-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathIntroduction to The Royall Master HTML.xhtml
159 lines (116 loc) · 27.8 KB
/
Introduction to The Royall Master HTML.xhtml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>Introduction to The Royall Master by James Shirley Digital Scholarly Edition</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Introduction to <i>The Royall Master</i> by James Shirley Digital Scholarly Edition</h1>
<h3><u><b>About the Author</b></u></h3>
<p>Born in London on September 7th, 1596, James Shirley was a 17th Century English playwright and poet. James Shirley was at the crux of the early modern period of playwrights. Regarded as the most famous writer before the Civil War, he has to his name more than 30 works and is seen as the successor to Shakespeare. Shirley was a highly esteemed dramatist of the English Renaissance. To his pen, he vastly wrote on the genres of comedy, tragedy, masquerades, and poetry, often defined by his unique use of blank verse, captivating the royal courts with his “understated elegance” (Ravelhofer 2022).</p>
<p>In 1618, James Shirley married his first wife, Elizabeth Gilmet, daughter of Richard Gilmet, the Mayor of St. Albans at this time, who gave Mr Gimlet a surety of £100 (Shirleyassociation.com 2022). They had six children together: Marie, Grace, Mathias, Thomas, John, and Mary. Shirley remarried to Frances Blackburne, however, he did not have any more children. Shirley attended Merchant Taylor’s School from 1608 to 1612 before spending time at St. John’s College, Oxford. In 1615, he enrolled in St. Catherine’s Hall at the University of Cambridge, receiving both a BA and MA. After graduating, Shirley undertook ministerial work under headmaster at Edward VI’s Grammar School at St. Alban’s in 1623. However, his conversion to Catholicism in 1625 led him to be removed from this position. At this time, Shirley moved back to London and began his journey as the great playwright and poet of the English Renaissance that we know him as today. </p>
<p>In 1625, Shirley’s first play was <i>The Schoole of Complement</i>, performed in Phoenix, Drury Lane. The same year, the comedy <i>Love Tricks</i> was performed by Lady Elizabeth’s Men. A year later, the tragedy of <i>The Maid’s Revenge</i> established him as a remarkably diverse playwright for the company. The succession of James I to the throne heightened his work for (the newly) Queen Henrietta’s Men. However, in 1640, theatres across London were closed to help stop the spread of the impending plague. When one door closed another opened for Shirley, as he moved to Dublin in 1638 and spent four years writing for the Irish stage under the patronage of the Earl of Kildare. John Ogilby established the first English theatre outside London and the first public theatre in Ireland, with Shirley as the pioneering playwright.</p>
<h3><b><u>Context for <i>The Royall Master</i></u></b></h3>
<h4><u>Shirley’s Blank Verse</u></h4>
<p>Shirley had an unusual use of the blank verse. Typically, blank verse follows the pattern of weak, strong | weak, strong | weak, strong | weak, strong | weak, strong. However, Shirley’s use of blank verse in <i>The Royall Master</i>, despite being described as unrhymed iambic pentameter, has much irregularity. George Saintsbury remarked Shirley’s use to have a “special degeneration” of blank verse, as although it may appear at a glance as verse form, often lines are “not verse at all; nor yet prose, but an awkward hybrid” (Saintsbury 2019), causing ambiguity.
</p>
<p>Other critics, such as Hanson T. Parlin, have commented on the playfulness of the blank verse; he refuses to believe this could be regarded as verse due to the varying feet and light endings, which he deems as “nothing more than prose” (Parlin 1911). Regardless, this technique gained popularity with Shirley’s contemporaries and helped define the playwright’s unique style. </p>
<h4><u>Shirley in Dublin</u></h4>
<p>Written in Shirley’s third dramatic period, the tragic comedy of <i>The Royall Master</i>, performed on New Year’s Day in 1638, was his first production in Dublin and was dedicated to Earl of Kildare (George Fitzgerald) and was one of Shirley’s four plays written for the Werburgh Street Theatre. The four included <i>The Doubtful Heir</i>, <i>The Constant Maid</i>, <i>St. Patrick of Ireland</i> and, of course, <i>The Royall Master</i>. The Werburgh Street Theatre was described by John Aubrey as “a pretty little theatre” beside Christchurch Cathedral in Dublin (Ravelhofer and Lublin 2016) and was said to be modelled after Blackfriars or the Cockpit (Ravelhofer and Lublin 2016). <i>The Royall Master</i> was performed by English actors who had become unemployed due to the plague back in Britain, such as Edward Armiger and William Perry, Thomas Jordan from Salisbury Court, and William Cooke (Ravelhofer and Lublin 2016). </p>
<p><i>The Royall Master</i> was a demonstration of Shirley’s gift for writing dynamic plots, strong female roles, and dramatic humour with a twist of romance. He wrote what he thought would please and entertain the Irish audiences by combining politics with comic relief. There was great optimism for the arrival of Shirley to Ireland, as he was considered one of the finest playwrights of his time, performing for the court of the Queen’s Men. Shirley’s skills were demonstrated by his praises from Sir Henry Herbert, the Master of the Revels, the Caroline court’s entertainment supervisor. Herbert commended the playwright’s righteous and respectable work, “being free from oaths, profaness, or obsceanes, [it] may serve for a patterne to other poetts, not only for the bettring of maners and language but for the improvement of the quality, which hath received some brushings of late” (Poetry foundation.org 2022).</p>
<h4><u>Criticism</u></h4>
<p>However, not all critics held the same reverence. Although a leading playwright of his generation, his work was not seen as particularly experimental or innovative (Poetry Foundation) but simply to satisfy the gentiles by being “cleverly risqué but fundamentally conservative” (Poetry foundation.org 2022). Therefore, despite his royal praises from the court of Charles I, he had received poor criticisms from within the Irish public sphere and was at times regarded as simply an imitator of the greats, lacking originality. When the Werburgh Street Theatre was unable to fill its theatre seats sufficiently, Shirley attacked the Irish audiences for their lack of taste, stating: </p>
<blockquote>So sickly are the Palats now a-dayes,<br></br>
Of men that come to see and taste our Playes, <br></br>
That when a Poet hath, to please some few, <br></br>
Spent his most precious sweat, Minerva’s dew, <br></br>
And after many throwes, a piece brought forth, <br></br>
Ligitimate in Art, in nature, birth. (Ravelhofer and Lublin 2016)
</blockquote>
<h4><u>Shirley after Dublin</u></h4>
<p>In 1640, Shirley returned to London, becoming the dramatist for the King’s Men at the Blackfriars theatre. At the end of the Civil War, he began teaching again from 1642 to 1651. However, James Shirley and his second wife, Frances, died on 29th October 1666 due to exposure and fright following the Great Fire of London.</p>
<h3><u>Theatre in Ireland</u></h3>
<p>Theatre in Ireland has come a long way since Shirley’s time and is now thoroughly intertwined with national identity and politics. Academics like Pilkington have described Ireland as “possessing a core of being that is inherently theatrical” (Shaw and Plkington 2010). Modern critics tend to recognise the establishment of the Abbey Theatre in 1904 as the true birth of Irish theatre. Lady Gregory, Synge, and Martyne established the theatre as a warning to colonial powers; by initiating a new form of theatre intrinsically linked with an independent Irishness, national feelings could be reinforced, and colonial frameworks could be challenged (Kitishat 2012). To fully understand the importance and development of Irish theatre, however, drama around (and before) Shirley’s time must be considered. Though Irish theatre in the twentieth century came from a place of division, it could be argued that the Anglo-Irish roots of theatre in the seventeenth century, to an extent, valued unity among the many pockets of Irish society. Though there was certainly a level of religious unrest in the early 1600s, which would eventually lead to the 1641 rebellion (mere years after the first production of <i>The Royall Master</i>), this period was said to be mostly peaceful in the grand scheme of Irish history. According to historians like Empey, both native people and settlers were said to regularly interact with one another through forms of culture (Empey 2013). Records of dramatic literature from Celtic times are said to be sparse (Gwynn 1939); therefore, the study of theatre at Shirley’s time – despite his own lack of Irishness – is highly valuable in analysing the evolution of theatre in Ireland. </p>
<h3><u>What Brought Shirley Here?</u></h3>
<p>There is some uncertainty surrounding the exact motivations behind Shirley’s move to Dublin, however a couple of the existing assumptions are more plausible than others. Literary patronage was an extremely important aspect of creative life for playwrights like Shirley and it is likely that his primary patron, Sir Thomas Wentworth, played a significant role in Shirley’s moving to Dublin. At the time, Wentworth was tasked with “civilising” Dublin and establishing a fashionable culture there for the elite. He felt that introducing a theatre-going culture, similar to that of London, would enlighten the masses – to do so, however, he would need a playwright. Some critics and historians have argued that Shirley made for the perfect candidate due to the themes of instilling civility which existed in his work; <i>The Politician</i> and <i>The Gentleman of Venice</i>, for example, both dealt with themes of social etiquette. Moreover, it is possible that Shirley welcomed the opportunity to move his work to Ireland because of censorship in the London theatre scene at the time – censorship was less strict in Ireland at the time. Beyond censorship, it has been hypothesised that Shirley may have been interested in Dublin audiences as an untapped market that did not expect grand special effects like the audiences in London were beginning to value. It is completely possible, however, that Shirley’s move was simply dictated by the impact of the London plague on the city’s theatre scene (Williams 2010). </p>
<h3><u>The Importance of Studying Shirley and <i>The Royall Master</i></u></h3>
<p>When evaluating the importance of studying Shirley and <i>The Royall Master</i>, a number of factors which cause the play to stand out in Ireland’s dramatic history may be considered. Firstly, one might take into account the significance of the printing process of the play. Williams argues that the printing location and subsequent distribution of the first edition of <i>The Royall Master</i> in the 1640s marked the beginning of a new era of “intra-national branches of book-selling” (Williams 2010). Secondly, there is the issue of a prediction made in one of the prefatory verses to <i>The Royall Master</i>, which proclaimed that Shirley would take over from Ben Jonson as poet laureate. The post, however, instead went to Sir William Davenant, leaving Shirley publicly humiliated (Hadfield 2018). Beyond that, criticism of Shirley as a supporter of the aristocracy may be considered. It has been said that Shirley may have been judged as being an apologist for the aristocracy, however critics like Hadfield argue that this may not have been as accurate as the wider Irish public believed. Hadfield implies that Shirley may have concealed commentary on aristocratic and elite figures in his nuanced depictions of such characters in his work. Furthermore, Williams points out Shirley’s desire to appeal to all members of Irish society; she points out that, by dedicating a play to the Earl of Kildare, Shirley was acknowledging, and appealing to, the Old English community. Therefore, he saw value in spreading his work beyond audiences filled with the New English elite. By looking at Shirley in this light, his role in the history of theatre in Ireland takes on a new tone. It must also be remembered that not all critics disliked Shirley’s work. To quote the poet and critic Algernon Charles Swinburne, “<i>The Royall Master</i> is a fair example of Shirley’s ingenious and fertile talent; there is a somewhat faded and conventional grace in the style of it which seems not unsuitable to a rather slight and artificial but neither ill-conceived nor ill-conducted plot” (Swinburne 1890).</p>
<h3><u>Prefactory Poems</u></h3>
<p>At the beginning of this play, there is a collection of poems that were sent to James Shirley by friends who congratulated him on the play’s success. The poems (with many commendatory verses attached) are an unusual addition to the 1638 edition, and the editors behind this 2022 edition feel, therefore, that they are worth retaining.</p>
<h3><u>Textual Issues and Notes </u></h3>
<p>This edition of <i>The Royall Master</i> retains its original language and spelling with only a couple of exceptions. Language and spelling were not changed or modernised to ensure the play holds on to as much of the originality and meaning from the 1638 version as possible. As mentioned earlier, the prefatory poems are also retained. This decision was made with the same objective in mind –to ensure the play keeps its originality and meaning – but also to help contextualise the historical significance of James Shirley as an early-modern playwright. </p>
<p>This 2022 edition also includes annotations and stage directions from the 1833 version of the play in order to contextualise the action in the play. All of these decisions were made with the intention of establishing a hybrid critical and documentary approach. It should be noted that more descriptive stage directions were included.</p>
<p>When encoding, page numbers and line numbers were added, and certain grammar and punctuation changes were made in order to facilitate easier reading of the text. All punctuation changes were conservative, and the edition indicates where they have been made. The Long S (or Medial S), that typically appeared at the ending or beginning of words, has been changed to a modern S. The letter V has been substituted with the letter U where necessary, and the lowercase I with double dots has been substituted with the regular, modern I. In this 2022 edition, there are also no ligatures between letters. All catchwords that were included in the 1638 edition have also been kept as they were, and they have all been aligned to the right. </p>
<p>Speakers’ names were abbreviated in earlier editions but, to facilitate clarity, the editors of this edition have spelled out the names in full. Periods after names in such instances have been omitted. Names and place names have also been italicised. </p>
<p>A running head (<i>The Royall Master</i>) has been included at the top of each page, followed by the act and scene number. </p>
<h3><u>Documentary and Critical Approach</u></h3>
<p>In scholarly editions, the documentary approach “aims to reproduce a manuscript or printed text as a historical artefact” (Williams and Abbott 1999). It maintains the text as it was published in the past. It also aims to retain the “extratextual physical details of the document, including typography, lineation of prose, and spacing” (Williams and Abbott 1999). A documentary approach means a more limited level of editorial intervention. Even though the documentary approach is noncritical, this edition has also incorporated critical features. Sculley Bradley and others define critical editing in relation to annotations, “presenting a record of interpretive, philological, and other commentary on the text (including textual emendations proposed or made by previous editors)” (Williams and Abbott 1999). Critical editing is the second major form of scholarly editing. Williams and Abbott say that the critical approach requires editors to “discover the relevant documentary texts of the work” (Williams and Abbott 1999), identify different readings of the text and their sources, and then construct and correct a text, based on the standard they decided to adopt.</p>
<h3><u>Digital Scholarly Editions</u></h3>
<p>Williams and Abbott predicted in 1999 that the scholarly editions, both documentary and critical ones, would eventually become digital. They argued that encoding the early modern plays and old editions would be time-consuming and expensive. They also argued that coding itself is interpretative and not mechanical: “Whether a coded text is presented as in a documentary or critical edition, it has inescapably been subjected to interpretation by the editor” (Williams and Abbott 1999). They went on to say that, despite digital text being useful and accessible, the need to access original texts would not disappear. They weren’t completely wrong, however there are many texts that would not be accessible if they were not digitized and put online. </p>
<p>This 2022 edition is therefore a combination of a critical and documentary approach, and we are delighted to publish the newest edition of this early-modern political and comical play, written by playwright James Shirley. </p>
<h3><u>Editorial Policy and Process: Annotations</u></h3>
<p>For textual purposes, the annotations that featured in the 1833 version of <i>The Royall Master</i> have been included in this edition. The stage directions from the 1833 version have also been kept, in order to contextualise action in the play. To ensure the play maintains as much integrity as possible and to ensure it is as close to the 1633 version as possible, language and spelling have not been modified or modernised. As mentioned earlier, the prefatory poems have been kept in order to contextualise the historical significance of Shirley as an early-modern playwright. All of these decisions were made with the intention of combining a critical and documentary approach. </p>
<h3><u>Editorial Policy and Process: Encoding</u></h3>
<p>As part of the encoding process, several decisions were made that affected the textual details of the 1638 edition. Firstly, line and page numbers have been added and the running head has been altered to include the act and scene of the respective page. This will facilitate easier reading. Furthermore, spelling mistakes in titles, headings, and names have been removed. Initially, there was hesitation towards this, as spellings are often a by-product of their time and therefore important in the effort to be true to the historical upkeep and representation of the play. However, it was agreed that spelling mistakes such as ‘fisrt’ instead of ‘first’ in the heading of ‘THE FIRST ACT’ do not hold historical value and simply represent printing mistakes. Therefore, correcting spelling mistakes in the previously mentioned categories will not undermine the original text but simply improve reading flow. In addition, old-fashioned letter uses were swapped for their modern equivalents: long s (ſ) to s, v to u, i to j, and occasionally vv to w. In very few places, punctuation was changed conservatively. For example, on page 39 where the King originally said, “He will.”, his speech was clearly being interrupted by the next speaker, Domitilla. Therefore, “He will.” was changed to “He will-”. </p>
<p>Moreover, as mentioned in the section on annotations, stage directions as found in the 1833 version have been included. Oftentimes, the 1638 version includes people and details in the speeches that are not found to have entered or exited the stage; the additional stage directions clear any confusion, making it easier to follow the story and visualise the stage. Lastly, the way in which speaker names are presented on the page has been altered. In the older versions of the text, the names were shortened to the first three or four letters of the name, followed by a full stop before any speech began. This can be a source of confusion as there are quite a few characters and several names start with similar letters. Furthermore, the original typesetters did not shorten the names consistently: for example, Iacomo is shortened to both ‘Iaco.’ and ‘Iacom.’ Therefore, the names in this edition have been written out in full and placed above the speech, therefore making it easier to tell who is speaking, as well as making the separate speeches more readable on the page.</p>
<h3><u>Editorial Policy and Process: Presentation and Publication</u></h3>
<p>Since physical copies of the 1638 play, <i>The Royall Master</i> are so rare today, each page of this digital edition will be accompanied by an image of the original playscript as printed by T. Cotes and folded by John Crooke, and Richard Serger at the Grayhound in Pauls Church-yard in 1638.</p>
<p>To ensure the clarity and ease of access of this digital edition, a table of contents has been included, allowing the user to easily navigate specific acts, scenes, and pages throughout the play. Additionally, the act number and scene number will be displayed on the header of each page and as mentioned in the encoding section, line numbers have been added.</p>
<p>Clarity and ease of navigation were taken into account in the presentation of the annotations. All annotations have been colour coded to indicate the category of each note allowing the user to easily identify and understand each notation:</p>
<blockquote>
Blue = 1833 Annotations <br></br>
Orange = Etymological <br></br>
Green = Contextual <br></br>
Yellow = Textual <br></br>
Grey = Intertextual <br></br>
</blockquote>
<p>Running heads catchwords, and the italicisation of character names and place names have all been preserved. As mentioned in the encoding section, stage directions have been added for clarity. These stage directions will be presented according to their function:</p>
<blockquote>
Centre = Entrance, Setting <br></br>
Right = Exit, Business, Delivery <br></br>
Inline/Left = Other <br></br>
</blockquote>
<p>The poems, play and epilogue from the original playscript will be presented together while the introduction will be included separately. Both sections will be accessible through links on the edition’s homepage. This digital scholarly edition will be created using TEI, HTML, and EVT and published on GitHub and by The Moore Institute.</p>
<h3><u>Bibliography</u></h3>
<p>Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Lucretia". <i>Encyclopedia Britannica</i>, 7 Aug. 2015, </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lucretia-ancient-Roman-heroine">https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lucretia-ancient-Roman-heroine</a>.</p>
<p>“Collins English Dictionary.” <i>Collins Dictionaries</i>, 1 Apr. 2022, </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><a href="www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english">www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english</a>.</p>
<p>Dessen, A C., R., editors, “Stage Directions and the Theatre Historian”. <i>A Handbook on Early</i></p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><i>Modern Theatre</i>, p513–27. OUP, Oxford, 2009.</p>
<p>Empey, Mark. “Protestants and Gaelic culture in 17th-century Ireland,” <i>A Church of Ireland</i></p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><i>Journal</i> 36, no. 3 (2013).</p>
<p>Gifford, William. “The Works of Ben Jonson... with Notes Critical and Explanatory, and a </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px">Biographical Memoir, by W. Gifford. v.3.” <i>HathiTrust</i>, 1816, </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><a href="babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hwexea;seq=304;ownerid=27021597768308900-346">babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hwexea;seq=304;ownerid=27021597768308900-346</a>.</p>
<p>Gwynn, Aubrey. “The Origins of the Anglo-Irish Theatre,” <i>Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review</i> </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px">28, no. 110 (1939).</p>
<p>Hadfield, Andrew. “Culture and anarchy in mid-seventeenth-century Ireland: The strange case of </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px">James Shirley at Werburgh Street,” <i>The Literatures of Early Modern Ireland Part 1</i> 15, </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px">no. 10 (2018).</p>
<p>“Isaiah 36:6”, <i>King James Bible Online</i>, <a href="https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-36-6/">https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-36-6/</a>.</p>
<p>Kitishat, Amal Riyadh. “Colonialism and the recreation of identity: The Irish Theatre as case </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px">study,” <i>Journal of Language and Culture 3</i>, no. 5 (2012).</p>
<p>Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2022. </p>
<p>Parlin, Hanson T. <i>A Study in Shirley's Comedies of London Life</i>. Austin: University of Texas. </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px">1911.</p>
<p><i>Poetry Foundation.org</i>. “James Shirley 1596–1666”. </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><a href="https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/james-shirley">https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/james-shirley</a>. 2022.</p>
<p>Ravelhofer, Barbara. "James Shirley and Early Modern Theatre New Critical Perspectives”. 1st </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px">ed. Routledge. 2016. </p>
<p>Saintsbury, George. <i>Historical Manual of English Prosody</i>. 1st ed. Glasgow: Good Press. 2019.</p>
<p>Shaw, Fiona and Pilkington, Lionel. <i>Theatre and Ireland</i>, London: Macmillan International </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px">Higher Education, p.2 (2010).</p>
<p>Shakespeare, William, “The Rape of Lucrece”, 1594, <i>Open Source Shakespeare</i>, George Mason University, </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><a href="https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/poems/poem_view.php?WorkID=rapelucece">https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/poems/poem_view.php?WorkID=rapelucece</a>.</p>
<p>Shirleyassociation.com. “James Shirley (1596-1666)” 2022. </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><a href="https://www.shirleyassociation.com/NewShirleySite/NonMembers/England/jamesthepoet.html">https://www.shirleyassociation.com/NewShirleySite/NonMembers/England/jamesthepoet.html</a>.</p>
<p>Shirley, James. “The Royal Master”. <i>The dramatic works and poems of James Shirley</i>, p 101–88. Murray, London, 1833. </p>
<p>Swinburne, Algernon Charles. “James Shirley,” <i>The Fortnightly Review</i> 47, no. 280 (1890).</p>
<p>Williams, Justine Isabella. “The Irish plays of James Shirley, 1636-1640.” PhD thesis, The </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px">University of Warwick, England, 2010. </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><a href="http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3933/1/WRAP_THESIS_Williams_2010.pdf">http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3933/1/WRAP_THESIS_Williams_2010.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>Williams, William Proctor; Abbott Craig S. “Textual Criticism”. In <i>An Introduction to</i> </p>
<p style="text-indent: 40px"><i>Bibliographical and Textual Studies</i>, pages 67-86. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1999. </p>
</body>
</html