Editing Manuscripts in Print and Digital Forms
Authors: Marotti Arthur F. 
Published: February 2010

Except for texts from a pre‐Gutenberg era, scholarly editions have, for the most part, been based on print exemplars. A bias against manuscript evidence has, as Margaret Ezell shows, worked against the recovery women’s writing that remained in manuscript and was not printed in its own time or later; it has also pushed much of the work of minor and anonymous authors to the side. Especially now that manuscript documents are beginning to become accessible to a wide scholarly community through digital reproduction, it is time to make more use of manuscript evidence for editions of not only of major, minor, and anonymous authors (both male and female), but also of culturally symptomatic literary compilations surviving in manuscript form. In recent years, scholars have produced editions of individual manuscript collections and there is a growing number of studies of the manuscript literary environment as one differing from that of print culture in its treatment of texts, of authorship, and of reader‐roles. Microfilm and, more recently, digital (color) reproduction of literary manuscripts from the major archives in the U.K. and U.S. has facilitated the editing and presentation of manuscript texts. Daniel O’Donnell’s edition of Caedmon’s Hymn offers the user supplementary digital images of manuscript material in CD form. Steven May suggests that, despite the problem of technological obsolescence, digital presentation of manuscript documents that supplements the hard‐copy edition in print form is well suited to the task of crafting useful editions of manuscript compilations or anthologies. Margaret Ezell, who delineates a sexist bias in traditional editorial practices, connects archival manuscript research and the editions that result from it to the important project of recovering women’s writing. All three scholars acknowledge the technical and technological challenges of digital technology, but they see it as an essential tool for 21st‐century researchers and editors.

This article is part of a Literature Compass special issue on ‘Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century’.

The special issue is made up of the following pieces:

‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Preface’, Regenia Gagnier, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 33–34, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00672.x.

‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Introduction’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 35–36, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00673.x.

‘Electronic Archives and Critical Editing’, Jerome McGann, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 37–42, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00674.x.

‘Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition’, Hans Walter Gabler, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 43–56, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00675.x.

‘Editing Without Walls’, Peter Robinson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 57–61, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00676.x.

‘Our Affection for Books’, Susan J. Wolfson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 62–71, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00677.x.

‘His Days Among the Dead Are No Longer Passed: Editing Robert Southey’, Lynda Pratt, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 72–81, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00678.x.

‘Different Demands, Different Priorities: Electronic and Print Editions’, Stuart Curran, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 82–88, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00679.x.

‘Editing Manuscripts in Print and Digital Forms’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 89–94, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00680.x.

‘All of the Above: The Importance of Multiple Editions of Renaissance Manuscripts’, Steven W. May, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 95–101, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00681.x.

‘Editing Early Modern Women’s Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy‐Text’, Margaret J.M. Ezell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 102–109, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00682.x.

‘Different Strokes, Same Folk: Designing the Multi‐form Digital Edition’, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 110–119, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00683.x.

‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– A Conclusion’, Laura Mandell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 120–133, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00684.x.

‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Combined Bibliography’, Marotti et al., Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 134–144, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00685.x.