The Language of Shakespeare

ANY encounter with Shakespeare, on page or on stage, presents us with two related linguistic challenges: • a semantic(语义的) challenge: we have to work out what his language means, if we are to follow the plots, understand the descriptions of people and places, and take in what he (in the poems) or his characters (in the plays) are saying and thinking, • a pragmatic(语用的) challenge: we have to appreciate the effects that his choice of language conveys, if we are to explain the style in which he or his characters talk, see why other characters react in the way they do, and understand what is happening to our intellect and emotions as we read, watch, or listen to their exchanges.

Most of the time we respond to these challenges with unselfconscious ease, because the language of Shakespeare is the same, or only minimally different, from the language we use today. We need no explanatory linguistic notes, or specialist dictionaries or grammars, to understand the semantics of such lines as:

SIR JOHN：Now, Hal, what time of day is it, lad? (I Henry IV, 1.2.1)

ORSINO：If music be the food of love, play on. (Twelfth Night, 1.1.1)

HAMLET：To be, or not to be; that is the question. (Hamlet, 3.1.58)

The thought may be demanding upon occasion; but the language is no barrier.

Nor do we need a corresponding scholarly apparatus(学术资料)to appreciate the pragmatic force underlying such lines as:

PRINCE HARRY [of Sir John]：That villainous, abominable misleader of youth (I Henry IV, 2.5.467)

MARINA：My name, sir, is Marina. (Pericles, 21.131)

SHYLOCK [of a jewel]：... I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. (Merchant of Venice,3.1.113)

If we refer to the context in which these lines occur, we find that they are, in turn, a jocular(幽默的)insult, a moment of revelation(揭露), and a nostalgic reflection; but we do not need to look up editorial notes to decide whether to laugh, cry, or sympathize as we take in what is said.

At the other extreme, there is Shakespearian language which is so far removed from our modern linguistic intuitions that without specialist help we are at a loss to know what to make of it, semantically or pragmatically. We have problems understanding what it means, or how we should react to it, or why it makes characters behave in the way they do:

SIR JOHN [to Prince Harry]：What a plague have I to do with a buff jerkin? (I Henry IV, 1.2.45-6)

一件软皮外套跟我有什么相干？（朱生豪译）

KENT [to Oswald]：... lily-livered, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable, finical rogue. (The Tragedy of King Lear, 2.2.15-17).

……没有胆量的，靠着官府势力压人的奴才；一个婊子生的，顾影自怜的，奴颜婢膝的，涂脂抹粉的混帐东西；（朱生豪译）

SIR TOBY [to Sir Andrew, of challengingCesario]：... If thou ‘thou’st’ him some thrice, it shall not be amiss. (Twelfth Night, 3.2.42-3)

要是你把他“你”啊“你”的“你”了三四次，那不会有错；（朱生豪译）

The general meaning and force of these three utterances(话语)is plain: the first is a jocular expostulation(争论); the second is a savage character assault; the third is an incitement(煽动)to be insulting. But if we do not have a clear understanding of what the words mean or the impact they carry, we would be at a serious disadvantage if someone were to interrogate(盘问)us on the point. Why should a buff jerkin(浅黄色无袖上衣)upset Sir John? (We need to know they were worn by law officers.) How relevant an insult is finical? (The word meant ‘nit-picking’(吹毛求疵的)or ‘over-fussy’(过度挑剔的)- a description, we might imagine, which a steward(管家)would find particularly irritating.) Why is thou such an asset in making a challenge? (Because courtiers would normally address each other as you, and their servants as thou; calling a fellow-courtier thou three times would be especially galling(恼人的).) Difficulties of this kind have come about because of language change.

Shakespeare was writing in the middle of a period of English linguistic history called Early Modern English, which runs from around 1500 to around 1750. It was an age when the language was beginning to settle down after a turbulent(动荡的)few centuries when its structure radically altered from its Anglo-Saxon(盎格鲁-撒克逊人，大不列颠岛的早期居民，日耳曼人的一支)character. Old English (used until the twelfth century) is so different from Modern English that it has to be approached as we would a foreign language. Middle English (used until the fifteenth century) is very much more familiar to modern eyes and ears, but we still feel that a considerable linguistic distance separates us from those who wrote in it - Chaucer(乔叟，14世纪英国诗人)and his contemporaries. During the fifteenth century, a huge amount of change affected English pronunciation, spelling, grammar, and vocabulary, so that Shakespeare would have found Chaucer almost as difficult to read as we do. But between Jacobethan times(詹姆斯一世时代，1575-1625年)and today the changes have been very limited. Although we must not underestimate the problems posed by such words as buff jerkin, finical, and thou, we must not exaggerate them either. Most of Early Modern English is the same as Modern English. The evidence lies in the fact that there are many lines of Shakespeare where we feel little or no linguistic distance at all:

BRUTUS：... If there be any in this assembly, any dearfriend of Caesar’s, to him I say that Brutus’ love toCaesar was no less than his. If then that frienddemand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is myanswer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I lovedRome more. Had you rather Caesar were living,and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, tolive all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep forhim. As he was fortunate, I rejoice at it. As he wasvaliant, I honour him. But as he was ambitious, Islew him. (Julius Caesar, 3.2.17-27)

That is why we call the period ‘Early Modern’ English rather than, say, ‘Late Middle’ English. The name suggests a closeness to the language of the present day.