^{page 142 note 1} Cited by Léon Gautier in La Chevalerie, p. 119; P. Paris in the Hist. Litt. de la France, vol. 22, p. 397; Alfred Franklin in La Vie Privée d'Autrefois, vol. 19, p. 27. The incident even found its way into history, being ascribed to Queen Blanche and her son Louis IX by H. Martin in his Hist. de la France, vol. 4, p. 134 (4th edition, 1857).

^{page 142 note 2} P. 133.

^{page 143 note 1} Statements to this effect are found in the first three authors mentioned in the note above and have been generally accepted. For example P. Paris says: “On voit ici que les femmes de haut rang avaient renoncé, dès la fin du XIIe siècle, à l'usage d'allaiter elles-mêmes leurs enfants. La comtesse Ida est grandement louée de n'avoir pas voulu suivre leur exemple.”

^{page 144 note 1} Text of Hippeau, vol. 2, vv. 533-543. Bib. nat. fonds français, ms. no. 1621 (formerly 7628). Cited by Gautier and Franklin in note given above.

^{page 144 note 2} Vol. 2, vv. 578-589.

^{page 145 note 1} It seems worth while to call attention to the fact that the Countess Ida's nursing her own children, about which so much has been said in the past, is made in these poems a part of a family tradition. Before the birth of Ida her mother received instructions from an angel to baptize her as soon as she should be born, before feeding her, and to nurse her from her own breast only.

^{page 145 note 2} The time indicated here is perhaps a little less than two months later than that of the preceding passage. The only period that is not definitely given is the length of time after child-birth before the formal ceremony of the mother's attendance at church took place. For this period see the following passage:

^{page 145 note 3} The printed text and the manuscript on which it is based both have two years, but the context as well as the agreement of the other mss. show that this is a mistake for three.

^{page 145 note 4} Vol. 2, vv. 632-644.

^{page 147 note 1} Vol. 2, vv. 685-722.

^{page 148 note 1} I wish to express here my thanks to Dr. Raymond Weeks of Columbia University, who was in Europe at the time this investigation began, and who examined and copied for me a large number of passages. Later the several hundred lines copied by Dr. Weeks, which formed the basis originally for this argument, were supplemented by photographic copies of three of the most important manuscripts entire, and by long passages from others; so that the material is believed to be sufficient to establish the classification that is made in this paper. Still later, after this paper was completed, I was able in England, France, and Switzerland to compare all of the mss. of which I have had any information. This comparison has not changed the classification given here except to confirm it more fully. However, it has been possible to place in the classification given in this paper three other mss. of which the readings, in corroboration of those classified first, were quoted, but to which it was not possible at that time to assign the exact weight of authority that should be given, through lack of more complete information. Since the classification of these mss. has only confirmed a text which was, it is believed, already well substantiated, it has not been thought worth while to rewrite the paper. The additional importance to be given to these mss. is, moreover, stated in a note below. It is, besides, our expectation to be able to give at some time an edition of the Godfrey poem, of which the original is so inadequately represented by the manuscript published by Hippeau.. It is primarily for this purpose, rather than to add useless support to a thesis already established, that we have endeavored to include all the important mss. of the poem in our classification.

^{page 149 note 1} These mss. have been described by Pigeonneau in Le Cycle de la Croisade, by Paulin Paris in the Manuscrits Français de la Bibliothèque du Roi and by Leroux de Lincy in the Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes. The lettering given here is entirely arbitrary, as it was adopted before any attempt was made to classify the manuscripts. The numbers, which in one or two instances show slight variations from those given by the writers mentioned above, are in accordance with the latest corrections of the Bibliothèque nationale.

^{page 150 note 1} I should like to express my very sincere appreciation of the kindness of Dr. Mülinen, Director of the Library of Berne, in copying for me certain pages of this ms. and later in making it possible for me to have a photographic reproduction of it, as well as for other favors.

^{page 151 note 1} Le Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroi de Bouillon, par le Baron de Reiffenberg, Bruxelles, 1846.

^{page 151 note 2} The nursing scene begins with verse 3061 but the incident is predicted elsewhere.

^{page 152 note 2} (a) British Museum, Additional manuscript no. 36615, Knight of the Swan, etc. Early 14th century manuscript, acquired in 1901. Formerly Ashburnham-Barrois. “The Godfrey branch beginning fo. 9 and said to be imperfect agrees with Hippeau text vv. 1-5190, but with many variations” (Information furnished by J. A. Herbert, Department of mss., British Museum). It is impossible with the present information to establish the exact relations of this ms. with those at Paris. It can be safely asserted, however, that it is not a copy of the D version edited by Hippeau.

(b) British Museum, ms. Royal 15 E vi, 15th century according to catalogue. For further description see Ward's catalogue, vol. 1, p. 708. This is a very greatly abbreviated ms., and unfortunatey it does not contain the passages under consideration.

^{page 152 note 3} Bibliothèque de la ville, Berne, ms. 320. For description see p. 325, Catalogus Codioum Bernensium, edited by H. Hagen, Berne, 1885.

^{page 152 note 4} See however note at the end of the list of mss. classified.

^{page 153 note 1} In both of these mss. are found the passages stating that all three sons were nursed until the eldest had reached a certain age, without important variation from those given above.

^{page 153 note 2} Li moiens si sesveille forment crie et baele (ms. 320 fo. 12vo, col. 2). Eustace is given as the second or middle son in this ms.

^{page 153 note 3} Puis en fu a tous jours l'enfes de force mendre (ms. 36615, Brit. Mus.).

^{page 154 note 1} It is a matter of historical interest to note in this connection that some of the early chroniclers of the Crusades, chief of whom is William of Tyr, make Godfrey the eldest son, and that this error has been often repeated until recent times. There is, however, no reason to doubt the facts. Eustace was the eldest, as might be inferred from his bearing his father's name and his succeeding him as count of Boulogne. This is fully confirmed by contemporary documents and the best late writers on Godfrey have accepted it without hesitation.

Nevertheless, the confusion has long remained. An examination of the ordinary books of reference will make this evident. The following deserve special mention. A not very antiquated edition of the Universal Encyclopedia says, “Godfrey the eldest son, born in 1061”; “Baldwin the youngest son, born in 1058,” just three years before his eldest brother, Godfrey! Most people would hold this unreasonable, but it does not seem so to the makers of encyclopedias; for Chambers has precisely the same statement. The International is more conservative, and agrees with Webster and some others. It says “Godfrey, the eldest of the three sons, born in 1058” and then gives “Baldwin, the youngest of the three,” born in 1058 also. The date of Eustace's birth is not given; but since he must come in between, it is certainly quite closely indicated. After this, no one should reproach the author of the poem for having them all born in two and one-half years.

^{page 156 note 1} It is worth adding that after this conclusion was reached it was confirmed in a very unexpected manner. Dr. Weeks kindly examined further some of the suspected passages of D mentioned above, and found two in which Eustace was written by a later hand over an erasure, and the conjecture that the name erased was Godfrey, was confirmed by finding Godfrey instead of Eustace in precisely these two passages in ms. C, which has everywhere copied D in making Eustace eldest. Evidently the author of the D version had forgotten in these two passages to substitute Eustace for Godfrey, a later hand has corrected the error in D, but the errors remain in C.

^{page 158 note 1} Romania, vol. 17, 1888, p. 526.

^{page 158 note 2} La Gran Conquista de Ultramar (Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, vol. 44), page 93, chapter 148.

^{page 159 note 1} Gran Conquista, p. 94, chap. 149,

^{page 163 note 1} These versions are indicated in the figure by the letters Sp, y, w and x. The last three are ordinarily spoken of in this paper as the D, B and A-S versions, taking their designation in each case from the most important ms. or mss. representing them.

^{page 164 note 1} It is very evident here that D and C changed the word moiens to li uns because in this version Eustace is no longer the middle son but was made, as has been mentioned, the eldest. However, the other line given, which speaks of his lesser prowess, makes it no less clear in these than in the others, that this son is Eustace.

^{page 165 note 1} It should be noted that B could not get the reading moiens from any ms. of the D version because of the different relative ages of the sons in this version. It is certain, then, that B has an independent value in this passage, even if we did not know that it regularly has in the text common to all the versions.

^{page 165 note 2} Attention is called to the fact that E-G, which is one branch of the SAEG version, agrees with D, B, and Sp in this case. A number of similar cases could be found.

^{page 166 note 1} One is somewhat puzzled to understand why the nursing incident has been so generally understood as referring to Godfrey, since none of the mss. support such interpretation. The most reasonable conjecture would seem to be that those who have read it have had this son in mind on account of his great fame and the poem's bearing his name as title; so that passages which would make this interpretation impossible have not been noticed. If such be the case, it is another striking evidence of that common principle of the Chanson de Geste, that a very prominent hero is apt to attract to himself all the exploits of those of less fame. One would hardly expect, however, to see such additions to the Godfrey legend by 19th century critics.

^{page 167 note 1} Because one of the most frequently cited pieces of evidence indicating the universal employment of nurses at this period rests on a misinterpretation, it is not the intention to imply here that the generalization itself is also necessarily erroneous. However, a large number of passages on this subject, collected from contemporary sources, lead us to suggest that a re-examination of this question might be worth while, and that if this were made, there might be reason to modify the historical statement heretofore generally accepted.