472 
pears to have been written at the sug- 
- gestion of Anne of Bohemia, Richard’s 
queen. Here is introduced an account 
of the worship of the daisy, a whimsical 
affectation, of which, by some antiqua- 
rians Froissart is said to have been the 
author. It is much to be wished that the 
numerous poems of this admirable old 
writer were printed.. The Flower, and 
the Leaf is also analyzed here ; a tale 
so well known in the translation by Dry- 
den. Is Mr. Godwin accurate in assert- 
ing that our Roundel is the Rondeau of 
the French? If so, it is singular that 
mo specimen should remain. Indeed 
we remember none earlier than that of 
Pope’s, in which he replied to the foolish 
jest of a “woman upon his size; ky ob- 
scenity far more unpardonable. "The 
Roundel may perhaps be derived from 
the Redondilla of the Spaniards : a word 
of similar import, though why so called 
is not easily discovered, as it seems to 
require nothing but a regular recurrence 
of stanza. If this be the case, many 
of Chaucer’s balades may be Roundels ; 
and that title may have been disused 
from its affinity to the French, which 
implied a species of poem altogether 
different. 
The last work of the poet’s which is 
examined in these volumes, is his esta- 
ment of Love, written after his return 
from exile, and during his imprisonment. 
In commenting upon the difficult alle- 
gory of this composition, Mr. Godwin 
observes, that Shakespere has composed 
more than one hundred and fifty sonnets, 
which, in their literal sense, are address- 
ed to a man, with all the forms and ex- 
pressions of the passion of love; but 
which probably cover some secret mean- 
ing that no critic has hitherto been so 
fortunate as to penetrate.’?, Let Mr. 
Godwin read these sonnets: the asser- 
tion as it now stands is not more inac- 
curate, than it would be to say that 
Shakespere had written more than thirty 
plays upon Sir John Falstaff. For Chau- 
cer’s impeachment of his old political 
. associates some palliating circumstances 
are pleaded: the most interesting cir- 
cumstance in this sad transaction is, that 
it would not now be known that Chaucer 
had acted amiss, if he had not written 
his own apology ! ? 
The remainder of the work is chiefly 
political history: it represents, however, 
the cheartul picture of Chaucer restored 
to prosperity, and living happily to the 
good old age of seventy‘two. The 
BIOGRAPHY. 
Canterbury Tales are I'ghtly touched 
upon, because the author was limited 
to two volumes, and had run to the end 
of his tether before he arrived at them. — 
This is not to be regretted, aé littlecould — 
have been added to what had already 
been done by Warton and Tyrwhit.— — 
The omission of any reniarks on his — 
Treatise on the Astrolabe is far more 
culpable ; for it was the business of his 
biographer to have studied that treatise, 
and appreciated the scientific knowledge 
of Chaucer: but this was a hard Look, 
so Mr, Godwin “ skipt and went on.” 
By aitempting too many things in 
this work, the author bas failed in all, 
His time and labour would have been 
well employed, had he digested into one 
unbroken narrative all the facts which 
he could collect concerning Chaucer’s 
life, and then proceeded to a chronole- — 
gical examination of his works. He © 
should have compared his translations — 
with the originals, and pointed out what 
were the main deviations, what the cha- 
racteristic improvements, and failures ; 
so to have exemplified the “ mind of 
Chaucer.” He should not have swoln 
his volumes with tr'te compilations upon 
chivalry, law, and the feudal system.— 
Instead of heaping together old informa- 
tion concerning the manners of the four- | 
teenth century, because they must have 
produced ‘an effect upon Chaucer, he 
should have elucidated those manners 
from his poems, and have endeavoured 
to shew what effect Chaucer produced 
upon his age, instead of what:effect his © 
age produced upon him. Some other 
vehicle should have been chosen for 2 
history of Edward III., the Black Prince, 
Richard HH. and John of Gaunt.—Chau- © 
cer is too important a personage to be. 
made their gentleman usher. ‘The con-_ 
sequence of blending all these subjects 
has been, that ail are imperfect, confused, 
and interrupted : the book is neither his-_ 
tory, nor biography, nor criticism; but 
a heterogeneous mixture of all three. 
The language is often bloated by at- 
tempts at eloquence, and often disfigured 
by the vile affectation of using common 
words in an uncommon sense ; such as 
“ encountering discoveries,” “ neighbouring 
the throne,” and calling a man’s death 
his catastrophe. 
Having thus insisted upon the faults 
of the work, we should state what are. 
its merits. The reign of Richard IL. is 
perhaps better represented than in our 
common historians, though with too 
—e 
