![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2002: "Introductions, Annotations,
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net) Date: 11/11/02
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2244 Monday, 11 November 2002 From: Hardy M. Cook <editor@shaksper.net> Date: Monday, November 11, 2002 Subject: "Introductions, Annotations, and the Electronic Edition" Dear SHAKSPEReans, If anyone would care to read the very modest paper I wrote for the "Introductions and Annotations" seminar of the 2002 International Shakespeare Conference in Stratford-upon-Avon, it is now available at the SHAKSPER Website: http://www.shaksper.net/archives/files/electronic.editing.html Below are the opening paragraph: ************** “Introductions, Annotations, and the Electronic Edition” Hardy M. Cook, Editor of SHAKSPER In his February 15, 2002, welcoming message, R. A. Foakes remarks, "Not much seems to have been written on the topic of the seminar" and then recommends Philip Edwards's "The Function of Commentary" (1984) and his own "On Finishing a Commentary on King Lear" (1997). In addition to the Oxford and Arden 3 guidelines, my research has uncovered a handful of other articles on the topics of introductions and commentaries to critical editions. In his essay, Foakes states that "Notes have to serve various explanatory functions, the main ones being to help the reader to understand textual problems; verbal difficulties; obscure allusions; references to proverbs, to the Bible and other works Shakespeare used; ideas, images and customs no longer familiar; and issues arising in staging the play" (238). The function of explaining "issues arising in staging the play" constitutes a very obvious difference in introductions and commentaries to the New Cambridge, Oxford, and Arden 3 Shakespeares and their preceding multivolume series editions. As Michael Cordner notes in 1996, THE LAST TWO to three decades have seen a remarkable development of performance-based scholarship in the study of Shakespeare. What are the implications of this for the editor of a Shakespearean play? Both the major new series of single-play editions now in advanced stages of publication - the New Cambridge and the Oxford Shakespeare - are avowedly more responsive to the theatrical dimensions of the texts than their major predecessor and rival, the New Arden series; similar claims are being made on behalf of the latter's successor, relaunched as Arden 3 in 1995 with a trio of new editions. (289) This new emphasis on performance realization rather than on characterization is apparent, for example, in Lois Potter's Arden 3 <I>The Two Noble Kinsmen</I>, whose introduction is structured: * The genre: tragicomedy; * The collaborators; * The authorship question; * Collaboration and censorship; * The date; * Contexts: public; * Contexts: literary; * Contexts: theatrical; * The play's afterlife; and * Text. The "afterlife" section of this edition includes Pre- publication allusions, Publication history, Adaptation and performance before 1900, Twentieth-century productions, and Interpretations; in addition, nine of the sixteen illustrations interspersed throughout the Introduction are productions stills. With the exception of staging issues, all of the functions that Foakes identifies in the citation above also apply to introductions and commentary to <I>The Poems<I>, which I am currently editing for the Internet Shakespeare Editions. In this short paper, I will confine my remarks to <I>Venus and Adonis</I> and specifically to the contributions of feminist theory and to the length of notes as both affect my editing practices. _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
|
|||||