 | |  |
Notes
The Text of the Canterbury Tales, Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. 8 vols.; Chicago, 1940, Vols. I, II, et passim. The tribute to Professor Rickert in the Preface to Volume I explains the citation of "Manly and Rickert," rather than "Manly," as is more usual. Further citations of this work are in the text.
Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales: A Facsimile and Transcription of the Hengwrt Manuscript, with Variants from the Ellesmere Manuscript, ed. Paul G. Ruggiers (1979). Cited hereafter as 'First Fascicle.' Although the author no longer works on the Variorum Chaucer project, he wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Professor Ruggiers for first involving him in work leading to the present study. To Thomas W. Ross and Charles Moorman of the project, he owes particular debts for sharing their own experiences with the manuscripts. His greatest debt is to the late Frank B. Fieler of his own department for patience and encouragement.
First Fascicle, p. xx. While the present author has concluded that Professors Doyle and Parkes are mistaken in identifying the Hg and El scribes as one, he has profited greatly from Professor Doyle's unfailingly generous and gracious responses to his letters.
Charlton Hinman, The Printing and Proof-Reading of the First Folio of Shakespeare (1963), I, 180-181.
In an article in Essays and Studies, 1979 (pp. 1-18) and in conjunction with his own edition of Hg (London, 1980), N. F. Blake reaches conclusions at variance with Manly and Rickert's analyses. Because these conclusions also seem at variance with the Manly-Rickert data, the present study does not take them into account in its discussion of the textual relations of Hg and El.
| | |