Chapter 16

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 inagreement with S, F in a few passages, as v. 5438, vi. 1954, vii. 4318marg., 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 finalein 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.

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 finalein 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 Amantiswith ‘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 voNebuchadnezzar’s Image, f. 9 vothe 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 finale. 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 Amantiswith ‘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 voof 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 ‘Thisboke 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 Amantiswith ‘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 vothe 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 Amantiswith ‘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 vothe 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 AoMVcVI’ (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, whowas 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 finaleand having less regard for the metre.

Sn.Arch. Seld. B. II, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 3357).Confessio Amantiswith ‘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 betweenþ,ȝ, andy. Thus the scribe (who usually hasthforþandyforȝ) 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 voblank (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. 331marg., 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. AtCastle Howard, the property of the Earl of Carlisle, who most kindly sent it for my use.Confessio Amantiswith ‘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 theChaucer 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. TheStafford MS., now in the possession of the Earl of Ellesmere, by whose kind permission I have been allowed to make use of it. ContainsConfessio Amantiswith ‘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’sGenealogical 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 wasnot 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 vothere 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). ContainsConfessio Amantis, with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and ‘Quam cinxere,’ (ff. 2-202 vo), and then an English version of Cato’sDisticha. 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.

‘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.Additional12043, 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 finale. 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 vothe FrenchTraitié, with the Latin pieces ‘Quis sit vel qualis,’ ‘Est amor in glosa,’ and ‘Lex docet,’ f. 152 ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ f. 152 vo-154 vothe LatinCarmen 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 atpresent with ii. 2687. Also the second col. of f. 84 rois 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 theConf. 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.

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.Bodley294, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 2449). Contents, as in T, ff. 1-197Conf. Amantis, &c., ff. 197-199 voTraitié, f. 199 vo‘Quia vnusquisque,’ ff. 199 vo-201Carmen 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 voNebuchadnezzar’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 finalefreely before a vowel, rarely does so where it affects the metre, and seldom adds-eunduly. 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. Versesafter 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.

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.Phillipps8192, 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.Fairfax3, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 3883). Contains, ff. 2-186,Confessio Amantis, with ‘Explicit’ and ‘Quam cinxere,’ ff. 186 vo-190 voTraitié, &c., ff. 190 vo-194Carmen de multiplici viciorum pestilencia, ending with the lines ‘Hoc ego bis deno,’ &c., f. 194 ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ f. 194 vosixteen 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. TheConfessio Amantisis 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 ‘SrThomas 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 theConf. Amantisfrom 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 theTraitiéand 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 theVox Clamantis. Other examples of alteration of first recension readings by erasure in F are Prol. 331marg., 336, i. 2713 f., iv. 1321 f., 1361 f.,Lat. Verses aftervii. 1640,Lat. Verses aftervii. 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 thatiandj,uandvare used in accordance with modern practice, that no distinction is made between the two forms ofs, thatthis used forþ, andyforȝinȝe,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 usesvforuat 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 fromnor 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 casesvis given in the text asu. 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, ask,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 especiallys, the capital form is used with excessivefreedom. 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 theI(orJ), 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 finaleseems 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 anehas 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·

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 thatiandj,uandvare used in accordance with modern practice, that no distinction is made between the two forms ofs, thatthis used forþ, andyforȝinȝe,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 usesvforuat 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 fromnor 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 casesvis given in the text asu. 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, ask,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 especiallys, the capital form is used with excessivefreedom. 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 theI(orJ), 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 finaleseems 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 anehas 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.Harleian3869, 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 theConfessio Amantisa 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 ye28 Jany. 1628, George Cogiluy,’ and on f. 2 ‘Jan. 22. 1721 Oxford’ (i.e. Harley). On the same page is the date, ‘1445 ye23 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, 668marg.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. after382 infamen, 710 hiere, 949 þong, 1169 no, 1441 keste, 1539om.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 Amantiswith ‘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 finale, 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, 234sone sone, 1036 be shrewed, 3357 seled, ii. 318 ff. fela, felaw, felawh (varying as F),after382 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.

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 LatinCarmen 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.

Back to Index Next