De Amico ad Amicam

A celuy que pluys eyme en mounde
Of alle þo þat I haue founde
Carissima
[Salu[t]z] od treyéIn my translation, I choose to reject Spitzer’s usually accepted recommendation to see theodas having thedas an inverse spelling fort,and his rather convoluted logic based on that, givenodis actually a standard Anglo-Norman form of the preposition. Instead,treyéis taken here to be an unusual spelling of the Middle Englishtreue,one which is close to the Old English equivalenttrywe.Given the scribe usesschent,another Middle English word that directly derives from Old English, this seems plausible. Spitzer, Leo. ‘Emendations Proposed toDe Amico ad AmicamandResponcio.’ Modern Language Notes63.7 (1952), pp. 150-55 (pp. 150-151;treue(adj), sense 1a: ‘faithful in romantic or marital relations; — sometimes used of the heart; also, sincerely in love’, and 1c: ‘in address’,MED Online,http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED46999(accessed 15 June 2018).
1 amour
With grace and  ioye and  alle honour
Dulcissima

Sachez bien, pleysant et  beele,
 Þat I am ryȝt in goode heele
 Laus Christo 
Et moun amour [doné]  vous ay
 And also þyn owene, nyȝt > and  day,
 In cistoI follow Spitzer’s recommendation here of seeing these two words as one, incisto, the first person present active indicative form of * incistare ‘to enshrine’, “a nonce word the author may well have coined” (Spitzer, p. 154).
2

Ma tresduce et  [tresamé]
 Nyȝt and  day for loue of þe
 Suspiro
 Soyez permanent  et  leal
 Loue me so þat I it fel
 Requiro

Jeo suy pur toy dolant et  tryst
 Thu me peynyst boþe day and  nyȝt
 Amore
 Mortes hattȝIn the manuscript, it can be seen that hatt was the original form, with the yogh written later (seemingly by the same hand) over the top of the flourish on the final - t, to form hattȝ. From this, I conclude two things. Firstly, the lines originally read Amore / Mortes hatt [es] tost sun espeye, with hattes from the Anglo-Norman hatier ‘to challenge’ i.e. ‘Love’s Sword readily challenges Death’. This is later corrected to Amorte / Mortes hattȝ tost sun espeye, with hattȝ from the Middle English hatiȝen ‘to feel hatred for’ i.e. ‘Love’s Sword always hates Death’
3 tost sun espey
 Loue me wel er I deye
 Dolore

 [Sachés] pur [verité]
 Ȝif I deye I clepe to þe
 Causantem
 Et pur ceo jeo [vous [pur] creser]In both transcription and translation, I follow Spitzer’s suggestion of adding pry to this line; he suggests this based on the supposition of an Anglo-Norman form * trescere (ModFr très-chère; cf. R line 1, treschere) and on the necessity of adding pry to line 8, jeo [pry] vous sans debat, in the Responcio in order for it to make sense (Spitzer, p. 153). Spitzer’s argument becomes all the more convincing given the constunction jeo vous elsewhere in the two poems is only ever followed by pry (DA line 64, pur ceo jeo vous pry, line 67, jeo vous pry pur charité; R line 52, cesteȝ maundés jeo vous pry). 
4
 Loue me wel with outyn daunger
 Amantem

Et de vous enpense tut dyȝDyȝ is interpreted here the Anglo-Norman dis ‘days’. After the deaffrication of z = / ts /, s and z are entirely interchangeable (cf. e.g. AND, s.v. tuzdis). Ian Short, Manual of Anglo-Norman, 2nd edition (Oxford: Anglo-Norman Text Society, 2013), pp. 113-14.
5
 Of al þe world þu berist þis
 Decora
 Vous [aués] moy [enpresoné]
 Allas þyn loue wele me sle
 Cum mora

11r

Cest est ma [volunté]
 Þat I myȝte be with þe
 Ludendo
 Vostre amour en moun qoer
 Brennyth hote as doþ þe fyr
 Cressendo

Douce, bele, plesaunt chere
 In al þis lond ne is þyn pere
 Juuenta
 Chaunchant ou la cler note
 Þow art in mynt herte rote
 Retenta

Tost serroy joyous seyn
 Ȝif þu woldist me ofteyn
 Amare
 Et tost serroy joyous et  [lé]
 Þere nys no þyng þat shal me
 Grauare

Ma tresbele et  [tresamé],
 Ȝif þu wist I lete be
 Langorem
 De cestis [portés] entendement
 And in ȝoure herte takyþ entent
 Honorem

A vous jeo suy tut [doné]
 Myn herte is ful of loue to þe
 Presento
 Et pur ceo jeo vous pry
 Swetyng for þyn curteysy
 Memento

Jeo vous pry pur [charité]
 Þe wordys þat here wretyn be
 Tenete
 And turne þyn herte me toward
 O a Dieu, que vous gard
 Valete

Responcio

A soun treschere et  special
 Fer and  ner and  overal
 In mundo
 Que soy ou [sal[u]tȝ]While the manuscript reading saltȝ ‘leaps (for joy)’ makes sense, I have elected to transcribe sal [u] tȝ as this works more convincingly with regards to metre.
6 & gréI follow Spitzer’s proposal here for interpreting this line: “The delicate OF mechanism: en without article, ou = en with article, was not understood by [the scribe] … we find claunchant ou la clere note ‘sounding in the (its) clear tone’: DA line 46] where ou is followed by a feminine article and can only be interpreted as the simple equivalent of the preposition en. We shall be justified then in understanding our line que soy ou saltz et gré = que soit en salut et gré” (Spitzer, p. 154).
7
 With mouth, word and  herte fre
 Jocundo

Jeo [vous > [pry] sanz] debat
 Þat ȝe wolde of myn stat
 Audire
 Sertefyes a vo jeo fay
 I wil in tyme whan I may
 Venyre

 Quaunt a vous venu serray
 I ȝow swere be þis day
 Pro certo
11vMes jeo fuyss’en maladye
 Ȝif ȝe me loue sikyrle
 Converto

L’ amour de vous moy fayt dolent
 But ȝe me love I am schentSchent is an unusual (and potentially archaic?) spelling of the adjectival form of the MidE shenden ‘to harm, mislead, shame, bring death to’. It is very reminiscent of the OE scendan, WS scyndan, and LOE (eleventh century) scent, all meaning ‘to harm’. Shenden (v.), sense 1, 2, and 3, MED Onlinehttp://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED39857(accessed 15 June 2018)
8
 Dolendo
 Sy suyre estoy de vostre amour
I were as lyȝt as þe flour
Florendo

De moy jeo pry aues [pyté]
 I falle so doþ þe lef on þe tre
 Tristando
 Tot le mounde, longe et  léi.e. ‘far and wide’. Lé = lié, with Anglo-Norman reduction of / ie / (Short, p. 71-3).
9,
 I wolde leue and  take þe
 Ȝelando

Pur vostre amour, allas, allas,
 I am werse þan I was
 P̱̅er multa
 Jeo suy dolorouse in tut manere,
 Wolde God in ȝoure armys I were
 Sepulta

Jeo a vous pleyne greuousement
 Þat þyn loue haþ me schent
 Amando
 De moy, jeo pri, auez [peté]
 Turnyth ȝoure herte and  louyth me
 Letando

A cestys ay maunde de vous ore
 What bote ist to schent more
 Amore
 maunde vostre volunté
 Ȝif I shal trewely troste þe
 Dulcore

 Vou estes ma mort et  ma vye
 I preye ȝow for ȝoure curteysye
 Amate
 Cesteȝ maunde, jeo vou pry,
 In ȝoure herte stedefastly
 Notate

About this transcription

TextDe Amico ad Amicam and its Responcio: a digital edition

Author[unknown]

Extent 3 pages of manuscript, beginning line 11 of folio 10v and finishing on 11v. Note: complete

ResponsibilityEdited with a translation by Rebecca Henderson. Note: This digital edition was made by Rebecca Henderson (1 June 1994 – 27 February 2019). Rebecca studied for a BA in English and Modern Languages at St Anne’s College, Oxford and then began studying for a MSt. in English 650-1550. This edition was made as part of her coursework for the MSt. It reflects her interest in the multilingual nature of medieval literature, and in making medieval literature accessible – here, by digital means. At the start of her MSt., Rebecca became seriously ill with cancer of the heart, had her heart removed, and returned to her studies the following year with a total artificial heart. Despite these extraordinary challenges, she managed to produce this digital edition, alongside other publications on medieval literature. Tragically, she died from complications after a heart transplant before she could finish the MSt.

EditionTaylor edition

SeriesTaylor Editions Manuscript

Additional notes

JPEG

Folio

Transcribed from: Cambridge University Libraryshelfmark Gg.4.27 (part 1a) ff. 10v-11v. Images scanned from Cambridge University Library shelfmark Gg.4.27 (part 1a) ff. 10v-11v.

This is a facsimile and transcription of De Amico ad Amicam. Reproduced by kind permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library. Shelf mark: Gg.4.27.

The transcription and translation were encoded in TEI P5 XML by Rebecca Henderson.

About the source text

Bibliographic information

Identification

Cambridge, University Library, MS. Gg.4.27

This manuscript contains 19 texts, including De Amico ad Amicum

Hi A, B, C or La Prier de nostre Dame (fol. 5r)
Litera directa de Icogon, per G.C (fol.7v)
A short ‘Balad de bone conseyl’ is added (fol. 8v)
No title, beginning ‘In May when every herte is lyʒt’
De Amico ad Amicum (fol. 10v)
Responcio (fol. 11r), beginning ‘A soun treschere et special’
The five Bookes of Troilus and Cresseid (fol.14r)
The Canterbury Tales (fol.123r), breaks off at fol.375v in the ‘Parson’s Prologue’
After a gap, the remained of the ‘Parson’s Prologue’ (fol.376r-412v)
The Prologue of the Legend of Good Women (fol. 413r)
The Legend of Cleopatra (fol. 420r)
The Legend of Tisbe of Babylon (fol. 422r)
The Legend of Dido, queene of Carthage (fol. 424r)
The Legend of Hipsiphile and Medea (fol. 430v)
The Legend of Lucrece of Rome (fol. 434v)
The Legend of Philomene (fol. 441r)
The Legend of Hypermestre (fol. 445v)
The Parliament of Fowls (fol. 448r)
The Temple of Glass (fol.458r)
Supplicatio Amantis (fol. 467), begins ‘Redresse of sorweful O Cytherea’

The following pieces are then inserted in a different hand:

A portion of the Romance of Florice and Blauncheflour, beginning abruptly ‘Heo tok forþ a wel fair þing’
Horn, begins ‘Alle beon he bliþe’
Asumpcion de nostre Dame, begins ‘Merie tale telle ihe þis day’

Physical description

Parchment: written in two hands: 203 x 105mm, i + 14 leaves, in single column. There are illuminated borders using gold, red, blue, and brown paint; there are a number of red and blue initials and flourishes scattered through out the book.

History

Written in England in the 15th cent. The original fifteenth-century portion contained 517 leaves, with 63 now missing. All seem to have been removed intentionally with a knife (perhaps not all at the same time), and knife marks appear on the following leaf. In almost every case the missing leaf occurs where we would expect to find illuminated borders and/or miniatures (there is decoration left behind on the stubs); in some instances, the removed leaves have been stitched back in.

Languagefra

Editorial statement

About the encoding

Created by encoding transcription from manuscript.

Editorial principles

Folios have been indicated as this corresponds to the labelling of pages in the manuscript (as can be seen in the top right hand corner of f.11r); this is also consistent with descriptions of the manuscript in catalogue entries and other scholarship. The other folios contain around 38 lines of writing in a single column aligned to the left of the page; lineation for transcription and translation is complicated by the mise-en-page here. At first glance, the poem appears to be written in rhyming couplets, with the first line in French, the second in English (bar the final couplet of De Amico ad Amicam, where the English comes first). Beside each couplet, almost interlineally, is a single Latin word: the scribe has shown the connections through a kind of bracket connecting rhyming words. As the scribe has visually drawn attention to patterns of rhyme, this is reflected in the transcription by the addition of breaks to divide the poems into stanzas of six lines. The Latin, placed after each rhyming couplet, is indented to show its spatial separation in the manuscript.

General principles of transcription:

All punctuation is editorial and is intended only due to facilitate reading due to the challenging syntax and sentence structure
All abbreviations have been expanded; expansions are italicised and follow the orthography of the scribe
Both r and s have only one form despite variation in the manuscript
& is used to represent the tironian nota. It is expanded to "et" in Latin and Anglo-Norman, and to "and" in Middle English
Rejected readings and linguistic points of interest appear in footnotes
Insertions have been indicated by square brackets
Scribal use of u/v and i/j has been retained.
é has been used to indicate a tonic e
Word division has been retained