Jody Greene
Lit 101
7 February 2011
Translation Gone Wrong
In Peter Stallybrass' essay, Editing as Cultural Formation: The Sexing of Shakespeare's Sonnets, he argues that in an academic setting, Shakespeare is a 19th century author. To reach this conclusion, he uses the written works of the privileged to explain how the poet could still be writing in the 19th century.He begins with the first man to translate Shakespeare, John Benson. Benson reordered the sonnets, gave titles to individual sonnets, combined sonnets into one poem, and changed many a "he" to a "she." He edited Shakespeare for what he thought it was worth. Then came along a Edmond Malone, who translated Shakespeare for the understanding of the man behind the words. He defined the character of the man. Shakespeare's character becomes a questionable topic after these two differing translations are published. To defend Shakespeare against possible accusations of pedophilia, John Boswell dedicates himself to proving that under the circumstances of his time, he simply could not be. His reasons are as follows:
(1) In the Renaissance male-male friendship was expressed through the rhetoric of amorous love. (2) Shakespeare didn't love the young man anyway, because he was his patron, and the poems are therefore written in pursuit of patronage. (3) The poems are not really about love or friendship, because sonnets are conventional. They are, then, less about a young man or a dark lady than about Petrarch, Ronsard, Sidney, and the like (a boy's club, but not that kind of boy's club) (Stallybrass 131).
Malone offers his commentaries at the bottoms of his pages, but they are often commentaries in response to other commentaries left by George Steevens. Steevens believed that the Sonnets should not have ever been published and that if they were, they would transform the world into one that accepts sodomy as a social norm. Steevens' fear promotes the idea that Shakespeare is a sodomite - because if he did not believe that Shakespeare was indeed a sodomite, he would have no fear of the Sonnets' publication. The two interpretations of the sonnets created a discrepancy in the understanding of Shakespeare's character. The discrepancy allowed for the creation of a heavily edited volume. The volume contained both Malone and Steeven's commentaries, and the sonnets, in the form given to them by Benson. Basically - the volume was a compilation of commentary on one man's interpretation of Shakespeare written by 19th century authors. Therefore, Shakespeare becomes a 19th century author - because the original text and materiality of the work has evolved into quite the different beast, but still denoted as "Shakespeare."
The discrepancy reared its head in the writing of Samuel Coleridge. He picked up a copy of William Wordsworth's British Poets, in which he found a note objecting to Shakespeare's heterosexuality. Out of respect for his friend, he did not erase what he thought to be untrue. He then attempted to explain Shakespeare for himself by denouncing Shakespeare's imagination and comparing the purity of the Greeks to that of the playwright. His final conclusion, in regards to Sonnet 20, is that Shakespeare "disguises himself as a pederast to avoid detection as a man 'deeply in love' with a woman" (Stallybrass 137). Stallybrass implements Coleridge's solutions to the issue of Shakespeare's sexuality to demonstrate the extent that these men will go to make themselves and each other believe that Shakespeare was a heterosexual man. Continuing from Boswell's reasons as to why Shakespeare is not a pedophile, "(4) Malone was wrong, and the sonnets are, after all, a miscellany. They 'had neither the poet himself nor any individual in view; but were merely the effusions of his fancy, written upon various topicks for the amusements of a private circle'" (Stallybrass 131). According to Boswell, Malone was just wrong in his interpretation - the sonnets were not actually of any importance. Stallybrass uses Boswell's words to further demonstrate the logical flaws in the arguments of the men who shaped Shakespeare, so that the reader can clearly see that Shakespeare has evolved from the man he once was to a man defined and debated over by countless numbers of editors.
Stallybrass structures his essay into chronological order, so that the reader may follow the time line of editor after editor more clearly. On the contrary, he fails to define the terms he employs to aid in the explanation of his argument. The reader must, upon his first reading, understand the concept of a "hysterical symptom" and "moral panic." Stallybrass also fails to define why the reader should care what Malone, or Boswell, or Colerdige has to say about anything. He does say that he is not interested in their scholarly credentials - but neither is the reader. Why is it that the reader should care about these men and their ideas? He says that they are men of cultural influence, but provides no evidence of their feats. Furthermore, the reader might take interest in the idea that the materiality of the text might also have to do with the production of different interpretations of Shakespeare. Stallybrass does not address this idea fully, which leaves a hole in his argument - because the materiality of the text could have aided in the transformation of Shakespeare, and if it did, even in the slightest way, the changes would need to be addressed.
While Stallybrass explains his thesis clearly, he leaves a loophole in his argument that could be filled with another essay, or additional information. He could add the cultural credentials to the men he references, so that the reader may trust that they are not random commoners with opinions. All in all, though, he is able to convey his thesis without fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment