page 572 note 1 Svenska Folkböcker (Stockholm, 1845), I, 221 ff.

page 572 note 2 Brock, Originals, and Analogue, of Some of Chaucer's, Canterbury Tola, Chancer Soc., 2nd Ser., Nos. 7,10,15,20, 22 (London, 1887), pp. iii-xii; Lücke, “Das Leben der Constanze bei Trivet, Gower und Chaucer,” Anglia, XIV(1892), 77-122 end 147-185; Tatlock, The Development and Chronology of Chaucer's Works, Chaucer Soc., 2nd Ser., No. 37 (London, 1907), pp. 172-188.

page 572 note 3 See, e.g., The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. Walter W. Sheet, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1900), III, 409-417; Chaucer's, Canterbury Tales, ed. John M Manly (New York, 1928), p. 570; The Complet, Werkt of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. Fred N. Robinson (Cambridge, Mass., 1933), pp. 6-7, 795-796; Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, ed. W. F. Bryan and Germaine Dempster (Chicago, 1941), pp. 155-161; Robert Dudley French, AChaucer Handbook, 2nd ed. (New York, 1947), pp. 224, 231; Robert Kilburn Root, The Poetry of Chaucer, rev. ed. (Boston, 1922), pp. 182-187.

page 572 note 4 Lücke sought to prove, first, that Chaucer in his Man of Law's Tale and Gower in his tale of Constance (Cenfessio Amantis II.587 ff.) drew their materials from a common source, namely, a lengthy passage in Trivet's AN Chronicle and, second, that Chaucer mark use of Gower's version. Brock, who edited and translated Trivet's story for the Chaucer Society, made a careful comparison of Trivet's and Chaucer's versions. As a result of his analysis be dted 18 passages, totalling 329 lines, as representing Chaucer's additions. My own analysis shows that while Brock's list of additions is accurst* it is by no means complete and, in fact, omits highlv significant passages added by Chaucer. Furthermore, neither Brock nor Lücke made any consistent attempt to analyse the reasoos which prompted Chaucer to make his changes. Subsequent editors and writers appear to have based their conclusions, either directly or indirectly, on the findings of LOcke and Brock. Thus, Skeat (III, 409, 414-417). Robinson (p. 795), and Bryan and Dempster (p. 155) refer to Lücke, while French (p. 231, n. 36), Root (p. 183, n. 1), and Skeat (III, 410) cite the 18 passages which Brock listed as representing Chaucer's additions and state, following Brock's phraseology, that these additions total “about 350 lines”; actually, they total 329 lines. Tstlock's comment is illuminating as far as it goes, but it is necessarily incomplete since he discusses only a very limited number of Chaucer's additions. Hildegard Engel, Structure and Plot in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (Boon, 1931), pp. 9-16, after analyzing some of the changes made by Chaucer, concludes that his “additions are all made to one end, they are uniform in their emotional tone and express the poet's compassionate feel- ings” (ibid., p. 13). This conclusion, however, fails to take into account numerous and important additions which appear to have been motivated by a far wider range of con- trolling purposes than Miss Engel suggests. According to Miss Engel, Chaucer's additions total 386 lines, whereas my own analysis indicates a total of 695 lines. Bernard I. Duffey in his impressionistic study entitled: “The Intention and Art of The Man of Law's Tale,” ELH, xiv (1947), 181-193, haa also analyzed the significance of tome of the changes which Chaucer made in reworking Trivet's tale of Con*tance. According to him, 510 lines are “newly added or basically reworked.” These additions and reworkings he has classified under three headings: those which sharpen the story's emotionality, those which increase its probability, and those concerned with narrative technique. He concludes that Chaucer's primary purpose was to produce a sentimental tale which would be appropriate to a middie-class narrator and would appeal to a middle-class audience. However, Duffey's analysis is by no means comprehensive, since be examines only a fraction of the available evidence (as represented by Chaucer'* additions, omissions, and other changes). Pauli F. Baum, “The Man ef Law's Tale” MLN, lxiv (1949), 12-14, takes issue with Duffey and suggests that, while the tale “is an edifying itory of a Christian woman's suffering, patience, and triumph,” Chaucer approached the material in a spirit midway between “low seriousness and levity.” Thus, aa matters stand at present, no analysis of the Man of Law's Tale has attempted to account for all of Chaucer's additions; little attention has been paid to his asmissions and condensations; and no attention whatsoever has been paid to just what he did with the material in Trivet which he retained. For all these reasons, neither the full extent nor the significance of the changes made by Chaucer ha* been realized and it has therefore not been possible to appreciate with anything like completeness the craftsmanship and imaginative artistry which he displayed in tike Man of Lew's Tale.

page 574 note 5 These figures are based on a word-by-word count. For the Chaucer figure, I have used J. M. Manly and E. Rickert. The Text of the Canterbury Tales (Chicago, 1940); for the Trivet figure, Sources and Analogues. Nevertheless, Brock, Originals and Analogues (1887), p. vii, States that Chaucer, while telling the same story as Trivet, does so “in a much shorter compass”; Tatlock, The Development and Chronology of Chaucer's, Works (1907), p. 179, n. 3, states: “The Tale is far shorter than Trivet's version”; and Root, The Poetry of Chaucer (1932), p. 182, states that “Chaucer has very considerably condensed the story.”

page 574 note 6 All citations from Chaucer are from J. M. Manly and E. Rickert, The Text of the Canterbury Tales (Chicago, 1940). Lines 1124-27 represent Chaucer's addition to Trivet.

page 575 note 7 In Trivet they are Saracens and come from Saracenland. Chaucer calls their country Syria and refers to them and their fadow countrymen as Syrians.

page 575 note 8 All citations from Trivet are from Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, ed. W. F. Bryan and Germaine Dempster (Chicago, 1941).

page 575 note 9 Chaucer omits the reason for her return to Rome, namely, that her father was ill.

page 576 note 10 Chaucer also omits mentioning {that Constance swoons when the hears that Alla is coming to Rome and, again, when she sees hit face as he rides into Rome. However, he uses the two swoons to good purpose in the later recognition scene between her and Alla when “Twies the swowneth in his owene sighte” (1058). Much of the recognition scene represents Chaucer's addition to Trivet.

page 576 note 11 I list here the passages which represent condensations of Trivet: 172, 233-244, 429-431, 435-445, 521-522, 524-525, 530-532, 536-539, 563-567, 750-756, 792-802, 876-889,893-894, 911-923, 967-982, 995-1004, 1017-22, 1093-96. These passages total 126 lines.

page 576 note 12 Chaucer also condenses Trivet's account of the massacre of the Christians at the banquet given by the sultaness and hit description of the scene in which Alla, on his return from Scotland, discovers his mother's treachery; moreover, he not only condenses but, in order to heighten the dramatic effect, puts into direct discourse the conversation between Alla and the senator regarding Maurice's identity.

page 577 note 13 Besides condensing, Chaucer purposefully changes some of the details. See below, p.597, n. 67.

page 577 note 14 Trivet describes the earlier assault on her virtue in Northumberland as briefly as Chaucer

page 577 note 15 Closely related to the omissions and condensations we have been considering are certain brief additions made by Chaucer which usually indicate an abridgment of, or an emission from, the French original. Thus the expressions “I kan sey yow namoore”(175) and “What nedeth gretter dilatscioun?” (232) indicate either omissions or condensations pointed out earlier and connected with the return of the merchants to Syria and the subsequent negotiations between the sultan and the emperor for the hand of Constance. Also indicative of condensation are such expressions as: “If I shortly tellen shal and playn” (990) and “The fruyt of this matere it that I telle” (411).

page 578 note 16 A minor change possessing no discernible significance is that whereas Trivet describes the slaughter of the Saracens through the senator's words to Constance, Chaucer does so through the narrator's comment.

page 578 note 17 It is worth drawing attention to an example of Chaucer's desire to avoid not so much sanguinary details as strong language. According to Trivet, Constance in repulsing the advances of the Northumbrian knight indignantly reviles him and, since he was a Christian, likens him to a bound who after the holy sacrament of baptism would return to his dung. Chaucer omits all this, feeling no doubt that such language was out of place, all the more so since used by Constance.

page 578 note 18 Chaucer does not mention Trivet's Pope John with whom Tiberius consults regarding the saltan's offer of marriage.

page 578 note 19 Chaucer is more logical than Trivet when he calls him a child, since it is highly improbable that he was as old as Trivet makes out. Trivet arrives at his age presumably on the basis of his previous statements that be was 10 weeks old when be was exiled from Northumberland, 5 yean old when be and Constance were rescued by the mariners of Arsemius, and that Constance had dwelt 12 years in Rome when Alla arrived there on his pilgrimage. Trivet also tells us that Alla murdered his mother soon after his wife and child were exiled from Northumberland and that he went to Rome in order to receive absolution for this murder. This means that Alla waited 17 years after his act of matricide before going to Rome, which seems most improbable. Chaucer does mention that Constance's second voyage of exile lasted some 5 years (902), but fails to specify bow long she dwelt with the senator in Rome. He is, therefore, able to refer to Maurice as a “child” and does so.

page 579 note 20 Trivet also refers to “lez autres Sessouns qe auoient dounque la seignurie de la terre” (p. 169). Chaucer never mentions the word Saxon.

page 579 note 21 Constance was actually cousin to the senator's wife, as Trivet states. Chaucer, possibly through a misreading of the French, makes the senator's wife her aunt. (See Robinson,The Complete Works, p. 799.)

page 579 note 22 Trivet names the provisions: bread, peas, beans, sugar, honey, and wine.

page 579 note 23 Trivet says: “lez gentz de Albanye, qe sount les Escotz” (p. 172), and later refers to Alla's victory in Scotland over the picts (p. 176). Chaucer does not mention either Albania or the Picts.

page 580 note 24 Chaucer says only that she dwelt with them a long time.

page 580 note 25 Chaucer make, no mention of Elda accompanying Alla to Rome.

page 580 note 26 In Chaucer, this reads somewhat differently: “This child Maurice was sithen emperour / Maad by the pope ...” (1121-22). Once again, Chancer is more reasonable than Trivet since it is highly improbable that Maurice was in his eighteenth year (as Trivet has it) and if he were a child (as Chaucer has it), it is just as improbable that Constance's father would have made him co-emperor.

page 580 note 27 In Trivet, Alla dies 9 months after his return to England. In Chaucer, a year elapses.

page 580 note 28 An exception to Chaucer's usual suppression of information regarding duration of time is his statement that after Constance was exiled from Northumberland she was “fyue yeer and moore” (902) at sea before she landed under the heathen castle. In Trivet, it is 2 years. Chaucer's “fyue yeer and moore” is perhaps a transposition of Trivet's later statement that she met the Roman fleet during the fifth year of her exile.

page 582 note 29 He is the instrument of Donegild's treachery, and in no sense acting upon his own volition, when he cast. Constance and her son adrift upon the sea.

page 582 note 30 A favorite expression with Chaucer. See KnT, 1761; MerchT, 1986; SqT, 479; and LGW ProL F, 503.

page 582 note 31 Trivet prepares for this detail by describing the knight as a Christian. Chaucer omits this detail.

page 582 note 32 Chancer gives no explanation as to why when the king causes a book to be fetched it should turn out to be a book of gospels.

page 583 note 33 He is able to do so without having to use a transition phrase because unlike Trivet he divides his story into parts and begin, his third and last part with the episode of Alla's.

page 583 note 34 Listed below are the 18 passages cited by Brock (Original and Analogues, pp. viii-x) as representing Chaucer', addition, to Trivet: 190-203, 270-287, 295-315, 330-343, 351-371, 400-410, 421-427, 449-462, 470-504. 631-658, 701-714, 771-784, 811-819, 825-868, 925-445, 1037-43, 1052-78, 1132-41. These passages total 329 lines. My own comparison of Trivet's and Chaucer's stories confirms the accuracy of Brock's list as far as it goes, but reveals other addition, by Chaucer, as follows: Part I: 134-154,155-171, 174-182, 204-232, 245-252, 256-269, 288-294, 316-322, 326-329, 348-350, 372-374, 383-385. Part II:386-399, 411-420, 428, 432-434, 446-448,466-469, 509-511, 516-518, 523, 526-529, 535,540-550,552-554,560,575-581,599,606-618,621-630,659-661,677-682,685,689,692-693,719-721, 731-742, 760-763, 766-770, 789-791, 803-810, 869-875. Part III: 890-892, 895-900, 907-910, 920, 924, 946-954, 965-466, 977-978, 983-987, 990, 1023-19, 1044-51,1097-99,1104-13,1116-31,1145-46, 1150-62. These additions total 366 lines.

I have followed Brock by including in my list of additions passages in which Chaucer has expanded at length a hint or suggestion that he found in his original. I list these passages, indicating which of them appears in Brock's list, and cite in full the passages in Trivet upon which they are based: 134-154: “Vindrent a la court son pere Tiberie,marchauntz paens hors de la grande Sarazine, portaunts divers e riches marchaundies (p. 165); 260-269, 270-287 (Brock's list), 288-294,316-320: ”E en tenps maunderent la pucele hors de la mesoun son piere e hots de sa conisaunce, entre estraunges barbaryns a grant doel e lermes e crie e noise e pleinte de toute la citee de Rome“ (p. 166); 386-399, 400-410 (Brock's list), 411-413: ”Puis fu la pucele e les Cristiens resceu del souldea e de sa mere a grant homur e a grant nobleye“ (p. 167); 414-120: ”E le primer iour de lour venue fu la feste purweue en le paleys le souldane“ (p. 167); 540-549: ”Quar les Bretounz auoient ia perdu la seingnurie del isle“ (p. 168), and ”En Galea, ou estoient le plus de Britouni fuitz“(p. 170); 825-868 (Brock's list): ”'Ja ne veigne ceo iour qe pur moy la terre feust destrutee que pur moy mes chers amiz eusez mort ou moleste. Mes puis que a dieu plest e a man seignur, le rois, maun exil, a bon gree le doys prendre, en esperaunce qe dur comencement amenera dieux a bon fyn, e qil me porra en la meer sauuer qi en meer e en terre est de toute pusaunce'“ (pp. 174-175); 1051, 1053-78 (Brock's list): ”E ly rois... ala sa femme enbracer e beser. E taunt apart moustraunces damour ly fesoit, que le senator e la dame e quantqe i esteint, ne esteient pas poi merueilez. E le rey a ceo, tut en haut escrie: Jeo ay treat ma femmel “(p. 179); 1104-13:” ...e vynt son pere saluer en ceste paroles: 'Moun seignur a beau pen Tyberie, joe, Constaunce, vostre fille, mercie dieux qe vnqore a coe jour mad grante la vie, qe ioe vous vey en saunre'“ (p. 180). These passages from Chaucer total 188 lines. They are based on altogether 21 lines in Trivet (my line count is from Sourceer and Analogues) and represent 27% of the total 695 lines contained in Brack's and my own list of Chaucer's additions.

page 584 note 35 John M. Manly has drawn attention to Chaucer's frequent use of the apostrophe as well as to his belief that serious and elevated writing was improved by the presence of such rhetorical devices ss the apostrophe. Sec “Chaucer and the Rhetoricians,” Proceedings of the, British Academy, xII (1926), 104, 109.

page 585 note 36 Sheet (III, 407-408) gives in full the 4 passages in the De Contem ptu Mundi which Chaucer utilised. See also Robinson, pp. 798-799. The purposeful nature of these borrowings from Pope Innocent III is sufficiently obvious. All of them are intended to impart a high moral seriousness, while three of them, that is, the stanzas of apostrophe, serve also to heighten the formal poetic effect.

page 585 note 37 See Nevill Coghill, The Poet Chaucer (Oxford, 1949), p. 138.

page 585 note 38 It will be noted that the biblical allusions and the rhetorical questions are frequently interlocked. Thus, the two passages of rhetorical questions (470-504 and 932-945) contain all the biblical allusions except those to Susannah and the Virgin Mary.

page 586 note 39 The Complete Works of George Gascoigne, ed. John W. Cunliffe (Cambridge, 1907), I, 473. Seealso Thomas R. Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer (New York, 1892),III, 305.

page 587 note 40 See Ruth Crosby, “Chaucer aad the Custom of Oral Delirery,” Speculum, XIII (1938),424.

page 587 note 41 Quooting from Skeat, Robinson notes (p. 798) that similar addresses to the Cross may be found in the hymn “Lustra sex qui iam peregit” by Venantius Fortunatus and in the Ancren Riwle. Mary-Virginia Rosenfeld, “Chaucer and the Liturgy, ” MLN, LV (1940),359-360, after pointing out that Constance's prayer is a “free translation of certain an-tfpbons in the office for the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14), sad the complete hymn is sung in the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday,” concludes that her prayer constitutes additional evidence of Chaucer's familiarity with, and use of, the liturgy.

page 588 note 42 Ses 451-462; 639-644; 826-833; 841-854.

page 588 note 43 Ses 719-721.

page 588 note 44 See also 692, where Chaucer refers to her as “This holy mayden that is so bright and sheas,” sad 689, where after the false knight is executed, she is described as having “of . his deeth greet routhe.”

page 588 note 45 In Trivet, Alia does write a letter, but it contains nothing corresponding to this.

page 588 note 46 See 811-819.

page 588 note 47 See 1121-23. Chaucer develops this from a mere hint in Trivet, who says only that after Maurice became co-emperor he was called by the Romans in Latin: “Mauricius Christianissimus imperetor.” See p. 181.

page 589 note 48 See 822. The word “pale” is Chaucer's addition, but it is imbedded in a passage which loosely paraphrases Trivet

page 591 note 49 In Trivet it is merely “la graunde occean” (p. 168).

page 591 note 50 Trivet merely states that a favorable wind drove the ship to England. See p. 168. Chancer, in the same stanza, adds the vivid detail that “in the sond hir ship stiked so faste / That thennes wolde it noght of al a tyde” (509-510).

page 591 note 51 One is reminded of Matthew Arnold's reference to “the unplumb'd, salt, estranging sea” in his poem To Marguerite-Continued Chaucer frequently suppresses Trivet's geographical details; it is only where Constance's voyages are concerned that he adds details of his own. For instance, when she has been cast adrift by the sultaness, he specifically states that she floated through the sea of Greece to the straits of Morocco (464-465); again, after the episode ending with the drowning of the renegade Christian, she is described as sailing through “the narwe mouth / Of Iubaltare and Septe ...” (946-947). I hazard the suggestion that he was trying not only to enable his readers to visualize her travels more clearly, but also to emphasise the length of her journey and, consequently, the dangers that beset her.

page 591 note 52 See also the passages which describe her utter despair on landing in Northumberland (516-518), her attempts to conceal her identity (526-527), her complete bewilderment when the bloody knife is found in her bed (608-609), her near-collapee when she is summoned to meet Alla (1047-50), her sorrow st Alla's death (1145), and her emotion on being finally re-united with her father (1152-55). Two brief passages (1117-20 and 1128-31) emphasise respectively the happiness at the banquet after Constance has revealed herself to her father and the brief marital bliss of Alla and Constance after their return to England.

page 592 note 53 Paul E. Beichner, in “Chaucer's Man of Law and Disparitas Cultus,” Speculum, XXIII (1948), 70-75, argues that Chaucer added this passage in older to allow the Man of Law to display his knowledge of that aspect of canon law which bore on the impediment to marriage resulting from disparitas cultus, that is, the difference in religion existing between a person baptized in the Catholic Church and one who is not baptised. Beictner's argument seems entirely reasonable, but it does not exclude the simpler reason which I have suggested for Chaucer's addition of this passage.

page 593 note 54 A vivid touch is provided by the brief passage (383-385) which describes the sultan as kneeling in gratitude when he thanks his mother for her request to “han the crista folk to feste” and being so happy that “he nyste what to seye.”

page 593 note 55 Lines 404-106. (See Robinson. 797.)see also 432, where she is referred to as a “cursed krone”; the two subsequent lines stress her responsibility for the massacre of the Christians and ascribe her treachery to her.desire to rale the country.

page 593 note 56 See also the stanza (575-S81) which stresses Alia's valor In the wars against the Scots.

page 594 note 57 See also 895-896: For that the traytour wis to hir ligeaunce / Thus endeth olde Donegild with meschaunce“; and 891, Which stresses her wickedness by referring to ”the venym of this cursed dede.“

page 594 note 58 In Trivet, Donegild's court is at Knaresborough. A. C. Edwards, “Knaresborough Castle end ”The Kynges Moodres Court',“ PQ, XIX (1940), 306-309, has suggested that Chaucer omitted Trivet's reference to Knaresborough because the castle was the property of John of Gaunt and would have been associated with the charge of treason brought against him to 1381. Roland M. Smith, ”Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale and Constance of Castile,“ J EGP, XLVII (1948), 343-351, believes that Chaucer omitted mentioning Knaresborough in order to avoid identifying his heroine with John of Gaunt's second wife, Constance of Castile. These are ingenious explanations; but surely it is simpler and more logical to look on Chaucer's suppression of Knaresborough as just one of many instances in which he suppressed personal and place names in order to lend an air of romantic vagueness to his poem.

page 594 note 59 See. p 173. The three lines of answering dialogue by Donegild are Chaucer's addition and serve to emphasize the deliberate nature of her treachery.

page 594 note 60 790-791. In Trivet he acknowledges his drunkenness freely; in Chaucer, he confesses only after he has been tortured. According to Skeat (v, 161), examination by torture was to common that Chaucer mentioned It because this was the most simple way of telling the story. It is possible that he also added this detail to the interests of poetic justice, since

page 595 note 61 The sultan, the sultaness, the blind Christian, Alia, the constable, Donegild, the messenger, and the senator.

page 596 note 62 Hildegard Engel, Structure and Plot in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, p. 13, has drawn attention to the functional significance of four of the satanzas (386-413) which I have mentioned, but she ignores the other passages. It should also be noted that while Chaucer enlarges upon Trivet in order to emphasize the magnificence of the banquet, he omits details that are not relevant to hit purpose. Thus, he does not mention the segregation of the males and females at the banquet.

page 596 note 63 Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciences (Oxford, 1926), pp. 171-194.

page 596 note 64 See Skeat, V, 147, and Robinson, p. 796.

page 596 note 65 John M. Manly, The Canterbury Tales (New York, 1928), p. 567, believes that the unfavorable astrological situation was due to the revolution of the primum mobile and not, as Curry supposes, to the individual motions of the planets. Joseph T. Curtiss, “The Horoscope in Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale,” JEGP, XXVI (1927), 24-32, concludes that the horoscope Curry hat constructed does not fit the data given by Chaucer and that the information which Chaucer does provide is too meagre to permit the construction of a horoscope. However, neither Manly nor Curtiss questions the general meaning of the passage, namely, that the position of the stars was unfavorable to Constance's voyage.

page 596 note 66 Trivet's story contains many references to the fact that Constance was protected by God, but these references are general in nature and do not bear at clearly or at specifically upon the various miracles to which she owes her life as do Chaucer's additions.

page 597 note 67 As I have pointed out earlier, Chaucer condensed Trivet's account of this whole episode. He has also changed some of the details. Thus, in Trivet the renegade Christian knight brings Constance and Maurice ashore where they are hospitably entertained by the admiral in his castle. Chaucer makes no mention of their going ashore, omits any reference to the admiral and, in the interests of brevity and simplification, merely says: “Doun from the csstel comth ther many a wight / To gauren on this ship and on Custaunce” (911-912). Again, In Trivet, the ship reaches the open sea before the knight makes his advances, whereupon Constance begs him to look on all sides for land, promising that when they reach it she will accede to his desire in a suitable place. When the knight stands on the forepart of the ship looking for land, Constance comes behind his back and thrusts him into the sea. Chaucer merely says that “with hir strogelyng wel and myghtily / The theef fil ouerbord al sodeynly” (921-922) and drowned. At a result of these changes he was able to elevate her character by omitting details that showed her guilty of See also 869-875 and 907-910, which emphasise her dependency on God's protection.

page 597 note 68 Trivet never mentions the Virgin Mary. Chaucer's references to her add an appropriately feminising touch.

page 598 note 69 The Poetry of Chaucer, rev. ed. (Beaton, 1923), p. 185.

page 598 note 70 Curry overlooks there lines which So convincingly prove his point that certain other passages- which Chaucer introduced into the Man of Law's Tale were intended to show that the .stars., while powerful, are ultimately subject to the will of God. See Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciences. pp. 189-191.

page 598 note 71 It la possible that Chaucer omits this detail because unlike Trivet he dots not have Constance answer the constable in Saxon.

page 598 note 72 Even though Trivet mentions earlier that Constance bad been taught various languages, he is not convincing when he makes her speak to Elda in Saxon, since it is highly improbable that these languages would have included Saxon. Thomas H. McNeal, “Chaucer and the Decameron,” MLN, LIII (1938), 257-258, has pointed out the similarity in plot between the Man of Law's Tale and the second tale, fifth day of Boccaccio's Decameron. He has also called attention to the fact that both Constance and Boccaccio's Gostanza speak Latin when rescued from their ships, whereas Trivet's Constance speaks “Saxon.” However, I find it difficult to agree with him when he further suggests that Chaucer purposely wove into the Man of Law's Tale this incident from the Decameron, “or from one of its sources.” Actually, as I have indicated, I think that Chaucer departs from Trivet in making Constance speak to the constable in Latin, instead of Saxon, because be wanted to make his tale at once consistent and credible. It is worth noting that in her subsequent conversation with the constable Constance conceals her identity far more completely in Chaucer than in Trivet In Trivet, she tells the constable that she is s Christian, of rich and noble lineage, who hat married a great prince and hat been banished because she displeased “as grantz de la terre” (p. 168). Chaucer limits himself to saying that “what she was she wolde no man seye” (524). Tatlock's conjecture that Chaucer's more complete concealment of her identity was for the sake of brevity and mystery seems entirely plausible. See his Development and Chronology of Chaucer's Works, pp. 179-180.

page 599 note 73 Before her marriage to Alla, Chaucer only twice refers to her as a maiden; thus, once she is a “woful faire mayde” (316) and once a “holy mayden” (692); at other times the is a “wrecche womman” (285), a “wery womman” (514), a “woful womman” (522), or just a “womman” (496, 498) or a “creature” (463, 615). Trivet, on the other hand, invariably calls her “la pucele” before her marriage. It would appear that Chaucer was anxious not only to avoid Trivet's monotony, but to stress her sufferings rather than her virginity. Roland M. Smith, in “Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale and Constance of Castile,” JEGP, XLVII (1948), 343-351 has drawn attention to the fact that, in the interests of greater realism, Chaucer does not refer to Constance as a maiden after her marriage to Alla and that he makes her speak to the constable not in Saxon, as with Trivet, but in corrupt Latin. He has also pointed out some of the instances where Chaucer suppressed the names of places and people specifically mentioned by Trivet, and hat suggested that he did so in order to dissociate the legendary Constance from Constance of Castile, the second wife of John of Gaunt. In the first place, Smith it not convincing when he suggests that Chancer suppressed reference to Alla's castle being near the Humber because, to his readers, it would have meant John of Gaunt's castle at Pontefract. Chaucer plainly states that the waves cast Constance's ship ashore “Vnder an hoold” (507). It happens that Pontefract is inland, about 50 miles from the North Sea at its nearest point. Thus, the additional information that Alla's castle was near the Humber could scarcely have led to its identification with John of Gaunt's castle at Pontefract. In the second place, Chaucer suppressed more names than Smith has mentioned. Actually, his suppressions are part of a wide pattern of omissions which combine to serve the artistic purposes that I have indicated.

page 599 note 74 See 1086-92. In Trivet, Maurice has Just entered his eighteenth year, although it is extremely improbable that he was as old as this. (See above, p. 578, n. 19.) Chancer, with greater logic, always refers to him after he has arrived in Rome as a child, and hence is consistent in the reason which he gives for departing from Trivet in this particular instance.

page 600 note 75 The French reads “tuerent” sad “occirent.” See p. 167.

page 600 note 76 Chaucer also adds the concrete detail that on the particular day when Constance, the constable, and his wife meet the blind Briton, “Bright was the sonne ..” (554), perhaps to emphasize the blind man's inner darkness. He also adds, I do not know why, that the blind man was one of three British Christians who dwelt near the castle. In Trivet, only one blind Christian is mentioned, and no indication is given as to where he lives. The historically accurate account (540-546) of the British Christians fleeing to Wales from their pagan conquerors is an elaboration of two separate passages in Trivet, one of which mentions in a different context that “les Bretounz auoient is perdu la seingnurie del isle,” and the other, also in a different context, that “le plus de Britouns” had fled to Wales. See pp. 168,170.

page 600 note 77 See also 1097-99, where he is described as carefully arranging the details for the forthcoming feast. One minor change without discernible significance is that whereas in Trivet, Donegild's forged letter to the constable instructs him to exile Constance and her son within four days, in Chaucer this becomes “Thre dayes and a quarter of a tyde” (798).

page 600 note 78 in assuming that, where verbal similarities are concerned, it was Chancer who drew on Gower, and not vice versa, I have accepted the evidence and conclusions set forth by Margaret Schlauch (Sources and Analogues, pp. 155-156). In an earlier work, Chaucer's Constance and Accused Queens (New York, 1927), pp. 132-134, Miss Schlauch, after summarizing the arguments shout the question of priority, tentatively concluded that the “balance seems to be la favor of Gower's priority, though none of the evidence is conclusive.” In Sources and Analogues, she states more positively that the “indications within the poems themselves (on only evidence) indicate an earlier date for Gower.” I accept Miss Schlauch's conclusion all the mare readily because the evidence presented in this study substantiates it. To support her conclusion, Miss Schlauch points out that Gower's “rather mediocre narrative shows no sign of demonstrable influence by Chaucer's more original and moving tale.” Specifically, I may add, there is no counterpart in Gower to Chaucer's many rhetorical additions; to the additions in which Chaucer emphasized the religious element and humanized the various characters, particularly Constance; or to the additions which give the poem philosophical purport. Similarly with the omissions: in contrast to Chaucer, Gower faithfully names people and places; he also includes many of the details which Chaucer omits. It Is true that, like Chaucer, he omits dates and numerals, but that, I think, merely reflects the fact that he, too, was writing s poem and not a prose chronicle. Finally, except for a handful of phrases and sentences which Chaucer borrowed from him, there is no counterpart in Gower to the many additions and changes of detail which Chaucer made in the interests of greater vividness and realism. These additions and changes are a salient characteristic of Chaucer's treatment of Trivet; they occur not only in the examples to which I have drawn attention, but also, as we shall see utter, quite frequently in those passages where Chaucer is following Trivet more or less closely. Actually, it is as if Chaucer carefully combed Gower for the kind of deviation in which he himself was to interested, and having found a few proceeded to appropriate them. For when we analyze Chaucer's borrowings from Gower, it will be found that they are intelligibly motivated by one or another of the controlling purposes so persistently revealed elsewhere in the Man of Law's Tale when he deviated from Trivet without borrowing from Gower.

Lücke (Anglia, XIV, 183 ff.) gave 27 examples of verbal similarities, which have no counterpart in Trivet, between Chaucer's and Gower's stories and thought, without stating why, that Gower wrote first. Many of these examples are, to quote Skeat, “rather far-fetched and doubtful, and not many of them are very clear” (III, 415) and, to quote G. C. Macaulay (The Complete Works of John Gower (Oxford, 1901), II, 483), “more than half of them [are] trivial or unconvincing.” I have accepted 9 of Lücke's examples as constituting clear- cut and convincing borrowings. Six I discuss here, the remaining 3, since they occur in passages where Chaucer is following Trivet, I discuss later.

page 602 note 79 224, 333, 336, 340. Chaucer perhaps got the hint from Trivet's two references to “maumetz” (p. 166), meaning idols, and a corruption of Mahomet. Chaucer uses the word “Maumetrie” (236) in the sense of “idolatry.” See Skeat, v, 148 and Robinson, p. 796.

page 602 note 80 As Skeat notes (v, 147), Mahomet was only twelve years old when the historical emperor Tiberius II died in A.D. 582.

page 602 note 81 Skeat conjectures that the confusion resulting from using a corruption of Mahomet for an idol was partly responsible for these anachronisms See v, 148.

page 602 note 82 These passages are the residue that remains after eliminating the passages listed earlier as constituting Chaucer's condensations of, and additions to, Trivet; and also after eliminating other lines and passages, which I now list, containing miscellneous changes previously referred to either in the text or footnotes: 463-465, 519-520, 551, 604-605,662- 666, 729-730,743,964, 1086-92. These passages total 24 lines.

page 603 note 83 I list here these residual passages, totalling 184 lines, which follow Trivet: Part I: 173, 183-189, 253-255, 323-325, 344-347, 375-382. Part II: 505-508, 512-515, 533-534, 555-559, 561-562, 568-574, 582-603, 619-620,667-676, 683-688, 694-700, 715-718, 722- 728. 744-749, 757-759, 764-765, 785-788, 820-825. Part III 904-906, 955-963, 988-994, 1005-16,1030-35,1079-85,1100-03,1114-15,1142-44, 1147-48.

page 603 note 84 I have differentiated between these omissions and those mentioned earlier in this study, which occur in passages where Chaucer was not following hit original.

page 603 note 85 See above, n. 73.

page 604 note 86 See also 183-189, where Chaucer again omits Trivet's reference to Constance's virginity and, because of previous omissions, alto logically omits that she had previously con-in Trivet by leaving out the unnecessarily detailed enumeration of the entourage which accompanied Constance on her voyage to Syria for her oriental marriage.

page 605 note 87 See also 715-718, 722-728, and 744-749, all of which closely follow the corresponding passages in Trivet (pp. 172, 173), but contain nevertheless characteristic changes of omission and addition. For instance, in lines 715-718, which describe Alla's departure for Scotland soon after his marriage to Constance, Chaucer omits mentioning that the bishop's name was Lucius and that he was bishop of Bangor. Trivet invariably refers to him by name, and frequently gives his title. Chaucer only refers to him once (716), and then anonymously. On the other hand, he adds that Alla begot a “male” child, presumably in preparation for 722 where, following Trivet, he again mentions this fact. In the passage 722-728, which concerns Maurice's birth, Chaucer omits Trivet's reference to Lucius, but adds the concrete, visual detail that Maurice was christened “at the font stoon.” Finally, in lines 744-749 Chaucer once again stresses Donegild's wickedness by omitting that she stole the messenger's letters “par lassent e le conseil le soun clerc”; furthermore, for Trivet's commonplace statement that the drunken messenger slept “come homme mort” Chaucer substitutes the more appropriate and telling phrase that “he sleep as a swyn.”

page 606 note 88 I am fully aware of the subjective element involved in the attempt to differentiate between close and loose paraphrases. However, the attempt has seemed to me worth making. Moreover, even though there might be disagreement over some of my classifications, that would not affect the general conclusions regarding Chaucer's originality and craftsmanship which result from an examination of each of the 34 passages I have listed.

page 608 note 89 See also 955-963, which describe the slaughter of the Syrians by the emperor's avenging host. Here Chaucer refers to tie “cursed wikked sowdanesse,” calls her “a fals traytour,” and thus once more emphasizes her wickedness; also 1142-44, where Alla is represented as dying 1 year, rather than 9 months, after his return to England. Is it fanciful to suggest that, in keeping with his customary indefinite treatment of the time element, Chaucer preferred the relative vagueness of a round number to the prosaic precision of Trivet's 9 months? This would asm explain the deviation from Trivet to which I have drawn attention earlier in n. 27. See also 1030-35, where Chaucer expends Trivet's account in order to emphasize Alla's emotions after he has seen Maurice at the banquet, and 1079- 85, where he also expands Trivet's account of Constance's request that Alla invite her father to dine with them. Here Chaucer emphasizes Constance's submissiveness by describing her ss asking bar husband “mekely” and stresses her pest sufferings by adding the phrase: “In relief of hir longe pitous pynell; as one would expect, he also omits the statement that her father, the emperor, dwelt 12 leagues from Rome. Two other passages are extremely loose paraphrases of Trivet. Thus, the 12 lines (1005-16) which describe how the senator and Maurice went to Alla's banquet and how Maurice conducted himself there preserve the general sense of the original bat in the interests of narrative economy omit details that arc not strictly necessary. Similarly, the four lines beginning ”The morwe cam and .Alla gan hym dresse“ (1100) preserve the general sense of the original but omit superfluous details.

page 608 note 90 See above, p. 593 for my comment on 336-543 and 351-371.

page 611 note 91 I relegate to a footnote the following discussion of two passages which preserve Trivet's general meaning but contain various change, to most of which I have drawn attention in earlier sections. Thus in the four line, beginning “She dryueth forth into oure occian” (505), Chaucer omit'. Trivet's, reference to the Humber and adds the vivid phrase “wilde see” as. well as the line: “Vnder an hoold that nempnen I ne kan”; Trivet doe. not name the castle. Chancer also omits that “dieux, qi gouerna la neef le seint home Noe. en le graunde diluuie, maunda va vent couenable” (p. 168). But this perhaps provided Chaucer with the hint for the two stanzas of addition (484-497) where, through a series of rhetorical questions which I have discussed earlier, he emphasizes the fact that God who saved Jonah In the stomach of the whale and the Hebrew people when they crossed the Red Sea likewise saved Constance from drowning. Similarly, the three lines (904-906) which describe how Constance was cast up under a heathen castle after being from Northumberland omit that the castle was located in the sea of Spain and belonged to an admiral.

page 614 note 92 See Skeat's and Robinson's explanatory notes on these lines lines. Robinson (pp. 797,799) also notes possible echoes from Dante in lines 358-359 and 784.

page 616 note 93 The, Development and Chronology of Chaucer's Work, (London, 1907), p. 181.