after his death. It would have been better if a short explanation, to this effect, had been inserted in the volume; but there is nothing of the kind.

It must therefore be carefully borne in mind, that this edition of 1845, on the title-page of which the name of Tyrwhitt is so conspicuous, was really edited anonymously, or may even be said not to have been edited at all. The Canterbury Tales are reprinted from Tyrwhitt; and so also are the Essay, the Discourse, the Notes, and the Glossary; and it is most important to observe that 'the Glossary' is preceded by Tyrwhitt's 'Advertisement,' and by his 'Account of the Works of Chaucer to which this Glossary is adapted; and of those other pieces^[7] which have been improperly intermixed with his in the Editions.' The volume is, in fact, made up in this way. Pages i-lxx and 1-209 are all due to Tyrwhitt; and contain a Preface, an Appendix to the Preface, an Abstract of Passages of the Life of Chaucer, an Essay, an Introductory Discourse to the Tales, and the Tales themselves.

Again, pp. 441-502 are all due to Tyrwhitt, and contain an Advertisement to the Glossary, an Account of Chaucer's Works (as above), and a Glossary. Moreover, this Glossary contains a large number of words from most of Chaucer's Works, including even his prose treatises; besides a handful of words from spurious works such as 'Chaucer's Dream.'

In this way, all the former part and all the latter part of the volume are due to Tyrwhitt; it is the middle part that is wholly independent of him. It is here that we find no less than twenty-five poems, which he never edited, reprinted (inexactly) from the old black-letter editions or from Chalmers. It thus becomes plain that the words 'By Thomas Tyrwhitt' on the title-page refer only to the second clause of it, but have no reference to the former clause, consisting of the words, 'The Poetical Works of Geoffrey Chaucer.' It remains to be said that the twenty-five poems which are here appended to the Canterbury Tales are well selected; and that the anonymous editor or superintendent was guided in his choice by Tyrwhitt's 'Account of the Works.'

§ 8. This somewhat tedious account is absolutely necessary, every word of it, in order to enable the reader to understand what has always been meant (since 1845) by critics who talk about some works as being 'attributed to Chaucer.' They really mean (in the case, for example, of The Cuckoo and the Nightingale) that it happens to be included in a certain volume by an anonymous editor, published in 1845, in which the suggestions made by Tyrwhitt in 1778 were practically adopted without any important deviation. In the case of any other author, such a basis for a canon would be considered rather a sandy one; it derives its whole value from the fact that Tyrwhitt was an excellent literary critic, who may well be excused for a few mistakes, considering how much service he did in thus reducing the number of poems in 'Chaucer's Works' from 64 to little more than 26^[8]. Really, this was a grand achievement, especially as it clearly emphasised the absurdity of trusting to the old editions. But it is an abuse of language to say that 'The Cuckoo and Nightingale' has 'always been attributed to Chaucer,' merely

because it happens to have been printed by Thynne in 1532, and had the good luck to be accepted by Tyrwhitt in 1778. On the contrary, such a piece remains on its trial; and it must be rejected absolutely, both on the external and on the internal evidence. Externally, because no scribe or early writer connects it with him in any way. Internally, for reasons given in vol. i. p. 39^[9]; and for other reasons given in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer.

§ 9. The chief value of the anonymous edition in 1845 is, that it gave practical expression to Tyrwhitt's views. The later editions by Bell and Morris were, in some respects, retrogressive. Both, for example, include The Lamentation of Mary Magdalene, which Tyrwhitt rightly denounced in no dubious terms; (see vol. i. above, pp. 37, 38). But, of late years, the question of constructing a canon of Chaucer's genuine works has received proper attention, and has been considered by such scholars as Henry Bradshaw, Bernhard ten Brink, Dr. Koch, Dr. Furnivall, Professor Lounsbury, and others; with a fairly unanimous result. The whole question is well summed up in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, Chapter IV, on 'The Writings of Chaucer.' His conclusion is, that his 'examination leaves as works about which there is no dispute twenty-six titles.' By these titles he means The Canterbury Tales, Boethius, Troilus, The House of Fame, The Legend of Good Women, The Astrolabe, and the nineteen Minor Poems which I denote by the numbers I-XI, XIII-XX (no. XX being counted as two). His examination did not at first include no. XII (To Rosemounde); but, in his Appendix (vol. iii. pp. 449, 450), he calls attention to it, and accepts it without hesitation. He also says of no. XXII, that 'it may be Chaucer's own work.'

§ 10. I may add a few words about the other Minor Poems which I now print, numbered XXI, XXIII, and XXIV-XXVI; the last three of which appear in vol. iv. pp. xxv-xxxi.

As regards no. XXI, or 'Against Women Unconstaunt,'

I observe that Mr. Pollard, in his 'Chaucer Primer,' has these words. The authenticity of this poem 'has lately been reasserted by Prof. Skeat, on the triple ground that it is (1) a good poem; (2) perfect in its rhymes^[10]; (3) found in conjunction with poems undoubtedly by Chaucer in two MSS.' This account, however, leaves out my chief argument, viz. its obvious dependence upon a Ballade by Machault, whom Chaucer is known to have imitated, and who is not known to have been imitated by any other Englishman. I also lay stress on the very peculiar manner in which the poem occurs in MS. Ct. See above, vol. i. p. 88. It should also be compared with the Balade to Rosemounde, which it resembles in tone. It seems to me that the printing of this poem in an Appendix is quite justifiable. We may some day learn more about it.

§ 11. As regards no. XXIV (vol. iv. p. xxv), the external evidence is explicit. It occurs in the same MS. as that which authenticates no. VI (A Compleint to his Lady); and the MS. itself is one of Shirley's. Internally, we observe the great peculiarity of the rhythm. Not only is the poem arranged in nine-line stanzas, but the whole is a tour de force. In the course of 33 lines, there are but 3 rime-endings; and we may particularly notice the repetition of the first two lines at the end of the poem, just as in the Complaint of Anelida, which likewise begins and ends with a line in which remembraunce is the last word. We have here a specimen of the kind of nine-line stanza (examples of which are very scarce) which Hoccleve endeavoured to imitate in his Balade to my Lord of York^[11]; but Hoccleve had to employ three rimes in the stanza instead of two. The poem is