Collections based research

By Dr Paddy Bullard, Co-director of the Centre for Collections-Based Research at Reading

The University of Reading’s Collections are an outstanding resource, from the Beckett Collection through to the Museum of English Rural Life. Research using Collections is taking place right across the Institution, and has been for a number of years.

Examples include investigations into the Hugh Sinclair Archive by Food and Nutritional Sciences, Architecture’s use of the DWG Collection and use of the WH Smith Archive by the Henley Business School. However, given the breadth and quality of this resource we could be making much greater use of the Collections for grant-winning research.

Continue reading

Sir Peter Hall’s encounters with Godot

A model box by Peter Snow, the designer of Hall’s 1955 Waiting for Godot

Professor Anna McMullan, Film, Theatre and Television, University of Reading.

The death of Sir Peter Hall on 11th September marks the passing of a major theatre director who shaped post-World War II British theatre. He founded the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1961, and was director of the National Theatre from 1973 – 88, as it moved into its South Bank home. In addition to his landmark productions of Shakespeare and opera, he nurtured the work of contemporary playwrights such as David Hare and Howard Brenton.

All of his obituaries note that the play that propelled the 24 year old director into the public eye was his production of the English language premiere of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot in August 1955 at the Arts Theatre London. While some critics thought that Waiting for Godot was ‘an odd mass of nonsense’ (Ronald Barker in Plays and Players), the influential Harold Hobson and Kenneth Tynan recognised that Godot was taking theatre in a new direction – Tynan noted that the play forced him ‘to re-examine the rules which have hitherto governed the drama; and, having done so, to pronounce them not elastic enough’. That Hall was strongly drawn to Beckett’s theatre anticipated his championing of Pinter when he staged The Homecoming in 1965 at the Aldwych amid considerable opposition. Continue reading

Books are not absolutely dead things…

Dr Rebecca Bullard from the Department of English Literature asks whether the digital revolution means we no longer have a need for old books? 

Bringing old books to life

In an attack on the censorship of books, the poet John Milton declared that ‘Books are not absolutely dead things, but doe contain a potencie of life in them to be as active as that soule was whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a violl the purest efficacie and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.’ Milton’s metaphor, taken from alchemy, claims that books store (like a vial, or ‘violl’) the distilled genius of their authors. These books, Milton claims, are kept alive by the elixir of their authors’ ideas. Other writers from the ‘early modern’ period (roughly, 1500-1750) were not so confident that an author’s spirit would be enough to keep a book alive. Jonathan Swift remarked, gloomily, that ‘Books, like Men their Authors, have no more than one Way of coming in to the World, but there are ten Thousand to go out of it, and return no more.’ Swift imagined books literally torn apart, their pages turned into firelighters, pie-tin liners, and toilet paper.

Research in early modern English literature has sought ways to preserve our printed heritage in ways that would have been beyond even Swift and Milton’s prodigious powers of imagination. A digital turn in humanities research has led to the creation of an array of resources designed to preserve early modern literary culture for current and future generations. Our University Library subscribes to several of these, including the extraordinary Early English Books Online (EEBO), which offers readers digital images of every page of almost every book published in the British Isles from the earliest days of printing in the late fifteenth century to the year 1700. Researchers at Reading are, themselves, responsible for such e-resources as Verse Miscellanies Online, an online edition of some of the most popular poetry anthologies of the English Renaissance, and a database of Italian Academy Libraries that allows users to enter the world of early humanist learning. Digitisation not only has the capacity to keep books alive and in the public domain but also, through functions such as word searchability and image recognition, to generate new avenues of research.

Does the digital revolution mean, then, that bytes store the ‘efficacie and extraction’ of living intellects better than books? Keeping special collections of rare books in libraries is a costly business – one that resources like EEBO might seem to make redundant. If we regard books simply as repositories of words or texts, the answer might be ‘yes’. But both Milton and Swift make it quite clear that books are more than just inert containers for the words that they contain. These authors draw attention to the life (and potential death) embodied, materially, in the physical document that is a book. Many of us in Reading’s English Department are carrying out research into early modern ‘material texts’ which demonstrates that books communicate with their readers in ways that cannot easily be captured in electronic form.

The codex – the folded series of pages that many of us think of, automatically, as the default form of the book – exists not just in two but in three dimensions. It has a depth and, therefore, a weight that eludes the virtual world of digital representation. Think about the last book that you read. You almost certainly made judgements about it based on its size and weight even before you opened the covers. And you were probably conscious of the peculiarly tangible form of narrative progress represented by turning pages. The knowledge that one is ‘104 of 286’ pages through a book – the kind of information imparted by a digital edition – cannot capture an aspect of reading material texts that is determined by the sense of touch more than abstract mental processing.

Perhaps even more significantly, digital texts give the misleading impression that the facsimile of a document that we see on our screens provides the definitive version of the text it contains. It conceals the fact that every early modern text is handmade and therefore unique. In this period, setting type, printing sheets, collation, and binding all took place in separate processes and separate places. No two texts produced in the pre-industrial era are exactly identical. Sometimes the differences can be quite radical. Authors were able to make alterations to the words of their texts (known as ‘stop-press corrections’) in the middle of the printing process. Paper and labour being expensive, no bookseller would withhold the uncorrected version from public view. Consequently, early modern texts often circulated in more than one version, even within ostensibly the same edition. When owners got their hands on books, the differences between texts could become even more striking. Early modern readers liked to scribble in books, adding notes and even blotting out words. An example of this practice can be found in images of the playwright Ben Jonson’s collected works, now held in Reading University Library’s Special Collections, which show the inky assault that one early reader made on Jonson’s plays.

Of course, the existence of digital editions does not in and of itself preclude researchers from consulting material editions of early modern texts. And digital resources like the one used to capture the images of Ben Jonson’s inked-out plays demonstrate that new technology can disseminate information about the unique characteristics of particular early modern documents. I don’t want to suggest that there’s anything wrong with the digitisation of early modern texts – far from it. I do, however, want to draw attention to the limitations of electronic facsimiles, and to the advantages of carrying out the kind of archival research that leaves the smell of centuries-old paper, ink, leather (and concomitant dirt) on one’s fingertips. It is expensive to maintain archives of rare books, to conserve and catalogue early modern print. But old books bring to life the words of Swift, Milton and other early modern authors, as well as the cultures that fostered and first read them, in ways that cannot be matched by any digital ‘violl’.

Celebrating 60 years of Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’

Samuel Beckett

Saturday 5 January marks the 60th anniversary of one of the most important plays of the 20th century, Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’.

As the global centre for Beckett research and home to the world’s largest Beckett archive, the University of Reading is playing a leading role in furthering our understanding of the influence of the great Irish playwright.

Professor Anna McMullan from the University’s Department of Film, Theatre and Television is leading the research project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Here she discusses the legacy of the play and it’s impact on modern theatre.

Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot changed the rules of twentieth century theatre. Written in French, En Attendant Godot premiered in Paris, France, at the small Théâtre de Babylone on 5 January 1953, 60 years ago.

Now one of the best known plays of the twentieth and twenty first centuries, En Attendant Godot at first shocked and confused audiences – they had never seen anything quite like it. One French critic (Gabriel Marcel in Les Nouvelles Littéraires on 15 January 1953) recommended the play, but warned that it did not resemble any kind of existing theatre. Sir Peter Hall, who directed the English language premiere of Waiting for Godot at the Arts Theatre, London, in 1955, argued that: “Beckett has changed … the way we act, the way we write and the way we direct in the theatre”.

Godot highlights what French novelist Alain Robbe-Grillet called ‘being there’. It has little plot beyond the fact of waiting for Godot, and little on stage to distract the two tramps, Estragon and Vladimir (or the audience) from their waiting. It therefore confronts us with the basic facts of embodied human existence: pain, hunger and sleep, yet conjures lively comedy from the tramps’ apparent improvisations in order to pass the time. It also emphasises interdependence in an unpredictable and unequal world which may offer relief or cruelty. Pozzo’s enslavement of Lucky has become a powerful image of oppression yet dependence: Godot has spoken to cultures in conflict and communities under stress across the globe, from Cape Town, South Africa in 1980, to Haifa, Israel, in 1984, Sarajevo during the siege in 1993, and post-hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2007.

The legacy of Godot continues to influence theatre across the world but what role has it, and Beckett himself, played in shaping modern theatre practice in the UK and Ireland? We know that Beckett influenced playwrights from Edward Albee to Harold Pinter and the African American writer Suzan-Lori Park, but what about the impact of Beckett’s theatre on the many directors, designers, performers, companies and venues that staged his work the length and breadth of these islands?

A scene from ‘Waiting for Godot’

Much is known about Sir Peter Hall’s productions of Godot across the decades, and the Gate Theatre Dublin’s Festival of 19 Beckett plays first launched in 1991, but we want to discover if there were other productions of Beckett that left an indelible mark on those who worked on them and those who saw them. When was Beckett first performed in the Irish National Theatre, the Abbey or the Lyric Theatre Belfast and what and how were those productions received? Did ways of directing Beckett change over the decades?

The project will see Reading, with project partners the University of Chester and the Victoria and Albert Museum, create a database and research materials relating to all professional productions of Beckett’s theatre throughout the UK and Ireland. This will be a pilot for a national performance database holding information about UK past and future performances of Beckett in the UK and Ireland. Once completed, the database will be an important online tool for Beckett researchers worldwide.

Academics and researchers at the University of Reading are continuing to explore the impact of Beckett on twenty first century literature, philosophy, culture and media, visual and performing arts. Indeed 2013 marks another anniversary: the Beckett International Foundation was launched 25 years ago in 1988, in order to further the study and appreciation of the work of Samuel Beckett.

60 years on from the first performance ‘Godot’s influence remains undiminished yet we won’t have to wait long before we uncover more about this seminal play.


The University of Reading’s Beckett Collection is the world’s largest collection of resources relating to Samuel Beckett (1906-1989). It is home to over 600 items of original Beckett material, including manuscript drafts, annotated copies and corrected copies, nearly 500 editions of Beckett’s work in more than 20 languages and stage files relating to over 680 productions of Beckett plays.

A conference will be held 4-7 April 2013 in celebration of both the anniversaries and will be accompanied by a series of workshops and public