s. 12. As regards the Canterbury Tales, my debts are almost too numerous to recount. First and foremost, must be mentioned the honoured name of Thomas Tyrwhitt, whose diligence, sagacity, and discrimination have never been surpassed by any critic, and to whom are due nearly all the more important discoveries as to Chaucer's sources. See the admirably just remarks on this 'great scholar' in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, vol. i. pp. 300-5. 'The sanest of English poets had the good fortune to meet with the sanest of editors.' And again--'It seems almost too much to hope that a combination of learning, of critical sagacity, of appreciation of poetry as poetry, will ever again meet in the person of another willing to assume and discharge the duties of an editor of Chaucer.' I would add my humble testimony to Tyrwhitt's unfailing greatness; and it will readily be understood, that, whenever it becomes necessary, in consequence of recent linguistic discoveries, to point out that Tyrwhitt's knowledge of Middle-English grammar was naturally imperfect, certainly from no fault of his own, I never waver in my admiration of his great qualities. Even as regards linguistic knowledge, he was certainly in advance of his time; and it is remarkable to observe with what diligence he once edited the 'Rowley Poems' of Chatterton, merely as a piece of literary duty, although he was one of the very first to see that they were hopelessly the reverse of genuine. A great deal of information has also been obtained from the notes in the editions by Thomas Wright and by Bell; from the various publications of the Chaucer Society, especially from the 'Essays on Chaucer,' by various authors, and from the 'Originals and Analogues'; from Thor Sundby's wonderful edition of Albertano of Brescia's Liber Consolationis et Consilii; from the Essay by Dr. Eilers on the Parson's Tale; and from various books, notes, and articles, by well-known German critics, especially Ten Brink, Koch, K[:o]lbing, K[:o]ppel, Zupitza, and others. Much encouragement and various useful hints have been received from Professor Hales. If I have anywhere failed to notice the true discoverer of any important suggestion, each in his due place, I trust it will be regarded as an oversight. The fact that some points, and even some rather important ones, were really discovered by myself, is somewhat embarrassing. I have no wish to claim as my own anything that can, with any shew of reason, be claimed by another; but would rather say, with Chaucer himself, that 'I nam but a lewd compilatour of the labour of' other men; 'and with this swerd shal I sleen envye[9].'