University of Virginia Library

VI. Conclusions and Application

While the restoration of authorial readings has not been the primary focus
of this article, a brief look at two passages in Thornton's unique copies of Wyn-
nere and Wastour and the Morte Arthure will begin to suggest practical applications
for the scribal profile outlined above. Since information about copying habits
can only be used to anticipate tendencies and not identify specific errors, lines
have been selected that also exhibit obvious deficiencies when judged according
to metrical and alliterative norms. The first of these exemplary passages, taken
from the Morte Arthure, describes the arrival of Emperor Lucius' envoys at King
Arthur's court and demonstrates how the scribal inversion of sentence structure
could upset a poem's delicate structure:

The first three lines maintain the widely attested A-A-A-X pattern, in which
the first three of four stressed words carry the expected alliteration. This is the
standard format of the Middle English alliterative long-line and therefore, at
least in terms of poetic structure, all three can be taken without further comment
as authorial. Unfortunately, in the fourth line the pattern switches to the non-
standard A-A-X-A, which is generally not considered an acceptable variation
since without alliteration the third stressed syllable cannot fulfill its traditional
role as the link between the two half-lines.[63] In light of Thornton's penchant for
syntactic smoothing, however, it is probable that the authorial version of this
line had a less prosaic ordering of verb and object: "Ilke A kyng Aftyre kyng and
his enclines mad."[64] A slightly different situation arises, on the other hand, dur-
ing Wynner's speech about responsible forestry in Wynnere and Wastour where it
is Thornton's weakness for paratactic expression that suggests a correction to a
flawed b-verse metrical pattern:
Hoyt Duggan's widely-accepted rules of b-verse metricality stipulate that any
b-verse with two or more dips of multiple unstressed syllables are categorically
non-authorial, and that restriction would clearly apply to the third line quoted
here.[66] While the only logical correction for this error is the elimination of the
extraneous conjunction, Thornton's consistent interference with syntactic transi-
tions offers yet another means to justify this emendation. Given how glaringly
obvious the errors are in both this and the previous example, however, some
might question whether the ability to confirm their existence through knowl-
edge of Thornton's copying habits is any great advantage. Judging the scribal
evidence solely on its ability to unearth new error misrepresents the challenges
inherent to the editorial process, though, which is more often stymied by the lack
of corroborative evidence for corrections than any shortage of errors needing
emendation. An understanding of Thornton's unique tendencies provides the
confirmation an editor would need to justify adopting specific changes in both
these and many other lines, representing an improvement over past invocations
of a generic usus scribendi too easily accommodated to preconceived notions about
scribal fidelity.

While we are fortunate in the identification of Thornton and his manuscripts,
especially given his importance in preserving alliterative verse, the same prin-
ciples demonstrated here should inform other new studies of scribal habit as well.
That is to say, textual scholars should seek whenever possible to explain scribal
agendas in the same detail previously reserved only for the authorial intent. This
does not mean abandoning interest in traditional forms of authority, but rather
realizing that without such complementary efforts we will never understand fully
either aspect of medieval literature. Most editorial appeals to scribal habit carry
little weight, unfortunately, representing impressionistic judgments indebted to
preconceived notions about scribal fidelity and the best means of recovering
authorial readings. The previous scholarship on Robert Thornton demonstrates
this susceptibility toward bias, and the case study offered here is intended both as
a correction of that specific problem and as a general template for new research.
Especially now, as the wider availability and functionality of electronic editions
makes such descriptive work less burdensome, textual scholars and editors have
little excuse for treating the study of scribal agendas as a mere afterthought.

Increased understanding of a copyist's motives may not be possible in every cir-
cumstance, but the statistical method offered here at least provides one practical
method of answering recent calls to extrapolate from scribal interventions some
idea of how early audiences received and interacted with medieval texts.