differs markedly from that given by Tottel. ¹ Whether this differ-
ence in the readings be due to Surrey himself, or whether in the
versions we have are derivatives from a single lost original, and, if
so, which of the two more nearly represents that lost original, are
questions at present impossible of solution. ² The fact to be kept
constantly in mind in discussing Surrey's treatment of blank
verse is that the fundamental requirement, an authoritative
text, is lacking. Therefore the relation of the unknown Surrey
version to the various translations, when one remembers the high-
handed methods of the sixteenth century editors, may be expressed
as an algebraic formula where all the quantities are unknown! The
value of x may be expressed only in terms of y and z.

Since no one has ever claimed Surrey's dependence upon Saint-
Gelais, the question narrows down to the relation between his
version and that of Douglas and the Italian. Actually of course,
it is not one question here, but two quite different problems. Al-
though the Douglas version was not published until 1553, six
years after Surrey's death, as Douglas had died in London in 1524,
for a quarter of a century his translation had been in existence in
manuscript or manuscripts. Now there is nothing inherently im-
probable in the assumption that at some time Surrey had had
access to one of these manuscripts. Nott collected the passages
in which the two versions were verbally similar, of which there are

-535-