Note 1 — Chaucer.

“To the readers. After this booke was last printed, I understand that M. Francis Thynn had a purpose, as indeed he hath when the time shall serve, to set out Chaucer with a coment in our tongue, as the Italians have Petrarke and others in their language. Whereupon I purposed not to meddle any further in this work, although some promise made to the contrarie, but to referre all to him; being a gentleman for that purpose inferior to none, both in regard to his own skill, as also of those helps left to him by his father. Yet notwith­standing, Chaucer now being printed againe I was willing not only to helpe some imperfections, but also to add some things whereunto he did not only persuade me, but most kindly lent me his helpe and direction. By this means most of his old words are restored: proverbes and sentences marked: such Notes as were collected, drawne into better order and the text by olde copies corrected.” Speight’s Chaucer, 1602.

2. Urry, in his Ed. of Chaucer, says that the Canterbury Tales were exempt from the prohibition of the Act of 34 Henry VIII. “For the advancement of true religion.” I find no notice of this in the Act in the “Statutes at large,” 1763. He also refers to Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, which is also merely negative on the subject.