The Alleged Difficulty of Reading Chaucer.

The differences, however, are always trifling. The reader will allow
that in each case we have a clear, intelligible text: a text that
allows Chaucer to be read and enjoyed without toil or vexation. For my
part, I hope there is no presumption in saying that I could very well
do without Mr. Pollard's accents and dotted e's. Remove them, and I
contend that any Englishman with an ear for poetry can read either of
the two texts without difficulty. A great deal too much fuss is made
over the pronunciation and scansion of Chaucer. After all, we are
Englishmen, with an instinct for understanding the language we
inherit; in the evolution of our language we move on the same lines as
our fathers; and Chaucer's English is at least no further removed from
us than the Lowland dialect of Scott's novels. Moreover, we have in
reading Chaucer what we lack in reading Scott--the assistance of
rhythm; and the rhythm of Chaucer is as clearly marked as that of
Tennyson. Professor Skeat might very well have allowed his admirable
text to stand alone. For his rules of pronunciation, with their
elaborate system of signs and symbols, seem to me (to put it coarsely)
phonetics gone mad. This, for instance, is how he would have us read
the Tales:--

"Whán-dhat Ápríllə/wídh iz-shúurez sóotə
dhə-drúuht' ov-Márchə/hath pérsed tóo dhə róotə,
ənd-báadhed év'ri véinə/in-swích likúur,
ov-whích vertýy/enjéndred iz dhə flúur...."

--and so on? I think it may safely be said that if a man need this