I have chosen The Bible as a text that I feel has helped not only shape English into the language we know and love today, but it has helped maintain that original, poetic luster in our everyday vernacular.
In the Early Christian world, holy scriptures like The Bible were not nearly as accessible as they are today; in fact, you had to devote your life to the church by joining a monastery in order to have hands-on interaction with these sacred texts (History of Christianity). This separation of the word of God from the masses allowed the leaders of the church ultimate power and authority that could not be contradicted by the people who could not read God’s revelation for themselves.
Keeping The Bible in the languages of antiquity such as: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, was a sure way of adding stones to the wall between the fundamentals of the church and its congregation. For the vast majority of the population, attaining the means to be taught one of these scholastic languages was not even something that could be dreamt about. This lingual detachment also allowed the leaders more artistic liberties when they were translating the ancient tongues into the spoken languages of their congregations, thus removing even more rights of the people to the word of God.
As you can imagine, this custom of elite election to consecrated truths did not foster a healthy environment for the gospel to flourish. During this age we can see the most corruption of sanctified ordinances the Christian world has ever seen. This bastardization of Church roles can be seen in texts like Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales with characters like The Pardoner. John Wycliffe, as the “morning star of the Reformation”, was able to prime the world with his translations of The Bible from the Latin vulgate to Middle English (Reader’s Encyclopedia). Sadly, the Catholic Church was not ready for The Bible to be so freely available to the public and Wycliffe’s memory was not given the reverence it deserved. Forty-four years after he died, the Pope ordered that Wycliffe’s bones be disinterred, crushed, and scattered in the river.
The Czech preacher, John Hus, one of Wycliffe’s followers, carried on Wycliffe’s dream that members of the congregation would one day be able to read the word of God in their own language. Before Hus was burned at the stake, with Wycliffe’s translations of The Bible used as kindling, his last words were said to have been a prophecy of Martin Luther, saying, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed” (Final Declaration) Almost exactly one hundred years later, Martin Luther graced the religious scene, doing his best to bring God back into the church; the church that had been turned into a political system that was more interested in its own bottom line than it was in the fundamentals that it was supposed to be teaching. Confronting indulgence salesmen in 1517 with his The Ninety-five Theses, Luther was able to put his intensive Bible Study to use. Luther saw that the more he read of The Bible, the more he realized that man can only draw closer to God by studying His direct revelation. Luther’s The Ninety-five Theses were rapidly introduced and spread throughout Germany, then to France, and all the way to England.
By this time, there were so many corruptions in the Latin Bible that Thomas Linacre, an Oxford professor and the personal physician to both Kings Henry VII and Henry VIII, upon reading The Bible in its original Greek said, “Either this [the original Greek] is not the Gospel, …or we are not Christians.” (British Online History) This purer, original Greek appealed to John Colet as well, and as the Mayor of London’s son he was able to hold public mass with his English interpretations without being executed. These English readings of God’s word were so popular in fact, that they drew crowds of 20,000 to London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral, and at least that many waiting outside to get in (Preaching and Reform). With so many flaws in the Latin vulgate, and an increasing crowd pleading to hear the Gospel in their own language, the world was ready for William Tyndale.
The first man to ever publish an English edition of the New Testament, William Tyndale drew solely upon the Hebrew and Greek texts of The Bible to bring English speakers the most untainted revelation from God that was mortally possible. Tyndale’s translations comprise most of what we know of as The Bible today. With 75.7% of the King James Version of the Old Testament, and a whopping 83.7% of the New Testament coming from Tyndale, we can come close to seeing how much effect this one man has had on this iconic text that English speakers everywhere have read, memorized and employed into their daily speech. This constant interaction with The Bible has fossilized some of the English William Tyndale would have heard in his hometown of Gloucestershire England, so it can be heard in the comings and goings of English speakers centuries later.
With 783,137 words in the King James Version of The Bible, speakers of the English language had a lot of beautiful verse to incorporate into the spoken word. Phrases such as:
A multitude of sins—James 5:20
Let there be light—Genesis 1:3
Forbidden fruit—Genesis 2:17
Am I my brother's keeper? —Genesis 4:9
As old as Methuselah—Genesis 5:27
Ashes to ashes dust to dust—Genesis 18:27
Coat of many colors—Genesis 37:23
Living off the fat of the land—Genesis 45:18
Thou shalt not kill—Exodus 20:13
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth—Exodus 21:24
Flesh and blood—Deuteronomy 12:27
Eat drink and be merry—Judges 9:27
Three score and ten—Judges 9:4
A man after his own heart—1 Samuel 13:14
How are the mighty fallen—2 Samuel 1:27
Give up the ghost—Job 3:11
As you sow so shall you reap—Job 4:8
By the skin of your teeth—Job 19:20
The root of the matter—Job 19:28
Out of the mouths of babes—Psalms 8:2
The apple of his eye—Psalms 17:8
My cup runneth over—Psalms 23:5
Bite the dust—Psalms 72:9
From strength to strength—Psalms 84:7
At his wits end—Psalms 107:27
Spare the rod and spoil the child—Proverbs 13:24
For everything there is a season—Ecclesiastes 3:1
A fly in the ointment—Ecclesiastes 10:1
Beat swords into ploughshares—Isaiah 2:4
A drop in the bucket—Isaiah 40:15
Lamb to the slaughter—Isaiah 53:7
No rest for the wicked—Isaiah 57:20
Woe is me—Jeremiah 4:31
Can a leopard change its spots? —Jeremiah 13:20
Sour grapes—Jeremiah 31:29
The writing is on the wall—Daniel 5:5
Man does not live by bread alone—Matthew 4:4
Blessed are the peacemakers—Matthew 5:9
The salt of the earth—Matthew 5:13
O ye, of little faith—Matthew 8:26
The blind leading the blind—Matthew 15:14
Get thee behind me Satan—Mathew 16:23
What God has joined together let no man put asunder—Matthew 19:6
Love thy neighbor as thyself—Matthew 19:19
Faith will move mountains—Matthew 21:21
Many are called but few are chosen—Matthew 22:14
All things must pass—Matthew 24:6
The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak—Matthew 26:41
Forgive them for they know not what they do—Luke 23:24
Physician heal thyself—Luke 4:23
Good Samaritan—Luke 10:33
In the beginning was the word—John 1:1
Born again—John 3:7
The bread of life—John 6:35
To cast the first stone—John 8:7
The fruits of your loins—Acts 2:30
It's better to give than to receive—Acts 20:35
The wages of sin is death—Romans 6:23
A thorn in the flesh—2 Corinthians 12:7
Fall from grace—Galatians 5:4
Let not the sun go down on your wrath—Ephesians 4:26
Love of money is the root of all evil—1 Timothy 6:10
Fight the good fight—1 Timothy 6:12
Throughout time, Christianity has been very important to English speakers; exhibiting this importance in their adamancy to have the word of God written in their own words. Then once they received those words, they kept them so close to their hearts and lips that the very fundamentals of Christian doctrine have been woven into the English language. This beautiful blend of the two fundamentals of language and religion have given us a culture centered around our Heavenly Father—something we can be very proud of.
Works Cited
The Reader's Encyclopedia; 2nd ed., Vol. 2, p. 1105, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1965
Herring, George. Introduction To The History Of Christianity. New York: New York University Press, 2006
Final Declaration written on 1 July 1415 - Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University
British Online History. 2009. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41379#n52
Arnold, Jonathan. “John Colet- Preaching and Reform at St. Paul’s Cathedral, 1505-1519.” Reformation and Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 5, no. 2 (2003): 204-209
Alexandra Thomas
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Love’s Labour’s Lost: Sincere Love is Not Based on Words Alone
In "Love’s Labour’s Lost" Shakespeare satirizes the love story between four sets of royals. The characters are merely types, stagnant figures through which Shakespeare presents his comedic theme of sincere love vs. artificial wooing. The men represent impractical, shallow wooers who profess false declarations of love. The women, by contrast, depict wise and practical beings who see past language, and consequently, understand the true nature of affection. The play is possibly Shakespeare’s clearest portrayal of language, bursting with puns, rhymes, peculiar syntax, fantastic coinages, and parody. In the overlapping patterns we see through love, rhetoric, reputation, wit, and education, Shakespeare mocks the conventions of romantic love while advocating a more realistic and truthful approach to courtship that goes beyond language. Thus, through the opposite characterization of the sexes and their unique understanding of language, Shakespeare argues that lasting unions cannot be based on superficial words, but rather, sincere love is proven through actions.
The outlook on love, in Shakespeare’s day, was more practical than it had ever been before. To understand the extent of Shakespeare’s mockery of impractical love, as critic Neal Goldstein points out, one must understand what led up to the Renaissance opinion of love. In early medieval times love was idealized to the point that it was considered by many to unobtainable. Goldstein quotes Petrarch in saying, “There is an implicit, and often explicit, identity in medieval love poetry, between divine love and secular love, between the love of God and the love of a lady” (336). Medieval literature was filled with the tales of exalted, spiritualized women whose fallible suitors were too lowly to approach their greatness. The love of a lady, in essence, was akin to the love of God.
Shakespeare mocks this concept of divine affection through the men’s less than sincere love sonnets. Each of the men, in turn, use heavenly rhetoric to both profess and defend the lust they feel for the women, though they certainly wouldn’t admit to such a ruse. Dumaine croons, “That the lover, sick to death/ Wish himself the heaven’s breath” (IV.iii.105-6). Longaville exclaims, “A woman I forswore, but I will prove/ Thou being a goddess, I forswore not thee/ My vow was earthly, thou a heavenly love…” (IV.iii.59-61). Here, Longaville comically explains that he swore to stay away from women, not goddesses, and therefore, his attempt at wooing is not shameful. Berowne continues in the same fashion, “Celestial as thou art, O pardon, love, this wrong/ That sings heaven’s praise with such an earthly tongue” (IV.ii.111-12). Berowne pretends to exalt his chosen woman, though in actuality, Shakespeare uses the men’s divine rhetoric to highlight the hypocrisy of such a method. The men are in love with none other than themselves. The synonymia of their sonnets makes it clear to the reader that the men don’t love the women, they lust after them. From the content of the sonnets alone, one can neither predict who the author is nor which of
the women it is intended for. While each displays different word choice, each sonnet has the same meaning, the same definition of women, and the same artificial, idealistic approach to love.
This era of spiritualization soon gave way to a more physical or tangible interpretation of love. Goldstein quotes Ficino in saying, “Human love is a microcosm of divine love…earthly love does not stand in the way of heavenly love, but rather is a necessary step toward it”. Though spiritual love was now obtainable, physical love was demonized. Ficino continues, “The man who envisions sensual love as the final step in the process of loving is no better than a beast” (338). Sensuality, a departure from divinity, was considered a weakness. Renaissance love, the love that Shakespeare mocks, is a combination of the spiritual and physical views of affection. It asserts that the physical love of a woman is divine. During Shakespeare’s day, this concept of the language of love was often satirized and mocked as artificial love. Hence, the depiction of the men in Love’s Labour’s Lost as being hypocritical, lusty men. The incongruence of what the men say and what they actually mean is portrayed as the typical outcome of fake love. Thus, the men’s Renaissance or divine ways of woo were thought to be nothing more than superficial foolery.
The men are so caught up in their own narrow view of intelligence that they fail to grasp the women’s definition of knowledge. Their claims on wit, however, are noted by the women. Longaville “is a sharp wit match’d with too blunt a will” (II.i.49). Dumaine “has wit to make an ill shape good/ And shape to win grace though he had no wit” (II.i.59-60). Lastly, Rosaline says of Berowne, “His eye begets occasion for his wit” (II.i.69). These are the wits, however, possessed by men of study, and have no claim on the real world or real love. Because of this, their wits, while acknowledged by the women, are rudely mocked because of their narrow view (Lennam 55). The Princess ventures so far as to ask, “Are these the breed of wits so wondered at?” (V.ii.267). Or in other words, though these men may be technically educated and viewed as scholars, they are not learned in the correct ways of love, according to Shakespeare’s definition.
To the men, the definition of wit is the ability to speak and understand elevated language. They are arrogant creatures who seek the respect of other men. When Berowne asks the king what the purpose of their studies will be, he responds, “…to know what else we should not know” (I.i.56). Berowne clarifies this to mean “things hid and barred from common sense” (I.i.57). It is selfishness which drives them in their passions. The men think conventions give words meaning. Words are a means of manipulation, a tool with which they show off and get what they want. For the men, there is a rift between spirit and body, between inner and outer senses. They deny the workings of their hearts in return for the outward face of fame. The women, however, understand the true essence of love. Critic Thomas M. Greene writes, “Although they are as quick to admire as the four gentlemen, they are slower to think they are falling in love” (317). This is Shakespeare’s way of showing that the women view love as something beyond language. The women are practical, prudent, and wise, the demonstrators of how true love should be approached.
Because the men base merit on reputation, they foolishly seek to woo the women through empty flattery (Roesen 415). Aware of the men’s vanity, the Princess rejects the king’s superficial compliments. She declares, “Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean/ Needs not the painted flourish of your praise…I am less proud to hear you tell my worth/ Then you much willing to be counted wise/ In spending your wit in the praise of mine” (II.i.13-19). She comically points out that his speech, though on surface level praises her, is actually a means through which the king can highlight his own wit. Greene points out, “She refuses coolly to be hoodwinked by the flattery her station conventionally attracts, with an acuteness which sets off the foolish egotism of the king” (316). To the women, words are actions that show intent, character, and judgment. Words are mirrors of a man’s soul. Thus, through such contrasting view points, Shakespeare advocates the literal and pure approach to courtship, while mocking the Renaissance view of romantic love, a love based on words alone.
Shakespeare’s ultimate mockery of Renaissance love is portrayed through the Masque of the Muscovites. Here, the men pretend to possess the purest form of love, when in actuality, the only thing they love is the women’s physical beauty. Just as the men decide to hide behind idealistic conventions, the women decide to hide behind masks, knowing realistically that the men only know them by their physical appearance. Without markers visible to the eye, none of the courtiers of Navarre is able to recognize his beloved and each swears his undying love to the wrong woman (Westland 42). Berowne, believing he is talking to Rosaline, asks the scheming princess, “White-handed mistress, one sweet word with thee.” To which she mockingly replies, “Honey and milk and sugar: there is three.” (V.ii.239-40). She mocks the empty slogans that Berowne foolishly uses to woo her. Speaking of these conventions, Greene writes, “The images of each, had become by Shakespeare’s day mere counters, mere comic slogans” (333). Just as the women in the play, the people in Shakespeare’s day mocked the “sweet words” of romantic love and understood them as being just for show. Though the men don’t yet realize it, words have little effect on love if they are not accompanied by actions.
When the women reveal their mockery to the men, Berowne vows, “O, never will I trust to speeches penned…Nor woo in rhyme, like a blind harper’s song/ Taffeta phrases, silken terms precise, three-piled hyperboles, spruce affectation…I do forswear them!” (V.ii.425-33). The listing of wordy, ridiculous sounding terms heightens the silliness of them. And even Berowne, to a certain extent, recognizes the foolishness in hiding behind these conventions. He attempts to atone for his inadequate behavior by swearing, “Henceforth my wooing mind shall be in russet yeas and honest kersey noes” (V.ii.435-6). Thus, we see a transition from romanticism to realism and the beginnings of the realization that sincere love does not stem from superficial words.
In this sense, the women are teachers to the men, the true educators of the play. The men live in a sort of fantasy world where they are detached from their words (Hoy 33). They live in their books and thrive under what they consider to be true wit with no regard for consequences. By the end of the play, it is clear that Shakespeare’s definition of true education mirrors that of true love: the essence of each is not found through words, but through actions. As Rosaline prepares to leave, she gives Berowne this advice: “Therefore, if you my favour mean to get/ A twelvemonth shall you spend and never rest/ But seek the weary beds of people sick” (V.ii.843-4). While a seemingly random request, Rosaline’s insistence that Berowne serve the sick for a year is one last reiteration that his words cannot prove his love. The women understand, as does the reader, that the adage “actions speak louder than words” is a moral concept that the men have failed to glean from their book studies. Rosaline requires that Berowne look beyond himself and physically care for another person. She wisely understands that because he has never experienced the consequences of his words, he cannot know that true meaning is found in action. Because there is no union in the end, Shakespeare proves his argument that lasting love cannot be attained through artificial words. Through the play’s patterns of love, rhetoric, reputation, wit, and education, Shakespeare shows that sincere love does not come by words alone, but is accompanied by actions, the ultimate test of true love.
Works Cited
Goldstein, Neal. “’Love’s Labour’s Lost’ and the Renaissance Vision of Love.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 25, No 3. (1974): 335-50.
Greene, Thomas M. “’Love’s Labour’s Lost:’ The Grace of Society.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 22, No 4. (1971): 315-28.
Hoy, Cyrus. “’Love’s Labour’s Lost’ and the Nature of Comedy.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 13, No 1. (1962): 31-40.
Lennam, Trevor. “The Ventricle of Memory: Wit and Wisdom in ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost.’” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 24, No 1. (1973): 54-60.
Roesen, Bobbyann. “Love’s Labour’s Lost.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 4, No 4. (1953): 411-26.
Westland, Joseph. “Fancy and Achievement in ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost.’” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 18, No 1. (1967): 37-46.
The outlook on love, in Shakespeare’s day, was more practical than it had ever been before. To understand the extent of Shakespeare’s mockery of impractical love, as critic Neal Goldstein points out, one must understand what led up to the Renaissance opinion of love. In early medieval times love was idealized to the point that it was considered by many to unobtainable. Goldstein quotes Petrarch in saying, “There is an implicit, and often explicit, identity in medieval love poetry, between divine love and secular love, between the love of God and the love of a lady” (336). Medieval literature was filled with the tales of exalted, spiritualized women whose fallible suitors were too lowly to approach their greatness. The love of a lady, in essence, was akin to the love of God.
Shakespeare mocks this concept of divine affection through the men’s less than sincere love sonnets. Each of the men, in turn, use heavenly rhetoric to both profess and defend the lust they feel for the women, though they certainly wouldn’t admit to such a ruse. Dumaine croons, “That the lover, sick to death/ Wish himself the heaven’s breath” (IV.iii.105-6). Longaville exclaims, “A woman I forswore, but I will prove/ Thou being a goddess, I forswore not thee/ My vow was earthly, thou a heavenly love…” (IV.iii.59-61). Here, Longaville comically explains that he swore to stay away from women, not goddesses, and therefore, his attempt at wooing is not shameful. Berowne continues in the same fashion, “Celestial as thou art, O pardon, love, this wrong/ That sings heaven’s praise with such an earthly tongue” (IV.ii.111-12). Berowne pretends to exalt his chosen woman, though in actuality, Shakespeare uses the men’s divine rhetoric to highlight the hypocrisy of such a method. The men are in love with none other than themselves. The synonymia of their sonnets makes it clear to the reader that the men don’t love the women, they lust after them. From the content of the sonnets alone, one can neither predict who the author is nor which of
the women it is intended for. While each displays different word choice, each sonnet has the same meaning, the same definition of women, and the same artificial, idealistic approach to love.
This era of spiritualization soon gave way to a more physical or tangible interpretation of love. Goldstein quotes Ficino in saying, “Human love is a microcosm of divine love…earthly love does not stand in the way of heavenly love, but rather is a necessary step toward it”. Though spiritual love was now obtainable, physical love was demonized. Ficino continues, “The man who envisions sensual love as the final step in the process of loving is no better than a beast” (338). Sensuality, a departure from divinity, was considered a weakness. Renaissance love, the love that Shakespeare mocks, is a combination of the spiritual and physical views of affection. It asserts that the physical love of a woman is divine. During Shakespeare’s day, this concept of the language of love was often satirized and mocked as artificial love. Hence, the depiction of the men in Love’s Labour’s Lost as being hypocritical, lusty men. The incongruence of what the men say and what they actually mean is portrayed as the typical outcome of fake love. Thus, the men’s Renaissance or divine ways of woo were thought to be nothing more than superficial foolery.
The men are so caught up in their own narrow view of intelligence that they fail to grasp the women’s definition of knowledge. Their claims on wit, however, are noted by the women. Longaville “is a sharp wit match’d with too blunt a will” (II.i.49). Dumaine “has wit to make an ill shape good/ And shape to win grace though he had no wit” (II.i.59-60). Lastly, Rosaline says of Berowne, “His eye begets occasion for his wit” (II.i.69). These are the wits, however, possessed by men of study, and have no claim on the real world or real love. Because of this, their wits, while acknowledged by the women, are rudely mocked because of their narrow view (Lennam 55). The Princess ventures so far as to ask, “Are these the breed of wits so wondered at?” (V.ii.267). Or in other words, though these men may be technically educated and viewed as scholars, they are not learned in the correct ways of love, according to Shakespeare’s definition.
To the men, the definition of wit is the ability to speak and understand elevated language. They are arrogant creatures who seek the respect of other men. When Berowne asks the king what the purpose of their studies will be, he responds, “…to know what else we should not know” (I.i.56). Berowne clarifies this to mean “things hid and barred from common sense” (I.i.57). It is selfishness which drives them in their passions. The men think conventions give words meaning. Words are a means of manipulation, a tool with which they show off and get what they want. For the men, there is a rift between spirit and body, between inner and outer senses. They deny the workings of their hearts in return for the outward face of fame. The women, however, understand the true essence of love. Critic Thomas M. Greene writes, “Although they are as quick to admire as the four gentlemen, they are slower to think they are falling in love” (317). This is Shakespeare’s way of showing that the women view love as something beyond language. The women are practical, prudent, and wise, the demonstrators of how true love should be approached.
Because the men base merit on reputation, they foolishly seek to woo the women through empty flattery (Roesen 415). Aware of the men’s vanity, the Princess rejects the king’s superficial compliments. She declares, “Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean/ Needs not the painted flourish of your praise…I am less proud to hear you tell my worth/ Then you much willing to be counted wise/ In spending your wit in the praise of mine” (II.i.13-19). She comically points out that his speech, though on surface level praises her, is actually a means through which the king can highlight his own wit. Greene points out, “She refuses coolly to be hoodwinked by the flattery her station conventionally attracts, with an acuteness which sets off the foolish egotism of the king” (316). To the women, words are actions that show intent, character, and judgment. Words are mirrors of a man’s soul. Thus, through such contrasting view points, Shakespeare advocates the literal and pure approach to courtship, while mocking the Renaissance view of romantic love, a love based on words alone.
Shakespeare’s ultimate mockery of Renaissance love is portrayed through the Masque of the Muscovites. Here, the men pretend to possess the purest form of love, when in actuality, the only thing they love is the women’s physical beauty. Just as the men decide to hide behind idealistic conventions, the women decide to hide behind masks, knowing realistically that the men only know them by their physical appearance. Without markers visible to the eye, none of the courtiers of Navarre is able to recognize his beloved and each swears his undying love to the wrong woman (Westland 42). Berowne, believing he is talking to Rosaline, asks the scheming princess, “White-handed mistress, one sweet word with thee.” To which she mockingly replies, “Honey and milk and sugar: there is three.” (V.ii.239-40). She mocks the empty slogans that Berowne foolishly uses to woo her. Speaking of these conventions, Greene writes, “The images of each, had become by Shakespeare’s day mere counters, mere comic slogans” (333). Just as the women in the play, the people in Shakespeare’s day mocked the “sweet words” of romantic love and understood them as being just for show. Though the men don’t yet realize it, words have little effect on love if they are not accompanied by actions.
When the women reveal their mockery to the men, Berowne vows, “O, never will I trust to speeches penned…Nor woo in rhyme, like a blind harper’s song/ Taffeta phrases, silken terms precise, three-piled hyperboles, spruce affectation…I do forswear them!” (V.ii.425-33). The listing of wordy, ridiculous sounding terms heightens the silliness of them. And even Berowne, to a certain extent, recognizes the foolishness in hiding behind these conventions. He attempts to atone for his inadequate behavior by swearing, “Henceforth my wooing mind shall be in russet yeas and honest kersey noes” (V.ii.435-6). Thus, we see a transition from romanticism to realism and the beginnings of the realization that sincere love does not stem from superficial words.
In this sense, the women are teachers to the men, the true educators of the play. The men live in a sort of fantasy world where they are detached from their words (Hoy 33). They live in their books and thrive under what they consider to be true wit with no regard for consequences. By the end of the play, it is clear that Shakespeare’s definition of true education mirrors that of true love: the essence of each is not found through words, but through actions. As Rosaline prepares to leave, she gives Berowne this advice: “Therefore, if you my favour mean to get/ A twelvemonth shall you spend and never rest/ But seek the weary beds of people sick” (V.ii.843-4). While a seemingly random request, Rosaline’s insistence that Berowne serve the sick for a year is one last reiteration that his words cannot prove his love. The women understand, as does the reader, that the adage “actions speak louder than words” is a moral concept that the men have failed to glean from their book studies. Rosaline requires that Berowne look beyond himself and physically care for another person. She wisely understands that because he has never experienced the consequences of his words, he cannot know that true meaning is found in action. Because there is no union in the end, Shakespeare proves his argument that lasting love cannot be attained through artificial words. Through the play’s patterns of love, rhetoric, reputation, wit, and education, Shakespeare shows that sincere love does not come by words alone, but is accompanied by actions, the ultimate test of true love.
Works Cited
Goldstein, Neal. “’Love’s Labour’s Lost’ and the Renaissance Vision of Love.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 25, No 3. (1974): 335-50.
Greene, Thomas M. “’Love’s Labour’s Lost:’ The Grace of Society.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 22, No 4. (1971): 315-28.
Hoy, Cyrus. “’Love’s Labour’s Lost’ and the Nature of Comedy.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 13, No 1. (1962): 31-40.
Lennam, Trevor. “The Ventricle of Memory: Wit and Wisdom in ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost.’” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 24, No 1. (1973): 54-60.
Roesen, Bobbyann. “Love’s Labour’s Lost.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 4, No 4. (1953): 411-26.
Westland, Joseph. “Fancy and Achievement in ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost.’” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 18, No 1. (1967): 37-46.
Charlotte Brontë: New Words That Never Really Took Off
NOTE: For some reason the formatting for this post doesn't transfer from Word to the blog, which is why my chart looks all weird and will probably be hard to read. I apologize for this and will try to fix it in the future.
My original intent in this book review was to find new words created specifically in Jane Eyre however, upon looking through the Oxford English Dictionary online I found that there are very few and have little interest for us as studiers of the history of the English language. So, I decided to study Brontë as an author and her style and word choices. This became more interesting as I delved into her personal and family history as well.
In the following chart I will outline the words coined by Brontë found in her three most popular books. Most of these words were rarely used again if at all and rarely were the definitions of these words given over to other words as I initially thought the case might be. Also, several of the words found on the Oxford English Dictionary online were French formations that she uses which have not been formally borrowed into English. These I did not include in my list or analysis. The words or information that I have bolded are the ones that I have found most interesting and which had some significant influence even though most of them vanished during the early 20th century.
Word Meaning Other Uses (yrs)
Jane Eyre 1847
Dentelle Lace 1852
Fillette Young girl 1888, 1928
Gytrash An apparition, spectre, ghost, generally 1891
taking the form of an animal
Undersound No known meaning 1860?
Unimpressionable Not easily influenced? 1850, 1884
Shirley 1849
Afoam in a state of foam 1864
Choucroute a kind of pickled cabbage 1921, 1961
relatable to sauerkraut
General (as a verb) To act as a general to 1889
Grande tenue full dress, esp. full military costume 1865, 1880, 1886, 1952
Reflet color due to reflection, luster 1862, 1876, 1888, 1923, 1931
Rerobe to dress in a fresh robe, to clothe again 1934
Unlonged for not longed for only usage
Untinted not tinted 1866
Wild West the western part of the U.S. during its 1851, 1898, 1903,
lawless frontier period 1937, 1977
Villette 1853
Benitier a vessel to contain holy water 1858, 1907, 1908, 1923
Blindless of a window; having no blinds 1859
Externat a day-school only usage
Garlandry garlands collectively 1889
Inadventurous not adventurous, unenterprising, 1867
became inadventurousness
Inexpectant not expectant, devoid of expectation 1894
Irrealizable that cannot be realized; unrealizable 1866
Recasket to enclose again in a casket 2006
Remingle to mingle again 1866
Spaineless a female spaniel only usage
(Brontë says after using this word
”if one may coin a word”)
Unbaized no given definition (dictionary.com calls only usage
baize, “a soft, usually green, woolen or cotton fabric resembling felt, used chiefly for the tops of billiard tables.”)
Unformalized not made formal? Only usage Unstabled not put into a stable only usage
While I was looking at these words I came up with the thought that maybe Charlotte Brontë just likes to make up words especially with creating forms of negation that aren’t standard. Then there is the other thought that maybe there wasn’t a standardized form for the negation of some of these words. At this point I tried coming up with forms that are more acceptable and found that there really are none. Rarely are expectant and formalized and others of the listed negated words used with a negation. But this is beside the point when it comes to language influence.
The words or ideas that I thought were most interesting are bolded above. The first of these is the word choucrout. This is the French spelling of a German loanword that had been used in English since 1633. It makes me wonder why Brontë chose to use this word when she probably knew the German version and also why she used so many obscure French words and phrases in her writings when English words were available. My guess is that her writing was influenced by her short stay in Brussels while teaching at a boarding school during the early 1840s. This also might be a reason why she created so many new words out of French. For instance, benitier is not a word in French but is an original formation from the French word for blessed, benit.
Brontë was also the first to use general as a verb. This creation is best explained by the example from her novel Shirley, “Crime and the lost archangel generalled the ranks of Pharaoh.” This use of general is not in much use today however, this might be one of the earlier attempts to ‘verb’ a noun as we are constantly doing today and it is in my opinion definitely one of the more creative.
I think it is fascinating that Brontë coined the phrase wild west. Although this doesn’t turn up much in further written examples it is a phrase we have heard in movies and from teachers and which is still used today. This is her first successful attempt at creating a new word and the only one which has remained in use through the years. It is interesting to note that her word recasket was cited as also used in 2006 which could suggest continued usage however this is the only other citation aside from her own and thus is only an interesting phenomenon that this word occurred again.
The last word which I found of interest gives some evidence that Brontë was aware of her invention of words. The exact quote from Villette is, “He spoke no more to the pupils,..but gave many an endearing word to a small spanieless (if one may coin a word).” This shows that she had intent at least in this one instance of ‘coining a word’ and allows the theory that she had intent with others of her random words as well and wasn’t just being ignorant in her spellings or uses.
Charlotte Brontë was born on April 21, 1816 in Thornton, Yorkshire, England the third of six children to an Irish Anglican clergyman, Patrick Brontë, and his wife Maria Branwell. Her father’s original surname was Brunty which was the anglicized version of the Irish Ó Proinntigh. There have been several speculations made as to why Patrick would change his name, one of these being a wish to hide his humble origins and an attempt to appear more well-to-do. This could show some genetic tendency to change words and meanings and could also demonstrate a familial preference of French, which, as I stated before, Brontë used a lot of when creating new words in her novels.
Brontë’s ancestry isn’t extremely well researched, yet we can find that her paternal line obviously comes from Ireland, where her father was born, and from Cornwall and Yorkshire, where her mother’s line is from. This limited ancestry that we have of Brontë can give us some clues as to her language background. She obviously has some Celtic and Gaelic influence through her Irish heritage. And her Yorkshire ancestry might have some influence on her writing, however according to A Biography of the English Language by C.M. Millward, “standardization of the written language at the beginning of EMnE has concealed most dialectal differences.” A few distinctions can be made in morphology and syntax which leads me to believe that the spelling variations of several of her negated words were dialectal in origin.
I’m not sure how much this paper demonstrates Brontë’s influence on the English language but it is interesting to me to see how many words she either decided to invent or which were a part of her regional dialect. The answer to this question may never be fully realized especially since she wrote during the later stages of Early Modern English which was even more standardized than the earlier stages of the language. However, I like to think that Brontë was doing back then what we love to do today which is make up new words or create new meanings for old words. In this way Brontë shares English with us in her own unique way.
Works Cited
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/advsearchform : Bronte in first cited author
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Bronte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Bronte
http://www.familysearch.org : Charlotte Bronte Birth 1816 àPedigree Resource File #2
Millward, C. (1996). A Biography of the English Language. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Le Morte Darthur and a View of the Influence Printing had on the English Language
The innovation of the printing press has influenced many languages and made communication more direct and systematic. With the rise of printing and knowledge in the 15th century through the 18th century, the English Language was set for change and standardization. Up until this time in history, English speakers varied in many dialects even on the small British Isles. Because communication between provinces increased and the advent of printing, people became more literate and more books were available.
Before printing, books were copied by hand. But since the printing press the quantity and variety of books published increased. This new source of knowledge made books more readily available to the upper class and eventually extended to the lower classes, thus increasing literacy throughout the English speaking populace.
William Caxton the First English Printer
William Caxton is the first printer to print in the English language. Although not a literary scholar, Caxton had a passion for books and painstakingly learned the art of printing while living in Cologne, France from 1470-1472. After successfully learning the trade of print master, Caxton opened a press in Brugge, France where the first book in the English language was printed entitled, “The Recuyell of 
the Historyes of Troye.” This work is an original translation from French done by Caxton himself. A few years later, Caxton set up his press in Westminster, England, becoming the first printer in England. Among the first books printed in England were Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Caxton’s, The Golden Legend (translated from Latin), and The Book of the Knight in the Tower (Caxton’s translation from French). Many of Caxton’s works are translations from French or Latin demonstrating the closeness of these languages. Such language contact exemplifies proto-English Renaissance tendencies to study and imitate Classical styles as well as the innovation and borrowing heavily from French that began much earlier during the Normand conquest. (Caxton 1)
Le Morte Darthur
Le Morte Darthur is clearly one of Caxton’s greater successes because of its appeal to the public audience. Printed in 1485, Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte Darthur captured the legendary tales that the English and Welsh knew so well (Arthurian Legend 1). Le Morte Darthur also introduced a large variety of new vocabulary to the English lexicon (see Table 1). Among these words many are still used today in Modern English while others are no longer in present day use. So not only the story continues to be widely known amongst English speakers, they also continue to use some of the words that came to be by the publication of Malory’s work. For example, the adjective “communal” is presently fairly common along with “question” as a verb. Other words like “man-handle” have been widely adopted by popular culture while others such as “pike” as a verb are no longer commonly in use or known. A brief list of selected words is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: New words first recorded in Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte Darthur. (See Oxford English Dictionary Online)
| Word | Definition | Approximate Date |
| Communal, adj. | Common, unanimous | a 1470 |
| Ladyless, adj | Without a lady or ladies; (also) having no lady-love | a 1470 |
| Malfortune, n | misfortune | a 1470 |
| Manhandle, v | To attack (an enemy). More generally: to handle roughly; to assault, maul, or beat up (a person; spec. a woman). | a 1470 |
| Menkind, n | With pl. concord. The male sex collectively; the men of a particular group | a 1470 |
| Mother’s son, n | A man (with general application). Chiefly in every mother's son: every man, everyone. | a 1470 |
| Multiplier, n | A person who or thing which multiplies or causes something to increase or proliferate. | a 1470 |
| Open-mouthed, adj | Having the mouth open to speak; speaking freely, clamorous, vociferous. | a 1470 |
| Overgarment, n | A garment worn over others; an outer garment. | a 1470 |
| Overlong, prep. | Along, over the length of | a 1470 |
| Pike, v | To make off with oneself; to hasten off, go away | a 1470 |
| Questing, n | The action of QUEST v.1 1 (in various senses); an instance of this. | a 1470 |
| Questing, adj | That quests (in various senses of the verb). | a 1470 |
| Question, v | To ask questions of; to hold a conversation with; (also) to discuss or debate with. | a 1470 |
| Rail, v | To complain persistently or vehemently about, against, at, | a 1470 |
| Railing, adj | Characterized by or given to railing; that rails; abusive, ranting, complaining. | a 1470 |
Arthurian Legend
The history of the Arthurian legend also helps depict the evolving nature of the English language. As with the English language, the Arthurian legend has roots in the Celtic regions. The legend can be traced back to Wales in the 11th century. Later it became known to Europeans when Geoffrey of Monmouth compiled Historia regum Britanniae which professes to be a history of the British Isles although clearly with some exaggeration. This contact with the rest of Europe is much like the contact the English language encountered with the Norman Conquest in the early 11th century and increasing communication with the countries on the Continent. Just as the English language underwent intense French influence, so did the Arthurian legend when Frenchman, Chretien de Troyes took the Celtic traditions and created his Arthurian romances that added t
he characters Lancelot and Merlin plus the mystery of the Holy Grail to the legend. These additions to the legend parallel the addition of new French lexicon and syntactic structure to the English language. Eventually, Sir Thomas Malory compiled the French and English versions of the legend into his English work, Le Morte Darthur in the late 15th century. (Arthurian Legend 1)
The legend of King Arthur and his knights continues into modern literary works and entertainment media. Many screen plays have been based off this legend including a musical by Alan Lerner called Camelot (1960) and Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) a satirical work (Arthurian Legend 1). There is even a pizza restaurant named and themed after the story as “Round Table Pizza.” Also many versions and translations of Malory’s original text have been and continue to be printed. These fun and adventurous tales continue to be appealing to a wide audience (Creswick and Spisak).
Printing’s Influence on Standardization of the English Language
Early printing faced many problems when printing books for English speakers. First, the many dialects made it difficult to know which spellings would be most acceptable and widely known. Eventually, with the large efforts of printing, in one form or another, the English language became more standardized. Although many might think that the authors themselves promoted the changes to spellings and syntax, “It is crucial to understand that early modern printers […] did not follow the spellings of their copies” (Howard-Hill 16). Instead, printers implemented their own spellings and did not copy the author’s text. In this way, it was the printers’ decisions of spellings that brought about such standardization not the authors. These printers led a movement that “had begun to influence the development of spellings towards the modern standard” and Le Morte Darthur was at the very beginnings of this movement (Howard-Hill 17). Because of all the many dialects such standardization was necessary as commerce and education began to spread and intermix between Northern and Southern England.
As the printing industry grew more and more literary books were printed as well as dictionaries, grammars, and commentaries on English as a language. Although, Caxton did not live to see much of this influence, by being the first English printer, he started the whole process. While it might be argued that these dictionaries and grammars were the cause of English standardization, these materials were nonetheless printed and distributed by the printing industry. Without the support of printers who would periodically revise old works, adopt more modern spellings, and then put these spellings into the school books, teachers would not be able to use them and other authors would not consult them for the latest acceptable spelling trends (Howard-Hill 27). It was the printing and proliferation of these text that enabled writers and the general public access to an increasingly standardized English language. It is important to note that while this process enabled the standardization of the English language graphemically, speakers remained varied phonetically (Howard-Hill 29). This explains the standard spellings and usages of words throughout the English language, despite location while phonetic differences remain. With standardization also brought an increase in literacy among the populace. Before the advent of printing, the majority of English speakers only occasionally encountered their written language. Now students were able to consult textbooks and teachers had a guide to correct spellings and usage. Clearly the printing industry largely influenced the English language as far as standardization and literacy.
Researcher’s Personal Note
Personally, I have always heard of the legend of King Arthur in the media and through the allusions of many great literary works. But I had never read the whole story before this project. The legend is fascinating and very intriguing to see what will happen next to the valiant Knights of the Round Table. In order for thorough research I consulted two different texts of Le Morte Darthur: First the original text with all the earlier English spellings and a present day adaptation in Present Day English. Consulting these two texts allows for complete comprehension and appreciation of the author and printer. I chose this text because I wanted to study the influence of printing on the English language. I was curious to see how printing affected the English Language and how it helped modernize and standardize spelling, usage, and grammar. Overall, this project has been rewarding and engaging. I got to learn something that I was personally interested in without having to curtail it to a rubric or curriculum.
Works Cited:
“Arthurian legend." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2009 <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9009704>.
“Caxton, William.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2009 <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-257596>.
Creswick, Paul. King Arthur: The Story of the Round Table. American Book Co. New York: 1925.
Howard-Hill, T. H. "Early Modern Printers and the Standardization of English Spelling.” Modern Language Review 101.1 (2006): 16-29. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Dec. 2009.
Spisak, James W. Caxton’s Malory: Le Morte Darthur. U of California P. Berkeley, California: 1983
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)