The Hengwrt Manuscript and the Canon of 'The Canterbury Tales'

Description: Largely ignored for forty years, Manly and Rickert's "The Text of the 'Canterbury Tales'" is being reconsidered because it favors the Hengwrt. Chaucer's text is now being reconstructed by "Hengwrtism." The soft approach takes Hengwrt as a guide but does not use the Hengwrt order of tales; the hard approach accepts readings exclusively Hengwrt and Hengwrt order.; Hanna examines the problem of CYT, which according to the hard approach is not part of the Chaucer canon, pointing out that "the stages of production discernible in the manuscript do not resemble features one might expect in a finished codex" and that the "booklets" comprising the various fragments are not necessarily in an intentional order, as is evidenced by an analysis of the scribal characteristics.; Evidence suggests that the Hengwrt team of scribes received materials piecemeal. There is no a priori reason to reject the "concept of split authority."

Chaucer Subjects: Manuscripts and Textual Studies.; Canon's Yeoman and His Tale.