Hamlet's Question

 Greetings,

Hamlet is one of my favourite plays written by Shakespeare, there is so much within this play to discover, especially about the times and people of the age. However, there is one monologue which stands out above the rest, not only in the corpus of his works, but also as a question we must ask ourselves each and every day.

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be)

Why is this small passage, this piece of the entire monologue so significant? Let's examine it closely. Overall, Hamlet is asking himself whether he should or should not die, possibly by his own hand. He is also asking himself whether it is better that he fight in his current situation or just let it pass by him. The most interesting thing about this question is that it is summarised in the first line.

Most English-speaking people would have heard the line, "To be, or not to be, that is the question:", but the question would be, how many of those same people have asked themselves about the deeper meaning of these simple words? How many people have asked themselves the same things, maybe in different words, but with the same intention?

The same question can be applied in several different situations. The question of being or not being, is a question of whether an individual should continue with their life; it is a question of whether an individual should take up a position against some adversary; it is a question of whether a person should take up an occupation; it is a question of whether an individual should continue with their current occupation; each one of these questions can be found within those simple 11 words. It is through such words Shakespeare speaks to us across the ages. This is one of the reasons it is true he is one of the great writers, not only of his age, but of all ages (regardless whether he was a single writer or many). 

I choose to be, rather than not to be. I choose to live my life the best way I can. I choose the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," this is my choice. "To be or not to be" is a question which reaches across the centuries to us, so we may make our choice.

Cheers,

Henry

Mercutio's Speech: An Analysis

“More than the prince of cats, I can tell you. O, he’s the

courageous captain of compliments. He fights as

you sing prick-song, keeps time, distance and

proportion; his rests his minim rests, one, two,

and the third in your bosom. The very butcher of

a silk button, a duellist, a duellist; a gentleman

of the very first house, of the first and second

cause. Ah, the immortal passado! The punto

reverso! The hay!” (Mercutio)

Romeo and Juliet Act II, scene iv, lines 19 -26

          Mercutio’s speech in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is one which is well-known, especially by those who are familiar with the play. For actors the role of Mercutio is a dream role due to the breadth of the character and the passion which the character evokes. This short monologue is one of the most striking and most famous of his sets of lines throughout the play. This is a discussion of this particular speech and a possible different point of view as to how it is has previously been portrayed.

          The speech is Mercutio addressing the subject of Tybalt in an attempt to explain to Benvolio about him and the reason why Romeo would have no chance in a duel against him. Most often this speech is portrayed by the actor playing Mercutio as sarcastic remarks about Tybalt or joking about how skilled he is with his weapon. Often this is because those who are reading the part of Mercutio do not understand some of the language which is presented in this speech. Thus some explanation of this will be given.

Tybalt the Swordsman

            Having the advantage of experience in Renaissance martial arts means that the jargon which appears in this passage has the advantage of understanding what Mercutio is talking about. Some of these are elementary to all forms of fencing.

The first three terms he uses, time, distance and proportion are the foundation of fencing and indeed all martial arts. Time refers to the use of actions and that every action takes a certain amount of time, and also that each action may be performed in response to the action of the opponent, after, at the same time or to intercept their action. This relates to proportion which is another word for timing which means performing an action at the appropriate time. Distance is ensuring that the fencer is at the appropriate distance to both perform their own actions and to receive those of the opponent.

The next set of terms are terms for particular actions which were used in association with the use of the sword, and in particular the rapier. The passado, or passata, was a passing step which was sometimes accompanied by an attack, one foot passing the other dramatically increasing the distance moved. The punto reverso, or punta riversa, is a thrusting attack which for the right-hander originates on the fencers right side and is directed against the opponent’s right side, usually attacking the outside line of the opponent, thus moving around the opponent’s weapon with the assistance of footwork, a large step to the right of the opponent. The hay, or hai, is a direct thrust through the opponent, thus a finishing blow.

For Tybalt to be trained to know the foundation elements means that he is obviously trained, that he knows the other skills means that he is also trained in an Italian system because they are from the Italian school. This is significant, if one examines that Shakespeare was writing for an English audience who would know that the attention of an Italian fencing master would cost a lot.

Tybalt the Gentleman

With the fencing terminology explained an examination of the other language is also useful to further discuss the praise which Mercutio is heaping on to Tybalt. He calls Tybalt the “captain of compliments” alluding to him being well-spoken, as the first thing that he says about him. Later on in the speech he also states that he is a gentleman who would not fight without a cause, “a gentleman of the very first house, of the first and second cause.”

Mercutio then starts discussing his fighting ability saying that he “fights as you prick-song”. Prick-song is written music, so in other words he fights as easily as you sing and read music, a skill any gentleman of the period should have. Mercutio then discusses the tactical capabilities of Tybalt in the statement, “his rests his minim rests, one, two, and the third in your bosom.” He states that he uses his skill that he will set his opponent up and strike him with the third in the body. “The very butcher of a silk button,” alludes to his accuracy, that he could take the buttons off his opponent’s jacket.

A Deeper Discussion

With this deeper discussion and explanation of the terms and ideas put forward by Mercutio in his speech, it is clear that he is actually heaping praise on Tybalt. That he is called the “Prince of Cats” could allude to his second position in the Capulet house and their heraldry, and also his movement with a weapon, but such is supposition. What is evident by what is presented here is that Mercutio is stating a lot of positive things about Tybalt even though he really does not have to. More so, he is discussing with Benvolio why Romeo should not duel with Tybalt, so it is likely that Mercutio would be serious rather than joking or sarcastic.

The misinterpretation of Mercutio’s speech demonstrates why as in all cases of previous texts, the elements of the text need to be examined from the point of view of their origin rather than a modern point of view when examining them. Otherwise impressions are imposed upon the texts which are not present in the text and a deviant view of the text is then presented, as can be seen by the multiple portrayals of Mercutio’s speech as joking or sarcastic. Care needs to be taken so that the author’s intent remains.

The Saviolo-Shakespeare Connection

Greetings,

Frequent readers of my blogs will know of my interest in both Vincentio Saviolo and William Shakespeare. This article brings both of these two together to bring an interesting point of history to light. It is likely that this article will be of interest to both fencers and those interested in Shakespeare and English Literature.

Cheers,

Henry.

Introduction

The purpose of this investigation is to establish a firm connection between the relatively unknown fencing master, Vincentio Saviolo and the famous and influential playwright William Shakespeare. The reason for this is to demonstrate the impact of Saviolo upon the works of Shakespeare and thus English literature in general, and in a broader sense, the impact of other fencing masters not only on literature but also on society in general. For the purpose to be achieved the evidence for the connection needs to be substantial, and not meter pickings of words which may be confused with some other influence at the same time.

            What needs to be clear here is that it is not the purpose of this investigation to present a Saviolo bibliography, though there will be some elements present. The focus of this investigation is the connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare and the evidence for this present in Shakespeare’s works and other documentary evidence. The main reason for the moving away from the biography angle is that this has already been suitably covered by other authors.

            A timeframe is obviously necessary in order to establish the connection in an historical sense. For the purposes of this investigation, the timeframe which was chosen was the period of 1590 to 1599. This covers the approximate time of Saviolo’s arrival in London to the approximate time of his death. Obviously after this is difficult to establish as Saviolo is deceased, and beforehand loses out on the location element which is also essential.

            With regard to location, London and its greater areas were chosen as a general location. More specifically Blackfriars on the south bank of the Thames in London was chosen. This is because both Saviolo and Shakespeare were both present in these locations and therefore it enhances the chances of a meeting, or at least knowing about one another.

            There is a question of timing which goes along with the timeframe. Shakespeare’s play Love’s Labour’s Lost presents the first location of evidence of fencing jargon, however the timing of Romeo and Juliet and the close previous publication of Saviolo’s manual is more significant. The plays which follow increase in fencing jargon. In general, also Romeo and Juliet, As You Like It, and Hamlet are more well-known plays and all have evidence of the influence of Saviolo within them. Hence the timing of the publication of several of Shakespeare’s plays is significant.

            The second part of the process is to establish a connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare, somewhat based on the timing of the publication of the plays and the presence of the increase in fencing language present. There is an indirect connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare in the form of John Florio, who happened to be a friend of them both and also a friend of Ben Johnson. There is also the somewhat far-fetched suggestion that Saviolo taught Shakespeare to fence which will be examined at least a little.

            Evidence is what holds the argument together and there needs to be evidence presented for a connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare. This is primarily found in the presence of the ideas and concepts of Saviolo present in the works of Shakespeare. The three plays which will be the primary focus of this discussion have already been indicated above: Romeo and Juliet, known by some as the “fencer’s play”; Hamlet, which presents a famous duel in its last parts; and As You Like It which presents the important punctilios of duelling along with other evidence from Saviolo’s instructions on honourable quarrels. Common elements will be presented which are found both in the plays and in Saviolo’s manual.

            The fencing manuals of the medieval and Renaissance period, for the most part, are seen as mere instruction on the art of dispatching an opponent efficiently using the weapons described. If a deeper examination of these manuals is made, much more will be found in them, and a greater impact of them upon their societies will be realised. These manuals are often disregarded with regard to literary content however the influence of these manuals and their writers upon the wider community is greater than previously realised. This examination hopes to present this idea for at least one author.

Timing

“I suggest that the fencing manual of Saviolo, Vincentio Saviolo his Practice, dedicated to the Earl of Essex and published in 1595, provides evidence that Shakespeare probably responded to this manual’s specific diction and general theory in writing his play [Romeo and Juliet].” (Ozark Holmer, 1994:163)

            The timing of the publication of Saviolo’s manual in 1595 and the later publication of several of Shakespeare’s plays with fencing jargon in them presents a connection, at least in text form, between Saviolo and Shakespeare. There is little doubt that Shakespeare would have known about Saviolo, as will be presented later on in this investigation. Romeo and Juliet, while one of the most filled with fencing jargon is not the only one which was influenced by Saviolo’s work.

“more topical and up-to-date might have been Vincentio Saviolo’s textbook, written in English and published in two volumes, of which the first was devoted to fencing with rapier and dagger and the second to honour and honorary quarrels. Saviolo’s book appeared in 1595, two years before the first performance of Hamlet, and was, at that time, very modern.” (Czajkowski)

            The presence of fencing talk in the plays of Shakespeare with regard to the timing of this in comparison to the publication of Saviolo’s manual clearly presents timing, which with the increasing presence in following works, manifests itself as much more than coincidence. More to the point, Shakespeare’s Italian fencing jargon does not appear until after Saviolo’s publication (Ozark Holmer, 1994:165). Through the investigation, especially in the later parts, evidence will be presented where it is demonstrated that there was a distinct increase in fencing jargon present in Shakespeare’s work post-publication of Saviolo’s manual, and a distinct lack of it beforehand.

The timing of several of Shakespeare’s plays, and the presence of fencing jargon within them, is one piece of evidence which cannot be ignored. This timing presents the beginnings of the evidence for a relationship between Shakespeare and Saviolo, which will be established throughout the following investigation. The foundation which is present here is one which is based upon evidence which is presented in the following sections, however it does demonstrate one of the foundations of the argument for the relationship, whether actual or purely textual which is presented in the following investigation.

Location

            In order to demonstrate a firm connection between Shakespeare and Saviolo, it is necessary that they not merely be in the same sort of timeframe and have significant timings between them, it is also important that they can be seen to be moving in similar circles and also in similar locations. The following is designed to provide this evidence and demonstrate that there is a significant amount of locational commonality between the two to suggest that they would have known about one another and feasibly been in contact. What is important is that while this places them in the same location this is only the beginning.

            Some background is required in order to place both of the figures in the correct locations where they would have met. This means going back slightly in time and also examining people who were associated with them. In the case of Saviolo this means looking at Rocco Bonetti with whom he had an association. “Bonetti continued his travels, but in 1584 he took up residence in part of the Blackfriars after acquiring the lease from John Lyly.” (Kirby, 2013:16). This is evidence of Bonetti, planting his roots, so to speak, in Blackfriars. Bonetti had plans for remodelling the building to make it more suitable for his school but he never managed to finish the project. This he left to Jeronimo. What is significant for this research is that Saviolo joined the little band in order to ply his trade at the school, thus placing Saviolo in Blackfriars.

“He [Bonetti] left a partially remodelled college of fence to his ‘boy’, Jeronimo. Never using a last name, George Silver describes Jeronimo as ‘Signior Rocko his boy, that taught Gentlemen in the Blacke-Fryers, as Usher for his maister in steed of a man’. When Saviolo came to England Jeronimo started to teach with him. They did this for approximately seven to eight years, according to Silver.” (Kirby, 2013:16)

            What is significant is the timing with the location. The previous evidence presented demonstrates some interesting timing and some of it needs to be noted with regard to the location also.

“It would have been difficult for Shakespeare not to have known about Vincentio Saviolo, the Paduan master who arrived in London in 1590 to teach in the fencing “colledge” of the Italian master, Rocco Bonetti;” (Ozark Holmer, 1994:164)

Saviolo arrived in London in 1590 to teach at Bonetti’s school. This places him firmly in Blackfriars. So it can be safely said that Saviolo was in and around Blackfriars at least from 1590 until his death sometime in approximately 1599. Further to his location in Blackfriars, it should also be noted that he was not considered as some back-alley operator, indeed Saviolo was seen as a man of respect and reputation. “Saviolo’s school, activities, opinions, and methods of teaching fencing gained great recognition and respect in England.” (Czajkowski). Indeed one of Silver’s great complaints is that Saviolo was so popular with gentlemen and also the court circles due to his popular Italianate fencing style.

With Saviolo’s location and social strata established Shakespeare’s needs to be established and demonstrated to be in such a form that the two individuals could have come into contact in some form or another. While the arrival of a Gentleman from Padua would have been a significant event and thus recorded, the same could not be said for the arrival of Shakespeare in London.

“No definite date can be given for Shakespeare’s arrival in London; but by 1594 he had a body of work to his credit that must have occupied a considerable number of years. Naturally no details survive of his London connections when he was still unknown to the world,” (Ackroyd, 2010:xxxiv)

            Of course it is clear that in order to be recognised, there had to be some previous history. No owner of a group of players would have taken on a completely unknown writer, thus Shakespeare must have been doing work of some kind for the years before his “recognition.”

“Shakespeare must have been working as a dramatist for some years before 1590. This period of successful work explains how by 1594 he could take a leading place in the first company of the age.” (Ackroyd, 2010:xxxiv)

            The company which Shakespeare was to join was the Lord Chamberlain’s Men which Richard Burbage was the lead player. The company obviously needed a place in which to rehearse, store props and also to perform their plays. It was Burbage who acquired the lease of the building in Blackfriars.

“in 1596, James Burbage acquired the lease on the fencing school and used it as part of the Blackfriars Theatre. His partners at that time were John Hemmings, Henry Condell, William Sly, and William Shakespeare,” (Turner and Soper, 1990:19)

            Clearly Bonetti and Burbage had some sort of arrangement to either share the building or some such. The fact that Burbage leases the fencing school places Shakespeare in a location where he can become familiar with Italian fencing masters and indeed Saviolo himself. There are claims even that there was a close relationship between Saviolo and Shakespeare by some writers.

           

“Also, as the great connoisseur of fencing, J.P. Aylward, noticed, Vincentio Saviolo was Shakespeare’s neighbour in Blackfriars, so it quite probable that Shakespeare consulted with Saviolo about the fencing scenes in his famous drama. Anyway, there seems to be no doubt that Shakespeare, when describing the duel, meant fencing with the rapier and dagger of his time, probably based on the fencing school described by Vincentio Saviolo.” (Czajkowski)

            While this cannot be confirmed or denied, the timings which have been presented previously seem to tip the scale in favour of this. The timing of Romeo and Juliet which has been discussed previously, along with the presence of fencing terminology within this work would tend to tip the scales in favour of some sort of association between Saviolo and Shakespeare. At the least the presence of such fencing terminology in Shakespeare’s works after the printing of Saviolo’s manual would indicate some sort of influence. Further evidence for the association between these two significant individuals will be presented in their personal connections.

Personal Connections

            Once the two individuals, Shakespeare and Saviolo have been placed in the same place at the same time, it is then possible to look deeper into the connections between them. Personal connections provide more evidence between the individuals and thus firms up the evidence that there was a significant connection between them. The first place to find this is influence of one on the other in this case it is most definitely Saviolo on Shakespeare. There is also evidence for Saviolo affecting other writers as well, thus presenting Saviolo as a more significant character.

            Returning to personal connections there is one main individual who will be mentioned, John Florio, who was at least acquainted with both individuals. This provides a clear personal connection and also places both of them in a similar social circle. Ben Jonson can also be mentioned in the same sort of context, but without such a significant connection. It is through this connection that evidence can be presented that they at least knew of one another even if they did not meet. Of course there are theories that they did meet and that this is where a firm connection can be established, however some of the evidence for this a little far-fetched at least.

“The English writers began a common mimicking or mocking of Italian terms, points of honour and duelling, all of which are the direct focus of Saviolo’s notable work – His Practise in Two Books. Thomas Lodge, John Marston, Ben Jonson, Thomas Kyd and especially William Shakespeare were all affected by this publication to some extent. No other fencing master had such a tremendous influence on the art and literature of the Elizabethan era.” (Kirby, 2013:3)

            The list of influential writers named demonstrates the influence that a single book can, and did, have upon many different writers. Saviolo’s book came out at just the right time when the English were interested in all things Italian, and especially the concept of duelling which had picked up pace in England. This idea of mimicking can be seen in the way that the Elizabethans dressed, their manner of speaking, their manners, and of course their use of the sword, especially in the upper echelons of society. Thus it is with little surprise that the writers of the age also mimicked what the Italians were writing, and even less surprising that they would also mock it. This influence demonstrates that Shakespeare would have known about Saviolo at the least, having taken so much from his work, evidence for this influence will be presented further on in the discussion.

            To expand on the connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare, personal connections need to be examined a little closer than the simple influence of one book on some writers of the period. It is important to look at who both of the individuals associated with. In the case of Saviolo and Shakespeare the key or linking individual is John Florio.

“That Shakespeare was familiar with “…[H]is Practise” there can be little doubt. There may be a personal connection; Saviolo’s likely co-author was John Florio: Florio was tutor and secretary to Henry Wriothelsey, Earl of Southampton to whom Shakespeare dedicated the poems “Venus and Adonis” (1593) and “The Rape of Lucrece” (1594).” (Chatfield, 2010)

            The connection which is present above could be seen as a little tenuous, being that the link is through other individuals however the fact that there is a link there which can be traced is more significant. The fact that it is likely that Florio assisted Saviolo in the production of his fencing and duelling treatise, and also was tutor to one of Shakespeare’s patrons places the two individuals closer and closer together. Further to this, it was not only in Saviolo’s own work where Shakespeare could have learnt about Saviolo.

“Shakespeare could have encountered Saviolo by reputation in print as early as 1591, because John Florio, who knew Saviolo, provides the first extant description of him in Second Frutes,” (Ozark Holmer, 1994:165)

            This provides a four-year gap where knowledge of Saviolo would have been present. John Florio cannot be mistaken for being “yet another writer” but one of influence and the fact that he would write about Saviolo with such praise in his work would have been noticed by Shakespeare. It could almost be said that Florio’s work sets itself up as a primer for Saviolo’s work to come out a couple of years later. Indeed it could have been the mention of Saviolo by Florio which made Saviolo’s work so popular in the first place.

            The connection between Saviolo, Florio and Shakespeare cannot be doubted by the evidence which is presented, however it was not only Florio who was acquainted with both, “Ben Jonson knew him [Saviolo], and Shakespeare cannot have failed to have been acquainted with him.” (Tuner and Soper, 1990:52). Once again this places both Saviolo and Shakespeare within close proximity, or at least the same social circles. The fact that Ben Jonson was acquainted with both individuals means that at some point in time it is likely that they would have met, at least in a casual social setting.

            There is some suggestion that Saviolo may have taught Shakespeare how to fence, as given in the documentary “Riddle of Steel” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9NRZyh4MZg), however this connection seems to be lacking in some evidence. However it would explain how Shakespeare was so intimately familiar with Saviolo’s method of fencing, enough that he could present it in a reasonably comprehensive way in his writing. Needless to say, without the documentary evidence, such a personal connection is hard to present as fact.

            Personal connections are important in placing individuals in the same social contexts as one another. Merely placing them in the same place at the same time does not necessarily mean that they would have been acquainted with one another or even run into one another by accident. Having personal connections, even through intermediary parties demonstrates a much firmer connection between the two individuals than mere time and place. The presence of Saviolo in Shakespeare’s writings has been hinted at here and in other places and will be presented in more detail in the following.

Saviolo in Shakespeare

            While there is evidence for fencing material and indeed fencing material which can be connected to Saviolo and his treatise in several plays and other pieces penned by Shakespeare, three plays will be used as a focus for this investigation. The three plays which will be used are Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and As You Like It. These could be termed the “fencing plays”, as they all have evidence of swordplay or elements linked to swordplay in them. In this particular case the former two are more so than the latter one.
            As You Like It does not have a dominance of swordplay taking place in it like Romeo and Juliet, but much like, Hamlet it does go into some of the intricacies of the duel and how a duel may come about. This information demonstrates a connection between the authors as much as the presentation of the method of swordplay.

“Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost, Romeo and Juliet and As You Like It are perfect examples. Shakespeare illustrates his knowledge of the code duello with characters like Touchstone in As You Like It, who pontificates about the manner and diversity of lies, and how a gentleman is or is not compelled to respond to the various degrees of lies.” (Kirby, 2013:33)

            There is a long discussion between two characters in As You Like It, Touchstone and Jacques about the causes of a duel. In Act V, Scene v of the play, this starts with a simple question and statement and then goes on to enumerate more and more detail about how a duel may be caused (As You Like It, V, v 48-97, see Appendix 1 for the full text). This list of lies, and thus causes of a duel is very similar to the list which Saviolo presents in his second “book” Of Honour and Honourable Quarrels, in fact it could be seen as a parody of the list given. Further evidence in the play from Saviolo’s treatise can also be found, this is in the form of one of Saviolo’s anecdotes, in which Shakespeare changes some of the names, but the result in the play is the same.

“References to Saviolo and his treatise are to be found among the works of some of the literary figures of the day. Shakespeare uses one of Saviolo’s anecdotes and reshapes it in “As You Like It” (1599). Saviolo’s tale concerns Luigi Gonzaga, (nicknamed “Rodomont‟ on account of his “courageous character and athleticism‟) brother to the Duke of Mantua, who accidently kills the Emperor Charles V‟s champion wrestler in a match.” (Chatfield, 2010)

            In Shakespeare’s case, in Act I, Scene ii, the wrestler’s name is Charles, who wrestles with Orlando and is killed. The wrestler is the champion of Duke Frederick, Duke of Mantua. Orlando, the winner of the wrestle is banished. In the case of Saviolo’s story the victor of the wrestling match leaves in order to avoid the consequences. Many parallels can be seen in this story between the two writers. This demonstrates a rather deep reading of Saviolo’s treatise in order to reproduce such an incident in his play.

“Romeo and Juliet includes more Italian fencing terms than any other play in Shakespeare’s canon – among them are the passado, punto reverse and stoccata. He also includes references to the Italian duelling code and the style of fencing at the time – all of which were included in Saviolo’s treatise.” (Kirby, 2013:33)

            With regard to the subject of swordplay and elements associated with it, much more can be found in both Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. Continuing with the theme of the duel, which is directly associated with swordplay, especially in the Elizabethan period, the concept of the causes of the duel are also addressed in Romeo and Juliet. The classic demonstration with regard to this is in Act III, Scene i, in Mercutio’s discussion with Benvolio with regard to his willingness to enter into a quarrel with someone.

Romeo and Juliet, III, i, 15-29

MERCUTIO: Nay, and there were two such, we

should have none shortly, for one would kill the

other. Thou! why, thou wilt quarrel with a man

that hath a hair more or a hair less in his beard

than thou hast. Thou wilt quarrel with a man for

cracking nuts, having no other reason but

because thou hast hazel eyes. What eye but such

an eye would spy out such a quarrel? Thy head

is as full of quarrels as an egg is full of meat; and

yet thy head hath been beaten as addle as an egg

for quarrelling. Thou hast quarrell’d with a man

for coughing in the street, because he hath

wakened thy dog that hath lain asleep in the

sun. Didst thou not fall out with a tailor for

wearing his new doublet before Easter? With

another for tying his new shoes with old riband?

And yet thou wilt tutor me from quarrelling!

(Ackroyd, 2010)

            This demonstrates the willingness of the character to enter into an armed conflict with another person. While this is presented in a play, there is evidence that the same could be said of members of the same classes in society at the time. What is most interesting is it is exactly this sort of thing that Saviolo is arguing against in his treatise, and the presentation of such ease of entering into a duel, pokes its finger at the subject. More directly related to Saviolo’s manual, he states that a man should only enter into an armed affray where there really is a cause, and the striking of one by another is sufficient provocation. Shakespeare uses this idea in his confrontation between Mercutio and Tybalt.

Romeo and Juliet, III, i, 38-41

MERCUTIO: And but one word with one of us?

Couple it with something; make it a word and a

blow.

TYBALT: You shall find me apt enough to that, sir,

an you give me occasion. (Ackroyd, 2010)

            Thus Tybalt is deliberately looking for “cause” before entering into a combat with Mercutio. The causes and reasons for the duel were of great importance and Saviolo’s treatise reflects this as he spends quite some time upon it. This is reflected by the same subject appearing repeatedly in Shakespeare’s plays.

Where the similarities between Shakespeare and Saviolo really shine is in Shakespeare’s depiction of fencing techniques used by his characters. The most commonly presented evidence of fencing in Shakespeare is in Romeo and Juliet and it is the comments made by Mercutio in Act II, Scene iv, about Tybalt.

Romeo and Juliet, II, iv, 19-26

MERCUTIO: More than Prince of Cats. O, he’s the

courageous captain of compliments. He fights as

you sing prick-song: keeps time, distance, and

proportion; he rests his minim rests, one, two,

and the third in your bosom; the very butcher of

a silk button, a duellist, a duellist; a gentleman

of the very first house, of the first and second

cause. Ah, the immortal passado! the punto

reverso! the hay! – (Ackroyd, 2010)

The fencing evidence is clear in the author’s knowledge of the importance of the concept of time, distance and proportion however he goes further and uses some fencing jargon. The passado and punto reverso are two techniques which Saviolo uses repeatedly in his demonstrations of fencing technique in his treatise. There is also the mention of “causes” as indicated above these are to do with the causes of the duel. There are other incidences however there is one which is significant and points directly toward Saviolo’s treatise.

Romeo and Juliet, III, i, 156-161

BENVOLIO: With piercing steel at bold Mercutio’s breast;

Who, all as hot, turns deadly point to point,

And, with a martial scorn, with one hand beats

Cold death aside, and with the other sends

It back to Tybalt, whose dexterity

Retorts it. ... (Ackroyd, 2010)

            Benvolio is reporting to the Prince about the duel between Mercutio and Tybalt which carries a lot of the fencing terms being a pivotal conflict in the play. For the focus of this particular investigation there is a technique present which is directly from Saviolo. Tybalt thrusts at Mercutio who beats the sword away with his off-hand and thrusts at Tybalt in reply. This is a technique which is found in Saviolo’s manual in is the foundation of his method.

            Moving on to Hamlet, clearly the greatest amount of evidence of a connection will be found in the duel between Hamlet and Laertes, and in the various elements leading up to this conflict however there are more points which need to be made. Saviolo gives clear advice about what sort of man a gentleman should be in his second book. He makes clear statements about how he should act and what sort of manner he should adopt in his relationships with others. The significance of this is that in Act I, scene iii, Polonius gives Laertes a long list of things he should and should not do while he is away. The full text of this can be found in Appendix 2. What is most interesting for this investigation is that the same advice which Polonius gives Laertes is the same which Saviolo gives his reader in his treatise, another clear link between the two authors.

            The final duel between Hamlet and Laertes has caused a lot of debate between both those interested in literature and also those interested in swordplay. There some areas of contention which must be examined and which reveal further evidence for the connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare. For the most part the argument is about what weapons are used in the final duel between Hamlet and Laertes. The first time weapons are mention is when Osric approaches Hamlet with regard to the duel and Hamlet asks Osric what weapons Laertes will use.

Hamlet, V, ii, 141- 143

HAMLET: What’s his weapon?

OSRIC: Rapier and dagger.

HAMLET: That’s two of his weapons. But well. (Jenkins, 1982)

            So, according to the rules of the duel, with the acceptance of these weapons, the duel between Laertes and Hamlet should be fought with rapier and dagger. For the most part, the duel at the end of Hamlet has been depicted by directors as fought with a single sword, the type being up to the director at the time. Interestingly, this would seem to be against the scene directions given.

Hamlet, V, ii, 221

A table prepared. Trumpets, Drums, and Officers with cushions.

Enter King, Queen, Laertes, [Osric,] and all the State,

and Attendants with foils and daggers. (Jenkins, 1982)

            Clearly, the dagger is mentioned in the stage directions by Jenkins (1982). What is interesting is that he then makes notes with regard to the stage directions comparing the various versions of the stage directions found in the different versions of the play found. The two noted giving options for rapier and dagger or rapier and gauntlet, both of which appear in Saviolo’s manual.

“Attempts to show that the fencing must be with single rapier go against the text. ... F’s substitution of Gauntlets for daggers represents a change in fencing style, but the significance of this in updating the action has perhaps been overstressed .... Rapier and dagger and single rapier seem to have been current simultaneously,” (Jenkins, 1982: 407 footnote)

            As stated above, the two options for weapons given by Jenkins (1982) in his note are the rapier and dagger and the rapier and gauntlet, which happen to be the only two weapon forms which Saviolo deals with. Saviolo’s manual deals with the use of the rapier alone, but primarily with the gauntlet in concert with it, and the rapier and dagger. Shakespeare’s choice of weapons for the final duel in Hamlet demonstrates that there is evidence for a clear connection between his work and Saviolo’s, as has also been demonstrated above.

Conclusion

            The purpose of this investigation has been to establish a firm connection between two historical figures, the well-known and celebrated William Shakespeare and the relatively unknown out of fencing circles Vincentio Saviolo. More to the point of the investigation, it has been designed to demonstrate the impact of Saviolo upon Shakespeare’s works and thus the impact of one individual on the most influential body of work found in English literature and indeed the history of the English language. Such an impact as a result demonstrates the impact that such a relatively unknown individual can have upon such a work.

            For the end for which this investigation was designed to be achieved the evidence for the connection between the two individuals present needed to be substantial. These needed to be more than mere pickings of text which could be attributed to another reason or the influence of some other individual. What this investigation was not designed to do was to present a biography of Saviolo. There will be elements present of his personal history, but the focus of this is on his connection with Shakespeare and evidence of this present in his works, and other documentation. The biography of Saviolo has been sufficiently covered in other works by other authors.

            There are four sections which were used to present the evidence of the connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare, timing, location, personal connection and Saviolo in Shakespeare. Each one of the four presents evidence from a different point of view that is connected in some way to the previous and following elements. These four together, uniting the evidence presented, demonstrate a clear connection between Saviolo and Shakespeare.

            The first section is based on the timing of several of the works of Shakespeare as compared to that of Saviolo. There is evidence presented here that some of Shakespeare’s significant works, such as Romeo and Juliet, were presented in public form after Saviolo’s work and containing significant elements which are presented in both. Further this section places both Saviolo and Shakespeare in a chronologically significant and mutual position. This gives a foundation of dates and some relatively circumstantial evidence, which is reinforced by the following elements.
            The section on location places both individuals in the same locations in general and at least one specific location also. This gives the individuals a chance of actually meeting face-to-face, but also mixing in the same groups of people. In this particular case, the location which stands out the most is Blackfriars. This is a location which is significant for both individuals. The south bank of the Thames in London in general is also significant for such chance meetings also.

            For a closer connection between two individuals it is useful to look at their personal connections. This search attempts to make a link between them either directly or through mutual connections. Further this link proves that they moved in similar circles and thus could have had a chance meeting. In this particular case it is John Florio who is the main connection as he knew both Shakespeare and Saviolo. A further connection can be found through Ben Jonson, who also knew both Shakespeare and Saviolo.

            The final and most interesting section discusses the presence of elements of Saviolo’s His Practice in Two Books in the works of Shakespeare. This is more documentary evidence of a connection, literary at least between Saviolo and Shakespeare. For this part of the study, three plays were chosen, As You Like It, Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. All of these plays contain at least one significant, if not more, parts in them in which the writings of Saviolo can be said to be present. In the case of As You Like It, it is the discussion of Touchstone about the causes of the duel which is most significant but there is also the wrestling match in an earlier part of the play. Hamlet has discussions on the duel and a famous duel in the end of it which has been debated for many years, and finally Romeo and Juliet could almost be termed as the “fencer’s play” as it contains several expressions of fencing jargon and other elements significant to duelling, all of which are present in Saviolo’s work.

            A vast amount of evidence has been presented, and further may be discovered through research. The three plays and their evidence are only a mere glossing of that which can be found in the works of Shakespeare, not only in plays but also in his poetry. If the works of Shakespeare are examined, it will be found that such fencing jargon only started to appear after the presence of Saviolo’s work in print. While it cannot be proven that Saviolo and Shakespeare met face-to-face, their personal connections would suggest that they may have. Regardless, the documentary evidence which is present for both of them demonstrates that there is an undeniable connection between the two individuals and that Vincentio Saviolo undoubtedly had an impact upon the works of William Shakespeare.

Bibliography

Ackroyd, P. (et. al.) (2010) The Alexander Text of the Complete Works of Shakespeare, Harper Collins Publishers, London UK

Chatfield, Chris (2010) Stranger 929: A Brief Biography of Vincentio Saviolo, The 1595, http://www.the1595.co.uk/

Czajkowski, Z. (unknown) The Fencing Duel in Hamlet, escrime.ca

Harding, Giulia (?) “Saviolo – His Practice”

Jenkins, H. (ed) (1982) The Arden Edition of the Works of William Shakespeare: Hamlet, Routledge, New York, USA

Kirby, J. (2013) A Gentleman’s Guide to Duelling: Vincentio Saviolo’s Of Honour & Honourable Quarrels, Frontline Books, London

Ozark Holmer, J. (1994) “Draw if you be Men”: Saviolo’s Significance for Romeo and Juliet in Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 163-189

Turner, C. and Soper, T. (1990) Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, USA

Appendix 1: Touchstone and Jaques in As You Like It

As You Like It, V, v, 48-49 (Ackroyd, 2010)

TOUCHSTONE: Faith, we met, and found the

quarrel was upon the seventh cause.”

As You Like It, V, v, 63-97 (Ackroyd, 2010)

JAQUES: But for the seventh cause: how did you

find the quarrel on the seventh cause?

TOUCHSTONE: Upon a lie seven times removed –

bear your body more seeming, Audrey – as thus,

sir. I did dislike the cut of a certain courtier’s

beard; he sent me word, if I said his beard was

not cut well, he was in the mind it was. This is

call’d the Retort Courteous. If I sent him word

again it was not well cut, he would send me

word he cut it to please himself. This is call’d

the Quip Modest: If again it was not well cut, he

disabled my judgement. This is call’d the Reply

Churlish. If again it was not well cut, he would

answer I spake not true. This is call’d the

Reproof Valiant. If again it was not well cut, he

would say I lie. This is call’d the Countercheck

Quarrelsome. And so to the Lie Circumstantial and

the Lie Direct.

JAQUES: And how oft did you say his beard was

not well cut?

TOUCHSTONE: I durst go no further than the Lie

Circumstantial, nor he durst not give me the Lie

Direct; and so we measur’d swords and parted.

JAQUES: Can you nominate in order now the

degrees of the lie?

TOUCHSTONE: O, sir, we quarrel in print by the

book, as you have books for good manners. I

will name you the degrees. The first, the Retort

Courteous; the second, the Quip Modest; the

third, the Reply Churlish; the fourth, the

Reproof Valiant; the fifth, the Countercheck

Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie with

Circumstance; the seventh, the Lie Direct; and you

may avoid that too with an If. I knew when

seven justices count not take up a quarrel; but

when the parties were met themselves, one of

them thought but of an If, as: ‘If you said so,

then I said so’. And they shook hands, and

swore brothers. Your If is the only peace-maker;

much virtue in If.”

Appendix 2: Polonius’ Advice in Hamlet

Hamlet, I, iii, 55ff (Jenkins, 1982)

Polonius: Yet here, Laertes? Aboard, aboard for shame.

            The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,

            And you are stay’d for. There, my blessing with thee.

            And these few precepts in thy memory

            Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,

            Nor any unproportion’d thought his act.

            Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar;

            Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,

            Grapple then unto thy soul with hoops of steel,

            But do not dull thy palm with entertainment

            Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d courage. Beware

            Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,

            Bear’t that th’opposed may beware of thee.

            Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;

            Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgement.

            Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,

            But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy;

            For the apparel oft proclaims the man,

            And they in France of the best rank and station

            Are of a most select and generous chief in that.

            Neither a borrower nor lender be,

            For loan oft loses both itself and friend,

            And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

            This above all: to thine own self be true,

            And it must follow as the night the day

            Thou canst not then be false to any man.

            Farewell, my blessing season this in thee.

Shakespeare: The Value of the Fiction

Greetings,

There has been a great question which has caused some consternation over several years as to the identity of the writer of Shakespeare's works. This entry in the blog is not designed to give an answer to this particular riddle, or even give my own particular thoughts on the matter. What will be laid before you is approaching this question from a different point of view.

One of the first accusations with regard to Shakespeare's works is whether or not it was written by one man, or whether it was written by many writers, resulting in the question of whether it is "Shakespeare's English" or "Shakespeares' English". This is a question which historians and many others have argued. If it was written by one man, then he is truly a great man and has given us a great wealth of works. But, even if it was written by multiple authors, the result may be spread over several but still there is a lot of information and value to be gained from the works as they are.

Assuming that the works were all written by one man, the question of the man is one which has also appeared as voraciously as the question of whether it was one or several authors. Was it the son of a glove-maker from Stratford-Upon-Avon or was it Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford? These are the two great contenders for the authorship. Evidence has been presented from both points of view supporting both men. Once again, regardless of which one of these men wrote the works, the result is the same.

In essence it does not matter whether it was one author or several, the son of a glove-maker or an Earl which wrote "The works of Shakespeare", the true value is found in the volume of the work produced and in the works themselves. The plays give us many things which need to be appreciated for what they are rather than who put pen and ink to paper to produce them. The increased lexicon as a result of Shakespeare's works is of great significance as has been indicated previously. Expressions of language found in Shakespeare's works are still found in film, and even everyday speech. In close examination of the plays we find demonstrations of other cultures of the period, specifically the Italian which gives us an insight as to how society worked in that period in that culture. Even in general examination of the historical plays we find elements of the social and political workings of the day that they were written and also a perspective of historical events. All of these elements are of great use to us in the modern era.

For the most part, the question of the authorship of "The Works of Shakespeare" is more of an historical argument more designed for those who want specific answers about specific things. Regardless of who wrote the works the impact of them upon the English language and indeed the culture of English-speaking people far outweighs any argument as to the authorship of the works themselves. Indeed even if it is found that the works were not written by the son of a glove-maker from Stratford-Upon-Avon, there is still much value to be found in the fiction, and more to the point much value to be found in the works themselves.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. For all of my regular readers, the production continues. Slowly, but it does continue.

Elizabethan Vocabulary

Greetings,

The subject of vocabulary would seem to be the next logical step in the progression and examination of the English of the Elizabethan period. Here follows the examination of this subject.

Introduction

            The vocabulary of a language determines how flexible and comprehensive the language is. The enhancement of the language through vocabulary is something that the Elizabethans were dedicated to and thus created, borrowed and even re-used words in order to increase their vocabulary. This is a discussion which is necessary in order to understand how the words were formed and where they came from which will describe some of the influences on the language and thus how it developed over time.

            This investigation will start with an overview of the vocabulary discussing the changes in the language and also how the words may differ from our own. The aim of this is to provide a general overview of the approach of Elizabethans to the vocabulary and also make a small comparison to our own laying the foundation for the following subjects. Glossaries discuss different and difficult words the two must be defined so that the difference between the two types of words can be clearly seen and understood, this is once again for the modern reader to understand the Elizabethan’s language. These must also be compared to some of their modern counter-parts for better understanding of the differences in meanings.

            With the introduction for the modern researcher established it is then possible to examine the vocabulary of the Elizabethans and where it came from. The first place is to examine native words and how they came about as the formed the foundation of the vocabulary. These were enhanced by new words created through methods which will be described in some detail for a complete explanation. The investigation of word formation presents the origins of the words and how the vocabulary and the words changed.

            Loan words are those which come from other languages and were inserted into the language, for the most part. Some were created within the language, but these are the ones which were for the most part borrowed to fulfil particular roles. They were not always popular and they did not always survive as will be demonstrated. The introduction of words and the changes in the language also resulted in some changes in meaning of words, this is especially important to understand for the modern reader.

            The vocabulary of the language is what allows the users of the language to express themselves. The words from the vocabulary are the building blocks of the language and determine what people can describe and talk about. This is important for the understanding of the language and the changes in the vocabulary can have a marked change upon the language itself as changes in vocabulary have demonstrated in the modern world.

Vocabulary Overview

            The vocabulary of a language determines what sort of things that the language can express. For the most part the collection of the vocabulary of a language comes from the creation of words or the borrowing of words from other languages. These words are specific, but for the most part not collected in any recognised manner. “Vocabulary is the area of language least subject to generalization. … the learning of vocabulary is largely ad hoc and of indefinite duration.” (Crystal, 2008:146). What this means is that words are plugged into the language as they are required to fulfil a role which the language otherwise could not fill. With the great expanse in knowledge in the Renaissance period, it is of little surprise that the English language was subject to extreme growth.

“the Early Modern English period is marked by an unprecedented lexical growth. It is achieved both by extensive borrowing from other languages and by exploiting native resources by means of word-formation.” (Lass, 1999:332)

            The subjects of borrowing and word-formation are ones which will be discussed in some detail further along in this investigation. The language expanded dramatically, which makes the study of the vocabulary in this period exciting. For the modern reader it is important to realise that while there are words which are very familiar if not the same as the modern words, they were not necessarily used in the same way (Crystal, 2008:98). This is where the idea of different and difficult words emerges in the discussion.

Easy, Different and Difficult

            The first time a modern reader comes upon the language of the Elizabethan period, or indeed any period before their own, it can be a little daunting as the language looks very different. For most people this will happen in high school when they are confronted with Shakespeare. In order to assist the modern reader researchers have compiled glossaries. These glossaries focus on difficult and different words, difficult and different are not the same, some words are unused and others are the same words with different meanings (Crystal, 2008:146).

            In order to be clear about this, classification is required of the words in order to better understand them and see how they are organised. There are some words which are found in the Elizabethan texts which are familiar if not used frequently in modern speech, these are easy words; these are often used in a special context, or are very familiar e.g. oft, perchance, morrow (Crystal, 2008:147). These words sometimes appear in the glossaries but not often.

            It is the difficult and different words which appear in the glossaries the most, and it is useful to know the difference between the two. Difficult words are “words where it is not possible to deduce from their form what they might mean” (Crystal, 2008:152). These are often those which come from different languages or are situational or require previous knowledge, one example of such previous knowledge is classical study (Crystal, 2008:147). Without such previous knowledge it can be very difficult to determine the meaning of the word and this makes them difficult. In general, difficult words are difficult either because it was an Elizabethan usage no longer current or because it would pose a problem to a modern readership despite its continued currency.” (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:viii).

            Different words are often simply different. They have a similar form as the modern word but a different meaning was attached to them in the Elizabethan period. In some cases, some words different due to extra syllable for metre – for the effect of verse and keeping meaning of word (Crystal, 2008:150). This changes the pronunciation of the word and sometimes the spelling, but the same meaning is kept. Further, some words of the period are still used in the modern period but their meaning has changed over time which is different to their original (Crystal and Crystal, 2002:viii), this makes them different.

In the Elizabethan period the language was extremely malleable and the writers of the period used the words which they saw fit at the time. In cases these usages were different to how they would be used in the modern period and this makes them sometimes difficult to understand, simply because they have a different use. Some words were converted from other forms to verbs for example and others simply assembled to suit the situation (Crystal, 2008:148).

With the change in meaning of words the modern researcher and reader needs to be careful about the meaning derived. There are false friends (faux amis) where the modern meaning is different from the period meaning, these are familiar words which actually are not, the context of the word is important for definition (Crystal, 2008:156). The reader, in order to gain the correct understanding of the language needs to approach the language with some care and understanding in order to appreciate and gain a true understanding of the language.

            The meaning of words can and often do change over time. This is a prime example of the reason why the old words taken from the previous language were not as readily accepted as the new words, something discussed further along. There are many examples of this which can be pointed out one example is “politician”. The word politician comes from politic which means to be “shrewd” over time it gradually gained a double-meaning as “crafty” thus the word is left with a two-faced meaning of the word, one describing political office and the other describing the person as a “schemer” (Gooden, 2009:78). In the research of language, especially languages of the past the reader and investigator both need to be careful of this.

Learning the Vocabulary

            In learning the language of the Elizabethan period a person must sit back and have a look at exactly what they are embarking upon. The language of the period and indeed toward the end when Shakespeare was beginning to make his mark was very similar to the modern language; the idea of perspective is important (Crystal, 2008:175).

In order to achieve this correct perspective it is important to take into account the history of the word, even more so for its correct meaning (Crystal, 2008:157). The historical perspective of the language is important as the history which surrounds the language has a huge effect upon the language. This is even more important as the language of the period was not the same for all as it was going through changes.

“When we study Shakespeare’s vocabulary, it is important to recognize that his period off the language – as all other periods – is not linguistically homogeneous.” (Crystal, 2008:159)

            The process of learning the Elizabethan vocabulary and indeed the language as well is the same as learning any foreign language (Crystal, 2008:152). The past is a foreign place and as such needs to be treated as such including the language, and just as with learning a foreign language it needs to be approached with formality and regularity. Limited, spaced learning makes it difficult to build up intuition about “normal” vocabulary of Early Modern English (Crystal, 2008:152). Familiarity with the language and the words makes them easier to understand.

            In the investigation of the words, it is best to discover and investigate words as they are come across, this allows for better comprehension, they are best learnt in contextual situation (Crystal, 2008:153). What this means is that the words should be identified and researched as they are found rather than noted and investigated later on. The context of the word is very important as it gives determination to the meaning of the word. The associations between word assist with their comprehension such as antonyms, hyponymy (inclusion), synonymy, collocation (specific association), semantic fields (Crystal, 2008:154).

            The most frequent case is a difficult word in amongst words which are reasonably familiar; however this is not always the case. Clusters result in variability of comprehension, resulting in patches of difficulty (Crystal, 2008:165). These patches of difficulty can cause issues for the reader in the comprehension of the passage. However the context of the words is important and the further surrounding words can help with comprehension. It is important to read the entirety of speech/passage before worrying about difficulty in part of it (Crystal, 2008:177). The entire passage can give some direction toward the meaning of the individual words. This is a perfect example of the use of context in order to achieve comprehension. In some instances the same word will come up again and again. This can be most useful as it allows for the reading of a word in a different circumstance and thus allowing for a better understanding of the word. Words which are repeated ensure meaning established and demonstrated to be apt usage (Crystal, 2008:168).

            The approach to learning the vocabulary and indeed the language of a different period needs to be approached in the same manner as a foreign language. This needs to be methodical in process and needs to appreciate the origins of the overall text and also the individual words. The context must be used and accounted for as it is often the greatest tool the researcher will have in order to determine the meaning of words.

New Words

            New words are the way in which vocabulary expands and becomes more comprehensive. There are also cases, however in which old words are given new life and new meaning in order to fill a gap. New words are important but also old ones were given new use and meaning in change (Crystal, 2008:164). This allows the vocabulary of the language to expand in new directions. In the case of the Elizabethan vocabulary these new words combined with the old words resulted in a many and varied vocabulary.

“An influx of foreign words and a habit of creating new English words out of foreign elements made the early modern vernacular lexicon a ‘hotch-potch’ of native and alien forms.” (Mugglestone, 2006:212)

            The Elizabethan period is really located at the highest point of this influx of new words and this was only increased by writers such as Shakespeare. The expansion in the vocabulary was massive and while much of the study is focussed upon the introduction of new words, old words and those developed natively cannot be ignored.

            Words in the Elizabethan language were borrowed from other languages it is true but many were also developed at home. Words also formed in English through affixation, compounding and conversion, probably more words by these methods than borrowed (Barber, 2000:182). The formation of words through these methods will be discussed in some detail further along in the discussion. These words were developed in order to meet the challenge of an ever-changing language.

            This method of word formation was actually the dominant way in which words were introduced into the language. It is true that many foreign words were also borrowed an added to the language where native words could not fill the gaps, however this process was not totally accepted by all, based on the transparency of meaning of the native words over the borrowed ones.

“many writers and translators in the sixteenth century were against excessive foreign borrowing and promoted native means of word-formation as the basis for creating new terminology.” (Nevalainen, 2006:59)

            Shakespeare is considered by many as one of the most influential writers of his time, indeed even across the history of the English language. Shakespeare had a talent for using the language at his time in order to express what he needed and thus he was able to manipulate the language as he saw fit. “Like the English language in which he revelled, Shakespeare was a literary magpie,” (McCrum, 2010:76). He would pick and choose words from the language and use them as he felt they would fit into what he was writing at the time. Along with this ability he is credited with the invention of about 2,000 words, he did not necessarily invent them but was the first to record them (Crystal, 2010:42). The influence of Shakespeare is undeniable not only across his own period but also across the language and into the modern period.

The words Shakespeare recorded or invented, it does not really matter, filled holes for words which were not present in the language at the time and some are less obvious than others (Crystal, 2008:161). These new words were not only the work of Shakespeare but also others as well. The fact that about 10% can be credited to him in some form makes him the most prolific.

New meanings were attached to the new words and then they were merely slotted into the existing semantic network (Crystal, 2008:163). In this way the new blended in with the old giving the vocabulary of the language more room to move and the ability to express things it could not before. The coinages themselves reveal patterns of literacy or dramatic interest (Crystal, 2008:171) and thus the ability to follow the development of the language and even how the words themselves were formed as word formation is significant in the understanding of how the vocabulary was formed.

Word Formation

            Word formation is one of the most significant ways in which words are added to a vocabulary. Even in our modern language the process of word formation still introduces new words to the vocabulary, and for the Elizabethans the process was much the same. “Early Modern English is modern as fixed base forms are used in all word-formation processes.” (Nevalainen, 2006:60). This means that there were fixed base forms of words and then additions were made to these words in order to create new words. However for the Elizabethans the strict controls on these formations were relaxed allowing for different words to be created.

“It is often assumed that an established word blocks the derivation from the same base of another word with the same meaning. In Early Modern English this strict economy principle was often relaxed. Synonymous operations were applied to one and the same base quite freely.” (Nevalainen, 2006:60)

            What this means is that words were developed side-by-side with the same base form resulting in the different meaning, or even with a different base resulting in the same meaning. This meant that there were words which meant the same even though the original word was different in its base form. This process allowed for the expansion of the vocabulary at a huge rate, and the process was not restricted to native words.

“In principle, word-formation does not make a basic distinction between loan words and native vocabulary in Early Modern English. Both provide material for compounding, affixation and conversion.” (Nevalainen, 2006:70)

            Compound words are those which are formed by the attachment of one word to another resulting in a new word. This process is referred to as compounding. The compound word becomes a new word in and of itself. “Compound words behave like non-compounds in that they have a form and a meaning of their own.” (Nevalainen, 2006:60). These compound words could be formed of words which have different parts of speech depending on what was required by the writer at the time. Not only were there compound adjectives using a noun and an adjective, but also compound verbs consisting of a particle and a verb often with a variable meaning, either concrete or abstract, depending on the result (Nevalainen, 2006:61). This process is simply taking a word and attaching it to another, a simpler process, used in the language and in the modern is the use of prefixes and suffixes.

 “As new loan words were integrated into Early Modern English, prefixes and suffixes adopted from foreign sources came to be applied to older loan words and ultimately to the native word-stock as well. It took some time before the affixes derived from loan words established themselves. Many of them continued to be associated with borrowed lexis.” (Nevalainen, 2006:61)

            Prefixes and suffixes can alter the meaning of a word and allow the development of new words, especially where multiple additions are used. These additions need not necessarily come from the native language, as indicated above, but can be derived from other languages resulting in words different from their originals.

The process of conversion was one which Shakespeare used quite often it takes place where a words is changed from one part of speech to another, e.g. noun to verb in “lump”, and adjective to verb in “dirty” (Nevalainen, 2006:64). These conversions were a common form of word formation in the Elizabethan period. This is a simple change in the use of the word rather than a change in the word itself, making the process different and in some ways easier than other word formation processes.

New Concepts

            The Renaissance period revived much of the learning which was lost to the western world over the early medieval period. This encouraged learning and investigation into many different fields of endeavour. One thing that had to happen in order for this to be truly achieved was for the language to also catch up with the latest concepts. The solution to this problem was to increase the vocabulary.

“When new concepts need to be named, borrowing and word-formation are not the only solutions – an existing word can also undergo a change of meaning.” (Nevalainen, 2006:65)

            Old words were also used to explain new concepts through a change of meaning in the word. These changes in the words allowed the vocabulary to be expanded to include new concepts. These changes in meaning were widespread and connected not only to scientific advancements but also other aspects of the culture. “Early Modern English semantic changes can often be related to the social and cultural developments of the time.” (Nevalainen, 2006:65). These changes in meaning in the words is one of the reasons why the modern reader may have issues with reading and understanding what an author is discussing as the word written may not have the same meaning now as it did when it was written. In order to achieve understanding the reader needs to appreciate the context and understand what the author is indicating.

“Meaning generalisations also took place with many specialist terms in Early Modern English,” e.g. “humour” being physiological, disposition and modern understanding of amusement dependent on context (Nevalainen, 2006:66)

Loan Words 

“The focus of interest was vocabulary. There were no words in the language to talk accurately about the new concepts, techniques, and inventions which were coming from Europe, and so writers began to borrow them. Most of the words which entered the language at the time were taken from Latin, with a good number from Greek, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.” (Crystal, 2003:60)

            Loan words were used to fill in those gaps where native development could not, or it was felt that the native words did not adequately fill the role required. Much of the foreign words and their introduction was also as a result of the general feeling, especially of the upper classes, that foreign was more refined, expressed in the requirement of travel for education. This feeling of superiority also resulted in a dual purpose for the introduction of new words.

“two different motives for the loans: a utilitarian one (‘necessity’), because the language needs new words to say new things; and ‘mere brauerie’, which means ‘sheer ostentation’.” (Barber, 2000:179)

            The use of a foreign word instead of a native one was thought to demonstrate some sort of education on the part of the user of the word, and there were those who supported this idea. For the most part they were thinking of the increase in the vocabulary of the language rather than for other purposes, but this did not prevent the other from being the case. New words were designed to allow people to express new concepts and ideas and were this required to expand the vocabulary.

“Some writers, such as Thomas Elyot, went out of their way to find new words, in order (as they saw it) to ‘enrich’ the language. They saw their role as enabling the new learning to be brought within the reach of the English public” (Crystal, 2003:60)

            As with the introduction of anything new to an established system, there were those who would resist the changes which were taking place. In some cases it was thought that the language was already robust enough to handle the new ideas and that the new words from other places were not required, “the influx of foreign vocabulary attracted bitter criticism, and people leaped to the language’s defence.” (Crystal, 2003:60). This resistance was small and felt that the invasion of foreign words would damage the language, but as with most things the new would take over the old.

“The increase in foreign borrowings is the most distinctive linguistic sign of the Renaissance in English. Purist opinion did not, in the event, stem the influx of new words – nor has it ever,” (Crystal, 2003:60)

            Latin is one of the root-languages of English and it is of little surprise that in the search for new words to explain concepts Latin would be a source for words to explain these new ideas. But Latin had a more lasting effect than the simple introduction of new words to the language. “Not only did Latin influence bring in new words; it also caused existing words to be reshaped in accordance with their real or supposed Latin etymology.” (Barber, 2000:180). Thus the language was in some cases brought back to its roots and these roots used to influence the new vocabulary and thus the language.

            What is interesting is that many words from Latin already present from earlier (Barber, 2000:178). This is a result of the monastic domination of the language previously and their attachment to Latin through religious teachings and through the Bible, being printed in Latin. However this adoption of Latin into the English language was not universal or with particular emphasis on accuracy, as some words given Latin endings others had endings omitted (Barber, 2000:179). Thus the words were manipulated to suit what was required at the time by the author. The dominance of Latin in loan words is not to say that others were not present, indeed they were and these can even be seen in the present. Latin was the main source of loan-words but certainly not the only one, words borrowed from French, Italian, Spanish and Dutch (Barber, 2000:181).

            An example of the use of two languages resulting in one word is colonel. It is from the French coronelle adopted from Italian colonello – mid-sixteenth century spelled with “r” but Italian spelling and pronunciation challenges it, for a time both were used however the final word has French pronunciation and Italian spelling (Bryson, 2009:113). Thus a single word is affected by two languages simultaneously, one for spelling and the other for pronunciation. This is a prime example of the manipulation of the language in order to suit what was required. Of course this attitude toward the language also led to some problems as well.

“The fundamental problem with neologisms was that, even granting their utility, they remained hard to interpret. … the use of ‘inkhorn’ terms … depended on knowledge of the very language they were designed to translate and supersede.” (Mugglestone, 2006:222)

            “Ink-horn” terms are those which are manipulated by the author to suit what the author required at the time from the language. Often these were so twisted that they defeated their own purpose and actually led to more misunderstanding. The term “ink-horn” comes from the idea of inserting something where it really does not belong, “inkhorn terms” were words added but not needed, used in order to seem more important, often rebelled against (Barber, 2000:180).

These new words were a problem of the language at the time as writers struggled both to express new ideas but also to do so in such a way that their use of the language would attract attention to their skills. As can be expected these new terms people argued strongly against their use, indeed as were the use of words of the old language which were used but had lost their original meaning, ‘inkhorn’ and archaism examples of extremity and departure from accustomed English (Mugglestone, 2006:229).

Old Words

            One of the alternatives, as already indicated above was the use of archaisms, or old words. These words were taken from previous forms of the language in order to fill in some holes present in the language. This was an attempt to solve the problems of the present with information from the past and with native language.

“By the sixteenth century, old words, generally culled from Chaucer and other Middle English writers, were often set forward as native alternatives to foreign borrowings and inkhorn languages as resources for enriching the language.” (Mugglestone, 2006:228)

            While these words were native as compared to the inkhorn and foreign introduction words that were being used and seen as an alternative. However, as has already been expressed old words not universally supported due to being “too distant and removed” for contemporary (Mugglestone, 2006:229). These words had been used previously and can be seen by the modern reader reading from a previous era, the language and meaning changes, thus the old words were seen as less useful and too confusing to be useful by many, especially to express new concepts.

New Words and Survival

            New words were not guaranteed their survival just because they were new. The survival of a word was dependent on its acceptance and therefore its usage. It was not enough to invent a word, but it had to become common in usage. Of course even in such a process there was room for abuse, in much the same way as a child with a new toy. New terms were used to impress, baffle and for exploration of the language, and sometimes all of the above (Gooden, 2009:75). The same can be seen in the modern language with the latest catch phrases, often used by the media.

            The invention of such new words was meant to fill in the gaps in the vocabulary where another word was not present. However, in many cases some words were created even where synonyms already present (Gooden, 2009:76). This was even the case where a new word had been created to fill in a gap in the language and then another is created for the same purpose and to fill the same gap in the language.

The survival and use of words was more instinctive than deliberate and without obvious logic (Gooden, 2009:76). Some words came to exist and be used and thus accepted into the language and others did not and without any real logical reason behind them. It could be attributed to the creator of the word and who used it but details for this are rather thin and thus the reader is left with the same absence of reason. There are many examples of words which did not survive into the modern language, cohabit [restrain], deruncinate [weed], eximious [excellent], illecebrous [delicate], suppeditate [supply], demit [send away] (Crystal, 2003:61), in the terms of the language of the time and a perfect example of the use of one of these words, these words were deruncinated from the language.

Conclusion

The vocabulary of a language determines what sort of things that the language can express. A limited vocabulary limits the things which the language can express and with new concepts being introduced to the Elizabethans, new words had to be found to express these new concepts, thus there was a requirement for the vocabulary to expand. The result of this expansion was that the Elizabethan period saw a huge expansion in the vocabulary of the English language. Understanding this expansion and the vocabulary which resulted is essential to understanding the language.

The first part of the process of examining the vocabulary of Elizabethan English was to examine the words and attempt to isolate them into different types based on the difficulty in comparison to the modern language. This resulted in three types of words, easy, different and difficult. These are very flexible in their determination as to which category a word fits into in some instances. The vocabulary then is learnt like any other language and is a process which needs to be attended to in a systematic manner in order for the reader to gain a real understanding of the language.

In examining the vocabulary, it is the new words which are the most significant as they describe the change in the language in the period. In this process it is useful to examine how the words are formed, both from the original language and also as a result of the introduction of foreign words. Both sets of words need to be looked at as often words from the native language would be combined with those of foreign and vice versa.

The new words were designed to deal with the new concepts which the language in its original form was not ready to deal with or simply did not have the words to do so. In this process there are three roots from which the new words came. The first was as a result of word formation using the language as it was. The second was using words borrowed from foreign languages and the third was using words taken from an older form of the language in order to fill the gaps. Each of the three processes had their successes and failures. Regardless of the objections to a particular process of word formation, or its origin, each had their part to play and each gave the language words in order to express new concepts which were being introduced.

The survival of a new word was not guaranteed and, for the most part, dependent on the acceptance and thus use of the word. This acceptance was of a more instinctive nature rather than based on any particular plan. For the most part it could be claimed that the acceptance of one word over another was based on how the word fitted into the language. These new words were like new toys, bandied about and used by authors and orators alike in order for them to seem more educated. The interesting thing in this process was that words were created where they were not even needed just because they were new.

Regardless of the rhyme or reason for the creation of the words, the result was a richer, though occasionally more difficult language with the ability to express new concepts as they arose. Understanding the vocabulary of a language is part of the struggle in order to understand the language as a whole. The words found in the Elizabethan language are sometimes the same as the modern language but also are sometimes very different and the researcher needs to understand that both types exist and that the language needs to be understood for what it was understand it completely.

Bibliography

Barber, C. (2000) The English Language: A Historical Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Bryson, B. (2009) Mother Tongue: The Story of the English Language, Penguin Books Ltd, London, UK

Crystal, D. (2003) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2^nd ed), Cambridge University Press, New York, USA

Crystal, D. (2008) ‘Think on my Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Crystal, D. (2010) Evolving English: One Language, Many Voices, The British Library, London, UK

Crystal, D. and Crystal, B. (2002) Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary and Language Companion, Penguin Books, London, UK

Gooden, P. (2009) The Story of English: How the English Language Conquered the World, Quercus Publishing Plc, London, UK

Lass, R. (ed.)(1999) The Cambridge History of the English Language: Volume III: 1476 – 1776, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

McCrum, R. (2010) Globish: How the English Language Became the World’s Language, Penguin Group (Australia), Camberwell, Australia

Mugglestone, L. (ed) (2006) The Oxford History of English, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

Nevalainen, T. (2006) An Introduction to Early Modern English, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland

Smith, J. (2005) Essentials of Early English, Routledge, New York, USA