The Kingdom has been Digitized: Electronic Editions of Renaissance Drama and the Long Shadows of Shakespeare and Print

Abstract

This article considers the challenges and opportunities associated with the production and reception of electronic editions of Renaissance drama. Chief amongst these challenges are the long shadows cast by the cultural, scholarly, and economic investments in Shakespeare, and the institutions, conventions, and scholarly status of print publishing. This article argues that electronic editions force us to rethink existing publishing models and notions of scholarship, to recognize that digitizing primary materials alone is no substitute for critical editions, and to acknowledge that, despite the challenges associated with them, electronic editions will play a far greater role in expanding the canon of Renaissance drama as taught, studied, and performed than their print counterparts.

Tudor Shakespeare: Taking the Long View

“…Several ongoing projects – most notably the Digital Renaissance Editions and Queen's Men Editions – are undertaking the task of providing scholarly, searchable digital editions of these plays to the masses. These projects are discussed and praised in essays by Trevor Hirsch in Early Theatre and Literature Compass , where Hirsch argues that digital editions are the best way to provide access to these less marketable texts. As Hirsch points out, databases like Early English Books Online (EEBO), the English Verse Drama Database, and the Database of Early English Playbooks are more limited in usefulness, as they provide raw texts and data rather than carefully edited and annotated editions of the plays.…”

Digital Humanities’ Shakespeare Problem

“…Shakespeare is separated from the other playwrights and poets of his day by our current scholarly digital editions. Greatley-Hirsch quantified the disproportionate number of digital editions of Shakespeare compared to his contemporaries (Hirsch 2011); this analysis suggests that the disparity extends beyond the amount of Shakespearean texts online to the very ways the texts are made accessible. As Katherine Rowe (2014) argues, scholars need to assess if digital Shakespeare texts are "good enough" for the purposes we wish to apply them, including digital analysis.…”

Beyond Shakespeare: Early Modern Adaptation Studies and Its Potential

“…But studies of early modern adaptations outside of Shakespeare remain scarce, not least since, because Shakespeare ensures jobs and sells books, relatively few editions of other early modern authors' works are published, a situation that online publication may or may not correct. Brett D. Hirsch's research indicates the extent of the problem: of 2,342 critical editions of early modern drama published since 1950, 1,285 were of Shakespearean plays, while the next most published author, Ben Jonson, came nowhere close with his relatively tiny tally of 110 editions (571). Moreover, and even though scholars acknowledge Shakespeare's tendency to collaborate with other authors, Shakespearean plays are marketed as if they are by Shakespeare only, increasing the lack of visibility of other authors and of the practice of collaboration – and, I would add, of adaptation – in general (568–9).…”

“…Brett D. Hirsch's research indicates the extent of the problem: of 2,342 critical editions of early modern drama published since 1950, 1,285 were of Shakespearean plays, while the next most published author, Ben Jonson, came nowhere close with his relatively tiny tally of 110 editions (571). Moreover, and even though scholars acknowledge Shakespeare's tendency to collaborate with other authors, Shakespearean plays are marketed as if they are by Shakespeare only, increasing the lack of visibility of other authors and of the practice of collaboration – and, I would add, of adaptation – in general (568–9). Although the economics of such a trend are understandable at a time of increasing scarcity of resources, nevertheless, if we uncritically accept Shakespeare's ascendancy, we stand to lose any clear sense of intertextuality in the early modern period, not least since, along with the decline in non‐Shakespearean editions of works, there has been a corresponding lack of interest in non‐Shakespearean adaptations.…”