Six Renaissance Tragedies (review)

Reviews 229. obscured by the arrangement of chapters, and establish a European context, but do not entirely m a k e u p for the lack of an index. But despite any minor shortcomings this book has the potential to promote an informed interest in medieval German literature among audiences that would otherwise pass this rich field by without a glance; as such it is warmly to be welcomed. Jane Emberson The University of Western Australia Gibson, Colin, ed., Six Renaissance Tragedies, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1997; paper; pp. xxxii, 527; R.R.P. £12.99. The six tragedies edited by Colin Gibson are The Spanish Tragedy, Doctor Faustus (in the 'A' version), The Revenger's Tragedy, The Duchess ofMalfi, The Changeling, and 'Tis Pity She's a Whore. In principle an anthology of these six plays, intended for 'undergraduate students of English Renaissance drama, general readers and theatre practitioners' (p. xxx) would be useful either if it broke n e w ground, or if it brought together in a convenient, effective way, and with full acknowledgements, valuable work already done by others. In what follows I shall examine Gibson's activity as an editor to show w h y I think that he does not succeed in either of these objectives. Hishandling ofthe texts ofthe plays is, to put it mildly, puzzling. Gibson says: 'Square brackets are used in the texts to indicate substantive emendation or addition' (p. xxx). This method would, in theory, give readers an idea of significant editorial departures from the copy texts. However, although Gibson does use square brackets to indicate stage directions added by him, he does not do so to signal his numerous substantive alterations within the texts of the plays themselves.A s he has also decided generally not to 'record the history 230 Reviews of and authority for necessary and substantive corrections made to the original texts' (p. xxx), readers are left guessing about where significant departures occur, on what basis they are introduced, and h o w original his handling of the texts is. It is thus left to specialist researchers to find outjust what he has done, and to report to wouldbe purchasers what merit there is in his actions. This is a laborious task, for which no reviewer will thank him, but I have carefully studied his text in the case of The Changeling (which I edited for N e w Mermaids in 1990), and less extensively in other cases. Gibson's text of The Changeling is, although he does not mention the fact, in the matter of substantives largely identical to that by N. W. Bawcutt, w h o edited the play for the Revels series in 1958. Thus he includes for example inActs 1 and 2 the following substantive editorial readings which also occur in Bawcutt's text (readings which according to Gibson's o w n announcement should have occurred in square brackets): 1.1.97: Will't (Q [the 1653 Quarto]: Wilt); 1.1.108: of (Q: or); 1.2.118: I ' l l warrant you I make (Q: He warrant you make); 2.1.68: wilt (Q: wil't); 2.1.138: him, and (Q: him, in his passions, and); 2.2.7: locked (Q: lock). At least two of these readings are controversial. Bawcutt's feeble ' I ' l l warrant you I make' (1.2.118) was not used by any previous editor, and G. W. Williams's 'I warrant you I'll' (see his 1969 edition) is obviously superior but not even considered. As for retention of Q's 'in his passions' in 2.1.138, in m y edition I showed w h y that makes sense in its context. But, on the whole, Gibson stays with Bawcutt through thick and thin. Thus, although all editors prior to Bawcutt, and e.g. m y N e w Mermaid after him, reject Q's 'pluckt' in 2.1.46, and instead read 'plucks', Gibson endorses Bawcutt's 'pluck'd'. Gibson's loyalty to Bawcutt's substantives at times leads to comical results. Thus when D e Flores says 'we are left in hell' (5.3.163), Gibson follows Bawcutt in the next line...