.

]

Breaking the Book Known as Q

Readers, in fact, never confront abstract, idealized texts detached from any materiality. ey hold in their hands or perceive objects and forms whose structures and modalities govern their reading or hearing, and consequently the possible comprehension of the text read or heard. —Roger Chartier O let my books be then the eloquence . . .

—“23” Shake-speares Sonnets

I
COLEMAN HUTCHISON is a PhD candidate in the Department of English at Northwestern University. He is completing a dissertation entitled “Revision, Reunion, and the American Civil War Text.”

N THE FIRST SENTENCE OF HER ART OF SHAKESPEARE’S SONNETS, Helen Vendler tells a little white lie: “I have reprinted both the 1609 quarto Sonnets and a modernized version of my own” (xiii). e crux of this declaration is “reprinted.” Vendler does indeed print a version of the 1609 quarto—or “Q,” as it is referred to bibliographically; one could even say that she “reprints” the type of the quarto. Vendler does not, however, “reprint” the 1609 quarto Sonnets. Like nearly every modern editor before her, Vendler presents the poems as discrete units on a page, eliding and ignoring the page breaks that so o en—and, I will argue, so meaningfully—interrupt the poems. In “reprinting” these poems, Vendler uses a de cut-and-paste method to rearrange, re-member, and reconstitute the type of the 1609 quarto into uninterrupted material units, into what we would visually recognize as “sonnets.” e result of Vendler’s seemingly innocuous editorial decision is profound. On her page, the sonnets appear as and in
All images except for figure 1 were produced by ProQuest Information and Learning Company as part of Early English Books Online. Inquiries may be made to ProQuest Information and Learning Company, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346, USA (734 761-4700; info@il.proquest