reading the 1609 text

[Martin]

A separate thread, by way of celebrating having posted the first 10% of the sonnets.



In the sonnet discussions, the merits of trying to read the text of the poems in their original 1609 form has come up several times, and we have occasionally presented them in both modern, and original, styles. I have been reluctant not to modernise the texts, because of the difficulties they then present to a modern reader. The poems are hard enough to read in themselves, without struggling with an archaic alphabet, spelling and punctuation. Even so, looking at the original versions is often very helpful, and the notes below are a quick guide to anyone wanting to do it. (David needs no guidance here!)

These comments apply to all of S's works, not just the sonnets, and indeed to most publications in English of the earler 17th century. (By the end of the century the rules had changed completely.) Sonnet 1, above, will be used for illustration.

The Alphabet

Letter s had two forms, the long form, ſ used at the beginning and before the end of words, and the short form, our modern s, used only at the ends of words. For example, faireſt, desiſe, ſhould, but his, eyes, lies. Note that ſ is not the same as f (letter F). The horizontal bar runs right though the F. With S it sticks out to the left only. A tiny difference, but if you can spot it it does make reading much easier.

There was no letter j. i was used instead, iudgement, iollitie for judgment, jollity etc.

There was no letter v. u was used instead, neuer, graue for never, grave etc. But at the beginning of a word, v was used for u, just as at the end of a word, s was used for ſ. So one sees vse, vndo, vsury, vnder and so on.

Ligatures

In quality printing, f is joined to the next letter in a single piece of type, fi, fl, fa, etc, as well as ffi, ffl etc. So was letter ſ. (Look for examples above in sonnet 1.) ct was also a ligature (line 5).

Spelling

By the end of the 17th century spelling had moved very close to its modern form, but it was still relatively irregular in S's lifetime. A particular oddity is the many words given a terminal e: heire, beare, selfe, owne, chorle, eate in this sonnet alone. This is a leftover from the Chaucerian period when terminal e was pronounced (unless followed by vowel or aspirated vowel), and when e endings were an important part of the inflexional grammar of Middle English. The Elizabethans inherited this spelling system, and did not wish to disturb it unduly. We are the same: knight is pronounced nite, and Chaucer's k- and -gh- sounds are lost, but we keep the spelling of the 14th century.

Apostrophe

The apostrophe was used to indicate letters (usually a single e) whose sound was to be omitted in reading. See Feeds't, line 6. But it was NEVER used as we use it today, to indicate the possessive (genetive case). So worlds is used for our world's twice in this sonnet. The apostrophe in a phrase like horses' hooves would have seemed ridiculous to the Elizabethans.

Italics and Capitals

These might be used for nouns of particular importance (a poetic personification for example). In the sonnets italicised words are used for proper names, especially of Roman gods (Cupid, Dian ...) unusual or Latinate words (Quietus, Audit ...), and things that were perhaps a bit strange for the compositors, or the readers.

Famously, sonnet 1 has Rose (italicised) on line 2. A proper name? An unusual usage? A hidden meaning? we will never know.

Punctuation

Question and exclamation marks, inverted commas and semicolon were not (generally) used. The main "stops" were comma, full-stop and colon. One could present the sonnets in modernised spelling but original punctuation, but that would sometimes trip the reader up who was expecting punctuation to conform to modern grammar in the same way that spelling conforms to modern orthography. For example, the line

And tender chorle makst wast in niggarding:

-- omits the commas that modern grammar requires round "tender churl", to tell us this is the person being adressed. In modern form,

And, tender churl, makest waste in niggarding.

It is best therefore not to mix old punctuation with modern spelling.

[Martin]

Sonnet 1 is tomorrow's post, by the way.

[Candy]

Wow, what a great breakdown. Very impressive.

thanks for sharing your time and hard work with us Martin!

[Martin]

Is the text as spelt and punctuated by Shakespeare?

The answer must be, at the least, not entirely. Compositors had their own slight habits of working, and this enables the different compositors working on a text to be identified. So the First Folio had at least four compositors, known to scholars as A, B, C and D. The sonnets of 1609 had two compositors, imaginatively called A and B, each with recognisable habits. So A uses "O" while B prefers "Oh", and so on. Clearly such details are down to the compositors, not to S himself. But apart from these details they may well have followed their manuscript closely. As to how closely opinions differ. Again, take Rose on line 2, italicised and with a capital letter. Does that follow S's handwriting, given that then, italicisation was not indicated by underlining, as today, but by switching to a different "italianate" style of handwriting? Katherine Duncan Jones, editing the Arden edition, thinks it does, and says,

"Setting up in italic required compositors to turn to another case of type, and there seems no great reason why Eld's men should have gone to this extra trouble unless they believed that this change of fount was required of them by their copy."

Colin Burrow, editing the Oxford edition, takes the opposite view,

"The metaphor beauty's rose (the fragile vehicle of beauty) was probably enough to make compositor A reach for his italics."

As with most aspects of the sonnets which are not baldly factual, the experts are in disagreement. (It would be interesting to know on which side of this argument our current readers place themselves.)

[DavidE]

Let me echo Candy's compliment on your hard work, Martin. You've summed up everything very, very precisely!

As for the problem of how to handle the 1609 spelling and punctuation, I'm afraid I'm of the view that it's better to read the original. From all that I've learned, it's simply impossible to say which way Shakespeare himself wanted it.

On an unrelated matter, is there a way to be notified when a new thread about the sonnets is posted? I know you post a new sonnet each Tuesday, but unfortunately I often forget this and don't think to check until the week's discussion is over.

[Candy]

David, if you look at the top right icons on the Goodreads page....you should see 5 icons. The far left icon, of a "bell" image...is a notification of posts in your groups.

There will be a red smaller dot on that icon....which when you click on it will show who and where someone has made a post/comment.

I also believe you can set the notifications on your Goodreads account to send you notifications on your phone...or in your email inbox.

Myself...I turned off the notifications on both my phone and email...because it usually made a noise at an inopportune moment like a meeting or a movie! I try to check in here at least every other day.

[Martin]

Thanks, Candy and David, but it would still be interesting to collect reader opinions on that one question, did S give "Rose" the capital letter and italicisation?

[DavidE]

Thanks Candy, but I know about the bell icon on the GoodReads pages. What I was hoping for was some way to be notified when a new thread is started--as is the case each week for the sonnets. My problem is that I don't usually check the site unless I get an email telling me someone has posted to one of the threads I'm following.

[DavidE]

As for the specific 'Rose' question in line 2, it appeals to me to think that both the cap and the italics were Shakespeare's choice, but I'm not sure where we would look for firm evidence. Do you have any idea when it first proposed that Southampton's family name was pronounced 'rosely'? If it were early enough, that might give some support to the argument.

The other angle one might investigate is the role of the compositors. Both Burrow and Duncan Jones are citing compositors for evidence of their conclusions, but I really have no idea what role the compositors played in the printing up of books. Do you know if there survive any contemporary accounts of compositors and what authority they had in changing the manuscript?

[Martin]

I think myself it's more a matter of judging the psychology of a diligent employee engaged in repetitive work! There must be studies of compositors' habits. For example some Henry VI bits in the 1st Folio were set copying the earlier quartos, which gives some data for evidence. I remember reading Wriothesley was pronounced "risely" in the 19th century. The idea that it was pronounced "rosely" was, I think, an invention of the Southamptonites.

Incidentally, this is not an area for researching through the internet, I have found (I mean the whole WH, Wriothesley, Rose, Rosely/Risely business). It attracts the Shakespeare crazies.

I like to think that those who claim Mr WH was William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke are the Hébertistes.

;-) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9...

[DavidE]

Yes, you're no doubt right that Duncan Jones and Burrow (do I have that name right?) are thinking in terms of psychology.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that "some Henry VI bits in the 1st Folio were set copying the earlier quartos." You don't think many parts of the 1st Folio were derived from the quartos?

As for the pronunciation of Wriothesley (and its orthographic varations?), I've mainly heard 'rizley,' but I don't recall ever seeing any reason given.

I'm sure the 'rosely' pronunciation is far more appealing to many readers of Shakespeare, including those convinced 'Shakespeare' is a pseudonym for Oxford or any of the other many candidates. In fact, I recall reading one such critic's contention that the second line of Sonnet 1 must refer to the Tudor rose and that Southampton was the illegitimate son of Elizabeth and Oxford. (This last was the plot line of a rather tedious 2011 movie called Anonymous, directed by Roland Emmerich.)

[Martin]

Yes . . . that's why you can't research it via the internet.

In setting Henry VI they followed a quarto on certain occasions (I don't recall which among the three plays this was), but why is a bit of a puzzle since they had MSS to follow as well. Perhaps they switched to the quarto when the MS was hard to read. This is known because the Folio repeats some of the quarto typographical errors. I don't think any other part of the 1st Folio got this treatment.

This is from the intro of Cairncross's Arden editions.