3

"Divides one thing entire to many objects; Like perspectives, which rightly gazed upon show nothing but confusion..." - William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Richard the Second

I read plenty of Shakespeare in high school, especially in drama. I have a lot of difficulty making sense of things he says, such as the above.

Is Shakespeare proper English? Would this have been clear, easily understood material back in his day? In other words, have all the changes in the English language over time made the material difficult to comprehend? Is the material subjective poetry?

Hugo
  • 67,535
P.Brian.Mackey
  • 797
  • 6
    This is peeving disguised as a question –  Oct 24 '11 at 13:55
  • 3
    If you downvote, please say why. I am new to this site and want the question answered. The only way I can improve the question is by having feedback from experts. – P.Brian.Mackey Oct 24 '11 at 13:55
  • I am reading a programming book that contains references to Shakespear. The references, like above, contain words commonly used in programming. I do not know if there is a play on words going on, if shakespeare thought like a programmer or if the words are an artform and simply being re-defined in a new context. Having a decent understanding of what Shakespeare is should help me gain a grasp of it all. – P.Brian.Mackey Oct 24 '11 at 13:58
  • 2
    @P.Brian: I voted to close as "off topic". I agree with simchona that you're not really asking anything. You're really just complaining that you don't understand Shakespeare very well, and you don't see why others think he's a great writer. – FumbleFingers Oct 24 '11 at 14:24
  • 3
    Updated question with several questions that can be answered. – P.Brian.Mackey Oct 24 '11 at 14:26
  • 2
    If you think, as I do, that no question is bad which draws good answers, then this one must be good. – Jason Orendorff Oct 24 '11 at 14:56
  • Personally I think Bushy's speech, which OP quotes part of, is to some extent a restatement of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. These are complex concepts which can't really be fully expressed in a few words, and I don't really think we should be dealing with philosophy/literary criticism at that level, here on ELU. – FumbleFingers Oct 24 '11 at 16:35
  • 1
    In order to understand the quotation, you need to know that perspective here means "A picture or figure designed to appear distorted or confused except when viewed from a certain position, or presenting totally different aspects from different positions." – Gareth Rees Aug 01 '12 at 18:28

2 Answers2

13

Shakespeare wrote highly inventive, poetic English of his time. Some of what he wrote uses words, grammatical forms and syntax that are no longer current, and can be difficult for modern readers or hearers to understand. Some of what he wrote uses poetic phrases or syntax which might have been difficult even for contemporaries to understand fully.

There are plenty of editions of Shakespeare which explicate or translate his text, some better than others.

In order to answer whether it is "proper" English or not, you will have to give us a comprehensive characterisation of what you regard as "proper".

But I think I can safely say that the quotation above (which I assume is attached to a section on objects) is inserted for amusement or artistic delight, and has no connection with the text apart from the word "object" and the suggestion that a multiplicity of them can be confusing.

Colin Fine
  • 77,173
6

As a general rule of thumb, we consider Shakespeare to be the first well-known writer of "Modern English". That doesn't mean language hasn't changed in several hundred years since he his time. It means that (poetic imagery and cultural references aside) we can mostly understand him - unlike Chaucer, which most people can't understand without a lot of help.

On the specifics, Divides one thing entire to many objects simply means "Takes something which is meaningfully identifiable as a single entity, and divides it into constituent parts".

As an example, a motorcar can be divided into gearing cogs, carburettor needles, tyre valves, etc. Shakespeare obviously wasn't thinking of a motorcar, but it certainly illustrates what he goes on to say about perspectives.

Unless you're a mechanic, the pile of components that make up a motorcar may represent nothing but confusion, in the same way that you may end up with no useful understanding of a situation if you try to grasp it from multiple perspectives. Similar to the difficulties we face looking at an example of "multiple perspectives" in Picasso's Cubist paintings.

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • 1
    "motorcar"? "tyre"? Is this proper English? :) – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Oct 24 '11 at 15:11
  • 1
    @Mr. Shiny: Substitute auto and tire if you like - it doesn't affect my point. I'm just sticking up for Brits and centenarians who use dated terminology! :) – FumbleFingers Oct 24 '11 at 15:16
  • 2
    Actually I was trying to make the point that "proper" English is subjective anyway. – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Oct 24 '11 at 16:10
  • Well I'm sure you'll agree there must be many usages in Shakespeare which we would not consider "proper" today. OP's first quoted sentence, for example. But most reasonably assiduous students should still be able to understand what he meant there. Which I think is often not the case with Chaucer. Of course, Chaucer just missed out on the widespread adoption of printing, and standardisation of spelling, which might have made all the difference. – FumbleFingers Oct 24 '11 at 16:22
  • @ Mr S and N. If by proper English you mean Standard English - whether British, American, or any other - then most of it isn't subjective at all. – Barrie England Oct 24 '11 at 16:40
  • Just because lots of ways letters and words can be arranged are universally accepted as "not proper English" doesn't affect the validity of saying that any definition of proper English is subjective. If that weren't the case, we'd have very little to talk about here on ELU. – FumbleFingers Oct 24 '11 at 17:22
  • If Chaucer were more easily understood, he'd be a much bigger hit with hormonal teenagers than Shakespeare is. –  Oct 24 '11 at 17:38
  • @onomatomaniak: I just watched Stephen Fry on the tv last night talking about the origins of written language. I think it was something from Chaucer he was quoting, where the author (Chaucer or not, but definitely before printing became widespread) was making an impassioned plea for the copy-scribes not to alter his spellings to suit their own regional/personal preferences. Which happened all the time, and probably drove some writers to distraction. – FumbleFingers Oct 24 '11 at 17:42
  • Ack, my original attempt at a bit of humour was blown way out of proportion. I'm withdrawing from this debate. – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Oct 24 '11 at 18:48
  • @Mr. Shiny: Aw - don't be like that! I thought I responded in kind, with my centenarians crack! – FumbleFingers Oct 24 '11 at 21:15
  • Well I just didn't want to have to justify my second comment about "subjective" English. Doesn't seem like an argument I can win – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Oct 25 '11 at 01:23