§ 8. This somewhat tedious account is absolutely necessary, every word of it, in order to enable the reader to understand what has always been meant (since 1845) by critics who talk about some works as being 'attributed to Chaucer.' They really mean (in the case, for example, of The Cuckoo and the Nightingale) that it happens to be included in a certain volume _by an anonymous editor_, published in 1845, in which the suggestions made by Tyrwhitt in 1778 were practically adopted without any important deviation. In the case of any other author, such a basis for a canon would be considered rather a sandy one; it derives its whole value from the fact that Tyrwhitt was an excellent literary critic, who may well be excused for a few mistakes, considering how much service he did in thus reducing the number of poems in 'Chaucer's Works' from 64 to little more than 26[8]. Really, this was a grand achievement, especially as it clearly emphasised the absurdity of trusting to the old editions. But it is an abuse of language to say that 'The Cuckoo and Nightingale' has 'always been attributed to Chaucer,' merely [xv] because it happens to have been printed by Thynne in 1532, and had the good luck to be accepted by Tyrwhitt in 1778. On the contrary, such a piece remains on its trial; and it must be rejected absolutely, both on the external and on the internal evidence. Externally, because no scribe or early writer connects it with him in any way. Internally, for reasons given in vol. i. p. 39[9]; and for other reasons given in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer. § 9. The chief value of the anonymous edition in 1845 is, that it gave practical expression to Tyrwhitt's views. The later editions by Bell and Morris were, in some respects, retrogressive. Both, for example, include The Lamentation of Mary Magdalene, which Tyrwhitt rightly denounced in no dubious terms; (see vol. i. above, pp. 37, 38). But, of late years, the question of constructing a canon of Chaucer's genuine works has received proper attention, and has been considered by such scholars as Henry Bradshaw, Bernhard ten Brink, Dr. Koch, Dr. Furnivall, Professor Lounsbury, and others; with a fairly unanimous result. The whole question is well summed up in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, Chapter IV, on 'The Writings of Chaucer.' His conclusion is, that his 'examination leaves as works about which there is no dispute twenty-six titles.' By these titles he means The Canterbury Tales, Boethius, Troilus, The House of Fame, The Legend of Good Women, The Astrolabe, and the nineteen Minor Poems which I denote by the numbers I-XI, XIII-XX (no. XX being counted as _two_). His examination did not at first include no. XII (To Rosemounde); but, in his Appendix (vol. iii. pp. 449, 450), he calls attention to it, and accepts it without hesitation. He also says of no. XXII, that 'it may be Chaucer's own work.'