The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1672 Monday, 4 October 1999.
Date: Saturday, 2 Oct 1999 13:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Globe Shakespeare
The copy of Shakespeare's Works that Drew Whitehead described (that had
belonged to his uncle) is not the Globe Shakespeare. It is (as he
notes) a Collins Clear-type edition, and from the further information he
gave I believe it is the edition listed on p.4 col.1 of the Folger
Catalog of the Shakespeare Collection under the call number PR 2754
lyt6. We own a copy which I tentatively identify as the edition listed
immediately preceding that one, under the call number PR 2754 lyt3.
A brief check of some readings of this edition against Dick's collation
of editions of MND clearly demonstrates that this is not the Globe
Edition of 1964, first published by Cambridge, and edited by Clark and
Wright. (It showed some features in common with Staunton and Irving).
In response to Andrew Murphy's post last week: we have not been able to
find an 1864, but we do own an 1867 (Cambridge and Macmillan), which
Dick has fully collated (for MND) against the 1864 and which I believe
is identical to the 1864 even to the misprints. We also have a 1907,
and a 1930 reprint of the new edition of 1911. These are both published
by Macmillan, either London or New York. All are clearly identified as
the 'The Globe Edition', and acknowledge Clark and Wright as editors.
The 1930 edition lists 26 printings from 1864 to 1930, so it is indeed
surprising that copies are so hard to find.
Concerning the edition that several people have mentioned with the
illustrations of Sir John Gilbert: I have not seen this, but
information provided indicates that it is a reprint of Staunton's text
(issued in parts from December 1856, and in three volumes 1858-60).
The Preface to G.B. Harrison's Harcourt Brace edition of 1952 states
that the Globe text is the basis of the edition but that it is freely
altered to conform to modern American usage; though he claims that it is
'in no sense a drastic alteration of the Globe text', I don't imagine it
would serve for scholarly purposes as a substitute for that text.
[Final plaintive note: I have been trying to post on this subject since
September 23, and also trying to respond directly to Drew Whitehead, but
in every case, and entirely through my own fault, abortively. Despite
my e-mail incompetence, I hope the above information may be useful. I
think it's accurate.]