|
|
31 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good, but could do yet more, April 6, 2001
The original version of this glossary, done by C.T. Onions, was certainly a landmark publication. Indeed, there are some things in it (not many) which over the years I have discovered Eagleson has unaccountably omitted in his revised version. On the whole, Eagleson does, however, offer quite a bit of extra material, though the claims made on this score by both the publisher and some reviewers seem to me exaggerated (and I have used Onions's text and Eagleson side by side for many years).How good is the present compendium for today's purposes? Certainly very good for what it does within its limits, but those limits are significant. By now there have, for example, been a good many books proving the existence of bawdy puns and various related kinds of slang within Shakespeare, and for proper understanding of that author a glossary should certainly explain such Elizabethan usages. In common with *The Oxford English Dictionary* (for which Onions did a great deal of important work), *A Shakespeare Glossary* is - and remains even in its present form - largely silent and uninformative on these matters, with the result that modern readers who look up a word suspecting that it may have a bawdy sense now no longer current will find themselves almost always frustrated (in strictly scholarly terms!). Such readers will have to turn to e.g. Eric Partridge's *Shakespeare's Bawdy*, which remains invaluable, but is itself coming to look less than complete now that we know so much more, perhaps especially since the publication of Gordon Williams's *A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature* (expensive and not easy to use, but a real mine of information). Despite these reservations I would still recommend the Onions-Eagleson glossary as a worthwhile component on "the Shakespeare shelf". It should be added - but this is not a fault of the volume - that in many cases a modern reader is simply not AWARE that a word in Shakespeare does not mean what it means today, and therefore will not look it up in any glossary or dictionary. This makes detailed well-annotated volumes such as are published with the New Cambridge, Oxford, and Arden series (or the one-volume Bevington Shakespeare) essential for anyone wishing to understand what he or she is reading: in such editions, the necessary glosses are volunteered by editors who ARE aware of the fact that many words have changed in meaning since Shakespeare's time . - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University, South Australia
|