Notes and Queries, Number 187, May 28, 1853

ON CHAUCER'S KNOWLEDGE OF ITALIAN

In the Memoir prefixed to the Aldine edition of the Poetical Works of Chaucer, London, 1845, Sir Harris Nicolas expresses an opinion that Dan Geoffrey was not acquainted with the Italian language, and therefore not versed in Italian literature.

"Though Chaucer undoubtedly knew Latin and French, it is by no means certain, notwithstanding his supposed obligations to the Decameron, that he was as well acquainted with Italian. There may have been a common Latin original of the main incidents of many, if not of all the tales, for which Chaucer is supposed to have been wholly indebted to Boccaccio, and from which originals Boccaccio himself may have taken them. That Chaucer was not acquainted with Italian may be inferred from his not having introduced any Italian quotation into his works, redundant as they are with Latin and French words and phrases."—Life of Chaucer, pp. 24, 25.

To which the following note is subjoined:

"Though Chaucer's writings have not been examined for the purpose, the remark in the text is not made altogether from recollection, for at the end of Speght's edition of Chaucer's Works, translations are given of the Latin and French words in the poems, but not a single Italian word is mentioned."

If Sir Harris Nicolas had examined the writings of Chaucer with any care, he would scarcely have formed or expressed so strange an opinion, for he must necessarily have discovered that Chaucer was not only well acquainted with the language, but thoroughly well versed in Italian literature, and that he paraphrased and translated freely from the works of Dante, Petrarca, and Boccaccio. Chaucer would naturally quote Latin and French, as being familiar to his cotemporaries, and would abstain from introducing Italian, as a knowledge of that language must have been confined to a few individuals in his day; and he wrote for the many, and not for the minority.

The circumstances of Chaucer's life, his missions to Italy, during which he resided several months in that country, when sent on the king's business to Genoa, and Florence, and Lombardy, afforded him ample opportunities of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the language and literature of Italy; the acquisition of which must have been of easy accomplishment to Chaucer, already familiar with Latin and French. So that it is not necessary to endow Chaucer "with all human attainments as proof of his having spoken Italian."

Chaucer's own writings, however, afford the strongest evidence against the opinion entertained by Sir Harris Nicolas, and such evidence as cannot be controverted.

Chaucer loves to refer to Dante, and often translates passages from the Divine Comedy. The following lines are very closely rendered from the Paradiso, xiv. 28.:—

After relating the dread story of the Conte Ugolino, Chaucer refers to Dante, from whom perhaps he derived it. (Conf. Inferno, xxxiii.)

The following lines refer to the Inferno, xiii. 64.:

"Dant that it tellen can" is mentioned in the House of Fame, book i.; and Chaucer is indebted to him for some lines in that fine poem, as in the description of the "egle, that with feathers shone all of gold" = un' aquila nel ciel con penne d'oro; and the following line:

The Knightes Tale exhibits numerous passages, lines, and expressions verbally translated from the Teseide of Boccaccio, upon which it is founded; such as Idio armipotente = Mars armipotent; Eterno admante = Athamant eterne; Paura palida = pale drede; Le ire rosse come focho = the cruel ire red as any glede. Boccaccio describes the wood in which "Mars hath his sovereine mansion" as—

There is a purposed grisly ruggedness in the corresponding passage of the Knightes Tale, which heightens the horrors of "thilke colde and frosty region:"

The death of Arcite is thus related by Boccaccio:

Chaucer loses nothing of this description in his condensed translation:

Troilus and Creseide seems to have been translated from the Filostrato of Boccaccio, when Chaucer was a young man, as we are informed by Dan John Lydgate in the Prologue to his Translation of Boccaccio's Fall of Princes, where he speaks of his "Maister Chaucer" as the "chefe poete of Bretayne," and tells us that—

Chaucer's translation is sometimes very close, sometimes rather free and paraphrastic, as may be seen in the following examples:

"The Song of Troilus," in the first book of Troilus and Creseide, is a paraphrase from one of the Sonnets of Petrarca:

Chaucer evidently had the following lines of the Paradiso in view when writing the invocation to the Virgin in The Second Nonnes Tale:

Traces of Chaucer's proficiency in Italian are discoverable in almost all his poems; but I shall conclude with two citations from The Assembly of Foules:

By the way, Chaucer commences The Assembly of Foules with part of the first aphorism of Hippocrates, "Ὁ βιος βραχὺς ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρή" (but this, I suppose, had been noticed before):

Chaucer was forty years old, or upwards, in 1372, when he was sent as an envoy to treat with the duke, citizens, and merchants of Genoa; and if, as is probable, he had translated Troilus and Creseide out of the "Lombarde tonge" in his youth (according to the testimony of Lydgate), it is not unreasonable to infer that his knowledge of Italian may have led to his being chosen to fill that office. But, however this may be, abundant proof has been adduced that Chaucer was familiarly acquainted with Italian.

I may briefly remark, in conclusion, that the dates and other circumstances favour the supposed interview at Padua, between Fraunceis Petrark the laureate poet, and Dan Chaucer,

Tunbridge Wells.

THE REBELLION OF '45.—UNPUBLISHED LETTER

Dear Sirs,

This day about twelve our army came up with the rebels, about a mile above Lord President's house, in a muir called Drumrossie. They began the engagement first, by firing from a battery of six guns they had erected upon their right; but our cannon played so hott upon them, that they were obliged soon to fly, by which means we gote possession of their artillery, and so drove them before us for three miles of way. The cavalry gave them closs chase to the town of Inverness: upon which the French ambassador (who is not well) sent out an officer, and a drum with him, offering to surrender at discretion; to which the duke made answer, that the French officers should be allowed to go about on their parole, and nothing taken from them. Brigadier Stapleton is among them, and God knows how many more officers; for we have not gote home to count them yet. Its thought the rebels have between four and five hundred killed, and as many taken prisoners already: many more we expect this night, parties having been sent out after them. Lord Kilmarnock I saw prisoner, and Major Stewart, with many more. Secretary Murray is very bad: a party is just now sent for him, intelligence being brought where he is. I don't think we have lost thirty men, and not above five officers killed, amongst which are Lord Robert Ker, Captain Grosset: the rest their names I have forgote. We are now in full possession of this place. Some say the Pretender was in the battle, and wounded; but others say he was not. Such of them as are left are gone to Fort Augustus. The duke, God be praised, is in good health, and all the generalls. His Royal Highness behaved as if he had been inspired, riding up and down giveing orders himself.

After writing ye above, ye lists of ye killed and wounded are as follows, so far as is yet known:—

Of ye duke's army:—

Gentlemen,

I hope you'l pardon ye confusedness of ye foregoing line, as I have been in ye utmost confusion since I came here. 'Tis said, but not quite certain, yt ye following rebells are killed, viz.:—Lochiel, Capuch (Keppach), Lord Nairn, Lord Lewis Drummond, D. of Perth, Glengarry, &c. The French have all surrendered prisoners of war.

Addressed to

The Governors of

The Town of Aberdeen.

OLIVER ST. JOHN

In giving the lives of the Commonwealth chief justices, Lord Campbell observes (Lives of Chief Justices, vol. i. p. 447.), "in completing the list with the name of Oliver St. John, I am well pleased with an opportunity of tracing his career and pourtraying his character." Then follows a biography of thirty pages. The subject seems to be a favourite one with his lordship, and he accordingly produces a striking picture, laying on his colours in the approved historical style of the day, so as to make the painting an effective one, whether the resemblance be faithful or not. But how is it that the noble biographer appears to be quite unaware of what really is the only document we have relating to Oliver St. John of his own composition, which does give us much light as to his career or character? I refer to The Case of Oliver St. John, Esq, concerning his Actions during the late Troubles, pp. 14., 4to., n.d. It is a privately printed tract, emanating from St. John himself, and was no doubt circulated amongst persons in power at the Restoration, with a view to obtaining indemnity and pardon. My copy is signed by himself, and has some corrections in his autograph. His Defence is full of interesting particulars, some of which are very inconsistent with Lord Campbell's speculations and statements. It would, however, occupy too much of your space were I to go through the various articles objected to by him, and to which he gives his replies and explanations. My object in noticing this tract at present, is to prevent any future biographer of this Commonwealth worthy, whose life may well be an historical study, from neglecting an important source of information. I observe Lord Campbell (p. 473.) doubts whether he favoured the measure of making Cromwell king. But if we are to believe the title-page of Monarchy asserted, 1660, 12mo., he was one of the speakers at the conference with Cromwell on the 11th April, 1657, in favour of his assuming the title of king. On the list of the committee which follows, the "Lord Chief Justice" only is mentioned, but in the speeches a difference seems to be made between "Lord Chief Justice" (pp. 6. 7. 15.) and "Lord Chief Justice Glynne" (p. 44.), and they would seem to be two different speakers. The title-page states distinctly, "the arguments of Oliver St. John, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Chief Justice Glyn, &c., members of that committee."

NOTES ON SEVERAL MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS

No did, no will, no had, &c.—

So the first folio edition of Shakspeare. A palpable error, as the commentators of the present would pleasantly observe, and all the world would echo the opinion; but here, as in most other instances, commentators and all the world may be wrong, and the folios right. The passage has accordingly been corrupted by the editors of Shakspeare into what was more familiar to their modern ears: "Had none, my Lord!" Though the mode of speech be very common, yet, to deprive future editors of all excuse for ever again depraving the genuine text of our national Bible, I shall make no apology for accumulating a string of examples:

who alters "No does?" into None does? thinking, I presume, that he had thereby simplified the sentence:

"Chedsey. Christ said 'Take, eat, this is my body;' and not 'Take ye, eat ye.'

Philpot. No did, master doctor? Be not these the words of Christ, 'Accipite, manducate?' And do not these words, in the plural number, signify 'Take ye, eat ye;' and not 'Take thou, eat thou,' as you would suppose?"—Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vol. vii. p. 637., Cattley's edition.

"Philpot. Master Cosins, I have told my lord already, that I will answer to none of these articles he hath objected against me: but if you will with learning answer to that which is in question between my lord and me, I will gladly hear and commune with you.

Cosins. No will you? Why what is that then, that is in question between my lord and you?"—Id., p. 651.

"Philpot. And as I remember, it is even the saying of St. Bernard [viz. The Holy Ghost is Christ's vicar on earth (vic-arius), and a saying that I need not to be ashamed of, neither you to be offended at; as my Lord of Durham and my Lord of Chichester by their learning can discern, and will not reckon it evil said.

London. No will? Why, take away the first syllable, and it soundeth Arius."—Id. p. 658.

"Philpot. These words of Cyprian do nothing prove your pretensed assertion; which is, that to the Church of Rome there could come no misbelief.

Christopherson. Good lord, no doth? What can be said more plainly?"—Id., p. 661.

Again, at p. 663. there occur no less than three more instances and at p. 665. another.

"Careless. No, forsooth: I do not know any such, nor have I heard of him that I wot of.

Martin. No have, forsooth: and it is even he that hath written against thy faith."

Then Martin said:

"Dost thou not know one Master Chamberlain?

Careless. No forsooth; I know him not.

Martin. No dost! and he hath written a book against thy faith also."—Id., vol. iii. p. 164.

"Lichfield and Coventry. We heard of no such order.

Lord Keeper. No did? Yes, and on the first question ye began willingly. How cometh it to pass that ye will not now do so?"—Id., p. 690.

"Then said Sir Thomas Moyle: 'Ah! Bland, thou art a stiff-hearted fellow. Thou wilt not obey the law, nor answer when thou art called.' 'Nor will,' quoth Sir John Baker. 'Master Sheriff, take him to your ward.'"—Id., vol. vii. p. 295.

Is it needful to state, that the original editions have, as they ought to have, a note of interrogation at "Baker?" I will not tax the reader's patience with more than two other examples, and they shall be fetched from the writings of that admirable papist—the gentle, the merry-hearted More:

"Well, quod Caius, thou wylt graunte me thys fyrste, that euery thynge that hath two erys is an asse.—Nay, mary mayster, wyll I not, quod the boy.—No wylt thou? quod Caius. Ah, wyly boy, there thou wentest beyond me."—The Thyrde Boke, the first chapter, fol. 84. of Sir Thomas More's Dialogues.

"Why, quod he, what coulde I answere ellys, but clerely graunt hym that I believe that thyng for none other cause but only bycause the Scripture so sheweth me?—No could ye? quod I. What yf neuer Scripture had ben wryten in thys world, should there neuer haue bene eny chyrch or congregacyon of faythfull and ryght beyleuyng people?—That wote I nere, quod he. No do ye? quod I."—Id., fol. 85.

In taking leave of this idiom, it would not perhaps be amiss to remark, that "ye can," in Duke Humphey's rejoinder to the "blyson begger of St. Albonys," is not, as usually understood, "you can?" but "yea can?"

To be at point = to be at a stay or stop, i.e. settled, determined, nothing farther being to be said or done: a very common phrase. Half a dozen examples shall suffice:

No profit to give the commentators' various guesses at the import of the phrase in the above passage, which will be best gathered from the following instances of its use elsewhere. But, before passing further, I beg permission to inform Mr. Knight that the original suggester of "sell" for "self," in an earlier part of this play, whose name he is at a loss for, was W. S. Landor, whose footnote to vol. ii. p. 273., Moxon's edit. of his works, is as follows:

"And here it may be permitted the editor to profit also by the manuscript, correcting in Shakespeare what is absolute nonsense as now printed:

Other side of what? It should be its sell. Sell is saddle in Spenser and elsewhere, from the Latin and Italian."

A correspondent of "N. & Q."., Vol. vii., p. 404., will be delighted to find his very ingenious discovery brought home, and corroborated by Landor's valuable manuscript: but it is an old said saw—"Great wits jump." Now to our examples:

"Pasquin. Saint Luke also affirmeth the same, saying flatly that he shall not be forgiuen. Beholde, therefore, how well they interprete the Scriptures.

Marforius. I am alreadie at a poynt with them, but thou shalt doo me great pleasure to expounde also vnto me certayne other places, vppon the which they ground this deceit."—Pasquine in a Traunce, turned but lately out of the Italian into this tongue by W. P.: London, 1584.

"But look, where malice reigneth in men, there reason can take no place: and, therefore, I see by it, that you are all at a point with me, that no reason or authority can persuade you to favour my name, who never meant evil to you, but both your commodity and profit."—Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vol. viii. p. 18.

"Not so, my lord," said I, "for I am at a full point with myself in that matter; and am right well able to prove both your transubstantiation with the real presence to be against the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church."—Id., p. 587.