II
Since we have no other instance in which the manuscript used for one
of the Blackletter Chaucers has been identified, I shall examine in some
detail Speght's handling of Gg, even when the results may seem
predictable. I believe it may be of interest to have definite knowledge as to
what one early editor of Chaucer did when he was faced with an actual
manuscript.[14]
The A B C has 184 lines or approximately 1400 words.
Speght differs from Gg in 22 lines or 23 words. Not all of the differences
are misreadings. As has been observed, Speght corrected Gg in five
instances, the most notable being the besech-preye variant.
These readings, successful emendations, must be subtracted if a meaningful
assessment of Speght's accuracy is to be made. Moreover, the three
readings in which both Gg and Speght are unique (fn. 13) must also be
subtracted, the Speght variants being attempts,
although unsuccessful, to correct a defective text. Finally, one of the Speght
variants is regardable as simply a modernization (
royall for
rial, line 144); it too should perhaps be subtracted. If nine of
the differences, then, are disregarded, Speght averaged one error every 13
lines, or 14 errors out of 1400 words.
How is this revised figure to be assessed? We have nothing exactly
comparable, for none of the other manuscripts of the A B C
appears to be a copy of an extant text. However, by collating Robinson's
basic manuscript (Cambridge University Library Ff.5.30) with his
reconstructed text one may arrive at some notion of a reasonable
expectation. The manuscript exhibits ten differences. To be sure, this figure
is imperfect. Even so, it bears out one's intuitive feeling, that Speght's copy
is no better than what one might expect of a competent medieval
scribe.
The preceding paragraph deals with lexical differences only. The
medieval scribe was notoriously unconcerned about spelling; Speght's
attitude seems to have been similar (conceivably some of the spellings were
due to the printer). The spelling of 630 words, or 45 per cent of the total,
is preserved. These are mostly words like of,
to,
he, good, and name, where Gg
and the
usual Elizabethan spelling are in agreement. For the remaining words the
spelling is sometimes modified only slightly (e.g., þe
becomes the, occasionally ye;
ȝow,
you; Virgyne, Virgine), but often
the
change is considerable: herte becomes heart;
reles, release; myn,
mine;
refeut, refute; pete,
pitie;
Bounte, Bountie; faderis,
faders; iuge, iudge;
sorwe,
sorow; sauacioun, salvatioun,
etc.
The underlying principle may appear to be modernization but is more
likely, perhaps, simply conformity with Speht's own usage; nor, of course,
is the apparent modernization carried out consistently (e.g.,
modir now remains modir, now becomes
moder). The attitude resembles the medieval scribe's: fidelity
to the spelling of the exemplar counts for little.
Gg is without punctuation. Speght, like most modern editors, supplies
punctuation. He uses only comma, period, and colon, and he often employs
a comma where modern usage would prefer a semicolon. If we disregard
these differences, Speght's punctuation is good and agrees with Robinson's
in 121 out of 184 lines, or 65 per cent of the time. The figure is not an
absolute indication; in some 32 lines more than one punctuation is possible
(e.g., line 28, in Speght thus: For certis, Christis blisfull modir
dere; Robinson puts a comma after For also). Speght
and
Robinson punctuate one stanza identically (with the allowance
mentioned).
So much for general observations. A few of Speght's misreadings are
interesting in themselves (and further proof, if such is needed, that Gg was
Speght's exemplar). In line 56 Gg reads: To stynk eterne he wele
myn
gost exile; Speght changes stynk to
sinke, one
guesses from a wish to ameliorate the diction (cf. the probable amelioration
in St. John's College G.21: To lastande Paine). In line 77
Speght reads ye
where the correct reading
is
that; one would suspect origin from þt
— and
þt is the Gg variant. In line
84 Gg reads
bobaunce ("boast"); apparently Speght did not
know the word and so, taking his cue from the context, coined the
pseudo-archaism
bostaunce. In line 144 Gg reads
in so
rial
wise; Speght removed this archaism, substituting
royall
for
rial. In line 150 Speght reads
sore for the
correct
yore; one would suspect origin from
ȝore,
and
such is the Gg reading. Speght's striking misreading of Gg's
me
seured as
sured me has already been discussed.
For one change, the title, Speght may have gone to another source.
Today the first four folios of Gg are missing; the text of the A B
C begins the fifth folio. The opening four folios may have been
missing in Speght's day (Holland wrote his name on what is actually the
fifth folio; one would assume that he would inscribe the first page of the
manuscript). Someone, not the Gg scribe but probably Holland, wrote a
title, in blue ink, at the top of the fifth folio: CHAUCERS A. B.
C.
[15] Otherwise the poem is
untitled in the manuscript. Speght has the following title: Chaucers
A.
B. C., called La Priere de Nostre Dame: made, as some say, at the Request
of Blanch, Duchesse of Lancaster, as a praier for her priuat use, being a
woman in her religion very deuout. This is really two titles and a
statement. The first title, Chaucers A. B. C., appears in this
form in Fairfax 16 as well as in Gg, but there is no need to suppose that
Speght went beyond Gg for it.[16] The
second title, La Priere de Nostre Dame, occurs only in Pepys
2006. If Speght consulted this manuscript, he did so purely for the title; no
influence is to be seen in his text. The statement about Blanche appears
nowhere else. It is possible that Speght obtained it from some lost source.
It is also possible that he found all of his heading in Gg: the English title
on folio 5, where it still is; the remainder on the missing fourth folio,
which may have been merely so badly deteriorated in 1600 that Holland
preferred to write his name on the next page.
What, then, did Speght do with Gg? He copied the poem relatively
faithfully, emending occasionally (not always rightly) and making an
average of one real error every hundred words. He made the spelling
largely conform with his own although he did retain such peculiarities as
the n on possessive pronouns before consonants. He
punctuated
the poem. He provided an elaborate heading, possibly simply combining
elements in Gg, possibly going elsewhere for part of it. Finally, a
circumstance not remarked upon above, he featured his discovery on his
title page, ending his list of the changes from the first edition with the
statement, "Chaucers A. B. C. called La Priere de nostre Dame, at this
Impression added."
There are suggestions here of the modern editor, but even more of the
medieval scribe. If it is in the latter tradition that Speght is to be viewed,
he comes off fairly well.