Copy-Text and Its Variants in Some
Recent Chaucer Editions
by
Joseph A. Dane
The purpose of the present paper is to examine the use of both the
term and concept "copy-text" with reference to some recent Chaucer
editions. The paper will be in two parts: the first deals with the concept of
copy-text in general, based on a conservative reading of Greg's definition;
the second deals with the use of this and related terminology primarily in
the recent Variorum Chaucer volumes, the Riverside Chaucer, and Blake's
edition of the Canterbury Tales.
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":
whenever there is more than one substantive text of comparable
authority, then although it will still be necessary to choose one of them as
copy-text, and to follow it in accidentals, this copy-text can be allowed no
over-riding or even preponderant authority so far as substantive readings are
concerned. ("Rationale," pp. 384-385)
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:
The true theory is, I contend, that the copy-text should govern
(generally) in the matter of accidentals, but that the choice between
substantive readings belongs to the general theory of textual criticism and
lies altogether beyond the narrow principle of the copy-text. ("Rationale,"
pp. 381-382)
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:
Since the adoption of a copy-text is a matter of convenience rather
than of principle . . . it follows that there is no reason for treating it as
sacrosanct, even apart from the question of substantive variation. Every
editor aiming at a critical edition will, of course, correct scribal or
typographical errors. He will also correct readings in accordance with any
errata included in the edition taken as copy-text. I see no reason
why he should not alter misleading or eccentric spellings which he is
satisfied emanate from the scribe or compositor and not from the author.
If the punctuation is persistently erroneous or defective an editor may prefer
to discard it altogether to make way for one of his own. (p. 385)
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.
Base Text and Best Text
Before proceeding to some of the implications of Greg's theory and
finally to the problems of medieval editing, "copy-text" needs to be
distinguished from related editorial terminology, "best text," "base text,"
and such nontechnical terms as "basic text." The differences are not simply
matters of definition. The terms "best text" and "base text" imply specific
editorial procedures quite different from those implied by the terms
"copy-text." The non-technical "basic text" owes its utility to the very
absence of a restrictive definition.
Greg, as often noted, assumed a genealogical method of editing, and
it was that system to which his terminology applied. Even though the
editing of modern texts employs different methods, most of the interesting
and productive theorizing on Greg has been based on situations where the
language of the genealogical method still has some application. For
example, the difference between early and later printed editions of a text
(and consequently the choice of which to use as the basis of an edition)
could be described as one of simple filiation, involving a single line of
descent complicated by authorial variants. But medieval editing almost
never confronts such a situation (most of the manuscript evidence post-dates
the author), and the definition of "copy-text" in terms of an abstraction such
as "authorial intentions" could apply to very few editorial situations. For
medieval editions, the language of one editorial method is less easily
transferable to another.
The types of editorial procedures implied by these terms are various,
but in Chaucer editing, the three basic types of edition defined some eighty
years ago by Eleanor Hammond can be used as a starting point: (1) the
exact reproduction of single manuscript (Wright's 1848-51 edition); (2)
eclectic (the editions of Tyrwhitt 1775-78 and Skeat 1894, 1899); (3)
critical. By "critical," Hammond refers to a recension (or genealogical)
edition; in 1908, there were
no full-length Chaucer editions of this type, but the most notorious later
attempt at such an edition is the Manly-Rickert.
[7]
The three terms "best text," "base text," and "copy-text" can be
matched with these three types of editorial procedure. Hammond's first type
of edition relies on a single exemplar; and this exemplar is often called a
"best text." The word "best" may be ill-chosen, since a "best-text edition"
could certainly be made of any manuscript, even a manifestly inferior one
(for this reason, I shall refer to so-called "best-text editions" as "single-text
editions" below). But if the term is used, it implies a specific editorial
theory or procedure.[8] In medieval
studies, a so-called "best text" is simply the exemplar followed
conservatively in a single-text edition. The term "base text," by contrast,
refers to the exemplar(s) on which an eclectic edition is based. Such a base
text might also be called a "foundation text" or "basic text"; the advantage
of these latter terms is that they do not seem to have developed technical
meanings or implications. In
practice, an eclectic method would call for the use of a particular exemplar
even if only as the base in which to admit corrections from a number of
other sources (e.g., Skeat's use of El for his Canterbury
Tales);
in early editing (and even in some recent editing) the base manuscript might
be an earlier edition (e.g., Tyrwhitt's apparent use of black-letter
editions).[9] A "critical" edition in
Hammond's sense (a recension or genealogical edition) would not
necessarily have a base manuscript, since all manuscripts might be of equal
authority; but it must have a copy-text or at least something to serve the
various functions of a copy-text. That one of these functions in most
practical editorial situations is to provide a basis for collation is generally
simply assumed; McGann is one of the few textual-critical theorists to make
it explicit (Critique, p. 24). In addition, that critical edition
must take its spelling conventions from
somewhere, since the genealogical methods that lead to a substantive
authorial reading do not lead to the author's conventions on accidentals
(this, of course, is on the assumption that scribes and early publishers
distinguished substantives from accidentals as we might, and further that
they felt responsibility only to retain the former as authorial). According to
Greg, a copy-text can be chosen "irrespective of descent" (and thus
irrespective of its authority on substantive matters). The exemplar Greg
selects as copy-text in his edition of the Antichrist Play from the Chester
Cycle is the earliest extant, but not the highest in the stemmata; that is,
authority
on substantives (genealogical priority) is independent of its authority on
accidentals (here a matter of chronological priority).
[10]
Greg's theory of copy-text deals specifically with genealogical
editions. Thus, an edition that relies on a copy-text in Greg's sense does not
necessarily give what McGann calls "highest presumptive authority" to a
single manuscript or exemplar. An edition that does so rely on a single
exemplar may characterize it more usefully as a "base text"; if this
exemplar has even greater authority (overriding or preemptive authority),
the editors are producing a variant of a single-text edition and can then
legitimately refer to this exemplar as a "best-text" (see, however, n8 and
discussion above).
Although there can be no justification for calling a base text a
copy-text, there are still advantages for retaining the term, even in editions
that do not use the genealogical methods of Greg. Under any editorial
method, an exemplar can be copy-text in Greg's sense if it serves as an
authority for accidentals and (as a practical matter) a basis for collation.
The use of the term should force an editor to describe editorial procedures
and in particular to articulate the nature of the authority possessed by an
exemplar or manuscript. Surely a copy-text can serve as base text, and in
a single-text edition the copy-text is generally best, base, and
copy-text.[11] But the choice of a base
text does not mean that the question of copy-text is closed; in addition, the
choice of an exemplar as a basis for collation and an authority for
accidentals (a copy-text) does not mean that a base text or best text must
even exist.
There are further implications to Greg's theory; under a perhaps
overly literal interpretation, the copy-text could be a text of some
other text. (I am going to reject such a use shortly, for obvious
reasons, but the theoretical possibility of it should be reckoned with.) For
early modern texts, this theoretical possibility poses few practical
difficulties. If a fifteenth-century text existed only, say, in an
eighteenth-century print, it is difficult to imagine why an editor would wish
to produce an original spelling edition or how that edition could be justified.
But the edition would certainly be possible. To produce it, an editor might
rely either on a selected system of normalization as do classicists or might
choose in lieu of such a system of normalization another text,
one that would be ignored in all substantive matters. In classical editions,
a major function of the copy-text is served by the text (a dictionary or
perhaps better a school-grammar) that
contains the spelling and punctuation conventions the edition follows. As for
the basis of collation, any earlier edition (or translation) can serve as well,
whatever its authority; even a list of line numbers
could conceivably serve this function.
[12] In these cases, there again is no
reason to
invoke Greg's copy-text, since all the explicit functions of a copytext are
served by texts with no authority in substantive matters. Greg's repeated
denials that the copy-text has authority on substantive matters somewhat
paradoxically implies that it has at least potential authority in such matters.
And it is this potential authority that modern textual-critical theorists have
strengthened by referring to "presumptive" authority.
[13]
In many cases, the term copy-text might well be avoided, and its
potential functions defined and dealt with separately. There is clearly no
reason for a classicist to speak of a copy-text in relation to normalization.
Nor is there any advantage to using the term if all it refers to is a "basis of
collation"; the more explicit term is preferable. Moreover, a system of
normalization or basis for manuscript collation that does not contain a
version of the text to be edited cannot usefully be called a copy-text even
if it serves the same function.[14]
Greg's article was a reaction against what he called "the tyranny of
the copy-text" (p. 382). It was an attempt in part to reduce the functions of
the copy-text, taking away from it the substantive authority that modern
textual critics have begun to restore. A return to Greg's definition of the
term might define the copy-text out of existence in many editorial
situations. For medievalists, this might not be a bad thing. In practice, the
difference between copy text, base text, and best text involves the relative
authority granted a certain exemplar; the difference could be considered one
of degree. But keeping the theoretical distinctions in view would lead to a
more accurate assessment of that authority. Furthermore, a more
conservative use of the term would avoid the confusion between the
imagined tasks of a medieval "editorial office" and the real tasks of a
modern one. Since we do not know in most cases the precise procedures or
theories a medieval editor followed,
there seems little point in describing them with technical vocabulary
developed to apply to the twentieth-century editor.
Recent Chaucer Editions I (Single-Text Editions)
One of the more striking aspects of recent Chaucer editions is the
privileging of the Hengwrt manuscript (Hg) for the Canterbury
Tales. Among the editors to have done this are Pratt, Blake, those
involved in the Oklahoma Variorum project, and even Donaldson in his
earlier normalized edition. The justification for the reliance on Hg is
generally claimed to lie in the Manly-Rickert edition of 1940.[15]
The problems of using Manly-Rickert (a genealogical edition) in
support of a single-text edition based on Hg have been pointed out
before.[16] Manly-Rickert's prefaces
are often baffling, and the varying stemmata constructed never show Hg in
a position of supreme authority for O' (the supposed common ancestor of
all manuscripts that Manly-Rickert attempt to reconstruct). The conflation
of competing and often antithetical editorial theories has led to confusion,
both in the methods themselves and in the language used to describe them
(e.g., best text, base text, copy text, basis of collation).[17]
Such conflation seems to be acknowledged in the Editor's Preface of
the 1979 facsimile—the first volume produced by the Variorum
Project:
The editors as a group made the important decision to adopt the
Hengwrt manuscript as base text for the
Variorum Chaucer.
They further decided that the Hengwrt text would be utilized as a "best"
text and that in the individual fascicles the editors would emend it
cautiously and conservatively. . . . This text, we believe—and the
labors
of Manly and Rickert bear us out—is as close as we will come to
Chaucer's own intentions for large parts of the
Canterbury
Tales. And, as Baker states below, the best-text method, modified
for
our purposes, provides a neutral text of the
Canterbury Tales
to which the commentary may be appended and referred.
[18]
According to this, a best-text method is used to provide a text to serve as
the basis of commentary; but the supposedly "neutral" text that results is
supposedly one that cannot be improved, that is, the best-text method yields
the best edition.
[19]
The Variorum Chaucer has dual purposes, and these lead to
contradictions (both in tone and in substance) in the prefaces. In the General
Editors' Preface (I quote here the version printed in Ross's Miller's
Tale), the editors say that their purpose is "only to provide a text
upon which the commentary should depend" (p. xv). But the conflicting
claims of the 1979 Preface (to produce the best possible edition) are
scattered through each volume. In his own introduction, Ross (perhaps
following Pearsall p. 97) states: "The text of The Miller's Tale in this
edition is in one way more ambitious than is the monumental work of MR.
. . . The Variorum Edition may thus present The Miller's
Tale
as Chaucer wrote it, as nearly as our present knowledge and resources
permit" (p. 61).[20] These inflated
claims and attendant rhetoric are occasionally repeated in reviews.
According to one reviewer, a recent Variorum editor gives "all the evidence
necessary for establishment of a text which would probably be as near to
the original as present knowledge and scholarship could make
possible."[21] Pratt's earlier edition
makes similar claims: "the present text represents as accurately as possible
Manly's 'latest common original of all extant manuscripts' (O'), with the
correction of all recognizable errors in the transmission to O' of Chaucer's
own text (O). . . . In attempting to recreate the text as Chaucer wrote it .
. ." (p. 561).
The arguments of Pratt and the Variorum Editors seem to assert that
Manly and Rickert's reconstruction of the latest common ancestor (O') of
all MSS is itself not in question. All that remains to do is to correct the
"manifest errors" in that reconstructed ancestor and we are as close to
Chaucer's text (O) "as it is possible to get."
But how can Hg be used for what precedes Manly-Rickert's O' when
O' is it itself constructed in part on the basis of Hg? The argument for this
depends on a serious misrepresentation of Manly-Rickert's methods;
Pearsall's statement is an example:
The present edition assumes that the unique authority of Hg enables
us to recover with some degree of assurance the text of the author's
original. This reliance on Hg is not unreasonable, given its freedom from
accidental error and editorial improvement, and given too that the text that
MR print, as established by the processes of recension, moves consistently
from the text used as the basis for collation, Skeat's
Student Edition (MR, 2.5), that is, a text based predominantly on El,
towards Hg. (Pearsall, p. 97; see also p. 122, quoted below)
The manifest circularity of the first part of this statement is not at issue
here. What concerns me is only the failure to distinguish a "basis for
collation" from "base text." Pearsall's reasoning, in a single-text edition,
conflates the language of two competing methods. Manly-Rickert used
Skeat's "Student Edition" as a "basis of collation" for their recension
edition; Skeat's edition is itself based on El (it is eclectic). But Pearsall
implies that Manly-Rickert took Skeat as their "base text," emending it in
the direction of Hg; that is, he argues as if they were producing a different
type of edition.
Manly-Rickert, in the section entitled "Manner of Collating" to which
Pearsall refers, discuss only the method of collating manuscripts and the
mechanical means of recording variants; as a "basis for collation," they
used Skeat's Student's Edition (2:5). Its function was only to collate
manuscripts and to aid in the construction of lemmata. The readings in that
edition are of course irrelevant and unrecorded. As a text, it has no more
authority than a translation, which could have served the same function. To
ignore this is to assume that Manly and Rickert, whatever their failings as
editors, after examining and describing all the Canterbury
Tales
manuscripts, did not recognize the difference between a manuscript
authority and a modern edition. I am not certain what Pearsall means by his
statement that the Manly-Rickert edition "moves consistently from the text
used as the basis for collation . . . toward Hg." But if all this means is that
in cases where Manly-Rickert
differ from Skeat they tend toward Hg, I see nothing surprising in that. Had
they used Hg as a basis for collation, similar results might have obtained.
In cases where they differed from Hg, they might well "tend" toward
something else, perhaps El, perhaps even Skeat.
A basis for collation is something used to collate manuscripts and
produce lemmata, not a "base text" for an edition. As the Variorum Editors
recognize, "The decision about what is a lemma is, of course, purely
arbitrary" (Ross, p. 52). To choose a version of the text to be edited is wise
from an economic standpoint only, since it would be tedious to set forth
every manuscript reading as a variant of an arbitrary lemma.
But two sets of lemmata must be distinguished. The preliminary lemmata
produced while collating MSS (defined as variants of a "basis of collation")
are not the same as those listed in the notes to an edited text (defined as
variants of the edited text).[22]
Manly and Rickert use a genealogical method, and as such, they have
no base text at all. Pearsall acknowledges this, but then describes
Manly-Rickert's "basis for collation" as a "copy-text": "It is noteworthy,
therefore, that MR, though they use no base manuscript (the copy-text is
SK), draw frequently toward Hg and away from El in their choice of
readings" (p. 122).[23]
To speak of a copy-text for Manly-Rickert is misleading and
unnecessary, even though certain texts can be identified as serving functions
associated with a copy-text. The Student Skeat operates as a basis of
collation only (it does not even provide line numbers). For matters of
spelling, the function of copy-text is served by a system presumably based
on a comparison of Hg and El:
Any attempt to include spelling and dialect forms would complicate
the record to the point of uselessness. . . . (2:10)
The brief chapter on Dialect and Spelling very inadequately represents
the large amount of attention which has been devoted to this subject by
Miss Mabel Dean of our staff. Miss Dean first attempted to discover
whether the more carefully written MSS of the first two decades of the
fifteenth century showed any regularity or approximation toward a common
standard, with a view to making use of these results in the spelling of our
text. She discovered that there was strong evidence of the prevalance of
common habits which, if systematized, approximated very closely the
spelling found in the Hengwrt and Ellesmere MSS. This was accordingly
adopted as our standard. (1:ix-x)[24]
In reference to the Hg-based texts themselves (the Variorum and the
editions of Blake and Pratt), the notion of "copy-text" should be merely
redundant (thus unnecessary), since "copy-text" is simply subsumed under
the notion of "base text" and occasionally "best text." The usual way the
Variorum Editors speak of Hg is as a "base text" (the Variorum is "based
on/upon Hg."[25] But the term
"copy-text" is sometimes used as a variation: "On the other hand, Hg omits
two couplets, both of which are included in the present
edition, though enclosed in brackets to indicate that they are not in the
copy-text" (Ross, p. 54). Moreover, "copy-text" is also used to mean "the
exemplar for a specific extant MS": "[Hg and El] were written from
different exemplars at different times. . . . El's copytext had two extra
couplets, which may have been Chaucer's . . ." (ibid.).
There is no question that Hg is the "copy-text" for the Variorum
Edition, but to speak of it as such is merely to invoke textual-critical
language that applies to a different editorial situation. Hg's function as
copy-text is trivial, since it is also the base text and for these editors the
best text. The Variorum is a simple variant of a single-text edition; Hg is
"conservatively emended" from a number of manuscripts, selected on the
basis of Manly-Rickert's groupings.[26]
It thus has the potential for incorporating not only the virtues of the
genealogical, eclectic, and single-text methods but their failings as
well.
The arguments of N. F. Blake for the privileging of Hg are similar
in many respects to those of the Variorum Editors. But Blake's editing
theory gives greater authority to Hg, and provides as well a dynamic model
of manuscript exemplars that complicates the entire enterprise of producing
a static (i.e., printable) edition.[27]
Blake's edition is, like the Variorum, a single-text edition, although Blake
refers to Hg as "base MS": "in the light of our present knowledge it is
safest to edit the poem . . . using Hg as the base manuscript and excluding
anything not found in it" ("On Editing," p. 111). Blake acknowledges the
convenience of an assumption of strict linear descent of MSS, an
assumption that would turn any manuscript into an absolute authority for all
posterior readings: "If we accept that there is a manuscript tradition which
goes back to one manuscript, Hg., then there are three possible ways to edit
the poem" (p. 105). Blake's purpose is to
discard the notion of "authorial variants" and thus to simplify the editorial
process; the assumption of lineal descent of all MSS from a single
manuscript is a convenient polemical position. But the assumption Blake
seems to have made is less radical. Blake assumes the descent of all MSS
from an exemplar copied by Hg: "That all manuscripts are ultimately
dependent upon Hg's copy-text will guide editorial practice, for it
presupposes that there was only one copy-text" (p. 112); "later scribes used
Hg's exemplar rather than Hg" (p. 113). This assumption, of course,
challenges the absolute authority of Hg, since it acknowledges other lines
of descent from O' (i.e., radial descent, rather than linear descent). If this
is the case, Hg has no more authority a priori than any other
MS., a difficulty Blake tries to overcome by allowing that other MSS may
"suggest . . . how Hg may be emended or corrected" (p. 119), leaving open
the question of whether they can do so with any authority.[28]
But let us look here at Blake's notion of copy-text, by which he
means
the exemplar for Hg, "Chaucer's working copy" ("On Editing," p.
115).
[29] Blake claims that this
hypothetical exemplar was constantly revised in an "editorial office" (p.
115). As does Pearsall, Blake uses "copy-text" to mean both an editor's
copy-text as well as an historical exemplar for an extant version of a text.
This notion of copy-text is part of further terminological slippage: "But if
the exemplar (i.e., Chaucer's own fragments) was being constantly
emended in the editorial office, the good text would gradually disappear
under a host of corrections" (p. 116). Whereas Manly-Rickert studied the
extremely complex relations among real manuscripts in search of a singular
hypothetical origin (O'), Blake reverses this logic, dismissing all
complexities among real manuscripts as meaningless, and hypothesizing
instead an equally complex (and less well-documented) history that produces
the single extant manuscript Hg. Thus, the problems associated with the
editorial copy-text (problems the very nature of a single-text edition should
solve) are reintroduced on a hypothetical, historical level, where such terms
as "exemplar," "Chaucer's own fragments," "copy-text," and "good text"
exist in some uneasy equation.
[30]
Blake's apparent reliance on a single authority, an assumption that should
simplify matters, in fact hypothesizes a situation (a medieval editorial
office) in which no single authority seems to exist or can be articulated
much less recovered. Thus Blake can dismiss as "the rather uncertain art
of literary criticism" ("On Editing," p. 103) all attempts to recover
editorially more than a group of Chaucerian fragments.
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."
Kane's Piers Plowman
Without question, the most significant recent edition of a Middle
English text is the Kane-Donaldson Piers Plowman
[38]—a work that will probably
influence
future Chaucer editors as much as any of the specific Chaucer editions
discussed above. I cite this in conclusion in hopes that its editorial language
will prove as influential as its substance and tone. Kane's entire enterprise
is directed against the possibility of a recension edition; thus, the
terminology of Greg designed particularly for such an edition is not easily
applicable. The language adopted by Kane, however, is instructive. In the
edition of the A Version:
The basic manuscript or copy-text is T. This was chosen for several
reasons. First, it is one of the few A manuscripts without large omissions
or physical imperfections. . . . The choice is thus between T and Ch, which
are both complete and not demonstrably inferior copies. . . . (p 165)
The grammatical and orthographical forms of T have generally been
preserved. . . . No attempt has been made to restore the morphology of the
author's copy from manuscript evidence. (pp. 168-169)
T is as true a copy-text as could be possible in a non-recension edition, here
serving to supply a system of regularization for accidentals. It is also a base
text (although Kane does not so describe it), since the kind of edition Kane
is engaged in must be called eclectic. Kane wishes to place himself in a
direct line with Greg and Housman, and his primary target is the "tyranny
of the copy-text"—the editorial procedure that would substitute a
physical
authority for editorial experience. I assume this is why he refers to T as a
copy-text or (using non-technical terminology) as a "basic text." Since all
changes from T are shown in square brackets, the degree to which T is the
"highest presumptive authority" will reflect the editor's willingness to
include such brackets in the text.
In the B Version, the textual-critical language becomes even more
explicit, as does the reference to Greg:
The ideal basic manuscript or copy-text [ref. to Greg] is the one
which first provides the closest dialectical and chronological approximation
to the poet's language, and then second, most accurately reflects his original
in substantive readings. It is because the function of a copy- or basic text
is to furnish the accidentals of an edition that the first requirement is
primary: the least corrupt manuscript will not necessarily fulfil it best. (p.
214)
Kane-Donaldson choose W as their "basic manuscript" (p. 216): "For one
thing W's consistent spelling and systematic grammar afford a clear model
for the many readings that have to be introduced into the text by
emendation" (p. 215). The citation of Greg is significant, since the function
of a copy-text becomes more limited as the editor's own intervention
increases. The Kane-Donaldson edition is still an eclectic or base-text
edition, and this is reflected in the language above. But the presumption of
authority in substantive matters is secondary. Again, describing such a base
manuscript in the language of Greg puts the editor under fewer constraints
to follow it. And the difference between the B Version and A Version
editions is in one sense a recognition of those implications.
Kane uses terminology only when its history has some import: thus
his use of the term "copy-text." Elsewhere, non-technical terminology
suffices (thus "basic-text" instead of the technical terms "best text" or "base
text"). Furthermore, he uses technical terminology to reduce external
authority, not to elevate it.[39]
Conclusion
McGann's definition of copy-text seems to be a reasonable extension
of Greg's notion, and certainly is useful in practice:
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. That is to say, after examining the surviving
documents in which the text is transmitted forward, the editor chooses one
of these—or sometimes a combination— as his copytext. The
copytext
serves as the basis of the critical edition that is to be produced.
(Social
Values, p. 177)
The rejoinder to this argument is that it provides an excellent definition of
a "base text" (implying an eclectic edition), not a "copy-text" (implying a
recension edition or what was once meant by the phrase "critical edition").
Furthermore, the argument assumes that editors must choose a text as their
highest authority. Yet recension editions still exist, and Kane has proved
that even a base-text edition can exist without attributing undue authority to
the basic text itself.
Chaucerians, however, seem to be moving toward single-text editions,
and Greg's inadvertent defense of such editions can certainly be taken at
face value: "what many editors have done is to produce, not editions of
their authors' works at all, but only editions of particular authorities for
those works, a course that may be perfectly legitimate in itself, but was not
the one they were professedly pursuing" (p. 384). Editions of Hg and
editions of Chaucer are two different things, and there are certainly reasons
to prefer the former (economics, editorial consistency in a project involving
many editors, etc.). And editors might do well to portray legitimate,
economically based decisions for what they are, rather than to obscure them
with textual-critical jargon. This is the approach successfully taken by the
Toronto Medieval Latin Texts series. Furthermore, editorial projects are not
necessarily doomed because they have multiple (and possibly conflicting)
purposes. Poiron's cheap
student edition of the Roman de la Rose follows a single
manuscript (allowing the reader to reconstruct it) while adding in brackets
the lines of the textus receptus not included in it. In so doing,
Poiron can incorporate earlier editions rather than condemn them.[40]
An obvious conclusion here would be for Middle English editors to
drop the notion of copy-text altogether unless they are willing to define it
precisely (as, say, Greetham, "Normalisation") and to speak directly to the
problem of what the accidentals provided by such a text are supposed to
represent
or suggest: those of the author? or simply those of one of the author's
near-contemporaries? Unless an editor is interested in grappling with such
questions, I see little reason to invoke Greg's term. A statement such as
"the base text for the edition is X (corrected), with forms normalized
according to the edition of Robinson" makes perfect sense and can be easily
justified. An edition will not (or should not) be condemned simply because
it is selective in the issues it deals with. The use of the term "copy-text" for
Middle English editions that are completely different from the type of
edition on which Greg based his theory leads generally to confusion and to
an obscuring of the often legitimate editorial procedures employed.
Notes
