§ 2. That Chaucer translated the French poem called Le Roman de la Rose, or at least some part of it[185], no one doubts; for he tells us so himself in the Prologue of his Legend of Good Women (A 255, B 329), and the very frequent references to it, in many of his poems, shew that many parts of it were familiarly known to him. Nevertheless, it does not follow that the particular version of it which happens to be preserved, is the very one which he made; for it was a poem familiar to many others besides him, and it is extremely probable that Middle English versions of it were numerous. In fact, it will presently appear that the English version printed in this volume actually consists of _three_ separate fragments, _all by different hands_.
The English version, which I shall here, for brevity, call 'the translation,' has far less claim to be considered as Chaucer's than unthinking people imagine. Modern readers find it included in many editions of his Works, and fancy that such a fact is conclusive; but it is the merest prudence to enquire how it came there. The answer is, that it first appeared in Thynne's edition of 1532, a collection of Chaucer's (supposed) works made more than _a hundred and thirty years_ after his death. Such an attribution is obviously valueless; we must examine the matter for ourselves, and on independent grounds.
§ 3. A critical examination of the internal evidence at once shews that by far the larger part of 'the translation' cannot possibly be Chaucer's; for the language of it contradicts most of his habits, and presents peculiarities such as we never find in his genuine poems. I shewed this in my 'Essay' by the use of several unfailing tests, the nature of which I shall explain presently. The only weak point in my argument was, that I then considered 'the translation' as being the production of _one_ author, and thought it sufficient to draw my examples (as I unconsciously, for the most part, did) from the central portion of the whole.
§ 4. The next step in this investigation was made by Dr. Lindner. In a painstaking article printed in _Englische Studien_, xi. 163, he made it appear highly probable that at least _two_ fragments of 'the translation' are _by different hands_. That there are two fragments, _at least_, is easily discerned; for after l. 5810 there is a great gap, equivalent to an omission of more than 5000 lines.