PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 5, 2026The Chaucer Review0 citations

Plain Speaking: A Response to A. S. G. Edwards, “Editing and The Oxford Chaucer ”

View Full Paper
CCChristopher CannonJSJames Simpson

Key Points

  • This article aims to address and correct errors found in A. S. G. Edwards's critique of The Oxford Chaucer.
  • Analyzed Edwards's critique for inaccuracies and misinterpretations.
  • Reviewed the editorial principles of The Oxford Chaucer edition.
  • Compared Edwards's concerns with past practices in Chaucer editing.
  • Identified specific errors in Edwards's analysis that weaken his critique.
  • Demonstrated that Edwards overlooked critical statements regarding editorial principles.
  • Showed that concerns about orthography were not substantiated by stated metrical principles.

Abstract

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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Cannon et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a91e12d6127c7a504c1ae2https://doi.org/10.5325/chaucerrev.61.2.0126
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper