1
The Shakespeare Industry
21 September 2020
1363 words
Assignment 2
Editor
What makes the manuscript of The Play of Sir Thomas More special, and relevant to
Shakespeareans?
The manuscript of The Play of Sir Thomas More was a handwritten manuscript written in black in
which in the course of the following four centuries had rusted, and was discovered in the 20th
century. But that is not the most important thing about this manuscript, especially since that does
not explain its relevance to Shakespeareans. This manuscript of Sir Thomas More’s Play was
namely presumed to be written by William Shakespeare. The main reason why this manuscript is so
precious to Shakespeareans is that it is pretty much the only thing that exists in Shakespeare’s
handwriting, especially when it came to literary works. The only other things that have been found
containing Shakespeare’s handwriting are some minor court documents.1
What, in editorial terms, is meant by “blotting”? What do we know about Shakespeare
and “blotting”?
Blotting is the act of revising, adding on to and deleting parts of a text that has been written either
by the author or by others. During Shakespeare’s lifetime but also in the eras after Shakespeare,
there has been a tradition which said that Shakespeare never blotted. Shakespeare was seen as a
natural poet who was able to write things down perfectly and did not have to revise or rewrite them.
Shakespeare was seen as the greatest of all time; this is why some insist that he did not blot, or that
there was scarcely a blot in his works because a genius does not blot. This idea, however, is in fact,
wrong as Shakespeare did blot, and Shakespeare did revise his plays.2
1 All information retrieved from Hoenselaars. “Shakespeare and his Editors.”
2 All information retrieved from Hoenselaars. “Shakespeare and his Editors.”
, 2
What is the Hinman Collator? How did it come to be developed? How has it
revolutionised work in the field of editorial studies?
The Hinman Collator was invented during the Second World War by Shakespeare scholar Hinman.
Hinman was in the military where he was introduced to a machine that compared before and after
bombardment photos by putting them on top of each other to see if they had missed something
during the bombing. The Hinman Collator worked in a similar way. One version of the play was put
on the left of the proofreader, and the other was put on the right side, both versions were filmed
then put on top of each other and projected as one slide. The great innovation in this was that you
could now tell where things had changed immediately, meaning that you did not have to read the
entire play in order to find the errors. This new method was way more time-efficient.3
What is so special about the Oxford Edition of Shakespeare of 1986, edited by Stanley
Wells and Gary Taylor?
There was a belief in English literary history which believed that Shakespeare was a poet and not a
playwright. Working in the theatre was not the right place for Shakespeare, and the theatre led to his
texts to be corrupted; the theatre was seen as a corruption to the texts produced by this natural poet.
When the Oxford Edition of Shakespeare of 1986 appeared though, it was claimed that this belief
was prejudice and that playwrights should not be seen as less than poets. The Oxford Edition treated
Shakespeare as a playwright that revised his plays to suit altered circumstances, unlike the natural
poet who never blotted. The Oxford Edition did look at the Folio, which earlier traditions rejected
because the Folio texts supposedly corrupted Shakespeare. The Oxford Edition rejects this idea and
claims that the Folio actually captures Shakespeare’s intervention rather than that they corrupt his
interventions.
3 All information retrieved from Hoenselaars. “Shakespeare and his Editors.”
The Shakespeare Industry
21 September 2020
1363 words
Assignment 2
Editor
What makes the manuscript of The Play of Sir Thomas More special, and relevant to
Shakespeareans?
The manuscript of The Play of Sir Thomas More was a handwritten manuscript written in black in
which in the course of the following four centuries had rusted, and was discovered in the 20th
century. But that is not the most important thing about this manuscript, especially since that does
not explain its relevance to Shakespeareans. This manuscript of Sir Thomas More’s Play was
namely presumed to be written by William Shakespeare. The main reason why this manuscript is so
precious to Shakespeareans is that it is pretty much the only thing that exists in Shakespeare’s
handwriting, especially when it came to literary works. The only other things that have been found
containing Shakespeare’s handwriting are some minor court documents.1
What, in editorial terms, is meant by “blotting”? What do we know about Shakespeare
and “blotting”?
Blotting is the act of revising, adding on to and deleting parts of a text that has been written either
by the author or by others. During Shakespeare’s lifetime but also in the eras after Shakespeare,
there has been a tradition which said that Shakespeare never blotted. Shakespeare was seen as a
natural poet who was able to write things down perfectly and did not have to revise or rewrite them.
Shakespeare was seen as the greatest of all time; this is why some insist that he did not blot, or that
there was scarcely a blot in his works because a genius does not blot. This idea, however, is in fact,
wrong as Shakespeare did blot, and Shakespeare did revise his plays.2
1 All information retrieved from Hoenselaars. “Shakespeare and his Editors.”
2 All information retrieved from Hoenselaars. “Shakespeare and his Editors.”
, 2
What is the Hinman Collator? How did it come to be developed? How has it
revolutionised work in the field of editorial studies?
The Hinman Collator was invented during the Second World War by Shakespeare scholar Hinman.
Hinman was in the military where he was introduced to a machine that compared before and after
bombardment photos by putting them on top of each other to see if they had missed something
during the bombing. The Hinman Collator worked in a similar way. One version of the play was put
on the left of the proofreader, and the other was put on the right side, both versions were filmed
then put on top of each other and projected as one slide. The great innovation in this was that you
could now tell where things had changed immediately, meaning that you did not have to read the
entire play in order to find the errors. This new method was way more time-efficient.3
What is so special about the Oxford Edition of Shakespeare of 1986, edited by Stanley
Wells and Gary Taylor?
There was a belief in English literary history which believed that Shakespeare was a poet and not a
playwright. Working in the theatre was not the right place for Shakespeare, and the theatre led to his
texts to be corrupted; the theatre was seen as a corruption to the texts produced by this natural poet.
When the Oxford Edition of Shakespeare of 1986 appeared though, it was claimed that this belief
was prejudice and that playwrights should not be seen as less than poets. The Oxford Edition treated
Shakespeare as a playwright that revised his plays to suit altered circumstances, unlike the natural
poet who never blotted. The Oxford Edition did look at the Folio, which earlier traditions rejected
because the Folio texts supposedly corrupted Shakespeare. The Oxford Edition rejects this idea and
claims that the Folio actually captures Shakespeare’s intervention rather than that they corrupt his
interventions.
3 All information retrieved from Hoenselaars. “Shakespeare and his Editors.”
