All of the Above: The Importance of Multiple Editions of Renaissance Manuscripts
Authors: May Steven W. 
Published: February 2010

English Renaissance manuscripts comprise a vast storehouse of information on every conceivable subject. From deeds, wills, and court records to diaries, letters, poetry, and plays, some millions of these handwritten documents have survived from the early modern period. They offer unique and extensive witness to the past in virtually every scholarly disciplines, from politics, law, and economics, to social conditions, the arts, and English culture broadly interpreted. Yet this evidence has to date been only partially studied. Our manuscript heritage remains a site of incalculable importance for on‐going research and discovery. As the manuscripts themselves age and deteriorate, however, we face the problem of how to extend their research potential into the distant future. Electronic texts and digital images of the manuscripts are the most usable and readable means of extending access to these documents, yet they are also the most ephemeral. Today’s electronic editions will almost certainly be rendered useless long before the original documents they reproduce have perished. In the long run, is there any combination of images and editions, in any medium or media, that is likely to endure? This paper addresses the problem of how best to insure that the extant corpus of English Renaissance manuscript evidence is available to students and researchers for centuries to come.

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.