I selected the first two available printings of Romeo and Juliet, STC 22322 and STC 22323, under the (slightly misguided) impression that the oldest printings may be the most reliable. As my third text, I chose the 1623 folio of Shakespeare’s comedies, histories, and tragedies, because it is well-renowned. I came to understand that there were two avenues by which I could create an edition. First, I could rely on whichever text I decided to use for the base text, assigning it the most authority, and make changes only when the two other texts had consistent differences that did not significantly alter meaning and made the text more easily understood. Second, I could pull from all three texts easily, choosing the punctuation and phrases that most matched my understanding of the text. It was tempting to create a cohesive edition that reinforced my personal interpretation of the scene, but I decided to prioritize authenticity. I realized that if I subjectively chose details from each printing based on what I thought to be most fitting, I would be augmenting my notions, and potentially limiting other readings of the text. I decided to use the first available printing, STC 22322, as my base text, somewhat arbitrarily. Although I did not have a definitive method for demonstrating that STC 22322 was significantly more reliable or accurate than the other two texts I referenced, assigning a base text limited my ability to unintentionally manipulate my edition to reinforce my interpretations. I believe any of the three texts I consulted could have been used as a base text and it is interesting to consider the differences in punctuation and word choice that would result from designating a different base text. As a student, I enjoy close reading texts and making interpretations based on small details, such as the intentionality behind punctuation. In Renaissance literature, certain elements of the text, such as punctuation, cannot be taken for granted because there is significant fluctuation across printings. It is impossible to distinguish which punctuation choices were intentional and which were modified according to the preferences of a given printer.
Another challenge I encountered when creating my edition was deciding when to draw the line in terms of normalizing spelling. Ultimately, I decided to normalize the letters “s” and “v” and modernize spellings if they appeared modernized in the two other texts I consulted. While I certainly did not want to eliminate the use of 17th-century vocabulary, I believe having a streamlined text can help readers to focus on the content rather than deciphering the meaning of words from abnormal spellings. There were a couple changes that appeared in both of my secondary texts (STC 22323 and STC 22273), but not STC 22322, that I felt compelled to add into my edition of the text. For example, my two secondary texts occasionally replaced the word “that” with the word “thy”. In line 16 of STC 22322, the text reads, “And for that name which is no part of thee,” whereas in the other two texts it reads “thy name”. I decided to leave the word “that” because I believe it emphasizes Juliet’s point about a name being rather impersonal. Conversely, in line 28 of STC 22322, the text reads, “Of that tongues utterance, yet I know the sound:”. I decided to change “that” to “thy” in line 28, siding with STC 22323 and STC 22273, because it seemed more consistent with the rest of text, which associated physical being with belonging to oneself more than a name.
I also found it challenging to decide how to handle instances in which the same line appeared in both of my secondary texts, but not the base text. For example, line 7 particularly reinforces the idea that a name is distinct from a person’s character: “Thou art thy selfe, though not a Montague”. While I wanted to include the line because I personally believe it is fitting with the overall theme of the scene, I felt that it was most appropriate to acknowledge its origin. Therefore, I placed the line in brackets and provided a footnote explaining that the enclosed line did not appear in the first available printing but appeared in two later variations. By distinguishing the line from the rest of the text, I am attempting to allow readers the opportunity to consider the meaning of the passage both with and without the modifications present in later printings of Romeo and Juliet. I decided to handle all additions of text in this manner, except for one. Line 9, in STC 22322 reads, “Nor arme, nor face”, but the other two printings I consulted add the phrase “nor any other part”. The line seemed to be incomplete without the final clause, so I opted to include this in my edition without brackets. I compared my choices to The Pelican edition of Romeo and Juliet after completing my personal edition. I was interested to learn that The Pelican edition included the additional lines that appeared in STC 22323 and STC 22273 but there was no reference to their lack of existence in the oldest available printing. These additional lines significantly strengthen the argument that Romeo and Juliet attempts to place a distinction between birthright, status, and identity. I was torn between allowing readers the most complete available reading and reinforcing a certain reading of the text—I believe alerting readers to the existence of multiple printings helps readers to understand the history of the text and its limitations.