Re: Academics and coursepacks

Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> Again, my original statement has become distorted. Reconstructing a
> complex ancient structure from ruins (hundreds or thousands of pieces,
> many missing and broken) hardly resembles the simpler problem posed by
> Riolo. It is, though, analogous to "recreating" Shakespeare's plays,
> which contain hundreds or thousands of pieces (words), many missing and
> broken (mis-heard or ill-remembered and taken down by others). That was
> my analogy, not what Riolo stated. Please respond to my analogy, not
> his version of it!

Most of the work you describe was done by Heminges and Condell, who knew the plays from having performed them in Shakespeare's company over the course of some twenty years, and worked from Shakespeare's prompt scripts, not "ruins." All work by modern editors rests on the work of Heminges and Condell, who did a damned good job, plus the many scholars over the centuries who have labored with the quartos as well as H&C's folios to determine what they thought to be the closest approximation of Shakespeare's approved text. Modern scholars stand on the shoulders of these giants, and have no claim to original creative work when what they are really doing is rearranging work all of whose pieces have always been in the public domain.

Choosing between "Oh, that this too, too solid flesh" and "Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh" does not constitute original authorship and is not entitled to copyright protection. The same goes for modernizing spelling and changing punctuation (actors and directors routinely regard the punctuation of nearly all playwrights as suspect in any case).

Shakespeare's plays are not the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thanks to H&C, we have a very good idea of the playwright's intent, and in the few cases where there are significant differences in texts (in the quarto editions that were published in Will's lifetime), the back of the problem was broken long ago. Nobody is a greater champion of authors' rights than I am. What's more, I salute the efforts of scholars to add to our body of knowledge about Shakespeare. But this attempt to grant authorship status to editors whose work depends on centuries' worth of previous editing of established texts is just not on. Let these modern editors claim copyright in their notes and introductions, to which they are entitled. They have no claim to copyright in Hamlet, no matter how many commas they move.

Amy Stoller

ghoti
<redherring[_at_]tuna.net>
<:)))>><( Received on Sat Jul 18 1998 - 18:37:29 GMT