Hengwrt Chaucer manuscript: Difference between revisions
imported>Lin Barneveld |
imported>Lin Barneveld |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==History of the manuscript== | ==History of the manuscript== | ||
Neither the sponsor of the manuscript, nor the earliest owners are known. Academics | Neither the sponsor of the manuscript, nor the earliest owners are known. Academics attempted to retrace it's ownership on the basis of glosses (names and notes) that were recorded in it over a large period of time. | ||
The earliest trace of ownership is the signature “ffouke Dutton Huius ly(bri) est possesoer.” The name is erased but still visible under UV light. There was a | ===Sixteenth and seventeenth century=== | ||
The next gloss is “R Wryne” with a notary’s knot. This inscription can be attributed to Ralph Wrine, recorder of Chester in 1535, 1536, and 1540. <ref>Manly-Rickert, I, p. 281.</ref> | The earliest trace of ownership is the signature “ffouke Dutton Huius ly(bri) est possesoer.” The name is erased but still visible under UV light. There was a Fouke Dutton, a rich draper of Chester, and a great purchaser of monastic property. He was mayor of Chester in 1537, 1548, and 1554. He died in 1558. <ref>Manly-Rickert, I, pp. 279-281.</ref><br /> | ||
The next significant gloss is “R Wryne” with a notary’s knot. This inscription can be attributed to Ralph Wrine, recorder of Chester during the reign of Henry VIII, namely in 1535, 1536, and 1540. <ref>Manly-Rickert, I, p. 281.</ref> Afther that there are a number of additions, including ''Gilbart Nelsoun'', ''Johannes Barcomsted'', ''William Dymmocke'', but none of these names could firmly be identified.<br /> | |||
A more important gloss shows the date of birth of five children in a family named Banestar or Bannester. They cover a period from 1571 until 1578. Some details such as ''having one tothe at his byrth'' were added in a painstaking italic hand. The next gloss, ''per Ellenour Banester the graundmother of this under-named'', followed by five births from 1605 until 1612 leads us to the Brereton family. The first birth was at Newington, the second at Chester, and three at Llanvair, Caernarvon.<br /> | |||
Manly and Rickert traced the alliances by which the Hengwrt Chaucer manuscript may have passed from Fouke Dutton to Eleanor Starkey, who married John Banester of Chester. John died in 1581. Their daughter Martha married Andrew Brereton. | |||
<!-- | |||
Manly and Rickert traced the alliances by which Hg may have passed from Fulke Dutton (but not via Barcomsted?) to Eleanor Starkey, who married John Banester of Chester (d. 1581) and their daughter Martha, who married Andrew Brereton. On fol. 152v there is a memorandum of a debt of the last named as of Llanvair iscaire, 1625. | |||
The added running title on fol. 16v could be by the hand of the fourth Banester birth note of another of similar date. The marginal notes on fol. 206r and 227v, by a single current hand, it seems, paraphrasing the ajacent texts (ShT and Mel), are probably from the period of Banester or Brereton ownership. That on 221v appears to be in Eleanor Banester's italic. R s in Roman capitals on fol. 79r is of uncertain date and significance, as it the drawing on 44r. The sketch of a queen's head on fol. 123r (outer margin), no doubt illustrating MLT (B786), and of a man with a feathered cap on fol. 153v (inner margin), could be of the sixteenth century. | |||
Around Andrew Brereton's death in 1649 the manuscript was included in the collection of Robert Vaughan of Hengwrt, who died in 1667. | |||
===Later ownership=== | |||
Later provenance | |||
Preserved with the remains of the old binding is a quarter sheet of paper bearing the numbers 152 and 72a in modern hands (indicating different points in the volume where it had lain loose?) and two Latin poems in an elegant scholarly current italic of late sixteenth- or early seventheenth-century appearance: on on Gellia throwing a snowball, the other on a Thracian boy killed by breaking ice, both neoclassical compositions of considerable accomplishment (the latter derived in part from Ovid Tristia 3.10.38) but having no relevance to the text of Hg and presumably placed in it merely as a bookmark by a reader, perhaps when, before or after Andrew Brereton's death in 1649, the manuscript entered the collection of Robert Vaughan of Hengwrt, Meirionnydd. d; 1667. It occurs as 154 of the Membrana in a catalogue of 1658, N.L. W. Wynnstay MS 10. | |||
The Hengwrt library was bequeathed to W.W. E. Wynne, of Peniarth, in 1859. It was while it was in his possession that Hg was transcribed on fol. 204r reproduced for the Chaucer Society. The manuscripts were purchased by Sir John Williams in 1904 and given to the National Library of Wales in 1909. | |||
Ruggiers p. xlviii. | |||
Vaughan's collection remained at Hengwrt until it was bequeathed in 1859 to W. W. E. Wynne of Peniarth, who sold the manuscripts in 1904 to Sir John Williams. He in turn presented the Peniarth manuscripts, including the Hengwrt group, to the newly-founded National Library in 1909. The 'Hengwrt Chaucer' has remained in the Library's care ever since. | |||
Further ownership in Chester and Wales can be derived from the Brereton family records of five births. It is recorded that John Brereton was "Christened att St Petteres Church in Chester" and that Frances, Richard, and Ann were born "at llanver neare carnarvon". | Further ownership in Chester and Wales can be derived from the Brereton family records of five births. It is recorded that John Brereton was "Christened att St Petteres Church in Chester" and that Frances, Richard, and Ann were born "at llanver neare carnarvon". | ||
==Description of the manuscript== | ==Description of the manuscript== | ||
Revision as of 12:06, 11 May 2010
The Hengwrt Chaucer manuscript, also Hengwrt Chaucer, is an early 15th century illuminated manuscript. It is believed to be the earliest extant copy of Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. It is held in the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth, referred to as MS. Perniarth 392 D and usually abbreviated as Hg. Together with the Ellesmere Chaucer manuscript it is considered to be the closest to the original text of The Canterbury Tales. The manuscript is named after the residence of Colonel Robert Baughan, one of its owners, who lived at Hengwrt in Wales. [1]
Significance of the Hengwrt Chaucer
Although the Hengwrt Chaucer is less attractive than the Ellesmere Chaucer, it has emerged as a superior manuscript of The Canterbury Tales. [2] The Hengwrt Chaucer was first published in Furnivall’s parallel text in 1868, [3] but it only drew increasing attention since John M. Manly and Edith Rickert's collection and study of all the Canterbury Tale manuscripts, published in 1940.
The Manly and Rickert's project
In 1924 Manly and Rickert, colleagues at the University of Chicago, started a project for a new edition of The Canterbury Tales. Their goal was to produce a text, which would come close to what Chaucer's holograph might have looked like. To achieve that they wanted to track down as many manuscripts as possible, and make copies of them with the then available technology of the photostat, in order to compare them all. Procuring the manuscripts was not an easy task. Many of them were still in private collections and their owners had to be approached to allow Manly and Rickert access to their libraries. Both American scholars were granted access to the British Museum and many owners send their manuscripts there for examination and photostatting. Manley and Rickert also searched for copies of The Canterbury Tales mentioned in wills, library book lists and sale catalogues. They uncovered a number of manuscripts and pages, including the Merthyr fragment, related to the Hengwrt. In analysing all the information available they sought to determine what Chaucer actually wrote.
While Manly and Rickert's efforts have revealed much information about the nature of the production of the extant manuscripts, they did not reach their initial goal. The final result of the collation of all known manuscripts was that they descended from no common ancestor. Yet the research of Manly and Rickert revealed the superiority of the Hengwrt Chaucer manuscript as a witness. [4]
The language
The Hengwrt manuscript was copied in a standardised variety of London English, which was common at the end of the 14th and the early 15th century, although it does not show the same degree of uniformity as does present-day standard written English. That period was characterised by a huge degree of dialectal variation in the written record. According to Chaucer himself:
- "And for ther is gret diversite
- In Englissh and in writyng of oure tonge"
- (Troilus and Criseyde V 1793-1794)
Research has led academics to conclude that the Hengwrt and the Ellesmere Chaucer manuscripts, amongst others, were copied by the same scribe. This scribe, at first known as Scribe B, was tentatively identified in 2004 by professor Linne Mooney as Adam Pinkhurst. The Hengwrt Chaucer however shows a greater degree of spelling variation than the Ellesmere Chaucer, a variation that appears to derive from the copytext and possibly from Chaucer's holograph. As such the Hengwrt manuscript best preserves elements of Chaucer's own spelling practices. After a more careful inventory and editorial preparation of the contents of Chaucer's poem, the scribe then copied the Ellesmere manuscript, which shows evidence of careful linguistic editing and regularisation. Even the order of the tales was changed. [5]
The dating
It is generally assumed that the Hengwrt Chaucer manuscript was copied around 1400, Chaucer’s probable year of death. Professor Michael Louis Samuels, an authority on Middle English, ventures the date circa 1402-1403. [6] Professor Ralph Hannah of Kebble college in Oxford however, suggests that the manuscript was copied during Chaucer's lifetime, and that it can possibly be dated before 1400. [7] Since the digitisation of the Hengwrt Chaucer, new research is emerging, particulary about erasures in the margins of the manuscript. This may prove that it dates indeed from Chaucer’s own lifetime. [8]
History of the manuscript
Neither the sponsor of the manuscript, nor the earliest owners are known. Academics attempted to retrace it's ownership on the basis of glosses (names and notes) that were recorded in it over a large period of time.
Sixteenth and seventeenth century
The earliest trace of ownership is the signature “ffouke Dutton Huius ly(bri) est possesoer.” The name is erased but still visible under UV light. There was a Fouke Dutton, a rich draper of Chester, and a great purchaser of monastic property. He was mayor of Chester in 1537, 1548, and 1554. He died in 1558. [9]
The next significant gloss is “R Wryne” with a notary’s knot. This inscription can be attributed to Ralph Wrine, recorder of Chester during the reign of Henry VIII, namely in 1535, 1536, and 1540. [10] Afther that there are a number of additions, including Gilbart Nelsoun, Johannes Barcomsted, William Dymmocke, but none of these names could firmly be identified.
A more important gloss shows the date of birth of five children in a family named Banestar or Bannester. They cover a period from 1571 until 1578. Some details such as having one tothe at his byrth were added in a painstaking italic hand. The next gloss, per Ellenour Banester the graundmother of this under-named, followed by five births from 1605 until 1612 leads us to the Brereton family. The first birth was at Newington, the second at Chester, and three at Llanvair, Caernarvon.
Manly and Rickert traced the alliances by which the Hengwrt Chaucer manuscript may have passed from Fouke Dutton to Eleanor Starkey, who married John Banester of Chester. John died in 1581. Their daughter Martha married Andrew Brereton.
Sources and references
- Geoffrey Chaucer, Paul G. Ruggiers, "The Canterbury tales: a facsimile and transcription of the Hengwrt", 1979, University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8051-1416-9
- Manly, John M., and Edith Rickert, eds. The Text of the Canterbury Tales: Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. 8 vols. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1940.
- Elizabeth Scala, "Editing Chaucer", in: Steve Ellis Chaucer An Oxford Guide (2005). New York United States: Oxford University Press. Inc. ISBN 0-19-925912-7
- ↑ Scala, p. 484.
- ↑ Scala, p. 492.
- ↑ Frederick J. Furnivall, ed.,The Hengwrt ms of Chaucer's Canterbury tales, London, published for the Chaucer Society by N. Trübner & CO., Ludgate Hill, 1868.
- ↑ Scala, pp. 492-493.
- ↑ Horobin, S. The Language of the Hengwrt Chaucer, Canterbury Tales Project
- ↑ Samuels, M. L. "Chaucer's Spelling." In Middle English Studies Presented to Norman Davis in Honour of His Seventieth Birthday. Ed. Douglas Gray and E. G. Stanley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. p. 46.
- ↑ Hanna, Ralph III. "The Manuscript Hengwrt And The Canon of The Canterbury Tales." English Manuscript Studies 1100-1700 1 (1989), pp. 74-75.
- ↑ Scala, p. 494.
- ↑ Manly-Rickert, I, pp. 279-281.
- ↑ Manly-Rickert, I, p. 281.