So far from that, in every
case where the old spelling or form seemed essential to metre,
to rhyme, or meaning, no change has been attempted. But,
wherever its preservation was not essential, the spelling of the
monkish transcribers -- for the most ardent purist must now
despair of getting at the spelling of Chaucer himself -- has been
discarded for that of the reader's own day. It is a poor
compliment to the Father of English Poetry, to say that by such
treatment the bouquet and individuality of his works must be
lost. If his masterpiece is valuable for one thing more than any
other, it is the vivid distinctness with which English men and
women of the fourteenth century are there painted, for the study
of all the centuries to follow. But we wantonly balk the artist's
own purpose, and discredit his labour, when we keep before his
picture the screen of dust and cobwebs which, for the English
people in these days, the crude forms of the infant language
have practically become. Shakespeare has not suffered by
similar changes; Spencer has not suffered; it would be surprising
if Chaucer should suffer, when the loss of popular
comprehension and favour in his case are necessarily all the
greater for his remoteness from our day. In a much smaller
degree -- since previous labours in the same direction had left
far less to do -- the same work has been performed for the
spelling of Spenser; and the whole endeavour in this department
of the Editor's task has been, to present a text plain and easily
intelligible to the modern reader, without any injustice to the old
poet.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25