Book IV
, is a note of ownership, in a hand of the fifteenth century--'neu_er_ foryeteth: Anne neuyll.' This probably refers to Anne Neville, wife of Humphrey, duke of Buckingham (who was killed at Northampton in 1460), and daughter of Ralph Neville, earl of Westmoreland, and of Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt. That is, she was John of Gaunt's granddaughter; and it seems reasonable to infer that the MS. was actually written for one of John of Gaunt's family. This probability is a very interesting one, when we consider how much Chaucer owed to John of Gaunt's favour and protection.
The MS. is slightly deficient, owing to the omission of a few stanzas; but not much is missing. It is of a type closely resembling the preceding, and gives excellent readings. I have therefore taken the opportunity of founding the text upon a close collation of Cl. and Cp., taking Cl. as the foundation, but correcting it by Cp. throughout, without specifying more than the rejected reading of Cl. in passages where these MSS. differ. In this way the numerous absurdities of Cl. (as noted above) have been easily corrected, and the resulting text is a great improvement upon all that have hitherto appeared. In a few places, as shewn by the foot-notes, the readings of other MSS. have been preferred.
3. MS. H.--MS. Harl. 2280, in the British Museum. An excellent MS., very closely related to both the preceding. Printed in full for the Chaucer Society, and collated throughout in the present edition. It was taken as the basis of the text in Morris's Aldine edition, which in many passages closely resembles the present text. It is certainly the third best MS. One leaf is missing (Bk. V. 1345-1428; twelve stanzas).
4. MS. CM.--MS. Gg. 4. 27, in the Cambridge University Library; the same MS. as that denoted by 'Cm.' in the foot-notes to the Canterbury Tales, and by 'C.' in the foot-notes to the Legend of Good Women. A remarkable MS., printed in full for the Chaucer Society. It exhibits _a different type_ of text from that found in Cl., Cp., and H. The most noteworthy differences are as follows. In Bk. ii. 734, 5, this MS. has quite a different couplet, viz.:
Men louyn women þ_our_ al þis tou_n_ aboute; Be þey þe wers? whi, nay, w_i_t_h_-outyn doute.
Bk. ii. 792 runs thus:--
How ofte tyme may men rede and se.
Bk. iv. 309-15 (stanza 45) runs thus:--
What shulde ye don but, for myn disconfort, Stondyn for nought, and wepyn out youre ye? Syn sche is queynt that wont was yow disport[63], In vayn from this forth have I seyn twye; For[64] medycyn youre vertu is a-weye; O crewel eyen, sythyn that youre dispyt Was al to sen Crisseydes eyen bryght.
Bk. iv. 638 runs thus:--
Pandare answerde, of that be as be may.
After Bk. iv. 735, MS. Cm. introduces the following stanza, which, in the present text, appears a little later (ll. 750-6) in a slightly altered form.
The salte teris fro_m_ hyre ey[gh]yn tweyn Out ran, as scho_ur_ of aprille, ful swythe; Hyre white brest sche bet, and for the peyne, Aftyr the deth cryede a thousent sithe, Syn he that wonyt was hir wo for to lythe, Sche mot forgon; for which disauenture Sche held hire-selue a for-lost creature.
Bk. iv. 806-33 (four stanzas) are omitted; so also are the 18 stanzas referring to Free-Will, viz. Bk. iv. 953-1078. Bk. v. 230-1 runs thus:--
To whom for eu_er_emor myn herte is holde: And thus he pleynyd, and ferth_er_e-more he tolde.
We cannot believe that Bk. iv. 309-15, as here given, can be genuine[65]; but it seems possible that some of the other readings may be so. The stanza, Bk. iv. 750-6, as here given, seems to represent the first draft of these lines, which were afterwards altered to the form in which they appear in the text, whilst at the same time the stanza was shifted down. However, this is mere speculation; and it must be confessed that, in many places, this MS. is strangely corrupted. Several stanzas have only six lines instead of seven, and readings occur which set all ideas of rime at defiance. Thus, in I. 1260, _paste_ (riming with _caste_) appears as _passede_; in I. 1253, _ryde_ (riming with _aspyde_) appears as _rydende_; in III. 351, _hayes_ (riming with _May is_) appears as _halis_; &c.
Yet the MS. is worth collating, as it gives, occasionally, some excellent readings. For example, in Bk. i. 143, it preserves the word _here_, which other MSS. wrongly omit; and, in the very next line, rightly has _to longe dwelle_, not _to longe to dwelle_.
The MS. has been, at some time, shamefully maltreated by some one who has cut out several leaves, no doubt for the sake of their illuminated initials. Hence the following passages do not appear: I. 1-70; I. 1037--II. 84; III. 1-56; III. 1807--IV. 112; IV. 1667--V. 35; V. 1702--_end_ (_together with a piece at the beginning of the_ Canterbury Tales).
5. MS. H2.--Harleian MS. 3943, in the British Museum. Printed in full for the Chaucer Society in 1875, together with a most valuable line by line collation with Boccaccio's Filostrato, by Wm. Michael Rossetti. Referred to in Prof. Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, i. 398, as 'much the worst that has been printed,' where his object is to depreciate its authority. Yet it is well worth a careful study, and it must be particularly borne in mind that it consists of two parts, written at different dates, and of different value. In Bell's Chaucer, we read of it:--'Unfortunately it is imperfect. The first few leaves, and the whole of the latter part of the poem, appear to have been destroyed, and the deficiency supplied by a later copyist.' The late hand occurs in I. 1-70, 498-567, III. 1429-1638, IV. 197--_end_, and