Text structure

Macro- and micro structures of medieval texts are, furthermore, fundamentally open if one considers that these texts are available primarily in the form of handwritten manuscripts. There are, indeed, also writing and script traditions of that time (Bischoff 1986), but it is exactly one characteristic of medieval manuscripts that the scribes allow themselves a fair deal of freedom. How extensive this liberty is can be measured wherever a text is available in several manuscripts, at that time the only possibility of duplication. As can be expected, popular works have been handed down in numerous manuscripts. Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (ca. 1387-1400) are preserved in 83 manuscripts (and six early printed copies), Langland's Piers Plowman (1362-93) in 51 manuscripts, and the moral-theological tractatus Prick of Conscience (ca. 1350) in as many as 117 manuscripts (Brown and Robbins 1943; Robbins and Cutler 1965). The situation in the rest of Europe is no different. Just two examples: Wolfram's Parzival (ca. 1200) exists in 90 manuscripts and the extremely popular Old French prose novel Tristan (ca. 1230) in 80 manuscripts. At the same time one can easily observe that the individual versions differ from each other sometimes more, sometimes less, thus confronting modern editors with the most difficult alternatives.

It is also clear that in this situation one can hardly speak of an original text. Medieval texts were never authorized versions, were copied and changed according to need, and in the process were often adapted to the personal or prevailing taste of the time. When being copied, they were abridged or expanded with diverse changes, variations, improvements and impairments as the result. Here, of course, the intellectual ability of the scribe played a great role. For this reason the final version of a medieval work is not conceivable from either a medieval or modern perspective. The Variorum Edition of the individual works of Chaucer shows, for example, how open the single text is in this respect (Ruggiers and Ransom 1979ff). In the end, in view of the numerous text variations in existence, the editor of a medieval text is dependent on subjective decisions if he wants to choose, in his opinion, a plausible version. The problem has caused diverse reactions among scholars in this field (Morse et al 1992; Scragg and Szarmach 1994).

But the openness of medieval texts or manuscripts goes even further. It also affects those texts, of course, which, like Old English poetry, are only available in one manuscript version. For the medieval manuscript hardly shows signs of structuring and is devoid of ordered orthography, paragraphs and punctuation. Often, just as in the Old English period, it does not clearly emerge from the arrangement of lines whether we are dealing with prose or poetry

Naturally, parts of medieval manuscripts can be distorted to the point of incomprehensibility owing to the poor education of the scribe. Finally, modern editors are also confronted with a phenomenon, which is not to be blamed on the Middle Ages, but on the material conditions of handing down manuscripts. These are often to be made responsible for the gaps and partial destruction of manuscripts, which then in the reconstruction of the text must necessarily give cause for much speculation. Beowulf, 1. 3150-55, is an exemplary case (Westphalen 1967).