New Site Announcement: Over the past several years, the METS team has been building a new website and new digital edition, in collaboration with Cast Iron Coding. This next phase of METS' editions includes improved functionality and accessibility, an increased focus on transparency, and conformity to best practices for open access and digital editions, including TEI markup. We are currently in a "soft launch" phase in which we will monitor the new site for bugs and errors. We encourage you to visit our new site at https://metseditions.org, and we welcome feedback here: https://tinyurl.com/bdmfv282
We will continue to publish all new editions in print and online, but our new online editions will include TEI/XML markup and other features. Over the next two years, we will be working on updating our legacy volumes to conform to our new standards.
Our current site will be available for use until mid-December 2024. After that point, users will be redirected to the new site. We encourage you to update bookmarks and syllabuses over the next few months. If you have questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact us at robbins@ur.rochester.edu.
We will continue to publish all new editions in print and online, but our new online editions will include TEI/XML markup and other features. Over the next two years, we will be working on updating our legacy volumes to conform to our new standards.
Our current site will be available for use until mid-December 2024. After that point, users will be redirected to the new site. We encourage you to update bookmarks and syllabuses over the next few months. If you have questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact us at robbins@ur.rochester.edu.
The King of Tars: Appendix: Variant Readings from the Vernon Manuscript
1 The three are Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, Advocates’ Library 19.2.1 (the Auchinleck manuscript); Oxford, Bodleian Library Poetry A.1 (the Vernon manuscript); and London, British Library Additional MS 22283 (the Simeon manuscript). See the introduction for more information.
2 A close comparison of Vernon and Simeon has revealed that Simeon is either a copy of Vernon or that they share the same exemplar. See Doyle, “Shaping of the Vernon and Simeon Manuscripts,” for a more careful discussion of the relationship between the two.
3 Herzman, Drake, and Salisbury, Four Romances of England, p. 188.
4 Herzman, Drake, and Salisbury, Four Romances of England, p. 188.
5 In keeping with the text, I have modernized those characters that have fallen out of use (e.g., thorn and yogh) that appear in the manuscript. I have also capitalized and added punctuation.
2 A close comparison of Vernon and Simeon has revealed that Simeon is either a copy of Vernon or that they share the same exemplar. See Doyle, “Shaping of the Vernon and Simeon Manuscripts,” for a more careful discussion of the relationship between the two.
3 Herzman, Drake, and Salisbury, Four Romances of England, p. 188.
4 Herzman, Drake, and Salisbury, Four Romances of England, p. 188.
5 In keeping with the text, I have modernized those characters that have fallen out of use (e.g., thorn and yogh) that appear in the manuscript. I have also capitalized and added punctuation.
There are three manuscripts that contain The King of Tars.1 The differences in the two main witnesses, Auchinleck and Vernon, demonstrate the tendency and processes of scribal alteration very clearly.2 Though they present the same tale, sharing episodes and structure, there are many lines that are vastly different. While the decision to base this text on Auchinleck is described in the introduction, some of the passages in Vernon are compelling for a number of reasons. In their introduction to Bevis of Hampton, Herzman, Drake, and Salisbury note “wide variation in manuscripts would certainly seem to be unusual, at least from the point of view of somewhat more ‘canonical’ texts — Biblical and classical — which were held in such awe by medieval authors that they dared not alter them.”3 Like “Bevis,” The King of Tars is an anonymous, roughly contemporary work that is “protected neither by sanctity nor sufficient authorial fame.”4 The antiquity of Auchinleck and its comparative completion has recommended it as closer to the original composition, and the unwritten assumption is that Vernon and Simeon were rewritten to be more in keeping with the desires of the patron; the language is “modernized,” that is, made to better reflect contemporary usage and dialect, and some significant passages have been abbreviated or expanded. A complete list of all variant readings in the textual notes would essentially reproduce the text of Vernon; thus I have not included Vernon in the textual notes. However, as it is illustrative of medieval revision strategies to present a few passages for comparison, especially those which are unique to Vernon, I include them here.5
Go To Bibliography
VERNON 1–4 (NO PARALLEL IN AUCHINLECK): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 76–84 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 76–84): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 100–06 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 100–06): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON OMITS AUCHINLECK LINES 115 TO 120 |
||
VERNON 120–23 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 126–29): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON OMITS AUCHINLECK LINES 139 TO 141 |
||
VERNON 145–75 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 154–81): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 181–86 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 187–92): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 204–22 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 210–28): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 230–46 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 236–52): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 277–82 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 283–88): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON OMITS AUCHINLECK LINES 288 TO 300 |
||
VERNON 297–315 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 315–33): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 325–42 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 343–49): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON OMITS AUCHINLECK LINES 355 TO 369 |
||
VERNON 335–42 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK LINES 353–70): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 353–60 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 380–87): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 386–90 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 413–17): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 403–07 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 430–34): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 505–10 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 532–37): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON OMITS AUCHINLECK LINES 550 TO 562 |
||
VERNON 559–62 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 598–601): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 610–18 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 649–51) |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 679–86 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 718–25): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 705–08 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 744): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 766–68 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 802–04): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON OMITS AUCHINLECK LINE 811 AND LINES 823–70 |
||
VERNON 782–98 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 821–82): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 829–34 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 913–18): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 901–03 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 985–87): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 935–39 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 1019–23): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON 985–91 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 1072–75): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON OMITS AUCHINLECK LINES 1066–68 |
||
VERNON 1051–52 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 1135–36): |
||
|
|
|
VERNON OMITS AUCHINLECK LINES 1160–66 |
||
VERNON 1085–98 (COMPARE AUCHINLECK 1175–81): |
||
|
|
|
Vernon omits Auchinleck lines 1194 to 1229, but supplies an ending, included in this text (lines 1230–41). |