DOCSLIB.ORG

Pre-Codex to Post-Code: Editorial Theory in the Second Incnnabulnm

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pre-Codex to Post-Code: Editorial Theory in the Second Incnnabulnm Pre-Codex to Post-Code: Editorial Theory in the Second Incnnabulnm by Patrick Finn B.A. McGill University, 1995 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial FnlGUnKnt o f the Reqniremaits for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of English We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard Dr. Kathryn (Department of EngliA) Dr. Edward Pechter, Departmental Member (Department o f English) Dr. Trevor Williams, Dqiartmental Member (Department of English) Prof. Henry Summerfield, Additional Member (Department of &iglish) Dr. Timothy Haskett, Outside Member (Department of History) ProT Derek Pearsall, External Examiner (Department o f English, Harvard University) © Patrick James Finn, 2003 University o f Victoria AH rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopying or other means, without the permission of the author. Supervisor Dr. Katbryu Kerby-Fulton ABSTRACT This project studies the ways recent changes in cultural the<xy and inhmnaticm technology are influencing the delivery o f texts, and how these changes signal a need 6»^ innovation in editing practice. The word znczmaAw/wnz describes the material objects produced in the early stages of the development of a technology; most commonly, it re&rs to printing during the period just before the turn of the sixteenth century when material textuality in the west was changing horn a manuscript to a print base. According to critics of digital culture like Janet Murray t k current shift to digital media aitails many of the same changes. Following this, I will refer to this period as the secowJ Given the limitations of HTML and SGML markup and storage technologies used in early digitization projects, scholars realize that the second incunabular period, mudr like the first, will not be a simple linear change succession. Just as the shift from manuscript to print involved a multi&ceted series of complex social and practical transformations over decades, our current technological transition generates a wide variety of communicative, cultural, and political implications. As a critical point of entry, the comparison o f the first and second incunabular periods oBers insight into the ways in which past ^nactices can help us qtproach our textual future. As a broad study of hi^ily particular textual {xactices, the current work presents something o f a paradox. However, through a series o f focused historical readings and hrrmal ^plications, this trans-historical study provokes questions that may lead to effective new work in the Geld. In Theofiej^ Text, leading editonal theorist D.C. Greetham points out the need to study the same three projects that I examine: William Langland's f ierj fZowmon, and James Joyce's My&ggf. By examining the editorial practices underlying each work, I develop a theory o f editing based on a farm of philological critique that engages with problems faced by many current research projects and Wiich provides suggestions for further research. Examiners: Dr. Eathryn^ . 1 Kkfby-Fulto^-B Jf -B—1 -a . » -■!. Supervisor«-H ! • (Department/■TT-V of English) Dr. Edward Pechter, Departmental Member (Department o f English) Dr. Trevor Williams, Departmental Member (Department of English) ________________________________ P rof Henry S^nin^Gi^Gld, Additional Member (Department o f English) Dr. Timodiy Haskett, Outside Member (Department of History) Prof Derek Pearsall, External Examiner (Department of English, Harvard University) IV Table o f Ckmtents Abstract ü Table of Contents iv Chapter 1 : Introduction 1 Chuter 2: Editing Medieval English Literature 61 Chapter 3: "Doing Better^: Athlone and After 95 Chapter 4: Editing Early Modem Tenets 128 Chapter 5: All the King's Horses and All the King's Men 153 Chapter 6: Editing Modernist Texts 192 Chapter 7 : The Word Known to All Men 219 Chapter 8: Author, Author! Final Considerations and Conclusion 236 Bibliography 258 Pre-Code% to Post-Code: Editonal Theory in the Second Incnnabulnm Chapter 1: Introduction Classifications are useful, sometimes indispensable conceptual tools in controlling a subject matter, and for the purposes of classification it matters very little whether we use Roman numerals, the weeks of the year, or the phases of the moon. The one thing that does matter is the degree of reliance we place on the definitive character of these arbitrary schemata. If we believe they are constitutive rather than arbitrary and heuristic, then we have made a serious mistake and also set up a barrier to interpretation. E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (111) I thought of that old joke, you know, this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, my brother's crazy. He thinks he's a chicken." And, the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?" And the guy says, "1 would, but I need the eggs." Epilogue to Woody Allen’s Annie Hall This projeet studies the ways in whieh recent changes in cultural theory and information technology are influencing the delivery of texts and pointing to a need for changes in the practice of editing. The word incunabulum describes the early stages of the development of a technology;' most commonly, it refers to printing during the period just before the turn of the sixteenth century when material textuality in the west was changing from a manuscript to a print base. According to critics like Janet Murray, the current shift to digital media entails many of the same changes.^ Following this, I will refer to this period as the second incunabulum. Given the now apparent limitations of HTML and SGML markup and CD ROM storage technologies used in early digitization projects, scholars realize that the second incunabular period, much like the first, will not ' The OED defines incunabulum in this way: 1. The earliest stages or first traces in the development of anything. 2. (With sing, incunabulum); Books produced in the infancy of the art of printing; spec, those printed before 1500. Hence incunabular a., of or pertaining to early printed books. ^ Murray 28-9. be a simple one-dimensional change/ Just as the shift from manuscript to print involved a multifaceted series of social and practical alterations occurring over decades, our current technological transition involves a wide variety of communicative, cultural and political implications. As a critical point of entry, the comparison of the first and second incunabular periods offers insight into the ways in which our past practices can help us approach our textual future. As an abstract study of practical applications, the work in whole presents something of a paradox. Still I hope that within the space of this document, I will raise questions that lead to effective work in the field. Studies in method must always be abstract; in some sense the quality of their focus is what defines their individual contribution. In his recent book. Theories o f the Text, leading editorial theorist D.C. Greetham points out the need to study the three projects that I examine."^ These are William Langland’s Piers Plowman, The Oxford Shakespeare and James Joyce’s Ulysses. While examining each, I will develop a theory of editing based on a form of philological critique that points toward solutions that I hope will work for other research projects. This study takes as its starting point the burgeoning field of editorial theory. Changes in literary theory stemming from Continental linguistics, philosophy, and psychoanalysis that arrived at virtually the same time as affordable personal computers and functional network options have introduced a variety of questions about how and why editors should perform their duties.^ While early technophiles such as Marshall ^ The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is the leading body attempting to create and maintain universal standards for markup and encoding. Their updates and records of change can be found at: http://www.w3 .org/. Greetham points to Piers, the Gabier Ulysses and the Oxford Shakespeare. Greetham 22-23. ^ We should note that while theory came early to English Departments as a whole, it came much later to textual studies. The opposite is true of computer technology. For more on these issues see, Peter McLuhan and Nicholas Negroponte were quick to forecast the digital dissolution of these problems and the concomitant death of the book, others like Jay David Bolter, George Landow and Geoffrey Nunberg see new media as an opportunity to test the possibilities and limitations of poststructural and postmodern theory and practice.^ More recently. Bolter and Richard Grusin have proposed that the digital shift, like print beh)re, is a “remediation” of our textual past/ Each of these formulations intersects editorial theory and textual studies. Many early digital projects worked from the assumption that using electronic media to record all available documents, recordings and materials pertinent to a given editorial project would render obsolete those critical editions that present a central authorial figure and a unified text. My argument shows that while digital archives are an excellent means of storage, they will inherently involve a need for a series of new editors or ckcenfj that will in fact make their mark by offering linear texts. The docent of whom Shillingsburg’s Scholarly Editing in the Computer Age: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. ® McLuhan’s media theory from The Gutenberg Galaxy and especially from Understanding Media are counted as the most influential books in media studies. Building on McLuhan’s work, Nicholas Negroponte of MIT (who have recently re-released a series of McLuhan’s work) developed what he calls the “gumball theory” of information that would see the Internet turn into a pay as you go source of limitless data, Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995). In contrast to this. Jay David Bolter in Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History o f Writing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AN EXAMINATION of PLAYS in MANUSCRIPT ET ME Begin by Stating As Clearly As I Can the Purpose L.4 of This Exploratory Study
    TEXTUAL DEGENERATION OF ELlZABETHAN AND STUART PLAYS: AN EXAMINATION OF PLAYS IN MANUSCRIPT ET ME begin by stating as clearly as I can the purpose l.4 of this exploratory study. It has seemed to me that in accounting for variation among Elizabethan and post-Eliza- bethan dramatic texts too little weight has been given to the activities of prompters and actors as compared with those of printers and copyists. According to R. B. McKerrow and Evelyn Albright,l the incompetence of printers has been greatly exaggerated, and the defense they offer seems sound and just, and, as for copyists, they seem, as a class, to have been the most efficient of those who worked on plays. On the other hand, the conditions of play production, now, in the Elizabethan age and in general, are such as not only to pro- voke alteration of texts but to necessitate it. The simplest in- vestigation of the history of Shakespeare on the stage (and on the screen) will reveal habitual and not infrequently vio- Ient modifications of his texts and even of his intentions. A visit to a production lot will convince any visitor that the pro- ducer feels free to alter the script without any reference to the author or what he has written. I remember a conversa- tion in 1908 with Eugene Walter, whose Paid in Full was then en uogue, and of hearing him describe without the least of- fense, indeed with pride, the great changes made in his play when it was produced on Broadway, Stage aIterations are and have been since the Elizabethan age and before the merest commonplace and by no means inconsiderable.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Quarto of Othello Edited by Scott Mcmillin Excerpt More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-61594-5 - The First Quarto of Othello Edited by Scott McMillin Excerpt More information [] Introduction INTRODUCTION The textual problem Othello remains a textual mystery. Not published at all for nearly twenty years after its first recorded performance, then published twice within the space of approximately a year, the Quarto of and the Folio of ( and hereafter) present the same play in the same order of events, even the same order of speeches for the most part, yet the texts differ from one another on thousands of points. Some of these differences are prominent. Each text lacks some lines present in the other. Most noticeably, has about lines which does not, with some of the -only passages running ten or twenty lines. But it is the thousands of tiny differences which form the heart of the mystery. One can make reasonable surmises as to why does without parcels of dialogue present in , but why should use scores of commas and colons where uses periods, or dozens of contractions where uses uncontracted forms, or hundreds of perfectly good words where uses other perfectly good words? Here is Emilia in , refusing to hold her tongue at . –: Em. ’Twill out, ’twill: I hold my peace sir, no, I’le be in speaking, liberall as the ayre, Here is the version: Emil. ’Twill out, ’twill out. I peace? No, I will speake as liberall as the North; As Greg remarked, an essay could be written about these lines, but the first question about the two versions is why should they differ in such numerous and trifling ways.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 X 10.Long New.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-71397-9 - How to Read a Shakespearean Play Text Eugene Giddens Index More information Index accidental, 32, 44, 47, 100, 101, 116, 144 Brown, Arthur, 105, 149 act and scene divisions, 77–80 Brown, John Russell, 148, 150 advertisements, 12, 97 Buc, Sir George, 17 Alcorn, Thomas, 35 Burbage, Richard, 27 Allde, Edward, 40, 134 Burre, Walter, 61 Arden Shakespeare, 4, 50, 102, 112, 117, 149, 154, Burt, Richard, 13, 18 159, 160, 161, 164, 165, 167 Butter, Nathaniel, 62 arguments, 75 Armin, Robert, 27 Cambises, 72 Aspley, William, 27, 61, 97 Cambridge School Shakespeare, 167 Cambridge University Library, 143 bad quartos, 23–5, 49 Campion, Thomas Barton, Anne, 163 Masque at Lord Hay’s Marriage, 72 Bate, Jonathan, 109, 112, 154, 163, 167 Capell, Edward, 161 Beaumont, Francis, 9, 12, 18, 23, 33, 35, 39, 41, capitalisation, 81, 85, 88, 93, 107, 140 66, 69, 147, 150, 152 Carson, Christie, 171 Beaumont, Francis and John Fletcher Carson, Neil, 8, 9, 10, 35 Wild Goose Chase, 18 casting off, 41, 42, 89, 90, 133, 134 Beaumont, Francis, John Fletcher, and Philip catchwords, 96, 124–5, 151 Massinger chainlines, 137–8 Beggar’s Bush, 62 Chamberlain’s Men, 27, 29, 58 Benson, John, 19 Chapman, George, 9, 65 Berger, Thomas L., 160 Chettle, Henry, 14, 18 Bertram, Paul, 102 Clare, Janet, 16, 17 Best, Michael, 170 collation, 121–3 beta radiography, 135 collation line, 151, 160–4 Bevington, David, 81, 151, 158, 162, 164 collation, stop-press correction, 142–5 Blackfriars Theatre, 27 colophons, 97 black-letter, 86 composing stick, 43, 133 Blayney, Peter W.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to William Shakespeare's First Folio
    An Introduction to William Shakespeare’s First Folio By Ruth Hazel Cover illustration courtesy of Stephen Collins This eBook was produced by OpenLearn - The home of free learning from The Open University. It is made available to you under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence. 2 Brush up your Shakespeare The comic gangsters in Kiss Me Kate, Cole Porter’s 1948 musical based on Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, offer Shakespeare’s poetry – by which they actually mean his plays – as a guaranteed way to a woman’s heart: quoting Shakespeare will impress her and be a sure-fire aphrodisiac. Today, Shakespeare has become a supreme icon of Western European high culture, which is ironic since in his own day Shakespeare’s craft – jobbing playwright – was not a well-regarded one. Indeed, those who wrote plays to entertain the ‘groundlings’ (as the people who paid just one penny to stand in the open yard round the stage in public playhouses were called) were often considered little better than the actors themselves – who, in their turn, were only one level up, in the minds of Puritan moralists, from whores. Shakespeare himself did not seem eager to advertise authorship of his plays by seeing them into print, and when some of his plays were printed, in the handy quarto-sized editions for individual consumption, his name was not always on the title page. (The terms ‘folio’ and ‘quarto’ refer to the size of the pages in a book: in a Folio, each sheet of paper was folded just once, with a page height of approx.
    [Show full text]
  • VII Shakespeare
    VII Shakespeare GABRIEL EGAN, PETER J. SMITH, ELINOR PARSONS, CHLOE WEI-JOU LIN, DANIEL CADMAN, ARUN CHETA, GAVIN SCHWARTZ-LEEPER, JOHANN GREGORY, SHEILAGH ILONA O'BRIEN AND LOUISE GEDDES This chapter has four sections: 1. Editions and Textual Studies; 2. Shakespeare in the Theatre; 3. Shakespeare on Screen; 4. Criticism. Section 1 is by Gabriel Egan; section 2 is by Peter J. Smith; section 3 is by Elinor Parsons; section 4(a) is by Chloe Wei-Jou Lin; section 4(b) is by Daniel Cadman; section 4(c) is by Arun Cheta; section 4(d) is by Gavin Schwartz-Leeper; section 4(e) is by Johann Gregory; section 4(f) is by Sheilagh Ilona O'Brien; section 4(g) is by Louise Geddes. 1. Editions and Textual Studies One major critical edition of Shakespeare appeared this year: Peter Holland's Corio/anus for the Arden Shakespeare Third Series. Holland starts with 'A Note on the Text' (pp. xxiii-xxvii) that explains the process of modernization and how the collation notes work, and does so very well. Next Holland prints another note apologizing for but not explaining-beyond 'pressures of space'-his 44,000-word introduction to the play having 'no single substantial section devoted to the play itself and its major concerns, no chronologically ordered narrative of Corio/anus' performance history, no extensive surveying of the history and current state of critical analysis ... [and not] a single footnote' (p. xxxviii). After a preamble, the introduction itself (pp. 1-141) begins in medias res with Corio/anus in the 1930s, giving an account of William Poel's production in 1931 and one by Comedie-Frarn;:aise in 1933-4 and other reinterpretations by T.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Cambridge University Press 0521623367 - The First Quarto of King Henry V Edited by Andrew Gurr Excerpt More information 1 Introduction INTRODUCTION The significance of the quarto text of Henry V The character of the text of Henry V printed in the First Folio of 1623 (f) is not seriously in doubt. As the NCS edition and others argue, it was set from an authorial manuscript that had not been through the developmental process of emendation for performance. The version printed in 1600 (q), however, tells a different story. It contains several features that show radical corrections made to the f text either in the course of preparing the play for performance or during its first run on stage. It cuts the total number of lines by a half, eliminating entire scenes and transposing others, and shortens or cuts all the longer speeches. The speed with which it came to the press only a year after its first staging is a mark both of its proximity to the text performed by the company that owned it and of its authority as an official version. Between 1598 and 1600 ten plays owned by Shakespeare’s company came into print, seven of them Shakespeare’s own. With the sole exception of the Henry V quarto, and Jonson’s Every Man Out of his Humour, which Jonson gave to the press himself, all of them were at least three years old. In the speed of its delivery to the press, q Henry V is unique even among the so-called ‘bad’ quartos. What its text can tell us about its origins and its intended function is uniquely valuable for an understanding of what Shakespeare’s company did to adapt the play-manuscripts he sold to them for staging.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CASE for the FOLIO Jonathan Bate
    THE CASE FOR THE FOLIO Jonathan Bate ‘The First Folio remains, as a matter of fact, the text nearest to Shakespeare’s stage, to Shakespeare’s ownership, to Shakespeare’s authority’ (Charlotte Porter and Helen Clarke, preface to their Pembroke Edition, 1903) © Jonathan Bate 2007 THIS ESSAY OFFERS A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE EDITORIAL PROBLEM IN SHAKESPEARE THAN THAT PROVIDED ON pp. l-lvii/50-57 OF THE GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE RSC SHAKESPEARE: COMPLETE WORKS THE QUARTOS The original manuscripts of Shakespeare’s works do not survive: the sole extant composition in his hand is a single scene from Sir Thomas More, a multi-authored play that cannot really be described as ‘his’. Shakespeare only survives because his works were printed. In his lifetime there appeared the following works (all spellings of titles modernized here, numbering inserted for convenience only, sequence of publication within same year not readily established). They were nearly all printed in the compact and relatively low- priced format, which may be thought of as the equivalent of the modern paperback, known as quarto (the term is derived from the fact that each sheet of paper that came off the press was folded to make four leaves): 1] Venus and Adonis (1593) – poem. 2] Lucrece (1594) – poem. 3] The most lamentable Roman tragedy of Titus Andronicus, as it was played by the right honourable the Earl of Derby, Earl of Pembroke and Earl of Sussex their servants (1594) – without the fly-killing scene that appears in the 1623 First Folio. 4] The first part of the contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey, and the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolk, and the tragical end of the proud Cardinal of Winchester, with the notable rebellion of Jack Cade, and the Duke of York’s first claim unto the crown (1594) – a variant version of the play that in the 1623 First Folio was called The Second Part of Henry the Sixth.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare Editions and Editors
    Shakespeare Editions and Editors The 16th and 17th Centuries The earliest texts of William Shakespeare’s works were published during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in quarto or folio format. Folios are large, tall volumes; quartos are smaller, roughly half the size. Early Texts of Shakespeare’s Works: The Quartos and Bad Quartos (1594-1623) Of the thirty-six plays contained in the First Folio of 1623, eighteen have no other source. The eighteen other plays had been printed in separate and individual editions at least once between 1594 and 1623. Pericles (1609) and The Two Noble Kinsmen (1634) also appeared separately before their inclusions in folio collections. All of these were quarto editions, with one exception: the first edition of Henry VI, Part 3 was printed in octavo form in 1594. Popular plays like Henry IV, Part 1 and Pericles were reprinted in their quarto editions even after the First Folio appeared, sometimes more than once. But since the prefatory matter in the First Folio itself warns against the earlier texts, 18th and 19th century editors of Shakespeare tended to ignore the quarto texts in favor of the Folio. Gradually, however, it was recognized that the quarto texts varied widely among themselves; some much better than others. It was the bibliographer Alfred W. Pollard who originated the term “bad quarto” in 1909, to distinguish several texts that he judged significantly corrupt. He focused on four early quartos: Romeo and Juliet (1597), Henry V (1600), The Merry Wives of Windsor (1602), and Hamlet (1603). His reasons for citing these texts as “bad” were that they featured obvious errors, changes in word order, gaps in the sense of the text, jumbled printing of prose as verse and verse as prose, and similar problems.
    [Show full text]
  • 04 Woudhuysen 1226 7/12/04 12:01 Pm Page 69
    04 Woudhuysen 1226 7/12/04 12:01 pm Page 69 SHAKESPEARE LECTURE The Foundations of Shakespeare’s Text H. R. WOUDHUYSEN University College London EIGHTY YEARS AGO TODAY my great-grandfather, Alfred W. Pollard, delivered this Annual Shakespeare Lecture on ‘The Foundations of Shakespeare’s Text’, the lecture coinciding with the tercentenary of the publication of the First Folio. To compare great things to small, this year all we can celebrate is the quatercentenary of the first quarto of Hamlet— a so-called ‘bad’ quarto. Surveying current knowledge about the quarto and Folio editions of Shakespeare’s plays, Pollard argued that, compared to the fate of Dr Faustus (‘a few fine speeches overladen with much alien buffoonery’) or the texts of the plays of Greene and Peele (‘scanty and mangled’), Shakespeare’s plays ‘have come down to us in so much better condition’, the texts presenting ‘to the sympathetic reader, and still more to the sympathetic listener . very few obstacles’. No wonder he called himself ‘an incurable optimist’—a characteristic I have not fully inherited from him.1 That general optimism about the state of Shakespeare’s texts was largely shared by Pollard’s friends and followers R. B. McKerrow and W. W. Greg, the proponents of what became known as the ‘New Bibliography’. The three of them elaborated an essential model of textual transmission, involving two sorts of lost manuscript—autograph drafts (called in con- temporary documents ‘foul papers’) and the theatrical ‘promptbook’— and two types of quarto. There were ‘bad’ quartos, containing shorter, Read at the Academy 23 April 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-56257-7 — The First Quarto of Othello William Shakespeare , Edited by Scott McMillin Excerpt More Information [] Introduction INTRODUCTION The textual problem Othello remains a textual mystery.1 Not published at all for nearly twenty years after its first recorded performance, then published twice within the space of approximately a year, the Quarto of 1622 and the Folio of 1623 (q1 and f hereafter) present the same play in the same order of events, even the same order of speeches for the most part, yet the texts differ from one another on thousands of points. Some of these differences are prominent. Each text lacks some lines present in the other. Most noticeably, f has about 160 lines which q1 does not, with some of the f-only passages running ten or twenty lines. But it is the thousands of tiny differences which form the heart of the mystery. One can make reasonable surmises as to why q1 does without parcels of dialogue present in f, but why should q1 use scores of commas and colons where f uses periods, or dozens of contractions where f uses uncontracted forms, or hundreds of perfectly good words where f uses other perfectly good words? Here is Emilia in q1, refusing to hold her tongue at 5. 2. 233–4: Em. ’Twill out, ’twill: I hold my peace sir, no, I’le be in speaking, liberall as the ayre, Here is the f version: Emil. ’Twill out, ’twill out. I peace? No, I will speake as liberall as the North; As Greg remarked, an essay could be written about these lines, but the first question about the two versions is why should they differ in such numerous and trifling ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Connotations 1.2 (1991)
    Connotations A Journal for Critical Debate LA. BRA.NCHE DIGNORANCE Vo!. 1 No. 2 July 1991 Waxmann Munster/New York Connotations - A Journal for Critical Debate by the Connotations Society is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Connotations: A Journal for Critical Debate Issued three times a year in March, July, and November EDITORS Inge Leimberg, Lothar Cerny, Michael Steppat, and Matthias Bauer EDITORIAL ADDRESS WestnHische Wilhelms-Universitat, Department of English Johannisstr. 12-20, 4400 Miinster, Germany EDITORIAL BOARD M. H. Abrams, Cornell University John Russell Brown, University of Michigan Paul Budra, Simon Fraser University Elizabeth Story Donno, The Huntington Library Judith Dundas, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign William E. Engel, Vanderbilt University Alastair Fowler, University of Virginia A. C. Hamilton, Queen's University, Ontario S. K. Heninger, Jr., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill John P. Hermann, University of Alabama John Hollander, Yale University Harold Jenkins, University of Edinburgh Arthur F. Kinney, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Maynard Mack, Yale University Frances M. Malpezzi, Arkansas State University Thomas F. Merrill, University of Delaware J. Hillis Miller, University of California, Irvine Dale B. J. Randall, Duke University Alan Rudrum, Simon Fraser University Brownell Salomon, Bowling Green State University John M. Steadman, The Huntington Library Zdenek Sth'brny, Charles University, Prague Joseph Wiesenfarth, University of Wisconsin-Madison Waxmann Munster/New York Connotations wants to encourage scholarly communication in the field of English Literature (from the Middle English period to the present), as well as American and Commonwealth Literature. It focuses on the semantic and stylistic energy of the language of literature in a historical perspective and aims to represent different approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Folio Provenance
    5 GABRIEL EGAN The Provenance of the Folio Texts Amongst one particular group of modern readers, facsimile editions of the 1623 Folio are especially cherished. Actors who specialise in Shakespeare prize the Folio in the belief that it gives virtually unmediated access to the finalised, stage-ready versions of his plays. Some of the credit for this mis­ conception belongs to the acting teacher Doug Moston of New York University, whose introduction to the Applause facsimile claims that 'The First Folio ... is the original acting edition of Shakespeare's plays' and 'is the closest version we have to what Shakespeare actually wrote'. 1 But most of the credit must go to Shakespeare's friends and fellow actors John Heminge and Henry Condell, who in the preliminaries to the Folio seek to bolster the claim on the title page that it was made from 'the True Original Copies'. Explaining to the aristocratic patrons their role in providing the publisher with Shakespeare's playscripts, Heminge and Condell write: We haue but collected them, and done an office to the dead, to procure his Orphanes, Guardians, without ambition either of selfe-profit,or fame: onely to keep the memory of so worthy a Friend & Fellow aliue, as was our SHAKESPEARE (nA2v). Some of this we know is true: Shakespeare was their fellow actor in the same company and they were close personal friends. Shakespeare left each of them in his will 26 shillings and 8 pence to buy rings to remember him by. 2 Heminge and Condell claim that they were not motivated by self-profit, and we can take that as literally true, since we have no reason to suppose they would have shared in any profits the book might have made.
    [Show full text]