CASTEL OFF LOUE (CHASTEAU D'AMOUR OR CARMEN DE CREATIONE MUNDI) AN EARLY ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF AN OLD FRENCH POEM BY ROBERT GROSSETESTE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. COPIED AND EDITED FROM MSS. IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, AND IN THE WITH NOTES, CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL, AND GLOSSARY, BY RICHARD FRANCIS WEYMOUTH, M.A. LOND., MEMBER OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY. ASHER & CO., PUBLISHERS TO THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY. LONDON: 13 BEDFORD ST., COVENT GARDEN. BERLIN: UNTER DEN LINDEN, 20. 1864. I follow Mr. Cockayne's example in his edition of Seinte Marherete in using the term Foreword, not as preferring a purely English word when thus employed in an unusual (or unprecedented) sense, but because the notice of this poem which has already appeared in the Transactions of our Society, 1862-3, pp. 48-66, contains most of that information which the reader expects in a Preface, and it is to that paper that I have referred in the notes and Glossary by the abbreviation Pr. In Mr. Cockayne's Foreword just alluded to he expresses the opinion that "the present generation of English scholars has not advanced to that point" at which an editor may treat his text "according to the true theory of a critical edition", and endeavour to make it "as perfect as possible, whether by collation or emendation". I have ventured on the experiment; with what success, my readers will be able to judge. I have ventured on the experiment, partly as encouraged by the (at least tacit) approval on the part of our Society of certain emendations which I have already proposed; partly relying on the abundant critical materials which time has spared. There are in print two texts of the original French, one of which I have collated with the MS.; and besides the English as edited by Mr. Halliwell, there are in MS. the two copies of another text, both in the same handwriting, which I have quoted as A. and V. (See Pr., p. 49.) But A. and V., though they contain a much better text than H., are only copies from some older MS., which is now lost; and I trust it will be understood that my object is to ascertain from all these sources the original words of the English version of the poem. I have already shown (Pr., pp. 62-64) that in various instances H. has preserved the true reading where A. and V. have missed it. Yet not many alterations of the text of A. and V. have been needed, and all the readings of these two MSS. are given, so that the reader has in all cases the requisite materials for forming his own judgment. Doubtless it may be urged that "we do not know enough of the possible changes and meanings in Early English to treat one of its texts like a classical one." A ready reply is, that as to all cases of doubtful usage, to attempt emendation is just the most effectual way of claiming for them the careful consideration of those English scholars who think their native language as well worth study as those of Greece and Rome. Yet whoever makes the attempt must throw himself on the indulgence of the candid reader. But the editor of a classical author aims at making the text not only as perfect as possible, but also as intelligible as possible to the reader. This of course involves punctuation and the employment of capital letters according to generally understood rules. I have acted accordingly in dealing with this English poem, which I hope will be found -with but few exceptions - readily intelligible from beIndeed though the MSS. which are here almost exclusively followed were evidently written by the ginning to end. same hand, the differences between them as to points and capitals are so numerous as to remove all scruple about consulting primarily the reader's comfort in these matters. By way of compromise with antiquarian predilections, which as an individual I fully share, I have left many of the contractions unexpanded, following V. rather than A. where they differ. In other places I have indicated, by two or three letters in a word being printed in Italics, that they are not written in full in the MSS. I have nowhere either added or cut off a final e; nor even, by any kind of accent, marked such an e as necessarily sounded. My theory is that whenever the final e represents a final syllable in Anglo-Saxon, it may—not must -be sounded; and never otherwise. See notes on 11. 32, 331, and 830, and Glossary s. vv. Drihte, Bope, Wipoute. The division of paragraphs is the same as is marked in the MSS. by illuminated initials. In quoting the French I have generally, not always, allowed the simple pointing of the MS. to remain, that is a mere comma at each alternate line. As to the age of this poem, the date of the Manuscript, must of course not be confounded with that of the text. The Vernon MS. is considered by Mr. Coxe to have been written about 1370. I believe the language to be that of the beginning of the 14th century. Were we to write a passage of this poem with vor for for, and sch turned into 88, so as to resemble Robert of Gloucester's orthography, it would I think be difficult to detect in the Chronicle any proofs of an antiquity higher than that of the Castle of Love. The text V. was copied for me from the Vernon MS. by Mr. George Parker of the Bodleian. I also collated that MS. myself in January 1863; and as the sheets have been |