Scan barcode
A review by colin_cox
The Making of Shakespeare's First Folio by Emma Smith
4.0
Since graduate school, I have continued to read Early Modern and English Renaissance scholarship. Admittedly, I do so in fits and starts, but textual scholarship, loosely understood as the study of book and manuscript production, has become a rewarding preoccupation. Emma Smith's The Making of Shakespeare's First Folio is a smart introduction to this field of scholarship and successfully articulates the importance of marginal figures who meaningfully assisted in the production of one of the most valuable books in the English canon. That is to say, Shakespeare matters, but so do the actors, writers, editors, printers, typesetters, and merchants who contributed to the production of a wildly complex piece of literature. Smith's argument mirrors this scholarly injunction to locate or situate Shakespeare within a complex network of players, both artistic and commercial. She writes, "In this book, I argue instead that the First Folio is the product of recoverable human, technological and commercial enterprise, and that Shakespeare himself is only one agent in its preparation and realisation. This doesn't diminish the extraordinary literary achievement contained there, but it does apportion credit more widely" (3). There are two key features to this statement that encapsulate what scholarship about the First Folio attempts to accomplish. The notion that non-Shakespeare contributions are "recoverable" is essential because it antagonizes the assumption that any single individual can produce a text of such size and technical difficulty. However, Shakespeare's contributions should not be overlooked, which explains why Smith references Shakespeare's "literary achievement." This balance or negotiation represents what textual scholarship that does not wish to appear as cold and clinical as stalwart new historicism might look like (not that anyone, as I understand it, continues to practice this brand of new historicism or any new historicism for that matter).
With that said, the book at times is a mixed bag. The first two and final two chapters on the plays, Shakespeare's reputation during his lifetime, printing and publishing practices, and "Early Readers," are fascinating and thought-provoking. Chapter 3, on the contrary, feels superfluous, which is upsetting since it is the longest chapter in this surprisingly thin volume. So read Smith's book if the subject matter is of interest, but do so with the understanding that it is more of an overview than a thoroughly-researched piece of new textual scholarship.
With that said, the book at times is a mixed bag. The first two and final two chapters on the plays, Shakespeare's reputation during his lifetime, printing and publishing practices, and "Early Readers," are fascinating and thought-provoking. Chapter 3, on the contrary, feels superfluous, which is upsetting since it is the longest chapter in this surprisingly thin volume. So read Smith's book if the subject matter is of interest, but do so with the understanding that it is more of an overview than a thoroughly-researched piece of new textual scholarship.