^{Note 1 in page 309} F. E. Schelling, The Life and Writings of George Gascoigne (Boston, [1893]), p. 29.

^{Note 2 in page 309} [Anon.], A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres … (London, [n.d.]) {STC 11635); George Gascoigne's “A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres,” ed. C. T. Prouty (Columbia, Mo., 1942). Parenthetic page and line references within the text below (and without other identification in the notes) refer to Prouty's edition—e.g. (p. 64/1–4); the short title Flowres also refers to Prouty's edition unless otherwise identified.

^{Note 3 in page 309} English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama (Oxford, 1954), p. 269.

^{Note 4 in page 309} F. G. Fleay, Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama (London, 1891), I, 239-240; Schelling, Life and Writings, p. 19; J. W. Cunliffe, “George Gascoigne,” CHEL [1908], in, 236 ff.; ?. M. Ward, ed. A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres (London, 1926), p. xvii and Introd. passim; L. Bradner, “The First English Novel …, ” PMLA, XLV (June, 1930), 543–546; C. T. Prouty, George Gascoigne (New York, 1942), pp. 189–212 (reference to George Gascoigne hereafter is to this work unless otherwise stated); Prouty, Flowres, Introd. and notes, passim.

^{Note 5 in page 309} Flowres, p. 243; George Gascoigne, pp. 198, 211.

^{Note 6 in page 309} In his edition of Flowres and especially in George Gascoigne, Prouty showed that earlier roman à clef theories will not hold water. He then advanced, first as speculation, then as though factually certain, his autobiographical view. Few reviewers challenged the argument. See, e.g., H. E. Rollins, MLN, LVIII (1943), 317–319; ?. K. Chambers, English, IV (1943), 125–126; J. M. Berdan, AHR, XLVIII (1942), 92-93; L. Bradner, JEGP, XLII (1943), 586–587; TLS, 19 Sept. 1942, p. 463. But cf. H. Spens, RES, xix (1943), 303, and N. J. E. in Univ. of Toronto Quart., xiv (1944), 114.

^{Note 7 in page 309} No light on the question of artistic intent came from the showing (in 1942) that indeed Gascoigne wrote and procured publication of both versions (George Gascoigne, p. 190; Flowres, esp. pp. 19-28).

^{Note 8 in page 309} The Posies [1575], ed. J. W. Cunliffe (Cambridge, 1905), pp. 3 ff.

^{Note 9 in page 316} Flowres, p. [47].

^{Note 10 in page 316} Cunliffe, CHEL, in, 204–205; George Gascoigne, p. 190, and Flowres, pp. 19-25.

^{Note 11 in page 316} Flowres, p. [240].

^{Note 12 in page 316} W. W. Greg, “A Hundreth Sundry Flowers,” Library, vii (1926–27), 274.

^{Note 13 in page 317} That some links in this chain were parts of a fiction, devised with literary intent around imaginary characters, was surmised by: Schelling, Life and Writings, p. 25; Greg, p. 274; Ward, Flowres, p. XV. The effect of the fiction upon the 1573 readers was not weighed nor was it held that they knew it to be a fiction.

^{Note 14 in page 317} F. T. Bowers, “Notes on Gascoigne's … Flowres and The Posies,” Harvard Studies in Philology …, xvi (1934), 13-14. Prouty held the printer to have been “apparently inspired” to provide three pages of rather pointless filler because he lacked other material (Flowres, pp. 11–12).

^{Note 15 in page 317} Greg (“A Hundreth Sundry Flowers,” Library, viii [1927-28], 130) suggested two fine points (which might have led a 1573 reader to take H.W. as a fictional character), but I think no Elizabethan raised his criticisms. The 1575 attacks upon Gascoigne rather represent a belief that F.J., H.W., etc., were living contemporaries, not fictional creations.

^{Note 16 in page 317} Bowers, “Notes …, ” p. 27. Using post-1573 evidence, he suspected A.B., H.W., and G.T. to be imaginary persons.

^{Note 17 in page 317} Cf. Prouty, who located the story's beginning in G.T.'s last paragraph (Flowres, p. 11).

^{Note 18 in page 318} E.g., Bowers, “Notes …, ” pp. 30 f.; Prouty {George Gascoigne, p. 198) held G.T.'s statements to be incredible because “no one would relate to another” such intimate details as G.T. said F.J. “emported” to him. This assertion will be examined below.

^{Note 19 in page 318} Cf. Bradner, “First English Novel,” p. 544; Bowers, “Notes …, ” pp. 30 f.

^{Note 20 in page 318} Summarized from Prouty, Flowres. One sequence of 203 lines only is unsigned (ibid., pp. 79-84), but in context it is clearly from G.T.'s narrative viewpoint.

^{Note 21 in page 318} Bradner (“First English Novel,” pp. 544-545) held it to be “plain that F.J. is the author himself, that is Gascoigne,” as allegedly proved by U.T.-G.T. epistles. (Since the Flowres was anonymous, no general reader in 1573 could have equated F.J. with Gascoigne, and certainly H.W. and G.T. make no such identification.) Bowers (“Notes …, ” pp. 32–33) was little interested in the intended effect of G.T. upon the 1573 readers. Prouty (George Gascoigne, pp. 190, 198), determining from post-1573 evidence the fictitiousness of H.W., G.T., and A.B., ignored the effect of the fictions upon the 1573 readers. G. B. Parks did not mention G.T.'s creative story function as such (“Before Euphues,” Joseph Quincy Adams Memorial Studies, ed. J. G. McManaway et al., Washington, D. C, 1948, pp. 489^92).

^{Note 22 in page 318} “A pleasant discourse” (p. [46]), “the discourse in prose” (p. 48), and the head title, “A Discourse …” (p. 49). During the narrative G.T. refers to it often as a “discourse” (pp. 57, 69, 74, 79, 87) but also occasionally as a “register” (pp. 51, 79) and as a “Historié” (pp. 51, 74, 105). The discourse over, G.T. explicitly réassumer! a limited editorial role (p. 106).

^{Note 23 in page 318} Bradner, “First English Novel,” p. 544; Bowers, “Notes …, ” pp. 22–33 (although he does recognize G.T. as telling the story to H.W. “for his private amusement”). Prouty identified the form as “prose narrative,” “prose tale,” or “the story” (George Gascoigne, pp. 190-191) and presented it “as far as possible in dramatic form” (pp. 201 ff.). C. S. Lewis termed it “a novel” or “longish short story” (English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, p. 269).

^{Note 24 in page 318} E.g., Greg, “A Hundreth Sundry Flowers” (1926–27), passim; Bradner, “First English Novel,” p. 544; Bowers, “Notes …, ” pp. 22-33; George Gascoigne, pp. 190–198.

^{Note 25 in page 318} G.T. once remarks, “This letter [of F.J.'s] finished and fayre written over …” (Flowres, p. 54). The first verses F.J. wrote were apparently not given to Elinor because he met her “before he coulde put the same in legible writinge” (p. 52). Once Elinor asked F.J. for another copy of the “last rehearsed letter,” which he hastened to give her as a “new bottome for hir silke,” the obvious inference being that he recopied the rough draft in his possession (p. 55). For one poem F.J. “had so slender liking” that he never presented it to Elinor, although G.T. gives it to the reader (pp. 64–65). Half-humorously, G.T. comments that “… I doe dwell overlong in the discourses of this F.J., especially having taken in hand only to copie out his verses …” (p. 57).

^{Note 26 in page 319} “My friend F.J. hath tolde me divers times …” (p. 53). On one point he compared his understanding with that of F.J.‘s better-informed friends: “some of his [F.J.‘s] acquayntaunce, being also acquainted (better then I) that F.J. was … acquaynted with Hellene, have stoode in argument with mee …” (p. 76/21). G.T. speaks of “some unto whom I have imparted this tale …” (p. 79/31), that is by inference others before and in addition to H.W.

^{Note 27 in page 319} While F.J. slept, Fraunces took his sword from his bed–room (pp. 70/1–17 and 72/30–74/16). With “So let them both sleepe whyles I [G.T.] turne my penne,” G.T. tells of the Secretary's return from London (pp. 92/44–95/2). G.T., ostensibly for brevity, decides not to tell the reader what Fraunces and others whispered while F.J. was busy in talk with Elinor (p. 102/13–16).

^{Note 28 in page 319} Pages 57/30, 72/14; “this tale,” p. 79/26; “my penne,” p. 92/44, etc.

^{Note 29 in page 320} “I … [G.T.] sende you [B.W.] his [F.J.'s] verses by stealth, and do him double wrong, to disclose unto any man the secrete causes why they were devised, but this for your delight I do adventure …” (p. 76/36–39); “And though it stood not with duty of a friend that I should therin require to know his secrets, yet of him selfe he [F.J.] declared …” (p. 55/3); “Were it not that I [G.T.] knowe to whom [H.W.] I write, I would the more beware what I write …” (p. 69/25–26).

^{Note 30 in page 322} Page 60/5–8; cf. similarly p. 77/16–23.

^{Note 31 in page 324} How different a view can be taken when G.T.'s narrative role within the discourse is entirely disregarded may be seen in George Gascoigne, p. 195. Asserting that the story concerns real (not fictional) persons, Prouty sees an “error of two introductions.” The first ([i] above) is taken as “part of the narrative,” while the second ([p] above) “even to the use of the printer's ornament” is allegedly redundant. The “printer's ornament” evidence appears especially weak. By my count, only 9 of the verses following “The Adventures” in the Flowres have this ornament while 64 do not. In the original Flowres none of the poems directly attributed to Gascoigne has it. Moreover, in Prouty's edition (Nos. 5 and 8, pp. 110, 112) these ornaments are twice shown where they do not appear in the original (pp. 299, 302). The 1573 reader was in no position to apply Prouty's “moral grounds” argument, based as it is on The Posies {George Gascoigne, p. 195).

^{Note 32 in page 324} When G.T.'s original narrative role is disregarded, all the stories interpolated in “The Adventures” are seen as a. “structural weakness” (George Gascoigne, pp. 209-211).

^{Note 33 in page 324} On the “friendly teeth” episode, cf. the remarkable (and, as far as I can see, unsupported) assertion that “Certainly no-one would relate to another the details of this passage, and we at once see the familiar fiction of G.T. fade away to reveal' Gascoigne recounting only those events which he actually remembers” (George Gascoigne, p. 198). If presumed Elizabethan delicacy would “certainly” prohibit telling such intimate details, how is one supposed to account for Gas-coigne's publishing them?

^{Note 34 in page 325} Cunliffe, The Posies, p. 7.

^{Note 35 in page 326} The Posies, p. 7. Cf. Flowres, p. 257, where this sentence is interpreted as meaning that only the 1575 Ferdinando is identified as a “fable.” As I read it, both forms are here identified as “fable,” i.e., fiction.

^{Note 36 in page 326} See Bowers, “Notes …, ” passim.

^{Note 37 in page 326} It seems to me hazardous to presume that only or mainly “moral grounds” account for alterations in the 1575 version or that one can now be precisely sure what such grounds may have been. Cf. Prouty, George Gascoigne, p. 195, and Flowres, notes to p. 69/25-37, p. 77/36-37; p. 79/16; and the puzzlement (p. 259) as to why Gascoigne in 1575 omitted a poem when “certainly it is not lascivious.”

^{Note 38 in page 326} George Gascoigne, pp. 196, 198, 206.

^{Note 39 in page 326} Possible external facts may be that Gascoigne himself was tall and could extemporize verse readily (so he says). The character F J. may have these traits, although “tall” is ambiguous in Elizabethan usage. I agree that these resemblances are “casual” but not that “they suggest for this very reason a likeness between Gascoigne and F.J.” (George Gascoigne, p. 197).

^{Note 40 in page 326} Records of the Court of the Stationers' Company 1576 to 1602 from Register B, ed. W. W. Greg and E. Boswell (London, 1930), p. 87.

^{Note 41 in page 326} Greg & Boswell, Records . ‥, pp. Ivii-lviii.