Page talk:Richard II (1921) Yale.djvu/115
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Sir Pierce of Ex-ton[edit]
@EncycloPetey: The "Ex-<br />ton" thing is jarring, and reflects the publisher's playing fast and loose with the typesetting (vs. editorial choice). This is prose (vs. verse), to signal a low-born character, so we don't need to worry about metre. Modern editions tend to break these lines after "Exton," and even capitalising the "Who" (e.g. the Folger). My call would be to put the line break thus: "Exton,<br />who". It changes no meaning, affects no rhyme or metre, and any line reference would be to the line where the name starts so it has no effect on that either. But it would be us "cheating" a bit so I wouldn't want to make that change unless you agree. --Xover (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- I thought the same at first, but count the line numbers and note the special indentation. The editor is preserving the original line structure. Because we're presenting the Yale Shakespeare edition, I chose to follow the editor's apparent intention. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- The First Folio and both the 1st and 2nd quartos have the break after "Exton,", so the editor is certainly not preserving any original here. It seems almost certain that this is the typesetter cheating because the indentation combined with the line number caused him to run out of space for the line. Since we're nowhere near to producing an actual diplomatic edition anyway (and I'm usually the first to argue in favour of preserving stuff in the original), I would argue that on balance we would do the greatest service to our readers by un-breaking the word. As previously mentioned, it will have no run-on effects on meaning, metre, or line numbering. --Xover (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- All three of those sources also present the passage as two lines, whereas the Yale edition makes it three. The line numbering would be altered if this text followed any of the three sources you've cited. On balance, I think it is encumbent upon us to preserve the oddity in the edition, because doing otherwise would affect any attempts to quote from it. We will have other editions (eventually). --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- The First Folio and both the 1st and 2nd quartos have the break after "Exton,", so the editor is certainly not preserving any original here. It seems almost certain that this is the typesetter cheating because the indentation combined with the line number caused him to run out of space for the line. Since we're nowhere near to producing an actual diplomatic edition anyway (and I'm usually the first to argue in favour of preserving stuff in the original), I would argue that on balance we would do the greatest service to our readers by un-breaking the word. As previously mentioned, it will have no run-on effects on meaning, metre, or line numbering. --Xover (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)