2174. _Senek_, Seneca. 'Non affligitur sapiens liberorum amissione, non
amicorum; eodem animo enim fert illorum mortem quo suam expectat'; Epist.
74, § 29.
2177. _Lazarus_; see John, xi. 35.
2178. _Attempree_, moderate; Lat. text, 'temperatus fletus.' Hl.
_attemperel_, which Mätzner illustrates. Cf. D. 2053, where Hl. has
_attemperelly_; and E. 1679, where Hl. has _attemperely_. Cf. ll. 2570,
2728 below.
_Nothing defended_, not at all forbidden.
2179. See Rom. xii. 15.
2181. 'According to the doctrine that Seneca teaches us.' Cf. 'Non sicci
sint oculi, amisso amico, nec fluant; lacrimandum est, non plorandum';
Epist. 63, § 1.
2183. This is also, practically, from Seneca: 'Quem amabis extulisti,
quaere quem ames; satius est amicum reparare, quam flere'; Epist. 63, § 9.
2185. _Iesus Syrak_, Jesus the son of Sirach. 'Ecclesiasticus is the title
given in the Latin version to the book which is called in the Septuagint
The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach'; Smith, Dict. of the Bible. Compare
the title 'A prayer of Jesus the son of Sirach' to Ecclus. ch. li. But the
present quotation is really from Prov. xvii. 22. It is the _next_
quotation, in l. 2186, that is from Ecclus. xxx. 25 (Vulgate), i. e. xxx.
23 in the English version. The mistake is due to misreading the original
Lat. text, which quotes the passages _in the reverse order_, as being from
'Jesus Sirac' and 'alibi.'
2187. From Prov. xxv. 20; but the clause is omitted in the modern Eng.
version, though Wycliffe has it. The Vulgate has:--'Sicut tinea uestimento,
et uermis ligno: ita tristitia uiri nocet cordi.' The words _in the shepes
flees_ (in the sheep's fleece) are added by Chaucer, apparently by way of
explanation. But the fact is that, according to Mätzner, the Fr. version
here has 'la tigne, ou lartuison, nuit a la robe,' where _artuison_ is the
Mod. F. _artison_, explained by Cotgrave as 'a kind of moth'; and I
strongly suspect that 'in the shepes flees' is due to this 'ou lartuison,'
which Chaucer may have misread as _en la toison_. It looks very like it. I
point other similar mistakes further on.
_Anoyeth_, harms; F. _nuit_, L. _nocet_. The use of _to_ here is well
illustrated by Mätzner, who compares Wycliffe's version of this very
passage; 'As a moghe to the cloth, and a werm to the tree, so sorewe of a
man _noyeth to_ the herte'; whereas Purvey's later version thrice omits the
_to_. In the Persones Tale, Group I. 847, _anoyeth_ occurs both with _to_
and without it.
2188. _Us oghte_, it would become us; _oghte_ is in the subjunctive mood.
Cf. _hem oughte_, it became them, in l. 2458; _thee oughte_, it became
thee, in l. 2603.--Mr. The pres. indic. form is _us oweth_. [204]
_Goodes temporels_; F. text, _biens temporels_. Chaucer uses the F. pl. in
_-es_ or _-s_ for the adjective in other places, and the adj. then usually
follows the sb. Cf. _lettres capitals_, capital letters, Astrolabe, i. 16.
8; _weyes espirituels_, spiritual ways, Pers. Tale, I. 79; _goodes
espirituels_, id. 312; _goodes temporeles_, id. 685; _thinges espirituels_,
id. 784.--Mr.
2190. See Job, i. 21. _Hath wold_, hath willed (it); see 2615.
2193. Quotations from Solomon and from Ecclesiasticus are frequently
confused, both throughout this Tale, and elsewhere. The reference is to
Ecclus. xxxii. 24, in the Vulgate (cf. A. V. xxxii. 19); here Wycliffe
has:--'Sone, withoute counseil no-thing do thou; and after thi deede thou
shalt not othynke' (i. e. _of-thinke_, repent).
_Thou shalt never repente_; here Hl. has--'the thar neuer rewe,' i. e. it
needeth never for thee to rue it.
2202. _With-holde_, retained. Cf. A. 511; Havelok, 2362.--Mr.
2204. _Parties_, &c.; Fr. text: _supporter partie_.--Mr.
2205. _Hool and sound_; a common phrase. Cf. Rob. of Glouc. pp. 163, 402,
ed. Hearne (ll. 3417, 8301, ed. Wright); King Horn, l. 1365 (in Morris's
Specimens of English); also l. 2300 below.--Mr.
2207. 'Heal, put a stop to, war by taking vengeance; a literal and very
happy translation from the French--_aussi doit on guerir guerre par
vengence_.'--Bell. Tyrwhitt omits the words _by vengeaunce_, and Lounsbury
(Studies in Chaucer, i. 320) defends him, arguing that 'the physicians are
represented as agreeing with the surgeons'; whereas Chaucer expressly says
that 'they seyden a fewe wordes more.' The words 'by vengeaunce' are in all
the seven MSS. and in the French original. Admittedly, they make nonsense,
but the nonsense is expressly laid bare and exposed afterwards, when it
appears that the physicians did _not really_ add this clause, but Melibeus
dreamt that they did (2465-2480). The fact is, however, that the words _par
vengence_ were wrongly interpolated in the French text. Chaucer _should_
have omitted them, but the evidence shews that he _did not_. I decline to
falsify the text in order to set the author right. We should then have to
set the French text right also!