REVIEWS BEVERLY BOYD, ed. The Prioress's Tale.A Van'orum Edition ofthe Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. vol. 2, The Canterbury Tales. Part 20. Norman, Okla., and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987. Pp. xxviii, 195. $38.50. This is the fifth fascicle of The Canterbury Tales to appear in the Variorum Chaucer series. It follows the now standard format of the series: sections on sources and analogues, a survey of criticism, a textual commentary, fol lowed by a text, based on Hengwrt with textual and explanatory notes. In accordance with general Variorum practice, selected manuscripts have been collated together with twenty printed editions from Caxton to Pratt. The section dealing with sources, analogues, and criticism is generally sound, ifoccasionally otiose or puzzling. I doubt whether we need to know that Delehaye wrote the "standardgeneral work on medieval hagiography" or that the Bollandists are concerned with "screening and publishing correct lives ofthe saints" (p. 14). We could probably manage without the reconstructedscore ofAlmaRedemptonsMater(p. 16). It is odd to find the derivation ofclergion cited from the OED rather than MED (p. 23). Some mention might have been made ofthe fact that The Pn·oress's Tale is the tale most frequently extra�ted from the Canterbury Tales sequence to appear either with The SecondNun's Tale in largely hagiographical collections like Chetham 6709 and Harley 2382 or in other collections ofreligiousverse and prose like Harley 1704 and 2251, CUL Kk.1.3, and the more miscellaneous Bodleian Rawlinson C.86. Problems begin when one turns to the Textual Introduction. This is the shortest ofthe complete Canterbury Tales, and one might hope, therefore, that the textual record would be coherent, accurate, and complete within the limits that theVariorum has set itself. But there seems to be throughout this section a degree of confusion. One recurrently curious feature is the status of BL Egerton 2726 (En1 ) and New College Oxford D.314 (Ne). These manuscripts are employed to "supplement the collated manuscripts" (p. xxiii). What this means is that En1 is used when CUL Dd.4.24 is defective, and Ne when Princeton University 100 (He) is defective. This is made explicit in the Textual Introduction: "Where Dd is Out, En1 has been substituted as a source of readings" (p. 75); "Ne is used in this edition forthe collation ofHe when He is Out" (p. 79). (The same statement is made also on p. 61.) But this is not what is actually done. Readings for Ne andEn1 appear throughout, notjust at those points where there are lacunae in Dd and He. 189 STUDIES IN THE AGE OF CHAUCER This is, of itself, confusing. But since the Variorum generally collates only a few manuscripts (10 out of 82), it might seem churlish to carp at the inclusion of readings from additional ones. However, there are grounds for wondering whether Boyd conceives what she has done as a full and accurate record of these additional readings. She states, for example that "He appears with Ne in seventy-one recorded variants of PrSeq according to the Collations for this edition.... The manuscripts are apart in 46 variants" (p. 79). A quick check of thevariants printed in theCollationssuggeststhat neither figure is accurate: according to the printed variants, He and Ne agree at least 75 times; they vary at least 71 times (excluding lacunae). This may not be a final count. For example, at line 1869 Manly and Rickert report that for the reading been both He and Ne read thei, while Boyd records this form for He only.IfManly and Rickert are in error here, some comment would seem in order. But throughout the Textual Introduction there is difficulty in reconciling quantitative assertions with actual evidence. Thus, Boyd asserts that "Ad3 has... 14 unique variants" (p. 73). The list she gives includes one (line 1722) which the Textual Notes state is shared with other manuscripts and omits two (at lines 1802, 1848) which are recorded as unique. He lacks 20, not 18, lines (p. 79): lines 1625-42, 1735, 1807. And it contains not 14 unique variants (pp. 79-80) but, by analogy with those cited as unique, 16 (see lines 1701 and 1765 in the...
Read full abstract
Jan 7, 2025
Martin Avanzini + 3
Open Access
