The Glossary has been compiled on a much larger scale than any hitherto attempted, wherein the part of speech of almost every word is duly marked, and every verbal form is sufficiently parsed. A special feature of the Glossary is the exclusion from it of non-Chaucerian words and forms; and in order to secure this result, separate Glossaries are given of the chief words occurring in Fragments B and C of the Romaunt of the Rose and in Gamelyn; and we are thus enabled to detect a marked difference in the vocabulary employed in these pieces from that which was employed by Chaucer[2]. And I cannot refrain from here expressing the hope, that the practical usefulness of the Glossary and Indexes may predispose the critic to forgive some errors in other parts of the work. And further, also in the interest of every true student, much pains have been bestowed on the mode of numbering the lines. It is not so easy a matter as it would seem to be. Many editors give no numbering at all; and, where it is given, it is not always correct[3]. The numbering of the Canterbury Tales, in particular, was especially troublesome. I give three distinct systems of counting the lines, and even thus have failed in giving the numbering of Wright's edition beyond l. 11928, where he suddenly begins a new numbering of his own[4]. I append a few remarks on the text of the various pieces. s. 2. ROMAUNT OF THE ROSE. The old text is often extremely and even ludicrously corrupt. Thanks to the patient labours of Dr. Max Kaluza, and his restoration, by the collation of MSS., of the French original, many emendations have been made, for several of which I am much indebted to him. A paper (by myself) containing a summary of the principal passages which are thus, for the first time, rendered intelligible, has lately appeared in the Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society, vol. iii. p. 239; but the whole subject is treated, in an exhaustive and highly satisfactory manner, in two works by Kaluza. The former of these is his edition of the Romaunt, from the Glasgow MS., side by side with the French text in an emended form, as published for the Chaucer Society; and the other work is entitled 'Chaucer und der Rosenroman,' published at Berlin in 1893[5]. See also the valuable paper on 'The Authorship of the English Romaunt of the Rose' by Prof. G. L. Kittredge, printed in 'Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature,' and published by Ginn and Co., Boston, U.S.A., in 1892. This essay shews, in opposition to Prof. Lounsbury, that there is no reason for attributing to Chaucer the Fragments B and C of the Romaunt. The notes to the Romaunt of the Rose are largely my own. Some are borrowed from the notes to Bell's edition.