![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1991: Blayney's Review of Otness's *Census*
From: Ken Steele (ksteele@epas.utoronto.ca) Date: 12/11/91
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 323. Wednesday, 11 Dec 1991. From: Ken Steele <ksteele@epas.utoronto.ca> Subject: Blayney's Review of Otness's *Census* Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 22:10:52 EST I just received the Winter 1991 *Shakespeare Quarterly*, which includes two items by our fellow SHAKSPEReans: "The Poetics of Incomprehensibility" by Stephen Orgel (a version of the paper presented at the Vancouver SAA this March), and a review of Naseeb Shaheen's *Biblical References in Shakespeare's History Plays* by John D. Cox. This number of *SQ* also includes Peter Blayney's devastating review of Harold Otness's *The Shakespeare Folio Handbook and Census*, which Thomas G. Bishop warned us about in June (SHK 2.0169 and 2.0185). Not only is this review required reading for anyone considering buying the book (unfortunately the Toronto library has had it for some time now), but it is also a valuable *caveat* for would-be bibliographers and a savagely witty review. (I think it's sure to cheer anyone who thinks they've had a bad time at the hands of reviewers...) Blayney laments the limitations of Otness's census, summarizing that his interests seem to lie "in Folios only as expensive and prestigious objects collected by rich Americans and donated to American institutions." The book is evidently riddled with typographical errors (dozens are marked "sic" in Blayney's quotations alone), and Blayney catalogues some of the many inconsistencies in form and spelling of names, some of the many oversights and inconsistencies in cataloguing information, and the inexplicable and inexcusable neglect of almost the entire Folger Shakespeare Library collection: "instead of the expected copy-by-copy listing of the nearly two hundred Folios in the Folger Shakespeare Library, all that Otness offers is the number of copies of each edition and a nineteen-line note.... The implication seems to be that if the Folger Library catalogers have not yet condensed the desired facts into convenient form for him, Otness can hardly be expected to have done the job himself." The result, as Blayney observes, is that "he omitted more than a third of the institutionally owned Folios in the United States from what he claims is a `census' of them." Blayney goes on to outline Otness's many blunders in attempting to summarize Shakespearean bibliography, "a subject in which he is hopelessly out of his depth," and compares Otness's sources in Hinman and McKerrow to the garbled misinformation in the *Census*. Blayney quotes Otness's declared intention to provide a quick reference tool, as an alternative to "digging through the erudite but bulky tomes that characterize the literature on Shakespeare," and to avoid repeating the background material which "has already been elegantly expressed in a great number of works." Blayney quips: "Some of these goals have indeed been achieved. His tome is not bulky and has successfully avoided both elegance and erudition--but it is hardly efficient, and I question whether it is needed. Does `the academic community' need two thirds of a census of American-owned Folios that limits itself to provenance and bindings?" Blayney's final paragraph deserves a wider audience, too: "Anyone unlucky enough to acquire a copy of this book in future--any who achieve Otness or have Otness thrust upon them--would be well advised to thrust it back forthwith. Those who have already purchased one, and can no longer obtain a refund, may wish to remember the name of the press that accepted it for publication. For future reference, it was Greenwood Press (New York; Westport, Connecticut; London). *Caveat emptor.*" [Peter Blayney, rev. of *The Shakespeare Folio Handbook and Census* Compiled by Harold M. Otness. Bibliographies and Indexes in World Literature, Number 25. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990. pp. xii+136. $37.95 cloth. in *Shakespeare Quarterly* 42.4 (Winter 1991): 493-7.]
|
|
|||||