1707. With al the signe, ‘together with the signe,’ like the French ‘ove tout’; cp. Mirour 4 (note).
1745 f. Rom. de Troie, 30022 ff. Guido omits this.
1769 ff. For this repetition cp. 2095 ff.
1785. The ‘Cronique imperial’ is evidently the story itself, and not any particular book in which it is to be found.
1789 ff. The authority which is mainly followed by our author for this story is the Anglo-Norman Roman de toute Chevalerie, by Eustace (or Thomas) of Kent. The beginning of this, including all that we have to do with here, has been printed by M. Paul Meyer in his book on the Alexander romances, ‘Bibliothèque française du moyen âge’ vol. iv. pp. 195-216. Gower was acquainted, however, also with the Latin Historia Alexandri de Preliis, and has made use of this in certain places, as (1) in the account of Philip’s vision (2129-2170) where he probably found the French unintelligible, and (2) in the story of the death of Nectanabus (2289 ff.), of which the Latin authority certainly gives the more satisfactory account.
The following are some of the points in which Gower agrees with the Roman de toute Chevalerie against the two Latin versions of the story, viz. the Historia de Preliis and the Res Gestae Alexandri of Valerius: (1) the celebration by Olympias of the festival of her nativity, when she rides out on a white mule and is first seen by Nectanabus, ll. 1823-1880; (2) the omission of the sealing of the queen’s womb by Nectanabus, this being introduced only in Philip’s vision; (3) the question of the queen as to how she shall procure further interviews with the god, and the answer of Nectanabus, ll. 2109 ff.; (4) the circumstances connected with the egg from which the serpent was hatched, ll. 2219 ff. The English metrical Romance of Alexander, printed by Weber, is also taken from the Roman de toute Chevalerie, and consequently the details of it are for the most part the same as those in Gower. It is certain, however, that Gower does not follow this. It would be quite contrary to his practice to follow an English authority, and apart from this there are many small matters here in which he agrees with the French as against the English, e. g. the name Nectanabus, which is Neptanabus in the English (Anectanabus in the Hist. de Preliis), the mention of the nativity of Olympias as the occasion of her festival, ‘Grant feste tint la dame de sa nativité,’ the use of the word ‘artemage,’ l. 1957, the incident of the dragon being changed into an eagle, l. 2200; and such points of correspondence as may seem to suggest a connexion between the two English writers, as in ll. 1844 f., 2231 f., are also to be found in the French. The English alliterative Romance of Alexander follows the Hist. de Preliis, and consequently it agrees with Gower in the two passages which have been referred to above.
1798. The sentence is broken off and finished in a different manner. See note on i. 98, and cp. vii. 3632.
1811. Thre yomen, &c. This is an addition by Gower. According to the original story Nectanabus was alone, and this would evidently be the better for his purpose.
1828. list. This may be present tense, ‘it pleases.’ Loss of the final e in the preterite would hardly occur except before a vowel: see Introduction, p. cxv. The French original lays stress here on the extravagant desire that women have to display themselves.
1831. At after, i. e. ‘After,’ used especially of meals, cp. l. 1181, and Chaucer, Cant. Tales, B 1445, F 918 ‘at after diner,’ E 1921 ‘At after mete,’ F 302, 1219 ‘At after soper,’ for which references, as for many others elsewhere, I am indebted to Prof. Skeat’s very useful Glossary.