The Editorial Problems of William Shakespeare’s Plays
Unveiling the Editorial Challenges within Shakespeare's Masterpieces
Editorial Challenges: Deciphering Shakespeare's Textual Maze
William Shakespeare’s plays abound in difficulties of reading and interpretation. These mainly arise from printing errors. When such misprints are apparent, the problem or difficulty is not so acute but very often whole phrases and even sentences become the victims of such printer’s devil making them unintelligible even to the learned and erudite. Moreover, the plays were originally meant for performances and not for printing, having served as scripts for actors and not texts for a reading public. Shakespeare also did not edit his own works as did Ben Jonson, which in fact rendered possible variations in reading thus aggravating the editorial difficulties. Pirated editions of Shakespeare’s works and the vagaries of unscrupulous shorthand reporters of Shakespeare’s plays further complicate the matter.
It is here that the function of an editor comes into play for he has to cleanse the mess to arrive at a readable text in good print. The editor has to collect or compare the various available texts and make additions and alterations for presenting the text in an intelligent form to the reader. Needless to say, the editors are men of high erudition and in most cases noted Shakespearean scholars.
Challenges in Shakespearean Texts: Editing and Authorship
Shakespeare’s first editors were his friends and fellow-actors, Hemminge and Condell, who claimed as the first definitive edition free from the frauds and stealthiest of
unreliable Quartos. Three more Folios, all by editors unknown, came out by 1685
(the date of the Fourth Folio). Rowe brought out his edition in 1709, Pope in
1725, Theobald in 1733, Hanmer in 1744, Warburton in 1747, Dr. Johnson in 1765,
Capell in 1768, Steevens in 1773, Malone in 1790. The three Variorum editions
came out between 1803 and 1821.
 |
| Shakespeare |
The constant endeavor of
the editors has been to find out and present correct texts of the poet’s works.
Until very recently, be original texts, be they Folio or Quarto, were not much
valued. The Elizabethan printers were assumed to be ignorant men unable to produce
correctly the copy before them and such an edited text was preferred to an
available original. In the absence of a play manuscript used by a printer and
none such of Shakespeare remains, the next important text is that printed
directly from the manuscript. However, a later edition revised by the author
himself may provide a better text. In fact, it sometimes happened with
Shakespeare whose second Quarto of hamlet (1604) was most possibly printed from
Shakespeare’s manuscript copy, the first Quarto (1603) having been a bad
pirated edition. Constant reprints also lead to variation in reading in
subsequent editions. There is no need, however, to assure that Elizabethan
printers were all ignoramuses, which in fact they were not. In fact,
Elizabethan method of printing differed in principles from ours and modern editors
have taken due note of that. Revision and collaboration are regular features in
Elizabethan plays and Shakespeare’s plays also show signs of many alterations.
Scholars generally agree
that some parts of Macbeth ( Bloody Sergeant’s speech and Hecate scene) are not
by Shakespeare. Unevenness in King John is explicable by collaboration alone.
Another problem consists of the fact that sometimes play manuscripts were
copied out by professional copyists to cater to the demands of literary
gentlemen for such copies in their personal libraries. A good deal of confusion
and errors could ensue in the process of such copying.
The Evolution of Shakespearean Textual Analysis
From the maze of
problems and difficulties narrated earlier, the editors tried to discern the
perfect texts of Shakespeare. It was a difficult task to which editors,
particularly those of the eighteenth century, gave much patient labour along
with greater erudition and scholarship. Their main weapon was collation (comparison)
of different texts and from Rowe to Capell it is broadly a history of textual
examination. Rowe also wrote the first life of Shakespeare. Pope based his
edition on Rowe’s text. Theobald was a great Shakespeare scholar, who collated
Quartos and made many brilliant emendations. Both Hanmer and Warburton worked
from Theobald’s text, although Hanmer added something from and Warburton
maligned him. Dr. Johnson based his text on Warburton’s but added nothing of
value except his splendid preface. Capell was the first to realize the value
and importance ot’ the Quartos, which he collected and collated. Malone
supported him ably. They accepted some and rejected others. It was left for
Pollard in the twentieth century to name the accepted Quartos as good and
rejected ones as Bad Quartos.
Pioneering Scholars: Unraveling Shakespeare's Origins and Order
Learning and erudition
are necessary adjuncts of a free editor. Capell typifies this, being the first
of the great Shakespearean scholars, learned not only in the collation of
Quartos but interested deeply in the sources of Elizabethan stage and literature, His work in these fields was ably carried on by Steevens and
Malone, Particularly the search for Original material. Steevens who used
Johnson’s text, brought out an edition in 1778 containing a mass of new
materials. Malone is just famous for his great attempt to ascertain the order in
which Shakespeare’s plays were written. He was again the first to write the
history of the Elizabethan stage and is the pioneer in this direction which had
its grand fruition in E. K. Chamber’s monumental four volumes Elizabethan Stage;
He is also sometimes called the first true biographer of Shakespeare, the
accounts of Rowe being dismissed as anecdotal and exaggerated.
Nineteenth-Century Renaissance of Shakespearean Criticism: Aesthetic Criticism Takes Flight
Although Malone is a
landmark in verbal criticism, he and along with him the editors of the
eighteenth century were too much engrossed first in Shakespeare’s texts and
then in his theatre, life and times. They missed his great poetry. As a matter
of fact, the first two Variorum Editions do not even print the poem. Malone
himself lacked sharp imaginative sensitivity and delicate responsiveness
without which aesthetic criticism cannot grow. Steevens lacked them still more
so that Malone had to defend Venus and Adonis and the sonnets against the
attack of Steevens. Aesthetic criticism had to wait till nineteenth century
when Coleridge and Hazlitt appeared on the scene to launch the glorious age of
aesthetic evaluation. There were many editions of Shakespeare’s works in the
nineteenth century of which the most valuable and important are Cambridge
Shakespeare o’ Clark, Glover and Wright (1863) and the New Variorum of H. H.
Furness(1871).
Navigating the Artistic Challenges of Editing Shakespeare in 20th Century
In twentieth century the
most famous editions are the Yale, Arden, New Arden and New Cambridge. We have
observed the various editorial problems and how editors have tried to tackle
them. A modern editor also faces some peculiar problems especially when he
tries to produce an edition for the common reader. He cannot follow the
principles of Elizabethan printing which may lead to awkward mistakes. Yet
there is much of value in punctuation and stage direction and in the use of
free verse in the original Elizabethan texts, which should not be missed. The
editor, therefore, has to compromise both printing and in matters of
arrangement. The default can be highlighted by referring to Shakespeare’s short
lines appearing in the midst of blank verse. Hitherto editors have tried to
solve the riddle by simply joining them to make complete blank verse lines and
so re-arranging the rest of the speech. But such devices of editors do not
always succeed to solve the problem as when they fail to rearrange the lines
finally and are compelled to leave a broken line at the end. A close study,
however, proves the earlier editors as wrong in that it is clear that
Shakespeare very often wrote in a free verse and that he used short lines for
specific purposes such as laying emphasis etc. Much of Macbeth and some parts of Antony
and Cleopatra are written in a rhythmic free verse, a bit different from formal
blank-verse. These are the difficulties and problems for the modern editor who
has to exercise his own judgment after all to extricate himself out of thee
difficulties. He must build his own principles and follow them intelligently
expecting either praise or punishment as befell his predecessors. He is not a
scientist and there is no fool-proof solution to the besetting problems that Shakespeare
texts offer in abundance. He is an artist editing the works of the supreme
artist of literature and editing Shakespeare, in the words of G. B. Harrison,
‘is, indeed, more of an art than a science.”
Conclusion
The editorial problems surrounding William Shakespeare's plays have posed significant challenges for editors throughout the twentieth century and beyond. In this ever-evolving landscape of Shakespearean scholarship, the modern editor must forge their path, aware that their decisions may elicit both praise and criticism, just as their predecessors experienced. The quest to produce faithful, engaging editions of Shakespeare's plays remains an ongoing pursuit, a testament to the enduring legacy and brilliance of the Bard.
Posts
Comments
Post a Comment
Drop any query, suggestion or comment here.