The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0167 Monday, 1 February 1999.
Date: Saturday, 30 Jan 1999 18:07:49 +0000
Subject: 10.0152 Re: Editions
Comment: Re: SHK 10.0152 Re: Editions
Kirk Hendershott-Kraetzer praises Q and F editions for their aesthetic
virtues, an appraisal with which I couldn't agree more. I am aware of
the existence of reprints of individual plays in these formats, which is
to say facsimiles rather than recasted (or, in this era of computer
editing, reconfigured) type. Both would be extremely interesting tools
for teaching, by which I mean even for undergraduates, whose
intelligence and interest are too often underestimated.
The Malone Society reprints are certainly the best-known series for
facsimiles of Q and F editions, but perhaps members of the list are
aware of alternatives. Are the Malone editions readily available, I
I like also Robin Hamilton's point about the Norton: italicising
variants between Q and F editions is an interesting and valuable way to
note changes. However, even the Norton editors had to decide which text
to privilege (set in Roman rather than Italic), which necessitates an
implicit assumption of textual authority. But Robin cites the one reason
I will never buy the Norton:
> I do wish the paper was thicker
Finicky, perhaps, but one has that right.