[38] Church chroniclers who were contemporaries of WYCLIF, girded at him as a blasphemer. CAPGRAVE: _Cron. of Eng. (Rolls Series)_, speaks of him as “the orgon of the devel, the enmy of the Cherch, the confusion of men, the ydol of heresie,” etc. NETTER collected his (alleged) false doctrines under title of _Bundles of Tares (Fasciculi Zizaniorum)_, Ed. by SHIRLEY, 1858. Dr. ROBT. VAUGHAN is author of a very pleasant monograph on WYCLIF, with much topographic lore. Dr. LECHLER is a more scholarly contributor to WYCLIF literature; and the Early Eng. Text Soc. has published (1880) MATHEWS’ Ed. of “_hitherto unprinted Eng. works_ of WYCLIF, with notice of his life.” RUDOLPH BUDDENSEIG, (of Dresden) has Ed. his polemical works in Latin (old) besides contributing an interesting notice for the anniversary just passed. Nor can I forbear naming in this connection the very eloquent quin-centenary address of Dr. RICHARD S. STORRS, of Brooklyn, N. Y. [39] Those who love books which are royal in their dignities of print and paper, will be interested in FORSHALL & MADDEN’S elegant 4to. edition of the Wyclifite versions of the Bible. [40] The biographers used to say 1328: this is now thought inadmissible by most commentators. FURNIVAL makes the birth-year 1340--in which he is followed by the two WARDS, and by Professor MINTO (_Br. Ency._). Evidence, however, is not as yet conclusive; and there is an even chance that further investigations may set back the birth-year to a date which will better justify and make more seemly those croakings of age which crept into some of the latter verse of the poet. For some facts looking in that direction, and for certain interesting genealogic Chaucer puzzles, see paper in _London Athenæum_ for January 29, 1881, by WALTER RYE. [41] _House of Fame_, Book II. [42] There is question of the authenticity of the translation usually attributed to Chaucer--of which there is only one fifteenth century MS. extant. Some version, however, Chaucer did make, if his own averment is to be credited. Prof. MINTO (_Br. Ency._) accepts the well-known version; so does WARD (_Men of Letters_); Messrs. BRADSHAW (of Cambridge) and Prof. TEN BRINK doubt--a doubt in which Mr. HUMPHREY WARD (_Eng. Poets_) seems to share. [43] SANDRAS: _Étude sur Chaucer_. [44] A notable edition is that of Prof. Lounsbury (Ginn & Heath, 1877); and it is much to be hoped that the same editor will bring his scholarly method of estimating dates, sources, and varying texts, to some more important Chaucerian labors. [45] Another possible epoch of meeting with Petrarch may have been in the year 1368, when at the junketings attending the wedding of Prince Lionel (in Milan), Petrarch was present; also--perhaps--Chaucer in the suite of the Prince. FROISSART makes note of the _Feste_, but without mention of either poet, or of his own presence. _Chap. ccxlvii., Liv. I._