Hello again! Just over a month ago I had the pleasure of attending a seminar held by UCC’s department of English. As part of their Spring 2023 research seminar series, one Professor Jenifer Richards was hosted to deliver a paper on one of her current area’s of research, that of Thomas Nashe (engraved below). Nasche was a 16th century writer, producing works of poetry, dramas and novels throughout his career. Perhaps, however, his most interesting works were that of his pamphlets.

It was indeed his pamphlets that would be the subject of Dr. Richards paper, shedding great light into the practice of editorial work. As co-editor of The Oxford Handbook to Thomas Nashe (Oxford University Press: in preparation) Dr. Richards was able to shed great light into the challenges she has faced in her practice. When it comes to editing Nashe, the subject of errors and their correction is one of great controversy. Editors of Nashe have identified a number of errors throughout his works, many of which were discussed in this seminar. This paper, however, was not merely an “error-spotting exercise” but rather an in depth contemplation on the nature of errors and a challenge to the traditional ways of approaching errors in the editorial process. In the upcoming The Oxford Handbook to Thomas Nashe of which Dr. Richards is co-editor, the many, if not all, of the “errors” made in the works of Nashe will be left “uncorrected.”

There are a number of factors that have informed the decision to leave Nashe’s errors untouched. Primarily, it is to preserve his authorial intent. There is an instance in which Nashe describes Christians as “disobedient” to the word of God. Given the historical context in which Nashe found himself in, such an accusation would be sure to stir up controversy, which it certainly did. Nashe claimed publicly that this was a mistake of his publishers and printers, and that he in fact had intended to use the word “obedient.” Whether Nashe was being earnest in his claims, however, is certainly up for debate. Nashe had a flair for satire, and this apparent mistake could just as likely be a purposeful rebuke. It is therefore logical that the original wording would be left the same, in order to preserve the historically accurate phrasing of the text, whilst leaving the door open for all possible avenues of interpretation. There are also several instances of “misspellings” on Nashe’s account which Dr Richards again argued could have easily been elements of Nashe’s original intention, in order to make puns for example.

I found the seminar to be very informative about the level of detail that goes into making editions of older texts. I am certainly now more aware of the weight behind every decision made and will be certain to consider the authorial intent of any text I might one day be involved with editing, should I be so lucky!