_flaket_, the same as the M.E. _flakett_, _flacket_ (French _flaschet_). The form _flaquet_ is assumed as a Northern French word by the _New Eng. Dict._, but not cited as occurring. _leisour_, as a variation of _loisir_, _leisir_. _lusard_: cp. _Piers Plowman_, B. xviii. 335. _menal_, _meynal_, adj. in the sense of ‘subject.’ _nice_: note the development of sense from ‘foolish,’ _Mir._ 1331, 7673, to ‘foolishly scrupulous,’ 24858, and thence to ‘delicate,’ ‘pleasant,’ 264, 979. _papir_, the same form that we find in the English of Chaucer and Gower. _parlesie_, M.E. _parlesie_, _palesie_. _perjurie_, a variation of _perjure_, which established itself in English. _phesant_: early M.E. _fesaun_, Chaucer _fesaunt_. _philosophre_, as in M.E., beside _philosophe_. _queinte_, _a(c)queintance_: the forms which correspond to those used in English; less usually _quointe_, _aquointance_. _reverie_, ‘revelry,’ which suggests the connexion of the English word with _rêver_, rather than with _reveler_ from ‘rebellare.’ However, _revel_ and _reveller_ occur also in our texts. _reviler_. Skeat, _Etym. Dict._, says ‘there is no word _reviler_ or _viler_ in French.’ Both are used in the _Mirour_. _rewarder_, _rewardie_, _rewardise_, in the sense of the English ‘reward.’ _sercher_, Eng. ‘search,’ the more usual form for _cercher_. _somonce_: this is the form required to account for the M.E. _somouns_, ‘summons.’ _traicier_, _traiçour_, names given (in England) to those who made it their business to pack juries. _trote_, used for ‘old woman’ in an uncomplimentary sense. _université_, ‘community.’ _voiage_ (not _viage_): this form is therefore of the 14th century. MIROUR DE L’OMME. AUTHORSHIP.--The evidence of authorship rests on two distinct grounds: first, its correspondence in title and contents with the description given by Gower of his principal French work; and secondly, its remarkable resemblance in style and substance to the poet’s acknowledged works. We return therefore to the statement before referred to about the three principal books claimed by our author: and first an explanation should be made on the subject of the title. The statement in question underwent progressive revision at the hands of the author and appears in three forms, the succession of which is marked by the fact that they are connected with three successive editions of the _Confessio Amantis_. In the two first of these three forms the title of the French work is _Speculum Hominis_, in the third it is _Speculum Meditantis_, the alteration having been made apparently in order to produce similarity of termination with the titles of the two other books[H]. We are justified therefore in assuming that the original title was _Speculum Hominis_, or its French equivalent, _Mirour de l’omme_. The author’s account, then, of his French work is as follows: