French is the original, that, in this French original, the Latin distich was quoted without any translation; that then, when the English translator came to render the French Rule, he felt the necessity of some explanation of these two Latin lines, and so inserted the English six-line paraphrase; that then some ultra-conscientious and very stupid French scribe, who was transcribing the French version, compared the English version to see if he could improve and correct his French text, and that it was in this way that a translation of these English lines came to be inserted into the French Rule.
Considering the ways of scribes, these things are conceivable; and for this reason, however clear the evidence may be of certain manuscript relationships, we should never allow it to blind us to the possibility of other relationships in an exactly opposite direction. Still, the fact remains that in the one place where, owing to the occurrence of verse, a conclusive test is possible, the test demands an English original. Only very strong evidence in a contrary direction can shake this, or justify us in making highly hypothetical conjectures to account for the plain fact.
The reason why Mr. Macaulay rejected the obvious inference from the English verses was that he had found fifteen instances where the English appeared to him to be a translation from the French. The general respect for Mr. Macaulay’s great knowledge seems to have caused his argument to be accepted by most students without further scrutiny.
About four years ago, however, a detailed examination of these passages was made by Miss D. M. E. Dymes, and her results have recently been published.[1] They are of the utmost importance. Miss Dymes shows how double-edged Mr. Macaulay’s arguments are. In most of the fifteen cases there has clearly been a misunderstanding. But whether the English writer mistook the meaning of the French or the French of the English admits of dispute; both versions make sense. Miss Dymes gives an elaborate analysis of each case: in six passages there is nothing to decide either way; in one case there is, perhaps, a slight superiority in the French wording; in the eight other cases Miss Dymes finds reason to think the English reading the original. She shows that, on abstract grounds, the English makes rather better sense than the French,
- ↑ Essays and Studies by Members of the English Association, vol. ix., The Original Language of the Ancren Riwle (1924).
