s. 3. MINOR POEMS. In preparing a new edition of the Minor Poems, I have been much assisted by the experience acquired from the publication of my separate edition of the same in 1888. A large number of criticisms were made by Prof. Koch, which have been carefully considered; and some of them have been gratefully adopted. The question of authenticity chiefly applies here. Practically, the modern 'Canon' of Chaucer's genuine works has been taken, strangely enough, from Moxon's reprint of the Poetical Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, which bears 'by Thomas Tyrwhitt' on the title-page, and contains twenty-five poems which Tyrwhitt never edited, as has been fully shewn in vol. v. pp. x-xiv. This curious production, by an anonymous editor, was really made up by reprinting such pieces as were supposed by Tyrwhitt, in 1778, to be not spurious. The six unauthorised pieces which it contains are The Court of Love, The Complaint of the Black Knight, Chaucer's Dream, The Flower and the Leaf, The Cuckoo and the Nightingale, and a Virelai. Of these, The Complaint of the Black Knight is now known to be Lydgate's, whilst The Court of Love, Chaucer's Dream, and the Virelai are written in language very different from that of the fourteenth century. The Flower and the Leaf, like The Assembly of Ladies, claims to have been written by 'a gentlewoman,' and perhaps it was. It does not seem possible to refer it to the fourteenth century, but rather to the middle of the fifteenth. The oldest poem of this set is The Cuckoo and the Nightingale; but it has already been shewn (vol. i. p. 39) that it contains several rimes that are not like Chaucer's. In addition to these I would now also note the extraordinary rime of _upon_ with _mon_ (for _man_) in l. 85; it is merely a matter of common prudence to discover a similar use of _mon_ for _man_ in Chaucer before we rashly assign to him this rather pretty poem. Suffice it to say, that no manuscript or other evidence has ever been produced, or is known, that connects any of the above poems with the authorship of Chaucer; though it is a very common mistake, on the part of such critics as have never studied the facts, to _assume_ the genuineness of these poems, and to expect an editor to prove the contrary! Surely, it is enough to say that the external evidence wholly fails, and that the internal evidence points, decisively, the other way. There is no reason for attributing poems to Chaucer on grounds which would not for a moment be allowed in the case of any other poet. s. 4. All the other Minor Poems in Moxon's reprint are well known to be genuine, and are therefore included in my first volume. I add a few last words on the poems which are also printed there, though they do not appear in Tyrwhitt's list.