MLR, 96.I, 2001 MLR, 96.I, 2001 work, Kahan is furtherforced to argue that Samuel Ireland'scorrespondencewith the mysterious 'Mr H', the owner of the chest in which the documents were supposedlyfound, was a fabrication, designed to be used in evidence (even though it was not published),and that William-Henry'sconfessionsand strangebehaviour were all part of the deception. This is not convincing, to say the least, and in any case it does not stop Kahan from quoting from 'tainted' documents. Indeed, a contradictory attitude towards Ireland's own accounts is maintained throughout: having trumpeted his preference for verifiable facts against the self-serving propaganda of the Irelands (fatherand son), Kahan then ceaselessly quotes from and refersto Irelandsenior'sdiaryand Irelandjunior's Confessions with no caveat at all. While it is useful to know that Vortigern was recopied severaltimes by members of the Irelandfamilyfor the stage, this does not prove that the copyistsknew it was a forgery;while we must be gratefulto have more of the archivalresourcesbrought into play, we cannot yet dispense with those earlier accounts by Mair, Grebanier, and Schoenbaum which Kahan patronizingly demotes while continuing to cite them as sources. UNIVERSITY OFLIVERPOOL PAULBAINES Re-Presenting BenJonson.Text,History,Performance. Ed. by MARTINBUTLER.(Early Modern Literaturein History)Basingstoke:Macmillan;New York:St Martin's Press. I999. xii+ 255 pp. ?45. This collection, ably introduced by Martin Butler, contains James Knowles's annotated text of Jonson's newly-discovered Entertainment at Britain'sBurseand a seriesof papersoriginallypresentedin 1995at the Universityof Leeds.The punning title points both to the immediate concern of that occasion (developing guidelines for a replacement to Herford and the Simpsons'monumental Oxford edition) and to the broaderissueof how to representJonson to modern readers. As prolegomena to the projectedCambridgeedition ofJonson's worksunderthe general editorshipof Butler, Ian Donaldson, and David Bevington, severalof these essays deal with the principles to be employed in a modern, and modernized, printed version with a complementary electronic database for old-spelling texts, manuscriptfacsimiles,Jonson allusions,and stage history. More importantly,they reviseour understandingofJonson's texts in the same way that recent biographical studieshave complicated our view of his careermoves and patronage connections. While Butler's introduction, Bevington's rationale for a new edition, David L. Gants's piece on the 1616 Workes, and Kevin Donovan's on EveiyMan Outof His Humour acknowledge the Folio'srevolutionarycontributionto modern strategiesof textual legitimation,they also identifyproblemsposed by an uncriticaldependence on its 'authorized' version of Jonson's works. Using modern bibliographic techniques to examine the sequence of press work and the press variants in the Folio, Gants shows thatJonson's involvement in proof-reading declined progressively as the printing went forward and that hundreds of variants in spelling and punctuation should be attributed to the compositors. Butler, Bevington, and Donovan question the value of the Folio as a copy-text for the two Every Manplays, Sejanus, the earlymasques,and TheNewInn,sincethe Quartoseitheroffersignificant alternative versions or point to controversial histories that are suppressed in the Folio. In an interestingpairing, Donovan's argument for privileging the Every Man OutQuarto because its scene divisions are closer to Jonson's original dramatic intentions is followed by Helen Ostovich's perceptive analysis of the Paul's Walk sequence in Act nIIScene I (split into six scenes in the Folio) as a carefully work, Kahan is furtherforced to argue that Samuel Ireland'scorrespondencewith the mysterious 'Mr H', the owner of the chest in which the documents were supposedlyfound, was a fabrication, designed to be used in evidence (even though it was not published),and that William-Henry'sconfessionsand strangebehaviour were all part of the deception. This is not convincing, to say the least, and in any case it does not stop Kahan from quoting from 'tainted' documents. Indeed, a contradictory attitude towards Ireland's own accounts is maintained throughout: having trumpeted his preference for verifiable facts against the self-serving propaganda of the Irelands (fatherand son), Kahan then ceaselessly quotes from and refersto Irelandsenior'sdiaryand Irelandjunior's Confessions with no caveat at all. While it is useful to know that Vortigern was recopied severaltimes by members of the Irelandfamilyfor the stage, this does not prove that the copyistsknew it was a forgery;while we must...
Read full abstract