LINENOTES:

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 ofsome 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. 3170om.his, ii. 78 fader, 101 hem wolde, 103 all hys cause, 126 he, 135 pore, 138 wich, 162 In (originallyThe). 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.

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. 3170om.his, ii. 78 fader, 101 hem wolde, 103 all hys cause, 126 he, 135 pore, 138 wich, 162 In (originallyThe). 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.Harleian7184, 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.

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 Versesi. 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 thepoint 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 ofþ, andyis used forȝin ‘ye,’ ‘yiue,’ &c.

The spelling of H₃ is rather late: there is no use ofþ, andyis used forȝin ‘ye,’ ‘yiue,’ &c.

Magd.Magdalen College, Oxf.213 (Bern. Cat. i. 2. 2354).Confessio Amantiswith ‘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 vothe 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.

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 Amantiswith ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and ‘Quam cinxere,’ then theTraitié, 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 withcatchwords: 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 theConf. 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’sHist. 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-etor-utas 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 after1640 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’sHist. 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.

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’sHist. 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. FormerlyPhillipps8942, 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.Hatton51, 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 lostk4 (iii. 1314-1475),n2 (iv. 2118-2268),s2 (v. 5169-5333),t2 (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 theConfessio Amantis, as

Harl.7333, Brit. Museum, which, besides theCanterbury Talesand other things, has seven stories from theConf. Amantis, viz. f. 120 Tereus (v. 5551 ff.), f. 122 Constance (ii. 587 ff.), f. 126 The Three Questions (i. 3067 ff.), f. 127 voThe Travellers and the Angel (ii. 291 ff.), f. 127 voVirgil’s Mirror, f. 128 voThe 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 theCant. Tales, which go before, and theParlement 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 beginningof 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 vo-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 theConfessio 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 voTale of Appolinus, viii. 271-2028, ff. 70 vo-81 voTales of Constance and of Perseus, ii. 587-1865, ff. 81 vo-83 voAdrian and Bardus, v. 4937-5162, ff. 83 vo-84 vo, vi. 485-595, ff. 84 vo-86 voDives and Lazarus &c., vi. 975-1238, ff. 86 vo-89 voConstantine, ii. 3187-3507, ff. 89 vo-91 voNebuchadnezzar, i. 2785-3066, ff. 91 vo-94 voTales of Diogenes and of Pyramus, iii. 1201-1502 and 1655-1672, ff. 94 vo-96 Midas (unfinished), v. 141-312, ff. 171 vo-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.

RawlinsonD. 82, Bodleian Library. Contains on ff. 25-33Conf. 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.

Phillipps22914 is reported as a fragment (four leaves) containingConfessio Amantis, v. 775-1542.

Nine good miniatures cut out of a MS. of theConf. Amantisare 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 thestory, 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 theConf. Amantisby 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 theConfessio 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 theCanterbury Tales, and easily in the first place if it were a question of theLegend of Good Womenor theHous 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.

Version.It remains to say something of the Spanish prose version of theConfessio Amantis, which exists in manuscript in the Library of the Escorial (g. ii. 19). Information about this was first given me by Mr. J. Fitzmaurice-Kelly, and since then by the learned Librarian of the Escorial, Fr. Guillermo Antolin, O.S.A., who most obligingly sent me an account of it. The Catalogue (1858) thus describes the book: ‘Confision del amante, libro así intitulado compuesto por Juan Goer natural del Reyno de Englaterra, e tornado en lengua Portuguesa por Roberto Payn ó Payna canónigo de la ciudad de Lisboa, e despues fué puesto en lenguaje castellano por Juan de Cuenca natural de Huete.Cod. escrito en papel el año de 1400, fol. menor. pasta.’ The statement about the author and the translators is taken from the beginning of the translation itself. It seems to be rather implied that the Castilian version made by Juan de Cuenca was based upon the Portuguese of Robert Payn, no doubt an Englishman. The present Librarian adds that it is a book of 411 leaves, and of the end of the fourteenth or beginning of the fifteenth cent.

The translation was made from a copy of the first recension. So far as I can judge by the extracts with which the Librarian has furnished me, it is a tolerably close version. For example, Prol. 22 ff. ‘e por que pocos escriven en lenguaje yngles yo entiendo de componer en el un lybro a onrra del Rey rricardo cuyo sugebto yo so en todo obedescimiento de mi coraçon, como dicho sugebto puede y deue a su dicho señor,... asy fue que un tiempo acaescio como avía de ser que yo yendo en un batel a rremos por el rrio de atenas que va a la cibdad de noua troya ... y yo estonces falle por ventura a este mi señor e luego como me vido mando que fuese a una barca en que el venia, y entre otras cosas que me dixo,’ &c. And again viii. 2941 ff. (the Chaucer greeting), ‘Saluda de mi parte a caucer mi disciplo e mi poeta, quando con el topares, el qual por mi en la su mancibia fiso toda su diligencia para componer y escreuir desyres e cantares de diversas maneras de los quales toda la tierra es llena, por la qual cosa en especial le soy mucho tenido mas que a ninguno de los otros. Por ende dile que le enbio desir que tal esta en su postrimera hedad por dar fyn a todas sus obras se travaje de faser su testamento de amor, asi como tu has fecho agora en tu confision.’

Editions.TheConfessio Amantishas been already six times printed, viz. by Caxton, by Berthelette (twice), in Chalmers’ English Poets, by Pauli, and by Prof. Henry Morley. All the later editions are dependent, directly or indirectly, on Berthelette.

Caxtonprinted theConf. Amantisin 1483. His text is a composite one, taken from at least three MSS. At first he follows a copy of the third recension, either the Magdalen MS. itself or one remarkably like it, and he continues this for more than half the book, up to about v. 4500. Then for a time he seems to follow a second recension copy, either alone or in combination with the other, but from about v. 6400 to the end he prints from a manuscript of the unrevised first recension, inserting however the additional passages in the seventh book and the conclusion (after the Chaucer greeting) from one of his other MSS. The account of the books ‘Quia vnusquisque’ at the end is from a first recension MS. The principle, no doubt, was to include as much as possible, but two of the additional passages, v. 7015*-7036* and 7086*-7210*, were omitted, probably by oversight, while a first recension copy was beingfollowed. The later form of epilogue was perhaps printed rather than the other because it is longer. Caxton prints the lines at the end of the Prologue, which are given only by Δ, and there are some other indications that he had a MS. of this type; but he had also one of the AdBT group, which alone contain vii. 2329*-2340* and 3149*-3180*.

On f. cxvi voCaxton still agrees with Magd. almost regularly, e.g. v. 4450 And myn hap 4454 is not trouble 4465 But for that 4467 ne shall yeue and lene 4484 doo 4503 A good word, whereas on f. cxvii he differs repeatedly, e.g. 4528, 4532, 4543, 4555, 4560, 4572, and seems never to be in full agreement after this. That he is following a first recension copy after about v. 6400 is clear from the unbroken series of readings belonging to this class which he exhibits. The text generally is very poor and the metre extremely bad.

Berthelettein 1532 printed theConf. Amantisfrom a MS. very closely resembling B. He did not venture, however, to substitute the preface which he found in his copy for that to which Caxton had given currency, but merely expressed surprise that the printed copies should deviate so much from the MSS., and printed separately that which his manuscript gave. He also takes from Caxton the lines at the end of the Prologue, the additional third recension passages, Prol. 495-498, 579-584, i. 1403-1406, 2267-2274, 2343-2358, 2369-2372AK, and also the Chaucer greeting, viii. 2941-2960*, but he has overlooked v. 7701-7746. He inserts of course all the additional passages in v. and vii, as he found them in his MS., loudly protesting against Caxton for omitting ‘lynes and columnes, ye and sometyme holle padges.’

Berthelette’s text is better than Caxton’s, but his manuscript must have been decidedly inferior in correctness to B.

The second edition, 1554, is a reprint of the first, column for column, in different type. A few mistakes are corrected, and the spelling is somewhat changed, especially by substitution in many cases ofifory.

Chalmerspublished theConf. Amantisin vol. ii. of the collection of British Poets, 1810, taking the text from Berthelette’s edition of 1554.

Pauliprofessed to follow Berthelette’s first edition with collation throughout of MSS. Harl. 7184 and 3869, and occasional reference to Harl. 3490 and the Stafford MS. It is almost impossible that this full collation can really have been made, for by it nearly all Berthelette’s errors might have been corrected, whereas we find them as a matterof fact on every page of Pauli’s edition. As to the critical judgement of the editor, it is enough to say that he regarded Harl. 7184 as a better authority for the text and spelling than either Harl. 3869 or the Stafford MS. (being attracted apparently by the external magnificence of the volume), and that he actually pronounced it to be of the fourteenth cent. His diligence may be measured by the fact that because Harl. 3490 stops short at viii. 3062* (in the middle of a sentence), being left unfinished by the scribe, therefore Pauli’s edition omits the remainder of this conclusion, 3063*-3114*AL, though he had the MS. in the Royal Library (R) within his reach, by means of which he might have completed his copy. He is also seriously inaccurate in the statements which he makes about the Stafford MS. as regards the additional passages.

A certain number of the errors in Berthelette’s edition are corrected, but very many remain, and in some cases further corruption has been introduced by the editor, either from Harl. 7184 or otherwise. The orthography has been ‘restored,’ but hardly with success.

Morley(1889) followed Pauli’s text, with conjectural alterations of his own, and a few corrections from Berthelette, as i. 773. Often the changes are quite wrong, e.g. Prol. 82, 608, i. 777, 1675 f., 2957 f., the most extraordinary perhaps being iv. 2408 f. The editor professes to omit iii. 142-338 and a few lines here and there in other places. The omissions, however, are much more extensive than this seems to imply. In the fourth book alone they are as follows, 401-408, 428-436, 443-506, 516-523, 1467-1475, 1490-1594, 2131-2182, 2754-2770, 2858-2862, 2883-2888, 3181-3302, and in some cases it is impossible even to conjecture on what principle they are made.

The Present Edition.The text follows the Bodleian Fairfax MS. and every deviation from this is noted. The critical apparatus is constructed upon the following principles.

Three manuscripts have been collated throughout with the text of F, viz. Bodley 902 (A), Corpus Christi Coll. 67 (C), and Bodley 294 (B). These are selected to represent respectively the first recension revised, the first recension unrevised, and the second recension texts. A is an excellent copy, the best of its class, C is a carefully written MS., the best of the group to which it belongs, with the exception of Egerton 1991, and B, besides being a good copyand almost the only second recension MS. which is not imperfect, has perhaps a special claim to attention because its text is of the type which all the editions except that of Caxton have followed. In all cases where variation has been found, except where it is merely of form and spelling or of a very trifling and accidental kind, the readings of at least fourteen other selected copies have been ascertained, and by this procedure those variations which are merely individual have been distinguished from those which are shared by a class or a group. The result is given in the critical notes, all the variations of A and B being there cited except those that are very triflingAM, while the readings of C are usually given only when shared by some other manuscript.

It is important that it should be observed which the manuscripts are which have thus been referred to and how their evidence is cited. They are divided always according to their recension, first, second or third, and they are cited in an unvarying order, as follows: AJMH₁X(G)ERCLB₂, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃ (or K), so that A ... B₂ means the whole series of the first class, and S ... Δ that of the second, while H₁ ... B₂ stands for H₁X(G)ERCLB₂, and E ... B₂ for ERCLB₂. These nineteen (or eighteen) manuscripts are present as witnesses throughout, whether named or not; for when the manuscripts are named which give a variation, it is to be assumed that the remainder have the reading of the text. Thus the note

‘1295 wisdom] wordes H₁ ... B₂, H₃’

must be taken to imply that ‘wisdom’ is the reading of AJM, SAdBTΔ, FW and ‘wordes’ of H₁XGERCLB₂, H₃:

‘1296 gostly B’

means that the reading of the text, ‘goodly,’ is given by every one of the nineteen except B:

‘1318 How þer(e) H₁G ... B₂’

means that the reading of the text is that of AJMX, SAdBTΔ, FWH₃ and that of the note belongs to H₁GERCLB₂:

‘1330 for to] þat þou SAdBTΔ’

indicates a reading of the second recension only:

‘3340 tho] þe AM ... B₂’

stands for the fact that all the first recension copies except J vary from F, while the rest agree. Occasionally readings of other MSS. are cited besides those mentioned above, as Y, Λ or Magd., but the absence of such citation must not be taken to imply anything.

It must be observed, however, that in some cases a more limited reference seemed desirable, especially on matters of form and spelling, points about which it would be idle to adduce any evidence but that of a few copies. Where selection of this kind is employed, the manuscripts on both sides are cited: thus such notes as

‘3691 set AJ, S, F sette C, B,’‘4307 all S, F alle AJ, B’

‘3691 set AJ, S, F sette C, B,’

‘4307 all S, F alle AJ, B’

must not be taken to imply the reading of any copy except those mentioned. In a few cases this form is used to avoid misunderstanding in passages where the record of readings is for some reason incomplete, as i. 2300, viii. 566, 1713, 1927.

In citing a variation as given by a class or group of MSS. no attempt is made to give the spelling of each one separately. The form cited is that given either by the majority or by a leading MS. with variations sometimes added in parentheses.

Attention should be paid also to the following points: (1) It was not found possible to complete the collation of the Glasgow MS. (G) before the text was printed, and consequently its readings must not be taken as implied, when not mentioned, any further than v. 1970. The collation has since been completed and some of the results are noted in the account of the MS. (2) K takes the place of H₃ in vi. 1671-vii. 1405, and vii. 3594 to the end, where H₃ is defective. (3) Before assuming the evidence of any MS.ex silentioit is necessary that the reader should assure himself that it is not defective in the part concerned. The means of doing this are fully afforded by the accounts given of the separate MSS., where their imperfections are noted, and it must be remembered that J and Ad are for the most part defective as regards the Latin summaries, and that this is the case with T also in certain parts. The readings of S on f. 50 are for the most part passed over, as not originally belonging to that MS. (4) A few abbreviated Latin terms are used in the critical notes, asin ras.to indicate that the text is written over an erasure, orp. m.to denote the reading of the first hand.

The lines are numbered in each book (for the first time), and the numbers with an asterisk attached are those of the lines in other recensions than that of the text. In addition to this itshould be observed that as nearly all references to Gower for the last forty years have been made by Pauli’s edition, it has been thought advisable to place in the margin of this text indications of the volumes and pages of that edition: thusP. 1. 153stands for ‘Pauli, vol. i. p. 153.’

Setting aside matters of spelling, punctuation and grammatical form, we may note that the material differences of reading between the text of this edition and that of Pauli are in number about two thousand.

Other English Works.With regard to the text of the poemIn Praise of Peaceall that need be said will be found in the notes upon it. The Trentham MS., which contains it, has already been fully described in the volume of ‘French Works.’

A poem in five seven-line stanzas, beginning ‘Passe forthe þou pilgryme and bridel wele þy beste,’ occurs in (Shirley’s) MS. Ashmole 59, f. 17 vo(Bodl. Libr.), with the title ‘Balade moral of gode counseyle made by Gower.’ The same without the final stanza (owing to loss of a leaf) occurs in MS. Rawlinson C. 86, but with no title or ascription of authorship, and both texts have been printed (not quite correctly) by Dr. Karl Meyer in hisJohn Gower’s Beziehungen, &c., 1889. In addition to these copies there is one in the British Museum MS. Addit. 29729, which has been published by Dr. Max Förster in theArchiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen, vol. 102, p. 50. In this MS. the piece is ascribed to Benedict Burgh, and it is called ‘A leson to kepe well the tonge.’

It is almost impossible that these verses can have been written by Gower, but out of deference to Shirley’s authority (which is not very weighty however), and in order that the reader may judge, it is printed here, all deviations from the Ashmole text being noted, except in the case of ‘th’ for ‘þ,’ and some readings of the Rawlinson copy (R) being added in parentheses.

Balade moral of gode counseyle made by Gower.

Passe forth, thou pilgryme, and bridel wel thy beeste;1Loke not agein for thing that may betyde;2Thenke what thou wilt, but speke ay with the leeste;Avyse thee wel who stondeth thee besyde;3Let not thyne herte beo with thy tonge bewryde;Trust not to muche in fayre visayginge,For peynted cheere shapeth efft to stynge.4Byholde thy selff, or that thou other deme;Ne beo not glad whane other done amyss;5Sey never al that which wolde the sothe seme,610Thou maist not wite what thy fortune is:7For there is no wight on lyve iwyss8That stondeth sure, ther fore I rede beware,9And looke aboute for stumbling in the snare.Reporte not muche on other mennes sawe;10Be ay adrad to here a wicked fame;11For man shal dye by dome of goddes lawe,That here enpeyreth any mannes name.12Avyse thee wel ther fore or thow attame13Suche as thou mayst never revoke ageyn;1420A good name leste is leste for ay certain.15Pley not with pecus ne ffawvel to thy feere;16Chese thou hem never, yif thou do affter me;The hande is hurt that bourdeth with the bere;17Fawvel fareth even right as doth a bee;18Hony mowthed, ful of swetnesse is she,19But loke behinde and ware thee from hir stonge,20Thow shalt have hurt yf thou play with hir longe.21Dispreyse no wight but if effte thou may him preyse,Ne preyse no firre but thou may discomende:30Weyghe thy wordes and hem by mesure peyse;Thenke that the gilty may by grace amende,And eke the gode may happen to offende:Remember eke that what man doth amiss,22Thou hast or art or may be suche as he is.23

Passe forth, thou pilgryme, and bridel wel thy beeste;1

Loke not agein for thing that may betyde;2

Thenke what thou wilt, but speke ay with the leeste;

Avyse thee wel who stondeth thee besyde;3

Let not thyne herte beo with thy tonge bewryde;

Trust not to muche in fayre visayginge,

For peynted cheere shapeth efft to stynge.4

Byholde thy selff, or that thou other deme;

Ne beo not glad whane other done amyss;5

Sey never al that which wolde the sothe seme,610

Thou maist not wite what thy fortune is:7

For there is no wight on lyve iwyss8

That stondeth sure, ther fore I rede beware,9

And looke aboute for stumbling in the snare.

Reporte not muche on other mennes sawe;10Be ay adrad to here a wicked fame;11For man shal dye by dome of goddes lawe,That here enpeyreth any mannes name.12Avyse thee wel ther fore or thow attame13Suche as thou mayst never revoke ageyn;1420A good name leste is leste for ay certain.15

Reporte not muche on other mennes sawe;10

Be ay adrad to here a wicked fame;11

For man shal dye by dome of goddes lawe,

That here enpeyreth any mannes name.12

Avyse thee wel ther fore or thow attame13

Suche as thou mayst never revoke ageyn;1420

A good name leste is leste for ay certain.15

Pley not with pecus ne ffawvel to thy feere;16Chese thou hem never, yif thou do affter me;The hande is hurt that bourdeth with the bere;17Fawvel fareth even right as doth a bee;18Hony mowthed, ful of swetnesse is she,19But loke behinde and ware thee from hir stonge,20Thow shalt have hurt yf thou play with hir longe.21

Pley not with pecus ne ffawvel to thy feere;16

Chese thou hem never, yif thou do affter me;

The hande is hurt that bourdeth with the bere;17

Fawvel fareth even right as doth a bee;18

Hony mowthed, ful of swetnesse is she,19

But loke behinde and ware thee from hir stonge,20

Thow shalt have hurt yf thou play with hir longe.21

Dispreyse no wight but if effte thou may him preyse,Ne preyse no firre but thou may discomende:30Weyghe thy wordes and hem by mesure peyse;Thenke that the gilty may by grace amende,And eke the gode may happen to offende:Remember eke that what man doth amiss,22Thou hast or art or may be suche as he is.23

Dispreyse no wight but if effte thou may him preyse,

Ne preyse no firre but thou may discomende:30

Weyghe thy wordes and hem by mesure peyse;

Thenke that the gilty may by grace amende,

And eke the gode may happen to offende:

Remember eke that what man doth amiss,22

Thou hast or art or may be suche as he is.23

This is full of lines that Gower would not have written, with superfluous syllables in the metre, as ll. 1, 5, 10, 17, 29, 33, 35 (omitting those that might pass with amended spelling), accent on weak syllables, as ll. 20, 25, 26, 31, defective rhyme, as ‘besyde’: ‘bewryde’ (participle), and ‘feere’ (companion): ‘bere,’ or suppression of syllable at the beginning, as in l. 12. The form ‘mayst’ (maist) for ‘miht’ is not found in any respectable Gower MS. Moreover the style is not that of Gower, but evidently imitated from Chaucer’s poem ‘Fle from the pres.’

LINENOTES:11 forþe wele22 ageine34 weele stondeþe47 shapeþe (efft] her R)59 gladde (glad R) amysse610 þee711 wit (witte R)812 ewysse913 stondeþe1015 mens (mennys R)1116 adradde1218 enpeyreþe mans (mannes R)1319 wele þowe1420 ageyne1521 gode (good R) certaine1622 (Playe not pecus R)1724 hurte bourdeþe (a brere R)1825 fareþe doþe1926 right ful (full R)2027 frome2128 þowe shalt kache hareme to pley wtþeos beestis longe (Thow shalt haue hurt yf þou play with her longe R)2234 Remembre doþe amisse2335 haste arte

11 forþe wele

22 ageine

34 weele stondeþe

47 shapeþe (efft] her R)

59 gladde (glad R) amysse

610 þee

711 wit (witte R)

812 ewysse

913 stondeþe

1015 mens (mennys R)

1116 adradde

1218 enpeyreþe mans (mannes R)

1319 wele þowe

1420 ageyne

1521 gode (good R) certaine

1622 (Playe not pecus R)

1724 hurte bourdeþe (a brere R)

1825 fareþe doþe

1926 right ful (full R)

2027 frome

2128 þowe shalt kache hareme to pley wtþeos beestis longe (Thow shalt haue hurt yf þou play with her longe R)

2234 Remembre doþe amisse

2335 haste arte

Back to Index Next