Interstices: Studies in Late Middle English and Anglo-Latin Texts in Honour of A.G. Rigg 9781442676268

Table of contents :
Contents
Foreword
Preface
Tabula Gratulatoria
A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004
'Envoluped In Synne': The Bolton Hours and Its Confessional Formula
Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer
Nonverbal Communication in Medieval England: Some Lexical Problems
John of Glastonbury and Borrowings from the Vernacular
Greeks in England, 1400
Last Words: Latin at the End of the Confessio Amantis
'Lat be thyne olde ensaumples' :' Chaucer and Proverbs
The Hermit and the Outlaw: An Edition
Peter Pateshull: One-Time Friar and Poet?
Manuscript Evidence for the Use of Medieval English Scientific and Utilitarian Texts
Contributors
Index

Citation preview

INTERSTICES: : STUDIES IN MIDDLE ENGLISH ANDD ANGLO

A.G. Rigg. Photo courtsey of Jonathan Herold.

INTERSTICESS Studies in Middle English and Anglo-Latin Texts in Honour of A.G. Rigg

Edited by Richard Firth Green and Linne R. Mooney

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

www.utppublishing.com © University of Toronto Press Incorporated 2004 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-8743-4

@* Printed on acid-free paper

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Interstices: studies in late Middle English and Anglo-Latin texts in honour of A.G. Rigg / edited by Richard Firth Green and Linne R. Mooney. ISBN 0-8020-8743-4 1. English literature - Middle English, 1100-1500 - Criticism, Textual. 2. English literature - Middle English, 1100-1500 - History and criticism. 3. Latin literature, Medieval and modern - England Criticism, Textual. 4. Latin literature, Medieval and modern England - History and criticism. I. Rigg, A.G., 1937- II. Green, Richard Firth, 1943- III. Mooney, Linne R., 1949PR260.I57 2004 820.9'001 C2003-902729-5

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its publishing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP).

Contents

Foreword

vii

D A V I D N. K L A U S N E R

Preface xi Tabula Gratulatoria

xiii

A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004

xv

M A T T H E W D. PONESSE AND D A M I A N F L E M I N G

'Envoluped In Synne': The Bolton Hours and Its Confessional Formula 3 A L E X A N D R A BARRATT

Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer

15

CHARLOTTE BREWER

Nonverbal Communication in Medieval England: Some Lexical Problems 44 J.A. BURROW John of Glastonbury and Borrowings from the Vernacular 55 J A M E S P. C A R L E Y

vi

Contents

Greeks in England, 1400

74

D A V I D R. C A R L S O N

Last Words: Latin at the End of the Confessio Amantis

99

SIAN E C H A R D

'Lat be thyne olde ensaumples': Chaucer and Proverbs DOUGLAS GRAY

The Hermit and the Outlaw. An Edition

137

R I C H A R D FIRTH G R E E N

Peter Pateshull: One-Time Friar and Poet?

167

ANNE HUDSON

Manuscript Evidence for the Use of Medieval English Scientific and Utilitarian Texts 184 L I N N E R. M O O N E Y

Contributors Index

207

203

122

Foreword DAVID N. KLAUSNER

JACK CADE: Away with him! Away with him! He speaks Latin! - 2 Henry VI, 4.7

Cade's bilious dismissal of Lord Say served as one of several epigraphs to the first of the three publications which have honoured George Rigg during his career. Entitled Studies in Unfinished Scholarship: A Shortschrift in Honour of A.G. Rigg on the Occasion of His Departure from Office, it was assembled by students at the Centre for Medieval Studies in 1978, when George completed a two-year term as acting director of the Centre. Its contents included a proposal for self-exemplifying linguistic terminology ('loss of unstressd finl vowels'), a translation of verses from the early Welsh poem Y Gododdin in the style of William McGonegall, and a Gothic-Latin phrasebook ('Are you entering the Empire for the purpose of immigration or invasion?'). It remains one of George's most prized honours. The second volume, Anglo-Latin and Its Heritage, was edited by two of George's former students, Sian Echard and Gernot Wieland of the University of British Columbia, and was published by Brepols in the series Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin (2001). The festschrift was produced to celebrate George's sixty-fourth birthday, on the understanding that if he got wind of a celebratory volume for his sixtyfifth birthday, he would make himself scarce. This present and third volume does mark George's sixty-fifth year, as well as his retirement from the University of Toronto (mandatory under Ontario law), and whether we will have the opportunity to present it to him in some formal manner will depend very much on whether a large number of people can keep a secret.

viii

Foreword

Jack Cade wouldn't have liked George Rigg very much. For one thing, George is a staunch monarchist, and he does speak Latin, although not as a regular means of communication. I can't imagine what Cade would have made of the Centre's Friday afternoon Latin Scrabble games, at which George is a regular participant, or of his barely concealed alter ego as 'Crucifex,' the author of the Latin crossword puzzles which have long been one of the most popular features of the Centre's annual Newsletter. A.G. Rigg was born in Wigan, Lancashire, on 17 February 1937, the son of George William and Alice Rose Rigg. More than thirty years in Toronto have failed to erase the characteristic vowels of his birthplace. His early schooling was at the Convent of Notre Dame, Wigan, and at Wigan Grammar School, where the school's strength in classics laid a solid foundation for what was to come. Between 1955 and 1959, George was an undergraduate at Pembroke College, Oxford, where he took his BA in the English School. Among his tutors were C.L. Wrenn and Douglas Gray. Upon completion of his degree he immediately began working on a DPhil thesis under the supervision of Norman Davis, a study of the Glastonbury commonplace book, Cambridge, Trinity College MS O.9.38, which would later be published in the Oxford Monographs series under the title A Glastonbury Miscellany (1968). The interest in miscellanies and anthologies born in the research for his dissertation has continued throughout George Rigg's career, notably in a series of long articles (often coauthored with his students and younger colleagues) on medieval poetic anthologies, all appearing in the journal Mediaeval Studies. Work on the Glastonbury manuscript also allowed him to develop and pursue his wide variety of interests, not only in Medieval Latin literature, but also in Middle English literature and philology. This interest in miscellanies, as well as his life-long interest in editing, prompted many of George's most important works: the edition of the poems of the thirteenth-century Walter of Wimborne (1978); the De coniuge non ducenda (1986), which sold, and continues to sell, particularly well under his title 'Gawain on Marriage'; and his most controversial work, the edition with Charlotte Brewer of the Z-text of Piers Plowman (1983). He has focused, in particular, on editorial practice in the volume of conference proceedings, Editing Medieval Texts (1977), deriving from the 1976 Toronto Conference on Editorial Problems, and in his long service as editor of the series Toronto Medieval Latin Texts, in which his own edition of the Harley Epitome (BL MS Harley 3860) and related texts appeared in 2001 under the title A Book of British Kings. His interest in language history has continued as well; his regular courses on the history of the English language have long relied upon The English Language: A Historical Reader (1968), and his research on the influ-

Foreword

ix

ence of vernacular languages (especially English) on Latin prompted our collaboration on Singing Early Music: The Pronunciation of European Languages in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance (1996). Among his publications, however, it is his two major volumes on Medieval Latin for which George Rigg will be best remembered. The first of these, his comprehensive study of post-Conquest Latin literature, appeared in 1992 as A History of Anglo-Latin Literature, 1066-1422. No attempt had been made at such a work since Thomas Wright's Biographia Britannica Literaria (1842-6), which, as Rigg notes, was simply an encyclopedia of authors, with no attempt made to provide a connecting history. The second, Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide (1996), is a massive reference volume assembled in collaboration with Frank Mantello, which has brought Medieval Latin literature to scholars in related and peripheral fields. Over the course of thirty-four years at the University of Toronto, most of the students at the Centre for Medieval Studies have met George in class. His earliest teaching, however, was not in Latin but in the history of the English language. He lectured at Merton College, Oxford, in 1961 and Balliol College in 1963. His first foray into North America came in 1966 with a visiting assistant professorship in the Department of English at Stanford University. Two years later he came to Toronto as associate professor, and was promoted to full professor in 1976. George was co-architect with the late Colin Chase of the Centre's Latin teaching program, and he chaired the Committee for Medieval Latin Studies from his arrival until last year, setting and maintaining the rigorous standard of Latin that has now come to be expected of Centre graduates, and is now required in several other programs in medieval studies around the world. George's honours have not been limited to the University of Toronto. The Canadian Federation for the Humanities has provided subventions for three of his books, and he spent a year at Pembroke College, Oxford, as a visiting fellow in 1979-80. He was elected a Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America in 1997, and to the Royal Society of Canada in 1998. Until the mid-1980s, George and his wife, Jennifer, maintained a residence in the Oxford area to which they returned each summer, providing a haven for Bodley-bound students and faculty, as well as access to a comfortable village pub in Black Bourton. Since relinquishing that hold on their roots, they have spent their summers touring Canada, especially in Quebec and Nova Scotia. Locally, they have spent thirty years exploring the Bruce Trail, which follows the Niagara escarpment from the Falls to the northern tip of the Bruce peninsula. Their interest in the outdoors is translated at home into a love of gardening, and late summer is regularly marked at the Centre by the appearance of an

x

Foreword

extra stock of fine tomatoes in the Centre's lounge. George has also taken a strong interest in smokers' rights in the province of Ontario, and his letters on the subject have appeared with some frequency in the Globe and Mail. The inexplicable vagaries of Canadian weather have annually been outlined for new Centre students in a mysterious document that appears on the bulletin board at the start of winter, entitled 'Old George's Almanac of Canadian Weather,' which explains the relevance of such local terminology as 'false spring,' 'fool's spring,' and 'Indian winter.' In a very real way, George Rigg has been for more than three decades the 'centre of the Centre.' We are all grateful to him, we are the better for knowing him, and we wish him a joyous retirement.

Preface

This volume was compiled in honour of Professor A. George Rigg for presentation at the time of his retirement, at age 65, from the University of Toronto in May 2002. The editors, Richard Firth Green and Linne R. Mooney, were both supervised by Rigg in writing doctoral dissertations at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, where he taught medieval Latin and Middle English literature and philology for thirty-four years. The other contributors were his MA supervisor at Oxford, Douglas Gray; Oxford friends John Burrow and Anne Hudson; Toronto colleague David Klausner; and students supervised by Rigg at Toronto, Alexandra Barratt, Charlotte Brewer, James P. Carley, David R. Carlson, Sian Echard, and Matthew D. Ponesse. These contributors now hail from around the globe, from Great Britain, New Zealand, and the United States, as well as Canada. As Klausner has remarked in his biographical piece, Rigg's scholarly interests and publications have been remarkably wide-ranging in Medieval Latin, Anglo-Norman, and Middle English, and so it is not surprising that the essays in this volume from his students and friends are equally wide-ranging, not only mirroring his own research interests but reflecting the interdisciplinary research interests he fostered in his students. What all have in common is that they bridge boundaries between traditional academic disciplines; thus, our title, Interstices. Some contributions are new editions of Middle English texts. Alexandra Barratt provides an edition of the Middle English confessional formula added to flyleaves of the Bolton Hours (York Minster Library, MS Add. 2), presenting evidence in her introduction for its having been compiled by a lay person and intended as a general formula to be used by men and women alike. Richard Firth Green presents an edition of The Hermit and the Outlaw from British

xii

Preface

Library, MS Add. 37492, with introduction and notes; the poem had previously been edited in 1816 and 1890, but neither edition was based on this manuscript, which has come to light since those publications. Of related interest is Charlotte Brewer's overview of editions of Chaucer from the late nineteenth century to the present, detecting trends in each age's standards for editing. Douglas Gray, J.A. Burrow, and Sian Echard contribute studies of some aspects of major Middle English writings, crossing boundaries into social history and the history of the book. Douglas Gray discusses Chaucer's use of proverbs and proverbial sayings, and what their positioning can tell us of Chaucer's understanding of their meaning and importance. John Burrow discusses modern understandings and misunderstandings of Middle English terms for nonverbal communication. Sian Echard discusses John Gower's concluding lines in the Confessio Amantis as indicators of Gower's attempts to position his works and his reputation for posterity, contrasting them with an epitaph and indulgence added to the end of collections of Gower's Latin poems in some of the manuscripts after the poet's death. Related to Echard's emphasis on the manuscripts is Linne R. Mooney's codicological study of the literary and material evidence for the use of scientific and utilitarian texts in late medieval English manuscripts. Three contributors, James P. Carley, David R. Carlson, and Anne Hudson, have written historical studies based on primary materials not usually or previously consulted for an understanding of the historical events they treat. James P. Carley discusses the sources for the legend of Joseph of Arimathea's link to Glastonbury Abbey and the references to the complete legend found in other English writings that help us to date the compilation of the legend and to envision the fuller legends of which John of Glastonbury's chronicle gives us only excerpted narratives. David R. Carlson discusses the visit of the Greek emperor of the East, Manuel II Palaeologus, to the English court of Henry IV in 1400, the reception he received, the purpose of his visit, and the results of that state visit. Anne Hudson discusses works that John Bale attributed to Peter Pateshull, including the Vita fratrum mendicantium and poems that are anticlerical in tone and content, gleaning from them evidence about Pateshull's authorship, membership in the fraternal orders, and association with Lollardy. All break new ground in interdisciplinary scholarship of late medieval England, in tribute to a teacher, friend, and colleague who has been our guide and fellow explorer in these uncharted territories. LINNE R. MOONEY RICHARD FIRTH GREEN

May 2002

Tabula Gratulatoria

Lawrin Armstrong Kenneth R. Bartlett Deborah and Jonathan Black Patricia DeLeeuw Carla DeSantis Idit Dobbs-Weinstein Sian Echard Joanne Findon Abigail Firey Rev. Conrad L. Harkins, O.F.M. Ann M. Hutchison David N. Klausner Lynn and Frank Mantello Linda E. Marshall M. Michele Mulchahey Lynette Olson Martha Parrott David A.E. Pelteret Heather Phillips The Rev. D. Anne Quick Rev. Neil J. Roy Margaret A. Sinex Nancy Porter Stork Jacqueline Brown and Richard Tarrant Pauline A. Thompson Faith Wallis

xiv

Tabula Gratulatoria

John O. Ward Gregory Wilkin Marjorie Curry Woods The editors wish to acknowledge the liberal support of the College of Humanities at the Ohio State University and the Smallman Fund of the University of Western Ontario in helping to underwrite the costs of producing this volume, and the generous assistance of Professor Mario Di Cesare in its preparation.

A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004 COMPILED BY MATTHEW D. PONESSE AND DAMIAN FLEMING

1963 'William Dunbar: The Fenyeit Freir.' Review of English Studies, n.s., 14 (1963): 169-73.

1965 Review of N.F. Blake, ed., The Phoenix (Manchester, 1964). Review of English Studies, n.s., 16 (1965): 104-5.

1966 'Gregory's Garden: A Latin Dream-Allegory.' Medium Aevum 35 (1966): 29-37. 'Notes on Trinity College, Cambridge, MS 0.9.38.' Notes and Queries 211 (1966): 324-30.

1967 7am nunc in proximo: A Latin Mortality Poem.' Medium Aevum 36 (1967): 249-52. 'The Letter C and the Date of Easter.' English Language Notes 5 (1967): 1-5. 'The Stores of the Cities.' Anglia 85 (1967): 125-37. Two Poems on Sir Richard Gresham, 1485-1549.' Guildhall Miscellany 2.9 (1967): 389-91.

xvi A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004

'The Wager Story.' Romania 88 (1967): 404-17. Review of B. Bartholomew, Fortuna andNatura (The Hague, 1966). Review of English Studies, n.s., 18 (1967): 448-50. Review of J. Szoverffy, A Mirror of Medieval Culture: Saint Peter Hymns of the Middle Ages (New Haven, 1965). Medium Aevum 36 (1967): 56-9.

1968 A Glastonbury Miscellany of the Fifteenth Century: A Descriptive Index of Trinity College, Cambridge, MS 0.9.38. Oxford, 1968. Two Latin Poems against the Friars.' Mediaeval Studies 30 (1968): 106-18. Supplement: 'Latin Texts, with Notes and Synopsis.' In Polyphonic Music of the Fourteenth Century, vol. 5, Motets of French Provenance, ed. F.L. Harrison. Monaco, 1968.

1969 Review of R. van Kluyve, ed., Thomas Walsingham: De Archana Deorum (Durham, NC, 1968). Speculum 44 (1969): 501-4. Review of S. Viarre, La survie d'Ovide dans la litterature scientifique des XHe etXIIIe siecles (Poitiers, 1966). Medium Aevum 38 (1969): 65-7.

1970 'Hoccleve's Complaint and Isidore of Seville.' Speculum 45 (1970): 564-74. Review of H.S. Bennett, English Books and Readers, 1475-1557, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1969). Notes and Queries 215 (1970): 83. Review of W.S. Mitchell, Catalogue of Incunabula of Aberdeen University (Edinburgh, 1968). Notes and Queries 215 (1970): 101-2.

1971 'Walter of Wimborne, O.F.M.: An Anglo-Latin Poet of the Thirteenth Century.' Mediaeval Studies 33 (1971): 371-8. Review of P. Dronke, Poetic Individuality in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1970). Notes and Queries 216 (1971): 228-30. Review of BJ. Whiting, Proverbs, Sentences and Proverbial Phrases before 1500 (Cambridge, MA, 1968). Review of English Studies, n.s., 22 (1971): 326-33.

A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004 xvii

1973

Revisions to Cassell's Encyclopedia of Literature, 2nd ed., 1973. Articles on Medieval Latin mainly by F.J.E. Raby, revised by Toronto students under the direction of A.G. Rigg.

1974 The English Language: A Historical Reader. New York, 1968. Translated into Japanese, 1974.

1975 With G. Wieland. 'A Canterbury Class-Book of the Mid-Eleventh Century.' Anglo-Saxon England 4 (1975): 113-30.

1977 Editing Medieval Texts: English, French, and Latin Written in England. New York and London, 1977. 'Golias and Other Pseudonyms.' Studi Medievali, 3rd ser. 18 (1977): 65-109. 'Medieval Latin Poetic Anthologies (I): [Titus A. xx, Rawlinson B. 214].' Mediaeval Studies 39 (1977): 281-330. 'The Red Book of Ossory' (review of three editions of Richard Ledrede's Latin poems). Medium Aevum 45 (1977): 269-78.

1978 The Poems of Walter ofWimborne, O.F.M. Studies and Texts 42. Toronto, 1978. 'Authors and Antiquaries: The Supposed Works of Robert Baston.' In Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries: Essays Presented to N.R. Ker, ed. M.B. Parkes and Andrew Watson, 317-31. London, 1978. 'Medieval Latin Poetic Anthologies (II): [Bodley 851].' Mediaeval Studies 40 (1978): 387-407.

1979 'Medieval Latin Poetic Anthologies (III): [Digby 166, Bodley 603, Vespasian E. xii].' Mediaeval Studies 41 (1979): 468-505.

xviii A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004

Review of D.S. Brewer, ed., Chaucer: The Critical Heritage (London and Boston, 1978). Review of English Studies, n.s., 30 (1979): 336-8.

1980 'The Lament of the Friars of the Sack.' Speculum 55 (1980): 84-90. 'Metra de Monachis Carnalibus: The Three Versions.' Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 15 (1980): 134-42.

1981 'Medieval Latin Poetic Anthologies (IV): [Rawlinson G. 109].' Mediaeval Studies 43 (1981): 472-97.

1982 'Beowulf 1368-1372: An Analogue.' Notes and Queries 227 (1982): 101-2.

1983 'Clocks, Dials, and Other Terms.' In Middle English Studies Presented to Norman Davis, ed. D. Gray and E.G. Stanley, 255-74. Oxford, 1983. 'The Editing of Medieval Latin Texts: A Response.' Studi Medievali, 3rd ser. 24 (1983): 385-8. With Charlotte Brewer. William Langland: Piers Plowman, the Z-version. Studies and Texts 59. Toronto, 1983. 1984

'Eraclius Archipoeta: Bekynton Anthology Nos. 14, 15, 20, 77.' Medium Aev«m53(1984): 1-9. Review of AJ. Minnis, Chaucer and Pagan Antiquity (Cambridge, 1982). Notes and Queries 229 (1984): 258. Review of E. Wilson, ed., The Winchester Anthology (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1981). Speculum 59 (1984): 218-19.

1985 'Anglo-Latin Literature to 1422.' In Oxford Companion to English Literature, 5th ed., ed. M. Drabble, 29. Oxford, 1985.

A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004 xix

With A.B. Scott and Deirdre Baker. 'The Biblical Epigrams of Hildebert of Le Mans: A Critical Edition.' Mediaeval Studies 47 (1985): 272-316. Review of M.R. James, C.N.L. Brooke, and R.A.B. Mynors, eds., Walter Map: De nugis curialium (Oxford, 1983). Speculum 60 (1985): 177-82.

1986 Gawain on Marriage: The Textual Tradition of the De coniuge non ducenda, -with a Critical Edition and Translation. Studies and Texts 79. Toronto, 1986. 'Nigel of Canterbury: What Was His Name?' Medium Aevum 56 (1987): 304-7. With David Townsend. 'Medieval Latin Poetic Anthologies (V): Matthew of Paris' Anthology of Henry of Avranches (Cambridge University Library MS. Dd. 11.78).' Mediaeval Studies 49 (1987): 352-90. Review of R.W. Hunt, The Schools and the Cloister: Life and Writings of Alexander Nequam (1157-1217) (Oxford, 1984). Speculum 61 (1986): 666-8.

1988 "The Prophecy of John of Bridlington: A New Look.' Speculum 63 (1988): 596-613.

1989 'Roger of Ford's Poem on the Virgin: A Critical Edition.' Citeaux 40 (1989): 200-14. Translations of Erasmus' Commentaries on Ovid's Nut-Tree and on Two Hymns by Prudentius, in Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 29: Literary and Educational Works 7, ed. E. Fantham and E. Rummel, 125-218. Toronto, 1989. Translations of three antifeminist texts and an analogue to the Prioress's Tale, in The Canterbury Tales: Nine Tales and the General Prologue, edited by V.A. Kolve and G. Olson, 326^7, 418-23. New York and London, 1989.

1990 Review of R.E. Pepin, Literature of Satire in the Twelfth Century (Lewiston, NY, 1988). Speculum 65 (1990): 1034-6.

xx A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004

1991

'Gower's Place in Anglo-Latin Literature.' Preface to Sian Echard and Claire Fanger, The Latin Verses in the Confessio Amantis, xiii-xxiv. East Lansing, 1991. 'Henry of Huntingdon's Metrical Experiments.' Journal of Medieval Latin 1 (1991): 60-72. 'Richard Pluto's Equivoca: An Edition.' Latomus 50 (1991): 563-80.

1992 A History of Anglo-Latin Literature 1066-1422. Cambridge, 1992. Translations of medieval Latin antifeminist texts, in Woman Defamed and Woman Defended, ed. A. Blamaires, 103-14, 125-9. Oxford, 1992.

1993 'The Legend of Hugh Capet.' In The Centre and Its Compass: Studies in Medieval Literature in Honor of Professor John Leyerle, ed. R.A. Taylor et al., 389-406. Kalamazoo, 1993. Review of T. Hunt, Teaching and Learning in Thirteenth-Century England (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1991). Journal of Medieval Latin 3 (1993): 230-3. Review of M. Rener, Petri Presbyteri Carmina (Leiden, 1988). Journal of Medieval Latin 3 (1993): 227-9.

1994 'MS Bodley 851.' In Piers Plowman: A Facsimile of the Z-text in Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Bodley 851, ed. Charlotte Brewer and A.G. Rigg, 23-42. Cambridge, 1994. [This is an update and revision of the article 'Medieval Latin Poetic Anthologies (II)' (1978).] Review of R.H. Rouse and M.A. Rouse, eds., Registrum Anglie de libris doctorum et auctorum veterum (London, 1991). Speculum 69 (1994): 248-50.

1995 'De motu et pena peccandi: A Latin Poem on the Process and Effects of Sin.' In Literature and Religion in the Later Middle Ages: Philological Studies in Honor of Siegfried Wenzel, ed. R.G. Newhauser and J.A. Alford, 161-77. Binghamton, 1995.

A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004 xxi

1996

'A Latin Poem on St Hilda and Whitby Abbey.' Journal of Medieval Latin 6 (1996): 12-43. 'Serlo of Wilton: Biographical Notes.' Medium Aevum 65 (1996): 96-101. With F.A.C. Mantello. Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. Washington, 1996. Repr. 1999. With T. McGee and D. Klausner. Singing Early Music: The Pronunciation of European Languages in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Bloomington, 1996. Review of F. Adcock, trans., Hugh Primas and the Archpoet (Cambridge, 1994). Speculum 71 (1996): 925-6. Review of B.S. Merrilees and W. Edwards, eds., Firmini Verris Dictionarius (Turnhout, 1994). Journal of Medieval Latin 6 (1996): 253-5.

1997 'Anglo-Latin Literature in the Ricardian Age.' In Essays on Ricardian Literature in Honor ofJ.A. Burrow, ed. A.J. Minnis et al., 121-41. Oxford, 1997. 'Lawrence of Durham: Dialogues and Easter Poem: A Verse Translation.' Journal of Medieval Latin 1 (1997): 42-126. Review of W. Wetherbee, trans., Johannes de Hauvilla: Architrenius (Cambridge, 1994). Speculum 72 (1997): 497-8.

1998 'Calchas: Renegade and Traitor: Dares and Joseph of Exeter.' Notes and Queries 243 (1998): 176-8. 'Walter Map, the Shaggy Dog Story, and the Quaestio disputata.' In Roma magistra mundi [Festschrift for L.E. Boyle], ed. J. Hammesse, 723-35. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1998. Review of M. Bayless, Parody in the Middle Ages (Ann Arbor, MI, 1996). Studies in the Age of Chaucer 20 (1998): 232-7.

1999 'Coincidence, Convention or Copycat Crime? A Curious Case of the Twelfth Century.' Florilegium 16 (1999): 31-9. 'Propaganda of the Hundred Years War: Poems on the Battles of Crecy and Durham (1346): A Critical Edition.' Traditio 54 (1999): 169-211.

xxii A.G. Rigg's Publications, 1963-2004

Review of J. Busdraghi et al., eds., Osbern: Derivazioni (Spoleto, 1996). Speculum 74 (1999): 232-5. 2000 A Book of British Kings, 1200 BC - 1399 AD. Toronto Medieval Latin Texts. Toronto, 2000. 'The Long or the Short of It? Amplification or Abbreviation?' Journal of Medieval Latin 10 (2000): 46-73. With P. Binkley. Two Poetic Debates by Henry of Avranches.' Mediaeval Studies 62 (2000): 29-67.

2001 'Joseph of Exeter's Pagan Gods Again.' Medium Aevum 70 (2001): 19-28. 2002 'Historical Fiction in Walter Map: The Construction of Godwin of Wessex.' In Scripturus Vitam: Festgabefilr Walter Berschin zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. D. Walz, 1001-10. Heidelberg, 2002. 'Das Gedicht des Michael von Cornwall auf Siindenfall und Erlosung. Eine Edition.' In Hymnum canamus socii in memoriam Josef Szoverffy, ed. K. Smolak, 71-9. Wien, 2002. 2003 Verse translation in Richard Maidstone: Concordia (The reconciliation ofVerse translation in Richard Maidstone: Concordia (The reconciliation of Richard II with London), ed. D.R. Carlson. TEAMS Middle English Text Series. 'Henry of Huntington's Herbal.' Mediaeval Studies 65 (2003): 213-91. 2004 (forthcoming) With Anthony Adams. 'A Verse Translation of St. Germain's Bella Parisiacae Urbis.' Journal of Medieval Latin 14. 'Descriptio Northfolchie: A critical edition' Nova de veteribus: Mittel- und neulateinische Studien fur Paul Gerhard Schmidt, eds. Andreas Bihrer and Elisabeth Stein.

INTERSTICES

This page intentionally left blank

'Envoluped In Synne': The Bolton Hours and Its Confessional Formula ALEXANDRA BARRATT

The so-called Bolton Hours (York Minster, MS Additional 2) is an earlyk fifteenth-century book of hours of York Use.1 It probably originated in the cathedral city itself, no later than 1410; the calendar has written into it the obits of John Bolton (d. 1445), merchant, alderman, and mercer, who was mayor in 1431, and his wife Alice (d. 1472), as well as those of an Agnes Lond (as yet unidentified) and of Thomas Scauceby, son of another York mercer. It is therefore linked to at least one prominent York family, the Boltons, from which it has taken its name, although very likely it was not originally made for them. Indeed, recently a convincing case has been presented that the Hours were made for Margaret Blackburn, Alice Bolton's mother.2 The manuscript is particularly noted for the number, if not the quality, of its full-page and three-quarter-page miniatures. Kathleen Scott has commented, 'The total of seventy-one miniatures and historiated initials in the Bolton Hours ... far surpasses the number of illustrations ... in any other surviving Book of Hours of this period.'3 These show an interest in local and up-to-theminute devotions. They include representations of St William of York, St John of Beverly, St Sitha, St Peter Martyr, Richard Scrope (the archbishop of York executed by Henry IV in 1405 and regarded by some as a martyr),4 St Bridget of Sweden (controversially canonized in 1391 and depicted in the brown habit of a Bridgettine nun), and of the wounded Heart of Jesus, a favourite fifteenthcentury northern English devotional image. This book of hours seems to have been produced for a family rather than for an individual. The miniature on f. 33 represents a Crucifix (Throne-of-Grace) Trinity with a mother, father, son, and daughter, which 'constitutes the earliest representation of a family group within a book of hours.'5 As Scott points out,

4 Alexandra Barratt

the presence of the son and daughter is one reason to think that the Boltons were 'probably not the first owners, as they had two daughters, not a son and daughter'6 (or, according to Pamela King, at least five daughters and one, maybe two, sons).7 Banderoles issuing from each of the family members' mouths can be arranged to compose the verse of a hymn (made up of two pairs of hexameters): O pater, o nate, tu spiritus alme uocate; Quod petimus a te, concede pietate; Celica magestas, trinus deus, vna potestas: Premia qui prestas; nos castas fac et honestas. [Grant by thy mercy what we request from thee, O Father, O Son, O Spirit called kindly; heavenly Majesty, threefold God, single Power; thou who offerest rewards, make us [sc. women] chaste and honourable.]

The final request, both by its content and its use of feminine plural forms, skews the whole text towards the mother and daughter. Indeed, Scott discerns a strong female influence on the Hours as a whole and comments on this miniature, The mistress of the household was apparently the guiding hand in the production of the book.'8 A female figure dressed in blue, perhaps the patroness, also appears as a suppliant in at least two other miniatures: on f. 40v before St Sitha (sometimes know as Zita, who was patron saint of domestic servants, and who has been written into the calendar for 27 April), and on f. 78 before her confessor. Another female figure very similar to the daughter, dressed in brown with unbound golden hair, appears kneeling before Archbishop Scrope on f. lOOv. King argues, The body of the text is written for female use ... It also contains an extra litany of female saints and adds Saint Sitha to the Calendar, a canonised household saint.'9 (In fact Zita was not canonized until 1696.) The text edited here is a confessional formula written in a distinctively northern variety of Late Middle English. It is found on ff. l-4r of the first quire of four leaves, and on ff. 208-lOv, the last two leaves of the final quire of four leaves. The first and last pages are now very rubbed and hard to read in many places. The text is carefully written in a mixture of anglicana and secretary that is different from the textura of the rest of the book of hours. Some key words are either written or underlined in red; there are red paraph marks throughout and some of the capitals are touched in red. Very likely its scribe was different from the main scribe, 'Johannes nomine felix,' who recorded his name on f. 122v, and who was possibly a Dominican.10 This 'envelopping,' alpha-and-omega position occupied by the text as we have it today neatly (if entirely serendipitously) epitomizes the pervasive pen-

The Bolton Hours and Its Confessional Formula 5

itential mentality of the later Middle Ages, and the importance of the sacrament of penance in medieval life. In this connection it is revealing that the opening of the Penitential Psalms on f. 78 is 'one of the most heavily worn pieces of text within the manuscript.'11 It seems unlikely, however, that this confessional formula was part of the original conception of the Book of Hours. Surely something rather more impressive and self-assertive must have been planned to occupy the first seven pages of the opening quire. Otherwise the three-quarter-page miniature of a white-and-tan rose, inscribed with the names of Jesus and Mary (presumably related to the white rose of York and perhaps made, Scott suggests, at the request of the patroness), which provides the left half of the dramatic first opening of the text proper, would never have been placed so awkwardly on f. 4v, the last page of the opening quire. We cannot say today what was originally planned. Books of hours usually open with a calendar:12 the Bolton Hours does have one, but it is found on ff. 27-32v. Perhaps more full-page miniatures were planned for these opening leaves. On the evidence of other books of hours, these might have included pictures of the patron, or patrons, together with religious scenes, at their devotions or kneeling before a crucifix, or even representations of their monograms and/or armorial bearings. Their absence might indicate uncertainty over the final ownership of the book or a family situation in a state of flux, either in terms of constitution or status (the father, mother, son, and daughter on f. 33 could be just an all-purpose, generic, nuclear family, 'rather than actual portraits').13 Perhaps after a period of uncertainty - maybe years - whoever then owned the book decided to fill the gaps as best they could. A number of confessional formulae survive in Middle English. They are usually short texts and are generally neglected, as they are repetitive and so often considered boring.14 (I have previously edited one that may well have been composed by, or at least for, a woman religious.)15 They are not nearly as formulaic as a cursory acquaintance might suggest, however, and in their own way they present in microcosm much information on lay knowledge of the basics of the faith, as laid out in the various episcopal attempts to implement the decree Omnis utriusque sexus of the 1215 Lateran Council. The formula in the Bottom Hours is unusual for several reasons. First, the text is careful to be gender-inclusive, appropriate for a book that might be used by the whole family and that, as we have already seen, reflects a strong female presence. King argues that this confession is 'clearly both male and lay in focus' and 'strongly suggests lay mercantile use ... [T]he systematising of the confession ... represents the staples of the practice of their faith for the urban middle classes.'16 But gluttony, dissatisfaction with one's station in life, violating the sacrament of matrimony, and failing to perform the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy are not sins confined to men: women as well as

6 Alexandra Barratt

men (omnis utriusque sexus) were supposed to acquire the rudiments of a religious education. Nor is the confession quite as nonclerical in orientation as King argues: it includes references to the sacrament of ordination as well as of matrimony. Admittedly, under normal circumstances the same person could not receive both in the Middle Ages (and under no circumstances at all if that person were a woman), which may indicate that the persona of the penitent is entirely fictive and this is really a broad-spectrum, all-purpose, formula. Second, while many such formulae confess sins organized according to the Seven Deadly Sins (and sometimes an eighth, the abuse of the Five Wits), this one is far more exhaustive. The constructed penitent confesses his (or her) offences not only according to the Sins, but also goes on to use the Ten Commandments, the Seven Sacraments, the Seven Virtues, the Articles of the Faith, and the Seven Works of Spiritual Mercy as bases for self-accusation. Unfortunately, this ambitious program comes unstuck in the details, revealing a number of serious deficiencies and apparent confusions in the basic religious knowledge of the compiler, who was surely a lay person rather than a cleric. Most notably, two of the Ten Commandments are omitted, and the Seven Works of Spiritual Mercy are thoroughly garbled. On the evidence of this text, formal religious education in the early fifteenth century among the lay bourgeoisie of the north of England was still deficient. But overall this particular confessional formula strikes one with its inclusiveness (male and female, lay and clerical), its comprehensive if confused approach to the analysis of sin, and its apparently lay origins. In the text edited below, punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing have been modernized, but the manuscript's use of paraph marks and red-tipped capital letters has been used as a guide. Manuscript word divisions have been preserved and hyphens added where necessary. Abbreviations are expanded conventionally and silently. Conjectural emendations, necessary where the text is illegible and rarely made elsewhere, are enclosed in square brackets. Marginal and interlinear additions are indicated by ' ', and redundant letters by angle brackets.

5

[f. 1] Benedicite Dominus. 'S[uperbia]' I knawe me gilty to God almyghty & to oure Lady Saint Mary and to alle be fayre felyshyppe of heuen and to be, my gastly fadyr in God stede. Ffyrste that I haue synd [in] be seuen dedely syns, pat is to say in [pryde] of herte, of vnbowsumnes to God and Haly Kyrke & agayn the hele of my saule, in prowde spekyng, in-countinaunce of [my] heryng and in araiment of clethynge, in

The Bolton Hours and Its Confessional Formula

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

7

werldys gude hafeyng, owthyr of grace or of kyndredyn. Als-so ne k[nawyng] in vertu in any sciens, in any [conceyuyng] of gude name, & in spyce of ypocrysie, to haue commendacioun, be any symulacion, of be pepill better pan I v was' worthy [to] haue; als far als I haue synd in this or in any branch or spyce pat lang[es] ther-to, I cry God almyghty mercy. [f. Iv] x/ra' Als-so pat I haue synd in ire of hert thurght my nawn frawardnes, that is to say, in rauncore and sternes of hert, in stryuyng & in strikynge any of myn euyn cristyn. "Invidia' Also pat I haue synnyd in invy, in hatredyn, in bakebytyng, in sclaunderyng or in defamyng any of my neuyn crystyn, to bryng bame owte of gude fame yn ylle fame, or bannyd or weryd thame so farfurth bat I haue noght beyn in perfyte lufe and charyte, I cry God almyghty mercy. 'Accidia' Also that I haue synnyd in slowth agayn pe wylle of God & hele of my saule, pat I haue bene heuy & dull and latesumly commynge to God & Haly Kyrke & lately to begyn any gude werke. Also penauns bat has bene iniunyd me noght in [f. 2] conabyll tyme fulfillyd ytt als me hyght to do, and in Haly Kyrk iangyld in lettyng of Goddis seruice, I cry God alle-myghty mercy. ^Auericia' Also bat I haue synnyd in couytyse, bat I haue noght hawdyn me paid of pe state & pe degre thatt God has sent me, bott couett wyrshepe of pe warld, mar pan me hyght to do. Also pat I haue sett my herte, of fals couytyse, for-to desyre any thynge pat I haue no ryght to, & pat I haue takyn or withhaldyn pat att I had no ryght to, whar-for I cry God almyghty mercy. ^Gula' Also pat I haue synnyd in glotony ofte tymes & many, many tymes ettyn & drownkyn mor than my body may resonabilly [be] sustenyd with, cure late, ouere largely or hastily, [f. 2v] wharthurght bat I haue had any seknes in body or dyses, outher in body or in saule, I cry my God mercy. ^Luxuria' Also that I haue synnyd in lychery, in handelynge or in ragynge, in fowle wordes spekynge, also in halsyng, in kyssynge, in delectacyon, pat es for-to say, in lykynge of flessly rysynge. Also pat I haue consentid to be synne of lychery, to fulfyll ytt in dede, I cry God mercy. PD]ecem precepta' Also be ten commandmentis bat I haue brokyn agayns be wylle of God and hele of my saule, I cry God mercy; the fyrste es bat I haue takyn Godis name in vayne, in saynge & in ydill spekynge, and I haue [+ spokyn crossed through, expunged} sworne in grete athis by any party or membyrs bat langes to hym; and bat I haue

8 Alexandra Barratt

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

noght lufyd my God als me [f. 3] aght to do wyth all my herte, wyth all my will, nor noght made me lefer to plese my God in worde and dede, I cry God mercy. Also pat I haue noght lufyd my neuyn crystyn als me aght to do na noght done to bam als I walde bai dyd to me in worde and dede. Also bat I haue bene glade of baire euylle fayre and sorowefull of her wele fare, I cry God mercy. Also bat I haue noght kepyd my halydays als me aght to do and has noght comyn to God & Haly Kyrke, I cry God mercy. Also bat I haue wyrshypte any fals goddis or any mys-beleues or any fals maumentis or charmys or lyks or any wychecrafte traistyd apon, I cry God mercy. Also bat I haue bakebytyn any-body wyth my tonge, bat es to say, bat I haue spokyn [f. 3v] yle of pam, demyd pam vnworthely & lefer has bene to speke euylle pan pe gude, bat I haue 'had' lykynge in spekynge, in heryng of pe yle, I cry God mercy. Also pat I haue synnyd flesly with any 'man' woman, outher weddyd or vnweddyd, syb or fremyd, I cry God mercy. Also counseld or procurd to robbynge or reuyng or takyng wrangusly any manes gude agayn per wylle bat yght ytt, I cry God mercy. Also bat I haue borne any fals wytnes agayn my neuyn crystyn in haldynge or in forswerynge, what thurght bai haue loste fayth, fauore and gude fame, gude name, gude or catelle, or ellis whedyr yt be ryght or wrange. Also bat I haue desyryd myn neghtbure house, land, rent, tenement or any thyng bat may noght be lyftyd or rasyd fra be gronde, als thyng bat es stedfaste. Also bat I have desyryd be wyfe vhusbond' [f. 4] of my neghtbur or of my neuyn crystyn, his madyn or his seruant or gold or syluer or any ober warldis ryches be whylke I haue no ryght to, that I haue thus forfeit agayns God almyghty & my neuy[n] crystyn, I cry God mercy. Also be vij sacramentis of Haly Kyrke bat I haue noght kepyd als me aght to do onestly & clenely, I cry God mercy; that is to say my baptym pat I tuke pat tym [I] be-comme cristyn man, in be whylke be fyrste syn bat I was fyllyd with & all ober synnes war weshyn away. And bat I haue noght haldyn be fayth & be sekyrnes bat I hyght to my God. Also in confermynge, bat I haue resauyd of my gastly fadyr be byshoppe more strenkthly & stalworthly for-to stand agayn pe fende &

The Bolton Hours and Its Confessional Formula 9

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

his power thurgh be grace of be Haly Gaste gettyng & so to lyfe to Goddis plesynge. [f. 209] The thyrd sacrament pat I haue trespast in ys penauns, pat I haue noght fulfyld for my mysdedis, pat is to say wyth verra contrycion of herte and opyn confessyon of mouth and satisfaccion in dede, whar-of I cry God mercy. The fowrte sacrament pat I haue trespaste in, pat I haue noght resauyd worthely & vertusly in clennes of lyfe als me aght to do pe haly sacrament of be autyr, made wythe the mynystracion of be preste & Cryste awne wordis, I cry God mercy. I>e ffyfte sacrament pat I haue forfeit in, be ordyr of Haly Kyrke pat I haue resauyd be be power of my bysshoppe & pat I haue noght kepyd jt in clennes and in chastyte als me hyght to do, I cry God mercy. The sext [f. 209v] sacrament bat I haue trespast in [es] matrymon, pat I haue noght kepyd laufully & iustly as me yght to do to Godis wyrshyp & his louyng & to heile of my saule, whar-of I cry God almyghty mercy. Also pe vij sacrament of Haly Kyrke pat I haue forfeit in ys the last anoyntynge, bat I haue noght takyn kepe perto & has noght done wyrshyp perto als me aght to do, I cry God mercy. Also be vij vertus, pat I haue noght kepyd and rewlyd me aftyr bam als me aght to do, bat is to say in meknes, in ryght-wesnes, in wysdome, in strenght, in gud temporans & specially in thre principals, pat is to say in fayth, treuth & charyte, I cry God mercy. Also pe artykyls of pe trouth pat fallis to pe godhed & to Cryste manhede, pat I haue erred in bame, na has noght trowed in be godhede as me aght to do, ne has [f. 210] noght stedefastly trowed in a trew God, bat es be hegh Fadyr of heuen & be Son & be Halygaste, bat er iij persons and bot a God, the whylke es maker off heuen & erth and all thyng, I cry God mercy. Also als towchyng be manhed of Ihesu Cryste, how bat he was conceuyd of oure Lady Saynt Mary & God & man both borne of hyr. Also be passion that he tholyd ffor all man-kynd. Also when pe body was layd in be grownd, be salle with be body & be godhed went to hell to safe bat was for-lorne. Also be thyrd day aftyrward he rase fro ded to lyfe, God & man both in a person. Also aftyr pat fowrty days he steghed to heuyn & sett hym opon his fadyr ryght hand. Also on pe Wytt Sonday se[n]tt wytt & wysdome into erth to his dyssypp[y]ls. Also on pe day of [f. 210v] dome he salle com to deme be euyle & be gude & bar-eftyr to take bair mede; als farfurth as

10 Alexandra Barratt I haue errede & tryspaste in peir pontes, I cry God mercy. 130 Also pat I haue noght fulfylyd pe vij werkis of mercy, both gastely & bodyly, to my neuyn crystyn. Als in gastely dedis [pat] I haue noght bene mercyfull when men has oght trespast to me, noght gladly forgyfen pam. Also noghte reprouyd pam opon reson pat has don yuell. Also has noght conform bam bat haues bene sorowefulle, ne 135 praid for pam pat has bene synfull, nor wyssyd bame bat er wyll of comforth and covnsell, noght informyd bame nor taght bam bat kan le[sse] ban I & noght bene redy to leryn bam; pise to cure evyn crystyn er full nedfull & to bam dos bam wondyr.

NOTES TO THE TEXT

4-5 pe ... syns: The text is entirely orthodox in its list of sins and their order (the standard 'Gregorian' siiaagl order beginning with Pride and ending with Lust), except for the reversal of the positions of Accidia and Avaricia. 7 in-countinaunce: MS in countinaunce, 'incontinence, failure to control.' 10 spyce: 'species.' 17 hatredyn: 'hatred.' 18 my neuyn: For the false word division, cf. 52, 78, 80, 131, and nawn at 14. 19 bannyd: 'cursed.' 23 latesumly. Not in MED but clearly < latsom, adj., 'slow, sluggish.' 25 iniunyd: < enjoinen, injunien, 'impose a duty on (someone).' 26 me hyght: impers., < ouen (cf. also 30, 85). 29 hawdyn: < hauen. 36 oure: 'over.' 40 ragynge: vbl. n. from ragen: 'amorous dalliance, flirtation ... also, sexual intercourse' MED. 41 flessly rysynge: 'sexual arousal.' 44 pe ten commandementis: There are some surprising anomalies here. This version of the Decalogue omits two of the commandments completely (the Fifth, 'Honour thy father and thy mother,' which seems particularly strange in such a family-oriented volume, and the Sixth, 'Thou shall not kill'). It introduces two others, the commands to love God and to love one's neighbour as oneself, that are not part of the Decalogue but rather constitute Our Lord's Summary of the Law (as in Matt. 22:36-40). Finally, the order in which the commandments are considered is not the standard order of Exod. 20:1-17 or Deut. 5:6-21. 46-8 takyn ... athis: It is interesting that this, the Second Commandment according

The Bolton Hours and Its Confessional Formula

11

to the standard Latin numbering, is elevated to first place, perhaps reflecting the intense hostility towards swearing, especially by the parts of Christ's body, that was manifested not only by the Lollards but also by many other moralists in the late Middle Ages. 52-5 /... welefare: These 'two great commandments' summarize the Law, and are not part of the Decalogue (cf. Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18, and Matt. 12:29), the second incorporating part of the standard definition of Envy. 58-60 wyrshypte... upon: Fourth in position here, although according to the standard Latin enumeration this is the First Commandment against false worship, combining Thou shalt have no other gods' and 'Thou shalt not make false idols,' which count as two distinct commandments in the Greek tradition. (On the differences of enumeration between the Latin church, which keeps the numbering system favoured by Augustine of Hippo, and the Greek, which, following Jerome and the Jewish rabbinic tradition, counts this commandment as two, see the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. Commandments, the Ten, and New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. Commandments, Ten.) 59 maumentis: < maumet, 'idol.' lyks: < liche, 'image, statue.' 61-4 bakebytyn ... yle: This seems misplaced as it is logically a continuation of the formula's Second Commandment ('Love thy neighbour'). Together with swearing, this is a 'sin of the tongue' under other classifications. 65-6 synnyd... fremyd: A very generalized version of the Sixth Commandment against adultery, adapted for a male or female penitent, married or unmarried. 67-8 counseld... ytt: The Seventh Commandment, against theft, wrangusly: < wrongously. 68 yght: 'owned'; For this unusual form of ought, cf. 101. 70-3 borne... wrange: The Eighth Commandment, against false witness. 74-6 desyryd... stedfaste: The standard medieval order regarded the commandment against covetousness as two distinct commandments (the Ninth and Tenth), following Deuteronomy rather than Exodus, which ranked the wife together with servants and animals as forming part of a man's 'house.' It did so not on the grounds that wives were different in kind from property, but that to covet property was to covet something useful while to covet one's neighbour's wife was a matter purely of pleasure (see Augustine, in Questiones in Exodum, 71; Patrologia Latina, 34: 621). The Bolton text, in spite of its other vagaries, does treat these as two commandments rather than one. It bases this, however, not on Augustine's distinction but rather on one that might well have seemed more sensible to the medieval bourgeois mind, that between immovable or 'real' property (such as land and houses) and movable or personal property. In the late Middle Ages one could make a will that

12 Alexandra Barratt distributed one's movable property (though this did not include one's spouse or one's servants) but one could not bequeath land in this way. In this context, however, the distinction unfortunately results in privileging land over one's wife (or husband), who is then classed with one's money. 81 ]>e vij sacramentis: The usual medieval list of the Seven Sacraments derives from Peter Lombard (Sententiarum libri quatuor, dist. I, no. 2; 4, Patrologia Latina, 192: 839). The sacraments are named correctly here, but Lombard's order is ignored, although Bolton's largely chronological listing is perfectly logical. Lombard lists the sacraments in the following order: baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, unction, orders, and matrimony, the rationale being that the first five relate to the individual, the last two to the church and to society. 82 aght: 'ought.' 103 es: MS os. 110 fre vij vertus: A series of Seven Virtues, to counterbalance the Seven Deadly Sins, was constructed in the Middle Ages by combining the originally classical four cardinal virtues (prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice) with the three Christian theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity). In this passage the compiler lists not seven but eight virtues: humility, righteousness, wisdom, strength, temperance, faith, truth, and charity. Three of the first five show some correspondence to the cardinal virtues; However, humility is usually the remedy for the sin of pride, while wisdom is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Of the three theological virtues (1 Cor. 13:13), it is surprising that truth is substituted for the Pauline hope. 114 artykyls... trouth: Traditionally there are Twelve Articles of the Faith, each contributed by one of the apostles to the so-called Apostles' Creed. This text gives most of the usual articles but omits belief in 'the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.' Possibly they were left out for reasons of space: the text as we have it only just fits onto the last page of the final quire. 114—19 godhed... thyng: The first article is usually belief in 'God the Father, maker of heaven and earth.' The change of emphasis here perhaps reflects late medieval devotion to the Trinity. The Trinity is represented together with the patronal family on f. 33. 122 salle: 'soul.' 126 Wytt, wytf. An interesting pun, unique so far as I know, on Whit and wit. 129 freir: 'these' (a northernism); see MED, thir(e adj. 130 pe vij werkis of mercy: It is hard to extract all seven of the Spiritual Works of Mercy from the passage that follows. They are certainly out of order. Traditionally they were as follows: 1) converting the sinner, 2) instructing the igno-

The Bolton Hours and Its Confessional Formula

13

rant, 3) counselling the doubtful, 4) comforting the sorrowful, 5) bearing wrongs patiently, 6) forgiving injuries, 7) praying for the living and the dead. 131-2 noght... me: conceivably, the Fifth Work. 132-3 noght... pam: the Sixth Work. 133-4 noghte... yuell: a version of the First Work presumably. 134 noght... sorowefulle: the Fourth Work. 135 praid... synfull: a version of the Seventh Work. 135-6 wyssyd... covnsell: either the First Work (especially if wyll is a form of 'ill' or 'euil'), or the Third Work. 136-7 informyd... pam: the Second Work.

14 Alexandra B arratt NOTES I should like to thank Professor Felicity Riddy of the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of York, for her suggestions and advice, and the York Chapter Library and its staff for providing not only the manuscript but also a delightful environment in which to work. 1 For a full description, see Neil R. Ker and Alan J. Piper, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, vol. 4, Paisley-York (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 786-91. 2 See Patricia Cullum and Jeremy Goldberg, 'How Margaret Blackburn Taught Her Daughters: Reading Devotional Instruction in a Book of Hours,' in Medieval Women: Texts and Contexts in Late Medieval Britain, ed. Jocelyn Wogan-Browne et al. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 217-36. 3 Kathleen L. Scott, Later Gothic Manuscripts, 1390-1490 (London: Harvey Miller, 1996), 2: 119. 4 Pamela M. King, 'Corpus Christi Plays and the "Bolton Hours" 1: Tastes in Lay Piety and Patronage in Fifteenth-Century York,' Medieval English Theatre 18 (1996): 49-52. 5 Cullum and Goldberg, 'Margaret Blackburn,' 223. 6 Scott, Later Gothic Manuscripts, 2: 120 7 King, 'Corpus Christi Plays,' 53. 8 Scott, Later Gothic Manuscripts, 2: 120. 9 King, 'Corpus Christi Plays,' 55-6. 10 Cullum and Goldberg, 'Margaret Blackburn,' 220. II Cullum and Goldberg, 'Margaret Blackburn,' 228. 12 Janet Backhouse, Books of Hours (London: British Library, 1985), 11. 13 Cullum and Goldberg, 'Margaret Blackburn,' 223. 14 See PS. Joliffe, A Check-List of Middle English Prose Writings of Spiritual Guidance (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), 67-74, and Alexandra B arratt, 'The Five Wits and Their Structural Significance in Part II of Ancrene Wisse,' Medium Aevum 56 (1987): 17-18. 15 'Books for Nuns: Cambridge University Library MS Additional 3042,' Notes and Queries n.s. 44, September 1997, 310-19. 16 King, 'Corpus Christi Plays,' 56.

Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer CHARLOTTE BREWER

I

Examining nineteenth-century and early-twentieth-century editions and editorial discussions of Chaucer and Langland, one repeatedly comes across references to 'critical' editing and a 'critical text.' Unravelling what these references mean is not straightforward, for there seems to have been some confusion, or at least varied understanding, of what the epithet 'critical' signified, and how it stood in relation to 'scientific' on the one hand and 'eclectic' on the other, terms that were also used to characterize editing.1 Ambiguously and variously deployed as these three terms are, they nevertheless play a crucial role in understanding how ideas about editing developed, and how the concepts they represent form the textual backbone of major editions of Chaucer and Langland - in particular Robinson's Chaucer, Manly and Rickert's Canterbury Tales, and the Athlone Press Piers Plowman.2 These publications have acted as editorial lodestones, impossible to ignore, exerting a powerful magnetic field (repulsion or attraction) on other twentieth-century editions of Chaucer and Langland, and also on other editions of Middle English texts. However, their origins in nineteenth-century textual thinking, and in particular in the opposition between 'scientific' and 'eclectic' editing, are usually overlooked. The purpose of this essay is to explore the meaning of these terms in late-nineteenth-century Middle English editing, and to make a preliminary sketch of their influence on that of the early twentieth century. I shall begin by running through a number of representative uses of the term 'critical' in order to give the general picture. When W.W. Skeat published his magisterial multi-volume Complete Works of Chaucer in 1894, it was greeted

16 Charlotte Brewer

with warm praise and enthusiasm. W.P. Ker, for example, described it in the Quarterly Review as 'the first critical edition of the whole of the writings of Chaucer.' Since Tyrwhitt, manuscripts had been studied industriously and copies published, Ker says, but these 'are not fitted to take the place of a critical text.'3 It seems that what he approves is Skeat's establishment of a satisfactorily scholarly reading copy that does not trouble the reader with obvious scribal or editorial blunders. 'It may be at times amusing to make one's own emendations, but not in the middle of Chaucer's story of "Troilus." Mr Skeat's edition has removed these offences, and in it the writings of the great master of verse may be read without the impertinences of "Adam Scriveyn" and his successors' (Ker is implicitly complaining about the infelicities of the manuscript reprints of the Chaucer Society on the one hand, which reproduced scribal errors, and the inadequacies of recent editions such as Wright's on the other - on both, see further below). Later in the review, in a discussion of individual readings, it appears that Ker understands Skeat to have looked at a wide range of manuscript evidence, and eclectically chosen the best variant; Ker describes 'the whole process by which manuscripts are compared and scrutinised' as a part of 'the code of the editor's critical scholarship.'4 In these instances, 'critical' seems to mean 'due application of scholarship - i.e., scrutiny of a reasonable range of manuscript sources - combined with discriminating erudition, common sense, and respect for the reader's convenience.' But such praise, replicated as it was by many other critics, was not universal.5 Four years later, in 1898, an Athenceum reviewer disparaged Skeat's editorial method in the process of acclaiming a new, independently conceived edition of Chaucer's Works - A.W. Pollard's Globe edition, which he had edited jointly with H. Frank Heath, Mark H. Liddell, and W.S. McCormick.6 'Prof. Skeat,' the reviewer says with studied courtesy, 'is eminent among living students of Chaucer; his judgement is usually trustworthy, his knowledge of the language almost unlimited.' But this is merely a softener, and the writer goes on to make it clear that Skeat's amateur and intuitive methods have now been superseded: 'In the course of time, a generation must arise with whom the dictum of the learned professor will not have the weight it has with us, and the instinct which has often led him to the truth through a maze of opposing manuscripts will not always carry after him the crowd of his less gifted students.' The Globe Chaucer, he states, 'possesses a well-marked character differing widely from that of [Skeat's] Oxford Chaucer.' By contrast with Skeat, the Globe's editors - described as 'four of the leading English scholars of the younger generation' - had 'adopted a safer, if lowlier path, treating the manuscripts in much the same way that they would have dealt with a classical

Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer

17

author.' 'In a word,' the writer concludes, 'their text is a scientific, not an eclectic one.'7 Here Skeat is accused of picking his readings now from one, now from another manuscript, proceeding on the basis of experience and instinct rather than logical analysis - or so it would seem: and it would seem also that Skeat's so-called 'eclectic' method, critical or not, is perceived to be at odds with a 'scientific' one. But was this the case, and were there such differences between the two editions as the Athenceum reviewer claimed? Skeat himself thought not. His Chaucer Canon, published the next year in 1900, picked up on the Athenceum reviewer's remarks with considerable irritation. Describing his own Student's Chaucer (based on the 1894 edition) and Pollard's Globe Chaucer 'as the two latest and most accessible texts' of the poet, Skeat goes on to say: 'In a recent review of the latter, it was asserted, with that perfect recklessness which is born of irresponsibility, that there is a wide difference between the two. The text in the Student's Chaucer was distinguished as being "eclectic" whilst that in the Globe edition was called "scientific." What these words were intended to imply,' Skeat said scornfully, 'I have no idea.' However, he was determined to make it quite clear to his readers that the differentiation was motivated by foolish ignorance alone. He presents a list of the variants between the two editions as represented by their respective versions of the 'Squire's Tale,' all of which are negligible barring their retention of final 'e.' His sarcastic conclusion is 'that by a "scientific" text is meant one in which the final -e is retained in places where the scribe inserted it wrongly as well as in places where he inserted it rightly.'8 Having got his point across, Skeat relaxed slightly. 'I have made the most of the above differences,' he explained, 'because so ridiculous a conclusion has been drawn from them. There must always be a "personal equation," owing to differences of editorial methods. But there is no such difference as has been alleged.' He pointed out that as both editions are based on the Ellesmere manuscript, they are virtually identical, so that 'if a critic finds amusement in the use of such unmeaning words, there is at any rate no reason why their application might not have been transposed. Had S. been called a "scientific" text and G. an "eclectic" one, we should have been just as wise as ever.'9 These remarks are misleading, however. It is perfectly true that Pollard's edition of the Canterbury Tales in the Globe Chaucer was based on the Ellesmere manuscript, with the consequence that, as Pollard himself wrote the following year, 'the differences in question [between the two editions], though naturally interesting to editors, are in themselves of only trifling importance ... I doubt if in all the Canterbury Tales there are more than twenty lines in which

18 Charlotte Brewer

it is possible for editors to adopt readings making any really important change in the sense.'10 But the Globe contained texts of Chaucer's other works as well, consequently not based on the Ellesmere manuscript, and these had been edited not by Pollard but by three collaborators whose views on editing were identifiably different from Pollard's. Pollard's statement of their joint editorial approach had used the term critical in a nonspecialist sense as follows: 'We have endeavoured ... to produce texts which shall offer an accurate reflection of that MS or group of MSS which critical investigation has shown to be the best, with only such emendation upon the evidence of other manuscripts as appeared utterly necessary, and with the utmost parsimony of "conjecture."' Here critical seems to imply, as it did for Ker, some form of judicious discrimination between manuscripts and variants based on a scholarly survey of evidence, but with (in Pollard's case) a bias towards retaining the readings of the base manuscript. Pollard then goes on to say, however, 'I think I may say that in some cases, notably in the Boece, Troilus, and Hous of Fame, a real step forward has been taken to a thoroughly critical text.'1' This second usage may - possibly (it is not clear) - exemplify a different sense of critical, one that implies a genealogical analysis of manuscripts in the German tradition, quite different, then, both from Skeat's editing practice and from that exemplified in Pollard's own Canterbury Tales. This suspicion is strengthened if we turn to the sections of the Globe introduction written by Pollard's collaborators, corresponding to the works they respectively edited. Here we find Liddell and Heath have in almost all cases provided us with stemmata representing the supposed genealogical relationships of the manuscripts for the work concerned. The implication is that their texts have been informed by genealogical analysis, and hence that their editing has been 'critical' in a much more specialized sense than that intimated by the first of Pollard's usages. Moreover, Liddell specifically claims (though without enough contextual information to make his meaning sufficiently clear) to have produced a 'critical text' for both Boece and the Treatise of the Astrolabe.12 Given that, as Pollard tells us in his introduction, both Heath and Liddell had spent time in Germany working under the distinguished medievalists Bernhard ten Brink (1841-92) and Julius Zupitza (1844-95), it would seem that Liddell's use of 'critical' is claiming an alliance with the German, so-called Lachmannian, tradition of genealogical editing or recension.13 Two years later Liddell published a further edition of the Prologue, the Knight's Tale and the Nun's Priest's Tale, stating boldly that his was 'the first really critical text for any part of the Canterbury Tales'14 This edition too was reviewed in the Athenceum, but this time more sternly. The reviewer, apparently a different person, pointed out that in thus describing his edition Liddell

Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer

19

was, in effect, disparaging not only the textual qualities of Skeat's 1894 edition but also his own contribution to the Globe Chaucer. His claim 'will inevitably provoke criticism.' Without anticipating such criticism, moreover, the reviewer felt bound to assure the reader that, 'whether the text is "really critical" or not, it does not seem to be very revolutionary in character.' And he instances four very minor differences between Liddell's edition and that of the Globe and of Skeat, which are all that can be found in a comparison of their respective versions in a hundred lines at the end of the Knight's Tale.15 As might be imagined, this review provoked a hot reply from Liddell, which was published two months later in the same periodical.16 Here he strove hard to recover credibility and also to explain what he had really meant. 'May I assure your readers,' he asks, 'that I had not the slightest intention of disparaging the "Globe" text or of glorifying myself in using the words [viz., "the first really critical text"] which I used?' What he had meant to say was that his text was the first to be made in the light of the results obtained by Prof. Zupitza's study of the mutual relations and comparative value of the Canterbury Tales manuscripts. (Zupitza's analysis, published by the Chaucer Society over a period of ten years and completed posthumously by his pupil John Koch, comprised a series of parallel passages from the Pardoner's Tale and an attempted analysis of manuscript relations over this stretch of the work - see further below.) So Liddell's claim to superiority over Pollard, Skeat, and even Zupitza himself (whose edition of the Canterbury Tales Prologue had been made 'before he had ascertained the MSS Relations') 'was only that of possessing better tools - tools not before available.' But Liddell then foregoes the moral superiority derived from these humble protestations, praising the Globe Chaucer in which he himself had had a part ('the best popular text of Chaucer yet published') and seizing the opportunity to repeat the Athen&um's own earlier denigration of Skeat: 'A text which is a copy of a single good MS - and the Ellesmere [on which the Globe was largely based] is the best of the Chaucer MSS - is far better than one which is patched by random selections from a number of MSS whose mutual relationships are unknown to the editor.' This is an unstated but nevertheless unmistakable dig at the supposedly uncritical eclecticism of Skeat's Oxford edition. Liddell continues by providing us with an illuminating, if not exactly crystal clear, account of what he meant to imply by the use of the term 'critical.' He did not intend, he says, that loose and popular sense in which the phrase is used in England, where 'critical'' merely indicates that the editor has selected that particular one of a number of variant readings which best satisfies his personal judgement [in other words,

20 Charlotte Brewer what Ker seems to have meant in thus characterizing Skeat's edition] ... When I used the term 'critical,' however, I was thinking of the German kritisch, as used by scholars: as so used the word designates a text constructed in the light of all the 'critical' evidence obtainable, regardless of the editor's personal opinion as to the inherent desirability, so to speak, of one reading over another. In such a use of the term no 'critical text' is possible until the mutual relations of the MSS have been ascertained, for until that is done there is no way of discerning critical, essential, and significant evidence from evidence that is not significant, not essential, and therefore not critical.

Liddell goes on to say, ruefully: 'I concluded that to transplant "critical text" in the sense in which the phrase is used among German scholars was doing no violence to English idiom ... but I was evidently wrong, for your reviewer is not the only one who has been offended by my statement, and I hasten to apologize to Mr. Pollard and his co-editors for my seeming discourtesy.'17 The Athenceum reviewer was given an inch and a half of column space to reply to this but used his enforced laconicism to deadly effect. 'In the meaning Prof. Liddell now assigns to the word,' he observed, 'the "critical" character of his text appears to depend (1) on the correctness of Zupitza's classification of the "Pardoner's Tale," and (2) on the applicability of this classification to the Prologue. Neither of these assumptions seems to us ... to be beyond dispute.'18 All these remarks and comments suggest that the term critical is the focal point of a number of different theories and practices of editing current during this period. At one end of the scale is Ker's usage in 1894, which implies a discriminating, judicious, and scholarly survey of textual variants so as to produce what the OED had said the previous year was the object of textual criticism: 'to ascertain the genuine text and meaning of an author.'19 Somewhere in the middle is Pollard's use of the term in 1898 to describe the editing of the Globe Canterbury Tales, where he seemed to associate 'critical' method not with Skeat's alleged eclecticism but with his actual practice: adherence to a carefully chosen base manuscript, while making emendations only if really called for from other manuscripts. And at the other extreme is Liddell's definition of a 'critical text' in 1901 as one based on a genealogical analysis of the manuscripts, one which has been carried out in the German scholarly tradition, in some undescribed but allegedly objective manner of assessing relative worth 'regardless of the editor's personal opinion as to the inherent desirability, so to speak, of one reading over another.'20 Liddell was referring, of course, to the so-called Lachmannian method of editing, also known as 'recension,' which rapidly established itself in Ger-

Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer

21

many during the second half of the nineteenth century as the dominant scholarly procedure for editing texts. This method, later codified by a number of scholars (for example, Maas in 1927), attempted to reconstruct the archetype of the existing manuscripts of a work by comparing the various manuscript witnesses reading by reading, establishing a genealogical tree based on the identification of shared error.21 The idea was that one could trace, through carefully established processes of deduction, how the first copy of a poem had been transmitted, and how and when errors of copying had crept into the transmission process. Once one had ascertained the manuscript families and drawn one's genealogical tree, then one could use this tool for producing an edited text, since the tree would tell one whether agreements between manuscripts were agreements in error (because the manuscripts concerned were a genetic group) or were instead likely to be original. This process of genealogical analyis had enormous value, since it encouraged editors to examine and reflect upon the processes of scribal copying and to identify typical patterns of scribal error.22 At the same time, though, it is a method fraught with danger for editors of all texts, and in particular for editors of medieval vernacular texts. Its major flaw is that it encourages editors in the illusion that editing is a dispassionate and objective exercise. But there is nothing particularly scientific about constructing a tree and then making use of the information about manuscripts it provides, if by scientific is meant having an objectively verifiable validity. In order to construct the tree in the first place, the editor has to make many individual subjective judgments about whether a reading is original or not - and, as has often been pointed out, if the editor is prepared to use his subjective judgment to establish the family tree, why not go straight ahead and use subjective judgment to establish the text in the first place? The other major problem with recension is that it is almost impossible to take account of the phenomenon of scribal contamination - that is, scribes introducing into their exemplars readings derived from a different genetic source. I will return to these criticisms in sections 4-5 below. Lachmann's method was much discussed and emulated in France and Germany, but very little of it filtered through to Britain, despite the enormous increase in editing of Old and Middle English texts over the course of the nineteenth century - witnessed, for example, by the proliferation of literary societies and clubs over this period, many of which were directly linked to searching out and printing medieval manuscripts. There was a similar resistance to the new (or 'scientific') philology carried out by such men as Grimm and the Danish scholar Rask, who based their expositions of philological relations between and within languages on empirical investigations rather than a priori assumptions, and enabled many of the discriminations between variants that scientific

22

Charlotte Brewer

editing demanded. Small numbers of English scholars went abroad and studied at German universities - Coleridge being a famous early example, and Thomas Kemble (1807-57), the dialectician Joseph Wright (1855-1930), the phoneticist and Anglo-Saxon scholar Henry Sweet (1845-1912) being important later examples - but in general there was widespread ignorance, or scorn, in England of both scientific philology and scientific editing. Nevertheless editing, as we know, took place in profusion. The interesting thing, though, is that there seems to have been little corresponding attention given to the proper way to edit texts, and virtually no recognition among Old and Middle English scholars working in England of the usefulness of the German method of editing in the light of genealogical analysis of the manuscripts. Additionally, English scholars seem to have had a distrust and ignorance of systems of editing, just as they had a distrust and ignorance of the systematic rules established by the new philology.23 The editorial endeavours of many of the texts published by the various book clubs in the first half of the century, and by the Early English Text Society in the second half, appear to us now to be haphazard and ad hoc.24 Nevertheless, method of one sort or another can be and indeed was distinguished in successive editions of Chaucer. Looking at some of these editions will help us to see both how Ker could justly call Skeat's 1894 Complete Works 'the first critical edition' of Chaucer, and why others decried Skeat's editorial practice as 'unscientific' II

For all nineteenth-century editors of Chaucer, the shadow of Tyrwhitt (173086) lay long across the page, whether acknowledged or not, rather as does Skeat's shadow for twentieth-century editors. For our purposes, the importance of Tyrwhitt is his interest in the manuscripts. As he declared in the opening sentence of the preface to his edition, 'the first object of this publication was to give the text of The Canterbury Tales as correct as the MSS within the reach of the Editor would enable him to make it. The Editor therefore has proceeded as if his author had never been published before. He has formed his text throughout from the Mss and has paid little regard to the readings of any edition ,..'25 This eclecticism was heartily denounced by his next major successor, Thomas Wright (1810-77), who published his edition of the Tales in 1847. Eclectic collation was 'the most absurd plan which it is possible to conceive,' and to form 'a mixed text out of manuscripts written at different periods and in different counties, would be to bring into the world a monster, a language which could never have existed.' Instead, Wright suggested that the

Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer

23

proper way to deal with a large number of manuscript sources was to go for what is now often referred to as 'best-text' editing: choosing what seems to be the best manuscript witness as a base text, and introducing emendations into this as required, usually taken from the other manuscripts. Unfortunately, Wright's collation of other Canterbury Tales manuscripts was perfunctory, to say the least, and he tells us, 'In general, I have reaped little general advantage from collating a number of manuscripts.'26 It is tempting to think that this was because he consulted so few.27 Despite his harsh words on Tyrwhitt - presumably motivated at least in part by the need to undermine the preceding edition so as to sell copies of his own - Wright pillaged his work extensively and adopted many of his emendations, often without any indication either that they were Tyrwhitt's or that they were departures from Wright's own copy text, Harley 7334. It was only on reexamination of manuscript sources that the aberrations and delinquencies of his editing practice became apparent, and such examination was not in general feasible until the Chaucer Society began to reprint manuscript sources many years later. As Skeat then complained: Mr. Wright says that, in giving readings from other MSS, he has 'always, when there is room for the least doubt, given the reading of the original MS in a footnote.' I have for years accepted this statement without question; but, now that it can be tested [i.e., on the publication of the Chaucer Society's print of Harley 7334], it becomes obvious that it is impossible to assign any distinct meaning to the clause which I have printed in italics. As a fact, any one who trusts to this reprint may be grievously misled ... I regret to say that I have at last realised that neither of these editions [he is also discussing the Aldine edition by Richard Morris of 1866] tell us what the MS really has, in a large number of instances. This is the more to be regretted because Mr. Wright's edition, especially, is very faithful upon the whole. It sometimes gives the MS correctly for fifty lines together; but we cannot tell when.2* Although Wright's 'best-text' method was not pursued in a methodical or scrupulous way, method nevertheless it was, and was recognized as such. Thus theAthencsum reviewer wrote in 1851: This work proceeds in adherence to the same sound principle on which it was commenced: - viz., that of taking one good manuscript (Harl. No. 7334) as the foundation of the text, and giving the various readings of other approved manuscripts. Tyrwhitt's principle was faulty, inasmuch as he made up his text from the readings of different manuscripts, and generally omitted to state which he had preferred and why he had preferred it.29

24

Charlotte Brewer

But it would be wrong to read into this any suggestion that a full-blown discussion of principles of editing (whether eclectic, best-text, critical, or scientific) was about to take place. Wright's text was regarded as preeminent over the next few years, and it was used (stripped of some of its essential footnotes) as the basis of the text for the Bell edition of 1854.30 (As Skeat puts it: 'Wright took as the basis of his text the faulty and treacherous Harleian MS; and Bell followed Wright blindly, exclaiming all the while that he did so with open eyes.')31 Richard Morris also used this manuscript as the base for his 1866 Aldine edition, which, owing to its lack of footnotes, completely failed to indicate adequately to the reader the relationship between what was on the page and what was in the manuscript.32 By 1866, however, new editorial developments were afoot. FJ. Furnivall had founded the Early English Text Society in 1864 and was fast unearthing new editors (including the then unknown and unpractised Skeat) in order to feed it with new editions. And in 1868 he founded the Chaucer Society, which published most of its texts over the course of the next eight years (though it continued for thirty-four years in total). Of particular importance were the six-text edition of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (1869-77) and the edition of Harley 7334 (1885), for these were the vital new ingredients in the later production by Skeat of his edition of Chaucer's works of 1894.33 Ill

Such an additional spate of editorial activity would, one might think, have encouraged some reflection on editorial theory and methodology, in particular as regards the competing merits of eclecticism, of sticking to a base manuscript, or of genealogical analysis of manuscript relations. But as before, this seems not to have been the case. Here it is helpful to turn to the comment of outsiders, who viewed the English lack of system in this respect as extremely regrettable. The chief such scholars involved (for the purposes of Chaucer scholarship, that is) were Zupitza, who must by then have had in prospect his later genealogical study of the Canterbury Tales, his colleague Bernhard Ten Brink, and Zupitza's pupil John Koch. All were working in Germany. In a review of some EETS editions published in 1875, Zupitza complained: The editors are, with very few exceptions, dilettantes. Many of them have very vague ideas of philological method, of the treatment of the text, especially when it is preserved in several MSS, of what is essential and what not in reproducing a MS, or of the plan of a glossary, etc. ... Many of the better class of editors, who are quite competent to turn out good work, do not always take enough time about

Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer 25 it. It really looks sometimes as if the copy of the MS made by some clerk or other went straight to the printer, and that the editor cleared off the whole business of editing during the process of correcting the proofs, so that gross blunders are almost inevitable.34

Reporting these tart criticisms, Henry Sweet told the Philological Society in 1877, in his annual presidential address, that their truth 'cannot be denied.' 'How is it,' he goes on to ask, 'that while the principles of text-criticism have been firmly established for the last thirty years in other Teutonic countries, we at the present day have hardly advanced beyond the mere mechanical reproduction of MS texts?'35 A year later he spoke of the English 'almost universal ignorance of the principles of text-criticism. There is really no reason why we Englishmen should confine ourselves to the mechanical reproduction of MSS, or, still worse, to the construction of texts on radically false principles, and leave the interesting and important work of genuine critical reconstruction entirely to our German brethren.'36 Sweet had had the advantage of education at Heidelberg, and hence exposure to German scholarship in philology as well as textual criticism, and it was clear that the study of Old and Middle English in Germany was far more developed than in Britain. As the German scholar J. Schick, editor of a 'scientific edition' of Lydgate with genealogical trees provided in the introduction, later wrote in a posthumous tribute to Furnivall, there were more than twenty university chairs for the study of English literature 'in our Germany.'37 By contrast, only one English university, University College London, had a department of English, and scholars working in Old and Middle English philological and linguistic studies were mostly doing so (like Sweet himself) outside the universities.38 'Where,' Sweet consequently laments of prospective English scholars, 'are we to get our training?' His answer is thus: We are left to pick it up at random, often quite late in life ... How different are the circumstances of the foreign student! He starts young with a thorough training, and with the certainty of full opportunity of devoting himself to his subject for the rest of his life. An undergraduate of an English University who were to announce to the Head of his College his intention of devoting himself to English philology would be regarded as a dangerous lunatic - to be repressed by any means ...39

Furnivall, almost certainly sitting among the members of the Philological Society listening to Sweet's diatribe, was of course the chief exponent of the method of 'mere mechanical reproduction of MS texts,' that is, slavish adherence to scribal versions, of which Zupitza and Sweet despaired; his lack of

26

Charlotte Brewer

interest in editorial methodology, or even editorial scrupulousness, was well known and much criticized. This did not appear to have interfered with his pivotal position in Anglo-German medievalist relations.40 Alois Brandl tells us of Furnivall and Zupitza (who arranged Furnivall's honorary degree from Berlin University) that the two men were 'always cheerful and copying fresh manuscripts,' but 'were not always of one mind,' for 'Zupitza insisted on critical editions, and Furnivall would not hear of them - "doctored editions," he called them. Zupitza was mainly concerned with accuracy of texts and rhymeinvestigations, Furnivall went mainly for the human and sociological interest of the matter.'41 In many respects, the EETS project was not an editing but a printing enterprise; in Donald Baker's words, Furnivall 'never, in a sense, edited anything. He printed, but how fully, how gloriously, he printed!'42 He was driven by a passionate determination 'not to rest till Englishmen shall be able to say of their Early Literature, what the Germans can now say of theirs, "every work of it's printed and every word of it's glossed." England must no longer be content to lag behind.'43 IV

Well, what were the Germans doing? What was this 'interesting and important work of genuine critical reconstruction' on which they were engaged? Where Chaucer was concerned, just six German editions with 'genealogical' and 'scientific' claims, or one might conceivably say pretensions, emerged around this time. All had introductory material in English despite, in several cases, being published in Germany. Ten Brink's Compleynte to Pile and General Prologue appeared in 1871, and Zupitza's General Prologue in 1882, but notwithstanding their 'scientific' claims, the latter two editions give the reader minimal, or in some cases no, information about the theory on which they rest, and my initial analyses of them indicate that they are internally inconsistent and do not give reliable collations.44 The next one, Koch's Critical Edition of Some of Chaucer's Minor Poems, is more forthcoming. Koch tells us that previous editions of Chaucer have been either 'reprints from MSS with all their faults,' or 'reprints with a few alterations by the editors, when they thought the author ought to be helped up, or the scribe ought not to be trusted.' He goes on to say: 'A really critical [sc. genealogical?] restoration of the text has only been made of the "Astrolabe," by Prof. Skeat, of the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, and of the Balade "Pite," by Prof. Ten Brink, and lately another of the Prologue, by Prof. Zupitza.'45 But if one turns to the latter two publications, as I have already indicated, one is not satisfactorily enlightened. Skeat's edition of the Astrolabe is rather different. He makes no special claims for his edito-

Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer

27

rial methodology, and the section in his introduction dealing with the text simply categorizes the manuscripts in two groups according to the order in which they have certain sections, and provides no analysis of individual readings or variations or agreements in or between the manuscripts. On the other hand, he actually constructed his text through an eclectic comparison of different manuscript readings in the manner subsequently acclaimed by Ker as 'critical' - but this is almost certainly not what Koch intended to mean by his use of the same term.46 In 1892 the first part of a more ambitious enterprise appeared. Under the aegis of the Chaucer Society, Zupitza published his series of Specimens of All the Accessible Unprinted Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales.41 This was not just a partial ancillary to the Society's earlier printed transcriptions but a new departure altogether, albeit one difficult to identify very readily, given the lack of any editorial statement of the aim and value of the project. The reader is confronted with a complex and initially unintelligible collection of lists of readings, but may divine, after some perseverance and effort, that Zupitza sets out to compare the manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales exhaustively over the 'Doctor-Pardoner link,' and the Pardoner's Prologue and Tale, in an attempt to construct a comprehensive genealogical analysis of manuscript relations which may act as a basis from which to edit the work as a whole. Various problems arise with this project. First of all, there is the obvious point made by the Athenceum reviewer of Liddell's 1901 edition and quoted above (p. 20), that there is no justification for supposing that an analysis of manuscript relations over a small portion of the poem should apply to the poem as a whole. But there are other difficulties too. It is difficult to be quite sure, given the near complete absence of editorial self-explanation, but it appears that Zupitza regarded agreements in right readings as evidence of genetic relation between the manuscripts agreeing - and this, as is now generally accepted, is not a permissible procedure.48 Moreover, as with the earlier German publications, there is no editorial explanation of the rationale for distinguishing some variants as authorial and others as scribal. It is not clear whether variants are pronounced errors because they do not make sense, because they are in some way less elegant or less appropriate than an alternative, or because they are philologically or metrically defective. Each portion of the nine-part publication lists purportedly genetic groups of readings without explanation or justification, so that it is virtually impossible for the reader to yea or nay either detail or overarching principle without working through all the transcriptions and replicating the editorial work.49 The utility of this endeavour might, one would think, reside in the end product, which one would expect to be a genealogical tree of the manuscripts

28

Charlotte Brewer

whose function would be to enable or facilitate subsequent editing of the whole work. Zupitza died before completing the analysis, and it was taken over by his pupil John Koch in 1897. At the end of the preface to part 4, the first section for which Koch was responsible, his fellow-pupil Liddell provided two formidably entangled genealogical trees, a 'trial-pedigree of the Petworth group' of Canterbury Tales manuscripts (especially bewildering, this one, with a criss-cross tracery of dotted lines cutting through the solid ones), and a 'Preliminary Chart of the MSS of the Canterbury Tales.'50 But no one took up the challenge to edit the Tales on this basis except for Liddell, in the edition already mentioned of three Canterbury Tales, and Koch himself, who published an edition of the Pardoner's Tale based on Zupitza's analysis (supplemented and corrected by his own) in Heidelberg in 1902.51 This publication is less timorous and respectful than his earlier Minor Poems, and Koch writes severely of past English editors of the Canterbury Tales. Wright and Morris may be thought to be deserving of his strictures, but Koch is almost as censorious of his two immediate predecessors, Skeat and Pollard. 'Neither editor,' he says disapprovingly, 'having a clear conception how to handle the often diverging issues of a poetical production, how to classify them, and how to find the original reading, their texts are still far from being the standard for which they - at least Skeat's - are generally taken.' He notes with evident irritation that 'this deficiency can scarcely be wondered at if we learn that neither editor took the trouble of consulting Zupitza's "Specimens" ... two parts of which must have been out before their publications were finished.'52 Koch's editorial introduction is far more extensive than those of his compatriots, but by no means easier to follow. After scattering around a series of criticisms of other editors, he lobs into the air a swift and inadequate defence of his own procedure in basing his analysis of the manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales on those of the Pardoner's Tale alone,53 and then settles down to thirtysix pages of textual explication, going through his manuscript types, groups, and undergroups, and justifying them with very short lists of sample agreements. Unfortunately, these are identified only by line number, not by lemma; they appear to include agreements in right readings as well as in error. He frequently states that scribes have consulted manuscripts outside their group or that agreements are coincidental - presumably so that his stemma will hold water. The general sense is that editorial judgment in all cases is unproblematical. Koch gives no hint as to how he divines Chaucer's original reading, nor, consequently, how he identifies scribal error. Nor does he at any point show himself susceptible to any sense of indecision or uncertainty. It seems particularly hard that he should not provide us with the genealogical tree that is the

Critical, Scientific, and Eclectic Editing of Chaucer

29

aim of his analysis and the basis on which the edition stands and may be judged. 'I have ... renounced the project of adding a pictorial pedigree,' he tells us, with insufficient apology, 'as the drawing of such a one would be too puzzling, if done on so small a scale as to fit with the size of this book. But I hope that every reader will be able to supply this drawing by a careful perusal of the description of the MSS and their division into types, groups, undergroups, etc.'54 This reader blenched at the prospect. The crucial question, though, is, do these exhaustive textual analyses and categorizations, or in other words, the application of 'genealogical' or 'critical'' processes of manuscript analysis, result in a significantly different text? The answer is no. Koch's text of the Pardoner's Tale, despite its 'scientific' claims, differs only in minor details from that of Skeat.55

V It would appear, then, that a good deal of effort was being expended on theoretical aspects of editing, very little of which bore any clearly identifiable relation to the question of which variants an editor in practice chose to print in his text. The example of Skeat is particularly illuminating here. If Furnivall scorned 'doctored' editions (that is, those based on a genealogical analysis of manuscripts), Skeat took a more liberal view. His successive editions of Piers Plowman show increasing acknowledgment of the Germanic convention of classifying manuscripts, as if routinely doffing his hat to 'scientific' method, but such classification appears to have been a procedure entirely separate from deciding which readings should go into the text. The same is true of his successive editions of Chaucer.56 He believed in sticking in the main to a reliable base text, and then consulting a good number of manuscripts, recording their variants accurately if not comprehensively, and plumping for a reading on the basis of experienced critical insight, of what the Ciceronian editor A.C. Clark described as 8eivoTT|