Appetites

Naseem Dawood, the distinguished translator of the Koran and the Arabian Nights for Penguin Classics, argues that we have a textual error in the great temptation scene Othello, 3.3: at lines 298-300 Othello says "O curse of marriage! / That we can call these delicate creatures ours / And not their appetites!" Dawood proposes that the last word should have an apostrophe: And not their appetites'. Men call wives their own but the real possessor of women is their appetites. They belong to their appetites, hence a possessive apostrophe. Or maybe even 'appetite's'. Analogy:
O curse of editing / That we can call these delicate decisions ours / And not Shakespeare's.
    Without an apostrophe it means "we can say that we own our wives but not that we own their appetites", which is plausible but weaker than the idea of "legally we own them but in reality their sexual appetites own them".
    Insertion of an apostrophe would direct ultra-careful readers to the primary meaning proposed by Dawood, but it might look fussy on the page. And in a way this is hair-splitting, since in the theatre you can't hear the difference between the two readings. The individual edition of Othello is just going into proof. Does anyone think we should emend?

Comments

[Rinaldo]

As an editor of critical editions (but of musical scores, not plays) I find such questions fascinating.

To me, neither the "might look fussy" argument nor the "hair-splitting, because the difference is inaudible" arguments carry much weight; one still wants to arrive at the best possible choice for one's text. The question is, what do you think is the primary (or intended) meaning? Is there any way to decide? In this case, both are possible. Which would more logically emerge in this speech?

[Mal]

I agree with Rinaldo that we should aim for the best possible choice. It might look slightly fussier, but if it's right then it should be there. Having said that, I don't think an apostrophe is needed. Here's my reasoning:

My paraphrase of the original sentence is:

We can call women our own, but we can't make women's appetites our own.

Example: women hunger for shopping, while we hunger for football. We end up shopping & cursing because we cannot just 'take on board' the same appetite as our wife.

This reading doesn't need an apostrophe.

Dawood' reading is:

We can call women ours, but women's appetites are their own.

This is simpler, but I would argue that my reading (Shakespeare's intention?!)is more powerful.

Therefore leave it as it is.

By the way, good to see the new individual versions coming out. I read the original batch through the mediation of my local library. This persuaded me to buy the complete works. Of course, now I don't need to buy the single works! But they are great for libraries, performers, and schools...

[Joe Nutt]

See an earlier comment I made on this blog on David Tennant's Hamlet. There's no dodging this one! http://palgrave.typepad.com/rsc/2008/09/whose-philosoph.html#comments

Personally, I would opt for Dawood's reading and suggestion for one reason. If you look at how the word 'appetite' is used elsewhere in the play, it really is almost as a synonym for the female libido.

[chanel bags]

What a remarkable article which have almst take my breath away.I really enjoys everything of your blog.Thank you for your constant sharing of remarkable posts with us.Enjoy your weekend!