The Textual Criticism of Middle English Manuscript Traditions: A Survey of Critical Issues in the Interpretation of Textual Data

The Textual Criticism of Middle English Manuscript Traditions:A Survey of Critical Issues in the Interpretation of TextualData

Gavin Cole*University of Nottingham

Abstract

This essay is intended to survey two broad issues which determine the use of textual data. Thefirst is the underlying orientation towards the use of textual data and how this relates to criticalevaluations of agency, authority and materiality. This essay surveys two broad orientations: (i) anessentially retrospective genetic orientation and, (ii) an orientation which focuses on the phenom-enon of change. Both approaches are dependent on the ability to distinguish original readingsfrom scribal readings, identify genetic relationships and account for acts of horizontal transmission.With this in mind, the second issue with which this essay is concerned is the importance of criti-cal interpretation in the categorisation of textual data. This essay argues that textual criticism is apractical demonstration of the difficulties of interpretation and that no textual data ‘has any realevidential value until it has been interpreted’ (Patterson 90).

Introduction: Textual Transmission in a Manuscript Culture

While some Middle English works survive in a single copy, numerous Middle Englishtextual traditions are large and diverse. Few holographs survive, and therefore the vastmajority of the extant material is the product of scribal copying. These multiple copiesare often significantly varied in their textual contents. Textual criticism can be used as abroad term for text-centred approaches to the understanding of textual traditions and thehistory of their transmission. Textual criticism focuses on the methodological examinationand comparison of the textual and lexical contents of the extant manuscript witnesses.Much of the extant scholarship of Middle English textual traditions has focused uponproblems in specific textual traditions. Many important studies of such problems can befound in several essay collections on textual and ⁄or editorial problems in Middle English.1

There are several seminal studies of particular traditions which have produced significantconsiderations of methodology.2 There are a number of significant essays which surveyaspects of the field or attempt overviews of Middle English textual criticism and editing.3

The textual criticism of Middle English manuscript traditions is fundamentally influ-enced by our knowledge and interpretation of manuscript culture.4 In the copying of agiven text, a scribe may engage with various levels of the ‘written expression’ of the text.This includes the alteration of punctuation, imposition of alternative ‘conventions’ of spell-ing or altering the lexical content (from individual words to larger textual units). Manyvariations between the texts of the various material witnesses may be attributed to scribalerror. Errors are often the result of mechanical failures, such as dittography, haplography,homoeorcton and homoeoteleuton. Mechanical errors often arise as a result of the influenceof the physical aspect of the text. This can range from confusion over the shape of particularletters or words, to issues involving the layout of the text on the page.5 Alternatively, a

Literature Compass 6/6 (2009): 1084–1093, 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00653.x

ª 2009 The AuthorJournal Compilation ª 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

specific scribal practice might generate specific errors. For example, if a scribe was makinga copy from a text being read aloud (rather than a physical copy in front of him), the tex-tual critic might consider the possible impact of the auditory impression of a word or unitof sense. If a scribe was committing text to memory in order to reproduce it, the vagariesof memory might explain some errors. Such mechanical and procedural factors must beconsidered alongside physical and psychological causes such as inattention, distraction orfatigue. Some errors may result from a combination of factors. If critical opinion judgesthe role of the scribe to be the accurate replication of the exemplar (and ultimately, thewords of the author) then any deviation from this may be labelled as ‘error’.6 The textualcritic can also make a distinction between error and deliberate scribal alteration of the text(although identifying whether a variant is a result of one or the other is more problematic).It is clear that some individuals involved in the copying and dissemination of texts wouldengage in a more active way with the text and make deliberate changes (including addi-tions, omissions and substitutions). Again, such interventions in the text have generallybeen seen as evidence of ‘corruption’. This view operates in tandem with a negative opin-ion of scribes, a critical privileging of authorial or original forms, and a mistrust of materialwitnesses. Such views underlie the retrospective genetic approach.

Genetic Approaches to Textual Data

The goals of, and orientations towards, textual criticism are influenced by scholarly atti-tudes towards the scribal medium which produces the material witnesses. Each individualscribal copy may contain readings which have been introduced in the process of scribaltransmission (and were not present in the hypothetical original text from which theextant material witnesses descend). These ‘variant’ readings may be found in a singlewitness (a separative variant) or in a number of witnesses (conjunctive variants). Theextant witnesses to a textual tradition stand in uncertain relation to the postulated originaland to the other surviving copies.

Traditional textual criticism has essentially retrospective goals in that it seeks to identifyand remove scribal variants, recover lost texts and restore the text to a more primitiveform.7 The basic genetic orientation seeks to explain manuscript affiliations in terms ofgenealogical relationships (based upon shared variants). It suggests that all extant witnessescan be positioned hierarchically in relation to each other and a postulated point of emer-gence. Through recension lost ancestral texts can be inferred and traced back to the pointof origin. The genetic orientation is based upon some key enabling assumptions. Itassumes a single root and vertical transmission. It also assumes that scribes are unlikely tointroduce the same errors independently. Fundamentally it assumes that one candistinguish original and scribal readings.

To pursue the retrospective goal which is based upon the genetic orientation there area number of key issues with which the critic must engage. As Cartlidge (137) states,‘interrogation of the evidence is made problematic […] by the difficulties inherent inidentifying and organising the data’. The following discussion highlights the role of thecritic in categorising the data at various points in the process. This is centred upon severalkey issues which have been prevalent in the discussion of genetic methodologies.

THE DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIVE VARIATION

The process of collation involves the comparison of the textual contents of each witnesswith the other extant copies (usually resulting in a list of points of variation among the

Criticism of Middle English Manuscript Traditions 1085

ª 2009 The Author Literature Compass 6/6 (2009): 1084–1093, 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00653.xJournal Compilation ª 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

different texts). The collation of the extant witnesses will show that there are numeroustypes of differences between the various extant texts. Scribes can engage with severallevels of the text, including lexis, morphology, and orthography. The textual critic mustconsider what types of variation are substantive, that is, relevant to the identification ofgenetic relationships and the construction of a hierarchical stemma. It is these readingswhich will be recorded in the process of collation. This categorisation of the data, whichprecedes all others, is very important.

IDENTIFYING ORIGINAL AND SCRIBAL READINGS

Genetic approaches seek to determine the relative authority of extant witnesses in relationto the postulated point of emergence (and any inferable texts). The stemma is the tradi-tional way to arrange these texts hierarchically. In basic stemmatic approaches, havingarranged the witnesses hierarchically, the stemma can be used to determine the directionof variation and choose between competing readings. A key criticism of stemmaticapproaches is that there is a fundamental circularity of logic. To create the hierarchy, theymust necessarily have already determined which readings are original. As Patterson (81)points out, ‘it is with the very identification of error that the process actually begins’. Themost well-known formulation of this problem can be found in the works of Kane andDonaldson (see Works Cited). It is the division made between original and scribal read-ings that forms the basis of all text-critical and editorial activities. To identify originalreadings, the textual critic must be able to distinguish them from readings which aredemonstrably attributable to scribal action (which has been variously labelled by scholarsas ‘corruption’, ‘error’ or ‘variation’). Thus, a rationale is needed for making this distinc-tion. This is of central importance to the programme of textual criticism as it entails afurther categorisation of the data.

There has been some discussion devoted to the relative objectivity of the criteria thatare employed for identifying scribal readings. It is possible that a critic may choosebetween readings based upon an aesthetic judgement. The term ‘aesthetic’ is used in thiscontext to refer to judgements which appear to be made based upon arguments of theperceived ‘quality’ of a reading, or upon critical notions of the authorial usage or style.Several criteria have been proposed in an attempt to reduce the subjectivity of choicesbetween readings. The doctrine of lectio difficilior (the more difficult reading) has beeninvoked by numerous critics. This principle suggests when there are two or more read-ings from which to choose, the hardest or more difficult reading which fits the context isprobably that which is original and which gives rise to alternative readings. This isdependent on the notion that authorial usage is inherently superior and that scribes willsubstitute easier readings for those that they or the anticipated audience find problematic.In their edition of the B Version of Piers Plowman, Kane and Donaldson (130) employknowledge of usus scribendi (scribal usage) and perceived authorial usage to aid theirchoice between readings.

Alternatively, recourse might be made to calculus. In this case, the reading which is themajority attestation gains precedence. An unqualified calculus is problematic because theproliferation of a text (‘corrupt’ or otherwise) often has little to do with textual superiorityand more to do with the circulation of exemplum and the dissemination of medieval texts.Thus, an error might be multiply attested through the dissemination of a corrupted witnessor branch of the tradition. Conversely, a single witness may (at a given point) have greaterauthority than a number of other witnesses which all agree in a (erroneous) reading.

1086 Criticism of Middle English Manuscript Traditions


In the case of Middle English works which were translated from Latin or Anglo-Nor-man, the source may provide a criterion for judging between variant readings. At themost basic level, the reading closest to that found in the source may be judged as thelikely archetypal reading. The use of source material is dependent on the ability ofthe scholar to identify the source work and, having done that, a text of the source whichis proximate to that used for the act of translation (in the absence of the actual sourcetext). The precise methodology devised for the application of the source will also bedependent upon the state of the textual tradition of the source (i.e. whether the sourcetradition is also multiple and diverse). This is important for the differentiation betweengenuine variants in the Middle English textual tradition and those which arise in the tex-tual tradition of the source.8 The use of the source is also dependent on an enablingjudgement about the type of translation practice adopted by the translator and whethersuch a practice was adopted consistently. Obviously, the more literal a translation, theeasier it is to judge proximity to the postulated archetypal translation. In some cases, thetranslator has left us with some indication of his intended translation policy. For example,this is the case with John Trevisa. Other translators, particularly those who are anony-mous may have left no indication of their policy and practice. In such cases, the criticmay have to deduce this from the extant evidence. The critic will define the nature ofthe translation based upon comparisons with the divergent testimony of extant MiddleEnglish tradition. Having done so, the critic can confirm that the source can be used todistinguish between original and scribal readings. Of course, one must again acknowledgea circularity of logic here. This involves a pre-judgement of what the original MiddleEnglish translation looked like (and it is this text that the critic is trying to uncover bydrawing upon the source).

The list of variants compiled through the process of collation provides a numberof areas in which there is clear evidence of scribal action. In such cases, the criticmay have to choose between two or more readings. The textual critic must decidewhich reading is that which is oldest. However, there may be cases in which anumber of variants may have equal claim to authority. This alerts us to severalpossibilities. It could be that the archetypal translation diverged from the source. Thismakes determining the original reading based upon comparisons with the sourcehighly problematic. There may be points at which the text is in fact ‘corrupted’ butall witnesses agree. In such cases, recovering the original reading may be impossible.One should also note that the archetype may have contained errors and thus anapparently ‘correct’ reading (in terms of sense) may not be the original reading.

ESTABLISHING GENEALOGICAL AFFILIATIONS

The next issue is the identification of manuscript affiliations. Having identified variantreadings, the critic can make a distinction between separative and conjunctive variation,that is, the division between errors found in one witness and those found in two ormore. It should be noted that separative variants can only be classified as such in lieu offurther evidence. They may share a given variant with witnesses which are no longerextant. Genetic approaches suggest that shared error may provide evidence of geneticaffiliation. Accordingly, any two or more manuscripts which share a common variantreading may be related. A shared variant might indicate a direct link (i.e. one or moremanuscripts are descended from another or via an intermediary text), or that they share acommon ancestor.



Groups constructed using this process are formed based upon the distinction betweenputative archetypal readings and scribal variants. However, it is likely that there will beseveral layers of scribal variation. This will include variants on previous layers of scribalvariation. If these can be identified, these can be used to further refine the process ofgrouping. One might also draw attention to the fact that genetic relation is being postu-lated based upon exact lexical agreement. However, some texts may share features which,although lexically different, may be semantically the same. It may be that such agreementsindicate a relationship (which is obscured by multiple scribal action). As Hanna (90)states, ‘some non-identical readings are only sensible as being ‘‘second-generation’’derivatives of other erroneous readings’.

Having isolated some possible genetic affiliations (resulting in groups of two or moremanuscripts), it is possible that some of these groups conflict. All the groups need to besubject to further scrutiny. The reality of textual transmission is that scribes frequentlyengaged in acts which reflect horizontal transmission, and which disrupt the notion ofvertical linear descent and obscure the lines of textual affiliation. Such acts include confla-tion, scribal correction or coincidentally convergent scribal action. Scribes might drawupon multiple exemplars, perhaps to correct a perceived deficiency in an exemplar.Scribes might correct an obvious error without recourse to other material. Alternatively,different scribes might arrive at the same reading independently, either through a com-mon error (i.e. both might misread or omit a certain word), or through a common inter-pretative act (such as correcting an obvious error or substituting a word with a commonsynonym). In their investigation of the manuscripts of Piers Plowman, Kane and Donald-son (31–8) found that acts of conflation or coincidental convergence were common. Thecritic must eliminate groups which could have arisen in such manners.

There are several ways that one might attempt to distinguish genetic groups from non-genetic groups. One might suggest that those groups which share a greater number ofvariants are likely to be genetic. Recourse to probability would suggest that witnesses thatpersistently group together are more likely to be genetically related. However, any suchcalculus must be qualified. Counting variants must be balanced with their analysis. It isclear that common errors may be numerous or widely attested. Thus, the critic mightwish to re-examine or exclude variants which can be attributed to common scribal errors.For example, omissions are problematic for predicating genetic groups because they couldeasily arise by coincidence. One might also propose a rule of congruency whereby minorgroups which conflict with major groups might be regarded as more likely to be coinci-dental (Hanna 87).

This approach to textual criticism is concerned with removing the evidence of scribalaction. This tells us something about the underlying conceptions of authority, materialityand the production of meaning. In making a distinction between the ‘original’ (or‘authorial’) words and those of the scribal copyists, textual criticism recognises that multi-ple agents are involved in the production of the material forms of Middle English. Theattempt to recover lost texts implies that a ‘better’ text lies behind the extant texts. Thissuggests that authority and the production of meaning can be traced to a point of origin.For different textual traditions (and different critics), this can be the words of the author,the words of the original or archetypal text or the words of the earliest recoverable text.This entails a rejection of materiality. Material witnesses are judged ‘best’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’according to their proximate distance from the point of origin for the whole tradition.Kane and Donaldson (115) famously rejected the creation of such a hierarchy, claimingthat the manuscripts of Piers Plowman were all corrupted. Their editorial goal remainedconsistent with this orientation, despite their eclectic (rather than stemmatic) approach.



This author- or origin-centred orientation works in tandem with a broadly negativeopinion of scribal-copyists who are frequently judged as inaccurate transmitters or deliber-ate manipulators of texts.

Examining the Phenomenon of Change

This section will explore an approach to textual data which is not concerned withretrospection and reconstruction. A variety of approaches to the medieval book have, indiffering ways, emphasised alternative critical attitudes to concepts of authority, materialityand scribal participation in the production of meaning. The closure of meaning accordingto principles of authorial intention has been questioned in the wake of the broad field ofpost-structuralism, from Barthes onwards. In the area of textual criticism, approacheswhich place the recovery of the author’s words at the centre have been complicated byissues of intentionalism (i.e. whether the critic should pursue the author’s original or finalintentions). In contrast to a genetic orientation which attempts to look beyond andbehind the extant texts, approaches such as Book History, New Philology and MaterialPhilology have emphasised the importance and unique nature of each material manifesta-tion of a text. In the genetic approach, texts are categorised as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, in accor-dance with a hierarchy which is based upon proximity to the ‘authoritative’ point oforigin. New Philology suggests that each material text can be understood as a uniqueartefact which is produced and consumed in specific conditions that determine its mean-ing. This calls into question the arrangement of texts according to their relative proximityto the point of origin. New Philology also re-evaluates the importance of materiality.Traditional textual criticism places the recovery of text at the centre of its programme,and this text exists beyond the physical. It is text-centred and sees text as the font ofmeaning. In contrast, these alternative approaches to the medieval book have emphasisedthe importance of the material support in the production of meaning. This ranges fromstudies of the cultural relevance of the material used (such as paper) and what this mighttell us about a text, to studies of the multiple systems of meaning within a codex. Thisincludes what has been referred to as the ‘manuscript matrix’ (Nichols 1–10). Thisconcern with the physical context of the codex has extended to studies of the possiblerelationships between various texts within a codex and what this might suggest aboutissues of genre and reader’s interests (Hardman).

It is clear that a number of agents were involved in the production of the physicaldocuments with which we are left. This included the scribe or scribes responsible for copy-ing the text. The genetic investigation of texts seeks to identify and remove the evidenceof scribal errors and deliberate scribal invention in the text. In contrast, some scholars havesuggested that change is a defining characteristic of medieval vernacular textuality. In hisEssai de poetique medievale, Paul Zumthor suggested that some medieval texts werecontinually reworked through the process of transmission. He labelled this mouvance. Thisquestions the validity of genetic reconstruction. Bernard Cerquiglini (57) suggested that

L’oeuvre litteraire, au Moyen Age, est une variable…Qu’une main fut premiere, parfois, sansdoute, importe moins que cette incessante recriture d’une oeuvre qui appartient a celui qui, denouveau, la dispose et lui donne forme.9

Cerquiglini calls this ongoing fluid process variance. Cerquiglini’s statement suggests thatmeaning is found not only in the issuing of the author, and that it is not just authorialtexts which are worthy of study. Perhaps more importantly, this idea of variance suggeststhe possibility of examining this phenomenon of textual change. The implication is that



different textual monuments can be compared in order to ‘read’ their differences ratherthan their genetic relation. Thus, a phenomenological approach to texts and textualitymay be possible. It involves the reinterpretation of textual transmission in a manuscriptculture and suggests the possibility of examining the re-composition of the text ratherthan viewing textual transmission as a history of decomposition. Thus, various versions ofa work can be compared to explore how a text was received, appropriated and adapted.This seems most appropriate for multi-versional works where there is obvious evidenceof wide-ranging ‘editorial’ activity. For example, Marx (54) suggests that the revision ofthe continuation present in the Peculiar Version to 1437 Group of the Middle EnglishProse Brut Chronicle was possibly motivated by a desire for political balance as much astextual or historical completeness. Similarly studies in bio-bibliography (Taylor) and readers’marginalia have been used to explore the reception of Middle English texts (Drukker).

The notion of variance suggests ways of re-examining scribal action. This entails are-evaluation of the value and significance of scribal readings. Anne Hudson (49) suggeststhat the evidence of scribal transmission has ‘an interest beyond that of witnesses to scribalincompetence’. Thus, scribal readings can be viewed as critical engagements and not just as‘corruptions’. Scribal alterations may also provide some evidence of reception. Scribes canpotentially be seen as the earliest readers of a text, whose reactions, understandings andmisunderstandings of the physical object, the textual expression and the perceived underly-ing meaning are inscribed in the copies they make. By subjecting scribal readings to criticalanalysis we can see some changes as critical responses to the text. The comparison of numer-ous texts purporting to represent the same work may illuminate our understanding ofscribal behaviour, both in terms of specific individual reactions and general trends.

A number of studies have suggested that scribes participate in the creation of meaning.Thus, critics in recent years have explored the interpretative elements of sophisticatedscribal variation. It seems that some scribal alterations were text-specific. For example, inthe case of Chaucer, Windeatt has explored the notion that the scribes that copied hisworks can be regarded as early critical readers of his work. Windeatt argues that somescribal engagements are a direct result of the individuality of Chaucer’s own poetic style,although he does not specify a distinction between deliberate programmes of revision andmore nebulous scribal actions. In the case of Gower’s Confessio Amantis, Kate Harris sug-gests that scribal readings can be understood as evidence of early critical reactions to thetext. More specifically she finds a distinct ‘editorial policy’ regarding Gower’s syntax, oneformulated on aesthetic grounds (Harris 35). Again in relation to Gower, Jeremy Smithsuggests that the scribal retention of Gower’s dialectal forms might suggest somethingabout how he was perceived as an author. Smith (112) also highlights how, in contrast, acorrector of British Library, Royal 18.C.xxii drew attention to Gower’s peculiar forms.Elsewhere, Kline (116–25) suggests that some alterations made by copyists of theCanterbury Tales (specifically British Library MS Harley 7333) were motivated by theirconvictions as Augustinian canons to censor aspects of the text.

Genetic approaches to textual criticism assume that the function of the scribe is to rep-licate the lexical form of the text. This reveals a preconception about the scribal task andwhat it is that they are to transmit (the lexis). Studies of scribal behaviour suggest that, insome cases, scribes were prepared to alter the lexis to elucidate what they perceived asthe meaning. Indeed, some errors are clearly errors of understanding. This suggests thattextual transmission is itself a hermeneutical process in which scribes respond to sententia(underlying meaning) as well as verba (verbal expression). The act of copying might there-fore be seen in the context of other medieval textual practices such as compilation andtranslation, which draw on rhetorical and exegetical models of reading. Interestingly, if



scribes do respond to sense as well as verbal expression, this potentially undermines theuse of lexical identity as the primary evidence of genetic relation (a notion which lies atthe heart of textual criticism). However, we still understand imperfectly why scribesaltered the texts that they were copying.

It is important to realise that this approach relies upon the same textual data as theretrospective genetic approach. It is also dependent upon the same use of critical judge-ment in the process of categorisation. The transmission history created in the process ofgenetic criticism identified a potentially large corpus of readings which have beencategorised as scribal variants (and these have all been provisionally located to a positionin the textual transmission). This transmission history may be used as a tool for tracingreadings across the transmission of a tradition. While conjunctive variants would be usedto form groups and infer ancestral texts, those categorised as separative are automaticallydisregarded from further consideration (in the genetic approach). Both conjunctive andseparative variants can be used for analysis of scribal behaviour although assigning aparticular variant to a particular scribe is problematic.

Summary

This survey has examined the differing critical orientations towards concepts of authority,materiality and the production of meaning which underlie the use of textual data. Thisessay has also highlighted the importance of our own critical enterprise in the categorisa-tion of textual data. Both approaches are dependent on the detailed consideration of theissues outlined in the course of this discussion. The pursuit of the genetic reconstructionof singular, static texts can be combined with a textual criticism which explores the textin process. Such an approach suggests a way of viewing material witnesses in relation tothe practices and orientations which generated them, not just in relation to the underly-ing original. In such a formulation, scribal readings may help us to understand the reac-tions of scribes to Middle English texts either as readers and ⁄ or critics. The act ofcopying might profitably be viewed in the context of other forms of textual compositionand revision, including compilation, adaptation and translation. Genetic speculation maystill provide vital evidence about genealogical relationships between extant texts whichmight help us to understand how texts circulated and in what forms.

Short Biography

Gavin Cole’s main research interest is the intersection of textual scholarship, palaeographyand codicology in the investigation of the transmission of medieval manuscript traditions.His research has focussed upon the genetic investigation of the manuscripts of theCommon Version to 1333 of the Middle English Prose Brut Chronicle. He is interestedin the use of source material for genetic speculation. His broader research interestsinclude medieval historiography, Arthurian Literature, Middle English textual traditionsand Middle English prose. He holds a BA in English Literature and an MA in EnglishLiterature and Literary Research from the University of Leicester and has completed aPhD on the Prose Brut Chronicle at the University of Birmingham.

Notes

* Correspondence address: School of English Studies, The University of Nottingham, University Park, NottinghamNG7 2RD, UK. Email: [email protected]



1 The following are good examples: Derek Pearsall, ed., 1983, 1987; Tim William Machan, ed., 1991; A. J. Minnisand Charlotte Brewer, eds., 1992; Vincent P. McCarren and Douglas Moffat, eds., 1998; A. J. Minnis and DerekPearsall, eds., 2001.2 For example, John Matthews Manly and E. Rickert, 1940; George Kane, ed., 1960; George Kane and TalbotDonaldson, eds., 1975.3 Talbot Donaldson, 1977, 102–18; Anne Hudson, 1977, 34–57; Lee Patterson, 1987, 77–13; Edwards, 1987,34–48 and 1995, 184–203.4 For a historical account of textual criticism and its roots in the study of Classical and Biblical texts, see L. D.Reynolds and Nigel Guy Wilson, 1974, 207–41; David Greetham, 1994, 295–346.5 For examples of these various scribal actions, see George Kane, ed., 1960, 115–72.6 For a summary of the traditional view of scribal practice, see Eugene Vinaver, 1939, 353 and Kane, 1960, 115–72.7 For this formulation of the purposes of textual criticism, see Reynolds and Guy Wilson: ‘The business of textualcriticism is in a sense to reverse this process […] and try to restore the texts as closely as possible to the form whichthey originally had’ (207).8 For a discussion of the use of the source for textual criticism, see David Greetham, 1984, 131–55.9 The literary work, in the Middle Ages, is a variable […] That a hand was first, is sometimes, undoubtedly, of lessimportance than this ceaseless rewriting of a work which belongs to whoever, recasts it and gives it new form.

Works Cited

Cartlidge, Neil. ‘The Canterbury Tales and Cladistics.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102.2 (2001): 135–50.Cerquiglini, Bernard. Eloge de la Variante: Histoire Critique de la Philologie. Paris: Seuil, 1989.Donaldson, E. Talbot. ‘The Psychology of Editors of Middle English Texts.’ Speaking of Chaucer. Ed. E. Talbot

Donaldson. London: Athlone Press, 1977, 102–18.Drukker, Tamar. ‘I Read Therefore I Write: Readers’ Marginalia in Some Brut Manuscripts.’ Trivium 36 (2006):

97–130.Edwards, A. S. G. ‘Observations on the History of Middle English Editing.’ Manuscripts and Texts: Editorial Problems

in Later Middle English Literature: Essays from the 1985 Conference at the University of York. Ed. Derek Pearsall.Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1987, 34–48.

——. ‘Middle English Literature.’ Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research. Ed. D. C. Greetham. New York: MLA,1995, 184–203.

Greetham, David. ‘Models for the Textual Transmission of Translation: The Case of John Trevisa.’ Studies in Bibli-ography 37 (1984): 131–55.

——. Textual Scholarship: An Introduction. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities, vol. 1417. New York:Garland Publishers, 1994.

Hanna, Ralph. Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and their Texts. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1996.

Hardman, Phillipa. Medieval and Early Modern Miscellanies and Anthologies. The Yearbook of English Studies, vol. 33.Leeds, England: Maney Publishers for the Modern Humanities Research Association, 2003.

Harris, Kate. ‘John Gower’s Confessio Amantis: The Virtue of Bad Texts.’. Manuscripts and Readers in Fifteenth-CenturyEngland: The Literary Implications of Manuscript Study: Essays from the 1981 Conference at the University of York. Ed.Derek Pearsall. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1983, 27–40.

Hudson, Anne. ‘Middle English.’ Editing Medieval Texts: English, French, and Latin Written in England: Papers Givenat the Twelfth Annual Conference on Editorial Problems, University of Toronto, 5–6 November 1976. Ed. A. G.Rigg. New York: Garland Publishers, 1977, 34–57.

Kane, George, ed. Piers Plowman: The A Version. London: Athlone, 1960.—— and E. Talbot Donaldson, eds. Piers Plowman: The B Version. London: Athlone, 1975.Kline, Barbara. ‘Scribal Agendas and the Text of Chaucer’s Tales in the British Library MS Harley 7333.’ Rewriting

Chaucer: Culture, Authority, and the Idea of the Authentic Text, 1400–1602. Ed. Thomas A. Prendergast and BarberaKline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1999. 116–44.

Machan, Tim William, ed. Medieval Literature: Texts and Interpretation. Binghamton, NY: Medieval & RenaissanceTexts & Studies, 1991.

Marx, C. William. An English Chronicle, 1377–1461: Edited from Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales MS 21068and Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Lyell 34. Medieval Chronicle, 3. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2003.

Manly, John Matthews and E. Rickert. The Text of the Canterbury Tales. 8 vols. Chicago: The University of Chi-cago Press, 1940.

McCarren, Vincent P. and Douglas Moffat, eds. A Guide to Editing Middle English. Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan Press, 1998.



Minnis, A. J. and Charlotte Brewer, eds. Crux and Controversy in Middle English Textual Criticism. Woodbridge: D.S.Brewer, 1992.

—— and Derek Pearsall, eds. Middle English Poetry: Texts and Traditions: Essays in Honour of Derek Pearsall. YorkManuscripts Conferences, 5. Woodbridge: York Medieval Press in association with Boydell Press, 2001.

Nichols, Stephen G. ‘Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture.’ Speculum 65 (1990): 1–10.Patterson, Lee. ‘The Logic of Textual Criticism and the Way of Genius: The Kane–Donaldson Piers Plowman in

Historical Perspective.’ Negotiating the Past: The Historical Understanding of Medieval Literature. Ed. Lee Patterson.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. 77–113.

Pearsall, Derek, ed. Manuscripts and Readers in Fifteenth-Century England: The Literary Implications of Manuscript Study:Essays from the 1981 Conference at the University of York. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1983.

——, ed. Manuscripts and Texts: Editorial Problems in Later Middle English Literature: Essays from the 1985 Conference atthe University of York. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1987. 351–69.

Reynolds, L. D. and Nigel Guy Wilson. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.

Smith, Jeremy J. ‘Linguistic Features of Some Fifteenth-Century Middle English Manuscripts.’ Manuscripts and Read-ers in Fifteenth-Century England: The Literary Implications of Manuscript Study: Essays from the 1981 Conference at theUniversity of York. Ed. Derek Pearsall. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1983, 104–12.

Taylor, Andrew. Textual Situations: Three Medieval Manuscripts and their Readers. Material texts. Philadelphia, PA::University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Vinaver, Eugene. ‘Principles of Textual Emendation.’ Studies in French Language and Medieval Literature Presented toProfessor Mildred K. Pope. Ed. F. Whitehead, A. H. Diverres, and F. E. Sutcliffe. Manchester: Manchester Univer-sity Press, 1939. 351–69.

Windeatt, Barry. ‘The Scribes as Chaucer’s Early Critics.’ Writing after Chaucer: Essential Readings in Chaucer and theFifteenth Century. Ed. Daniel J. Pinti. New York: Garland Publishers, 1998. 27–44.

Zumthor, Paul. Essai de Poetique Medievale. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1972.



Documents

The Textual Criticism of Middle English Manuscript Traditions: A Survey of Critical Issues in the Interpretation of Textual Data