FullReads

(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
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 yë,
(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, “yë” 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 (= yë) is, however, common…. I print it ‘yë’ 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:–

“Whán-dhat �príllə/wídh iz-shúurez sóotə
dhə-drúuht’ ov-Márchə/hath pérsed tóo dhə róotə,
ənd-báadhed év’ri véinə/in-swích likúur,
ov-whích vert�y/enjéndred iz dhə flúur….”

–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 “Faërie 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 “Faërie Queene.” I might bring several recent editors and critics to testify that, after the first shock of the archaic spelling and the final “e,” an intelligent public will soon come to terms with Chaucer; but the unconscious testimony of the intelligent public itself is more convincing. Chaucer is read year after year by a large number of men and women. Spenser, in many respects a greater poet, is also read; but by far fewer. Nobody, I imagine, will deny this. But what is the reason of it?