'Where of is Mad al Mankynde' represents a new critical edition of the collection of twenty-four late-medieval anonymous poems contained, among other pieces, in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby... Show more'Where of is Mad al Mankynde' represents a new critical edition of the collection of twenty-four late-medieval anonymous poems contained, among other pieces, in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 102. Each poem is introduced with a brief summary and closes with line-for-line explanatory comments. The poems are glossed both in the margin and in footnotes. The text edition is preceded by codicological and linguistic analyses, including a discussion of dialect and dating, and by a survey of the literary and cultural background, including a discussion of the identity of the author and his audience. The text edition is followed by a comprehensive glossary, an index of names, authors and subjects, and a bibliography. Show less
Chaucer__s Canterbury Tales has come down to us in about 80 fifteenth-century manuscripts, none of which is in his own hand. What is conventionally referred to as __Chaucer__s language__ is the... Show moreChaucer__s Canterbury Tales has come down to us in about 80 fifteenth-century manuscripts, none of which is in his own hand. What is conventionally referred to as __Chaucer__s language__ is the language found in two early texts of The Canterbury Tales, the Hengwrt and the Ellesmere manuscripts. Despite the fact that these manuscripts were copied by the same scribe, traditionally known as Scribe B and recently identified as Adam Pinkhurst, they are characterised by significant spelling differences. This dissertation is an analysis of spelling variation in Hengwrt and Ellesmere, supplemented by comparisons with three other texts copied by this scribe, i.e. three quires of a manuscript of Gower__s Confessio Amantis, a fragment of the Prioress__s Prologue and the Prioress__s Tale and a fragment of Troilus and Criseyde. Comparison of spelling variants in all fifteenth-century manuscripts of the The General Prologue, The Miller__s Tale, The Wife of Bath__s Prologue and The Nun__s Priest__s Tale was made possible by the digital tools recently developed by the Canterbury Tales Project at the University of Birmingham. The results of the present study show that spelling differences between Hengwrt and Ellesmere are not due to changes in Scribe B__s spelling habits, but to his different approach towards the two texts. Hengwrt is a manuscript produced to collect all tales in one codex, whereas Ellesmere is a more prestigious version of the same work. The spelling in Hengwrt is probably more faithful to the original version, while in El the scribe appears to have normalised the spelling in accordance with his interpretation of what he assumed to be Chaucer__s orthographic habits. These findings will be helpful to scholars interested in doing further research on the spelling of the Hengwrt and the Ellesmere manuscripts, and more generally on Chaucer__s language. Show less
