Scottish Text Society publications > Third series > Chronicles of Scotland > Volume 2, 1941

450
APPENDIX.
Bann. MS.
95. micht
96. frome
97. blissit
99. cum
100. to
101. diuitie
102. To god eterne fader
omnipotent
104. wes maid
105. of
108. and
109. The Craft/the string/
The hand . . .
no. over
112. makis the sound
123. The moder peur full
of virginitie
128. michtie
132. to
151. Eterne
152. Ane mother how to
be/the virgin pure
155. vfith
160. wit
161. O sone of god
163. ffra hivin
164. Off the blist
169. mekle
171. birst fra
174. Bring ws amang tha
happie senatouris
175. thow hes coftin
176. cure
Bann. "draft ” MS. Marchmont MS.
micht
fra
reuthfull
cummyn
to
diuinite
Vnto his fader god
omnipotent
he was maid
and
and
The Craft pe string
pe hand . . .
ouer
makis pe sound
The moder full of
pure wirginitie
michty
to
eternall
ane moder full to be
ane wirgine pure
and
witt
O sone of god
ffra hevin
off the blissit
mekle
birst fra
Bring ws amang thai
happie senatouris
thow coftin
OUT
suld
fra
reuthfull
? cum
tm
diuinitie
Unto his fader god
omnipotent
was maid
and
in
The Craft the hand
the string . . .
unto
makis sound
the moder full of
pure virginitie
? mistyc
tiU
Eterne
And moder full to be
ane virgine pure
and
? watt
Thow sone of god
ffra hie hevin
on the blist
cruell
brist from
Mak me ane of thi
happy cietesouris
thow redemit
my
One fact that emerges from the collation is that the version of the
Bannatyne “ draft ” MS. more frequently tallies with the Marchmont
version, which is presumably as printed by Scot, but possibly with an
addition of some copyist’s errors and alterations, than with the version
in the Bannatyne MS. proper. The last three lines are a notable excep¬
tion ; but whether the Marchmont copyist, John Scot, or Bellenden
himself, is responsible for the conclusion of the poem in the Marchmont
version it is impossible to say. Either the Marchmont copyist is respon¬
sible (which would account for the divergence here between the March¬
mont and the Bannatyne “ draft ” versions) ; or George Bannatyne
arbitrarily rejected certain readings of Scot’s edition; or there were
at least two versions of the poem current in the latter part of the six¬
teenth century. It may be admitted at once that Bannatyne as a
copyist is not above suspicion. He was himself a versifier, and was
working, on his own confession, from “ copeis awld mankitand mvtillait,"
which he seems often to have felt called to emend.1 If the duplicate
1 Cf. The Bannatyne Miscellany, J. T. T. Brown, Sc. Hist. Rev.,
1904, Vol. I., p. 136 ff.