Part i.
I have now only to record my indebtedness to others, especially to Dr.
Furnivall for his invaluable prints in the Parallel-Texts; to the excellent
essay by M. Bech, in vol. v. of Anglia[45]; to Mr. Jephson for his notes in
'Bell's' edition; and to the notes in the edition by Professor Corson. Also
to Professor Ten Brink, the second part of whose second volume of the
Geschichte der englischen Litteratur has just appeared (1893).
NOTE.--If the reader finds the _two_ forms of the Prologue troublesome, he
has only to confine his attention to the 'B-text,' in the _lower_ part of
pp. 65-105. The text agrees with that usually given, and contains 579
lines. The first line of 'Cleopatra' is l. 580, the numbering being
continuous. Besides this, the lines of each Legend are given _separately_,
within marks of parenthesis. Thus l. 589 is the 10th line of 'Cleopatra';
and so in other cases.
I here subjoin an Additional Note to lines 1896-8.
At p. xxxix. above (footnote no. 2), I give Bech's reference to Godfrey of
Viterbo. The passage runs thus:--
'_De Ioue primo rege Atheniensi._
A Ioue nostrorum uenit generatio regum,
A Ioue principium recipit descriptio regum,
A Ioue _philosophi_ dogmata prima legunt.
Rex erat ex rege quondam patre natus Athenis,
Indeque quadriuii triuiique scientia uenit;
Legis et artis ibi rex ydioma dedit.'
INTRODUCTION TO A TREATISE ON THE ASTROLABE.
§ 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE MSS. The existing MSS. of the 'Astrolabe' are still
numerous. I have been successful in finding no less than twenty-two, which
I here describe. It is remarkable that, although many printed editions of
the treatise have appeared, no first-class MS. has ever hitherto come under
the notice of any one of the various editors. This point will appear more
clearly hereafter.
§ 2. A.--MS. Dd. 3. 53 (part 2) in the Cambridge University Library. The
'Treatise on the Astrolabie' begins at fol. 212 of the MS. considered as a
whole, but the folios are now properly renumbered throughout the treatise.
The MS. is of vellum, and the writing clear and good, with a great number
of neatly drawn diagrams, which appear wherever the words 'lo here thi
figure' occur in the text. This MS. I have made the basis of the text, and
it is followed with sufficient exactness, except when notice to the
contrary is given in the Critical Notes.
This MS. is of considerable importance. The handwriting exactly resembles
that in MS. B., and a comparison of these MSS. leads to the following
results. It appears that MSS. A. and B. were written out by the same
scribe, nearly at the same time. The peculiarities of spelling,
particularly those which are faulty, are the same in both in a great many
instances. It is also clear that the said scribe had but a very dim notion
of what he was writing, and committed just such blunders as are described
in Chaucer's Lines to Adam Scriveyn, and are there attributed to
'negligence and rape[46].' It is still more interesting to observe that
Chaucer tells us that he had to amend his MSS. by 'rubbing and scraping'
with his own hand; for MS. A. and B. differ precisely in this point, viz.
that while the latter is left uncorrected, the former has been diligently
'rubbed and scraped' by the hand of a corrector who well knew what he was
doing, and the right letters have been inserted in the right places over
the erasures. These inserted letters are in the hand of a second scribe who
was a better writer than the first, and who was entrusted with the task of
drawing the diagrams. The two hands are contemporaneous, as appears from
the additions to the diagrams made by the writer of the text.
Unfortunately, there are still a good many errors left. This is because the
blunders were so numerous as to beguile the corrector into passing over
some of them. When, for example, the scribe, having to write 'lo here thy
figure' at the end of nearly every section, took the trouble to write the
last word 'vigure' or 'vigour' in nearly every instance, we are not
surprised to find that, in a few places, the word has escaped correction.
It further appears that some of the later sections, particularly sections
39 and 40, have not been properly revised; the corrector may very well have
become a little tired of his task by the time he arrived at them. It must
also be remembered, that such blunders as are made by a scribe who is not
clear as to the meaning of his subject-matter are by no means the blunders
which are most puzzling or most misleading; they are obvious at once as
evident blotches, and the general impression left upon the mind by the
perusal of this MS. is--that a careless scribe copied it from some almost
perfect original, and that his errors were partially corrected by an
intelligent corrector (possibly the author), who grew tired of his task
just towards the end.
The order of the Conclusions in Part ii. differs from that in all the
editions hitherto printed, and the MS. terminates abruptly in the middle of
a sentence, at the words 'howre after howre' in Conclusion 40 (p. 223). A
portion of the page of the MS. below these words is left blank, though the
colophon 'Explicit tractatus,' &c. was added at the bottom of the page at a
later period.
Certain allusions in the former part of the MS. render it probable that it
was written in London, about the year 1400.
§ 3. B.--MS. E Museo 54, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. This is an
uncorrected duplicate of the preceding, as has been explained, and ends in
the same way, at the words 'howre after howre,' followed by a blank space.
The chief addition is the rubricated title--'Bred and mylk For childeren,'
boldly written at the beginning; in the margin are the following notes in a
late hand--'S_i_r Jiffray Chaucer'--'Do_mi_nus Gaufredus
Chaucerus'--'Galfredi Chauceri Tractatus de Ratione et vsu Astrolabij ad
Ludouicum filiu_m_.'
§ 4. C.--MS. Rawlinson, Misc. 1262, otherwise 1370 (leaves 22-42), in the
Bodleian Library, Oxford.
This is a beautifully written MS., on vellum, with 38 pages of text, and 4
blank pages. It has the Conclusions in the same order as the preceding, six
well-executed diagrams, and corrections on nearly every page. It is of
early date, perhaps about A.D. 1420, and of considerable importance. It
agrees closely with the text, and, like it, ends with 'howre after howre.'
Some variations of spelling are to be found in the Critical Notes. In this
MS. the Conclusions are numbered in the margin, and the numbers agree with
those adopted in this edition.
§ 5. D.--MS. Ashmole 391, in the Bodleian Library. I have made but little
use of this MS., on account of its being very imperfect.
§ 6. E.--MS. Bodley 619. This MS., like B., has the title--'Brede and Milke
for children.' Like other good MSS., it ends sect. 40 with 'houre after
houre.' But after this, there occurs an additional section, probably not
genuine, but printed here (for the sake of completeness) as section 46; see
p. 229. Cf. § 17.
At fol. 21 is an additional section, not found elsewhere, which is printed
in the Notes; see p. 360. This Conclusion has some claims to our notice,
because, whether genuine or not, it is translated from Messahala.
§ 7. F.--MS. 424, in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Very
imperfect, especially at the beginning, where a large portion has been
lost.
The Conclusions follow the right order, as in the best MSS.
§ 8. G.--MS. R. 15, 18, in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. This
is a curious and interesting volume, as it contains several tracts in
English on astrology and astronomy, with tables of stars, &c.
The copy of the 'Astrolabe' in this MS. is not a good one. It ends in Part
ii. sect. 34, l. 14. The Conclusions are in the right order, and there are
a few diagrams.
§ 9. H.--MS. Sloane 314, British Museum. A late MS. on paper, absurdly said
in a note to be in Chaucer's handwriting, whereas it is clearly to be
referred to the end of the fifteenth century.
§ 10. I.--MS. Sloane 261. This is an 'edited' MS., having been apparently
prepared with a view to publication. Mr. Brae has made considerable use of
it, and gives, in his preface, a careful and interesting account of it. He
concludes that this MS. was written by Walter Stevins in 1555, and
dedicated by him to Edward Earl of Devonshire; and that MS. H. was one of
those which Stevins especially consulted, because it contains marginal
notes in Stevins' handwriting. The contents of this MS. can be so well
ascertained from Mr. Brae's edition that it is unnecessary to say more
about it here. The Conclusions are arranged in the same order as in other
MSS. that are _not_ of the first class.
§ 11. K.--MS. Rawlinson Misc. 3, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. On
vellum, 49 folios, with rich gold capitals, beautifully ornamented; in a
large clear handwriting, with red rubrics. Title--'Astralabium.'
Begins--'Lityl lowys my sone,' &c.--and ends--'For þe mone meuyth the
contrarie from other planetys. as yn here epicircle. but in none other
maner'; see end of Part ii. sect. 35; p. 217. Order of Conclusions in Part
ii. as follows; 1-12, 19-21, 13-18, 22-35; as in other late MSS. There are
no diagrams, and the MS., though well written, may perhaps be referred to
the latter half of the fifteenth century.
§ 12. L.--MS. Additional 23002, British Museum. A fair MS., on vellum,
without diagrams; imperfect. See description of MS. R. in § 17. And see the
Note on Part ii. sect. 3 (p. 360).
§ 13. M.--MS. E. 2 in the Library of St. John's College, Cambridge. Small
MS. on vellum, without diagrams. The leaves have been misplaced, and bound
up in a wrong order, but nothing is lost. I have printed from this MS. the
last five words of sect. 40; also 41-43, and 41_a_-42_b_; besides collating
it for the improvement of the text in sect. 44; sect. 45 is missing. I have
also been indebted to it for the _Latin_ rubrics to the Conclusions, which
I have not found elsewhere. Several various readings from this MS. appear
in the Critical Notes (pp. 233-241).
§ 14. N.--MS. Digby 72, in the Bodleian Library. From this MS. I have
printed the text of sections 44 and 45 (pp. 226-9), but have made little
further use of it.
§ 15. O.--MS. Ashmole 360, in the Bodleian Library. Late MS., on paper;
former owner's name, Joh_a_n Pekeryng; without diagrams. There are
evidently some omissions in it. But it includes sections 44 and 45, and I
have given various readings from it in those sections (p. 240). It ends at
the end of sect. 43_a_, with the words--'on_e_ to twelfe. _& sic finis_';
see p. 232.
§ 16. P.--MS. Dd. 12. 51 in the Cambridge University Library. Small MS. on
vellum; written in the fifteenth century. The text is by no means a bad
one, though the spelling is peculiar. Some of the pages are very much
rubbed and defaced. I have taken from it some various readings, recorded in
the Critical Notes.
One point deserves particular attention. It not only contains the
Conclusions of Part ii. _in the right order_, but continues it _without a
break_ to the end of Conclusion 43 (p. 225); at the end of which is the
colophon--Explicit tractatus astrolabii.
§ 17. Q.--MS. Ashmole 393, in the Bodleian Library; on paper. Of little
importance.
R.--MS. Egerton 2622, in the British Museum. A neat MS., but without
diagrams. Contains: Part I. (except 15-23); Part II. §§ 1-12, 19-21, 13-18,
22-35, 41-43, 44, 45; 41_a_, 41_b_, 42_a_, 43_a_, 42_b_, 36, 37. Thus it
has all the additional sections except 46; but 38-40 are missing. MS. L.
contains the same sections in the same order; see § 12.
S.--MS. Addit. 29250. A poor MS., but remarkable for containing the scarce
section no. 46; of which there is but one other copy, viz. that in MS. E (§
6); cf. pp. 240, 241.
T.--MS. Phillipps 11955; at Cheltenham. On vellum; 31 leaves; said to be of
the fourteenth century, which is improbable.
U.--MS. Bodley 68. Imperfect; ends at Part ii. § 36.
W.--MS. E Museo 116, in the Bodleian Library. A mere fragment.
X.--A MS. at Brussels, no. 1591. See F. J. Mone, Quellen und Forschungen,
(Aachen, 1830); pp. 549-551.
§ 18. Of the above MSS., Mr. Brae describes H., I., and L. only, and does
not seem to have made use of any others. Mr. Todd, in his Animadversions on
Gower and Chaucer, p. 125, enumerates only four MSS., which are plainly A.,
P., F., and G. The rest seem to have escaped attention.
In addition to the MS. authorities, we have one more source of text, viz.
the Editio Princeps, which may be thus described.
Th.--The edition of Chaucer's Works by Wm. Thynne, printed at London by
Thomas Godfray in 1532. This is the first edition in which the Treatise on
the Astrolabe appeared; it begins at fol. ccxcviii, back. The Conclusions
in Part ii. are in the order following, viz. 1-12, 19-21, 13-18, 22-40;
after which come 41-43, and 41_a_-42_b_. This order does not agree
precisely with that in any MS. now extant, with the exception of I., which
imitates it. It has some corrupt additions and exhibits many grave errors.
All later editions, down to Urry's in 1721, contribute no new information.
The few slight alterations which appear in them are such as could have been
made without reference to MSS. at all.
§ 19. REMARKS ON THE CLASSES OF THE MSS. On comparing the MSS., it at once
appears that they do not agree as to the order of the Conclusions in Part
ii. The MSS. A., B., C. (which are unquestionably the oldest), as well as
E., F., G., and P., adopt the order which appears in this edition, but
which has never appeared in any previous edition. In all other editions we
find the three sections 19-21 made to precede sections 13-18. Now we might
here appeal to authority only, and say that the order in the _oldest_ MSS.
ought to be preferred. But it so happens that we can appeal to internal
evidence as well, and there are two considerations which shew that the
oldest MSS. are certainly correct. These are as follows. In the _first_
place, sect. 18 amounts to finding the degree of the zodiac which _souths_
with any star, and begins with the words 'Set the centre of the sterre upon
the lyne meridional'; whilst sect. 19 amounts to finding the degree of the
zodiac that _rises_ with any star, and begins with the words 'Set the
sentre of the sterre upon the est orisonte.' Clearly, these Conclusions are
closely linked together, and one ought to follow the other. But, in all the
editions, this continuity is broken. In the _second_ place, the rubric of
sect. 21 is--'To knowe for what latitude in any regioun,' &c.; whilst that
of sect. 22 is--'To knowe in special the latitude of oure countray,' &c.
Clearly, these Conclusions are closely linked, and in their right order.
But, in all the editions, this continuity is again broken; and we have this
absurd result, viz. that a proposition headed--'To knowe the degrees of the
longitudes of fixe sterres' is followed by one headed--'To knowe _in
special_ the latitude of oure countray.' Hence we are enabled to draw a
line, and to divide the MSS. into two classes; those in which the order of
sections is correct, and those in which it has suffered misplacement, the
number in each class being much the same. This gives us the following
result.
_First Class._ A., B., C, (probably D.,) E., F., G., P.
_Second Class._ H., I., K., L., M., N., O., R.; to which add Th.
But this division immediately leads to another very curious result, and
that is, a certain lack of authority for sections after the _fortieth_,
which ends on p. 223.
A. ends with an incomplete sentence, in sect. 40, with the words--'howre
after howre.' B., C. end exactly at the same place.
E. ends sect. 40 with the same words; and, after this, has only one
additional section (46), which is, in my opinion, spurious; especially as
it does not appear in Messahala, of which more anon.
D., F., and G. all fail at an earlier point.
In none of the first-class MSS. (excepting P., which terminates with
section 43) is there a word about _umbra recta_ or _umbra versa_.
Even in the second class of MSS., we find H. breaking off at sect. 36, and
K. at sect. 35; so that the sections on the _umbrae_ rest only on MSS. I.
(obviously an edition, not a transcript), L., M., N., O., P., and R.
Putting aside the first of these, as being 'edited,' we have but six left;
and in the first four and the last of these we find that the additional
Conclusions appear in a certain order, viz. they insert 44 and 45 (on the
'mene mote') between three sections 41-43 on the 'umbrae' and five other
sections 41_a_-42_b_ on the same.
§ 20. THE LAST FIVE SECTIONS SPURIOUS. This at once suggests two results.
The _first_ is, that, as this gives two sets of sections on the 'umbrae,'
we can hardly expect both to be genuine; and accordingly, we at once find
that the _last five_ of these are mere clumsy repetitions of the _first
three_; for which reason, I unhesitatingly reject the said _last five_ as
spurious. This view is strikingly confirmed by MS. P.; for this, the only
first-class MS. that is carried on beyond section 40, contains the first
three sections on the 'umbrae' only. The _second_ result is, that if the
first three sections on the 'umbrae' are to be received, there is good
reason why we should consider the possible genuineness of sections 44 and
45 on the 'mene mote,' which rest very nearly on the same authority.
Now the sections on the 'mene mote' have in their favour one strong piece
of internal evidence; for the date 1397 is mentioned in them more than once
as being the 'root' or epoch from which to reckon. In most cases, the
mention of a date 1397 would lead us to attribute the writing in which it
occurs to that year or to a _later_ year, but a date fixed on for a 'root'
may very well be a _prospective_ one, so that these sections may have been
written _before_ 1397; an idea which is supported by the line 'behold
whether thy date be more or _lasse_ than the yere 1397'; sect. 44, l. 5.
But I suspect the date to be an error for 1387, since that [see _Somer_ in
Tyrwhitt's Glossary] was really the 'rote' used by Nicholas Lenne. In
either case, I think we may connect these sections with the previous
sections written in 1391[47]. Besides which, Chaucer so expressly intimates
his acquaintance with the subjects of these sections in the Canterbury
Tales[48], that we may the more readily admit them to be really his. There
is still less difficulty about admitting the first three sections (41-43)
on the 'umbrae,' because we find similar matter in the treatise of
Messahala, from which, as will appear, he derived so much. And hence we may
readily conclude that, in the second part, the first forty sections, found
in the oldest MSS., are certainly genuine, whilst sections 41-43, as well
as 44 and 45, have every claim to be considered genuine also. This need
not, however, force us to accept the remaining sections, since they may
easily have been added by another hand; a circumstance which is rendered
the more probable by the fact that sections 41_a_-42_b_ merely repeat 41-43
in a more clumsy form, and by the consideration that, if genuine, they
should have occupied their proper place immediately after sect. 43, instead
of being separated from the former set. As to sect. 46, I pronounce no
decided opinion; there is but little to be said either for or against it,
and it is of little consequence.
§ 21. GAP BETWEEN §§ 40 AND 41. But admitting the genuineness of sections
40-45, it at once becomes evident that there are two distinct gaps or
breaks in the continuity of the treatise; the first between 40 and 41; and
the second between 43 and 44. A little consideration will account for
these. Looking at the Canterbury Tales, we observe the very same
peculiarity; at certain points there are distinct breaks, and no mending
can link the various groups together in a satisfactory manner. This can be
accounted for in part by our knowledge of the fact that the poet died
before he had completed the proper linking-together of the tales which he
had more or less finished; but I think it also shews him to have been a
fragmentary worker. To suppose that, upon reaching Conclusion 40, he
suddenly turned to the sections upon the 'umbrae,' which are at once more
easy to explain, more suitable for a child, and illustrative of a different
and more practical use of the Astrolabe, seems to me natural enough; and
more probable than to suppose that anything is here lost. For, in fact, it
is to the very MSS. that contain sections 41-43 that we are indebted for
the last five words of sect. 40, so curiously omitted in the oldest and
best MSS.; and this is a direct argument against the supposition of any
matter having been here lost.
§ 22. GAP BETWEEN §§ 43 AND 44. The break between sections 43 and 44 may be
explained in a totally different manner. In this case, the break indicates
a _real_, not an accidental, gap. I suppose section 43 to have been really
the _last_ section of Part ii, and I refer sections 44 and 45 to the
_Fourth_ Part of the Treatise, and not to the _Second_ at all[49]. For if
we run through the contents of Parts Three and Four (p. 177), we observe
that they chiefly involve tables, with reference to one of which we find
the words 'upon which table ther folwith a _canon_,' &c. Now sections 44
and 45 exactly answer the description; they are alternative _canons_,
shewing how certain tables may be used. It happens that Conclusion 40 is
particularly dependent upon tables. To supply these was partly the object
of Part iv--'the whiche ferthe partie in special shal shewen a _table of
the verray moeving of the mone from houre to houre_, every day and in every
signe, after thyn almenak; _upon which table ther folwith a canon_,
suffisant to teche as wel the _maner of the wyrking of that same
conclusioun_, as to knowe in oure orizonte with which degree of the zodiac
that the mone ariseth in any latitude; and the arising of any planete after
his latitude fro the ecliptik lyne.' The opening words of the same
Conclusion are--'Knowe by thyn almenak the degree of the ecliptik of any
signe in which that the planete is rekned for to be:' (p. 221). This is
easily said; but I suppose that it was not so easy in olden times to know
off-hand the exact position of a planet. It must have been shewn by tables,
and these tables chiefly considered the 'mene mote,' or average motion of
the planets, and that only for periods of years. If you wanted the position
of a planet at a given hour on a given day, you had to work it out by
figures; the rule for which working was called a 'canon.' This very 'canon'
is precisely given at length in sect. 44; and sect. 45 is only another way
of doing the same thing, or, in other words, is an alternative canon. When
all this is fairly and sufficiently considered, we shall find good grounds
for supposing that these sections on the 'mene mote' are perfectly genuine,
and that they really belong to Part iv. of the Treatise.
I will only add, that the fact of sections 41_a_-42_b_ being thus placed
after a portion of Part iv. is one more indication that they are spurious.
§ 23. CONCLUSION 40. But it may be objected, as Mr. Brae has fairly
objected, that Conclusion 40 itself ought to belong to Part iv. So it ought
perhaps, if Chaucer had followed out his own plan. But it is clear from its
contents that the Prologue to the 'Astrolabie' was written _before_ the
commencement of the treatise itself, and not, as prefaces generally are,
afterwards. He was pleased with his son's progress. Little Lewis had asked
him if he might learn something about an astrolabe. The father at once sent
him a small astrolabe[50] by way of reward, constructed for the latitude of
Oxford, and having 45 circles of latitude on the flat disc (see Fig. 5)
instead of having 90 such circles, as the best instruments had[51]. This,
however, was a 'sufficient' astrolabe for the purpose. But he believes the
Latin treatises to be too hard for his son's use, and the Conclusions in
them to be too numerous. He therefore proposes to select some of the more
important Conclusions, and to turn them into English with such
modifications as would render them easier for a child to understand, He
then lays down a table of contents of his proposed five parts, throughout
which he employs the future tense, as 'the firste partie _shal_
reherse,'--'the second partie _shal_ teche,' &c. This use of the future
would not alone prove much, but taken in connexion with the context, it
becomes very suggestive. However, the most significant phrase is in the
last line of the Prologue, which speaks of 'other noteful thinges, yif god
wol vouche-sauf & his modur the mayde, mo than I behete,' i.e. other useful
things, _more than I now promise, if God and the Virgin vouchsafe it_. In
accordance with his habits of seldom finishing and of deviating from his
own plans at pleasure, we have but an imperfect result, not altogether
answerable to the table of contents. I therefore agree with Mr. Brae that
the 40th Conclusion would have done better for Part iv., though I do not
agree with him in rejecting it as spurious. This he was led to do by the
badness of the text of the MSS. which he consulted, but we can hardly
reject this Conclusion without rejecting the whole Treatise, as it is found
in all the oldest copies. By way of illustration, I would point out that
this is not the only difficulty, for the Conclusions about astrology ought
certainly to have been reserved for Part v. These are Conclusions 36 and
37, which concern the 'equaciouns of houses'; and this is probably why, in
three of the MSS. (viz. L., N., and R.), these two conclusions are made to
come _at the end of the Treatise_. There is nothing for it but to accept
what we have, and be thankful.
§ 24. EXTANT PORTION OF THE TREATISE. If, then, the questions be asked, how
much of the Treatise has come down to us, and what was to have been the
contents of the missing portion, the account stands thus.
Of Part i. we have the whole.
Of Part ii. we have nearly all, and probably all that ever was written,
including Conclusions 1-40 on astronomical matters, and Conclusions 41-43
on the taking of altitudes of terrestrial objects. Possibly Conclusion 46
is to be added to these; but Conclusions 41_a_-42_b_ are certainly
spurious.