§ 26. For example, in l. 1188, all the editions have _sarlynysh_, there being no such word. It is an obvious error for _Sarsinesshe_ (riming with _fresshe_); for the F. text has _Sarrazinesche_, i. e. Saracenic. In l. 1201, the authorities and Bell have _gousfaucoun_, which Morris alters to _gounfaucoun_ in his text, and to _gownfaucoun_ in his glossary. But all of these are 'ghost-words,' i. e. non-existent. Seeing that the original has _gonfanon_, it is clear that Chaucer wrote _gonfanoun_, riming with _renoun_. In l. 1379, late editions have _lorey_; in l. 1313, Bell has _loreryes_, which Morris alters to _loreyes_. There is no such word as _lorey_. Thynne has _laurer_, _laurelles_. Considering that _loreres_ rimes with _oliveres_, it is obvious that the right forms are _lorer_ and _loreres_ (French, _loriers_); see _laurer_ in Stratmann. In l. 1420, where the authorities have _veluet_, the modern editions have _velvet_. But the _u_ (also written _ou_) was at that time a vowel, and _velu-et_ (or _velou-et_) was trisyllabic, as the rhythm shews. The modern _velvet_ seems to have arisen from a mistake. Several other restorations of the text are pointed out in the notes, and I need not say more about them here. N.B. After l. 4658, the lines in Morris's edition are misnumbered. His l. 4670 is really l. 4667; and so on. Also, 5700 is printed in the wrong place; and so is 6010; but without throwing out the numbering. Also, 6210 is only _nine_ lines after 6200, throwing out the subsequent numbering, so that his l. 6220 is really 6216. At his l. 6232, 6231 is printed, and so counted; thus, his 6240 is really 6237. His 6380 is _eleven_ lines after 6370, and is really 6378. After l. 7172, I insert two lines by translation, to fill up a slight gap. This makes his l. 7180 agree with my l. 7180, and brings his numbering right again. For a few of the Notes, I am indebted to Bell's edition; but most of the work in them is my own. § 27. THE FRENCH TEXT. For some account of the famous French poem entitled 'Le Roman de la Rose,' see Morley's English Writers, 1889, iv. 1. It was commenced by Guillaume de Lorris, born at Lorris, in the valley of the Loire, who wrote it at the age of five-and-twenty, probably between the years 1200 and 1230[194]. He must have died young, as he left the poem incomplete, though it then extended to 4070 lines. It was continued, a little more than 40 years after Guillaume's death, by Jean de Meun (or Meung), born (as he tells us) at Meung-sur-Loire, and surnamed _le Clopinel_ (i. e. the hobbler, the lame). See, for these facts, the French text, ll. 10601, 10603, 10626. He added 18004 lines, so that the whole poem finally extended to the enormous length of 22074 lines.