Part 37

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIRD RECENSION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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