Page:The Review of English Studies Vol 1.djvu/20

8 Unfortunately this does not quite settle the question of the priority of the two versions of the Rule. The mediæval scribes had a baffling habit of interpolating and correcting manuscripts from various sources. Now we know that the French copy from which the extant French manuscript was transcribed must have had at least one very serious gap: the scribe copied continuously without noticing the hiatus. It might conceivably be argued that this French copy may have had other gaps, which the scribe noticed, and filled in (having no second French copy at hand) by borrowing an English copy and translating these missing pieces; and that therefore the demonstrable fact that in one place the only extant French manuscript is translated from the English must not without further examination be held to prove that the whole of the French version is a translation. Comparison of manuscripts, and the transcribing of manuscripts from two sources, one of which was used to supplement deficiencies in the other, were processes constantly going on in the Middle Ages. Thus a monk of St. Martin’s, Tournai, tells us that the library had such a reputation that its books were constantly sought by all for the purpose of correcting their copies; and Guigo, prior of the Grande Chartreuse, finding his copy of Hilary on the Psalms corrupt, writes to Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, asking for the loan of the Cluny copy; Peter does not send it because he finds that the Cluny copy has the same corruption of which Guigo had complained. On the other hand, Peter asks for the loan of Augustine’s letters; the Cluny copy had been lent to one of the outlying hermitages, and a large portion of the opening correspondence between Augustine and Jerome had been unfortunately devoured by a bear.

Similarly, it might be argued, by those who believe that the