1. No category

Un "Editing" Shak-speare
Author(s): Randall McLeod
Source: SubStance, Vol. 10/11, Vol. 10, no. 4 - Vol. 11, no. 1, Issue 33-34: Books: On and About
(1981/1982), pp. 26-55
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3684530
Accessed: 03/10/2010 20:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
SubStance.
http://www.jstor.org
Shakfpcar
ulrffd4y
RANDALLMcLEOD
forMichael Warren
av
oapXLa
19v o koyos
Saint John
veni vidi edidi
Julius Caesar
Keatspeare
In April 1817 John Keats, aged twenty-one-and-a-half
years,sailed to
the Isle of Wight to overwhelmhimselfin poesy - his goal announced
the previousyearin "Sleep and Poetry"- to become a Poet bywritingthe
big poem, Endymion:A PoeticRomance.'Among his self-consciousbaggage he carried his seven-volume,pocket-sizedShakespeare, newlyacquired for the purpose. Just published by Whittingham,thisJohnsonSteevens edition (but without their textual notes) was the latest in
Shakespeare. Unable to wait til departure for the Isle of Poetry,and
feeling lonely, though in high spirits,he "unbox'd a Shakespeare" for
breakfast,as he wrote his brothers,and imbibed it withTrinculo's salutationfrom The Tempest,
"There's my Comfort."2
Though it was heavy for such a lighttraveler,Keats may also have
takenComfortin his 1804 facsimileof Shakespeare's Folio of 1623 - the
"oldest" in Shakespeare - whichhe may also have recentlyacquired. Of
all the playsitwas KingLear his mind was swimmingwith.Its evocationof
the sea and cliffat Dover in Act 4 Scene 6 echoes in his sonnet "On the
Sea," his firstoverwhelmingof thevoyage; he wroteitout forReynoldsin
the firstletterfromthe Isle, and confessed,"I have been rathernarvusand the passage in Lear - "Do you not hear the Sea? - has haunted me
intensely."3As Middleton Murryconcluded, Keats had made an irrational identificationof Lear with the sea.4 This may explain his imagery,
when he wrote,"That whichis creativemustcreateitself- In Endymion,
I leaped headlong into the Sea."5 Whicheveredition of Shakespeare he
was now reading and misquotingin his letters,Keats' underliningsand
Sub-Stance N0 33/34, 1982
26
Shak-speare
27
marginalia for King Lear curiouslyare found only in the facsimile,of
which volume we shall see more in a moment.
Settlinginto his quarters in Carisbrooke required a ritualact: Keats
constructed something of a shrine by arranging his treasured books
symbolicallywithpicturesby his friend,Haydon. There was the picture
of Milton's daughters, to whom, traditionsays, the fatherdictated the
greatvisions.More auspicious was the preeminentstatusforthe head of
Shakespeare, whom Keats hesitatinglydared to fancyhis "Presidor,"a
portraitthrustinto thishands by Fate and Mrs. Cook, his landlady,soon
afterhis arrival.
Carisbrooke
April17th
My dearReynolds,
I have beenin a
Ever sinceI wroteto myBrothers
fromSouthampton
I
moment
am
about
to
become
settled.
and
at
this
forI haveunpacked
taking,
them
into
a
corner
mybooks,
put
snug
pinnedup Haydon- MaryQueen
in a row.In thepassageI founda
ofScotts,and Miltonwithhisdaughters
headofShakspearewhichI had notbefore
seen- It is mostlikely
thesame
- Well- thisheadI have
thatGeorgespokeso wellof;forllikeitextremely
hungovermyBooks,just abovethethreein a row,havingfirstdiscardeda
work- .. .6
- Now thisalone is a goodmorning's
frenchAmbassador
Back on the mainland three weeks later, Keats wrote withLear still
hauntinghim.
MargateSaturdayEve
My dearHaydon,
- I supposebyyourtellingmenottogivewaytoforebodings
Georgehas
mentioned
toyouwhatI have latelysaid in myLetterstohim- truthis I
havebeenin sucha stateofMind as toreadovermyLinesand hatethem.I
am "onethatgathersSamphiredreadfultrade"theCliffofPoesyTowers
above me - yetwhen,Tom who meetswithsomeof Pope's Homerin
Plutarch'sLivesreadssomeofthosetomethey
seemlikeMice tomine.I read
and writeabouteighthoursa day.Thereis an oldsayingwellbegunis half
done"- 't is a bad one.I woulduse instead- "Notbegunat at 'tillhalf
done"so accordingto thatI have notbegunmyPoemand consequently
(a
priori)can say nothingaboutit.7
Keats as Samphire gathererlocates himselfin a Shakespearean fiction,
fromLear 4.6 again, significantly
one of fatheratonementand of trick
as
Mad Tom, has led his blinded, esperspectives. Edgar, disguised
trangedfatherup the imaginarycliffat Dover, whence he conjures up a
dizzyviewof the sea below, and the old man leaps to his death - and to
his senses. Edgar's non-existentSamphire gatherer is half-wayup an
imaginarycliff;in the poet's letter he is Keats himself,at the crucial
beginning,half-wayup the imaginativeCliffof Poesy, his existenceas a
poet in doubt. The mice in Shakespeare are the imagined diminutive
28
Randall McLeod
fishermenon the beach below, but the lettertransformsthem into real,
mousy lines from Pope's Homer read - not by Mad Tom but - by
BrotherTom (whom we willsee again in thisrole); and now Keats seems
himselfto have takenthe place of the fatheron thedizzyheight.ParadoxicallyKeats' identityhas shiftedto thatof the secure masterwhose predecessors are seen less as fathersthan as dwarfsfrom Keats' own poetic
eminence. In the last twistit becomes now a "littleeminence,"forwhich
the poet, climbingagain, needs high support.A typicallywittyand ironic
descriptionof Keats' calling, its paradoxy is informed directlyby the
and never-ending
dramaticironyof the tragedy,and echoes itsterrifying
As
letter
father.
the
of
distance
between
son
and
continues,a
problem
new fatherswimsinto focus.
ThankGod! I do beginarduouslywhereI leaveoff,notwithstanding
occasionaldepressions:
and I hopeforthesupportofa HighPowerwhileI clime
Labor.I
in myYearsofmoremomentous
thislittleeminence
and especially
over
a
Genius
remember
had
notions
that
of good
yoursaying you
presiding
which
do
I
same
have
late
had
the
halfat
for things
you
thought.
of
in
a
dozen
Randomare afterwards
featuresof
confirmed
bymyjudgment
- Is ittoodaringtoFancyShakspeare
thisPresider?Whenin the
Propriety
Isle ofWhight
I metwitha Shakspeare
in thePassageoftheHouseat whichI
him
it
nearer
to
thananyI haveseen- I wasbut
comes
idea
of
lodged
my
I wentoffin
therea WeekyettheoldWomanmademetakeitwithmethough
- Do younotthinkthisis ominousofgood?I amgladyousayevery
a hurry
Man ofgreatViewsis at timestormented
as I am -.
That the auspicious rearrangementsof Mrs. Cook's portraitsby her
short-term
tenant,and his displacementof the Frenchambassador bythe
English poet to preside at the head of his libraryof Comfortsin a snug
corner should have allowed him to settleat last, and should alone have
been a good morning'swork,testifiesto a dual statusof the Book forthe
and hopeful poet: Keats valued the Book not
uneasy but self-satirizing
for
its
content
but
also
as an icon.
only
A half year later Keats was sounding deeper in Shakespeare:
FridayJany231rd
My dearBailey,
... Mybrother
Tomisgetting
buthisSpitting
ofbloodcontinues
stronger
I satdowntoreadKingLearyesterday,
andfeltthegreatness
the
of thingup
- in mynextyoushallhave
tothewriting
thereto
ofa Sonnetpreparatory
it...s
Keats had already finishedcopyingout the firstof the fourbooks of
the PoeticRomancefor his publisher; his new interestin Lear marks not
onlya turnfrom"the stretchedmetre"of romance, to quote the Shakebut also a new penetrationinto Shakespearean epigraph to Endymion,
speare and an ambitionto writedrama, whichwere the greatgains of the
Shak-speare
29
mixed achievementof Endymion.In a letterto his brothersGeorge and
Tom the same day, we hear again of the head of a poet and we see the
promised sonnet. (The letterexistsonly in a transcriptionby the inexact
copyist,John Jeffrey.)
Friday23dJanuary1818
dear
Brothers.
My
morethansatisfied
... Well!I havegiventheIst booktoTaylor;heseemed
it
in
withit,& tomysurprise
proposed
publishing QuartoifHaydonwould
. . . I leftHaydon
makea drawingofsomeeventtherein,
fora Frontispeice.
to
the
next
received
a
letter
&
day
fromhim,proposing make,as hesays,with
all hismight,
a finishedchalksketch
ofmyhead,tobe engravedin thefirst
style& putat theheadofmyPoem,sayingat thesametimehehadneverdone
as he
thething
effect
foranyhumanbeing,& thatitmusthaveconsiderable
willputthenametoit- I begintoday.tocopymy2ndBook"thus
far intothe
bowelsof theLand" - You shall hear whether
it will be Quartoor non
Quarto,pictureor non Picture.
I thinka littlechangehas takenplace in myintellect
lately- I cannot
beartobeuninterested
or unemployed,
I, whoforso longa time,havebeen
- Nothingisfinerforthepurposesofgreatproducaddictedtopassiveness
tions,thana verygradual ripeningof theintellectual
powers- As an
- I sat downyesterday
toreadKingLear once
instanceofthis- observe
again thethingappearedtodemandtheprologueofa Sonnet,I wroteit&
beganto read- (I knowyouwouldliketosee it)
"Onsitting
downtoKingLearonceAgain"
Lute!
Romance
with
serene
O goldentongued
Fairplumed
syren!
Queen!iffaraway!
Leavemelodizing
on thiswintry
day,
Shutup thineoldenvolume
& bemute.
Adieu!foronceagainthefiercedispute,
Betwixt
Hell torment
& impassioned
Clay
MustI burnthrough;
oncemoreassay
Thebitter
sweet
fruit
ofthisShakespeareian
CheifPoet!& yecloudsofAlbion.
theme,
Begettors
ofourdeepeternal
WhenI amthrough
theoldoakforest
gone
Letmenotwander
in a barren
dream
ButwhenI amconsumed
withtheFire
GivemenewPheonix-wings
toflyat mydesire9
So youseeI amgetting
at it,witha sortofdetermination
& strength,
though
I
&
- thisis myfourthletter
thismorning
verily do notfeelitat thismoment
&
I feelrathertired myheadratherswimming so I willleaveitopentill
tomorrow's
post.- . . .o
...
That he was "gettingat it"is strikingly
attestedbyKeats' inscribingthe
Thc
280
oj"Hamlet.
lTra'gedic
and Guildcqierne
artdead:
That Roinicraoncc
?
Wherellouldwe haueourthankes
Hor. Notfromhismouth,
oflifeto thanke
Had itth'abilitie
you:
fortheirdeath.
lie neuergauccommand'ment
Butfincefoiumpevponthisbloodiequeftion,
thePolakewarres,
You from
andyoufromEngland
bodies
Areheerearriued. Giuceorderthatthere
on a ftagebe placedtotheview,
h1gh
Andletmefpeaketo th'yetvnknowing
world,
Ilow thefethings
cameabout. So Ihallyouheare
Of carnall,bloudie,andvnnaturall
acs,
cafuallflaughters
Of accidentall
iudgements,
andforc'dcaufe,
Of death'sputon bycunning,
Andin thisvpihot,purpofes
miftooke,
heads. All thiscan I
FalneontheInuentors
Trulydeliuer.
bFor.Let vs haftto heareit,
to theAudience.
AndcalltheNobleft
I embracemyFortune,
Forme,withforrow,
in thisKingdome,
I haueTome
Ritesofmemory
Whichare roclaime,myvantage
doth
Inniteme,
Hor-.Of thatI fhallhauealwayescaufeto ljeake,
Andfromhismouth
Whofevoycewilldrawon more:
Butletthisfamebe prefintly
perforni'd,
arewilde,
Euenwhilesmensmindes
l.eftmoremifchance
On plots,anderrorshappen.
bFor.Iet foureCaptaines
likea SoldiertotheStage,
BeareHlamlet
Forhe waslikely,hadhe beeneputon
To haueprou'dmollroyally
:
Andforhispafahge,
andtheritesofWarre
The Souldiours
Muficke,
Speakelowdlyforhim.
as this
Take vp thebody; Sucha fight
BecomestheField,butheerelhewesmuchamis.
Go,bid theSouldiers
fltoote.
ExeuntMarching
: afterthewhich,a Peale of
are
Ordenance
of
jot
FINIS.
04td tAA4J5
ot~ 1t
ri
MU4,0?a
c4af-i
t4Cr
Uodtl /)
a.4-01
djtt-U,
Y~U~C
~c FjBa
.4, ,
chv
t4&
a#,
~
ow
,
~
4
ek ee-1B~nL
., A
?Rl~~v;F4AUA id~ +~.
L4.
-
,i
~UV
M4JGA
wa /44O4
LUUt
ei~ALL4L
30
44
d~P/-&
c
u
c
61
Ccar
~ r?
283
THE TRAGEDIE
OF
KING LEAR.
A~5usPrimus. Seana Prima.
We hauethishourea confitant
andEdmond.
EnterKent,Gloucefler,
willtopublith
Ourdaughters
thatfuture
firife
feuerall
Dowers,
A'ent.
theDukeof Maybepreuentednow.
theKinghad moreaffe&ed
ThePrinces,Fhranci&Burgtndy,
SThought
Great
in
our
then
Cornwall.
yodgeft
daughters
Albany,
lone,
Riunals
fotovs: Butnowin Lo nour
Glou.It did alwayesfeeme
hae madetheiramorolfbur
itappearesnotwhich Andheerearetobe anfwer'd.Tell memydaughters
thediuifion
oftheKingdome,
vsbothofRule,
of the Dukes hee valewesmoft,for qualitiesare fo (Sincenowwewilldiueft
ofTerritory,
can makechoifeof Intereft
thatcuriofity
CaresofState)
inneither,
weigh'd,
WhichofyouIhallwefaydothlouevs moft,
eithers
moity.
Thatwe,ourlargeft
Kent.Is notthisyourSon,myLord?
bountie
mayextend
I
bin
at
Glou.His breeding
Sir,hath
mycharge. haue WhereNaturedothwithmerit
challenge.Gonerill,
I
am
Our
eldeft
now
that
to
often
borne,fpeakefirft.
fo
bluth'd acknowledge
him,
lone
more
wordcanweild matter,
Sir,I
Gon.
you
braz'dtoo't.
then
Deerertheneye-fight, addlibertie,
Kent.I cannotconceine
you.
fpace,
richorrare,
cold; where-Beyondwhatcanbe valewed,
Glou.Sir, thisyongFellowesmother
and had indeide(Sir)'a No leffe
thenlife,withgrace,health,
beauty,honor:
vpon(hegrewroundwomb'd,
her
for bed.: As muchas Childeerelou'd,orFather
found.
SonneforherCradle,erefhehada husband
loue
that
A
makes
breath
and
Do youfmell
a fault?
vnable,
poore, fpeech
of
all
fo
the
iffue
manner
I
of
much
the
fault
Kent.I dannot
wilh
loueyou.
it, Beyond
vndone,
What
?
and
Cor.
ihall
Cordelia
fpeake Loue, befilent.
being
foproper.
thisLine,tothis,
boundsenenfrom
Glou.ButI hauea Sonne,Sir,byorderofLaw,fome Lear. Ofall thefe
andwithChampains
elderthenthis; who,yet is no deererin myac- Withthadowie
rich'd
yeere
Forrefts,
to the Withplenteous
thisKnauecamefomthing
Riaersan wide-skirtedeades
fawcily
count,
though
ifues
world
he wasfentfor: yetwashis Mother
before
fayre, e mae ee dy. To thineandAlbanies
muftBe thisperpetuall.WhatfayesourfecondDaughter?
andthehorfon
there
at hismaking,
wasgoodfport
of
deereft
wife
beacknowledged.Doe youknowthisNoble Gentle-Our
Cornwall?
Regan,
as mySifter,
?
Reg. I ammadeofthatfelfe-mettle
man,Edmond
In mytrueheart,
at
worth.
And
me
her
Lord.
Ednt.No, my
prize
I finde
thenamesmyverydeedeoflone:
Glou.MyLordofKent:
as myHonourable
Friend. Onely?hecomestoo(hort,thatI profeffe
himheereafter,
Remernmber
an enemytoall otherioyes,
to yourLordlhip.
Myfelfe
Myferuices
Ednm.
Eent. I muft
loneyou,andfuetoknowyoubetter. Whichthemot preciou uaeof feneprofeifes,
I amalonefelicitate
Sir,I fhallftudy
jAndfinde
deferuing.
Edmn.
lone.
Glol. He hathbinoutnineyeares,andawayhe hall In yourdeereHighneffe
Then
The
Cor.
pooreCordelia,
Kingiscomming.
againe.
Andyetnotfo,finceI amfaremylone's
thenmytongue.
Gonerill,Moreponderous
Sennet.
EnterKingLear, Cornwall,
Alhany,
f
andattlndants.
Jiear.To thee,andthinehereditarie
Regan,Cordelia,
euer,
of ourfaireKingdome,
thisamplethird
theLordsofFrance& Burgundy,
Lear.Attend
Glofter.Remaine
andpleafure
intfpaee,validitie,
Exit. Noleffe
Glou.I thall,myLord.
onConerill. Nowourloy,
ourdarker
Lear.Meanetimewe (halexpreife
purpofe.Thenthatconferr'd
and
our
GinemetheMapthere. Know,thatwehauediuided Although laft leaft;to whofeon loue,
Inthree
ourKingdome:and'tisourfaft.intent,
TheVinesofFrance,andMilkeofBurgundie,
iie
ourAge,
youfay,todraw
hdt'Whtcan
frotn
STo
ltakeall CaresandBufineffe
? fpeake.
thenyourSifters
moreopilent
A third,
whilewe
themt
ftrengths,
onyonger
St'-i~.~Ti
Coulferring
dehth. OurfonofCornwal, Cor.Nothing
myLord.
crawletoward
SVnharthen'd
?
Lear. Nothing
And-you r
efl lotingSonteofAlbany,
ItAt
31
qq2
fb'.
32
Randall McLeod
poem in theblank space in his facsimilebelow the "FINIS" of TheTragedie
ofHamletand facingthe title-pageof TheTragedieofKingLear. It would be
difficultto imagine a more charged emptinessin English literaturethan
here between these monuments. We already know somethingof what
Lear meant to Keats; Hamlet he regarded as the hero of Shakespeare's
clouded-over middle age, and thoughthim more like Shakespeare than
any of his othercharacters.1'At the end of "Sleep and Poetry"Keats had
identifiedhimself,the poet, as the father,his verse as the son; before
Shakespeare it was, of course, he who must be the son, a son prepared,
perhaps by his headlong leap into the Sea, to break the father'ssilence
here of all places, ready to "burn through"and "humbly[to] assay" the
bitterand the sweet.
His movement towards and away from Shakespeare is choreographed in the structureof the sonnet. Its opening is romanticin topic
and Italianate in structure,with repeated rhymes(abba) in an octave.
This comes to an end withmentionof "Shakespearean fruit."The structure transformsfromthe predictedsestetintoa Shakespearean quatrain
and couplet,typicallywithnew rhymes;itbeginswitha continuingreference to Shakespeare - but now as the Presidor,the"ChiefPoet" himself,
who is one of the begettersof "this"- and Keats thinksagain, and draws
closer- of "oureternaltheme."Withthisrevisionof dictionthe problem
of atonementleaps offthe page.
The sudden transformationfrom Italian to Shakespearean form is
moderated somewhatby echoes in both halves of the poem of the Spenserian sonnet withits repeated rhymesand Italianate octave,and of like
featuresof the stanza from The Faerie Queene,but especiallyof its final
hexameter.As theseechoes thusrecallthe Golden-tonguedRomance bid
to be mute in the octave (although the reference there seems more
fromwhichKeats had now
immediatelyto the PoeticRomance,Endymion,
the
is at the same timea
we
that
sonnet's
observe
structure
emerged), may
dance towards Shakespeare and away. The end of the poem, however,
may seem to tip the scales away from balance and reconciliationof its
various strands,and to liberatethe poet, self-immolatedin the fireof the
father,to his extra-vagantgoal: flightoutward "to" his desire - or less
apocalytpicallyin the revision,flight"at" his desire. But the poet's entreatyfordeliveranceand his demand forwingsreceiveno answerhere.
All we see is the clarity with which Keats frames and refines his
supplication.
The ever-problematicdistance from the Presidor may be further
elaborated,however,at some removefromthesonnet- in thecontradictorydescriptionsof it in his letterto Bailey not only as "preparatory"
(preparatory,I suppose, to Keats' reading of the play); but also, curiously,as "prologue," in the letterto his brothers.If Keats were not such a
masterof nuance, the latterword mightread likea slip of the tongue: for
itsliteralimplicationis thatthe sonnethas added to the play. By virtueof
responding to its "demand" and offeringLear the sonnet as "prologue,"
Shak-speare
33
Keats had entered into collaborationwithShakespeare. And if the son
had so helped the father,were the new Phoenix Wingsnot already given
even before they were entreated? This astonishingattitudetoward his
poem and itssolicitationcan now,in fact,be relocatedin one of thesetwo
statesof the sonnet.The titlein the Folio is "On sittingdown to read King
Lear once again." But the titleof the letterin which Keats calls it the
"prologue" reads, "'On sittingdown to King Lear once Again'." Althoughthe latterversiondescends to us onlythroughJeffrey's
transcription,we now have no reason to doubt the accuracyof itstitle.The easier
scansion of this title line also suggests that a legitimateKeatspearian
variantis involved,and that Keats was not sittingdown to read Shakespeare's King Lear, but to writeit.12
It is thus literallyand literarilyinappropriateboth to Keats' physical
and psychicinspirationand to all the internal,referentialand contextual
meanings of the sonnet to abstractit fromits exact physicalsituationin
the opening of the Folio icon; for even for Keats to open to Lear in
January1818 was in effectto bid Romance shutup her olden pages. Nor,
as I shall argue presently,ought the poem to be severed fromthe whole
Folio Lear. This treasuredvolume,now extended by Keats' inscription,is
an evolutionof the apprenticeshrinein the snug cornerat Carisbrooke.
That one was dominated by Shakespeare the Presidor; thisnew penetrationinto the head of poetryand into his book suggestsKeats the Insider.
Not, of course, that the problem of the young poet's distance fromthe
Chief of English poetrycould ever be resolved; ratherthatthe dawn of
his new understandingsof poetry would be figured in "new reenactments"of the drama of fatherand son.
Several months before he inscribed the Lear sonnet, Keats visited
anotherShakespeare shrinein whichhe made his mark.Of theirOctober
pilgrimageBailey writes:
Oncewetooka longerexcursion
ofa dayortwo,toStratford
uponAvon,to
visitthebirthplace
We
inscribed
our
names
in addition
ofShakespeare. ...
tothe'numbers
those
which
blackened
thewalls:and
numberless'
of
literally
ifthosewallshavenotbeenwashed,orournameswipedouttofindplace/bor
someothers,
theywillstillremaintogether
uponthattrulyhonoredwall.'3
And when he was, as MatthewArnold affirmed,when we was with
Shakespeare, the making of shrinesby his admirersand familydid not
cease. To theirsister,Keats' brotherGeorge wrote:
Louisville,Feby1825
My dearFanny
withherfourthGirl,wehopedfora Boyto
... -Mrs K has beenconfined
namehimafterpoorJohn,whoaltho'so longgonefromus is constantly
in
ourminds;hisminiature
overourmantel
peiceispartlyhiddenbya hyacynth
in bloom;Shakespeareis nextabovehim,Tomat thetop,Beaumontand
Fletcheron eitherside.Our otherlessvaluedpicturesare Wellington
and
34
Randall McLeod
and theminiature
thewindows,
ofa dogbyHyWyliein
Buonapartebetween
overone of thedoors.- . . 14
mezzotinto
Keats never published his poem, and as far as we know its "public"
consisted of Bailey, his brothers- and especiallyof Fanny Brawne, to
whom, witha hand less exuberant than thatwithwhichhe inscribedhis
Shakespeare three years before, when he began his firstsea change,
Keats signed over his folio (on the title page above the head of
Shakespeare)15
MR. WILLIAM
SHAKESPEARES
as he prepared to voyage to Italy to die. Now, Keats scholars have responded to his sense of the iconic,because theyoftenworkwithhis actual
lettersand annotations;the general public,however,receivesthissonnet
througha de-iconizingprocess of editorialtransmission.The folio version is usuallychosen as copytext.Firstit is strippedof itscontext,which
deprives us of its physicalrelationshipto Lear (and to Hamlet).Further
loss of meaning accompanies its transformationfrom manuscriptinto
considereda "line"
print.The date is removed,thoughitcan be fruitfully
of an autobiographical poem;'16 by chance, perhaps, it even scans as
pentameter,and all but rhymeswiththe title(whichalso scans). Its loss
leaves dangling the referenceto "This wintryday" in line 3, whichthus
tends to registeras "any day one sits down to read Lear." No edited
version seems to retain the irregularhalf-linespacing afterthe octave,
symbolicof the chasm that gaped between the closingbook of romance
and Keats' opening understandingof Shakespeare, whichthe words and
structuralmetamorphosisof the sonnet proclaimed. They eliminatethe
evidence of revisionbychoosing the second thoughts("our- " insteadof
"thisdeep eternal theme"). And even if they are thorough enough to
retain the rejected readings in the (usually unread) textual notes, they
have removed the immediateevidence of revisionin the icon - as if the
tensionbetweenthese readings symbolizingthe poet's doubt and certainties were only evidence for constructingthe textand not the textitself.
Editorssubstitutea mere terminusforthevariousestheticfinalitiesof the
layered stages of the poem's deposit.
No editorseems to give a hintof theunderliningsof the facsimiletext
ofLear, whichmaybe essentialglosseson whatKeats meantwhen he said
"reading"and "again" in his title.Keats read Lear withhis pen, notjust his
eyes, projecting,it seems, his own mental landscapes into it,
35
Shak-speare
goodhope
Iegan I haoue
fway
fwieet
and allegorizinghis life by it - as this night,like many,
Enter Edgar, and Foole.
Edg. Fathom,andhalfe,Fathomandhalfe; ooreTom.
Come notin heereNuncle,here'sa piri,, hepe
:
,Foole.
me, helpeme.
i
when he sat up nursinghis brotherTom, who had been withhim at the
Cliff,reading lines from Pope's Homer, and was now at the verge of
death byconsumption.Again and again we see thatartand lifeare whole
cloth for Keats. This is so not only for his own life,but forthe master's.
Shakespeare, he expounded, led a life of allegory; his works were the
commentaryon it.The editingand publishingof Keats proceeds as ifthis
integrationof art and life,were not so, or were incidental;editorshave
elevated textfromcontext,extractedword fromflesh,and redeemed the
poem from the host of its meanings. Laboring with artifice,Keats is
delivered of the artofficial.
In a rich letterto his brotherGeorge and sister-in-lawGeorgiana in
1819 - one final quotation - Keats draws togethervarious strands
pertinentto thisdiscussion.He begins witha referenceto the tasselswith
whichGeorgiana had rigged the famous portrait:
sundayMornFeby14 .
.
.
I
am
dear
Brother
Sister
&
My
sittingoppositethe ShakspeareI
I
never
lookat itbutthesilktasselsonit
the
and
Isle
brought
from
ofwight
- exceptthatI do not
as
Poet
me
the
the
as
much
itself
giwe
face of
pleasure
knowhowyou are goingon
are veryshallowpeoplewhotakeeverythingliteralA Man's lifeof
... they
- and very
is a continualallegory
of
feweyescan seetheMystery
anyworth
- whichsuchpeoplecan no
hislife a lifelikethescriptures,
figurative
36
Randall McLeod
moremakeoutthantheycan thehebrew
Bible.LordByroncutsa figurebutheis notfigurative
led
hisworks
are the
Shakspeare a lifeofAllegory;
comments
on it -
... thereis anotherextractor two- one especiallywhichI will copy
- forthecandlesareburntdownandI am usingthewaxtapertomorrow
whichhas a longsnuffon it- thefireis at itslastclick- I amsitting
with
mybacktoitwithonefootratheraskewupontherugand theotherwiththe
heel a littleelevatedfromthecarpet- I am writingthison theMaid's
tragedywhichI have read sincetea withGreatpleasure- Besidesthis
volumeofBeaumont& Fletcher- thereare on thetabltwovolumesof
to
chaucerand a new workof TomMoorescall'd 'TomCribb'smemorial
- butI requirenothingso
Congress- nothingin it - Theseare trifles
however
muchofyouas thatyouwillgivemea likedescription
ofyourselves,
itmaybe whenyouare writing
tome- CouldI see thesamethingdoneof
as toknowinwhat
anygreatMan longsincedeaditwouldbea greatdelight:
positionShakspearesat whenhe began 'To be or notto be"- suchthing
becomeinteresting
fromdistanceoftimeorplace. .. .17
When we sit to read Keats' sonnet in Shakespeare's folio we sense the
immediacyof his body, the position in which he sat, conveyed by the
writing,the literaland literaryposture in one coherentbody whichis his
text(and theirtext).Nor can itbe an accidentthatKeats submittedhimself
to the difficultyof reading Shakespeare in a version unredeemed by
editors. If not them, then, whom could Keats have thought to find
presidingthere,but Shakespeare himself?
Textin theAge ofPhotographic
Reproduction
Our broad biographicalvisionof Keats has come to a sharp focus on
questionsof editing.Withfurtherdevelopment,the focuswillbe readyto
shift,as the titledid promise,to Shakespeare.
If I have not seemed to speak graciouslyof Keats' editors, I must
make clear thatI do notdoubt theirpoeticappreciation,technicalskillsor
devotion.The workof Rollinson the lettersand now of Stillingeron the
poetry make Keats one of the English writersbest served by editors.
Rather mydisagreementstemsfrom-whatI thinkmustbe our different
and of theireconomic and
perceptionsof technologicaltransformations
on
the desk is Walter Benjame
before
sociological implications.Open
min'silluminating"The Workof Artin theAge of MechanicalReproduction."'8 He makes me thinkthatreaders - or shall I call us "consumers"
of literature?- must reconceive the statusof textin the era of photographic reproduction.
In the age of letterpress,fromthe cradle of printingto thiscentury,
when photo- and photo-electronictechnologyis transformingit beyond
recognition,textualtransmissionfrommanuscriptto printor fromprint
Shak-speare
37
to reprintinvolved an approximatelylinear processingof text;'' it was
read (absurdly)bitbybit,or (semantically)phrase byphrase,leftto right,
line by line; and rememberedin these small unitsby a compositor,who
reconstituteditin an arrayof types,fromthe facesof whicha new version
of the textwas eventuallyprinted.Such processingis atomistic,sequential
and linear; but the textualobjectexistsas a simultaneouswhole,a thingin
itself- but a thing- however traditiondictatesour unravellingit. The
atomisticand linear processing of the book is not a natural way to go
about textual reproduction,though it is second-nature,as it followsthe
way we are taughtto read and write.Type-by-typecompositionderives,
rather,froman arbitraryprinting,
technology.It constitutesan immense
bottleneckin reproduction,in which the textis exposed letterby letter,
face by face, to modernization,graphic restyling,random error, and
common-sensetinkering,much of itgeneratedbyattemptsto make sense
of the copy only on the scale of the phrase held in the compositor's
memory,and to respond to it within the limitationsof the printers'
founts.The bottleneckboth slows transmissionand introducesits own
turbulencein the flowof text.Some aspectsof text,however,are revealed
only when it is conceived in larger or integralunits- as an icon, or, as
typographersoften rhapsodize, as architecture.
Since the reprintingof a book required the re-compositionof its
entiretext,it is understandablethateditorsthemselvessaw transmission
as an occasion for re-composition(to use the word in a differentsense).
Of course,editinghas itsown extensivetraditions,whichrationalizetheir
is thatediting
behavior; all I wishto suggestbylinkingitwithtypesetting
is consonant withthe means of physicalreproduction,and maybe influenced by it.
The status of the book in the age of photographicreproductionis
of Shakequite altered. Beginning over a centuryago photofacsimiles
earliest
started
to
the
speare's
bypass
compositorialand editorieditions20
al bottlenecksbetweentextualevidence and consumer,and to presentthe
authoritativetextsverymuch as theyappeared to Shakespeare's contemporaries. Michael Warren perceptivelycalls thisthe existentialtext,the
existenceof which preceeds its essence. For two centuriesreaders have
known littleof Shakespeare but the essentialtextfashionedby editorial
tradition,and ithas effectively
usurped the priorityof existence.It would
be naive to claim thatphotographyhas no "essential"bias of itsown, but
arisingas itdoes afterthe establishmentof all-pervasiveediting,it simply
and irrevocablydetaches the text fromthat tradition.However Shakespeare's contemporarieslooked upon his textis difficultto say; but forus
to witnessthe vast differencebetween the evidence of textconveyed by
photofacsimilesand what stands revealed as editorialrumorsand irrelevant improvementsof it, is immediatelyto unedit Shakespeare.
Thus the camera anchors our perception of Shakespeare's text in
historicalevidence untrammeledwithideal projectionsof its meanings.
is more apt, as our education inclinesus to look
(Perhaps de-trammeled
38
Randall McLeod
upon the existentialtext as stripped rather than merely naked.) The
camera does not correct errors, real or imagined, and there is much
textsoffersomethingof a riledroad to
noise; fortheseventeenth-century
formulato separate
learning.But in art therecan never be a satisfactory
noise frommessage or to detecterror.Such speculationsare alwayspart
of "the beholder's share," and a reader who surrendersthis individual
activityto theinstitutionof editingforgoessomethingessentialto esthetic
and historicalexperience. In post-medievalcultureat least, the relationship between art and institutionsis exceedinglyproblematical.Readers
who willnot deviate fromthe Truth to the evidence on whichit restsrisk
becoming lost in editorial concepts masking as percepts. Our editorial
traditionhas normalized text; facsimilesfunctionratherto abnormalize
readers. Like Keats.
In the firsthalf of thiscentury,English criticismseems to have been
characterizedby an increasingneglectof textualcriticism.The creation
of photofacsimilesdid not bringabout the revolutions,even in academic
criticism,of which it was capable. This need not whollysurprise us, as
many Renaissance scholars functionat some distance fromeditingcontemporarytexts,and are tied, moreover,to studentsforwhom popular
editions are traditional.In fact the traditionof editing Shakespeare is
largelymaintainedby pedagogy, in whichthe teacher'srole mediatesthe
students'confrontationwithart,and shapes itaccordingto variousintellectual and social paradigms, which impose ideal order on recalcitrant
facts.
With the mention of photofacsimilesof the artefacts,however, I
have touched onlyon one phase of the impactof photographyon printing. Critical journals like the one before you depend on the comparativelyrecentinventionof printingbyphoto-offset;a page in thisformat can be created by pasting together typeface,photostatsof one's
own research documents (a Keats manuscript, for example),
and then this
c
-o
is
a
,,'-~jl
assemblage printedphotographically
just the sa aas ,page of typeface. Like Swift'sAcademicians of Lagado, who spoke not words,but the
things themselves,modern criticsstand on the verge of a syntax of
concrete ideas, which may endow English criticismat the end of the
centurywithan awareness of the iconicityof text,whichcriticismlargely
neglectedat the beginning(though Dada was declaimingiton all fronts).
Simple laws of economic and culturalevolutionsuggestthe new critical
direction,forvalues trailin the wake of technologicalalterationsof basic
media. Not thatthisfactmakes a shiftof criticalawarenesstowardiconicitytranscendentlyright,but such a movementseems now historically
inevitable,whateveritsown bias; and itcan compensateforthe pervasive
bias of the pre-photographicage of transmissionand of the traditionof
editorialand compositorialmiddlemen it fostered.
Shak-speare
39
Shakestext
The dread voice past,let us returnbrieflyto Keats' textand contextto
ask what "King Lear" means in the titleof his poem, and so home in on
questions of Shakespearean editing.
In its foliocontextthe phrase reads mosteasilyas an abbreviationof
the titleopposite. But "King Lear" happens to be the exact titlefrom
Keats' Whittinghamedition,whichmay have been the onlyShakespeare
text used on the Isle of Wight. If, as may be possible, Keats' sonnet
interposesbetweenhis having read onlythe modern editionand his first
turningto the folio TragedieofKing Lear, then we may observe that the
sonnetis preparatoryto a reading of a Shakespearean play vastlydifferent from the one Keats had come to know. This does not answer the
question of what Keats intended or experienced in his phrase "King
Lear" - nor is thatquestion even to be answered here - but it warnsus
that the titlecovers a multitudeof texts,and raises the embarrassing
question of whethereven our own use of "King Lear" has veryprecise
meaning to us.
If we compare them,we see thatKeats' twotextsare decidedlynot the
same, not least in their discrepant titles.Besides the modernizationof
spelling,dictionand punctuation,changes in metre,conjecturalemendation,relineation,and all that that we must take for granted in editorial
tinkering,thereis somethingelse thatdifferentiates
Whittingham'sLear
fromthe folio's.Like all modern texts,Whittingham'sis an eclecticconflationof the foliotextwitha quarto publishedin 1608, called TheHistorie
of King Lear..., which differsfrom it greatlyin characterization,the
mutuallyexclusivepresence and absence of episodes and even of scenes,
strikingdifferencesin diction,beginningwiththe titleand extendingto
the assignmentof the last speech - to Edgar in F, to Albanyin Q and in
the Whittinghamtext,though the latterusually prefersF readings. Allowing for the surface blemishes and irregularitiesto be expected in
dramatictexts,we can say thateach of the versions,
seventeenth-century
TheHistorieand TheTragedie,is completein itself.Simply,ieachhas itsown
distinctlydifferentiatedmoral and estheticnatures. This factis scarcely
knownin Shakespeare criticism,because even scholarshipis largelybased
on eclecticconflations,like Whittingham'sedition,and veryfew Shakespearians bother to take each substantivetextin itsown write- read it,
thatis, withoutthe prejudice that it is fragmentaryevidence of a single
lost uriginal.21
This would scarcelydo in Bible criticism,wherea differentattitudeto
the Word prevails; conflationis staunchlyresistedin such multipletexts
as Genesis 1 and 2, which seem to tell Creation twice,and the four holy
gospels, which are not whollyconsistentwitheach other. Even if those
who hold for conflationcould prove that all the lines from each text
which are conflatedby the editors are Shakespeare's, theystillhave no
basis forconflation;forconflation,by attendingto content,muddies the
40
Randall McLeod
crucialquestion of form.(God maybe the authorof male and female,but
theirconflationwould be obscene.) It has recentlybeen argued thatthe
Lear quarto represents an early draft,and that the folio representsa
revisionfor staging. If this is true, then conflationinexcusablyjumbles
and createsan editorialstandard above
stagesof estheticdifferentiation,
art. Editing promises the esthetic,but deliversanesthetic.
However we explain the originsof Q and F, the crucial textualfactis
their existentialdifference;and the crucial sociological fact is that the
firstfact is ignored. However it arose, the form of the editorial Lear
medleysimplydoes not reston textualevidence. It is true thatthe mindnumbing collations of scholarlyeditions endeavor to root each cruxin
textual evidence, but as for the shape,it persistsmerelybecause of the
weightof its own tradition,which arose a centuryafter Shakespeare's
- because it is estheticallypleasing. (In
death, and - not insignificantly
it
is
better
than
fact,
Shakespeare's substantivetexts:it outsells them.)
Withwhatdegree of consciousnessof the textualproblem Keats took
up the folio, I doubt we can be sure. Certainlyin his use of the folio
Troilus,he encountered a reading at 3.3.226 thatmade sense to him,but
was not in his modern edition - it followed the quarto here, which I
gather Keats did not know about - and he queried the arbitrarinessof
editorialbehaviour. At 1.1.39 he attackeda "hocus pocus'd" emendation
(which is the reading of his Whittinghamedition).22If in Troilushe was
aware of the role of the textualeditor,thenperhaps so inLear. But even if
thereis onlya littleevidence of his sophisticationin textualtheory,there
is stillthe general factof Keat's sure poetic instinct,thatbroughthim to
the substantivefolio and rooted him there,surelyfor some strongpurpose, as the 1623 text is not easy labor. And there is also the graphic
evidence Keats leftbehind in it of his meticulousreading.
If we look at his markingson the firstpage of the folioLear, whichis,
again, the onlyLear texthe marked,we see he leftan extensiverecord of
his attentionto details, most of which happen to be variantin Q. Keats
would not likelyhave known of thisvariationpreciselyas we do, but he
would have drunk in itseffectwhen he read Lear in the eclectictradition
of his Whittinghamedition, as in the example, just mentioned,of the
varying assignment of the last speech. "Vnburthened crawle toward
death" at thebottomof the firstcolumn of TheTragedieis partof a section
of fiveF linesthathas no counterpartin TheHistorie(here quoted afterF).
ourAge,
all CaresandBufineffe
To fliake
from
whilewe
on yongerArengths,
Conferring
tlhem
Vnburthen'd
crawletowarddeath. Our fonofCornwal
of
AnYduournoe flo
lingSonCe Albany,
willto publifh
We haue thishourea conftant
Our daughters
feuerallDowers,thatfutureftrife
now. ThePrinces,Franci-8Burgundy,
Maybepreuented
GreatRiualsin ouryodgeft
loue,
daughters
Shak-speare
41
To fhake
andbufines
ofour
allcares
fiate,
themonyonger
yeares,
Confirming
Thetwogreat
Princes
Franceand
Burgxudy,
Greatryuals
daughters
inoiryoungef
loue,
Next, Keats marked one F line here.
(Since now we willdiueftvs bothofRule,
Intereft
ofTerritory,
CaresofState)
The whole parenthesisis not present in Q. All the followingmarked F
passages exhibitvariationfromQ.
found.
11
As muchas Childeerelou'd,orFather
;
much
a childereloued,or
father
friend,
rich'd
Withthadowie
andwithChampains
Forrefts,
Withplenteous
andwide-skirte ades
Riuers,
With
wideskirted
forrells,and
meades,
fhady
I1Onelythecomestoofllort,
onelyfhecamc hort,
l'Thenthatconferr'd
onlGonerill. Now ourloy,
our laftand leafi; to wholeyongloue,
Altlhough
andMilkeofBurgundie,
TheVinesofFrance,
Strie
W-hatcan U-y, to(ldaw
toiitce-"-A
A third,
moreopilent
? fpeake.
thenyouryo?
Sifters
on Gonwrsll,but
nowourioy,
Thenthatconfim'rd
in
thelait,noc
Although
louc,
leafr ourdecre
Whatcanyoufaytowina third,
more
opulcnt
Thenyourtillers.
And so Keats' annotationcontinuesforthetwodozen foliopages, withno
less diversitybetween Q and F.
To ground mysurmisesabout Keats' readingsofLear in an annotated
quarto would be ideal. Q was extremelyrare in Keats' time,however,and
was not available in facsimile.There seems to be no evidence Keats knew
of it; but ifhe had fallenupon it ratherthan F, it is inconceivablethathis
discriminatingunderliningwould not have picked out phrases unique to
that version,as in the famous mad trialscene in 3.6, for example; and
would have shown thereby,that his understandingof Lear is radically
differentfromours, who depend on the editors and on conflation.
The only issue that can concern us here, therefore,is actual differences betweenF and Keats' Whittinghamedition.I havejust argued from
42
Randall McLeod
an estheticpoint of view that cruciallythe folioformcannot be found
there - but the reader may find questions of contentmore persuasive.
Now, it happens that everypassage marked on the first-folio
page is in
this
is
a
because
conflated
understandable,
Lear;
Whittingham'sKing
edition tends to pick up whole lines unique to eitherversion,and, when
the textsoffervirtuallythe same reading withminorvariants,to choose
thoseof F. The lastquotationdoes, however,expose theeclecticeditor,as
he opts for Q variants.Here is the Whittinghamreading:
Than thatconfirm'd
on Goneril.- Now,ourjoy,
the
not
Although last, least;to whoseyounglove
The vinesof France,and milkof Burgundy,
Striveto be interess'd:whatcan yousay,to draw
A thirdmoreopulentthanyoursisters?Speak.
The italicizedwords are introjectedinto the basicallyF textfromQ,
thoughthe F readings- respectively"conferr'd,""our" and "and" - are
not problematic.Those in the second line are especiallyinteresting,as
theybelong to the question of Lear's "deere loue" forCordelia in theirQ
context; in F, where the "yong loue ... of France, and ... of Burgundie" is the immediate issue, however,Cordelia is Lear's "last and least,"
ratherthan "last,not least." Whittingham'seditionconfoundsthese contextualmeaningsbyinsertingQ's "not"beforetheQF "least,"whichword
thereupon ceases to indicate the physical or political slightnessof the
heroine (whichitmaysignifyin F), and substitutesforither greatstature
in her father'slove (as in Q) or in his "joy"(as itregistersin Whittingham).
This is a smallbut typicalexample of the strongswingsof literaryand
dramatic response that hinge on even the small questions of diction in
eclecticediting.If we thinkthatquestionsof meaning at thislevel are not
verysignificant,we will have to argue it out with Keats, whose variant
manuscriptsof the Lear sonnet testifyto his continual adjustment of
diction in just such small, but meaningful,details.23
I chose to quote this single set of variants from Q, F and Keats'
modern edition because they are the clearest example, in the opening
where Keats wrotehis sonnet,of an F reading thathe was taken by,but
whichhe would not have been able to findin his Whittingham.One can
see withoutfurtherevidence, that an argumentcould be made for the
distinct"folioness"of Keats' Lear at thispointin his growingunderstanding of Shakespeare, and the importanceof thisconceptin our response to
his title,his sonnetand his collaboration.Also, we mustbear in mind that
if Keats said he surfaced fromEndymionwiththe abilityto read Shakespeare to his depths,his new perceptionmay have come in part fromhis
penetrationinto his folio, which unedited Shakespeare as Keats knew
him frommodern editions.
Anothereditorialfunctionis to erase virtuallyall seventeenth-century
punctuations,read the text (modernized and conflated) according to
sense, and to repointby modern standards.Editorsargue thatthe print-
Shak-speare
43
discretion(or indiscretion),
and
er's punctuationwas a compositorial
oraccurately
doesnotnecessarily
to
represent
Shakespeare's
pointing the
for
that
the
diction
theauthor's.
represents
printer's
degree, example,
This is likelyan accurateassessment;but it does not followthatthe
is notpartof theevidence,thatitmaynotbe partlyShakepunctuation
or
as intelligent
readingin
contemporary
spearean, thatitlacksinterest
itself.
Lestwe suspectthatmeaningdoes notgovernin a thingso smallas a
thatKeats
to giveourselvespause byobserving
comma,itis worthwhile
in
Even
his
"stood
in
(as Hazlitt's
proseunderlining
actually
uponpoints."
in
on
but
most
his
sensitive
essay Lear),
markingof Spenser,
strikingly
to
his
was
and
he
given lifting penatmajorpunctuaShakespeare Milton,
tionand evenat commas.24
Someliftings
maydisclosemerelya need for
is that
but
most
of
them
seem
of
ink,
Myimpression
literary
significance.
often
to
metre
and
to
they
(especiallycaesura)
expressKeats'sensitivity
rhetorical
pauses,whichtheypunctuate.As onlya verybroadsampling
could advancethisbeyonda guess,it maybe enoughhere to adduce
thatis clearlyirreguseveralexamplesofKeats'liftedpen at punctuation
standards.Notethe"intrusive"
larbynineteenthand twentieth-century
commasin thesestarredfoliolines(No suchcommasare tobe foundin
Whittingham.):
*
Gent. There is meanesMadam:
Our fofter
Nurfeof Nature,is repofe,
The which he lackesTli.'t to prouoke in him
Are many Simples operatiue, whofego werWiclofe thieeye ofAguifl.
Co-rd.All bleftSecrets,
Allyouvnpubliih'd
oftheearth
Vertues
Spring withmy teares; be aydant,and remediate
In theGoodmansdefires:feeke,feekeforhim,
* Leafthisvneoltern'd
ra,lcediffolue
thelife
That wantsthemeanesto lcade it.
--CI~II-
_,
I---Ilr
-c'
'
Glou. The trickeofthatvoyce,I do wellremember:
i't nottheKing?
Lear. I, eu.eryinchaKing.
WhenI doftare,
feehowtheSubiecquakes.
that
life. Whatwasthycaufe?
rrans
I pardon
notdve: dyeforAdultery
Adulter? thouflualt
?
No theWrengoestoo't,andthefmall
r-iledFiye
rin myfjht. Let Copulation
thriue:
tc
44
Randall McLeod
These commas, divide subject and object; as these skeletal sentences,
show they,are grammaticallyinappropriate:
Our nurse,is repose.
Lest rage,dissolvelife.
The trick,I remember.
But in theirfleshedcontextsthe commas can workrhetoricallyas pauses,
and Keats' pauses at them may representsomethingof his actual intonation of these folio lines. Whatever its authority,the folio punctuation
made its point on one of Shakespeare's most sensitivereaders. Once we
notice how thoroughlyKeats responded even to the oddities of Renaissance punctuation, we surely must confess that we would never have
guessed how he read the text,ifwe had not seen the tracesof it fromhis
pen. How this man particularlyunderstood "King Lear" and "reading"
- those words fromhis title- are vitalmysteriesthat we have not yet
grasped. But where can be begin? - not in any edition of Keats and
Shakespeare yetproduced. Not to understandthese issues is to miss the
pulse of theirshared blood.
I have concluded Keats' grand search for masteryof the "eternal
theme" in a comma. As I thinkKeats is a literalistof the imagination,the
defense of hisartand lifecould arise even fromso seeminglyinsignificant
a detail; and ifI were going to offeryou a peroration,I would notblush to
startit at this point.
In approaching Shakespeare slowlythroughLear, and Lear through
Keats, I hoped to evoke the dynamicsof a literarytradition,on whichaxis
of genius thequestionsof editingshould be seen to turn.I commentedon
printingtechnologyto suggestwhythis perceptionof editingwas alien,
and whynew technologymay soon make it familiar.In both sectionsof
the paper I have not hidden myown values, but I have triedto show that
theyneed have littleto do withthe argument.
If thisapproach has at all succeeded, itmayhave done so at the costof
makingLear seem the onlyShakespeare thatneeds unediting.In closing,
then,I would like brieflyto offerthree various perspectiveson editorial
obscurity,which may in sum suggest how pervasive the darkness is.
Shakespeare's text is all before us.
Textgate
Spellbound:Withinthe last half centuryconservativeeditinghas focused on the "old-spellingedition." The aim was to respectthe so-called
"accidental"featuresof earlyeditionsand to preservethemin re-editions
in the hope occasionally of seeing through the "veil of print" to the
underlyingmanuscript,now lost,where greaterauthorityresided. So far
so good. But the great problem is thatthe "accidentals"were not under-
45
Shak-speare
stood in a physical sense, but were interpretedthrough the atomistic
abstractionof spelling,which,oddly, seems never to be defined by oldspellingeditors,althoughtheirpracticecan be defended onlyon thebasis
of such a definition.So far so bad, for abstractionfounders on the
actualitiesof the concrete text.It can be shown that,as manyof the old
kerningtypesortscould notbe set nextto each otherwithoutfoulingand
breaking,combinationsof these typestended to be avoided in composition. In such problematicsettingsother typeswere required to mediate
them, types which were compatible with the problematickerns,which
extend typefaceoffthe edge of the typebody.In some founts,forexample, k followedbythe ligaturein long-sand p willbreak boththekand the
long-s,hence -
Shaee-oJeare
in whichthe typographicallyexigente and the hyphen are not necessarilypart of the spelling.
-
kerns
kerns
This space must be filled
types whose face is
kernswith
without descenders: eg.
spaces, an e,a hyphen,etc.,
There is more good news. Types can kern vertically.
Comostion
ta
.V
afV&ce
c?N'fs,
&e
cotf
asc uertfo
c13
C le, a
Compositionwiththesetypesmustavoid clashes of ascenders frombelow
46
Randall McLeod
and descenders fromabove when one or both kern. One of the obvious
compositorialexpedients in Shakespeare's time,in the days beforeorthography,was to add a terminale to a word in one line to bringitstypesout
of the verticalline of conflictwithtypesin adjacent lines. Interchanging
upper- and lower-casesettingscould also oftensolve such problems,by
adjustingthe alignmentas a functionof the different(horizontal)set of
the substitutetype,byeliminatinga descender or ascender,or bymoving
itsrelativepositionin theshape of theletter.Now, foreditorsto transtype
an early text from a kerning fount to the non- or minimally-kerning
fountsof modern re-editionsis preciselyto hide the equivocal relationship of concrete typesettingand abstractspelling in the early text.The
editorial criterionof spelling does not allow us to distinguishin the
reprintthe materialcausalityof the copytextimage. Conservativeeditorial practicecannot be founded on the quicke-sand of spelling.25
Concordance:Theoreticallya concordance is simplyan edition of a
work,the shape of whichderives not fromitsinherentliteraryform,but
froman extrinsicliteralsequence. Now thatcomputersare employed in
editing,concordances tend to be made duringeditorialprojectsfortheir
own internalguidance. In the past,however,the concordance has been a
derivativeof an existingedition. Concordances are useful because they
locate examples of diction relevantto thatof some crux editors may be
strugglingwith,and so familiarizethem with.authorialusage on a large
scale. They are especially valuable for authors who are outside of standard English, like Shakespeare who came before it, and who helped to
formit,or writersin dialectlike Burns,or idiolectlikeJoyce.The scholarly usefulnessof concordances declines abruptlywithany incompletion,
or, if theyare selective,withany fuzzinessabout the basis of selection.
There is no completeconcordance forall of Shakespeare's substantive
texts,though people talk as if there were. At any momentthislack can
leave editors in the awkward positionof possessingthe littleknowledge
that is a dangerous thing. Now being published is a massive, multitotheWorksof
Concordance
and Systematic
volumed computerizedComplete
WilliamShakespeare,really a number of concordances; and the one-vowhichis the main concordance
toShakespeare,
lumed HarvardConcordance
of the former,26
and claims to offer"the firstcomplete and reliable onevolume concordance to all the playsand poems of Shakespeare." Unfortunatelyno rigor has gone into the definitionof text,or, if it has, of
conveyingthe definitionto the reader. Many scholars who use it will
realize thatthe Riversideedition it concords is, by itsanachronizingand
itseliminationof text,a significantshortfallon the whole canon. But few
will know that certain parts of the chosen edition are not concorded,
because the omissions are not admitted or detailed. Most users would
want a concordance of Shakespeare, for example, that retained the
unique phrase "Twelfth Night" and omitted the 27,575 occurences of
"the."The Complete
leans completelytheotherway.One may
Concordance
Shak-speare
47
decideeventually
thattotheconcorder"text"means"dialogueonly,"for
TheComplete
Concordance
omitsstagedirectionsand speechprefixesas
wellas titles.But likemanyclassicaland modernauthorsShakespeare
wrotedialogueintostagedirections.
frequently
HeredoetheCeremonies
theCircle,
belonging,
apdmake
orSo thwell
Coniuro
Ballngbrooke
readsr,
andLightens
tc,&c. It Thunders
: then
terribly
theSpirit
rfeth.
Spirit.Adfam.
theeternall
God,
witch.Afmath,by
Whofenameandpowerthoutrembleft
at,
Fromthispassagein2 Henry6 (1.4) youwillfind"adsum"glossedin the
concordance;butdo notlookfor"conjuro"there.Norwillyoufind"&c"
fromthislocation,thoughitis glossedinthisone (fromthatplaywithout
a title).
ClowneCfngr.
tiveboy,
thtar
andalittle
When
Iwas
andtheraine:
ho,te winde
withhey,
wasbuta toy,
A fooalFthing
it
raineth
the
raine
for
euery
dqay
I came
tomans
ate,
efl
Butwhen
with
he*bo,&c.
andTheem;s
Gainfi
Knantu
rmenilbt
theirgate,
fortheraine,&c.
Buttheseexamplesof"&c" are evenlesspossibly
dialoguethantheusage
in 2 Henry6. There seemsto be no acceptedtermforthese"dialogue
directions,"
though"stagedirection"comesclosest.If thatis whatthe
concorderthoughtthem,thensomestagedirections
are lessequal than
these.
NotallofShakespeareisdramaticart;thereare,forexample,sonnets
and narrative
poems.Notonlyare theirtitlesnotdialogue,itseems,but
neitherare thehundredsofwordsin thelettersdedicatory
ofthepoems
or the"Argument"
to one ofthem(TheRapeofLucrece),
fortheyare not
concorded- withthelossto thevocabulary
of sevennewwords,eight
newinflections,
50 newspellings,and one newhomograph.One of the
omittedwordshappensto be "Shakespeare"in itstwooccurencesin the
editionconcorded.Itsomissionsuggeststhatartiscompletely
abovelife.
the
of
concordance
the
Curiously, greatShakespeare
past,Bartlett's,
alsoexcludes"TwelfthNight,""Shakespeare,"
and "conjuro,"and therein lies the claimof the Complete
Concordance
to its unique distinction.
a
of
Recently study Shakespeare'scompleteforeignvocabulary
appeared
inFremdsprachen
beiShakespeare;27
ittoo has nothingto do with"Coniurote,
48
Randall McLeod
&c." Modern philology thus affirmsShakespeare's "small Latine," of
whichJonson spoke proudlyin 1623. Nor does any of these threestudies
include "THRENOS" - Shakespeare's "lesse Greeke" - whichoccurs in
the auspicious location afterline 52 of "The Phoenix and Turtle." As the
Greek word is, like titlesand stage directions,not assigned a line number
in the Riverside edition, we may suspect that its editorial enumeration
plays a subtle role in the concorder's criterionof text.
I gather that "Puer" is not part of the foreign vocabularyof Titus
Andronicus,though the edition I am reading (admittedlya very old
fashioned one, propped here on a bundle of xeroxes of manuscript
underliningsby Keats, my rightfoot ratheraskew upon the computer
terminal)has it. In my text it occurs in the speech prefixes,suggesting
thatthe self-consciousLatinityof the dialogue of thisplay pushes out of
the pictureand into the frame: "Boy,"says the modern edition,smoothing the way forcomplete modern comprehension.Neither,it seems, are
Cumalijsand Ambopart of Shakespeare's foreignvocabulary,though I
saw them in one of these books a moment ago.
In fairness I should acknowledge that the lack of Shakespearean
vocabularyis made up by the inclusionof some words thatare not in his
text,likecraggy,
Pandion,skips,Spenser,tereuand unlac'd.
Dowland,solfull'st,
I am sorrythat some personal favoriteswere not concorded; I am very
fromhis versein thesecond folio,and
partialto Milton's"Star-ypointing"
toJonson's"shake a Stage" and "shake a Lance" fromhis versein the first.
But one cannot have everythingin a complete concordance.
Dramaticpersonae:Very few of Shakespeare's substantivetextshave
dramatis
personaelists.Editorssince Rowe in 1709 have made thempartof
the text,rankingand characterizingthe roles hierarchically,men above
women, gentle above common, all neat and proper, withtheirrelationshipsdetailedjust as Shakespeare would wantit.Looming intotheedited
text,thisincrescenceseems a kind of editorialparadigm,a potential,the
dynamicof whichis played out by the subsequent text.Occasionallythe
subsequent textfailsto use quite the proper names, and so editorshave
been quick to correctthe poet, as in thisexample fromAll's Wellin the
unique substantivetext,the folio.
thishonefllie,
Con.You hauedifcharg'd
keepeit
to yourfelfc,
maniclikelihoods
inform'd
niceofthis
intheballance,
that
before,whichhungfotottrizng
I couldneither
: praieyou
beelenenormildoubt
I thanke
leauemee,flallthisinyourbofomne,
an-d
care:I willfpeakc
withyoufuryouforyourhoncft
ther
anon.
SxitSteward.
Enter
Hello.
I wasyong:
vvith
Old.cou.Euenfoitvvas
mewhen
Ifcuer
vvearenatures,
areours,this
thefe
thorni
49
Shak-speare
righlie
belong
DothtoourRofeofyouth
Ourbloudtovs,thistoourbloodisborne,
andfealeofnatures
It isthefhow,
truth,
WhereloucsfItong
isimpreft
inyouth,
paffion
ofdaiesforgon,
Byourremembrances
orthen
wethought
Suchwereourfaults,
none,
them
Hercicisfickc
hernow.
on'c,I obferue
There is only one speaker here, her speech punctuated by an exit and
entranceof othercharacters.She is named again, and renamed at that,in
the middle of her speech around these theatricalevents,and a corresponding change of theme.The Countess becomes "Old" preciselywhen
she sees young Hellen and recalls her own youth. CorrectingShakespeare's mistake,editors eliminatethe "Old." and the second prefix.
The same kind of shiftfor the Countess (if this is to be her name)
occurs in a settingby another compositor- a factthatallows us to rule
out compositorial
causes of thesevaryingnames.28
HeL LookeonhisLetter
Madam,here's
myPafporr.
which
Ubrhen
thoucajofget
thtRingponmIy
'vueur
figer,
come
jhall
o, and
/he a
begorten
ofthjbodie,
that
chil.
cal
me.
me
in
lamfather
too,thenhb;band:fcha(rhe)
I write
a Neuer.
b.t
Thisisa dreadfull
fentence.
Gentlemen?
La. Brought
youthisLetter
andfortheContm6tt
i.G. I Madam,
lakeareforrie
forourpaines.
OldLa, Iprethee
Ladiehauca better
cheere,
Ifthouengrolreft,
arethitie,
allthegreefes
Thourobft
meofamnoity:
He wastiy)fonne,
I
But do waflh
hisnameoutofmy
blood,
Andthouartallmychilde.Towards
Florenee
ishe?
Fren.G.I
Madam.
La. Andtobea fouldier,
Fren.G.
Suchishisnoblepurpofe,
andbeleea'c
Here speaking as "La." or Lady (Shakespearehas wanderedagain), she is
reidentifiedas "OldLa." (and again) when addressingthe "Ladie," Hellen.
This same character speaks under the name "Mother"(and again) elsewherein the play,at a timewhen she relinquishesher son, as he becomes
a ward of the King. Shakespeare's textsabound in thesepolynomials,but
as the editorshave hidden all trace of them,the Newtonof theircalculation has yetto appear. (For Keats, however,the apple would have fallen;
in his folio Lear speeches are assigned to the same role under the titles
Edmundand Bastard.)
By so improvingShakespeare, editorshave eliminatedfromthe text
itsclear and evocativeevidence of layeringand joints. Not onlythat,they
have added their own junctions - in the formal divisionsof Act and
Scene, conventionswhichShakespeare showsno evidence of havingregularly used. They have thus obliteratedthe text's inherentcapacity to
50
Randall McLeod
indicatesome of itsown episodic and thematicdivisionsand preoccupations. The result is obliterature.For editors to foist single names on
charactersto whom Shakespeare responded, while creatingthem,with
manynames, is to impose retrospectiveunderstandingupon text,to seek
artofficialcreationratherthan real creating.It is a practicethatprops up
the criticalnotion of consistentcharacterization,when it is uncalled for,
indeed contradicted,by the text.
Over half a century ago Allison Gaw observed that the frequent
occurrenceof actors'names in earlyShakespeare textsindicatedtheatrical functionsof the underlyingmanuscripts.29
Shakespeare readers now
know littleof this(although theyare, paradoxically,warned thatShakespeare wrote for the stage, not for the study), because editors have
removed "Wil Kempe" froma stage directionin Romeoand substituted
"Peter,"the role name. Tawyer withhis trumpetis gone fromA MidsummerNight'sDream,and Sinklo has disappeared fromnumerousplays.Gaw
shows that the last named actor was a bean pole, and that some of
Shakespeare's parts,like thatof theApothecaryin Romeoor that,literally,
of Sinklo in the quarto of 2 Henry4 ("Beadle" or "Officer"in F), were
likelywrittenwith a thin man in mind. By eliminatinghintsof the resources of Shakespeare's company whichinfluencedhim as he scripted,
or which were his company's way of responding to his scripts,editors
have made sure thatShakespeare is not of his age, but forall time.And
yet there are contemporaryplays like Antonioand Mellida, The Road to
Fair and TheMalcontentin which the actor's own
Parnassus,Bartholomew
and
sometimes
his name were as much part of the stage
personality
business and audience response as was his fictiverole.L"3
How could it
have been otherwisewithrepertorytheatre,unmasked actorand regular
clientele?How otherwisein a dramatictraditionobsessed by the interrelationship of theatre and life, of Globe and globe? The editors have
condemned such plays, in which the actors' names cannot sensiblybe
eliminated,to be not forall time,but of theirage. This is one reason why
for us Shakespeare towersabove his contemporaries.
The mention of type names brings me to a final
SpeechPrefixity:
comment on the widespread misunderstandingof Shakespeare occasioned byeditorialbehavior. When one bypassesthe editorsto read Loues
LaboursLostin Q or in F, one discoversthatcertainrolesare denominated
by both typenames and personal names, the principlesof theirdistribution not being immediatelyclear:
Pedant
is also
Braggart
Curate
Clown(Foole)
Page (Boy)
Holofernes
Don Adrianode Armado
Nathaniel
Costard
Moth
Most names occur in bothaudible and inaudible textin Q, but the editors
Shak-speare
51
consistently
opt forthe right-handcolumn to use in theirspeech prefixes
of them allow these names to be supplemented in stage
some
(though
directionsby names in the left-handcolumn,if theyare alreadythere in
the copytext).
Some kindof layeringof textcan be detectedin thedistributionof the
various names of the second-named role. His speeches are introduced
withan abbreviationofArmadoin 1.2 and of Braggartin 5.1 and 5.2; both
names occur in 3.1, the Braggart names appearing in a block at the
beginning of the scene, rather than the end, and the Armado names
occuring at the end, rather than the beginning. (In F almost all the
Armado names are replaced withBraggart.)The firsteditor,Rowe, used
a later folio,in which,as noted, the Braggartname was predominantbut he changed these wholesale to Armado. He inventedthe firstlistof
dramatis
personae,where we find "Don Adriano de Armado, a fantastical
Spaniard," - and ExitBraggartin toto.Thus Rowe and his followerssteer
readers away from Scylla (our dangerous propensity to think Don
Adriano is a Polish-Lithuanianname), onlyto drownus in Charybdis(our
dangerous propensityto treatthe role as unified under a personal and
familyname). Yet the theatricaltype name, Braggart, is essential for
readers to know,as when we are told late in the play thatArmado's child
"brags" inJaquenetta's(The Wench's) (the Maid's) belly,or in thiscrucial
recognition(the only time "Braggart"appears in the dialogue), uttered
by Berowne when he catches sightof all the characterslistedabove, and
proclaims(Q; 5.2.542):
the
Bero. The Pedant,theBragart,theHedge-Priest,
Foole,and theBoy,
To read thisline in Rowe's traditionis to missthe factthatBerowne seems
here to be naming them not as persons in the fiction,but as theatrical
types,and the name he uses, for this characterat least, is the same as
Shakespeare uses outside the dialogue. Readersof the early textsof the
play can see Shakespeare's leftand hear his righthand, each keeping to
its own diction,and then experience them come togetherin Berowne's
strategicline. Perhaps theysee therebysomethingthathearkensback to
the nature of the theatricalexperience of the play in Shakespeare's time,
somethingthatcan be reconstructedonlyout of such slighttextualclues
(since, as is not the case in the French theatre,there is no continuous
conservativetraditionof acting Shakespeare).
If one reads the standard editorialintroductions,one maylearn that
Armado descends fromthe Latin milesgloriosusof Plautine comedy; one
mighteven be told that the Latin phrase means "braggartsoldier." But
thisis no more informativethan explaining thatHamlet is a descendent
of Adam, when we realize thatBerowne's line,just quoted, names typical
roles of the commediadell' arte: and that the direct influenceon ShakeBraggart.Shakespeare's
speare is not the Plautinemilesbut the commedia's
52
Randall McLeod
play,then,is somethingof a commedy.Concerned withdrama as mimesis,editorshave forgottenthatit is constructionas well.The terminology
thatthe editorsremove fromviewagain and again is thespecificworking
diction of a contemporarydramaturgictradition.What theysubstitute
for it is the kind of tidylearning that would have incapacitatedShakespeare if he had known it.
Godspeare
Not all scholarsshare the attitudesof Shakespeare editorstowardthe
question of textualtransmission.Talking to a Hebrew scholar recently,I
was struckwhen he recalled a textby rememberingthatit was half way
down a righthand page. When I expressed amazement at his spatial
sense of text(Why not cite chapter and verse?),he replied that Hebrew
scripture,both in its essence and for purposes of transmission,is like a
concretepoem. Form and contenthave not yetfallenapart. For example,
although the Hebrew alephbeth has no upper and lower case letters,in
several places in scripturelettersare writtenout of size; and thisfeature,
deemed mystically
allegorical,"1is,along withline endings,page endings,
and even textof doubtfulmeaning,repeated - "religiously"is the word,
I think- witheverycopying,because meaning permeatesall aspects of
text. The editorial function,as a Shakespeare editor might see it, is
limitedto commentary.Text and reading are distinct.In thiswaythe text
resistsbeing made to conformto its interpretation.
So be it.
Awe men.
NOTES
1. I wishto thankmycolleagues V.A. DeLuca, JoAnna Dutka, MargaretAnn Fitzpatrick
and Phil Oxley fortheirveryhelpfulcriticismof an earlydraftof the essay.Stephen Booth,
Northrop Frye and Richard Van Fossen will understand, and Joe Barber would have
understood,whyI thank them again. I am also gratefulforsupport to the Social Sciences
and Research Council of Canada.
My understanding of Keats' biography,and particularlyof his "Shakespearolatry,"
comes fromWalterJacksonBate,JohnKeats,Cambridge,Mass., 1963, and John Middleton
A StudyofKeats'PoeticLifefrom1816 to 1820, London, 1925.
Murry,Keatsand Shakespeare:
For lettersbyand to Keats the followingare invaluable: Hyder Edward Rollins,TheLetters
of
and
JohnKeats,1814-1820, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1958, and his TheKeatsCircle,Letters
Papers1816-1878, 2 vols. (includingthe supplementof 1955), Cambridge,Mass., 1965. For
the poetry,Jack Stillinger'ssuperb variorumedition, ThePoemsofJohnKeats,Cambridge,
Mass., 1978. For some of Keats' underlining of Shakespeare, Caroline F. E. Spurgeon,
Keats'sShakespeare:
A Descriptive
StudyBased on New Material,Oxford, 1928; and also Keats'
folio at Keats House, Hampstead, and Keats' Whittinghamedition at the Houghton Library,Harvard.
53
Shak-speare
2. QuoteslikethisfromTheLetters
simply
bythenumberand
(op.cit.)willbe identified
dateassignedto thembyRollins,in thiscase No. 21 (15 April1817).I havetriedto be as
as possibleof Rollins'un-normalizations,
conservative
though,as hisnotessay,notall his
Rollins'textis printedin roman,but I havechosen
are authors'manuscripts.
copy-texts
italicwhenprinting
itin letterformat(as opposedto thebriefquotationhere.)If I could
havephotoquotedtheletters,
I wouldhavedone so.
3. Rollins22 (17 April1817).
4. Murry,op.cit.,pp. 37-38.
5. Rollins110 (8 October1818).
6. Rollins,22 (17 April1817).
7. Rollins,26 (10, 11 May 1817).
8. Rollins,55 (23 January1818).
9. The following
collationofthefourvariantversions(twobeingholographs
byKeats,
the othertwobeingcopies by Woodhouseand Jeffrey),
has been photo-quoted
from
and quotesminor
edition,whichmodernizesspellingand punctuation
freely,
Stillinger's
variantsselectively.
(Note,forexample,theomissionor neglectof thetitlein theJeffrey
of whichmorebelow.)
transcript,
On SittingDown toRead "KingLear." Text (includingheading) fromthe extant holograph
faircopy(FC). Variantsand otherreadingsfromKeats'sdraft(D), Woodhouse'slV tranof Keats'snowlostletterto Georgeand Tom Keats,23, 24
script,and Jeffrey's
transcript
January1818 (JJ). HeadingOn] Sonnet.On W2 2 queen of] Queen of alteredto
4 pages](Books) PagesD; volumeJJ 6
Queen! ifJJ 4 thine]madeoutofthyD
damnation] Hell-tormentMW,JJ
7 humbly]interlined
in
above(must I) D; thewordomitted
9
JJ 8/9(Chief!whata gloomthineold oak foresthath!)(thinemadeoutofthy)D
ChiefPoet](0) ChiefPoetinterlined
10 our] thisD. W-;our interabove(Chieftain)D
linedabove(this) FC
11 through . . . am] I am throughthe old oak forestJJ
14 at] to D, W2; at written
withJJ
over (to) FC
13 in]
10. Rollins56 (23, 24 January1818).
is somewhat
unclear
11. Rollins166 (9 June1819).Rollinsreportsthatthemanuscript
and "clouded"actuallyreads"couded."
beforeShakespeareand confrontation
withhimcan
12.The problemofself-assessment
be seenin moredetailbyconsidering
9 byStillinger.
In the
draftD, collatedin footnote
deletedlinebetweenlines8 and 9 ("Chief!whata gloomthineoldoakforest
hath!")theoak
forest("gloomy
in D only)is specifically
theChiefs,
or theChieftan's,
tociteanotherwordin
thisdraft- wordsofunparticularized
unlike"ChiefPoet."In thefolioversion,
authority,
thegloomlifts,
and theforestis sharedwiththeCloudsofAlbion(ifindeedthe
however,
forest
istobe associatedherewitheitherofthem,as itis"the"not"their"
oakforest).
Thusa
some
darknessseemslightened
in thelaterdraftsbyprojecting
specifically
Shakespearean
of itup ontoa transcendent
nationalidentity,
whichKeatsand Shakespearecan share(o
happythought)equally,as in "oureternaltheme."
I gatherthatthephrasingoftheearlystagesofD canbe reconstructed
tolooklikethis:
... for once again, the fiercedispute
5
The bitter-sweet...
8
humbly
MustI burnthrough,
once more mn*s-*4assay 7
The originally
thedeletionoftheseconduse does
repeated"mustI" suggests
compulsion;
nottotally
or thedictionofcompulsion
at theendofline7,
eliminate
eitherthesuggestion
fortheclausebeginning
therelacksa subjectandverb,and theonlyonesavailabletofillin
theelipsisare"mustI." Nevertheless,
a
thereplacement
of"mustI" with"humbly"
suggests
with
movement
fromtheseemingly
outwardcompulsionto theinnervirtueof humility,
regardto whichit is somewhatparadoxical,and preparesus wellforthe immediate
oxymoron,
"bitter-sweet".
RandallMcLeod
54
The tensionbetween flyingtoor at his desire seems to have been a question onlyin the
lateststage of composition.
13. Quoted fromRollins,TheLetters
ofJohnKeats,vol. 1, p. 323, n. 8 (quoted in turnfrom
his Keats Circle,vol. 2, p. 271).
14. Rollins,Keats Circle,vol. 2, supplement (MoreLettersand Poems.. .), p. 24.
15. All the illustrationsof Keats' markingsin his folio are reproduced (not to size) from
the originalbypermissionof the London Borough of Camden fromthe collectionat Keats
House, Hampstead, to whose Director,Mr. F. D. Cole, and AssistantCurator, Mrs. C. M.
Gee, I wish to express my sincerestthanks. I am gratefulalso to Steve Jaunzems for
photoprocessingand to Felix Fonteynfor the negatives.
16. A parallel may support mycontention.Joyce'sautobiographicalA PortraitoftheArtist
as a YoungMan comes to a close in diary form.Here the hero chronicleshis escape from
Ireland over the sea. The book ends like this:
27 April:Old father,old artificer,stand me now and
ever in good stead.
Dublin 1904
Trieste 1914
The question is whether the terminal referencesto Dublin and Trieste are part of' the
Portraitor part of its frame. The answer is thatthe question is biased against "authorbiography."A similarproblemarises in the paintingsof Seurat (his Un Dimanched'Etea l'lledela
Grandejatte,forexample), in whichhe actuallypaintsthe framearound the subject.It is not
a trompe
l'oeilborder, but a reversalof adjacent interiorcolorationin the same pointilistic
styleas the framed. The frame thus refusesto delimitthe artefactby its inner edge.
17. Rollins 159 (14... February ... 1819 - actually composed in stages until 3 May
1819).
18. The essay appeared in 1936, and is available withothers by Benjamin in Hannah
New York, [1968].
Arendt,ed., Illuminations,
19. I say "approximately"because I am thinkingof settingby formes. In quarto one
mightset pages 2, 3, 6 and 7, and then 1, 4, 5, 8.
20. Shakespeare's manuscriptsseem all to be lost.
21. The currentwave of new thoughton the multiplesubstantivetextsof Lear is led by
Michael J. Warren, "Quarto and Folio King Lear and the Interpretationof Albany and
PatternofExcellingNature,
Edgar," in David Bevingtonand Jay L. Halio, eds., Shakespeare:
Revisionof King Lear,
Newark, Del., 1978. More recentlySteven Urkowitz,Shakespeare's
Princeton, 1980 explores the theatricaldifferentiationof Q and F. Forthcomingfrom
Oxford is Gary Taylor and Michael J. Warren,eds., TheDivisionoftheKingdom,offeringa
range of essays on the two textsand the editing tradition.
22. Spurgeon, op. cit.;pp. 48-49. The folio 1 Henry4 also shows signsof Keats' collation,
presumablywithhis Wittingham.
23. See also E. A. J. Honigmann, The Stability
Text,London and Lincoln,
ofShakespeare's
Neb., 1965 for studyof Keats' attentionto minutedetail in revision.
24. Hazlitt,WhittinghamShakespeare and Spenser volumesare at Harvard; Miltonand
the folio Shakespeare at Keats House.
25. For related typographicalargumentsee my"Spellbound: Typographyand the Concept of Old-Spelling Editions,"Ren&R, n.s., Vol. 3 # 1, 1979, pp. 50-65. Two other pieces
thatexploit typographicaldetail are my"A Technique of Headline Analysis,withApplication to ShakespearesSonnets,1609," SB, Vol. 32, 1979, pp. 197-210, and "Unemending
Shakespeare's Sonnet 111," SEL. Vol. 21, 1981, pp. 75-96.
Concordance..., 9 volumes to date,
26. Marvin Spevack, comp., The Complete
Systematic
Hildesheim, 1968 -; TheHarvardConcordance,
Cambridge,Mass., 1973. The Riversideed.,
on which these concordances are based, is edited by Gwynne Blakemore Evans; of the
student editions it is, admirably,the most oriented to textual scholarship,and the most
encouraging of textual scepticism.
Shak-speare
55
27. A. Staufer,Fremdsprachen
bei Shakespeare:
Das Vokabularund seineDramatischen
Funktionen,Frankfurt,1974.
28. The F pages are V3r and Xlr. Charlton Hinman, ThePrintingand Proof-Reading
ofthe
FirstFolioofShakespeare,
2 vols.,Oxford, 1963, vol. 2, p. 515, assignsthese to compositorsA
and B respectively.
29. AllisonGaw, "JohnSinckloas One of Shakespeare's Actors,"Anglia,vol. 49, 1925, pp.
289-303.
30. "Paul Newman is Hud!"
31. Here isJohnSmith'sword on itfromThePrinter's
London, 1755, pp. 293-4.
Grammar,
The Hebrew has no Capitals; and thereforelettersof the same shape, but of a
large Body, are used at the beginningof Chapters,and other partsof Hebrew work.
But we must not pronounce it a fault,if we happen to meet in some Bibles with
words thatbegin witha letterof a much larger Body than the mean Text; nor need
we be astonish'dto see words withlettersin themof a much less Body than the mean
Text; or wonder to see finallettersused in the middle of words; forsuch Notes shew
thattheycontain some particularand mysticalmeaning. Thus in 2 Chron. I. 1. the
wordAdambegins witha letterof a largersize than the rest,therebyto intimate,that
Adam is the fatherof all Mankind. Again, in Genes. I. 1., the greatBeth in the word
Bereschith
stands fora Monitorof the greatand incomprehensibleworkof Creation.
Contraryto the first,in Prov. XXVIII. 17. the Daleth in the wordAdamis considerably less than the Letterof the main text,to signifythatwhoeveroppresses an other
openlyor clandestinely,tho' of a mean condition;or who sheds innocentblood, is not
worthyto be called Man.
Sometimes the open or common Mem stands in the room of a finalone; as in
Nehem. II. 13. where the word hemhas an open Mem at the end, in allusion to the
tornand open wallsofJerusalem,of whichthereis mentionmade; and, in Es. VII. 14.
where the Prophet speaks of the Conception of the Virgin Mary,the Mem in the
wordhaalma,or Virgin,is a close or finalletter,to intimatethevirginity
of themother
of our Saviour. Such are the peculiaritiesof some JewishRabbi's in Bibles of their
publication; of which we have instanced the above, to caution Compositors not to
take them for faults,if such mysticalwritingsshould come under theirhands.
? Randall McLeod, U. of Toronto, July 1981.