# Help me appreciate Shakespearian dialogue **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 30, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392 "2003-06-30T18:20:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![cabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c67d28/32.png) [@cabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cabbit)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/21 "2003-07-01T06:49:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny Bravo \* > \*\*A quick note about **Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead**. If you didn’t already know, it is _not_ a Shakespearean play, but a fairly recent one by a dude named Stoppard. > > That said, it’s absolutely brilliant, well written, and very, very funny. If you don’t know Hamlet, though, you’ll be lost during a good portion of it. > > \*\* Thanks for pointing that out **Johnny Bravo**! I should have mentioned it when I recommended it as another way of looking at Hamlet. I’m just so used to recommending it to friends that it slipped right past me. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/22 "2003-07-01T07:07:12Z")
To me, the hard things to understand in Shakespeare are the allusions to classical mythology. Apparently, people then (even the ‘peasants’) knew WAY more about Greek and Roman traditions and myths and things then we do, and I often have no idea what Bill is talking about when he goes there. If you leave those bits out, for the most part it’s just an arty form of English made to fit the poetic scheme. ---
**Author:** ![Leechboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9fc348/32.png) [@Leechboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leechboy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/23 "2003-07-01T11:46:31Z")
Firstly I recommend a brilliant book called **The Actor and his Text** by Cicely Berry. She’s the former voice coach at the RSC and the book is a goldmine of advice on how to understand and speak all forms of Elizabethan and Jacobean dialogue. Secondly, track down a BBC series called **Playing Shakespeare** by former RSC director John Barton. This series was basically a group discussion on just how to understand and act the bard’s words and can be quite informative. Among notables in the group who discuss and act out scenes are Ian McKellen, Ben Kingsley, Judi Dench, Patrick Stewart and Roger Rees. Avoid the book of the series however. There are also some great documentaries - **Looking For Richard:** Al Pacino, wanting to do a film version of Richard III, found out that the McKellen one was already in production and decided to do a doco about Richard and the Bard instead. It rambles a little here and there, but it is an excellent way to get an idea of what Shakespeare and Richard III is about. Actually the double of this and McKellen’s Richard would be perfect. Personally, I’ve got to say the single best version of Henry V, or more specifically Henry V act IV was in a BBC doco called **Henry V At The Globe**. It’s an hour long doco that talks about the building of the New Globe theatre, and it’s first production of Henry. It also features a fair whack of the fourth act, including the Crispin’s day speech. What sets it apart however is the truly phenominal performance of the lead Mark Rylance (Intimacy). Whose performance in that little snippet makes Branagh and Olivier’s seem weak. Seriously, I teared up during both the “O God of battles” prayer and the Crispin’s day speech. Plus it gives a very good leeson in just how the plays where performed originally. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/24 "2003-07-01T18:02:35Z")
Another approach: Start with the comedies, particularly the “sillier” ones. I’ve found, when watching the comedies, that even when I don’t quite catch the dialog, the physical acting often fills in the gaps quite nicely. ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/25 "2003-07-01T18:29:50Z")
I’d second **Johnny Bravo’s** suggestion of watching _Othello_. Much as I love the history plays, they are _hard_ to follow if you aren’t familiar with the characters and events involved, and even _Hamlet_ rests on some implicit ideas about kingship and revenge that aren’t necessarily intuitive for a modern audience. _Othello_, on the other hand, is pretty timeless; it’s a tragedy of human relationships, which just don’t change that much. And try to get hold of a copy of Marchette Chute’s _Stories from Shakespeare_, which is an excellent cheat sheet and much more engagingly written than the Cliff’s Notes. ---
**Author:** ![Katisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@Katisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katisha)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/26 "2003-07-01T20:14:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fretful Porpentine \* > **Much as I love the history plays, they are _hard_ to follow if you aren’t familiar with the characters and events involved** This is true – I’m rather obsessed with the histories, myself, but they’re a lot of work for the uninitiated. 😉 That said, I second the recommendation for the McKellen _Richard III,_ which recognizes the inherent difficulty of the source material and takes pains to either clarify dispense with a lot of the historical baggage that might get in the audience’s way. And McKellen’s performance is just spectacular. Oh, and two other things – **Mahaloth** said: > [@](#): > > I find that Henry V works better as a play if you saw the two most immediate prequels, Henry IV parts one and two. Indeed. And the _Henry IV_s are even better if you’re familiar with _Richard II._ History plays are kind of a package deal. See preceding about how they’re a lot of work. But it’s well worth it. 😉 **BrainGlutton** said: > [@](#): > > Hijack: Sir John Falstaff hasn’t had his turn on the big screen since the Orson Welles film Chimes at Midnight! Hear me, Branagh? Let’s see a new version of Henry IV, Part 1 and Part 2! “Can honour set a bone? . . .” End hijack. Agreed, agreed, agreed! And how apt is it that someone with **BrainGlutton** for a handle should want to see Falstaff onscreen… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/27 "2003-07-01T22:10:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hey you! \* > **Why is this dialogue considered crucial to maintain when it is so different than the way people speak now?** The short answer is because the “dialogue” is what the play _is_; the plot is incidental. That’s a gross overstatement, of course, but nonetheless it gets at the truth. Shakespeare’s genius wasn’t in constructing grand plots; most of his plays were based either on history or previously-existing literature or mythology. He changed events (sometimes in major ways) and created characters, but he didn’t really invent stories out of whole cloth. In a very real sense, “West Side Story” and “O” did to Romeo and Juliet and Othello the exact same thing that Shakespeare did when he wrote the plays originally – except that his adaptations were probably closer to the source material in most respects. What Shakespeare did that was grand was create the language and the rhythms in the poetry, as well as creating his own details of character that fit within the larger plot and made his characters feel like real human beings instead of words on a page. While I enjoy reading Shakespeare, reading is not the way to start. You need to learn how the rhythms work and how to understand the gist of a speech even if you don’t get all the words, and it’s much easier to do that when you can see the actions performed. While I liked Branagh’s Henry V, a lot of it is expository; you might be better served (as others have said) with his Hamlet, the Zefferelli/Gibson Hamlet, or even Baz Luhrman’s underrated "William Shakespeare’s Romeo+Juliet. (The DiCaprio/Danes version set in gangland California.) While some criticize the film because most of the actors don’t keep to the traditional rhythms as strictly as more conventional performances, for someone who’s not yet comfortable with the constant iambic pentameter that might be an advantage. (I also think some performances let the language get too sing-songy, which I hate; it’s not really acting if you let the language do all the emotion for you, is it?) Trust me, when I first got into Shakespeare, I felt the same way you did. It takes effort to learn to read him, but he really is as good as everyone says he is, so it’s worth the effort. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/28 "2003-07-02T01:01:48Z")
Posted by **Cliffy:** > [@](#): > > . . . or even Baz Luhrman’s underrated "William Shakespeare’s Romeo+Juliet. (The DiCaprio/Danes version set in gangland California.) Not California, **Cliffy,** southeastern Florida. “Verona Beach,” “Mantua Fields,” dig? I’m sure it was shot in Florida, too – the scenery is recognizably Miami-area, not SoCal. Oh, and yes, I loved that version of _R&J!_ Imagine, Romeo’s first glimpse of Juliet coming at the tail end of a bad acid trip! And it is notable that (so far as I know) nobody protested Luhrman casting teenage actors to play teenage characters, just as the Bard intended! (Well, not quite as he intended . . . in the original production at the original Globe, Juliet, just like every other female character, would have been played by a boy in drag.) ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/29 "2003-07-02T03:01:35Z")
I agree with many of the above posts, if you’re having trouble with the early modern english and/or the dialog in general, Romeo and Juliet is the place to start. Despite being a tragedy, I dare say it’s one of his “lighter” works, in that it’s much more accessable than Henry V or Macbeth. ---
**Author:** ![Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dread_pirate_jimbo/32/3897_2.png) [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dread_Pirate_Jimbo)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/30 "2003-07-02T03:03:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > \*\*Please do try the Zeffirelli’s version of “Romeo and Juliet.” I’ve never heard anyone say that they didn’t like or understand that film. So _much_ is right about that film! \*\* Although I concur with the recommendation of this version, and to a lesser extent the Baz Luhrman version, my biggest complaint with both those readings of R+J is one that I’ve found with a lot of Shakespeare’s comedies as they are played by contemporary artists – they treat the material with _too much_ reverence. R+J is hysterically funny right up to the part where people start dying, and even after that has some genuinely comic moments IF you play them up as comedic. Mercutio is a classic court jester character who basically spends most of his stage time thrusting his groin at every female character he sees or encouraging Romeo to do the same. But just because he’s in a tragedy, most people read him dead serious which misses the point. So my caution to you is this: Shakespeare never met a pun he didn’t like, a poopie joke he wasn’t prepared to use or a sexual innuendo too obscene for his taste. When Hamlet speaks of “country matters” in reference to Ophelia’s lap, that’s a dirty, dirty pun (I’ll let you figure it out). Chances are, if something sounds funny, it’s not some bit of arcane subreference, but an actual joke. He wasn’t writing for the college crowd; he was writing for the masses. So don’t try too hard; just enjoy it as entertainment and try not to worry about the intellectual stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/31 "2003-07-02T05:40:46Z")
> [@](#): > > But just because he’s in a tragedy, most people read him dead serious which misses the point. I’ve never seen anybody read Mercutio seriously. Geez, that’d suck. I think people miss the comedy in _Hamlet_ sometimes - I think that play is very funny at times. ---
**Author:** ![Helena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c68b51/32.png) [@Helena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helena)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/32 "2003-07-02T05:58:39Z")
Branagh’s _Much Ado About Nothing_ is a real treat. (Except for the bits with Keanu Reeves–I just can’t shake the feeling that he has no idea what his lines mean!) ---
**Author:** ![Archergal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Archergal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archergal)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/33 "2003-07-02T13:25:18Z")
Does anybody know if the Shakespeare plays that played on public TV in the 80’s were ever put out on video/DVD? That was my first exposure to a lot of Shakespeare. I still have a video I recorded of “Much Ado About Nothing” with Cherie Lungie and Robert Lindsay. That version was head and shoulders above the Branagh version! (I used to dream about Robert Lindsay.) I also saw King Lear in that series, and found it very very powerful and a bit disturbing. Whenever I see Shakespeare, I have to give my ear time to get in tune with the dialogue. It’s hard to understand at first, but if I relax and pay attention, it starts to filter into my brain. It helps if you have decent actors delivering the lines too. And of course practice (seeing more Shakespeare) makes it easier to understand what’s going on. It’s great stuff, really. ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/34 "2003-07-02T14:24:03Z")
I say _Romeo and Juliet_. It should be subtitled “Fisher Price: My first Shakespeare”. You can watch either the Zefferelli or the Luhrmann version, depending on what you feel you’ll relate to (or see them both), and definitely try and see it on stage. Shakespeare on screen just can’t live up to Shakespeare on stage. R+J isn’t Shakespeare’s best play, but its his easiest. The themes are universal and writ large, and if you’re in the right mood, you’ll get grabbed by even the most overdone scene - the balcony scene, for instance. I don’t think that it’s possible to read/see a well done version of R+J without thinking “damn, Shakespeare really knew his shit.” Particularly if you’re 14 - which is not a criticism. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f07891/32.png) [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Plastic_Ninja)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/35 "2003-07-02T17:16:27Z")
R&J’s Shakespeare’s easiest play to enjoy. It’s not his best play by far, and it’s a_tragedy_ – not because the teenagers die (a plus, for some viewers 🙂 ) but because they drag their families and an entire city down with them. Their families, feuding before, go into out and out warfare because two hormonal kids decided to get their jollies rather than be halfway sensible. Cliff’s Notes for Shakespeare, or (better yet) reasonably written books and essays on his work, make it easier to understand what’s going on in the play. If you get the plot and an idea of what Will’s doing, you can sit and let the poetry take over from there. Keep a dictionary handy, though, or hope your copy’s well-footnoted. And as **DPJ** said, Will was a punster extraordinaire in an era where the pun was considered high comedy. (Low comedy was the bear-baiting hall just down the road. Seriously. They competed with the Globe for people.) Every one of his plays has dirty jokes if you know where to look (hint: any word whatsoever with the syllable “con” or “cun” or something like it is, well…heheh, country pleasures). Next favorite are Biblical and classical puns and references. If you’re studying Shakespeare on the page (it can be tricky to pick up on this in the theater, unless you’re really paying attention and you know how to close-listen as well as close-read), make note of the words he uses over and over again. I can’t remember how many times the words “Father” and “son” are used in the Henry plays, and I think in Hamlet too. My favorite Shakespeare is _The Tempest_. It’s Will’s only attempt AFAIK at an original plot, and it’s so different in tone from all his other stuff. It’s really weird. ---
**Author:** ![Katisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@Katisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katisha)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/36 "2003-07-02T18:48:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Archergal \* > \*\*Does anybody know if the Shakespeare plays that played on public TV in the 80’s were ever put out on video/DVD? That was my first exposure to a lot of Shakespeare. \*\* That’s the BBC Shakespeare series – you can get some of them at [Poor Yorick](http://www.bardcentral.com) in Stratford, Ontario, but the only thing you can order online is a five-pack of tragedies. I think you have to go to their store to get the individual editions (happily, I’m going there this summer). As I understand it, the series is rather inconsistent – some installments (e.g. what I’ve seen of _Much Ado_ are excellent), others dull. (The best one I’ve seen is their _Richard II,_ starring Derek Jacobi…) **Little Plastic Ninja** – _A Midsummer Night’s Dream_ also has a more or less original plot… ---
**Author:** ![Foolonthehill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Foolonthehill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foolonthehill)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/37 "2003-07-02T18:57:50Z")
My learning curve with Shakespeare started with MacBeth. Our English teacher knew how to appeal to teenage boys: Blood & Guts. MacBeth is one of his simpler plays, the characters’ motives are transparent, their actions follow logically from one scene to the next. The dialogue is obviously Shakespearean, but there are very few references that are obscure or difficult. Lady MacBeth is the most interesting character, (villian), you have ever watched. “Screw your courage to the Sticking Post.” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/38 "2003-07-02T19:17:05Z")
> [@](#): > > My favorite Shakespeare is _The Tempest_. It’s Will’s only attempt AFAIK at an original plot, and it’s so different in tone from all his other stuff. It’s really weird. I’m with you there. _Macbeth_ isn’t too hard to understand, and it’s short, which can be a plus. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/39 "2003-07-02T20:29:53Z")
Posted by **Dread Pirate Jimbo:** > [@](#): > > Although I concur with the recommendation of this version, and to a lesser extent the Baz Luhrman version, my biggest complaint with both those readings of R+J is one that I’ve found with a lot of Shakespeare’s comedies as they are played by contemporary artists – they treat the material with too much reverence. R+J is hysterically funny right up to the part where people start dying, and even after that has some genuinely comic moments IF you play them up as comedic. Mercutio is a classic court jester character who basically spends most of his stage time thrusting his groin at every female character he sees or encouraging Romeo to do the same. But just because he’s in a tragedy, most people read him dead serious which misses the point. Along the same lines: I was generally satisfied with Branagh’s ever-line-included screen adaptation of _Hamlet,_ except for one thing: What a cold fish of a Polonius! He’s supposed to be the comic relief, isn’t he? Him and the gravedigger. What material the Bard gave him to work with, and not a single line could he deliver to raise a chuckle! Quite unlike the Polonius in the Mel Gibson version, who at least had the good sense to play the fool. Posted by **Little Plastic Ninja:** > [@](#): > > And as DPJ said, Will was a punster extraordinaire in an era where the pun was considered high comedy. (Low comedy was the bear-baiting hall just down the road. Seriously. They competed with the Globe for people.) Every one of his plays has dirty jokes if you know where to look (hint: any word whatsoever with the syllable “con” or “cun” or something like it is, well…heheh, country pleasures). Next favorite are Biblical and classical puns and references. All true, and let’s not forget the good ol’ cuckold’s horns! Practically any use of the word “horns” or a synonym in an Elizabethan play is probably tied in with this one way or another. To a modern audience – if you don’t know about this usage it sails over your head, and if you do know about it, it gets old really fast. But for some reason the Elizabethans seemed never to tire of it. Does anybody happen to know **how** horns became associated with cuckoldry? The sexual association (horn=erect penis) would appear obvious, but remember, the horns are on the head of the cuckold, not his of wife’s paramour. So what gives? Why should a cuckold wear even metaphorical horns? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392/40 "2003-07-02T22:27:15Z")
This is a great discussion. I love you guys. **Hey you!** : I’ve read and/or performed everything in Shakespeare’s canon (except “The Rape of Lucrece” and one other thing that slips my mind at the moment), and I will emphatically second what **Cliffy** said: > [@](#): > > It takes effort to learn to read him, but he really is as good as everyone says he is, so it’s worth the effort. The vocabulary is an obstacle, but it is not an insurmountable one. Any decent Shakespearean text will include a glossary in the margin (I prefer _The Riverside Shakespeare_), and you can also find separately published Shakespeare dictionaries. I’d recommend [Onions](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198125216/qid=1057182944/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9348509-2783820?v=glance&s=books), which while old (originally from 1920 or thereabouts) is justifiably a classic. A great companion to a formal glossary would be Eric Partridge’s [Shakespeare’s Bawdy](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415050766/ref=pd_sim_books_1/103-9348509-2783820?v=glance&s=books), an in-depth treatment of most (not quite all) of the Bard’s nasty puns and other references. Trust me, you’ll never read Shakespeare the same way once you untangle Mercutio’s line, “the bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon.” Actually, here’s an example for you to digest. It’s a sonnet; read it first, then I’ll clue you in: > [@](#): > > Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy ‘Will,’ > And ‘Will’ to boot, and ‘Will’ in overplus; > More than enough am I that vex thee still, > To thy sweet will making addition thus. > Wilt thou, whose will is large and spacious, > Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine? > Shall will in others seem right gracious, > And in my will no fair acceptance shine? > The sea all water, yet receives rain still > And in abundance addeth to his store; > So thou, being rich in ‘Will,’ add to thy ‘Will’ > One will of mine, to make thy large ‘Will’ more. > Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill; > Think all but one, and me in that one ‘Will.’ “Will” is obviously William Shakespeare, but it’s also a reference to willpower, to a bequeathment, and — most cunningly — to the genitalia (i.e. “willy”). If you want a hint, pump your hips when you say “making addition… _ **thus.** _” I’d also second the recommendation for _Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare_, which is extremely informative, along with another reference book such as [Shakespeare A to Z](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385313616/qid=1057183526/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-9348509-2783820). Contains character sketches, plot summaries, and other details. Basically it’s a really excellent Cliffs Notes to the entire canon, all in one volume. Because in addition to the language, there are occasional moments where the characters go on about something that, even if you understand what they’re saying, you don’t know what’s getting them worked up; it requires some knowledge of past beliefs and customs to understand the dramatic conflict. For example, in _Richard III_, there’s a scene where the dastardly title character visits a funeral procession and propositions the dead man’s widow. At one point, she says: > [@](#): > > Foul devil, for God’s sake, hence, and trouble us not; > For thou hast made the happy earth thy hell, > Fill’d it with cursing cries and deep exclaims. > If thou delight to view thy heinous deeds, > Behold this pattern of thy butcheries. > O, gentlemen, see, see! dead Henry’s wounds > Open their congeal’d mouths and bleed afresh! > Blush, Blush, thou lump of foul deformity; > For 'tis thy presence that exhales this blood > From cold and empty veins, where no blood dwells; > Thy deed, inhuman and unnatural, > Provokes this deluge most unnatural. The language is clear, but what the heck is she talking about, seeing the wounds “bleed afresh”? Well, back in Shakespeare’s day, there was a belief that if somebody were killed, the presence of his murderer would make him bleed again. In other words, the woman is accusing Richard of being the man’s killer. That’s the kind of stuff a good guide will help you with. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by MLS_ > You might also like Zeffirelli’s version of “Romeo and Juliet” (late 1960s). It was controversial at the time, because it actually showed the two as young teen-age lovers, which is faithful to the original. Worse yet (_gasp_) the movie showed them in bed together, the morning after their wedding. Romeo gets out of bed and walks to the window and he is (\*\* double gasp \*\*) stark nekkid. You got to see his butt. Oooooh. Like I said, it would be nothing in particular now, but was a big deal at the time. It’s also perfectly in keeping with the scene, which is an excellent excuse to talk about why a translation into modern vernacular would rob Shakespeare of much of his value. Act three, scene five: > [@](#): > > **JULIET** > Wilt thou be gone? it is not yet near day: > It was the nightingale, and not the lark, > That pierced the fearful hollow of thine ear; > Nightly she sings on yon pomegranate-tree: > Believe me, love, it was the nightingale. > > **ROMEO** > It was the lark, the herald of the morn, > No nightingale: look, love, what envious streaks > Do lace the severing clouds in yonder east: > Night’s candles are burnt out, and jocund day > Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops. > I must be gone and live, or stay and die. > > **JULIET** > Yon light is not day-light, I know it, I: > It is some meteor that the sun exhales, > To be to thee this night a torch-bearer, > And light thee on thy way to Mantua: > Therefore stay yet; thou need’st not to be gone. > > **ROMEO** > Let me be ta’en, let me be put to death; > I am content, so thou wilt have it so. > I’ll say yon grey is not the morning’s eye, > 'Tis but the pale reflex of Cynthia’s brow; > Nor that is not the lark, whose notes do beat > The vaulty heaven so high above our heads: > I have more care to stay than will to go: > Come, death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so. > How is’t, my soul? let’s talk; it is not day. > > **JULIET** > It is, it is: hie hence, be gone, away! Quite a famous scene, yes? How many times have you seen it played as potentially dirty as it could be? They’ve been having sex all night, right? Romeo is tuckered out, as is Li’l Romeo. Now look at how many times they say “wilt.” Sure, it’s a part of the language of the day, but it occurs with much greater frequency in this passage; it’s even the first word of the scene. Juliet, in her first speech, refers to “piercing the fearful hollow,” after which Romeo says “night’s candles are burnt out.” Get it? Continuing: Could the “misty mountain tops” be a boob joke? And is it an accident that they’re punning on “die,” which is both a reference to mortality and sexual climax (_le petit mort_)? Finally, I think the last two lines are hilarious; Romeo has been saying, basically, please darling, I just can’t get it up any more… but wait! “How is’t, my soul?” Maybe I can get it up one more time. And Juliet, who has been begging him to stay, suddenly changes her mind: “It is, it is, hie hence, be gone, away!” This stuff isn’t accidental, folks. 😃 The point is, if you translated the scene into modern speech, you’d lose three-quarters of the wordplay. You could maybe put the jokes back in, in a different form, but somehow raunchy humor, even as filthy as Shakespeare sometimes gets, comes off as less than nasty when written in such complex and witty verse, whereas in modern language it would just sound, I don’t know, crude. So, to reiterate, yes, it’ll take a lot of effort and experience to get to where you’re enjoying Shakespeare’s writing on something approaching its own level, but, like **Cliffy** said, it’s absolutely worth it. The Bard doesn’t have the reputation he does for nothing. Oh, and **BrainGlutton** , some discussion of the cuckolding horns was conducted in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=173016) (oddly, also started by **Hey you!** ). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-appreciate-shakespearian-dialogue/185392.md?page=3)