So long as men can breathe and eyes can see, people are going to be arguing about Shakespeare’s Sonnets. On this the 400th anniversary of their publication, Clinton Heylin’s book gives us a roadmap of how we got here, though there’s no reason to think that we’re any closer to the truth now than we were then. What surprised me most, although I suppose it shouldn’t have, is that Shakespeare is not in this – like, at all. For those that are unfamiliar with the history of the sonnets, they were published in 1609 by a man named Thomas Thorpe, and the question ever since has been, “Who’s Shakespeare to him, or he to Shakespeare?” We have no records, so we have to guess. Were they stolen? Heylin uses the expression “publisher/pirate” quite frequently, and many of the commentaries on publication use variations on the expression “came into possession,” whatever that means. So while other books on the sonnets will take the text and look at “What did Shakespeare mean by this?” Heylin’s book asks the question more like “Who printed it, in what sequence and grouping, and how did this change how future generations interpreted what Shakespeare might have meant?” Most of the setup for the “Shakespeare didn’t want these published” argument comes from the fact that there are multiple and obvious mistakes in the initial printing, something that would not have happened if the author was working alongside the publisher to see the finished result. I have to admit, it’s a pretty logical point, and I don’t know the answer. Perhaps it’s true that the mistakes just weren’t as big a deal as Heylin suggests, and Shakespeare didn’t care all that much. From there it becomes a history lesson in sonnet interpretation (once you get past some fighting and suing each other over who had the rights to publish what, and who stole from whom). When did the Dark Lady come into the picture, and what are the different theories about her identity? Which editors took the position that Shakespeare was gay, and which felt obliged go with the “nonono, that’s just how men talked to other men in Shakespeare’s day” interpretation? I remember hearing that one in high school ;). I never really bought that one, because you can read some of Shakespeare’s own dedications (like the one at the front of Venus and Adonis) and you can see just how flowery he did get, and how very different it is from the outpouring of love found in the sonnets. Speaking of dedications, just who was “W.H”? The sonnets are dedicated to these mysterious initials, and the book spends significant time right off the bat discussing the possible theories, most notably Pembroke (William Herbert) and Southhampton (Henry Wriothesley). If you’re already saying “Hey wait, that second guy is an H.W., not a W.H,” then you’re starting to get a glimpse at what this detective story is all about – maybe it was a typo or a mistake? Or maybe a secret code! Heylin, by the way, seems to come down pretty strongly on the Pembroke side. I don’t recall him ever actually stating his belief on the subject, but the argument does stick in my brain as being pretty lopsided in favor. [ Here’s my query : Do we know for certain that Shakespeare wrote the dedication, since we don’t even know if he wanted the sonnets published? Perhaps Thorpe wrote it himself? If that’s the case, then shouldn’t we be asking who WH is to Thorpe, rather than to Shakespeare? Some people see “we’ll never know the answer” as a challenge – others, like me, see it as an opportunity to say “then let’s stop asking the question, shall we?” ] I have books on Shakespeare the man, and I have books on the sonnets themselves. I think it’s a worthy addition to anybody’s book collection to look specifically at the editing of the sonnets like this. We may never know exactly what Shakespeare meant, but at least we can take a realistic look at what cases have been made, who made them, and why. Only then can you really decide for yourself whether you’ve found the answer than sounds right to you.
Month: August 2009
Commonwealth Shakespeare presents The Comedy of Errors on Boston Common 2009
http://www.commshakes.org Hurray for free Shakespeare on Boston Common! I’ve had a grand time for the past few weeks pimping the show to anybody that would listen. Without Citibank, their big sponsor, the show had to go on entirely via donations this year. They deliberately picked Comedy of Errors, a relatively simple show to stage, to keep costs down (and, I’d expect, a slapstick comedy to bring the audience in a bit more than a Pericles might :)). We got there on Saturday just before 6pm for the 8pm show. I was doing play-by-play on Twitter for those that watch such things. We got our dinner (P.F. Chang’s), got our chair rentals, and found a spot. As usual, all the prime seating near the front of the stage was roped off. I’ve always assumed that was for paying customers. At the time there was a big tent right in the middle, but they took that down. I’m told there were 6000 people there, which I think is pretty good! If everybody coughed up some donation money that would certainly help. The volunteers were a little aggressive in the begging, but you can’t really fault them, can you? I bought a sweatshirt for $25 and the girl working the counter even said, “…unless you want to leave more as a donation.” I informed her that I’d already rented my chairs and put my $20 in the hat that had been passed, and I was all tapped out. [ On a related note, I appreciate that they were all volunteers, though I do wish they’d maybe been trained a little better. I could not get a single question answered, no lie. “Are you doing chair rentals this year?” I don’t know, not my department. “Got rained out last night, huh?” We did? “Did the announcement just say something about discount parking?” I don’t know I wasn’t listening. ] The show of course was wonderful. Is there anybody reading my blog who does not know the plot? Start with a crazy premise – that there’s two sets of identical twins, both of who have a master/servant relationship (Dromio is servant to Antipholus), who do not realize that they’re both in town at the same time. One set, from Syracuse, has come to Ephesus, where the others live. It just so happens that it’s illegal for people from Syracuse to come to Ephesus, which is a whole different plot point. Anyway, you can imagine how the farce goes. Antipholus of Ephesus is married, but Antipholus of Syracuse is not. And then he (of Syracuse) runs into his supposed wife, who has no idea that he’s not her husband. “Come home to dinner!” she says. “Who are you and why are you yelling at me?” he says. You don’t need to follow Shakespeare to know what happens when a husband says that to a wife :). And it just gets sillier from there. The fun thing about this play is that it’s almost entirely about the over the top physical comedy. The Dromios take the brunt of it, getting beaten regularly for screwing up messages delivered to the wrong master. Which of course makes them more likely to run around the stage screaming like crazy people. The “round like a Globe” scene, where Dromio describes just how big fat and sweaty his counterpart’s girlfriend (wife?) is, was hysterical. Act out the words in the right way and the audience comes right along for the ride. We may not know what “break your pate” means but if somebody gets clobbered over the head when it’s said, you can kinda sorta figure it out. How do you pull off two sets of twins on stage? Well it helped that for the Dromios, one of them was clearly maybe 40lbs heavier than his counterpart, something not referenced on stage but clearly noticeable by the audience. Whether that was intentional, I don’t know. They were both dressed identically (as golf caddies). The Antipholuses were much harder, since they looked identical from where I sat. The only way you could really tell was by the staging, and by following the story. There were logical places where one Antipholus just ran out stage left, and then entered stage right, and you’re left saying “Oh, ok, that’s the other one.” Luckily they are never both on stage, at least until the last scene. There is one plot point we did not get (I admit to not reading up on the play before attending). A goldsmith brings a custom made chain to Antipholus, which he had done as a gift for his wife. He even says “Bring it to my wife and she’ll pay you,” so we know that it is intended for her. But later some new woman shows up claiming that she gave him a ring, and in exchange she was to get the chain, or some sort of chain? I was completely lost by that. Where’d she come from? Not knowing what scenes may have been cut I don’t know what we missed. My wife loved the show, telling me that she much prefers the silly comedies to the deeper stuff like Hamlet. “They’re two different things,” I point out. “Sometimes you just go for the laugh. But it’s not like years from now I’ll be saying Hey remember how well Egeon did the scene where he reunites with his long lost wife? This sort of play’s not about that. But I can tell you in detail every Hamlet I’ve seen.” [And for the record that’s different than a few years ago when another couple told us that “for her money, Taming of the Shrew is *better* than Hamlet.” Don’t say things like that, that makes me sad when you say things like that.] The only thing I’m left to figure out is the scene breaks, where they would perform a sort of zany dance number. We’ve got at least a partial beach theme, complete with lifeguard in his chair, and beachballs. Fine. But then a bunch of nuns dance by (was one of them on a bicycle? I forget), and one strips off to reveal a bathing suit underneath. Then come the cops chasing the bad guys, cops run into nuns, everybody dances… know what I mean? I think there’s a name for the style, and I can’t quite place it. Was like something out of a silent movie (though there was a soundtrack). Kind of Benny Hill, though not as fast :). This is the first I’d ever seen Comedy of Errors produced, so I was a little bit lost. Somebody explain the significance? I want to say that the Karamazov’s did a similar thing where there was a circus-like number between scenes. Is all this just to put us in the mood of “Ephesus is a zany place?” Reminds me of Monty Python. If you’re around, go. Go early and camp out with a picnic, or come late and just sit down on the grass. There are a number of food trucks where you can get your dinner, so don’t worry about that. Be generous in your donations, they need everything they can get. I am tremendously appreciative of what they’ve been able to pull off on their own, and I can only hope that each year’s efforts are enough to carry the show on for another year.