Shakespeare Study: Revisiting A Few Plays And Reading One For The First Time

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.

Hamlet by William Shakespeare – 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.

Arden Of Faversham – 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.