JOHN MCWHORTER COMMENTARY: What Can Be Done About The Incomprehensibility Of Shakespeare?

The Bard Of Avon: Shakespeare

Asks the linguistic professor and moderate-conservative commentator: "First, however, I should dispel two possible misimpressions. I am not arguing that Shakespeare’s language can be too 'dense' or 'poetic,' but that it can be simply incomprehensible because of the passage of time. Also, I am referring to taking in the language through the ear during a live performance, not reading and referring to footnotes. In any case, the question at As You Like It: When an excellent and highly trained British actor delivers Shakespearean language a few feet away from us, can we always understand the basic meaning of the sentences he or she utters?"

He continues his commentary: "In the past I have suggested careful translation into modern English of the passages in Shakespeare that truly cannot come across intelligibly. However, an alternative would be the general acceptance that anyone who wants to get a full meal from a Shakespearean evening should read the play beforehand. Seeing Shakespeare cold would seem, in the future, as antique as it is beginning to be to see an opera without supertitles."

More: "In fact, if we accepted that Shakespearean language, while aesthetically beautiful to hear in many ways, must be treated as spoken writing, we would be on our way to becoming what I imagine as a linguistically ideal society—a topic I touch upon in my book coming out next week, What Language Is (And What It Isn’t and What It Could Be) (which is not about Shakespeare, for the record). Namely, there is casual speech—baggy, emotional, choppy—and written language—tight, cool, long-winded. But then, there are two other categories complementing these, less apparent as categories, per se, but equally central to human expression and ideally subject to less confusion and controversy. One is written speech—i.e., emails, texts, and the like, which would cease to alarm people as sullying 'writing' if classified as talking with the fingers. Then, there is spoken writing. In the old days this was speeches pitched on the oratorical level of William Jennings Bryan’s 'Cross of Gold' set piece. Today, this place could be occupied by Shakespeare—one would be expected to engage it as writing as much as engaging it as sound."