The newest release of the Shakespeare app for Apple devices is out today and it has an amazing new feature—BardFind™.
BardFind is a database of theatres, festivals, and associations performing and supporting Shakespeare around the world. The venues are all fully searchable or you can just find the nearest Shakespeare theatre no matter where you are.
Once you locate the theatre you want to visit, simply tap on it to reveal location details, address, box office phone number, email address, and much more.
Do you want to add your Shakespeare festival, theatre or venue to BardFind? Just register on this website and visit the Shakespeare Directory to add your details. Once submitted and approved, your venue will be live in BardFind. It's that simple!
The latest edition of Audi magazine is out and our Shakespeare Pro app is featured as the must-have app for every Audi owner. Award-winning Audi magazine delivers more than the latest Audi news and vehicle information. It is an immersive dive into the products, the technologies, the lifestyle and the vision of one of the world's top luxury brands....and Shakespeare is at the top of their list!
The proliferation of digital editions of Shakespeare's works is no doubt a great thing. Just 10 years ago when this site started, it was difficult to find them—primarily because there were really only two or three editions in the public domain. Now there is a larger selection (including the PlayShakespeare.com editions used on this site) and it's enabling students, teachers, scholars, theatre professionals, computer programmers and even the average fan to rework the bard in new ways.
At PlayShakespeare.com, we believe strongly in the philosophy of open source. When intellectual property is released to the world using an open source license, it fosters creativity and innovation in building upon those ideas, create new works, and make them better. When open source is supported, everyone benefits. That combined with creating a high quality digital edition was a driving principal in 2005 when the first version of our editions was created. It had to be free because existing editions (Arden, Riverside, Folger, etc.) were all proprietary.
What's the difference between "free" and "free"? This is a point of confusion for most people. Often the word "free" is used when promoting open source material. But free can mean several things and it's very important to distinguish the difference:
Just because you have #1 doesn't automatically mean you have #2 (and vice-versa). The definition of "open source" is defined by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and the Freedom Software Foundation (FSF). In short, the definition of open source doesn't mean the source code is freely available to download. This is a common misconception. Open source defines the conditions of usage of that source code. If that usage is restricted (especially commercially), it's not open source.
There are a few "free" editions of Shakespeare's works available on the Internet. Here are the three most popular:
These editions are in the public domain and are still freely available. Technically, they are not "open source" by definition, but since they are "free of charge" and "free to use", they are used all over the world in spite of their age and textual errors. They are not maintained in any way and are essentially "snapshots" of the time in which they were written 100-150 years ago.
To further illustrate the point, there likewise are other sources which claim to have either "free" and/or "open source" editions available:
MIT (shakespeare.mit.edu) This site uses the public domain Moby Edition. Ironically, MIT is the creator the popular MIT license for many kinds of open source software, but these texts are not released under it.
Folger Digital Texts (www.folgerdigitaltexts.org) The well-respected Folger Shakespeare Library launched their digital texts in December 2012 under the CC-ANC 3.0 license. Their site says:
"The full source code of the texts may be downloaded by researchers and developers at no cost for noncommercial use."
According to the definition of open source, the texts should be unencumbered to use in any project, commercial or not. No Creative Commons licenses currently qualify as open source since they come with restrictions that go against the spirit of it. So while the texts are being called "free", they are "free of charge", not free to use as you wish.
Open Source Shakespeare (www.opensourceshakespeare.org) This site uses the public domain Globe Edition. The license page doesn't state any particular open source license, but states:
"You may download the OSS code and/or the database and use them in your personal, non-commercial projects without charge, as long as you give us credit and provide a link somewhere to www.opensourceshakespeare.org. Commercial use is not authorized without the permission from George Mason University."
According to the definition of open source, users should be able to use the content in any project, for commericial use or not. In open source, no special permission is needed because it is, by default, open. So like the Folger Digital Texts, Open Source Shakespeare is "free of charge", not "free to use". Therefore, neither the site software nor the content are actually open source as the name of the website implies.
These are just three examples of digital editions in use by many people who are unfamiliar they might be breaking the law because the terms are unclear. What is a "non-commerical project"? Isn't a theatrical performance where I charge an admission fee considered a commerical project? There are many questions like these when an open source license isn't used. I question whether George Mason University or The Folger is going to send the "Shakespeare Police" after anyone, but are you sure? In some cases, you could be violating their copyright and not even know it.
The same issues also apply when it comes to the First Folio. Libraries usually claim ownership over their scans of the book and forbid any copying or distribution—for scanned copies of a book almost 400 years old! Obviously, the book content itself is in the public domain, but the scanned images of it are kept proprietary and copyrighted by the library or university. It's a shameful practice they should immediately halt (especially publicly funded ones).
In part because of this, in 2010 we set out to create an open source edition of the First Folio. It took us almost two years and we completed the project in 2012. We found that Jon Bosak created a public domain version of the First Folio in XML in 1998 (www.ibiblio.org/xml/examples/shakespeare) under the auspices of the Moby Project. It was a great FF project for its time, but very rudimentary and more of an exercise in technology than achieving a quality edition in XML. So we had to create our editions from scratch.
A few months after we released the First Folio in XML, the Bodleian First Folio project at Oxford University (firstfolio.bodleian.ox.ac.uk) started a First Folio digitalization project, but it was specific to that edition and released under a Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0) so it doesn't qualify as open source. It doesn't contain the original spelling and a few other things like our First Folio edition, but it is available on GitHub (github.com/pipwillcox/BodleianFirstFolio).
We continue to publicly maintain our editions on GitHub and encourage feedback and contributions. We are proud to have created the first truly open source editions of Shakespeare's plays and the First Folio with an emphasis on quality. To us, the term "open source" isn't just a buzzword to use to attract people looking for free stuff. It's a different way of looking at copyright with the goal of fostering innovation and free thinking. We would love for others to contribute to that effort in any way they can.
We get asked this a lot and the answer may seem simple, but can sometimes be complicated to understand. So I put together a sample comparison between a few editions and some key points to consider.
Paper books gave us a durable medium which has lasted for centuries. It’s a fixed size, from small to large, and fits into a pocket or a bag. In Shakespeare’s day, this portability factor was key to making literature accessible to the masses.
In 2014, we have truly gone beyond the traditional paper book with eBooks and the Internet. Text no longer takes the form of a fixed layout on a page of predetermined size. Web pages flow continuously and you scroll to read. If you’re reading the NY Times on your computer, the pages and text flow will look different when viewed on your mobile phone or tablet device. Instead of content being predetermined by the author or publisher, it’s adapting to the context where it’s being displayed. The text may get larger when viewed on a mobile phone vs. what’s displayed on a big computer screen. If your eyes are bad, there might be a button to make the text larger, smaller, or change color to suit your preference.
Shakespeare’s texts have been studied in great detail over the years and a handy way to reference specific lines in each scene is by line numbers. This works great, but as publishers, editors, and scholars developed their own editions, line numbers varied due to editorial decisions—some editors preferred the quarto version over the folio version or vice-versa. This caused line numbers to be off by sometimes a little and sometimes a lot.
When Shakespeare’s text became electronic, line numbering became problematic because blank verse has defined line breaks, but prose doesn’t. This didn’t matter so much when we had print books because the columns were laid out by the book designer and prose line numbers could be adjusted to match a previous or alternate edition. But when the columns are different widths (or when there are no predefined columns at all), prose line numbers can be completely inconsistent.
If the plays were written entirely in blank verse, complete with hard line breaks for each line, the problem of prose line numbers wouldn’t exist. But that’s not the case. There are only five plays that are 100% verse:
There are five plays that are mostly verse with a small percentage of prose:
And there are no plays that are 100% prose—Merry Wives of Windsor (87%) is the highest followed by Much Ado About Nothing (72%) and Twelfth Night (61%).
The spreadsheet below shows the line counts for Hamlet (72% verse) across a variety of editions, including the edition on this website the same edition used in our Shakespeare app.
As you can see, differences in print editions can vary by up to a few hundred lines. When it comes to digital editions, that variance can be even more depending on the screen size of the device (and font size) you’re using to view the texts because of how prose text reflows and editorial differences. The PlayShakespeare.com and Shakespeare app editions are identical, but they will reflow differently by as much as 100 lines over the course of a play. Plays with more prose will have more variance than plays with less. The 28% prose within Hamlet means the play could have large variance.
In my opinion, line numbers should never be dogmatic. Actors and directors rehearsing a modern play today would never use line numbers to find their place in the text (they estimate or navigate by act/scene numbers or page numbers). So I’ve always taken the tack that line numbers are a guide to get the reader in the ballpark, if not the exact line. If the line number is used in rehearsal, discussion, or study, its accompanied by a note or comment of some kind to give context.
So the next time someone insists that all editions are alike when it comes to line numbering, you can tell them that’s not at all true. Even the same edition viewed on multiple digital devices will also be different.