Mi 
 
 H 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 Microsoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/fivepamphletsOOkittrich 
 


 CHAUCER'S LOLLIUS 
 By George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 £- ^ \**«\phl eTts^ 
 
 Printed from the 
 
 HARVARD^tf&DIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 
 Vol. XXVIII, i 9 i7 
 
• 
 
CHAUCER'S LOLLIUS 
 By George Lyman Kittbedge 
 
 CHAUCER'S LOLLIUS has long been regarded by us critics and 
 scholars as a mystery; and, to confess the truth, the thing has 
 become a mystery indeed under our treatment. For in our discussions 
 we have made so many mistakes about plain matters of record, and 
 have emitted so many discordant conjectures, that the whole subject 
 has become entangled to the verge of distraction and is now involved 
 in a kind of druidical mist. Let us try to extricate ourselves from the 
 fogbound labyrinth, and to that end let us examine certain obvious 
 phenomena — for such there are — in an orderly and logical manner, 
 in the light of reason and common sense and of what we know of the 
 habits of literary men. 1 
 
 Chaucer's earliest mention of Lollius occurs in The House of Fame 
 (1468). The passage is very familiar; but its bearings are often 
 overlooked, and anyhow we must scrutinize it with care at the outset, 
 for it is quite fundamental. 
 
 The poet is enumerating the statues erected on pillars in Fame's 
 hall. First comes Josephus, who, with the help of seven others (un- 
 named) supports the burden of Hebrew history. Next stands Statius, 
 expressly designated as the author of the Thebaid and the Achilleis. 
 Then there is a group of six worthies who " bear up " the fame of Troy: 
 these are Homer, Dares and Dictys, 2 Lollius, Guido delle Colonne, and 
 Geoffrey of Monmouth. Then we have Virgil, who bears up the fame 
 
 1 The purpose is to sift and review, not to invent new theories, for almost every 
 conceivable theory has already been propounded. A reference to Miss Hammond's 
 invaluable bibliography {Chaucer, 1908, pp. 94 ff.) will relieve me of the duty of 
 ticketing the various suggestions, good and bad, with the names of their origina- 
 tors or adherents. For a recent discussion see Imelmann, Englische Studien, XLV, 
 406 ff. 
 
 2 Tytus is probably a scribe's error for Dytus (i.e. Dictys). Robert Braham, 
 who signs " The pistle to the reader " in Thomas Marshe's edition of Lydgate's 
 Troy Book (1555), speaks of " Daretus the Phrigyan, and Dytus the Grecyan " 
 ind of " the labores aswel of Darete as Dyte." 
 
 47 
 
 M89895 
 
4S . . , t , , , George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 of 'pious 'Aeneas; Ovid, who bears up the fame of the god of love; 
 Ln':;m. who bears up the fame of Caesar and Pompey, and near him 
 all ' those clerks who ceJ estate Rome — too many to call by name; then 
 Claudian, who bears up the fame of hell, having written the De Raptu 
 Proserpinae. Here Chaucer stops — for 
 
 The halle was al ful, ywis, 
 
 Of hem that writen olde gestes, 
 
 As ben on trees rokes nestes, 
 
 and it would have been " a ful confus matere " to finish the catalogue. 
 
 Disregarding Lollius for the moment, we note that every single 
 name in this enumeration represents a real person, or one of whose 
 reality Chaucer and his contemporaries had no doubt, and that in 
 every case the author is correctly associated with the subject. The 
 inference is mathematically certain: When Chaucer composed The House 
 of Fame he believed that there was once a Lollius, long before his time, who 
 had written something about the matter of Troy. In no other way can we 
 reasonably account for his mentioning Lollius in such a fashion and 
 in such company — along with Homer, Dares, Dictys, Guido delle 
 Colonne, and Geoffrey of Monmouth, precisely as he mentions Jose- 
 phus as an authority on the wars of the Jews, Virgil on pious Aeneas, 
 and Lucan on Caesar and Pompey. There is no ground for imagining 
 that he felt any more doubt of the reality of Lollius and his work on 
 Troy than he felt of the reality of Josephus and the Bellum Iudaicum, 
 or of Virgil and the Aeneid, or of Statius and the epic of Thebes, or of 
 Lucan and the Pharsalia. He was mistaken, no doubt, and we shall 
 take occasion by-and-by to consider the genesis of his error. For the 
 present, however, we are concerned merely with the isolated fact of 
 the error itself: — Chaucer certainly believed that some Lollius or 
 other had written something of importance about Troy. No matter 
 how he came to think so. The causes of the opinion have nothing to 
 do with the fact of the opinion as a part of the res gestae of the case. 
 Later, when Chaucer came to write the Troilus, he used Lollius as a 
 part of the fiction; but all that was at this time in the future. His 
 mention of Lollius in The House of Fame is not fiction — it is a mis- 
 take pure and simple. 
 
 Now the mere name Lollius is not a blunder, and it is not an inven- 
 tion. Chaucer neither dreamed it nor made it up, for it is an authentic 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 49 
 
 nomen gentile borne by a score of historical Romans who have left a 
 record behind them, 1 not to speak of the much larger number whom 
 oblivion has overwhelmed. Chaucer found the name somewhere; he 
 did not manufacture it. This point should never be forgotten. 
 
 Furthermore, wherever it was that Chaucer found the name Lollius, 
 he found it, of course, in some context, not all alone by itself on a 
 whited wall. Where the context was, we do not know, nor whether it 
 was long or short, nor what statements it embodied, nor whether it 
 was correctly or incorrectly read by the poet. One thing, however, 
 we do know: to wit, that the context in which Chaucer discovered the 
 name Lollius conveyed to his mind the distinct impression that Lollius 
 was the author of an important work on Troy. In consequence of this 
 impression he mentioned him in that capacity in The House of Fame 
 along with Homer, Dares, Dictys, Guido, and Geoffrey. It is practi- 
 cally certain that Chaucer had never seen this Lollian work, for it is 
 practically certain that it never existed. Nor was he acquainted with 
 anybody who had ever seen it. Undoubtedly he supposed that it was 
 lost beyond recovery. So much for the first stage of the Lollius ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The next step brings us to Chaucer's Troilus. 2 When Chaucer came 
 to write this novel, he wished — as all writers of fiction did, and do 
 still — to lend his work an air of truth and authenticity. A ready and 
 familiar device was, and still is, to appeal to some source that might 
 be accepted as authoritative. Benoit and Boccaccio would not 
 answer, for the conditions of the problem required an ancient (or at 
 least an antique) personage, and preferably one who had written in a 
 learned language. Homer was manifestly out of the question. Dares, 
 Dictys, and Geoffrey were likewise unavailable, for their works were 
 current, and notoriously did not contain any such story as that which 
 Chaucer meant to tell. Guido's name might perhaps have been used 
 at a pinch; but he also was well-known and current, and except at a 
 pinch indeed, his dry, compendious, and unsympathetic account of 
 the love affair could not be cited as the source of Chaucer's warm and 
 detailed narrative. For it was not only facts that Chaucer wished to 
 
 1 Von Rohden and Dessau, Prosopographia Imperii Romani, II, 295 ff. 
 
 2 I postulate that The House of Fame was written before the Troilus. See the 
 argument in The Date of Chaucer's Troilus, pp. 53-60. 
 
50 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 ascribe to his auctor, but feelings, since he himself, so he tells us, is an 
 outsider in matters of love: 
 
 Of no sentement I this endite, 
 But out of Latin in my tonge it write (ii, 13-14). 
 
 And, in fact, there was no pinch at all. For Lollius was at hand, a 
 venerable and veritable Latin name, and his vanished history, just 
 because it had vanished, was precisely the stalking-horse that the 
 fiction needed. Hence, as a part of that fiction, Chaucer credited his 
 material en bloc to Lollius, and professed, with a light heart, to be 
 merely a translator from the Latin. 1 
 
 In furtherance of his general fiction as to source, and with the same 
 purpose of lending his work an air of truth and vividness and authen- 
 ticity, Chaucer added a multitude of classical touches that are wanting 
 in the Filostrato. 2 A striking instance of this attempt to give the tale 
 
 1 Troilus, ii, 14. The Troilus is also called a translation in the Prologue to the 
 Legend (A 250, 264, 341, 350, B 324, 370), and Chaucer speaks of it, when pleading 
 his own cause, as reproducing " what-so myn auctour mente " (A 460, B 470). 
 Tyrwhitt's fancy of taking Latin in the sense of latino volgare, " Italian " (note to 
 Parson's Tale, §104; cf. Warton, History of English Poetry, addition to I, 385, in 
 vol. IT, 1778) was clever and learned, as usual, but it cannot be entertained. For 
 nothing can be clearer than that Chaucer intended (as part of his fiction) to have 
 his readers understand that he was translating from Latin, not from some vernacu- 
 lar idiom. Boccaccio, to be sure, speaks of the Teseide as written in " latino vol- 
 gare " (in the prefatory letter) and Chaucer had doubtless read the passage, but 
 that is no reason for imagining that Chaucer felt at liberty to use the English word 
 Latin (without " vulgar ") for a modern Italian dialect (" mio fiorentino idioma " 
 are Boccaccio's words in the proem to the Filostrato) . A word in any context means, 
 I take it, what it is meant to mean by the writer and what it is sure to be understood 
 to mean by the reader. When Chaucer wrote " out of Latin in my tonge it write " 
 he knew perfectly well that his readers would understand by " Latin " the language 
 of Virgil and Statius, not the modern speech of Florence or Padua. Indeed, he 
 ensured that understanding further by his reference to " olde clerkes speche " in 
 v, 1854-1855, shortly after his mention of " Virgile, Ovyde, Omer, Lucan, and 
 Stace " in v, 1792. Finally, even if Chaucer had meant " Italian " when he said 
 " Latin," he would none the less have been resorting to a fiction, for he would have 
 been deliberately misleading his contemporaries. 
 
 2 Boccaccio labored to furnish the Teseide with appropriate mythological and 
 other classical accoutrements, but in the Filostrato he is sparing of such adornments. 
 The contrast between the two Italian poems is notable. Cf. Crescini, Contributo 
 agli Studi sul Boccaccio, pp. 246-247. Since Chaucer was very familiar with the 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 51 
 
 an ancient — a Trojan — atmosphere is the introduction of Antigone's 
 song of love as " a Trojan song " l and the conversation that follows 
 the singing: 
 
 " Now, nece," quod Criseyde, 
 
 " Who made this song with so good entente ? " 
 
 Antigone answerde anoon and seyde, 
 
 " Ma dame, ywis, the goodlieste mayde 
 
 Of greet estat in al the toun of Troye, 
 
 And let her lyf in most honour and ioye." 
 
 " Forsothe, so it semeth by her song ! " 
 
 Quod tho Criseyde. 2 
 
 There is not a word of this song or of the dialogue or of the whole 
 garden scene in the Filostrato, and Antigone herself is a character in- 
 vented by Chaucer. The Trojanizing of the situation, if I may risk 
 the term, is Chaucer's deliberate art. It is quite of a piece with his 
 professing to have got hold of the very words of the Cantus Troili 
 (not given in full by Lollius) and to have reproduced them in as close 
 a version as can be made in translating from the Trojan language into 
 our vernacular. 3 
 
 Equally felicitous and to the same end is Pandarus' quotation of 
 the Epistle of Oenone to Paris. " I am in love myself," says Pandarus 
 to Troilus, " and am quite helpless in my own case, but yet I can assist 
 you in yours. Indeed, my situation is much like that described in a 
 letter that a shepherdess, Oenone by name, wrote once to your brother 
 Paris. You saw the letter, didn't you ? " " Why, no! " replies 
 Troilus. " Well," says Pandarus, " this is how it went." 
 
 " I woot wel that it fareth thus by me 
 
 As to thy brother Parys an herdesse, 
 
 Which that y-cleped was Oenone, 
 
 Wrot in a compleynt of hir hevinesse: 
 
 Ye say the lettre that she wroot, y gesse?" 
 
 " Nay, never yet, y-wis," quod Troilus. 
 
 u Now," quod Pandare, " herkneth; it was thus." * 
 
 Teseide when he wrote the Troilus, and used it several times in that poem, we may 
 recognize the general influence of the Teseide in the passages we are now considering 
 (cf . H. M. Cummings, The Indebtedness of Chaucer's Works to the Italian Works of 
 Boccaccio, p. 67). 
 
 1 ii, 825. ■ i, 393 ff. Cf. p. 93. 
 
 * ii, 877-884. 4 i, 652-658. 
 
52 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 An extract follows, adapted from the Heroides. 1 There is nothing 
 about this letter in the Filostrato. Chaucer's device in making Pan- 
 darus profess to have seen the original, in Oenone's own handwriting, 
 is obviously akin to the device involved in his whole Lollian fiction. 
 It is a wonder that some critic has not accused him of fraud because 
 he did not insert a credit to Ovid. 
 
 Another detail to the same general purport is Pandarus's casual 
 reference to the petrified Queen Niobe as one of the sights of the day: 
 
 " For this nis not, certeyn, the nexte wyse 
 To winnen love, as techen us the wyse, 
 To walwe and wepe as Niobe the quene, 
 Whos teres yet in marbel been ysene." 2 
 
 This, too, is of course not in the Filostrato. One would know that 
 well enough without taking heed to one's books. 
 
 We cannot pause to study all the classical touches that Chaucer 
 has added to the story, but a few more must be merely enumerated, 
 because of their important bearing on his design. Thus he makes 
 Pandarus compare the sufferings of Troilus to the agony of Tityus 
 torn by the vultures, 3 and curse himself with a reference to Cerberus. 4 
 His characters swear by Minerva and Jupiter, 5 by Neptune, 6 by Mars, 7 
 by Venus, 8 by " natal loves fest," 9 by Pallas, 10 and so on. He describes 
 Cressid's servants as thronging to see Troilus ride up the street from 
 the Gate of Dardanus; 11 he puts into Pandarus' mouth directions for 
 a love-letter that are adapted from Ovid and the Ars Poetica; 12 he 
 brings a Greek spy into Troy with tidings — apparently a person who 
 has just been captured or a knave who is playing a double game; 13 he 
 introduces the episode of a visit to Deiphobus, full of intimate detail 
 of the royal menage ; u he makes Cressida speak of Antenor and Aeneas 
 
 1 Troilus, i, 659-665; Heroides, v, 147-154 (see p. 113, below). 
 
 2 i, 697-700. 
 8 i, 785 ff. 
 
 4 " To Cerberus in helle ay be I bounde " (i, 859). Cf. Roman de la Rose, ed. 
 Michel, II, 330: " Ou me lie en corde ou en fer Cerberus li portiers d'enfer." 
 
 6 ii, 232-233. 10 v, 977. 
 
 6 ii, 443. u ii, 614-618. 
 
 7 ii, 593. « ii, 1023-1043. 
 
 8 ii, 1524. 13 ii, 1111-1113. 
 
 9 iii, 150. 14 ii, 1394 s. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 53 
 
 (well-known to mediaeval readers as the traitors of the cycle) as lend- 
 ing their support to a lawsuit about property brought against her by 
 false Poliphete; l he lets Troilus pretend to keep vigil in Apollo's 
 temple to see the " holy laurer quake " and to get an oracle for the 
 conduct of the war. 2 With similar regard for local and contemporary 
 color Pandarus swears " by stocks and stones" and by the gods that 
 dwell in heaven, and damns himself, if his speech be false, to abide as 
 deep in hell as Tantalus. 3 Troilus adjures Venus by her love of Adonis 
 whom she loved " in the shawe," and, continuing his prayer, appeals 
 to Jove (for love of Europa), to Mars (for love of Venus), to Phoebus 
 (for love of Daphne), to Mercury (for love of Herse), to Diana, and 
 the Fatal Sisters. 4 Again, he wishes that his night with Cressida 
 might be as long as Jupiter's with Alcmena 5 and chides Titan 6 for 
 allowing the Dawn to leave his side so early. 7 Calchas assures the 
 Greeks that Phoebus and Neptune are determined to bring Troy to 
 destruction because Laomedon refused them their hire. 8 Troilus vows 
 that he will love Cressida after he is dead and dwelling in torment with 
 Proserpine, 9 but she, more sanguine, hopes to live with him in the 
 Elysian Fields, like Orpheus and Eurydice. 10 She swears by all celes- 
 tial gods, by every nymph and infernal deity, and by the satyrs and 
 fauns, " that halve-goddes ben of wildernesse," and she calls upon 
 Atropos to break her thread if ever she prove false, 11 and declares that 
 Simois that runs through Troy shall turn back its current before she 
 will be unfaithful. 12 
 
 All of these touches of antiquity — and enough more to make 
 up about a hundred — are Chaucer's own, and not taken from the 
 Filostrato. Their significance depends upon their number, and upon 
 the fact that they are in the main quite apposite. Critics, to be sure, 
 
 1 ii, 1463-1475, 1616. 3 iii, 589-593. 
 
 2 iii, 540-546. 4 iii, 718-735. 8 iii, 1427-1428. 
 
 6 On Chaucer's error in substituting Titan for Tithonus, see p. 116, below. 
 
 7 iii, 1464-1470. 8 iv, 120-126. 
 9 iv, 470-476 (cf. Teseide, x, 106). 
 
 10 iv, 785-791. " In the feld of pitee, out of peyne, That hight Elysos," looks as if 
 Chaucer etymologized Elysios with reference to (Kyrie) eleison. Cf . Ovid's " arva 
 piorum," Met., xi, 62 (Publications of the Modern Language Association, XXIV, 
 352, n. 14). 
 
 n iv, 1541-1547. 
 
 12 iv, 1548-1553 (cf. Heroides, v, 27-31; Roman de la Rose, ed. Michel, II, 83). 
 
54 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 are prone to dismiss them as mere " classical allusions," or as bits of 
 decoration, or even as symptoms of a desire to show off. This is futile 
 treatment. Nothing can be clearer than that such things in this poem 
 — whatever they may be elsewhere in the middle ages or in the 
 eighteenth century — are present as parts of an artistic design. They 
 are meant to produce or to intensify an atmosphere of high antiquity 
 — a Trojan or Lollian atmosphere. Chaucer pretends — in an artistic 
 fiction — to be translating from an ancient author, and he tries to 
 make his characters talk and think like persons of the heroic age in 
 such matters of detail as do not interfere with their truth to eternal 
 and unchanging humanity. He could not dig up Troy. It was out 
 of his power to archaeologize in dress and manners and topography. 
 But he could make Pandarus swear like a heathen of the heroic age, 
 and speak familiarly of the letter he had seen that Oenone wrote to 
 Paris, and refer to Niobe and her tears as still visible in stone — one 
 of the wonders of the world: 
 
 " Niobe the quene, 
 Whos teres yet in marbel been ysene." 
 
 And all this he did, and much more, with the same artistic purpose 
 that had prompted him to describe his whole poem as translated from 
 an ancient Latin author — one Lollius, whose long-buried work he 
 had been lucky enough to disinter. 
 
 Chaucer names Lollius only twice in the Troilus, 1 but he keeps him 
 constantly in the reader's memory by mentioning him as his aucior 
 and by other more or less definite references and allusions. Altogether 
 there are about forty such passages, or an average of one to about two 
 hundred verses, though they are by no means regularly apportioned. 
 Their effect upon the mind is uniform and cumulative, nor can there 
 be any doubt, in a poem so carefully finished, that this effect was de- 
 liberately intended. In short, Chaucer takes quite particular pains 
 to convey the impression that his Troilus, from beginning to end, is a 
 faithful translation from the Latin work of Lollius, without any ma- 
 terial additions either from other sources or from his own pen. Some- 
 times, to be sure, he professes or implies condensation, and now and 
 then he suggests that he has occasionally consulted the well-known 
 
 1 i, 394; v, 1653. 
 

 Chaucer's Lollius 55 
 
 authorities, 1 but these remarks are never made in such a way as to 
 diminish the impression of thoroughgoing fidelity to Lollius. On the 
 contrary, they strengthen that impression, for they always imply 
 either that Lollius agrees with other authorities in the detail in ques- 
 tion, or that the poet never departs from Lollius, even in a trifle, 
 without due notice. Lollius, then, in Chaucer's fiction, is not Boccac- 
 cio or Benoit or Guido or Statius or Ovid or Boethius: he is simply 
 Lollius, an alleged Latin author on the Trojan War, to whom Chaucer 
 chooses, for his artistic purposes, to credit practically everything that 
 the Troilus contains — everything, that is, that Chaucer drew from 
 Boccaccio and Benoit and Guido and Statius and Ovid and Boethius, 
 and likewise everything that he drew from the brain of Geoffrey 
 Chaucer. In other words, Chaucer's pretended use of Lollius is not 
 an acknowledgement of obligations to Boccaccio or to anybody else: 
 it is a fiction, deliberately adopted in advance, impressed upon the 
 reader with all the emphasis of which the poet is capable, and fostered 
 and supported by repeated assertion and skilful innuendo. 
 
 Here we must be on our guard against taking the poet too seriously. 
 Chaucer counted on two classes of contemporary readers: first, the 
 gentlemen and some of the ladies of his time, who were cultivated but 
 not scholarly; and second, a very limited group of men of learning, 
 like Gower and Strode, the pair to whom the Troilus is dedicated. If 
 the first class accepted his citation as gospel truth, and were convinced 
 that he had unearthed a Trojan history by one Lollius in some old 
 parchment volume, well and good ! If the second class saw through 
 
 1 Chaucer twice distinguishes sharply between the usual story of Troy, to be 
 found in Homer and Dictys and Dares, and the particular Trojan story that he 
 has in hand in the Troilus. One of these distinguishing passages comes very early 
 in the poem (i, 141-147), the other is near the end (v. 1765-1771). 
 
 All the passages in which Chaucer refers or alludes to an auctor or a source are 
 collected and discussed in Appendix I (pp. 92-109, below). This appendix the 
 reader is advised to ignore if he agrees with my assertions. If he dissents, I beg 
 him to peruse only enough of it to convince him. The chief reason for the existence 
 of this appendix is the elaborate and ingenious argument of Dr. H. M. Cummings 
 in Chapter viii of his substantial dissertation on The Indebtedness of Chaucer's Works 
 to the Italian Works of Boccaccio (Cincinnati, 19 16) — an argument which arrives 
 at results that differ toto caelo from what seems to me the plain meaning of the 
 evidence. It is only fair to add that I have found Dr. Cummings's monograph 
 very useful in many ways. 
 
56 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 the device and recognized Lollius as a part of the fiction, still well and 
 good! Everybody would be content. The ladies and gentlemen 
 would raise no question anyhow; the scholars would compliment him 
 on the success of his poetic device. Nobody would make trouble until 
 modern scholarship should come into existence, with its artificially 
 stimulated craving for literary facts — and Chaucer was under no 
 obligation to quench the thirst of modern scholarship. 
 
 Another caution seems to be necessary at this point, though one 
 would suppose a sense of humor might have provided for it in advance. 
 Chaucer's pretence of drawing his plot and sentiments from the Latin 
 work of one Lollius is an artistic device, not a fraud. It has just as 
 much and just as little to do with veracity as Addison's pretending to 
 translate the Vision of Mirzah from a manuscript that he " picked up 
 when he was at Grand Cairo," or Goldsmith's crediting The Citizen 
 of the World to a Chinese sage, or Hawthorne's calling RappaccinVs 
 Daughter a translation from the " Beatrice; ou la Belle Empois- 
 soneuse " of M. de l'Aubepine, the author of " L' Artiste du Beau; 
 ou le Papillon Mecanique " in five volumes quarto; or Mr. Maurice 
 Hewlett's pretending to utilize, for his Richard Yea and Nay, a chron- 
 icle by one " Milo, a Carthusian monk, abbot of the cloister of Saint 
 Mary-of-the-Pine by Poictiers," who enjoyed the distinction of be- 
 ing " the life-long friend " of King Richard himself — a real person, 
 by the way, whose account of the " acta " of Richard I exists no 
 longer. 1 I cannot refrain from quoting a recent critic of Mr. Hewlett, 
 merely to show how different is the spirit in which we judge our con- 
 temporary romancers and their clever tricks, from the stodgy mixture 
 of naive literalness and moral fervor that dominates us when we ap- 
 praise Chaucer. " It is from the writings of this priest," says Mr. 
 Milton Bonner, " that Mr. Hewlett pretends to draw justification 
 for his inventions. The extracts from Milo's supposititious history 
 lend just the air of verity that we needed to help overcome scruples 
 when confronted by certain aspects of the story." 2 
 
 Here, perhaps, is the place to compare Chaucer's artistic device in 
 the Troilus with his procedure in several of the Canterbury Tales. 
 
 1 See Stubbs, Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I, I, xxxiii- 
 xxxiv. 
 
 2 Maurice Hewlett, BostoD, 1910, p. 81. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 57 
 
 The Miller's Tale and the Reeve's are fabliaux worked up, doubt- 
 less, from the French ; yet Chaucer makes the Miller localize the story 
 at Oxford, 1 and the Reeve lays the scene of the adventure with which 
 he replies to the Miller, at Trumpington, near Cambridge, where there 
 is a brook with a bridge and a mill, emphasizing his story as " verray 
 sooth." 2 The Cook's Tale is " a litel iape that fil in our citee " of 
 London. 3 The Friar's Tale, in like manner, is of persons well-known 
 " in my contree," 4 and his opponent the Sumner is earnest enough 
 in denouncing it as a lie. 5 Yet he localizes his own anecdote in a 
 marshy district called Holderness in Yorkshire. 6 Even the Nun's 
 Priest follows the fashion, though with a deliriously ironical innu- 
 endo: 
 
 " This storie is also trewe, I undertake, 
 As is the book of Launcelot de Lake, 
 That wommen holde in ful great reverence." 7 
 
 Particularly enlightening with regard to Chaucer's methods as a 
 writer of fiction are the words of the Man of Law in praise of mer- 
 chants. " Ye are the fathers of tidings," says the lawyer, " and of 
 tales, both those of peace and those of strife ! 
 
 " I were right now of tales desolat, 
 Nere that a marchaunt, goon is many a yere, 
 Me taughte a tale, which that ye shal here." 8 
 
 Then follows the story of Constance, which is taken for the most part 
 from Nicholas Trivet's chronicle, though Trivet might never have 
 walked the earth for anything that Chaucer says about him. 
 
 Nowhere, in short, does Chaucer, in his capacity of writer of fiction, 
 recognize any obligation whatever to cite the actual source of his 
 material, or scruple to lend an air of truth and reality to his stories by / 
 including express statements as to source or scene that bear no rela- 
 tion whatever to the facts. We have as much, and as little, reason to 
 be surprised at his ascription of the Troilus to somebody different from 
 Boccaccio as to be surprised at his pretending to have dreamed The 
 
 1 A 3187. On these localizing touches cf. Tatlock, The Scene of the Franklin's 
 Tale Visited, p. 70, note 1. 
 
 2 A 3921-3924. 6 D 1670. 
 
 3 A 4343. 6 D 1709-1712. 
 
 4 D 1299. 7 B 4401-4403. 8 B 129-133. 
 
58 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 Book of the Duchess and the House of Fame. In the latter case, we 
 recall, he mentions the very month and day on which he had the 
 vision ! l 
 
 Let us next consider the attitude of Chaucer's immediate circle 
 toward his ascription of the Troilus material to Lollius. The poem is 
 dedicated to John Gower and Ralph Strode. Did these scholarly 
 persons accept this ascription as a matter of fact? Of course not. 
 Strode was a professional philosopher, and must instantly have recog- 
 nized the complaint of Cressida 2 and the song of Troilus 3 in the Third 
 Book and the long soliloquy of Troilus in Book Fourth, 4 as founded 
 on Boethius. This information, indeed, was within the reach of any 
 Englishman who had access to a copy of Chaucer's own version, if, as 
 is altogether likely, this had been published before the Troilus came 
 out. Gower, for his part, might be trusted to detect the borrowings 
 from Ovid, whose works he knew almost by heart. In particular, he 
 could not miss the quotation in Book i 5 from Oenone's epistle in the 
 Heroides, 6 which Chaucer himself had sufficiently labelled for any 
 half-educated reader by making Pandarus introduce it as an extract 
 from " the letter that she wrote." T Neither Gower nor Strode could 
 fail to perceive that Cassandra's account of the Theban contest 8 was 
 drawn from Statius, even if Chaucer himself is not responsible for the 
 insertion of the twelve lines of Latin that give the argument of the 
 twelve books of the Thebaid. 9 As for the story of Troilus in general, 
 it was perfectly familiar to Gower in one of his favorite volumes, the 
 Roman de Troie, 10 and he could scarcely have overlooked all of the 
 numerous passages for which Chaucer is indebted to Benoit. 11 
 
 This accumulation of " details tending to prove " may seem absurd 
 in so plain a case, but the reader will pardon it if he recollects the in- 
 
 1 House of Fame, 63. 
 
 2 iii, 813-836; Boethius, ii, prose 4. 
 
 3 iii, 1744-1771; Boethius, ii, metre 8. 
 
 4 iv, 958-1078; Boethius, v, pr. 2 and 3. 
 6 i, 659-665 (cf. p. 113, below). 
 
 6 v, I47-IS4. 8 v, 1485-1510. 
 
 7 i, 656. 9 After v, 1498. 
 
 10 See Kittredge, Date of Chaucer's Troilus, pp. 4-7. 
 
 11 See Young, Origin and Development of the Story of Troilus and Criseyde, pp. 
 105 ff. 
 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 59 
 
 clination of scholars to judge the middle ages as a time apart, when 
 nobody thought or felt or acted as men do now-a-days. There was, 
 we are told, a childlike faith in authority — the written word was al- 
 ways accepted at its face value. Perhaps so — though I doubt it 
 vehemently — but that has nothing to do with what passed between 
 man and man in the give-and-take of ordinary life. Gower and 
 Strode might have accepted a citation of Lollius as a sober acknowledg- 
 ment of genuine indebtedness if they had seen it in Vincent of Beauvais 
 or John of Salisbury; but they knew the difference between an en- 
 cyclopaedist or a philosopher and a romancing poet, and they knew 
 Geoffrey Chaucer in his habit as he lived. How many of his readers 
 Mr. Hewlett took in with his Abbot Milo, who shall tell? Not many, 
 I fancy, among the better educated; none at all, I am sure, among 
 his personal friends. Nor did Mr. Hewlett desire to take anybody in. 
 He simply wished to heighten the verisimilitude of his romance by 
 means of an ancient and well-accredited device. 
 
 But let us return to Strode and Gower. Can there be the slightest 
 doubt that Chaucer told these intimate friends of his all he knew 
 about the Filostrato months before he began to work at his own adap- 
 tation, or that, as time went on, he read parts of the Troilus to them 
 and talked over his plans with regard to the work, including the felici- 
 tous idea of ascribing it to one Lollius? At the outset we purposed 
 to examine such probabilities in the light not only of reason and com- 
 mon sense but also of the habits of literary men. Are we to assume 
 that Chaucer never discussed his poems while he was writing them? 
 
 Chaucer's immediate circle, then, knew well enough, when the 
 Troilus appeared, that he had drawn much of his material from an 
 Italian poet, and none of it from Lollius. He made no secret of the 
 matter; indeed, he could not have mystified them if he had wished. 
 Nor is there any likelihood that he swore them to secrecy when he 
 took them into his confidence. He was composing a romantic novel, 
 not forging a will. And, beyond any reasonable question, the fact 
 that the Troilus came largely from an Italian poem was soon a matter 
 of common knowledge, with Chaucer's hearty consent, among all 
 such persons as took an interest in him and his works. 
 
 For this last proposition, however, we need not depend upon general 
 probabilities. There is a distinct piece of positive evidence that 
 
60 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 establishes it beyond a peradventure. I refer to a notorious passage 
 in Lydgate, which has been stretched upon the rack a score of times 
 to elicit confessions of things that it could not confess, but has never, 
 I think, been interrogated with regard to the single point on which it 
 is really competent to testify and quite ready to speak without com- 
 pulsion. 
 
 In youth he made a translacion 
 
 Of a booke which called is Trophe 
 
 In Lumbard tong, as men may reade and see, 
 
 And in our vulgare, long or that he deyed, 
 
 Gaue it the name of Troylous and Cresseyde. 1 
 
 Lydgate is a muddled witness, as usual. Still, the difficulties in the 
 present case are by no means staggering. " In his youth " is too early, 
 but Lydgate knew nothing about the minutiae of Chaucerian chronol- 
 ogy, and the question of dates does not here concern us. " Trophe " 
 is a manifest blunder. There is no chance whatever that the Filostrato, 
 or anything else that Chaucer used in the Troilus, was ever called by 
 any such name. The blunder is due to mere confusion of memory. 
 Lydgate had read The Monk's Tale, where Chaucer cites " Trophe " 
 as an authority on the Pillars of Hercules, 2 and he shifted the appli- 
 cation in a moment of paramnesia. Chaucer's " Trophee " may be 
 a mystery, 3 but Lydgate's is not. It has no foundation or genesis save 
 in this passage of The Monk's Tale, misapplied by a constitutional 
 blunderer, and it need trouble us no more. 
 
 What remains, then, of our quotation from Lydgate? Simply 
 this: the statement that Chaucer translated his Troilus from a book 
 "in Lombard tongue" — that is, in Italian. In other words, good 
 Dan John, about a generation after Chaucer's death, was well aware 
 that the source of the Troilus was not a Latin book by Lollius, but a 
 book in the Italian language. How did Lydgate know? Why, from 
 the common talk of literary men, passed down by immediate tradition 
 
 1 Falls of Princes, Prologue (ed. 1554, Tottell, sig. A. ii v°; ed. 1558, Wayland, 
 sig. A. ii v°). 
 
 2 B 3307. 
 
 8 For some recent conjectures see my essay on The Pillars of Hercules and Chau- 
 cer's " Trophee," in the Putnam Anniversary Volume, 1909, pp. 545 ff.; Tupper, 
 Modern Language Notes, XXXI, 11; Emerson, in the same, XXXI, 142. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 61 
 
 from the contemporaries of Chaucer himself. 1 In other words, there 
 had never been any secret about the derivation of the Troilus from 
 the Filostrato. Chaucer's citation of Lollius was not deceit, but trans- 
 parent literary artifice. Anybody who asked the facts was at liberty 
 to learn them. They were matters of general knowledge among 
 Chaucer's friends and the court circle in general. 
 
 Much dust has been raised over Chaucer's neglect or omission to 
 mention the name of Boccaccio anywhere. Let us examine the matter. 
 The places in which moderns look in vain for some reference to 
 Boccaccio are the Troilus, The Knight's Tale, Anelida and Arcite, The 
 Monk's Tale, and The Clerk's Tale. 2 
 
 The Troilus we have already considered, and to it we shall later 
 return. What has there been said applies in general (except so far as 
 Lollius is concerned) to The Knight's Tale. I can see no reason why 
 Chaucer should have mentioned, or made the knight mention, the 
 direct source of the story, any more than in the case of the other 
 Canterbury Tales. For almost every one of these Chaucer had a source; 
 but he has seldom mentioned it. In several instances the teller of the 
 story insists on its truth and undertakes to localize it in England. In 
 no one of all these cases has anybody expressed amazement at Chau- 
 cer's fiction in localizing, which is, of course, precisely similar to that 
 of giving your story (if it deals with ancient times) an air of antiquity 
 
 1 We should observe that Lydgate does not connect Lollius with " Trophee " 
 or assert that Chaucer took the Troilus from Lollius. On the contrary, his asser- 
 tion that Chaucer translated from the Italian records a piece of information which 
 amounts to an express denial that Chaucer's source was a Latin writer — whether 
 Lollius or anybody else. When Lydgate mentions Lollius, as he does (once) in the 
 Troy Book, he refers to him not as an author used by Chaucer anywhere, but simply 
 as a person who wrote about the siege of Troy. " And of this sege wrot eke Lollius " 
 (ed. Bergen. Prol., 309). This information Lydgate doubtless got from The House 
 of Fame. He did not accept the statement of Chaucer that he translated the Troilus 
 from Lollius' Latin, for he had better information; but he did accept the statement 
 that there once was a Lollius who composed a work on the Trojan history. 
 
 2 Nobody, I believe, expresses amazement at Chaucer's failure to mention 
 Boccaccio in The Parliament of Fowls or the Prologue to the Legend of Good Women. 
 As to The Franklin's Tale, if the source was really Boccaccio (a question not here 
 in place to debate), one has but to compare the stories to see that Chaucer must 
 have had a pedant's conscience if he had felt obliged to refer to Boccaccio for a 
 performance that was so marvellously his own. And what, in turn, was Boccaccio's 
 source, and why did not he refer to it ? 
 
62 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 by suppressing the name of your actual modern authority and referring 
 either to some definite Lollius (as in Troilus) or in general to the " old 
 stories" or "old books," 1 which is what the knight does: 
 
 As olde bokes seyn 
 That al this storie tellen more pleyn. 2 
 
 Once, indeed, he adds Statius to the other old books: 
 
 As men may biholde 
 In Stace of Thebes, and thise bokes olde (2293-2294).' 
 
 The particular thing is in the Teseide, vii, 72, not in Statius. 3 Note 
 that there is absolutely no claim to originality. Throughout the poem, 
 the knight protests, again and again, that he is condensing a tale that 
 he has read. 4 For my part, I can see no reason in literary morals for 
 mentioning Boccaccio, and I cannot fail to see abundant reason, in 
 good art, for doing exactly what Chaucer has done. If it be objected 
 that The Knight's Tale is a big thing, and that therefore Chaucer was 
 under more pressing obligation to mention his source than in the case 
 of the anonymous fabliaux, I will take refuge in the Melibee, where 
 also the author is not mentioned, and there is likewise no pretence of 
 originality. Surely, the most mathematically minded of moderns can 
 grasp the general fact that, when a mediaeval writer professed to be 
 following some auctor or other, thus declining all merit of originality, 
 he was under no sort of obligation to specify who that auctor really 
 was. Chaucer, at all events, acknowledged no such obligation. His 
 practice was to do so only when to refer to the source would add to 
 the authority or verisimilitude. In The Knight's Tale, a reference to 
 
 1 A 859, 1198, 1463, 2155. 2 A 1463-1464. 
 
 8 Dr. Wise makes an ingenious defence of what he calls Chaucer's " good faith " 
 in this reference. By "hir thinges," he says, "Chaucer probably means such 
 sacrificial rites as Boccaccio describes, Tes. vii. 75," and he goes on to show that 
 similar rites are described (though not credited to Emilia, of course) in the Thebaid 
 (The Influence of Statius upon Chaucer, pp. 98-100). Very likely Chaucer had 
 this fact in mind, but that does not change the other fact, — namely, that he de- 
 liberately undertakes, both here and elsewhere, to produce the impression that he 
 is following an ancient author in telling the story of Palamon and Arcite. 
 
 4 A 875-892, 985, 994-1000, 1187-1190, 1201, 1341, 1358, 1377-1380, 1417, 1461, 
 1463-1464, 1480, 1782, 1895, 1935, 1953-1954, 2039-2040, 2052, 2073-2074, 2197- 
 2208, 2263-2264, 2284-2288, 2820-2821, 2919-2966. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 63 
 
 Boccaccio's Teseide would, on the contrary, have decreased this effect. 
 It would have been inartistic pedantry. Let it here be remembered 
 that in the one Canterbury Tale which Chaucer invented (Sir Thopas) 
 he fictitiously declines to pass as the author. It is the only story 
 he knows — "a rym I lerned longe agoon," 1 and " the beste rym I 
 can." i 
 
 That Chaucer did not mention Boccaccio in connection with the 
 Anelida would never have attracted a moment's attention, were it not 
 that scholars were busied in rolling up a cumulative case. We shall 
 return to this fragment presently. 
 
 In The Clerk's Tale, that scholar refers in the most definite and 
 particular way to Petrarch. The reference completely covers the 
 borrowing. There was no call to give the earlier history of the docu- 
 ment anyhow, whether Chaucer knew it (from Petrarch's preliminary 
 letter) or not. That a definite and correct source is here referred to is 
 a part of the drama. This is exactly what one would expect the Clerk, 
 a scholar, to do, and it was certainly in keeping with the situation for 
 him to refer to a clerk who praised a woman, for he was answering 
 the Wife of Bath, who had declared that such a case had never been 
 heard of. Here to refer to the exact source, then, was as artistic on 
 Chaucer's part as not to refer to it in the other cases. However, the 
 point we are discussing — why does Chaucer never refer to Boccaccio 
 by name? — is neither advanced nor retarded by this instance. It is 
 answer enough to say: He does not refer to Boccaccio because he got 
 the tale from Petrarch. The fiction here — for there is almost always 
 a fiction — consists in the Clerk's assertion that Petrarch told him 
 the story in person at Padua. 
 
 And so we come to The Monk's Tale — where, and where alone, 
 there is a real puzzle. For here, in the account of Zenobia, which 
 comes from Boccaccio's De Claris Mulieribus, the Monk refers to " my 
 maister Petrak." Why, I do not know, — perhaps because Chaucer 
 thought him a more appropriate author than Boccaccio for the dec- 
 orous and stately Monk to cite. That, at all events, would be reason 
 enough. As to lapse of memory, or confusion — that, too would cer- 
 tainly have been easy. Almost all the Zenobia comes from Boccaccio's 
 treatise De Claris Mulieribus, — only a bit from the De Casibus — and 
 1 B 1898-1899. * B 2118. 
 
64 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 what more likely than that Chaucer should have confused this in his 
 memory with Petrarch's work with a similar title, De Viris Illustribus? 
 Petrarch does speak of Zenobia in the Trionfo delta Fama (ii, 1 07-1 17, 
 ed. Appel, p. 255); but I see no reason to believe that Chaucer was 
 acquainted with that poem. 
 
 Since we are on the subject of " Boccaccio and obligations," may 
 it not be enlightening to observe how Boccaccio himself proceeded in 
 the matter of acknowledging indebtedness ? First, the Teseide. In 
 the dedicatory letter to la Fiammetta, Boccaccio asserts that he came 
 across a very ancient history, unknown to most people, 1 and this he 
 has turned into Italian rhyme. In the second stanza of the poem 
 itself he repeats this statement, declaring that he is about to write in 
 rhyme an ancient history, so buried and hidden in years that no 
 Latin author says anything about it, to the best of his knowledge and 
 belief: 
 
 E' m'e venuta voglia con pietosa 
 
 Rima di scriver una storia antica, 
 
 Tanto negli anni riposta e nascosa, 
 
 Che latino autor non par ne dica, 
 
 Per quel ch' i' senta, in libro alcuna cosa. 2 
 
 A very large part of the Teseide is borrowed from the Thebaid? Yet 
 Statius is nowhere cited, for it is Boccaccio's deliberate intention to 
 refer his epic to a source known only to himself, — to a lost author 
 whom he has had the luck to discover. Now when Chaucer wrote 
 the Troilus, he was well acquainted with both the Thebaid and the 
 Teseide.* Of course, then, he saw whence the Italian poet had derived 
 a large part of his material, never scrupling to translate literally. Nor 
 could he fail to appreciate the wisdom and artistic justification of 
 Boccaccio's pretence about the lost author so happily discovered by 
 him. Here let it be noted that Chaucer's debt to Boccaccio in the 
 Troilus is for almost exactly one third of his poem — precisely the 
 
 1 " Trovata una antichissima storia, e al piu delle genti non manifesta " (p. 3). 
 
 2 This passage makes the question whether Chaucer knew the dedicatory letter 
 to la Fiammetta a matter of indiifference in our discussion. Cf. Teseide, xii, 84-85. 
 Note also "Si gli nasconde in se la lunga etade," vi, 64 (Aeneid, v, 302), and in 
 particular " se il ver l'antichita ragiona," xii, 53, where the poet is describing Emilia. 
 
 8 See pp. 121 ff., below for details. 
 
 4 On Chaucer's use of the Teseide in the Troilus, see pp. no ff., below. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 65 
 
 amount of Boccaccio's debt to Statius in the Teseide. It's a poor rule 
 that won't work both ways: yet I have heard nobody express sur- 
 prise at Boccaccio's silence about his debt to Statius. 
 
 When we examine the Filostrato, we observe a state of things no 
 less interesting and significant. Boccaccio assures his lady in the 
 Proemio that he found it impossible to conceal his feelings of love and 
 sorrow without dying. He determined, therefore, to relieve them by 
 utterance, and, by a kind of divine inspiration, he hit upon the idea 
 of relating them in song in the character of some lover whose suffer- 
 ings resembled his own. "Meco adunque con sollecita cura cominciai 
 a rivolgere l'antiche storie, per trovare cui potesse verisimilmente 
 fare scudo del mio segreto e amoroso dolore." No personage that was 
 better adapted to this purpose occurred to him than " il valoroso 
 giovane Troilo," son of the noble Priam, king of Troy; for the life of 
 Troilus, in that it was sorrowful on account of love and the absence of 
 Criseida, " se fede alcuna alle antiche storie si pud dare," was very 
 similar to Boccaccio's own after the departure of his lady. Therefore 
 he composed the Filostrato. " When you find Troilus," he adds, " la- 
 menting the departure of Criseida, you will be able to comprehend my 
 words, my tears, my sighs, and my anguish; when he praises Criseida 
 you may understand that I am praising you. The other matters, how- 
 ever, concerning his previous felicity, have no reference to me. I have 
 inserted them because they are found in the history of that noble 
 lover." 1 
 
 The Italian poet, then, here as in the Teseide, professes to have 
 drawn his material from some ancient author, to whose work he refers 
 as la storia more than once in the course of the poem. 2 As a matter 
 of fact, he derived the story of Troilus and Cressida from the Roman 
 de Troie of Benoit de Sainte Maure, and utilized Guido delle Colonne 
 to some extent; 3 but neither of these writers did he deign to mention, 
 wisely and artistically preferring to lend his poem the authority of 
 
 1 L'altre cose [besides the laments and the praises of the lady], che oltre a queste 
 vi sono assai, niuna, siccome gia dissi, a me non appartiene, ne per me vi si pone, 
 ma perche la storia nel nobile innamorato giovane lo richiede (p. 9). 
 
 2 See i, 16, 46; iii, 90; cf. i. 48. 
 
 3 See Young, The Origin and Development of the Story of Troilus and Criseyde, 
 1908, for details. 
 
66 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 an unnamed ancient. Like Chaucer, Boccaccio credits to this ancient 
 not only all that he has borrowed from anybody, but also all that he 
 has invented himself. 
 
 Now Chaucer was just as familiar with Benoit as Boccaccio was; l 
 and, as in the case of the Teseide he had noted the Italian's unacknowl- 
 edged debt to Statius, so in the case of the Filostrato he noted his un- 
 acknowledged debt to Benoit. 2 This debt, he saw, was substantial; 
 yet Boccaccio had not only ignored it but had taken pains to divert 
 attention from Benoit by insisting on a very " ancient " source. 
 Further, Chaucer observed (no doubt with pleasure) that in the 
 Teseide Boccaccio had appealed to a history so old as not to be men- 
 tioned by the [known and extant] Latin writers — that is, to a lost 
 document which the Italian poet had had the good fortune to find. 
 • Chaucer was an apt pupil, and he took all the hints. He suppressed 
 / the name of Boccaccio in the Troilus as Boccaccio had suppressed the 
 name of Benoit in the Filostrato, and he ascribed his poem to an ancient 
 Latin writer. Further, he improved upon the fiction that his master 
 had used in the Teseide. He actually knew (so he thought) the name 
 of an ancient who had written a lost work on the Trojan War — one 
 Lollius — and so he not only pretended to have found a manuscript 
 known to few or none of his contemporaries, but gave the very name 
 of the author whom he professed to follow. 
 
 That Chaucer did in very truth get the suggestion for the Lollian 
 fiction (except for the name) from Boccaccio in the manner just indi- 
 cated, and from the Italian passages just referred to, is fortunately 
 not a matter of conjecture or even of mere inference. For we may be 
 quite certain that he read with care both the Proemio to the Filostrato 
 and the second stanza of the Teseide. As to the Proemio, his eager 
 disclaimer of personal knowledge of a lover's feelings, his profession 
 of being an outsider in such matters, 3 is a clear and deliberate reversal 
 
 1 See Publications of the Modern Language Association, XXIV, 344 ff. 
 
 2 It may no doubt be alleged that Boccaccio's indebtedness to Benoit in the 
 Filostrato is not so large in bulk as Chaucer's indebtedness to Boccaccio in the 
 Troilus; but that does not signify. Boccaccio's debt to Benoit was substantial — 
 without Benoit there would have been no Filostrato. Yet Boccaccio not only ignores 
 Benoit, but takes pains to divert attention from him by insisting on an " ancient " 
 source. 
 
 ' Troilus, ii, 8-21. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 67 
 
 of the situation of Boccaccio as there described. 1 As to the second 
 stanza of the Teseide, the evidence is still more striking, for Chaucer, 
 before he composed either the Palamon or the Troilus, had actually 
 utilized that stanza as the second stanza of his unfinished Anelida and 
 At cite. 
 
 W m' e venuta voglia con pietosa 
 
 Rima di scriver una storia antica, 
 
 Tanto negli anni riposta e nascosa, 
 
 Che latino autor non par ne dica, 
 
 Per quel ch' i' senta, in libro alcuna cosa. 5 
 
 For it ful depe is sonken in my minde 
 With pitous herte in English for tendyte 
 This olde storie, in Latin which I finde, 
 Of quene Anelida and fals Arcita, 
 That elde, which that al can frete and byte, 
 As it hath freten many a noble storie, 
 Hath nigh devoured out of our memorie. 3 
 
 The indebtedness of the introductory stanzas of Anelida to the 
 introductory stanzas of the Teseide was noted years ago by ten Brink; 4 
 but the bearing of the situation on the Lollian fiction in the Troilus 
 
 1 If this does not suffice, we may clinch the matter by comparing Troilus, v, 
 666-679, with Filostrato, v, 70, and with a passage in the Proemio. Stanza 70 gave 
 Chaucer a part of his lines, but 671-672 are straight from the Proemio: 
 
 And thennes comth this eyr, that is so swote 
 
 That in my soule I fele it doth me bote. 
 "Quindi ogni aura, ogni soave vento che di cola viene, cosi nel viso ricevo, quasi il 
 vostro senza niuno fallo abbia tocco: ne e percio troppo lungo questo mitigamento" 
 
 (p. 4). 
 
 2 Teseide, i, 2. Cf. the preliminary letter to la Fiammetta: — " Trovata una 
 antichissima storia, e al piu delle genti non manifesta " (p. 3). 
 
 3 Anelida, st. 2. The first ten stanzas of the Anelida have their sources as fol- 
 lows: — 1-3 in Teseide, i, 1-3 (in reverse order, 3, 2, 1); 4-7 in Thebaid, xii, 519- 
 535, with a touch from Teseide, ii, 22, in stanza 6; 8-10 in Teseide, ii, 10-12. With 
 stanza n Chaucer begins to be original and he so continues. At the end of the 
 fragment he is about to describe the temple of Mars, and here, of course, imita- 
 tion of Statius or of the Teseide (or of both) would have come in again. But the 
 story in general was certainly to be from neither Statius nor Boccaccio, nor, indeed, 
 from any work that scholars have been able to name or even to guess at. Skeat has 
 well noted the resemblance to the story of the falcon in The Squire's Tale {Oxford 
 Chaucer, I, 534). 
 
 4 Chaucer, Studien, 1870, pp. 49~53- 
 
68 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 hardly seems to have been perceived. Chaucer's procedure in the 
 two poems is practically the same. In the Anelida he adopts from 
 the Teseide Boccaccio's fiction of having discovered a lost or forgotten 
 piece of ancient history, and expressly declares that he is about to 
 translate it from the Latin. 1 In the Troilus, as we have seen, he adopts 
 the very same fiction, improving upon it by actually naming the Latin 
 writer — one Lollius — whom he pretends to translate faithfully. 2 
 
 1 A reminiscence of Boccaccio's fiction in the Teseide as to a source very ancient 
 and therefore little known — an echo, indeed, of his very words — occurs also in 
 the defence of Chaucer by Alcestis in the Legend: 
 
 He made the book that hight the Hous of Fame, 
 
 And ek the Deeth of Blaunche the Duchesse, 
 
 And the Parlement of Foules, as I gesse, 
 
 And al the love of Palamon and Arcite, — 
 
 Of Thebes, thogh the storie is knowen lyte, — 
 
 And many an ympne for your holydayes (A 405-410, B 417-422). 
 That is, " Chaucer wrote all the love of Palamoun and Arcite " and then, paren- 
 thetically, " they were of Thebes, although (unlike the tale of Cadmus and Oedipus 
 and Eteocles and Polynices — the regular Theban cycle) their particular history- 
 is not included in the ordinary accounts of Thebes, and is therefore comparatively 
 little known." It is, as Boccaccio has said, " al piu delle genti non manifesta," 
 " negli anni riposta e nascosa." In saying that " the story is little known," Chaucer 
 is not speaking of his own special version, but of the story itself, i.e. the history, the 
 old tale. This interpretation (which accords with the regular meaning of story in 
 Chaucer, and which completely justifies the though) is, in the main, that of ten 
 Brink and Skeat. It removes the passage from its consecrated position as an indi- 
 cation of chronology, for what Alcestis says is, in effect, " He has told the little- 
 known history of Palamon and Arcite," not " He has told the history of Palamon 
 and Arcite, but his poem has attracted slight attention." Thus we are left free to 
 put the Palamon where it belongs, before the Troilus (see p. 69, note). 
 
 2 Cf. Anelida (as just quoted) with Troilus, ii, 13-14: "Of no sentement I this 
 endyte, But out of Latin in [ = into] my tonge it write." Note also that the Troilus is 
 called a translation in The Legend of Good Women, A 350 (B 370), cf. A 250 (B 324). 
 
 I think the parallel may be carried still farther. In the Anelida, after declaring 
 that he is to translate from the Latin an old and almost forgotten story, Chaucer 
 concludes his proem with the avowal, " First follow I Stace, and after him Corinne " 
 (21). In fact he follows Statius (and the Teseide) for the next seven stanzas (4-10) 
 and then begins to invent. At stanza n, then, we are to suppose that he begins 
 his pretended translation from Corinne — a Theban story. The most natural 
 inference is that Chaucer somehow got hold of the name of Corinna and found her 
 described as a famous Theban poetess, and that he accordingly utilized her name as 
 he utilized that of Lollius in the Troilus. Where he found the so-called Theban Co- 
 rinna mentioned, we do not know, any more than we know where he found the name 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 69 
 
 Since he really believed (as The House of Fame shows) that there had 
 once existed a work on Troy by this Lollius, the alleged use of him in 
 the Troilus involves the pretence that he had discovered the long-lost 
 document. 
 
 What Chaucer was about in ascribing the Troilus as a whole to 
 Lollius — the real ad hoc of his artistic device — may be further illus- 
 trated, on a smaller scale, by a curious passage in the poem itself. In 
 the Fourth Book, when Pandarus is trying to cheer up his disconsolate 
 friend, he cites a certain Zanzis or Zauzis: 
 
 And eek, as writ Zanzis, that was ml wys, 
 " The newe love out chaceth ofte tholde," 
 And upon newe cas lyth newe avys. 
 Thenk eek thyself to saven artow holde. 
 Swich fyr by proces shal of kinde colde; 
 For syn it is but casuel plesaunce, 
 Som cas shal putte it out of remembraunce; 
 
 For al-so seur as day cometh after night, 
 
 The newe loue, labour, or other wo, 
 
 Or elles selde seeing of a wight, 
 
 Don olde affecciouns alle ouer-go; 
 
 And, for thy part, thou shalt have oon of tho 
 
 Tabrigge with thy bittre peynes smerte: 
 
 Absence of hir shal dryue hir out of herte (iv, 414-427). 
 
 For all this, the Filostrato has merely (iv, 49, 1-4) 
 
 E come io udii gia sovente dire, 
 II nuovo amor sempre caccia Fantico; 
 Nuovo piacere il presente martire 
 Torra da te. 
 
 Ballenus and various other pieces of curious lore (see p. 74, below). It is certain 
 enough that the Anelida preceded the Palamon (see Tattock, Development and 
 Chronology, pp. 83-86, where previous studies of Mather and others are cited). 
 Whether the Troilus or the Anelida was written first, makes little or no difference 
 in our discussion, and the point may be waived. For my own part, I agree with 
 Lowes in the order Anelida, Palamon, Troilus {Publications of the Modern Language 
 Association, XX, 861). At all events, the Anelida and the Troilus cannot be far 
 apart in date, and the fiction of a lost or hitherto unknown Latin source in the 
 Anelida throws a strong light on Chaucer's intention in citing Lollius as his Latin 
 auctor in the Troilus. I may add that the parallel still holds good if Corinne be 
 interpreted as Corinnus (Skeat) or as Ovid (Shannon, Publications, as above, XXVII, 
 461 ff.), since on either of those two hypotheses the poet would still be pretending 
 to follow for his narrative a lost document which he had discovered. 
 
*jo George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 The saying, though of course Boccaccio does not let Pandaro say so, 
 is from the Remedia A maris, being equally similar to " Successore 
 novo vincitur omnis amor " (462) and to "Et posita est cura cura 
 repulsa nova" (484). Naturally Chaucer recognized it, for the former 
 verse introduces the famous passage about Chryseis and the latter 
 concludes it. 1 His mind, therefore, went back to the Remedia, and 
 he expanded Pandarus's speech by adding certain other cures for love 
 that are mentioned by Ovid, — occupation (see R. A., 135-210, espe- 
 cially 139-144, 149-150, 205-206) and absence (R.A., 2 14-239) . 2 Yet 
 he chose to ascribe "The newe love out-chacheth ofte the olde" to 
 some old sage, Zanzis 3 or Zauzis, whom an ancient like Pandarus might 
 be supposed to quote. Here we have a device which, in miniature, is 
 absolutely identical with the ascription of the whole poem to an ancient 
 Latin worthy, one Lollius, an authority on Troy and the Trojans. 
 
 1 R. A., 462-484 (cf. Kittredge, The Date of Chaucer's Troilus, pp. 17 ff.; Wil- 
 kins, Boccaccio Studies, pp. 54-59. 
 
 2 In this expansion he follows in part Troilo's words to Pandaro as given by 
 Boccaccio a few stanzas later (iv. 59, overlooked by Rossetti, p. 186, and by 
 Cummings, p. 72) : 
 
 Credimi Pandar, credimi che amore 
 Quando s'apprende per sommo piacere 
 Nell' animo d'alcun, cacciarnel fuore 
 Non si pud mai, ma puonne ben cadere 
 In processo di tempo, se dolore, 
 O morte, o poverta, non vedere 
 La cosa amata non gli son cagione, 
 Com' egli awenne gia a piu persone. 
 
 Swich fyr by proces shal of kynde colde. 
 
 For also seur as day cometh after night, 
 
 The newe love, labour, or other wo, 
 
 Or elles selde seinge of a wight, 
 
 Don olde affeciouns alle ouer-go (iv, 418, 421-424). 
 ** Labour," not in Boccaccio, is directly from Ovid. 
 
 8 Zanzis is thought to be Zeuxis. One wonders whether Chaucer had happened 
 to hear of the wise and prudent person of that name who figures in the Alexander 
 story. This Zeuxis makes his appearance in the first book of Julius Valerius. 
 The author takes pains to assure us that this is not the famous painter (see The 
 Physician's Tale, C 16), but one of Philip's courtiers. He had charge of the young 
 Alexander's expenditures and wrote to inform Philip and Olympias that the prince 
 was wasting his allowance in lavish giving (i, 16, Kuebler, pp. 17-18). 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 
 
 7i 
 
 Little did Chaucer imagine, when in the Troilus he adopted and 
 improved Boccaccio's fiction of a lost auctor, that future generations 
 would pull long faces as they solemnly debated his ingratitude in 
 neglecting to specify his extensive obligations to the Italian poet. 
 When he and Boccaccio first met "in the feld of pitee, out of peyne, 
 that hight Elysos," it is unlikely that Boccaccio thought of reproving 
 him. If, however, Boccaccio was so lacking in humor, and in appre- 
 ciation of an author's rights, no doubt Chaucer replied by quoting 
 Shakspere (with the same anachronism by which Shakspere made 
 Hector quote Aristotle) : " The villany you teach me I will execute, 
 and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." 
 
 So far we have proceeded, I think, by a sober and pedestrian method, 
 following known facts step by step. We have resorted to no conjec- 
 tures, but have candidly interpreted the obvious phenomena (as we 
 purposed to do) in the light of reason and common sense and of the 
 established customs of literary men in past and present. Let us sum 
 .up the results in the form of definite propositions. 
 
 1. The mere name Lollius is not a blunder or an invention; for it 
 : is a genuine Roman nomen gentle. 
 
 2. Chaucer found the name somewhere in the course of his reading, 
 j and, of course, it was in some context that he found it, not all alone 
 I by itself. 
 
 3. The context in which Chaucer found the name was such as to 
 teach him (erroneously) that one Lollius wrote a book on the Trojan 
 War. 
 
 4. Accordingly, in The House of Fame, Chaucer included Lollius 
 in a list of authorities on the matter of Troy — along with Homer, 
 Dictys, Dares, Guido delle Colonne, and Geoffrey of Monmouth. 
 
 ^5. In thus mentioning Lollius in The House of Fame Chaucer was 
 
 not inventing: he was under a misapprehension. He believed that 
 
 1 a work by Lollius on the Trojan War had once existed, but, since 
 
 \ neither he nor any of his acquaintances had ever seen it, that it was 
 
 lost. 
 
 6. When Chaucer wrote the Troilus, his erroneous belief that one 
 Lollius had written a (lost) work on Troy had not been corrected. 
 
 7. Accordingly, in the Troilus, as a part of the fiction, Chaucer 
 pretended to be translating faithfully the Latin work of Lollius. This 
 
72 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 Lollius is not Boccaccio, nor Petrarch, nor Benoit, nor Guido: he is 
 purely and simply Lollius — a supposed ancient writer on the subject, 
 whose work Chaucer pretended to have before him. The fiction con- 
 sists not in ascribing to Lollius a work on Troy (for that was merely 
 an error) but in claiming to have this work in hand and to translate 
 it faithfully. 
 
 8. Chaucer's fiction of pretending to follow Lollius in the Troilus 
 was imitated and improved by him from Boccaccio's similar fiction 
 in the Teseide and the Filostrato. The improvement consists in ascrib- 
 ing the work to a definitely named source instead of "an ancient 
 history " or " a lost author recently discovered by me in turning over 
 ancient books." In using the name of Lollius, Chaucer was citing an 
 auctor in whose existence as a writer on Troy he fully believed, but 
 whose book he thought had disappeared. 
 
 9. Chaucer, in accordance with the habits of his time, acknowledged 
 no obligation to mention the actual sources from which he drew the 
 material for his fictions. He felt quite at liberty to invent sources, or 
 to give credit to authors different from those to whom he was actually 
 indebted. In the practice of such devices, for artistic effect, for veri- 
 similitude, or for lending dignity to his subject, he had Boccaccio 
 himself as a distinguished exemplar. There is no moral question in- 
 volved. The trick justifies itself if it is well worked. If both Chaucer 
 and Boccaccio went farther in this way than a scrupulous modern 
 would feel warranted in going, they had two valid defences, — first, 
 the custom of mediaeval writers, and second, their general avowal of 
 indebtedness to somebody, or, in other words, their disclaimer of 
 originality. 
 
 10. Both Gower and Strode must have been aware that Chaucer 
 derived the story of Troilus in large part from an Italian poem. The 
 fiction of a reference to Lollius in the Troilus was known to some of 
 Chaucer's contemporaries as a fiction, and hence to Lydgate a genera- 
 tion or so later. In other words, it was not a dark secret, carefully 
 locked in the breast of an anxious plagiarist, but a more or less trans- 
 parent literary device, as to which neither Chaucer nor his associates 
 and followers saw any reason to keep silence in their conversation. 
 
 All these theses appear to be irrefutable, and in their light we are 
 now ready to discuss certain interesting questions that have suggested 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 73 
 
 themselves to the curious minds of us moderns. These questions 
 should be kept sharply distinct, however, from the theses just enu- 
 merated; for we are now venturing into the domain of conjecture. 
 Our guesses may be more or less probable, but, right or wrong, they 
 cannot affect the soundness of the most pregnant and unforced prop- 
 ositions already established. 
 
 First and foremost, did Chaucer originate the erroneous notion that 
 one Lollius (a real name) wrote a (lost) history of the Trojan War or, 
 at all events, a (lost) book of some kind on the matter of Troy ? 
 
 A priori one would answer this question in the negative, most de- 
 cidedly. It is seldom possible to discover the actual originator of 
 anything — especially of a current error. Whatever might have led 
 Chaucer to make this mistake would have been just as likely to lead 
 somebody else to make it before him. The mere fact that Chaucer 
 found the name Lollius, not all alone by itself, but in a context that 
 somehow connected it with Troy, suggests as a distinct probability 
 that some predecessor had similarly discovered it. Finally, the fact 
 that Chaucer's learned friends Gower and Strode allowed his erroneous 
 opinion, published in The House of Fame, to pass without challenge, 
 and suffered him to utilize the error, uncorrected, as a part of the 
 fiction in the Troilus, a poem dedicated to them and doubtless dis- 
 cussed with them in the process of composition — all this certainly 
 suggests that they shared his error, and, therefore, that this was a 
 matter of common misinformation among the learned in the latter 
 part of the fourteenth century. However, the question whether 
 Chaucer originated the error or merely adopted it, is a matter of no 
 consequence. If one prefers to regard Chaucer as the initial mistaker, 
 no harm can be done. I am far from wishing to exonerate the poet, 
 for he was no doctor irrefragibilis. He did make blunders now and 
 then. 1 So do we all. One mistake more or less counts for nothing in 
 his record, or yours, or mine, in a puzzle-headed world. 
 
 The objection that we cannot find the statement anywhere before 
 Chaucer should not daunt us until we discover the precise source from 
 which he drew his information about Trophee, 2 about the Bret Glas- 
 curion, about Hermes Ballenus, about Eleanor, about Lymote, 3 and 
 
 1 See p. 80, below. 8 House of Fame, 1208, 1273, 516, 1274. 
 
 2 Monti's Tale, B 3307 (see p. 60, above). 
 
74 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 so on. It makes no difference, logically, whether the information in 
 these cases is correct or incorrect. The point is, that Chaucer derived 
 it from some source that we cannot trace with assurance or cannot 
 trace at all. In other words, he and his contemporaries had (as we 
 sometimes forget) sources of information or misinformation which 
 are either not accessible to us, having perished, or which our anti- 
 quaries have not yet unearthed. 
 
 Take the case of Hermes Ballenus. Here the reference to Ballenus 
 has been traced to the Roman de la Rose, 1 but the French poem does 
 not connect him with Hermes. Yet Chaucer's learning abides the 
 touchstone. He has in mind a certain wise Belinous who found a 
 book of scientific and magical secrets under a statue of Hermes. Where 
 did Chaucer get this information? A question as yet unanswerable. 
 Yet it may be answered any day. The solution may lurk unheeded 
 in the margin of some manuscript of the Roman. So in the margin 
 of some other manuscript of something or other was perhaps enshrined 
 a gloss " Lollius maximus scriptor belli Troiani." We have not yet 
 garnered all the sheaves of mediaeval lore, and when the sheaves are 
 garnered, the gleanings will remain, and when all is gleaned, we shall 
 still miss what has perished. 
 
 Another instructive example is that of Agathon. This person may 
 have been known to Chaucer as a poet from Dante: 
 
 Euripide v'e nosco, ed Antifonte, 
 Simonide, Agatone ed altri piue 
 Greci che gia di lauro ornar la fronte; 2 
 
 or perhaps from Boccaccio's Amoroso Visione: 
 Claudiano, Persio, ed Agatone.* 
 
 But from neither of these places could he have got the information 
 that led him to associate Agathon with Alcestis and the daisy : 
 
 No wonder is that love hir stellifye, 
 As telleth Agaton, for hir goodnesse. 4 
 
 1 1460 1 Meon (Michel, II, 118). See Skeat on House of Fame, 1273. 
 
 2 Purg. xxii, 106-108. 
 
 3 v, 50 (MS. note by Child in his copy of Kissner, Chaucer in seinen Bezieh- 
 ungen zur italienischen Liter atur, p. 9; Koeppel, Anglia, XIV, 237). 
 
 4 Legend of Good Women, A 513-514 (B 525-526). 
 

 Chaucer's Lollius 75 
 
 This may have been a chance shot, but one finds it hard to dodge the 
 inference that he somehow knew of Agathon as associated with a 
 flower or flowers; and for this point we are aware of no source that 
 could have helped him except Aristotle's Poetics, 1 which he could not 
 read. 
 
 We must leave the question undecided, then, whether Chaucer was 
 the initial blunderer in the Lollian business. For convenience, we 
 may speak of the error, in what follows, as Chaucer's, though proba- 
 bility seems to favor the idea that he was adopting some traditional 
 mistake. 
 
 Chaucer is not the only fourteenth-century poet who puzzles us in 
 this fashion. For example, I should much like to know where Froissart 
 got his names in the pretty story of Architeles and Orphane, 2 which 
 he credits to " a wise poet." Orphane, he says, was " serour Dane," 
 i.e. " Diana's sister." 3 Now Orphane seems to be a corruption of 
 Automate, who really was the wife of Architeles, and she was a daughter 
 of Danaus. But Froissart could not read Pausanias. 4 
 
 It is quite true that we cannot point to a particular place in which 
 Chaucer could have found a citation of " Lollius de Bello Troiano." 
 Still, we can easily exhibit sources from which he might have derived 
 equally remarkable literary lore. We know where he might have found 
 the story, on the authority of "Philosophus ad Maximum," that a com- 
 mittee of eminent Romans, representing various professions, decided 
 that the god of Clemency was to be their chief deity. 5 We know where 
 he could have found the statement that Seneca " in tragedia quadam " 
 tells how Nero, in a vision, was seen in hell bathing in molten gold and 
 inviting a crowd of lawyers (" venale genus hominum ") to join him. 6 
 
 1 ix, p. 1451b 21 (Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1889^.763). Cf. 
 Skeat, III, xxxii-xxxiv. 
 
 2 Joli Buisson, 2102 ff. (Scheler, II, 62 ff.). 
 
 8 2 1 1 1 . Perhaps Dane means Daphne here, as in Froissart's Espinette Amoureuse, 
 15695. (Scheler, 1, 132-138,) and in his Joli Buisson, 3156 (II, 94), and in Chaucer; 
 but Dyane is mentioned in Buisson, 2159, and Chaucer has to warn his readers 
 not to confuse " Penneus doughter " with the goddess (Knight's Tale, A 2062- 
 2064). 
 
 4 vii, 1, 3. Cf. also his story of Narcissus (Joli Buisson, 3252 ff., Scheler, II, 
 96 ff.) with the faoov yvoipifios tale in Pausanias, ix, 31, 6. 
 
 6 Ward, Catalogue of Romances, III, 109, § 24. 
 
 6 Crane, Jacques de Vitry, pp. 14, 148; cf. Ward. Catalogue, III, 135, § 136. 
 
 
76 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 And finally — not to multiply examples — we know where he could 
 have found an account of the celebrated interview between Diogenes 
 and Alexander credited to " Saturnus qui illustrium virorum scripsit 
 hystorias." l On the whole, then, it seems rather probable that the 
 error which made Lollius an authority on Troy was not initially 
 Chaucer's — that he picked up the item somewhere among the mis- 
 cellanea of the middle ages. 
 
 More interesting is the inquiry whether or not the error about 
 Lollius (be it Chaucer's or Anon.'s) sprang from a misunderstanding 
 of a famous passage in Horace — the beginning of the second Epistle 
 of the First Book: 
 
 Troiani belli scriptorem, maxime Lolli, 
 Dum tu declamas Romae, Praeneste relegi. 
 
 This theory was long ago proposed by Latham, 2 and has met with 
 considerable favor, though rejected with contumely in some quarters. 
 The a priori case for Latham's hypothesis is uncommonly strong. 
 For (i) the initial blunderer did not invent the name Lollius: it is a 
 real name. He found it somewhere. (2) He did not invent the idea 
 that Lollius was a writer on the Trojan War. He found that idea, as 
 well as the name, somewhere. The chances are, of course, that he found 
 both the name and the notion in the same place and at the same time; 
 and the place must have been an accessible place. Horace's epistle 
 fulfills all the conditions, and fulfills them brilliantly. 3 Reluctance 
 to accept Latham's idea seems to arise from reluctance to accuse 
 Chaucer, or anybody else, of so considerable a blunder. Still, some one 
 must have blundered somehow sometime, — for without a blunder 
 the belief that a Lollius wrote on the Trojan War could not have 
 been entertained by Chaucer or his contemporaries, — and we shall 
 see presently that to get the Horatian verses wrong was by no means 
 difficult or discreditable. 
 
 1 Ward, III, 119, § 9. 2 Athenaeum, October 3, 1868. No. 2136, II, 433. 
 
 8 Chaucer never mentions Horace byname, though he uses a few bits, doubtless 
 picked up at secondhand. Several lines of this Epistle, however, including the first 
 four verses, are quoted in John of Salisbury's Polycraticus, vii, 9 (ed. Webb, II, 
 128), as Axon remarked (Notes and Queries, 9th Series, III, 224), and other lines 
 occur elsewhere in the same treatise. Chaucer is thought to have known this work 
 of John's, though the question (I think) is still unsettled. Cf . Lowes, Modern Lan- 
 guage Notes, XXV, 87-89. If Chaucer was not the initial blunderer, this point 
 is of no consequence. 
 
Chaucer 1 s Lollius 77 
 
 To accept Latham's conjecture does not carry the obligation to 
 explain precisely how the error came about, — to select, in other words, 
 that one among several possibilities that was actually the process into 
 which the blunderer was betrayed. The more possibilities there were, 
 the greater the chance that we have the right passage before us. Some 
 of these possibilities we may now review, premising that maxime, as 
 a mere superlative (not Maxime as a part of the name) must underlie 
 all mediaeval ways of interpreting the passage, since the discovery 
 that the Maximus was the surname of Horace's young friend is rather 
 modern. 
 
 Ten Brink long ago conjectured that the text which caused the 
 error had scriptorum for scriptorem and te legi for relegi. 1 Possible, no 
 doubt, but by no means likely ! Nor were two corruptions necessary. 
 Scriptorum alone would have sufficed, for the passage would then have 
 seemed to mean: " O Lollius, greatest of writers t on the Trojan War, 
 while you have been declaiming [your poem] at Rome, I have read 
 it over again at Praeneste." Scriptor for scriptorem would have had 
 the same result. 
 
 So far we have tacitly assumed that Praeneste would have been 
 immediately understood by a mediaeval reader as meaning " at Prae- 
 neste "; but that is a very large assumption indeed, — particularly 
 when one remembers that Chaucer took Via Appia for the name of a 
 town three miles from Rome on the strength of " Vade igitur in tertium 
 miliarium ab urbe via quae Appia nuncupatur": 
 
 " Goth forth to Via Appia," quod she, 
 
 " That fro the toun ne stant but myles three." 2 
 
 Proper names are ever and always a pitfall, and in the middle ages no 
 reader, lay or cleric, could hope to keep his foot out of the snare. In 
 estimating, therefore, the chances of misinterpretation, we should not 
 forget the difficulties offered by the second verse. If our friend the 
 initial blunderer had a good mediaeval text of these two lines, what he 
 read was not nicely punctuated and decked out with enlightening 
 capitals. It ran as follows: 
 
 I Scriptorem belli troiani maxime lolli 
 
 dum tu declamas rome preneste relegi. 
 1 Chaucer, Studien, 1870, p. 87 2 Second Nun's Tale, G 172-173- 
 
78 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 What was he to make out of preneste? Was it preneste or preueste? 
 The former meant nothing to him, unless he happened to be an un- 
 commonly good geographer. As for preueste, what was that? Could 
 it be pre ueste? Hardly. An adverb, then? What adverb? And so 
 he gives up preneste or preueste as a whole. But, since he would be 
 eager to read what he could, and was constrained to let the rest go — 
 as we all do in corrupt or unintelligible passages — he would have 
 grasped at the te as presumably a pronoun, — and then he had " O 
 greatest Lollius, I have read you, a writer on the Trojan War, over 
 again, while you have been declaiming [your poem] at Rome." 
 
 Or suppose some careless reader or excerptor ran together the head- 
 ing of the epistle " Ad Lollium" or " Ad Lollium consularem" or "Ad 
 Maximum Lollium" or "Ad Lollium Maximum" 1 with the initial 
 words: — "Ad Lollium maximum scrip torem belli Troiani." Less 
 than that has often raised strange spirits from the mediaeval deep. 
 That such a trick had in fact got itself played before Chaucer's time 
 is an ascertained fact, for in one twelfth-century manuscript of Horace 
 the title of the poem is actually " Ad lollium scrip torem." 2 This is 
 Burney MS. 178 in the British Museum. The fact that the contents of 
 the Epistle are in large part a compendium of Trojan matters must not 
 be forgotten in weighing the chances that the Lollian error originated 
 somehow from a misreading or misunderstanding of the opening lines. 
 
 Even if there were no more to be said, I think Latham's hypothesis 
 would be pretty well demonstrated as extremely probable, since, as 
 already noted, every additional possibility increases the chance that 
 he hit upon the right passage. Yet one must admit that the conjec- 
 tures so far considered imply a further error in passing from the second 
 line to what follows, since in verses 3 ff . Horace clearly speaks of the 
 " writer on the Trojan War " in the third person. Let us see, therefore, 
 what might have happened to some merely humanly fallible but not 
 abnormally ignorant or careless reader ("even as you or I") who had 
 a correct text before him, who knew that Praeneste means at Pales- 
 trina, and who recognized " scrip torem belli Troiani " as Homer. 
 
 Scriptorem belli Troiani, maxime Lolli, 
 Dum tu declamas Romae, Praeneste relegi. 
 
 1 All these headings occur in manuscripts. 
 
 2 HauthaPs Acron, II, 374, note. I have had the heading verified at the Museum. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 79 
 
 From this passage our hypothetical reader would have gathered that 
 the Lollius addressed was a person of great importance, — for he 
 could not have known that Maxime is a proper name here. Fur- 
 ther, as many readers still do, he would inevitably have taken scrips 
 torem as the object as well of declamas as of relegi, and so would 
 have arrived at the opinion that the person addressed was engaged in 
 reciting at Rome some version of Homer — presumably, since he was 
 at Rome, a Latin version, doubtless of his own composition. Thus the 
 passage, though correctly written and in the main correctly translated, 
 would have seemed to him to bear the clear meaning that there once 
 was a Roman, in ancient times, who composed and recited at Rome 
 a Latin poem, of much importance and dignity, founded on Homer, 
 and relating the main events in the Trojan War, with which, be it 
 remembered, a large part of what follows in the Epistle is con/ 
 cerned. 
 
 " Lollius maximus poeta et amicus Horatii Romae declamabat 
 versus de bello Troiano " would, I think, be a fit summary of such 
 an observation; and nothing more would be wanted to make current 
 the item of misinformation which Chaucer picked up somewhere and 
 utilized for his own purposes. I am not asserting that this is precisely 
 the way in which the Lollian error sprang from the Horatian passage: 
 my point is merely that this in one possible way — and that it re- 
 quired no error in text or enormous blundering in translation. Or 
 suppose some one referred, quite correctly, to "Horatius ad Lollium 
 de Bello Troiano." Such a reference might easily have given rise to 
 " Lollius de bello Troiano " — and again the trick is done. 
 
 Anything that may have tended to associate the name of Lollius 
 with the Trojan War is pertinent in this inquiry. We may note, 
 therefore, that the Ninth Ode of Horace's Fourth Book is dedicated 
 to a Lollius, whom the middle ages could hardly be expected to dis- 
 tinguish sharply from him of the Epistle, and that much of the ode, 
 like much of the Epistle, is devoted to Homer and the matter of Troy. 
 It is humbly submitted that if a mediaeval scholar read this ode and 
 the Epistle, and inferred therefrom that Lollius wrote something on 
 Troy, the error was not so surprising as that of Speght when he dug 
 out Lollius Urbicus from the Augustan History, turned him into a 
 Lollius of Urbino, and — though he was expressly declared to have 
 
 
80 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 written a history "sui temporis" — cheerfully equated him with the 
 alleged source of Chaucer's Troilus. 1 
 
 Again, suppose the following scholium of the pseudo-Acron on the 
 ode got separated from the text: 
 
 Ad Marcum Lollium scribit consularem adfirmans immortalia fu- 
 tura scripta sua, quamuis ante eum sint alii meliores poetae; nam 
 nee Homeri magnitudinem obstare quominus Pindarus et alii poetae, 
 qui post eum orti sunt, clari essent. 2 
 
 A careless reader might easily have taken sua to refer to Lollius, not 
 Horace* and so Lollius' reputation as a poet of importance, though 
 inferior to Homer, might have become a current fact of mediaeval 
 information. The mention of Homer would have been enough to 
 prompt the further inference that Lollius too had busied himself with 
 the tale of Troy. The name of Pindar would have helped rather than 
 hindered, for, as we know, " Pindarus " passed in the middle ages as 
 a Latin poet who had translated Homer — as the author, in short, of 
 the extant Bias Latina.^ 
 
 Until some positive evidence turns up, I think we may take it as 
 pretty well established that the Epistle of Horace, assisted perhaps 
 by the ode or the scholium or by both, is the authority for the mediaeval 
 notion that one Lollius was a writer of importance on the Trojan War. 
 
 In order to test the reasonableness of the opinion that Chaucer or 
 some predecessor was capable of misunderstanding Horace's lines in 
 the manner suggested by Latham, we could cite other errors of the 
 poet's, fit to range with that already quoted about the Appian Way. 5 
 " Partriches winges " on Fame's feet, from Virgil's " pedibus celerem 
 et pernicibus alis," will serve for one. 6 The error about Plato (for 
 Solomon) and " his book Senior; " 7 Brutus and Cassius run together 
 
 1 See p. 83, below. 
 
 2 Ed. Hauthal, I, 412 (cf. 415); ed. Keller, I, 355. 
 
 3 The heading of the ode — "Ad Lollium de immortalitate carminum suorum " — 
 may have helped to mislead. 
 
 4 See, for summary information, Bahrens, Poetae Latini Minor es, III (1881), 
 4-5. I do not see why the attachment of Pindar's name to this text in the middle 
 ages may not have come from a misunderstanding of this same gloss. 
 
 5 P. 77, above. 
 
 6 House of Fame, 1391-1392. 
 
 7 Canon's Yeoman's Tale, G 1448 ff. 
 
Chaucer } s Lollius 81 
 
 into one name, so that " Brutus Cassius " becomes the ringleader in 
 the conspiracy against Caesar, 1 and, per contra, Ascanius and lulus 
 made into two distinct persons; 2 Busiris confused with Diomedes of 
 Thrace; 3 Titan identified with Tithonus; 4 Corns (or Thorus) as a 
 seagod; 5 Marcia (Marsyas) losing her skin; 6 " Persi regis" trans- 
 lated by " the king of Perciens " 7 — these and many other venial sins, 
 familiar to every student, may suffice to assure us that Chaucer was 
 not superior to human frailty ?^" 
 
 And we all know that even professional scholars in the middle ages 
 were quite unable, from the circumstances in which they worked, to 
 avoid what seem to us astounding blunders. Examples are hardly 
 called for, but one set may be entertaining. Walter Burley, who died 
 about the time of Chaucer's birth, was a man of real learning who en- 
 joyed the title of " doctor planus et perspicuus." He taught philosophy 
 at Oxford, and is said to have been for a time the tutor of Edward III, 
 
 1 Monk's Tale, B 3887 ff. 
 
 2 House of Fame, 177-178. This may be real learning, however (see Roscher, 
 s. v. lulus) . 
 
 3 Monk's Tale, B 3293-3294. See Shannon, Modern Philology, XI, 227-229. 
 
 4 Troilus, iii, 1464-1470 (see p. 116, below). 
 6 Legend of Good Women, 2422. 
 
 6 House of Fame, 1229 ff. Chaucer never could have understood Dante's cryptic 
 utterance " quando Marsia traesti Delia vagina delle membra sue " (Par., i, 20- 
 21) unless he had known the story, and Ovid (Met., vi, 383 [satyri], 384 [quern], 
 and 392 [ilium]) makes the gender clear. Cf. Teseide, xi, 62: "Nel quale si vedea 
 Marsia sonando, Se con Apollo nel sonar provando." 
 
 7 Boethius, bk. ii, prose 2, 1. 47 (Skeat). 
 
 8 As illustrations of the errors which a poet might make in the fourteenth cen- 
 tury, even in treating of commonplace matters, the following examples would be 
 enlightening, if light were really needed. Froissart makes it Proserpine for whom 
 Orpheus went to Hades: she could not return with him because she had eaten 
 (Joli Buisson, 3164-3191, Scheler, II, 94-95). In Le TrSsor Amoureux, wrongly 
 ascribed to Froissart, Adonis is the son of Venus and pursues Atalanta (17192., 
 Scheler, III, 190 ff.). Froissart's Enclimpostair, son of Morpheus (Paradys 
 d' Amour, 28, Scheler, I, 2), has become famous through Chaucer's adoption (Book 
 of the Duchess, 167; cf. Englische Studien, XXVI, 321 ff.). In L'Orloge Amoureux 
 Tubulus (apparently Tibullus) is said to have died for love: "Ce fu pour lui une 
 honnourable fin " (1120-1130, Scheler, I, 85). In the Joli Buisson Narcissus dies 
 for love of Echo, whose face he thinks he sees in the fountain (3252 ff., Scheler, 
 II, 96 ff.), and Cepheus is killed by falling from a tree which he had climbed to 
 see if Hero was coming (3216 ff., II, 95-96). 
 
 
82 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 and later of the Black Prince. He certainly enjoyed the royal favor. 
 One of his most popular books — probably compiled as a university 
 manual — was the Liber de Vita et Moribus Philosophorum Poetarum- 
 que Veterum. Dr. Knust, who has edited this work, gives an amusing 
 list of some of the curious mistakes that it contains. Burley confuses 
 Epaminondas with Epimenides, Isocrates with Socrates, Xenophanes 
 with Xenophon, Agesilaus with Arcesilaus, Africanus major with 
 Africanus minor, Cato of the Distichs and Cato the Censor with Cato 
 Uticensis, Publius (i.e. Publilius) Syrus with Publius Terentius, Pliny 
 the Elder with Pliny the Younger. 1 In his chapter on Horace, he tells 
 how " Oracius Flaccus poeta illustris," when he was pontifex maximus 
 and was dedicating a temple to Jupiter, received the news of his son's 
 death, but did not allow it to disturb him in the sacred ceremony — 
 an anecdote which should stand to the credit of Horatius Pulvillus. 2 
 Titus Livius appears in Burley's pages as " historiographus et trage- 
 diarum scrip tor," by confusion, of course, with Livius Andronicus. 3 
 
 We can come nearer home, however. Somebody in the middle ages 
 blundered about Lollius somehow: that is beyond dispute. Is it in- 
 credible that the blunder should have come from the Horatian pas- 
 sage ? Let us test the question again — this time by reviewing some 
 of the mistakes that modern scholars have made in discussing the 
 Lollian problem itself. 
 
 In the Scriptores Historiae Augustae two distinct persons named 
 Lollius Urbicus are mentioned, — one a magistrate and general of the 
 second century of our era, 4 the other an historian of the third. 5 
 
 The first of these was a man of mark in his day, and we have a good 
 deal of documentary evidence about him. 6 He was legatus in Britain 
 in the reign of Antonius Pius; 7 he is mentioned by Fronto 8 and 
 Apuleius 9 as a contemporary; and there are at least six inscriptions 
 
 1 Gualteri Burlaei Liber de Vita et Moribus Philosophorum, pp. 400-401. 
 
 2 Cap. no, ed. Knust, p. 350. 
 
 8 Cap. 88, p. 310. * Antoninus Pius, 5. 
 
 6 Antoninus Diadumenus, 9. 
 
 6 Von Rohden and Dessau, Prosopographia, II, 297. 
 
 7 " [Antoninus] per legatos suos plurima bella gessit, nam et Brittanos per Lol- 
 lium Urbicum vicit legatum alio muro caespiticio summotis barbaris ducto," etc. 
 (Ant. Pius, 5). 
 
 8 Ad Amicos, ii, 7. 9 De Magia, 2. 
 

 Chaucer's Lollius 83 
 
 that concern him, — two Roman, 1 two British, 2 and two African. 3 
 One of these, which relates to the vallum of Antoninus (Graham's 
 Dyke), has long been familiar to archaeologists, and was discussed by 
 the admirable Horseley in 1732. 4 
 
 The second Lollius Urbicus is known only from a single passage in 
 the Life of Diadumenus ascribed to Lampridius, which, however, 
 suffices to prove that he lived in the reigns of Macrinus and Helio- 
 gabalus, and that he wrote a " history of his own time." 5 This per- 
 sonage was introduced into English literary history, as Chaucer's 
 Lollius, by Speght, who, in the Folio of 1598, included him in the list 
 of authors appended to his Glossary as " Lollius, an Italian Histori- 
 ographer, borne in the citie of Vrbine." 6 Urbicus, to be sure, is a 
 derivative of urbs, and is not a synonym for Urbinas, "of Urbino," 
 but that made no difference: Speght's error became current. Dr. 
 Timothy Thomas, in 1721, added some learned material to Speght's 
 note, and, having consulted the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, in- 
 cluded Lollius in the list of authors appended to the Glossary to Urry's 
 Chaucer as "an Italian Historiographer born at Urbino, who lived 
 under the Emperors Macrinus and Heliogabalus, in the beginning of 
 the Third Century," remarking that he "is said to have written the 
 History of his own Time, and also the Life of the Emperor Diadumenus 
 the Son of Macrinus.''' 1 This note not only repeats Speght's mis- 
 translation of Urbicus (as if it were Urbinas), but involves a wrong 
 inference from the words of Lampridius. Lollius Urbicus did write a 
 " History of his Own Time," which Lampridius cites for certain details 
 about Diadumenus, but there is no foundation for the statement that 
 he also wrote a biography of that boy-emperor; whatever he had to 
 
 1 C.I.L. VI, i, 6 (No. 28); VI, ii, 1410 (No. 10707). 
 
 2 Hiibner, C.I.L., VII, 180, 201, Nos. 1041, 11 25. 
 
 3 Wilmanns, C.I.L., VIII, i, 607, Nos. 6705, 6706. 
 
 4 Britannia Romana, pp. 197-198 (cf. pp. 50, 51). This is Hubner's No. 1125. 
 
 6 The author of the Life cites Lollius Urbicus for details about the murder of 
 Diadumenus given " in historia sui temporis." This murder took place A.D. 218. 
 
 6 Sig. Bbbb. ii, v° (ed. 1602, sig. Uuu, iiii, leaf 4, v°; ed. 1687, sig. Ssss, v°). 
 
 7 A short Account of some of the Authors cited by Chaucer, appended to the Glos- 
 sary in Urry's Chaucer, 1 721, p. 80. Perhaps Dr. Thomas went, not to the Scrip- 
 tores, but to Gerard Vossius, De Historicis Latinis, bk. ii, ch. 2 (2d ed., 165 1, 
 p. 176), whose account of Lollius, however, is accurate. 
 
84 George Lyman Kittredg6 
 
 say on the subject was obviously contained in this same Historia sui 
 Temporis. 
 
 Warton, in 1774, remarked that Chaucer's Troilus " is said to be 
 formed on an old history, written by Lollius, a native of Urbino." l 
 But it does not appear that he accepted Urbicus and Urbinas as 
 synonymous. At all events, he expressly states that " Lollius Urbi- 
 cus," the historian of the third century, " could not be Chaucer's 
 Lollius." 2 He makes an odd mistake, however, when he says: " It 
 is extraordinary, that Du Fresne, in the Index Auctorum, used by him 
 for his Latin glossary, should mention this Lollius Urbicus of the third 
 century," none of whose works, as Warton " apprehends," remain. 2 
 It would indeed be extraordinary if Du Cange had pretended to use 
 this lost author. The truth is, he does nothing of the kind. His Index 
 Auctorum, as he states expressly, is meant to include all the writers 
 " inferioris Latinitatis " that he knew of, both those whom he used 
 in his Glossarium and those whom he did not; 3 and the way in which 
 he mentions Lollius Urbicus 4 makes it quite clear that he had no 
 knowledge of that historian except what was afforded by the passage 
 of Lampridius already mentioned. 5 Another strange remark of War- 
 ton's is the assertion that "Boccac[c]io himself, in the Decameron, 
 mentions the story of Troilus and Cressida in Greek verse"; 6 which, 
 adds Warton, " I suppose had been translated by some of the fugitive 
 Greeks with whom he was connected, from a romance on that subject." 
 I venture to suggest that this remark is quite as extraordinary — all 
 circumstances considered — as Chaucer's erroneous registration of 
 Lollius as an historian of the Trojan War. 
 
 1 History of English Poetry, 1774, § 14, 1, 384. 
 
 2 Ibid., note a. 
 
 * " Caeteros illaudatos inferioris Latinitatis Scriptoribus laudatis adjungendos " 
 (Glossarium, ed. 1681, cols. 78-79). 
 
 4 " Lollius Urbicus, Historicus, vix. sub Macrino and Heliogabalo. Vide Vos- 
 sium " (col. 129). Gerard Vossius, De Historicis Latinis, ii, 2 (2d ed., 1651, p. 176), 
 refers to Lampridius as our only source of knowledge on this writer. 
 
 6 It is only fair to say that Warton contributes some really valuable information 
 about the Troilus material. 
 
 6 I, 351 (cf. 384). See Decameron, 6th day, introduction: "E Dioneo insieme 
 con Lauretta di Trojolo e di Criseida cominciarono a cantare." That is all. Cf. 
 Warton's Emendations and Additions to Vol. I, p. 385 (in Vol. II); Wilkins, Boc- 
 caccio Studies, p. 52. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 85 
 
 From Speght's and Dr. Thomas's assertion and Warton's hesitating 
 remarks, the supposed Lollius of Urbino (who owes his existence solely 
 to Speght's misunderstanding of the adjective Urbicus), became al- 
 most inseparably attached to Chaucer. The eminent Heyne, the 
 philological dictator of Germany in the last quarter of the eighteenth 
 century, actually translated the name " Lollius of Urbino " into Latin, 
 oblivious of the fact that it was a mere blunder, and asserted, in his 
 famous edition of Virgil, that Chaucer derived his Troilus from " Lol- 
 lius Urbinas et Guido de Colonna." l 
 
 Joly, in referring to this error of Heyne's, makes a mistake of his own, 
 for he says: — " II est, par ce passage meme, evident que Heyne ne 
 parle de Lollius que sur l'autorite de Chaucer." 2 Certainly Heyne did 
 not derive his Urbinas from Chaucer, who does not associate Lollius 
 with that city or with any city — except Troy ! One suspects that Joly 
 took Urbicus as a synonym of Urbinas anyhow, for, in connection with 
 his quotation from Heyne, he remarks that Schoell mentions the non- 
 existent " Lollius d'Urbin " as a real author. Now the fact is that 
 Schoell knows nothing of any Lollius of Urbino. His entry concerns 
 only the historian Lollius Urbicus and is perfectly sober and accurate: 
 " Lollius Urbicus, auteur d'un histoire de son temps, c'est-a-dire de 
 celui de Macrin et d'Eliogabale." 3 
 
 A recent Romance scholar of repute, Marcus Landau, in an attempt 
 to correct some of the old errors, has embroiled the whole subject 
 afresh. According to Landau, " Dryden confused [Chaucer's] Lollius 
 with Lollius Urbicus, the author of a lost work on the Emperor Severus, 
 and made out of him a Lollius of Urbino, who according to him, was 
 Chaucer's and Shakspere's source." 4 Now what Dryden wrote in the 
 
 1 " Obseruabimus tandem recentiorum quoque fabularum factum esse Troilum 
 argumentum, Lollii quidem Vrbinatis et Guidonis de Colonna. Vnde Chaucer 
 duxit suum Troilum et Cressida " (Excursus xvii on Aeneid i). This passage does 
 not occur in the first edition (1771, II, 127-128) or the second (1787, II, 160-161), 
 but makes its first appearance in the third (Leipzig, 1800, II, 212; 1803, II, 178). 
 It is also found in the fourth edition (Wagner's), 1832, II, 250, and in Lemaire's 
 edition, 1819, II, 203. The London "third edition" (1793), II, i55" I S6 does not 
 contain it. 
 
 2 Benottde Sainte-More, I, 217, note 1. 
 
 3 Histoire abregee de la litter attire romaine, Paris, 1815, III, 146. 
 
 4 " Chaucer also, der ebenfalls ein Epos von Troilus und Cressida geschrieben, 
 gibt es fur die Uebersetzung des lateinischen Werks eines gewissen Lollius aus. 
 
86 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 preface to his own Troilus and Cressida (1679), is bad enough, but it 
 does not accord with Landau's account. "The Original story," says 
 Dryden, " was Written by one Lollius, a Lombard, in Latin verse, and 
 Translated by Chaucer into English: intended I suppose a Satyr on 
 the Inconstancy of Women: I find nothing of it among the Ancients; 
 not so much as the name once Cressida mention' d. Shakspear, . . . 
 in the Aprenticeship of his Writing, modePd it into that Play, which 
 is now call'd by the name of Troilus and Cressida." Certainly it can- 
 not be alleged that Dryden made a Lollius of Urbino out of Lollius 
 Urbicus. He says not a word about Lollius Urbicus, and does not 
 mention Urbino, but declares that Chaucer's Lollius was a Lombard — 
 and Urbino (as I suppose Landau knew) is not in Lombardy. Dry- 
 den's information might all have been derived from Chaucer's Troilus 
 itself except the statement that Lollius was a Lombard. This he 
 doubtless inferred from .Speght's Life of Geffrey Chaucer in the folio 
 of 1598, where we read: " Troilus and Creseid called Throphe in the 
 Lumbard tongue, translated: not verbatim, but the Argument thence 
 taken, and most cunningly amplified by Chaucer." l Speght's lan- 
 guage, indeed, is echoed by Dryden in the Preface to his Fables (1700), 
 when he remarks that " Troilus and Cressida was written by a Lom- 
 bard Author; but much amplified by our English Translatour, as well 
 as beautified." 2 In the folio Chaucer of 1602 Speght's note appears 
 in the following form: " Troilus and Creseid called Throphe in the 
 Lumbard tongue, was translated out of Latin, as in the preface to the 
 second booke of Troilus and Creseid he confesseth in these wordes: 
 
 " To euery louer I me excuse, 
 That of no sentiment I this endite, 
 But out of Latin in my tonge it write." s 
 
 Miss Hammond 4 also seriously mistakes Dryden. She writes: 
 " Dryden, in the preface to his ' Troilus and Cressida,' said that ' the 
 
 Diesen sonst unbekannten Lollius verwechselte Dryden mit Lollius Urbicus, dem 
 Verfasser eines verloren gegangenen Werks liber Kaiser Severus und machte aus 
 ihm einen Lollius aus Urbino, der Chaucers und Shakespeare's Quelle gewesen sein 
 sollte " (Landau, Giovanni Boccaccio, 1877, pp. 91-92). 
 
 1 Sig. c, i, r°. " sig- B> 
 
 8 Sig. c. j. v° (so also in the folio of 1687, sig. b v°). 
 
 4 Chaucer, a Bibliographical Manual, 1908, p. 95. I take occasion once more 
 to express my sense of the high value of this indispensable book. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 87 
 
 original story was written by one Lollius, in Lombard verse,' " whereas 
 Dryden says distinctly, " by one Lollius, a Lombard, in Latin verse." 
 " This he derived, it is probable," she adds," from the note in Speght's 
 glossary — ' Lollius, an Italian Historiographer borne in the citie of 
 Urbine.' " As to this we note (1) that this remark is not in Speght's 
 Glossary, but in the list of authors appended to his glossary, and (2) 
 that Speght's note does not say that Lollius wrote in Lombard verse; 
 — does not, indeed, mention Lombardy at all. 
 
 Miss Hammond also makes several mistakes in her account of 
 Lollius Urbicus the historian cited in the Life of Diadumenus in the 
 so-called Augustan History. In the first place, she says that this life 
 was " written about 400 a.d." But soon after she remarks that the 
 Augustan History " was written during the reigns of Diocletian and 
 Constantine," that is, a.d. 284-337. Perhaps, then, 400 is a misprint 
 for 300. Further, she remarks that, " as the Augustan History was 
 written during the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine, Lollius has 
 been considered as of the third century." This, however, is not the 
 reason for so dating him. The reason is that the language of the Life 
 of Diadumenus (no matter when the Augustan History was written) 
 implies beyond the possibility of misapprehension that this Lollius 
 was living at the time of the murder of Diadumenus, which took place 
 in 218. 
 
 But this is not all. Professor Lounsbury, in giving an account of the 
 Lollius legend, makes a mistake of his own. He says that the Lollius 
 Urbicus who is mentioned by Capitolinus as conquering the Britons in 
 the reign of Antoninus Pius and the Lollius Urbicus who is cited by 
 Lampridius as having written a history of his own times, are " pre- 
 sumably the same man," ignoring the fact that they lived in different 
 centuries, and adds that " nothing has ever been heard of him or it 
 beyond these two brief references." l Yet, as we have seen, much has 
 been heard of the elder Lollius Urbicus besides the reference to him 
 in the so-called Capitolinus. Further, Lounsbury appears to accept 
 " of Urbino " as a good translation of the adjective Urbicus. It would 
 be hard to find a more striking example of the way in which bits of 
 information and misinformation combined get adrift in the learned 
 world. 
 
 1 Studies in Chaucer, II, 405-406. 
 
88 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 The supposition that Chaucer blundered in reading Horace " in- 
 volves," says Lounsbury, " the . . . assumption that a man who was 
 sufficiently familiar with Latin to translate with reasonable accuracy 
 a philosophical work, written in that tongue, was capable of confusing 
 in an easy sentence forms so widely distinct as those of the genitive 
 and the vocative case." 1 This statement involves a curious oversight. 
 If Chaucer identified Lolli in Horace's line with scriptorem, what he 
 confused was certainly not the genitive and the vocative, — and any- 
 how, the genitive and the vocative of Lollius are not "widely distinct" 
 forms. Hamilton makes a different mistake about cases when he 
 defines Lounsbury 's " main premise " as the proposition that Chaucer 
 " would not have made the slip of mistaking a genitive for an abla- 
 tive." 2 No ablative or genitive is involved in the question. 
 
 May we not argue that these errors of Lounsbury and Hamilton 
 are quite as unlikely to have been committed by those scholars as the 
 error suggested by Latham was unlikely to have been committed by 
 Chaucer or some forerunner ? 
 
 Even Dr. Latham's note, which is printed a plain type in a modern 
 journal, 3 has been more than once unintentionally misrepresented, as 
 if he thought Chaucer were the initial blunderer. What he suggests, 
 on the contrary, is clearly that the mistake had been previously made 
 by somebody unknown, and that " by the time of Chaucer" Lollius 
 had come to be regarded, on the basis of that blunder, as a writer on 
 the Trojan War. 4 It is rather odd that Rossetti himself, in 1873, 
 appears to make this mistake with regard to Latham, 5 though Latham's 
 letter to the Athenaeum was written in reply to a theory of Rossetti's 
 published in the immediately preceding number of this journal, 6 and 
 
 1 Studies in Chaucer, II, 409-410. 
 
 2 The Indebtedness of Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde to Guido delle Colonne's 
 Historia Trojana, p. 40, note. 
 
 3 Athenaeum, No. 2136, Oct. 3, 1868, II, 433. 
 
 4 " My own view, and that I believe of others, is . . . that by the time of 
 Chaucer the name of the person there addressed had become attached to the 
 person written about." 
 
 6 " It appears to me that the most reasonable . . . suggestion is that made 
 ... by Dr. R. G. Latham — that Chaucer has, by some blunder or confusion, 
 got the name Lollius out of Horace's line " {Chaucer's Troylus and Cryseyde com- 
 pared with Boccaccio's Filostrato, 1873, p. vii). 
 
 6 Athenceum, No. 2135, Sept. 26, 1868. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 89 
 
 though Rossetti followed Latham in the very next number 1 with a 
 communication accepting the doctor's theory and abandoning his own. 
 Miss Hammond is under the same misapprehension. 2 She adds the 
 remark: "Note that already Bradshaw (see Prothero's Memoir, p. 
 216) had made the same suggestion as did Latham." But the passage 
 in Prothero records no such suggestion. 
 
 We may conclude with a blunder by another distinguished scholar, 
 pertinent here, because its perpetrator is accepting Latham's con- 
 jecture. " La invenzione del nome Lollio Urbico fu suggerita al Chau- 
 cer probabilmente," writes Hortis, "dalT ode oraziana: Trojani belli 
 scrip torem maxime Lolli etc." 3 As to this there are four observations 
 to make: — (1) Chaucer does not speak of Lollius Urbicus; (2) if he 
 did, he would not be inventing the name, for it is a real name, borne 
 by at least two historical personages; (3) Lollius Urbicus could not 
 be invented by anybody on the basis of the Horatian line; (4) 
 Hbrace's epistle is not an ode. 
 
 I have not undertaken to catalogue the errors of scholars with re- 
 gard to the Troilus and its sources, but simply to select, from the mass 
 of familiar material, 4 a number of mistakes about Lollius — not mere 
 instances of poor judgment, or of wild theorizing on moot points, but 
 plain honest homespun errors about matters of fact. The point is, of 
 course, that these blunders have been made — and made about Lollius 
 — not by persons who, in the days of manuscripts, were casually 
 acquiring miscellaneous information, or groping about in their mem- 
 ories for things once seen but now beyond the scope of verification, 
 but by modern specialists engaged in studying the Lollian problem 
 with printed texts and printed books of reference at their elbows. 
 
 My brief review has been undertaken in a spirit of humility, not of 
 censoriousness. Indeed, the very name of Lollius seems to have acted 
 as a spell. A deceptive glamour attends it. Hardly anybody has 
 approached the charmed circle without losing his way and wandering 
 about, pixy-led, mistaking bushes for bears. I can claim no exemption 
 
 1 No. 2137, Oct. 10, 1868, II, 465. 
 
 2 P. 96. 
 
 • Studj suite Opere Latine del Boccaccio, p. 581, note 1. 
 
 4 See the summaries of Hamilton (The Indebtedness of Chaucer's Troilus and 
 Creseyde to Guido delle Colonne's Eistoria Trojana, 1903, pp. 1-50) and Miss 
 Hammond (Chaucer: a Bibliographical Manual, 1908, pp. 94 ff., etc.). 
 
go George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 from the ban, and feel little doubt that I have blundered somewhere. 
 Several bad mistakes, indeed, I have already cut out of my manu- 
 script. Others, I trust, remain to help in establishing the proposition 
 that I am endeavoring to prove — to wit, the proposition that a 
 mediaeval error in dealing with the Horatian passage is very probable. 
 
 A hitherto unnoted source from which, by easy processes of error 
 and confusion — such as were inevitable in the middle ages — the 
 name of Lollius Maximus may have got abroad as that of an authority 
 on ancient history (or the name of Lollius as that of a very great au- 
 thority on the same), is the account given of Damophilus in Suidas' 
 lexicon. Among the works of this " philosopher and sophist " are 
 mentioned, 3>i\6/3ij3Xos, irp&ros irepl in^toKTTjTcov /3t/3\twj>, irpbs AoWlov 
 Mcl^l/jlov, Hepl (3iov apxaiuv /ecu erepa irapiToWa. 1 From this is appears 
 that Damophilus was credited (i) with a work entitled <l>iX6/3i/3Xos ad- 
 dressed or dedicated to Lollius Maximus, and (2) with another work 
 "On the Life of the Ancients." Now it would not have been a matter 
 of much difficulty for the words AoWlov Ma&nov irepl fiiov apx^lcav to 
 get shuffled together in somebody's mind, with the result that Lollius 
 came to be regarded as a writer on the life of the ancients, or even as a 
 biographer of the men of old. 2 This is suggested merely as something 
 possible enough. Damophilus, the Bithynian, is cited as a curious 
 antiquary by Julian, 3 and there may have been accounts of him in 
 Latin as well as in Greek. 
 
 In conclusion, let us not forget that there was once a Lollius who 
 did treat of the Trojan War at least twice, though in the briefest 
 fashion. This was Lollius Bassus, of the first century of our era. His 
 epigrams on this subject are worth quoting. The first is a compliment 
 to Rome: 
 
 1 Suidas, s. v. AanixpCKos, I, 11 69-1 170, Bernhardy. 
 
 2 A part of this error has certainly been perpetrated by Philip Smith. In Smith's 
 Dictionary, I, 937, he speaks of this work of Damophilus as " On the Lives of the 
 Ancients (irepl (3Uav dpxaW)." 
 
 3 Misopogon, p. 358 C. Suidas says of Damophilus, lv AvedptyaTo 'lov\iav6s. 
 This is thought to be P. Salvius Julianus, consul A. D. 175 (von Rohden and Des- 
 sau, Prosopographia, III, 166). Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa says that " Damo- 
 philos . . . war nach Suidas Pflegesohn des M. Salvius Iulianus " — a remark in 
 which he certainly goes beyond his text. But nobody can touch Lollius, even 
 secondarily, without suffering for it. 
 
Chaucer } s Lollius 91 
 
 "ApptjKTOi Moip&v Trvparrjv kacppayicrav op/cot 
 r$ $pvyi irap /3ayzc£ tt)v Hpiapov Ovairiv. 
 
 'AXXd vol, Kivda, aroXos lepds 'IraXdv fjdrj 
 opfAOV ex«t, TrarpTis <f>poipiov ovpav'vqs. 
 
 'Es na\6v a>Xero Tvpyos 6 Tpcoios- 17 7 dp & #7rXots 
 ryyepdrj Koapov iraprds avavaa 7r6Xts. x 
 
 The second might almost be called a warning against the hidden rocks 
 and reefs of the Lollian controversy: 
 
 Ov\6pevat, vrjecrai Ka<f>rjpL8es, at irore vbarov 
 
 CSkkaad' ^EWrjvcav /cat cttoKov 'IXiodev, 
 irvpabs ore xj/evaras x&ovirjs dvcxpep&repa vvkt6s 
 
 r)\J/e crk\a } TV<f>\ij 6' edpape iracra Tpoins 
 XOLpadas h Trkrpas, Aavaols irakiv "IXios aXXi; 
 
 €7rX€ro, Kal 8eK6T0vs kxBpoTkp-q iroXepov. 
 Kat ti)v pep t6t' livepaav' aviKTjros 5t Kacprjpevs, 
 
 NaiwXie' <rol yap irav 'EXXds enXavae daKpv.* 
 
 Let nobody accuse me of maintaining that Chaucer's Lollius has 
 anything to do with Lollius Bassus — or that Chaucer was a student 
 of the Anthology — or even that the pretty epigram of Agathias on 
 the swallows 3 is the source of certain stanzas of similar tenor in the 
 Troilus. 4 Yet, after all, such theories on my part would but add one 
 more to the long list of shipwrecks on this fatal cliff! 
 
 1 Anth. Pal., ix, 236 (Diibner, II, 46-47). 3 v, 237. 
 
 2 Anth. Pal., ix, 289 (Diibner, II, 58). 
 
02 
 
 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 APPENDIX I 
 
 On Chaucer's References to His Sources in the Troilus 
 
 In the early part of my paper I made the following postulate: 
 " Chaucer takes quite particular pains to convey the impression that 
 his Troilus, from beginning to end, is a faithful translation from the 
 Latin work of Lollius, without any material additions either from other 
 sources or from his own pen " (p. 54) ; and I promised to prove this 
 proposition in an appendix. I regret the necessity, but am not to 
 blame for it. The case is as clear as Chaucer could make it, but can 
 only be established by going through the poem in the order in which 
 it is written; for the evidence is cumulative, and the effect of any 
 single mention of Lollius or " myn auctor," or of any single allusion 
 to him, may extend far beyond the immediate context. 
 
 The following table gives a list of all the references or allusions to 
 a source, along with four or five passages that have no significance 
 but are included for the sake of completeness. 
 
 Si 132-133. 
 
 i, 141-147- 
 
 i, 159-161. 
 
 i, 393-399 (394)- 
 
 i, 492-497 (495). 
 
 ii, 8-49,(13-14, 18, 49). 
 
 ii, 100-108. 
 
 ii, 699-700. 
 
 ii, 1219-1220. 
 
 ii, 1564-1568. 
 
 ii, IS9S-I596. 
 
 ii, 1 700-1 701. 
 
 iii, 39-49 H ii, 13-14 with iii, 43"44)- 
 
 iii, 90-91. 
 
 iii, 442-455- 
 
 iii, 470. 
 
 iii, 491-504 (502-503) 
 
 iii, 575-58i. 
 
 iii, 967-973. 
 
 iii, 1193-1199 (1196, 1 199). 
 
 iii, 13 21-1330. 
 
 iii, 1369-1372. 
 
 iii, 1429. 
 
 iii, 1576. 
 
 iii, 1774-1775. 
 
 iii, 1811-iv, 21 (iii, 1817; iv, 18-21). 
 
 iv, 36-42. 
 
 iv, 799-805. 
 
 iv, 1415-1421. 
 
 v, 15-21 (19). 
 
 v, 799-840 (799, 804, 816, 834). 
 
 v. 848. 
 
 v, 946. 
 
 v, 1009. 
 
 v, 1032. 
 
 v, 1037-1085 (1037, 1044, 1050, 
 
 1051). 
 
 v, 1086-1099. 
 
 v, 14.59- 
 
 v, 1478-1484. 
 
 v, 1562-1565. 
 
 v, 1646-1666 (1651, 1653). 
 
 v, 1751-1771 (1753, 1758). 
 
 v, 1776. 
 
 v, 1803-1804. 
 
 v, 1854-1855. 
 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 
 
 93 
 
 " Myn auctor " is certainly " Lollius." On that point no doubt is 
 possible nor does there seem to be any disposition to deny so plain a 
 proposition. Whatever may be said of vaguer attributions (like " as 
 I rede " or " writen as I fynde " or " olde bokes "), Lollius and myn 
 auctor are always one and the same person in Chaucer's poem. 
 
 " Myn auctor, called Lollius " is first cited in i, 394, and the detail 
 credited to him is certainly to be found in the Filostrato 1 — namely, 
 the general purport of Troilus' song in contradistinction to the ip- 
 sissima verba, which Chaucer pretends to substitute. We note that 
 this passage not only registers Lollius distinctly and definitely as the 
 source of the Troilus, but also tends to create the expectation that 
 whenever Chaucer departs from that source, he will give notice, as 
 here, particularly in case he inserts anything. This impression is 
 strengthened as the poem goes on, and therefore the point need not 
 now be pressed. It is enough for the present to recognize that Chaucer 
 here sets up Lollius as his auctor and leaves upon our minds the gen- 
 eral impression that he purposes to follow him with conscientious 
 fidelity. 
 
 But, though this is the first mention of Lollius in the poem, it is not 
 the first place where a particular source is indicated; for when Chaucer 
 refers to " reading," as he does in i, 133 and 159, he is in effect referring 
 to his auctor, whose name is soon to be given (in 394). These two 
 passages should not be neglected, and with them must be considered 
 certain intervening fines (141-147) that distinguish the auctor Chaucer 
 means to follow (as yet unnamed) from those widely known writers 
 on general Trojan history — Homer and Dictys and Dares. Even 
 before he names Lollius, then, Chaucer has led us to believe that in 
 narrating " the double sorrow of Troilus " he is following a particular 
 auctor, and he has revealed to us the contents of that auctor 's work in 
 two particulars: 
 
 (1) But whether that she children hadde or noon, 
 
 / rede it nought; therfore I lete it goon (i, 132-133). 
 
 (2) In sondry wises shewed, as I rede, 
 
 The folk of Troye hir observaunces olde, 
 Palladiones feste for to holde (i, 159-161). 
 
 1 i, 37: " E quindi lieto si diede a cantare." See Young, pp. 191-192 (and refer- 
 ences); Wise, p. 5; Cummings, pp. 158-159. 
 
94 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 Now the second of these references is true to the Filostrato, 1 but the 
 first is notoriously the opposite, for Boccaccio expressly declares that 
 Cressida had no children. 2 The next mention of " reading " comes 
 soon after the mention of Lollius, namely, in 495, and this time the 
 reference is again true to the Filostrato. 9 For the first 500 lines of 
 his poem, then, three of Chaucer's references to his source will suit 
 the formula Lollius = Boccaccio, 4 and one will not. 5 For the rest of the 
 book we are left without any further indication — the inference being 
 that Lollius is followed. Yet there are hundreds of verses that do not 
 come from Boccaccio. The significance of all this is plain enough, but 
 it becomes still plainer when we reach Book ii. 
 
 Here, in w. 8-49 of the proem, "myn auctor " appears in great state. 
 Chaucer declares that if Clio will only help him to make good rhymes, 
 nothing more will be necessary in this book, 6 since he is not composing 
 anything original but simply translating from Latin into English. 
 Therefore, he adds, he wishes neither praise nor blame for " all this 
 work," — " for as myn auctor seyde, so seye I." And he closes with 
 the words — 
 
 Sin I have bigonne 
 Myn auctor shal I folwen, if I conne. 
 
 There is no mistaking the impression that Chaucer wished these lines 
 to convey. They are equivalent to saying that so far he has followed 
 Lollius in a faithful translation (though not, of course, in a literal 
 translation because he is turning that author's Latin into English 
 rhyme), and that he intends to continue in the same way. Yet of the 
 500 lines immediately preceding, more than 300 are Chaucer's own, 
 and immediately after this express statement, we have more than 200 
 verses of which hardly a word can be found in the Filostrato. These 
 are ii, 50-273, and what is true of them, is true likewise of ii, 323-385, 
 421-500, 526-553, 603-644, and 666-698. In short, despite the elabo- 
 rate professions of fidelity to his auctor, it appears that about 500 
 
 1 i, 18. 2 i, 15. 
 
 8 i, 48. Chaucer substitutes " wel rede I * for Boccaccio's " e assai chiaro ed 
 aperto." 
 
 4 Troilus, i, 159-161, 394-395, 495- 
 
 6 i, 132-133. 
 
 6 " This book " (10) appears to mean, not the whole poem, but Book ii. At the 
 beginning of Book iii Chaucer invokes Venus and Calliope. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 95 
 
 out of the 650 verses that come immediately after the proem are not 
 from Boccaccio. " Myn auctor," then, as there used for an extensive 
 look before and after, is strikingly inconsistent with the equation 
 Boccaccio = Lollius. 
 
 But we have not done. Chaucer now appeals once more to his 
 auctor, this time in introducing an account of Cressida's meditations: 
 
 And what she thoughte, somwhat shal I wryte, 
 
 As to myn auctor listeth for to endyte (ii, 690-700). 
 
 The meditations, which take up w. 701-812, contain much more of 
 Chaucer than of Boccaccio; and they are immediately followed by 
 the garden scene (ii, 813-910), which is original with Chaucer, 1 though 
 the reader could hardly avoid the inference that it too came from 
 Lollius. 
 
 The next appeal to a source is in ii, 1219-1220, 2 where Chaucer says 
 that " his intent " is to give " the effect " of Cressida's letter " as far 
 as he can understand." And, in truth, he here condenses the seven- 
 stanza Italian epistle 3 into five lines. Immediately after, however, 
 before the impression of this reference to authority has faded from 
 our minds, Chaucer becomes, notably original, departing from Boc- 
 caccio at v. 1227 and (except for some 50 lines) remaining original 
 for about 500 verses — to the end of the second book. Yet in this 
 long passage of original matter he twice pretends to be condensing his 
 auctor: 
 
 But flee we now prolixitee best is, 
 
 For loue of God, and lat as faste go 
 
 Right to the effect, withouten tales mo (ii, 1 564-1 566). 
 
 But al passe I, lest ye to longe dwelle; 
 
 For for o fyn is al that ever I telle (ii, 1 595-1 596). 
 
 In both these places Chaucer picks up and continues the effect of 
 what he had said about condensing the letter (ii, 12 19-12 20). There, 
 
 1 See, however, Young, pp. 173-176, where especial attention is given to Anti- 
 gone's song (ii. 827-875). The general source of this lyric I believe to be Guillaume 
 de Machaut (Modern Language Notes, XXV, 158); but it is certainly in most 
 respects Chaucer's own. 
 
 2 I pass over ii, 1 700-1 701, though (in strictness) this passage belongs to the 
 same class as those mentioned below, p. 97, note 1. 
 
 8 Filostrato, ii, 1 21-12 7. 
 
96 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 he was actually condensing Boccaccio; here he is not condensing 
 anybody, but inventing, and at considerable length. Yet in both 
 cases he wishes the reader to think that he is faithful to his auctor 
 Lollius, though with some abridgement. 
 
 Chaucer's procedure, then, as far as the end of Book ii, is quite 
 clear. Having introduced his " auctor Lollius " — his pretended au- 
 thority for the whole Troilus — early in book i (at 394), he recalls 
 him to the reader's mind at convenient intervals. These credits some- 
 times accord with material that is in the Filostrato, but they oftener 
 refer or apply to material that is not. So far, therefore, Lollius is 
 not Boccaccio or anybody else but Lollius — the supposed writer on 
 Troy (celebrated as such in The House of Fame) from whom Chaucer 
 (in a fiction) professes to have derived all his material — a Latin 
 writer whom he translates rather closely, never departing from him 
 without due notice. 
 
 The proem to Book iii, though not mentioning any auctor, is meant 
 to recall (in 39-49) the fiction of fidelity in translating already set 
 forth with such care in the proem to Book ii. We should note the close 
 connection between ii, 13-14, and iii, 43-44: 
 
 That of no sentement I this endyte, 
 
 But out of Latin in my tonge it wryte (ii, 13-14). 
 
 Ye in my naked herte sentement 
 
 Inhelde, and do me shewe of thy swetnesse (iii, 43-44). 
 
 Chaucer picks up this fiction again in iii, 90-91 : 
 
 His [Troilus'] resons [i.e., his words] as I may my rymes holde, 
 
 [i.e., as well as I can reproduce them in rhyme,] 
 
 I yow wol telle, as techen bokes olde. 1 
 
 What follows (92-238) is not in the Filostrato, and the whole scene is 
 Chaucer's invention. At 450, however, the matter referred to as 
 " writen in geste " 2 does occur in that poem. Here we have a device 
 
 1 " Bokes olde " means obviously either " myn auctor Lollius " (with a gen- 
 eralizing plural), or " myn auctor Lollius and other old books." The distinction 
 does not affect our argument. 
 
 2 Filostrato, ii, 84 (Cummings, p. 157). It should be noted, however, that this 
 ascription, though it may perhaps be admitted as favoring the equation Lollius = 
 Boccaccio, is by no means a firm buttress for that formula, since " as written is in 
 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 97 
 
 which is several times employed in the Troilus: — a detail is mentioned 
 (442-448) as to which the poet professes ignorance, and to this suc- 
 ceeds a fact (introduced by but, 449) which he does know, or does find 
 in his auctor} 
 
 Almost immediately after this Chaucer once more suggests conden- 
 sation (" shortly of this proces for to pace," iii, 470) though the whole 
 passage is his own. Then come the famous stanzas in which he fore- 
 stalls criticism (iii, 491-504): " Someone may expect me to rehearse 
 every word and message and look. But that would be tedious, and 
 nobody ever heard of its being done in any history. Besides, even if 
 I wished, I could not; 
 
 " For there was som epistel hem bitwene, 
 That wolde, as seyth myn auctor, wel contene 
 Neigh half this book, of which him list not write; 
 How sholde I thanne a lyne of it endite ? " (iii, 501-504). 
 
 Boccaccio says nothing of the kind. Auctor, then, is certainly not 
 Boccaccio. 
 The next mention of a source is likewise decisive: 
 
 Nought myn auctor fully to declare 
 
 What that she thoughte whan he seyde so, 
 
 That Troilus was out of town y-fare, 
 
 As if he seyde ther-of sooth or no; 
 
 But that, with-oute awayt, with him to go, 
 
 She graunted him, sith he hir that bisoughte> 
 
 And, as his nece, obeyed as hir oughte. (iii, 575-581). 
 
 This stanza contains two statements about " myn auctor " : — (1) 
 that he does not make it quite clear whether Cressida believed Pan- 
 darus; (2) that he does assert that she accepted her uncle's invitation. 2 
 Now Boccaccio asserts nothing of the kind, for the important incident 
 
 geste " really covers iii, 451-490, and the Boccaccian passage is no adequate source 
 for much of this. Boccaccio, indeed, seems to allow no actual meeting between 
 the lovers until the night when Cressida yields. Chaucer, on the contrary, declares 
 that they had several interviews in the meantime. On the whole, then, this as- 
 cription is rather against the equation than for it. 
 
 1 For similar cases, see i, 492-497; ii, 1700-1701; iii, 575-581, 967-973* 1369- 
 1372; iv, 36-42. The device is a natural one, but we may note that its first employ- 
 ment in the Troilus (i, 492-497) comes from the Filoitrato (i, 48). 
 
 8 For the manner of citation, see p. 96, above. 
 
 
98 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 of the visit to Pandarus is of Chaucer's own imagining. The passage 
 would be enough, without further evidence, to destroy the equation 
 auctor Lollius — Boccacio. 
 
 Very similar is the next allusion to a source, which comes some fifty- 
 odd stanzas later in the same episode: 
 
 Can I not seyn, for she bad him not ryse, 
 
 If sorwe it putte out of hir remembraunce, 
 
 Or elles if she tok it in the wyse 
 
 Of duetee, as for his observaunce; 
 
 But welfinde I she dide him this pleasaunce, 
 
 That she him kiste, al-though she syked sore; 
 
 And bad him sitte a-doun with-outen more (iii, 967-973). 
 
 Here Chaucer begins by telling us that he does not know why Cressida 
 neglected to bid Troilus rise (presumably because his auctor Lollius 
 did not inform him), and then adds something that he does " find " 
 (in Lollius — where else ?). Again no word of all this in Boccaccio! 
 The same device (where also there is no such matter in the Filostrato) 
 recurs in iii, 1369-1372. Here Chaucer says that he cannot tell the 
 posies on the rings interchanged by the lovers, but that he does " know 
 well " (i.e., of course, because he found it in Lollius) that Cressida 
 gave Troilus a gold and azure brooch in which was set a ruby shaped 
 like a heart. 
 
 A little before this last passage (namely, in iii, 1193-1197), Chaucer 
 expressly mentions his fictitious auctor: 
 
 I can no more, but of thise ilke tweye, 
 
 To whom this tale sucre be or soot, 
 
 Though that I tarie a veer, som-tyme I moot 
 
 After myn auctor tellen hir gladnesse, 
 
 As wel as I have told hir hevinesse (iii, 11 93-1 197). 
 
 The "hevinesse " of the lovers (iii, n 97) is described and narrated, 
 with a wealth of vivid detail in iii, 792-1183, and this passage of nearly 
 400 lines does not come from Boccaccio, even in the most general 
 way. 1 The "gladnesse" of the lovers (iii, 1196) is described and 
 narrated, with a wealth of vivid detail, in iii, 1198-1414, and of this 
 passage of about 200 lines only about a third is taken from the Filo- 
 
 1 The parallels between the Troilus and the Filocolo quoted by Young, pp. 143 ff., 
 may be accepted without affecting my argument here. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 99 
 
 strato. Yet Chaucer declares with emphasis in iii, 1193-97, which 
 looks before and after, forming a transition from one of these highly 
 original passages to the other, that he has followed his auctor in the 
 first and means to follow him likewise in the second, — indeed that 
 he must follow him if he is to tell the story. Nowhere in the poem are 
 his disclaimers and his protestation of faithfulness to his auctor more 
 striking. Indeed, in iii, 1198, after he has proceeded to the extent of 
 just one verse in the " gladnesse " scene, he reiterates his profession of 
 fidelity in the words, " As written clerkes 1 in hir bokes olde" : 
 
 Criseyde, which that felte hir thus ytake, 
 
 As writen clerkes in hir bokes olde, 
 
 Right as an aspes leef she gan to quake (iii, 11 97-1 199). 
 
 The only clerk who ever wrote this in his old book was Geoffrey 
 Chaucer himself. But he is not yet content with the emphasis that 
 he has laid upon his faithfulness to Lollius. In iii, 13 21-1330, he 
 actually interrupts his account of the lovers' "gladnesse" to cite his 
 auctor and protest fidelity again: 
 
 Awey, thou foule daunger and thou fere, 
 And lat hem in this hevene blisse dwelle, 
 That is so heygh, that al ne can I telle! 
 
 But sooth is, though I can not tellen al, 
 
 As can myn auctor, of his excellence, 
 
 Yet have I seyd (and god to-forn) and shal 
 
 In every thing al hoolly his sentence; 
 
 And if that I, at loves reverence, 
 
 Have any word in-eched for the beste, 
 
 Doth therewith-al right as your-selven leste (iii, 13 21-1330). 
 
 " Tellen al " in v. 1324 applies (like the same phrase in v. 1323) to the 
 details of " this hevene blisse." The meaning is unmistakable. " My 
 auctor" the poet avers, " gives complete details of the lovers' happi- 
 ness, but I am unable to reproduce them in full, for I have not his 
 ability; 2 yet so far in this description, I have reproduced his meaning 
 at every point, condensing more or less, and only now and then insert- 
 
 1 Clerkes with their bokes olde is manifestly a mere variation of myn auctor (three 
 lines before); but if we choose to take it in the sense of " myn auctor and others," 
 no harm is done. 
 
 2 Cf. ii, 8-21, 1 2 19-12 20; iii, 39-48; iv, 799-805; v, 1769. 
 
ioo George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 ing a word. And in the rest of the scene I shall do likewise." 1 The 
 plain truth is very different from Chaucer's artistic fiction: — in that 
 portion of the " gladnesse " scene which immediately precedes — 
 about 125 verses (iii, 1 198-1320) — he has been almost completely 
 original, borrowing only a dozen lines or so from Boccaccio, and in the 
 rest of this scene (iii, 1338-1414) he expands Boccaccio by about 
 twenty per cent. The whole of the " gladnesse " scene, as I have 
 already noted (iii, n 98-1 41 4), is only about one-third Boccaccio's, 
 and the scene of " hevinesse " (iii, 792-1183) — ascribed to "myn 
 auctor " with equal emphasis — is not in Boccaccio at all. 
 
 Here it may be well to consider the Visit to Pandarus as a whole 
 (iii, 512-1582). The narrative is suggested, no doubt, by Boccaccio's 
 account of Troilus' visit to Cressida, 2 but Chaucer has cut loose from 
 
 1 The reference here is not to a general procedure throughout the poem, but 
 to procedure in this scene. The apologetic words of the poet interrupt his account 
 of the lovers' transports, which is resumed at 1338. Chaucer's disclaimer in iii, 
 1322-1325 is adapted from two passages in the Filostrato: 
 
 Lungo sarebbe a raccontar la festa, 
 
 E impossibile a dire il diletto 
 
 Che insieme preser pervenuti in questa (iii, 31); 
 
 O dolce notte, e molto disiata, 
 
 Chente fostu alii due lieti amantil 
 
 Se la scienza mi fosse donata 
 
 Che ebbero i poeti tutti quanti, 
 
 Per me non potrebbe esser disegnata! (iii, 33). 
 
 It is immensely significant with reference to Chaucer's Lollian fiction that, whereas 
 Boccaccio remarks that even if he had " all the skill of all the poets " he could not 
 do justice to the subject, Chaucer, in adapting the passage, declares that his auctor 
 was fully competent and gave a complete and detailed account, but that he [the 
 translator] cannot reproduce all these details, for lack of skill. 
 
 Of course Chaucer knew that he had been expanding enormously in this scene, 
 and this knowledge doubtless added zest to his remark (appended to his profession 
 of condensing or omitting) that he might have put in a word here and there to 
 make the translation clearer (" have any word in-eched for the beste "). This 
 would inevitably be understood by any one who was taken in by Chaucer's pre- 
 tence of translating from Lollius as referring merely to such occasional insertions 
 of a word or two as are necessary in translating from Latin prose or verse into 
 English rhymes. 
 
 2 Filostrato , iii, 21-55. Some details appear to have been suggested by the 
 Filocolo (see Young, pp. 139 ff.). 
 
Chaucer's Lollius iol 
 
 the Filostrato and written, as all admit, a highly original' episode," 
 utilizing only such material in the Italian as suited' hife ^uiSpose.- "Boc- 
 caccio's account occupies less than 300 verses; Chaucer's narrative 
 extends to more than a thousand. Yet Chaucer not only cites his 
 auctor just before the episode (iii, 502), but also, in the course of the 
 episode itself, makes several professions (express or implied) that he 
 is faithfully following that auctor to the best of his ability, and con- 
 tracting rather than expanding (iii, 575-581, 967-973, 1193-1199, 
 1323-1330, 1369-1372). There is one more suggestion of condensing 
 in the very last part of the episode (iii, 1576), though the particular 
 incident (1 555-1582) does not occur in Boccaccio at all. This state of 
 things would be enough to prove the impossibility of seriously equating 
 Lollius with Boccaccio rather than with himself, Lollius, the alleged 
 source of practically everything in the poem. 1 
 
 Book iii closes after some 200 more verses, about half of them from 
 Boccaccio, but it does not close without a sweeping assertion from 
 
 1 I pass over iii, 1774-1775, since here Chaucer is merely appealing to books 
 in general — i.e., the authorities on Trojan history — for the detail that Troilus was 
 second only to Hector in prowess. Most of the stanza, including the phrase in 
 question (" se non erra La storia ") comes from the Filostrato (iii, 00), but this 
 particular detail is not found there. The celebration of Troilus as next to Hector 
 in prowess occurs five times in Chaucer's poem: 
 
 1. The wyse worthy Ector the secounde (ii, 158). 
 
 2. For out and out he is the worthieste 
 
 Save only Ector, which that is the beste (ii, 730-740). 
 
 3. And certeynly, but-if that bokes erre, 
 
 Save Ector most ydrad of any wight (iii, 17 74-1 7 75). 
 
 4. For whom [i.e. Hector] as olde bokes tellen us, 
 Was mad swich wo that tonge it may not telle, — 
 And namely the sorwe of Troilus, 
 
 That next him was of worthinesse welle (v, 1562-1565). 
 
 5. As he that was withouten any pere, 
 
 Save Ector, in his tyme, as I can here (v, 1803-1804). 
 
 Passages 1, 2, and 5 are not in Boccaccio; 3 has just been discussed. The mourn- 
 ing for Hector is mentioned in the Filostrato (viii, 1) as well as in Benoit (16317 ff. 
 Constans, 16265 ff. Joly) an( l Guido (ed. 1489, sig. i. 4, fol. 3), but the rank of 
 Troilus as second to Hector is not specified in that context by any one of the three. 
 The detail is well covered by both Benoit and Guido elsewhere; still, the particular 
 phrase " Ector the secounde " certainly seems to come from Guido: " alius Hector 
 vel secundus ab ipso " (sig. e 2 v°): see Hamilton, p. 76; Young, pp. 108-111. 
 
£Od George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 CJifcutei of fidelity tuhis auctor: — "Thanks and praise to thee, 
 Lady *Venas,, and to <by son Cupid, and to you, Muses! 
 
 " That ye thus far han deyned me to gyde, 
 I can not more but (syn that ye wol wende) — 
 Ye heried been for ay withouten ende! 
 
 " Thourgh yow have I said fully in my song 
 The effect and ioye of Troilus servyse 
 (Al be that ther was som disese among) 
 As to myn auctor listeth to devise. 
 My thridde book now ende I in this wyse — 
 And Troilus in lust and in quiete 
 Is with Criseyde, his owne herte swete" (iii, 1811-1820). 
 
 The beginning of Book iv is continuous with the end of Book iii: 
 
 But al to litel, weylawey the whyle! 
 Lasteth swich ioye — ythanked be Fortune, 
 That semeth trewest whan she wol begyle, 
 And can to foles so hir song entune 
 That she hem hent and blent, traytour comune! 
 And whan a wight is from hir wheel ythrowe, 
 Than laugheth she and maketh him the mowe. 
 
 From Troilus she gan hir brighte face 
 Awey to wrythe, and took of him non hede, 
 But caste him clene out of his lady grace, 
 And on hir wheel she sette up Diomede; 
 For which right now myn herte ginneth blede, 
 And now my penne, alias! with which I wryte, 
 Quaketh for drede of that I moot endyte. 
 
 For how Criseyde Troilus forsook, 
 
 Or at the leste, how that she was unkinde, 
 
 Mot hennes-forth ben matere of my book, 
 
 As wry ten folk thorugh which it is in minde. 
 
 Alias! that they should ever cause finde 
 
 To speke hir harm; and if they on hir lye, 
 
 Y-wis, hem-self sholde han the vilanye (iv, 1-2 1). 
 
 The plural in the last four lines does not suggest any purpose to for- 
 sake " myn auctor Lollius," but — if it must be taken literally, and 
 not as a mere variant — merely implies that Lollius is here supported 
 by other authorities. The whole passage (iii, 1811-iv, 21) would 
 assuredly confirm the impression (already fixed in the reader's mind 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 103 
 
 by much protesting) that Chaucer has followed his one auctor closely 
 and intends to follow him closely to the end, never departing from him 
 without due notice. 
 
 References or allusions to a source are not common in Book iv; but 
 there are enough of them to keep alive the reader's impression that 
 Chaucer is faithful to his single auctor. In iv, 36-42, we have another 
 example of a device already treated: 1 — avowed ignorance of some 
 detail plus avowed knowledge of something else. " I do not know how 
 long the interval was, but — the day of battle came," etc. This 
 amounts to alleging that " myn auctor does not define the interval 
 but does narrate ut sequitur." Here, so it happens, the reference is 
 true to Boccaccio. 2 
 
 In iv, 799-805, however, we have a curious piece of Lollian mystifi- 
 cation. 
 
 How mighte it ever yred ben or ysonge, 
 
 The pleynte that she made in hir distresse? 
 
 I noot; but, as for me, my litel tonge, 
 
 If I discreven wolde hir hevinesse, 
 
 It sholde make hir sorwe seme lesse 
 
 Than that it was, and childishly deface 
 
 Hir heigh compleynte, and therefore I it pace. 
 
 Chaucer would have us believe that his original afforded a fuller 
 account of Cressida's lament, which he is unable to reproduce because 
 of his feeble powers: that is, he exalts his auctor at his own expense 
 and pretends to summarize or omit. 3 In fact, however, he gives 
 Cressida's complaint at almost exactly the same length which it has 
 in Boccaccio, 4 and even his disclaimer is a kind of translation, empha- 
 sized so as to accord with his regular pose of lack of wit: 6 
 
 Chi potrebbe giammai narrare a pieno 
 Cid che Criseida nel pianto dicea? 
 Certo non io, che al fatto il dir vien meno, 
 Tant' era la sua noia cruda e rea (iv, 95). 
 
 Here, then, Chaucer uses the very words of Boccaccio to produce the 
 effect of condensing Lollius at a time when, in fact, he is following 
 
 1 P. 97, above. 2 Filostrato, iv, 1-2. 
 
 8 We have observed the same device in iii, 1321-1330 (p. 99, above). 
 
 4 FUocolo, iv, 88-94. 6 Cf. p. 99, note 2, above. 
 
104 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 Boccaccio without condensation. Lollius, therefore, is not Boccaccio, 
 any more than Chaucer himself becomes identical with Boccaccio by 
 using " I " where the Italian uses " io." 
 
 Stanza 203 of this Fourth Book (141 5-142 1) may perhaps be dis- 
 missed as ambiguous evidence. " As writen wel I fynde " (1415) 
 would naturally mean " as I find in Lollius," and then " Thus writen 
 they that of hir werkes knewe " (1421) would be either a loose gener- 
 alizing plural for " myn auctor," or a real defining plural equivalent to 
 " myn auctor " and other writers. The detail concerned is Cressida's 
 honest purpose and her genuine sorrow at parting, and we have the 
 same assertion of her grief, with a similar plural reference, in v, 15-21 
 (" as men in bokes rede "). Both Boccaccio l and Benoit 2 do, in fact, 
 emphasize this point. Clearly, however, the occasional use of a plural 
 like bokes or they amounts at most only to the occasional citation of 
 subsidiary authorities to corroborate Lollius, and has a tendency 
 rather to establish than to shaken the reader's faith in Chaucer's care- 
 fully fostered fiction that he is a conscientious translator from the 
 Latin of that vanished ancient. This fiction, therefore, is still main- 
 tained at the beginning of Book v. 
 
 And so we arrive at the highly felictious incident of Diomede's flir- 
 tation en route (v, 92-189). This incident was suggested by Benoit; 3 
 there is not a touch of it in Boccaccio. Yet Chaucer gives no hint that 
 he is here departing from his auctor, and the reader has therefore 
 every reason to infer that the episode in question is Lollian. Immedi- 
 ately after the wooing, Chaucer begins to follow Boccaccio again (at 
 v, 190) and keeps reasonably close to him, though indulging in con- 
 siderable freedom, until we reach the next indication of source (v, 799). 
 From 92 to 799, then, there is no indication on the poet's part that he 
 is indebted to anybody but Lollius. Yet in 92-189 his source (so far 
 as he is not original) is Benoit, while in 190-798 his source (so far as 
 he is not original) is Boccaccio. It is idle, then, to assert that Lollius 
 is Boccaccio unless one is willing to admit that Boccaccio is Benoit! 
 
 1 FUostrato, v, 1 and 6-7. 
 
 2 13495 ff. Constans (13469 ff. Joly). Guido, on the contrary, apostrophizes 
 Troilus in a very different spirit: " Sed, o Troile, quae te tarn iuuenilis errare coegit 
 credulitas vt Briseide lacrimis crederes deceptiuis et eius blandiciis ? " and he 
 proceeds to lampoon the whole sex (ed. 1489, sig. i 2). 
 
 1 13529-13702 Constans (13499-13666 Joly). 
 

 Chaucer's Lollius 105 
 
 The celebrated set of portraits or characters — Diomede, Cressida, 
 Troilus — in v, 799-840, is a digression, and has a somewhat compli- 
 cated genesis. 1 The passage contains four indications of source. The 
 first, " as bokes us declare " (799), though applying (if strictly taken) 
 to Diomede's portrait alone, may well enough be regarded as intro- 
 ducing the whole set. If so, the " bokes " would naturally be under- 
 stood by the reader (as in the case of the plurals just discussed) to 
 mean " my auctor Lollius and other authorities." The effect of having 
 consulted more books than one at this point is enhanced by " and som 
 men seyn " (804) and by " they writen that hire syen " (816). As 
 for " in storie it is yfounde " (834), that means only " as history tells 
 us," and thus ranges with the plural ascriptions that precede, since 
 all educated persons in the fourteenth century knew that there were 
 several extant accounts of the Trojan War. There is no hint that the 
 subsidiary authorities are inconsistent with Lollius in the points here 
 discussed. They are, we are to infer, either confirmatory or supple- 
 mentary. The Lollian fiction remains, then, in full force. 
 
 In the account of Diomede's successful pressing of his suit (v, 841- 
 1036), Chaucer four times pretends to be condensing: — " At shorte 
 wordes for to telle " (848) ; " What sholde I telle his wordes that he 
 seide? " (946); "But in effect, and shortly for to seye " (1009); 
 " And shortly, lest that ye my tale breke " (1032). In fact, he is fol- 
 lowing Boccaccio (vi, 9-34) with a fair degree of closeness, but not 
 really condensing him; for Boccaccio has 208 verses, Chaucer has 196. 
 I do not wish to press the point, however, and am quite willing to allow 
 this passage to stand to the credit of the much battered formula 
 Lollius = Boccaccio. 
 
 What follows immediately, however, is of much significance on the 
 other side. I must quote v, 1037-1057: 
 
 And after this the story telleth us 
 
 That she him yaf the faire baye stede 
 
 The which she ones wan of Troilus; 
 
 And eek a broche (and that was litle nede) 1040 
 
 That Troilus was she yaf this Diomede; 
 
 1 The sources are Boccaccio and (mediately or immediately, or both) the 
 portraits drawn by Dares (cap. 12), as well as the epic of Josephus Iscanus (who 
 also drew from Dares). That Joseph was used by Chaucer has been revealed by 
 Root, whose paper in Modern Philology is eagerly awaited (see the references in 
 Cummings, p. 80). 
 
106 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 And eek, the bet from sorwe him to releve, 
 She made him were a pencel of hir sieve. 
 
 I finde eek in the stories elleswhere, 
 
 Whan through the body hurt was Diomede, 1045 
 
 Of Troilus, tho weep she many a tere 
 
 Whan that she saugh his wyde woundes blede, 
 
 And that she took to kepen him good hede; 
 
 And, for to hele him of his sorwes smerte, 
 
 Men seyn (I noot) that she yaf him hir herte. 1050 
 
 But trewely, the story telleth us, 
 
 Ther made never womman more wo 
 
 Than she, whan that she falsed Troilus. 
 
 She seyde, Alas! for now is clene a-go 
 
 My name of trouthe in love, for ever-mo! 1055 
 
 For I have falsed oon the gentileste 
 
 That ever was, and oon the worthiestel 
 
 " The story " in 1037 is of course " myn auctor Lollius," and equally 
 of course, it is the same auctor (Chaucer means to imply) that he has 
 followed in the account just preceding (841-1036). Now the facts 
 are (1) that 841-1036 are mainly (though not exclusively) from Boc- 
 caccio, as we have seen; (2) that the steed is from Benoit; * (3) that 
 the brooch is from Boccaccio; 2 and (4) that the " pencel " is from 
 Benoit. 3 If Boccaccio is Lollius, then, Benoit is Lollius by the same 
 token, and once more we have proved that Boccaccio is Benoit! 
 
 But to continue. " In the stories elsewhere " (1044) either implies 
 a departure from the source that Chaucer has been following in 
 the first stanza or it does not. If it does imply such a departure, it is 
 a misstatement, for the incident reported is from Benoit; 4 if it does 
 not imply such a departure, then it means " elsewhere in Lollius." On 
 either alternative, the equation Boccaccio = Lollius is excluded. 
 
 At all events, " the story " in 1051 manifestly means the same 
 history that is cited in 1037, — that is, Lollius. Yet what follows in 
 105 2-1085 is not from Boccaccio but from Benoit, 8 with Chaucer's 
 own additions. 6 
 
 1 14286-14324, 15114-15115 Constans (14238-14276, 15046-15047 Joly). 
 
 2 Filostrato, viii, 9-10; cf. Troilus, v, 1660-1666. 
 1 15176-15178 Constans (151046°., Joly). 
 
 4 20202 ff. Constans (20193-20,274 Joly). 
 
 6 20220-20317 Constans (20221-20308, Joly). 
 
 6 Stanzas 156-157 (v, 1086-1099) throw no light on the Lollian fiction. " Non 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 107 
 
 With 1 100 Chaucer returns to Troilus, and the reader naturally 
 supposes (as Chaucer intends him to suppose) that the same source is 
 to be followed as heretofore — Lollius, just referred to as " the story " 
 in 105 1. This impression will naturally extend to whatever is narrated 
 until there is a further express indication of source, 1 — that is, it will 
 cover the contents of 1 100-1650, — up to 1651, where " the storie " is 
 once more cited. Lollius, then, is responsible for the contents of 1100- 
 1650. These, briefly analyzed, are — 
 
 (1) 1 100-1456, mostly from Boccaccio; 
 
 (2) 1457-1512, from Ovid and the Thebaid; 
 
 (3) I S I 3 _I 534> fr° m Boccaccio, with additions; 
 
 (4) 1535-1561, original and from Benoit; 
 
 (5) 1 562-1 589, mostly from Boccaccio; 
 
 (6) 1 590-1 63 1, Cressida's letter, original; 
 
 (7) 1632-1650, from Boccaccio. 
 
 Thus Lollius becomes a somewhat complicated worthy. Yet he it is 
 whom Chaucer means us to accept as the source of this mosaic (v, 1100- 
 1650), and his intention, clear enough already, is emphasized by an- 
 other reference to " the storie " at this point (1651). It will be best 
 to quote three stanzas: 
 
 Stood on a day in his melencolye 
 
 This Troilus, and in suspecioun 
 
 Of hir for whom he wende for to dye. 
 
 And so bifel, that through-out Troye toun, 
 
 As was the gyse, y-bore was up. and doun 1650 
 
 A maner cote-armure, as seyth the storie, 
 
 Biforn Deiphebe, in signe of his victorie, 
 
 auctor " (1088) means " neither Lollius (my authority in this work) nor any other 
 writer whom I have consulted on this point." " The story " in 1094 may mean 
 either Lollius or " the history in general " (i. e., the Trojan story). All the authori- 
 ties (Benoit, Guido, and Boccaccio) blame Cressida. Thus these verses are ambigu- 
 ous evidence in our discussion. 
 
 1 The " olde bokes " mentioned in v, 1562-1565, as testifying to the lamentation 
 for Hector count on neither side in our discussion. The reference is merely casual 
 and vouches for an incidental detail. It suggests no turning aside from the main 
 line of translation. The detail, anyhow, is found in all three authorities — Boccaccio 
 (Filostralo, viii, 1; Teseide, xi, 7), Benoit, and Guido. " Olde stories " in v, 1459, and 
 " olde bokes " in 1478 and 1481, are ascriptions by Cassandra and do not count. 
 Cf. Pandarus' " bokes twelve " for the Thebaid (ii, 108), and Troilus* " as men in 
 bokes rede " (iii, 1429). 
 
108 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 The whiche cote, as telleth Lollius, 
 
 Deiphebe it hadde y-rent from Diomede 
 
 The same day; and whan this Troilus 1655 
 
 It saugh, he gan to taken of it hede, 
 
 Avysing of the length and of the brede, 
 
 And al the werk; but as he gan biholde, 
 
 Ful sodeinly his herte gan to colde, 
 
 As he that on the coler fond with-inne 1660 
 
 A broche, that he Criseyde yaf that morwe 
 
 That she from Troye moste nedes twinne, 
 
 In remembraunce of him and of his sorwe; 
 
 And she him leyde ayein hir feyth to borwe 
 
 To kepe it ay; but now, ful wel he wiste, 1665 
 
 His lady nas no longer on to triste (v, 1 646-1 666). 
 
 By " the storie " in 1651 Chaucer means the reader to understand the 
 same authority mentioned (in the same terms) in 1037 and 1051. But, 
 since he has not called him by name for a good while, and since the 
 poem is drawing to a close, he adds " as telleth Lollius," and thus 
 fixes his auctor in our minds forever. 
 
 It is quite true that the detail of the coat-armor is found in Boc- 
 caccio, and in Boccaccio alone. 1 But Chaucer's manifest purpose here 
 is not simply to credit Lollius with a particular detail, but likewise to 
 recall the name itself to our minds as that of the auctor whom he has 
 consistently pretended to follow from the outset. This fiction of 
 fidelity to Lollius is in no wise weakened or contravened by the few 
 instances in which Chaucer suggests that he has consulted other old 
 writers. For in these instances, as we have seen, the other ancients 
 either agree with Lollius (such is the fiction intended) or supplement 
 him in some incidental matter. Anyhow, the total amount of material 
 thus alleged as supplementary is a mere nothing — and the fiction of 
 fidelity to Lollius gains rather than loses in verisimilitude by such 
 references. For we naturally infer, as I have said before, that Lollius 
 is never abandoned, even for a moment, without due notice. 
 
 And so it results from our examination of the numerous passages 
 in which Chaucer thus far refers or alludes to his auctor, — there are 
 nearly 40 of them, or an average of one for every 200 lines — that 
 Lollius stands for the source not merely of what Chaucer has actually 
 
 1 FUostrato, viii, 8-10. 
 
Chaucer 1 s Lollius 109 
 
 taken from Boccaccio, but, with a few minute exceptions, for what he 
 has actually taken from Benoit and Statius and Guillaume de Machaut 
 and Boethius and Ovid and — more important still — what he has 
 derived from his own imagination. Lollius is nobody but Lollius — a 
 real personage (as Chaucer thought) from whom, in a fiction, he pre- 
 tends to translate his poem. 
 
 There is nothing in the 200 lines that remain (v, 166 7-1 869) that 
 modifies these pregnant and unforced conclusions. 1 Two places, how- 
 ever, need citation. First, in v, 1 765-1 771, Chaucer reverts to the 
 distinction he made at the very beginning (i, 141-147) and points out 
 the difference between his matter (i.e., the material that he has found 
 in the lost author Lollius) and the well-known tale of Troy as recorded 
 by Dares. This distinction helps, of course, to maintain the fiction 
 of a Lollian source, a long-lost manuscript discovered by Chaucer 
 when the stars were propitious. Second, in 1 854-1855 he seems to 
 imply that Lollius wrote in verse, like " Virgil, Ovide, Omer, Lucan, 
 and Stace " : 
 
 Lo here the forme of olde clerkes speche 
 
 In poetrye, if ye hir bokes seche! 
 
 This point, however, may be waived. At all events, Chaucer has in- 
 formed us unequivocally that Lollius wrote his Troilus story in Latin 
 (ii, 14), and that alone is enough to show that Chaucer did not mean 
 him to be Boccaccio. 
 
 1 " I finde " (v, 1758), following " As men may in thes olde bokes rede " (1753), 
 means apparently, " I find in these old books." The whole passage (1751-1764) 
 is true to Boccaccio (Filostralo, viii, 25-26) and may be counted, if one wishes, in 
 favor of the equation so often referred to; but it does not disturb the impression 
 that Chaucer's consistently followed source is Lollius, and that impression dis- 
 proves the equation. " Other bokes " in 1776, and " as I can here " in 1804 prove 
 nothing either way. 
 
no George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 APPENDIX II 
 
 Use of the Teseide in the Troilus 
 
 Three stanzas of the Troilus (v, 1807-182 7) have long been recog- 
 nized as an almost literal translation from the Teseide (xi, 1-3). The 
 following imitation, almost equally literal, has not been noted: 1 
 
 On hevene yet the sterres were sene, 
 
 Although ful pale ywoxen was the mone, 
 
 And whyten gan the orisonte shene 
 
 Al estward, as it woned is to done; 
 
 And Phebus with his rosy carte sone 
 
 Gan after that to dresse him up to fare, 
 
 Whan Troilus hath sent after Pandare (v, 274-280). 
 
 II ciel tutte le stelle ancor mostrava, 
 
 Benche Febea gia palida fosse; 
 
 E l'orizzonte tutto biancheggiava 
 
 Nell' oriente, e eransi gia mosse 
 
 L'Ore, e col carro, in cui la luce stava, 
 
 Giungevano i cavai, vedendo rosse 
 
 Le membra del celeste bue levato, 
 
 Dall' arnica Titonia accompagnato (vii, 94). 
 
 Only three stanzas after this striking imitation comes another 
 passage in which Chaucer certainly remembered the Teseide. It is 
 the beautiful address of Troilus to his friend in expectation of death, 
 and the deathbed of Arcita is what was in the poet's mind. Troilus 
 sends for Pandarus as Arcita for Palemone 2 and confides to him his 
 last wishes. He speaks of " the fyr and flaumbe funeral " that is to 
 consume his body, 3 of " the pleyes palestral " (a phrase 4 which Chaucer 
 
 1 Dr. B. A. Wise (The Influence of Statins upon Chaucer, p. 21) compares Thebaid, 
 xii, 1-4, which may well be the original of Boccaccio's verses, but Chaucer was 
 rendering Boccaccio here. 
 
 2 Troilus, v, 280; Teseide, x, 37. This line of the Troilus closes the stanza just 
 noted as almost literally rendered from Teseide, vii, 94, and the speech of Troilus 
 begins after two stanzas of transition. 
 
 8 v, 302-303; cf. Teside, xi, 13-14. 
 
 * Troilus, v, 304: cf. Teseide, vii, 4 (" un palestral giuoco "), 27 (" mio palestral 
 giuoco "); Theseus, to honor the dead Arcita, contends " nelTunta palestra " at 
 
Chaucer's Lollius in 
 
 got from the Teseide). and requests that his steed may be offered to 
 Mars and his arms to Pallas. 1 
 His final request relates to his ashes: 
 
 The poudre in which myn herte ybrend shal tome, 
 
 That preye I thee thou take and it conserve 
 
 In a vessel that men depth an urne, 
 
 Of gold, and to my lady that I serve, 
 
 For love of whom thus pitously I sterve, 
 
 So yeve it hir, and do me this plesaunce, 
 
 To preye hir kepe it for a remembraunce (v, 309-315). 
 
 Egeo vi ritorno il di seguente, 
 
 E con pietosa man tutte raccolse 
 
 Le ceneri da capo prima spente 
 
 Con molto vino, e di terra le tolse, 
 
 Ed in un' urna d'oro umilemente 
 
 Le mise, e quella in cari drappi invoke, 
 
 E nel tempio di Marte fe' guardare 
 
 Fin ch'altro loco le potesse dare (xi, 58).* 
 
 Palemone has a temple built, 
 
 Ed in quel voile che '1 cener guardato 
 
 Fosse d'Arcita, in eterna memoria 
 
 Del suo valore e della sua vittoria (xi, 69). 
 
 In the midst of the temple was set up a column, 
 
 sopra la qual d'oro lucente 
 Un' urna fu discretamente sita: 
 Dentro la qual la cenere tepente 
 Fece servare del suo amico Arcita (xi, 90) . 3 
 
 Troilus ends with a prayer to Mercury: 
 
 And, god Mercurie, of me now, woful wrecche, 
 
 The soule gyde, and whan thee list it fecche! (v, 321-322). 
 
 the "giuochi" (xi, 59, 62). Teseide, xi, 62, is cited by Young, The Origin and 
 Development of the Story of Troilus and Creseyde, p. 177 (see Skeat on Troilus, v, 
 304). Cf. Wise, The Influence of Statius upon Chaucer, pp. 21-22. 
 
 1 v, 306-308; cf. Teseide, xi, 35, 52, 55-56 (see Skeat on Troilus, v, 306). 
 
 2 This comparison is made by Young, pp. 177-178 (cf. Wise, pp. 21-22; Cum- 
 mings, p. 79). 
 
 3 Cf. the argument of Teseide, xi; also (for urns), ii, 74, 81 (called vaselli in ii, 
 83). 
 
ii2 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 This is a plain reminiscence of Arcita's prayer to the same god, 1 as 
 well of his wish for sacrifice to be made to him: — 
 
 Amici can, io me ne vo dicerto, 
 Perch' io vorrei a Mercurio litare, 
 Acrid che esso, per si fatto merto, 
 In luogo ameno piacciagli portare 
 Lo spirto mio (x, 89). 
 
 The inscription on Arcita's urn, in which the urn itself is made to 
 speak the epitaph, is justly admired by every reader: 
 
 Io servo dentro a me le reverende 
 
 Del buon Arcita ceneri, per cui 
 
 Debito sagrificio qui si rende. 
 
 E chiunque ama, per esempio lui 
 
 Pigli, se amor di soverchio V accende: 
 
 Perocche dicer pud: qual se' io fui, 
 
 E per Emilia usando il mio valore 
 
 Morii: dunque ti guarda da Amore (xi, 91). 
 
 Chaucer remembered this epitaph when he wrote the very different 
 stanza, still more beautiful, in which Troilus addresses those lovers 
 in future days who shall pass by his tomb: 
 
 O ye lovers that heigh upon the wheel 
 
 Ben set of Fortune in good aventure, 
 
 God leve that ye finde ay love of steel, 
 
 And longe mot your lyf in ioye endure! 
 
 But whan ye comen by my sepulture, 
 
 Remembreth that your felawe resteth there; 
 
 For I lovede eek, though I unworthy were (iv, 323-329). 
 
 Chaucer's use of the Teseide in the Troilus, proved by the foregoing 
 examples, seems to have begun in his First Book. It appears to be 
 discernible in the quotation that Pandarus makes from Oenone's 
 letter: 
 
 " Phebus, that first fond art of medicyne," 
 
 Quod she, " and coude in every wightes care 
 
 Remede and reed, by herbes he knew fyne, 
 
 Yet to him-self his conninge was ful bare; 
 
 For love hadde him so bounden in a snare, 
 
 Al for the doughter of the kinge Admete, 
 
 That al his craft ne coude his sorwe bete " (i, 659-665). 
 
 1 Teseide, x, 93-98. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 113 
 
 This, as Skeat remarks, is " not at all a literal translation " of Hero- 
 ides, v, 149-152, though it " gives the general sense." 
 
 Quaecumque herba potens ad opem radixque medendi 
 
 Utilis in toto nascitur orbe, mea est. 
 Me miseram, quod amor non est medicabilis herbis! 
 
 Deficior prudens artis ab arte mea. 
 Ipse repertor opis vaccas pavisse Pheraeas 
 
 Fertur et e nostro saucius igne fuit. 
 Quod nee graminibus tellus fecunda creandis 
 
 Nee deus, auxilium tu mihi ferre potes (v, 147-154). 
 
 The words of Palemone in Teseide, iii, 25, may have influenced Chaucer 
 here: 
 
 O quanto ne sarieno a tal fedita 
 
 Gli argomenti esculapii buoni e sani, 
 
 II qual dicien che tornerebbe in vita 
 
 Con erbe i lacerati corpi umani! 
 
 Ma che dich' io? Poiche Apollo, sentita 
 
 Cotal saetta, che i succhi mondani 
 
 Tutti conobbe, non seppe vedere 
 
 Medela a se che potesse valere. 
 
 Cf . Teseide, iv, 46 (Arcita's words this time, in a prayer to Apollo) : 
 
 Siccome te alcuna volta Amore 
 Costrinse it chiaro cielo abbandonare, 
 E lungo Anfriso in forma di pastor e 
 Del grande Admeto gli armenti guar dare, 1 
 Cosi or me il possente signore 
 Qui in Atene ha fatto ritornare, 
 Contra al mandato che mi fe' Teseo 
 Allora ch'a Peritoo mi rendeo. 
 
 In Book ii, it is worth while to compare verses 50-56 with three 
 beautiful stanzas in the Teseide. 
 
 In May, that mother is of monthes glade, 
 
 That fresshe flowers, blewe and whyte and rede, 
 
 Ben quike agayn, that winter dede made, 
 
 And ml of bawme is fletinge every mede; 
 
 When Phebus doth his brighte bemes sprede 
 
 Right in the whyte Bole, it so bitidde 
 
 As I shal singe, on Mayes day the thridde (ii, 50-56). 
 
 1 See also Teseide, vi, 55; x, 13, 25. 
 
ii4 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 Febo, salendo con li suoi cavalli, 
 Del del teneva V umile animate 
 Che Europa portd senza intervalli 
 La dove il nome suo dimora a vale; 
 E con lui insieme grazi'osi stalli 
 Venus facea de' passi con che sale: 
 Perche rideva il cielo tutto quanto 
 D'Amon che 'n pesce dimorava intanto. 
 
 Da questa lieta vista delle stelle 
 Prendea la terra grazi'osi effetti, 
 E rivestiva le sue parti belle 
 Di nuove erbette e di vaghi fioretti; 
 E le sue braccia le piante novelle 
 Avean di fronde rivestite, e stretti 
 Eran dal tempo gli alberi a fiorire 
 Ed a far frutto, e '1 mondo rimbellire. 
 
 E gli uccelletti ancora i loro amori 
 
 Incominciato avien tutti a cantare, 
 
 Giulivi e gai nelle fronde e fiori; 
 
 E gli animali nol potean celare, 
 
 Anzi '1 mostravan con sembianti fuori; 
 
 E' giovinetti lieti, che ad amare 
 
 Eran disposti, sentivan nel core 
 
 Fervente piu che mai crescere amore (iii, 5-7). 
 
 One is also reminded of the opening verses of The Canterbury Tales. 1 
 TraUus, ii, 64-71, has a certain resemblance to Teseide, iv, 73: 
 
 The swalwe Proigne with a sorwful lay, 
 
 Whan morwe com, gan make hir weymentinge, 
 
 Why she forshapen was; and ever lay 
 
 Pandare abedde, half in a slomeringe, 
 
 Til she so neigh him made hir chiteringe, 
 
 How Tereus gan forth hir suster take, 
 
 That with the noyse of hir he gan awake, 
 
 And gan to calle and dresse him up to ryse (ii, 64-71). 
 
 Allor sentendo cantar Filomena, 
 Che si fa lieta del morto Tereo, 
 Si drizza (iv, 73) . 2 
 
 1 Where Skeat well compares Guido, bk. iv (opening passage), ed. 1489, sig. d 2. 
 Cf . also Petrarch, Sonnet 8 in Vita. 
 
 2 Cited by Cummings, p. 54. Koeppel, Anglia, XIII, 184, compares Purga- 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 115 
 
 The following stanza in Pandarus' description of the prowess of 
 Troilus (not in the Filostrato) appears to owe something to the 
 Teseide: 
 
 Now here, now there, he hunted hem so faste, 
 
 There nas but Grekes blood and Troilus: 
 
 Now hem he hurte, and hem alle doun he caste. 
 
 Ay where he went it was arrayed thus: 
 
 He was hir deeth, and sheld and lyf for us; 
 
 That as that day ther dorste noon withstonde, 
 
 Whyl that he held his blody swerde in honde (ii, 197-203). 
 
 Esso fen tra la gente piii folta, 
 
 E colla spada si fece far via; 
 
 E questo qua, e quello la rivolta, 
 
 Costui abbatte, e quell' altro feria: 
 
 E combattendo dimostra la molta 
 
 Prodezza che Amor nel cor gli cria: 
 
 E' non ne giva nullo rispiarmando 
 
 Ma come fulgor tutti spaventando (viii, 81). 
 
 Dr. Cummings (p. 55) compares — 
 
 O cruel god, O dispitouse Marte, 
 O Furies three of helle, on yow I crye! (ii, 435-436). 
 with 
 
 fiero Marte, o dispettoso iddio (i, 58) ; ! 
 Marte nella sua fredda regione 
 
 Colle sue furie insieme s'e tomato (iii, 1). 
 
 In Troilus, iii, 720-721, Venus is adjured to be favorable — 
 
 For love of him thou lovedest in the shawe, 
 
 1 mene Adoon, that with the boor was slawe. 
 
 This may possibly have been suggested by Teseide, vii, 43 : 
 
 O bella Dea del buon Vulcano sposa, 
 Per cui s'allegra il monte Citerone, 
 
 torio, ix, 13-15. I compare Anth. Pal., v, 237. Wise, p. 63, declares that Petrarch's 
 420! sonnet (in Morte) is the source of Troilus, " ii, 50 f. and 64 f.": 
 
 Zefiro toma, e'l bel tempo rimena 
 
 Ei fioii e l'erbe, sua dolce famiglia, 
 
 E garrir Progne, e pianger Filomena, 
 
 E primavera Candida e vermiglia. 
 1 Wise, p. 62. In Troilus, iv, 22-24, it is impossible to doubt that Chaucer 
 remembered Dante, Inferno, ix, 45 if. 
 
n6 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 Deh, i' ti prego che mi sii pietosa 
 
 Per quello amor che portasti ad Adone. 1 
 
 At all events, Chaucer thought well enough of the passage to translate 
 it pretty literally in the Knight's Tale, A, 2221-2225: 
 
 Fairest of faire, o lady myn, Venus, 
 Doughter of love and spouse of Vulcanus, 
 Thou glader of the mount of Citheroun, 
 For thilke love thou haddest to Adoun, 
 Have pitee of my bittre teres smerte. 
 
 Chaucer's confusion of Tithonus with " the sonne Tytan " in 
 Troilus, iii, 1464-1470, may be due to Boccaccio's form Titon for 
 Tithonus in Teseide, iv. 72: 
 
 E sempre si svegliava allora 
 Che de Titon partita vien V Aurora. 2 
 
 Skeat compares Heroides, xviii, 111-112, but omits 114, which is very 
 pertinent; " Et querimur parvas noctibus esse moras." We should 
 certainly add Amores, i, 13, which not only concerns Tithonus and 
 Aurora but contains the original of certain lines in Troilus' address 
 to Night: 
 
 Wei oughte bestes pleyne and folk thee chyde 
 That, ther-as day with labour wolde us breste, 
 That thou thus fleest, and deynest us nought reste! (iii, 1433-143 5). 
 
 Cf. Amores, i, 13, 175., and in particular: 
 
 Prima bidente vides oneratos arva colentes, 
 Prima vocas tardos sub iuga panda boves (11-12). 
 
 Troilus, v, 8-12, is manifestly a close translation from the Teseide: 
 
 The golden-tressed Phebus heighe on-lofte 
 Thryes hadde al with his bemes shene 
 The snowes molte, and Zephirus as ofte 
 Ybrought ayein the tendre leves grene 
 Sin, etc. 
 
 1 Cf. Teseide, vi, 42: 
 
 Ne" crede alcun che si bel fosse Adone 
 Di Cinira, da Vener tanto amato. 
 
 2 Cummings, p. 70. Cf., however, Purgatorio, ix, 1-3; Petrarch, Sonnet 23 (in 
 Morte). 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 117 
 
 II sole avea due volte dissolute 
 Le nevi agli alti poggi, ed altrettante 
 Zefiro aveva le frondi rendute 
 Ed i be' fiori alle spogliate piante, 
 Poiche, etc. (ii, i). 1 
 
 Chaucer's description of Cressida may owe something to Boccac- 
 cio's description of Emilia. I will not insist on the resemblance be- 
 tween Troilus, v, 809-812, and Teseide, xii, 54: 
 
 And ofte-tyme this was hir manere, 
 
 To gon ytressed with hir heres clere 
 
 Doun by hir coler at hir bak bihinde, 
 
 Which with a thred of gold she wolde binde (v, 800-812). 
 
 Dico che li suoi crini parean d'oro, 
 
 Non per treccia ristretti ma soluti, 
 
 E pettinati si che in fra loro 
 
 Non n' era un torto, e cadean sostenuti 
 
 Sopra li candidi omeri, ne foro 
 
 Prima ne poi si be' giammai veduti: 
 
 Ne altro sopra quelli ella portava 
 
 Ch' una corona ch' assai si stimava (xii, 54) . 2 
 
 But his comment that Cressida's joined brows were the only defect in 
 her beauty certainly reminds one of the particularity with which Boc- 
 caccio notes that Emilia's eyebrows were divided: 
 
 La fronte sua era ampia e spaziosa, 
 
 E bianca e piana e molto dihcata, 
 
 Sotto la quale in volta tortuosa, 
 
 Quasi di mezzo cerchio terminata, 
 
 Eran due ciglia piii che altra cosa 
 
 Nerissime e sottil, nelle qua' lata 
 
 Bianchezza si videa lor dividendo, 
 
 Ne '1 debito passavan se estendendo (xii, 55). 
 
 Professor Root has discovered that verses 807-826 owe much to 
 Josephus Iscanus, iv, 156-162; 3 but Chaucer could never have un- 
 riddled the joined eyebrows 4 from Joseph's tangled rhetoric (" Um- 
 
 1 Cited by Wise, p. 62, who notes that Boccaccio is imitating Thebaid, iv, 1-3, 
 and who compares also Thebaid, vii, 223-226. See Rossetti, p. 232. 
 
 2 Hamilton, p. 79, compares Troilus, v, 809-812, with Teseide, vii, 65, 1-2. See 
 Young, pp. 1 1 7-1 18. 
 
 * See Cummings, p. 80. 
 
 4 On the eyebrows see Krapp, Modern Language Notes, XIX, 235; Hamilton, 
 
u8 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 braeque minoris Delicias oculus iunctos suspendit in arcus ") unless he 
 had found that detail plainly expressed in Benoit or Guido or Dares. 
 
 " They writen that hire syen " (v, 816) suggests the words of 
 Dares (" hos se vidisse," cap. 12), but it may likewise echo Boccac- 
 cio's address to the Muses when he is about to describe Emilia's 
 " beauties ": — " Voi le vedeste, e so che le sapete " (xii. 52). 
 
 We may note that Boccaccio gives a portrait of Palemone in Teseide, 
 iii, 49, of Arcita in iii, 50. 
 
 The attack on the heathen Gods in Troilus, v, 1850, 185 2-1 853, 
 may owe something to Emilia's blasphemy: 
 
 O dispietati iddii senza mercede, 
 
 Or che e questo che v' e in piacere? 
 
 Dov' e l'amore antico, ove la fede 
 
 Che solevate portare a' mondani? t 
 
 Ella n' e gita con li venti vani (xi, 42). 
 
 This passage in Chaucer comes only four stanzas after his borrowing 
 of Teseide, xi, 1-3 (Troilus, v, 1807-18 2 7). 
 
 A few trifles (most or all of doubtful validity) may be added: — 
 Tr otitis, ii, 816 (Flexippe), Teseide, viii, 43 (Plessippo); Troilus, iii 
 1427-1428, Teside, iv, 14 (Wise, pp. n-12); Troilus, iv, 789-790, 
 Teseide, x, 94; Troilus, iv, 1586 (proverb), Teseide, xii, n; Troilus, 
 v, 599-602, Teseide, iii, 1 (Wise, p. 23, well compares Dante, Inferno, 
 xxx, 1-3) - 1 
 
 Troilus, ii, 967-972, closely resembles Teseide, ix, 28, but really 
 comes from Filostrato, ii, 80. In like manner, Troilus, iii, 13 10-13 18, 
 is closer to Filostrato, iii, 31, 33, than to Teseide, xii, 76. 
 
 The general and particular influence of the Teseide on the Troilus 
 may be discerned in the use of a number of more or less elaborate 
 astronomical and mythological definitions of time. Such things are 
 hardly found in the Filostrato. 2 Examples from the Teseide* are: 
 ii, 1; iii, 5-7, 43; iv, 1; v, 103; vii, 94; ix, 29; x, 1, 88; xii, 64, 81. 
 
 in the same journal, XX, 80; Curry, The Middle English Ideal of Personal Beauty, 
 pp. 48-49. 
 
 1 Note that Chaucer may well have remembered Inferno, xxx, 1-12, when he 
 wrote Troilus, iv, 1538-1540. 
 
 2 I have noted only v, 68-69 (Troilus, v, 647-648); i, 18 (Troilus, i, 155-165) 
 is not the same kind of thing. 
 
 8 Cf. Ninfale Fiesolano, iv, 1. 
 
Chaucer 's Lollius 119 
 
 The device took Chaucer's fancy, and he used it freely, not only in 
 the Troilus but in his later poetry as well. At least two of the passages 
 from the Teseide appear in the Troilus: ii, 1 (Troilus, v, 8-1 1), and 
 vii, 94 (Troilus, v, 274-279) ; and iii, 5-7, may have influenced Troilus, 
 ii, 50-56 (see p. 113). Other examples from the Troilus are: ii, 904- 
 910; iii, 1415-1420; iv, 1590-1593 (cf. v, 1188-1190); v, 1016-1020, 
 1107-nio; cf. iii, 624-626 (see C. T., A 3514-3521). The following 
 passages in The Canterbury Tales illustrate his fondness for this kind 
 of rhetorical adornment: — Prologue, 1 ff. (cf. Teseide, iii, 5-7; Troilus, 
 ii, 50-56); Knight's Tale, A 1491-1496; introduction to Man of Law's 
 Tale, B 1-15; Nun's Priest's Tale, B, 4377-4389; Merchant's Tale, 
 E, 1 795-1 799, 1885-1887, 2219-2224; Squire's Tale, F, 47-51, 263- 
 2 65> 385-387, 671-672; Franklin's Tale, F, 1016-1018, 1245-1255; 
 Parson's Prologue, I, 1-12. 
 
 In some of these examples there is more than a suggestion of the 
 humorous consciousness on Chaucer's part that he is indulging in 
 what Scott called the " big bow-wow style." * This comes out in grati- 
 fying fashion in The Franklin's Tale: 
 
 Til that the brighte sonne loste his hewe, 
 
 For thorisonte hath reft the sonne his light, 
 
 This is as muche to seye as it was night (F 1016-1018). 
 
 The same spirit (which some critics mistake for naivete) is discernible 
 in Troilus, ii, 904-910: 
 
 The dayes honour and the hevenes ye, 2 
 The nightes fo, — al this clepe I the sonne ! — 
 Gan westren faste, and downward for to wrye, 
 As he that hadde his dayes cours yronne, etc. 
 
 Boccaccio's fondness for such figures in the Teseide is due in large 
 part to his admiration for the Thebaid, in which they are common. 
 As a specimen we may take a passage which Boccaccio seems to have 
 reworked in the Teseide, vii, 94: 
 
 Nondum cuncta polo vigil inclinaverat astra 
 
 Ortus, et instantem cornu tenuiore videbat 
 
 Luna diem, trepidas ubi iam Tithonia nubes 
 
 Discutit ac reduci magnum parat aethera Phoebo (xii, 1-4) . 3 
 
 1 Compare B 1-15 with B 4383-4389. 8 Cf. p. no, above. 
 
 2 " Mundi oculus," Ovid, Met., iv, 228. 
 
120 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 Other examples from the Thebaid are: — i, 97-99, 336-346, 692-693; 
 ii, 134-140, 527-528; iii, 33-39, 440-441; iv, 1-3, 680-682; v, 85-89, 
 296-298, 459-460, 476-477; vi, 25-27, 238-241; vii, 470-473; viii, 
 271-274; x, 1-2; xii, 50-51, 228-229. 
 
 No doubt both Boccaccio and Chaucer felt in this matter the in- 
 fluence of Dante, who is notably fond of such figures. See for example, 
 Inferno, i, 37-40; Purgatorio, i, 19-21; l ii, 1-9; ix, 1-9; xv, 1-9; 
 xix, 1-6; 2 xxv, 1-3; xxvii, 1-5; xxx, 1-6; Paradiso, xx, 1-6; xxix, 
 1-6; xxx, 1-9. Cf. also Petrarch Sonnets 8, 20, 28, 168 in Vita; 
 Canzone in Vita; Sonnet 42 in Morte. 
 
 x The prayer to the Virgin in Paradiso, xxxiii, 1 ff., is freely used (as everybody 
 knows) in The Second Nun's Tale, G 36 ff. Vv. 13-15 are not there used, but are 
 taken as part of Troilus' address to Love in iii, 1 262-1 263 (see Skeat; Koeppel, 
 Anglia, XIV, 230). "The well-willy planete" in this same address (iii, 1257) re- 
 minds one of Purgatorio, i, 19 (" Lo bel pianeta die ad amar conforta " ) — a 
 passage which Chaucer certainly admired, frr he uses the next line (" Faceva tutto 
 rider l'oriente " ) in The Knight's Tale, A 1494: " That al the orient laugheth of 
 the light " (Skeat). It is proper to compare also The Squire's Tale, F 272-274, 
 with Purgatorio, i, 19-21: 
 
 Lo bel pianeta che ad amar conforta 
 
 Faceva tutto rider l'oriente, 
 
 Velando i Pesci ch'erano in sua scorta. 
 
 Now dauncen Venus lusty children dere, 
 For in the Fish hir lady sat ful hye 
 And loketh on hem with a frendly ye. 
 
 * This passage may have been in Chaucer's mind when he elaborated Filostrato, 
 iii, 42, 1-2, into Troilus, iii, 1415-1420. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 121 
 
 APPENDIX III 
 
 The Teseide and the Thebaid 
 
 For reference I have made a running analysis of the Teseide, noting 
 parallel passages in the Thebaid. The table is the result of my own 
 comparison of the two, but in checking it up I have freely used the 
 studies of Crescini l and Wise, 2 and I hereby disclaim originality. No 
 attempt is made to estimate the intermediate influence of the Roman 
 de Thebes. 3 
 
 Book I 
 
 After five stanzas of invocation, Boccaccio tells the story of the 
 Amazons. These warlike ladies kill their husbands and male relatives 
 and establish a kingdom of women. Hippolyta is elected queen. 
 Theseus sails against them and conquers their realm after a hard 
 fight. He marries Hippolyta and other Athenians take wives from 
 among the Amazons (sts. 6-138). When the book closes, Theseus 
 and his men are living in idleness and luxury in the Amazonian land. 
 
 For this First Book Boccaccio got his material largely from Hyp- 
 sipyle's account of the Lemnian women in Thebaid, v, 49-498. Statius 
 does not call the Lemnian women Amazons, but he lets Hypsipyle 
 make the comparison: 
 
 Amazonio Scythiam fervere tumultu 
 Lunatumque putes agmen descendere, ubi arma 
 Indulget pater et saevi movet ostia belli (v, 144-146). 
 
 Boccaccio did not need the comparison, but it certainly encouraged 
 him. He has made an easy and obvious combination of the Lemnian 
 story with the orthodox legend of Theseus and Hippolyta, which is 
 sufficiently set forth in the Thebaid, xii, 163-164, 519-539, 578-579, 
 761-762. The campaign of Theseus against the Amazons in the 
 Teseide is more or less imitated from Statius's account of the attack 
 of the Argonauts on the women warriors of Lemnos. 
 
 1 Contribute agli Studi sul Boccaccio, Turin, 1887, pp. 220-247. Cf. Giornale 
 Storico, XXXVIII, 447-449. 
 
 2 The Influence of Statius upon Chaucer, Baltimore, 191 1 (see especially pp. 78- 
 
 US). 
 
 3 See Crescini, as above; Savj-Lopez, Giornale Storico, XXXVIII, 57-78. 
 
122 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 i, 6-7. Certain fierce women of Scythia disdain to live under the 
 rule of men and take counsel to slay their husbands and male relatives 
 after the example of the granddaughters of Belus (the Danaids). So, 
 in S v, 85 ff., Polyxo exhorts the Lemnian women: " Firmate animos 
 et pellite sexum " (105). B 7 mentions the Danaids and so does 
 Polyxo (S 1 1 7-1 20). 
 
 E come fer le nipoti di Belo 
 
 Nel tempo cheto agli novelli sposi, 
 
 Cos! costor ciascuna (i, 7). 
 
 Potuitne ultricia Graiis 
 Virginibus dare tela pater, laetusque dolorum 
 Sanguine secures iuvenum perfundere somnos? 
 At nos vulgus iners? (v, n 7-1 20). 
 
 i, 7, 29-33. The Amazons killed fathers, brothers, sons, and hus- 
 bands. So the Lemnians in S v, 200-201, 206 ff., 235-238, etc. 
 
 i. 8. Ippolita is chosen queen. In S v, 320-325 the Lemnians choose 
 Hypsipyle queen. 
 
 i, 18. Theseus sails against the Amazons. In S v, 335 ff., the 
 Argonauts sail up to Lemnos. 
 
 i, 20-33. See i, 7, above. 
 
 i, 47-48. The Amazons have a castle near the shore and other 
 defences, and try to hold them against the invaders. Cf. S v, 350-356. 
 
 i, 52. They throw fire and great stones down upon the ships. Cf. 
 S v, 376-380- 
 
 i, 61-65. Theseus harangues his men. So Jason in S v, 403-409. 
 Theseus, of course, is present among the Argonautic assailants (v, 432). 
 
 i, 66-67. Theseus and others leap overboard into the water. Cf. 
 S v, 402 : " medias ardet descendere in undas." Cf . also S, vii, 430 ff. 
 
 i, 129-138. Love and marriage between the Amazons and the in- 
 vaders. The strangers are received with feasting. Cf. S v 445-451. 
 
 i, 134. The queen of the Amazons (Ippolita) marries Theseus. Cf. 
 S v, 453-467 (Hypsipyle and Jason). In B there are new sacrifices to 
 Venus (134) : cf. S v, 449-450 (" tunc primus in aris Ignis "). 
 
 The residence of the Athenians for some time in the Amazonian 
 land, with which Boccaccio's First Book closes and his Second Book 
 begins, is like that of the Argonauts in Lemnos (S v, 459-460). 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 123 
 
 Book II 
 
 ii, 1-9. Pirithous reproves Theseus for lingering uxoriously in the 
 land of the Amazons, and Theseus sets sail for Athens. 
 
 Detumuere animi maris, et clementior Auster 
 
 Vela vocat, ratis ipsa moram portusque quietos 
 
 Odit et adversi tendit retinacula saxi. 
 
 Inde fugam Minyae, sociosque appellat Iason (v, 468-471). 
 
 In the next four stanzas (10-13) Boccaccio gives a brief summary of 
 the results of the expedition of the Seven against Thebes compiled 
 from several different places in the Thebaid: — death of Amphiaraus 
 (vii, 794-823), of Tydeus (viii, end), of Hippomedon (ix, 4S5-S 6 S)> 
 of Parthenopaeus (ix, 877 ff.), of Capaneus (x, 927-939), of Eteocles 
 and Polynices (xi, 552-573); Adrastus flees to Argos (xi, 757-761); 
 Creon becomes king of Thebes (xi, 648-655) and refuses burial to the 
 dead Greeks (xi, 661-664). 
 
 Stanzas 14-83 of the Teseide are well accounted for by Book Twelve 
 of the Thebaid, 149-807. They tell of the embassy of the Grecian 
 widows, the expedition of Theseus against Creon, the death of Creon, 
 the sack of Thebes, and the obsequies of the Greek chieftains. There 
 are countless imitations and bits of translation, as was to be expected, 
 but we need not take them up in detail. 1 One of them, however, is 
 worth mentioning, for it marks a point of contact with the Amazonian 
 story. In stanza 52, Creon, defying Theseus, informs him that he is 
 not now fighting against women. So in S xii, 761-762: 
 
 Non cum peltiferis, ait, haec tibi pugna puellis, 
 Virgineas nee crede manus, etc. 
 
 With stanza 85 of the Second Book Boccaccio begins to be original, 
 for here is the first appearance of Palemone and Arcita. From this 
 point to the end of the book (sts. 84-99) there is little imitation of the 
 Thebaid. These twenty stanzas tell how the two young Thebans were 
 found among the dead, taken to Athens, and imprisoned for life. One 
 fine passage in the Thebaid, however, has left its mark on this passus 
 of the Teseide. It is xii, 22-32, on which Boccaccio had his eye in 
 writing stanza 85. Note especially the striking sentence 
 Frigida digeritur strages (xii, 29). 
 
 1 See Crescini, pp. 230-234; Wise, pp. 78 ff. 
 
124 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 Book III 
 
 Book III tells how Palemone and Arcita fell in love with Emilia, 
 and how Pirithous procured Arcita's release from prison. Here we 
 need expect no influence from the Thebaid. With iii, 66, cf. S i, n-12, 
 and x, 900-901. 
 
 Book IV 
 
 Book IV describes Arcita's wanderings: he finally returns to Athens 
 and takes service with Theseus, under the name of Penteo. This 
 name is that of a famous Theban king — Pentheus, mentioned in 
 Thebaid iv, 565; vii, 211. I note two slight cases of imitation in de- 
 tails of Book iv: 
 
 Dove son ora le case eminenti 
 Del nostro primo Cadmo? (iv, 14). 
 
 Sed nee veteris cum regia Cadmi 
 Fulmineum in cinerem monitis Iunonis iniquae 
 Consedit (iii, 183-185). 
 
 Ove di Dionisio appaion ora, 
 
 Misero a me, gli trionfi indiani? (iv, 15). 
 
 Ceu modo gemmiferum thyrso populatus Hydaspen 
 
 Eoasque domos, nigri vexilla triumphi 
 
 Liber et ignotos populis ostenderet Indos (viii, 237-239). 
 
 Book V 
 
 Book V, in the first thirty-three stanzas, describes the frantic jeal- 
 ousy of the imprisoned Palemone, and tells how he escapes and takes 
 refuge in a wood, where, as it happens, Arcita is sleeping, So far there 
 is scant opportunity for imitation. In v, 13, however, Boccaccio 
 mentions Tisiphone, summoned by Oedipus, etc. (S i, 46-130). With 
 stanza 34 we again connect with the Thebaid. 
 
 v, 34-85. Palemone discovers the sleeping Arcita. They fall to 
 fighting, and are separated by Theseus. Here there are manifest re- 
 semblances to the struggle of Tydeus and Polynices in the courtyard 
 of Adrastus's palace and their separation by Adrastus in the first 
 
Chaucer 7 s Lollius 125 
 
 book of the Thebaid (376-481). 1 Note that Tydeus discovers Poly- 
 nices asleep, and that Adrastus (like Theseus in Boccaccio) does not 
 know who the combatants are. Again, they are both exiles. Theseus 
 (st. 83) like Adrastus (438-446) demands the names of the rivals and 
 the cause of their quarrel. Note, too, the kindness of both Theseus 
 (st. 85) and Adrastus (435-481) in word and deed. 
 
 v, 86-105. The combatants disclose their identity and the ground 
 of their quarrel. Theseus pardons them, suggests a tournament to 
 settle the question, and gives the rivals hospitality in his palace. Here 
 there is still a certain likeness to the Adrastus episode in Thebaid i. 
 In both cases the ruler grants hospitality to the two (B v, 104-105; S 
 i, 481 ff.). Note also that Theseus promises to give Emilia to either 
 Palemone or Arcita, and that Adrastus marries Tydeus and Polynices 
 to his daughters (Thebaid, ii, 134-261). There is also a trace of Poly- 
 nices' shame with reference to his ancestry (i, 673-681) in Palemone's 
 reluctance to wed Emilia because 
 
 10 son di tante infamie solo erede 
 De' primi miei rimaso (xii, 24). 
 
 In the fight in the wood Boccaccio also has his eye on the combat 
 between Eteocles and Polynices in Thebaid, xi, 387 ff. He mentions 
 them in v, 59: 
 
 Qua' fossero poi fra loro i due fratelli 
 D' Edippo nati non cal raccontare; 
 
 11 fuoco fe' testimonianza d'elli, 
 
 Nel qual fur messi dopo il lor mal fare. 
 
 This refers to the famous incident of the divided flame in Thebaid, 
 xii, 420-446. With Teseide, v, 65-67, cf. Thebaid, xi, 513-520. That 
 Arcita thinks Palemone dead (v, 68-69) reminds one of Thebaid, xi, 
 552-560, though the spirit of the incident is by no means similar. 
 
 Book VI 
 
 The Sixth Book of the Teseide recounts the muster of knights for the 
 great tournament. It is mostly occupied with a list of the " barons " 
 and their description. This book is more or less indebted to the The- 
 baid. A large number of proper names come from that poem. 2 The 
 
 1 Cf. Savj-Lopez, Giornale Storico, XXXVI, 63-66. 
 8 Cf. Crescini, p. 243, note 1. 
 
126 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 account of the funeral games for Archemorus (vi) — used later by 
 Boccaccio extensively in Book xi — is drawn on, and so is the account 
 of the muster of the Seven. Some details are worth noting. 
 
 According to Boccaccio, King Licurgo came to the muster in black: 
 he was 
 
 ancora lagrimoso 
 Per la morte di Ofelte (vi, 14) — 
 
 that is, of Opheltes or Archemorus, whose death and burial are de- 
 scribed in Thebaid v-vi. 
 
 " Argeo ed Epidaurio " (vi, 19), if the text is right, looks like an 
 error based on Thebaid vi, 912-913: 
 
 " Iamque aderant instructi armis Epidaurius Agreus 
 Et nondum fatis Dircaeus agentibus exul [sc. Polynices]. 
 
 Agamemnon comes to Athens in a chariot drawn by four great bulls: 
 
 Sopra d'un carro da quattro gran tori 
 Tirato dalT Inachia Agamennone 
 Vi venne (vi, 21). 
 
 He had a black beard and wore a bearskin with gleaming claws over 
 his armor: 
 
 Non armi chiare, non mantel lodato, 
 
 Non pettinati crin, non ornamenti 
 
 D'oro o di pietre aveva, ma legato 
 
 D'orso un velluto cuoio con lucenti 
 
 Unghioni al collo, il quale d'ogni lato 
 
 Ricoprien l'armi tutte rugginenti (vi, 22). 
 
 Compare the tigerskin which Hippomedon received as a prize in the 
 funeral games: 
 
 Tunc genitus Talao [sc. Adrastus] victori tigrin inanem 
 
 Ire iubet, fulvo quae circumfusa nitebat 
 
 Margine et extremos auro mansueverat ungues (vi, 721-724). 
 
 This same passage (cf. S, ix, 685-686) is also imitated in Boccaccio's 
 description of Evandro: l 
 
 Ed era armato d'armi forti e fiere, 
 E un cuoio, per mantel, d'orso piloso 
 Libistrico, le cui unghie gia nere 
 Sott' oro eran nascose luminoso (vi, 36). 
 
 1 Evander is not mentioned in the Thebaid. 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 127 
 
 Cromi or Cromis from Etolia is described in Teseide, vi, 27-29. He 
 rides on a man-eating horse: 
 
 Sopra Strimon caval di Diomede, 
 D'uomini mangiator, come si crede (27). 
 
 This is Chromis, son of Hercules (Thebaid, vi, 346-350), whose horses 
 in the chariot race at the funeral games were " Getici pecus Diomedis " 
 (348). One of them was named Strymon (464). Boccaccio introduces 
 the creature again in a strange incident in the tournament (viii, 120), 
 to which we shall return presently. 
 
 Ippodamo (st. 29) comes next to Cromi in Boccaccio's list, obviously 
 because they are brought together by Statius in the chariot-race: 
 " It Chromis Hippodamusque " etc. (S, vi, 346-354, 436-490). 
 Boccaccio says he was the son of " Eomonia pulita," which is a mis- 
 reading of S, vi, 347 : " ab Oenomao." 
 
 Nestore from Pilos, son of Neleo, appears in st. 30. He is still a 
 young man. This is from the muster in Thebaid, iv: 
 
 Avia Dyme 
 Mittit opem densasque Pylos Neleia turmas; 
 Nondum nota Pylos iuvenisque aetate secunda 
 Nestor, et ire tamen peritura in castra negavit (iv, 124-127). 
 
 In stanza 52 comes " Ida Piseo," crowned for his victory in the 
 Olympic Games. 
 
 Prior omnibus Idas, 
 Nuper Olympiads umbratus tempora ramis, 
 Prosilit, excipiunt plausu Pisaea iuventus 
 Eleaeque manus (vi, 553-556). 
 
 He is a contestant in the footrace at the games for Archemorus, and 
 accordingly Boccaccio represents him and his company as fast runners 
 (st. 53). The comparison in this stanza comes from what is said of 
 Parthenopaeus in Thebaid vi, 568. 
 
 Stanza 61 shows a close translation of Thebaid, vii, 340-342. 
 
 Book VII 
 
 vii, 1-2 1. The kings and barons assemble in the theatre (1-2) — 
 for the theatre cf . Thebaid, vi, 249-264 — and Theseus explains the 
 purpose and the rules of the tournament in a speech which the people 
 
128 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 applaud (3-14). The two companies are formed, Arcita's and Pale- 
 mone's (15-21). 
 
 In sts. 22-93 we have the prayers of Arcita, Palemone, and Emilia, 
 with a description of the temples. Here Boccaccio is again much in- 
 debted to Statius. 1 
 
 vii, 23-28. Arcita prays to Mars. With the vow of hair and beard 
 (28) cf. Thebaid, ii, 255; vi, 198-201, 607-610; viii, 487-488, 492-493. 
 
 vii, 29. Mars was in his great and horrible " ospizio " [in Thrace], 
 and the prayer wings its way thither. The personified prayer feels 
 terror at the sights it sees. Cf. Thebaid, vii, 1-13, when Jupiter 
 sends Mercury to Thrace with a message to Mars, and vii, 74-75 
 (terror of Mercury). 
 
 vii, 30-38. Description of the region and of the temple of Mars. 
 Closely translated from Thebaid, vii, 34-63, cf. 68. 
 
 vii, 39-41. Omens observed by Arcita. Partly from Thebaid, vii, 
 64-69 (cf. ii, 260-261). 
 
 vii, 42-49. Palemone prays to Venus. 
 
 vii, 50. The prayer flies up to the temple on Mount Cithaeron 
 (Citerone). Here Boccaccio is misled by the resemblance between the 
 names Cythera and Cithaeron. 
 
 Sopra il monte Citerone, 
 
 dove si posa 
 
 Di Citerea il tempio e la magione 
 
 Infra altissimi prini alquanto ombrosa (st. 50). 
 
 Mount Cithaeron, between Boeotia and Attica, is often mentioned in 
 the Thebaid. Note especially — 
 
 Inde plagam qua molle sedens in plana Cithaeron 
 Porrigitur lassumque inclinat ad aequora montem 
 Praeterit (i, 330-332) 
 
 Arnica Cithaeron 
 Silva rogis (xii, 52-53). 
 
 vii, 51-66. Description of the garden and temple of Venus, also of 
 the goddess herself. On the resemblance to the Court of Love tra- 
 dition, see Neilson, who remarks the parallel to Claudian. 2 Though 
 
 1 For ceremonies, prayers, and omens, cf. Thebaid, ii, 244-261, 704 ff.; viii, 
 298 ff. 
 
 2 The Origins and Sources of the Court of Love, pp. 116-117, 15-17 ([Harvard] 
 Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, VI). 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 129 
 
 sts. 51-66 are not from the Thebaid, yet the suggestion came from the 
 passage about the temple and region of Mars (above-mentioned, st. 
 30) . Then Boccaccio carried out the suggestion by the use of the Court 
 of Love tradition and of miscellaneous classical material. 
 
 vii, 67. Venus hears Palemone's prayer. Strife ensues in heaven 
 between her and Mars, but they find a means to reconcile his petition 
 with Arcita's. Cf. Thebaid, hi, 260-316; x, 893-894. 
 
 vii, 68-69. Palemone remains at his devotions, etc. 
 
 vii, 70-76. Emilia makes an offering to Diana. Description of the 
 temple and the rites. With st. 72 cf. Thebaid, ix, 573-574; with st. 75 
 cf. Thebaid, iv, 452-454; with st. 76 cf. Thebaid, iv, 461-468. 
 
 vii, 77-87. Emilia's prayer. See the prayer to Diana in Thebaid, 
 ix, 608 ff. (cf. vi, 633-637). 
 
 vii, 88-93. The omen to Emilia. With st. 92 cf. S, ix, 595-596. 
 
 vii, 94-145. The combatants assemble in the theatre, and all is 
 ready for the tournament. For st. 94 cf. Thebaid, xii, 1-4; for the 
 theatre (108-110) cf. Thebaid, vi, 249-264; for the gathering of the 
 people to see the show (112) cf. Thebaid, vi, 249-250, etc. 
 
 The simile of the Hon in st. 106 is from the Thebaid, iv, 494-499, and 
 that of the wild boar in st. 119 is expanded from Thebaid, xi, 530-531: 
 
 Qual per lo bosco il cinghiar rovinoso, 
 Poi ch' ha di dietro a se sentiti i cani, 
 Le setole levate, etc, (119). 
 
 Fulmineos veluti praeceps cum comminus egit 
 
 Ira sues strictisque erexit tergora saetis (xi, 530-531). 
 
 Book VIII 
 
 The tournament is described — Arcita is victor. There are 131 
 stanzas. Much of this is mere imitation of the tournaments in the 
 Old French chivalric romances. There is a plethora of proper names, 
 many of them invented ad hoc. One very curious incident was sug- 
 gested by Statius. Cromis rides a man-eating horse. In the tourna- 
 ment 
 
 Di Cromis il roncione, 
 Ch* ancora che solea si ricordava 
 Gli uomin mangiar, pel braccio Palemone 
 Co' denti prese forte, et si l'aggrava 
 
130 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 Col duol, che '1 fece alia terra cadere, 
 Mai grado ch' e' n'avesse, e rimanere. 
 
 E quale il drago talora i pulcini 
 DelT aquila ne porta renitenti, 
 O fa la leonessa i leoncini 
 Per tema degli aguati delle genti; 
 Cosi faceva quel vibrando i crini, 
 Forte strignendo Palemon co' denti; 
 Cui egli aveva preso in tal maniera 
 Che maraviglia aveva chiunque v' era. 
 
 E se non fosse ched egli fu atato 
 
 Da' suoi awersi, il caval V uccidea; 
 
 A cui di bocca appena fu tirato, 
 
 E tratto fuor della crudel mislea, 
 
 E senza alcuno indugio disarmato 
 
 Per Arcita, che rarme sue volea, 
 
 Per off erirle a Marte, se awenesse 
 
 Ch' a lui il di il campo rimanesse (120-122). 
 
 And so Palemone lost the tournament and Arcita was declared the 
 victor. In the Thebaid, Hippodamus, the chief antagonist of Chromis 
 in the chariot race is thrown: 
 
 Sed Thraces equi ut videre iacentem 
 Hippodamum, redit ilia fames, iamiamque trementem 
 Partiti furiis, ni frena ipsosque frementes 
 Oblitus palmae, retro Tirynthius heros 
 Torsisset victusque et conlaudatus abisset (vi, 486-490). 
 
 As to Chromis's man-eating horse Strymon, see Teseide, vi, 27, and 
 Thebaid, vi 348, 464 (cf. xii, 155-157). 
 
 Book IX 
 
 In stanzas 1-9 Boccaccio still imitates Statius. A Fury scares the 
 horse of the victorious Arcita, who is thrown and desperately hurt. 
 So in the Thebaid, in the funeral games, a monster frightens Arion, 
 Adrastus' steed, which is driven by Polynices. Polynices is thrown 
 from the chariot and comes near being killed (vi, 491-512). The 
 monster is sent by Phoebus, as the Fury in Boccaccio is sent by Venus. 
 With Teseide, ix, 7-8: 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 131 
 
 II qual [sc. Arcita's horse] per ispavento in pie levossi, 
 Ed indietro cader tutto lasciossi. 
 
 Sotto il qual cadde il gia contento Arcita, 
 E il forte arcione gli premette il petto, 
 E si il ruppe, che una ferita 
 Tutto pareva il corpo al giovinetto — 
 
 compare Thebaid, viii, 540-542 : 
 
 Ruit ille [sc. equus] ruentem 
 In Prothoum lapsasque manu quaerentis habenas 
 In voltus galeam clipeumque in pectora calcat. 
 
 For the description of the Fury in st. 5, cf. Thebaid, i, 90-91, 103-113; 
 with st. 6 cf. Thebaid, i, 97-98. 
 
 ix, 9-28. Arcita is picked up amid lamentation and receives medi- 
 cal treatment. He recovers his senses, and the victory and Emilia are 
 declared his. 
 
 ix, 29-50. Though suffering dreadfully, Arcita rides in a triumphal 
 car. A triumph like a Roman triumph is celebrated. 
 
 ix, 51-80. Theseus addresses the warriors and praises their valor 
 on both sides. All the prisoners taken are released except Palemone, 
 who is declared Emilia's prisoner. She sets him free and gives him 
 a ring and a horse and arms. 
 
 ix, 81-83. Arcita claims Emilia, and their marriage takes place. 
 For sacrifices at the wedding (83) cf. Thebaid, ii, 244-261. 
 
 Book X 
 
 The first 92 stanzas are mostly original. Those killed in the tourna- 
 ment are burned and their ashes inurned; the wounded receive treat- 
 ment (1-10). Arcita proves to be mortally wounded; Ischion comes 
 from Epidaurus to treat him, but pronounces the case hopeless (n- 
 14). He grows worse and worse, and bequeaths all he possesses (in- 
 cluding Emilia) to Palemone (15-36). His address to Palemone and 
 Palemone's to him; Ippolita and Emilia try to comfort him (37-52). 
 Arcita talks with Emilia, recommending Arcita to her favor; her 
 grief; his lament; general sorrow (53-87). Nine days after the tourna- 
 ment, Arcita begs his friends to prepare sacrifices to Mercury, so that 
 the god may conduct his soul to a pleasant place. Palemone offers 
 
132 George Lyman Kittredge 
 
 the sacrifices next day (88-92). Arcita's prayer, asserting the inno- 
 cence of his life; his lament for his youth: he shall love Emilia for- 
 ever; his death (93-112). 
 
 In Arcita's prayer, with the protestations of the innocence of his 
 life (93 fi\), there is mention of the sins of his race which is reminiscent 
 of passages in the Thebaid and illustrates Boccaccio's intimate know- 
 ledge of that epic. Sts. 95-96 deal with Cadmus, Agave, Semele, and 
 Athamas: cf. Thebaid, hi, 179-194, and iv, 553-571, in both of which 
 places all four are mentioned. With the reference to Oedipus in st. 96 
 cf . particularly the protestations of innocence by the mother of Menoe- 
 ceus in Thebaid, x, 796-797; cf. also i, 233-235: 
 
 Ne amante 
 Delia mia madre fui, la nazione 
 Nel sen materno indietro ritornante 
 Siccome Edippo (x, 96). 
 
 Non ego monstrifero coitu revoluta notavi 
 
 Pignora, nee nato peperi funesta nepotes (x, 796-797). 
 
 Scandere quin etiam thalamos hie impius heres 
 Patris et immeritae gremium incestare parentis 
 Appetiit, proprios monstro revolutus in ortus (i, 233-235). 
 
 For other lists of Theban crimes and tragedies see Thebaid, i, 1-16, 
 227-241; xi, 486-492 (cf. i, 673 tL). 
 
 Stanzas no and 112, as well as the fifth and sixth stanzas of book 
 xi, show the influence of the finest passage in the Thebaid — one of 
 the most beautiful, indeed, in the whole range of epic poetry — that 
 in which the dying Atys calls for Ismene his betrothed (viii, 637-655). 
 Cf. particularly Teseide x, no, with 648-650; x, 112, with 643-645; 
 xi, 5-6, with 653-655. 
 
 Book XI 
 
 This book shows throughout an imitation, often very close, of the 
 funeral of Archemorus (Opheltes) in the Sixth Book of the Thebaid. 
 
 xi, 1-12. General grief for Arcita, especial sorrow of Emilia and 
 Palemone. With sts. 5-6 we have already compared Thebaid, viii, 
 653-655. Sts. 11-12 are influenced by vi, 45-53. 
 
 xi, 13-29. Preparation of Arcita's pyre. Note the following paral- 
 lels: B 14, S, vi, 84-86; B 15, S 54-56, 61-62; B 16, S 25-30, 124- 
 
Chaucer's Lollius 133 
 
 125; B 18-25, S 84-113 (the pyre of Opheltes is mentioned in B 18); 
 B 26-29, S 54-66, 84-86. 
 
 xi, 30-58 (cf. Thebaid, vi, 28-237). Arcita's funeral. His ashes 
 are put into an urn. Cf. B 30 with S 28-32; B 31 with S 33-36; B 32 
 with S 37-43; B 33-34 with S 45-53; B 35-36 with S 67-81, 193-194; 
 B 37 with S 126-128, 210-212; B 38 with S 128-130, 197-198; B 39- 
 40 with S 130-133; B 41 with S 135-141; B 42 with S 197-201; B 43 
 with S 122-124; B 44 with S 202, 184-185; B 46 with S 184-185; 
 B 47-50 with S 194-203, 206-210; B 51 with S 211-212, 204-205, 
 iS 0- ^; B 5 2 ~5 6 witn s 213-226; B 57 with S 234-237. 
 
 xi, 59-68. The funeral games (S, 249-946). Cf. B 59 with S vi, 
 295-296; B 60-61 with S 531-549; B 62 with S 833, 834, 847; B 64 
 with S 729-734; B 66 with S 646-647. 
 
 xi, 69-89. A temple is built by Palemone where the pyre stood. 
 Description of the temple. The history of Arcita's life is represented 
 therein. The suggestion for these stanzas is in Thebaid, vi, 242-248 
 (cf. 268-294). 
 
 xi, 90-91. Arcita's urn is placed on a column in the temple, with 
 an inscription. 
 
 Book XII 
 
 xii, 1-19. Continued grief of Palemone and Emilia. Theseus and 
 the Greeks think it is time for the mourning to cease. Theseus wishes 
 Palemone to marry Emilia. With B st. 6, cf. Thebaid, vi, 46-48. For 
 Foroneo (st. 18) see Thebaid, ii, 219. 
 
 xii, 20-46. Palemone and Emilia have scruples about marriage, 
 but Theseus overrules their objections. 
 
 xii, 47-80. Preparations for the wedding. Arcita is forgotten. 
 Description of Emilia (53-64). The marriage ceremony and festivi- 
 ties. With st. 68 cf. Thebaid, ii, 244-261. 
 
 xii, 81-86. Two months have elapsed since the " high barons " 
 came to Athens for the joust. They return to their several countries. 
 Palemone lives in joy with his wife. Conclusion — The author's 
 address to his book. With B, sts. 84-86, cf. S, xii, 810-819. 
 
 The poem closes with a sonnet addressed by the author to the Muses 
 " per lo libro suo " (he beseeches them to give it to his lady) and with 
 the reply of the Muses (" Your lady has named the book Teseide "). 
 Cf. S, xii, 810-819. 
 
# - / -I 
 
 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT 
 AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 By GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 
 
 iFrom §>tuoie:6 in ttjc Iptatorg of -Keligions 
 presenteD to Cratoforo «?otoell ®o? 
 JIBS pupils Colleagues ant) ifrieno* 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 NEW YORK MDCCCCXII 
 
 till. 
 
ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES 
 THE FIRST 
 
 Geohge Lyman Kittebdge 
 
 » 
 
 Harvard University 
 
 T" Common fame makes James I. a sinister figure in the his- 
 tory of English witchcraft. The delusion, we are told, was 
 dying out in the later years of Elizabeth, but James fanned 
 the embers into a devouring flame. His coming was the 
 signal for a violent and long-continued outburst of witch- 
 
 \ hunting, for which he was personally responsible. He pro- 
 cured the repeal of the comparatively mild Elizabethan law 
 and the enactment of a very cruel statute. He encouraged 
 and patronized witchfinders, and was always eager for fresh 
 victims. His reign is a dark and bloody period in the annals 
 of this frightful superstition. 
 
 * Many authorities might be adduced in support of these 
 views, but I must rest content with quoting three writers 
 who have had some influence in propagating them, — Mrs. 
 Lynn Linton, Mr. Robert Steele, and Mr. G. M. Trevelyan. 1 
 In 1861 Mrs. E. Lynn Linton published a volume of Witch 
 Stories, which was reissued in 1883 and has met with de- 
 served favor. Mrs. Linton has no mercy on James I. His 
 "name stands accursed for vice and cruel cowardice and the 
 
 1 For other pronouncements of a more or less similar nature, see Sir Walter Scott, 
 Introduction to Potts's Discoverie, Somers Tracts, 2d edition, 1810, 3. 95 ; Mrs. 
 Lucy Aitkin, Memoirs of the Court of King James the First, 1822, 2. 166-167 ; 
 Retrospective Review, 1822, 6. 90 ; Scott, Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft, 
 1830, pp. 227, 246-247 ; Crossley, Introduction to Potts, Chetham Society, 1845, 
 pp. xix., xiv. ; Thomas Wright, Narratives of Sorcery and Magic, 1851, 1. 284, 
 2. 143-144 ; Charles Hardwick, History of Preston, 1857, p. 146 ; P. Q. Karkeek, 
 Transactions of the Devonshire Association, 1874, 6. 786 ; F. A. Inderwick, Side- 
 Lights on the Stuarts, 2d ed., 1891, pp. 154-155 ; Horley, History of Sefton, 1893, 
 p. 115, note 1; H. N. Doughty, Blackwood's Magazine, March, 1898, 163, 388; 
 W. R. Roper, Materials for the History of Lancaster, Part i, Chetham Society, 1907, 
 pp. 26-27. 
 
 1 
 
2 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 utmost selfishness of fear." 2 "Treacherous, cruel, narrow- 
 minded, and cowardly," she calls him, "beyond anything 
 that has ever disgraced the English throne before or since." 3 
 He had a "mania against witches," 4 a "lust for witch 
 blood." 5 "There was no holding in of this furious madness 
 after James I. had got his foot in the stirrup, and was riding 
 a race neck and neck with the Devil." 6 These are hard 
 words ; yet Mrs Linton knows that the beliefs which she has 
 in mind were "rampant in England when good Queen Bess 
 ruled the land," 7 and her own book contains facts enough 
 to give us pause. 
 
 Let us take a leap of thirty-odd years and read what Mr. 
 Robert Steele has to tell us in his article on witchcraft in 
 the fourth volume of a well-reputed work of collaboration, 
 Social England, edited by Mr. H. D. Traill : 
 
 \With the accession of James a change came over the feelings of those 
 in power. During the later years of Elizabeth tract after tract appeared, 
 calling for severe punishment upon witches, but with no result : the Eng- 
 lish trials, up to now, had been characterised rather by folly than ferocity, 
 the new rule was marked by ferocious folly. For forty years Scotland had 
 been engaged in witch-hunting, with the result that 8000 human beings 
 are believed to have been burnt between 1560 and 1600 ; and for the last 
 ten years of the century the king had been at the head of the hunt. . . . 
 In the first Parliament of James the more merciful Act of Elizabeth was 
 repealed ; a new and exhaustive one was enacted. . . . Under this Act 
 70,000 persons were executed up to 1680. 8 , 
 
 I stand aghast at these figures. There is no sense or 
 reason in them. No records have been published or exam- 
 ined which would justify the assertion that a seventieth part 
 of this monstrous number met their death in the period 
 named. As for the time from the passage of the act of 1604 
 till the death of James in 1625, Mr. Steele would find it hard 
 to make out an average of more than two or three executions a 
 year. I half suspect that he has got hold of some statistics 
 of mortality from the plague. . 
 
 Mr. Trevelyan is vaguer, but no less emphatic: "The 
 skeptical Elizabeth, perhaps with some pity for her sex, had 
 refused to yield when the pamphlet press called on the Gov- 
 
 a Ed. 1861, p. 20. 3pp. 25& _ 260 , « P. 259. 6 P. 261. 6 P. 195. 
 
 7 P. 195. » 4. 85-86. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 3 
 
 eminent to enact fiercer laws 'not suffering a witch to live.' 
 The outburst came with the accession of a Scottish King, 
 who, though he rejected the best part of the spirit of Knox, 
 was crazed beyond his English subjects with the witch- 
 mania of Scotland and the continent. l w His first Parliament 
 enacted new death-laws ; at once the Judges and magistrates, 
 the constables and the mob, began to hunt up the oldest and 
 ugliest spinster who lived with her geese in the hut on the 
 common, or tottered about the village street mumbling the 
 inaudible soliloquies of second childhood." 9 In this witch- 
 hunt, Mr. Trevelyan tells us, "learning^ headed by the pedant 
 King, was master of the hounds." 10 y 
 
 So much for the current opinion.' 11 Let us try to dis-\ 
 cover to what extent it is justified by the facts. And first 
 we must consider two things that have created an enormous 
 prejudice against King James, — his Scottish record and his 
 authorship of the Dsemonologie. £&v 
 
 •The history of witchcraft in Scotland is a difficult subject, f* 
 and it is particularly hard to determine just what degree of 
 responsibility attaches to King James. To sift the matter 
 thoroughly would require much time and space. Still, a 
 few facts are patent. (1) James di d not make the Scottish 
 law of witchcrafts The statute was ena cted in 1563, before 
 he was b orn, (2) He didjiotjtea ch the Scottish n ation the 
 wit ch creed. That creed was the heritage of the hum an 
 race, a^jwa^niiwJiereJLes^-qu estioned b y_all classes, and all 
 professions than in Soot] aruj^ where, indeed, it survived in l/,0 l 
 full vigor for more than a century after James was dead. 
 (3) The worst perioxLol Scottish p rosecutiojijloe s not fall in 
 his reig n. Thejthree great jxrosecutio ns were in 1590-15Q IL 
 j n JLgiQn 1 ^^ * nH i" lfifif>-lfifi\ The second was worse 
 than the first, and the third (which began with the Restora- 
 tion) was the worst o| all. (4)James_ did noiL initiatejthe 
 prosecutions of 1590. 12 \ 
 
 9 England under the Stuarts [1904], p. 32. 10 P. 33. 
 
 11 A brief but powerful vindication of King James was inserted by William 
 Gifford in his edition of Ford (1. clxxi., Dyce's revision, 1869, 3. 276 ; cf. Quar- 
 terly Review, 41. 80-82), but it has attracted little attention. See also Disraeli's 
 Character of James the First (Miscellanies of Literature, N.Y., 1841, 3. 355-360). 
 
 n See particularly Mr. F. Legge's paper on Witchcraft in Scotland, in The Scottish 
 Review for October, 1891 (18. 257-288). 
 
4 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 \ Upon this last point we must dwell for a moment. In 
 1583, when James was a boy of seventeen, the Scottish clergy 
 called for a sharper enforcement of the law. In 1590 began 
 the trials of John Fian and his associates, with which the 
 name of the king is indissolubly connected. It seems quite 
 clear that these trials were not James's own idea. His in- 
 tellectual curiosity — well known to be one of his most 
 salient characteristics — led him to attend the examinations. 
 But he was not naturally credulous in such matters (as we 
 shall see later), he found the confessions beyon d belief^and 
 hej^jaoiincedJiLe-witc^ When, how- 
 
 ever, Agnes Sampson, to convince him, repeated in his pri- 
 vate ear a conversation that he had held with the queen on 
 the marriage-night, he "acknowledged her words to bee most 
 true, and therefore gaue the more credit " to their stories. 13 
 It makes little difference what we think of this feat of Agnes 
 Sampson's : the value of the anecdote lies in the light it 
 throws on the king's skepticism. Agnes also implicated the 
 Earl of Bothwell in a charge of witchcraft against the king's 
 life. James's dislike and fear of Bothwell are notorious; 
 they appear in a striking passage of the Basilikon Doron. 14 
 He looked on Bothwell as his evil genius and was ever ready 
 to listen to anything to his discredit. Chancellor Maitland, 
 who was Both well's enemy, had the king's confidence. 15 
 Numerous executions followed, and the great prosecution of 
 1590-1597 was now under way. It had started, however, 
 not with James, but, as usual, among obscure persons. The 
 king had simply become involved in the affair. No doubt he 
 countenanced the general witch-hunt that followed; but 
 he cannot be said to have encouraged it, for no encourage- 
 ment was needed. The clergy were eager, and the people 
 lived in constant terror of witches. If ever there was a 
 spontaneous popular panic, this was such an outbreak. 
 James and his Council had only to let the forces work. And, 
 indeed, it seems pretty certain that they had no power to 
 stem the current. Mr. Andrew Lang, who censures the king, 
 
 13 Newes from Scotland, 1591, sig. B 2 (Roxburghe Club reprint). 
 14 1599, Roxburghe Club reprint, p. 97. 
 
 18 Spottiswoode, History of the Church of Scotland, Bannatyne Club, 2. 412 ; 
 Pitcairn, Criminal Trials, 1. 230, 240, note; Legge, Scottish Review, 18. 262. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 5 
 
 says in plain terms that he "could not have controlled the 
 preachers." 16 Add to this the testimony of Pitcairn, a 
 hostile witness, that the period from 1591 to 1596 was dis- 
 tinguished by "open defiance of the King and Parliament, 
 and by the frequent and daring conspiracies enterprised 
 against the Royal person." 17 Altogether, it does not ap- 
 pear that James is to blame for the events of 1590-1597, or 
 that the prosecution proves him either exceptionally credu- 
 lous or exceptionally devoted to witch-hunting. If a whole 
 nation believes in witchcraft, outbreaks of prosecution (like 
 other outbreaks) are likely to happen whenever there are 
 troublous times. This has been seen over and over again, 
 — in the tumult of the English Civil War, for instance, and 
 just after the Revolution, and in our own Salem at a critical 
 moment in New England history. 18 James was not riding 
 the storm like Odin. He was only a mortal man, swept off 
 his feet by the tide. 
 
 Whether these considerations are just or not, one thing is 
 certain — by 1597 James , wjas-jconvincexl that matters had 
 K55^ tp^)JPar. Indictments were piling upon indictments, 
 there was no telling the innocent from the guilty, and no 
 end was in sight. Comjms^iojris_o^ 
 
 were being held. ^throughout _Scotlaiid,_ and the king^_by._a 
 stroke„of the., pen, revok ed th em all. 19 It is noteworthy 
 that the proximate cause of his action was the discovery 
 that many denunciations were fraudulent. Compare James's 
 incredulity at the outset, and the skill which he showed later 
 in life (as we shall see presently) in detecting similar impos- 
 tures. From 1597 to James's accession to the English throne 
 in 1603, there were abundant witch-trials in Scotland, but 
 the annual number of executions was much smaller, and 
 there is no reason to suppose that the king pressed for more. 
 When he succeeded to the English crown, the intensity of the 
 Scottish witch-quest had ceased, by his own act, and that 
 period was associated in his mind with a time of anarchy. 
 England looked to him like a haven of rest. He was certainly 
 
 16 History of Scotland, 2. 353. 17 Criminal Trials, 1. 357. 
 
 18 See Kittredge, Notes on Witchcraft, 1907, pp. 64-65. 
 
 19 Privy Council Register, 5. 409-410; Spottiswoode, 3. 66-67; Legge, p. 264; 
 Lang, History of Scotland, 2. 433. 
 
6 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 thinking of other matters than witches when he came into 
 the promised land. 
 
 So much for the first of the two things that have led men to 
 approach James's English witch record with a prejudiced 
 opinion. Let us pass to the second, — his authorship of 
 the Dsemonologie. 
 
 The importance of King James's Dsemonologie has been 
 greatly exaggerated, both as to its bearing on his supposed 
 career as a prosecutor and as to its effect on English senti- 
 ment in his time. The book is a confession of faitly not an 
 auto biography. It is proof of what James thought, not of 
 what he did. The publication of the Daemonologie did not 
 cause the death of any Scottish witches, either directly or 
 indirectly. Nor did it convert a single Scottish skeptic, 
 for there were none to convert. The book d id not appear 
 until l^T^^t^jy^y^ear^j n wh klL Iames^_by-a^stroke of 
 t he pen, ch ecked the_^reaLjBroseciitiQn that had b££ii-£oing 
 since 1590a, As to England, the case against the Dsemonol- 
 ogie is pitifully weak. The treatise, though well-constructed 
 and compendious, is not original. It adduces neither new 
 facts nor new arguments. Mr. Gardiner is perfectly right 
 when he says that James "had only echoed opinions which 
 were accepted freely by the multitude, and were tacitly 
 admitted without inquiry by the first intellects of the day." 20 
 Certainly there is no reason to think that the Dsemonologie 
 had any appreciable effect on English sentiment. 
 
 I am well aware that King James's Dsemonologie was re- 
 issued in London in 1603. But this was a mere bookselling 
 speculation, 21 like the Latin translation by Germberg that 
 appeared at Hanover in 1604. 22 There is no parade about 
 the volume, no hint that it was published at the king's in- 
 stance. ^ Contrast the circumstances attending the publica- 
 
 20 History of England, 1603-1642, 7. 322-323 (1899). 
 
 21 John Hawarde (born about 1571) makes a curious note in his manuscript, 
 Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata (ed. Baildon, pp. 179-180) : "Nothinge 
 now was talked of but the relligion, vertue, wisedome, learninge, Justice, & manye 
 other most noble & woorthye prayses of K. James, ... his bookes new printed, 
 (BaziXixo*' 8otii)p, Freen monarchies, Monologie, Expositions upon the Reuelacions 
 & the Kings, the Lepanto)." 
 
 22 There are two London editions of 1603. See the details in Ferguson, Publi- 
 cations of the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society, 3. 51. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 7 
 
 tion of the Basilikon Doron in the same year. This had been 
 privately printed in 1599. When it came before the public 
 in 1603, there was a long, defensive preface, entirely new, 
 in which the king exerted himself to stand well with his Eng- 
 lish subjects. 23 ^ James, as we have already remarked, had 
 other things than witchcraft to occupy his thoughts when 
 he mounted the English throne. If it can be shown that he 
 immediately engaged in a campaign for new witch-laws or 
 for more vigorous prosecution, then we may regard the 
 Dsemonologie of 1603 as a campaign document. But first 
 one must show that he did engage in any such campaign; 
 otherwise the question is begged. And, as we shall soon 
 discover, he did nothing of the kind. 
 
 Clearly, then, we must study the witch law and the witch- 
 trials of James's English reign on the basis, not of prejudice, 
 but of evidence. And first we may consider the_Sta±u±e 
 of 1604^ 
 
 ;The current ideas about the English laws against witchcraft 
 are very inaccurate. F or these m isapprehensiojis, Thomas 
 ffirjghlis-in large part responsible' His learned and inter- 
 esting Narratives of Sorcery and Magic, which has enjoyed 
 a deserved popularity for more than fifty years, is surpris- 
 ingly loose in its statements about legal history. 
 
 "The first act in the statute-book ^against, witchcraft,' ' 
 say_s_Wright y "was passedin the thirty-third year of Henry 
 VIII.^_j^D^_J^ll^_jffhexeh^ made 
 
 feJpn^LjKithjoiitJbenefi 24 So far he is quite cor- 
 
 rect, except for the year of our Lord, which should be 1542. 
 "In 1547," he adds, "when the _p_ower ^-_was_jentirely in the 
 hands of the religious reformers under Edward _VL, his 
 father's law .against witchcraft. was repealed.'' This asser- 
 tion, though technically indisputable, is rather misleading. 
 The act to which Wright refers (1 Edward VI., c. 12) does 
 
 23 See the Roxburghe Club reprint of the 1599 edition. On the attention which 
 the Basilikon Doron attracted, see Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1603-1607, 
 pp. 10, 65. 
 
 24 Narratives of Sorcery and Magic, 1851, 1. 279. See also the authors cited 
 above (p. 1, note 1). The account of the laws given by Mr. James Williams 
 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (9th ed., 24. 620-621) is above the average, but not 
 free from errors. There are serious mistakes in Mr. Robert Steele's summary in 
 Traill's Social England, 3. 326. 
 
8 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 not once mention sorcery, magic, or witchcraft. The third 
 section wipes out of the statute-book "all offences made 
 felony by any act or acts of Parliament, statute or statutes, 
 made sithence the xxiiith day of April in the first year of the 
 reign of the said late King Henry theight, not being felony 
 before." Among these offences was witchcraft. 
 
 Wright's next statement is highly objectionable. It 
 amounts to a serious, though inadvertent, suppressio veri. 
 " Underjlljaateth/^ be .1563], 
 
 ajaejL^ctJwas^ias^exLa^ii^ the first 
 
 conviction L onIy^:with exposure in the ^pillory /^ 25 Now the 
 truth is that Elizabeth's law was much severer than one 
 would infer from these words. It fixes the death penalty 
 ( l) jfor all who "use, practise, or exercige.jny_Qfiat.ions or con- 
 jurations j)f evil and wicked spiri ts to or for any intent sir 
 purpose," quite irrespective of the result of such invocations 
 or conjurati ons^ and (2)_f or -all who-praetise witchcraft that 
 causes a person's death. _ Under the former projdsiojxrrrita 
 take a g ood example — Edmund Hartlay Jost _ Jbds_Jife__jn 
 Lancashire in 1597. He was a professed conjurer, and had 
 been employed to relieve the children of Mr. Nicholas Starkie, 
 who were thought to be possessed with devils. Hartlay 
 caught the hysterical affection himself and was tormented 
 in like manner. "The next day, beinge recouered, he went 
 into a little wood, not f arr from the house, where he maide a 
 circle about a yarde and halfe wyde, deuiding it into 4. partes, 
 making a crosse at every diuisfon : and when he had finished 
 his worke, he came to M. StUrchie and desiered him to go and 
 tread out the circle, saying, I may not treade it out my selfe, 
 and further, I will meete with them that went about my 
 death," 26 — that is, in effect, I wish to raise the devils that 
 tried to kill me yesterday. There were other charges against 
 Hartlay, but none of a capital nature. "The making of his 
 circle was chefly his ouerthrowe." 27 He denied the fact, but, 
 the rope breaking, confessed it before he died. 28 
 
 25 Narratives, 1. 279. 
 
 26 John Darrel, A True Narration, etc., 1600, p. 1. 
 
 27 Darrel, p. 7. 
 
 28 Another case occurred in 1580. William Randoll was hanged for conjuring 
 to discover hidden treasure and stolen goods. Four others were tried for aiding 
 and abetting, and three of them were sentenced to death, but reprieved. The trial 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 9 
 
 Furthermore, the Elizabethan statute provided that 
 ''witchcraft, enchantment, charm, or sorcery" which caused 
 Dodily injury to human beings or damage to goods or chattels 
 should be punished with a year's imprisonment (with quar- 
 terly exposure in the pillory) for the first offence, and with 
 death for the second offence. And finally, the statute provided 
 imprisonment and the pillory, with life imprisonment for the 
 second offence, for all who should "take upon" themselves 
 to reveal the whereabouts of hidden treasure or of lost or 
 stolen goods, or should practise witchcraft with intent to 
 provoke unlawful love or to "hurt or destroy any person in 
 his or her body, member, or goods." It must now be mani- 
 fest how unduly Wright extenuates the grimness of Eliza- 
 beth's law.\ 
 
 y Thus we re ach_t he reig n of James J^- In his secornLyear 
 wasjmssed the statntejollfiM . which remained in force until^ 
 VTQGu The relation of this act to the statute of Elizabeth, 
 which it repealed, becomes a matter of great importance to 
 determine. Here Wright leaves us in the lurch. James, 
 he tells us, "passed a new and severe law against witchcraft, 29 
 in which it now became almost a crime to disbelieve." 30 We 
 are led to infer that, whereas Elizabeth's law was mild and 
 hardly objectionable, James's statute was both novel and 
 severe. The facts are quite different. Janies!s ^statute 
 follows Elizabeth's in the main, even in phraseology. (DJThe. 
 new statute (like . the_ old) provides_<ieath r& ±h_e--penalty f or 
 jwowtion or conjuratioji^LemL^)irits for any purpose rtuj 
 withciiit_regard -to~ the issue.. But it inserts two clauses 
 making it also felony to "consult, covenant with, entertain,, 
 employ, feed, or reward " any such spirit for any purpose, 
 
 was held at the King's Bench (Holinshed, 4. 433). An excessively curious case is 
 that of a woman tried by the mayor of Faversham, Kent, in 1586. The court and 
 jury were convinced that she was not guilty of witchcraft. In order to clear her of 
 the capital charge, a verdict of guilty of invocation and conjuration was brought in. 
 The mayor was about to congratulate the defendant on escaping with her life, when 
 the legal adviser of the corporation informed him that invocation and conjuration 
 amounted to felony, and she was hanged accordingly. Full details are given by 
 John Waller in Holinshed, 4. 891-893. 
 
 29 1. 284. 
 
 30 As to this latter dictum, it is instructive to observe that in 1578 one Dr. Browne 
 was in trouble because he "spread misliking of the laws, by saying there are no 
 witches" (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, Addenda, 1566-1579, p. 551). 
 
10 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 or to dig up any dead body, or part thereof, for use in sor- 
 cery. (2) For witchcraft that kills, death is the penalty (as in 
 the Elizabethan enactment). (3) For witchcraft that causei 
 bodily harm, but does not kill, the new law imposes death 
 for the first (instead of the second) offence. (4) For the 
 minor varieties of sorcery and witchcraft, death is substituted 
 for life imprisonment as the penalty for the second offence. 31 
 Clearly the statute of 1604 is not so great a novelty as we 
 have been led to think. It is, to be sure, more severe than 
 the Elizabethan enactment, but only in some respects. Let 
 us study the two a little further) 
 
 ""The substitution of death for life imprisonment as the pen- 
 alty for the second offence in certain minor grades of sorcery 
 can hardly be called an increase in severity. The appalling 
 state of the prisons is notorious. There was a dreadful out- 
 break of jail fever at the Oxford assizes in 1579, 32 and another 
 at the Exeter assizes in 1586. 33 Prisoners often died while 
 awaiting trial or execution. In 1608 the Earl of Northamp- 
 ton, as Warden of the Cinque Ports, induced the mayor of 
 Rye to admit to bail a woman condemned to death for aiding 
 and abetting a witch. Her execution had been stayed, and 
 it was feared that she would succumb to the "lothsomness of 
 the prison." 34 Under such conditions, the change from a 
 life-sentence to hanging was rather mercy than rigor. 
 
 The penalty for digging up the dead (unknown to the 
 Elizabethan law) was not excessive, in view of the general 
 severity of the penal code. The thing was certainly done 
 now and then. It was a real — not an imaginary — crime, 
 and deserved punishment. However, no case has ever been 
 cited in which a man or woman was put to death for this 
 
 31 There is some difference between the two statutes in defining the minor varieties, 
 but it is slight and not in the direction of severity. 
 
 32 See the extraordinary passage in Webster's Displaying of Supposed Witch- 
 craft, 1677, pp. 245-246. 
 
 33 Walsingham to Leicester (Leycester Correspondence, Camden Society, p. 
 24) ; Hooker (alias Vowell), in Holinshed, 4. 868 ; Thomas Cogan, The Haven of 
 Heath, 1589, pp. 272 ff. See also an important paper on the Black Assizes in the 
 West, by F. Wilcocks, M.D., in Transactions of the Devonshire Association, 16. 
 595 ff. For Vowell, see Charles Worthy, in the same Transactions, 14. 631 ff. (cf. 
 11. 442 ff.). 
 
 34 13th Report of the Commission on Historical MSS., Appendix, Part iv., pp. 
 139-140. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 11 
 
 offence alone, and we may therefore disregard that clause as 
 of no practical effect. 
 
 As for the new provision about consulting or covenanting 
 with evil spirits, or feeding them, it was capable of operating 
 with great severity. In fact, however, I do not believe that 
 a single case can be found during James's reign in which 
 anybody suffered death under this clause who was not other- 
 wise liable to the extreme penalty. 35 O oc^ &**& **e*+**SSc* 
 
 There remains, then, one change in the law, and only one, 
 — death for the first (instead of the second) offence in witch- 
 craft that injures the body without killing, — to justify the 
 common opinion that James's statute of 1604 was so stern 
 an enactment as to make an era in English witch-prosecu- 
 tion.^' 
 
 At the outset, candor impels us to inquire whether James's 
 statute was really severe at all. Our Judgment must__be 
 based, not-on -our jpresent penal code^ but on .that, of . the _six-_ 
 teenth_anQL-S£venteen.th__ centuries . When death was the 
 penalty for stealing a sheep, or breaking into a house, or tak- 
 ing a purse on the highway, or stealing thirteenpence, was 
 it harsh to hang a witch for driving her neighbor mad or 
 smiting him with epilepsy or paralysis ? 36 To object that 
 witches could not do such things is no answer. This objec- 
 tion might hold against the passing of any law whatever, but 
 has nothing to do with the question of severity. It is quite 
 as silly to fine or imprison a man for an impossible crime as 
 to hang him for it. However, we may waive this point, for 
 we are more directly concerned with the question whether 
 James's law was so much severer than Elizabeth's as to make 
 its passage a momentous event. This is to be tested, of 
 course, by observing how the two laws worked, not by weigh- 
 ing their words.' 
 
 To get the perspective, let us look at one of the most no- 
 
 36 A possible exception is Susan Swapper, of Rye. She was condemned in 1607, 
 but I cannot find that she was ever executed. The case is exceedingly curious (see 
 Commission on Historical MSS., 13th Report, Appendix, Part iv., pp. 136-137, 
 139-140, 144, 147-148). For what happened after 1643, when James had been in 
 his grave a score of years, it is absurdly cruel to hold him accountable. 
 
 36 Cf . the observations of Mr. J. W. Brodie-Innes in his interesting brochure 
 on Scottish Witchcraft Trials, pp. 21-24. (Privately Printed Opuscula issued to 
 Members of the Sette of Odd Volumes, No. 25, 1891.) 
 
12 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 torious of Elizabethan cases, that of St. Osyth in Essex. 
 One Ursula (or Ursley) Kempe, alias Grey, was a woman 
 of ill repute, who lived, with Thomas Rabbet, her bastard 
 son, in the little village of St. Osith's (now St. Osyth), near 
 Colchester. She had long lain under suspicion of witchcraft. 
 There was sickness in the family of a neighbor, Grace Thur- 
 lowe, and Grace fancied that Ursula was to blame. The 
 local magistrate, Brian Darcey, lent a ready ear to her com- 
 plaint. Witnesses came forward in abundance, and one 
 revelation led to another, as usual. Thomas Rabbet gave 
 evidence against his mother. Ursula confessed her crimes, 
 with many tears. A whole nest of offenders was uncovered, 
 and, in conclusion, no less than thirteen witches Were con- 
 victed. This was in 1582. 37 The affair made a great noise, 
 and appears to have been the chief immediate impulse to 
 Reginald Scot's famous book, The Discovery of Witchcraft. 
 
 Of the thirteen persons convicted on this occasion, all but 
 three were found guilty of "bewitching to death," and con- 
 sequently suffered the extreme penalty under the statute of 
 Elizabeth. James's statute would have hanged the other 
 three as well. To this extent, and to this extent alone, would 
 it have operated more severely than its predecessor. 
 
 J^he^SrL Osyth tragedy took place about jtwenty years 
 bejpj^jiame&X^ suc^eededk) the .EflgIiah_CTOwn. Will it be 
 believed, in the face of the vehement denunciation to which 
 this king is traditionally subjected as a besotted persecutor, 
 thatjiojM?S-Comparable to it occurred in his reignjm til 16 12, 
 when hejiad beea_Qn the throne for nine years? Yet such 
 is the indisputable fact. 
 
 An analysis of these Lancashire trials of 1612, on the basis 
 of Thomas Potts's official narrative, yields the following 
 results. Nineteen persons were tried, of whom eight were 
 acquitted. Of the eleven convicted, one (whose offence was 
 the killing of a mare) was sentenced to the pillory. This 
 leaves ten who were hanged. 38 Six of these were indicted 
 
 37 Linton, Witch Stories, 1861, pp. 205-221 (from the original narrative by W.W., 
 — A True and lust Recorde, etc., 1582). 
 
 3i The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster. . . . To- 
 gether with the Arraignement and Triall of Iennet Preston, at . . . Yorke, Lon- 
 don, 1613. Cf. Farington Papers, Chetham Society, 1856, p. 27. One other 
 died before trial. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 13 
 
 for murder by witchcraft, and therefore would have suffered 
 death under Elizabeth's law as surely as under James's. 
 Four, then, were executed who might have got off with im- 
 prisonment if the older statute had remained in force. But 
 it is by no means certain that all of the four would actually 
 have escaped the gallows. For there was evidence of mur- 
 der by witchcraft against two of them, and they might have 
 been tried on that charge if the lesser accusation of driving a 
 woman insane had not sufficed to send them out of the world. 
 There remain but two, therefore, of the eleven convicted, who, 
 so far as we can see, would have been in no danger of death 
 under Elizabethan conditions. And one of these exemptions 
 may be balanced by the case of the woman sent to the pil- 
 lory for killing a mare, inasmuch as there was testimony that 
 she too had confessed to a couple of murders, so that the 
 prosecutors might have found an excuse for hanging her, even 
 under Elizabeth's statute, if they had so desired. In the 
 same year, Jennet Preston was hanged at York. She was 
 convicted of murder by witchcraft, and would have suffered 
 death by Elizabeth's law. Likewise in 1612, there was an 
 outbreak of prosecution in Northamptonshire, which ended 
 in the execution of five persons. Every one of these, how- 
 ever, had been found guilty of murder by witchcraft. 39 
 Hence their fate under the statute of James was precisely 
 what it would have been if Elizabeth's statute of 1563 had 
 never been supplanted. 
 
 Two facts of immense significance are now clear : first, 
 that Jame^'s_accession L jwas not_the_ signal for an outbreak 
 of witciLprosecution^for he had been on the throneJ[on nine 
 years before any such outbreak occu rred ; second,__that _the 
 statutfijof 1604 was not appreciably more^severe, in it^prac- 
 ticaJjj^rkin^in^^ 
 haye_ been at the same time if it had_continuecL in force.! 
 
 ^Before leaving the events of 1612, however, we must in- 
 quire whether James had any hand in the prosecutions. The 
 answer is unequivocal. There is not a particle of evidence 
 that he either suggested or encouraged the trials, or, indeed, 
 that he ever heard of the cases until the defendants had been 
 
 19 The Witches of Northamptonshire, 1612 (reprint, 1867). 
 
14 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 hanged. A contrary view is sometimes expressed with 
 regard to the Lancaster trials, 40 but there is no foundation 
 for it. The source of the error is nothing more or less than 
 William Harrison Ainsworth's romance entitled The Lan- 
 cashire Witches. This was published in 1849, and appears 
 to have proved more entertaining to some historians than 
 the study of authentic documents^ 
 
 One of Ainsworth's most amusing characters is Master 
 Thomas Potts, a London lawyer. Potts happens to be in 
 Lancashire on legal business, and, on coming into contact 
 with the rumors and petty intrigues of the neighborhood, 
 grasps the chance to ingratiate himself with King James by 
 gathering evidence and fomenting prosecution. "So there 
 are suspected witches in Pendle Forest, I find," says Master 
 Potts; "I shall make it my business to institute inquiries 
 concerning them, when I visit the place to-morrow. Even 
 if merely ill-reputed, they must be examined, and if found in- 
 nocent cleared; if not, punished according to the statute. 
 Our soverign lord the king holdeth witches in especial ab- 
 horrence, and would gladly see all such noxious vermin 
 extirpated from the land, and it will rejoice me to promote 
 his laudable designs. . . . He is never so pleased as when 
 the truth of his tenets are proved by such secret offenders 
 being brought to light, and duly punished." 41 And again : — 
 "If I can unearth a pack of witches, I shall gain much credit 
 from my honourable good lords the judges of assize . . . , 
 besides pleasing the King himself, who is sure to hear of it, 
 and reward my praiseworthy zeal." 42 
 
 Ainsworth is quite within his rights as a novelist, but we 
 should not read him as if he were an historian. Potts had 
 nothing to do with getting up the evidence or fomenting the 
 prosecution. He was a London lawyer, or law-writer, who 
 acted as clerk at the Lancaster assizes. Probably he was 
 accompanying the justices on their circuit. At the instance 
 of these justices, as we know, he prepared an official narrative, 
 which was published in 1613 after revision by one of them (Sir 
 Edward Bromley). The king is mentioned only once in this 
 
 40 See, for example, Horley, Sefton, 1893, p. 115, note 1; Roper, Materials for 
 the History of Lancaster, Part i., Chetham Society, 1907, pp. 26-27. 
 41 1. 199-200. « 1. 207 (cf. 1. 244, 247). 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 15 
 
 tract (except, of course, in legal formulas), and that in passing : 
 . * * \yhat hath thcj^ngs^^iestje written and publishedin his 
 Dam wnologie. by w ay of premonition and preuention^jgghich 
 hath not here jryt he first or last beene executed, put in prac- 
 tise or disc ouered." 43 If James had known anything about 
 the case, Potts would surely have brought him in. 
 
 But we are not done with Ainsworth's contributions to 
 history. In the third volume of the romance he introduces 
 King James in person, talking broad Scots, profoundly im- 
 pressed by the evidence, causing the witches to be brought 
 into his presence, and urging on the prosecution. These 
 scenes occur while he is the guest of Sir Richard Hoghton at 
 Hoghton Tower. 44 All this is very good fiction indeed. But 
 it should not pass as history. The Pendle witches were 
 hanged in August, 1612. James made a progress that sum- 
 mer, but not in Lancashire. His visit to Hoghton Tower 
 was five years later, in August, 1617. 45 
 
 Ainsworth wrote The Lancashire Witches at the suggestion 
 of Mr. James Crossley, to whom he dedicated it. Mr. Cross- 
 ley was an admirable antiquary, and the world is in his debt 
 for a first-rate edition of Potts's Disco verie and for many other 
 things. But, though very learned in the literature of witch- 
 craft, he was far astray in his estimate of James's attitude 
 and in other pertinent matters. He ignores the Elizabethan 
 statute and lays stress on that of James, "enacted," he avers, 
 "as the adulatory tribute of all parties, against which no 
 honest voice was raised, to the known opinions of tjre mon- 
 arch." 46 Mr. Crossley could not fail to observe that the 
 passage of the "execrable statute" of 1604 was not followed 
 by an instant fury of prosecution. He knew well that eight 
 years elapsed before anything took place that was at all 
 notable. And this is how he expresses himself : the stat- 
 ute, he suggests, "might have been sharpening its appetite 
 by a temporary fast for the full meal of blood by which 
 it was eventually glutted." 47 This is not merely personi- 
 fication, — it is pure mythology. 
 
 43 Potts, Wonderfull Discoverie, sig. T2. u 3. 241 ff. 
 
 45 Journal of Nicholas Assheton, ed. Raines, Chetham Society, 1848, pp. 32 ff. 
 
 46 Introduction to his reprint of Potts, Chetham Society, vol. 6, p. xviii. 
 
 47 Introduction to Potts, p. xlv. 
 
16 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 iThe plain and simple truth is this : During the twenty- 
 two years of James's reign (1603-1625), there was no more 
 excitement on the subject of witchcraft, and there were no 
 more executions, than during the last twenty-two years of 
 Elizabeth (1581-1603) J* James's accession was not in any 
 sense the signal for an outburst of prosecution. As we have 
 just noted, the first bad year was 1612, when he had been on 
 the throne for almost a decade. It is certain that the statute 
 of 1604 was not more severe, in its practical workings, than 
 the statute of Elizabeth. 49 Nor can a single fact be brought 
 forward to prove that James was eager, . during his English 
 reign, to multiply the number of victims: 
 
 t We must now examine the prevalent opinion that the stat- 
 ute of 1604 was passed to please King James or at his in- 
 stance, or, indeed, that he wrote the bill himself. Most 
 readers will be surprised to learn that not a particle of direct 
 evidence has ever been adduced in favor of any of these 
 propositions. They rest entirely upon assumption or in- 
 ference. The earliest testimony that I can discover 50 is 
 Hutchinson's, in 1718, — more than a century late ; and 
 Hutchinson, more suo, is commendably cautious. He does 
 not profess to have any authority for his views. "I cannot 
 forbear thinking " — such are his words — "that it was the 
 King's Book and Judgment, more than any Encrease of 
 Witches, that influenc'd the Parliament to the changing the 
 Old Law." 51 And again, "I cannot but think, that if King 
 James himself was not the first Mover and Director in this 
 change of the Statute, yet there might probably be a Design 
 of making Court to the King by it." 52 He frankly labels 
 his theory "the best Guess I can make." 53 The "juryman " 
 
 48 Exact figures are unattainable, but the records are quite as trustworthy for 
 1603-1625 as for 1581-1603. It is altogether unlikely that a complete scrutiny would 
 bring to light more new cases of execution for the later period than for the earlier. 
 
 49 That is, not more severe during James's reign. For what occurred long after 
 the king's death, he cannot be blamed. 
 
 60 It is to be hoped that what Thomas Cooper says in The Mysterie of Witch- 
 craft, 1617, p. 7, will not be taken as evidence in favor of the current view. Here- 
 tofore it has not been so utilized. 
 
 61 Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft, 1718, p. 179 (ed. 1720, p. 221). 
 
 62 P. 180. Here Hutchinson is referring to a particular part of the statute (about 
 the violation of graves). 
 
 63 P. 178. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 17 
 
 (his interlocutor in the dialogue) accepts the theory: "I 
 am the apter to believe this Account ; because I have often 
 heard, that our Law did come from thence," that is, from 
 Scotland along with the new king. 54 Dr. William Harris, in 
 his account of James I. (1753), follows Hutchinson, whom he 
 cites, remarking that the statute was "formed out of com- 
 pliment (as has been well conjectured)." 55 Scott, in 1810, 
 follows Hutchinson, remarking that the statute "probably 
 had its rise in the complaisance of James's first Parliament." 56 
 By 1829 the tradition had hardened considerably, so that 
 a writer in the Gentleman's Magazine asserted that James 
 "is said to have penned [the statute] himself." 57 So much 
 for the external evidence, — now for the probabilities. 
 
 In the first place, the text of the statute is sufficient proof 
 that James did not draft it himself. For it is not a new law. 
 It follows, in the main, the Elizabethan statute word for 
 word. At the utmost, James can be suspected of penning 
 only a few phrases. This part of the charge we may there- 
 fore dismiss without ceremony. But what of the view that 
 James fathered or fostered the bill, that it was introduced 
 at his instance, or passed with an eye to his favor ? Was 
 there, or was there not, such a state of public opinion in Eng- 
 land as will account for the statute without our having re- 
 course to the conjecture that it was passed under James's 
 influence or out of complaisance to him ? 
 
 If this were merely a question of the rank and file of the 
 people, there would be no room for argument. The last few 
 years of Elizabeth's reign abounded in witch prosecutions and 
 were marked by intense popular excitement on the subject. 
 A typical outbreak was that in Devon in 1601 and 1602, 
 when the Trevisard family was complained of before Sir 
 Thomas Ridgeway. 58 But we are now occupied with the 
 lawmakers, who, though constantly exposed to pressure from 
 the populace, may conceivably have preferred the status quo. 
 Was there, or was there not, before James's accession, a 
 
 M P. 180. w Pp. 40-41. 
 
 68 Somers Tracts, 2d edition, 3. 95. 
 
 67 In a series of articles on the Rise and Progress of Witchcraft, containing muc 
 valuable material. Gentleman's Magazine Library, Popular Superstitions, p. 233 
 
 68 See the original examinations (inedited) in the Harvard College Library. 
 
18 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 movement among the better educated classes for a revision 
 of the law and a sharpening of the penalties ? To test this 
 question, we may consult four well-known treatises which 
 are seldom scrutinized from this point of view^i We will 
 begin with Perkins's Discourse. 
 
 ^ William JPerkins, the eminent theologian^ born j n^T^gg^ 
 wasF ejlow of Ch rist's College, Cambrid ge, from 1584 to 
 159J He died j n 1602, le ayjng_behind him A Discourse of 
 the Damned ArTof WitcEcraft. which was published in 1608 
 by^ Thomas Pok ering, B.D, of Cambridge, and Minister o f 
 Finch jngfield T Essex. Pickering dedicated the volume to 
 Coke. Though not issued in the author's lifetime, this trea- 
 tise is good evidence as to what the views of learned English- 
 men were at the turn of the century. Nor was it without 
 influence before Perkins died, for, as the title-page sets 
 forth, the discourse was "framed and delivered " by him 
 "in his ordinarie course of Preaching." It came from the 
 press of the Cambridge University Printer. 
 
 Perkins's book is a masterpiece. It is cogently reasoned, 
 and marked by that concise and simple style for which this 
 author was distinguished above his contemporaries. We 
 may shudder at his opinions, but are forced to admire his 
 candor and ability. — Perkins warns his readers against eon- 
 yjcting on slender evidence. His virile and methodical in- 
 tellect draws the line sharply between presumptions that jus- 
 tify suspicion, and proofs that warrant a verdict of guilty. 59 
 Certain superstitious popular tests he rejects utterly, — 
 such as scratching the witch, and firing the thatch of her 
 cottage, and the ordeal by swimming. 60 Some of these, 
 he declares, "if not all, are after a sort practises of Witch- 
 craft, hauing in them no power or vertue to detect a Sor- 
 cerer, either by Gods ordinance in the creation, or by any 
 speciall appointment since." In scouting the water ordeal, 
 Perkins may have had his eye upon King James's defence 
 of it in the Daemonologie. " It appeares," the king had wr it- 
 ten, "that God hath a p pointe d Ho_r_a. st 1 pern at urall signe 
 of the monstrous impietie of W itches) that th e_wjjterj&all 
 refuse to receiue them in her bosomej thatjiaue shakenoff 
 
 ; , ■ ; : 
 
 69 Pp. 200 ff. 60 Pp. 206 ff. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 19 
 
 them _the sacred Water of Baptisme, an d wilf ully r efused 
 the benefite the reof." 61 Note the brevity and force of Per- 
 kins's refutation : — "To iustifie the casting of a Witch into 
 the water, it is alledged, that hauing made a couenant with the 
 deuill, shee hath renounced her Baptisme, and hereupon there 
 growes an Antipathie betweene her, and water. Ans. This 
 allegation serues to no purpose : for all water is not the water 
 of Baptisme, but that onely which is vsed in the very act 
 of Baptisme, and not before nor after. The element out of 
 the vse of the Sa cra ment , is no Sacrament, but^ceiJirnes 
 again _to_ his common y se/ > 62 Let us remark, in passing, 
 that Thomas Pickering, a beneficed clergyman, did not 
 hesitate to publish this unceremonious denial of the king's 
 argument in 1608, when James had been five years on the 
 throne, and to dedicate the work which contains it to Chief 
 Justice Coke. This may serve to correct, pro tanto, the too 
 prevalent opinion that James I. expected his English subjects 
 to receive his Dsemonologie as but little, if at all, inferior in 
 authority to the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Our immediate concern, however, is with the general 
 tendency of Perkins's treatise, and in particular with his 
 precepts as to punishment. He^dmi ts, the^ wJich-dogm a. 
 in its entirety. The ground pjLan_^or_cjer^is._a_Jje^ue_-OjL. 
 covenant, with-the dexiL wiicJi_ may _hfi_eithex_£xpr e.ss_or_ 
 imr jlicit. There are two k inds of ¥^chcraft a _rrrJQainely^ \ 
 cfiv mjng and working . 63 The second class includes the rais- 
 ing of storms, the poisoning of the air (which brings pesti- 
 lence), the blasting of corn, "the procuring of strange pas- 
 sions and torments in mens bodies and other creatures, with 
 the curing of the same." 64 It is an error to hold that melan- 
 cholia so deludes women that they imagine themselves 
 witches when indeed they are none. Perhaps, after the 
 witch has made her contract with the fiend, she may credit 
 herself with imaginary powers, but the wonders already 
 enumerated she can certainly perform, with Satan's aid. 65 
 Thus Perkins opposes himself squarely to Wierus and Scot. 
 His refutation of their theories is solid and convincing, if we 
 
 61 London, Printed for William Apsley and W. Cotton, 1603, p. 80 (misprinted, 
 "64"). 
 
 62 P. 208. " P. 55. M P. 128. 65 Pp. 191-196. 
 
20 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 admit what nobody dreamt of denying, — the existence of 
 evil spirits. His book, indeed, may be taken as a measure 
 of the slight effect which these dissentients had produced on 
 the minds of sixteenth-century Englishmen. 
 
 As to the law against witchcraft, Perkins is an invaluable 
 witness. He wrote when the Elizabethan statute was in 
 force, and he was of course not under the sway of King James 
 of Scotland, with whose theories, indeed, we have seen him 
 at outspoken variance. Perkins b eliev es that the law _of 
 Moses shouldcontinue in force, and that "al l WitchesJbeeing^ 
 thoroughl y conuic ted by the Magistrate^" should be put to 
 Heathy 66 He expressly declares that this punishment ought 
 to be inflicted not only upon those who kill by means of witch- 
 craft, but upon all witches without any exception whatever, 
 — upon "all Diuiners, Charmers, Iuglers, all Wizzards, 
 commonly called wise men and wise women." He includes 
 in plain terms all so-called "good Witches, which doe no 
 hurt but good, which doe not spoile and destroy, but saue 
 and deliver." Here he uses a really unanswerable argu- 
 ment, which shows in the most striking fashion how ill- 
 equipped we are, with our mild penal laws, to sit in judg- 
 ment on the severity — whether actual or comparative — 
 of the Jacobean statute. "By the lawes of England," 
 writes Perkins, "the thiefe is executed for stealing, and we 
 think it iust and profitable : but it were a thousand times 
 better for the land, if all Witches, but specially the blessing 
 Witch might suffer death. For the thiefe by his stealing, 
 and the hurtfull Inchanter by charming, bring hinderance 
 and hurt to the bodies and goods of men; but these are 
 the right hand of the deuill, by which he taketh and 
 destroieth the soules of men. Men doe commonly hate 
 and spit at the damnifying Sorcerer, as vnworthie to 
 Hue among them; whereas the other is so deare vnto 
 them, that they hold themselues and their countrey blessed 
 that haue him among them, they flie vnto him in 
 necessitie, they depend vpon him as their god, and by 
 this meanes, thousands are carried away to their finall 
 confusion. Death therefore is the iust and deserued por- 
 
 66 P. 247. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 21 
 
 tion of the good Witch." These are the closing words 
 of Perkins's weighty treatise. 67 
 
 Perkins was a vital force in forming English opinio n-while 
 he was alive, especially during the last decade oLthe-sixteenth 
 century and at the begiiming_jaLJ&e__sevwt^^ Few 
 Cambridge lecturers were more authoritative, and Cambridge 
 was in close contact with public men. He "was buried with 
 great solemnity at the sole charges of Christs Colledge, the 
 University and Town striving which should expresse more 
 sorrow at his Funeral ; Doctor Montague Preached his 
 Funeral Sermon upon that Text, Moses my Servant is dead" 68 
 This was James Montagu, first Master of Sidney Sussex 
 College, afterwards Bishop of Bath and Wells (1608) and of 
 Winchester (1616). Bishop Hall, who was at Cambridge 
 while Perkins was active, commends him warmly. "A 
 worthy divine," he calls him, "whose labors are of much note 
 and use in the Church of God." 69 Fuller is also among his 
 admirers. 70 How the Discourse worked when its substance 
 was orally delivered "in his ordinarie course of preaching " 
 may be inferred from the respect with which the printed 
 book is continually cited, — by Cotta, for example, in his 
 Triall of Witch-craft (1616). 71 Cotta's treatise is likewise 
 dedicated to Coke. 
 
 Jojmjlotta j^a^^, T^ 
 and later of Corpus Christi. He received the degree of M.A. 
 in 1596, and that of M.D. in 1603. His first book appeared 
 in 1612. It contains a good deal about witchcraft. In 
 16 16 he published a jsystematic treatise. A Triall of .. JSitch.- 
 ggjjkllf w hich a second edition cam e out in 1624. The main 
 objecJLpjjthis wor kJs to prov e that_anv ffiven case joLalleged 
 j*orcerx_miglitAoJ^-£^ senses and 
 
 reason^^like _othejL_Qbxects ^l^nYestigation. Cotta, then, 
 is^on the right side. He follows Wierus in maintaining that 
 
 67 Pp. 256-257. For other expressions of opinion on witchcraft, see Perkins's 
 Golden Chaine, ed. 1605, pp. 34-36, and his Combate betweene Christ and the 
 Diuell, ed. 1606, pp. 16, 25, 37. 
 
 68 Samuel Clarke, Life of Perkins (Marrow of Ecclesiastical History, Part i., 
 3d ed., 1675, p. 416) ; cf. John Manningham's Diary, ed. Bruce, Camden Society, 
 p. 104 ; Fuller, Holy State, ed. 1840, p. 71. 
 
 69 Works, Oxford, 1837, 6. 340. 
 
 ™ See note 68 above. 71 Pp. 53, 89, 91, 95. 
 
22 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 many so-called bewitched persons are suffering from natural 
 disease. When he wrote he was practising at Northampton, 
 where he had resided ever since he took his medical degree 
 in 1603. His rationalizing attitude was largely the result 
 of his own experience as a physician during this interval. 
 
 The whole ground of Cotta's argument is an acceptance 
 of the traditional witch-dogma. He believes that there are 
 witches in plenty ; that they make contracts with the devil ; 
 that supernatural deeds are performed by the fiend, in which 
 the witch "hath a property and interest" by virtue of her 
 covenant with him ; that, in this way, witches may be im- 
 plicated in afflicting their fellow-creatures with diseases or in 
 causing their death. As concrete examples, we may take 
 the witches of Warboys (1589-1593) and the Lancashire 
 witches (1612), for both of those notorious cases are accepted 
 by Cotta without demur. 72 And, just as he is confident 
 that the guilt of a witch may be discovered with certainty 
 by methods of reason and perception which he develops 
 elaborately, so he is content to leave her to the courts, to 
 be "arraigned and condemned of manifest high treason 
 against Almighty God, and of combination with his open and 
 professed enemy the Diuell." 73 The statute of 1604 was 
 none too rigorous for Dr. Cotta. If these were his sentiments 
 in 1616, when he was writing a cautionary and corrective 
 treatise, we may be certain that his views were quite as 
 orthodox at the turn of the century, when he was still at the 
 University of Cambridge and subject to the influence of Per- 
 kins, whom he cites with so much respect. 
 
 From Cambridge we turn to Oxford. Thomas Cnoppr, 
 of Christ Church , was A.B. in 15 90, A .M. in 15 93, J B.D. in 
 1600. In 1601 he was presented ISyTiis college to a living 
 in Cheshire, which he resigned in 1604. From 1604 to 1610 
 he was vicar of Holy Trinity, Coventry. 74 j^_volume 
 entitl ed The My_stery_of .WitcL-craft was not published until 
 1617,T>ut it embodies information enougli_about the author's, 
 
 72 Pp. 77, 90. 73 P. 80. 
 
 74 Ormerod, County of Chester, ed. Helsby, 1. 611; Joseph Welch, List of the 
 Queen's Scholars of St. Peter's College, Westminister, ed. Phillimore, p. 59; 
 Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, 1. 325 ; Dictionary of National Biography ; Cooper, 
 Mystery, sig. A2. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 23 
 
 experiences and opinions in the time preceding^ the accession 
 of James to make it available for our present purposes. 
 Cooper's acquaintance with magic began while he was a 
 student at Oxford. There was a time, he tells us, when 
 he "admired some in the Vniuersitie famozed in that skill." 
 "Did not," he exclaims, — "did not the Lord so dispose of 
 mee, that my Chamber-fellow was exceedingly bewitched 
 with these faire shewes, and hauing gotten diuers bookes to 
 that end, was earnest in the pursuit of that glorie which 
 might redound thereby ? Did not wee communicate our 
 Studies together ? was not this skill proposed and canuased 
 in common ? And did not the Lord so arme his vnworthy 
 seruant, that not onely the snare was gratiously espied ; but, 
 by the great mercie of my God, the Lord vsed mee as a 
 meanes to diuert my Chamber-fellow from these dangerous 
 studies?" 75 Thus we learn that when Cooper received his 
 Cheshire living, in 1601, he was deeply impressed with the 
 horror of dealing with devils. Between this date and 1610 
 he had several encounters with witchcraft, — at North wich 
 (near Chester), in Lancashire, and at Coventry. 76 Some of 
 these are perhaps too late for us to use, but the Northwich 
 jnciden tjffl-lls in 1601 and 1609 77 At all events, we are safe 
 in believing that the sentiments which Cooper expresses in 
 his volume do not differ appreciably from those which he 
 entertained before James's accession. Now Cooper agrees 
 in all essentials and in most particulars with Perkins, from 
 whom he borrows largely without due acknowledgment. 78 
 Writing after the passage of the statute of 1604, he rejoices 
 that the law has been made severer. 79 Yet he is not satisfied. 
 Like Perkins, he holds that "the Blesser or good Witch . . . 
 is farre more dangerous then the Badde or hurting Witch," 80 
 and that both kinds ought to be extirpated. Thus it ap- 
 
 75 Pp. 12-13. 76 Sig. A3, A4, p. 13. 
 
 77 Deacon and Walker refer to the case in their Summarie Answere to Darrel, 
 1601, p. 237. Darrel, in A Survey of Certain Dialogical Discourses, 1602, p. 54, 
 gives the boy's name (" Tho. Harison of North Wych in Ches shire"), and says that 
 he is "at this present very greuously vexed by Sathan." 
 
 78 Compare, for instance, Cooper, pp. 52-55, with Perkins, pp. 19-22, 26, 27, 
 30, 31, 33, 34; Cooper, pp. 64-65, with Perkins, pp. 41-43; Cooper, p. 68, with 
 Perkins, pp. 47-48; Cooper, pp. 128-133, 136, with Perkins, pp. 55-67, 73, 92, 
 104. 
 
 79 P. 314. 80 P. 232. 
 
24 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 pears that Cooper, though he wrote after the passage of the 
 statute of 1604, may serve as a witness to the opinions that 
 prevailed among many of the clergy at about the turn of the 
 century. 
 
 Our fourth witness is a very strong one, and his testimony 
 is not complicated by inferences about dates. jHe^is George 
 Gifl^rdi^another J3rfordjmam_ .Giffard 's Dialogue concern- 
 ing Witcjie^andJWitchcrafts was first published in 159JL — 
 a year otherwise notable in the a nnals of English sorcery, 
 as we shall see in a moment. It was reissued in 1603, three 
 years~a7ter his death. 81 Giffard was an eminent preacher 
 of Maldon, in Essex. He passes for one of the earliest op- 
 ponents of the witc hcraft d elusi on, ^and_with some reason, 
 TorJie_held that sic kness and death ascribed to -witchcraft 
 were due to natural causes, he repudiated spectral and hear- 
 say evidence, andjhe argued_against cojiviciing anybody 
 except on conclusive testimony. Yet it never entered his 
 head to deny the existence of witches or to doubt that they 
 have dealings with the fiend. He tells us that the times 
 were devil-haunted. "It falleth out in many places euen 
 of a sudden, as it seemeth to me, and no doubt by the heauie 
 iudgement of God, that the Diuels as it were let loose, do 
 more preuaile, then euer I haue heard of. . . . Satan is 
 now heard speake, and beleeued. He speaketh by con- 
 iurers, by sorcerers, and by witches, and his word is taken. 
 He deuiseth a number of things to be done, & they are put in 
 practise and followed." 82 Giffard is here speaking in his 
 own person. Elsewhere in the dialogue he gives us a first- 
 rate account of the popular terror. One of the interlocutors 
 is "Samuel," an honest and well-to-do goodman. "They 
 say," declares Samuel, "there is scarse any towne or village 
 in all this shire, but there is one or two witches at the least 
 in it." ™ And the annals of Essex bear out Samuel's views. 
 Thirteen witches, as we have seen, were convicted and ten 
 
 81 The Dictionary of National Biography and Dr. Usher date Giffard's death 
 1620. But he was doubtless the George Giffard of Maldon whose will was proved 
 in 1600 (Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, New Series, 7. 46). For 
 Giffard's connection with the Classical Movement of 1573-1592, see It. G. Usher, 
 Presbyterian Movement, 1905, pp. xli, 9, 16, 19, 42, 94. For Giffard's reputation 
 see D'Ewes, Autobiography, ed. Halliwell, 1. 114. 
 
 82 Dedicatory Epistle. * Ed. 1603, sig. A 3. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 25 
 
 of them hanged at Chelmsford in 1582, and there were other 
 executions there in 1579 and 1589. It was an outbreak 
 in that same neighborhood in 1645 that started Matthew 
 Hopkins on his career ; and the evidence and confessions went 
 back, in some instances for twenty, and even thirty years. 84 
 Giff ard was a man of unusual humanity and strong common 
 sense, as his book shows. Yet he was heartily in favor of 
 a severer law than the statute of Elizabeth. The following 
 passage from his Dialogue is a precious document for our 
 present purposes. "Daniel " is the speaker who presents 
 Giffard's own views; "M. B." is a schoolmaster. 
 
 Dan. A witch by the word of God ought to die the death, not because 
 she killeth men, for that she cannot (vnles it be those witches which kill 
 by poyson, which either they receiue from the diuell, or hee teacheth them 
 to make) but because she dealeth with diuels. And so if a Iurie doe finde 
 proofe that she hath dealt with diuels, they may and ought to finde them 
 guiltie of witchcraft. 
 
 M. B. If they finde them guiltie to haue dealt with diuels, and cannot 
 say they haue murdered men, the law doth not put them to death. 
 
 Dan. It were to be wished, that the law were more [p]erfect in that 
 respect, euen to cut off all such abhominations. These cunning men and 
 women which deale with spirites and charmes seeming to doe good, and 
 draw the people into manifold impieties, with all other which haue famil- 
 iarity with deuels, or vse coniurations, ought to bee rooted out, that others 
 might see and feare. (Sig. K3.) 
 
 Here_s:e_have jaJughly. intelligentjr^eacher^a man of .real 
 influen ce, press ing for precisely that change. in the law — 
 t he extension of the death penal ty to witchcraft tha t pro- 
 o^ces^oj^ly_injuxy without _ dea^^-^hich _ was _ actually 
 emb odied in the statute of 1604. And Giffard, like Perkins, 
 condemns the "white witch " utterly. The evidence speaks 
 for itself. 
 
 Perkins's Discourse and Giffard's Dialogue are strongly 
 contrasted works. Giffard addresses his teaching to the 
 unlearned : he throws his book into the form of a conversa- 
 tion (so he tells us) "to make it fitter for the capacity of the 
 simpler sort." Perkins, on the other hand, writes for edu- 
 cated persons, — for those who can follow a close-knit 
 scholastic argument. Giffard's aim is to free the minds of 
 
 84 A True and Exact Relation of the severall Informations [etc.] of the late 
 Witches, 1645, pp. 8, 15, 32, 34. 
 
26 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 the common people from needless terrors and to prevent the 
 shedding of innocent blood. Perkins, though he warns his 
 readers (as Giffard does) against condemning on slender 
 evidence, is chiefly bent on defending the witchcraft dogma 
 against the assaults of Wierus and Reginald Scot. Yet both 
 Giffard and PerlrinSjio Id tenaciously to the inherited belief. 
 Th ere are such thin gs a.s witches: they do ally themselves 
 with the devil ; they should be punished? And in this matter 
 of the penalty — which is our chief concern at the moment — 
 Giffard and Perkins are in perfect accord. Both maintain 
 that all witches ought to be put to death, irrespective of the ques- 
 tion whether they have killed men by their arts or not. In other 
 words, the Elizabethan statute seemed to them insufficient, 
 and they urged the enacting of a law of greater severity. 
 Could there be more illuminating evidence? Nothing can 
 be clearer than that, about the turn of the century, before 
 Elizabeth was dead and James had taken her place, there 
 was strong pressure for a revision of the witchcraft law, and 
 for revision in the direction taken by the statute of 1604. 
 This was the kind of pressure to which the legislators yielded 
 — nothing loth, to be sure. They were not browbeaten by 
 King ejames, nor did they vote with an eye to the royal favor. 
 They followed their own consciences, incited by the feelings 
 of the populace and stimulated by the exhortations of the 
 gravest counsellors they knew. 
 
 TheJVvnr boo ks thai, w e have just examined would suffice 
 to prove, even if there were no other evidence, that the a cces- 
 sion o f James found the English public — both in its educated 
 ' ancTTts uneducated classes — deeply impresse d with th e 
 actuality of witchcraft as an ever-present menace to soul an d 
 \^ body, intensely excited on the subject, and pressing hard 
 for the extermination of witches, 8 5 But there is^rther evi- 
 dence in plenty. The records from 1582 to 1603 abound in 
 specific cases. Two items call for particular notice : the 
 Darrel affair (1586-1601), and the affair of the Witches of 
 Warboys (1589-1593). There is a close psychological con- 
 nection between them. 
 
 85 The general anxiety of Englishmen as Elizabeth's death drew nigh is graphi- 
 cally described by Dekker, The Wonderfull Yeare, 1603 (Works, ed. Grosart, 1. 
 94-96). Such crises are always favorable to outbreaks of witch-prosecution. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 27 
 
 John Darrel, a Cambridge graduate, was a Puritan 
 preacher in Derbyshire when (in 1586) he began his career 
 as a caster-out of devils. In 1598 he was summoned before 
 an ecclesiastical commission over which Archbishop Whit- 
 gift presided. Bishop Bancroft and Chief Justice Anderson 
 were members of the commission. More than forty witnesses 
 were called. Some of the demoniacs confessed fraud, and 
 Darrel, with his associate George More, was convicted of 
 imposture and imprisoned. 86 There had been an uproar over 
 the possessions and the exorcisms, and popular opinion sided 
 with Darrel. Samuel Harsnet, the cleverest of Bishop Ban- 
 croft's chaplains, was delegated to write up the case. His 
 famous Discovery came out in 1599, and was expected to 
 overwhelm Darrel with ridicule and odium, In the long run 
 it has had this result, for Darrel is usually treated nowadays 
 as an impostor. But it had no such effect at the time. Both 
 Darrel and More wrote long replies, and printed them sur- 
 reptitiously in defiance of the authorities. 
 
 Bancroft soon discovered that Harsnet's skirmishing 
 was not sufficient, and he brought his heavy troops into 
 action. Two treatises, of unimaginable ponderosity in style 
 and matter, each elaborated in concert by two preachers, 
 John Deacon and John Walker, came out in 1601. 87 Harsnet 
 had railed and ridiculed and "exposed," but he had steered 
 
 clear of dialectics. Pffjnnn rju] Wflllcpr tnilpd to supply 
 
 the^esideratum*- TTsing-all the scholastic machinery* they 
 tried to prove, by logic and Scripture, that there is no such 
 thing as demoniacal possession nowadays, and that Dar- 
 rel's demoniacs wer p either counterfeiting or else afflicted 
 with natural Hispasps. Darrel promptly replied to both 
 books, printing his answers surreptitiously, as before. 
 
 Strange as it may seem, Darrel has the best of the argu- 
 ment. For his opponents admit both too little and too 
 much. They admit too little, since they wish the fits to 
 appear fraudulent, whereas these were, beyond a shadow 
 of doubt, genuine hysteria, of which lying and imposture are 
 well-recognized symptoms. Darrel was sharp enough to see 
 that, as managed by his opponents, the hypothesis of fraud 
 
 86 Harsnet, Discovery, 1599, pp. 8-9. 
 
 87 Summarie Answere, and Dialogicall Discourses. 
 
28 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 and the hypothesis of disease thwarted each other, and left 
 some kind of demonic assault in possession of the field. 
 They admit too much, because they themselves grant the 
 existence of evil spirits of vast power (nay, take pains to 
 demonstrate their existence), and because they accept 
 demoniacal possession as a fact in ancient times, though they 
 reject it for the present age. This rejection was, of course, 
 quite arbitrary, and their attempts to justify it from Scripture 
 were pitifully weak. Darrel could appeal to facts and ex- 
 perience. His patients had manifested the same symptoms 
 as the demoniacs of old, and it was obviously absurd to force 
 a distinction. If the afflicted persons in Bible times were 
 possessed with devils, then his patients were possessed with 
 devils ; and if he had relieved them (as he surely had), then 
 there was no reason which Deacon and Walker could make 
 valid to reject the corollary of dispossession. 
 
 But what connection has this strange affair with witch- 
 craft ? Here we must walk circumspectly, for misappre- 
 hensions are rife. It is often inferred that Bancroft and 
 Harsnet, because they denounced Darrel and his patients 
 as tricksters, had no belief in witchcraft. This is a false 
 conclusion. A demoniac is not necessarily bewitched. He 
 may owe his dire condition to some witch's malice, or, on 
 the other hand, the devil may have assailed him immediately, 
 without a witch's agency. Further, there are many evil 
 things done by witches which have no reference to demoni- 
 acal possession. In all of Darrel's cases, to be sure, witches 
 were accused. To some extent, then, Bancroft and his 
 assistants were,jtn_eff ect, attem jilin£Llo_jliscrje£lit the witch 
 dogmaTHsince t hey were attack ing the genuineness, or the 
 diabolical origin, of certain phenomena ascribed, in these 
 particular ins jances^to witchcraft . But (and we cannot be 
 too careful in making the distinction) they did not deny either 
 the existence or the criminality of witches in general, any more 
 than they denied the existence of wicked spirits. They strove 
 to explode the theory of demoniacal possession; but they 
 did not attack the witchcraft dogma. Indeed, they took 
 care to avoid committing themselves on that head. For, even 
 if they had no faith in the dogma, they knew that to assail it 
 would throw them out of court, inasmuch as the belief in 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 29 
 
 witchcraft was, in some form or other, universal among all 
 classes and all persuasions. 
 
 Further, Bancroft and his aids, in their opposition to 
 Darrel, were not espousing the cause of alleged witches, — 
 or, if so, they were doing it in a purely incidental way. Their 
 object was quite definite and unconcealed. They were war- 
 ring against the Puritans 88 and the Roman Catholics, whom 
 they regarded as foes to Church and State. Puritan 
 preachers and Roman Catholic priests both professed to cast 
 out devils. In Bancroft's eyes these were absurd pretensions. 
 Yet the people and many of the clergy were much impressed. 
 There was danger ahead, so the Bishop thought. A vigorous 
 campaign was necessary. But the campaign was political 
 and ecclesiastical, not humanitarian. Its aim was not to 
 save witches, but to crush exorcists. 89 
 
 Here is a significant bit of evidence on this point. In 
 1602 Mary Glover, the daughter of a merchant in Thames 
 Street, had weird seizures, which she attributed to the malign 
 spells of Elizabeth Jackson. The neighbors were eager to 
 prosecute, but a physician informed Chief Justice Anderson 
 that "the maid did counterfeit." Anderson directed Sir 
 John Croke (Recorder of London) to summon the girl to 
 his chamber in the Temple and test the matter. Croke 
 
 88 " Phantastical giddy-headed Puritans" Archbishop Matthew Hutton of York 
 calls them in a letter to Whitgift, Oct. 1, 1603 (Strype's Life of Whitgift, 1718, p. 
 570). 
 
 89 The exorcisms of the Jesuit Edmunds (alias Weston) and his associates in 
 1585 and 1586 were similarly attacked by Bancroft and Harsnet. See Harsnet's 
 famous diatribe, A Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures, 1603 (2d edition, 
 1605) . The Roman Catholics were no more convinced in this case than the Puritans 
 were in that of Darrel (see the references to Yepez and others in Mr. T. G. Law's 
 article on Devil-Hunting in Elizabethan England, in the Nineteenth Century for 
 March, 1894, 35. 397 ff.). On Sir George Peckham, who was involved in this affair, 
 see Merrimam, American Historical Review, 17, 492 ff. Compare Sir George 
 Courthop on the Nuns of Loudun (Memoirs, Camden Miscellany, 11. 106-109) ; 
 see also Evelyn's Diary, August 5, 1670. 
 
 Darrel's opponents did their best to stigmatize his principles and practices with 
 regard to demoniacal possession as identical with those of the Roman Catholic 
 Church. Thus Deacon and Walker, speaking of Darrel, inform their readers that 
 *'he hath for a season (though feare and shame enforceth him now to pluck in his 
 head) very prowdlie ietted from countrie to countrie like a pettie new Pope among 
 his owne Cardinals; yea and that also in his pontificalities, portrayed and con- 
 tinued after the new-found popelike cut" (Summarie Answere, 1601, Address to the 
 Reader). 
 
30 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 did so in 1603, having both the maid and the witch present, 
 with divers neighbors and certain ministers. He was con- 
 vinced, by various drastic tests, that there was no imposture, 
 and committed Mother Jackson to Newgate. At the Re- 
 corder's instance, several ministers undertook to relieve the 
 girl by fasting and prayer. They were completely successful. 
 One of them, Lewis Hughes, was despatched to Bishop Ban- 
 croft with the tidings. He was not well received. "I . . . 
 could have no audience," he writes, "and for my paines I was 
 called Rascall and varlot, and sent to the Gatehouse, where 
 hee kept me foure moneths." 90 But Mother Jackson was 
 arraigned and convicted in due course. Bancroft, we ob- 
 serve, was certain that this was not demoniacal possession, 
 and he imprisoned the exorciser. But he made no effort, 
 so far as we can learn, to rescue the witch. He left her to 
 the courts with a good conscience. 
 
 This episode fell just after the so-called exposure of Darrel. 
 The date makes it instructive. The Recorder, we note, was 
 still a believer in possession, despite the arguments of Ban- 
 croft's literary bureau, and so were many (perhaps most) of 
 the clergy. Indeed, we must not too nastily assume that 
 all the bishops even were ready to subscribe to Bancroft's 
 extreme tenets. Take the case of Thomas Harrison, the 
 Boy of Northwich, in Cheshire. His fits began in 1600 or 
 1601 and lasted a year or two. He was kept for ten days in 
 the Bishop of Chester's palace and carefully watched, but 
 no fraud was detected. The Bishop (Richard Vaughan) 
 and three other commissioners issued an order that, "for 
 [his] ease and deliverance" from "his grievous afflictions," 
 public prayers should be offered for him in the parish church 
 "before the congregation so oft as the same assembleth." 
 They delegated seven clergymen to visit him by turns, and 
 "to use their discretions by private prayer and fasting, for 
 the ease and comfort of the afflicted." Some held, this 
 
 90 Certaine Grievances, 1641, p. 20. See George Sinclair, Satan's Invisible World 
 Discovered, 1685, Relation XII (reprint, 1871, pp. 95-100; cf. Ferguson, Publi- 
 cations of the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society, 3. 56-57) ; Commission on His- 
 torical MSS., 8th Report, Appendix, Part i., p. 228. An account of the affair, by 
 George Swan, was published in 1603, under the title, A True and Brief Report, etc. 
 On Lewis Hughes see Kittredge, George Stirk, Minister (reprinted from the Publi- 
 cations of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts), 1910, pp. 18-21. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 31 
 
 document informs us, "that the child [was] really possessed 
 of an uncleane spirit." This Bishop Vaughan and the other 
 commissioners doubted. But they did not think he was 
 shamming. They had "seene the bodily affliction of the 
 said child," and observed in sundry fits very strange effects 
 and operations, they tell us, "either proceeding of natural vn- 
 knowne causes, or of some diabolical practise." 91 And Har- 
 vey, one of the clergymen appointed by the Bishop to fast 
 and pray, wrote to a friend that nothing like the "passions 
 [i.e. sufferings], behavior, and speeches" of the boy had "ever 
 come under his observation or occurred in his reading." 
 "Few that have seene the variety of his fits, but they thinke 
 the divell hath the disposing of his body. Myselfe have 
 divers times seene him, and such things in him as are im- 
 possible to proceed from any humane creature. The matter 
 hath affected our whole country. The Divines with us 
 generally hold, that the child is really possessed." 92 A con- 
 temporary memorandum assures us that once, when the 
 Bishop was praying with him, "the Boy was so outragious, 
 that he flew out of his bed, and so frighted the Bishops men, 
 that one of them fell into a sown, and the Bishop was glad 
 to lay hold on the boy, who ramped at the Window to have 
 gotten out." 93 
 
 Joseph Hall, afterwards Bishop of Exeter (1627) and of 
 Norwich (1641), in disputing with a Belgian priest in 1605, 
 asserted roundly that "in our church, we had manifest proofs 
 of the ejection of devils by fasting and prayer." 94 Hall 
 was a firm believer in witchcraft and approved of the statute 
 of 1604. 95 
 
 91 Darrel, Replie, 1602, p. 21. « Darrel. pp. 21-22. 
 
 93 John Bruen's memoranda, in William Hinde's Life of John Bruen (born 1560, 
 died 1625), in Samuel Clarke, Marrow of Ecclesiastical History, Part ii., Book ii., 
 1675, p. 95. Bruen (who was a Cheshire man) was an eyewitness of the boy's 
 fits, and his notes, as excerpted by Hinde, give a good idea of his ravings (pp. 94- 
 96). The boy cried out against "the witch," but I do not find that anybody was 
 brought to trial. 
 
 94 Autobiography, Works, ed. Hall (1837), 1. xxi. Hall may have had in mind 
 the case reported by Bishop Parkhurst in a letter to Bullinger, June 29, 1574 
 (Zurich Letters, ed. Hastings Robinson, 1842, No. 118, translation, p. 118, original, 
 p. 178). 
 
 95 Works, 6. 136-137; 7. 245-246; Contemplations, Works, ed. 1628, pp. 1134- 
 1135. 
 
32 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 [ And now we will go back a few years in order to see what 
 the bishops and the judges thought, and how they acted, 
 
 Swhen a case combining demoniacal possession with witch- 
 craft was not complicated by Puritan or Roman Catholic 
 exorcism. Let us examine, as briefly as may be, the cele- 
 brated case of the Witches of Warboys. The story has been 
 told again and again, but its actual bearing on the history of 
 English witch prosecution has never been pointed out. 
 The Warboys case lasted from 1589. wh en the fits of the 
 afflictedhp ersons began, until 1593, when the witches w ere 
 hanged v 
 
 Robert Throckmorton, Esquire, was a Huntingdonshire 
 gentleman of excellent family and connections. He was 
 of Ellington, but had removed to Warboys shortly before 
 our story begins. Both these places are near the county 
 town, and therefore not far from Cambridge. The disturb- 
 ance began in November, 1589, when Jane, Mr. Throc k- 
 morton's daughter^ a^irj ol_about- Jen years j was attacked 
 with violent^ysteria^ In her fits, she called out against 
 Mother Samuel, an aged neighbor. Two first-rate physi- 
 cians of Cambridge were consulted, Dr. Barrow (a friend of 
 Mr. Throckmorton's) and Master Butler. The latter was, 
 I suppose, William Butler (1535-1618) of Clare Hall, of 
 whom Aubrey tells several amusing anecdotes. Aubrey 
 informs us that he "never tooke the degree of Doctor, though 
 he was the greatest physician of his time." 96 Both Barrow 
 and Butler were baffled, and Barrow ascribed the fits to 
 witchcraft, remarking that he himself "had some experience 
 of the mallice of some witches." 97 This speech is worth 
 noting, for it throws light on the state of mind of university 
 men. Wftlnn two jmonj^ — 
 
 ranging in age from nin e to fiftee n years — w ere s i m il arly 
 t attacked, and they ajljcried _oujLagainst Mother__SamueL 
 This affliction lasted until April, 1593, or about three years 
 and a half. In the interval six or seven womenservants 
 (for the Throckmorton menage was of course somewhat 
 unstable) suffered from just such fits, — and also the wife 
 of one of the girls' maternal uncles, Mr. John Pickering of 
 
 96 Brief Lives, ed. Clark, 1. 138. 
 
 97 The Witches of Warboys, 1593, sig. B2 r°. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 33 
 
 Ellington. J\JpjherSamud_was_belieYed to he the cause of 
 it all. Yet thechildren'T parents act ed, with exemplary 
 caution . They had no wish to prosecute Mother Samuel, 
 but treated her kindly and gave their attention to caring 
 for the girls and urging her to confess. Her confession and 
 repentance, it was hoped, would put an end to the fits. 
 
 A^ojot_ClmstmaSj 1&9£, ^Mother Samuel admittepLiier, 
 guilt. E ven then there was no imm ediate t hought of bring - 
 ing her to justice. She was in g reaLd istress of min^ ^n j 
 bojyb^j^JT hrockmorton a nd Dr. Doringtoiy the-^parson of 
 ^g^grbnySj^eyprtpH t.hpnnsftlvfts fn givp hpr Christian conso- 
 latio n as a repentant sinner. However, she almost imme- 
 diately retracted, whereupon Mr. Throckmorton, losing 
 patience at last, took her before the Bishop of Lincoln (Will- 
 iam Chaderton) and certain justices. She again made ad- 
 mission of guilt. Soon after the girls fell into their fits 
 afresh, and they now accused the old woman of the death 
 of Lady Cromwell, the second wife of Sir Henry Cromwell 
 of Hinchinbrook, the great landowner of those parts, known 
 for his splendor as the Golden Knight. 
 
 The Cromwells and the Throckmortons were friends, and, 
 in September, 1590, Lady Cromwell, being then at Ramsey, 
 only two miles from Warboys, had made a call of sympathy 
 on the family. Mother Samuel, who lived next door, had 
 been summoned. The Samuels were Sir Henry's tenants, 
 and the lady spoke roughly to the old woman, accusing her 
 of witchcraft, and snatched off her cap and clipped off a 
 lock of her hair. This she told Mistress Throckmorton to 
 burn. Mother Samuel uttered some words which, when 
 later remembered, passed for the damnum minatum. That 
 night Lady Cromwell was strangely attacked, and she died 
 after an illness of a year and a quarter, — that is, about the 
 beginning of 1592. Nobody appears to have connected 
 Mother Samuel with her death until, in 1593, the afflicted 
 girls charged her with it in their ravings. They extended 
 the accusation to John Samuel, her husband, and Agnes, 
 her daughter. All three were tried at Huntingdon before 
 
 JusticeJFejtmeXC^ Mnthpr Samuel nnnfogg^ 
 
 ag jtjwith her husb and and Ha.iight.pr, was hangpH, agpnrHjnjpr 
 
 frT thpjrei^flbethfl 11 statute There was no doubt of their 
 
34 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 guilt in anybody's mind. Mother Samuel herself thought 
 the girls bewitched, and old Samuel was finally convinced 
 that his wife was guilty. 
 
 Several causes combined to make this the most momentous 
 witch-trial that had ever occurred in England. The long 
 continuance of the phenomena and the station of the victims 
 were alone sufficient to give the affair wide currency. The 
 family was connected with many persons of importance. 
 Mr. Robert Throckmorton was related to the Warwickshire 
 and the Gloucestershire Throckmortons. One of his first 
 cousins, also named Robert, lived at Brampton, Northants, 
 close by, and often witnessed the girls' fits. The girls' 
 maternal uncle, Mr. (afterwards Sir) Gilbert Pickering of 
 Tichmarsh, and his brothers, John and Henry, were deeply 
 interested, and gave evidence at the assizes. So did Dr. 
 Francis Dorington, the Warboys rector, who was the hus- 
 band of Mr. Throckmorton's sister. Robert Poulter, vicar 
 of Brampton, another witness, was also connected with the 
 family. 98 Francis Cromwell, Sir Henry's brother, was one 
 of the justices to whom Mother Samuel confessed. The 
 Cromwells were among the best-known commoners in the 
 kingdom. Dr. Dorington's brother John, a Londoner, 
 visited the children in their attacks, and of course he talked 
 of the affair in the capital. 
 
 The connections with Cambridge were also very intimate. 
 The physicians consulted by Mr. Throckmorton, as we have 
 noticed, lived there, and they were both university men. 
 Dr. Francis Dorington, the parson of Warboys, who had 
 married Mr. Throckmorton's sister, and Thomas Nutt, the 
 vicar of Ellington, were also Cambridge graduates." Both 
 were deeply interested in the case, and gave evidence at the 
 trial. Henry Pickering, one of the children's maternal 
 
 98 See the Throckmorton pedigree (drawn up by Robert Throckmorton himself 
 in 1613) in Charles's Visitation of the County of Huntingdon, ed. Ellis, Camden 
 Society, 1849, pp. 123-124, and the Pulter pedigree, in the same, p. 101. Cf. 
 the Pickering pedigree in Bridges, Northamptonshire, 2. 383-385. 
 
 99 Dorington was A.B. 1555, Fellow of St. Catherine's College 1558, A.M. 1559, 
 S. T. B. Queen's College 1565, S.T.P. 1575. Nutt matriculated at Peterhouse 
 1568; he was A.B. 1573, A.M. 1577. For this information, as well as the uni- 
 versity record of Henry and Thomas Pickering (the editor of Perkins's Discourse), 
 I am indebted to the kindness of the Registrary, Dr. J. N. Keynes, and the good 
 offices of Professor Skeat. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 35 
 
 uncles, was at Christ's College when the fits began. 100 He 
 not only visited the Throckmortons in 1590, "being then 
 a Scholler of Cambridge," and stayed there three or four 
 days, but he took two other scholars of his acquaintance to 
 see the witch, and we have a pretty full account of the inter- 
 view. Mr. Pickering was fully persuaded that Goody 
 Samuel was a witch. Being somewhat moved, he told her 
 that "there was no way to preuent the iudgements of God, 
 but by her confession and repentance : which if she did not 
 in time, he hoped one day to see her burned at a stake, and 
 he himselfe would bring fire and wood, and the children should 
 bio we the coales." 101 This Mr. Henry Pickering became, 
 in 1597, rector of Aldwincle All Saints, in Northamptonshire. 
 His daughter Mary married Erasmus Dryden (son of Sir 
 Erasmus), and became the mother of the illustrious poet, 
 who was born at the parsonage house of Aldwincle All Saints 
 in 1631. 102 Thus it appears that the five tormented Throck- 
 morton girls were first cousins of the poet's mother, and that 
 Mrs. Throckmorton was his great-aunt. We note that 
 William Perkins, whose treatise on witchcraft we have exam- 
 ined, was a fellow of Christ's College during most of the time 
 when these fits were going on. It is curious, too, that the 
 publisher of Perkins's posthumous treatise (another Cam- 
 bridge man) was Thomas Pickering, 103 doubtless a relative, 
 though we cannot be certain of that. Both Sir Henry Crom- 
 well and his son Oliver had been at the university. 
 
 The Warboys case, then, demonstrably produced a deep 
 
 100 Henry Pickering was a younger son of Sir Gilbert Pickering, Knight, of 
 Tichmarsh, Northamptonshire. He matriculated at Christ's College, as a Pensioner, 
 March 16. 1582-3, was A.B. 1586, A.M. 1590, and incorporated at Oxford 1593 
 (see note 99, above). 
 
 101 Witches of Warboys, sig. E3. 
 
 102 The year when Pickering became rector of Aldwincle All Saints, and the 
 date of his death (1637, aged 75), were first correctly given (from his tombstone) 
 by Mr. W. D. Christie in the Globe Edition of Dryden's Poetical Works, 1870, p. 
 xvi., note f- 
 
 103 Thomas Pickering was admitted at Emmanuel College as a Pensioner in 1589. 
 He was A.B. 1592, A.M. and Fellow 1596, B.D. 1603. He became Vicar of Finch- 
 ingfield, Essex, March 9, 1605-6, and died there in 1625. For these facts I am 
 indebted to the Registrary of the University, Dr. J. N. Keynes, and to Mr. J. B. 
 Peace, Bursar of Emmanuel. His marriage license was issued May 4, 1611; 
 his will was proved 1627, and administration was granted March 13, 1625-6 
 (Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, New Series, 6. 299). 
 
36 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 and lasting impression on; the class that made laws. The 
 gen tlemen concerned wer eji dt ignorant coun try squires in 
 the jgmote dis tricts; they were intelligent, well-educated 
 men, in close contact with one of the universities and wit h. 
 
 thejapifaL 
 
 Nor was the impression allowed to die out. It was per- 
 petuated in two ways — by a remarkable book and by a 
 permanent foundation. The presiding judge, Edward Fen- 
 ner, was so much struck by what he had seen and heard (for 
 the children had their fits in his presence) that he joined 
 with others to further the publication of a narrative, — The 
 Most Strange and Admirable Disco verie of the Three Witches 
 of Warboys, — which was printed in London in 1593. Full 
 notes had been kept from the outset (as befitted the intelli- 
 gence and education of the families concerned) and these 
 were used by the author. This is no mere catchpenny tract. 
 It is a careful and temperate report of the girls' malady from 
 first to last. Nothing comparable to it, considered as a 
 report on a long-continued case of epidemic hysteria, had 
 ever appeared in England. The details, at which modern 
 writers on witchcraft are wont to jeer, are no more ridiculous 
 than the details in recent and esteemed treatises on la grande 
 hystirie, or on multiple personality. That it kept the War- 
 boys case alive long after the accession of James I. is certain, 
 for Dr. John Cotta, in 1616 and again in 1624, refers to the 
 "Treatise of the Witches of Warbozys" as authoritative. 104 
 He had no doubt whatever that the Throckmorton girls were 
 bewitched. 105 
 
 Finally, Sir Henry Cromwell took effectual measures for 
 
 104 Triall of Witch-craft, 1616, p. 77. 
 
 105 Samuel Harsnet, when in full cry after Darrel, did not venture to attack the 
 Warboys case directly. True, he refers slightingly to the printed narrative as a 
 "silly book," but in the same breath he suggests that one of Darrel's patients had 
 taken a leaf out of it. And Darrel, in replying, taunts Harsnet with not daring to 
 assail the case openly. That Mr. Throckmorton's children, says Darrel, "were 
 tormented by the diuell, even 5. of his daughters, it is notoriously knowne, and 
 so generally receaued for truth, as the Dis[coverer). himselfe [i.e. Harsnet] dareth not 
 deny it, though fayne he would, as appeareth by his nibling at them" (Detection 
 of Harshnet, 1600, p. 39; cf. pp. 20-22, 36, 40). And again, he does not hesitate 
 to declare that Harsnet refrained from accusing the Throckmorton girls of counter- 
 feiting because he did not dare: "He thought it best and meet for his safety 
 becaus they were the children of an Esquire, not to say so in plaine tearmes" (p. 21) . 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 37 
 
 perpetuating the impression made by the long-continued 
 phenomena, the trial, and the book. Certain goods and 
 chattels of the executed felons were forfeited to him as lord 
 of the manor. He disdained to keep the money and wished 
 to devote it to public uses. Hence he established an annual 
 sermon at Huntingdon, to be delivered by a fellow of his own 
 college, Queen's of Cambridge. The appointee was to 
 "preache and invaye against the detestable practice, synne, 
 and offence of witchcraft, inchantment, charm, and sorcereye." 
 The sermon was maintained until 1812, but toward the end 
 its burden was turned to the explosion of the old belief. 106 
 
 And now, when we come to apply what we have observed 
 of the state of educated public opinion and to estimate its 
 presumable effect on the legislators of 1604, who passed the 
 revised statute, we are struck with a fact which all investi- 
 gators have overlooked or ignored. Two gentlemen were 
 sitting in the House of Commons who had the strongest personal 
 interest in the Warboys case. The Samuels had been hanged, 
 not for tormenting the Throckmorton girls, 107 but for be- 
 witching Lady Cromwell to death. As we run our eye down 
 the list of Members of Parliament, it is arrested by two 
 names, — Sir Oliver Cromwell and Henry Cromwell, — one 
 the member for the County of Huntingdon, the other for 
 the borough. These were sons of that Sir Henry whose wife 
 had died (as all believed) from Mother Samuel's arts, and 
 who had founded a sermon in perpetual memory of the 
 murder. 
 
 Both Sir Oliver and Henry Cromwell might therefore be 
 presumed to have an effective knowledge of the case. But 
 we are not left to conjecture. Their uncle, Francis Crom- 
 well, was one of the justices to whom Goody Samuel con- 
 fessed. 108 Mr. Henry Cromwell himself had visited the 
 Throckmorton house with one of Sir Henry's men and had 
 observed two of the girls in their fits. 109 This was in 1593, 
 shortly before the actual trial, and after the girls had begun 
 to accuse the Samuels of Lady Cromwell's murder. As for 
 
 106 J. H Gray, Queen's College, 1899, pp. 128-129. 
 
 107 That offence, under the Elizabethan statute, was punishable only by im- 
 prisonment and the pillory, for none of the girls had died. 
 
 108 Sig. I r°; cf. sig. P 2 v°. 109 Sig. N3. 
 
38 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 Sir Oliver, his wife had accompanied her mother-in-law on 
 the fatal visit to the Throckmortons, and had been present 
 at her interview with Goody Samuel. That night, Lady 
 Cromwell was "strangly tormented in her sleep, by a cat 
 (as she imagined) which mother Samuel had sent vnto her." 
 Mistress Oliver Cromwell was sleeping in the same bed 
 (her husband being from home), and was awakened by the 
 "strugling and striuing of the Lady . . . and mournfull 
 noise, which shee made speaking to the cat, and to mother 
 Samuel." Mistress Oliver roused her mother-in-law, who 
 told her all about her dream. Lady Cromwell had no more 
 sleep that night, and soon after sickened, as already told. 110 
 We may be sure that when Mr. Oliver Cromwell returned, he 
 was put in full possession of both ladies' experiences. Surely 
 neither Sir Oliver Cromwell nor his brother stood in need of 
 instruction in the witch dogma from James I., or required 
 any royal influence to persuade them to vote for the statute 
 of 1604. 
 
 Clt is worth while to follow the clue a little farther, and to 
 glance at the parliamentary history of the statute. Most 
 writers have been quite innocent of any knowledge that it 
 even had such a history. Yet there it stands in the Lords' 
 and Commons' Journals, and an instructive history it is. 
 
 The bill originated in the House of Lords f The first read ^, 
 ing took place on March 27. 1604 . On the 29th it _wa.s_rea.d 
 a second tim e and refer red to a. committee consisting of six 
 earls, sixteen other peers, and twelve bishops . The com- 
 mittee was to have the most expert advice conceivable, and 
 to that end an imposing array of legal talent, learning, 
 and experience was requested "to attend the Lords" in 
 their deliberations. Here is the list: the Chief Justice of 
 Common Pleas (Anderson), the Chief Baron of the Ex- 
 chequer (Sir William Peryam), two justices of the King's 
 Bench (Sir Christopher Yelverton and David Williams), 
 Serjeant Croke, the Attorney-General (Coke), and Sir John 
 Tindall, a distinguished ecclesiastical lawyer. Nor was all 
 this a mere flourish. The committee and its eminent coun- 
 sel took their duties seriously. They rejected the draft that 
 
 110 Sig. E 3 r°. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 39 
 
 had been referred to them, and, on the 2d of April, the com- 
 mittee reported a new bill, "framed by the committee." 
 This was brought into the Lords by the Earl of Northumber- 
 land. It received certain amendments, and , o n May 8 th, 
 ajteMJTe^jjjjrd reading, was passed and sent to the House of 
 Commons. Here, too, there was careful deliberation. On 
 May 11th the bill h ad its first reading ; and on the 26th it was_ 
 read a second time and referred to a committee of seventeen^, 
 including the Recorder of London and two serjeants-at-law 
 (Hobart and Shirley), which was directed to meet on the 
 first of June in the Middle Temple Hall. Jii-the-Sth^ Sir- 
 Thomas RidgejKay*_iox_l]i£_c^mm 
 
 << with_alteraticms.^an4LumeIliments.' , On June 7th it came 
 iUL_fox Ji§^ird„xeadhig^ was_passed _as_ am en d ed y - an d .on 
 the 9th was„sent up to the Lords . m 
 
 This bare statement of recorded facts disposes of the myth 
 that King James was the author or the father of the statute 
 which has so long been associated with his name and fame. 
 Whether the measure was good or bad, — whether its re- 
 sults were great or small, — the Lords and Commons of ^ ^ 
 En^Iandj^and, not the king, must shoulder, Jihe responsi- 
 J^lity, 112 And it is in complete accord with what we should 
 expect from the caution with which both houses proceeded 
 and the care which their committees took, that the sta tute, 
 whenJfoaUxiLleil the hands of Parliament^ _ was noj^really^ 
 a new law at all, but simply a modification and extension 
 of^ the, statute of Elizabeth. 
 
 Two names on the Lords' Committee catch the eye imme- 
 diately, — the Earl of Derby and the Bishop of Lincoln. 
 Ten years before, in 1594, a short time after the witches of 
 Warboys were hanged, Ferdinando, fifth Earl of Derby, had 
 died at Latham after a ten days' illness. The physicians 
 (he had four) ascribed his disease to a surfeit combined with 
 
 m Lords' Journals, 1. 267, 269, 271, 272, 293, 294, 316; Commons' Journals, 
 1. 204, 207, 227, 232, 234, 236. 
 
 112 The object of the law was not to multiply culprits, but to deter men from com- 
 mitting the crime. The idea that very great severity defeats its object did not then 
 obtain among penologists. Take an example of the temper of intelligent men in 
 this regard. In May, 1604, William Clopton writes to Timothy Hutton : — " There 
 is an act passed to take away the clergie from stealers of sheep and oxen, which will 
 do much good" (Hutton Correspondence, Surtees Society, 1843, p. 195). 
 
40 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 over-exertion. But there were grave suspicions of sorcery. 
 The earl had dreamed strange dreams; he had been 
 "crossed" by an apparition "with a gastly and threatning 
 countenance." An image of wax was discovered in his 
 bedroom. "A homely Woman, about the age of fifty yeeres, 
 was found mumbling in a corner of his honours Chamber, 
 but what God knoweth." Three other suspected witches 
 appear in the case at divers times and in sundry manners. 
 The earl himself "cryed out that the Doctors laboured in 
 vaine, because hee was certainely bewitched." In the end, 
 the opinion seems to have prevailed that he died from natural 
 causes. 113 But it would be extraordinary if all the circum- 
 stances had not made a profound impression on his younger 
 brother, who succeeded him, and this is the Earl of Derby 
 whom we have noted in the Lords' Committee on the bill. 
 Another person who must also have been deeply affected 
 by these strange happenings was the Bishop of Chester, 
 who attended the dying man. This was Dr. William Chader- 
 ton, who was translated to Lincoln in 1594, and he, too, sat in 
 the Lords' Committee. 
 
 Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, who reported the 
 second draft from the committee, was a famous student of 
 the occult sciences and was popularly known as "the Wizard 
 Earl." Like Dr. Dee, he believed that his own investiga- 
 tions were free from the taint of diabolism, but, like Dee, 
 he must also have felt convinced that there were others who 
 did traffic with the infernal powers, and that such persons 
 deserved punishment. 
 
 Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, another member of 
 the Lords' Committee, had the reputation of being the most 
 learned of the peers. He was a firm believer in the actuality 
 of communication between mortals and wicked spirits. 
 In his erudite Defensative against the Poyson of Supposed 
 Prophecies, written in 1582 and 1583, he declared that one 
 of the means "whereby the contagion of vnlawfull Prophesies 
 is conueyed into the mindes of mortall men, is conference 
 with damned Spirits or Familiars, as commonly we call 
 them." 114 And he unhesitatingly ascribed the clairvoyance 
 
 m Stow, Chronicle, ed. Howe, 1631, pp. 767-768. *" Ed. 1620, p. 81. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 41 
 
 of cunning men and women to such revelations, — taking 
 as an example their disclosure of the thief in a case of cutting 
 a purse. 115 
 
 Let us turn to the Commons' Committee. Here we find 
 several interesting names. Sir Roger Aston had been Eng- 
 lish resident in Scotland. This may be held to be a two- 
 edged argument, but we do not need it, for there are plenty 
 more. Two of the most notoriously witch-haunted counties 
 in England were Lancaster and Essex. Now, Lancashire 
 was represented on the committee by Sir Richard Moly- 
 neux of Sefton. As for Essex, not only was the county mem- 
 ber, Sir Francis Barrington, on the committee, but also Sir 
 Robert Wroth, who lived principally at Loughton Hall, in 
 Essex. He was a man of forty-odd when Brian Darcey's 
 great St. Osyth cases were tried and ten witches were hanged 
 at Chelmsford in that county. Other executions at Chelms- 
 ford took place in 1579 116 and 1589. 117 Giffard, we remem- 
 ber, was an Essex preacher, and his Dialogue, published in 
 1593 and reissued in 1603, had urged the sharpening of the 
 statute in the precise direction which this parliament took. 
 Wroth had large possessions in Middlesex and sat for that 
 county. 118 Now of the twenty-nine years from 1573 to 
 1601 there were witch-records for thirteen. Serjeant Ho- 
 
 115 P. 85. Bishop Bancroft and the Earl of Shrewsbury were on the Lords' Commit- 
 tee. The bishop had been the leading spirit in the prosecution of Darrel, and the earl 
 had been present at the trial. But this is no reason why they should have opposed 
 the statute. As we have seen, Bancroft was a prosecutor of exorcists, not a pro- 
 tector of alleged witches. In the Synod called by James (which sat concurrently 
 with Parliament, and broke up on July 9, 1604, two days after Parliament rose) 
 a canon (written by Bancroft) was adopted, forbidding clergymen, without proper 
 license, "to attempt upon any pretence whatsoever, eyther of Possession or 
 Obsession, by fasting, and prayers to cast out any Devill or Devills" (Canon 72, 
 Constitutions and Canons of the Synod of 1603, ed. 1633; cf. J. W. Joyce, Eng- 
 land's Sacred Synods, 1853, pp. 620 ff . ; Cardwell, Synodalia, 2. 583 ff.). This 
 canon was in no wise inconsistent with the statute, nor can it have been so regarded 
 by the twelve bishops who sat on the Lords' Committee. At all events, James I. 
 showed himself quite as skeptical as Bancroft in cases of alleged possession (see 
 pp. 47 ff., below). 
 
 116 Collier, 2 Notes and Queries, 12. 301 ; Arber, Stationers' Register, 2. 352, 
 358. 
 
 117 Arber, 2. 525; cf. Collier, as above, p. 301. 
 
 118 On the Wroth family see a series of papers by Mr. W. C. Waller in the Trans- 
 actions of the Essex Archaeological Society, New Series, 8. 145 ff., 345 ff. ; 9. 1 ff. 
 On Sir Robert Wroth (1540-1606) see especially 8. 150 ff. His son Robert (1576- 
 1614, knighted in 1603) was one of Ben Jonson's patrons (see 8. 156 ff.). 
 
42 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 bart (later Sir Henry) was likewise a committeeman. What 
 he thought of witchcraft we may infer from his conduct when 
 Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer at the trial of Margaret 
 and Philip (i.e. Philippa) Flower, who were executed in 
 1619 for bewitching to death two sons of the Earl of Rut- 
 land. 119 Nobody will suggest that he learned his creed from 
 James I. If any should be so absurd, we may balance him 
 by Sir Humphrey Winch, also an M.P., though not on the 
 committee, who, in 1619, incurred the wrath of the king by 
 condemning nine witches to death in a case which James 
 himself shortly after exposed as an imposture. We shall 
 return to this in a moment. 120 There was a Mr. Throck- 
 morton on the committee. This was John Throckmorton, 
 M.P. for Gloucestershire. The Throckmortons of that coun- 
 ty were related to those of Huntingdonshire. It is likely 
 that Mr. John had felt some share of the universal interest 
 roused by the experiences of his distant kinswomen of War- 
 boys. The Recorder of London also sat on the Commons' 
 Committee. This was Henry Montagu, 121 afterwards Chief 
 Justice of the King's Bench (1616) and Earl of Manchester 
 (1626). He was of Christ's College, Cambridge, where he 
 had been a younger contemporary of William Perkins, whose 
 strong advocacy of more stringent laws against witchcraft 
 we have already noted. Later, he was a patron of Thomas 
 Cooper, whose book about witchcraft we have examined. 122 
 James Montagu, who preached Perkins's funeral sermon, 
 was his younger brother. 123 Their father, Sir Edward Mon- 
 tagu, was likewise on the Commons' Committee. Can there 
 be any doubt of the opinions of this family on the subject 
 of witchcraft ? Must we look to James I. as the source of 
 their views ? Finally, we note with peculiar interest that 
 the bill was reported, with amendments, from the committee 
 to the House by Sir Thomas Ridgeway, of Devon, before 
 whom, in 1601 and 1602, were taken an extraordinary series 
 
 119 See pp. 59-60, below. m See pp. 57-59, below. 
 
 m He became Recorder in 1603 (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1603- 
 1610, pp. 10, 14 ; cf . Foss, Judges of England, 6. 167 ff. ; Peile, Biographical Regis- 
 ter of Christ's College, 1910, 1. 173). 
 
 m Life of Cooper in Dictionary of National Biography. 
 
 m See p. 21, above. Cf. Peile, Biographical Register of Christ's College, 1910, 
 1. 181. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 43 
 
 of examinations accusing the Trevisard family of witch- 
 craft. 124 
 
 It is time to study the advisory board of legal experts 
 who were attached to the Lords' Committee on this most 
 earnestly debated bill. Three of these attract our particular 
 attention, Chief Justice Anderson, Serjeant Croke, and Coke, 
 then Attorney-General. 
 
 Sir Edmund Anderson had been chief justice for twenty- 
 two years. He knew all about the workings of the Eliza- 
 bethan statute. At first sight one might think him opposed 
 to witch prosecution, for he had taken a leading part in 
 "exposing*' Darrel, and he had a lively sense of the danger 
 of popular excitement to the innocent in such matters. But 
 sc moment's thought will set us right. Perkins and Giffard 
 /and Dr. Cotta — nay, James himself, as we shall see pres- 
 ently 125 — thought that judges ought to be very careful 
 fto sift the evidence and protect the innocent, but none of 
 them doubted that a witch whose guilt was proved ought to 
 be condemned. So the majority of civilized men to-day 
 believe in the wisdom and righteousness of the death pen- 
 alty for a certain grade of crime, but all are agreed that care 
 should be taken to clear the innocent. An instructive ex- 
 ample of the distinction that we must make may be seen in 
 the person of Sir Edward Bromley. At the same assizes, 
 in 1612, Bromley presided over two sets of witch-trials, those 
 of the Pendle witches and those of the witches of Salmes- 
 bury. In the Pendle cases, he could not doubt the evidence, 
 and he condemned ten to death with complete assurance that 
 he was doing right. Cotta, himself, in 1616, speaks of the 
 evidence in these cases with regard to sorcery by means of 
 "pictures of waxe " as "proued " by "testimonies beyond 
 exception." 126 In the Salmesbury cases, on the contrary, 
 Bromley saw reason to suspect the veracity of the chief wit- 
 ness for the prosecution, and followed up the clue so well that 
 the defendants were acquitted. 127 Students of demonology 
 will not forget that modern writers have seen fit to gird at 
 Bromley, not only for his supposed cruelty and superstition 
 
 124 See p. 17, above. U8 See pp. 48, 53, 58, 63-64, below. 
 
 126 Triall of Witch-craft, p. 90. 
 
 127 Potts, Wonderfull Discoverie, 1613, sigs. K3-N2. 
 
44 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 in condemning the witches of Pendle, but also — strange to 
 say — for the ground on which he first entertained the sus- 
 picion that led to the acquittal of the other group. But it 
 is hard to satisfy modern writers on witchcraft, who insist on 
 censuring the sixteenth and seventeenth century on a basis 
 of modern rationalism. It is quite certain that if some of 
 those who now sit in judgment on the witch-prosecutors had 
 been witch-judges, no defendant would ever have escaped. 
 
 But we must return to Chief Justice Anderson, who, as 
 well as Sir John Croke, sat on the committee of advisers to 
 the Lords. Anderson and Croke had been associated, in 
 1603, in the affair of Mary Glover, which we have already 
 considered. This happened before the accession of James. 
 Croke appears therein as a devout believer in both demoni- 
 acal possession and witchcraft, and there is no reason to sup- 
 pose that Anderson was in any way dissatisfied with his pro- 
 ceedings. 128 
 
 Now for Coke, the Attorney General. There is a new 
 provision in the statute of 1604 (not found in the Elizabethan 
 law) imposing the death penalty on any one who shall "take 
 up any dead man, woman, or child out of his, her, or theire 
 grave, or any other place where the dead bodie resteth, or 
 the skin, bone, or any other parte of any dead person, to be 
 imployed or used in any manner of Witchcrafte, Sorcerie, 
 Charme, or Inchantment. ,, Hutchinson 129 conjectured that 
 this provision was due to King James, noting that such 
 ghoulish outrages were a part of the confession of Agnes 
 Sampson, one of the first Scottish witches examined in the 
 king's presence in 1590. 130 I am willing to add to this guess 
 whatever support may be derived from the fact that the 
 king, in his Dsemonologie, more than once adverts to the 
 witches' habit of "joynting," or dismembering, corpses. m 
 But, when all is said and done, this is a poor refuge, in view 
 of what now appears to be the history of the statute, es- 
 pecially when one remembers that the use of the dead for 
 purposes of sorcery dates, not from the confession of Agnes 
 
 128 See p. 29, above. u » P. 179. 
 
 130 See Pitcaira, Criminal Trials, 1. 218, 233, 237, and especially 239 (cf . 2. 478) ; 
 Newes from Scotland, Sig. B3. 
 
 131 Ed. 1603, pp. 43, 58. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 45 
 
 Sampson, but from the ' ' backward and abysm of time . ' ' The 
 lawmakers, cleric or lay, did not learn of this habit from King 
 James, unless they were so ignorant as never to have heard 
 of Lucan's Erichtho, 132 whom Marston actually brought upon 
 the stage at about this very time in a tragedy which contains 
 a speech, in description of the sorceress, that out-Lucans 
 Lucan. 1 ^ 3 But we need not appeal to the classics. Sir 
 Edward Kelley, far-famed as Dr. Dee's skryer in crystallo- 
 mancy, had already emulated Erichtho. Years before, 
 "vpon a certaine night, in the Parke of Walton in le Dale, 
 in the county of Lancaster, with one Paul Waring," he had 
 "inuocated some one of the inf email regiment, to know cer- 
 taine passages in the life, as also what might bee knowne 
 by the deuils foresight, of the manner and time of the death 
 of a noble young Gentleman, as then in his wardship." 
 The black rites finished, Kelley learned of the gentleman's 
 servant about a poor man's corpse that had been buried in a 
 neighboring churchyard that very day. "Hee and the said 
 Waring intreated this foresaid seruant, to go with them to 
 the graue." The servant complied, "and withall did helpe 
 them to digge up the carcase of the poor caitiffe, whom by 
 their incantations, they made him (or rather some euill 
 spiritt through his Organs) to speake, who deliuered strange 
 predictions concerning the said Gentleman." All that we 
 know of the prodigious Kelley inclines us to credit him with 
 an attempt at necromancy on this occasion. Weever, who 
 told the tale in 1631, had it from the servant who was present, 
 as well as from the young gentleman to whom the servant 
 had revealed the affair. 134 It is safe to say that the crime 
 of violating graves was as common in England as in Scotland. 
 It surely was an offence quite as worthy of the gallows as 
 sheep-stealing, or theft above the value of twelvepence. And 
 it was natural enough to insert a clause to cover it in the 
 revised law. Now Coke was just the man to do this, for he 
 knew of a fourteenth-century case which showed that the law 
 
 132 Pharsalia, vi., 507 ff. 
 
 133 Sophonisba, act iv., scene 1, vv. 99-125 (Works, ed. Bullen, 2. 290-291). 
 
 134 John Weever, Ancient Funerall Monuments, 1631, pp. 45-46. Cf. Reginald 
 Scot, bk. xv., chaps. 8, 17 (ed. 1584, pp. 401 ff., 423 ff.) ; Baines, History of Lan- 
 cashire, ed. Harland, 1. 199. 
 
46 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 was imperfect in this very point, and he reports the occur- 
 rence in his Institutes, in commenting on this provision in 
 the statute of 1604. 
 
 A man was taken in Southwark with a head and a face of a dead man, 
 and with a book of sorcery in his male, and was brought into the king's 
 bench before Sir John Knevett 135 then chief justice : but seeing no in- 
 dictment was against him, the clerks did swear him, that from thence- 
 forth he should not be a sorcerer, and was delivered out of prison, and the 
 head of the dead man and the book of sorcery were burnt at Tuthill at the 
 costs of the prisoner. So as the head and his book of sorcery had the same 
 punishment, that the sorcerer should have had by the ancient law, if he 
 had by his sorcery praied in aid of the devil. 136 
 
 Who was so likely as Coke to instruct the Lords' Com- 
 mittee as to the defect in the former statute in this regard ? 
 At all events, his exposition of the statute of 1604 shows 
 how thoroughly he believed in witchcraft, and leaves no 
 doubt as to the general bearing of whatever advice he gave 
 the committee. Nor need we quote his celebrated charge 
 to the jury in Mrs. Turner's trial for the murder of Overbury, 
 as we might otherwise be tempted to do. 137 Among the 
 magical exhibits at this trial was a parchment on which 
 "were written all the names of the holy Trinity; as also a 
 figure in which was written this word Corpus, and upon the 
 parchment was fastned a little piece of the shin of a man." 138 
 This was, it appears, a charm of Forman's. He certainly 
 did not import it from Scotland ! 139 
 
 CLthink we may now regard the following propositions as 
 proved: (1) The last twenty years of Elizabeth's reign 
 were a time of intense and continuous excitement in the mat- 
 ter of witchcraft, with repeated trials and a good many 
 executions. (2) The doctrine was not dying out when James 
 came to the throne. It was held with great tenacity, not 
 only by the masses, but by a vast majority of the educated 
 
 136 Sir John Knyvet was appointed Chief Justice of the King's Bench in 1357 and 
 Lord Chancellor in 1372 (Campbell, Lord Chancellors, 1846, 1. 267-268). 
 
 136 Coke's Institutes, Third Part, cap. 6. See Gentleman's Magazine, 1829, 
 Part ii., 99. 515. 
 
 137 Truth Brought to Light by Time, 1651, p. 140; Egerton Papers, Camden 
 Society, pp. 472-473. 
 
 138 Truth Brought to Light, p. 138. 
 
 139 As to Forman, see pp. 49-50, below. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 47 
 
 • : 4 
 and influential, — nobility, country gentry, divines, judges, 
 and citizens. (3) The Elizabethan law was generally thought 
 to be imperfect, and there was strong pressure for new legis- 
 lation. (4) The statute of 1604 was carefully considered and 
 fully discussed. It was not a king's bill, nor was it rushed 
 through under royal whip and spur, or passed out of com- 
 plaisance to the new sovereign. There is no evidence that 
 the king took any particular interest in the act. It reflected 
 the conscientious opinions of both Houses of Parliament. 140 
 (5) It followed the language of the Elizabethan statute at 
 almost every point, though somewhat more severe. (6) In 
 its practical working, however, in James's time, the statute 
 of 1604 was not appreciably severer than the Elizabethan 
 law. 
 
 But the case against James I. as a witch-hunter during 
 his English reign is not merely destitute of every kind of 
 evidence in its favor, — it has to meet an overwhelming 
 array of direct proof on the other side. And to this evidence 
 we must now pass. It is quite conclusive. 
 
 First, we will consider certain pardons that are matters 
 of record. The list is short — for there were few convictions 
 — but it is significant. 141 } On April 16, 1604, when the new 
 statute was still under deliberation, Christian, the wife of 
 Thomas Weech, of County Norfolk, received the royal par- 
 don for witchcraft. 142 In 1608, Simon Reade was pardoned 
 for conjuration and invocation of unclean spirits. 143 This 
 case is mentioned by Ben Jonson in The Alchemist (1610) . 144 
 Reade was a medical practitioner and cunning man of South- 
 ward 145 One Toby Mathew of London had lost £37, 10 
 
 140 No doubt James approved of the statute. He certainly believed in witch- 
 craft and thought that proved witches ought to be put to death. In the Basilikon 
 Doron, addressed to Prince Henry, he mentions witchcraft among the "horrible 
 crymes that yee are bounde in Conscience neuer to forgiue" (1599, Roxburghe 
 Club reprint, p. 37 ; London edition of 1603, p. 31). But the question is not whether 
 he was a believer in the actuality of such offences, but whether he was a blind and 
 maniacal persecutor who misled the English nation, to its everlasting disgrace. 
 
 141 Cf. Inderwick, Side-Lights on the Stuarts, 2d. ed., p. 150. 
 
 142 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1603-1610, p. 96. 
 
 143 Calendar, p. 406. 
 
 144 Act i., scene 2. 
 
 145 Reade stood suit with the College of Physicians in 1602 for practising without 
 a license and was cast, as Gifford remarks in his note on the passage in The Alche- 
 mist. In the pardon he is styled "in medicinis professor." 
 
48 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 shillings, by theft, and Reade invoked three devils — Hea- 
 welon, Faternon, and Cleveton — to learn the name of the 
 thief and recover the money. There were several seances, — 
 the first on November 8, 1606, the others before the 10th of 
 the following January. 146 Apparently Mathew blabbed, 
 perhaps because the devils did not find his money for him. 
 No doubt Reade, when he saw that his trickery was to cost 
 him his life, confessed that the conjuration was pure hum- 
 bug, and so was pardoned. In 1610, Christian Weech re- 
 ceived a second pardon, this time for the murder of Mary 
 Freeston by witchcraft. 147 In 1611, William Bate, "in- 
 dicted twenty years since for practising of invocation of 
 spirits for finding treasure," was pardoned. 148 In Bate's 
 case the ground is expressly stated, — the evidence was 
 "found weak." Of course this was also the reason for royal 
 clemency in the other three cases. We have precisely the 
 same situation that confronts us in Jane Wenham's case, 
 in 1712, when the judge was dissatisfied with the verdict of 
 a credulous jury and saved the condemned prisoner in the 
 only way open to him, then as now, by procuring the royal 
 
 .J a pardom) 
 
 Xbe bearing of these records is unmistakable. They 
 prove both that James was no bigoted and undiscriminating 
 vp v witch-finder and witch-prosecutor, and tha>fthe judges tried 
 to get at the truth in this crime as in ot hers J Here, then, is 
 the place to quote a passage from Francis Osborne, with 
 whom King James was no favorite : "What his judgment was 
 
 y^ vv of Witchcraft, you may in part find by his Treatise on that 
 Subject, and Charge he gave the Judges, to be circumspect 
 in condemning those, committed by ignorant Justices, for 
 Diabolical Compacts. Nor had he concluded his advice in 
 a narrower Circle (as I have heard) than the denial of any 
 such Operations, but out of Reason of State : and to gratify 
 the Church, which hath in no Age, thought fit to explode out 
 of the Common Peoples Minds, an Apprehension of Witch- 
 craft." 149 The latter part of this dictum may pass for what 
 
 148 The pardon, giving these details, is printed in Rymer's Fcedera, 2d edi- 
 tion, 16. 666-667. 
 
 147 Calendar, 1603-1610, p. 598. 148 Calendar, 1611-1618, p. 29. 
 
 149 Essay 1, Miscellaneous Works, 11th ed. F 1722, 1. 25. 
 
 :< 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE /*1f9 
 
 it is worth. The whole passage is valuable for the light it 
 throws upon the king's reputation with his contemporaries. 
 They thought him skeptical rather than credulous. 
 
 There is a close relation between the general purport of Os- 
 borne's testimony and the attitude of James with regard to the 
 curative power of the royal touch. 150 His incredulity on this 
 point was manifested at the very beginning of his reign. 
 "The King," wrote Scaramelli to the Doge of Venice, in 1603, 
 shortly before the coronation, "says that neither he nor any 
 other King can have power to heal scrofula, for the age of 
 miracles is past, and God alone can work them. However," 
 adds the Venetian, "he will have the full ceremony [sc. of 
 coronation, anointing included], so as not to lose this pre- 
 rogative [sc. of touching for the king's evil], which belongs 
 to the Kings of England as Kings of France." 151 And we 
 know that he actually touched for the evil on various occa- 
 sions, for reasons of state, 152 knowing well that the ceremony 
 could not harm the sufferers and might work beneficially 
 upon them through the imagination. "He was a King in 
 understanding," says Arthur Wilson, "and was content to 
 have his Subjects ignorant in many things. As in curing 
 the Kings-Evil, which he knew a Device, to aggrandize the 
 Virtue of Kings, when Miracles were in fashion ; but he let 
 the World believe it, though he smiled at it, in his own 
 Reason, finding the strength of the Imagination a more 
 powerful Agent in the Cure, than the Plasters his Chirurgions 
 prescribed for the Sore." 153 
 
 Along with the pardons which we have noted may be 
 classed the toleration which James extended to Forman and 
 Lambe and Dee. This is a curious circumstance which has 
 never received the attention it deserves. 
 
 Simon Forman was undoubtedly a rascal. 154 He seems, how- 
 ever, to have been a likeable fellow. Lilly's anecdote of his 
 predicting his own death is charming and proves that Forman 
 
 150 See Manly, Macbeth, 1900, pp. xvi.-xviii. 
 
 151 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1603-1607, p. 44 (June 4, 1603). 
 
 152 In 1604, 1608, 1610, and 1617, for instance (Calendar, as above, 1603-1607, 
 p. 193; 1607-1610, pp. 116, 465; Eboracum, 1788, 1. 150). 
 
 153 History of Great Britain, 1653, p. 289. 
 
 154 See Mr. Lee's life of Forman in the Dictionary of National Biography, 19. 
 438 ff. 
 
50 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 had a good measure of bonhomie. 155 It also goes far to show- 
 that he put some trust in his own occult powers, though in 
 the main he must have been a charlatan. Certainly he 
 passed for a sorcerer. For years he made a public profession 
 of necromancy and magic at Lambeth, and was much con- 
 sulted by the ladies. On the 26th of June, 1603, Forman 
 was licensed by the University of Cambridge to practise 
 medicine, and on the next day the university conferred upon 
 him the degree of M.D. How he contrived to obtain these 
 certificates of professional respectability is a puzzle. 156 King 
 James never molested Forman, and the Doctor died peace- 
 fully in 1611. The full extent of his rascality did not come 
 out until the trial of Mrs. Turner, in 1615, for the murder 
 of Overbury, 157 but that makes no difference. He was a 
 notorious conjuror, and it would have been easy to find evi- 
 dence during his life that would have hanged him a hun- 
 dred times. 158 
 
 Dr. John Lambe was in the same kind of business as For- 
 man but was even less reputable. He was convicted at the 
 Worcester assizes on two separate indictments, each of them 
 for a capital crime. The first was for "wasting and con- 
 suming" Thomas Lord Windsor by witchcraft; the second 
 for " invoking and entertaining " evil spirits. 159 Sentence was 
 suspended, and Lambe was imprisoned in Worcester Castle. 
 Shortly after, he was removed to the King's Bench in Lon- 
 
 155 William Lilly, History of his Life and Times, 2d ed., 1715, p. 16. 
 
 166 Forman was twice imprisoned, at the instance of the Royal College of 
 Physicians, as an unauthorized and ignorant practitioner (in 1595 and 1596). In 
 1601 he was again complained of. In 1606 and 1607, after obtaining his Cambridge 
 degree, he was cited to appear before the College, but refused to obey. See the 
 records in the 8th Report of the Commission on Historical MSS., Appendix, Part i., 
 p. 228. 
 
 157 Truth Brought to Light by Time, 1651, pp. 135-138; Letter from Thomas 
 Bone to Sir John Egerton, November 9, 1615, Egerton Papers, Camden Society, 
 pp. 470-473. 
 
 158 See Lilly, pp. 12-16. 
 
 169 The indictments are printed (in translation) in A Briefe Description of the 
 Notorious Life of Iohn Lambe, Amsterdam, 1628, pp. 3-6. They are not dated. 
 The bewitching of Lord Windsor is stated in the first indictment to have occurred 
 on December 16, 5 Jac. I. (i.e. 1607), and at divers times afterward; the second 
 indictment dates the invocation of evil spirits, May 13, 6 Jac. I. (i.e. 1608), and 
 before and after. Mr. Sidney Lee (Dictionary of National Biography, 32. 1) shifts 
 the second of these dates, inadvertently, from the offence to the triaL We do not, 
 in fact, know when Lambe was tried, but it was before 1617. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 51 
 
 don, 160 where he remained a long time. But his confine- 
 ment was not rigorous. He lived in prison quite at his ease, 
 receiving his patients and clients and doing a thriving busi- 
 ness as physician and sorcerer. 161 He was convicted of a 
 rape committed while in confinement, 162 but the chief jus- 
 tice reported that the evidence was dubious, and in 1624 
 he was pardoned. 163 Soon after, he was released from cus- 
 tody and took up his residence near the Parliament Hous§. 164 
 In 1628 he met his death at the hands of the London mob 
 while returning from a play at the Fortune. 165 Lambe was 
 protected by Buckingham, and was known as the "Duke's 
 devil." 166 .But Buckingham was not always friendly. Thus, 
 in 1625, the duke was clamorous against him on account of 
 his connection with Lady Purbeck's case. "If Lambe " 
 — so Buckingham wrote to Attorney General Coventry and 
 Solicitor General Heath — "be allowed to get off by saying 
 he was only juggling [i.e. not really practising sorcery], . . . 
 the truth can never be known ; Lambe has hitherto, by such 
 shifts, mocked the world and preserved himself." 167 I am 
 far from maintaining that King James's indulgence to such 
 scoundrels as Forman and Lambe was altogether creditable 
 to him, but it certainly tends to prove that he was not a rabid 
 prosecutor of witches and sorcerers. 168 
 
 160 Briefe Description, p. 14. m Pp. 14 ff. 
 
 162 The indictment dates the offence June 10, 21 Jac. I., i.e. 1623 (Briefe De- 
 scription, p. 15). The conviction was in 1624 (Calendar of State Papers, Do- 
 mestic, 1623-1625, p. 485). 
 
 163 Calendar, 1623-1625, pp. 241, 243, 261, 266, 280. 
 
 164 Briefe Description, 1628, p. 20. 
 
 165 The same, pp. 20-21 ; Rushworth, Historical Collections, 1. 618 (cf. 1. 391) ; 
 Reign of Charles I., continuation of Baker's Chronicle, ed. 1660, p. 493 ; Richard 
 Smith, Obituary, in Peck, Desiderata Curiosa, Vol. 2. Book xiv, p. 11; Jupp, 
 Historical Account of the Company of Carpenters, 1887, pp. 84-85. 
 
 166 Continuation of Baker's Chronicle, as above, p. 493. Cf . Fairholt, Poems and 
 Songs relating to George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, Percy Society, 1850, pp. 
 xiv -xv., 58-63, 65. 
 
 167 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1623-1625, p. 476. Lady Purbeck had 
 visited Lambe in prison to procure charms from him (p. 474 ; cf. p. 497). 
 
 168 Another infamous person who drove a thriving trade with the court ladies 'was 
 Mrs. Mary Woods, who practised her arts at Norwich, and removed to London 
 in 1612. She was involved in the alleged plot of the Countess of Essex to poison 
 the Earl. She was arrested and examined, but it does not appear that she was 
 proceeded against under the statute of 1604, although one witness declared that she 
 professed to have a familiar spirit. Obviously she was regarded as a mere charla- 
 tan, yet it would have been easy enough to hang her for a witch if the king had 
 
52 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 Dr. Dee is in a different category, for he was a profound 
 scholar and a man of a sincere and simple character, whom it 
 would be profanation to class with Lambe and Forman. Yet 
 there is no manner of doubt that his occult experiments 
 (of which voluminous documentary evidence is still extant) 
 might have convicted him of sorcery on literally a thousand 
 counts. His sole defence would have been that he was in- 
 voking and consulting good angels, not demons, but the 
 theologians could have made short work of that allegation. 
 True, Dee had been examined on a charge of witchcraft in 
 the Star Chamber in 1555 and acquitted. 16 ^ But his subse- 
 quent proceedings were enough to condemn him, and he 
 constantly had to protest against the aspersion of being "a 
 companion of Hell-hounds and conjuror of wicked and 
 damned spirits," 17 ° and "the arche coniurer of this whole 
 kingdom." 171 In 1583 the mob had destroyed his library 
 at Mortlake. 172 Anecdotes that descended to Aubrey give 
 ample testimony to his fame as a conjuror. 173 Dee seems 
 to have been agitated by the passage of the statute of 1604, 
 for, on June 5, of that year, while the act was still in debate, 
 he petitioned King James to have him "tryed and cleared 
 of that horrible and damnable, and to him most grievous and 
 dammageable sclaunder, generally, and for these many yeares 
 last past, in this kingdom raysed and continued, by report 
 and print against him, namely, that he is or hath bin a con- 
 jurer or caller or invocator of divels." 174 No attention was 
 paid to his entreaty, but the king did not molest him, and 
 
 favored such a prosecution (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1611-1618, pp. 
 134, 161, 173, 183, 187; Inquiry into the Genuineness of a Letter, etc., pp. 17-19, 
 Camden Miscellany, 5; Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1642, 4th ed., 
 2. 169, note l). 
 
 169 See his own account of the affair in his Compendious Rehearsall, 1592, 
 printed by Crossley, in Autobiographical Tracts of Dr. John Dee, pp. 20-21 (Chet- 
 ham Miscellany, 1), and cf. the Necessary Advertisement prefixed to his General 
 and Rare Memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation, 1577 (Crossley, 
 p. 57). See also Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1550, p. 67; Charlotte 
 Fell Smith, John Dee, 1909, pp. 14-15. 
 
 170 Dee's Preface to Henry Billingsley's translation of Euclid's Elements, 1571 
 (Smith, pp. 24-28). 
 
 171 Necessary Advertisement, 1577 (Crossley, p. 53). 
 
 172 Compendious Rehearsall, 1592 (Crossley, pp. 27 ff.). 
 17 « Aubrey, Brief Lives, ed. Andrew Clark, 1. 212-214. 
 174 Smith, p. 293. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 53 
 
 he died in his bed in 1608. James doubtless respected Dee's 
 learning, and he may have been assured of his innocence 
 by the aged scholar's friends, who were numerous and in- 
 fluential, — Sir Julius Csesar, for instance. Indeed, Dee 
 was styled "the King his Mathematitian," m — a title 
 which appears to imply some degree of royal favor. 
 
 James's pardons and his toleration of Dee and Lambe and 
 Forman would go far to show that he was not a bigoted 
 witch-prosecutor. But there is evidence of an unequivocal 
 nature. It concerns the king's personal activity in the de- 
 tection of imposture. On this point the records are decisive, 
 and, when we consider the prevalent impression as to James's 
 character as a witch-finder, they are nothing less than as- 
 tounding. 176 
 
 First of all we have a charming letter from James to the 
 young Prince Henry. It bears no date, but unbiassed judges 
 put it at the very beginning of the reign, and Sir Henry Ellis 
 believes that it was written before the Prince had left Scot- 
 land. 
 
 My Sonne I ame glaid that by youre Letre I maye persave that ye 
 make some progresse in learning. ... I ame also glaide of the discoverie 
 of yone litle counterfitte Wenche. I praye God ye maye be my aire [i.e., 
 heir] in such discoveries. Ye have ofte hearde me saye that most miracles 
 nou a dayes proves but illusions, and ye maye see by this hou waire judgis 
 should be in trusting accusations withoute an exacte tryall; and lyke- 
 wayes hou easielie people are inducid to trust wonders. Lett her be 
 kepte fast till my cumming ; and thus God blesse you my sonne. 177 
 
 175 MS. College of Arms c. 37, 168, quoted by F. R. Raines, Rectors of Manches- 
 ter and Wardens of the Collegiate Church, Part ii, 1885, p. 110 (Chetham Society). 
 
 176 James has been derided for maintaining the doctrine of witchcraft in the 
 Essex divorce case (see his answer to Archbishop Abbot in Truth Brought to Light 
 by Time, 1651, pp. 103 ff.). This discredit, however, such as it is, is cancelled by 
 his conduct in the case of Sir Thomas Lake (involving a precisely similar allegation 
 of witchcraft), in which he showed much acumen in unravelling a tangled skein of 
 malice and perjury. See Gardiner, History, 3. 189-194 (1895). Mr. Gardiner 
 remarks that James "prided himself upon his skill in the detection of impostures" 
 (3. 192). 
 
 177 Harleian MS. 6986, art. 40 (autograph), as printed by Sir Henry Ellis, Original 
 Letters, 1st Series, 1824, 3. 80-81. The letter may also be found in Birch, Life of 
 Henry Prince of Wales, 1760, p. 37; Letters to King James the Sixth, Maitland 
 Club, 1835, p. xxxv. (where it is said, erroneously, to be in reply to an extant letter 
 of January 1, 1603-4, from Prince Henry) ; Nichols, Progresses of James L, 1. 
 304 ; Halliwell, Letters of the Kings, 1848, 2. 102. Cf. Gifford's edition of Ford, 
 1. clxxi. (ed. Dyce, 1869, 3. 276) ; Quarterly Review, 41. 80-82. 
 
54 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 In 1604 we find James, in his Counterblast to Tobacco, 
 deriding exorcism in a style worthy of Bancroft and Harsnet. 
 " O omnipotent power of Tobacco !" he ejaculates. "And 
 if it could by the smoke thereof chace out deuils, as the smoke 
 of Tobias fish did (which I am sure could smel no stronger) it 
 would serue for a precious Relicke, both for the superstitious 
 Priests, and the insolent Puritanes, to cast out deuils 
 withal." 178 
 
 Another letter of the king's should be given in full, if space 
 allowed. It begins by reminding the recipient "how that 
 in late time we discovered and put to flight one of those coun- 
 terfeits, the like whereof ye now advertise us." "By this 
 bearer," adds King James, "we send unto you instructions 
 suited for such an occasion, willing you leave nothing untried 
 to discover the imposture." It appears that the patient was 
 a woman who lay in a trance and had supported life for a 
 long time on one small cup of wine. The king gives wise 
 directions and remarks that "miracles like those of which 
 you give us notice should be all ways and diligently tested." 
 And he concludes with the words, "It . . . becomes us to 
 lose no opportunity of seeking after the real truth of pre- 
 tended wonders, that if true we may bless the Creator who 
 hath shown such marvels to men, and if false we may pun- 
 ish the impudent inventors of them." 179 
 
 In 1605 Sir Roger Wilbraham notes in his Journal, imme- 
 diately after telling a witch-story : — "The King's maiestie, 
 sithence his happie comyng, by his owne skill hath discov- 
 ered 2 notorious impostures : one of a phisicion that made 
 latyne & lerned sermons in the slepe : which he did by secret 
 premeditacion : thother of a woman pretended to be be- 
 witched, that cast up at her mouth pynnes, & pynnes were 
 taken by divers in her fitts out of her brest." 180 
 
 178 Ed. Arber, p. 108. 
 
 179 Dated March 5th (no year). Halliwell (from Rawlinson MS.), Letters of 
 the Kings, 2. 124-125. It does not appear to whom the letter was addressed. 
 Such cases of real or pretended fasting are common. See, for example, John 
 Reynolds, A Discourse upon Prodigious Abstinence : occasioned by the Twelve 
 Moneths Fasting of Martha Taylor, the famed Derbyshire Damsell, 1669. 
 
 180 Journal of Sir Roger Wilbraham, 1593-1616, ed. by H. S. Scott, p. 70 (Cam- 
 den Miscellany, 10). This is clearly the case mentioned by Walter Yonge in his 
 Diary (ed. Roberts, Camden Society, 1848, p. 12). If so, the bewitched person 
 was "near kinswoman to Doctor Holland's wife, Rector of Exon College in 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 55 
 
 The first of these two impostors was Richard Haydock 
 of New College, Oxford, the celebrated Sleeping Preacher. 
 He made a great noise in the world. In 1605 James sum- 
 moned him to court, where he preached three times. The 
 king felt sure he was shamming. He soon fathomed Hay- 
 dock's mystery, brought him to repentance, and treated him 
 kindly afterwards. 181 The doctor's confession, addressed to 
 King James, is extant among the State Papers. 182 Though 
 witchcraft was not involved, the incident throws light on the 
 king's frame of mind. 
 
 King James's detection of Haydock took place in April, 
 1605. In November of the same year the Gunpowder Plot 
 was discovered. James, it will be remembered, boasted 
 rather pedantically in an address to Parliament that he had 
 unriddled a dark sentence in the Mounteagle letter and so 
 was in effect the discoverer of the conspiracy. 183 He made 
 similar pretensions in a conversation with Giustinian, the 
 Venetian ambassador. 184 There is a plain connection be- 
 tween his pride in this exploit and the shrewdness he had 
 just exhibited in the affair of the Sleeping Preacher and in 
 that of the bewitched woman, for Salisbury gave out that 
 he and other Councillors had submitted the Mounteagle 
 letter to the king because of "the expectation and experience 
 they had of His Majesties fortunate Judgement in cleering 
 and solving of obscure Riddles and doubtful Mysteries." 185 
 It makes no difference whether this consultation was pro 
 
 Oxford." This was Thomas Holland, on whom see Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, 
 ed. Bliss, 2. 111-112; Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, 2. 731. 
 
 181 King James his Apophthegmes, 1643, pp. 8-9 ; Calendar of State Papers, 
 Domestic, 1603-1610, pp. 212, 213; Venetian, 1603-1607, pp. 238, 240-241; 
 letters in Lodge, Illustrations of British History, 2d ed., 1838, 3. 143-144, 153- 
 155, 157-160; Arthur Wilson, History of Great Britain, 1653, p. Ill; Baker's 
 Chronicle, ed. 1660, p. 431 ; Fuller, Church History, Book x., Century xvii., § 56, ed. 
 Brewer, 6. 450 ; Aubrey, MS. History of Wiltshire, pp. 362-363, as quoted by 
 Halliwell, Letters of the Kings, 2. 124, note; Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, 2. 679; 
 Dictionary of National Biography. 
 
 182 State Papers, James I., Vol. 13. No. 80. It is an obscure and rambling 
 document. 
 
 183 King James his Speech to both Houses of Parliament on Occasion of the Gun- 
 powder-Treason, ed. 1679, p. 7; cf. Journal of Sir Roger Wilbraham, pp. 70-71 
 (Camden Miscellany, 10). 
 
 184 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1603-1607, p. 327 (cf. pp. 316-317). 
 
 185 Discourse, appended to King James his Speech (see note 183, above), pp. 28- 
 29 (cf. pp. 30-31). 
 
56 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 forma, mere courtly complaisance, or whether the Councillors 
 really got some help from the king. On either hypothesis, the 
 penchant of james for playing the detective is equally clea r. 
 
 The second case mentioned by Wilbraham was pure witch- 
 craft. The symptom of vomiting pins was regarded by most 
 scholars as decisive against fraud. Thus Cotta, in 1616, in 
 enumerating various tests by which (in contradistinction 
 to swimming, scratching, and other things that he repudiates) 
 witchcraft may be recognized, accepts this as one that is 
 "palpable and not obscure to any eye without difficulty, 
 offering [itself] to plaine and open vie we." 186 It now ap- 
 pears that James, more than ten years before Cotta wrote, 
 had confuted this infallible test. Yet we are told that Cotta 
 "was in advance of his age," that "he published his book in 
 1616, when King James's doctrines prevailed in full force, 
 and it attracted little attention." 187 I agree that Cotta 
 was in advance of his age. Be it so — but what shall we 
 then say of James I. ? 
 
 Another undated example is preserved by Aubrey. 188 A 
 gentlewoman named Katharine Waldron, who "waited on 
 Sir Francis Seymor's lady of Marlborough," pretended to be 
 "bewitched by a certain woman." The phenomena were 
 similar to those in the case of Mary Glover, which misled the 
 Recorder of London in 1603. 189 The king "detected the 
 cheat" by a clever, though somewhat indecorous, device. 
 
 More than once, when James was unable to investigate 
 these matters in person, he intrusted the business to some- 
 body else. Thus, in 1605, a warrant was issued "for such 
 sums as the Earl of Salisbury shall require, for the charges 
 of two maids suspected to be bewitched, and kept at Cam- 
 bridge for trial." 19 ° Trial in this record of course does not 
 mean trial in court (for it was not a crime to be bewitched), 
 but test, investigation. Obviously it was thought that the 
 girls might be shamming. Again, in 1611, the Council sent 
 a letter to the Bishop of Bangor and the Judges of Assize 
 
 186 Triall of Witch-craft, p. 76. 
 
 187 Wright, Narratives of Sorcery and Magic, 2. 144. 
 
 188 MS. History of Wiltshire, pp. 362-363 (Halliwell, Letters of the Kings, 2. 
 124, note). 
 
 189 See p. 29, above. 
 
 190 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1603-1610, p. 218. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 57 
 
 for County Carnarvon " to search out the truth of a supposed 
 witchcraft committed on six young maids." 191 This was 
 another cautionary measure to prevent false accusation and 
 the arraignment of innocent persons. It reminds one of 
 the action of Charles I. in 1634, when he delegated Bishop 
 Bridgeman to investigate the second Pendle case. 192 We 
 shall have occasion to consider the attitude of King Charles 
 presently. 193 
 
 And now we come to the most distinguished of all King 
 James's exploits in the detection of fraudulent bewitchment. 
 It is a case which, even if it stood absolutely alone, might 
 suffice, in the absence of adverse testimony, to clear his 
 reputation. 
 
 In 1616, on the 18th day of July, nine persons were hanged 
 at Leicester. Their crime was the bewitching of a boy of 
 thirteen or fourteen, named Smythe, 194 who suffered from 
 fits 195 like those of the Throckmorton girls of Warboys. 196 
 Indeed, the influence of that famous case is unmistakable. 
 Justice Fenner, in 1593, made old Samuel recite a formula 
 devised by one of the hysterical girls: "As I am a Witch, 
 and did consent to the death of the Lady Cromwell, so I 
 charge the deuil to suffer Mistress lane to come out of her 
 fitt at this present." 197 Thereupon the girl was instantly 
 relieved. So at Leicester in 1616 the accused were obliged 
 to say, "I such a one chardge the hors [one of the devils], if 
 I be a wiche, that thou come forthe of the chilld," whereupon 
 young Smythe. ceased to be tormented. 198 The judges were 
 Sir Humphrey Winch, Justice of the Common Pleas, and Sir 
 Randolph Crew (Serjeant), 199 — the former a member of 
 the Parliament that passed the Statute of 1604. 200 
 
 191 Calendar, 1611-1618, p. 29. 
 
 192 Calendar, 1634-1635, pp. 26, 77-79, 98, 129-130, 141, 152-153. 
 
 193 See p. 64, below. 
 
 194 On his identity see Kittredge, King James I. and The Devil is an Ass 
 (Modern Philology, 9. 195-209). 
 
 195 Letter from Alderman Robert Heyrick of Leicester to his brother Sir William 
 in London, dated July 18, 1616 — the very day of the execution (printed by Nichols, 
 Leicestershire, Vol. 2. Part ii., p. 471*). 
 
 194 See p. 32, above. 
 
 197 Witches of Warboys, 1593, sig. P2 r°. 
 
 198 Heyrick's letter. 
 
 199 Nichols, Progresses of James I., 3. 193 ; Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 
 1611-1618, p. 398. 
 
 200 He was M.P. for the Borough of Bedford (Members of Parliament, 1. 442 a). 
 
58 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 About a month after the execution of these nine witches, 
 King James chanced to be at Leicester on a royal progress. 
 He stayed there not more than twenty-four hours. 201 The 
 Smythe boy was still having his fits, and six more accused 
 persons were in jail awaiting trial at the autumn assizes. 
 Nobody can doubt what the issue would have been. But 
 now James intervened. I will let Francis Osborne (1593- 
 1659) tell the story. "The King being gratified by nothing 
 more than an Opportunity to shew his Dexterity in dis- 
 covering an Imposture (at which I must confess him the 
 promptest Man Living) upon his arrival convented the Boy. 
 Where, before him, (possibly daunted at his Presence, or 
 terrified by his Words) he began to faulter, so as the King 
 discovered a Fallacy. And did for a further Confirmation, 
 send him to Lambeth; where the Servants of Dr. George 
 Abbot,™ 2 did in a few Weeks discover the whole Deceit. And 
 he was sent back to his Majesty before the end of the Prog- 
 ress ; where, upon a small entreaty, he would repeat all his 
 Tricks oftentimes in a Day." 203 
 
 The result we learn from a contemporary letter written 
 by a Leicester alderman. 204 Five of the six alleged witches 
 were released without a trial ; the sixth had died in prison. 
 Nor did the king neglect to let the judges see that he was 
 not pleased with their lack of acumen. "Justice Winch," 
 writes Secretary Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton on 
 October 12, "and Serjeant Crew are somewhat discoun- 
 tenanced for hanging certain Witches in their circuit at 
 Leicester; whereas the King, coming that way, found out 
 the juggling and imposture of the boy, that counterfeited 
 to be bewitched." 205 
 
 201 The king went from Nottingham to Leicester on August 15th, spent the 
 night there, and proceeded to Dingley, on the 16th (Nichols, Progresses, 3. 180- 
 181, cf. 3. 175). 
 
 202 Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 203 Essays (Miscellaneous Works, 11th ed., 1722, 1. 30-31). 
 
 204 Robert Heyrick's letter, October 15, 1616 (printed by Nichols, Leicestershire, 
 Vol. 2. Part ii., p. 471*). 
 
 205 Nichols, Progresses, 3. 192-193; Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1611- 
 1618, p. 398. We can make out a satisfactory account of the case by comparing 
 Osborne with Heyrick's two letters (one of July 18, the other of October 15, 1616, 
 both printed by Nichols, Leicestershire, Vol. 2. Part ii., p. 471*). I have followed 
 Heyrick (as being absolutely contemporary and on the spot) wherever he differs 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 59 
 
 King James's action in the Leicester case of 1616 took 
 instant effect. The clamor of the populace against witches 
 was not silenced, but the judges henceforth used extraor- 
 dinary circumspection. They had no mind to incur the royal 
 displeasure. The result should be carefully noted. From 
 July, 1616, until James's death on March 27, 1625, almost 
 exactly nine years, only five persons are known to have been 
 executed for witchcraft in England. 206 Two of these were 
 hanged at Bristol in 1624, and I have no details. 207 One — 
 Elizabeth Sawyer of Edmonton — confessed after convic- 
 tion. 208 The other two were Margaret and Philippa Flower, 
 who were executed at Lincoln on March 11, 1619. Their 
 case is very remarkable. A bare statement of facts will 
 prove how impossible it was for any jury to acquit them or 
 any king to show them favor. Incidentally, we should ob- 
 serve that they would have been hanged under the Eliza- 
 bethan statute. 
 
 Joan Flower was a foul-mouthed old woman, much given 
 to cursing, and suspected by her neighbors of being a witch. 
 She was incensed at the Countess of Rutland for discharging 
 her daughter, Margaret Flower, from service at Belvoir 
 Castle, though there were good grounds for it, and though 
 the Countess had treated the girl with much kindness. Soon 
 after, three of the Earl's children fell sick, and two of them 
 died, one his eldest son. The Earl, it seems, had no suspicion 
 against the Flowers. Ultimately, however, Joan and her 
 two daughters were arrested, doubtless as a result of local 
 gossip. Joan Flower was never tried for the crime. At the 
 time, as it appears, of her examination, she defiantly sub- 
 
 from Osborne. Heyrick does not mention the king, but Osborne's testimony as to 
 James's intervention is corroborated in all essentials by Chamberlain's letter of 
 October 12, 1616 (Nichols, Progresses, 3. 192-193; Calendar, 1611-1618, p. 398). 
 Osborne, by the way, speaks of his narrative as follows: "I will here relate a 
 story of my own knowledge" (p. 29). 
 
 206 Mr. William Wheater's statement that six persons suffered death for witch- 
 craft at York in 1622 (Old Yorkshire, ed. by William Smith, 4. 266) is a mistake. 
 This was the Fairfax case. Six persons were indicted, but all of them were dis- 
 charged without a complete trial (see p. 63, below). 
 
 207 John Latimer, Annals of Bristol in the Seventeenth Century, p. 91. 
 
 208 There was no torture. She confessed to the minister, Henry Goodcole, for 
 her soul's sake. See Goodcole's narrative, The Wonderfull Discoverie of Elizabeth 
 Sawyer, 1621, reprinted in The Works of John Ford, ed. 1895 (Bullen), 1. lxxxi ff. 
 
60 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 jected herself to a strange test. She "called for Bread and 
 Butter, and wished it might never go through if she were 
 guilty of that wherevpon she was examined : so mumbling 
 it in her mouth, never spoke more words after, but fell doune 
 and dyed as she was carryed to Lincolne Goale." Both her 
 daughters confessed and were hanged. 209 There can be no 
 vestige of doubt in any unprejudiced mind that these three 
 women were guilty in intent. They had practised what 
 they supposed to be witchcraft in order to destroy the chil- 
 dren, and they believed they had succeeded. We may pity 
 n them for their malicious infatuation, but we cannot deny 
 ( that their fate was deserved. Nor was it conceivable that 
 ■ they should escape it when God himself seemed to have 
 pronounced their guilt. 
 
 Five executions, then, make the whole account for the last 
 nine years of King James's reign,' and with regard to two of 
 these, there could be no suspicion of counterfeiting. The 
 Earl's children had really died, and the accused had certainly 
 tried to kill them by sorcery. Here there was no ground on 
 which the king's acumen in detecting imposture could work, 
 nor could any amount of caution on the part of the judges 
 avoid the plain conclusion. 210 
 
 209 The Wonderfull Discoverie of the Witchcrafts of Margaret and Philip Flower, 
 1619. 
 
 210 We may laugh at witchcraft, but it by no means follows that all the afflicted 
 persons were impostors or that the defendants were always guiltless. The children 
 who cried out on the Salem goodwives and the numerous other "young liars" (as 
 one unsympathetic writer has called them) were really afflicted, though the cause 
 was mistaken. Much of their play-acting was a part of their disease. As for the 
 witches themselves (I do not here refer to Salem in particular), it is clear that many 
 of them were malignant creatures who did what they could to get into communion 
 with the fiend and thought they had succeeded. As Mr. Andrew Lang well remarks, 
 "There can be little doubt that many witches were in intention malevolent enough. 
 They believed in their own powers, and probably dealt in poison on occasion" 
 (History of Scotland, 2. 352). Others were precocious experimenters in super- 
 normal mental states. I need but refer to Professor Wendell's suggestive essay 
 on the Salem witches (Stelligeri, 1893 ; cf. his Cotton Mather, pp. 93 ff.) and to 
 Mr. Brodie-Innes's paper on Scottish Witchcraft Trials, in which this fruitful 
 subject of investigation is broached, with illuminating remarks. Neither professes 
 to do more than raise the question. The undiscovered country of witch pathology 
 awaits its trained explorer. Meantime we may speak respectfully of some of our 
 elders — Wierus, Scot, Webster, Bekker, and Meric Casaubon (not all of them 
 on the same side) — who have made wise observations needing only to be translated 
 from the obsolete technical language of their day in order to appeal to the modern 
 alienist. For cases of genuine and indubitable attempts at sorcery, see, for example, 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 61 
 
 But the effect of King James's rebuke of the Leicester 
 justices is visible not only (by inference) in the lack of exe- 
 cutions. It may also be traced in more positive ways. In 
 1620 occurred the notorious fraud of William Perry, the 
 Boy of Bilson. The supposed witch was acquitted at 
 the Stafford assizes, August 10, 1620, and the judges in- 
 trusted Perry to Bishop Morton, who was present. Morton 
 detected the trick, and at the next summer assizes, June 26, 
 1621, the boy made public amends, asking forgiveness of the 
 alleged witch, who was there to receive this rehabilitation. 211 
 James was not personally active — so far as we know — 
 in this exposure, but that it was pleasing to him we can infer, 
 not only from our general knowledge, but from the fact that 
 Arthur Wilson, in his History of Great Britain, published 
 in 1653, appends to the story the following observation : 
 "The King took delight by the line of his Reason to sound 
 the depth of such brutish Impostors, and he discovered many." 
 Then, after reporting the case of Haydock, the Sleeping 
 Preacher, Wilson continues: "Some others, both men and 
 women, inspired with such Enthusiasms, and fanatick fancies, 
 he reduced to their right senses, applying his Remedies suitable 
 to the Distemper, wherein he made himself often very merry 
 . . . but some of their Stories being a little coarse, are not 
 fit to be here related." 212 
 
 Tributes to King James's interest in detecting fraudulent 
 cases are offered not only by Osborne (who speaks of "the 
 charge he gave the Judges, to be circumspect in condemning 
 those, committed by ignorant Justices, for Diabolical Com- 
 pacts"), 213 but by Bishop Goodman, and by Fuller. Good- 
 man's testimony is brief, but to the purpose. James, he says, 
 "was ever apt to search into secrets, to try conclusions [i.e. 
 experiments], as I did know some who saw him run to see one 
 in a fit whom they said was bewitched." 214 Fuller provides 
 
 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, 2d Series, 18. 140 ff. ; W. M. Hart, 
 Archaeologia, 40. 397. Examples are countless. 
 
 211 Hutchinson, Historical Essay, 1718, pp. 217 ff. (from the narrative). Cf. 
 The Second Part of the Boy of Bilson, 1698, pp. 1-9 ; Gee, The Foot out of the 
 Snare, 1624, pp. 53-54. 
 
 212 Pp. 111-112. For Wilson's own skepticism on the subject of witchcraft, see 
 his Autobiography, in Peck, Desiderata Curiosa, Vol. 2. Book xii, pp. 26-27. 
 
 213 Essay i. (Miscellaneous Works, 11th edition, 1722, p. 29). Cf. p. 48, above. 
 
 214 Court of King James the First, ed. Brewer, 1839, 1. 3. 
 
62 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 an elaborate testimonium.™ After telling of the Boy of 
 Bilson, he continues as follows: 
 
 "Indeed, all this king's reign was scattered over with 
 cheaters of this kind. Some papists, some sectaries, some 
 neither, as who dissembled such possession, either out of mal- 
 ice to be revenged on those whom they accused of witchcraft, 
 or covetous to enrich themselves." 
 
 Then, after giving several examples, which he calls "a 
 few out of many," 216 he concludes thus : — 
 
 "King James . . . was no less dexterous than desirous 
 to make discovery of these deceits. Various were his ways in 
 detecting them, aweing some into confession with his pres- 
 ence, others by promise of pardon and fair usage. He or- 
 dered it so, that a proper courtier made love to one of these 
 bewitched maids, and quickly Cupid's arrows drave out the 
 pretended darts of the devil. Another there was, the tides 
 of whose possession did so ebb and flow, that punctually they 
 observed one hour till the king came to visit her. The maid, 
 loath to be so unmannerly as to make his majesty attend 
 her time, antedated her fits many hours, and instantly ran 
 through the whole zodiac of tricks which she used to play. 
 A third, strangely affected when the first verse of St. John's 
 Gospel was read unto her in our translation, was tame and 
 quiet whilst the same was pronounced in Greek, her English 
 devil belike understanding no other language. The fre- 
 quency of such forged possessions wrought such an altera- 
 tion upon the judgment of King James, that he, receding 
 from what he had written in his Demonology, grew first 
 diffident of, and then flatly to deny the workings of 
 witches and devils as but falsehoods and delusions." 217 It 
 seems probable that Fuller goes too far in this last statement, 
 though Osborne says something to the same effect. 218 It is 
 not likely that King James ever gave up his theoretical belief 
 in witchcraft. 219 It is clear, however, that, in his later years, 
 
 215 Church History, Book x., cent, xvii., §§ 54-57 (ed. Brewer, 5. 448-452). Cf. 
 Gilford's Jonson, 7. 140, note 4. 
 
 216 § 56. The only case that we can date is Haydock's (see p. 55, above). 
 
 217 § 57 (6. 451-452). 
 
 218 Essay i. (see p. 48, above). 
 
 219 The Dsemonologie (unmodified) was included in the authorized edition of the 
 king's Works in 1616. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 63 
 
 he came close to the opinion pronounced, in 1711, by Addi- 
 son in a famous passage (echoed by Blackstone) : "I be- 
 lieve in general that there is, and has been such a thing as 
 witchcraft ; but at the same time can give no credit to any 
 particular instance of it." 220 But we must return to King 
 James's good influence on the judges. 
 
 This influence comes out very clearly in the Fairfax case, 
 six years after James's rebuke to Justice Winch and Serjeant 
 Crew. 221 In 1622, Edward Fairfax, the translator of Tasso, 
 brought six women before the York assizes on the charge of 
 bewitching his two daughters. The fits had lasted for sev- 
 eral months and were similar to those of the Throckmorton 
 girls : the Warboys narrative was still doing its work. At 
 the same assizes, one of Fairfax's neighbors, a gentleman 
 named John Jeffray, accused the same defendants of be- 
 witching his daughter Maud. The grand jury was ex- 
 ceptionally intelligent, including six justices of the peace. 
 It had already "received a good caveat by a message from the 
 judge to be very careful in the matter of witches." 222 Yet 
 it found a true bill, and the trial began. 
 
 The six women were arraigned on August 9, 1622. 223 
 Mark the course of proceedings. All three of the afflicted 
 girls fell into a trance in the presence of the court and were 
 carried out insensible. Sir George Ellis and some other 
 justices, leaving the bench, followed, and exerted themselves 
 to discover the imposture that they suspected. They soon 
 returned, declaring that the Jeffray girl had confessed that 
 she had acted throughout by the direction of her parents. 
 Maud Jeffray denied that she had made the alleged admis- 
 sions; but her father was sent to jail forthwith, and his 
 charge was dismissed. 224 The Fairfax girls, however, had 
 not been found to be counterfeiting, and the trial of that case 
 went on. But the court was determined to avoid the mis- 
 take made at Leicester in 1616. The presiding justice, after 
 
 220 Spectator for July 14, 1711 (No. 117); cf. Blackstone, Commentaries, Book 
 iv., chap. 4, sect. 6 (4th edition, 1770, 4. 60-61). 
 
 221 Full details of this case are given in Fairfax's own narrative, entitled Dsemono- 
 logia (edited by William Grainge, Harrogate, 1882). 
 
 222 Fairfax says this message was delivered to the grand jury in his hearing (p. 
 126). 
 
 223 Fairfax, p. 126. ™ Pp. 123-127. 
 
64 ENGLISH WITCHCRAFT AND JAMES THE FIRST 
 
 some witnesses had been heard, instructed the jury that the 
 evidence "reached not to the point of the statute," stopped 
 the trial, and discharged the defendants. 225 Thereafter it 
 was "given out," as Fairfax tells us, that "Jeff ray and his 
 family devised the practice, to which they drew my eldest 
 daughter, and she the younger." Fairfax himself was 
 exonerated. 226 
 
 Here we see the influence of the king's precept and ex- 
 ample at every turn. The grand jury was warned to be 
 careful, the judges were eager to discover an imposture, and, 
 thinking they had done so, yet not daring to trust the jury 
 to acquit, they found that the facts alleged did not bring the 
 case under the statute and took it away from the jury. 
 And finally — as if to leave to posterity no doubt whatever 
 of the first source of all this caution and circumspection — 
 Fairfax mentions King James in the most unequivocal way. 
 His narrative is, in effect, an appeal from the judges to 
 public opinion. His daughters, he maintains, are certainly 
 no tricksters ; they are in an altogether different category 
 from " those whose impostures our wise king so lately laid 
 open." 227 
 
 Nor did the good effects of King James's skeptical temper 
 and of the lesson he taught the judges cease with his death. 
 I can find but one execution for witchcraft in the first seven 
 years of Charles I. Then occurred the famous case of the 
 Lancashire Witches of 1633. On this occasion seventeen 
 persons were convicted, but the judge did not believe in 
 their guilt, and brought the matter to the king's attention. 
 A careful investigation ensued, and none of the alleged 
 witches suffered death. Hitherto this case has been regarded 
 as marking a contrast between Charles's creed and practice 
 and the acts and belief of his father. Mr. Crossley, who is 
 so severe on King James, praises King Charles warmly for 
 thus "distinguishing himself ... in days when philosophy 
 stumbled and murder arrayed itself in the robes of justice 
 — by an enlightened exercise of the kingly prerogative of 
 mercy." 228 Wright remarks that "Charles I. had not the 
 same weak prejudices in these matters as his father." 229 It 
 
 225 P. 127. 22 « P. 124. 227 P. 81. 2! » Edition of Potts's Discoverie, p. Ixxvii. 
 229 Narratives of Sorcery and Magic, 2. 117. 
 
GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 65 
 
 is well to approve King Charles, whose personal record on 
 this matter of witchcraft is laudable, but it must now be 
 quite clear that he was merely following his father's praise- 
 worthy example. 
 
 p 
 
 Our scrutiny of King James's record is finished. No sum- 
 ming up is necessary. The defendant is acquitted by the 
 facts. One final remark, however, may be made, in lieu of 
 a peroration. Diligent search has so far brought to light 
 less than fort y exe cutions for wit.phrrfl.ft. throu ghout Eng land'' 
 in the reign of James I., or an average of about two a year/ ^) 
 Contrast with this statement the fact that in ten year s / 
 o f^the same reign (6-15 James I.) at least thirty-two person s\ 
 we re pressed to death in the single County of Middlesex^ 
 for refusing to plead in cases of felony (not witchcraft), or an 
 a verage of over three a year, and that, in the sam e county 
 for the same period, at least, seven hund red persons were 
 ha nged for felonies other t han witchcraft, pr _an average of 
 seventy a year. 230 These figures call for no commentary. 
 We may double or treble the number of witch-hangings, if 
 we will, in order to allow for incompleteness in the published 
 records, and it still remains true that the reign o£ James I. 
 was not, in this regard, a dark and bloody period. J 
 
 230 Jeaffreson, Middlesex County Records, 2. xvii.-xviii., liii. 
 
 Cambridge, 
 April 1, 1911. 
 
KING JAMES I, AND THE DEVIL IS AN ASS 
 
 G. L. KITTREDGE 
 
 Reprinted for private circulation from 
 Modern Philology, Vol. IX, No. 2, October 191 1 
 
KING JAMES I AND THE DEVIL IS AN ASS 
 
 Ben Jonson's satirical comedy, The Devil Is an Ass, was presented 
 by the King's Players in 1616 at the Blackfriars. Its contemptuous 
 attitude toward witchcraft and demoniacal possession has been 
 much discussed and heartily approved, but the editors and critics 
 have overlooked a number of circumstances that are highly sig- 
 nificant. 
 
 We may first notice the scornful words of Satan to Pug, almost at 
 the beginning of the play. They contain a remarkable fling at the 
 credulity of Middlesex juries: 
 
 You have some plot now 
 Upon a tunning of ale, to stale the yeast, 
 Or keep the churn so that the butter come not, 
 Spite o' the housewives cord, or her hot spit ? 
 Or some good ribibe about Kentish Town, 
 Or Hogsden, you would hang now for a witch, 
 Because she will not let you play round Robin; 
 And you'll go sour the citizens' cream 'gainst Sunday, 
 That she may be accus'd for't, and condemn'd 
 By a Middlesex jury, to the satisfaction 
 Of their offended friends, the Londoners' wives, 
 Whose teeth were set on edge with it ? (I, i, 12-23) 1 
 
 The allusion is obviously to three witch trials of the preceding 
 year. In 1615 Elizabeth Rutter, Joan Hunt, and Agnes Berry had 
 severally been convicted of witchcraft by Middlesex juries and 
 hanged. Agnes Berry was charged with causing Grace Halsey to 
 "languish and waste away." Joan Hunt was indicted for bewitching 
 to death an infant of three years. Against Elizabeth Rutter there 
 were no less than four indictments, three of them for murder by 
 
 »The following remark about Middlesex juries is worth quoting here. It occurs in 
 a letter from Bacon to James I (January 22, 1616) concerning the trial of Somerset for 
 the murder of Overbury: "I said to your Majesty that which I do now repeat, that 
 the evidence upon which my Lord of Somerset standeth indicted is of a good strong 
 thread, considering impoisoning is the darkest of offences; but that the thread must be 
 well spun and woven together. For your Majesty knoweth it is one thing to deal with a 
 jury of Middlesex and Londoners, and another to deal with the Peers; whose objects perhaps 
 will not be so much what is before them in the present case (which I think is as odious 
 to them as to the vulgar) but what may be hereafter" (Spedding, Letters and Life of Bacon, 
 V, 231). 
 195] 1 [Modeen Philology, October, 1911 
 
2 G. L. KlTTREDGE 
 
 witchcraft. 1 These trials must have made a great noise, for the 
 hanging of witches was a rare event in Middlesex. Mr. Jeaffreson, 
 the editor of the Middlesex Records, has found only these three execu- 
 tions for witchcraft in that county during the whole of James the 
 First's reign, 2 and Mr. Inderwick has discovered only eight such 
 executions in Middlesex for a period of over one hundred and sixteen 
 years (1550-1666) . 3 Perhaps, then, the cases of 1615 were what 
 suggested to Jonson the composition of a play which should satirize 
 witchcraft. 
 
 In the fifth act Jonson brought in a scene of sham demoniacal 
 possession. His procedure can hardly have been directly suggested 
 by the Middlesex trials of the preceding year, for these involved 
 neither possession nor fraud. There are, to be sure, cases of demoni- 
 acal possession in Machiavelli's Belfegor, but the patients are really 
 possessed and the circumstances have no resemblance to those in 
 the drama. Indeed, Jonson owes nothing to the Belfegor except 
 perhaps the mere hint for Pug's futile expedition to this world. 
 The most superficial comparison of the drama with the novel will 
 suffice to show that Jonson's demoniac scene is not indebted to the 
 Belfegor for anything whatever, in general or in particular. It is 
 absolutely independent of the Italian in all respects. We cannot 
 even hold that the Belfegor suggested to Jonson the inclusion of a 
 demoniac scene. For our present purposes, then, the Belfegor may 
 be ignored, and the same is true of Friar Rush. What we need is 
 a notorious example of fraudulent possession occurring just before 
 the play appeared, and the impostor should be a boy of about thir- 
 teen. For Meercraft, in persuading Fitzdottrel to counterfeit, 
 remarks encouragingly — 
 
 Sir, be confident, 
 'Tis no hard thing t' outdo the devil in: 
 A boy o' thirteen year old made him an ass 
 But t'other day. 4 
 
 i Middlesex County Records, ed. by J. C. Jeaffreson, II, 108, 110, 116, 218-19. Both 
 Joan Hunt and her husband William had been tried on charges of witchcraft and acquitted 
 in 1614 (II, 95, 96, 217, 218). 
 
 1 II, liii. There were doubtless other executions (for the records are incomplete) 
 but there cannot have been many. One occurred in 1621 (Henry Goodcole, The Wonder- 
 full Discoverie of Elizabeth Sawyer, 1621, reprinted in Bullen's Ford, 1895, I, lxxxi-cvii). 
 
 * Side- Lights on the Stuarts, 2d ed., 1891, pp. 169-70. 
 
 « V, 5, 48-51 (Jonson's numbering). It is well known that Jonson used the sixteenth- 
 century Darrel cases for details; but what we are discussing is not the minutiae of the 
 scene, but the moving cause, the occasion for including it at all. 
 
 196 
 
King James I and The Devil Is an Ass 3 
 
 The case which Meercraft cites must be that of young Smith, of 
 Husbands Bosworth, Leicestershire. We have two accounts of the 
 affair. One, strictly contemporary, is embodied in a letter written 
 on July 18, 1616, by Alderman Robert Heyrick, of Leicester, to his 
 younger brother, Sir William, in London. 1 The other, less accurate, 
 but furnishing valuable details, may be found in Francis Osborne's 
 first Essay. 2 The business is also mentioned in a letter from Sec- 
 retary Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton, dated October 12, 1616. 3 
 
 Heyrick's letter is worth reprinting, for it is important, and 
 Nichols's Leicestershire (which contains it) is not very common in 
 this country. 
 
 Although we have bene greatly busyed this 4 or 5 days past, being syse 
 tyme, and a busy syse speacyally about the araynment of a sort of woomen, 
 Wytches, w l 9 of them shal be executed at the gallows this fornone, for 
 bewitching of a younge gentellman of the adge of 12 or 13 years old, beinge 
 the soon of one Mr. Smythe, of Husbands Bosworth, brother to Mr. Henry 
 Smythe, that made the booke which we call Mr. Smythe's Sarmons. Your 
 man Sampson stays, and yt is to tedyous to write anny one thing unto you 
 of the matter; and the examynacyons and finding out of the matter came 
 to my hand in wry ting just as I began your lettar. Only I will signifye unto 
 you of the chyld's straundg fits, who was brought hythar of Sayturday last 
 to be shewed to the Judges; and since his coming hither he hath had dyvars 
 wonderfull straundg fyts in the syght of all the greatest parsons here, as 
 dyvers knyghts and ladies, and manny othars of the bettar sort, most 
 tereble to be tolld. Sir Henry Hastings hath doon what he colld to holld 
 him in his fit; but he and another as strong as he could not hold him; yf 
 he might have his arm at liberty, he woolld stryke himsellfe suche bloes on 
 his brest, being in his shirt, that you myght here the sound of yt the length 
 of a long chamber, soumtyms 50 bloes, soumtyms 100, yea soumtyms 2 or 
 
 1 Printed in Nichols's Leicestershire, II, ii, 471*. along with another letter of Hey- 
 rick's on the further history of the case, dated October 15, 1616. Cf. Gentleman's 
 Magazine for 1829, Vol. XCIX, Part II, pp. 515-16 (Gentleman's Magazine Library, 
 ed. Gomme, Popular Superstitions, 1884, p. 235); Nichols, Progresses of James I, III, 
 193, n. 1; Gmor<£¥ord7T827^ clxxii-clx^xiii, clxxx; Dyce's Ford, 1869, III, 276; James 
 Thompson, History of Leicester, 1849, pp. 344-45; Poss, Judges of England, VI, 202. 
 Alderman Heyrick died June 14, 1618, at the age of seventy-eight; his brother, Sir 
 William, was the king's jeweler (see Nichols, Progresses, II, 463, n. 3; III, 180, n. 2). 
 
 8 " On such as condemn All they understand not a Reason for" (Miscellaneous Works, 
 11th ed., 1722, I, 29-31). Osborne was born in 1593; the essay was first published in 
 1659, the year of his death. In introducing the anecdote, he remarks, "I will here 
 relate a Story of my own Knowledge"; but he was writing a good while after the event. 
 Hence I ignore certain of his statements that are inconsistent with Heyrick or Cham- 
 berlain. 
 
 • Printed by Nichols, Progresses, III, 192-93 (cf. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 
 1611-1618, p. 398). 
 
 197 
 
4 G. L. KlTTKEDGE 
 
 300 bloes, that the least of them was able to stryke doune a strong man; 
 and yet all he did to himself did him no hurt. 6 of the witches had 6 severall 
 sperits, one in the lyknes of a hors, another like a dog, another a cat, another 
 a pullemar, 1 another a fishe, another a code, 2 with whom evary one of them 
 tormented him: he woolld make soom syne according to the sperit; as, 
 when the hors tormented him, he woold whinny; when the cat tormented 
 him, he would cry like a cat, &c. When he was in his fyt, they were soomtymes 
 brought to him, and then they were chardged to speake sarten words, 
 and to name theare sperits, and one of them to speake yt aftar another; as 
 thus: "I such a one chardge the hors, yf I be a wiche, that thou com forthe 
 of the chilld." And then another by her sperit to doe the like; and so till 
 all had doone. Yf anny of them woolld speake a woord contrary to that 
 charm, he shold be myghtyly tormented; but, if he 3 would speake as he had 
 first directed them, at the end of the last he woolld fall out of his fit as 
 quyetly as if one did lay him doune to slepe. For the rest, I leave till it 
 please God we meete. Leicester, the 18th of July, 1616. 
 
 Your loving brother, 
 
 ROBART HEYRICKE. 
 
 Smith, it will be noted, is described by Heyrick as "a younge 
 gentellman of the adge of 12 or 13 years old." This fits the words 
 of our text. The recency of the occurrence is indicated by the phrase 
 which Meercraft uses, "but t'other day." This phrase rules out the 
 Boy of Burton (1596) 4 and the Boy of Northwich (1601 and 1602), 5 
 and leaves young Smith alone in the field. 
 
 Heyrick's letter enables us to identify the pretended demoniac 
 as a nephew of Henry Smith, lecturer at St. Clement Danes, apos- 
 trophized by Nashe in Piers Penniless (1592) as " silver-tongued" 
 
 1 A misreading for fullemar (a foumart or polecat), 
 a Clearly a misreading for tode. 
 
 * Probably we should read she. 
 
 * This was Thomas Darling of Burton-on- Trent, who was exorcised in 1596 by the 
 famous John Darrel. He was about fourteen years old. Jonson mentions him in V, 
 3, 7, in connection with other supposed demoniacs relieved by "little Darrel's tricks." 
 See Harsnet, Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of Iohn Darrel, 1599, pp. 2, 22, 37, 28; 
 Darrel, Detection of S. Harshnet, 1600, pp. 9-11, 16, 38-40, etc.; Darrel, Doctrin of the 
 Possession, etc. (appended to his True Narration, 1600), pp. 6 fl., 11 ff., 26, 38. 
 
 * This was Thomas Harrison, of Northwich in Cheshire. Deacon and Walker dis- 
 cuss the case in their Summarie Answere to Darrel, 1601, pp. 70 ff. Darrel, in A Survey 
 of Certaine Dialogical Discourses, 1602, p. 54, says that the boy is "at this present very 
 greuously vexed by Sathan." See particularly John Bruen's memoranda in William 
 Hinde's Life of Bruen (Samuel Clarke's Marrow of Ecclesiastical History, Part II, Book ii, 
 2d ed., 1675, pp. 94-96) ; cf. also Thomas Cooper, The Mystery of Witch-craft, 1617, sig. 
 A 3. Gifford (after exploding Whalley's suggestion of the Boy of Bilson on the con- 
 vincing ground that his fraud was four years after Jonson wrote the play) advanced 
 the erroneous suggestion that Jonson was referring to Thomas Harrison. But Harrison's 
 is far too early a case: 1602 was not "t'other day" in 1616. 
 
 198 
 
King James I and The Devil Is an Ass 5 
 
 Smith, 1 one of the most famous preachers of the late sixteenth 
 century. The family was old, rich, and of high standing among the 
 gentry. 2 The boy's grandfather, Erasmus Smith, had married for 
 his second wife a sister of the great Lord Burghley. The boy's 
 father, Roger (afterwards Sir Roger 3 ) Smith, had many children, one 
 pi whom, Erasmus, at this time about six years old, became a dis- 
 tinguished educational benefactor; he was an ancestor of the present 
 Earls of Derby (who from 1776 to 1869 bore the surname of Smith- 
 Stanley). 4 The demoniac's Christian name is not mentioned, but an 
 inspection of the Smith pedigree suffices to identify him, with con- 
 siderable probability, as the eldest of Roger Smith's children by his 
 second wife — namely John Smith, who died unmarried at the age 
 of forty. 5 This identification becomes practically certain when we 
 observe that there is a document at Belvoir Castle (referred to July, 
 1610) containing "an account partly taken from the depositions 
 of Sir Henry Hastings, the High Sheriff, of the bewitching of John 
 Smith by Randall and other witches." 6 Sir Henry Hastings was 
 Sheriff of Leicestershire for one year only — the fifth of James I 
 (1607-8) . 7 If John Smith was thirteen years old in 1616, he 
 must have been a child of four or five when these earlier depositions 
 were taken before Hastings. Manifestly he suffered from hystero- 
 epilepsy, of which lying and imposture are well-recognized symptoms. 
 
 1 Works, ed. McKerrow, 1, 192. Nashe labels the paragraph " Encomium H. Smithi." 
 Smith had died in the preceding year (1591). Fuller also testifies to the epithet "silver- 
 tongued" as applied to this eloquent preacher (Life, prefixed to Smith's Sermons). 
 
 2 A good account of the Smith (originally Herez) family, with pedigrees, may be 
 found in Nichols, Leicestershire, II, i, 180-85, 389-92. See also the pedigree in the 
 Visitation of the County of Leicester in 1619 (Harleian Society, II), pp. 66-67. Henry 
 Smith, the preacher, and his nephew Erasmus are included in the Dictionary of National 
 Biography. 
 
 * He was knighted at Whitehall in 1635, and died in 1655, at the age of 84 (Nichols, 
 II, i, 180, 185). 
 
 4 Doyle, Official Baronage, I, 563-65. 
 
 5 Sir Roger Smith's second wife, Ann Goodman, of London, who died in 1652, aged 
 66, had issue by him " sonns and daughters twentie-two ' ' according to her epitaph (Nichols , 
 II, i, 181). Nobody has hitherto attempted to identify the demoniac among this wilder- 
 ness of offspring, but it is quite certain that he was one of the children of this second 
 marriage and that he was older than his brother Erasmus — and John is the only person 
 in the pedigree who satisfies both conditions. 
 
 • Manuscripts of the Earl of Rutland, I, 422 (Commission on Historical Manuscripts, 
 Twelfth Report, Appendix, Part IV). The document is dated "July." The year is 
 supplied by the cataloguer, on what grounds I do not know. The year of Sir Henry 
 Hastings's shrievalty settles the date of the phenomena. 
 
 T Nichols, Leicestershire, I, 641. 
 
 199 
 
6 G. L. KlTTREDGE 
 
 The suspicion of witchcraft which his fits excited in 1607 or 1608 
 does not appear to have resulted in any convictions. But in 1616, 
 as we learn from Heyrick, his disease brought about the death of 
 nine alleged witches. Probably the malady lasted as long as he 
 lived, for, as we have seen, he never married and he died at a com- 
 paratively early age. 
 
 Sir Henry Hastings, we observe, is mentioned in Heyrick' s letter 
 of July 18, 1616, as interested in the witch trials of that year. Doubt- 
 less (as on the previous occasion) some of the depositions were 
 taken before him as Justice of the Peace. It is interesting to notice 
 that this is true also of a part of the evidence in the trial of Margaret 
 and Philip (i.e., Philippa) Flower, who were hanged in 1619 for 
 bewitching to death two children of the Earl of Rutland. 1 Sir 
 Henry was a man of importance. He was a grandson of the Earl 
 of Huntingdon, and his seat was at Braunston, Leicestershire. 2 
 
 It is natural that the second accusation of witchcraft (in 1616) 
 should have had a more sinister outcome than the first (in 1607 or 
 1608). For John Smith was now old enough not only to make 
 definite charges against particular persons, but to supply details and 
 play tricks with that subtlety which is an effect and a symptom of 
 his disease. And in the meantime he had of course learned much 
 about witchcraft phenomena from the talk of his elders. We may 
 feel confident that he had heard, for example, of the afflicted Throck- 
 morton girls, of Warboys in Huntingdonshire, who also belonged 
 to a distinguished county family, and whose case had received wide 
 currency. The charm which Heyrick says the accused were made 
 to repeat ("I such a one charge the horse, if I be a witch, that thou 
 come forth of the child") is patterned after a formula devised by the 
 hysterical Throckmorton girls and used in the Warboys trials ("As 
 I am a Witch, and did consent to the death of the Lady Cromwell, 
 so I charge the deuil to suffer Mistress lane to come out of her fit 
 at this present")- 3 As in the Warboys case, the officers of the law 
 
 1 The Wonderfull Discoverie of The Witch-crafts of Margaret and Philip Flower, 1619, 
 slg. C 3. 
 
 * Sir Henry Hastings of Braunston, Knight, was the son of Walter Hastings, Esq., 
 of Kirby and Braunston, who was the sixth son of Francis, Earl of Huntingdon. Sir 
 Henry was M.P. for the County of Leicester in 18 James I, and again in 1626. He 
 died in September, 1649. See Nichols, Leicestershire, I, 456, 461; III, ii, 608; IV, ii, 
 610, 612, 617-19, 627. 
 
 * The Witches of Warboys, 1593, sig. P. 2 r°. 
 
 200 
 
King James I and The Devil Is an Ass 7 
 
 were doubtless inclined to give readier credence to persons of the 
 intelligence and social position of the Smiths than they would have 
 given to ignorant villagers or farm-laborers. 
 
 The women to whose malice poor John Smith ascribed his affliction 
 in 1616 were tried in that year at the July assizes at Leicester, 
 before Sir Humphrey Winch (Justice of the Common Pleas) and 
 Serjeant (Sir Randal or Ranulph) Crew. Nine were duly convicted, 
 and they were hanged on the 18th. 1 
 
 Almost exactly a month later, King James visited Leicester in the 
 course of a royal progress. He remained there only a single day 
 (arriving on August 15th and leaving the town on the 16th). 2 But he 
 found leisure for a humane and enlightened act. Young Smith was 
 still having his fits, and six more witches were in prison, awaiting 
 the autumn assizes. 3 James had long been skeptical about such 
 matters, and he prided himself on exposing sham demoniacs and 
 other impostors. He called the boy before him and soon detected 
 the fraud. But there was not time to sift the matter to the bottom. 
 Accordingly, the king sent young Smith to Archbishop Abbot at 
 Lambeth for further examination, with the result that he made a 
 full confession of his tricks. Abbot then sent the boy to the king, 
 before whom he made a complete exhibition of his imposture. 4 
 Accordingly, on or about October 15, 1616, by a writ to the High 
 Sheriff of Leicestershire, the five witches still in custody were released 
 without a trial — the sixth had died in the meantime. 5 
 
 As to Justice Winch and Serjeant Crew, we have the best possible 
 evidence that they incurred the royal displeasure for their part in 
 the affair. " Justice Winch .... and Serjeant Crew," writes 
 
 i Heyrick's letter of July 18, 1616; Chamberlain to Carleton (Nichols, Progresses of 
 James I, III, 192-93). Cf. Poss, Judges of England, VI, 202. 
 
 2 The king was on his way toward Windsor. He spent the night of August 14th at 
 Nottingham, where he remained for one night only. On the 15th he went to Leicester. 
 After passing the night there, he went to Dingley on the 16th (Nichols, Progresses, III, 
 180, 186; cf. Ill, 175). 
 
 » Heyrick's letter of October, 1616 (see n. 5, below). Cf. Osborne, I, 30; Chamber- 
 lain to Carleton, October 12, 1616. 
 
 * Osborne, I, 30-31. 
 
 « Letter of Robert Heyrick to Sir William Heyrick (Nichols, Leicestershire, II, 
 ii, 471*): 
 
 I received your letter yesterday, dated the 10th of October, 1616; for which I 
 thank you hartily, for I thought yt long since I hard any thinge from you; for anny 
 news I heare but from you I account it but uncertayne. I am desyrous to signefye unto 
 
 201 
 
8 G. L. KlTTREDGE 
 
 Secretary Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton on October 12, 1616, 
 "are somewhat discountenanced for hanging certain Witches in their 
 circuit at Leicester; whereas the king, coming that way, found out 
 the juggling and imposture of the boy, that counterfeited to be 
 bewitched." 1 
 
 All these facts throw light on Jonson's famous demoniac scene in 
 The Devil Is an Ass (V, viii), in which the justice, Sir Paul Eitherside, 
 witnesses Fitzdottrel's pretended fit of possession and is convinced 
 that he is suffering from witchcraft. It is no longer possible to 
 identify Sir Paul with Coke, even " partially," as Dr. W. S. Johnson 
 does. 2 So far as the satire is personal, it is manifestly aimed at Sir 
 Humphrey Winch, the judge who had presided at the Leicester 
 witch trials in July, when the Smith boy played his tricks successfully 
 in the presence of the bench. We should note, by the way, that Sir 
 Paul Eitherside is not treated contumeliously by Jonson. When 
 Fitzdottrel confesses, and Manly says to the justice, "Are you not 
 asham'd now of your solemn, serious vanity [i.e., foolishness]?' 1 
 Sir Paul answers, like a dignified and conscientious gentleman, "I 
 will make honorable amends to truth." 3 
 
 The Smith boy, as we have seen, had been sent to Archbishop 
 Abbot about August 15th, 1616. The archbishop's men, so Osborne 
 
 you of the Witches, but it must be in my next; for they be but this day, as I am informed, 
 examyned before Mr. Mair and the Justisis, and Docktor Lambe, in our Town-hall; 
 and to-morrow I shall know the substaunce of the matter; and then you shall here how 
 the matter goes w* them. So, with my love and hartyest salutatyons to yourself and 
 my Lady doone, I leave you to the Most Highest. Leicester, the 15th of October. 
 
 Your loving brother, 
 
 ROBART HbYRICKE. 
 
 Since wryting of the above, the under sherive, by a warrant directed to the highe- 
 sherive, hathe set the 5 Witches at liberty; the sixt is ded in the gayle. 
 
 1 Nichols, Progresses of James I, III, 192-93 (cf. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 
 1611-1618, p. 398). Mr. Inderwick, whose essay on Witchcraft in his Side- Lights on 
 the Stuarts contains much valuable material along with a great variety of curious errors, 
 gives an oddly distorted account of the Leicester affair. He says that it was on October 
 12 that James discovered the imposture of the "boys," and that "some time afterwards, 
 . . . . certain witches were tried for this very witchcraft, and, being convicted, 
 were hanged by order of Justice Winch." " This," adds Mr. Inderwick, " was considered 
 so impertinent an invasion of the king's prerogative, that the judge was disgraced for 
 having allowed the case to be tried after the king himself had decided it" (2d ed. t 1891, 
 p. 150). 
 
 8 "It is certain that Coke is partially responsible for this portraiture 
 
 On the other hand, it is improbable that the picture was aimed exclusively at Coke* 
 (W. S. Johnson, The Devil Is an Ass, 1905, p. lxxii, Yale Studies in English, XXIX). 
 Fleay's identification of Coke with Fitzdottrel (Biographical Chronicle, I, 382-83) had 
 already been properly rejected by Johnson as a patent absurdity. 
 
 » V, viii, 145-47. 
 
 202 
 
King James I and !Ttf# Devil Is an Ass 9 
 
 informs us, brought him to a full confession, at Lambeth, "in a few 
 weeks." "He was sent back to his Majesty," continues Osborne, 
 "before the end of the Progress; where, upon a small entreaty, he 
 would repeat all his Tricks often times in a Day." 1 These exhibitions 
 must have taken place at Windsor between the 3d and the 17th of 
 September, the progress ending on the latter date. 2 Their first result 
 was the "discountenancing" of Winch and Crew, of which Chamber- 
 lain speaks in his letter of October 12th. Their second result was the 
 examination of the surviving witches at Leicester before the Mayor, 3 
 certain justices, and Dr. Lambe, on October 15th, and their release 
 either on that day or soon after. 4 Dr. John Lambe's presence is 
 significant. He was an eminent ecclesiastical jurist and was vicar 
 of the Bishop of Peterborough, in whose diocese Leicester is included. 5 
 Doubtless he attended the examination because of instructions from 
 Lambeth. If Winch sat on the bench at this session, he probably 
 used the opportunity (in Justice Eitherside's phrase) to "make 
 honorable amends to truth." The "discountenancing" of Winch 
 and Crew was not serious, no doubt because the king's justifiable 
 self-satisfaction at his own cleverness and its fortunate issue over- 
 weighed his anger. On the 7th of October, it was rumored at 
 St. James's that Crew was to succeed Coke as chief-justice. 6 It is 
 safe to infer that the royal disfavor became known at court 
 between October 7 and October 12 (the date on which Chamberlain 
 reported it to Carleton). Between these two dates the king 
 probably expressed his feelings by some snub in word or act. 
 My suggestion, therefore, that Jonson's demoniac scene alludes 
 
 » Osborne, I, 30-31. 
 
 1 Windsor was the last gest of the progress. The king was to arrive there on August 
 29, and to remain "during pleasure" (Nichols, III, 180). In fact, however, he did not 
 reach Windsor until after September 3, for Chamberlain writes to Carleton on that day 
 that he "keeps much about Windsor, though he has not yet been there." On the 7th 
 he was at Windsor, and he remained until the 15th or 16th (Nichols, III, 188-90; Calendar 
 of State Papers, Domestic, 1611-1618, p. 392; Venetian, 1615-1617, pp. 290, 297, 301). 
 On the 17th he was at Theobalds, and the progress was finished (Nichols, III, 190; cf. 
 Calendar, Domestic, pp. 392, 394). 
 
 » The Mayor of Leicester was Thomas Herrick (Ericke) (Nichols, Leicestershire, 
 I, 425). 
 
 4 Heyrick's October letter. 
 
 6 Sir John Lambe took the degree of LL.D. at Cambridge in 1616. Heyrick calls 
 him by his new title. For Lambe's life see Dictionary of National Biography. 
 
 8 Henry Lord Danvers to Carleton {Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1611-1618, 
 p. 397.) 
 
 203 
 
10 G. L. KlTTREDGE 
 
 to the Smith affair makes it necessary to assign the composition 
 of that scene to the latter part of October or thereabout. Let us 
 see if this date accords with other evidence. 
 
 We know that the play was first performed in 1616. x The time 
 occupied falls within the limits of a single day. Pug, the fiend, 
 assumes the hanged cutpurse's body in the morning, and is carried 
 off to hell by Iniquity, the vice, that same night. 2 In settling the 
 date of production, we are justified in using whatever indications of 
 the season of the year are afforded by the text, for the day on which 
 the events of the drama occur is identified, by Jonson himself, with 
 the actual day on which it was first acted. This appears from the 
 following passage, in which Wittipol is speaking of Fitzdottrel: 
 
 Yes, that's a hir'd suit he now has on, 
 To see The Devil Is an Ass to-day in. 3 
 
 Two bits of internal evidence are available. (1) In V, ii, 39, 
 Pug remarks, "If we can get a wigeon, 'tis in season." This points 
 to the time of year when wigeons are procurable, but not yet a glut 
 in the market. These birds make their appearance in England about 
 the middle or end of September or early in October. 4 (2) In III, vi, 
 2-4, Pitfall says: 
 
 Canst thou get ne'er a bird ? 
 No thrushes hungry ? Stay till cold weather come, 
 I'll help thee to an ousel or a fieldfare. 
 
 Fieldfares arrive in England early in October. They are very shy 
 birds, 6 however, and not until there is snow, or a severe frost, can 
 one readily get within gunshot of them. Then they seek the 
 uplands, to feed upon the hedges, and become not only in better 
 
 1 The year is mentioned in so many words in I, i, 80-81. 
 
 * Cf. I, i, with V, vi-vii. See especially I, i, 133-50; V, vi, 5-10, 48-49; V, vii, 5. 
 
 »I, iv, 20-21. Cf. also the following passages: 
 
 "Fitzdottrel Art thou sure 
 
 The play is play'd to-day? Ingine. O, here's the bill, sir. 
 I had forgot to gi't you. Fitz. Ha! the Devil!" (I, iv, 42-44) 
 "To-day I go to the Blackfriars playhouse." (I, vi, 31) 
 
 « F. O. Morris, History of British Birds, VII, 29-30; Yarrell, History of British Birds, 
 2d ed., 1845, III, 287; Macgillivray, History of British Birds, 1852, V, 87-88. 
 
 •It is the fieldfare's shyness that gives point to the proverbial "farwel feldefare" 
 (Troilus, iii, 861), i.e., "the bird has flown." Cf. Middleton, Anything for a Quiet Life, 
 I, ii, 264 ff. (Bullen, V, 255): "When I studied there [at Cambridgel, I had so fan- 
 tastical a brain that, like a felfare frighted in winter by a birding-piece, I could settle 
 nowhere; here and there, a little of several art, and away." 
 
 204 
 
King James I and The Devil Is an Ass 11 
 
 condition as to flesh and flavor, but also easier to approach. 1 Nicholas 
 Cox, in The Gentleman's Recreation, instructs his reader thus : "About 
 Michaelmas [September 29], or when the cold weather begins to 
 come in, take your Gun and kill some Feldfares." 2 
 
 Pitfall's remark, 3 then, would not be appropriate later than about 
 the first of November, and would certainly fit the middle or latter 
 part of October in any ordinary season. That cold weather has not 
 yet come is shown also by the fact that, when Ambler complains 
 that he had to walk barefoot from the neighborhood of the Lord 
 Mayor's Banqueting House to St. Giles's, he says nothing about 
 suffering from inclement weather. 4 
 
 Both pieces of internal evidence are consistent, it appears, with 
 our fixing the date of the first performance as about the middle or 
 end of October. 
 
 Further, when Pug has been arrested and taken to Newgate, 
 Iniquity visits his cell, with a message from the Great Devil: 
 
 H' hath sent thee grant-paroll by me to stay longer 
 A month here on earth. 
 
 "How?" cries Pug, "longer here a month?" And the dialogue 
 
 proceeds: 
 
 Iniquity. Yes, boy, till the session, 
 That so thou mayest have a triumphal egression. 
 Pug. In a cart, to be hang'd! 5 
 
 That is, in a month there is to be a session of jail delivery, at which 
 Pug will be tried for theft. There was usually such a session for 
 Middlesex early in September, early in October, and early in Decem- 
 ber, but none in November. If, then, the date of performance 
 (which, we remember, corresponds with that of the action) is the 
 
 *W. B. Daniel, Rural Sports, 1807, III, 149, note; Morris, III, 171-72; Bewick's 
 History of British Birds, 1804, I, 103; Col. G. Montagu, Ornithological Dictionary, ed. 
 Rennie, 1831, pp. 180-81. Chaucer speaks of "the frosty feldefare" (Parliament of 
 Fowls, vs. 364); cf. Skeat on Troilus, iii, 861 (Oxford Chaucer, II, 479). 
 
 * 3d ed., 1686, Part II, p. 129. 
 
 3 Pitfall is punning on bird in the sense of "loose woman" (cf. Mod. Philol., VII, 
 475-77), but the season is indicated all the same. Charles Carter, in his Compleat City 
 and Country Cook, 1732, plates 44, 45, reckons wigeons among the birds in season in 
 September, October, and November; fieldfares, among those in season in December, 
 January, and February. 
 
 « V, i, 26-47. s v, vi, 19-23. 
 
 205 
 
12 G. L. KlTTREDGE 
 
 latter part of October, the next session will fall early in December 
 — that is, in round numbers, about a month hence. 1 
 
 Thus it appears that all the internal evidence either points 
 directly to the latter part of October (or thereabout) as the date of 
 presentation, or agrees with that date. Indeed, no other date will 
 satisfy all the conditions. When Jonson began to write the play we 
 cannot tell, but it seems quite clear that he finished it shortly before 
 it was produced. There is nothing in the internal evidence that 
 conflicts in any way with the view which I have expressed, namely, 
 that the demoniac scene in the fifth act was written with an eye to 
 the Leicester case, to the king's detection of the imposture, and to 
 the royal displeasure manifested at the precipitancy and credulity 
 of Justice Winch. 
 
 The demoniac scene, indeed, is by no means necessary to the plot, 
 which might just as well be wound up without it. Its connection 
 with the structure of the drama is very loose. Probably Jonson 
 inserted it at the last minute, after the "discountenancing" of Winch 
 and Crew (mentioned in Chamberlain's letter of October 12) had 
 become the talk of the court and the town. We may conjecture 
 that he was on the point of finishing his play when the matter came 
 to his attention, and that he found it too apposite to his general 
 satirical purpose to be disregarded. 
 
 The results of our investigations are not trivial, for they have a 
 direct bearing upon the relations between Jonson and James I, 
 as well as upon the status of both poet and king in the history of 
 witchcraft. James is commonly regarded as a frantic and bigoted 
 witch-prosecutor during his English reign, and Jonson has been 
 commended for his enlightenment and independence in taking the 
 other side. 2 In fact, however, James distinguished himself, almost 
 from the very beginning of his reign, as a detector of fraudulent 
 demoniacs, and there is plenty of evidence that he did not encourage 
 
 » As a matter of fact there were ten Old Bailey sessions of jail delivery in 1616 — on 
 January 12, February 20, March 15, April 12, May 16, June 26, August 1, September 
 6, October 4, and December 4 (Middlesex Court Records, ed. by J. C. Jeaffreson, II, 
 218-19). 
 
 * See, for example, Aronstein, Ben Jonson, 1906, p. 164 (Schick and v. Waldberg, 
 Literaturhistorische Forschungen, XXXIV) : " Manner wie Bacon und Raleigh zweifelten 
 nlcht an der Existenz von Hexen, und Jakob I. hatte bekanntlich selbst ein Werk tiber 
 Damonologie geschrieben. Um so hoher ist es dem Dichter anzurechnen, dass er es 
 gewagt hat, in seinem Lustspiele diesen Aberglauben kuhn zu verspotten." 
 
 206 
 
King James I and The Devil Is an Ass 13 
 
 the prosecution of witches. On the contrary, though he believed in 
 witchcraft in general, it is quite certain that he was disposed to be 
 skeptical with regard to particular examples, and his English reign is 
 by no means a dark and bloody period in the annals of this terrible 
 delusion. 1 In undertaking to write a comedy satirizing witchcraft, 
 Jonson was not braving the king's wrath: he was acting in perfect 
 accord with what he knew to be the king's sentiments, and he must 
 have felt sure of his approval. James and he were not on different 
 sides in this question; they were on the same side. 2 When, therefore, 
 as Jonson was completing his play, a remarkable instance of the 
 king's acumen occurred, resulting in the rescue of five suspected 
 witches, the poet welcomed the opportunity of paying a well-deserved 
 compliment to his royal patron. He inserted a scene of sham 
 demoniacal possession, and pointed the compliment by satirizing the 
 justice whose credulity the king had reproved. 
 
 This was not the first time that Jonson had gratified the king by 
 such a compliment. There is a counterfeit demoniac in Volpone, 
 the advocate Voltore, who has spasms and pretends to vomit pins. 3 
 Volpone was acted early in 1606. Shortly before, King James had 
 exposed the imposture "of a woman pretended to be bewitched, that 
 cast up at her mouth pynnes, and pynnes were taken by divers in 
 her fitts out of her brest." 4 
 
 » For the evidence in full, see Kittredge, English Witchcraft and James I. Gifford, 
 in 1827, printed a brief but powerful defence of James in his edition of Ford, I, clxxi- 
 clxxv, clxxix-clxxx (Dyce's edition, 1869, III, 273-76; Bullen's edition, 1895, III, 273-76). 
 He called attention to Osborne and to Chamberlain's letter of October 12, 1616, but did 
 not perceive the connection of the Leicester case with The Devil Is an Ass. 
 
 2 We may note, by the way, that alchemy (satirized by Jonson in The Alchemist, 
 1610) was likewise a subject on which King James was skeptical. In 1620 he made some 
 acute criticisms on the alchemists' fallacious reasoning, to say nothing of a highly char- 
 acteristic jest (King James His Apopthegmes, 1643, pp. 7-8). 
 
 s V, xii, 8 fl. 
 
 4 Journal of Sir Roger Wilbraham, 1593-1616, ed. by H. S. Scott, p. 70 (Camden 
 Miscellany, X). Sir Roger mentions the case along with that of Richard Haydock, the 
 Sleeping Preacher, of New College, Oxford who (as we know) was exposed by King 
 James in April, 1605. Walter Yonge also mentions Haydock's exposure, and couples 
 with it the following item, which must refer to the demoniac woman of whom Wilbraham 
 speaks: "This year there was a gentlewoman and near kinswoman to Doctor Holland's 
 wife, Rector of Exon College in Oxford, strangely possessed and bewitched, so that in 
 her fits she cast out of her nose and mouth pins in great abundance, and did divers other 
 things very strange to be reported" (Diary of Walter Yonge, ed. by George Roberts, 
 Camden Society, 1848, p. 12). By "this year" Yonge seems to mean 1606, for the entry 
 immediately preceding is dated "An. D. 1605-1606." But, since he refers Haydock's 
 case to "this year also," we are safe in dating the bewitching of Dr. Holland's wife's 
 
 207 
 
14 G. L. KlTTREDGE 
 
 Many students have been puzzled to understand why Jonson, 
 after receiving a royal grant of a hundred marks a year for life in 
 February, 1616, 1 should have seized the earliest opportunity to insult 
 the king by ridiculing witchcraft in The Devil Is an Ass. Nor has 
 their perplexity been diminished by observing that the insult caused 
 no interruption in the king's favor, inasmuch as Jonson was employed 
 to write a Christmas masque at the end of the same year. It now 
 appears that The Devil Is an Ass was not an insult, but a compliment, 
 so that all grounds for perplexity are happily removed. 
 
 Ben Jonson, as is well known, gave Drummond a brief account 
 of The Devil Is an Ass in 1619. The passage is as follows: 
 
 A play of his, upon which he was accused, The Divell is ane Ass. Accord- 
 ing to Comedia Vetus in England, the Divell was brought in either with one 
 Vice or other; the play done, the Divel carried away the Vice. He brings 
 in the Divel so overcome with the wickedness of this age that thought him- 
 self ane Ass. Ilapepyws is discoursed of the Duke of Drounland. The 
 King desired him to conceal it. 2 
 
 These jottings of Jonson's talk are rather tantalizing. "Whether 
 the subject which gave offense" was monoplies or witchcraft, writes 
 Dr. W. S. Johnson, "it is impossible to determine." 3 It is clear, 
 however, that some person or persons lodged a complaint against 
 The Devil Is an Ass, and that the king promised Jonson immunity 
 if he would not print the play. As we know, Jonson did not publish 
 the text until 1631, six years after James's death. 
 
 Perhaps the complainants were Winch and Crew; perhaps the 
 relatives of the young demoniac. In either case the king may well 
 have thought it best to satisfy the aggrieved parties, and at the same 
 time let the poet off, by "desiring" Jonson not to print the drama. 
 The good-natured monarch may have regarded the judges as punished 
 
 kinswoman 1605, or early in the following year. Volpone is made out by Mr. L. H. 
 Holt to have been presented between March 9 and March 25, 1606 (Modern Language 
 Notes, XX, 164-65). Dr. Thomas Holland died March 17, 1611-12. He was appointed 
 Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford in 1589 and Rector of Exeter College in 1592, 
 and held both offices till his death (Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. Bliss, II, 111-12; 
 Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, II, 731). 
 
 1 Shakspere Variorum of 1821, I, 417, note. 
 
 * Jonson' s Conservations with Drummond, ed. Laing, p. 28 (Shakespeare Society, 
 1842). I have regulated the punctuation, which, as given in the manuscript, obscures 
 the sense. I have also made the obvious correction of napepyws for napepyovs. 
 
 « The Devil Is an Ass, 1905, p. lxii. 
 
 208 
 
King James I and The Devil Is an Ass 15 
 
 enough without the further publicity of type. And he would cer- 
 tainly have considered the feelings of the Smith family, which had 
 abundant wealth and influence and was highly connected. The 
 boy's grandfather, we should remember, had married as his second 
 wife a sister of William Cecil, the great Lord Burghley, 1 and Burghley 
 had more than once used his influence to protect Henry Smith, the 
 eminent preacher, 2 who was the boy's uncle. Burghley's grandson 
 was now Earl of Salisbury. Very likely, however, the accusation had 
 nothing to do with witchcraft, but concerned rather the satire on 
 monopolies, in particular the draining of the fens, a project of great 
 public importance, much canvassed in the reign of James I. 
 
 At all events, the language of Drummond's memorandum shows 
 clearly that James protected Jonson — -not that he censured or 
 punished him. And this is what we should expect, since the play, 
 as we have seen, was of a kind to give the king much satisfaction. 
 
 G. L. KlTTREDGE 
 Harvard University 
 May 11, 1911 
 
 1 She was Margery, "relict of Roger Cave" (Nichols, Leicestershire, II, i, 185). 
 She married Cave on November 24, 1561 (Fox-Davies, Genealogy of the Cecils, in His- 
 torical Monograph, William Cecil Lord Burghley, 1904, p. 111). Henry Smith speaks of 
 Brian Cave, High Sheriff of Leicestershire, as his uncle (Three Sermons, ed. 1624, p. 56: 
 misprinted "Cane"). Brian Cave, of Ingarsby, was High Sheriff of the Counties of 
 Leicester and Warwick in 5-6 Philip and Mary (1558), and of Leicestershire in 11 and 
 24 Elizabeth (1568-69, 1581-82) (Nichols, I, 460, 461). He died July 30, 1590 (III, i, 
 280). Roger Cave, of Stanton-on-Avon, who married Margaret (or Margery) Cecil, 
 and died in 1586, was his brother, as were also Sir Thomas Cave of Stanford-on-Avon, 
 and Sir Ambrose Cave, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and one of Elizabeth's 
 privy councillors (II, ii, 852; III, i, 97, 290, 292; III, ii, 954; IV, i, 351-52, 356). A 
 sister, Dorothea, married John Smith, Henry Smith's grandfather, so that Brian Cave 
 was the preacher's great-uncle (Visitation of the County of Leicester in 1619, pp. 66, 
 128, Harleian Society, II). 
 
 * Fuller's Life of Smith (Smith's Sermons, ed. 1866, 1, viii); cf. C. H. and T. Cooper, 
 Notes and Queries, 1st Series, VII, 223. Smith dedicated his collected Sermons to Burgh- 
 ley with an expression of gratitude ("haec pignora in grati animi testimonium"; ed. 
 of 1609). 
 
 209 
 
Percy and His Nancy 
 
 G. L. KITTREDGE 
 
 Reprinted for private circulation from 
 The Manly Anniversary Studies in Language and Literature 
 
PERCY AND HIS NANCY 
 
 G. L. KlTTEEDGE 
 
 Harvard University 
 In 1825 somebody presented to Sheffield Grace, a gentleman of 
 antiquarian note in his day, a little sheaf of Percy Papers relating to 
 " Nancy, will you go with me?" and also an exquisite calligraphic 
 copy of the song, with Thomas Carter's music. The inscription, 
 so beautifully written that it has been mistaken for engraving, runs 
 as follows: 
 
 These interesting documents illustrative of the origin of the celebrated 
 ballad Oh Nanny wilt thou gang with me were discovered among a collection 
 of MSS belonging to the late Bishop Percy & are now presented to Sheffield 
 Grace Esq r , F.S.A In acknowledgement of the gratification derived from 
 the cultivated taste and amiable feelings displayed in his Memoirs of the 
 Family of Grace and in testimony of sincere and lasting regard by his much 
 obliged Friend W*. S. M. 
 
 I cannot identify W. S. M., but he or she may have been a member of 
 the Meade family. 1 Grace immediately passed the gift along to a 
 lady whom he addresses as "My dear Duchess" in his letter of presen- 
 tation (July 28, 1825), inserted in the volume. The mention of 
 " Avington" in this letter proves that Grace was addressing his distant 
 kinswoman, the first Duchess of Buckingham and Chandos. James 
 Brydges, third Duke of Chandos, had died in 1789, and his title 
 died with him. In 1796, his sole heiress, the Lady Anna Eliza 
 Brydges, married Richard Grenville, whom George IV created (in 
 1822) Earl Temple of Stowe, Marquis of Chandos, and Duke of 
 Buckingham and Chandos. Avington, 2 near Winchester, had been 
 
 1 Percy's second daughter (Elizabeth) married the Hon. and Rev. Pierce Meade, 
 son of the Earl of Clanwilliam, in 1801 (see Play fair, British Family Antiquity, IV 
 (1810), Appendix, p. xcix) . The Graces were allied to the Meades (see Sheffield Grace's 
 Memoirs of the Family of Grace, p. 83). 
 
 2 Doyle, Official Baronage, I, 264-67, 358; Cokayne, Complete Peerage (ed., Gibbs), 
 II, 408-9; Woodward, Wilks, and Lockhart, A General History of Hampshire, II, 40-48; 
 Duthy, Sketches of Hampshire, [1839,] pp. 193, 198-200 (with a pretty view of Avington 
 House and the Itchen); Annual Register for 1848, Chronicle, pp. 65-66; for 1861, 
 Chronicle pp. 408-10. Avington was bought by John Shelley, the poet's younger 
 brother, and is now the seat of the Shelley family (Shelley-Rolls since 1917). 
 
 204 
 
PERCY AND HIS NANCY 205 
 
 in the Brydges family for generations and was a part of the Lady 
 Anna Eliza's inheritance. Grace had already dedicated to this 
 same great lady his Memoirs of the Family of Grace, 1823. It was 
 perhaps the fact that her name was Anna that suggested this par- 
 ticular gift. The duchess died in 1836, the duke in 1839. Their 
 son ran through his property at lightning speed. Grace's pretty 
 little volume of curiosities may have been sold along with other 
 effects of the second duke at the time of his deb&cle. It has recently 
 been acquired by the Harvard College Library. 
 
 The following letters are printed from this volume. The first 
 and third are from the originals, the second is from Percy's own holo- 
 graph draft, which he had preserved. The draft shows very interest- 
 ing corrections, which prove that the bishop regarded his utterances 
 on the subject of his famous love song as of some moment. 
 
 [Miss Henrietta Rhodes to Bishop Percy] 
 
 Bridgnorth 
 January 15 th 
 1801 
 My Lord 
 
 I am so thoroughly conscious of the numberless apologies this Letter 
 requires, that I should despair of receiving your forgiveness for such an 
 Intrusion, was I not well acquainted with your Character, although I have 
 not the honour of being personally known to you : I am therefore inclined to 
 hope, that my address will rather excite a smile, than provoke your dis- 
 pleasure. 
 
 My name will perhaps announce to you that I am a native of Bridgnorth; 
 a place which boasts of your birth, no less from your distinguished literary 
 talents, than the high station you enjoy. Added to the respect we feel for 
 great and good characters, there is naturally a portion of pride also experi- 
 enced when we consider ourselves provincially interested. Thus much to 
 elucidate the story I have to relate. 
 
 In a large company assembled at M r Lee's of Coton the other Day, the 
 beautifull Ballad a O Nanny wilt thou go with me" was sung by one of the 
 Party, and the words were so much admired that I could not resist making 
 the observation that they were written by D r Percy, a native of Bridgnorth. 
 A negative was instantly put upon this, by every one present. Some asserted 
 it to be Scotch, and others said they knew it to have been written at a much 
 earlier period than you coud have published. It was in vain I protested that 
 I had received it, as yours, from your Nephew, whom I have the pleasure of 
 knowing, and that I had even written an Answer to it. My opponents 
 continued incredulous, & I in proportion became more decided. At 
 
206 G. L. KITTREDGE 
 
 length M r Lee, and another Gentleman dared me to a Bett with them. It is the 
 first Wager I ever made in my life, for I am systematically an enemy to them; 
 however I have the immense sum of three Guineas at stake, determinable 
 only by your Lordship's avowal of being the Author. Whilst I intreat the 
 favour of a reply, suffer me to assure you, that I am not less anxious for 
 the honour of restoring the stolen branch of Bays to the Chaplet the Muses 
 have wove for you, than I am to prove my own claim to correctness: and 
 that I remain your Lordships 
 
 obliged humble servan[t] 
 
 Henrietta Rhodes 
 
 If M r Percy is in your Neighbourhood pray make my compliments to him 
 and tell him I expect from his friendship whatever further excuses may be 
 wanting to your Lordship 
 
 [Addressed] 
 
 The Right REV d Bishop of Dromoke 
 
 Dromore House 
 
 Ireland 
 
 [Bishop Percy to Miss Rhodes] 
 
 Dromore House, Feb. 9. 1801 
 Madam, 
 
 So very obliging a Letter as yours ought to have received an earlier 
 Acknowledgement; but the very great indulgence, 1 you have shown to a 
 poetical Escape of my early youth, will, I trust, be extended to my Delay of 
 writing now,. w ch has been owing to the Interruptions of Business. Graver 
 Studies and more important Persuits have so long since weaned me from the 
 Seductions of the Muses, that I should 2 have scarce taken the trouble you 
 have so kindly done to contest with any opponent my original right to it, 
 but if your very flattering Partiality 3 to it did not tempt me to revive my 
 my Claim to that little Juvenile Production, it would yet be in vain for me 
 to disown it; as 4 when it was first printed in the 6 th Volume of Dodsley's 
 Miscel: Poems, 1758, to it were prefixed the initials &c of my Name 
 T. P . . . cy: which in a subsequent Edition (I think in 1782) the Publisher 5 
 
 1 Before "you" is a partly erased "which." 
 
 '"should .... right to it." Percy first wrote "should been content to see this 
 juvenile production, you mention, assigned to any other Claimant"; this he altered to 
 "should have scarce taken the trouble to assert my claim to that juvenile production 
 you mention, had I heard it contested"; then to the present text, but with "Claim to 
 it" for "right to it." 
 
 8 "Partiality .... would yet." Percy first wrote "Partiality to that little effu- 
 sion of fancy were not sufficient to make me reassert my claim to it, it would"; this 
 he altered to "Partiality to it did not tempt me to reassert my [altered to "revive 
 my"] attention to it, it would"; then to the present text. 
 
 4 "as" first written "for." 6 "Publisher" first written "Bookseller." 
 
PERCY AND HIS NANCY 207 
 
 unknown to me printed at length, mentioning that the author was then 
 Dean of Carlisle, &c. Such is the ace*, of 1 this little Publication, which has 
 to plead in its excuse that the Nancy who is the subject of it, is my present 
 wife. — whom I then thought & think still to have been one of the most 
 beautiful of her Sex. — Having 2 thus drawn me into these confessions you 
 must in return favour me with a sight of your Answer; to the above song 
 which will also much 3 oblige my Nephew, who is highly gratified by your 
 kind Remembrance of him, he is at present with me, and is so far advanced 
 in Seniority among the Fellows of St. John's College in Oxford that he has 
 taken his Degree of Doctor of Laws. He desires me to present his best 
 Compliments, who have the honour to be, 
 Madam 
 
 Your obedient 
 
 humble Servant 
 
 Tho: Dromore 
 
 PS As I presume y e answ r . above solicited is not your only production 
 may I request to be favoured with an ace* of your other writings 
 
 Any Packet will come free, which is directed to me under Cover to 
 
 Jasper Ercke Esqr 
 &c &c &c 
 War Office 
 
 Dublin 
 [Addressed] 
 
 Miss Rhodes 
 Bridgenorth 
 Shropshire 
 
 [Miss Rhodes to Bishop Percy] 
 My Lord 
 
 The late acknowlegements I pay you for the obliging Letter you honoured 
 me with, must at least wear the appearance of extreme neglect: Suffer me 
 therefore to assure you, that I never in my life felt more highly gratified, 
 than by the very flattering attention you bestowed upon me; and that it 
 has occasioned me the utmost degree of mortification, that I had it not in 
 my power to express my gratitude sooner. I went to Portshall the day 
 following that on which I had the pleasure of receiving your Letter, intending 
 
 ^'of .... Publication." Percy first wrote "of the Publication of that small 
 poem." In the draft as it stands "poem" is left uncanceled after "Publication." 
 
 2 "Having .... favour me." Percy first wrote "Having thus drawn me into 
 this confession of my youthful Follies, (I mean in writing a [altered to y°] Sonnet &c) 
 you have also so far revived my taste for such subjects that I must solicit to be 
 favoured." 
 
 •"much .... gratified." Originally written "gratify my Nephew, who is 
 much obliged." 
 
208 G. L. KITTREDGE 
 
 to stay a Week only; but Lady Pigot woud not suffer me to leave her untill 
 my Visit had been prolonged beyond a month, and I returned home but 
 yesterday. 
 
 I shoud blush to have given you the trouble of explaining so fully as you 
 have condescendingly done, where the Ballad of "Nanny" is to be met 
 with, had it not given rise to the confession of so charming a domestic anec- 
 dote, that even the beautifull language of the Poet, is surpassed by the finer 
 feelings of the Husband! 
 
 I feel that I ought not to withhold from your Lordship, the communication 
 of the Verses you request; but as I now find that I have been guilty of a 
 greater degree of presumption than I was aware of, you must receive them as 
 a humiliation for the Vanity of the attempt. With a memory capable of 
 retaining almost everything I wish, I nevertheless forget whatever I write 
 myself. Neither am I more anxious for their preservation; so that when I 
 sought for the Manuscript Copy of my Verses, I had mislaid it beyond 
 my search, & I was therefore obliged to refer to the Gentlemans Magazine, 
 where they were published in 1785. This examination, recalled to my 
 recollection a circumstance I had totally forgot — that I had been prevailed 
 upon by a friend to write an Imitation of your Song, as from an Officer going 
 to America; and that it was to this, that I had written an Answer. I know 
 not what excuse to plead for the temerity of my attempt; nor coud I expect 
 forgiveness, from Candour less than yours. 
 
 The perusal of these Lines, will convince your Lordship that I profess not 
 Those enchanting spells that lye 
 Lurking in sweet Poesy! 
 and incline you to believe me, when I assure you, that I have never under- 
 taken a performance of any length, except a Novel, of which no one suspects 
 me to be the Author. Let me however add, that I am too proud of the 
 interest you are so good as to express about me, not to feel the wish that I 
 coud prove myself deserving of it. 
 
 I rejoice to hear so good an account of D r Percy. Although I was 
 ignorant of his having taken his degree, I have always understood that he 
 had justified the very high expectations his friends had formed of him. I 
 entreat that you will do me the fav[our] to present my best remembrances to 
 him; and believe that I remain, with every possible sentiment of respect, 
 
 Your Lordships, 
 
 obliged humble servant 
 
 Henrietta Rhodes. 
 Bridgnorth 
 March 21 st 1801. 
 
 What Miss Rhodes says of the freakishness of her memory 
 about her own productions is not a mere ladylike trick of humility 
 after the high-bred Georgian fashion. It is plain and simple truth, 
 
PERCY AND HIS NANCY 209 
 
 as I know to my cost. For her two poems are not to be found in 
 
 The Gentleman's Magazine for 1785, to which she refers. They occur 
 
 (anonymously) two years earlier, in the August number of 1783 
 
 (Vol. LIII, Part II, p. 696). l The first is entitled " Imitation of the 
 
 Song, Nancy, &c. written by the Bishop of Dromore. See p. 605. 
 
 Addressed to a Lady. By an Officer going to embark for America." 
 
 It begins: 
 
 O Nancy, wilt thou go with me, 
 
 Nor sigh to leave thy sweet retreat ? 
 Can foreign climes have charms for thee, 
 
 Where discord still maintains her seat ? 
 Say, canst thou quit such joys serene, 
 
 The toils of savage war to share; 
 Nor yet regret the courtly scene, 
 
 Where thou wert fairest of the fair ? 
 
 The second poem is entitled " Answer." The first stanza runs thus: 
 
 Yes, Henry, yes, this faithful heart, 
 
 Can ev'ry arduous trial prove; 
 From friends and native shores can part, 
 
 Its great security thy love: 
 For ah! each scene when thou'rt away 
 
 Assumes an aspect dull and drear, 
 Fled are those hours which shone so gay, 
 
 When thou with happiness wert here. 2 
 
 1 Both pieces are included in Miss Rhodes's Poems and Miscellaneous Essays, 
 Brentford, 1814, pp. 27-30. Autograph copies of both were inclosed by the authoress 
 in her second letter and are preserved in the Grace MS. 
 
 'There are several other answers to Percy's poem. One by "Mr. Greenfield" 
 was sent to Miss Rhodes by Percy and there is a manuscript copy in the Grace volume. 
 It begins "O Henry, didst thou know the heart." The author was, I suppose, the 
 Rev. Andrew Greenfield, of Moira, who submitted two acts of a tragedy to Percy in 
 1788 (see his letters in Nichols, Illustrations, VIII, 261-62). The poem has been 
 several times reprinted, usually (if not always) without the author's name: for example, 
 in Park's edition of Ritson's English Songs, I (1813), 197-98; in Plumtre's Collection 
 of Songs, II (1824), 182-84; by James Wilson, The Musical Cyclopedia, 1834, p. 11. 
 Another answer, beginning "Yes, Damon, yes, with thee I'll go," was reprinted from 
 The European Magazine, for December, 1816, in The Gentleman's Magazine, for May, 
 1847, New Series, XXVII, 482, and is also in Plumtre, II, 179-81. A third begins: 
 "Yes, Henry, yes, with thee I'll go" (Plumtre, II, 181-82; The British Orpheus, 
 Stourport, n.d., pp. 8-9). A fourth, beginning: "Oh William I will gang with thee" 
 is mentioned in The Musical Times, XIX (1878), 503. William Richardson's 
 pretty poem entitled The Invitation. An Idyllion ("Fair lady, leave parade and 
 show") may well have been suggested by Percy's song (Poems, chiefly Rural [3d ed., 
 1775], pp. 28-30; cf. Wilson, as above, p. 11). 
 
210 G. L. KITTREDGE 
 
 " See p. 605 " in the title of the "Imitation" refers to a previous page of 
 the same volume, where we find: "Bp. Percy's exquisite Ballad, 
 '0 Nancy, wilt thou go with me?' attempted in Latin verse" by 
 C. L., whom I have not identified. It is in elegiacs: 
 
 Anna mihi comites dignaberis addere gressus; 
 Urbis adoratse linquere delicias ? 
 
 The Latinizer has appended one new stanza, by which, he says, "I 
 hope the harmony and simplicity of the pathetic original has not been 
 violated." 
 
 Percy's reply (not preserved) to Miss Rhodes's second letter 
 must have included some inquiries as to her poetry and her novel. 
 In a letter of May 10, 1810, contained in the Grace MS, she informs 
 him that the novel is entitled Augusta Denbeigh and that "Lane 
 gave twenty guineas immediately for it; which I thought an immense 
 sum for a Book brought out in obscurity, and without a name.'' 
 She also sends her thanks to Percy's nephew "for his goodness in 
 Copying M r . Greenfields Reply to your beautifull Ballad," and she 
 incloses at least one more poem of her own, "a Reply to a very 
 fashionable Song of Captain Morris's who in his partiality for a Town 
 Life, is very wittily severe upon the Country." 1 
 
 Everybody knows that Percy's song was addressed to Anna 
 Gutteridge (Goodriche), whom he married on April 24, 1759, and 
 who died at Dromore House on December 30, 1806, aged seventy- 
 four. But there are two or three questions about the song that need 
 clearing up. 
 
 In the autumn of 1757, Percy, then Vicar of Easton Maudit in 
 Northamptonshire, sent "O Nancy, wilt thou go with me?" to 
 Shenstone, with a request that he would revise it before communicat- 
 ing it to Dodsley the publisher. 2 Shenstone's corrections, which 
 must have been trifling, met with a polite acknowledgment in Percy's 
 letter of November 24. 3 The poem appeared in print for the first 
 time in 1758 in Dodsley's Collection as "A Song. By T. P***cy," 4 
 
 1 This poem is not in the Grace MS. It may be found in Miss Rhodes's volume 
 of Poems and Miscellaneous Essays, 1814, pp. 35-38: "Parody on Captain Morris's 
 Song, 'London and the Country.'" The same volume contains the song ("In 
 London I know not what to be at"), pp. 50-52. 
 
 2 Shenstone to Percy, January 4, 1758 (Hecht, Thomas Percy und William 
 Shenstone, Quellen und Forschungen, CIII, 6). 
 
 8 Hecht, p. 4. 4 A Collection of Poems, VI, 233-34. 
 
PERCY AND HIS NANCY 211 
 
 and was reprinted in subsequent editions with the same ascription 
 until 1782, when Dodsley gave the author's surname in full with an 
 explanatory footnote: "Thomas Percy, D.D. now Dean of Carlisle." 1 
 
 Before 1774, it seems, 2 the song was twice set to music, once by 
 Thomas Carter and once by Joseph Baildon, and was sung at Vaux- 
 hall (in Carter's setting) by Vernon, and at Ranelagh (in Baildon's) 
 by Beard. In Carter's text (as usually printed), the first line appears 
 in a Scottish guise ("0 Nanny wilt thou gang with me?") and in 
 Baildon's the Scotticisms are carried through the piece and "Betsy" 
 is substituted for "Nancy." Then, in 1787, James Johnson in 
 The Scots Musical Museum 3 published the Scottish text as by "Dr. 
 Piercy," with Baildon's music but without naming the composer. 
 
 Burns, who regarded "O Nancy" as "perhaps the most beautiful 
 ballad in the English language," 4 was indignant at what he regarded 
 as Johnson's (or some other canny Scot's) act of piracy. "It is too 
 barefaced," he wrote, "to take Dr. Percy's charming song, and by 
 the means of transposing a few English words into Scots, to offer to 
 pass it for a Scots song." 5 Who did the Scotticizing has always been 
 a puzzle. Some have thought that it was Percy himself. Grainger 
 mentions "your Scotch song" (but describes it no further) in a letter 
 
 i Collection, VI (1782), 250-51. 
 
 2 Dates are uncertain here. Baildon died in 1774. His tune is contained in a 
 collection of his songs entitled The Laurel (ca. 1773), which I have not seen, but the 
 first four lines are given in The Musical Times, XIX (September 1, 1878), 503; the 
 title runs: "A Song in the Scotch Manner, sung by Mr. Beard." In The Bull-Finch, 
 p. 211, I find (without the tune): "The Fairest of the Fair. Sung at Ranelagh. Set 
 by Mr. Joseph Baildon." This is the edition of The Bull-Finch containing 490 songs and 
 dated 1780 in the Stainer Catalogue, p. 16. Whether the piece occurs in earlier edi- 
 tions, I do not know. Carter's tune is dated 1773 by Stenhouse (Illustrations, I 
 [1839], 30), but he is very untrustworthy in such details. Dr. Grattan Flood says 
 that Carter set the song "at the close of the year 1769 .... and settled in London in 
 1772" (Grove's Dictionary of Music [ed., Fuller Maitland], I, 475). In 1783, Ritson 
 included Carter's tune in his English Songs, III, sig. G4. 
 
 > No. 32, I, 33. 
 
 4 Burns to George Thomson, October 26, 1792 (Works, Edinburgh, 1879, VI, 220; 
 Life and Works [ed., Chambers and Wallace], III, 355). Burns was not alone in this 
 opinion. Dr. Aikin, in 1772, remarked that O Nancy "has scarcely its equal for real 
 tenderness in this or any other language" (Essays on Song-Writing [2d ed., 1774], 
 p. 110); and in 1780 J. Wfarton?] wrote: "This has been esteemed, not undeservedly, 
 the most beautiful song in the English language. It is tender, easy, and elegant" 
 (Gentleman' 8 Magazine, L [August, 1780], 372). 
 
 6 Cromek's Reliques of Robert Burns (4th ed„ 1817), p. 209; Life and Works 
 (ed., Chambers and Wallace), IV, 377. 
 
212 G. L. KITTREDGE 
 
 to Percy dated February, 1758, and asks if he may give it to the 
 editors of a new magazine (also unnamed by him), who are eager for 
 good poetry. 1 Nichols thought this "Scotch song" was "0 Nanny," 
 but he had no proof, 2 and Mitford, who repeated the conjecture, did 
 not improve his argument, in the long run, by inadvertently copying 
 two of Nichols's footnotes into the text of Grainger's letter, so as to 
 make him give the name of the periodical (The Grand Magazine) 
 and designate the poem by its first line — "your Scotch song — '0 
 Nannie, wilt thou gang wi' me ?' " 3 This is a very pretty case of a 
 couple of glosses that "crept into the text." On the whole, the 
 prevalent opinion, despite Grainger's cryptic utterance about "your 
 Scotch song," seems to be that only the English text is Percy's. And 
 that would appear to be reasonable, for why should a young English 
 clergyman address his young English Anna in the Scottish dialect ? 
 However, in this instance, the apparently improbable is true. 
 Nichols was right and so was Mitford, despite his textual aberrations. 
 Percy wrote the song originally in an attempted Scottish dialect, 
 and not in the English form in which he published it in 1758, and here 
 it is from a copy in his own hand, authenticated by his signature, 
 preserved among the Percy Papers in the Harvard College Library. 
 
 The Song, 
 In Dodsley's Miscellanies Vol. 6. p. 233. 
 As it was first written 
 In Imitation of the Scotch Manner 
 
 O Annie! wilt thou gang wi' me, 
 
 Nor sigh to leave the flaunting town ? 
 Can silent glens hae charms for thee, 
 
 The lowly Cot, and russet gown ? 
 Nae langer dress'd in silken sheene, 
 
 Nae langer deck'd wi' Jewels rare, 
 Say can'st thou quit each courtly scene, 
 
 Where thou wert fairest of the fair ? 
 
 1 Nichols, Illustrations, VII, 247. 
 
 2 Nichols, VII, 228, 247, note. 
 
 8 Gentleman's Magazine, New Series, XXVII (March, 1847), 376-77 (cf. p. 604). 
 J. M., who signs this communication, was certainly the well-known editor of Gray; 
 
 he writes from "B 11," i.e., Benhall, Suffolk, where Mitford was vicar from 1810 
 
 until his death in 1859. See also Willmott, in his edition of Percy's Reliques, 1857, 
 pp. xxx-xxxvi; G. A. C[rawford], The Musical Times, XIX (September 1, 1878), 502-3. 
 
PERCY AND HIS NANCY 213 
 
 Annie! when thou'rt far awa', 
 
 Wilt thou not cast a wish behind ? 
 Say can'st thou face the flaky snaw, 
 
 Nor shrink before the wintry wind ? 
 can that saft and gentle mien 
 
 Extremes of hardship learn to bear, 
 Nor sad regret each courtly scene 
 
 Where thou wert fairest of the fair. 
 
 Annie! can'st thou love sae true 
 
 Thro' perils keen wi' me to gae ? 
 Or when thy swain Mishap shall rue, 
 
 To share with him the Pang of wae ? 
 Say should disease or pain befall, 
 
 Wilt thou assume the Nurse's Care, 
 Nor wistful those gay Scenes recall, 
 
 Where thou wert fairest of the fair ? 
 
 And when at last thy Love shall die, 
 
 Wilt thou receive his parting breath ? 
 Wilt thou repress each strugling Sigh ? 
 
 And chear wi' smiles the bed of death ? 
 And wilt thou o'er his breathless Clay, 
 
 Strew flowr's & drop the tender tear ? 
 Nor then regret those scenes sae gay, 
 
 Where thou wert fairest of the fair ? 
 
 T Percy. 1 
 
 Percy's "originality" — a parlous word — has been much debated 
 in the matter of his famous song, and the discussion illustrates, in a 
 curious and entertaining fashion, the loose way in which literary 
 history is often written. Stenhouse about 1820 suggested 2 that 
 Percy "might have had in view" the anonymous Scottish song in 
 Ramsay's Tea-Table Miscellany entitled "The Young Laird and 
 Edinburgh Katy," the second stanza of which begins: 
 
 O Katy, wiltu gang wi' me, 
 
 And leave the dinsome town a while; 
 The blossom's sprouting frae the tree, 
 
 And a' the summer's gawn to smile. 3 
 
 * The signature shows the entwined T and P, as in that reproduced by Dibdin, 
 The Bibliographical Decameron, III (1817), 340. The heading ("The Song," etc.), as 
 well as the text, is in Percy's hand. 
 
 2 Illustrations, in Johnson's Museum (ed. 1839), I, notes; (ed. 1853), IV, 29-30. 
 
 • Tea-Table Miscellany (9th ed., 1733), I, 66. The song is Ramsay's own: see his 
 Poems, II (1800), 226-27. 
 
214 G. L. KITTREDGE 
 
 And he adds complacently that "the Bishop's verses .... form 
 one of the most successful imitations of the Scottish pastoral ballad 
 which has ever yet appeared on the south side of the Tweed." 1 There 
 is, to be sure, identity of meter, but there is nothing Scottish about 
 the meter, and the spirit of the two songs is utterly different as well 
 as their details. It would be quite as much to the point to suggest 
 that the unknown Scot took a hint from "Come live with me and 
 be my love." 
 
 However, Dr. Furnivall, in 1867, on the suggestion of Rimbault, 
 went Stenhouse several better. He says: 
 
 Knowing Percy's habits, one is not surprised to find that this ballad, 
 for which he has been so much praised, is little more than a paraphrase of 
 another poem. Of "Oh Nanny," Dr. Rimbault writes: "With regard to its 
 originality we will say nothing, because the following elegant little poem, 
 from a MS. dated 1682, evidently furnished the idea. The same words, 2 
 with some trifling variations, are found in Nat. Lee's tragedy 'Theodosius, 
 or the Force of Love/ edit. 1697." 3 
 
 The poem in question is appended under the title of "The Royal 
 Nun": it begins, "Canst thou, Marina, leave the world?" Now 
 the comparison with Lee's "Canst thou, Marina, leave the world?" 
 was made (before Rimbault) by Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, who 
 suggested, with due restraint, that "perhaps both the author of 
 1 The Young Laird and Edinburgh Katy ' and Bishop Percy took the 
 idea of their ballads from a song in Lee's beautiful tragedy of Theo- 
 dosius." 4 There is just similarity enough to warrant Sharpe's 
 cautious observation, and I am glad to quote him, if for no other 
 reason, because he pays a merited tribute to poor Lee's undervalued 
 tragedy; but the phrase "little more than a paraphrase" goes far 
 beyond the facts. 
 
 In the second place, Rimbault forgets to mention that the date 
 of his manuscript (1682) is two years later than the date of Lee's 
 tragedy. He gives us the impression that the song was borrowed 
 or stolen by Lee, and fortifies this impression by referring to "edit. 
 1697." Mr. Wheatley, in 1876, stepped into the trap with both 
 
 1 Rimbault repeats Stenhouse's suggestion (Folio Manuscript, I, xli, n. 1). 
 
 2 I.e., the same words as those of "the following elegant little poem." 
 
 3 Bishop Percy's Folio Manuscript, I, xli, n. 1. 
 
 4 Additional Illustrations in the 1839 edition of Johnson's Musical Museum, I, 
 notes, p. 112* (ed. 1853, IV, 112*). 
 
PERCY AND HIS NANCY 215 
 
 feet. "Dr. Rimbault," he says, " communicated this poem ["The 
 Royal Nun"] to the editors of the folio MS. from a MS. dated 1682, 
 or fifteen years earlier than Lee's version." 1 Now Lee died in 1692, 
 and Theodosius was both acted and printed in 1680. Comparison 
 between Rimbault's manuscript of 1682 and Lee's text of 1680 
 shows at a glance that the manuscript gives merely a modified and 
 attenuated extract from the florid operatic scene in which Marina 
 and Flavilla are received as votaresses. 2 The thing is not a song in 
 eight-line stanzas, but a series of songs in four-line stanzas. Atticus, 
 the chief priest, sings one stanza (the first half of Rimbault's stanza 1) ; 
 the second and third priests follow, each with one stanza; then 
 Atticus sings a stanza, then the chorus; Marina and Flavilla reply, 
 each in three stanzas, and Atticus closes with four couplets. 3 
 
 Dr. Rimbault's note, as printed by Furnivall in 1867, coincides 
 strictly in part with an item in Fly Leaves (1853), even to the use of 
 the editorial "we" and the italicizing of the word "originality." 4 I 
 believe Rimbault was the editor of Fly Leaves and have no doubt 
 that this item was from his pen. Both the item and the note contain 
 "The Royal Nun" "from a MS. dated 1682." The item differs from 
 the note in omitting all reference to Lee and in containing the remark 
 that "The Royal Nun" is "attributed to Sir William Davenant." 5 
 
 1 Percy's Reliques, I (1876), lxxiv. It is only fair to add that Wheatley decisively 
 vindicates the bishop: "Even could it be proved that Percy had borrowed the opening 
 idea from these two poems ["The Royal Nun" and "The Young Laird"], it does not 
 derogate from his originality." 
 
 1 Act I, scene i (quarto of 1680), pp. 9-10. 
 
 ' The manuscript of 1682 must be that described by Rimbault in A Little Book 
 of Songs and Ballads, 1851, p. 163 (cf. pp. 166, 183, 187) as "a MS. volume of old Songs, 
 collected and noted by the celebrated 'small-coal' man, Thomas Britton. On the 
 fly-leaf is his autograph, and the date, 1682. It was purchased, with several others 
 of the same kind, and of the same collection, at the sale of John Sidney Hawkins' 
 books." Hawkins died in 1842 and his library was sold in 1843. On the sale of Brit- 
 ton's library in 1715, see Dibdin, Bibliomania, 1811, pp. 440-41. 
 
 4 1, 18-21. The two series of Fly Leaves, published by John Miller, the London 
 bookseller, are reprinted from Miller's London Librarian and Book-Buyer's Gazette, a 
 monthly list of second-hand books. The first series was published in 1853, but the title- 
 page of the copy I have used bears the date 1855. See Notes and Queries, First Series, 
 VIII, 656; XI, 40. 
 
 6 The item also quotes the erroneous account of the occasion of Percy's writing his 
 song given by Miss Leetitia-Matilda Hawkins, Memoirs, Anecdotes, Facts, and Opinions, 
 I (1824), 271, note. It also mentions Mrs. Percy's portrait at Ecton House, and it 
 contains an account of Thomas Carter. Rimbault's note adds a reference to "The 
 Young Laird and Edinburgh Katy." 
 
216 G. L. KITTREDGE 
 
 It does not appear, however, that this attribution is in the manuscript. 
 Doubtless, it was between 1853 and 1867 that Rimbault discovered 
 that the song is in Theodosius. Anyhow, by 1867, he had come to 
 distrust the attribution to Davenant, whatever that may have been 
 based on. 
 
 But we have not yet finished our chapter of accidents. Dr. 
 Furnivall, who was not wont to make such mistakes, wrote to Notes 
 and Queries, in 1868, to the following effect: "Mr. W. Chappell 
 tells me that the ballad ' Canst thou, Marina, leave the world?' — 
 which Dr. Rimbault shows .... was the original of Percy's ' Oh, 
 Nanny wilt thou go with me ?' — is in Sir W. Davenant's play of The 
 Rivals, acted in 1664, and printed in 1668." 1 This is simply not the 
 case. There is no such song, nor anything in the remotest degree 
 resembling it, in Davenant's Rivals. 2 How Chappell, the most learned 
 of antiquaries in these matters, came to blunder so egregiously, is 
 hard to understand. One thinks that he must really have seen the 
 verses in some copy of the play; but if so, they must have been a 
 late insertion in an acting version. In Davenant's comedy, the 
 distracted Celania sings a number of songs and snatches of song, 
 and stanzas from the lyric service in Theodosius may have been 
 utilized by some actress to enrich the part. At all events, nothing 
 is clearer than that no such verses were written or inserted by Dave- 
 nant, who died in 1668. They * are Nat Lee's property, and his 
 alone. 
 
 An unknown critic declared, about a century ago, that "the sub- 
 ject of the song is taken" from an Elegy of Tibullus, 3 obviously mean- 
 ing the First. There is indeed some quite legitimate resemblance, 
 particularly between the last stanza ("And when at last thy love 
 shall die," etc.) and that part of the address to Delia that begins: 
 "Te spectem suprema mihi cum venerit hora." 4 The comparison, 
 at all events, has a certain interest, since the version of this elegy 
 
 1 Notes and Queries, Fourth Series, I, 555. 
 
 •See the quarto of 1668, the first edition, which was "licensed September 19, 
 1668." 
 
 3 The European Magazine, December, 1816, as quoted in The Gentleman's Magazine, 
 New Series, XXVII (1847), 482. Cf. Aikin, Essays on Song-Writing (2d. ed., 1774), 
 p. 110. 
 
 4 i, 1, 59-68 (73-82 Grainger). 
 
PERCY AND HIS NANCY 217 
 
 which Grainger printed in his Tibullus (1759) * was made by Percy in 
 or about 1756, and since Grainger's book was the subject of incessant 
 correspondence between Grainger and Percy from 1756 to 1759. 2 
 It was in 1758, we remember, that Grainger expressed a wish to print 
 Percy's "Scotch Song" in The Grand Magazine* 
 
 There is a tiresome literary tradition, commonly assumed to go 
 back to some kind of contemporary evidence, that Percy's Nancy 
 was a plain-featured woman. So far as I can make out, it was started 
 by an innocent passage in Fanny Burney's diary. In 1791, she met 
 Mrs. Percy, then a matron of sixty years, and she thus describes her : 
 "She is very uncultivated and ordinary in manners and conversation, 
 but a good creature, and much delighted to talk over the Royal Family, 
 to one of whom she was formerly a nurse." 4 Willmott, in 1857, 
 quoted this passage correctly, but prefixed a somewhat ambiguous 
 comment: "If Madame D'Arblay's account be correct, 'the fairest 
 of the fair' borrowed her graces from the poet's pen." 5 This became, 
 in Gilfillan's edition of the Reliques in 1858 : 6 "She is described as a 
 'good creature,' but ordinary both in appearance and manners, and 
 indebted for her charms to her husband's imagination." In 1867, 
 Pickford continued the game of gossip. "She .... is described as 
 a good wife, but indebted for her charms to her husband's poetical 
 fancy, which has styled her 'fairest of the fair.'" 7 And finally, in 
 1908, Miss Gaussen felt bound to echo her predecessors: "It may 
 have been only to the eye of the poet that 'Nancy' appeared as 
 'fairest of the fair/ and her charms possibly had no more material 
 existence than 'the stuff that dreams are made of.'" 8 
 
 We should observe that Miss Burney says nothing of the lady's 
 good looks one way or the other, and that, even if she did, beauty 
 
 1 A Poetical Translation of the Elegies of Tibullus, I, 3 ff . See Grainger's acknowl- 
 edgment, I, xiii. 
 
 2 See the letters in Nichols, Illustrations, VII, 242 ff. ; Percy to Shenstone, Janu- 
 ary 9, 1759 (Hecht, pp. 9-10). 
 
 •Pp. 211-12 above. 
 
 4 Diary and letters (ed., Dobson, 1905), V. 31. 
 
 6 Willmott's edition of the Reliques, p. xvii. 
 
 6 Edinburgh (James Nichol), I, v. 
 
 7 Life in Hales and Furnivall's edition of the Folio Manuscript, I, xxxii. 
 
 8 Percy: Prelate and Poet, p. 19. 
 
218 G. L. KITTREDGE 
 
 sometimes fades between the ages of twenty-five and sixty. Mrs. 
 Percy's obituary, in The Gentleman's Magazine, calls her "the truly 
 worthy, amiable, and very accomplished wife" of the Bishop of 
 Dromore, 1 and to the same number, a poet who signs himself "Hafiz" 
 contributed an Epitaph which celebrates her beauty: 
 
 Whose moral excellence, and virtues rare, 
 Shone as conspicuous as her face was fair. 2 
 
 A more decisive witness is Miss Laetitia-Matilda Hawkins. Speaking 
 of Percy's "charming wife," she avers that "the best whole length of 
 the so often painted wife of Rubens will always keep in remembrance 
 what Mrs. Percy was, particularly that in the engravings from the 
 Luxembourg Gallery, where 'Lady Rubens' appears under the char- 
 acter of Mary de Medicis kneeling to receive the crown." 3 Whether 
 Miss Hawkins was right or wrong in believing that Rubens painted 
 his wife as the queen in this coronation picture 4 is a matter that does 
 not affect the value of her testimony. She was the daughter and 
 private secretary of Johnson's friend, Sir John Hawkins, who was a 
 member of the famous club to which both Johnson and Percy 
 belonged, and she was a person of sufficient maturity to have her 
 father's Life of Johnson wrongly credited to her own pen. 5 The 
 best evidence of all, however, is the lady's portrait, 6 which is that of 
 a distinctly handsome woman. 
 
 i LXXVII, Part I, p. 91 (January, 1807). 
 » P. 60. 
 
 3 Memoirs, Anecdotes, Facts, and Opinions, I (1824), 271, note. 
 
 4 See GrossmanD, Der Gemtildezyclus der Galerie der Maria von Medici, p. 15, n. 3; 
 Rooses and Ruelens, Correspondance de Rubens, III, 360. 
 
 6 Memoirs, etc., I, 160. 
 
 6 Reproduced in Gaussen, p. 22. 
 
SIR THOMAS MALORY 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE 
 
 BARNSTABLE 
 
 Privately Printed 
 
 1925 
 

 SHEA BROTHERS, PRINTERS 
 CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS 
 
SIR THOMAS MALORY 
 
 SHORTLY after the appearance of my essay en- 
 titled "Who was Sir Thomas Malory?" (1897) 1 
 Mr. A. T. Martin, F. S. A., published an im- 
 portant paper 2 on the same subject. In this paper, 
 which was read before the Society of Antiquaries 
 on June 16th, 1898, he discussed two distinct Thomas 
 Malorys, both alive in 1469. One of them is Thomas 
 Malory of Papworth, whom he confidently identified 
 with the author of the Morte d'Arthur. In my paper 
 (which Mr. Martin had not seen> this Thomas is 
 mentioned (p. 96, note 1), with the remark that he 
 "was not a knight, but merely an armiger," this rules 
 him out, even if he did not die too soon to satisfy 
 the conditions." The only date which I had for his 
 death was 1469. Mr. Martin, who collected much 
 information about him, showed that he died be- 
 tween September 16 and October 27 of that year; 3 
 hence it is clear that he did not necessarily "die too 
 soon," since the ninth year of Edward IV (in which, 
 according to the author's own statement, the Morte 
 was finished) extended from March 4, 1469, to 
 March 3, 1470 (both included). There is a margin 
 of at least six months. The objection that Thomas 
 Malory of Papworth was an armiger only, and not a 
 knight, remains unshaken by Mr. Martin's investi- 
 gations; for these, so far from establishing the pos- 
 sibility that this Thomas was a knight, make double 
 
sure the assurance that he was not. Mr. Martin 
 found many records relating to this Thomas, includ- 
 ing his will. In none of them does any designation 
 of rank follow his name except in the Fine Roll of 
 Edward IV (1469, Nov. 18) of a writ to the escheator 
 in Northampton. Here he is called armiger. Every 
 fresh document, then, is additional evidence that 
 Thomas of Papworth was not a knight, and conse- 
 quently that he cannot have been the author of 
 whom we are in search. His proximity to the Welsh 
 border, however, and the "tradition" that the author 
 of the Morte was connected with "Mailoria," led 
 Mr. Martin 4 to prefer him to another candidate, who 
 was certainly a knight, the Sir Thomas Malory of 
 Winwick and Newbold whose claims were set forth 
 in my paper. The futility of this "tradition" 5 and 
 the impossibility of connecting the trisyllabic name 
 Malory (Mafore Maloree) with Maelwr have already 
 been sufficiently insisted on, 6 and we may regard it 
 as certain that, whoever wrote the Morte, it was not 
 Thomas of Papworth. Even Mr. Martin was not, 
 as I understand from a private letter from him, in- 
 clined to insist on his identification after reading 
 my paper. 
 
 A further question is, however, raised by Mr. 
 Martin's essay, which must be settled before the re- 
 sults at which I arrived in 1894 can be regarded as 
 conclusive. The result of my investigation was to 
 show that only one person could be found who ful- 
 filled all the conditions, — Sir Thomas Malory, 
 knight, of ^Vinwick and Newbold, who died, accord- 
 ing to Dugdale, "14 Martii 10. E. 4," that is March 
 14, 1470 (in our reckoning). 6 Mr. Martin, who, 
 
when he read his paper, did not know the date of 
 this Sir Thomas's death, identified with him a 
 "Thomas Malory, miles", who is said in an inquisi- 
 tion dated November 6, 1471, and held at Northamp- 
 ton, to have died on March 12, 1471, and to have 
 held no lands in that county. On reading my pa- 
 per, Mr. Martin was inclined to give up this identi- 
 fication, so that, besides his Thomas of Papworth, 
 there remained two Sir Thomases in the field: Sir 
 Thomas of Newbold and Winwick, and Sir Thomas 
 of the Northampton Inquisition. 7 Further inquiry, 
 however, has shown me that Mr. Martin was right 
 in identifying these two persons, and that therefore 
 (apart from Thomas of Papworth, who is ruled out 
 because he certainly was not a knight), there re- 
 mains only Sir Thomas Malory, he of Winwick and 
 Newbold. The evidence is briefly as follows. 
 
 Dugdale is in error in giving the date of Thomas 
 of Newbold's death as March 14, 10 Ed. IV. (i. e. 
 March 14, 1470). 8 His error comes from the com- 
 monest of slips in computation, that made in passing 
 from the year of Our Lord to the regnal year or 
 vice versa. His authority for the date is given in 
 his note as Cotton MS., Vitellius, XII, from which 
 he also derived the information that Malory is 
 "buryed under a marble in the Chappell of St. 
 Francis at the Gray Friars, near Newgate in the 
 Suburbs of London." 9 This is a paper manuscript 
 of the early sixteenth century. The article here 
 used by Dugdale 10 is called, in a table of contents 
 by Dugdale, prefixed to the manuscript., "De monu- 
 mentis in ecclesia fratrum Minorum Londini." As 
 to the article itself, it is not a register of burials, 
 
but a careful account (in Latin) of the monuments 
 in the order of their situation, — in the choir, in the 
 chapel of St. Mary, . . . "in ecclesia extra ualuas in 
 ala Boriali inter m[urum]' borialem et columpnas," 
 etc. The date of the article is probably shortly be- 
 fore July, 1533. 11 Under the heading "In capella 
 sci Francisci" this entry occurs : 
 
 Mallere Sub 2a parte fenestre 4>4 sub lapide jacet -? 
 
 dns Thomas Mailer e> valens miles Qui obijt 
 14 die mensis Marcij Ao diii 1470 de Parochia 
 de Monkenkirkby in comitatu Warwici. 12 
 
 Here, then, we have what is practically a copy of 
 the inscription on the tombstone of Sir Thomas 
 Malory of Newbold and Winwick. He died March 
 14, "A. D. 1470," that is, of course, in our reckoning, 
 1471. In transferring the A. D. to the regnal year, 
 Dugdale slipped and wrote "10. E. IV" instead of 
 "11. E. IV." Thus there is an almost exact agree- 
 ment between the date of the death of Thomas 
 Malory, miles, in the Northampton inquisition and 
 that of Sir Thomas of Winwick and Newbold. The 
 discrepancy between March 12 (the inquisition) 
 and March 14 (the tombstone) is of no consequence. 
 The inquisition is probably in error. The dates in 
 these inquisitions are often slightly erroneous, the 
 escheators being more interested in the fact of the 
 man's death and in the age of his heir than in the 
 exact moment of his demise. 13 When it is added 
 that the Northampton inquisition gives the heir of 
 Sir Thomas as Robert Malory, aged 23, 14 and that 
 Sir Thomas of Newbold and, Winwick had a son 
 Robert who may well have been of this same age 
 
at the time of his father's death, 15 the identity of 
 the Sir Thomas of the Northampton inquisition with 
 Sir Thomas of Newbold and Winwick is thoroughly 
 established. 
 
 One difficulty, which troubled Mr. Martin, may 
 be easily explained. The Northampton inquisition 
 states that Sir Thomas held no lands in Northamp- 
 ton, whereas Sir Thomas of Winwick and Newbold, 
 had, in his lifetime, considerable possessions in that 
 country. Mr. Martin suggests that "Winwick [in 
 Northampton] was held by [Sir Thomas's] wife, 
 Elizabeth, in her own right." He adds "Of this 
 Elizabeth I have found an inquisition. 16 She was 
 the widow of Thomas Malory, miles, and she died 
 in 1479. 17 At her death she held Wynwyke, in 
 Northampton, for life, of the king by military ser- 
 vice; Newbold Fenne alias Newbold Ryvell in War- 
 wick; and Swinnerford or Swinford in Leicester- 
 shire. Her heir is Nicholas, the son of her son 
 Robert." Now, in fact, Winwick was the heredi- 
 tary possession of Sir Thomas ; it had never belonged 
 to his wife's family. 18 Yet that he did not hold it 
 at the time of his death is clear. If he had then held 
 it, it would not have passed to his wife, and so would 
 not have been in her possession when she died in 
 1479. The same remark applies to the other es- 
 tates of Sir Thomas. In other words, when Sir 
 Thomas of Winwick and Newbold died, he was not 
 seized of any real estate, either in Northamptonshire 
 or elsewhere. Yet when his wife died, nine years 
 later, she was found in possession of exactly those 
 lands in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire which 
 Sir Thomas had held in his lifetime and of which 
 
we should have expected to find him seized at the 
 time of his death. Clearly Sir Thomas had put his 
 lands out of his possession during his lifetime, con- 
 veying them into his wife's hands by the circuitous 
 but familiar process of a feoffment to uses. The 
 device was familiar in the case of persons who might 
 fear confiscation^ That Sir Thomas of Warwick re- 
 sorted to it is confirmation of my conjecture that he 
 was the same Thomas who was conspicuous on the 
 Lancastrian side in the Wars of the Roses and who 
 in 1468 was excepted by name from the operation 
 of a pardon issued by Edward IV. 19 
 
 The upshot of the discussion is, then, precisely 
 this: There is, so far as we can see, only one person 
 who fulfills all the conditions required of the author 
 of the Morte d' Arthur, and that person is Sir Thomas 
 Malory of Winwick, the "valens miles" who was 
 buried in Grey Friars, London, and whose epitaph 
 has been preserved to us by a singular chance. 
 
 To the biographical facts with reference to Sir 
 Thomas Malory of Winwick and Newbold I can add 
 two or three others, not, perhaps, very much to his 
 credit but sufficiently illustrative of those unruly 
 times. 
 
 In a letter of January 8, 1920, Mr. Edward F. Cobb 
 had the kindness to send me an important extract 
 from the De Banco Rolls of Henry VI, 1443, which 
 "embodies a charge of assault with violence, brought 
 by Thomas Smythe, a parishioner of Sprottin, 
 Northants, versus Thomas Malory, 'Miles', and an- 
 other." 
 
 (Nor-thants). Thomas Smythe in propria per- 
 sona sua optulit se quarto die versus Thomam Mai- 
 
ory de parochia de Kirkeby monachorum in Comi- 
 tatu Warw., militem, et Eustachium Burneby de 
 Watford in Comitatu predicto, armigerum, de pla- 
 cito quare vi et armis in ipsum Thomam Smythe apud 
 Sprottone insultum fecerunt et ipsum verberaverunt, 
 vulneraverunt, imprisonaverunt, et male tractave- 
 runt, et bona et catalla sua ad valenciam quadra- 
 ginta librarum ibidem inventa ceperunt et asporta- 
 verunt, et alia enormia ad grave dampnum et con- 
 tra pacem etc fecerunt. Et ipsi non venerunt, et 
 preceptum fuit Vicecomiti quod attachiat eos, et 
 Vicecomes modo mandat quod attachiati sunt per 
 Ricardum Gey et Johannem ffray. 20 
 
 On July 13, 1451, Humphrey, Duke of Bucking- 
 ham, and Richard, Earl of Warwick, had a com- 
 mission "appointing them to arrest Thomas Malory, 
 knight, and John Appleby, his servant, and cause 
 them to find mainpernors who will mainprise for 
 them under a sufficient penalty that they will do not 
 hurt to the prior and convent of the Carthusian 
 house of Axiholme or any of the king's people, and 
 that they will appear in person before the king and 
 council on the quinzaine of Michaelmas next to 
 answer certain charges." 21 The Carthusian house 
 here mentioned was the Priory in the Wood (Mel- 
 wood Priory) near Epworth in the Isle of Axholm, 
 Lincolnshire, founded by Thomas Mowbray, Earl of 
 Nottingham (afterwards Duke of Norfolk) in 1395. 
 The rights of these monks in Kirby Monachorum, 
 the parish in which Malory's estate of Newbold 
 Revell was situated, may have led to the quarrels 
 implied in this record. 
 
 On March 26, 1452, the same Duke Humphrey, 
 
with Sir Edward Grey of Groby, and the Sheriff of 
 Warwick and Leicester, were commissioned "to ar- 
 rest and bring before the king and council "Thomas 
 Malorre, knight, to answer certain charges." 22 
 
 In my supplementary note (p. 106) the name 
 Malory in the form Maloret was cited from the Exe- 
 ter Domesday (by Professor Sheldon). 23 Any doubt 
 that this Maloret is the same surname as Maloree-Mal- 
 ore-Malory, is now removed by a document of about 
 the middle of the twelfth century, in which the 
 name of Anketil Malore, the well-known Constable 
 of Leicester, appears (in the ablative) as "Ansche- 
 tillo Malloret." 24 
 
 NOTES 
 
 1. My essay appeared in 1897 in Vol. V. of the Harvard Studies 
 and Notes in Philology and Literature, pp. 85-106, and was also 
 reprinted separately. My identification of the author of the Morte 
 with Sir Thomas Malory of Winwick (Northamptonshire) and 
 Newbold Revell or Fenny Newbold (Warwickshire) was made 
 public on March 15, 1894, at a meeting held at Columbia University in 
 honor of Friedrich Diez (cf. Modern Language Notes, April, 1914, 
 IX., 253), It was put on record in a brief article on Malory pub- 
 lished in 1894 in Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, V, 498. 
 
 2. In Archceologia, LVI. ; also issued separately (London, 1898). 
 See Athenceum, September 11, 1897, pp. 353-354; June 25, 1898, 
 p. 827; July 16, 1898, p. 98. 
 
 3. Martin, p. 3. 
 
 4. Mr. Martin accepted Professor Rhys's erroneous etymology 
 of Malory. In 1918 E. Vettermann accumulated a mass of curious 
 learning in support of this etymology, but in vain {Die Balen- 
 Dichtungen und ikre Quellen, pp. 58-60, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift 
 fur romanische Philologie, LX). See the review by R. Zenker in 
 Herrig's Archiv, 1921, CXLI, 151-152. 
 
 5. It is not, properly considered, a tradition at all, but an 
 antiquary's guess or fiction. 
 
 6. See my paper, pp. 87, 90. 
 
 7. In a private letter of November 28, 1898, Mr. Martin wrote : 
 "You will see that I have also discovered your Thomas of Winwick, 
 though I think it is by no means certain that he was the author." 
 
 10 
 
"You will also see that I have found the entry in an Inq. p. m. of 
 another Thomas, Miles, who died! March 12, 1471. My statement 
 on p. 9 of my paper that the date of death of Sir Thosi. of Winwick 
 is unknown, is of course wrong: I sh'd have said 'is unknown 
 from any documentary evidence I could find.' The references 
 quoted 1 in your paper seem to fairly well establish 1470 as the 
 date of his death : and in this case there must now be at least 
 two Sir Thomases besides my Thomas of Papworth. Thus we 
 have by no means got to the bottom of the matter. Dugdale, how- 
 ever, is not exactly a final authority." 
 
 8. In my paper I adopted the erroneous date, March 14, 1470, 
 but corrected it later to 1471 (see Maynadier, The Arthur of the 
 English Poets, 1907, p. 246). 
 
 9. Dugdale, Warwickshire, ed. Thomas, I, 83. 
 
 10. Styled in the Catalogue of 1802, p. 432, "registrum eorum, qui 
 sepeliuntur in ecclesia et capellis fratrum Minorum London." 
 
 1L I owe my account of the manuscript to Mr. J. A. Herbert, 
 who examined it for me in 1899. 
 
 12. The words printed in italics are in red ink. The whole entry, 
 including the marginal "Mallere," is in the same hand — that of the 
 writer of the whole article. The manuscript is edited by J. G. 
 Nichols in Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, V, 274-290, 
 385-398; for Malory see p. 287. 
 
 13. A much larger error is noted by Mr. Martin (p. 6) in a 
 case where there is no doubt of the person meant. 
 
 14. Martin, p. 8. 
 
 15. At the death of Elizabeth Malory, widow of Sir Thomas 
 of Winwick and Newbold, her heir was found to be Nicholas, 
 son of her son Robert, aged' thirteen and more on September 30, 
 1479 (see my paper, p. 90, note 2). Nicholas must, therefore, have 
 been born about 1466. Robert, the son of the Sir Thomas of the 
 Northampton inquisition was, then, about eighteen at the time of 
 the birth of his son Nicholas — not too young for fatherhood in 
 those days. The statement that Robert, son of Sir Thomas of 
 Winwick and Newbold, died in the lifetime of his father, is made 
 (without any documentary authority) by Dugdale, I, 81. It rests, 
 obviously, on a hasty inference from the succession of Nicholas 
 to his grandmother (Elizabeth) in 1479. Robert must have died 
 between the death of his father (Sir Thomas) in 1471 and that 
 of his mother (Elizabeth) in 1479. Perhaps he died in the same 
 year as his mother. On November 4, 1479, a commission was issued 
 to Walter Mauntell, knight, and two others, "to enquire what lands 
 Robert Malory, esquire, deceased, tenant in chief, held! in the 
 counties of Northumberland, Warwick and Leicester and by what 
 service and what they are worth, and on what day he died and 
 who is his heir, and to take the lands into the king's hands" 
 (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1476-1485, p. 183). On Nicholas Malory 
 see also Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1494-1509, pp. 132, 295, 560, 663. 
 
 11 
 
16. Inq. p. m. 20. Ed. IV., No. 46 (Martin, p. a) It is cited 
 by Dugdale, I, 83, and by Bridges-Whalley, Northamptonshire, 
 I," 603. 
 
 17. Not 1480, as I wrongly stated in my paper, p. 90. "Eliza- 
 beth Malory died in 1479 and not in 1480. In three inquisitions 
 the datesi of the year agree though two of them give the day as 
 Sept. 30, while! the third gives Oct. 1" (Mr. Martin's letter). On 
 October 10, 1480, Margaret Kelem had a grant "of the custody 
 of all lordships, manors, lands, rents, reversions," etc. "which 
 Elizabeth, now deceased, the wife of Thomas Malory, knight, de- 
 ceased, tenant in chief, held after his; death of the inheritance of 
 Nicholas Malory, their kinsman and heir, viz. son of Robert, their 
 son, during the minority of the said Nicholas and his custody and 
 marriage without disparagement" {Calendar of Patent Rolls, 
 1476-1485, p. 220). 
 
 18. See Dugdale, I, 82, 83; Bridges-Whalley, I, 603; Nichols, 
 Leicestershire, IV, 360; Martin, p. 8. 
 
 19. See my paper, pp. 88, 89. 
 
 20. De Banco 731, Mem. 278 (dorso), 22. Hen. VI, Mich. 
 Mr. Cobb remarks: "The sequel to the above is: — '(Northants). 
 Thomas Symthe versus Thomas Malory, etc. (De Banco 732. 
 Mem. 414. 22. Hen. vi. Hil.).' This is the last notice, and as 
 Sir Thomas Malory was M. P. for Warwickshire, it may be sup- 
 posed the case was settled out of court, before his election in 1445." 
 
 21. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1446-1452, p. 476. On the 
 Carthusian priory in Axholm see Dugdale, Monasticon, VI, i, 
 25-29 ; Warwickshire, I, 76-77 ; Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1391-1396, 
 p. 607; 1461-1467, p. 155. 
 
 22. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1452-1461, p. 61. 
 
 23. I take this opportunity to correct a slip of the pen in the 
 note on p. 106. The Gaufridus Maloret of Domesday held prop- 
 erty in! Dorsetshire, not Devonshire^ 
 
 24. This is a charter of Robert, Earl of Leicester, allowing 
 a certain gift made to the Abbey of Lire in Normandy 1 (Calendar 
 of Documents preserved in France, illustrative of the History of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, ed. by J. Horace Round, No. 410, I, 136, 
 from the original in the Archives of the Eure in Upper Normandy). 
 The document is undated, but must be a charter of Robert le Bossu, 
 born 1104, succeeded 1118, died 1168; compare the witnesses with 
 those to Nos. 409 and 1062, and observe that Ernald de Bosco 
 (mentioned as consenting in No. 410) was Constable of Robert 
 le Bossu (see Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, newed., VI, ii, 1093). 
 In a charter of Robert [Blanch-mains], son of this earl, the same 
 witness's name is spelled "Ainketillo Mallore" (Monasticon VI, 
 ii, 1095, No. 28). Richard Mallore is mentioned! in another charter 
 of Robert le Bossu (Calendar of Documents, No. 1062, I, 376-7, 
 between 1155 and 1159. 
 
 12 
 
 *: s 
 
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 J( or to the 
 
 LC NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 — University of California 
 4 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 • 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 (510)642-6753 
 
 • 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
 books to NRLF 
 
 • Renewals and recharges may be made 4 
 days prior to due date. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 S5MTON1LL 
 
 Al 
 
 'd- 
 R 
 
 M&K 1 2000 
 
 U. C. BkHKELEY 
 
 CIF 
 
 fl Ube Pf 
 
 12,000(11/95) 
 
YD 49! If 
 
 GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 
 
 BDOOflbmiS 
 
 1*89895 
 
 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 •. : i% 
 
**■ 
 
 
 
 
 ;;,.;■ '?;■: