The Immortality of Garrick

The Immortality of Garrick
David Garrick, the eighteenth-century actor, playwright, and theater manager often credited with Shakespeare's 18th-century revival, is here lauded by a group of 17 actors in their favorite Shakespearean characters, as he is carried to his apotheosis

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Shaking Up Shakespeare’s Genius


Alexander Pope was an 18th century English poet, best known for his use of satire, heroic couplet, and his translation of Homer. He was born into a Catholic family on May 21, 1688 in London. His father, Alexander Pope Senior, was a linen merchant, and his mother was known as Edith. He was mainly educated by his aunt (Edith’s sister, Christiana), and later moved to Berkshire due to ant-Catholic sentiment (which would cause him to be removed from most of society). After his move, Pope educated himself by reading the works of major writers such as Horace, Homer, Chaucer, and Shakespeare. By age 12, it was clear that he suffered from numerous health problems. He had Pott’s disease, which not only stunted his growth, but also caused  him abdominal pain and high fevers. Pope endorsed many of Rowe’s judgments on Shakespeare, and is best known for his Essay on Criticism and his “The Rape of The Lock” poem. He died in 1744 at Twickenham. 

What stands out about Pope is his overly cynical, yet adoring approach to Shakespeare’s texts. Pope regarded Shakespeare’s work as being corrupt with frequent ‘Additions, Expunctions, Transpositions of scenes and lines, confusion of Characters and Persons, wrong application of Speeches, corruptions on innumerable Passages by the agnorance, and wrong Correction of ‘em again by the Impertinence, of his first Editors’ (Shakespeare’s Editors, Pope’s Preface, section 33). This kind of criticism makes me think about the ambiguity that is in Shakespeare’s work, in addition to our discussion on whether ambiguity should be labeled as something that is “good” (praise worthy) or “bad” (to be disapproved of). From my research, I believe that Pope disapproved of Shakespeare’s use of ambiguity (as it leaves it up to the readers/editors/stage performers to apply their own interpretations—which may be ‘wrong’—and lead to confusion pertaining to particular scenes or characters). In this way, Pope might have read ambiguous-type texts as things which are prone to corruption. Nevertheless, Pope blames much of Shakespeare’s first editors, such as Heminge and Condell, for their “blunders and illiteracies” (Shakespeare’s Editors, Preface, section 18). “Their ignorance,” he states, “shines almost in every page”  ” (Shakespeare’s Editors, Preface, section 18). While Pope praised Shakespeare’s creative works, in addition to his decision to separate his plays from Aristotle’s rules, he regarded the playwright’s time as an era that was both primitive and ignorant; and thus, forgave Shakespeare for many of his “faults.” Ultimately, Pope figured that if texts were so prone to corruption, then he had the right to pick from various readings that appealed to him most. Consequently, he is well-known for cutting over 1,560 of Shakespearian material and reducing them to mere footnotes. Sparing no sympathy, he believed that these lines were so dreadful, that they couldn’t possibly have come from Shakespeare himself. Pope believed that many lines/scenes were created, or rather, tainted by the actors themselves. While hesitant to erase or eliminate many of these particular lines/passages in his edition, he marked them with daggers, known as “mark of reprobation.”  It’s interesting to see how unsure Pope was with his own work. Moreover, it seems rather inconsistent of him to cut out certain lines, while keeping others (that he is unsure about) in with little identification symbols. Ultimately, I think that this conveys a lack of commitment towards his own writing. Furthermore, this makes me question, was Pope truly dissatisfied with Shakespeare’s rather unclear material (level of clarity within the play itself), or was he just too stuck on one “right” way  (his way) to interpret/judge a Shakespearian text?

Having said all that, Pope is quite known for adding and deleting words in order to comply to a more eighteenth century-style of verse writing. Pope’s edition was later attacked by poet, lawyer, and Shakespearian critic—Lewis Theobald—in the pamphlet, Shakespeare Restored. The pamphlet included all of the errors that were in Pope’s work, as well as a number of suggested revisions to the text itself.  According to Dixon’s The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Pope was well-known for his lavish use of commas for highlighting Shakespeare’s “shinning passages” or outstanding scenes (191). Confirming this notion, in Norris’ Shakespeariana vol. II,  Pope writes of how he informs the beauties of a Shakespearean text by stating that, the most shining passages are distinguished by commas in the margin; and where the beauty lay not in particulars but in the whole, a star is prefix'd to the scene.”

Overall, I feel as though Pope has this strange love-hate relationship with Shakespeare. That is, while he admires Shakespeare, and treats or thinks of him as a kind of original genius, I don’t think it necessarily comes off that way.  I think that, in a sense, he blames Shakespeare for writing ambiguous, easily corruptible texts (his forgivable “faults”). But at the same time, I think that he praises the playwright for his originality. Expressing his admiration for the accomplished writer, in the Preface to his 1725 edition of Shakespeare, Pope even labels Shakespeare as an “Instrument of Nature.” All-in-all, I think that Pope regarded Shakespeare as a type of literary genius, but is disappointed by the way he leaves it open for others (including actors) to misinterpret his texts. I also think that, in a way, Pope lacks perspective by not being able to see that (1) he himself might be interpreting Shakespeare’s text in a flawed way, and (2) that genius can be found in leaving things open to interpretation. By the way Pope treats Shakespearean material, I believe that he thinks that there is a kind of “pure” or “True,” original version of Shakespearian texts (ignoring the diverse, collaborative effort that takes part when making a play). 

 -Kaley Farr 

The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Vol. 63, University of Illinois Press, P. Dixon, 191-203 . 1964


“Shakespeare’s Editors” <http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/editors/Pope.htm>.




No comments:

Post a Comment