1994

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0589.  Sunday, 3 July 1994.
 
From:           David Scott Wilson-Okamura <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Saturday, 2 Jul 94 11:00:51 CDT
Subject:        Skepticism and Shakespeare's Text
 
Does _King Lear_ (Q1) represent foul papers?  Does the Folio text represent
authorial revision?  Barbara Mowat and Paul Werstine observe that "as scholars
reexamine all such narratives about the origins of the printed texts, we
discover that the evidence upon which they are based is questionable, and we
become more skeptical about ever identifying with any certainty how the play
assumed the forms in which it was printed" ("An Introduction to this Text," New
Folger _King Lear_ [1993], lxi).  Is this true?  Can anyone name names?  Which
scholars are skeptical?  I've said a lot of nice things about the New Folger
editions, but they do not give footnotes in the introductions, and the only
textual criticism they cite in the Bibliography is _Division of the Kingdoms_,
a study which is _not_ very amenable to the eclecticism that Mowat and Werstine
enjoin.
 
Any suggestions?  Discussion?
 
                                                Yours faithfully,
                                                David Wilson-Okamura
                                                This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.