- Shakespeare’s Stationers: Studies in Cultural Bibliography ed. by Maria Straznicky
The title of this volume, Shakespeare’s Stationers: Studies in Cultural Bibliography, invites controversy and promotes discussion in equal measure. How exactly does a relatively slim volume expect to treat in any detail the notion of ‘cultural bibliography’? Do we really need additional analysis of Shakespeare’s works, already discussed in detail by a long chain of bibliographers and book historians, when the published (and manuscript) texts of so many of his contemporaries remain untreated and undervalued? And what will come out of possessively grouping numerous Stationers as ‘Shakespeare’s’, other than to underline the point in history seemingly occupied by Shakespeare, Shakespeare, and Shakespeare?
In fact, the strength of this volume lies in its gathering of impressive research into the numerous decision-making processes that affected and controlled print publication in England from 1591 to 1640. Presented in this collection are nine original studies that grapple in various ways with the notion of cultural bibliography, or culturally bound codes of textual practice behind the materiality of the text, as it relates to extant editions of Shakespeare’s plays. What is particularly compelling is the collection’s unapologetic insistence on writing the professional stories of the (collaborative efforts of the) Stationers behind the works, with Shakespeare acting as the literary point of focus. The volume offers appended biographies of numerous Stationers who had an influence on the materiality of Shakespeare’s plays; thus, the biographies and contributions of the Stationers Thomas Pavier, Thomas Creede, William Barley, Thomas Playfere, Nicholas Ling, and Edward Blount, among others, are treated here.
The collection begins with a chapter by Alexandra Halasz, who assesses Stationers’ marketing strategies and their ability to shape consumer literary demands. In particular, she looks at the ‘bad press’ (p. 24) of Thomas Pavier, who forged Shakespeare’s works, yet had editorial care and worked within practices considered acceptable and, at times, innovative. Holger Schott Syme compares the businesses of (the successful) Thomas Creede and (the apparently unsuccessful) William Barley. Despite various indications that Barley should have been the one to benefit financially from publishing plays, it was Creede who profited. The difference in outcomes, Syme argues, was due to Creede’s greater ability to speculate successfully on investment returns, by basing his business on long publications such as play collections. Adam Hooks in part evaluates why Andrew Wise sold (seemingly disparate) playbooks and sermons, principally because the two genres had ‘connections within the literary field that have since been lost’ (p. 50). William Proctor Williams looks at Zachariam Pasfield, the one licenser who specialised in licensing plays for print before the function was transferred to the Master of the Revels in 1607. Pasfield’s [End Page 84] inconsistency of press censorship meant that a number of satires were agreed when they had been officially banned.
Kirk Melnikoff suggests that Nicholas Ling published Q1 (1603) and Q2 (1604) Hamlet as part of a series of books that promoted nonconformist ideas on office holding. Douglas Bruster focuses on the year 1600 and the fact that no Shakespeare plays first printed in this year were then reprinted in Shakespeare’s lifetime. However other, non-1600, plays, were. Bruster argues that the 1600 plays were less attractive to readers, perhaps due to a significant increase in the amount of prose they included. Given that Shakespeare returned to verse-heavy writing after 1600, could it be argued that Shakespeare was alert to the publication of his plays? Sonia Massai discusses the synergy between lead publisher Blount and patrons William and Philip Herbert that contributed significantly to the publication of the First Folio. Alan B. Farmer looks at the reasons behind John Norton junior’s decision to reprint five history plays. Norton may have selected history plays because of political unrest in the 1630s; by extension, plays therefore resonated with contemporary concerns. Reprinting might be regarded as a reimagining of Shakespeare’s plays. Finally, Zachary Lesser assesses the bookseller John Waterson and...