I have no belief in the genuineness of this piece, though it is not ill written. In general, the ascription of a piece to Chaucer in a MS. is valuable. But the scribe of this particular MS. was reckless. It is he who made the mistake of marking Hoccleve's 'Mother of God' with the misleading remark--'Explicit or_aci_o Galfridi Chaucere.' At fol. 119, back, he gives us a poem beginning 'Deuise prowes and eke humylitee' in seven 7-line stanzas, and here again at the end is the absurd remark--'Q_uo_d Chaucer quhen he was ry_ch_t auisit.' But he was himself quite 'wrongly advised'; for it is plainly not Chaucer's at all. His next feat is to mark Lydgate's Complaynt of the Black Knight by saying--'Here endith the Maying and disporte of Chaucere'; which shews how the editors were misled as to this poem. Nor is this all; for he gives us, at fol. 137, back, another poem in six 8-line stanzas, beginning 'O hie Emperice and quene celestial'; and here again at the end is his stupid--'Q_uo_d Chaucere.' The date of this MS. appears to be 1472; so it is of no high authority; and, unless we make some verbal alteration, we shall have to explain how Chaucer came to write _oftsiss_ in two syllables instead of _ofte sythe_ in four; see his Can. Yem. Tale, Group G, l. 1031. 72. _Leaulte vault Richesse_; pr. in vol. vi. p. 302, for the first time. This is from the same MS., fol. 138, and is as follows:-- 'This warldly Ioy is onely fantasy, Of quhich non erdly wicht ca_n_ be _con_tent; Quho most has wit, leste suld In It affy, Quho taist_is_ It most, most sall him repent; Quhat valis all this richess and this rent, Sen no ma_n_ wate quho sall his tresour haue? P_re_sume no_ch_t gevin th_a_t god has done but lent, Within schort tyme the quhiche he think_is_ to craue. _Leaulte vault richess._' On this poem, I have three remarks to make. The first is that not even the reckless Scottish scribe attributes it to Chaucer. The second is that Chaucer's forms are _content_ and _lent_ without a final _e_, and _repent-e_ and _rent-e_ with a final _-e_, so that the poem cannot be his; although _content_, _repent_, _rent_, and _lent_ rime well enough in the Northern dialect. The third is that if I could be sure that the above lines were by a well-known author, I should at once ascribe them to King James I., who might very well have written these and the lines called _Prosperity_ above. It is somewhat of a coincidence that the very MS. here discussed is that in which the unique copy of the _Kingis Quair_ is preserved. 73. _Proverbs of Chaucer_; printed in vol. vi. p. 303. The first eight lines are genuine; here printed as no. XX. But two 7-line stanzas are added, which are spurious. In MS. Addit. 16165, Shirley tells us that they were 'made by Halsham Esquyer'; but they seem to be Lydgate's, unless he _added_ to them. See Lydgate's Minor Poems (Percy Soc. 1840), pp. 193 and 74. And see pp. 52, 57.