 | ||||
| Vinaver's letter to Sisam |
PLEASE NOTE: THIS TRANSCRIPT AND THE IMAGE OF THE LETTER, ABOVE, ARE REPRODUCED BY KIND PERMISSION OF THE SECRETARY TO THE DELEGATES OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
as from The University Manchester
30.6.1934
Dear Sisam,
I have just returned from a most disappointing visit to
Winchester. My disappointment is due not
to the manuscript, but to the people in whose possession it happens to be, ie
the Fellows of Winchester, and I think I can say that what happened this
afternoon is unique in my long experience of libraries.
It seems hardly credible, but the fact is that they refused
to let me examine the manuscript except through the glass-case in which it is
exhibited. It was explained to me that a
few days ago someone (a man from Southampton whose name I do not know) applied
for permission to use the manuscript, and was asked to wait pending the
decision of the College as to what was to be done about it all. Having thus rebuffed one applicant, they
thought they were in honour bound to apply the same method to me. I had a long talk with a man called Oakeshott
– Keeper of the boys’ library. He is the
man who first discovered the MS and organised the exhibition of rare books in
the College. I found him most obliging
in many ways: he seemed genuinely upset about the rather ludicrous situation in
which I found myself, and chased round the cricket-grounds in the hope of
finding Kenyon who was watching the cricket-match. Instead, he found the Headmaster who told him
that the MS was not to be taken out of the glass-case. After that it was not much use looking for
Kenyon, as it was in any case not in Kenyon’s power to overrule the decision of
the Headmaster. ‘To brieve’ , as Malory says, all I could do was
to look at the MS through the glass and to examine the two pages which were
exhibited. This I did, and collated all
that I could see with Sommer’s text (which your Secretary kindly lent me last
night). It is obviously impossible to form any judgment on such a slender
basis. I enclose a few extracts from my
collation on a separate sheet.
The only thing that struck me as fairly certain was that
this manuscript could not have been copied from Caxton. Nor is it very likely (though on this point I
cannot speak with as much certainty) that Caxton used it.[1] There remains, therefore, only one
possibility which may [be] expressed as follows:
Malory
Winchester MS Caxton
The question is, of course, whether the MS gives a better
transcription than the Caxton. From the
two pages I have seen I cannot answer this question definitely, but I am
inclined to think that it is a more careful transcription: at least it supplies
some of the gaps in Caxton, and I do not think it will be possible to neglect
it in establishing the text. I am
strongly opposed to composite critical texts.
I think we ought to choose either Caxton or the MS and give in each case
important variants from the other. But
in order to decide which of the two texts deserves editing, I shall have to see
more of the MS. And here I come to the
practical issue. The meeting of the
College at which this matter is to be discussed, will be on July 14th. We must by then put definite proposals before
them. My suggestion would be that the MS
be sent to any place where it would be convenient for you to photograph[2]
some specimens of it (I want six pages at the beginning, six at the end, and a
fairly extensive piece from the middle portion – some 30 pages). This would probably give me sufficient
material to decide whether the text ought to be edited from the MS. If then we decide to stick to the MS, all the
remaining pages will have to be photographed (by this I mean, of course,
rotographed); and I think that in any case it would be most convenient if the
manuscript was deposited in the Rylands while the work of editing is going on.
I am to write to the Headmaster about it, but I should like
to know what you think of it all before I do anything in this matter. And in any case I think it would be advisable
if we both wrote to the same effect.
I am afraid this is rather a rigmarole. But I find it difficult to describe more
briefly my extraordinary adventure in Winchester.
I am looking forward to hearing your views.
Yours sincerely
E. Vinaver
P.S. As the Press is
closed till Monday, and I am leaving (for Manchester) to-morrow, I shall have
leave (sic) your Sommer in a parcel addressed to you at Lincoln. I am sorry I cannot bring it back to the
Press myself.
Sommer, pp.353-4.
P353. Sommer MS
l.12. Now
leve we here
sire la cote male tayle
l.16-17 her
conclusion was
that and hit pleasyd
syr
Tristram that he
wold come
l.21 he answerd
hym
that
l.25 blewe
hem on the
costes
l.26 castel peryllous
P..54
l.1-2 sawe afore hym
a lykeely Knyght
armed
sytthnge by a welle
and
a strange mighty
hors
passing nyghe hym
l.18 And thenne that
Knyght took a gretter
spere in his hand
and encountred
l.19-20 by grete force
l.26 cast
l.29 hold thyn hand
and telle me
|
Now leve we here of
Launcelot de lake
and of la cote male
tayle
her conclusion was
thus that if hit pleased
syr Trystram to come
he answerd hym and
seyde that
blewe them unto the
costs
foreyste perelus
(‘forest’ in the French)
Sawe before them a
likely Knyght sythynge
armed by a well and a
stronge mighty horse
stood passing hy Ȝ.
And anone that
Knyght took a grete
spear and encountred
by fortune and by grete
force
kest
hode thyne hond
a litylle whyle
and telle me
|
Spelling
Sommer
Thenne
Forest
Houses
Isoude
Tristram
|
MS
Than
Foreyste
Owrys
Isode
Tristrames, -us
|
No comments:
Post a Comment