VI. Conclusions and Application
Studies in bibliography | ||
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:
Wytħ sexten knyghtes in A soyte sewande hym one
He saluᶾed the souerayne & the sale Aftyr
Ilke A kyng Aftyre kyng and mad his enclines[62]
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
flawed b-verse metrical pattern:
And sayne God wil graunt it his grace to grow at þe last
For to [schadewe] ᶾour sones bot þe schame es ᶾour ownn.[65]
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.
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.
See Hoyt N. Duggan, "Alliterative Patterning as a Basis for Emendation in
Middle
English Alliterative Poetry," Studies in the
Age of Chaucer 8 (1986): 73–105; J. P. Oakden, Allitera-
tive Poetry in Middle English: The
Dialectal and Metrical Survey (1930; repr. Hamden: Archon Books,
1968). It should be noted that, while he comments on the rarity of
patterns lacking alliteration
on the third stress, Oakden does not
rule out the possibility that they are archetypal. Rather,
the closest
he comes to any censure is to comment on "how many poets are apt to
repudiate the
types ax/xa and xa/xa, which never achieved the same
prestige as ax/ax, xa/ax—the tradi-
tional types" (Oakden 169).
Duggan, however, argues convincingly that the statistical evidence
and
distribution of such atypical readings is a sign of their scribal
nature.
While a cautious editor might be tempted to salvage the manuscript reading
by adopt-
ing an unusual stress assigment, scribal smoothing of
inverted authorial phrasing in the b-verse
is very common throughout
the Morte Arthure. In the first one thousand lines,
for instance, there
are at least twenty-three other examples of this
type of corruption (see ll. 115, 131, 138, 170,
244, 254, 370, 392,
443, 457, 627, 631, 634, 658, 766, 794, 875, 897, 910, 946, 949, 971, and
992).
Wynnere and Wastour ll. 398–400; British Library MS Add. 31042 (quoted from the Trigg edition; see note 13).
See Hoyt N. Duggan, "The Shape of the B-Verse in Middle English Alliterative
Po-
etry," Speculum 61 (1986): 564–592;
Hoyt N. Duggan, "Final -e and the Rhythmic Structure
of the B-Verse in
Middle English Alliterative Poetry," Modern Philology
86:2 (1988): 119–145;
Hoyt N. Duggan, "Stress Assignment in
Middle English Alliterative Poetry," Journal of English
and Germanic Philology 89:3 (1990): 309–329. Duggan's
findings have been widely accepted,
although there are skeptics like
Trigg (see Wynnere and Wastour xxxvi).
VI. Conclusions and Application
Studies in bibliography | ||