This November, University of Kansas theater professor Paul Meier will be staging the first US production of a Shakespeare play spoken in the original pronunciation. This is not only a first for the United States, but it’s an extremely rare event worldwide. There have only been 3 other productions of original pronunciation (OP) Shakespeare before this one, 2 at The Globe theater in London, and 1 at Cambridge in the 1950s.
Monday, October 25, 2010
First US performance of Shakespeare in the original pronunciation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUm... I somehow posted a comment here meant for my blog.
ReplyDeleteWe men can multi-task too, you see. only not successfully or smultaneously....
here's the comment for you Shakespearian post.
II'll be in Shakespeare's old town, Stratford on Avon in a couple of weeks....
"Interesting, to see that to get shakespeare's authentic tone you simply need to put on an unconvincing american approximation of an irish accent.
Seriously, rhymes or no rhymes, I'd doubt very much that Shakespeare would recognise this any more than I do.
And it's worth remembering that even now, in our age of global media, when we hear voices from all over the world, accent, tone, dialect change in the distance of so little as half a mile, in London alone.
Fewer than a hundred years previously, William Caxton had written about the mutability of language in his own lifetime, and had related a story, as an example, of a ship sailing out of London,toward Zeeland (Holland), which, some few miles to the east, put in to the kent shore of the thames. The londoners aboard tried to buy fresh supplies from a farm. The woman there could not understand them, shaking her head as they asked to buy eggs, "I don't speak French"
Because, to her, their language was not english, despite the fact that they had come from not more than thirty miles away.
"And that comyn Englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from a nother. In so moche that in my dayes happened that certayn marchauntes were in a shippe in Tamyse, for to haue sayled ouer the see into Zelande. And for lacke of wynde, thei taryed atte forlond, and wente to lande for to refreshe them; And one of theym named Sheffelde, a mercer, cam in-to an hows and axed for mete; and specyally he axyd after eggys; And the goode wyf answerde, that she coude spoke no Frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry, for he also coude speke no Frenshe, but wolde haue hadde egges, and she vnderstode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she vnderstod hym wel. Loo, what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte, egges or eyren? Certaynly it is harde to playse euery man by cause of dyuersite & chaunge of langage."
I wonder how much diversity of tongue existed amongst Shakespeares players? The way he himself would speak in London would most likely be far different from speech in Stratford on Avon. People in Warwickshire speak very differently from people in Southwark, London in the present day, how much more pronounced would the differences have been then?
In short, I think the myth of "original prunuciation" is just that and no more.
Unless one day we can time-travel back to the Globe Theatre in Shakespeare's era, and record a performance, then we'll never know the "o p"."
And that comyn Englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from a nother. In so moche that in my dayes happened that certayn marchauntes were in a shippe in Tamyse, for to haue sayled ouer the see into Zelande. And for lacke of wynde, thei taryed atte forlond, and wente to lande for to refreshe them; And one of theym named Sheffelde, a mercer, cam in-to an hows and axed for mete; and specyally he axyd after eggys; And the goode wyf answerde, that she coude spoke no Frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry, for he also coude speke no Frenshe, but wolde haue hadde egges, and she vnderstode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she vnderstod hym wel. Loo, what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte, egges or eyren? Certaynly it is harde to playse euery man by cause of dyuersite & chaunge of langage."
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much diversity of tongue existed amongst Shakespeares players? The way he himself would speak in London would most likely be far different from speech in Stratford on Avon. People in Warwickshire speak very differently from people in Southwark, London in the present day, how much more pronounced would the differences have been then?
In short, I think the myth of "original prunuciation" is just that and no more.
Unless one day we can time-travel back to the Globe Theatre in Shakespeare's era, and record a performance, then we'll never know the "o p".
I agree. England is an itty bitty country but the pronunciation of the language varies widely, even within the city of London. I don't know what I was expecting, probably something a lot more unintelligible.
ReplyDeleteIn London? That can be pretty unintelligible.
ReplyDeleteOr the Shakespeare?
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, as they say.
I'm sure it's well meant, but i really don't think there's any way to know what Shakespeare's plays really sounded like in the original iterations.
In fact, as we've actually not got even such a thing as an original manuscript, even the prose is questionable, the folios were assembled after the act.
I wonder, what were the lost plays?
I've heard it said that some linguistic scholars agree that the closest we can get to the sound of shakespear's england is inthe dialects spoken on the islands of Carolina's outer banks.
However, not just english, london shakespearian english, but also scots, and irish settled there, and welsh, and folk from the mainland.... So the current speech is certainly not what it would be at the time of the early settlements.