The last volume of these “Companion Poets” contained some of Chaucer’s 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, “The Poems of Geoffrey Chaucer Modernized.” Of this volume, when it was first projected, Wordsworth wrote to Moxon, his publisher, on the 24th of February 1840: “Mr. 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 ‘The Prioress’ Tale.’ 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’s disposal three other pieces which I did long ago, but revised the other day. They are ‘The 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so that only the three pieces he had revised for his friend’s use were available, and of these the Manciple’s Tale was withdrawn, the version by Leigh Hunt (which is among the pieces here reprinted) being used.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 for love of his fair vis
His mother clepÉd him Beaufis,
And none other name;
And himselvÉ was full nis,
He ne axÉd nought y-wis
What he hight at his dame.

“As it befel upon a day,
To wood he went on his play
Of deer to have his game;
He found a knight, where he lay
In armÉs that were stout and gay,
Y-slain and made full tame.

“That child did off the knightÉs wede,
And anon he gan him schrede
In that rich armoÚr.
When he haddÉ do that dede,
To GlastÉnburÝ he gede,
There lay the King ArthoÚr.

“He knelde in the hall
Before the knightÉs all,
And grette hem with honoÚr,
And said: ‘ArthoÚr, my lord,
Grant me to speak a word,
I pray thee, par amour.

“‘I am a child uncouth,
And come out of the south,
And would be made a knight,
Lord, I pray thee nouthe,
With thy merry mouthe,
Grant me anon right.’

“Then said ArthoÚr the king,
‘Anon, without dwelling,
Tell me thy name aplight!
For sethen I was ybore,
Ne found I me before
None so fair of sight.’

“That child said, ‘By Saint Jame,
I not what is my name;
I am the morÉ nis;
But while I was at hame
My mother, in her game,
ClepÉd me Beaufis.’

“Then said ArthoÚr the king,
‘This is a wonder thing
By God and Saint Denis!
When he that would be knight
Ne wot not what he hight,
And is so fair of vis.

“‘Now will I give him a name
Before you all in same,
For he is so fair and free,
By God and by Saint Jame,
So clepÉd him ne’er his dame,
What woman so it be.

“‘Now clepÉth him all of us,
Li Beaus Disconus,
For the love of me!
Then may ye wite a rowe,
‘The Faire Unknowe,’
Certes, so hattÉ he.”

John Gower’s “Confessio Amantis” was a story book, like the Canterbury Tales, with a contrivance of its own for stringing the tales together, and Gower was at work on it nearly about the time when his friend Chaucer was busy with his Pilgrims. The story here extracted was an old favourite. It appeared in Greek about the year 800, in the romance of Barlaam and Josaphat. It was told by Vincent of Beauvais in the year 1290 in his “Speculum Historiale;” and it was used by Boccaccio for the first tale of the tenth day of his “Decameron.”

Chaucer, Gower, Lydgate were the old poetical triumvirate, though Lydgate, who was about thirty years old when Chaucer died, has slipped much out of mind. His verses on the adventures of the Kentish rustic who came to London to get justice in the law courts, and his words set to the action of an old piece of rustic mumming, “Bicorn and Chichevache,” here represent his vein of playfulness. He was a monk who taught literature at Bury St. Edmunds, and was justly looked upon as the chief poet of the generation who lived after Chaucer’s death.

Next follows in this volume a scrap of wise counsel to take life cheerfully, from the Scottish poet, William Dunbar. He lived at the Scottish Court of James the Fourth when Henry the Seventh reigned in England, and who was our greatest poet of the north country before Burns.

Next we come to the poets “who so did please Eliza and our James,” and represent their playfulness by Drayton’s “Dowsabell,” and that most exquisite of fairy pieces, his “Nymphidia,” where Oberon figures as the mad Orlando writ small, and Drayton earned his claim to be the Fairies’ Laureate, though Herrick, in the same vein, followed close upon him. Michael Drayton, nearly of an age with Shakespeare, was, like Shakespeare, a Warwickshire man. Empty tradition says that Shakespeare died of a too festive supper shared with his friend Drayton, who came to visit him.

Then follows in this volume the playful treatment of a quarrel between friends, in Pope’s “Rape of the Lock.” Lord Petre, aged twenty, audaciously cut from the head of Miss Arabella Fermor, daughter of Mr. Fermor of Tusmore, a lock of her hair while she was playing cards in the Queen’s rooms at Hampton Court. Pope’s friend, Mr. Caryll, suggested to him that a mock heroic treatment of the resulting quarrel might restore peace, and Pope wrote a poem in two cantos, which was published in a Miscellany in 1712, Pope’s age then being twenty-four. But as epic poems required supernatural machinery, Pope added afterwards to his mock epic the machinery of sylphs and gnomes, suggested to him by the reading of a French story, “Le Comte de Gabalis,” by the AbbÉ Villars. Here there were sylphs of the air and gnomes of the earth, little spirits who would be in right proportion to the substance of his poem, which was refashioned into five cantos, and republished as we have it now in February 1714.

“John Gilpin” was written by William Cowper in the year 1782, when Lady Austin was lodging in the Vicarage at Olney, and spent every evening with Cowper and Mrs. Unwin, cheering Cowper greatly by her liveliness. One evening she told the story of John Gilpin’s ride in a way that tickled the poet’s fancy, set him laughing when he woke up in the night, and obliged him to turn it next day into ballad rhyme. Mrs. Unwin’s son sent it to the Public Advertiser, for the poet’s corner. It was printed in that newspaper, and thought no more of until about three years later. Then it was suggested to a popular actor named Henderson, who gave entertainments of his own, that this piece would tell well among his recitations. He introduced it into his entertainments, and soon all the town was running after John Gilpin as madly as the six gentlemen and the post-boy.

John Gilpin’s flight is followed in this volume by the flight of Tam o’ Shanter. Burns wrote “Tam o’ Shanter” at Elliesland, and himself considered it the best of all his poems. He told the story to Captain Grose, as it was current among the people in his part of the country, its scene laid almost on the spot where he was born. Captain Grose, the antiquary, who was collecting materials for his “Antiquities of Scotland,” published in 1789–91, got Burns to versify it and give it to him. The poem made its first appearance, therefore, in Captain Grose’s book. Mrs. Burns told of it that it was the work of a day. Burns was most of the day on his favourite walk by the river, where his wife and some of the children joined him in the afternoon. Mrs. Burns saw that her husband was busily engaged “crooning to himsell,” and she loitered behind with the little ones among the broom. Presently she was attracted by the poet’s strange and wild gesticulations; he seemed agonised with an ungovernable joy. He was reciting very loud. Every circumstance suggested to heighten the impression of fear in the lines following,

“By this time he was ’cross the ford
Where in the snaw the chapman smoored,” etc.,

was taken from local tradition. Shanter was the real name of a farm near Kirkoswald, then occupied by a Douglas Grahame, who was much of Tam’s character, and was well content to be called by his country neighbours Tam o’ Shanter for the rest of his life, after Burns had made the name of the farm immortal.

Our selection ends with two pieces by Thomas Hood, whose “Tale of a Trumpet” is luxuriant with play of wit that has its earnest side. Hood died in 1845.

A Note upon the Game of Ombre is added, which is founded upon the description of the game in a little book—“The Court Gamester”—which instructed card-players in the reigns of the first Georges. In the “Rape of the Lock” there is a game of ombre played through to the last trick. That note will enable any reader to follow Belinda’s play. It will also enable any one who may care to do so to restore to a place among our home amusements a game which carried all before it in Queen Anne’s day, and which is really, when cleared of its gambling details, as good a domestic game for three players as cribbage or piquet is for two. My “Court Gamester,” which was in its fifth edition in 1728, after devoting its best energies to ombre, contented its readers in fewer pages with the addition only of piquet and chess.

Obsolete words and words of Scottish dialect, with a few more as to the meaning of which some readers might be uncertain, will be found explained in the Glossary that ends this volume.