Classics and the Western Canon discussion
General
>
Looking ahead to the rest of 2014
Regarding The Golden Ass, is there a version that is recommended? In particular, I looked at the free version on www.gutenberg.org and the Penguin classics version and there are significant style differences. Should I consider getting the penguin version? (I'll be honest, I'm not too keen on spending $10 on the penguin classic ebook and I doubt the local bookstore that carries English books has a cheaper paperback copy.)
Tiffany wrote: "Regarding The Golden Ass, is there a version that is recommended? In particular, I looked at the free version on www.gutenberg.org and the Penguin classics version and there are significant style d..."I would be wary of using old translations, as with a work of this nature they are likely to be considerably bowdlerised. The William Adlington translation on Gutenberg was first published in 1566, so you will have sixteenth-century English to deal with as well (this may not be a problem for you). It is, nonetheless, of considerable historical importance, as it was the first English translation of the work. See more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_...
As far as modern translations go, I am aware of at least three published in the last 15 years, and there are no doubt more. I myself have ordered the translation by P.G. Walsh in the Oxford World's classics series: The Golden Ass. You are already aware of E.J. Kenney's Penguin translation: The Golden Ass: Or Metamorphoses. I have read some of Kenney's other translations, and he is a very respectable translator. You won't go wrong with this one. The third one to consider is by Sarah Ruden for Yale University Press: The Golden Ass. This has received highly favourable reviews, but has also been criticised for being too colloquial. You will have to decide if this is something you want or not.
Everyman wrote: "We haven't formally set a schedule for this, but it will probably be two weeks for Richard II, 1 week each for each part of Henry VI, and two weeks for Henry V and the whole tetralogy. ."I'm not sure how the lengths of the plays compare anymore, but a week each might be a little short for the HIVs. For a long time they were considered Shakespeare's masterpiece and supreme work and in a way are filled with the most human concerns; death, friendship, falsehood, duty, a wrecked conscience etc. But then I do have a fondness for the fat knight Falstaff so I may be biased :)
Clari wrote: "I'm not sure how the lengths of the plays compare anymore, but a week each might be a little short for the HIVs. "Keep in mind that that's just when the discussion threads open. They stay open forever, so we can, and I'm sure will, keep on discussing them long after the week is over. And I'm sure the discussions will overlap, as long as we avoid spoilers.
Tiffany wrote: "Regarding The Golden Ass, is there a version that is recommended? In particular, I looked at the free version on www.gutenberg.org and the Penguin classics version and there are significant style d..."We don't prescribe specific translations in this group.
That said, I would agree with David that older translations are sometimes problematical. (Not always; some people, for example, still think that Pope's translations of Homer are still among the best available.) But in the case of The Golden Ass, a lot of scholarship has taken place since 1566, and as David says there may have been some socially required editorial deletions made, and the somewhat archaic language may be a barrier.
The introduction to the Oxford Classics edition has comments on a few of the prior translations, and notes for instance that "H.E. Butler's two volumes (Oxford 1910) suffer from the squeamishness of his day he omits passages which he regards as sexually indelicate [love that phrase!] without offering any indication of where h is axe may fall....In North Marica, Jack Lindsay's racy version (New York, 1932) is widely popular, but it contains many errors and some infelicities." He also comments that in some prior translations, "literary skill and versatility, not exact scholarship, is the primary requirement for the popular success of a translation." [That is still the case in some very recent translations I've encountered.]
All that said, if the Gutenberg seems satisfactory to you, fine; go for it. If cost is an issue, your library may have a more recent translation, or may be able to get one on Interlibrary loan.
There are also other translations online.
The Loeb Classical Library version from archive.org is a bit confusing in format, but contains both the original Latin text and a parallel translation (that's the universal format for the Loeb Greek and Latin classical editions).
http://archive.org/stream/goldenassbe...
Poetryintranslation purports to offer the entire Kline translation to browse or download free, though I haven't tried the downloads:
http://www.poetryintranslation.com/kl...
And there may be others.
But basically, whatever works for you works for us.
Thanks for the insight about the various translations David and Eman. Also thanks for the links, Eman!
I ran into one of the disadvantages of Victorian translations when reading the Greek novel Daphnis and Chloe from the 2nd century. At one point someone has to explain to the lovesick but totally innocent Daphnis some of the facts of life, to enable him to take his romance with Chloe to the next level. Just when the narration reaches the critical point, and I'm about to learn something truly useful, the translation switches form English to Latin!
Roger wrote: "Just when the narration reaches the critical point, and I'm about to learn something truly useful, the translation switches form English to Latin! "If you need a 2nd century Greek text to give you that information, you're better off without it. :)
Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "Just when the narration reaches the critical point, and I'm about to learn something truly useful, the translation switches form English to Latin! "If you need a 2nd century Greek text to give you that information, you're better off without it. :) "
Lol!
Everyman wrote: "What we have planned is a reading of what is termed Shakespeare's Henriad; the tetralogy (sorry, spellcheck, but it IS a word) of historical plays which was the second written by Shakespeare but the first historically: ..."Is there a good (and fast) way to learn English history of the corresponding historical period?
Nemo wrote: "Is there a good (and fast) way to learn English history of the corresponding historical period? "
Nemo, have you heard of The Great Courses? I think they used to be called The Teaching Company, or maybe they still are and they changed their website. Anyway, if you have some extra money this course is a great value http://www.thegreatcourses.com/course... I own 30-40 courses and this is one of the best I've seen. It doesn't fully cover all the way back to Richard II, but it covers from 1485 forward. This course was invaluable for providing the historical context for a Renaissance Lit course I took.
I am a member of audible.com and the great courses can be purchased with credits (including this one). I'm listening to Big History now, and it is quite fun. Like being back in school again but without the tests.
Jeremy wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Is there a good (and fast) way to learn English history of the corresponding historical period? "
Nemo, have you heard of The Great Courses? I think they used to be called The Teach..."
Yes, a few times already from members of this group. :) Thanks for the recommendation.
Does the professor cite his sources? I'm particularly interested in those that are likely to have been used by the bard.
Yes, he cites his sources, but if you want to know what Shakespeare was using then his course won't help you much. I can give you exactly what you're looking for, but I'll have to go home and check my bookshelf. The Cambridge guide to his history plays talks about his sources. I'll try to put up a list tonight.
Lauren wrote: "I am a member of audible.com and the great courses can be purchased with credits (including this one). I'm listening to Big History now, and it is quite fun. Like being back in school again but w..."And without the papers! And I can rewind when I miss something and pause when I need to. In some ways it's better than being in class.
Nemo wrote: "Does the professor cite his sources? I'm particularly interested in those that are likely to have been used by the bard. ..."I suppose you could go straight to the source:
http://www.cems.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/te...
Not sure if these are the best editions to work with, but the price is right. :)
Holinshed's The Historie of England was one of Shakespeare's sources. The other was Edward Hall's The Union of the two noble and illustre families of Lancaster and York (capitalization in the original). Many scholars think Shakespeare used Hall more than Holinshed.
Thanks Jeremy. Here is Edward Hall's Union:https://archive.org/stream/hallschron...
And this is great, though perhaps not so easy to read:
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/...
Thanks Jeremy and Thomas. The resourcefulness of this group never ceases to amaze me, not to mention the luxury of having a resident librarian in the house. :)
Jeremy wrote: "Many scholars think Shakespeare used Hall more than Holinshed. ."What is their rationale?
Nemo wrote: "Everyman wrote: "What we have planned is a reading of what is termed Shakespeare's Henriad; the tetralogy (sorry, spellcheck, but it IS a word) of historical plays which was the second written by S..."If you can find it, or can get it through your library, I highly recommend Peter Saccio's Shakespeare's English Kings: history, chronicle, and drama
Actually, I just discovered that it's not only still in print, but has been reprinted -- whether with any changes or not, I don't know. I have the 1977 edition, but I see that there is a 2nd edition published in 2000.
Saccio did an early series on Shakespeare for The Teaching Company, and was excellent. The book is just as good. Can't speak specifically to the 2nd edition, but I have no reason not to think it's as good as the original, if not better.
On translations of the Golden Ass, I'm no expert, but I have both the Ruden (Yale University Press) and the Walsh (Oxford World's Classics) translations. I find that both are somewhat convoluted, which I assume therefore comes from the original, but I'm finding Walsh easier to follow than Ruden. Ruden has a rudimentary introduction and no notes at all. Walsh has a more comprehensive introduction, end notes, and an Index and Glossary of Names, which may come in handy, so I think it's going to be more enjoyable to read, though either one would do, and I expect, since the chapters are fairly short, I will be reading both. (The flap notes of Ruden calls this an "ever-popular novel;" whether this stretches the definition of "popular" we can discuss when we get into it.)
Nemo wrote @12: "Is there a good (and fast) way to learn English history of the corresponding historical period? ..."
Here is one from my bedside stack:
Shakespeare's Kings: The Great Plays and the History of England in the Middle Ages: 1337-1485. I'm told John Julius Norwich is a pleasure to read.
I second Everyman's recommendation of Peter Saccio's book and audio course.
Also people may be interested in two video versions of the history plays. One by the BBC is old but wonderful. It is called Shakespeare's English Kings (I believe). It was a TV series that broke the plays into hour and a half segments. Very well done and some actors who became quite famous later on. For example, a very young Sean Connery.
A couple of years ago PBS did a remake called The Hollow Crown. It was much more modern and it was good, but I did not like it as much as the old BBC version.
Also people may be interested in two video versions of the history plays. One by the BBC is old but wonderful. It is called Shakespeare's English Kings (I believe). It was a TV series that broke the plays into hour and a half segments. Very well done and some actors who became quite famous later on. For example, a very young Sean Connery.
A couple of years ago PBS did a remake called The Hollow Crown. It was much more modern and it was good, but I did not like it as much as the old BBC version.
As a quick reference I've used for years a tattered old copy of An Outline of the History of England, by J.A. Rickard. Now way out of print. But I found this:http://www.forgottenbooks.com/books/A...
which can be had PDF or Kindle.
Thanks everyone. I haven't read their books yet, but judging by the descriptions, Saccio and Norwich have done the type of analysis that I was thinking of doing, but now it seems like too ambitious a project for an interim read.
Everyman wrote: "What we have planned is a reading of what is termed Shakespeare's Henriad; the tetralogy (sorry, spellcheck, but it IS a word) of historical plays which was the second written by Shakespeare but the first historically: the sequence consisting of Richard II; Henry IV, Part 1; Henry IV, Part 2; and Henry V..."And then all my dreams came true...
Lidiana wrote: "And then all my dreams came true... ."That's what we're here for!
I just finished Charles Finney's little known - but brilliant "Circus of Dr. Lao." In which the golden ass features. And I was thinking I should reread the book. Been years. So the timing couldn't be better - looking forward the book, and the discussion...
John wrote: "I just finished Charles Finney's little known - but brilliant "Circus of Dr. Lao." In which the golden ass features. And I was thinking I should reread the book. Been years. So the timing couldn't ..."Excellent! Only a week to go.
Wendel wrote: "Here is one from my bedside stack:Shakespeare's Kings: The Great Plays and the History of England in the Middle Ages: 1337-1485. I'm told John Julius Norwich is a pleasure to read. "
I was certain I had a copy of Shakespeare's Kings, but I can't find it anywhere. I may have got it out of the library, which is why I remember it. I'll have to look for it again, now I've discovered I don't have it.
I know I have it, too, David. Unfortunately, it's not on my Kindle, where I would be able to find it instantly.
Does anyone have a recommendation of which Shakespeare's edition should I buy?
As I look at my shelf-and-a-half of Arden editions, I am inclined to suggest the Arden editions. A bit pricey to buy by the play, but worth every ha'penny. If Shakespeare isn't worth the expenditure, I'm not sure what is.
Don't forget abebooks.com, it is a very affordable way to buy books.
I agree with Thomas that the Arden editions of Shakespeare's plays (as well as select Cambridge and Oxford editions) are a fine resource. However, I am not sure they are best for people who are new to a play or to Shakespeare. They are what are called "scholarly editions." As such they feature long, detailed introductions tracing the origins, sources, historical reaction, and performance history of the play. Sometimes this comes at the expense of clear summaries and character descriptions.
Other, cheaper editions may be more suitable depending on what a reader is seeking. I think both Folger and Penguin are good choices. They have useful introductions and have a glossary of obscure words on facing pages or at the bottom of each page. While I find Arden's cross references and etymological analysis fascinating, they can really interrupt the flow of reading a play for the first time --or the second, or after a long absence.
One of the amazing things about Shakespeare for me is that the plays can be analyzed in such depth. It is a lot of fun and can be very rewarding to look at each line --indeed, often, each word-- carefully. But it is also valid to let a play flow by and the characters introduce themselves as simply a good story. Especially upon first encounter, do not worry about which nobleman is which or such. As a comparison, I read once that when we watch an episode of Law and Order we do not worry if we can't identify and know the background of every assistant DA. Focus on the heroes and villains, revel in the poetry if you wish and enjoy the ride!
Other, cheaper editions may be more suitable depending on what a reader is seeking. I think both Folger and Penguin are good choices. They have useful introductions and have a glossary of obscure words on facing pages or at the bottom of each page. While I find Arden's cross references and etymological analysis fascinating, they can really interrupt the flow of reading a play for the first time --or the second, or after a long absence.
One of the amazing things about Shakespeare for me is that the plays can be analyzed in such depth. It is a lot of fun and can be very rewarding to look at each line --indeed, often, each word-- carefully. But it is also valid to let a play flow by and the characters introduce themselves as simply a good story. Especially upon first encounter, do not worry about which nobleman is which or such. As a comparison, I read once that when we watch an episode of Law and Order we do not worry if we can't identify and know the background of every assistant DA. Focus on the heroes and villains, revel in the poetry if you wish and enjoy the ride!
Lidiana wrote: "Does anyone have a recommendation of which Shakespeare's edition should I buy?"The Arden, which Thomas recommends, has probably the most scholarly versions available. They have a ton of supporting material. If you want the full treatment of background material, textual analysis, comment on the various editions of the plays and how they differ, and the like, they're invaluable.
But personally, I tend to find that they are often just too much. And they are heavy and, I think, a bit clumsy physically to read. So when I just want to read a play, I prefer the Pelican editions (I like the individual volumes, not the complete Pelican version* or else the New Kittredge, although their format is a bit less convenient for me than the Pelican.
* If you want a complete, one-volume version, the Pelican might be a good choice, though I've never seen its one volume edition. But it's cheap enough, even in hardback, that it would hardly be a wasted purchase. The standard academic one volume edition has for a long time been the Riverside Shakespeare, though I think the Yale Shakespeare is also a good option; you may well be able to get one or the other in a very good second hand edition at a good price.
P.S. I posted my response before I read Zeke's. I agree with him. The Penguin he recommends, by the way is the Pelican; I think Pelican was originally a separate company, but now I believe that Pelican is an imprint of Penguin. Folger is also, as Zeke says, a quite good reading edition. I would avoid Dover and Signet editions; they are simply not, for me, as pleasant to read.
Can you explain how they all differ.It is not a modern translation is it? Or is it the footnotes, or the test-type/layout. What makes one different to another?
(I admit to ordering wordsworth editions based on the cover art, and they will fit nicely on my bookcase - though I do have a large cloth-bound norton/oxford edition gracing my bookshelf -- not the type of thing you would make notes in though).
Cass wrote: "Can you explain how they all differ. It is not a modern translation is it? Or is it the footnotes, or the test-type/layout. What makes one different to another?"All of the above I guess, Cass.
Being a Shakespeare freshman I searched the net with the same questions. I can report that Zeke's and E’man's views are widely shared, though the editions by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC/Modern Library), Riverside, Norton and Bevington are also recommended. Not to forget the New Cambridge.
In fact, all these editions have supporters - it must depend on one’s reading style and level of expertise which is best. Someone complained that the notes in the Arden were impressive, but that somehow the answers to his/her questions always seemed to be considered common knowledge.
What we need is a matrix with all the factors you mentioned. Lacking that, and assuming that we want an annotated and recent edition, there may be three questions to consider:
* paper or electronic (for me paper, to start with)
* complete or not (on paper definitely not)
* level of support (extensive language support please).
My personal choice? I will probably start with a Folger (I hear they have some nice illustrations, though I also heard -where?- that these paperbacks easily fall apart). I am also tempted by the Norton complete Histories (1000 pages, one column, may be just manageable). Additionally, I consider the Shakespeare Pro app (imprisoned in the Apple environment, but for the price of a cinema ticket that seems acceptable).
Those who like 'one-volume' may also have a look at the Penguin edition of just the four plays on our rostrum. Finally some swear by the Spark Note’s NoFear editions. About the opposite of the Arden, but the on-line versions are free so I know where to turn to when I really get lost.
I am not a fane of the No Fear editions. From their very premise --that Shakespeare is something to "fear"-- I think they dumb down the plays. They reproduce on facing pages a modern language version of the text. While all of us need help with the occasional (or more than occasional)word or phrase, no one here needs a pablum version of a play.
That is not to say that there is no place for modern adaptations of whole plays. I happen to enjoy them very much: staying faithful, or playing with, Shakespeare's universal themes can produce much original literature and art. Indeed, when we get to these history plays, we may wish to discuss some of the very interesting take-offs that have been created from them.
That is not to say that there is no place for modern adaptations of whole plays. I happen to enjoy them very much: staying faithful, or playing with, Shakespeare's universal themes can produce much original literature and art. Indeed, when we get to these history plays, we may wish to discuss some of the very interesting take-offs that have been created from them.
I agree Zeke, I fear that the NoFear users will read only the right hand pages, reducing the play to a mere story. But what about the old Lamb (Tales from Shakespeare) who has amused so many? It is even said that for generations people have derived their knowledge of the great bard mainly from this source (as I do).
Do any modern translations exist? Academic and true. I am very interested in how our understanding of the older language changes our experience of the play... is it possible for us to experience it with the same understanding as was intended when it was written.For example, some words and phrases are complete foreign to us, where they would have been common -- and some phrases are now everyday where they would have been a unique turn of phrase.
No one learns Russian in order to read War and Peace, we readily accept the English translation... and yet with older dialects of our language we treat translations as less. However a good translation could be a truer representation of the work for modern audiences.
Or do we read these older texts for a more modern purpose? We are not the original viewers, we are more meta-readers, interested in not just the story, but the bigger picture of what the work represents?
Wendel's comment about Charles Lamb and the stories of Shakespeare's plays is an interesting one to me. Only two of his plots are original (Tempest and Merry Wives of Windsor) and one of those (Merry Wives) is one of his weakest plays imho. The plays are derivative and amalgamations. The plots are often the weakest part of the play. The genius is in how he is able to take the narrative material and make something more of it. Perhaps I am just trying to justify the fact that I don't enjoy Lamb's tales very much.
Wendell mentions the "Shakespeare Pro" iPad app. That is what I have been using lately, and I have found it very adequate. I've been trying to reread all of Shakespeare's plays this year, though I have fallen behind some. I like to listen and read at the same time. This works really well for me with the app, because I can immediately get the Shakespeare definition of any word as I listen, and this keeps me close to the text. I have the Complete Arkangel Shakespeare on CD, and also some good Audible downloads. You can find some good free audio here: http://www.speak-the-speech.com/henry...
Cass wrote: "Do any modern translations exist? Academic and true. I am very interested in how our understanding of the older language changes our experience of the play... is it possible for us to experience it..."I really dislike the idea of rendering (and I use the word in the sense that we speak of reducing horses to glue) Shakespeare in modern English. This is poetry. We wouldn't rewrite Spenser or Crashaw. And anyway, our difficulties are exacerbated by years and years of hearing the words trampled on by histrionic actors like Gielgud. Listen to McKellen's Richard III or Branagh's performances. My 9-year-old daughter sat through the 3 hours of his Much Ado and re-surfaced as from a dream, wondering that it was over already. (Wikipedia describes the McKellen as an "adaptation" -- equally annoying since the language is all there and it only carries forward the long tradition of restaging). I never understood Richard's "Winter of out discontent" speech until I heard McKellen. Another instructive example is Tom Stoppard's 1998 Shakespeare in Love. The script is written in a plausible Elizabethan English, but at the end when the company is finally performing Romeo and Juliet, the real Shakespeare is spoken and it's a punch in the stomach. I wouldn't ask that we read Thucydides in Greek or Madame Bovary in French, but Shakespeare remains accessible (as does Chaucer) it would be a shame to substitute something inferior. Admittedly, the Henriad is not Lear, but still... A modern rendition as a crib, perhaps?
I might also say that my very first experience of professional theatre was at the Guthrie in Minneapolis, when it was new, on the original 280-degree stage. My seat was about 3 yards from where the "band of brothers" speech was delivered. I was totally sucked in.
Zeke wrote: "Wendel's comment about Charles Lamb and the stories of Shakespeare's plays is an interesting one to me. Only two of his plots are original (Tempest and Merry Wives of Windsor) and one of those (Mer..."The Tempest isn't exactly original, either. It's thought to be based on a contemporary account of a Caribbean maritime wreck. "Based" in the sense we use for Holinshed, anyway. There is an interesting racist history in the interpretation of Caliban. On the subject of "adaptations", Helen Mirren's female Prospero is quite good -- but again, the language is left untouched -- and anyway, Shakespeare's women were all played by men in their time.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Antigonick (other topics)Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare: Volume VII: Major Tragedies (other topics)
The sources of Shakespeare's plays (other topics)
Tales from Shakespeare (other topics)
Shakespeare's Kings: The Great Plays and the History of England in the Middle Ages: 1337-1485 (other topics)
More...
After the two week IR, we tackle The Golden Ass, the only complete novel to have survived from Roman times. We'll take six weeks for that, from October 15 through November 25th. We'll read two books a week (with one book for the last week; there are 11 books in the work).
Then comes the holidays, and as with last year, we've decided not to start our next major read, but to do a series of unified shorter reads over the holiday season.
What we have planned is a reading of what is termed Shakespeare's Henriad; the tetralogy (sorry, spellcheck, but it IS a word) of historical plays which was the second written by Shakespeare but the first historically: the sequence consisting of Richard II; Henry IV, Part 1; Henry IV, Part 2; and Henry V. We will spend six weeks on this, which will take us through the holiday season up to January 7, when we will start our next major read (yet to be chosen).
We haven't formally set a schedule for this, but it will probably be two weeks for Richard II, 1 week each for each part of Henry VI, and two weeks for Henry V and the whole tetralogy.
So there's your heads up. Happy reading!!