INTRODUCTION (continued 5)

E₂. Bibl. Egerton 913, Brit. Museum. A fragment, containing Conf. Amantis from the beginning to i. 1701. Paper, ff. 47, 11½ × 8 in., in quires of 16 with catchwords: single column, 30-37 lines on page: Latin summaries in margin. Three hands, (1) f. 1-26, 31-36; (2) 27-30; (3) 37-47.

On f. 26 v^o. there is an omission of i. 387-570 (one leaf of 184 lines lost in the copy). This is supplied by the insertion of four leaves after f. 26, containing i. 375-580.

The text belongs to the revised group, as shown by Prol. 6, 7, 115, 659, 869, i. 162, 278, 368, 1262, &c.

(b) Intermediate.

H₁. Harleian 3490, Brit. Museum. Contains, ff. 1-6 St Edmund’s Speculum Religiosorum, ff. 8-215 Confessio Amantis, left unfinished on f. 215 v^o. Parchment, 215 leaves, 14½ × 10 in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: double column of 34-51 lines, small neat hand of middle fifteenth cent., with some corrections, perhaps in the same hand. Latin summaries in the text, underlined with red. Blank leaf cut out after f. 6, and f. 7 left blank, so that Gower begins on the first leaf of the second quire. The text is left unfinished at viii. 3062*, part of the last page remaining blank.

Floreated pages at the beginning of the books and also at f. 11, with various coats of arms painted.

The text given by this MS. is of an intermediate type. Occasionally throughout it is found in agreement with AJM &c. rather than with ERC &c., as Prol. 6, 7, i. 162, 630, 1755, 1768 ff., 1934, &c., and in a large portion of the fifth book it passes over definitely in company with XG &c. to the revised class, but it does not contain the distinctive readings of XG. Sometimes it stands alone of the first recension in company with F &c., as iv. 2414, vii. 1749, viii. 2098, and especially in regard to the three passages, i. 2267 ff., 2343 ff., 2369 ff. In individual correctness of text and spelling the MS. does not rank high, and it is especially bad as regards insertion and omission of final e, as ‘Wherof him ouht welle to drede,’ ‘Ayenste the poyntes of the beleue,’ ‘Of whome that he taketh eny hede.’ It has th regularly for þ and y for ȝ.

Y. In the possession of the Marquess of Bute, by whose kindness I have been allowed to examine it. Contains Confessio Amantis, imperfect at beginning and end. Parchment, 15½ × 10¾ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords on scrolls. Very well written in double column of 50 lines, early fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in text (red). Floreated page finely illuminated at the beginning of each book, with good painting of large initials, some with figures of animals, in a style that looks earlier than the fifteenth cent. Spaces left on f. 2, apparently for two miniatures, before and after the Latin lines following i. 202.

Begins in the last Latin summary of the Prologue, ‘Arion nuper citharista,’ followed by Prol. 1053, ‘Bot wolde god,’ &c., having lost six leaves. Again, after iv. 819 nine leaves are lost, up to iv. 2490, and one leaf also which contained vi. 2367-vii. 88: the book ends with viii. 2799, two or three leaves being lost here. The book belonged to the first Marquess of Bute, who had his library at Luton. At present it is at St. John’s Lodge, Regent’s Park.

This is a good manuscript, carefully written and finely decorated. There are very few contractions, and in particular the termination -oun is generally written in full, as ‘confessioun,’ i. 202, ‘resoun,’ iii. 1111, ‘devocioun,’ ‘contemplacioun,’ v. 7125 f. &c., and th is written regularly for þ. As regards individual accuracy and spelling it is very fair, but the scribe adds -e very freely at the end of words. The type of text represented is evidently intermediate to some extent, but I have not been able to examine it sufficiently to determine its exact character. It supports the revised group in a certain number of passages, e.g. i. 264, 630, 3374, 3396, 3416, ii. 31, 1328, 1758, &c., sometimes in company with H₁ and sometimes not. In particular we may note the passage i. 3374 ff., where in some lines it is revised as above mentioned, and in others, as 3381, 3414, 3443, it keeps the earlier text. Occasionally Y seems to have a tendency to group itself with B, as i. 208, 604, and in other places we find YE or YEC forming a group in agreement with B, as i. 161, iii. 633, v. 1946, 3879.

X. Society of Antiquaries, 134. Contains, ff. 1-30 Lydgate’s Life of the Virgin (imperfect at beginning), f. 1 begins in cap. xiii. ‘Therefore quod pees,’ ff. 30-249 Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (six lines), ‘Quam cinxere,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ ff. 250-283, Hoccleve’s Regement of Princes, with ‘Explicit Thomas Occlef,’ ff. 283 v^o, metrical version of Boethius [by John Walton of Osney] with leaves lost at the end, ends ‘Amonges hem þat dwellen nyȝe present.’ Parchment, ff. 297, about 15 × 11 in., in quires of 8 without catchwords, in a good and regular hand. The Conf. Amantis is in double column of 41 lines. Latin summaries in text (red). Ornamental borders at the beginning of books and space for miniature of Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream on f. 34 v^o. One leaf lost between ff. 134 and 135, containing v. 1159-1318.

The book belonged formerly to the Rev. Charles Lyttelton, LL.D., who notes that it came originally from the Abbey of Hales Owen.

I owe thanks to the librarian of the Society of Antiquaries for courteously giving me access to the manuscript.

The text is of the intermediate type, passing over in a part of the fifth book with H₁ &c. to the revised group, but not giving the revised readings much support on other occasions. It forms however a distinct sub-group with GOAd₂, these manuscripts having readings apparently peculiar to themselves in several passages, e.g. v. 3688 and after v. 6848.

The spelling is not very good, and in particular final e is thrown in very freely without justification: there are also many -is, -id, -ir terminations, as ‘servantis,’ ‘goodis,’ ‘nedis,’ ‘ellis,’ ‘crokid,’ ‘clepid,’ ‘vsid,’ ‘chambir,’ ‘aftir,’ and ȝ usually for gh (h), as ‘hyȝe,’ ‘nyȝe,’ ‘ouȝt,’ ‘lawȝe,’ ‘sleyȝtis,’ &c. The text however is a fair one, and the use of it by Halliwell in his Dictionary preserved him from some of the errors of the printed editions. The scribe was apt to drop lines occasionally and insert them at the bottom of the column, and some, as iii. 2343, are dropped without being supplied.

G. Glasgow, Hunterian Museum, S. i. 7. Contains Confessio Amantis, imperfect at the end. Parchment, ff. 181 (numbered 179 by doubling 94 and 106) with two blanks at the beginning, 16½ × 10¾ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: well and regularly written in double column of 46 lines, early fifteenth century. Latin summaries in the text (red). Floreated page at the beginning of each book, so far as they remain, and illuminated capitals. Many catchwords lost by cutting of the margin: it must once have been a very large book.

The manuscript has lost about sixteen leaves at the end, and eight altogether in various other places. In every case except one, however, the place of the lost leaf is supplied by a new leaf inserted, one of which has the missing portion of the text copied out from an early edition, while the rest are blank. The leaves lost are mostly such as would probably have had miniatures or illuminations, including the beginning of the first, second, sixth, seventh, and eighth books. The losses are as follows: f. 4 (containing Prol. 504-657, probably with a miniature), text supplied by later hand, f. 7 (Prol. 984-i. 30), f. 9 (i. 199-336, probably with a miniature), f. 28 (i. 3402-ii. 108), f. 129 (131) (v. 7718-vi. 40), f. 143 (145) (vi. 2343-vii. 60), a leaf after f. 175 (177) (vii. 5399-viii. 126), f. 177 (179) (viii. 271-441), and all after f. 179 (181), that is from viii. 783 to the end.

A former owner (seventeenth cent.) says, ‘This Book, as I was told by the Gent: who presented it to me, did originally belong to the Abbey of Bury in Suffolk.’ If so, the Confessio Amantis was probably read in this copy by Lydgate.

I am under great obligations to Dr. Young, Librarian of the Hunterian Museum, for the trouble he has taken to give me access to this excellent manuscript.

The Glasgow MS. is especially related to X (iv. 2773, v. 1486, 3582, 3688, 4110, 6848 ff., vi. 101, vii. 769, &c.), and belongs more generally to the group H₁X &c., which passes over to the revised class almost completely in a considerable part of the fifth book. The text, however, is on the whole much better than that of X, being both individually more correct and more frequently found on the side of the corrected readings, e.g. i. 2836, ii. 1441, 1867, v. 781, 1203, 2996, 4425, 5966, 6839, 7223, 7630, vi. 86, 746 (corrected), 1437, vii. 510, 1361, 1574, 2337, 3902, viii. 568. In at least one place, vii. 1574, it stands alone of the first recension, while in others, as v. 4425, 5966, 7630, vi. 746, 1437, &c., it is accompanied only by J. On the other hand in some passages, as v. 5802, 6019, 6257, vii. 1172 marg. &c., G has an earlier reading and X the later, while there is also a whole series of passages where G, sometimes in company with X, seems to show a special connexion of some kind with B (BT), as ii. 1925, iii. 733, iv. 2295, 2508, v. 4, 536, 2508, 3964, 4072, 7048, vi. 1267, 1733, vii. 3748, 4123, &c.

The book is carefully written, and corrected in the same hand, e.g. v. 3145, 5011, vi. 430, 746, vii. 4233. The spelling is pretty good, and in particular it is a contrast to X in the matter of final e. This is seldom wrongly inserted, and when it is omitted it is usually in places where the metre is not affected by it. Punctuation often in the course of the line, but not at the end.

O. Stowe 950, Brit. Museum. Confessio Amantis, imperfect at beginning and end. Parchment, ff. 175 (177 by numbering leaves of another book pasted to binding), 14¼ × 10 in., in eights with catchwords and signatures, double column of 44-46 lines; written in a small, neat hand. Latin summaries in text (red). No decorated pages.

Has lost seven leaves of the first quire, to i. 165 (incl.), and also after f. 16 one leaf (i. 2641-2991), after f. 35 one (ii. 2486-2645), after f. 44 two (iii. 673-998), after f. 97 one (v. 3714-3898), after f. 108 two (v. 5832-6184), after f. 136 two (vii. 771-1111), and at least four leaves at the end (after viii. 2549).

Formerly belonged to Lord Ashburnham.

In text this belongs to the XG group, agreeing with them, for example, at v. 3688, 6848, and in general with H₁XG, where they go together (so far as I have examined the book), e.g. in the Latin verses after v. 2858 (‘Vltra testes falsos,’ ‘penitus’) and in the readings of v. 1893, 1906, 2694, 3110, &c.

The handwriting is somewhat like that of H₁: the spelling sometimes fairly good, but unequal; bad especially at the beginning. The metre generally good.

Ad₂. Additional 22139, Brit. Museum. Confessio Amantis, imperfect, with the author’s account of his books, ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ at the end, followed by Chaucer’s poems, ‘To you my purse,’ ‘The firste stok,’ ‘Some time this worlde,’ ‘Fle fro the pres.’ Parchment, ff. 138, 13¾ × 10¼ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: regularly and closely written in double column of 53 lines by two hands, the first (ff. 1-71) somewhat pointed, the second rounder and smaller. Date 1432 on a shield, f. 1. Latin summaries in text (red). Illuminated borders at beginning of books (except the eighth) and many gilt capitals: a miniature cut out on f. 4 (before Prol. 595).

The first leaves are much damaged, f. 1 having only two lines left (f. 2 begins Prol. 177), f. 3 has lost Prol. 455-478 and 505-527, &c., f. 4 has a miniature cut out, with Prol. 716-726 on the other side, f. 6 has lost Prol. 979-1061. After f. 7 there is a loss of seventeen leaves (i. 199-ii. 56), after f. 31 (originally 48) two quires (sixteen leaves) are lost and f. 32 is damaged (iii. 1150-iv. 1517), after f. 81 one leaf lost (v. 7807-vi. 154).

Bought by Brit. Museum from Thos. Kerslake of Bristol, 1857.

The text is closely connected with that of X, but not copied from that manuscript itself (see ii. 1711, vii. 92, viii. 2650). There are corrections here and there in a somewhat later hand, e.g. ii. 671, 1045, 1457, iii. 1052, iv. 2922, several of which are cases of lines supplied, which had been dropped. In v. 3688 the ordinary reading has been substituted doubtless for that of X, and in some cases the alterations are wrong, as vii. 2639, viii. 51. The manuscript has a good many individual errors and the spelling is rather poor.

Cath. St. Catharine’s Coll., Camb. Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (six lines), ‘Quam cinxere’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Parchment, ff. 188, 17¾ × 12¼ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: well written in double column of 47 lines, afterwards 40, before the middle of fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in text (red). Floreated whole border at the beginning of each book: miniature on f. 4 v^o of Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream, and f. 8 v^o the Confession (Priest on stool to left of picture, laying hand but not stole on penitent’s head), fairly well painted.

Leaves are missing which contained i. 3089-3276, ii. 3331-3518, v. 1182-1363, 6225-6388, vi. 107-460, vii. 984-1155, and viii. 2941-3114*, and the last leaf containing ‘Explicit,’ &c., is placed now at the beginning of the volume. There is a confusion of the text in the third book, iii. 236-329 being repeated after 678 and 679-766 left out, also a considerable omission in the fourth (iv. 2033-3148) without loss of leaves in this MS. (The statement in the MS. that seven leaves are here lost is a mistake.) In the passage vii. 1486-2678 several leaves have been disarranged in the quire.

Given to the College in 1740 by Wm. Bohun of Beccles (Suffolk), to whose great-grandfather, Baxter Bohun, it was given in 1652 by his ‘grandmother Lany.’

The text is of a rather irregular type, but often agrees with the XGO group. It has many mistakes and the spelling is poor.

Q. Belonged to the late Mr. B. Quaritch, who kindly allowed me to examine it slightly. Parchment, leaves measuring about 14 × 8¾ in., in double column of 49 lines, well written, early fifteenth cent. Ends with the account of the author’s books, ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Floreated pages at the beginning of books and a good miniature of the Confession on f. 3, of a rather unusual type—the priest seated to the left of the picture and the penitent at a little distance. Latin summaries in text (red). Begins with Prol. 342, having lost two leaves here, and has lost also Prol. 529-688, Prol. 842-i. 85, and perhaps more.

The book formerly belonged to a Marquess of Hastings.

This is a good manuscript, and the spelling is fairly correct. I place it provisionally here, because its readings seem to show a tendency towards the XG group.

(c) Unrevised.

E. Egerton 1991, Brit. Museum. Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (six lines), ‘Quam cinxere,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ after which ‘Deo Gracias. And þanne ho no more.’ Parchment, ff. 214, 15¼ × 10 in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: regularly written in a very good large hand in double column of 42 lines, early fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in text (red). Floreated pages at beginning of books, and a finely painted miniature of the Confession on f. 7 v^o.

Two leaves lost, originally ff. 1 and 3, containing Prol. 1-134 and 454-594. The book has also suffered from damp, and parts of the first and last leaves are so discoloured as to be illegible.

A seventeenth cent. note on f. 1 v^o tells us that the book was given on April 5, 1609, ‘at Skarborough Castle’ to the lady Eliz. Dymoke by her aunt the lady Catherine Burghe, daughter of Lord Clynton, who was afterwards earl of Lincoln and Lord High Admiral, to whom it came by her mother, the lady Eliz. Talboys. On f. 2 we find the register of the birth of Master Harry Clinton, son and heir of Lord Clinton, born at Canbery, June 6, 1542. The name Willoughby occurs also in the book (sixteenth cent.), and on a flyleaf inserted at the beginning we find ‘John Brograve, 1682,’ with Latin lines in the form of an acrostic about his family, signed ‘Thomas Tragiscus, Bohemus.’ Bought by the Brit. Mus. August 6, 1865, at Lord Charlemont’s sale.

The text of this fine MS. belongs clearly to the unrevised group. At the same time its original must have had some corrections, and some also appear on the face of this MS. It stands alone of the first recension in agreement with S, F in a few passages, as v. 5438, vi. 1954, vii. 4318 marg., and with J in ii. 2576, iii. 176, v. 4989 f., 7327, vii. 3484. It has also some connexion with B (BTΛ), standing in this matter either with C (or YC), as iii. 633, v. 3688, 3814, 5667, 6318, or by itself, as Prol. 169, i. 2122, ii. 1353, iv. 3401, v. 3992, 6336, vii. 323, 978, viii. 1761, 2706.

The scribe seems to have had a good ear for metre, and seldom goes wrong in any point of spelling which affects the verse, though apt to omit final e in case of elision. Sometimes, however, he drops words, as ‘swerd,’ i. 433, ‘so,’ v. 122, ‘chaste,’ v. 6277. On the whole the text of E is probably the best of its class.

C. Corpus Christi Coll., Oxf. 67 (Bern. Cat. i. 2. 1534). Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (four lines), ‘Quam cinxere,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ after which ‘Deo Gracias.’ Parchment, large folio, ff. 209, of which three blank, in quires of 8 with catchwords: written in double column in a good hand of first quarter fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in text (red). Pages with complete borders at beginning of books (except Lib. i), and two very fair miniatures, f. 4 v^o Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, f. 9 v^o the Confession (priest laying stole on youthful penitent’s head). The book has lost four leaves, the second of the first quire (Prol. 144-301), the last of the 22nd and first of the 23rd (vii. 3137-3416), and the first of the 26th (viii. 1569-1727).

We find on the last leaf in a hand perhaps as early as the fifteenth cent. ‘Liber partinet Thomam Crispe Ciuem et Mercerium Londiniarum,’ and on the flyleaf at the beginning a device containing the same name, and also A. Crispe, F. Crispe, W. Rawson, Anne Rawson. ‘Augusten Crispe me Iure tenet’ is written on the first leaf of the text, and also ‘Liber Willelmi Rawson A^o. Dni 1580.’ Finally, ‘Liber C. C. C. Oxon. 1676.’ The device referred to above appears also in the decoration of the book both at the beginning and the end, but the manuscript must have been written much earlier than the time of Thomas Crispe.

This is a good copy of the unrevised group, having some connexion, as we have seen above, with E, but less good in spelling, especially as regards final e. For special connexion with B, see i. 2234, iv. 359, &c. CL go specially together apparently in some places, as Prol. 937 f., i. 94, 161, 165, 433, 916, but not throughout. There are some corrections by erasure of final e, and a line supplied by a different hand, vi. 1028. No punctuation.

R. Reg. 18. C. xxii, Brit. Museum. Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (six lines), ‘Quam cinxere’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Parchment, ff. 206, 14¼ × 3¾ in., in eights with catchwords: double column of 44 lines, well written, first quarter fifteenth cent. Latin in text (red). Floreated border of first page with miniature of the Confession in the initial O; also a miniature on f. 4 v^o of the Image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (hill with stone to left of picture), and half borders at beginning of books, except Lib. i.

Two blanks cut away at the end, from one of which is set off ‘This boke appertayneth vnto the Right Honorable the Ladie Margaret Strange’ (presumably the same whose name appears in M). The binding has ‘Lady Mary Strainge.’

A very fair MS. of its class and almost absolutely typical, but gives distinctively revised readings in a few passages, as ii. 925, iv. 1342, v. 3145, viii. 1621. Omits vii. 2889-2916 and some of the Latin summaries. The words ‘pope’ and ‘papacie’ are regularly erased, see especially f. 47. Spelling and metre fairly good: no punctuation.

L. Laud 609, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 754). Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (four lines), ‘Quam cinxere’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Parchment, ff. 170, 16 × 10¾ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: double column, first of 40 lines, then about 44, and after f. 16 of 51: well written, first quarter fifteenth cent. Latin in the text (red). Floreated border of first page and half borders at the beginning of books, well executed. Two miniatures, on f. 5 v^o the Image of the dream, and on f. 10 the Confession, both much like those in C and B₂, but damaged.

After f. 109 one leaf is lost (v. 5550-5739), one after f. 111 (v. 6140-6325), and eight (quire 16) after f. 118 (v. 7676-vi. 1373).

The names Symon and Thomas Elrington (sixteenth cent.) occur in the book, ff. 89, 170, and ‘Liber Guilielmi Laud Archiepiscopi Cantuar. et Cancellarii Vniuersitatis Oxon. 1633’ on f. 1.

In correctness of text and spelling the text is decidedly inferior to the foregoing MSS. We may note apparently good readings in the following passages, Prol. 159, i. 3023, v. 1072, vii. 374, 3040, 3639, viii. 358, 483.

B₂. Bodley 693, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 2875). Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (six lines), ‘Quam cinxere’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Parchment (gilt edged), ff. 196, 15 × 10 in., in eights with catchwords. Well written, first quarter fifteenth cent., in double column of 46 lines. Latin in text (red). Floreated border of first page and half borders at beginning of books (also on f. 8 v^o), well executed: two small miniatures, f. 4 v^o the Image of the dream, f. 8 v^o (within an initial T) the Confession, like those in C and L, but smaller.

At the end we have ‘ffrauncois Halle A^o MV^cVI’ (i.e. 1506), ‘Garde le ffine.’ In the initial on f. 1 a coat of arms is painted surrounded by the Garter and its motto. The arms are those of Charles Brandon duke of Suffolk (Brandon with quartering of Bruyn and Rokeley, see Doyle, Official Baronage, iii. 443), and on the same page is painted the Brandon crest (lion’s head erased, crowned per pale gules and arg., langued az.). These must have been painted in later than the date of the MS. The binding is deeply stamped with the arms of Great Britain and Ireland in colours, and the letters I. R., showing that the book belonged to James I. It was presented to the Bodleian by Dr. John King, who was Dean of Ch. Ch. 1605-1611. We must suppose that James gave it to Dr. King.

The fineness of the vellum and the general style of the book seems to indicate that it was written for some distinguished person. The text is very typical of its class. In correctness and spelling it is less good than L, oftener dropping final e and having less regard for the metre.

Sn. Arch. Seld. B. II, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 3357). Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (four lines), ‘Quam cinxere’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Paper (with some leaves of parchment), ff. 169, 14½ × 10¾ in. Quires with varying number of leaves, usually 12 or 16, signatures and catchwords. (No written leaves lost, but blanks cut away in quires nine and ten.) Written in double column of 44-65 lines (no ruling), in a small hand, middle fifteenth cent. Latin in text. Red and blue initials, but no other decoration.

The book has the name ‘Edwarde Smythe’ (sixteenth cent.) as the owner. It came into the Bodleian among John Selden’s books.

The text is a poor one with a good many corruptions, from the first line of the Prologue (‘To hem’ for ‘Of hem’) onwards, many of them absurd, as ‘who thoghte’ for ‘we the while’ (v. 6752), ‘homicides’ for ‘houndes’ (vii. 5256), and some arising from confusion between þ, ȝ, and y. Thus the scribe (who usually has th for þ and y for ȝ) is capable of writing ‘aþen’ or ‘athen’ for ‘aȝein,’ ‘yer of’ for ‘þer of,’ ‘yeff’ for ‘þef,’ ‘biþete’ for ‘biȝete.’ There are many mistakes in the coloured initials, e.g. ii. 2501, iii. 2033, 2439. Some northern forms, as ‘gude,’ iii. 1073, ‘Qwhat,’ iii. 2439. Note agreement with B in some places, as i. 365, 1479, iii. 1222, v. 2417, 6296, and a few more.

D. Camb. Univ. Dd. viii. 19 (Bern. Cat. ii. 9653). Confessio Amantis (imperfect). Parchment, ff. 127, quires of 8 with catchwords: double column of 48 (sometimes 50) lines, regularly written in a hand using very thick strokes. Latin in text (red). Spaces left for miniatures, f. 4 v^o, f. 8 v^o (the latter marked ‘hic Imago’), and perhaps also f. 1. Many spaces left for illuminated capitals.

After f. 83 follows a quire of six with 5 v^o blank (after end of Lib. iv.) and 6 lost: then a quire of eight with 5 and 6 (also part of 4) blank, and 7, 8 lost: then, f. 94, ‘Incipit liber Sextus.’ So that of Lib. v. we have only about four leaves (v. 1444-2149). The leaves numbered 16, 17, 15 should stand last (in that order), and the text ends (on f. 15) with vii. 3683, the line unfinished and the rest of the page blank.

Successive owners in sixteenth cent., Magister Asshe, Thom. Carson (or Cursson), Ambr. Belson, J. Barton. It was one of Bishop Moore’s books (No. 467), and came to the University in 1715.

The text shows no leaning, so far as I know, to the revised group. Perhaps somewhat akin to the MSS. which precede and follow: see Prol. 331 marg., i. 110, 370.

Ar. Arundel 45, College of Arms (Bern. Cat. ii. 5547). Confessio Amantis (imperfect). Paper, 168 leaves (numbered 167, but one dropped in numbering after f. 42) + two parchment blank at beginning, 11½ × 8¼ in. Quires of 8 (usually), with catchwords, double column of 46-51 lines, small neat writing, middle fifteenth cent. Latin in text (red): no illumination, but spaces left for initials.

One leaf lost after f. 7 (i. 63-216), two after f. 116 (v. 5229-5594), and all after viii. 1102 (about twelve leaves gone at the end).

Former possessors, ‘Thomas Goodenston, Gerdeler of London,’ and (before him probably) ‘Jhon Barthylmewe, Gerdyllarr and Marchant.’

Hd. At Castle Howard, the property of the Earl of Carlisle, who most kindly sent it for my use. Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (four lines), ‘Quam cinxere’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Parchment, ff. 111 (numbered as 110) 14 × 11 in., in quires of 8 (usually), marked iiii, v, vi, &c. In double column of 60-74 lines, rather irregularly written in a small, fairly clear hand, later fifteenth cent. Latin in text. Some red and blue initials; no other decoration.

Seventeen leaves lost at the beginning, f. 1 begins at i. 3305, and f. 8 is the first leaf of quire iiii: after f. 73 four leaves lost, containing vi. 264-1306, and in the last quire one, containing viii. 2566-2833. The leaves in the latter half of the book, from f. 66, have been much disarranged in the binding.

The name ‘Tho. Martin’ is written at the beginning, in the handwriting of the well-known Thomas Martin of Palgrave. This of course is not the book mentioned in Bern. Cat. ii. 611 as among the books collected by Lord William Howard at Naworth Castle. There seems to be at present no Gower MS. at Naworth.

Some readings seem to show a connexion of Hd with L, as iii. 1885, 2763, ‘Now herkne and I þe þo,’ iv. 1341, 3086, 3449, 3535, but it is not derived from it. Note also the readings of ii. 1577 ‘Ne,’ 2825 ‘by,’ iii. 1173 ‘Iupartie,’ v. 3306 ‘Oute.’ There are many corruptions in the text as well as some deliberate alterations, as ‘cleped’ regularly to ‘called,’ and words are often dropped or inserted to the injury of the metre.

Ash. Ashmole 35, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 6916). Confessio Amantis (imperfect). Paper, ff. 182, 13½ × 9½ in. Quires of 12 (usually), with catchwords, double column of 42-48 lines, fairly well written: no Latin verses or summaries, but summaries in English written in the text (red), mostly omitted in the last thirty leaves. Some initials in red, spaces left for larger capitals.

Begins with Prol. 170, having lost two leaves (one blank) at the beginning. After f. 2 one leaf is lost (Prol. 541-725), one after f. 4 (i. 1-169), one after f. 32 (ii. 1749-1927), one after f. 91 (v. 2199-2366), three after f. 181 (viii. 2505-2893), one after f. 182, which ends with viii. 3082*. Half of f. 182 is torn away, but the beginning of the Chaucer verses remain, as well as a whole column of the early form of conclusion, in spite of the statement in the Ashmole Catalogue. Even if the conclusion were really wanting, there would be no difficulty in assigning the MS. to its proper class.

Second Recension.

(a) S. The Stafford MS., now in the possession of the Earl of Ellesmere, by whose kind permission I have been allowed to make use of it. Contains Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and ‘Quam cinxere.’ Parchment, ff. 172 (the last three blank), 14 × 9¾ in., quires of 8 with catchwords and signatures (24 in all, the last of five leaves): written in double column of 46 lines in a good square hand of late fourteenth century type. Latin summaries in the margin. The first page has a well-executed border of geometrical pattern and a rather rudely painted miniature of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, in style resembling that of F. This page has also three heraldic shields and a crest, of which more hereafter. Floreated half borders at the beginning of books and illuminated capitals throughout, well executed and with an unusual amount of gold. On f. 56 a well painted grotesque figure of a man with legs and tail of some animal, wearing a pointed headpiece and armed with an axe. This is part of the initial decoration of Lib. iv.

The book has unfortunately lost in all seventeen leaves, as follows: one after f. 1 (Prol. 147-320), one after f. 7 (Prol. 1055-i. 106), three after f. 46 (iii. 573-1112), one after f. 68 (iv. 2351-2530), two after f. 69 (iv. 2711-3078), one after f. 70 (iv. 3262-3442), two after f. 71 (iv. 3627-v. 274), one after f. 107 (v. 6821-7000), one after f. 125 (vi. 2357-vii. 88), two after f. 139 (vii. 2641-3004), two after f. 153 (vii. 5417-viii. 336). In addition to this, one leaf, f. 50 (iii. 1665-1848), is written in a different and probably rather later hand, and seems to have been inserted to supply the place of a leaf lost in quite early times.

The question about the former owners of this fine manuscript is an interesting one. As to the devices on the first page, the first shield (within the initial O) is sable and gules per pale, a swan argent, the second (in the lower margin) sable, three ostrich feathers (argent?) set in three scrolls or, while in the right margin there is a crest of a lion, collared with label of three points, standing on a chapeau, and below is suspended a shield quartered az. and gules, with no device. The crest is evidently meant for that of John of Gaunt, though it is not quite correct, and the three ostrich feathers (properly ermine) were used by him as a recognisance (see Sandford’s Genealogical Hist. p. 249), while the swan is the well-known badge of Henry his son, to be seen suspended from Gower’s own collar of SS on his tomb and in the miniature of the Fairfax MS. It seems probable then that the book was prepared for presentation to a member of the house of Lancaster, probably either John of Gaunt or Henry. If it be the fact that the swan badge was not adopted by Henry until 1397, this would not be the actual copy sent on the occasion of the dedication to him in 1392-93. On the other hand the absence of all royal emblems indicates that the book was prepared before Henry’s accession to the throne.

In the sixteenth cent. (Queen Elizabeth’s reign) the book belonged to one William Downes, whose name is written more than once on f. 170. The ornamental letters W. D. on f. 21 are probably his initials, and on f. 76 we have Phillipp Downes in a fifteenth-cent. hand. On f. 171 v^o there is a note about ‘the parsonages of Gwend ... and Stythians in the county of Cornewell, percell of the possessions of the late monastary of Rewley,’ and also about the ‘personage of Croppreadin in the county of Oxforde,’ granted for xxi years by Edward VI and paying lvi pounds a year. ‘T. P. Goodwyn’ is another name (seventeenth cent.). When Todd saw the MS. at the beginning of this century, it belonged to the Marquess of Stafford.

S has the Lancaster dedication and the rewritten epilogue, and with these the three additional passages, v. 6395*-6438*, 7086*-7210*, vii. 3207*-3360*, omitting v. 7701-7746, and transposing vi. 665-964. In correctness it is inferior only to F, and these two stand far above all others as primary authorities. Their independence of one another is certain, and the general agreement of their text gives it the highest guarantee of authenticity. The spelling is practically the same, as will be seen in those passages which are printed from S in this edition, e.g. vii. 3207*-3360*, indeed in most places the two texts are absolutely the same, letter for letter. As regards f. 50, which is in a different hand, it should be noted not only that it is far less correct than the rest, but also that it is copied from a different original, a MS. of the unrevised first recension, distinctive readings of which are given in iii. 1686, 1763, 1800, 1806, while no trace of such readings appears in any other part of S.

Δ. Sidney Sussex Coll., Camb. Δ. 4. 1 (Bern. Cat. i. 3. 726). Contains Confessio Amantis, with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and ‘Quam cinxere,’ (ff. 2-202 v^o), and then an English version of Cato’s Disticha. Paper, ff. 211 (of which four blank), 11½ × 8½ in., in quires of 12 with catchwords and signatures. Written in double column of 41-48 lines in a fairly good hand, middle fifteenth century, with a good many contractions. Latin summaries usually in text, sometimes in margin. No decoration. The first leaf is lost, containing Prol. 1-140.

The book was left to the College by Samuel Ward, Master, 1643. One of the blank leaves has the word ‘temsdytton’ (i.e. Thames Dytton) in an early hand.

In regard to form of text this MS. agrees throughout with S, and it must no doubt have had the Lancaster preface. It is remarkable as containing the additional lines printed by Caxton at the end of the Prologue (which may have been also in S), and it has eleven Latin hexameters substituted for the prose summaries at Prol. 591 and 617, beginning,

and again four after the Latin prose at vii. 2891, beginning,

The text has many corruptions and the spelling is not very good. Δ does not give the first recension readings on f. 50 of S, which of itself is sufficient proof that it is not derived from that manuscript, for the insertion of this leaf must be much earlier than the date of Δ.

(b) Ad. Additional 12043, British Museum. Confessio Amantis, imperfect at beginning and end. Parchment, ff. 156 (the last blank), 13 × 9¼ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: well written in double column of 45-50 lines, beginning of fifteenth century. Latin summaries in the margin up to f. 16 (ii. 382), after which they are omitted. Floreated pages in good style at the beginning of each book.

More than twenty leaves are lost, viz. ten at the beginning, up to and including i. 786, one after f. 45 (iv. 1-190), two after f. 47 (iv. 559-932), two after f. 86 (v. 4605-4983), one after f. 131 (vii. 3071-3269*), one after f. 151 (viii. 1440-1632), and five or more at the end, after viii. 2403. There is also omitted without loss of leaf iii. 1665-1848, no doubt owing to loss of leaf in the copy: see below.

‘Elizabeth Vernon’ (fifteenth century?) on blank leaf at the end. The book belonged in the present century to Bp. Butler of Lichfield.

This MS. heads the group AdBTΛ, being nearer to the fully revised type than any of the rest, and showing only very occasional traces of the earlier readings (but iii. 254, 941, v. 6418, vii. 3298, viii. 856, 1076, &c.). It agrees with the rest, as against SΔ, in giving v. 7015*-7034*, vii. 2329*-2340*, and 3149*-3180*, but does not seem fully to join the group until the latter part of the fifth book. In connexion with this we may note the curious fact that the omitted passage, iii. 1665-1848, is precisely that contained in f. 50 of S, which apparently was supplied in place of a lost leaf. In correctness and spelling the MS. is very fair, but not good in regard to final e. Punctuation often where there is a pause in the line.

T. Trin. Coll., Camb. R. iii. 2 (Bern. Cat. i. 3. 335). Contains, ff. 1-147, Confessio Amantis, imperfect at the beginning, with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and ‘Quam cinxere,’ ff. 148-152 v^o the French Traitié, with the Latin pieces ‘Quis sit vel qualis,’ ‘Est amor in glosa,’ and ‘Lex docet,’ f. 152 ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ f. 152 v^o-154 v^o the Latin Carmen super multiplici viciorum pestilencia, ending with the ten lines ‘Hoc ego bis deno.’ Parchment, ff. 154, 14¾ × 10 in., quires of 8 with catchwords, double column of 46 lines. Latin summaries in margin, but in some parts omitted. Well written in several hands, early fifteenth century, of which the first wrote ff. 1-8, 50-57, 74-81, 84 v^o-89, 98-113 r^o, the second ff. 9-32, the third ff. 33-49, 58-65, 82, 83, 84 r^o, 90-97, the fourth ff. 66-73, 113-154. No decoration except coloured or gilt capitals.

The book has lost five whole quires at the beginning, and begins at present with ii. 2687. Also the second col. of f. 84 r^o is left blank with omission of v. 7499-7544. A large part of f. 33 is blank, but there is no omission.

Presented to the College by Thomas Nevile, Master.

A good MS., with form of text in v, vi, vii, like that of AdB, and obviously having a special connexion in its readings with B. T, however, is of a more fully corrected type than B, and it must remain doubtful whether the preface of the poem in T was of the earlier or the later form. In any case the original of the two, if (as it seems) they had a common original, was not made up earlier than 1397, for the resemblance of the manuscripts extends to the French and Latin poems which follow the Conf. Amantis, and the last of these is dated the 20th year of king Richard.

The third and fourth hands are neater and better than the other two. The first is rather less correct and less good in spelling than the others, and also it omits the Latin marginal notes. The parts written in this hand are ii. 2687-iii. 608, v. 1415-2874, 5805-7082, v. 7545-vi. 1040, vi. 2201-vii. 2532.

With regard to the connexions within the group AdBTΛ, attention may be drawn especially to v. 659, where Ad has the usual reading, T omits the line, leaving a blank, while B and Λ have bad lines made up for the occasion, to v. 4020, where Ad again has the usual text, TΛ omit, and B has a made-up line, and to v. 7303, where AdBT omit two lines necessary to the sense which Λ inserts. We may note the alteration by erasure in T of v. 5936, apparently from the reading of the unrevised text.

B. Bodley 294, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 2449). Contents, as in T, ff. 1-197 Conf. Amantis, &c., ff. 197-199 v^o Traitié, f. 199 v^o ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ ff. 199 v^o-201 Carmen super multiplici, &c., ending with the lines ‘Hoc ego bis deno.’ Parchment, ff. 201, 15½ × 10¾ in., quires of 8 with catchwords. Well written in double column of 42-47 lines, first quarter of fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in text (red): ‘Confessor,’ ‘Amans,’ usually omitted. Complete border of first page and at the beginning of each book except i and ii, painted in good style. Two miniatures, f. 4 v^o Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (the king in bed crowned), f. 9 the Confession, nearly as in E. No leaves lost.

The name ‘Edwarde Fletewoode’ appears on f. 1, and the book was probably given by him to the University in 1601.

Form of text in v, vi, vii the same as AdT. We have in this MS. a combination of the early preface with the rewritten conclusion, a form which we might reasonably expect to find, and which may have been that of T, as it certainly was of the MS. used by Berthelette. Something has already been said of the text of this MS., and for the rest sufficient information will be found in the critical apparatus. The spelling of B is exemplified in the passages printed from it, Prol. 24*-92*, v. 7015*-7036*, vii. 2329*-2340*, 3149*-3180*. As in the case of E, the copyist is careful of metre, and while omitting final e freely before a vowel, rarely does so where it affects the metre, and seldom adds -e unduly. There is hardly any punctuation.

Λ. Wollaton Hall, in the possession of Lord Middleton, who kindly allowed me to examine it. Contents as B. Parchment, ff. 197, 15¼ × 10½ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords and signatures. Well and regularly written in double column of 46 lines, early fifteenth century. Latin summaries in text (red) as a rule, sometimes in margin. Spaces left for miniatures at the beginning, and for initials throughout, not painted. No leaves lost.

The text of this MS. is in many ways interesting. It has Lancaster dedication, but in text it often seems to belong to the unrevised first recension; for though many of the errors of this group are found to be corrected in Λ, even in cases where B retains them, as Prol. 7, 219, Lat. Verses after 584, 812, 844, 937 f., i. 8, 54, 264, 278, &c., ii. 671, 833, &c., and though there are also many of the revised readings, as i. 368, ii. 1758 ff. (in both of which B is unrevised), iv. 517, 766, 985 f., 2954, 3153, v. 30, 47 f., 82, 2694 f., 3110, &c., yet in many other places the original readings stand in Λ, as i. 3374 ff., iv. 2407, 2556, v. 274, 316, 394, 1893, 1906 f., &c., where BT are revised. The characteristic second recension readings are almost regularly given by Λ, which agrees with AdBT against SΔ in regard to the passages inserted; but there are some important differences between this MS. and all others of its class, viz. (1) after v. 6430* it has a combination of first and second recensions. (2) v. 7701-7746 is inserted as in the first and third recensions. (3) viii. 2941-2959 is inserted as in the first recension (with the curious corruption ‘Cuther’ for ‘Chaucer’), the rewritten epilogue being carried on from the line ‘Enclosed in a sterred skye.’

It will be observed that BTΛ often form a distinct group, as (to take only a few examples) iv. 1567, 1996, 2034, 3132, 3138, v. 654 ff., 4138, &c. We may note, however, v. 7303 f. which are inserted by Λ, though omitted in AdBT, and the reading ‘she’ in iv. 2973.

P₂. Phillipps 8192, at Thirlestaine House, Cheltenham. Same contents as BTΛ. Parchment, ff. 193, large fol. Well written in double col. of 46 lines, early fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in margin. Illumination on the first page and at the beginning of books, except i. and iii. On the first page a miniature of Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, with a small figure in the border, and also a figure painted in the initial O. Two leaves missing and supplied in blank after f. 1 (Prol. 154-509), and one later (vii. 3199-3382). On f. 1 v^o ‘Joh: Finch Comitis Winchilsea filius 1700.’

A fine MS. of an early type. It has the Lancaster dedication in the Prologue and the later form of epilogue, and as regards the additional passages it agrees with AdBTΛ. In text P₂ is closely related to Λ, but it does not include v. 7701-7746 or viii. 2941-2960, nor does it agree with Λ in v. 6431* ff. As instances of their agreement we may cite Prol. 14, ‘It dwelleth oft in,’ 115, ‘vneuened,’ 127, ‘ben nought diuided,’ &c. In the marginal note of Prol. 22 P₂ has ‘sextodecimo,’ but the first three letters are over an erasure.

Third Recension.

F. Fairfax 3, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 3883). Contains, ff. 2-186, Confessio Amantis, with ‘Explicit’ and ‘Quam cinxere,’ ff. 186 v^o-190 v^o Traitié, &c., ff. 190 v^o-194 Carmen de multiplici viciorum pestilencia, ending with the lines ‘Hoc ego bis deno,’ &c., f. 194 ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ f. 194 v^o sixteen Latin lines by ‘a certain philosopher’ in praise of the author, beginning ‘Eneidos Bucolis que Georgica,’ f. 195 a leaf of a Latin moral treatise from the old binding. Parchment, ff. 195 (including one blank flyleaf at the beginning and one of another book at the end), 13½ × 9¼ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords; the first quire begins at f. 2, the twenty-fourth quire has six leaves and the twenty-fifth (last) three. The leaves of the seventh quire are disarranged and should be read in the following order, 50, 52, 53, 51, 56, 54, 55, 57. The Confessio Amantis is written in double column of 46 lines, in a very good hand of the end of the fourteenth cent. Latin summaries in the margin. Half borders, some with animal figures, at the beginning of each book, and two miniatures, one at the beginning, rather large, of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and the other on f. 8 of the Confession, in which the priest is dressed in green and has a wreath of roses on his head, while the penitent, whose features are damaged, wears a hood and a collar of SS with a badge, probably a swan, dependent from it. This was no doubt intended as a portrait of the author: the collar and badge have somewhat the appearance of having been added after the original painting was made. The size of the illuminated capitals indicates precisely the nature of the various divisions of the work.

On f. 2 is written ‘The Ladie Isabell Fairfax daughter and hare of Thwats hir bouk,’ on f. 8 ‘This boke belongeth to my lady farfax off Steton,’ and on f. 1 ‘S^r Thomas fayrfax of Denton Knighte true owner of this booke, 1588.’ This Lady Isabell Fairfax was the granddaughter and heiress of John Thwaites of Denton, who died in 1511, and was married to Sir William Fairfax of Steeton. Sir Thomas Fairfax of Denton, whose name appears in the book, was her grandson. The book no doubt came from the Thwaites family, and we are thus able to trace it back as far as John Thwaites of Denton, who died in old age not much more than a hundred years after the death of the author. It was bequeathed with other MSS. to the University of Oxford by Sir Thomas Fairfax the parliamentary general, grandson of the above Sir Thomas Fairfax of Denton, and was placed in the Bodleian Library in 1675.

The first leaf of the text, up to Prol. 146, is written in a second hand which has also written ff. 186-194, including the last lines of the Conf. Amantis from viii. 3147. A third hand (with very different orthography) has written viii. 2938-3146, being the last 29 lines of f. 41 v^o (over an erasure) and the whole of f. 185, which is a leaf inserted in the place of one cut away (the last of quire 23). At viii. 2938 there is visible a note, ‘now haue, etc.,’ for the guidance of the scribe after the erasure had been made. From the fact that two hands have been employed in the transformation of the MS. at the beginning and end it seems probable that the changes were made at two separate times (as we also know by the dates that the rewritten epilogue preceded the rewritten preface), and that what I have called the third hand was really the second in order of time, being employed to substitute the later epilogue for the former, while the other hand, doing its work probably after the accession of Henry IV, replaced the first leaf by one containing the Lancaster dedication, which had been in existence since 1392-3, but perhaps only in private circulation, and added also the Traitié and the Latin poems, with the account of the author’s books, ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ in its revised form. I say after the accession of Henry IV, because the reference in the third recension account of the books to Richard’s fall, ‘ab alto corruens in foueam quam fecit finaliter proiectus est,’ seems to require as late a date as this. It should be noted that this hand is the same as that which has made somewhat similar additions to the All Souls and Glasgow MSS. of the Vox Clamantis. Other examples of alteration of first recension readings by erasure in F are Prol. 331 marg., 336, i. 2713 f., iv. 1321 f., 1361 f., Lat. Verses after vii. 1640, Lat. Verses after vii. 1984.

As this edition prints the text of the Fairfax MS. and its relations have already been discussed, little more need be said here except as to the manner in which the text is dealt with in the printing. It should be noted then that i and j, u and v are used in accordance with modern practice, that no distinction is made between the two forms of s, that th is used for þ, and y for ȝ in ȝe, ȝit, ȝiue, aȝein, beȝete, &c. (this last rather against my judgement, for no good MS. has it). It should be observed also that the Fairfax scribe frequently uses v for u at the end of a word, as ‘nov,’ ‘hov’ (often ‘hou’), ‘þov’ (usually ‘þou’), ‘ȝov’ (also ‘ȝou’), ‘auov,’ ‘windov,’ ‘blev,’ ‘knev,’ &c., and sometimes in other positions, either for the sake of distinction from n or merely for ornament, as ‘comvne,’ ‘retenve,’ ‘rvnne,’ ‘þvrgh,’ ‘havk,’ ‘fovl,’ ‘hovndes,’ ‘movþ,’ ‘rovnede,’ ‘slovh,’ ‘trovþe,’ ‘ynovh,’ &c., beside ‘comune,’ ‘runne,’ ‘þurgh,’ ‘hauk,’ ‘foul,’ &c. In all these cases v is given in the text as u. The termination ‘-o̅n̅’ is regularly printed as ‘-oun.’ French words with this ending appear in F with -o̅u̅ or -o̅n̅, usually the latter (but ‘resoun’ in full, Prol. 151), and sometimes we have ‘to̅n̅’ for ‘toun,’ as vii. 5313, viii. 2523. So also ‘sto̅n̅de: wounde,’ i. 1425 f., ‘gro̅n̅de’ for ‘grounde,’ i. 2051, ‘expo̅n̅de: founde,’ i. 2867 f., ‘bra̅n̅che: staunche,’ i. 2837 f., ‘cha̅n̅ce,’ i. 3203, ‘gra̅n̅teþ,’ ii. 1463, ‘suppla̅n̅te,’ ii. 2369, ‘skla̅n̅dre,’ v. 5536 (‘sclaundre,’ v. 712), ‘coma̅n̅de: launde,’ vii. 2159.

The contraction ꝑ as a separate word is in this edition almost regularly given as ‘per.’ It is hardly ever written fully in F, but we have ‘Per aunter,’ v. 3351, ‘Per chaunce,’ v. 7816, and J regularly gives ‘per chance,’ ‘per cas,’ &c., without contraction. Other MSS., as A and B, incline rather to ‘par.’ F has ‘perceive,’ ‘aperceive,’ but ‘parfit.’

With regard to the use of capitals, this edition in the main follows the MS. Some letters, however, as k, v, w, y, can hardly be said to have any difference of form, and others are used rather rarely as capitals, while in the case of some, and especially s, the capital form is used with excessive freedom. It has seemed desirable therefore to introduce a greater degree of consistency, while preserving the general usage of the MS. Proper names are regularly given in this edition with capitals (usually so in the MS., but not always), and sentences are begun with capital letters after a full stop. On the other hand the I (or J), which is often used as an initial, has frequently been suppressed, and occasionally this has been done in the case of other letters. It may be observed, however, that capital letters are on the whole used very systematically in the MS., and other good MSS., especially S, agree with F in the main principles. Certain substantives as ‘Ere,’ ‘Erthe,’ ‘Schip,’ ‘Sone,’ ‘Ston,’ are almost invariably used with capitals, and names of animals, as ‘Cat,’ ‘Hare,’ ‘Hound,’ ‘Leoun,’ ‘Mous,’ ‘Oxe,’ ‘Pie,’ ‘Ro,’ ‘Schep,’ ‘Tigre,’ of some parts of the body, as ‘Arm,’ ‘Hiele,’ ‘Lippes,’ ‘Nase,’ ‘Pappes,’ ‘Skulle,’ and many other concrete substantives, are apt to be written with capitals, sometimes apparently in order to give them more importance. Capitals are seldom thus used except in the case of substantives and some numerals, as ‘Nyne,’ ‘Seconde,’ ‘Sexte,’ ‘Tenthe,’ and in many cases it is pretty evident that a distinction is intended, e.g. between ‘Sone’ and ‘sone’ (adv.), ‘Se’ (= sea) and ‘se’ (verb), ‘Dore’ and ‘dore’ (verb), see iv. 2825 f., ‘More’ and ‘more,’ ‘Pype’ and ‘pipe’ (verb), iv. 3342 f., ‘Myn’ and ‘myn’ (poss. pron.), ‘Mone’ and ‘mone’ (verb), but see v. 5804, 5808, ‘In’ and ‘in,’ vii. 4921 f., viii. 1169 f., 1285 f. That some importance was attached to the matter is shown by the cases where careful alterations of small letters into capitals have been made in the MS., as Prol. 949, i. 1687, v. 1435, 3206, 4019, vii. 2785, &c.

Many corrections were made by the first hand, and some of these are noteworthy, especially the cases where a final e seems to be deliberately erased for the sake of the metre or before a vowel, as i. 60 ‘get’ for ‘gete,’ iii. 2346 ‘trew’ for ‘trewe,’ vi. 1359 ‘I red’ for ‘I rede,’ vii. 1706 ‘ffyf’ for ‘ffyue,’ or where an e has been added afterwards, as ii. 3399 ‘deþe,’ iii. 449 ‘bowe,’ v. 1269, 3726, 5265, ‘whiche.’

It remains only to speak of the punctuation of the MS., which is evidently carried out carefully. The frequent stops at the ends of lines are for the most part meaningless, but those elsewhere are of importance and usually may be taken as a guide to the sense. They are sometimes certainly wrong (e.g. i. 1102 Togedre· 1284 will· 2965 fro· ii. 1104 wille· 1397 name· 2354 astat· iii. 2638 be· iv. 497 grace· 1751 besinesse· 1985 hardi· 2502 alle· 3354 Slep· 3635 lif· v. 4 good· 231 herte· 444 wynd· 1342 See· 1630 only· 2318 bord· &c.), but the proportion of error is small, and the punctuation of F generally must be treated with respect. There is usually a stop wherever a marked pause comes in the line, and this punctuation occurs on an average about once in ten lines. The following record of the punctuation of iv. 1301-1600 will serve as an illustration of its nature and extent: 1303 loue· 1307 ladis· 1316 cloþed· 1369 seide· 1374 seiþ· 1376 loue· 1388 slow· 1409 wepe· 1412 Dame· 1415 loue· 1439 hirself· 1457 is· 1459 peine· 1461 haltres· 1466 told· 1470 paramours· 1471 lawe· 1474 ianglinge· 1489 take· 1490 loue· 1491 herte· 1492 mariage· 1496 children· 1497 mai· 1499 tarie· 1501 let· 1512 god· seide· 1532 oþre· 1534 ferste· 1535 dovhter· 1536 cloþes· 1547 Tohewe· 1560 seiþ· 1561 point· 1566 maidenhod· 1567 had· 1591 come· 1592 deþ·

H₂. Harleian 3869, Brit. Museum. Contains the same as F, with some religious poems in a different hand on blanks at the beginning and end. Paper, except outer leaves of each quire, ff. 368 (including four leaves at the beginning and two at the end with religious poems as above mentioned), 11¼ × 7½ in., in quires of 16 (usually), with signatures, first quire beginning f. 5 and having 14 leaves. Written in single column of 38-50 lines, rather irregularly. Latin summaries in margin (red). On f. 5 at the beginning of the Confessio Amantis a large picture of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, like that in F, on f. 8 an ill-painted picture of the Confession.

On f. 1 we find written ‘London y^e 28 Jan^y. 1628, George Cogiluy,’ and on f. 2 ‘Jan. 22. 1721 Oxford’ (i.e. Harley). On the same page is the date, ‘1445 y^e 23 of May.’

This MS. appears to be copied directly from F, and gives an excellent text, reproducing that of the Fairfax MS. with considerable accuracy, and for the most part copying also its mistakes and peculiarities, as Prol. 80 officie, 249 wich, 419 com, 588 sende, 592 befalle, 668 marg. diminuntur, 723 chiualrie, 1078 waxed, i. 120 wisshide, 160 scheo, 227 beleft, 234 sone sone, 335 whilon, 1626 vnsemylieste, 2511 Embroudred, ii. 352 Ennvie, Lat. after 382 infamen, 710 hiere, 949 þong, 1169 no, 1441 keste, 1539 om. the, and so on. Some obvious mistakes are corrected, however, as Prol. 370, i. 1257, 2105, 3357, ii. 117.

N. New College, Oxf. 266 (Bern. Cat. i. 2. 1230). Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and ‘Quam cinxere.’ Parchment, ff. 183 (originally 187), 13¼ × 9 in., quires of 8 (one of 10 and the last 9) with catchwords. Well written in double column of 46 lines usually, sometimes more, first quarter fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in margin. Many floreated pages (half borders) and illuminated capitals, well executed. Also a large number of miniatures, of which some have been cut out and others much damaged.

The first two leaves are damaged, and four leaves have been cut out, viz. the original f. 7 (Prol. 1066-i. 106), f. 35 (ii. 1521-1704), f. 74 (iv. 2229-2397) and f. 113 (v. 5505-5662), also the outer half of f. 171 (viii. 271-318) and several miniatures with text at the back.

The name of John Cutt of Schenley, Hertfordshire, appears in the book (late fifteenth cent.), and on the first leaf ‘Thomæ Martin Liber,’ perhaps the Thomas Martin who was Fellow of New College 1538-1553, and died in 1584. The binding of old black leather has stamped upon it the letters W. D., with a double-headed eagle crowned.

This book seems to be derived from F, though perhaps not immediately. The orthography is like that of F, but differs in some points, as ‘shal,’ ‘she,’ &c., for ‘schal,’ ‘sche,’ ‘noht’ for ‘noght,’ besides being very uncertain about final e, often to the destruction of the metre. As examples of particular correspondence with F we may note Prol. 370 argumeten, 588 send, 592 befalle, 723 chiualrie, 957 mistormeth, i. 120 wisshide, 227 beleft, 234 sone sone, 1036 be shrewed, 3357 seled, ii. 318 ff. fela, felaw, felawh (varying as F), after 382 infamen, &c., but sometimes F is corrected in small matters, as Prol. 201 erthly, 249 which, 280 pacience, i. 110 to fare, &c.

The feature of the book is the series of miniatures, illustrating it throughout. In this respect it is unique, so far as I know; though other copies similarly illustrated must once have existed. The following is a complete list of the subjects (leaves cited by original number): f. 15 (i. 1417) Florent and the old woman, f. 18 (i. 2021) man blowing trumpet, lord, wife, and five children looking out of a castle, f. 23 (i. 2785) cut out, f. 34 (i. 3067) cut out and sewn in, much damaged, f. 30 (ii. 587) cut out, f. 44 (ii. 3187) mothers bringing babies to Constantine, f. 56 (iii. 1885) Clytemnestra torn by horses, two crowned persons conversing in the foreground, f. 59 (iii. 2363) Pirate brought before Alexander, f. 61 (iv. 1) Dido killing herself, Eneas riding away, f. 68 (iv. 1245) lady with halters and red bridle questioned by Rosiphelee, f. 71 (iv. 1815) cut out, f. 72 (iv. 2045) fight between Hercules and Achelous, f. 77 (iv. 2927) Alceone in bed dreaming, body of king in the water, f. 83 (v. 141) Midas at table, f. 93 (v. 2031) Crassus having gold poured down his throat, f. 94 (v. 2273) king opening coffers, f. 95 (v. 2391) cut out, f. 96 (v. 2643) cut out, f. 98 (v. 2961) almost defaced, f. 100 (v. 3247) cut out, f. 109 (v. 4937) Bardus pulling Adrian out of the pit, f. 111 (v. 5231) Ariadne left sleeping, ship sailing away, f. 117 (v. 6225) a procession of naked nymphs to bathe, f. 120 (v. 6807) cut out, f. 133 (vi. 1391) Telegonus supporting his father’s head, guards lying dead, f. 136 (vi. 1789) cut out, f. 150 (vii. 1783) cut out, f. 158 (vii. 3417) cut out, f. 159 (vii. 3627) Gideon and his men blowing trumpets, &c., enemy asleep in a tent, f. 165 (vii. 4593) cut out, f. 171 (viii. 271 ff.) half the page cut away, with probably three miniatures, for only 52 lines are gone, whereas there was space for 92.

K. Keswick Hall, near Norwich, in the possession of J. H. Gurney, Esq., who most kindly sent it to Oxford for my use. Contains the same as F, but is slightly imperfect at the end. Parchment, ff. 189, 13 × 9¾ in., quires of 8 with catchwords. Well written in double column of 46 lines (corresponding column for column with F throughout), apparently in six different hands, of which the first wrote quires 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 21, the second 3 and perhaps 7, the third 4, 5, 16, 17, the fourth 12-15, 19, the fifth 18, and the sixth 20, 22-24. Latin summaries in the margin (sometimes omitted). Three leaves are lost in the seventh quire (iii. 1087-1632), and one at the end, containing the last thirteen lines of the Latin Carmen de multiplici, &c., with probably the account of the books and the piece ‘Eneidos, Bucolis.’ A floreated initial to each book, and space left for miniatures on ff. 1 and 7. Old stamped leather binding.

Former possessors, Thomas Stone ‘of Bromsberrowe in the County of Glouc.’, Henry Harman, William Mallowes (Q. Elizabeth’s reign?), John Feynton.

The various hands differ very much from one another in correctness. The first and the fourth give a text so closely corresponding to that of F, that it is almost impossible not to believe that it is copied from it. In the case of some of the other hands this exact correspondence in details of spelling and punctuation disappears, and a much less correct text is given, but this seems chiefly due to carelessness (the third hand, for example, is evidently inaccurate and much neglects the metre). At the same time it must be noted that K has the marginal note at the beginning of the Prologue, which is wanting in F, ‘Hic in principio,’ &c., and there are some readings which seem to be derived from another source, as iii. 778, 906, 921, 1732, 1832 (all in the seventh quire), where there is agreement with AM. On the whole the question of the dependence of K upon F must be left doubtful.

We can trace to this MS. a good many of the mistakes which appear in H₃ and the Magdalen MS., and found their way sometimes thus into printed editions, e.g. Prol. 160 bothe, 260 to make manhode, i. 3170 om. his, ii. 78 fader, 101 hem wolde, 103 all hys cause, 126 he, 135 pore, 138 wich, 162 In (originally The). The cause of the great increase of error about the beginning of the second book is the appearance on the scene of the careless third hand, which on f. 40 (for example) in its last ten lines has at least twenty variations in spelling, &c., from the text of F, while the first hand resuming has not a single one in its first eighteen lines. Indeed, whole columns may be found in the parts copied by the first or the fourth hand which do not differ from F in the smallest particular, either of spelling or punctuation.

H₃. Harleian 7184, Brit. Museum. Confessio Amantis, imperfect. Parchment, ff. 134, 21½ × 14½ in., in quires of 12 with catchwords: regularly written in double column of 49 lines, in a large pointed hand of the middle fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in the text (red). Large capitals finely illuminated and pages bordered at the beginning of the books (the first page especially is richly decorated, but has suffered damage), also illuminated titles, ‘Liber Primus,’ &c., at the head of each page.

The book has lost more than fifty leaves, viz. one leaf after each of the following, f. 25 (i. 3322-ii. 46), f. 55 (iii. 1908-2103), f. 61 (iv. 400-576), f. 78 (iv. 3701-v. 161), f. 110 (v. 6183-6360), and f. 118 (vi. Latin Verses i. 4-182), twelve leaves after f. 126 (vi. 1571-vii. 1405), four after f. 131 (vii. 2354-3088), and thirty or more after f. 134, from vii. 3594 to the end of the book.

On the first page ‘Oxford B. H.’

This is a very large and magnificent volume, written on fine parchment, doubtless for some distinguished person. The text, however, is late and not very good. It is almost certain that it is derived ultimately from the Keswick MS. The evidence of this is as follows: (1) Mistakes made in that MS. are nearly regularly reproduced in H₃. Some instances have been referred to in the account of K: we may add here that where K omits the Latin summaries in a part of the seventh book, e.g. vii. 1641-1884, 1917-2765, H₃ does the same, and where variants apparently from the AM group appear in K, as iii. 778, 906, 921, 1732, they are found also in H₃. (2) The inequality which is to be observed in the text of H₃, some parts being much less correct than others, corresponds in the main with the difference of hands in K. Thus we find that a great crop of error springs up in H₃ from the point where the third hand of K begins, the preceding portion of the text being very fairly correct, and so to some extent elsewhere. For example, in v. 917-1017 (a part written in K by the first hand) there are about eight metrical faults in a hundred lines, while in vi. 183-283 (written in K by the third hand), there are at least twenty-five. (3) In a certain part of the third book H₃ suddenly ceases to follow the third recension text, and almost regularly gives the readings of the ERCLB₂ group. This appears first in iii. 1088 and ceases to be the case after iii. 1686, thus remarkably corresponding with the gap caused in K by the loss of three leaves after iii. 1086. It is difficult not to believe that this very marked change was caused by the following of another MS. in a place where K was defective.

The spelling of H₃ is rather late: there is no use of þ, and y is used for ȝ in ‘ye,’ ‘yiue,’ &c.

Magd. Magdalen College, Oxf. 213 (Bern. Cat. i. 2. 2354). Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and Table of Contents in English (on two fly-leaves at the beginning and one at the end). Parchment, ff. 180 + 3 (as above), 18¾ × 13¼ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: written in double column of 48 lines in a large hand of the middle fifteenth cent, something like that of H₃. Table of contents and columns 2, 3, 4 of f. 2 in a different hand. Latin summaries in text (red). Fine coloured letters with floreated half borders at the beginning of each book, and some neat drawing in connexion with the scrolls of the catchwords.

The book has lost one leaf after f. 22 (ii. 409-586) and eight after f. 88 (v. 701-2163). On f. 155 v^o the MS. omits vii. 2519-2695 without loss of leaf or blank.

Presented to the College by Marchadin Hunnis in 1620. A note by the present Librarian states that he was elected a demy of the College in 1606, appointed second master of the College Grammar School in 1610, and dismissed from that office as ‘insufficiens’ in Dec. 1611. The book is reported missing in Coxe’s catalogue.

This MS. is in many points like H₃ in its text, and must certainly have the same origin, both being perhaps derived from a MS. dependent on K. It reproduces most of the corruptions which we find in H₃, adding many others of its own, and it has the same readings in the third book which we have already noted in H₃.

A point of interest about this MS. is its apparent connexion with Caxton’s edition. It seems evident that among the MSS. from which Caxton worked (and he had three at least) was either this very copy or one so like it as to be practically undistinguishable. Of this we shall say more when we speak of Caxton’s edition.

W. Wadham Coll., Oxf. 13. Confessio Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and ‘Quam cinxere,’ then the Traitié, slightly imperfect at the end, ending ‘un amie soulain,’ xvii. 9. Paper, ff. 450, including two original blanks at the beginning, 11½ × 8¼ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: written in column of 30-48 lines (without ruling) in two hands, of which the first wrote up to iv. 2132, and the other from thence to the end. Latin summaries in margin, but sometimes omitted or cut short. Some decoration of the first page of the text in black and red; capitals, titles, &c. in red.

Three leaves are lost in the Conf. Amantis, containing Prol. 728-794, iv. 2386-2473, and v. 1-78, and several also at the end of the volume. There is great confusion in the text of the Prologue, which goes as follows: 1-92, 499-860 (with loss as above), 93-144, 861-1044, 145-498, and then 1045 ff. This is not produced by any disarrangement of leaves in the present MS., but a considerable dislocation of quires has taken place in a later part of the volume, seven quires of the fourth and fifth books having been taken out of their proper place and bound up between vi. 2132 and 2133.

This book was evidently written for one John Dedwood, since his name and device, a piece of the trunk of a dead tree, occur as part of the decorations of the first page. The two blanks at the beginning are written over with a list of Mayors and Sheriffs for a series of years, and these prove to be those of the city of Chester from the year 1469-1499 (see Ormerod’s Hist. of Cheshire, i. 211 f.). The name of John Dedwood occurs among these as Sheriff in the year 1481 and as Mayor in 1483 (but the record in the MS. is here damaged). He had also been Mayor in 1468. We may therefore suppose that the MS. dates from about 1470. The name Troutbecke occurs several times (with other names) in the book, and later (1765) it belonged to Rich. Warner of Woodford Row, Essex.

The first hand of this MS. is cramped and ugly, varying a good deal in size, the second is neat and uniform. The text is late and full of mistakes, and the spelling bad, even such forms as ‘loves,’ ‘beres,’ ‘gos’ being quite common for ‘loveth,’ &c., and often -et or -ut as a participle termination, ‘despeyret,’ ‘resignet,’ ‘weddut,’ ‘cleput,’ &c. A certain interest attaches to the MS. however from the fact that it seems to be clearly independent of F as well as of the KH₃ group. While agreeing with F completely in form of text, and supporting it also as a rule against the mistakes of KH₃, it has a considerable number of readings which belong to the first recension uncorrected type, and in other cases it agrees specially with B. Instances of the former are to be found in Prol. 159, i. 8, 1839, 2423, 2801, 3027, ii. 961, 1200, 1441, 3306, 3516, iii. 68, 626, 2056, v. 1698, 2500, 3376, vi. 543, 1151, 1631, vii. 1490, Latin verses after 1640 and 1984, 5104, viii. 510, 2342, 2925, &c. These, with others of a similar kind, scattered through the whole book, seem to be of the nature of accidental survivals, a first recension copy (the remote ancestor of W) having been altered by collation with one resembling F. W agrees with apparent mistakes of F and the rest of the third recension in some passages, as iii. 446, iv. 2867, 2973, vii. 5135, viii. 1069, 1999, but supports what is apparently the true reading against them in Prol. 1078, i. 1068, ii. 2299, 2537, iii. 1605, v. 2906, &c. In most of these last instances W merely remains in agreement with the first recension, where F, &c. depart from it, therefore its testimony may be of an accidental character.

The list of Mayors and Sheriffs of Chester on the first pages has perhaps some local interest, as it is contemporary and probably made by a responsible person. Comparing it with that given in Ormerod’s Hist. of Cheshire, we find several differences, as ‘Ric. Sadler’ for ‘Rich. Smith’ as one of the Sheriffs of 1475, ‘John Monkesfelde, Rob. Pleche,’ Sheriffs for 1478, ‘Mathewe Hewse’ for ‘Mathew Johnson,’ 1479, ‘Rychard Kir e’ for ‘Rich. Barker,’ 1492. The same pages have some notes about current historical events, as (under 1469), ‘The which yere were hedet the lorde Wellybe and the lorde Well. his son for the grete insurreccion and rysing of the Comyns of the Counte of Lyncolne. Also the same yere entred our Souereyne and moste noble Prince Kynge Edward now reynynge,’ &c. Under 1470 is a note of the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, and at 1476 the record of a visit to Chester of ‘our Souereigne lorde Prince,’ who stayed there from Christmas to Easter.

P₃. Formerly Phillipps 8942, bought in March, 1895, by Messrs. H. S. Nichols & Co., and afterwards in the possession of Messrs. Maggs, Booksellers. Confessio Amantis, imperfect, ending viii. 3119, ‘As Tullius som tyme wrot.’ Parchment, rather roughly written, middle of fifteenth century. From the Towneley Collection.

Hn. Hatton 51, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 4099). Confessio Amantis, imperfect. Parchment, ff. 206, 12 × 9 in., in quires first of 6 and then usually of 8 (lettered); double column of 42-48 lines, untidy writing. Has lost k 4 (iii. 1314-1475), n 2 (iv. 2118-2268), s 2 (v. 5169-5333), t 2 (v. 6774-6914), and five or six at the end (after viii. 2408). Copied from Caxton’s edition, including the Table of Contents and the confusion in leaf numbering.

Besides these, there are several MSS. which contain selections from the Confessio Amantis, as

Harl. 7333, Brit. Museum, which, besides the Canterbury Tales and other things, has seven stories from the Conf. Amantis, viz. f. 120 Tereus (v. 5551 ff.), f. 122 Constance (ii. 587 ff.), f. 126 The Three Questions (i. 3067 ff.), f. 127 v^o The Travellers and the Angel (ii. 291 ff.), f. 127 v^o Virgil’s Mirror, f. 128 v^o The Two Coffers, f. 129 The Beggars and the Pasties, &c. (v. 2031-2498). Parchment, large folio, column of 66 lines, no Latin. These stories are in the same hand as the Cant. Tales, which go before, and the Parlement of Foules, which follows them. The text is that of the first recension unrevised; a very poor copy.

Camb. Univ. Ee. ii. 15. Paper, ff. 95, end of fifteenth or beginning of sixteenth cent., much mutilated. Contains ff. 30-32, a fragment of The Three Questions (i. 3124-3315), and ff. 33-35, a fragment of the Trump of Death (i. 2083 ff.).

Camb. Univ. Ff. i. 6. Paper, ff. 159, 8½ × 6 in., written in various hands. Contains, ff. 3-5, part of the tale of Tereus (v. 5920-6052), ff. 5-10, iv. 1114-1466 including the tale of Rosiphelee, ff. 45-51, The Three Questions (i. 3067-3425), ff. 81-84, iv. 2746-2926, ff. 84 v^o-95, viii. 271-846. The text of iv. 1321 agrees with that of the second recension.

Ball. Coll., Oxf. 354. Paper, ff. 253, 11½ × 4¼ in. Contains a miscellaneous collection of verse and prose, with memoranda &c., all, or nearly all, apparently in the hand of the owner of the book, one Richard Hill of Langley, Herts, who has registered on f. 21 (25) the birth of his seven children, from the year 1518 to 1526, and has kept a short journal of public events which ends with the year 1536. Among the extracts are several stories from the Confessio Amantis, neatly written, about 54-60 lines to the page, with no Latin. These extend over about 46 leaves of the book and are as follows (leaves by old numbering): ff. 55-70 v^o Tale of Appolinus, viii. 271-2028, ff. 70 v^o-81 v^o Tales of Constance and of Perseus, ii. 587-1865, ff. 81 v^o-83 v^o Adrian and Bardus, v. 4937-5162, ff. 83 v^o-84 v^o, vi. 485-595, ff. 84 v^o-86 v^o Dives and Lazarus &c., vi. 975-1238, ff. 86 v^o-89 v^o Constantine, ii. 3187-3507, ff. 89 v^o-91 v^o Nebuchadnezzar, i. 2785-3066, ff. 91 v^o-94 v^o Tales of Diogenes and of Pyramus, iii. 1201-1502 and 1655-1672, ff. 94 v^o-96 Midas (unfinished), v. 141-312, ff. 171 v^o-175, The Three Questions, i. 3067-3402. The text is copied not from Caxton’s edition but from a MS. of the first recension (b) or (c). It is not very correct, and short passages or couplets are omitted here and there, as i. 3051-3054, viii. 1763-1766, 1945 f., &c.

Rawlinson D. 82, Bodleian Library. Contains on ff. 25-33 Conf. Amantis, viii. 2377-2970. Paper, written in single column of 33 lines, no Latin. Copied from a MS. resembling B, but not apparently either from B itself or from Berthelette’s MS.

Phillipps 22914 is reported as a fragment (four leaves) containing Confessio Amantis, v. 775-1542.

Nine good miniatures cut out of a MS. of the Conf. Amantis are in the possession of Mr. A. H. Frere, who kindly allowed me to see them. They are as follows. (1) Tereus, (2) Codrus, (3) Socrates and his wife, (4) Dives and Lazarus, (5) Roman Triumph, (6) Ulysses and Telegonus, (7) The Three Questions, (8) Lycurgus taking an oath from the Athenians (?), (9) King on a quay with bales and gold vessels, apparently landed from a ship near, perhaps Apollonius landing at Tarsis. Several of the pictures represent more than one scene of the story, as that of Tereus, in which we have the king at meat presented with the head of his son, while there are three birds in the background and the scene of the outrage on Philomene on the left; and again in (4), where the rich man and his wife are sitting at table and refusing food to the beggar, while in the background on the right an angel is receiving the soul of the dying Lazarus.

These miniatures are supposed to have belonged to Sir John Fenn, editor of the Paston Letters. The MS. from which they were cut seems to have been of the middle of the fifteenth cent.

Evidence is afforded of one other large and well written MS. of the Conf. Amantis by a fragment of parchment in the Shrewsbury School Library, of which a photograph has most kindly been sent to me by Dr. Calvert of Shrewsbury. It contains about 70 lines of the Prologue, viz. 189-195 (with the Latin), 224-244, 274-294, 323-343. The leaf to which it belonged must have measured at least 15½ × 11½ in., and was written in double column of 50 lines.

Three other MSS. are mentioned in the Catalogue of 1697 (vol. ii. pt. 1), viz. 611 ‘John Gower’s Old English Poems’ with ‘S. Anselmi Speculum Religiosorum,’ at Naworth Castle, which I strongly suspect is identical with Harl. 3490 (H₁), 4035, ‘Goweri Confessio Amantis, Fol. magn.,’ belonging to Ric. Brideoake, Esq., of Ledwell, Oxon., and 6974, ‘Jo. Gower’s Poems, fol.,’ belonging to Sir Henry Langley of the County of Salop (i.e. of the Abbey, Shrewsbury).

The average excellence of the Gower MSS. stands high, and there is a surprisingly large proportion of well written and finely decorated copies, which attain to more than a respectable standard of correctness. Manuscripts such as L or B₂, which stand in the third rank among copies of the Confessio Amantis, would take a very different place among the authorities for any of Chaucer’s works, second only to the Ellesmere MS. if they were copies of the Canterbury Tales, and easily in the first place if it were a question of the Legend of Good Women or the Hous of Fame. It is evident not only that Gower was careful about the text of his writings, but also that there was some organized system of reproduction, which was wanting in the case of Chaucer.

Version. It remains to say something of the Spanish prose version of the Confessio Amantis, which exists in manuscript in the Library of the Escorial (g. ii. 19). Information about this was first given me by Mr. J. Fitzmaurice-Kelly, and since then by the learned Librarian of the Escorial, Fr. Guillermo Antolin, O.S.A., who most obligingly sent me an account of it. The Catalogue (1858) thus describes the book: ‘Confision del amante, libro así intitulado compuesto por Juan Goer natural del Reyno de Englaterra, e tornado en lengua Portuguesa por Roberto Payn ó Payna canónigo de la ciudad de Lisboa, e despues fué puesto en lenguaje castellano por Juan de Cuenca natural de Huete. Cod. escrito en papel el año de 1400, fol. menor. pasta.’ The statement about the author and the translators is taken from the beginning of the translation itself. It seems to be rather implied that the Castilian version made by Juan de Cuenca was based upon the Portuguese of Robert Payn, no doubt an Englishman. The present Librarian adds that it is a book of 411 leaves, and of the end of the fourteenth or beginning of the fifteenth cent.

The translation was made from a copy of the first recension. So far as I can judge by the extracts with which the Librarian has furnished me, it is a tolerably close version. For example, Prol. 22 ff. ‘e por que pocos escriven en lenguaje yngles yo entiendo de componer en el un lybro a onrra del Rey rricardo cuyo sugebto yo so en todo obedescimiento de mi coraçon, como dicho sugebto puede y deue a su dicho señor,... asy fue que un tiempo acaescio como avía de ser que yo yendo en un batel a rremos por el rrio de atenas que va a la cibdad de noua troya ... y yo estonces falle por ventura a este mi señor e luego como me vido mando que fuese a una barca en que el venia, y entre otras cosas que me dixo,’ &c. And again viii. 2941 ff. (the Chaucer greeting), ‘Saluda de mi parte a caucer mi disciplo e mi poeta, quando con el topares, el qual por mi en la su mancibia fiso toda su diligencia para componer y escreuir desyres e cantares de diversas maneras de los quales toda la tierra es llena, por la qual cosa en especial le soy mucho tenido mas que a ninguno de los otros. Por ende dile que le enbio desir que tal esta en su postrimera hedad por dar fyn a todas sus obras se travaje de faser su testamento de amor, asi como tu has fecho agora en tu confision.’

Editions. The Confessio Amantis has been already six times printed, viz. by Caxton, by Berthelette (twice), in Chalmers’ English Poets, by Pauli, and by Prof. Henry Morley. All the later editions are dependent, directly or indirectly, on Berthelette.

Caxton printed the Conf. Amantis in 1483. His text is a composite one, taken from at least three MSS. At first he follows a copy of the third recension, either the Magdalen MS. itself or one remarkably like it, and he continues this for more than half the book, up to about v. 4500. Then for a time he seems to follow a second recension copy, either alone or in combination with the other, but from about v. 6400 to the end he prints from a manuscript of the unrevised first recension, inserting however the additional passages in the seventh book and the conclusion (after the Chaucer greeting) from one of his other MSS. The account of the books ‘Quia vnusquisque’ at the end is from a first recension MS. The principle, no doubt, was to include as much as possible, but two of the additional passages, v. 7015*-7036* and 7086*-7210*, were omitted, probably by oversight, while a first recension copy was being followed. The later form of epilogue was perhaps printed rather than the other because it is longer. Caxton prints the lines at the end of the Prologue, which are given only by Δ, and there are some other indications that he had a MS. of this type; but he had also one of the AdBT group, which alone contain vii. 2329*-2340* and 3149*-3180*.

On f. cxvi v^o Caxton still agrees with Magd. almost regularly, e.g. v. 4450 And myn hap 4454 is not trouble 4465 But for that 4467 ne shall yeue and lene 4484 doo 4503 A good word, whereas on f. cxvii he differs repeatedly, e.g. 4528, 4532, 4543, 4555, 4560, 4572, and seems never to be in full agreement after this. That he is following a first recension copy after about v. 6400 is clear from the unbroken series of readings belonging to this class which he exhibits. The text generally is very poor and the metre extremely bad.

Berthelette in 1532 printed the Conf. Amantis from a MS. very closely resembling B. He did not venture, however, to substitute the preface which he found in his copy for that to which Caxton had given currency, but merely expressed surprise that the printed copies should deviate so much from the MSS., and printed separately that which his manuscript gave. He also takes from Caxton the lines at the end of the Prologue, the additional third recension passages, Prol. 495-498, 579-584, i. 1403-1406, 2267-2274, 2343-2358, 2369-2372AK, and also the Chaucer greeting, viii. 2941-2960*, but he has overlooked v. 7701-7746. He inserts of course all the additional passages in v. and vii, as he found them in his MS., loudly protesting against Caxton for omitting ‘lynes and columnes, ye and sometyme holle padges.’

Berthelette’s text is better than Caxton’s, but his manuscript must have been decidedly inferior in correctness to B.

The second edition, 1554, is a reprint of the first, column for column, in different type. A few mistakes are corrected, and the spelling is somewhat changed, especially by substitution in many cases of i for y.

Chalmers published the Conf. Amantis in vol. ii. of the collection of British Poets, 1810, taking the text from Berthelette’s edition of 1554.

Pauli professed to follow Berthelette’s first edition with collation throughout of MSS. Harl. 7184 and 3869, and occasional reference to Harl. 3490 and the Stafford MS. It is almost impossible that this full collation can really have been made, for by it nearly all Berthelette’s errors might have been corrected, whereas we find them as a matter of fact on every page of Pauli’s edition. As to the critical judgement of the editor, it is enough to say that he regarded Harl. 7184 as a better authority for the text and spelling than either Harl. 3869 or the Stafford MS. (being attracted apparently by the external magnificence of the volume), and that he actually pronounced it to be of the fourteenth cent. His diligence may be measured by the fact that because Harl. 3490 stops short at viii. 3062* (in the middle of a sentence), being left unfinished by the scribe, therefore Pauli’s edition omits the remainder of this conclusion, 3063*-3114*AL, though he had the MS. in the Royal Library (R) within his reach, by means of which he might have completed his copy. He is also seriously inaccurate in the statements which he makes about the Stafford MS. as regards the additional passages.

A certain number of the errors in Berthelette’s edition are corrected, but very many remain, and in some cases further corruption has been introduced by the editor, either from Harl. 7184 or otherwise. The orthography has been ‘restored,’ but hardly with success.

Morley (1889) followed Pauli’s text, with conjectural alterations of his own, and a few corrections from Berthelette, as i. 773. Often the changes are quite wrong, e.g. Prol. 82, 608, i. 777, 1675 f., 2957 f., the most extraordinary perhaps being iv. 2408 f. The editor professes to omit iii. 142-338 and a few lines here and there in other places. The omissions, however, are much more extensive than this seems to imply. In the fourth book alone they are as follows, 401-408, 428-436, 443-506, 516-523, 1467-1475, 1490-1594, 2131-2182, 2754-2770, 2858-2862, 2883-2888, 3181-3302, and in some cases it is impossible even to conjecture on what principle they are made.

The Present Edition. The text follows the Bodleian Fairfax MS. and every deviation from this is noted. The critical apparatus is constructed upon the following principles.

Three manuscripts have been collated throughout with the text of F, viz. Bodley 902 (A), Corpus Christi Coll. 67 (C), and Bodley 294 (B). These are selected to represent respectively the first recension revised, the first recension unrevised, and the second recension texts. A is an excellent copy, the best of its class, C is a carefully written MS., the best of the group to which it belongs, with the exception of Egerton 1991, and B, besides being a good copy and almost the only second recension MS. which is not imperfect, has perhaps a special claim to attention because its text is of the type which all the editions except that of Caxton have followed. In all cases where variation has been found, except where it is merely of form and spelling or of a very trifling and accidental kind, the readings of at least fourteen other selected copies have been ascertained, and by this procedure those variations which are merely individual have been distinguished from those which are shared by a class or a group. The result is given in the critical notes, all the variations of A and B being there cited except those that are very triflingAM, while the readings of C are usually given only when shared by some other manuscript.

It is important that it should be observed which the manuscripts are which have thus been referred to and how their evidence is cited. They are divided always according to their recension, first, second or third, and they are cited in an unvarying order, as follows: AJMH₁X(G)ERCLB₂, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃ (or K), so that A ... B₂ means the whole series of the first class, and S ... Δ that of the second, while H₁ ... B₂ stands for H₁X(G)ERCLB₂, and E ... B₂ for ERCLB₂. These nineteen (or eighteen) manuscripts are present as witnesses throughout, whether named or not; for when the manuscripts are named which give a variation, it is to be assumed that the remainder have the reading of the text. Thus the note

‘1295 wisdom] wordes H₁ ... B₂, H₃’

must be taken to imply that ‘wisdom’ is the reading of AJM, SAdBTΔ, FW and ‘wordes’ of H₁XGERCLB₂, H₃:

‘1296 gostly B’

means that the reading of the text, ‘goodly,’ is given by every one of the nineteen except B:

‘1318 How þer(e) H₁G ... B₂’

means that the reading of the text is that of AJMX, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃ and that of the note belongs to H₁GERCLB₂:

‘1330 for to] þat þou SAdBTΔ’

indicates a reading of the second recension only:

‘3340 tho] þe AM ... B₂’

stands for the fact that all the first recension copies except J vary from F, while the rest agree. Occasionally readings of other MSS. are cited besides those mentioned above, as Y, Λ or Magd., but the absence of such citation must not be taken to imply anything.

It must be observed, however, that in some cases a more limited reference seemed desirable, especially on matters of form and spelling, points about which it would be idle to adduce any evidence but that of a few copies. Where selection of this kind is employed, the manuscripts on both sides are cited: thus such notes as

‘3691 set AJ, S, F sette C, B,’

‘4307 all S, F alle AJ, B’

must not be taken to imply the reading of any copy except those mentioned. In a few cases this form is used to avoid misunderstanding in passages where the record of readings is for some reason incomplete, as i. 2300, viii. 566, 1713, 1927.

In citing a variation as given by a class or group of MSS. no attempt is made to give the spelling of each one separately. The form cited is that given either by the majority or by a leading MS. with variations sometimes added in parentheses.

Attention should be paid also to the following points: (1) It was not found possible to complete the collation of the Glasgow MS. (G) before the text was printed, and consequently its readings must not be taken as implied, when not mentioned, any further than v. 1970. The collation has since been completed and some of the results are noted in the account of the MS. (2) K takes the place of H₃ in vi. 1671-vii. 1405, and vii. 3594 to the end, where H₃ is defective. (3) Before assuming the evidence of any MS. ex silentio it is necessary that the reader should assure himself that it is not defective in the part concerned. The means of doing this are fully afforded by the accounts given of the separate MSS., where their imperfections are noted, and it must be remembered that J and Ad are for the most part defective as regards the Latin summaries, and that this is the case with T also in certain parts. The readings of S on f. 50 are for the most part passed over, as not originally belonging to that MS. (4) A few abbreviated Latin terms are used in the critical notes, as in ras. to indicate that the text is written over an erasure, or p. m. to denote the reading of the first hand.