with one another are difficult to clear up satisfactorily. Broadly,
it may be said that of these B represents an earlier type than the
rest in regard to correction and Λ in regard to revision: that is to
say, B retains a large number of first recension errors which do not
appear in the rest (sharing some, however, with Λ), while at the same
time, in cases where a line has been rewritten B almost regularly
has the altered form, though with some exceptions in the first two
books. On the other hand, though it often happens that Λ is free from
original errors which appear in B, yet in many places where B has
the revised form of text Λ gives us the original, in agreement with
the earlier first recension type, while in others Λ agrees with B in
giving the revised reading. Then again, there can be no doubt of the
close connexion between B and T, but the agreement between them is
not usually on those points in which B follows the first recension
in error. It is as if they had been derived from the same archetype,
but T (or a manuscript from which T was copied) sprang from it at a
later stage than the original of B, when many of the errors noted in
the first recension had been corrected, while the text of the book
generally was allowed to remain as it was[AI]. Finally, the text of Ad
approaches very near to a fully revised and corrected type. It very
occasionally reproduces the earlier first recension, as if by accident,
but seems never deliberately to give an ‘unrevised’ reading. It should
be observed that from a point towards the end of the fifth book (about
v. 6280) AdBT is a group which is very frequently found in special
agreement, whereas before that point we usually find BT (or BTΛ) with
Ad on the other side.
Passing now to the third recension, which has the preface and epilogue
as in Λ and S, but excludes the additional passages, we find it
represented by eight manuscripts, with Fairfax 3 at their head. We
have already seen that this manuscript was originally one of the first
recension, and was altered by the author so as to substitute the new
epilogue and the new preface. Besides these changes, fresh lines are in
several places written over erasures, as i. 2713 f., iv. 1321 f., 1361
f., &c., the marginal date is erased at Prol. 331, and additions have
been made to the marginal notes. All these alterations, as well as the
points previously noted, in which F originally differed from the other
copies of the first recension, are reproduced in the other MSS. of the
third recension.
Of these remaining MSS. one is directly copied from F, and another
seems to be certainly derived from the same source, though perhaps
not immediately. In the case of H₃ (MS. Harl. 7184) the question of
origin is not quite so simple. Its text generally seems to suggest
ultimate dependence on F, but it is very unequal as regards accuracy,
and in one part it regularly follows the early first recension readings
and seems to belong for the time to the ERCLB₂ group. In addition to
this it has a Latin marginal note at the beginning of the Prologue,
which is wanting in F. The problem is perhaps to be solved by means
of the Keswick MS. This is written in several hands, varying greatly
in accuracy, and exactly in that place where H₃ seems to follow a
first recension copy the Keswick MS. is defective, having lost several
leaves. It also contains the marginal note referred to above, and on
examination we find that a whole series of corruptions are common to
the two MSS. There seems to be very little doubt that K is the source
of H₃, the inequality of the latter MS. being to a great extent in
accordance with the change of hands in K, and the variation of H₃ in
a portion of the third book to a different type of text being exactly
coincident with the gap left in K by loss of leaves, a loss which must
apparently have taken place in the first forty or fifty years of its
existence[AJ]. As to the text of K itself, in the parts which are most
carefully written it reproduces that of F with scrupulous exactness,
giving every detail of orthography and punctuation, and for the most
part following it in such small errors as it has. It is impossible for
one who places these MSS. side by side, as I have been able to do,
to avoid the conviction that in some parts at least the exemplar for
K was the Fairfax MS. itself. On the other hand, the Latin marginal
note at the beginning was derived from some other copy, and setting
aside the many mistakes, which possibly are due to mere carelessness
on the part of some of the scribes, the Keswick MS. does undoubtedly
contain some readings which seem to be derived from a different source.
In form of text generally it corresponds exactly with F, reproducing
all the additions and corrections made by erasure or otherwise, and
containing the same Latin and French pieces in the same order at the
end, so far at least as it is perfect. The Magdalen College MS. must
be derived ultimately from the same source as H₃, and it has the same
lapse from the third recension to the first, coinciding with the gap
in the Keswick book. On the other hand W, though in form of text it
corresponds with these and with F, is quite independent of the group
above mentioned, and probably also of the Fairfax MS. It is late
and full of corruptions, but in several instances it assists in the
correction of errors which appear in F, and it is apparently based on
a copy which retained some of the variants of the earlier text still
uncorrected.
As for the remaining manuscript, which was formerly in the Phillipps
collection, but is now in the hands of a bookseller, I have had so
little opportunity for examining it that I ought not to attempt a
classification.
Reviewing the whole body of authorities, we can recognize readily
that two are pre-eminent as witnesses for the author’s final text,
that is to say, S and F, the Stafford and the Fairfax MSS. These
are practically identical in orthography, and, except as regards
the characteristic differences, which sufficiently guarantee their
independence, exhibit essentially the same text, and one which bears
the strongest marks of authenticity. Both are contemporary with the
author, and it is perhaps difficult to say which best represents his
final judgement as to the form of his work.
The Stafford MS. seems to be the earlier in time, that is to say,
it probably precedes the final conversion of the Fairfax copy. It
was evidently written for presentation to a member of the house of
Lancaster, perhaps to Henry himself before his accession to the throne.
It was doubtless for some such presentation copy that the preface was
rewritten in 1392-3, with the dedication to Henry introduced into the
English text, while most of the other copies issued during Richard’s
reign probably retained their original form. If we suppose that the new
forms of preface and epilogue were at first intended only for private
circulation, we can account for the very considerable preponderance of
the first recension in regard to the number of copies by which it is
represented, and also allow sufficient time for the gradual development
of the text, first into the type which we find in A or J, and finally
into that of F, as it originally stood, a process which can hardly
be satisfactorily understood if we suppose that from 1393 onwards
the Lancastrian dedication had its place in all copies put forth by
the author. It seems on the whole probable, for reasons to be stated
afterwards, that the final conversion of F (that is as regards the
preface) did not take place until after the deposition of Richard, and
it is reasonable enough to suppose that copies were usually issued in
the original form, until after that event occurred.
MANUSCRIPTS. The following account of the MSS. is given on my own
authority in every detail. I have been able to see them all, and I
wish here to express my thanks to the possessors of them, and to the
librarians who have them in their charge, for the readiness with which
they have given me the use of them. I am indebted especially to the
Councils of Trinity College and St. John’s College, Cambridge, and to
Corpus Christi, Wadham, Magdalen, and New College, Oxford, for allowing
their MSS. to be sent to the Bodleian Library for my use, and to remain
there for considerable periods. Except in the case of one or two, to
which my access was limited, I have examined every one carefully, so
that I am able to say (for example) to what extent, if at all, they are
imperfect. They are arranged as far as possible in accordance with the
classes and groups to which they belong, as follows:
1st Recension (_a_) AJMP₁ChN₂E₂ (_b_) H₁YXGOAd₂CathQ (_c_)
ECRLB₂SnDArHdAsh 2nd Recension (_a_) SΔ (_b_) AdTBΛP₂ 3rd Recension
FH₂NKH₃MagdWP₃ Hn
FIRST RECENSION.
(_a_) _Revised._
A. BODLEY 902, Bodleian Library (formerly Arch. D. 33, not in
Bernard’s Catalogue, 1697). Contains _Confessio Amantis_ followed by
‘Explicit iste liber’ (four lines), ‘Quam cinxere freta,’ and ‘Quia
vnusquisque.’ Parchment, ff. 184, measuring 13⅜ × 9⅛ in., in
quires of 8 with catchwords. Well written in double column of 46 lines
in three different hands of early fifteenth cent., of which the first
extends to the end of the second quire (ff. 2-16), the second from
thence to the end of the tenth quire (ff. 17-80), and the third from
f. 81 to the end. The columns nearly correspond with those of the
Fairfax MS. up to f. 81, after which point some attempt is made to
save space by writing the Latin verses in the margin. Latin summaries
in the margin, except very occasionally, as on ff. 10 and 11 v^o.
Floreated half border in fairly good style at the beginning of each
book except the fifth, and one miniature on f. 8, of the Confession,
remarkable for the fact that the figure of the Lover is evidently
intended as a portrait of the author, being that of an old man and
with some resemblance in features to the effigy on Gower’s tomb. The
Confessor has a red stole, which with his right hand he is laying on
the penitent’s head, much as in the miniatures which we have in C and
L. The note for the miniaturist still stands in the margin, ‘Hic fiat
confessor sedens _et_ confes_sus_ cora_m_ se genuflectendo.’
The first leaf of the book is lost, and has been supplied in the
sixteenth cent. from Berthelette’s second edition. It should be noted
that this is not the form of commencement which belongs properly to
the MS., being that of the third recension, taken by Berthelette from
Caxton. The first line of f. 2 is Prol. 144.
As to former possessors, we find written on the last leaf ‘Anniballis
Admiralis dominicalis,’ on f. 80 ‘Be me Anne Russell’ (?), and on f.
115 ‘Elyzebeth Gardnar my troust ys in god,’ all apparently sixteenth
cent. The first name is evidently that of Claude d’Annebaut (also
called d’Hannybal), who was Admiral of France, and died in 1552. He
was in England about the year 1547. The book came to the Bodleian from
Gilbert Dolben, Esq., of Finedon, in Northamptonshire, in the year
1697, and not being in the Catalogue of 1697, it has to some extent
escaped notice.
The text is a very good one of the revised type. It should be
noted, however, that while in the earlier books AJM &c. stand
very frequently together on the side of F as against the rest
of the first recension, in the later, and especially in the
seventh and eighth, AM &c. have an increasing tendency to stand
with the first recension generally, leaving J alone in support
of the corrected text. In the earlier books A sometimes stands
alone in this manner, as i. 1960, ii. 961, 1356.
The orthography (especially that of the second hand) is nearly
that of F. As regards final _e_, the tendency is rather to
insert wrongly than to omit. Punctuation agrees generally with
that of F.
J. ST. JOHN’S COLL., CAMB. B 12. Contains the same as A. Parchment, ff.
214, 12 × 9½ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: double column of
39 lines, written in a very neat hand of the first quarter of fifteenth
century. Latin summaries usually omitted, but most of them inserted up
to f. 5 (Prol. 606), and a few here and there in the fifth and seventh
books.
The first page has a complete border, but there are no other
decorations except red and blue capitals. Old wooden binding.
The seventh leaf of quire 12 (v. 57-213) and the first of quire 14 (v.
1615-1770) are cut out, and a passage of 184 lines is omitted in the
first book (i. 631-814) without loss of leaf, which shows that the
manuscript from which it was copied, and which here must have lost a
leaf, had the normal number of 46 lines to the column.
Various names, as Thomas Browne, Nicolas Helifax, J. Baynorde, are
written in the book, and also ‘John Nicholas oweth this book,’ with
the date 1576. At the beginning we find ‘Tho. C. S.’, which stands for
‘Thomas Comes Southampton.’ The book was in fact bought with others by
Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, from William Crashaw, Fellow
of St. John’s College, and presented by him to the College Library in
the year 1635.
This MS. gives a text which is nearer to the type of F than
that of any other first recension copy. In the later books
especially it seems often to stand alone of its class in
agreement with F, as v. 649, 1112, 1339, 1578, 3340, 4351,
4643, 5242, 6059, 6461, 6771, vi. 162, 442, 784, 973, 2089,
vii. 445, 1027, 1666, 2424, 3235, 4336, 5348, viii. 13, 239,
747, 845, 1076, 1415, 1456 ff., 2195, 2220, 2228, 2442,
2670 ff., and it is noteworthy that this is the only first
recension copy which supplies the accidental omission of ‘eorum
disciplina--materia’ in the author’s Latin account of the
_Conf. Amantis_ at the end. As regards individual correctness
it is rather unequal. In some places it has many mistakes, as
vi. 1509 ff., while in others it is very correct. The spelling
is in most points like that of F, and it is usually good as
regards terminations; but the scribe has some peculiarities of
his own, which he introduces more or less freely, as ‘ho’ for
‘who,’ ‘heo’ for ‘sche’ (pretty regularly), ‘heor’ for ‘her,’
‘whech’ for ‘which.’ It must also be an individual fancy which
leads him regularly to substitute ‘som tyme’ for ‘whilom’
wherever it occurs. Punctuation usually agrees with that of F.
M. CAMB. UNIV. Mm. 2.21 (Bern. Cat. ii. 9648). Contains _Conf. Amantis_
only, without ‘Explicit,’ &c. (the last leaf being lost). Parchment,
ff. 183, 14 × 9½ in. Quires of eight with catchwords and signatures:
double columns of 46 lines: Latin summaries usually in margin, but
occasionally in the text, as in A. Several hands, as follows, (1) ff.
1-32, 41-64, 73-88, 97-136, 145-152, 161-176; (2) ff. 33-40, 89-96,
137-144; (3) ff. 65-72; (4) ff. 153-160; (5) ff. 177-183. Finally
another, different from all the above, adds sometimes a marginal note
which has been dropped, as on ff. 4, 32 v^o, 65, 72 v^o. The first
hand, in which more than two-thirds of the book is written, is fairly
neat: the third much rougher than the rest, and also more inaccurate.
Floreated half border in fairly good style at the beginning of each
book, except the third, fifth, and seventh, and two rather rudely
painted miniatures, viz. f. 4 v^o, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (the king in
bed, crowned), and f. 8, the Confession, a curious little picture in
the margin. The priest is laying his stole on the head of the penitent,
whose features are evidently meant for a portrait. It is quite
different however from that which we have in A. Below this picture we
find the note, ‘Hic fiat Garn_imentum_.’
The last leaf is lost, containing no doubt the ‘Explicit,’ ‘Quam
cinxere,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ as in A.
The names Stanhope and Yelverton are written on f. 39 (sixteenth
cent.), and ‘Margareta Straunge’ on the first leaf (seventeenth cent.).
Later the book belonged to Bishop Moore of Norwich (No. 462 in his
library), and it passed with the rest of his books to the University of
Cambridge in 1715, as a gift from the king.
M is very closely connected with A, as is shown by very many
instances of special agreement, and some considerations suggest
that it may be actually derived from it, as for example the
writing of the Latin verses in the margin after f. 80, which
in A seems to be connected with a change of hand, whereas in
M it begins at the same point without any such reason. On
the other hand M has a good many readings which are clearly
independent, either correcting mistakes and omissions in A, as
Prol. 195 _marg._, 937, i. 673 _marg._, 924, 1336, 3445, ii.
951, iii. 2529, vi. 620, or giving an early reading where A has
a later, e.g. Prol. 869, i. 1118, 1755, ii. 961, 3516, iii.
1939, v. 3914, 5524, &c. In correctness of text and of spelling
M is much inferior to A, especially as regards final _e_: for
example, on f. 53 v^o,
Came neu_er_ ȝit to mannes ere Cam A
Tiding | ne to mannes siȝt Tidinge ... sihte A
Merueil whiche so sore aflihte Merueile which A
Aman_n_es herte as it þe dede þo A
To hym whoche in þe same stede him which A
P₁, formerly PHILLIPPS 2298, bought in June, 1899, by Mr. B. Quaritch,
who kindly allowed me to see it. Parchment, leaf measuring about 9 ×
6½ in., double column of 39 lines, in a fairly neat running hand,
with many contractions because of the small size of the leaf. Latin
summaries omitted. No decoration. Text agrees with AJM group, so far as
I have examined it.
Ch. CHETHAM’S LIBR., MANCHESTER, A. 6. 11 (Bern. Cat. ii. 7151).
Contains _Conf. Amantis_ with ‘Explicit’ (4 lines) and ‘Quam cinxere.’
Parchment, ff. 126, about 15¼ × 10¾ in., quires usually of 12 or
14 leaves. Rather irregularly written in double column of 47-61 lines,
late fifteenth century. No ornament. Marginal Latin almost entirely
omitted, but some English notes by way of summary occasionally in
margin, perhaps by later hand.
The first leaf is lost, the MS. beginning Prol. 193, and also two
leaves in the second quire (i. 1092-1491) and one in the tenth
(viii. 2111-2343); but besides these imperfections there are many
omissions, apparently because the copyist got tired of his work, e.g.
ii. 3155-3184, iii. 41-126, 817-842, 877-930, 1119-1196, iv. 17-72,
261-370, 569-704, 710-722, 915-968, 1117-1236, v. 72-112. There is also
a good deal of omission and confusion in v. 6101-7082. At the end in a
scroll is written ‘Notehurste,’ which indicates probably that the book
was copied for one of the Chethams of Nuthurst, perhaps Thomas Chetham,
who died 1504. The word ‘Notehurst’ also occurs at the end of the
Glasgow MS. of the ‘Destruction of Troy,’ which has in another place
the names of John and Thomas Chetham of ‘Notehurst’ as the owners of it.
In text it belongs to the AJM group, and sometimes, as iv. 208,
stands alone with J. There are many corruptions, however, and
the spelling is late and bad.
N₂. NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD, 326. Contains _Conf. Amantis_ only (no
‘Explicit’). Parchment, ff. 207 + 4 blanks, about 13¾ × 9½
in., in quires of 8 with catchwords; neatly written in double column
of 40 lines (or 39). No Latin summaries or verses. The handwriting
changes after f. 62 (at iii. 2164) and becomes rather larger and more
ornamental.
Two leaves lost after f. 35, containing ii. 1066-1377, and some of the
leaves of the MS. from which it was copied had been displaced, so that
iv. 2501-2684 comes after 2864, then follows 3049-3232, then 2865-3048,
and after these 3233 ff. (two leaves displaced in the original). Lines
omitted sometimes with blanks left, as i. 1044, 2527.
From the coats of arms which it contains the book would seem to have
been written for Thomas Mompesson of Bathampton, sheriff of Wilts in
1478 (K. Meyer, _John Gower’s Beziehungen_, &c.). It was given to John
Mompesson by Sir Giles Mompesson in 1650, and to New College by Thomas
Mompesson, Fellow, in 1705.
The text is a combination of two types. It has the Lancaster
dedication at the beginning, but the conclusion which belongs
to the first recension. On examination it proves that the
scribe who wrote the first eight quires followed a manuscript
not of the F, but of the SΔ class (agreeing for example with
S in i. 1881 f., 2017 ff., ii. 2387, iii. 168, 1241, and
differing from F in regard to i. 2267 ff., 2343 ff., &c.),
while the copyist of the remainder followed one of the revised
first recension. The spelling is poor.
E₂. BIBL. EGERTON 913, Brit. Museum. A fragment, containing _Conf.
Amantis_ from the beginning to i. 1701. Paper, ff. 47, 11½ × 8 in.,
in quires of 16 with catchwords: single column, 30-37 lines on page:
Latin summaries in margin. Three hands, (1) f. 1-26, 31-36; (2) 27-30;
(3) 37-47.
On f. 26 v^o. there is an omission of i. 387-570 (one leaf of 184 lines
lost in the copy). This is supplied by the insertion of four leaves
after f. 26, containing i. 375-580.
The text belongs to the revised group, as shown by Prol. 6, 7,
115, 659, 869, i. 162, 278, 368, 1262, &c.
(_b_) _Intermediate._
H₁. HARLEIAN 3490, Brit. Museum. Contains, ff. 1-6 St Edmund’s
_Speculum Religiosorum_, ff. 8-215 _Confessio Amantis_, left unfinished
on f. 215 v^o. Parchment, 215 leaves, 14½ × 10 in., in quires of
8 with catchwords: double column of 34-51 lines, small neat hand of
middle fifteenth cent., with some corrections, perhaps in the same
hand. Latin summaries in the text, underlined with red. Blank leaf cut
out after f. 6, and f. 7 left blank, so that Gower begins on the first
leaf of the second quire. The text is left unfinished at viii. 3062*,
part of the last page remaining blank.
Floreated pages at the beginning of the books and also at f. 11, with
various coats of arms painted.
The text given by this MS. is of an intermediate type.
Occasionally throughout it is found in agreement with AJM &c.
rather than with ERC &c., as Prol. 6, 7, i. 162, 630, 1755,
1768 ff., 1934, &c., and in a large portion of the fifth book
it passes over definitely in company with XG &c. to the revised
class, but it does not contain the distinctive readings of XG.
Sometimes it stands alone of the first recension in company
with F &c., as iv. 2414, vii. 1749, viii. 2098, and especially
in regard to the three passages, i. 2267 ff., 2343 ff., 2369
ff. In individual correctness of text and spelling the MS. does
not rank high, and it is especially bad as regards insertion
and omission of final _e_, as ‘Wherof him ouht welle to drede,’
‘Ayenste the poyntes of the beleue,’ ‘Of whome that he taketh
eny hede.’ It has _th_ regularly for þ and _y_ for ȝ.
Y. In the possession of the MARQUESS OF BUTE, by whose kindness I have
been allowed to examine it. Contains _Confessio Amantis_, imperfect at
beginning and end. Parchment, 15½ × 10¾ in., in quires of 8 with
catchwords on scrolls. Very well written in double column of 50 lines,
early fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in text (red). Floreated page
finely illuminated at the beginning of each book, with good painting
of large initials, some with figures of animals, in a style that looks
earlier than the fifteenth cent. Spaces left on f. 2, apparently for
two miniatures, before and after the Latin lines following i. 202.
Begins in the last Latin summary of the Prologue, ‘Arion nuper
citharista,’ followed by Prol. 1053, ‘Bot wolde god,’ &c., having lost
six leaves. Again, after iv. 819 nine leaves are lost, up to iv. 2490,
and one leaf also which contained vi. 2367-vii. 88: the book ends with
viii. 2799, two or three leaves being lost here. The book belonged to
the first Marquess of Bute, who had his library at Luton. At present it
is at St. John’s Lodge, Regent’s Park.
This is a good manuscript, carefully written and finely
decorated. There are very few contractions, and in particular
the termination _-oun_ is generally written in full, as
‘confessioun,’ i. 202, ‘resoun,’ iii. 1111, ‘devocioun,’
‘contemplacioun,’ v. 7125 f. &c., and _th_ is written regularly
for þ. As regards individual accuracy and spelling it is very
fair, but the scribe adds _-e_ very freely at the end of words.
The type of text represented is evidently intermediate to some
extent, but I have not been able to examine it sufficiently to
determine its exact character. It supports the revised group
in a certain number of passages, e.g. i. 264, 630, 3374, 3396,
3416, ii. 31, 1328, 1758, &c., sometimes in company with H₁
and sometimes not. In particular we may note the passage i.
3374 ff., where in some lines it is revised as above mentioned,
and in others, as 3381, 3414, 3443, it keeps the earlier text.
Occasionally Y seems to have a tendency to group itself with B,
as i. 208, 604, and in other places we find YE or YEC forming a
group in agreement with B, as i. 161, iii. 633, v. 1946, 3879.