Part 38

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

On the first page ‘Oxford B. H.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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