PIRAMUS ET TISBÉ

Piramus et Tisbé
incomplete phrase, logical inconsistency, or absence of a disyllable in the lyric
sequences) or scribal error (e.g. reading a word or phrase from a contiguous line). In
three instances (vv. 387, 467 and 817) the presence of a line in B which is not in R has
been taken as evidence of a lacuna, even though the text of R makes reasonable sense as
it stands. In each case, a similar line occurs in at least one of the other MSS, and without
it the transition between ideas is sufficiently abrupt to suggest that something is
missing. Given that R and B are so closely related, and that B consistently abridges
rather than expands, the balance of probability is in favour of these lines having been
omitted from R through carelessness. In two out of the three cases (vv. 467 and 817),
the fact that the line occurs in a passage which is obviously corrupt in R supports the
argument for a scribal omission.
Emendations are normally taken from B, whether or not these readings are
supported by C and/or A. Readings from CA are used only where both R and B are
deficient, with preference being given to C in cases of non-agreement between the two
(for this reason variants are listed in the Notes and Rejected Readings in the order B-C-
A). Because of the possibility of cross-contamination outlined above, agreement of
BCA against R has not been taken as prima facie evidence for emendation. A very
small number of editorial emendations have been made; these and other changes to the
text of R which are not self-evident are discussed in the notes, together with a number
of points of interest arising from the MS tradition. Lines supplied from other MSS are
printed in italic type and their source indicated along with all other alterations under the
Rejected Readings. The relatively small number of case errors have not been corrected
(except in one case, for the sake of the rhyme), but abbreviations have been expanded,
word division has been regularised and capital letters and accented characters
introduced in line with normal editorial practice.
The line-by-line translation aims to provide a straightforward Modern English
version of the poem for non-specialist readers. The tenses of the original have been
maintained as far as possible, although I do not always distinguish between the Old
French perfect and simple past where doing so produces unnatural English. I have
attempted to preserve something of the flavour of the lyric sequences by translating the
disyllabic lines by a two-syllable word or phrase wherever possible, and by using
slightly more ‘poetic’ language where this reflects the tenor of the original.
10