I
I shall make the following assumptions:
- I. That shared errors indicate close relationship;
- II. That unique readings are probably spurious;
- III. That the simplest derivation (tree) which will account for the
variants is to be preferred.
These are usual
initial assumptions.
[6] They are not laws; evidence may
controvert them.
The A B C survives in sixteen manuscripts.[7] The following readings occur only
in Gg
and Speght:
- 9. myn (for thin)
- 11. omission of him
- 19. for to (for for)
- 38. ben (for be)
- 46. close in with þyn owene grace (for
clothe
with thi grace)
- 49. Gracyouse (for Glorious)
- 75. with þe (for to yow)
- 83. peyne (for peynes)
- 85. with (for of)
- 87. omission of oure
- 89. of (for with)
- 103. as litil (for litel)
- 105. þo (for that)
- 124. schal (for may)
- 132. fulle (for rightful)
- 133. ioye (for merci)
- 158. on (for unto)
- 179. out (for ought)
The number of shared variants is large; some are patently errors (e.g., lines
46 and 132). Therefore, according to Assumption I Gg and Speght are
closely related.
Chronology prevents the derivation of the fifteenth-century manuscript
from the late Elizabethan printed book. Even so, it is useful to be able to
show that the derivation of Gg from Speght is implausible on purely textual
grounds (otherwise one might justifiably wonder if Speght were not simply
a printed facsimile of some lost manuscript, a virtual duplicate like, say, the
Chaucer Society transcriptions). Speght has the following unique readings:
- 53. nor (for not)
- 56. sinke (for stynk)
- 77. ye
(for that; Gg
þt
)
- 84. bostaunce (for bobaunce)
- 90. then (for ther)
- 92. can (for gan)
- 121. right (for yit)
- 136. that of pitie will (for that wole of
pitee)
- 137. he (for that he)
- 144. royall (for rial)
- 172. a (for as a)
- 174. sured me (for mesured)
- 175. or (for and)
- 179. will (for wel)
Again the number of variants is large; some of the variants are patently
spurious (e.g., lines 84 and 174); all of the variants are opposed in Gg by
the generally supported readings.
[8]
Therefore, according to Assumption II Gg is not derived from
Speght.
Gg also has unique readings: 156. han (for
have); 173. besech (for preye).
Moreover, in line 90 Gg has a variant which, although not unique (it is in
Gg's sister manuscript, Coventry; see fn. 7 above), is a patent error:
þere brende (for
brende). All of these
variants
are opposed in Speght by the generally supported readings. Here the
number of variants is indeed small, but this fact does not seem to have
disturbed previous editors. According to Assumption II, then, Speght is not
derived from Gg. Since Gg has been shown not to be derived from Speght,
the (apparent) final conclusion is that the two derive from a lost common
parent.
This conclusion, however, ignores a large body of sublexical evidence
which has never before been presented.
"In spelling," Manly and Rickert remark (I, 177), "Gg [the entire
volume] has long been recognized as unique among Chaucer MSS." The
peculiarities of the Gg volume have been extensively studied by Caldwell,
and both he and Manly conclude that the scribe was probably not English
but a Dutchman or a Fleming. Among the forms they especially cite in
evidence, quoting Canterbury Tales A 1527 and A 1579, is
bosch for bush (MDu bosch).[9] This form appears twice in the Gg
copy
of the A B C (lines 89 and 92):
Moyses þt saw þe bosch of
flambis rede
þow art þe bosch on wich þere gan
dessendyn
The corresponding lines in Speght are:
Moyses that saw the bosh of flambis rede
Thow art the bosh, on which there can descend
All other manuscripts read
bush or something closely
resembling
bush. It is hard not to believe that Speght got its
strange
bosh from Gg's
bosch.
Manly and Rickert (I, 177) comment upon another peculiarity of the
Gg scribe: "He divides and joins words wrongly and makes nonsense"; they
give myn che kys as an example. In line 174 Gg reads:
Sithe he his merci me seured so large
The corresponding line in Speght is:
Sith he his mercy sured me so large
The other manuscripts all read mesured. It is hard not
to
believe that Speght's unique variant resulted from a misinterpretation of the
Gg reading with its unnatural space.
A striking peculiarity of the Gg scribe is described by Manly and
Rickert (I, 177) thus: "The n of possessive adjectives [is]
regularly retained before consonants: myn self, myn lyf myn lust." This
feature, foreign to Chaucer's English as well as to Speght's,[10] appears over and over in the Gg
copy of the
A B C and is often paralleled in Speght's; the
Speght reading is given second:
- 7. myne perlious : mine
perillous
- 16. myn schip : mine ship
- 18. myn synne, myn confusioun : mine sinne,
mine confusioun
- 19. þyn presense : thin
presence
- 23. myn dampnacioun : mine
damnatioun
- 40. myn werk : mine werke
- 41. þyn tente : thine tent
- 48. myn deth : mine death
- 52. myn fadir : mine fader
- 55. myn socour : mine
soccour
- 56. myn gost : mine ghost
- 68. þyn pete : thine pitie
- 74. þyn name : thine
name
- 79. myn fo : mine fo
- 81. þyn sorwe : thine
sorow
- 88. þyne petous eyne : thine pitous
eyen
- 111. þyn goodnesse : thine
goodnes
- 123. myn soule : mine soule
- 125. þyn sone, myn mene :
thine
sonne, mine meane
- 126. þyn self : thine selfe
One could continue extending this listing (further examples may be found
in lines 134, 143, 147, 159, 161, 167, 180). Such spellings occur in no
other manuscript of the
A B C.
A few additional spellings could be cited but enough evidence seems
to have been given.
Assumption III asserts that the simplest derivation (tree) which will
account for the variants is to be preferred. The bifid tree, with Gg and
Speght deriving from a lost common parent, explains the lexical variants
but leaves the strange spellings unaccounted for. The derivation of Speght
directly from Gg accounts for the spellings (and for most of the lexical
evidence) but leaves the variants in lines 90, 156, and 173 unexplained.
Thus either of the possible trees leaves something unresolved. In this
circumstance Assumption III applies. The simpler derivation is, of course,
the second. Therefore the true conclusion is that Speght is
derived from Gg.
How are we then to explain the three lines where Gg is wrong and
Speght right? I take the Speght readings to be conscious emendations.
Speght was, after all, an editor, though an early one. Three emendations to
the right reading in a poem of 184 lines is not beyond the bounds of
a
priori probability.
Line 90 is rendered thus in Gg: Brennynge of which þere
neuere a stikke þere brende. The repetition is so obviously in
error that almost anyone would be inclined to strike the second
þere out.
The trivial variation in line 156, haue in Speght for
Gg's
han, is viewable as a mere modernization, han
having become archaic by Speght's day.[11]
The third variation, besech for preye in
line
173, becomes much less striking when viewed in context:
Ysaac was figeur of his deþ certeyn
þat so fer forþ his fadyr wolde obeye
þat hym ne rouȝt no þyng to be slayn
Ryȝt so þyn sone list as a lomb to deye
Now ladi ful of mercy I ȝow besech [173]
Sithe he his merci me seured so large
Be ye not skant for alle we synge & seyȝe
þat ȝe ben fro vengaunse ay oure targe
Obviously, as the rhyme scheme of the poem is ababbcbc, line 173 should
rhyme. Apparently
preye is the only possible rhyme.
[12] Anyone who tried to improve the
defective rhyme scheme would produce the right reading.
[13]
To summarize: Between 1598 and 1602 Speght came upon a copy of
the A B C. In 1600 Gg, with the poem on its opening folios,
was in the possession of Joseph Holland. The manuscript was thus in
London at the right time for Speght to use it, and in the hands of a man
whom he almost certainly knew. Comparison of the Speght text with the
text in Gg shows the two versions to be decidedly similar, the similarity
including eighteen readings found in no other manuscript and more than
thirty unusual spellings, likewise in no other manuscript, of a kind
peculiarly characteristic of the Gg scribe and explainable in Speght's copy
only on the assumption that it derives from Gg. Textual theory also requires
this derivation. Surely one may write Q. E. D. Gg.4.27 was Speght's actual
source.