Do you have to read commentary/annotation from editor when reading Shakespeare?

[Tobeornotobe]

I have decided to read Shakespeare's sonnet one day at a time. Commentaries by editors are too good to ignore but then I hate to break the excitement of understanding the sonnet on my own. Do you guys tend to read commentaries for sure?

[Nick Capozzoli]

I have decided to read Shakespeare's sonnet one day at a time. Commentaries by editors are too good to ignore but then I hate to break the excitement of understanding the sonnet on my own. Do you guys tend to read commentaries for sure?

The Sonnets are written in ME, so if you are fluent in ME just go ahead and read them. Any modern English reader should be able to do so. Of course glossaries are useful to get the meaning of certain archaic words and phrases, but that is another issue. Any good Shakespeare text will have these glosses, and you should avail yourself of them.

The "next level" of gloss would be something like Stephen Booth's annotated Sonnets. This provides the reader with Prof. Booth's "close reading" analysis of the poems (and also includes basic word/phrase glosses). Booth's analysis has allowed me to better appreciate the sonnets, and I recommend it to others.

[MorpheusSandman]

Pretty much +1 to what Nick said. Any decent edition will at least gloss the archaic words. Annotations/commentaries can add to one's understanding/appreciation for Shakespeare's achievements, but they aren't absolutely necessary.


The "next level" of gloss would be something like Stephen Booth's annotated Sonnets. This provides the reader with Prof. Booth's "close reading" analysis of the poems (and also includes basic word/phrase glosses). Booth's analysis has allowed me to better appreciate the sonnets, and I recommend it to others.Booth's Edition is indeed superb, but, for my money, Vendler's (http://www.amazon.com/The-Shakespeares-Sonnets-Helen-Vendler/dp/0674637127/ref=pd_sim_b_1) is even better (though it's clear that Vendler learned a great deal from Booth herself).

[AuntShecky]

The Sonnets are written in ME, so if you are fluent in ME just go ahead and read them.


Who told you that? Middle English was the language of Chaucer and his contemporaries. According to the Oxford Companion to the English Language, "ME began when the linguistic effects of the Norman Conquest were complete (c.1150) and came to an end at the start of the period of scholars generally call Early Modern English (c. 1450.)"

Modern English (the language you and I are using now)-- not ME-- was the language in which Shakespeare wrote his sonnets.

[Charles Darnay]

I love to read commentaries and analyses on Shakespeare for fun - because I love discovering new ways to look at his works (Vendler provides a great take on the Sonnets). But I do also like to formulate my own opinions and this is where scholars can be problematic: it is too easy to be influenced by their ideas. I would suggest reading through the cycle at least one on your own (with minimal annotations, only if you need it) then dive into the scholarship: not the other way around.

[MorpheusSandman]

Who told you that? Middle English...I was thrown at first when I read "ME," but I think he meant "Modern" English as opposed to "Middle" English, given the gist of the rest of his post.

[Charles Darnay]

I thought he was being really egotistical and predicted that Shakespeare wrote his sonnets for one reader, one chosen person, who would be born 400 years in the future. Well, maybe I didn't think that, but now I`m starting to like the idea. Wait, it`s been done....poorly. Darn.

[MorpheusSandman]

:lol:

[AuntShecky]

I was thrown at first when I read "ME," but I think he meant "Modern" English as opposed to "Middle" English, given the gist of the rest of his post.

I thought so, too, but "M.E." is the abbreviation for Middle English, listed in the source cited above, as a separate and distinct language. When you think about it though, the only difference between Elizabethan English and the language we use today are the endings --e.g. "doth" for "does" --and the vocabulary, some words of which have become archaic and others still remaining with different meanings or connotations.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Who told you that? Middle English was the language of Chaucer and his contemporaries. According to the Oxford Companion to the English Language, "ME began when the linguistic effects of the Norman Conquest were complete (c.1150) and came to an end at the start of the period of scholars generally call Early Modern English (c. 1450.)"

Modern English (the language you and I are using now)-- not ME-- was the language in which Shakespeare wrote his sonnets.

By "ME" I meant "Modern English." Sorry if I used the wrong abbreviation.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Booth's Edition is indeed superb, but, for my money, Vendler's (http://www.amazon.com/The-Shakespeares-Sonnets-Helen-Vendler/dp/0674637127/ref=pd_sim_b_1) is even better (though it's clear that Vendler learned a great deal from Booth herself).

I didn't know that Vendler was influenced by Booth. I took some Shakespeare courses from Prof. Booth about 30 years ago when I was a PhD student at UC Berkeley. I figured Vendler was bhis contemporary or maybe a bit earlier.

[MorpheusSandman]

I didn't know that Vendler was influenced by Booth. I took some Shakespeare courses from Prof. Booth about 30 years ago when I was a PhD student at UC Berkeley. I figured Vendler was bhis contemporary or maybe a bit earlier.Vendler is Booth's contemporary. In fact, IIRC, they were born in the same year. However, Booth's book on Shakespeare's sonnets precedes Vendler's by a couple of decades, and Vendler references it in her intro to her book. That's very cool that you studied under Booth! How was he as a teacher?

[Nick Capozzoli]

Vendler is Booth's contemporary. In fact, IIRC, they were born in the same year. However, Booth's book on Shakespeare's sonnets precedes Vendler's by a couple of decades, and Vendler references it in her intro to her book. That's very cool that you studied under Booth! How was he as a teacher?

I'd rate his Shakespeare class as the best Lit/Crit course I took at UCB. I had some other profs that I really liked in other areas (e.g. Alain Renoir and Raymond Oliver in OE , and several others, including visiting profs in "Creative Writing). Booth's class started with 12th Night, and we spent [I]weeks analyzing Orsinio's opening lines...

That was my first exposure to "close reading." At first I thought spending weeks discussing 15 lines of verse with a dozen supposedly intelligent English grad students was goofy, but I soon got into it.

It would have been goofy to spend such effort analyzing most other writers, but Booth showed us that Shakespeare was different. His verse could in fact stand up to such a brutal and intensive analysis. And that was for something like 12th Night...We went on to discuss "more serious" plays, like Lear, and learned that these were even more fruitful subjects for close reading.

Prior to studying Shakespeare with Booth, I accepted that Shakespeare was a "great" writer, but I had no idea just how great he was.

[MorpheusSandman]

I'd rate his Shakespeare class as the best Lit/Crit course I took at UCB.Sounds amazing... it's reading things like this that makes me wish I'd had the opportunity to formally study Shakespeare under some great teachers. I could just never justify the expense for something that would be for my own personal enjoyment.


Prior to studying Shakespeare with Booth, I accepted that Shakespeare was a "great" writer, but I had no idea just how great he was.Sounds like how I felt before and after I read Vendler's book on his sonnets... but I've sense had similar experiences with a lot of critics' insightful works on various Shakespeare works. His work truly can stand up to the most varied and intensive analysis imaginable and never stop yielding riches. I'm starting to think he was just inexhaustibly great.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Sounds like how I felt before and after I read Vendler's book on his sonnets... but I've sense had similar experiences with a lot of critics' insightful works on various Shakespeare works. His work truly can stand up to the most varied and intensive analysis imaginable and never stop yielding riches. I'm starting to think he was just inexhaustibly great.

Yes...inexhaustibly great seems to accurately describe Shakespeare's writing. It is a most amazing, really miraculous thing. And I am indebted to Professor Booth for bringing me to this realization.