![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2008: SHAKSPER Roundtable: Shakespeare's Intentions
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@SHAKSPER.NET) Date: 07/31/08
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0451 Thursday, 31 July 2008 From: Duncan Salkeld <D.Salkeld@chi.ac.uk> Date: Saturday, 26 Jul 2008 12:20:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 19.0433 SHAKSPER Roundtable: Shakespeare's Intentions Comment: Re: SHK 19.0433 SHAKSPER Roundtable: Shakespeare's Intentions David Schalkwyk identifies very clearly why I have urged the appeal to intention as an occasional necessity: 'to determine the factual details of a text independently of a favorite interpretation of that text' [and] 'to prevent a settled signified derived independently of what the author wanted as a signifier from determining the signifier that he could well have wanted'. But I do so not to freeze the text into a timeless rigid structure determined solely by its genius-author but simply as a way of acknowledging evident signs of its historical moment. To this end, may I cite a few brief examples of topical allusion as an indication of authorial intent? 1. Were now the general of our gracious empress, As in good time he may, from Ireland coming, Bringing rebellion broached on his sword, How many would the peaceful city quit, To welcome him! (Henry V, 5.0.29-34) If this is an allusion to the Earl of Essex (as most editors and critics concur), then it dates the play to between January and June 1599. On 27 March, Essex had left England for his Ireland expedition. By summer of that year, it was already clear that the venture would fail (see Oxford ed., 1982, 5). So in this instance, the intentionality clearly matters for our knowledge of the play.. 2. ... there is, sir, an aery of children, little eyases, that cry out on the top of question, and are most tyrannically clapped for't: (Hamlet, 2.2.339-42) If this is an allusion to the boys who played at Blackfriars from Michaelmas 1600, as most editions accept, then at least part of its historical interest/significance lies in the fact that it dates the play to around this time (see Arden 2 ed., 1982, 1-2). 3. 'Go get thee to Yaughan. Fetch me a stoup of liquor' (Hamlet, 5.1.60-1, Folio text only) Here the intention is unclear. Oxford and Norton editors emend 'Yaughan' to 'Johan', following Brinsley Nicholson's suggestion in 1871 that this 'Johan' might be a foreign alehouse keeper. Nicholson suggested 'Johan' might be a Dutch version of a name Jonson uses in The Alchemist, 'Deaf John'. Given that 'Johan' is a very common Elizabethan spelling of 'Joan', an argument for emending 'Yaughan' to 'Johan' is an argument for rendering 'Johan' as 'Joan' for modern readers and audiences. In as much as we don't know what 'Yaughan' means or refers to, the obscurity arrests what we can make of it: intention thus matters even when unclear. 4. When Jonson refers to 'Deaf John' in The Alchemist (1.1.85), he alludes (deliberately) to an historical figure, a man who was 'comon about the house' in the Bridewell Hospital (31 January 1600). A note recorded on Saturday 22 December 1604 states,'It is ordered yt deffe John a poore man in this house shall have a canvass dublett & a paire of hose'. His food allowance each day was eight ounces of bread, a fifth of a pound of beef, a mess of porridge and a quart of beer for dinner, with a little extra beef for supper. By 7 May 1606, he was dead: 'Murrey the officer to have the Romes wch deaf John hadd the said John beinge dead And he must pay iiiis a yeare to the Trer [Treasurer] by xiid a quarter.' 5. Jonson makes reference to another historical figure in Bartholomew Fair. Wasp snipes at Mistress Overdo. 'Good Lord! How sharp you are, with being at Bedlam yesterday! Whetstone has set an edge upon you, has he?' (1.5.22-23). Here Jonson alludes to William Whetstone, a disturbed young man notorious for outbursts in public places and kept at Bethlem Hospital. A census of inmates on 28 June 1624 records that, 'William Whetston hath been here about 18 yeares & is fitt to be kepte'. He died the following year. It makes sense to infer that Jonson intended his some of his audience to 'get the joke'. Details of (4) and (5) are available in _The Review of English Studies_ 2005 56 (225): 379-385. One can claim either that these 'signs of historical moment' are intended topical allusions or (less plausibly) unintended slips of the pen but it makes no sense to argue that they are 'non-intended', as if to imagine they bear no relation of any kind to authorial intention. 'Nor does it make sense to hold that adducing such material perpetuates 'fantasies' of authorial intention (see the CFP). David might perhaps allow that here intention is 'inescapable', though he may also think it redundant. If so, I can agree with him on the first part but not (at least not very much) on the second. _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net 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.
|
|
|||||