Book Reviews 203 1472 and 1475. The final chapter considers Thoroughly researched and extremely the production process Spierinc and van readable, this book nevertheless suffers Lathem followed in creating the prayer from a number of editorial lapses. The book’s “documented core,” with discus- majority are simply errors in spelling, sions of the text’s elaborate mise-en-page, although occasionally words are omitted or layout; the patterns of rubrication, line or transposed; and, in one particularly fillers, and partial borders; and the the- important case at the beginning of the matic interplay between illustration and codicological description in Appendix 2, text. Throughout the chapter, de Schryver a mistake in numbering the manuscript’s addresses the uncertainties involved folios introduces unnecessary confusion. in definitively assigning responsibility Most of these errors are likely the result for the execution of calligraphic and il- of the author’s failing health and unfortu- lustrative elements in a work that was nate death during the final preparation of the product of multiple craftsmen. In the the text and the publisher’s rush to get the end, however, he succeeds in supporting book into print “as quickly as possible,” his original attribution of the illumina- and, although bothersome, do not detract tion and scribal work to van Lathem and from the overall quality of de Schryver’s Spierinc, respectively, along with associ- scholarship. ates from their ateliers working in similar Whether addressing specifi c questions and complementary styles. about the prayer book’s creators and Rounding out the book are fi ve ap- contents or more general issues related to pendices. The first provides excerpts the wider historical and artistic contexts from the duke’s account rolls, including of the late-fifteenth century Netherlands, the entries recording the duke’s payment de Schryver’s study is a model of codi- to Spierinc and van Lathem, as well as cological, art historical, and provenance interesting items documenting some of research. Although primarily intended for the duke’s other manuscript commissions. art historians and medieval specialists, The second, third, and fourth appendices this volume has much to teach librarians offer a full codicological description of and book historians about manuscript the prayer book (including a useful dia- production in the later Middle Ages and gram of the manuscript’s quire structure how to deal with the complexities and and the placement of its miniatures); a difficulties involved in studying me- description of the final thirty-four folios dieval books.—Eric Johnson, Ohio State of the book representing a much later University. addition to the manuscript executed for another owner long after the duke’s death; Amnon Kabatchnik. Sherlock Holmes on and a detailed account of the manuscript’s the Stage: A Chronological Encyclopedia binding. The final appendix considers the of Plays Featuring the Great Detective. history of the manuscript after the duke’s Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2008. death and attempts to trace its provenance 208p. alk. paper. Cloth, $55 (ISBN through the complex political and legal 9780810861251). LC 2008-000118. battles of the late-fifteenth and sixteenth Unexpectedly, Amnon Kabatchnik’s En- centuries, its later owners in subsequent cyclopedia is a page-turner. The author, a centuries, and its eventual purchase by director and a professor of theater, hav- the J. Paul Getty Museum in 1989. Further ing held positions at SUNY Binghamton, supplementing the book are forty-six Stanford University, Ohio State University, color reproductions of the manuscript’s Florida State University, and Elmira Col- miniatures and an additional 124 black- lege, has turned the work of synopsis into and-white illustrations that help place the the work of lively reportage as he recounts prayer book within the wider context of the plots and highlights the signifi cant fea- late-medieval Flemish art. tures of the plays featuring Sherlock Hol- 204 College & Research Libraries March 2009 mes since he was created by Arthur Conan actors involved with the play. There are Doyle. Kabatchnik traces the wide range occasional exceptions to this organization of incarnations of Sherlock Holmes in the of one entry per play in which two or theater. There is the fairly faithful Sherlock more plays may be treated together, as in Holmes (1899), written jointly by Conan the entry “Early Holmes: Under the Clock Doyle and William Gillette, the latter (1893) and Sherlock Holmes (1894).” The playing the title role. Kabatchnik notes the first play of this entry gets some extensive one significant liberty that Gillett e takes: treatment, while the second is treated in the play ends with Holmes pledging his what is best described as an afterthought. undying love to the distressed damsel of Herein is an example of the book’s irregu- the play. On the other side of the spectrum larities. In its comprehensive inclusion of are the somewhat bizarre plays featuring what appears to be every published (but the Great Detective, like Sherlock Holmes not necessarily performed) play featuring and the Curious Adventure of the Clockwork the Great Detective, Kabatchnik’s book Prince (1980), dubbed by Kabatchnik as deserves its claim to be an encyclopedia, “a musical fairy tale” that features “a but it is a quirky and uneven one. There marshmallow tycoon,” his clockwork son, does not seem to be a consistent method- and a stolen recipe for “licorice marshmal- ology dictating the volume of information lows, worth millions.” In between are an provided in the entries. Some plays are array of sometimes more and sometimes treated more expansively, represented less successful, faithful, and interesting by full synopses replete with anecdotes adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes stories about the composition or the staging and or uses of the Sherlock Holmes character. linked to other notable events or people, Together, recounted with Kabatchnik’s like when we are told that it was Mark fine sense of narrative interest and quiz- Twain who got William Gillett e his first zical detail, the whole book is a story of acting job. For others, we are barely given Holmes’ second life in the theater that is a sketch of the full plot. Nor does this as unpredictable as any given play. unevenness appear to be dictated by the The book is divided into three major importance of the play—Wall Spence’s parts: “Plays Written or Co-writt en by rendition of The Sign of Four (1940) does Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,” “Plays Featur- not appear to have been performed pub- ing Sherlock Holmes Written by Other licly and receives more lines than Paul Hands,” and “One-Act Plays” (this latter Giovanni’s The Crucifer of Blood (1978), category suggesting that one of the book’s which ran for 228 performances. target audiences is the world of working This unevenness extends to the infor- actors and directors). There is also a series mation provided about the writers, the of Appendices that provide information actors, and the performance details of about various things beyond the book’s the plays. For instance, writer, director, focus, including information about “Ra- and actor Tim Heath gets no biographi- dio, Film, and Television” productions cal treatment in the entry on his Holmes (Appendix B), a puppet play rendition of play, Sherlock Holmes: The Adventure at “The Speckled Band” (Appendix C), and Sir Arthur Sullivan’s (1996). Meanwhile, a full bibliography of “Acting Editions” touted as “phenomenal” without clear, (Appendix G). Each entry in the main sec- objective reasons, Tim Kelly gets a signifi- tions is devoted to one play. In each entry, cant amount of attention in each entry that Kabatchnik provides a synopsis of the treats one of his Holmes plays. Neverthe- play and information about its produc- less, in keeping with the great traditions tion (when the information is available). of Sherlockiana, this is a book by a person The synopsis is often followed by one or to whom the subject matters. Indeed, the more sections providing biographical book doesn’t promise to be an encyclope- information about the writer, director, or dia of the actors and playwrights involved Book Reviews 205 either centrally or tangentially with plays though Kabatchnik frequently uses and featuring the Great Detective. cites Tracy’s book, among others, there Two composition and formatt ing deci- is no research bibliography included in sions are inexplicable, however. Dubbed the book, though the entries are carefully an encyclopedia, the book resembles a documented. collection of essays: the play’s title is cen- Kabatchnik’s Sherlock Holmes on the tered on the page, the entry is followed Stage does the job it promises to do—it by endnotes, and the next entry begins on provides a complete list of plays featur- the next full page. The result is a signifi- ing Sherlock Holmes. Sometimes it gives cant amount of white space. Moreover, readers a lot more. In his best entries, Ka- it is diffi cult to imagine how one would batchnik gives us the kind of behind-the- use it as an encyclopedia, arranged as scenes glimpses that help contextualize it is chronologically by play title. As a the play in the life of the theater and the supplement, the index is helpful but not theater world. For instance, we learn that, exhaustive. If, for instance, I wanted to after wrangling with Lyn Harding over know all the plays that featured Jonathan his interpretation of the villain of Conan Small, the villain of Conan Doyle’s The Doyle’s hastily penned play version of Sign of Four, I would have to look for this “The Speckled Band” (1910), Conan Doyle information using the index entry for The consults his friend J.M. Barrie, who, after Sign of Four; there is no entry for Jonathan watching a rehearsal, sides with Harding.