'So rare a wondered father and a ____"

[shaxper]

The Tempest, Act IV, Scene I, line 124.  

There's been much debate recently about whether the last word in the line contains an f or a long s, making the sentence either "So rare a wondered father and a wife" or "so rare a wondered father and a wise".   Though it appears to be a long s, the mark in the middle of the long S's stem seems to stray farther and farther in some copies of the folio, suggesting it's simply an f with a stray mark from the printing press.  

Some editors have argued that this line changes the entire meaning of the play, making Ferdinand's marriage more to Prospero than to Miranda, as if she were more a piece of property than a love interest.  This would take away from the romantic scenes she and Ferdinand share together earlier, and suggest that perhaps Ferdinand simply saw a pretty girl, saw the wonders and powers of her father, and hoped to gain both for himself.  Obviously, their ensuing marriage and, perhaps, the entire ending of the play would then be problematic at best.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this argument (or that I'm repeating it well), but I found it fascinating that a single mark could change the meaning of an entire play for some people.  What are your thoughts on this issue?  Does the passage have any impact upon the play, and if so, what impact do you see it as having?

[Bardolph]

I argue vehemently against any reduction of Miranda's status in this play.  I think that 'wise' is the proper term.  The Tempest is the only play for which WS's stage directions and punctuation appear to be of his original design.  It was also among the most recent in memory by Hemmings and Condell when they set to work on The Folio.  It's placement as First in the Folio may be a testament to it's fame and excellence.  

There can be no reducing Miranda to the level of property.  The coming marriage of Ferdinand and Miranda is clearly meant to foreshadow the reconciliation of the north and south of the Italian Peninsula, represented by Naples and Milan.  Miranda's superior education is very much a component of the 'ideal monarchy to come.'  Even the fact that she plays chess with Ferdinand at the end suggests an intelligence uncharacteristic of literature of the period.  Consider also that the late romantic plays represent a dramatic transformation in the depiction of women.  Contrast Paulina from WT with any other female in WS and you'll see what I mean.  Miranda is pure of heart, but she is purposefully depicted as a formidable intellectual presence.  

Ferdinand falls victim to the powerful symbolism of the masque.  In doing so, he takes the first step toward marriage, acceptance of his fiance's family as his own.  This same traditional acceptance is echoed by Alonso as the power of the coming nuptials falls on his heart.  "I am hers.  But O, how oddly will it sound, that I must ask my child forgiveness."  (5.1.200 Oxford).  

Each father is the parent of both members of the happy couple.  It was the pattern and custom of the day and it is echoed in the dramatic structure within the play.  

It is important to note that the conflict between Naples and Milan is reference to a very real conflict that divided Italy.  National unity was a theme of exploration for WS and here he approaches it in a manner traditional for the E/J mind.  He does this by solving the problem with a rare, excellent and timely marriage between two young people of rare virtue and education.  The knowledge gained in his 'library dukedom' is now effectively passed on to the world after first having been passed on directly to Miranda.  

[Bardolph]

One other thing.  With WS, we know that special meaning is attached to moments of verse that take place at points of great meaning.  This is an example of that device.  The pageant that Ferdinand has just witnesses leaves him awestruck.  It is a pageant of the unities.  This experience of the unities knocks down any possible barriers between Ferdinand and Prospero and erases the possibly negative memory of the trials that Ferdinand has endured.   We are meant to see Ferdinand as transformed in this moment.  It is this snippet of verse that tells us that the symbolic enchantment has worked.  

[shaxper]

I think I have to agree with you, Bardolph.  I find it hard to dismiss the passion of Ferdinand's impulsive words to Miranda, nor the sheer magesty of the fairie show and it's awe-inspiring affect on Ferdinand.  I also believe that this is a play in which marriage resolves the play's problems, though I still wonder if Prospero is mistaken in discarding his magic and placing his trust in those who wronged him again.  


Still, the marriage, as well as Prospero's final relinquishment of his staff and powers, resolve the larger tension of the play which, for me, is Prospero's obsessive control issues, probably stemming from his loss of control when his Dukedom was usurped.  It seems evident in his dealing with every other character in the play, from Ferdinand and Alonso to Caliban, Ariel, and even Miranda.  

Still, I find the argument surrounding the f/long s fascinating.  As I said, it's a true feat in criticism to make a convincing argument for an entirely new look at a Shakespeare play based upon one stray mark in the original folio.

[Bardolph]

Arguments over trivia always abound in a 'publish or perish' world.  There are so many untouched aspects of theme and structure that could be tackled.  There are so many things yet to be discovered.  Whoever came up with that needs to disregard the whole world of Shakespearean structure just to have something about which to write.  

[shaxper]

Well I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that.  If I were to take a shot in the dark guess, I'd say that your college education either took place prior to the 1970s or that you were trained at a conservative University.  The reason I say so is that I think a major change in general perspective has taken place in much of the academic world since then (which, as an educator, I'm sure you're aware of).  While in the past, criticism tended to view literature as containing clearer, more certain messages, many of the baby-boomer academics who spent their college years occupying administrative buildings and recognizing a less certain world with less certain politics began to approach literature with a more certain view that authors were less certain.  A bit ironic, but astute, nonetheless.  My education has come predominantly from this "new school of doubt", in which I've been trained to recognize the potential for uncertain endings and problematic twists.  I don't think that this viewpoint ignores the whole world of Shakespearean structure, but rather attempts to understand the author who created the strucuture as more human and, thus, more problematic and aware of the problematic nature of the universe.  Neither school of thought is necessarily right.  I find both interesting.  The larger the diversity of opinion, the more to be learned, I suppose.

[shaxper]

I just reread my last post and realized that it could be taken as confrontational or insulting.  I just want to clarify that it was not intended in that way.  I was simply trying to illuminate the differences in approaches to Shakespeare that seemed to be relevant here.  B, I didn't mean to attack your viewpoint (or your education, if it came off that way).  If my last post didn't sound offensive, then I apologize for wasting your time with this one.  If it did, then I'm sorry, and I assure you that it was not intended in that way.

[Bardolph]

No apology is necessary in either case.  My college education was early 80's at a decidedly non-conservative institution.  I was a music/philosophy and comparative religions major.  What conservative values I may have are my own.  I do not subscribe to the theory that conservative students are produced by conservative schools and that it is vice versa for liberal students.  I'm not an educator.  

Getting back to my point, it was just that there are a great many people publishing inquiries into minutia who would better serve the world by tackling real issues.  It is an extraordinary waste of time and resources for someone to suggest an alteration of an entire play based on a single letter.  This is particularly true when the crushing weight of the play's structure argues so strongly against such a haphazard question.  

[shaxper]

No apology is necessary in either case.

Good to hear.


My college education was early 80's at a decidedly non-conservative institution.  I was a music/philosophy and comparative religions major.  What conservative values I may have are my own.

I apologize for having assumed otherwise. 


I do not subscribe to the theory that conservative students are produced by conservative schools and that it is vice versa for liberal students.

Excellent point.  I do think a person's education does frame how they are taught to approach a text, but that approach is certainly not fixed in stone nor unammendable.  


I'm not an educator.  

My mistake.  I'd thought you'd explained that your home site was mostly devoted to helping your students, when, in fact, you had just said "students".  In the non-traditional way, I do consider you an educator, for what it's worth, but I suppose that's beside the point.

Getting back to my point, it was just that there are a great many people publishing inquiries into minutia who would better serve the world by tackling real issues.  It is an extraordinary waste of time and resources for someone to suggest an alteration of an entire play based on a single letter.  This is particularly true when the crushing weight of the play's structure argues so strongly against such a haphazard question.  

Though I've already stated that I disagree with the particular theory, the reason it is able to transform the entire play is because it brings to light and may partially confirm another reading of the play.  Of course, there is no one right way to read Shakespeare.  So if the text is already open enough that Miranda could be viewed as a piece of property which Prospero manipulates for the sake of resolving his own affairs (which is supported by the text, to some degree) then the ambiguous letter might be the one clue in the play that explicitly verifies this reading (though this is where I disagree).  It's not a matter of the one letter reinventing the play, but rather lending support to other readings that already existed but may not have had a strong argument going for them until that moment.

[Harry]

First, let me say that I agree with the general conclusion here that the correct word is "wise." "Wife" seems an unlikely reading on the face of it, and the claimed interpretation seems, to me, stretching. Heminges and Condell edited most carefully at the beginning of the Folio, and The Tempest is the beneficiary.

I also agree that that a person can be an educator without actually formally teaching. In fact, I knew that Bardolph, though he is a great educator in the wider sense, does not follow a profession normally associated with literature. What surprized me was that comparative religion education. I can only hope that my various musings on Shakespeare and religion didn't come across as too naive.