if bawdy talk offend you, we'll have very little of it

[angevin2]

I can't sleep and thus have been perusing the Guardian, where I came across a couple of articles that may be of interest to those of you who share my interest in Shakespeare editing. (Which also give me an excuse to use this icon. ;) )

From the department of I Could Have Told You That:

On the new RSC Complete Works of Shakespeare edition, which

Comments

[oursin]

Eric Partridge, Shakespeare's Bawdy: a literary & psychological essay and a comprehensive glossary, first published 1947.
I don't think he missed much, really.

[angevin2]

Yeah, Partridge is pretty comprehensive. I mean, I'm not really averse to more frankness in the glosses of Shakespeare editions; I just don't think most of the things being pointed out as new actually are.

[oursin]

It's that whole journalistic 'Wow! I never knew that before' thing that they seem to imagine means no-one else ever heard of it either. Every so often they will do this about some manuscript that has been 'buried' in an archive, except no it hasn't, it's catalogued and the catalogue is online searchable.

[angevin2]

I suspect it's just the Guardian being a bit silly

Hee, this would not be a completely surprising thing. ;)

And I love the idea of the miscast MSND! Who did you play?

[angevin2]

This is a very good point. ;)

Re: well, you got me started thinking about the dirty bits

[angevin2]

Yeah -- really, "gesturing in the general direction of her genitalia" is a better description of what she's doing, from the picture, and the whole thing is just deeply irritating.

Re: well, you got me started thinking about the dirty bits

[paraleipsis]

Additionally, she is actually doing something with her hand, so I would amend it to "holding a sprig of flowers with her hand positioned near her genitalia".

[saffronlie]

What?! Shakespeare is dirty? I had no idea!

*eyeroll*

[angevin2]

Shocking, innit? ;)