User:TheDoubleRedBaron/sandbox

Thomas Speght (died in 1621), most likely born in Yorkshire, was a literary editor. He was renowned for his two printed editions of Geoffrey Chaucer’s poems, published in 1598 and 1602. Two hundred years after the death of the great British poet, the English language had changed to such a large extent, that Speght saw the need for “old and obscure words in Chaucer” to be “explaned”. Speght was the first to include a glossary of words that were considered obsolete. This glossary is the largest glossary ever written of old words before the first dictionaries of English were compiled.

Speght’s work has not only influenced other editors to reprint Chaucer again, his works are also considered to be the most durable of any edition of the poems.

Life and education
A thorough analysis of his dialect and handwriting revealed that Speght’s family was most likely to be from Yorkshire and that he himself was probably also born there. His date of birth is unknown. In 1566, he enrolled as a sizar at the Peterhouse College, the oldest college of the University of Cambridge. He was financially supported by Lady Mildred Cooke Cecil, whose son, Robert Cecil, was Elisabeth I’s secretary of state from 1590 to 1612. Speght dedicated his two editions of Chaucer’s work to Robert, very likely as way of thanks for her support. Speght stayed at Cambridge for the next seven years. During that time he got in contact with many other literate authors of his time, among them Gabriel Harvey and Abraham Fleming. After taking his MA in 1573, Speght moved to London, where he was appointed schoolmaster.

Not many sources are known that tell about Speght’s family life. The best of it is his own will, drawn up on February 27, 1621. It reveals that Chaucer was married to Anne Hill, whose surname, however, is a very likely assumption only. According to his will, Speght had a sister and a brother. The name of the latter was James Speght, who was the father of the author Rachel Speght. Thomas Speght had at least eleven children, among them eight daughters and three sons. At the time of his death in 1621, all his children but one son were unmarried. Speght did not only do extraordinary work in editing Chaucer’s poems, he also was a good schoolmaster, as Laurence Speght, one of Thomas’ sons living at Clopton, Northamtonshire, regarded his father as a paragon of a schoolmaster.

Speght’s connection to Chaucer
Speght’s interest in Chaucer arose during his time in Cambridge. His good friend Francis Beaumont (not to be confused with the dramatist Francis Beaumont) was his companion on the way to become one of Chaucer’s most important editors. Speght and Beaumont are to be believed to have formed a circle of Chaucerians at Peterhouse at a time when Edmund Spenser, famous Chaucerian himself, spent his time studying at Cambridge. Beaumont contributed a very favourable letter to Speght’s first edition (for further details, see the chapter on the comparison of the two editions, below). In the preface, Beaumont mentions the Archbishop John Whitgift, who was one of many fellows at Cambridge who were interested in and working with antiquarian books. He reminds Speght of the fact, that they were brought to Chaucer’s works by the fellows interested in Chaucer in Cambridge. Although Speght’s interest in Chaucer had been awakened during his study time in the early 1570’s, he did not start working with the author’s poems before the end of the century.

=Speghts Edition of Chaucer’s Works= Thomas Speght was not very experienced in editing when he started working with Chaucer’s poems. He wrote several commendatory verses in Latin, but, as a matter of fact, he only transferred one ancient poem into his modern English, before he started working on his masterpiece. The original text of Chaucer’s poems is not Speght’s own work. In the preface to the reader of his first edition, he mentions that he got help by a friend who is assumed to be John Stow, an antiquarian who was engaged in reprinting Chaucer’s poems when Speght himself became involved with Chaucer. In the edition of 1598, the core text written by Chaucer and, at least, the information Speght based his genealogy of Chaucer on, were gathered by John Stow and published in the year 1561. Even Stow himself did not draft Chaucer’s text; he partially inherited the words from William Thynne’s versions of 1542 and 1550, father of Francis Thynne, who was Speght’s biggest help in improving his first edition, and probably the reason why Speght published the second edition at all.

To distance himself and his work historically from Chaucer’s time and to prove literacy and technical development at his time, Speght makes use of different fonts when writing in different languages. Chaucer’s original text and quotations of the poet in Speght’s annotations are written in black letter type; Speght’s comments themselves are written in roman letters. Wherever Speght writes in Latin or adds notes on the margin, he uses italic. The edition of 1598 is smaller than the one of 1602, the consequence being that the first edition is a few folios thicker than the second one.

The Edition of 1598
On the title page of his edition of 1598, Speght explains what he included in the “Workes of our Ancient and Learned English Poet, Geffrey Chavcer, newly printed”:

“1 His Portraiture and Progenie Shewed.

2 His Life collected.

3 Argument to euery Booke gathered.

4 Old and Obscure Words explained.

5 Authors by him cited declared.

6 Difficulties opened.

7 Two Bookes of his neuer before printed”

Speght had never intended to publish his first edition of the poet’s works. He only meant to reprint the poems and add a glossary for circulation amongst close friends. An explanation for that can be found in his preface addressed “To the Readers”, where he apologises for three of his faults in the process of editing the works. In his opinion, the first fault is the fact that he actually published what he did not want to publish: “...was it never my mind that it should be published[,] [...] which was never purposed or perfected for open view.” But after his friends, “certaine also of the best in the Companie of Stationers”  were given a copy and saw the need for a glossary, they convinced him to reprint it and therefore provide access to the books to a much bigger audience(“...these friends did by their Letters solicit me...” ).

In Speght’s eyes, the second fault was that he added things at the end of the edition that would have fit better somewhere at the beginning. He does not explicitly explain what that could have been, and does not change it in the revised edition (see chapters on the Edition of 1602 and Comparison of the two Editions, below). His third fault was that he was convinced so easily by his friends and did not peruse his editions adequately enough. In the same sentence, he asks the readers to inform him about possible mistakes and that he will try to improve them “...if God permit”. He ends the address to the reader with emphasising the importance of Chaucer to the literary canon.

Speght added two poems to the works of Chaucer, of which he thought they were written by Chaucer as well, the Isle of Ladies and The Flower and the Leaf. It is known today that Chaucer was not the author of the two poems.

One of Speght’s annotations in the end of the book has caused a sensation for many years. When January, the old man in Chaucer’s The Merchant’s Tale, decides that he wants to chose a wife of the age of only twenty, he explains his decision with the words:

“I woll no woman of thirty Winter age

It nis but Beanstraw and great forage

And eke these old widowes (God it wote)

They connen so much craft in Wades bote

So much broken harme whan hem list

That with hem should I neuer liue in rest”

January expresses his fears, and since then analysts have wondered, who ‘Wade’ was. This would perhaps not have drawn their attention to that large extent, if Speght has not annotated the passage in an enigmatic way:

“They connen so much craft in Wades bote, etc. Concerning Wade and his bote called Guingelot, as also his strange exploits in the same, because the matter is long and fabulous, I passe it ouer.”

Speght declares that he left out the explanation about Wade and his boat because it would have been too long. This refusal is considered to be “contingent”, because every story could be condensed. The fact that Speght thought the story was too fabulous raised the question, if Speght either did not know the source of the myth around Wade, or that he did not know about Wade at all. A third explanation alleges Speght that he left out the story of Wade intentionally, because it contained too much obscene parts that were very common in medieval romance. “Deliberately and self-consciously or not, Speght has added one more piece to the puzzle of the allusion to Wade while telling us he will not tell us anything.”

The Edition of 1602
Four years after the hasty publication of the first edition of Chaucer’s poems, Speght published the second, revised edition. Many different circumstances have led him to work through the words again, both his own wish to do so, and also triggers by people surrounding him. The title page gives information on what is new to the second edition:

“To what was done in the former Impression, thus much is added.
 * Indented line

1 In the life of Chaucer many things inserted
 * Indented line

2 The whole worke by old Copies reformed
 * Indented line

3 Sentences and Prouerbes noted
 * Indented line

4 The Signification of the old and obscure Words prouued: also Characters shewing
 * Indented line

from what Tongue or Dialect they deriued
 * Indented line

5 The Latine and French, not Englished by Chaucer, translated
 * Indented line

6 The Treatise, called Iacke Vpland, against Friers: and Chaucers A.B.C. called la 	Priere
 * Indented line

de nostre Dame, at this Impression added.” Speght opens his new edition with a completely new address to the readers. He seems to have been very sure he revised the second edition thoroughly enough and that any irregularity in the text is to be ascribed to the hastiness of Adam Pinkhurst, Chaucer’s scrivener. In Speght’s eyes, the different spelling of many ancient places and figures is to be tracked back to the inaccurate work of the scribe.

In the time after the publication of the edition of 1598, in which he asked for improvements by the readers, he received some reactions; among them one that outstands the others: Francis Thynne’s Animadversions. Francis Thynne was the son of William Thynne, who edited the version of Chaucer’s works of 1532. Francis therefore had access to much information on Chaucer that Speght apparently did not have. In the opening of his almost twenty-thousand-words letter, the antiquarian and Chaucer-expert is vexed that Speght did not consult him in the first place when he was busy working on his first edition. What follows is an extensive list of both clerical errors and also errors in quoting and the historical facts Speght included in his work. Although Thynne’s suggestions for improvement are to be seen as censure on Speght, he nevertheless included him in his preface to the readers, expressing what a big help Thynne’s comments were to perfect the second edition. Thynne did not only send Speght his very extensive list of improvements, he seems to have helped the editor even beyond that in forms of other letters or personal contact, which resulted in a revised, much more detailed glossary.

Speght added two other poems to the edition of which he thought they were both of the same origin and written by Chaucer, the A.B.C. and the Tale of Jack Upland. This time, Speght was only mistaken by assigning the latter to the poet. Until today, the A.B.C. is considered to be Chaucer’s work.

Comparison of the Editions
Apart from the completely different prefaces to the readers mentioned in the two chapters above, Speght’s two editions differ in many other points. The title pages of both editions consist of a woodcut, but the second edition is less elaborate. Whereas Speght used one and the same woodcut for decorating both editions at many points, the title page of the newer edition is more economical and modern.

In both editions, the title page is followed by a dedication to Robert Cecil, the son of Speght’s financial supporter, Lady Mildred Cecil. But Speght puts himself in different perspectives in the two dedications. In 1598, Speght presents “painfully gathered” material, whereas in the dedication of 1602, he praises himself, that with the help of Thynne and others, “Chaucer for the most part is restored to his owne Antiquitie”.

On the next pages, the reader can find the mentioned words of Francis Beaumont “...to his very louing friend, T.S.” The letter is a fulsome praise of Chaucer’s importance to the lyrical world and thanking Speght for making his poems accessible to every reader. Beaumont draws a clear picture of how language has always changes and will always do so in the future, “...so that it was impossible that either Chaucer or any other liuing man could keep thē from falling” and that there was an actual need for an explained version of the poet’s works. He addresses Speght in person, saying that not only the ancient Greek and Latin poets had been translated into modern language, but also Italian and French writers like Petrarch or Guillaume de Salluste du Bartas were interpreted in a modern way. Chaucer needed to be translated as well – “[...] shall only Chaucer our Poet, no lesse worthy than the best of them amongst all the Poets of the world lie alwaies neglected and neuer be so well vnderstood of his owne contrieman as strangers are?”  Even though the letter of Beaumont printed in the second edition dates back to the exact same year, the words are not the same as in the letter of the edition of 1598. It is to be assumed that Beaumont wrote a second letter that was added in the new version.

Speght begins his description of Chaucer’s life with a decorated print of the poet’s family tree. Whereas nowadays the person described would appear at the end of the tree, it was a common method in medieval times to show the relation to a member of royalty and put emphasis on them, not on the person itself. Chaucer was married to Phillippa de Roet, who was a sister of John of Gaunt’s second wife. Gaunt himself was King Edward III’s fourth son, which related Chaucer directly to the royal family. Upon Thynne’s suggestion in Animadversions, Speght added minor changes to the passage on Chaucer’s life. The writing underneath Chaucer’s emblem is altered, saying that it does only depict an approximation of the real arms of Chaucer, whereas Speght claimed to know the reason why Chaucer had chosen just that sign. The editor also made small changes to the paragraph on the children and friends of the poet, where he added some more references of Chaucer mentioning actual friends in his poems. The woodcuts for capital letters at the beginnings of a paragraph in the section on Chaucer’s life are used similarly in both editions. Also the main part of the text is congruous. Speght left out a passage on Chaucer’s granddaughter Alice’s relation with the Earl of Warwick and expanded the paragraph on the rewards of the poet.

The order of the following sections differs in the two editions. In the first one, Speght printed a short summary of every poem on the next pages, which he changes in the second edition by adding them at the beginning of every poem directly without changing the words. On the next page of 1598 Chaucer, Speght placed the poet’s very devote and praising preface to Henry VIII. This preface is also included in the second edition, right after a very elaborate woodcut that serves as a frontispiece to the actual text of Chaucer. It depicts Chaucer’s arms again, very prettily decorated, with a knight’s helmet above it. On top of the helmet, a head of a unicorn is to be found. The same woodcut that was used to print this frontispiece can be found in the first edition as well, but Speght placed it after the General Prologue, just before the beginning of the Knight’s Tale. Whereas Speght added some words above the woodcut in the 1602, describing that he had made some additions before he printed it and that it contains Lydgate’s Siege of Thebes as well, in both editions, the same words are written at the bottom of the woodcut:

“Vertue flourisheth in Chaucer still though death of him hath wrought his will”

Speght printed a table of contents on the following pages of both editions, whose main difference is the use of Arabic numerals in the edition of 1598, and Roman numerals in the edition of 1602. In the 1598 edition, after Chaucer’s Eight godly questions with their answers, the reader finds an elaborately decorated page with the title of Chaucer’s most famous work, the Canterbury Tales, written in the centre. With Henry VIII sitting enthroned on top of it, this page has reveals close resemblance to the frontispiece of the Great Bible. The exact same woodcut can be found as a cover page of Chaucer’s translated version The Romaunt of the Rose on folio 115 in the edition of 1598.

Throughout both editions, Speght sometimes makes use of the same woodcuts to decorate initials or add decorations at the margin, sometimes uses different ones. There is no particular method noticeable.

After the section in both editions, where Lydgate’s Siege of Thebes is printed, Speght added some other explanations. They are much shorter in the 1958 Chaucer and reveal other hints on the haste Speght collected his information in. Its first chapter consists of a translation of all French words that are not explained in the text by Chaucer himself, followed by “Most of the Authors cited by Chaucer”. With that written, Speght admitted that he did not include all of the quoted authors, most likely because he did not have enough time before he published the edition. The last chapter is made up of spelling corrections and additional annotations, which the glossary refers to in some cases. The 1602 Chaucer does not only contain a chapter on the explanation of Latin expression that Chaucer had not explained himself before; the additional chapters are far more detailed and more precise. Speght claims to have listed and explained all authors cited by Chaucer. The following table compares the explanations and errors of the two editions numerically:

Edition of 1598	Edition of 1602 Latin words explained	-	62

French words explained	29	34

Authors cited	65	76

Clerical errors	49	41

The Glossaries
The glossaries of both editions are revolutionary considering the time Speght was compiling them. The version of 1598 was the first glossary of old words ever intentionally written for scholarly purposes. Six years after Speght’s first edition, the first dictionary was published, but it took more than a century until dictionaries in today’s sense were written.

Speght arranged the words of the glossary in both editions in three columns per page. Whereas the explanations of the words in the second edition are very detailed, the first edition is faulty and incomplete in many cases.

On first sight, the glossary of the edition of 1598 seems very chaotic. The words are in alphabetical order, but only according to the first two letters, which was a very common method at Speght’s time. However, this makes hard to follow the pattern to an eye that is accustomed to viewing an alphabetical order throughout the whole word. Additionally, the same words are often listed more than once, but with different meanings. Speght did not list these homographs next to each other; it seemed that he had gone through the works of Chaucer very hastily and in a chronological order. He listed the words according to their appearance in the text and put them in an only superficial order. The reader does not find any reference to the text itself. Speght translated most of the words according to their context, which is missing in the glossary. Sometimes Speght only refers to the annotations at the end of the book. In the edition of 1602, Speght united many of the homographs and added almost 30% more words, many of them at the suggestion of Francis Thynne.

The following table shows the numerical relation between the two glossaries: Edition of 1598 Edition of 1602

Total number of entries 2034	2607 (+28.17%) Number of entries found in one edition only 189	863 Homographs united in the edition of 1602 101

Fig. 2: Table of entries in the glossaries of Speght’s editions of 1598 and 1602

Adding almost six hundred more words and merging the homographs was not all Speght changed in the glossary while editing the second edition. He also put a much more detailed explanation to many words that just had a simple or confusing translation before.

=Speght’s legacy= As mentioned above, Speght had not much experience before he started editing Chaucer. Nevertheless, he created two editions of a book that in this form had never existed before. No other work until Speght’s time contained as much additions as his comments on Chaucer. In 1532, Thomas Berthelette only added a two-page preface to the reader, a dedication to Henry VIII and a table of contents to his version of John Gower’s Confessio Armatis; Robert Crowley even only invested time to write a preface to the reader when he edited William Langland’s Piers Plowman. However, some authors discount Speght’s importance for the future and say that he only followed the “imperative of completeness” by adding more works of Chaucer to the canon of classic literature. In their eyes, Speght’s merit lies in his annotations to the poems; “Speght began to monumentalize Chaucer through his critical apparatus as Thynne and Stow had done through the canon.” It is, however, undisputed that Speght set off a new tradition of writing dictionaries to explain old words. His glossaries were used as the basis for many other glossaries written in the following century, e.g. Bullokar’s An English Expositor of 1616 or Cockeram’s dictionary of 1626. In 1687, Speght’s edition of 1602 was reprinted. The editor, whose name is not known, added only an address to the reader, without revealing his full name. This reprint was published with only minor changes to Speght’s original from 1602.

Thomas Thyrwhitt, scholar and critic in the 18th century, found nothing but bad words for Chaucer’s first edition of 1698. Nevertheless, Thyrwhitt used Speght’s second edition as major basis when he edited his groundbreaking version of the Canterbury Tales in the years between 1775 and 1778.

Similarities can be even found in Speght’s works and a very recent, elaborate edition of Chaucer’s works: The Riverside Chaucer (edited by Larry Benson, first published in 1988, ISBN-10: 0192821091). Both editors revalue the work of Chaucer and try to make the texts accessible to readers of every possible background. Machan goes even further in explaining Speght’s influence on Chaucer’s reputation for the future:

“The view of Chaucer that Speght’s editions articulate is thus simultaneously a distinctly Renaissance outlook and a development – but not a culmination – of the traditions that coalesced to invent the poet as the father of English poetry”

Almost two hundred years later, John Dryden published a pocket edition of classical works. In this book, Chaucer is mentioned in one breath with Ovid and Homer and Boccaccio, with Speght being a not minor trigger by adding Chaucer’s poems to the canon and his own annotations to the progression of British literature.

=References=

=External Links and further reading=