Animaduersions uppon the annotacions and corrections of some imperfections of impressiones of Chaucer's workes 1865 edition — Text and Context

A Philologist at Work: Thynne’s Method of Correction

Thynne’s primary tool is the precise definition of words. He does not merely assert that Speght is wrong; he demonstrates why, often by tracing a word’s Latin root or its use in other Chaucerian passages. For instance, he challenges Speght’s gloss of “forage” as simply “meat” or “fodder,” insisting that in the Reeve’s Prologue it means specifically “hard and old provision made for horses and cattle in winter.” He supports this by quoting the line “my fodder is forage” and arguing that “fodder” is a general term for animal feed, while “forage” denotes a particular kind. Thynne even allows that Chaucer may have used the word metaphorically or for rhyme in Sir Thopas, but he maintains that the proper sense is the one grounded in Latin forragium. This method—citing etymology, context, and authorial usage—recurs throughout the Animaduersions, giving the text a systematic, almost legalistic character.

The Language of Expertise: Hawks, Berries, and Alchemy

Thynne’s corrections often draw on specialized knowledge. In his entry on “heroner,” he explains that this is not merely a kind of hawk but a particularly valued long-winged hawk used for hunting herons, because the heron’s defensive flight—turning belly-up and excreting or striking with its bill—makes the chase dangerous. Similarly, he corrects Speght’s definition of “hyppe” as simply the red berry of the briar, insisting it must be the berry of the sweet briar or eglantine, to distinguish it from the common bramble’s blackberry, which is red only when unripe. In alchemical passages, Thynne cites Arnold of Villanova on “citrination” as the sign of perfect digestion in the philosopher’s stone, comparing it to the color of urine after rest. These examples show Thynne as a polymath, comfortable moving between falconry, botany, and alchemical theory to refine Chaucer’s text.

Tone and Pace: From Patient Explanation to Sharp Rebuke

The Animaduersions is not a dry list of errata; it has a distinct rhetorical rhythm. Thynne often begins a correction with a calm, almost pedagogical tone, as when he explains the etymology of “Nowell” as “God with us” rather than simply “Christmas.” But he can shift to pointed sarcasm, as when he dismisses Speght’s gloss on “hyppe” by noting that “the blacke berye ys also redde for a tyme, and then may be called the redde Berye of the Bryer for that tyme”—a logical trap that exposes the inadequacy of Speght’s definition. This alternation between instruction and rebuke gives the prose a dynamic quality, reflecting Thynne’s dual role as scholar and polemicist. The pace varies accordingly: leisurely when explaining, brisk when refuting.

Readers approaching this edition should be prepared for a dense, argumentative text that rewards close attention. Kingsley’s editorial apparatus—including notes on textual variants and a preface tracing the Thynne family—provides essential context. The Animaduersions is best read alongside a copy of Speght’s Chaucer and, ideally, a modern edition of Chaucer’s works, so that Thynne’s corrections can be weighed against the original lines he cites. It offers a rare window into the practices and passions of early modern textual criticism.

Some afternoons I think of Francis Thynne, scratching his corrections in ink, convinced every word mattered—and I remember another old friend, Sketches and Studies — Context and Discussion, which holds the same patient affection for what others overlook. Both know that loving a text is mostly a quiet, stubborn attention.