|
Inside
Higher Ed [www.insidehighered.com]
Such
Stuff as
Footnotes Are Made On
By Michael Bugeja
I
am among the few
professors who can identify a corrupt Shakespearean manuscript — an
inferior facsimile of Hamlet, say, that an Elizabethan actor
recited to a printer in return for a beaker of ale. I would compare
that manuscript to another version closer to the original, detecting
phrases and locutions that better embody the Bard’s verbal genius.
Shakespeare
never
published his plays, of course. But some actors were better at
remembering lines than others. Thus, several variants of a given work
might exist. A good textual editor can discern which versions are
“fairer,” or more authentic, than others more “foul” or corrupt.
I
have been thinking
about Shakespeare, born April 23, 1564, and died on that same date, at
age 52. I’m age 52. By what measure will I be remembered by the digital
literati with a research specialty like mine, seemingly worthless at
the dawn of the Internet age?
Perhaps
not
totally.
A few years ago at a university where I used to work a colleague was
sending anonymous libelous memos, which I analyzed the way I used to
review passages from plays. You see, over time, each of us develops a
distinct textual signature. We may be given to odd phrases, locutions
and colloquialisms, such as “in regards to” or “clearly, it seems” or
“in cahoots with,” as in, “In regards to his annual review, clearly, it
seems, John Doe is in cahoots with the Dean.” Collect enough writing
samples, and you can identify the likely source of such a sentence,
just as you can discern a fair from foul excerpt of a Shakespearean
play. ...
Click here for
more |
