University of Virginia Library

I

There are three manuscripts and two black letter editions of the Craft of Lovers extant:[2]

• C: Trinity College, Cambridge MS R.3.19, ff. 155r-156v.
• A: British Museum Additional MS 34360, ff. 73v-77r
• H: British Museum MS Harley 2251, ff. 52r-54v
• S1: Stowe's edition (1561)
• S2: Speght's edition (1598)

It is not our present purpose to discuss the textual relationship of these manuscripts in any detail. But it does seem clear that A and H are independent copies of a lost original preserving a state of the text markedly different from and probably later than C.[3] The most preliminary examination makes this clear. Both A and H add after the conclusion of the text in C an Envoy of 3 rhyme royal stanzas. Moreover in C ll. 158-159 state that the poem was written: In AH the corresponding lines read: And a highly selective list of variant readings makes clear the close relationship of AH against C:

• 1. C theyr: AH these
• 18. C to sores langorous: A to my infirmatys langouris: H and myn infirmynat langoures
• 26. C So gloryously glad langage ye contrive: AH So curiously your eloquence ye contryve
• 34. C your lovely: AH in
• 51. C hys curious supplicacion: A thus this curyous supplication: H this curious glosed supplicacion
• 57. C and countenaunce: AH in substaunce
• 68. C Remembre man what chaunge ys perlylouse: AH To helth [H help] of man a chaunce most perilous
• 73. C jhesu syttyng: AH whiche sittith
• 83. C should be to: A plese shuld: H please
• 91. C I must be chyef callyd to remebraunce: AH Wherfore I must be registred in your remembraunce
• 98. C for drede: AH in lesse
• 112. C or drede syr ye be shent: AH and ye shal nat be shent
• 120. C notable: AH benyngne
• 126. C am aferde or: AH stonde in feere lesse that
• 140. C maydenhode shuld be: AH my virgynite were
• 147. C And graciously take me to: AH And finally registre and take me in
• 157. C profer: AH dispute

Stowe had access to all three manuscripts, conceivably at the time when he was preparing his edition.[4] But a collation of S1 against the manuscripts reveals that in all the instances noted above (and extensively elsewhere) S1 follows C against AH.

But there are slight indications that Stowe adopted readings from either A or H which he found superior to C. The following is a complete list of readings in S1 which occur in A and/or H and not in C:

• 3. C be: AHS1 ben
• 46. C wold: AHS1 add not
• 55. C bondes: AHS1 boundes
• 61. C drops: AHS1 drope
• 99. C gay: AHS1 add of
• 107. CA vnto: HS1 to
• 144. C creature: AHS1 creatures

This does seem to suggest that Stowe did refer to at least one of the other manuscripts. But he does not seem to have done so on any systematic basis. In this case at least, his sense of his role as editor does not seem to have included any compulsion to choose critically between the alternative readings before him.[5]

There remain however a number of unique readings in S1. The full list is:

• 8. C these: S1 this
• 16. C intemerate: S1 intenuate
• 36. C syr: S1 adds your
• 39. C worldly: S1 worldy
• 67. C erbe: S1 eke
• 88. C carnall: S1 cardnal
• 95. C lacken: S1 lacke
• 143. C hygh: S1 hight
• 150. C yow: S1 your
• 151. C hert: S1 her
• 159. C CCCC . . . : S1 CCC . . .
• 160. C prepotent: S1 portent

It is of course a reasonable assumption that such unique readings are not likely to have any authority. A number appear to be printer's errors (e.g. 39, 95, 143, 151) and a number of others are manifestly nonsense and can probably be accounted for by the difficulty of either Stowe or the compositor with a hard or unfamiliar word (e.g. 16, 67, 88, 150, 160). Of the remaining readings one is clearly incorrect (8) and another (36) doubtless an editorial conjecture necessary to repair a lacuna in C and with which the other manuscripts would not give any help.[6] The final reading is perhaps the most interesting. At 159 'CCCC' is emended to 'CCC'. Opposite this line in C Stowe has noted that 'Chaucer died . 1400' (f. 156v). Clearly the emendation is an attempt to reconcile his text to accord with this fact. Stowe's fallibility as an attributor is well known; but it is rarely possible to document it in such a way.

In sum then it seems clear that Stowe based his edition of the Craft of Lovers on Trinity R.3.19. There is some indication that he did adopt a few readings from either the Additional or Harley manuscripts. It also seems that in one case he employed his editorial role to suppress evidence that conflicted with his wish to attribute the poem to Chaucer. There is no logical necessity for assuming he had access to any additional manuscripts.