Margreta De Grazia
- Published in print:
- 1991
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198117780
- eISBN:
- 9780191671067
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198117780.003.0002
- Subject:
- Literature, Shakespeare Studies
A long genealogy separates the first published collection of William Shakespeare's plays, the 1623 First Folio, from standard twentieth-century editions of Shakespeare. The pedigree of each edition ...
More
A long genealogy separates the first published collection of William Shakespeare's plays, the 1623 First Folio, from standard twentieth-century editions of Shakespeare. The pedigree of each edition could be traced, theoretically at least, back to the most authentic texts, either those of the Folio or those of the quartos that preceded it. Through the First Folio and early quartos, and the putative manuscripts behind them, the line is imagined to extend directly back to the ultimate begetter, Shakespeare. However, the resemblance is far from exact. The difference is in part, as might be expected, superficial. The refinement of printing techniques and the standardization of English have changed the appearance of the page. Technical and philological improvements, though, cannot explain away more substantial differences pertaining to content and organization.Less
A long genealogy separates the first published collection of William Shakespeare's plays, the 1623 First Folio, from standard twentieth-century editions of Shakespeare. The pedigree of each edition could be traced, theoretically at least, back to the most authentic texts, either those of the Folio or those of the quartos that preceded it. Through the First Folio and early quartos, and the putative manuscripts behind them, the line is imagined to extend directly back to the ultimate begetter, Shakespeare. However, the resemblance is far from exact. The difference is in part, as might be expected, superficial. The refinement of printing techniques and the standardization of English have changed the appearance of the page. Technical and philological improvements, though, cannot explain away more substantial differences pertaining to content and organization.
Margreta De Grazia
- Published in print:
- 1991
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198117780
- eISBN:
- 9780191671067
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198117780.001.0001
- Subject:
- Literature, Shakespeare Studies
This book challenges traditional Shakespeare scholarship through a study of its textual primacy in the late eighteenth century. The book's examination of earlier treatments demonstrates that concepts ...
More
This book challenges traditional Shakespeare scholarship through a study of its textual primacy in the late eighteenth century. The book's examination of earlier treatments demonstrates that concepts now basic to Shakespeare studies were once largely irrelevant. Only with Edmond Malone's 1790 Shakespeare edition do such criteria as authenticity, historical periodisation, factual biography, chronological development, and in-depth readings become dominant. However, their emergence then must not be seen as the overdue installation of proper scholarly and literary procedures, but rather as a specific historical response to the problem the Shakespeare corpus has posed since its definition by the 1623 Folio. The remarkable efficacy of Malone's apparatus over the past two hundred years testifies not to its ‘truth’, but rather to its endorsement of a continuing Enlightenment epistemology irreconcilable with the past linguistic and mechanical practices it purports accurately to reproduce. This challenging book has both practical and theoretical implications for Shakespeare studies in the 1990s and beyond.Less
This book challenges traditional Shakespeare scholarship through a study of its textual primacy in the late eighteenth century. The book's examination of earlier treatments demonstrates that concepts now basic to Shakespeare studies were once largely irrelevant. Only with Edmond Malone's 1790 Shakespeare edition do such criteria as authenticity, historical periodisation, factual biography, chronological development, and in-depth readings become dominant. However, their emergence then must not be seen as the overdue installation of proper scholarly and literary procedures, but rather as a specific historical response to the problem the Shakespeare corpus has posed since its definition by the 1623 Folio. The remarkable efficacy of Malone's apparatus over the past two hundred years testifies not to its ‘truth’, but rather to its endorsement of a continuing Enlightenment epistemology irreconcilable with the past linguistic and mechanical practices it purports accurately to reproduce. This challenging book has both practical and theoretical implications for Shakespeare studies in the 1990s and beyond.
John Jones
- Published in print:
- 2000
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198186885
- eISBN:
- 9780191674594
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198186885.003.0001
- Subject:
- Literature, Shakespeare Studies
This chapter examines alterations to the Second Part of Henry IV as it appears in the 1623 Folio. The Folio contains verse and prose which is missing from the 1600 Quarto, the text of the play that ...
More
This chapter examines alterations to the Second Part of Henry IV as it appears in the 1623 Folio. The Folio contains verse and prose which is missing from the 1600 Quarto, the text of the play that was printed from Shakespeare's manuscripts. This chapter suggests that the Quarto is a good example of a play printed directly from the author's draft and that there is no reason to doubt that the words in the Quarto are the words Shakespeare wrote. As a result, the chapter then raises the issue of whether or not the changes made in the Folio can be attributed to Shakespeare.Less
This chapter examines alterations to the Second Part of Henry IV as it appears in the 1623 Folio. The Folio contains verse and prose which is missing from the 1600 Quarto, the text of the play that was printed from Shakespeare's manuscripts. This chapter suggests that the Quarto is a good example of a play printed directly from the author's draft and that there is no reason to doubt that the words in the Quarto are the words Shakespeare wrote. As a result, the chapter then raises the issue of whether or not the changes made in the Folio can be attributed to Shakespeare.
