Information to Users
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly firom the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afiect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing firom left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI University Microfilms international A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 Nortfi Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9421002 Editing the Auchinleck: Textual criticism and the reconstruction of a medieval manuscript Porcheddu, Frederick Christopher, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1994 U'M'I 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106 EDITING THE AUCHINLECK: TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPT DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Frederick Christopher Porcheddu, B.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1994 Dissertation Committee : Approved by Lisa J. Kiser Christian K. Zacher Adviser Nicholas Howe Department of English Copyright by Frederick Christopher Porcheddu 1994 To Vincent E. Engel, without variation. 11. VITA August 12, 1965 Born — Danville, Illinois 1987 B.A., Denison University, Granville, Ohio 1987-88 Graduate Fellow, The Ohio State University, Colum bus , Ohio 1990 M.A., The Ohio State Uni versity 1992-Present Instructor of English, Denison University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: English Studies in: Medieval English Literature Edmund Spenser The Gothic Novel 111. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ............................................ il. VITA ................................................. iii. LIST OF TABLES ...................................... v i . LIST OF FIGURES .................................... vii. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1 CHAPTER PAGE I. Philology, Textuality, Humility ............. 9 i. Philological Paradigms 12 ii. Editors and Their Authors 21 iii. New(est) Philology 35 II. The Antiquarian Edition, 1760-1860: Rude Poems, Gentle Readers ................ 41 i. Antiquarian Textures: Thomas Percy and Joseph Ritson 46 ii. Textures Made Explicit: Walter Scott and Henry Weber 61 iii. Antiquarian Book Clubs 77 III. The Critical Edition, 1860-1970: New Audiences ............................ 95 i. Zealous Discharge of Duty: The Early English Text Society 100 ii. Parallel and Best-Text Editing 114 iii. Collation Editing 134 IV. Edited Text as Medieval Artifact: The Auchinleck Bookshop Theory ............ 143 i . Print Culture and the Auchinleck Bookshop Theory 153 ii. A Middle English Charlemagne Cycle? 166 iii. The Bookshop As Institution 179 iv. V. Present Tense, Past Imperfect, Future Progressive ........................ 184 1 . Teaching Against the Artifact: The Case of Pedagogical Anthologies 188 i i , Rediscovering Manuscript Context 202 iii. New Technologies of Textual Representation 214 NOTES ................................................. 260 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 286 V. LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Editions of Auchinleck items, arranged by relative manuscript item number ................ 220 2. Editions of Auchinleck items, arranged by relative publication date ...................... 226 VI. LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Joseph Ritson's facing-page versions of The Marriage of Sir Gawaine. contrasting texts from Percy's 1st and 4th Editions (1803) . 234 2. Title page from Scott's edition of Sir Tristrem (1804) ................................. 235 3. Hand-drawn facsimile of Auchinleck folio 281r.a. by James Johnstone (frontispiece to Scott's Sir Tristrem^ ........................... 236 4. Representative text sample from an Abbots ford or Maitland Club publication................237 5. Pen and ink frontispiece to Beves of Ham- toun (Maitland Club, 1838), drawn by C.K. S h a r p e ........................................... 238 6. Pen and ink frontispiece to Arthour and Merlin (Abbotsford Club, 1838), drawn by C.K. S h a r p e ...................................... 239 7. Representative text sample from Guy of War wick. ed. Turnbull (Abbotsford Club, 1840) . 240 8. Representative text sample from Leaendae Catholicae. ed. Turnbull (1840) ................. 241 9. David Laing's Penni Worthe of Witte (1857) . 242 10. Carl Horstmann's Altenoiische Legenden (1881), showing the text of Saint Margrete ............ 243 11. Carl Horstmann's Altenglische Legenden (1881), showing the text of Saint Katerine ............ 244 12. Wilhelm Linlow's Disputacioun Bitwen the Bodi and the Soule (1889) ...................... 245 v i i . 13. Julius Zupitza's Guy of Warwick (EETS, 1883), pages 174-75 ............................ 246 14. Zupitza's Guv of Warwick, pages 354-55 ........ 247 15. Zupitza's Guy of Warwick, pages 492-93 ......... 248 16. Karl Brunner's Seven Saaes of Rome (EETS, 1933) , page 1 .................................... 249 17. Brunner's Seven Saaes of Rome. pages 128-29 . 250 18. A.J. Bliss's Sir Orfeo (1954), pages 2-3 .... 251 19. Bliss's Sir Orfeo (1954), pages 4 - 5 .............. 252 20. Eugen Kolbing's collation (1883) of We ber's edition of The Seven Saaes of Rome .... 253 21. Copy of Auchinleck f.278.r.b. (a portion of Kina Alisaunderl, and parallel diplo matic transcription ............................ 254 22. Kolbing's "restless" stemma from his edi tion of Sir Beves of Hamtoun (1894) ............ 255 23. Eugen Kolbing's parallel-text form for Sir Beves (1894), page 201 (compare to Figures 16 and 1 7 ) ....................................... 256 24. Laura Loomis' format for textual evidence to support the Auchinleck Bookshop Theory ( 1 9 4 0 ) ........................................ 257 25. Stemma necessary to produce the pre-history of the Auchinleck Charlemagne poems, accord ing to the Bookshop Theory (based on Wal pole and Smyser) ................................. 258 26. Stemma necessary to reflect the immediate provenance of the Auchinleck Charlemagne poems, according to the Bookshop Theory (based on Walpole and Smyser) ....................259 27. Stemma reflective of the Auchinleck Charle magne poems as a whole, according to the Bookshop Theory ................................ 259 V l l l . INTRODUCTION The goal of this dissertation is to provide a comprehen sive examination of the textual and literary criticism written about a single fourteenth-century English manuscript, National Library of Scotland Advocates' MS 19.2.1 (commonly called "The Auchinleck Manuscript").^ It is my hope that such an examina tion will lead to future discussions in which the history of editorial work on Middle English texts can be chronicled and evaluated more fully. The importance of editorial influence on the progress of medieval literary studies has been stressed by important figures in the field for years now; by many estimates it will be a common task for the rising generation of Middle English editors to look with a skeptical eye at their predecessors' publications, to interrogate and rethink the fundamental notion of textuality, and to take advantage of new technologies in order to represent the artifacts of the past. I offer this project as a case study not only of the historical relationship between edition and criticism, but also of the recent dramatic change in the nature of that relationship. The ideological support for this project comes from the new directions outlined by postmodernist criticism combined 2 with the growing philological interest in examining the roots of the Middle English editorial tradition. In the past fifteen years the practice of textual criticism (or "editing") has undergone radical transformations, due in part to the catalytic publication of the B-text of Piers Plowman by George Kane and E. Talbot Donaldson in 1975. The transformation is, I believe, also due to a general awareness, discernible some years before the appearance of Kane and Donaldson's monumental work, of a fundamental fallacy in the mechanism of editing as it had been routinely practiced among Middle English scholars, with little refinement and less explicit self-examination, since the 1840's. The nature of this change has been documented in essays by Lee Patterson, Tim William Machan, Ralph Hanna, A.S.G. Edwards, David Huit, and others, all of whom have contextual- ized the assumptions and methodologies of editors.^ Theirs has been a scholarly dialogue of considerable energy and caliber and I have been