Did John Lydgate Write the Original for the “Scotch Copy of a Poem on Heraldry”?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract should be extended to include more info on the article.

I would recommend the author reconsider the absolute categories such as: exists (L. 10), clearly (L.14) with more academic like have survived, most probably and simmilar.

Lines 48-50 should make clear who did the transcription and rendition in modern English.

It would be good to include more pictures of the actual manuscripts, if possible, the same stanza from both manuscripts.

line 75, after the Stanza a short description is needed to explain what is going to be presented.

The author should reconsider whether Lydgate's biography should be moved before the Poem

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article on a 'Scotch copy of a poem on Heraldry' in Queens College MS 161 and British Library, Harley MS 6149 has the potential to make a significant contribution to Older Scots and Middle English scholarship, and to the history of heraldry (about which the author clearly has a deep knowledge and understanding). The suggestion that this poem is a Scottish copy of an earlier text by John Lydgate has real merit, and with further strengthening could well be very convincing. This piece of work should certainly be published, but I would suggest a thorough process of revision ahead of that.

In addition to some more minor stylistic points (detailed below), I would suggest:

1. That the author takes more time to position the individual poem studied here in the context of its wider manuscript contexts. 

2. That much more attention be paid to what we already know about the reception of Lydgate's poetry in Scotland. This would really help to secure this article's main argument. I recommend reading W.H.E. Sweet's Oxford doctoral thesis (https://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/permalink/44OXF_INST/35n82s/alma990172928700107026) and other publications by Sweet, as well as Houwen's article on the associations with Lydgate (!) of another poem in the Loutfut MS: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1347&context=ssl   For the Trojan and related legends in Older Scots, see also: E. Wingfield, The Trojan Legend in Medieval Scottish Literature (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2014)

3. When discussing mixed use of Scots and English linguistic forms it is worth noting that it isn't uncommon for fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Scottish poetry to exhibit such features. It would be worth consulting a linguistic expert - Professor Jeremy Smith would be a good port of call (as would his Older Scots: A Linguistic Reader), as would Professor Rhiannon Purdie. Consider, too, evidence for wider 'English' features, e.g. 'incresith'.

4. Transcription. I would encourage the author to consider whether it might be best to present an edition of this poem, not least since what is currently offered is not a transcription in the strictest sense (punctuation is, for instance, already supplied here). I think readers might appreciate an extra, larger, image or two of the text, too. Variant readings would be best supplied as footnotes, rather than in-text: or, the author might position after the text both textual notes and explanatory notes, so in effect present this article as a new critical edition of the poem. The article by Houwen cited above would be a useful model.

5. Related to the point above, the author might consider changing some words or phrases describing what he/she/they are doing in this article. I would, for instance, replace 'exegesis' with 'critical commentary'.

6. Further evidence needed for the statement (lines 14-15): 'The Queens ms. is clearly copied from the Harley ms....'). 

7. Lines 27-30: 'a copy of such'. This needs re-considering, esp. under point a) since I don't think there is any suggestion what we have here is an authorial draft.

 

Additional points: 

line 31: re-consider use of 'However' to start this sentence

Line 43: further explanation needed to support 'The case is not convincing' 

Line 48: 'in the original language' - not needed.

Lines 52-3: 'redactions'. I don't think this is the correct word. 'Modern English summaries/paraphrases'?

Lines 53-5: some re-phrasing for clarity needed here. I recommend avoiding use of the passive form.

Lines 197ff: discussion of Brittany. Note that James II's sister married Francis I Duke of Brittany, not John, who died in 1450. Some clarification of facts needed here. Does the political context suggested here help with dating the poem? Is the author suggesting we position the Scots copying of this poem in the 1460s or beyond (so reign of James III of Scotland). It might be helpful to consult Macdougall's study of James III here, as well as McGladdery on James II.

Lines 222-3: 'There is, of course, much more to it than that'. Please do expand!

Lines 392-3: should one of the two 'princes' be 'princis'?

General lay-out: this is no doubt more of an editorial matter, but at present the type-setting of this article needs some attention.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language in this piece is sound, although I recommend avoiding too much use of the passive form, and contractions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was pleased to read this article again and will look forward to publication. Ahead of that, I would urge the author to attend a little more slowly to my previous suggestions. I really do feel that the linguistic analysis needs to be expanded so as to make clearer the mixed English and Scots forms in this text. It is also essential to situate the findings of this paper in the broader context of what we know about the circulation of Lydgate material in Scotland. I understand that the author may be keen for fast publication, but I think delaying to work on such suggestions would make for a much stronger and more significant piece overall.

Author Response

1. "... the linguistic analysis needs to be expanded so as to make clearer the mixed English and Scots forms in this text."

• That would obscure the larger point at issue. And we have scant few examples of heraldic writings taken from English (of the time) to Scots (of the time), which would be the true comparison.
• It was not Loutfut's general work to translate (say) literature.

2. "It is also essential to situate the findings of this paper in the broader context of what we know about the circulation of Lydgate material in Scotland."

• I feel this is not the point. There is no suggestion and no evidence that Loutfut was intending to disseminate the works of Lydgate, or that he even knew of the existence of Lydgate. He was collecting heraldic works for his employer and copying/transcribing/translating them, just as he would have done for armorials and other materials.