Part 143

The copies which have this conclusion have also the preface in which Richard is mentioned as the occasion of the author’s undertaking, but this preface is found also in combination with the other conclusion.

Berthelette used a manuscript (not now existing) which in this respect, as in many others, resembled B.

It may be noted that the four second recension MSS. which contain the author’s Latin note about his books (‘Quia vnusquisque,’ &c.), viz. BTΛP₂, agree in a form of it which is different both from that which is given by first recension copies and that which we find in F, and is clearly intermediate between the other two, the first form fully excusing Richard II for the troubles of his reign and the third entirely condemning him, while this makes no mention of his merits or demerits, but simply prays for the state of the kingdom. It is noticeable that the second recension form definitely substitutes Henry for Richard as the patron of the Confessio Amantis, though in one at least of the copies to which it is attached this substitution has not been made in the text of the poem.

e.g. ii. 193, 365 ff., iii. 168, 1241, iv. 283, 1321, v. 1252, &c.

For the explanation of the use of letters to designate MSS. the reader is referred to the list of MSS. given later. It should be noted that AJM and FWH₃ represent in each case a group of about seven MSS., and H₁ ... B₂ one of nearly twenty. We observe in the examples given that B and A are sometimes found either separately or together on the side of the H₁ ... B₂ group, and that the same is true occasionally of W, while on the other hand some MSS. of the H₁ ... B₂ group are apt to pass over to the other side in a certain part of the text and support what we call the revised reading.

S is defective in one of these places and Ad in another, but a reckoning of the lines contained in the missing leaves proves that the facts were as stated.

They do not, however, contain the additions above mentioned, at Prol. 495, 579, i. 1403, 2267, &c.

It is doubtful, however, whether the special connexion between B and T extended over the whole book. It seems rather to begin about iii. 1500. The question about the relative position of these two MSS. would be easier of solution if it were not that T is defective up to ii. 2687, that is as regards the part where the connexion of B with the first recension is most apparent. The fact is that until about the middle of the third book B is found usually in accord with the ERCLB₂ group, and though it sometimes in these first books presents the characteristic second recension reading, as ii. 193, 365 ff., iii. 168, at other times it departs from it, as i. 1881, 2017.

K belongs to the beginning and H₃ to the middle of the fifteenth century.

In the case of most of these passages the text proves them to be taken from Caxton’s edition. Thus in Prol. 497 both editions omit ‘to,’ Prol. 583 both omit ‘propre,’ i. 2248 both have ‘Vnder graue’ for ‘Vnder the grene,’ in 2354 ‘other’ for ‘thilke,’ and in 2372 ‘in me’ for ‘I me.’

These lines have never been printed in any edition before the present, though published separately by K. Meyer in his John Gower’s Beziehungen, &c., 1889, and by Prof. Easton of the University of Pennsylvania in his Readings in Gower, 1895. There are a large number of sound emendations from the Brit. Museum MSS. suggested in this latter book, but the author had no clear idea of the principles on which the text should be constructed.

The following will serve as examples of those omitted:

iii. 367 tawh B

422 vngood lieste A

618 is (for it) A

652 softe softe B

658 sely sely B

739 marg. litigabant B

864 artow B

923 he (for hem) B

iv. 635 f. betake ... þurghsott A

650 wedde A

1105 no wol no B

1229 herte B

1239 þo (for þou) A, &c.

On inquiry in the locality I find that Terranova, which has always had a column for its emblem, claims Guido as a native: see Memorie Gelesi by Sign. S. D. Navarra, Terranova 1896, pp. 72 f.