DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61385#0053
Chapter IV.—Genealogical History of the Texts, xlvii
original from which the group Y was generated. That A2 was not
the source of a, the transcript common to D.lf, and that a did not
serve as original for A2 is obvious from comparison of the two groups
of coincidences, D and H2 on one hand § 1, and A2 and H2, § 3 on
the other. Characteristic readings are in each group so uniformly
distinct, that the only hypothesis possible must be the supposition
of a common source for A2 and a — DH2, Y = A2.D.H2. This
grouping is represented by some pair of its MSS. throughout the
poem. The existence of a group of MSS. Y involves the explanation
of a corresponding group Z, to become the subject of the investigation
in the section to follow.
II. GROUP Z.
§ 5. Two Groups of Manuscripts.
These six existing texts enumerated in the foregoing chapter
may be considered to be subdivided into two groups, a group Z
embracing MSS. Apllplf, and a group Y embracing MSS. A2.D.H2.
Determinative in this classification are the following coincidences,
ApIIpR on one side, and A2.D.H2 on the other:
v. 40 A om.] A (A2.D.H2) Y. 45 Off him] pare of Y. 182 pat]
pe Y. 200 And om.] And Y. 222 man] he Y. 240 for euere]
euer Y. 299 pe] om. Y. 303 kointise] qweyntise Y. 381 clene] cler
Y. From line 407 the continued omission of one MS. of group Y
must be recalled, Z being intact. Otherwise the classification remains
uninterrupted. 454 whij] om. Y. 480 out] om. Y. 624 And]
om. Y. 667 clerk] chirche Y. 675 a] om. Y. 684 hit] pat Y.
725 gon] agone Y. 729 riht] ariht Y. 791 sinne] foule synne Y.
804 wole] nyl Y. 812 man] men Y. 820 dop] pe Y. 870 and]
or Y. 880 many] om. Y.
In support of this grouping the transposition of lines 673 and
674 occurs in each of the three members of group Z, the normal
sequence being preserved in the grouping Y. Line 679 is omitted
entirely in group Y.
These readings, offsetting each other, and in each instance
characteristic of a distinct grouping, seem proof that neither group
is derived directly from the other. This hypothesis is confirmed
by numerous characteristic modifications, interpolations, or omissions
distinguishing individual pairs of manuscripts. It may be assumed
that both groups are to be referred to a common source A1H1R A2DH2
= U, which was perhaps the original text.
original from which the group Y was generated. That A2 was not
the source of a, the transcript common to D.lf, and that a did not
serve as original for A2 is obvious from comparison of the two groups
of coincidences, D and H2 on one hand § 1, and A2 and H2, § 3 on
the other. Characteristic readings are in each group so uniformly
distinct, that the only hypothesis possible must be the supposition
of a common source for A2 and a — DH2, Y = A2.D.H2. This
grouping is represented by some pair of its MSS. throughout the
poem. The existence of a group of MSS. Y involves the explanation
of a corresponding group Z, to become the subject of the investigation
in the section to follow.
II. GROUP Z.
§ 5. Two Groups of Manuscripts.
These six existing texts enumerated in the foregoing chapter
may be considered to be subdivided into two groups, a group Z
embracing MSS. Apllplf, and a group Y embracing MSS. A2.D.H2.
Determinative in this classification are the following coincidences,
ApIIpR on one side, and A2.D.H2 on the other:
v. 40 A om.] A (A2.D.H2) Y. 45 Off him] pare of Y. 182 pat]
pe Y. 200 And om.] And Y. 222 man] he Y. 240 for euere]
euer Y. 299 pe] om. Y. 303 kointise] qweyntise Y. 381 clene] cler
Y. From line 407 the continued omission of one MS. of group Y
must be recalled, Z being intact. Otherwise the classification remains
uninterrupted. 454 whij] om. Y. 480 out] om. Y. 624 And]
om. Y. 667 clerk] chirche Y. 675 a] om. Y. 684 hit] pat Y.
725 gon] agone Y. 729 riht] ariht Y. 791 sinne] foule synne Y.
804 wole] nyl Y. 812 man] men Y. 820 dop] pe Y. 870 and]
or Y. 880 many] om. Y.
In support of this grouping the transposition of lines 673 and
674 occurs in each of the three members of group Z, the normal
sequence being preserved in the grouping Y. Line 679 is omitted
entirely in group Y.
These readings, offsetting each other, and in each instance
characteristic of a distinct grouping, seem proof that neither group
is derived directly from the other. This hypothesis is confirmed
by numerous characteristic modifications, interpolations, or omissions
distinguishing individual pairs of manuscripts. It may be assumed
that both groups are to be referred to a common source A1H1R A2DH2
= U, which was perhaps the original text.