Shakespeare’s Cymbeline is an excellent comedic tale that has been preserved over numerous years. However, that preservation birthed different editions in different centuries which expectedly don’t look the same. You would think that the formatting of the play would stay the same, no matter how many editions it went through, but obviously, that is not the case.
In the 17th-century version of Cymbeline, these changes can be seen initially from how the pages are formatted. Instead of the uniformed way that the 2014 version of Cymbeline, from The Complete Works of Shakespeare, is set up, the words are jumbled together, and the dialogues are not separated by spaces to clearly distinguish which character. While I know that the page that I’m referencing is the first page of 5.4, it still represents how differently each version is.
Another difference to note is how one text is bilingual and the other is not. The 17th-century version has stage directions, the scene title, and some lines written in Italian. They’re basic translations and some are easy to understand, but it is obvious that this text was written for a bilingual audience. Whereas the 2014 version is only in English.
In the 2014 version, the editor includes footnotes at the bottom that include descriptions, definitions, and contexts of certain words like “leg” which is described as “one who does the walking” and “location” which is described as a “British prison” (The Complete 1517). However, the 17th-century version does not include any footnotes, editor notes, or explanations. I thought that it might, especially since it is bilingual, but it doesn’t have them at all, which I found really surprising. The 17th-century version honestly makes me assume that it was expected that you knew Italian and English while you read; you had to have some prior linguistic knowledge it seems since there were no translation notes. The English used is a bit older and a bit more confusing in this version as well.
Another difference that I wanted to point out was that the characters’ names are abbreviated in the 17th-century version, but in the 2014 version they are fully displayed. If the 17th-century version was used in the present, we would have other versions and editorial notes to understand it, but without all of the proper tools, this version wouldn’t be as helpful as the 2014 version. Something similar that both versions display, however, is the stage direction after Posthumus sleeps then solemn music plays while Sicilius, Mother, and First Brother enter as apparitions. While the writing is hard to read in the 17th-century version, it is still written with the same importance that it is written with in the 2014 version. Both versions also include the descriptions of who these characters are to Posthumus. The 17th-century version is pretty, but the 2014 version is easier to read.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. Cymbeline. Internet Shakespeare Editions, edited and printed by Isaac Jaggard and Edward Blount, first folio, University of Victoria, 1623, https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/901/index.html. Accessed 7 Apr. 2022.
Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of Shakespeare, edited by David Bevington, Library of Congress, vol. 7, 2004, p. 1517.