My personal Shakespeare study continues. The last several
weeks I read different editions of certain plays.
King Lear by William Shakespeare – I
think I revisit this play more often than any of the others. This time I read
the Wordsworth Classics edition, edited by Cedric Watts. In the introduction,
Watts writes, regarding Lear’s men: “Are Lear’s followers riotous, as Goneril
says, or well-behaved, as Lear says? But this leads immediately to the other
question, where
is this huge retinue?
In Act I, scene 4, Lear is attended, according to the earliest text (1607-8),
only by some servants; whereas, according to the 1623 text, he is there
attended by an unspecified number of knights. Certainly, thereafter, we see no
large body of armed supporters” (pages 9-10). Later in the introduction, Watts
writes: “In its moral concerns,
King Lear
reminds us of the human capacity for hatred, cruelty and injustice; it also
reminds us of the human capacity for love and forgiveness. There are parts of
the work which may gratify the desire for moral justice (Cornwall, Edmund,
Regan and Goneril perish); but there are also parts which mock that desire
(Gloucester and Lear suffer appallingly, and Cordelia is killed)” (pages
18-19). At the end of the introduction, Watts writes, “In short, the power of
King Lear may lie less in any answers it
suggests than in its dramatic questioning of nature, morality, reason and
order, and in its eloquent voicing of a gamut of human emotions” (p. 20). The
text of this edition is a conflation of the Q1 and Folio versions of the play.
Watts writes, “I have combined, as I think best, material from both the Quarto
and the Folio, so that no important speeches are absent” (p. 29). All notes on
the text are presented after the play. A note on Kent’s “turn their halcyon
beaks” line in Act II scene 2 reads: “The halcyon (kingfisher), when dead and
suspended, was supposed to turn its beak in accordance with changes in the
wind. Kent says that sycophantic servants likewise reflect and support every
changeable mood of their masters” (p. 137). A note on the Fool’s line “And I’ll
go to bed at noon” reads: “proverbial for ‘I’ll play the fool, too’. This line
is in F1, not Q1” (p. 142). This book was first published in 1994 by Wordsworth
Editions Limited. The copy I read contains newly-edited text, new introduction
and notes, published in 2004.
– I
recently picked up The RSC Shakespeare edition of
Hamlet, edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen. This volume
uses the Folio
Hamlet as its base, so
some famous speeches are not included in the text, but rather in a special
section after the text. In the introduction, Bate and Rasmussen write: “there
can be little doubt that Shakespeare’s innovation in
Hamlet was to take the figure of the revenger from the old play and
turn him into an intellectual, so making revenge into a moral dilemma as
opposed to a practical task to be carried out through effective plotting.
Hamlet’s problem is that his intelligence makes him see both sides of every
question, whereas in the drama of revenge there is no place for debate and half
measure” (p. xii). Regarding the exchange of swords between Hamlet and Laertes,
they write: “But Hamlet and Laertes would originally have dueled with ‘rapier
and dagger,’ the commonest weapons for such an encounter, as illustrated in
Vincentio Saviolo’s treatise on fencing skills,
The Art of Practice (1595). The grip used for the rapier meant that
it was very hard to remove it from the opponent’s hand save by an advanced
maneuver known as the ‘left-hand seizure.’ Hamlet would have dropped his dagger
to the ground and grabbed the hilt of Laertes’ rapier with his left hand,
twisting it out of his grip. Laertes would have responded with the same action,
resulting in the switch of weapons. The move, which is illustrated in continental
fencing handbooks of the period, is so skillful that Hamlet’s action must have
been purposeful. He would not initially have seen that Laertes’ rapier was ‘unbated’
(not blunted in the way that was customary to prevent the injury of gentlemen
participating in sporting fights), but on receiving a ‘hit’ his skin would have
been pierced by the point. Realizing that Laertes is in earnest, not play, he
instantly responds with the maneuver that makes the switch. Now he is in deadly
earnest himself” (pages xv-xvi). The text includes footnotes. Regarding
Marcellus’ line “Thou art a scholar,” the note reads: “i.e. one knowledgeable
enough to know how to address a ghost; a ghost was thought to be unable to
speak until spoken to” (p. 5). In this volume, Hamlet says “There are more
things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/Than are dreamt of in our philosophy” (p.
33) rather than “your philosophy,” something I don’t recall from any other
edition. Is it simply a typo? The volume includes a scene-by-scene description,
and in that section, regarding Claudius’ speech in Act I Scene ii, the authors
write, “The speech is formal and ceremonious, as Claudius emphasizes his new
role as king, but it seems awkward as well: it is difficult to reconcile his
apparent grief with his happiness at his marriage” (p. 150). In addition, the
volume contains a history of performances, both on stage and film, before
getting into the RSC performances. The authors write: “Obviously, Hamlet’s
sense of intense grief plays a large part in the way he perceives the world.
Grief can often bring with it an exaggeration of the senses, a cruel
self-awareness and feelings of isolation” (p. 187). A little later in that
section they write: “Hamlet’s dilemma after seeing the Ghost lies in the fact
that is too aware of the possible consequences of his actions. The intelligence
of his imagination is such that he knows that the Ghost’s request for revenge
has two possible outcomes for him: death or madness. As hot-blooded avenger he
will provoke the punishment of the state, whereas not to act – to withdraw –
would only compound and multiply his already unbearable grief and frustration
to a state of madness. Both of these options are against his nature and his
sensibility. However, Shakespeare demonstrates their tragic consequences in the
reactions of Polonius’ children, Laertes and Ophelia” (p. 190). The book
contains interviews with three directors. Regarding the question of why
Claudius doesn’t just kill Hamlet, John Caird says: “The answer is that he
kills his brother so that he can become him. It’s an attempted act of
transformation. That’s why he tries genuinely, desperately, to persuade Hamlet
that everything is the same as it used to be. His father may be dead but he has
a new father now. It’s Hamlet’s incapacity to accept this new status quo that
throws Claudius into confusion and ultimately forces him into the position of
having Hamlet killed” (p. 198). Regarding why Gertrude doesn’t see the Ghost,
John Caird says: “But he isn’t real to Gertrude, or doesn’t appear to her. This
is psychologically apt. She can’t ‘see’ her husband any longer. If she could
still see him she wouldn’t have married his brother. It is Hamlet’s perception
of his father that brings her to her senses. He reminds her of her former
happiness and her love for her husband and son. This is the beginning of
Gertrude’s madness. She never recovers from this scene” (p. 207). This book was
published in 2008.
– This is a play
I had not read before. At the end of the RSC edition of
Hamlet, there is a list of Shakespeare’s works in chronological
order, and the first item on the list reads: “1589-91 ?
Arden of Faversham (possible part authorship).” So I took out a
copy of the play from the library. It’s the New Mermaids edition, edited by
Martin White. The First Quarto of this play was published in 1592, without an
author listed. Its main source is Holinshed’s
Chronicles, also a source Shakespeare used for several of his
plays. The introduction details some of the ways the play differs from the
source. Regarding authorship, Martin White writes, “It is not surprising,
however, considering the literary qualities and theatrical skill of the play,
that the claims have centred on the three most notable dramatists known to have
been working in London in the late 1580s and early 1590s – Marlowe, Kyd, and
Shakespeare” (p. xv). White continues, “The most persistent and intriguing claim
is, of course, that made for Shakespeare” (p. xv). And he writes: “The external
evidence to support an ascription to Shakespeare (or anyone else) is
non-existent. The play was published in three quarto editions without having a
name put to it, Hemminges and Condell did not include it in the First Folio
(1623), and it was not among the apocryphal plays added, with
Pericles, to the second issue of the
Third Folio in 1664” (pages xv-xvi). He adds, “Kenneth Muir, for example, considers
Arden the ‘best of the apocryphal
plays’, but still argues that it ‘does not resemble in style or theme any of
Shakespeare’s acknowledged plays’” (p. xvi). White then writes, “Other critics,
however, have found strong similarities between
Arden and, particularly, the
Henry
VI trilogy and
Richard III in
their style, language and imagery, and in their presentation of a ruthless and
amoral world” (p. xvi). In a note on the character of Alice, White mentions
that Symonds “describes her as ‘the bourgeois Clytemnestra, the Lady Macbeth of
county connections’” (p. xviii). Notes on the text are at the bottom of each
page, and these notes include some similarities with Shakespeare’s word usage,
such as: “As Wine notes, Q1’s ‘marrow-prying’ is striking metaphorically and
may be the correct reading. A similar expression is used in
Soliman and Perseda, V.ii, 14 (‘Such is
the force of marrow burning love’) and in
Venus
and Adonis, 1. 741 (‘the marrow-eating sickness’), though in both those
cases it clearly refers to the contemporary belief that the marrow of the bones
is a sexual provocative. Q2’s reading compares with
The Taming of the Shrew, III.ii, 142 (‘The narrow-prying father,
Minola’)” (p. 8). The lines “I, that should take the weapon in my hand/And
buckler thee from ill-intending foes,/Do lead thee with a wicked, fraudful
smile,/As unsuspected to the slaughterhouse” (p. 41) remind me a bit of some of
Macbeth’s speech about how he should protect Duncan, not murder him. And
speaking of
Macbeth, a note reads: “
boltered ed. (bolstred Qq) in tangled
knots, or matted with congealed blood (cf.
Macbeth,
IV.i, 123, ‘blood-bolter’d Banquo’” (p. 45). Another note reads: “
white-livered cowardly. Cf. ‘the liver
white and pale, which is the badge of pusillanimity and cowardice’ (
2 Henry IV, IV.iii, 103-4)” (p. 48).
White notes another similarity to
Macbeth,
when Alice and Susan talk about washing away the blood (p. 92). I noticed that
this volume contains a mistake. It has Arden say, “See, Susan, where thy
quondam master lies;/Sweet Arden, smeared in blood and filthy gore” (p. 95). At
this point, Arden is dead, and unlikely to talk about his own bloody corpse. I
believe it should be Alice who speaks those lines. The book’s appendix includes
the passage from Holinshed’s
Chronicles
regarding Arden. This book was published in 1982.
The Comedy Of Errors by William
Shakespeare – This time I read The New Cambridge Shakespeare edition,
edited by T.S. Dorsch. The book’s introduction begins with an attempt at dating
the play, including references to historical events and similarities between
this play and
The Taming Of The Shrew,
and also to
Arden Of Feversham (which
is apparently the original spelling, not
Faversham).
Then there are details of the main source of the play, along with other
sources, and the changes Shakespeare made to the story. Dorsch writes, “The
tale of Appollonius of Tyre narrated by Gower in Book VIII of
Confessio Amantis seems to be the main
source for the romantic side of the play, Egeon’s adventures and his discovery
of his long-lost wife” (p. 10). The introduction then gets into the characters:
“The Dromios are not, as is often said, as like as two peas. Dromio of Ephesus
is the more sprightly, and the more in command of all the tricks of language
that make for the comic and the witty” (p. 14). Regarding the presentation of
the play, Dorsch writes, “The play has often invited musical adaptation, but in
the changing poise and pace of its verbal art it has a music of its own” (p.
20). Notes on the text are provided at the bottom of each page. In the play’s
first scene, there is a note on the line “As could not be distinguished but by
names” which reads: “To help to bring about the errors of the play, the two
pairs of identical twins are given identical names…However, on their first
notice in entry SDs Antipholus of Syracuse is named ‘Antipholus Erotes’ (? the
wandering twin, from Latin
errare; ?
confusion with the Courtesan’s name, Erotium, in Plautus); Antipholus of
Ephesus is ‘Antipholus Sereptus’ (
surreptus
= snatched away)” (p. 43). A later note about the discrepancies of time,
specifically about the Abbess’ line “Thirty-three years have I but gone in
travail,” reads: “Theobald added the eighteen years of I.I.125 to the ‘seven
years’ of 320 above, and emended to ‘Twenty-five.’ At I.I.132 Egeon says that he
has been searching for ‘five summers’. The audience would hardly notice this
further inconsistency” (p. 109). After the text of the play, this edition
includes notes on the performance of 1594 and biblical passages relevant to the
play. This book was published in 1988. The copy I read is from the 1994
reprint.
Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare
– This book is a volume in the Oxford School Shakespeare series, edited by Roma
Gill and intended for students. It contains a brief introduction, in which we
are told about the character Julius Caesar: “The character who gives the play
its title appears in only three scenes, and speaks very few lines – none of
them particularly memorable” (p. v). Roma Gill adds: “In the play Caesar is
murdered at the beginning of
Act 3,
and you may first think it odd that the hero should vanish from the stage
before the play is half-finished. But although the man is dead, his spirit
lives on. It is present in the minds of those who murdered him, and of those
who seek to avenge the murder. We are so conscious of this unseen presence that
it is no surprise when the spirit materializes, and the ghost of Caesar appears
to Brutus before the battle at Philippi. Brutus, too, is unperturbed, and
accepts with equanimity the promise of another encounter” (p. vi). This volume
includes a scene-by-scene synopsis, and then longer commentary on each scene.
Regarding the first scene, Gill writes: “The Roman citizens are very important
in
Julius Caesar, and provide an
essential background to the action. They are influenced by emotion, not by
reason, and their affections are not to be trusted: in the past they cheered
for Pompey; now they are welcoming Caesar, the man who has defeated Pompey; and
soon we shall hear them applauding the men who have murdered Caesar” (p. xii).
Regarding the second scene of the third act, Gill writes: “Brutus speaks in
prose, trying to present a reasoned argument to justify the murder. The
citizens are fairly satisfied with this, but it is ironic that they now wish to
elevate Brutus into Caesar’s place: they have not appreciated the principle
behind Brutus’s act. Antony’s speech is in verse; there is no attempt to produce
logical argument, for the oration – with its repetitions, rhetorical questions,
ironies, and open display of emotion – is aimed at the hearts, and not the
heads of the people. We see the citizens in the process of changing their minds
every time that Antony makes a well-calculated pause in his speech” (p.
xvi-xvii). Regarding the third scene of the fourth act, Gill writes: “Two
passages in this scene duplicate the information about Portia’s death.
Shakespeare probably wrote first the version given in lines 181-95, and then –
perhaps thinking that he had made Brutus too much a Stoic – added the lines
that now appear as 147-57; and forgot to cross out the first draft” (p. xvii).
As for the text, this volume uses the New Cambridge Shakespeare text of 1998.
Notes appear on the left side of each page. A note about the feast of Lupercal
reads: “A feast day in honour of the fertility god Lupercus was held on 15
February. Shakespeare has accelerated the action of the play by merging the
triumphant return from Munda (October 45 BC) into the events of spring 42 BC”
(p. 4). The note on Antony’s “Cry havoc” reads, “Only a king could give this
order, which was the signal for mass slaughter and plunder” (p. 54). Following
the text of the play, there is a section of passages from Sir Thomas North’s
translation of Plutarch’s
Lives of the
Greeks and Romans. The book also includes study questions, information on
England at the time of Shakespeare’s writing, and some biographical information
on Shakespeare. In that last section, Gill writes: “Finally, before he retired
from the theatre, he wrote another set of comedies. These all have the same
theme: they tell of happiness which is lost, and then found again” (p. 127).
This book was first published in 1998, and then revised in 2001 and 2006. My
copy is from the 2010 edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment