¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0  Kirschenbaum noted the coincidence in “Editing the Interface: Textual Studies and First Generation Electronic Objects,” TEXT 14 (2002): 15–51, 19–20, n. 12. He also notes that 1949 was the year in which W.W. Greg first presented his “Rationale of Copy Text” as a lecture; see also Kirschenbaum, Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), 213–18.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0  On the significance of Busa’s work, see Suan Hockey, Susan Hockey, “The History of Humanities Computing,” in A Companion to Digital Humanities, ed. Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 4.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0  N. Katherine Hayles, How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1999), 13–4, emphasis in original; on the term’s semantic slippage, see also Julia Flanders, “The Body Encoded: Questions of Gender and the Electronic Text,” in Electronic Text: Investigations in Method and Theory, ed. Kathryn Sutherland (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 127–8.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0  W.W. Greg, “Bibliography—An Apologia ,” in Sir Walter Wilson Greg: A Collection of His Writings, ed. Joseph Rosenblum (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1998), 135–57, esp. 135, 137, 140, and 141; Greg repeats the definition no less than four times, as if to underscore the point about transmissibility.
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0  W.B. Worthen, “Performing Shakespeare in Digital Culture,” in The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and Popular Culture, ed. Robert Shaughnessy (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007), 241.
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0  Willard McCarty, Humanities Computing (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 110. The most accessible history of the term information is Geoffrey Nunberg, “Farewell to the Information Age,” in The Future of the Book, ed. Nunberg (Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1996), 102–38; see also Ronald E. Day, “The ‘Conduit Metaphor’ and the Nature and Politics of Information Studies,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51.9 (2000): 805–11.
¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0  In addition to Andrew Murphy’s discussion of digital Shakespeare projects in this issue [?], surveys of the field and representative project articles may be found in Ian Lancashire, “Editing English Renaissance Texts,” Shakespearean International Yearbook 2 (2002), 89–110; Monitoring Electronic Shakespeares, ed. Michael Best, spec. issue of Early Modern Literary Studies 9.3 (2004); Reinventing Digital Shakespeare, ed. Alan Galey and Ray Siemens, spec. issue of Shakespeare 4.3 (2008); Christie Carson, “The Evolution of Online Editing: Where Will It End?,” Shakespeare Survey 59 (2006), 168–81.
¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0  See Michael S. Mahoney, “Cybernetics and Information Technology,” Companion to the History of Modern Science, ed. R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, and M.J.S. Hodge (London: Routledge, 1990); and Peter Galison, “The Ontology of the Enemy: Norbert Wiener and the Cybernetic Vision,” Critical Inquiry 21 (1994): 228–66.
¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0  Alice Brittan, “War and the Book: The Diarist, the Cryptographer, and The English Patient,” PMLA 121.1 (2006): 200–13, 203; see also Leo Marks, Between Silk and Cyanide: The Story of SOE’s Code War (London: HarperCollins, 1998), 11–2.
¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0  See Shawn James Rosenheim’s chapter “Deciphering the Cold War: Toward a Literary History of Espionage” in The Cryptographic Imagination: Secret Writing from Edgar Poe to the Internet (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1997), 151.
¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0  Bowers and Hinman’s military service in the area of intelligence was part of a well-known trend in which academics applied aspects of their training to intelligence and related military sectors. See Rosenheim’s chapter cited above, and Neil Rhodes’s discussion of F.W. Clayton, a classicist who also did work on Shakespeare’s Latin sources, and who worked on cryptanalysis in Bletchley Park with Alan Turing and in India during World War Two: Shakespeare and the Origins of English (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004), 165–6.
¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0  Jeffrey Masten, “Pressing Subjects: Or, the Secret Lives of Shakespeare’s Compositors,” in Language Machines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production, ed. Masten, Peter Stallybrass, and Nancy J. Vickers (New York: Routledge, 1997), 88, emphasis in original.
¶ 32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0  F.P. Wilson, Shakespeare and the New Bibliography, rev. and ed. Helen Gardner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 34, emphasis added. Wilson’s editor and reviser, Helen Gardner, notes with irony that this section in Wilson’s original required the most correction (34, fn).
¶ 33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0  On pre-war tendencies toward information theory in bibliography, such as W.W. Greg’s scientific bent in his Calculus of Variants (1927), see Laurie E. Maguire’s chapter “The Rise of the New Bibliography,” in Shakespearean Suspect Texts: The “Bad” Quartos and their Contexts (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996), 21–71; and the references to Kirschenbaum in note 5, above. Recent examples of textual scholars drawing upon information theory may be found in Clod, “Information”; Peter M.W. Robinson, “Is There a Text in These Variants?”, in The Literary Text in the Digital Age, ed. Richard J. Finneran (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996); and Tom Davis, “The Monsters and the Textual Critics,” in Textual Formations and Reformations, ed. Laurie E. Maguire and Thomas L. Berger (Newark, NJ: University of Delaware Press, 1998).
¶ 35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0  Weaver’s essay was published in the July 1949 issue of Scientific American, and reprinted in Science and Literature: New Lenses for Criticism, ed. Edward M. Jennings (Garden City, NY: Doubleday—Anchor Books, 1970), 13–27, emphasis in original. All references to Weaver’s “Mathematics” essay are from the Jennings collection; the epigraph is from p. 17. An expanded version of the Scientific American text, under the title “Introductory Note on the General Setting of the Analytical Communication Studies,” makes up Weaver’s half of his co-authored book with Claude Shannon, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1949); see also Weaver’s “Information Theory—A Nontechnical Review,” Science and Imagination: Selected Papers of Warren Weaver (New York: Basic Books, 1967), 198–211. Cf Day for a summary and critique of Shannon and Weaver.
¶ 43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0  See Davis, 97–8; references and worthwhile discussions can also be found in John W. Velz, “Judean and Indian Yet Once Again,” Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography 10.1 (1999), 21–9, and Nicholas Ranson, “Indian/Iudean Again,” in the same issue.
¶ 50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 0  From the infamous reprint known as the Wicked Bible (London, 1631); see David Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005), 95–6.
¶ 52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0  See C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998). There were early attempts on both sides to find common ground, though not always successfully. John Robinson Pierce’s Symbols, Signals, and Noise (New York: Harper, 1961) has a chapter on “Information Theory and Art.” As noted above, Jennings’s 1970 collection Science and Literature: New Lenses for Criticism includes Weaver’s essay, “The Mathematics of Communication,” in which he explains the basics of Shannon’s model of communication. In the same year John P. Sisk published an article titled “The Cybernetics of Othello,” New Orleans Review 11 (1970): 74–7; the article examines Othello’s decision-making patterns, but does not engage cybernetics as a field. Graham Bradshaw critiques the so-called conduit metaphor from a Shakespearean perspective in “Precious Nonsense and the Conduit Metaphor,” Shakespearean International Yearbook 4 (2005), 98–. A recent promising link between Shakespeare and the worlds of information theory and programming may be found in Henry S. Turner, “Life Science: Rude Mechanicals, Human Mortals, Posthuman Shakespeare,” South Central Review 26 (2009): 197-217.
¶ 56 Leave a comment on paragraph 56 0  The episode (season 2, episode 5; first aired 23 October 1991) may be viewed at the series website: (accessed 14 January 2010; the Shakespeare material appears in the segment “Machines Who Think”); see also Shieber, 72. In fact Clay gives an incorrect answer at one point, claiming that The Two Noble Kinsmen is not recognized as a Shakespeare play.
¶ 61 Leave a comment on paragraph 61 0  For a survey of this parable and its relevance to humanities computing, see Butler. He points out that Émile Borel, not Eddington, originated the typing monkey trope. Shakespeare seems to have become the monkeys’ target not long after Eddington popularized the parable in his 1927 Gifford lectures. The earliest instance I have found is James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe (New York: Macmillan, 1930), 4.
¶ 62 Leave a comment on paragraph 62 0  Other references to Shakespeare in the context of information theory may be found in Jagjit Singh, Great Ideas in Information Theory, Language, and Cybernetics (New York: Dover, 1966), 209; David Layzer, Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990), 31; William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998), 216; David J.C. MacKay, Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003), 490; and Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005), 5.
¶ 63 Leave a comment on paragraph 63 0  Benjamin Jowett, “On the Interpretation of Scripture,” in Essays and Reviews: the 1860 Text and Its Reading, ed. Victor Shea and William Whitla (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2000), 504, emphasis removed.
¶ 66 Leave a comment on paragraph 66 0  William Shakespeare, The Winter’s Tale, ed. Robert Kean Turner, Virginia Westling Haas, et al., The New Variorum Shakespeare (New York: Modern Language Association, 2005), 1.2.213–22. The commentary notes for these nine lines span eight pages in the Variorum.
¶ 67 Leave a comment on paragraph 67 0  Random Cloud [Randall McLeod], “Shakspear Babel,” in Reading Readings: Essays on Shakespeare Editing in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Joanna Gondris (Madison, WI: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1998), 1–70.
¶ 68 Leave a comment on paragraph 68 0  Hayles made this point about Shannon’s model in “The Future of Literature,” a plenary session for the symposium Literature, Culture, and the Digital Artifact, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 13 January 2006.
¶ 69 Leave a comment on paragraph 69 0  This particular version of Shakespearean authenticity appears in connection with modern computing from its very beginnings in postwar information theory, but this is by no means the first time Shakespeare’s texts were authenticated by and for new media, broadly speaking. Margreta de Grazia has studied similar patterns with regard to the First Folio and eighteenth-century editions in Shakespeare Verbatim: The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991); see also Peter S. Donaldson’s study of Shakespeare and early cinema in “Cinema and the Kingdom of Death: Loncraine’s Richard III,” Shakespeare Quarterly 53.2 (2002), 241–59. The present article is part of a larger project studying historical antecedents for this pattern of reciprocal authentication in relation to information technologies and archival/editorial projects from Shakespeare’s time to the present.
¶ 73 Leave a comment on paragraph 73 0  Ibid.; in addition to Hayles, Mother, see Kirschenbaum, Mechanisms; Nick Montfort, Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005); and essays in First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004).
¶ 76 Leave a comment on paragraph 76 0  Stephen Booth, “A Long, Dull Poem by William Shakespeare,” Shakespeare Survey 25 (1997), 229–237. The participants who did succeed in taking the debate somewhere interesting tended to be those who, like Booth, focused less on computational and statistical methods, and more on the critical assumptions about authorship and canon that the debate had exposed; examples may be found in other articles in the same issue of Shakespeare Survey.
¶ 78 Leave a comment on paragraph 78 0  For a bibliographic critique of EEBO see, Joseph A. Dane, Abstractions of Evidence in the Study of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009), 94.