Text Editing

[shaxper]

I find it incredibly depressing to read about how editors have chosen to alter Renaissance dramas (usually printed on the first pages of a book).  It's amazing what liberties they'll decide to take, whether altering spelling, ommitting lines, or changing words to fit an "intended" meter, adding stage directions, or imposing the five act structure.  I understand that this was originally done because most Renaissance drama sources are incomplete, but it seems to have gone a bit too far.   Maybe these editors are correct.  Maybe they have captured a truer essence of these plays then was available in the original sources, but wouldn't their ideas about author intention be better suited for criticism than editing?  Who are they to say "this is how it was" and make sure that the English speaking world reads their interpretation of these plays?  I agree that these texts often need a little help (and they've gotten some bad help from Renaissance editors that often needs correcting), but then I at least feel that the plays, as they originally appeared, should be more readily available as well, rather than simply substituted.  As it stands, viewing the original folio versions of Shakespeare's plays requires paying $40 for the only in-print edition that uses these versions, and seeing the original quarto versions requires special permission from the Folger Library.

[Ganymede]

Perhaps the editors were trying to make it more accessible to the public.  Also, a lot of the original manuscripts are hard to make out-- a lot of decisions had to and have to be made about what word the author intended.  But I agree that the originals should be more accessible.  What I'm wondering is whether the originals are better or worse than the edited versions.  But then, if the editor's version is better, who's really the author?  

It's a rather complicated issue, one that is dealt with legally today in copyright laws-- which may protect the author, but which also may have hindered the creation of works that "borrowed" subjects of earlier literature.  Then, the author creates a work which may be tampered with in the editing process.  So what you end up with is a multi-layered work that has its source among many different people.  One guy gets all the credit, but he's really indebted to so many other people.  It's interesting.  What makes an author an author?  Where do you draw the line?  

[shaxper]

Many good points there.

I haven't had the privilage of viewing any original source material, other than faccimilies of Shaky's First Folio.  Having gone through much of that, I find that the contributions of modern editors has made the plays easier to follow (spelling, stage directions, 5 Act Structure), but have done little else to help it.  The plays are understandable in their original forms, and making interpretations for Shakespeare (i.e. whether a word contains an F or a long S) can sometimes drastically alter the meaning of a play (In The Tempest, the choice of whether a single word is "wife" or "wise" completely changes how we view Ferdinand and how both he and Prospero view Miranda.  If I were at home, I'd point out the exact line).  

In cases where the Folio and Quarto seem to both include portions that the other is lacking (i.e. Hamlet) it's valuable to see an editor attempt to consolidate the two versions, but I'd like to be able to read the originals too; just in case one version or the other is unreliable (as Quartos, especially, often were).  The editors may be right in ruling that one source or another is or isn't genuine, but let the reader make that final decision.  Include the popular opinion in a preface; don't altar and hide the original.

[shaxper]

shaxper said:

In cases where the Folio and Quarto seem to both include portions that the other is lacking (i.e. Hamlet) it's valuable to see an editor attempt to consolidate the two versions, but I'd like to be able to read the originals too; just in case one version or the other is unreliable (as Quartos, especially, often were).  The editors may be right in ruling that one source or another is or isn't genuine, but let the reader make that final decision.  Include the popular opinion in a preface; don't altar and hide the original.

Wow.  I guess Arden was listening  ;D