The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0309 Thursday, 3 May 2007
[1] From: Sean King <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 00:53:41 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0294 New Shakespeare 'Works'
[2] From: Jeffrey Jordan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 01:35:33 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0294 New Shakespeare 'Works'
[3] From: William Proctor Williams <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 09:51:23 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0294 New Shakespeare 'Works'
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean King <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 00:53:41 -0400
Subject: 18.0294 New Shakespeare 'Works'
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0294 New Shakespeare 'Works'
>[the not-vindictive Lady Macbeth]
The article attributed the "vindictive" business to the London Times -- so
it presumably refers to a London Sunday Times story which has this to say:
======
Even minor changes in punctuation can change the meaning of key scenes. In
the usual version of the play, Lady Macbeth appears to reassure her
husband that there is nothing to fear and that he will get away with the
murder of Duncan, the king of Scotland.
In the new edition, a question mark removes the Machiavellian
undercurrent, so that she is simply asking him: what do we fear?
======
(The RSC Shakespeare blog provides a link to the article if anyone wants
to see the whole thing. Generally, the blog seems to be linking to, and
commenting on, much or all of the press commentary on this new edition.)
Anyway, perhaps when you have your "Machiavellian undercurrent" removed
you become "less vindictive"? I suppose that could happen! ;-) Best not to
look at these journalistic glosses too closely, maybe...
One could *just* mention that the punctuation business isn't the novelty
that the writer seems to think it is, and that Arden, for one, had kept
the F question mark; *although* (as editors will note) a question mark
could *stand for* an exclamation point; and that no matter how you
punctuate Lady M goes on to say "But screw your courage...and we'll not
fail"-it's true that exactly how that's to be taken (reassuring? not?
Machiavellian? vindictive? polyphiloprogenitive? bodacious? juvescent?)
does depend a bit on how the previous words are read; and that some
editors in their commentary notes have given a few ways in which they
*may* be read (Arden again -- IIRC-has a few readings tried out by one Mrs
Siddons)...
...or that the same article tells us of something called "the Quarto"
which, we learn, was "made up of pirated versions of S's plays"...
But it would be much better not to mention any of that.
...I guess it's not as bad as the one trumpeting the "sexy Shakespeare",
or whatever it was they said... (One of the editors had made a point of
the comparative frankness of the notes in this edition -- so really, the
headline wrote itself.)
(Butterflies, to the wheel! I'm ashamed of myself. ;-)
S.
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Jordan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 01:35:33 -0500
Subject: 18.0294 New Shakespeare 'Works'
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0294 New Shakespeare 'Works'
Replying to Tad Davis
>... (How could I not love an edition where old Hamlet's "pollax"
>remains the pole-axe of an impatient king, banged against the ice
>in frustration?)
Remains? The word is not "pole-axe" in any of the original printings, Q1,
Q2, or F1. It's identically "pollax" in all three, except capitalized in
F1.
The "pole-axe" editorial interpretation was advanced by Alexander Pope in
1723, and was influential because of Pope's fame. However, Pope's ideas
about Hamlet are no longer influential, and the editorial changes Pope
tried to make to Shakespeare's text (as best we have it) have all been
discarded now, or at least called into serious question.
What does seem to be clear enough is that "pollax" is a phonetic spelling
of "Polacks." Why that exact spelling was chosen is a matter of
interpretation. The fact of the spelling being identical in all the
original texts is good evidence that it's Shakespeare's own desired
spelling. But factually, it is not "pole-axe."
The word "poll" means "head." So, the direct interpretation of "pollax"
would be that wordplay is intended with "head-ax," i.e. the executioner's
axe. That interpretation can be read directly from the word, "pollax,"
with no spelling change. It gives the undertone that King Hamlet killed
the Poles in question, like an executioner, or alternatively, that he
seriously threatened to. Rather than being "impatient," King Hamlet was
seriously threatening to chop their heads off, like an executioner with a
"head-axe."
And of course the "head-axe" / "executioner's axe" concept is highly
relevant to the play, since it's how Claudius intends to have Hamlet
killed in England, and it's how R & G actually die. But the "pole- axe"
editorial interpretation has no relevance to other events of the play.
That being said, I'm very interested in the RSC edition, and thanks to Mr
Davis et al for the links and info.
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Proctor Williams <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 20 Apr 2007 09:51:23 -0400
Subject: 18.0294 New Shakespeare 'Works'
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0294 New Shakespeare 'Works'
An edition which tries "to reconstruct the text as it entered the
printshop." is not doing much which is different from what textual
criticism has been doing for over 100 years. I assume that what this
edition is trying to do is to reconstruct the text as it +exited+ the
printshop.
William Proctor Williams
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor
assumes no responsibility for them.
|
