Speaking Shakespeare: Complexities And Complicities In Controlling Community Through Conversation

Speaking Shakespeare: Complexities and Complicities in Controlling Community through Conversation

The Oxford English Dictionary contains two over-arching results defining the noun “conversation”: “the action of living or having one`s being in a place or among persons”, the relation of one person to others – now obsolete and the “interchange of thoughts and words familiar discourse or talk”, which is the definition most widely used today (2017:Web).[1] The obsolete definition prevailed in the Early Modern period, with the current definition emerging. It is therefore unsurprising that across Shakespeare’s plays there are instances of community being policed by speech.[2] Such a combination of both definitions of “conversation” is palpable in Menenius’ complaint against Brutus and Sicinius: “When you speak best unto the purpose, it is not worth the wagging of your beards… More of your conversation would infect my brain, being the herdsmen of the beastly plebeians. I will be bold to take my leave of you” (Coriolanus, 2.1.85-95).[3] Menenius simultaneously scorns the men’s words and their company, with his disdain for the former (reduced to “the wagging of your beards”) culminating in his need to “take my leave” of the latter. Menenius also distances himself from the men by categorising them as “herdsmen of the beastly plebeians”, separating himself from their community, the effect of whose company (if we read “conversation” in its obsolete sense) he equates to a sickness. This effect is more visceral than the current sense of “conversation” would offer – simply being in close proximity to Brutus and Sicinius, members of a lower social class, will make Menenius ill, rather than the metaphorical insult that hearing their words and processing them with his brain will pain it. Menenius is not simply insulting the two men he is actively alienating them from the community of the Roman ruling class, categorising them instead with the lower-class community of “plebeians”, and suggesting they must be ostracised fear of causing sickness. Because their ideals contradict those of the community of the Roman ruling class (with Brutus and Sicinius complaining about Coriolanus as politician, whereas Menenius supports him), their conversation as community must be abjured. Insulting instances of speech across Shakespeare’s plays repeatedly function in this vein, policing communities by reinforcing beliefs through conventions of speech.

The context for Menenius’ policing must be borne in mind in this discussion. The play opens with a rebellion by “mutinous citizens” against their treatment by the ruling class of patricians (stage direction, 1.1.1). The exchange between the men in act 2 scene 1 is therefore not a hypothetical discussion of Coriolanus’ leadership qualities, but a topical response to a disruption of social order. Megan Inbody’s comment is applicable here, that “the gossip community… functions in … privately effecting justice for transgressions that disrupt domestic function” (2012:3). Act 1 scene 1 of Coriolanus shows a public effecting of justice by the same methods. The opening lines are an incitement to arms, a performative speech act by anonymous “1 citizen” who is spokesperson for the angry crowd, but this incitement is based upon gossip – “you know Caius Martius is chief enemy to the people” (1.1.7) “let us kill him and we’ll have corn at our own price” (1.1.10). Menenius disrupts the community’s attempt to effect justice by undermining its basis in conjecture – “either you must confess yourselves wondrous malicious, or be accus’d of folly” (1.1.86-88). To return to the OED’s definitions, here conversation as speech leads to conversation as community, with a performative act of speech uniting the plebeian rebels via shared gossip about Coriolanus’ faults. This conversation as community is temporarily disbanded by conversation as speech, in Menenius’ denouncement of the gossip’s basis. The pattern is proven to be cyclical, repeating in act 2 scene 1 – as discussed, Brutus and Sicinius’s conversation as speech leads to Menenius’ identification of their conversation as community, which he again denounces through his own conversation as speech. Clearly, there are opposing ideas as to disruption of domestic function (to use Inbody’s term) – Brutus and Sicinius believe the patricians to be disrupting domestic function in their ill treatment of the plebeians Menenius believes the plebeians to be disrupting the domestic function of the patricians in their rebellion.

Among other techniques, Shakespeare uses conversation (in both senses of the OED’s definitions) to garner sympathy for one belief over the other. Martha Ronk Lifson notes that in dialogue, “Renaissance thinkers saw the expression of… that which raised man above the beasts” (2007:97). For instance, Henry Peacham’s treatise on rhetoric, stating that it is in speaking “that we do so far . . . excell all other creatures, in that we haue the gifte of speech and reason, and not they” (Donawerth, 1984:20). It is interesting, then, that Menenius uses his own speech to declare the citizens “beastly plebeians” (2.1.94). The insult dehumanises an entire community, based upon Menenius’ opinion of the community’s representatives as “too infant like for doing much alone” (2.1.37-38). Such a high-handed slur by someone in a powerful position tends to present the less powerful recipient of the slur as more morally defensible.

There is a comic example of this in Love’s Labours Lost, with Shakespeare utilising an intentional lack of indexicality to complicate dialogue and elicit humour. “Indexicality”, as termed by Anthony J. Gilbert, is the meaning with which an utterance is endowed by its position in a larger exchange (1993:173). In act 4 of Love’s Labours Lost, Holofernes attempts to assert his dominance as a member of a higher social class than Dull by using language which displays his classical education however, the way in which this falls on Dull’s uneducated ears renders Holofernes’ speech as incapable of performing its intended social function. Holofernes composes “an extemporal epitaph” (Love’s Labours Lost, 4.2.51) in order to conclude an argument with Dull over what kind of deer the Princess killed – a male “pricket” or female “doe”. Ironically, it is precisely the exhibition of Holofernes’ understanding which creates the misunderstanding of the surrounding and immediate world, sparking an argumentative exchange. Shakespeare uses an aural wordplay which cannot work on paper, but lends itself to performance: Dull mishears Holofernes’ Latin “haud credo” (translating to “no confidence at all”, 4.2.13) as “auld grey doe” (4.2.14), seemingly personifying his namesake through lack of understanding of the conversation. Yet in the exchange which follows, Holofernes displays a much more pertinent lack of understanding. What he decries as Dull’s “barbarous imitation” (4.2.15) of the Latin is not a repeat of the same words in his own accent, but a misunderstanding of the words themselves, and a sincere attempt on Dull’s part to rectify what he believes to be the schoolmaster’s mistaken recognition of the deer. Whilst the overall effect of this is comic, it does point to a wider social criticism. The verbose attempt by Holofernes to assert his social standing as an educated man through his speech means that the basic purpose of language is lost – he is unable to communicate with Dull. Holofernes is revealed to be an expert who is less helpful than Dull’s expertise in the world around them. Interestingly, we again see a comparison of man to beast Nathaniel partakes in Holofernes’ laughable self-assertion, identifying himself as part of the community of classically learned men by segregating Dull out as “an animal, only sensible in the duller parts” (4.2.26). Nathaniel is complicit in the regulation of his self-identified community by the necessary exclusion of Dull from it, even as the audience recognises Dull’s greater wisdom in identifying the deer. Interestingly, Dull, too, is made complicit, declaring that “you two are bookmen”, and asking for Holofernes’ and Nathaniel’s advice on another matter. Yet despite Dull’s complicity, the audience recognises the policing of community through exclusionary conversation as originating from the more powerful class once again, as with Brutus and Sicinius, the audience’s sympathy lies with the slurred, as those who attempt to police community through conversation are revealed to be fallacious.

Roderick McKeown postulates that “to joke is not merely to entertain one’s partners in conversation it is to take control over the conversation…asserting dominance” (McKeown, 2016:38). The joke in Holofernes and Dull’s exchange does not have this effect, because the joke is crafted aurally by Shakespeare for the audience, rather than a verbal repartee between characters but an example which upholds McKeown’s assertion, yet functions similarly to the Holofernes/Dull exchange, is Much Ado About Nothing’s opening scene, with Beatrice and Benedick’s attempts to dominate each other in an exchange of wit. This conversation is written as spontaneous speech, with each utterance responding directly to that which precedes it. Interestingly, though, Beatrice’s contributions work to extend the conversation, whilst Benedick’s simply dictate it

Beatrice: I wonder that you will still be talking, Signor Benedick. Nobody marks you.

Benedick: What, my dear Lady Disdain! Are you yet living?

Beatrice: Is it possible disdain should die while she hath such meet food to feed it as Signor Benedick? Courtesy itself must convert to disdain if you come in her presence.

(1.1.111–118)

Whilst Beatrice is unashamedly outspoken, she “is in fact a very careful observer of decorum… pushing the boundaries of what is expected of polite speech, but seldom breaking them” (McKeown, 2016:49). This is marked in her recognition and adoption of Benedick’s personification of “disdain”, developing the conversation by using the same technique to introduce a new element – “courtesy”. The exchange ultimately ends in what Beatrice calls a “jade’s trick” (1.1.139) – Benedick’s simple declarative, “I have done” (1.1.138). This spurns the unwritten rules of conversational practice – particularly the courtly conversation expected of the community in which these characters belong as 16^th century nobles – by abjuring Beatrice’s conversation as community through ending the conversation as speech, without providing pre-closing signals. Such an aggressive assertion of dominance flouts the concept of turn taking by shutting down the conversation before attaining permission to do so from the other participant. Gilbert notes that “a sudden closing in an arbitrary way is offensive”, due to the way in which it shows the closer as valuing their choice of when to end more than that of their conversational partner (1993:181). Therefore whilst Benedick’s engagement in insulting conversation with Beatrice is matched by her own responses, his method of ending the conversation as speech is one which personally insults her place in the conversation as community – he is giving his speech more value than hers, ensuring that he has the final word and she is left ostensibly speechless, despite proving herself a worthy match for his wordplay and despite being the further match with Benedick as the child of a nobleman too.

Each discussed instance of insulting speech reveals Shakespeare’s manipulation of linguistic conversational practices among his characters, in order for them to police the communities partaking in the conversation (both OED definitions) by emphasising hierarchical structures of power. The implications of Beatrice and Benedick’s conversation suggests that women of their community are subordinated to the men within it the implication of Holofernes and Dull’s exchange is that the community of the educated exclude the community of the uneducated, often at their own expense and the implication of Menenius’ conversations with plebeian representatives is that whilst their communities harbour entirely opposing views, there is only one which seems moral, and it is not the prevailing one. The fascinating point here is that in the complexities of speech which are used to achieve compliance with community ideals, Shakespeare ultimately critiques the hierarchical structures which underpin these communities. There is seemingly no resolution to this critique rather, it is left implicit, a takeaway idea for the audience’s own reflection.

Bibliography

Gilbert, Anthony J., “Conversation analysis and the structure of Shakespeare`s dialogue”, Studia Neophilologica, 65 (1993), 169-185.

Inbody, Megan Marie, “Town/Gown Relations: The Forms And Functions Of Female Gossip Communities And Networks In Early Modern Comedy” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 2012).

McKeown, Roderick Hugh, ““I will stop your mouth”: the regulation of jesting in Much Ado About Nothing”, Shakespeare, 12 (2016), 33-54.

“conversation, n.”, OED Online (Oxford University Press, December 2016) [Accessed 10 January 2017].

Peacham, Henry, The Garden of Eloquence (1577), quoted by Jane Donawerth, Shakespeare and the Sixteenth-Century Study of Language (Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1984).

Ronk Lifson, Martha, “Learning by Talking: Conversation in As You Like It”, Shakespeare Survey: An Annual Survey of Shakespeare Studies and Production, 40 (1988), 91-106.

Shakespeare, William, The Arden Shakespeare Complete Works, Richard Proudfoot et al eds., (London: Bloomsbury, 2014).

[1] The obsolete definition broadly covers senses 1-6, and the current definition sense 7 onwards. I will specify throughout whether I am referring to conversation as speech, or conversation as community.

[2] I am indebted to John Gillies for sharing the outline of his upcoming talk at the Early Modern Cambridge Graduate Seminar (31^st January 2017) with me, as it focussed my introduction upon definitions of “conversation”.

[3] All Shakespeare quotes taken from Proudfoot et al eds., 2014.