DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61385#0067
Chapter V.—The Arrangement of the Edition. Ixi
1. 508 satisfactory, as rime and meaning indicate. Line 1029, he as
preserved by R is necessary to the full line, and line 350, as and
hem make two syllables too many for regular scansion; so nu in 1. 69
is a syllable too much for the metre. \o, line 342, and nost line 347,
are necessary to the meaning.
The testimony of five MSS. for wyll, line 2, also how, line 267,
would perhaps be in opposition to the Auchinleck readings may and
what. To the editor the poetical charm of the Auchinleck rendering
was reason for the retention of what may be granted to be on authority
of the MSS., a desirable textual alteration.
The question of the legitimacy of the reading of god, MSS. A9D,
god, lip om. H2, lines 6 and 21, is respectfully submitted to the
student of textual criticism.
The Speculum of this issue would not credit itself as submitting
rigorously a critical text. Placing material for thought before its
public, it would become groundwork for the investigation of the
student of philology.
§ 3. The Arrangement of the Edition.
The Speculum, as here set forth on basis of MS. A1, seeks to
correct palpable errors* 1 extant in the fundamental text. Any
attempt at restoration2 of is governed by the readings3 of MSS.
A2, D, Hp H2, R, collated separately or with reference to a group-
combination. Although members of the family Z preserve nearly
complete versions of the original, yet in instance of variance in the
MSS., preference is often given to a representative of the group Y.
In general a substituted reading presents forms of Av the MS.
not always exact. Other points have claims to attention, but minor interpola-
tions will generally be recognized as such. The reader is referred to the notes
on the poem and the chapter over metre for other questions connected with the
criticism of the texts.
1 Errors in MS. Aj are chiefly accidental, illustrative of omission rather than
of interpolation.
2 Deficiency is to be recognized through verses that interfere with the scan-
sion, or in instances in which the MSS. are self-contradictory or support one
another in obvious error or in mutilation of the archetype.
3 Avoidable errors in the younger MSS. are notably comprehensive, par-
ticularly in MS. D. Among them all haplography and dittography are not
common. MS. A2 is probably answerable for an instance of skipping in verses
81 If. and 140 if. (chap. Ill, 4), due probably to homeoteleuton. Interpolation
and attempt at explanation of unintelligible forms must be attributed to JR.
Intentional error accredited to mala fides is to be noted. The scribe often
adapts a sentence to a blunder originating with himself or tries to make sense
of what he does not understand. Particularly have instances of anacoluthon
taxed the grammarian ; cf. verses 623—627.
1. 508 satisfactory, as rime and meaning indicate. Line 1029, he as
preserved by R is necessary to the full line, and line 350, as and
hem make two syllables too many for regular scansion; so nu in 1. 69
is a syllable too much for the metre. \o, line 342, and nost line 347,
are necessary to the meaning.
The testimony of five MSS. for wyll, line 2, also how, line 267,
would perhaps be in opposition to the Auchinleck readings may and
what. To the editor the poetical charm of the Auchinleck rendering
was reason for the retention of what may be granted to be on authority
of the MSS., a desirable textual alteration.
The question of the legitimacy of the reading of god, MSS. A9D,
god, lip om. H2, lines 6 and 21, is respectfully submitted to the
student of textual criticism.
The Speculum of this issue would not credit itself as submitting
rigorously a critical text. Placing material for thought before its
public, it would become groundwork for the investigation of the
student of philology.
§ 3. The Arrangement of the Edition.
The Speculum, as here set forth on basis of MS. A1, seeks to
correct palpable errors* 1 extant in the fundamental text. Any
attempt at restoration2 of is governed by the readings3 of MSS.
A2, D, Hp H2, R, collated separately or with reference to a group-
combination. Although members of the family Z preserve nearly
complete versions of the original, yet in instance of variance in the
MSS., preference is often given to a representative of the group Y.
In general a substituted reading presents forms of Av the MS.
not always exact. Other points have claims to attention, but minor interpola-
tions will generally be recognized as such. The reader is referred to the notes
on the poem and the chapter over metre for other questions connected with the
criticism of the texts.
1 Errors in MS. Aj are chiefly accidental, illustrative of omission rather than
of interpolation.
2 Deficiency is to be recognized through verses that interfere with the scan-
sion, or in instances in which the MSS. are self-contradictory or support one
another in obvious error or in mutilation of the archetype.
3 Avoidable errors in the younger MSS. are notably comprehensive, par-
ticularly in MS. D. Among them all haplography and dittography are not
common. MS. A2 is probably answerable for an instance of skipping in verses
81 If. and 140 if. (chap. Ill, 4), due probably to homeoteleuton. Interpolation
and attempt at explanation of unintelligible forms must be attributed to JR.
Intentional error accredited to mala fides is to be noted. The scribe often
adapts a sentence to a blunder originating with himself or tries to make sense
of what he does not understand. Particularly have instances of anacoluthon
taxed the grammarian ; cf. verses 623—627.