Shakespeare

[lisa needs braces]

I kind of agree with linguist John McWhorter here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-facelift-for-shakespeare-1443194924

[SimonNZ]

That guy teaches at Columbia?! He writes, and argues, like a high-school student.

I'm all for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival putting on the plays as jiggery-pokeryed into "modern" English as an exercise. An interesting discussion may come from it, and Shakespeare has certainly seen odder staging ideas. But the author of the article saying this is how all stagings should, nay must, be done? No.

The artilce also seems built upon all manner of false or unproven assumptions and straw man arguments, eg paragraph two:

"Most educated people are uncomfortable admitting that Shakespeare's language often feels more medicinal than enlightening. We have been told since childhood that Shakespeare's words are "elevated" and that our job is to reach up to them, or that his language is "poetic," or that it takes British actors to get his meaning across."

...which are in need of a liberal amount of "[who?]" and "[citation needed]".

Bridging the centuries and meeting Shakespeare in his context is part of the excitement, and "work" - if he want's to use that term, I wouldn't - that enriches much of our understanding of literature and history beyond just the needs of the present play. And besides meaning, if unclear, can usually be obtained from context, or conveyed by the actions or inflections of the actors.

That reference to British actors in the above seems telling when combined with this from a little later: "In 2015, that usage is simply opaque, and being British doesn't help matters.", and we start to see where the prejudice and complaint might really lie.

And this bit made me laugh out loud:

"To prove that the centuries were not so formidable a divide, the actor and author Ben Crystal has documented that only about 10% of the words that Shakespeare uses are incomprehensible in modern English. But that argument is easy to turn on its head. When every 10th word makes no sense—it's no accident that the word decimate started as meaning "to reduce by a 10th" and later came to mean "to destroy"—a playgoer's experience is vastly diluted."

Every tenth word is incomprehensible? No. I'm no Rhodes scholar. I haven't toiled with all the notes from the Arden editions. Yet I can follow the plays just fine. But this writer nevertheless would see me as an "elitist", stating in a manner which I would usually associate with internet trolls:

"But are we satisfied with Shakespeare's being genuinely meaningful only to an elite few unless edited to death or carefully excerpted, with most of the rest of us genuflecting in the name of "culture" and keeping our confusion to ourselves? Should we have to pore laboriously over Shakespeare on the page before seeing his work performed?"

[(poco) Sforzando]

I kind of agree with linguist John McWhorter here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-facelift-for-shakespeare-1443194924

I kind of disagree, and the always estimable SimonNZ makes the case well, and in greater detail than I care to go into myself. The truth is that much of Shakespeare's language is in fact modern English (as that term is defined by linguists) and readily comprehensible; obscure phrases like Othello's "exsufflicate and blown surmises" or Macbeth's "the multitudinous seas incarnadine" are the exceptions, not the norm. If we have to translate phrases like "Pray you, sir, undo this button" or "Oh brave new world that hath such people in it!" we're in trouble indeed. (Other than Jeb! there are perhaps no greater fools than Shakespearean directors, and I recall a Merchant of Venice in which Shylock was pondering whether to lend "three thousand dollars," the original word "ducats" being adjudged too difficult to understand as a unit of currency.)

But McWhorter loses his own argument when he tries to make the case that Shakespeare "wrote for performance." (He did, but as Lukas Erne has recently argued, he also wrote to be read, and that is why his works belong to literature and not only to theater.) In the sweep of a stage performance, where you cannot go back and look up a meaning, context does much to make up for any individual words that might get lost for a particular hearer. That's why it's probably best for students not only to read the plays but also to see a good stage production or filmed version, and perhaps even when reading to soldier on and ignore all those pesky little notes as much as possible.

The real failure of McWhorter's argument, however, is his assumption that Shakespeare will suddenly become miraculously clear if we just treat his texts as verbal puzzles to be solved. Not so: the real difficulties with Shakespeare are conceptual, in the complexities of responses we are expected to bring to his characters and situations. Even some of Shakespeare's greatest villains (Iago, Edmund, Shylock, Goneril) have aspects of their characters that command respect, and some of his most admirable people (Hamlet, Othello, Cordelia, Prospero) have severe shortcomings. That is the real challenge of Shakespeare, not some fine points of evolving language.

[Jo498]

I assume that this guy is exaggerating and even many high school students understand most of those passages (and for reading there are annotations), at least in context. For me as a non-native reader quite a bit of this is quite difficult because of the huge vocab and those shifts in meaning but I had no problems to completely understand the excerpt from Macbeth's monologue in the article. (I think I have read about 4 Shakespeare pieces in English and also watched a few both in movie adaptations and in English-language stagings)

I wonder if one part of the problem (if it really is one) might also be that a lot of even otherwise well-educated people in the english-speaking world have no or only rudimentary knowledge of foreign languages. If one is used to "decode" texts with help of context etc. one should not have trouble to understand that "clear" could mean "pure" in that passage (and not lucid or transparent).

[(poco) Sforzando]

I wonder if one part of the problem (if it really is one) might also be that a lot of even otherwise well-educated people in the english-speaking world have no or only rudimentary knowledge of foreign languages. If one is used to "decode" texts with help of context etc. one should not have trouble to understand that "clear" could mean "pure" in that passage (and not lucid or transparent).

I really don't think so. Context should suffice regardless of one's knowledge of other languages. The example that springs to mind is from Edgar in his disguise as Poor Tom in Lear:
"But mice and rats and such small deer / Have been Tom's food for seven long year."

Probably most of us today won't recognize that "deer" as used in 1600 retained its wider sense of "animal" as found in the cognate German "Tier." But honestly, is the passage so hard to grasp?

[Jo498]

I wanted to make a more general point, closer to your example. I did not only or mainly mean that one should be able to identify obsolete words or meanings because one has studied Latin, French or German.

But that by studying any foreign language one usually learns to look for contexts, often to get the meaning etc. better than in one's native language. Of course, in principle, this can also be learned by studying texts of the native language but one is more often "forced" to do so with a foreign language.
(I guess I never before explicitly realized that "deer" ~ "Tier"...)

Maybe the problem is far more general: More and more people seem to take it for granted that a text should yield very easily to our attempts to understand it, so that even taking a little trouble with that process is too much, therefore they want to revise/simply older or difficult texts.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Maybe the problem is far more general: More and more people seem to take it for granted that a text should yield very easily to our attempts to understand it, so that even taking a little trouble with that process is too much, therefore they want to revise/simply older or difficult texts.

Absolutely. A further fallacy in McWhorter's argument is his apparent assumption that the Shakespearean texts would have been crystal-clear to all levels of society in his own day. I stand by my argument that much of his language is reasonably comprehensible to an educated and willing reader or spectator; however, it's unlikely that anyone talked even in his own time in blank verse, and much of the pleasure in hearing Shakespeare is the high degree of attentiveness one needs to follow his intricate syntax and metaphors. It's like driving a highway where there are bends and twists at every stage of the road, rather than one where you can set your mind on auto-pilot because the roads are perfectly straight.

[Ken B]

Makes it a lot easier for undertrained actors and teachers.  Ever hear a trained actor like Ian McKellen recite?  Very clear. 
When I see hard to follow performances it's because they shout or rush lines.  I call it the Stratford shouting disease,  as it took over the Ontario festival for 20 years (getting better now).

[(poco) Sforzando]

Makes it a lot easier for undertrained actors and teachers.  Ever hear a trained actor like Ian McKellen recite?  Very clear. 
When I see hard to follow performances it's because they shout or rush lines.  I call it the Stratford shouting disease,  as it took over the Ontario festival for 20 years (getting better now).

"And that's true, too" (to quote Gloucester). I saw a "Titus Andronicus" just last week at a local theater, where the performers moved creditably and inhabited their characters, but they consistently shouted and swallowed most of their words. How can one blame audiences for not following the words if the words are not articulated?

[kishnevi]

Absolutely. A further fallacy in McWhorter's argument is his apparent assumption that the Shakespearean texts would have been crystal-clear to all levels of society in his own day. I stand by my argument that much of his language is reasonably comprehensible to an educated and willing reader or spectator; however, it's unlikely that anyone talked even in his own time in blank verse, and much of the pleasure in hearing Shakespeare is the high degree of attentiveness one needs to follow his intricate syntax and metaphors. It's like driving a highway where there are bends and twists at every stage of the road, rather than one where you can set your mind on auto-pilot because the roads are perfectly straight.

I don't have the passage at hand to cite details, but I recently read that Shakespeare invented more neologisms--new words-- than any other single person. Meaning that his audiences were regularly presented with words no one had ever heard before... yet Shakespeare intended them to understand his meaning.

[Karl Henning]

Thoroughly interesting discussion, chaps.

[North Star]

I don't have the passage at hand to cite details, but I recently read that Shakespeare invented more neologisms--new words-- than any other single person. Meaning that his audiences were regularly presented with words no one had ever heard before... yet Shakespeare intended them to understand his meaning.

There is no way of knowing which of these were his inventions, and which just happen to survive in his works, though. I would think he picked up phrases from the people too.

[Ken B]

Thoroughly interesting discussion, chaps.

I can definitely see watching a performance of the translation. Most people need some aid when first encountering a play. But I reject the notion that we should be able to understand anything from the past with no effort and at a first encounter or it means the work needs to be altered. Poco made this point extensively.

[kishnevi]

There is no way of knowing which of these were his inventions, and which just happen to survive in his works, though. I would think he picked up phrases from the people too.

Popular language and outright slang are well preserved in Elizabethan pamphlets, and to be syllabically simpler.  Author invented words tend to be ornate multiple syllables drawing on foreign languages, as if he was strutting his stuff, and not found elsewhere, whether pamphlets or other poets.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

ETA: There seems to me a problem as well with your use of the term "intended heroic character." How do you know what was intended?

It is possible Shakespeare is using Horatio sarcastically in this respect but he pretty much flat out addresses the audience (and Fortinbras) in the end how Hamlet was basically the greatest guy who ever walked on earth. Hamlet is not without his good points but Horatio basically makes it sound like Hamlet was a saint in making, not often cruel and sulky antihero who is in some way responsible for deaths of almost every character in the play, whom in most cases probably didn't deserve to die. Hamlet is not the worst case of this though (at least Hamlet is interesting character), the worst offenders of this are found in Timon of Athens and King Lear. Whenever some character calls someone out of their actions, it is never directed at Lear or Timon, no matter how bad some of their actions are. Kent gently scolds Lear in the opening act but it is virtually nothing compared to how he for ex. talks to Oswald. Oswald is no saint either, but it still seems like Lear is judged less critically merely because he's the protagonist. With Timon the problem is not quite as bad because he actually doesn't act like ahole for 95 % of the play, in fact the root of his problems lies in that he is too much of a nice guy in the beginning, not so with Lear. I do like much of King Lear and Timon of Athens as plays, but man, sometimes those moral dissonances drive me nuts.

There is also the possibility that it's the high status of a certain person which causes the protagonist's actions and character almost never to be questioned.

[North Star]

Popular language and outright slang are well preserved in Elizabethan pamphlets, and to be syllabically simpler.  Author invented words tend to be ornate multiple syllables drawing on foreign languages, as if he was strutting his stuff, and not found elsewhere, whether pamphlets or other poets.

Like Frenchwoman. 

http://qi.com/infocloud/shakespeare

[(poco) Sforzando]

It is possible Shakespeare is using Horatio sarcastically in this respect but he pretty much flat out addresses the audience (and Fortinbras) in the end how Hamlet was basically the greatest guy who ever walked on earth. Hamlet is not without his good points but Horatio basically makes it sound like Hamlet was a saint in making, not often cruel and sulky antihero who is in some way responsible for deaths of almost every character in the play, whom in most cases probably didn't deserve to die. Hamlet is not the worst case of this though (at least Hamlet is interesting character), the worst offenders of this are found in Timon of Athens and King Lear. Whenever some character calls someone out of their actions, it is never directed at Lear or Timon, no matter how bad some of their actions are. Kent gently scolds Lear in the opening act but it is virtually nothing compared to how he for ex. talks to Oswald. Oswald is no saint either, but it still seems like Lear is judged less critically merely because he's the protagonist. With Timon the problem is not quite as bad because he actually doesn't act like ahole for 95 % of the play, in fact the root of his problems lies in that he is too much of a nice guy in the beginning, not so with Lear. I do like much of King Lear and Timon of Athens as plays, but man, sometimes those moral dissonances drive me nuts.

There is also the possibility that it's the high status of a certain person which causes the protagonist's actions and character almost never to be questioned.

I think I've answered this already and so I don't feel like getting into every point, especially since you've completely missed the essence of my argument: "Surely as readers or audience members we can see the flaws in each of these characters, and our response to the play depends on how we interpret the juxtapositions of their actions, their statements, and the statements of others about them. . . . "

But just start by considering what Horatio actually says (and let's not forget his grim rebuke to Hamlet's act of killing two innocent pawns: "So Guildenstern and Rosencrantz go to't."):

And let me speak to the yet unknowing world
How these things came about: so shall you hear
Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts,
Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters,
Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause,
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
Fall'n on the inventors' reads: all this can I
Truly deliver.

Surely some of these acts apply to Hamlet, not only to his enemies. As for the "gentle" Kent,

Let it fall rather, though the fork invade
The region of my heart: be Kent unmannerly,
When Lear is mad. What wilt thou do, old man?
Think'st thou that duty shall have dread to speak,
When power to flattery bows? To plainness honour's bound,
When majesty stoops to folly. Reverse thy doom;
And, in thy best consideration, cheque
This hideous rashness: answer my life my judgment,
Thy youngest daughter does not love thee least;
Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sound
Reverbs no hollowness.

Kill thy physician, and the fee bestow
Upon thy foul disease. Revoke thy doom;
Or, whilst I can vent clamour from my throat,
I'll tell thee thou dost evil.

Man, that's so gentle I'd hate to see what he sounds like when he's pissed off. As for no one else calling Lear's actions into question, I might as well quote the entire part of the Fool, not to mention numerous utterances from Goneril and Regan.

[jochanaan]

Well, if we expect plays to be "easy," that leaves out many of the greatest modern playwrights: Edward Albee, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller...

[Jaakko Keskinen]

"Surely as readers or audience members we can see the flaws in each of these characters, and our response to the play depends on how we interpret the juxtapositions of their actions, their statements, and the statements of others about them. . . . "

Fair enough.

Kent was only basically calling Lear a fool, though. If, say, Oswald, had done what Lear did, Kent would have called him scum of the earth, monster, slave, etc. Actually, he pretty much calls Oswald that even though he didn't do that (not exactly in those words but meaning is pretty much the same), before Kent actually has any proof about Oswald's less admirable qualities (IIRC).

[(poco) Sforzando]

Fair enough.

Kent was only basically calling Lear a fool, though. If, say, Oswald, had done what Lear did, Kent would have called him scum of the earth, monster, slave, etc. Actually, he pretty much calls Oswald that even though he didn't do that (not exactly in those words but meaning is pretty much the same), before Kent actually has any proof about Oswald's less admirable qualities (IIRC).

What you're missing is the social and political hierarchy involved. As a king, Lear would be seen to rule by divine right, and to be God's divine representative on earth. Further, Kent is not just calling Lear a fool, he's also accusing Lear of madness, rashness, and even evil. That's pretty strong stuff, and even while he knows he is putting his life at stake by objecting to a critical decision by his absolute monarch, Kent refuses to stand by when he sees Lear committing a monstrous injustice towards Cordelia:

Let it [the threatened arrow] fall rather, though the fork invade
The region of my heart: be Kent unmannerly,
When Lear is mad. What wilt thou do, old man?
Think'st thou that duty [i.e., Kent's allegiance to Lear] shall have dread to speak,
When power [Lear's] to flattery [that of Goneril and Regan] bows?

(Note also in this scene the shifts from formal to intimate use of the second person singular: a distinction still preserved in languages like French and German, but sadly lost in English. Another argument, BTW, for not "translating" or "updating" Shakespeare.)

As for Oswald, he is Goneril's servant, and takes orders from her as ruler of half the new Britain. But while the two wicked sisters see themselves now as absolute rulers and Lear an inconvenient old man, Kent maintains his life-long allegiance to his king. When in disguise he trips up and insults Oswald, the Earl of Kent is thinking as a nobleman addressing a commoner, and as putting in his place a cowardly and effeminate upstart who fails to treat the anointed king with proper respect.

The only character in the play who within the hierarchy is allowed to ridicule Lear is his "all-licensed fool," who is expected to speak truth, though always in jest – the court's professional comedian.