Today | News | Books | Recipes Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History Booklusions of Part ii. _in the right order_, but continues it _without a break_ to the end of Conclusion 43 (p. 225); at the end of which is the colophon--Explicit tractatus astrolabii. § 17. Q.--MS. Ashmole 393, in the Bodleian Library; on paper. Of little importance. R.--MS. Egerton 2622, in the British Museum. A neat MS., but without diagrams. Contains: Part I. (except 15-23); Part II. §§ 1-12, 19-21, 13-18, 22-35, 41-43, 44, 45; 41_a_, 41_b_, 42_a_, 43_a_, 42_b_, 36, 37. Thus it has all the additional sections except 46; but 38-40 are missing. MS. L. contains the same sections in the same order; see § 12. S.--MS. Addit. 29250. A poor MS., but remarkable for containing the scarce section no. 46; of which there is but one other copy, viz. that in MS. E (§ 6); cf. pp. 240, 241. T.--MS. Phillipps 11955; at Cheltenham. On vellum; 31 leaves; said to be of the fourteenth century, which is improbable. U.--MS. Bodley 68. Imperfect; ends at Part ii. § 36. W.--MS. E Museo 116, in the Bodleian Library. A mere fragment. X.--A MS. at Brussels, no. 1591. See F. J. Mone, Quellen und Forschungen, (Aachen, 1830); pp. 549-551. § 18. Of the above MSS., Mr. Brae describes H., I., and L. only, and does not seem to have made use of any others. Mr. Todd, in his Animadversions on Gower and Chaucer, p. 125, enumerates only four MSS., which are plainly A., P., F., and G. The rest seem to have escaped attention. In addition to the MS. authorities, we have one more source of text, viz. the Editio Princeps, which may be thus described. Th.--The edition of Chaucer's Works by Wm. Thynne, printed at London by Thomas Godfray in 1532. This is the first edition in which the Treatise on the Astrolabe appeared; it begins at fol. ccxcviii, back. The Conclusions in Part ii. are in the order following, viz. 1-12, 19-21, 13-18, 22-40; after which come 41-43, and 41_a_-42_b_. This order does not agree precisely with that in any MS. now extant, with the exception of I., which imitates it. It has some corrupt additions and exhibits many grave errors. All later editions, down to Urry's in 1721, contribute no new information. The few slight alterations which appear in them are such as could have been made without reference to MSS. at all. § 19. REMARKS ON THE CLASSES OF THE MSS. On comparing the MSS., it at once appears that they do not agree as to the order of the Conclusions in Part ii. The MSS. A., B., C. (which are unquestionably the oldest), as well as E., F., G., and P., adopt the order which appears in this edition, but which has never appeared in any previous edition. In all other editions we find the three sections 19-21 made to precede sections 13-18. Now we might here appeal to authority only, and say that the order in the _oldest_ MSS. ought to be preferred. But it so happens that we can appeal to internal evidence as well, and there are two considerations which shew that the oldest MSS. are certainly correct. These are as follows. In the _first_ place, sect. 18 amounts to finding the degree of the zodiac which _souths_ with any star, and begins with the words 'Set the centre of the sterre upon the lyne meridional'; whilst sect. 19 amounts to finding the degree of the zodiac that _rises_ with any star, and begins with the words 'Set the sentre of the sterre upon the est orisonte.' Clearly, these Conclusions are closely linked together, and one ought to follow the other. But, in all the editions, this continuity is broken. In the _second_ place, the rubric of sect. 21 is--'To knowe for what latitude in any regioun,' &c.; whilst that of sect. 22 is--'To knowe in special the latitude of oure countray,' &c. Clearly, these Conclusions are closely linked, and in their right order. But, in all the editions, this continuity is again broken; and we have this absurd result, viz. that a proposition headed--'To knowe the degrees of the longitudes of fixe sterres' is followed by one headed--'To knowe _in special_ the latitude of oure countray.' Hence we are enabled to draw a line, and to divide the MSS. into two classes; those in which the order of sections is correct, and those in which it has suffered misplacement, the number in each class being much the same. This gives us the following result. _First Class._ A., B., C, (probably D.,) E., F., G., P. _Second Class._ H., I., K., L., M., N., O., R.; to which add Th. But this division immediately leads to another very curious result, and that is, a certain lack of authority for sections after the _fortieth_, which ends on p. 223. A. ends with an incomplete sentence, in sect. 40, with the words--'howre after howre.' B., C. end exactly at the same place. E. ends sect. 40 with the same words; and, after this, has only one additional section (46), which is, in my opinion, spurious; especially as it does not appear in Messahala, of which more anon. D., F., and G. all fail at an earlier point. In none of the first-class MSS. (excepting P., which terminates with section 43) is there a word about _umbra recta_ or _umbra versa_. Even in the second class of MSS., we find H. breaking off at sect. 36, and K. at sect. 35; so that the sections on the _umbrae_ rest only on MSS. I. (obviously an edition, not a transcript), L., M., N., O., P., and R. Putting aside the first of these, as being 'edited,' we have but six left; and in the first four and the last of these we find that the additional Conclusions appear in a certain order, viz. they insert 44 and 45 (on the 'mene mote') between three sections 41-43 on the 'umbrae' and five other sections 41_a_-42_b_ on the same. § 20. THE LAST FIVE SECTIONS SPURIOUS. This at once suggests two results. The _first_ is, that, as this gives two sets of sections on the 'umbrae,' we can hardly expect both to be genuine; and accordingly, we at once find that the _last five_ of these are mere clumsy repetitions of the _first three_; for which reason, I unhesitatingly reject the said _last five_ as spurious. This view is strikingly confirmed by MS. P.; for this, the only first-class MS. that is carried on beyond section 40, contains the first three sections on the 'umbrae' only. The _second_ result is, that if the first three sections on the 'umbrae' are to be received, there is good reason why we should consider the possible genuineness of sections 44 and 45 on the 'mene mote,' which rest very nearly on the same authority. Now the sections on the 'mene mote' have in their favour one strong piece of internal evidence; for the date 1397 is mentioned in them more than once as being the 'root' or epoch from which to reckon. In most cases, the mention of a date 1397 would lead us to attribute the writing in which it occurs to that year or to a _later_ year, but a date fixed on for a 'root' may very well be a _prospective_ one, so that these sections may have been written _before_ 1397; an idea which is supported by the line 'behold whether thy date be more or _lasse_ than the yere 1397'; sect. 44, l. 5. But I suspect the |