4652. _to another_, to another of the pilgrims. This is so absurdly indefinite that it can hardly be genuine. Ll. 4637-4649 are in Chaucer's most characteristic manner, and are obviously genuine; but there, I suspect, we must stop, viz. at the word _Portingale_. The next three lines form a mere stop-gap, and are either spurious, or were jotted down temporarily, to await the time of revision. The former is more probable. This Epilogue is only found in three MSS.; (see footnote, p. 289). In Dd., Group G follows, beginning with the Second Nun's Tale. In the other two MSS., Group H follows, i. e. the Manciple's Tale; nevertheless, MS. Addit. absurdly puts _the Nunne_, in place of _another_. The net result is, that, at this place, the gap is _complete_; with no hint as to what Tale should follow. It is worthy of note that this Epilogue is preserved in Thynne and the old black-letter editions, in which it is followed immediately by the Manciple's Prologue. This arrangement is obviously wrong, because that Prologue is not introduced by the Host (as said in l. 4652). In l. 4650, Thynne has _But_ for _Now_; and his last line runs--'Sayd to a nother man, as ye shal here.' I adopt his reading of _to_ for _unto_ (as in the MSS.). * * * * * [260] NOTES TO GROUP C. THE PHISICIENS TALE. For remarks on the spurious Prologues to this Tale, see vol. iii. p. 434. For further remarks on the Tale, see the same, p. 435, where its original is printed in full. 1. The story is told by Livy, lib. iii.; and, of course, his narrative is the source of all the rest. But Tyrwhitt well remarks, in a note to l. 12074 (i. e. C. 140):--'In the Discourse, &c., I forgot to mention the Roman de la Rose as one of the sources of this tale; though, upon examination, I find that our author has drawn more from thence, than from either Gower or Livy.' It is absurd to argue, as in Bell's Chaucer, that our poet must necessarily have known Livy 'in the original,' and then to draw the conclusion that we must look to Livy only as the true source of the Tale. For it is perfectly obvious that Tyrwhitt is right as regards the Roman de la Rose; and the belief that Chaucer may have read the tale 'in the original' does not alter _the fact_ that he trusted much more to the French text. In this very first line, he is merely quoting Le Roman, ll. 5617, 8:-- 'Qui fu fille Virginius, _Si cum dist Titus Livius_.' The story in the French text occupies 70 lines (5613-5682, ed. Méon); the chief points of resemblance are noted below. Gower has the same story, Conf. Amant. iii. 264-270; but I see no reason why Chaucer should be considered as indebted to him. It is, however, clear that, if Chaucer and Gower be here compared, the latter suffers considerably by the comparison.