Bringing More Confort and Mirthe

This issue of the Chaucer Review—Volume 37.1—is the first to emerge without the indomitable editorial steerage of Robert W. Frank, Jr. At thirty-six years old, the journal now begins a new phase, new despite the fact that we as its new editors wish, with all humility and dedication, to carry forward in its pages Bob Frank's inimitably humane, learned esprit. The prospect for a new phase in the life of the Chaucer Review is both exciting and daunting. One wants to approach it rather conservatively because of the journal's important place in medieval studies as a forum for scholars and readers of the Middle English canon (broadly conceived), and, especially, of the traditions, controversies, literary/political associations, and multi-lingual, multi-national, multi-temporal contexts of the master poet Geoffrey Chaucer. At the same time, a new beginning offers just that: a time for heightened reevaluation, vigorous renewal, and discerning reassessment of all the literate, critical, and theoretical directions that readers, scribes, editors, and scholars of Chaucer—and related texts—have forged in the past six hundred or so years.

In the Bibliography of the First 30 Years of The Chaucer Review, Peter G. Beidler and Martha A. Kalnan aptly note how Bob Frank has "shepherded two generations of Chaucer scholars—more than 550 of them—into print." ¹ That number now exceeds 650. As founding co-editors, Robert Frank and Edmund Reiss launched the inaugural issue in the summer of 1966, and there they explained their intent—"bringing confort and mirthe"—in the creation of a new journal dedicated to Chaucer studies. It was to provide "a forum for the responsible discussion of the approaches to medieval literature and interpretations of Chaucer's writings." ² To this end, they promised that they would "not hesitate to print the controversial," adding that

We ask only that every contribution be well written, well thought out, and well substantiated. We will not reject an article simply because we do not agree with it. We, the editors, tend, in fact, to disagree with each other much of the time; and the members of our Editorial Board are not noted for the unanimity of their approaches and points of view. Similarly, we do not feel it is our responsibility to "improve" a paper, to bolster, for example, an argument that may be weak. Anyone who submits something for publication should, we believe, be prepared to stand behind it and receive adverse criticism. Contributors to the Chaucer Review are advised, therefore, that they are indeed presenting their work for public scrutiny and debate. (2)

This goal of open inquiry and, indeed, open discordance, in the pursuit of fuller knowledge has given Chaucer Review much of its distinctive character over the years, and it has played no small part in the energetic growth of medieval studies in the U.S. and Britain in the past three to four decades, as witnessed by the revitalized Chaucer Society (the New Chaucer Society), and, later, the formation of the Pearl-Poet Society, the John Gower Society, The Yearbook of Langland Studies, the Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship, Exemplaria, the Early Book Society, the Lollard Society, and so on.

Edmund Reiss retired from the journal's editorship in 1970, while Robert Frank carried on, first with Bruce Rosenberg as assistant editor (1970-79), and later Marilyn Mumford serving in that capacity (1979-88). Jeanne Krochalis came on as a second assistant editor in 1986, and after Marilyn's retirement, Mary Hamel joined the editorial staff in 1988. In 1994 Jeanne and Mary were named associate editors, and the editorial triumvirate of Bob, Jeanne, and Mary has produced Chaucer Review for the past fourteen years. The goal has held steady: the publishing of clearly written, intelligently argued critical essays treating the literatures of the British Isles written between 1100 and 1500, as well as continental texts bearing upon that literature. To this end, the...