Adventures in Criticism | Page 6

of the Canterbury Tales is an instalment."[B]
So it comes about that we have two texts before us, each based on a
collation of the Six-Text edition and the Harleian MS. 7334--the chief
difference being that Mr. Pollard adheres closely to the Ellesmere MS.,
while Professor Skeat allows himself more freedom. This is how they
start--
"Whan that Aprill? with hise shour?s soote The droghte of March hath
perc?d to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich licour Of which
vertu engendred is the flour; Whan Zephirus eck with his swet? breeth
5 Inspir?d hath in every holt and heeth The tendr? cropp?s, and the

yong? sonne Hath in the Ram his half? cours y-ronne, And smal?
fowel?s maken melodye That slepen al the nvght with open eye,-- 10
So priketh hem Nature in hir corages,-- Thanne longen folk to goon on
pilgrimages ..."
(Pollard.)
"Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote The droghte of Marche hath
perced to the rote, And bathed every veyne in swich licour Of which
vertu engendred is the flour; Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
5 Inspired hath in every holt and heeth The tendre croppes, and the
yong sonne Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y ronne, And smale fowles
maken melodye, That slepen al the night with open ye, 10 (So priketh
hem nature in hir corages:) Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages..."
(Skeat.)
On these two extracts it must be observed (1) that the accents and the
dotted e's in the first are Mr. Pollard's own contrivances for helping the
scansion; (2) in the second, l. 10, "ye" is a special contrivance of
Professor Skeat. "The scribes," he says (Introd. Vol. IV. p. xix.),
"usually write eye in the middle of a line, but when they come to it at
the end of one, they are fairly puzzled. In l. 10, the scribe of Hn
('Hengwrt') writes lye, and that of Ln ('Lansdowne') writes yhe; and the
variations on this theme are curious. The spelling ye (= ye) is, however,
common.... I print it 'ye' to distinguish it from ye, the pl. pronoun." The
other differences are accounted for by the varying degrees in which the
two editors depend on the Ellesmere MS. Mr. Pollard sticks to the
Ellesmere. Professor Skeat corrects it by the others. Obviously the
editor who allows himself the wider range lays himself open to more
criticism, point by point. He has to justify himself in each particular
case, while the other's excuse is set down once for all in his preface.
But after comparing the two texts in over a dozen passages, I have had
to vote in almost every case for Professor Skeat.
The Alleged Difficulty of Reading Chaucer.
The differences, however, are always trifling. The reader will allow that

in each case we have a clear, intelligible text: a text that allows Chaucer
to be read and enjoyed without toil or vexation. For my part, I hope
there is no presumption in saying that I could very well do without Mr.
Pollard's accents and dotted e's. Remove them, and I contend that any
Englishman with an ear for poetry can read either of the two texts
without difficulty. A great deal too much fuss is made over the
pronunciation and scansion of Chaucer. After all, we are Englishmen,
with an instinct for understanding the language we inherit; in the
evolution of our language we move on the same lines as our fathers;
and Chaucer's English is at least no further removed from us than the
Lowland dialect of Scott's novels. Moreover, we have in reading
Chaucer what we lack in reading Scott--the assistance of rhythm; and
the rhythm of Chaucer is as clearly marked as that of Tennyson.
Professor Skeat might very well have allowed his admirable text to
stand alone. For his rules of pronunciation, with their elaborate system
of signs and symbols, seem to me (to put it coarsely) phonetics gone
mad. This, for instance, is how he would have us read the Tales:--
"Whan-dhat Aprill?/widh iz-shuurez soot? dh?-druuht' ov-March?/hath
persed too dh? root?, ?nd-baadhed ev'ri vein?/in-swich likuur, ov-which
vertyy/enjendred iz dh? fluur...."
--and so on? I think it may safely be said that if a man need this sort of
assistance in reading or pronouncing Chaucer, he had better let Chaucer
alone altogether, or read him in a German prose translation.
* * * * *
April 6, 1895.
Why is Chaucer so easy to read? At a first glance a page of the
"Canterbury Tales" appears more formidable than a page of the "Faerie
Queene." As a matter of fact, it is less formidable; or, if this be denied,
everyone will admit that twenty pages of the "Canterbury Tales" are
less formidable than twenty pages of the "Faerie