Shakespeare's Language

Rating:
Summary: VERY DISAPPOINTING
Review: A Very Disappointing Book I am disappointed by Kermode's book entitled Shakespeare's Language because of how little of the book is about Shakespeare's Language.

Kermode's stated purpose is to describe the "revolution" in Shakespeare's language from 1599 onwards. Kermode spends a great deal of the book discussing matters which do not explain this contention. Most of the book is given over to chapters which discuss for the most part individual plays. In these chapters far too much space is given over to plot summaries and not to questions of language. And when Kermode gets around to writing about language, it is almost always in one of two ways: lexical matters, and whether or not the passage is in verse or prose. There is much more to Shakespeare's language than these two. In his introduction Kermode states "I shall discuss "Coriolanus" in due course--its extraordinarily forced expressions, its obscurity of syntax and vocabulary, its contrasts of prose and harsh verse, its interweavings of the domestic and the military. (Page 14) His discussion of "Coriolanus" on pages 243-254 does have something to say about force expressions, and contrasts of prose and verse, but it has almost nothing to say about Shakespeare's syntax. In the chapter dealing with "Othello" Kermode treats the deletion of oaths in the folio text. Kermode writes about the soldiers swearing, found in the quarto printing of the play, but not the folio. Kermode says that the elimination of the profanities "makes a considerable difference to the tone of the play, especially to the characterization of Iago." (p. 166) Really? Is the Iago of folio any less dangerous than the Iago of the quarto? What was also curious was that Kermode almost never quotes scholars who have made considerable contributions to our understanding of Shakespeare's language. Scholars like Gorlach, Barber and A. C. Partridge are not mentioned once. The standard grammar of Shakespeare's English in English is E. A. Abbott's "Shakespearian Grammar" is referred to once, and then only in a footnote. And then there is the most curious omission is Wilhelm Franz's "Die Sprache Shakespeares in Vers und Prosa." This book is the standard Grammar of Early Modern English Period. If you want to know about Shakespeare's language you should go to books by these men.

Rating:
Summary: Sheakespeare's music
Review: Frank Kermode's book is inspiring. It is rich and gives very interesting details. But it keeps the basic axiom of elizabethan studies : Shakespeare's language is poetry and it is centered on words. The remarks in this book are totally essential to know, if we want to understand that the axiom is too short. Shalespeare's language is music. Shakespeare was bred and fed in the century long musical movement that produced the English madrigal, at exactly the same time as Monteverdi did it in Italy. This madrigal is founded on a binary music with a ternary variation. Shakespeare works on that element and extends it to all the levels of language : semantics (words), syntax, figures of speech, sounds, aliterations, rhythm, etc. And he adapts his linguistis music to each play. The second element to be taken into account is Shakespeare's extreme awareness of numerals and their symbolical value. Ric hard III is based on the number 9, the cacodemon, and on both specular or mirror symetry and translative symetry. That's one example. If we study Shakespeare's language and plays along that line we find that the number 2 and its multiples are positive and the number 3 is always a variation that introduces some un-balance. 7 is the acme of disruption in As You Like It and the art is to avoid the seventh step, the seventh age of man, the seventh level of lying. 8 in the same play is perfection. In this book, since I'm working on Antony and Cleopatra, Kermode gives us the key to the strange style of the play, particularly of Cleopatra's language and some essential scenes, but he does not know. The key is given by the 17 « become » (and other forms) and the 44 « fortune ». 17 = 11 + 6 (6 = 2x3) and 44 = 11 x 4. This appearance of the number 11, unique to my knowledge in Shakespeare's plays, is a direct reference to the Last Supper after Judas as left (the number of disciples left). Hence it is the number of treason, hence of the snakes. Since my study is due, you bet I am going to work on that element. Conclusion : Shakespeare's language is music and it is numerically mapped. Dr Jacques COULATREDEAU, Paris Universities IX and II.

Rating:
Summary: A book needed especially now
Review: Kermode's book demonstrates an approach deeply unfashionable among many of today's academics, though it is part of a backlash against work which made a strong impact in the eighties and early nineties. As a result readers are likely to diverge widely in their reactions to it. Kermode provides an antidote to work on Shakespeare which shows little interest in the actual meaning of his text, leave alone in the artistry of his language. Yet, of all Shakespeare's outstanding qualities, it is surely especially his use of language - employed in a strikingly arresting, rich, subtle, suggestive yet revealing way - which sets him apart from other authors.

"Shakespeare's Language", as a title, may lead some to expect discussions of his syntax, semantics, prosody, etc., and there is certainly an urgent need for more work on such matters. But Kermode is - properly, I feel - concerned to explain what is ARTISTIC in Shakespeare's language: what, notably, makes it individualistic, well-crafted and imaginative rather than just representatively Elizabethan. Kermode's approach is the more essential at a time when there is a marked, and completely inaccurate, tendency to treat Shakespeare as though he was not, after all, anything special - but rather "just a product of his times". This kind of "egalitarianism" will not ultimately succeed in dwarfing this extraordinary author.

This, then, is one of several recent books (written by e.g. Brian Vickers, Graham Bradshaw, Harold Bloom) which share an urgent concern with Shakespeare's individual quality and see the need to protect that against those who for the most part treat him as having produced nothing other than "documents" (as when critics refer to "the Shakespearean text" in references to his plays). By contrast, Kermode to an extent succeeds in giving one an idea of how one's mind gets enriched and expanded by contact with what he rightly sees as the ditinctive creativity of Shakespeare's language. - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University (see "More about me")

Rating:
Summary: Shakespear'e Language
Review: One of the best if not the best books on Shakespeare I have ever read. By examining Shakespeare's failures and shortcomings, Kermode manages to make one appreciate Shakespeare's towering overall triumph in a way that someone like Harold Bloom fails to do.

Rating:
Summary: Maping the Mapmaker
Review: Shakespeare mapped and maybe invented most of the human mind's conceptual network; he showed all of us what it is to be a conscious human being. Of all the critics, Kermode best understands this. His book is a wonderful guide the plays, but more importantly, to the mind that made mind.

Rating:
Summary: Watery Consomme
Review: The acclaim that has greeted this perfectly ordinary book is puzzling, as there is nothing terribly fresh or insightful in it. Empson, Mahood, Vickers, Joseph and even Hussey are all more rewarding.

Rating:
Summary: Watery Consomme
Review: The acclaim that has greeted this perfectly ordinary book is puzzling, as there is nothing terribly fresh or insightful in it. Empson, Mahood, Vickers, Joseph and even Hussey are all more rewarding.

Rating:
Summary: Largely derivative of Empson.
Review: This book promises more than it delivers, with many scholarly discussions concerning texts actually pulling the discussion away from Shakespeare's language. It is a sort of homage to William Empson, a predecessor of Kermode at Cambridge, and a worthwhile reminder of the importance of Empson's 'Seven Types of Ambiguity' and 'The Structure of Complex Words'. Go to the root and read these!

Rating:
Summary: Largely derivative of Empson.
Review: This book promises more than it delivers, with many scholarly discussions concerning texts actually pulling the discussion away from Shakespeare's language. It is a sort of homage to William Empson, a predecessor of Kermode at Cambridge, and a worthwhile reminder of the importance of Empson's 'Seven Types of Ambiguity' and 'The Structure of Complex Words'. Go to the root and read these!