Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:39:47.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Middle English Clannesse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Oliver Farrar Emerson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mr. Bateson's numerous notes on the Middle English Clannesse (Mod. Lang. Rev., xiii, pp. 377–86) renew interest in that curious, though often tantalizing poem. Worthy of acceptance, it seems to me, are those on lines 3, 30, 54, 222, 341, 379, 411, 449, 553, 630, 1048, 1261, 1483, 1566, 1735, a considerable list. About as many others are equally good, but have been proposed before. For example, the New Eng. Dict. has anticipated Mr. Bateson in his suggestions for lines 148, 214, 887, 1038, 1469, while the Cent. Dict. had preceded the NED in the note on line 1514. Besides, the NED seems to be misquoted on (1153) and penitotes (1472). The former is certainly given under tight, v. 2, with this passage among others. Nor have I found where the NED reads ryther for ryth of 1543.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , 1919 , pp. 494 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1919

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The later edition has differences in text, notes, and glossary, as does not seem to be generally known. Even the NED, under tevel, quotes the older tenel from the first edition, rather than the later correction.

2 Since this paper was written and accepted for publication Mr. Gollancz, in Mod. Lang. Rev., xiv, 152, has noticed Bateson's article and anticipated me in some suggestions. Where Gollancz and I wholly agree I have added a (G) at the close of my note, or to that portion with which he agrees. In other cases I have discussed his suggestions by additions to my original material. As I read proof, the notes of E. Ekwall (Eng. Stud. xlix, p. 483) have just come to hand.