Chaucer Editions II (Eclectic Editions, Riverside Edition,
Windeatt's Troilus)
Other recent Chaucer editions have been eclectic, and the language
describing them is varied. Fisher, in what is primarily a student edition,
uses the language from a number of textual-critical schools:
The method of producing the text for this edition has been . . . to
choose the best manuscript . . . and adhere closely to the text and
orthography. . . . In addition to indicating all the substantive changes in the
copy text, the textual notes in italics at the foot of each page give a
sampling of the more interesting variants from important manuscripts. . .
. The text of the Canterbury tales in this edition is based on the Ellesmere.
Some recent editors have used the Hengwrt manuscript . . . as their copy
text. . . . Although Ellesmere and Hengwrt represent the earliest and two
of the best texts. . . .
[31]
Fisher is clearly producing an eclectic edition using a base manuscript.
There is no reason to refer to copy-text at all, either to describe his own or
other editors' procedures, although the distinction Fisher implies here is that
a copy-text in his sense (the status accorded Hg by other editors) has more
"presumptive authority" than a base text.
Of more concern to me is the Riverside edition—an edition that
like
the Variorum attempts to serve a number of different purposes, some of
which may be incompatible. The title page claims it is The Riverside
Edition, Third Edition, "based on" the second edition of
Robinson.[32] That bibliographical
ambivalence is a reflection of the uncertainty and often contradictory nature
of editorial procedures. Robinson has always been perfectly serviceable as
a student edition, and the Riverside attempts (successfully) to maintain that
serviceability. Yet Robinson's editorial procedures have been so often
questioned that a more radical revision would certainly be required to
maintain its status as a scholarly text (or reference text). The Riverside
editors have not decided whether to depart absolutely from Robinson, and
the result is that Robinson often functions as copy-text and perhaps as base
text. The edition that by its very existence should
supersede the authority of Robinson's earlier editions has paradoxically
transformed Robinson's earlier text into a textual authority.
The Riverside edition and its individual editors have responded
rationally to the problem of updating a standard edition. Individual editors
are not forced to adopt a single system, nor to proclaim an unlikely
unanimity on editorial procedures. The relative clarity of the descriptions
of editorial procedures may well be a consequence. In general, the editors
avoid the issue of copy-text, and speak in a non-technical vocabulary. An
exception is the preface by Hanna and Lawler on Boece,
where
a very accurate indication of the opposing functions of base text and
copy-text is implied: "The work has been previously edited, always with C1
or C2 as base. . . . In this edition we follow C1 as copy-text. We chose
this manuscript because it is complete, tolerably consistent in its spellings,
and one of three manuscripts most faithful to O'" (p. 1151). Following
Greg's distinctions, C1 is chosen not because of its presumptive authority
on substantives, but rather because of its
accidentals (its spelling system) and its completeness. Elsewhere, the
Riverside editors tend to avoid the term, even when they are warranted in
using it: John Reidy, editing the Astrolabe, attempts to
"establish an archetype" (p. 1194), and selects a MS (B11) specifically on
the basis of its spelling conventions: Reidy does not refer to this as a
copy-text, although it is so precisely
in Greg's sense. John H. Fyler's edition of
House of Fame
is
based on different editorial methods, which, however justifiable, are clearly
described: "I have made only a few changes in Robinson's text. . . . The
many departures from the base text, F, . . ." (p. 1139).
More complex is the text of the Canterbury Tales; here,
the eclecticism of the Riverside shows to advantage. In comparison to
Boece, the Canterbury Tales is hardly edited
at all;
but Hanna's notes make no claim to the contrary:
For our textual presentation, we adopt the same eclectic (and perhaps
not completely consistent) procedures used in Robinson's second edition.
The text of the Tales remains based, as was Robinson's, on
El.
. . . we believe the text we print still to be Robinson's; rather than switch
copy texts or intercalate all possibly correct Hg readings, we prefer to
present a hybrid. (p. 1120)
In this straightforward, non-technical paragraph (itself in contrast with the
trenchant description of the earlier history of editions in the same section),
Hanna acknowledges that Robinson functions as base text. More important,
he proves that it is still possible to produce a serviceable edition without
reliance on a sudden and remarkable editorial consensus.
[33]
In the textual notes to Troilus, written by Stephen A.
Barney, Robinson seems to serve a different function: that of copy-text.
Barney begins with a statement of editorial consensus: "Windeatt largely
agrees with Robinson, Pratt [Pratt previously made "much of the analysis
of the variants and many decisions about authentic readings"], and me about
the appropriate methods of establishing the text, and for that reason
Windeatt's text and this one differ little in substantial matters" (p. 1161).
The base text is Cp: "The text here presented, like Robinson's (and
Donaldson's, Baugh's, and Windeatt's) is based on Cp. When Cp is
rejected or deficient, this edition prints the readings of Cl or J, in that
order" (p. 1162). But Barney's edition also makes use of a copy-text: "The
present edition is based on microfilm and other photographic copies of all
the authorities, supplemented by reference to printed editions and
discussions of the text, primarily Root and Windeatt. The goal
has been to adopt the forms of Robinson's text, which is sensible and
intelligent, while reconsidering "from scratch" the readings . . ." (p.
1161).[34] Barney's
first claim makes an apparent distinction between "forms" and "readings."
This is, I think, equivalent to Greg's distinction between accidentals and
substantives (punctuation is not at issue here). What this statement implies,
then, is that the copy-text (in Greg's sense) for this edition is Robinson's
second edition. Such claims elevate Robinson to the status of independent
authority on Chaucer's use of accidentals. Where Robinson himself spoke
of his spelling system as one of normalization, that vocabulary has now
disappeared.
[35]
Earlier, I noted that there was simply no point in calling a "system
of normalization" a copy-text, since such a system did not have to exist as
a version of the text to be edited (see Bowers, "Regularization and
Normalization," and above n. 14). The reason for that is obvious.
Robinson's system of normalization is not simply that found in his text of
Troilus but one that he constructed from his experience with
Chaucer's manuscripts and his knowledge of standard descriptions of
Middle English grammar. There is no reason for Robinson to speak of this
as a copy-text, since among Chaucer texts it is represented only by his
version. Barney disguises that system by allowing it to intrude into the text
as if it were represented in a medieval copy-text. And for that
reason, it would not only be legitimate for Barney to speak of Robinson as
copy-text, but also advisable, since such terminology would warn readers
of the extent to which Robinson's text serves as authority.
Windeatt's Troilus has a much different look, due in
part
to format (the printing of Boccaccio's Filostrato in a facing
column, the double column of notes), and in part to Windeatt's decision to
represent initial capital F graphically as ff.[36] But Windeatt also wishes to
present a
different type of edition:
The form of this edition presents the text of TC in the
context of the corpus of variants, or "readings", from the extant MSS, not
only because those variants can be of editorial value in helping to establish
the text, but also because they are held to be of a positive literary value, to
embody in themselves a form of commentary, recording the responses of
near-contemporary readers of the poetry. (p. 25)
Manuscripts, thus, are not to be construed necessarily as evidence of
authorial intentions, but rather as evidence of audience responses. This
allows Windeatt to direct his discussion away from the question of the
relative authority of manuscripts and to speak of manuscript relations as
"various scribal traditions of copying the poem" (p. 37). It also allows him
to define a copy-text:
The copy-text of this edition is MS Cp, and its form has been treated
conservatively. Cp's spelling conventions with regard to ff,
3, i/j, and u/v have been
retained.
Capitalisation is editorial, but with regard for Cp's practice. Cp's
abbreviations are silently expanded. Punctuation is editorial, but has been
kept reasonably light. (p. 65; see also p. 69)
Windeatt's naming Cp a copy-text rather than a base text (even though it
arguably serves such a function) seems in line with his effort to reduce the
authority of any single manuscript (representing authorial intentions) in
favor of the extant manuscripts (representing the text's reception). That is,
the edition is an attempt in some way to present an audience-based edition.
The wisdom of this may be questioned, but it does allow Windeatt to limit
the authority of his copy-text to formal matters.
[37]
Yet in practical terms, Windeatt's edition is little affected by his
theory. Like Blake, Windeatt simplifies editorial procedures by discounting
authorial revision (in this case, the theory of three authorial versions of
Troilus). Coherent authorial intentions can then be determined
by manuscript relations (p. 41), and some manuscripts better reflect those
intentions than others; the relative authority of manuscripts is of course
implicit in his description of Cp and Cl (pp. 68-69). Windeatt's "copy-text"
finally has as much authority over the substantives of the text as Barney's
"base text."
