242 KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. 



all was the plague, against which neither "dias " nor drugs nor physi- 

 cians might avail. 



Hunger is a better doctor than any physician (C, 

 Hygiene. IX., 268 ff.), and often Langland gives evidence of 



faith in diet and hygiene that is refreshing, and not 

 less so that it is based not upon learned treatises, but upon literal in- 

 terpretation of the Scriptures, and upon common sense. He believes 

 in labor and temperance for the physical health no less than for the 

 spiritual; and if one labor and be temperate in all things, then, says 

 Langland (C, IX., 293), — 



" — ich dar li-gge myn ores 

 TliJit Fysyk slial hus forrede liodes ti)r lius fode sulle, 

 And lius cloUe of Ciilabre for I1U.S communes logge. 

 And bi' fayn, by my faith, liis fysyk lo Icte, 

 And lornr lo laborc witli londc Irste lyflodc liym fade," 

 And finail)- jjassing from satire to serious earnest, — 



"Tlier an-n miny hithero loclu'S and Icelc It-clifs fevve, 

 Tliei don men deye tlior<rli liere drynkes er deslyne hit woldi-." 

 Langland doubts as does Chaucer, the efficiency of even the best of 

 physicians, and regards them always with a lurking smile. There may 

 be no hint of irreverence in the allusion to "Netlde the fisicien" (A, 

 VH., 170), though the designation looks suspiciously like a modern 

 nickname; or in the account of the contlict of age with a physician (C, 

 XXHL, 176)— 



Eld aventuri'i] him on Lifi', and at last he hit 

 A piiysician wilh a furred hood that lie fell in a palsy, 

 And there died that doctor ere three days aft»^r; — 

 but the meaning certainly seems to be that the members of the learned 

 fraternity were ornamental rather than useful. Elsewhere (C, XXHL, 

 171) we learn that the doctors take gold, good won, and give in re- 

 turn the imaginary protection of a glass hood. Langland has expressed 

 himself more briefly than Chaucer upon this subject (C. T. , Prol., 

 411-444), but not less to the point. 



Graiuiiiar. Langland's familiarity with the subject of grammar is 

 indicated (C, IV., 335 ff. ). He compares Bribery and Reward 

 to the direct and indirect relations in grammar. The substance of 

 this distinction is that reward is what one receives after duty done, 

 that is after conformity to rule, divine or human, the former especi- 

 ally; just as an adjective or substantive accords with its antecedent in 

 gender, number, and case. The bribe is what is received through 

 self-interest entirely, and lack of conformity to rule, such as is seen 

 in the indirect grammatical relation, in which there is lack of agree- 

 ment in number and case. The meaning of the term, ''indirect rela- 

 tion" is not clear; nor was it clear to the king, who states that 



