2694 Whan that sche was bot of ȝong age For good ERCLB₂ That only for thilke avantage Of good AJMH₁XG, S ... ΔΛ, FWH₃
2771 nyh om. ERCLB₂ ins. AJMH₁XG, S ... Δ, FWH₃
3110 burned as the silver ERCLB₂ burned was as selver AJMH₁XG, S ... ΔΛ, FWH₃ cp. 3032, 3246, &c.
We see in these examples, selected as fairly typical, that some of the variants have evidently the character of errors, while in other cases the difference of reading is due to an alternative version. The circumstances, however, of these two cases are not distinguishable, the errors are supported by as much authority as the rest, and it must be supposed that both have the same origin. If then we assume that such variations as we find (for example) in i. 3396, 3416, v. 30, 47, 82, 368, 2694, &c., are due to the author, as is almost certain, there can be no doubt that the form of text which is given by the group AJM in combination with the second and third recensions is the later of the two: and if the group H₁ ... B₂ represents an earlier type as regards this class of variation, it must surely do so also as regards the errors, which, as we have seen, stand upon the same ground in respect of manuscript authority. As we cannot help believing that the author wrote originally ‘To holde hir whil my lif may laste,’ v. 82, and ‘The more he hath the more he greedeth,’ v. 394, so we may reasonably suppose that errors such as ‘it’ for ‘hid,’ i. 1755, ‘that diere’ for ‘that other,’ ii. 833, ‘what’ for ‘war,’ iii. 1065, existed in the copy which first served as an exemplar.
It may be observed here that in cases where revision seems to have taken place, we can frequently see a definite reason for the change; either the metre is made more smooth, as i. 1770, 2622, 3374, ii. 671, 751, 1763, iii. 765, 2042, 2556, iv. 234, v. 368, 1678, &c., or some name is altered into a more correct form, as where ‘Element’ is changed to ‘Clemenee,’ iv. 985, with a corresponding alteration of the rhyme, or the expression and run of the sentence is improved, as i. 368, 3416, v. 30, 1906, 6756, &c. In particular we note the tendency towards increased smoothness of metre which is shown in dealing with weak e terminations.
It is to be assumed on the principles which have been stated that the group ERCLB₂ and the other manuscripts which agree with them represent with more or less accuracy the first form of the author’s text, that H₁YXG and a few more form a class in which correction and revision has taken place to some extent, but partially and unsystematically, and that AJM &c. give us the first recension text in a much more fully revised and corrected form.
It has been already said that F was originally a manuscript of the first recension. We shall find however that it did not exactly correspond to any existing first recension manuscript. Setting aside the small number of individual mistakes to be found in it, there are perhaps about eighty instances (many of a very trifling character) in which its text apparently differed originally from that of any first recension copy which we have, and in about half of these the text of F agrees with that of the second recension. The manuscript which comes nearest to F in most respects is J (St. John’s Coll., Camb.), and there is a considerable number of instances in which this MS. stands alone among first recension copies in agreement with the Fairfax text. In the sixth book, for example, if J be set aside, there are at least twenty-three passages in which F gives an apparently genuine reading unsupported by the first recension; but in sixteen of these cases J is in agreement with F. It must be noted, however, that this state of things is not equally observable in the earlier part of the poem, and indeed does not become at all marked until the fifth book.
Besides variations of reading, there are in the Fairfax MS. a few additions to the text which are not found in any first recension copy. These are Prol. 495-498, 579-584 and i. 1403-1406, two passages of four lines each and one of six, as well as some additions to the Latin notes in the margin (at Prol. 195, i. 2705, and v. 7725), of which the first two were evidently put in later than the accompanying text. Finally, there are three other additions to the text which are found in a single copy of the first recension, MS. Harl. 3490 (H₁). These are i. 2267-2274, where four lines have been expanded into eight, i. 2343-2358, an interesting addition of sixteen lines to the tale of Narcissus, and i. 2369-2372. Thus in the matter of additions to the text H₁ stands nearer to F than AJM &c., and in a few other passages also it is found standing alone of its recension in company with F, e.g. i. 2043, 2398, ii. 2247. This manuscript does not belong to the ‘fully revised’ group, but it gives the revised readings more frequently perhaps than any other outside that group.
Thus notwithstanding the differences between the first recension copies, as we have them, and the Fairfax MS. as it originally stood, we shall have no difficulty in regarding the latter as having been originally a revised and corrected copy of that recension, exhibiting a text to which tolerably near approaches are made by A, J, and H₁, each in its own way, though no copy precisely corresponding to it is known to exist.
Passing to the second recension, we must first repeat what has already been said, that it did not supersede the first, but existed and developed by its side, having its origin probably in the very same year, or at latest in the next. Its characteristic point is the presence of considerable additions in the fifth and seventh books, together with a rearrangement of part of the sixth. There are seven manuscripts known to me, of which three are defective at the beginning. All these (except one, which is also defective at the end) have the rewritten epilogue, one in combination with the Chaucer verses and the others without them. Of the four which are perfect at the beginning, one, namely B, has the earlier form of preface, and the other three, ΛP₂ and S, the later. Of the others it is probable, but by no means certain, that T agreed with B in this respect, and practically certain that Δ agreed with S. A more satisfactory line of distinction, which divides the manuscripts of this class into two groups, is given by the general character of the text which they exhibit, and by the insertion or omission of certain of the additional passages of which we have spoken. While some of the passages, viz. v. 6395*-6438*, 7086*-7210*, vii. 3207*-3360*, are common to all the copies, as are also the transposition of vi. 665-964 and (except in case of Λ) the omission of v. 7701-7746, three of them are found in AdBTΛP₂ only, and are omitted in SΔ[AG], viz. v. 7015*-7036*, vii. 2329*-2340* and 3149*-3180*. Then, as regards the text generally, the five MSS. first mentioned all have connexions of various kinds with the unrevised form of the first recension, while the last two represent a type which, except as regards variants specially characteristic of the second recension, of which there may be about sixty in all, nearly corresponds with that of the Fairfax MS.[AH]