University of Virginia Library

Greg's Notion of Copy-Text

In a recent book, Jerome J. McGann gives what seems to be a standard and unproblematic definition of copy-text: "In the post-Greg context, the term signifies what an editor chooses to take as the text of highest presumptive authority in the preparation of an eclectic, or critical, edition. . . . The copytext serves as the basis of the critical edition that is to be produced."[1] This definition is a clear one, but McGann associates the term with specific editorial procedures different from those assumed by Greg himself. As I shall discuss below, to invoke a copy-text in McGann's sense (with its reference to Greg) is to invoke potentially competing editorial theories. For Chaucerians, the problem is compounded by the assumption that medieval editors (scribes) and modern editors are analogous, and one Chaucer editor has used the term to mean what a medieval scribe (rather than a modern editor) might work from. N. F. Blake refers to the hypothetical exemplar for the Hengwrt manuscript of the Canterbury Tales as follows: "That all MSS are ultimately dependent upon Hg's copy-text will guide editorial practice; for it presupposes that there was only one copy-text."[2] That such uses of the term can be misleading is a point I shall be arguing in both sections of this paper. Here it is enough to note that what McGann and Blake refer to above as "copy-texts"

could be just as accurately and unambiguously referred to as "base text" and "exemplar" respectively.

Greg's definition differs from the understanding of the term both by his predecessors and by his followers. The copy-text is not necessarily (in McGann's words) "the text of highest presumptive authority." It is, rather, the version of a text the editor chooses to follow for "accidentals" as opposed to "substantives":

Substantives are lexical and grammatical elements; accidentals are what Greg calls "formal matters" (p. 385; the term "material matters" might paradoxically be more accurate). These include spelling and punctuation.[3] Thus the copy-text for Greg provides "guidance" in the editor's representation of accidentals in an edition (p. 384); it provides formal standards (e.g., spelling conventions) for the substantive changes an editor introduces ("editorial emendations should be made to conform to the habitual spelling of the copy-text," p. 386). But it also has a second function, not explicitly mentioned by Greg but certainly assumed, which is to serve as a "basis of collation."

In most practical instances of editing, the copy-text might well be accorded authority in substantive matters, and under certain editorial methods, it would necessarily have such authority. But an exemplar's status as copy-text has nothing to do with its potential authority on substantives, and on this Greg is explicit:

Greg's parenthetical "(generally)" is worth noting. So reluctant is he to accept the authority of any single exemplar, that he allows the copy-text itself to be corrected in the matter of accidentals or even disregarded: This implies that the copy-text can be an abstract rather than a material thing. For medievalists, this possibility would bear largely on questions of spelling and normalization, and would be of no more interest than Greg seems to give it. But the implication that the copy-text can be an abstraction realized only as an editorial construct has been more fully exploited in other areas (Gabler's Ulysses is an obvious example).[4]

Greg's distinctions have different value for the editing of texts from different periods. For an editor of classical texts, Greg's discussion is only partially applicable: classical editions are generally normalized. For most Greek texts, normalization to medieval standards is simply conventional; for classical Latin texts, the standard modern system of normalization is considered more representative of authorial spelling than what is found in any extant medieval exemplar. In either case, most accidentals are determined by the particular conventions of spelling the editor adopts. Once the editor has determined the system or rules governing accidentals, the only editorial decisions deal with substantive matters (lexical and grammatical), which, when combined with the system of normalization governing accidentals, will produce a normalized orthography and punctuation. Editorial decisions on punctuation (a period? or semi-colon?) must still be made, but such decisions regarding particular accidentals are to be made on the substantive level (grammar, lexicon) or even on a thematic or aesthetic level (theme, tone, etc.). What a classical editor might call a "copy-text" will thus not be selected for its presumed authority on accidentals. If one of its functions is to provide a basis of collation (or a set of preliminary line numbers) there might well be reason to choose as copy-text the textus receptus, however corrupt, or even a recent edition. But to call such a text a "copy-text" in Greg's sense would be misleading.[5]

Greg's article was speaking specifically to the problems associated with fifteenth- and sixteenth-century texts (p. 378). As in the case of classical texts, substantive matters can here be separated from accidental matters. But the editorial situation differs from that faced by the classical editor in two ways: (1) no standard system of punctuation and spelling exists, and (2) the earliest manuscript might well be contemporary (or nearly contemporary) with the author and thus could reflect authorial accidentals with some accuracy. Editors

of more modern texts face a different situation: the earliest edition is generally contemporary with the author and later editions may well be revised by the author. Thus the question of choosing a copy-text for the editor of nineteenth-century texts tends to involve substantive matters.[6] The editors of medieval texts draw on textual-critical theories and language from all these fields; but their situation is also different. They will not admit casually a modern system of normalization as do classical editors and as did the earlier editors for such series as the Société des Anciens Textes Français; but they are equally reluctant to accept the system offered by any single manuscript source unless that manuscript is also given credit for "presumptive authority" on substantive matters.