早期现代戏剧的修正与复制:对“负”假说的再评价

Heejin Kim
{"title":"早期现代戏剧的修正与复制:对“负”假说的再评价","authors":"Heejin Kim","doi":"10.1086/726387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the printed texts of early modern plays, scholars have observed a number of lines bracketed by a set of duplicate lines. In 1918, J. Dover Wilson called this type of textual error a “repetition bracket” and argued that it is evidence for the insertion of additional text. In 1930, W. W. Greg adduced pieces of evidence in early modern playhouse manuscripts in support of Wilson’s addition (or “plus”) hypothesis, but he also proposed an omission (or “minus”) hypothesis. However, Greg’s footnoted reference to a single instance in The Second Maiden’s Tragedy was his sole empirical evidence for the latter hypothesis. In this article, I examine Greg’s evidence and review fifty-one extant early modern playhouse manuscripts to argue that Greg’s omission hypothesis is untenable. Duplications in manuscripts are associated with false starts, marginal additions, or text on addition leaves. Based on thorough study of these manuscripts, I conclude that repetition brackets in early printings are a strong sign of revision and not omission. Included in an appendix is a list of all omission and addition markings in extant manuscripts.","PeriodicalId":22928,"journal":{"name":"The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revision and Duplication in Early Modern Plays: A Reevaluation of the “Minus” Hypothesis\",\"authors\":\"Heejin Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/726387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the printed texts of early modern plays, scholars have observed a number of lines bracketed by a set of duplicate lines. In 1918, J. Dover Wilson called this type of textual error a “repetition bracket” and argued that it is evidence for the insertion of additional text. In 1930, W. W. Greg adduced pieces of evidence in early modern playhouse manuscripts in support of Wilson’s addition (or “plus”) hypothesis, but he also proposed an omission (or “minus”) hypothesis. However, Greg’s footnoted reference to a single instance in The Second Maiden’s Tragedy was his sole empirical evidence for the latter hypothesis. In this article, I examine Greg’s evidence and review fifty-one extant early modern playhouse manuscripts to argue that Greg’s omission hypothesis is untenable. Duplications in manuscripts are associated with false starts, marginal additions, or text on addition leaves. Based on thorough study of these manuscripts, I conclude that repetition brackets in early printings are a strong sign of revision and not omission. Included in an appendix is a list of all omission and addition markings in extant manuscripts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/726387\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在早期现代戏剧的印刷文本中,学者们观察到一些被一组重复台词括起来的台词。1918年,j·多佛·威尔逊(J. Dover Wilson)称这种类型的文本错误为“重复括号”,并认为这是插入额外文本的证据。1930年,w·w·格雷格(w.w. Greg)在早期现代戏剧手稿中引用了一些证据来支持威尔逊的增加(或“加”)假说,但他也提出了一个遗漏(或“减”)假说。然而,格雷格在脚注中提到的《第二个少女的悲剧》中的一个例子是他对后一种假设的唯一经验证据。在这篇文章中,我检查了格雷格的证据,并回顾了51个现存的早期现代戏剧手稿,以证明格雷格的遗漏假设是站不住脚的。手稿中的重复与错误的开始,边缘添加或添加页上的文本有关。基于对这些手稿的深入研究,我得出结论,早期印刷中重复的括号是修改的强烈迹象,而不是遗漏。附录中包含了现存手稿中所有遗漏和添加标记的清单。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revision and Duplication in Early Modern Plays: A Reevaluation of the “Minus” Hypothesis
In the printed texts of early modern plays, scholars have observed a number of lines bracketed by a set of duplicate lines. In 1918, J. Dover Wilson called this type of textual error a “repetition bracket” and argued that it is evidence for the insertion of additional text. In 1930, W. W. Greg adduced pieces of evidence in early modern playhouse manuscripts in support of Wilson’s addition (or “plus”) hypothesis, but he also proposed an omission (or “minus”) hypothesis. However, Greg’s footnoted reference to a single instance in The Second Maiden’s Tragedy was his sole empirical evidence for the latter hypothesis. In this article, I examine Greg’s evidence and review fifty-one extant early modern playhouse manuscripts to argue that Greg’s omission hypothesis is untenable. Duplications in manuscripts are associated with false starts, marginal additions, or text on addition leaves. Based on thorough study of these manuscripts, I conclude that repetition brackets in early printings are a strong sign of revision and not omission. Included in an appendix is a list of all omission and addition markings in extant manuscripts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信