Shakespeare Editing and Textual Theory: A Rough Guide

Abstract

O ne of curious aspects of explosion of writing about textual criticism and about editing in recent years is that many of those publishing advice or admonitions to editors have never edited a work themselves. Possibly class division in academy, whereby works of literary criticism are valued more highly than scholarly editions, has something to do with this situation. It is, of course, paradoxical that editions, which generally demand more learning, discrimination, and scholarship and have a considerably longer shelf life than most works of criticism, should have an inferior status.' Another, even more curious aspect of recent textual criticism struck me forcibly while I was working on edition of Shakespeare's King Lear that I completed recently: much of proliferating textual criticism in books, collections of essays, and periodicals such as TEXTand Textual Practice seemed to have no bearing on my practical work in editing a major play. The exponents of textual theory are preoccupied by issues such as the death of author, materiality, and unediting, which hold little direct interest for many readers and students of literature. Nonetheless, arguments over these matters have had some impact on critical writings on Shakespeare and will likely affect future of editing, especially development of electronic editions. I thought it might be helpful to offer a critical commentary, addressed to common reader, if such there be, as well as to all who have a fringe awareness of something important going on in textual criticism. I start by identifying and discussing some of main terms and topics canvassed in writings on textual theory, especially as they relate to Shakespeare.