Affiliation:
1. University of València, ES
Abstract
Editorial criteria in critical editions of Shakespeare’s plays have evolved from a 18th-century arbitrary eclecticism into one restricted by the editor’s knowledge of the nature and transmission of the early texts, a knowledge developed by the 20th-century New Bibliography that specially informs paleographical and bibliographical criteria. Roughly from the 21st century, these criteria have evolved into a conservatism influenced by a social view of texts, which stands on a par with the primordial criterion of reconstructing the text intended by the author. This textualism is nourished by a skepticism about the certainty the New Bibliography inspired in what editors know about the texts’ transmission.
Reference146 articles.
1. Alexander P. (ed.) (1951), The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Collins, London.
2. Alexander P. (1952), Restoring Shakespeare: The Modern Editor’s Task, «Shakespeare Survey», 5: 1-19.
3. Bate J. (ed.) (1995), William Shakespeare: Titus Andronicus, The Arden Shakespeare, Routledge, London.
4. Bate J. (2007), The Case for the Folio. Royal Shakespeare Company, <https://cdn2.rsc.org.uk/sitefinity/Play-resources/case_for_the_folio.pdf?sfvrsn=63c35521_2>
5. Bate J., Rasmussen E. (eds.) (2007), William Shakespeare: Complete Works, The RSC Shakespeare, The Royal Shakespeare / Macmillan / Random House, London-New York.