Ellesmere, by whose kind permission I have been allowed to make use of
it. Contains _Confessio Amantis_ with ‘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’s _Genealogical 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 was not 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 v^o
there 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). Contains
_Confessio Amantis_, with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and ‘Quam cinxere,’
(ff. 2-202 v^o), and then an English version of Cato’s _Disticha_.
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.
(_b_) Ad. ADDITIONAL 12043, 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 final _e_. 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 v^o the French _Traitié_,
with the Latin pieces ‘Quis sit vel qualis,’ ‘Est amor in glosa,’ and
‘Lex docet,’ f. 152 ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ f. 152 v^o-154 v^o the Latin
_Carmen 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
v^o-89, 98-113 r^o, the second ff. 9-32, the third ff. 33-49, 58-65,
82, 83, 84 r^o, 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 at
present with ii. 2687. Also the second col. of f. 84 r^o is 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
the _Conf. 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.
B. BODLEY 294, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 2449). Contents, as in T,
ff. 1-197 _Conf. Amantis_, &c., ff. 197-199 v^o _Traitié_, f. 199 v^o
‘Quia vnusquisque,’ ff. 199 v^o-201 _Carmen 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 v^o Nebuchadnezzar’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 final
_e_ freely before a vowel, rarely does so where it affects
the metre, and seldom adds _-e_ unduly. There is hardly any
punctuation.
Λ. WOLLATON HALL, in the possession of Lord Middleton, who kindly
allowed me to examine it. Contents as B. Parchment, ff. 197, 15¼
× 10½ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords and signatures. Well
and regularly written in double column of 46 lines, early fifteenth
century. Latin summaries in text (red) as a rule, sometimes in
margin. Spaces left for miniatures at the beginning, and for initials
throughout, not painted. No leaves lost.
The text of this MS. is in many ways interesting. It has
Lancaster dedication, but in text it often seems to belong to
the unrevised first recension; for though many of the errors
of this group are found to be corrected in Λ, even in cases
where B retains them, as Prol. 7, 219, _Lat. Verses_ after 584,
812, 844, 937 f., i. 8, 54, 264, 278, &c., ii. 671, 833, &c.,
and though there are also many of the revised readings, as i.
368, ii. 1758 ff. (in both of which B is unrevised), iv. 517,
766, 985 f., 2954, 3153, v. 30, 47 f., 82, 2694 f., 3110, &c.,
yet in many other places the original readings stand in Λ, as
i. 3374 ff., iv. 2407, 2556, v. 274, 316, 394, 1893, 1906 f.,
&c., where BT are revised. The characteristic second recension
readings are almost regularly given by Λ, which agrees with
AdBT against SΔ in regard to the passages inserted; but there
are some important differences between this MS. and all others
of its class, viz. (1) after v. 6430* it has a combination of
first and second recensions. (2) v. 7701-7746 is inserted as in
the first and third recensions. (3) viii. 2941-2959 is inserted
as in the first recension (with the curious corruption ‘Cuther’
for ‘Chaucer’), the rewritten epilogue being carried on from
the line ‘Enclosed in a sterred skye.’
It will be observed that BTΛ often form a distinct group, as
(to take only a few examples) iv. 1567, 1996, 2034, 3132, 3138,
v. 654 ff., 4138, &c. We may note, however, v. 7303 f. which
are inserted by Λ, though omitted in AdBT, and the reading
‘she’ in iv. 2973.
P₂. PHILLIPPS 8192, at Thirlestaine House, Cheltenham. Same contents as
BTΛ. Parchment, ff. 193, large fol. Well written in double col. of 46
lines, early fifteenth cent. Latin summaries in margin. Illumination on
the first page and at the beginning of books, except i. and iii. On the
first page a miniature of Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, with a small figure
in the border, and also a figure painted in the initial O. Two leaves
missing and supplied in blank after f. 1 (Prol. 154-509), and one later
(vii. 3199-3382). On f. 1 v^o ‘Joh: Finch Comitis Winchilsea filius
1700.’
A fine MS. of an early type. It has the Lancaster dedication
in the Prologue and the later form of epilogue, and as regards
the additional passages it agrees with AdBTΛ. In text P₂ is
closely related to Λ, but it does not include v. 7701-7746 or
viii. 2941-2960, nor does it agree with Λ in v. 6431* ff. As
instances of their agreement we may cite Prol. 14, ‘It dwelleth
oft in,’ 115, ‘vneuened,’ 127, ‘ben nought diuided,’ &c. In the
marginal note of Prol. 22 P₂ has ‘sextodecimo,’ but the first
three letters are over an erasure.
THIRD RECENSION.
F. FAIRFAX 3, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 3883). Contains, ff.
2-186, _Confessio Amantis_, with ‘Explicit’ and ‘Quam cinxere,’ ff.
186 v^o-190 v^o _Traitié_, &c., ff. 190 v^o-194 _Carmen de multiplici
viciorum pestilencia_, ending with the lines ‘Hoc ego bis deno,’
&c., f. 194 ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ f. 194 v^o sixteen Latin lines by
‘a certain philosopher’ in praise of the author, beginning ‘Eneidos
Bucolis que Georgica,’ f. 195 a leaf of a Latin moral treatise from
the old binding. Parchment, ff. 195 (including one blank flyleaf at
the beginning and one of another book at the end), 13½ × 9¼
in., in quires of 8 with catchwords; the first quire begins at f. 2,
the twenty-fourth quire has six leaves and the twenty-fifth (last)
three. The leaves of the seventh quire are disarranged and should
be read in the following order, 50, 52, 53, 51, 56, 54, 55, 57. The
_Confessio Amantis_ is written in double column of 46 lines, in a very
good hand of the end of the fourteenth cent. Latin summaries in the
margin. Half borders, some with animal figures, at the beginning of
each book, and two miniatures, one at the beginning, rather large, of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and the other on f. 8 of the Confession, in
which the priest is dressed in green and has a wreath of roses on his
head, while the penitent, whose features are damaged, wears a hood and
a collar of SS with a badge, probably a swan, dependent from it. This
was no doubt intended as a portrait of the author: the collar and badge
have somewhat the appearance of having been added after the original
painting was made. The size of the illuminated capitals indicates
precisely the nature of the various divisions of the work.
On f. 2 is written ‘The Ladie Isabell Fairfax daughter and hare of
Thwats hir bouk,’ on f. 8 ‘This boke belongeth to my lady farfax off
Steton,’ and on f. 1 ‘S^r Thomas fayrfax of Denton Knighte true owner
of this booke, 1588.’ This Lady Isabell Fairfax was the granddaughter
and heiress of John Thwaites of Denton, who died in 1511, and was
married to Sir William Fairfax of Steeton. Sir Thomas Fairfax of
Denton, whose name appears in the book, was her grandson. The book no
doubt came from the Thwaites family, and we are thus able to trace
it back as far as John Thwaites of Denton, who died in old age not
much more than a hundred years after the death of the author. It was
bequeathed with other MSS. to the University of Oxford by Sir Thomas
Fairfax the parliamentary general, grandson of the above Sir Thomas
Fairfax of Denton, and was placed in the Bodleian Library in 1675.
The first leaf of the text, up to Prol. 146, is written in a
second hand which has also written ff. 186-194, including the
last lines of the _Conf. Amantis_ from viii. 3147. A third hand
(with very different orthography) has written viii. 2938-3146,
being the last 29 lines of f. 41 v^o (over an erasure) and
the whole of f. 185, which is a leaf inserted in the place
of one cut away (the last of quire 23). At viii. 2938 there
is visible a note, ‘now haue, etc.,’ for the guidance of the
scribe after the erasure had been made. From the fact that two
hands have been employed in the transformation of the MS. at
the beginning and end it seems probable that the changes were
made at two separate times (as we also know by the dates that
the rewritten epilogue preceded the rewritten preface), and
that what I have called the third hand was really the second
in order of time, being employed to substitute the later
epilogue for the former, while the other hand, doing its work
probably after the accession of Henry IV, replaced the first
leaf by one containing the Lancaster dedication, which had
been in existence since 1392-3, but perhaps only in private
circulation, and added also the _Traitié_ and the Latin poems,
with the account of the author’s books, ‘Quia vnusquisque,’
in its revised form. I say after the accession of Henry IV,
because the reference in the third recension account of the
books to Richard’s fall, ‘ab alto corruens in foueam quam
fecit finaliter proiectus est,’ seems to require as late a
date as this. It should be noted that this hand is the same
as that which has made somewhat similar additions to the All
Souls and Glasgow MSS. of the _Vox Clamantis_. Other examples
of alteration of first recension readings by erasure in F are
Prol. 331 _marg._, 336, i. 2713 f., iv. 1321 f., 1361 f., _Lat.
Verses after_ vii. 1640, _Lat. Verses after_ vii. 1984.
As this edition prints the text of the Fairfax MS. and its
relations have already been discussed, little more need be
said here except as to the manner in which the text is dealt
with in the printing. It should be noted then that _i_ and
_j_, _u_ and _v_ are used in accordance with modern practice,
that no distinction is made between the two forms of _s_,
that _th_ is used for _þ_, and _y_ for _ȝ_ in _ȝe_, _ȝit_,
_ȝiue_, _aȝein_, _beȝete_, &c. (this last rather against my
judgement, for no good MS. has it). It should be observed also
that the Fairfax scribe frequently uses _v_ for _u_ at the
end of a word, as ‘nov,’ ‘hov’ (often ‘hou’), ‘þov’ (usually
‘þou’), ‘ȝov’ (also ‘ȝou’), ‘auov,’ ‘windov,’ ‘blev,’ ‘knev,’
&c., and sometimes in other positions, either for the sake
of distinction from _n_ or merely for ornament, as ‘comvne,’
‘retenve,’ ‘rvnne,’ ‘þvrgh,’ ‘havk,’ ‘fovl,’ ‘hovndes,’ ‘movþ,’
‘rovnede,’ ‘slovh,’ ‘trovþe,’ ‘ynovh,’ &c., beside ‘comune,’
‘runne,’ ‘þurgh,’ ‘hauk,’ ‘foul,’ &c. In all these cases _v_ is
given in the text as _u_. The termination ‘-o̅n̅’ is regularly
printed as ‘-oun.’ French words with this ending appear in F
with -o̅u̅ or -o̅n̅, usually the latter (but ‘resoun’ in full,
Prol. 151), and sometimes we have ‘to̅n̅’ for ‘toun,’ as vii.
5313, viii. 2523. So also ‘sto̅n̅de : wounde,’ i. 1425 f.,
‘gro̅n̅de’ for ‘grounde,’ i. 2051, ‘expo̅n̅de : founde,’ i. 2867
f., ‘bra̅n̅che : staunche,’ i. 2837 f., ‘cha̅n̅ce,’ i. 3203,
‘gra̅n̅teþ,’ ii. 1463, ‘suppla̅n̅te,’ ii. 2369, ‘skla̅n̅dre,’
v. 5536 (‘sclaundre,’ v. 712), ‘coma̅n̅de : launde,’ vii. 2159.
The contraction ꝑ as a separate word is in this edition almost
regularly given as ‘per.’ It is hardly ever written fully in F,
but we have ‘Per aunter,’ v. 3351, ‘Per cha_u_nce,’ v. 7816,
and J regularly gives ‘per chance,’ ‘per cas,’ &c., without
contraction. Other MSS., as A and B, incline rather to ‘par.’ F
has ‘perceive,’ ‘aperceive,’ but ‘parfit.’
With regard to the use of capitals, this edition in the main
follows the MS. Some letters, however, as _k_, _v_, _w_, _y_,
can hardly be said to have any difference of form, and others
are used rather rarely as capitals, while in the case of some,
and especially _s_, the capital form is used with excessive
freedom. It has seemed desirable therefore to introduce a
greater degree of consistency, while preserving the general
usage of the MS. Proper names are regularly given in this
edition with capitals (usually so in the MS., but not always),
and sentences are begun with capital letters after a full stop.
On the other hand the _I_ (or _J_), which is often used as
an initial, has frequently been suppressed, and occasionally
this has been done in the case of other letters. It may be
observed, however, that capital letters are on the whole used
very systematically in the MS., and other good MSS., especially
S, agree with F in the main principles. Certain substantives as
‘Ere,’ ‘Erthe,’ ‘Schip,’ ‘Sone,’ ‘Ston,’ are almost invariably
used with capitals, and names of animals, as ‘Cat,’ ‘Hare,’
‘Hound,’ ‘Leoun,’ ‘Mous,’ ‘Oxe,’ ‘Pie,’ ‘Ro,’ ‘Schep,’ ‘Tigre,’
of some parts of the body, as ‘Arm,’ ‘Hiele,’ ‘Lippes,’ ‘Nase,’
‘Pappes,’ ‘Skulle,’ and many other concrete substantives,
are apt to be written with capitals, sometimes apparently in
order to give them more importance. Capitals are seldom thus
used except in the case of substantives and some numerals, as
‘Nyne,’ ‘Seconde,’ ‘Sexte,’ ‘Tenthe,’ and in many cases it is
pretty evident that a distinction is intended, e.g. between
‘Sone’ and ‘sone’ (adv.), ‘Se’ (= sea) and ‘se’ (verb), ‘Dore’
and ‘dore’ (verb), see iv. 2825 f., ‘More’ and ‘more,’ ‘Pype’
and ‘pipe’ (verb), iv. 3342 f., ‘Myn’ and ‘myn’ (poss. pron.),
‘Mone’ and ‘mone’ (verb), but see v. 5804, 5808, ‘In’ and ‘in,’
vii. 4921 f., viii. 1169 f., 1285 f. That some importance was
attached to the matter is shown by the cases where careful
alterations of small letters into capitals have been made in
the MS., as Prol. 949, i. 1687, v. 1435, 3206, 4019, vii. 2785,
&c.
Many corrections were made by the first hand, and some of these
are noteworthy, especially the cases where a final _e_ seems to
be deliberately erased for the sake of the metre or before a
vowel, as i. 60 ‘get’ for ‘gete,’ iii. 2346 ‘trew’ for ‘trewe,’
vi. 1359 ‘I red’ for ‘I rede,’ vii. 1706 ‘ffyf’ for ‘ffyue,’
or where an _e_ has been added afterwards, as ii. 3399 ‘deþe,’
iii. 449 ‘bowe,’ v. 1269, 3726, 5265, ‘whiche.’
It remains only to speak of the punctuation of the MS., which
is evidently carried out carefully. The frequent stops at the
ends of lines are for the most part meaningless, but those
elsewhere are of importance and usually may be taken as a guide
to the sense. They are sometimes certainly wrong (e.g. i. 1102
Togedre· 1284 will· 2965 fro· ii. 1104 wille· 1397 name· 2354
astat· iii. 2638 be· iv. 497 grace· 1751 besinesse· 1985 hardi·
2502 alle· 3354 Slep· 3635 lif· v. 4 good· 231 herte· 444 wynd·
1342 See· 1630 only· 2318 bord· &c.), but the proportion of
error is small, and the punctuation of F generally must be
treated with respect. There is usually a stop wherever a marked
pause comes in the line, and this punctuation occurs on an
average about once in ten lines. The following record of the
punctuation of iv. 1301-1600 will serve as an illustration of
its nature and extent: 1303 loue· 1307 ladis· 1316 cloþed· 1369
seide· 1374 seiþ· 1376 loue· 1388 slow· 1409 wepe· 1412 Dame·
1415 loue· 1439 hirself· 1457 is· 1459 peine· 1461 haltres·
1466 told· 1470 p_ar_amours· 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 dovht_er_· 1536 cloþes· 1547 Tohewe· 1560 seiþ·
1561 point· 1566 maidenhod· 1567 had· 1591 come· 1592 deþ·