Kane's Piers Plowman
Without question, the most significant recent edition of a Middle
English text is the Kane-Donaldson Piers Plowman
[38]—a work that will probably
influence
future Chaucer editors as much as any of the specific Chaucer editions
discussed above. I cite this in conclusion in hopes that its editorial language
will prove as influential as its substance and tone. Kane's entire enterprise
is directed against the possibility of a recension edition; thus, the
terminology of Greg designed particularly for such an edition is not easily
applicable. The language adopted by Kane, however, is instructive. In the
edition of the A Version:
The basic manuscript or copy-text is T. This was chosen for several
reasons. First, it is one of the few A manuscripts without large omissions
or physical imperfections. . . . The choice is thus between T and Ch, which
are both complete and not demonstrably inferior copies. . . . (p 165)
The grammatical and orthographical forms of T have generally been
preserved. . . . No attempt has been made to restore the morphology of the
author's copy from manuscript evidence. (pp. 168-169)
T is as true a copy-text as could be possible in a non-recension edition, here
serving to supply a system of regularization for accidentals. It is also a base
text (although Kane does not so describe it), since the kind of edition Kane
is engaged in must be called eclectic. Kane wishes to place himself in a
direct line with Greg and Housman, and his primary target is the "tyranny
of the copy-text"—the editorial procedure that would substitute a
physical
authority for editorial experience. I assume this is why he refers to T as a
copy-text or (using non-technical terminology) as a "basic text." Since all
changes from T are shown in square brackets, the degree to which T is the
"highest presumptive authority" will reflect the editor's willingness to
include such brackets in the text.
In the B Version, the textual-critical language becomes even more
explicit, as does the reference to Greg:
The ideal basic manuscript or copy-text [ref. to Greg] is the one
which first provides the closest dialectical and chronological approximation
to the poet's language, and then second, most accurately reflects his original
in substantive readings. It is because the function of a copy- or basic text
is to furnish the accidentals of an edition that the first requirement is
primary: the least corrupt manuscript will not necessarily fulfil it best. (p.
214)
Kane-Donaldson choose W as their "basic manuscript" (p. 216): "For one
thing W's consistent spelling and systematic grammar afford a clear model
for the many readings that have to be introduced into the text by
emendation" (p. 215). The citation of Greg is significant, since the function
of a copy-text becomes more limited as the editor's own intervention
increases. The Kane-Donaldson edition is still an eclectic or base-text
edition, and this is reflected in the language above. But the presumption of
authority in substantive matters is secondary. Again, describing such a base
manuscript in the language of Greg puts the editor under fewer constraints
to follow it. And the difference between the B Version and A Version
editions is in one sense a recognition of those implications.
Kane uses terminology only when its history has some import: thus
his use of the term "copy-text." Elsewhere, non-technical terminology
suffices (thus "basic-text" instead of the technical terms "best text" or "base
text"). Furthermore, he uses technical terminology to reduce external
authority, not to elevate it.[39]
