Error and the Text

Leonard, Alice

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-35180-9_5

Alice Leonard⁴

Part of the book series: Palgrave Shakespeare Studies ((PASHST))

286 Accesses

Abstract

In the eighteenth century, Lewis Theobald declared ‘we have scarce any book in the English tongue more fertile of errors than the plays of Shakespeare’ (Shakespeare Restored, p. i.). This Chapter explores the role of textual error when reading a play, specifically the unique case of The Comedy of Errors. In the earliest edition, the First Folio, the ambiguous speech-prefixes replicate the same confusion of twins as the play itself dramatizes. Thus, in the context of Erasmus’s Humanist ideals of standardisation embodied in the process of ‘proofing’ a work, this chapter seeks to defend the value of these printed slips. Textual criticism has until recently been engaged with removing the error and uncovering the ‘truth’ of Shakespeare’s text, whereas the printed copies identified here demonstrate the ineradicability of textual error. The chapter draws attention to a set of readers who encounter this error and fail to correct it in the annotations they leave behind. It proposes a new aspect of the material text for inclusion in the interpretation of the play and potentially for future editions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 79.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 99.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 99.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
George Steevens, ed., The Plays of William Shakespeare (London, 1773), 10 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 221.
2.
Brian Gibbons, ‘Erring and Straying Like Lost Sheep: “The Winter’s Tale” and “The Comedy of Errors”’, Shakespeare Survey, Vol. 50 (1997), 111–124, p. 116.
3.
Although Sonia Massai has recently challenged this idea of Nicholas Rowe’s edition as a ‘crucial watershed’ by examining the editorial practices of ‘annotating readers’ pre-1709, the distinction is meaningful in terms of the turn towards error in Shakespeare’s text by Rowe and subsequent editors, of which the like had not before been seen. See Sonia Massai, Shakespeare and the Rise of the Editor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 2.
4.
Anthony James West, ‘The Life of the First Folio in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text, ed. Andrew Murphy, (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2010), 71–90, p. 82.
5.
Nicholas Rowe, ‘Dedication’, The Works of Mr. William Shakespear, Vol. 1 (London, 1709).
6.
Rowe, ‘Dedication’, The Works of Mr. William Shakespear.
7.
Rowe, ‘Dedication’, The Works of Mr. William Shakespear.
8.
Margreta de Grazia, Shakespeare Verbatim: The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 18.
9.
John Jowett, ‘Shakespeare and the Kingdom of Error’, in The New Oxford Shakespeare: Critical Reference Edition, eds. Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus, and Gabriel Egan, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. xlix–lxiii, xlix.
10.
Alexander Pope, ‘Preface’, The Works of Shakespear (London, 1725), p. i.
11.
Pope, ‘Preface’, p. ii.
12.
Pope, ‘Preface’, p. ix.
13.
Pope, ‘Preface’, p. xiv.
14.
Pope, ‘Preface’, p. xx.
15.
Pope, ‘Preface’, p. xxi.
16.
Pope, ‘Preface’, p. xxi.
17.
Lewis Theobald, ‘Titlepage’, Shakespeare Restored (London, 1726).
18.
Theobald, Shakespeare Restored, p. i.
19.
Theobald, Shakespeare Restored, p. i.
20.
Theobald, Shakespeare Restored, p. ii.
21.
Theobald, Shakespeare Restored, p. ii.
22.
Theobald, Shakespeare Restored, p. v.
23.
See de Grazia, Shakespeare Verbatim, pp. 54–55. De Grazia’s study is widely concerned with the preliminaries of the various eighteenth-century editions, but does not focus on their discussions of error.
24.
Edward Capell, Mr. William Shakespeare His Comedies, Histories and Tragedies (London, 1768), 10 Vols., Vol. 1, pp. 49–74.
25.
Capell, ‘D^o, of Plays ascrib’d to him’ in ‘Introduction’, Mr. William Shakespeare, Vol. 1.
26.
Capell, ‘Introduction’, Mr. William Shakespeare, Vol. 1, p. 1.
27.
Capell, ‘Introduction’, Mr. William Shakespeare, Vol. 1, p. 2.
28.
Thomas Hamner, ‘The Preface to the Oxford Edition’, in The Works of Shakespear in Six Volumes (London, 1745), p. v.
29.
Hamner, The Works of Shakespear, p. vi.
30.
Lewis Theobald, ‘The Preface’, Works of Shakespeare (London, 1733), 7 Vols., Vol. 1, p. xl. Andrew Murphy has usefully catalogued all the editions of Shakespeare, available in Andrew Murphy, Shakespeare in Print: A History and Chronology of Shakespeare Publishing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 279–410.
31.
Fredson Bowers, ‘Today’s Shakespeare Texts, and Tomorrow’s’, Studies in Bibliography, Vol. 19 (1966), 39–65, p. 59.
32.
On New Textualism, see Randall McLeod, ‘Un-editing Shak-speare’, Sub-Stance, Vol. 10/11, No. 33–34 (1981/1982), 26–55; Margreta de Grazia and Peter Stallybrass, ‘The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text’, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 44 (1993); Leah Marcus, Unediting the Renaissance: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton (London: Routledge, 1996); Laurie Maguire and Thomas L. Berger, eds., Textual Formations and Reformations (London: Associated University Presses, 1998). For a critique of New Bibliography, see Jerome J. McGann, The Textual Condition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).
33.
De Grazia and Stallybrass, ‘The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text’, pp. 256–257.
34.
De Grazia and Stallybrass, ‘The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text’, p. 256.
35.
Randall McLeod, ‘Unemending Shakespeare’s Sonnet 111’, Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Winter, 1981), 75–96, p. 96.
36.
John Jowett, ‘Editing Shakespeare’s Plays in the Twentieth Century’, Shakespeare Survey, Vol. 59 (2006), 1–19, p. 14.
37.
Gary Taylor and Michael Warren, eds., The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of King Lear (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983).
38.
Jowett, ‘Editing Shakespeare’s Plays’, p. 15.
39.
Mowat, ‘The Problem of Shakespeare’s Text(s)’, p. 132. Maguire makes the same observation: ‘The long-term influence of the New Bibliography can be seen in the apodeictic rhetoric of textual introductions to most twentieth-century scholarly editions’. See Maguire, Shakespearean Suspect Texts: The Bad Quartos and Their Contexts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 22. Leah Marcus points out, ‘[t]o an extent that few of us recognise, our standard editions are shaped by nineteenth-century or even earlier assumptions and ideologies’. Marcus, Unediting the Renaissance, p. 5.
40.
For example, The Riverside Shakespeare has a ‘Textual Notes’ section at the end of the play where textual details that do not appear in the main body of the play are noted, such as the variants between texts. See Shakespeare, The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd edn., ed. G. Blakemore Evans (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997). At the beginning of the Cambridge edition of Cymbeline, there is a ‘Textual Note’ which explains the otherwise silent modernization of spelling, the treatment of stage directions and the division of the play into acts and scenes. See Shakespeare, Cymbeline, ed. Martin Butler (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 73–74.
41.
Marcus, ‘Editing Shakespeare in a Postmodern Age’, in A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text, ed. Andrew Murphy (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 128–144, pp. 135–136.
42.
See also Paul Werstine, ‘“Foul Papers” and “Prompt-Books”: Printer’s Copy for Shakespeare’s “Comedy of Errors”’, Studies in Bibliography, Vol. 41 (1988), 232–246.
43.
Maguire, ‘The Girls from Ephesus’, in The Comedy of Errors: Critical Essays, ed. Robert Miola (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 355–383, 356.
44.
See Shakespeare, Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies (London, 1623), TLN 163, 394, according to Charlton Hinman’s Through Line Numbering (TLN) found in the Internet Shakespeare Editions (ISE), ed. Matthew Steggle, http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/ [accessed 12 March 2018].
45.
R. A. Foakes, ‘Introduction’ to Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, ed. R. A. Foakes (London: Methuen, 1991), p. xii.
46.
See Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies, pp. 88, 90, TLN 409, EEBO at http://eebo.chadwyck.com [accessed 12 March 2018].
47.
Foakes, ‘Introduction’, p. xii.
48.
TLN 30, 35, 101, 127, 160, 1671.
49.
TLN 982, 1038, 1045, 1056, 1467, 1472, 1488, 1490, 1496, 1587, 1593, 1736.
50.
As Foakes points out, Menaechmus of Epidamnum (who corresponds to Antipholus of Ephesus) is more central dramatically than his twin brother, whereas Shakespeare gives his Antipholus of Syracuse more prominence, including nearly a hundred lines more dialogue than his brother. R. A. Foakes, ‘Introduction’, p. xxv. Plautus focuses the action of the Menaechmi on the twin in his home town while the other twin orbits around him, whereas Shakespeare reverses this feature, focusing on the wandering, lost twin, emphasising his being in error.
51.
R. B. McKerrow, ‘A Suggestion Regarding Shakespeare’s Manuscripts’, Review of English Studies, Vol. 44 (1935), 459–465, p. 460.
52.
McKerrow, ‘A Suggestion Regarding Shakespeare’s Manuscripts’, p. 460.
53.
TLN 1762, 1766, 1771, 1778, 1783, 1785, 1788, 1801, 1838.
54.
McKerrow, ‘A Suggestion Regarding Shakespeare’s Manuscripts’, p. 461.
55.
McKerrow, ‘A Suggestion Regarding Shakespeare’s Manuscripts’, pp. 464–465.
56.
McKerrow, ‘A Suggestion Regarding Shakespeare’s Manuscripts’, p. 464.
57.
W. W. Greg, The Shakespeare First Folio (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), p. 114.
58.
See also James Knapp who claims that the confusion in the speech-prefixes is evidence of the author’s own manuscript. James Knapp, ‘Textual Introduction’ to The Comedy of Errors in The Norton Shakespeare, 3rd edn., ed. Stephen Greenblatt (London: W. W. Norton, 2016), p. 752.
59.
See G. Blakemore Evans, ed., Shakespearean Prompt-books of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. 3 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1964), online edition available http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/ShaComP.html [accessed 12 March 2018]. For the most recent study of Shakespeare’s readers see Jean-Christophe Mayer, Shakespeare’s Early Readers: A Cultural History from 1590 to 1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018) and Claire M. L. Bourne, 'Marking Shakespeare', Shakespeare, Vol. 13 Issue 4, 367–386.
60.
Emma Smith, Shakespeare’s First Folio: Four Centuries of an Iconic Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 241. Smith argues that ‘Mr Biggs (who played Antipholus of Ephesus) and Mr Disney (his Syracusan twin), Mrs Cooke, who played Luciana, and Mr and Mrs Coysh (Dromio of Ephesus and Adriana) were all members of Thomas Killigrew’s King’s Company performing at Drury Lane in London in the 1660s and 1670s.’ p. 241.
61.
Smith, Shakespeare’s First Folio, p. 241.
62.
Although these texts are well-known and discussed because they represent only a small body of extant evidence from the seventeenth century, their individual treatments of error-correction or interaction has not been addressed.
63.
For a digitisation of this see: Evans, Shakespearean Promptbooks of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. 3, http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/images/ce12open.jpg [accessed 12 March 2018].
64.
See Evans, Shakespearean Promptbooks of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. 3, http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/images/ce-p88a.jpg [accessed 12 March 2018].
65.
At lines 1, 14, 17, 22, 41, 43, 46, 51, 54, 58, 60, 62, 65, 149, 157, 162, 165, 168, 183, 198, 200, 214. See http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/images/ce-p88b.jpg [accessed 12 March 2018].
66.
See Evans, Shakespearean Promptbooks of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. 3, http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/images/ce-p90.jpg [accessed 12 March 2018].
67.
This occurs another twelve times. See lines: 27, 40, 42, 54, 57, 59, 63, 69, 73, 80, 84, 123.
68.
See Evans, Shakespearean Promptbooks of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. 3, http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/images/ce-p92.jpg [accessed 12 March 2018].
69.
See also: 3.2.54, where Hand 1 prefixes the F speech-head ‘Ant.’ with ‘S:’; also at lines 56, 58, 60, 60, 66, 71, 75, 79, 84, 90, 95, 103, 107, 110, 114, 118, 122, 125, 128, 133, 136, 142, 152, 161, 170, 174, 176, 181, 184. [http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/images/ce-p92.jpg [accessed 12 March 2018]; 4.1.15 where Hand 1 prefixes the F speech-head ‘Ant.’ with ‘E:’; also at lines 34 41, 43, 48, 54, 57, 62, 64, 66, 74, 80, 93, 96’ 100; 4.3.15 where Hand 1 prefixes the F speech-head ‘Ant.’ with ‘S:’; also at lines 21, 29, 34, 42, 48, 50, 63, 66, 80, http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/images/ce-p94.jpg [accessed 12 March 2018]; 4.4.1 where Hand 1 prefixes the F speech-head ‘An.’ with ‘E:’; also at lines 11, 13, 15, 17, 24, 27, 43, 47, 56, 61, 63, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 85, 90, 98, 104, 112, 127, 129, http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/images/ce-p95.jpg [accessed 12 March 2018]; and 5.1.23 where Hand 1 prefixes F speech-head ‘Ant.’ with ‘S:’, also at lines 25, 29, http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/images/ce-p96.jpg [accessed 12 March 2018].
70.
Paul Werstine, Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 117.
71.
See Evans, ‘The Douai Manuscript—Six Shakespearean Transcripts (1694–1695)’, Philological Quarterly, Vol. 41 (1962), 158–172 and Ann-Mari Hedbäck, ‘The Douai Manuscript Reexamined’, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, Vol. 73, No. 1 (1979), 1–18.
72.
The Catalogue general des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques, Vol. 6: Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de Douai, ed. C. Dehaisnes (1978) of the Douai Public Library states: ‘Provient sans doute de l’un des couvents anglais de Douai’, pp. 477–478.
73.
Evans, ‘The Douai Manuscript’, p. 164.
74.
Evans, ‘The Douai Manuscript’, p. 165.
75.
Werstine, Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts, p. 118.
76.
Arthur Marotti and Laura Estill, ‘Manuscript Circulation’, in The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare, ed. Arthur F. Kinney (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 53–70, p. 64.
77.
Jean-Christophe Mayer, ‘Annotating and Transcribing for the Theatre: Shakespeare’s Early Modern Reader–Revisers at Work’, in Shakespeare and Textual Studies, eds. Margaret Jane Kidnie and Sonia Massai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 163–176, 171.
78.
The overwhelming sense that promptbooks are useful to understanding the stage is in part due to the lack of evidence of early performance. As Charles Shattuck’s The Shakespeare Promptbooks: A Descriptive Catalogue shows us, there are only three performances of Errors from which we have related texts, we have no texts from the eighteenth century and the next recorded text is John Philip Kemble’s from 1811. Charles Shattuck, The Shakespeare Promptbooks: A Descriptive Catalogue (Urbana and London: University of Illinois Press, 1965), p. 67.
79.
Shattuck, The Shakespeare Promptbooks, p. 3.
80.
Evans describes the Smock Alley prompt-book to be ‘of uncertain date but almost certainly before 1700’. Evans, ‘Introduction “The Comedy of Errors” First Folio’, Shakespearean Promptbooks of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. 3, http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/ShaComP.html [accessed 12 March 2018].
81.
Evans, ‘Smock Alley “The Comedy of Errors” Third Folio Introduction’, Shakespearean Promptbooks of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. 8, http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/Sha8CEP.html#n1 [accessed 12 March 2018].
82.
Evans, ‘Smock Alley “The Comedy of Errors” Third Folio Introduction’ at http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/Sha8CEP.html#n1.
83.
Smith, Shakespeare’s First Folio, p. 241.
84.
See Charles Whitworth, who upholds this distinction in Errors: ‘Rectifying Shakespeare’s Errors: Romance and Farce in Bardeditry’, in The Comedy of Errors: Critical Essays, ed. Robert Miola (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 227–260, 242.
85.
This distinction has been challenged by: Paul Werstine, ‘“Foul Papers” and “Prompt-Books”: Printer’s Copy for Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors’, Studies in Bibliography, Vol. 41 (1988), 232–246; William B. Long, ‘“John a Kent and John a Cumber”: An Elizabethan Playbook and its Implications’, in Shakespeare and Dramatic Tradition, eds. W. R. Elton and William B. Long (Newark, University of Delaware Press, 1989), pp. 125–143; Werstine, ‘Narratives About Printed Shakespeare Texts: “Foul Papers” and “Bad” Quartos’, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 41 (1990), 65–86; and David Bradley, From Text to Performance in the Elizabethan Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
86.
For discussion of this copy, see Noriko Sumimoto, ‘Updating Folios: Readers’ Reconfigurations and Customisations of Shakespeare’, Early Modern Literary Studies, Vol. 21 (2013), at https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/si-21/07-Sumimoto_Updating%20Folios.htm [accessed 14 February 2018].
87.
Shakespeare, Mr. William Shakespear’s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies Published According to the True Original Copies (London, 1685), Wing / S2917, from the Bodleian Library, available via EEBO at http://eebo.chadwyck.com [accessed 12 March 2018].
88.
Pope, ‘Preface’, p. xxi.
89.
Pope, The Works of Shakespear, Vol. 1, p. 449.
90.
Thomas Dekker, ‘Ad Lectorum’, Satiro-mastix, or The Untrussing of the Humorous Poet (London, 1602).
91.
For one of the most detailed discussions of errata in early modern literature, see Adam Smyth, Material Texts in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 75–136.
92.
Whitworth, ‘Rectifying Shakespeare’s Errors’, p. 242.
93.
Jowett, ‘Shakespeare and the Kingdom of Error’, p. l.
94.
Jowett, ‘Shakespeare and the Kingdom of Error’, p. lxii.
95.
Patricia Parker, ‘Elder and Younger: The Opening Scene of The Comedy of Errors’, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Autumn, 1983), 325–327, p. 325.
96.
Parker, ‘Elder and Younger’, p. 325.
97.
Parker, ‘Elder and Younger’, p. 326.
98.
Barbara Freedman notes the role of these two types of error, as the experience of observing the mistaken identity begins with one and ends with another: ‘they at first seem to bolster our sense of superiority; we know who everyone really is and why these misunderstandings occur. But as the mood darkens, as it oscillates ever more rapidly between comic terror and romance, nightmare and wish fulfilment, we come to identify with the experiences of these erring creatures’. Barbara Freedman, ‘Reading Errantly’, in The Comedy of Errors: Critical Essays, ed. Robert Miola (London: Garland Publishing, 1997), pp. 261–297, 261.
99.
‘The significant misrecognitions are not, finally, those that take place between the characters in the play, but those that occur because of the play of character itself’. Freedman, ‘Reading Errantly’, p. 266.
100.
A number of significant contributions have shaped the field: Heidi Brayman Hackel, Reading Material in Early Modern England: Print, Gender, and Literacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); James Raven, Helen Small, and Naomi Tadmor, eds., The Practice and Representation of Reading in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Sasha Roberts, ed., Reading in Early Modern England, special issue of Critical Survey, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2000); Sabrina A. Baron, Elizabeth Walsh, and Susan Scola, eds., The Reader Revealed (Washington DC: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2001); Jennifer Andersen and Elizabeth Sauer, eds., Books and Readers in Early Modern England: Material Studies (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002); Kevin Sharpe and Steven N. Zwicker, eds., Reading, Society and Politics in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); and Stephen Orgel, The Reader in the Book: A Study of Spaces and Traces (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Studies of reading and annotation practices include: H. J. Jackson, Marginalia: Readers Writing in Books (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001) and William Sherman, Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).
101.
Jennifer Andersen and Elizabeth Sauer, ‘Current Trends in the History of Reading’, in Books and Readers in Early Modern England: Material Studies, eds. Jennifer Andersen and Elizabeth Sauer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 1–20, p. 2.
102.
John Kerrigan, On Shakespeare and Early Modern Literature: Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 115–137, 119, 137.
103.
Jerome McGann, Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) and by Donald McKenzie, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
104.
For a critique of this position, see T. H. Howard-Hill, ‘Theory and Praxis in the Social Approach to Editing’, TEXT, Vol. 5 (1991), 31–46.
105.
McGann, ‘From Text to Work: Digital Tools and the Emergence of the Social Text’, Romanticism on the Net, 41–42 (2006), http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/013153ar [accessed 12 March 2018].
106.
McKenzie, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts, p. 15.
107.
McGann, The Textual Condition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 10.
108.
Stephen Orgel, The Reader in the Book: A Study of Spaces and Traces (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 2.
109.
Tiffany Stern, ‘Future Directions in Renaissance Drama’, Renaissance Drama, Vol. 40 (2012), 151–160, pp. 151–152.
110.
Marcus, ‘Editing Shakespeare in a Postmodern Age’, p. 142.
111.
See Harold Bloom, Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human (London: Fourth Estate, 1999); Richard Dutton, ‘“The Comedy of Errors” and “The Calumny of Apelles”: An Exercise in Source Study’, Religion and the Arts, Vol. 7, No. 1–2 (2003), 11–30.
112.
Seth Lerer, Error and the Academic Self (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2002), p. 9.
113.
Michael Warren, ‘The Perception of Error: The Editing and the Performance of the Opening of Coriolanus’, in Textual Performances: The Modern Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Drama, eds. Lukas Erne and Margaret Jane Kidnie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 127–142, 130.

Works Cited

Primary Works

Dekker, Thomas, Satiro-mastix, or The Untrussing of the Humorous Poet (London, 1602).
Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William, Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies (London, 1623), EEBO at http://eebo.chadwyck.com [accessed 12 March 2018].
———, Mr. William Shakespear’s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies Published According to the True Original Copies (London, 1685), EEBO at http://eebo.chadwyck.com [accessed 12 March 2018].
———, The Comedy of Errors, ed. R. A. Foakes (London: Methuen, 1991).
Google Scholar
———, The Norton Shakespeare, ed. Stephen Greenblatt (London: W. W. Norton and Company, 2008).
Google Scholar
———, The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. G. Blakemore Evans (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997).
Google Scholar
———, Cymbeline, ed. Martin Butler (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Google Scholar
Steggle, Matthew, ed., Internet Shakespeare Editions (ISE). http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/ [accessed 12 March 2018].

Secondary Works

Andersen, Jennifer, and Elizabeth Sauer, eds., Books and Readers in Early Modern England: Material Studies (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002).
Google Scholar
Baron, Sabrina A., Elizabeth Walsh, and Susan Scola, eds., The Reader Revealed (Washington DC: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2001).
Google Scholar
Bloom, Harold, Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human (London: Fourth Estate, 1999).
Google Scholar
Bourne, Claire M. L., Marking Shakespeare, Shakespeare, Vol. 13 (4), 367–386.
Google Scholar
Bowers, Fredson, ‘Today’s Shakespeare Texts, and Tomorrow’s’, Studies in Bibliography, Vol. 19 (1966), 39–65.
Google Scholar
Bradley, David, From Text to Performance in the Elizabethan Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Google Scholar
Brayman Hackel, Heidi, Reading Material in Early Modern England: Print, Gender, and Literacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Google Scholar
Capell, Edward, Mr. William Shakespeare His Comedies, Histories and Tragedies (London, 1768), 10 Vols.
Google Scholar
de Grazia, Margreta, Shakespeare Verbatim: The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Google Scholar
———, and Peter Stallybrass, ‘The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text’, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 44 (1993).
Google Scholar
Dehaisnes, C., Catalogue general des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques, in Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de Douai (1978), Vol. 6.
Google Scholar
Dutton, Richard, ‘“The Comedy of Errors” and “The Calumny of Apelles”: An Exercise in Source Study’, Religion and the Arts, Vol. 7, No. 1–2 (2003), 11–30.
Article Google Scholar
Evans, G. Blakemore, ed., ‘The Douai Manuscript—Six Shakespearean Transcripts (1694–95)’, Philological Quarterly, Vol. 41 (1962), 158–172.
Google Scholar
———, Shakespearean Prompt-Books of the Seventeenth Century (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1964), online edition available http://bsuva.org/bsuva/promptbook/ShaComP.html [accessed 12 March 2018].
Freedman, Barbara, ‘Reading Errantly’ in The Comedy of Errors: Critical Essays, ed. Robert Miola (London: Garland Publishing, 1997), 261–297.
Google Scholar
Gibbons, Brian, ‘Erring and Straying Like Lost Sheep: “The Winter’s Tale” and “The Comedy of Errors”’, Shakespeare Survey, Vol. 50 (1997), 111–124.
Google Scholar
Hamner, Thomas, The Works of Shakespear in Six Volumes (London, 1745).
Google Scholar
Hedbäck, Ann-Mari, ‘The Douai Manuscript Reexamined’, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, Vol. 73, No. 1 (1979), 1–18.
Article Google Scholar
Howard-Hill, T. H., ‘Theory and Praxis in the Social Approach to Editing’, TEXT, Vol. 5 (1991), 31–46.
Google Scholar
Jackson, H. J., Marginalia: Readers Writing in Books (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001).
Google Scholar
Jowett, John, ‘Editing Shakespeare’s Plays in the Twentieth Century’, Shakespeare Survey, Vol. 59 (2006), 1–19.
Google Scholar
———, ‘Shakespeare and the Kingdom of Error’, in The New Oxford Shakespeare: Critical Reference Edition, eds. Gary Taylor, John Jowett, Terri Bourus and Gabriel Egan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), xlix–lxii.
Google Scholar
Kerrigan, John, On Shakespeare and Early Modern Literature: Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Google Scholar
Knapp, James, ‘Textual Introduction’ to The Comedy of Errors in The Norton Shakespeare, 3rd edn., ed. Stephen Greenblatt (London: W. W. Norton, 2016).
Google Scholar
Lerer, Seth, Error and the Academic Self (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2002).
Google Scholar
Long, William B., ‘“John a Kent and John a Cumber”: An Elizabethan Playbook and its Implications’, in Shakespeare and Dramatic Tradition, eds. W. R. Elton and William B. Long (Newark, University of Delaware Press, 1989), 125–143.
Google Scholar
Maguire, Laurie, Shakespearean Suspect Texts: The Bad Quartos and Their Contexts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Google Scholar
———, and Thomas L. Berger, eds., Textual Formations and Reformations (London: Associated University Presses, 1998).
Google Scholar
———, ‘The Girls from Ephesus’, in The Comedy of Errors: Critical Essays, ed. Robert Miola (London: Routledge, 1997), 355–383.
Google Scholar
Marcus, Leah, Unediting the Renaissance: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton (London: Routledge, 1996).
Google Scholar
———, ‘Editing Shakespeare in a Postmodern Age’, in A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text, ed. Andrew Murphy (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 128–144.
Google Scholar
Marotti, Arthur, and Laura Estill, ‘Manuscript Circulation’, in The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare, ed. Arthur F. Kinney (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 53–70.
Google Scholar
Massai, Sonia, Shakespeare and the Rise of the Editor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Google Scholar
Mayer, Jean-Christophe, ‘Annotating and Transcribing for the Theatre: Shakespeare’s Early Modern Reader–Revisers at Work’, in Shakespeare and Textual Studies, eds. Margaret Jane Kidnie and Sonia Massai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 163–176.
Google Scholar
———, Shakespeare’s Early Readers: A Cultural History from 1590 to 1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).
Google Scholar
McGann, Jerome J., Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983).
Google Scholar
———, The Textual Condition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).
Google Scholar
———, ‘From Text to Work: Digital Tools and the Emergence of the Social Text’, Romanticism on the Net, 41–42, (2006). http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/013153ar [accessed 12 March 2018].
McKenzie, Donald, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Google Scholar
McKerrow, R. B., ‘A Suggestion Regarding Shakespeare’s Manuscripts’, Review of English Studies, Vol. 44 (1935), 459–465.
Article Google Scholar
McLeod, Randall, ‘Un-editing Shak-speare’, Sub-Stance, Vol. 10/11, No. 33–34, (1981/1982), 26–55.
Google Scholar
———, ‘Unemending Shakespeare’s Sonnet 111’, Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Winter, 1981), 75–96.
Google Scholar
Murphy, Andrew, Shakespeare in Print: A History and Chronology of Shakespeare Publishing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Google Scholar
Orgel, Stephen, The Reader in the Book: A Study of Spaces and Traces (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
Google Scholar
Parker, Patricia, ‘Elder and Younger: The Opening Scene of The Comedy of Errors’, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Autumn, 1983), 325–327.
Article Google Scholar
Pope, Alexander, The Works of Shakespear (London, 1725), 6 Vols.
Google Scholar
Raven, James, Helen Small, and Naomi Tadmor, eds., The Practice and Representation of Reading in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Google Scholar
Roberts, Sasha, ed., Reading in Early Modern England, special issue of Critical Survey, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2000).
Google Scholar
Rowe, Nicholas, ‘Dedication’, The Works of Mr. William Shakespear (London, 1709), 6 Vols.
Google Scholar
Sharpe, Kevin, and Steven N. Zwicker, eds., Reading, Society and Politics in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Google Scholar
Shattuck, Charles, The Shakespeare Promptbooks: A Descriptive Catalogue (Urbana and London: University of Illinois Press, 1965).
Google Scholar
Sherman, William, Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).
Google Scholar
Smith, Emma, Shakespeare’s First Folio: Four Centuries of an Iconic Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
Google Scholar
Smyth, Adam, Material Texts in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).
Google Scholar
Steevens, George, ed., The Plays of William Shakespeare (London, 1773) 10 Vols., Vol. 2.
Google Scholar
Stern, Tiffany, ‘Future Directions in Renaissance Drama’, Renaissance Drama, Vol. 40 (2012), 151–160.
Article Google Scholar
Sumimoto, Noriko, ‘Updating Folios: Readers’ Reconfigurations and Customisations of Shakespeare’, Early Modern Literary Studies, Vol. 21, (2013) at https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/si-21/07-Sumimoto_Updating%20Folios.htm [accessed 14 February 2018].
Taylor, Gary, and Michael Warren, eds., The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of King Lear (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983).
Google Scholar
Theobald, Lewis, Shakespeare Restored (London, 1726).
Google Scholar
———, Works of Shakespeare (London, 1733), 7 Vols.
Google Scholar
Warren, Michael, ‘The Perception of Error: The Editing and the Performance of the Opening of Coriolanus’, in Textual Performances: The Modern Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Drama, eds. Lukas Erne and Margaret Jane Kidnie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 127–142.
Google Scholar
Werstine, Paul, ‘“Foul Papers” and “Prompt-Books”: Printer’s Copy for Shakespeare’s “Comedy of Errors”’, Studies in Bibliography, Vol. 41 (1988), 232–246.
Google Scholar
———, ‘Narratives About Printed Shakespeare Texts: “Foul Papers” and “Bad” Quartos’, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 41 (1990), 65–86.
Article Google Scholar
———, ‘Editing After the End of Editing’, Shakespeare Studies, Vol. 24 (1996), 47–54.
Google Scholar
———, Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Google Scholar
West, Anthony James, ‘The Life of the First Folio in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, in A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text, ed. Andrew Murphy, (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2010), 71–90, 82.
Google Scholar
Whitworth, Charles, ‘Rectifying Shakespeare’s Errors: Romance and Farce in Bardeditry’, in The Comedy of Errors: Critical Essays, ed. Robert Miola (London: Routledge, 1997), 227–260.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Alice Leonard

Authors

Alice Leonard
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Leonard .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Leonard, A. (2020). Error and the Text. In: Error in Shakespeare. Palgrave Shakespeare Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35180-9_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35180-9_5
Published: 28 January 2020
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-35179-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-35180-9
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics