|
The Kartvelologist The Kartvelologist” is a bilingual (Georgian and English) peer-reviewed, academic journal, covering all spheres of Kartvelological scholarship. Along with introducing scholarly novelties in Georgian Studies, it aims at popularization of essays of Georgian researchers on the international level and diffusion of foreign Kartvelological scholarship in Georgian scholarly circles. “The Kartvelologist” issues both in printed and electronic form. In 1993-2009 it came out only in printed form (#1-15). The publisher is the “Centre for Kartvelian Studies” (TSU), financially supported by the “Fund of the Kartvelological School”. In 2011-2013 the journal is financed by Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation. 
|
Elguja Khintibidze
Imogen or Innogen – Concerning One Conjecture of Shakespeare’s Cymbeline’s Oxford Publication
Towards Posing the Problem English literary criticism discussed the issue in the previous century[18], pointing out the fact that according to Shakespearean documents from the first complete publication of Shakespeare’s plays (First Folio, 1623) the established name Imogen previously was spelt differently as Innogen. This problem has gripped my attention in terms of parallel exploration of the literary characters Nestan and Imogen. The essence of the issue The fact that the name of Cymbeline’s character, Imogen, has its initial source coming from historical chronicles, upon which the story relies, was indicated in the 18th century (Malone, Variorum, vol. I, 1778). Indeed, it is believed that Shakespeare was well acquainted with the story related to the King of Britain – Cymbeline from Chronicles by Rafael Holinshed, published several times in the 16th century (1577, 1587). Based on the same source the wife of the British king Brute, a historical queen of Britain, was called Innogen. One of the first commentator and editor of Cymbeline’s text, Horace Howard Furness, agrees with Malone’s idea that Shakespeare must have taken the name Innogen from Holinshed’s Chronicles, due to the fact that it, in the same form (Innogen), also appears in another play by Shakespeare, namely Much Ado about Nothing. The main evidence is based on the surviving records, proving that the earliest viewer of Cymbeline’s performance (1611), Simon Forman, refers to the name of the main character as Innogen. The editor-commentator believes that there is a mistake in the first printed publication of Cymbeline, in the so called First Folio, which must have been made by the person who prepared the text for printing. It was also indicated that the name Innogen alludes to the word innocence (meaning immaculate, innocent), and fully corresponds to the adventures of the main character. However, the commentator (Furness) does not find it reasonable to change the name of the famous character Imogen, established by tradition into Innogen, encountered in subsequent publications of the play[18, p. 5-6]. The change of Imogen into Innogen in Cymbeline occurred in the 80’s of the previous century. Along with the modification of some other names of Shakespeare's characters it was first testified in the 1986 Oxford publications by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor[19]. The alterations took place under the pretext that modernised texts should include names in their modernised forms. This modernised publication was also followed by other publications of the story. In particular, special attention should be paid to the text of Cymbeline, included in the Oxford publication of Shakespeare’s 3 volume complete set of works, compiled by the same scholars and editors[4] as well as to the another Oxford publication by Roger Warren[5]. Varying attitudes of editors towards altering the name of the main character of Cymbeline are motivated by relevant facts. The reasons for supporting their conjuncture, provided by the editors of the publication are as follows: According to Holinshed Chronicles the existence of the name Innogen was testified prior to the creation of Cymbeline, whereas the name Imogen was not referred to by any old sources. Another evidence: the character’s name as Innogen was mentioned by the person having watched the performance in Shakespeare’s lifetime (Symon Froman’s records of 1611). The name Innogen was also confirmed in another play (Much Ado About Nothing) [26, p. 604; see 16, p. 3]. In order to prove the acceptability of the conjuncture – Innogen/Imogene, Roger Warren emphasizes the possibility of the mistake that might have been made by a person who prepared the first text of Cymbeline for the First Folio (double n in the name of Innogen might have been confused with m). Another emphasis also falls on the resemblance of the name Innogene with the word innocence, meaning free of guilt. The supporter of maintaining traditional reading of names given in Cymberline is John Pitcher [16]. He considers the reasons for supporting the reading of the name as Innogen, unreliable. Specifically, Pitcher points out that even prior to Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, the name of the British queen was read as Yomogen. As for Symon Forman, the scholar also highlights that he made some other mistakes when relating to other plots of Shakespeare plays. The fact that Simon refers to the name as Innogen might be explained by the influence of Holinshed Chronicles. The researcher defines the names of the characters in Cymbeline on the basis of the Italian Language, more precisely, by merging English and Italian name stems (Iachimo, Philario, Pisanio, Belarius). Accordingly, he considers Imogen to be based on an English version (image, resemblance, depiction) of an Italian word imaggine (image, appearance, imagine, imagery - allegorical depiction). Based on this, Pitcher concludes that the name Imogen in Shakespeare’s Cymbeline belongs to Shakespeare nevertheless the fact that the playwright might either have invented the name based on the stem of the name Innogen or preferred an already existing English form Ymogen. According to John Pitcher, “in Cymbeline, the Princess is imagined or pictured in various ways – some good, others bad – by the men around her, and her name tells us this” [16, p. 8]. To be more clear, the researcher concentrates upon the story related by Iachimo about how Posthumus described his wife in the so called wager scene, during the meeting with her companions in Rome: “he began his mistress' picture, which by his tongue being made, and then a mind put in’t”(V.5.175-16)[20, p. 117]. According to the researcher “The significance of imagine in Imogen is of course the same as how the name functions in the play” [16, p. 8]. Unacceptability of the Conjuncture The fact that Shakespeare’s characters are bearers of certain significant symbolic meanings is undeniable and Imogen should not be considered an exception in this respect. The editors with such conjecturers alter symbolic meaning of the name of the Shakespearean character. However, even if it was not characterized by any symbolic significance, the editors would add their own symbolic features or meaning to it. This should not only be considered to be the modernization of Shakespeare’s text, but also remodeling his way of thinking [see 14, p. 23]. I am certainly far from supposing that the texts of Cymbeline which have reached us should be regarded as entirely pure and original and the possibility of making any accidental or deliberate changes should not be totally excluded. To my way of thinking, the case for the modification of the name Innogen/Imogen also requires some interpretation. This issue should definitely become a subject of discussion for a number of reasons: the name of the main character was innovative for that time, the author’s historical source indicates the probable prototype of the name otherwise, and as the modified form of the name is already attested as this particular character’s name in old sources. Although the fact that a number of different options emerge while revealing Shakespearian original ideas is a positive development, the new findings and suppositions of the commentators should also be included either in their comments or in specific articles. I strongly believe that it is absolutely unreasonable to make any principal changes to Shakespeare‘s survived texts, unless the changes have been supported by reliable publications. However, these words do not mean that I strongly oppose any conjecture, no matter what the case. If the conjuncture is argumentative and does not alter the ideological, artistic and thematic structure of the work, it can be considered acceptable. However, in the case of Cymbeline, argumentation of the transformation of Imogen into Innogen should not be considered justifiable. There are many arguments against the replacement of the name Imogen with the name Innogen. However, the fact should not lead us to the conclusion that further discussions of the subject should be terminated. I suggest that the name Imogen, in the publications of Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, shouldn’t be changed into Innogen. Naturally, having said this, I mean only those publications which claim to be editions of the plays by the great playwright, at the same time; I cannot ignore the fact that Cymbeline, as a scenario for theatrical performances, can undergo multiple changes and corrections following the interests of a director or a screenwriter of the play. Getting acquainted with scholarly literature about Imogen /Innogen, led me to reveal several viewpoints regarding the unacceptability of this replacement. At the same time I do not exclude the fact that such a viewpoint might have already been expressed in any studies, presently unknown to me. Argumentation of the fact that in Shakespeare’s original version, the name of the British royal court princess was referred to as Innogen is mainly based on assumptions and possibilities. For instance, as assumed, changing the name Imogen into Innogen took place in Shakespeare’s First Folio, due to a mistake that might have been made by a scriber or the person responsible for preparing the texts for printing: when reading the manuscript they confused double n with m. As assumed the scribers were two people, one of them (conventionally B) was experienced enough, while the other one (E) lacked experience. The mistake made by the scribers is defined as the following: regarding the fact that the first one was fully experienced, and the half of the folio was composed by him, it is assumed that at some point he might have read the text carelessly. The other scriber, being the least experienced among the scribers of the Folio, might have made the mistake due to this reason. This discussion suggests only possibilities, they are based on mere assumptions, and however a contradictory possibility is also quite acceptable, for example: the first scriber was experienced and would not have made any mistakes, while the other one, being less experienced, might have done the work more carefully. According to scholars, Simon Forman referred to the name of the princess as Innogen under the influence of Holinshed Chronicles. (More precisely, from my point of view, he was influenced by historical memories, since the queen of Britain was also called Innogen.) It is also worth noting that Symon Formen, when writing these memoirs, did not have the printed version of the text at hand. Due to this, his memoirs are mostly based on the impressions he got from the stage [see 3, p. 377-339], and it is much less likely that the name sounded several times on the stage, as the name in question is rarely heard in the conversation of the main characters. Therefore, it seems unacceptable to include this conjecture in the text as it is based on dubious arguments. While discussing this issue, the main emphasis falls on the fact that in Cymbeline, Shakespeare mostly borrowed the names for his characters from other stories. More specifically, the name Innogen was already known from historical sources whereas the name Imogen was not. However, nowadays some amendments have already been made to this viewpoint, as it was discovered that the name Imogen, in the form of Yomogen, existed in English literature as early as in the 15th century. As it was mentioned above, the name of the British King Brute’s wife, Innogen was transformed into Ymogen in an English translation of the Latin text of World History (Polychronicon), performed by an unknown translator [16, p. 4]. Studying one banal anonymous play from the Shakespearean times, called Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune, is significant in this respect. Shakespeare was familiar with the play, and according to some scholars, such as J.M. Nosworthy, it served as one of the main sources of Shakespeare’s Cymbeline [15, p. XXV-XXVI]. It is believed that the name Fidele, selected for Imogen, disguised as a man, must be the modification of the name of one of the main characters of the play - Fidelia. There must also be a similar connection between Bomelio from Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune who was banished from the palace and lived in a cave and Belarius from Cymbeline who sneaked out from palaces and also found a shelter in a cave. Hermione – the name of the princess’s beloved man is also used by Shakespeare in another play, The Winter’s Tale although transformed into the name of a beautiful lady [2, p. 21]. It is also considered that Shakespeare created Posthumus’s epithet or rank name – Leonatus by modification of the name of the main character Leonato from his earlier play Much Ado About Nothing. Thus the assumption that Shakespeare, contrary to his tendency, would have used the already established name Innogen and, without modifying it, would have given it to his imaginary character seems less reliable. Moreover, if Shakespeare changed one name (Leonato) of the above mentioned couple (Leonato and Innogen), we should suppose that he would have changed the other one (Innogen) too. Therefore, we should consider that Shakespeare named his favourite woman character under the influence of the name of the British queen Innogen, but, at the same time, he either modified it into Imogen, or activated the less known version of the name - Ymogen. When discussing the name of the princess from Cymbeline, the commentators consider that it should convey a specific symbolic meaning and it should also have a trace of a pun, distinctly characteristic to Shakespeare. Indeed, there are some hints in the names of the significant number of non-historical characters from the works belonging to Shakespeare’s last period. Cymbeline is not an exception either: Posthumus means post mortem, or born after his father’s death. The biography of Posthumus, the main character of Cymbeline, also reveals the above mentioned symbolic meaning as he was born after his parents’ death [17, p. 164]. The stem of Posthmus’s rival character’s name - Cloten denotes fool, stupid and corresponds to the character’s personality [17, p. LIX]. Scholarly literature also considers this tendency to provide sufficient grounds for the establishment of the name Innogen. As already mentioned above, Innogen reveals a similarity to the word innocence (free of guilt) which characterizes precisely the princess’s personality in this play. From my point of view, this interpretation of the issue also requires some corrections. Pun or quibble speech was used in Shakespeare’s plays mostly for passing some hint to the audience and is mostly homographic and homophonic: a written word is indicative of something when uttered. As the audience of the theatre perceives the text by hearing it, it is less likely that a written version of one word resembling another word in writing should necessarily hint at something. According to scholars, proper names in Shakespeare’s late plays are represented by words or word combinations indicating the connection between the name and the characters’ personalities as well as their adventures. For example: Marina (in Pericles) means born in the sea, Perdita (The Winter’s Tale) means lost; Miranda (in Tempest) indicates ardor [25]. The same can be said about the above mentioned names given in Cymbeline (Posthumus, Cloten). According to some scholars, other names like Philharmonus, Leonatus, Belarius, Philario [16] also show the same link between the names and the character’s personalities. Thus, we should conclude that, when hearing the name Innogen, the audience would not be able to notice any similarity between the name pronounced as ´inˏə.dʒen,’ and a word innocence – ‘inəsəns’ [9, p. 257]. At the same time I agree with the opinion in English literary criticism that the name of the princess in Cymbeline should carry some specific indication to something . The fact is that a significant number of the names of the non-historic characters of the play are selected on the bases of a pun, quibble speech. In addition, the fact that even the name of the husband and beloved of Imogen, Posthumus, was chosen deliberately (meaning post mortem). All this might lead us to the conclusion that the latter's wife’s name, being the main character of the play, should also be bearer of some kind of symbolic indication. I would also like to add my viewpoint about the function of the pun name Posthumus, thus clarifying the symbolic meaning it carries in the play . In my opinion, the name does not refer only to the fact that he was born after his parents' death, but also, Shakespeare must have had much more profound thoughts when creating the name. Imogen finds her husband Posthumus beheaded, lying next to her in the cave. However, in the final scene he resurrects for her, or, in other words, he is born again. Following his wish, for Posthumus, Imogen is already murdered, and again in the final scene, she also rises from death for him. I think that this nuance was also considered by Shakespeare, when creating the name Posthumus. The main reason, provoking the above mentioned evaluation, was due to the fact that the 17th century literary criticism was not able to tolerate either a breach of the classical dramaturgy style or genre instability, unreality, even incredibility of certain episodes and behaviours of certain participants. Sometimes this play was referred to as absurd, less realistic than a fairy tale and disorderly arranged [see 2, p. 25; 1, p. 6]. On the other hand, the same criticism reveals several reasons for the Cymbeline plot being so unrealistic and unfeasible. Cymbeline, Pericles as well as The Winter’s Tale were created based on an idealised formality [see 2, p. 36] and the same features characterise Cymbeline’s characters, unrealistic features of the characters have been emphasised. Even Imogen is considered to be a boring image of a woman’s chastity [see 1, p. 17]. From the psychological point of view the whole gallery of characters is discussed on the basis of imagination and fantasy, Imogene being the central idealised character with her chastity [see 21]. It has also been noted that the idealised disorder of the play, though attractive in its way, creates golden unreality [see 15, p. XXXIII]. This attractiveness is primarily revealed in the artistic image of Imogen. When evaluating the character, Shakespearean literature is almost unanimous. It has been acknowledged that Shakespeare created brilliant facets of female characters, particularly in his last period plays, such as Imogen and Hermione [7. p. XII]. It should be claimed that Imogen is among Shakespeare’s brilliant woman characters who, as the plot of the plays unfolds, always prevail on their husbands to such an extent that the latter do not deserve to be their husbands – Helena (A Midsummer Night’s Dream), Portia (The Merchant of Venice), Imogen[13]. Moreover, it has been noted that the author bestows his woman character, the only daughter of the king Cymbeline, with all the supreme positive features - initially a modest, and a naive princess is transformed into an ardent, determined, wise, loyal and even a joyful character [6]. Among the best woman characters, created by Shakespeare’s artistic imagination Imogen was already considered to be the best as early as in the 19th century. Anna Jameson: “Portia and Juliet are pictures of fancy with more force of contrast, more depth of light and shade; Viola and Miranda, with more aerial delicacy of outline, but there is no female portrait that can be compared to Imogen as a woman….In her we have the fervor of youth, tenderness, all the romance of youthful fancy, all the enchantment of ideal grace” [8, p. 50; see 18, p. 492]. However, the 20th century criticism specifies “that Shakespeare has equalled Imogen is certainly true; but he has never surpassed her, and he has never repeated or anticipated her” [22, #17]. Imogen was loved by the English theatrical society. It is known that a popular actress of the 19th century, Helena Faucet, having created a brilliant stage image of Imogen, insisted on changing the name of the play to Imogen - the British Princess [1, p. 7]. Therefore, Shakespeare scholarship obviously believes that Imogen, as an artistic image, depicts a completely unreal woman, not even a hyperbolically real one. In her whole essence this character is imaginary, ideal, absolutely contrary to reality. Imogen is a product of creative fantasy. English Criticism realises that the latest plays of Shakespeare follow a tragic plot, but the style is changed into an imaginary environment [11, p. 144]; mostly in Cymbeline characters are likely directly from Shakespeare’s imagination” [13]. It was noted in the early 20th century that as an artistic image of Imogen is not realistic, and it represents an idealised image of a character. Imogen “is not real, she is idealized… In comparison with the women in the early sentimental comedies, Rosalind, Beatrice, Portia and Viola, she lacks the details of characterisation, the mannerisms which remind us of real persons and suggest the possibility of portraiture” [22, p. 139]. Imogen is Shakespeare’s dream-like character. She is an ideal wife, created by the imagination and fantasy of the author. This is clearly noticed and verified by the English Literary criticism. We should be sure that what was perceived by English Literary criticism was primarily felt and observed by Shakespeare himself. From my perspective this was the main reason he called the character Imogen. The pronunciation of the name Imogen at present sounds as the following: ´imˏə.dʒin //´imˏə.dʒen [9, p. 248] and the name clearly resembles the word imagine (i´mˏə.dʒ.in) [9, p. 247], meaning fancy, imagination, creation. The fact that a connotation of the name Imogen, related to the meaning of the word imagine was already noticed during Shakespeare's life is clearly indicated in Shakespeare Studies [16, p. 8]. I strongly believe that the name Imogen, given to the Princess of Cymbeline, as an imaginary wife, has a symbolic meaning and indicates fantasized unreality and dreamlike idealisation. The indication of the artistic image on behalf of the name of the character was more significant for Shakespearean audiences and readers than contemporaries can imagine. The value of the artistic method was much more significant than can be perceived by modern esthetic attitude. As one of the commentators of Cymbeline puts it ‘’Puns and playing on names may strike us as a bit strange now, but these were serious things to the Jacobeans” [17, p. LX]. That is why pun speech, quibble has such an important symbolic function in Shakespeare’s works. This is the reason Cymbeline’s characters have the names created according to these principles. That is why the artistic characters from the late period of Shakespeare’s plays reveal a certain indication to their personality and among them, the most profound indication is contained in the name Imogen. The fact that quibble, pun speech and playing with words, had an immense meaning in Shakespeare’s works, has been indicated several times in Shakespearean Studies and has become the subject of several researches. It has been noted that occasionally some editors fail to pay an adequate attention to this artistic style of Shakespeare’s speech and change the passages in the text, obscure to them. This kind of pun, quibble speech in Shakespeare’s plays is mostly acquired to show resemblance of the pronounced word to the other one, thus, the meaning of the second word expresses Shakespeare’s main point [see.10]. And finally, Shakespeare reveals and explains the significance of symbolic meanings of pun speech in Cymbeline, where the soothsayer explains to Posthumus the meaning of one phrase including prediction – “be embraced by a piece of tender air”, defining “piece of tender air”-s Latin equivalent molis aer, the same as mulier, in English meaning wife. By telling this, the soothsayer tells him that the word mulier indicates his committed wife (Cymbeline, V. 5: 444-447). Main conclusions Distant parallels As it has been noted, the main character’s name Nestan-Darejan from The Man in the Panther Skin reveals connection with some Arabic and Persian names, conveying specific connotation. Nicholas Marr identified the name as having the meaning of a “unique beauty”. He noted parallels between the Arabic word Hussᾱn-αθ (a woman of outstanding beauty) and Persian – nēst-andare-ḓahān (not existing on the earth) [12, p. 429]
|
Categories Journal Archive |