Poetry from this time is constructed in such a way that the words do not have a single interpretation. This creates a kind of layering effect. If you flatten it, you lose the meaning. Another way to look at it is as if it had hyperlinks. So if the poet says dreary instead of foul, you lose the pun and the structure loses a link. Simlarly, if you replace raw with rosy, you lose the "anti-pun" with the cookery image.
That is why paraphrases of the text totally defeat the original meaning and structure. Oddly, the Furness system is not bad, it just presents all the glosses BELOW the original, although it does not indicate all the layers, the glosses enable the reader to put the pieces together. You can try to sort out every single relationship, and it is fun to do do so, and in this way you can recreate the perception of the original listener, but it is better to recreate the training of the reader, and read it "as is". dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
