University of Virginia Library

A. The Initial Reception of Robinson's Text

As George Reinecke noted of the reviews of the first edition, "the Chaucer

student who has grown up in a world where Robinson is something of a fixture may well be surprised at the inconclusive nature of these evaluations, the rather small number of which is also surprising."[2] The one who wrote of the text in the friendliest terms, J. S. P. Tatlock, lauded the editor for choosing the via media between the eclecticism of "the literary man," Skeat, and the automatic registration of the consensus of the best manuscripts by the textual genealogist, John Koch. But in his lavish praise of the text, Tatlock clearly came down on the side of the habit by 'the literary man' of overbearing manuscript testimony; nonetheless, he raised a question about Robinson's full knowledge of the manuscript evidence, noting "that the editor shows little awareness of the inaccuracy in minor details of the Chaucer Society's printed editions of the manuscripts,"[3] the avowed primary sources of Robinson's decisions. What Tatlock himself failed to note was the role played in Robinson's text by the manuscript which Tatlock had earlier attacked so vehemently, Harley 7334 (Ha4).[4]

In a much less sympathetic review, Dorothy Everett noted how very large metrical considerations had loomed in Robinson's decisions: ". . . he has frequently adopted readings because of their greater metrical regularity, even making use for this purpose of the suspect MS. Harleian 7334. This practice will appear a dangerous one to many Chaucerians in view of the uncertainties which still exist in regard to Chaucer's metre and in view of the fact that some medieval scribes certainly 'corrected' their texts in order to produce smoother lines" (YWES [1934]: 103-105). In a more extensive "review" published five years later, Everett focussed upon "deficiencies . . . connected with what may be called the 'linguistic' side of Mr. Robinson's work" (MA 7 [1938]: 204-213). Thus, in her two pieces on Robinson's edition, Everett was the only reviewer to remark at length upon the two guides which, as Reinecke pointed out, seem to have loomed much the largest in Robinson's editorial decisions: "Robinson . . . had marked preconceptions about Chaucer's meter and did not view the poet's grammatical usage either as tolerant or as marked by flux" (242). As did the few others who ventured to write about Robinson's textual method at all, Everett surmised, "In the case of the Canterbury Tales . . . like the Globe editors, he has used the Ellesmere manuscript as his basis. . ." (104). Everett and others who have shared this surmise have had to read between the lines because Robinson's discussion of his textual method was very sketchy indeed.