the _Confessio 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. The _Confessio Amantis_ has 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.
CAXTON printed the _Conf. Amantis_ in 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 being followed. 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 v^o Caxton 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.
BERTHELETTE in 1532 printed the _Conf. Amantis_ from 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, 2369-2372[AK], 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 of _i_ for
_y_.
CHALMERS published the _Conf. Amantis_ in vol. ii. of the collection of
British Poets, 1810, taking the text from Berthelette’s edition of 1554.
PAULI professed 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 matter of
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 copy and 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 trifling[AM], 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’
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 silentio_ it 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, as _in
ras._ to indicate that the text is written over an erasure, or
_p.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 it should 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: thus =P. 1. 153= stands 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 poem _In Praise of
Peace_ all 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 v^o (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 his _John 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 the _Archiv 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;[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,[6] 10
Thou maist not wite what thy fortune is:[7]
For there is no wight on lyve iwyss[8]
That stondeth sure, ther fore I rede beware,[9]
And looke aboute for stumbling in the snare.
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 attame[13]
Suche as thou mayst never revoke ageyn;[14] 20
A good name leste is leste for ay certain.[15]
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: 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:
[1] 1 forþe wele
[2] 2 ageine
[3] 4 weele stondeþe
[4] 7 shapeþe (efft] her R)
[5] 9 gladde (glad R) amysse
[6] 10 þee
[7] 11 wit (witte R)
[8] 12 ewysse
[9] 13 stondeþe
[10] 15 mens (mennys R)
[11] 16 adradde
[12] 18 enpeyreþe mans (mannes R)
[13] 19 wele þowe
[14] 20 ageyne
[15] 21 gode (good R) certaine
[16] 22 (Playe not pecus R)
[17] 24 hurte bourdeþe (a brere R)
[18] 25 fareþe doþe
[19] 26 right ful (full R)
[20] 27 frome
[21] 28 þowe shalt kache hareme to pley w^t þeos beestis longe
(Thow shalt haue hurt yf þou play with her longe R)
[22] 34 Remembre doþe amisse
[23] 35 haste arte
CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA
p. 2, note on 24-92, _for_ Λ, _read_ ΛP₂, and for _Of these_ H₃ Magd.
_have_ read _Of these_ Magd. _has_
p. 13, note on 331, _for_ RSnDAr _read_ RSnDAr, Δ
p. 14, l. 349, _for_ new _read_ newe
p. 19, note on 543, _read_ scholde A, B, K schold S, F
p. 23, note on 668, _for_ hol] hole AC _read_ hol B, F hole AC
note on 683, _for_ A _read_ AM
p. 25, l. 747, _for_ for _read_ forto
p. 29, l. 871, _for_ form _read_ forme
p. 33, l. 1024, _for_ wist _read_ wiste
p. 57, l. 782, _for_ There _read_ Ther
p. 60, l. 914, _for_ She _read_ Sche _so also_ p. 244, l. 679
p. 64, l. 1052, _for_ righte _read_ rihte
p. 70, l. 1275, _for_ Commandeth _read_ Comandeth
p. 72, note on 1338, _for_ SΔ _read_ SAdΔ, H₃
p. 88, l. 1946, _for_ wenyinge _read_ wenynge
p. 96, l. 2248, _for_ well _read_ wel
p. 100, l. 2365, _for_ myght _read_ myht _so also_ p. 117, l. 2990
p. 107, l. 2630, _for_ discoevered _read_ descoevered
p. 109, l. 2710, _for_ all _read_ al _so also_ p. 156, l. 966, p. 238,
l. 447, p. 346, l. 1668
p. 112, l. 2822, _for_ bare _read_ bar
p. 113, l. 2838, _for_ But _read_ Bot
p. 133, below l. 96, a small space should be left
p. 138, l. 274, _for_ greveth _read_ grieveth
p. 150, l. 750, _for_ her _read_ hire
p. 170, l. 1498, _for_ Till _read_ Til
p. 182, note on 1916, _for_ RCLB₂, H₃ _read_ RCLB₂, Δ, H₃
p. 200, note on 2592, _for_ AdB _read_ SAdBΔ
p. 234, note on 313, _for_ H₁ ... B₂ _read_ H₁ ... B₂, Δ
p. 252, note on 983, _add_ pater Δ
p. 257, note on 1164, _for_ XRCLB₂ _read_ H₁XRCLB₂
p. 260, note on 1258, _for_ AdT _read_ AdTΔ
p. 262, note on 1336 (_margin_), add _om._ Δ
p. 265, note on 1448, _for_ X ... B₂, WH₃ _read_ X ... B₂, Δ, WH₃
p. 266, note on 1473, _for_ AdBT _read_ SAdBTΔ
p. 269, note on 1605, _for_ SBΛ _read_ BΛ _and for_ AdTΔ _read_ SAdTΔ
p. 280, note on 2023, _for_ Phoreus T _read_ Phoreus TΔ
p. 282, l. 2077, _for_ hounde _read_ hound
p. 284, note on 2166, _for_ W _read_ Δ, W
p. 289, l. 2357, _for_ pouere _read_ povere
p. 292, note on 2444, _for_ H₁ ... B₂ _read_ H₁ ... B₂, SΔ
p. 307, l. 225, _for_ distruid _read_ destruid
p. 314, l. 498, _for_ accordant _read_ acordant
p. 334, l. 1224 (_margin_), _add_ Confessor
p. 346, l. 1653, _for_ accompte _read_ acompte
p. 351, note on 1872, _for_ AC _read_ AC, S
p. 387, l. 3188, _for_ By _read_ Be
p. 396, l. 3507, _for_ thinge _read_ thing
p. 421, l. 716, _for_ harme _read_ harm
p. 464, note on 745 ff., _add_ The authority here followed is the
_Trésor_ of Brunetto Latini, pp. 84-88 (ed. 1863).
p. 468, note on 463 ff., _add_ The authority for this is perhaps the
_Trésor_, p. 191.
p. 473, l. 11, _for_ 7101), Spertachus for Cyrus (vii. 3418), &c.
_read_ 7101).
p. 489, note on 2459 ff., _for_ I am unable [to say where Gower found
this version of the story. The name Geta is quite unknown in the
classical] form of it. _read_ The name Geta was taken by Gower from the
_Geta_ of Vitalis Blesensis, a dramatic piece in Latin elegiacs founded
on Plautus, in which Geta takes the place of Sosia: see Wright’s _Early
Mysteries_, &c., pp. 79-90.
p. 509, note on 2606, for _on the ferst,_ read _on the ferste,_
AN ADDITIONAL MS. OF THE ‘CONFESSIO AMANTIS’
On June 12, 1902, a very valuable manuscript of the _Confessio
Amantis_, which had not hitherto been described, was offered for sale
by Messrs. Sotheby. By the kind assistance of Dr. Furnivall, who was
allowed by the auctioneers to examine the book before the sale, I am
able to give the following description of it.
FOUNTAINE MS. Contains _Confessio Amantis_ with ‘Explicit’ (six lines),
‘Quam cinxere,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ after which ‘Deo gracias.’
Then at the end an alphabetical index to the contents of the poem.
Parchment, ff. 213 (originally), 17½ × 12¼ in., neatly written
in double column of 46 lines to the column, Latin summaries in the
text, red: middle of the fifteenth century. Illustrated throughout with
well-painted miniatures, of which there were originally 108, including
pictures of the signs of the Zodiac and of the positions of the
principal stars. Of these miniatures nine are missing from the book,
but these have now been identified with the series of nine miniatures
in the possession of Mr. A. H. Frere, which are described on p. clxvi
of my Introduction. At the end of the text (f. 203) is written ‘And^w.
Fountaine, 1791. Æ. 20.’
This is a very large folio, giving a fair text of the first
recension. The interest of it depends upon the miniatures. In
describing the illustrated New College MS. 266 I remarked that
other similar copies must once have existed. In saying this I
was referring to the Frere miniatures, and it is a matter of
some interest to me to have been able to identify these with
the nine which are missing from the Fountaine MS. The subjects
of the Frere miniatures correspond duly with the places from
which pictures have been cut out, and the words which in some
cases have been cut away with the pictures fit in with those
that remain in the MS. For example, on f. 26 a miniature has
been cut out before i. 3067 (the tale of the Three Questions),
the text of the Latin summary above the missing picture being
cut off after the words ‘tocius perdicionis.’ The Frere
miniature which relates to this tale continues the sentence,
supplying the words ‘causam sua culpa ministrat’; and so also
with some of the others. In some respects we can now correct
our account of the Frere miniatures. The subjects of seven are
correctly given in the description, but the last two represent,
as we can now see, (8) Alexander and the Pirate, iii. 2363 ff.,
(9) Lycurgus departing with his goods from Athens, vii. 2917
ff. The book was bought by Mr. Quaritch for £1550, certainly
the highest price ever paid for a Gower manuscript.
G. C. M.
CONFESSIO AMANTIS[24a]
[Sidenote: =P. i. 1=]
i. _Torpor, ebes sensus, scola parua labor minimusque_
_Causant quo minimus ipse minora canam:_
_Qua tamen Engisti lingua canit Insula Bruti_
_Anglica Carmente metra iuuante loquar._
_Ossibus ergo carens que conterit ossa loquelis_
_Absit, et interpres stet procul oro malus._
Incipit Prologus