446 OBSERVATIONS ON THE LANGUAGE OF CHAUCER. 
men humiliating, that, though Chaucer has had a real popularity of nearly five 
hundred years, no readable edition of any part of his works, not even of the glo- 
rious Canterbury Pilgrimage, has been given to the world,— readable, I mean, to a 
person who is exacting with regard to grammar, and who insists on having the 
genuine forms of Chaucers English; for the merits of Tyrwhitt's labors in other 
respects can never be denied. It may not be a matter of surprise that Englishmen 
should only of late have begun the study of the history of their language for the 
intrinsic interest of the subject, but it does seem a little remarkable that the tran- 
scendent excellence of Chaucer, which has always been more or less felt and con- 
fessed, should not long ago have excited attention to the laws of the English tongue 
at his particular epoch. It is quite certain, however, that we ourselves have not yet 
much to boast of, unless it be a little more curiosity, and we must take care that the 
mere accident of our living at a time when the philology of the modern languages 
is a favorite study do not make us unjust to our predecessors. We are a long 
way off from a knowledge of the English of the fourteenth century, and still 
further from a satisfactory edition of Chaucer. 
Indeed, there is reason to doubt (and the editors may find some comfort in the 
thought) whether there ever was an accurate copy of a poem by Chaucer, except 
his own, or a manuscript corrected by his hand. Certainly this would not be an 
absolutely extravagant inference from what he says “unto his own Scrivener.” 
“ Adam Scrivener, if ever it thee befalle, 
Boece or Troilus for to write newe, 
Under thy long locks thou maist have the scalle, 
But after my making thou write more trewe! 
. So oft a day I mot thy werke renewe, 
It to correct, and eke to rubbe and scrape; 
And all is thorow thy negligence and rape.” 
Adam Scrivener was only the first in a long line of corrupters, all of whom must : 
take their share of the imprecation pronounced upon carelessness and haste. But 
we are not to put all the blame off upon the crime of Adam and his tribe. Adam 
may have been heedless and stupid; but, however heedless and stupid, he might 
justly plead the unsettled state of the language in part excuse. It was undoubt- 
edly very hard for an humble scribe to remember and observe all the nice differ- 
ences between the courtly style of his patron and the vulgar dialect, and numerous 
errors were inevitable. These errors would of course be multiplied in a second 
copy, for *no ass has written but some ass has read." In view of the want of 
