Abstract:
A new edition of the anonymous early thirteenth-century poem
Die gute Frau presented one with a number of problems: its text
is held in only one manuscript; most of the major research on
the poem was done before 1913 and no comprehensive study of the
work existed. Also, there was little definite data on aspects
of the poem itself which could help in the edition: date of com
position, poet, patron. The codex unicus and its scribe had been
given little attention. One had to consider the restricted
textual material, the isolated nature of the work done on the
poem's literary and textual aspects and the scarcity of defini
tive data, when one had to decide whether to edit the late
fifteenth-century codex unicus diplomatically or to attempt to
reconstruct an authorial text as the previous editor had tried
in 1842. Or, indeed, if the manuscript itself should be pub
lished. As well, one had to relate these initial circumstances
to modern theory and practice within the field of textual edition
and criticism. At the same time, one could not really foresee
how potentially significant any piece of information, no matter
how minute, might be for the edition, especially if emendations
would have to be made.
Therefore, one tried to avoid this reliance on circumstantial
evidence by finding further textual material but finally had to
face the prospect of an edition based on the codex unicus. The
most comprehensive background to the text was then needed to
compensate in some measure for the lack of textual material: a
thorough reappraisal of the poet, the patron and the date of
composition; an analysis as precise as possible of the scribe's
reliableness and a detailed investigation of the manuscript's
production and provenance. The analysis of the scribe's per
formance had to be based on the other manuscript he produced
and any more which could be found. The poet's plagiarism was
also considered as a possible textual tool. However, it soon became evident that all the usual linguistic
and stylistic investigation (phonology, dialectal study, apocope,
syncope, versification); the usual editorial tools (the word- and
rhyme-index created) and the detailed knowledge of the scribe, of
the codex unicus and of its production provided an inadequate sub
stitute for the other manuscript sought in vain. An attempt at
an authorial text with any claim to finality was out of the
question; the codex unicus had to be edited diplomatically but with
emendations effected to modify the scribe's influence.
There seemed little sense in wholly sacrificing the charm of a
thirteenth-century courtly poem to the whims of a disinterested
professional of the fifteenth century if one possessed sufficiently
detailed knowledge of the caprice to mitigate its effects. Yet,
one could not deny the historical process by which we now know the
text: for better or for worse, we have only the scribe's version
produced for his employer's needs and it should be appreciated on
its own merits or defects. Therefore, a diplomatic copy of the
codex unicus has been placed opposite the edited text both as a
control on the edited text and as an 'edition' in its own right.
The synoptic arrangement has been placed in a separate volume to
facilitate all work on it (literary as well) and to remind us that
the manuscript, however humble in our eyes, was considered a work
of art by the collector who enjoyed the binding, the cover and the
initials before he felt the need to scrutinize his scribe's text.
How many first editions of poetry today appear with annotations,
an apparatus criticus and notes on the number of lines copied from
other poets?