Werstine 2013: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Pollard — New Bibliography — turned Shakespeare criticism in a new direction by suggesting some | Pollard — New Bibliography — turned Shakespeare criticism in a new direction by suggesting some printer's copy in S's own hand may survive, and should then be the basis of editing | ||
Greg carried this study forward; catalogued | Greg carried this study forward; catalogued ''Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses'' (1931) | ||
Greg believed that “the two most important sources of the extant texts are probably the | Greg believed that “the two most important sources of the extant texts are probably the author's foul papers and theatrical prompt-books” (qtr on 2) | ||
Greg defined “foul papers” as “a copy representing the play more or less as the author intended it to stand, but not itself clear or tidy enough to serve as a prompt-book” because it contained “loose ends and false starts, and unresolved confusions” (qtr on 2) — ms may be illegible, full of deletions or alterations | Greg defined “foul papers” as “a copy representing the play more or less as the author intended it to stand, but not itself clear or tidy enough to serve as a prompt-book” because it contained “loose ends and false starts, and unresolved confusions” (qtr on 2) — ms may be illegible, full of deletions or alterations | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
for Greg, promptbook would be tidy and tie up loose ends, eliminate false starts, resolve confusions — unlike in foul papers | for Greg, promptbook would be tidy and tie up loose ends, eliminate false starts, resolve confusions — unlike in foul papers | ||
Greg's distinction has informed, with few exceptions, all 20-21c editions of S | |||
“controversial hypothesis that Shakespeare revised his plays is also ultimately built on | “controversial hypothesis that Shakespeare revised his plays is also ultimately built on Greg's work” (3) | ||
books on dramatics mss: Greg, | books on dramatics mss: Greg, ''Dramatic Documents'' (1931); Grace Ioppolo, ''Dramatists and their Manuscripts in the Age of Shakespeare, Jonson, Middleton, and Heywood'' (2006) | ||
criticism of these categories largely coming from post-structuralist position; no good critiques on empirical grounds yet — Werstine wants to do this | criticism of these categories largely coming from post-structuralist position; no good critiques on empirical grounds yet — Werstine wants to do this | ||
:”Only by presenting evidence from these documents according to the established practice of New Bibliography from the time of Pollard is it possible to demonstrate the New | :”Only by presenting evidence from these documents according to the established practice of New Bibliography from the time of Pollard is it possible to demonstrate the New Bibliography's most enduring editorial categories are invalid.” (4) | ||
21 mss — the “precious few” giving knowledge about use of manuscripts in producing plays | 21 mss — the “precious few” giving knowledge about use of manuscripts in producing plays | ||
:”to be successful in the identification of | :”to be successful in the identification of printer's copy of rate plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, the reach of editorial inference needs to be considerably more constrained by empirical evidence than it has been in the era of Greg's influence.” (10) | ||
Revision as of 19:26, 1 December 2014
- Werstine, Paul. Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts and the Editing of Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2013.
Pollard — New Bibliography — turned Shakespeare criticism in a new direction by suggesting some printer's copy in S's own hand may survive, and should then be the basis of editing
Greg carried this study forward; catalogued Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses (1931)
Greg believed that “the two most important sources of the extant texts are probably the author's foul papers and theatrical prompt-books” (qtr on 2)
Greg defined “foul papers” as “a copy representing the play more or less as the author intended it to stand, but not itself clear or tidy enough to serve as a prompt-book” because it contained “loose ends and false starts, and unresolved confusions” (qtr on 2) — ms may be illegible, full of deletions or alterations
Greg defined “promptbook” as a playhouse MS, marked up for performance, bore a license for performance at its end, signed by Master of the Revels
for Greg, promptbook would be tidy and tie up loose ends, eliminate false starts, resolve confusions — unlike in foul papers
Greg's distinction has informed, with few exceptions, all 20-21c editions of S
“controversial hypothesis that Shakespeare revised his plays is also ultimately built on Greg's work” (3)
books on dramatics mss: Greg, Dramatic Documents (1931); Grace Ioppolo, Dramatists and their Manuscripts in the Age of Shakespeare, Jonson, Middleton, and Heywood (2006)
criticism of these categories largely coming from post-structuralist position; no good critiques on empirical grounds yet — Werstine wants to do this
- ”Only by presenting evidence from these documents according to the established practice of New Bibliography from the time of Pollard is it possible to demonstrate the New Bibliography's most enduring editorial categories are invalid.” (4)
21 mss — the “precious few” giving knowledge about use of manuscripts in producing plays
- ”to be successful in the identification of printer's copy of rate plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, the reach of editorial inference needs to be considerably more constrained by empirical evidence than it has been in the era of Greg's influence.” (10)