This is book of small things about a big book of big things.

The big book is the Auchinleck Manuscript, perhaps the greatest treasure of the National Library of Scotland. It is large manuscript almost certainly copied in the first half of the fourteenth century, and it is the largest single source of verse romances in Middle English. Since these romances are the best things produced in Middle English prior to the time of Chaucer, Auchinleck has naturally gotten a great deal of scholarly attention (as well as multiple facsimile editions).

How much attention? In 2008, an entire conference was called together to discuss the manuscript. The essays in this volume were the result. Scholars who participated include some very, very big names in Middle English literature; if I had been editor Susanna Fein, I might have felt more than a little intimidated in dealing with such a formidable list. But she did her part well -- and in a very even-handed way; there are not a few instances where the authors directly contradict each others' conclusions. Very little that you will learn in this book can be regarded as settled.

Be warned, though, if you are just hoping to get an introduction to Auchinleck, you will likely find this book very fiddly indeed. (Which is unfortunate, since it's relatively affordable and the facsimiles of Auchinleck flatly aren't.) E.g., you'll find an essay by Timothy A. Shonk about the paraphs in the manuscript -- paraphs being the symbol used to mark paragraphs or sense breaks, the equivalent of our ¶ mark. There are several essays that discuss whether the contents are supposed to encourage or discourage knowledge of the French language (which, at the time Auchinleck was written, was still the language of the royal court, and of many of the nobles, but the gentry and the people increasingly spoke English). A discussion of whether some of the pieces are actually complete. And other fine details. Some of these examinations of the book will, I suspect, eventually lead to greater discoveries. By themselves, they mostly show the authors' ability to pay attention to fine detail. Because few of them are actually about the contents of Auchinleck; they are mostly devoted to the way it was copied, and the purpose.

And then there is a surprisingly hostile argument about whether two particular parts of the book were written by the same scribe or by different scribes, and indeed whether the second scribe ever existed. Both sides have strong arguments; I don't know the answer, but I know I wouldn't feel as sure as the authors here do.

At least the authors all agree that Auchinleck is a Very Big Deal. You'll probably agree, too, if you ever get to study it. ( )