 | |  |
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,
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
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
| | |