128 Otto Jespersen: 4. Samme pro/ogs v. 1638—64 har voldt kommentatorer stort besvær; der står: Another nonne with hir hadde she, that was hir chapeleyne, and preestes thre. Den ene vanskelighed, nemlig at en nonne kaldtes kapellan, er nu fjernet, da det viser sig, at denne benævnelse virkelig også ellers bruges om en kvinde (se Skeats note). Derimod består endnu den anden vanskelighed, at nemlig Chaucers bemærkning v. 24, at der var «wel nyne and twenty in a compaignye» blir urigtig, når vi tæller de tre præster med; for man udtrykker sig dog ikke således «vel 29» med et så bestemt ikke-rundt tal, når man mener 31; endvidere er det jo senere kun én præst, der fortæller «nonnepræstens fortælling». Skeat opgiver helt at klare vanskeligheden; han skriver: «The most likely solution is that Chaucer wrote a character of the second Nun, beginning — ‘Another Nonne with hir hadde she, that was hir chapeleyne’ — and that, for some reason, he afterwards suppressed the description. The line left imperfect, as above, may have been filled up, to stop a gap, either by himself (temporarily), or indeed by some one else». Andre forff. foreslår ændringer, således retter Hertzberg v. 164: Than was her chapellein, a preest, thes three, hvorved han altså undgår at lade nonnen være kapellan. Endvidere Bradshaw: Another nonne with hire had she certeyn and eke a prest that was here chapelleyn. Furnivall: Another nonne with hire had she and eke hire chapeleyn, a preest was he (eller for de to sidste ord: parde.) Ten Brink: Another nonne and eel a preest parde, That was hir chapeleyn, with hire had she.