A Response to Paul Werstine, "Hypertext and Editorial
De Montfort University
Egan, Gabriel. "Response to Paul Werstine, "Hypertext
and Editorial Myth" ." Early Modern Literary Studies 4.3 (January,
1999): 16:1-4 <URL: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/04-3/gabread.html>.
Paul Werstine ("Hypertext and Editorial Myth" EMLS 3.3) draws upon evidence
from The Book of Sir Thomas More to challenge the hypothetical categories
of early modern dramatic manuscript which Alfred Pollard, W. W. Greg, and
R. B. McKerrow invented in the early twentieth century. In particular, Werstine
objects that the distinction between the "foul papers"--an author's untidy
draft containing unplayable inconsistencies, impractical awkwardnesses
and ambiguities, and plain false starts--and the dramatic "promptbook"
(a text cleaned of such faults and suitable for use in the theatre) is
not supported by extant documents.
In The Book of Sir Thomas More we find an original authorial text
in Anthony Munday's handwriting supplemented by various "additions" (as
Greg called them) which appear to show rewrites of certain scenes. Werstine
points out that the scene occupying lines 412-72 (Malone Society Reprint,
1961, ed W. W. Greg, pp14-6) is cancelled and replaced by Addition 2 (MSR
p69-71) and that both contain just the kinds of inconsistency which are
supposed to be confined to an author's foul papers. This would indeed represent
a challenge to New Bibliography's assertion that manuscripts used in the
playhouses were `cleaner' than authorial drafts, if the rewrite were thought
to make the text more 'theatrical,' more suitable for use in the playhouse.
Werstine assumes that the rewrite at least takes the text in this direction:
the two versions of the scene allow us to chart the progress
of a scene towards (if not to) theatrical performance and thus to test
whether this process issued in a manuscript that, as Greg predicted, is
ever more regular, accurate, and complete the further it moves from the
playwright and the closer it comes to the stage. (para. 9)
What is not clear is why Werstine thinks that the rewrite is nearer to
the stage. The `additions' do not provide the alterations needed to satisfy
censor Tilney and indeed the reason for their existence is far from clear.
Perhaps, as E. K. Chambers suggested, the play was abandoned when it was
realized that Tilney's demanded changes would ruin it, only to be "taken
up sometime later by another team of dramatists to see if they could make
something of it" (MSR xl).
Werstine's phrase "nearer to the stage" might mask the problem. The belief
of Pollard, Greg, and McKerrow that manuscripts used in the playhouses
were tidier than the author's draft does not suppose that everything done
to bring a draft to performance involved tidying. We all occasionally make
a mess in preparation for tidying up. When an article is rejected by a publisher
many of us will mark upon it all sorts of plans for its improvement and
so `foul' that clean, unpublishable, manuscript. This foul script is `nearer'
publication in the sense that it brings the unpublishable work nearer to
being printed. But the unpublishable original may well display many of
the regularities (consistency in citation style, conformity to rules of
layout, etc.) needed for publication and which the foul revisions obviously
lack. Were such a half-way revised text to be found by future generations
we would not want them to conclude that late twentieth-century publishers
cared nothing for consistency and tidiness in typescripts. Might not the
"additions" to The Book of Sir Thomas More be just such an incomplete
revision of an unplayable drama?
Responses to this piece intended for the Readers' Forum
may be sent to the Editor at EMLS@UAlberta.ca.
© 1999-, Lisa Hopkins