Shakespeare’s Language and Audience

By: Emily Scott

ABOUT

In this post I will analyze a few of the major reasons that Shakespeare’s fame is still upheld today. I further explain my reasons for this project in the ANALYSIS portion at the end of this post. Enjoy! 🙂

WHY LANGUAGE MATTERS… WHY IT MATTERS A LOT

Language is an intangible thread that ties people together and allows organisms to communicate. With this being said, the medium that is language is further complicated than if two organisms speak the same “type” of language or not: an example of two types being Japanese and English. Just because two people speak English, for instance, doesn’t necessarily mean that they can communicate easily; we often see a disconnect in the English language in business jargon and slang. Another example of this language barrier appears in classic literature; usually the wording of the texts alone is enough to scare people away (what with all the “thou’s” and “thy’s”).

Why people don’t read:

Part 1

Part 2

However, as I will explain, William Shakespeare’s literature should be the exception in breaching this barrier and even today his works can be read by everyone because his language is always adapting. In Shakespearean England, Shakespeare’s works were able to reach a wide audience because his literature was written in both prose and verse (as well as in laymen terms when speaking on ‘bad quartos’); and, today the language that his works are presented in still is a major factor in determining his audience, with versions such as No Fear Shakespeare being today’s parallel of Shakespeare’s colloquial prose.

VERSE vs. PROSE

In mid-16th century England, the time and home of Shakespeare, the upper-class – being better educated –  had a wider vocabulary and were able to express themselves in elaborate details, while middle and lower-class individuals were thought to put their thoughts in a straightforward, simpler manner. The question is: how did people enjoy the same entertainment if there was this prevalent language barrier? The genius that is Shakespeare scripted his plays in both verse and prose to accommodate the masses. Typically the nobility in Shakespeare’s plays speak in blank verse and the commoners speak in prose; however, sometimes the nobility speak in rhymed verse instead.

What are Prose and Verse?

  • PROSE: Ordinary language with no accented rhythm. A long passage in prose is typically printed in your text like an ordinary paragraph with right and left justification.
  • RHYMED VERSE: Rhymed verse in Shakespeare’s plays is usually in rhymed couplets, i.e. two successive lines of verse of which the final words rhyme with another.

RhymedVerse

  • BLANK VERSE: Blank Verse refers to unrhymed iambic pentameter.
    • If you are unsure if a passage is in blank verse or in prose, READ IT ALOUD.  If you can discern the regular rhythmic pattern of iambic pentameter (da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM), it is in blank verse.

When are Prose and Verse used?

Prose vs. Verse

  •  PROSE:
    1. To express ordinary – NOT DEEP – observations.
    2. Quick, one-line replies.
    3. Suggest madness, such as when a character is going insane.
    4. Drunken rambling.
    5. Make fun of characters who lack wit.
  • VERSE:
    1. Express deep emotion.
    2. Make wise, philosophical observations.
    3. Add irony.
    4. Portray order and exactness.

BAD QUARTOS

What is a ‘Bad Quarto’?

HamletBadQuarto
Picture from: http://mentalfloss.com/article/51369/bad-quartos-what-shakespeare-could%E2%80%99ve-been

With this being said, the men who would attend Shakespeare’s performances at The Globe Theater and pirate his plays were usually from the lower or middle-class (they might have been merchants or sailors, for example). So, these men were not well educated and therefore their written versions of Shakespeare’s plays were rudimentary at best.

The worst yet most famous Bad Quarto is from Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy. The original First Folio is full of Shakespeare’s luster and careful word choice; needless to say, the First ‘Bad’ Quarto pales in comparison. As you can see by following the links above, the Hamlet’s Bad Quarto is really very awful. However, in reference to language and maintaining an understanding of Shakespeare’s tales, the Bad Quartos have a very important role. One thing that Shakespeare’s folios lack (as I’ve mentioned in an earlier blog post. See: “Bad Quartos and Piracy”), are clear stage directions; but, the individuals who scripted Bad Quartos tended to provide very detailed descriptions of the actors’ movements and body language. For example, while Shakespeare’s folio of The Winter’s Tale was wonderfully written, without Bad Quartos we might not know that a bear pursues Antigonus when he flees the stage in Act 3, among other stage directions that bring Shakespeare’s plays to life when performed. Detailed stage directions are all Bad Quartos are helpful for, but if we didn’t have these directions then live performances of the playwright’s works would not be as authentic as they were during the time of his life; Shakespeare’s plays would not contain the same amount of drama, humor, or tragedy had it not been for these faulty replications of his works.

IF THEY COULD LEARN IT, SO CAN YOU

Something else to consider when reading Shakespeare is that today we have an advantage over the audiences of his own time because the words that the playwright invented were at his time new, but today they are clichés/commonplace. Some scholars disagree over whether or not Shakespeare was the first person to use many of these words, but nevertheless he is believed to at least be the first to write them and put them in literature. As The Huffington Post details, a few very common words invented by Shakespeare are: gloomy, laughable, majestic, lonely, radiance, hurry, generous, frugal, critical, courtship, zany, undress, and rant.

ShakesLang2

Also, just like the audience of his time had to do, Shakespeare’s words often take on more than one meaning when used in a play’s context and therefore these meanings must be constantly reinforced and re-evaluated. The most prevalent example of this can be seen in the use of the word “honest” in the play Othello. There are 52 occurrences of the word “honest/honesty” in this play alone. Shakespeare transitions from using the word to describe Iago as truthful and loyal to Desdemona as chaste, however, so the reader must be ready to interpret these changes.

OthelloHonesty

DO NOT FEAR, MODERN SHAKESPEARE IS HERE!

Most people consider reading No Fear Shakespeare as cheating if they are true, “honest” Shakespeare Fanatics because this modern version of the playwright’s texts are not in his original language. It’s like reading The King James version (KJV) of The Bible versus the New International Version (NIV). THE WORDS JUST AREN’T THE SAME, but the message itself is. A benefit of reading No Fear Shakespeare’s modern text is that today’s readers no longer have to deal with verse and prose; while you can certainly still decipher when a character jumps from one to the other because his/her speech becomes plainer or more elegant, the sentence structure is less changed. For an example, consult Henry V (5.2):

  • In this scene, Henry is trying to convince Catherine of France to marry him. Since her native language is French and his is English the two lovers have trouble understanding one another. So, Henry begin to speak in prose to make his speech simpler for Catherine. In the original text, Henry’s change to prose also allows the audience to more fully receive Henry’s feelings and intentions for Catherine because prose is so straightforward. But, in the No Fear Shakespeare version of this scene the same message is still described and even further simplified for today’s readers.

SUSTAINING HIS FAME

Shakespeare does not just use language, he is language; his language is the driving force behind his fame, a fame that isn’t declining anytime soon. Shakespeare’s clever incorporation of verse and prose in his plays allowed his audience during his time and his audience today to better interpret the mood/tone/meaning of his characters’ dialogue. As explained above, one example of this can be read in Henry V. Also, individuals’ piracy of the playwright’s literary works actually had a very important effect: without them, theatrical shows of Shakespeare’s works would not be as true to their original versions – the original stage directions of Shakespeare’s plays more than likely would have been lost or changed in time if all we had for reference were his first folios. So, while I in no way condone piracy, in this instance the criminal act had the benefit of helping to bridge the barrier that is understanding Shakespeare.

Furthermore, I say that Shakespeare is language and doesn’t just use it because he had a way of bending it to his needs, inventing more words than anyone else ever has, yet still being able to be perfectly understood. With this thought in mind though, another way that Shakespeare bent language to his needs was by playing off the many meanings that one word may be able to express. The most common example of this is in the play Othello’s use of the word “honest,” also described above.

Language is ever changing, and it is a change that is inevitable and should be welcomed. So, while some people may shy away from modern translations of classic literature, I would encourage people to read it. Of course, read the original texts as well, but at least reference modern translations (especially if you are having trouble understanding the original text). What really matters is not a play’s dainty or bombastic wording, but the meaning it provides and the actual tale the literature is trying to portray. Modern translations are bringing the messages in Shakespeare’s works to today’s generation; they are helping sustain his fame.

Both the lovely phonetics of reading Shakespeare aloud and the timeless messages one receives form his literary works equally come together in upholding his influence.

ANALYSIS

I have never done this for a blog post, but I thought you all might find it interesting to know why I wrote this post and my blog in general (sort of like an extensive author’s note). I absolutely love Shakespeare; I love how one can read his plays and always walk away affected in a different way and I love the drama in reading his plays aloud, the phonetics. All of my other posts have been on how Shakespeare is portrayed in the media today, and for this post I wanted to analyze why his works are even still around today. In other words, what makes them so treasured?

When first sitting down and wondering how to get this out to the world I thought about starting a Tumblr blog, but ultimately decided to use WordPress because I was already familiar with the medium. Now, I am happy I made this decision because I feel as if WordPress allows people who share a real interest in the topic of Shakespeare to easily find my blog. At first, I just advertised this blog using “tags” at the end of my posts so individuals with other WordPress blogs could easily view this blog. Then, about halfway through this project I decided that writing this blog is a lot of fun, even more so than I originally thought it’d be. So, about two weeks ago I began to advertise my blog on Twitter and have linked the URL of this blog to my Twitter profile (feel free to follow my Twitter @EmilyScott7112 for updates on when I post to this blog). Needless to say, connecting this blog to my Twitter has already doubled my viewers (I appreciate every single one of you who read my blog!). This growth in viewers has further cemented my belief that the internet/media and technology in general is connecting people. It further cements my belief that Shakespeare having an audience on Twitter, Pinterest, Facebook, and other social media sites is aiding in upholding his presence today. There are so many reasons why a Classic is deemed a Classic and stays a Classic. I believe that Shakespeare was originally remembered because his language is nice on the ears and he wrote in a way that all social classes could relate to his messages. I believe he is still remembered today for both of these reasons and through the use of technology such as No Fear Shakespeare.

 

“It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.”

-William Shakespeare

Henry V Film Adaptation (Tom Hiddleston)

Like I previously did for the film The Merchant of Venice, I’d like to portray the differences and perks the film version of Henry V has over the Shakespearean play by the same name:

  • Unlike Shakespeare’s written work Henry V, the film adaptation by the same name is able to add emphasis to scenes through the careful selection of the characters’ costumes. When first introduced, Henry is darned in brown leather which sharply contrasts Canterbury’s harsh red cloak and gold jewelry. Just from this distinction, the audience can begin to infer that Henry is (for the most part) sensible, down-to-earth, well-intended in his actions, and a hard worker; leather is commonly deeply associated with the earth, homeliness and strength/labor. On the other hand, due to just an analysis of his clothing one can assume that Canterbury and (since he is the archbishop and therefore represents the church) the church in general is cloaked in blood, a readiness for war, and a need to separate itself from the lower class. Henry’s leather ties him to the people immediately; a connection that one really is not confronted with in the play until Act 4, Scene 1 when Henry talks to his soldiers as a commoner and his kingly status goes unnoticed. And, just as Henry’s attributes are later portrayed through his actions, so are the archbishop’s in Act 1, Scenes 1 and 2 when the church is wanting to financially support the King in his war with France with more money than the church has ever lent out before, when Canterbury is willing to bet his right intentions for the war on his own life, and when Ely (another extension of the church) directly refers to blood/brotherhood in Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 115-121. The film adaptation’s visual aspect in clothing layers the exact same story under the play’s original dialogue.
  • The film adaptation is also able to utilize props to supplement the actors’ dialogue, unlike a silent read-through of the Shakespearean play. Props are carefully used in the film in Henry’s speech to the French Ambassador in what is Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 259-297 of the original play. When the two characters begin to speak, Henry is shown standing between two fiery torches, he sits in his throne for a few moments between the torches, then gets up and circles the ambassador as if he is circling prey. Henry V TorchesWhen the confrontation is over, Henry has to have two men open the massively heavy doors that lead out of his throne’s chamber. The props – the torches, the dark throne, and the massive doors – add to the scene’s eeriness; it made me connect the scene to what Hades’ palace may look like in the Greek underworld, which is a fitting connection considering that Henry is furious for vengeance when speaking to the French ambassador.
    • However, the most important prop used in this scene to defend the actor’s intent is the tennis balls Henry receives from the ambassador as a mocking gift from the Dauphin. After Henry finishes circling the ambassador, Henry throws the ambassador the tennis ball he had picked up off the floor and been holding as if to silently say, “make your move, England will war with you for this mockery, and the ball is now in your court.” This one gesture alone allowed Henry to threaten so much more than his lips uttered aloud.
  • The film adaptation, unlike the play, portrays male dominance through omitting Queen Isabel’s character in Act 5, Scene 2 and changing some of Henry’s lines in the same Act and Scene; in this way the play is freed from the original dialogue. In the film, King Charles speaks Queen Isabel’s line in lines 12-20 and line 98; and Burgundy speaks Queen Isabel’s lines in lines 354-363. This demonstrates male power over women because in the play, when Isabel speaks she is the one to greet King Henry, she is the one to decide that Catherine may stay to speak with Henry, and she is the one who ultimately dictates that Henry may wed Catherine; however, by omitting Queen Isabel’s character altogether – as the film does – and by having King Charles and Burgundy speak the Queen’s lines the men are seen to be the ones making the major decisions for their kingdoms and their households.
    • Unlike the written play, the film further demonstrates male dominance in this same Act and Scene by changing Henry’s speech in line 368. In the play Henry states, “Then shall I swear to Kate, and you to me
” When he says, “And you to me,” Henry is acknowledging Kate’s consent and presence. But, in the film Henry’s dialogue is changed to, “Then shall I swear to Kate, and she to me.” The use of the word “she” instead of “you” is a subtle difference; nevertheless, it shifts Henry’s dialogue from the acknowledgement of his fiancé’s consent to the acknowledgement of her father’s permission. Henry is even looking to King Charles and Burgundy, not Kate, when he speaks this line in the film.