Modern Problems of Editing
The Two Texts of Marlowe's Doctor Faustus
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12880897 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andrew Duxfield (Sheffield Hallam University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2005 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2005-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Literature Compass (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1741-4113 • E-ISSN: 1741-4113 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2005.00143.x |
| OpenAlex | W2010433297 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 10 |
Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus , as well as being one of the most popular and enduring dramatic works of the English Renaissance, is also among its most textually problematic. The fact of the play's existence in two greatly differing and notoriously unreliable texts has long been a challenge for editors, and one that has traditionally been overcome by the production of amalgamated editions that seamlessly blend the ‘best’ elements of both texts. Over recent years, however, the role of the editor has begun to change significantly, and modern developments in textual scholarship have made it very unlikely that this method can survive. This article will examine the influence of post‐structuralist theory on the editing of early modern drama, and the affect that this has had on our perception of Faustus as a single and unified entity
Affect (linguistics · Art · Art history · Drama · Epistemology · Linguistics · Literature · Perception · Scholarship · The Renaissance · Computer Science · History · Law · Medieval Literature and History · Philosophy · Psychology · Renaissance and Early Modern Studies · Renaissance Literature and Culture
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2014 - 2019 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |