ÉîÒ¹¸£ÀûÕ¾

• Home
• Conferences
• Shakespeare After Werstine: Editing Shakespeare Now
• Werstine Bibliography

Werstine Bibliography

An Annotated Bibliography of Dr. Paul Werstine’s Publications

Prepared by Timothy Lorch and Ian Rae

This annotated bibliography consists of two parts: an annotated bibliography of works authored or edited by Distinguished University Professor Paul Werstine (Part 1), followed by a citation bibliography of works that quote Werstine’s scholarship (Part 2). Entries are listed in descending chronological order. Most of the annotations have been drawn from the databases cited at the end of this bibliography, with some small corrections made at the suggestion of Dr. Werstine.

 

Part 1: A Bibliography of Published Works by Dr. Paul Werstine

Monograph:

Werstine, Paul. Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts and the Editing of Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Challenges the editorial distinction between authorial and theatrical versions of Shakespeare’s plays, drawing on the work and influence of W. W. Greg and the definitions of “foul papers” and “promptbooks.” Basing his conclusions on analyses of twenty-one marked manuscripts and quartos as well as early modern backstage practices (particularly involving bookkeepers), discusses editorial choices open to scholars who work with playhouse manuscripts. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

 

 

Edited Books:

New Variorum Series

Richard Knowles, Paul Werstine, and Eric Rasmussen, general editors. A Midsummer Night's Dream. Ed. Judith Kennedy and Richard Kennedy, Modern Language Association, 2022.

----. King Lear. Ed. Richard Knowles, Modern Language Association, 2 vols, 2020.

Richard Knowles and Paul Werstine, general editors. The Comedy of Errors. Ed. Standish Henning, Modern Language Association, 2011.  

----. The Winter’s Tale. Ed. Robert Kean Turner and Virginia Westling Haas, Modern Language Association, 2005.

Folgers Shakespeare Series

Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, eds. Henry V. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2020.

----. As You Like It. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2019.  

----. Twelfth Night. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2019.

----. Much Ado About Nothing. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2018.

----. Othello. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2017.

----. Richard II. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2016. 

----. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2016.    

----. The Tempest. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2015.

----. King Lear. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2015.  

----. Richard III. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2014.

----. The Taming of the Shrew. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2014.  

----. Macbeth. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2013.

----. Hamlet. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2012.   

----. Romeo and Juliet. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2011.   

----. Julius Caesar. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2011.

----. The Merchant of Venice. 2nd ed., Simon and Schuster, 2011.   

----. The Two Noble Kinsmen. Simon and Schuster, 2010.

----. Henry VI, Part 3. Simon and Schuster, 2009. 

----. Coriolanus. Simon and Schuster, 2009. 

----. Henry VI, Part 2. Simon and Schuster, 2008. 

----. Henry VIII. Simon and Schuster, 2007. 

----. Troilus and Cressida. Simon and Schuster, 2007. 

----. Henry VI, Part 1. Simon and Schuster, 2007. 

----. Shakespeare’s Sonnets and Poems. Simon and Schuster, 2006. 

----. Titus Andronicus. Simon and Schuster, 2005.  

----. Pericles. Simon and Schuster, 2005.    

----. The Merry Wives of Windsor. Simon and Schuster, 2004. 

----. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Simon and Schuster, 2004. 

----. Three Tragedies. Simon and Schuster, 2003.  

----. Cymbeline. Simon and Schuster, 2003.   

----. Three Comedies. Simon and Schuster, 2002.   

----. All's Well That Ends Well. Simon and Schuster, 2001.  

----. Timon of Athens. Simon and Schuster, 2001. 

----. King John. Simon and Schuster, 2000.  

----. Henry IV, Part 2. Simon and Schuster, 1999.   

----. Antony and Cleopatra. Simon and Schuster, 1999. 

----. Two Gentlemen of Verona. Simon and Schuster, 1999.     

----. Measure for Measure. Simon and Schuster, 1998. 

----. The Winter's Tale. Simon and Schuster, 1998.   

----. As You Like It. Simon and Schuster, 1997. 

----. The Comedy of Errors. Simon and Schuster, 1996. 

----. Love’s Labor’s Lost. Simon and Schuster, 1996.

----. Much Ado About Nothing. Simon and Schuster, 1995. 

----. Richard II. Simon and Schuster, 1995. 

----. Richard III. Simon and Schuster, 1995. 

----. Henry V. Simon and Schuster, 1995. 

----. Henry IV, Part 1. Simon and Schuster, 1994. 

----. The Tempest. Simon and Schuster, 1994. 

----. A Midsummer Night's Dream. Simon and Schuster, 1993. 

----. King Lear. Simon and Schuster, 1993. 

----. Othello. Simon and Schuster, 1993. 

----. Twelfth Night. Simon and Schuster, 1993. 

----. Julius Caesar. Simon and Schuster, 1992. 

----. Romeo and Juliet. Simon and Schuster, 1992. 

----. Macbeth. Simon and Schuster, 1992. 

----. The Taming of the Shrew. Simon and Schuster, 1992. 

----. Hamlet. Simon and Schuster, 1992. 

----. The Merchant of Venice. Simon and Schuster, 1992. 

Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England

Leeds Barroll, editor; Paul Werstine, associate editor. Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England IV. AMS Press, 1989.

----. Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England III. AMS Press, 1986. 

----. Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England II. AMS Press, 1985. 

----. Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England I. AMS Press, 1984.

 

Articles:

Werstine, Paul. “Be some other name / Belonging to a man.” King’s Cosmos, vol. 1, 2016, pp. 44-47.

Discusses the editorial history of a specific line (“Be some other name / Belonging to a man”) in the “so-called Balcony Scene” of Romeo and Juliet. Examines the editorial additions of Edmond Malone’s 1790 edition and the earlier annotations of Styan Thirlby compared to the Second Quarto (1599). This examination reveals the doubtful nature of Thirlby’s own annotation and the subsequent editorial rewriting that has persisted in editions Romeo and Juliet.

-----. “The Continuing Importance of New Bibliographical Method.” Shakespeare Survey, vol. 62, 2009, pp. 30-45.

Shows that Edward Knight's errors of transcription in the manuscript of John Fletcher's Bonduca arise from his ineptness and not from the “foul papers” that he says he was transcribing.  Thus removes the evidence for W. W. Greg's conception of “foul papers.”

----. “Past Is Prologue: Electronic New Variorum Shakespeares.” Shakespeare (London, England), vol. 4, no. 3, 2008, pp. 208-20, .

Describes the interface being created by Alan Galey and Julia Flanders for the New Variorum Shakespeare edition. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “All’s Well That Ends Well and Editorial Constructions of ‘Foul Papers.’” Archiv fur Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen vol. 238, 2001, pp. 19-39.

Seeking “to lift artificial restrictions on editorial practice that were imposed by the belief that All’s Well That Ends Well was based directly on ‘foul papers,’” focuses on the editorial consequences of this belief (especially those concerning the characters now generally designated as the brothers Dumaine). (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Scribe or Compositor: Ralph Crane, Compositors D and F, and the First Four Plays in the Shakespeare First Folio.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 95, no. 3, 2001, pp. 315-39, .

Uses Ralph Crane's spelling preferences to break down the distinction between compositors D and F in the First Folio. For support of Werstine’s identifications, see Dickson, “What I will: Mediating Subjects; or, Ralph Crane and the Folio’s Tempest” (q.v.). (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Copy-Text Editing: The Author-Izing of Shakespeare.” English Studies in Canada, vol. 27, no. 1, 2001, pp. 29-45, .

After considering the poststructuralist consensus that there will never be a copy-text edition (following W. W. Greg’s formulation) of Shakespeare, considers other factors that militate against such an approach: the collaborative nature of much early modern drama, publishers’ lax attribution of authorship, and the long-running debate between Greg and R. B. McKerrow over author-centered editing. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. ”Editing Shakespeare and Editing without Shakespeare: Wilson, McKerrow, Greg, Bowers, Tanselle, and Copy-Text Editing.” Text (New York, N.Y. 1984), vol. 13, 2000, pp. 27-53.

Observing that W. W. Greg’s long-standing theory of copy-text has been recently decentered from the editing of Shakespeare, examines the editorial theories of R. B. McKerrow, J. Dover Wilson, Fredson Bowers, and W. W. Greg. Demonstrating the diversity of opinion on issues such as the locus of a text’s authority, the attribution of Hand D of Sir Thomas More to Shakespeare, and the printer’s copies used for Hamlet, highlights the critical debates among theorists (particularly between Greg and McKerrow), thereby contradicting G. Thomas Tanselle’s assertion that the notion of copy-text emerges from a early consensus in editorial theory. Noting that these theories all had inconsistencies, concludes that modern editors who stray from the theory of the copy-text are not abandoning their critical foundation. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “A Century of ‘Bad’ Shakespeare Quartos.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 3, 1999, pp. 310-33, .

“Calls into question the power of memorial construction to provide a full account of the origin” of the “bad” quartos of Merry Wives of Windsor, Hamlet, Henry V, and Romeo and Juliet. Reviewed by Mary Ann Bushman, Hamlet Studies 23 (2001): 126-27. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Post-Theory Problems in Shakespeare Editing.” The Yearbook of English Studies, vol. 29, 1999, pp. 103-17, .

Draws on Sir Thomas More to question W. W. Greg’s traditional formulation of the relationship of foul papers to prompt copy. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Shakespeare, More or Less: A.W. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing.” Florilegium, vol. 16, no. 1, 1999, pp. 125-45, .  

Examines A. W. Pollard’s opposition to the anti-Stratfordian movement and the influence on Shakespearean editorial theory and practice of his ascription of Hand D in the manuscript of Sir Thomas More to Shakespeare. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Hypertext and Editorial Myth.” Early Modern Literary Studies vol. 3, no. 3, 1999,

Argues that hypertext links can be used to “situate features of the early printings of Shakespeare’s plays in the context of the manuscript culture of the era of their composition and staging.” Finds that linking the First Quarto of Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Sir Thomas More demonstrates that the nature of the manuscript underlying the First Quarto is more uncertain than is usually thought. See the ensuing exchange: Gabriel Egan, “A Response to Paul Werstine, ‘Hypertext and Editorial Myth,’“ Early Modern Literary Studies 4, no. 3 (1999):  Werstine, “A Response to Gabriel Egan,” Early Modern Literary Studies 5, no. 1 (1999):  Egan, “A Response to Paul Werstine,” Early Modern Literary Studies 5, no. 2 (1999):  Egan, “Revision of Scene 4 of Sir Thomas More as a Test of New Bibliographical Principles,” Early Modern Literary Studies 6, no. 2 (2000):  Werstine, “The Two Material Versions of Scene 4 of Sir Thomas More,” Early Modern Literary Studies 6, no. 3 (2001):  Egan, “Idealist and Materialist Interpretations of BL Harley 7368, the Sir Thomas More Manuscript,” Early Modern Literary Studies 7, no. 2 (2001):  and Werstine, “The Second Material Version of Scene 4 of Sir Thomas More,” Early Modern Literary Studies 7, no. 3 (2002): . (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Editing after the End of Editing.” Shakespeare Studies (Columbia), vol. 24, 1996, pp. 47-54.

Considers the “energizing effect that poststructuralism has had on Shakespeare . . . editing.” (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Narratives about Printed Shakespeare Texts: ‘Foul Papers’ and ‘Bad’ Quartos.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, 1990, pp. 65-86, .

Calls into question the easy distinction with which the quartos (for example, of King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, and Merry Wives of Windsor) have been labeled “good” or “bad,” and the resultant tendency to give to Shakespeare the credit for what is in a “good” quarto and to actors for what is in a “bad” one. Traces the evolution of this labeling from the early twentieth century to the present, and argues that “continued entrapment” within this stance oppressively limits negotiation in Shakespeare textual criticism. Reviewed by William Hutchings, Hamlet Studies 13 (1991): 114-25. Reprinted in McDonald, editor, Shakespeare: An Anthology of Criticism and Theory, 1945-2000 (q.v.). (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “More Unrecorded States in The Folger Shakespeare Library’s Collection of First Folios.” Library, vols. 6-11, no. 1, 1989, pp. 47-51, .

Reports states unrecorded by Charlton Hinman (The Printing and Proof-Reading of the First Folio, 1963) in 12 copies of the First Folio held by the Folger Shakespeare Library. Leaves unresolved the question of whether the pursuit of further unrecorded states is worth the effort. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “McKerrow’s ‘Suggestion’ and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Textual Criticism.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 19, 1988, pp. 149-73, . 

Assesses the influence of R. B. McKerrow’s assumptions about foul papers, prompt copies, and bad quartos—especially as such define the relationship of text to author or to stage—in the textual criticism of Shakespeare. Uses as illustration the theories of W. W. Greg, Stanley Wells, and Gary Taylor regarding speech prefixes and the variability of names of characters, especially in Much Ado about Nothing. Reprinted in Orgel, editor, Shakespeare and the Editorial Tradition (q.v.); a shorter version appears as “McKerrow’s ‘Suggestion’ and W. W. Greg,” Williams, Shakespeare’s Speech-Headings [F]: 11-16. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “‘Foul Papers’ and ‘Prompt-Books’: Printer’s Copy for Shakespeare’s ‘Comedy of Errors.’” Studies in Bibliography (Charlottesville, Va.), vol. 41, 1988, pp. 232-46.

Argues that the E. K. Chambers-W. W. Greg theory that annotated foul papers served as the printer’s copy for the First Folio text of Comedy of Errors has never been effectively demonstrated, that the evidence for it has been eroded by more recent studies of the printing of the First Folio, and that its final articulation by Greg in Shakespeare First Folio (1955), which most modern editors have followed, misrepresents what Greg himself taught us about theatrical manuscripts in his Dramatic Documents (1931). Electronic version: . (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “The Textual Mystery of Hamlet.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 1, 1988, pp. 1-26, .

Taking the stance that whether Shakespeare revised his texts is not (and perhaps cannot be) satisfactorily resolved, examines the Second Quarto and First Folio texts of Hamlet ”yoked together” to discover what consequences flow from this procedure. See also Werstine’s letter to the editor, 522. Reviewed by William Hutchings, Hamlet Studies 10 (1988): 152-60 (in review-article). Reprinted in Kastan, Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Hamlet (q.v.). (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “‘Enter a Sheriffe’ and the Conjuring up of Ghosts.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1, 1987, pp. 126-30, .

A brief demonstration by reference to the playhouse manuscript Edmond Ironside that theatrical annotation could have given rise to the stage direction “Enter a Sheriffe” being extraneous in the First Folio text of King John. 

----. “The Hickmott-Dartmouth Copy of Love’s Labor’s Lost Q1 (1598).” Notes and Queries, vol. 32, no. 4, 1985, pp. 473-a-473, .

Reports that collation of the fourteenth copy of the First Quarto of Love’s Labor’s Lost (now at the Dartmouth College Library) revealed no unrecorded variants. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Edward Capell and Metrically Linked Speeches in Shakespeare.” Library, vol. 7, no. 3, 1985, pp. 259-261.

Describes Edward Capell’s use of minuscules to begin linked part-lines (as separate from the practice of indenting such lines) in editing Shakespeare. See also the letter by Richard Knowles (354-55) for additional material. Abstracted by William Hutchings, Shakespeare Newsletter 36 (1986): 18. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Printing History and Provenance in Two Revels Plays: Review Article.” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 1, 1984, pp. 243-262.

A review article of Patricia Binnie’s edition of George Peele’s Old Wives Tale in the Revels Series (Manchester and Baltimore: Manchester University Press and the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980) and of Ian Lancashire’s editions of the interludes Youth and Hycke Scorner in the same series.

----. “Line Division in Shakespeare: An Editorial Problem.” Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography, vol. 8, 1984, pp. 73-125.

Tests the commonly accepted principle that an Elizabethan compositor usually followed the lineation of his copy by comparing the First Folio texts of plays reprinted from extant quarto copy with the quartos that serve as copy. Examines Much Ado about Nothing, Love’s Labor’s Lost, Midsummer Night’s Dream, Merchant of Venice, 1 Henry IV, Titus Andronicus, Romeo and Juliet, and Troilus and Cressida. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “The Bodmer Copy of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing Q1.” Notes and Queries, vol. 30, no. 2, 1983, pp. 123-124.

Reports on the collation of the Bodmer copy of the First Quarto of Much Ado about Nothing. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Cases and Compositors in the Shakespeare First Folio Comedies.” Studies in Bibliography (Charlottesville, Va.), vol. 35, 1982, pp. 206-34.

Extends compositor studies made by Charlton Hinman, John S. O’Connor, and T. H. Howard-Hill, especially with reference to cast-off copy for quires G and H and identification of cases X, Y, and Z in quires G-I with Compositors B, C, D, and F. Electronic version: . (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “New-Market-Fayre,” in the English Political Dialogues Series. Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography, vol. 6, 1982, pp. 71-103.

An annotated old-spelling edition of John Crouch’s 1649 play New-Market-Fayre.

----. “The Second Part of New-Market-Fayre.” Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography vol. 6, 1982, pp. 209-39.

An annotated old-spelling edition of John Crouch’s 1649 play The Second Part of New-Market-Fayre.

----. “Massinger’s The City Madam.” The Explicator vol. 38, 1980, pp. 18-20.

An exploration of the structural significance in The City Madam of double entendres on scour and mankind in one of its brothel scenes.

----. “Modern Editions and Historical Collation in Old-Spelling Editions of Shakespeare.” Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography vol. 4, 1980, pp. 95-106.

Using Comedy of Errors, offers a rationale for excluding modern editions from historical collation in old-spelling editions of Shakespeare. For alternative solutions and questions about some of Werstine’s assumptions, see Fredson Bowers, “The Historical Collation in an Old-Spelling Shakespeare Edition: Another View,” Studies in Bibliography 35 (1982): 234-58. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “An Unrecorded State in the Shakespeare First Folio.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 74, 1980, pp. 133-134, .

Reports that the Church copy of the First Folio (Huntington Library) exhibits a forme (qq1v:6) corrected not three but four times and therefore exists in five different states. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “‘Urging of Her Wracke’ In The Comedy of Errors.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3, 1980, pp. 392-94, .

Argues for John Monck Mason’s emendation, “Besides his urging of her wracke,” of Comedy of Errors, 5.1.360. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Research Opportunities in the Sixteenth-Century Book Trade.” Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography, vol. 3, 1979, pp. 171-84.

A survey of selected documentary sources of possible use in writing the biographies of London stationers from the latter half of the sixteenth century: parish registers, taxation (lay subsidy rolls) and muster rolls, city records, and records of the secular and ecclesiastical courts. 

----. “Variants in the First Quarto of ‘Love’s Labor’s Lost.’” Shakespeare Studies (Columbia), vol. 12, 1979, pp. 35-35.

Having collated the 13 extant copies of the First Quarto of Love’s Labor’s Lost, argues that the proofreader for the printer William White was both careful and indifferent: he did not correct instances of corrupt Latin or Italian because these faults were intentional—Shakespeare meant them to stand as indications of the stage braggart’s (Armado’s) and the stage pedant’s (Holofernes’) ignorance and absurdity—and thus heavily emended modern editions can mislead readers in grasping Shakespeare’s intention regarding the two characters. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Compositor B of the Shakespeare First Folio.” Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography vol. 2, 1978, pp. 421-63.

Compares Compositor B’s work in the First Folio Much Ado about Nothing, Love’s Labor’s Lost, Midsummer Night’s Dream, Merchant of Venice, Titus Andronicus, and Romeo and Juliet with his record in 1 Henry IV to conclude that his quotient of error in 1 Henry IV is not representative. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “An Unrecorded Variant in the Shakespeare First Folio.” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America vol. 72, 1978, pp. 329-30.

Identifies a variant in the First Folio text of Comedy of Errors (leaf H2 verso, column 2, line 11). (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Editorial Uses of Compositor Study.” Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography vol. 2, 1978, pp. 153-65.

Focuses on Love’s Labor’s Lost and Comedy of Errors to demonstrate how editors can make use of compositor analysis. Reprinted, with a lengthy afterword, as “The Editorial Usefulness of Printing House and Compositor Studies” (q.v.). (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

Book Chapters:

---- and Cathy L. Shrank. “The Shakespeare Manuscripts.” The Arden Research Handbook of Shakespeare and Textual Studies, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2021, pp. 53-70, .

Examines absence of manuscript copies of Shakespeare’s plays and its impact on works’ circulation and reception. Asserts that recovering Shakespeare’s original writing requires reconstruction and must remain mostly hypothetical. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Lost Playhouse Manuscripts.” Loss and Literary Culture of Shakespeare’s Time. Ed. Roslyn L. Knutson, David McInnis, and Matthew Steggle, Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, pp. 41-54.

An examination of the eighteen surviving playhouse manuscripts from before 1642 to determine how many other manuscripts of the same plays may have been lost. The answer is likely eleven.

----. “Authorial Revision in the Tragedies.” The Oxford Handbook of Shakespearean Tragedy. Ed. Michael Neill and David Schalkwyk. Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 301-15.

Shows that the theory that Shakespeare revised his tragedies is not a new one, but is centuries old, and that the arguments for the theory have never stood up to scrutiny.

----. “Ralph Crane and Edward Knight.” Shakespeare and Textual Studies: A Handbook. Ed. M. J. Kidnie and Sonia Massai. Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 27-38.

Describes the role of Ralph Crane’s and Edward Knight’s transcriptions in the preservation of Shakespeare’s plays. Focuses primarily on the significance of Crane’s works in early modern play publishing, while arguing against critics who credit his transcriptions based on slim or contradictory evidence. Argues that “the term scribal copy in textual studies of early modern drama needs to be understood to embrace considerable diversity.” (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Variorum Commentary.” Archbook: Architectures of the Book, 2012,

A history of the writing of commentary notes in variorum editing that begins with the first century BCE and ends in the twenty-first century with transformation of printed variorum editions into digital forms. It notes that “the term variorum alludes to the Latin phrase editio cum notis variorum, that is, an edition with the notes of the various [editors and commentators],” a phrase indicating the chief purpose of a variorum edition: namely, to collect and present what has been written by various commentators, critics, and editors on a particular text.

----. “Preface.” The Shakespeare First Folios: A Descriptive Catalogue. Ed. Eric Rasmussen and Anthony James West. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p. viii.

Discusses the significance of Rasmussen and West’s work in The Shakespeare First Folios: A Descriptive Catalogue to document and catalogue every accessible copy of the 1623 Folio. Argues that the book’s work significantly expands knowledge of the extent to which “press correctors have interposed themselves between manuscript printer’s copy … and the early printed texts of the plays,” and that the breadth of Rasmussen and West’s work suggests that “we have recovered as many as possible of the uncorrected states of [the 1623 Folio’s] sheets” (viii).

----. “Going professional: William Aldis Wright on Shakespeare and the English Bible.” Shakespeare, the Bible, and the form of the book: Contested scriptures. Ed. Travis DeCook and Alan Galey, Routledge, 2012, pp. 113-126.

Discusses William Aldis Wright’s The Bible Word-Book (1884), examining his peculiar treatment of Shakespeare and the Authorised Version of the Bible together. Argues that Shakespeare and the Bible become canonized as pillars of early modern usage only because of Wright’s historicizing of them, and explores other issues surrounding discourses of literature as they relate to Shakespeare and the Bible at the time. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “The Type of the Shakespeare First Folio.” Foliomania! Stories Behind Shakespeare’s Most Important Book. Ed. Owen Williams, Folger Shakespeare Library, 2011, pp. 15-20. Second Edition, 2016.

Describes the composition of the First Folio, with attention to damaged type and variants. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “The Science of Editing.” A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text. Ed. Andrew Murphy. Blackwell, 2007, pp. 109-27.

Examines the early twentieth-century editors of Shakespeare whom F. P. Wilson labeled the New Bibliographers—A. W. Pollard, John Dover Wilson, R. B. McKerrow, and W. W. Greg. Asserts that the label New Bibliography ignores the distinctions that existed among these scholars and fails to “distinguish between the research methods developed by the New Bibliographers and the particular conclusions at which they as individuals arrived using their method.” Seeks to provide “a description of the method as well as of some of the most important and influential conclusions to which it initially led.” (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Margins to the Centre: REED and Shakespeare.” REED in Review. Ed. Sally-Beth MacLean and Audrey Douglas, University of Toronto Press, 2006, pp. 101-15.

Focusing on Records of Early English Drama’s methodology, examines advantages to the project’s “refusal to accord Shakespeare the preeminence he otherwise enjoys in early English drama,” claiming that some of REED’s predecessors were “crippled by a Shakespeare-centred agenda.” (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

---. “Narratives about Printed Shakespeare Texts: ‘Foul Papers’ and ‘Bad’ Quartos.” Rpt. in Shakespeare: An Anthology of Criticism and Theory, 1945-2000. Ed. Russ McDonald, Blackwell, 2004, pp. 296-318.

Calls into question the easy distinction with which the quartos (for example, of King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, and Merry Wives of Windsor) have been labeled “good” or “bad,” and the resultant tendency to give to Shakespeare the credit for what is in a “good” quarto and to actors for what is in a “bad” one. Traces the evolution of this labeling from the early twentieth century to the present, and argues that “continued entrapment” within this stance oppressively limits negotiation in Shakespeare textual criticism. Reviewed by William Hutchings, Hamlet Studies 13 (1991): 114-25. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Housmania: Episodes in Twentieth-Century ‘Critical’ Editing of Shakespeare.” Textual Performances. Ed. Lukas Erne and MJ Kidnie. Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 49-62.

Examining the rise of “critical” editing of Shakespeare in the twentieth century, recounts the disagreement between R. B. McKerrow and W. W. Greg over the identification of foul papers behind printed editions and traces these editorial issues into the later twentieth century involving such editors as Philip Edwards, Gary Taylor, and E. A. J. Honigmann. Asserting that editing does not need to be based on optimism or pessimism since there are dramatic manuscripts which can demonstrate the difficulties of inferring the presence of foul papers, concludes that editors today have moved beyond “best-text” and “critical” editing to editing “early printed texts without claiming to locate either author or work in relation to these printed versions.” (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “‘The Cause of This Defect’: Hamlet’s Editors.” In Hamlet: New Critical Essays. Ed. A. F. Kinney. Routledge, 2002, pp. 115-34.

Explores the analogy between “the desire of Claudius, Gertrude, and Polonius to know the cause of Hamlet’s transformation” and “efforts by textual critics and editors to know the causes of the changes that the play endured” during its early publishing history. Focuses on John Dover Wilson’s theories about the genesis and transmission of the texts of Hamlet to urge editors “to be more skeptical about their claims to know the origins of differences among the Hamlet texts.” (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Close Contrivers: Nameless Collaborators in Early Modern London Plays.” The Elizabethan theatre XV: papers given at the International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre held at the University of Waterloo, in July 1993. Ed. A. L. Magnusson and C. E. McGee. Meany, 2002, pp. 3-20.

Questioning the “current author-centered ideology” of early modern playwrighting, examines the methodologies of scholars (especially W. W. Greg and E. H. C. Oliphant) in attributing authorship of parts of Sir Thomas More in order to demonstrate how author-centered approaches ignore the role in the formation of the text by actors, book-keepers, theatrical annotators, scribes, censors, compositors, proofreaders, and printers. Argues that “our century’s obsession with the construction of authors, in collaboration with each other or in sole masterly control of their unique expression, has ensured that most of the people who were engaged in play textual production and reproduction in Early Modern London are closed out of our reception of the plays.” (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “McKerrow’s ‘Suggestion’ and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Textual Criticism.” Rpt. in Shakespeare and the Editorial Tradition. Eds. Stephen Orgel and Sean Keilen, Garland, 1999, pp. 153-178.

Assesses the influence of R. B. McKerrow’s assumptions about foul papers, prompt copies, and bad quartos—especially as such define the relationship of text to author or to stage—in the textual criticism of Shakespeare. Uses as illustration the theories of W. W. Greg, Stanley Wells, and Gary Taylor regarding speech prefixes and the variability of names of characters, especially in Much Ado about Nothing. A shorter version appears as “McKerrow’s ‘Suggestion’ and W. W. Greg,” Williams, Shakespeare’s Speech-Headings [F]: 11-16. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Hypertext as Editorial Horizon.” The Proceedings of the International Shakespeare Congress 1996. Ed. Jill Levenson et al. University of Delaware Press, 1998, pp. 248-57.

Addresses “implications of hypertext for current Shakespeare editorial theory and the already visible effects of hypertext on current” printed editions. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “‘Is it upon record?’: The Reduction of the History Play to History.” New Ways with Old Texts II: Papers of the Renaissance English Text Society 1992-1996. Ed. W. Speed Hill. Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, in conjunction with the Renaissance English Text Society, 1998, pp. 71-82.

Draws on Richard III and Henry V to critique editors who emend texts to accord with historical accuracy. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Touring and the Construction of Shakespeare Textual Criticism.” Textual Formations And Reformations. Ed. Laurie Maguire and Thomas L. Berger. Associated University Presses, 1998, pp. 45-66.

Argues, contrary to current opinion, that the “bad” quartos do not “enjoy a privileged relation to early modern performance” and considers the effect of this erroneous assumption on the editing of plays that exist in both “good” and “bad” quartos. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “Plays in Manuscript.” A New History of Early English Drama. Ed. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan. Columbia UP, 1997, pp. 481-497.

A brief history of the study of manuscript plays from around Shakespeare’s time that winds up in a failed search for an evidentiary basis for W. W. Greg’s conception of authorial “foul papers,” the failure particularly evident in connection with the three manuscripts advanced by Greg in support of “foul papers”: Thomas Heywood’s inscription of The Captives, the British Library’s  Sir Thomas More, and the Folger Shakespeare Library’s partial manuscript leaf of Christopher Marlowe’s The Massacre at Paris.

----. “Shakespeare.” Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research. Ed. David Greetham. MLA, 1995, pp. 253-282.

Surveys the history of scholarly editing of Shakespeare and developments in textual theory. Concludes with a selective bibliography. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “The Textual Mystery of Hamlet.” Rpt. in Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Ed. David Scott Kastan. Garland, 1995, pp. 210-240

Taking the stance that whether Shakespeare revised his texts is not (and perhaps cannot be) satisfactorily resolved, examines the Second Quarto and First Folio texts of Hamlet “yoked together” to discover what consequences flow from this procedure. Reviewed by William Hutchings, Hamlet Studies 10 (1988): 152-60 (in review-article). (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “On the Compositors of The Two Noble Kinsmen.” Shakespeare, Fletcher, and The Two Noble Kinsmen. Ed. Charles H. Frey. University of Missouri Press, 1989, pp. 6-30.

Assigns the text of the 1634 quarto of Two Noble Kinsmen to two compositors and suggests that a scribal copy served as printer’s copy. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “The Editorial Usefulness of Printing House and Compositor Studies.” Play-Texts in Old-Spelling. Ed. G.B. Shand and Raymond Shady. AMS Press, 1984, pp. 35-64.

In a lengthy afterword (42-64) to a reprint of “Editorial Uses of Compositor Study,” refutes the conclusions of George R. Price (“The Printing of Love’s Labour’s Lost (1598)”) and Manfred Draudt (“Printer’s Copy for the Quarto of Love’s Labour’s Lost (1598)”) regarding compositor identification and printer’s copy. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

----. “The Folio Editors, the Folio Compositors, and the Folio Text of King Lear.” The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of ‘King Lear’. Ed. Gary Taylor and Michael J. Warren. Clarendon Press, 1983, pp. 247-312. (This book has been reprinted in paperback, 1986.)

Concentrating on the compositors and editors of the First Folio text of King Lear, first seeks to establish the kind and degree of corruption and sophistication typical of the compositors (especially compositors B and E) before attempting to discern what influence (if any) the editors exerted. Concludes that much of the variation between the quarto and First Folio texts cannot be blamed on corruption in the printing-house. (Extracted from The World Shakespeare Bibliography Online)

 

Part 2: A Bibliography of Citations of Dr. Paul Werstine’s Publications

Monograph:

Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts and the Editing of Shakespeare—101 citations found in total (listed below are notable works from that list):

Stern, Tiffany. Shakespeare, Malone and the Problems of Chronology. Cambridge University Press, 2023.

Thomson, Leslie. From Playtext to Performance on the Early Modern Stage: How Did They Do It?. Routledge, 2022.

De Grazia, Margreta. Four Shakespearean Period Pieces. University of Chicago Press, 2021.

James, Heather. Ovid and the Liberty of Speech in Shakespeare's England. Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Ohge, Christopher. Publishing Scholarly Editions: Archives, Computing, and Experience. Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Rolston, David L. Inscribing Jingju/Peking Opera: Textualization and Performance, Authorship and Censorship of the “National Drama” of China from the Late Qing to the Present. Brill, 2021.

Wambugu, Pachomius. Drama Participation as a Strategy in the Management of Discipline among Students in Secondary Schools in Central Region, Kenya. Diss. KeMU, 2021.

Bourne, Claire ML. Typographies of Performance in Early Modern England. Oxford University Press, 2020.

Ferket, Johanna, and Bram Caers. “Changing the Script: A Typology of Dutch Theatre Manuscripts in the Southern Low Countries, and the Interaction between Manuscript and Print (Seventeenth-Eighteenth Centuries).” In Monte Artium (Turnhout), vol. 12, 2019, pp. 7-42, .

Morgan, Oliver. Turn-taking in Shakespeare. Oxford University Press, 2019.

Stern, Tiffany. Rethinking Theatrical Documents in Shakespeare’s England. Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.

Gilvary, Kevin. The Fictional Lives of Shakespeare. Routledge, 2017.

Jenstad, Janelle, Mark Kaethler, and Jennifer Roberts-Smith, eds. Shakespeare's Language in Digital Media: Old Words, New Tools. Routledge, 2017.

Levenson, Jill L., and Robert Ormsby, eds. The Shakespearean World. Routledge, 2017.

Lupic, Ivan, and Brett Greatley-Hirsch. “‘What Stuff Is Here?’ Edmond Malone and the 1778 Edition of Beaumont and Fletcher.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 111, no. 3, 2017, pp. 287-315, .

Smith, Simon. “Reading Performance, Reading Gender: Early Encounters with Beaumont and Fletcher’s The Scornful Lady in Print.” Early Theatre, vol. 20, no. 2, 2017, pp. 179-99, .

Dutton, Richard. Shakespeare, Court Dramatist. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Hays, Michael L. “Shakespeare’s Hand Unknown in ‘Sir Thomas More’: Thompson, Dawson, and the Futility of the Paleographic Argument.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 2, 2016, pp. 180-203, .

Hirsch, Brett D. “Jewish Questions in Robert Wilson’s The Three Ladies of London.” Early Theatre, vol. 19, no. 1, 2016, pp. 37-56, .

Johnson, Laurie. “The Distributed Consciousness of Shakespeare’s Theatre.” Shakespeare and consciousness. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, pp. 119-138.

Maguire, Frances, and Helen Smith. “Material texts.” The Routledge Handbook of Material Culture in Early Modern Europe. Routledge, 2016, pp. 226-236.

Moore, Andrew. Shakespeare Between Machiavelli and Hobbes: Dead Body Politics. Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

Price, Diana. “Hand D and Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Literary Paper Trail.” Journal of Early Modern Studies, vol. 5, 2016, pp. 329-352, .

Purkis, James. Shakespeare and Manuscript Drama: Canon, Collaboration and Text. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Thomson, Leslie. “Dumb Shows in Performance on the Early Modern Stage.” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 29, 2016, pp. 17-45.

Estill, Laura. Dramatic Extracts in Seventeenth-Century English Manuscripts: Watching, Reading, Changing Plays. Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

Kidnie, Margaret Jane, and Sonia Massai, eds. Shakespeare and Textual Studies. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Williams, William Proctor. “What’sa Lost Play?: Toward a Taxonomy of Lost Plays.” Lost Plays in Shakespeare’s England. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, pp. 17-30.

Ichikawa, Mariko. “‘The Stage Is Hung with Blacke’: On the Use of Black Curtains for Tragedies in the Early Modern Period.” Theatre Notebook, vol. 68, no. 3, 2014, pp. 153-188.

Knapp, James A. “Beyond Materiality in Shakespeare Studies.” Literature Compass, vol. 11, no. 10, 2014, pp. 677-90, .

Taylor, Gary. “Empirical Middleton: ‘Macbeth’, Adaptation, and Microauthorship.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 3, 2014, pp. 239-72, .

San José Lera, Javier. “Teatro y texto en el primer renacimiento español. Del teatro al manuscrito e impreso.” Studia aurea, vol. 7, 2013, .

 

Articles:

“Past is prologue: Electronic New Variorum Shakespeares” (2008):

Burdick, Anne, et al. “Using Data and Design to Bring the New Variorum Shakespeare Online.” The Routledge Handbook of Shakespeare and Interface, 1st ed., Routledge, 2023, pp. 253-67, .

Joubin, Alexa Alice, et al., editors. The Shakespearean International Yearbook. 18, Special Section, Soviet Shakespeare. 1st ed., Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.

Nicholson, Jennifer Ellen. Shakespeare’s French: Reading Hamlet at the Edge of English. Diss. 2019.

Squeo, Maddalena Alessandra. “Visualizing Variants: Shakespeare’s Textual Instability in Digital Media.” Worlds of Words: Complexity, Creativity, and Conventionality in English Language, Literature and Culture. Vol. 2. Pisa University Press, 2019. 257-268.

Blandford, Ann, et al. “Designing Interactive Reading Environments for the Online Scholarly Edition.” ADHO 2012-Hamburg. 2012.

Galey, Alan. “Look Not on His Picture: Shakespeare Quartos and Folios as Photographic Subjects.” Seminar on “Booking Shakespeare,” Shakespeare Association of America 37th Annual Meeting, Washington DC. Vol. 9. 2009.

 

“Scribe or Compositor: Ralph Crane, Compositors D and F, and the First Four Plays in the Shakespeare First Folio” (2001):

Yabut, Daniel. “Creative Marking: Middleton’s and Crane’s Punctuation in A Game at Chesse.” The Theatrical Legacy of Thomas Middleton, 1624-2024, 1st ed., Routledge, 2024, pp. 26-48, .

Laoutaris, Chris. Shakespeare’s Book: The Intertwined Lives behind the First Folio. William Collins, 2023.

Whittington, Ryan Douglas. What If the Monster Sings? Caliban’s Humanity and Monstrosity Musically Negotiated in Adaptations of Shakespeare’s the Tempest. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2023.

Sofer, Andrew. “All’s I-L-L That Starts ‘I’le’: Acrostic Space and Ludic Reading in the Margins of the Early Modern Play-Text.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 48, no. 2, 2020, pp. 273-308, .

Rizvi, Pervez. “The Use of Spellings for Compositor Attribution in the First Folio.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 110, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-53, .

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Considine, John. “‘Thy Bankes with Pioned, and Twilled Brims’: A Solution to a Double Crux.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 2, 2003, pp. 160-66, .

Dickson, Vernon Guy. “What I Will: Mediating Subjects; Or, Ralph Crane and the Folio’s ‘Tempest.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 97, no. 1, 2003, pp. 43-56, .

Finn, Patrick James. Pre-codex to Post-codex: Editorial Theory in the Second Incunabulum. Diss. 2003.

 

“Copy-text Editing: The Author-izing of Shakespeare” (2001):

Galey, Alan. The Shakespearean Archive: Information’s Cultural Work from Early Modern Print to the Electronic New Variorum. 2006. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

 

“Editing Shakespeare and Editing Without Shakespeare: Wilson, McKerrow, Greg, Bowers, Tanselle, and Copy-Text Editing” (2000):

Lior, Noam. Mediating for Immediacy: Text, Performance, and Dramaturgy in Multimedia Shakespeare Editions. 2019. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Iovan, Sarah. Music and Performative Poetics in Early Modern English Lyrics. 2013. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Knowles, Richard. “The Evolution of the Texts of Lear.” King Lear: New Critical Essays. Routledge, 2008, pp. 134-164.

 

“A Century of 'Bad' Quartos” (1999):

Taylor, Gary. “Play Manuscripts, Vectors of Transmission, and Shakespeare’s Henry the Fifth.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 116, no. 3, 2022, pp. 343-78, .

Kelly, Charles Adams, and Dayna Leigh Plehn. “Q1 Hamlet: The Sequence of Creation and Implications for the ’Allowed Booke.” Critical Survey (Oxford, England), vol. 31, no. 1-2, 2019, pp. 153-67, .

Jackson, MacDonald P. “Vocabulary, Chronology, and the First Quarto (1603) of Hamlet.” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 31, 2018, pp. 17-42.

Meek, Richard. Narrating the Visual in Shakespeare. Routledge, 2017, .

Dutton, Richard. Shakespeare, Court Dramatist. 1st ed., Oxford University Press, 2016, .

Purcell, Stephen. “Editing for Performance or Documenting Performance?: Exploring the Relationship Between Early Modern Text and Clowning.” Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 34, no. 1, 2016, pp. 5-27, .

Schoone-Jongen, Terence G. Shakespeare's Companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577-1594. Routledge, 2016.

Quarmby, Kevin A. The Disguised Ruler in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. Routledge, 2016.

Kirwan, Peter. Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Bourus, T. Young Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet: Print, Piracy, and Performance. 1st ed., Palgrave Macmillan US, 2014, .

Johnson, Laurie. The Tain of Hamlet. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014.

Jolly, Margrethe. The First Two Quartos of Hamlet: A New View of the Origins and Relationship of the Texts. McFarland & Company, 2014.

Born, Hanspeter. “Why Greene Was Angry at Shakespeare.” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 25, 2012, pp. 133-73.

Pechter, Edward. Shakespeare Studies Today: Romanticism Lost. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Dodd, William, et al. “Character as Dynamic Identity: From Fictional Interaction Script to Performance.” Shakespeare and Character, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2009, pp. 62-79, .

Lesser, Zachary, et al. “The First Literary Hamlet and the Commonplacing of Professional Plays.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 4, 2008, pp. 371-420, .

Menzer, Paul. The Hamlets: Cues, Qs, and Remembered Texts. Associated University Presse, 2008.

Salkeld, Duncan. “The Texts of Henry V.” Shakespeare (London, England), vol. 3, no. 2, 2007, pp. 161-82, .

Erne, Lukas, and Margaret Jane Kidnie. Textual Performances: The Modern Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Drama. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Best, Michael. “The Text of Performance and the Performance of Text in the Electronic Edition.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 36, no. 3, 2002, pp. 269-82, .

Ichikawa, Mariko. Shakespearean Entrances. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Brooks, Douglas A. “‘King Lear’ (1608) and the Typography of Literary Ambition.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 30, 1999, pp. 133-59, .

Weimann, Robert. “Playing with a Difference: Revisiting ‘Pen’ and ‘Voice’ in Shakespeare’s Theater.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 4, 1999, pp. 415-32, .

 

“Post-theory Problems in Shakespeare Editing” (1999):

Blank, Daniel. “Attributing Authorship to Bodleian MS Douce 171: A Seventeenth-Century Comedy by Arthur Wilson.” Library, vol. 23, no. 3, 2022, pp. 346-72, .

Leonard, Alice. Error in Shakespeare: Shakespeare in Error. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

Price, Diana. “Hand D and Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Literary Paper Trail.” Journal of Early Modern Studies, vol. 5, 2016, pp. 329-352, .

Purkis, James. “The Revision of Manuscript Drama.” Editing, Performance, Texts: New Practices in Medieval and Early Modern English Drama, 2014, pp. 107-25, .

Gaby, Rosemary. “Henry IV Part 1: Textual Introduction.” University of Tasmania, 2012, .

Pangallo, Matteo A. “The Labor We Delight in”: Amateur Dramatists in the London Professional Theaters, 1590-1642. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2012.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Kidnie, Margaret Jane. Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation. 1st ed., Routledge, 2008.

Purkis, James. “Foul Papers, Promptbooks, and Thomas Heywood’s ‘The Captives.’” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 21, 2008, pp. 128-56.

Stone, Marjorie, and Judith Thompson, eds. Literary Couplings: Writing Couples, Collaborators, and the Construction of Authorship. University of Wisconsin Press, 2007.

Duxfield, Andrew. “Modern Problems of Editing: The Two Texts of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus.” Literature Compass, vol. 2, no. 1, 2005, p. 1-14, .

Dickson, Vernon Guy. “What I Will: Mediating Subjects; Or, Ralph Crane and the Folio’s ‘Tempest.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 97, no. 1, 2003, pp. 43-56, .

Egan, Gabriel. “Shakespeare: Editions and Textual Studies.” The Year's Work in English Studies. vol. 84: Covering Work Published in 2003, Oxford University Press, p. 290-354

Erne, Lukas. “Shakespeare and the Publication of His Plays.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1-20, .

Campbell, Darlene Nicole. Material Adventures: The Production and Reproduction of Early Modern Dramatic Manuscripts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2001.

Egan, Gabriel. “Diplomatic immunity on the early modern stage: verbatim repetition of documents.” Paper Delivered at the International Conference ‘Scaena: Shakespeare and His Contemporaries in Performance’ at University of Cambridge, 2001.

 

“Shakespeare, More or Less: A. W. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Editing” (1999):

De Grazia, Margreta. Four Shakespearean Period Pieces. The University of Chicago Press, 2021, .

Lupić, Ivan. Subjects of Advice: Drama and Counsel from More to Shakespeare. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019, .

Edelstein, Gabriella. Censorship, Collaboration, and the Construction of Authorship in Early Modern Theatre. Diss. 2018.

Midgley, Patrick. “New Historicists & Historical Advocates: The Continuing Controversy of Sir Thomas More.” Etudes vol. 3, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-18.

Boeschoten, A. Refugees and Anti-Alien Sentiment in​ Sir Thomas More​ (​c.​ 1600) and the Contemporary Public Debate. Diss. BA Thesis, University of Utrecht, 2016.

Hays, Michael L. “Shakespeare’s Hand Unknown in ‘Sir Thomas More’: Thompson, Dawson, and the Futility of the Paleographic Argument.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 2, 2016, pp. 180-203, .

Price, Diana. “Hand D and Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Literary Paper Trail.” Journal of Early Modern Studies, vol. 5, 2016, pp. 329-352, .

Schoone-Jongen, Terence G. Shakespeare's Companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577-1594. Routledge, 2016.

Kirwan, Peter. Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha: Negotiating the Boundaries of the Dramatic Canon. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Elliott, Ward E. Y., and Robert J. Valenza. “Two Tough Nuts to Crack: Did Shakespeare Write the ‘Shakespeare’ Portions of Sir Thomas More and Edward III? Part II: Conclusion.” Literary and Linguistic Computing, vol. 25, no. 2, 2010, pp. 165-77, .

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Levine, Nina. “Citizens’ Games: Differentiating Collaboration and ‘Sir Thomas More.’” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 1, 2007, pp. 31-64, .

Erne, Lukas, and Margaret Jane Kidnie. Textual Performances: The Modern Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Drama. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

 

“Hypertext and Editorial Myth” (1998):

Price, Diana. “Hand D and Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Literary Paper Trail.” Journal of Early Modern Studies, vol. 5, 2016, pp. 329-352, .

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Johnson, Eric M. Open source Shakespeare: An Experiment in Literary Technology. Diss. George Mason University, 2005.

Egan, Gabriel. “Idealist and Materialist Interpretations of BL Harley 7368, the Sir Thomas More Manuscript.” Early Modern Literary Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2001.

 

“Editing after the end of editing” (1996):

Leonard, Alice. Error in Shakespeare: Shakespeare in Error. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

Massai, Sonia. “Editing Shakespeare in Parts.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 1, 2017, pp. 56-79, .

Howe, J. N. A Critical Edition of Samuel Rowley’s “When You See Me, You Know Me.” ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2015.

Kirwan, Peter. Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha: Negotiating the Boundaries of the Dramatic Canon. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Bartels, Emily C., and Emma Josephine Smith, eds. Christopher Marlowe in Context. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Smith, Helen. 'Grossly Material Things': Women and Book Production in Early Modern England. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Thomas, Stephanie Faye. The Exploration and Development of Tools for Active Reading and Electronic Texts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2008.

Groves, Peter. “Shakespeare’s Pentameter and the End of Editing.” Shakespeare (London, England), vol. 3, no. 2, 2007, pp. 126-142, .

Foakes, R. A. “Performance Theory and Textual Theory: A Retort Courteous.” Shakespeare (London, England), vol. 2, no. 1, 2006, pp. 47-58, .

Travis, Keira. Infinite Gesture: An Approach to Shakespearean Character. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2006.

Duxfield, Andrew. “Modern Problems of Editing: The Two Texts of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus.” Literature Compass, vol. 2, no. 1, 2005, p. 1-14, .

Gossett, Suzanne, et al. “‘You Not Your Child Well Loving’: Text and Family Structure in Pericles.” A Companion to Shakespeare’s Works, vol. 4, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005, pp. 348-64, .

Dickson, Vernon Guy. “What I Will: Mediating Subjects; Or, Ralph Crane and the Folio’s ‘Tempest.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 97, no. 1, 2003, pp. 43-56, .

Leff, Leonard J. “And Transfer to Cemetery: The Streetcars Named Desire.” Film Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 3, 2002, pp. 29-37, .

Urbina, Eduardo, et al. “Texto, contextos e hipertexto: la crítica textual en la era digital y la Edición electrónica variorum del Quijote-IV Centenario.” Quaderni di Letterature Iberiche e Iberoameicane, vol. 27, 2002, pp. 1-23.

Nordloh, David J. “An Editorial Retrospective: Between Authorship and the Socialized Text.” English Studies in Canada, vol. 27, no. 1, 2001, pp. 165-77, .

Hunt, Maurice. “New Variorum Shakespeares in the Twenty-First Century.” The Yearbook of English Studies, vol. 29, 1999, pp. 57-68, .

Livingston, Meg Powers. Censorship in the Plays of John Fletcher. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1999.

 

“Narratives about Printed Shakespeare Texts: 'Foul Papers' and 'Bad' Quartos.” (1990)—178 citations found in total (listed below are notable works from that list):

Desai, Adhaar Noor. Blotted Lines: Early Modern English Literature and the Poetics of Discomposition. Cornell University Press, 2023.

Kidnie, Margaret Jane, et al. “The First Folio at 400: Editing Roundtable.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 74, no. 4, 2023, pp. 362-80, .

Fazel, Valerie M., and Louise Geddes. The Shakespeare Multiverse: Fandom as Literary Praxis. 1st ed., Routledge, 2022.

Leonard, Alice. Error in Shakespeare: Shakespeare in Error. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

Jowett, John. “The Writing Tables of James Roberts.” Library, vol. 20, no. 1, 2019, pp. 64-88,.

Mattison, Andrew. Solitude and Speechlessness: Renaissance Writing and Reading in Isolation. University of Toronto Press, 2019.

Majumder, Doyeeta. Tyranny and Usurpation: The New Prince and Lawmaking Violence in Early Modern Drama. Oxford University Press, 2019.

Bliss, Lee. “What Hath a Quarter-century of Coriolanus Criticism Wrought?.” The Shakespearean International Yearbook: Where are We Now in Shakespearean Studies?, Routledge, 2017, pp. 63-75.

Brooks, Douglas A., ed. Printing and Parenting in Early Modern England. Routledge, 2017.

Hansen, Claire. Shakespeare and Complexity Theory. Routledge, 2017.

Knapp, James A. Illustrating the Past in Early Modern England: The Representation of History in Printed Books. Routledge, 2017.

Sharif, Mohammad Muazzam. Hamlet in Pakistan. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2017.

Desmet, Christy. “Text, Style, and Author in Hamlet Q1.” Journal of Early Modern Studies, vol. 5, 2016, pp. 135-156, .

Dutton, Richard. Shakespeare, Court Dramatist. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Schoone-Jongen, Terence G. Shakespeare's Companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577-1594. Routledge, 2016.

Saenger, Michael. The Commodification of Textual Engagements in the English Renaissance. Routledge, 2016.

Astington, John H. “Lumpers and Splitters.” Lost Plays in Shakespeare’s England. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015, pp. 84-102.

Crockett, Bryan. “Shakespeare, Playfere, and the Pirates.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 66, no. 3, 2015, pp. 252-85, .

Howe, J. N. A Critical Edition of Samuel Rowley’s “When You See Me, You Know Me.” ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2015.

Kirwan, Peter. Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Bourus, Terri. Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet: Print, Piracy, and Performance. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Gajowski, Evelyn, and Phyllis Rackin, eds. The Merry Wives of Windsor: New Critical Essays. Routledge, 2014.

Johnson, Laurie. The Tain of Hamlet. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014.

Jolly, Margrethe. The First Two Quartos of Hamlet: A New View of the Origins and Relationship of the Texts. McFarland, 2014.

Jowett, John. “Disintegration, 1924.” Shakespeare (London, England), vol. 10, no. 2, 2014, pp. 171-187,.

Knapp, James A. “Beyond Materiality in Shakespeare Studies.” Literature Compass, vol. 11, no. 10, 2014, pp. 677-90, .

Meyer, Jürgen. “Editing Textual Synergies: New Historicism and ‘New Textualism.’” Poetics Today, vol. 35, no. 4, 2014, pp. 591-613, .

Paul, J. Gavin. Shakespeare and the Imprints of Performance. Springer, 2014.

Wilson, Christopher R., and Michela Calore. Music in Shakespeare: A Dictionary. Bloomsbury Press, 2014.

Dupuis, Margaret, and Grace Tiffany, eds. Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. Modern Language Association, 2013.

Griffin, Andrew, Helen Ostovich, and Holger Schott Syme, eds. Locating the Queen's Men, 1583-1603: Material practices and conditions of playing. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013.

Honigmann, Ernst Anselm Joachim. The Texts of Othello and Shakespearean Revision. Routledge, 2013.

Kastan, David Scott. Shakespeare After Theory. Routledge, 2013.

Knight, Jeffrey Todd. Bound to Read: Compilations, Collections, and the Making of Renaissance Literature. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.

McMillin, Scott. “The Mystery of the Early Othello Texts.” Othello, Routledge, 2013, pp. 401-424.

Kolkovich, Elizabeth Zeman. “Pageantry, Queens, and Housewives in the Two Texts of ‘The Merry Wives of Windsor.’” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 63, no. 3, 2012, pp. 328-54, .

Jolly, Margrethe. “Hamlet and the French Connection: The Relationship of Q1 and Q2 Hamlet and the Evidence of Belleforest’s Histoires Tragiques.” Parergon, vol. 29, no. 1, 2012, pp. 83-105, .

Marshall, Hallie Rebecca. “Clouds, Eupolis and Reperformance.” No Laughing Matter. Studies in Athenian Comedy, Bristol Classical Press, 2012, pp. 55-68.

Whitted, Brent E. “Staging Exchange: Why ‘The Knight of the Burning Pestle’ Flopped at Blackfriars in 1607.” Early Theatre, vol. 15, no. 2, 2012, pp. 111-30.

Egan, Gabriel. “Precision, Consistency and Completeness in Early-Modern Playbook Manuscripts: The Evidence from Thomas of Woodstock and John a Kent and John a Cumber.” Library, vol. 12, no. 4, 2011, pp. 376-91, .

Pechter, Edward. Shakespeare Studies Today: Romanticism Lost. Springer, 2011.

Tribble, Evelyn. Cognition in the Globe: Attention and Memory in Shakespeare’s Theatre. Springer, 2011.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Rocklin, Edward. Romeo and Juliet. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010.

Benson, Sean. Shakespearean Resurrection: The Art of Almost Raising the Dead. Penn State Press, 2009.

Green, A. C. “The Difference Between McKerrow and Greg.” Textual Cultures: Text, Contexts, Interpretation, vol. 4, no. 2, 2009, pp. 31-53, .

Hattaway, Michael. “Dating ‘As You like It,’ Epilogues and Prayers, and the Problems of ‘As the Dial Hand Tells O’er.’” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 2, 2009, pp. 154-67, .

Kehler, Dorothea. Shakespeare's Widows. Springer, 2009.

Christensen, Ann. ““Absent, Weak, or Unserviceable”: the East India Company and the Domestic Economy in The Launching of the Mary, or the Seaman’s Honest Wife.” Global Traffic: Discourses and Practices of Trade in English Literature and Culture from 1550 to 1700, Palgrave Macmillan US, 2008, pp. 117-136.

Clegg, Cyndia Susan. “King Lear and Early Seventeenth-Century Print Culture.” King Lear: New Critical Essays, Routledge, 2008, pp. 165-193.

Dawson, Anthony B. “What do Editors do and Why does it Matter?.” How to Do Things with Shakespeare: New Approaches, New Essays, Blackwell, 2008, pp. 160-180.

Grav, Peter F. Shakespeare and the Economic Imperative: “What’s aught but as ‘tis valued?”. Routledge, 2008.

Kidnie, Margaret Jane. Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation. Routledge, 2008.

Purkis, James. “Foul Papers, Promptbooks, and Thomas Heywood’s ‘The Captives.’” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 21, 2008, pp. 128-56.

Vianna, Alexander Martins. “‘Shakespeare’: Um Nome Para Textos.” Topoí (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), vol. 9, no. 16, 2008, pp. 191-232, .

Ailles, Jennifer Louise. The Fairy /Queen /Mab: Mediating Elizabeth in Early Modern England. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2007.

Downs, Gerald E. “Memorial Transmission, Shorthand, And ‘John of Bordeaux.’” Studies in Bibliography (Charlottesville, Va.), vol. 58, no. 1, 2007, pp. 109–34, .

Miller, Susan. Trust in Texts: A Different History of Rhetoric. SIU Press, 2007.

Murphy, Andrew. A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text. Blackwell Pub., 2007.

Salkeld, Duncan. “The Texts of Henry V.” Shakespeare (London, England), vol. 3, no. 2, 2007, pp. 161-82, .

Boulhosa, Patricia Pires. Icelanders and the Kings of Norway. Brill, 2005.

Bristol, Michael D. Big-Time Shakespeare. Routledge, 2005.

Farmer, Alan B., and Zachary Lesser. “The Popularity of Playbooks Revisited.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 1, 2005, pp. 1-32, .

Tribble, Evelyn. “Distributing Cognition in the Globe.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 2, 2005, pp. 135-55, .

Erne, Lukas, and Margaret Jane Kidnie. Textual Performances: The Modern Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Drama. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Stern, Tiffany. Making Shakespeare: From Stage to Page. Routledge, 2004.

Dawson, Anthony B. “Correct impressions: editing and evidence in the wake of postmodernism.” In Arden: Editing Shakespeare, 2003, pp. 31-47.

Dusinberre, Juliet. “Pancakes and a Date for ‘As You like It.’” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 4, 2003, pp. 371-405, .

Holderness, Graham. Textual Shakespeare: Writing and the Word. Univ of Hertfordshire Press, 2003.

Jowett, John. “Henry Chettle: ‘Your Old Compositor.’” Text, vol. 15, 2003, pp. 141-161.

Knapp, James A. “‘Ocular Proof’: Archival Revelations and Aesthetic Response.” Poetics Today, vol. 24, no. 4, 2003, pp. 695-727, .

Melchiori, Giorgio. “The continuing importance of New Bibliography.” Arden: Editing Shakespeare, 2003, pp. 17-30.

Best, Michael. “The Text of Performance and the Performance of Text in the Electronic Edition.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 36, no. 3, 2002, pp. 269-82, . 

Erne, Lukas. “Shakespeare and the Publication of His Plays.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1-20, .

Ichikawa, Mariko. Shakespearean Entrances. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Lunney, Ruth. Marlowe and the Popular Tradition: Innovation in the English Drama before 1595. Manchester University Press, 2002.

Maguire, Laurie. “‘Actions That a Man Might Play’: Mourning, Memory, Editing.” Performance Research, vol. 7, no. 1, 2002, pp. 66-76, .

Martin, Randall. “The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York and 3 Henry VI: Report and Revision.” The Review of English Studies, vol. 53, no. 209, 2002, pp. 8-30, .

Robinson, Benedict Scott. “Thomas Heywood and the Cultural Politics of Play Collections.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 42, no. 2, 2002, pp. 361-80, .

Calore, Michela. “‘Enter out’: Perplexing Signals in Some Elizabethan Stage Directions.” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 13, 2001, pp. 117-35.

Campbell, Darlene Nicole. Material Adventures: The Production and Reproduction of Early Modern Dramatic Manuscripts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2001.

Goldstein, Philip. Communities of Cultural Value: Reception Study, Political Differences, and Literary History. Lexington Books, 2001.

Lesser, Zachary. The Politics of Publication: The Never -Writers and Ever -Readers of Early Stuart Drama. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2001.

McMillin, Scott. “The Othello Quarto and the ‘Foul-Paper’ Hypothesis.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 1, 2000, pp. 67-85, .

Bach, Rebecca Ann. “‘Titus Andronicus’, Transcendence and Succession.” Journal of Narrative Theory, vol. 29, no. 1, 1999, pp. 1-26, .

Baird Saenger, Michael. “Did Sidney Revise ‘Astrophil and Stella?’” Studies in Philology, vol. 96, no. 4, 1999, pp. 417-38.

Brooks, Douglas A. “‘King Lear’ (1608) and the Typography of Literary Ambition.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 30, 1999, pp. 133-59, .

Howard-Hill, T. H. “‘Nor Stage, nor Stationers Stall Can Showe’: The Circulation of Plays in Manuscript in the Early Seventeenth Century.” Book History, vol. 2, no. 1, 1999, pp. 28-41, .

Livingston, Meg Powers. Censorship in the Plays of John Fletcher. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1999.

Davidson, Adele. “‘King Lear’ in an Age of Stenographical Reproduction or ‘On Sitting Down to Copy “King Lear” Again.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 92, no. 3, 1998, pp. 297-324, .

Jowett, John. “Henry Chettle and the First Quarto of ‘Romeo and Juliet.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 92, no. 1, 1998, pp. 53-74, .

McMillin, Scott, and Sally-Beth MacLean. The Queen's Men and Their Plays. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Bliss, Lee. “Scribes, Compositors, and Annotators: The Nature of the Copy for the First Folio ‘Text of Coriolanus.’” Studies in Bibliography, vol. 50, no. 1, 1997, pp. 224-261.

Holderness, Graham, et al. “Busy Doing Nothing: A Response to Edward Pechter.” Textual Practice, vol. 11, no. 1, 1997, pp. 81-87, .

Marcus, Leah S. “Who Was Will Peter? Or, a Plea for Literary History.” Shakespeare Studies, vol. 25, 1997, pp. 211-228.

Murphy, Andrew, et al. “‘Tish Ill Done’: Henry the Fift and the Politics of Editing.” Shakespeare and Ireland, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1997, pp. 213-34, .

Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespearian Playing Companies. Clarendon, 1996.

Parker, Patricia A. Shakespeare from the Margins: Language, Culture, Context. University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Holderness, Graham, Bryan Loughrey, and Andrew Murphy. “‘What's the matter?’ Shakespeare and textual theory.” Textual Practice, vol. 9 no. 1, 1995, pp. 93-119.

Marchitello, Howard. “(Dis)Embodied Letters and ‘The Merchant of Venice’: Writing, Editing, History.” ELH, vol. 62, no. 2, 1995, pp. 237-65, .

Roberts, Sasha. “Reading the Shakespearean Text in Early Modern England.” Critical Survey (Oxford, England), vol. 7, no. 3, 1995, pp. 299-306.

Taylor, Gary. “Shakespeare and Others: The Authorship of ‘Henry the Sixth, Part One.’” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 7, 1995, pp. 145-205.

Dillon, Janette. “Is There a Performance in This Text?” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 1, 1994, pp. 74-86, .

Meyer, Ann R. “Shakespeare’s Art and the Texts of ‘King Lear.’” Studies in Bibliography (Charlottesville, Va.), vol. 47, 1994, pp. 128-46.

Kinney, Arthur F. “Textual Signs in ‘The Merry Wives of Windsor.’” The Yearbook of English Studies, vol. 23, 1993, pp. 206-34, .

Orkin, Martin. “The Politics of Editing the Shakespeare Text in South Africa.” Current Writing, vol. 5, no. 1, 1993, pp. 48-59, .

Smidt, Kristian. Unconformities in Shakespeare’s Later Comedies. Springer, 1993.

Wilson, Luke. “Hamlet: Equity, Intention, Performance.” Studies in the Literary Imagination, vol. 24, no. 2, 1991, pp. 91-113.

Best, Michael. “Textual Introduction.” The Internet Shakespeare Editions, University of Victoria, .

 

“McKerrow's 'Suggestion' and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Textual Criticism” (1989):

Tronch Pérez, Jesús. Evolución de los criterios ecdóticos en las ediciones modernas del teatro de Shakespeare. Firenze University Press, 2021, .

Purkis, James. Shakespeare and Manuscript Drama: Canon, Collaboration and Text. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Kirwan, Peter. Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Kastan, David Scott. Shakespeare After Theory. Routledge, 2013.

McMillin, Scott. “The Mystery of the Early Othello Texts.” Othello: New Critical Essays, Routledge, 2013, pp. 401-424.

Scott, Sarah K., and Michael L. Stapleton, eds. Christopher Marlowe the Craftsman: Lives, Stage, and Page. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013.

Vadnais, Matthew W. “According to the Scrippe”: Speeches, Speech Order, and Performance in Shakespeare’s Early Printed Play Texts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2012.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Kidnie, Margaret Jane. Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation. Routledge, 2008.

Wilder, Lina Perkins. “Changeling Bottom: Speech Prefixes, Acting, and Character in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Shakespeare (London, England), vol. 4, no. 1, 2008, pp. 41-58, .

Henderson, Diana E., ed. Alternative Shakespeares. Routledge, 2007.

Murphy, Andrew. A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text. Blackwell Pub., 2007.

Worthen, W. B., and Barbara Hodgdon. “Prefixing the Author: Print, Plays, and Performance.” A Companion to Shakespeare and Performance, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005, pp. 212-30, .

Campbell, Darlene Nicole. Material Adventures: The Production and Reproduction of Early Modern Dramatic Manuscripts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2001.

McMillin, Scott. “The Othello Quarto and the ‘Foul-Paper’ Hypothesis.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 1, 2000, pp. 67-85, .

Taylor, Gary. “Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and ‘The Bloody Banquet.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 94, no. 2, 2000, pp. 197-233, .

Livingston, Meg Powers. Censorship in the Plays of John Fletcher. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1999.

Murphy, Andrew. “Review of Shakespeare’s Speech-Headings.” Early Modern Literary Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, 2000.

Baker, David Weil. “‘Surpris’d with all’: Rereading Character in Much Ado about Nothing.” Second Thoughts: A Focus on Rereading, Wayne State University Press, 1998, pp. 228-241.

Rasmussen, Eric Christian. ‘“Who Gave Thee Power to Change a Line?” The Revision of Marlowe’s ‘Doctor Faustus.’ ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1990.

 

“Foul Papers' and 'Prompt-books': Printer's Copy for Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors” (1988):

Miola, Robert S. “The Play and the Critics.” The Comedy of Errors, Routledge, 2013, pp. 3-51.

Miola, Robert S. Comedy of Errors. Routledge, 2012.

Egan, Gabriel. “Precision, Consistency and Completeness in Early-Modern Playbook Manuscripts: The Evidence from Thomas of Woodstock and John a Kent and John a Cumber.” Library, vol. 12, no. 4, 2011, pp. 376-391, .

Rayment, Louise Ellen Elma. A Study in Sixteenth-Century Performance and Artistic Networks: British Library, Additional Manuscript 15233. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2011.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Leonard, Alice. Error in Shakespeare: Shakespeare in Error. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

Hunter, Lynette. “Adaptation and/or Revision in Early Quartos of ‘Romeo and Juliet.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 101, no. 1, 2007, pp. 5-54, .

Murphy, Andrew. A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text. Blackwell Pub., 2007.

Livingston, Meg Powers. Censorship in the Plays of John Fletcher. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1999.

Rasmussen, Eric. “The Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays.” Modern Philology, vol. 95, no. 1, University of Chicago Press, 1997, pp. 109-13.

Rasmussen, Eric Christian. “Who Gave Thee Power to Change a Line?” The Revision of Marlowe’s ‘Doctor Faustus.’ ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1990.

Taylor, Gary. “Textual and Sexual Criticism: A Crux in ‘The Comedy of Errors.’” Renaissance Drama, vol. 19, 1988, pp. 195-225, .

 

“The Textual Mystery of Hamlet” (1988)—97 citations found in total (listed below are notable works from that list):

Iosifyan, Marina. “Theory of Mind Increases Aesthetic Appreciation in Visual Arts.” Art & Perception, vol. 9, no. 2, 2021, pp. 113-33, .

Eggert, Paul. The Work and the Reader in Literary Studies. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Kelly, Charles Adams, and Dayna Leigh Plehn. “Q1 Hamlet: The Sequence of Creation and Implications for the ’Allowed Booke.” Critical Survey, vol. 31, no. 1-2, 2019, pp. 153-67, .

Habinek, Lianne. The Subtle Knot: Early Modern English Literature and the Birth of Neuroscience. McGill-Queen's Press, 2018.

De Somogyi, Nicholas. Shakespeare’s Theatre of War. Routledge, 2016.

Eggert, Katherine. Showing Like a Queen: Female Authority and Literary Experiment in Spenser, Shakespeare, and Milton. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.

Bourus, Terri. Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet: Print, Piracy, and Performance. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Johnson, Laurie. The Tain of Hamlet. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014.

Jolly, Margrethe. The First Two Quartos of Hamlet: A New View of the Origins and Relationship of the Texts. McFarland, 2014.

Paul, J. Gavin. Shakespeare and the Imprints of Performance. Springer, 2014.

Egan, Gabriel. “The Presentist Threat to Editions of Shakespeare.” Shakespeare and the Urgency of Now: Criticism and Theory in the 21st Century, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2013, pp. 38-59.

Edmondson, Paul, and Bridget Escolme, eds. Shakespeare and the Making of Theatre. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012.

Engle, Lars. “Moral Agency in Hamlet.” Shakespeare Studies, vol. 40, 2012, pp. 87-97.

Inglis, Kirsten, and Boyda Johnstone. “‘The Pen Lookes to Be Canoniz’d’: John Newdigate III, Author and Scribe.” Early Theatre, vol. 14, no. 2, 2011, pp. 27-61, .

Pechter, Edward. Shakespeare Studies Today: Romanticism Lost. Springer, 2011.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Galey, Alan, and Stan Ruecker. “How a Prototype Argues.” Literary and Linguistic Computing, vol. 25, no. 4, 2010, pp. 405-24, .

Dawson, Anthony B. “What Do Editors Do and Why Does It Matter?” How to Do Things with Shakespeare, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008, pp. 160-180, .

Kidnie, Margaret Jane. Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation. Routledge, 2008.

Groves, Beatrice. Texts and Traditions: Religion in Shakespeare 1592-1604. Clarendon Press, 2006.

Lupić, Ivan. “The Native Hue of Revolution: Foreign Shakespeare and Foreign Shakespeare Scholars.” Studia romanica et anglica Zagrabiensia, vol. 49, 2004, pp. 157-177.

Bergeron, David M. “All's Well That Ends Well: Where Is Violenta?.” Explorations in Renaissance Culture, vol. 29, no. 2, 2003, pp. 171-184.

Murphy, Andrew. Shakespeare in Print: A History and Chronology of Shakespeare Publishing. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Ichikawa, Mariko. Shakespearean Entrances. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Lee, John. Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the Controversies of Self. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Thompson, Ann. “George MacDonald’s 1885 Folio-Based Edition of Hamlet.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, 2000, pp. 201-05, .

Orgel, Stephen, and Sean Keilen, eds. Shakespeare and the Editorial Tradition. Taylor & Francis, 1999.

Thompson, Ann, and Neil Taylor. “‘Father and Mother is One Flesh’: Hamlet and the Problems of Paternity.” Paternity and Fatherhood: Myths and Realities, Palgrave Macmillan, 1998, pp. 246-258.

Murray, Peter. Shakespeare’s Imagined Persons: The Psychology of Role-Playing and Acting. Springer, 1996.

Dawson, Anthony. Hamlet. Manchester University Press, 1995.

Roberts, Sasha. “Reading the Shakespearean Text in Early Modern England.” Critical Survey, vol. 7, no. 3, 1995, pp. 299-306.

Bjelland, Karen T. “The Cultural Value of Analytical Bibliography and Textual Criticism: The Case of Troilus and Cressida.” Text, vol. 7, 1994, pp. 273-95.

Bjelland, Karen T. “Variants as Epistemological Shifts: A Proposed Methodology for Recovering the Two Texts of Shakespeare’s ‘Troilus and Cressida.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 88, no. 1, 1994, pp. 53-78, .

Cary, Louise D. “Hamlet Recycled, or the Tragical History of the Prince’s Prints.” ELH, vol. 61, no. 4, 1994, pp. 783-805, .

Ayers, P. K. “Reading, Writing, and Hamlet.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4, 1993, pp. 423-39, .

de Grazia, Margreta, and Peter Stallybrass. “The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 3, 1993, pp. 255-83, .

Bernthal, Craig A. “Treason in the Family: The Trial of Thumpe v. Horner.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 1, 1991, pp. 44-54, .

Calvo, Clara. Power Relations and Fool-Master Discourse in Shakespeare: A Discourse Stylistics Approach to Dramatic Dialogue. Dept. of English Studies, University of Nottingham, 1991.

Altman, Joel B. “The Practice of Shakespeare’s Text.” Style, vol. 23, no. 3, 1989, pp. 466-500.

Loewenstein, Joseph. “Plays Agonistic and Competitive: The Textual Approach to Elsinore.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 19, 1988, pp. 63-96, .

Mowat, Barbara. “The Form of ‘Hamlet’s’ Fortunes.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 19, 1988, pp. 97-126.

 

“Enter a sheriffe' and the conjuring up of ghosts” (1987):

Stern, Tiffany. Documents of Performance in Early Modern England. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Groves, Beatrice. “Memory, Composition, and the Relationship of ‘King John’ to ‘The Troublesome Raigne of King John.’” Comparative Drama, vol. 38, no. 2/3, 2004, pp. 277-90, .

Best, Michael. “Textual Introduction.” The Internet Shakespeare Editions, University of Victoria, .

 

“The Hickmott-Dartmouth Copy of Love's Labor's Lost Q1 (1598)” (1985):

Erne, Lukas, and Devani Singh. Shakespeare in Geneva: Early Modern English Books (1475-1700) at the Martin Bodmer Foundation. Ithaque, 2018.

Erne, Lukas. Shakespeare and the Book Trade. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

 

“Cases and Compositors in the Shakespeare First Folio Comedies” (1982):

Laoutaris, Chris. Shakespeare’s Book: The Intertwined Lives behind the First Folio. William Collins, 2023.

Silva, Andie. “Corrections.” ArchBook: Architectures of the Book, 2019, .

Ryskina, Maria, et al. “Automatic Compositor Attribution in the First Folio of Shakespeare.” arXiv.Org, 2017, .

Giddens, Eugene. How to Read a Shakespearean Play Text. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Reid, S. W. “Compositor B's Speech-Prefixes In The First Folio Of Shakespeare And The Question Of Copy For 2” Henry IV”.” Studies in Bibliography (Charlottesville, Va.), vol. 58, no. 1, 2007, pp. 73-108, .

Dickson, Vernon Guy. “What I Will: Mediating Subjects; Or, Ralph Crane and the Folio’s ‘Tempest.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 97, no. 1, 2003, pp. 43-56, .

 

“Massinger's The City Madam” (1980):

Rochester, Joanne. Staging Spectatorship in the Plays of Philip Massinger. Routledge, 2017.

 

“Modern Editions and Historical Collation in Old-Spelling Editions of Shakespeare” (1980):

Hirsch, Brett D., and Janelle Jenstad. “Beyond the Text: Digital Editions and Performance.” Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 34, no. 1, 2016, pp. 107-127, .

Rasmussen, Eric. “Richly Noted: A Case for Collation Inflation.” In Arden: Editing Shakespeare Essays in Honour of Richard Proudfoot, 2015, pp. 211-18.

 

“Variants in the First Quarto of Love Labor's Lost” (1979):

Erne, Lukas, and Devani Singh. Shakespeare in Geneva: Early Modern English Books (1475-1700) at the Martin Bodmer Foundation. Ithaque, 2018.

Londré, Felicia Hardison. Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays. Routledge, 2015.

 

“Compositor B of the Shakespeare First Folio” (1978):

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Reid, S. W. “Compositor B’s Speech-Prefixes in the First Folio of Shakespeare and the Question of Copy for 2 ‘Henry IV.’” Studies in Bibliography, vol. 58, no. 1, 2007, pp. 73-108, .

Maguire, Laurie E. “Petruccio and the Barber’s Shop.” Studies in Bibliography, vol. 51, no. 1, 1998, pp. 117-26.

Reid, S. W. “The Editing of Folio ‘Romeo and Juliet.’” Studies in Bibliography, vol. 35, 1982, pp. 43-66.

Taylor, Gary. “The Shrinking Compositor a of the Shakespeare First Folio.” Studies in Bibliography, vol. 34, 1981, pp. 96-117.

 

“Editorial Uses of Compositor Study” (1978):

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Livingston, Meg Powers. Censorship in the Plays of John Fletcher. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1999.

Bjelland, Karen T. “The Cultural Value of Analytical Bibliography and Textual Criticism: The Case of Troilus and Cressida.” Text, vol. 7, 1994, pp. 273-295.

Bjelland, Karen T. “Variants as Epistemological Shifts: A Proposed Methodology for Recovering the Two Texts of Shakespeare’s ‘Troilus and Cressida.’” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 88, no. 1, 1994, pp. 53-78, .

 

BOOK CHAPTERS:

“The Shakespeare Manuscripts.” The Arden Research Handbook of Shakespeare and Textual Studies. (2021):

Sommer, Tim, et al. “Shakespeare zwischen Handschrift und Druck. Frühneuzeitliche Autorschaft und forensische Philologie.” Handschrift Im Druck (ca. 1500-1800), vol. 39, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2023, pp. 193-212, .

 

“Lost Playhouse Manuscripts.” Loss and Literary Culture of Shakespeare’s Time. (2020):

Shrank, Cathy, et al. “The Shakespeare Manuscripts.” The Arden Research Handbook of Shakespeare and Textual Studies, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2021, pp. 53-70, .

 

“Authorial Revision in the Tragedies.” Loss and Literary Culture of Shakespeare’s Time. (2016):

Nicholson, Jennifer Ellen. Shakespeare’s French: Reading Hamlet at the Edge of English. Diss. The University of Sydney, 2019.

 

“Ralph Crane and Edward Knight.” Shakespeare and Textual Studies: A Handbook. (2015):

Laoutaris, Chris. Shakespeare’s Book: The Intertwined Lives behind the First Folio. William Collins, 2023.

Ichikawa, Mariko. “‘At the Arras’: What Is the Location Implied in This Phrase?” Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 40, no. 2, 2022, pp. 215-37, .

Templin, Lisa. Speaking Chastity: Female Speech, Silence, and the Strategic Performance of Chaste Identity in Early Modern Drama and Women's Writing. Diss. The University of ÉîÒ¹¸£ÀûÕ¾ Ontario, 2022.

Shrank, Cathy, et al. “The Shakespeare Manuscripts.” The Arden Research Handbook of Shakespeare and Textual Studies, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2021, pp. 53-70, .

 

“Variorum Commentary.” Archbook: Architectures of the Book. (2012):

Blandford, Ann, et al. “The Design of New Knowledge Environments” Digital Humanities 2013, 2013, .

 

“Going professional: William Aldis Wright on Shakespeare and the English Bible.” Shakespeare, the Bible, and the Form of the Book: Contested Scriptures. (2012):

Arrington, Phillip. “Shakespeare’s ‘Vicious Blots’ and the Diction of Later English Bible Translations.” The Ben Jonson Journal, vol. 27, no. 2, 2020, pp. 177-99, .

 

“The Science of Editing.” A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text. (2007):

Gossett, Suzanne. Shakespeare and Textual Theory. Bloomsbury, 2022.

Iyengar, Sujata. Shakespeare and Adaptation Theory. Bloomsbury, 2022.

Shrank, Cathy, et al. “The Shakespeare Manuscripts.” The Arden Research Handbook of Shakespeare and Textual Studies, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2021, pp. 53-70, .

Squeo, Maddalena Alessandra. “Visualizing Variants: Shakespeare’s Textual Instability in Digital Media.” Worlds of Words: Complexity, Creativity, and Conventionality in English Language, Literature and Culture. Pisa University Press, 2019, pp. 257-268.

Meek, Richard. Narrating the Visual in Shakespeare. Routledge, 2017.

Smith, Emma. The Elizabethan Top Ten: Defining Print Popularity in Early Modern England. Routledge, 2016.

Cross, Lezlie C. “Acting in the Paratext: Theatrical Material in Horace Howard Furness’s New Variorum Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 33, no. 2, 2015, pp. 191-213, .

 

“Housmania: Episodes in Twentieth-Century 'Critical' Editing of Shakespeare.” Textual Performances. (2004):

Tronch Pérez, Jesús. Evolución de los criterios ecdóticos en las ediciones modernas del teatro de Shakespeare. Firenze University Press, 2021, .

Tronch, Jesús, and Nicoleta Cinpoeş. “Editing The Spanish Tragedy in the Early Twenty-First Century.” Doing Kyd, Manchester University Press, 2018, pp. 88-108, .

Pechter, Edward. Shakespeare Studies Today: Romanticism Lost. Springer, 2011.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Green, A. C. “The Difference Between McKerrow and Greg.” Textual Cultures: Text, Contexts, Interpretation, vol. 4, no. 2, 2009, pp. 31-53, .

Foakes, R. A. “The Reshaping of King Lear.” King Lear: New Critical Essays, 2008, pp. 104-23,.

Kidnie, Margaret Jane. Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation. Routledge, 2008.

Pérez, Jesús Tronch. “Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare. 3rd Series.” Atlantis (Salamanca, Spain), vol. 30, no. 1, Asociacion Espanola de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos, 2008, pp. 149-57.

 

“‘The Cause of This Defect’: Hamlet's Editors.” In Hamlet: New Critical Essays. (2002):

Meyer, Michael. “Hamlet: Vom Anfang und Ende im Tod und im Text.” Anfangen und Aufhören. Brill Fink, 2019, pp. 247-262.

Holmes, Jonathan H. On the Surface of Shakespeare's Characters. The Ohio State University, 2016.

Mehl, Dieter. “Hamlet-Ausgaben.” Hamlet-Handbuch: Stoffe, Aneignungen, Deutungen, Springer, 2014, pp. 8-12.

Pechter, Edward. Shakespeare Studies Today: Romanticism Lost. Springer, 2011.

Belsey, Catherine. “Shakespeare’s Sad Tale for Winter: Hamlet and the Tradition of Fireside Ghost Stories.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1-27, .

Campbell, Darlene Nicole. Material Adventures: The Production and Reproduction of Early Modern Dramatic Manuscripts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2001.

 

“Close Contrivers: Nameless Collaborators in Early Modern London Plays” The Elizabethan theatre XV: papers given at the International Conference on Elizabethan Theatre held at the University of Waterloo, in July 1993. (2002):

Menon, Madhavi, ed. Shakesqueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare. Duke University Press, 2011.

Woods, Gillian. “‘Strange Discourse’: The Controversial Subject of Sir Thomas More.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 39, no. 1, 2011, pp. 3-35, .

Levine, Nina. “Citizens’ Games: Differentiating Collaboration and ‘Sir Thomas More.’” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 1, 2007, pp. 31-64, .

Pechter, Edward. “What’s Wrong with Literature?” Textual Practice, vol. 17, no. 3, 2003, pp. 505-26,.

 

“Hypertext as Editorial Horizon.” The Proceedings of the International Shakespeare Congress 1996. (1996):

Siemens, Ray, et al. “Codex Ultor: Toward a Conceptual and Theoretical Foundation for New Research on Books and Knowledge Environments.” Digital Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, 2009, .

Lessard, Bruno. “Hypermedia Macbeth: Cognition and Performance.” Macbeth: New Critical Essays, 2008, pp. 318-34, .

Matt Kozusko. “Further Reading.” Shakespeare and Appropriation, Routledge, 1999, p. 206.

 

“’Is it upon record?’: The Reduction of the History Play to History.” New Ways with Old Texts II: Papers of the Renaissance English Text Society 1992-1996. (1998):

Siemon, James R., and Michael Hattaway. “Reconstructing the Past: History, Historicism, Histories.” A New Companion to English Renaissance Literature and Culture, vol. 2, Wiley‐Blackwell, 2010, pp. 523-34, .

Maley, Willy, et al. “The Irish Text and Subtext of Shakespeare’s English Histories.” A Companion to Shakespeare’s Works, vol. 2, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003, pp. 94-124, .

Ruiter, David. Shakespeare's Festive History: Feasting, Festivity, Fasting, and Lent in the Second Henriad. Ashgate, 2003.

Beehler, Paul Alexander Joseph. Reforming Religious Representatives: Shakespeare's Disruptive Historical Acts. University of California, 2000.

 

“Touring and the Construction of Shakespeare Textual Criticism.” Textual Formations And Reformations. (1998):

Gossett, Suzanne. Shakespeare and Textual Theory. Bloomsbury, 2022.

Roberts, P. B. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream at Cardiff Castle.” Scene: Reviews of Early Modern Drama, vol. 3, no. 1, 2020, .

Duncan, Sophie. Shakespeare's Women and the Fin de Siècle. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Dutton, Richard. Shakespeare, Court Dramatist. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Eriksen, Roy. “Editing and the Shadow of the Folio: On the Textual Integrity of The Taming of a Shrew (1594).” Early Modern Culture Online, vol. 6, 2015, pp. 49-70.

Falocco, Joe. “This Is Too Long: A Historically-Based Argument for Aggressively Editing Shakespeare in Performance.” Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 2, 2012, pp. 119-43, .

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Thomson, Leslie. “Staging on the Road, 1586-1594: A New Look at Some Old Assumptions.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 4, 2010, pp. 526-50, .

Eriksen, Roy. “The Taming of a Shrew: Composition as Induction to Authorship.” Nordic Journal of English Studies, vol. 4, no. S2, 2005, pp. 41-63, .

Ichikawa, Mariko. Shakespearean Entrances. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

 

“Plays in Manuscript.” A New History of Early English Drama. (1997):

Lidster, Amy Elizabeth. Producing the History Play: The Agency of Repertory Companies, Stationers, and Patronage Networks in Early Modern England. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2018.

Ioppolo, Grace. “The Transmission of an English Renaissance Play‐Text.” A New Companion to Renaissance Drama, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2017, pp. 543-559.

Ravelhofer, Barbara. James Shirley and Early Modern Theatre. Routledge, 2017.

Gossett, Suzanne. “‘To Foster is Not Always to Preserve’: Feminist Inflections in Editing Pericles.” In Arden: Editing Shakespeare Essays in Honour of Richard Proudfoot, 2015, pp. 65-80.

Lehmann, Courtney. Screen Adaptations: Romeo and Juliet: A Close Study of the Relationship Between Text and Film. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.

McMillin, Scott. “The Mystery of the Early Othello Texts.” Othello: New Critical Essays, 2013, pp. 401-24.

Born, Hanspeter. “Why Greene Was Angry at Shakespeare.” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 25, 2012, pp. 133-73.

Gilmore, Nicola Anne. The Whole Play of Parts: A Study of Cued Parts in English Renaissance Drama, 1590-1620. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2012.

Greer, Margaret. “Authority and Theatrical Community: Early Modern Spanish Theater Manuscripts.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 40, no. 1, 2012, pp. 101-12, .

McMillin, Scott, and David Scott Kastan. “Professional Playwrighting.” A Companion to Shakespeare, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2012, pp. 223-38, .

Uhlig, Anna S. Script and Song in Pindar and Aeschylus. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2011.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

King, Edmund G. C. “Fragmenting Authorship in the Eighteenth-Century Shakespeare Edition.” Shakespeare (London, England), vol. 6, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1-19, .

Pangallo, Matteo. “Seldome Seene: Observations From Editing The Launching Of The Mary.” ”Divining Thoughts”: Future Directions in Shakespeare Studies, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009, pp. 2-16.

Polito, Mary, and Jean-Sebastien Windle. “‘You See the Times Are Dangerous’: The Political and Theatrical Situation of The Humorous Magistrate (1637).” Early Theatre, vol. 12, no. 1, 2009, pp. 93-118, .

Kidnie, Margaret Jane. Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation. Routledge, 2008.

Kinnamon, Noel J. “Recent Studies in Renaissance English Manuscripts (1996-2006).” English Literary Renaissance, vol. 38, no. 2, 2008, pp. 356-83, .

Syme, Holger Schott. “Unediting the Margin: Jonson, Marston, and the Theatrical Page.” English Literary Renaissance, vol. 38, no. 1, 2008, pp. 142-71, .

Windle, Jean-Sébastien. Dating Osborne MS C132. 27. Diss. University of Calgary, Department of English, 2006.

Kidnie, Margaret Jane, et al. “Where Is Hamlet? Text, Performance, and Adaptation.” A Companion to Shakespeare and Performance, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005, pp. 101-120, .

Stern, Tiffany. Making Shakespeare: From Stage to Page. Routledge, 2004.

Straznicky, Marta. Privacy, Playreading, and Women's Closet Drama, 1550-1700. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Brooks, Douglas A. “Dramatic Authorship and Publication in Early Modern England.” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 15, 2003, pp. 77-97.

Holderness, Graham. Textual Shakespeare: Writing and the Word. Univ of Hertfordshire Press, 2003.

Meagher, John C. Pursuing Shakespeare's Dramaturgy: Some Contexts, Resources, and Strategies in His Playmaking. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 2003.

Egan, Gabriel. “Leashing in the Dogs of War: The Influence of Lyly’s Campaspe on Shakespeare’s All’s Well That Ends Well.” English Language Notes, vol. 40, no. 1, 2002, pp. 29-41, .

Erne, Lukas. “Shakespeare and the Publication of His Plays.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1-20, .

Ichikawa, Mariko. Shakespearean Entrances. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Campbell, Darlene Nicole. Material Adventures: The Production and Reproduction of Early Modern Dramatic Manuscripts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2001.

Egan, Gabriel. “Diplomatic immunity on the early modern stage: verbatim repetition of documents.” Paper Delivered at the International Conference ‘Scaena: Shakespeare and His Contemporaries in Performance’ at University of Cambridge, 2001.

Lesser, Zachary. The Politics of Publication: The Never-Writers and Ever-Readers of Early Stuart Drama. Columbia University, 2001.

Masten, Jeffrey. “More or Less: Editing the Collaborative.” Shakespeare Studies, vol. 29, 2001, pp. 109-31.

Egan, Gabriel. “Revision of Scene 4 of Sir Thomas More.” Early Modern Literary Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, 2000.

Livingston, Meg Powers. Censorship in the Plays of John Fletcher. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1999.

 

“On the Compositors of The Two Noble Kinsmen.” Shakespeare, Fletcher, and The Two Noble Kinsmen. (1989):

Kehler, Dorothea. Shakespeare's Widows. Springer, 2009.

Hirschfeld, Heather. “Early Modern Collaboration and Theories of Authorship.” PMLA : Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, vol. 116, no. 3, 2001, pp. 609-22, .

 

“The Editorial Usefulness of Printing House and Compositor Studies” Play-Texts in Old-Spelling. (1984):

Teramura, Misha. “Lost/Found.” Shakespeare/Text: Contemporary Readings in Textual Studies, Editing and Performance, 2021, pp. 360-82.

Tronch, Jesús, and Nicoleta Cinpoeş. “Editing The Spanish Tragedy in the Early Twenty-First Century.” Doing Kyd, Manchester University Press, 2018, pp. 88-108, .

Jowett, John. “Shakespeare’s Metamorphosis.” Shakespeare, vol. 13, no. 4, 2017, pp. 318-32, .

Howe, J. N. A Critical Edition of Samuel Rowley’s “When You See Me, You Know Me.” ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2015.

Londré, Felicia Hardison. Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays. Routledge, 2015.

Aldred, Natalie C. J. A Critical Edition of William Haughton’s Englishmen for My Money, or, a Woman Will Have Her Will. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2011.

Erne, Lukas. “Shakespeare and the Publication of His Plays.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1-20, .

Livingston, Meg Powers. Censorship in the Plays of John Fletcher. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1999.

Rasmussen, Eric Christian. “Who Gave Thee Power to Change a Line?” The Revision of Marlowe’s ‘Doctor Faustus.’ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1990.

 

“The Folio Editors, the Folio Compositors, and the Folio Text of King Lear.” The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of ‘King Lear.’ (1983):

Lovascio, Domenico. John Fletcher’s Rome: Questioning the Classics. Manchester University Press, 2022.

Weis, René. King Lear: Parallel Text Edition. Routledge, 2013.

Egan, Gabriel. The Struggle for Shakespeare's Text: Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Kidnie, Margaret Jane. Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation. Routledge, 2008.

Meyer, Ann R. “Shakespeare’s Art and the Texts of ‘King Lear.’” Studies in Bibliography (Charlottesville, Va.), vol. 47, 1994, pp. 128–46.

Calvo, Clara. “Authorial Revision and Authoritative Texts: A Case for Discourse Stylistics and the ‘Pied Bull Quarto.’” SEDERI. Sociedad Española de Estudios Renacentistas Ingleses, vol. 2, no. 2, 1992, pp. 39-58.

Calvo, Clara. Power Relations and Fool-Master Discourse in Shakespeare: A Discourse Stylistics Approach to Dramatic Dialogue. Dept. of English Studies, University of Nottingham, 1991.

Calvo, Clara. Power Relations and Fool-Master Discourse in Shakespeare: A Discourse Stylistics Approach to Dramatic Dialogue. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1990.

Rasmussen, Eric Christian. “Who Gave Thee Power to Change a Line?” The Revision of Marlowe’s ‘Doctor Faustus.’ ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1990.

Arteaga, Alfred. Language, Discourse, Sign: Reading Dialogisms in the Texts of Shakespeare and Sor Juana Ines de La Cruz. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1987.

Taylor, Gary. “Folio Compositors and Folio Copy: ‘King Lear’ and Its Context.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, vol. 79, no. 1, 1985, pp. 17–74, .

 

 

Works Cited

*Below is listed the databases and online tools used to compile the above bibliography.

Google Scholar,

JSTOR,

MLA International Bibliography,

OMNI, ÉîÒ¹¸£ÀûÕ¾ Library Services.

Scopus,

The Internet Archive,

The World Shakespeare Online Bibliography,