And so it is described by Gerard as the Privet or Prim Print (_i.e._, _primé printemps_), and even in the seventeenth century, Cole says of ligustrum, "This herbe is called Primrose." When the name was fixed to our present plant I cannot say, but certainly before Shakespeare's time, though probably not long before. It is rather remarkable that the flower, which we now so much admire, seems to have been very much overlooked by the writers before Shakespeare. In the very old vocabularies it does not at all appear by its present Latin name, Primula vulgaris, but that is perhaps not to be wondered at, as nearly all the old botanists applied that name to the Daisy. But neither is it much noticed by any English name. I can only find it in two of the vocabularies. In an English Vocabulary of the fourteenth century is "Hæc pimpinella, A{e} primerolle," but it is very doubtful if this can be our Primrose, as the Pimpernel of old writers was the Burnet. Gower mentions it as the flower of the star Canis Minor-- "His stone and herbe as saith the scole Ben Achates and Primerole." _Conf. Aman._ lib. sept. (3, 130. Paulli). And in the treatise of Walter de Biblesworth (13th century) is-- "Primerole et primeveyre (cousloppe) Sur tere aperunt en tems de veyre." I should think there is no doubt this is our Primrose. Then we have Chaucer's description of a fine lady-- "Hir schos were laced on hir legges hyghe Sche was a Primerole, a piggesneyghe For any lord have liggyng in his bedde, Or yet for any gode yeman to wedde." _The Milleres Tale._ I have dwelt longer than usual on the name of this flower, because it gives us an excellent example of how much literary interest may be found even in the names of our common English plants.