Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: May ::
Re: Collations
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1058  Wednesday, 17 May 2000.

From:           Pervez Rizvi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 16 May 2000 23:01:18 +0100
Subject: 11.1050 Re: Collations
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.1050 Re: Collations

In response to David Lindley:

I agree that *some* lineation is highly significant, the most well-known
example probably being Dover Wilson's demonstration of revision in act 5
of MND based on mislineation in QF. That should be in every collation
although, as Steve Urkowitz points out, it is hard to write
user-friendly collations for variants that involve more than a single
word or phrase. But some mislineation arises because, for example, a
particular line was too long for the compositor's measure, so that he
split it in two. That is not significant to me as a reader (it is of
course significant to a bibliographer) and, arguably, need not be
collated.

Incidentals are also not all significant. For example, blatant misprints
such as 'otand' for 'stand' in Q Othello can safely be put in an
appendix, or not noted at all. Of course, if an incidental affects the
range of available meanings then it is not incidental at all and should
be collated.

As a reader you have to trust the editor to take such decisions; the
alternative is to read facsimiles and do your own editing. When I wrote
that people should take less on trust I was very far from meaning that
they should take nothing on trust. As David says, it is question of
setting limits to collation. Sean's questions are important, and I agree
that blind cynicism is as bad as blind faith. I can't answer his
questions but I hope others will try.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.