wrong again, Professor Prescott, the editors knew and do not deny they 
knew about the essay and its having been officially accepted by a journal 
 while their contributors were still at work writing or revising. 

I have been asked by the list manager not to mention the matter again, but
since it has been, it is my professional responsibility to respond,
especially as the editor of the journal issue in which the essay did
appear, who officially accepted it. 

As an editor myself who has been dealing with presses and printers and
authors I do want to say that I see myself responsible for collecting and
inserting every piece of information on previously published material on
the topics of my volumes. As the editor of the first volume to be
published on Shakespeare's "A Lover's Complaint," for instance, I intend
to refer to work on the text currently in progress of which I am aware but
is not yet in print, such a Dr. Colin Burrow's in his introduction to his
forthcoming Oxford edition of the poems, and, should I find an analytical
article is in print even at the galley stage when changes are expensive to
make, I would hold up publication so that a reference would be
included. Responsibility to integrity and posterity is more important than
the current mechanics of academic publishing. Even more important than
money.  

And if we are to accept that its is too bad that things are too bad, in
academic publishing and Renaissance scholarship in general, little chance
have we of moving Renaissance scholarship beyond intellectual stagnation. 


It is not only Time that makes desire so complex to think about, Professor
Prescott. Gender (imaginary and symbolic) is significant too. I am glad
you noticed, if unconsciously. 

Dr. Shirley Sharon-Zisser   


reply to this, especially as several others have
> suggested that the list at this point needs more Calidor (in his better
> moments) and less Talus (he with the
> flail), but as an editor myself who has been learning to deal with
> pressesand printers and authors I do want to put in a word for Ken Borris
> and George Klawitter. Once a volume is in the hands of a press there are
> moments when authors and editors can intervene, of course, but also a sort
> of waiting period during which changes are difficult. In any case,
> academic publishing is notoriously slow and it is quite usual to get
> something to a press (like the Borris/Klawitter collection) and be in
> production when a relevant essay or book appears that comes out too late
> for anything except the sort of footnote we have all read ("Professor
> Blumph's work on the Girondin press appeared too late
> . . ." etc.). Stephen Whitworth's essay came out after the volume was
> pretty much set and I, for one, had stopped thinking about Barnfield
> so I could think about other projects until it is galleys time. If I do
> see galleys then I can add a reference, but to do
> more is very expensive for the press (hence those stern warnings we
> get). It's too bad that things work this way, but work that way they
> do. Even the MLA database can take some months to get an item noted. The
> editors of the volume, I gather, did not know that the
> essay was actually
> out. So there's no blame here, I think, just the same force of Time that
> makes desire so complex to think about. The volume itself should interest
> Spenser scholars. I wish I knew what Spenser himself thought of
> Barnfield's excited praise of him. Was he pleased? Amused? A trace
> fussed? Anne Prescott.
> 
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, shirley sharon-zisser wrote:
> 
> > The essay was in print a year ago (July 1999). And before July 1999, the
> > essay was known to you, and known by you to have been making its way into
> > print.
> >
> > Shirley Sharon-Zisser 
> >
> >At 07:26 20/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >>I am sorry to see that Barnfield is at the bottom of some controversy on
> > >the Spenser list serve.I would like to explain the progress of the
> > >Barnfield volume of essays that Kenneth Borris (McGill Univ) and I have
> > >edited for Susquehanna University Press.There are fifteen essays in the
> > >book, and we hope that the book will appear this coming spring.In a long
> > >introduction, Professor Borris covers the history of Barnfield criticism,
> > >but the introduction does not deal, could not deal, with Barnfield essays
> > >that were not already in print when the introduction was written a year ago.
> > >
> > >On another matter, as the first poet (the poem "Cynthia") to write using the
> > >Spenserian stanza after Spenser himself, Barnfield is obviously a disciple.
> > >Happily we have in the volume an essay by Anne Lake Prescott addressing
> > >Spenser and Barnfield.
> > >
> > >
> > >George Klawitter
> > >St. Edward's University
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%