The Siege of Jerusalem ed. by Ralph Hanna, David Lawton (review)

STUDIES IN THE AGE OF CHAUCER Ralph Hanna and David Lawton, eds. The Siege of Jerusalem. Early English Text Society, o.s. 320. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Pp. xcix, 224. $85.00. Hanna and Lawton’s critical edition of The Siege of Jerusalem is designed to replace that of Eugen Kölbing and Mabel Day (EETS 188 [1932]). As is the case with both the earlier editions of The Siege (the Kölbing/ Day edition and the partial edition by Thorlac Turville-Petre), this edition is based on Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 656 (L). The Hanna and Lawton edition does, however, differ from that of Kölbing and Day in that it makes use of Princeton University Library, MS Taylor Medieval 11 (P), a witness of which Kölbing and Day were unaware, and isolated P readings are sometimes adopted as emendations. Hanna and Lawton’s account of the relationship between the manuscripts nevertheless basically agrees with earlier opinions offered by Hulbert and Day, although they do provide more detail and, in particular, clarification of the problematic affiliations of British Library, MS Cotton Caligula A.ii, part 1 (C). There is evidence of a certain amount of carelessness in this edition. It is, for instance, difficult to have much faith in the glossary when so many past-tense verbs appearing under the very first letter are recorded as pr. (‘‘present’’) (see glosses for apered, assembleden, assented, assenteden, auntred, availed). Emendations, too, are sometimes problematic. The editors accept Hoyt Duggan’s findings regarding the metrical constraints on the b-verse, and they emend the text accordingly, but not all such emendations are convincing. Infinitives in -e, for instance, are often emended to -en metri causa in noneliding position on the grounds that pronounced final -e must have been absent from the author’s dialect, whereas the evidence suggests that infinitive -e was syllabic: infinitives in -en are normally only used in the Siege manuscripts in positions where they are necessary to prevent elision. Hanna and Lawton’s approach here appears to result in part from a priori assumptions about the language of alliterative poets, but their view is doubtless reinforced by their localization of the Siege author’s dialect in the area of Barnoldswick, West Yorkshire. Unfortunately this localization is unreliable. In particular, the use of forms of ‘‘shall’’’ in /s/ (sall etc.) for diagnostic purposes, something that sets a firm southern limit on any possible placement, is based on unconvincing evidence: that such forms occur three times in positions where initial /s/ would make it possible for this auxiliary to provide a PAGE 296 296 ................. 16094$ CH17 11-01-10 14:05:06 PS REVIEWS third metrical stave in the a-verse. Since the number of these examples is so small, since such staves are not a metrical requirement, and since the editors themselves admit that such evidence is ambiguous, it seems unwise to place quite so much reliance on it. Once this particular form is discounted, the evidence suggests a more southerly placement. Because this localization is suspect, the material on likely sites of composition and possible patrons (both to a large extent based on this localization ) must also, for the moment, be suspect, as must some of the arguments concerning the relationship with The Destruction of Troy, since the editors suggest that similarities of diction in the two poems may simply reflect the fact that the two poets lived in close geographical proximity and were making use of a specific local tradition of alliterative verse. Emendations are also sometimes problematic for other reasons. For example, Hanna and Lawton’s determination to interpret lines 718ff. as direct speech (and a series of verbs with –n endings as imperatives), a decision resulting in various emendations, is quite simply peculiar, especially since indirect rather than direct speech is employed in the source at this point. Hanna and Lawton also fail to make sufficient use in their treatment of the a-verse of evidence available from the b-verse. For example , at l.560 the expected form of the verb, given the gloss of ‘‘hammered , pounded,’’ would be malleden rather than mallen (the glossary records this as a preterite), and...