 | |  |
Conclusions
The Text of Morte Arthure: Direct Evidence
The examination of the scribe's corrections provides certain kinds of direct evidence unnoticed by previous editors of the poem. The most obvious kind of direct evidence is the corrections that have simply been overlooked, because they were made in light ink, because a caret-mark was misplaced, or because the scribe's habit of correction by superimposition has misled the transcriber. Lighter-ink corrections previously missed include these: the second w cancelled in Swetherwyke (47; MS reading Swetheryke); þe crossed out, 30w inserted after it above the line (225)—thus there is no need to emend to 30w þe, for the MS reading is simply 30w; the second sir-contraction in sir Ewayne sir fytz vriene (2066). A special case is the scribe's correction of ladyne (3081), a misdivision that also violates the caesura; the two diagonal slashes with which he crossed out ne look rather like doubled long ss, and a portion of the e remains visible, leading to the editions' reading of ladysse (the MS reading is lady). Then, editors have felt the need to defend their
A second kind of evidence comprises clues to the exemplar's form obscured by incomplete corrections. An example is the scribe's failure[25] to complete his task in correcting treson of lordez (878; see II.C above). The error was one of transposition, not entirely corrected by the change of lordez to londes; the original phrase occurs in line 991, tresour of landez (with Thornton's Northumbrian a replacing the Midland o of the line 878 correction). As another example, the scribe's omission of romaynes in line 1427 (II.A.1) was corrected by the deletion of the premature redyes them, a phrase retranscribed after the insertion as redyes þan; the emendation of þan to them thus needs no defense. In line 4071, the partial correction of the transliteration many by the erasure of y justifies the emendation of the resultant man to mayn 'main.' Finally, the correction of togers to Toges in line 3189 justifies a similar correction of the togers of line 178.
A third kind of evidence from corrected errors is the confirmation of questioned readings. Filsnez (881) was queried by some early commentators before the OED identified this unusual form's ON root; that the scribe questioned it too and confirmed it from his exemplar is demonstrated by his correction of the error filne.[26] A similar case is the scribe's line-end correction of charye to chare (1886); although the word is difficult (the MED's treatment, s.v., is conjectural), emendation to carye or care would be precipitous.[27] On the other hand, the form valewnce (2047) has not previously been questioned; editors have interpreted the word as "Valence," a place name (cf. valence, line 41). But the scribe rejected his first spelling valence in this line, presumably respelling the word from his copy-text; the original reading here may be valewe or even valiaunce (the exemplar's form was possibly valeunce). Finally, in view of the scribe's correction of forssy to forsesy in line 3300, should one emend the result to forsy (as Krishna does), when the correction seems to insist on this odd spelling?
| | |