| ||
We do not know very much about the dissemination of vernacular romances in fourteenth and fifteenth-century England. What we do know is fragmentary, derived in bits and pieces from accounts, letters, wills, and random notes in manuscripts. There is some evidence for commercial scriptoria in mid-fourteenth-century London in which English romances were copied and perhaps composed and more evidence after the turn of the century.[1] We know too from various sources that at least some aristocratic and middle class families either retained or hired on a casual basis scriveners who copied literary texts.[2] Nevertheless, our knowledge in this important area is severely circumscribed, especially in the interreaction of oral performance and manuscript copying as dual means by which literary
Professor Albert C. Baugh has recently demonstrated just such a process in the surviving manuscripts of three Middle English romances, Beves of Hampton (7 manuscripts), Guy of Warwick (6 manuscripts), and Richard the Lion-Hearted (8 manuscripts). As Baugh noted, "the variations between the manuscripts containing these longer narratives are often quite striking, so great that it is generally impossible to establish a single critical text with the variants adequately reported in the footnotes."[3] Late nineteenth-century editors had attempted to account for these variants in terms of scribal sophistication, of conscious attempts to improve the text. But as Baugh notes, these apparent instances of sophistication are not just a few touches here and there but extensive throughout the romances. Moreover, they represent "improvements" of a very curious nature, since most frequently, the improvement is inferior to the reading attested by the other manuscripts. Changes of this sort tend, in Baugh's words, to be "banalities, clichés, and rime-tags." The simplest and most compelling explanation for these variants lies in the combination of transmission by manuscript copying and the improvisation of oral performers. "In short," Professor Baugh concludes, ". . . for those popular romances in which the manuscripts show extensive variations of a kind that cannot be explained as scribal errors we have in each case the story as told by some minstrel."[4]
The implications for editors of Middle English romances of this kind surviving in more than one manuscript are perfectly clear, though Professor Baugh does not insist upon them: editors must in these cases present parallel-text editions or choose a best text to be printed save where its readings produce obvious nonsense or may be attributed to scribal error.[5] Elaborate comparison of the variants is, to a considerable extent, an exercise in futility, since each manuscript is not simply a more (or less) authoritative
However, the introduction of performers' variants does not, in every case, wreak such havoc with the manuscript tradition, and there is some evidence, in alliterative poetry at least, that a happy conjunction of a performer's aural memory and a good exemplar provided a remarkably fine basis for copying a longish romance. The romance in question is The Wars of Alexander, an alliterative poem translated from the I3 recension of the Historia de preliis Alexandri Magni sometime after 1360 in the Northwest Midlands. The Wars survives in two fragments. The older and longer of the two, MS. Ashmole 44, of the Bodleian Library (MS. A henceforth), was written in a northern dialect about the middle of the fifteenth century. Its ninety-seven folios, comprising 5677 lines, preserve all of the romance except the closing episode describing the death of Alexander. The shorter manuscript, MS. Dublin D.4.12, Trinity College (MS. D), was written in or near Durham Priory in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. It lacks the first 677 lines and ends at line 3425, but for 2686 lines, it provides a check against the A manuscript. W. W. Skeat presented a parallel-text edition of the two manuscripts in 1886 in which he occasionally offered emendations but did not offer an opinion as to the possibility or desirability of establishing a critical text by analysis of the variant readings. His evidence for emendation was for the greatest part based on paleography, metrical irregularity, or reference to his unfortunately corrupt edition of the Historia de preliis.[6]
When I decided to re-edit the poem, initial comparison of the two manuscripts led me think it possible to establish a critical text by comparison of the two manuscripts and by reference to the source, that is, by the traditional methods of editors. However, on the way to establishing a critical text, several interesting complications presented themselves, problems of more interest than the text of The Wars of Alexander itself. Solution of those problems throws some light upon the question of how oral performances affected the dissemination of literary works and provides a model for the use of formulaic diction in deciding between variant readings in the manuscripts.
It is not immediately obvious that either manuscript has been touched in any way by oral improvisation. Skeat explicitly denied that the A manuscript showed any sign of oral transmission (p. xiv), and as I shall suggest
Many variations between the two texts are the result of mechanical errors in copying of one kind and another—repetitions, transpositions of letters, confusion of graphs, omissions of words or lines, and the other unconscious errors that plague anyone who attempts to copy a lengthy text. There are also apparent instances of scribal sophistication, of deliberate attempts of both scribes to edit the text and improve it. But after one has added all instances of deliberate scribal sophistication to the variants arising from mechanical miscopying of the manuscript, the bulk of the variants is still to be explained. There are passages in which one text is in the present tense, the other in the preterite (e.g., at ll. 885 ff., 921-924, 943-946, 1024 ff., 1142-1146, 1385-89, 1397-1406, etc.), in which active and passive voice vary, or in which mood and number differ (e.g., ll. 722, 844, 1944, 2142, 2164, 2987, 3095, etc.). In most cases, either reading is suitable to the context. Even more striking are variations in lexical items: stith] styffe, ll. 1069, 1251, 1327, etc.; taite] ioy, l. 1208; ryfe] gret, l. 1352; bild] tild, l. 1366; tellis] wittnes, ll. 1439; 1592; dere] derfe, ll. 1024, 3013; droune] drench(yd), ll. 2590, 3072, 3274; wathe] wound, l. 1411; fone] some, l. 3180; man] tulke, l. 3174; douth] doughty, ll. 2627, 2663, etc.; worthili] wightly, ll. 1405, 1428; floum] flode, l. 2898; enmy] foes, l. 3096. The list of such variants can be easily expanded by anyone who inspects even casually the manuscripts. Some of them can be explained as dialect translation in which the scribe substituted a more common word for a distinctively Northern form, as in the taite] ioy; fone] some variation. Others, like man] tulke; floum] flode; tellis] wittnes; enmy] foes, etc., are probably to be explained as the more or less unconscious substitution of synonyms. But there exists a kind of systematic variation between the two manuscripts that appears to be beyond the normal and usual combination of mechanical errors, unconscious substitutions, and scribal sophistication. This demands some explanation.
The language of the poem is highly formulaic; that is, there is considerable repetition of half-lines within the poem, with both identical collocations and formula systems in evidence. There is every reason to think that the poet was literate, that he composed his poem at his table with a Latin manuscript before him, and no reason to consider him an oral poet. Yet the poem is at least as formulaic as Beowulf or Morte Arthure and shares most characteristics of orally composed poetry. Those characteristics are, I believe, fairly generally understood, having been much discussed in recent years, and it is not necessary to recapitulate the theory in detail here.[7]
- 1. And passis (passyd) on to Persy . . . 2029
- He passis (passed) on toward Persy . . . 2130
- þan passe (passyd) vp oure princes . . . 1397
- þan passes (passid) he þethen with his princes . . . 1076
- Passis (Passyd) into þe palais . . . 3217
- 2. . . . out of þe west endis (ende) 1733
- . . . into þe west endes (ende) 2325
- 3. . . . was Wyothy hatten (haldyn) 2150
- . . . Mocian was hatten (haldyn) 2540
- . . . my satroparis hatten (halden) 1913
- 4. Aires (Kayres) him to ser Alexander . . . 2637
- Aires (Kayres hym) to ser Alexander . . . 2680
- Aires (Karyn) þaim to ser Alexander . . . 2792
- þen aires (kayrez) him on ser Alexander . . . 2846
- þare aires (kayres) him in ser Alexander . . . 2918
- Aires (Caryn þaim) to ser Alexander . . . 3110
- And aires (karys) with þaim to Eufraten . . . 2770
- þan aires (kayres) he with Emynelows . . . 3005
- 5. (I,) Alexander þe aire (D omits þe) . . . 1838, 2319
- 6. þan Alexander (als) belyue . . . 1096, 1425, 2209, 2886, 3117
- And Alexander (als) belyfe . . . 909, 956, 1792, 2936
- To (ser) Alexander (als) belyue . . . 1255, 3084, 3181
- Quod Alexander (als) belyue . . . 1684, 2271
- 7. Aires (hym) into Affrike . . . 1050
- þan aires (hym) on ser Alexander . . . 2265
- Aires (hym) to ser Alexander . . . 2680
- Aires (þaim) to ser Alexander . . . 3110
- 8. . . . he flittis with his ost (D omits with) 2173, 2439
9. Authority tags occur some eighty-five times in the b-line with variant forms of the pattern "as þe buke tellis," "as me þe claus tellis," "as demys þe textis," "þe scriptore it callis," "þe romance it tellis," "as I am enfourmed," etc. These tags alliterate variously on vowels and the following consonants: /b,d,f,k,j,l,m,p,r,s,t,w/. There are thirty-one lines in which both manuscripts agree and are regular,[9] thirty instances in which A is the
Dublin MS. | Ashmole MS. | |
als says me þe writtes | as þe buke sais | 881 |
als says me þe text | as þe buke witnes | 916 |
as menys me þe writtes | as þe buke tellis | 1615 |
as I am enformed | as þe buke tellis | 1691 |
as sayn me þe writtes | as þe buke sais | 2112 |
& þus says þe text | as þe buke sais | 2536 |
as þe writt shewys | as þe buke tellis | 2539 |
as demys me [þe] writtes | as þe buke tellis | 3069 |
In addition to this clearly formulaic variation, there are regular word substitutions which, though not part of identical formulas, occur in the same or similar metrical environs. There is, for example, consistent variation in line terminal position of horses] blonkez, ll. 791, 2156, 2399, 2981; sendis] wayfez, sende] wayfe, ll. 1716, 1868 (cf. 2752); callis] clepys, ll. 2184, 3117; ost] (h)ostez, ll. 1115, 2031, 2173, 2266, 3207 (and within the line at 3111). There is consistent variation at other positions within the line: out] forth (after verbs of motion), ll. 802, 931, 948, 1170, 1218, 1243, 1318, 1394, 1653 (but cf. l. 923); him] omitted by D, ll. 1078, 1113, 1196, 1353, 1451, 1955, 2283, 2594, 2610, 2662, 2956, 2988, 3114, 3190; meth] might, ll. 816, 1981, 3102; gome] grome, ll. 1190, 1936, 2101; douth] doghty, ll. 2627, 2663, 3006, 3061, 3157; tilt] typed, tiltis] typys, ll. 1303, 1418; worthili] wightly, ll. 1405, 1428; quen] whil(s), ll. 2172, 2255, 2806; stith] styffe, ll. 1069, 1251, 1327, 2050; stithli] styfly, l. 2429; auncient] auancet, ll. 1002, 2391; and faithely] faythfully, ll. 3175, 3282. This remarkable consistency of variation suggests a systematic approach to revision rather like that of a modern editor, or else the habitual formulaic or semi-formulaic collocations of someone who knows the text very well by memory, possibly a performer.
R. F. Lawrence has recently pointed to another remarkable aspect of the manuscript variants in the poem, and that is the tendency for the differing readings of both manuscripts to be metrically regular, each reading conforming to one of a limited number of rhythmic norms.[11] I list below a few instances of this sort in which the same rhythmic pattern occurs in both manuscripts in spite of differences in wording, in tense, or in number. Unstressed syllables before the first stressed stave are assumed not to be significant in determining the rhythmic type, and final -e is sounded only at the end of the line, while -id and -is are syllabic when they follow a stressed syllable.[12] The differing syllables are in italics.
Ashmole MS. | Dublin MS. | |
in his brath endis | whilse hys breth lastez | 1220 |
many lede floȝen | in mony lowd showte | 1392 |
encumbrid þaim neuir | he comber þaim neuir | 1480 |
he quirys all-to-gedire | enquirez all-to-gedyr | 1703 |
Sir Darius him-seluyn | indited you hym-seluen | 1823 |
& gefe vs ȝour lefe | & gyfe vs owr lyfez | 1826 |
þofe he wele suffir | of þe whele sofre | 1858 |
na vaunte sall arise | no vaunt sall þar rise | 1880 |
ȝow limpid to encumbre | enlympyd you to combre | 1881 |
& besely we shapid | & besely echapyn | 1944 |
folke to be nombrid | & folkez unnowmyrd | 1992 |
þe princes to schewe | þe prince it to shewe | 2029 |
& swyth þus him tellis | & sothly hym tald | 2069 |
we wast þam for euire | we wastyd for euer | 2330 |
with a kene voice at anys | & cried all at onys | 2345 |
& ernstly he spekis | & egirly spekes | 2348 |
fulfillis his will | fulfyll þan hys wylle | 2359 |
ȝoure conscience it opence | in your conscience doys shew | 2422 |
his cors for to bathe | hys Cors to be bathyd | 2542 |
to kepe at þam fall | þam paim to kepe fallez | 1192 |
& brathly woundid | & wykydly þaim woundes | 1214 |
fey to þe gronde | fast to þe grunde | 1215 |
brymly he smytis | brathly he smytez | 1222 |
glidis fra othire | glydes fast þair way | 1310 |
feȝtand ȝerne | feghtyng full ȝarne | 1315 |
to of his turnes rekyn | his tournays to reken | 1404 |
of þe shire son | shott fro þe son | 1544 |
That the poem was intended for oral recitation the text itself shows clearly. More importantly, both of the surviving manuscripts show in their indications of divisions the impact of oral performances. As Albert C. Baugh pointed out in an important study of the romances in Middle English, The Wars of Alexander is divided into units of from 120 to 312 lines, thus allowing natural breaks for performers.[14] The poet was careful to provide indications of convenient places to break the narration at points greater than the single passus, usually with a formulaic line or two:
How he kide him in þe courete & quayntid him with ladis.
(ll. 212-213, end of Passus I)
Sone sall I tell ȝow a text, how it be-tid efter.
(ll. 523-524, end of Passus II)
(l. 740, end of Passus III)
Here sall I tell þam at loues to here forthire.
(ll. 2317-2318)
There is every reason to believe that the formulas cited above were intended to meet the exigencies of oral recitation—the wandering attention of an audience, the other scheduled entertainment, or the mere improbability of reading through the entire poem in one or two sittings.[18] Phrases
Larry D. Benson is almost certainly mistaken in asserting that "clearly such works as The Wars of Alexander and The Destruction of Troy were written primarily for readers."[19] Few instances of alliteration are intended to appeal to the eye, but there are a significant number of instances in which elision alliteration occurs, in which only the oral performance makes the alliterative pattern clear, as for example in l. 1829, where elision of at and ese produces the /t/ necessary for regular alliteration: "Takis þam with him to his tent & þam at ese makis."[20] Moreover, the poet consistently appeals to an audience of auditors. He closes the first half of the poem with an appeal which makes sense only in terms of a listening audience and opens the second half of the poem with what amounts to a formal reintroduction:
Forthi, lordis, be ȝour leue, list ȝow to suffire.
Now will I tary for a time & tempire my wittis;
And he þat stiȝe to þe sternes, stiȝtill vs in heuen! (ll. 3464-3467)
Now sall I kithe vs a carpe of a kyng riche,
Of þe auntours of Ser Alexander þat aire was of grece,
How all þe werd at his will he wan or he deid.
þe lattir ende of his lyfe me list ȝow to tell.
For all þe first is in fittis & folowand þe lettir,
And he þat made ȝow þis mirth, oft mynes his saule,
þat driȝtin deyne him to dele a dele of his blis. (ll. 3468-3475)
The researches of Albert C. Baugh into the authorship and dissemination of Middle English romances support such a conclusion, providing considerable evidence of romances changing under the influence of dissemination through minstrels.[21] It would have been no unusual feat for a minstrel to memorize the 6000-plus lines of The Wars of Alexander. Léon Gautier cites instances of French jongleurs boasting of having entire chansons de geste by memory and being able to recite them without losing a line.[22] But the performer who recites a poem of this length a number of times must sooner or later begin to change it in larger and smaller details, substituting his own habitual collocations for those of the text he had once conned so carefully. It is the practicing performer rather than the scribe who is likely to produce the kind of variants we have noted above, for it is he who by countless recitations of both this and other alliterative poems will have fixed in his mind not only the formulas but also the abstract grammatical and metrical patterns that lie behind them. The very slowness of the pace in ordinary scribal transcription, the necessity for copying word by word, or at most phrase by phrase, does not encourage success at imitating alliterative formula systems.[23]
There are, nevertheless, serious difficulties in the way of one who would argue that either the A or D manuscript is separated from the original by oral recomposition. The experience of Milman J. Parry and Albert B. Lord with modern Slavic singers of tales contradicts the textual situation in this instance. Although the modern oral singers boasted of their ability to repeat a lengthy tale from memory without losing a line, they did not in practice often give a word for word, or even a line for line identical version of the tale.[24] There is, however, no compelling reason to assume
A more forcible objection to a theory of oral transmission is that both manuscripts are demonstrably linked by written tradition to the original; that is, marks in the manuscripts correlate both the strophe divisions and major rubrications in the Latin source of the poem, neither of which would be possible in a purely oral tradition. In the A text, there are fifty-nine instances in which the scribe marks the beginning of a strophe with '¶', while the D text has fifty significant instances of lines either marked with '¶' or written wholly or partially in majuscule letters. Of these, there are
We may consider the question of why a performer would go to the trouble and expense of copying a text he had memorized. Unfortunately, too little is known of the actual process by which performers acquired copies of literary works. As Dieter Mehl pointed out, there is little evidence "in favour of minstrel-collections, i.e., manuscripts written specially for minstrels and carried around by them."[27] On the other hand, it is clear that there was a class of performers, some itinerant, some more comfortably attached to a court and patron, who had to have such literary materials for their livelihood. That itinerant minstrels could have afforded any sizeable collection of manuscripts is improbable, but their more favorably established confreres might well have been encouraged to obtain and copy literary works. Performers willing to write out and sell copies of manuscripts in their own, or more probably, in their patron's collection, cannot have been rare. Clearly there was a market for such manuscripts, for in a much quoted passage, Petrarch decries the existence of a sub-artistic class of minstrels, a species of literary parasite who built their reputations upon the purchased or begged wits of original poets:
Oral transmission of the sort Professor Baugh found is out of the question for this poem, and any simple notion that the texts are the product of oral improvisation requires strict qualification. Still, there is the remarkable consistency of the manuscript variants which must be accounted for. Scribal sophistication in the ordinary sense of that term is not really compatible with the evidence, and there is no indication at all of authorial revision. Rather, the manuscripts present precisely the kinds of variants that might arise in a performer's recitation of the memorized text over a period of time. Without conscious thought of changing his text, he would have shifted tense, substituted synonyms, altered formulas, and restructured lines.[29] At some later date the performer who came to copy or recopy the memorized poem would be to a great extent like any other scribe. He would have attempted to reproduce his exemplar more or less faithfully, and like other scribes would have made his share of unconscious mechanical errors and exercised the same right of tampering with a reading here and there to improve or correct the written text before him. But he would differ from the ordinary scribe by having not only the written exemplar on the paper before him but also an aural memory of his own performances. He would, more or less consciously, have inserted his habitual expressions in preference to the readings of the exemplar. It would in turn serve as a check to his memory, a presence before him controlling what he wrote. It would halt the displacement or deletion of scenes and episodes. Some such process in the textual tradition of both manuscripts would account for both the demonstrable continuity in the copying of the manuscripts and for the kinds of consistent variation between the two texts. It is not possible to prove that this is what really happened, but it is less intrinsically improbable than the assumption that all of the variants not explicable by paleographic evidence are the result of ordinary scribal sophistication.
The question then arises, given the probability that both of the extant manuscripts are contaminated by the interposition of a performer's words, whether a critical edition is possible. The implications of Professor Baugh's studies are certainly discouraging. More recently, Professor William E. Holland's study of the variants in the manuscripts of Arthour and Merlin led him to the conclusion that in a verse romance transmitted through a series of minstrel copies the "attempt to delineate the descent of the manuscripts . . . must fail not merely because of an insufficiency of evidence (not enough manuscripts) but because such an attempt is based on an erroneous assumption about the nature of that descent" (p. 105). To this point, every study of the impact of oral delivery upon the texts of written manuscripts has indicated that it led inevitably to a rapid rate of textual corruption. The evidence from the manuscripts of The Wars of Alexander, however, suggests at least the probability that partial oral dissemination need not in fact have caused radical disruption of the text, that the highly formulaic diction of the poem must have been a stabilizing factor in the dissemination of the romance. Equally important for the modern editor, those formulas are extremely useful in establishing a critical text.
The steady and systematic use of evidence derived from the composition of a poem in formulas has not, to my knowledge, been a feature of earlier editions of Middle English texts.[30] For the Middle English alliterative revival, it is customary to argue, as John Finlayson does in his recent edition of the Morte Arthure, that the poets "would appear to have drawn on a common stock of alliterative formulas to express the events drawn from their source material, and in some cases to have created new formulas on the model of those with which they were familiar."[31] If this were
The literate poet who composes formulaically is not precisely like the ordinary poet even when he is writing rather than singing his narrative. He composes from within a more limited sub-grammar of the language than the poet who does not compose in formulas, for that poet, though he may use tags and conventional phrases and may appeal as consistently to a listening instead of a reading audience, nevertheless has more of the syntactic and semantic resources of his language available to him. Professor Frederick Cassidy's report on research into the syntactic patterns utilized by the Old English poets who wrote the elegies and Beowulf reveals that only twenty-five basic syntactic patterns are used in those poems, considerably
I do not wish to imply that the sub-grammar utilized by the Wars-poet was in the least constricting or inadequate to his purpose, nor would it be appropriate to suggest that it is inflexible and absolutely regular. No natural language is. It was not constricting to the poet because it was learned by listening to and by reading a great deal of alliterative poetry, and it was not inadequate because it could generate an infinite number of grammatically and metrically acceptable lines. But from the view point of the modern student of his language, the options open to the formulaic poet are limited by that grammatical-metrical system, by the abstract syntactical, rhythmic, and (what is less well understood in spite of the emphasis upon fixed formulas) semantic collocations behind what he wrote.
The editor cannot assume that the poet composing formulaically achieved absolute regularity in his verse, though since he was able to reread and correct what he had written, his opportunities to achieve total regularity were much greater than for purely oral poets. Nor should one assume that he aimed at such regularity. None of the surviving Middle English alliterative poems is perfectly regular, especially in the alliterative patterns, though it is, I think, improbable that there is much conscious variation of formula systems to achieve the variety urged in rhetorical manuals. Apparent variety in the formulas, as R. F. Lawrence has recently argued, is much more likely to be motivated by the necessity to conserve basic rhythmic norms than by the desire to achieve artful innovation for reasons of ornamentation.[35]
It follows then that when the manuscripts vary, the reading that corresponds to an established formula system is likely to be original and that readings which are not consonant with the grammar of composition are probably corrupt. A few examples will demonstrate the uses of formulaic evidence in establishing the text.
1. At line 1129, the second half-line in A reads "as he þareon lokis." D differs only in the verb, which is the synonymous "wates." The readings are metrically and semantically interchangeable. Both lokis and wates appear elsewhere in the poem in the final stressed position, lokis at ll. 603, 677, 750*, 840*, 2942, etc., and wa(i)tis at ll. 131, 194, 265, 700, 781*, 956, 2930, 3630, 3636, 4129, 4776, etc. On positional grounds, there is no reason to choose between the two. However, the formula occurs again at ll. 956
2. The principle of accepting the lectio difficilior, however, is a weaker reed in formulaic poetry than in verse less bound by semantic and syntactic conventions. At line 1738, the manuscripts differ again in the final stressed position. A reads "oure force to ministere," while D has "oure force to withstonde." Ministere "to control, govern" does not occur elsewhere in the poem. Indeed, using it in the sense of controlling a hostile force is an innovative extension of the normal meanings of the word (see OED, s. v., Minister, v. 7a). It makes excellent sense and, pronounced with the second syllable elided, is metrically regular. However, the D reading is clearly a manifestation of a common off-line formula system which occurs several times in the poem without substantial modification:
- . . . his wrothe to with-stand 2077
- . . . his force to with-stand 2357
- . . . ȝour faes to withstand 2804
- . . . oure force to withstand 3717
- . . . oure miȝtis to withstand 3766
- . . . ȝour saȝe to with-stande 5119
3. At l. 714, the A manuscript reads: "As be þe welken to wete quat suld come efter." D reads "Als be welkyn to wete what worth sall her-aftir." Henneman very sensibly suggested emendation of the line to "quat worth sall eftir," a course I followed in the first draft. However, there is some evidence that supports a more complicated emendation. As the following lines reveal, the half-line is a manifestation of a fairly common formula system:
- . . . quat suld worþe efter 171
- . . . he sall take eftire 360
- . . . how it be-tid efter 524
- . . . howe it worthis eftir 1718
- . . . þat sall fall eftir 1897A
- . . . þat falle sall after 1897D
- . . . how it sall tide eftir 2145
- . . . how it worthid eftir 2317 (probably spurious)
4. At line 1189, the A text reads in the off-line "he writhis him vnfaire," and D has "he wex wode wroth." The alliteration is suspect in D as being too heavy, but formulaic evidence provides the best reason for choosing the A reading:
- . . . angirs vnfaire 837
- . . . þat tened þam vnfaire 1212
- . . . deris þam vn-faire 2041
- . . . & turbled vnfaire 3637
- . . . was arȝed vnfaire 3873
- . . . berand vnfaire 3903
- . . . crabbid vnfaire 4566
- . . . & breed þaim vnfaire 4741
- . . . breis þaim vn-faire 4837
5. At line 2199, the A manuscript reads in the off-line "þat citiȝens hatt," and D reads "þat citesyns er called." Neither reading is unsatisfactory in itself, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that neither is in fact correct. The formula recurs in the following lines:
- . . . & Anec was hatten 40
- . . . Pausanna was hatten 914A}
- . . . pausana he heght 914D}
- . . . my satroparis hatten 1913A}
- . . . my satropers halden 1913D}
- . . . Amont was hatten 2037A}
- . . . amonta was callyd 2037D}
- . . . Yssanna was hatten 2106
- . . . was Wyothy hatten 2150A }
- . . . was worthyly haldyn 2150D }
- . . . Platea was hatten 2297
- . . . Mocian was hatten 2540A }
- . . . of Mocian es haldyn 2540D }
- . . . þat angill is hatten 4720
- . . . was Marcipy hatten 5093
6. Unfortunately, the D manuscript does not extend beyond l. 3467, but formulaic evidence may be used to correct the A text where it stands alone. For instance, at ll. 4775-4776, the text reads:
Tutand out of his tents & þe trees waitis.
- . . . ay on þat dere waytis 265
- . . . quen he on him waites 956
- . . . as he þar-on lokis (wates, D) 1129
- . . . quen þai þare-on waite 3630
- . . . & on his ost waites 4129
7. The highly formulaic language sometimes led the scribes (or performers) to careless substitution of a common pattern for the correct reading. For instance, at l. 2829, the A manuscript reads "And etils to Ser Alexander eft to assaill." The D text reads "And ettlys þe sir Alexander efte to assayle." In this instance, citation of the immediate context will help to make the nature of the problem more clear; King Darius' mother Rodagoras writes to her son advising him not to continue his mad plan to attack Alexander:
Here send I þe, my swete, salutis & ioy.
þou has heuyd vp þi huge ost, as I haue herd tell,
Samed all þi saudiours & semblid þi pupill,
And etils to (or þe) Ser Alexander eft to assaill.
8. The very best evidence for deciding between variants or for emending the single manuscript is the conjunction of formulaic evidence and the source. At lines 5359-5360, where only the A text survives, the text reads:
Sees hire sons wald him sla, and radly scho pleynes.
- . . . & maynly hire pleynes 399
- . . . & depely þam playnt 1698
- . . . & sadly he pleyned 4204
9. Unhappily, the collection and analysis of formulaic evidence will not always permit the editor to decide between variants because of the complicating addition of performers' formulaic collocations to the texts. What at first sight appears to be a variant of the formula system just discussed appears in the off-verse of line 972. The A manuscript reads "augirly he wepis," and D reads "awgerdly pleynez." Alliteration is on the first syllable of augirly, and both readings are metrically regular. The D rhythm /xx/x is of more frequent occurrence than A's /xxx/x, but there is reason to regard both as variations on the same type. Comparison with the lines cited above suggests a generalization and a simple solution. There is obviously a formula system of the pattern "(and) + adverb + pronoun + pleynes," where the adverb and pleynes are stressed and where the particular adverb that appears is determined primarily by alliteration. The slot for the pronoun is unstressed and presumably could be filled with any personal pronoun of one syllable. Since pleynes is the stable element that defines the system in lexical terms, it would seem probable that D's pleynez is correct and the performer-scribe of the A manuscript was responsible for substituting the synonym wepis. Both manuscripts are thus corrupt, A having substituted the synonym and D having deleted the pronoun.
- . . . augirly granys 717
- . . . & augrily granys 3252
- . . . & bitterly wepis 963
- . . . baldly he wepis 5039
- . . . he rewfully wepid 2843A
- . . . rewfully he wepys 2843D
If it is indeed true that this poem is composed formulaically and that there is the interposition of performers' variants in the history of both surviving manuscripts, the implications of such evidence are of considerable interest beyond the editorial conclusions I have drawn at length above. First, there is at least one transitional text between orally composed poetry and written poetry, written by a literate poet but composed within the rhythmic, grammatical, and lexical restraints of a grammar of composition probably oral in origin. There are almost certainly others. Secondly, modern studies of the use of formulas in medieval texts which survive in a single manuscript are possibly askew to the extent that the existence of systematic performers' variants are ignored or unknown. A study of formulas in The Wars of Alexander based on either manuscript alone will produce a quite distorted view of the poet's own practice, since in each instance, the poet's words are changed by the habitual formulaic collocations of the performer. It must not be forgotten either that both manuscripts are linked to an original exemplar by a continuous line of copying,
| ||