The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2102 Tuesday, 30 November 1999.
From: Mike Jensen <
Date: Monday, 29 Nov 1999 08:57:01 -0800
Subject: Re: Burgundy and France
Comment: SHK 10.2083 Re: Burgundy and France
I have been Godshalked.
> Apparently Mike wants us to discuss Wellsian editorial theory and
> practice in general rather than in particular. If so, Mike, where would
> you like to begin? With the Falstaff/Oldcastle controversy? Of course,
> this would bring us right back to name changing.
> Yours, Bill Godshalk
Bill, I would not be so arrogant. Well, not about this. Professor
Wells, like all editors, is doing his best given the texts and his
understanding of them. He has made it clear he is attempting to produce
the Q Shakespeare intended to write. Assuming he is thinking the same
way after 15 years, his book gives us an opportunity to understand his
thought process as he solves these editorial problems.
I don't think the discussion has been in the least general. I sent my
post because the discussion was so much about Wells editorial approach,
as applied to a specific problem. This fact was unacknowledged and
possibly not understood by everyone, but must be true. It also seemed
clear that in some cases (probably not you), some list members wrote
without understanding Wells' method. I felt that some of the posts
(again, not your's, I found your's persuasive) showed ignorance of what
Professor Wells is doing.
So, no, I do not call for putting Wells under scrutiny on this list,
though list members have the right to do so, hopefully with informed
opinions. But why just scrutinize Stanley Wells? Why not drag in
Bowers, etc., etc., and etc.? Go back to Malone and Johnson if you