Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T11:47:01.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Editions and Textual Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2007

Peter Holland
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Get access

Summary

EDITIONS

Nearly two decades ago, Gary Taylor concluded the revolutionary Oxford Shakespeare on a note of philosophic calm: ‘with our own task now behind us’, he wrote, speaking for himself and his colleagues, ‘we look forward to our future obsolescence’. The publication this year of a second edition, however, suggests that the editors are not yet ready to go gentle into that good night.

The Oxford Shakespeare Complete Works (1986) was an undisputed landmark in Shakespearian editing. It may rank as the best-selling edition in history, having sold somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600,000 copies to date, and it was certainly the most influential edition of the twentieth century. Although some of the Oxford innovations never got much traction – no subsequent edition of Henry IV has featured ‘Sir John Oldcastle’, nor have the alternative titles The First Part of the Contention or Richard Duke of York been embraced by any later edition of King Henry VI Parts 2 and 3 (not even those in the Oxford single-play series) – the decision to include both Quarto and Folio Lear was of major significance, inspiring numerous two-text editions of that play and launching discussions of version-based editing that have reshaped every branch of editorial theory and practice.

But if the Oxford Shakespeare was once a youthful iconoclast, it has now become a middle-aged member of the establishment. Whereas the rhetorical insistence upon groundbreaking uniqueness may have been appropriate in the first edition, that same rhetoric now seems out of place. A new ‘User’s Guide’ to the second edition claims that ‘because this edition represents a radical rethinking of the text, it departs from tradition more than most’ and lists among its ‘most radical departures’ the abandonment of ‘the tradition of conflation’. It goes on to assert that ‘most drastically, we present separately edited texts of both authoritative early editions of King Lear’.

Type
Chapter
Information
Shakespeare Survey , pp. 375 - 383
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×