Abstract
The late George Kane revolutionized the editing of Middle English texts. He brought both a severely logical stance and an artist’s eye to the discipline. On the one hand, Kane demonstrated the inability of stemmatics to deal with complex traditions; on the other, he was inventive in imagining the modes of transmission by which errors might have emerged in copying. Yet these two powerful contributions sit uneasily together, and Kane is a hard (and not always consistent) master to learn from. Two examples of recent scholarly misunderstanding, predicated upon Kane’s prickly difficult explanations of his procedures, indicate some limitations of his contribution and imply the need for thoughtful reconsiderations not as yet undertaken.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
