 | |  |
I
Robinson classifies the three texts he considers as follows:[3]
The shortness of the Proverbs and the small number of authorities permits giving the text of the MSS in full, arranged comparatively:[7]
- A Prouerbe
- F Proverbe of Chaucer
- H Prouerbe of Chaucers
- S A prouerbe agaynst couitise and negligence
- 1 A What shal þees cloþes þus many fold
- F What shul these clothes / thus manyfolde
- H What shulde these clothes thus manyfolde
- S What shal these clothes thus manifolde
- 2 A Loo þis hoote / somers day
- F Loo / this hoote somers day
- H lo this hote somers day (written as part of l. 1)
- S Lo this hote somers daye
- 3 A Affter heet / komeþe cold
- F After grete hete / cometh colde
- H After greet hete cometh colde
- S After grete heate cometh colde
- 4 A No man cast his pilchche away /
- F No man caste / his pilch away
- H no man kaste his pilche away (written as part of l. 2)
- S No man caste his pilche away
- 5 A Of þis worlde / þe wyde compas /
- F Of al this worlde / the large compace
- H Off alle this worlde the large compas /
- S Of al this world the large compasse
- 6 A Hit wol not / in myn armes tweyne /
- F Yt wil not / in my Armes tweyne
- H it will not in my armes tweyne (written as part of l. 3)
- S It will not in myne armes tweine
- 7 A Who so mychel wol embrace /
- F Whoo so mochel wol / embrace
- H Who mekel wille enbrace
- S Who so mokel wol embrace
- 8 A Lytel þer of he shal distreyne /
- F litel therof he shal distreyne
- H litel therof he shal distreyne (written as part of l. 4)
- S Litell cher of he shall distreine (followed by Explicit)
The differences between these texts are expressed by the table below, which gives every variant reading. Readings found in only one text (unique readings) are italicized.
| A | F | H | S | |
| Prouerbe | Proverbe of | Prouerbe of | A prouerbe agaynst | |
| Chaucer | Chaucers | couitise and negligence | ||
| 1 | shal | shul | shulde | shal |
| 3 | heet | grete hete | grete hete | grete heate |
| 5 | þis | al this | alle this | al this |
| wyde | large | large | large | |
| 6 | wol | wil | wil | will |
| myn armes | my Armes | my armes | myne armes | |
| 7 | Who so | Whoo so | Who | Who so |
| mychel | mochel | mekel | mokel | |
| wol | wol | wille | wol | |
| 8 | þer | ther | ther | cher |
I shall comment on certain of the variants:
Shal, shul, shulde, line 1; wol, wil, line 6. These are all possible Chaucerian forms (cf. S. Moore, Historical Outlines of English Sounds and Inflections, rev. by A. H. Marckwardt, 1951, pp. 57-58).
Mychel, mochel, mekel, mokel, line 7. Although these are italicized above as unique variants, they can offer little evidence as to the relationship of the MSS; all are essentially forms of the same word (cf. the treatment in the OED, s. v. Mickle). However, two of the variants, mekel and mokel, have textual significance of another kind: they are dialectically inappropriate for Chaucer (the k, from ON mikill, being characteristic of the north and north midlands; cf. the OED, ibid.; Robinson, one may remark, includes neither mekel nor mokel in his Glossary). As a Chaucerian form, mokel is especially suspect. The OED entry, a lengthy one, contains only one citation in which mokel occurs.
Ther, cher, line 8. The second variant, which occurs in the printed text S, may be only a compositor's error. However, the misreading of t as c is distinctly characteristic of MSS; cf. C. Johnson and H. Jenkinson, English Court Hand, A. D. 1066 to 1500, I, xxxviii: "c and t. These are constantly written one for the other." Below, cher is regarded as a MS. variant, since there is no positive evidence that it is not. The variation is substantive if cher is accepted at face value: "He who attempts too much will get little cheer [chere]."
The remaining variants do not appear to need separate comment.
In classifying the texts I make the following assumptions: that the texts are all ultimately descended from the same archetype; that readings found in only one text (unique readings) were not in the archetype; that shared errors indicate close relationship; that the simplest tree which will explain the distribution of the variants is to be preferred. This is not the place to elaborate upon these assumptions, which are usual operational assumptions of textual criticism.[8] When
1. The first assumption, that the texts are all from the same archetype, is borne out by the variants in that there is nothing to suggest a problem of states or versions.
2. The second assumption, that none of the unique readings were in the archetype, prevents any of the extant texts from being regarded as the archetype, as they all contain unique readings (see italicized variants). This assumption also says, in effect, that a text with a unique reading cannot be the direct ancestor of a text with a supported reading (i. e., it is unlikely that a supported reading is descended from a unique reading). Therefore, the following observations can be made:
- (a) No text can be derived from A because of A's unique readings in lines 3, 5, and 6.
- (b) No text can be derived from H because of H's first and third unique readings in line 7.
- (c) No text can be derived from S because of S's unique reading in line 8.
- (d) Neither A nor S can be derived from F because of F's unique reading in line 1. Note that this observation, which omits mention of H, implies the likelihood that
- (e) H is derived from F. In line 1 both F and H read uniquely; in line 7 the first and third unique readings of H contrast with supported readings in F. Thus F cannot be derived from H, but H may be derived from F.
3. The third assumption, that shared errors indicate close relationship, involves only F and H, as the other texts have no errors in common. In line 6, F and H agree on the reading, my armes. Chaucer's practice, however, is to use myn before vowels, my before consonants, and this is also the practice of his time.[9] My armes is therefore regardable as an error implying a close relationship between F and H.
4. The fourth assumption, that the simplest tree is to be preferred, requires the derivation of H from F, thus resolving the problem of 2.e and 3. One might assume, with Heath, that F and H are sister MSS, deriving from a lost MS. This supposition will account for the shared error and H's unique readings but must be rejected because it produces a more complex tree.
5. Paragraph 2.a has shown that neither F nor S can be derived from A; paragraph 2.c, that neither A nor F can be derived from S; paragraph 2.d,
The choice of a basic MS. is limited to F and S, A being discredited because of the number of its unique readings and H because of its derivative nature. The choice between F and S, however, depends upon a problem posed by the title. This problem is more conveniently handled in the next section.
| | |