Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, (eds.), The New Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition 47 London: HMSO, 1911. 409-412. British History Online. Web. 20 March 2019. <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp409- 412>. Bacon, Roger. The Mirror of Alchimy . with Certaine Other Treatises of the Like Argument. London, 1597. STC 1182. Bauthumley, Jacob. The Light and Dark Sides of God. London, 1650. Wing B1165A. Cartwright, William. The Plays and Poems of William Cartwright. Ed. G. Bleakmore Evans. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1951. Collinson, Patrick. The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. London: Cape, 1967. Crawford, Patricia. “Charles Stuart, That Man of Blood.” J of British Studies 16 (1977): 41-61. Davies, Julian. The Caroline Captivity of the Church. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Hermes Trismegistus. The Divine Pymander. London, 1649. Wing H1565. Hessayon, Ariel. “The Ranters and Their Sources.” Antiquarianism and Science in Early Modern Urban Networks. Ed. Vittoria Feola. Paris: Blanchard, 2014. 77-101. Hotham, Charles. An Introduction to the Teutonick Philosophie. London, 1650. Wing H2896. Tyacke, Nicholas. Anti-Calvinists. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. フェリス女学院大学 ── 冨 樫 剛 Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, (eds.), The New Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. ix + 3382 pp. Reviewed by OYA Reiko, Keio University In the 1980s, Gary Taylor was deemed the enfant terrible of the Shakespeare world for his revisionist textual scholarship and fearless reevaluation of the playwright’s iconic status. He edited (with Michael Warren) a collection of essays, entitled The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of ‘King Lear’ (1983), postulating that the texts in the 1608 Quarto and the 1623 First Folio reproduce discrete versions of the tragedy and that the differences between them are signs of authorial revision. In 1986, Taylor and his senior coeditor Stanley Wells went on to publish the Oxford Shakespeare (hereafter Oxford) to reflect this view. They embraced single-text editing and treated each early edition in its own right, discarding the age-old practice of putting multiple versions together and creating a ‘conflated’ text. Two versions of King Lear were included in Oxford as a result. While earlier 英文学研究96.indd 47 19/11/20 15:16 48 書 評 editors were preoccupied with reconstructing Shakespeare’s original manuscript drafts (‘foul papers’), the Oxford team attended to authorial revision and theatrical collaboration, prioritizing texts in the ‘more theatrical’ First Folio over those in earlier Quartos. They reviewed the Shakespeare canon by examining linguistic features such as function words, which have little lexical meaning. An unremarkable lyric poem in a 17th-century miscellany (‘Shall I die?’) was ascribed to Shakespeare as a result. Oxford was not a user-friendly edition as the plays were given unfamiliar titles and ordered in a new way, and the conventional act- scene division was replaced by consecutive scene numbering̶people struggled to even locate the passage they needed in it. Its assumptions about the manuscripts underlying early- modern playbooks were not unanimously accepted, either. Still, it transformed modern textual reproduction of Shakespeare’s plays and poems and single-text editing would soon become the order of the day. Thirty years on, Taylor and his new editorial team, which includes John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, published the New Oxford Shakespeare (New Oxford), reviewing Shakespeare’s canon yet again with recourse to computer-assisted textual analysis. New Oxford at present comprises the modern-spelling Modern Critical Edition (Modern), the old- spelling Critical Reference Edition (Reference) in two volumes, and the Authorship Companion (Companion). Modern and Reference include the same versions of the same works. The online edition, presented on the Oxford Scholarly Editions Online platform, offers the content of the three print publications. New Oxford also promises an ‘Alternative Versions’ volume for the Quarto and Folio versions not included in Modern and Reference. In Companion, Taylor’s manifesto piece ‘Artiginality’ (a blend of ‘artisanship’ and ‘originality’) reinforces his long-standing revisionism about Shakespeare’s superstardom (‘Shakespeare was a star̶but never the only one in our galaxy’, Reinventing Shakespeare, 1989) by underlining the artisanal poetics and practice common to the famous playwright and his contemporaries. Based on ‘the fundamental ethical principle’ (Companion, p. 20) of giving the early-modern ‘artisans’ credit for their work, the New Oxford team reassessed the authorship, constitution and chronology of the Shakespeare canon with recourse to statistical analyses of digital databases of early-modern plays and other types of writing, such as Literature Online and Early English Books Online. As Taylor claimed in a press release (25 November 2016), ‘Shakespeare has entered the world of Big Data’. The outcomes of their analyses unsettle the standard narrative of Shakespeare collaborating with fellow dramatists on his early plays (such as the three parts of Henry VI and Titus Andronicus) and the final ones (Pericles, Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen) but single-handedly completing the masterpieces that came in-between. New Oxford lists 45 plays (rather than the standard 37) in its Table of Contents and identifies collaborators in 17 of them. His presumed coauthors 英文学研究96.indd 48 19/11/20 15:16 Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, (eds.), The New Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition 49 include Thomas Middleton (in Titus Andronicus, Measure for Measure, All’s Well that Ends Well, Timon of Athens and Macbeth), Christopher Marlowe (Henry VI), Thomas Kyd (The Spanish Tragedy) and Ben Jonson (Sejanus). All in all, New Oxford is a landmark project both in scale and methodology and is far too large to do justice in a short review: its statistical methods and its ‘disintegration’ of the canon, which so far have not generated universal confidence, will be scrutinized by Shakespeare scholars and authorship-attribution experts for many years to come. The following survey will, therefore, focus on the way in which the cutting-edge scholarship underpinning the Reference and Companion is fitted for general use in the Modern edition. Modern arranges the plays authored or part-authored by Shakespeare in the chronological order of composition as established in Companion (Chapters 21, 22, and 25), to offer ‘a kind of biography’ of his creativity (p. 48). Poems, meanwhile, are placed in the years in which their first editions appeared. As a result, The Sonnets, first published in 1609 but probably composed much earlier, is placed between Coriolanus (1608) and The Winter’s Tale (between 1609 and 11). In the Table of Contents, the plays are listed under their full original titles (for instance The Most Lamentable Roman Tragedy of Titus Andronicus) but an alphabetical list of contents is also supplied using the familiar short titles (Titus Andronicus). While Oxford attempted to reproduce the plays as they were originally performed, New Oxford simply chooses the longest version of each play as their copy text, to give readers ‘the most Shakespeare’. As a matter of fact, the editors are now less sure than their 1986 predecessors about the nature of the manuscripts underlying early-modern playbooks: Recent decades have witnessed a collapse of confidence in the earlier categorization of Shakespeare texts. Difficulties relating to the terms ‘foul papers’ and ‘promptbook’ have been mentioned already [in pp. xxv-xxvi]. Editors are also now reluctant to identify the wide separation observed by the New Bibliography between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ quartos. This is not to say that the nature of the manuscript underlying a print edition is completely beyond scrutiny, but rather that our understanding of such matters is provisional, and the proposed dichotomies raise as many questions as they answer. (Jowett, ‘Shakespeare, Early Modern Textual Cultures, and This Edition’, in Reference, p. xli) They therefore use the Second Quarto version of Hamlet (1604-05) rather than the much shorter First Quarto (1603), or the First Folio. Some of their copy texts have act intervals, while others do not. When they do, it is difficult to establish whether the intervals were written by Shakespeare or inserted later by his fellow actors or by printers. For easy reference, 英文学研究96.indd 49 19/11/20 15:16 50 書 評 Modern gives both continuous scene numbering and conventional act-scene division in most plays. The scene division follows the editorial tradition except for a small number of cases (Titus Andronicus, 1.1 and 2.1; A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 3.1 and 4.1; King John, 2.2 and 3.1; Measure for Measure, 1.2, 3.1 and 4.1; Macbeth, 3.4 and 3.5). The edition also includes original musical scores for the songs within the texts. While modernizing the spelling, the edition modifies some of the speech prefixes and adds many stage directions implied by the dialogue. For instance, when Romeo and Juliet first meet and speak in a shared sonnet toward the end of the ball scene (1.5), the editors insert the direction, ‘He kisses her’, at lines 102 and 106, even though the early texts do not clarify the exact moment when the lovers kiss. Interpretive interventions such as this one are indicated by square brackets. The page layout of Modern is legible. The plays and poems are printed in a single column and there are helpful glosses at the bottom of each page. The side margin is used to provide Performance Notes, which supplement stage directions and explore various staging possibilities. Meanwhile, textual notes are postponed to the Reference volume and full collation will only be available in the forthcoming Alternative Versions. Instead of regular introductions, individual plays and poems are supplied with a selection (‘Bricolage’) of quotations representing different critical perspectives from 1592 to 2016.