LYDGATE\ue008S LONDON LICKPENNY
LYDGATE\ue009S BICORN AND CHICHEVACHE
DUNBAR\ue00aS BEST TO BE BLYTH
DRAYTON\ue00bS DOWSABELL
DRAYTON\ue00cS NYMPHIDIA
POPE\ue00dS RAPE OF THE LOCK
COWPER\ue00eS JOHN GILPIN
BURNS\ue00fS TAM O\ue010SHANTER
HOOD\ue011S DEMON SHIP
HOOD\ue012S TALE OF A TRUMPET
GLOSSARY
NOTES
THE GAME OF OMBRE

The last volume of these \u201cCompanion Poets\u201d contained some of Chaucer\ue013s Tales as they were modernised by
Dryden. This volume contains more of his Tales as they were modernised by later poets. In 1841 there was a
volume published entitled, \ue014The Poems of Geoffrey Chaucer Modernized.\ue015 Of this volume, when it was first
projected, Wordsworth wrote to Moxon, his publisher, on the 24th of February 1840: \ue016Mr. Powell, my friend,
has some thought of preparing for publication some portion of Chaucer modernised, as far and no farther than
is done in my treatment of \u2018The Prioress\ue017 Tale.\ue018 That would, in fact, be his model. He will have coadjutors,
among whom, I believe, will be Mr. Leigh Hunt, a man as capable of doing the work well as any living
writer. I have placed at my friend Mr. Powell\ue019s disposal three other pieces which I did long ago, but revised
the other day. They are \ue01aThe Manciple’s Tale,’ ‘The Cuckoo and the
Nightingale,’ and twenty-four stanzas of ‘Troilus and Cressida.’ This I have done
mainly out of my love and reverence for Chaucer, in hopes that, whatever may be the merits of Mr.
Powell’s attempt, the attention of other writers may be drawn to the subject; and a work hereafter
produced, by different persons, which will place the treasures of one of the greatest of poets within the reach
of the multitude, which now they are not. I mention all this to you because, though I have not given Mr.
Powell the least encouragement to do so, he may sound you as to your disposition to undertake the
publication. I have myself nothing further to do with it than I have stated. Had the thing been suggested to
me by any number of competent persons twenty years ago, I would have undertaken the editorship and done
much more myself, and endeavoured to improve the several contributions where they seemed to require it.
But that is now out of the question.”

Wordsworth had made his versions of Chaucer in the year 1801. “The Prioress’s Tale”
had been published in 1820, so that only the three pieces he had revised for his friend’s use were
available, and of these the Manciple’s Tale was withdrawn, the version by Leigh Hunt (which is
among the pieces here reprinted) being used. The volume was published in 1841, not by Moxon but by
Whitaker. Wordsworth’s versions of “The Cuckoo and the Nightingale” (here
reprinted), and of a passage taken from “Troilus and Cressida,” were included in it. Leigh Hunt
contributed versions of the Manciple’s Tale and the Friar’s Tale (both here reprinted), and of
the Squire’s Tale. Elizabeth A. Barrett, afterwards Mrs. Browning, contributed a version of
“Queen Annelida and False Arcite.” Richard Hengist Horne entered heartily into the venture,
modernised the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, the Reve’s Tale, and the Franklin’s, and
wrote an Introduction of more than a hundred pages, to which Professor Leonhard Schmitz added thirty-two
pages of a Life of Chaucer. Robert Bell, to whom we were afterwards indebted for an “Annotated
Edition of the English Poets,” modernised the Complaint of Mars and Venus. Thomas Powell, the
editor, contributed his version of the Legends of Ariadne, Philomene, and Phillis, and of “The Flower
and the Leaf,” and a friend, who signed only as Z. A. Z, dealt with “The Rime of Sir
Thopas.”

After the volume had appeared, Wordsworth thus wrote of it to Professor Henry Reed of Philadelphia:
“There has recently been published in London a volume of some of Chaucer’s tales and poems
modernised; this little specimen originated in what I attempted with ‘The Prioress’
Tale,’ and if the book should find its way to America you will see in it two further specimens from
myself. I had no further connection with the publication than by making a present of these to one of the
contributors. Let me, however, recommend to your notice the Prologue and the Franklin’s Tale. They
are both by Mr. Horne, a gentleman unknown to me, but are - the latter in particular - very well done. Mr.

Leigh Hunt has not failed in the Manciple’s Tale, which I myself modernised many years ago; but
though I much admire the genius of Chaucer as displayed in this performance, I could not place my version at
the disposal of the editor, as I deemed the subject somewhat too indelicate for pure taste to be offered to the
world at this time of day. Mr. Horne has much hurt this publication by not abstaining from the Reve’s
Tale. This, after making all allowance for the rude manners of Chaucer’s age, is intolerable; and by
indispensably softening down the incidents, he has killed the spirit of that humour, gross and farcical, that
pervades the original. When the work was first mentioned to me, I protested as strongly as possible against
admitting any coarseness and indelicacy, so that my conscience is clear of countenancing aught of that kind.
So great is my admiration of Chaucer’s genius, and so profound my reverence for him. . . for spreading
the light of Literature through his native land, that, notwithstanding the defects and faults in this publication, I
am glad of it, as a means for making many acquainted with the original, who would otherwise be ignorant of
everything about him but his name.”

Wordsworth’s objection to the Manciple’s Tale from Ovid’s Metamorphoses was an
afterthought. He had begun by offering his version of it for publication in this volume. His objection to
Horne’s treatment of the Reve’s Tale was reasonable enough. The original tale was the sixth
novel in the ninth day of the Decameron, and probably was taken by Chaucer from a Fabliau by Jean de
Boves, “De Gombert et des Deux Clercs.” The same story has been imitated in the
“Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles,” and in the “Berceau” of La Fontaine.
Horne’s removal from the tale of everything that would offend a modern reader was designed to enable
thousands to find pleasure in an old farcical piece that would otherwise be left unread.

Chaucer’s “Rime of Sir Thopas” was a playful jest on the long-winded story-telling of
the old romances, and had specially in mind Thomas Chestre’s version of Launfal from Marie of
France, and the same rhymer’s romance of “Ly Beaus Disconus,” who was Gingelein, a
son of Gawain, called by his mother, for his beauty, only Beaufis (handsome son); but when he offered
himself in that name to be knighted by King Arthur, he was knighted and named by him Li Beaus Disconus
(the fair unknown). This is the method of the tediousness, in which it showed itself akin to many a rhyming
tale.

And none other name;
And himselv\u00e9 was full nis,
He ne ax\u00e9d nought y-wis

Of deer to have his game;
He found a knight, where he lay
In arm\u00e9s that were stout and gay,

In that rich armo\u00far.
When he hadd\u00e9 do that dede,
To Glast\u00e9nbur\u00fd he gede,