Vance Ramsey on Manly-Rickert

It is fitting to lead off a discussion on the editing of the Canterbury Tales seventy years after the Manly-Rickert edition was published in 1940 with an account of the only monograph ever published on their work, Roy Vance Ramsey's large book, The Manly-Rickert Text of the "Canterbury Tales."¹ Ramsey's study was sixteen or seventeen years in the making, and though he arguably knew more about their project than any other person, not much attention was paid to it when it came out, and it was never reviewed. At my suggestion, a new edition has been issued to coincide with the Manly-Rickert anniversary, in a friendlier format (specifically, with the addition of running titles).² Unfortunately, Ramsey himself could not participate, having passed away in 2006.

In his preface, Ramsey cites Derek Pearsall's expression of his great debt to Manly and Rickert, "whose eight-volume edition of The Canterbury Tales provided an indispensable foundation of the Variorum Chaucer, and who deserve more than the occasional carping at their inaccuracy in return for the plundering to which they have been subjected."³ Ramsey applauds Pearsall's sentiments, and pledges himself to try to do justice to their achievements, while at the same time explaining any shortfalls he perceives in their work. He remains convinced that their data are absolutely necessary for truly critical editions of the Canterbury Tales. Of course, Ramsey weaves many of his own ideas into his book, often arguing that they are contingent upon or implied by the conclusions of Manly and Rickert. I believe these ideas deserve a response.

Chapter 1 begins with "an overview of the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Manly-Rickert from its first appearance to the present, then surveys the far-from-satisfactory editions of the Canterbury Tales from 1721 to the latest ones," and Chapter 2 gives an explanatory chronology of the project.⁴ In appendixes, titled collectively, "Critics of Manly-Rickert," Ramsey gives a critical review of all the previous assessments that other scholars have given to Manly-Rickert. Jill Mann has recently written that "the defects of Manly and Rickert's editorial assumptions and methods, which have been analyzed with devastating thoroughness by George Kane, deprive [their edition] of the authoritative status to which it might seem to be entitled."⁵ Mann cites Ramsey's book in a note "for a defence of the Manly and Rickert edition and a moving account of the difficulties they faced,"⁶ but without adverting to Ramsey's critique of Kane.⁷ In fact, Ramsey says that his whole book can be seen as an implicit reply to many of Kane's criticisms.⁸ He hopes he will be forgiven his occasional polemical stances, which reflect not only his devotion to Manly and Rickert's accomplishments but also his felt need to fight fire with fire.

As Ramsey explains in his preface, his study is not a simple analysis of Manly-Rickert but rather a guide to their discoveries and the uses to which they can be put. He draws not only on the edition itself but also on correspondence and other documents of the time. For instance, he cites Manly as writing in 1929 that nearly all that had been written about the production of books in the fifteenth century was wrong.⁹ He describes the role of Manly and Rickert in founding the systematic dating of fifteenth-century English manuscripts by making photographic copies available for comparison, and their pioneering use of ultraviolet light in examining manuscripts.¹⁰ All of this is still relevant for making editorial decisions.

The main problem with their edition is one that is brought out by Manly himself, writing in the preface: "It has been more difficult than usual to bring into harmony parts of the work composed and typed at widely different periods. We hope, nevertheless, that our readers will make allowances for these restrictions and consider the difficulties under which we have worked."¹¹ This has not been done by most readers, and it is Ramsey's goal to help the process.

One great difficulty...