_busoignous_, _chivalerous_, _contagious_, _coragous_, _corouçous_,
_covoitous_, _dangerous_, _despitous_, _dolourous_, _enginous_,
_envious_, _famous_, _fructuous_, _glorious_, _gracious_, _grevous_,
_irrous_, _joyous_, _laborious_, _leccherous_, _litigious_,
_malencolious_, _merdous_, _merveillous_, _orguillous_, _perilous_,
_pitous_, _precious_, _presumptuous_, _ruinous_, _solicitous_,
_tricherous_, _venimous_, _vergondous_, _vertuous_, _vicious_,
_victorious_, _viscous_.
vi. French _ọ_ before nasal, Latin _ō_, _ŏ_, _u_.
(_a_) Except where it is final, _on_ usually remains, whether followed
by a dental or not. The tendency towards _ou_, which produced the
modern English _amount_, _account_, _abound_, _profound_, _announce_,
&c., is here very slightly visible. Once _blounde_ occurs, in rhyme
with _monde_, _confonde_, &c., and we have also _rounge_ 2886 (_runge_
3450) and _sounge_ 5604 (also _ronge_, _songe_), and in ante-tonic
syllables _bounté_, _bountevous_, _nouncier_ (also _noncier_),
_plunger_ (also _plonger_), _sounger_, and words compounded with
_noun_, as _nounsage_, _nouncertein_, &c. On the other hand _seconde_,
_faconde_, _monde_, _abonde_, _rebonde_, _responde_, 1201 ff., _monde_
(adj.), _bonde_, _redonde_, 4048 ff., _suronde_, _confonde_, 8199 ff.,
_monde_, _onde_, _confonde_, 10838 ff., _amonte_, _honte_, _accompte_,
_conte_, _surmonte_, _demonte_, 1501 ff. The _-ount_ termination in
verbal inflexion, which is common in Bozon, _ount_, _sount_, _fount_,
_dirrount_, &c., is not found here except in the Table of Contents.
(_b_) When a word ends with the nasal, _-on_ is usually developed
into _-oun_. In Gower’s French a large proportion of the words with
this ending have both forms (assuming always that the abbreviation
_-o̅n̅_ is to be read _-oun_, a point which will be discussed
hereafter), but _-oun_ is the more usual, especially perhaps in
rhyme. The older Anglo-Norman _-un_ has completely disappeared. Words
in _-oun_ and _-on_ rhyme freely with one another, but the tendency
is towards uniformity, and at the same time there is apparently no
rhyme sequence on the ending _-on_ alone. The words with which we
have to deal are, first, that large class of common substantives with
terminations from Lat. _-onem_; secondly, a few outlandish proper
names, _e.g._ _Salomon_, _Simon_, _Pharaon_, _Pigmalion_, with which
we may class occasional verbal inflexions as _lison_, _soion_; and,
thirdly, a certain number of other words, chiefly monosyllables, as
_bo(u)n_, _doun_, _mo(u)n_, _no(u)n_ (= _non_), _noun_ (= _nom_),
_reboun_, _renoun_, _so(u)n_ (pron.), _soun_ (subst.), _to(u)n_,
also _respoun_ (imperative). In the first and third class _-oun_
is decidedly preferred, but in the second we regularly find _-on_,
and it is chiefly when words of this class occur in the rhyme that
variations in the others are found in this position. Thus l. 409 ff.
we have the rhymes _noun_, _temptacioun_, _soun_, _resoun_, _baroun_,
_garisoun_; 689 ff. _contemplacioun_, _tribulacioun_, _temptacioun_,
_collacioun_, _delectacioun_, _elacioun_; so also in 1525 ff., and
even when _Salomon_ comes in at ll. 1597 and 1669, all the other
rhymes of these stanzas are _-oun_: _presumpcioun_, _respoun_,
_resoun_, _noun_, _doun_, &c. At 2401 however we have _maison_, _noun_,
_contradiccioun_, _lison_; 2787 _Salomon_, _leçon_, _enchesoun_,
_resoun_; 4069 _noun_, _tençon_, _compaignoun_, _feloun_, _Catoun_,
_confessioun_; and similarly _façon_ 6108, _religion_ (with _lison_)
7922, _lison_, _lion_, _giroun_, _enviroun_, _leçon_, _noun_, 16801
ff. (yet _lisoun_ is also found, 24526). On the whole, so far as the
rhymes of the _Mirour_ are concerned, the conclusion must be that the
uniformity is broken chiefly by the influence of those words which
have been noted as written always, or almost always, with _-on_. In
the _Balades_ and _Traitié_, however, the two terminations are more
equally balanced; for example in _Bal._ xxxv we find _convocacion_,
_compaignon_, _comparison_, _regioun_, _noun_, _supplicacion_,
_eleccion_, _condicioun_, &c., without any word of the class referred
to, and _Traitié_ xii has four rhymes in _-on_ against two in _-oun_.
On the whole I am disposed to think that it is merely a question of
spelling, and it must be remembered that in the MSS. _-oun_ is very
rarely written out in full, so that the difference between the two
forms is very slight even in appearance.
vii. The Central-French _u_ was apparently identified in sound with
_eu_, and in some cases not distinguished from _ui_. The evidence of
rhymes seems quite clear and consistent on this point. Such sequences
as the following occur repeatedly: _abatu_, _pourveu_, _deçu_, _lieu_,
_perdu_, _salu_, 315 ff.; _truis_, _perduz_, _Hebrus_, _us_, _jus_,
_conclus_, 1657 ff.; _hebreu_, _feru_, _eeu_, _tenu_, _neveu_, _rendu_,
4933 ff.; _plus_, _lieus_, _perdus_, _conçuz_, _huiss_, _truis_, 6723
ff.; _fu_, _lu_ (for _lieu_), _offendu_, _dieu_, in _Bal._ xviii;
and with the ending _-ure_, _-eure_: _demeure_, _l’eure_, _nature_,
_verdure_, _desseure_, _mesure_, 937 ff.; _painture_, _demesure_,
_aventure_, _jure_, _hure_, _controveure_, 1947 ff., &c. This being so,
we cannot be surprised at such forms as _hebru_ for _hebreu_, _lu_ for
_lieu_, _fu_ for _feu_, _hure_, _demure_, _plure_, for the Continental
French _heure_, _demeure_, _pleure_, or at the substitutions of _u_
for _ui_, or _ui_ for _u_ (_eu_), in _aparçut aparçuit_, _huiss huss_,
_plus pluis_, _pertuis pertus_, _puiss pus_, _construire construre_,
_destruire destrure_, _estruis estrus_, _truis trieus_. As regards
the latter changes we may compare the various spellings of _fruit_,
_bruit_, _suit_, _eschuie_, _suie_[G], in Middle English. It should
be mentioned however that _luy_ rhymes regularly with _-i_ (_-y_), as
_chery_, _servi_, _dy_. In some cases also _ui_ interchanges with _oi_,
as in _buiste_ beside _boiste_, _enpuisonner_ beside _poisoun_. This
is often found in early Anglo-Norman and is exemplified in M.E. _buyle
boyle_, _fuysoun foysoun_, _destroye destruien_. On this change and on
that between _ui_ and _u_ in Anglo-Norman see Koschwitz on the _Voyage
de Charlemagne_, pp. 39, 40.
viii. _aun_ occurs occasionally for _an_ final or before a consonant
e.g. in _aun_ (annum) _Mir._ 6621, _Bal._ xxiii. 2, _saunté(e)_ _Mir._
2522, _Ded._ ii. 5, &c., _dauncer_ 17610, _paunce_ 8542, _fiaunce_,
_sufficaunce_, _Bal._ iv, _governaunce_, _fraunchise_, _fraunchement_,
in the Table of Contents; but much more usually not, as _Alisandre_,
_an_ (1932), _avant_, _dance_ (1697), _danger_, _danter_, _France_,
_change_, _fiance_ (_Bal._ xiii. &c.), _lance_, _lande_, _pance_ (5522
&c.), _sergant_, _sufficance_ (1738 &c.), _vante_, and in general the
words in _-ance_.
ix. Contraction or suppression of atonic vowels takes place in certain
cases besides that of the termination _-ée_, which has already been
discussed.
(_a_) When atonic _e_ and another vowel or diphthong come together in a
word they are usually contracted, as in _asseurer_, _commeu_, _eust_,
_receu_, _veu_ (2387), _vir_ (for _veïr_), _Beemoth_, _beneuré_,
_benoit_, _deesce_, _emperour_, _mirour_, _obeissance_, _rançon_,
_seur_, &c., but in many instances contraction does not take place, as
_cheeu_, _eeu_, _veeu_, _veïr_, _veoir_, _empereour_ (23624), _leësce_,
_mireour_ (23551), _tricheour_, _venqueour_, _meëment_, &c.
(_b_) In some words with _-ie_ termination the accent falls on the
antepenultimate, and the _i_ which follows the tonic syllable is
regularly slurred in the metre and sometimes not written. Such words
are _accidie_, _contumelie_, _familie_, _misterie_, _perjurie_,
_pluvie_, _remedie_, _vituperie_, and occasionally a verb, as
_encordie_.
The following are examples of their metrical treatment:--
‘Des queux l’un Vituperie ad noun,’ 2967;
‘Et sa familie et sa maisoun,’ 3916;
‘Car pluvie doit le vent suïr,’ 4182;
‘Maint contumelie irrous atteint,’ 4312;
‘Perjurie, q’ad sa foy perdu,’ 6409;
‘Qui pour mes biens m’encordie et lie,’ 6958, &c.
Several of these words are also written with the ending _-e_ for _-ie_,
as _accide_, _famile_, _encorde_.
Such words are similarly treated in Gower’s English lines, e.g.
‘And ek the god Mercurie also’ (_Conf. Am._ i. 422);
cp. Chaucer’s usual treatment of words like _victorie_, _glorie_, which
are not used in that form by Gower.
(_c_) In _come_ (_comme_), _sicome_, and _ove_ the final _e_ never
counts as a syllable in the metre. They are sometimes written _com_
and _ou_. In another word, _ore_, the syllable is often slurred, as
in _Mir._ 37, 1775, 3897, &c., but sometimes sounded, as 4737, 11377,
_Bal._ xxviii. 1. So perhaps also _dame_ in _Mir._ 6733, 13514, 16579,
and _Bal._ ii. 3, xix. 3, xx. 2, &c.
x. The insertion of a parasitic _e_ in connexion with _r_, and
especially between _v_ and _r_, is a recognized feature of the
Anglo-Norman dialect. Examples of this in our texts are _avera_,
_devera_, _saveroit_, _coverir_, _deliverer_, _overir_, _vivere_,
_livere_, _oevere_, _overage_, _povere_, _yvere_, &c. As a rule this
_e_ is not sounded as a syllable in the metre, and in most of these
words there is an alternative spelling, e.g. _avra_, _savra_, _covrir_,
_delivrer_, _ovrir_, _vivre_, _oevre_, &c., but it is not necessary to
reduce them to this wherever the _e_ is mute. Less usually the syllable
counts in the verse, e.g. _overaigne_ in _Mir._ 3371, _overage_ 8914,
_enyverer_ 16448, _avera_ 18532, _deveroit_, _beveroit_ in 20702 ff.
_viverai_, _vivera_ in _Bal._ iv.* 1, _Mir._ 3879, _descoverir_ in
_Bal._ ix. 1.
xi. About the consonants not much need be said.
(_a_) Initial _c_ before _a_ varies in some words with _ch_, as
_caccher_, _caitif_, _camele_, _camp_, _carboun_, _castell_, _catell_,
by the side of _chacer_, _chaitif_, _chameal_, _champ_, _charboun_,
_chastel_, _chateaux_; cp. _acater_, _achater_. Before _e_, _i_, we
find sometimes an interchange of _c_ and _s_, as in _ce_ for _se_ in
_Mir._ 1147, _Bal._ xviii. 3; _c’il_ for _s’il_ in _Mir._ 799 &c.; and,
on the other hand, _sent_ for _cent_ in _Bal._ xli. 2, _si_ for _ci_ in
the title of the _Cinkante Balades_, _sil_ for _cil_ in _Bal._ xlii.
3, _sercher_ for _cercher_ in _Mir._ 712 &c., also _s_ for _sc_ in
_septre_, _sintille_, and _sc_ for _s_ in _scilence_.
(_b_) We find often _qant_, _qe_, _qelle_, _qanqe_, &c., for _quant_,
_que_, &c., and, on the other hand, the spelling _quar_ for the more
usual _car_. In words like _guaign_, _guaire_, _guaite_, _guarant_,
_guarde_, _guarir_, _guaster_, _u_ is very frequently omitted before
_a_, also occasionally before other vowels, as _gile_, 21394, for
_guile_: _w_ is used in _warder_, _rewarder_, _way_.
(_c_) The doubling of single consonants, especially _l_, _m_, _n_,
_p_, _s_, is frequent and seems to have no phonetic significance.
Especially it is to be observed that _ss_ for _s_ at the end of a word
makes no difference to the quantity or quality of the syllable, thus,
whether the word be _deces_ or _decess_, _reles_ or _reless_, _engres_
or _engress_, _bas_ or _bass_, _las_ or _lass_, _huiss_ or _huis_, the
pronunciation and the rhyme are the same. The final _s_ was sounded in
both cases, and not more when double than when single. The doubling of
_r_ in futures and conditionals, as _serray_, _dirray_, &c., belongs to
the Norman dialect.
(_d_) The final _s_ of inflexion is regularly replaced by _z_ after a
dental, as _courtz_, _desfaitz_, _ditz_, _excellentz_, _fitz_, _fortz_,
_regentz_, _seintz_, and frequently in past participles of verbs (where
there is an original dental), as _perturbez_, _enfanteez_, _rejoïz_,
_perduz_; but also elsewhere, especially with the termination _-able_,
as _refusablez_, _delitablez_, in rhyme with _acceptables_. Sometimes
however a dental drops out before _s_, as in _apers_, _desfais_, _dis_,
_dolens_, _presens_. In all these cases however the difference is one
of spelling only.
(_e_) Lastly, notice may be directed to the mute consonants either
surviving in phonetic change or introduced into the spelling in
imitation of the Latin form. The fourteenth century was a time when
French writers and copyists were especially prone to the vice of
etymological spelling, and many forms both in French and English which
have been supposed to be of later date may be traced to this period. I
shall point out some instances, etymological and other, most of which
occur in rhyme.
Thus _b_ is mute in _doubte_ (also _doute_) rhyming with _boute_, and
also in _debte_ beside _dette_, _soubdeinement_ beside _soudeinement_,
&c.:
_p_ in _temps_, _accompte_, _corps_, _hanaps_, _descript_, rhyming
with _sens_, _honte_, _tors_, _pas_, _dit_, and in _deceipte_ beside
_deceite_;
_d_ before _s_ in _ribalds_ rhyming with _vassals_;
_t_ before _z_ in such words as _fortz_, _courtz_, _certz_, _overtz_,
_fitz_, _ditz_, _aletz_, _decretz_, rhyming with _tors_, _destours_,
_vers_, _envers_, _sis_, _dignités_, _ées_;
_s_ in such forms as _dist_, _promist_, _quidasmes_, &c., in rhyme
with _esjoït_, _espirit_, _dames_; possibly however the 3 pers. sing.
pret. of these verbs had an alternative pronunciation in which _s_ was
sounded, for they several times occur in rhyme with _Crist_, and then
are always written _-ist_, whereas at other times they vary this freely
with _-it_.
_g_ in words like _baraign_, _pleigne_, _soveraigne_, rhyming with
_gain_, _peine_;
_c_ before _s_ in _clercs_ (also _clers_) rhyming with _vers_;
_l_ in _almes_, _ascoulte_, _moult_, which rhyme with _fames_, _route_,
_trestout_ and in _oultrage_, _estoultie_, beside _outrage_, _estoutie_.
On the other hand _v_ is sounded in the occasional form _escrivre_, the
word being rhymed with _vivre_, in _Mir._ 6480.
* * * * *
As regards the Vocabulary, I propose to note a few points which are of
interest with reference chiefly to English Etymology, and for the rest
the reader is referred to the Glossary.
A certain number of words will be found, in addition to those already
cited in the remarks on Phonology, § v, which appear in the French
of our texts precisely as they stand in modern English, e.g. _able_,
_annoy_, _archer_, _carpenter_, _claret_, _courser_, _dean_, _draper_,
_ease_, _fee_, _haste_, _host_, _mace_, _mess_, _noise_, _soldier_,
_suet_, _treacle_, _truant_, &c., not to mention ‘mots savants’ such as
_abject_, _absent_, _official_, _parable_, and so on.
The doubling of consonants in accordance with Latin spelling in
_accepter_, _accord_, _accuser_, _commander_, _commun_, &c., is already
common in these texts and belongs to an earlier stage of Middle English
than is usually supposed.
_ambicioun_: note the etymological meaning of this word in the _Mirour_.
_appetiter_: Chaucer’s verb should be referred directly to this French
verb, and not to the English subst. _appetit_.
_assalt_: usually _assaut_ in 14th cent. French and English.
_audit_: the English word is probably from this French form, and not
directly from Latin: the same remark applies to several other words, as
_complet_, _concluder_, _curet_, _destitut_, _elat_, &c.
_avouer_: in the sense of ‘promise.’
_begant_, _beggerie_, _beguyner_, _beguinage_: see _New Eng. Dict._
under ‘beg.’ The use of _beguinage_ here as equivalent to _beggerie_ is
confirmatory of the Romance etymology suggested for the word: _begant_
seems to presuppose a verb _beg(u)er_, a shorter form of _beguiner_;
cp. _beguard_.
_braier_, M.E. _brayen_, ‘to bray in a mortar.’ The continental form
was _breier_, Mod. _broyer_.
_brusch_: the occurrence of this word in a sense which seems to
identify it with _brusque_ should be noted. The modern _brusque_
is commonly said to have been introduced into French from Italy in
the 16th century. Caxton however in 1481 has _brussly_, apparently
equivalent to ‘brusquely’; see _New Eng. Dict._
_buillon_, in the sense of ‘mint,’ or ‘melting-house,’ is evidently
the same as ‘bullion’ in the Anglo-Norman statutes of Edward III (see
_New Eng. Dict._). The form which we have here points very clearly to
its derivation from the verb _builer_, ‘boil,’ as against the supposed
connexion with ‘bulla.’
_chitoun_, ‘kitten.’ This is used also in Bozon’s _Contes Moralizés_.
It seems more likely that the M.E. _kitoun_ comes from this form of
_chatton_ with hardening of _ch_ to _k_ by the influence of _cat_, than
that it is an English ‘kit’ with a French suffix.
_Civile_, i.e. ‘civil law’: cp. the use of the word as a name in _Piers
Plowman_.
_eneauer_, ‘to wet,’ supplies perhaps an etymology for the word
_enewing_ or _ennuyng_ used by Lydgate and others as a term of
painting, to indicate the laying on or gradation of tints in
water-colour, and illustrates the later Anglo-French words _enewer_,
_enewage_, used apparently of shrinking cloth by wetting; see Godefroy
(who however leaves them unexplained).
_flaket_, the same as the M.E. _flakett_, _flacket_ (French
_flaschet_). The form _flaquet_ is assumed as a Northern French word by
the _New Eng. Dict._, but not cited as occurring.
_leisour_, as a variation of _loisir_, _leisir_.
_lusard_: cp. _Piers Plowman_, B. xviii. 335.
_menal_, _meynal_, adj. in the sense of ‘subject.’
_nice_: note the development of sense from ‘foolish,’ _Mir._ 1331,
7673, to ‘foolishly scrupulous,’ 24858, and thence to ‘delicate,’
‘pleasant,’ 264, 979.
_papir_, the same form that we find in the English of Chaucer and Gower.
_parlesie_, M.E. _parlesie_, _palesie_.
_perjurie_, a variation of _perjure_, which established itself in
English.
_phesant_: early M.E. _fesaun_, Chaucer _fesaunt_.
_philosophre_, as in M.E., beside _philosophe_.
_queinte_, _a(c)queintance_: the forms which correspond to those used
in English; less usually _quointe_, _aquointance_.
_reverie_, ‘revelry,’ which suggests the connexion of the English word
with _rêver_, rather than with _reveler_ from ‘rebellare.’ However,
_revel_ and _reveller_ occur also in our texts.
_reviler_. Skeat, _Etym. Dict._, says ‘there is no word _reviler_ or
_viler_ in French.’ Both are used in the _Mirour_.
_rewarder_, _rewardie_, _rewardise_, in the sense of the English
‘reward.’
_sercher_, Eng. ‘search,’ the more usual form for _cercher_.
_somonce_: this is the form required to account for the M.E. _somouns_,
‘summons.’
_traicier_, _traiçour_, names given (in England) to those who made it
their business to pack juries.
_trote_, used for ‘old woman’ in an uncomplimentary sense.
_université_, ‘community.’
_voiage_ (not _viage_): this form is therefore of the 14th century.
MIROUR DE L’OMME.
AUTHORSHIP.--The evidence of authorship rests on two distinct
grounds: first, its correspondence in title and contents with the
description given by Gower of his principal French work; and secondly,
its remarkable resemblance in style and substance to the poet’s
acknowledged works.
We return therefore to the statement before referred to about the
three principal books claimed by our author: and first an explanation
should be made on the subject of the title. The statement in question
underwent progressive revision at the hands of the author and appears
in three forms, the succession of which is marked by the fact that
they are connected with three successive editions of the _Confessio
Amantis_. In the two first of these three forms the title of the French
work is _Speculum Hominis_, in the third it is _Speculum Meditantis_,
the alteration having been made apparently in order to produce
similarity of termination with the titles of the two other books[H].
We are justified therefore in assuming that the original title was
_Speculum Hominis_, or its French equivalent, _Mirour de l’omme_. The
author’s account, then, of his French work is as follows:
‘Primus liber Gallico sermone editus in decem diuiditur partes, et
tractans de viciis et virtutibus, necnon et de variis huius seculi
gradibus, viam qua peccator transgressus ad sui creatoris agnicionem
redire debet recto tramite docere conatur. Titulus (que) libelli istius
Speculum hominis (_al._ meditantis) nuncupatus est.’
We are here told that the book is in French, that it is divided into
ten parts, that it treats of vices and virtues, and also of the various
degrees or classes of people in this world, and finally that it shows
how the sinner may return to the knowledge of his Creator.
The division of our _Mirour_ into ten parts might have been a little
difficult to make out from the work itself, but it is expressly
indicated in the Table of Contents prefixed:
‘Cy apres comence le livre François q’est apellé Mirour de l’omme, le
quel se divide en x parties, c’est assavoir’ &c.
The ten parts are then enumerated, six of them being made out of the
classification of the different orders of society.
The contents of the _Mirour_ also agree with the author’s description
of his _Speculum Hominis_. After some prefatory matter it treats of
vices in ll. 841-9720 of the present text; of virtues ll. 10033-18372;
of the various orders of society ll. 18421-26604; of how man’s sin is
the cause of the corruption of the world ll. 26605-27360; and finally
how the sinner may return to God, or, as the Table of Contents has
it, ‘coment l’omme peccheour lessant ses mals se doit reformer a dieu
et avoir pardoun par l’eyde de nostre seigneur Jhesu Crist et de sa
doulce Miere la Vierge gloriouse,’ l. 27361 to the end. This latter
part includes a Life of the Virgin, through whom the sinner is to
obtain the grace of God.
The strong presumption (to say no more) which is raised by the
agreement of all these circumstances is converted into a certainty when
we come to examine the book more closely and to compare it with the
other works of Gower. Naturally we are disposed to turn first to his
acknowledged French writings, the _Cinkante Balades_ and the _Traitié_,
and to institute a comparison in regard to the language and the forms
of words. The agreement here is practically complete, and the Glossary
of this edition is arranged especially with a view to exhibit this
agreement in the clearest manner. There are differences, no doubt,
such as there will always be between different MSS., however correct,
but they are very few. Moreover, in the structure of sentences and
in many particular phrases there are close correspondences, some of
which are pointed out in the Notes. But, while the language test gives
quite satisfactory results, so far as it goes, we cannot expect to
find a close resemblance in other respects between two literary works
so different in form and in motive as the _Mirour_ and the _Balades_.
It is only when we institute a comparison between the _Mirour_ and the
two other principal works, in Latin and English respectively, which our
author used as vehicles for his serious thoughts, that we realize how
impossible it is that the three should not all belong to one author.
Gower, in fact, was a man of stereotyped convictions, whose thoughts
on human society and on the divine government of the world tended
constantly to repeat themselves in but slightly varying forms. What
he had said in one language he was apt to repeat in another, as may
be seen, even if we leave the _Mirour_ out of sight, by comparison of
the _Confessio Amantis_ with the _Vox Clamantis_. The _Mirour_ runs
parallel with the English work in its description of vices, and with
the Latin in its treatment of the various orders of society, and apart
from the many resemblances in detail, it is worth while here to call
attention to the manner in which the general arrangement of the French
work corresponds with that which we find in the other two books.