Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: August ::
Re: First Folios
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1426  Monday 16 August 1999.

[1]     From:   David J. Schalkwyk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 13 Aug 1999 10:12:39 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1418 Re: Routledge First Folio

[2]     From:   A. D. Murphy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 16 Aug 1999 10:55:30 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1422 Re: First Folios


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David J. Schalkwyk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 13 Aug 1999 10:12:39 -0500
Subject: 10.1418 Re: Routledge First Folio
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1418 Re: Routledge First Folio

I am a bit puzzled by the ferocity of Pervez Rizvi's response to he
Routledge First Folio, especially since he doesn't provide a substantive
reason for not buying it.  I cannot afford the Norton on a South African
academic's salary, so I decided to buy Routledge in order to have a
convenient version of the First Folio on my desk for consultation and
reading. (E-text is great but not as convenient.)  I did not buy it for
the introduction, and if I want to use it in a scholarly article I can
always go to the library and check it against the Norton Folio there.
Whether it is worth buying or not depends upon your situation.  In my
context it has proved to be extremely useful.  Certainly, if the choice
is between having it and having nothing, I would not hesitate.  Given my
needs and context, and they may be the same as others, of course there's
a substitute for the Norton.

David Schalkwyk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           A. D. Murphy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 16 Aug 1999 10:55:30 +0100
Subject: 10.1422 Re: First Folios
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1422 Re: First Folios

>Do any list members know anything about the Arden Shakespeare CD-ROM?
>
>Good, bad, indifferent?

The Arden CD has been reviewed in various places-shredded by Mac Pigman
in TLS & also quite negatively reviewed by Jean Chothia in _Computers &
Texts_.

I actually quite like it for what it is-it gives you F1 & various
quartos and you can have them on the screen in various combos & sizes &
get them to scroll together, etc. It does some very odd things, though,
such as reproducing F1 columns independently of each other, so that you
can never see across the width of the page.

One of the biggest gripes that everyone has had is the cost-it started
in the UK at 2,500 pounds, though I think the cost was quickly rethought
& reduced (though I believe Nelson quietly reduced the number of user
licenses you got for your money as well). I don't know what it costs
now, but it's still hideously expensive. Discussions about the cost of
CD products tend to go around in circles & Nick Kind has defended the
cost of the thing, but I think most people still feel that it's grossly
overpriced.

As a footnote to the F1 facs discussion: many of these facsimiles have
very real problems-notably, as someone else pointed out, the 'cleaning
up' of the photographs. I've not seen the Routledge version of the
Applause, but last year I got a review copy of a set of all 4 folios
produced in facs by Routledge. They are hard cover & beautifully
packaged as a boxed set. They sit very nicely on my bookshelf, but,
sadly, are pretty useless, as they are simply a re-issue of the
facsimiles issued by Methuen (swallowed up by Routledge, now in their
turn swallowed up by Taylor & Francis) in the early part of this
century. Methuen cleaned & altered the photos, changing some text in the
process.

I would certainly agree with most of what has been said about the
Norton, but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the one criticism
that has always dogged it. Hinman put it together using a selection of
best pages from the many copies of F1 held at the Folger. This means
that it represents the 'best' version of F1 possible, but, of course, it
also means that it's not a facsimile of any copy that ever actually
existed, since as Peter Blayney himself points out in his excellent
little Folger book on F1, almost all copies of F1 differ from each
other, owing to the way in which press correction was carried out. Of
course, depending on what you want it for, this may not matter in the
least, but it's as well to be aware of it.

Hope some of this is helpful.

Cheers,
Andrew
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.