Part ii

. The MSS. A., B., C. (which are unquestionably the oldest), as well as E., F., G., and P., adopt the order which appears in this edition, but which has never appeared in any previous edition. In all other editions we find the three sections 19-21 made to precede sections 13-18. Now we might here appeal to authority only, and say that the order in the _oldest_ MSS. ought to be preferred. But it so happens that we can appeal to internal evidence as well, and there are two considerations which shew that the oldest MSS. are certainly correct. These are as follows. In the _first_ place, sect. 18 amounts to finding the degree of the zodiac which _souths_ with any star, and begins with the words 'Set the centre of the sterre upon the lyne meridional'; whilst sect. 19 amounts to finding the degree of the zodiac that _rises_ with any star, and begins with the words 'Set the sentre of the sterre upon the est orisonte.' Clearly, these Conclusions are closely linked together, and one ought to follow the other. But, in all the editions, this continuity is broken. In the _second_ place, the rubric of sect. 21 is--'To knowe for what latitude in any regioun,' &c.; whilst that of sect. 22 is--'To knowe in special the latitude of oure countray,' &c. Clearly, these Conclusions are closely linked, and in their right order. But, in all the editions, this continuity is again broken; and we have this absurd result, viz. that a proposition headed--'To knowe the degrees of the longitudes of fixe sterres' is followed by one headed--'To knowe _in special_ the latitude of oure countray.' Hence we are enabled to draw a line, and to divide the MSS. into two classes; those in which the order of sections is correct, and those in which it has suffered misplacement, the number in each class being much the same. This gives us the following result.

_First Class._ A., B., C, (probably D.,) E., F., G., P.

_Second Class._ H., I., K., L., M., N., O., R.; to which add Th.

But this division immediately leads to another very curious result, and that is, a certain lack of authority for sections after the _fortieth_, which ends on p. 223.

A. ends with an incomplete sentence, in sect. 40, with the words--'howre after howre.' B., C. end exactly at the same place.

E. ends sect. 40 with the same words; and, after this, has only one additional section (46), which is, in my opinion, spurious; especially as it does not appear in Messahala, of which more anon.

D., F., and G. all fail at an earlier point.

In none of the first-class MSS. (excepting P., which terminates with section 43) is there a word about _umbra recta_ or _umbra versa_.

Even in the second class of MSS., we find H. breaking off at sect. 36, and K. at sect. 35; so that the sections on the _umbrae_ rest only on MSS. I. (obviously an edition, not a transcript), L., M., N., O., P., and R. Putting aside the first of these, as being 'edited,' we have but six left; and in the first four and the last of these we find that the additional Conclusions appear in a certain order, viz. they insert 44 and 45 (on the 'mene mote') between three sections 41-43 on the 'umbrae' and five other sections 41_a_-42_b_ on the same.

§ 20. THE LAST FIVE SECTIONS SPURIOUS. This at once suggests two results. The _first_ is, that, as this gives two sets of sections on the 'umbrae,' we can hardly expect both to be genuine; and accordingly, we at once find that the _last five_ of these are mere clumsy repetitions of the _first three_; for which reason, I unhesitatingly reject the said _last five_ as spurious. This view is strikingly confirmed by MS. P.; for this, the only first-class MS. that is carried on beyond section 40, contains the first three sections on the 'umbrae' only. The _second_ result is, that if the first three sections on the 'umbrae' are to be received, there is good reason why we should consider the possible genuineness of sections 44 and 45 on the 'mene mote,' which rest very nearly on the same authority.

Now the sections on the 'mene mote' have in their favour one strong piece of internal evidence; for the date 1397 is mentioned in them more than once as being the 'root' or epoch from which to reckon. In most cases, the mention of a date 1397 would lead us to attribute the writing in which it occurs to that year or to a _later_ year, but a date fixed on for a 'root' may very well be a _prospective_ one, so that these sections may have been written _before_ 1397; an idea which is supported by the line 'behold whether thy date be more or _lasse_ than the yere 1397'; sect. 44, l. 5. But I suspect the date to be an error for 1387, since that [see _Somer_ in Tyrwhitt's Glossary] was really the 'rote' used by Nicholas Lenne. In either case, I think we may connect these sections with the previous sections written in 1391[47]. Besides which, Chaucer so expressly intimates his acquaintance with the subjects of these sections in the Canterbury Tales[48], that we may the more readily admit them to be really his. There is still less difficulty about admitting the first three sections (41-43) on the 'umbrae,' because we find similar matter in the treatise of Messahala, from which, as will appear, he derived so much. And hence we may readily conclude that, in the second part, the first forty sections, found in the oldest MSS., are certainly genuine, whilst sections 41-43, as well as 44 and 45, have every claim to be considered genuine also. This need not, however, force us to accept the remaining sections, since they may easily have been added by another hand; a circumstance which is rendered the more probable by the fact that sections 41_a_-42_b_ merely repeat 41-43 in a more clumsy form, and by the consideration that, if genuine, they should have occupied their proper place immediately after sect. 43, instead of being separated from the former set. As to sect. 46, I pronounce no decided opinion; there is but little to be said either for or against it, and it is of little consequence.

§ 21. GAP BETWEEN §§ 40 AND 41. But admitting the genuineness of sections 40-45, it at once becomes evident that there are two distinct gaps or breaks in the continuity of the treatise; the first between 40 and 41; and the second between 43 and 44. A little consideration will account for these. Looking at the Canterbury Tales, we observe the very same peculiarity; at certain points there are distinct breaks, and no mending can link the various groups together in a satisfactory manner. This can be accounted for in part by our knowledge of the fact that the poet died before he had completed the proper linking-together of the tales which he had more or less finished; but I think it also shews him to have been a fragmentary worker. To suppose that, upon reaching Conclusion 40, he suddenly turned to the sections upon the 'umbrae,' which are at once more easy to explain, more suitable for a child, and illustrative of a different and more practical use of the Astrolabe, seems to me natural enough; and more probable than to suppose that anything is here lost. For, in fact, it is to the very MSS. that contain sections 41-43 that we are indebted for the last five words of sect. 40, so curiously omitted in the oldest and best MSS.; and this is a direct argument against the supposition of any matter having been here lost.

§ 22. GAP BETWEEN §§ 43 AND 44. The break between sections 43 and 44 may be explained in a totally different manner. In this case, the break indicates a _real_, not an accidental, gap. I suppose section 43 to have been really the _last_ section of