Part 32

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 v^o. 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.