Joseph of Arimathea: A Critical Edition ed. by David A. Lawton (review)

STUDIES IN THE AGE OF CHAUCER DAVID A. LAWTON, ed.}oseph ofArimathea: A CriticalEdition. (Garland Medieval Texts, 5.) New York and London: Garland, 1983. Pp. liv, 72. $20. With this edition of the English alliterative poemJoseph ofArimathea, David Lawton has filled a long-standing need. In fact, this new edition is the first since Skeat discovered the poem and edited it for the EETS in 1878. Although Skeat's original edition is still admirable and useful in many respects, it is simply out-of-date on almost every count. For example, Skeat simply had not the texts needed for a reliable comparative study­ indeed the only edition of any of the French parent or sister works he mentions is Furnivall's Estoire de/ Saint Graaf. Similarly, over a hundred years of scholarship and literary criticism have clearly dated Skeat's intro­ duction, notes, and glossary and often proven them simply wrong. Finally Skeat's inclusion of other Joseph materials-the early printed English "lives"-while making his edition a bargain, draws attention away from the alliterative poem and needlessly complicates the notes and glossary. InhisneweditionLawtonhascorrectedthefaultsofSkeat'sandsupplieda critical apparatus which reflects careful and intelligent consideration ofall importantstudiesofthepoemsinceSkeat'soriginalpublication.Everything neededforacarefulstudyofthepoemispresent.Lawton'snotesandglossary owemuchtoSkeatbutareoftendecidedlysuperior.Thenotes,forexample, are more focused and less digressive than Skeat's and benefit from the aforementioned scholarship. The glossary is fuller and more accurate. Law­ ton's introduction which accounts for nearly halfof the entire book offers muchscholarly andcritical insight as well as someintriguing conjecture. Of particular value is his discussion of]oseph ofArimathea in relation to the materialswhichsurrounditintheVernonMS; hisargumentfortherationale ofits placement therein; and his description ofscribal methods and mark­ ing, something which Skeat touches upon only lightly. Ofsimilar value are his examination ofthe alliterative structure ofthe poem and his revision of Oakden's tabulation ofline types. Less satisfactory is Lawton's claim that the version of}oseph ofArimathea that appears in the Vernon MS is an intermediate one or "rough draft" and that this accounts for the poem's rather rugged poetic form and most likely for the scribe's apparent decision to copy it as prose, since conservation of space does not seem to be the reason in this particular MS. Although possible, Lawton's claim is by no means "beyond doubt," especially when 220 REVIEWS actual proof is wanting. In this case, there are simply too many other possibilities, none of which can ever be proved unless more MS evidence comes to light. In spite ofthe scribe's elaborate system ofmarking the line breaks, etc., the scribe most likely merely copied an MS ofJoseph of Arimathea which was itself written as prose. It is also possible that the scribe or his director may have wished to add some variety to their project by copying this rather poor poem as prose to break up a rather long stretch of poetry. Or, the poem could be a condensation of a somewhat longer original, and the large number ofnon-alliterating lines could be the result of abridgements in sections of the poem. I am not saying that Lawton is wrong or that he fails to consider these other possibilities, but there is simply no real evidence to support his rather novel conclusion. Equallyquestionableistheeditor'sconjecturethat theJoseph poet, while clearly using the Estoire as his source, relied upon a passage in the earlier Queste de/Saint Graai(the White Knight's summary ofJoseph's history) as his model. While this theory may seem attractive at first, itloses much of its forceifoneobjectively examines the worksinquestion. Infact, theonlyreal parallel between the alliterative poem and the passage in the Queste is that they are both brieftreatments ofthe same general material; and since the Estoire is generally believed to depend heavily on the Queste, it is only natural that the EnglishJoseph (which used the Estoire as its source) should agree largely with the narrative order ofsuch a passage in the Queste. This can be further demonstrated ifone simply takes the Estoire, pulls out the materials whichdonotrelatetothoseintheJoseph poem, and condensesthe remainder-the result will be something which rather closely resembles what the English poet has done. Even the seemingly misplaced Galahad referenceintheEnglishpoem (11.231-33)owesnothing tothe Queste- the answer is simply that theJoseph poet...