Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×

Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T00:39:48.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Publishing and Book Culture

Scholarly Editing in Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2025

Wim Van Mierlo
Wim Van Mierlo
Affiliation:
Loughborough University

Summary

Scholarly Editing in Perspective offers a critical reflection on the theory and methods of textual editing, as a contribution to a wider, comparative understanding of editorial practice. The analysis, written in a cogent, concise and accessible manner, offers an insight into the textual-philosophical principles and foundations of scholarly editing from the beginning of the twentieth century to the new opportunities offered by digital technologies in the twenty-first. Scholarly editing is presented as a process that makes an intervention in the text whereby the editor mediates between competing versions of textuality, authorship, and authority. In analysing the assumptions, beliefs, and critical underpinnings of scholarly editing, this Element provides a new perspective on the standard editorial models within the English tradition, how they have evolved, and how they are adapted for the digital age.
Get access

Keywords

scholarly editingtextual editingtextual criticismeditorial practiceeditorial theory
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Publishing and Book Culture
Online ISBN: 9781009183772
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 20 March 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, W. L. (1997). ‘Editing “Minority” Texts’, in Greetham, D. C. (ed.), The Margins of the Text. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 45–55.Google Scholar
Baliaeva Solomon, M., ed. (2023) ‘Selections from the Revue des Colonies (July 1834 and July 1835): From the Prospectus to the Bill for Immediate Abolition’, Scholarly Editing, 40. https://doi.org/10.55520/5M5YRJS2.Google Scholar
Bédier, J. (1928) ‘La tradition manuscrite du Lais de l’ombre: Réflexions. sur l’art d’éditer les anciens textes’, Romania, 54, pp. 161–96, 321–56.Google Scholar
Behn, A. (2021) The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Aphra Behn: Vol. 4, The Plays, 1682–1696, ed. by Adcock, R., Aughterson, K., Bowditch, C. et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beltrami, P. G. (2012) ‘Textual Criticism and Historical Dictionaries’, Variants: The Journal of the European Society for Textual Scholarship, 10, pp. 41–59.Google Scholar
Bennett, B. T. (1993) ‘Feminism and Editing Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley: The Editor and?/or? the Text’, in Bornstein, G. and William, R. G. (eds.), Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in the Humanities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 67–95.Google Scholar
Benstock, B. (1986) ‘Ulysses: How Many Texts Are There in It?’ in Sandulescu, C. G. and Hart, C. (eds.), Assessing the 1984 Ulysses. Buckinghamshire: Colin Smythe, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Bland, M. (2010) A Guide to Early Printed Books and Manuscripts. London: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boot, P. and van Zundert, J. (2011) ‘The Digital Edition 2.0 and the Digital Library: Services, Not Resources’, Bibliothek und Wissenschaft, 44, pp. 141–52.Google Scholar
Bordalejo, B. (2013) ‘The Texts We See and the Works We Imagine: The Shift of Focus of Textual Scholarship’, Ecdotica, 10, pp. 64–76.Google Scholar
Bowers, F. (1964) Bibliography and Textual Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, F. (1966) Textual and Literary Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, C. (1968) The Well Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry. London: Dobson.Google Scholar
Browne, J. (2007) ‘Emma Darwin’s Diaries (1824–1896): An Introduction’, in van Wyhe, J. (ed.) The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online, ed. by. http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Browne_EmmaDiaries.html.Google Scholar
Burnard, L., O’Brien O’Keeffe, K., and Unsworth, J. eds. (2006) Electronic Textual Editing. New York: Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Bushell, S. (2009) Text as Process: Creative Composition in Wordsworth, Tennyson, and Dickinson. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Butler, M. (1995) ‘Editing Women’, Studies in the Novel, 27(3), pp. 273–83.Google Scholar
The Center for Scholarly Editions: An Introductory Statement’. (1977) PMLA, 92(4), pp. 583–97.Google Scholar
Chesnutt, D. (1995). ‘The Model Editions Partnership’, D-Lib Magazine, 1(5). https://dlib.org/dlib/november95/11chesnutt.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleridge, S. T. (2001) The Collected Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Poetical Works, 2 Vols in 4 parts, ed. by Mays, J.C.C.. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
‘The Committee on Scholarly Editions: Aims and Policies’ (1988) PMLA, 103(4), pp. 414–16.Google Scholar
Congreve, W. (2011) The Works of William Congreve. 3 Vols, ed. by McKenzie, D. F.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, D. L. (1981) ‘The Short Happy Thesis of G. Thomas Tanselle’, Documentary Editing: Journal of the Association for Documentary Editing, 3, 1–4. https://scholarlyediting.org/2013/essays/essay.2013presidentialaddress.html.Google Scholar
Cooke, B. and Milthorpe, N. (2024) ‘“Will Future Editor Kindly Omit …”: Evelyn Waugh in Conversation with his Archives’, in Callison, J., Feldman, M., Svendsen, A. et al. (eds.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Modernist Archives. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBoer-Langworthy, C. (2013) ‘The Iceman Cometh?: On Intellectual Access to Documents’, Scholarly Editing: The Annual of the Association for Documentary Editing, 34, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Dumont, S. (2018) ‘Interfaces in Digital Scholarly Editions of Letters’, in Bleier, R., Bürgermeister, M., Klug, H. W. et al. (eds.), Digital Scholarly Editions as Interfaces. Norderstedt: BoD, pp. 109–131.Google Scholar
Eggert, P. (2009) Securing the Past: Conservation in Art, Architecture and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eggert, P. (2010) ‘Text as Algorithm and as Process’, in , McCarty 2010, 183–202.Google Scholar
Eggert, P. (2013) ‘Apparatus, Text, Interface: How to Read a Printed Critical Edition’, in Fraistat, N. and Flanders, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Textual Scholarship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
Eggert, P. (2019) The Work and the Reader in Literary Studies: Scholarly Editing and Book History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggert, P. (2022) ‘The New Conrad: A Reply to Cedric Watts, “Conrad in the Cambridge Edition”’, Essays in Criticism, 71(2), pp. 202–27.Google Scholar
Eggert, P. and Vening, C. (2023) ‘Introduction’ in Harpur 2023, xix–xlix.Google Scholar
Eliot, T. S. (2015). The Poems of T. S. Eliot, 2 Vols, ed. by Ricks, C. and McCue, J.. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Ellis, S. (2017) ‘Review of The Poems of T. S. Eliot, ed. by Ricks, Christopher and McCue’, Jim, Modernist Cultures, 12(3), pp. 463–68. https://doi.org/10.3366/mod.2017.0187.Google Scholar
Ellmann, R. (1986) ‘A Crux in the New Edition’, in Sandulescu, C. G. and Hart, C. (eds.), Assessing the 1984 Ulysses. Buckinghamshire: Colin Smythe, pp. 28–34.Google Scholar
Faulkner, T. C., Kiessling, N., and Blair, R. L. (1989) ‘Textual Introduction’, in Burton, Robert, The Anatomy of Melancholy: Vol 1: Text, ed. by Faulkner, T. C., Kiessling, N. K., Blair, R. L. et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. xxxvii–lx.Google Scholar
Finneran, R. J. (1990) Editing Yeats’s Poems: A Reconsideration. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1991) ‘What Is an Author?’ in Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault Reader. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 101–120.Google Scholar
Freehafer, J. (1975) ‘Greg’s Theory of Copy-Text and the Textual Criticism in the CEAA Editions’, Studies in the Novel, 7(3), pp. 375–88.Google Scholar
Gabler, H. W. (1986) Afterword, in Joyce 1986, 1859–1907.Google Scholar
Gabler, H. W. (2007) ‘The Primacy of the Document in Editing’, Ecdotica, 4, pp. 197–207.Google Scholar
Gabler, H. W. (2018) Text Genetics in Literary Modernism and Other Essays. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailey, A. (2011) ‘Rethinking Digital Editing Practices to Better Address Non-Canonical Texts’, Documentary Editing: Journal of the Association for Documentary Editing, 32. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/docedit/12/.Google Scholar
Gaskell, P. (1972) A New Introduction to Bibliography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gaskell, P. (1978) From Writer to Reader: Studies in Editorial Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldgar, B. A. (1997) ‘Textual Introduction’, in Fielding, H., Miscellanies: Vol. 3, ed. by Amory, Hugh. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 197–224.Google Scholar
Greenberg, S. (2010). ‘When the Editor Disappears, Does Editing Editing Disappear?’ Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(1), pp. 7–21. https://doi.org/0.1177/135485650934769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, S. (2018) A Poetics of Editing. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greetham, D. C. (1983) Foreword, in McGann 1983, ix–xix.Google Scholar
Greetham, D. C. (1994) Textual Scholarship: An Introduction. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Greg, W. W. (1928) Principles of Emendation in Shakespeare. London: H. Milford.Google Scholar
Greg, W. W. (1950/51) ‘The Rationale of Copy-Text’, Studies in Bibliography, 3, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
Harde, R. ed. (2023) ‘Marm the Doctor, Mill Children, and the American Dream in “One Way to Get an Education”: A Recovered Short Story by Elizabeth Stuart Phelps’, Scholarly Editing, 40, https://scholarlyediting.org/issues/40/marm-the-doctor-mill-children-and-the-american-dream-in-one-way-to-get-an-education/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harpur, C. (2023) The Letters of Charles Harpur and His Circle, ed. by Eggert, P. and Vening, C.. Sydney: Sydney University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, A. J. and Evans, M. (2020). ‘“For all the Alterations which I made were in the first Act”: Authorship and Editorial Interference in Aphra Behn’s The Younger Brother (1696)’, Women’s Writing, 27(3), pp. 325–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housman, A. E. (1921) ‘The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism’, Proceedings of the Classical Association, 18, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Hunter, M. (2009) Editing Early Modern Texts: An Introduction to Principles and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussey, M. and Shillingsburg, P. (2013) ‘The Composition, Revision, Printing and Publications of To the Lighthouse’, in Woolf 2013. www.woolfonline.com/?node=content/contextual/transcriptions&project=1&parent=45&taxa=47&content=6955&pos=3.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. (1986) Ulysses: A Critical and Synoptic Edition, ed. by Gabler, H. W., Steppe, W., and Melchior, C.. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kelemen, E. (2009) Textual Editing and Criticism: An Introduction. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kidd, J. (1988) ‘An Inquiry into Ulysses: The Corrected Text’, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 82, pp. 411–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, M.-J. and Holbrook Perdue, S. (2008) A Guide to Documentary Editing. n.p.: Association for Scholarly Editing and University of Virginia Press. https://gde.upress.virginia.edu/.Google Scholar
Langland, W. (1995/2008) Piers Plowman: A Parallel-Text Edition of the A, B, C and Z versions, ed. by Schmidt, A. V. C., 2 Vols. London: Longman; Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications.Google Scholar
Martinez, M., Dillen, W., Bleeker, E. et al. (2019) ‘Refining Our Conceptions of “Access” in Digital Scholarly Editing: Reflections on a Qualitative Survey on Inclusive Design and Dissemination’, Variants: The Journal of the European Society for Textual Scholarship, 14, pp. 41–74. https://doi.org/10.4000/variants.1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mays, J.C.C. (2001) ‘Editor’s Introduction’, in Coleridge 2001, I, 1, lxxix–clxxcviii.Google Scholar
McCarty, W. ed. (2010) Text and Genre in Reconstruction: Effects of Digitalization on Ideas, Behaviours, Products and Institutions. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCleery, A., Brockman, W. S., and Gunn, I. (2008) ‘Fresh Evidence and Further Complications: Correcting the Text of the Random House 1934 Edition of Ulysses’, Joyce Studies Annual, 2008,pp. 37–77.Google Scholar
McCue, J. (2012) ‘Dilemmas and Decisions in Editing Eliot’, Literary Imagination, 14(1), pp. 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGann, J. J. (1983) A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
McGann, J. J. (1991) The Textual Condition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McGann, J. J. (2001) Radiant Textuality: Literature after the World Wide Web. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGarry, S. A. (2018) ‘Bridging the Gap: Exploring Interaction Metaphors to Facilitate Alternative Reading Modalities in Digital Scholarly Editions’, in Bleier, R. Bürgermeister, M., Klug, H. W. et al. (eds.), Digital Scholarly Editions as Interfaces. Norderstedt: BoD, pp. 61–81.Google Scholar
McKenzie, D. F. (1999) Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKerrow, R. B. (1904) ‘Note on the Treatment of the Text Adopted in This Edition’, in The Works of Thomas Nashe, edited from the Original Texts, Vol. 1., ed. by McKerrow, R. B.. London: Bullen, pp. xi–xvi.Google Scholar
McKerrow, R. B. (1939) Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare: A Study in Editorial Method. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McKerrow, R. B. (1962) An Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Miller, H. K. (1961) Essays on Fielding’s Miscellanies: A Commentary on Volume One. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nabokov, V. (1990) ‘Translator’s Introduction’, in Pushkin, E, A Novel in Verse, trans by V. Nabokov. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–88.Google Scholar
Nabugodi, M. and Ohge, C. (2022) ‘Introduction: Provocations toward Creative-Critical Editing’, Textual Cultures, 15(1), pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.14434/tc.v15i1.34491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, S. G. (1990) ‘Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture’, in The New Philology, special issue of Speculum, 65(1), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Nordloh, D. J. (1980) ‘The “Perfect” Text: The Editor Speaks for the Author’, Newsletter of the Association for Documentary Editing, 2, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Oberg, B. (1982) ‘Interpretation in Editing: The Gallatin Papers’, Newsletter of the Association for Documentary Editing, 4(2), 7–9.Google Scholar
Ohge, C. (2021) Publishing Scholarly Editions: Archives, Computing, and Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozment, K. (2020) ‘Rationale for Feminist Bibliography’, Textual Cultures 13(1), pp. 149–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peckham, M. (1971) ‘Reflections on the Foundations of Modern Textual Editing’, Proof: The Yearbook of American Bibliographical and Textual Studies, 1, pp. 122–55.Google Scholar
Petridou, E. and Tiktopoulou, K. (2022) ‘Reading Out to the Reader: The Audio Guide as Tool in a Digital Genetic Edition’, Textual Cultures, 15(1), pp. 126–34. https://doi.org/10.14434/tc.v15i1.34505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierazzo, E. (2009) ‘Digital Genetic Editions: The Encoding of Time in Manuscript Transcription’, in Deegan, M. and Sutherland, K. (eds.), Text Editing, Print and the Digital World. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 169–86.Google Scholar
Pierazzo, E. (2015) Digital Scholarly Editing: Theories, Models and Methods. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
‘Report on Editing Modern Historical Documents’ (1925) Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 3, pp. 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricks, C. and McCue, J. (2015) ‘This Edition’, in Eliot 2015, I, xi–xvii.Google Scholar
Riter, R. B. (2011) Defining and Contextualizing American Modern Historical Documentary Editing: An Analysis of Early Modern Editorial Theory, Methods, and Their Influence on the Production of Documentary Editions, 1943–1970. PhD Thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Riter, R. B. (2024) Publishing Archives: The Intellectual Foundation of American Historical Documentary Editing. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1994) ‘Collation, Textual Criticism, Publication, and the Computer’, TEXT: Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship, 7, pp. 77–94.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007) ‘Current Directions in the Making of Digital Editions: Towards Interactive Editions’, Ecdotica, 4(1), pp. 176–91.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2010) ‘Electronic Editions for Everyone’, in McCarty 2010, 145–63.Google Scholar
Rossetti, D. G. (2000/2007) The Complete Writings and Pictures of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, ed. by McGann, J.. Virginia: Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, University of Virginia. www.rossettiarchive.org/.Google Scholar
Scheltjens, W. (2022) ‘A Synergistic Approach to Non-narrative Historical Sources: The Database and Digital Edition of the Spängler Household Account Books, 1733–1785’, RIDE – A Review Journal for Digital Editions and Resources, 18, https://ride.i-d-e.de/issues/issue-18/spaengler/.Google Scholar
Schulz, C. B. (1988) ‘“From Generation unto Generation”: Transitions in Modern Documentary Historical Editing’, Reviews in American History, 16(3), pp. 337–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, W. (1993) King Lear: A Parallel Text Edition, ed. by Weis, R.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, W. (1996/2019) Internet Shakespeare Editions. Victoria: University of Victoria. https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, W. (2016) The New Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works: Modern Critical Edition, ed. by Taylor, G., Jowett, J., Bourus, T. et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shillingsburg, P. (1996) Scholarly Editing in the Computer Age: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillingsburg, P. (2006a). ‘The First Five English Editions of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species’, in Giuliani, L., Brinkman, H., Lernout, G. et al. (eds.), Texts in Multiple Versions – Histories of Editions. Special issue of Variants: The Journal of the European Society for Textual Scholarship, 5, 221–42.Google Scholar
Shillingsburg, P. (2006b) From Gutenberg to Google: Electronic Representations of Literary Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillingsburg, P. (2010) ‘How Literary Works Exist: Implied, Represented, and Interpreted’, in , McCarty 2010, 166–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillingsburg, P. (2017) Textuality and Knowledge: Essays. University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. H. and Stape, J. H. (2012) ‘The Texts: An Essay’, in Joseph Conrad: Tale of Unrest, ed. by Simmons, A. H. and Stape, J. H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–243.Google Scholar
Small, I. (1991) ‘The Editor as Annotator as Ideal Reader’, in Small, I. and Walsh, M. (eds.), The Theory and Practice of Text-Editing: Essays in Honour of James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 186–209.Google Scholar
Stevens, M. E. (1998) ‘“The Most Important Scholarly Work”: Reflections on Twenty Years of Change in Historical Editing’, Documentary Editing, 4, pp. 81–84.Google Scholar
Stevens, M. E. and Burg, S. B. (1997) Editing Historical Documents: A Handbook of Practice. Walnut Creek, Cal.: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Stillinger, J. (1989) ‘Textual Primitivism and the Editing of Wordsworth’, Studies in Romanticism, 28, pp. 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillinger, J. (1994). Coleridge and Textual Instability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, K. (2009) ‘Being Critical: Paper-Based Editing and the Digital Environment’, in Deegan, M. and Sutherland, K. Text Editing, Print and the Digital World. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 13–25.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. (1976) ‘The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention’, Studies in Bibliography, 29, pp. 167–211.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. (1978) ‘The Editing of Historical Documents’, Studies in Bibliography, 31, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. (1986) ‘Historicism and Critical Editing’, Studies in Bibliography, 39, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. (1989). A Rationale of Textual Criticism. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. (1991) ‘Textual Criticism and Literary Sociology’, Studies in Bibliography, 41, pp. 83–143.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. (1995) ‘Critical Editions, Hypertexts, and Genetic Criticism’, Romanic Review, 86(3), pp. 581–93.Google Scholar
Tanselle, G. T. (1996) ‘Textual Instability and Editorial Idealism’, Studies in Bibliography, 49, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
Taylor, G. (1993) ‘The Renaissance and the End of Editing’, in Bornstein, G. and Williams, R. G. (eds.), Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in the Humanities. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, pp. 121–49.Google Scholar
Thompson, A. (1997). ‘Feminist Theory and the Editing of Shakespeare: The Taming of the Shrew Revisited’, in Greetham, D. C. (ed.), The Margins of the Text. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 83–103.Google Scholar
Thorpe, J. (1972) Principles of Textual Criticism. San Marino, Cal.: The Huntingdon Library.Google Scholar
Treharne, E. (2009). ‘The Architextual Editing of Early English’, Poetica, 71, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Vandendorpe, C. (2009) From Papyrus to Hypertext: Toward the Universal Digital Library. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Vanhoutte, E. (2010) ‘Defining Electronic Editions: A Historical and Functional Perspective’, in McCarty 2010, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hulle, D. (2004) Textual Awareness: A Genetic Study of Late Manuscripts by Joyce, Proust, and Mann. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hulle, D. (2016) ‘Modelling a Digital Scholarly Edition for Genetic Criticism: A Rapprochement’, Variants: The Journal of the European Society for Textual Scholarship, 12–13, pp. 35–36. https://doi.org/10.4000/variants.293.Google Scholar
Van Mierlo, W. (2020) ‘Annotation and Commentary in the Modernist Edition: A Critique’, Modernist Cultures, 15(1), pp. 69–91. https://doi.org/10.3366/mod.2020.0280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Mierlo, W. (2022) ‘The Scholarly Edition as Digital Experience: Reading, Editing, Curating’, Textual Cultures, 15(1), pp. 117–25. https://doi.org/10.14434/tc.v15i1.34504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vico, G. (1948). The New Science: Translated from the Third Edition (1744). Trans. by Bergin, T. G., and Fish, M. H.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Werner, M. L. (1999) Review of The Poems of Emily Dickinson, ed. by R. Franklin, Text, 12, pp. 255–63.Google Scholar
Werner, M. L. (2006) Review of Fredson Bowers and the Irish Wolfhound by J.C.C. Mays and Kidnapped by Susan Howe, Text, 16, pp. 293–308.Google Scholar
Werner, M. L. (2011) ‘“Reportless Places”: Facing the Modern Manuscript’, Textual Cultures, 6(2), pp. 60–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, W. (1955) Whitman’s Manuscripts: Leaves of Grass (1860): A Parallel Text, ed. by Bowers, F.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Whitworth, C. (1991) ‘Rectifying Shakespeare’s Errors: Romance and Farce in Bardeditry’, in Small, I. and Walsh, M. (eds.), The Theory and Practice of Text-Editing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–141.Google Scholar
Williams, P. W. and Abbott, C. S. (2009) An Introduction to Bibliographical and Textual Studies. 4th ed. New York: Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Woolf, V. (1927a) To the Lighthouse. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Woolf, V. (1927b) To the Lighthouse. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Woolf, V. (2013) Woolf Online, ed. by P. L. Caughie, N. Hayward, M. Hussey et al. woolfonline.com.Google Scholar
Wordsworth, W. (1965) Selected Poems and Prefaces, ed. by Stillinger, J.. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Wordsworth, J. (1977) ‘The Five-Book Prelude of Early Spring 1804’, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 76, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Wordsworth, W. (1979) The Prelude, 1799, 1805, 1850: Authoritative Texts, Context and Reception, Recent Critical Essays, ed. by Wordsworth, J., Abrams, M. H., and Gill, S.. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Yeats, W. B. (1987) The Variorum Edition of the Poem of W. B. Yeats, ed. by Allt, P. and Alspach, R. K.. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Yeats, W. B. (1989) Yeats’s Poems, ed. by Jeffares, A. N.. London: Macmillan Papermac.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Scholarly Editing in Perspective
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Scholarly Editing in Perspective
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Scholarly Editing in Perspective
Available formats
×