The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1528  Monday, 30 August 1999.

From:           John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 30 Aug 1999 09:40:54 -0400
Subject:        Arden Editions

I was surprised by Milla Riggio's evaluation of the third Arden
edition.  Her experience bears no resemblance to mine.  Since she is
editing an MLA publication, I'd like to ask her to offer SHAKSPER a more
specific critique.

In what respect do third Ardens no measure up to second?  Text?  Text
notes? Commentary notes?  Introduction?  Let's be precise.

In many cases the same editors are editing plays for both third Arden
and for Oxford and Cambridge.  Al Braunmuller and David Bevington come
to mind. Do these editors drop their standards when they work for
Arden?  What specifically is wrong with Bevington's Troilus and Cressida
in comparison to his Oxford 1 Henry IV and Cambridge Antony and
Cleopatra?  In my experience, he is the same extraoardinary editor in
all three.

I wonder if Riggio is really complaining about changes in editorial
assumptions. If so, she needs to make clear what changes she dislikes.
And she needs to explain how those changes have affected Arden in
particular, without affecting Oxford and Cambridge.

I hope Riggio is being more careful in her MLA volume than her comments
on SHAKSPER suggest.

John Cox

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.