THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Chaucerian Works in the English Renaissance: Editions and Imitations A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of English School of Arts and Sciences Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Sean Gordon Lewis Washington, D.C. 2011 Chaucerian Works in the English Renaissance: Editions and Imitations Sean Gordon Lewis, Ph.D. Director: Michael Mack, Ph.D. Chaucerian Works in the English Renaissance: Editions and Imitations articulates the connection between editorial presentation and authorial imitation in order to solve a very specific problem: why were the comedic aspects of the works of Geoffrey Chaucer—aspects that appear to be central to his poetic sensibilities—so often ignored by Renaissance poets who drew on Chaucerian materials? While shifts in language, religion, politics, and poetic sensibilities help account for a predilection for prizing Chaucerian works of sentence (moral gravity), it does not adequately explain why a poet like Edmund Spenser—one of the age’s most unabashedly Chaucerian poets—would imitate comedic, works of solaas (literary pleasure) in a completely sententious manner. This dissertation combines bibliographic approaches with formal analysis of literary history, leading to a fuller understanding of the “uncomedying” of Chaucer by Renaissance editors and poets. This dissertation examines the rhetorical and aesthetic effects of editions of the works of Chaucer published between 1477 and 1602 (Caxton through Speght) as a means of understanding patterns of Chaucerian imitation by poets of the period. Although the most obvious shift in textual presentation is the change from printing single works to printing “Complete Works” beginning with the 1532 Thynne, I argue that choices made by the printing-house (in terms of layout, font, and, most specifically, editorial directions) had a gradual, cumulative effect of highlighting Chaucerian sentence at the expense of solaas . The ways in which Chaucerian texts were presented to be read throughout the Renaissance determined, to a great degree, how these texts were imitated. The evidence of this cumulative effect on poetic reception is seen in a thorough examination of the early editions of the poetry of John Skelton and Edmund Spenser, revealing that not only did the editorial rhetoric of Chaucerian editions in the English Renaissance mold the ways in which poets responded to Chaucer, but that in the case of Edmund Spenser, Spenser’s poetic imitations of Chaucer led to major shifts in editorial presentation of Chaucer’s works in the beginning of the seventeenth century. This dissertation by Sean Gordon Lewis fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in English Literature approved by Michael Mack, Ph.D., as Director, and by Tobias Gregory, Ph.D. and Daniel Gibbons, Ph.D. as Readers. ______________________________________________________ Michael Mack, Ph.D., Director ______________________________________________________ Tobias Gregory, Ph.D., Reader ______________________________________________________ Daniel Gibbons, Ph.D., Reader ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated in the first place to my teachers: to my parents, Gordon and Maureen Lewis, and to my teachers at the University of Dallas, Oxford University, and the Catholic University of America, particularly Greg Roper, Scott Crider, John R. Sommerfeldt, Helen Cooper, Helen Barr, Pamela Ward, Joseph Sendry, Virgil Nemoianu, and the director of this dissertation, Michael Mack. Particular thanks also goes out to my dissertation’s readers, Tobias Gregory and Daniel Gibbons. I also want to thank my colleagues at Wyoming Catholic College for their collegial support and advice. Fundamentally, however, I dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Becca, and our three lovely daughters, Olivia, Vivian, and Emma. Without their constant loving support, this work would not have been accomplished, and I am forever grateful for them in my life. iii Table of Contents Chapter 1: “Renaissance Chaucer” and Renaissance Editions . 1 Chapter 2: William Caxton’s Chaucer . 43 Chapter 3: Caxton’s Immediate Successors: Pynson, de Worde, and Notary . 88 Chapter 4: Editions of Chaucer in the time of Thynne and Chaucer the Protestant . 118 Chapter 5: The Complete Works: Thynne and Stow . 162 Chapter 6: The Complete Works: Speght . 200 Chapter 7: Early Editions and Imitations: Skelton . 260 Chapter 8: Early Editions and Imitations: Spenser . 289 Chapter 9: Conclusions . 341 Works Cited . 351 iv List of Abbreviations fol.—folio r—recto v—verso Hence, fol. aiiiv should be read as “folio A-three, verso.” v Chapter 1 “Renaissance Chaucer” and Renaissance Editions During the English Renaissance there was a consistent effort on the parts of English writers to solidify and extend English literature as a national literature, often by means of seeking to “ornament” or otherwise improve the English language. Tuke alludes to the project in his preface at the beginning of Thynne’s 1532 edition of Chaucer’s Works: Amonges other / the Grekes in all kyndes of scie[n]ces / semed so to preuayle and so to ornate their tonge / as yet by other of right noble languages can nat be perfitely ymitated or folowed. so hath there nat lacked amo[n]ges vs Englissh men / whiche haue right well and notably endeuoyred and employed them selues / to the beautifying and bettryng of thenglysh tonge. 1 The technical rhetorics and poetic manuals that flourished in the period—those of Wilson, Gascoigne, and Puttenham 2—speak of this ennobling project in English letters. Writers seeking both to ennoble English and solidify its status as a national literary language faced a problem, however, a problem that several of the examples above suggest: insofar as English literature was to be national , it had to be grounded in works of English antiquity, works of Medieval literature. 1 William Thynne, “The Preface” to his 1532 edition of the Workes ; in STC 5068, fol. A2r, A2v. 2 See Thomas Wilson, The Art of Rhetoric , ed. Peter E. Medine (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994; original edition, London, 1560); George Gascoigne, Certayn Notes of Instruction , in The Complete Works of George Gascoigne , ed. John W. Cunliffe, 2 volumes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910); George Puttenham, The Art of English Poesy , ed. Frank Whigham and Wayne. A Reborn (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007; original edition, London, 1591). 1 2 In an age when historical pedigree was proof of worth, 3 medieval literature had to be recognized in some way. At the same time, insofar as English letters and language were to be “beautified and bettered,” the rude rhythms and rhymes of medieval English—an English that was growing less and less familiar to English readers and writers 4—had to be softened along continental and classical models; in this respect, the medieval past had to be jettisoned. The religious controversies of the sixteenth century complicated the matter further, since by the century’s end the national literature was to exemplify the Protestant character of the country, a Protestant character to which an author from medieval Catholic England was not well suited. In the face of such difficult aims—founding a national literature on a Catholic medieval past that is at once hallowed and rude—it is no surprise that we find levels of disagreement as to the means: were English writers to repudiate medieval letters to the damage of ancient pedigree, 5 or should they put it to use in new ways? 3 Consider the continued prevalence of foundation myths throughout the Renaissance: Brutus founding Britain, King Alfred founding Oxford, et al. 4 An example of the increasing foreignness of medieval English is given by Bishop Godfrey Goodman in his 1616 work The Fall of man, or the corruption of Nature (STC12022.7), in which he notes the difficulty of Chaucerian language for Englishmen of his day. For more on Chaucer’s English and English in the Renaissance, see E.J. Dobson, English Pronunciation, 1500-1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), as well as Simon Horobin, The Language of the Chaucer Tradition (Cambridge and Rochester, NY: D.S. Brewer, 2003). 5 Sidney and Jonson are particularly critical on this point. Sidney: “Chaucer, undoubtedly, did excellently in his Troilus and Cressida ; of whom, truly, I know not whether to marvel more, either that he in that misty time could see so clearly, or that we in this clear age walk so stumblingly after him. Yet had he great wants, fit to be forgiven in so reverent antiquity . That same framing of his style to an old rustic language I dare not allow, since neither Theocritus in Greek, Virgil in Latin, nor Sannazzaro in Italian did affect it.” An Apology for Poetry , in Criticism: The Major Texts , ed. Walter Jackson Bate (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1970; original 1952), 102. Jonson: “Beware of letting them [writers] taste Gower , or Chaucer at first, lest falling too much in love with Antiquity, and not apprehending the weight, they grow rough and barren in language onely. Spencer , in affecting the Ancients writ no Language; Yet I would have him read for his matter; but as Virgil read Ennius .” Timber: Or, Discoveries , in Criticism: The 3 In attempting to come to grips with this English Renaissance project of responding to the past to create a new present literary tradition, Geoffrey Chaucer is a figure who plays a central role. Consistently popular and imitated throughout fifteenth- century England, 6 Chaucer was printed by Caxton and others at the very beginning of the Renaissance in England and seemed to enjoy popularity in Henry VIII’s court. 7 Thynne’s edition of 1532 the Works of Chaucer, as we saw above, was purportedly completed for the purpose of beautifying English letters. 8 As the sixteenth century progressed and the Chaucerian canon grew with subsequent Renaissance editions, 9 we find Spenser pointing to Chaucer as a model and father of English letters10 —a position seconded by the increasing convention of naming Chaucer among other famous poets (usually to increase the fame of a living poet).