site banner
KulakRevolt  1yr ago (anarchonomicon.substack.com)   3384 thread views

Crowned Masterpieces of Eloquence: We used to be a Civilization

anarchonomicon.substack.com

A piece I wrote on one of the most fascinating and incredible thriftstore finds I've ever stumbled upon.

The Edwardians and Victorians were not like us, they believed in a nobility of their political class that's almost impossible to understand or relate to, and that believe, that attribution of nobility is tied up with something even more mysterious: their belief in the fundamental nobility of rhetoric.

Still not sure entirely how I feel about this, or how sure I am of my conclusions but this has had me spellbound in fascination and so I wrote about it.

31
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Except it's not the same language, because when he says "take each man's censure" it means something totally different. I'd have a better chance at understanding "Oute of Oryent, I hardyly saye/Ne proved I never her precios pere.".

The heritage you want to pass on, of reading original Shakespeare and understanding everything he wrote, has been gone for hundreds of years.

the greatest author not just in English but in any language.

I don't think this is a widely held view, except perhaps among those who only speak English.

The heritage you want to pass on, of reading original Shakespeare and understanding everything he wrote, has been gone for hundreds of years.

It seems to have been alive and well in American culture until quite recently.

As far as Shakespeare being the greatest author of all time, I think he certainly makes everyone's shortlist regardless of where they're from. I would certainly rank him above the top writers in the other major European languages (Cervantes for Spanish, Goethe for German, etc.), but I can't speak to the best of the other major literary traditions except that Du Fu probably gives him a run for his money.

Soundbites and references to Shakespeare have been alive and well and in fact continue to be alive and well.

Garber also discusses the role Shakespearean rhetoric has played in American political culture since the founding. Quotes from Shakespeare have always been ubiquitous in American politics. They were used in the earliest days of the American republic. They are used with equal frequency today.

As for actually understanding everything that he wrote beyond the soundbites that remain comprehensible in The Year of Our Lord 2023, you cannot do that today without studying English as Shakespeare spoke it.

There's certainly a place for historical linguistics in our understanding of literature, but if you mean that the educated, literate reader of English needs to take a full course on Early Modern English to understand Shakespeare in the original, rather than simply referring to the footnotes that accompany any modern edition of his plays at moments of confusion, then I disagree. I will however allow that by my standards very few American English-speakers post-1960 count as being educated.

Moreover, it is entirely possible for individual works in archaic language to be understood even when anything else written in that stage of the language would not, so long as those works are continually read and reread, commented on, and taught by succeeding generations. I don't think it's fair to say that modern Christians reading the King James Bible don't understand its meaning if they don't know how to conjugate for thou or that Chinese people don't understand Tang Dynasty poetry because they are reading the characters using modern pronunciation where they no longer rhyme. The most extreme example of this is Hebrew, which was able to be revived as a spoken language solely because of an unbroken chain of literary transmission in the form of preserved religious texts.

If you're reading Shakespeare with footnotes, then the conversation is totally moot - I could read Chinese if you supply the proper footnotes.

I don't think it's fair to say that modern Christians reading the King James Bible don't understand its meaning

I guarantee you that there are parts of the KJV that people do not understand correctly (see the "censure" example above). "Thou" (which is not a verb and doesn't conjugate) has nothing to do with it. Words simply do not mean what they used to.

The most extreme example of this is Hebrew, which was able to be revived as a spoken language solely because of an unbroken chain of literary transmission in the form of preserved religious texts.

That's because people would literally learn Hebrew as a foreign language to understand the Torah. Yiddish speakers didn't just read every other word and fill in the gaps with the footnotes. There are no footnotes. This is exactly the opposite of the approach you are talking about with Shakespeare.

While Shakespeare didn't include footnotes, he also was writing plays, not novels -- moderns will have no problem understand what is going on most of the time watching a competent performance, despite the original language.

I do not believe that moderns will understand that "censure" means something totally different, no matter how competent the actors are.

How relevant is that really to the scene though? And how relevant to the wholeness of the play? Can you still appreciate marvel movies if you don't recognize Stan Lee in his cameos, or know every reference to the comic books?

It totally changes the meaning of the dialogue. It's also just one example. Yes, you can read Shakespeare for the vibes, and even enjoy and appreciate it, but then you should have no illusion that you are actually understanding what he wrote - and in that case, there's no need to worry about future generations not understanding Shakespeare because you also don't understand him.

I'm not even talking about understanding all the allusions and references that Shakespeare wrote into his plays, so your marvel movie point is unrelated. I am strictly talking about understanding the literal meaning of the words he wrote, which is the lowest imaginable bar for any discussion of how we can "still read" Shakespeare.

Understanding what's going on overall when you see a play even if you don't understand all the dialogue is like a child who can barely read who can follow a story thanks to the pictures. For some reason, this opinion only comes out for Shakespeare. Nobody thinks that "I think I understand most of the words" is any kind of literacy in any other situation.

I didn't read all that, but if your claim is that it doesn't matter what the actual meaning is and just vibes are enough, good news - there is no ability to understand Shakespeare that we can lose, because we don't actually care about understanding him.

Did you deliberately do the exact thing you are bemoaning for the irony? Your post doesn't read as irony, but it feels too rich to be accidental, it's a 200 word post.

I'm not bemoaning anything. Doesn't really matter to me if people actually understand Shakespeare or just read him for the vibes (and this guy is no Shakespeare).

The post I responded to was deliberately overwrought purple prose and was certainly not speaking clearly.

I'm flattered that you initially responded with a brief insult, thought better of it and blocked me, then couldn't stop thinking about me for two days so you unblocked me and came back with this long insult.

Perhaps one day you will learn that brevity is the soul of wit.

People are able to know what words mean by looking at the words around them. This is how people learn new words.

It is doubtful that a reader would learn that "censure" had the additional meaning of "to judge" from reading this.

He probably meant it to mean both.

And modern audiences won't pick up on this because they only know one meaning.

What he is actually saying means nothing in this scene.

Agree to disagree that the words Shakespeare chose have no significance.

I'm flattered that you initially responded with a brief insult, thought better of it and blocked me, then couldn't stop thinking about me for two days so you unblocked me and came back with this long insult.

The OP has already been banned (and apparently deleted all his posts). There is no need to continue this interpersonal bickering.

Fwiw, the post was still up when I responded, and I didn't see that he had been banned.

I'll respond to you with a lot of simple words, then, to meet you at your reading level.

This post reads like someone who is more interested in getting as many condescending digs in as possible, buried in a lot of words, than someone actually interested in the discussion. This post and this one are both you trying to call the other poster stupid as many different ways as you think you can slip by the mods.

My reading level may not be at your lofty level, but I can still see what you're doing.

Keep posting like this, and next time I won't bother letting your posts out of the new user filter. In the meantime, banned for three days for antagonism.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats