As for to bydde a womman for to renne.
51 lines✦
s all the variations of 'Cl.' from the correct text are given in thefoot-notes, it is not necessary to say more about these peculiarities. Imust add, however, that, as in Boethius, I have silently corrected _yn_ to_in_ in such words as _thing_; besides altering _ee_ and _oo_ to _e_ and_o_ in open syllables, writing _v_ for _u_, and the like. See above. The Campsall MS., now in the possession of Mr. Bacon Frank, has beenprinted in full, as written, for the Chaucer Society; and I have reliedupon the accuracy of this well-edited print. 2. MS. CP.--MS. No. 61 in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, described inNasmith's Catalogue, p. 40, as 'a parchment book in folio neatly written,and ornamented with a frontispiece richly illuminated, containing Chaucer'sTroilus, in four [_error for_ five] books.' It is a fine folio MS., 12inches by 8½. This MS., noticed by Warton, has not as yet been printed,though the Chaucer Society have undertaken to print it, upon myrecommendation. It contains many pages that are left wholly or partiallyblank, obviously meant to be supplied with illuminations; which shews thatit was written for some wealthy person. On the left margin, near the 83rdstanza of Book IV, is a note of ownership, in a hand of the fifteenthcentury--'neu_er_ foryeteth: Anne neuyll.' This probably refers to AnneNeville, wife of Humphrey, duke of Buckingham (who was killed atNorthampton in 1460), and daughter of Ralph Neville, earl of Westmoreland,and of Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt. That is, she was John ofGaunt's granddaughter; and it seems reasonable to infer that the MS. wasactually written for one of John of Gaunt's family. This probability is avery interesting one, when we consider how much Chaucer owed to John ofGaunt's favour and protection. The MS. is slightly deficient, owing to the omission of a few stanzas; butnot much is missing. It is of a type closely resembling the preceding, andgives excellent readings. I have therefore taken the opportunity offounding the text upon a close collation of Cl. and Cp., taking Cl. as thefoundation, but correcting it by Cp. throughout, without specifying morethan the rejected reading of Cl. in passages where these MSS. differ. Inthis way the numerous absurdities of Cl. (as noted above) have been easilycorrected, and the resulting text is a great improvement upon all that havehitherto appeared. In a few places, as shewn by the foot-notes, thereadings of other MSS. have been preferred. 3. MS. H.--MS. Harl. 2280, in the British Museum. An excellent MS., veryclosely related to both the preceding. Printed in full for the ChaucerSociety, and collated throughout in the present edition. It was taken asthe basis of the text in Morris's Aldine edition, which in many passagesclosely resembles the present text. It is certainly the third best MS. Oneleaf is missing (Bk. V. 1345-1428; twelve stanzas). 4. MS. CM.--MS. Gg. 4. 27, in the Cambridge University Library; the sameMS. as that denoted by 'Cm.' in the foot-notes to the Canterbury Tales, andby '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_ oftext from that found in Cl., Cp., and H. The most noteworthy differencesare 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.
✦