124. _faire_, adv. fairly, well. _fetisly_, excellently; see l. 157. 125. _scole_, school; here used for _style_ or pronunciation. 126. _Frensh._ Mr. Cutts (Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages, p. 58) says very justly:--'She spoke French correctly, though with an accent which savoured of the Benedictine convent at Stratford-le-Bow, where she had been educated, rather than of Paris.' There is nothing to shew that Chaucer here speaks slightingly of the French spoken by the Prioress, though this view is commonly adopted by newspaper-writers who know only this one line of Chaucer, and cannot forbear to use it in jest. Even Tyrwhitt and Wright have thoughtlessly given currency to this idea; and it is worth remarking that Tyrwhitt's conclusion as to Chaucer thinking but meanly of Anglo-French, was derived (as he tells us) from a remark in the Prologue to the Testament of Love, _which Chaucer did not write_! But Chaucer merely states a _fact_, viz. that the Prioress spoke the usual Anglo-French of the English court, of the English law-courts, and of the English ecclesiastics of the higher rank. The poet, however, had been himself in France, and knew precisely the difference between the two dialects; but he had no special reason for thinking _more highly_ of the Parisian than of the Anglo-French. He merely states that the French which she spoke so 'fetisly' was, _naturally_, such as was spoken in England. She had never travelled, and was therefore quite satisfied with the French which she had learnt at home. The language of the King of England was quite as good, in the esteem of Chaucer's hearers, as that of the King of France; in fact, king Edward called himself king of France as well as of England, and king John was, at one time, merely his prisoner. Warton's note on the line is quite sane. He shews that queen Philippa wrote business letters in French (doubtless Anglo-French) with 'great propriety.' What Mr. Wright means by saying that 'it was similar to that used _at a later period_ in the courts of law' is somewhat puzzling. It was, of course, not _similar to_, but the _very same_ language as was used _at the very same period_ in the courts of law. In fact, he and Tyrwhitt have unconsciously given us the view entertained, not by Chaucer, but by unthinking readers of the present age; a view which is _not_ expressed, and was probably not intended. At the modern Stratford we may find Parisian French inefficiently taught; but at the ancient Stratford, the very important Anglo-French was taught efficiently enough. There is no parallel between the cases, nor any such jest as the modern journalist is never weary of, being encouraged by critics who ought to be more careful. The 'French of Norfolk' as spoken of in P. Plowman (B. v. 239) was no French at all, but _English_; and the alleged parallel is misleading, as the reader who cares to refer to that passage will easily see.