Related Papers
Cahiers Elisabéthaines
"The Saint-Omer Folio in its Library", Cahiers Elisabéthains, "New Perspectives on Shakespeare’s First Folio", 91.2 (mars 2017), p. 13-32.
2017 •
Line Cottegnies
Ever since the discovery of a copy of a first folio in the Saint-Omer library in October 2014, the academic world has been abuzz with speculation about Catholic interest in Shakespeare, and even Shakespeare's possible Catholic connections. It has been suggested in particular that this must be the folio used by Father Clark as source-text for the Jesuit historical tragedy written for the Jesuit College of St Omers in the 1650s, Innocentia Purpurata, which Martin Wiggins argued was influenced by the first folio. In a recent article however, Gisèle Venet and I showed that the book was probably part of a parcel of books given to the College Library in 1736, basing ourselves on other volumes bearing the Nevill signature in the library. We also described the curious marking of the book with the hand-stamped letters "PS". The aim of the present study is twofold: to offer a better overview of the material context of the Folio in its original milieu, the Jesuit College library, or what is left of it in today's library (which implied investigating the complex history of the library), and to offer a more satisfactory option for the identification of "Nevill". After a thorough investigation of the rare books collections in the Saint-Omer library, it is now possible to know more about two local contexts for the folio in its original library. I was first able to find more English books signed "Nevill", which confirmed the hypothesis of a parcel of books presented to the College library in the 1730s. What's more, other volumes with the "PS" stamp have emerged, which point to the inclusion of the Shakespeare Folio into a reserve. This article analyses the results of the new findings: what does the grouping with the other books signed "Nevill" suggest about how the folio was read by the donor of the parcel? The grouping and the date on some of the books of that sample helps us offer an alternative identification for "Nevill". Finally what does the folio's association with the other books marked PS suggest about the status of the Folio in the context of the College? What is clear is that the book, even in its poor condition, was kept separate from the main library of the College. The article suggests two alternative motives for the treatment of the book as exceptional, and explores in particular the notion of censorship.
Book History
The Scholar's Scrapbook: Reading Shakespeare in the Nineteenth Century
2018 •
Jillian Hess
Studies in Bibliography
The Relationship of English Printed Books to Authors' Manuscripts during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: The 1928 Sandars Lectures
2000 •
Carlo M . Bajetta
Having been called to review the contribution to English studies of his late friend and fellow bibliographer Ronald Brunless McKerrow, Sir Walter Wilson Greg observed that "the whole significance of his teaching" lay in "the importance he attached to the derivations of the text.". McKerrow's celebrated Introduction to Bibliography (first published in 1927) considers the investigation of the mechanics of printing chiefly as a means to illuminate the question of how nearly a printed book may represent the author's original manuscript. The opening of the third part of the Introduction clearly states the raison d'être of the volume: All that has been written hitherto in this book has been, or should have been, directed, immediately or remotely, to the elucidation of the single problem of the relation between the text of a printed book and the original MS. of its author. It is interesting to note, however, that the discussion of this topic occupies only a slender section of the book, covering a total of twenty-five pages. But the reason McKerrow dealt with the subject at all is essentially that his mind was never content to rest on what was already a great achievement. He was able to use the occasion of the 1928 reprint of his Introduction to make "a few corrections and small additions" (p. viii), while his election as the prestigious Sandars Reader in Bibliography in 1928 allowed him to explore at length the textual questions he had sketched out in the book.
Renaissance Quarterly 64 (2011): 992-994
Tudor Books and Readers: Materiality and the Construction of Meaning, ed. John N. King (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)
2011 •
Ivan Lupić
Shakespeare Quarterly
Who Rpinted Shakespeare's Fourth Folio?
2023 •
Christopher Warren
According to Fredson Bowers, writing in Shakespeare Quarterly in 1951, we will never know the printer of that section "until we know everything there is to be learned about seventeenth-century types." 2 Bowers doubted we could ever list the full set of F4's printers because F4 was printed anonymously, and the volume left few clues about its printers. While George Watson Cole's 1909 "examination of the letterpress show[ed] that a copy of the Third Folio was apparently broken into three portions and sent to three different printers," Bowers himself only got as far as attributing the first of F4's three separately paginated parts. 3 The purpose of this note is to identify the other two printers involved in F4, one of whom, John Maco*ck, was the printer whose shop was responsible for F4's Hamlet. Regrettably, this short note does not include everything there is to be learned about seventeenth-century types. 4
University of Delaware Press eBooks
Producing the eighteenth-century book : writers and publishers in England, 1650-1800
2009 •
Laura Runge
Brief Chronicles: The 1623 First Folio, a Minority Report
"Bestow How, and When you List…": The de Veres and the 1623 Shakespeare Folio
2016 •
Roger Stritmatter
What were Edward de Vere's children and in-laws doing while the Shakespeare first folio was being printed? Its an interesting story . . .
More Mysteries about the Saint-Omer Shakespeare Folio: Marks of Ownership
Gisèle Venet
Julia Boffey, Manuscript and Print in London c. 1475-1530 (London: British Library, 2012)
2015 •
Ivan Lupić
The First Folio of Shakesvere: How and Why the First Folio of 1623 can and should be connected to Edward de Vere
Justin Borrow
Who was Edward de Vere? He was the 17th Earl of Oxford, he was a courtier in Elizabeth's court; a poet, a playwright and a renowned trouble maker known as the "spear shaker" who some scholars believe wrote under the pseudonym William Shakespeare. Many Shakespeare scholars dismiss the claims that Edward de Vere could have been the author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare, but just how dubious are these claims? This paper dives into the connections between Edward de Vere and the most celebrated and damning piece of evidence against the orthodox story; The first folio of 1623.
