 | |  |
In recent years the question of editions has received increasing scholarly attention and there is still discussion as to which type — old-spelling, modern-spelling, photographic, facsimile or diplomatic reprint — is most appropriate for Elizabethan drama, in particular for Shakespeare.[1] In spite of the debate there is little doubt that modernized editions are still the most widely used, both by the general reader and the literary critic, and will probably continue to be so, perhaps even after the publication of the Oxford Old-Spelling Shakespeare. In these editions there is still a tendency, however, to allow editorial tradition from Rowe to Clark and Wright to outweigh the results of the new bibliography; in consequence, the principle of "full" or "complete" modernization[2] which should be their raison d'être is often affected. Even if one considers only those texts which avoid archaic forms not recognized by the OED, it is striking that there remains at least one group of words, the historical and significant names, which is never consistently subjected to the principle of modernization nor to any other editorial principle. A careful survey of these names reveals that the present textual situation can only be understood as the incomplete application of modern editorial principles in conflict with editorial tradition. Within this limited group of words it is of particular interest to examine the effects actually achieved as a result of this conflict.
In addition to the task of differentiating characters or places, the assigning of proper names in literary works has to take into account at least two further potential functions: historical identification and association. The function of historical identification may be attributed to all those names which exist beyond the literary work as historical realities and attain their fullest significance only in this connection, primarily the character and place-names[3] of Shakespeare's histories; the function of association belongs mainly to those names based on common nouns, significant names in the broadest sense, which are used especially for the minor characters of the comedies. In some cases the two functions may be intertwined as, for example, in Shakespeare's use of the historical place-name Venice to evoke among his contemporaries the idea of stern justice. Whether they occur frequently or only once, whether they figure prominently or occur in a side remark, historical and significant names always play an integral role in Shakespearean drama and cannot be neglected without some detriment to the reader's understanding.[4] If these names are to retain the important functions of identification and association in their original clarity, they should be modernized along with the text.
The modernization of proper names constitutes a problem whose extent is amply demonstrated by the fact that no two of the scholarly editions which have been published since the Cambridge Edition agree which names should be modernized or what orthography they should have.[5] A century has passed since Clark and Wright finished their task, yet no subsequent editor has developed or consistently applied a comprehensive principle. It seems that the Cambridge editors themselves did not concentrate their attention on an area which perhaps appeared minor to them. But even if each of their decisions could be justified in the light of 19th-century scholarship, results obtained using the methods of the new — and the "newer" — bibliography make their policy in determining the spelling of proper names appear haphazard and arbitrary. Neither those few editors who have faithfully preserved the orthography of the Cambridge Edition nor the larger group who have tried to emancipate themselves from this towering influence present solutions which are convincing in all cases. Though the principle of complete modernization of historical place-names and significant
| | |