ABSTRACT
Derek Pearsall's disdain for formalist organicism is not peculiar to his criticism of Piers Plowman and of the Athlone editions. Examples of the single-witness editions are J. A. W. Bennett's Piers Plowman, an edition of the B-text as found in Oxford Bodleian MS. It is true that Geoffrey Chaucer outpolls Piers in coursework, critical studies, and editing projects. The text, and texts, of Piers are both inviting and problematic for those readers for whom Piers remains largely an unread monument rather than a living product of the imagination, just what those attractions and problems are. These problems are so fundamental as to make it virtually impossible for the author to make any sweeping statements about such questions as authorship, structure, style, genre, transmission, and reception which could not be challenged by one or other contemporary Piers critic. For Piers, differing determinants can have significantly different editorial, critical, and even pedagogical results.
