A Graphetic Analysis of MS Glasow University Library Hunter 83. Mphil(R) Thesis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Mol, Janneke Susanne (2010) The scribal fingerprint: a graphetic analysis of MS Glasow University Library Hunter 83. MPhil(R) thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1758/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] THE SCRIBAL FINGERPRINT: A GRAPHETIC ANALYSIS OF MS GLASGOW UNIVERSITY LIBRARY HUNTER 83 Janneke Susanne Mol MA (Hons) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of M.Phil. University of Glasgow Department of English Language September 2009 Abstract This thesis provides a graphetic analysis of the two hands active in MS Glasgow University Library Hunter 83, a Middle English edition of a Prose Brut text. It is based on the methodology first put forward by Professor McIntosh in 1974, which uses Graphetic and Linguistic Profiles in order to identify scribal idiosyncrasies. By applying the graphetic element of this theory to MS Hunter 83, the main body of this thesis presents two „scribal fingerprints‟, ultimately singling out graphetic behaviour characteristic of both hands. The primary aim of this thesis is an in-depth analysis of the letter forms which will make up the body of the Graphetic Profiles of the two scribes. However, a further research question will be addressed: since the two scribes have been said in catalogues to write in “mixed” hands, is it possible to describe individual hands as “Secretary” or “Anglicana”, or is a more subtle typology, based on “fuzzy-set” theory, needed? By first establishing the characteristics of both scripts and secondly by comparing them to the two Graphetic Profiles, it is possible to establish the degree of „fuzziness‟ relating to this established palaeographical terminology. Lastly, and perhaps most interestingly, it may be possible to identify a dialectal difference, since it is said that scribe B wrote in a „typical Scottish hand‟ (Matheson 1998:205). A Graphetic Profile can shed further light on this assumption and identify the typical Scottish features allegedly present in the hand of this scribe. In sum, this thesis is an attempt to test the validity and value of McIntosh‟s analytic procedure on two complex scribal outputs from the end of the Middle English period. 2 PLATE 1 MS Glasgow University Hunter 83, The Prose Brut, Scribe A folio 3 verso 3 PLATE 2 MS Glasgow University Hunter 83, The Prose Brut, Scribe B folio 45 recto 4 Table of Contents Abstract 2 PLATE 1: scribe A folio 3 verso 3 PLATE 2: Scribe B folio 45 recto 4 Table of Contents 5 List of Figures 6 Acknowledgements 7 CHAPTER 1: Introduction; Research Questions, Methodology and Context 8 1.1 Middle English Dialectology and the LALME 8 1.2 The Profiles Explained 10 1.3 Chronicle Writing in Britain and the Prose Brut Tradition 16 CHAPTER 2: The Palaeography of MS Hunter 83 19 2.1 Palaeography; a Short Definition 19 2.2 Anglicana and Secretary; the Scripts of MS Hunter 83 20 2.3 MS Hunter 83; its Graphetic Make-up 25 2.4 Graphetic Profiles 28 CHAPTER 3: The Graphetic Profiles of MS Hunter 83 36 3.1 The qualities of a 37 3.1.1 Scribe A: a 37 3.1.2 Scribe B: a 47 3.2 The qualities of d 50 3.2.1Scribe A: d 51 3.2.2Scribe B: d 58 3.3 The qualities of e 62 3.3.1 Scribe B: e 63 3.4 The qualities of g 67 3.4.1 Scribe A: g 68 3.4.2 Scribe B: g 74 3.5 The qualities of p 79 3.5.1 Scribe A: p 80 3.5.2 Scribe B: p 83 3.6 The qualities of r 85 3.6.1 Scribe A: r 86 3.6.2 Scribe B: r 92 3.7 The qualities of s 98 3.7.1 Scribe A: s 99 3.7.2 Scribe B: s 104 3.8 The qualities of w 109 3.8.1 Scribe A: w 109 3.8.2 Scribe B: w 114 CHAPTER 4: Conclusions 121 Appendix A: remaining GP Scribe A 126 Appendix B: remaining GP Scribe B 143 Bibliography 154 5 List of Figures Chapter 1 Figure 1: GP fol 136 rec, Scribe A, a unorganised Figure 2: Scribe A, square a Figure 3: Scribe A, flat-topped a Chapter 2 Figure 4: Anglicana Features in MS Hunter 83 Figure 5: Secretary features in MS Hunter 83 Figure 6: Scottish features in MS Hunter 83 Figure 7: Scribe A, folio 2 verso lines 1 - 3 Figure 8: Scribe B folio 88 recto lines 1 – 4 Figure 9: McIntosh feature 1 scribe A Figure 10: McIntosh feature 1 scribe B Figure 11: McIntosh feature 2 scribe A Figure 12: McIntosh feature 2 scribe B Chapter 3 Figure 13: Scribe A: a Figure 14: Scribe B: a Figure 15: Scribe A: d Figure 16: Scribe B: d Figure 17: Scribe A: e Figure 18: Scribe B: e Figure 19: Scribe A: g Figure 20: Scribe B: g Figure 21: Scribe A: p Figure 22: Scribe B: p Figure 23: Scribe A: r Figure 24: Scribe B: r Figure 25: Scribe A: s Figure 26: Scribe B: s Figure 27: Scribe A: w Figure 28: Scribe B: w Chapter 4 Figure 29: Scribe A letter-form distribution Figure 30: Scribe B letter-form distribution Figure 31: Scribe A positional predictions Figure 32: Scribe B positional prediction 6 Acknowledgements There is no doubt that my endless enthusiasm for the subject has motivated me throughout constructing this dissertation. I have greatly enjoyed researching, compiling and comparing data, and I felt privileged to work so closely with a precious Middle English manuscript as well as to be guided by the highly skilled staff at the Department of English Language. I realise that my obsession with Middle English palaeography sometimes meant that spare time to be spent with family and friends was spent in the library or in the study instead. For me this time was easily sacrificed; however friends and loved ones regularly suffered. Because of this I would firstly like to thank my partner Stephen for being so patient with me during the two years it took me to finish this thesis. He has helped me through the highs and lows and always believed in me, even when I did not. Also, I would like to thank my mother for encouraging me to go back to University after three years and follow my interests and chase my dreams. And naturally I thank the rest of my family and friends for their support and interest in this project. I would also like to thank Julie Gardham at Special Collections for sharing her enthusiasm for medieval texts and The Prose Brut in particular, pinpointing me in the right direction and guiding me in the first stages of my research. The Special Collections department provided me with a digital copy of the manuscript which meant I was not limited to library opening times anymore, allowing me to research the manuscript in the comfort of my own home. Furthermore, I thank my colleagues and managers at the company where I hold my full time job for permitting me to take time off and shuffle my shifts. This meant more flexibility so it was easier for me to attend classes and commit to meetings at the University. And lastly, special thanks go out to my supervisor Jeremy Smith who has introduced me to the subject of graphetic profiles. There is no doubt that his great skill and knowledge in the subject was of great value to me, as well as his guidance and directions throughout. He has been a great motivator, making me believe in myself and my abilities and encouraging me to find my own way in the two year process. 7 1. Introduction; Research Questions, Methodology and Historical Context 1.1 Middle English Dialectology and the Linguistic Atlas of Late Medieval English The Middle English period (1100 – 1475) is characterised not only by the existence of many English dialects alongside each other but also by their manifestation in the written mode, something which was not the case during the Old English period. One explanation for this difference is that after the Norman Conquest English competed with French and Latin. Written English had a much more local rather than national role and as a result each region – indeed, each parish – developed its own linguistic characteristics. In sum, for much of the English period, written English was “dialectal” in a way which differed from Modern English. Thus, a student of Middle English needs to engage with dialectology. Dialectology is the study of variation in language and the study of Middle English dialects first started to take shape in the nineteenth century. After 1898 it was generally approached from two different angles (McIntosh1986:3), namely: a. by programmatic descriptions, based on the neogrammarian model; b. by research into place-name or other onomastic material. Both approaches acknowledged that there existed a variety of dialects in the Middle English period; however they did not take into account the fact that many of the texts were copied and often translated from one dialect into the other.