This argument is probably best made in Harold Bloom’s book Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. It’s long, occasionally ramblingly discursive and unfocused, and overreaches from time to time, but on the whole it makes an extremely compelling case for exactly what you’re saying.
There’s also the argument, which neither Cecil nor anyone else thus far has raised, that Shakespeare’s work, to a great extent, “fixed” the language. If you look at even earlier literature, it’s clear that English was evolving and changing at a tremendous rate; Beowulf and Chaucer, for example, four centuries apart, are barely the same language, and they’re both largely incomprehensible to a modern reader. Shakespeare, however, while difficult, is still quite readable. Beowulf is from around the 10th century; Chaucer wrote in the 14th; and Shakespeare’s work straddles the 16th and 17th. It’s remarkable to me that the language could have changed so much from Chaucer to Shakespeare, and comparatively so little from Shakespeare to now. What this means is arguable; did Shakespeare just come along at the right time? or is his work such a significant cultural touchstone that we collectively do not wish to stray too far from it? or something else? But the observation remains true, whatever its significance.
My parents took me to several Shakespeare productions, all of which were directed by the same half-assed goof. For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out what the fuss was about.
Until I read Shakespeare in school.
Since then, I’ve seen some terrific theatrical productions, for which I am grateful.
There were at least two other things going on though:
[ol]
[li]The printing press was invented in the 1500s, came to England, and fueled the spread of literacy. After that, the presence of books tended to keep the language more disciplined, at least among those who wrote for a living. (And then later among everyone, after universal education became common.)[/li][li]England was ruled by the Norman French from 1066 to — well, I don’t remember when just now, but close to Chaucer’s time. During those three centuries or so, English was “the peasant’s language”, and without anyone caring to keep it fixed, it changed rapidly. That’s when English lost its genders, some of its noun cases, and most of its distinct verb conjugations.[/li][/ol]
I’m not trying to belittle Shakespeare; just saying that I don’t think he’s the one who put the brakes on the English language after the 15th Century.
In the first place, we are accustomed to seeing Shakespeare edited. We get (to pick my favorite audition piece):
Is there no way for men to be but women
Must be half-workers? We are all bastards,
And that most venerable man which I
Did call my father, was I-know-not-where
When I was stamped; some coiner with his tools
Made me a counterfeit. Yet my mother seemed
The Dian of that time; so doth my wife
The nonpareil of this! O, vengeance, vengeance!
Me of my lawful pleasure she restrained
And prayed me oft forbearance; did it with
A pudency so rosy the sweet view on’t
Might well have warmed old Saturn; that I thought her
As chaste as unsunned snow. O, all the devils!
This yellow Iachimo, in an hour,–wast not?–
Or less,–at first?–perchance he spoke not, but,
Like a full-acorned boar, a German one,
Cried ‘O!’ and mounted; found no opposition
But what he looked for should oppose and she
Should from encounter guard!
…Could I find out
The woman’s part in me! For there’s no motion
That tends to vice in man, but I affirm
It is the woman’s part: be it lying, note it,
The woman’s; flattering, hers; deceiving, hers;
Lust and rank thoughts, hers, hers; revenges, hers;
Ambitions, covetings, change of prides, disdain,
Nice longing, slanders, mutability,
All faults that may be named, nay, that hell knows,
Why, hers, in part or all; but rather, all;
For even to vice
They are not constant but are changing still
One vice, but of a minute old, for one
Not half so old as that. I’ll write against them,
Detest them, curse them: yet 'tis greater skill
In a true hate, to pray they have their will:
The very devils cannot plague them better.
instead of:
Is there no way for Men to be, but Women
Must be halfe-workers? We are all Bastards,
And that most venerable man, which I
Did call my Father, was, I know not where
When I was stampt. Some Coyner with his Tooles
Made me a counterfeit: yet my Mother seem’d
The Dian of that time: so doth my Wife
The Non-pareill of this. Oh Vengeance, Vengeance!
Me of my lawfull pleasure she restrain’d,
And pray’d me oft forbearance: did it with
A pudencie so Rosie, the sweet view on’t
Might well haue warm’d olde Saturne;
That I thought her
As Chaste, as vn-Sunn’d Snow. Oh, all the Diuels!
This yellow Iachimo in an houre, was’t not?
Or lesse; at first? Perchance he spoke not, but
Like a full Acorn’d Boare, a Iarmen on,
Cry’de oh, and mounted; found no opposition
But what he look’d for, should oppose, and she
Should from encounter guard. Could I finde out
The Womans part in me, for there’s no motion
That tends to vice in man, but I affirme
It is the Womans part: be it Lying, note it,
The womans: Flattering, hers; Deceiuing, hers:
Lust, and ranke thoughts, hers, hers: Reuenges hers:
Ambitions, Couetings, change of Prides, Disdaine,
Nice-longing, Slanders, Mutability;
All Faults that name, nay, that Hell knowes,
Why hers, in part, or all: but rather all. For euen to Vice
They are not constant, but are changing still;
One Vice, but of a minute old, for one
Not halfe so old as that. Ile write against them,
Detest them, curse them: yet 'tis greater Skill
In a true Hate, to pray they haue their will:
The very Diuels cannot plague them better.
More than that, there is a simple psychological threshold effect. Shakespeare seems familiar to us, so he seems more familiar than he is. Chaucer seems unfamiliar to us, so he seems less familiar than he is.
Heh. At this moment, the SDMB front page lists:
Last post:
Shakespeare
by Measure for Measure
One usually sees that the other way around.
I agree both that Shakespeare should be watched to be appreciated, not read, and that there’s something inherent to Shakespeare that marks him out. We’re blessed to have a very talented Shakespeare company here (yes, high culture in Montana. Who’d’a’ thunk it?), and they sometimes do classics (read: Public domain) by other playwrights as well. When they do a Shakespeare, it’s always fantastic, and typically hilarious (they mostly do the comedies). When they do anyone else, though, well… You can tell they’re trying, and there’s nothing to criticize in the performance. But the material just isn’t there, not compared to Ol’ Will.
Another critical-yet-commonly-overlooked fact is that the current editions of Shakespeare’s works are NOT what were performed live at the Globe Theatre, but in fact revised editions for publication. The differences can be minor, but most definitely there and in retrospect from earlier editions and from transcriptions of those actors who remembered their lines, vastly simpler. I’m sure some Shakespeare enthusiasts can point out the source, but I believe transcriptions of the original Quartos from 1549 on have been digitized and put online. The more common publiciations are from the folio publications of 1623.
And yet, if you look at the police blotter for many cities, you’ll see actions AT LEAST as stupid as some of the Shakespearean Plots, if not more so. Humans, by nature. tend to do some rather stupid things. Shakespeare was one of the first to point out that the rich and powerful do them as well.
More generally accepted? By whom? Certainly not by anybody who knows the period and would realize that Richard, when he speaks of ‘the formal Vice, Iniquity’, refers to the character of that name in the Tudor interludes, or morality plays.
“The various devils of the old morality plays became a single, usually comical character named “Vice.” Vice was a slapstick sort of guy and very popular at King Henry’s court.”
Vice (sometimes given the name of a specific vice such as Iniquity) would joke and comment cynically on the action of the play in exactly the style of Richard. Consult any good annotated edition of Shakespeare and verify this for yourself.
The Arden edition of Hamlet, edited by the Shakespearian scholar Harold Jenkins, glosses Hamlet’s reply of “Nothing” thus:
“The absence of anything (in jocular allusion to virginity, perhaps with specific reference to the male ‘thing’. Alternatively the fiigure O in allusion to the woman’s sexual organ.”
Eric Partridge in Shakespeare’s Bawdy also lists Nothing as an allusion to the female genitalia.
(Partridge isn’t quite as convincing as evidence; many of the words in his list of obscene puns are, frankly, a reach. Jenkins, however, knows his stuff.
Shakespeare is like Jazz, Bob Dylan, or Bleu Cheese - very cool things which make no sense to a lot of people. The more you force them, the more they hate it.
Just to clarify, this is not to assert that the word [nothing ever meant the female sexual organ in English, simply that it was sometimes used as a double entendre.
Pretty much everything is available at http://ise.uvic.ca/Annex/DraftTxt/index.html. But there are two caveats to be made here.[ol]
[li]We have absolutely no definite knowledge of how the quartos and folios are related. They may reflect piracy by shorthand or memory, or changes made in production, or revisions by Shakespeare, himself, in hindsight. People get PhD’s for trying to work out the connections.[/li][li]The texts themselves are inconstant. Paper was expensive in those days, and no proofs were made. Instead, the proofreader would look at the first sheets coming off the press, and corrections would be made on the fly. Then all the sheets would be tossed together to be sent to the bindery. No two copies of the First Folio are exactly alike, and years of manual labor have been put into comparing them to try to get the best results.[/li][/ol]
Shakespeare could communicate in a single line more than most authors can communicate in an entire scene. His plots, as several people have already noted, are mostly borrowed, but he imbues them with layers of significance, and generally renders them in language that makes most writers grind their teeth in envy. To use a pop culture analogy, Shakespeare is to other writers as Hendrix is to other guitarists. Borrowing an old plot did not start or end with Shakespeare: think of “West Side Story”.
If you pick a popular saying, the odds are pretty good that it’s Shakespeare, and I think that it’s safe to say only the Bible is a competitor for Shakespeare as a source for book titles.
Anyone who has had trouble grokking Shakespeare should see the following two films:[ul]
[li]Much Ado About Nothing (Branagh)[/li][li]Henry V (Branagh)[/li][/ul]
Much Ado is a comedy, and the cast and direction (not to mention the scenery!) in this version are breathtaking. In addition to a cast of dozens of superb Shakespearian actors, Keanu Reeves and Michael Keaton put in (respectively) creepy and over-the-top-comedic performances.
And anyone who hears Branagh’s reading of the St. Crispin’s day speech in Henry V and doesn’t want to follow him right into the screen probably has no pulse:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
Lead me!
But I agree with Cecil that Lear is the epitome of Shakespearian excellence. Most of the best lines require some context to really appreciate them, but I defy anyone to read Act IV, scene vii without being moved to tears. A couple of samples that I think stand well on their own:
CORDELIA
O thou good Kent, how shall I live and work,
To match thy goodness? My life will be too short,
And every measure fail me.
KENT
To be acknowledged, madam, is o’erpaid
CORDELIA
How does my royal lord? How fares your majesty?
KING LEAR
You do me wrong to take me out o’ the grave:
Thou art a soul in bliss; but I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like molten lead.
If you want to see Lear, I think I remember that Olivier did a version when he was an appropriate age (just as his Hamlet was done when he was more or less Hamlet’s presumed age).
One last interesting tidbit. At the end of “I Am The Walrus”, someone in the background starts speaking: “Slave, thou has slain me…” This is from Lear, Act 4, scene vi:
Slave, thou hast slain me: villain, take my purse:
If ever thou wilt thrive, bury my body;
And give the letters which thou find’st about me
To Edmund earl of Gloucester; seek him out
Upon the English party: O, untimely death!
I believe that the backstory is that Lear was being broadcast while they were recording “I Am The Walrus”, and for reasons known only to John Lennon it was incorporated.
That is my husband’s favorite speech in that film (which is brilliant, BTW). My personal favorite though is his speech thrown up at the gates of Honfleur, which includes rape, pillage, and babies on pikes.
I have to disagree with most of the stuff Cecil and most of the replies have made. I truly believe that the only reason we still talk about Shakespeare is because elitist educators force him down innocent students throats. I was once told by a college professor that the difference between Stephen King and William Shakespeare is the “masses” don’t understand good writing. I point out here, as I did then, that literature is art and by definition, art is the arrangement of elements that affects the sense of beauty. Who defines beauty? The Masses!! Stephen King sells more books in one year than all the hundreds of publishers of Shakespeare do in five. As the original question asked, so does Tom Clancy.
Throughout college I was repeatedly confronted with this elitist mentality. I was told in a music appreciation course that the world would forget about Elvis, the Beatles, and the rest of rock music in fifty years but Bach would be around a thousand more. That professor was just asking for a debate. I pointed out that never has Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart been the popular form of music… not even when they were alive. Regional Folk music is the original form of music and it is still around today. Rock is the evolution from blues, bluegrass, country, and countless others that all came from folk. The musicians of today look toward Frank Sinatra. Hank Williams, W.C. Handy, Woody Guthrie, …etc. for inspiration not some guys that died hundreds of years before and had no relationship to modern music. Modern music has multiple tempos, the appreciation of voice, and the variety that these “classical” artist never dreamed of. Bruce Hornsby once wrote a whole piece only using only sharps and flats…something the “masters” could never do. And now after nearly a century of commercially available recorded music, the Beatles alone sold more albums that ALL the genre of “classical” music has ever sold. I also pointed out that the only contact that most people have with “classical” music is Muzak.
In all forms of art we have this elitist philosophy. I liked *Citizen Kane*, but I, like most people, would much rather watch *Forrest Gump* or *Wizard of Oz*. I would much rather have a Norman Rockwell copy on my wall that a Picasso or Dali. Peanuts is much better that Doonesbury. An Austin Mini Cooper is a prettier car that a Porsche 928 . Sadly, I would be more likely on any given night to watch something on UPN before I would watch anything on PBS (not by much). And the Nielson ratings show I am not alone.
My closing thought is back on literature. Another college professor ask on an exam what was the autobiographical nature of *The Snows of Kilimanjaro*. That was simple for me to answer, there was none. That didn’t go will with the professor as that answer cost a third of my grade. I took to him an interview that Hemingway gave that stated that none of his stories are autobiographical… they are just stories. The professor’s answer, “scholars” had long known that writers deny symbolism and autobiographical elements in their stories, but we all know they are there. Come now, who should know the symbolism better, the author… or some hack educator would who was taught that good writing always has symbolism? Damn Elitist!!!
“The masses,” whoever they are, don’t define beauty for me any more than the professors do. You may have had a bad time in college, wissdok, but don’t take it out on Shakespeare. Or Bach, for that matter.
