'Reson wil not that I speke of _shep_, For it accordeth nough[t] to my matere.'
Certainly, _shep_ (sheep) is irrelevant enough; however, Chaucer refers to _sleep_. And again, the line in II. 1554, which should run--
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--'neu_er_ 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.