SHAKESPEARE is my Homeboy

Book Review

Murphy, Andrew. Shakespeare in Print. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003

Murphy's book is a comprehensive history, but difficult to read because of it's organization and style. In his introduction, Murphy sets very high expectations for the reader in terms of what he is trying to accomplish. The task of providing a history of hundreds of years worth of editions of Shakespeare's work seems challenging enough, but Murphy also wants to focus on "a history of editors and editing" along with the "peripheral, derivative, and popular editions" as well as "a history of the theory of editing" and "a general historical contextualization of the business of producing texts" (9). After reading such an ambitious introduction, I couldn't help but feel that he was trying to accomplish too much in one project.

Murphy's first chapter was the most confusing chapter of the book, as it frequently jumps around in its content and chronology. For example, on page 26, in the midst of his chronology of the early quartos, Murphy introduces a discussion of editorial shorthand, and the idea of "memorial reconstruction." While interesting and provocative, this divertessement is distracting and akwardly placed. The book is equally abrupt when the reader comes to chapter five. In chapters 1-4, Murphy traces the complex history of Shakespearean editions through the end of the 18th century in impressive detail. In Chapter 5, however, Murphy returns to the beginning of the 18th century in order to discuss the history of copyright. Perhaps these peripheral issues would have been better treated in a separate part of the book, rather than abrupty inserting them into what is otherwise a comprensive historical chronology.

In tracing the history of Shakespeare's editions, Murphy frequently cites contemporary scholars such as Peter Blayney, Gary Taylor, and Steve Urkowitz who have all studied the history of Shakespeare's publications. Murphy often cites such scholarship to support his ideas, rather than to critique any holes, contradictions or problems in comtemporary editorial scholarship. In this sense, Murphy's history seems too "neat." One exception to this comes on page 97, when Murphy critiques Margreta de Grazia's argument in Shakespeare Verbatim As I was reading, I hoped that Murphy would have done more of this type of analysis and critique of Shakespearean editorial scholarship. For example, Murphy points out that Pope's famous 1725 edition had a "miserably disappointing response" (67), but he doesn't address the question: why?