Medieval\u00a0and early modern authors often suggested a relationship between the external and the internal, frequently implying that a person\u2019s or character\u2019s physical appearance signified their internal disposition. Authors\/playwrights were particularly interested in the ways that negative qualities might be displayed on the body (perhaps most famously Othello\u2019s race or Richard III\u2019s deformity). Similarly, Tudor playwright Richard Edwards suggested that language might function as an external marker of a character\u2019s \u201cnature.\u201d In his prologue to Damon and Pithias<\/em> (1571), he noted that an author must \u201cframe eche person so, \/ That by his common talke, you may his nature rightly know\u201d (15-16). Of course, many of the earliest English playwrights manipulated regional dialects as markers of difference on the stage.\u00a0 Medieval morality plays, for example, \u201cused it for a variety of purposes. In the moralities it [dialect] tended to be used for the wicked characters who were often portrayed as grotesque and hence as comic\u201d (Blake\u00a0Non-Standard<\/em> 73). Dialects associated with the southwestern regions of England were stigmatized in the earliest plays, but this regionalization had shifted to representations suggestive of northern dialects by the end of the sixteenth century (Non-Standard<\/em> 76-77). However, stage dialects are notoriously difficult to localize, and as Paula Blank suggests, \u201cRenaissance authors were not primarily concerned with verisimilitude, but rather with making difference\u201d (167); what mattered, then, was not the linguistic accuracy of the \u201ccommon\u201d speech, but rather the creation of an aural and linguistic Other.<\/span><\/p>\n We know that Shakespeare could do dialect. Henry V<\/em>, for example, exhibits Shakespeare\u2019s skill at portraying French, Welsh, and Scottish dialects, but in Macbeth<\/em>, a play acutely dependent upon the image and people of Scotland, we do not find, even in the lowliest of characters, any portrayal of a Scottish dialect. Attributing the absence to King James\u2019 own dialect, ancestral ties to the character of Banquo, and desire to represent his reign as a unification of Scotland and England,\u00a0 Christopher Highley demonstrates convincingly that \u201cShakespeare had little choice but to shun the use of extensive Scots in Macbeth<\/em>\u201d (57). Indeed, stigmatizing the Scottish dialect had been politically dangerous for other playwrights and acting companies. Ben Jonson and George Chapman, for example, were jailed after their portrayal of the Scotsman in Eastward Ho<\/em>! offended Sir John Murray in 1605, and, according to\u00a0 Sir Edward Hoby, after a 1606 Blackfriars\u2019 performance of The Isle of Gulls<\/em> which included disparaging representations of Scottish speakers, \u201csundry [men] were committed to Bridewell\u201d (qtd. in Highley 56). Highley concludes that there is no representation of linguistic difference in Macbeth<\/em> and that the portrayal of Scotsmen works to fulfill a \u201cunionist fantasy\u201d (57) while simultaneously suggesting that those differences can never be fully contained, as demonstrated by the \u201cstubbled\u201d and \u201cstammering\u201d (62) speech of the witches.<\/span><\/p>\n Although there is no overt use of dialect in the play, I would like to suggest that we do find linguistic difference in Macbeth<\/em>, but that rather than turning to the tired, trite and (perhaps) criminal uses of dialectic difference to portray a character\u2019s morality or vice, Shakespeare instead relies on a far more sophisticated portrayal of linguistic difference in this play: the juxtaposition of Latinate\/Old French and Germanic\/Old English lexicons. Consider, for example, Banquo\u2019s and Lady Macbeth\u2019s opening words upon Duncan\u2019s arrival Inverness in the below selection where terms of Old English or Germanic origins are indicated with bold font and terms of Old French\/Anglo Norman or Latinate origins are indicated by italic font:<\/span><\/p>\n BANQUO:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This<\/strong> guest of<\/strong> summer<\/strong>,<\/span> Each passage marks the first time that either character has any significant interaction with Duncan after hearing (or hearing of) the witches\u2019 prophesies. Lady Macbeth has already unveiled her tyrannous plans; Banquo\u2019s reaction has been demonstrably more measured. The juxtaposition of these two characters\u2019 responses is, I believe, reflected in their use of language. As the contrasts between bold and italic fonts in the passage shows, Banquo\u2019s description relies more heavily on complex Latinate vocabulary, designed to elevate his status and to mark him as somehow more noble or kingly; while, Lady Macbeth\u2019s lexicon is more predominantly based on terms of Old English or Germanic origins which distance her from and mark her as an unsuitable heir to the throne. More specifically, 30% of Banquo\u2019s terms are derived from Latinate roots, compared to only 20% in Lady Macbeth\u2019s speech. In addition, Banquo\u2019s Latinate terms are grouped together more densely; every line (except the first) has at least two\u2014and as many as four\u2014Latinate derivatives, while Lady Macbeth\u2019s Latinate terms are far more sporadic, often occurring only once in a line.<\/span><\/p>\n The relationship between English and its Latin-derived, continental contemporaries is a long and complicated one. Historically, those languages we now call classical were held in the highest regard. Indeed, as Albert Baugh and Thomas Cable note, during the early Middle Ages, \u201cthe vulgar tongues seemed immature, unpolished, and limited in resource. It was felt that they could not express the abstract ideas and the range of thought embodied in the ancient languages\u201d (199). However, the later Middle Ages saw a number of linguistic campaigns spreading across much of the Western world, asserting the excellence of vernacular languages for literary and official use.\u00a0 In England, the vernacular was not only in competition with the Latinate authority of the Church and classical literature, but also with the French authority of the aristocracy. Following the social and political upheaval of the 11th<\/sup> century, French became the language of prestige and power in England (Kibbee 27-28), serving, as Norman Blake has argued, two functions: \u201cin one form as a language of bureaucracy, and in its other form as a language of literary excellence\u201d (A History <\/em>133). Although a 1362 statute required the use of English in all courts of law, records indicate that both Latin and French maintained a strong hold on all court proceedings throughout the 14th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 John H. Fisher has documented the move in English parliamentary documents from French (and Latin) to English in the mid-15th<\/sup> century, citing only six petitions written in English in 1422, compared with 35 in French and 5 in Latin.\u00a0 Two decades later, English far outstrips both French and Latin; in 1444, there were 34 petitions in the native language but only 8 in French and 9 in Latin (880 n. 37). Despite the adoption of English as the language of Parliament in the 14th<\/sup> century and its relative dominance toward the end of the 15th<\/sup> century, English scholars and authors still struggled to assert the validity and eloquence of their language more than a century later.<\/span><\/p>\n Debates about the primacy of English and anxieties about its reception in the 16th<\/sup> century clearly show that languages of Latinate pedigree were still often perceived to be superior to English. George Pettie, for example, criticizes a public preference for Latinate languages in his translation of Steven Guazzo\u2019s The Ciuile Conuersation<\/em> (1581) and complains: \u201cThere are some others yet who wyll set lyght by my labours, because I write in Englysh: and those are some nice Trauaylours, who return home with such qu\u00e6sie stomackes, that nothyng wyll downe with them but Frenche<\/em>, Italian<\/em>, or Spanishe\u2026\u201d<\/em> (iir). George Puttenham strives to demonstrate in 1589 that \u201cour language [is] no less copious pithie and significatiue than theirs\u201d (3) and Richard Carew is still fighting the same battle in 1614 when he sets out to \u201cprooue that our English language, for all, or for most, is matchable, if not preferable, before any other in use at this day\u201d (37).\u00a0 The charges against the English language of greatest significance to this study are of its brutishness. Richard Mulcaster desires in 1582, for example, to elevate English through education, \u201cwhereby we our selues also shall seme not to be barbarous<\/em>, eue by mean of our tung, seeing fair speche is som parcell of praise, and a great argument of a well ciuilled peple\u201d (50, emphasis mine). Pettie, too, concedes the poor standard in which English was held, suggesting that some readers disdain works in their own language \u201cFor they count it barren, they count it barbarous<\/em>, they count it unworthy to be accounted of\u201d (iiv, emphasis mine). The problem, then, is not simply that English was out of fashion or that there was a preference for the languages of the continent, but that the use of English suggests a debasement, a lack of civility, a kind of barbarism<\/em>.1<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n I do not mean to suggest here that Shakespeare felt his language to be barbarous. Indeed we see quite the opposite, for example, in Henry V<\/em>\u2019s \u201c\u2018Englishing\u2019 of Katherine\u2019s body\u2026in which the princess translates her own body, part by part, into the language of her conqueror\u201d (Blank 166), or more generally in the second tetralogy where, as David Steinsaltz\u2019s claims, Shakespeare \u201cre-imagined old battles once fought with massed pikes and ranks of longbows upon the fields of France, as linguistic battles fought simultaneously with words and lines of iambic pentameter upon the tongues of Frenchmen and Englishmen, Frenchwomen and Englishwomen\u201d (331).\u00a0 Nevertheless, I believe the data I have amassed shows that the language of Macbeth<\/em> plays on deep-seated and long-held linguistic prejudices which suggested that, in some cases, the use of a particular kind of English (particularly in its archaic and Germanic forms) might imply one is unsuited for royalty and kingship.<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Methods<\/span><\/p>\n The development of the Digital Humanities has opened some new and exciting doors for the study of Early Modern culture and drama. Michael Witmore, current Director of the Folger Library, for example, has recently begun using a digital lexical analysis tool, Docuscope, (developed by Carnegie Mellon\u2019s English department) for computer-aided analysis that broadens our understanding of Shakespearian texts. Although this study does not draw on the use of any new software, it does apply some of the techniques of Digital Humanities to the study of Macbeth<\/em>. It began with a digital text of “The Globe Edition” of the Works of William Shakespeare edited by William George Clark and William Aldis Wright (1864) accessed via UVA\u2019s library website. The digital text was cross-referenced with The Norton Shakespeare<\/em> (2nd<\/sup> edition, Greenblatt et al eds.) and any significant differences were tabulated and collated. What remained was a stable, digital text from which to begin the linguistic analysis.2<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n This project developed out my impression that even though the Macbeths were not using a dialect (Scottish or otherwise), their language was still somehow different than that of Malcolm and Duncan. I identified passages that seemed to stand out (like the arrival of Duncan to Inverness), and determined that the difference might be etymological. In order to understand fully the extent to which the Macbeths\u2019 speech patterns deviated from standard practices in the play, I undertook a project of statistical analysis. By copying each character\u2019s lines from the UVA website to a Microsoft Word file, and using the \u201cFind\/Replace\u201d utility to convert each space to a line break, I compiled an expansive, comprehensive list of every term used by a particular character, in a particular scene. The list was then copied to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and multiple instances of terms were removed using the \u201cEliminate Duplicates\u201d utility. Plurals, names, places, past\/future tense verbs had to be removed manually. In the end, the Excel workbook was divided into seven different worksheets: Acts 1-5 including a column devoted to the terms used by each relevant character in that Act, a combined list comprising all of the terms used by each character, and a final sheet containing all of the terms used by all of the characters in all five acts (this list contained nearly 2000 unique terms).<\/span><\/p>\n Using the master list, the etymology for each term was ascertained from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED Online). Terms were categorized by their origins, with an emphasis on terms of either Old English\/Germanic or Old French (Anglo Norman)\/Latinate roots; terms of unknown origins were noted but eliminated from the list and the few terms of Scandinavian or Scottish derivations were noted but not included in this study. Terms of OE\/G or OF\/L were then color-coded for quick, visual analysis. Prefixes and suffixes of different origins from the root term were noted, but left out of the analysis at this time.\u00a0 Hybrid words like \u201cgentleman\u201d and \u201cprithee,\u201d which combine roots from both languages but stand as a single term, were tallied as half a word in the final totals, while hyphenates like \u201ctemple-haunting\u201d were counted as two unique entries.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n The<\/strong> temple-haunting<\/em> martlet,<\/em> does<\/strong> approve<\/em><\/span>
\n By his loved<\/strong> mansionry<\/em> that the heaven\u2019s<\/strong> breath<\/em><\/span>
\n Smells<\/strong> wooingly here. No<\/strong> jutty, frieze<\/em>,<\/span>
\n Buttress,<\/em> nor<\/strong> coign<\/em> of <\/strong>vantage<\/em>, but this bird<\/strong><\/span>
\n Hath made his<\/strong> pendant<\/em> bed and<\/strong> procreant<\/em> cradle<\/strong>;<\/span>
\n Where they most breed and<\/strong> haunt<\/em>, I have<\/strong> observed <\/em><\/span>
\n The<\/strong> air<\/em> is<\/strong> delicate<\/em>. (1.6.3-10)<\/span>
\n \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span>
\n LADY MACBETH: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 All our <\/strong>service<\/em><\/span>
\n In every <\/strong>point<\/em> twice done and then done <\/strong>double<\/em>,<\/strong><\/span>
\n Were poor and<\/strong> single<\/em> business<\/em> to<\/strong> contend<\/em><\/span>
\n Against<\/strong> those<\/strong> honors<\/em> deep and broad<\/strong> wherewith<\/strong><\/span>
\n Your <\/strong>majesty<\/em> loads<\/strong> our house<\/strong>. For those of<\/strong> old<\/strong>,<\/span>
\n And the late<\/strong> dignities<\/em> heaped up to them,<\/strong><\/span>
\n We rest your hermits<\/strong>.\u00a0 (1.6.14-20)<\/span><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/files\/2012\/11\/Table-1-272x300.jpg\")
<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/files\/2012\/11\/Table-2-300x148.png\")
<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n