University of Virginia Library

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:

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:

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:

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: 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."