. Gower the poet was not of the Gowers (or Gores) of Stittenham. Gower’s chaplette for knighthood not for poetry. The chaplette of roses a peculiar ornament of honour. The knighting of Erle Mortone of Normandye. Chaucer being a grave man unlikely to beat a Franciscan Fryer but? The lawyers not in the temple till the latter part of Edward III. Speight knoweth not the name of Chaucer’s wife, nor doth Thynne. The children of John of Gaunt born pre-nupt, and legytymated by the Pope and the Parliament. Chaucer’s children and their advauncement and of the Burgershes. Serlo de Burgo uncle and not brother to Eustace. Jane of Navarre maryed to Henry IV., in the 5th year of his reign. The de la Pools gained advancement by lending the King money, but William was not the first that did so. The clergy offended that the temporal men were found as wise as themselves. A merchant by Attorney is no true merchant. Alice, the wife of Richard Neville, was daughter of Thomas Montacute. He correcteth Master Speight his dates and history of printing. The Romante of the Rose began by Guillm̄ de Loris, and finished by John de la Meune. Why the dream of Chaucer cannot be the book of the Duchess. John of Gaunt, his incontinency. Doubteth master Speight’s ability in the exposition of old words, but commendeth his diligence and knowledge. Aketon or Slevelesse jacket of plate for the war. A besant is a besant, and not a duckett. Fermentacione is fermentacione, and not dawbing even metaphorically. Orfrayes not Goldsmith’s work, but frysed cloth of gold, a manufacture peculiar to the English. Oundye and Crispe meaneth wavy like water. Resager is ratsbane or arsenic. Begyns are nuns, though it cometh to mean superstitious and hypocritical women from their nature. Citrinatione or perfect digestion. Forage is old and hard provision made for horses and cattle in winter, or metaphorically, or to help out the ryme it may mean grass. Heroner is a long-winged hawk for the heron. The Hyppe is the berye of the sweet bryer or eglantine. Nowell meaneth more than Christmas. Porpherye is a peculiar marble, not marble in common. Sendale, a sylke stuffe. The trepegett is not the battering-ram, but an engine to cast stones. Wiuer or Wyvern, a serpent like unto a dragon. Autenticke meaneth a thing of auctoritye, not of antiquitye. Abandone is not liberty though Hollyband sayeth so. Of the Vernacle. Master Thynne would read Campaneus for Capaneus, and giveth reasons. Liketh the reading of Eros, but preferreth that of Heros, and giveth reasons. Of florins and their name from the Florentines. Sterling money taketh its name from the Esterlings. King John of France, his ransom of three millions of florens. Of the oken garland of Emelye. Eyther for euerye, an overnice correction. The intellect of Arcite had not wholly gone, or he would not have known Emelye. Straught, a better word than haughte. Visage for vassalage, an impertinent correction. Leefe for lothe, a nedeless correction. It is more likely that Absolon knocked than that he coughed at the window. Surrye or Russye, indifferent which. Cambuscan is Caius canne. “That may not saye naye,” better than “there may no wighte say naye.” Theophraste, not Paraphraste. The wife of Bath’s Prologue taken from the author of Policraticon. Country, not Couentry. Maketh, not waketh. Hugh of Lincoln. “Where the sunne is in his ascensione,” a good reading. Kenelm slain by Queen Drida. Master Speight mistaketh his almanack. The degrees of the signe are misreckoned, not the signe itself. Mereturicke is a corruption of Merecenrycke, or the kingdom of Mercia. Pilloures of silver borne before Cardinalls. Liketh best the old reading of “change of many manner of meates.” And also the old reading of “myters” more than one or two for the sake of the meter. The lordes sonne of Windsore is in the French Romant of the rose, but is there spelled Guindesores. Master Thynne knoweth not clearly why the Baron should be called of Windsor. The ordeal was not tryall by fier only, but also by water, nor for chastity only, but for many other matters. The fyery ordeal was by going on hote shares and cultors, not going through the fyre. The mother of Edward confessor passed over nine burnynge shares. The ordeal taken away by the court of Rome, and after by Henry III. The stork bewrayeth not adultery but wreaketh the adultery of his owne mate. The plowman’s tale is wrong placed. Chaucer’s proper works should be distinguished from those adulterat and not his. There were three editions of Chaucer before William Thynne dedicated his to Henry VIII. The first editions being very corrupt, William Thynne augmented and corrected them. Master Speight hath omytted many auctors vouched by Chaucer. It should be Harlottes, and not Haroldes. The king of Ribalds or Harlottes, an officer of great accompt in times past. Johannes Tyllius maketh mention of a Rex Ribaldorum. Also Vincentius Luparius maketh him an honourable officer. The Rex Ribaldorum was like unto our Marshall. The Marshalls duties and his powers over Harlotts and lost men. Master Thynne being a herold liketh not that false semblance should be thought one. Hate was a Moueresse or stirrer of debate, not a minoresse. Molinet calleth Hate a Ducteress, or leader.]

+Chaucer.+

ANIMADUERSIONS

uppon the Annotacions and correct{i}ons of some imperfect{i}ons of impress{i}ones of Chaucer’s workes (sett downe before tyme and nowe) reprinted in the yere of our lorde 1598

Sett downe by FRANCIS THYNNE.

“Sortee pur bien ou ne sortee rien.”

Now Newly Edited from the MS. in the Bridgewater Library

by

G. H. KINGSLEY, M.D., F.L.S.

LONDON: Published for the Early English Text Society, by N. Trübner & Co., 60, Paternoster Row.

MDCCCLXV.

John Childs and Son, Printers.

PREFACE.

Although only the grandson of the first of his name, the author of the following interesting specimen of 16th-century criticism came of a family of great antiquity, of so great an antiquity, indeed, as to preclude our tracing it back to its origin. This family was originally known as the “De Botfelds,” but in the 15th century one branch adopted the more humble name of “Thynne,” or “of the Inne.” Why the latter name was first assumed has never been satisfactorily explained. It can hardly be supposed that “John de la Inne de Botfelde,” as he signed himself, kept a veritable hostelry and sold ale and provender to the travellers between Ludlow and Shrewsbury, and most probably the term Inn was used in the sense which has given us “Lincoln’s Inn,” “Gray’s Inn,” or “Furnivall’s Inn,” merely meaning a place of residence of the higher class, though in this case inverted, the Inn giving its name to its owner.

However obtained, the name has been borne by the most successful branch of the De Botfelds down to the present Marquess of Bath, who now represents it. Much interesting matter connected with the family was collected by a late descendant of the older branch, Beriah Botfeld, and published by him in his “Stemmata Botvilliana.”

The first “John of the Inn” married one Jane Bowdler, by whom he had a son Ralph, who married Anne Hygons, and their son William became clerk of the kitchen, and according to some, master of the household to Henry VIII. He married in the first place a lady who, however she may have advanced her husband’s prospects at court, behaved in a manner which must have considerably marred his satisfaction at her success. Those who wish to study the matrimonial sorrows of “Thynnus Aulicus,” as he calls him, may consult Erasmus in his Epistolæ, lib. xv. Epist. xiv.

His second marriage to Anne Bond, daughter of William Bond, clerk of green cloth and master of the household to Henry VIII., was more fortunate, and by her he had daughters and one son, our Francis Thynne.

Though his son gives him no higher position in the court of Henry VIII. than the apparently humble one of clerk of the kitchen, he is careful to let us know that the post was in reality no mean one, and that “there were those of good worship both at court and country” who had at one time been well pleased to be his father’s clerks. That he was a man of superior mind there is no question, and we have a pleasant hint in the following tract of his intimacy with his king, and of their mutual fondness for literature. To William Thynne, indeed, all who read the English language are deeply indebted, for to his industry and love for his author we owe much of what we now possess of Chaucer. Another curious bit of literary gossip to be gleaned from this tract is that William Thynne was a patron and supporter of John Skelton, who was an inmate of his house at Erith, whilst composing that most masterly bit of bitter truth, his “Colin Clout,” a satire perhaps unsurpassed in our language.

William Thynne rests beside his second wife, in the church of Allhallows, Barking, near the Tower of London, where there are two handsome brasses to their memory. That of William Thynne represents him in full armour with a tremendous dudgeon dagger and broadsword, most warlike guize for a clerk of the kitchen and editor of Chaucer. The dress of his wife is quite refreshing in its graceful comeliness in these days of revived “farthingales and hoops.” These brasses were restored by the late Marquess of Bath. Would that the same good feeling for things old had prevented the owners of the “church property” from casing the old tower with a hideous warehouse.

The Sir John Thynne mentioned in the “Animadversions” was most probably a cousin of Francis. He married the daughter of Sir Thomas Gresham, the builder of the Royal Exchange, part of whose wealth was devoted by his son-in-law to the building of the beautiful family seat of Long Leat, in Wiltshire, in which work he was doubtless aided indirectly by the Reformation, for, says the old couplet,

“Portman, Horner, Popham, and Thynne, When the monks went out they came in.”

Francis Thynne was born in Kent, probably at his father’s house at Erith, about 1550. He was educated at Tunbridge school under learned Master Proctor, thence to Magdalen College, Oxford, and then, as the manner was, to the Inns of Court, where he lay at Lincoln’s Inn for a while. Some men are born antiquarians as others are born poets, and we may be pretty certain that it was at Thynne’s own desire that his court influence was used to procure him the post of “Blanch Lyon pursuivant,” a position which would enable him to pursue studies, the results of which, however valuable in themselves, but seldom prove capable of being converted into the vulgar necessities of food and raiment. Poor John Stowe, with his license to beg, as the reward of the labour of his life, is a terrible proof of how utterly unmarketable a valuable commodity may become.

Leading a calm and quiet life in the pleasant villages of Poplar and Clerkenwell, in “sweet and studious idleness,” as he himself calls it, the old herald was enabled to accumulate rich stores of matter, much of which has come down to us, principally in manuscript, scattered through various great libraries, which prove him to have deserved Camden’s estimate of him as “an antiquary of great judgment and diligence.” It would seem that he had entertained the idea of following in his father’s footsteps, and of becoming an editor of Chaucer, and that he had even made some collections towards that end. The appearance of Speight’s edition probably prevented this idea being carried out, and the evident soreness exhibited in this little tract very probably arose from a feeling that his friend had rather unfairly stolen a march upon him. However the wound was not deep, and Speight made use of Thynne’s corrections, and Thynne assisted Speight, in new editions, with all friendship and sympathy.[1] I suspect him of dabbling in alchemy and the occult sciences. He shows himself well acquainted with the terms peculiar to those mysteries, and hints that Chaucer only “enveyed” against the “sophisticall abuse,” not the honest use of the Arcana. Moreover in the British Museum (MS. add. 11,388) there is a volume containing much curious matter collected by him on these subjects, and not only collected but illustrated by him with most gorgeous colours and wondrous drawing, worthy of the blazonry of a Lancaster Herald. The costumes however are carefully correct, and give us useful hints as to the fashion of the raiment of our ancestors. From the peculiar piety and earnestness (most important elements in the search for the philosopher’s stone), of the small “signs” and prayers appended to these papers, it is, I think, clear, that he was working in all good faith and belief. Possibly the following lines, which seem to have been his favourite motto, may have been inspired by the disappointment and dyspepsia produced by his smoky studies and their ill success,

“My strange and froward fate Shall turn her whele anew To better or to payre my fate, Which envy dothe pursue.”

[Footnote 1: “To the readers. After this booke was last printed, I understand that M. Francis Thynn had a purpose, as indeed he hath when the time shall serve, to set out Chaucer with a coment in our tongue, as the Italians have Petrarke and others in their language. Whereupon I purposed not to meddle any further in this work, although some promise made to the contrarie, but to referre all to him; being a gentleman for that purpose inferior to none, both in regard to his own skill, as also of those helps left to him by his father. Yet notwithstanding, Chaucer now being printed againe I was willing not only to helpe some imperfections, but also to add some things whereunto he did not only persuade me, but most kindly lent me his helpe and direction. By this means most of his old words are restored: proverbes and sentences marked: such Notes as were collected, drawne into better order and the text by olde copies corrected.” Speight’s Chaucer, 1602.]

On the 22nd of April, 1602, he was with great ceremony advanced to the honour of Lancaster Herald. He never surrendered his patent, and as his successor entered on that post in November, 1608, he is supposed to have died about that date, though some postpone his death till 1611. He married Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of Thomas de la Rivers of Bransbe, but left no issue.

There are many points of interest to be picked out of the following honest and straightforward bit of criticism, if we examine it closely: and, firstly, as to its author? Is there not something very characteristic in its general tone, something dimly sketching a shadowy outline of a kindly, fussy, busy, querulous old man, much given to tiny minutiæ, a careful copier with a clean pen, indefatiguable in collecting “contributions” to minor history; one jealous of all appearance of slight to his office, even to being moved to wrath with Master Speight for printing “Harolds” instead of “Harlotts,” and letting him know how mightily a “Harold” like himself would be offended at being holden of the condition of so base a thing as False Semblance? Perhaps the more so from a half-consciousness that the glory of the office was declining, and that if the smallest opening were given, a ribald wit might create terrible havock amongst his darling idols. How delicately he snubs Master Speight for not calling on him at Clerkenwell Green (How would Speight have travelled the distance in 1598? It was a long uphill walk for an antiquarian, and the fields by no means safe from long-staff sixpenny strikers); and how modestly he hints that he would have derived no “disparagement” from so doing; showing all the devotion to little matters of etiquette of an amiable but irritable old gentleman of our own day.

But mark this old gentleman’s description of his father’s collection of Chaucer’s MS.! Had ever a Bibliophile a more delightful commission than that one of William Thynne’s, empowering him to rout and to rummage amongst all the monasteries and libraries of England in search of the precious fragments? And had ever a Bibliophile a greater reward for his pleasant toils? “Fully furnished with a multitude of books, emongst which one coppye of some part of his works subscribed in various places ‘Examinatur Chaucer’!” Where is this invaluable MS. now? It is worth the tracing, if it be possible, even to its intermediate history. Was it one of those stolen from Francis Thynne’s house at Poplar by that bibliomaniacal burglar? or was it one of those which in a fit of generosity, worthy of those heroic times, he gave to Stephen Batemann, that most fortunate parson of Newington? Is this commission to be regarded as some slight proof that the spoliation of the monasteries was not carried on with the reckless Vandalism usually attributed to the reformers?

We learn from this tract that William Thynne left no less than twenty-five copies of Chaucerian MS. to his son, doubtless but a small tything of the entire number extant, showing that there were men amongst the monks who could enjoy wit and humour even when directed against themselves, and that there must have been some considerable liberality if not laxness of rule amongst the orders of the day. It would, I fancy, be difficult to find amongst the monkeries of our own time (except possibly those belonging to that very cheery order the Capuchines) an abbot inclined to permit his monks to read, much less to copy, so heretical a work as the Canterbury Tales, however freely he winked at the introduction of French nouvellettes.

But though some may have enjoyed Chaucer in all good faith, there were others who saw how trenchant were the blows he dealt against the churchmen of his time, and what deadly mischief to their pre-eminence lurked under his seeming _bonhommie_. Wolsey thought it worth his while to exert his influence against him so strongly as to oblige William Thynne to alter his plan of publication, though backed by the promised protection of Henry VIII. And the curious action of the Parliament noticed in the tract (p. 7) was doubtless owing to the same influence:[2] an assumption of the right of censure by the Parliament which seems to have gone near to deprive us of Chaucer altogether. The Parliament men were right in regarding the works of Chaucer as mere fables, but they forgot that fables have “morals,” and that these morals were directed to the decision of the great question of whether the “spiritual” or the “temporal” man was to rule the world, a question unhappily not quite settled even in our own time.

[Footnote 2: Urry, in his Ed. of Chaucer, says that the Canterbury Tales were exempt from the prohibition of the Act of 34 Henry VIII. “For the advancement of true religion.” I find no notice of this in the Act in the “Statutes at large,” 1763. He also refers to Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, which is also merely negative on the subject.]

The notice of that other sturdy reformer, John Skelton (p. 7) is also very interesting, and gives us a hint of the existence of a “protesting” feeling in the Court of Henry VIII. before there was any reason for attributing it to mere private or political motives. From the way in which it is mentioned here, I suspect that the more general satire “Colin Clout” preceded the more directly personal one of “Why come ye nat to court?” which lashes Wolsey himself with a heartily outspoken virulence which would hardly have been tolerated by him when in the zenith of his power. It was not improbably written whilst its author was safe in sanctuary under Bishop Islip. William Thynne, court favourite though he was, could never have kept Skelton’s head on his shoulders after so terrible a provocation.

Wherever he may be placed, John Skelton stands alone amongst satirists, there is no one like him: possibly from a feeling that he was writing on the winning side, and sure of sympathy and protection, he scorns to hide his pearls under a dunghill like Rabelais, and utters fearlessly and openly what he has to say. Even in our own time,

“Though his rime be ragged Tattered and iagged Rudely rain-beaten Rusty and moth-eaten _If ye talke well therewyth Yt hath in it some pith_.”

Thynne’s note on the family of Gower (p. 14) is of value as agreeing with later theories, which deny that Gower the poet was of the Gowers of Stittenham, the ancestors of the present houses of Sutherland and Ellesmere. The question is not, however, finally decided, and we have reason to believe that all the Gowers of Great Britain are descended from the same family of Guers still flourishing in Brittany. Early coat-armours are not much to be depended on, and Thynne as a Herald may lean a little too much towards them. The question is, however, in good hands, and I hope that before long some fresh light may be thrown upon it.