v. 6280) AdBT is a group which is very frequently found in special

agreement, whereas before that point we usually find BT (or BTΛ) with Ad on the other side.

Passing now to the third recension, which has the preface and epilogue as in Λ and S, but excludes the additional passages, we find it represented by eight manuscripts, with Fairfax 3 at their head. We have already seen that this manuscript was originally one of the first recension, and was altered by the author so as to substitute the new epilogue and the new preface. Besides these changes, fresh lines are in several places written over erasures, as i. 2713 f., iv. 1321 f., 1361 f., &c., the marginal date is erased at Prol. 331, and additions have been made to the marginal notes. All these alterations, as well as the points previously noted, in which F originally differed from the other copies of the first recension, are reproduced in the other MSS. of the third recension.

Of these remaining MSS. one is directly copied from F, and another seems to be certainly derived from the same source, though perhaps not immediately. In the case of H₃ (MS. Harl. 7184) the question of origin is not quite so simple. Its text generally seems to suggest ultimate dependence on F, but it is very unequal as regards accuracy, and in one part it regularly follows the early first recension readings and seems to belong for the time to the ERCLB₂ group. In addition to this it has a Latin marginal note at the beginning of the Prologue, which is wanting in F. The problem is perhaps to be solved by means of the Keswick MS. This is written in several hands, varying greatly in accuracy, and exactly in that place where H₃ seems to follow a first recension copy the Keswick MS. is defective, having lost several leaves. It also contains the marginal note referred to above, and on examination we find that a whole series of corruptions are common to the two MSS. There seems to be very little doubt that K is the source of H₃, the inequality of the latter MS. being to a great extent in accordance with the change of hands in K, and the variation of H₃ in a portion of the third book to a different type of text being exactly coincident with the gap left in K by loss of leaves, a loss which must apparently have taken place in the first forty or fifty years of its existence[AJ]. As to the text of K itself, in the parts which are most carefully written it reproduces that of F with scrupulous exactness, giving every detail of orthography and punctuation, and for the most part following it in such small errors as it has. It is impossible for one who places these MSS. side by side, as I have been able to do, to avoid the conviction that in some parts at least the exemplar for K was the Fairfax MS. itself. On the other hand, the Latin marginal note at the beginning was derived from some other copy, and setting aside the many mistakes, which possibly are due to mere carelessness on the part of some of the scribes, the Keswick MS. does undoubtedly contain some readings which seem to be derived from a different source. In form of text generally it corresponds exactly with F, reproducing all the additions and corrections made by erasure or otherwise, and containing the same Latin and French pieces in the same order at the end, so far at least as it is perfect. The Magdalen College MS. must be derived ultimately from the same source as H₃, and it has the same lapse from the third recension to the first, coinciding with the gap in the Keswick book. On the other hand W, though in form of text it corresponds with these and with F, is quite independent of the group above mentioned, and probably also of the Fairfax MS. It is late and full of corruptions, but in several instances it assists in the correction of errors which appear in F, and it is apparently based on a copy which retained some of the variants of the earlier text still uncorrected.

As for the remaining manuscript, which was formerly in the Phillipps collection, but is now in the hands of a bookseller, I have had so little opportunity for examining it that I ought not to attempt a classification.

Reviewing the whole body of authorities, we can recognize readily that two are pre-eminent as witnesses for the author’s final text, that is to say, S and F, the Stafford and the Fairfax MSS. These are practically identical in orthography, and, except as regards the characteristic differences, which sufficiently guarantee their independence, exhibit essentially the same text, and one which bears the strongest marks of authenticity. Both are contemporary with the author, and it is perhaps difficult to say which best represents his final judgement as to the form of his work.

The Stafford MS. seems to be the earlier in time, that is to say, it probably precedes the final conversion of the Fairfax copy. It was evidently written for presentation to a member of the house of Lancaster, perhaps to Henry himself before his accession to the throne. It was doubtless for some such presentation copy that the preface was rewritten in 1392-3, with the dedication to Henry introduced into the English text, while most of the other copies issued during Richard’s reign probably retained their original form. If we suppose that the new forms of preface and epilogue were at first intended only for private circulation, we can account for the very considerable preponderance of the first recension in regard to the number of copies by which it is represented, and also allow sufficient time for the gradual development of the text, first into the type which we find in A or J, and finally into that of F, as it originally stood, a process which can hardly be satisfactorily understood if we suppose that from 1393 onwards the Lancastrian dedication had its place in all copies put forth by the author. It seems on the whole probable, for reasons to be stated afterwards, that the final conversion of F (that is as regards the preface) did not take place until after the deposition of Richard, and it is reasonable enough to suppose that copies were usually issued in the original form, until after that event occurred.

MANUSCRIPTS. The following account of the MSS. is given on my own authority in every detail. I have been able to see them all, and I wish here to express my thanks to the possessors of them, and to the librarians who have them in their charge, for the readiness with which they have given me the use of them. I am indebted especially to the Councils of Trinity College and St. John’s College, Cambridge, and to Corpus Christi, Wadham, Magdalen, and New College, Oxford, for allowing their MSS. to be sent to the Bodleian Library for my use, and to remain there for considerable periods. Except in the case of one or two, to which my access was limited, I have examined every one carefully, so that I am able to say (for example) to what extent, if at all, they are imperfect. They are arranged as far as possible in accordance with the classes and groups to which they belong, as follows:

1st Recension (_a_) AJMP₁ChN₂E₂ (_b_) H₁YXGOAd₂CathQ (_c_) ECRLB₂SnDArHdAsh 2nd Recension (_a_) SΔ (_b_) AdTBΛP₂ 3rd Recension FH₂NKH₃MagdWP₃ Hn

FIRST RECENSION.

(_a_) _Revised._

A. BODLEY 902, Bodleian Library (formerly Arch. D. 33, not in Bernard’s Catalogue, 1697). Contains _Confessio Amantis_ followed by ‘Explicit iste liber’ (four lines), ‘Quam cinxere freta,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque.’ Parchment, ff. 184, measuring 13⅜ × 9⅛ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords. Well written in double column of 46 lines in three different hands of early fifteenth cent., of which the first extends to the end of the second quire (ff. 2-16), the second from thence to the end of the tenth quire (ff. 17-80), and the third from f. 81 to the end. The columns nearly correspond with those of the Fairfax MS. up to f. 81, after which point some attempt is made to save space by writing the Latin verses in the margin. Latin summaries in the margin, except very occasionally, as on ff. 10 and 11 v^o. Floreated half border in fairly good style at the beginning of each book except the fifth, and one miniature on f. 8, of the Confession, remarkable for the fact that the figure of the Lover is evidently intended as a portrait of the author, being that of an old man and with some resemblance in features to the effigy on Gower’s tomb. The Confessor has a red stole, which with his right hand he is laying on the penitent’s head, much as in the miniatures which we have in C and L. The note for the miniaturist still stands in the margin, ‘Hic fiat confessor sedens _et_ confes_sus_ cora_m_ se genuflectendo.’

The first leaf of the book is lost, and has been supplied in the sixteenth cent. from Berthelette’s second edition. It should be noted that this is not the form of commencement which belongs properly to the MS., being that of the third recension, taken by Berthelette from Caxton. The first line of f. 2 is Prol. 144.

As to former possessors, we find written on the last leaf ‘Anniballis Admiralis dominicalis,’ on f. 80 ‘Be me Anne Russell’ (?), and on f. 115 ‘Elyzebeth Gardnar my troust ys in god,’ all apparently sixteenth cent. The first name is evidently that of Claude d’Annebaut (also called d’Hannybal), who was Admiral of France, and died in 1552. He was in England about the year 1547. The book came to the Bodleian from Gilbert Dolben, Esq., of Finedon, in Northamptonshire, in the year 1697, and not being in the Catalogue of 1697, it has to some extent escaped notice.

The text is a very good one of the revised type. It should be noted, however, that while in the earlier books AJM &c. stand very frequently together on the side of F as against the rest of the first recension, in the later, and especially in the seventh and eighth, AM &c. have an increasing tendency to stand with the first recension generally, leaving J alone in support of the corrected text. In the earlier books A sometimes stands alone in this manner, as i. 1960, ii. 961, 1356.

The orthography (especially that of the second hand) is nearly that of F. As regards final _e_, the tendency is rather to insert wrongly than to omit. Punctuation agrees generally with that of F.

J. ST. JOHN’S COLL., CAMB. B 12. Contains the same as A. Parchment, ff. 214, 12 × 9½ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords: double column of 39 lines, written in a very neat hand of the first quarter of fifteenth century. Latin summaries usually omitted, but most of them inserted up to f. 5 (Prol. 606), and a few here and there in the fifth and seventh books.

The first page has a complete border, but there are no other decorations except red and blue capitals. Old wooden binding.

The seventh leaf of quire 12 (v. 57-213) and the first of quire 14 (v. 1615-1770) are cut out, and a passage of 184 lines is omitted in the first book (i. 631-814) without loss of leaf, which shows that the manuscript from which it was copied, and which here must have lost a leaf, had the normal number of 46 lines to the column.

Various names, as Thomas Browne, Nicolas Helifax, J. Baynorde, are written in the book, and also ‘John Nicholas oweth this book,’ with the date 1576. At the beginning we find ‘Tho. C. S.’, which stands for ‘Thomas Comes Southampton.’ The book was in fact bought with others by Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, from William Crashaw, Fellow of St. John’s College, and presented by him to the College Library in the year 1635.

This MS. gives a text which is nearer to the type of F than that of any other first recension copy. In the later books especially it seems often to stand alone of its class in agreement with F, as v. 649, 1112, 1339, 1578, 3340, 4351, 4643, 5242, 6059, 6461, 6771, vi. 162, 442, 784, 973, 2089, vii. 445, 1027, 1666, 2424, 3235, 4336, 5348, viii. 13, 239, 747, 845, 1076, 1415, 1456 ff., 2195, 2220, 2228, 2442, 2670 ff., and it is noteworthy that this is the only first recension copy which supplies the accidental omission of ‘eorum disciplina--materia’ in the author’s Latin account of the _Conf. Amantis_ at the end. As regards individual correctness it is rather unequal. In some places it has many mistakes, as vi. 1509 ff., while in others it is very correct. The spelling is in most points like that of F, and it is usually good as regards terminations; but the scribe has some peculiarities of his own, which he introduces more or less freely, as ‘ho’ for ‘who,’ ‘heo’ for ‘sche’ (pretty regularly), ‘heor’ for ‘her,’ ‘whech’ for ‘which.’ It must also be an individual fancy which leads him regularly to substitute ‘som tyme’ for ‘whilom’ wherever it occurs. Punctuation usually agrees with that of F.

M. CAMB. UNIV. Mm. 2.21 (Bern. Cat. ii. 9648). Contains _Conf. Amantis_ only, without ‘Explicit,’ &c. (the last leaf being lost). Parchment, ff. 183, 14 × 9½ in. Quires of eight with catchwords and signatures: double columns of 46 lines: Latin summaries usually in margin, but occasionally in the text, as in A. Several hands, as follows, (1) ff. 1-32, 41-64, 73-88, 97-136, 145-152, 161-176; (2) ff. 33-40, 89-96, 137-144; (3) ff. 65-72; (4) ff. 153-160; (5) ff. 177-183. Finally another, different from all the above, adds sometimes a marginal note which has been dropped, as on ff. 4, 32 v^o, 65, 72 v^o. The first hand, in which more than two-thirds of the book is written, is fairly neat: the third much rougher than the rest, and also more inaccurate.

Floreated half border in fairly good style at the beginning of each book, except the third, fifth, and seventh, and two rather rudely painted miniatures, viz. f. 4 v^o, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (the king in bed, crowned), and f. 8, the Confession, a curious little picture in the margin. The priest is laying his stole on the head of the penitent, whose features are evidently meant for a portrait. It is quite different however from that which we have in A. Below this picture we find the note, ‘Hic fiat Garn_imentum_.’

The last leaf is lost, containing no doubt the ‘Explicit,’ ‘Quam cinxere,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ as in A.

The names Stanhope and Yelverton are written on f. 39 (sixteenth cent.), and ‘Margareta Straunge’ on the first leaf (seventeenth cent.). Later the book belonged to Bishop Moore of Norwich (No. 462 in his library), and it passed with the rest of his books to the University of Cambridge in 1715, as a gift from the king.

M is very closely connected with A, as is shown by very many instances of special agreement, and some considerations suggest that it may be actually derived from it, as for example the writing of the Latin verses in the margin after f. 80, which in A seems to be connected with a change of hand, whereas in M it begins at the same point without any such reason. On the other hand M has a good many readings which are clearly independent, either correcting mistakes and omissions in A, as Prol. 195 _marg._, 937, i. 673 _marg._, 924, 1336, 3445, ii. 951, iii. 2529, vi. 620, or giving an early reading where A has a later, e.g. Prol. 869, i. 1118, 1755, ii. 961, 3516, iii. 1939, v. 3914, 5524, &c. In correctness of text and of spelling M is much inferior to A, especially as regards final _e_: for example, on f. 53 v^o,

Came neu_er_ ȝit to mannes ere Cam A Tiding | ne to mannes siȝt Tidinge ... sihte A Merueil whiche so sore aflihte Merueile which A Aman_n_es herte as it þe dede þo A To hym whoche in þe same stede him which A

P₁, formerly PHILLIPPS 2298, bought in June, 1899, by Mr. B. Quaritch, who kindly allowed me to see it. Parchment, leaf measuring about 9 × 6½ in., double column of 39 lines, in a fairly neat running hand, with many contractions because of the small size of the leaf. Latin summaries omitted. No decoration. Text agrees with AJM group, so far as I have examined it.

Ch. CHETHAM’S LIBR., MANCHESTER, A. 6. 11 (Bern. Cat. ii. 7151). Contains _Conf. Amantis_ with ‘Explicit’ (4 lines) and ‘Quam cinxere.’ Parchment, ff. 126, about 15¼ × 10¾ in., quires usually of 12 or 14 leaves. Rather irregularly written in double column of 47-61 lines, late fifteenth century. No ornament. Marginal Latin almost entirely omitted, but some English notes by way of summary occasionally in margin, perhaps by later hand.

The first leaf is lost, the MS. beginning Prol. 193, and also two leaves in the second quire (i. 1092-1491) and one in the tenth (viii. 2111-2343); but besides these imperfections there are many omissions, apparently because the copyist got tired of his work, e.g. ii. 3155-3184, iii. 41-126, 817-842, 877-930, 1119-1196, iv. 17-72, 261-370, 569-704, 710-722, 915-968, 1117-1236, v. 72-112. There is also a good deal of omission and confusion in v. 6101-7082. At the end in a scroll is written ‘Notehurste,’ which indicates probably that the book was copied for one of the Chethams of Nuthurst, perhaps Thomas Chetham, who died 1504. The word ‘Notehurst’ also occurs at the end of the Glasgow MS. of the ‘Destruction of Troy,’ which has in another place the names of John and Thomas Chetham of ‘Notehurst’ as the owners of it.

In text it belongs to the AJM group, and sometimes, as iv. 208, stands alone with J. There are many corruptions, however, and the spelling is late and bad.

N₂. NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD, 326. Contains _Conf. Amantis_ only (no ‘Explicit’). Parchment, ff. 207 + 4 blanks, about 13¾ × 9½ in., in quires of 8 with catchwords; neatly written in double column of 40 lines (or 39). No Latin summaries or verses. The handwriting changes after f. 62 (at iii. 2164) and becomes rather larger and more ornamental.

Two leaves lost after f. 35, containing ii. 1066-1377, and some of the leaves of the MS. from which it was copied had been displaced, so that