I'm reading Shakespeare's
Julius Caesar (from the Complete Works, edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen) and something I've noticed is that the footnotes often claim he was using vulgar double entendres.
Here's a passage early in Act I, Scene I, with the footnotes in parentheses:
It's interesting how some of the footnotes offer interpretations as if they were fact, while others betray conjecture ("could be," "possible").
Was this Shakespeare's intent? Was Elizabeth England just Weimar underneath the surface (keep in mind Jews had been expelled and barred from entering England for centuries, and Shakespeare never laid his eyes on one)? Or is it just modern prurience, quite widespread in academia?
I'm long past giving scholars the benefit of the doubt, so I looked up editor Bate, and he certainly seems to have his fixations (a journal article
"Sexual Perversity in 'Venus and Adonis'" in The Yearbook of English Studies).
The e-trad sphere tends to promote "reading the classics," which isn't bad in and of itself — but it's best to be mindful that it's often these types editing, annotating and interpreting the material.