the Crowned King); 1873. Part IV. § 1 (Notes); 1877. Part IV. § 2 (Glossary, Indices, and General Preface); 1884. (i) The Vision of William concerning Piers the Plowman. B-text; Prologue and Pass. i.-vii. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press. First edition; 1869. Second edition; 1874. Third edition; 1879. This small volume, being intended for beginners, contains the Vision concerning Piers Plowman only, exclusive of the additional poem entitled 'Do-wel, Do-bet, and Do-best.' $ 19. RICHARD THE REDELESS. This poem is now printed for the fourth time. It has already been twice printed by Mr. Wright, viz. for the Camden Society, 1838, and in Political Poems and Songs,' 1859, vol. i. p. 368, with the title of a 'Poem on the Deposition of Richard II.' The edition of 1838 is the one which I have most consulted, and is alone referred to in the Notes as 'Mr. Wright's edition.' The third edition was edited by me for the Early English Text Society in 1873; and is here reprinted; together with the Notes, which have been slightly abridged. I have purposely altered Mr. Wright's title, because it is somewhat misleading. It is clear from the internal evidence that the poem was written before Richard was formally deposed; whilst the title given by Mr. Wright is calculated to give the impression that it was written afterwards. The title Richard the Redeless' (i. e. Richard devoid of counsel) is simply taken from what is really the first line of the Poem, since the Prologue may be looked upon as a sort of preface. In that line 'Now, Richard þe redeles reweth on 3ou self'— the poet very happily strikes the keynote of the whole poem, which is entirely concerned with the 'redeless' character of the king and his favourites. The MS. from which the text is printed is, unfortunately, unique. It is MS. XIX. of the 'Piers Plowman' MSS., i. e. MS. Ll. 4. 14 in the Cambridge University Library. On observing the striking similarity between this MS. and the Oriel MS., I had at first a slight hope that some trace of another copy of the poem might appear in that MS. also, which is of earlier date. But the only trace discoverable is the somewhat significant one that a considerable number of leaves have been torn out of the MS., just where the poem ought to have appeared. There remained therefore nothing to be done but to reproduce the text of the Cambridge MS. as carefully as possible, although it is, unfortunately, a rather late copy, written, perhaps, towards the middle of the fifteenth century. A few obvious corrections have been made, but the actual readings of the MS. have been always recorded in the footnotes in such cases. I have also carefully collated Mr. Wright's edition of 1838 with the MS., in order to correct the few errors which appear there. I have also inserted the five Latin quotations (viz. at i. 8; ii. 52, 139; iii. 32, 128) which Mr. Wright unfortunately omitted, owing to a peculiarity in the arrangement of the text by the scribe which requires careful attention, as will appear from the following explanation. The copies of Piers the Plowman and of Richard the Redeless in MS. XIX. are in the same handwriting, and are similarly arranged; and this arrangement can only be rightly understood by examining the former carefully. By turning to it, we at once perceive that the scribe adopts the singular plan, apparent in no other copy of the poem, of writing the Latin quotations in the margin of the MS., instead of leaving them in their proper place in the text. They thus have the appearance of being supplementary, or added as a commentary; they look like detached annotations instead of forming an integral part of the text. Not observing this peculiarity, Mr. Wright unfortunately considered them as comments, and omits to mention any but one, which he quotes in his Preface with a misreading that led him to take a wrong view of the scribe's sentiments, as noted below, p. lxxxiv. If, however, these five quotations be considered, it will be seen that they all suit the context, and drop into their right places. Such appeals to Scripture or to the writings of 'clerks' are exactly in Langland's usual manner, and the quotations are to be ascribed to the author, and not to the scribe. There are, however, a few marginal notes in a later hand, such as 'Overwatchynge' against iii. 282; 'Kew-kaw' against iii. 299, and the like. But all these were written in many years afterwards, and have nothing to do with the original text except as valueless comments. DATE OF RICHARD THE REDELESS (1399). The internal evidence enables us to settle the date of the poem almost within a fortnight. Lines 23-29 in the Prologue shew clearly that it was written after Richard had been taken prisoner, 18, 1399, and before he had been formally deposed, Sept. 30 in the same year. Other indications of date are in the allusion to the execution of Lord Scrope at Bristol, July 29, and to the release of the Earl of Warwick, who almost immediately after is heard of at Newcastle-under-Lyne, August 25; see Notes to ii. 152 and iii. 94. Allowing a few days for news to travel, and observing the author's boldness in rebuking Richard, as if his chances of escape seemed but small, we see that the date is restricted very nearly to the first three weeks in September. We must therefore suppose it to have been partly written in September, 1399, without fear of error. However, the course of events must have considerably interfered with the poet's plans, and it is almost certain that some lines were supplied at a later period. He begins by addressing the poem to Richard personally, whose hand he intended it to reach (prol. 53), declaring that he would not publish it till it had been approved of (prol. 61); but he afterwards declares that a day of reckoning had come, and that God had judged evil-doers and restored peace (iii. 352-371). I here throw out the suggestion for what it is worth, that the unfinished state of the existing copy of the poem may be due to the fact that the poem itself never was finished; that the course of events, in fact, cut it short in the middle. The news of Richard's formal deposition would naturally put an end to it. AUTHORSHIP OF RICHARD THE REDELESS. As to the authorship of the poem, I have not the slightest hesitation in ascribing it to William, the author of Piers the Plowman. That it must be his, and his only, was suggested to me years ago, on the first perusal of it; and after considering the question with the utmost care, from every point of view, not once only, but many times, I am not only entirely satisfied on this point in my own mind, but considerably surprised to think that there could ever have been a moment's doubt about it, or any place for a contrary opinion. Yet it is well known that Mr. Wright, though the editor both of Piers the Plowman and of the present poem, failed to see their common authorship, and has, indeed, given his opinion on the other side. But I have shewn (in my edition for the Early English Text Society) how he came to be misled upon this point; viz. by mistaking a quotation to be a scribe's comment, which really forms an integral part of the text; and by misreading and misconstruing that quotation. I have shewn, further, that the internal evidence on this subject is fully sufficient; and the only argument I shall adduce here is by appealing to the evidence of originality in the poem of 'Richard.' An imitator of William might have copied his phrases, but how was he to attain to his genius? It is a great satisfaction to find, moreover, that William's power did not fail him in his old age. There are some passages in his last poem which exhibit him almost at his best. I shall merely give the references to some of these; the reader may then form his own opinion. See, e. g. Pass. i. 1-19; 25-59; ii. 162-167; 186-192; iii. 116-243; 324-337; 352-371; iv. 31-82. In particular, the passage iii. 116-189 is a well-wrought piece of lively and sustained satire, whilst the contrast between the fashionable courtiers and Wisdom in his homely garb of the old shape' (iii. 211-238) is excellent. The supposition of such passages being written by a poet of less power than William is like supposing that there may have been two Shakespeares. Few better things have ever been said than in his marvellous and bold substitution of the fashionable dresses of the courtiers for the courtiers themselves, as if the only part of the courtier that was worth mention was the dress which he wore. When Wisdom's life was threatened, it was not by creatures that could be called men, it was by the sleeves themselves! The severe and supreme contempt of the satire almost evaporates when we analyse it thus critically, but take the passage as it stands, and what could be better? Wisdom attempts to come near Richard's court, and what happens? He was hallooed [at] and hunted and yhote truss', And each man was charged If he nighed them any nearer a bow-draught from them, to chop at his crown, ⚫ than they had him named3. The porter with his pikes then put him outer, And warned him the wicket whilst the watch dured. 'Let's slay him!' quoth the sleeves that slid upon the earth", And all the beardless burns bayed on him ever, 7 • And scorned him, for his slaveyn was of the old shape. Thus Malapert was mightful and master of [the] house, And ever wandered Wisdom without the gates. Such was the end of Wisdom's attempt to insinuate himself into Richard's court. 1 bidden to pack off. 2 assigned. ' him nempned = named for him, assigned for him. forbade him, warned him away from. 3 * Alluding to the long sleeves then worn, which even trailed upon the ground. 18, 1399, and before he had been formally deposed AUTHORSHIP OF As to the authorship of t1 tion in ascribing it to W That it must be his, and on the first perusal of the utmost care, from times, I am not only er but considerably sur a moment's doubt Yet it is well know. Piers the Plowman common authorsh side. But I have Society) how he taking a quotat! integral part of quotation. |