Chapter D: CAMB. UNIV. Dd. viii. 19 (Bern. Cat. ii. 9653). Confessio Amantis (1)

(imperfect). Parchment, ff. 127, quires of 8 with catchwords: double column of 48 (sometimes 50) lines, regularly written in a hand using very thick strokes. Latin in text (red). Spaces left for miniatures, f. 4 v^o, f. 8 v^o (the latter marked ‘hic Imago’), and perhaps also f. 1. Many spaces left for illuminated capitals.

After f. 83 follows a quire of six with 5 v^o blank (after end of Lib. iv.) and 6 lost: then a quire of eight with 5 and 6 (also part of 4) blank, and 7, 8 lost: then, f. 94, ‘Incipit liber Sextus.’ So that of Lib. v. we have only about four leaves (v. 1444-2149). The leaves numbered 16, 17, 15 should stand last (in that order), and the text ends (on f. 15) with vii. 3683, the line unfinished and the rest of the page blank.

Successive owners in sixteenth cent., Magister Asshe, Thom. Carson (or Cursson), Ambr. Belson, J. Barton. It was one of Bishop Moore’s books (No. 467), and came to the University in 1715.

The text shows no leaning, so far as I know, to the revised
group. Perhaps somewhat akin to the MSS. which precede and
follow: see Prol. 331 _marg._, i. 110, 370.

Ar. ARUNDEL 45, College of Arms (Bern. Cat. ii. 5547). _Confessio Amantis_ (imperfect). Paper, 168 leaves (numbered 167, but one dropped in numbering after f. 42) + two parchment blank at beginning, 11½ × 8¼ in. Quires of 8 (usually), with catchwords, double column of 46-51 lines, small neat writing, middle fifteenth cent. Latin in text (red): no illumination, but spaces left for initials.

One leaf lost after f. 7 (i. 63-216), two after f. 116 (v. 5229-5594), and all after viii. 1102 (about twelve leaves gone at the end).

Former possessors, ‘Thomas Goodenston, Gerdeler of London,’ and (before him probably) ‘Jhon Barthylmewe, Gerdyllarr and Marchant.’

Hd. At CASTLE HOWARD, the property of the Earl of Carlisle, who most kindly sent it for my use. _Confessio Amantis_ with ‘Explicit’ (four lines), ‘Quam cinxere’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Parchment, ff. 111 (numbered as 110) 14 × 11 in., in quires of 8 (usually), marked iiii, v, vi, &c. In double column of 60-74 lines, rather irregularly written in a small, fairly clear hand, later fifteenth cent. Latin in text. Some red and blue initials; no other decoration.

Seventeen leaves lost at the beginning, f. 1 begins at i. 3305, and f. 8 is the first leaf of quire iiii: after f. 73 four leaves lost, containing vi. 264-1306, and in the last quire one, containing viii. 2566-2833. The leaves in the latter half of the book, from f. 66, have been much disarranged in the binding.

The name ‘Tho. Martin’ is written at the beginning, in the handwriting of the well-known Thomas Martin of Palgrave. This of course is not the book mentioned in Bern. Cat. ii. 611 as among the books collected by Lord William Howard at Naworth Castle. There seems to be at present no Gower MS. at Naworth.

Some readings seem to show a connexion of Hd with L, as iii.
1885, 2763, ‘Now herkne and I þe þo,’ iv. 1341, 3086, 3449,
3535, but it is not derived from it. Note also the readings
of ii. 1577 ‘Ne,’ 2825 ‘by,’ iii. 1173 ‘Iupartie,’ v. 3306
‘Oute.’ There are many corruptions in the text as well as some
deliberate alterations, as ‘cleped’ regularly to ‘called,’ and
words are often dropped or inserted to the injury of the metre.

Ash. ASHMOLE 35, Bodleian Library (Bern. Cat. 6916). _Confessio Amantis_ (imperfect). Paper, ff. 182, 13½ × 9½ in. Quires of 12 (usually), with catchwords, double column of 42-48 lines, fairly well written: no Latin verses or summaries, but summaries in English written in the text (red), mostly omitted in the last thirty leaves. Some initials in red, spaces left for larger capitals.

Begins with Prol. 170, having lost two leaves (one blank) at the beginning. After f. 2 one leaf is lost (Prol. 541-725), one after f. 4 (i. 1-169), one after f. 32 (ii. 1749-1927), one after f. 91 (v. 2199-2366), three after f. 181 (viii. 2505-2893), one after f. 182, which ends with viii. 3082*. Half of f. 182 is torn away, but the beginning of the Chaucer verses remain, as well as a whole column of the early form of conclusion, in spite of the statement in the Ashmole Catalogue. Even if the conclusion were really wanting, there would be no difficulty in assigning the MS. to its proper class.

SECOND RECENSION.

(_a_) S. The STAFFORD MS., now in the possession of the Earl of 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·

H₂. HARLEIAN 3869, Brit. Museum. Contains the same as F, with some 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.