Editing and Typesetting Shakespeare

Editing as a craft is difficult in any circumstance, but when the author is published only in a series of highly conflictory, unauthorised texts in a period of history where arbitrary spelling was standard, the craft becomes especially difficult. So it is with editing Shakespeare, though given his reputation one might expect the arguments to have been settled through the centuries by hoardes of dilligent editors. This has not proven itself to be the case: conjecture, personal taste, and style so often come into play.

As a demonstration of the craft and the problems of any would-be editor of Shakespeare, I'll take a text from A Midsummer Night's Dream and illustrate the problems that arise.

A Midsummer Night's Dream was one of the most consistent quarto publications, and Q2 was used as the source of the folio text. They therefore differ only slightly, though still on occasion importantly as will be seen. The following excerpt was transcribed by hand from the University of Pennsylvania Library's online folio image of page 149. A couple of notes beforehand:

Ob. [...]

My gentle Pucke come hither ; thou remembreſt

Since once I ſat vpon a promontory,

And heard a Meare-maide on a Dolphins backe,

Vttering ſuch dulcet and harmonious breath,

That the rude ſea grew ciuill at her ſong,

And certaine ſtartes ſhot madly from their Spheares,

To heare the Sea-maids muſicke.

Puc. I remember.

Ob. That very time I ſay (but thou couldſt not)

Flying betweene the cold Moone and the earth,

Cupid all arm'd ; a certaine aime he tooke

At a faire Veſtall, throned by the Weſt,

And loos'd his loue-ſhaft ſmartly from his bow,

As it ſhould pierce a hundred thouſand hearts,

But I might ſee young Cupids fiery ſhaft

Quencht in the chaſte beames of the watry Moone ;

And the imperiall Votreſſe paſſed on,

In maiden meditation, fancy free.

Yet markt I where the bolt of Cupid fell.

It fell vpon a little weſterne flower ;

Before, milke-white ; now purple with loues wound,

And maidens call it, Loue in idleneſſe.

Fetch me that flower ; the hearb I ſhew'd thee once,

The iuyce of it, on ſleeping eye-lids laid,

Will make or man or woman madly dote

Vpon the next liue creature that it ſees.

Fetch me this hearbe, and be thou heere againe,

Ere the Leuiathan can ſwim a league.

Pucke. Ile put a girdle about the earth, in forty minutes.

Unless the publication is to be a faithful reproduction of the folio, where errors-and-all may as well be preserved, it behooves the editor to reduce the untoward effect that the spelling, typography, and inconsistencies between the versions have on the reader. The difficulty is, as always in careful editing, retaining the intent and style of the author. With any work of Shakespeare's, this becomes ever more imperative.

Oberon [...]

In the folio text, the characters' names are wildly abbreviated, perhaps due to want of space. This doesn't firmly impress the current character on the mind as a full name does, however. The MIT text uses capitals, bold, and much padding for the names: this I feel to be too much of a contrast to the folio's understated nature. As a compromise, therefore, I've gone for small-caps, full names, and padding-above only. The interpolated elipsis denoting the removed material is placed on the same line as the character name for compactness.

My gentle Puck come hither; thou remembrest

The character U+2003 EM SPACE has been used to indent lines throughout. The italicisation of names is wholly unnecessary as the capitalisation is enough of a marker to denote this. The possibly errant, possibly stylistic spaces before the semi-colons have been removed in keeping with current convention. Use of "thou" has been retained as an important semantic distinction later lost by English. The spelling of "remembrest" has been changed to "rememberest" in the MIT version, but I believe the folio's variant to be acceptable to a modern eye. The long s has been removed throughout since it was stylistic only, and appears more like an f to a modern reader. The MIT version uses a full-stop here in place of the semi-colon, which is simply an error: the folio and the quarto versions do not sanction it.

Since once I sat upon a promontory,

All instances of "v" have been changed to "u" throughout where applicable.

And heard a Mearmaid on a Dolphin's back,

The word "Meare-maide" in the folio version here presents quite a problem. In the quarto version it is given as "Mearemaide", and the present accepted spelling is "Mermaid". The ae diphthong may, however, indicate an alternative pronunciation of the first syllable, and one which the author may have considered important with respect to euphony. If in doubt, it is best to preserve the original wholly, modulo the extra -e syndrome, though here we are faced with a choice between the quarto and the folio. Since the quarto came first and was the basis for the folio, we take that on its authority. The apostrophe denoting the possessive for "Dolphin's" has been inserted, and the spelling of "backe" has been normalised to "back".

Uttering such dulcet and harmonious breath,

The quarto reads "hermonious", but we would normalise that anyway. Note that this line does not read as iambic pentameter unless "uttering" be pronounced as "ut'ring", yet neither folio nor quarto spell it that way. "Harmonious" must likewise be pronounced "har-mow-nyus".

That the rude sea grew civil at her song,

Here we've normalised the rather alien-looking "ciuill" to "civil". The quarto version uses "grewe" which would be normalised anyway.

And certain stars shot madly from their Spheres,

Both "certaine" and "startes" have been normalised, and "Spheares" has been normalised though its capitalisation has been retained. The quarto version gives the slightly more regular "starres", so the folio may be in error.

To hear the Sea-maid's music.

All spellings have again been normalised, the possessive apostrophe added, and capitalisation retained. The normalisation of the word "musicke" was a sad choice since the spelling has a certain charm to it; it was, nontheless, normalised for consistency since no alternative style, semantic, or pronunciation was suggested by it. Note that the insertion of the hyphen in Sea-maid's here may have been what prompted the insertion of the hyphen in "Meare-maide" a few lines above in the folio version.

Puck

I remember.

The first line so far requiring no editing apart from indentation!

Oberon

That very time I saw (but thou couldst not)

The spelling "say" is a rather odd version of "saw", and is not contained in the quarto version, so we may therefore consider the folio to be in error. The quarto version does add an errant apostrophe in "could'st", however, which has not been inserted.

Flying between the cold Moon and the earth,

Two normalised spellings (three if the quarto version is taken), all of the trailing -e syndrome. Note that in both quarto and folio, Moon is capitalised and earth isn't, perhaps suggesting the Moon as taking the principal role. This distinction, though it may be a mere quirk, has been retained.

Cupid all arm'd: a certain aim he took

Italicisation has been removed, and more -e spellings normalised. Here the difficult decision is "arm'd". One can either represent the short and long -ed endings as -'d and -ed respectively, or as -ed and -èd respectively. The latter is the more modern, and yet given the fact that iambic pentameter is used so frequently throughout, I think it better to retain the original: it is not jarring to the modern eye, and conservatism where possible is preferable. The quarto version here uses a colon, as does the MIT version (which changes punctuation throughout in any case). The folio, however, clearly uses a semi-colon. Either are stylistically fine, and in the name of consistency, we'll again take authority from the quarto version.

At a fair Vestal, throned by the west,

A few spelling normalisations. The quarto version omits the word "the" here, but the iambic pentameter is incomplete without it, so we can consider it to be in error. "West" is uncapitalised in the quarto version, and is thus retain'd here.

And loos'd his love-shaft smartly from his bow,

Here the quarto adds an extra comma after "smartly", but the folio text reads more smoothly so it remains omitted here. One of the few purely stylistic decisions. The MIT version also omits the comma. The quarto version also spells bow as "bowe".

As it should pierce a hundred thousand hearts:

Apart from a quarto spelling variation, "pearce", the main difference is that the quarto uses a trailing colon whereas the folio uses a comma. We retain the quarto on its authority again.

But, I might see young Cupid's fiery shaft

Spelling corrections and a possessive apostrophe aside, the editing task here is to decide whether or not to retain the extra comma that the quarto version places after "but". The quarto version seems to like to insert commas all over where they're not required, and don't appear in the folio or MIT versions. The difference here, however, is that the insertion of the comma causes a direct emphasis on its preceeding word which, as a conjunction, is not only stylistically but possibly semantically important. It has therefore been retained.

Quencht in the chaste beams of the watry Moon;

Here, Moone and beames have been normalised, but "watry" and "quencht" have been retained. The extra -e syndrome seems not only superfluous, but causes the reader to lean towards adding an extra vowel emphasis where it's not required. The other spellings are not harsh to a modern reader, so again conservatism comes into play. The MIT version normalises "quencht" into "quench'd", but given that d is voiced and t unvoiced, there may be an important phonological distinction pointed at here. In any case, it's acceptable to the modern reader.

And the imperial Votress passed on,

The spelling of "imperial" has been normalised, as has that of "Votress". Some editors, e.g. the MIT editor, prefer to use the more modernly acceptable "votaress", but "votress" is recorded as being quite common too: in July of 2004 Google offered 2000 uses of votaress to 660 of votress, which is close enough for us to be able to retain a spelling closer the original.

In maiden meditation, fancy free.

The second line to require no editing other than indentation. The MIT version hyphenates "fancy-free", but neither the quarto nor folio do this.

Yet markt I where the bolt of Cupid fell.

Only indentation and deitalicisation required here. The MIT version uses "mark'd" and uses a trailing colon instead of a full-stop, but we can disregard this with ease as again neither are sanctioned by the quarto or folio. The quarto version adds one of its commas after "I", and the folio printing of the word "I" is remarkably bold, but the comma is clearly superfluous and the bold "I" a printing quirk.

It fell upon a little western flower;

Again only spelling normalisations, a removed space, and the indentation are required here. The MIT version uses a trailing comma, but both the quarto and folio versions use a semi-colon.

Before, milk-white; now purple with love's wound,

The thin space has been replaced with a normal space, spellings normalised, and the space before the semi-colon removed. Again the quarto version inserts a comma after "purple", and in such a beautful line the stylistic decision is a particularly difficult one, especially since the author may have been seeking to emphacise the two colours. One could really do with a semi-comma for such occasions, but in lieu of it we'll once again go with the folio's reading for punctuation. A possessive apostrophe has been added to "love's", and the hyphen of the folio version has also been retained over the quarto on the whim of the editor and in consultation with the MIT version.

And maidens call it, Love-in-idleness.

Two spelling corrections. The quarto and the folio versions both concur on the rest of this line, and yet it is extraordinarily difficult for a modern editor to not remove the comma and hyphenate "love-in-idleness"! It seems as though the folio editor has finally succumbed to the commas used so often in the quarto, and inserted it inamidst this wonderful line. It may, of course, also be serving as a quotation device: they call it, in their local dialect, "love-in-idleness", somewhat akin to a lesser scare-quoting. It really has to be retained as-is in the originals. One can make a case that the hyphenation is a modern spelling trend, however, and that without it the name of the flower is less recognisable as a single unit: think of forget-me-nots and the like. If I'm to retain the comma and the capitalisation, I feel as though I should at least have my hyphenation, and so that I will. (@@ gloss of idleness)

Fetch me that flower: the herb I shew'd thee once.

The quaro version spells "me" as "mee". The real feature of this line is, the wonderful spelling "shew'd" instead of "showed". The MIT version amazingly retains it, and I very much agree: it's fine to the modern eye, and a treasure of a word. The quarto version uses a colon and a full stop here, the MIT version a semi-colon and a colon, and the folio version a semi-colon and a comma. The folio seems most in error, and therefore the quarto punctuation is preferred.

The juice of it, on sleeping eye-lids laid,

A normalisation of "juice" aside, we here wonder whether "eye-lids" should be hyphenated as in the folio, or unhyphenated as a normalisation of "eyeliddes" as in the quarto. The MIT version hyphenates here, and I concur. The MIT version also doesn't trail this line with a comma, but the quarto and folio versions do, and so it's retained.

Will make or man or woman madly dote

This is the third line that doesn't require any editing apart from indentation, and yet it is a cautionary tale since it is often erroneously edited! The use of the initial "or" is often bought into question and taken to be an error, hence "a" is substituted. When I asked Jon Hanna about this, he replied that "or" may also mean "either" archaically, and there is certainly a semantic distinction between "a man or woman" and "either man or woman". Since "either" does not fit the metre, "or" must be retained. On Google in July 2004, the version of the line with "or" gave 306 results on Google, whereas the incorrect version of the line with "a" gave 32 results.

Upon the next live creature that it sees.

Here, only spelling normalisations are required.

Fetch me this herb, and be thou here again,

The full space has been reinstated that was missing from the folio, and spellings normalised. In the MIT version, a semi-colon is used, but the quarto and folio agree on a comma. The quarto omits the trailing comma, for once, but in irony and style I include it here: the MIT version does likewise.

Ere the Leviathan can swim a league.

Only spelling normalisations and indentation are needed here. The MIT version doesn't capitalise "Leviathan", yet it does capitalise "Cupid".

Puck

I'll put a girdle round about the earth,

In forty minutes.

Ile has been normalised to "I'll". These interesting two lines are represented as a single prose line in the folio, breaking the iambic pentameter by removing the word "round" which is spelled as "roûd" in the quarto. Even the quarto doesn't break this up into two lines, and adds in a comma after "girdle", but it seems obvious that if the iambic pentameter is there then a line should be made out of it. This is one of the most famous lines from the play, so it's surprising that it's one of the few that the folio and quarto are so incredibly inconsistent on as to not even agree on whether it's prose or poetry!

Note that throughout, the style of the text, the meaning, has not entered any of the choices, and yet the result is a fairly balanced text with both style, archaicness, and readability: