When creating my own edition, I was actually surprised at the ease in which I was able to make these editorial choices. I’m an incredibly indecisive person, but for some reason the choices of what I should and shouldn’t include came easily to me because I kept in mind all throughout that I wanted to create an edition that best exemplified the dramaticness of the scene and gave readers the most literary techniques to analyze and work with. As for the dramaticness, my favorite choice was when I chose to end the 1609 edition’s addition of the em dash instead of a period. I used the em dash in an attempt to show the connectedness with the other parts of the play and to make it so that readers had to think about why the scene didn’t end altogether. Ending the monologue with the em dash gives readers the opportunity to view the cessation of his talking to when he first started, thus connected to the cyclical nature of this play.
Another instance of me opting for the more dramatic reading is when I titled my edition the 1597 title of “An Excellent Conceited Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet as it Hath been often (with Great Applause) Plaid Publiquely.” This title, while lengthy, I think best exhibits the overall dramaticness of the play, and also emphasizes the fact that this play is meant to be performed in front of an audience––the line “(with Great Applause)” really made me laugh when I first read it. Finally, I included the first two lines that were seen in the 1597 edition but not at all in the other two because it added an important element that I believe contributes to the idea that this play is meant to be publicly viewed. The other two editions had a sort of back-and-forth with the Prince before the Frier got into the meat of his monologue, but I chose to not include it because it shifts the focus to the Frier and what he has to say. If these two lines were not added and I therefore had allowed the Prince to speak in my edition, I believe that it would take agency and a sort of credibility away from the Frier.
Also, I used the 1597 edition in my line five because it puts Juliet’s name first and uses her to reference Romeo (“Ju’iet here slaine was married to that Romeo,” 1597), whereas the other editions put Romeo’s name first (“Romeo there dead, was husband to that Juliet, / And she there dead, that’s Romeos faithfull wife;” 1622). I like the agency that I felt this difference gave to Juliet. In line six, I used the 1597 version for the sole purpose of the word “grant” and its inherent reference to money and economic gain. The line reads that Juliet got married “Without her Fathers or her Mothers grant:” which I liked because of the idea of her family wanting Juliet to get married only because of the financial and social gain they could get out of it, which directly conflicts to Juliet’s desire to marry for love. Finally with this, I liked that this line specifically mentions that it was Juliet’s parents and not Romeo’s that did not grant the marriage because it further perpetuates the idea that Juliet is the main character here, and not the man.
Another of my favorite editorial decisions was when I added footnote number six, giving the definition of “Father.” I used the definition that in my eyes was the most dramatic because it asks the question of just what it means to be a father. For example, although Lord Capulet is Juliet’s biological father, he does not accept her the way that a father likely should. Due to this lack of acceptance, Lord Capulet was not at his daughter’s wedding, yet another father-figure was: the Frier. This asks the question of just what it means to be a father, and also the way that Juliet is held responsible by different competing authorities in her family, the church, and the rest of society. In line seven, I included the footnote definition of “Privie to” that was particularly secretive because I liked its dramaticness; this definition emphasizes how the Nurse was actively keeping the secret of their marriage from others.
On the topic of footnotes, I chose to speak more colloquially with my readers because I thought that this would be a fun, rather modern way to read an old text. Sometimes Shakespeare can be difficult to read and even harder to fully understand and analyze, so I thought that writing in my footnotes in a more fun way would make it easier and more enjoyable for my readers––almost like a Shmoop version of footnotes. One feature that I think would have made it more helpful for readers is if I could hyperlink each footnote in the text to go directly to the note so that readers wouldn’t have to scroll a bunch to get between the text and footnotes.