Finding Meaning in the Glossary
I will say with full transparency that the edition creation and editorial rationale components of the editing project were a learning experience. I approached the assignment with enthusiasm and interest in putting my “spin” on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. What I have come to realize is my “spinning” of the text was not the objective of the assignment, regardless of the shift in appearance or impact of the language. The goal of this essay is to identify the challenges I faced, the realizations I made through the process, and the reflections I see after the fact.
After reading through the compilation of editions, it was hard finding a place to start editing – this was the first challenge I faced. Editors made the most changes in spelling and capitalization, with numerous punctuation changes as well. I felt like this was the grounding I needed to advance, so I started “spinning” the emphasis of statements and stanzas with capitalization switches. The most notable changes in punctuation came from an Eighteenth-Century adaptation of the text, where exclamation points are placed as breaths or breaks between a list of identifiers. The punctuation changes I made, such as replacing a colon with a question mark, were inspired by the Eighteenth-Century adaptation with grounding in the tonal shifts of the lines.
A notable punctuation change I enforced was in line ten, where I replaced the colon with a question mark. I believe the active questioning in Mercutio’s lines changes the tone in the reflection of his friend, Romeo. I appreciate the natural pause a question presents, and there was a unique opportunity to “play” with the sounds of the line, emphasizing a literal rhyme with the confines of “rhyme” and “satisfied,” originally “ryme” and “fatisfi’d.” I faced difficulty finding reasoning for the punctuation changes, as they weren’t always directly referenced. However, I found brainstorming the changes enjoyable, though equally tricky.
I also spent some time comparing my edition to the one we have been referencing in class – The Pelican edition – and noticed larger deletions on the page in the edition we have been reading. I deleted some words and even replaced a few words, but I am now aware that these changes were more on the adaptation side rather than on the editorial side. One addition I made was “mesmerized by his” in line four of my selected scene, Act II, Scene 1. The rationale for this change was to redefine Romeo’s love for Juliet, branching toward this sense of distraction. I believe this addition also displays Juliet’s control over Romeo’s eyes and intentions. He becomes “mesmerized” by her and will settle for nothing until his love is his. Accompanied by the language changes came the glossary section, where I attempted to highlight unique words that carried weight within the text.
I enjoyed selecting keywords and phrases, searching through the Oxford English Dictionary, and deciding between different definitions and connotations for my attached glossary. After receiving feedback from Professor MacConochie, I realized I did not execute fully on the glossary section. I identified keywords and phrases, but I also failed to list the critical information – the origin of the definition, the year it was defined, and my reasoning, for example. One example that comes to mind is the word “Blind” in line thirty-three, described as “to plunge without regard to the risks involved.” Blind is inherited from the Germanic, with this definition coming from 1840. The reasoning for highlighting “Blind” is to combine Benvolio’s statement about darkness with avoidance of risk.
Romeo is pursuing love blindly and has no conception of the risks he is soon to face. The irony of blindness and darkness surfaces in the line, where Romeo cannot see his fate ahead of Juliet’s distracting love. I believe the glossary section was displayed well through the footnotes but lacked critical information for readers to digest and follow. To better assist this effort, including a “line-by-line” breakdown of the editorial additions and deletions would be wise; perhaps including this in the “notes” section of the piece.
I learned a lot through this process and even found myself interconnecting the courses I am currently enrolled in – Renaissance Medicine and Literature and Shakespeare and Film. I included weather in my edited scene and now realize this was a stage direction rather than an editorial addition. I believe the inclusion of elements can reinforce the emotions in the scene, but this “edit” had no grounding in the assignment or the scene. I felt that the addition of rain would change the understanding of the text, carrying a sense of urgency to find shelter from the rain – reaching here but maybe to find peace and security in a relationship fueled by love, undisturbed by natural elements? I aim to explore the interpretive dance of defining terms in the next component of this project, where I will challenge myself to both redefine and refute current definitions in some of the editions. The biggest challenge I see myself facing is getting lost in the details while trying to define them.