Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1996 :: May ::
Re: Texts
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0327.  Thursday, 2 May 1996.

(1)     From:   John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 17:13:20 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 7.0321 Re: Texts

(2)     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 23:42:59 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0321 Re: Texts


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 17:13:20 +0100
Subject: 7.0321 Re: Texts
Comment:        RE: SHK 7.0321 Re: Texts

As an editor of one of the volumes in the Shakespeare Originals series I
thought I should not leap in to defend it.  That is for others to do.  I'm a
little more concerned about Gabriel Egan's uncharacterstically sloppy
deployment of the concept of "fetishization".  Am I to understand from his use
of the term that every time an editor focuses on a particular text, whether it
be the first quarto of The Merchant, or Richard II, or the anonymous Famous
Victories, or the Pied Bull Lear, or the Folio Hamlet, that the result is a
fetishization?   Perhaps he could explain himself in a little more detail maybe
without "fetishizing" his own particular interests.

Best wishes,
John Drakakis

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Apr 1996 23:42:59 +0100
Subject: 7.0321 Re: Texts
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0321 Re: Texts

Andrew Murphy wrote

>Though I cannot speak for the general editors of the Shakespearean Originals,
>as a contributor to the series I feel I must take respectful exception to
>Gabriel Egan's recent passing reference to the series' fetishization of the
>quartos. In fact, the series is _not_ limited to editions of quarto texts, but
>includes editions of F1 texts as well.

I take the point, and concede that the series also fetishizes F1.

The desire to "throw a cordon around" certain early printed texts is what I
consider fetishization, and Andrew Murphy does not challenge this. A concern to
deconstruct the editorial "myth of origin" which is part of the series' agenda,
as I understand it, is a bit difficult to reconcile with the title
"Shakespearean ORIGINALS", isn't it?

Gabriel Egan
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.