IV. Constructing Thornton's Scribal
Profile
Studies in bibliography | ||
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.
IV. Constructing Thornton's Scribal
Profile
Studies in bibliography | ||