^{page 599 note 1} Pub. Mod. Lang. Ass., xiii (1898), p. 365 ff.

^{page 599 note 2} Pub. Mod. Lang. Ass., xv (1900), p. 326 ff.

^{page 599 note 3} In the catalogue of the Cottonian mss. of the British Museum, the full titles of these two romances are as follows:—

Cott. Faust. B. vi, according to the description given by Ward (Catalogue of Romances, i, 374), is a vellum ms. written in a hand of the early XIVth century.

^{page 599 note 4} There is also preserved in Rawlinson ms., B. 149, a second copy of the Meriadoc romance, which Professor Bruce does not seem to have noticed and to which Professor Kittredge refers in his edition of Arthur and Gorlagon (Harvard Studies and Notes, 1903, vol. 8, p. 149). This copy is in the same manuscript as the Arthur and Gorlagon, which is by an unknown author, although clearly he is not the author of the Meriadoc romance (Kittredge, Arthur and Gorlagon, p. 150).

According to Mr. Madan of the Bodleian Library, this manuscript is in a hand of the first quarter of the 15th century. The earliest recorded owner is Nicholas Wyntur, whose name is written on the first leaf. Inside the cover is a list of contents by Dr. Gerard Langbaine and a note: “ Suum cuique. Tho. Hearne, Dec. 29, 1722, at wch time I bought this MS.” The manuscript then passed into the Rawlinson collection, which was bequeathed to the Bodleian in 1756.

^{page 600 note 1} Edited by Poole and Bateson (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Oxford, 1902), p. 384.

^{page 602 note 1} Scriptorum illustriū maioris Brytannie Catalogus, 1557, ii, p. 131-2.

^{page 603 note 1} Cf. for example the following mss.:

Descriptions of the different mss. of the Chronicle of Robert de Monte may be found in Howlett's edition of the Chronicle in the Rolls Series, 1889. Introduction, p. xxxviii.

^{page 603 note 2} That the first part of the second chronicle mentioned by Bale was really the one written by Robert de Monte is certain from the fact that it is described as a continuation of Sigebert of Gemblours.

^{page 604 note 1} Index, p. 384.

^{page 604 note 2} Tanner, Bibliotheca Britannica-Hibernica, London, 1748, p. 114: “Bostunus Buriensis, in monasterio S. Edmundi, in comit. Suffole. monachus. Vir magni ingenii, nec minoris industriae; qui, ut veterum librorum et auctorum conservaret memoriam, omnium eeelesiarum cathedralium, abbatiarum, prioratuum, collegiorum, etc. bibliothecas rimavit. Librorum collegit titulos, et auctorum eorum nomina; quæ omnia alphabetico disposuit ordine, et quasi unam omnium bibliothecam fecit. Ipsorum etiam aetates et vitas cum operum initiis curiose adjunxit et in quibus essent ea opera invenienda coenobiis, calendarii vice, per numeros demonstravit. Hoe opus vocabat Catalogum Scriptorum ecclesiae. Claruit Bostonus A. D. mccccx.” …

^{page 604 note 3} Tanner, p. xv. “In hoe Catalogo non auctores solummodo Britannos non ecclesiasticos tantum, sed profanos quoque sine discrimine, Aristotelem, Terentium, Ciceronem, Avicenuam, æque ac Ambrosium, Originem, Chrysostonum, Athanasium recitat.”

^{page 605 note 1} There is also an unprinted fragment of Boston's Catalogue in the British Museum, Add. mss. 4787, fol. 133-135, but in this fragment the name of Robert de Monte does not occur.

^{page 605 note 2} After this article had been written Professor Brown called my attention to the existence, in the library of Cambridge University, of a complete transcript of Boston of Bury's Catalogue, made by Tanner himself (Camb. ms. Add. 3470). In this transcript the entry concerning Robert de Monte reads as follows:

“Robertus Abbas de Monte S. Michaelis in Normannia floruit et scripsit

Cronicorum, lib. 1.“ (p. 129).

The recovery of the full text of Boston of Bury's Catalogue is of importance for it assures us that Bale, in his statement concerning the authorship of the romances, must have been following his other source, namely, the Catalogue Nordovicensi Scriptorum. Moreover, now that we are able to compare the entry in the Index with Boston of Bury's own words, it will be seen that Bale has set down with entire fidelity the information which he found in his source. May we not reasonably assume equal fidelity in the case of the entry taken from the Catalogue of Norwich writers?

^{page 605 note 3} Index, pp. 1, 12, 16, 25.

^{page 605 note 4} Mr. Boole, in his edition of Bale's Index (p. xxxiii) refers us for the Catalogue of the writers of Norwich to Leland (Collectanea, iii, 25). It could not have been from the Collectanea, however, that Bale derived his Norwich Catalogue, because the books contained in Leland's list and those cited by Bale throughout the Index as coming from the Catalogue correspond in but few instances. Bale's Catalogue was evidently a larger collection than that of Leland.

^{page 606 note 1} Another instance of the difference between the Scriptores and the Index must be noticed here. In Bale's more formal book it is the romances which are ascribed to Robert de Monte on the authority of Boston's catalogue, thus practically reversing the statement of the Index. But as it has already been shown that the Index is in every case the more reliable authority, here too I have followed its statement that the ascription of the romances came from the mysterious Catalogue of the writers of Norwich. The wording of the entry of Robert's name in Tanner's reprint of Boston, and of that of the first Robert in Bale, to whom the chronicle alone is ascribed, are almost exactly alike.

^{page 606 note 2} We have it on the authority of Dugdale that Leland meant the Priory Library by his Christicolarum Nordovici: “Of the Library of the Priory of Norwich we have but little information. Leland, Collect., tom, iii, p. 27, mentions the following works belonging to it as 'in bibliotheca Christicolarum Nordovici.” (Dugdale, Monasticon, iv, p. 11).

^{page 606 note 3} Leland, Collectanea, iii, p. 25.

^{page 607 note 1} Index, pp. 2, 39, 61, 62, 248, 281, 295, 310, 327, 328, 418, 425, 468, 469, 484.

^{page 607 note 2} For this information, or rather lack of information, I am indebted to Miss Katherine Martin, of London, who found out for me that nothing was known of this particular ms. in the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum.

^{page 607 note 3} See p. 599, note 4.

^{page 608 note 1} De Ortu, p. 396.

^{page 608 note 2} Das Höfische Leben zur Zeit der Minnesinger, ii, p. 58; cf. also p. 40.

^{page 609 note 1} Cyclopedia of Costume and Dictionary of Dress, London, 1876, i, p. 490.

^{page 609 note 2} See also in addition to Planché, Meyrick, Critical Enquiry into Antient Armour. London, i, 100; and Hewitt, Ancient Armour and Weapons, Oxford and London, 1855, i, 271.

^{page 609 note 3} Ancient Armour and Weapons, i, 126 and 271.

^{page 609 note 4} Critical Enquiry into Antient Armour, i, p. 27.

^{page 610 note 1} Ibid., p. 39.

^{page 610 note 2} Stothard, Monumental Effigies of Great Britain, London, 1817, p. 24.

^{page 610 note 3} Hewitt, Ancient Armour, i, 111.

^{page 610 note 4} C. R. Unger, Konunga Sögur, Christiania, 1873, p. 181. Hewitt (Ancient Armor, i, 111) translates this passage:—“ Sverrer was habited in a good byrnie, above it a strong gambeson (panzara), and over all a red surcoat (raudan hiup).”

^{page 611 note 1} Bartsch, Wolfram's von Eschenbach Parzival und Titurel. Deutsche Classiker des Mittelalters. Leipzig, 1875, Bk. ii, ll. 1269 ff. Compare also Bk. v, ll. 1057-1060 and 1113-1164.

^{page 611 note 2} Miss Weston's translation of these lines is as follows:—

J. Weston, Parzival, Wolfram von Eschenbach, i, p. 56, Bk. ii, l. 675 ff.

^{page 612 note 1} De Ortu, p. 400.

^{page 612 note 2} De Ortu, p. 409.

^{page 612 note 3} Hewitt, i, 72.

^{page 612 note 4} Ibid., p. 138.

^{page 612 note 5} Costume in England, London, 1846, p. 88.

^{page 612 note 6} Cyclopedia of Costume, i, p. 2.

^{page 613 note 1} Critical Enquiry, i, pp. 34 and 35.

^{page 613 note 2} Ibid., p. 36.

^{page 613 note 3} Hewitt, Ancient Armour, i, p. 141.

^{page 613 note 4} Fairholt, Costume in England, p. 89.

^{page 613 note 5} Critical Enquiry, i, p. 36.

^{page 613 note 6} Ibid., p. 54.

^{page 613 note 7} Costume in England, p. 89.

^{page 614 note 1} See also for the life of Robert de Monte, Delisle, Edition of the Supplement to Sigebert of Gemblours and of the Opuscula for the Societé de l'Histoire de Normandie, 1872, vol. ii, Introduction; and Howlett, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I. Vols, i-iv, Rolls Series, 1889, vol. iv. Chronicle of Robert of Torigni. Introduction.

^{page 615 note 1} Mr. Howlett bases his conjecture on a bit of internal evidence in the chronicle, taken in connection with, the fact that Robert would probably not have been a monk at Bec until he was at least 18 years of age; while the date of his death, in 1186, argues for the earliest possible age limit for his entering the monastery.

^{page 615 note 2} See letter of Henry of Huntingdon to Warinus. Delisle, Chronicle, i, 98-111. Also see Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon, Rolls Series, pp. xxi-xxiii.

^{page 615 note 3} Bale gives 1176 as the date of Robert's journey to England, but the date 1157, given by Mr. Howlett, is based on an examination of various charters and other documents.

^{page 616 note 1} Delisle, ii, p. xii.

^{page 616 note 2} Howlett, p. xviii.

^{page 617 note 1} Larousse, Dictionnaire universel du XIX^e siècle.

^{page 617 note 2} For a discussion of this 13th century romance, see the preface of M. Beaurepaire to the edition of the romance by Michel, Caen, 1856. In this preface high tribute is paid to the abbot, Robert de Monte, due to whose efforts the monastery became a famous school of learning. Guillaume de Saint-Pair, Roman du Mont-Saint-Michel. Ed. by Francisque-Michel, Caen, 1856.

^{page 617 note 3} De Ortu, p. 386.

^{page 617 note 4} Ibid., p. 421.

^{page 618 note 1} Delisle, i, p. 98.

^{page 618 note 2} Ibid., p. 111.

^{page 618 note 3} “Gaufridus Artur, qui transtulerat historiam de regibus Britonum de britannico in latinum, fit episcopus Sancti Asaph in Norgualis.” Delisle, i, p. 265.

A catalogue of Bec library in the 12th century also includes the history of Geoffrey of Monmouth among the titles of books given in it. “Item historiarum de regibus majoris Britannie usque ad adventum Anglorum in insulam libri XII, in quorum septimo continentur propheti Merlini, non Silvestris, sed alterius, id est Merlini Ambrosii.” Migne, Patrologia, Cursus Latinœ, vol. 150, 770-782.

^{page 618 note 4} Vita Meriadoci, p. 339.

^{page 619 note 1} Bale, it is true, notes the Meriadoc story as beginning “ Menoratu dignam.” This seems to indicate, however, not that the “R” prologue was omitted in the manuscript to which Bale's authority was referring, but that all which was written up to that point was to be regarded merely as an introductory sentence. If the sentence “Incipit prologue R in Historia Meriadoci, regis Kambrie,” be read as an introduction to the author's short prologue, it will closely parallel the sentence on the next page which introduces the body of the narrative:—“Incipit historia Meriadoci, regis Kambrie.” It looks, therefore, as if this were the proper reading, that is, as if the first two lines of the Meriadoc should be punctuated as follows: “ Incipit prologus R in Historia Meriadoci, regis Kambrie. Memoratu dignam dignum duxi exarare historiam,” etc.

^{page 620 note 1} Romania, xxxiv, p. 144.

^{page 620 note 2} Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecœ Bodleianœ. Partis Quintæ Fasciculus Primus. … confecit, Guilelmus D(unn) Macray. … Oxonii. E typographeo Academico, mdccclxii, col. 501, No. 149. 4.

Historia Meriadoci Regis Cambriae eum prologo brevi cujusdam R., p. 91.

^{page 620 note 3} Collectanea, iii, 25.

^{page 621 note 1} Do Ortu, p. 385.

^{page 622 note 1} In connection with this incident, Professor Bruce has also called my attention to a passage in Garin de Loherain (ed. P. Paris, p. 242) describing the fight of Begon de Belin with the foresters, which results in his death. There is, however, little similarity between the two stories. The incident in the Historia furnishes a far more probable source, as well as a much closer parallel; so there is no need to look further.

^{page 622 note 2} Historia, Bk. ix, ch. xi.

^{page 622 note 3} De Ortu, p. 409.

^{page 623 note 1} Chronicles of Robert of Brunne, ed. by F. J. Furnivall, Rolls Series, London, 1887, i, 363 ff. The last two lines in this quotation were added by Robert of Brunne to the information he had gained from Wace concerning Gawain's infancy, showing that although he probably used Wace for the statement, he was familiar also with another source for the story. In line 10,667 he refers again to Gawain at Rome in a passage taken directly from Wace.

^{page 623 note 2} Perceval le Gallois ou le Conte du Graal publié d'après les manuscrits originaux par Ch. Potvin. Première partie, Le Roman en Prose, Mons, 1866, pp. 252 ff.

^{page 624 note 1} Société des anciens textes française, Paris, 1875. S. Paris, Merlin, roman en prose du XIII siècle, 2 v.

^{page 624 note 2} Professor Bruce has already recognized the close relationship between these two stories and the De Ortu romance.

^{page 625 note 1} Romania, xxviii, pp. 165, 166.

^{page 625 note 2} Unfortunately, Paris' edition of the Ider in which he intended to present his evidence, was not completed at the time of his death. It cannot be known, therefore, on what grounds he was basing his statement nor in what form he thought this 12th century Gawain romance had existed. It is clear, however, that at the time he wrote he considered the De Ortu as a 13th century romance. Is it not now possible, since we know that the De Ortu was written in the 12th century, that this very romance itself supplies the early version of the story which Gaston Paris postulated?

^{page 625 note 3} It is no longer believed that the Gregory legend was modelled directly upon the Œdipus story, as Luzarche seems to have supposed in the Introduction to his edition of the Vie du Pape Gregoire, Tours, 1857. The connection between the two stories must have been at best but a vague one transmitted through many intermediate sources. Lippold in his dissertation, Über die Quelle des Gregorius Hartmann's von Aue, Leipzig, 1869, p. 50, insists that although ultimately derived from the Œdipus story, the Gregory legend was not based directly on the Greek Œdipus.

^{page 626 note 1} Über die Quelle des Gregorius Hartmann's von Aue, pp. 55-56.

^{page 626 note 2} Germania, xv, 284.

^{page 626 note 3} Lippold (p. 58) does not think the Servian tale represents an old version of the story and does not believe in the theory that the story was an eastern one which came west through Servia. The presence of a Bulgarian ms. of a similar tale would seem, however, to confirm the theory of an eastern original for the foundling child story.

^{page 627 note 1} Germania, xv, 288: E. Köhler, Zur Legende von Gregorius auf dem Steine.

^{page 629 note 1} The relationship between the Paul of Cœsarea and the Simon would not in any way forbid this theory of a common source for the two. Both stories contain the essential parts of the legend:—the finding of the child in a chest on the shore by a monk, the education of the child by the man who finds him, the incest between mother and son, the discovery of this first by the mother, the penance performed by both, the imprisonment of the son and the throwing away of the keys which are found again in the body of a fish. Where the two stories differ, as in the omission from the Simon of the first incestuous connection, and in the imprisonment of the sinner in a cell instead of on a rock in the sea, the variation was probably made by the author of the Simon, as the version found in the Gregory agrees more closely with the Paul. The latter version, therefore, evidently represents the original story.

The foundling child features of the story may have become attached to the incest motive because it was necessary for the development of the incestuous union between mother and son, that they should be separated and should come together again in ignorance of their true relationship. Another incestuous connection is made the reason for the abandonment of the child, perhaps to heighten the awfulness of the position of the man who is to expiate his terrible sin.

^{page 630 note 1} The nature of the connection between the Œdipus and the Greek Christian tale cannot be made clear. It is possible that the story was first taken over from the Greek Œdipus by a Christian writer who changed the story to make it serve his pious purpose.

^{page 631 note 1} Kaufmann (Trentalle Sancti Gregorii, Erlangen, 1889, p. 5) supposes the romance of the Trental of St. Gregory to have had some connection with the Gregorius legend. He points out the similarity of name, the fact that the theme of both stories is the expiation of great sin by penance, and that in both stories it is a mother and a son, who afterwards becomes Pope, that are concerned. It is easier to suppose that the connection of the Trental with the Gregory story came through W, an essentially ecclesiastical tale, rather than through the French romance. If this connection between the Trental and the Gregory legend is then through W, it furnishes an additional reason for thinking that the name Gregory was already attached to the foundling child story in the W version.

^{page 632 note 1} Professor Bruce (De Ortu, p. 375) has already pointed out the necessity of a common source for these three romances.

^{page 633 note 1} Z, the source of the romance of the De Ortu, could have been neither the Perlesvaus nor the Huth Merlin, as Professor Bruce has already demonstrated (De Ortu, pp. 375-376). To the reasons which he gives, still others may be added at this point. Because, in Perlesvaus, the child apparently was carried away by land and not by sea, while in the other two stories the feature of the sea voyage is prominent. The incident in the Huth Merlin differs from the others in many details, especially in the absence of the concealment motive for the exposure of the child, and is clearly but a weaker reflection of the other tale. Moreover, if either the Perlesvaus or the Merlin was the source of the De Ortu, that is, was Z, the difficulty of the change of language would again arise.

^{page 635 note 1} One need not assume that the extant Latin text was the identical source used by the author of the Huth Merlin. There may have been intermediary versions; but at least it is true that the line of descent of the Merlin must have been through the De Ortu and not through the Perlesvaus.

^{page 637 note 1} P. Paris, Romans de la Table Ronde, iv, p. 50.

^{page 637 note 2} Ibid., iv, p. 62.

^{page 637 note 3} De Ortu, p. 396.

^{page 638 note 1} Weber, Metrical Romances, Edinburgh, 1810. Kyng Alisaunder, i, p. 208.

^{page 638 note 2} Wars of Alexander, E. E. T. S., Extra Series, 47, p. 232.

^{page 638 note 3} Mr. Bruce adds also to the two references given above another instance in which the name Nabor is used, that is in the Grand St. Graal, Hucher, iii, p. 106. As he had already pointed out the name in the Huth Merlin this additional instance of its use indicates that it was not uncommon in romance literature.

^{page 639 note 1} Meriadoc, p. 386.

^{page 639 note 2} Studien zur Sagengeschichte Englands, 1906, i, pp. 134-137.

^{page 639 note 3} The parallel between the Meriadoc and the Havelok was suggested by Professor Bruce in the Introduction to his edition of the Meriadoc. Deutschbein has done little more than expand to a somewhat greater length Professor Bruce's suggestions.

^{page 639 note 4} In connection with the Welch origin of the Meriadoc romance, which Professor Bruce has already demonstrated, it is perhaps significant to remember Robert de Monte's visit to England in 1157. As he is known to have been both in Devonshire and Cornwall, it is certainly not impossible that he also visited Wales.

^{page 640 note 1} The Havelok story itself clearly passed through a Welsh medium. If, then, the Meriadoc too is to represent a Welsh version of the Havelok, there would have been in Wales at the same time two versions of the same story under different names, a situation which is highly improbable.

^{page 640 note 2} I am indebted to Professor Bruce for these references.

^{page 641 note 1} P. Paris, Romans de la Table Ronde, iii, p. 279.

^{page 641 note 2} Morte d'Arthur, Bk. vii, ch. vii.

^{page 641 note 3} Percy Folio ms., iii, p. 39.

^{page 641 note 4} Act III, Scene iv, 1. 93.

^{page 642 note 1} See the Chronicles of Gregory of Tours, Bruno, and Paul the Deacon.

^{page 643 note 1} De Bello Gothico.

^{page 643 note 2} Ibid., iv, 23, p. 577.

^{page 643 note 3} Migne, Patrologia Lat., vol. 155, col. 1273.

^{page 643 note 4} Migne, Patrologia Lat., vol. 166, col. 1102.

^{page 645 note 1} Pub. Mod. Lang. Ass., xvi, p. 375.