729 ff. From this arises the very ill-advised digression of ll. 747-1970 about the various forms of Religion. There is no more reason why this should come in here than anywhere else, indeed if the question of false gods was to be raised at all, it ought to have come in as an explanation of the appearance of Venus and Cupid in the first book. Many stories have been told, for example those of Acteon, of the Gorgons, of Tiresias, of Phoebus and Daphne, of Phaeton, of Ceix, of Argus, and of Midas, which required the explanation quite as much as this one, and the awkwardness of putting it all info the mouth of the priest of Venus is inexcusable.
The main authority followed in this account of the religions of Chaldea, Egypt, and Greece is the Vita Barlaam et Josaphat, cap. xxvii. (Migne, Patrol. vol. 73, p. 548 ff.), but Gower adds much to it, especially as regards the gods and goddesses of Greece.
763. of Accidence: cp. ii. 3210.
774. hevenly: so Prol. 918, but ‘hevenely’ i. 834, 3136, the second syllable in that case being syncopated, as regularly in ‘hevene.’ So also in the case of ‘evermore’ and ‘everemore’ as compared with ‘evere.’
782. les, that is, ‘falsehood.’
798. Isirus, i.e. Osiris.
811. thegipcienes. This must be the true reading for the sake of the metre, both here and in l. 821, though the best copies fail to give it. A similar case occurs in l. 1119, but there the authority for ‘Jupiteres’ is made much stronger by the accession of S.
897. Mynitor, i.e. Numitor.
899 f. that Remus and Romulus. For the position of ‘that’ cp. 1166, 1249.
925. To gete him with: cp. i. 452.