University of Virginia Library

The Text of the "Envoy to Alison"
by
Harris Chewning

The "Envoy to Alison," a ballade of 27 lines, is extant in two fifteenth-century manuscripts and in seven of the black-letter editions of Chaucer's works. I shall attempt to work out the relationship among these nine texts, trying to limit the problem by studying the distributional and geneological evidence that is available.[1]

The two manuscripts containing "Alison" are Fairfax 16 and Tanner 346, both in the Bodleian Library. The handwriting of both has been dated as being of the fifteenth century, and the date 1450 is written on the flyleaf of Fairfax 16 in an apparently contemporary hand.[2] In Fairfax 16 "Alison" is quite legible. In Tanner 346 a number of graphemes in "Alison" are badly faded or blurred; these were illegible in 1898, when the oldest extant transcription, that of Vollmer, was made.[3]

Black-letter editions of Chaucer which contain "Alison" are Thynne's 1532 and 1542 editions, his undated edition, Stow's edition of 1561, and Speght's three editions—1598, 1602, and 1687.

I shall refer hereafter to the nine texts of "Alison" by the following abbreviations:

• Fairfax 16: F
• Tanner 346: T
• Thynne 1532: Th1
• Thynne, 1542: Th2
• Thynne, no date: Th3
• Stow: St
• Speght, 1598: Sp1
• Speght, 1602: Sp2
• Speght, 1687: Sp3

In studying the relation of these texts to each other I shall first consider the distributional evidence derived from a compilation of all variants. This compilation will make possible a statistical statement of the

resemblances of the texts to one another. As an accessory to such statistics I shall where possible use the method of looking for runs of identical readings in pairs of texts; where two texts show such a run of considerable length, the likelihood of kinship is increased, for a number of consecutive agreements is much less likely to be due to mere chance than an equal number of non-consecutive ones.

Distributional evidence may be expected at least to limit the number of possible trees. When it has been exhausted, I shall turn to geneological evidence, if it can be found, for further aid.

In the texts of "Alison" the number of substantive variants (i. e., those involving meaning) is exceedingly small. It is therefore necessary to consider also minute differences in spelling and orthography. In order to assign proper value to variants of different degrees of minuteness, I arranged them according to the following classification. Beside each type I have indicated the number of variants of that type that occur.

I. Substantive variants (7)
• A. Lexically different words (6)
• B. Add-omissions (1)
II. Non-substantive variants (242)
• A. Non-significant variation in morphemes (3) (All of these involve actual difference in pronunciation, but without lexical difference.)
• B. Presence or absence of final —e (50)
• C. Significant difference in graphemes without morphemic difference (91) (These do not include words differing only in final —e.)
• D. Difference in allographs of the same grapheme, viz., v:u, þ:th, lower-case letter: capital letter, and ff:F (43)
• E. Difference in suprasegmental phonemes, viz., punctuation marks: slant, period, and comma. (55)

In compiling the specimens of the several types I made no attempt to avoid overlapping. Therefore a word whose readings contain differences in final -e, in i and y, and in þ and th appears three times. Ordinarily, however, each word appears only once or twice. The illegible graphemes in Tanner were recorded as blanks. The occurrence of such a blank was not considered a variant in itself.

The relation of the seven black-letter texts to each other was considered first. Within this group there are only three substantive variants. The first of these is in line 2, where Th3 and St read thus and other texts read thou. The minority reading makes little sense and could hardly have occurred without direct influence of one of the two dissenting texts on the other. Since St is the later, this variant is evidence that St was

derived from Th3. The fact that the usual reading thou reappears in Sp1 is of no evidential value, for Speght not only might have used one of the texts earlier than St to correct the suspicious-looking thus but also had the verb haste calling for thou as subject.

The second substantive variant is in line 6, where St and the three Speghts have abiyng (spelled abying in Sp2 and Sp3) and the three earlier texts have various spellings of obeying.[4] This seems to indicate that Sp1 is derived from St.

The third substantive variant is brought in Sp1 against through in all other texts. This has no value whatever.

All that can be extracted from these three variants, then, is their evidence that St is from Th3 and that Sp1 is from St.

Turning to the non-substantive variants, we find that in Class IIA there are only three and that these indicate merely a gradual modernizing of spelling in successive editions.

The non-substantive variants of the other four classes are numerous enough to give significant statistical results.

With regard to all four of these classes, each of the Speght editions resembles its immediate chronological predecessor more than it resembles any previous edition.[5] The substantive variant obeying: abiyng, indicating derivation of Sp1 from St, does not contradict these findings. We may place the four latest texts, then, in straight-line derivational arrangement in order of date.

When agreements among the three Thynne editions are examined, it is found that Th3 agrees with Th1 a total of 224 times (out of a possible 239) and with Th2 only 201 times. This indicates that Th2 and Th3 must have been derived independently from Th1. This relationship is indicated not only by the total for the four classes but also by the figures for each of the individual classes, except for IIE, which consists of differences in punctuation. However, if slants in Th1 are equated with commas in Th3, these two texts are found to agree perfectly; that is, they are punctuated in exactly the same places, whereas between Th2 and Th3 this correspondence is not quite perfect.

A check on the statement that Th3 resembles Th1 more than it resembles Th2 was made by looking for long continuous passages in which two of these texts were identical. It was found that Th1 and Th3 are exactly alike for 71 consecutive words, including 29 variants (from haste, line 2, through O, line 12). Also there is a run of 43 consecutive

words, including 12 variants, in these two texts from for, line 14, through is, line 19. When Th2 and Th3 were compared thus, however, no run longer than 17 words, including 3 variants, was found.

The probability of a derivational relationship between two texts is enormously increased by the occurrence of such runs as occur in Th1 and Th3. The principle involved may be illustrated simply. If a given variant occurs in three forms throughout a set of texts, the chance that a certain two texts will agree thereon is one in three. If the next variant occurs in four forms, the chance that the two texts will agree on it is one in four. The chance that they will agree on both variants is one in three times four, or one in twelve. Thus, in a run, the chance of continuous agreement is one in a number equal to the product of the number of forms for each variant in the run. This product reaches astronomical size in a run of considerable length, and the presence of such a run is very strong evidence of derivational relationship between the two texts.

Therefore the occurrence of the runs described removes all doubt that Th3 is more closely related to Th1 than to Th2. In the face of such evidence it is impossible for Th2 to be intermediary between Th1 and Th3. This instance demonstrates clearly the value of looking for runs as a method in distributional study. Where extensive runs are found, they add substantially to the evidence from statistics of number of agreements and may resolve cases undecided by such statistics.

Looking for runs is most likely to prove valuable when the student is dealing with minute variants, which occur consecutively or close together, rather than substantive ones, which are usually fairly far apart. The frequency of minute variants of course makes it more likely that runs will occur and that significant ones may be detected in passages only a few lines in length.

The question may be raised as to whether Th2 might have been derived from T or F rather than from Th1. But the table of agreements gives no support to such a conclusion; Th2 is more like Th1 than it is like any other text.

We may, then, arrange the Thynne texts thus:[6]

To complete the tree for the black-letters, we now need to know from what text Stow was derived.

It will be recalled that the sharing of the reading thus in line 2 by St and Th3 was taken as evidence that St was derived from Th3. Let us see how this evidence compares with the testimony of the non-substantive variants. With which of the Thynne editions does St agree most often?

On the three IIA variants the three Thynne texts agree perfectly, so that those variants are worthless.

For IIB-IIE variants, agreements of Stow with the Thynne texts are as follows:

             

Class	Total	Th1-St	Th2-St	Th3-St
IIB	50	44	41	44
IIC	91	45	51	49
IID	43	40	40	42
IIE	55	47	49	51
	----	----	----	----
	239	176	181	186

These figures show that St agrees most often with Th3; thus they corroborate the evidence of the thus: thou variant. When the method of looking for runs of consecutive identical words was applied to these four texts, no significant results emerged. Therefore, we may conclude that St is from Th3,[7] and the complete tree for the black-letter editions is as follows:

The major problem in establishing the text of "Alison" is to determine the relationships among the three oldest versions of the poem — F, T, and Th1.

Some important evidence emerges when the arrangement of the poem with regard to what precedes it and what follows it in each of the three texts is observed. In F it is preceded by "The Book of the

Duchess," from which it is separated only by the line "Explicit the boke of the Duchesse," and at the end of "Alison" is no "Explicit," as the heading of the next poem, "Balade upon the Chaunse of the Dyse," follows immediately.

In T "Alison" is immediately preceded by "The Cuckoo and the Nightingale," with only the line "Explicit" separating the two poems. At the end of "Alison" is the line "Explicit þe Cuck. & þe Nighting." in a hand different from the rest of the text, and the remainder of the page is left blank. On the next page begins "The Book of the Duchess" (Hammond, op. cit., p. 337).

The Thynne text, like T, is preceded by "The Cuckoo and the Nightingale" with only "Explicit" between the poems. Following "Alison" is "Explicit" and the heading and beginning of the next poem, "Scogan unto the lordes . . ."

It should also be noted that between the third stanza and the fourth is the heading "The lenvoye" in T and "¶ Lenuoye." in Th1, whereas in F there is no heading at this point.

It appears that since both T and Th1 are preceded by the same poem and share the "Lenvoy" heading there must be some sort of kinship between them.

The variant readings in the three texts must now be examined for distributional evidence.

Within these texts there are only three substantive variants:

       

Line	F	T	Th1
1	foole	foole	foule[8]
12	me	ne	ne
24	and of goodnesse	and goodnes	and goodnesse

In these three variants, F and T agree against Th1 once, and T and Th1 agree against F twice. So the odds are two to one in favor of a closer relationship between T and Th1 than between either of them and F. This conclusion is consistent with the testimony of the order of material and the envoy headings, as mentioned above.

Agreements among the three texts with regard to non-substantive variants are summarized in the following figures:[9]

               

Class	Total	F & T	F & Th1	T & Th1
IIA	3	0	2	0
IIB	39	8	17	13
IIC	71	19	26	13
IID	40	7	27	4
IIE	28	5	2	20
	----	----	----	----
	181	39	74	50

These figures agree with the other evidence in showing a divergence between F and T, but they contradict the evidence for kinship between T and Th1, for T and Th1 agree only 50 times, whereas F and Th1 agree 74 times. Further, this similarity between F and Th1 is attested by four out of five of the classes of small variants.

However, the value of these statistics should be carefully weighed before they are allowed to counterbalance the evidence of the connection with "The Cuckoo and the Nightingale," the envoy headings, and the substantive variants.

The non-substantive variants on which F and Th1 agree can be explained as due to coincidence and do not necessarily indicate kinship between these two texts. There are 74 such agreements, constituting only 41 per cent of the total of 181 non-substantive variants in the three texts. Further, in the IID group, 19 of the 27 agreements of F and Th1 against T are due to the use of the thorn (þthe three texts. Further, in the IID group, 19 of the 27 agreements of F and Th1 against T are due to the use of the thorn (þ) in T; and three such agreements in IIC variants are due to the use of the yogh (ȝ) in T. But fifteenth-century printers did not use þ and ȝ, and Th1 would not have shown them even if its printer had been copying directly from T. These 22 agreements involving þ and ȝ are therefore valueless, and if they are disregarded there are only 52 agreements of F and Th1 in 159 variants, or 33 per cent.

These remaining agreements might be of some value if they revealed the two texts sharing even a few unusual spellings. But the NED shows all the shared spellings to be commonplace ones, occurring frequently in the texts cited by the dictionary. That F and Th1 should coincide in about one out of three common spellings is no more than could be expected from chance.[10]

In these three texts no help is to be had from runs of identical readings, as there are no such runs of appreciable length.

It seems best, then, to reject the evidence of the small variants and, on the basis of the larger considerations, to call T and Th1 a subfamily apart from F. A tentative tree can be drawn thus:

Can this tree be simplified by identifying either T or Th1 as x? To answer this we must return to the substantive variants. In these F and Th1 never agree, and T agrees with F once and with Th1 twice. Th1 has one unique reading (foule), F has two unique readings (me and of goodnesse), and T has no unique readings. Therefore only T can be placed as an intermediary. T, then, could be x in the above tree, but Th1 could not, for if Th1 were x, it would be difficult to explain the appearance of foole in F and T, since Th1 has foule. But no such difficulty arises from making T the ancestor of Th1, and simplicity is gained. The tree can therefore be changed to the following, which, however, is still tentative:

We now have a two-forked tree and a state of affairs in which the text of O cannot satisfactorily be reconstructed. Obviously, for any reading on which F and T disagree, each text has equal authority with the other. It would be desirable, in order to resolve this conflict and achieve greater simplicity, to make either F or T the archetype if possible.

In the light of the evidence of the substantive variants, the envoy headings, and the relation to "The Cuckoo and the Nightingale," it is possible for either T or F to be archetype. This possibility is not disturbed by the fact that only T can be intermediary. These two trees are equally consistent with the distributional evidence:

Further, since the tentative tree with x was based on the kinship of T and Th1 and the necessity that T be intermediary, a third alternative is also theoretically possible:

Thus, with T as intermediary, any one of the three texts could be the archetype as far as the evidence so far shown is concerned.

This is as far as distributional evidence can take us. Geneological evidence should next be sought, but in the texts of "Alison" such evidence is found to be so meager that it is of no value.

If further evidence is to be produced, it must come from a comparative study of the entire Fairfax and Tanner manuscripts, not from examination of "Alison" alone.

This study of the texts of "Alison" has not produced evidence sufficient to establish an authoritative text. However, it has partially solved the problem of the relationship among the nine versions, and these results may be stated:

• 1. The relationship of the black-letter texts may be established by means of distributional evidence.
• 2. T and Th1 are more closely related to each other than either is related to F; therefore the probable relation among the three texts is not simple radiation from an archetype.
• 3. Any tree not using a hypothetical manuscript must show T as intermediary.

Of greater value than these specific results concerning "Alison" are the conclusions as to methods of textual study of manuscripts that have emerged. These are as follows:

• 1. When the texts being studied show so few substantive variants that it is necessary to attach great importance to non-substantive variants, it is useful to classify the variants according to minuteness so that appropriate evidential value may be assigned to them. The classification used in the present study is a workable one.
• 2. As an auxiliary to statistics of agreements, a consideration of runs of identical readings is valuable. Consecutive agreements are of more significance than scattered ones, and the presence of identical runs of considerable length is strong evidence of kinship between texts. The

  ---

  42

  
  
  
  value of such runs was demonstrated in the case of the Thynne texts, where the derivation of the Th3 directly from Th1 was firmly established by the discovery of long runs linking these two texts.
• 3. The need for studying the entire texts of the Fairfax and Tanner manuscripts, in order to establish decisively the text of a short poem contained in those manuscripts, suggests an important principle for editors. The case of "Alison" demonstrates the paucity of variation that is frequently encountered in short texts, even when they exist in a considerable number of versions. When the piece under consideration is surrounded by material which may also be compared and studied, the evidence of this material should be used. Minor poems may not be edited safely in isolation from the larger units of text that contain them.

Notes