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
No comments:
Post a Comment