Abbreviations: BD: Chaucer, Book of the Duchess, ed. Benson; CA: Gower, Confessio Amantis, ed. Peck; Confort: Machaut, Le Confort d’Ami; CP: Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, trans. Stewart, Rand, and Tester; CT: Chaucer, Canterbury Tales, ed. Benson; Hassell: Hassell, Middle French Proverbs, Sentences, and Proverbial Phrases; HF: Chaucer, House of Fame; JRB: Machaut, Le Jugement dou Roy de Behaingne, ed. Palmer (2016); JRN: Machaut, Le Jugement dou Roy de Navarre, ed. Palmer (2016); LGW: Chaucer, Legend of Good Women, ed. Benson; OCD: Oxford Classical Dictionary, eds. Hornblower and Spawforth; OM: L’Ovide moralisé, ed. de Boer; OT: Old Testament, Douay-Rheims; Remede: Machaut, Remede de Fortune; RR: Roman de la Rose, trans. Dahlberg; TC: Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, ed. Benson; Whiting: Whiting, Proverbs, Sentences, and Proverbial Phrases.


LE CONFORT D'AMI

1–10 Amis . . . . je fineray. Charles of Navarre, along with his chief lieutenants, was arrested by Jean II, king of France, at the castle in Rouen on 5 April 1356. The king was accompanied by some 30 men at arms and, more importantly, by Arnould d’Audrehem, the marshal of France. At the time, Charles of Navarre was the guest of his cousin Charles, duke of Normandy, the future Charles V of France, with whom he had been discussing various intrigues intended to displace Jean from the throne. Charles of France threw himself on his father’s mercy and avoided imprisonment, but Charles of Navarre and the others were not so lucky. Charles was quickly led away to prison. He was popular among the people of Normandy and Jean feared trouble when the news of his arrest spread. The others were beheaded; their bodies (and heads) were displayed on the gibbet in Rouen, only to be taken down and buried after Charles of Navarre effected his escape on 9 November 1357 and returned to the city.

The opening passage of the Confort makes it clear that some time had passed since Charles had been taken into custody. Machaut later discusses the battle of Poitiers against the English, 19 September 1356 (lines 2781–2818), so the poem must have been written sometime during the year or so after this defeat of French arms that left Jean a prisoner and before Charles of Navarre, with the aid of friends, made his way out of the chateau at Arleux-en-Palluel, the last of the several fortresses where he was confined. Medieval works can seldom be dated with anything like this precision.

27–44 N’encor pas nommer . . . . ma dame chevauchera. The anagram promised in this passage is found exactly as Machaut suggests it will be, eleven lines from the end of the poem, that is, in lines 3968–69. Unlike other similar anagrams, this one admits of an easy solution, yielding, if one follows the directions, “Guillaume de Machaut” and “Charles roi de Navarre.” Machaut also anagrams his name into the end of the Remede, lines 4258–72. For a more difficult anagram, see JRB explanatory note to lines 2055–66.

71–72 Prouver le vueil . . . . lieus le figure. The narrator proposes to comfort Charles by using episodes from the Old Testament as proof that God always consoles those who trust in Him, for example, the story of Susannah and the elders, or Daniel in the lions’ den, or counseling Nebuchadnezzar, or presenting the fate of the children in the fiery furnace. By constructing a parallel narrative between these stories and Charles’ situation, Machaut is also describing the eventual punishment of those who are bad rulers, such as Jean, the king of France. In addition, using the Biblical stories establishes a precedent for the sort of advice Machaut is giving Charles and the reader is shown that the courtly poet can also play the role of advisor. Machaut’s handling of these Biblical exempla, including the different ways in which they are relevant to the particular situation of Charles’ captivity is discussed in the General Introduction, pp. 38–46 and 55–63.

72 figure. Martha Wallen, “Biblical and Mythological Typology,” using Auerbach’s definition of the figura as “something real and historical which announces something else that is also real and historical” (qtd. in Wallen, p. 192), argues that the word “figure” (meaning figurally, rather than referring to an image) is essential to understanding the poem’s structure. Machaut’s use of examples from the Old Testament to communicate a message to Charles is an argumentative device used in the Bible itself: “Parallels were drawn between historical events recorded in the Old Testament such as the Passover, and New Testament events such as the Last Supper; the New Testament writers and Christ himself sought thereby to prove the validity of the Christian faith by appealing to prefigurations in Jewish scripture” (Wallen, “Biblical and Mythological Typology,” p. 193). In this way, Machaut establishes the validity of his own arguments, engaging in a similar process of biblical intertexuality.

73–426 Jadis en Babiloinne . . . . toudis te gardera. The story of Susannah (Susanna, Shoshana) is included as chapter 13 in the Book of Daniel, upon which Machaut drew for much of the Biblical source material in the poem. Deriving from the Septuagint, the book of Daniel might not have had a Hebrew origin; the book is not included in the Jewish Tanakha and is considered apocryphal by Protestants, though the Catholic church considers the book canonical. This suspenseful tale of lust, failed seduction, false witness, and unexpected vindication obviously suits Machaut’s purpose in this part of the Confort, which is to assure Charles of Navarre that this innocence will be made known by God, who always protects the righteous and his faithful servants.

83–88 Joachim avoit un . . . . et s’i esbatoient. Whereas Machaut’s version of Joachim’s orchard is an Eden-like garden that sets the scene for Susannah’s betrayal, it is described in much less detail in the Biblical text: “Now Joakim was very rich, and had an orchard near his house: and the Jews resorted to him, because he was the most honourable of them all” (OT, Daniel 13:4).

95–108 Des juges Babyloniens . . . . gentes et belles. Machaut apparently refers here to Jeremiah 29:21–23, where the prophet quotes God as saying that the evil judges Ahab and Zedekiah will be delivered into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar for punishment.

95–98 Des juges Babyloniens . . . . est grant iniquité. The quotation from God is a fairly accurate representation of Daniel 13:5.

109–22 Si la veoient . . . . raison et juge. The sinfulness of the judges is emphasized throughout Machaut’s narrative, but is only mentioned once in the scriptural text: “And the old men saw her going in every day, and walking: and they were inflamed with lust towards her” (OT, Daniel 13:8). Their lust is a direct reaction to Susannah’s beauty, whereas Machaut casts aspersions on the judges’ characters from their introduction into the story (line 91). Rather than creating an exaggerated version of the source, however, Machaut’s use of similar vocabulary to explain and expand the original text causes his narrative to act almost as a gloss for the original. Furthermore, he alters a passage that describes the shame of the two men, increasing their sinfulness: “So they were both wounded with the love of her, yet they did not make known their grief one to the other: For they were ashamed to declare to one another their lust, being desirous to have to do with her” (OT, Daniel 13:10–11). Not only do Machaut’s judges appear weak but they also deny the ultimate justice of God.

285–306 En la tourbe . . . . tous m’en descourpe. Here, Machaut’s alteration of the biblical text is drastic as he introduces Daniel as a child in his mother’s arms, not yet able to walk or speak, yet granted the power of speech by God. The effect is more in keeping with Psalms 8:3 and Matthew 21:16 — out of the mouths of babes comes the truth. See figures 20 (A59) and 21 (A60).

299–410 Lors cria haut . . . . des dames fait. The drama of Daniel’s intercession is heightened by Machaut as he omits the part of the story when God hears Susannah’s prayer, thus establishing the power and importance of language: “And the Lord heard her voice” (OT, Daniel 13:44). This importance of language becomes a theme that is continued in subsequent sections of the narrative.

350, 385 yllier, lentillier. The story of Susanna was at an early point in its textual history incorporated into the Book of Daniel. As part of the Septuagint, the Greek language version of Scripture, this book was transmitted to early Christianity through two different recensions, which differ one from the other in both details and style. Although the Latin translation of the two testaments by Jerome, known generally as the Vulgate, became the principal Latin version known to the Middle Ages, other versions were known and consulted. The modern version of the Apocrypha follows the Vulgate in its version of the Susanna story, with the two trees that figure prominently in Daniel’s questioning of the judges identified as the holm and mastic. Machaut must have found the alternative names that figure in his version either in a different text of the book or in a gloss in his text that derives from that alternative version. On this general topic, see the collected essays in Practice of the Bible, eds. Boynton and Reilly.

370 juge. The judge referenced here is God.

415 Dou Latin. Machaut is referring to the Latin bible. The Biblical material in the poem shows that his main, but not exclusive source was the so-called Vulgate text, translated by St. Jerome. See note to lines 350, 385 above.

415–16 Dou Latin ou . . . . com j’ay peü. Even though Machaut is narrating an extant story, he frequently draws attention to the role he plays in the text’s creation by reminding Charles that his source is reputable and that Susannah’s story is valid. Furthermore, in mentioning that this source text is Latin, Machaut is highlighting his role as translator and scholar. See also lines 644–46.

417–26 Si qu’amis, tu . . . . toudis te gardera. Machaut summarizes the moral of the story: like Susannah, Charles should put his faith in God, who will deliver him from an unjust punishment and an unmerited punishment. The exemplum also makes clear that those who bear false witness with the aim of harming others will find the judgment of God visited upon them. Applied to Charles’ situation, Jean of France would figure in the role of the wicked judges, and he would be the innocent maiden, taken unawares, and condemned for no good reason.

427–1660 Et s’on . . . . qui ne mesprengne. This section of the poem is tightly organized, with the four exempla drawn from the Old Testament, discussed in an easily understandable pattern, mostly because the figure of Daniel plays a central role in the first three, but also because Machaut forges links between them and even offers a summary of sorts at the end that — in the manner of a sermon — carefully elucidates the moral lessons they illustrate (lines 1549–1610).

431–33 pluseur docteur . . . . diligemment. The scholars referenced here include those who provided often elaborate interlinear and marginal commentary, as well as longer works of exegesis. Machaut was undoubtedly familiar with many of the writings in this tradition, especially since copies of the testaments often featured both interlinear and marginal glosses as well as commentary.

451–646 Quant Nabugodonosor sot . . . . il est escript. Machaut’s source for this story is Daniel 3, but his version is considerably shorter than the original. In addition to the omission of inessential details, he also leaves out some significant sections, most notably the prayer of Azarias (Daniel 3:24–45) and the subsequent descent of the angel (Daniel 3:46–50). The effect is to emphasize how the innocent are delivered by God rather than the power of prayer, which figures centrally.

457 aimme et prise. In contrast to the popular Biblical stories about Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, Machaut describes a more equal and affectionate friendship between the two men. This may be compared to the relationship between a poet and his patron, or more specifically, between Machaut and Charles, rather than that of a ruler and his subject. Daniel, of course, delivers to the king a message of truth that serves him well, and in turn the prophet is rewarded with riches and a position of high responsibility.

523 Renommee. Rumor is a Classical, not Biblical, figure. In Virgil’s Aeneid 4, she is a monstrous winged creature, with “an eye beneath . . . every body feather, and . . . as many tongues and buzzing mouths as eyes, as many pricked-up ears” (trans. Fitzgerald, 4.250–52). She takes joy in gossiping and tells “lies and slander evenhandedly with truth” (4.257–58).

560 une seule framboise. This is proverbial. Literally, “more than a lone strawberry,” i.e., not at all, not a whit.

576 Quarante neuf queudes. A queude (modern French coudée) signifies a “measure.” It might refer to a degree, when quantifying heat, or a cubit when quantifying distance. See Daniel 3:19, where the fire in the furnace is said to be seven times hotter than it previously was (Vulgate: Septuplum, meaning a septule, sevenfold). Seven is a number equating with totality (see Peck, “Number as Cosmic Language,” p. 61). Machaut increases it by a common biblical measure of seven times sevenfold (i.e., 49 times greater) in heat elevation.

615 Qu’on claime Benedicité. The reference here is to Daniel 3:57–88.

617–18 Et encor recite . . . . en maint couvent. Machaut steps out of the narrative in order to show a continuation between Biblical and contemporary events. In this case, the link is a hymn, which both highlights the parallels between the two sets of stories and reminds the reader of the centrality of music in Machaut’s poetry. In accordance with the Boethian tradition, music and poetry are essential to the transformation of sorrow into joy.

671–710 Balthasar une court . . . . fueille en tramble. The account of the feast and the appearance of the writing on the wall are, on the whole, a close translation of the original source. Machaut’s additions heighten the effect of the story: for example, the menu served at the feast (lines 676–78), the narrator’s moral commentary (lines 682 and 691–92), and use of similes (lines 702–05 and 710).

671–954 Balthasar une court . . . . en sa poitrine. The story of Balthazar and the temple’s vessels, from Daniel 5, was popular in the drama and literature of the day. See, for example, The Play of Daniel, ed. Bevington, pp. 137–54; Gower, CA 5.7017–25, and Chaucer’s Monk’s Tale, CT VII[B2]2183–2246. Machaut’s version is much more detailed than the Middle English retellings mainly because it is told to comfort Charles in his captivity. As Alexandre Leupin notes, the stories that Machaut chooses to narrate are about “fallen kings whose power is limited by divine transcendence.” This is especially evident in the Biblical story of the writing on the wall, where Nebuchadnezzar is required to enlist “the services of an inspired reader” (Leupin, “Powerlessness of Writing,” p. 135) in order to understand his fate. Thus, Machaut highlights the power of language and the necessity of having an interpreter, which provides a different paradigm for the interpretation of Charles’ situation: instead of merely trusting in God, he must also surround himself with able and trustworthy counselors. Leupin reads this as a radical re-assertion of the relationship between power, poetry (or language), and the poet.

785–864 Diex qui est . . . . ara que remordre. In this section, Machaut expands upon the original text to add a meditation on the abuses of power, and his sacrilegious treatment of objects sacred to Jewish tradition, to the history of Nebuchadnezzar’s rise and fall.

865–932 Roys, se j’ay . . . . a une conclusion. Though Machaut’s version of the interpretation of the writing on the wall is much longer than that of the Old Testament, it still retains much of the original meaning:

MANE: God hath numbered thy kingdom, and hath finished it.
THECEL: thou art weighed in the balance, and art found wanting.
PHARES: thy kingdom is divided, and is given to the Medes and Persians. (OT, Daniel 5:26–28)

Daniel consequently becomes a much more significant presence in Machaut’s version.

872 nulle fiction. Again, Machaut is drawing attention to the importance of truth, but this time it is through the words of Daniel. See lines 415–16 and the corresponding note above.

955–1282 Aprés ce roy . . . . aus lions geté. The source for this story is Daniel 6. Machaut conflates the two versions of the story of Daniel and the lions’ den that appear in the Bible, but alters so little that his account contains contradictions: for example, see line 1121 where Daniel is said to have spent six days in the den and line 1130 where he is there for only one. This section of the narrative develops the theme of false and treacherous counsel, but moves significantly away from the Old Testament version by exaggerating Daniel’s position as a royal advisor and administrator: “It seemed good to Darius, and he appointed over the kingdom a hundred and twenty governors to be over his whole kingdom. And three princes over them, of whom Daniel was one: that the governors might give an account to them, and the king might have no trouble” (OT, Daniel 6:1–2). As in the other stories, Machaut emphasizes the role of God, rather than any earthly forces in the face of evil by playing down passages such as Darius’ attempts to free Daniel (OT, Daniel 6:14).

1252–54 Mais . . . . assez. Machaut’s narrative poetry is not routinely given to humor, but this grim bit of understatement provides an effective conclusion to a story that emphasizes the punishment meted out to those who make false charges, intending the death of others, which is of course a theme quite pertinent to Charles’ situation as he languishes in prison, hoping for deliverance. Interestingly, that the evil counselors are made to suffer the same fate they had wished on Daniel is eerily prescient, looking forward as it does to the revenge Charles might have intended meting out to those who had been complicit in his arrest and the execution of his close advisors. Such revenge certainly included depriving Jean of France of his throne, a campaign that occupied him for a number of months following his escape.

1283 escrire. Darius’ proclamation is disseminated throughout his kingdom thanks to written language, again highlighting the importance of Machaut’s art and profession and his relation with rulers.

1301 Pymalion. A figure from Greek mythology, Pygmalion made an ivory statue of a beautiful woman with whom he fell in love; after praying to Aphrodite, the goddess brought the statue to life (OCD, p. 1281). It is interesting that Machaut focuses only on the first part of the story where Pygmalion worships the statue, but not on the second part where his faith in the goddess is rewarded, thus creating an unusually positive view of the character. For another version of this story, see RR, lines 20817–21215. This section also anticipates the subsequent sections of the Confort in which Machaut draws upon the vernacular versions of the Metamorphoses contained in the Ovide moralisé in order to continue his comforting of Charles.

1314–16 Et nompourquant tant . . . . c’est une beste. Machaut draws attention to his own role as narrator by providing his own commentary on the story of Manasseh and Pygmalion.

1318–52 Par lequel li . . . . bien te delivrera. This section emphasizes the power of God over Fortune. In fact, “although the deity never steps directly into the narrative, he may be nonetheless considered the protagonist. In the first 1,000 lines of the Confort he is alluded to by name forty-three times” (Calin, Poet at the Fountain, p. 136).

1361–548 Rois Manassés, en . . . . roy et signour. As with Daniel and the lions’ den, Machaut combines the two versions of this story that appear in the Bible. According to 4 Kings 21, Manasseh was King of Judah who reversed all of the religious reforms of his father, Ezekias, by reinstating paganism and idolatry. 2 Paralipomenon (Chronicles) 33 further explains that Manasseh was captured and imprisoned as a punishment by God which led to his eventual repentance: “Therefore he brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of the Assyrians: and they took Manasseh, and carried him bound with chains and fetters to Babylon. And after that he was in distress he prayed to the Lord his God: and did penance exceedingly before the God of his fathers” (OT, 2 Paralipomenon 33: 11–12). The inclusion of this episode by Machaut causes the story to resonate strongly with Charles’ own situation.

1364–67 Mais ne vueil . . . . passeray plus briefment. Again, Machaut is drawing attention to his role as author, but this time explicitly highlighting the effort that is involved in the creation of a text.

1427–42 Si muse . . . . munde et actour. The punning on “tour”/”tourne” in this passage highlights Manasseh’s mental struggles (his “tournay,” line 1445). It also draws a parallel between the Creator as author of the world and Machaut as author, both of whom translate ideas into material or textual reality. Because of the word play in this passage the meaning of lines 1437–38 is somewhat obscure. The translation offered here takes “tour” in line 1438 as “change, turning,” but this is by no means certain.

1511–12 Metans abominations / Multiplicans offensions. The first words in these two lines are Latin present participles. Macaronic constructions such as these are not uncommon in French poetry of the period, though Machaut’s reason(s) for resorting to this technique at this point, and at only this point, in the poem are hard to divine.

1611–38 Quant Mathathias dut . . . . et memoire pardurable. Machaut is referencing the story told in 1 Machabees 2 which, again, encourages Charles to trust in God and to do His work. On his deathbed, Mathathias cites numerous figures including Abraham, Joseph, and Phineas as examples for his sons to follow, thus reinforcing the precedent Machaut has established for the sort of advice he is giving Charles.

1631 Finees, qui fu nostre pere. Phineas (Phinehas), son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron, one of the priests during the Exodus, played a key role in preventing the Israelites from succumbing to temptations from both the Moabites and Midianites. As related in Numbers 25:12–13, God rewarded him by saying that his sons, and all the sons of his sons, would constitute a hereditary priesthood. Hence for a cleric like Machaut he is rightly spoken of as “our father.”

1661–1782 Or te dirai . . . . vertu de neccessité. At this point, there is a shift from the tone of rhetorical consolation with an emphasis on exempla drawn from the Bible to one of more general, and often somewhat random, forms of advice that range from the generally applicable (the king is enjoined to practice moderation) to the very specific (he should not eat too heartily). For detailed discussion see the General Introduction.

1675–78 Aprés, amis . . . . tu te honniroies. This might be the cornerstone of Machaut’s advice to Charles, a commonplace rule that applies to most situations. William Calin suggests that “[s]eemingly trivial matters assume importance because the king is a mirror for his people . . . To be a good king he must first of all live virtuously. In other words, the ideal king is an ideal man; only an ideal man will make a good king; and only with such a king can the state function at its best” (Poet at the Fountain, p. 141). In this advisory role to the king that Calin points out, it is conceivable that Gower, for whom good kingship (regardless of one’s rank) is the cornerstone central to all his writings, is inspired in part by Machaut, with whom he is so similarly insistent for advice on the full range of ethical issues pertaining to personal behavior, especially with regard to moderation. As noted elsewhere, Gower frequently uses the same biblical exempla as Machaut, particularly with regard to Daniel 13, as advice to the kings of his own day. See Peck, Kingship and Common Profit.

1707–20 Que Job tenoit . . . . looit et devotement. Machaut’s source for this passage is Job 1.

1758 Socratés. Known mainly through the work of other writers, Socrates (469–399 BCE) was an Athenian philosopher and public figure. Socrates was famed for the moral seriousness of his thought and the courage he showed throughout his trial and execution (OCD, pp. 1419–20).

1791–92 Et si dois . . . . a li penser. In perhaps the most traditionally Christian of all the moral counsel Machaut provides, the king is enjoined to turn his mind to God and abandon his despairing fixation on his own situation. This passage reflects in general the advice that Lady Philosophy provides in CP 3, that Boethius should turn his mind toward the Supreme Good rather than remain fixated on his own emotions and the false goods of Fortune that he has lost, thus providing him with the opportunity to regain his true self.

1830–35 Et si as . . . . ne croy mie. Unlike the individuals that Machaut has been describing from the Old Testament, Charles is not at the mercy of evil or tyrannical judges, or so the poet avers, perhaps eager not to be seen as condemning his sovereign for unjust and arbitrary behavior. His readers are certainly authorized to view Jean’s arrest and imprisonment of the “innocent” man as suggesting a somewhat different reading of his situation in the light of Biblical exempla.

1836–978 Tu as tous . . . . i. cop tuent. As in the Old Testament stories, Machaut suggests that divine intervention has been necessary to remind Charles of his duties to God.

1857–62 N’a pas lonc . . . . qui ravist Heleinne. Priam was the King of Troy during the Trojan War. He had a number of wives and concubines and fathered many daughters and fifty sons, including those mentioned by Machaut: Hector, greatest of the Trojan heroes, Troilus, killed by Achilles, and Paris, who caused the Trojan War by abducting Helen (OCD, pp. 673, 1112, 1244, 1556).

1860 Nector. Nestor, King of Pylos, helped Menelaus assemble his army (OCD, p. 1039).

1861 Menelaus. Menelaus was King of Sparta and the husband of Helen of Troy (OCD, p. 958).

1872–1903 Yes mie subjés . . . . richesse et noblesse. This passage serves, somewhat confusingly, as a bridge between the theological point made by the Biblical exempla (that God punishes sinners and rewards those who merit his mercy) and the main point of the Consolation (that there is no misfortune as such since it is in the nature of the limited goods under the control of Fortune that they come and go accordingly to no discernible moral rule). These sharply contrasting perspectives on human experience do not admit of any easy reconciliation, as Machaut’s attempt to provide one here illustrates. For the Christian, God is the agent of the soul’s restoration and reconciliation. For the philosopher, the true source of happiness is to found within. Compare CP 2.pr4.72–73.

1893–1916 Ou Fortune . . . . ont autre avantage. Compare CP 2.pr1, of which Machaut here provides a somewhat simplified summary.

1904 livre de Boësse. The reference is to CP.

1914–16 Si que noblesse . . . . ont autre avantage. Among his extended discussion of the limited nature of the good as ordinarily understood, Boethius undertakes in CP 3.pr6.27–29 to debunk that notion that nobility is a virtue in itself, an idea that Machaut recycles.

1917–99 Aussi puet elle donner . . . . et de povreté. These themes are drawn from CP 3.

1971 par Saint Denis. St. Denis is the patron saint of Paris and of France.

1972 Mont Senis. This is a peak in the French Alps, west of Turin, that marks a passageway into Italy from France.

1979 Salemons. King of Israel and a son of David, Solomon is known for his wisdom: “And the wisdom of Solomon surpassed the wisdom of all the Orientals, and of the Egyptians” (OT, 3 Kings 4:30).

1979–86 Salemons li sages lisoit . . . . toy feroie injure. See Proverbs 30:8.

2009–14 Je ne di . . . . porroit milleurs trouver. This passage, attempting elaborate word play, manages to express a fairly simple idea rather clumsily. Having made what could be interpreted as a criticism of the nobility, Machaut softens the blow by admitting that some of the rich are very moral. The precise grammar of the passage is somewhat obscure. Hœpffner insists that “nul milleur” in line 2011 be understood, despite its form, as the subject of “trouveroit,” but I think this is unlikely (Œuvres de Guillaume de Machaut, 3:248). I have translated it as direct object, with the “qui” noun clause in line 2012 as the subject of “trouveroit.” This rendering gives a parallelism with the reformulation of the idea in lines 2013–14.

2057–102 Las! Je sui . . . . que je sente. In this passage, a Boethian perspective on suffering and isolation makes way for one derived from the tradition of love poetry. In his prison, Charles become the archetypal lover, separated from his beloved and therefore moved to express his feelings of love and loneliness. It is interesting that Machaut here ventriloquizes the presumed emotions of his patron.

2118–20 Que Douce Pensee . . . . Et Bon Espoir. In the tradition of the Roman de la Rose, Machaut often mentions allegorical characters. Douce Pensee (Sweet Thought) is one of the three gifts that Cupid gives to Amans to help him endure the pains of love. The others are Douce Regart (Sweet Looking) and Douce Parler (Sweet Talking). See also JRB, JRN, and the Remede. In these poems, they take a much more prominent role, interacting with the other characters and often representing ideal aspects of their personalities, for example Esperence in the Remede or the characters in the trial scenes of JRB and JRN.

2162–74 La biauté de . . . . point de meffaçon. The description of the lady’s beauty customarily proceeds from head to toe, with every principal feature meriting both mention and praise.

2249 Lay de Bon Espoir. A Machaut work with this title has not survived, but the poet might be referring here to the monophonic Lay de Bonne Esperence, which figures as item 47 in the Voir Dit, lines 4462–4717 (see the forthcoming Volumes 4 and 10 of this edition, in the latter of which it is included with all of the poet’s other lays).

2277–644 Quant le bon . . . . puist estre acompaingnie. This is the first of the several exempla drawn from OM, which includes French verse versions of classical stories found in other sources such as Ovid’s Metaamorphoses. Machaut might also have had access to the Latin text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, but this seems unlikely. A detailed discussion of Machaut’s use of the OM is included in the General Introduction, pp. 63–67.

2295–306 A l’entree de . . . . et toudis flame. The OM confuses and conflates two different traditions here, as Machaut’s version attests; the first is that Hades has three judges, male divinities named Rhadamanthys, Minos, and Aeacus, who judge each soul and assign it an eternal abode accordingly (OCD, p. 1311), while the second, which is derived largely from Virgil’s Aeneid, is that of the Erinyes or Furies, three chthonian female divinities named Tisiphone, Megaera, and Alecto, who carry out “retribution for wrongs and blood-guilt [of condemned souls] especially in the family” (OCD, p. 556).

2344 craus et gouvernaus. This passage is somewhat obscure. “Gouvernaus” means “helm” in Middle, as in modern French, while “craus” could represent a number of different words. I have read it as “graux” or “graus,” meaning “crook,” hence, by extension into more familiar diabolical imagery, “pitch-fork.”

2357 Typhoeüs. In Greek mythology, Typhoeüs or Typhon is a fire-breathing monster, a dragon with a hundred heads that never sleeps. Machaut encountered the story, whose main details he repeats here, in either his reading of Ovid’s Metamorphoses Book 5, or in the OM. Typhoeüs participated in the revolt of the Titans against Zeus (the so-called Titanomachy), and in individual combat against him managed to tear out the tendons of his legs, which were eventually returned to him by Hermes. Zeus then overcame Typhoeüs with his thunderbolts and managed to confine him under mount Etna.

2430 Parguse. Machaut here adds a geographical detail to the classical Ovidian (Metamorphoses 5) and Virgilian (Georgics 1) accounts, but the connection between Prosperine/Persephone and Pergusa was made by several classical historians, including Diodorus Siculus (fl. 40 BCE), author of the Bibliotheca Historica, in the Middle Ages a widely read source of geographical and historical information. The hills of Pergusa and surrounding woodlands, the selva Pergusina, are located about ten kilometers from Mt. Etna in Sicily; the lake in the bottomland is the only natural lake on the island.

2461 Dyane / Cyane. In classical accounts, the nymph Cyane (Latin Cyana), plays a key role in the abduction of Proserpina (Persephone), as is evident in Machaut’s version. Subsequently, she was turned to water by an angry Pluto. Machaut evidently confused Cyana with the unrelated Roman goddess Diana, hence his mistaken naming of her as “Dyane” in this passage.

2463 Dis. In Roman culture, the god of the Underworld (Hades in Greek) is referred to either as Pluto or Dis (an older concept, perhaps borrowed from the Celts) and sometimes written as Dis Pater or “Father of the gods.”

2475 Sicanie. This is a region of Sicily, modern Sicania.

2507 Arethusa. Arethusa is a nymph, daughter of Nereus.

2508 Elchalaphus. This is Machaut’s rendering of Ovid’s Ascalaphus, Escalaphus in the OM, a daimon or spirit in the Underworld, where he served as the orchardist.

2515 Si com l’istoire le raconte. The reference here is to the OM, which is the principal source of all the classical stories in this section of the Confort. See the General Introduction, pp. 63–67, for full discussion of Machaut’s adaptation of this material.

2517–628 Tantalus . . . . femme et s’amie. Here Machaut supplies a short catalogue of important figures from Greek and Roman tradition who are passing eternity in the underworld. A fuller version is supplied in Aeneid 6, but this is unlikely to be Machaut’s source since the material was thoroughly conventional.

2523 D’Ysion la roe. Guilty of killing his father-in-law, Ixion was pitied by Zeus, who soon turned on the man when he cast a lustful eye on Hera, his wife. Sent into the pit by a thunderbolt from Zeus, Ixion was bound for eternity to a fiery wheel.

2527–28 Et a Sisiphus . . . . pesant et grieve. King of Corinth, Sisyphyus was punished by the gods for his betrayals and trickery by being confined to a region of the underworld where he was assigned the unending task of rolling a huge boulder up to the top of a hill from which it always rolled back again.

2529–34 Et Tycïus . . . . de son arson. A son of Zeus who angered the gods by his attempted rape of the maiden Leto, Tityos was punished in the underworld by being stretched out on the ground so that two vultures could every day eat his liver, which continually grew back, making his punishment endless.

2535 beles Dyanes. The translation here is an attempt to put the best face on Machaut’s confused mythological reference, in which he furthers his earlier erroneous conflation of Cyane with Diana (see the note to line 2461 above). In the OM, these nymphs at the fountain are called the beledienes (OM 10.115, following Ovid’s designation of them as the belides or daughters of Belus). Note that Machaut refers to them correctly in line 2543.

2543 filles Belli. In Greek mythology, Belus is the king of Egypt, one of whose sons, Danaus, had the misfortune to sire 50 daughters, the Danaides, all of whom but one were subsequently involved in the killing of their husbands. In this passage, Machaut confuses these violent and homicidal women with the semi-divine Erinyes or Furies.

2584 Redope. Rhodope is a region of eastern Macedonia.

2585–88 Et devint homs . . . . si vil matyre. Machaut refers obliquely here to Orpheus’ supposed turn toward homosexuality. See the General Introduction, pp. 63–67, for further discussion.

2623–24 Phebus le sauva . . . . qui le trouva. Phoebus is the Roman name for Apollo. The legend of Apollo and Python, recounted in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, describes Apollo’s slaying of the serpent Python, who guarded Delphi for its mother, Gaia or Earth (OCD, p. 1418).

2645–72 Quant Paris ala . . . . le chastel d’Ylion. Though Machaut describes Paris’ choice as the cause of Troy’s fall, this exemplum is not meant to illustrate what could be interpreted as either his fault or ill luck. Machaut follows the version of the Troy story he found in the OM, which includes, as here, story materials that are not found or developed at length in Ovid. Whatever their origin, the OM provides them with moralizations that draw out their relevance to Christian values and theology. Following this moralizing tradition, Machaut, according to Margaret Ehrhart, presents Paris as “an exemplary lover. His determination in sailing to Greece to win from her husband the woman he had been promised by Venus shows that every lover must nerve himself with hope if he wishes to succeed in his quest” (Ehrhart, Prince Paris, 193).

2657–59 Aus .iij. deesses . . . . richesse ou d’avoir. These three goddesses are Minerva (goddess of wisdom), Venus (goddess of love), and Juno (queen of the gods), respectively.

2683–762 Quant Herculés se . . . . loial, et parfait. Machaut tells Charles the story of Hercules and his wife, Deianira, whom he won from Acheloüs in combat (OCD, p. 440) in order to emphasize the importance of being a faithful lover. This version is based on Sophocles’ portrayal of Deianira as “a gentle, timid and loving woman who unintentionally brings [Hercules] to [his] death.” Previous characterizations have depicted Deianira as “bold-hearted and aggressive” (OCD, p. 440). Gower’s version, CA 2.2145–307, is more in keeping with Machaut’s tale.

2737 Par Licas. Cape Lichadis, off the coast of Locris in central Greece, was the place where, according to legend, Lichas was thrown into the sea.

2763–872 Mais, pour chose . . . . li est requise. Here, the poet applies his lesson on Hope to Charles’ specific situation and reinforces his earlier moral about Fortune, to interpret his capture as a fortunate turn of events, recalling Lady Philosophy’s argument that imprisonment, and the loss of Fortune’s goods, has enabled Boethius to return to himself and to the true nature of the working of the universe that his lifelong immersion in philosophy had provided him. Compare CP 2.pr8.7–18.

2778–2872 Je te vueil prouver . . . . li est requise. Machaut here makes the obvious point that King Charles was fortunate to be in prison during the disastrous battle of Poitiers (19 September 1356), at the end of which Jean II of France was taken prisoner by the English. Considering his desire to keep on good terms with Jean and the Valois family, the poet can hardly gloat over the irony that Jean (who in Machaut’s view wrongly imprisoned Charles of Navarre) found himself in captivity after a series of costly military blunders. However, Machaut is not above pointing out the numerous advantages that Charles enjoyed as a result of being involuntarily absent from a fight in which he would have been obligated to take part on the losing side.

2795–807 La fu pris . . . . comme il fist. Here, Charles’ captor, King Jean, is named and compared to seven of the Nine Worthies (lines 2797–2801), and then to other heroes of myth and legend. The two missing Worthies are Old Testament figures, Joshua and David. As William Calin remarks, “[s]urely such a master is more reliable than Belshazzar or Susanna’s lecherous Elders” (Poet at the Fountain, p. 136). Calin is certainly correct, but the careful fashion in which Machaut overpraises Jean for what was in fact a disastrous defeat that put the very existence of his kingdom in jeopardy seems a politically calculating move as well, for when Machaut composed the Confort Jean was still his sovereign and a man with powerful supporters throughout the realm.

2911–22 Mais honneur est bien . . . . et avoir faut. The poet’s argument that honor is superior to wealth reflects aristocratic values, not Boethian ones. For Boethius both honor (especially in the sense of being honored by others) and wealth are to be numbered among the necessarily limited, and thus ultimately insignificant, goods over which Fortune wields control. Compare CP 2.pr5 and 6.

2923–3086 bon roy de Behaingne . . . . point de blame. The reference here is to Jean L’Aveugle (the Blind), king of Luxembourg and Bohemia (1296–1346), one of the most famous warrior kings of the Middle Ages, and Machaut’s patron for perhaps twenty years before his heroic death on the field at Crécy. See the General Introduction, for a detailed discussion of Machaut’s use of Jean as a model for Charles of Navarre to emulate. Jean of Bohemia’s daughter, Bonne (see the explanatory notes to JRB lines 259–880 and JRN line 3851), was the first wife of Charles’ captor and the mother of the Dauphin who would later become the patron of Machaut’s Voir Dit. In this way, Machaut’s role as the poet-advisor of kings becomes clear as shows himself to be allied with a dynasty rather than individual rulers.

2928 Masouve. Mazovia was a dukedom in north central Poland whose principal cities were Plock and Warsaw. In the course of the later Middle Ages it was incorporated into the kingdom of Poland.

2937–74 Il ne pooit . . . . s’aisa mais hom. The virtues of Jean of Bohemia that Machaut describes in this section (moderation and patience) are the same as those which he encourages Charles to adopt in lines 1675–743. As Jacqueline Cerquiglini-Toulet remarks, “[t]he idealized figure of Jean de Luxembourg continued throughout the fourteenth century to serve as a nostalgic reference point and model” (Color of Melanchol y, 26).

2945 Je le say bien, car je l’ay fait. Machaut emphasizes the importance of eye witnesses when telling the truth. As in his versions of stories from the Old Testament, having personally seen an event or a text lends an extra layer of authority to his own writing: not only is he responsible for producing the text, but he also vouches for its veracity.

2969–74 Et s’il estoit . . . . s’aisa mais hom. The syntax and grammar of this passage are difficult, but the general meaning is clear.

2975–3207 Mais je te . . . . dessous au tournoy. The detail included in this section is a further form of encouragement for Charles and part of the general idealization of Jean de Luxembourg. For more information on Jean’s military and diplomatic success, see Cazelles, Jean l’Aveugle.

2997 Esselingne. Esslingen am Neckar is in southwestern Germany. This former imperial city and rich market town was much fought over in the Middle Ages and eventually annexed by the duchy of Wurtenberg in the early nineteenth century.

2998 Duringne. During the Middle Ages, Durningen was a free imperial city in the Rhineland near Strasbourg.

3013 Bruguelis. Bürglitz was a city in medieval Bohemia not far from Prague, today Gross Bürglitz in the Czech Republic.

3023 Breselau. Breslau was an important city in the Silesian part of the kingdom of Bohemia. Since the end of World War II, it has become a Polish city, now named Wroclaw.

3035–40 Li lieus avoit . . . . Aukahan. In February 1329, the army of the Bohemian king Jean of Luxembourg and the Teutonic Order invaded Lithuania and captured the most important fortresses of Samogitia: Medvegalis, Šiauduva (? Xedeyctain), Gediminas (now Kvedarna), Geguže, and Aukaimis (now Batakiai).

3044–48 le can de Tartarie . . . . Bruges a Paris. During the fourteenth century Lithuania, which had not yet been thoroughly Christianized (a process in which Jean played a significant role — see lines 3033–34) was invaded by the Lipka Tatars, one of the groups that had comprised Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde in the previous century.

3094 n’aroit vaillant une pomme. Proverbial. See Hassell P232.

3183 Car bonté faite autre requiert. Proverbial. See Hassell B142.

3329–30 a son oueil mettre a l’erbe / Qu’on congnoist. Proverbial. See Hassell H25.

3331–48 Aies toudis bonnes . . . . ou vasselage. On the military use of stealth and spying, see Vegetius’ late Latin treatise on Roman warfare, Epitoma Rei Militaris, Book 3, §6. This section emphasizes the value of keeping secret an army’s location and plans, caution against ambush, using scouts to discover the habits of one’s adversary, and even recruiting traitors and deserters from the enemy camp (Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science, trans. Milner 1:71–75). There is also biblical precedent for espionage, especially in commentaries on Joshua 2. See, for example, Matthew Henry’s Exposition of All Books of the Old and New Testaments, which stresses the ruler’s need for men who can see with other people’s eyes, work incognito to observe specific situations, and demands necessary for the occasion. The success of such agents depends upon their honesty and fidelity to their master, and manipulating lies. The end justifies whatever the means might be, regardless of what “untruths” they deploy (Henry, Exposition of All Books, Joshua 1:11–13).

3415–19 Et s’il y a femme qui gise . . . . qui la touche. This remarkable passage, regarding protection of a pregnant woman in time of war, reflects the strong value placed upon the soul of the unborn child, which may be deemed even more important than that of the adult mother. Machaut is emphatic in his advice to Charles regarding the evil of harming women at any time, especially in times of warfare, but here he would protect the unborn fetus of a pregnant woman with a warning flag above the citadel where she has been confined. Women may die as casualties of war, but the killing of an unborn child is murder. See Harris-Stoertz, “Pregnancy and Childbirth.”

3422 fils l’empereur Hanri. Jean was the son of Margaret of Brabant and Henry VII, who was the Holy Roman Emperor at the time.

3454 De plus d’amis, meins d’anemis. Proverbial. See Hassell A102.

3631 Ton bon pere et ta bonne mere. This is Philippe III of Navarre, Count of Évreux, and Jeanne II of Navarre.

3661–3712 Or voy que . . . . tu prens de toy. For a discussion of the origins of ostentatious dress in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, see Blanc, “From Battlefield to Court” and L’Engle, “Addressing the Law.”

3715 Cambelec. In the Persian and the Turkic languages of Central Asia, Beijing was called Khanbaliq, which seems the far-off region to which Machaut here refers. Compare Chaucer’s Squire on exotic places in Tartary where Cambyuskan (Genghis Khan) and Cambalus (his son) are described as “grete mervailles” (CT V[F]656–61). The Squire, unlike his modest father, is a fancy dresser who might well have misread this section of Machaut. He is certainly not some goatskin (“vestus de camelin,” line 3725) fellow.

3716 l’Aubre Sec. According to medieval geographers, there was a solitary dead tree standing in the midst of northern Persian plain, in the general area where Alexander the Great had won a costly victory against King Darius in the battle that is variously referred to as Issos or Gaugamela (1 October 331 BCE). For that reason, the tree was believed to mark the border between Europe and Asia. Marco Polo seems to have been the first European since ancient times to see the tree, which he describes at some length in his Book of the Wonders of the World (also known as The Travels of Marco Polo), a text for which no authoritative edition exists because of the considerable discrepancies among the surviving manuscripts. In modern editions, the story of the “dry tree” is to be found in chapter 22, where it is described as huge and thick, with green leaves on one side and white leaves on the other, which perhaps means it was a plantain tree. The tree bears husks that remind Polo of chestnuts, but with nothing inside. See Travels of Marco Polo, trans. Latham, p. 54.

3752–55 Einsi com Boësses . . . . chacié en essil. For a brief biography of Boethius, see the note to the Remede, lines 982–84 above. The bulk of the references in this poem, as in the Remede, are to Books 1 and 2 in the CP.

3828 par saint Eloy. This may refer to saint Eligius, who is the patron saint of goldsmiths and metal workers and is thus apt for thoughts on coining money that celebrates important leaders (line 3825). See the Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Eligius.”

3841–42 Car le pechiét . . . . feu, quant l’ateint. Proverbial. See Hassell E4 and Whiting W60.

3945 Amis. In contrast to the confident advice-giving narrator of the main sections of the poem, Machaut returns to the role of courtier that he adopted at the beginning of the Confort.

3968–69 Quant ma dame . . . . diner a Glurvost. The anagram Machaut refers to in lines 27–44 is located here. If there was a riding lady, her identity is lost to history, and the identification of a place named Glurvost is uncertain.

3978 m’en chaut. Another disguised version of Machaut’s name.

3979–4004 Explicit le Confort d’amy . . . . soupir ay vomi. This passage is highly unusual since it is placed at the official ending of the Confort, and thus a question arises about its status. Is it part of Machaut’s poem? Or, as it pretends to be, is it a response in the voice of Charles (either his own words or the poet ventriloquizing for him) to what he sees, with some anger and a palpable desire for revenge, as an injustice that has been visited upon him? This question seems ultimately unanswerable, and perhaps this is precisely its point. Machaut loves metafictional game-playing in his poetry, and this text, whose authorship and place are both indeterminate, naturally emphasizes the “made” nature of the Confort, as it offers yet another text that — like the exempla drawn from the Bible and the stories adapted from the OM — has been made a part of an intricately constructed mélange.

3987 saint Fremi. A shortened, dialectical form of Saint Firmin. Compare Saint Remigius in line 3995. For further information on this saint, see “Saint Firmin,” online at https://viechretienne.catholique.org/saints/4747-saint-firmin.

3995 saint Remi. Remigius is the patron saint of Reims where Machaut was a canon. “Remi” is a shortened, dialectal form of his name. For further information, see the Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Remigius.”

Abbreviations: A: Paris, BnF, fr. 1584 [base text]; B: Paris, BnF, fr. 1585; C: Paris, BnF, fr. 1586; D: Paris, BnF, fr. 1587; E: Paris, BnF, fr. 9221; F: Paris, BnF, fr. 22545; FP: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Panciatiachiano 26; G: Paris, BnF, fr. 22546; H: Oeuvres de Guillaume de Machaut, ed. Hœpffner; I: Paris, BnF, n.a.f. 6221; J: Paris, Arsenal 5203; Jp: Le Jardin de Plaisance et Fleur de Rethoricque (Paris: Ant. Gérard, [1501]); K: Berne, Burger-bibliothek 218; Ka: Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek, 4° Ms. Med. 1; M: Paris, BnF, fr. 843; Mn: Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 10264; P: Paris, BnF, fr. 2166; Pa: Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Libraries, Fr. 15; Pe: Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepysian Library, 1594; Pit: Paris, BnF, it. 568; Pm: New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, M. 396; PR: Paris, BnF, n.a.f. 6771; R: Paris, BnF, fr. 2230; Trém: Trémoïlle, Paris, BnF, n.a.f. 23190 [lost]; Vg: Ferrell-Vogue, private ownership of James E. and Elizabeth J. Ferrell; W: Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, 5010 C.

For reasons set out at some length in the General Introduction, this edition takes MS A as an authoritative text for Machaut’s works, including the two dits included in this volume. Because of the unique authority of A, and for the sake of consistency across a complete edition that must depend on the later omnibus MSS for the principal works of the author/composer’s later career, the practice has been to deviate from A’s readings only in clear cases of spelling error, scribal misinterpretation, and omissions, and miswritings of other kinds. Given medieval orthographical practices, which are far from consistent in the modern sense, we are aware that the category “spelling error” is occasionally a matter of interpretation.

 

LE CONFORT D'AMI

Title The principal manuscripts (A, B, F, M) give the title in a rubric: Ci apres commence confort d’amy. The poem is here referred to as Le Confort d’ami, the title by which it has been known to modern scholarship since the nineteenth century.

2 m'lt. So A. This might be a contraction and, though idiosyncratic, not an error. But it could be a spelling error that should be corrected to moult.

12 Pour toy garder. So A. E: De toy garder.

17 a ton fait. So A. E: a mon fait.

21 et. So A. E: omits.

23 scez. So A. H inexplicably reads scay here, though A clearly has scez, a reading well supported by the other manuscripts. His reading has led to a misunderstanding of this famous passage.

24 mieudres. So A. E, J: mendres, which gives reasonable sense, but a less precise indication of the poet’s social class than that of A (well supported by the other manuscripts).

37 commencier. So A. J, L: commencement.

41 Einsi. So A. B, E: eins, also gives satisfactory sense.

45 que amis. So A. H reads qu’amis here without explanation, but the manuscript clearly gives the uncontracted form.

51 l’aimme. So A. M, B, E, J, L: omits l, which gives inferior sense.

57–58 Cils qui tout . . . . et tout pourvoit. These verses are lacking in J.

71 l’Escripture. So A. B, E: omits l. This reading gives satisfactory sense.

93 Nostres Sires. So A. E: Nostre seigneur.

115 Furent puis. So A. B, E, J, L: Furent mis, which also gives satisfactory sense.

128 alee. So A. M: entree.

151 par ta. So A. M: pour ta.

178 Encontre. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: contre. I have retained A’s reading here, even though it is unsupported, because it is satisfactory as far as meter and sense are concerned.

196 esclanche. So A. F, M: esclainche.
ou senestre. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: et sensestre. Both give satisfactory sense.

202 ces. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: ses. This reading should be retained over the other manuscripts’ ses because it is simply a spelling variant of the possessive pronoun.

237 fors. So A. F, M, E, K: fort.

240 enquerismes. So A. F gives enqueismes (or a variant), but with H I read with A here since this form of the verb could hardly be a scribal error.

296 prophetisier. A: prophetiser, a clear error.

312 Helchiel. So A. B, E: Belchiel; K: Balael.

337 entichiés. So A. M, B, E, K, L: entechies.

399 ames. So A. F, M, E, K, L: ame.

430 plus ne n’en. So A. B, E, K: plus ie nen.

435 lions. A: lion, a spelling error since the plural is required.

444 ce a. So A, though H prints the contracted form.

472 Sus. So A. F, M, B, E: Sur.

578 l’ot. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: lost.

635 oÿe. So H. A: oy spoils the rhyme.

646 est. A: est est, a diplography.

655 homs. So A. H reads hons inexplicably (a typographical error?).

670 Tous. A: Tou, a spelling error.

676 païs. So A. H reads servi although A clearly has pais. F, M, B, E, K: servis. Both forms give good meaning.

679 Balthasar. A: barthasar, a spelling error.

695 escrisoit. So A. M, B, E, K: escripsoit.

740 dont. A: don, a spelling and grammatical error.

756 es. So A. F, M, B, K: yes.

763 qu’il. So A. F, M, B, K: qui.

765 ne. So M. F: me makes no sense.

808 tint. A: tin, a spelling error.

830 fis. A: fils, a spelling error.

854 en enfer. A: omits en, a haplography.

872 fiction. So A. F, B: finction; K: fuisson; D: sanz definicion.

917 te moustrë. So A. F, M, B, K: demoustre, which also gives satisfactory sense and meter.

922 de Medee et de Perse. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: de Mede et ceaus de Perse.

951 dist. So A. F, M, K: dit.

964 ses. So A. F, B, K: ces.

976 ses. So A. F, B, K: ces.

990 comme. A: commun, a spelling error.

1002 quelque. So A. F, E: quel estat.

1013 approuva. So A. F reads lapprouvav, which also gives good sense.

1042 haoient. So A. F, M, B, E, K: haioient.

1077 faisoient. So A. F, M, K: haioient.

1093 dist. So A. F, M, B, K: dit.

1108 grosse. A: grousse, a spelling error as confirmed by rhyme.

1181 N’oublie. A: noublia, a spelling error.

1183 aimme. A: aimment, a scribal miscorrection. A singular form is required, as per all other MSS.

1200 son. So H. A: not. H rejects this, which reflects a scribal misreading of the passage.

1203 le chief. So A. F, M, E: les chie(f)s.

1204 ne. So A. F, M, B, K: ni.

1215 sans₃. A: sas missing nasal stroke.

1236 vif. So A. F, B, E: vi, also a satisfactory reading.

1256 Tout. So A. F, M, B, K: tous, also a satisfactory reading.

1274 sa. A: et spa makes no sense.

1280 et enserrez. So A. B, E, K: omit et.

1288 cornardie. So A. B: conardie; K: couardie; E: musardie.

1295 il l’a fait. A, F: il a fait, which lacks a pronoun direct object and is likely a spelling error.

1348 applegier. So B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R. A: appliquer seems a misreading or misinterpretation.

1382 ses. A: tes, a spelling error.

1415 ses. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: les, which is equally possible.

1514 Or. So H. A, F, M, K: O. H’s correction is a better translation of the Scriptural passage.

1520 viltez. So A. F, E, K: vites.

1534 sans. So B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R. A: omitted.

1565 fiance. A: faence, a spelling error.

1609 et mestre. So B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R. A omits.

1626 angoisse. So H. A: engroisse, a spelling error.

1716 qu’il ne. So A. F, M, B, E, K: qui ne.

1718 reprouche. So H. A: reproche, a spelling error.

1746 ne si. So A. F, M, B, E, K: et si also gives good sense.

1767 Il ne. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: Nil, which is as satisfactory.

1855 tout par. So A. F: trop par, which is also possible.

1868 roiz. So A. F, M, B, J: roy.

1921 retolt. So A. F, M, B, E, K: retost, a reading that also gives sense. A’s retolt could be a scribal error.

1926 ton. So F. A: son, which is a clear error.

1927 se exente. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R have the contracted form sexente.

1929 qui exenter. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R have the contracted form quexenter.

1937 Quant aus. So F. A: Quant selle, a diplography that does not give good sense.

1942 Faite. A: Faire, which is a spelling error.

1952 ou d’or. So H. A: d’or.

1955 en porte. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R emporte; A’s reading could be a scribal error but it gives good sense.

1965 Fortune nes. So H. A: fortune les, which gives poor sense.

1973 ce, amis. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: camis (the uncontracted form).

1985 vomisse. So F. A: honnisse ou, which is not as accurate a translation of the Biblical passage as that of the other manuscripts.

2024 qu’il. So A. F, M, B, E, K: qui.

2042 De. So A. F, M, B, E, K: Et, which gives equally good sense, making the two infinitives in this line dependent on dois in the line above rather than aviser. A’s reading is perhaps a scribal error.

2052 es. So A. F, B, K: yes.

2057 Et se tu dis. So A. The sentence begun with the conditional clause in this line is never in fact finished even though the reported hypothetical speech extends to line 2102.

2081–82 Desir me fait. . . . . me laisse durer. So H. These lines are reversed in A, a scribal error likely caused by the elaborate word play on the rhyme words.

2122 Combien qu’il. So H. A: que quil, a miswriting.

2166 Seur. So F, M, B, E, K. A: Sur.

2196 et t’aidera. So A. F, B, E, K: et aidera.

2220 ces. So A. F, M, B, E, K: ses.

2236 tuit dous. So A. F, B, E, K: tous dous.

2255 amer si. A: ame si, a spelling error.

2264 sage. A: sge, a spelling error.

2267 sara. So B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R. A: sera, a spelling error.

2361 Typhoeüs. A: thypheus, a misspelling.

2371 Qu’il. So A. F, M, B, E, K: Qui.

2382 crosle. So A. F, M, K: crole.

2415 turquois. So A. B, E, K: trucois.

2424 fors. So A. F, M, B, E, K: fort.

2463 qui. So A. F, M, B, E, K: que.

2473 hastë. So A. F, M, B, E, K: hasta.

2490 Dyane. So B, D, E, F, J, K, M, P, R. A: leaue.

2611 divin. So A. F, M, B, E, K: devin.

2619 tourblees. So A. B, E, K: troublees.

2658 d’amour. A: donnour for damour, a clear error.

2700 cor. A: corps, a spelling error.

2707 scez. So B, D, E, F, J, K, M, P, R. A: scez tu.

2715 Par. So A. F, M, B, E, K: Quant, which gives inferior sense.

2726 son amy. A: son a amy, a miswriting.

2735 esprise. So A. F, M, K: emprise, which gives equally good sense.

2784 Qu’il. So A. F, M, K: Qui, a reading which is inferior.

2805 Pompee. A: pinpee, a miswriting.

2851 trouvasses. A: trouvassent, a scribal error.

2957 aviaus. A: aveaus, a misspelling.

2986 Qu’onques. A: quonq, a miswriting.

3024 Boselau. So F. A: brelelau, a miswriting based on eyeskip from the previous line.

3034 plus de sis mille. So B, D, E, F, J, K, M, P, R. A repeats en une ville from previous line.

3061 Basenouve. So H. A: basenonne, which makes no sense.

3062 Lendouve. So H. A: Lendonne, a miswriting due to geographical misunderstanding.

3142 mise. So A. F, M, B, K: mes, a clear error.

3161 vueilliez. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: vueilles.

3162 vraiement. So H. A: vraient, a spelling error.

3163 vraiement. So H. A: vraient, a spelling error.

3193 congnoist. A: congnoit, a spelling error.

3195–3202 Qu’en cas qui . . . . honnorable et sage. A difficult passage. I take ceste chose in line 3200 as referring to weeping at misfortune.

3198 faut. A: faus, a spelling error.

3230 nouiaus. So H. A: nouias, a misspelling.

3246 Y. So A. All other manuscripts Il, an equally good reading.

3270 Qu’einsi. A: quinsi, a spelling error.

3296 riens vaille. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: les vaille.

3307 t’amentoy. So A. B, D, E, F, G, J, K, M, P, R: ramentoy, which also gives good sense.

3320 pour toy morte. A: por toute morte, a spelling error.

3341 seürement. A: seurmt, a spelling error.

3496 court. A: cour, a spelling error.

3556 Ja. So A. H: La, which gives an equally good reading.

3634 puissance. So A. H corrects to prudence without explanation.

3665 mie. So F, M, B, E, K. A: omits.

3679 est. So F, M, B, E, K. A: omits.

3714 jusqu’a. A: jusque, a spelling error.

3740 clers. A: cles, a spelling error.

3817 tu les vues. So E, F, K. A: omits les, giving an inferior reading.

3819 N’asservi. A: nasseui, a spelling error.

3920 parfection. A: profection, a spelling error.

3955 cornars. So F, H. A: couars gives possible but inferior sense.

3969 Glurvost. A: gluvost, a spelling error.

3991 qui. A: qiu, a spelling error.