70. The reading _ye_, for _I_, is out of the question; for _herte_ is
addressed as _thou_. So in l. 66, we must needs read _thee_, not _you_.
73. _Princess._ As the MSS. vary between _Princesse_ and _Princes_, it is
difficult to know whether the Envoy is addressed to a _princess_ or to
_princes_. It is true that Fortune seems to be addressed to three princes
collectively, but this is unusual, and due to the peculiar form of that
Envoy, which is supposed to be spoken by _Fortune_, not by the author.
Moreover, the MSS. of Fortune have only the readings _Princes_ and
_Princis_; not one of them has _Princesse_.
The present case seems different. Chaucer would naturally address his
Envoy, in the usual manner, to a single person. The use of _your_ and _ye_
is merely the complimentary way of addressing a person of rank. The
singular number seems implied by the use of the word _benignitee_; 'receive
this complaint, addressed to your benignity in accordance with my small
skill.' _Your benignity_ seems to be used here much as we say _your grace_,
_your highness_, _your majesty_. The plural would (if this be so) be _your
benignitees_; cf. Troil. v. 1859. There is no hint at all of the plural
number.
But if the right reading be _princess_, we see that Shirley's statement
(see p. 560, l. 6) should rather have referred to Chaucer, who may have
produced this adaptation at the request of 'my lady of York.' Princesses
are usually scarce, but 'my lady of York' had the best of claims to the
title, as she was daughter to no less a person than Pedro, king of Spain.
She died in 1394 (Dugdale's Baronage, ii. 154; Stowe's Annales, 1605, p.
496); and this Envoy may have been written in 1393.