The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0610 Friday, 14 September 2007
[1] From: John Drakakis <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 17:09:41 +0100
Subj: RE: SHK 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
[2] From: Ros King <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 16:12:50 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Drakakis <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 12 Sep 2007 17:09:41 +0100
Subject: 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
Comment: RE: SHK 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
I think you're right to pull me up on the semantics here Gabriel, though
the example you choose isn't quite as open and shut a case as you think.
More of that in a minute.
Where there are different texts (quarto, folio) then one cannot avoid
speculating. BUT textual bibliography STARTS from the actual marks on
the page, but not from what they 'mean' in a literary sense. We add
that at a later stage, though we continually short-circuit the process
in practice. They may have a limited bibliographical meaning or they
may spur us to cross the boundary into considering 'literary' (I use the
word in scare quotes, Lukas Erne notwithstanding) matters. I think
Jerome McGann puts it well in his 1991 book 'The Textual Condition'
where he makes a clear distinction between the demands of the two
discursive fields: literary, and textual. Those fields are not
interchangeable and if you think they are then you do so at your peril.
Let me now come to the case you mention. There is only the Folio text of
Cymbeline, and while we might speculate that an 'm' might be read as
'nn' in the name of 'Imogen'- just as we might (opportunistically)
choose to regard some 'u' types as turned 'n' types, it might be helpful
to search other Shakespeare Q or F texts to see whether the name
'Innogen' occurs. Sure enough, it does, and in Q1 (1600) of Much Ado,
where the silent 'Innogen' - mistakenly, in my view, exorcised by
editors- appears. Can we say that the spelling here is an error? and
have 2 compositors made the same mistake in reading? OR do we look to
see if this is an acceptable alternative spelling of a name that we
would modernise and normalise as 'Imogen'. As editors there are plenty
of names that we might modernise without necessarily reverting to
speculation about what Shakespeare actually wrote.
On the more general matter of what the compositors who set plays read as
their copy, then we speculate, and my phrase 'hypothetical manuscript'
was not intended to imply that one did not exist, but that its detailed
contents can only be speculated about. Let me offer you an example (from
memory) from The Merchant of Venice. In Q1 (1600) in 4.1 Shylock says
'Affection /Maisters of passion'. Various editors have emended to
'Affection / Master of passion' or 'Affection / Masters oft passion'.
The problem is compounded because elsewhere in the quarto master is
sometimes spelt 'maister', and this spelling occasionally occurs in
Spenser also. What to do? Does 'affection', that is culturally thought
to be subservient to any form of 'mastery' suddenly change its position
in the cultural hierarchy, or can we think of another meaning for this
vexed phrase that might make sense historically. If we go to Sonnet 20
then we find in the opening lines there:
A womans face with natures owne hand painted,
Haste thou the Master Mistris of my passion.
The phrase 'Master Mistris' here prompts the thought that 'Maistres' in
Q1 M of V may be a homophone for the now obsolete word 'Maistrice'. And
so in my edition I emend the line thus: 'Affection / Maistrice of
passion', and speculate, NOT that 'Maistrice' was in the original mss,
but that the word 'Maistrice' answers to an idiom for which there is
some supporting cultural corroboration. 'Maistres' may well have been
the spelling in our hypothetical ms. but I contend that its meaning in
this context extends beyond the restrictive 'Master(s). Also, this
reading responds to the gender(ing) question that the line raises. The
personified 'Affection' is a mistress rather than a master but in this
case 'she' becomes a 'he' by virtue of her mastery. The only word that
I can think of that points up the complexity of this rather dense little
phrase is 'Maistrice'.
I've already told Joe Egert that he'll have to wait for the longer and
even more bibliographically involved explanation that displaces 'Gobbo'
from the text of M of V, though I now understand that this wasn't the
answer to the question that he as seeking.
Finally, though, I think your 'philosophical' analogy only works if we
forget about the nitty gritty of the textual bibliographical process,
Gabriel. The road to 'Shakespeare's text is littered with landmines!
Very best,
John D
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ros King <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 13 Sep 2007 16:12:50 +0100
Subject: 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0602 WashPost: Ourselves in Shakespeare
The printing house corruption of Innogen to Imogen in fact occurs in
Holinshed - in the index, where, of course, it refers to Brutus's wife
not Cymbeline's daughter.
Cymbeline is sometimes Cynobelinus (and other variants) in Holinshed. He
also offers a choice with regard to Guidarius - 'Guiderius or Guinderius
(whether you will)'. All these dubious 'n's together raise the distinct
possibility that the choice of Imogen in the Folio is not an error at
all but authorial intention based on a desire for euphony, i.e.
Shakespeare was offered a set of choices by his source and made the same
choice of 'm' or at least 'not n' across the board, thereby achieving a
kind of family resemblance in sound.
To my mind this far outweighs any evidence from Simon Forman who was
only really interested in the play in so far as it reinforced his
beliefs in the Brutus myth and who was therefore either pre-programmed
to hear Innogen, or deliberately (!) made what he saw as a correction in
his account. His spelling of that name is unusually consistent. His
account of Macbeth spells Mackebeth, Mack Beth, Mackbet and Dunston
Anyse (for Dunsinane!).
Best,
Ros
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
