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 the _Confessio Amantis_
a 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 y^e 28 Jan^y. 1628, George Cogiluy,’
and on f. 2 ‘Jan. 22. 1721 Oxford’ (i.e. Harley). On the same page is
the date, ‘1445 y^e 23 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, 668 _marg._ 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. after_ 382 infamen, 710 hiere, 949 þong,
1169 no, 1441 keste, 1539 _om._ 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 Amantis_
with ‘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 final
_e_, 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, 234 sone sone, 1036 be
shrewed, 3357 seled, ii. 318 ff. fela, felaw, felawh (varying
as F), _after_ 382 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.
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 Latin _Carmen 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.
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 of some
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. 3170 _om._ his, ii. 78 fader, 101 hem
wolde, 103 all hys cause, 126 he, 135 pore, 138 wich, 162 In
(_originally_ The). 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. HARLEIAN 7184, 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 Verses_ i. 4-182), twelve leaves after f. 126 (vi.
1571-vii. 1405), four after f. 131 (vii. 2354-3088), and thirty or more
after f. 134, from vii. 3594 to the end of the book.
On the first page ‘Oxford B. H.’
This is a very large and magnificent volume, written on fine
parchment, doubtless for some distinguished person. The text,
however, is late and not very good. It is almost certain that
it is derived ultimately from the Keswick MS. The evidence of
this is as follows: (1) Mistakes made in that MS. are nearly
regularly reproduced in H₃. Some instances have been referred
to in the account of K: we may add here that where K omits
the Latin summaries in a part of the seventh book, e.g. vii.
1641-1884, 1917-2765, H₃ does the same, and where variants
apparently from the AM group appear in K, as iii. 778, 906,
921, 1732, they are found also in H₃. (2) The inequality which
is to be observed in the text of H₃, some parts being much
less correct than others, corresponds in the main with the
difference of hands in K. Thus we find that a great crop of
error springs up in H₃ from the point where the third hand
of K begins, the preceding portion of the text being very
fairly correct, and so to some extent elsewhere. For example,
in v. 917-1017 (a part written in K by the first hand) there
are about eight metrical faults in a hundred lines, while in
vi. 183-283 (written in K by the third hand), there are at
least twenty-five. (3) In a certain part of the third book
H₃ suddenly ceases to follow the third recension text, and
almost regularly gives the readings of the ERCLB₂ group. This
appears first in iii. 1088 and ceases to be the case after iii.
1686, thus remarkably corresponding with the gap caused in K
by the loss of three leaves after iii. 1086. It is difficult
not to believe that this very marked change was caused by the
following of another MS. in a place where K was defective.
The spelling of H₃ is rather late: there is no use of _þ_, and
_y_ is used for _ȝ_ in ‘ye,’ ‘yiue,’ &c.
Magd. MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXF. 213 (Bern. Cat. i. 2. 2354). _Confessio
Amantis_ with ‘Explicit’ (six lines) and Table of Contents in English
(on two fly-leaves at the beginning and one at the end). Parchment,
ff. 180 + 3 (as above), 18¾ × 13¼ in., in quires of 8 with
catchwords: written in double column of 48 lines in a large hand of the
middle fifteenth cent, something like that of H₃. Table of contents
and columns 2, 3, 4 of f. 2 in a different hand. Latin summaries in
text (red). Fine coloured letters with floreated half borders at the
beginning of each book, and some neat drawing in connexion with the
scrolls of the catchwords.
The book has lost one leaf after f. 22 (ii. 409-586) and eight after f.
88 (v. 701-2163). On f. 155 v^o the MS. omits vii. 2519-2695 without
loss of leaf or blank.
Presented to the College by Marchadin Hunnis in 1620. A note by the
present Librarian states that he was elected a demy of the College in
1606, appointed second master of the College Grammar School in 1610,
and dismissed from that office as ‘insufficiens’ in Dec. 1611. The book
is reported missing in Coxe’s catalogue.
This MS. is in many points like H₃ in its text, and must
certainly have the same origin, both being perhaps derived from
a MS. dependent on K. It reproduces most of the corruptions
which we find in H₃, adding many others of its own, and it has
the same readings in the third book which we have already noted
in H₃.
A point of interest about this MS. is its apparent connexion
with Caxton’s edition. It seems evident that among the MSS.
from which Caxton worked (and he had three at least) was
either this very copy or one so like it as to be practically
undistinguishable. Of this we shall say more when we speak of
Caxton’s edition.
W. WADHAM COLL., OXF. 13. _Confessio Amantis_ with ‘Explicit’ (six
lines) and ‘Quam cinxere,’ then the _Traitié_, slightly imperfect at
the end, ending ‘un amie soulain,’ xvii. 9. Paper, ff. 450, including
two original blanks at the beginning, 11½ × 8¼ in., in quires of
8 with catchwords: written in column of 30-48 lines (without ruling) in
two hands, of which the first wrote up to iv. 2132, and the other from
thence to the end. Latin summaries in margin, but sometimes omitted or
cut short. Some decoration of the first page of the text in black and
red; capitals, titles, &c. in red.
Three leaves are lost in the _Conf. Amantis_, containing Prol. 728-794,
iv. 2386-2473, and v. 1-78, and several also at the end of the volume.
There is great confusion in the text of the Prologue, which goes as
follows: 1-92, 499-860 (with loss as above), 93-144, 861-1044, 145-498,
and then 1045 ff. This is not produced by any disarrangement of leaves
in the present MS., but a considerable dislocation of quires has taken
place in a later part of the volume, seven quires of the fourth and
fifth books having been taken out of their proper place and bound up
between vi. 2132 and 2133.
This book was evidently written for one John Dedwood, since his name
and device, a piece of the trunk of a dead tree, occur as part of
the decorations of the first page. The two blanks at the beginning
are written over with a list of Mayors and Sheriffs for a series of
years, and these prove to be those of the city of Chester from the year
1469-1499 (see Ormerod’s _Hist. of Cheshire_, i. 211 f.). The name of
John Dedwood occurs among these as Sheriff in the year 1481 and as
Mayor in 1483 (but the record in the MS. is here damaged). He had also
been Mayor in 1468. We may therefore suppose that the MS. dates from
about 1470. The name Troutbecke occurs several times (with other names)
in the book, and later (1765) it belonged to Rich. Warner of Woodford
Row, Essex.
The first hand of this MS. is cramped and ugly, varying a good
deal in size, the second is neat and uniform. The text is late
and full of mistakes, and the spelling bad, even such forms
as ‘loves,’ ‘beres,’ ‘gos’ being quite common for ‘loveth,’
&c., and often _-et_ or _-ut_ as a participle termination,
‘despeyret,’ ‘resignet,’ ‘weddut,’ ‘cleput,’ &c. A certain
interest attaches to the MS. however from the fact that it
seems to be clearly independent of F as well as of the KH₃
group. While agreeing with F completely in form of text, and
supporting it also as a rule against the mistakes of KH₃, it
has a considerable number of readings which belong to the
first recension uncorrected type, and in other cases it agrees
specially with B. Instances of the former are to be found
in Prol. 159, i. 8, 1839, 2423, 2801, 3027, ii. 961, 1200,
1441, 3306, 3516, iii. 68, 626, 2056, v. 1698, 2500, 3376,
vi. 543, 1151, 1631, vii. 1490, _Latin verses after_ 1640 and
1984, 5104, viii. 510, 2342, 2925, &c. These, with others of
a similar kind, scattered through the whole book, seem to be
of the nature of accidental survivals, a first recension copy
(the remote ancestor of W) having been altered by collation
with one resembling F. W agrees with apparent mistakes of F and
the rest of the third recension in some passages, as iii. 446,
iv. 2867, 2973, vii. 5135, viii. 1069, 1999, but supports what
is apparently the true reading against them in Prol. 1078, i.
1068, ii. 2299, 2537, iii. 1605, v. 2906, &c. In most of these
last instances W merely remains in agreement with the first
recension, where F, &c. depart from it, therefore its testimony
may be of an accidental character.
The list of Mayors and Sheriffs of Chester on the first pages has
perhaps some local interest, as it is contemporary and probably
made by a responsible person. Comparing it with that given in
Ormerod’s _Hist. of Cheshire_, we find several differences, as
‘Ric. Sadler’ for ‘Rich. Smith’ as one of the Sheriffs of 1475,
‘John Monkesfelde, Rob. Pleche,’ Sheriffs for 1478, ‘Mathewe
Hewse’ for ‘Mathew Johnson,’ 1479, ‘Rychard Kir e’ for ‘Rich.
Barker,’ 1492. The same pages have some notes about current
historical events, as (under 1469), ‘The which yere were hedet
the lorde Wellybe and the lorde Well. his son for the grete
insurreccion and rysing of the Comyns of the Counte of Lyncolne.
Also the same yere entred our Souereyne and moste noble Prince
Kynge Edward now reynynge,’ &c. Under 1470 is a note of the
battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, and at 1476 the record of a
visit to Chester of ‘our Souereigne lorde Prince,’ who stayed
there from Christmas to Easter.
P₃. Formerly PHILLIPPS 8942, bought in March, 1895, by Messrs. H. S.
Nichols & Co., and afterwards in the possession of Messrs. Maggs,
Booksellers. _Confessio Amantis_, imperfect, ending viii. 3119, ‘As
Tullius som tyme wrot.’ Parchment, rather roughly written, middle of
fifteenth century. From the Towneley Collection.
Hn. HATTON 51, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 4099). _Confessio Amantis_,
imperfect. Parchment, ff. 206, 12 × 9 in., in quires first of 6 and
then usually of 8 (lettered); double column of 42-48 lines, untidy
writing. Has lost _k_ 4 (iii. 1314-1475), _n_ 2 (iv. 2118-2268), _s_ 2
(v. 5169-5333), _t_ 2 (v. 6774-6914), and five or six at the end (after
viii. 2408). Copied from Caxton’s edition, including the Table of
Contents and the confusion in leaf numbering.
Besides these, there are several MSS. which contain selections from the
_Confessio Amantis_, as
HARL. 7333, Brit. Museum, which, besides the _Canterbury Tales_ and
other things, has seven stories from the _Conf. Amantis_, viz. f. 120
Tereus (v. 5551 ff.), f. 122 Constance (ii. 587 ff.), f. 126 The Three
Questions (i. 3067 ff.), f. 127 v^o The Travellers and the Angel (ii.
291 ff.), f. 127 v^o Virgil’s Mirror, f. 128 v^o The Two Coffers, f.
129 The Beggars and the Pasties, &c. (v. 2031-2498). Parchment, large
folio, column of 66 lines, no Latin. These stories are in the same hand
as the _Cant. Tales_, which go before, and the _Parlement of Foules_,
which follows them. The text is that of the first recension unrevised;
a very poor copy.
CAMB. UNIV. Ee. ii. 15. Paper, ff. 95, end of fifteenth or beginning
of sixteenth cent., much mutilated. Contains ff. 30-32, a fragment of
The Three Questions (i. 3124-3315), and ff. 33-35, a fragment of the
Trump of Death (i. 2083 ff.).
CAMB. UNIV. Ff. i. 6. Paper, ff. 159, 8½ × 6 in., written in various
hands. Contains, ff. 3-5, part of the tale of Tereus (v. 5920-6052),
ff. 5-10, iv. 1114-1466 including the tale of Rosiphelee, ff. 45-51,
The Three Questions (i. 3067-3425), ff. 81-84, iv. 2746-2926, ff. 84
v^o-95, viii. 271-846. The text of iv. 1321 agrees with that of the
second recension.
BALL. COLL., OXF. 354. Paper, ff. 253, 11½ × 4¼ in. Contains
a miscellaneous collection of verse and prose, with memoranda &c.,
all, or nearly all, apparently in the hand of the owner of the book,
one Richard Hill of Langley, Herts, who has registered on f. 21 (25)
the birth of his seven children, from the year 1518 to 1526, and has
kept a short journal of public events which ends with the year 1536.
Among the extracts are several stories from the _Confessio Amantis_,
neatly written, about 54-60 lines to the page, with no Latin. These
extend over about 46 leaves of the book and are as follows (leaves
by old numbering): ff. 55-70 v^o Tale of Appolinus, viii. 271-2028,
ff. 70 v^o-81 v^o Tales of Constance and of Perseus, ii. 587-1865,
ff. 81 v^o-83 v^o Adrian and Bardus, v. 4937-5162, ff. 83 v^o-84 v^o,
vi. 485-595, ff. 84 v^o-86 v^o Dives and Lazarus &c., vi. 975-1238,
ff. 86 v^o-89 v^o Constantine, ii. 3187-3507, ff. 89 v^o-91 v^o
Nebuchadnezzar, i. 2785-3066, ff. 91 v^o-94 v^o Tales of Diogenes
and of Pyramus, iii. 1201-1502 and 1655-1672, ff. 94 v^o-96 Midas
(unfinished), v. 141-312, ff. 171 v^o-175, The Three Questions, i.
3067-3402. The text is copied not from Caxton’s edition but from a MS.
of the first recension (_b_) or (_c_). It is not very correct, and
short passages or couplets are omitted here and there, as i. 3051-3054,
viii. 1763-1766, 1945 f., &c.
RAWLINSON D. 82, Bodleian Library. Contains on ff. 25-33 _Conf.
Amantis_, viii. 2377-2970. Paper, written in single column of 33 lines,
no Latin. Copied from a MS. resembling B, but not apparently either
from B itself or from Berthelette’s MS.
PHILLIPPS 22914 is reported as a fragment (four leaves) containing
_Confessio Amantis_, v. 775-1542.
Nine good miniatures cut out of a MS. of the _Conf. Amantis_ are in
the possession of Mr. A. H. Frere, who kindly allowed me to see them.
They are as follows. (1) Tereus, (2) Codrus, (3) Socrates and his wife,
(4) Dives and Lazarus, (5) Roman Triumph, (6) Ulysses and Telegonus,
(7) The Three Questions, (8) Lycurgus taking an oath from the Athenians
(?), (9) King on a quay with bales and gold vessels, apparently landed
from a ship near, perhaps Apollonius landing at Tarsis. Several of
the pictures represent more than one scene of the story, as that of
Tereus, in which we have the king at meat presented with the head of
his son, while there are three birds in the background and the scene of
the outrage on Philomene on the left; and again in (4), where the rich
man and his wife are sitting at table and refusing food to the beggar,
while in the background on the right an angel is receiving the soul of
the dying Lazarus.
These miniatures are supposed to have belonged to Sir John Fenn, editor
of the Paston Letters. The MS. from which they were cut seems to have
been of the middle of the fifteenth cent.
Evidence is afforded of one other large and well written MS. of the
_Conf. Amantis_ by a fragment of parchment in the Shrewsbury School
Library, of which a photograph has most kindly been sent to me by Dr.
Calvert of Shrewsbury. It contains about 70 lines of the Prologue, viz.
189-195 (with the Latin), 224-244, 274-294, 323-343. The leaf to which
it belonged must have measured at least 15½ × 11½ in., and was
written in double column of 50 lines.
Three other MSS. are mentioned in the Catalogue of 1697 (vol. ii. pt.
1), viz. 611 ‘John Gower’s Old English Poems’ with ‘S. Anselmi Speculum
Religiosorum,’ at Naworth Castle, which I strongly suspect is identical
with Harl. 3490 (H₁), 4035, ‘Goweri Confessio Amantis, Fol. magn.,’
belonging to Ric. Brideoake, Esq., of Ledwell, Oxon., and 6974, ‘Jo.
Gower’s Poems, fol.,’ belonging to Sir Henry Langley of the County of
Salop (i.e. of the Abbey, Shrewsbury).
The average excellence of the Gower MSS. stands high, and there
is a surprisingly large proportion of well written and finely
decorated copies, which attain to more than a respectable standard of
correctness. Manuscripts such as L or B₂, which stand in the third rank
among copies of the _Confessio Amantis_, would take a very different
place among the authorities for any of Chaucer’s works, second only to
the Ellesmere MS. if they were copies of the _Canterbury Tales_, and
easily in the first place if it were a question of the _Legend of Good
Women_ or the _Hous of Fame_. It is evident not only that Gower was
careful about the text of his writings, but also that there was some
organized system of reproduction, which was wanting in the case of
Chaucer.