STUDIES IN ENGLISH 

NUMBER 12 University or Tex h 1oa•1 ns THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BULLETIN 
No. 3226: July 8, 1932 

O'tl. ~ [ '· ( I~ .l ~ ubl1oa.~1on 
PUBLISHED BY 
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 
AUSTIN 

Publications of The University of Texas 
Publications Committees: 
GENERAL:  
FREDERIC DUNCALF  C.H. SLOVER  
J. F. DOBIE  G. W. STUMBERG  
J. L. HENDERSON  A. P. WINSTON  
H.J. MULLER  

OFFICIAL: 
E. J. MATHEWS L. L. CLICK 
C. F. ARROWOOD C. D. SIMMONS 
E. C. H. BANTEL BRYANT SMITH 
The University publishes bulletins four times a month, so numbered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue and the last two the position in the yearly series. (For example, No. 3201 is the first bulletin of the year 1932.) These bulletins comprise the official publica­tions of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific subjects, and bulletins issued from time to time by various divisions of the University. The following bureaus and divisions distribute bulletins issued by them; communications concerning bulletins in these fields should be addressed to The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, care of the bureau or division issuing the bulletin: Bureau of Business Research, Bureau of Economic Geology, Bureau of Engineering Research, Interscholastic League Bureau, and Division of Extension. Communications concerning all other publications of the University should be addressed to University Publications, The University of Texas, Austin. 
Additional copies of this publication may be procured from the 
University Publications, The University of Texas, 
Austin, Texas 

at 
$1.00 per copy 
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRESS 
~ 

STUDIES IN ENGLISH 
NUMBER 12 
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BULLETIN 
No. 3226: July 8, 1932 

PUSLISHED 9Y THE UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH, AND ENTERED AS 
SECOND·CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN, TEXAS, 
UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 

The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffuaed through a community, are essential to the pre.ervation of a free govern· ment. 
Sam Houaton 
Cultivated mind ia the guardian l'eniua of Democracy, and while guided and controlled by virtue, the nobleat 
attribute of man. It ia the only dictator that freemen acknowledge, and the 
only aecurity which freemen desire. 
Mjrabeau B. Lamar 
CONTENTS 
PAGE THE GLOSSES IN "THE EARLIEST COMPLETE ENGLISH PROSE PSALTER,'' by Sarah Dodson___________________ 5 
A MANUSCRIPT COPY OF "THE PLoWMAN'S TALE,'' by Mrs. Annie S. Irvine --------------------------------------27 THE PECULIAR EXCELLENCE OF WILLIAM TINDALE'S TRANSLATION OF THE GOSPELS, by Lois Ware________ 57 
NOTES ON SHAKESPEARE'S "MUCH ADO," by Robert Adger Law ----------------------------------------------------77 A NOTE ON SHAKESPEARE AND BACON, by David Lee Clark --------------------------------------------------------------------87 THE AUTHORSHIP OF "THE MEDAL OF JOHN BAYES,'' by 
D. M. McKeithan ----------------------------------------------92 
AN 	EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ADAPTATION OF SHAKE­SPEARE, by Powell Stewart_______________________________________ 98 
A V	ARIORUM TEXT OF FOUR PASTORALS BY AMBROSE PHILIPS, by R. H. Griffith________ ________________________________l18 
LEWIS AND CLARK'S "EXPEDITION" AS A SOURCE FOR POE'S "JULIUS RODMAN," by Polly Pearl Crawford_l58 

THE GLOSSES IN "THE EARLIEST COMPLETE 
ENGLISH PROSE PSALTER" 

BY SARAH DODSON 
In reading The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter/ one cannot fail to notice the strange differences in inter­pretation as well as in language between it and some other English Psalters. For example, let us look at several verses in the Authorized Version in comparison with the same verses in this early Psalter: 
A.V.23.4,5: Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou pre­parest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies : thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 
B.22.5,6,7: Dy discipline and pyn amendyng conforted me. Dou madest radi grace in my si;;t o;;ains hem pat trublen me. Dou makest fatt myn heued wyp mercy; and my drynk makand drunken ys ful clere. 
An examination of the glosses in the Latin of these verses in the manuscript of The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter2 shows that the peculiarities of the English 
lEdited by Professor Karl D. Biilbring in Tke Early English Text Society publications, XCVII, London, 1891. By some scholars it is called Tke West Midland Prose Psalter. Its date is probably 1340­1350. The author of this psalter is unknoWJ\. 
2As a basis for the study of this Psalter, I have used a photostat of the manuscript in the British Museum. In it the Latin and the English are written alternately, verse by verse, the Latin preced­ing. Biilbring edited only the English of this Psalter, but he was preparing a second volume, in which the Latin glosses were to have been printed as a part of the "Notes." Unfortunately this second volume was never published. At the time when Biilbring edited his text, only one other MS. of this Psalter was known to scholars, that in Trinity College, Dublin; and, although Biilbring has used the London MS. as the primary basis of his text, yet he constantly makes references to the Dublin MS. In 1901 Miss Anna Paues discovered a third MS. in the library of Magdalene College, Cambridge. I have had access to the British Museum MS. only, but I have examined all the readings in the footnotes of Biilbring's text. In the Pref.ace of his text he reviews the history of this Psalter, and gives a descrip­tion of the two MSS. known in 1891. Two extensive studies of this early Psalter which have appeared since that time are Dr. T. 0. 
translation can, in a large measure, be explained by these glosses. The Latin of the verses reads as follows :3 
22.5,6,7: Uirga .i. disciplina tua & baculus .i. correctio tuus ipsa me consolata sunt. Parasti in conspectu tuo mensam .i. gratiam aduersus eos qui tribulant me. Inpinguasti in oleo .i. misericordia capud meum & calix piotus meus inebrians supra preclarus est. 
It is easy to see that wherever a gloss appears here, the translator has followed it rather than the word it explains. 
What has happened in these examples occurs numerous times throughout the Psalter. It is my purpose in this article to show, by an examination of the glosses, how they have modified the thought and language in The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter; and, although meaning and style are in many passages inseparably linked to­gether, yet, by centering the attention on one of them at a time, we may be able to see more definitely the conclusions that grow out of this study. To show more clearly the differences between this Middle English Psalter and the Latin original, I am making frequent comparisons with the Psalter of Richard Rolle of Hampole, and with the Authorized Version, both of which are usually rather close to the Latin.4 
Hirst's The Phonology of the London Manuscript of the Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter, Bonn Diss., 1907, and Miss M.A. Serjeantson's "The Dialect of the Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter," in English Studies, VI, December, 1924, pp. 179-199. 
3ln all the references to the manuscript which I am using, I have followed Biilbring's numbering for chapters and verses. Like Biilbring also, I am using .i. ( =Latin vel) for the sign which precedes some of the glosses. The scribe underlined most of the glosses, but some of them he evidently failed to mark in this way. Besides the kind of gloss shown above, there is another type which is added for completeness or fullness of thought, without a correspondent in the original Latin. Altogether, there are more than 1100 glosses in the Latin, ranging in length from one word to thirteen. 
4Such a comparison does not presuppose, of course, that the Authorized Version was translated directly from a Latin text. For the text of Rolle's Psalter I have used H. R. Bramley's The Psalter or Psalms of Davi,d, and Certain Canticles, with. a Translation an& Ezposition by Richard Rolle of Ham.pole, Oxford, 1884. 
I. CHANGES THAT AFFECT THE MEANING 
A. Special Biblical References and Ecclesiastical Terms 
The glossator's habit of injecting his own interpretation into the text has brought into this English Psalter, through corresponding equivalents, a considerable number of words and phrases that have an ecclesiastical import. In most instances there seems to be no justification for a departure from the strict meaning of the text, especially in passages where the English varies widely from the original Latin. Characteristic changes appear in 45.4, where ff,uminis im­petus and tabernaculum are rendered, respectively, deluuP and Noe & his; and in 32.2, where psalterio decem cor­darum, through the insertion of glosses, is transformed into Pe techynges of Pe .x. comaundemenfa. In the Author­ized Version the equivalent of the last phrase is with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. 
A few expressions that properly belong to the New Testament have been inserted in this Psalter. Some of them are very peculiar. The terms sauueour (57.8) from solem, croice (41.9) from catheractarum, and Pe soule of Crist (71.7) from luna are direct references to Christ. In 
54.6 the original of holi gost is columbe. One of the most startling expressions is Pe olde testament and Pe new in 
67.14. The unity of the Father and Son is emphasized in 
2.7 through the addition of the little phrase wyp me; in 
109.l both Father and Son come into the text through a gloss; and in 2.3, by a daring interpolation, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all three introduced into the passage. I am quoting two of these verses : 
109.1: Dixit dominus pater celeatis filio suo domino meo sede a dextris meis = De Lord, fader of heuen, seid t-0 his sone, my Lord, Sitt pou at my rnt half. 
2.3: Dirumpamus pater dixit 6lio & spiritui sancto vincula .i. in­credulitatem eorum et proiciamus a nobis iugum &5 pondus peccati ipsorum =De fader seiP t-0 Pe sone and t-0 Pe holi gost, Breke we here mysbyleue, and cast we oway from vs pe charge of here synnes. 
5Probably meant for .i. 
The words pe deuel, pe f ende, and Luci!er may be grouped together. The term deuel occurs only a few times, but fende frequently. In most of these examples the gloss does not appear to be justified by the context. In the fol­lowing verse, for example, there is apparently no reason­able excuse for the change of subject: 
55.1: Miserere mei deus quoniam coneulcauit me homo tota die impugnans diabolus tribulauit me =Haue mercy on me, God, for man hap defouled me; ]Je ferule trubled me, fe3tand alday 03ayns me. 
A notion as to the relationship between pe f ende and pe dep of Crist is expressed in the following verse: 
123.7: Laqueus demonium contritus est per mortem eristi & nos liberati sumus de dampnatione = De trappe of /Je ferule is to-broke wyjJ ]Je dep of Crist & we ben deliuered fro dampnacioun. 
In the following passage the word tourmentes, which ap­pears often in the rendering of glosses, is linked with 
fendes: 
56.5: & eripuit animam meam de medio .i. asperitate catulorum .i. tormentorum leonum .i. demonum =and deliuered my soule fram sharpnes of tourmentes of ferules. 
The verse in which Lucifer is found contains also the com­plementary phrase in fallyng into helle. 
67.19: Ascendisti tu lucifer in altum cepisti captiuitatem descend­endo in infemum =Dou, L"ucif er, ste3e on he3e, and toke wrechedhede in fallyng into kelle. 
There are a number of other examples of the use of the word helle. In the following verse it is associated with fendes: 
41.9: Abyssus .i. infemus abissi .i. dem.onia inuocat .i. incupat6 in uoce pro morte catheractarum tuarum .i. crucis tue =Helle blamejJ Pe ferules for py dep of pe croice. 
Connected with punishment after death is purgatorij also, which appears once in a gloss: 
6ls it incul'j)at'! 
41.4: quando transibo in locum tabernaculi .i. purgatorij admira­bilis .i. pleni penis usque ad domum dei .i. celum =for hy shal passen in-to pe stede of purgatorij1 ful of pines, ri3t vn-to heuen (A.V. 42.4: for I had gone with the multitude; I went with them to the house of God). 
Several interesting references to belief in the harrowing of hell are found in this Psalter. This passage, for ex­ample, clearly points to that event: 
56.4: Misit de celo 61ium auum & liberauit me de inferno dedit in obprobrium conculcantes me = He sent his sone fram heuen, and deliuered me out of helle, and 3af in reproceinge pe defouland me. 
For reasons which will be explained below, the following verse seems to be connected in the mind of the glossator with the same incident: 
23.7: Attollite portas principes uestras inferni =Openep 3our 3ates, 3e princes of helle. 
In the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, where an account is given of the harrowing of hell, Satan is called once "prere helle ealdor"8 and twice "pres cwycsusles ealdor."9 Farther on in the narrative appears the Latin expression "Tollite portas principes,"10 without the gloss inferni. It seems probable that Satan's title prince of hell and this verse, 23.7, were, in the Middle Ages, traditionally associated with the harrowing of hell. If this supposition is true, then the glossator's reason for inserting the gloss inferni be­comes clear. 
The word heuen appears again and again in the glosses, occurring more than 60 times. Shortly following the verse quoted above is found another, as follows : 
23.9: Attollite portas principes celi nostras11 = Openep 3our ;i;ates 3e princes of heuene. 
7The Latin form. 
ssee W. H. Hulme, "The Old English Gospel of Nicodemus," in Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, VI (New Series), 1898, p. 499, 1.26. 
9/bid., p. 500, 1.13, and p. 501, 1.13. 
10/bid., p. 502, 1.14. 
llAn error for vestras. 
The expression seculum seculi is often rendered heuen, as in this verse: 
110.3: iustitia eius manet in seculwm seculi .i. in celis = his rnt­fulnes wonep in ]>e heuen.. 
A definite reference to eternal life is linked with this ex­pression in 51.8: 
51.8: speraui in misericordia domini in eternum & in seculum seculi .i. in celis =ich hoped in pe mercy of God wy]>-outen ende in heuens. 
Other references to immortality are sometimes introduced after liif and world by means of the clause Pat euer shal laste (see, for example, 26.7, 33.12, and 105.46). 
It is interesting to compare the following verses in this Psalter, in which heuen has been translated from a gloss, with the corresponding passages in the Authorized Version: 
36.9: Quom12 qui malignantur extirminabuntur de celo = For hij, pat hen wicked, shal be don out of heuen (A.V. 37.9: For evil doers shall be cut off). 
125.6: Qui seminant .i. penitent peccata in lacrimis in exultatione metent .i. uiuent in celo =Hij pat repenten her sin0es in teres, hij shul liuen in heuen wip ioie (A.V. 126.5: They that sow in tears shall reap in joy). 
Some other ecclesiastical terms that the translator ob­tains from the glosses are Pe saued, Pe chosen, Pe halwen, Pe gode, Pe gode childer, and Pe woniand in heuen, in con­trast frequently with Pe rebels, Pe sinser, Pe wicked, and Pe dampned. The term holi chirche appears more than once, and the phrase preste anoint wyp creme translates cristum several times. 
The introduction of these ecclesiastical terms and special Biblical references into passages where they do not belong often changes the meaning in a startling manner and gives to the thought a bolder turn than it has in the original Latin. 
i2noubtless for Quoniam. 
B. other Peculiar Interpretations 
In many passages the relationship between the gloss and the original word cannot readily be determined, and the resulting translation seems therefore inaccurate. Some of these passages deserve special attention. 
When as many as two glosses are inserted, there is often a marked change of meaning. In 29.11, for example, both sanguine and corruptionem are given peculiar interpreta­tions. Comparison with Rolle and the Authorized Version throws some light on the sense of the glossed expressions : 
29.11: Que utilitas in sanguine meo .i. penitentia dum descendo in corruptionem .i. peccatum = What profit is in my penaunce, 1'er­whiles pat ich descende in-to synne (R.R.: What profetabilte is in my blode: ywhils .i. descend in corupcioun;-A.V. 30.9: What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit?). 
In some of the verses the difficulty extends to an expres­sion outside of the gloss. In the following verse the reader is puzzled not only by the relationship between cornu and force, but also by that between uentilabimus and shul chace oway: 
43.7 : In te inimicos nostros uentilabimus cornu .i. uigore13 & in nomine tuo spernemus insurgentes in nobis = Whe skul chace oway our enemys pur3 force in pe, and we shul despysen in py name pe arisand 03ains us. 
Changes may occasionally be explained by an expression in the context that is not itself altered. In 64.10, for in­stance, the meaning of cibum has been changed for the pur­pose of making it harmonize with fiumen; and in 67.7 the last clause, qui habitant in sepulcris, probably suggested the gloss olent for exasperant: 
64.10: Flumen dei repletum est aquis & tu deus parasti14 cibum illorum .i. cursum quoniam ita est preparatio eius =De flude of God ys fulfild of waters; pou, God, made radi her ernyng, for so ys his makyng rady. 
isA doubtful reading. 
Hin the MS. perasti. 

67.7 : Qui educit uinctos in15 fortitudine similiter eos qui exasperant .i. olent qui habitant in sepulcris =Dat ladep out pe bonden in strengpe, also hem pat stenchen, which pat wonen in biriels. 
In several passages it is difficult to separate the expres­sion that renders the gloss from the other parts of the verse. In 67.34, for example, there is a noticeable inco­herence between the added words and other parts of the Latin verse; and the rendition is apparently inexact: 
67.34: ethiopia preueniet ad manus egiptiatorum eius deo .i. aeruitium propter peccatum eorum16 = Echiepeiens shul fallen in seruage vnder pe Egypciens for her synne (A.V. 68.31: Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God). 
A very peculiar verse is 78.1. The center of the diffi­culty seems to be the Latin word pomorum: 
78.1: polluerunt templum sanctum tuum posuerunt ierusalem in quarundam gentium vocatarum pomorum custodiam =and hij filden pyn holy temple, and sett Ierusalem in pe kepeing of a maner of folk pat was cleped Pomos (R.R.: thai fylid thi haly tempill, thai sett ierusalem in kepynge of appils;-A.V. 79.1: thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps). 
The interpretation given in this Psalter is far different, one can readily see, from that in the Authorized Version.11 
Verse 104.21 should come in here also because it illus­trates very pointedly a mistake that could easily be made in the reading of a Middle English manuscript. The letters n and u were made exactly alike by the scribe, as far as I 
15ln the MS. &. 
16These four words are not underlined in the MS., but as best I 
can make out by comparison with other Latin texts, they all belong 
in the gloss. 
11The reason for these textual differences is cleared up in part by Dom Matthew Britt in his A Dictionary of the Psalter (New York, 1928). Under custodia, to which reference is made under pomus, appears the following comment on this passage: "They have made Jerusalem as a tent of orchard-watchers (B). Pomorum custodia, a hut or night shelter for a watchman in an orchard. The Vulgate renders the Greek lnrwpo"(v"A1,Kvov in three different ways: by tugurium, a hut; tabernaculum, a tent; and acervus lapidum, a heap of stones(=ruins). This last agrees with St. Jerome's in acervis lapidum. The Hebrew has: They have laid Jerusalem in heaps (ruins)." 
am able to judge. Richard Rolle has the verb auxit in this verse, which he renders ekid ( =increased); our trans­lator probably read anxit in the manuscript, for he gives its equivalent in English, anoied: 
104.21: Et auxit diabolus populum suum uehementer & firmauit eum super inimicos =And pe fende anoied greteliche bys folk, and fastened it up bys enemys (R.R. 104.22: And he ekm his folke gretly: and he festid thaim abouen thaire enmys). 
Sometimes the glossator changes the meaning all the way through a verse. In 67.14 the glosses cover more space than the original words, and the Middle English translation is very startling;18 
67.14: Si dormiatis .i. uiuatis inter medios cleros .i. inter leges ueteris testamenti & noui penne columbe de argentate .i. 6cte facta sed posteriora dorsi eius in pallore auri .i. aed lieges poaterioris testa­menti & noue sunt in pallore auri pro voluntate dei = 0yf pat 0e liuen bitwix pe lawes of pe olde testament and pe new, pe wil of pe [olde is] seluered, pat his to saie fainteliche made; bot pe lawe of pe last testament, pat bys pe nywe, ben in palenes of gold, pat bys to saye, ben att pe wyl of God (R.R.: If ;;e slepe amange the myddis clergis, fethirs of doufe siluerd: and the hyndire of hire bake in palnes of gold;-A.V. 68.13: Though ye have lien among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold). 
Thus we see that the translator, by following the glosses, has brought into the English Psalter many words and ex­pressions which give to the passages in which they are found meanings strangely different from the thought con­veyed by the original Latin in the corresponding passages. 
II. CHANGES THAT AFFECT THE STYLE 
Most of the changes in meaning noted above involve also changes in style; but there are some special features of the style that may in a measure be explained by a com­parison of the English and the Latin. To these we will now turn our attention. 
18In this verse I am not indicating the equivalents of the glosses. 
A. Changes in Diction 
As I examined the glossed verses and the accompanying translation, I observed that often the translator (following the glosses) used the same English word for the rendering of several different Latin words. I was thus led to make a count, within a very limited range, in order to get some actual figures for comparison. Out of the number selected, 170 separate nouns were found with some 240 Latin equiva­lents. The number of nouns, then, seems to be reduced about one-third in passages where these glosses occur. With verbs the reduction is much less, the count involving sixty­six English words with seventy-six Latin equivalents. 
This decrease in diction cannot be adequately illustrated with a few passages from the text, but many of the verses quoted in this article might be examined in a consideration of this topic. Moreover, it is possible to observe here a number of individual words and their equivalents in the Latin. The word helle, for example, occurs eleven times in the translation of an explanatory19 gloss (usually infernus) with the following equivalents in the Latin: abyssus, dra­conem, lacum, leonis, luto fecis, manu, morte, secula, and terra obliuionis. Its opposite, heuen, is found more than fifty times, translating generally the gloss celum, with these Latin expressions in the original: austro, campis silue, domum dei, excelso sancto, ierusalem, iude, loco, mons, montibus sanctis, munita ciuitat.e, selmon, syon, and terram. The word manaces, which occurs nine times in explanatory glosses, has five Latin correspondents, namely, arcus, castra, gladius, sagitta, and tonitrui; and helpe, which is found sixteen times, has five,-brachium, cornu, dextera, manus, and sinu. Altogether an appreciable decrease in the number of words used is apparent in the transfer from 
the Latin to the English through these explanatory glosses.20 
19A gloss having an equivalent in the original Latin. 20A single Latin word sometimes has several English equivalents also, but the reverse is true much more often. 
Another aspect of the diction that persists in the mind of one reading this Middle English Psalter is the frequent recurrence of abstract and general words. Again I exam­ined many of the English nouns and verbs which have single-word equivalents both in the gloss and in the original Latin. Out of 400 nouns in which a change of figure is apparent, I discovered that about 150 show changes from specific or concrete meanings to words of the same type, but that 250 or more are changed from specific to general or abstract words. In verbs the changes are less marked, but, on the whole, the verbs show also a tendency in the direction of the substitution of general terms for specific terms.21 
The frequency of the use of certain individual words that are abstract or general in nature in the rendering of this group of glosses also contributes to the theory that such words are preferred to concrete words. The related words assaut, malice, manaces, and ]Jretynges are found altogether seventeen times; grace appears five times, helpe seventeen times, and mercy eight times. The word ioie is used sixteen times. The term stablenes occurs five times and stedf astnes and stondynge each once. One of the favorite words is vengeaunce, which is found fifteen times. The notion that is most frequently repeated in the changes from concrete terms is expressed by mi0t and its equivalents, pouerte,22 pouste, power, and streng]Je, which occur altogether about forty times.23 In verbs there is more variety than in nouns, as we have seen, for few verbs are repeated often in the translation of explanatory glosses. The two most frequently recurring ones, however, don and maken, are distinctly 
general in nature. 
21Any classification of general and lJpecific words is necessarily inexact, but in my grouping I attempted to choose the most certain examples. 
22Probably an error for po'U8te. 
2sMany of these words appear often also in the translation where there is no gloss, but here we are considering only one group of the glosses. 
The following verses, in each of which the translator employs one of his favorite words, mist, show clearly the change in diction. How much more vivid are such figures as intendit arcum suum and accingere gladio than the cor­responding English expressions shewe . . . his mist and girded wyp py mist: 
57.7: dominus intendit .i. demonstrabit wrcum suum .i. potentiamH donec infirmentur =our Lord shal skewe his miJt per-wyles pat hij ben made vnstable. 
44.4: Accingere gl,a,dio tuo .i. potentia super femur .i. populum tuum potentissime =Be pou girded wyp py miJt, aldermi0tfullichest, up py folke. 
In the passages below, the words grace, sharpenes, and lypenes also illustrate the translator's use of abstract words: 
74.7: Hunc humiliat & hunc exaltat quia calix .i. gracia est manu domini uini25 .i. -peritate26 meri .i. suauitatis plenus mixto =He makep hym, and he0ep hym, for pat grace ys in pe honde of our Lord ful of sharpenes medeled wyp lypenes. 
That the translator has given the preference to abstract words rather than to concrete words cannot be doubted in the light of the evidence that appears throughout this Psalter. 
B. Additions for Clearness 
In a general survey of the glosses, it is observed that one of the practices of the glossator is the insertion of verbs, sometimes with an accompanying subject or modifier. More than fifty of these verbs are forms of esse, there being about twenty others.21 Very frequently these changes tend to give greater lucidity to the style of the English Psalter, especially in a comparison with Rolle's text, but in a few instances looseness of phrasing takes the place of compres­sion, and, rarely, the repetition of the verb in a passage weakens the force of the sentence. 
24Not underlined in the MS. 
25The spelling in the MS. is uncertain, but Rolle has vini. 
26Not underlined in the MS. 
27Not including verbs in glosses which are complete clauses. 

Most of the examples in which ben alone is inserted show that the sense of the passage calls for a verb. The follow­ing are typical examples: 
17.2: Deus meus est adiutor meus & sperabo in eum =My God ys myn helper, and y shal hopen in hym. 
144.9: Suauis est dominus vniuersis & miserationes eius aunt super omnia opera eius =Our Lord is lipe to alle, and his mercies ben vp all his werkes. 
In many of the verses in which ben is interpolated, one can readily see the variation of this translation from Rich­ard Rolle's and also its similarity to the Authorized Ver­sion. The following passage illustrates these differences: 
82.17: Et cognoscant quia nomen tibi dominus est tu solus altis-­simus ea in omni terra =Dat hij know pat Lord ys PY name; pou alon art he;;est in al erpe (R.R.: And know thai that name is til the lord;28 for thou only heghest in ilk land;-A.V. 83.18: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth). 
The Latin original does not furnish as many opportuni­ties for the addition of other verbs as it does for the inser­tion of ben. Where one is inserted, the notion is usually repeated from a preceding clause, as in the following verses: 
16.14: eripe animam meam ab impio frameam .i. facturam tuam ab inimicis manus tue protege = defende my sou le fram pe wycked, defend PY makeyng fram pe enemys of pyn honde. 
34.31: Exultent &! letentur qui uolunt iustitiam meam ... & qui uolunt pacem serui eius exultent =Gladen and ioien hij pat wyl my ry;;tfulnes ...; and hij pat willen pe pees of his seruant g"lade. 
Just as defend and glade are added here, so blisce is re­peated in 102.1, be dipped in 67.25, and is made in 113.2. In 148.10 and 148.11 heriejJ our Lord is added, a repetition of what appears at the beginning of the Psalm. In the Authorized Version only one of the six verbs is supplied, and in Rolle's text none at all. Usually the interpolation of the verb, though unnecessary, is not particularly objec­tionable. In 148.10 and 11, however, the expression heriejJ 
2srn R.R. the semicolons are inverted. 
our Lord breaks into a series which, in the Authorized Ver­sion, where no verb is supplied, produces a cumulative effect: 
148.10,11: Bestie & vniuersa pecora serpentes & uolucres pennate laudate dominum. Reges terre & omnes populi principes & omnes iudices terre laudate dominum = Bestes & al maner of bestes, ser­pentes & fepered foules, heriep our Lord. oe kynges of erpe & alle folkes, princes & alle iuges of erpe, heriep our Lord (A.V. 148.10, 11: Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl: Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth).29 
In the passages where the verb has been added, the lan­guage of this Psalter, in spite of the exceptions, is usually more in harmony with Modern English than it would be if the verb had not been supplied. 
C. The Modification of Figures of Speech 
The most sweeping change that has taken place through translation is the modification and obliteration of figures of speech. The glossator seems to be inspired by a zealous purpose to lay before the reader the exact lesson of the passage as he sees it, without the intervention of the im­aginative covering. Over and over again he ruthlessly tears away the ornamentation of the thought; and the glosses, being rendered in the translation, have transferred their qualities to the language of the English Psalter. It is obvious that most of the phenomena presented above, especially the substitution of abstract for concrete words, tend to show this change in the figures. Moreover, the passages quoted below necessarily contribute further to the evidence submitted under "Changes in Meaning" ; they are used here, however, primarily to demonstrate the dif­ference between the figurative nature of the original Latin and the opposite characteristic in the language of the English text. 
ZDThe superior effect in the Authorized Version can be fully appre­ciated only when one reads these verses with several others preceding. 
The two aspects of the language that stand out most prominently as a result of the change of figure are (1) In­consistencies in Style, and (2) the Loss of Imaginative Coloring. 
1. Inconsistencies in Style 
Sometimes the glossator is content with changing only a part of the figure, and then again he makes an attempt to literalize the language all the way through. Both of these practices produce strange complications in the interpreta­tion of the Latin. In 10.7 the vividness of the original figure is kept in the first part of the verse in that fur and brunstone render ignis and sulphur; but calicis in the sec­ond clause becomes wyckednesse: 
10.7: Pluit3o super peccatores laqueos ignis et sulpkur et spiritus procellarum pars calicis .i. iniquitatia eorum =It shal rayne vp ]le syn3ers droppes of fur and of brunst-One : and ]le gost of tempestes ys partener of her wyckednesse. 
Likewise in 43.5, though dextera and brachium are rendered godhede and myst respectively, uultus is translated face: 
43.5: Set dextera .i. diuinitaa tua & brackium .i. poteataa tuum & illuminatio uultus tui quoniam complacuisti is = Ac ]1y go<L-kede and ]1y my3t and pe li3t of PY face; for ]1ou plesed to hem. 
Sometimes a verb that in the Latin agrees perfectly with the sense of the context is rendered directly in English, whereas the meaning of the noun connected with it is modi­fied. Such is true in the passage below, where saturabun­tur is translated fulfild (filled full) and famis, pines: 
36.20: Non confundentur in tempore malo .i. vltionia & diebus fa1miu1 .i. penes1 saturabuntur = Hij ne shul nou;;t be confounded in tyme of vengeaunce, and hij skul be fulfild in daies of pines. 
Such unevenness of style is apparent in many parts of this Middle English text. A good example appears in the verse below, where the exact meaning of dentes is retained, 
80Pluet in R.R. 
s1Not underlined in the MS. 

while molas and leonum, directly in the line of thought, are changed by the glossator: 
57.6: Deus conteret dentes eorum in ore ipsorum molas .i. mala exteriora leonum .i. impiorum confringet dominus =God shal de­foulen her tepe in her moupe; our Lord shal breke pe uttermost iuels of pe wicked (A.V. 58.6: Break their teeth, 0 God, in their mouth; break out the great teeth of the young lions, 0 Lord). 
Moreover, in another verse in which dentes, arma, and sagitta are altered by glosses, lingua and gladius are trans­lated without modification of meaning: 
56.6: Filij hominum ha:bent32 dentes studia3 2 eorum arma .i. dura & sagitte .i. aspera & lingua eorum est gladius acutus =Mennes sones ban her werkes hard and sharp and her tunges ben sharp swerdes. 
One of the most striking verses in which a lack of har­mony is evident is 90.13. The original picture, as may be seen both from the Latin and from the text of the Author­ized Version, is very vivid, and the parts are in agreement throughout the verse. For aspidem and basiliscum, how­ever, the two words queintis and godenes, which are en­tirely unlike the original in color and meaning, have been substituted; there may be some slight justification for the use of f ende and helle in the second clause, but little unity can be seen between the two parts of the passage. The verse follows : 
90.13: Super aspidem prudentiam & basiliscum .i. bonitatem ambu­labis & conculcabis leonem .i. diabolum & draconem .i. infernumas =Dou shalt gon vp queintis and godenes, and pou shalt de-foule pe fende and helle (A.V. 91.13: Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder; the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet). 
2. The Loss of Imaginative Coloring 
The loss in imaginative coloring that the English Psalter has suffered through the translator's use of the glosses is apparent both in single words and in separate verses. 
82Both readings are somewhat doubtful. 
ssNot underlined in the MS. 

Let us first examine some of the individual Latin words that have been changed. Tuba, through the gloss, is inter­preted as songe (80.3) ; and cithara as ioie (80.2), vertu;; (32.2), and pe in-most of myn hert (42.5). To luna is given once a bad connation, enticement (120.5), but it is also rendered trone (71.5) and soule of Crist (71.7). The three words vmbra, tegmine, and alarum are related to each other in the context. The first is rendered once mist 
(56.2), and another time out-going (79.11) ; the second is translated grace (56.2) and again mercy (16.10). In uirga generally appears the notion of punishment or correction; it is rendered chasteing (88.32), penaunce (124.3), dis­cipline (22.5), and sharpenes (2.9). In laqueus there is naturally an evil signification: it is translated assaut (140.10), dampnacioun (68.27), falsnisses (65.5), and wickednisse (9.33). Three aspects of tempestas appear: first, suffering, where it is translated anguisses (80.7) and pines (68.19) ; again, suffering that has an active agent behind it, rendered vengeaunce (82.14) and persecucion 
(54.8) ; and then spiritual danger, as expressed in ciuuaitis ( = coveteousness) (68.3). 
The three words dextera, brachium, and manus, which are closely related, are persistently changed, as though the glossator had some peculiar objection to letting them stand. In the rendering of dextera perhaps tbe notion of gen­erosity is more frequent than that of power, though both appear: its correspondents are blisceing (79.18), helpe (20.8), mercy (19.7), godhede (43.5), mist (136.8), pouste (17.38), and lawe (47.9). Brachium is rendered helpe (70.20), on the one hand, and miJt, (9.39), pouerte ( = power) (88.21), and pouste (88.11), on the other. The word manus suggests beneficence and power, to a certain extent, but also hostility. Some of its equivalents are helpe (77.47), mist (143.8), strengpe (88.14), and pouste 
(96.11) ; but besides these, iuel (34.12), vengeaunce (54.22), sharpenes (62.9), and pines of helle (48.16). 
Another group that falls almost as often before the glossator's slashing pen consists of gladius, framea, arcus, 
sagitta, and cornu. These five words are related to the three just above, since they are instruments used by the hand in battle. The hostile signification is naturally more marked in this latter group, however, though its degree is not always indicated. In gladius, for instance, a protective notion is found in defens (88.42) ; and mi:st (44.4) could mean either protection or hostility; but manaces (36.14) and vengeaunce (7.13) are clearly threatening in nature. Framea is also rendered vengeaunce (9.6). An inimical association seems always to be attached to sagitta: it is rendered assaut (37.2), malice (10.2), manaces (17.16), temptacioun (90.6), wreche (76.17), and, more concretely, woundes (7.14). Closely connected with sagitta is arcus: it is translated miot (57.7), manaces (7.13), waiting ( = lying in wait) (43.8), Pretynges (10.2), iuel (36.14), and synne (59.4). Where cornu means bow, it is rendered helpe (17.3); where it apparently means the horn of an animal, its equivalents are ioie (88.24), iuel (21.21), '/)Qwer 
(131.18), and heued (74.5). 
In rendering words that represent animals, the glossator often destroys the figures, but sometimes the new idea is vivid and forceful: canis, for instance, is rendered fende 
(21.16) ; ferus once deuel (79.14) and once, from a differ­ent point of view, sacrifice (67.33); leo is translated fende 
(90.13) and helle (21.21); and draco once fende (73.15). Associated with these are luto and lacum; the first is ren­dered synne (68.18) and the second synne (29.3), but also helle (7.16). The word aqua is interesting, since the glos­sator almost always sees in it a dangerous quality. It be­comes in English tribulacioun (17.19), temptacioun (68.1), pines (73.14), synne (31.8), and fende (68.18) ; but its in­terpretation as men (76.15) is different and is more pecu­liar than these. 
It is easy to see, from most of the examples cited above, that the English translation is far less pictorial than the original Latin. 84 
34 There is a wealth of material to support this view. Even for many of the words named above, other examples of the same kind 
Let us now extend our view beyond the single word in order to observe still further the change in the figures. A comparison with the Authorized Version, which is usually rather close to the Latin, will show, in some measure, how the language of the Latin has been marred in the transla­tion. In the following verses, for example, the imagery is far less striking in the Middle English than in either of the other texts : 
68.12: Quoniam zelus domus tue com.edit me .i. sustinuit =For pe loue of pyn hous susteined me (A.V. 69.9: For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up). 
71.5: Et permanebunt iusti cum sole .i. deo & ante lunam .i. tronum suum in generatione & generatione = And pe rntful shul dwellen wyp God and to-fore ki.8 trone in kyndes of kyndes (A.V. 72.5: They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations). 
67.23: Uerumptamen confringet deus capita .i. potestatem inimi­corum suorum uerticem .i. fortitudinem85 capilli .i. pulchritudinia perambulantium in delictis suis =God for-so.Pe shal breken .Pe pouste of bys enemys and .Pe strengpe of pe fairkede of pe goand in her trespasses (A.V. 68.21: But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses). 
The beauty of the original imagery can best be under­stood sometimes by an examination of several verses in succession. Verses 6, 7, and 8 in Psalm 125, for example, must be read together. The contrast between the English of the Manuscript and that of the Authorized Version here cannot fail to attract attention, to the great advantage of 
the latter: 
125.6: Qui seminant .i. penitent pecca.ta in lacrimis in exultatione metent .i. uiuent in celo = Hij pat repenten ker sin;Ies in teres, hij skul liuen in keuen wip ioie (A.V. 126.5: They that sow in tears shall reap in joy). 
125.7: Euntes .i. morientes ibant demundo & fiebant mittentes semina .i. facta sua = pe dyand Jede out of pe world & wept, sendand her dedes (A.V. 126.6: He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed). 
could be cited, and the group of words here forms only a fraction of the total number affected. 
s5Not underlined in the MS. 
125.8: Uenientes autem illi in celum uenient cum exultatione por­tantes manipulos suos .i. deo honores =And kij comaund in,..to keuen shul cum wyp ioie, berand to God ker honours (A.V. 126.6: shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him). 
The purpose of the glossator to reduce the figure extends sometimes, not merely through two or three verses, but through a long series of verses. The modification of the figure of the vine in chapter 79 presents one of the most striking illustrations of this process. The translator, in rendering the glosses here, takes away the vernal fresh­ness of the imagery and substitutes for it a degree of bare­ness and baldness. In verse 9, if we are to follow the Latin, the Psalmist introduces the figure of the vine, uineam de egipti transtulisti, and continues down through verse 17 to describe its growth, its expansion into a vineyard, and its destruction. The glossator begins to change the figure by altering uineam, which is translated as pe .xij. kindes of Israel to Jacob sones, and he continues to modify it by means of the glosses. Among the substitutions as they ap­pear in the English are sones for radices, outgoing for vmbra, childer for arbustam and palmites,36 pride for aper, deuel for fero, and hap bounden for depastus est. I quote several of the verses with the equivalents in the Authorized Version: 
79.9: Uineam .i. xij tribus 6liorum iacob de egipto transtulisti eiecisti a comitina37 eorum gentes sine lege & plantasti earn in ten-a promissionis =pou bro0test out pe .xij. kindes of Israel to Jacob sones out of Egipt, and kest hem out of .Pe felawschip of men wip-outen law, and settest hem in .Pe londe of bihest (A.V. 80.8: Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt; thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it). 
79.10: Dux itineris fuisti in conspectu eius ioseph & plantasti radices .i. 6lios38 eorum & impleuit pueros eorum terra =Dou was lader of wai in .Pe si0t of Joseph, and sett her sones; and per.Pe ful­fild her childer (A.V. 80.9: Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land). 
ssrn the MS. plamites. 
s1A doubtful reading. 
asNot underlined in the MS. 

79.11: Operuit montes vmbra .i. exitus eius & arbustam .i. pueri eius cedros .i. celos dei =De ontgo·ing of him couerd pe mounteins, and hisa9 childer pe heuens of God (A.V. 80.10: The hills were cov­ered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars) . 
79.12: Extendit tribus iacob palmites .i. filios usque ad mare & usque ad flumen propagines .i. seruientes eius =De kinde of Iacob sprad his childer vn-to pe see, and his seruauntes vn-to pe flode (A.V. 80.11: She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river). 
79.14: Exterminauit earn aper .i. superbia de silua .i. se & singu­laris .i. inuidie f ero .i. diabolus depastus est .i. ligauit earn = De pride of hym hap for-don hym, and pe onliche deuel of en-vie· hap bounden him (A.V. 80.13: The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it). 
These illustrations are not adequate in themselves to show the extent of the loss in the transfer of thought from the Latin to the English; but they are at least typical of the numerous changes by which much of the richness and vitality has been extracted from the original in the process of translation. 
III. SUMMARY 
A study of the language of The Earliest Complete Eng­lish Prose Psalter, in comparison with the Latin from which it is rendered, shows that the Latin glosses, which are very numerous, have had a marked influence on the Middle Eng­lish translation. 
Changes in meaning appear most frequently in the bold­ness of the special ecclesiastical terms that have been sub­stituted or added, such as heuen, helle, ]Je gode, ]Je dampned, ]Je fende, and tourmenten; and in certain other peculiarities of translation, such as the rendering of populum as f ole ]Jou:stes and pauperum as rebels. 
Changes in style are even more noticeable than changes in meaning, though naturally the two are often found to­gether. Some of the glosses that are brought in for com­pleteness of thought, such as the addition of the verb ben, 
39B. has ker here, which is evidently an error. 
tend to produce clarity of expression. On the other hand, serious imperfections in style have grown out of the trans­lator's use of the glosses. One of these is a definite limita­tion in the range of the diction, which is shown by the relative number of words used in the translation as com­pared with the number in the original Latin. Another is the frequent occurrence of abstract or general terms which have been substituted for concrete or specific terms, and which contribute definitely to the devitalization of the lan­guage. Most far-reaching of all, however, since it envelops many of the other changes, is the modification of figures of speech in the transfer from the Latin to the English. The translator, in his desire to make his meaning clear, relen~ lessly tears away, through the use of the glosses, the rich and varied beauty of the original imagery, leaving the thought cold and bare, and often scarred and disfigured also. In­deed, the language of this Psalter, in comparison with the Latin which is the basis of the translation, shows, as its most characteristic defect, a lack of poetic warmth and imaginative coloring. 
For access to the manuscript of "The Plowman's Tale" I have to thank Mrs. Miriam Lutcher Stark, whose generosity has aroused a lively sense of gratitude in the minds of all persons connected with The University of Texa.s. 
ANNIE s. IRVINE. 



A MANUSCRIPT COPY OF "THE PLOWMAN'S TALE" 

BY MRS. ANNIE S. IRVINE 
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT 
Among the copies of the 1532 edition of Chaucer's Works found in the library of The University of Texas, there is one which contains a manuscript version of the Plowman's Tale. On the fly leaf of the book are written the following notes: 
This edition was printed without the Plowman's Tak, which first appeared in 1542. In this copy it is inserted in M.S. neatly written in a contemporary hand.1 
William Thynne's 1st edition. The Ploughman's Tale, which was not printed till 1542, is here in a finely written 16th century M.S. 
Included is an excerpt from a bookseller's catalogue (un­identified) with the following description of the copy and the manuscript: 
Chaucer. The Workes of Geffray Chaucer newly printed with duyers [sic!] works whiehe were never in print before. Folio, old English straight-grain morocco gilt, gilt edges, arms on the sides, London: Thomas Godfray, 1532. 
The first collected edition of Chaucer, illustrated with quaint wood­cuts from the library of the Duke of Buckingham (Stowe Library) with his arms on the sides. Like most of the known copies of this edition it has suffered to some extent in the four hundred years of its existence, lacking two leaves of preface, the title and two preliminary as well as the last leaf in facsimile, and a few minor restorations and repairs to three leaves in addition to three leaves at the end supplied from a smaller copy. An important feature of this copy is that the Plowman's Tale, which was not printed until 1542, only at this time existing in manuscript, is here supplied by an early manuscript ver­sion, possibly contemporary, written on 16 folio pages and bound in at the end of the Canterbury Tales. The Duke of Buckingham's collection was famous for its manuscripts, among them being those later sold to the Earl of Ashburnham and known by his name. This 
1The same statement appears in the description of this particular copy of Chaucer's Works in Sotheby's catalogue of the Stowe Library (1848), p. 74, item 1290. 
manuscript was no doubt one of those collected by the Duke and bound in this volume. The woodcuts in this edition are copies of those cut by Caxton for his edition. 
In some respects the MS. has the appearance of having been prepared especially for this copy of Chaucer's works. 
(1) It is written on paper cut the exact size of the other leaves in the book, and not differing in appearance from them; though the uniformity in size was probably taken care of in the rebinding of the book, the margins in the MS. correspond very closely in size to those of the other leaves in this copy. (2) It is placed at the end of the Canter­bury Tales as in the 1542 edition, and not before the Par­son's Tale, as in the later ones. (3) The stanzas are ar­ranged in double columns, averaging 44 lines each,2 and occupying, altogether, 16 folio pages, the same number as in the 1542 edition. (4) The same sign is used for the comma (/) as in the 1532 edition of Chaucer's works, whereas the 1542 edition and subsequent ones use the modern comma. (5) The head lines and end lines marking the divisions between the various parts of the poem are written in Latin, as are many such lines in the tales of Chaucer in the early editions (see the 1532 ed., fo. 30 and 32 in the Squire's Tale, 55 and 56 in the Clerk's Tale, etc.). 
On the other hand, the prologue in the 1542 edition occu­pies an entire page (the upper half of two columns, with the lower half of the page left blank), the tale proper be­ginning on the back of the leaf, whereas in the MS. the tale immediately follows the prologue, beginning about the middle of the second column on the first page. Further­more, the scribe has not set back any of the lines from the margin, as they are set back in all the printed editions at the beginning of each stanza and occasionally within a stanza; no catch-words appear at the bottom of the pages 
2The Monk's Tale, also written in eight-line stanzas, has 43 lines to the column in the 1532 ed.; the Plowman's Tale in the 1542 ed. has 46 lines, and the later editions still more; the 1535 ed. has only 36 lines. 
as in all the printed versions; and the use of the paragraph sign, capital letters, and marks of punctuation varies con­siderably from that of all the printed editions. 
The handwriting appears, by comparison with that of other manuscripts of known date, to be at least as early as the first part of the 16th century. 
B. THE EDITIONS OF THE PLOWMAN'S TALE 
Henry Bradshaw, in Furnivall's edition of Francis Thynne's Animadversions (1891), gives the following his­tory of the early editions of the Plowman's Tale (p. 101, footnote): 
The Plowman's Tale was first printed separately by Thomas God­fray in folio, without date, but about 1532-35, probably under W. Thynne's care. Why it was omitted from the edition of 1532 does not appear, unless F. Thynne's report of his father having been compelled to omit the Pilgrim's Tale from his first edition be a mis­take, based on the fact that the Plowman's Tale was omitted from that edition for some such reason as is alleged, though printed separately at the same press. From this separate edition (of which the on'ly remaining copy, formerly Askew's, Farmer's and Heber's, is now at Britwell) it was reprinted in W. Thynne's second edition of Chaucer's works in 1542, and separately in octavo by W. Powell, about 1547-48.a 
Much the same is Professor Skeat's account of the tale (The Complete Works of Chaucer, VII, 1897, pp. xxxi­xxxii) :4 
This piece does not appear in Thynne's first edition of 1532, but occurs, for the first time, in the second edition of 1542, where it is added at the end of the Canterbury Tales, after the Parson's Tale. In the next (undated) edition, probably printed about 1550, it is placed before the Parson's Tale, as if it were really Chaucer's, and the same arrangement occurs in the fourth edition, that of 1561, by John Stowe. It is worth mentioning that some booksellers put forward a fable as to the true date of the undated edition being 1539, in order to enhance the value of their copies; but the pretence is obviously false, as is shown by collation; besides which, it is not likely that the Plowman's Tale would have been at first inserted before the Parson's Tale, then placed after it, and then again placed before it. It is best 
3See my statement concerning this edition on page 32, below. 
4,See also Skeat's The Chaucer Canon (Oxford, 1900), p. 99. 

to separate the first four editions by nearly equal intervals, their dates being, respectively, 1532, 1542, about 1550, and 1561. 
According to Speght, there was once a MS. copy of this piece in Stowe's library, but no one knows what became of it. According to Todd, in his Illustrations of Gower and Chaucer, p. xxxix, there was once a black-letter edition of it, entitled 'The Plouuman's tale com­pylled by syr Geffray Chaucer knyght.' Todd says: 'It is of duodecimo size 5 in black letter, without date, and imprinted at London in Paules churche-yarde at the sygne of the Hyll, by Wyllyam Hyll. I have compared the poem as printed by Urry forty or fifty lines, and I have found almost as many variations between them. The colophon of this book is, Tkus endetk tke boke of Ckaunterburye Tales. This rarity belongs to the Rev. Mr. Conybeare, the present Professor of the Saxon language in the University of Oxford.' This edition can no longer be traced.5 Hazlitt mentions a black-letter edition of this piece, printed separately by Thomas Godfray (about 1535), on twenty leaves; of which only one copy is known, viz. that at Britwell. There is also a late print of it in the Bodleian Library, dated 1606. 
Miss Eleanor P. Hammond, in Chaucer, A Bibliogra­phical Manual (1908), makes the following statements (pp. 444-446) : 
Of the Plowman's Tale printed in 1542 as Chaucer's no Ms is as yet known.6 Previous to 1542 the poem had been printed by Godfray, folio, n.d., but "about 1532-35"~ee Skeat, Canon p. 99 footnote; only one copy of this is known. It was again printed, by Powell, about 1547-48. Todd, in the introd. to his Illustrations, p. xxxix note, men­tions "a very curious edition, hitherto unnoticed, of the poem falsely attributed to Chaucer. It is of the duodecimo size, in the black letter, without date, and imprinted by Wyllyam Hyll . . . The colophon of this book is, Tkus endetk tke boke of Ckaunterburye Tales. This rarity belongs to the Rev. Mr. Conybeare, the present Professor of the Saxon language in the University of Oxford.'' ... From the colophon to Hill's print as cited by Todd we may infer that Hill issued a part at least of the Tales in duodecimo, copying even the colophon of the edition from which he selected, and which was possibly that of 
5See my discussion of this edition on page 32, below. 
6Professor Aage Brusendorf, in Tke Chaucer Tradition (London, 1924), p. 121, footnote, says: "The spurious Ploughman's Tale in the Christch. MS. (by Hoccleve, ed. A. Beatty, Ch. Soc. 1902) was evi­dently added later ..." The work referred to here, however, is not the Plowman's Tale printed in the 1542 and later editions of Chaucer, but a legend of the Virgin and her Sleeveless Garment (see Profes­sor J. E. Wells, A Manual of the Writings in Middle EngHsk, 1916, 
p. 676). 
1542; for Hill's dated works are of 1548-49, and it is only in the 1542 Chaucer that this Tale stands last. 
In the preface to the 1721 Urry, Thomas says that the description of the Plowman and his Tale were "printed in 1606 in 4to with notes which are thought by some to be Mr. Francis Thynne's." 
In the Thynne Chaucer of 1542 the tale of the Plowman was appended after that of the Parson; the undated later ed. inserted the Plowman in front of the Parson, and this procedure was imitated by Stow, Speght and Urry, although Francis Thynne, in his Animadver­sions, censured the arrangement. 
It appears, then, that the various early editions of the Plowman's Tale are as follows: 
(A) Editions Included in Chaucer's Works 
1. 
The 1542 edition in William Thynne's second edition of Chaucer's Works. There are two issues of this edition, Nos. 5069 and 5070 in Pollard and Redgrave's Short-Title Catalogue of Engli,sh Books 1475-1640 (1926). The Uni­versity of Texas has a copy of each. 

2. 
The undated edition of Chaucer's Works (about 1550, according to Skeat). There are four issues of this edition, Nos. 5071-5074 in the S.T.C., printed for W. Bonham, R. Kele, T. Petit, and R. Toye, respectively. The University of Texas has copies of all these except the last. 

3. 
The 1561 (Stowe's) edition of Chaucer's works, in two issues, Nos. 5075 and 5076 in the S.T.C. The Univer­sity of Texas has a copy of each. 

4. 
The 1598 (Speght's) edition, in three issues, Nos. 5077-5079 in the S.T.C. The University of Texas has copies of the first two. 

5. 
The 1602 (Speght's) edition, in two issues, Nos. 5080 and 5081 in the S.T.C. The University of Texas has a copy of each. This edition was reprinted in 1687. 


All of these editions are folio in size and are printed in black letter, in double columns. In the 1542 edition, the Plowman's Tale is placed at the end of the Canterbury Tales, but in all the others it comes before the Parson's Tale. 
(B) Separate Editions 
1. The first separate edition, printed by Thomas God­fray, about 1535, fo1io, black letter, on twenty leaves, 36 lines to the page. There is only one known copy of this edition in existence, the Farmer-Heber copy, formerly at Britwell, but now in the Henry E. Huntington Library in California. It is not listed in the S.T.C., but the record of its sale occurs in Auction Book Records, XXI, 1923-24, 
p. 374, as follows: 
Chaucer [The Ploughman's Tale], 1st edn. b.l., cf. gt., Farmer­Brand-Heber copy, the only copy known, fo. 1534 (S. Mar. 31; 155) Rosenbach £444. 
This copy has the title-page and the first leaf of the pro­logue missing; the latter is supplied by a manuscript copy, probably from the 1561 edition of Chaucer's works. The University of Texas has a photostatic copy of this book. 
2. The William Hyll edition, duodecimo,7 about 1547-8. Skeat, op. cit., p. xxxii, thought this edition could no longer be traced; it is listed, however, in the S.T.C., No. 5100 
(Huntington Library). In the Auction Book Records, XX, 1922-23, p. 224, the record of its sale appears as follows: 
Plouumans tale, b.l., small hole in title mended, brown mor. ex. tooled, wide borders gilt, g.e., W. Hyll, n.d. (S. Mar. 12; 140) Rosen­bach £460. 
The University of Texas has a photostatic copy of this book. The title-page is missing; in its place we find care­fully printed by a late hand, "The Plouumans/ tale com­pylled/ by syr Geffray Chau/ cher [sic!] knyght." 
3. 
The W. Powell separate edition, 1547-8, in octavo, mentioned by Bradshaw and by Miss Hammond, but not listed in the S.T.C., or in Proctor's Haruilists of Books Printed by London Printers 1501-1556. I have not been able to find a copy of the Powell edition, nor have I found any reference to it except as quoted above. 

4. 
The 1606 separate edition, in 4to, with notes, includ­ing also the description of the plowman from Chaucer's prologue to the Canterbury Tales (No. 5101 in the S.T.C.), which consists of 32 leaves. This edition is not in the black letter. The University of Texas has a photostatic reproduction of the copy in the Bodleian Library. 


7E. C. Duff, in Proctor's Handli,sts of Books Printed by London Printers 1501-1556, says that this edition is octavo. 
The later editions of the Plowman's Tale, according to Miss Hammond (pp. 128-144, 445) , are as follows : 
1. 
Urry's edition of Chaucer's works, 1721. 

2. 
Bell's collection of British poetry, 1782, in which the text of the Plowman's Tale is based on that of Urry. 

3. 
Anderson's Works of the British Poets, 1795, from the Urry edition. 


4. Chalmers' Works of the English Poets, 1810, from the Urry edition. 
5. 
Wright's Political Poems, I, 304 (1859-61), from the text of Speght's edition as reprinted in 1687. The prologue to the tale is omitted by Wright. 

6. 
Skeat's Works of Chaucer, VII, 147 (1897), from 


the 1542 edition. The University of Texas has copies of all these works. 
C. A GENERAL COMPARISON OF THE MANUSCRIPT COPY 
WITH THE OTHER VERSIONS 
In my study of the Plowman's Tale I have had access to all the printed editions except the Powell edition (1547-8), the existence of which appears somewhat doubtful. 
The task of comparing the manuscript version with the printed versions has been greatly simplified by the fact that all the later extant versions are obviously derived either directly or indirectly from the 1542 edition. This edition, Bradshaw states, is itself a reprint of the earlier Godfray edition. Concerning the other black-letter editions (about 1550, 1561, 1598, 1602), Skeat says (op. cit., p. xxxii) : 
Comparison of the black-letter editions shows that the first is the best; and the later ones, mere reprints, grow gradually worse. Hence, in this case [i.e. in his edition of the Plowman's Tale], the edition of 1542 is the sole authority, and the readings of the inferior copies may be safely neglected. It is remarkable that Mr. T. Wright, in his edition of this poem printed in his Political Poems and Songs, i. 304, should have founded his text upon a reprint of Speght in 1687, when he might have taken as his authority a text more than 140 years older. The result is, naturally, that his text is much worse than was at all necessary. 
A careful comparison of all the separate editions with each other and with the various editions included in Chau­cer's collected works reveals the following facts. The Hyll (1547-8) edition is obviously a reprint of the 1542 edition, which it follows very closely, differing only occasionally in minor matters of spelling; it contains far more typographi­cal errors than the earlier edition. The 1606 edition is a reprint of Speght's 1602 edition, with the same general ex­planation at the beginning, but with the addition of the description of the plowman from Chaucer's prologue to the Canterbury Tales, and of numerous marginal notes on the poem itself. Speght's 1602 edition of the tale is by no means 
identical with his 1598 edition.8 In the Urry edition, 1721, as well as in the later editions based on it (see Hammond, op. cit., pp. 134-136), a great many liberties have been taken with the earlier text of the poem. 
A collation of the MS. with the printed versions of the tale readily reveals the fact that it could not have been copied from any edition later than the one of 1542. In spelling it is much closer to the first (1535) and the second 
(1542) editions than to any of the others. I quote a few lines from the various versions :9 
8I have found in the 1602 ed. about 15 corrections of errors occur­ring in the 1542 ed. and in the subsequent ones of 1550, 1561, 1598. In the nature and extent of these corrections there is some evidence of more careful editing than in the previous reprints, although there are, also, many changes in the 1602 ed. which scarcely seem war­ranted. 
9I have omitted the lines from Skeat's edition, which is based on the 1542 edition. Wright's edition does not include the prologue of the tale. 
1.37: 	MS. They mowe by lawe as they sayne 
1535. They mowe by lawe/ as they sayne10 
1642. The mowe by !awe, as they sayne 
1547. The mowe by lawe, as they sayne 
1550. They mowe by !awe, as they sayne 
1561. Thei mowe by lawe, as thei sain 
1598. They mow by law as they sain 
1602. They mowe by law, as they saine 
1606. They mowe by lawe, as they saine, 
1721. Thei mowe by lawe, as that thei sain, 
1795. Thei mowe by lawe, as thei sain, 
1810. Thei mow by lawe, as that thei sain, 

1.38: 	MS. vs curse & dampne to hell bryncke 
1535. Us curse and dampne to belle brinke 
1642. Us curse and dampne to hell brynke11 
1547. Us curse and dampne to hel brynke 
1550. Us curse and dampne to hell brynke 
1561. Us curse and dampne to hell brinke 
1598. Us curse and dampne to hell brinke 
1602. Us curse and damne to hell brinke, 
1606. Vs curse and damne to hell brinke, 
1721. Us curse and dampne to hell'is brinke, 
1795. Us curse and dampne to hell'is brinke; 
1810. Us curse and dampne to Hell'is brinke; 

1.39: 	MS. Thus they putt vs to greate payne 
1535. Thus they putten vs to payne 
1542. Thus they putten vs to payne 
1547. Thus they putten vs to payne 
1550. Thus they putten vs to payne 
1561. Thus thei putten vs to pain 
1598. Thus they putten vs to pain 
1602. Thus they putten vs to paine 
1606. Thus they putten vs to paine 
1721. And thus thei puttin us to pain 
1795. And thus thei puttin us to pain 
1810. And thus thei puttin us to pain 

1.40: 	MS. Wyth candels queynte and bellys clynke 
1535. With candels queynte and belles clynke 
1542. With candles queynt and belles clynke 
1547. Wyth candles queynt and belles clynke 

10Furnivall, in his edition of F. Thynne's Animadversiom (p. 102, note 2), say that Jayne occurs here and in I. 42 in the Godfray ed., and refers to a transcript of the lines by Mr. Christie-Miller (op. cit., 
p. 147); the photostatic reproduction, however, shows quite clearly the 
long s in both places. uskeat writes h.ell[e] for the sake of the meter. 
1550. Wyth candles queynt and belles clynke 
1561. With candles queint and belles clinke 
1598. With candles queint, and belles clinke. 
1602. With candles queint, and bels clinke. 
1606. With candles queint, and bels clinke. 
1721. With candlis queint and bell'is clinke. 
1795. With candlis quient and bell'is clinke. 
1810. With candlis queint and bell'is clinke. 
Furthermore, a careful collation of the manuscript with the later editions shows (1) that in those passages in which the text of the manuscript differs from that of the 1542 edition, the manuscript is no closer to the later editions than it is to the earlier one; the only exceptions are the passages in which typographical errors in the 1542 edition have been corrected in the later ones, such as The for They (1.37 above) and maiiters for masters (1.322); (2) that the passages in which the manuscript differs from the later editions are far more numerous than those in which it differs from the 1542 edition. 
Hence, in my attempt to determine the relationship of the manuscript to the printed versions of the tale, I have taken into consideration only the 1535 (Godfray) edition and the 1542 edition. 
D. 	A COMPARISON OF THE MANUSCRIPT VERSION WITH THE 1535 AND THE 1542 EDITIONS 
Concerning the 1535 (Godfray) edition of the Plowman's Tale, Bradshaw states :12 
We find a separate edition of the Plowman's Tale, the same type and size as Thynne's first edition of 1532, which looks as if he had intended to include it in that, and was overborne for some reason. He did include it in his second edition. 
As a matter of fact, however, the Godfray edition, though of folio size, is printed in single columns,13 with 36 lines to 
1 2Furnivall's ed. of F. Thynne's Animadversions, p. xiii, footnote. 
1a1t is obvious that neither Furnivall nor Bradshaw was aware of the fact that the Godfray edition of the Plowman's Tale was printed in single columns; otherwise they must surely have mentioned the fact in connection with their comments on William Thynne's cancelled 
the page, whereas the 1532 edition is in double columns of 43 lines each (that is, where the eight-line stanza occurs); furthermore, the type is quite different from that of the 1532 edition of Chaucer, but almost identical with that of the 1542 edition. Most unfortunately, the first leaf of the only known copy of the Godfray edition is missing; hence it is impossible to tell whether it contained any refer­ence to Chaucer or to the Canterbury Tales. The colophon reads: "Printed at London by Thomas Godfray, Cum priuilegio." Since the only dated work of Godfray's is the 1532 edition of Chaucer, this separate edition of the Plow­man's Tale must certainly antedate the 1542 edition of Chaucer; but whether it is older than the 1532 edition, 
there seems to be no way of determining. 
The Godfray edition differs but slightly from the 1542 
edition, except for (a) the marginal notes in the former, 
which are written in Latin and are, apparently, quotations 
from the Bible suggested by the text of the poem; and (b) 
the frequent differences in spelling. 
Difjerences in Spelling in the Three Versions 
A careful collation of the two first printed editions of the 
poem shows that the earlier one manifests a decided prefer­
ence for i instead of y, as in I. 95, Christ, Chryst (311 
times) ; a double for a single consonant, as in I. 215, great­
ter, greater (39 times) ; nat for not (t), as in I. 1032 (39 
times) ; e for ea, as in I. 47, teche, teache (27 times) ; sshe 
for she, as in I. 529, fiesshe, fieshe (19 times). In 80 in­
stances the older version has final -e where it is not found 
in the later one, and in 89 instances the situation is reversed. 
Turning to the MS. version, I find that in spelling it 
differs from the other two versions more than three times 
as often as the latter two differ from each other. In lines 
101-200, for example, the spelling in the MS. differs from 
one-column edition of Chaucer's works, which Bradshaw maintains is a fiction growing out of Francis Thynne's confusion about his father's editions (see Furnivall's edition of F. Thynne's Animadversicns, pp. xlii-xliii, 7, 10, 75-76). 
that in the 1535 edition 189 times, and from that in the 1542 edition 194 times; whereas these two printed editions differ from each other only 61 times. A collation of the same lines in the 1542 edition and the later reprints shows the number of differences in spelling to be as follows: (1) be­tween the 1542 and the 1547 (Hyll) editions, 55, of which at least 7 are obviously typographical errors; (2) between the 1542 and 1550 editions, 59; (3) between the 1550 and 1561 editions, 96; (4) between the 1561 and 1598 editions, 73 ; (5) between the 1598 and 1602 editions, 54; ( 6) be­tween the 1602 and 1606 editions, 4. 
The most noteworthy differences in spelling between the MS. and the 1535 edition are the following: 
(1) 
The addition of final -e in the MS., as in I. 56, semethe, semeth (453 times), and its omission, as in I. 115, worship, worshyppe (20 times) . 

(2) 
The use of a double for a single consonant, as in I. 536, ff endes, fendes (388 times; ff occurs initially 40 times in the MS. but not at all in the other versions) ; or vice versa, as in I. 89, mater, matter (66 times). 


(3) The use of i or y, as in I. 53, striffe, stryffe (241 times) ; or vice versa, as in I. 67, ys for is (45 times) . 
(4) The use of oo for o, as in I. 319, forgoo, forgo (70 times). 
(5) The use of c for ch, as in I. 95, criste, christ (70 times). 
(6) 
The use of not for nat, as in I. 439 (56 times). 

(7) 
The use of i for e, especially in the pronoun hir for her, as in I. 120, and in the personal ending of the verb, as in I. 14 7, tellith, telleth (55 times). 

(8) 
The use of ey for ay, as in I. 245, seyd, sa.yd (37 times). 

(9) 
The use of e for i (y) in unstressed syllables, as in 


I. 366, heuen, heuyn (36 times). 
(10) 
The use of ie for y in final syllables, as in I. 499, carie, cary (24 times). 

(11) 
The use of them for hem, as in I. 59 (24 times). 


(12) 
The use of un for aun, as in I. 333, disclunder, dis­claunder (23 times). 

(13) 
The use of sh for ssh, as in I. 478, Englishe, Eng­lysshe (19 times) . 

(14) 
The use of ee fore, as in I. 958, bee, be (18 times) ; or vice versa, as in I. 102, prestes, preestes (13 times). 


(15) 
The use of Jh for gh, as in 1. 617, miJt, myght (17 times). 

(16) 
The use of will for woU, as in I. 168 (17 times). 

(17) 
The use of -ys for -es as an inflectional ending of nouns, as in I. 40, bellys, belles (15 times). 

(18) 
The use of shal.l for shuU, as in I. 252 (13 times). 


(19) 
The use of -hod for -hed, as in I. 68, ffalsehod, fals­hed (11 times) . 

(20) 
The use of selphe habitually for selfe, as in I. 288 (11 times). 


(21) The use of ther for their, as in I. 176 (8 times). 
(22) 
The use of goddess for goddis, as in 1. 762 (8 times). 

(23) 
The use of aul for al, as in I. 984, haulfe, halfe (7 times). 


(24) The use of ther for her, as in I. 112 (6 times). 
(25) 
The use of er for ar, as in I. 871, merkett, markette (6 times). 

(26) 
The use of -con for -tion, as in 1. 347, absolucon, absolution (6 times) . 

(27) 
The use of dud for dyd(e), as in I. 550 (5 times), and bushoppes for byshoppes, as in I. 402 (3 times). 

(28) 
The use of ck fork, as in I. 38, bryncke, brinke (5 times). 

(29) 
The use of ght or gth for th, as in 1. 424, yought, you;the; 1. 497, trougthe, truthe (5 times). 

(30) 
The use of chirche for churche, as in I. 143 (5 times). 

(31) 
The use of couetous(e) for couetyse, as in I. 774 (4 times). 


Besides these more striking differences in spelling be­tween the MS. and the 1535 edition, there are several hun­dred miscellaneous differences, as in I. 226, aungell, angell; 
I. 734, peple, people, etc. The differences in spelling between the MS. and the 1542 edition are even more numerous. 
Although the unsettled state of spelling during the Mid­dle English period makes it impossible to attach great im­portance to any one of these variations, at least two con­clusions from this study seem to me inevitable: (1) the variations in spelling in the MS. are not due to the normal development of spelling later than 1542; (2) the very large number of differences in spelling between the MS. and the other two versions makes it difficult to believe that the MS. was copied directly from either of them, or vice versa. 
Other Mechanical Differences Between the Three Versions 
1. Difference in the Number of Lines 
As I have stated above, the first leaf of the only known copy of the 1535 edition of the Plowman's Tale is missing 
(Ai); Aii begins with I. 37 of the prologue. Since this copy is printed in single columns with 36 lines to the page, we may conclude that the front of Ai was the title-page, the first 36 lines of the prologue occupying the back. 
Aside from this, the only difference in the number of lines of the three versions is that the MS. has omitted line 1276, the last line of stanza 72 in Part III. This omission is evidently due to an oversight on the part of the scribe. 
2. Differences in the Division of Words 
(1) 
I find 23 words written as compound words in the MS., and separately in the 1535 edition, as in 1. 816, indede, in dede; I. 774, theest, the Est. 

(2) 
I find 13 words written as two words in the MS. and as compound words in the 1535 ed., as in I. 60, be fall, befall; I. 1233, a bye, abye. 


In practically all the examples the 1542 ed. is like that of 1535. 
3. Differences in the Order of Words 
I find only two lines in which the order of words in the MS. differs from that of the other two versions: I. 233, In Erthe here haue they her blisse, In erthe here they haue ber blisse; I. 290, To heuen come he neu(er) shall, to heuyn come neuer he shall. 
4. Differences in Abbreviations 
The MS. very frequently employs the sign for and, which the printed versions have very rarely, and the abbreviation wt for with, which occurs only once in the 1535 ed. and not at all in that of 1542. Furthermore, the MS. usually indi­cates a vowel plus r by a mark above or below the line, and frequently, especially in the latter part of the poem, has hm for hem; these abbreviations do not occur in the other versions. On the other hand, the latter often have 6 for on, om, and a for an or am; the MS. does not have these pe­culiarities, but it sometimes uses a distinguishing mark above a u when followed by n or m. The forms ye for the (found once in both the printed versions) and yt for that (found once in the 1542 edition) do not occur in the MS. Other differences in abbreviations are as follows: 1. 26, qd, quod (in the 1542 ed.; this line is missing in the earlier edition) ; 1. 45, qd, cp (both) ; 1. 229, scus, deus, sctits de' (1535), sctits deus (1542) ; 1. 437, twelve, .xii. (both) ; 1. 662, x£d, tenne pounde (both) ; ll. 875, 1157, vije"', seuen 
(both). 
In the matter of abbreviations, therefore, we see that the MS. differs considerably from the two printed versions, but that they differ very little from each other. 
5. Differences in Punctuation and Capitalization 
There is very little punctuation in the early printed edi­tions of the Plowman's Tole, and even less in the MS. ver­sion. The period occurs only about seven times in the MS., seventeen times in the 1535 edition (besides the marginal notes, where it is used consistently), and thirty-five times in the 1542 edition. The comma or the sign (/) occurs 36 times in the MS. (three times where it is not found in the other versions), 205 times in the 1535 edition, and 107 times in the edition of 1542. The interrogation point is not used in the MS., but occurs six times in each of the other 
two versions. The paragraph sign is found in the MS. in the margin opposite the first line of a stanza, but its use is very erratic; it does not occur at all on the first page (which contains all the prologue and the first four stanzas of Part I), on the eighth page, or on the last five pages; pages 2 and 5 are the only ones on which it is used with each stanza ; on the remaining six pages, it is used with some of the stanzas and omitted with others. In the printed editions, however, the paragraph sign occurs regularly at the beginning of each stanza and occasionally within the stanza, especially when a new speaker is introduced. In the 1535 edition, the device of a small leaf sometimes takes the place of the regular paragraph sign. 
In the use of capital letters, also, the MS. version is quite inconsistent. In the printed versions, the first word of every line begins with a capital, but in the MS. most of the lines begin with a small letter. 
6. Corrections in the Manuscript 
There are no evidences of erasures in the MS. ; there are, however, several corrections, as follows : 
(1) Insertions (5): 
856: 	e inserted above the line in catfkynge. 
976: seitk ke inserted above the line. 
1172 : n inserted above the line in nyste. 
1198: vp inserted above the line. 
1371: vs ofte inserted above the line. 

(2) 
Words or letters marked out, here indicated by italics (8): 

293 : 	there was was more m (er)cy. 


377: I trowe they haue the key of all hell. 
561: 	herof i drede no man be dradde. 
597: 	After ka Christe had taken peter the key. 
775: 	Slougthe wrathe & eke pride Envie (pryde occurs in the line above) . 
976: & seith he syngeth ete oute of synne. 1267: To suffer I am all sone redy (sone occurs in the line 
below). 
1321 : ... bothe farre & nerre. 

Obvious Errors in the Three Versions 
There are about 25 obvious errors in the MS. which are not found in the printed versions. They may be classified as follows: 
(1) Repetition of a word or a part of a word (2) : 
34: lyvelolode for lyvelode. 
108: I or for. 
(2) Omission of a letter (4): 
115 : wordlye for worldlye. 
302: meytenour for meynte'Mur. 
711: he for her. 
759: gygge for gygges. 
(3) Insertion of a letter (2) : 
152: gongne for gonge. 
1286: Trauayile for Trauayle. 

(4) Misplaced letter (1): 
914: thrust for thurst. 
(5) Substitution of a preceding word (6): 
113: d,egree (from the line above) for see. 
188: befaule for befall (preceded by joule). 
343: wolde for wolle (from the preceding line). 
450: lyuen for leuyn (from lyuers in line above). 
673: forthe inserted from the line above; it makes sense, but 
does not fit the meter. 1345: fiowen for fiewen (haue fiowe in line above). 
(6) They for the (3): 550, 814, 1023. 
(7) 
'.The for they (1): 690. 

(8) 
They for ther (1): 438. 


(9) 
Error with partial correction ( ?) (2): crchriste, 1111, 1121. 

(10) 
Miscellaneous errors (3) : 


230: sanctissung (?) for sanctissimus. 
314: cardinale for cardinall. 
908: yrechet for precheth (also a letter omitted?). 
There are 10 obvious errors in the 1535 edition which do not occur in the MS. or in the 1542 edition: 
664: They for the. 
829: cardyuals for cardynals. 
861: duke for ducke. 
928: dauuce for daunce. 
1011: ueuer for neuer. 
1013: qneynte for queynte. 
1053: disclanuder for disclaunder. 

1077: sulde for shulde. 
1158: tithiges for tithinges. 
1357: tyght for ryght. 

On the other hand, the 1542 edition shows the following typographical errors which are not found in the MS., or in the Godfray edition (10) : 
37: 	The for they (corrected 1550). 
105: 	couetours for couertours (corrected 1795; but a note in the 1606 edition says, "I think it should be couer­tours"; Skeat inserts the r). 
322: 	maiiters for ma:isters (corrected 1550). 
410: 	at one /ors all for at ones for all (corrected 1550). 
437: 	hath for had (corrected 1602; but Skeat keeps hath). 
450: 	fyr for for (corrected 1550). 
727: 	Gyfon for Gryfon (corrected 1550). 
765: 	churces for churches (corrected 1550). 
911: 	shullen for shulden (not corrected). 
924: 	fasly for falsly (corrected 1598). 
Much more significant for our study are the errors which occur in the two printed versions but not in the MS. While these seem to have been, originally, typographical errors, they do not seem to have been readily recognized as such, most of them being retained in all the editions before 1602.14 
57: 	some be great growen vngrounde (corrected 1602 and by Skeat); MS. on grounde. 
58: 	Some hen souble, symple and small (corrected to soukle 1602: a note in the 1606 edition explains soukle as "poore and thin"; Urry writes souble; Skeat writes souple, with the note, "The 0. F. souple means 'humble,' which is the sense here intended."); MS. souple. 
73 : I clepeth lollers and londelese (changed to icleped 1602 and by Skeat); MS. icleped. 
289: 	A man to them shryues (corrected 1602 and by Skeat) ; MS. a man to them hym shriues. 
533: 	With Dyuers suche shall haue her dome (corrected 1602 and by Skeat); MS. diues ( =Dives). 
929: 	Cutted clothes to sewe her hewe (corrected 1602; but Skeat keeps sewe, "sue, suit, lit. follow; unless it be for schewe, i.e. shew") ; MS. shewe. 
967: 	falsely goddis goodesse they fongeth (corrected 1550; but Skeat writes good) ; MS. goodes. 
HSee above, footnote 6. 
1305 : Pelican wrongly prefixed to line 1305 instead of 1303 (corrected 1602, but the same error occurs in the 1795 and 1810 editions); the MS. is correct here. 
1322: 	with temporell strength they peple chase (corrected 1550; but Skeat keeps they, though the subject is clearly thi.s joule in the preceding line) ; MS. the. 
The existence of these errors in both the 1535 and the 1542 editions seems to me very strong evidence that the 1542 edition was based on the 1535 edition, and that the MS., which, in every one of these passages, has the correct reading, could not have been copied from either of the other two versions. 
Addition and Omission of Words in the Manuscript 
In 17 lines of the tale one or more words are inserted in the MS. which are not found in any of the printed versions: 
5: 	They ben full feble bothe oxe & cowe; 1542, They ben feble both oxe and cowe (the first 36 lines of the pro­logue are missing in the only known copy of the 1535 edition) . 
39: 	Thus they putt vs to greate payne; 1535, Thus they putten vs to payne. 
176: 	And haue ther lordshippes att the full; 1535, And haue their lordshyppes at full. 
221: 	So semeth he aboue hem all ; 1535, So semeth he abouen all. 
246 : 	With swerde sothely he shall dye; 1535, With swerde he shall dye; 1542, With swerde shall dye (this ob­viously unmetrical line was amended in the 1602 edition to 'With swerde surely he shall die'; Skeat writes 'With swerde shall he surely dye'). 
332: 	Whan all suche falsehode shall foule fall; 1535, Whan all suche shall foule fall (falshed inserted in 1602 edi­tion; Skeat inserts false). 
497: 	that ffrom the trougthe dothe clene varie; 1535, That from the trouthe clene varry. 
621 : 	And att the laste his loorde gan traye; 1535, And at last his lorde gan tray (the inserted 1550; Skeat does not insert it). 
647: 	butt yff any man thes men misqueme; 1535, But if any man these mysqueme. 
656: 	maysterfuly ye more than dothe he; 1535, Maisterfully/ more than doth he. 
695: 	that at the last the sely Kyme; 1535, That at laste the sely kyme (Skeat inserts the for the meter). 
862: 	or of an apple or of an aye; 1536, Or of an apple/ or an aye. 
927: 	To clippen & kissen/ to counte in tounes; 1636, To clyppen and kyssen coiiten in tounes (they counten in 1602 edition; Skeat says, "An awkward sentence."). 
1109: 	The pelicane seyd & cast an huge crie; 1536, The Pel­lycan caste an houge crye (the MS. insertion here is obviously incorrect, for "& seyd" follows in the next line). 
1197: 	butt they thatt vsen them in anye mysse manere; 1636, But they that vsen hem in mysse manere. 
1228: 	butt thatt me Thynkethe they lyue not well; 1536, But me thynketh they leue nat well (thatt may possibly be carried over from the preceding line in the MS.). 
1309 : 	As byrde that flyeth vpp in the Eyre; 1636, As byrde fl.yeth vp in the ayre. 
In 19 lines in the MS. one or more words are omitted which are found in the printed versions: 
4: 	And lygge in Grasse vpp to the chynne; 1642, And lyge in the grasse vp to the chynne (lost in the 1636 ed.). 
14: 	he was forswonke & forswatte; 1642, He was for­swonke and all forswatte (lost in the 1535 ed.). 
27: 	for I am wonte to go to plowe; 1542, For I am wont to go to the plowe (the omitted in 1602 ed. but retained by Skeat; the line is missing from the 1535 ed.). 
160: 	as heuy as itt were of ledde; 1536, As heuy as it were made of ledde. 
350: 	And that he monye pay; 1535, And that he mmye money pay. 
442: 	why ys cleped the p(ri)ncipall; 1535, Why is he cleped the principall. 
547: Goddes worde to all folke to shewe; 1535, Goddes worde/ to all folke for to showe. 
578: a.yen 	her shepe w• swerde contende; 1535, Ayen her shepe with swerde that contende. 
604: 	butt all suche god amende; 1535, But all suche god may well amende. 
610: 	In all christe wolde peter rep(re)hende; 1535, In all that Christ wolde Peter reprehende. 
672: 	& all the yere vsen forthe he may; 1535, And all the yere vsen it forthe he may. 
766: 	ne neu (er) o peny thither sende; 1535, Ne neuer o peny thyder ne sende. 
834: 	Eche man loke whether I lye; 1535, Eche man loke whether that I lye. 
865: 	suche beren heuyn kay; 1535, Suche beren yuell heuyn kay. 
989: 	The Griffon began to Threte; 1535, The Gryffon began for to threte. 
1200: 	this is my reason this my Tale; 1535, This is my rea­
son/ 	this is my tale (Skeat says, "Pronounce this is 
as this"). 
1212: weddynge 	& other in feere; 1535, Weddyng/ and all the other in fere. 1238: Who yeueth you leue to preche; 1535, Who gyueth you leaue for to preche. 1276: whole line omitted in the MS.; 1535, Losell/ thou shalte haue harde grace. 
On the whole, the number of lines in the MS. which contain words not found in the other versions tends to strengthen our conclusion that the MS. was not copied from either of them, especially since the additional words in most cases improve the sense or the meter of the lines in which they occur (exceptions are lines 1109, 1197, and 1228). The omissions found in the MS., however, seem to be, for the most part, due to carelessness on the part of the scribe; in only a few lines (27, 766, 1200) in which 
words are omitted in the MS. is the reading better either in sense or in meter. 
Differences in Number 
In 5 passages I find a plural noun in the MS. where a singular one occurs in the printed versions : 
266: 	. . . to holde them in her stallys; 1535, stall (correct, rhyming with fall). 
363: 	And Goddes lawes they despice; 1535, la.we (either seems correct). 
488: 	in Goodes [sic!] word.es; 1535, worde (either seems correct). 
793 : 	he woll s (er)ue bothe erles & king; 1535, erle (either seems correct). 
970: 	her lyuynge lewde mennes li;;ht; 1535, mannes (either seenis correct). 
In 4 passages the MS. has a singular noun where the other versions have the plural: 
759: 	Some spende her Good vppon Gygge; 1535, gygges (correct, rhyming with nygges). 
876: 	howe kepith suche the key of hevyn gate; 1535, kayes (the MS. reading seems correct; cf. lines 597, 675, 865, 892). . 
1077: 	Shulde holly churche haue noo heede; 1535, Sulde 
[s-ic!] 	holy churches haue no heed; 1542, churche (the 
singular seems to be correct). 
1091: 	w' strenghth amende such be made; 1535, With strength/ amides suche be made (neither reading seems satisfactory; Skeat changes suche to shulde). 
In 2 of these lines the MS. reading seems correct, and in 2 the 1535 edition; in the other 5 either reading seems as good as the other. These differences throw no light on the relationship of the MS. to the other versions. 
Different Words and Constructions in the Three Versions 
Besides the differences already noted, there are about 53 lines in the Plowman's Tale in which the MS. reading differs from that of the printed versions. In 5 of these the MS. has the same reading as the 1535 edition, but different from that of the 1542 edition; in 4 the MS. and the 1542 edition are alike, but the 1535 edition is different; and in the re­maining 44 the MS. differs from the other two versions, which are alike. In 13 of the examples the MS. reading seems preferable to the other; in 15 examples the printed versions appear to be correct; and in the remaining 25 both readings seem to be logical. 
6: 	on them nys lefte butt bone & skynne; 1542, Of hem nys left but bone and skynne (missing in the 1535 edi­tion; a note in the 1606 edition says, "There is nothing but skinne and bone left on hem."). 
55: 	of Sondrie sides thatt bene sewe; 1542, of s<idry sedes that bene sewe; 1535, sydes. All the editions after 1542 have sedes, although a comparison of the line with line 61, Thatt one syde is thatt I of tell, and line 69, That other syde ben pore & pale, will readily show that the MS. reading is correct; cf. Skeat's note on some in line 57: "referring rather to the sowers than to the seeds. In any case, it refers to the two parties." 
60: mvste; 1535 and 1542, mote. 
69: 
Thatt other syde; 1535 and 1542, The other syde (cf. 

I. 
61, That one side). 


115: 	all worldly worshipp defye & ffiye (influence of defye?) ; 1535 and 1542, defye and fiee (correct, rhyming with see). 
141: 	w(ith) pride ponysheth the poore; 1535 and 1542, punyshed (corrected to punisheth they in 1602 edition); the MS. reading is obviously correct. 
148: 	suche false faytours foule hem fall; 1542: befall; 1535, fall. The MS. reading fits the meter better and ac­cords with lines 156 and 164 ( Skeat writes fall). 
161: 	w(ith) cloth of Golde butt new and redde; 1535 and 1542, both (the latter seems correct). 
162: 	and Glitterande Golde; 1535 and 1542, With glitterande golde (With is immediately above; and seems prefer­able). 
183: 	they ryden w(ith) a rioll route; 1535 and 1542, They ryden with her royall route. 
251: 	b1ttt trusteth on god; 1542, And trusteth on god; 1535, Butt (the three preceding lines begin with and; but is the better reading) . 
260: 	fall; 1542, oefall; 1535, fall (same as in line 148 above; Skeat has fall). 
275: 	but he itt so get thatt itt shall shede; 1535 and 1542, But he it so get, from it shall shede (the MS. reading here is not grammatical). 
282: 	Therwith they smere the shippes scall; 1535, shepes; 1542, shyppes (shepes is, of course, correct; the error was corrected in the 1550 edition). 
336: 	And seyn to the poore Who be ye; 1535 and 1542, and sayne to the poore I wo be ye. 
346: 	Thoughe he be clene as is corall; 1535 and 1542, ... as is ckristall. 
433: 	them semethe nothynge aferde; 1535 and 1542, they seme nothyng aferde. 
438: 	they may be butt one; 1535 and 1542, there may be butt one (the latter seems correct). 
463: 	me thynke be holdeth hym hie ynoughe; 1535 and 1542, Me thynketh be holdeth hym bye ynowe (the latter seems correct). 
523: 	Sobrenes they sett itt to dispence; 1535 and 1542, Sobrenesse they set in to dispence. 
626: 	whan God woll itt may amende; 1535 and 1542, Whan God woll I it maye mende (Skeat writes amende for the meter and to accord with the last lines of the pre­ceding stanzas). 
659 : 	his officers ; 1535 and 1542, her (the sense demands the plural). 
740: of olde & yonge of hole & Beke; 1535 and 1542, Of olde and yonge I of hole and syke (rhyming with eke; Skeat writes seke). 
755: 	& teche the people hir leffe labour; 1535 and 1542, And teche the people her lele labour. 
790: 	for countynge or for court holdynge; 1535 and 1542, For countyng and for court holdynge. 
895: 	to maken men lyuen vppon; 1535, leuyn; 1542, lyuen (leuyn =believe seems correct; it was so amended in the 1598 edition). 
921: 	vppon hir hedeB itt is well sene Whom they s(er)uen; 1535 and 1542, Upon her dedeB ••• (cf. also' line 969; hedes seems to me better here) . 
943 : 	thes sacrementes; 1535 and 1542, the sacramentes (the latter seems correct). 
969: 	hir heddeB shulde be as bryght; 1535 and 1542, Her dedes . • • (cf. line 921 above). 
972: 	mote; 1535 and 1542, mUBte. 
996: suche greate powere; 1535 and 1542, so great powere. 1006: w(ith) broches & ouches; 1535 and 1542, With broches or ouches (and seems preferable). 
1050-1051: butt badde hem be cherchliche In churchelich maner lyue & go; 1535 and 1542: But badde hem be cherelyche In churlyche maner lyue and go (it is difficult to determine the correct readings in this pass.­age; it seems fairly clear, however, that in line 1050 neither cherchliche nor cherelich is correct,15 whereas in line 1051, either churchelich or churlyche might be right. In the 1602 edition both words are corrected to churchliche; these readings are retained in the 1606 edition, but notes on the two lines indicate that the annotater intended to differentiate them: "1. church­liche: Churchlike, in the last editions of Chaucer." "2. churliche: Churlike, vse rude, and course meate, and apparell."). 
1079: 	Who shulde her rule who shulde her lede; 1535 and 1542, Who shulde her rule, who shulde her reed (rhym­ing with heede of the MS., heed of the other versions; reed alliterates with rule). 
15Skeat retains cherelich in line 1050, but comments as follows: "The line is imperfect. I have supplied but [he means ful] but the right word is not. For cherelich means 'expensive' or 'prodigal'!" 
1084 : 11Wte; 1535 and 1542, must. 
1090: lyuen as men luste; 1535 and 1542, lyuen as hem luste. 
1141: ye wolde thatt eche man ther shulde dwell; 1535 and 

1542, He wolde ... (the latter seems correct). 1158: ayen; 1535 and 1542, ayenst. 1162: ?W suche; 1535 and 1542, none suche. 1205: doo yuell homage; 1535 and 1542, do the deuell homage. 1219: his ftleshe & bloode thorough his maystrie; 1542, mys­
trye; 1530, mastry. 
1222: 	Whether itt be substans or accident; 1535 and 1542, Whether it be subgette or accydent ("accident wi}>outen subgett" is a very common phrase in the Lollard tracts; see Arnold's Select English Works of John Wycliffe, III, pp. 352, 378, 403-409, etc. The word substanc11 often occurs, however, in these discussions of the Eucharist, as the opposite of "accident"). 
1223: 	alyue; 1535 and 1542, on lyue. 
1322: 	& w(ith) Temporell strenght the peple chace; 1535 and 1542, they people chase (corrected to the 1550; but Skeat keeps they, although the subject of chase is clearly this foule in the preceding line). 1347: To jJfoe from hym; 1535 and 1542, To fiye from hym. 
1367: 	the people; 1535 and 1542, these people. 
When we consider that the MS. differs from the 1535 edition in 48 of these passages and from the 1542 edition in 49, whereas the two printed editions differ from each other in only 9, we are forced to conclude that these differ­ences furnish very strong evidence that the MS. was not copied from either of the printed versions. 
Differences in the Head Lines and End Lines 
The head lines and end lines occurring in the three ver­sions under consideration are as follows: 
(1) 	At the beginning: 
MS. The plowmanys Prologue 
1535. Missing. 
1542. The plowmans prologue. 

Here begynneth the Plow­
mans Prologue. 

(2) 	At the end of the Prologue: 
MS. 	Thus endith the plowmanys 
prologue & hereaft folowithe 
his Tale/ Sequitur pars p(ri)ma. 

1535. Thus endeth the prologue/ and here foloweth the fyrst 
parte of this present worke. 
1542. Thus endeth the prologue and 
here foloweth the fyrst parte 

of the tale. 
(3) 	
At the end of Part I: 
MS. Explicit pars Prima et Sequi 
tur pars Secunda 
1535. Here endeth the fyrst part of this 
boke/ and herafter foloweth 
the seconde parte 
1542. Here endeth the fyrst parte of thys 


tale, 	and herafter foloweth 
the seconde parte 


(
4) At the end of Part II: 
MS. Explicit pars Secunda et 
Sequitur pars Tertia 
1535. Thus endeth the seconde parte of 
this boke/ and herafter folo­
weth the thirde 
1542. Thus endeth the seconde parte of 



this 	tale, and herafter folo­weth the thyrde. 
(5) 	At the end of Part III: 
MS. here endith the Plowe­manys Tale 
ffinis 

1535. Finis 
Printed at Lon­
don by Thomas 

Godfray, 
Cum priuilegio. 

1542. Finis 
Thus endeth the boke of Caunter­
bury tales. And here after folo­

weth 	the Romaunt of the Rose. 
Besides these lines which mark the various divisions of the poem, there are other lines introducing the three char­acters of the tale: the pelican, the griffon, and the plow­man. These lines or headings in the three versions are as follows: 
(1) 	Between lines 716 and 717: 
MS. le Griffon perla 

1535. 	Nothing. "Gryffon" is placed in the margin at the left of line 717. 
1542. 	Gyfon. 
(2) 	Between lines 718 and 719: MS. Pelicane responde 1535. Nothing. "Pelycan" is placed in the margin at the left 
of line 719. 1542. Nothing. "Pely." is placed at the beginning of line 719. 
(3) Between lines 988 and 999; 1072 and 1073; 1132 and 1133; 1232 and 1233; 1268 and 1269: MS. Griffon 1535. Nothing. "Gryffon" is placed in the margin at the left or the right (according as it occurs on the back or the front of the folio) opposite lines 999, 1073, 1133, 1233, 1269. 
1542. 	Nothing. 
(4) 	
Between lines 990 and 991; 1108 and 1109; 1176 and 1177; 1244 and 1245 : MS. Pelicane 1535. Nothing. "Pelycan" is placed in the margin at the left 

or the right of lines 991, 1109, 1177, 1245. 
1542. Nothing. 


(5) 	
Between lines 1284 and 1285: MS. Plowman 1535. Nothing. "Plowma" is placed in the margin at the right 

of line 1285. 
1542. Plowman 


(6) 	
Between lines 1286 and 1287: MS. Pelicane 1535. Nothing. "Pelycan" is placed in the margin at the left of line 1287. 


1542. 	Nothing. "Pelyca." is placed at the beginning of line 1287. 
(7) 	Between lines 1288 and 1289; 1300 and 1301: MS. Ploweman 1535. Nothing. "Plowma" is placed in the margin at the right of line 1289 and at the left of line 1301. 
1542. 	Nothing. "Plowma." is placed at the beginning of lines 1289 and 1301. 
(8) 	
Between lines 1290 and 1291: MS. Pelicane 1535. Nothing. "Pelicau" [sic!] is placed in the margin at the right of line 1291. 

1542. 	Nothing. "Pelican." is placed at the beginning of line 1291. 

(
9) Between lines 1324 and 1325 : MS. pelicane 


1535. Nothing. "Pellycan" is placed in the margin at the left 
of line 1325. 
1545. Pellican 
(Either some lines have been lost here, or these headings are 
a mistake, for no speech of the pelican follows. Skeat omits the 
beading.) 
(10) 	
In the margin at the left of line 1327, the 1535 edition has "Gryffon." This heading does not occur in the MS. or in the 1542 edition, and is probably a mistake, since no speech follows. 

(11) 	
Between lines 1302 and 1303, the MS. has "Pelicane"; the other two versions, however, have attached the word to line 1305, an obvious error which was not corrected till Skeat's edition, although the MS. has the correct arrangement. 

(12) 	
In Part III opposite lines 855 and 856 (on the back of the fifth leaf) in the margin at the left of the right-hand column and three spaces from the top of the page, the MS. has "plow­man/ys" written in the same hand as the rest of the MS. This word has no connection with the text, and I can find no adequate explanation of its occurrence, unless the copyist had intended to use this page for the beginning of the tale (it is placed in the middle of the page) , but abandoned his plan, taking a fresh sheet, but afterwards using this one without erasing what he had already written. 

E. 	
PROBABLE RELATIONSHIP OF THE THREE VERSIONS 


In spite of the number of differences which a collation of these three versions of the Plowman's Tal,e has revealed, the fact remains that there is a very close relationship be­tween them. In the first place, they all have the same num­ber of stanzas and lines (except for the omission of line 1276 in the MS.), and the same grouping of lines into stanzas and stanzas into parts. This uniformity is particu­larly striking in the last twelve lines of the prologue, where, as Skeat points out, four lines have been lost: 
1542: i!They make vs thralles at her lust 
And sayne we mowe nat els be saued 
They haue the corne and we the dust 
Who speaketh thereagayn they say he raued 
ifWhatt man cp our host, canst thou preache 
Come nere and tell vs some holy thynge 
i!Syr quod he, I herde ons teache 
A prest in pulpyt a good preachynge 1fSaye on quod our host, I the beseche. 
1[Syr I am redy at your byddyng 
I praye you that noman me reproehe 
Whyle thatt I am my tale tellynge. 
Since the rhyme scheme for all the stanzas in the prologue is abababab, it is at once evident that four lines have fallen out after "he raued" (line 44), and that the next four lines should be written with the last four. The fact that the MS. copy groups the lines in the same way as the 1535 and 1542 editions16 indicates that all the versions had a common source, in which this error had already been made. The same mistake occurs in all the printed editions except Skeat's. 
Furthermore, we find in the MS. and in all the other versions except Skeat's, the word "Pellican" written above line 1325,11 indicating a speech by that character; but no speech follows : 
1542: Pellican 
He flewe forth wyth bys wynges twayne 
All droupynge, dased, and dull 
But soone the Gryffon came agayne1s 
Of bys foules the earth was full 
The Pellican he had cast to pull 
The relationship between the two printed versions, how­ever, is obviously much closer than the relationship between the MS. and either of them; the evidence leaves little doubt that the 1542 edition was based directly on that of 1535, or on its immediate source. 
That the MS. version was not copied directly from either of the other two copies seems to me strongly indicated by the following facts brought out in this study: 
16Jn the MS. the first column ends after "he raued"; since there is no setting back of lines from the margin in this copy, it is impos­sible to tell whether the scribe meant to end the stanza here. The last fQur lines, however, are set off as a separate stanza just as they are in the other versions, and not with the preceding ones as the rhyme makes it clear that they should be. 
11Jt is placed in the margin opposite the line in the 1535 ed. 
isThe 1535 ed. has "Gryffon." in the margin opposite this line. 
(1) 
There are nearly three times as many differences in spelling between the MS. and the other two versions as there are between any two successive editions of the tale from 1542 to 1606. 

(2) 
There are at least nine passages in which errors in both the printed versions are not found in the MS.; these are not the more obvious typographical errors, but readings which were not corrected, for the most part, until the 1602 edition. In 44 other passages the MS. reading is different from the one found in the other two versions ; but there are only 9 such passages in which the two printed ver­sions differ; in 5 of these the MS. and the 1535 edition have the correct reading; in 2 the MS. and the 1542 edition seem to be incorrect in differing from the 1535 edition; in the remaining one, the line is missing from the 1535 edition. 

(3) 
In 17 lines the MS. has one or more additional words not found in the other versions ; in practically all of these lines the meaning or the meter is improved in the MS. reading. 

(
4) The head lines and end lines marking the divisions between the various parts of the poem are almost identical in the two printed editions, where they are in English; in the MS. they are in Latin. Two of the other headings in the MS. are in Old French; there is nothing in the printed editions to correspond with these lines. Furthermore, the heading "Pelicane" is properly inserted before line 1303 in the M:S., instead of before line 1305, as in both printed versions. 


We must conclude, therefore, that the MS. version of the Plowman's Tale, though bearing a close relationship to the 1535 and 1542 editions, could not have been copied directly from either of them or from any later edition. It must have been copied from some manuscript in existence at the time, and may possibly have been prepared especially for the copy of the 1532 edition of Chaucer's works with which it is now bound. 
THE PECULIAR EXCELLENCE OF WILLIAM 
TINDALE'S TRANSLATION OF 
THE GOSPELS 

BY LOIS WARE 
I 
The excellence of Tindale's translation of the Bible as compared with all preceding translations, has been gener­ally recognized and commented upon by scholars. But hitherto no systematic study other than of his diction has been made to determine in what that excellence consists. For the most part, indeed, the scholars who make any at­tempt to explain the superiority of Tindale's translation to all translations that preceded it, either attribute its excel­lence to their belief that it is taken from the Greek, and not from another translation, or content themselves with the double-edged statement that it is an eclectic transla­tion and the basis of the Authorized Version.1 
With the purpose, then, of discovering, if possible, just what constitutes the superiority of Tindale's translation and why it should have been chosen as the basis of the Authorized Version, as scholars are generally agreed that it was, I have made a statistical study of Tindale's use of the Participle, the Infinitive, and the Subjunctive in the four Gospels, comparing his use with that of Erasmus's Greek and Latin versions of the Gospels and with that of the Vulgate. Moreover, I have compared Tindale's use of 
1For a discussion of the influence of Tindale's diction on that of the Authorized Version, see B. F. Westcott, A General View of the Bible, 1868, revised by the Reverend Aldis Wright, 1905, pp. 133-135, 155­156; R. Demaus, William Tindale, 1871, pp. 131-132; J. H. Gardiner, The Bible as English Literature, 1906, pp. 325-327; W. F. Moulton, The History of the English Bible, Revised Edition, n.d., pp. 70-71; 
A. W. Pollard, The New Testament Translated by William Tindale, 1525, 1926, p. xxi. 
these verbal forms with that in Middle English as repre­sented in Wycliffe's translation of the Gospel of Matthew,2 and I have likewise compared it with that of the Author­ized Version in the Gospel of Matthew. I have also made a study of other stylistic differences between Tindale and Wycliffe as manifested by the Order of Words and the Choice of Connectives (Conjunctions, Pronouns, and Prepo­sitions) ; and in this connection I have taken complete statistics for the first two Gospels by Tindale and Wycliffe and have examined the first Gospel of the Authorized Ver­sion, noting all variations between it and Tindale's transla­tion.8 
II 
One of the most remarkable examples of the difference between Tindale's and Wycliffe's translation is to be found in their treatment of the Absolute Participle, a construc­tion characterized as foreign by Professor Morgan Calla­way, Jr., in his monograph, The Absolute Participle in Anglo-Saxon, 1889, p. 30: "The absolute participle of the Anglo-Saxon was borrowed from the Latin, but it failed to commend itself to our forefathers and never acquired a real hold in the language." In the whole of the four Gospels Tindale has retained only two Absolute Participles (Luke 3.la. b) of the 172 of the Greek, two of the 206 of the Vul­gate, none of the 216 of Erasmus's Latin text. Wycliffe, on the other hand, has translated literally all but two of the 
2For Wycliffe's habit in translating these locutions, I have relied 
upon the statistics given by Miss Erma Gill in her M.A. Thesis, 'The 
Style of John Wycliffe as Exemplified in His Translation of the New 
Testament, The University of Texas, Austin, 1920. 
SThe biblical texts used are as follows: Bosworth and Waring, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Wycliffe, and Tindale Gospels, London, 1907 (carefully compared with Francis Fry, The First New Testament Printed in the English Language, Facsimile Edition, Bristol, 1862) ; 
D. Erasmus, Novum Testamentum (Greek and Latin), Third Edition, Basle, 1522; D. Erasmus, Annotationes ad Novum Testamentum, Basle, 1522; Wordsworth and White, Novum Testamentum Latine, Editio Minor, London, 1920; The Holy Bible (A.V.), London, Samuel Bagster and Sons, n.d. 
sixty-nine Absolute Participles of the Vulgate Matthew. The Authorized Version, like Tindale, has substituted some other construction for all the Absolute Participles occurring in the Gospel of Matthew. Some conception of the distinct gain in ease and naturalness resulting from the wholesale discarding of this construction in the two later versions, may be obtained by a comparison of one or two passages from them and from Wycliffe. 
Mt.9.10:-W.: And it is don, hym sittynge at the mete in the house, loo! many puplicanys and synneful men cummynge saten at the mete with Jhesu = T.: And hit cam to passe, thatt Jesus satt at meate in his housse, and lo! many publicans and synners cam and satt downe also= A.V.: And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him. 
Mt.14.15:-W. : Sothely the evenynge maad, his disciplis camen = T.: When even was come, his disciples cam= A.V.: And when it was evening, his disciples came. 
That this retention by Wycliffe of the Absolute Participle was due to imitation of his foreign model and was not characteristic of his original English works, may be seen from Mrs. Annie Irvine's statement, "The Participle in Wycliffe with Especial Reference to His Original English Works,'' Studies in English, The University of Texas, 1929, pp. 16-17, that the dative absolute expression "occurs only rarely in his original English writings." 
While the distinction between Wycliffe's and Tindale's treatment of the Appositive Participle is not so pronounced as between their translation of the Absolute Participle, Tindale has, nevertheless, shown a great deal more freedom than has Wycliffe. For example, Tindale has rejected some 1180 Appositive Participles of the Greek, over 730 of the Vulgate, and over 600 of Erasmus's Latin version; whereas Wycliffe has translated literally every Appositive Participle of the Vulgate Matthew. The habit of the Authorized Version lies midway between that of Tindale and that of Wycliffe: the Authorized Version having in common with Wycliffe some thirty Appositive Participles which do not occur in Tindale, and nine not found in either Tindale or Wycliffe, but lacking eight found in both Tindale and Wycliffe. The Appositive Participle which Tindale most ruthlessly discards and, paradoxically, which he employs most frequently, is the Co-ordinate Participle, a division of the Appositive Participle which, according to Professor Callaway, The Appositive Participle in Anglo-Saxon, 1901, 
p. 268, is "equivalent to an independent clause and either denotes an accompanying circumstance or repeats the idea of the main verb." This use of the Appositive Participle is, according to Professor Callaway, op. cit., p. 30, of foreign derivation "in both its iterating and its circumstantial use." Again comparing Tindale's version with Wycliffe's and the Authorized Version, we see the gain of Tindale's and the Authorized Version in naturalness: 
Mt.9.10:-W.: loo! many puplicanys and synneful men cummynge saten at the mete with Jhesu = T.: and lo! many publicans and sin­ners cam and satt downe also = A.V.: behold many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him. 
Mt.9.13:-W.: Sothely 3ee goynge lerne what it is= T.: Goo and learne what that meaneth = A.V.: But go ye and learn what that meaneth. 
But, though the Co-ordinate Participle is of foreign deriva­tion, there are times when it is almost indispensable; and so we need feel no surprise at discovering that it is more frequently used by Tindale than any other Appositive Participle. 
Just as striking is Tindale's wholesale discarding of the Appositive Participle denoting Time. Of the 277 Greek Temporal Participles he has retained only nine (all that are found in his translation have a Greek original); of the 136 Vulgate, only seven; of the 80 Erasmian Latin, only eight. In this respect Tindale varies widely from Wycliffe, who uses some 102 Participles expressing Time in the one Gospel Matthew; less widely from the Authorized Version, which has almost as many Temporal Participles (eight, to be exact) in Matthew as Tindale has in all four Gospels. The construction which Tindale regularly substitutes for the Temporal Participle is a Subordinated Finite Verb in a Temporal Clause. Consulting Professor Callaway, op. cit., 
p. 301, we find that "With the exception of a few slightly verbal participles like being, living, and sleeping, the temporal use of the appositive participle, strange as it may seem, can hardly have been a native idiom in Anglo­Saxon." Again we are impressed by the freedom of Tin­dale's translation, by his almost religious adherence to the native idiom and to his avowed purpose of making the Gospel familiar to every ploughboy. 
But, though Tindale has discarded a number of the Ap­positive Participles of his originals, he has a number of Appositive Participles which do not have a direct prototype in the Greek or the Latin. Most of these original Parti­ciples are Preterite Adjectival Appositive Participles oc­curring in a sentence of the type A man named John, where the Latin regularly and the Greek quite frequently have either A man to whom there was the name or A man by name. Wycliffe translates the Latin literally despite the fact that the Preterite Adjectival Participle is of native origin in Anglo-Saxon.4 Occasionally, not often, the Author­ized Version, in agreement with the Vulgate and its origin­als rather than with Tindale, retains the relative clause or the ablative of specification. Some examples of Tindale's original Adjectival Participles are as follows: 
Mt.27.32:-T.: And as they cam out, they founde a man of Cyren, named Simon ='E~epx6µevo1 Be eJpov llv0pw7rOV Kup<Paiov ovoµaT& crlµwva. = 
V. and E.: Exeuntes autem inuenerunt hominem Cyreneum, nomine Simonem =W.: Sothely thei goynge out, founden a man of Syrynen, cummynge fro a toun, Symont by name= A.V.: And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. 
Mt.27.57:-T.: there cam a ryche man off Aramathia, named Joseph 
= fiXIJev llv1Jpw7ros 7rXoucr1or d,..o 'AP•µalJa.las, -ro <SvoµCl 'Iwcr,).P = V.: venit quidam homo dives ab Arimathia, nomi~ Ioseph =E.: venit homo dives ab Arimathiea nomine Ioseph =W.: there came a riche man fro Armathia, Joseph by name= A.V.: there came a rich man of Arimathiea, 1U1117U3d Joseph. 
Briefly, the superiority of Tindale's version to Wycliffe's in the translation of the Participle is most evident in Tin­dale's avoidance of the Absolute Participle (a foreign locu­tion) and Wycliffe's retention of it; in Tindale's discarding, 
•See Professor Callaway, op. cit., p. 229. 
in the majority of cases, the Co-ordinate and the Temporal Participles of his originals and Wycliffe's retention of these; in Tindale's substitution of a number of Preterite Adjectival Appositive Participles for the clumsy relative clause or ablative of specification of his originals and Wycliffe's strict adherence to the syntax of his original. 
III 
The distinctive feature of Tindale's translation of the Infinitive is the fact that he nowhere uses the Predicative Infinitive with Accusative Subject as the Subject of a Verb, although there are some fifty examples of this locution in his originals. These he regularly turns by muste or shall plus an Infinitive used as Predicative Complement or by a Substantival Infinitive in apposition to a noun or a pronoun. That he is following the native bent of the English language in discarding this construction, may be seen from Professor Callaway's statement, The Infinitive in Anglo-Saxon, 1913, 
p. 124: "As is evident from my examples, the use of this idiom [the Predicative Infinitive with Accusative Subject used as the Subject of a Verb] in Anglo-Saxon is due to the influence of Latin originals." How very unnatural this construction is, may be seen from a comparison of Wycliffe's translation with that of Tindale and the Authorized Ver­sion in the following example: 
Mk.13.10-~Bei 7rpw'To11 "'IPVXBii"'" To dia.'Y'Ylh<o11 =T.: And the gospell muste fyrste be ']JUblyssked =V.: primum oportet praedicari eva11r gelium =E.: oportet prius praedicari evangelium =W.: it bihoueth first the gospel for to be preckid =A.V.: And the gospel must first be ']JUblisked. 
It may be well to note that in the Gospel of Matthew the Authorized Version invariably renders this clumsy foreign idiom by the same construction as does Tindale. Further­more, neither Tindale nor the authors of the Authorized Version use the Predicative Infinitive with Accusative Sub­ject as the Object of a Verb of Declaring, although there are scores of examples in their originals and precedents among their English forerunners. Instead, they employ Objective Clauses, and in so doing, conform to the native idiom, as may be seen from Professor Callaway's state­ment, op. cit., p. 208: "With verbs of declaring (cwepan, foresecgan, ondettan, and secgan) the accusative with in­finitive in Anglo-Saxon is clearly due to Latin influence." How awkwardly Wycfiffe, how naturally Tindale and the Authorized Version turn this foreign construction may be seen from the following example : 
Mk.8.27:--rlva µe X£-yovu1v ol 6.v8ponro1 dvc" =V. and E.: Quern me dicunt 688e homiiles = T.: Whom do meii sa,ye that Y am= W.: Whom 8eyn men me for to be= A.V.: Whom do men say that I a;rn? 
The Adjectival Infinitive, the Infinitive modifying a noun or a pronoun, occurs most frequently in Tindale, next most frequently in the Authorized Version, a fact rendered significant by Professor Callaway's statement, op. cit., p. 220, that the Adjectival Infinitive is of "native origin in Anglo-Saxon." A representative example is: 
Mt.9.6:-T.: that the sonne of man bathe power to foryeve synnes=llTI l€ovulctv lxEI ~ vU1s -roii d.v8ptfnrov ••• a.P1£vcu aµa.p-rla.s =V,: quoniam Filius hOminis habet pote8tatem • . . dimittendi peccata (Ger­und) =E.: quod pote8mte(m) habeat filius hominis ... remittendi peccata (Gerund) =W.: that mannes sone hath power to for0eve synnes =A.V.: that the Son of man hath power • •. to forgive sins. 
Another Infinitive which Tindale uses much more fre­quently than does any other of the versions under considera­tion, is the Infinitive of Specification, or Respect Wherein, modifying an adjective. His preference for this idiom con­forms to the genius of the English language. For, consult­ing Professor Callaway, op. cit., p. 217, we find the state­ment: "The inflected infinitive with adjectives seems to be a construction of native origin in Anglo-Saxon." Further­more, that this construction was popular in Middle English writings is shown by Professor Kenyon, The Syntax of the Infinitive in Chaucer, 1909, pp. 45-48, and by Mrs. Irvine, Studies in the Language of John Wycliffe, The University of Texas Diss., Austin, 1929, pp. 233-234. An example of Tindale's use of the Infinitive of Specification is as follows: 
L.23.8 :-T.: for he was desyrous to se hym =./iv "(ap OeXwv lo.<v o.vT6v (obj.) =V.: erat enim cupiens .•. videre (obj.) = E.: Tenebat(ur) enim multo . . . cupiditate videndi illum (Gerund) = 
W.: for he was coveitinge ... to se him (obj.) = A.V.: for he was desirous to see him. 
Summing up briefly, I think that I may say that the dis'­tinctive features of Tindale's translation of the Infinitive are his avoidance of the Infinitive with Accusative Subject as the Subject of a Verb and as the Object of a Verb of Declaring (both foreign constructions) and his introduc­tion of a number of original Adjectival Infinitives and In­finitives of Specification (both native constructions). 
IV 
Similarly, I think that we may say that the character­istic features of Tindale's treatment of the Subjunctive are his invariable rendering of the Adhortative Subjunctive, or the Subjunctive of Exhortation, of his originals by the Im­perative of let plus a Predicative Infinitive with Accusative Subject; his frequent translation of the Jussive Subjunc­tive, or the Subjunctive of Command, by the Imperative of let plus a Predicative Infinitive with Accusative Subject; his frequent use of the Potential Subjunctive where his originals have the Indicative; his restriction of the Sub­junctive in Adjectival Clauses to cases in which doubt or hypothesis is implied; his substitution of the Indicative for every example of the Subjunctive in cum circumstantial clauses in his Latin originals. His advance toward a more modern style in his translation of the Adhortative Subjunc­tive may be seen from the following example: 
Mt.26.46 :-T.: Ryse, lett us be goinge =E"(elpeuOe IJ."(wµev =V. and E .: Surgite eamus = W.: Ryse 3ee, goo we= A.V. : Rise, let us be going. 
Though, in rare instances, Tindale does use the Jussive Subjunctive (four times in the course of the four Gospels), in the vast majority of cases he substitutes some other con­struction for the Jussive Subjunctive of his original. The construction which he most frequently substitutes for the Jussive Subjunctive of the Greek and Erasmus's Latin is the Imperative of the Verb; for the Jussive Subjunctive of the Vulgate, the Imperative of let plus a Predicative In­finitive with Accusative Subject. Representative examples of Tindale's translation of this construction are: 
Mt.24.26',b:-T.: Go not forth ... beleve nott = µr, l.~l>..1J11.-• ••• µ'I, .,,.,o-.-evo-11.-• =V. and E.: nolite exire ... nolite credere (Imper. of nolo plus Pred. Comp. Inf.) =W.: nyle 0e go out ... nyle 0e beleve 
=A.V.: go not forth ... believe it not. 
Mt.27.22:-T.: Lett hym be crucified= o-.-avpw1J1,.-w (Imper.) = V. and E.: Crucifigatur =W.: Be he crucified (Subj.) =A.V.: Let him be crucified. 
Since there is no definitive study of the Adhortative or the Jussive Subjunctive in English, it is impossible for me to say whether or not these two subjunctives are of native origin, but certainly Tindale's translation of them is in line with the later development of our language. 
On the other hand, Tindale uses the Potential Subjunc­tive much more frequently than does any other version, but his Potential Subjunctives have, as a general rule, a sounder logical basis than have the corresponding Indica­tives of the other versions, for four-fifths of his Potential Subjunctives occur in the Apodoses (Conclusions) of Con­ditional Clauses, and four-fifths of these, in turn, are found in the Apodoses of Contrary-to-Fact Conditions. The Eng­lish language, in all periods, and Classical Latin5 use the Subjunctive in such clauses; but the Greek regularly, the Vulgate occasionally, and Erasmus's Latin more rarely use 
8According to Professor C. H. Grandgent, An Introduction to Vul­gar Latin, 1907, later Latin writers are much "less logical" in their use of the Subjunctive than are classical writers. But, in his discus­sion of the encroachment of the Indicative upon the Subjunctive Mood, he does not mention the Subjunctive in Contrary-to-Fact Conditions. Professor Grandgent, op. cit., §117 (2), p. 53, says: "In conditions not contrary to fact, in indirect discourse, and in indirect questions, in dependent clauses that are not adversative nor dubitative, the indica­tive was often substituted for the subjunctive." We can readily see that, after the Indicative had supplanted the Subjunctive in Ideal, or Less-Vivid-Future, Conditions, the next step would be for the Indicative to replace the Subjunctive in Contrary-to-Fact Conditions. 
the Indicative. In most instances Wycliffe and the Author­ized Version, like Tindale, have the Subjunctive. Some examples are: 
Mt.23.30:-T.: Yf we had bene ... we wolde not have bene part­
ners with them = El i]µella ••• oinc ll.v ;Jµella KOLvwvol avTwv (Ind.) = V.: Si fuissemus ... non essemus socii eorum = E.: Si fuissemus . . . non fuissemus socii eorum = W.: 6if we hadden hen ... we shulden nat han be here felowis = A.V.: If we had been ... we would not have been partakers with them. 
Mk.14.21:-T.: Goode were hitt for hym, if that man had never bene borne= ICaAOll ~JI av'Tijj el OVK eye1111fi()11 0 11.vllpW1rOS eKeivos (Ind.) = V.: 
Bonum est ei, Si nonesset natus homo ille (Ind.) = E.: Bonum erat illi, si natus non fuisset homo ille = W.: It were good to him, if that ilke man hadde not be borun = A.V.: good were it for that man if he had never been born. 
Though Tindale makes occasional use of the Subjunctive Mood in Adjectival Clauses, twenty-nine examples occurring in the whole of the four Gospels, of which eleven do not have a direct prototype in any one of his possible sources, he shows a greater disinclination than fondness for this construction, substituting the Indicative for seventy-eight Greek, thirty-five Vulgate, and thirty-seven Erasmian Sub­junctives in Adjectival Clauses. His rendition of so many Greek and Latin Subjunctives in Adjectival Clauses by the Indicative is due, I think, to a difference in attitude toward the Subjunctive on the part of the three languages. Mod­ern English, even as early as Tindale, reserves the Sub­junctive in Adjectival Clauses for sentences in which doubt or hypothesis is implied. On the other hand, the Latin language, according to B. L. Gildersleeve and G. Lodge, Latin Grammar, 1906, §631.2, p. 404, uses the Subjunctive 
Mood in relative clauses of Tendency which have an in­definite or a negatived antecedent. Likewise, according to Professor Goodwin, A Greek Grammar, §§ 1428, 1437, pp. 305, 307, a Greek Relative Clause with an indefinite ante­cedent, has conditional force and follows the rules for con­ditional sentences; that is, if it expresses either a present general condition or a future-more-vivid condition, the verb is in the Subjunctive Mood. Some examples, first, of Tindale's use of the Subjunctive in Relative Clauses are: 
Mt.27.15.:-T.: a presoner whom they wolde chose= lietrµ.10" a,. i!l1eXo" (Ind.) =V. and E.: unum vinctum, quern voluissent. 
J.6.71 :-T: for 1uJ itt was that skulde betraye hym =01hos '"(0.p ijµ.eXXe" a.llTo" npali1li6"a.' (Ind.) plus Pred. Comp. Inf.) = V.: kic enim erat traditurus eum (Ind.) =E.: Hie enim erat proditurus eum 
(Ind.). 
Examples, now, of Tindale's substitution of the Indicative for the Subjunctive are: 
L.8.17•,b :--0Me d7T6icpv4>011 cl oll '"(11w11l1~treTa.1 ica.l els /Pa.vepo11 lX11rJ = T.: 
nether eny thinge hyd, that shall not be knowen, and come to light =V.: nee absconditum, quod non cognoscatur et in palam veniat = E.: nee absconditum, quod non sit cognoscen&u.m, et in propatulam venturum. 
Turning now to his translation of the Subjunctive in "cum circumstantial clauses," which occur by the hundreds in the two Latin versions,6 we find that Tindale invariably, Wycliffe occasionally, and the Authorized Version invari­ably (in the Gospel of Matthew) render this Subjunctive by an Indicative. A representative example is: 
J.21.18•,b:-V. and E.: Cum esses iunior, cingebas te .•.: cum autem senueris extendes (Subjunc. and Ind.) =T.: when thou wast yonge, thou gerdedst thy silfe ... but when thou arte olde =3Te ~s 
Pewnpos lfw""11es 11ea.f/To,, ••• 3Ta.,. lie 'Y'J/PM'Ds (Ind. and Subjunc.) ;; W.: whanne thou were 3ongere, thou girdedist thee . . . sothli whanne thou sckalt we:r:e eldere (Subjunc. and Ind.) =A.V.: When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself ...: but when thou shalt be old. 
That Tindale, in substituting the Indicative for the Sub­junctive in Cum Circumstantial Clauses, is following the native bent of our language, may be seen from Professor Callaway's statement, The Temporal Subjunctive in Old English, 1931, pp. 98-99: 
eA similar use of the Subjunctive in clauses introduced by 3Ta... ia found in the Greek, though with far less frequency than the "cum circumstantial clauses" of the Latin. 
"But the independence of the Old English translators is, perhaps, more decisively shown by the fact that, in far the majority of ex­amples, the Latin circumstantial subjunctive with cum is rendered by an indicative with ponne or pa, a fact not hitherto noted so far as I am aware." 
Professor Callaway also states, op. cit., p. 100, that, accord­ing to Professor E. A. Sonnenschein, The Soul of Grammar, Cambridge, England, 1927, §145 (b), "the construction with the subjunctive was a development of the classical period of Latin literature; and that 'there is no logical justification for the usage of the classical period."' He concludes: "Be the situation in Latin as it may, in hun­dreds of instances the Old English translators use the indicative to translate the subjunctive (imperfect and pluperfect)." 
To sum up, the distinguishing features of Tindale's translation of the Subjunctive are his substitution, in every instance, of some other construction for the Adhortative Subjunctive and the Subjunctive in cum circumstantial clauses of his originals, his infrequent use of the Jussive Subjunctive, his reserving the Subjunctive in Adjectival Clauses for cases in which doubt or hypothesis is implied, his invariable use of the Subjunctive in the Apodoses of Less-Vivid-Future and Contrary-to-Fact Conditions. 
v 
If now we turn from purely syntactical matters to a con­sideration of the essential differences between the Order of Words in Wycliffe's and in Tindale's translations, we shall find that the part of speech which shows most variation in position between the two versions, is the verb. Tindale makes use of verb-inversion much more frequently than does Wycliffe, somewhat more frequently than does the Authorized Version. However, his inversion of the verb is not a matter of chance, but occurs under specified condi­tions: (1) when the verb is preceded by a strong adverbial element, (2) when the clause in which the verb stands is introduced by the expletive there, (3) when the sentence is interrogative, (4) when the sentence is imperative. Ac­cording to Henry Sweet, New English Grammar, 1900, Part II, pp. 12-14, verb-inversion is the normal order in all such types of sentence. That there has been a decided gain in naturalness and in ease in the second and the third groups, may be seen from the following examples from Wycliffe and Tindale : 
Mt.8.30:-W.: Sothely a fioc of many hoggis lesewynge was nat fer from hem= T.: There was a good waye off from them a greate heerd of swyne fedinge = A.V.: And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. 
Mt.7.10:-W.: Other 0if he shal axe a fishe, wher he shal dresse to hym a serpent= T. : Or if he axed fysshe, wolde he proffer hyme a serpent= A.V.: Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 
In the two gospels (Matthew and Mark) I have noted some 125 instances in which the verb has front-position in Tin­dale and end-position in Wycliffe. Of these 125 instances, about seventy-five occur in Matthew. In this connection it is interesting to note that there are only a dozen examples in the Gospel of Matthew in which the Authorized Version is in agreement with Wycliffe and at variance with Tindale. There are, however, about ten more examples in which the Authorized Version has front-position for the verb where Tindale and Wycliffe both have end-position. In several of these instances the difference is due to the fact that the Authorized Version has the present imperative where Tin­dale and Wycliffe have the mandatory shall with the second or third person. 
After the verb the part of speech whose position shows most variation between the two versions, is the adverb. In thirty-six cases Tindale has preferred front-position for the adverb where Wycliffe has reserved it to the end, and, vice versa, in over sixty cases Wycliffe has an adverb in front-position where Tindale has reserved it for mid or end­position. I have noted no difference between the position of adverbial elements in Tindale and the Authorized Ver­sion, though there may be some instances that have es­caped me. In the majority of cases I think that Tindale has improved the sentences in which he has put the ad­verbial element early, and, conversely, I think that he has shown excellent judgment where he has deviated from Wycliffe's order. But, in a few cases, Wycliffe, in giving precedence to time phrases before all other adverbial ele­ments, has shown greater feeling for the native order than has Tindale. Representative examples of Tindale's front­
shifted adverbs are as follows : 
Mt.9.33:-W.: It aperede nevere so in Yrael = T.: It never soo appered in Israhel = A.V.: It was never so seen in Israel. Mk.7.27:-W.: Suffre thou the sones be fulfild first= T.: Lett the chyldren fyrst be feed= A.V.: Let the children first be filled. 
In each of the preceding examples, the adverb has un­doubtedly gained emphasis from its front-position; yet the following typical examples will suffice, I think, to show that, as a rule, Tindale has been wise in preferring end-position to Wycliffe's front-position for adverbial modifiers: 
Mt.19.15:-W.: And whenne he hadde putte to hem hondis = T.: 
And when he had put his hondes on them = A.V.: And he laid his 
hands on them. 
Mt.26.18:-W.: at thee I make paske with my disciplis = T.: I wyll kepe myne ester att thy housse with my disciples= A.V.: I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. 
To restate the main points, we find a striking difference between Tindale's and Wycliffe's Order of Words so far as the position of the verb and the adverb is concerned. Con­trary to expectation, it is Tindale, not Wycliffe, who makes most frequent use of verb-inversion. However, practically all of Tindale's examples of verb-inversion occur in the type of sentence that normally takes the inverted order. Wycliffe, on the other hand, places an adverbial modifier in front or mid-position about twice as often as does 'l'indale. In Tindale this shifting of the adverbial modifier serves to lend greater force to his passages, whereas in Wycliffe the "front-shifted" adverbs detract from the naturalness of his style without adding to its effectiveness. 
VI 
Even more distinctive, it seems to me, than the difference in the Order of Words, is the difference in the Choice of Connectives by the two translators. Wycliffe uses the one connective f orsotke and its variant sothely some 380 times in the course of the first two Gospels. In about 225 in­stances Tindale, rightly, I think, dispenses with any con­nective; in the remaining cases he translates Wycliffe's f orsothe by some twenty different connectives. Some ex­amples are: 
Mt.6.21:-W.: Forsothe wher thi tresour is, there and thin herte 
is= T.: For whearesoever youre treasure ys, there are youre bertes 
also= A.V.: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be 
also. 
Mt.13.17:-W.: Forsothe I saye trewthe to ;sou= T.: Verely Y say 
unto you= A.V.: For fJerily I say unto you. 
No adequate conception, however, of the monotony and, in many cases, the meaninglessness of Wycliffe's connectives as compared with the greater exactness of Tindale's, can be gained without reading several pages of the two. Yet in this connection it is only fair to note that, though the Authorized Version, like Tindale, invariably substitutes some other connective for Wycliffe's forsothe, it is not so independent as Tindale in dispensing with all connectives between the given passages; in fact, I have noted some sixty-five instances in the one Gospel of Matthew where the Authorized Version has preferred to replace Wycliffe's f orsothe by some other connective rather than to follow the example of Tindale and discard the connective.1 Concerning this difference between Tindale and the Authorized Ver­sion, W. F. Moulton, op. cit., p. 73, makes the following 
statement: 
"One characteristic of Tindale's translation strikes the reader at once. No one can read the narrative portions of the Gospels, as pre­sented in our Authorized Version, without remarking the multitude 
7In addition to these connectives corresponding to Wycliffe's for­aothe, I have noticed some thirty-five more connectives in the Authorized Version which have no prototype in Tindale. 
of connecting words. And, but, now, then recur so often that we feel at once that we are reading a translation from some other tongue. The repeated use of a few Greek conjunctions to dovetail together the successive portions of a narrative would have appeared monoto­nous to an Athenian, and is really a peculiarity of the Hebrew lan­guage, naturally reproduced in Greek that was spoken or written by Jews. An idiomatic English translation might efface this feature of the original; a literal rendering seeks to present to the English reader every character of the Greek which can be expressed without danger to the clearness or the force of the sentence. In Tindale's first essay he sacrifices literalness to English idiom and very fre­quently neglects the connecting word." [Moulton makes the statement that there are forty-four omissions of this kind in four chapters, Mt. XVIII-XX!.] 
Personally, I think with Moulton that, as a result of his omission of the connectives, Tindale's style gains natural­ness and rapidity of movement in the narrative passages, and that in this respect it is superior to the Authorized Version. 
Again, Tindale, with a better understanding of his orig­inals than has Wycliffe, regularly translates the particles quod and quia introducing a Substantival Clause in Oratio Obliqua by that, while Wycliffe, apparently mistaking quod and quia for causal rather than substantival connectives, uses for and forwhi. In this particular the habit of the Authorized Version, as might be expected, is the same as that of Tindale. Ecclesiastical Latin, according to the Reverend H.P. V. Nunn, An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin, 1922, pp. 51-54, regularly substitutes quod, quia, and quoniam plus a Substantival Clause in Oratio Obliqua for the classical construction, Predicative Infinitive plus an Accusative Subject. Ordinarily Jerome uses quod, but oc­casionally he uses quia with the Subjunctive. Every time that Jerome employs the latter construction, Erasmus painstakingly explains that his "error" is due to a misun­derstanding of the Greek introductory particle, and that he should have written quod (that) ; so that, in the mind at least of so classical a medievalist as Erasmus, there is a distinction between the uses of the two particles, and we should, in some instances, blame Jerome rather than 
Wycliffe. But, whether the fault lies initially with Jerome or Wycliffe, the use of for to introduce clauses of this type is un-English, and Tindale has made a noteworthy improve­ment in the substitution of that for Wycliffe's for, or even in the occasional omission of the connective, after the habit of colloquial Modern English. Typical examples are: 
Mt.6.29:-W.: Trewly I say to ;;ou, for whi neither Salamon in al his glorie was keverid as oon of thes = T.: And yet for all that I saie unto you, that even Solomon in all his royalte was nott arayed lyke unto one of these= A.V.: And yet I say unto you, That even Solo­mon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 
Mt.13.17:-W.: Forsothe I saye trewthe to ;;ou, for many prophetis and iuste men coveitiden to see= T.: Verely Y say unto you, tkat many prophetes and perfaicte men have desired to se = A.V.: For verily I say unto you, Tkat many prophets and righteous men have desired to see. 
Furthermore, Tindale uniformly discards the interroga­tive particles an and nurn of his Latin originals, and indi­cates the interrogative nature of his sentences by verb­inversion; whereas Wycliffe scrupulously translates an and num by wker and whether, retaining the declarative order 
(subject plus verb). Here again the Authorized Version 
is in accord with Tindale. Representative examples are: 
Mt.5.47:-W.: Whether and paynymmys don nat this thing= T.: 
doo nott the publicans lykewyse = A.V.: do not even the publicans 
so? 
Mt.6.25:-W.: Wher ;;oure lijf is nat more than mete= T.: Ys 
not the lyfe more worth then meate = A.V.: ls not the life more than 
meat? 
Much less awkward in Tindale than in Wycliffe is the adverbial connective denoting measure. Some examples showing the improvement of Tindale on Wycliffe's mode of expression and the advance of Tindale toward a more nat­ural modern idiom, are: 
Mk.2.19:-W.: Hou longe tyrne thei han the spouse with hem, thei mowe nat faste = T.: As longe as they have the brydgrome with them, they cannot faste = A.V.: as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 
Mk.7.36:-W.: forsoth how moche he comaundide to hem, so moche more thei prechiden more= T.: butt the m.ore he forbad them, soo moche the more a greate deale they pubblessed it = A.V.: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it. 
This clumsy construction is comparatively rare in Wycliffe, but the fact that it occurs at all, illustrates admirably the difference between the two translators' methods: the meticulous care of Wycliffe to reproduce the syntax as well as the thought of his original and the equally earnest effort of Tindale to clothe the thought of his originals in appropriate native English dress. 
Finally, Tindale and the Authorized Version regularly substitute a demonstrative or a personal pronoun for the Latin relative pronoun or adjective used as the subject or the modifier of the subject of a principal clause; whereas Wycliffe retains the relative pronoun, usually preceded by the definite article. A few examples will serve to show the force and the naturalness of Tindale's style as compared with Wycliffe's: 
Mt.2.9:-W.: The whiche, when thei hadden herde the kyng, wenten awey = T.: When they had herde the kynge, they departed= A.V.: When they had heard the king, they departed. 
Mt.2.21:-W.: The whiche Joseph, rysynge up, toke the childe = T.: Then he arose up and toke the chylde = A.V.: And he arose and took the young child. 
When we come to a consideration of Wycliffe's and Tin­dale's use of Prepositions, we have an equally striking ex­ample of Tindale's advance toward the modern English mode of expression. Yet any effort to present concretely the difference between Tindale's and Wycliffe's use of prepositions entails far more difficulty than a clear present­ment of the difference between their conjunctions because, for the most part, their prepositions cannot be grouped un­der clearly defined categories, but must be studied individ­ually. Nevertheless, there are a few well-defined categories; so that, disregarding the host of miscellaneous cases, we may say that the chief differences in Wycliffe's and Tindale's use of prepositions lie (1) in the fact that Wycliffe regularly uses the analytic datival object with verbs which translate 
Latin verbs governing the dative case, while Tindale uses an objective without the preposition to; and (2) in the use by Wycliffe of the preposition in to express a variety of meanings, such as with, against, by reason of, while Tin­dale restricts the preposition in to its more narrow modern sense, and strives for greater accuracy in the use of prepo­sitions to express the other relations. Typical examples, first, of the analytical datival object in Wycliffe are: 
Mt.4.10:-W.: and to hym alone thou shalt serve= T.: and hym only shalt thou serve= A.V.: and him only shalt thou serve. 
Mt.8.27:-W.: for the wyndis and the see obeishen to hym = T.: that bothe wyndes and see obey him= A.V.: that even the winds and the sea obey him. 
Examples, now, of Wycliffe's loose use of the preposition in where Tindale has striven for greater exactness of expres­sion, are: 
Mt.22.33 :-W.: wondreden in his teehynge = T.: were astonyed at hys doctrine= A.V.: were astonished at his doctrine. 
Mk.6.3:-W.: And thei weren sclaundrid in him= T.: And they were hurt by the reason of him= A.V.: And they were offended at him. 
From these data I think that we may safely conclude that Tindale's use of Connectives is much closer to the modern idiom than is Wycliffe's. Especially is this the case in his rendering of forsothe and sothely; in his substitution of that for Wycliffe's for and forwhi to introduce Substantival Clauses in Oratio Obliqua; in his discarding of the inter­rogative particles an and num of his originals ( wher and whether in Wycliffe), and reliance on inversion to indicate the interrogative nature of his sentence; in his translation of the adverbial connective denoting measure; in his substi­tution of a personal or demonstrative pronoun for the rela­tive when used as the subject of a principal clause; in his use of a synthetic objective form, not an analytic datival object, after verbs translating a Latin verb which governs the dative; in his limiting the preposition in to its narrower, 
more modern use. 
VII 
To recapitulate, the purpose of this investigation has been to discover, if possible, the secret of the excellence of Tindale's translation of the Gospels, the characteristics dis­tinguishing it from and rendering it superior to that of his most famous English forerunner, John Wycliffe. My re­sults have tended to show, I think, that the chief distin­guishing quality of Tindale's style is its idiomatic nature, its English flavor. In the last analysis, this idiomatic qual­ity may be traced to the fact that Tindale had caught a vision 
(perhaps from Erasmus) of the meaning of translation of which Wycliffe, with his horror of making any changes in Holy Writ, was incapable; to his conception of a trans­lation, not as a punctilious reproduction of the original with all its idiosyncrasies, but as a transference into one's own idiom of the ideas of another language and another age. Consequently, whenever Tindale meets some locution foreign to the genius of the English language, he unhesi­tatingly discards it for some more natural construction. Wycliffe, on the other hand, religiously preserves not only the ideas but, so far as it is possible, the syntax of his original. 
NOTES ON SHAKESPEARE'S MUCH ADO 
BY ROBERT ADGER LAW 
I. The Division of Acts 
For over fifty years now some critics have seriously questioned the correctness of the usual act-division of Much Ado About Nothing, the division made in the First Folio. Spedding in 1877 seems to have been the first to express heresy,1 and he has been followed by the editors of the Old Spelling Shakespeare and by J. C. Smith in the Arden Much Ado.2 Spedding's argument deserves attention. 
First, he asserts belief that the act-divisions of the Folio in several plays were not those made by Shakespeare but were inserted afterward, probably from the prompt copy of a late performance. Specifically, in Much Ado he suspects that Shakespeare intended to place a pause between what we now call Act I, Scene i, and Act I, Scene ii; but not to place any pause between what we know as Act III, Scene v, and Act IV, Scene i. He would, therefore, end Act I after the opening scene, end Act II with the present Act II, Scene ii, and end Act III with the present Act III, Scene iii. The other acts he would end as they now do. His reason for a time-pause between the first two scenes is that he assumes that the conversation overheard by one of An­tonio's men "in a thick-pleached alley in Antonio's orchard," and reported by Antonio at the beginning of Scene ii to his brother, was offstage and between the scenes. Therefore time must elapse to allow for it. This objection is met properly, I think, in the New Cambridge Shakespeare by assuming that the conversation overheard 
1Transactions of the New Shakespeare Society for 1877-79, pp. 20ff. Reprinted in the Furness Varion.im Much Ado. 
2F. W. Clarke, Introduction to the Old Spelling Shakespeare, Much Ado, pp. x-xi. J. C. Smith, Arden Muck Ado (Heath), pp. 87, 148. Throughout this paper I am assuming, despite the arguments of J. Dover Wilson, that Shakespeare intended a five-act division for his plays. 
by Antonio's man was that recorded in Scene i, which took place in Antonio's orchard. On this assumption any reason for setting the close of Act I where Spedding places it disappears. A positive objection to such an arrangement would be that Act I would then consist of a single scene, an arrangement almost unheard of in Shakespeare. 
Spedding's second proposal is, I believe, more rational. He calls attention to the emphasis on haste just before the wedding scene, the preparation made by the bride with her attendants and Leonato's hurried dismissal of Dogberry and Verges when they come to see him on the grounds that "it is a busy time with me," that "you are tedious," that "I must leave you," and that "I am now in great haste." Yet with all this pressure of time the curtain falls for us, indicating a definite pause on the Elizabethan stage, and then another act begins with Leonato's warning of the Friar, "Be brief. Only to the plain form of marriage, and you shall recount their particular duties afterwards." Spedding thinks that Shakespeare intended no interim. 
A reason for the present division has been suggested by Spedding as the desire of some stage manager to re-arrange the stage setting just before the dance scene and just before the church scene in a special presentation, perhaps that before the Princess Elizabeth in 1613. In charge then ap­parently was John Heminge, one of the editors of the First Folio. By that time Shakespeare had probably retired to Stratford-on-Avon. If this be true, he probably did not know of the act-division that Heminge used. 
Personally, I have found for years two more objections 
to the present division of acts. First, the scene where 
Benedick is deceived into the belief that Beatrice is dying 
for love of him is followed immediately by the precisely 
similar scene of Beatrice's being tricked into thinking that 
Benedick has entirely loved her. Yet one of these scenes 
now closes Act II and the other begins Act III, leaving an 
illogical pause between. Again, the climax of the plot is 
undoubtedly the church scene, and one would naturally 
expect that scene to fall into the third act. It now begins 
Act IV. 
To obviate both these difficulties and the one of Spedding that seems reasonable, I would suggest a very simple change affecting every act of the play, but resulting in an arrange­ment that in my humble judgment was intended by Shake­speare when he wrote the play. Let Act I include the first scene of Act II, Act II the first scene of Act III, Act III the first scene of Act IV, and Act IV the first scene of Act V. 
This proposed arrangement would make Act I end with the important scene of the dance at Leonato's house, where Don Pedro woos and wins Hero for Claudio, where Don John conceives and carries out his first plot against Claudio, later to be checkmated by the honesty of Don Pedro, where Benedick is put down by the wit of Beatrice, and the Prince first suggests the conspiracy to make Benedick and Beatrice fall in love. This seems to me the proper ending for the first act. Act II likewise would end with a long and fairly important scene in the springing of the trap for Beatrice and her decision to requite Benedick's supposed love. The whole act would thus consist of conspiracies against indi­viduals, for the opening scene would relate Borachio's plan to trap Claudio, and the second scene, the entrapping of Benedick. All these scenes suggest to my mind the rising action that we expect in the second act. The third act would culminate in the church scene, and all the other four scenes definitely look forward to it. For Scene i, as proposed, presents Don John's approach to Don Pedro and Claudio with the slander of Hero, and immediately Claudio threatens: "If I see anything to-night why I should not marry her to-morrow, in the congregation where I should wed, there will I shame her." Scene ii would follow with the watchman's discovery of the plot and arrest of Borachio and Conrade. Scenes iv and v definitely prepare us for the wedding in Hero's dressing and Leonato's refusing to stay and listen to the important news of Dogberry. Act IV would likewise contain the falling action in the Sexton's examination of the villains and later Claudio's receipt of the news of their confession. Then Act V would be con­cerned with Benedick's actual courtship of Beatrice, 
Claudio's visit to Hero's supposed tomb, and the final wedding scene, where Claudio discovers his lost Hero still alive, and Benedick and Beatrice learn of the conspiracy against them but will not change their decision to marry. 
The modification proposed would leave one more scene in Act I than we now have, four in all, and would put one less scene in Act V than we now have, three as revised. Every other act would contain exactly the number of scenes it now has, and the number of lines would remain almost the same. I think it could be easily shown that the balance of a longer first act and a shorter fifth act is in accord with Shakespeare's usual practice. Certainly, as a rule he likes to end his acts with long and important scenes. I have found few acts closing with scenes of less than one hundred lines.8 
II. Its Resemblance to Romeo and Juliet 
General resemblances between Much Ado and Romeo and Juliet are often noted, and not a few parallel lines have been cited, for example, in Professor Newcomer's edition of the Much Ado. But if I mistake not, there has been little dicussion of the meaning of these parallels in wording or in situation. A few words on this subject may not be out of place here. 
8In confirmation of statements that the first act should contain more than one scene, and that the last scene of an act is, as a rule, more than one hundred lines in length, the following figures concern­ing the number of scenes in each act of plays written near the date of Muck Ado and the number of lines in the final scene of each act, 
are offered:  
Tw.N.  A.Y.L.  Hen. V.  T.of S.  Jul. Caes.  Ham.  
Act  I II III IV v  v. 330 v. 228 iv. 433 iii. 34 i. 417  iii. 140 vii. 200 v. 139 iii. 184 iv. 204  ii. 310 iv. 146 vii. 169 viii. 131 ii. 402  ii. 282 i. 413 ii. 254 v. 79 ii. 189  iii. 164 iv. 46 iii. 44 iii. 309 v. 81  v. 191 ii. 634 iv. 217 vii. 195 ii. 414  

Julius Caesar in the length of its final scenes provides the exception that proves the rule. Structurally, it has never been a satisfactory play. 
Leonato's anxiety to have his daughter marry either Don Pedro or Claudio, if either offers to marry her, is paral­lelled by Capulet's anxiety to have Juliet marry Paris in the earlier play. This paternal attitude is most clearly brought out when the father's plan is thwarted, as he believes in each case, by the daughter's behavior. 
Le01UJ,to. Griev'd I, I had but one? 
Chid I for that at frugal nature's frame? 
0 ! one too much by thee. Why had I one? ... 
But mine, and mine I lov'd, and mine I prais'd, 
And mine that I was proud on, mine so much 
That I myself was to myself not mine. (IV. i. 1291f.) 
Capulet. "Proud," and "I thank you," and "I thank you not"; 
And yet "not proud"; mistress minion, you, 
Thank me no thankings, nor proud me no prouds.... 
My fingers itch-Wife, we scarce thought us bless'd 
That God had lent us but this only child; 
But now I see this one is one too much, 
And that we have a curse in having her.... 
An you be mine, I'll give you to my friend; 
An you be not, hang, beg, starve, die in the streets, 
For, by my soul, I'll ne'er acknowledge thee, 
Nor what is mine shall never do thee good. (III. v. 151-3, 
165-8, 193-6.) 
Other apparent echoes of the Romeo occur in the same scene of Much Ado. Benedick asks Beatrice: "Lady, were you her bedfellow last night?" Beatrice replies : 
No, truly not; although until last night, 
I have this twelvemonth been her bedfellow. (II. 150-1.) 

So in Romeo the Friar tells Juliet : "Let not thy nurse lie with thee in thy chamber" (IV. i. 92). Carrying out his instruction, Juliet begs the nurse, "I pray thee, leave me to myself to-night" (IV. iii. 2). But the most important echo, it seems to me, is the role played by the Friar in this scene, a rOle not hinted at in the Bandello story that is believed to be the source of Much Ado. The Friar is the one that takes charge of the situation when no one else seems to know what to do, just as he does in Romeo and JUliet amidst all the excitement of Juliet's supposed death. He is the one to suggest the trick of announcing Hero's death, main­taining "a mourning ostentation," and hanging epitaphs 
Studies in English 
on the family monument for the supposed bereavement just as he does in Romeo when Juliet is supposed to die. 
But these are not the only echoes of the older play. As soon as Leonato hears the report of Don Pedro's love for his daughter Hero, he exclaims : "I will acquaint my daugh­ter withal. ... Go you and tell her of it" (I. ii. 22-5). As soon as Capulet hears of Paris's desire for immediate mar­riage to Juliet, he exclaims: "Wife, go you to her.... Acquaint her here of my son Paris' love" (III. iv. 15-16). So Borachio, describing Margaret's behavior to him, tells Conrade, "She leans me out at her mistress' chamber­window, bids me a thousand times good night" (III. iii. 157-8). Juliet leaning out at her own window tells her lover, "A thousand times good night" (II. ii. 156). Don Pedro, when he learns of Hero's supposed disloyalty, ex­claims, "O day untowardly turned!" (III. ii. 134). This recalls the Nurse's cry on discovering the body of Juliet apparently lifeless, "O lamentable day" (IV. v. 29). Both mean that the day set for the wedding of the heroine turns out a day of sorrow. 
Perhaps a more striking parallel passage is in the scene where Hero is dressing for her wedding and getting the advice of her attendants as to what she shall wear, as Juliet gets advice from the Nurse. At the end of the scene Ursula enters: 
Ursula. Madam, withdraw; the prince, the court, Signior Benedick, Don John, and all the gallants of the town are come to fetch you to church. 
Hero. Help to dress me, good coz, good Meg, good Ursula. (III. iv. 95--99.) 
In Romeo and Juliet, at the end of Act IV, Scene iv, Paris and his friends come to take the bride to church, and Capu­let cries: 
Go waken Juliet, go and trim her up; 
I'll go and chat with Paris. Hie, make haste, 
Make haste; the bridegroom he is come already; 
Make haste, I say. (IV. iv. 23-26.) 

Finally, so far as verbal parallels go, Antonio's attempts to comfort his brother Leonato in trouble succeed about as well as do the Friar's to comfort Romeo. Leonato wails: 
Bring me a father that so lov'd his child, 
Whose joy of her is overwhelm'd like mine, 
And bid him speak of patience; 
Measure his woe the length and breadth of mine. (V. i. 8-11.) 

Romeo uses similar argument: 
Wert thou as young as I, Juliet thy love, 
An hour but married, Tybalt murdered, 
Doting like me, and like me banished, 
Then might'st thou speak, then might'st thou tear thy hair, 
And fall upon the ground, as I do now, 
Taking the measure of an unmade grave. (III. iii. 65-70.) 

Leonato observes: 
There was never yet philosopher 
That could endure the toothache patiently. (II. 35-6.) 

Romeo is content to say, "Hang up philosophy" (I. 57.) Leonato declares : 
Brother, men Can counsel and speak comfort to that grief Which they themselves not feel; but, tasting it Their counsel turns to passion. (II. 20-3.) 
Romeo tells the Friar, "Thou canst not speak of that thou dost not feel" (I. 64). 
Now the verbal parallels in themselves would not sur­prise us, possibly. What is noticeable is that they are used at the very points where the situation in one play aP­proaches closest to a situation in the other. At such points Shakespeare's memory of the earlier play appears to bring to his mind, not the exact words, but the ideas that he has previously used, and so he repeats his previous thought. None of these parallels, it will be noticed, concern the Bene­dick-Beatrice plot, but all have to do with the Claudio-Hero plot. 
Up to this time I have not mentioned two other pairs of scenes in the two plays which closely correspond. Those that I shall discuss first are Act V, Scene iii in each play. In Much Ado Claudio comes to the supposed tomb of Hero, the lady he was to marry, who, he thinks, died on her wedding day. So in Romeo Paris comes to the supposed tomb of Juliet, the lady he was to marry, who, he thinks, died on her wedding day. Claudio reads from a scroll a tribute to his love, hears a song, and then promises, "Yearly will I do this rite" (l. 22). Paris brings flowers and promises: 
The obsequies that I for thee will keep 
Nightly shall be to strew thy grave and weep. (II. 16-7.) 

In each scene there is mention of a torch, which is ex­tinguished. 
Here, however, Shakespeare is not building a scene up from what he had previously composed. The story of the contrite lover visiting the supposed tomb of his slandered lady-love and addressing a song to her memory comes directly from Bandello's story of the unfortunate Fenicia. On the other hand, there is no mention in Brooke's Romeus and Juliet of a visit by Paris to the tomb of Juliet. We must believe, therefore, if I am not mistaken, that Shakespeare lifted the scene of Paris from Bandello. 
The second pair of scenes that I have in mind are those describing in Much Ado the masked ball at Leonato's home 
(II. i.) and in Romeo and Juliet the masked ball at Capulet's home (i. v.). In each scene we begin with some light talk between members of the household as to the expected guests, then the maskers enter and are duly welcomed, and the dance begins, the revelers are uncertain as to their respective partners but love-making ensues, the guests depart, there is further conversation amid the household party, and the scene ends. This might be a picture of any masked ball except for one motif common to both. In each case the host definitely expects his daughter to receive from one of the guests an offer of his hand in marriage, and he has definitely suggested her acceptance of the offer. In each case an entirely different man's hand is offered and she accepts him. Of course, Leonato is more easily pleased 
Notes on Shakespeare's "Much Ado" 
than is Capulet and readily adjusts himself to the unex­pected paternal relations, but that is owing to a radical difference in the two plots. Essentially, it seems to me, the scenarios so closely resemble each other that Shake­speare must have been reminded of one in composing the other scene. 
In one other play of Shakespeare is another scene closely resembling the one in Much Ado just discussed. I refer to that in Love's Labour's Lost (V. ii), where the Princess of France and her household are talking together casually when they are informed that all their respective lovers are coming to them disguised as Muscovites, as Boyet has learned by overhearing their plans "in a neighbor thicket by." The ladies determine to outwit their gentlemen friends by disguising and mocking them. Each lady then pretends that she is some one else, just as Don Pedro disguises as Claudio, Antonio denies his name, and Claudio claims to be Benedick in the Much Ado. Several verbal echoes in the Romeo scene point to Shakespeare's recollection of the Love's Labour's Lost when he wrote the Romeo/ but that does not just now concern us. What I would bring out is that Shakespeare is repeating many of the same ideas and some of the same words that he used in the previous scene. The words are not so prominent as the similar ideas occur­ring in similar situations. 
What all this means, I take it, is that Shakespeare in this comedy is repeating himself to an extent that is remarkable. A general resemblance between the plots of the two plays, especially in the function played by the father in each case, allowed him to build up at least three scenes from old 
'For example: Romeo, I. v. 20-1, "Which of you all will now deny to dance?" L. L. L., ii. 228, "If you deny to dance, let's bold more chat." 
Romeo, I. 49, "Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!" L. L. L., 
II. 158-9, "All hail, the richest beauties on the earth! Beauties no 
richer 	than rich taffeta." Romeo, I. 25, "A whispering tale in a fair lady's ear." L. L. L., 
l. 436, "What did you whisper in your lady's ear?" 
Studies in English 
material. One suspects that he had been revising Romeo and possibly Love's Labour's Lost about the time that he composed Much Ado. At any rate it is easy to see the repe­tition of situation in the amazing number of overheard conversations and the duplicating of Act II, Scene iii, by Act III, Scene i. Seemingly he was satisfied to polish the dialogue in this play, to create the characters of Beatrice, Benedick, and Dogberry, and then let it go with a few theatrical situations like the wedding scene. How well the plan succeeded the stage history of the play bears witness. 
A NOTE ON SHAKESPEARE AND BACON 
BY DAVID LEE CLARK 
When in 1603-5 Francis Bacon was composing The Ad­vancement of Learning, he wrote at some length on the nature of the supreme good, of virtue, of pleasure, of felic­ity. The highest good is therein identified with the felicity that grows out of public service. "There is formed," Ba­con says, "in every thing a double nature of good : the one, as everything is a total or substantive in itself; the other, as it is a part or member of a greater body; whereof the latter is in degree the greater and worthier.... This double nature of good, and the comparative thereof, is much en­graven upon man, if he degenerate not: unto whom the conservation of duty to the public ought to be much more precious than the conservation of life and being. 
"This being set down and strongly planted, doth judge and determine most of the controversies wherein moral philosophy is conversant. For the first, it decideth the question touching the preferment of the contemplative or active life, and decideth it against Aristotle." 
Again Bacon asserts-and this is the particular passage that interests us-that this double nature of good "decideth also controversies between Zeno and Socrates, and their schools and successions, on the one side, who placed felicity in virtue simply or attended, the actions and the exercises whereof do chiefly embrace and concern society; and on the other side, the Cyrenaics and Epicureans, who placed it in pleasure and made virtue, (as it is used in some comedies of Errors, wherein the mistress and the maid change habits), to be but as a servant, without which pleasure cannot be served and attended, and the reformed school of the Epicureans, which placed it in serenity of mind and freedom from perturbation.... "1 
lTke Advancement of Learning, Everyman's Edition, pp. 154-157. 
It is the parenthetical remark, in the last paragraph, that arrests our attention. The philosopher is here clearly condemning the ethics of romantic comedy in general in the time of Shakespeare, and in particular the poet's ideas of virtue and happiness. The specific mention of the title of one of Shakespeare's popular plays hardly leaves any doubt as to the target at which Bacon is aiming his dart. 
Indeed there can be no question that Bacon was familiar with The Comedy of Errors, for he was certainly present at the Christmas Revels at Gray's Inn in 1594, when this particular play was performed. An account of this per­formance was given by Henry Helmes in the Gesta Gray­orum.2 "After their [the Lord Ambassador and the Templarians] departure," the author writes, "the throng and tumult did somewhat cease, although so much of them continued, as was able to disorder and confound any good inventions whatsoever. In regard whereof as also for that the Sports intended were especially for the gracing of the Templarians, it was thought good not to off er anything of account, saving Dancing and Revelling with Gentle­
women; and after such Sports, A Comedy of Errors (like to Plautus his Menechmus) was played by the players. So that night was begun, and continued to the end, in nothing but confusion and Errors; whereupon, it was ever after­wards called, The Night of Errors." According to the same account3 Bacon was present and delivered an oration or orations. Perhaps Bacon's adverse opinion of the young dramatist was formed then and there, and by 1603 had matured into a sober conviction. 
An examination of the stage history of Shakespeare's early comedies will reveal that at least three of the comedies were very popular with the theatre-goers of London at the 
2Gesta Grayorum, p. 22. This document was first published in 1688. 
3Gesta Grayorum, p. vi. See also James Spedding, Letters and Life of Francis Bacon (1865), I, 325. The Northumbrian Manuscript of Bacon's Works, also, has in the index an item entitled "Orations at Graies Inne reuells." 
time that Bacon was writing The Advancement of Lea~ ing. These were The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, and Much Ado About Nothing. 
The Comedy of Errors was a favorite play with the various inns of court and with the royal family. The members of Gray's Inn, a society of young lawyers, had made arrangements with Shakespeare's company for the performance of the play, as we have seen, during the Christ­mas Revels, 1594. The play was actually presented on Holy Innocents' Day, December 28, 1594. Just ten years later when Bacon and the opponents of the Essex party were triumphant, Bacon's moral sensibilities were perhaps shocked or his animosities aroused by the fact that two of Shakespeare's plays, The Comedy of Errors and Love's Labour's Lost, had been chosen to be performed before King James I at Whitehall on Holy Innocents' Night, 1604.4 This was indeed an honor paid to an adherent of a rival faction, for it was customary on this annual occasion to select the play or plays which during the preceding year had been the stage favorites. As the philosopher was at this very time writing out his observations on morals, vir­tue, and happiness, it was only natural, perhaps by way of warning to the new king and others in power, of the evil influences of this sort of dallying with the serious concerns of life, and particularly of the bad effects of the Renaissance learning-a mere extension and superficial development of the thought of the Middle Ages, with Aristotle as the guid­ing spirit. Bacon was a grave and practical sort of man, scorning the lighter side of life. But in his severe attitude toward life, it should be observed that Bacon was but voicing the marked change in moral judgments which char­acterized the early years of the new reign. The joyous gayety of Elizabeth's court was giving way to grave and sober speculations upon life here and the hope of reward hereafter. Bacon's condemnation of the Epicurean ethics 
•Chambers, E. K., William Shakespeare, A Study of Facts and Problems, II, 321, 1930. 
in contemporary comedy was, then, in part inspired by a genuine feeling of its speciousness, as well as by his per­sonal animosity toward the great dramatist. 
It must be admitted that Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors will hardly answer all the strictures the philosopher made upon it. The mistress and the maid do not change habits, although virtue may be construed to play therein a lowly part. What other play or plays, then, did Bacon have in mind? We have seen that one of the two plays presented at Whitehall, 1604, was Love's Labour's Lost. Now as a matter of fact this play answers admirably to Bacon's strictures. Of all Shakespeare's plays, it deals most directly with the superficial side of Renaissance life; puns, conceits, court gossip, courtly love, true and false learning, attitude toward women, and the playful accept­ance of joyous living here and now, all find special prominence in the play. But this play answers more spe­cifically one important criticism of the philosopher. In scene ii of Act V, the mistress and the maid actually change habits. This is perhaps the scene which Bacon had in mind when he wrote that particular phrase. Another play of Shakespeare frequently seen on the boards when Bacon was composing his Advancement was Much Ado About Nothing. In it the mistress and the maid "change" habits, and virtue becomes but a serving maid. Hero's treatment, of itself, was sufficient grounds for Bacon's attack. As these three plays were in the public eye during the time that Bacon was writing The Advancement, it is quite likely that he seized the occasion to satisfy his vindictive spirit against a rival for popular favor. 
In this connection it is significant to note that in 1622, when Bacon rewrote The Advancement of Learning and translated it into Latin as De Augmentis Scientiarum, he omitted the accusing word-the word Errors. The paren­thesis there reads "as it is used in some comedies, wherein the mistress and the maid change habits." But why this omission? When in 1622 Bacon had been sobered by the great calamity that had befallen him, and when the poet was no longer among the living, there was little reason to retain in the rewritten passage a cutting remark-a remark that had ceased to make a contemporary appeal. 
I call attention to this passage because I nowhere find mention of it in the rather large body of literature dealing with Shakespeare and Bacon. I draw no conclusion from the reference, and make no claim that the criticism is aimed solely at Shakespeare, but the words comedies of Errors and the concatenation of political events and personal cir­cumstances are too significant to pass by unnoticed. 
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE MEDAL OF JOHN BAYES 
BY D. M. MCKEITHAN 
Since Malone attributed The Medal of John Bayes to Shadwell in 1800 on the strength of an inscription by Lut­trell, nearly all students of the Restoration have followed his example. But within comparatively recent years sev­eral English scholars have demurred, pointing to the lack of evidence. More recently still, Montague Summers, the editor of Shadwell's complete works, and Professor A. S. Borgman, Shadwell's biographer, have contended for Shad­well's authorship. Thus The Medal of John Bayes has been attributed to Shadwell, denied to him, and later re­attributed to him.1 The ensuing parallel passages, not 
1This scurrilous attack on Dryden was published anonymously in May, 1682, in reply to Dryden's The Medal, which had appeared in March of the same year. The Medal of John Bayes is prefaced by an eight-page epistle to the Tories, which abuses the Tories in general and Dryden in particular. The satire proper repeats and multiplies all the charges against the laureate. 
The only contemporary testimony that we have concerning its authorship is the following note, which Narcissus Luttrell wrote on the title-page of his copy, now in the Dyce Library: 
"64• By Thomas Shadwell. Agt Mr. Dryden very severe 15 May." (See G. Thorn-Drury's "Some Notes on Dryden: vi. Dryden and Shad­well," Review of English Studies, I, 190.) 
Over a century later Edmund Malone also attributed the satire to Shadwell (Critical and Miscellaneous Prose Works of John Dryden, London, 1800, I, pt. 1, 165). and this opinion remained traditional until a decade ago, when Montague Summers wrote (in The Year's Work in English Studies for 1920-21, II, 119): 
"It is true that a number of superficial writers have in gregarious fashion attributed The Medal of John Bayes to Shadwell, but there is not a tittle of real evidence to burden him with the authorship of the foul rough rhymes...." In 1925 the late G. Thorn-Drury con­tended (op. cit., p. 191) that "[Luttrell's] inscription is, in fact, the ground, and the only ground, for heaping upon Shadwell the disgrace of this scurrilous production." 
In the same year David Nichol Smith also appeared among Shad­
well's defenders with this statement (in his Dryden: Poetry & Prose 
previously adduced, add confirmation to the inferences that Shadwell was the author. Almost as close a parallel as that cited by Professor Borgman is this : 
With. Essays by Congreve, Johnson, Sc.ott and others, Oxford, 1925, 
p. 	189): "There is no evidence that The Medal of John Bayes was written by Shadwell. Malone attributed it to him only on the strength of a manuscript note by Luttrell. In no account of Shadwell written by his contemporaries, or during the whole of the eighteenth century, is this poem mentioned or alluded to; and no support for attributing it to Shadwell is to be found in his reply to Dryden in the Preface to his translation of 'The Tenth. Satire of Juvenal, 1687." Two years later Shadwell came into his own when there appeared The Complete Works of Thomas Shadwell, edited with Introduction and Notes by Montague Summers, The Fortune Press, London, 1927. Mr. Summers discusses The Medal of John Bayes at some length (I, clxxxi-clxxxiv), and, retreating from his former position, but with­out referring to his earlier statement, sums up his conclusions thus (I, clxxxiv) : "To sum up the matter, in my opinion Shadwell was certainly the author of these three virulent satires, The Medal of John Bayes, The Satyr to His Muse, and The Tory Poets, and so far from Dryden's Mac Flecknoe having been provoked by the first of these, as some writers seem to think, it is more correct to assume that the three satires were provoked by Mac Flecknoe, and that Dryden's answer to this torrent of abuse may be found in the second part of Absalom and Achitophel." Almost simultaneously with Summers' edition there was published on this side of the Atlantic a study of Shadwell by Professor A. S. Borgman ('Thomas Shadwell: His Life and Comedies, The New York University Press, 1928). As a part of the evidence which he presents (pp. 59-62) to show that Shadwell wrote The Medal of John Bayes he cites (p. 60n.) the parallel between "indeed he gives his own dullness a civiller term, and calls it being Saturnine" (preface to tenth satire) and "For thou are Saturnine, thou dost confess; A civil word thy Dulness to express" (Medal of John Bayes, p. 3). The argument in favor of Shadwell's authorship may be briefly indicated: (a) Luttrell, a contemporary, assigned it to Shadwell, and he may have had good reasons for doing so; (b) the style and content are in keeping with Shadwell's known work and his character; (c) 
Dryden's MacFlecknoe had already been circulated in manuscript when The Medal of John Bayes appeared (see G. Thom-Drury, op. 
"Sparing the Persons, this [true " ..• Yet [Jonson] only lash'd Satyr] does tax the Crimes, the Errors of the Times, Gall's not great Men, but And ne'er expos'd the Persons, Vices of the Times..•." but the Crimes...•" ('.The Medal of John Bayes,p.2.) (Epilogue to The Humourists.)2 
It is probable that the author of the passage just quoted from The Medal of John Bayes had in mind these lines from one of the prologues to The Silent Woman: 
"And still't hath been the praise of all best times, So persons were not touch'd, to tax the Crimes."s 
It was like Shadwell to imitate Ben Jonson, whom he re­peatedly praises above all other poets and dramatists. 
In the dedication to The Virtuoso Shadwell launches a bitter attack on contemporary drama, which he says lacks humour and is bad farce intended for comedy. The same charge is made against Dryden in the following parallel : 
"No Cornick Scene, or humour "Had he [Dryden] staid till he hast thou wrought. . . ." had supplied the Stage with 
(The Medal of John Bayes, p. 5.) 	more new humour then I have done, or till he had written a better Comedy th e n Epsom Wells, or the Virtuoso • •••" 
(Dedicatory epistle to The Tenth Satyr of Juvenal.) 4 
Shadwell often accuses Dryden of plagiarism. The epi­logue to The Squire of Alsatia contains a contemptuous reference to the heroic plays, which Shadwell says are "stoll'n from the silly Authors of Romances." In the dedi­cation to The Tenth Satyr of Juvenal Shadwell insinuates 
cit., p. 190); (d) no claim has been made for another author; (e) certain parallel passages indicated that Shadwell was the author. All quotations from the epistle and the satire that follow are from the first edition. 
2Edition of 1720, I, [p. 213]. All quotations from Shadwell, except when otherwise stated, are from this edition. Henceforth references will be given merely by volume and page. I do not at the present time have access to Summers' edition. 
8The Complete Plays of Ben Jonson, with Introduction by Felix E. Schelling, Everyman's Library, I, 490. 4First edition, [sig. A3 recto]. 
that Dryden's plays are "taken from a Novel, or stollen from a Romance." In the "Epistle of the Tories" we read : 
"Whoever bas been conversant with Spanish,, Italian, French, and Classick Authors, will find all that's tollerably good in him [Dryden] in some of those. . . ."1 
And The Medal of John Bayes says: 
"Were from thy Works cull'd out what thou'st purloin'd, Even D-fey would excel what's left behind...• A servile Imitator and a Tki,ef. 
All written Wit thou seizest on as prize.•.."e 
The same theme is found in this parallel: 
"No Piece did ever from thy self " • . . Who all to Novels or Ro­
begin; mances owe, 
Thou can'st no web, from thine And from whose Native Springs 
own bowels, spin. • . . nought e'er did flow." 
How little owe we to you Native (Pro 1o g u e to The Amorous 
store... . " Bigot.) 1 
(The Medal of John Bayes, pp. 
5-6.) 

The Medal of John Bayes contains high praise of the Duke of Monmouth. To the same Duke of Monmouth is dedicated Shadwell's Psyche. This fact within itself signi­fies nothing, since Dryden and other Restoration writers praise the Duke of Monmouth. But both in the satire and in the dedication to Psyche are stressed Monmouth's per­sonal charm, mental strength, his early achievement of military glory, his gentleness to his friends, his bravery, his fierceness toward enemies, and the impossibility of ex­pressing his virtues. In some of the passages to follow may be detected verbal parallels in addition to the more obvious identity of ideas. 
&Sig. Al verso. 
epp. 5-6. 
TIV, [p. 222]. 
From The Medal of John Bayes: "Early in Arms h i s glorious course began, Which never Heroe yet so swiftly ran. . . . How much thou outdidst Man, when little more than Boy. . And ne're was greater Heroe than he's now.•.."s 
" ... Great in his Mind, and charming in his Face, Who conquers Hearts, with unaffected Grace.... His Strength and Beauty so united are. . . . "10 " . Gentle as billing Doves, as angry Lions fierce .... So good and so diffusive is his Mind, So loving to, and lov'd by Humane kind, He was for vast and general good design'd. In's height of Greatness he all eyes did glad, And never Man departed from him sad. Sweet and obliging, easie of access, Wise in his Judging, courteous in address."12 "His mighty Vertues are too large for Verse. • "H 
BPp. 11-12. 
Bii, (pp. 5-6)• 
lOPp. 10-11. 
11u, [p. 6]. 
12Pp. 10-12. 
1su, [p. 6]. 
14P. 10. 
uu, [p. 6]. 

From the epistle dedicatory to 
Psyche: 
" ... Who by your early and un­imitable Example . . . are the greatest Patron of Arms..•. Maestricht ... will be remem­bred by the greatest Action in the World, done there by the g re a t e s t and the earliest Hero...."9 
"One, who is . . . happy above Measure in the Goods of Mind, the Perfections of Body, and the greatest Splendour and Orna­ments of Fortune...."11 
" . . . Who is equally valiant against his Enemies, and courte­ous to his Friends; whose bound­less Courage is always ready to vanquish the one, and whose Princely Generosity is always ready to oblige the other; . • . who for all his Fierceness of Courage, has yet that Gentle­ness to Mankind, that he thinks that Day lost, in which he does not oblige.... He ... is not only free from every Man's Envy, but has his Love."1s 
" ... Those [Heroick Actions] are too great for an Epistle Dedicatory..••a 
It is significant that the parallels quoted from The Humourists and Psyche, published in 1671 and 1675, re­spectively, appeared before The Medal, of John Bayes, while those from the dedicatory epistle to The Tenth Satire of Juve1Wl, and The Amorous Bigot, 1687 and 1690, appeared later. Therefore, since The Medal, of John Bayes echoes Shadwell's earlier works, and Shadwell's later works echo The Medal, of John Bayes, it is reasonable to infer that Shadwell wrote The Medal, of John Bayes. 
AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ADAPTATION 
OF SHAKESPEARE 

BY POWELL STEWART 
By six o'clock on the evening of February 28, 1737,1 coaches and chairs were crowding one another in narrow Drury Lane. Most of them deposited their human burdens before the stone arches of the entrance to the Theatre Royal, where The Universal Passion was to be presented for the first time. There seemed to be more bustle and activity than usual, but a thinking observer might easily have re­membered that but few weeks would pass before all per­formances would be suspended out of respect for Holy Week, little more than a month off. He would have also decided that a play by the Reverend James Miller was sure to attract a London populace. Miller's other plays, three in number, had been well liked and enthusiastically sup­ported. True, his first, The Humours of Oxford, had been acted only seven times since its opening ;2 but The Mother­in-Law had enjoyed a run of eighteen nights at its first performance,s and had been revived for a third time in November of the preceding winter;" while The Man of 
Taste had been acted some thirty times after its opening.' 
That the first night audience of The Universal Passion was not disappointed in its expectations is clear, I think, from the success the play enjoyed. Genest records that on its initial run it was "acted 9 times,"6 that on March 24 it was given as a benefit for "Cibber Jun.,"7 and that four years later Mrs. Clive chose it for her benefit.8 Baker 
tGenest, Tke English Stage, III, p. 493. 
1January 9, 1730. (Ibid., pp. 250-252.) 

•February 12, 1734. (Ibid., p. 419.) 
"/bid., p. 491. 
DMarch 6, 1735. (Ibid., p. 449.) 
6/bid., p. 493. 
1Ibid., p. 496. 
&March 17, 1741. (Ibid., p. 629.) 

stated that the play had "good success" ;9 the authors of Biographia Dramatica, in enlarging and correcting Baker's work, included his statement without change.10 
In spite of its popularity on the stage, The Univers<il Passion seems to have had but one edition.11 The exact date is not given by commentators,1 2 but the reverse of the title­page bears the following words : 
"March 17, 1736. Next Week will be Published. . . . " It is, I believe, safe to say that the play was published on March 17, less than three weeks after its first performance. 
The Universal Passion had no sooner been presented than it was recognized as an adaptation rather than an original play. Indeed, on the opening night Miller himself gave away the secret by these lines of the prologue, spoken by Mr. Cibber: 
"To see the Reign of Farce and Dulness end, 
And Albion's noble Fair to Shakespear's Sense attend. 
'TwGB this gave Birth to our attempt to-night, 
Fond to bring more of his rich Scenes to U.ght." 
Miller knew better than to attempt to palm off as his own Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing; but his high church conscience was apparently a pragmatic one, for although he stated truth, he did not give the whole truth. He evidently thought that his other source for the play, La Princesse D' Elide of Moliere, was so little known as to pass for his own invention, for of his indebtedness to it he gave no intimation. But that there were wide-awake and well-read minds among his audience is proved by the 
9A Companion to the Playhouse, II, p. 395. 
101II, p. 371. 
llDedicated to Frederick Frankland, Esq., and published by J. Watts in 1737. 
12The Gentleman's Magazine, VII, 1737, p. 192, lists the play under March 2; The London Magazine, VI, 1737, p. 168, records it under March 21. 
letter of PHILO-SHAKESPEAR to the Occasional Prompt­er, which appeared in The Daily Journal just five days after the play opened : 13 
A general idea of Miller's use of his sources can be gained by noticing that of the 929 separate speeches in the play, 145 are based directly upon La Princesse D'ElUle and 414 upon Much Ado About Nothing. 1n other words, 15 per cent of the play is from Moliere, 45 per cent from Shake­speare, and 40 per cent is the work of Miller. 
The following summary of the plot of The Universal Passion indicates the way in which Miller amalgamated the plots of his two sources : 
(1) Bellario confesses to his old tutor, Lucentius, his love for Lucilia, daughter to Gratiano, the prince of Messina. Although followed by numerous suitors, she disdains love, detests the thought of marriage, and, like another Diana, has fled to the isolation of the forest to avoid the sports in which her suitors engage in honour of her birthday. Her jester, Joculo, has been sent to tell her of Bellario's love for her, but he reports to the enamoured youth that no oppor­tunity for such a disclosure has offered itself; whereupon Bellario decides to try unusual tactics to win the lady. He tells her that he is going to compete in the games for the pure glory of winning and not because he loves her, adding that he is as averse to love as she. Immediately piqued, Lucilia decides to go to the games, where, of course, Bellario triumphs. At their next meeting Bellario is haughty and disdainful, and is assisted in his pose by Joculo, who tells the lady that Bellario has said that her singing and dancing interrupted the manly sports. 
Thus far all the incidents of plot are directly from La Prin­cesse D'Elide. 
(2) Lord Byron, bastard-brother to Gratiano and newly reinstated in his grace, suggests to his servant, Gremio, that Gratiano be murdered, for he cannot bear to have his legitimate brother in the 
18March 5, 1737. For this letter I am indebted to C. W. Nichols, who reprinted it in Modern Language Notes, XLIV (1929), pp. 30-32. 
"But to shew what an infinite Void of Invention there is in our 
Bard [Miller], and how much he covets his Neighbor's Goods (con­
trary to one of the ten Commandments he should particularly be 
observant of) he has robbed Moliere of the character of Moron, in a 
dramatick Entertainment called, Les Plaisirs de l'Isle Enchantee, 
or La Princesse d'Elide...." place of power which he considers rightly his own. Gremio agrees to procure a helper and do the deed. 
The relationship between Lord Byron and Gratiano, and the former's jealousy, are clearly parallel to the similar situation in Much Ado About Nothing. The plotting of Gratiano's murder is evidently an addition of Miller. 
(3) Upon the next meeting of Lucilia and Bellario she tests his pose by saying that she is going to marry another, but he maintains an outward semblance of equanimity and replies that he has decided upon a similar course and is going to speak with her father about obtaining the hand of her cousin, Liberia. Beside herself with jealousy, she entreats her father not to consent to the match, and tells him that she hates Bellario. Shortly afterwards Joculo announces to her that Bellario has saved her father from the hands of two murderers and that Gratiano has announced his intention of giving his daughter's hand to his protector. Lucilia admits that she will have to accept what heaven so evidently wishes, and immediately upon the entrance of Bellario and Gratiano says that she will wed the young man. Bellario then reveals his pretense and asks pardon, which she readily consents to give; the wedding is set for the morrow. Joculo has at every opportunity tried to forward his suit with Delia, waiting maid to Lucilia, who loves Gremio because of his fine voice and who tells Joculo that he can win her love only by dying for her. 
All of these incidents, save one, are borrowed from Moliere. In La Princesse D'Elide the suitor, under pre­tense of asking for the hand of another, begs that of La Princesse, who learns the true state of affairs when she entreats her father not to permit Euryale to marry her cousin. Miller allows Bellario's rescue of Gratiano to serve as an excuse for Lucilia's sudden acceptance of the man whom she had formerly scorned. 
(4) In order better to pass the few hours before the celebration of the nuptials, Gratiano suggests that they attempt to cause Protheus and Liberia, old antagonists in wit, to fall in love. Pursuant to this plan, Protheus is allowed to overhear them tell how much Liberia is in love with him and what a sad state she is in because she dare not tell him for fear of his mockery. When next he meets Liberia, he attributes a double meaning to all her sarcasms and goes off convinced of the love she bears him. With similar results the same trick is played upon Liberia, who finds that she has been blind not to have noticed bis love before, and now determines to return that love to avoid the censure of being called haughty. Meanwhile Byron has 
been told by Gremio of the failure of the plot upon Gratiano's life, and for lack of better revenge accepts Gremio's plan to dishonour Lucilia, make miserable the upstart Bellario, and reduce Gratiano to dejection,-all by causing Lucilia to be suspected of infidelity when Bellario, mistaking Delia and Gremio for Lucilia and a lover, shall hear them converse together at midnight. Bellario and Lucentius, having been lured by the ruse of Byron, are caught in his trap and convinced that Lucilia is false. At the marriage ceremony next morn­ing they denounce her, and when she faints at the accusation, leave her for dead. Protheus, persuaded that the girl is innocent, prevails upon Gratiano to publish that she is dead and to keep her hidden until the matter can be probed. But the plot has already come to light, for the scouts of Porco's watch had on the previous night heard Gremio boast of his treachery and had arrested him. (This incident is told rather than acted in Miller's play.) Porco had tried to tell Gratiano about the deceit but had been unable to get that busy man to attend the end of his tedious recital. After the harm had been done, however, and after Protheus and Gratiano had offered to fight Bellario, the truth is made known to the people most concerned. Upon Bellario, in expiation of his false accusation, Prince Gratiano imposes the choice between marrying another woman, and death. Bellario 
is given an hour in which to make his decision. 
To one even slightly familiar with Much Ado About Nothing the preceding incidents will have appeared familiar. They are, with the exception of the choice imposed upon Bellario, borrowed directly from Shakespeare's play. 
(5) During that hour Joculo listens unmoved to the pleas of Delia, now in disfavor because of her part in the plot; but upon her promise to yield to his embraces, agrees to reinstate her in the graces of Lucilia. 
This humorous and none too moral scene is the work of Miller, although the idea of having the jester in love with the waiting maid originated with Moliere. 
(6) The hour being up, Bellario indicates his choice by going to take the hand of one of the unknown and veiled ladies who stand near the prince. Just at the last moment, unable to bear the thought of being unfaithful to Lucilia, he bares his breast and asks for death. Gratiano is so moved that he tells his daughter to unveil, and shows Lucilia, alive, to the lover who thought her dead. At first she repulses him, but she is induced by Liberia to accept him. Protheus and Liberia then tell each other that they are not in love, but verses that they have written about each other prove their words untrue, and each agrees to marry the other to save him from death. Protheus, having fallen himself, desires other to fall, and suggests that Joculo marry Delia. Lucilia agrees to pardon her maid upon condition that she marry, and the girl readily consents, much to the disgust of Joculo, who does not wish to be tied to one woman. The play ends with the news that Byron has been captured in his flight upon hear­ing that Gremio had revealed the whole plot. 
The incidents concerning the main characters are the same as those in Muck Ado About Nothing, save that Shake­speare's counterpart of Bellario does not at the last mo­ment hesitate to take another woman as wife. Neither Shakespeare nor Moliere is the source of the betrothal of Joculo and Delia; that idea is Miller's invention. 
It appears from this cursory examination of the sources of The Universal Passion that a closer study should be made of its connection with both Much Ado About Nothing and La Princesse D'Elide. This I have been unable to do. The discrepancy between Miller's lines and their originals from Moliere is much too great to allow of a direct study of the changes made, especially when one considers the fact that Miller himself, in collaboration with Henry Baker, made a translation which, with the original French, was pub­lished by Watts in 1739.14 It becomes quite evident that a comparison with this edition, as well as with other translations made during the first half of the century, none of which has been available, is essential to a complete study of the play. I have in this inquiry limited the detailed analysis to the consideration of The Universal Passion as an adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing. 
Besides the quarto and folio editions, Miller might pos­sibly have used Rowe's edition of 1709 or of 1714, Pope's of 1725, or Theobald's of 1733. By his choice of Theobald's edition Miller ran the chance of losing his hard-won favor in the eyes of Pope; but his selection evidenced considerable perspicacity, for that "piddling" rival of the poet of 
HBiograpkia Dramatica, I, Pt. II, p. 515. The British Museum Catalogue assigns a translation of the date 1739 to Baker and Miller, although their names do not appear on the title-page. 
Twickenham had done the most sane piece of editing pro­duced up until that time. That his was the edition used is indicated by the following evidence : 
(1) 
Neither Miller nor Theobald divides the acts into scenes; Pope does. 

(2) 
Theobald introduced the emendation " ... dreamed of an happiness . . . "1s for the " . . . dreamed of unhappiness . . . " of former versions, explaining the change by a note in which he says that "an happiness" means "something merry." Miller, without ques­tion following Theobald, has " ... she hath often dreamed of some­thing merry...."16 

(3) 
Instead of " ... your daughter the princess left for dead ..." Theobald has " ... your daughter the Princes left for dead...."u This suggestion undoubtedly led Miller to write: 


" . . . The lady here Was left by them for dead."1s 
(4) Previous editions had been misleading in giving to Leonato the speech "Peace! I will stop your mouth";19 Theobald assigns the line to Benedick and has him kiss Beatrice forthwith. Miller follows Theobald in having Protheus, the counterpart of Benedick, say the words just before kissing Liberia, for whom Beatrice is the proto­type.20 
The additions that Miller made to the plot of Much Ado About Nothing were three in number; they are: first, Bel­lario's feigned coldness to Lucilia, and the ruses used by each of them to gain the love of the other; second, Byron's vain attempt, through the use of Gremio, to murder Grati­ano; and, third, the wooing and marriage, at the end of the play, of Joculo and Delia. When it is considered that for some of the love scenes between these last two and for the whole of the Bellario-Lucilia pretense, he is indebted to similar scenes between Moron and Philis in La Princesse D'Elide, Miller's inventiveness and originality appear negligible. 
15Much Ado About Nothing, Act II, Scene i. 
16Tke Universal Passion, Act 11, Scene i. 
17Much Ado About Nothing, Act IV, Scene i. 
1sThe Universal PMsion, Act IV, Scene ii. 
19Much Ado About Nothing, Act V, Scene iv. 
20The Universal PMsion, Act V, Scene ii. 

The reasons that led Miller to make these additions to the plot are explained in a great measure by the title of the altered play. The plot must carry out the idea that love is not partial, that all classes of people are subject to it, and that none can escape its power. The feigned hauteur plot from La Princesse D' Elide was added to balance that of the real coldness of Beatrice and Benedick; the wooing and marriage of Joculo were needed to complete the classes of society portrayed in the play,-nobility represented by Bellario and Lucilia, the courtly circle just below them by Protheus and Liberia, and the lower classes by the jester and the maid. When love was shown as inevitable in these three classes, it was, indeed, the universal passion. In an essentially rational age when the reason for every action was considered important, there seemed to be little common sense in a story that would have a desperate villain attempt 
revenge by the roundabout method of disgracing friends 
of the person whom he hated. But if the man had tried to 
get more satisfactory vengeance and had failed, then he 
might well choose Shakespeare's method as better than 
none at all. Miller's addition of Byron's attempt upon the 
life of Gratiano was but an effort to make more convincing 
the machinations against Lucilia. Having failed to kill 
Gratiano, Byron might readily have welcomed any revenge, 
no matter how indirect. 
To the characters of Much Ado About Nothing Miller 
added but one,-the jester, Joculo. This figure is not wholly 
the Moron of Moliere's play; he is, rather, a humorist 
whose fun has beneath it a large measure of cynicism and 
no little of melancholy. His outlook upon life is akin to 
that of Jaques, his irrepressible wit and presumption 
make him a grandson of the clown in Twelfth Night, and 
his pompous language is reminiscent of that of Nym in 
Henry V. The addition of Joculo is explained in part by 
the preceding paragraph,-he was needed to fill in the gap 
in the three classes of lovers. He was, moreover, necessary 
as a commentator on the actions of others; he was useful 
as a comic character who could appear in almost every 
scene; and he was essential as a role for the popular comic actor of Drury Lane, Theophilus Cibber. In short, this addition was made because of the peculiar exigencies of a time which demanded balance in plot, a character who was remarkable for his penetration and common sense, and a comic figure who was one of the main characters. 
The only other materials that Miller added to Much Ado were songs, sung in each instance by Liberia, and written, as far as I have been able to ascertain, by Miller himself. Of these there are five in all. That songs were well liked in the eighteenth century is obvious ; since the time of D'Avenant, operatic elements had been steadily gaining favor in comedy, and in 1728 John Gay's Beggar's Opera had proved by its immense popularity that audiences had a taste for lyric outbursts. Then, too, it must not be forgot­ten that Drury Lane boasted of having in its group of actors Mrs. Clive, famous because of her sweet voice. The audience expected her to sing, and Miller quite naturally wrote his play with this fact in mind, giving that lady, in the character of Liberia, no less than five chances to dis­play her talent. 
The omissions in plot are not very numerous. The Uni­versal Passion has no mention of the wooing of the heroine by proxy, has no masked dapce at which we see the lu­dicrous results of what seems to be mistaken identity, does not honor us with the scene in which the Watch overhears the plotters, and has no mention of a visit to the supposed tomb of the heroine. A number of Shakespeare's charac­ters have been omitted in Miller's adaptation: Don Pedro, Antonio, Balthasar, Borachio, Ursula, and Friar Francis 
(who does appear on the stage, but who has no name, has 
not a line to speak, and is spoken to but once). With the 
exception of Ursula, however, each one of these people has 
whatever of his lines are necessary for the plot relegated 
to another character. 
The omissions are readily explained. The few "cuts" in 
plot are simply the result of lack of space. Having made 
numerous additions to a play already of full length, Miller 
found it necessary to leave out that part of Shakespeare's plot which had no bearing on the theme that love is the universal passion. It was for this reason that he omitted Don Pedro's wooing of Hero. The other incidents that he left out were in each case those which were essential neither to the advancement of the plot nor to the portrayal of char­acter. In relation to the plot, all the characters who are neglected in the altered version are of minor importance. For economy and straightforwardness Don Pedro is only an encumbrance and can well allow his few important lines and characteristics to be merged with those of another. Antonio, Balthasar, Borachio, and Friar Francis are in Much Ado About Nothing little more than names, both as persons and as elements of the story. It would seem that the eighteenth century wanted a complexity and abundance of incident, but demanded that the action be unified by being relegated to a few prominent characters. 
Miller has made three types of alteration in putting his play together: in plot, in character, and in text. Inasmuch as nearly every change in plot was made because of a change in character, it is possible to begin with the second group. We find that Gratiano is but slightly changed. The most noticeable instances of difference are to be found in the scene in which he breaks down and weeps when Lucilia finally consents to take Bellario as a husband. 21 No such weakness belongs to the corresponding character, Leonato, 
.	in Much Ado About Nothing. Gratiano appears much more mercurial than his original when, having just bewailed the disgrace brought upon him by Lucilia, he suddenly allows himself to be swayed by the confidence of Protheus, and believes in his daughter's innocence and in a happy outcome to the unhappy situation.22 
In almost every instance, the alterations in characters are for the purpose of making them more convincingly real. Leonato's excessive sorrow and anger after the accusation 
21The Universal Passi.on, Act III, Scene i. 
22Ibid., Act IV, Scene iii. 

of Hero28 seem rather forced when one remembers that his daughter is really not dead ; the only explanation is that he is an old man. Shakespeare refers to his age,2' and suggests by his talk that he is near his second childhood,25 but has not shown up this trait so clearly that an audience can grasp the fact at first hearing. Miller, by showing Gratiano weeping and changing mercurially from despair to hope, makes the audience realize that the man's actions are the result of approaching senility. 
The character of Bellario suffers no alteration because of the added activities and lines taken from Moliere; he is still the formerly indifferent young warrior suddenly struck with the full force of love,-his hauteur towards Lucilia is feigned and does not for one moment hide his true feeling from the audience. But some changes have been made. He shows much more reluctance to believe that his lady is false than does Claudio, with the result that Gremio only after most careful manipulation is able to persuade him to put his faith to the test of his eyes and ears.26 When Gremio exposes the plot, Bellario shows more perturbation than does Claudio, and even wishes for death.21 A few lines further on he tells us that now that Lucilia is gone, he realizes for the first time her full worth.28 Given by Gra­tiano but one hour in which to choose between death and marriage to another, Bellario does not mildly accept the new bride, as does Claudio, but is thrown into misery ;29 and when at the point of taking the hand of the lady he supposes to be another than his Lucilia, he is racked with grief, and bares his breast to beg for death.30 
Claudio, Bellario's prototype, has impressed most audi­ences and readers as being not very much in love, since he 
23Much Ado About Nothing, Act IV, Scene i, and Act V, Scene i. 
24/bid., Act V, Scene i. 
25/bid. 
26The Universal Passion, Act IV, Scene i. 
211bid., Act V, Scene i. 
28/bid. 
29/bid. 
so/bid., Act V, Scene ii. 

109
is so ready to believe that Hero is false, 81 and since he so willingly accepts another in her place.82 But Miller wanted a character who was madly in love; hence he showed Bel­lario so unwilling to doubt Lucilia that at first he would not entertain proofs of her infidelity. The torture that he undergoes when he has discovered his fatal error and is confronted with the noxious decree to marry another shows clearly that he is a real and true lover; we can not say of him, as we do of Claudio, that it is strange that he acts so indifferently. 
In spite of a few omissions and additions, the character of Protheus is in all respects similar to that of Benedick. I can find none of the change that is suggested in the fol­lowing bit of invective: 
"His [Miller's] Usage of Benedick is abominable; and of a gay young Lord that laughs at Love, from a Sprightliness of Temper, he has formed a Character that has more of Severity and Flout in it, than Mirth or Pleasantry: He has made a rough, gallant Soldier of the fine Gentleman of those Days."ss 
The only change made in the nature of Don John is a deepening of his sinister malevolence in the character of Byron. Having just been welcomed home, he answers Gra­tiano's polite invitation to the games by saying, "Your Lordship must excuse me; such Gewgaw Chivalry suits not me; whenever I engage at Weapons my Foe shall find I am in earnest."u How much in earnest he was we know from his attempted murder of his brother. When, later,85 he works upon Bellario to induce him to watch under Lu­cilia's window at night, we find in him something of the oily slyness of Iago. Don John is, in comparison, blunt and awkward.36 These changes in his character are all for the purpose of making Byron a more vivid personality. 
s1Much Ado About Nothing, Act III, Scene ii. 
s21bid., Act. V, Scene i. 
BSLetter from Philo-Shakespeare to Occasional Prompter, we. cit. 
HTke Universal Passion, Act I, Scene i. 
U/bid., Act IV, Scene i. 
aeMuch Ado About Nothing, Act III, Scene ii. 

Lucilia undergoes the greatest alteration of any of the characters. Shakespeare's heroine is a nonentity as far as force of personality is concerned. At the first of the play she shows how completely she is dominated by her father,--she is ready to marry whomsoever he chooses, Don Pedro or Claudio, it matters little to her.87 When ac­cused of unfaithfulness, her only actual protest is a swoon, and when brought once again to church and handed over to Claudio,ss she submits as though he had never wronged her. In short, she is so colorless that she moves and breathes and has her being at the outermost edge of the pale of human interest. Not so with Lucilia, heroine of The Universal Passion. She brings with-her from Moliere's eponymous figure in La Princesse D' Elide a pride, an inde­pendence, a self-assertiveness, and a realism that are kept up by Miller throughout the entire play. Her scorn of love, her set-to with Bellario, her reluctant submission to the power of Cupid,-all mark her from the beginning as a living force in Miller's drama. When accused of unchaste conduct, she finds time for at least one impassioned out­burst of protest and reproach before she faints.89 But most convincing of all her actions is her refusal to accept Bel­lario immediately upon being revealed to him at the actual wedding scene. Even though she really loves him (we are not at all convinced that Hero loves Claudio) , she says, "Hold, hold, my Lord; I must trust you no more,"'0 and is only brought to accept him as her husband by the inter­
vention of her cousin, Liberia. About Hero and Griselda we feel much the same way,-that no such spineless crea­ture could have existed. But Miller, striving to present vivid characters, has made Lucilia a person whose reality we can feel and whose spirit we can admire as much as we despise that of Byron. 
s1Ibid., Act II, Scene i. 
ssJbid., Act IV, Scene i. 
sDThe Universal Passion, Act IV, Scene iii. 
•oJbid., Act V, Scene ii. 

Verbal alterations are both numerous and interesting. I have classed them, according to general types, under five main heads. In the first group, the ideas of sentences are retained, but their form and wording are often recast, al­though many of the words of the original are used. As instances, for Beatrice's "meet food"41 Miller has substi­tuted "proper food,"42 and her "convert to disdain"41 is changed to "turn to disdain."42 Don John's "I am trusted with a muzzle and enfranchised with a clog"41 has been recast to "I am trusted, with what?-Why with a Muzzle: I am at Liberty, how?-Why with a Clog at my Heels."42 Sometimes gaps in the original are filled in; for instance, Leonato's "You'll never run mad, niece,"41 is altered to read "You are of a merry Temper, Niece; you'll never run mad."42 This type of alteration was undertaken, I believe, in much the same spirit in which a teacher of Shakespeare discusses his plays. Miller but attempts to provide living words for obsolete ones, and to replace old words with their modern equivalents ; he was trying to construct sen­tences so that they could not be misunderstood. The French emphasis upon clarity was having its effect. Miller did not find that Shakespeare was obscure; his own correct modern­izing proves that he could grasp the Elizabethan meanings. But as a playwright he realized that his audiences would not and could not take the time necessary for a study of the play. As an acted play, his alteration had to be clear to everyone upon first hearing; modernization was a necessity. 
The second type of verbal alteration consists in tamper­ing with figures of speech. A good example of this type is the changing of Beatrice's "You always end with a jade's trick; I know you of old"u to "Ay, I know you of old; you are a true Courtier, pretend to resign a Post which you know you can't keep."42 Such alterations were based upon an attempt to make Shakespeare more comprehensible. 
41Muck Ado About Notking, Act I, Scene i. 
42Th.e Universal Passion, Act I, Scene i. 

Knowing that the simile and metaphor were supposed to clarify an idea by comparing something unknown to some­thing known, Miller had no hesitation in making his figures of speech embody references to things familiar to his time rather than to Shakespeare's. 
The third class of alteration is often quite similar to the second, but has been considered separately because of a difference in purpose. In this group come many changes in figures of speech and much warping and distortion of both words and meaning. The following examples illustrate the characteristics of class three : 
The Universal Passion, Act I, Scene i. Uberia: "I'd rather hear a Raven croaking at my Window at Mid­night, than a Man swearing he loves me." 
for, 
Muck Ado About Nothing, Act I, Scene i. 
Beatrice: "I'd rather hear my dog bark at a crow than a man swear 
he loves me." or, The Universal Passion, Act II, Scene ii. Protheus: "I have known when he would have slept on the cold 
Ground in a good Coat of Mail, and now he will lie on a Down-Bed 
ten Nights awake devising the Fashion of a new Doublet." 
for, 

Much Ado About Nothing, Act II, Scene iii. 
Benedick: "I have known when he would have walked ten mile a-foot to see good armour; and now he will lie ten nights awake, carving the fashion of a new doublet." 
Such alterations seem clearly to have but one purpose be­hind them,-improvement. I believe that in passages of this group alone can Miller be said to have made a direct attempt to write better than Shakespeare. True it is that in the first example Miller does change the meaning of the sentence. Shakespeare's dog barking at the moon is merely something harsh and disagreeable, while Miller's croaking raven is mysterious, portentous, and frightening; yet it seems certain that the lines have been altered because the figure of the raven appealed to Miller as more poetic than that of the dog. The second example shows the eighteenth­century love for balance and order both in the grammatical construction and in the expression of ideas; it tends to show that such precise writing was considered more literary than Shakespeare's loosely constructed sentence. 
The fourth type of change occurs in lines of blank verse, and the following is a fair example of the shifting that has been made: 
Much Ado About Nothing, Act IV, Scene i. 
Claudio: "Can cunning sin cover itself withal!" 

becomes, 
The Universal Passion, Act IV, Scene ii. 
Bellario: "Can artful Vice fair-robe itself withal!" 

In an age when Pope had won his place as the most correct poet in England it is quite natural that his friends, of whom Miller was one, should emulate him in this quality that they all considered so important. Blank verse must scan, it must have five regular accents without the distortion of correct pronunciation; Shakespeare seemed not meticulous in this detail of poetic expression, and Miller undertook to make regular those lines that did not conform to the rule. 
Finally there is the alteration or omission of all refer­ences to the Deity. "God keep your ladyship" (Much Ado About Nothing, Act I, Scene I) has become "Heaven help your Ladyship" (The Universal Passion, Act I, Scene I). Leonato's "Oh Lord" (Much Ado About Nothing, Act II, Scene i) becomes "Lack-a-day" in the mouth of Lucentius (The Universal Passion, Act III, Scene i). One reason for this type of change is to be found in the dedicatory letter and in the prologue of the play. In the one we have, 
"The strict Regard I have had to Decency and Good Manners ... is the principal Merit I pretend to in it ...." 
and in the other, 
"Howe'er this Merit he at least can claim That sacred decency's his constant aim." 
As a clergyman, first of all, Miller should have been punc­tilious about having his play free from the oaths that his 
high-church principles abhorred; but he had another rea­son that is more likely to have influenced him, for it is con­cerned with the material success of his play. The agita­tion against the unrestrained political satire and moral libertinism of the theatre was well under way. Already Walpole had become acquainted with the libellous play48 that was to be the immediate cause of Parliament's passing the Licensing Act of June 21, 1737, and Miller was well aware of the popular attitude toward unbridled language in plays. The act that made all plays pass through the hands of a censor before going into rehearsal had not yet been passed, but Miller read the trend of the times well enough to tread warily. 
Yet in spite of his protestations of innocence the play has some elements in it that lead us to wonder just how sincere the author was in his profession of decency. For instance, when Lucilia claims that she is to be sacrificed for the sake of begetting heirs for Gratiano, Liberia makes a remark that certainly smacks of the vulgar innuendo: 
"O my Dear, there may be a little Comfort in that Affair fall your Share too. . .."44 
True enough, Lucilia cries "fye" upon her, but the words are already out and the mischief done. Again, in Act V, Scene i, J oculo proposes to help Delia in consideration of a reward that no lady could hear without blushing, let alone have promised with the calm assurance that Delia shows. Surely Miller was but pretending to be the prude that his prologue announces. 
That the imminence of the Licensing Act did not keep Miller's willing pen from political satire is quite certain, although the evidences of such criticism in The Universal Passion are all of a general nature. Joculo, besides having the functions already mentioned, acts as a mouthpiece for the satire of the author, and we frequently find him utter­ing witticisms about and painting thumb-nail sketches of 
43The Golden Rump. Genest, The English Stage, III, p. 521. 
44The Universal Passion, Act I, Scene i. 

the political life of the times. In the very opening scene of the play we have him giving to Bellario and Lucentius a picture of the age, showing portraits of a Courtier, a Friar, a Strumpet, an Officer and his young Wife, a Judge, a Courtesan, and a Statesman. At another point in the play45 he proceeds to outline to Delia the changes that have taken place in the world of society, and shows that every type of person has changed into something much lower. 
But Miller's main grievance against the court was that it had refused to give him advancement. With such a mouthpiece as Joculo, who could speak as he would by vir­tue of his office as jester, the reverend author could not refrain from commenting on what he considered one of the most flagrant abuses in higher circles. Three such out­bursts occur ; the following dialogue shows quite clearly that Miller's sore spot was lack of preferment: 
Joculo: "Oh my Lord, I have a Patent for speaking Truth, or else 
I should be a Fool indeed to utter it within the Walls of a Palace. 
Bellario: But this is not the way to get Preferment, Sir. 
Jocul-0: Why, that's true; your great People are above paying 
any regard to Merit; 'tis their Pride that they are high enough to prefer in despite of it; they are resolv'd that their Favours shall be quite voluntary, and therefore always confer 'em on those who could never pretend to the least grain of Desert. 
Bellario: Nay, that's going a little beyond Truth, Joculo, for we see Men of Merit in the highest Stations. 
Joculo: Ah lack-a-day, my Lord, that may be--but few of 'em got there by their Merit, tho'-no, no, 'twas for some particular Humour or Folly that belong'd to 'em-for we of the greatest Merit have our Failings. 
Bellario: What a sarcastical Knave thou art! 
Joculo: One Man, with his Merit, may have a Talent at Flattery­why he's preferr'd: Another may play well on the Fiddle--he's presently preferr'd: Another may have a Knack at bowing low­he rises in time : And another-why he may have a pretty Sister or Wife--and he's sure to be preferr'd."46 
The only direct or personal reference in the play is there for the purpose of humor rather than for satire; the 
45/bid., Act V, Scene i. 
46/bid., Act I, Scene i. 

audience must surely have been amused at the allusion to Miller's situation when Joculo says, 
"Then your Soldiers are half of 'em turn'd Fiddlers and Morrice­Dancers, because fighting is now quite foreign to the Profession; whilst Priests are turned Play-Wrights, and preach from the Stage, because 'tis unfashionable to go to hear 'em at Church."47 
If a writer is to be judged by what he set out to do, Mil­ler certainly produced a good play in The Universal Pas­sion, for he fitted the original into the form that his times demanded. He caused it to obey as nearly as possible the law of the three unities, he purged it of all improper words and most of its improper witticisms, he made it so clear that it could not be misunderstood, he polished it so that the meter would be regular and the sentences balanced when­ever possible, he catered to the eighteenth century taste by having balance and antithesis in both his plots and char­acters, and finally, he carried throughout a complicated group of plots the theme that love is the universal passion. 
But modern criticism, judging the play intrinsically, would find in it many faults. The balance and parallelism of plots and characters seems to an individualistic age somewhat too artificial and formal. We do not applaud as obvious a parade of theme as Miller presents, and we are disturbed by his palpable discrepancies in plot. For instance, Byron mentions to Gremio early in the first act that a marriage between Bellario and Lucilia is intended,48 but it is not until the second act that Bellario asks Gratiano for the hand of his daughter ;4 9 and although the morning has been spent in attendance upon the athletic sports in celebration of Lucilia's birthday, Protheus mentions a masked dance at which he was greatly abused by Liberia.ao 
Still, the play has its merits. Although we lose some of the good comic scenes of Much Ado About Nothing, we have 
41/bi<l., Act V, Scene i. 
4B/bi<1., Act I, Scene i. 
49/bid., Act II, Scene i. 
GO/bid., Act I, Scene i. 
in their place some entirely different, though not quite as good comedy from the character of J oculo. In place of the unconvincing and weak Hero we have her realistic and ani­mated parallel in Lucilia, and instead of a poorly motivated Don John we have a Byron who stoops to meddle with mar­riage only when his attempt at murder has failed. Further­more, all of Liberia's five songs, original with Miller, are good. Perhaps the best one, in tone and spirit very close to a Cavalier lyric, is that thrown into the form of a dia­logue between Lucilia and Delia. It occurs just before the 
end of the last act. 
AIR 
"Liberia: 0/ what shall I do when I'm marry'd? 
Such Cares and Pains 
In Wedlock Chains; 
Such Bondage, who can bear it? 
Delia: What still inclin'd 
To change your mind? 
Liberia: Yes--never to marry, I'll swear it. 
01 what shall I do when I'm marry'd'I 
Delia: Why, sport and play 
:The live-long Day, 
And every night .... 
Liberia: .... Oh horrid/ 
Your Hand, 'Tl1lJI Dear; 
I die for fear 
Of what I must do when I'm marry'd." 
A VARIORUM TEXT OF 
FOUR PASTORALS BY AMBROSE PHILIPS 

BY R. H. GRIFFITH 
Three versions, or texts, of four of Ambrose Philips's pastorals are printed here. 
A renewed interest in the origin and the composition of pastoral poetry is one of the marks of the years 1690-1710. Of the sources of that interest four may be pointed out in a sentence apiece. Within the general enquiry into the origins of things, a subordinate question was, what was the earliest form of poetry? and one popular answer was, since shep­herd life was the first stage of civilization above the wild state, and since pastorals were the poetry composed by shepherds, then pastorals were the earliest form of poetry. Urban life in England had by this time become sufficiently complex and self-conscious to arouse in the minds of young sophisticates a sense of its artificialities and a longing for the contrasted simple life-to be enjoyed in the world of imagination. An idea was wide-spread that the English language was still uncouth and barbarous in many ways, and that the writing of pastorals, which in their perfection require the utmost of delicacy in phrasing and of sweetness in melody, would be a means of great help to the improve­ment of the language. And then, every youthful maker of verses was encouraged by his friends with the facile com­pliment of an unguaranteed prophecy, to hope that as Vergil passed from the polishing of pastorals to the constructing of an ..lEneid, so he might proceed from the enameled plains of pastoral to the altitudes of heroic poetry. 
Philips wrote his pastorals, according to a tradition reported in "Cibber's Lives," while a student at Cambridge, whither he had come up from Shrewsbury school to be graduated B.A. in 1696 and M.A. in 1700, and to hold a fellowship from 1699 to 1708. But pastorals, like plays, were things to be not so much written as rewritten, and 
the poet revised his work both during and after his Cam­bridge days. The earliest reference to them I have noted is in a letter from Addison to Philips of March 10, 1704 
(which in the Bohn-Hurd edition is mistakenly assigned to the year 1710), ... "Your two Pastorals ... did not come soon enough to be inserted in Tonson's last miscellany" ... , i.e., in Vol. V of Tonson's six-volume set. There are other letters to him from Addison, and the early correspondence of Swift shows that both of these men and Steele as well were warm admirers of Philips's pastorals and very friendly with the poet. 
The first version of the four pastorals ever to be printed appeared in the Oxford and Cambridge Miscellany Poems, an octavo volume of 418 pages, edited by Elijah Fenton and published by Lintot without any date on the titlepage. As far back as 1705 Lintot was advertising this volume, at the back of quarto plays he was issuing, as "soon to be pub­lished"; it was promised in an advertisement in the Daily Courant of February 25, 1706, "in a few days will be pub­lished" ; and it actually was published and placed on sale on January 7, 1708. Copies of this Miscellany are not common, and the presence of four of Philips's pastorals in it is known to relatively few scholars. The sequence of the pastorals is different from the later standard order, being III, I, II, 
IV. They occupy pages 41-69, and are anonymous. 
The second version is taken from the sixth volume of Tonson's famous set, sometimes called Dryden's Miscellany, which was published on May 2, 1709, and is most illustrious 
because it is the first of the first editions of poems by Alex­ander Pope. Philips's six pastorals are at the front of the volume and Pope's four pastorals are at the end. The quarrel engendered between the two pastoral poets is a famous bit of literary history. This second version, which was the text commonly known to the generation of Philips and Pope, was several times reprinted. In 1710 Henry Hills, junior, pirated it as a penny pamphlet, and sold two editions of his piracy. In 1714 Curll published John Philips's poems and added "The Pastorals of Mr. Ambrose Philips" to the 
volume. In 1716 and again in 1727 Tonson printed new editions of all the six volumes of his Miscellany. The text remained stable from 1709 to 1727. 
The third version appeared in a small volume bearing the title Pastorals, Epistles, Odes, and Other Original Poems, With Translations . .. By Ambrose Philips, Esq., prepared by the poet himself and published in May, 1748, by Tonson and Draper. This book was reprinted in 1765 and (in Dublin) in 1768. Its text has since been standard and is the one printed in collections of "Poets," such as those of Bell, Johnson, Anderson, and Chalmers. 
In length the pastorals vary from the first version (1708) to the second version (1709) to the third version (1748) thus: First Pastoral, 96, 100, 118 lines; Second Pastoral, 129, 133, 138 lines; Third Pastoral, 109, 108, 134 lines; Fourth Pastoral, 124, 124, 17 4 lines. 
The first and second versions, with many differences between them, are yet much alike. The third version shows that some lines were dropt out, more lines were added, some changes were made in line order, and numerous revisions were made in diction and phrasing; the increased use of the refrain in the Fourth Pastoral is a sample of several matters worthy of observation. The revisions are what will give chief interest to the reader who will remem­ber the "ambition for delicacy of phrasing and sweetness of melody," mentioned above, and will recall the frequently­studied strivings of Pope in similar case. 
In the ensuing pages the version of 1708 is printed on the left-hand pages, and that of 17 48 on the right-hand pages. The second version ( 1709) is shown by printing its variations in footnotes, wherein simple numbers refer to line and text of the 17 48 version, while simple numbers followed by numbers in parenthesis refer to line and text of the 1708 version. By the use of this device and the bar the footnotes can be condensed rigorously without, I think, loss of clarity. Variations of word, phrase, spelling, punc­tuation, and font of type are shown. When a line of 1709 
is like its fellow line in 1748, no line number is given in the footnotes. Rules for the use of capital letters changed from 1708-1709 to 1748; when the text of 1709 is compared with that of 1748, variation in capitalization is ignored, though a word in a footnote is as it was originally printed. In the use of quotation marks the 1709 text is like the 1708 text; the liberal use of them in the convention of 1748 I have reduced here to the parsimony of 1932 except in the Fourth Pastoral. Long s is in all cases represented here by shorts. 
Anotker PASTORAL 
By the same Hand 
A Shepherd Boy, all in an Ev'ning fair, 
When Western Winds had cool'd the sultry Air, 
When all his Sheep within their Fold were pent, 
Lamented thus his dreery Discontent; 

5 	So pityful, that all the starry Throng Attentive seem'd to hear his mournful Song. Alas! he sung how long must I endure This pining Pain? Or who shall work my Cure? Fond Love no Cure will have, seeks no Repose; 
10 	Delights in Grief, nor bounded Measure knows. And now the Moon begins in Clouds to rise ; The twinkling Stars are lighted in the Skies ; The Winds are hush; the Dews distil; and Sleep With soft Embrace has seiz'd my weary Sheep: 
15 	I only with the prowling Wolf constrain'd All Night to wake: with Hunger is he pain'd, And I with Love: his Hunger he may tame; But who in Love can quench th' encreasing Flame? 
I heretofore like this tall Poplar fair, 20 Up rais'd my heedless Head devoid of Care; 
VARIANTS OF THE 1709 TEXT 
1. Dorset,1 City Throngl 2. Songj 3. Commands;! And, 0,1 4. sing.I 5-8. [Wanting] I 9. Begin.-A Shepherd Boy, I 11 (3) When as his! 
12. dreary! 13-18. [Wanting; in their place] (5-6) pitiful,! 19. Ah well a Day! Howl 20. shall workl 21. have; I Repose;! 22. Grief;! knows.I 24 (12)1 25. hush'd;I 26(14)Sheep.I 27. only,! prouling Wolf,! 
28. wake. Withl 29. I with! time:! 30(18)can stop the growing Flame?I 31. Whilomel Pop'larl 32. devoid! 
THE FIRST PASTORAL 
LOBBIN 
IF we, 0 DORSET, quit the city-throng, 
To meditate in shades the rural song, 
By your command, be present : and, 0 bring 
The Muse along! The Muse to You shall sing: 
Her influence, Buckhurst, let me there obtain, 
And I forgive the fam'd Sicilian swain. 

Begin.-In unluxurious times of yore, When flocks and herds were no inglorious store, Lobbin, a Shepherd-boy, one evening fair, As western winds had cool'd the sultry air, His numb'red sheep within the fold now pent, Thus plain'd him of his dreery discontent; Beneath a hoary poplar's whisp'ring boughs, He, solitary, sat to breathe his vows, Venting the tender anguish of his heart, As passion taught, in accents free of art: And little did he hope, while, night by night, His sighs were lavish'd thus on Lucy bright. 
"Ah, well-a-day! how long must I endure This pining pain? Or who shall speed my cure? Fond love no cure will have, seeks no repose, Delights in grief, nor any measure knows: And now the moon begins in clouds to rise ; The brightening stars increase within the skies ; The winds are hush ; the dews distil ; and sleep Hath clos' d the eyelids of my weary sheep : I only with the proling wolf constrain'd All night to wake: with hunger is he pain'd, And I, with love. His hunger he may tame; But who can quench, 0 cruel Love, thy flame? Whilom did I, all as this poplar fair, Up-raise my heedless head, then void of care, 
'Mong rustick Routs the chief for wanton Game, 
Nor could they merry make till Lobbin came. 
Who better seen than I in Shepherds Arts, 
To please the Lads or win the Lasses Hearts? 

25 	How deftly to my Oaten Reed, so sweet, Wont they upon the Green to shift their Feet? And, when the Dance was done, how would they yearn, Some well-invented Tale from me to learn? For many Songs and Tales of Mirth had I 
30 	To chase the lingring Sun a-down the Skie. But ah ! since Lucy coy has wrought her Spite Within my Heart, unmindful of Delight The jolly Grooms I fly, and all alone To Rocks and Woods pour forth my fruitless Moan. 
35 Oh ! quit thy wonted Scorn, relentless Fair ! E'er lingring long I perish thro' Despair. Had Rosalind been Mistress of my Mind, Tho' not so fair, she would have been more kind. Unwitting Maid! 0 think, while yet is time, 
40 	How flying Years impair our youthful Prime: Thy Virgin Bloom will not for ever stay; And Flow'rs, tho' left ungather'd will decay: The Flow' rs anew returning Seasons bring; But Beauty faded has no second Spring. 
45 My Words are Wind ; she, deaf to melting Cries, Takes Pleasure in the Mischief of her Eyes. Like frisking Heifer loose in flow'ry Meads, She gads where' er her roving Fancy leads; But still from me : Ah me, the tiresome Chase! 
50 	While wing'd with Scorn she flies my fond Embrace: She flies indeed, but ever leaves behind, Fly where she will, her Likeness in my Mind: 
34(22) 'till! 35(23), than I,I 36(24) and win! 37(25) deftly! oaten! 39(27) yearn! 41. For,I 42(30) adownl Sky.! 43(31) But,1 44. Heart;! 45(33) fiy;I 47. Oh quitl 48(37) E'er,I long,I 50(38) I 52(40) Prime!! 53(41) I 54(42) ungather'd,I decay.I 55(43) I 59(47) Heifers,! 
'Mong rustick routs the chief for wanton game ; Nor could they merry-make, 'till Lobbin came. 
35 	Who better seen than I in shepherds' arts, To please the lads, and win the lasses' hearts? How deftly, to mine oaten reed so sweet, Wont they, upon the green, to shift their feet? And, wearyed in the dance, how would they yearn 
40 	Some well devised tale from me to learn? For many songs and tales of mirth had I, To chase the loitering sun adown the sky: But, ah! since Lucy coy deep.wrought her spight Within my heart, unmindful of delight 
45 	The jolly grooms I fly, and, all alone, To rocks and woods pour forth my fruitless moan. Oh! quit thy wonted scorn, relentless Fair! 'E're, ling'ring long, I perish through despair. Had Rosalind been mistress of my mind, 
50 	Though not so fair, she would have prov'd more kind. 0 think, unwitting maid, while yet is time, How flying years impair the youthful prime! Thy virgin bloom will not for ever stay, And flowers, though left ungath'red, will decay : 
55 	The flowers, anew, returning seasons bring! But beauty faded has no second spring. My words are wind ! She, deaf to all my cries, Takes pleasure in the mischief of her eyes. Like frisking heifer, loose in flowery meads, 
60 	She gads where'er her roving fancy leads; Yet still from me. Ah me, the tiresome chace ! Shy as the fawn, she flies my fond embrace. She flies, indeed, but ever leaves behind, Fly where she will, her likeness in my mind. 
60. where-e'erl 62(50) While,I Scorn,I Embrace.I 63(51) indeed: Butl 64. [Between 64 and 65 the 1748 edition wants a couplet which is in 1708(53-54) and in 1709:] (53) Damsel! Why,I (54) should'st thoul 
Ah turn thee then! unthinking Damsel, why 
Thus from the Youth, who loves thee, wilt thou fly? 

55 	No cruel Purpose in my Speed I bear; 'Tis all but Love, and Love why should'st thou fear? What idle Fears a maiden Breast alarm! Stay, simple Girl! a Lover cannot harm. 
Two Kidlins, sportive as thy self, I rear, 
60 	Like tender Buds their shooting Horns appear: A Lambkin too pure white I breed as tame And gentle, as I wish my scornful Dame : A Garland deck'd with all the Pride of May, Sweet as thy Breath, and as thy Beauty gay, 
65 	I'll weave: but why these unavailing Pains? The Gifts alike, and Giver she disdains. 
Oh would my Gifts but win her stubborn Heart! Or could I half the Warmth I feel impart; How would I wander ev'ry Day to find 
70 	The ruddy Wildings ! were but Lucy kind, For glossy Plumbs I'd climb the knotty Tree, And of fresh Honey rob the thrifty Bee: Or, if thou deign to live a Shepherdess, Thou Lob bin's Flock and Lobbin shalt possess: 
75 	And fair my Flock, nor yet unhandsome I, If liquid Fountains flatter not: and why Should liquid Fountains flatter us, yet show The bord'ring Flow'rs less beauteous than they grow? 
0 come my Love! nor think th'Employment mean, 
80 	The Dams to milk, and little Lambkins wean ; To drive a-field by Morn the fat'ning Ews, E'er the warm Sun drink up the cooly Dews. 
65(55) bear:I 66(56) but Love;I 67(57) Maiden! 68(58)1 69(59) rear;I 70(60) appear.I 71-76. [Instead of these lines 1709 is as 1708:] (61) too,I white,! breed,! tame,! (62) As my fond Heart could wishl Dame.I (63) Garland,! (64)1 77(65) weave. Butl 78(68) alikel 79-82. [Wanting] I 83 (67) wanton Heart!! 84. impartII 85 
(69) I 86(70) Were! 87(71) I 88(72) Honyl Bee.I 89. Or,I 90. possess.I 
65 	No cruel purpose, in my speed, I bear; 
'Tis only love; and love why should'st thou fear? 
What idle fears a maiden-breast alarm! 
Stay, simple girl: a lover cannot harm. 
Two sportive kidlings, both fair-fleck'd, I rear; 

70 	Whose shooting horns like tender buds appear: 
A lambkin too, of spotless fleece, I breed, 
And teach the fondling from my hand to feed: 
Nor will I cease betimes to cull the fields 
Of every dewy sweet the morning yields : 

75 	From early spring to autumn late shalt thou 
Receive gay giilonds, blooming o'er thy brow: 
And when,-But, why these unavailing pains? 
The gifts, alike, and giver, she disdains : 
And now, left heiress of the glen, she'll deem 

80 	Me, londless lad, unworthy her esteem : 
Yet, was she born, like me, of shepherd-sire; 
And I may fields and lowing herds acquire. 
0 ! would my gifts but win her wanton heart, 
Or could I half the warmth I feel impart, 

85 	How would I wander, every day, to find 
The choice of wildings, blushing through the rind! 
For glossy plumbs how lightsome climb the tree, 
How risque the vengeance of the thrifty Bee! 
0 ! if thou deign to live a shepherdess, 

90 	Thou Lobbin's flock, and Lobbin, shalt possess: And, fair my flock, nor yet uncomely I, If liquid fountains flatter not; and why Should liquid fountains flatter us, yet show The bordering flowers less beauteous than they grow? 
95 	0 ! come, my love ; nor think th'imployment mean, 
The dams to milk, and little lambkins wean, 
To drive a-field, by morn, the fattening ewes, 
'E're the warm Sun drink up the cooly dews, 
While, with my pipe, and with my voice, I chear 

100 Each hour, and through the day detain thine ear. 
91. Fair is my Flock;! 92. not: Andi 93. us? yeti 94(78) grow.I 95 
(79) come,! Nori 96(80) I 97(81) a-Field! Ewes,! 98(82) drinks! 99-100. [Wanting] I 101-102(83-84)1 103(85) Younglins!I Eye:! 104(86) Cause! die.I 105-108. [Wanting] I 109. end;I 110(88) I 111. Flock: For,! you! 112(90) wake! 113. waining! Nightingale! 114(92) piteous Tale.I 115(93)1 116. Grief:! 117(95) 'Till! 1-4. [Wanting]! 5. melting thus inl 6(2) now that! 9(5) Hear howl sing!j 10(6) soft-warb'lingl gladsome I 
85 90  How would the Crook beseem thy beauteous Hand! How would my younglins round thee gazing stand ! Ah witless Y ounglins? gaze not on her Eye, Such heedless Glances are the cause I die: Nor trow I when this bitter Blast shall end, Or if kind Love will ever me befriend. Sleep, sleep my Flock, for happy you may take Your Rest, tho' nightly thus your Master wake.  
95  Now to the waning Moon the Nightingale In doleful Ditties told her tuneful Tale: The Love-sick Shepherd list'ning found Relief, Pleas'd with so sweet a Partner in his Grief; Till by degrees her Notes and silent Night To Slumbers soft his sorrowing Breast invite.  
A PASTORAL  
Tkenot, Colinet  
5  Thenot. WHY do thy cloudy Looks thus melt in Tears Unseemly, now all Heav'n so blithe appears? Why in this mournful manner art thou found, Unthankful Lad, when all things smile around? Hark how the Lark and Linnet jointly sing, Their Notes Soft-warbling to the gladsom Spring.  

Faur Pastorals by Ambrose Philips  129  
105 110  How would the crook beseem thy lilly-hand! How would my younglings round thee gazing stand ! Ah, witless younglings ! gaze not on her eye : Thence all my sorrow; thence the death I dy. 0, killing beauty! and 0, sore desire! Must then my sufferings, but with life, expire? Though blossoms every year the trees adorn, Spring after spring I wither, nipt with scorn: Nor trow I when this bitter blast will end, Or if yon stars will e'er my vows befriend. Sleep, sleep, my flock; for happy ye may take Sweet nightly rest, though still your master wake."  
115 118  Now, to the waning moon, the nightingale, In slender warblings, tun'd her piteous tale, The love-sick shepherd, listening, felt relief, Pleas'd with so sweet a partner in his grief, 'Till, by degrees, her notes and silent night To slumbers soft his heavy heart invite.  
THE SECOND PASTORAL  
THENOT, COLINET  
THENOT  
IS it not Colinet I lonesome see, Leaning with folded arms against the tree? Or is it age of late bedims my sight? 'Tis Colinet, indeed, in woeful plight.  
5 10  Thy cloudy look why melting into tears, Unseemly, now the sky so bright appears? Why in this mournful manner art thou found, Unthankful lad, when all things smile around? Or hear'st not lark and linnet jointly sing, Their notes blithe-warbling to salute the spring?  

Col. Tho' soft their Notes, not so my wayward Fate, 
Nor Lark would sing, nor Linnet in my State: 
Each Creature to his proper Task is born; 

10 	As they to Mirth and Musick, I to mourn: Waking at Midnight I my Woes renew, And with my Tears increase the falling Dew. 
Then. Can lusty Youth have Reason to complain? Or who the Weight of Age cou'd e'er sustain, 
15 	If, as our waning Forces daily cease, The tiresome Burthen doubles its Increase'l Yet, tho' with Years my Body downward tend, As Trees beneath their Fruit in Autumn bend, My Mind a chearful Temper still retains, 
20 	Spite of my snowy Head and icy Veins : For why shou'd Man at cross Mis-haps repine,, Sour all his Sweet, and mix with Tears his Wine? But speak, for much it may relieve thy Woe, To let a Friend thy inward Ailment know. 
25 	Col. 'Twill idly waste thee, Thenot, a whole Day, Should'st thou give Ear to all my Grief can say: Thy Ews will wander, and thy heedless Lambs With Bleatings loud require their absent Dams. 
Then. There's Lightfoot, he shall tend them close,andl 30 'Twixt whiles a-cross the Plain will glance mine Eye. 
Col. Where to begin I know not, where to end, 
Scarce does one smiling Hour my Youth attend : 
Tho' few my Days, as my own Follies show, 
Yet all those Days are clouded o'er with Woe: 

11(7) Fate: I 12(8) State.I 13(9) I 16(12) I 18. may then! of Agel 
19. When, as our waining Strength does daily cease,I 20(16) Burden! 
21. Yet tho'I downwards! 22(18) bend;I 23-24(19-20)1 25(21) For,I should! Mishaps repine,! 26(22)1 27(23) speak: Forl Woel 28(24)1 29(25)1 31(27) Ewesl 32. With loud Complaints! 33(29) close;! I,I 34(30) whiles,! 
Four Pastorals by Ambrose Philips 131 
COLINET 
Though blithe their notes, not so my wayward fate; 
Nor lark would sing, nor linnet, in my state. 
Each creature, Thenot, to his task is born, 
As they to mirth and musick, I to mourn. 

15 	Waking, at midnight, I my woes renew, My tears oft' mingling with the falling dew. 
THENOT 
Small cause, I ween, has lusty youth to plain ; Or who may, then, the weight of eld sustain, When every slackening nerve begins to fail, 
20 	And the load presseth as our days prevail? Yet, though with years my body downward tend, As trees beneath their fruit, in autumn, bend Spite of my snowy head and icy veins, My mind a chearful temper still retains: 
25 	And why should man, mishap what will, repine, Sour every sweet, and mix with tears his wine? But tell me then : it may relieve thy woe, To let a friend thine inward ailment know. 
COLINET 
Idly 'twill waste thee, Thenot, the whole day, 
30 	Should'st thou give ear to all my grief can say. Thine ewes will wander; and the heedless lambs, In loud complaints, require their absent dams. 
THENOT 
See Light/oot; he shall tend them close: and I, 
'Tween whiles, across the plain will glance mine eye. 

COLINET 
35 	Where to begin I know not, where to end. Does there one smiling hour my youth attend? Though few my days, as well my follies show, Yet are those days all clouded o'er with woe: 
35 	No Gleam of happy Sun-shine does appear 
My lowring Skie and wintry Days to chear. 
My piteous Pught in yonder naked Tree, 
That bears the Thunder-scar, too well I see; 
Quite destitut~ it stands of Shelter kind, 

40 	The Mark of Storms, and Sport of ev'ry Wind: 
Its riven Trunk feels not th'Approach of Spring, 
Nor any Birds among the Branches sing; 
No more beneath thy Shade shall Shepherds throng 
With merry Tale, or Pipe, or pleasant Song: 

45 	Unhappy Tree! and more unhappy I! 
From thee, from me alike the Shepherds fly. 

Then. Sure thou in some ill-chosen Hour wast born, 
When blighting Mildews spoil the rising Corn, 
Or when the Moon, by Witchcraft charm'd, fore-shows 

50 	Thro' sad Er.lipse a various Train of Woes: 
Untimely born, ill Luck betides thee still. 

Col. And can there, Therwt, be a greater Ill? 
Then. Nor Wolf, vor Fox, nor rot amongst our Sheep; For, from all these good Shepherd's Care may keep: 55 Against ill Luck all cunning Foresight fails ; Whether we sleep or wake it nought avails, 
Col. Ah me, the while ! ah me, the luckless Day! Ah luckless Lad! the rather might I say: Unhappy Hour, when first, in youthful Bud, 
60 	I left the fair Sabri:na,'s silver Flood! 
Ah silly I ! more silly than my Sheep, 
Which on thy flowry Banks I once did keep : 

35. not;! end: I 36 (32) attend.I 37 (33) l 38 (34) I 39 (35) I 40 (36) low'ring Sky,I Days,I 41(37) Plight,1 42(38) Thunder Scar,! see:! 44(40) Storms! 45(41) I 46(42) sing.j 47(43) I 48(44) pleasing Song.I 49(45)1 51(47)1 52. Mil-dewsl Corn;I 53-54. [Wanting]! 55(49)1 56(50) Woes.I 59(53) Rotl 60. these the! 61(55)1 62(56) wake,! avails.I 63. me! mel 64(58) I 65(59) Hour!! 66(60) Silver Flood:! 67(61) I 68 (62) flow'ryl keep.I 
Four Pastorals by Ambrose Philips 133 
No happy gleam of sunshine doth appear, 
40 	My lowering sky, and wintery months, to chear. My piteous plight in yonder naked tree, Which bears the thunder-scar, too plain I see: Quite destitute it stands of shelter kind, The mark of storms, and sport of every wind: 
45 	The riven trunk feels not th' approach of spring; Nor birds among the leafless branches sing: No more, beneath thy shade, shall shepherds throng With jocund tale, or pipe, or pleasing song. Ill-fated tree! and more ill-fated I! 
50 	From thee, from me, alike the shepherds fly. 
THENOT 
Sure thou in hapless hour of time wast born, 
When blighting mildews spoil the rising corn, 
Or blasting winds o'er blossom'd hedge-rows pass, 
To kill the promis' d fruits, and scorch the grass, 

55 	Or when the moon, by wizard charm'd, foreshows, Blood-stain'd in foul eclipse, impending woes. Untimely born, ill luck betides thee still. 
COLINET 
And 	can there, Thenot, be a greater Ill? 
THENOT 
Nor fox, nor wolf, nor rot among our sheep: 
60 	From these good shepherd's care his flock may keep: Against ill luck, alas! all forecast fails; Nor toil by day, nor watch by night, avails. 
COLINET 
Ah me, the while! ah me, the luckless day! 
Ah luckless lad! befits me more to say. 

65 	Unhappy hour! when fresh in youthful bud, I left, Sabrina fair, thy silvery flood. Ah, silly I ! more silly than my sheep, Which, on thy flowery banks, I wont to keep. 
Sweet are thy Banks! 0 when shall I once more 
With longing Eyes review thy beauteous Shore? 
65 When in the Crystal of thy Waters see 
My Face grown wan thro' Care and Misery? 

When shall I see my Hut, the small Abode My self had rais'd and cover'd o'er with Clod? Tho' small it be, a mean and humble Cell, 
70 	Yet was there room for Peace and me to dwell. 
Then. And what the Cause that drew thee first away? From thy lov'd Home what tempted thee to stray? 
Col. A lewd Desire strange Lands and Swains to know; Ah God, that ever I shou'd covet Woe! 75 With wandring Feet unblest, and fond of Fame, I sought I know not what, besides a Name. 
Then. Or, sooth to say, didst thou not hither roam In hopes of Wealth, thou could'st not find at home? A rowling Stone is ever bare of Moss; 
80 	And to their Cost green Years old Proverbs cross. 
Col. Small need there was, in flatt'ring Hopes of Gain, 
To drive my pining Flock a-thwart the Plain 
To distant Cam; fine Gain at length, I trow, 
To hoard up to my self such deal of Woe ! 

85 	My sheep quite spent through Travel and ill Fare, 
And, like their Keeper, ragged grown and bare; 
Here on cold Earth to make my nightly Bed, 
And on a bending Willow rest my Head. 
'Tis hard to bear the pinching Cold with Pain; 

90 	And hard is Want to th'unexperienc'd Swain: 
69(63) Ohl 70(64) thy fiow'ryl 71. Waters, see! 72(66) Face,j 74(68) Sod?I 75(69) I 76(70) yet isl 77(71) I 78(72) I 79(73) know: I 80. Woe II 81. wand'ringl unbless'd,I 82(76) I 83(77) I 84(78) cou'dstl 85(79) rolling! 87 (81) Need I 88. PlainI 89. Cam: I 90 (84) I 91 (85) Sheepj thro'I 92(86) grow [error] I bare: I 93(87) Here,! 94(88) I 95(89) Pain,! 96. the unpractis'dl 
Four Pastorals by Ambrose Philips  135  
70 75  Sweet are thy banks ! Oh, when shall I, once more, With ravish'd eyes review thine amell'd shore? When, in the crystal of thy water, scan Each feature faded, and my colour wan? When shall I see my hut, the small abode Myself did raise, and cover o'er with sod? Small though it be, a mean and humble cell, Yet is there room for peace, and me, to dwell.  
THENOT  
And what enticement charm'd thee, far away, From thy lov'd home, and led thy heart astray?  
COLINET  
80  A lewd desire strange lands, and swains, to know : Ah God ! that ever I should covet woe. With wandering feet unblest, and fond of fame, I sought I know not what besides a name.  
THENOT  
85  Or, sooth to say, did'st thou not hither rome In search of gains more plenty than at home? A rolling stone is, ever, bare of moss; And, to their cost, green years old proverbs cross.  
COLINET  
90 95  Small need there was, in random search of gain, To drive my pining flock athwart the plain, To distant Cam. Fine gain at length, I trow, To hoard up to myself such deal of woe! My sheep quite spent, through travel and ill fare, And, like their keeper, ragged grown and bare, The damp, cold greensward, for my nightly bed, And some slaunt willow's trunk to rest my head. Hard is to bear of pinching cold the pain ; And hard is want to the unpracticed swain:  

But neither Want nor pinching Cold is hard, To blasting Storms of Calumny compar'd: Unkind as Hail it falls, whose pelting Show'rs Destroy the tender Herb and budding Flow'rs. 
95 Then. Slander we Shepherds count the greatest 
Wrong; 
For, what wounds sorer than an evil Tongue? 

Col. Untoward Lads, that Pleasance take in spite, 
Make mock of all the Ditties I indite. 
In vain, 0 Colinet, thy Pipe so shrill 

100 	Charms ev'ry Vale, and gladdens ev'ry Hill; 
In vain thou seek'st the Cov'rings of the Grove,} 
In the cool Shade to sing the Heats of Love; 
No Passion, but rank Envy, canst thou move: 
Sing what thou wilt, ill Nature will prevail, 

105 	And ev'ry Elf has Skill enough to rail. But yet, tho' poor and artless is my Vein, M enalcas seems to like my simple Strain ; And long as he is pleas'd to hear my Song, Which to M enalcas does of Right belong, 
110 	Nor Night nor Day shall my rude Musick cease, I ask no more, so I M enalcas please. 
Then. Menalcas, Lord of all the neighb'ring Plains, Preserves the Sheep, and o'er the Shepherds reigns : For him our yearly Wakes and F€asts we hold, 
115 	And chuse the fattest Firstlings from the Fold: He good to all, that good deserve, shall give Thy Flock to feed, and thee at Ease to live; Shall curb the Malice of unbridled Tongues, And bounteously reward thy rural Songs. 
97. Cold I 99 (93) I 100 (94) I 101 (95) Slander,! 102 (96) I 103 (97) Lads, who! Spite,! 106(100) Hill:! 107(101) I 108(102) Love:! After 108 [A line wanting in 1748:] (103) Passion! canst, [error] I move.I 109(104) prevail;! 110(105) I 111(106) I 112(107) I 113(108) I 114 
But neither want, nor pinching cold, is hard, To blasting storms of calumny compar'd: Unkind as hail it falls; the pelting shower 
100 	Destroys the tender herb, and budding flower. 
THENOT 
Slander we shepherds count the vilest wrong: 
And what wounds sorer than an evil tongue? 

COLINET 
Untoward lads, the wanton imps of spite, 
Make mock of all the ditties I endite. 

105 	In vain, 0 Colinet, thy pipe, so shrill, Charms every vale, and gladdens every hill : In vain thou seek'st the coverings of the grove, In the cool shade to sing the pains of love : Sing what thou wilt, ill-nature will prevail; 
110 	And every elf hath skill enough to rail: But yet, though poor and artless be my vein, M enalcas seems to like my simple strain: And, while that He delighteth in my song, Which to the good M enalcas doth belong, 
115 	Nor night, nor day, shall my rude musick cease; I ask no more, so I M enalcas please. 
THENOT 
Menalcas, lord of these fair, fertile, plains, Preserves the sheep, and o'er the shepherds reigns: For him our yearly wakes, and feasts, we hold, 
120 	And choose the fairest firstlings from the fold : He, good to all, who Good deserve, shall give Thy flock to feed, and thee at ease to live, Shall curb the malice of unbridled tongues, And bounteously reward thy rural songs. 
(109) 	That to! right! 117 (112) I 118 (113) reigns.I 119 (114) I 120 
(115) Fold.I 121(116) He,I 122(117)1 124. And with due Praise rewardI 
120 	This Night thy Cares with me forget, and fold Thy Flock with mine to ward th'injurious Cold. Sweet Milk and clouted Cream, soft Cheese and Curd, With some remaining Fruit of last Year's Hoard, Shall be our Ev'ning Fare; and for the Night, 
125 	Sweet Herbs and Moss, that gentle Sleep invite. And now behold the Sun's departing Ray O'er yonder Hill, the sign of ebbing Day: With Songs the jovial Hines return from Plow, 
129 	And th'unyok'd Heifers, pacing homeward, low. 
Another PASTORAL 
By the same Hand 
Albino. WHEN Virgil thought no Shame the Dorick 
Reed To tune, and Flocks on Mantuan Plains to feed, With young Augustus Name he grac'd his Song: And Spencer, when amid the rural Throng, 
5 	He carol' d sweet and graz'd along the Flood 
Of gentle Thames, made ev'ry sounding Wood 
With good Elisa's Name to ring around; 
Elisa's Name on ev'ry Tree was found. 

Since then, 0 A--our Cattle thrive, 
10 	And Swains at ease through ANNA's Goodness live; Like them will I my slender Musick raise, And cause the vocal V allies speak her Praise : While you some labour' d Poem shall design, And ANNA's Virtues beautifie each Line. 
15 	But now to you, my Friend, a lowly Lay, 
While my Kids browze, obscure in Shades I play. 

125. First thenl 127. ev'ryl 128. E'erl 129(120) forget;J 131(122)1 133(124) Fare: Andi 134(125)1 135(126) Day.I 137. Plow,! 138 
(129) 	And unyoak'dl 4. Spencer,! 6(6)J 8(8)1 9. thro' ANNA'sl 
10. in full Pastures thrive;! 11-12. [Wanting] I 13(11) I 14. Vallies ANNA'sl 15. Mean timel 16(16) brouze,J play:J 
COLINET 
125 	First, then, shall lightsome birds forget to fly, The briny ocean turn to pastures dry, And every rapid river cease to flow, 'E're I unmindful of M enalcas grow. 
THENOT 
This night thy care with me forget, and fold 
130 	Thy flock with mine, to ward th' injurious cold. New milk, and clouted cream, mild cheese and curd, With some remaining fruit of last year's hoard, Shall be our evening fare, and, for the night, Sweet herbs and moss, which gentle sleep invite: 
135 	And now behold the sun's departing ray, O'er yonder hill, the sign of ebbing day: With songs the jovial hinds return from plow; 
138 	And unyok'd heifers, loitering homeward, low. 
THE THIRD PASTORAL 
ALBINO 
WHEN Virgil thought no shame the Dorick reed To tune, and flocks on Mantuan plains to feed, With young Augustus' name he grac'd his song: And Spenser, when amid the rural throng 
5 	He carol'd sweet, and graz'd along the flood 
Of gentle Thames, made every sounding wood 
With good Eliza's name to ring around; 
Eliza's name on every tree was found: 
Since then, through Anna's cares at ease we live, 

10 	And see our cattle unmolested thrive, 
While from our Albion her victorious arms 
Drive wasteful warfare, loud in dire alarms, 
Like them will I my slender musick raise, 
And teach the vocal valleys Anna's praise. 

15 	Mean-time, on oaten pipe a lowly lay, 
As my kids browse, obscure in shades I play : 

Two Country Swains, both musical, both young, In Friendship's mutual Bonds united long, Retir'd within a mossy Cave, to shun 
20 	The Crowd of Shepherds, and the Noon-day Sun: 
A melancholy Thought possess' d their Mind ; 
Revolving now the solemn Day they find 
When young Albino dy'd: his Image dear 
Bedews their Cheeks with many a trickling Tear; 

25 	To Tears they add the Tribute of their Verse: 
These Angelot, those Palin did rehearse. 

Angelot. Thus yearly circling by-past Times return; And yearly thus Albino's Fate we mourn: Albino's Fate was early; short his Stay: 
30 	How sweet the Rose! how speedy the Decay! 
Can we forget how ev'ry Creature moan'd, And sympathizing Rocks in Echos groan'd, Presaging future Woe, when for our Crimes We lost Albino, Pledge of peaceful Times, 
35 	The Pride of Britain, and the darling Joy 
Of all the Plains and ev'ry Shepherd Boy? 
No joyous Pipe was heard, no Flocks were seen, 
Nor Shepherds found upon the grassy Green; 
No Cattel graz'd the Field nor drank the Flood; 

40 	No Birds were heard to warble thro' the Wood. 
In yonder gloomy Grove stretch'd out he lay, His beauteous Limbs upon the sordid Clay; The Roses on his pallid Cheeks decay'd, And o'er his Lips a livid Hue display'd. 
45 	Bleating around him lye his pensive Sheep, And mourning Shepherds came in Crowds to weep; 
17. Yet not! thinks not! 19(17)! 20(18)! 21(19) mossieJ 22. CroudJ 23(21) Mind:! 24(22) find,! 25(23) dy'd. HisJ 26(24) I 28. Palin! 29(27) I 30 (28) I 31 (29) early,J Stay;! 32 (30) I 33-34. [Wanting, or only partly used]J 35(31)! 36(32) EcchoJ 37. Woe;! 38. Times?! 39(35)! 40(36) Boy.J 41(37)1 42(38) grassieJ 43. drunk! 44(40)1 45(41)1 46(42) dampy Clay,! 47(43)1 48(44) display'd:I 49(45)1 50(46) come! Croudsl 
Yet, not obscure, while Dorset thinks no scorn To visit woods, and swains ignobly born. 
Two valley swains, both musical, both young, 
20 	In friendship mutual, and united long, Retire within a mossy cave, to shun The crowd of shepherds, and the noon-day sun. A gloom of sadness overcasts their mind : Revolving now, the solemn day they find, 
25 	When youg Albino died. His image dear Bedews their cheeks with many a trickling tear: To tears they add the tribute of their verse ; These Angelot, those PaJ,in, did rehearse. 
ANGELOT 
Thus, yearly circling, by-past times return; 
30 	And yearly, thus, Albino's death we mourn. Sent into life, alas! how short thy stay: How sweet the rose! how speedy to decay! Can we forget, Albino dear, thy knell, Sad-sounding wide from every village-bell? 
35 	Can we forget how sorely Albion moan'd, That hills, and dales, and rocks, in echo groan'd, Presaging future woe, when, for our crimes, We lost Albino, pledge of peaceful times, Fair boast of this fair Island, darling joy 
40 	Of Nobles high, and every shepherd-boy? No joyous pipe was hear'd, no flocks were seen, Nor shepherd found upon the grassy green, No cattle graz'd the field, nor drank the flood, No birds were hear'd to warble through the wood. 
45 	In yonder gloomy grove out-stretch'd he lay, His lovely limbs upon the dampy clay; On his cold cheek the rosy hue decay'd, And, o'er his lips, the deadly blue display'd: Bleating around him ly his plaintive sheep; 
50 	And mourning shepherds come, in crowds, to weep. 
The pious Mother comes, with Grief opprest: 
Ye conscious Trees and Fountains can attest, 
With what sad Accents and what moving cries 

50 	She fill'd the Grove, and importun'd the Skies, 
And ev'ry Star upbraided with his Death, 
When in her childless Arms, devoid of Breath, 
She clasp'd her Son: Nor did the Nymph for this 
Place in her Darling's Welfare all her Bliss, 

55 	And teach him young the Sylvan Crook to wield, 
And rule the peaceful Empire of the Field. 

As milk-white Swans on silver Streams do show, And silver Streams to grace the Meadows flow ; As Corn the Vales, and Pines the Hills adorn, 
60 	So thou to thine an Ornament wast born. Since thou, delicious Youth, didst quit the Plains, Th' ungrateful Ground we till with fruitless Pains; In labour'd Furrows sow the Choice of Wheat, And over empty Sheaves in Harvest sweat: 
65 	A thin Increase our woolly Substance yields, 
And Thorns and Thistles overspread the Fields. 

How all our Hopes are fled like Morning Dew! And we but in our Thoughts thy Manhood view. Who now shall teach the pointed Spear to throw, 
70 	To whirl the Sling, and bend the stubborn Bow? 
Nor do'st thou live to bless thy Mother's Days, 
And share the sacred Honours of her Praise; 
In foreign Fields to purchase endless Fame, 
And add new Glories to the British Name. 

75 	0 peaceful may thy gentle Spirit rest! 
And flow'ry Turf lye light upon thy Breast, 

51-54. [Wanting]! 55(47) oppress'd:I 56(48) Ye,! Fountains,! attest! 57(49) Accents! 60. When! widow'dl 61(53) Son.I 63 (55) Silvan! weild,! 65 (57) Silveri 66 (58) Silveri 68 (60) was [error!! 70. Pains;! 72(64) I 73(65) yield,! 74(66) Field.I 75(67) fled,! 76(68) I 77(69)1 78(70)! 79-80. [Wanting]! 82(72) Praise:! 83(73)! 84(74)1 85(75) I 86(76) Breast;! 
Four Pastorals by Ambrose Philips 143 
Young Buckhurst comes : and, is there no redress? 
As if the grave regarded our distress! 
The tender virgins come, to tears yet new, 
And give, aloud, the lamentations due. 

65 	The pious mother comes, with grief opprest: Ye trees, and conscious fountains, can attest With what sad accents, and what piercing cries, She fill'd the grove, and importun'd the skies, And every star upbraided with his death, 
60 	When, in her widowed arms, devoid of breath, She clasp'd her son: nor did the Nymph, for this, Place in her dearling's welfare all her bliss, Him teaching, young, the harmless crook to wield, And rule the peaceful empire of the field. 
65 	As milk-white swans on streams of silver show, And silvery streams to grace the meadows flow, As corn the vales, and trees the hills adorn, So thou, to thine, an ornament wast born. Since thou, delicious youth, didst quit the plains, 
70 	Th' ungrateful ground we till with fruitless pains, In labour'd furrows sow the choice of wheat, And, over empty sheaves, in harvest sweat, A thin increase our fleecy cattle yield ; And thorns, and thistles, overspread the field. 
75 	How all our hope is fled, like morning-dew ! And scarce did we thy dawn of manhood view. Who, now, shall teach the pointed spear to throw, To whirl the sling, and bend the stubborn bow, To toss the quoit with steady aim, and far, 
80 	With sinewy force, to pitch the massy bar? Nor dost thou live to bless thy mother's days, To share her triumphs, and to feel her praise, In foreign realms to purchase early fame, And add new glories to the BriUsh name : 
85 	0, peaceful may thy gentle spirit rest! The flowery turf ly light upon thy breast; Nor shrieking Owl nor Bat fly round thy Tomb, Nor mid-night Fairies there to revel come. 
Palin. No more, mistaken Angelot, complain; 
80 	Albino lives, and all our Tears are vain: And now the royal Nymph, who bore him, deigns To bless the Fields, and rule the simple Swains; While from above propitious he looks down. For this the convex Skies no longer frown, 
85 	The Planets shine indulgent on our Isle, And rural Pleasures round about us smile : Hills, Dales and Woods with shrilling Pipes resound, The Boys and Virgins dance with Garlands crown'd, And hail Albino blest ! the Vallies ring 
90 	Albino bleat! 0 now, if ever, bring The Laurel green, the smelling Eglantine And tender Branches from the mantling Vine, The dewy Cowslip, that in Meadow grows, The Fountain Violet and Garden Rose; 
95 	Your Hamlets strew and ev'ry publick Way, And consecrate to Mirth Albino's Day: My self will lavish all my little Store, And deal about the Goblet flowing o'er; 
87(77) Owl,J Bat,J 88(78) Midnight! 89(79) I 90(80) vain.J 91-96. [Wanting] I 97(81) Royall 98(82) Swains,J 99 (83) J 100 (84) golden Skies! 101 (85) I 102 (86) smile.J 103 (87) resound;! 104 (88) J 105. The Vallies ring,J 106. blest.J now!J 109(93)1 110(94) Rose:J 111-118. [Wanting] I 119. ev'ryJ Way,J 120. Day.J 121(97) I 122. Goblet,J 
Nor shrieking owl, nor bat, thy tomb fly round, Nor midnight goblins revel o'er the ground. 
PALIN 
No more, mistaken Angelot, complain: 
90 	Albino lives; and all our tears are vain: 
Albino lives, and will, for ever live 
With Myriads mixt, who never know to grieve, 
Who welcome every stranger-guest, nor fear 
Ever to mourn his absence with a tear, 

95 	Where cold, nor heat, nor irksome toil annoy, 
Nor age, nor sickness, comes to damp their joy: 
And now the royal Nymph, who bore him, deigns 
The land to rule, and shield the simple swains, 
While, from above, propitious he looks down : 

100 	For this, the welkin does no longer frown, Each planet shines, indulgent, from his sphere, And we renew our pastimes with the year. Hills, dales, and woods, with shrilling pipes resound; The boys and virgins dance, with chaplets crown'd, 
105 	And hail Albino blest: the valleys ring Albino blest! 0 now, if ever, bring The laurel green, the smelling eglantine, And tender branches from the mantling vine, The dewy cowslip, which in meadow grows, 
110 	The fountain-violet, and the garden-rose, Marsh-lillies sweet, and tufts of daffadil, With what ye cull from wood, or verdant hill, Whether in open sun, or shade, they blow, More early some, and some unfolding slow, 
115 	Bring, in heap'd canisters, of every kind, As if the summer had with spring combin'd, And nature, forward to assist your care, Did no profusion for Albino spare. Your hamlets strew, and every publick way; 
120 	And consecrate to mirth Albino's day: Myself will lavish all my little store, And deal about the goblet flowing o'er: 
100 105 108  Old Moulin there shall harp, young Mico sing, And Cuddy dance the Round amidst the Ring, And Hobbinol his antick Gambols play: To thee these Honours yearly will we pay, When we our shearing Feast and Harvest keep, To speed the Plow, and bless our thriving Sheep. While Mallow Kids and Endive Lambs pursue, While Bees love Thyme, and Locusts sip the Dew, While Birds delight in Woods their Notes to strain, Thy Name and sweet Remembrance shall remain,  
Et puer ipse fuit cantari dignus.-Virg. Eccl. 5.  
Another PASTORAL  
By the same Hand  
Mico, Ar,gol  
5 10  Mico. THIS place may seem for Shepherds Leisure made, So lovingly these Elms unite their Shade. Th' ambitious Woodbine, how it climbs, to breathe Its balmy Sweets around on all beneath! The Ground with Grass of chearful Green bespread, Thro' which the springing Flow'r up-rears its Head: Lo here the Kingcup, of a golden Hue, Meddly'd with Daisies white and Endive blue. Hark how the gawdy Goldfinch and the Thrush With tuneful warblings fill that Bramble-bush! In pleasing Consorts all the Birds combine, And tempt us in the various Song to join. Up Argol then; and to thy Lip apply Thy mellow Pipe, or vocal Musick try:  

123 (99) I 124 (100) I 125. play.I 126 (102) I 127-128. [Wanting] I 129 (103)1 131(105) Kids,I pursue;! 132. Dew;I 1(1) Placel 2(2)1 3(3) breath! 4(4) I 5. cheerful! 6(6) Head.I 7(7) King-Cup,I 8. white,I blue./ 9-10. [Wanting]/ 11-12(9-10) gaudy Goldfinch,! Thrush,j Warblingsl Bramble-Bush!! 13-14. [Wanting] I 15 (11) I 16 (12) I 
17. then;! 
Old Moulin there shall harp, young Myco sing,  
And Cuddy dance the round amid the ring,  
125  And Hobbinol his antick gambols play:  
To thee these honours, yearly, will we pay;  
Nor fail to mention thee in all our chear,  
And teach our children the remembrance dear,  
When we or shearing-feast, or harvest, keep,  
130  To speed the plow, and bless our thriving sheep.  
While willow kids, and herbage lambs, pursue,  
While bees love thyme, and locusts sip the dew,  
While birds delight in woods their notes to strain,  
Thy name and sweet memorial shall remain.  
THE FOURTH PASTORAL  
MYCO, ARGOL  
MYCO  
THIS place may seem for shepherd's leisure made,  
So close these elms inweave their lofty shade;  
The twining woodbine, how it climbs ! to breathe  
Refreshing sweets around on all beneath;  
5  The ground with grass of chearful green bespread,  
Through which the springingfl.owerup-rearsthehead:  
Lo, here the kingcup of a golden hue,  
Medly'd with daisies white and endive blue,  
And honeysuckles of a purply dy,  
10  Confusion gay! bright-waving to the eye.  
Hark, how they warble in that brambly bush,  
The gaudy goldfinch and the speckly thrush,  
The linnet green, with others famed for skill,  
And blackbird fluting through his yellow bill:  
15  In sprightly concert how they all combine,  
Us prompting in the various song to join:  
Up, Argol, then, and to thy lip apply  
Thy mellow pipe, or voice more sounding try:  

15 And since our Ews have graz'd, no harm if they Lye round and listen, while their Lambkins play. 
Argol. The Place indeed gives Pleasure to the Eye,  
And Pleasure works the Singer's Fancy high:  
The Fields breathe sweet, and now the gentle Breeze  
20  Moves ev'ry Leaf, and trembles thro' the Trees,  
So sweet a Scene ill-suits my rugged Lay,  
And better fits the Musick thou canst play.  
Mico. No Skill of Musick can I, simple Swain,  
No fine Device thy Ear to entertain ;  
25  Tho' rude my Strains, uncouth the Melody,  
It pleases and diverts my Sheep and me.  
Yet Colinet (and Colinet has Skill,)  
My Fingers guided on the tuneful Quill,  
And try'd to teach me on what Sounds to dwell,  
30  And where to sink a Note, and where to swell.  
Argol. Ah Mico! half my Flock wou'd I bestow,  
Would Colinet to me his Cunning show.  
So trim his Sonnets are, I prithee, Swain,  
Now give us once a Sample of his Strain:  
35  For Wonders of that Lad the Shepherds say,  
How sweet his Pipe, how ravishing his Lay:  
The Sweetness of his Pipe and Lay rehearse,  
And ask what Gift thou pleasest for thy Verse  
Mico. Since then thou list, a mournful Song I chuse;  
40  A mournful Song becomes a mournful Muse:  
Fast by the River on a Bank he sate,  
To weep a lovely Maids untimely Fate,  

18(14) I 19(15) And, I Ewesl harm,I 20(16) I 21-22. [Wanting] I 23 
(17) Pleasancel Eye;I 24(18) Pleasancel 25(19) breath sweet;I Breezl 26 (20) Trees.I 27 (21) ill suitsl 28 (22) I 29 (23) I 30 (24) I 
31. tho'I 32. me.I 33. hasI 34 (28) I 35 (29) I 37 (31) would I 38(32)1 39(33)1 40(34)1 41. For,I 42(36)1 43(37)1 44(38)i 45(39)1 46(40) Muse.I 48. weep al 
Four Pastoral,s by Ambrose Philips 149 
And since our ewes have graz'd, what harm if they 20 Ly round and listen while the lambkins play? 
ARGOL 
Well, Myco, can thy dainty wit express 
Fair nature's bounties in the fairest dress: 
'Tis rapture all! the place, the birds, the sky; 
And rapture works the singer's fancy high. 

25 	Sweet breathe the fields, and now a gentle breez Moves every leaf, and trembles through the trees: Ill such incitements suit my rugged lay, Befitting more the Musick thou can'st play. 
MYCO 
No skill of musick kon I, simple swain, 
30 	No fine device thine ear to entertain: Albeit some deal I pipe, rude though it be, Sufficient to divert my sheep and me; Yet Colinet (and Colinet hath skill) Oft' guides my fingers on the tuneful quill, 
35 	And fain would teach me on what sounds to dwell, And where to sink a note, and where to swell. 
ARGOL 
Ah, Myco! half my flock would I bestow, 
Should Colinet to me his cunning show: 
So trim his sonnets are, I pr'ythee, swain, 

40 	Now give us, once, a sample of his strain: For wonders of that lad the shepherds say, How sweet his pipe, how ravishing his lay! The sweetness of his pipe and lay rehearse; And ask what Boon thou wiliest for thy verse. 
MYCO 
45 	Since then thou list, a mournful song I chuse: A mournful song relieves a mournfull Muse. Fast by the river on a bank he sate, To weep the lovely maid's untimely fate, That SteUa hight; a lovely Maid was she, Whose Fate he wept; a faithful Shepherd he. 
45 Awake, my Pipe, in ev'ry Note express Fair Stella's Death, and Colinet's Distress. 
0 woful Day! 0 Day of Woe! quoth he; 
And woful I, who live this Day to see! 
That ever she could die, 0 most unkind ! 

50 	To go, and leave thy Colinet behind: And yet, why blame I her? full fain would she With dying Arms have clasp'd her self to me: I clasp'd her too, but Death was all too strong, Nor T'ears, nor Vows, could flitting Life prolong. 
55 	Teach me to grieve with bleating Moan, my Sheep; Teach me, thou ever-flowing Stream, to weep; Teach me, ye fainting hollow Winds to sigh ; And let my Sorrows teach me how to die : Nor Flock, nor Stream, nor Winds can e'er relieve 
60 	A Wretch like me; for ever born to grieve. 
Awake, my Pipe; in ev'ry Note express 
Fair Stella's Death, and Colinet's Distress. 

Ye brighter Maids, faint Emblems of my Fair, With down-cast Looks, and with dishevel'd Hair, 65 In bitter Anguish beat your Breasts, and moan Her Hour untimely, as it were your own: 
49. Al 50(44)1 51(45) Awake! Pipe;! 52(46)1 53(47)1 54(48) the Day! 55. die!! 56. go,I 57-60. [Wanting]! 61. she,! 62(52) Arms,! 63(53) too;! 64. Vows,! Tears,! prolong.I 65-68. [Wanting]! 69(55) grieve,l 70(56)1 71(57) ye faint, yel Winds,! 72(58)1 73(59) Winds,! 74(60) me,I 75-76(61-62)1 77(63)1 78(64) With Looks cast down, and! 79(65)1 80(66) own.I 
Fair Stell,a hight: a lovely maid was she, 50 Whose fate he wept, a faithful shepherd he. 
Awake, my pipe; in every note express 
Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's distress. 

"O woeful day! 0 day of woe to me! 
"That ever I should live such day to see ! 

55 	"That ever she could dy ! 0 most unkind, "To go and leave thy Colinet behind! "From blameless love and plighted troth to go, "And leave to Colinet a life of woe! 
Awake, my pipe; in every note express 
60 Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's distress. 

"And yet, why blame I her? Full fain would she "With dying arms have clasp'd herself to me; "I clasp'd her too, but death prov'd over-strong; "Nor vows nor tears could fleeting life prolong: 
65 	"Yet how shall I from vows and tears refrain? "And why should vows, alas! and tears be vain? 
Awake, my pipe; in every note express 
Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's distress. 

"Aid me to grieve, with bleating moan, my sheep; 
70 	"Aid me, thou ever-flowing stream, to weep; "Aid me ye faint, ye hollow, winds, to sigh, "And thou, my woe, assist me thou to dy. "Me flock nor stream, nor winds nor woes, relieve; "She lov'd through life, and I through life will grieve. 
75 Awake, my pipe; in every note express Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's distress. 
"Ye gentler maids, companions of my fair, "With down-cast look, and with dishevell'd hair, "All beat the breast, and wring your hands and moan ; 
80 	"Her hour, untimely, might have prov'd your own: 
Alas ! the fading Glory of your Eyes 
In vain we doat upon, in vain you prize ; 
For tho' your Beauty rule the silly Swain, 

70 	And in his Heart like little Queens you reign ; Yet Death will e'en that charming Beauty kill, As ruthless Winds the tender Blossoms spill. If either Musick's Voice, or Beauty's Charm Could make him mild, and stay his lifted Arm ; 
75 	My Pipe her Face, her Face my Pipe should save, Redeeming thus each other from the Grave. Ah fruitless Wish! cold Death's up-lifted Arm Nor Musick can persuade, nor Beauty charm: For see (0 baleful sight!) see where she lies! 
80 	The budding Flow'r, unkindly blasted, dies. 
Awake, my Pipe; in ev'ry Note express Fair Stella's Death, and Colinet's Distress. 
Unhappy Colinet ! what boots thee now To weave fresh Garlands for the Damsel's Brow? 
81--84. [Wanting]! 85(67) Glories! 86(68) prize:! 87(69) For,! 88(70)1 89(71) ev'n that ruling! 91-94. [Wanting] I 95(73) Charm,! 96(74)1 97(75)1 98(76)1 99-100. [Wanting]! 101(77) Coldl Arm,! 102(78)1 103(79) See where! lyes!I 104(80)1 105-106. [Wanting] I 107-108(81--82) I 109(83) What! 110(84) I 111-116. [Wanting] I 
"Her hour, untimely, help me to lament; 
"And let your hearts at Stella's name relent. 
Awake, my pipe; in every note express 
Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's di,stress. 

85 "In vain the indearing luster of your eyes 
"We dote upon, and you as vainly prize. 
"What though your beauty bless the faithful swain, 
"And in the enamour'd heart like queens ye reign; 
"Yet in their prime does death the fairest kill, 

90 	"As ruthless winds the tender blossoms spill. 
Awake, my pipe; in every note express 
Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's di,stress. 

"Such Stella was; yet Stella might not live! "And what could Colinet in ransom give? 
95 	"Oh! if or musick's voice, or beauty's charm, 
"Could milden death, and stay his lifted arm, 
"My pipe her face, her face my pipe might save, 
"Redeeming each the other from the grave. 

Awake, my pipe; in every note express 100 Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's distress. 
"Ah, fruitless wish! fell death's uplifted arm "Nor beauty can arrest, nor musick charm. "Behold ! 0 baleful sight! see where she lies ! "The budding flower, unkindly blasted, dies: 
105 	"Nor, though I live the longest day to mourn, "Will she again to life and me return. 
Awake, my pipe; in every note express 
Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's di,stress. 

"Unhappy Colinet! what boots thee now, 
110 	"To weave fresh girlonds for thy Stella's brow? "No girlond ever more may Stella wear, "Nor see the flowery season of the year, 85 Throw by the Lilly, Daffadil and Rose; 
One of black Yew, and Willow pale compose, 
With baneful Henbane, deadly Nightshade drest; 
A Garland that may witness thy unrest. 
My Pipe, whose soothing sound could Passion move, 90 And first taught Stella's Virgin Heart to love, 
Untun'd shall hang upon this blasted Oak, 
Whence Owls their Dirges sing, and Ravens croak: 
Nor Lark, nor Linnet shall by Day delight, 
Nor Nightingale divert my moan by Night; 95 The Night and Day shall undistinguish'd be, 
Alike to Stella, and alike to me. 
Thus sweetly did the gentle Shepherd sing, And heavy Woe within soft Numbers bring. And now that Sheep-Crook for my Song I crave. 
117 (85) I 118(86) pale,) 119 (87) Night-shade) 120 (88) Garland,) Unrest.I 121-132. [Wanting] I 133 (89) Sound) 134 (90) I 135 (91) Untun'd,) 137 (93) I 138 (94) I 141-142. [Wanting] I 143 (97) I 144 (98) bring:) 
"Nor dance nor sing, nor ever sweetly smile, "And every toil of Colinet beguile. 
115 Awake, my pipe; in every note express Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's distress. 
"Throw by the lilly, daffadil, and rose ; "Wreaths of black yew, and willow pale, compose, "With baneful hemlock, deadly nightshade, dress'd, 
120 	"Such chaplets as may witness thine unrest, "If aught can witness: 0, ye shepherds tell, "When I am dead, no shepherd lov'd so well! 
Awake, my pipe; in every note express Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's distress. 
125 "Alack, my sheep! and thou, dear spotless lamb, 
"By Stella nurs'd, who wean'd thee from the dam, 
"What heed give I to aught but to my grief, 
"My whole employment, and my whole relief! 
"Stray where ye list, some happyer master try: 

130 	"Yet once, my flock. was none so bless'd as I. 
Awake, my pipe; in every note express 
Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's distress. 

"My pipe, whose soothing sound could passion move, "And first taught Stella's virgin-heart to love, 
135 	"Shall silent hang upon this blasted oak, "Whence owls their dirges sing, and ravens croak: "Nor lark, nor linnet, shall by day delight, "Nor nightingale suspend my moan by night. "The night and day shall undistinguish'd be, 
140 	"Alike to Stella, and alike to me. 
No more, my pipe; here cease we to express Fair Stella's death, and Colinet's distress. 
Thus, sorrowing, did the gentle shepherd sing, And urge the valley with his wail to ring. 
145 And now that sheep-hook for my song I crave. 
100 Argol. Not this, but much a fairer thou shalt have, 
Of season'd Elm, where studs of Brass appear, 
That speak the Giver's Name, the Month and Year; 
The Hook of polish'd Steel, the Handle torn'd, 
And richly by the Graver's Skill adorn'd. 

105 0 Colinet, how sweet thy Grief to hear! How does thy Verse subdue the list'ning Ear? Not half so sweet are Midnight Winds, that move In drowzie murmurs o'er the waving Grove; Nor drooping Waters, that in Grots distill, 
110 	And with a tinkling sound their Caverns fill: So sing the Swans, that in soft Accents waste Their dying Breath, and warble to the last: And next to thee, shall Mico bear the Bell, That can repeat thy peerless Verse so well. 
115 But see, the Hills increasing Shadows cast; The sinking Sun is leaving us in haste: His weekly Rays but glimmer thro' the Wood, And blewish Mists exhale from yonder Flood. 
Mico. Then send our Curs to gather up the Sheep, 120 Good Shepherds, with their Flocks, betimes should 
sleep: For he that late lies down, as late will rise, And, Sluggard-like, till Noon-day snoring lies: While, in their Folds, his injur'd Ews complain, 
124 	And, after dewy Pastures, bleat in vain. 
146. one much fairer shalt! 147(101) Elm;! Studs! 148(102) To speakI 149 (103) turn'd,I 150 (104) I 152 (106) Ear!I 153-154. [Want­ing] I 155(107)1 156(108) drowsie Murmurs! 157-158. [Wanting]! 159(109) dropping! distil,! 160(110) Sound! 161-162. [Wanting; in their place two lines as in the 1708 edition] (111) soft Numbers! 
(112) last.I 163. Micol 164(114) I 165. see;! cast:! 167(117) weakly! 
168. blueish! 169(119) Sheep:! 170(120) [No commas]! 171(121) For,! lyes! 172(122) Sluggard like, 'till! lyes;! 173. their Folds! 
ARGOL 
Not this, but one more costly, shalt thou have, Of season'd elm, where studs of brass appear, To speak the giver's name, the month, and year; The hook of polish'd steel, the handle torn'd, 
150 	And richly by the carver's skill adorn'd. 
0, Colinet, how sweet thy grief to hear! How does thy verse subdue the listening ear! Soft falling as the still, refreshing, dew, To slake the drought, and herbage to renew : 
155 	Not half so sweet the midnight winds, which move In drousy murmurs o'er the waving grove, Nor valley brook that, hid by alders, speeds O'er pebbles warbling, and through whisp'ring reeds, Nor dropping waters, which from rocks distil, 
160 	And welly grots with tinkling echoes fill. Thrice happy Colinet, who can relieve Heart-anguish sore, and make it sweet to grieve ! And next to thee shall Myco bear the bell, Who can repeat thy peerless song so well: 
165 	But see! the hills increasing shadows cast; The sun, I ween, is leaving us in haste: His weakly rays faint glimmer through the wood, And bluey mists arise from yonder flood. 
MYCO 
Bid then our dogs to gather in the sheep. 
170 	Good shepherds, with their flock, betimes should sleep. Who late lies down, thou know'st, as late will rise, And, sluggard-like, to noon-day snoring lies, While in the fold his injur'd ewes complain, 
174 	And after dewy pastures bleat in vain. 
LEWIS AND CLARK'S EXPEDITION AS A SOURCE FOR POE'S "JOURNAL OF JULIUS RODMAN" 
BY POLLY PEARL CRAWFORD 
Washington Irving's Astoria, which Poe reviewed in the Southern Literary Messenger of January, 1837, is com­monly accepted as a principal source for "The Journal of Julius Rodman."1 Other works that have been suggested as sources are the records of various exploring expeditions of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, including the narratives of Mackenzie, Lewis and Clark, and Pike.2 It is the purpose of this paper to show how far Poe used in his story the record of Lewis and Clark. 
The first edition of The History of the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Cl,ark3 contained a preface giving details as to the history of the manuscript and its preparation for publication, a memoir of Meri­wether Lewis by President Jefferson, an introductory chaP­ter, the journal proper, and an appendix giving information as to the land and the Indians. Poe drew a considerable portion of the materials for his story from this work, and he also followed roughly the plan of the History, the prin­cipal deviation being in the substitution of an introductory chapter (purporting to be an editorial) for the three sec­tions preliminary to Lewis and Clark's account. From the preface he got suggestions for such details as the long delay in the publication of Rodman's journal, the final prep­aration of the manuscript from field notes, and the death of the explorer before the publication of his records. These 
1 The Works of Edgar Allan Poe, edited by Edmund Clarence Sted­man and George Edward Woodberry, Chicago, 1895, V, 359-361; Allen, Hervey, Israfel, New York, 1927, II, 4.63, note. See also the article of H. A. Turner, in University of Texas Studies in English, No. 10, pp. U7f., for Poe's indebtedness to Irving's Adventures of Captain Bonneville. 
2Woodberry, George E., The Life of Edgar Allan Poe, Boston, 1909, I, 235-236. 8Published in Philadelphia, in 1814, in two volumes. My citations are from this edition. 
points are noteworthy only in that they help to show how completely Poe made the work of the famous explorers his own. 
But it was Jefferson's memoir that chiefly interested Poe, for here he found his Julius Rodman. It has been held4 that Poe identified himself with Rodman, who suffered from "hereditary hypochondria" and was "possessed with a burning love of nature," particularly in her "dreary and savage aspects"; but a study of the memoir shows that in characterizing Julius Rodman Poe merely followed Jeffer­son's description of Meriwether Lewis. Jefferson says that Lewis had from early life been subject to "hypochondriac affections," a constitutional disposition inherited by him from his father, and that during his exploration of the West, the "constant exertion ... required of all the faculties of body and mind suspended these distressing affections."5 Poe asserts that Rodman's life had been embittered by "an hereditary hypochondria," and that Rodman was "urged solely by a desire to seek, in the bosom of the wilderness, that peace which his peculiar disposition would not permit him to enjoy among men."6 
Poe likewise levied on Jefferson's letter for materials for the historical background of his story. Jefferson gives an account of the circumstances leading up to Lewis and Clark's expedition, referring, among other things, to the attempt of John Ledyard to reach the western coast of America by way of Asia, to transactions with Michaux, the botanist, looking toward an expedition across the continent, and to a confidential message to Congress proposing an exploring party to trace the Missouri to its source. This material Poe transferred with immaterial changes to his own pages, connecting Jefferson's name with it in a casual way in order to give an air of reality to his story. Poe's use of Jefferson's phraseology may be seen from the parallel 
~Ingram, John H., Edgar Allan Poe, London, 1886, p. 139; Phillips, 
Mary E., Edgar Allan Poe, the Man, Philadelphia, 1926, I, 619. 5Lewis and Clark, pp. xxi-xxii. 6The CompU3te Works of Edgar Allan Poe, edited by James A. 
Harrison, New York, 1902, IV, 10-11. 
passages given below. I have put in italics the expressions that are identical or virtually so. Of the story told about Ledyard, Poe copied or paraphrased some twenty lines: 
Jefferson While I resided in Paris, John Ledyard, of Connecticut, arrived there, . . . He had accompanied Captain Cook on his voyage to the Pacific ocean; and distin­guished himself on that voyage by his intrepidity. Being of a roaming disposition, he was now 
panting for some new enterprise. . . . I then proposed to him to go by land to Kamschatka, cross in some of the Russian vessels to Nootka Sound, fall down into the latitude of the Missouri, and pen­etrate to, and through, that to the United States. He eagerly seized the idea, and only asked to be assured of the permission of the Russian government. . . . Her permission w a s obtained, . . • Ledyard set out from Paris, and arrived at St. Petersburgh after the Empress had left that place to pass the winter ..• at Moscow. His finances not permitting him to make unnec.essary stay at St. Petersburgh, he left it with a passport from one of the minis­ters; and at two hundred miles from Kamschatka ... was ar­rested by an officer of the Em­press, who . . . had changed her mind, and forbidden his proceed­ing. He was put into a close car­riage, and conveyed day and night, without ever stopping, till they reached Poland; where he was set down and left to him­
self.1 
TLewis and Clark, pp. ix-x. &Harrison, IV, 17. 
Poe Mr. J. relates that Ledyard called upon him in Paris, panting for some new enterprise, after his successful voyage with Captain 
Cook; and that he (Mr. J.) pro­posed to him that he should go by land to Kamschatka, cross in 
some of the Russian vessels to Nootka Sound, fall down into the latitude of the Missouri, and then, striking through the country, pass down that river to the United States.-Ledyard agreed to the proposal provided the permission of the Russian Government could be obtained. Mr. Jefferson suc­ceeded in obtaining this; and the traveller, setting out from Paris, arrived at St. Petersburgh, after the Empress had left that place to pass the winter at Moscow. His financ.es not permitting him to make unnecessary stay at St. P., he continued on his route with a passport from one of the ministers, and, at two hundred miles from Kamschatka,, was ar­rested by an officer of the Em­press, who had changed her mind, and now forbade his proceeding. He was put into a close carriage, a,nd driven, day a,nd night, with­out stopping, till he reached Poland, where he was set down and dismissed.a 
Another passage from Jefferson's memoir which Poe appropriated is the account of the transaction with Michaux. Jefferson explains that in 1792, acting upon his suggestion, the American Philosophical Society planned to send a competent person to explore the Rocky Mountain Region, and that the services of Andre Michaux, the botan­ist, were finally engaged for the task. Poe drew freely from this part of Jefferson's narrative, making Michaux the friend who induced Julius Rodman to write out in detail the story of his journey. 
Jefferson Poe 
•.. but Mr. Andre Michaux, a ... M. Andre Michau, the bot­professed botanist, author of the anist, and author of the Flora Fwra Boreali-Americana, and of Boreali-Americana, and of the the Histoire des Chesnes d'Ame­Histoire des Chesne d'Amerique. rique, offering his services, they M. Michau, it will be remembered, were accepted. He received his had made an offer of his services instructions, and when he had to Mr. Jefferson, when that reached Kentucky in the prosecu­s t a t e s m a n first contemplated tion of his journey, he was over­sending an expedition across the taken by an order from the Rocky Mountains. He was en­minister of France, then at gaged to prosecute the journey, Philadelphia, to relinquish the and had even proceeded on his expedition, and to pursue else­way as far as Kentucky, when he where the botanical inquiries on was overtaken by an order from which he was employed by that the French minister, then at government: and thus failed the Philadelphia, requiring him to second attempt for exploring that relinquish the design, and to pur­region.& sue elsewhere the botanical in.­
quiries on which he was employed by his government."10 
Again, Poe turned to the "Memoir" for Jefferson's report of his confidential message to Congress. 
Jefferson In 1803, the act for establish-­ing trading houses with the In­dian tribes being about to expire, some modifications of it were recommended to Congre<Js by a c.onfidential message of January 
9Lewis and Clark, p. xi. 10Harrison, IV, 12. 
Poe In 1803, the act for establish­ing trading houses with the In­dian tribes being about to expire, some modifications of it (with an extension of its views to the I11r dians on the Missouri) were rec­
Jefferson 18th, and an extension of its views to the Indians on the Mis­souri. In order to prepare the way, the message proposed the sending an exploring party to trace the Missouri to its source, to cross the Highlands, and fol­low the best water-communica.­tion which offered itself from thence to the Pacific ocean.11 
Poe ommended to C o n g r e s s by II confidential Message from Mr. Jefferson, of January 18th. In. order to prepare the way, it was proposed to send a party to trace the Missouri to its source, cross the Rocky Mountains, and follow the best water c.ommunication. 
which offered itself thence to the Pacific Ocean.u 
But the bulk of Poe's borrowings were from the body of the History, the journal proper. All told, Poe took from Lewis and Clark's record in some form more than a dozen pages of his story, and there were miscellaneous borrowings besides those involving close paraphrase or sheer copying. Space is not available for the reproduction of all these parallels, but I shall cite passages from each of the several chapters of the story. 
In Chapter II the description of Petite Cote and its inhabitants is a fair illustration of Poe's use of his source. 
Parallels are given below: 
Lewis and C'lark St. Charles is a small town on the north bank of the Missouri, about twenty-one miles from its confluence with the Mississippi. It is situated in a narrow plain, sufficiently high to protect it from the annual risings of the river in the month of June, and at the foot of a range of small hills, which have occasioned its being called Petite Cote, . . . One principal street, about a mile in length, and running parallel with the river, divides the town, which is composed of nearly one hun­dred small wooden houses, be­sides a chapel. The inhabitants, 
11Lewis and Clark, p. xi. i2Harrison, IV, 19. 
Poe Petite Cote is a small place on. the north bank of the Missouri, about twenty miles from its junction with the Mississippi. It lies at the foot of a range of low hills, and upon a sort of ledge, high enough above the river to be out of reach of the June freshets. There are not more than five or six houses, and these of wood, in the uppe·r part of the place; but, nearer to the east, there is a chapel and twelve or fifteen good dwellings, running parallel with the river. There are about a hun­dred inhabitants, mostly Creoles of Canadian d.escent. They are ex­
Lewis and Clark Poe 
about four hundred and fifty in tremely indolent, and make no number, are chiefly descendants attempt at cultivating the coun­from the French of Canada; ... try around them, which is a rich. their industry is without system, soil; except now and then when and without perseverance. The a little is done in the way of surrounding country, therefore, gardening. They live principally though rich, is not in general, by hunting, and trading with. the well cultivated; the inhabitants Indians•.. .u chiefly subsisting by hunting and 
trade with the Indians, and con­fine their culture to gardening, in which they exce1.1s 
Other passages that follow closely Lewis and Clark's narra­tive are the description of Tavern Cave and the account of trouble at Diable Rapid.15 Altogether there are more than forty lines of paraphrase in this chapter. 
And there are borrowings not involving paraphrase. Passages in Chapter II suggested by explanation or incident in Lewis and Clark's record include the following: the introduction of Toby, the explanation of the method of distributing the load in the boat, the statement concerning the two horses to be led along the banks of the river, the account of the death of a member of the party, and the story of the encounter with the Spaniards.18 
In Chapter III there is extensive paraphrasing. The account of activities at the mouth of the Platte and the description of much of the scenery are based on Lewis and Clark's records. The citations below are from passages cov­ering approximately seventy lines. 
Lewis and Clark Poe 
• • . We stayed here several ( . . . our voyagers encamped days, during which we dried our for three days, during which they prO'Visions, made new oars, and were busily occupied in drying prepared our despatches..•• and airing their goods and pro­The hunters have found game visions, making new oars and scarce in this neighborhood; they poles, and repairing the birch 
1•Lewis and Clark, I, 4. 
HHarrison, IV, 23. 
15Lewis and Clark, I, 5--6; Harrison, IV, 35-37. 
1t1Lewis and Clark, I, 1--4 and 48; Harrison, IV, 27-38. 
Lewia and Cwrk have seen deer, turkie11 and grouse; we have also an abund­ance of ripe grapes; and one of our men caught a white cat fish, the eyes of which were small and its tail resembling that of a dolphin. The present season is that in which the Indians go out into the prairies to hunt buff a­loe.11 
These mounds indicate the posi­tion of the ancient village of the Ottoes,19 . .. . The Ottoes were once a powerful nation.... Being reduced they migrated to the neighborhood of the Pawnees, under whose protection they now live. Their village is on the south side of the Platte, about thirty miles from its mouth.20 
July 27.... After making fifteen miles we camped. • • • 
July 28. . • . we reached a bluff on the north, being the first highlands which approach the river on that side since we le/t the N adawa. Above this, is an isl,and and a creek, about fifteen yards wide.• •• At ten and three­quarters miles, we encamped on the north, opposite an isl,and, in the middle of the river. The land, generally, on the north consists of 
17Lewis and Clark, I, 32. 
lSffarrison, IV, 39. 
l&Lewis and Clark, I, 35. 
20Ibi.d., I, 33. 
21Harrison, IV, 40. 
Poe canoe, . . . The kunters brought in an abundance of game, with which the boats were loaded to repletion. Deer was had for the asking, and turkeys and fat grouse were met with in great plenty. The party, moreover, regaled on several species of fisk, and, at a short distance from the river banks, found an exquisite kind of wild grape. No Indians had been seen for better than a fortnight, as this was the hunting season, and they were doubtless engaged in the prairies, taking buffalo . ••.)18 These mounds are now well understood to indicate the posi­tion of the ancient vill,age of the Ottoes, who were once a very powerful tribe. Being reduced by continual hostilities, they sought protection of the Pawnees, and 
migrated to the south of the Platte, about tkirty miles from its moutk.21 
August 15. Today we ••• made only fifteen miles, with great labor; encamping at night be­neath a bluff on the north shore, this being the first bluff on that side whick we had seen since leaving tke Nodaway. ••• 
August 16. Early this morn­ing passed an iswnd, and a creek about fifteen yards wi.de, and, at a farther distance of twelve miles, a large island in the middle of the river. We had now, generally, 
Lewis and Clark Poe 
high prairie and hills, with tim­high prairie, and timbered hills ber; on the south, low and cov­on the north, with low ground ered with cottonwood.22 on the south, covered witk cotton.­
wood.23 
The chapter closes with an incident which has its parallel in Lewis and Clark-the warning of the whites against the Sioux.24 
In Chapter IV Poe defines the territory occupied by the various tribes of Indians, and gives a detailed description of the dress of the Sioux. These passages, covering three pages of the story, 25 were taken almost verbatim from Lewis and Clark's journal. A few lines from each passage will illustrate the closeness of the paraphrase. 
Lewis and Clark Almost the whole of that vast 
tract of country comprised be­tween the Mississippi, the Red river of Lake Winnipeg, the Saskaskawan, and the Missouri, is loosely occupied by a great nation whose primitive name is Darcota, but who are called Siou:i; by the French, Sues by the Eng­lish. Their original seats were on the Mississippi, but they have gradually s p r e a d themselves abroad and become subdivided into numerous tribes.26 
... In their persons they are rather ugly and ill-made, their legs and arms being too small, their cheek bones high, and their eyes projecting.... 
22Lewis and Clark, I, 35. 
2sHarrison, IV, 40-41. 
24Lewis and Clark, I, 55. 
2sHarrison, IV, 56-59. 
2&Lewis and Clark, I, 145. 
21Harrison, IV, 56. 
Poe Siou:i; is the French term for the Indians in question-the Eng­lish have corrupted it into Sues. Their primitive name is said to be Darcotas. Their original seats were on the Mississippi, but they had gradually extended their dominions, and, at the date of the journal, o c c u p i e d almost the whole of that vast territory cir­cumscribed by the Mississippi, the Saskatchawine, the Missouri, and the Red River of Lake Win­nipeg. They were subdivided into numerous clans... .21 In person, the Sioux generally are an ugly ill-made race, their limbs being much too small for the trunk, according to our ideas of the human form-their cheek bones are high, and their eyes 
Lewis and Clark The men shave the hair off their heads, except a small tuft on the top, which they suffer to grow and wear in plaits over the shoulders; . . .2s 
Poe protruding and dull. The heads of the men are shaved, with the exception of a small spot on the crown, whence a long tuft is per­mitted to fall in p.laits upon the shou"lders; . . .20 
Other passages in this chapter which follow more or less closely Lewis and Clark's account include the description of the Great Bend country, the incident of the sinking sand­bar, and the reference to the variety of game.30 
The incident of the conflict with the dreaded Sioux, which forms a large part of this chapter of Poe's story, grew out of Lewis and Clark's account of troubles with the Teton SiouX.81 
In Chapter V there are some fifty lines of descriptive detail from Lewis and Clark, including something of the history of the Mandans, reference to the visit of a Minne­taree chief, details as to vegetation and wild game, a de­scription of White Earth River, mention of the salt encrusted ground, and details as to the jaggedness of the hills and the crookedness of the river.82 The passages quoted below indicate the nature of the material. 
Lewis and Clark May 2. • . • the vegetation, which is now considerably ad­vanced, some flowers having put forth, and the cottonwood leaves being as large as a dollar.••. We also procured three beaver, which are quite gentle, . . . This animal we esteem a great del­icacy, particularly the tail, which when boiled resembles in flavor the fleshy tongues and sounds of 
2sLewis and Clark, I, 87. 
20Harrison, IV, 57. 
Poe May 1. .•• the opening vegeta­tion, which was now much ad­vanced. The cotton-wood leaves were quite as large as a crown, and many flowers were full blown.... The beavers were very tame and easily taken. This ani­mal is quite a bonne bouche as an article of food; especially the tail, which is of a somewhat glutinous nature, like the fins of 
30Lewis and Clark, I, 78; Harrison, IV, 68-69. 
81Lewis and Clark, I, 82-83, 90-91, 93, 96; Harrison, IV, 59-67. 
82Lewis and Clark, I, 129-133, 192-195, 202-203; Harrison, IV, 

78-87. 
Lewis and Clark 
the codfish, and is generally so large as to afford a plentiful meal for two men.ss 
April 22d. . . . The kills of the Missouri near this place exhibit large irregular broken masses of rocks and stones, some of which, although two hundred feet above the water, seem at some remote period to have been subject to its influence, . .. occasionally broken strata of a black coloured stone like petrified wood. . • . The usual appearances of coal still con­tinue.a& 
Poe 
the halibut. A beaver tail will suffice for a plentiful dinner for three men.H 
May 10. . . . The hills in this vicinity are rough and jagged, showing irregular broken masses of rock, some of wkick tower to a great height, and appear to kave been subject to the action of water. We picked up several pieces of petrified wood and bone; and coal was scattered about in every direction.s6 
But besides descriptive material Poe found in the experiences of the explorers suggestions for exciting inci­dents. The stampede of the antelopess7 was suggested by Lewis and Clark's mention of the wildness and fleetness of these animals,88 and of the "sort of park or enclosure" used to entrap them.89 The account of the destruction of the buffaloes has a basis of fact in each of three incidents related by Lewis and Clark. Poe tells of the struggle of the animals to climb the slippery clay banks, resulting in death to many ;'0 Lewis and Clark in one instance tell of buffaloes becoming insulated on cakes of ice and floating down the river, easy prey of the Indians,41 and in other instances of great herds chased by hunters or crowded by impatient animals in the rear ranks, plunging to their death down steep precipices.42 The description of Toby and the account of the curiosity of the natives concerning him 
asLewis and Clark, I, 202-203. 
HHarrison, IV, 79-80. 
B5Lewis and Clark, I, 193. 
s6Harrison, IV, 86. 
ar/bid., IV, 72-75. 
88Lewis and Clark, I, 75. 
89/bid., 179, 233. 
•oHarrison, IV, 80-82. 
nLewis and Clark, I, 175. 

•2/bid., I, 235; 271-272. 
--0f their "spitting upon their fingers and rubbing the skin ... to be sure that it was not painted"-are also from Lewis and Clark.43 
In Chapter VI Poe's account parallels Lewis and Clark's up to the beginning of the bear story. The passages in­volved, comprising something like two hundred lines, include many details of scenery, an an account of disagree­able experiences in mud and water, an account of Rodman's indecision as to which of two streams to take, and a de­scription of a cache.44 The passages quoted are fair illustra­tions of Poe's extensive borrowings for this chapter. 
Lewis and Clark May 31st. . . . Soon after we set off it began to rain • . . : the banks are so slippery in some places and the mud so adhesive that they are unable to wear their moccasins; one fourth of the time they are obliged to be up to their armpits in the cold water, and sometimes walk for several yards over the sharp fragments of rocks which have faUen from the hills: . . . 
. . . these hills and river cliffs exhibit a most extraordinary and romantic appearance: they rise in most places nearly perpendicu­lar from the water, to the height of between two and three hun­dred feet, and are formed of very white sandstone, so soft as to yield readily to the impression of water, in the upper part of which lie imbedded two or three thin horizontal strata of white free­stone insensible to the rain, and 
Poe As we made immediate ap­proach to the forks it came on to rain very hard, ... The banks in some places were so slippery, and the clay so soft and stiff, that the men were obliged to go barefoot­ed, as they could not keep on their moccasins. The shores also were full of pools of stagnant water, through which we were obliged to wade, eometimes up to our arm­pits. Then again we had to scram­ble over enormous shoals of sharp-pointed flints, which ap­peared to be the wreck of cliffs that had fallen down en masse . ... . . . These cliffs present indeed the most extraordinary aspect, rising perpendicularly from the water. The last mentioned are composed of very white soft sandstone, which readily receives the impression of the water. In the upper portion of them ap­pears a sort of frieze or cornice formed by the intervention of several thin horizontal strata of a white freestone, hard, and un­affected by the rains. Above them 
43Harrison, IV, 82-85; Lewis and Clark, I, 101-102, 168, 379. 44Lewis and Clark, I, 236-240, 245, 255-256; Harrison, IV, 88-95. 
Lewis and Clark on top is a dark rich. loam, which form s a gradually ascending plain, from a mile to a mile and a half in extent, when the hills again rise abruptly to the height of about three hunclred feet more. In trickling down the cliffs, the water has worn the soft sand­stone into a thousand grotesque figures, among which with a little fancy may be discerned elegant ranges of freestone buildings, with columns variously sculp­tured, and supporting long and elegant galleries. . . . These are varied by niches, alcoves, and the customary appearances of deso­lated magnificence; the illusion is increased by the number of martins, who have built their globular nests in the niches and hover over these columns; . • • As we advance there seems no end to the visionary enchantment which surrounds us.45 
Poe 
is a dark rich soil, sloping gra,d,­ually back from the water to the extent of a mile or thereabouts, when other hills spring up abruptly to the height of full five hundred feet more. 
The face of these remarkable cliffs, as might be supposed, is chequered with a variety of lines formed by the trickling of the rains upon the soft material, so that a fertile fancy might easily imagine them to be gigantic monuments reared by human art, and carved over with hiero­glyphical d e v i c e s. Sometimes there are complete niches (like those we see for statues in com­mon temples) .. ; and there are several points where staircases and long corridors appear.•.• They had all the air of enchanted structures, ... and the twittering of myriads of martins, which have built their nests in the holes that everywhere perforate the mass, aided this conception not a little.46 
The exciting bear story with which Poe closes Chapter VI seems to be a sort of composite of several stories from Lewis and Clark. Lewis and Clark tell of killing a mon­strous brown bear, in a setting similar to that of Poe's story. The place where the feat was performed was marked by broken highlands made up of a black-looking sandy loam, which dissolved in water as readily as loaf sugar and effervesced like marl. Here the gullies coming down from the hills were encrusted with mineral salts, to a depth of two or three inches.47 Furthermore, Poe's description of the ferocious animal "so much dreaded by the Indians" 
45Lewis and Clark, I, 237-239. 
46Harrison, IV, 89-91. 
4TLewis and Clark, I, 213. 

tallies in every respect with Lewis and Clark's.'8 Other items in Poe's narrative probably suggested by experiences of Lewis and Clark's men are the unpreparedness of the men to meet the attack of the bears,'9 the plunge of the frightened Canadian down the precipice into the river,50 and the inability of Jules to give an intelligible account of what had happened.51 
"Julius Rodman," in general, follows Lewis and Clark's journal more closely in descriptive matters than in narra­tive. The mood of the story is serious. Attaining the neces­sary tone of carefulness of statement by the device of constantly checking Rodman's records with Lewis and Clark's, Poe sustains throughout the story his contention that he is publishing the journal of the first explorer to penetrate the great West. 
•
BLewis and Clark, I, 214-215. 

•
9/bid., I, 265. 
50Ibm. I, 217, 281. 
nfbi,d. I, 214.