[§ 23]. The feeble suggestion is sometimes made that Chaucer's spelling ought to be modernised, like that of Shakespeare. This betrays a total ignorance of the history of English spelling. It is not strictly the case, that Shakespeare's spelling has been modernised; for the fact is the other way, viz. that in all that is most essential, it is the spelling of Shakespeare's time that has been adopted in modern English. The so-called 'modern' spelling is really a survival, and is sadly unfit, as we all know to our cost, for representing modern English sounds. By 'modernising,' such critics usually mean the cutting off of final e in places where it was just as little required in Elizabethan English as it is now; the freër use of 'v' and of 'j'; and so forth; nearly all of the alterations referring to unessential details. Such alterations would have been useful even in Shakespeare's time, and would not have touched the character of the spelling. But the spelling of Chaucer's time refers to quite a different age, when a large number of inflections were still in use that have since been discarded; so that it involves changes in essential and vital points. As it happens, the spelling of the Ellesmere MS. is phonetic in a very high degree. Pronounce the words as they are spelt, but with the Italian vowel-sounds and the German final e, and you come very near the truth. If this is too much trouble, pronounce the words as they are spelt, with modern English vowels (usually adding a final e, pronounced like a in China, when it is visibly present); and, even so, it is easy to follow. The alteration of a word like quene to queene does not make it any easier; and the further alteration to queen destroys its dissyllabic nature. Besides, those who want the spelling modernised can get it in Gilfillan's edition.
Surely, it is better to stick to the true old phonetic spelling. Boys at school, who have learnt Attic Greek, are supposed to be able to face the spelling of Homer without wincing, though it is not their native language; and the number of Englishwomen who are fairly familiar with Middle-English is becoming considerable.
[§ 24]. As regards the Notes in the present volume, it will be
readily understood that I have copied them or collected them from many sources. Many of those on the Prologue and Knightes Tale were really written by Dr. Morris; but, owing to the great kindness he shewed me in allowing me to work in conjunction with him on terms of equality, I should often be hard put to it to say which they are. A large number are taken from the editions by Tyrwhitt, Wright, and Bell; but these are usually acknowledged. Others I have adopted from the various works published by the Chaucer Society; from the excellent notes by Dr. Köppell, Dr. Kölbing, and Dr. Koch that have appeared in Anglia, and in similar publications; and from Professor Lounsbury's excellent work entitled Studies in Chaucer. I have usually endeavoured to point out the sources of my information; and, if I have in several cases failed to do this, I hope it will be understood that, as Chaucer's fox said, 'I dide it in no wikke entente.' Perhaps this may seem an unlucky reference, for the fox was not speaking the strict truth, as we all know that he ought to have done. If I may take any credit for any part of the Notes, I think it may be for my endeavour to hunt up, as far as I could, a large number of the very frequent allusions to Le Roman de la Rose[[22]], and to such authors as Ovid and Statius; besides undertaking the more difficult task involved in tracing out some of the mysterious references which occur in the margins of the manuscripts. For the Tale of Melibeus, I naturally derived much help and comfort from the admirable edition of Albertano's Liber Consolationis by Thor Sundby, and the careful notes made by Mätzner. As for the references in the Persones Tale, I should never have found out so many of them, but for the kind assistance of the Rev. E. Marshall. To all my predecessors in the task of annotation, and to all helpers, I beg leave to express my hearty thanks. For further remarks on this and some other subjects, see vol. vi.
As it frequently happens that it is highly desirable to be able to recover speedily the whereabouts of a note on some particular word or subject, an Index to the Notes is appended to this volume.
ERRATA IN VOL IV.
At p. xxiv of vol. iv, a list of Errata is given, many of which are of slight importance. Much use of this volume, for the purpose of illustration, has brought to my notice a few more Errata, six of which, here marked with an asterisk, are worth special notice.
| P. 19. | A 636. | For Thanne read Than | |
| P. 37. | A 1248. | The end-stop should be only a colon. | |
| P. 41. | A 1419. | The end-stop should be only a semicolon. | |
| P. 138. | B 295. | For moevyng read moeving | |
| Pp. 151, 155. B 724, 858. For Constable read constable | |||
| * | P. 165. | B 1178. | For be read he |
| P. 187. | B 1843. | The end-stop should (perhaps) be a semicolon. | |
| P. 232. | B 2865. | For haue read have | |
| P. 259. | B 3670. | The end-stop should be a comma. | |
| * | P. 275. | B 4167. | For Than read That |
| * | P. 348. | D 955. | For which read whiche |
| P. 349. | D 1009. | For Plighte read Plight | |
| P. 384. | D 2152. | Dele ' at beginning. | |
| * | P. 398. | E 290. | MS. E has set (= setteth, pr. s.); which scans better than sette, as in other MSS. |
| P. 409. | E 656. | For Left read Lefte [though the e is elided]. | |
| * | P. 462. | F 56. | For Him read Hem |
| P. 546. | G 1224. | Dele the final comma. | |
| * | P. 608; | end of l. 14. For power or (as in E.) read power of (as in the rest). | |
| P. 620: | ll. 16, 17. Dele the commas after receyven and folk | ||