Textual-Critical Evidence of Printer's Copy for Sp2: Verse
Sections
The collations of the Variorum editors for verse sections of the Canterbury
Tales support the conclusions above, although some of their claims are unnecessarily
understated. All are based to some extent upon Pearsall: "The conclusion seems clear that SP2
was reset from ST ... but SP2 has been so extensively edited that the evidence cannot be so
decisive as it usually is with early printed editions" (Nun's Priest's Tale, 114). Only Baker
in his edition of the Squire's Tale is categorical about the 1561 edition as printer's copy; yet the
evidence is far stronger than other editors seem to believe.[12] In only
one or two
instances is the substantive variation such as even to suggest that either printer's copy or textual
source for the 1602 edition was anything other than a copy of the 1561 edition, and even these
examples are capable of alternative explanation. Original manuscript readings supposedly
"restored" in 1602 are, as Pearsall states, "commonplace" and "widely
attested."
[13]
The manner of presenting statistics in these volumes occasionally implies some uncertainty about
the printer's copy or copy-text for the 1602 edition. But at least for the Tales already collated by
the Variorum editors (the General Prologue is a special case), there should be no hesitation
whatsoever, as examination of the exceptions cited by these editors
quickly reveals.
[14]
Where some question remains is in the General Prologue. The evidence
presented by Lounsbury in 1892 and the more detailed collations recently published by Andrew
show that the situation is not the same as in the texts of the Tales. To begin with, printer's copy,
which editors of other Canterbury Tales sections describe simply as ST, must be defined
more carefully, since Stow's edition contains two versions of the General Prologue, one with
woodcuts (STw) and one without (ST).[15] Andrew quite correctly concludes that
the only version "behind" the 1598 edition is ST, not STw (Andrew calls this a "copytext," 94)
and the same is true for the 1602 edition; that is, particular readings of STw can be disregarded.[16] I extend this here by suggesting that we are dealing not with a textual
copy-text (ST rather than STw) but more likely a specific copy of ST--a specific copy that may
have served as printer's copy for both Speght editions.
More than in the Tales, the
General Prologue shows apparently mixed filiation--a conflation of ST and SP1. Andrew follows
Lounsbury and concludes: "It seems then that ST and SP1 had nearly equal influence on the GP
text of SP2" (100). The influence Andrew notes here is textual, and the word "equal" misleading.
The statistics Andrew provides supporting this statement actually show that these two texts (ST
and SP1) influenced SP2 in demonstrably different ways.[17] Printer's copy for SP2
is ST. Any substantive agreement of SP1 and SP2 against ST is coincidental, or possibly the
result of an
editorial change made in the particular copy of ST that served as printer's copy for
both.
[18]
Lounsbury noted that Speght states in his introductory note "To
the Readers" (1598) that he did not involve himself in the edition until late in the printing process:
"three parts thereof alreadie printed." The various sections of the book should thus differ
textually, reflecting Speght's care (or interference) (Lounsbury, 270-271). What Speght's work
amounted to is unknown, but it could well account for the apparent mixed textual affiliation of the
General Prologue. The copies Speght refers to when he claims the text is "by old written copies
corrected" ("To the Readers" 1598) or "by old copies reformed" (1602), are probably no older
than 1561 (so Pearsall, "Speght," 86-87).
