Fragmenting authorship in the eighteenth-century Shakespeare edition
2010; Routledge; Volume: 6; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/17450911003643076
ISSN1745-0926
Autores Tópico(s)Freedom of Expression and Defamation
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image sizeKeywords: Cymbeline Troilus and Cressida Twelfth Night editingeighteenth-century Measure for Measure Acknowledgements I would like to thank Brian Boyd, Gabriel Egan, Andrew Murphy, Shef Rogers, Tiffany Stern, Paul J. Vincent and two anonymous readers for Shakespeare for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Notes 1. For an early and influential statement of this belief, see McKerrow McKerrow , R.B . "The Elizabethan Printer and Dramatic Manuscripts." Library 4th ser. , 12 1932 : 253 75 . [Google Scholar] (264–65). 2. For a discussion of the ideal-typical nature of Greg's categories, see Werstine Werstine, Paul. 1997. "Plays in Manuscript". In A New History of Early English Drama, Edited by: John, D. Cox and David, Scott Kastan. 481–97. New York: Columbia UP. [Google Scholar] (492–95). 3. On Johnson's theatrical experiences, see Clayton Clayton, Philip T. 1974. "Samuel Johnson's Irene: 'An Elaborate Curiosity'". Tennessee Studies in Literature, 19: 121–35. [Google Scholar], Gray Gray , James . "'I'll Come No More Behind Your Scenes, David': A Fresh Look at Dr Johnson as Theatre Goer." English Studies in Canada 2 1976 : 27 60 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], and Klingel. 4. For a definition of paratexts, and a discussion of their functions, see Genette Genette , Gérard . Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation . Trans. Jane E. Lewin . Cambridge : Cambridge UP , 1997 .[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. For the applicability of Genette's terminology to early modern drama, see Bruster and Weimann Bruster, Douglas and Robert, Weimann. 2004. Prologues to Shakespeare's Theatre: Performance and Liminality in Early Modern Drama, London: Routledge. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] (37–38). 5. See, for instance, Stern (Making Shakespeare) Stern , Tiffany . Making Shakespeare: From Stage to Page . London : Routledge , 2004 .[Crossref] , [Google Scholar] and Palfrey and Stern Palfrey, Simon and Tiffany, Stern. 2007. Shakespeare in Parts, Oxford: Oxford UP. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. 6. On the historiographical problems inherent in "progressive" versions of editorial history, see Jarvis Jarvis, Simon. 1995. Scholars and Gentlemen: Shakespearian Textual Criticism and Representations of Scholarly Labour, 1725–65, Oxford: Clarendon P. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] (7; 190). 7. For a brief discussion of the kind of document Pope might have been referring to here, see Seary Seary, Peter. 1990. Lewis Theobald and the Editing of Shakespeare, Oxford: Clarendon P. [Google Scholar] (139n26). 8. A more fully documented version of the argument, probably revised and extended by Edmond Malone Malone , Edmond James Boswell , The Plays and Poems of William Shakspeare London : F.C. and J. Rivington 21 1821 [Google Scholar], appeared in the 1821 Malone-Boswell Variorum edition (2: 663–74). See Greg (Shakespeare 26) Gray , James . The Shakespeare First Folio: Its Bibliographical and Textual History . Oxford : Clarendon P , 1955 . [Google Scholar], for the argument that the 1821 note is partially Malone's. 9. On the Epicurean origins of the metaphor, see Novak Novak, Maximillian E. 1983. "Johnson, Dryden, and the Wild Vicissitudes of Taste". In The Unknown Samuel Johnson, Edited by: John, J. Burke and Donald, Kay. 54–75. Madison: U of Wisconsin P. [Google Scholar] (57). 10. For an illuminating recent discussion of the convergences between architectural restoration and textual editing, see Eggert Eggert, Paul. 2009. Securing the Past: Conservation in Art, Architecture and Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge UP. [Google Scholar]. 11. For a discussion of the relationship between prompt-book and annotated actor's part, see Taylor and Jowett Taylor, Gary and John, Jowett. 1993. Shakespeare Reshaped, 1606–1623, Oxford: Clarendon P. [Google Scholar] (108). 12. For a brief critique of Boswell's theory, see Taylor and Jowett (124). 13. On Steevens as hoaxer, see Middendorf Middendorf , John H . "Steevens and Johnson." Johnson and His Age . James Engell . Cambridge, MA : Harvard UP , 1984 . 125 35 . [Google Scholar] (128). 14. The performances are listed in Stone Stone , George Winchester Jr. , The London Stage, 1600–1800, Part 4: 1747–1776 Carbondale : Southern Illinois UP , 1962 2 . [Google Scholar] (1: 1146–47; 1149; 1153; 1169; and 1200). 15. On the contentious relationship between drama and "entertainment" in eighteenth-century criticism, see O'Brien O'Brien, John. 2004. Harlequin Britain: Pantomime and Entertainment, 1690–1760, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP. [Google Scholar] (38–40). 16. I am obliged to Gabriel Egan for this point. 17. For Malone's transcriptions of the Troyelles & Cresseda records from Henslowe's papers, see Malone Malone , Edmond , The Plays and Poems of William Shakspeare London , 1790 10 . [Google Scholar] (1, pt. 2: 319). 18. For the first theory, see Greg (Shakespeare 346); for the second, see Taylor Taylor, Gary. 1982. Troilus and Cressida: Bibliography, Performance, and Interpretation. Shakespeare Studies, 15: 99–136. [Google Scholar]. 19. The transposition of scenes that Steevens imagines taking place here would have been impossible to achieve with early modern actors' parts, which were continuous scrolls, not collections of individual speeches. See Stern Stern , Tiffany . "'I do wish that you had mentioned Garrick': The Absence of Garrick in Johnson's Shakespeare." Comparative Excellence: New Essays on Shakespeare and Johnson . Ed. Eric Rasmussen and Aaron Santesso . New York : AMS P , 2007 . 71 96 . [Google Scholar] ("Absence" 87).
Referência(s)