Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
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.
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.
