COMMENTARY NOTES

Sir Patrick Young [1584 - 1652] Royal Librarian and one of the leading scholars of the age. Biography in Dictionary of National Biography.
sic etiam veterum Graecorum et Romanorum numismata The analogy is carefully chosen: one of Sir Patrick Young’s enthusiasms was numismatics, and his annotations on Louis Savot’s work on Roman coins were finally published in 1770.
deperditare In my translation I assume that this verb (not to be found in any classical Latin lexicon) is intransitive.
non solum Sancti Clementis epistolam Young published an edition of Clement’s first epistle to the Corinthians in 1633. He was also entrusted with the task of editing an Alexandrian codex of the Septuagint, but never published more than a few sample pages.
vatis celeberrimi et popularis tui Buchanani The allusion to the Scots Humanist poet George Buchanan is especially appropriate, not only because of Young’s Scottish descent, but more particularly because Buchanan and his father Sir Peter Young were two of King James’ four tutors.
in heptenario 791, et 144 lib. 1 I have no idea what Kynaston is talking about. I.791 (I.113.7) contains no reference to religion. Is he referring Chaucer’s mention of Hell at I.113.2 (which has no Latin equivalent)? The reference to I.144 (I.21.4) is even more baffling.
tanquam leoninos Properly speaking, leonine verses are verses with internal rhymes. Here Kynaston seems to use the phrase loosely to designate cheap rhyming doggerel.
John Rouse [1574 - 1652], Librarian of the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Biography in the Dictionary of National Biography. He is best remembered for the mock-heroic ode in Latin written to him by Milton in 1647.
appareant rari nantes Vergil, Aeneid I.118.
quod Castora et Pollucem The patron deities of mariners.
I.5.6 The book has cogantur.
I.6.6 The book has faxit.
I.8.4 The book has restus (so too the manuscript, before correction by overwriting).
I.9.1 In the manuscript, quod is written and then crossed out.
I.10.3 The manuscript has Chalchas here and in the next stanza (but not elsewhere).
I.13.7 Both the book and the manuscript have concremati.
I.16.6 The manuscript has miserecordia.
I.17.1 In the manuscript the book reading Erat autem is crossed out and Nunc erat is substituted.
I.19.3 The book has precelebris (so too the manuscript, before correction by overwriting).
I.22.2 The book has Troas (so too the manuscript, before correction by overwriting).
I.24.2 The manuscript has omnes ibant.
I.28.3 The book has Si armiger ullusve eques edat.
I.34.6 In the manuscript the book reading Amor ut possit is crossed out, and Quod Amor potest is substituted.
I.34.7 In the manuscript the book line Et nemo ius Naturae violare is crossed out, and Naturam nemo potest violare is substituted.
I.36.4 In the manuscript the book reading amor is crossed out, and est is substituted.
I.36.6 In the manuscript the book reading Ex is crossed out, and Nam is substituted.
I.39.4 Both the book and the manuscript have ceu. As ceu and seu were homophones at the time, they were constantly confused.
I.44.2 The book has temnere.
I.51.1 The manuscript has Et quando (but cf. Chaucer’s But for all this).
I.56.7 The book has Perire (presumably, although wrongly, used as a synonym for Deperire). This is also written in the manuscript, but is crossed out, and Amare is substituted.
I.64.7 The manuscript has proprius.
I.65.2 Kynaston’s line is a remarkable embroidery on Chaucer’s This, trowe I, knoweth al this compagnye.
I.66.3 The manuscript has queis servio corrected to quibus servio.
I.67.5 The book has miserescat. This is also written in the manuscript, but is altered to misereatur.
I.81.1 Est is omitted in the book, and also originally in the manuscript, where it is added as a superscript.
I.109.6 The manuscript has est plorare, corrected to est deplorare.
I.114.7 In the manuscript the book reading vellet is crossed out, and vult is substituted (the alteration improves the meter).
I.132.5 The manuscript has superbiri.
I.135.2 The book has propitiis. So too the manuscript, prior to correction.
I.149.1 The manuscript has Tum.
II.2.3 The manuscript appears to have finium.
II.2.7 Compare the English original, But out of Latin in my tongue it wryte.
II.4.6 The book has saecis.
II.8.1 In the manuscript genitore is corrected to genitori by overwriting.
II.11.5 The manuscript has permittendum.
II.35.7 The book has reperare.So too, evidently, did the manuscript; if so, this has been corrected by overwriting.
II.40.2 In the manuscript illa is omitted, and ea subsequently added in superscript.
II.43.4
The manuscript has Ut for Ac.
II.44.7
The manuscript has audieres.
II.47.4 The book has Haec. So too did the manuscript, but this has been altered to His by overwriting.
II.49.4 The book has haberetur. So too the manuscript, but this has been altered to habeatur.
II.56.5 The manuscript appears to have illa, perhaps corrected to ille by overwriting.
II.59.3 For another example of rhyming dicit with a word ending with -sit see II.73.3 below.
II.65.5 In the manuscript tunc is omitted, and the copyist first wrote nil and then altered it to nihil to make up the missing syllable.
II.70.1 The manuscript has ego testor.
II.72.5 The book has aliter. So too the manuscript, before correction.
II.81.2 Both the book and the manuscript have proprius.
II.110.7 The book has Et prae timore tantum non cadebat. So too the manuscript, but tantum non has been crossed out and replaced by fere ea.
II.135.4
The book has Torilus.
II.140.2 The book has qnodcunque.
II.141.2 The manuscript has meum corculum charum.
II.148.4 The book has chordam increparet. So too the manuscript, but the word has been crossed out and personaret substituted.
II.159.5 The manuscript has apulit.
II.170.6 The manuscript has scisitata.
II.179.6 The manuscript has Quem ad quamprimum.
II.180.3 The book omits non, as does the manuscript prior to its addition as a superscript.
II.182.3 The manuscript has poena.
II.200.6f. The book has the couplet:

Cui Pandarus, “Ante totum peragrabit
Quam coelum sol, te inscius is iuvabit.”

These lines were also written in the manuscript, then crossed out and the present ones substituted.
II.212.7 In the manuscript, the line was written as in the book, and then the copyist squeeze is between certamen and quanducunque. But the added syllable ruins the meter.
II.231.6 In the book tam is omitted. So too in the manuscript, prior to correction.
II.233.6 The book has Ut ipsam et negotium. So too the manuscript, prior to correction.
II.235.1 The manuscript has paulum.
II.235.7 The manuscript has adire (but cf. Chaucer’s And as he may enduren, he wole here).
II.236.4 The book has iuduceretur.
II.243.4 The book has quaerit. So too the manuscript, prior to correction.
II.246.3 The book has gratius veni mecum. So too the manuscript, prior to alteration.
II.247.7 The book has docore.
III.5.4 The manuscript has Super quias.
III.35.5f. The manuscript has:

Ut ego totis viribus (ut decebat)
Ex eo ego feci hoc negotium,

The repetition of ego seems quite unnecessary. On the basis of the English Hath ever sithen doon my bisiness, one might hazard the guess that in line 6 ego has replaced an original semper.
III.65.2 The manuscript has Quid interim.
III.89.2 I do not understand the syntax of urgente. One would expect urgens, construed with influxus and taking coelonos (colonos) as its object. But this appears to be an error of composition, not transcription (it is as if Kynaston momentarily imagined that urgente was a vocative form).
III.89.4 The manuscript has bruta, which is comprehensible, taken adjectivally modifying causa, but in view of Chaucer’s Though to us bestes ben the causes wrie, brutos seems preferable.
III.106.1 The manuscript has Mussillanime, and it is barely conceivable this is a nonce-word. But since Kynaston is not otherwise given to coining neologisms, this is much more probably a transcriptional error for pusillanime.
III.109.6 The manuscript has ait illa, but in Chaucer the speech belongs to Pandarus: he is urging her not to make a fuss, so as not to awaken anyone and compromise herself.
III.115.5 The manuscript clearly has novet (n and u are usually are distinguished, and this is written as one word). In view of Chaucer’s My deere herte wolde me nat holde / so lightly fals, non et is a preferable reading (the et can be explained by assuming Creseida is saying “I am surprised that Troilus as well as the man spreading this tale would hold me false”).
III.124.6 The manuscript has es tam chari.
III.137.2 Although the first letter of the word is admittedly ill-formed, the manuscript appears to have tecti.
III.148.4 The manuscript has miserecordia.
III.152.6 One might expect to find discimus rather than docemus. Perhaps the idea is that “We writers in general teach this in our stories.”
III.157.6 Evidently pusium is a diminutive of pusus = puer.
III.167.2 The manuscript has mil putabam.
III.169.1 The manuscript has Miserecors.
III.170.1 The manuscript has haec, perhaps corrected by overwriting.
III.171.2 Eringillarius = Spearhawk.
III.176.6 Aegina = woodbine.
III.181.1f. In the manuscript, the first line of this stanza is Amor, tu sacer rerum, talis. For want of a negative, the Latin says the opposite of Chaucer’s assertion:

Whoso wol grace, and list the nought honouren,
Lo, his desir wol fle withouten wynges.

The need for talis is far from self-evident, and one suspects the true reading is minus.
III.185.3 The manuscript has ora.
III.189.4 The manuscript has Ceu.
III.193.7 The manuscript has illa nescit (cf. Chaucer’s That where his spirit was, for joie he nyste).
III.196.6 Rubinus = ruby, both here and at V.68.3.
III.203.3 Facialis) = messenger, herald.
III.206.2 The manuscript has deus.
III.214.7 The manuscript has Troilus et Creseida (cf. Chaucer’s Or Troilus out of Criseydes herte).
III.220.7 As far as one can see from the microfilm, the manuscript appears to have relatur (cf. Chaucer’s A thousand fold was worth more than he wende).
III.221.4 The manuscipt has avidentia, with the second letter changed from something else by overwriting. Cf. Chaucer:

And fermely impressen in his mynde
The leeste point that to hym was pleasaunce.

III.226.2 The manuscript has condonbat.
III.245.4 The manuscript has conveinendi.
III.253.4 From the microfilm it appears that the manuscript has ut cui se solvat. Compare Chaucer’s, That from his bond no wight the wey out wiste (Kynaston is fond of using qui = “how”).
III.254.1 From the microfilm it appears that the manuscript has belli.
III.254.7 The manuscript has spiritus sic fuere, but sic appears to have been blotted out (which improves the meter).
III.257.2 The manuscript has Qui.
IV.3 \For the reader to appreciate Kynaston’s omissions, and to read his Latin translation in conjuction with a modern text of Chaucer, the equivalent stanzas in Root’s edition are indicated by square brackets.
IV.5.1 The manuscript has a nonsensical samiatis. Faute de mieuxI assume that this is an error for saniatis, a non-classical participle of a verb derived from sanies (“gore”).
IV.6.1 The manuscript has captivativus.
IV.9.7 One might expect a locative Troiae, but Troia is also used at V.71.1 and V.102.7.
IV.11.4 Cambium = supply of prisoners available for exchange.
IV.21.5 Kynaston appears to have confused the words carina (“keel” or “ship”) and carinum (“nut-brown garment”), used to translate Chaucer’s the blake bark of care.
IV.38.1 The manuscript has seperati.
IV.39.4 Nolis does not seem to fit the context (unless Kynaston wrote Num nolis).
IV.40.2 The manuscript has amoe.
IV.43.3 The manuscript has Sed id eam.
VI.44.6 The text would of of course be improved by substituting mallem, but it is unclear whether the fault is the author’s or the copyist’s.
IV.50.6 The manuscript has qua audiebat.
IV.58.4 The manuscript has seperati.
IV.62.3 The manuscript has Creseida.
IV.68.4 The manuscript has meae potis, but evidently we should read mea in view of nostra potis at IV.36.3and V.20.6.
IV.63.7 The manuscript has miserecordia.
IV.70.1 The manuscript has seperari.
IV.80.7 The manuscripot has comotum.
IV.82.1 The manuscript has miserecordiam.
IV.82.6 Cineritia = ashen color (with inerat to be supplied by the reader, and also fuerat in the following line).
IV.86.3 The manuscript has proditoris.
IV.87.6 The manuscript has nos vina vivere (the extra i is quite legible).
IV.102.4 The manuscript has sinere (unmetrically).
IV.107.7 The manuscript has tuas.
IV.114.7 The manuscript has capiat
IV.115.7 The manuscript has cum tu fama.
IV.122.6 The manuscript has Athamaente.
IV.125.7 The manuscript has erit nam probatum, but nam seems inappropriate here: one suspects that Kynaston wrote cum(i. e., “when I die”, cf. Chaucer’s it shal be founde at preve).
V.15.5 The manuscript has peterat.
V.20.5 The manuscript has deuum.
V.23.3 The manuscript has afferrebat.
V.28.3 The manuscript has brahia.
V.28.6 The manuscript has inana.
V.36.2 The manuscript has Quod me.
V.36.5 The manuscript has vellis.
V.42.3 The manuscript has necesario.
V.42.5 The manuscript has macresset.
V.49.2 The manuscript has tibipsi.
V.62.2 Septimana = a week.
V.76.7 The manuscript has restrurabit (sic).
V.79.7 The manuscript has seperati.
V.80.7 The manuscript has Quem omnem.
V.81.6 The manuscript has possim, but even by Kynaston’s loose standards it is difficult to see why the subjunctive is appropriate here.
V.84.5 The manuscript has Ex eo quod.
V.90.3 The manuscript has Prosper successus illi. Emendation to Prospero would wreck the meter.
V.94.3 In the manuscript precari is preceded by a word e[…]eum. The word is partially blotted or crossed out, and probably the copyist meant to cross out the entire word, since the line scans properly without it.
V.108.3 The manuscript has seperari.
V.105.9 The first quod in this line may be a copyist’s mistake, written under the influence of the second quod (it cannot be construed with contiget, since that verb is used with fore). Perhaps Kynaston wrote Tum.
V.102.5 Chyrotheca (chirotheca) = glove.
V.114.5 The manuscript has particeps. Read participes, with the first and last syllables stressed.
V.116.7 The manuscript has manica sua (Kynaston uses manica as if it existed in the singular).
V.126.5 Coniecto is a bastard equivalent of coniicio.
V.136.6 and V.137.1 The manuscript has Quod in both lines. One might think quo is preferable, on the grounds that Troilus was not walking because he saw the boar and Creseida, but where he saw them. But quod is perhaps defensible by thinking that the reader is supposed to supply somniavit.
V.145.5 The manuscript has Morata es (cum siquid dixti veri).
V.147.2 The manuscript has inexcorabilis.
V.149.6 The manuscript has miserecordia.
V.153.5 The manuscript has obstare.
V.157.7 The manuscript has credendem.
V.168.5 The manuscript has Troilus.
V.172.2 The manuscript has miserecordiam.
V.175.5 The manuscript has elogium (cf. Chaucer’s Of youre good word).
V.190.7 I have added non (which must be elided with amplius to preserve the meter) because of Chaucer’s I can no-more seye.
V.191.4 The manuscript has Troilus.