^{page 115 note 1} Preserved only in a single ms. (Nero A x of the Cottonian collection). Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight was first edited in 1839 by Sir Frederic Madden in his collection of Gawayne romances. In 1864 it was again edited by Richard Morris for the Early English Text Society. Pearl, Cleanness and Patience were also edited by Morris in 1864 (Early Engl. Allit. Poems, E. E. T. S.). In 1891 the Pearl was again edited by Mr. I. Gollancz, with translation, notes and introduction.

Some scholars are disposed to include also as the work of the same author the Legend of Erkenwalde. This opinion was first expressed in 1881 by Dr. Carl Horstmann (Altengl. Legenden, p. 265), in editing the Erkenwalde. Horstmann's opinion was endorsed in the following year by Dr. M. Trautmann (Anglia, v, Anzeiger, pp. 23–5), and in 1886 by Dr. Fr. Knigge (Die Sprache des Dichters von Sir Gaw. and the Green Knight, pp. 4–12). On the other hand, Mr. Gollancz (Pearl, p. xlv, note 2) expresses his doubt. The argument for ascribing the Erkenwalde to the Gawayne poet rests upon similarities of dialect and vocabulary. Such similarities as have been pointed out, however, do not seem to me conclusive. Cf. further p. 126, note 2.

^{page 115 note 2} History of English Rhythms, ed. 1882, pp. 458, 462.

^{page 116 note 1} Sir Gawayne, ed. 1839, pp. 301 ff.

^{page 116 note 2} Early Engl. Allit. Poems, E. E. T. S., p. iiii

^{page 116 note 3} In 1885 Morris's opinion that these poems were composed in the West Midland dialect was endorsed by Wilhelm Fick (Zum mittelengl. Gedicht von der Perle, Kiel), who believes, however, that they were later copied by a southerly scribe. In 1896 L. Morsbach (Mittelengl. Gram., i, p. 15) assigned these poems to the northern border of the West Midland district or the southern border of the Northern district (cf. also p. 9).

^{page 116 note 4} It is impossible here to follow all the ramifications of the Huchown discussion. The original source of our information as to Huchown's literary productions is the chronicler Wyntoun (circa 1420), who ascribes to him three poems:—

He made the Gret Gest off Axthure

And the Awntyre off Gawane,

The Pystyll als off Swete Swsane. (w. 4326–8.)

The last of the poems in this list is unanimously identified as the Pistil of Susan (ed. F. J. Amours, Scottish Allit. Poems, Scot. Text Soc'y, 1897). As to the other two poems, however, scholars have not come to any general agreement. The Gret Gest, according to Sir F. Madden, is the alliterative Morte Arthure of the Thornton ms. (ed. Geo. G. Perry, E. E. T. S., 1865). This is also the view of Trautmann (“Ueber Huchown und Seine Werke,” Anglia, i), of Mr. Gollancz (Pearl, p. xliv) and of Mr. Amours (op. cit., p. lvi). On the other hand, Morris (Early Eng. Allit. Poems, p. vi) rejected Huchown's authorship of the Morte Arthure on the ground that the dialect of this poem, though Northumbrian, is not Scottish. In 1883 Dr. H. Luebke (The Aunters of Arthur at the Tern Wathelan, Berlin, p. 30) also expressed the opinion that Huchown was not the author of the Morte Arthure. More recently, Dr. P. C. Hoyt in an unpublished dissertation (The Anters of Arther, Harvard Univ., 1902) has pointed out that the contents of this poem do not correspond to the description of the Gret Gest in Wyntoun.

Opinion as to the Awntyre off Gawane, the second in Wyntoun's list, is similarly divided. Guest's and Madden's identification of this poem as Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight has been discarded by later scholars generally. In 1877 Trautmann (Anglia, i, pp. 142–3) suggested that the words of Wyntoun, “the Gret Gest off Arthure and the Awntyre off Gawane,” are to be taken together as the description of a single poem, the Morte Arthure. This explanation is accepted by Mr. Gollancz. On the other hand, Mr. Amours (op. cit., pp. lvii-lxviii) argues that the poem referred to by Wyntoun is the Awntyrs of Arthure. Dr. Hoyt, however, holds that the Awntyrs of Arthure cannot be the work of Huchown, because it differs in both vocabulary and dialect from the Pistil of Susan—the one poem universally conceded to him.

Notwithstanding the fact that Wyntoun ascribes to Huchown only three poems, various other pieces of verse have been conveniently attributed to him by scholars. A wholesome check was given to this tendency by Trautmann (Anglia, i, p. 109 ff.), who showed that the various poems attributed to Huchown cannot be the work of a single author, but fall into no less than five distinct groups. As a result of Trautmann's investigation Huchown's authorship has been restricted to the poems mentioned by Wyntoun.

But Scottish patriotism could not rest content with such a modest list of Huchown's works. In 1888 Mr. George P. M'Neill (“Huchown of the Awle Ryale,” Scottish Review, April, 1888) reiterated the earlier arguments of Sir F. Madden for Huchown's authorship of the Gawayne poetry. And recently Mr. George Neilson (Huchown of the Awle Ryale, Glasgow, 1902) gathers together under Huchown's name the following library of fourteenth century poetry: Morte Arthure, Wars of Alexander, Destruction of Troy, Titus and Vespasian, Parlement of Thre Ages, Wynnere and Wastour, Pistil of Susan, Awntyrs of Arthur, Golagros and Gawayn, Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight, Pearl, Cleanness, Patience, and the Legend of Erkenwalde—a total of 35,445 lines ! That philologists have agreed in assigning many of the poems in this list to a West Midland instead of to a Scottish author, gives Mr. Neilson small concern; for the philologist he has a fine scorn (cf. p. 7).

To outline even in the briefest way the intricacies of Mr. Neilson's argument is here out of the question. But, as a specimen of his ingenious speculation, I take his attempt to identify Hunterian ms. T, 4, 1, as “Huchown's Codex.” While endeavoring to link together as the work of Huchown the various poems in the list above, Mr. Neilson (pp. 16–7) came upon this Latin ms. in the Hunterian Library. It contains, among other works, Guido de Colonne's Historia Destructionis Trojane Urbis, Leo's De Preliis Alexandri, and Mandeville's Itinerarium. Observing a number of correspondences between peculiarities in the Latin text of this Hunterian MS. and the English poems, Wars of Alexander and Destruction of Troy, he concludes that this “must have been the identical ms. used by the poet” (p. 22). Moreover, he calls attention to the fact that in the Wars of Alexander, the Morte Arthure, the Parlement of Thre Ages, and Cleanness there is obvious dependence upon the Book of Mandeville. Inasmuch as a copy of Mandeville is contained in this Hunterian ms. he finds in this dependence a further evidence that this ms. was the source used.

But this theory of Mr. Neilson's that Hunterian ms. T. 4, 1 was “Huchown's Codex” proves too much for his argument. For it is tobe noted that in this ms. Mandeville's Itinerary is found in a Latin text. The author of Cleanness, on the other hand, clearly depended on a French text of Mandevüle (cf. note appended on p. 149). He could not, therefore, have been depending on the Hunterian ms. In other words, Mr. Neilson's own argument to prove that the author of the Wars of Alexander and the Destruction of Troy was using the Hunterian ms. proves with equal conclusiveness that he was a different person from the author of Cleanness, who was acquainted with Mandeville in a French text. Mr. Neilson has thus unwittingly given new confirmation to the conclusion of the philologists that the Gawayne poetry cannot be included among the works of Huchown.

^{page 118 note 1} It should perhaps be noted that Dr. Carl Horstmann in 1896 claimed that he was the first to suggest the identification of the author of The Pearl with Ralph Strode (Works of Richard Rolle of Hampole; ii, p. xviii, note 3). Mr. J. T. T. Brown gives recognition to Dr. Horstmann's claim (Scottish Antiquary, July, 1897, p. 8).

^{page 119 note 1} The Pearl, ed. Gollancz, p. lii. For a discussion of the Strode theory cf. note appended to this article, p. 146.

^{page 119 note 2} Mr. F. J. Snell touches this point casually: “It is clear that the author of Pearl had studied divinity, attracted thereto by domestic calamity, and probably by inclination as well” (The Age of Chanter, 1901, p. 24). Just how much he means to imply by the phrase “studied divinity” is not clear.

^{page 120 note 1} The following table shows the Scriptural basis of the description of the New Jerusalem:

Pearl, vv. 832–9; cf. Key. 5:1–7.

“ 864–899; cf. ” 14:1–5.

“ 984–1031; cf. ” 21:10–20.

“ 1032–1079; cf. ” 21: 21–22: 5.

“ 1092–1127; cf. ” 7:4, 9–12.

^{page 120 note 2} I have noted the following passages in the Pearl which are either quotations from the Bible or obvious allusions to it:

Pearl, vv. 31–2; cf. John 12: 24.

“ vv. 301–12—an allusion to Jesus' rebuke of the incredulity of Thomas, John 20: 29.

“ vv. 315–6; cf. James 4:13–15.

“ vv. 321–2 — a statement of the curse consequent on Adam's sin, a Biblical commonplace.

“ vv. 401–4; cf. I. Peter 5: 5–7.

“ vv. 457–66; cf. I. Cor. 12:12–27.

“ v. 571; cf. Matt. 22:14.

“ vv. 592–5; cf. Ps. 62:12.

“ vv. 676–82; cf. Ps. 24: 3—4.

“ vv. 688 ff.; cf. Book of Wisdom.

“ vv. 697–9; cf. Ps. 143: 2.

“ vv. 708–28; cf. Mark 10:13–16.

“ vv. 729–35; cf. Matt. 13:45–46.

“ vv. 796–803; cf. Isa. 53: 7.

“ vv. 817–22; cf. John 1: 29.

^{page 121 note 1} It is quite possible that our author took his suggestion for this use of the Old Testament stories from II. Peter 2: 4–7, where one finds the Pall of the Angels, Noah's Flood and the Destruction of Sodom used to point exactly the same lesson as that drawn in Cleanness.

^{page 121 note 2} Cleanness, vv. 51–160.

^{page 122 note 1} Cf. Matt. 22:2–13, and Luke 14:16–24.

^{page 122 note 2} Thus Zedekiah's idolatry (Clean., vv. 1172–4) is mentioned only in II. Chron. 36:12–14; the statement that God would not have permitted Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Jerusalem had King Zedekiah obeyed his commands (Clean., vv. 1225–30) is a reflection of Jer. 38:17–20; the atrocities perpetrated by the soldiers (Clean., 1245–52) are mentioned only in II. Chron. 36:17; finally Cleanness, 1253–60, corresponds to the phrases of II. Chron. 36:20.

^{page 122 note 3} Cleanness, vv. 302–8.

^{page 123 note 1} Ibid., vv. 682–6.

^{page 123 note 2} Notwithstanding the fact that these poems are based so directly upon the Scriptural text, Miss M. Carey Thomas (Sir Gaw. and the Green Knight, Zürich, 1883, pp. 27–32) has endeavored to establish the dependence of certain Biblical episodes in Cleanness upon the B text of Piers Plowman. Miss Thomas calls attention to the fact that “the first six portions of Bible history treated in Cleanness are all found as episodes in Piers Plowman. When one considers that more than a score of Biblical episodes might be reckoned up in the pages of Piers Plowman, it does not seem very significant that there should be several episodes common to both poems. Of these six episodes, Miss Thomas finds only three which seem to contain significant similarities. A single example will serve to illustrate the nature of these resemblances. In Piers Plowman (B text, xv, 454 ff.) there is a reference to the parable of the Marriage Feast. Langland tells us that the host did not feed his guests with venison or black pheasants, but with tame fowls which ”folwed his whistellynge,“ and with calves' flesh, for ”the calfe bytokeneth clenesse.“ This is all that is said of the parable. The author proceeds to point out at length the allegorical significance of this selection of food. Now in Cleanness (vv. 55–8) the master of the feast provides bulls, boars, fowls—both ”pen-fed“ poultry and partridges—wild swine, swans, and cranes. This could hardly be called a careful selection of meats from the point of view of ceremonial cleanness. But the fact that in both passages ”fowls“ are mentioned leads Miss Thomas to believe that there is a dependence of one upon the other. The other parallels pointed out by Miss Thomas are no closer. The occurrence of ”wylde worme,“ for example, in both authors is hardly significant when one considers the necessities of alliterative verse. Moreover, it may be pointed out that although in Cleanness these Scriptural episodes are given in their proper context, in Piers Plowman they are found as disjecta membra, entirely separated from the Biblical setting. Thus Cleanness 530–7, which Miss Thomas regards as a reminiscence of Piers Plowman, occurs as a part of the Flood story. The return of the animals to their several homes is described essentially as in Genesis. On the other hand, the passage in Piers Plowman (B text, xiv, 39–44) to which Miss Thomas refers has no connection whatever with the Flood story.

In conclusion, therefore, 1 cannot find in the passages cited by Miss Thomas any evidence that the author of Cleanness was depending upon Piers Plowman. Mr. Gollancz has also expressed his skepticism on this point (Pearl, p. xlii; cf. also Parlement of the Thre Ages, Roxburghe Club, p. xiv, note 2). The rejection of this dependence upon Piers Plowman, makes it impossible, of course, definitely to fix the date of Cleanness, as Miss Thomas does, after 1377.

^{page 124 note 1} Cleanness, vv. 203–34.

^{page 125 note 1} The development of the doctrine of Lucifer and his fall, together with numerous references to mediaeval versions of the story, will be found in H. Ungemach's Die Quellen der fünf ersten Chester Plays, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1890, pp. 18 ff.

^{page 125 note 2} The use of the rather rare French word “tramountayne” (Clean, v. 211) would suggest dependence upon a French source; but I have not been able to discover any French version of the story in which this word is used. It is not necessary, after all, to suppose that the author was following a French text. He may have chosen “tramountayne” for the sake of alliteration with “trone.”

^{page 125 note 3} Cleanness, vv. 820–8.

^{page 125 note 4} Ibid., v. 997.

^{page 125 note 5} For the evidence of this dependence on the Book of Mandeville see note appended to this article, p. 149.

^{page 125 note 6} Cleanness, vv. 1079–87.

^{page 126 note 1} Ibid., vv. 1101–8.

^{page 126 note 2} In the Legend of Erkenwalde, on the other hand, there is legendary material in abundance. The “Limbus Patrum” and the “Harrowing of Hell” are especially prominent. It is in such striking contrast in this respect to Pearl, Cleanness and Patience that I find it difficult to regard it as the work of the same author. The whole atmosphere of the Erkenwalde is different from that of the other three poems.

^{page 127 note 1} Pearl, p. xlvii.

^{page 127 note 2} Sir Gawayne, vv. 2414–9.

^{page 128 note 1} Nonne Preestes Tale, vv. 416–9. Chaucer, moreover, repeatedly shows his own keen interest in the problem of predestination and free-will. His most extended discussion of the question is, of course, the well-known passage in the Troilus (Book iv, 974–1078). In this passage, as has been pointed out, Chaucer is closely following his own prose translation of Boethius (Book v, Prose iii). So far as I am aware, however, no one has called attention to the fact that this quotation does not represent the conclusion reached in Boethius, but is directly opposed to it. The passage which Chaucer here borrows is an augument to prove that there is no such thing as free choice, but that all human action is controlled by absolute necessity. In Boethius, as Chaucer was well aware, this argument is answered by Dame Philosophy, who defends the real freedom of human choice (Book v, Prose iv). One may say that Chaucer chose the argument in favor of predestination simply because it accorded with the dramatic requirements of the Troilus story. “The idea of fate,” as Professor Kittredge says, “is subtly insistent throughout the poem,—it is perhaps even the key to Cressida's character” (“Chaucer's Pardoner,” Atlantic Monthly, vol. 72, 1893, p. 829). But may it not be at the same time a key to Chaucer's character? His strong interest in the study of astrology would suggest that he tended toward fatalism. Bradwardine repeatedly inveighed against the astrologers because they taught that human destiny was controlled by the heavenly bodies (De Causa Dei, pp. 265, 449, 466). For the heavenly bodies he would substitute God; but it would be predestination in either case.

^{page 129 note 1} Nonne Preestes Tale, vv. 420–2.

^{page 129 note 2} Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, ed. 1618, Preface.

^{page 129 note 3} “In scholis enim Philosophorum, raro solebam quicquam audire de gratia, nisi aequivoce forsan dicta; sed tota die audivi, quod nos sumus Domini nostrorum actuum liberorum, et quod in nostra potestate est, operari bene vel male, habere virtutes vel vitia, cum similibus suis multis” (Ibid., p. 308).

^{page 129 note 4} Some of the chapter-headings in Bradwardine's treatise will suffice to make his position clear. Thus in Book i:

^{page 132 note 1} Another indication that the author had in mind the discussions of the theologians is found in some of the terms which he employs. For example, the word “pretermynable” (v. 595) suggests a definite acquaintance with the “praedeterminatio” of the schoolmen (cf. Thos. Aquinas, Summa, Pare I, Q. xxiii, Art. 1, ed. 1756, vol. xx, p. 146). Nevertheless, his poetic sense leads him for the most part to exclude technical theological terms.

^{page 133 note 1} Pearl, vv. 445–56, 600–11, 624–35; cf. further on this subject Pearl, vv. 847–51.

^{page 134 note 1} Thus cf. the heading of one of the chapters in Bradwardine (Lib. i, cap. xlvi): “Contra quosdam concedentes praedestinationem et reprobationem ad gloriam et ad poenam, sed negantes has esse ad aliquos certos gradus,” etc.

^{page 134 note 2} De Causa Dei, p. 340.

^{page 135 note 1} Ibid., p. 386.

^{page 135 note 2} Thus Bradwardine, replying to the opinion of some persons that the blessed would find in their freedom from sin a happiness which would be infinite, rejects this idea, because:—“Tune enim tantum gauderet de uno minimo tali bono, sicut de bono majori, et bonis aliis similibus, et melioribus universis, etiam ipso Deo: Omnes quosque beati, etiam parvuli aequaliter tunc gauderent,” etc. (p. 460). Cf. further, on p. 518, the passage beginning: “Item aliquis viator perfectus habet,” etc.

^{page 136 note 1} Pearl, vv. 472–487, 588–599.

^{page 137 note 1} Poema Morale, vv. 335–8, Old English Homilies, First Series, E. E. T. S., p. 181.

^{page 137 note 2} Jerome, Contra Jovin., Migne, Patrol. Lat., vol. xxiii, col. 315.

^{page 138 note 1} August., De Sancta Virginitate, cap. 26, Migne, Patrol., vol. xl, col. 410. The same interpretation of the parable of the Laborers occurs again in Augustine's In Joannis Evangelium, Tract. lxvii, cap. 14, Migne, Patrol., vol. xxxv, col. 1812.

^{page 138 note 2} Petrus Lombardus, Dist. xlix, Pars 1, Migne, Patrol., vol. cxcii, col. 957.

^{page 139 note 1} Bonaventura, Libri IV Sententiarum, Dist. xlix, Pars 1, Q. vi, ed. 1668, vol. iii, p. 533.

^{page 139 note 2} Thomas Aquinas, In Joannis Evangelium, Cap. xiv (ed. Venice, 1745–57, vol. iii., p. 749); Libri IV Sententiarum, Dist. xlix, Q. i, Art. iv, Quaestiuncula ii (vol. xiii, pp. 476, 478); Summa 3, Q. v, Art. ii (vol. xxi, p. 33).

^{page 139 note 3} Duns Scotus, Quaestiones In Lib. IV Sententiarum, Dist. l, Q. v (ed. 1639, tom. x, pp. 641 and 651).

^{page 141 note 1} Pearl, vv. 666–7.

^{page 141 note 2} Cleanness, vv. 5–11.

^{page 142 note 1} Holcot, Super Libros Sapientie Solomonis, Lectio lxxi.

^{page 142 note 2} Horstmann's ed. of Richard Rolle, i, 306.

^{page 143 note 1} Bernard of Clairvaux, Migne, Patrol., vol. 184, col. 1118.

^{page 143 note 2} Gollancz's Pearl, p. xlix. This conclusion that the author of the Pearl was an active opponent of Wyclif is necessary to his argument for the Strode hypothesis, for Ralph Strode, as we have seen above, engaged in theological controversy with Wyclif.

^{page 144 note 1} G. J. Lechler, Johann von Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der Reformation, Leipzig, 1873, i, p. 558 note.

^{page 144 note 2} Select Works of Wyclif ed. Arnold, vol. iii, p. 113.

^{page 145 note 1} Duns Scotus, ed. 1639, vol. x, p. 643.