Studies in bibliography | ||
SCRIBAL INTENTIONS IN MEDIEVAL ROMANCE:
A CASE STUDY OF ROBERT
THORNTON
by
John Ivor Carlson
I. A Rationale of "Scribal Corruption"?
Although codicologists have long been familiar with the tendency among
medieval copyists to shape their texts through amateur editing, the recent popu-
larity of critical approaches that treat books as social constructs has
renewed and
redirected interest in this fact.[1]
Complexities introduced by independent-minded
scribes, once
approached solely as impediments to establishing archetypal read-
ings, have
now become a subject for analysis under broader interpretations of
textual
criticism. As Derek Pearsall notes, "scholars are learning the value of bad
manuscripts: how in the work of interfering and meddling scribes, for instance,
can be seen the activities of our first literary critics. The methods of
compilers
and manuscript editors of all kinds, whether professional or
amateur, need to
be studied, if we are to understand the reception and
readership assumed for
the literary works contained in their
collections."[2]
Sometimes, as in the case of
Pearsall himself, this interest in
scribal agendas has been presented as part of a
wider critique of eclectic
editing and its pursuit of authority. It stands to reason,
though, that more
precise knowledge about copying habits would be as much
a boon to those
seeking authorial readings as to their antagonists.[3]
Whatever a
calls for increased understanding of those who shaped the evidence with which
every textual critic, whether a disciple of George Kane or Jerome McGann, must
inevitably contend.[4]
If a nearly universal desire for more thorough analysis of scribal intention can
be taken as a given, the practicality of such study is far more problematic
than
many recent advocates of this methodology have been willing to
admit.[5]
Identify-
ing the contributions of individuals in any text
represents a daunting task under
ideal circumstances, but when collaborators
are anonymous, indeterminate in
number, and of unknown purpose, it requires
overwhelming evidence to defend
anything more than the most banal
assertions. The collation of independent wit-
nesses for at least one work
in a manuscript is essential, of course, when isolating
unique copying
features. Still, even then it would assume much to attribute ap-
parent
tendencies to a single scribe, let alone extrapolate a coherent rationale of
intervention, without first repeating this comparison across several other texts
in
the same hand.[6]
It is difficult to imagine how scholars lacking fortuitous textual
circumstances could improve much on the standard description of usus scribendi
already familiar to those even passingly acquainted with the works of Kane,
Eu-
gene Vinaver, or their predecessors.[7]
The most prohibitive requirement of study-
ing unique scribal
agendas is therefore the reliable identification of individual
copyists with
sizable oeuvres that encompass multiple texts extant in at least one
other
independent witness.
Among the select group meeting this minimal demand in full, Robert Thorn-
ton stands out as particularly well-suited for a case study in scribal intention
owing to both his status as an amateur copyist and the well-deserved
critical at-
tention his writings have previously attracted. Thornton,
otherwise an unremark-
able member of the fifteenth-century English gentry,
created two miscellanies
intended for his family's private edification:
Lincoln Cathedral MS 91 (olim Lin-
coln Cathedral A.5.2) and British Library
MS Add. 31042.[8]
These compendiums
of devotional literature and courtly poetry, while
doubtless shaped in part by the
availability of suitable exemplars, also
appear indebted to Thornton's own tastes
as an independent scribe.[9]
One example of these interests is his large collection
of
alliterative romances, which raises his work from curiosity to marvel with the
inclusion of Wynnere and Wastour and the Morte Arthure among other notewor-
thy witnesses.
Clearly, as the sole source for documentary evidence regarding
these highly
regarded poems, Thornton's manuscripts possess enough historical
import to
justify reanalysis of his scribal habits. Yet while this selection of texts
adequately explains his work's literary interest, Thornton's unusual freedom has
direct bearing on our ability as textual critics to evaluate his intent as
well: sub-
ject to external pressures less demanding than those facing
professional scribes,
Thornton had greater opportunity to develop
idiosyncratic copying habits that
suggest personal motives more nuanced than
either expediency or accuracy. This
providential combination of scribal
independence with textual merit makes ten-
able an investigation into one
copyist's compilation methods that could reshape
widely-accepted notions
about an important source of medieval literature.
Jerome McGann has been the most vocal proponent of this approach to textual
scholar-
ship in his work on nineteenth-century literature, although
several medievalists including Tim
Machan and D. C. Greetham have
adapted his theories to codicology (Jerome J. McGann,
A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism [Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1983]; Jerome J. Mc-
Gann, The Textual Condition [Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1991]; Tim
William Machan,
"Late Middle English Texts and the Higher and Lower
Criticism," Medieval Literature: Texts
and
Interpretation, ed. Tim William Machan, Medieval and Renaissance
Texts and Studies,
79 [Binghamton: MRTS, 1991]; David C. Greetham, Textual Transgressions: Essays toward the
Construction of a Biobibliography [New York: Garland, 1998]).
Traditional approaches to scribal
intervention, characterized most
often as tampering, are ubiquitous in modern critical editions
like
those produced by the Early English Text Society (see below for citations of
some relevant
EETS editions).
Derek Pearsall, "Introduction," Manuscripts and Readers in
Fifteenth-Century England: The
Literary Implications of Manuscript
Study, Essays from the 1981 Conference at the University of York,
ed. Derek Pearsall (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1983), 1–2 (p. 1).
There are, of course, varying
degrees of significance in scribal
alterations and it would be misguided to ascribe literary import
to
every thoughtless error (see Robert Adams, "Editing Piers Plowman B: The
Imperative of an
Intermittently Critical Edition," Studies in Bibliography 45 [1992]: 31–68 [p. 33]).
McGann himself implicitly endorses this opposition in his early writings,
though not
in regard to pre-print era texts specifically, and that
antagonism becomes explicit in the work
of Pearsall and others. It is
interesting to note that, expanding upon his arguments over the
years,
McGann has endorsed a more conciliatory tone toward traditional eclectic
editing and
positioned his critical approach as more complementary
than oppositional.
Although several other editors whose primary interest involves authorial
intention
might just as easily been placed in juxtaposition to McGann
here, George Kane's advocacy
on behalf of the primacy of editorial
judgment over documentary evidence when determining
intention
represents what is perhaps closest to an antithesis of the social construct
theory (Wil-
liam Langland, Will's Visions of Piers
Plowman and Do-well, ed. and rev. George Kane [London:
Athlone
Press, 1988]).
It is perhaps telling that the number of polemics advocating a renewed focus
on scribal
intention and practice far exceeds the studies meeting
those calls to action. Exemplary work
has been produced, though,
including the series of essays by Ralph Hanna III collected in his
anthology Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and
Their Texts (Stanford: Stanford Univ.
Press, 1996).
This logical conclusion complicates Pearsall's call to study the methods of
professional
compilers since those manuscripts produced by commercial
outfits would quite often fail to sat-
isfy one or more of these basic
requirements for meaningful scribal analysis. Without intention
on the
part of the copyist, though, it is impossible to speak of any true scribal
agenda.
Despite their very different approaches to the issues of authorial intention
and the pri-
macy of documentary evidence, both Kane and Vinaver
subscribe to the same understanding
of scribal habit inherited from
much earlier textual critics like Karl Lachmann and Paul Maas.
In this
adherence to nineteenth-century notions of scribal tampering, neither is
exceptional
among medieval editors. (See citation to Kane in note 4
above; Eugene Vinaver, "Principles
of Textual Emendation," in Studies in French Language and Mediaeval Literature
Presented to Profes-
sor Mildred K. Pope [Manchester:
Manchester Univ. Press, 1939], 351–369; Karl Lachmann,
Caroli Lachmanni in T. Lucretii Cari De Rerum Natura
Libros Commentarius Quartum Editus, 3rd ed.
[Berolini: Georgii
Reimeri, 1866]; Paul Maas, Textual Criticism, trans.
Barbara Flower [Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1958]; etc.)
George Keiser, John J. Thompson, and Karen Stern have all written
extensively about
the compilation, likely purpose, and early
provenance of the Thornton manuscripts. While
they have agreed with
one another for the most part in regard to these issues, Stern deviates
from the consensus in proposing that the British Library manuscript
was a commercial venture.
Thompson has responded convincingly to that
claim, however, pointing out the circumstantial
nature of many of
Stern's arguments (George R. Keiser, "Lincoln Cathedral Library MS. 91:
Life and Milieu of the Scribe," Studies in
Bibliography 32 [1979]: 158–179; George R. Keiser,
"More Light on the Life and Milieu of Robert Thornton," Studies in Bibliography 36 (1983):
111–119; John J.
Thompson, Robert Thornton and the London Thornton
Manuscript: British Library
MS Additional 31042 [Cambridge: D.
S. Brewer, 1987]; Karen Stern, "The London Thornton
Miscellany: A New
Description of British Museum Additional Manuscript 31042," Scriptorium:
Revue Internationale des Etudes
Relatives aux Manuscrits/International Review of Manuscript Studies
30
[1976]: 26–37; 201–218).
Thornton clearly exercised some judgment, for instance, in the selection and
arrange-
ment of his texts as evidenced by the grouping of generically
similar works with one another as
well as the prevalence (with a
handful of minor exceptions like Lyarde) of what can
be character-
ized as morally edifying literature.
II. Past Assessments of Robert Thornton
Before we move forward with an investigation of Thornton's idiosyncrasies
focused on his scribal agenda, however, it is instructive to examine those conclu-
sions reached by critics whose primary concern has been with reconstructing
authorial texts. These analyses, well-argued and reflecting sincere
conviction,
highlight in their range and contradiction the impressionistic
character of many
between the appraisals of Thornton offered by L. F. Casson and Mary Hamel:
siderable amount of tidying up.… But, as always happens when a text is emended by
hit-and-miss methods, when attempting to set right a passage they did not understand,
they sometimes emended away from the true reading rather than towards it, and the result
was a series of new errors.[10]
in the transmission of rare and unfamiliar words, though sometimes in disguised form;
there is little evidence of scribal rationalization, normalization of alliterative patterns, or
other sorts of editorial tampering.… Thornton and his predecessors, in short, all seem
to have been of the "mechanical" school of copyists.…[11]
ous readers might perhaps imagine that inherent differences between the texts
under consideration led to these incompatible assessments. Unfortunately, the
arguments of Sir Israel Gollancz and Stephanie Trigg regarding Wynnere and
Wastour undermine any such glossing interpretation:
misreading, substitution of words, and other causes.… The substitution of more modern
words for difficult, rare, and archaic forms, and the obvious attempts to make some sense
of corrupt passages, must be referred to scribal intention, whether on the part of Thornton
or a predecessor.… There is perhaps no more corrupt Middle-English manuscript than
this of Wynnere and Wastour.[12]
Fortunately, Thornton seems to have had a strong sense of responsibility to his exemplars.
He was presumably not working under supervision, but on a number of occasions he can
be observed checking his text against his exemplar and correcting his own work.[13]
note here that Casson and Gollancz represent an earlier generation of scholar-
ship and contend that it should be expected that their work lacks the critical
nuance of more enlightened days. Frances McSparran's recent and persuasive
work, though, complicates that condescending narrative by taking a more skepti-
cal view of Thornton's reliability:
on the one hand, casual carelessness and garrulity, on the other a zeal to clarify things by
identifying speakers.… We must think of the scribes who copied [Octovian's versions]
and similar romances as scribe-editors, revising content and recasting form as they write,
partly deliberately and partly automatically.[14]
in textual evidence or critical acumen, it would seem that the obstacles faced
by editors in identifying authorial readings have most influenced their findings
about scribal intent: those casting doubt on Thornton's faithfulness arrive at their
readings through collations of independent witnesses (Casson and McSparran) or
appeals to an aesthetic ideal (Gollancz) ultimately posited on the imperfection of
all surviving documents; those defending his work (Hamel and Trigg) invariably
lack the resources for the former approach and doubt the validity of the latter.
Bluntly speaking, explications of Thornton's habits to date have told us much
more about how certain editorial methods encourage assumptions about scribes
generally than how one fifteenth-century copyist interacted with his exemplars.
The elimination of such bias is the most important reason to stop discussing
scribal habit only in the context of authorial intent and instead begin treating it
as a subject worthy of investigation in its own right.
L. F. Casson, ed., Sir Degrevant, EETS O.S. 221
(1949; London: Oxford Univ. Press,
1970), xxix.
Mary Hamel, ed., Morte Arthure (New York: Garland,
1984), 4. Hoyt Duggan has ef-
fectively countered her
interpretation of Thornton's self-corrections by pointing out the impos-
sibility of drawing any sound conclusions about the scribe's
reliability without an independent
witness for verification of
archetypal features (Hoyt N. Duggan, "Scribal Self-Correction and
Editorial Theory," Neuphilologische Mitteilungen:
Bulletin de la Societe Neophilologique 91:2 [1990]:
215–227).
Stephanie Trigg, ed., Wynnere and Wastoure, EETS
297 (London: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1990), xxx. As her introduction
makes clear, Trigg bases a great deal of her charac-
terization of
Thornton the scribe on Mary Hamel's conclusions regarding the copyist's
self-
correction. As has already been noted, however, there are
serious flaws in how Hamel reaches
her conclusions.
Frances McSparran, ed., Octovian, Edited from Lincoln
Dean and Chapter Library MS 91
and Cambridge, University
Library, MS Ff.2. 38, EETS 289 (London: Oxford Univ. Press,
1986),
16. It must be stressed that I am not implying that every
interpretation referred to here is neces-
sarily flawed, but rather
that the context in which scribal habit is commonly studied encourages
scholars to shape their opinions of copyists to suit specific
editorial aims. I would suggest in
McSparran's case that, given the
textual evidence available in relation to Octovian, there was
no need for her to adopt uncritical
assumptions like those that undermine those other findings
cited
here. Still, her reasonable decision to only detail evidence taken from
the poem she edited
means that McSparran's findings are necessarily
incomplete.
III. The Methodology of Reassessment
Allowing that any true reassessment of Thornton must approach his scribal
contributions as legitimate objects of study, the present inquiry employs a two-
step process that first contrasts his manuscripts against other witnesses to
isolate
unique readings and then seeks explanations for those variants
consistent with
what is known of his background. When this strategy is
followed, patterns of
change emerge that commonly involve the insertion of
extraneous dialogue at-
tributions, conjunctions, negations, and
intensifiers as well as more generalized
stylistic smoothing through the
rearrangement of word order and explicit iden-
tification of a sentence's
subjects or objects. On occasion these changes seem
indifferent in effect,
but more often than not the copyist sacrifices poetic fea-
tures like
metricality to make basic syntactic structure and narrative content
more
explicit even when these elements should be perfectly clear to any reader.
Evaluating these elements of his scribal profile in light of what we can ascertain
about Thornton, the cumulative evidence suggests that he engaged in
predictable
interventions motivated by a desire to present these tales
orally for the moral
education of his family.
Providing a factual basis about Thornton's characteristic habits on which a
broader analysis and interpretation of his scribal agenda can rest presents its
own
challenges. Foremost among these difficulties is the selection of
specific works
from which reliable evidence regarding scribal habit may be
inferred. Given that
the purpose of this study is to differentiate one
scribe's emendations from those
originating with either the author or other
copyists, the most fundamental criteria
in choosing texts must be the
existence of independent witnesses to contrast with
the Thornton redactions.
This basic principle rests on the assumption that shared
readings between
related manuscripts often represent inherited text, whether ar-
chetypal or
not, whereas unique passages imply an original scribal intervention.[15]
Among those writings that meet this requirement, it would also seem
reasonable
to limit the study further to the same poems that have focused
scholarly attention
on Robert Thornton to ensure some homogeneity within the
evidence.[16]
These
prerequisites yield a basic corpus of six Middle English
romances: Sir Degrevant
(which survives in one other manuscript), Octovian
(existing in two manuscript
besides Thornton's), The Siege
of Jerusalem (for which eight other witnesses are
known), The Parlement of the Thre Ages (partially preserved in
another manuscript),
The Awntyrs off Arthure (recorded in three other
manuscripts), and Richard Coer de
Lyon (existing in
six other witnesses).[17]
With the issue of which works to include resolved, the next step in defining
the scope of this investigation involves choosing specific passages in each work
for collation. Since an acceptable policy must minimize the chance that
unchar-
acteristic copying stints or problematic stretches of text will skew
the study's
conclusions, selecting lengthy passages far removed from one
another seems the
most conservative approach. With these criteria in mind,
one finds that groups
of one hundred lines near the beginning and end of the
manuscript witnesses for
each text will serve admirably in almost every
case. An exception to this deci-
sion only appears justified when looking at
Richard Coer de Lyon, where accidental
duplication
of twenty lines by Thornton generates unique evidence outside these
boundaries equally deserving of inclusion in the study.[18]
The total body of text
under investigation according to these
standards will therefore be more than
four thousand lines in six texts
witnessed across twenty-seven manuscripts, an
characterize Thornton's scribal habits.
Having established this study's textual boundaries, we can now address the
crucial matter of adopting guidelines to differentiate Thornton's scribal
interven-
tions from variants introduced by other copyists. Considering the
wide-spread
confusion evident in previous scholarship on this topic, it is
only sensible that
these principles set a standard for acceptable evidence
that is both concise in its
definition and equally clear about its
limitations.[19]
Consequently, no variant in
Thornton's manuscripts will be
definitively ascribed to his intervention in this
study unless analogous
readings appear several times across multiple texts in
his copies while
similar passages not found in his texts occur rarely in other wit-
nesses.
This simple procedure will allow for the swift identification of features
deserving closer evaluation and eliminate from consideration those of ambiguous
provenance: for example, if comparisons between the manuscript witnesses re-
veal that both Thornton and other scribes regularly omit pronouns, this
tendency
could not be credited with certainty to any one copyist even if
each instance were
singular; evidence that Thornton alone inserts
disproportionately large numbers
of extraneous conjunctions in his romances,
on the other hand, would signal
that this idiosyncrasy represents an aspect
of his individual copying habits. Such
enumerative analysis is admittedly
incapable of establishing the scribal nature of
particular readings, no
doubt explaining its dismissal in the past by editors con-
cerned with
authority, but it will allow for the description of those broad patterns
in
variation relevant to the issue of scribal intent. While this strict methodology
might disqualify some lightly attested features contributed by Thornton to
his
works, guidelines less restrictive would certainly lead to uncertain if
not errone-
ous attributions that would undermine the conclusions
extrapolated from this
investigation.
Hoyt Duggan, in his answer to Mary Hamel's article on scribal
self-correction (see
note 11), summarizes the basic reason for
excluding unique works. As he comments, "[t]he
high rate of success in
removing error that… Hamel [claims] for Thornton is not, lacking at
least one other manuscript for comparison, capable of rational
demonstration" (Duggan 224).
A high incidence of any textual feature
may be intriguing, in other words, but no critical in-
terpretation
can be attempted in the absence of independent witnesses with which to
contrast
such characteristics.
While extending this investigation to those Latin and religious tracts that
constitute a
large portion of Thornton's miscellanies might seem
desirable, these should be excluded for fear
that works in foreign
languages or those carrying the aura of sanctity might receive treatment
different from vernacular romances. On the other hand, combining
alliterative and tail-rhyme
romances seems acceptable since the
thematic and linguistic continuities across this largely
homogeneous
group suggest that a copyist's behavior would remain consistent.
Appendix 1 lists the manuscripts represented in this collation and the
scholarly edi-
tions employed.
Frances McSparran in her edition of Octovian for the
EETS is one of the few scholars to
acknowledge both aspects of
Thornton's scribal persona, and her introduction provides invalu-
able
information about the copyist's work on that romance (see Octovian 16–21).
IV. Constructing Thornton's Scribal Profile
Applying these criteria for determining scribal intervention to the corpus
selected earlier, one finds that the most striking examples of idiosyncratic copy-
ing involve dialogue attributions. The collations suggest that Thornton,
rather
than allowing readers to determine the presence of direct speech and
a speaker's
identity using contextual clues, commonly inserted phrases like
"he said" or
"she spoke" to remove all potential for syntactic
ambiguity.[20]
Fifteen instances
of this type of intervention occur in Thornton's
manuscripts, thirteen of which
are unique, compared to only nine instances
found elsewhere that he does not
share.[21]
These numbers might not seem particularly remarkable, but it is im-
portant to remember that in context such a distribution means that close to
whereas the remaining third is divided across the other twenty-seven indepen-
dent witnesses.[22] Octovian, as copied in Lincoln Cathedral MS 91, demonstrates
Thornton's characteristic treatment of dialogue attributions in its very first in-
stance of direct speech:
And of his sorow scho gan hym frayne
And of his mekyll care
Sir scho sais if it were ᶾour will
ᶾoure concelle for to schewe me till
And of ᶾour lyffes fare[23]
same point has a syntactically unmarked transition from narration to dialogue:
And of hys sorowe sche can hym frayne
And of hys mekyll care
For yf that hyt were yowre wylle
Yowre counsell for to schewe me tyll
Of yowre lyuys fare[24]
sence of clear metrical evidence, but the first iteration's attempt to smooth away
ambiguity through explicitness suggests the scribal nature of the Lincoln redac-
tion. This failure in poetic economy, while not conclusive, leads to the stylistic
flatness often ascribed by textual scholars to copyists and thereby supports the
assertion that such expanded readings are non-authorial.[25]
While typifying the changes to dialogue, though, that example cited above
from Octovian only becomes significant in light of
supporting evidence found in
other romances proving it reflects Thornton's
usus scribendi. These examples are
cited by line
number in this article's second appendix, but special note should be
taken
of those instances within the portion of Richard Coer de
Lyon copied twice by
our scribe. One can find in that short passage
startlingly clear corroboration of
the scribal nature of these attributions
spread across three lines grouped closely
together:
And seid hym Sir grefe the na thyng.…
þat askyd hym wiþowtten lesynge
And seid kane þou me telle in any manere
And he ansuerde wiþ hert full fre
And seid þerappone i muste avyse me[26]
ard and, in two instances, this also includes the accidental second copying of the
passage later in the same manuscript by Thornton himself. This contrast within
his own work appears very suggestive in regards to the handling of dialogue and
firmly establishes that the scribe modified his exemplars freely:
Sir he seid grefe the no thing.…
That askede hym sone wiþowte lesynge
Kane þou me telle one any manere
Of this Kyng Richerde þat I vengede were
And he ansuerde wiþ herte full fre
There appon me moste avyssede be[27]
indicate no explicit dialogue attributions, it is extremely probable that these read-
ings originate with our scribe and not some earlier archetype. This pattern of
intervention implies that Thornton consciously marked the move from narration
to dialogue, but, despite the conspicuous nature of these changes, they are not
the most pervasive modifications he makes to syntactic transitions.
Another element of Thornton's scribal practice involving the connections
between syntactic elements manifests itself in an abundance of unnecessary con-
junctions and conjunctive adverbs. Scanning the collation sample for
evidence
of these paratactic features uncovers two hundred and twenty-one
instances, of
which one hundred and fifty-eight are unique, showing clearly
the copyist's re-
markable dependence on this grammatical crutch.[28]
Other manuscript witnesses,
in contrast to such profusion, exhibit
only ninety-seven examples not found in
either the Lincoln Cathedral or
British Library manuscripts. Typifying the con-
structions favored by
Thornton, the following passage appears in his copy of The
Awntyrs off Arthure:
And whane he was saued and sonde
þei made hyme sworne to Sir Gawayne in þat stonde
And sythene a kniᶾte of þe table ronde
Vn-tille his lyues ende[29]
ing reading found in MS Douce 324 of the Bodleian Library illustrates the aver-
sion to repetitive connective words common to these other versions of the text:
Whane he was saued sone
Þei made Sir Galerone þat stonde
A kniᶾte of þe table ronde
To his lyues ende[30]
out his text's transitional elements seems difficult to mistake. If one ignores the
medial conjunction in the second line because of its presence in another witness,
there remain four unique conjunctions and adverbs within these lines of the
Lincoln redaction not found elsewhere. Two of these, furthermore, introduce
independent clauses that grammatically require no explicit linkage to the preced-
ing text. This lack of function, along with the combined authority of the other
manuscripts, implies the scribal nature of these elements and suggests their origin
lies with Thornton.
As with dialogue attributions, though, the firm association of paratactic in-
sertions with one scribe relies upon the distribution of the feature across
several
independent texts. This seems especially true in regard to these
transitional ele-
ments because Thornton's approach differs from his scribal
peers not so much in
nature as in degree. Along with the numerous other
examples listed in the second
appendix, The Parlement of
the Thre Ages provides support for this observation
while also
demonstrating that Thornton's extraneous conjunctions and adverbs
are
notably more widespread even when compared against what has been identi-
fied as a more corrupt witness:[31]
And there he bett down þe burghe and Sir Merchill he tuke
And that daye he dide to the dethe als he had wele seruede
Bot by than his wyes were wery and woundede full many[32]
the Ware scribe, typically more prone to copying errors and sophistications than
Thornton, records only one of those verses in a similar manner:
And þere he betes down þe burgh & balam he takes
That day he dud hym to deed as he had wel seruyd
Þan he weys wery & woundid full many[33]
clear, the impression that these changes amount to something more thorough-
going than the usual scribal tendency to round out lines is strengthened greatly
by comparison to the Ware text. Thornton's indulgent use of these simple
function words ultimately complements the dialogue attributions and confirms
profile.
Differing slightly in emphasis from previous examples of his unique contribu-
tions, Thornton's preference for doubling negative modifiers introduces a
new
wrinkle into his tendency to use certain common grammatical
constructions with
unusual frequency. This particular rhetorical ploy, which
emphasizes negation
without changing or adding nuance to meaning, appears
uniquely eleven times in
Thornton's texts and only six times when he does
not record it.[34]
A fairly typical
example of this change's effect on the text can be
seen in Sir Degrevant's descrip-
tion of the
festivities surrounding the titular knight's marriage:
Alle þe Dugepers of France
Me thynke swylke a purueance
Was gay to be-halde
ᶾitt knew I neuer nan so wysse
To telle þe metis of pryce
Ne couthe of þat seruyce
Was serued in þat sale.[35]
thought of as a semantic transition from positive to negative, indicating some
continuity with but also extension of the scribal features previously noted. The
Cambridge Manuscript version of Sir Degrevant, in contrast, does not demonstrate
any such concern for highlighting negative statements:
IX Doseperus of Fraunce
Me thowᶾth syche a countynaunce
Was joye to be-holde
I knewe neuere man so wys
Þat couþ tell þe seruise
Ne scrye þe metys of prys
Was serued in þat sale.[36]
confusion, but, even assuming mechanical error, the change suggests a predis-
position toward doubled negative constructions. Indeed, this preference pres-
ents itself even more forcibly in passages where there is no easy paleographic
explanation:
compares unfavorably in its redundancy with the less convoluted statement of
the other witness:
the jauntiness of expression evident in the other manuscript's reading and shows
the copyist's willingness to sacrifice style in order to accentuate sense. Thornton's
emphasizing of such semantic markers, while not overwhelmingly attested given
the limited environments that lend themselves to such constructions, clearly jus-
tifies their inclusion on a list of his scribal habits alongside more pronounced
intrusions.
The unique stress Thornton places on some semantic markers becomes easier
to
discern when one considers his handling of adverbial intensifiers. These much-
maligned "filler" words appear seventy-five times in Thornton's work,
sixty-one
of which are unique, as opposed to the twenty-seven times he does
not share in
all the other manuscripts combined.[39]
Although such intensifiers sometimes prove
original in Middle
English verse, the disparity between the number found in
Thornton's copies
and other redactions suggests that once again the multiplica-
tion of
examples is the responsibility of this particular copyist. Octovian illustrates
this increased density quite dramatically in
an early passage involving several
unique instances of scribal filler:
Off whaym ᶾe worde full wyde gan sprynge
And þe will a stownde me lythe
In þe bukes of Rome als it es tolde
How befelle amange oure eldyrs olde
Full ofte and fele sythe[40]
instances of "full" along with one of "fele," and three of these have no parallel
in the reading of the other manuscript witness:
Of whom þe worde wyde gan sprynge
Yf ye wyll lystyn and lythe
Yn bokys of ryme hyt ys tolde
How hyt befelle owre eldurs olde
Well oftynsythe.[41]
words are extraneous to sense, the simple violation of poetic economy cannot
be held as proof of their scribal nature. Additionally, readings such as these sel-
exceed a single unstressed syllable. Instead, the best evidence identifying them
as a copyist's intrusion is provided by the large number of unique examples in
well-attested texts like The Siege of Jerusalem:
Þat all rayled þe roof with rubyes full grete….
Out þe tresour to take Tytus commaundyþ…
Bassynes of full bryghte gold and mekill bryᶾt gere.[42]
Þat all ryaled þe roof with rubyes grete….
Out þe tresour to take Tytus commaundyþ…
Bassynes of brend gold and mekill bryᶾt gere.[43]
by the second passage cited above that has been identified as closely related to
the Thornton copy quoted first, the unique nature of the examples in his redac-
tion strongly suggests the scribal nature of such additions. With similar situa-
tions existing in Awntyrs and Richard, the insertion of intensifiers can therefore
be accepted as one last example of the copyist's attempt to highlight important
semantic markers through his additions.
However, the addition of new material is not the only means by which
Thornton clarifies syntactic meaning and this is demonstrated most clearly by
his regular tinkering with both word order and the degree of explicitness in
his
identification of sentence elements. These instances of syntactic
smoothing oc-
cur ninety-five times in Thornton's work, sixty-nine of which
are unique, and
only thirty-eight times in other manuscripts where they are
not repeated in his
work.[44]
Sir Degrevant provides a cluster of changes typifying these
tendencies early
in its text, as shown here in excerpts from Thornton's copy
and the Cambridge
University Library manuscript respectively:
With-owttyn mare rehersyng,
Twyse þay made þaire saghtelyng;
He grauntis hym Mildor þe ᶾynge
To hys lyues ende.[45]
With-outyn mor rehersyng
Made was þe sauᶾthlyng,
And grauntyd hym Myldor þe ᶾing
Till hys lyues ende.[46]
implied subjects in the other manuscript, thereby incidentally altering the syntax
to create two independent sentences as reflected in the modern punctuation cited
here. Again, the lines as written in the other witness are not difficult to interpret
and this action appears to be hyper-correction, just like the following sentence
inversion in the Thornton and Cambridge copies of Octovian:
posterior position, creating the standard subject-verb-object sentence order most
common in English prose but less rigidly adhered to in poetry. Wholesale recast-
ing of sentence order is a bit rarer than the explicit identification of subjects and
objects, but such interventions do convey admirably the overall essence of the
changes Thornton introduces into his texts. Correcting what is not essentially in
error, such inversion shows our scribe once again replacing poetic features with
more prosaic expressions whenever the latter are achieved through grammatical
constructions that rely on an audience's close attention to detail.
Frances McSparran notes this tendency in her work on Octovian and it should be ac-
knowledged that her reference
to this feature inspired the further analysis provided here (see
Octovian 15).
It seems appropriate to note here that the majority of counter-examples for
this feature
come from a single witness to the Awntyrs, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Coligny, Geneva, f.5a (the
Ireland MS). This odd distribution, differing from that for the other
features discussed here,
indicates that Thornton's idiosyncratic
habits overlapped in part with other scribes. Again,
it is important
to see the numbers presented here in the context of the entire corpus under
consideration.
Awntyrs ll. 698–702; Lincoln Cathedral MS 91. While Thornton's reading departs radically from the other manuscripts in the third line of this selection, that change is not carried over into the surrounding lines in which the relevant conjunctions appear.
According to M. Y. Offord, the Ware manuscript "preserves fewer of the old
construc-
tions, some of the rarer or older words have been replaced
by more familiar ones, and names
are often corrupt beyond recognition"
(Parlement xvi-xvii). This estimation has been
accepted
by subsequent critics.
Octovian ll. 7–12; Lincoln Cathedral MS 91. Hoyt Duggan in private correspondence raises the possibility that the impetus for Thornton's change involves differences in syllabifica- tion between the original dialect and the copyist's Northern forms. Specifically, the need to insert a word may have been prompted by the loss of a syllable in both "worde" and "rime," although the type of change adopted still would seem to be influenced by the scribal habits described here.
Siege of Jerusalem ll. 1253–1254, 1263, 1268; British Library MS Add. 31042. It is in- teresting to note that Thornton seems to be correcting a metrical deficiency in his exemplar to which even the most reliable copies seem indifferent. It is quite possible that the original poet intended a trisyllabic pronunciation for "rubyes" and, in any event, this suspected motivation does not necessitate the specific correction Thornton adopts. That decision instead seems di- rected by his more general concern for augmenting semantic emphasis.
V. From Profile to Rationale
Although the firm identification of five distinct types of scribal intervention
constitutes in itself a worthwhile discovery, especially for editors
attempting to
ascertain Thornton's role in his unique texts, the results
also encourage con-
sideration of what motivation might lie behind these
changes. Two possibilities
immediately suggest themselves, random chance and
scribal laxity, but these
simple explanations prove inadequate. Attributing
the copyist's unique readings
to chance, for instance, overlooks both the
pervasiveness of the changes made
and the striking regularity in both their
method and function. It clearly violates
the principle of Occam's razor to
suppose each of these individually minor altera-
tions could occur by
accident in such predictable and patterned ways. However,
while chance may
be quickly ruled out as unlikely, the tendency among scribes
to "simplif[y]
their task by reproducing content and sense rather than exact de-
tails of
wording and language" that Frances McSparran credits for Thornton's
variations in Octovian requires more deliberation.[49]
McSparran's belief that such
changes reflect the translation
encouraged by relaxed copying procedures, espe-
cially if one defines this
process in terms of idiolects rather than dialects, offers a
tempting
rationale for the choices Thornton makes. Still, this approach fails to
account for the somewhat obsessive spelling changes identified by Mary Hamel
the same scribe who commonly altered his spellings in an attempt to mimic his
exemplar would add several hundred words to each text without considering
their purpose. One must therefore conclude that the emphases placed on syn-
tactic structure and semantic markers by the scribe's intervention originate in a
conscious attempt by Thornton to shape his work.
As previously indicated, determining the specific agenda behind those pur-
poseful changes Thornton made to his exemplars requires an examination of
his scribal habits in light of what can be established about his background. This
involves, in effect, an appeal to the "cultural milieu" in which the Lincoln
and
British Library texts were compiled.[51]
Thornton's particular social environment,
as reflected in the choice
and arrangement of his manuscripts, appears to value
especially the didactic
potential of the written word. As George Keiser points
out, "Robert Thornton
[along with another of his contemporaries, Elizabeth
Sywardby] …
clearly found in the book an important, perhaps even an essential
means to
spiritual fulfillment and … their interest in the book for this purpose
does not make them by any means unusual members of their society."[52]
By divid-
ing his miscellanies evenly between religious tracts and
moralistic secular content,
Thornton signals to his audience that these
texts should function as exemplars
for good-living. Even the vernacular
romances largely conform to this principle,
on occasion stating explicitly
in their incipits that the portrayals of "owre eldurs
olde" were meant to
teach "soothe sawys."[53]
Although perhaps not self-evident,
a connection between Thornton's
interest in presenting chivalric tales as if they
were secular saints' lives
and his copying habits can be made. Considered as a
system of scribal
intervention, the changes revealed in the preceding consider-
ation of the
Thornton manuscripts seem complementary to each other in their
efforts to
simplify, smooth, and emphasize different grammatical elements essen-
tial
to sense. All of these interventions, then, reveal the common scribal desire to
alert readers to potentially confusing narrative elements and ensure that no
one
misinterpret the author's perceived intent.[54]
This inclination can be reconciled
with a counter-tendency to
preserve minutiae like the exemplar's spellings if one
allows that, given
Thornton's concern that each tale's didactic message reach his
audience, an
intermittent willingness to sacrifice literal fidelity to preserve his
texts' underlying meaning might represent another form of conservatism. In a
sense, the pattern of intervention revealed here suggests that Thornton elected
copying ascribed to him by previous scholars to ensure the moralistic themes he
saw as important would be accessible to his audience.
While concern for his readers' understanding provides a unifying motivation
for the copyist's interventions, it falls short of explaining why Thornton em-
phasized one specific set of syntactic transitions and semantic markers so
much
more than his contemporaries. The final explanation of Thornton's
grammati-
cal tinkering instead depends upon the overlap between the ways in
which the
scribe emended his exemplars and the textual features some critics
have used to
argue that his romances were copied down from performances by
minstrels. The
proliferation of linking words, poetic filler, and other
redundancies created by his
changes were all considered symptomatic of oral
composition and the demands
it placed on the poet's creative resources.
Representing a standard interpretation
of Thornton's romances grounded in
oral composition theory, Casson claims that
"X [Sir
Degrevant's archetypal form] was committed to memory by a minstrel.
He probably transmitted the poem to another of his kind, and the process may
have continued for several generations (in the textual sense). This is the most
satisfactory way of accounting for most of the numerous periphrases,
anticipa-
tions, recollections, upset rhyme schemes, inconsistencies,
insertions of redun-
dant words and general literary dilution to be found on
almost every page of
[Thornton's Lincoln manuscript]."[55]
However, disenchantment with theories of
oral composition and
dissemination has led to a rejection of such generalizations
as demonstrated
in McSparran's recent introduction to Octovian: "The rather
free
variation of wording.… seems inconsistent with this preservation
of phonologi-
cally non-significant details of spelling from the archetype.
The first would be
compatible with oral transmission, the second could not
survive it, and must de-
pend on a written tradition."[56]
McSparran's explanation of variation between the
two copies of Octovian, supported by Hamel's work on self-correction,
seems ef-
fectively to refute Casson's argument proposing oral composition.
However, her
subsequent admonition to "consider the [presumably written]
cultural context in
which popular romances were produced and circulated"
must be combined with
recognition that those oral elements identified by
Casson aptly summarize the
grammatical features privileged by Robert
Thornton's scribal habits.
While the widespread oral composition of late medieval literature has seemed
increasingly unlikely to critics in recent years, study of Thornton's cultural
con-
text suggests that the oral recitation of romances may represent the
key to our
copyist's patterns of intervention. The most plentiful evidence
of such oral reci-
tation comes from the works themselves, wherein poets
repeatedly exhort their
audience to listen attentively, although Thorlac
Turville-Petre is certainly right to
warn that such evidence "may be
suspected of being an idealization."[57]
Despite
such cautious doubt, though, even Turville-Petre concedes
that "[i]t is probable
enough that recitation, whether by a
professional.… or member of the family,
was one method of
dissemination [for romances]" and provides intriguing evi-
of Berkeley."[58] This rhymed alliterative poem gives a short account of another
unremarkable fifteenth-century member of the English gentry whose rank and
interests seem suggestively similar to those of Thornton:
He reweld him o reson, he rested on right
He was a housholder, a hunter ful hiende
Þar was no wegh in world to Wymondam to wende
He might haf metes mannerly and mirthes amonge
And of his semli seruandes semland and songe
Daliance of damisels to driue away þo day
To rede him oright romance were redi on aray[59]
entertained in the grandest fashion … with food and jollity, song and … the
reading of romances."[60] If one remains open to the possibility that Thornton, like
Sir John, intended either to read his texts aloud for friends and family or have
them read by another, his copying style begins to make better sense. This slightly
unorthodox explanation of Thornton's alterations would mean that emphasis on
syntactic structure and semantic meaning stems from the scribe's belief that his
audience would misunderstand more subtle grammatical constructions better
suited to the eye than the ear when listening to the tales presented aloud.[61]
The conclusion, albeit tentative, that Thornton consciously crafted the ver-
nacular romances in his miscellanies for spoken delivery suggests an approach
to the relationship between scribe and exemplar that would significantly
change
our view of this copyist's work. While previous characterizations of
Thornton
as alternately conservative or innovative seem to capture in part
the complex
interaction he engaged in with his texts, these arguments have
never been able
to account for what seem to be his contradictory tendencies.
These failures most
likely reflect the assumption that the value of a
scribe's work can only be mea-
sured against the yardstick of authorial
intention and that the need to recover
an original meaning precludes
in-depth study of individual copyists. Concentrat-
ing on scribal intention,
though, encourages one to see consistent patterns of
intervention like those
Thornton engages in as rational attempts to reconcile a
received text with
an anticipated use. These patterns and the statistical evidence
illustrating
them can be used then to establish with greater accuracy archetypal
readings. In fact, combined with other types of textual evidence, knowledge of
texts he copied by allowing for the recovery of authorial readings even in unique
witnesses where collation is not possible.
Morte Arthure 126–127. It should perhaps be
stressed here that the shortcomings of
Hamel's study mentioned earlier
are confined to her assumption of scribal fidelity based on
the
self-corrections she identifies and not the basic observation that Thornton
expended great
effort to correct his texts.
Keiser (1979). George Keiser first introduced and fleshed out the concept of
Thorn-
ton's cultural milieu in this useful article. Also see George
R. Keiser, "More Light on the Life
and Milieu of Robert Thornton" Studies in Bibliography 36 (1983): 111–119.
Octovian ll. 7; 11. Also supporting this
interpretation is Thornton's inclusion of the Vita
Sancti Christofori in the midst of the romance section of Lincoln
Cathedral MS 98, although this
text may have been so placed because of
its fantastical character rather than its moral import.
Further background information on scribes with similar tendencies can be
found in the
introduction to the Athlone edition of the Piers Plowman
A-text (see Piers Plowman 128ff).
Thorlac Turville-Petre, "The Lament for Sir John Berkeley," Speculum 57 (1982): 332–339 (pp. 336–337).
Thorlac Turville-Petre, "Some Medieval English Manuscripts in the North-East
Mid-
lands," Manuscripts and Readers in
Fifteenth-Century England: The Literary Implications of Manuscript
Study, Essays from the 1981 Conference at the University of York,
ed. Derek Pearsall (Cambridge:
D. S. Brewer, 1983), 125–141 (p.
128).
Hoyt Duggan, in his 1976 article on formulas in Middle English alliterative
romances,
describes a very similar tendency in some manuscripts of the
Wars of Alexander. However, he
concentrates
particularly on how scribal knowledge of oral formulas might influence
copying
habits (Hoyt N. Duggan, "The Role of Formulas in the
Dissemination of a Middle English Al-
literative Romance," Studies in Bibliography 29 [1976]:
265–288).
VI. Conclusions and Application
While the restoration of authorial readings has not been the primary focus
of this article, a brief look at two passages in Thornton's unique copies of Wyn-
nere and Wastour and the Morte
Arthure will begin to suggest practical applications
for the scribal
profile outlined above. Since information about copying habits
can only be
used to anticipate tendencies and not identify specific errors, lines
have
been selected that also exhibit obvious deficiencies when judged according
to metrical and alliterative norms. The first of these exemplary passages, taken
from the Morte Arthure, describes the arrival of
Emperor Lucius' envoys at King
Arthur's court and demonstrates how the
scribal inversion of sentence structure
could upset a poem's delicate
structure:
Wytħ sexten knyghtes in A soyte sewande hym one
He saluᶾed the souerayne & the sale Aftyr
Ilke A kyng Aftyre kyng and mad his enclines[62]
the first three of four stressed words carry the expected alliteration. This is the
standard format of the Middle English alliterative long-line and therefore, at
least in terms of poetic structure, all three can be taken without further comment
as authorial. Unfortunately, in the fourth line the pattern switches to the non-
standard A-A-X-A, which is generally not considered an acceptable variation
since without alliteration the third stressed syllable cannot fulfill its traditional
role as the link between the two half-lines.[63] In light of Thornton's penchant for
syntactic smoothing, however, it is probable that the authorial version of this
line had a less prosaic ordering of verb and object: "Ilke A kyng Aftyre kyng and
his enclines mad."[64] A slightly different situation arises, on the other hand, dur-
ing Wynner's speech about responsible forestry in Wynnere and Wastour where it
flawed b-verse metrical pattern:
And sayne God wil graunt it his grace to grow at þe last
For to [schadewe] ᶾour sones bot þe schame es ᶾour ownn.[65]
b-verse with two or more dips of multiple unstressed syllables are categorically
non-authorial, and that restriction would clearly apply to the third line quoted
here.[66] While the only logical correction for this error is the elimination of the
extraneous conjunction, Thornton's consistent interference with syntactic transi-
tions offers yet another means to justify this emendation. Given how glaringly
obvious the errors are in both this and the previous example, however, some
might question whether the ability to confirm their existence through knowl-
edge of Thornton's copying habits is any great advantage. Judging the scribal
evidence solely on its ability to unearth new error misrepresents the challenges
inherent to the editorial process, though, which is more often stymied by the lack
of corroborative evidence for corrections than any shortage of errors needing
emendation. An understanding of Thornton's unique tendencies provides the
confirmation an editor would need to justify adopting specific changes in both
these and many other lines, representing an improvement over past invocations
of a generic usus scribendi too easily accommodated to preconceived notions about
scribal fidelity.
While we are fortunate in the identification of Thornton and his manuscripts,
especially given his importance in preserving alliterative verse, the same
prin-
ciples demonstrated here should inform other new studies of scribal
habit as well.
That is to say, textual scholars should seek whenever
possible to explain scribal
agendas in the same detail previously reserved
only for the authorial intent. This
does not mean abandoning interest in
traditional forms of authority, but rather
realizing that without such
complementary efforts we will never understand fully
either aspect of
medieval literature. Most editorial appeals to scribal habit carry
little
weight, unfortunately, representing impressionistic judgments indebted to
preconceived notions about scribal fidelity and the best means of recovering
authorial readings. The previous scholarship on Robert Thornton demonstrates
this susceptibility toward bias, and the case study offered here is intended both
as
a correction of that specific problem and as a general template for new
research.
Especially now, as the wider availability and functionality of
electronic editions
makes such descriptive work less burdensome, textual
scholars and editors have
little excuse for treating the study of scribal
agendas as a mere afterthought.
cumstance, but the statistical method offered here at least provides one practical
method of answering recent calls to extrapolate from scribal interventions some
idea of how early audiences received and interacted with medieval texts.
See Hoyt N. Duggan, "Alliterative Patterning as a Basis for Emendation in
Middle
English Alliterative Poetry," Studies in the
Age of Chaucer 8 (1986): 73–105; J. P. Oakden, Allitera-
tive Poetry in Middle English: The
Dialectal and Metrical Survey (1930; repr. Hamden: Archon Books,
1968). It should be noted that, while he comments on the rarity of
patterns lacking alliteration
on the third stress, Oakden does not
rule out the possibility that they are archetypal. Rather,
the closest
he comes to any censure is to comment on "how many poets are apt to
repudiate the
types ax/xa and xa/xa, which never achieved the same
prestige as ax/ax, xa/ax—the tradi-
tional types" (Oakden 169).
Duggan, however, argues convincingly that the statistical evidence
and
distribution of such atypical readings is a sign of their scribal
nature.
While a cautious editor might be tempted to salvage the manuscript reading
by adopt-
ing an unusual stress assigment, scribal smoothing of
inverted authorial phrasing in the b-verse
is very common throughout
the Morte Arthure. In the first one thousand lines,
for instance, there
are at least twenty-three other examples of this
type of corruption (see ll. 115, 131, 138, 170,
244, 254, 370, 392,
443, 457, 627, 631, 634, 658, 766, 794, 875, 897, 910, 946, 949, 971, and
992).
Wynnere and Wastour ll. 398–400; British Library MS Add. 31042 (quoted from the Trigg edition; see note 13).
See Hoyt N. Duggan, "The Shape of the B-Verse in Middle English Alliterative
Po-
etry," Speculum 61 (1986): 564–592;
Hoyt N. Duggan, "Final -e and the Rhythmic Structure
of the B-Verse in
Middle English Alliterative Poetry," Modern Philology
86:2 (1988): 119–145;
Hoyt N. Duggan, "Stress Assignment in
Middle English Alliterative Poetry," Journal of English
and Germanic Philology 89:3 (1990): 309–329. Duggan's
findings have been widely accepted,
although there are skeptics like
Trigg (see Wynnere and Wastour xxxvi).
APPENDIX 1
Manuscripts and Lines Collated and Critical Editions
Consulted
As indicated in the article's main body, the default choices for each text were
one-hundred-line groups shared by Thornton's copy with other witnesses at
the
beginning and end of each text. Those instances where the number of
lines ex-
ceeds two hundred, excepting the case of Richard
Coer de Lyon, reflect the need to
compensate for lines omitted in
the Thornton texts.
- I. The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyne, ll. 1–100; 605–709.
-
Manuscripts. Lincoln Cathedral MS 91; MS Douce 324;
Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Coligny,
Geneva, f.5a; Lambeth Palace Library MS 491. -
Critical Edition. Gates, Robert J., ed. The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyne, A Critical
Edition. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1969.[67] - II. Octovian, ll. 1–100; 1365–1464.[68]
- Manuscripts. Lincoln Cathedral MS 91; Cambridge University Library MS Ff.2.38.
-
Critical Edition. McSparran, Frances, ed. Octovian, Edited from Lincoln Dean and Chapter
Library MS 91 and Cambridge University Library MS Ff.2. 38. EETS 289. London:
Oxford Univ. Press, 1986. - III. The Parlement of the Thre Ages, ll. 226–325; 559–664.
-
Manuscripts. British Library MS Add. 31042; British
Library MS Add. 33994 (olim Ware
MS). -
Critical Edition. Offord, M. Y., ed. The Parlement of the Thre Ages. EETS O.S. 246. 1959;
repr. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997. - IV. Richard Coer de Lyon, ll. 1–100; 983–1002; 7105–7209.
-
Manuscripts. British Library MS Add. 31042; Auchinleck
MS; MS Egerton 2862; Gonville
and Caius College, Cambridge MS 175/96; MS College of Arms HDN 58; MS
Douce 228; MS Harley 4690. -
Critical Edition. Brunner, Karl, ed. Der mittelenglische Versroman über Richard Löwenherz,
kritische Ausgabe nach allen Handschriften mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen und deutscher
Űbersetzung. Wiener Beiträge zur englischen Philologie, XLII. Wien und Leipzig:
Wilhelm Braumüller, 1913. - V. The Siege of Jerusalem, ll. 1–104; 1223–1326.
-
Manuscripts. British Library MS Add. 31042; Bodleian
1059 (Laud Misc. 656); British
Library Cotton Caligula A.ii; Cambridge University Library Mm.5.14; Lambeth
Palace 491; Ashburnham 130. -
Critical Edition. Hanna, Ralph, III, and David Lawton,
eds. The Siege of Jerusalem. EETS
320. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003. - VI. Sir Degrevant, ll. 1–100; 1820–1919.
- Manuscripts. Lincoln Cathedral MS 91; Cambridge University Library MS Ff.1.6.
-
Critical Edition. Casson, L. F., ed. The Romance of Sir Degrevant: A Parallel-Text Edition from
MSS. Lincoln Cathedral A.5.2 and Cambridge University Ff.I.6. EETS O.S. 221. 1949; repr.
London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1970.
Although a preliminary collation was attempted using Ralph Hanna's
edition of the
Awntyrs, Robert Gates' recording of variant
readings has been preferred here as it appears to
be much fuller
(see Ralph Hanna III, The Awntyrs off Arthure at the
Terne Wathelyn [Manchester:
Manchester Univ. Press, 1974]).
While this may simply be a result of the differing apparatus
conventions each editor employs, it seemed prudent to work from Gates'
edition.
The readings of Huntington Library 14615 (STC 18779), a late witness
showing signs
of extensive alteration, were consulted but not
collated.
APPENDIX 2
Examples of Scribal Habits
The sections below provide a comprehensive list of examples within the sam-
ple corpus for each scribal habit considered in this article. These citations are
organized both according to the work in which they appear and their
distribu-
tion across the manuscript witnesses: unique examples appear only
in Thornton's
manuscript; shared examples appear in both Thornton and at
least one other
witness; counter-examples appear only in manuscripts other
than Thornton's.
- I. Dialogue attributions
- Unique examples
- Awntyrs: l. 621
- Octovian: ll. 55, 62, 1422, 1461
- Parlement:—
- Richard: ll. 986, 995, 998, 7180
- Siege: ll. 82, 97, 101, 1231
- Degrevant:—
- Shared examples
- Awntyrs: l. 664
- Richard:—
- Siege: l. 15
- Counter-examples
- Awntyrs: ll. 96, 627, 640, 646
- Octovian: l. 1371
- Parlement:—
- Richard:—
- Siege: ll. 1234, 1236, 1304, 1305
- Degrevant:—
- Total (and percentage of all examples)
Unique examples: | 13 | (54%) |
Shared examples: | 2 | (8%) |
Counter-examples: | 9 | (38%) |
All examples: | 24 | (100%) |
- II. Paratactic expressions (conjunctions and linking adverbs)
- Unique examples
-
Awntyrs: ll. 14, 22, 32, 42, 52, 55, 57, 62, 80, 82,
608, 621, 663, 668, 677, 696, 698,
699, 701, 705, 709. -
Octovian: ll. 7, 10, 17, 20, 27, 36, 37, 43, 46, 49, 50,
57, 61, 67, 73, 79, 83, 85, 98, 1378,
1385, 1386, 1400, 1405, 1407, 1410, 1416, 1419, 1435, 1443, 1452, 1455, 1463, 1464 -
Parlement: ll. 232, 236, 238, 248, 249, 251, 268, 276,
286, 297, 299, 301, 321, 568,
570, 571, 578, 588, 603, 607, 617, 649 -
Richard: ll. 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 27, 29, 33,
39, 45, 49, 56, 69, 60, 67, 73, 75, 77,
94, 95, 97, 983, 985, 986, 991, 993, 994, 997, 998, 999, 1001, 7110, 7111, 7115, 7117,
7132, 7155, 7156, 7157, 7167, 7191, 7195, 7203, 7209 - Siege: ll. 8, 11, 17, 33, 59, 74, 77, 81, 88, 93, 95, 102, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1251, 1318
-
Degrevant: ll. 6, 11, 12, 26, 72, 79, 85, 99, 1841,
1849, 1864, 1867, 1873, 1874, 1879, 1901,
1905 - Shared examples
-
Awntyrs: ll. 3, 6, 9, 14, 19, 27, 53, 54, 61, 63, 66,
613, 618, 627, 638, 641, 653, 686, 696,
699, 707 - Richard: ll. 57, 987, 7135, 7141, 7143, 7145, 7146, 7149, 7151, 7175, 7187
-
Siege: ll. 5, 13, 22, 23, 47, 51, 61, 62, 63, 67, 71,
78, 90, 92, 104, 1228, 1236, 1245, 1258,
1261, 1264, 1267, 1275, 1276, 1283, 1284, 1288, 1295, 1299, 1322, 1324 - Counter-examples
-
Awntyrs: ll. 3, 26, 27, 29, 33, 40, 45, 53, 81, 86, 606,
612, 614, 615, 619, 620, 624, 631,
640, 645, 646, 662, 691, 693, 695, 703 - Octovian: ll. 41, 45, 66, 1374, 1421, 1445
- Parlement: ll. 237, 253, 256, 293, 588, 619, 620, 624, 644, 650, 658
- Richard: ll. 25, 55, 7114, 7163, 7172
-
Siege: ll. 2, 14, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 48, 56,
65, 66, 68, 69, 89, 1225, 1229, 1230, 1241,
1242, 1248, 1249, 1251, 1253, 1255, 1259, 1263, 1264, 1286, 1293, 1296, 1297, 1298,
1301, 1304, 1317, 1321 - Degrevant: ll. 9, 86, 1823, 1839, 1842, 1853, 1859, 1885, 1907, 1908, 1909
- Total (and percentage of all examples)
Unique examples: | 158 | (49%) |
Shared examples: | 63 | (20%) |
Counter-examples: | 97 | (31%) |
All examples: | 318 | (100%) |
- III. Doubled negative constructions
- Unique examples
- Awntyrs:—
- Octovian: ll. 19, 1380
- Parlement: ll. 288, 583, 631
- Richard: ll. 22, 7118, 7166
- Siege:—
- Degrevant: ll. 62, 78, 1873
- Shared examples
- Awntyrs:—
- Richard:—
- Siege:—
- Counter-examples
- Awntyrs: l. 59
- Octovian: l. 1404
- Parlement:—
- Richard: l. 7139
- Siege: ll. 1246, 1250, 1289
- Degrevant:—
- Total (and percentage of all examples)
Unique examples: | 11 | (65%) |
Shared examples: | 0 | (0%) |
Counter-examples: | 6 | (35%) |
All examples: | 17 | (100%) |
- IV. Adverbial intensifiers
- Unique examples
- Awntyrs: ll. 21, 33, 55, 85, 88, 607, 614, 619, 633, 654
- Octovian: ll. 7, 8, 12, 74, 79, 86, 87, 93, 1365, 1421, 1429, 1430, 1439, 1463
- Parlement: ll. 227, 281, 310, 321, 565, 568, 573, 595
- Richard: ll. 7, 55, 59, 70, 74, 81, 88, 92, 97, 989, 990, 997, 999, 7112, 7134, 7152
- Siege: ll. 54, 56, 57, 68, 78, 1254, 1268, 1269, 1276
- Degrevant: ll. 1831, 1859, 1899, 1902
- Shared examples
- Awntyrs: ll. 67, 70, 87, 620
- Richard: ll. 5, 8
- Siege: ll. 37, 47 (x2), 69, 1226, 1257, 1269, 1275
- Counter-examples
- Awntyrs: ll. 8, 26, 27, 61, 69, 82, 86, 652, 658, 674, 682, 691, 705, 708
- Octovian: ll. 23, 97, 1433
- Parlement: ll. 249, 263
- Richard: ll. 44, 62, 7137
- Siege: ll. 29, 91, 1258
- Degrevant: ll. 81, 99
- Total (and percentage of all examples)
Unique examples: | 61 | (60%) |
Shared examples: | 14 | (14%) |
Counter-examples: | 27 | (26%) |
All examples: | 102 | (100%) |
- V. Syntactic smoothing
- Unique examples
- Awntyrs: ll. 1, 45, 49, 57, 693
- Octovian: ll. 10, 15, 20, 22, 44, 65, 67, 74, 94, 1369, 1374, 1378, 1384, 1387, 1421
- Parlement: ll. 234, 287, 298, 302, 636, 640, 653
-
Richard: ll. 8, 13, 18, 30, 31, 52, 66, 79, 84, 86, 983, 987, 996, 7113, 7114, 7115, 7116, 7118,
7177 - Siege: ll. 4, 19, 48, 56, 1297, 1315
-
Degrevant: ll. 31, 38, 85, 93, 98, 1822, 1823, 1826,
1838, 1842, 1853, 1857, 1865, 1878,
1886, 1905, 1913 - Shared examples
- Awntyrs: ll. 2, 31, 34, 645
- Richard: ll. 32, 984, 986, 992, 7136, 7144
- Siege: ll. 3, 17 (x2), 19, 21, 32, 39, 41, 47, 55, 82, 1229, 1241, 1243, 1287, 1317
- Counter-examples
- Awntyrs: l. 33
- Octovian: ll. 11, 23, 80, 1367, 1380
- Parlement: ll. 231, 235, 246, 281, 562, 570
- Richard: ll. 21, 995, 7119, 7132, 7173, 7180
- Siege: ll. 18 (x3), 21, 29, 64, 80, 101, 1260, 1264, 1274, 1300, 1321, 1325
- Degrevant: ll. 57, 77, 83, 1850, 1873, 1903
- Total (and percentage of all examples)
Unique examples: | 69 | (51%) |
Shared examples: | 26 | (20%) |
Counter-examples: | 38 | (29%) |
All examples: | 133 | (100%) |
Studies in bibliography | ||