A Computer-Assisted Quantitative Comparison of the Hengwrt and Ellesmere Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales

以下是杰弗里·乔叟的《坎特伯雷故事集》亨格尔特手稿和埃尔斯米尔手稿之间的计算机辅助综合文本比较的中期报告。亨格尔特手稿是最古老的，因此被认为最接近乔叟的原稿，埃尔斯米尔手稿是由同一抄写员编辑和修订的亨格尔特版本。Jimura，Nakao和Matsuo(1995)对布莱克(1980)和罗宾逊(1957)的版本进行了比较。前者是亨格尔特手稿的忠实重建，后者主要是基于埃尔斯米尔的。我们的报告是吉村、中尾和松尾(1995)的续篇，但在这里我们比较的对象是手稿本身。我们研究的基本方法是逐行比较两个手稿，然后在两个“相同的行”中逐字比较。为了进行这种比较，我们首先需要做一对对应的线条，一条取自亨格尔特，另一条取自埃尔斯米尔。为了使每一行对应于另一行，我们需要使一个机器可读的文本。在这项研究中，我们已经获得了使用机器可读文本的许可，Hengwrt Chaucer数字传真(编辑。在本书的《具有不同单词形式的行》中，我们列出了包含一个或多个单词差异的所有行。对于每一对作品，上行显示亨特的手稿，下行显示埃尔斯梅尔的手稿。我们希望这项研究将有助于乔叟的文本批评，从而更好地重构他自己的语言和文本。

What follows is an interim report of a computer-assisted comprehensive textual comparison between the Hengwrt Manuscript and the Ellesmere Manuscript of The Canterterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. The Hengwrt Manuscript is the oldest and therefore regarded as closest to Chaucer's original, and the Ellesmere Manuscript is the edited and revised version of the Hengwrt by the same scribe. Jimura, Nakao and Matsuo (1995) undertook a comparison of Blake's (1980) and Robinson's (1957) editions. The former edition is a faithful reconstruction of the Hengwrt Manuscript and the latter is primarily based on the Ellesmere. Our report is a sequel to Jimura, Nakao and Matsuo (1995), but here the objects of our comparison are manuscripts themselves.Our basic method in this study is to compare the two manuscripts line by line, and then to compare them word by word within pairs of "the same lines." In order to perform this kind of comparison, it is first necessary for us to make pairs of corresponding lines, taking one from the Hengwrt and the other from the Ellesmere. To make each line correspond to the other line, we need to make a machine readable text. In this study we have obtained permission to use the machine readable text, The Hengwrt Chaucer Digital Facsimile (ed. Estelle Stubbs, 2000).In "Lines with Different Word Forms" of the present book, we have listed all pairs of lines which contain one or more word differences. For each pair, the upper line shows the Hengwrt Manuscript and the lower line the Ellesmere.We hope that this study will contribute to the text criticism of Chaucer and thus to a better recontruction of his own language and text.