“IT seems to be a kind of Respect due to the Memory of Excellent Men, especially of those whom their Wit and Learning have made Famous, to deliver some Account of themselves, as well as their Works, to Posterity. For this Reason, how fond do we see some People of discovering any little Personal Story of the great Men of Antiquity, their Families, the common Accidents of their Lives, and even their Shape, Make and Features have been the Subject of critical Enquiries. How trifling soever this Curiosity may seem to be, it is certainly very Natural; and we are hardly satisfy'd with an Account of any remarkable Person, 'till we have heard him describ'd even to the very Cloaths he wears. As for what relates to Men of Letters, the knowledge of an Author may sometimes conduce to the better understanding his Book: And tho' the Works of Mr. Shakespear may seem to many not to want a Comment, yet I fancy some little Account of the Man himself may not be thought improper to go along with them.”
During his lifetime, Nicholas Rowe (June 20 1674-1718) pursued his passion for literature and Shakespeare during his phase studying law; when he finally traveled in his own direction to try his hand at writing poetry and plays (specifically adaptations of Shakespeare’s most famous works), he realized his love for writing.
Of the 18th century editors, Rowe and Pope overshadowed their contemporaries in that they appear to feel a sense of entitlement over Shakespeare’s works. Similar to Garrick’s strangely egocentric commissions of literature and art commemorating Shakespeare’s genius, Rowe and Pope’s works also focus on the mysterious man as a sort of genius created by the Divine. While Rowe focused on the stage and theatricality of his works, Pope turned away from actors, blaming them for the desecration and misinterpretation of Shakespeare’s works. I decided to study Rowe’s edition, because he is the epitome of a Shakespeare lover, a genuine follower who seems to see no wrong, no fault. In contrast to the critics of the early 1600s who paid Shakespeare no heed, Rowe was his first formal editor and biographer, paving the way for the modern world of literature in which Shakespeare became regarded with the highest respect.
Throughout his adaptations, Rowe tends to stray from common convention; in a study of Rowe’s Shakespear (1709), Hamm notes that he “marks a major departure from the folio connections of the previous century. Rowe makes many corrections and improvements to the text of his predecessor; he attempts to normalize spelling, punctuation, and grammar; he clarifies many of the plays’ act and scene divisions.” In order to exemplify Shakespeare’s genius and protect him from critics who accused Shakespeare of inconsistencies and offness, in a dedication to the Duke of Somerset, Rowe claims: “I have taken some Care to redeem him [Shakespeare] from the injuries of former impressions.” A dramatic break from the editing styles of his predecessors, Rowe’s editions painstakingly set out to clean and clarify. Furthermore, unlike the editors of today, who simply add footnotes with definitions of hard-to-pronounce words here and there, Rowe includes his perspectives and biases at length throughout the editions. In Reinventing Shakespeare, Taylor notes that Rowe even goes so far as to criticize Jonson, another critic of Shakespeare, and to adamantly discredit him. In addition, in response to those who preferred the works of Beaumont and Fletcher who emulated the conversation of “gentleman” more accurately, Rowe goes on to insist on the gentility of Shakespeare’s family. Therefore, Rowe took the original words of Shakespeare and attempted to elevate him further in the eyes of society.
With a mind for the audience, Rowe was conscious to add stage directions and mark character’s entrances and exits; a critic who valued the theater’s interpretation, Rowe appears to have believed that Shakespeare belonged to the theater in that his plays were meant to be performed. This reminded me of our class discussion regarding the theater’s role in affecting adaptations and the role of the author’s life in interpreting the work. How important is a reader’s personal biases in interpreting the work at hand? And how significant is our knowledge of the author when reading his or her work?
Rowe's "Shakespear" (1709) and the Tonson House Style
Robert B. Hamm, Jr.
College Literature , Vol. 31, No. 3 (Summer, 2004), pp. 179-205
Published by: College Literature
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/25115214
Murphy, Andrew. Shakespeare in Print: A History and Chronology of Shakespeare Publishing. Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 60
Taylor, Gary. Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present. Oxford University Press, 1991.
Shakespeare's Editors: Rowe
http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/editors/rowe.htm#rowe-works
1995-2008 Terry A. Gray
Last modified 09/21/09
No comments:
Post a Comment