“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.