So the one that I remember off the top of my head is Hero's funeral in Much Ado About Nothing: there are certain lines in that scene that almost all editions attribute to Claudio. This only makes sense: these are lines about asking forgiveness and so on, and the whole POINT of the funeral is, of course, that Claudio is required to DO it in order to atone for what he did etc etc etc.
. . . .except none of the original sources attribute these lines to Claudio. He's THERE; he's on-scene. But the lines in the actual primary sources are given to Benedick.
Now as an editor you have to make a choice here. It doesn't seem like it makes sense for Benedick to say these lines (it's most of the beginning of this scene), because Benedick isn't the one who needs forgiveness? And we do have other instances where we have far more clear evidence that this kind of thing is a printer's error: there are a couple of cases where we've got multiple examples of the play that are all "good" copies/versions except that in one of them a line is attributed to someone it makes no sense to attribute it to, and we DEFINITELY have plenty of examples of printer's errors in all kinds of OTHER texts.
So it's PLAUSIBLE that this is a printer's error.
. . . but we don't HAVE any other copies of this particular play. So we have no actual evidence for that. All we have is the fact that it's a bit weird that Benedick would be saying these things instead of Claudio.
The prof that first pointed this out went on to note, however, that it's only weird if you're supposed to see Claudio as a sympathetic and "heroic" character; if you're NOT supposed to see him as kinda shallow and kind of a dick, if you're supposed to see his about-turn on the topic of Hero after her death as genuine remorse. If that's what Shakespeare MEANT you to see, if you assume that, then sure: it makes most sense that this is a printer's error and you reassign these lines to Claudio, who clearly means them.
. . . but that's not the only way to read Claudio, and Shakespeare isn't always inclined to portray his "heroes" in the best light. Claudio IS shallow enough to throw Hero off on the strength of a rumour from someone he doesn't even like or supposedly trust, and without any internal conflict about it, and moreover to do so in public in as cruel a way as possible, because it offends HIM that he might not have a pure bride.
Moreover one of the problems that's really solved by this funeral rite and so on is the conflict between Claudio and Benedick. At this point in the play, they're bound by military brotherhood and comradeship and friendship, but Beatrice has also issued her ultimatum to Benedick: if you love me, you'll do what I CAN'T and make Claudio pay for what he's done to my cousin ("oh God that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the marketplace").
And reluctantly, he's agreed to do it. The revelation of the whole deception and lie saves Benedick from having to duel his friend as much as it saves anyone else: he's proved himself a worthy suitor for Beatrice (choosing her and her righteous cause over Claudio and his shallowness), and now he's saved from having to (probably, because he's a better soldier/fighter) kill his younger friend. Therefore it's extremely in HIS interests to chivvy Claudio through this whole thing.
We have no other evidence, but who you assign these lines to is going to affect how Claudio is portrayed: is he penitently going through this ritual of apology to Hero's supposed ghost, or is he silently waiting for someone else to get on with it so he can LOOK like he's doing this (so as not to be in conflict with his buddy and, you know, look like a heartless asshole to everyone else in the world) and Benedick is the one prodding him thru, and doing a bunch of it on his behalf?
As an editor, you have to make that decision - and most editions not only decide to give the words to Claudio, they don't even footnote it. Heck even some editions of the First Folio in the original spelling (but as a newly typset thing, rather than a facsimile aka a direct image-copy) "correct" the line attribution without saying.
If you're not lucky with your undergrad profs you don't find this shit until deep into grad seminars, if then. XD
no subject
. . . .except none of the original sources attribute these lines to Claudio. He's THERE; he's on-scene. But the lines in the actual primary sources are given to Benedick.
Now as an editor you have to make a choice here. It doesn't seem like it makes sense for Benedick to say these lines (it's most of the beginning of this scene), because Benedick isn't the one who needs forgiveness? And we do have other instances where we have far more clear evidence that this kind of thing is a printer's error: there are a couple of cases where we've got multiple examples of the play that are all "good" copies/versions except that in one of them a line is attributed to someone it makes no sense to attribute it to, and we DEFINITELY have plenty of examples of printer's errors in all kinds of OTHER texts.
So it's PLAUSIBLE that this is a printer's error.
. . . but we don't HAVE any other copies of this particular play. So we have no actual evidence for that. All we have is the fact that it's a bit weird that Benedick would be saying these things instead of Claudio.
The prof that first pointed this out went on to note, however, that it's only weird if you're supposed to see Claudio as a sympathetic and "heroic" character; if you're NOT supposed to see him as kinda shallow and kind of a dick, if you're supposed to see his about-turn on the topic of Hero after her death as genuine remorse. If that's what Shakespeare MEANT you to see, if you assume that, then sure: it makes most sense that this is a printer's error and you reassign these lines to Claudio, who clearly means them.
. . . but that's not the only way to read Claudio, and Shakespeare isn't always inclined to portray his "heroes" in the best light. Claudio IS shallow enough to throw Hero off on the strength of a rumour from someone he doesn't even like or supposedly trust, and without any internal conflict about it, and moreover to do so in public in as cruel a way as possible, because it offends HIM that he might not have a pure bride.
Moreover one of the problems that's really solved by this funeral rite and so on is the conflict between Claudio and Benedick. At this point in the play, they're bound by military brotherhood and comradeship and friendship, but Beatrice has also issued her ultimatum to Benedick: if you love me, you'll do what I CAN'T and make Claudio pay for what he's done to my cousin ("oh God that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the marketplace").
And reluctantly, he's agreed to do it. The revelation of the whole deception and lie saves Benedick from having to duel his friend as much as it saves anyone else: he's proved himself a worthy suitor for Beatrice (choosing her and her righteous cause over Claudio and his shallowness), and now he's saved from having to (probably, because he's a better soldier/fighter) kill his younger friend. Therefore it's extremely in HIS interests to chivvy Claudio through this whole thing.
We have no other evidence, but who you assign these lines to is going to affect how Claudio is portrayed: is he penitently going through this ritual of apology to Hero's supposed ghost, or is he silently waiting for someone else to get on with it so he can LOOK like he's doing this (so as not to be in conflict with his buddy and, you know, look like a heartless asshole to everyone else in the world) and Benedick is the one prodding him thru, and doing a bunch of it on his behalf?
As an editor, you have to make that decision - and most editions not only decide to give the words to Claudio, they don't even footnote it. Heck even some editions of the First Folio in the original spelling (but as a newly typset thing, rather than a facsimile aka a direct image-copy) "correct" the line attribution without saying.
If you're not lucky with your undergrad profs you don't find this shit until deep into grad seminars, if then. XD