A Scene from the Hypnero-Tomachia in a Painting by Garofalo

The repetition of this curious rhymed couplet (but without the initials) immediately places this MS. together with the preceding one in a class apart. We shall see that the texts are also closely related. The contents also differ from Class A : there is Machiavelli's dedication, followed by the text, but no table of chapters. As this is a carefully prepared copy, the omission seems due not to haste or oversight, but to the fact that there was no table of chapters in the MS. which the writer had before him. There is none (at least, none now) in the preceding MS. Also, deletions and corrections of BI, which as we have seen are very frequent, have been incorporated in B2. This seems to bring the two MSS. very close together: in fact, it looks very much as if Bi were the rough draft and B2 a fair copy (of course, there may have been intermediate copies). I have not the space here to give many instances of this ; there is a very instructive passage in chapter xxiii of the Prince, where BI (fol. 54) has undergone considerable revision and intricate correction, and B2 (fol. 91) follows all corrections faithfully, but it is too long to quote. I must content myself with a correction in chapter xxv, consisting of the phrase " beionde their coniecture " (BI, viz. Harl. 364, fol. 56, line ioi). The word " coniecture " literally translates "coniettura " of the Italian original: Wolfe's edition, fol. 43, "di fuori d'ogni humana coniettura," although the rest of the phrase is differently rendered. But the reviser of BI, whoever he was, did not like the word " coniecture," deleted it, and wrote above it instead "expectation." MS. B2 has consequently " beyond their expectation " (fol. 95). How does this passage compare with the text of Group A? It so happens that A MSS. give the word " coniecture," which agrees with the first choice of BI and the Italian original ; but the rest of the sentence follows the Italian more closely : " quite beyond the compasse of all humaine coniecture" (Harl. 6795, or A2, fol. 54). In fact, the text of Group A rather differs from that of Group B. To sum up: the five MSS. fall into two groups, the second of which includes two MSS. which are closely related to each other but which differ from the other three. Several questions suggest themselves : what is the extent of the difference between A and B ? are they two different translations, or merely variants? Also, what is the connection of the three MSS. of Group A to each other ? What was the Italian text used by the translator, or translators ? I hope to attempt a reply to some of these questions in a forthcoming book.' Meanwhile one thing seems certain: there is no connection between these MSS. and Dacres' later translation, which is an entirely independent effort. I do not think that Dacres was aware of any previous English translation.