55Editorial Practice

‘Comedies are writ to be spoken, not read: remember the life of these things consists in actionʼ.^[186] So John Marston reminded his reader in his preface to The Fawn, thus emphasising the importance of theatrical manifestations of dramatic texts. This edition has aimed to realise Marstonʼs assertion within the boundaries of an editorial format. Consideration has been made of original staging practice and conditions, including costume, properties and use of the stage space. This has informed the commentary and introductory discussion in order to provide useful material to guide readers as well as theatre practitioners. It is hoped that theatre practice of the past might aid understanding of the text, thus facilitating fresh consideration of the dramatic opportunities presented by this text.

56The edition also tries to bear in mind that not all users will be aided by practical, dramatic engagement with the text. Therefore stage directions have been inserted both to inform the reader of what is happening, as well as guide actors. The edition places stage directions in what is considered the most sensible place: the choice is explained and alternative options given. It is hoped that such interventions are neither too prescriptive nor certain in their claims.

57This text provides the editor with an opportunity to develop a full commentary, with references to and differences from Charles Edelmanʼs excellent recent Revels edition (2010).^[187] Parrottʼs notes provide helpful explanatory and bibliographical information, but are far from adequate. Holadayʼs sparse notes cover textual matters only. This editionʼs commentary tries to consider what Michael Cordner identifies as the ‘intricate interplay between the verbal and the visualʼ.^[188] The aim is to suggest multiple interpretations of language, intonation and dramatic action. However, as Cordner accurately identifies of Shakespearian texts: ‘Annotation cannot, of course, track all the possible, plausible, performance extrapolations which have been, and could be, madeʼ.^[189] On the other hand, he warns against editors ‘prematurely delimitingʼ the exciting potential of Renaissance texts to provide opportunity for exploration.^[190]

58It is initially the editorʼs job to research and illuminate these possibilities at the same time restoring the textʼs performative capabilities and functionality as a theatrical script, a task which necessarily begs alterations and emendations. These notes cannot be limited to aiding the theatre practitionerʼs understanding and performance of the text but must also provide a useful guide to the reader, visualising the art of the playwright and his devised stage business. In his Apology for Actors, Heywood identified the gap between text and performance, and the need for there to exist a symbiotic relationship between the two: ‘A description is only a shadow received by the ear but not perceived by the eye: so lively portraiture is merely a form seen by the eye, but can neither show action, passion, motion, or any other gesture, to move the spirits of the beholder to admirationʼ.^[191] The editorʼs task is therefore to reconcile reading of the text with action, and vice versa, to enable action both onstage and in the readerʼs mind.

59In the final unifying, revelatory scene of the play, a lottery is held, hosted by Verone but engineered by Lemot, at which jewels and posies are handed out. Martiaʼs posy warns her: ‘Change for the betterʼ (TLN 1946), which sage words also serve as an editorial reminder: a reminder of his/ her procreative power and responsibility to provide clarifying, but not limiting, emendations of the text.