As for to bidde a wood man for to renne
appears in the startling form—
As for to bydde a womman for to renne.
As all the variations of 'Cl.' from the correct text are given in the foot-notes, it is not necessary to say more about these peculiarities. I must 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 been printed in full, as written, for the Chaucer Society; and I have relied upon the accuracy of this well-edited print.
2. MS. Cp.—MS. No. 61 in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, described in Nasmith's Catalogue, p. 40, as 'a parchment book in folio neatly written, and ornamented with a frontispiece richly illuminated, containing Chaucer's Troilus, in four [error for five] books.' It is a fine folio MS., 12 inches by 8½. This MS., noticed by Warton, has not as yet been printed, though the Chaucer Society have undertaken to print it, upon my recommendation. It contains many pages that are left wholly or partially blank, obviously meant to be supplied with illuminations; which shews that it was written for some wealthy person. On the left margin, near the 83rd stanza of Book IV, is a note of ownership, in a hand of the fifteenth century—'neuer 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 þour al þis toun aboute;