Introduction (part 2)

On the other hand, ‘Of hem that ben so derk withinne,’ i. 1077, ‘Hire chekes ben with teres wet,’ i. 1680, ‘Thei wexen doumb,’ iv. 345, ‘Here bodies weren long and smal,’ iv. 1320, ‘Thei weren gracious and wys,’ vii. 1447, ‘thei weren glad,’ viii. 881, and so frequently.

The participle used as predicate is ordinarily uninflected, but there are a few examples of a plural form adopted for the rhyme, as made, Prol. 300, ansuerde, i. 3246, iv. 2343, hidde, v. 6789.

The usage of al, alle as an adjective is in some ways peculiar, but tolerably consistent. In the singular before an article, a demonstrative pronoun or a possessive, the uninflected form al (occasionally all) is used, as ‘al the baronie,’ ‘al the world,’ ‘al his welthe,’ ‘all his proude fare,’ ‘al a mannes strengthe’ (also ‘the Cite all,’ ii. 3473), but before a substantive the form alle (dissyllable), as ‘alle grace,’ ‘alle thing,’ ‘alle untrouthe,’ ‘alle vertu,’ ‘in alle wise,’ ‘in alle haste,’ ‘alle wel,’ ‘alle charite,’ but sometimes before vowels al, as ‘al honour,’ i. 879, ‘al Erthe,’ i. 2825, ‘al Envie,’ ii. 168, ‘al untrowthe,’ ii. 1684. In the plural, ‘al the,’ ‘all these,’ ‘alle the,’ &c. (‘alle’ being counted as a monosyllable), and without the article, ‘alle’ (but ‘al othre,’ iv. 1532).

Note also the adverbial expression ‘in none wise,’ cp. ‘othre wise.’ In cases of the combination of a French adjective with a feminine substantive of the same origin the adjective occasionally takes the French feminine form. Instances are as follows: ‘devolte apparantie,’ i. 636, ‘veine gloire,’ i. 2677 ff., ‘vertu sovereine,’ ii. 3507, ‘seinte charite,’ iv. 964, ‘herbe sovereine,’ vii. 1392, ‘joie sovereine,’ viii. 2530, and even as predicate, ‘Dame Avarice is noght soleine,’ v. 1971. Possibly also, ‘O thou divine pourveance,’ ii. 3243, ‘the parfite medicine,’ iv. 2624, ‘a gentile ... on,’ v. 2713, and ‘O thou gentile Venus,’ viii. 2294, may be examples of the same usage.

There is one instance of the French plural adjective in -s, Prol. 738, evidently introduced for the sake of the rhyme.

(3) Pronouns. The personal pronoun of the first person is regularly I, not ich. It is usually written y by the copyist of the last 235 lines of the Fairfax MS. and in the Praise of Peace.

The third person sing. fem. is sche (never written she), once scheo: the oblique case is hire, hir (never here), and hire, though usually equivalent to a monosyllable, sometimes has -e fully sounded, as i. 367, iv. 766, v. 1178.

The third person neuter is it, seldom hit.

In the first person plural the oblique case is ous, not shortened to us in spelling.

The possessives of the first and second persons sing., min, thin, have no plural inflexion, but the disjunctive form thyne pl. occurs, i. 168. On the other hand his, originally an uninflected form, has usually the plural hise, but sometimes his. The form hise is never a dissyllable.

The feminine possessive, 3rd pers., is hire or hir, freely interchanged and metrically equivalent. There is no question of a plural inflexion here, and we find ‘Hire Nase,’ ‘hire browes,’ ‘hir lockes,’ ‘Hire Necke,’ quite indifferently used, i. 1678 ff. The disjunctive is hire, v. 6581, and hires, v. 6857. The forms oure, ȝoure are usual for the possessives of the 1st and 2nd pers. plur., and these are commonly used as monosyllables, e.g. i. 2062, 2768, and interchanged with our, ȝour; but they are also capable of being reckoned as dissyllables, e.g. Prol. 5, iii. 1087. Here again there is no plural inflexion (‘ȝour wordes,’ iii. 627). The disjunctive ȝoures occurs in i. 1852.

The possessive of the 3rd pers. plur. is here, her, which is practically never confused in good MSS. with hire, hir of the fem. sing. We are fully justified in assuming that for Gower the distinction was absolute.

The ordinary relatives are which and that: who is little used as a relative except in the genitive case, whos. The plural whiche is usually pronounced as a monosyllable, as ii. 604, iv. 1496, v. 1320, and often loses -e in writing, as Prol. 1016, iv. 1367, 1872, v. 4041, but also sometimes counts as a dissyllable, e.g. i. 404, vii. 1256.

In combination with the definite article the singular form is ‘the which,’ not ‘the whiche,’ as Prol. 71, 975.

(4) Verbs. In the Infinitive and Gerund, apart from the cases of do, go, se, sle, &c., few instances occur of the loss of final e. The verb sein (sain) has seie and also say, and beside the regular infinitive pute we have also put in several instances, the next word beginning with a vowel or mute h. The cases are as follows: ‘And thoghte put hire in an Ile,’ i. 1578, ‘To put his lif,’ &c., i. 3213, ‘put eny lette,’ ii. 93, and so also ii. 1021, iii. 1166, iv. 756, 2615, v. 273, viii. 892: but also, ‘It oghte pute a man in fere,’ i. 462, ‘To puten Rome in full espeir,’ ii. 1551, ‘Theucer pute out of his regne,’ iii. 2648, &c. In addition to the above there are a few instances of the same in other verbs, as ‘get hire a thank,’ ii. 60, ‘It schal noght wel mow be forsake,’ ii. 1670, ‘flitt his herte aside,’ iv. 214, ‘let it passe,’ viii. 2056. (In vi. 202, ‘If that sche wolde ȝif me leve,’ we ought perhaps to read ȝive with S: cp. i. 1648.)

The gerund ‘to done’ is common, but we do not find either ‘to sene’ or ‘to seine.’

Present Tense. In the 1st pers. sing, of the present, apart from such forms as do, go, &c., and prai beside preie praie, there are a few cases of apocope, as in the infinitive: ‘Than cast I,’ iv. 560, ‘let it passe,’ iv. 363, ‘I put me therof in your grace,’ i. 732, ‘I put it al,’ v. 2951, ‘I red thee leve,’ vi. 1359, ‘Nou thenk I,’ vii. 4212. In two of these instances it will be noticed that the following word begins with a consonant.

In the 3rd pers. sing. the syncopated and contracted forms are very much used by Gower. He says regularly bit, ett, get, put, schet, set, sit (2nd pers. sist), smit, writ; arist, bint, fint, holt (halt), lest, went, wext; berth, brekth, bringth, crith, drawth, drinkth, falth, farth, forsakth, leith, lyth, preith, spekth, takth (or tath), thenkth, ȝifth, and only occasionally draweth, drinketh, fareth, kepeth, sitteth, waxeth, &c. In vi. 59 the best MSS. agree in giving sterte for stert, and in viii. 2428 most have sitte for sit, but these are probably accidental variations. For the 3rd pers. plural Fahrenberg (p. 404) quotes several supposed instances of th ending. Of these most are expressions like ‘men seith,’ where ‘men’ is used as singular indefinite. One only is valid, viz. vii. 1107, ‘Diverse sterres to him longeth’: cp. vii. 536.

Preterite. With regard to the tense formation of Strong Verbs reference may be made to the Glossary, where all the characteristic forms are recorded. We confine ourselves here to a few remarks.

The following instances may be noticed of gradation between the singular and the plural of the preterite: began, pl. begunne begonne, gan, pl. gonnen, ran, pl. runne, wan, pl. wonne, bond, pl. bounden, fond, pl. founden, song (sang), pl. songe sunge, sprong, pl. spronge sprungen, drank (dronk), pl. drunke, bar, pl. bere (beere), brak, pl. brieken, spak, pl. spieke, sat, pl. sete(n) siete(n) seete, bad, pl. bede, lay (lih), pl. lihe leie(n), wax, pl. woxen, wrot, pl. write(n), rod, pl. riden, ches, pl. chose, and among preterite-presents can, pl. conne, mai, pl. mowe, schal, pl. schulle schull schol, wot, pl. wite.

There are some few instances in F of strong preterites with irregular -e termination in the 1st or 3rd pers. singular, but in no case is this authenticated by metre or rhyme. The following are examples in which F and S are agreed, ‘schope a wile,’ v. 4278, ‘he bare him,’ v. 5236, ‘which sihe his Soster,’ v. 5810, ‘lete come,’ vi. 1186, ‘he tho toke hire in his arm,’ viii. 1732. These are perhaps mistakes, and they have sometimes been corrected in the text on the authority of other MSS.

The 2nd pers. sing. has the -e termination, as sihe (syhe), iii. 2629, iv. 599, were, iv. 600, knewe, vi. 2313, come, viii. 2076, but tok, i. 2421. The 2nd pers. sing. of the preterite-present mai is regularly miht (myht), never ‘mayest.’ Occasionally the best MSS. give it as mihte, e.g. i. 2457, vii. 2637, 3819, but there is no metrical confirmation of this form. The preterite plural is very rarely found without -e, as v. 3300, 7534, vii. 3574.

Among Weak Verbs those which have the short or syncopated form keep the -e termination almost regularly. Such preterites are, for example, aspide, cride, deide, leide, obeide, payde, preide, seide, teide, hadde, made, brende, sende, answerde, ferde, herde, solde, spilde, tolde, wende, betidde, dradde, fedde, fledde, hedde, gradde, ladde, radde, spedde, spradde, crepte, duelte, felte, hente, kepte, kiste, lefte, lepte, loste, mente, slepte, wente, wepte, alihte, caste, dihte, grette, knette, kutte, laste, liste, mette, plyhte, putte, schette, sette, sterte, triste, arawhte, broghte, cawhte, oghte, roghte, schryhte, soghte, strawhte, tawhte, thoghte, wroghte, cowthe, dorste, mihte, moste, scholde, wiste, wolde.

At the same time it must be noted (as in the case of the infinitive) that with some of these forms there is an occasional tendency to drop the -e before a vowel at the beginning of the next word (that is, where elision would take place), and the agreement of the best MSS., especially F and S, makes it certain this was sometimes done by the author. It is impossible to trace any system, but the number of verbs affected is not large, and in nearly every case the instances of this kind of elision-apocope are largely outnumbered by the examples of normal inflexion in the same verb.

The following is a tolerably full list of references for these preterite forms, which are given in alphabetical order: ‘Beraft hire,’ v. 5647, ‘it betidd upon the cas,’ vii. 4381, ‘Sche cast on me,’ i. 152, ‘cast up hire lok,’ v. 5436, ‘he cast his lok,’ vi. 1035, ‘dorst he,’ ii. 1633, ‘drad him,’ viii. 1368, ‘And felt it’ (subj.), viii. 2165, ‘so ferd I,’ viii. 2445, ‘had herd hem,’ v. 5865, ‘Hir bodi hent up,’ v. 5702, ‘herd he noght sein,’ iii. 2082, ‘And kept hire,’ ii. 181, ‘Sche kept al doun,’ v. 1495, ‘he kest him,’ vi. 1746, ‘And kist him,’ v. 3777, 5592, ‘and knet it,’ v. 6866, ‘he kut it,’ vii. 4525, ‘what him list he tok,’ iii. 2446, ‘Sche lost al,’ ii. 2290, cp. v. 3465, ‘That mad hem,’ ii. 310, and so also v. 986, 3393, 3822, ‘ne myht I,’ i. 1280, ‘miht eschuie,’ iii. 1356, and so also iii. 1440, vii. 4285, ‘Put under,’ Prol. 683, ‘Wan and put under,’ Prol. 718, ‘He put hem into,’ i. 1013, ‘Sche put hire hand,’ i. 1807, and so also ii. 3267, v. 3045, 4088, 5326, 6409, vi. 2062, vii. 4402, viii. 2702, ‘thei putt hem,’ v. 7417, ‘Of ous, that schold ous,’ Prol. 543 (so SF), ‘schold every wys man,’ ii. 578, ‘And seid hir,’ i. 3188, ‘Seid ek,’ v. 4309, ‘And set hire,’ ii. 2220, ‘He set him,’ v. 3691, ‘he set an essamplaire,’ vii. 4262, ‘And tawht hem so’ (‘tawhte’ S), iii. 176, ‘told him,’ i. 3187, ii. 803, 2865 (‘tolde’ S), vii. 4688, told hem,’ v. 3883, viii. 1555, ‘he told out,’ ii. 884, ‘every man went on his syde,’ v. 7403, ‘And went hem out’ (pl.), v. 7533, ‘sche wist it,’ ii. 2010, ‘thanne wold I,’ i. 183, ‘and wold have,’ v. 4217, ‘I wold stele,’ v. 7137, ‘wold I,’ viii. 2298, to which we may add ‘myht obeie,’ and ‘behight him’ from the Praise of Peace, 39, 41.

Of these examples it is to be remembered, first that in only one case, ‘I wold stele,’ v. 7137, does this apocope take place before a consonant, though in one other instance, v. 5865, the following word begins with an aspirated h; and secondly, that with all these, except perhaps put, the full form of the preterite is that which usually occurs before a vowel as well as elsewhere. Even in the case of put we have the form putte frequently when it is subject to elision, as Prol. 1069, ‘And putte awey malencolie,’ and so ii. 713, 2684, iv. 399, 1368, &c., as well as regularly before a consonant, as ‘With strengthe he putte kinges under,’ i. 2797. The form putt occurs in v. 7417, and in this case the verb is plural. The only other instances of plurals in the list are Prol. 543 and v. 7533.

With regard to the weak verbs which form preterites with ending -ede, the loss of the final e is somewhat more common, but it is usually retained, and sometimes it counts as a syllable in the verse. Where this is not the case, it is either elided in the usual way, or if it be dropped in writing, this is only under the conditions which apply to the verbs mentioned above, namely, before a vowel at the beginning of the succeeding word.

It is, however, noteworthy that the use of these forms, whether in -ede or -ed, is decidedly rare, and was avoided by our author even in cases where the -e would have been subject to elision. It is evident that he was always conscious of this ending, even if he did not always write it, and yet he felt that the two weak syllables ought not to have full value in the metre. The result was that he avoided the use of the form generally, so far as it was reasonably possible to do so. The whole number of these preterites in -ede, -ed to be found in the Confessio Amantis is surprisingly small, both actually and relatively, that is, taking account of the extent to which the verbs in question are employed in their other tenses. The method pursued is chiefly to substitute in narrative the present tense, or the perfect formed with ‘hath,’ for the 3rd person singular of the preterite, ‘Conforteth’ for ‘Confortede,’ ‘Hath axed’ for ‘axede,’ ‘feigneth’ for ‘feignede,’ and this apparently as a matter of habit and even in cases where a vowel follows. No doubt the use of the present tense in narrative is quite usual apart from this, but the extremely frequent combination of strong or syncopated preterites with the present tenses of verbs of this class seems to me to indicate clearly how the matter stood.

The following are a few of the examples of this: ‘For sche tok thanne chiere on honde And clepeth him,’ i. 1767 f., ‘The king comandeth ben in pes, And ... caste,’ 3240 f., ‘Comendeth, and seide overmore,’ 3361, ‘he him bethoghte,... And torneth to the banke ayein,’ ii. 167 ff., ‘for hem sente And axeth hem,’ 613 f., ‘lay ... clepeth oute ... sterte,’ 848 ff., ‘Sche loketh and hire yhen caste,’ 1066, ‘This child he loveth kindely ... Bot wel he sih ... axeth ... seide,’ 1381 ff., ‘Sche preide him and conseileth bothe,’ 1457, ‘Which semeth outward profitable And was,’ 2201 f., ‘And he himself that ilke throwe Abod, and hoveth there stille,’ iii. 1232 f., and so on.

These examples will serve to illustrate a tendency which every reader will observe, when once his attention has been called to it. There are indeed many narrative passages in which nearly all the strong or syncopated verbs are used in the preterite, and all the others in the present, and it is evident that this cannot be accidental.

There are, however, a certain number of instances of the use of weak preterites, indicative or subjunctive, and a few in which the final e (or -en) is sounded in the metre.

The following are examples of -ede preterites (in one instance -ide): ‘I wisshide after deth,’ i. 120, ‘he passede ate laste,’ 142, ‘he hem stoppede alle faste,’ 522, ‘And warnede alle his officiers,’ 2506, ‘Mi ladi lovede, and I it wiste,’ ii. 502, ‘he axede hem anon,’ 1248, ‘he rounede in thin Ere,’ 1944, ‘Bot he hire lovede, er he wente,’ 2027, ‘Thogh that he lovede ten or tuelve,’ 2063, ‘Supplantede the worthi knyht,’ 2453, ‘Sche pourede oute,’ iii. 679, so also iii. 1631, 2556, iv. 468, 825, 842, 934, 1340, 1345, 1444, ‘Lo, thus sche deiede a wofull Maide,’ iv. 1593, ‘it likede ek to wende,’ 2150, ‘Controeveden be sondri wise,’ 2454, ‘Translateden. And otherwise,’ 2660, ‘And foundeden the grete Rome,’ v. 904, ‘He feignede him,’ 928, ‘And clepede him,’ 951, ‘He percede the harde roche,’ 1678, ‘Thei faileden, whan Crist was bore,’ 1697, ‘Thei passeden the toun,’ 2182, ‘Alle othre passede of his hond,’ 3258, ‘Welcomede him,’ 3373, ‘walkede up and doun’ (pl.), 3833, ‘axede him,’ 5129, so also 5774, 6132, 6791, 6887, ‘oppressede al the nacion’ (pl.), vi. 568, ‘That loveden longe er I was bore,’ 882, ‘he usede ay,’ 1207, ‘exilede out of londe,’ 2348, ‘Enformeden,’ vii. 1495, ‘Devoureden,’ 3346, ‘Ensamplede hem’ (pl.), 4441, ‘Restorede hem,’ 4445, so also 4632, 4986, 4992, 4998, &c., ‘Eschuieden to make assay,’ viii. 373, ‘With love wrastlede and was overcome,’ 2240.

This list of examples, which is fairly complete up to v. 1970, will sufficiently show the manner in which -ede preterites are used. In more than three-fourths of the instances quoted the -e is subject to elision, and of those that remain nine are examples of the plural with -eden termination, and three only of the ending -ede, viz. ii. 2063, ‘Thogh that he lovede ten or tuelve,’ ii. 2453, ‘Supplantede the worthi knyht,’ and v. 1678, ‘He percede the harde roche,’ of which the first is really a case of syncope, ‘lov’de,’ as also ii. 502 (cp. vi. 882) and iv. 1593, whereas in ii. 2027 ‘lovede’ occurs unsyncopated but with -e elided. It will be noted that in the plural the form -eden is used regularly when the syllables are to be fully pronounced, though -ede can be used for the sake of elision.

The -ed form of preterite is less frequent than the other, and I am not aware of any clear example of its employment before a consonant or in rhyme. We have, for example, ‘And used it,’ i. 342, ‘Sche cleped him,’ i. 1535 (‘humbled him,’ i. 2065, is probably a participle, ‘to have humbled himself’), ‘pryded I me,’ i. 2372, ‘ne feigned I,’ ii. 2061, ‘the goddes ... Comanded him,’ iii. 2140 f., ‘Thei cleped him,’ v. 876, cp. 1057, &c. In iii. 1759, ‘The Gregois torned fro the siege,’ we have most probably a participle, ‘were torned.’ We may observe that the -ed form stands also in the plural.

Among weak preterites from originally strong verbs we may notice abreide, crepte (but past participle crope), foghte, fledde, schotte, slepte (also slep, with past participle slepe), smette (beside smot), wepte. The pret. satte in vii. 2282, ‘He satte him thanne doun,’ seems to arise from confusion of sat and sette.

Imperative. The Confessio Amantis is peculiarly rich in imperatives. Beside the regular imperative singular forms, e.g. ared, besech, behold, ches, com, do, forsak, griet, help, hier, hyd, kep, lef, ly, lei, lest, lep, prei, put, say, schrif, spek, tak, tell, thenk, understond, ȝif, &c., the MSS. give us also hyde, iii. 1502, seie, vii. 4084, speke, vii. 5422, take, iv. 2674, v. 6429, thenke, iii. 1083, but not in such positions as to affect the metre. The forms axe, herkne, loke, wite are regular, but lok also occurs (i. 1703, v. 1220).

In some instances the short form of imperative seems to be used as 3rd pers., e.g. ‘hold clos the ston,’ v. 3573, for ‘let him hold,’ ‘tak in his minde,’ viii. 1128, for ‘let him take,’ cp. viii. 1420. The singular and plural forms are often used without distinction, as v. 2333 ff., ‘Ches ... and witeth ... ches and tak ... goth ... taketh,’ v. 3986, ‘So help me nou, I you beseche,’ with ‘Helpeth,’ just above, several persons being addressed, and so ‘taketh hiede And kep conseil,’ viii. 1509 f., to one person. In the interchange of speech between the Confessor and the Lover, while sometimes the distinction is preserved, the Confessor saying tak, tell, understond, and the Lover telleth, axeth (e.g. i. 1395, 1875), at other times the Lover says lest, say, tell, lef, &c. (i. 1942, 1972, ii. 2074, iii. 841, &c.).

Present Participle. The form of the present participle is the most characteristic part of Gower’s verb inflexion as compared (for example) with Chaucer’s. Chaucer seems regularly to have used the form in -inge (often with apocope -ing): Gower uses ordinarily the form -ende, and normally with the accent thrown on the termination, as i. 204, ‘To me spekende thus began,’ 236, ‘Whos Prest I am touchende of love,’ 428, ‘Stondende as Stones hiere and there,’ 633, ‘So that semende of liht thei werke,’ 1379 f., ‘That for I se no sped comende, ... compleignende,’ 1682, ‘Hangende doun unto the chin.’

Sometimes the same form is used with accent on the preceding syllable, and in this case the -e is systematically elided, e.g. Prol. 11, ‘In tyme comende after this,’ 259, ‘Belongende unto the presthode,’ i. 296, ‘As touchende of my wittes fyve’ (cp. 334, 742), 3025, ‘And wailende in his bestly stevene.’

In a relatively small number of instances the form -inge occurs either in rhyme, as i. 524, ‘So whan thei comen forth seilinge,’ in rhyme with ‘singe,’ i. 1710, ‘And liveth, as who seith, deyinge,’ in rhyme with ‘likynge’ (subst.), or with the accent thrown back, as i. 115, ‘Wisshinge and wepinge al myn one,’ v. 518, ‘Abidinge in hir compaignie,’ vi. 717, ‘I mai go fastinge everemo’; rarely out of rhyme and with accent, as i. 2721, ‘Mi fader, as touchinge of al.’

The final e is never lost in writing, but when the accent is thrown back it is always elided.

Past Participle. The -id termination of weak past participles is very rarely found in the Fairfax MS., except in the concluding passage, which is copied in a different hand from the rest. It occurs commonly in the Praise of Peace. Examples found elsewhere in F are weddid, iv. 650, medlid, iv. 1475.

From setten besides the regular past participle set there appears the form sete twice in rhyme, vii. 2864, forȝete: sete, and viii. 244, misgete (past partic.): upsete. This seems to be formed after the analogy of gete. On the other hand we have ferd, i. 445, &c., but also fare(n), iii. 2692, v. 3797, &c. The past participle of se is sen, sein, seie, but most commonly sene. In a few instances a final e is given by the MSS. in weak past participles, e.g. herde for herd, v. 4231, schope for schop, v. 4278, sette for set, vi. 10, wiste for wist, viii. 37.

The cases of weak past participles with plural inflexion (e.g. Prol. 300, i. 3246, iv. 2343, v. 6789) have already been mentioned in dealing with adjectives.

There is hardly any use of the prefix y- (i-), but we have ybore, ii. 499.

vi. Dialect. Gower’s language is undoubtedly in the main the English of the Court, and not a provincial dialect. Making allowance for the influences of literary culture and for a rather marked conservatism in orthography and grammatical inflexions, we can see that it agrees on the whole with the London speech of the time, as evidenced by the contemporary documents referred to by Prof. Morsbach. At the same time its tendencies are Southern rather than Midland, and he seems to have used Kentish forms rather more freely than Chaucer. This is shown especially (1) in the more extensive use of the forms in which e stands for O. E. y̆, as senne, kesse, pet, hell, &c.; (2) in the frequent employment of ie, both in French and English words, to represent ẹ̄, a practice which can hardly be without connexion with the Kentish cliene, diepe, diere, hier, hield, niede, &c.; (3) in the use of -ende as the normal termination of the present participle. (The Ayenbite regularly has -inde.) Probably also the preference shown by Gower for the close sound of ē, from O. E. ǣ, may be to some extent due to Kentish influence. Other points of resemblance between the language of Gower and that of the Ayenbite (for example) are the free use of syncopated forms in the 3rd pers. sing. of verbs and the regular employment of ous for us.

vii. Metre, &c. The smoothness and regularity of Gower’s metre has been to some extent recognized. Dr. Schipper in Englische Metrik, vol. i. p. 279, remarks upon the skill with which the writer, while preserving the syllabic rule, makes his verse flow always so smoothly without doing violence to the natural accentuation of the words, and giving throughout the effect of an accent verse, not one which is formed by counting syllables. Judging by the extracts printed in Morris and Skeat’s Specimens (which are taken from MS. Harl. 3869, and therefore give practically the text of Fairfax 3), he observes that the five principal licences which he has noted generally in the English verse of the period are almost entirely absent from Gower’s octosyllabics, and in particular that he neither omits the first unaccented syllable, as Chaucer so often does (e.g. ‘Be it rouned, red or songe,’ Hous of Fame, ii. 214, ‘Any lettres for to rede,’ iii. 51, ‘Of this hill that northward lay,’ iii. 62), nor displaces the natural accent (as ‘Of Decembre the tenthe day,’ Hous of Fame, i. 111, ‘Jupiter considereth wel this,’ ii. 134, ‘Rounede everych in otheres ere,’ iii. 954), nor slurs over syllables.

To say that Gower never indulges in any of these licences would be an exaggeration. Some displacement of the natural accent may be found occasionally, even apart from the case of those French words whose accent was unsettled, but it is present in a very slight degree, and the rhythm produced does not at all resemble that of the lines cited above from Chaucer: e.g. i. 2296, ‘Wher that he wolde make his chace,’ 2348, ‘Under the grene thei begrave,’ 2551, ‘“Drink with thi fader, Dame,” he seide.’ Such as it is, this licence is nearly confined to the first foot of the verse, and is not so much a displacement of the natural accent of the words as a trochaic commencement, after the fashion which has established itself as an admitted variety in the English iambic. We may, however, read long passages of the Confessio Amantis without finding any line in which the accent is displaced even to this extent.

Again, as to slurring of syllables, this no doubt takes place, but on regular principles and with certain words or combinations only. There are hardly more than three or four lines in the whole of the Confessio Amantis where a superfluous syllable stands unaccounted for in the body of the verse, as for example,

iv. 1131, ‘Som time in chambre, som time in halle,’
v. 447, ‘Of Jelousie, bot what it is,’
v. 2914, ‘And thus ful ofte aboute the hals,’
v. 5011, ‘It was fantosme, bot yit he herde.’

The writer seems to have no need of any licences. The narrative flows on in natural language, and in sentences and periods which are apparently not much affected by the exigencies of metre or rhyme, and yet the verse is always smooth and the rhyme never fails to be correct. If this is not evidence of the highest style of art, it shows at least very considerable skill.

In Gower’s five-accent line, as exhibited in the Supplication of viii. 2217-2300 and in the poem In Praise of Peace, Schipper finds less smoothness of metre, ‘owing perhaps to the greater unfamiliarity and difficulty of the stanza and verse’ (Englische Metrik, i. 483 ff.). His examples, however, are not conclusive on this point. Some of the lines cited owe their irregularity to corruptions of text, and others prove to be quite regularly in accordance with Gower’s usual metrical principles.

For instance, in viii. 2220 the true text is

‘That wher so that I reste or I travaile,’

which is a metrically perfect line. Again, in the Praise of Peace, l. 79,

‘And to the heven it ledeth ek the weie,’

it is impossible, according to Gower’s usage, that ‘heven’ should stand as a dissyllable. He wrote always ‘hevene,’ and the penultimate was syncopated. So also ‘levere’ in l. 340, ‘evere,’ l. 376. Hence there is no ‘epic caesura’ in any of these cases. Nor again in l. 164, ‘Crist is the heved,’ can ‘heved’ be taken as a dissyllable in the verse: it is always metrically equivalent to ‘hed.’ The only fair instance of a superfluous syllable at the caesura is in l. 66,

‘For of bataile the final ende is pees.’

It seems that the trochee occurs more commonly here than in the short line. Such examples as Schipper quotes, occurring at the beginning of the line,

‘Axe of thi god, so schalt thou noght be werned,’
‘Pes is the chief of al the worldes welthe,’

are of the same character as those which we find in the octosyllabics. Perhaps, however, a difference is afforded by the more frequent occurrence of the same licence in other parts of the verse, as,

‘So that undir his swerd it myht obeie,’ 39.

The rhyming on words like ‘manhode,’ ‘axinge,’ &c., is in accordance with the poet’s general usage.

On the whole, the combination of the syllabic and the accentual system is effected in the five-accent line of these stanzas almost as completely as in the short couplet; and in his command of the measure, in the variety of his caesura, and the ease with which he passes without pause from line to line and rounds off the stanza with the matter, the author shows himself to be as fully master of his craft upon this ground as in the more familiar measure of the Confessio Amantis.

As regards the treatment of weak syllables in the metre, Gower’s practice, in accordance with the strict syllabic system which he adopted, is very different from Chaucer’s. The rules laid down by ten Brink, Chaucers Sprache, § 260, as to the cases in which weak final e is never counted as a syllable in the verse, except in rhyme, require some qualification even when applied to Chaucer (for example, ‘sone’ is certainly a dissyllable in Cant. Tales, A 1963, Hous of Fame, i. 218), and they are almost wholly inapplicable to Gower, as we shall see if we examine them. (α) Gower has the forms hire, oure, ȝoure, all occasionally as dissyllables apart from special emphasis or rhyme. (β) these, some, whiche are all sometimes dissyllables. (γ) The strong participles with short stems as come, drive, write as a rule have the final e sounded. (δ) The -e of the 2nd pers. sing. of the strong preterite may be sounded, e.g. iii. 2629 (but ‘Were thou,’ iv. 600). (ε) The form made, both singular and plural, regularly has -e sounded, were (pret.) usually, and wite sometimes. (ζ) sone, wone, schipe (dat.), and the French words in -ie (ye), &c., have -e regularly counted in the metre: so also beste, entente, tempeste. (η) before, tofore, there are used in both ways.

Gower’s usage with reference to this matter is as follows:

The personal and possessive pronouns hire, oure, ȝoure, here and hise (as plural of his), written also hir, our, &c., are as a rule treated as monosyllables. We have however ‘Fro hire, which was naked al,’ i. 367, ‘And thenke untoward hire drawe,’ iv. 559, so v. 1178, 2757, vii. 1899, &c., ‘In oure tyme among ous hiere,’ Prol. 5 (but ‘Oure king hath do this thing amis,’ i. 2062), ‘As ȝe be ȝoure bokes knowe,’ iii. 1087, cp. v. 2951 (but ‘Bot, fader, of ȝoure lores wise,’ i. 2768). Add to these alle (pl.) before definite article.

In the following words also the final e is sometimes suppressed for the verse: these (also thes), Prol. 900, 1037, i. 435, ii. 237, &c. (but thesë, v. 813, 1127, vii. 1005, &c.): whiche plur. (also which), ii. 604, iv. 1496, &c. (but whichë, i. 404, v. 1269, vii. 822, 1256, &c.): eche (also ech), v. 6883, according to F, cp. Prol. 516: there (usually ther), viii. 2311, 2689 (but therë, iii. 1233, &c., and often in rhyme): were pret. ind. or subj. (also wer), iii. 1600, iv. 600, 1657, 1689 (but more usually werë, as Prol. 1072, iii. 762, v. 2569, vii. 4458): where (usually wher), v. 4355 (but wherë, v. 2720): more (also mor), ii. 26, v. 2239, 6207, vii. 3237 (but morë, Prol. 55*, 640, iv. 2446, vii. 3287, &c.): before, tofore (also befor, tofor), i. 2054, 2864, iii. 2052 (but beforë, Prol. 848, and often in rhyme): foure, vii. 2371 (but fourë, ii. 1037, iv. 2464): fare (wel), iii. 305, iv. 1378 (but farëwel, v. 4218): sire, i. 2878, ii. 2995 (but sirë, v. 3547, 5593): wite, ii. 455 (but witë, v. 3150, 3445): wole (also wol), v. 2891, 2911, &c.: bothe, ii. 1966, 2154, iv. 2138, &c. (but bothë, Prol. 1068, i. 851, &c.): wolde (also wold), v. 4413 (usually woldë): come, ii. 789, iv. 2826 (but comë, pp. iv. 1283, vi. 1493, vii. 4840, inf. viii. 1362): some, pl. subst., iii. 2112, v. 2252 (but somë, i. 2034 ff.): have, Prol. 708, i. 169, 2724, ii. 550, iv. 1600 (but havë, ii. 332, iv. 1598): love, subst. iv. 930, vi. 1261 (but lovë much more often, e.g. i. 103, 251, 760, &c.): tuelve (also tuelf), iv. 1983 (but tuelvë, vii. 1005): trewe (also trew), v. 2877 (but trewë, pl., Prol. 184, def., iii. 2228): mowe, inf. (also mow), iv. 38: seie, inf. and 1st s. pres. iii. 1737, iv. 672, v. 2616, 6428, &c. (but seië often): preie, 1st s. pres. (also prai), v. 4531 (but preië, v. 3230): furthere, forthere (also further, forther), iii. 81, 885: lengere (also lenger), i. 1516, ii. 2602: rathere (also rather), ii. 503, vii. 4161, viii. 2141: janglere, v. 526: also some isolated cases, as aboute, v. 2914, Take, v. 7169, Minotaure, v. 5327 (but Minotaurë, 5291, &c.), Theophile, viii. 1500.

In iv. 1131, v. 447, 5011, which we have quoted above, the superfluous syllable in each case may be connected with the pause in the sentence, as in Mirour de l’omme, 10623, ‘L’un ad franchise, l’autre ad servage.’

Syncope (so far as regards the metre) regularly takes place in the following: covere (discovere, &c.), delivere (but not deliverance, i. 1584, v. 1657), evene, evere, fievere, havene, hevene, levere, nevere, povere, sevene (also sefne), swevene (also swefne), and some other words of a similar kind, to which add heved, evel, devel. In these cases a final e is always pronounced unless elided, and in case of elision a word like hevene, nevere is reduced to a monosyllable, as

‘This world which evere is in balance.’

The following also are sometimes syncopated: lovede, loveden, ii. 502, vi. 882, but without syncope ii. 2027, beloved, i. 1928, belovëd, i. 1920 f., behovely, behovelich, iii. 1330, v. 4012, vii. 1949 (but unbehovëly, viii. 2884), leveful, v. 7053, Averil, vii. 1029, soverein, vii. 1776 (but usually three syllables, as Prol. 186, i. 1609, and sovereinete, five syllables, i. 1847), amorous, iii. 745 (but usually three syllables, as i. 1414), fader, ii. 2387, cp. fadre, ii. 2519 (but ordinarily a dissyllable), unkendeli, ii. 3124 (but unkindëly, iii. 2065), comelieste, comelihiede, v. 3048, 6734 (but comëly, ii. 441), namely, viii. 3041, also namly, ii. 47 (but usually three syllables, as Prol. 144, iii. 63), Termegis, iv. 2408. We may note, however, that this kind of syncope is less used by Gower than by Chaucer, and that chivalerie, chivalerous, foreward, foretokne, loveday, pilegrin, surquiderie, &c., are fully pronounced.

Unaccented i before weak e either final or in inflexions has the force of a semi-vowel, and forms no syllable of itself: so studie, carie, tarie, chirie, merie, manye, &c. are equivalent to dissyllables, and are reduced by elision to the value of monosyllables, as Prol. 323, ‘To studie upon the worldes lore,’ i. 452, ‘To tarie with a mannes thoght,’ i. 3238, ‘And manye it hielden for folie,’ ii. 2648, ‘Thei carie til thei come at Kaire’; and so also in the other parts of the same words, e.g. i. 1645, ‘And thus he tarieth long and late,’ and in plurals like bodies, iv. 2463. Similarly Mercurie is made into a dissyllable by elision, ‘And ek the god Mercurie also,’ i. 422. Akin to this in treatment is the frequent combination many a, many an, counting as two syllables (so ‘ful many untrewe,’ v. 2886), but many on, manion as three. We may note also the case of statue, Prol. 891, ‘As I tolde of the Statue above,’ which is reduced by elision to a monosyllable.

Elision of weak final e takes place regularly before a vowel or an unaspirated h. We must observe that several classical proper names ending originally in ē, as Alceone, Daphne, Progne, Phebe, have weak e and are subject to elision, and under this head it may be noted that Canace rhymes to place, whereas Chaucer (referring to Gower’s story) gives the name as Canacee, in rhyme with he. Also the combinations byme, tome, tothe, &c., have weak -e and are elided before a vowel.

An aspirated h prevents elision as effectively as any other consonant. We have ‘min holë herte,’ ‘gretë hornes,’ ‘Cadmë hyhte,’ ‘Mi Sonë, herkne,’ ‘proprë hous,’ ‘fastë holde’ (and even ‘othrë herbes,’ iv. 3008); but there are some words in which h is aspirated only when they are emphatic in sense or position, as have, hath, he, him, hire, how, &c. For example, elision takes place usually before have, he, how, but not so as a rule in cases where they are used in rhyme or with special emphasis, e.g. i. 2542, ‘Of such werk as it scholde have,’ ii. 2479, cp. v. 7766, ‘Wenende that it were he,’ iv. 3604, ‘And al the cause hou it wente.’ On the other hand, the preterite hadde seems to have an aspirated h even in unemphatic position, as ii. 589, ‘The Sceptre hadde forto rihte’: compare vii. 2364, ‘Victoire hadde upon his fo,’ with vii. 2392, ‘Thogh thou victoire have nou on honde.’ Elision also takes place before hierafter, though not before hiere.

There is one instance of hiatus, viii. 110, ‘That he his Sone Isaäc,’ and it may be noted that the same thing occurs with the same name in the Mirour, 12241, ‘De Isaak auci je lis.’

The article the regularly coalesces with a succeeding word beginning with a vowel or mute h, as thaffeccioun, thalemans, thamende, thapostel, thastat, theffect, themperour, thenvious, therbage, therthe, thexperience, thonour, thother, thunsemlieste, thyle, &c. The exceptions, which are very few, are cases of special emphasis, as i. 3251, ‘The Erthe it is.’ Similarly the negative particle ne with a succeeding verb beginning with a vowel, as nam, naproche, nis (but ne have), and also occasionally with some words beginning with w, forming nere, nost, not, nyle, nyste, &c. In some few instances to coalesces with the gerund, as tacompte, teschuie.

There is diaeresis regularly in such proper names as Theseüs, Peleüs, Tereüs, and also in Saül, Isaäc. We have Moïses usually, but Moises (dissyllable), iv. 648, Thaise usually, but Thaïsis in the epitaph, viii. 1536. One example occurs affecting the -ee termination, viz. Caldeë, v. 781 (usually a dissyllable), so Judeë, Galileë in Mirour, 20067, 29239. This is an essentially different case from that of degreës, which is found in Chaucer. The termination -ius is usually dissyllabic, but vii. 2967, ‘The god Mercurius and no man.’ The endings -ioun, -ious, -ien, &c., are always fully pronounced.

As regards accent, it has been already observed that the natural accent of words is preserved far better in Gower’s verse than in Chaucer’s. There are, however, a number of words of French origin, of which the accent was unsettled, and also some instances of English words in which a secondary syllable was capable of receiving the principal accent, either in case of composition, as in kingdom, knihthode, treweliche, or with a formative termination, as that of the superlative, fairéste, &c., or the present participle, as wepénde. In such cases the accent was often determined by the metre. Many Romance words are quite freely treated in the matter of accent, as for example folie, fortune, mercy, mirour, nature, parfit, preiere, resoun, science, sentence, tempeste. The terminations -hode, -hede, -inge, -liche, -ly, -nesse, -schipe are all capable of accent, and also the penultimate syllables of answere and felawe.

Nearly all that is important about rhyme has already been said under the head of Phonology. We may here remark on some of the instances in which the form of words is accommodated to the rhyme, these being sometimes cases where variants are supplied by neighbouring dialects. Thus we have aise for ese, ar for er, hair for heir, naght once for noght, fer once for fyr, hade, with the original long vowel, for hadde, geth (the originally correct form) for goth, fore for for; and alternatives such as moneie monoie, aweie awey away, seide saide, soverein soverain, are used in accordance with the rhyme, though it is difficult to say for certain in all cases whether there was difference of sound. Thus, while we have away as rhyme to day, awey is found rhyming to ey, i. 2545, said, saide rhyming with paid, Maide, while seide rhymes with alleide, obeide; we find soverein : aȝein, but brayn : soverain. The form yhe often varies to ÿe when in rhyme with -ie termination, as clergie : ÿe, Prol. 329 f., ÿe : agonie, i. 967 f. (but also yhe : pourpartie, i. 405 f., yhe : specefie, i. 571 f.). Sometimes however the other rhyme-word is modified to correspond to it, as pryhe : yhe, v. 469 f., and there was probably no perceptible difference of pronunciation in this case. So also the preterite lowh is written low when in rhyme with now, Prol. 1071, and similarly thou : ynou, vii. 2099 f. (but bowe: ynowhe, ii. 3225 f.). We have already seen that the use of such alternative forms as sinne senne, wile wole, lasse lesse, hedde hidde, -ende -inge is sometimes determined by the rhyme.

Alliteration is used by Gower in a manner which is especially characteristic of the new artistic style of poetry. It is sufficiently frequent, both in formal combinations, such as ‘cares colde,’ ‘lusty lif,’ ‘park and plowh,’ ‘swerd or spere,’ ‘lief and loth,’ ‘wel or wo,’ ‘dike and delve,’ ‘slepe softe,’ ‘spille ... spede,’ and as an element of the versification:

i. 886 f. ‘For so, thei seide, al stille and softe
God Anubus hire wolde awake.’
iv. 2590 ‘The lost is had, the lucre is lore.’
iv. 3384 f. ‘Which many a man hath mad to falle,
Wher that he mihte nevere arise.’
v. 3670 f. ‘And thanne he gan to sighe sore,
And sodeinliche abreide of slep.’
vii. 3468 f. ‘Sche hath hir oghne bodi feigned,
For feere as thogh sche wolde flee.’

But it is not introduced in accordance with any fixed rules, and it often assists the flow of the verse without in the least attracting the attention of the reader. We do not find any examples of the rather exaggerated popular style which Chaucer sometimes adopts in passages of violent action, e.g. Cant. Tales, A 2604 ff. The whole subject of alliteration in Gower has been carefully dealt with by P. Höfer in his dissertation, Alliteration bei Gower, 1890, where a very large number of examples are cited and classified; and to this the reader may be referred.

viii. Text and Manuscripts. About forty manuscript copies of the Confessio Amantis are known to exist in public or private libraries or in the hands of booksellers, and probably there may be a few more in private possession, the existence of which has not yet been recorded. As the broad lines for their classification are necessarily laid down by the fact that the book was put forth by the author in several different forms, it is necessary, before proceeding further, to say something about this matter.

That the poem exists in at least two distinct forms, characterized by obvious differences near the beginning and at the end, has been matter of common knowledge. Even in Berthelette’s edition of 1532 the difference at the beginning was noted, and though the printer did not venture to deviate from the form of text which had been made current by Caxton, yet he gave in his preface the beginning of the poem as he found it in his manuscript. Dr. Pauli accordingly proceeded on the assumption that there were two normal forms, one having a dedication to Richard II at the beginning and a form of conclusion in which mention is made of Chaucer, and the other with a dedication to Henry of Lancaster and a conclusion in which Chaucer is not mentioned. Copies which do not conform to these standards are for him simply irregular. He is aware of the additional passages in Berthelette’s edition and in the Stafford MS., and in one place he speaks of three classes of MSS., but he does not know that there are any written copies except the Stafford MS. which contain the additional passages. If he had had personal knowledge of the manuscripts at Oxford and at Cambridge, instead of being satisfied to gather scraps of information about the former from Bodley’s Librarian and about the latter from Todd, he would have found the passages in question also in MS. Bodley 294 at Oxford and in the Trinity and Sidney MSS. at Cambridge.

There are then at least these three classes of manuscripts to be recognized even by a superficial observer, and we shall find that the more obvious differences which have been mentioned are accompanied by a number of others of less importance. The first recension according to our classification is that in which the conclusion of the poem contains praises of Richard II as a just and beneficent ruler and a presentation of the book for his acceptance. The second has the additional passages of the fifth and seventh books, with a rearrangement of the sixth book which has not hitherto been noticed, while the conclusion of the poem has been rewritten so as to exclude the praises of the king, and in some copies there is also a new preface with dedication to Henry of Lancaster. The third exhibits a return to the form of the first as regards the additional passages, but has the rewritten preface and epilogue. Against this merely threefold division some objections might fairly be made. It might be pointed out that the so-called second recension includes at least two distinct forms, and moreover that upon further examination we see reason to divide the manuscripts of our first recension into two main groups, one exhibiting an earlier and the other a later text, this last being more in accordance generally with that of what we call the second and third recensions than with the earlier form of the first. For practical purposes, however, the division which has been laid down above may fairly be adopted. As regards the order of time, from the political tendency of the differences between them it is clear that what we call the first recension logically precedes the third. The intermediate position of the second is given chiefly by the fact that one of the seven existing manuscripts gives the earlier form of preface, and this may also have been the case with two others, which are defective at the beginning. However, as has been said, the name is used for convenience to cover a class of copies which, as regards the character of their text, do not all belong to the same period, and they must be looked upon as representing rather a concurrent variety of the first or the third recension than as a type which is distinctly intermediate in order of time. At the same time the smaller variations of text exhibited by these seven MSS. in combination, as against all others, mark them as really a family apart, more closely related to one another than to those that lie outside the group.

For the sake of clearness the manuscripts are in this edition regularly grouped according to this classification, and in the critical notes each class is cited by itself. At the same time it must not be assumed that the manuscripts of each recension stand necessarily by themselves, and that no connexion is traceable between one class and another. On the contrary, we shall find that many errors in the text of the first recension appear also in some copies of the second, and even of the third. The process by which this was brought about is made clearer to us by the fact that we have an example of a manuscript which has passed from one group into another partly by erasure and partly by substitution of leaves, apparently made under the direction of the author. This is MS. Fairfax 3, which forms the basis of our text, and the handwriting of some of the substituted pages is one which may be recognized as belonging to the ‘scriptorium’ of the poet.

The example is a suggestive one and serves to explain several things. It makes it easy to understand, for example, how the additional matter introduced into the second recension came to be omitted in the third. The author in this instance had before him a very fully revised and corrected copy of his first edition, and this by a certain amount of rewriting over erasure and by a substitution of leaves at the beginning and end of the poem was converted into a copy of what we call the third recension, which his scribes could use at once as an authoritative exemplar. The introduction of the additional passages in the fifth and seventh books could not have been effected without a process of recopying the whole book, which would have called for much additional labour of the nature of proof-reading on the part of the author, in order to secure its correctness. This argument would apply to a book which was intended to remain in the hands of the author, or rather of the scribes whom he employed, and to be used as an archetype from which copies were to be made. If a new book had to be specially prepared for presentation, the case would be different, and it might then be worth while to incorporate the additional passages with the fully revised and re-dedicated text, as we find was done in the case of the so-called Stafford MS.

Another matter which can evidently be explained in the same way is the reappearance in some copies of the second recension of errors which belong to the first. In producing the originals of such manuscripts as these, partially revised copies of the first recension must have been used as the basis, and such errors as had not yet received correction appear in the new edition.

The assumption that a certain number of errors are original, that is to say, go back either to the author’s own autograph or to the transcript first made from it, is in itself probable: we know in fact that some which appear in every copy, without exception, of the first and second recensions at length receive correction by erasure in Fairfax 3. So far as we can judge, the text of the Confessio Amantis during its first years exhibited a steady tendency to rid itself of error, and the process of corruption in the ordinary sense can hardly be said to have set in until after the death of the author. There are a large number of various readings in the case of which we find on the one side the great majority of first recension MSS., and on the other a small number of this same type together with practically the whole of the second and third recensions, as, for example:

i. 2836 to H₁XERCLB₂ do AJMG, SAdBΔΛ, FWH₃

2847 be om. H₁XGERCLB₂ ins. AJM, SAdBΔ, FWH₃

2953 wele H ... B₂ weie AJM, SAd BΔ, FWH₃

3027 preieth H₁ ... B₂, W braieth, AJM, S ... ΔΛ, FH₃

3374 an Erl hier H₁ ... B₂, Λ mad a Pier AJM, SAdBΔ, FW (H₃ def.)

3381 place H₁ ... B₂, BΛ maide AJM, SAdΔ, FW (H₃ defective)

ii. 833 that diere H₁ ... B₂, B that other AJ(M), SAdΔΛ, FWH₃

iii. 12 euermore H₁ ... B₂ enemy AJM, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃

354 I may H₁ ... B₂ he may AJM, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃

iv. 109 day H₁ ... B₂, H₃ lay AJM, SBTΔ, FW (Ad def.)

v. 316 thanne (than) H₁ ... B₂, Δ hom AJM, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃

368 And for no drede now wol I wonde H₁ ... B₂, Λ In helle thou schalt understonde AJM, S ... Δ, FWH₃ cp. 394, 424, 786, &c.

2694 Whan that sche was bot of ȝong age For good ERCLB₂ That only for thilke avantage Of good AJMH₁XG, S ... ΔΛ, FWH₃

2771 nyh om. ERCLB₂ ins. AJMH₁XG, S ... Δ, FWH₃

3110 burned as the silver ERCLB₂ burned was as selver AJMH₁XG, S ... ΔΛ, FWH₃ cp. 3032, 3246, &c.

We see in these examples, selected as fairly typical, that some of the variants have evidently the character of errors, while in other cases the difference of reading is due to an alternative version. The circumstances, however, of these two cases are not distinguishable, the errors are supported by as much authority as the rest, and it must be supposed that both have the same origin. If then we assume that such variations as we find (for example) in i. 3396, 3416, v. 30, 47, 82, 368, 2694, &c., are due to the author, as is almost certain, there can be no doubt that the form of text which is given by the group AJM in combination with the second and third recensions is the later of the two: and if the group H₁ ... B₂ represents an earlier type as regards this class of variation, it must surely do so also as regards the errors, which, as we have seen, stand upon the same ground in respect of manuscript authority. As we cannot help believing that the author wrote originally ‘To holde hir whil my lif may laste,’ v. 82, and ‘The more he hath the more he greedeth,’ v. 394, so we may reasonably suppose that errors such as ‘it’ for ‘hid,’ i. 1755, ‘that diere’ for ‘that other,’ ii. 833, ‘what’ for ‘war,’ iii. 1065, existed in the copy which first served as an exemplar.

It may be observed here that in cases where revision seems to have taken place, we can frequently see a definite reason for the change; either the metre is made more smooth, as i. 1770, 2622, 3374, ii. 671, 751, 1763, iii. 765, 2042, 2556, iv. 234, v. 368, 1678, &c., or some name is altered into a more correct form, as where ‘Element’ is changed to ‘Clemenee,’ iv. 985, with a corresponding alteration of the rhyme, or the expression and run of the sentence is improved, as i. 368, 3416, v. 30, 1906, 6756, &c. In particular we note the tendency towards increased smoothness of metre which is shown in dealing with weak e terminations.

It is to be assumed on the principles which have been stated that the group ERCLB₂ and the other manuscripts which agree with them represent with more or less accuracy the first form of the author’s text, that H₁YXG and a few more form a class in which correction and revision has taken place to some extent, but partially and unsystematically, and that AJM &c. give us the first recension text in a much more fully revised and corrected form.

It has been already said that F was originally a manuscript of the first recension. We shall find however that it did not exactly correspond to any existing first recension manuscript. Setting aside the small number of individual mistakes to be found in it, there are perhaps about eighty instances (many of a very trifling character) in which its text apparently differed originally from that of any first recension copy which we have, and in about half of these the text of F agrees with that of the second recension. The manuscript which comes nearest to F in most respects is J (St. John’s Coll., Camb.), and there is a considerable number of instances in which this MS. stands alone among first recension copies in agreement with the Fairfax text. In the sixth book, for example, if J be set aside, there are at least twenty-three passages in which F gives an apparently genuine reading unsupported by the first recension; but in sixteen of these cases J is in agreement with F. It must be noted, however, that this state of things is not equally observable in the earlier part of the poem, and indeed does not become at all marked until the fifth book.

Besides variations of reading, there are in the Fairfax MS. a few additions to the text which are not found in any first recension copy. These are Prol. 495-498, 579-584 and i. 1403-1406, two passages of four lines each and one of six, as well as some additions to the Latin notes in the margin (at Prol. 195, i. 2705, and v. 7725), of which the first two were evidently put in later than the accompanying text. Finally, there are three other additions to the text which are found in a single copy of the first recension, MS. Harl. 3490 (H₁). These are i. 2267-2274, where four lines have been expanded into eight, i. 2343-2358, an interesting addition of sixteen lines to the tale of Narcissus, and i. 2369-2372. Thus in the matter of additions to the text H₁ stands nearer to F than AJM &c., and in a few other passages also it is found standing alone of its recension in company with F, e.g. i. 2043, 2398, ii. 2247. This manuscript does not belong to the ‘fully revised’ group, but it gives the revised readings more frequently perhaps than any other outside that group.

Thus notwithstanding the differences between the first recension copies, as we have them, and the Fairfax MS. as it originally stood, we shall have no difficulty in regarding the latter as having been originally a revised and corrected copy of that recension, exhibiting a text to which tolerably near approaches are made by A, J, and H₁, each in its own way, though no copy precisely corresponding to it is known to exist.

Passing to the second recension, we must first repeat what has already been said, that it did not supersede the first, but existed and developed by its side, having its origin probably in the very same year, or at latest in the next. Its characteristic point is the presence of considerable additions in the fifth and seventh books, together with a rearrangement of part of the sixth. There are seven manuscripts known to me, of which three are defective at the beginning. All these (except one, which is also defective at the end) have the rewritten epilogue, one in combination with the Chaucer verses and the others without them. Of the four which are perfect at the beginning, one, namely B, has the earlier form of preface, and the other three, ΛP₂ and S, the later. Of the others it is probable, but by no means certain, that T agreed with B in this respect, and practically certain that Δ agreed with S. A more satisfactory line of distinction, which divides the manuscripts of this class into two groups, is given by the general character of the text which they exhibit, and by the insertion or omission of certain of the additional passages of which we have spoken. While some of the passages, viz. v. 6395*-6438*, 7086*-7210*, vii. 3207*-3360*, are common to all the copies, as are also the transposition of vi. 665-964 and (except in case of Λ) the omission of v. 7701-7746, three of them are found in AdBTΛP₂ only, and are omitted in SΔ, viz. v. 7015*-7036*, vii. 2329*-2340* and 3149*-3180*. Then, as regards the text generally, the five MSS. first mentioned all have connexions of various kinds with the unrevised form of the first recension, while the last two represent a type which, except as regards variants specially characteristic of the second recension, of which there may be about sixty in all, nearly corresponds with that of the Fairfax MS.

The relations of the group AdBTΛP₂ with the first recension and with one another are difficult to clear up satisfactorily. Broadly, it may be said that of these B represents an earlier type than the rest in regard to correction and Λ in regard to revision: that is to say, B retains a large number of first recension errors which do not appear in the rest (sharing some, however, with Λ), while at the same time, in cases where a line has been rewritten B almost regularly has the altered form, though with some exceptions in the first two books. On the other hand, though it often happens that Λ is free from original errors which appear in B, yet in many places where B has the revised form of text Λ gives us the original, in agreement with the earlier first recension type, while in others Λ agrees with B in giving the revised reading. Then again, there can be no doubt of the close connexion between B and T, but the agreement between them is not usually on those points in which B follows the first recension in error. It is as if they had been derived from the same archetype, but T (or a manuscript from which T was copied) sprang from it at a later stage than the original of B, when many of the errors noted in the first recension had been corrected, while the text of the book generally was allowed to remain as it was. Finally, the text of Ad approaches very near to a fully revised and corrected type. It very occasionally reproduces the earlier first recension, as if by accident, but seems never deliberately to give an ‘unrevised’ reading. It should be observed that from a point towards the end of the fifth book (about v. 6280) AdBT is a group which is very frequently found in special agreement, whereas before that point we usually find BT (or BTΛ) with Ad on the other side.

Passing now to the third recension, which has the preface and epilogue as in Λ and S, but excludes the additional passages, we find it represented by eight manuscripts, with Fairfax 3 at their head. We have already seen that this manuscript was originally one of the first recension, and was altered by the author so as to substitute the new epilogue and the new preface. Besides these changes, fresh lines are in several places written over erasures, as i. 2713 f., iv. 1321 f., 1361 f., &c., the marginal date is erased at Prol. 331, and additions have been made to the marginal notes. All these alterations, as well as the points previously noted, in which F originally differed from the other copies of the first recension, are reproduced in the other MSS. of the third recension.

Of these remaining MSS. one is directly copied from F, and another seems to be certainly derived from the same source, though perhaps not immediately. In the case of H₃ (MS. Harl. 7184) the question of origin is not quite so simple. Its text generally seems to suggest ultimate dependence on F, but it is very unequal as regards accuracy, and in one part it regularly follows the early first recension readings and seems to belong for the time to the ERCLB₂ group. In addition to this it has a Latin marginal note at the beginning of the Prologue, which is wanting in F. The problem is perhaps to be solved by means of the Keswick MS. This is written in several hands, varying greatly in accuracy, and exactly in that place where H₃ seems to follow a first recension copy the Keswick MS. is defective, having lost several leaves. It also contains the marginal note referred to above, and on examination we find that a whole series of corruptions are common to the two MSS. There seems to be very little doubt that K is the source of H₃, the inequality of the latter MS. being to a great extent in accordance with the change of hands in K, and the variation of H₃ in a portion of the third book to a different type of text being exactly coincident with the gap left in K by loss of leaves, a loss which must apparently have taken place in the first forty or fifty years of its existence. As to the text of K itself, in the parts which are most carefully written it reproduces that of F with scrupulous exactness, giving every detail of orthography and punctuation, and for the most part following it in such small errors as it has. It is impossible for one who places these MSS. side by side, as I have been able to do, to avoid the conviction that in some parts at least the exemplar for K was the Fairfax MS. itself. On the other hand, the Latin marginal note at the beginning was derived from some other copy, and setting aside the many mistakes, which possibly are due to mere carelessness on the part of some of the scribes, the Keswick MS. does undoubtedly contain some readings which seem to be derived from a different source. In form of text generally it corresponds exactly with F, reproducing all the additions and corrections made by erasure or otherwise, and containing the same Latin and French pieces in the same order at the end, so far at least as it is perfect. The Magdalen College MS. must be derived ultimately from the same source as H₃, and it has the same lapse from the third recension to the first, coinciding with the gap in the Keswick book. On the other hand W, though in form of text it corresponds with these and with F, is quite independent of the group above mentioned, and probably also of the Fairfax MS. It is late and full of corruptions, but in several instances it assists in the correction of errors which appear in F, and it is apparently based on a copy which retained some of the variants of the earlier text still uncorrected.

As for the remaining manuscript, which was formerly in the Phillipps collection, but is now in the hands of a bookseller, I have had so little opportunity for examining it that I ought not to attempt a classification.

Reviewing the whole body of authorities, we can recognize readily that two are pre-eminent as witnesses for the author’s final text, that is to say, S and F, the Stafford and the Fairfax MSS. These are practically identical in orthography, and, except as regards the characteristic differences, which sufficiently guarantee their independence, exhibit essentially the same text, and one which bears the strongest marks of authenticity. Both are contemporary with the author, and it is perhaps difficult to say which best represents his final judgement as to the form of his work.

The Stafford MS. seems to be the earlier in time, that is to say, it probably precedes the final conversion of the Fairfax copy. It was evidently written for presentation to a member of the house of Lancaster, perhaps to Henry himself before his accession to the throne. It was doubtless for some such presentation copy that the preface was rewritten in 1392-3, with the dedication to Henry introduced into the English text, while most of the other copies issued during Richard’s reign probably retained their original form. If we suppose that the new forms of preface and epilogue were at first intended only for private circulation, we can account for the very considerable preponderance of the first recension in regard to the number of copies by which it is represented, and also allow sufficient time for the gradual development of the text, first into the type which we find in A or J, and finally into that of F, as it originally stood, a process which can hardly be satisfactorily understood if we suppose that from 1393 onwards the Lancastrian dedication had its place in all copies put forth by the author. It seems on the whole probable, for reasons to be stated afterwards, that the final conversion of F (that is as regards the preface) did not take place until after the deposition of Richard, and it is reasonable enough to suppose that copies were usually issued in the original form, until after that event occurred.

Manuscripts. The following account of the MSS. is given on my own authority in every detail. I have been able to see them all, and I wish here to express my thanks to the possessors of them, and to the librarians who have them in their charge, for the readiness with which they have given me the use of them. I am indebted especially to the Councils of Trinity College and St. John’s College, Cambridge, and to Corpus Christi, Wadham, Magdalen, and New College, Oxford, for allowing their MSS. to be sent to the Bodleian Library for my use, and to remain there for considerable periods. Except in the case of one or two, to which my access was limited, I have examined every one carefully, so that I am able to say (for example) to what extent, if at all, they are imperfect. They are arranged as far as possible in accordance with the classes and groups to which they belong, as follows:

1st Recension (a) AJMP₁ChN₂E₂ (b) H₁YXGOAd₂CathQ (c) ECRLB₂SnDArHdAsh 2nd Recension (a) SΔ (b) AdTBΛP₂ 3rd Recension FH₂NKH₃MagdWP₃ Hn

First Recension.

(a) Revised.

A. Bodley 902, Bodleian Library (formerly Arch. D. 33, not in Bernard’s Catalogue, 1697). Contains Confessio Amantis followed by ‘Explicit iste liber’ (four lines), ‘Quam cinxere freta,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Parchment, ff. 184, measuring 13⅜ × 9⅛ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords. Well written in double column of 46 lines in three different hands of early fifteenth cent., of which the first extends to the end of the second quire (ff. 2-16), the second from thence to the end of the tenth quire (ff. 17-80), and the third from f. 81 to the end. The columns nearly correspond with those of the Fairfax MS. up to f. 81, after which point some attempt is made to save space by writing the Latin verses in the margin. Latin summaries in the margin, except very occasionally, as on ff. 10 and 11 vo. Floreated half border in fairly good style at the beginning of each book except the fifth, and one miniature on f. 8, of the Confession, remarkable for the fact that the figure of the Lover is evidently intended as a portrait of the author, being that of an old man and with some resemblance in features to the effigy on Gower’s tomb. The Confessor has a red stole, which with his right hand he is laying on the penitent’s head, much as in the miniatures which we have in C and L. The note for the miniaturist still stands in the margin, ‘Hic fiat confessor sedens et confessus coram se genuflectendo.’

The first leaf of the book is lost, and has been supplied in the sixteenth cent. from Berthelette’s second edition. It should be noted that this is not the form of commencement which belongs properly to the MS., being that of the third recension, taken by Berthelette from Caxton. The first line of f. 2 is Prol. 144.

As to former possessors, we find written on the last leaf ‘Anniballis Admiralis dominicalis,’ on f. 80 ‘Be me Anne Russell’ (?), and on f. 115 ‘Elyzebeth Gardnar my troust ys in god,’ all apparently sixteenth cent. The first name is evidently that of Claude d’Annebaut (also called d’Hannybal), who was Admiral of France, and died in 1552. He was in England about the year 1547. The book came to the Bodleian from Gilbert Dolben, Esq., of Finedon, in Northamptonshire, in the year 1697, and not being in the Catalogue of 1697, it has to some extent escaped notice.

The text is a very good one of the revised type. It should be noted, however, that while in the earlier books AJM &c. stand very frequently together on the side of F as against the rest of the first recension, in the later, and especially in the seventh and eighth, AM &c. have an increasing tendency to stand with the first recension generally, leaving J alone in support of the corrected text. In the earlier books A sometimes stands alone in this manner, as i. 1960, ii. 961, 1356.

The orthography (especially that of the second hand) is nearly that of F. As regards final e, the tendency is rather to insert wrongly than to omit. Punctuation agrees generally with that of F.

J. St. John’s Coll., Camb. B 12. Contains the same as A. Parchment, ff. 214, 12 × 9½ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: double column of 39 lines, written in a very neat hand of the first quarter of fifteenth century. Latin summaries usually omitted, but most of them inserted up to f. 5 (Prol. 606), and a few here and there in the fifth and seventh books.

The first page has a complete border, but there are no other decorations except red and blue capitals. Old wooden binding.

The seventh leaf of quire 12 (v. 57-213) and the first of quire 14 (v. 1615-1770) are cut out, and a passage of 184 lines is omitted in the first book (i. 631-814) without loss of leaf, which shows that the manuscript from which it was copied, and which here must have lost a leaf, had the normal number of 46 lines to the column.

Various names, as Thomas Browne, Nicolas Helifax, J. Baynorde, are written in the book, and also ‘John Nicholas oweth this book,’ with the date 1576. At the beginning we find ‘Tho. C. S.’, which stands for ‘Thomas Comes Southampton.’ The book was in fact bought with others by Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, from William Crashaw, Fellow of St. John’s College, and presented by him to the College Library in the year 1635.

This MS. gives a text which is nearer to the type of F than that of any other first recension copy. In the later books especially it seems often to stand alone of its class in agreement with F, as v. 649, 1112, 1339, 1578, 3340, 4351, 4643, 5242, 6059, 6461, 6771, vi. 162, 442, 784, 973, 2089, vii. 445, 1027, 1666, 2424, 3235, 4336, 5348, viii. 13, 239, 747, 845, 1076, 1415, 1456 ff., 2195, 2220, 2228, 2442, 2670 ff., and it is noteworthy that this is the only first recension copy which supplies the accidental omission of ‘eorum disciplina—materia’ in the author’s Latin account of the Conf. Amantis at the end. As regards individual correctness it is rather unequal. In some places it has many mistakes, as vi. 1509 ff., while in others it is very correct. The spelling is in most points like that of F, and it is usually good as regards terminations; but the scribe has some peculiarities of his own, which he introduces more or less freely, as ‘ho’ for ‘who,’ ‘heo’ for ‘sche’ (pretty regularly), ‘heor’ for ‘her,’ ‘whech’ for ‘which.’ It must also be an individual fancy which leads him regularly to substitute ‘som tyme’ for ‘whilom’ wherever it occurs. Punctuation usually agrees with that of F.

M. Camb. Univ. Mm. 2.21 (Bern. Cat. ii. 9648). Contains Conf. Amantis only, without ‘Explicit,’ &c. (the last leaf being lost). Parchment, ff. 183, 14 × 9½ in. Quires of eight with catchwords and signatures: double columns of 46 lines: Latin summaries usually in margin, but occasionally in the text, as in A. Several hands, as follows, (1) ff. 1-32, 41-64, 73-88, 97-136, 145-152, 161-176; (2) ff. 33-40, 89-96, 137-144; (3) ff. 65-72; (4) ff. 153-160; (5) ff. 177-183. Finally another, different from all the above, adds sometimes a marginal note which has been dropped, as on ff. 4, 32 vo, 65, 72 vo. The first hand, in which more than two-thirds of the book is written, is fairly neat: the third much rougher than the rest, and also more inaccurate.

Floreated half border in fairly good style at the beginning of each book, except the third, fifth, and seventh, and two rather rudely painted miniatures, viz. f. 4 vo, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (the king in bed, crowned), and f. 8, the Confession, a curious little picture in the margin. The priest is laying his stole on the head of the penitent, whose features are evidently meant for a portrait. It is quite different however from that which we have in A. Below this picture we find the note, ‘Hic fiat Garnimentum.’

The last leaf is lost, containing no doubt the ‘Explicit,’ ‘Quam cinxere,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ as in A.

The names Stanhope and Yelverton are written on f. 39 (sixteenth cent.), and ‘Margareta Straunge’ on the first leaf (seventeenth cent.). Later the book belonged to Bishop Moore of Norwich (No. 462 in his library), and it passed with the rest of his books to the University of Cambridge in 1715, as a gift from the king.

M is very closely connected with A, as is shown by very many instances of special agreement, and some considerations suggest that it may be actually derived from it, as for example the writing of the Latin verses in the margin after f. 80, which in A seems to be connected with a change of hand, whereas in M it begins at the same point without any such reason. On the other hand M has a good many readings which are clearly independent, either correcting mistakes and omissions in A, as Prol. 195 marg., 937, i. 673 marg., 924, 1336, 3445, ii. 951, iii. 2529, vi. 620, or giving an early reading where A has a later, e.g. Prol. 869, i. 1118, 1755, ii. 961, 3516, iii. 1939, v. 3914, 5524, &c. In correctness of text and of spelling M is much inferior to A, especially as regards final e: for example, on f. 53 vo,

Came neuer ȝit to mannes ere Cam A
Tiding | ne to mannes siȝt Tidinge ... sihte A
Merueil whiche so sore aflihte Merueile which A
Amannes herte as it þe dede þo A
To hym whoche in þe same stede him which A

P₁, formerly Phillipps 2298, bought in June, 1899, by Mr. B. Quaritch, who kindly allowed me to see it. Parchment, leaf measuring about 9 × 6½ in., double column of 39 lines, in a fairly neat running hand, with many contractions because of the small size of the leaf. Latin summaries omitted. No decoration. Text agrees with AJM group, so far as I have examined it.

Ch. Chetham’s Libr., Manchester, A. 6. 11 (Bern. Cat. ii. 7151). Contains Conf. Amantis with ‘Explicit’ (4 lines) and ‘Quam cinxere.’ Parchment, ff. 126, about 15¼ × 10¾ in., quires usually of 12 or 14 leaves. Rather irregularly written in double column of 47-61 lines, late fifteenth century. No ornament. Marginal Latin almost entirely omitted, but some English notes by way of summary occasionally in margin, perhaps by later hand.

The first leaf is lost, the MS. beginning Prol. 193, and also two leaves in the second quire (i. 1092-1491) and one in the tenth (viii. 2111-2343); but besides these imperfections there are many omissions, apparently because the copyist got tired of his work, e.g. ii. 3155-3184, iii. 41-126, 817-842, 877-930, 1119-1196, iv. 17-72, 261-370, 569-704, 710-722, 915-968, 1117-1236, v. 72-112. There is also a good deal of omission and confusion in v. 6101-7082. At the end in a scroll is written ‘Notehurste,’ which indicates probably that the book was copied for one of the Chethams of Nuthurst, perhaps Thomas Chetham, who died 1504. The word ‘Notehurst’ also occurs at the end of the Glasgow MS. of the ‘Destruction of Troy,’ which has in another place the names of John and Thomas Chetham of ‘Notehurst’ as the owners of it.

In text it belongs to the AJM group, and sometimes, as iv. 208, stands alone with J. There are many corruptions, however, and the spelling is late and bad.

N₂. New College, Oxford, 326. Contains Conf. Amantis only (no ‘Explicit’). Parchment, ff. 207 + 4 blanks, about 13¾ × 9½ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords; neatly written in double column of 40 lines (or 39). No Latin summaries or verses. The handwriting changes after f. 62 (at iii. 2164) and becomes rather larger and more ornamental.

Two leaves lost after f. 35, containing ii. 1066-1377, and some of the leaves of the MS. from which it was copied had been displaced, so that iv. 2501-2684 comes after 2864, then follows 3049-3232, then 2865-3048, and after these 3233 ff. (two leaves displaced in the original). Lines omitted sometimes with blanks left, as i. 1044, 2527.

From the coats of arms which it contains the book would seem to have been written for Thomas Mompesson of Bathampton, sheriff of Wilts in 1478 (K. Meyer, John Gower’s Beziehungen, &c.). It was given to John Mompesson by Sir Giles Mompesson in 1650, and to New College by Thomas Mompesson, Fellow, in 1705.

The text is a combination of two types. It has the Lancaster dedication at the beginning, but the conclusion which belongs to the first recension. On examination it proves that the scribe who wrote the first eight quires followed a manuscript not of the F, but of the SΔ class (agreeing for example with S in i. 1881 f., 2017 ff., ii. 2387, iii. 168, 1241, and differing from F in regard to i. 2267 ff., 2343 ff., &c.), while the copyist of the remainder followed one of the revised first recension. The spelling is poor.

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 vo. 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 vo. 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 vo, 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 vo. 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 vo of Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream, and f. 8 vo 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 vo.

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 vo 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 vo Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, f. 9 vo 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 Ao. 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 vo 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 vo 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 vo), well executed: two small miniatures, f. 4 vo the Image of the dream, f. 8 vo (within an initial T) the Confession, like those in C and L, but smaller.

At the end we have ‘ffrauncois Halle Ao MVcVI’ (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 vo, f. 8 vo (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 vo 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 vo 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 vo), 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,

‘Dormitans statuam sublimem rex babilonis,’

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

‘Sede sedens ista iudex inflexibilis sta.’

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 vo the French Traitié, with the Latin pieces ‘Quis sit vel qualis,’ ‘Est amor in glosa,’ and ‘Lex docet,’ f. 152 ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ f. 152 vo-154 vo 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 vo-89, 98-113 ro, the second ff. 9-32, the third ff. 33-49, 58-65, 82, 83, 84 ro, 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 ro 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 vo Traitié, f. 199 vo ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ ff. 199 vo-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 vo 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 vo ‘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 vo-190 vo Traitié, &c., ff. 190 vo-194 Carmen de multiplici viciorum pestilencia, ending with the lines ‘Hoc ego bis deno,’ &c., f. 194 ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ f. 194 vo 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 ‘Sr 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 vo (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 ye 28 Jany. 1628, George Cogiluy,’ and on f. 2 ‘Jan. 22. 1721 Oxford’ (i.e. Harley). On the same page is the date, ‘1445 ye 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 vo 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 vo The Travellers and the Angel (ii. 291 ff.), f. 127 vo Virgil’s Mirror, f. 128 vo 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 vo-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 vo Tale of Appolinus, viii. 271-2028, ff. 70 vo-81 vo Tales of Constance and of Perseus, ii. 587-1865, ff. 81 vo-83 vo Adrian and Bardus, v. 4937-5162, ff. 83 vo-84 vo, vi. 485-595, ff. 84 vo-86 vo Dives and Lazarus &c., vi. 975-1238, ff. 86 vo-89 vo Constantine, ii. 3187-3507, ff. 89 vo-91 vo Nebuchadnezzar, i. 2785-3066, ff. 91 vo-94 vo Tales of Diogenes and of Pyramus, iii. 1201-1502 and 1655-1672, ff. 94 vo-96 Midas (unfinished), v. 141-312, ff. 171 vo-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 vo 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, 2369-2372, 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*, 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 trifling, 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.

The lines are numbered in each book (for the first time), and the numbers with an asterisk attached are those of the lines in other recensions than that of the text. In addition to this it should be observed that as nearly all references to Gower for the last forty years have been made by Pauli’s edition, it has been thought advisable to place in the margin of this text indications of the volumes and pages of that edition: thus P. 1. 153 stands for ‘Pauli, vol. i. p. 153.’

Setting aside matters of spelling, punctuation and grammatical form, we may note that the material differences of reading between the text of this edition and that of Pauli are in number about two thousand.

Other English Works. With regard to the text of the poem In Praise of Peace all that need be said will be found in the notes upon it. The Trentham MS., which contains it, has already been fully described in the volume of ‘French Works.’

A poem in five seven-line stanzas, beginning ‘Passe forthe þou pilgryme and bridel wele þy beste,’ occurs in (Shirley’s) MS. Ashmole 59, f. 17 vo (Bodl. Libr.), with the title ‘Balade moral of gode counseyle made by Gower.’ The same without the final stanza (owing to loss of a leaf) occurs in MS. Rawlinson C. 86, but with no title or ascription of authorship, and both texts have been printed (not quite correctly) by Dr. Karl Meyer in his John Gower’s Beziehungen, &c., 1889. In addition to these copies there is one in the British Museum MS. Addit. 29729, which has been published by Dr. Max Förster in the Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen, vol. 102, p. 50. In this MS. the piece is ascribed to Benedict Burgh, and it is called ‘A leson to kepe well the tonge.’

It is almost impossible that these verses can have been written by Gower, but out of deference to Shirley’s authority (which is not very weighty however), and in order that the reader may judge, it is printed here, all deviations from the Ashmole text being noted, except in the case of ‘th’ for ‘þ,’ and some readings of the Rawlinson copy (R) being added in parentheses.

Balade moral of gode counseyle made by Gower.

Passe forth, thou pilgryme, and bridel wel thy beeste;
Loke not agein for thing that may betyde;
Thenke what thou wilt, but speke ay with the leeste;
Avyse thee wel who stondeth thee besyde;
Let not thyne herte beo with thy tonge bewryde;
Trust not to muche in fayre visayginge,
For peynted cheere shapeth efft to stynge.
Byholde thy selff, or that thou other deme;
Ne beo not glad whane other done amyss;
Sey never al that which wolde the sothe seme,
Thou maist not wite what thy fortune is:
For there is no wight on lyve iwyss
That stondeth sure, ther fore I rede beware,
And looke aboute for stumbling in the snare.

Reporte not muche on other mennes sawe;
Be ay adrad to here a wicked fame;
For man shal dye by dome of goddes lawe,
That here enpeyreth any mannes name.
Avyse thee wel ther fore or thow attame
Suche as thou mayst never revoke ageyn;
A good name leste is leste for ay certain.

Pley not with pecus ne ffawvel to thy feere;
Chese thou hem never, yif thou do affter me;
The hande is hurt that bourdeth with the bere;
Fawvel fareth even right as doth a bee;
Hony mowthed, ful of swetnesse is she,
But loke behinde and ware thee from hir stonge,
Thow shalt have hurt yf thou play with hir longe.

Dispreyse no wight but if effte thou may him preyse,
Ne preyse no firre but thou may discomende:
Weyghe thy wordes and hem by mesure peyse;
Thenke that the gilty may by grace amende,
And eke the gode may happen to offende:
Remember eke that what man doth amiss,
Thou hast or art or may be suche as he is.

This is full of lines that Gower would not have written, with superfluous syllables in the metre, as ll. 1, 5, 10, 17, 29, 33, 35 (omitting those that might pass with amended spelling), accent on weak syllables, as ll. 20, 25, 26, 31, defective rhyme, as ‘besyde’: ‘bewryde’ (participle), and ‘feere’ (companion): ‘bere,’ or suppression of syllable at the beginning, as in l. 12. The form ‘mayst’ (maist) for ‘miht’ is not found in any respectable Gower MS. Moreover the style is not that of Gower, but evidently imitated from Chaucer’s poem ‘Fle from the pres.’