| ||
John Stowe, The Craft of Lovers and T.C.C. R.3.19
by
A. S. G. Edwards and J.
Hedley
It is uncommon to be able to locate with any certainty the manuscript copy for any part of an Elizabethan printed book. But one instance where it is possible to do so with a high degree of certainty occurs in John Stowe's edition of Chaucer (1561). Among the poems attributed to Chaucer in this edition is the fifteenth-century Craft of Lovers.[1] Recent work for a critical edition of this poem now makes it possible to demonstrate that Stowe's edition derives from Trinity College, Cambridge MS R.3.19. And this demonstration offers some incidental insight into Stowe's editorial practices and his unreliability as an attributor.
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)
CCCCxl & viii yere folowyng
Ffoure hundred fifty and ix yere folwyng
- 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
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
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.
II
It remains to consider the relationship between Stowe's edition and Speght's (1598), the only other black letter edition. It seems clear that Speght took his text directly from Stowe. His text contains all the unique variants of Stowe with the following exceptions:
- 8. S1 this: S2 these
- 39. S1 worldy: S2 worldly
- 151. S1 her: S2 hert
There are however three unique readings in Speght:
- 5. S1 moral: S2 mortal
- 26. S1 so: S2 do
- 143. S1 hight: S2 high
Notes
The poem consists (in the Trinity manuscript) of 23 rhyme royal stanzas. After its appearance in the editions of Stowe and Speght the poem was reprinted in the later editions of Chaucer by Urry (1721), Bell (1782), Anderson (1795) and Chalmers (1810). For full details see E. P. Hammond, Chaucer: A Bibliographical Manual (1908), pp. 119-136. Miss Hammond notes that Stowe's edition is 'probably from the Cambridge MS' (p. 420), but provides no further discussion or evidence.
For discussion of these three manuscripts and their relationships in general terms see E. P. Hammond, "Two British Museum Manuscripts", Anglia, 28 (1908), 1-28, and A. I. Doyle, "An Unrecognized Piece of Piers the Ploughman's Creed and Other Work by its Scribe", Speculum, 34 (1959), 429-436.
See C. L. Kingsford's edition of Stowe's Survey of London (1908), I, xcii-xciii and W. W. Greg, "Chaucer Attributions in MS. R. 3.19 in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge", M. L. R., 8 (1913), 538-539.
Stowe's conception of the editorial function warrants a separate study. For preliminary discussion illustrating his differing approaches to two texts by the same author see W. Ringler, "Lydgate's Serpent of Division, 1559, Edited by John Stow", SB, 14 (1961), 201-203 (where Stowe was content to use an earlier printed edition as copy); and A. S. G. Edwards and J. I. Miller, "John Stowe and Lydgate's St. Edmund", N&Q, 218 (1973), 365-369 (where it seems that Stowe made at least preliminary attempts at collation of a number of manuscripts).
This line in C reads: "What auayleth syr proclamacion"; in AH it reads: "What availeth sir suche demonstracioun".
| ||