The professor in Wit stresses how Helen Gardner was a scholar and her use of the original comma is extremely significant in understanding the true meaning of the poem. However, I found it to be crucial to understand that her point of the comma was in comparison to the version Emma Thompson’s character used that ended the line with an exclamation point. When analyzing the original Donne version of the poem, to the Sir Herbert Grierson version offered in the anthology, I found myself wondering how that professor would judge this punctuation change. She explains how Helen Gardner is a academic scholar and that she maintained the integrity and true meaning of the poem by keeping the comma. When I researched Gardner’s version, it is clear that Gardner may have kept the comma, however, she did choose to capitalize the second “death” in the last line. This realization led me to analyze the anthology’s version in a different light. Yes, perhaps the comma was changed to a semi-colon, however the addition of the comma after the second “Death” allows for the same experience that the professor was explaining in the Gardner version. “And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.” The addition of the comma following the second death serves as that pause, that breath, that the professor was stressing in the video clip.
The point I’m trying to make is that after watching the clip I think many of us were inclined to read the Grierson version from our anthology and assume that it was flawed just as the version Emma Thompson’s character had used was, however I do not believe this to be the case. Many have called attention to the change in capitalization of the word death in the last line, however in the Gardner version this capitalization was also changed. If we are to take the professor’s speech as making a profound point, and highlighting a certain truth about the intended meaning of Donne’s poem, I do not see critiquing the anthology’s version as proving we’ve understood what she had meant. I believe that the professor would attest that the Grierson version was an accurate and adequate version of Donne’s original poem.
I believe the professor would agree that the semi-colon does not change the way this line is read, nor does the capitalization of the second “Death,” because there is the addition of the comma after the second death. The main contention she had with punctuation was the exclamation point added to the version Emma Thompson used. From this understanding I think it is important to see that the changes in punctuation we see in the Grierson version offered in the anthology do not inauthenticate the sonnet, nor change the intended meaning Donne had for the words. The professor in Wit allowed us to focus on the importance that the chosen punctuation has on the words of this sonnet, however I do not believe that the changes in punctuation that we see in the anthology’s version change the meaning or integrity of Donne’s original work.
Good post, Allison. Good research, too. We see a comma and small "d" death in the original (1633), but you're right that lots of later editions capitalize that "d".
ReplyDeleteBut do I agree that the semicolon doesn't change the way it's read? I have to say that I don't agree. A semicolon and a capital "D" give us pause when we're reading. Even if I were reading aloud to someone else, I would pause longer on a semicolon, and the listener would hear the difference.
Still, I agree with your point: these editorial changes don't in any way change the sonnet so that it is no longer "authentic." What they do is interpret the poem. No Donne editor would claim otherwise. Editorial decisions influence interpretation. But we have the right to disagree with an editorial decision and, armed with a digital image of the 1633 version of Donne's poems, we also have a resource to use as we ask questions about editorial practice and interpretation.
Thank you, I appreciate the thoughtful response. I've been hoping to make it on the "What's Got Me Responding" list haha.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see what you're saying about the semicolon. The point I was trying to make was that in the Gardner version, which the professor refers to as being the proper interpretation of Donne's original work, the capitalization of the second "death" technically should call for a change from a comma to semicolon. Capitalizing the "d" does not merely imply an emphasis on the word death; rather it completely changes it to refer to "Death" personified. What we see in Gardner's interpretation, "And death shall be no more, Death thou shalt die.," is actually grammatically incorrect. With the decision to capitalize the "d" should technically change the punctuation before it.
So now the question lies in whether Gardner's version should be an applauded interpretation, even though the comma is being misused. Or if Grierson's version should be looked to as the higher standard, considering it correctly punctuates the exact same sentence as seen in in Gardner's. If the comma being there matters significantly to the readers' interpretation of this line, then I think the "d" should not be capitalized.