If you're still here, you've subjected yourself to this. I no longer have feelings of guilt, as I given you permission to get away. Thus, I commence on some academic ramblings.
Exhibit A: Dissertation
I have just recently turned in my dissertation, which is a 15,000 word paper that serves for a large chunk of my Masters degree. Back in cold, wet January, I brainstormed on my dissertation topic, and knew I wanted to do something with manuscripts. Also, I wanted to incorporate the interesting interplay between religion and politics during the 17th century. I spoke to one of my professors who works at the British Library about making an edition of a manuscript which had yet to be put into print. This is not unseen in English Masters, but it is rare. Some scholars tend to look down upon editing as a practice in the mechanics of an English degree. I was interested in working with editing from the artistic side -- how to best present the work so that I honor the author's text. Most people don't realize, but the Hamlet you've read or seen onstage or screen is not just one simple text that Shakespeare perfectly wrote and handed over to his theater company. It's actually three, and one of them does not even have the famous "To be or not to be" for which we all know and love the play. (Or at least, you've heard it before). So, is Hamlet still Hamlet without those lines? I think so. I think that each of the three texts should be represented separately. Whatever you've read or seen of Hamlet was probably a mixture of the three, combining the best elements together to suit the audience. The editor makes these decisions, not the author. This is not at all what the original text was. Obviously, there are plenty of different theories on editing, but I hold that the editor should facilitate a place for reader and text to meet without interference. While I do believe most assisting texts such as Sparknotes No Fear Shakespeare are helpful for those just coming into contact with the style of language, in the end, the reader must learn to stretch and find things on his own.
So (big breath) I decided, under the guidance of my professor at the BL, to take on an unedited manuscript from the 17th century. It was a sermon called The Kings Sword, delivered during Christmas time to King James (KJV dude) and his son, Prince Charles in 1623. The copy was made especially for Prince Charles, who would later be the only monarch in British history to be executed on counts of treason. It was pretty awesome holding the manuscript in my hands, knowing it had once been in the hands of the king who led England through civil war(s) and extreme religious conflict. Basically, I would make the manuscript read-able, as it was written in secretary hand. Secretary hand was the common hand of the royal court at that time, and looks like this:
Transcribing this along with all the intriguing spelling of the early modern period was no small feat. So basically, my dissertation was an edition of this manuscript as well as an analysis explaining why early modern sermons are valuable for literary study. So much work and even passion went into it, and I do hope that I can pick back up with this kind of work at some point in my life.
B: Internship
As Seth mentioned, I had an internship at the British Library this summer, of which I loved every minute. Why can't someone hire me to do this kind of work?? Maybe one day...
For the internship, I worked on preparing various manuscripts for conservation and exhibition. The library had received some new materials from a private donor - some manuscripts of the early19th century French revolutionist Louis Blanc. So basically the library received a huge pile of papers, and I sieved through it all the find the real gems of Blanc's actual hand and correspondence. I also chose several materials for exhibitions in the Treasures Gallery (place where tourists can look at all their awesome stuff). I went through every Winston Churchill manuscript they had to find the perfect one relating to WWII - such an amazing mission!! I could truly see the rise and fall of his optimism and understanding of what was going on around him. Basically, he had predicted WWII immediately after the end of WWI. Such an amazing historical character, and I could really read the passion he had for his country just in his words. I also chose a letter written by Oliver Cromwell for exhibition. Cromwell was Lord Protector, which was basically this weird time when Great Britain didn't have a monarch (see above note on the execution of Charles I). You should wiki it...pretty exciting stuff. Reality TV has got nothing on 17th century drama.
I could say tons more about the internship...but really, I think you've heard enough to be jealous.
C: My birthday!
As if my immersion into the early modern period through my dissertation and internship wasn't enough, Seth also took me to Stratford-upon-Avon to see the RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company) production of Macbeth. Synopsis: Witches, curses, murders - hey, you name it! All based in Scotland. I thought the production was an interesting one. The RSC is known for pulling out every trick they can to keep those non-enthusiasts in their audience engaged. The witches were represented (rather than by the usual haggard women) by three small children, creepily descending from the ceiling on hooks. The Porter had explosives which made the school boys sitting in the front row squirm in their seats. Onstage cello players and dry ice completed this overtly eerie production of a play known for its ability to make us nervous to every creak and bump in the night. There was an interesting "instant replay" of Macbeth first seeing the ghosts of those he has murdered, and then a second rendition of the scene without the ghosts, where we can see Macbeth as the other characters do: basically, a complete nutter. There were a few instances which were particularly over the top: Banquo slitting Macbeth's throat to create a bloodbath for everyone on the front row, or Ross puking into the back of the set upon seeing the body of the dead king. Necessary? I'm not sure. Either way, it most certainly kept the attention of its audience and definitely depicted the grittiness of the play. I have to give some props for this, as I do support the RSC's initiative to make the play accessible to anyone, Shakespeare scholar or no, whereas many theaters seem to be falling inward to a smaller and smaller society of those who can appreciate the subtleties of the language. At the end of the day, you've got to be realistic: what sells the tickets? Obviously, it's puke and creepy children descending on hooks. There's more I could say, but then again, I've got to be mindful of my audience and know that you've all heard enough.
Hey! Here's some pictures to entertain you!!
Stratford-upon-Avon:
Macbeth set:
Church where Shakespeare is buried (no, I didn't take a picture of the tomb...seemed weird to do that):
Really cool archaeological site recovering building from Shakespeare's time:
Where Shakespeare was born:
One picture to describe how tourist-y Stratford is - an all year Christmas shop:
That raps it up for Stratford...here's a few pictures of the Kyoto Gardens in Holland Park (London)
