Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Copeland
I’ve always wondered how Shakespeare’s plays were understood by their early audiences. His contemporaries naturally would have understood his language better than we do and would have gotten jokes and topical references that need annotating for us. But the language is often so complex and richly layered that I suspect they missed a lot, especially with spectators milling about, commenting on the action, booing at villains, chomping on applies and swilling ale. And I suspect the plays’ dramatic and poetic subtlety—their greatness—was recognized by scholars of a later time.
|
Maybe Shaun can comment.
On the other hand, I also wonder how the value of the spoken and written word has been devalued in the modern era. I've heard that in the 19th century, when our ability to produce books improved dramatically, the stature of poets rose quite a bit. At the time the written word would have been a major form of entertainment, without much competition.
When entertainment as a whole is scarce, and literature and drama make up a large part of what's available, I can envision a scenario where the complexity and richness of Shakespeare's works were valued
even more highly then than they are now.
These days we're so bombarded with information and stimuli that we might have become desensitized to language.
But this is really guesswork.