Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Note on texts and old spelling
- 1 The problem, the evidence, and the language barrier
- 2 Lost in translation
- 3 Interpreting without a dictionary
- 4 Juxtapositions
- 5 Theatrical italics
- 6 Sick chairs and sick thrones
- 7 Much virtue in as
- 8 The vocabulary of “place”
- 9 “Romeo opens the tomb”
- 10 Vanish and vanishing
- Conclusion: So what?
- Notes
- Plays and editions cited
- Index
5 - Theatrical italics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Note on texts and old spelling
- 1 The problem, the evidence, and the language barrier
- 2 Lost in translation
- 3 Interpreting without a dictionary
- 4 Juxtapositions
- 5 Theatrical italics
- 6 Sick chairs and sick thrones
- 7 Much virtue in as
- 8 The vocabulary of “place”
- 9 “Romeo opens the tomb”
- 10 Vanish and vanishing
- Conclusion: So what?
- Notes
- Plays and editions cited
- Index
Summary
“The Drawer stands amazed, not knowing which way to go”
1 Henry IV, 2.4.76.S.d.Evidence from the Shakespeare quartos and First Folio suggests the possibility of various forms of onstage juxtaposition, ranging from the early entrances of a Dogberry or Cassandra to the continued presence of a Jaques or Sir Walter Blunt. The resistance to such a practice today by editors, critics, and theatrical professionals acts out a dismissal of a phenomenon that seemingly defies “common sense” but a phenomenon that may equally well signal a gap between the theatrical vocabulary shared then and what is assumed today (or, in some instances, what has been assumed since the eighteenth century). By one set of yardsticks, such juxtapositions can be intrusive and therefore distracting, troubling. But what if such a technique is part of a theatrical strategy designed to highlight a figure or situation so as to make it unmissable? How would (or should) such a strategy predicated upon italicized signifiers in their theatrical vocabulary affect interpretation today?
Such questions are part of a larger set of problems (in the broad category of “validity in interpretation ”) that continue to bedevil literary theorists. To cite one recent formulation, Paul Armstrong posits: “ Endless variety is possible in interpretation, but tests for validity can still judge some readings to be more plausible than others.”
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Recovering Shakespeare's Theatrical Vocabulary , pp. 88 - 108Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1995