ABSTRACT This article responds to A. S. G. Edwards’s assessment of the Oxford Chaucer and “whether it constitutes an improvement over its predecessors.” It describes a set of errors by Edwards that fundamentally undermine his critique. There is much to suggest that he failed to read parts of the edition that would have pre-empted many of his concerns, including clear statements of the editorial principles that govern it. Many criticisms seem unaware of past practice in the editing of Chaucer, especially in Edwards’s overwhelming concern with the edition’s chosen orthography. His recurrent concern with orthography also fails to grasp the clearly stated metrical principles by which the Oxford Chaucer proceeds.
Cannon et al. (Sun,) studied this question.